Comments on: Atheist bus ads roll in London today: massive success

By: Sadun

Sadun — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 05:31:35 +0000

I think this is a pretty significant step, one might say almost revolutionary…

By: Derek Walker

Derek Walker — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 13:22:46 +0000

Gavin, that is a common misconception about atheists, the fact is that you cannot disprove a negative absolutely, hence the reason that you can’t say for definite that there isn’t a giant teapot revolving around the sun or a dragon that lives in the boot of my car that turns invisible when I open the door.

You can’t say for definite that god doesn’t exist, but given the mass of evidence against a god and our understanding of things such as germ theory, abiogenisis, evolution, etc it is very probable that there is not a god, it is the religious who say for definite that there is regardless of reason, evidence or logic.

Even Richard Dawkins in the God Delusion states this, the burden of proof lies solely with the people who claim that god exists.

Now, being an anti-theist that is different, that is someone that even if god was proven to exist would be against him/her/it anyway as the thought of having a big scary being in the sky that can read your every thought and knows your future and what you do in your bedroom and created evil and the devil and sin, etc then punishes people for sinning, blah, blah is something that does not sit well with them.

Totally agree with the sentiments that if people did not believe in god then there would be other reasons to go to war, this is the case anyway, as has been pointed out, god is just used as an excuse, says it all really

By: Muad'Dib

Muad'Dib — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 08:53:04 +0000

Indeed B.A., people who start wars just need something to unite their people and make them willing to die for their war (or even in some cases let them ask or beg to join their war). So indeed if God wouldn’t suffice, other things would be choosen to unite people to do their bidding (look at patrotism and so on).

By: Gavin

Gavin — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 08:09:58 +0000

There’s “PROBABLY” no God – it sounds decisively agnostic to me; I always thought aethism was about there definitely being no God and therefore almost as dogmatic as the religious nuts themselves.

By: Berber Anna

Berber Anna — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 22:06:53 +0000

There’s a children’s book by the Dutch writer Godfried Bomans, ‘Erik, of het Klein Insectenboek’ (Eric in the Land of the Insects), which I used to read when I was little. In it, the main character encounters a tribe of ants who call themselves the ‘peace ants’. They are constantly at war with other self-styled ‘peace ants’, because they believe that all the others are actually lying war ants. Oh, and because they all claim to have the head of the original peace ant.

I think it’s a perfect parody of the way in which humans constantly justify war by so-called ‘noble’ motivations, such as religion.

I do believe that religious folks are mistaken, and I dislike it when religion is used to justify absurd laws (such as the outlawing of homosexuality/bisexuality), but I don’t believe for a minute that it’s the actual cause of any war. If everybody stopped believing in Gods, people would manage to invent another justification. The real cause for war is always far more mundane — need, greed, fear, hate. Basic human emotions.

By: L Ron Hubbard

L Ron Hubbard — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 21:26:30 +0000

As long as people on each side are using their gods to justify war I will attempt to point out that there is little evidence to support what they are uneccesarily giving their lives to (literally) and that it is the religious moderates who pave way for the fundamentalists to even exist within the church system.

A war with God on both sides can never be won. What kind of god would allow that?

By: Mikey from Melbourne

Mikey from Melbourne — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 15:43:42 +0000

“There probably is no god.”

I prefer:

“God’s (non-)existence is irrelevant but the belief that it is relevant, is relevant because religous people and athiests will consequently be segregated.”

Turn the other cheek and make this endless topic irrelevant.

By: Sara

Sara — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 14:20:35 +0000

What endoctoring, I mean indoctrinating! Read before sending Sara!
Sorry!

By: Sara

Sara — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 14:10:57 +0000

Derek – well said indeed! But the article above is a campaign to promote atheism, not unlike the door to door Jehova’s Witnesses etc… that promote religion.

We are all entitled to an opinion on this matter. I’m just in conflict with forcing or endoctoring these opinions onto others. But YES, the choices in life we make should come from a practial source, based on all the information we have at the time! We struggle at times, but what relief can be given, when we know the decisions and judgements we make are based on practical resources and moral understanding. I know I have no regrets because of this!

By: ReliegiousMarie

ReliegiousMarie — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 12:16:22 +0000

@DerekW…well said!