There's spreading your message, and then there's just being of

[BearSox]

Eh, if you're willing to allow ads promoting a religion, you should be willing to allow ads promoting atheism. That's just my simple thought.

I don't disagree...

 

But my point is that it's a horrible attempt by this group.

[Heads22]

I don't disagree...

 

But my point is that it's a horrible attempt by this group.

 

 

This is getting a bit off tangent, but it shouldn't be a difficult question to answer for anyone who truly believes in their maker, or what have you.

 

But, that's more than I'd want to think about a billboard.

[BearSox]

It's funny though, while we are discussing this, I am doing my religion homework.

[Kyyle23]

I don't even know what that's from.

 

I think it's just silly for a group to try and denounce god when clearly the majority of the population does believe in god, or at least some sort of higher being.

 

it doesnt matter where its from, I googled religious billboard, and thats what popped up. There are tons of religious billboards that say many different things trying to make people that dont believe, believe in their message. And if they believe in god, that doesnt make the message correct, especially looking at people like Fred Phelps.

 

Im sure there are plenty of people that believe its silly to denounce the big bang theory as the one and only creator of this universe.(this is in reference to the billboard I posted)

 

A majority belief doesnt make the minority wrong.

Edited November 13, 2008 by kyyle23

[Texsox]

A majority belief doesnt make the minority wrong.

 

Nor does it make the minority right. It's a matter of faith. And actually, since we cannot recreate the big bang or create life from a primordial soup in a laboratory, a belief in evolution also takes faith.

[max power]

Ah yes...I see we can have God and Jesus shoved down our throats every block of every town in the nation but 1 ad campaign asking why people believe in an invisible man in the clouds is just taking it way too far.

Excellent post.

[max power]

Nor does it make the minority right. It's a matter of faith. And actually, since we cannot recreate the big bang or create life from a primordial soup in a laboratory, a belief in evolution also takes faith.

While it may require some faith, a belief in evolution differs because of evidence like the fossil record. Anyway, I am out of this thread at least for that portion of the argument as I've seen where its gone before- Absolutely no where.

 

Arguing about who is right about the existence of god isn't really the issue. The issue here is regarding the message and if its offensive. Personally, I don't find it much less offensive than messages from religious groups. The reason being is, this billboard only posted a question, "Why believe in god?" that is something even the most religious people can ask themselves and gain some insight from. In the vast majority of cases it will reaffirm the faith of those who take it seriously.

 

Religious organizations are constantly bombarding the unfaithful with declarative messages like "No-one but almighty could have created the universe" and no one bats an eye at them because its something our society is more used to. Billboards like that are far more offensive to me because of their arrogance, as I believe I have no idea if there is a god or not.

[StrangeSox]

The same thing as a Jesus fish, someone's expression of what they believe. Just like a Jesus fish, a dawrin fish doesn't try to convert people. I don't see how a Jesus fish is any different than a sox flag someone might have on their car.

 

It's still advertisement. The Jesus fish is a pretty tame example, but plenty of church message boards, billboards, and bumper stickers tell me that I'm going to suffer for eternity if I don't believe what those people believe.

 

I wouldn't support or endorse what this group did, but I still don't see what is so offensive about it. It doesn't seem insulting or demeaning to me.

 

Just on a side note, the argument that only stupid people believe in God is actually quite false. Unless of course the likes of Albert Einstein, Steven Hawkings, and Wernser Heisenberg are all dumb.

 

But of course science and religion should not be taught as one.

 

Einstein did not believe in God in the Christian sense, ie a personal God. I don't think Hawking does, either. When they speak of "God", they're talking about the "beauty of the universe" or something along those lines.

 

Some Einstein quotes (http://www.spaceandmotion.com/albert-einstein-god-religion-theology.htm):

A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty - it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man. (Albert Einstein)

 

I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. (Albert Einstein, 1954)

 

I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings. (Albert Einstein)

 

If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed. (Albert Einstein)

 

Nor does it make the minority right. It's a matter of faith. And actually, since we cannot recreate the big bang or create life from a primordial soup in a laboratory, a belief in evolution also takes faith.

 

Two things.

 

First, the Big Bang and the creation of life from non-life are not part of evolution. Big Bang is in the field of cosmology and the creation of life is the field of abiogenesis. Evolution is its own separate field.

 

Second, saying evolution takes faith is incorrect. Faith means belief in something in spite of an absence of evidence. Evolution, both theory and fact, is one of the most well-evidenced and well-supported fields of science that we have. It takes no more 'faith' to believe in evolution than any other part of science, and it is certainly not upheld without evidence.

Edited November 13, 2008 by StrangeSox

[Texsox]

It's still advertisement. The Jesus fish is a pretty tame example, but plenty of church message boards, billboards, and bumper stickers tell me that I'm going to suffer for eternity if I don't believe what those people believe.

 

I wouldn't support or endorse what this group did, but I still don't see what is so offensive about it. It doesn't seem insulting or demeaning to me.

 

 

 

Einstein did not believe in God in the Christian sense, ie a personal God. I don't think Hawking does, either. When they speak of "God", they're talking about the "beauty of the universe" or something along those lines.

 

Some Einstein quotes (http://www.spaceandmotion.com/albert-einstein-god-religion-theology.htm):

A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty - it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man. (Albert Einstein)

 

I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. (Albert Einstein, 1954)

 

I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings. (Albert Einstein)

 

If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed. (Albert Einstein)

 

 

 

Two things.

 

First, the Big Bang and the creation of life from non-life are not part of evolution. Big Bang is in the field of cosmology and the creation of life is the field of abiogenesis. Evolution is its own separate field.

 

Second, saying evolution takes faith is incorrect. Faith means belief in something in spite of an absence of evidence. Evolution, both theory and fact, is one of the most well-evidenced and well-supported fields of science that we have. It takes no more 'faith' to believe in evolution than any other part of science, and it is certainly not upheld without evidence.

 

Usually for something to be considered a scientific fact, it involves being able to repeat the process. So far we have not been able to repeat a primordial soup where material magically comes together and create billions of different and successful life forms.

 

Perhaps evolution is also a higher being's process and we are discovering that.

 

You have faith in a process no one could have seen, no one has reproduced, and with no direct evidence, only indirect. And as you mentioned, just because the majority believes it, it doesn't make it true.

 

Perhaps I misunderstood the scientific process of making hypothesis and testing it and of peer review before something becomes fact.

[StrangeSox]

Usually for something to be considered a scientific fact, it involves being able to repeat the process. So far we have not been able to repeat a primordial soup where material magically comes together and create billions of different and successful life forms.

 

Perhaps evolution is also a higher being's process and we are discovering that.

 

You have faith in a process no one could have seen, no one has reproduced, and with no direct evidence, only indirect. And as you mentioned, just because the majority believes it, it doesn't make it true.

 

Perhaps I misunderstood the scientific process of making hypothesis and testing it and of peer review before something becomes fact.

 

Again, "primordial soup" is not evolution. That is abiogenesis.

 

(this is going off on a complete derailment of the original thread topic)

We have plenty of direct evidence for evolution. There are many facts of evolution. A fact is just a piece of evidence, not an explanation. Facts form the basis for hypotheses, which are then tested and used to make up the theories of evolution. These theories are well-evidenced and supported by different fields of science (geology, genetics, cosmology, etc.). Scientists have witnessed and reproduced many aspects of evolution. We have countless amounts of direct evidence.

 

It is also important to note that saying "it's just a theory" is an equivocation. A scientific theory is very different from the common usage of the word to mean "conjecture" or "guess." Acceptance of scientific knowledge or theory does not take faith, because faith is believing in something without evidence. Scientific research is the exact opposite of faith.

 

Wikipedia provides a decent starting point, and talkorigins has hundreds of scientific articles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

Edited November 13, 2008 by StrangeSox

[Texsox]

Again, "primordial soup" is not evolution. That is abiogenesis.

 

(this is going off on a complete derailment of the original thread topic)

We have plenty of direct evidence for evolution. There are many facts of evolution. These facts go into the larger theories of evolution. These facts and theories are well-evidenced and supported by different fields of science (geology, genetics, cosmology, etc.). Scientists have witnessed and reproduced many aspects of evolution. We have countless amounts of direct evidence.

 

Acceptance of scientific knowledge or theory does not take faith, because faith is believing in something without evidence. Scientific research is the exact opposite of faith.

 

Origin of life, how it started. Faith or fact?

[StrangeSox]

Origin of life, how it started. Faith or fact?

 

Creationist/ Biblical view? Faith.

 

Scientific?

There are plausible scientific theories as to an abiogenetic origin of life (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis). I do not know very much about them so I will not comment on them. Evolution does not require abiogenesis; it is the study of changing of life forms, regardless of how they got here.

 

Some scientific theories are not as well-supported as others. String theory isn't on as solid ground as relativity. However, any good scientist recognizes this and doesn't hold a dogmatic belief in a theory that isn't particularly well-supported. They will willingly revise or discard their old theories if new evidence comes along contradicting them.

 

This doesn't really apply to the core theory of evolution because it is one of the most substantiated theories we have. It virtually predicted the entire field of genetics decades before it was even conceived, and has been roundly confirmed by about 150 years of discoveries. Yes, we could always discover something today or tomorrow that turns evolution on its head, but it is extremely unlikely.

Edited November 13, 2008 by StrangeSox

[Texsox]

Then I stand corrected. I thought the scientific process was to develop a hypothesis, design an experiment to test that hypothesis, publish the results and methods in a peer review journal, have others recreate the experiment. A good theory would spark further research and eventually, through this repetition of results, something would be considered scientific fact.

 

I guess things have changed since I was in High School.

 

And I have no squabble with evolution. I think it is part of our creators plan. It's the origin of life that takes faith, no matter what you believe.

[StrangeSox]

Then I stand corrected. I thought the scientific process was to develop a hypothesis, design an experiment to test that hypothesis, publish the results and methods in a peer review journal, have others recreate the experiment. A good theory would spark further research and eventually, through this repetition of results, something would be considered scientific fact.

 

I guess things have changed since I was in High School.

No, Tex, things haven't changed. Scientific fact and theory are two separate things and always have been. A fact is an observation. A theory is an explanation.

 

Things do not become accepted theories until they are rigorously peer-reviewed, but there's no evolution () of observation -> hypothesis -> theory -> fact/ law. Theories stand on their own and are one of the strongest parts of our scientific knowledge.

 

And I have no squabble with evolution. I think it is part of our creators plan. It's the origin of life that takes faith, no matter what you believe.

 

At this point? Sure. In the future? Maybe not.

Edited November 13, 2008 by StrangeSox

[Texsox]

No, Tex, things haven't changed. Scientific fact and theory are two separate things and always have been. A fact is an observation. A theory is an explanation.

 

Things do not become accepted theories until they are rigorously peer-reviewed, but there's no evolution ( ) of observation -> hypothesis -> theory -> fact/ law. Theories stand on their own and are one of the strongest parts of our scientific knowledge.

 

 

 

At this point? Sure. In the future? Maybe not.

we probably could have saved some time and posts if I was clearer in my earlier post.And I am certain we will unlock the mystery. Probably not in my lifetime, but eventually.

[YASNY]

It looks like this ad was on a bus. Was this public, taxpayer funded transportation? If so, would it have been just as acceptable for, let's say, the LDS church to purchase anti Prop 8 ads on California buses last month? If not, why not? Isn't atheism a regilous point of view? In fact, God was specifically mentioned on that poster. That would tell me, that if I was head of a huge religious org like LDS that I could spend all I want to promote God and my particular religious point of view.

[StrangeSox]

It looks like this ad was on a bus. Was this public, taxpayer funded transportation? If so, would it have been just as acceptable for, let's say, the LDS church to purchase anti Prop 8 ads on California buses last month? If not, why not? Isn't atheism a regilous point of view? In fact, God was specifically mentioned on that poster. That would tell me, that if I was head of a huge religious org like LDS that I could spend all I want to promote God and my particular religious point of view.

 

There was an interesting case in the Supreme Court yesterday related to this issue.

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/today-at-the-...e-court-111208/

 

There's a public park in some city in Utah that has a 10 Commandments monument. It was donated years ago by a private group. The city recently refused to accept a monument from another religious group to be put on display in the park. The city and the Bush administration are arguing that the government is entitled to its own rights of free speech, and that its allowed to pick and choose which messages they will display. They kept bringing up Holocaust memorial vs. Pro-Hitler/ Nazi memorial as an example, and even went as far as to agree with one of the Justice's hypothetical of the government's right to keeping names off of the Vietnam memorial based on sexuality.

 

FYI, the LDS was strongly PRO-prop 8. Prop 8 amended the California Constitution to define marriage as between one man and one woman.

Edited November 13, 2008 by StrangeSox

[BigSqwert]

I don't give a crap, they could go to hell for all I care. Actually, they will go to hell, HA!

 

Do people who hate gays go to hell?

Edited November 13, 2008 by BigSqwert

[NorthSideSox72]

Do people who hate gays go to hell?

I think he was referring to atheists going to hell. I could be wrong though.

 

[EvilMonkey]

I think the group needlessly tried to pick on religion. Couldn't they have got the same point across by saying "Don't believe in a God? Just be good for goodness sake"?

[lostfan]

It looks like this ad was on a bus. Was this public, taxpayer funded transportation? If so, would it have been just as acceptable for, let's say, the LDS church to purchase anti Prop 8 ads on California buses last month? If not, why not? Isn't atheism a regilous point of view? In fact, God was specifically mentioned on that poster. That would tell me, that if I was head of a huge religious org like LDS that I could spend all I want to promote God and my particular religious point of view.

This isn't really a political ad, though. If it was LDS promoting LDS or something similar then I'd say it's consistent.

 

As it is, I have no problem with the ad.

[StrangeSox]

I think the group needlessly tried to pick on religion. Couldn't they have got the same point across by saying "Don't believe in a God? Just be good for goodness sake"?

 

Not really, because I'd venture a guess that most atheists and agnostics already believe that. The ad seemed to be contradicting the somewhat common religious claim that morals must arise from religion/ scriptures.

[YASNY]

There was an interesting case in the Supreme Court yesterday related to this issue.

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/today-at-the-...e-court-111208/

 

There's a public park in some city in Utah that has a 10 Commandments monument. It was donated years ago by a private group. The city recently refused to accept a monument from another religious group to be put on display in the park. The city and the Bush administration are arguing that the government is entitled to its own rights of free speech, and that its allowed to pick and choose which messages they will display. They kept bringing up Holocaust memorial vs. Pro-Hitler/ Nazi memorial as an example, and even went as far as to agree with one of the Justice's hypothetical of the government's right to keeping names off of the Vietnam memorial based on sexuality.

 

FYI, the LDS was strongly PRO-prop 8. Prop 8 amended the California Constitution to define marriage as between one man and one woman.

 

Yes, you are correct. I momentarily forgot the angle in which Prop 8 was worded. I think everyone knew what I meant as opposed to what I said.

[Texsox]

There is a certain amount of intolerance on both sides. I would prefer a world that people could share their beliefs over a world where all beliefs are considered bad. I would prefer agnostics and atheists that are trying to promote good for goodness sake over no promotion at all. However, this tries to do more, it seems to be promoting two things at once, good for goodness sake, but also, to ask people to give up faith in God.

 

Now I guess that in fairness, asking people to believe in a higher power is also asking them to give up believing one does not exist.

 

Now imagine the power of believers and non-believers joined together in a message of good for goodness sake. That would be consistent with most belief systems around the globe, and would do the most to promote harmony rather than discord, of goodness over evil. In other worlds, would have done the most for what they on the surface were trying to promote.

 

And I see no problem with the ad being on a bus as long as, for example, someone could place an ad wishing everyone a Merry Christmas!

[BigSqwert]

I think he was referring to atheists going to hell. I could be wrong though.

 

I know. I was being snarky. He made some anti-gay comments not too long ago.