$10,000 and growing fast
11.12.09 | Duncan | 
Email This Post
We have been overwhelmed with the incredible response from New Zealand, and have sailed past our original target of $10,000 in less than 48 hours. More importantly, we have started the discussion around the web, and hopefully at dining tables and in living rooms all over our beautiful country.
Of course we now doubled our target, so we need your help to continue spreading the message. Post on Facebook, tweet about it, get involved in the huge number of discussions going on around the web, and talk to your friends and family about it. Remember this campaign is about positivity, and we need to respect peoples alternative points of view, just as we hope they will respect ours. It is easy to get caught up in what can understandably be a very personal and emotional issue for some people.
Simon will be appearing on Close Up tonight, TV1 at 7pm to discuss the campaign. It should also be posted up on the TVNZ website later tonight.
Thanks to everyone who has sent us positive messages, and offered their support. We are trying really hard to answer all your questions, hopefully we will have more time over the weekend to do that!
December 11th, 2009 at 3:32 pm
$10,000 down. $20,000 HERE WE COME!
December 11th, 2009 at 5:20 pm
Great stuff. Have you thought about selling bumper stickers to raise extra (and leave a lasting message)?
December 11th, 2009 at 5:36 pm
great idea, hayden. If they make them i’ll have 3.How about t-shirts with the slogan on both the front and back.
December 11th, 2009 at 5:52 pm
If you’re looking for Atheist merch, how about visiting the Richard Dawkins Foundation and his ‘Out’ (The Red A) campaign?
I think there is no better time for us as Atheists and Secular Humanists to come out and show our vocal and very public support for science and rationalism.
December 11th, 2009 at 7:16 pm
There is NO WAY I will contribute a cent to this idiocy. You’re no better than the clergy, except you promote the opposite, there is no God.
December 11th, 2009 at 7:19 pm
Just one more thing: believing in God is not compulsory, so there is no need to protest against the belief, especially no need for monetary contribution.
December 11th, 2009 at 7:25 pm
Have you ever looked at a flagellum, or the biggest star of SE51.
http://www.se51.net/2007/07/02/the-largest-star-known-to-man/
There is a vast universe out there that couldnt just ‘happen’
And the body of the human being, even as it is made, its so intricate that it couldnt just ‘happen’.
There appears to be more evidence for a “Creater” than atheism.
Atheism is a religion itself because atheists ‘believe’ there is no God.
December 11th, 2009 at 7:34 pm
Just watched Simon’s interview on Close-Up and thought he came across rather poorly. He seemed inarticulate and unprepared. Although to be fair, the interviewer Mike Hoskings was decidedly a lot more sympathetic toward the Christian spokesperson.
December 11th, 2009 at 8:00 pm
#7
There is no evidence for a creator, not one shred, and atheism is just absence of belief in the existence of deities, like an a-Santa Clausist is absence of belief in the existence of Santa Claus. It is not a religion like not believing in Santa Claus is not a religion.
December 11th, 2009 at 8:14 pm
Agreed. It’s a common retort for believers to assert that Atheism (like religion) is also “a matter of faith”. No so; Atheism rationally opts for the most probable position based on all available evidence.
December 11th, 2009 at 8:24 pm
Sorry Alec, our predisposition to see intention behind events that “just” happen is a legacy of our origins as a social ape. Recognising intentions in others improves our survival and breeding outcomes so it’s an adaption to be sensitive to them. We are so sensitive that we get a few false positives. (eg. interpreting weather as indicating a gods displeasure) These are not generally fatal so they don’t get selected out of the population.
Your argument is based on incredulity, that is, just because you can’t imagine a natural mechanism that leads to a complex result then god must have done it. I suggest you read a bit more widely. Truth, it turns out, is stranger, and much more interesting, that fiction.
We made god up. We have better explanations now.
December 11th, 2009 at 8:29 pm
Atheists would not believe in God even if the evidence for His existence hit them in the head. Atheism is a matter of choice, as much as faith. There is probably…. so at the end of the day they are not so sure. All they have is faith that there is no one to call them to account for their choices. The evidence for God is not compelling. It is sufficient for those who are open to God`s voice, and not sufficient for those who in their hearts have decided no to believe, whatever the evidence.
December 11th, 2009 at 8:36 pm
I’ve got a updated picture for you guys:
http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/meRyA5Qvs0-hQqR2R4bQbg?feat=directlink
Also To the above post by “Jackson1979″ I would reference this quote from Richard Dawkins:
“When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called Religion.” -Robert M. Pig ( author of Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance)
Please note nodelusions.com is opening soon for ALL your atheist “supply’s”.
Cheers,
~Jack
December 11th, 2009 at 8:39 pm
Not so, Thomas. It wouldn’t take evidence to “hit us on the head.” Any evidence at all would be sufficient, but I’m afraid emotional desire or wishful thinking simply doesn’t cut it as evidence.
December 11th, 2009 at 8:50 pm
Really Thomas, if I got a body of verifiable evidence, I’d gladly change my mind. That is why scientific thinking is superior to faith thinking. That is why adding “probably” is just the honest position to take. Yes atheism is a choice but it is one freely made after reviewing the evidence. Hey, I spent most of my adult life as a believer so I am familiar with the mindset. But in the end the evidence just didn’t stack up. Faith requires you to suppress your critical thinking.
Your description of god as a he has human fingerprints all over it by the way. When you stand back and look at the god character it’s bleed’n obvious that he’s a human creation. Not the other wa around.
December 11th, 2009 at 8:56 pm
An exert from the brilliant book of Christopher Hitchens – God is not great.
And here is the point, about myself and my co-thinkers. Our belief is not a belief. Our principles are not a faith. We do not rely solely upon science and reason, because these are necessary rather than sufficient factors, but we distrust anything that contradicts science or outrages reason. We may differ on many things, but what we respect is free inquiry, openmindedness, and the pursuit of ideas for their own sake. We do not hold our convictions dogmatically: the disagreement between Professor Stephen Jay Gould and Professor Richard Dawkins, concerning “punctuated evolution” and the unfilled gaps in post-Darwinian theory, is quite wide as well as quite deep, but we shall resolve it by evidence and reasoning and not by mutual excommunication. (My own annoyance at Professor Dawkins and Daniel Dennett, for their cringe-making proposal that atheists should conceitedly nominate themselves to be called “brights,” is a part of a continuous argument.) We are not immune to the lure of wonder and mystery and awe: we have music and art and literature, and find that the serious ethical dilemmas are better handled by Shakespeare and Tolstoy and Schiller and Dostoyevsky and George Eliot than in the mythical morality tales of the holy books. Literature, not scripture, sustains the mind and-since there is no other metaphor-also the soul. We do not believe in heaven or hell, yet no statistic will ever find that without these blandishments and threats we commit more crimes of greed or violence than the faithful. (In fact, if a proper statistical inquiry could ever be made, I am sure the evidence would be the other way.) We are reconciled to living only once, except through our children, for whom we are perfectly happy to notice that we must make way, and room. We speculate that it is at least possible that, once people accepted the fact of their short and struggling lives, they might behave better toward each other and not worse. We believe with certainty that an ethical life can be lived without religion. And we know for a fact that the corollary holds true-that religion has caused innumerable people not just to conduct themselves no better than others, but to award themselves permission to behave in ways that would make a brothel-keeper or an ethnic cleanser raise an eyebrow.
Most important of all, perhaps, we infidels do not need any machinery of reinforcement. We are those who Blaise Pascal took into account when he wrote to the one who says, “I am so made that I cannot believe.” In the village of Montaillou, during one of the great medieval persecutions, a woman was asked by the Inquisitors to tell them from whom she had acquired her heretical doubts about hell and resurrection. She must have known that she stood in terrible danger of a lingering death administered by the pious, but she responded that she took them from nobody and had evolved them all by herself. (Often, you hear the believers praise the simplicity of their flock, but not in the case of this unforced and conscientious sanity and lucidity, which has been stamped out and burned out in the cases of more humans than we shall ever be able to name.)
There is no need for us to gather every day, or every seven days, or on any high and auspicious day, to proclaim our rectitude or to grovel and wallow in our unworthiness. We atheists do not require any priests, or any hierarchy above them, to police our doctrine. Sacrifices and ceremonies are abhorrent to us, as are relics and the worship of any images or objects (even including objects in the form of one of man’s most useful innovations: the bound book). To us no spot on earth is or could be “holier” than another: to the ostentatious absurdity of the pilgrimage, or the plain horror of killing civilians in the name of some sacred wall or cave or shrine or rock, we can counterpose a leisurely or urgent walk from one side of the library or the gallery to another, or to lunch with an agreeable friend, in pursuit of truth or beauty. Some of these excursions to the bookshelf or the lunch or the gallery will obviously, if they are serious, bring us into contact with belief and believers, from the great devotional painters and composers to the works of Augustine, Aquinas, Maimonides, and Newman. These mighty scholars may have written many evil things or many foolish things, and been laughably ignorant of the germ theory of disease or the place of the terrestrial globe in the solar system, let alone the universe, and this is the plain reason why there are no more of them today, and why there will be no more of them tomorrow. Religion spoke its last intelligible or noble or inspiring words a long time ago: either that or it mutated into an admirable but nebulous humanism, as did, say, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a brave Lutheran pastor hanged by the Nazis for his refusal to collude with them. We shall have no more prophets or sages from the ancient quarter, which is why the devotions of today are only the echoing repetitions of yesterday, sometimes ratcheted up to screaming point so as to ward off the terrible emptiness.
While some religious apology is magnificent in its limited way-one might cite Pascal-and some of it is dreary and absurd-here one cannot avoid naming C. S. Lewis-both styles have something in common, namely the appalling load of strain that they have to bear. How much effort it takes to affirm the incredible! The Aztecs had to tear open a human chest cavity every day just to make sure that the sun would rise. Monotheists are supposed to pester their deity more times than that, perhaps, lest he be deaf. How much vanity must be concealed-not too effectively at that-in order to pretend that one is the personal object of a divine plan? How much self-respect must be sacrificed in order that one may squirm continually in an awareness of one’s own sin? How many needless assumptions must be made, and how much contortion is required, to receive every new insight of science and manipulate it so as to “fit” with the revealed words of ancient man-made deities? How many saints and miracles and councils and conclaves are required in order first to be able to establish a dogma and then-after infinite pain and loss and absurdity and cruelty-to be forced to rescind one of those dogmas? God did not create man in his own image. Evidently, it was the other way about, which is the painless explanation for the profusion of gods and religions, and the fratricide both between and among faiths, that we see all about us and that has so retarded the development of civilization.
Past and present religious atrocities have occurred not because we are evil, but because it is a fact of nature that the human species is, biologically, only partly rational. Evolution has meant that our prefrontal lobes are too small, our adrenal glands are too big, and our reproductive organs apparently designed by committee; a recipe which, alone or in combination, is very certain to lead to some unhappiness and disorder. But still, what a difference when one lays aside the strenuous believers and takes up the no less arduous work of a Darwin, say, or a Hawking or a Crick. These men are more enlightening when they are wrong, or when they display their inevitable biases, than any falsely modest person of faith who is vainly trying to square the circle and to explain how he, a mere creature of the Creator, can possibly know what that Creator intends. Not all can be agreed on matters of aesthetics, but we secular humanists and atheists and agnostics do not wish to deprive humanity of its wonders or consolations. Not in the least. If you will devote a little time to studying the staggering photographs taken by the Hubble telescope, you will be scrutinizing things that are far more awesome and mysterious and beautiful-and more chaotic and overwhelming and forbidding-than any creation or “end of days” story. If you read Hawking on the “event horizon,” that theoretical lip of the “black hole” over which one could in theory plunge and see the past and the future (except that one would, regrettably and by definition, not have enough “time”), I shall be surprised if you can still go on gaping at Moses and his unimpressive “burning bush.” If you examine the beauty and symmetry of the double helix, and then go on to have your own genome sequence fully analyzed, you will be at once impressed that such a near-perfect phenomenon is at the core of your being, and reassured (I hope) that you have so much in common with other tribes of the human species-”race” having gone, along with “creation” into the ashcan-and further fascinated to learn how much you are a part of the animal kingdom as well. Now at last you can be properly humble in the face of your maker, which turns out not to be a “who,” but a process of mutation with rather more random elements than our vanity might wish. This is more than enough mystery and marvel for any mammal to be getting along with: the most educated person in the world now has to admit-I shall not say confess-that he or she knows less and less but at least knows less and less about more and more.
December 11th, 2009 at 9:02 pm
I find the evidence for God`s existence a fascinating topic. For those who claim that there is no evidence for God – what evidence would convince you ? A writing across the sky saying: “I exist. Believe in me or perish” ?? Or would you expect every single atom to have the words “Made by God” written on it ? Surely, humans are not in a postion to dictate to God how much and what sort of evidence He should give them. As for the evidence of God`s non-existence – atheists have for ages tried to disprove God`s existence but no one has, as yet, come up with convincing evidence. All the so-called arguments for God`s non-existence have been successfully disproved. Still, there is faith for those who chose to “not- believe”.
December 11th, 2009 at 9:02 pm
The universe is the largest thing. The second largest thing will be the helping of humble pie eaten by Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchins et al on judgement day. I find it very annoying that atheists insist on using the word “rational” to describe their beliefs, implying, of course, that any position other than theirs is “irrational”. Albert Einstein said that those who could no longer marvel at the universe and see the “mystery” of life were like “snuffed out candles”. I agree with him – atheists are like “snuffed out candles”. Pity.
December 11th, 2009 at 9:10 pm
…and neither can I disprove Santa’s existence, or Odin’s, or the Tooth Fairies, not to a standard that will satisfy you so I won’t try. I will just choose not to believe in these characters myself. They are of literary interest only, along with the god of the bible.
December 11th, 2009 at 9:15 pm
Atheists have never tried to prove God’s non-existence. It’s impossible to prove the non-existence of anything. The onus is on believers to prove God’s existence. As for what would constitute evidence, I would suggest anything that is physical and tangible. The sort of evidence that could be subjected to scientific analysis and study.
December 11th, 2009 at 9:18 pm
Here, here Robert,
What have you got Thomas??
Something we can measure?
December 11th, 2009 at 9:19 pm
Robert. I am sure that not ”any evidence at all would be sufficient” – as you put it. You would always be able to say: “Oh yes, but …”. And No, not all Christians base their faith on emotions, nor are they required to. There is definitely room for reason in faith. I don`t know what your definition of faith is, but the way I understand it is not “believing in something despite the evidence – or even in the teeth of evidence (Dawkins` words ??)”. That would be childish faith, but, thankfully it is not the sort of faith God expectd us to have.
December 11th, 2009 at 9:27 pm
So if you cant prove God`s non-existence, since you cant prove the negative – not in this case anyway – all that it leaves you with is agnosticism, not atheism, so the whole “bus campaign” is misguided.
December 11th, 2009 at 9:32 pm
And why shouldn’t we question the evidence? Good evidence will stand scrutiny. But where is it? It’s all hear-say and say-so. Stuff people want to be true, perhaps understandibly granted.
December 11th, 2009 at 9:34 pm
I think Richard Dawkins put it best. Technically, yes we are all agnostics. However, we can do better than that based on the balance of probabilities. Are we agnostic about leprechauns and fairies just because we can’t prove their non-existence?
December 11th, 2009 at 9:38 pm
The money would better be spent on promoting the folowing challenge :”Who knows ? Maybe God does exist. We have not seen Him but that proves nothing so … keep looking cos that could prove to be the most important pursuit in your life”. “There is probably no God…” is weak and leaves me asking myself :”And what if He does ???
December 11th, 2009 at 9:47 pm
Thomas. So what makes more sense: To believe in a God for which there is not a shred of testable evidence, or to draw the conclusion that because there is no evidence, there is most probably no god? Like many others here, I don’t believe in Santa either – that’s not a belief, it’s a lack of belief.
And that doesn’t even get into why one would choose one particular faith/god/gods over another – how do you justify your concept of God over someone else’s? What makes them wrong and you right?
December 11th, 2009 at 9:51 pm
So its an insurance policy for you?
The god argument just gets weaker and weaker.
On the evidence and on the balance of probabilities, god does not exist. Prove otherwise.
December 11th, 2009 at 9:52 pm
Religious apologists regularly misquote the pantheist Einstein out of context
December 11th, 2009 at 10:00 pm
Im an atheist and this is a pathetic waste of time. There is nothing wrong with being an atheist in New Zealand. THIS IS A PURE PUBLICITY STUNT, ONLY OUT TO OFFEND. What a WASTE of money and a pathetic way of giving people who dont believe in god a bad name.
Perhaps you could actually do something newsworthy and give the money idiotic and ignorant people gave you for a good cause, like, I dont know…Samoa?
Imagine how many people that would help.
Besides who cares what anyone else believes? You’re just searching for an argument. Why not “stop worrying” about other people and “enjoy your [OWN] life”.
December 11th, 2009 at 10:00 pm
Why won’t God heal amputees?
December 11th, 2009 at 10:01 pm
How does the God argument get weaker and weaker ? I have not provided any evidence yet.
December 11th, 2009 at 10:06 pm
and No – I dont believe that believing in anything is better than believing in nothing – just in case… so the insurance policy idea does not really apply here
December 11th, 2009 at 10:14 pm
Your appearance on Close up did nothing to help the cause. If your are going to become a target for the unthinking then prepare yourself properly.
Eg. The allegation that aetheism is faith based can be countered by ‘Faith is the suspension of rational thought. Aetheism is rational thought.’
The existense of a God is countered by the fact that christians deny the existense of all gods except their own. The Flying spagetti monster argument. The proof of gods non existence is simply argued as; It is not possible to prove a negative. The inference from Close Up was that the bus campaign is against Christianity only. You make it more obvous that aetheist are against all religions/non rational thought.
Have you read Richard Dawkins’ God Delusion
December 11th, 2009 at 10:18 pm
no evidence you say !? what evidence would you expect ? – or am I repeating myself ???
December 11th, 2009 at 10:20 pm
Thomas- Faith is no reason
December 11th, 2009 at 10:22 pm
Perhaps you’ve just answered your own question.
December 11th, 2009 at 10:28 pm
Thomas, I’m hearing a lot of protestations about your evidence but none has yet been presented.
It is you that says there is some so its not up to us to specify what it is. It just has to be convincing, like a repeatable experiment or measurable observation.
December 11th, 2009 at 10:37 pm
and why would only a repeatable experiment in a science lab convince you ? can you prove the theory of evolution that way ? arent there many other things that are true and yet cannot be proven scientifically/ mathematically ?
December 11th, 2009 at 10:41 pm
I am sure that you are all familiar with the traditional lines of evidence for God`s existence and going into them here would take months so you surely do not expect me to do that. Whole volumes have been written on the topic and as I said before it all comes down to what you decide to do with all that evidence and argumentation. you can always say ” Ah yes, but look here …”.
December 11th, 2009 at 10:43 pm
Thomas, you insipient you are really showing your ignorance by not understanding the meaning of ‘Theory’
December 11th, 2009 at 10:44 pm
I’m not familiar with any evidence. Could you offer a brief list?
December 11th, 2009 at 10:45 pm
@Thomas- Science comes up with a hypothesis and then sets out to prove it wrong. Religion doesnt challange itself in this way and works on faith
Lets face it Thomas, you have your faith and thats great for you, but other people like me think there probably is no God.
Science exists outside the lab as well…
December 11th, 2009 at 10:52 pm
and if you have nothing positive and certain to say, then isn’t it better to just be quiet ? After all, you`re not spending thousands of dollars on campaigns aimed at convincing people that Santa Claus doesnt exist, are you, although you dont believe in him any more than you do in God ? And by the way, all it takes to prove that Santa Claus doesnt exist is to go to the North Pole and see that there is no sign of him so the analogy between S.C. and God is weak.
December 11th, 2009 at 10:58 pm
I`ll be repeating myself again if I say that my faith (and that of countless other Christians) does not go against scientific evidence and there is no contardiction betwen faith and evidence.
December 11th, 2009 at 11:01 pm
Faith and evidence are completely incompatible. Faith is believe without evidence.
December 11th, 2009 at 11:03 pm
Further, evidence precludes the need for faith.
December 11th, 2009 at 11:04 pm
Ah, but we do have something positive and certain to say: religion is based on a fiction.
How liberating is that? No hellfire and damnation, you can support charities just because you like to help people, you can assimilate scientific data without contorting it so it fits through the faith-filter.
There is a downside, no 17 virgins when you blow yourself up but hey, no pain no gain.
I may have assumed the wrong brand here but there is no reason to elevate one fiction over another. Some just got through the bronze age a bit sooner than others, thanks largely to science.
December 11th, 2009 at 11:05 pm
what I am saying is that as a Christian I am not taking everything related to my relationship with God on blind faith, and I think BLIND is the key word here. My faith is anything but ‘blind’. It is’ reasonable’ and supported by arguments that work for me and are convincing enough. You reject these arguments and that is your choice.
December 11th, 2009 at 11:09 pm
Haha “insurance policy”.
Pascal’s Wager strikes again. It never makes any more sense than it originally did. Which is none.
December 11th, 2009 at 11:16 pm
I am being unkind. Many of my friends are christian, I respect them, just not all their beliefs. As a mind-virus christianity is now relatively benign. This hasn’t always been the case, I would have been burned alive a few centuries ago for not towing the party line. I don’t seriously think I’m going to change your mind Thomas, it would be arrogant of me to think I could. Just know, you and your christian mates, that the atheists are here and we are not going to let irrational beliefs go unchallenged. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck…
December 11th, 2009 at 11:22 pm
honestly, I fail to see how the thought of being an accident of nature can fill anyone with joy, hope etc .how positive is the idea that human existence is ultimately meaningless and that`s because the universe and everything in it is slowly but surely heading towards annihilation in a heat death. whatever you or anyone else does is ultimately meaningless so you might just as well end it all now. charities ?? what for ? there will be no one and nothing left in the end. no one to remember your generosity and kindness. and by the way … I am not claiming that this proves God`s existence. what it does prove is that without God everything is ultimately meaningless.
December 11th, 2009 at 11:29 pm
I dont know if your Christian friends are of the sort that when challenged about their beliefs invariably reply ”the Bible tells me so” but let me assure you that that is not me and you are welcome to challenge my beliefs without referring to them as irrational.
December 11th, 2009 at 11:33 pm
Thomas,
What is wrong with making your own meaning, rather than pretending it is somehow imposed by something else?
You should learn to think clearly, and not argue for the existence of something based on the (assumed) consequences of what would happen it it did not.
The burden of proof remains squarely on religious people to provide evidence for the existence of their deity before anything can be claimed or done in the name of this deity – and this includes moral claims!
For those who say that a god started the Universe but has since left it alone, or is otherwise undetectable today, this can be dismissed using the principle of Occam’s Razor.
Claims of a ‘personal’ god lack objectivity and falsifiability, as do claims that a god is somehow “outside” of time and space.
Intelligent Design, the purportedly scientific face of creationism, has no impartially peer reviewed scientific papers to its name. It is also not a scientific theory as it makes no testable predictions.
Consequently, in the absence of any sensible evidence, by default we can take it that no gods exist. There is no reason to think otherwise.
December 11th, 2009 at 11:39 pm
Thomas. How about awe and fascination? Meaning is whatever you want it to be. We do lots of things that dont last forever, and enjoy them none the less. No need to go all doom and gloom.
You should take encouragement from the revelation that someone who thinks this is all there is does find joy and meaning (and fascination and awe). The operative words you use here are “I fail to see”.
December 11th, 2009 at 11:41 pm
and the argument about the Holy Inquisition and the atrocities committed by them in God`s name is, as far as I`m concerned, irrelevant. I find God in Christ and He would certainly have nothing to do with what the Catholic Church did in the Mediaeval times. Neither would Christ have been a guard at Auschwitz, where so many church-going German Lutherans murdered innocent civilians. I look at Christ and not at people. In Christ I find the fullest revelation of God.
December 11th, 2009 at 11:45 pm
been nice chatting with you
December 11th, 2009 at 11:59 pm
Each time I see one of those buses I’m gonna
Whip my slave,
Burn a heretic,
Stone someone for Blasphemy
Push a brick wall onto a homosexual
& send $20 each to Benny Hinn & Charles Stanley
Praise Buddha
December 12th, 2009 at 12:05 am
Glad you enjoyed it. Sorry if it got a bit robust. I suppose you expected it.
“We must respect the other fellow’s religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart.”
H. L. Mencken
December 12th, 2009 at 12:25 am
wow now this is bull.. all this money should be spent elsewhere
December 12th, 2009 at 12:53 am
It’s always futile arguing with faith-addicts. They’re driven by a desire to satisy their emotional needs and they’re not interested in learning about the true nature of reality.
The notion that they’re actually living in a world without a god isn’t merely unpalatable to them, it’s unacceptable. So ultimately, they’ll persist in believing whatever they want to believe, in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
December 12th, 2009 at 2:01 am
I thought people would not be able to donate much coz of the recession.
December 12th, 2009 at 6:13 am
@Thomas- you say that without god-”whatever you or anyone else does is ultimately meaningless so you might just as well end it all now.”
Do you realise how sad this sounds? I am glad I dont a faith like yours and dont have this attitude..
just about every second page of the first half of the Christian bible has God killing somebody! best example of smiting 70’000 people in a single verse 1 Chronicles 21:9-14 …which is not really giving a good example..Your christian god is not fair and just.. but to me its fiction so I dont loose sleep…
December 12th, 2009 at 7:03 am
I keep hearing comments along the lines of “all this money could have been spent on something worthwhile/charity/the poor” from christians.
I take this to mean that they feel the same way about any religious advertisements and that the church should stop wasting this money and spend it on the poor and needy.
Or are they being hypocritical?
December 12th, 2009 at 7:30 am
If this campaign generated as little controversy as a “Jesus Saves” message would then it would be a total waste of money.
The response it has provoked is proof of it’s necessity.
December 12th, 2009 at 8:03 am
We don’t need a bus ad campaign, the second coming is at hand!
December 12th, 2009 at 8:35 am
@Thomas,
Evolution has been shown to occur in the lab.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment
December 12th, 2009 at 10:00 am
@Phil “Glad you enjoyed it. Sorry if it got a bit robust. I suppose you expected it.”.
Phil, don’t apologise when you are arguing rationally against a faithhead. The “robustness” of this discussion is nothing compared to what you find on PZ Myers’ Phayngula or RichardDawkins.net. You have no reason to aplogise. On the contrary, get stuck in!
@ivan “all this money should be spent elsewhere”.
I can spend my money how I like. There is a large church sign down my road that has constantly changing inane sayings that I have to drive past every day. This is typical of churches everywhere. It’s high time there were atheist messages out there to counter the woo. Don’t tell me I should not be spending my money on this!
December 12th, 2009 at 10:14 am
“For those who claim that there is no evidence for God – what evidence would convince you ?”
For example: that prayer was more effective than no prayer. I bet those miners stuck in a mine wished they had instead prayed that the mine didn’t collapse on them in the first place!
“all that it leaves you with is agnosticism, not atheism, so the whole “bus campaign” is misguided.”
Did you not see the word ‘probably’? It’s not exactly hidden.
“”Who knows ? Maybe God does exist. We have not seen Him but that proves nothing so … keep looking cos that could prove to be the most important pursuit in your life””
Him? What about Her? or It? We have also not seen Santa, the Devil, invisible pink unicorns, sparkling vampires and flying pasta. To spend all your life looking for such things might be considered a tad delusional. How about just getting on with life here on tangible ole planet Earth? Look for new batteries for the remote control instead.
“can you prove the theory of evolution that way ?”
Ah….Thomas. You seem not to realise that science never proves anything. It’s all about the probabilities, man. See http://notjustatheory.com.
“My faith is anything but ‘blind’. It is’ reasonable’ and supported by arguments that work for me and are convincing enough. ”
If only you could articulate just one of these arguments! Perhaps they are ‘convincing enough’ to someone who doesn’t take much to convince. Say, I ‘ve got this friend in Nigeria. He’s a banker with the government, and has just discovered this massive fund that he’s sure the government has forgotten about, and he needs your help!
“honestly, I fail to see how the thought of being an accident of nature can fill anyone with joy, hope etc .how positive is the idea that human existence is ultimately meaningless”
Significant words here: that you fail to see. It is your failing. Human existence is as meaningful as a tree’s or a bird’s. Like them, you’re just a really complicated mechanism for passing on your genes. If you can’t see the merit in enjoying all that living you get to do in the meantime, eating food, being nice to people etc, then that’s your failing. It’s a shame that you have to subscribe to a story made up by someone else in order to enjoy your life.
December 12th, 2009 at 11:16 am
I am hoping to see a huge groundswell of support for this. For far too long non-believers have had to put up with the hatred, bigotry, disunity and oppression carried out in the name of religion and the “one true belief”. The suffering of millions upon millions of people that this has caused. The silent majority despise this hypocrisy, and it’s time to be speak up and demolish the elevated status of this superstitious bunkum called religion.
December 12th, 2009 at 11:38 am
Ok, for all the Religious people commenting here, a lack of knowledge about something does NOT imply there is a God. Just because science doesn’t know absolutely everything about the universe does not mean you can fill the gap by saying ‘God dunit!’
And to every one saying things along the lines of ‘this is weak, why use probably? You are not certain blah blah blah”:
Atheism is the lack of faith in a god/gods, so when people say Atheist they tend to mean ‘Agnostic Atheist’ an agnostic atheist is a person who believes the probability of a God is so small that it most likely doesn’t exist. Now, im sure there are some Gnostic atheists out there, gnostic meaning they believe 100% there is no god…but that’s just as Dogmatic as religion itself…
December 12th, 2009 at 12:24 pm
I’m a committed Christian, and I think this advertising campaign is doing wonders for opening up the debate on Christianity vs atheism in NZ (not sure why other forms of religion haven’t come into the debate, but hey).
In my opinion, its pointless arguing whether God exists or not. Everyone has their own belief on this, and its not going to be swayed by what someone else posts on a web forum.
Instead, people have to come to that decision for themselves, based on their own experiences, what they read and research, and the impact of people living out their lives around them.
For myself, the conclusion I’ve come to is that God is for real, and I want to follow Him with everything I have. Others will be different, and I respect that. God gives us a free will.
What I don’t respect so much is people who jump to conclusions without giving it serious consideration. Jesus was a man who came to this earth proclaiming a message which was quite preposterous, and definitely life-defining. He was quite unlike any human being before or since. For that reason, he deserves some time and effort to investigate whether he was a lunatic, a liar, or who he really claimed to be.
December 12th, 2009 at 1:04 pm
@benji
If you believe in a god without evidence (and there is no objective evidence for god) then to be consistent you should believe in every other thing that could be imagined that also has no evidence.
Why pick the xtian god out of the infinite other imaginary things?
If you use subjective evidence for god, how do you tell reality from fantasy, or truth from insanity?
December 12th, 2009 at 1:10 pm
Cyberguy, thanks for the encouragement to “get stuck in” I have spent many an entertaining hour reading the posts on Phayngula and RichardDawkins.net but make this observation: a lot of the posts seem pretty testosterone fueled and polarising. Calling believers “faith heads” for instance is derisive, like calling muslims “towel heads”. These are human beings we are dealing with and to have any hope of persuading them we should not be alienating them. And if we are not trying to persuade then why are we bothering at all?
Personally I’m glad I came to atheism through a sincere faith. I know how difficult it is to escape from these mind-traps. Religions are well-evolved memes and contain their own safeguards against doubt, like an immune system. Its damned hard to get a hearing for a competing point of view. Best be gentle and respectful.
And No Comment actually has a good idea when he suggests this campaign should send some money to Samoa. They must be feeling like god has abandoned them right now. Human empathy and compassion is the real source of help in such situations. I’ll donate if such gift is set up from NZ atheists. Anyone with me?
December 12th, 2009 at 1:13 pm
If a belief in the supernatural makes you a commited christian then please , commit yourself to the nearest asylum.
December 12th, 2009 at 6:00 pm
@Phil
I think people who complain about how some atheist messages may offend the people we are trying to persuade are totally missing the point. They object to the “tone” of the message as being counter-productive.
Many atheists would agree that older religious believers are generally a lost cause, because their minds are already made up. It is the younger generation we have to influence in order to generate a complete paradigm shift in how religion is perceived. And for reaching youth, tone is important – and the more derisory and contemptuous of religion the better!
The reason is this – on the subject of paradigm shifts, Kuhn said, using a quote from Max Planck: “a new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it”.
Younger people are more influenced by how others see them. In this case, public ridicule and deliberate contempt of an idea, combined with clearly explained derision toward those who hold the idea to be true will certainly cause young people to think twice about subscribing to the same concept. It’s about making religion look un-cool and for brain-dead losers.
We need to shift the balance away from the default setting of pandering to religion. Hopefully this might open up the middle ground for polite, well-informed, quietly-spoken atheists such as Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers to be more widely viewed as the clear-thinking moderates that they are, instead of continuously and falsely being painted as “radical” and “strident” by our opponents.
In a paradigm shift, it is all about the popularity of the idea among the new generation that determines its eventual dominance. This leads to the understanding that we need to get more atheist billboards and bus campaigns out there, etc, and to be very “loud and proud”.
If I cause offence, then good!!! The shows I am succeeding.
No accommodation, no prisoners.
December 12th, 2009 at 10:41 pm
Well Cyberguy, it seems I am an exception to your rule that older believers are a “lost cause”.
Basically I thought my way out of my long-held beliefs after much reading and questioning. What you are proposing sounds more like propoganda and brainwashing. The very methods used by religions to ensure conformity.
Bugger that, give me critical thinking any day! What sort of non believers would result? Shallow thinkers vulnerable to peer pressure, not able to think for themselves. Vulnerable to persuasion by irrational memes. Fragile.
I think you and I will have to beg to differ. We are probably speaking to different audiences anyway. You do it your way, I’ll do it mine.
December 13th, 2009 at 2:26 am
Good on you for questioning the beliefs you were brought up in – for most people (myself included) it is not an easy thing to do.
You misunderstand me. My ideas are not propaganda and certainly not brainwashing!!! More like marketing, or focusing on what will give the better long-term results.
I quoted Planck, “a new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it”.
Rephrased – ““atheism does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it”.
In other words, it is usually futile trying to convince someone whose mind is already made up. However, on the internet, the whole world is watching!
So stupid ideas must be shown up to be stupid in order to demonstrate that fact to others who may be reading.
Another reason that I think it is important to argue very strongly in favour of atheism, is that atheists have been quiet and polite for centuries in the face of religious hostility (and worse!) and it has not got us any respect. Nor has it sufficiently reduced the hold of religion in society. It is way past time to try a new tactic.
You say “We are probably speaking to different audiences anyway. You do it your way, I’ll do it mine.” Agreed.
December 13th, 2009 at 7:41 pm
Cyberguy,
“Marketing”, “focusing”, you have better chosen your words young Skywalker…The first version sounded like you were advocating some form of cyber-bullying, something I could never be a party to. No idea, no matter how “correct” it might be or scientifically verifiable, is worth increasing human suffering for. I guess that makes me a humanist.
My main reason for promoting atheism is that, in order to deal with the challenges now facing our species our model of reality has to be as close to actual reality as possible. If we have false assumptions we will get policies and strategies wrong. Notions that we are somehow seperate from our ecosystem for instance or that the worthy will all be whisked away in a “rapture” are instilled by religion and palpably false.
There are better models of what drives human behaviour than religious ones (sin, virtue) and, as we are our own main problem, it will pay us to update our models. Abandoning superstition is vital. I think we can agree on that.
December 14th, 2009 at 11:10 pm
@ Cyberguy
As I said, there’s not much point aguing about whether God exists or not. You believe God is imaginary, I don’t. I’d rather discuss why you have those beliefs than argue whether they are right or wrong.
But, a question for you: do you believe a man named Jesus Christ walked on the earth approx 2000 years ago?
@ Cambell
No, I never said believing in the supernatural makes me a committed Christian.
But I’m genuinely intrigued – why do you associate belief in the supernatural with being mentally unstable?
Cheers,
benji
December 14th, 2009 at 11:34 pm
@ Madeleine #68
Re: your comment about the effectiveness of prayer.
I was at a Christian conference a few years ago, and one of the speakers asked if there was someone in the audience with an injured ankle. A guy (lets call him James) who had a broken ankle got up on his crutches and went to the stage. I think his ankle had been broken for about 2 weeks at that stage.
The speaker said “James, God wants to heal your ankle right now”. He started praying and asked everyone in the audience to pray out loud. We did this for 3-4 minutes. Then we stopped and the speaker asked James how his ankle was.
James said it was quite good… He then proceeded to put down his crutches and walk off the stage, just as any normal person would! It was amazing, an absolute miracle!!! It would’ve been awesome if you were amongst the 400 or so there that night.
December 14th, 2009 at 11:44 pm
Hi benji,
While you wait for Cyberguy’s response I’ll give you mine.
I believe god is imaginary because the only place there is any evidence of his existence is in the imagination of the host. Yes I mean host as in a parasitic idea that infects minds, like a computer virus. We infect each other, we infect our kids. Where did you get your infection? Peer group? Family? Now I know you didn’t make it up yourself, its too formulaic.
To be fair I know that all ideas (we call them memes) are parasitic in that they are like software that runs on our hardware (brain). Including atheism. But a good atheist will be trying to defrag his hard drive and clear out the clutter of beliefs that are not based on evidence and experience. I’m not including religious experience, which I’ve had myself, as its a kind of self induced halucination. Intense longing can make you believe pretty much anything. Our modelling software is intensely powerful.
Which brings me to the “mentally unstable” question. Not my words and a bit harsh in most instances. If you are living in a distorted reality (we all are to a degree) you are apt to make some non-adaptive choices. Extremists hurt themselves and others, average believers are selective in the scriptures they adhere to and get by very well. Hey, there are even a few pearls I follow myself having tested them (do unto others etc.) Just don’t swallow the whole thing, there are some real sharp bits in there.
This Jesus chap may well have existed but I doubt his second name was Christ “excuse me Mr Christ, your table is ready”
My two cents, have a fabulous day.
December 15th, 2009 at 6:10 pm
@benji
“As I said, there’s not much point aguing about whether God exists or not.”
Wrong. There are many very good reasons to argue about it – mainly because people who believe in their imaginary friend influence policies at every level in society – from school boards to medical ethics committess to national politics. And that misapprehension affects me directly.
“You believe God is imaginary, I don’t.”
No, I don’t believe god is imaginary. Rather, I know for a fact that there is no objective evidence for god, and consequently there is no reason to think that any gods exist. Read those two previous sentences carefully, because they are two different things. One is a positive claim; the other is a statement about a lack of convincing evidence.
And don’t pull up Pascal’s Wager at this point, because that tired old chestnut had been totally refuted in SO many different ways over the centuries!
I have a website with two specific pamphlets I have written that explain this in more detal than what I can go into here. See http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~edmin/Pamphlets/ – in particular “Pamphlet 01 – What is Atheism.pdf” and “Pamphlet 03 – Scientific Method and the Burden of Proof.pdf”. They might help you understand better.
“I’d rather discuss why you have those beliefs than argue whether they are right or wrong.”
But that is the whole point. It is totally important WHAT IS TRUE!!! We cannot just decide for ourselves what is true – we have to find out. And we must accept what science tells us, whether we like the answer or not.
You keep going on about belief. Atheism is NOT a belief!!!! It is a complete ABSENCE of a belief. As has been said 100′s of times before – atheism is a belief in the same way that OFF is a television channel, or baldness is a hairstyle, or not collecting stamps is a hobby. You are projecting your own lack of understanding onto atheists and getting confused about it.
Hard as it may be for you to understand, I don’t think I actually have any “beliefs” – I certainly can’t think of any. I have evidence for or against something, so I make up my mind based on that. I cannot think of any evidence-free ideas that I take as being true.
Maybe you could help me on that.
– suggest a few.
“But, a question for you: do you believe a man named Jesus Christ walked on the earth approx 2000 years ago?”
There’s that word “belief” again.
There MAY have been a middle-eastern Jewish philosopher called Yesua who lived about 2000 years ago, who was the basis of the four inconsistent and contradictory gospels in the bible, and a few other apocryphal texts, written decades after he was around – but the evidence for a real Yesua is insubstantial. About the same level of evidence as for a real life Robin Hood or King Arthur. Saul/Paul (a power-hungry individual who never actually met Yesua) did a big beat-up about him, and really got the chrisian religion started when otherwise it would have just naturally faded away. Paul only needed a few folk stories about Yesua to really get the ball rolling – so Yesua may be a fiction.
But it is really not relevant whether Yesua was real or not. If he was real, he was a bronze-age religious man of his time and place. He did not preach anything special that was not already known in other earlier religions. Likewise, the miracles associated with him already exist in other earlier religions.
If you are reaching for C.S. Lewis at this point, don’t. Yesua’s teachings and status hinge on whether a god exists or not. And since there is no evidence for any gods, most of these 2000-year-old teachings are simply mistaken.
We don’t need god or Yesua for us to be good moral people, or to treat our fellow humans with care and respect. In fact if you really read the bible, it is just as well that we do ignore most of it.
December 15th, 2009 at 7:23 pm
Hey Cyberguy…..SMOKIN’…!
December 15th, 2009 at 7:34 pm
Benji,
In response to your reference to a “miracle cure”, its a pity these results can not be repeated in clinical trials.
See: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/4681771.stm
or: http://www.redorbit.com/news/health/175986/prayer_doesnt_help_heart_surgery_patients_study/index.html
or just google it.
December 15th, 2009 at 10:09 pm
@Phil
Thank you, Sir.
I deliberately try to write concisely, getting as much content into the smallest space and using the plainest language possible.
Trouble is, I often find my carefully-worded arguments scare away the theists and I don’t get a reply.
December 15th, 2009 at 10:20 pm
Cyberguy,
By executing such a withering attack on the belief system you may be triggering the “immune response” of the meme that I was referring to before. They have been told the “devil” will try to “tempt” them and that they will be persecuted. Thats why I try not to make them feel too persecuted. That and that I’m a softy.
Admirable work none the less.
December 15th, 2009 at 11:31 pm
@Phil
Regardless of who I am responding to, I generally reply being mindful that others will read it, and hoping to make any lurking fence-sitters think more deeply about their own worldview.
And of course hoping to persuade those lurkers that atheism is the sensible option.
December 16th, 2009 at 10:03 am
In simplistic terms God is the answer and religion is how the gullible are exploited for the benefit of the priests. Essentially religion is just like politics, the aquisition of wealth and power without merit.
I would suggest for a start that Marx’s ‘Religion is the opiate of the masses’ is a more apt slogan for the back of bus.
The ‘God probably doesnt exist’ concept is just a waste of time. If you truly wanted to fan the flames of revolution then start a campaign for the removal of GOD from the national anthem, followed up by removing non profit / charitable status from all religions. Hit them where the purveyors of religion hurt the most, in the pocket.
December 16th, 2009 at 10:18 am
Better slogan:
Religion is the opiate of the masses – Karl Marx. Say NO! to drugs.
December 16th, 2009 at 10:52 am
Just for fun
Which is it? Is man one of God’s blunders, or is God one of man’s blunders? – Nietzsche.
An aetheist is a man that has no invisible means of support. – John Buchan
December 16th, 2009 at 11:18 am
More quotes for laughs:
“The worst moment for the atheist is when he is really thankful and has nobody to thank.” – Dante Gabriel Rossetti
“I think that God in creating Man somewhat overestimated his ability.” – Oscar Wilde
“God is not dead but alive and well and working on a much less ambitious project.” – Anonymous, Graffito
“If only God would give me some clear sign! Like making a large deposit in my name in a Swiss bank.” – Woody Allen
“Suppose we’ve chosen the wrong god. Every time we go to church we’re just making him madder and madder.” – Homer Simpson
“One man’s theology is another man’s belly laugh.” – Robert A Heinlein
December 16th, 2009 at 11:23 am
Another good laugh:
“Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves.
You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property.”
(Leviticus 25:44-45)
December 16th, 2009 at 1:27 pm
and further on the lighter note of things (by the way, I really like your posts Cyberguy)
Letter to Destiny Church
Dear Brian Tamaki,
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God’s Law. I have learned a great deal from you and understand why you oppose same sex marriage. As you said, “in the eyes of God marriage is based between a man a woman.” I try to share your knowledge with as many people as I can.
When someone tries to defend the homosexual relationships, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination.
End of debate.
I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God’s Laws and how to follow them.
1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighbouring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Pacific Islanders, but not Australians.
Can you clarify? Why can’t I own Australians?
2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in Her period of menstrual uncleanness – Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offence.
4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, it creates a pleasing odour for the Lord – Lev.1:9. The problem is with my neighbours. They claim the odour is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
5. I have a neighbour who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2. clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I call up the police and ask them to do it?
6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination – Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don’t agree. Can you settle this? Are there ‘degrees’ of abomination?
7. Lev.21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?
8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.19:27. How should they die?
9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? [Lev.24:10-16]. Couldn’t we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? [Lev.20:14]
I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help.
Thank you again for reminding us that God’s word is eternal and unchanging.
December 16th, 2009 at 4:18 pm
We’ve struck a rich vein here.
As they say: “Tragedy plus Time = Comedy”
Ha haaa, keep em coming..!
December 16th, 2009 at 4:38 pm
An oldie’ish but a goodie.. and a bit serious really
“Science flies you to the moon, religion flies you into buildings”
December 16th, 2009 at 7:08 pm
And one of my favourites, though serious:
“Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion”
Steven Weinberg
December 16th, 2009 at 7:24 pm
And another favourite:
“Religion easily—has the best bullshit story of all time. Think about it. Religion has convinced people that there’s an invisible man…living in the sky. Who watches everything you do every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a list of ten specific things he doesn’t want you to do. And if you do any of these things, he will send you to a special place, of burning and fire and smoke and torture and anguish for you to live forever, and suffer, and burn, and scream, until the end of time. But he loves you. He loves you. He loves you and he needs money. ”
George Carlin
December 16th, 2009 at 9:23 pm
@Erin B
ROTFLMAO – That was the best!!!
December 17th, 2009 at 10:50 pm
Thought I’d throw a few in to stir up the debate…
“Let a man think and care ever so little about God, he does not therefore exist without God. God is here with him, upholding, warming, delighting, teaching him – making life a good thing to him. God gives him himself, though the man knows it not”.
“From the moment a creature becomes aware of God as God, and of itself as self, the terrible alternative of choosing self rather than God for the centre is opened to it”
“What comes into our mind when we think about God, is the most important thing about us”
“The loneliest moment in life is when you have experienced that which you thought would deliver the ultimate, and it has just let you down”
December 17th, 2009 at 11:23 pm
@ Cyberguy and Phil
What objective evidence would it require for you to know that God exists? Give me an example or two.
@ Cyberguy
You say “… but the evidence for a real Yesua is insubstantial”.
No, the evidence for Yeshua is quite compelling.
For starters, you mention (and acknowledge) the existence of Saul / Paul. Paul’s ministry began approximately 15 years after the death and resurrection of Yeshua. It would be impossible for your so-called ‘folk stories’ to develop to any degree at all in the space of just 15 years. Such folk stories, if they are indeed fictional, can only be fully developed many generations after the actual person lived.
December 18th, 2009 at 12:05 am
@Benji,
Well your first comment wasn’t debate, it was romantic poetry. Basically you can say whatever you want, it wont make it so. No matter how pretty the words. Wishful thinking.
As for the required evidence, it is hard to imagine what experiment you could devise to measure a god effect directly. Experiments have been done to measure the effect of prayer on medical outcomes…none apparently.
No, the burden of proof is on the believer that professes gods existence. I think then it is incumbent on you to come up with some evidence not on us to dream something up.
I’ll give you a hint, what if you wanted to prove to us that Dog exists? You might show us a photo, a paw print, some dog hair, a chewed sofa leg. It wouldn’t be that hard. Why? because the dog is REAL. The reason you’re struggling is that you are trying to convince us of something that is in your head and ONLY in your head. (and in a few others) All the “evidence” for gods existence has been planted by those with gods in their heads…all of it.
December 18th, 2009 at 1:54 am
“I think there is no better time for us as Atheists and Secular Humanists to come out and show our vocal and very public support for science and rationalism” I can’t see where these two things are connected – atheism and science. And I feel so sorry for those who believe in nothing, with so much evidence of something all around them.
Science is a process of empiricism, which can discover many amazing things which is wonderful fun. But seeing we know more and more about less and less, surely we must realise that a human mind cannot conceive of the immensity of that astounding something, let alone its origin. So to place the human mind at the top of the heap is an exercise in futility. The ‘something’ is much larger, and always drawing out and extending the human mind further and further past the previous confines, showing how little a person can really appreciate all there is, and how much more he has to learn on an exponential parabola.
And you really believe in nothing? On top of that you call it rational? I don’t get it! Where’s your evidence of nothing?
December 18th, 2009 at 10:39 am
@Helen Murray.
“More and more about less and less”? Where did you get that from? It seems to me that we know more and more about more and more. Sure, we keep on revealing mysteries that we never expected but that is not surprising. The human animal has evolved to deal with aspects of the real environment that directly impact on its survival. We are “tuned” to percieve and understand a narrow range of stimuli that are relevant to our way of making a living. We invent a radio telescope (for instance) and suddenly we can “see” galactic structures we never knew existed. We invent electron microscopes and discover a nano-universe we never imagined. We learn that other animals can see light wavelengths that are invisible to us. Reality turns out to be exponenially bigger than even our recent ancestors could comprehend and gob-smackingly beautiful.
It sounds to me like you have given up “its all too big and I can’t comprehend it” And you think that gives you an excuse to default to a god-dunnit attitude. Lazy, confused, woolley thinking. Don’t expect us to fall in behind.
Where do you get the notion that we believe in nothing? We (skeptically) trust our experience and the evidence and there is a whole universe of that.
December 18th, 2009 at 11:09 am
Go Phil.. great reply!
December 18th, 2009 at 11:36 am
Thanks Erin,
This is fun isn’t it?
December 18th, 2009 at 11:58 am
@Helen Murray – your reply is called “the argument from personal incredulity”. The point is that just because YOU don’t understand something, that does not means no-one else can.
Plus you threw in the strawman argument that atheists believe in nothing. Echoes of the brain-dead Ray Comfort there.
@benji – “What objective evidence would it require for you to know that God exists? Give me an example or two.”
There’s many – in fact there are probably endless examples. Out of sequence fossils, such as fossil rabbits in the pre-cambrian. DNA that shows a lack of inheritance, and points towards a spontaneous creation of the fully formed animal. Ideas in the bible that could not have been known at the time, and can only be understood today, such as descriptions of the make-up of atoms, or binary stars, of DNA, etc.
Of course god could simply do a miracle in a location that it could be properly documented, such as at in the middle of an Olympic event in front of cameras. Or he could cause a limb to regrow while someone was in hospital, so it could be investigated while it happened.
Or he could just appear to us – what is so hard about that?
The fact that none of these things happen shows at the very least that god is hiding. The better explanation is that god does not exist, as the universe looks exactly the way we would expect it to look if there were no gods.
Anyway, the onus to provide evidence for the existance of something is on the person who proposes the thing. If you want to know why, read my pamphlet “Scientific Method and the Burden of Proof.pdf” – http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~edmin/Pamphlets/Pamphlet%2003%20-%20Scientific%20Method%20and%20the%20Burden%20of%20Proof.pdf
On the subject of Jesus/Yesua’s existence, it doesn’t matter if such a person existed. Even if he existed, he was mistaken about how the world and universe works. I have already made that point in my previous post. I write very deliberately and clearly – re-read my post if you have trouble with comprehension.
December 18th, 2009 at 12:08 pm
@benji
I notice that all your posts seem to completely free of anything remotely resembling evidence. Just assertions, questions and a few un-referenced quotes.
Can you make points that are a bit more substantial? For example, something that references reality.
Thanks.
December 18th, 2009 at 12:32 pm
@benji – “For starters, you mention (and acknowledge) the existence of Saul / Paul. Paul’s ministry began approximately 15 years after the death and resurrection of Yeshua. It would be impossible for your so-called ‘folk stories’ to develop to any degree at all in the space of just 15 years. Such folk stories, if they are indeed fictional, can only be fully developed many generations after the actual person lived.”
Yes, but the Acts of the Apostles was not written in 15AD, but much later – probably sometime between the second half of the 1st century and the first half of the 2nd century.
That is plenty of time for rumours of a Yesua to get garbled, mixed up with other traditions (virgin birth, resurrection), and for Paul to create a few personal legends about himself and his conversion, in order to cement his authority on the early church.
Plus the Acts was not written by Paul, but by a follower. So it is very late hearsay, not even eyewitness.
You can’t put much weight on this stuff as being factual. Major delays in writing it down, lack of corroboration from other sources, and various personal agendas make these stories all highly suspect.
December 18th, 2009 at 12:33 pm
Hi Phi
Yes it is fun eh. Bit like shooting fish in a barrel though, sadly for us all.
December 18th, 2009 at 1:19 pm
Instead of signs on buses, do what the christians and mormons do, place a copy of the ‘God Delusion’ in hotels and motels.
The white man gave the pacific syphilis, trousers and the bible. – Anon.
December 18th, 2009 at 7:59 pm
@ Cyberguy, Phil, Campbell, Erin B
As I said in my original post, I’m not here to argue with y’all.
I know that God exists. He has shown Himself to be real to me, and that is all I need to believe.
He has shown Himself to be real to you as well – Psalm 19:1 says “The heavens tell of the glory of God. The skies display his marvelous craftsmanship”. I really hope that you take the time and have the intent to look and search for yourself so that you can know He is real. He is out there, and is waiting for you to clear your diary for a meeting with Him.
If any of you live in the Wellington region, I’m putting up an offer to come to church with me on Sunday morning. Start time is 10am, and it will be very low-key as the Sunday school kids are portraying the Christmas story. I don’t even think there will be a sermon this Sunday.
But God will be there. Don’t bring your camera, and leave the autograph book at home. God is not there to have his photo taken, or give you his signature. He is there because He wants to show you that He is real and that He loves you.
Post back here by Saturday night, or flick me an email on benji_the_statsman {at} yahoo.co(.)nz. I will then give you my mobile number.
BTW – would definitely be happy to come along to a similar meeting of an atheist group.
March 26th, 2010 at 7:36 am
Benji
Thanks for the invite to your church.
I too invite you to not go to church in solidarity with me, perhaps sleep in on Sunday. God wont notice you didnt turn up.
Cut and pasting specific pieces from the bible is a dangerous game, as anyone can find both negative and positive books in the bible. –
- There is a great book on that topic called “The Harlot by the Side of the road” by Johnothan Kirsch. It covers lots of tales out of the bible and then explains the political and social context of the time it was written in. I saw him present at an atheist conference last year.
As a lawyer, he also ran through the history of violence implemented by the ORIGINAL (C) Catholic Church.
To give a passage special respect in the bible, it assumes belief already.
There probably is no God, now stop worrying and enjoy your life.
March 27th, 2010 at 8:30 pm
Hi rob
Its been a while since this thread was going!
In fact, I will be competing in a running race tomorrow morning, but plan to go to a service in the evening.
Will God notice if I turn up to church or not? He will notice, but I’m pretty sure he wont hold it against me if I don’t! But I think it is important to remember that going to church does not make one a Christian, just like going to a concert doesn’t make you a musician.
If a person wants to follow God, He requires more of us than just turning up to church every Sunday. Unfortunately, many Christians (including myself at some stages of my life) are guilty of being ‘Sunday Christians’, and this is not the way to lead a fulfilling, abundant life.
Not exactly sure how you are defining ‘negative’ and ‘positive’ but if I can take a guess, then yes, parts of the Bible are definitely not a bed of roses! I am not familiar with that book but have googled a few reviews of it. Certainly looks like an interesting read. Not sure if I necessarily agree with the interpretation of the Ruth / Boaz story – I’ve read some other material which does not give the same interpretation of that story.
I will try to track down a copy of the book.
Yes, I would agree that anyone with no belief (or, more accurately, no desire to have a belief) is likely to give scant respect to the Bible. All I can say is that I would encourage you to give it a go – read the book of Mark, or Acts, something like that.
“There is probably no God” you say.
My question: what if there was?
What if it was all true?
However miniscule the chance that there is a God, what if there was, and what if He is who He claims to be?
What response would you give?
March 28th, 2010 at 3:08 pm
Benji
Your argument is “Pascal’s Wager”, first published in 1670 in French and 1688 in English. French philosopher Blaise Pascal said that a person could “wager” as though God exists, because they have everything to gain, and nothing to lose.
Pascal’s Wager has been completely refuted as a line of reasoning many times over the past 340 years. The fact that you raise it anyway, as if it was some sort of devastating argument, shows the fundamental dishonesty of religious thinking. The logic fails because the wager makes a number of false assumptions.
First it assumes that the person chooses the right god, and that God only rewards belief, not critical thinking.
Secondly, Pascal’s Wager is wrong when it proposes that religious belief has no cost. Religion wastes time in your limited real life, costs you money when you give it away to churches, and adds real guilt and fear to many individuals’ lives.
But most importantly, belief in a non-existent entity can cause harmful decisions to be made based on false assumptions and religiously inspired misinformation. Examples include when people join a cult, or those who believe in “the end times” and consequently enbrace the idea of nuclear conflict as a sign of these end times.
Actually, Pascal did not offer the wager as any kind of proof of god. It is merely a conclusion to his arguments about the limits of reason in the absence of evidence, and that discerning god’s actual existence appears to be “a coin toss.”
In summary, the premises of the wager are incorrect, and it is better to decide if there is a god based on real-world evidence than try to do these evidence-free “what-if” scenarios. The fact is, there is no positive evidence for the existence of any gods, and Pascal’s Wager is completely useless in changing that basic reality.
March 28th, 2010 at 9:22 pm
Hi Cyberguy
I find it interesting that you always feel a need to go on the defensive!
No, my last post was never intended to be “some sort of devastating argument”. At the end of it, I was simply asking a few questions. Nothing more, nothing less!
My questions were nothing to do with making a wager with God, myself, you or anyone else on this thread. I was simply asking “what if this whole Christianity thing was true?”
I completely agree with what I think you are implying – if someone was to become a Christian due to the ‘everything to gain, and nothing to lose’ line of thinking, they are just going to get themselves into a mess.
It has similarities to a person following Hitler in pre-WWII Germany – more out of fear that they didn’t want to experience the downside. That is no recipe for success.
And yes, I completely agree with your paragraph beginning ‘But most importantly’.
Many times in this thread you say you do not believe in God because you cannot see any evidence For Him. I think I asked a question earlier in this thread about what sort of evidence it would take for you to believe in God. I’ll ask again – what would it take?
March 28th, 2010 at 10:03 pm
In regards to what sort of evidence it would take
Benji, perhaps read thru some earlier posts and you will get an idea of the atheist viewpoint.
You have stated ” He has shown Himself to be real to me”. And thats all you need.
Some of us havent had that experience, so we might need something else. ( I type this with a smile!)
If you are really interested in why many people dont believe in god, perhaps start with Christopher Hitchens or Sam Harris for reading matter.
Or compare and contrast Baha’i, Christianity, Confucianism, Hinduism, Islam, Jainism, Judaism, Shinto, Sikhism, Taoism, Wicca, Zoroastrianism..
They cant all be right.
In regards to if I am wrong, I will have to read up on Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva, and see what I will come back too earth as.
I think I would like to be a cat.
March 29th, 2010 at 1:00 am
Benji
Some examples that would provide evidence for the existence of some sort of god:
1. Documented prayer answered in an unambiguous way (amputees healed) that cannot be satisfactorily explained in naturalistic terms.
2. Prayer for a sick person statistically improving the chances of that person surviving usually fatal diseases such as cancer (this experiment has been done, and shows no difference between prayer and no prayer).
3. One religious group clearly being more “fortunate” to a statistically significant level than equivalent others who do not subscribe to the same religion. “Fortunate” means they experience increased positive random events and decreased negative random events (e.g. significantly less affected by natural disasters, more likely to win lotto, etc) compared to others.
4. You can also test whether the prayers of various religions and sects that believe in such a God have a statistically significant higher chance of being answered in an unambiguous way compared to other sects.
4. Out of sequence fossils that cannot be explained through natural selection (Fact: no out-of-sequence fossils have ever been found, which strengthens the argument for natural selection).
5. True irreducable complexity that can not be explained by a sequence of DNA steps (no irreducable complexity has ever been found).
6. A prophecy or knowledge that unambiguously could not have been known at the time, e.g if there had been a clear description of atoms or WWII in the bible. Basically anything in the Bible that is true, but could not have been written using the knowledge of the time.
So far no evidence of the above types has been found.
March 29th, 2010 at 9:42 am
Benji,
You really need to take that challenge seriously, just a little real world evidence should not be too much to ask.
Admiring your work as always Cyberguy.
I didn’t think I needed to comment except to make one point:
We are arguing against a belief that many WANT to be true. I know, I’ve been there myself. All evidence or logic will be twisted and made to conform with the belivers paradigm…untill he/she makes a personal choice to get honest, and allow for the possibility that the paradigm is flawed. For most this is well out of their comfort zone.
For me it took a number of years of noticing that the real world did not entirely conform to my belief-system model. With religion, unlike science, questioning the model is not encouraged…which just made me question the model more. But there it is, a personal choice based on a level of curiosity that not every beliver has. How curious and honest are you Benji?
March 29th, 2010 at 9:32 pm
Phil
Benji is just a fucking loser and he pisses me off with his dumb-arse shit. He has no fucking brains.
Cyberguy
March 29th, 2010 at 11:32 pm
Cyberguy
O…K… so much for keeping it polite.
Coffee anyone?
Benji doesn’t piss me off. I am patient because it took me years of guilt-ridden questioning to reject what is a highly evolved brain parasite, replete with its own immune system for defending its hegemony.
Apologies for the lurid description but hey, how would you describe something that rules and limits your life while proclaiming to do the opposite?
I don’t give up so easily on people that could be me at an earlier stage.
I think we may have had this conversation before. Different strokes eh?
March 30th, 2010 at 1:05 am
Phil
I take your point.
But consider this. His questions have been asked and answered so often that it is an insult he has not made the effort to investigate them himself. Atheists are CONSTANTLY answering these same questions.
If christians had any integrity they would put the word out among themselves “Don’t use Pascal’s Wager – that one doesn’t work any more”.
Both my last two replies, on Pascals’ Wager and what evidence would convince me of god, I have answered so many times that I got tired of answering – so I saved a standard answer. My replies to Benji was simply cut-and-pasted from my saved version, with a tweak here or there.
It pisses me off when christians trot out 340 year-old arguments and think they are new.
March 30th, 2010 at 1:21 am
Phil
Also, I already answered his same question in my reply 107!
He has asked the same question twice and I have answered it twice.
I am entiled to get a bit short with the guy, if he does not read my actual answers.
Cyberguy
March 30th, 2010 at 9:26 am
Cyberguy,
I understand your exasperation. You have indeed answered all the questions before, and pretty well I thought. Rather than address your answers Benji is just repeating the questions like a broken record. That’s just lazy. And perhaps disingenuous.
This laziness is perhaps the biggest barrier to genuine debate. Many believers just don’t want to extend themselves beyond their comfort zone.
Their approach is the intellectual equivalent of sticking their fingers in their ears and chanting “Nyaaa, nyaaa…can’t hear you”.
Still, despite provocation, no need to abuse them, you are better than that. You are a formidable debater of the evidence, stick to that and I for one will follow your posts with support and enjoyment.
Cheers
Phil
March 30th, 2010 at 10:40 am
Thanks Phil – I accept your point.
Sorry, Benji.
March 31st, 2010 at 8:25 pm
Benji come back…
I’ll play nice.
March 31st, 2010 at 10:14 pm
Yeah, come back Benji. I’ll box his ears if he misbehaves. He can be such a naughty boy….