Atheist message on London buses

Arts & Sciences Religion & Spirituality
41

Fortigurn, Thanks for your lengthy and reasoned response, and don’t worry about how quickly you reply to any of my drivel, or if you reply at all. Maybe I’ll just bold the stuff you posted before to help clarify who is talkin’. Sorry if I miss some of your questions.

Fortigurn-“Can you explain why so many Muslims don’t kill family members who reject Islam?”
I guess it’s for the same reason that Christians don’t kill people for working on Sunday.

(Exodus 31:15):
LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.

Most Christians and Muslims are decent people who love their family members more than anything.
Muslim family members are good enough people to not kill their brother just because he doesn’t believe the same things. But if they kill their sister because she was raped, they can find (probably find) justification for doing so in the Koran.

Fortigurn, -“Could you provide all the quotes from the Bible which you believe describe how to treat non-believers, and explain how you understand them to apply to those who follow the Bible today?”

No, not all of them, sorry, and I hate to ask a question in response to a question, but, “Does the New Testament cancel out everything in the Old Testament?” ‘Cuz if it does, I might have another question.

Kill People Who Don’t Listen to Priests (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT)
Kill Nonbelievers (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)
Kill the Entire Town if One Person Worships Another God (Deuteronomy 13:13-19 NLT)
Kill Followers of Other Religions (Deuteronomy 13:7-12 NAB) (Deuteronomy 17:2-5 NLT)
Infidels and Gays Should Die (Romans 1:24-32 NLT)
God Kills the Curious (1Samuel 6:19-20 ASV)
Kill Followers of Other Religions (Numbers 25:1-9 NLT)

I know that few Christians are literalists, but once you start picking and choosing from a book that’s the word of God, where do you stop? How does this influence people who follow the Bible today? I’m not sure how many people follow the Bible today. I think a lot of people today don’t read the Bible because they just want to follow the nice bits from the New Testament. “Jesus loves everyone” is a lot more palatable than all those Old Testament rules.

Fortigurn –“How many countries have you lived in? How do you find Taiwan, for example? Canada? New Zealand? England? Australia? Japan? Korea? China?”

I’ve only lived for over a year in the US and Taiwan, but I have visited about a hundred countries, including all of those mentioned. I like them all. New Zealand is my favorite from that bunch for the friendly people and fantastic nature.
I genuinely like Taiwan. I think the people are very hospitable. Taipei is a safe and yet exciting city that has a reasonable cost of living and few thieves. The east coast of Taiwan is beautiful, and the mountains and central areas are a refreshing change form the polluted west. I guess one of the reasons I am a non-believer is from my travels. You go to Turkey, Syria, Algeria . . . and the people are REALLY friendly. You go to Thailand, Tibet, Taiwan . . . and the people are REALLY friendly. You go to Zaire, Zimbabwe, Zambia . . . and the people are REALLY friendly.
It doesn’t seem like their very different religious beliefs makes much difference in how “good” they are. So, anyone claiming to be a part of God’s chosen people makes me wonder how all the others are going to fare.

I said earlier, “But denominations with apocalyptic beliefs seem to be gathering more followers.”

Fortigurn,- “Interesting. Statistics please.”
Maybe I am wrong about this one, but here’s something I found.
The American Religious Identification Survey 2001 says,
“Interestingly, it is “non-mainstream” denominations which seem to be gathering more followers, although they constitute less than 1% of the population. Many profess emphasis on “end times” apocalyptic belief, and/or a strong fundamentalist Christian message. The Foursquare Gospel sect has grown from 28,000 in 1990 to 70,000 member. Based on responses, Scientology presently has 55,000 (up from 45,000 a decade ago); Unitarian/Universalists stand at 629,000; and Ethical Culturalists at 4,000.”

Fortigurn, -From my study of this subject, religious people are extremely likely to be very involved with environmental issues. Some useful sources:
. . .
Gottlieb’s central argument is that religion, which once largely neglected nature and uncritically favored industrial civilization, is now a “leading voice” that urges followers “to respect the earth, love our nonhuman as well as our human neighbors, and think deeply about our social policies and economic priorities” (p. 9). In this book, religion is certainly not the problem, but is instead a useful and effective solution.”

I am sure that a lot of religious people are very concerned with the environment. “Love thy neighbor” to me includes “love thy neighborhood.”

How about in Taiwan? Should people still be burning ghost money and incense?
How about in America? Do presidential candidates that are most concerned about the environment (Gore?) do well with Christian fundamentalists? I think the Republicans (dare I say –more pro biz, less pro environment) got so many of these people on their side because of the abortion issue.

If someone, like Palin, honestly believes that end times are near, they might be more likely to strip mine, drill, or push the button. “We won’t need the earth much longer anyway, and God’s on OUR side.” (the argument might go)
Who is the least likely to push the big button or strap a bomb to their chest? Probably an atheist.

42

[quote=“Kahna”]
Who the fuck wants to be an atheist in any case? Giving yourself a little name that defines you in terms of what you AREN’T rather than what you are… Idiots. Do you go around consciously reminding yourself on a daily basis that you live your life according to not believing in a god or gods?

Talk about selling yourself short.[/quote]

I think Richard Dawkins addresses this attitude in the article:

[quote]Professor Dawkins said:"Religion is accustomed to getting a free ride - automatic tax breaks, unearned respect and the right not to be offended, the right to brainwash children.
"Even on the buses, nobody thinks twice when they see a religious slogan plastered across the side.
“This campaign to put alternative slogans on London buses will make people think - and thinking is anathema to religion.”[/quote]

However, that paragon of religious tolerance and freedom of speech Bill O’Reilly clearly sees things your way, Kahna…

Richard Dawkins on The O’Reilly Factor

43

[quote=“zender”]Fortigurn-“Can you explain why so many Muslims don’t kill family members who reject Islam?”
I guess it’s for the same reason that Christians don’t kill people for working on Sunday.[/quote]

I don’t think so. The reason why Christians don’t kill people for working on the Sabbath is that there’s no commandment within Christianity ordering them to do so. The commandment you quoted is a religious code which applied only within the Jewish nation, and was abolished in the 1st century AD. It never applied to Christians in any case.

[quote]Most Christians and Muslims are decent people who love their family members more than anything.
Muslim family members are good enough people to not kill their brother just because he doesn’t believe the same things. But if they kill their sister because she was raped, they can find (probably find) justification for doing so in the Koran.[/quote]

I believe you’ve answered your own issue here. Muslims who kill their sister because she was raped would do so whatever the Koran said. They only turn to the Koran to justify an action they’ve already decided on, not because the Koran required them to do it. And they probably can’t even find it in the Koran, they’re probably following the extra-canonical Hadiths.

No the New Testament does not ‘cancel out everything in the Old Testament’. But the commandments you quote next are from a religious code which applied only within the Jewish nation, and was abolished in the 1st century AD. It never applied to Christians in any case.

Now we get to your little list. I’m going to hope (somewhat forlornly), that you didn’t just copy/paste this from somewhere else, but this is actually original research on your part and you read all the quotes in context. Alas something tells me this isn’t the case.

Social contract law applying only within the Jewish nation.

Social contract law applying only within the Jewish nation.

[quote]Kill the Entire Town if One Person Worships Another God (Deuteronomy 13:13-19 NLT)
Kill Followers of Other Religions (Deuteronomy 13:7-12 NAB) (Deuteronomy 17:2-5 NLT)[/quote]

Social contract law applying only within the Jewish nation. By the way, it doesn’t say ‘Kill the Entire Town if One Person Worships Another God’.

Sorry, the closest this comes is to say that ‘those who practice such things deserve to die’, and includes those who are ‘filled with every kind of unrighteousness, wickedness, covetousness, malice, rife with envy, murder, strife, deceit, hostility, gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, contrivers of all sorts of evil, disobedient to parents, senseless, covenant-breakers, heartless, ruthless’. That’s a vice list somewhat more extensive than ‘infidels and gays’. In fact infidels aren’t referred to at all (apostates are).

However, nowhere in the New Testament are Christians permitted to put any of these people to death, which contradicts your original claim and your appeal to this verse.

Social contract law applying only within the Jewish nation. And no, this wasn’t ‘God Kills the Curious’, it was ‘God executes those who deliberately transgress a law which they know full well carries the death penalty’. You might as well interpret the imprisonment of a thief as ‘State incarcerates those who move things from one place to another’.

Social contract law applying only within the Jewish nation. This is getting old.

Well the great thing is that you don’t actually have to ‘pick and choose’. The laws you’ve listed constitute the social contract which existed within the nation of Israel, and applied only to those within that nation (not even to non-Jews). These laws never applied to anyone outside the Jewish nation, and they never applied to Christians. These laws also ceased to apply when the Jewish nation was no longer a theocracy, which took place even before the 1st century AD. This is explicit in both the Old and New Testaments.

How about laws in your country? Do you ‘pick and choose’ which ones apply and which ones don’t? No, you look to see which ones still apply and which ones have been amended, superseded, or abolished. Same with the Bible.

I certainly agree with you. However, ‘love your neighbour as yourself’ was a commandment given in the Old Testament (Leviticus 19:18), along with ‘You must not wrong a foreigner nor oppress him’ (Exodus 22:21; 23:29, Leviticus 19:33), ‘The foreigner who resides with you must be to you like a native citizen among you; so you must love him as yourself’ (Leviticus 19:34), and ‘So you must love the resident foreigner’ (Deuteronomy 10:19), all of which are repeated in the New Testament as the moral obligation of the Christian. It’s simply not true that all the ‘nice bits’ are in the New Testament.

[quote]I’ve only lived for over a year in the US and Taiwan, but I have visited about a hundred countries, including all of those mentioned. I like them all. New Zealand is my favorite from that bunch for the friendly people and fantastic nature.
I genuinely like Taiwan. I think the people are very hospitable. Taipei is a safe and yet exciting city that has a reasonable cost of living and few thieves. The east coast of Taiwan is beautiful, and the mountains and central areas are a refreshing change form the polluted west. I guess one of the reasons I am a non-believer is from my travels. You go to Turkey, Syria, Algeria . . . and the people are REALLY friendly. You go to Thailand, Tibet, Taiwan . . . and the people are REALLY friendly. You go to Zaire, Zimbabwe, Zambia . . . and the people are REALLY friendly.
I doesn’t seem like their very different religious beliefs makes much difference in how “good” they are. So, anyone claiming to be a part of God’s chosen people makes me wonder how all the others are going to fare.[/quote]

Ok I am not seeing any evidence here for the outrageous and widespread oppression and persecution of atheists to which you referred previously. Quite the opposite in fact, especially in the msot religious countries.

If they were more than ‘less than 1% of the population’, you might have something to b concerned about.

Yes.

If they can do it responsibly, why not?

I don’t think this contradicts the evidence I provided. It simply shows that some issues rate more highly than others for some people.

How do you know this is how they would think?

Strap a bomb to their chest? Definitely the atheist is less likely to do so. But looking at the history of atheist Russia, atheist North Korea, and atheist China (to mention a few), I don’t think atheist countries can be any more trusted with buttons than countries run by religious governments. An atheist state is an ideologically based state, and ideologically based states are dangerous.

44

Actually, I think of North Korea as just another form of religion.

So what do the Ten commandments mean to modern Christians?
and what are the punishments for disobeying them if any?

Say, I’m a Catholic, how much can I get away with if I confess afterwards?

45

:thumbsup:
Fortigurn is my new Best Pal.
:beer:

46

I’m sure you do. It’s interesting how atheists identify atheism as a religion whenever it’s the vehicle for atrocity.

A great deal, given that nine of them are repeated in the New Testament.

That depends entirely on what kind of Christian you are.

You would have to ask a Catholic. But from my understanding of Catholicism, your deliberate intention to commit unrepentant sin and then attempt to absolve yourself with a cynical confession is itself a mortal sin, and your confession will be invalidated by your casuistry.

Fortigurn is my new Best Pal.
:beer:[/quote]

Wow, I don’t know what I did to deserve that, but it’s certainly refreshing change. Thanks. :bow:

47

[quote=“Infidel”][quote=“Kahna”]
Who the fuck wants to be an atheist in any case? Giving yourself a little name that defines you in terms of what you AREN’T rather than what you are… Idiots. Do you go around consciously reminding yourself on a daily basis that you live your life according to not believing in a god or gods?

Talk about selling yourself short.[/quote]

I think Richard Dawkins addresses this attitude in the article:

[quote]Professor Dawkins said:"Religion is accustomed to getting a free ride - automatic tax breaks, unearned respect and the right not to be offended, the right to brainwash children.
"Even on the buses, nobody thinks twice when they see a religious slogan plastered across the side.
“This campaign to put alternative slogans on London buses will make people think - and thinking is anathema to religion.”[/quote]

However, that paragon of religious tolerance and freedom of speech Bill O’Reilly clearly sees things your way, Kahna…

Richard Dawkins on The O’Reilly Factor[/quote]

What? Are you being facetious, or have you misunderstood what I’ve said?

Calling yourself an atheist is to assume a position of weakness because it acknowledges that theism is a valid starting point for beliefs etc. Thus atheism is weakened by being the contrary point. I don’t think this should be the case. You know what secular humanism is, right? And you know that Dawkins himself is a secular humanist, right?

I’m also failing to see how your quote from the article addresses my point.

Please note I am not questioning why anyone would not want to believe in noisy thunderers, copouts to important questions surrounding existence, and how killing those who disagree with you is going to get you seventy something raisins, but rather why they would call themselves an Atheist.

48

Maybe I should say North Korea’s cult of personality, where Kim Il-sung was God-like and could do no wrong, is a form of pre-religion. Some of these last longer than others. That Big Brother world where some great person is everywhere watching over you (be it from a photo or the sky) doesn’t appeal to me in the least.

Remember Kim Il-sung is still the president (he lives on) even though he’s dead.

49

I pity people with “faith” (Oh, it sounds so joyous and redemptive). I can hear the cupids on their little clouds workshopping “Sympathy for the Devil”. But I despise AGNOSTICS. Make a stand. Fence-sitters. The best of both worlds, huh? Hedge your bets?

50

This thread and certain people’s irrational responses proves that there is never any point in discussing religion, ever. It is one issue where people have already made up their minds and will never, ever change their minds, theists and atheists both. It is equally impossible to prove the existence of god or the non-existence of god, and so the debate goes in circles.

I suppose you could call me an agnostic, except that I’m not even sure enough about what I believe in to even to be sure I don’t know. I have no idea what the hell I believe in. Some days I feel like a pantheist and some days like a Deist and some days like a Christian and some days like an atheist. Depends on my mood. All I know is that I don’t know. It’s really, once you think about it, the only genuinely honest position a person can have. As Confucius (the pompous old windbag, but even a broken clock is right twice a day) put it, “You don’t even know life. How can you know death?”

Y’know, now that I think about it, the Richard Dawkins foundation should have plastered Confucius’ slogan over London buses instead. It puts the agnostic position much more subtlely and intelligently and less provocatively.

51

There is nothing “fence-sitting” about admitting that there are limits to your own knowledge, that you don’t know everything. Do you know if there are alien races on Alpha Centauri or not? How are you supposed to know? It is impossible to know if there is or is not a God. Do you know with absolute certainty what’s going to happen to you after death? Of course not. The best we human beings can do, with our limited knowledge and perspectives, is to live our lives the best we can and live up to our full potential and be nice to others and try to have a good time while we’re here.

There is the distinct possibility that there may be a Higher Being overlooking the cosmos. But that is all it is - a possibility. I understand, however, why so many people are willing to gamble on that possibility. It gives them hope. Let’s face it, an atheist universe, where all we are heading is eventual wormfood after death, is not exactly a happy place. That’s why I hope there’s a God (and hopefully a nice and loving and forgiving God, not some prick who sends me to Hell for not worshipping him). Everyone desires immortality. A perhaps selfish but very understandable desire.

52

[quote=“Quentin”]I suppose you could call me an agnostic, except that I’m not even sure enough about what I believe in to even to be sure I don’t know. I have no idea what the hell I believe in. Some days I feel like a pantheist and some days like a Deist and some days like a Christian and some days like an atheist. Depends on my mood. All I know is that I don’t know. It’s really, once you think about it, the only genuinely honest position a person can have. As Confucius (the pompous old windbag, but even a broken clock is right twice a day) put it, “You don’t even know life. How can you know death?”[/quote]I don’t think that is the only honest position. Don’t get me wrong: I’m certainly not in favour of people going around saying “What I believe is absolutely right and you should believe the same,” as some religious people and some vehement non-believers do. But whats wrong with making a reasoned decision about your personal religious practice based on everything you know and everything you’ve experienced?

It’s weird how so many people on Forumosa seem to think that religious belief is somehow an easy way out; a matter of blind faith. I suppose for some people it is. But surely there’s at least an equal percentage of non-religious people who don’t want to think about the deeper side of things?

The people I know who are serious about religion have thought deeply about it, and experienced times when they’ve kind of had to break and remake their faith as they examine their life experiences in the light of religious teachings and vice versa. But you can’t fit a sentence that long on the side of a bus.

53

I hope I’m not one of the irrational ones. I’m sure Fortigurn knows a lot more than I’ll ever know about Christianity. That’s fine. I don’t mind getting trounced in a friendly debate if I learn something along the way.

One guy that people outside of India don’t seem to know much about is Sai Baba. Yes, he’s still alive.

Virgin birth? check
God person? check
Changed water into other liquids? check
Multiplication of food? check
Levitation? Indoors AND out
Helped the poor and cured the sick? Oh yeah
Changed the weather? Ya know he has
Emits light and materializes Indian pastries? hot AND cold

Done it all under experimental conditions? Well, no . . .

But he’s got a real neat explanation about how spiritual things must not be investigated using scientific methods . . . or somethin’ like that.

The guys got millions of followers.

54

What? You said “unavoidable.” That’s a pretty strong word. On what basis are you making such a statement?

55

You mean like the big-picture issues of Playboy you keep stuffed under your mattress? :howyoudoin:

56

And why would you say that>

Not exactly religion, is it?

Yes, I remember. Not sure how that’s relevant to the topic at hand, but I may be missing something.

I respect that attitude. And I don’t believe you’ve been ‘trounced’ in any way here.[quote=“Tempo Gain”][quote=“Fortigurn”]

I’ll explain my basis for making such a statement, but I’m still interested in the grounds on which you’re disputing it. My basis for making such a statement is the considerable historical evidence for it. Religions and other ideological groups only survive through conversion, conversion only takes place through evangelism, and evangelism requires conviction. Historically, ideological movements have succeeded wildly during times of conviction peak within the group, and declined dramatically (or even collapsed and vanished entirely), during times of conviction slump. The ‘Great Disappointment’ of 1844 is a classic case in point. I’m not aware of historical evidence for a correlation between strong conviction in an ideology and deliberate restraint from sharing that ideology.

57

Some of Australia’s convict settlers were sent there for “crimes” such as blasphemy. Which come to think of it, makes them the descendents of religious martyrs! Anyway, it’s statistically unlikely that all your ancestors came from the Mayflower. Are you quite sure that they didn’t intermarry with the descendents of people who were just running from the law, or following the money? (According to my great-grandmother’s research I am descended from the kings of Scotland, the signers of the Magna Carta, and three chicken thieves.)

The Baptists may have believed in church-state separation back when they were just another nonconformist sect, but that’s not how it works in Texas. And the Seventh-Day Adventists are widely admired even by outsiders who accept neither adventism nor sabbatarianism. (They build us a fine hospital, for example.)

Not every religion has a missionary impulse, or even lets in outsiders. (When was the last time a Zoroastrian tried to convert you?) Not all of them care what members believe.

Religion seems to offer benefits of various types (and this is a point which atheist writers, with the notable exception of Pascal Boyer, often neglect). Whether these are enough to make up for the “costs” (genetically speaking) is probably impossible to calculate, especially in relatively normal cases (as opposed to fringe / extreme examples like Sai Baba or Juche). In any case, humans seem to have had religion for as long as we have been human (though one could argue that the word “religion” is on inspection, meaningless, and that assertions like this illegitimately lump together unrelated practices / beliefs / institutions under a common label).

58

[quote=“Fortigurn”]

I’ll explain my basis for making such a statement, but I’m still interested in the grounds on which you’re disputing it. My basis for making such a statement is the considerable historical evidence for it. Religions and other ideological groups only survive through conversion, conversion only takes place through evangelism, and evangelism requires conviction. Historically, ideological movements have succeeded wildly during times of conviction peak within the group, and declined dramatically (or even collapsed and vanished entirely), during times of conviction slump. The ‘Great Disappointment’ of 1844 is a classic case in point. I’m not aware of historical evidence for a correlation between strong conviction in an ideology and deliberate restraint from sharing that ideology.[/quote]

Perhaps i misunderstood you, I agree that if a strongly held view exists among a certain portion of society then it is essentially unavoidable that people will try to spread that view. I was trying to say that it is not unavoidable that any individual would find it necessary to do so.

59

[quote=“Quentin”]My ancestors were religious idealists. Your ancestors were debtor convicts.

Let’s argue about that, Aussie.[/quote]

You mean the slave owners?

60

I am not an SDA. If you had read any of my previous posts you would have seen that I already declared my religious denomination, and it’s not SDA.

Even if I were an SDA there’s no way I could possibly believe that the Rapture would occur in 1844, given that it’s now 2008.

Then we have something in common. My denomination likewise insists on the complete separation of church and state. If you had read my previous posts, you would have seen me arguing for this forcefully.

My denomination is one of the churches which rejects all forms of violence. We have always been conscientious objectors, and our stance has been the test case for conscientious objection in a couple of countries, including Canada.

I say good for you, and I sympathize.

Well this isn’t strictly correct. You forget the Puritans, who turned out to be as fanatical as those back in Europe, and who lost no time in enforcing their religious views on everyone else, combining church and state, oppressing those who held different religious views, and committing atrocities such as the witch hunts. This sadly turned out to be the lasting theological legacy of America.

Where on earth did I say Americans are the warmongers of the world? And unfortunately I’m not a colonialist. I’m a floatover. My parents were late 20th century immigrants not colonials. And last time I looked, the colonials were not warmongers.

[quote]My ancestors were religious idealists. Your ancestors were debtor convicts.

Let’s argue about that, Aussie.[/quote]

What’s to argue? Even if my ancestors were debtor convicts, I’d be a lot happier to have them in my ancestry than the religious idealists who grabbed control of America and turned it into a complete mess.

[quote=“jimipresley”][quote=“Quentin”]My ancestors were religious idealists. Your ancestors were debtor convicts.

Let’s argue about that, Aussie.[/quote]

You mean the slave owners?[/quote]

Touche!

Then we understand each other and agree.