Man refuses to drive 'No God' bus

[GlesgaeHibby]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hampshire/7832647.stm

Anyone that has been to London will notice there are plenty of buses that have Bible verses and Christian messages on the side of them. Since the bus company have accommodated this mans stupid refusal, should all atheists now refuse to drive the buses with Bible verses on them?

[CB_NO3]

There is NO god, believe me I know. :agree: Who is doing the advertising on the buses ?

[Woody1985]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hampshire/7832647.stm

Anyone that has been to London will notice there are plenty of buses that have Bible verses and Christian messages on the side of them. Since the bus company have accommodated this mans stupid refusal, should all atheists now refuse to drive the buses with Bible verses on them?

I think they still should drive them. They drive around with Winnie the Pooh and other made up stories on them. :LOL: :duck::duck::duck:

[Phil D. Rolls]

There is NO god, believe me I know. :agree: Who is doing the advertising on the buses ?

That's probably why they have saved on advertising on Scottish buses. No point in preaching to the converted.

[--------]

"There's PROBABLY no God"? :faf:

PROBABLY?

What's the probability factor then?

80%? 85%? 90%? 95%? 99%?


I think we should be told.

I mean, it'll be a bit unfortunate if folks believe those ads, and then it turns out that the ads were wrong....

Are the atheists covering themselves against lawsuits?

"Well, we can't say for absolutely certain that there IS NO GOD, so let's cover ourselves with a 'probably'. Then if we all end up in the big burny-burny, nobody can sue us...."

WARNING: these advertisements are only 75% true (we think).... :faf:

Dear me. :bitchy:

[ancienthibby]

There is NO god, believe me I know. :agree: Who is doing the advertising on the buses ?

Oh YES there is!!

Believe me - I know - he lives in my life!!

[col02]

Does anyone else think if this was a group targetting another religion say Islam for example there would be a greater deal made of it? If the people behind this do not believe in God then so be it does it really do any harm other people having faith in Christianity? I go to my local church and it does an awful lot for the local community via it's charity work! If some people want to poke fun at that concept of helping others then who really has the skewed perception of life? :confused:

[Woody1985]

Does anyone else think if this was a group targetting another religion say Islam for example there would be a greater deal made of it? If the people behind this do not believe in God then so be it does it really do any harm other people having faith in Christianity? I go to my local church and it does an awful lot for the local community via it's charity work! If some people want to poke fun at that concept of helping others then who really has the skewed perception of life? :confused:

I take issue with those type of comments from religious people, as I assume you are.

People who don't believe in God don't necessarily think that religion can't do good things for people ie give them hope, support etc etc (it can also have the opposite effect as we all know).

Have a think next time buddy :wink:

[--------]

I take issue with those type of comments from religious people, as I assume you are.

People who don't believe in God don't necessarily think that religion can't do good things for people ie give them hope, support etc etc (it can also have the opposite effect as we all know).

Have a think next time buddy :wink:


No, but respect should be mutual.

And there's no a lot of respect given to religious belief or believers on these forums, buddy. :devil:

[LiverpoolHibs]

Does anyone else think if this was a group targetting another religion say Islam for example there would be a greater deal made of it? If the people behind this do not believe in God then so be it does it really do any harm other people having faith in Christianity? I go to my local church and it does an awful lot for the local community via it's charity work! If some people want to poke fun at that concept of helping others then who really has the skewed perception of life? :confused:

How is it not aimed at Islam?

It's surely, by its very nature, aimed at every monotheistic religion.

[col02]

How is it not aimed at Islam?

It's surely, by its very nature, aimed at every monotheistic religion.

Perhaps my thinking was it was aimed at Christianity in the UK. Apologies if i misconstrued that aspect.

[--------]

Perhaps my thinking was it was aimed at Christianity in the UK. Apologies if i misconstrued that aspect.



Nope - it's aimed at all of us.

(Probably.) :agree:

[CropleyWasGod]

Perhaps my thinking was it was aimed at Christianity in the UK. Apologies if i misconstrued that aspect.

That is part of the problem, I suppose, misinterpretation. (which may be the root problem of all religion and religious debate and divide, but that's for another thread!).

Let us not forget that the God of Jesus is also the God of Mohammad.

[col02]

That is part of the problem, I suppose, misinterpretation. (which may be the root problem of all religion and religious debate and divide, but that's for another thread!).

Let us not forget that the God of Jesus is also the God of Mohammad.

Fair point has to be said!

All i know is that i enjoy going to my local church and feeling part of the local community and the good work it contributes to locally and further afield. That said it is at the stage where you almost feel ashamed to admit you have religious leanings which is a real shame imho.

[Storar]

How is it not aimed at Islam?

It's surely, by its very nature, aimed at every monotheistic religion.

If the advert said 'Allah doesn't exist so get over it and have fun' then there would be significantly more people complaining about it.

[stu in nottingham]

Fair point has to be said!

All i know is that i enjoy going to my local church and feeling part of the local community and the good work it contributes to locally and further afield. That said it is at the stage where you almost feel ashamed to admit you have religious leanings which is a real shame imho.

So do I, Col.

Never be ashamed to hold and stand up for your beliefs.

[CropleyWasGod]

If the advert said 'Allah doesn't exist so get over it and have fun' then there would be significantly more people complaining about it.

See above. God and Allah are one and the same.

It will be interesting to see what reaction there is from Islamic groups.

[GlesgaeHibby]

How is it not aimed at Islam?

It's surely, by its very nature, aimed at every monotheistic religion.

Correct. Muslims worship a God just like Christians, along with many other religions.

At the end of the day I think the driver was completely OTT for refusing to drive the bus and should have been disciplined. It is merely a point of view plastered on the side of the bus, and he needs a reality check if that offends him.

[Storar]

See above. God and Allah are one and the same.

It will be interesting to see what reaction there is from Islamic groups.

I know that but it's obviously aimed at Christians because 'God' is the Christian name for whatever it might be. If it said Allah then there is no way on Earth that it would be directed at Christians.

I don't expect much of a (negative) reaction from Islamic groups at all.

[--------]

That is part of the problem, I suppose, misinterpretation. (which may be the root problem of all religion and religious debate and divide, but that's for another thread!).

Let us not forget that the God of Jesus is also the God of Mohammad.



I wouldn't say that to too many Muslims, if I were you.

There's a world of difference between the Islamic doctrine of Allah the Omnipotent creator and the Christian doctrine of the Holy Trinity, FGather, Son, and Holy Spirit.


But of course we MUST remember that "probably" they neither exist.... :devil:

[--------]

Correct. Muslims worship a God just like Christians, along with many other religions.

At the end of the day I think the driver was completely OTT for refusing to drive the bus and should have been disciplined. It is merely a point of view plastered on the side of the bus, and he needs a reality check if that offends him.


So you wouldn't allow him liberty of conscience?

He wasn't demanding that the posters be taken down, just stating that HE wasn't prepared to drive a bus with that particular poster on the side.

As I understand it, he was perfectly prepared to be told he was sacked.

So he may be wrong, but shouldn't he be allowed to stand up for his principles?

[CropleyWasGod]

I know that but it's obviously aimed at Christians because 'God' is the Christian name for whatever it might be. If it said Allah then there is no way on Earth that it would be directed at Christians.

I don't expect much of a (negative) reaction from Islamic groups at all.

Gonna be a real pedant here. "God" is merely the English word. Just as "dieu" is the French. "Al lah" is the Arabic.

[Storar]

Correct. Muslims worship a God just like Christians, along with many other religions.

At the end of the day I think the driver was completely OTT for refusing to drive the bus and should have been disciplined. It is merely a point of view plastered on the side of the bus, and he needs a reality check if that offends him.
I think he's quite within his rights to refuse to drive it. He's obviously a religious man and his faith is important to him so why should he be forced to effectively go against his own beliefs and advertise God's non existance by his own employers?

Can you imagine the outrage if a Muslim driver was diciplined for refusing to drive a bus that claimed Allah didn't exist?

[Storar]

Gonna be a real pedant here. "God" is merely the English word. Just as "dieu" is the French. "Al lah" is the Arabic.

Yeah that was pretty pedantic. I'm quite aware that Christian isn't a language:wink:

[CropleyWasGod]

I wouldn't say that to too many Muslims, if I were you.

There's a world of difference between the Islamic doctrine of Allah the Omnipotent creator and the Christian doctrine of the Holy Trinity, FGather, Son, and Holy Spirit.


But of course we MUST remember that "probably" they neither exist.... :devil:

You see, this is the stuff that fascinates me, Doddie. All the interpretation and passion that divides folk. I have no doubt that you know your stuff...... but my basic philosophical argument is that if he/she/it/they exist, by definition God and Allah are the same.

Excuse me while I disappear up my own argument..

[CropleyWasGod]

Yeah that was pretty pedantic. I'm quite aware that Christian isn't a language:wink:

Wellllllllllllll, if I ain't gonna win the philosophical argument, I may as well try and score some petty know-all points!!! :greengrin

[Hibrandenburg]

Correct. Muslims worship a God just like Christians, along with many other religions.

At the end of the day I think the driver was completely OTT for refusing to drive the bus and should have been disciplined. It is merely a point of view plastered on the side of the bus, and he needs a reality check if that offends him.

If it was a religious driver who refused to drive the bus because of an anti god message, then he'd have received more support.

[GlesgaeHibby]

I think he's quite within his rights to refuse to drive it. He's obviously a religious man and his faith is important to him so why should he be forced to effectively go against his own beliefs and advertise God's non existance by his own employers?

Can you imagine the outrage if a Muslim driver was diciplined for refusing to drive a bus that claimed Allah didn't exist?

If he believes God does exist then whats his problem with other people expressing a view that he doesn't? If atheists refused to drive buses with a christian message on them (as Is often seen in London) then there could be hundreds of drivers refusing to drive buses and the situation would be crazy.

[--------]

You see, this is the stuff that fascinates me, Doddie. All the interpretation and passion that divides folk. I have no doubt that you know your stuff...... but my basic philosophical argument is that if he/she/it/they exist, by definition God and Allah are the same.

Excuse me while I disappear up my own argument..



On your own terms, assuming God ("he/she/it/they" as you put it) exists, then God is who God is, and nothing can change God's nature.

One Hebrew name of God from the Old Testament, which is also a name Christians use for God, is אהיה אשר אהיה, pronounced ehyeh asher ehyeh.

It means "I am Who I am", or possibly "I will be Who I will be".

"Allah" is simply the Arabic word meaning "God". Muslims use it, obviously because that's the word the Qu'ran uses; Arab Christians will speak of Allah al'Ab - "God the Father" to distinguish the two concepts.

My starting point, IIRC, was that I had been living on the assumption that God DIDN'T exist, and had got myself into quite a mess.

The possibliity that he DID exist at least offered some purpose in life, and the possibility that HE might be able to sort me out where I had so signally failed myself (if, that is, he/she/it existed).

So I decided to give God (whoever he/she/it might be, if he/she/it existed) 6 months to do just that. Make-believe a God, and see what happened.

Well, if it wasn't God who sorted things out for me, it was someone exactly like God.

(I mean, if it looks like a camel, and smells like a camel, and belches like a camel, it probably IS a camel. And if you behave as if God exists, and ask him for help, and rely on him to take care of things, and treat the world and the poeople around you as his creation - and life works ever so much better than before.... Get the idea?)

And it all went on from there.



BTW - those posters don't offend me. They're too silly.

I mean - "THERE PROBABLY IS NO GOD"?

How about: "There probably is no God, but, then again, there MIGHT be. So be afraid. Be VERY afraid...."? :devil:

[--------]

If he believes God does exist then whats his problem with other people expressing a view that he doesn't? If atheists refused to drive buses with a christian message on them (as Is often seen in London) then there could be hundreds of drivers refusing to drive buses and the situation would be crazy.


First, I suspect that the number of committed convinced atheists is very small. It's rather apparent that when that Airbus went into the Hudson river last night, there were very few atheists aboard. (Unless they were all praying to the God they didn't believe in.)

Check the witness reports if you don't believe me. :devil:

Second, perhaps this chap's more faithful to HIS principles than atheists are to theirs? :cool2:

[GlesgaeHibby]

On your own terms, assuming God ("he/she/it/they" as you put it) exists, then God is who God is, and nothing can change God's nature.

One Hebrew name of God from the Old Testament, which is also a name Christians use for God, is אהיה אשר אהיה, pronounced ehyeh asher ehyeh.

It means "I am Who I am", or possibly "I will be Who I will be".

"Allah" is simply the Arabic word meaning "God". Muslims use it, obviously because that's the word the Qu'ran uses; Arab Christians will speak of Allah al'Ab - "God the Father" to distinguish the two concepts.

My starting point, IIRC, was that I had been living on the assumption that God DIDN'T exist, and had got myself into quite a mess.

The possibliity that he DID exist at least offered some purpose in life, and the possibility that HE might be able to sort me out where I had so signally failed myself (if, that is, he/she/it existed).

So I decided to give God (whoever he/she/it might be, if he/she/it existed) 6 months to do just that. Make-believe a God, and see what happened.

Well, if it wasn't God who sorted things out for me, it was someone exactly like God.

(I mean, if it looks like a camel, and smells like a camel, and belches like a camel, it probably IS a camel. And if you behave as if God exists, and ask him for help, and rely on him to take care of things, and treat the world and the poeople around you as his creation - and life works ever so much better than before.... Get the idea?)

And it all went on from there.



BTW - those posters don't offend me. They're too silly.

I mean - "THERE PROBABLY IS NO GOD"?

How about: "There probably is no God, but, then again, there MIGHT be. So be afraid. Be VERY afraid...."? :devil:

Thats a well structured post Doddie. I am not completely anti religion for the reasons you mentioned above, religion can be a great influence on people's life and truly make them better, happier people BUT don't get me started on the other end of the spectrum.

[GlesgaeHibby]

First, I suspect that the number of committed convinced atheists is very small. It's rather apparent that when that Airbus went into the Hudson river last night, there were very few atheists aboard. (Unless they were all praying to the God they didn't believe in.)

Check the witness reports if you don't believe me. :devil:

Second, perhaps this chap's more faithful to HIS principles than atheists are to theirs? :cool2:

Point is as an agnostic, I don't mind Christian views being plastered on buses as well as the above mentioned advert. Both sides of the debate are happening. If he's so sure about his faith, that advert should merely provide amusement to him, or sadden him that we're all going to hell.

[Storar]

If he believes God does exist then whats his problem with other people expressing a view that he doesn't? If atheists refused to drive buses with a christian message on them (as Is often seen in London) then there could be hundreds of drivers refusing to drive buses and the situation would be crazy.
That's the thing though, he's not got a problem with other people expressing it. He's not starting campaigns to get the adverts banned or removed. He just simply doesn't want to be forced into advertising something that he doesn't believe in.
As for the second part, I've never heard of any athiests who are actively against the existance of God. Obviously they will be out there but for the majority of people that don't believe it's simply just a passive disbelief. They don't really care either way and I've yet to meet an athiest who doesn't celebrate Christmas based on the fact they don't believe :hmmm:

You won't find many bus adverts that go actively advertising the existance of God or that advocate Christianity or that have Bible passages scrolled down the side of them, so I can't see many athiests ever being in that position. However, if they every were in that position and they genuinely felt that strongly against the existance of God then again I think they would be more than justified in refusing to drive the bus.

You're right though, if that ever happened then it would be crazy and it could lead to all types of problems which is why I think that neither messages have any place on the side of a bus.

[--------]

Thats a well structured post Doddie. I am not completely anti religion for the reasons you mentioned above, religion can be a great influence on people's life and truly make them better, happier people BUT don't get me started on the other end of the spectrum.


Personally, I reckon that those posters would hardly have been noticed if some of my less sensible co-religionists hadn't started yelling about them.

And be honest - it isn't exactly a world-shattering message, "There probably is no God - so go on and enjoy yourselves"? Not exactly a call to arms, is it? :cool2:

But if employers are prepared to make allowances for Muslim, Sikh, and Hindu believers (which they increasingly are, and I have no quarrel with this) then they should be equally prepared to make allowances for Christians. Even Christians whom some folks think are being a bit silly.

As for "the other end of the spectrum", believe me, if they're the folks I think you're thinking of, they make me just as angry as they do you. :agree:

[GlesgaeHibby]

That's the thing though, he's not got a problem with other people expressing it. He's not starting campaigns to get the adverts banned or removed. He just simply doesn't want to be forced into advertising something that he doesn't believe in.
As for the second part, I've never heard of any athiests who are actively against the existance of God. Obviously they will be out there but for the majority of people that don't believe it's simply just a passive disbelief. They don't really care either way and I've yet to meet an athiest who doesn't celebrate Christmas based on the fact they don't believe :hmmm:

You won't find many bus adverts that go actively advertising the existance of God or that advocate Christianity or that have Bible passages scrolled down the side of them, so I can't see many athiests ever being in that position. However, if they every were in that position and they genuinely felt that strongly against the existance of God then again I think they would be more than justified in refusing to drive the bus.

You're right though, if that ever happened then it would be crazy and it could lead to all types of problems which is why I think that neither messages have any place on the side of a bus.

Christmas is a pagan festival. I celebrate Christmas and I love the tradition of the whole nation having a day off together, but I do absolutely nothing religious. For me it is about spending valuable time with your families.

You're right, up here you won't BUT in London their are loads of them.

As an agnostic, I have no problem with people believing the Bible as long as it doesn't lead to extremism that could harm others, but find it sad that with the knowledge we have now they can still believe in a young earth when the evidence to the contrary is massive. BUT at the end of the day, if following a religion helps them in a peaceful way thats fine by me. Live and let live and all that.

[Hibrandenburg]

I'd always describe myself as a Christian Athiest because I was brought up in a society defined by Christian principles and history.

[Sir David Gray]

See above. God and Allah are one and the same.

It will be interesting to see what reaction there is from Islamic groups.

No, they're not.

Whilst I respect the right of Atheists to hold their beliefs, I don't think it's right that such a campaign is made on public transport.

What are they trying to prove by making such a statement? Obviously, going by the wording of it, even the Atheists aren't convinced that God doesn't exist.

The campaign is totally pointless, apart from the fact that it serves to upset and annoy people.

Good on the bus driver for standing up for his beliefs.

[GlesgaeHibby]

No, they're not.

Whilst I respect the right of Atheists to hold their beliefs, I don't think it's right that such a campaign is made on public transport.

What are they trying to prove by making such a statement? Obviously, going by the wording of it, even the Atheists aren't convinced that God doesn't exist.

The campaign is totally pointless, apart from the fact that it serves to upset and annoy people.

Good on the bus driver for standing up for his beliefs.

So why is it ok for Christians to publicise their message on public transport?

Nobody can be 100% sure there is no God, thats why probably had to be used.

[--------]

So why is it ok for Christians to publicise their message on public transport?

Nobody can be 100% sure there is no God, thats why probably had to be used.


I'm for freedom of speech, with the one proviso that that freedom is not used to spread or incite hatred.

I have no problem with these posters, as I've said. They're just silly.

But I should point out that it is both logically and experientially impossible to prove a negative.

Which "probably" accounts for the "probably" in the posters. :agree:




Unless the posters were put up by a bunch of exceptionally shy and inoffensive atheists who didn't want to hurt anyone's feelings? :devil:

[CropleyWasGod]

No, they're not.





Definitely, or just probably?

[hibsdaft]

hmm, seems to me that public advertising of any religious/ belief system may not be a good idea.

for the record as someone who doesn't in believe in god can i just point out what an idiotic patronising diet-evengelical load of w*nk those ads are. they end up sounding just like the worst kind of smug happy clappy jesus loves you and if you embraced him you'd be as happy like me type.

[--------]

hmm, seems to me that public advertising of any religious/ belief system may not be a good idea.

for the record as someone who doesn't in believe in god can i just point out what an idiotic patronising diet-evengelical load of w*nk those ads are. they end up sounding just like the worst kind of smug happy clappy jesus loves you and if you embraced him you'd be as happy like me type.



Actually, we're discussing the ads run by some atheist group saying "There probably is no God..." and the bus driver who refused to drive a bus with one on the side.

And up till now we were doing so in a fairly civiised manner.

So what on earth YOU're going on about I really do not know. :confused:

[Pete]

I heard a radio interview with a spokesperson responsible for these adverts and they are in response to evangelical messages on buses.

She said these messages said that non-believers will "burn in hell". No doubt some people will view that as offensive but if you don't believe in god or the afterlife how can you take offence?

It all smacks of a stupid, ill-informed publicity stunt and anyone who believes in any sort of god has every right not to work under these conditions.

[Sir David Gray]

Definitely, or just probably?

I should have said, in my opinion. Clearly, like any religious related discussion, I can't prove what I'm saying but as far as i'm concerned, the Christian God and the Muslim Allah, are not the same thing.


So why is it ok for Christians to publicise their message on public transport?

Nobody can be 100% sure there is no God, thats why probably had to be used.

I don't think any such material should be plastered on the side of public transport.

Obviously no-one can be 100% certain that God doesn't exist, which is exactly the point i'm trying to make. I don't see the point in this campaign, I don't understand what they're hoping to achieve by displaying these advertisements. They're not just advertising the British Humanist Association, they must have been aware that this campaign would also cause a great deal of annoyance amongst religious people, travelling on these buses.

There are surely other, less controversial ways of displaying your opinions and your organisation, than plastering hundreds of buses with these slogans.

[--------]

I should have said, in my opinion. Clearly, like any religious related discussion, I can't prove what I'm saying but as far as i'm concerned, the Christian God and the Muslim Allah, are not the same thing.

That is true.

The problem is how to disagree on points of doctrine without either disrespecting one another or resortuing to abuse or ridicule.

I have to admit I find it very hard to take these things seriously. I like a good discussion (argument, even!), but the wording of those things is just silly.


I don't think any such material should be plastered on the side of public transport.

Obviously no-one can be 100% certain that God doesn't exist, which is exactly the point i'm trying to make. I don't see the point in this campaign, I don't understand what they're hoping to achieve by displaying these advertisements. They're not just advertising the British Humanist Association, they must have been aware that this campaign would also cause a great deal of annoyance amongst religious people, travelling on these buses.

There are surely other, less controversial ways of displaying your opinions and your organisation, than plastering hundreds of buses with these slogans.


You either have to allow all religious groups to advertise, or none, I think.

But if you allow everyone to post ads, does that include the loony-toons? And how do you define the loony-toons?

And if you allow none, what happens at a General Election when the Natural Law Party comes along? Or a Christian Rights Party? Or a Muslim party?

And am I allowed to post notices in the local shops about the Parish Church's Easter Services?

[GlesgaeHibby]

I should have said, in my opinion. Clearly, like any religious related discussion, I can't prove what I'm saying but as far as i'm concerned, the Christian God and the Muslim Allah, are not the same thing.



I don't think any such material should be plastered on the side of public transport.

Obviously no-one can be 100% certain that God doesn't exist, which is exactly the point i'm trying to make. I don't see the point in this campaign, I don't understand what they're hoping to achieve by displaying these advertisements. They're not just advertising the British Humanist Association, they must have been aware that this campaign would also cause a great deal of annoyance amongst religious people, travelling on these buses.

There are surely other, less controversial ways of displaying your opinions and your organisation, than plastering hundreds of buses with these slogans.

I really don't see the controversy in this campaign. It is merely an opinion that shouldn't cause offence I'm all for freedom of speech as long as it doesn't offend and TBH I was more annoyed at the advert for the movie Zak and Kiri Make a Porno(or whatever the nonsense was called) than any religious message or atheist message.

If this message offends anybody, they need to take a serious look at themselves.

[Steve-O]

There is no god. I am 100% certain of it.

[Woody1985]

No, they're not.

Whilst I respect the right of Atheists to hold their beliefs, I don't think it's right that such a campaign is made on public transport.

What are they trying to prove by making such a statement? Obviously, going by the wording of it, even the Atheists aren't convinced that God doesn't exist.

The campaign is totally pointless, apart from the fact that it serves to upset and annoy people.

Good on the bus driver for standing up for his beliefs.

Why should religious groups be able to then? Just because someone wrote a few stories a couple of thousand years ago that makes it okay?

Of course, that's assuming you're saying that other religious advertisements should be allowed.

This country should ban all religious schools and stop dividing people with beliefs that there may be a big man in the sky who made everything.

Who made God?

[Woody1985]

There is no god. I am 100% certain of it.

I hope that they find life on Mars. Who made Mars? One of Gods mates in some kind of create your own world art class. :LOL:

[BEEJ]

If he believes God does exist then whats his problem with other people expressing a view that he doesn't? If atheists refused to drive buses with a christian message on them (as Is often seen in London) then there could be hundreds of drivers refusing to drive buses and the situation would be crazy.
Perhaps they do but we don't hear about it. :wink:

Point is that had this been an advertising campaign that was quite pointedly aimed at Islam and a moslem driver had refused to drive the bus, you wouldn't have thought twice about it. In fact it wouldn't even have made the news.

Because that's what we do in the UK. We go to great lengths to accommodate all the 'minority' faiths (and to a point, rightly so). But we scowl a bit when someone shows a bit of passion in the one that is meant to be our own.

[BEEJ]

Actually, we're discussing the ads run by some atheist group saying "There probably is no God..." and the bus driver who refused to drive a bus with one on the side.

You know, up until this advertising campaign, I always thought that atheists were the only ones who really knew where they were at. My understanding of atheism was that it was based on the foundational belief that God did not exist. Therefore atheists exercised more faith than those of a religious persuasion, who invariably go through periods of doubt at some stage.

Agnostics are the ones who aren't entirely sure. But the atheists like Professor Dawkins are convinced............ aren't they?

'There probably is no God.....'. :tee hee:

[--------]

There is no god. I am 100% certain of it.


Prove it. :devil:

If you can't, then that's your BELIEF, and no more valid than anyone else's belief.

[GlesgaeHibby]

Prove it. :devil:

If you can't, then that's your BELIEF, and no more valid than anyone else's belief.

Whilst we can't directly prove that God doesn't exist, we can infer that it is highly unlikely based on Bible inaccuracies;

1. Young Earth/Universe is not true as the Bible depicts. Evidence is massive, ranging from Cosmic Microwave background radiation, Radiometric dating on Earth, the mere fact that we receive light from stars that are millions of light years away.

2. Genesis claims that the Earth was created before the stars. This is simply crazy.

3. Genesis 1 tells us God made Adam and Eve at the same time, but yet Genesis 2 tells us God made Eve because Adam got lonely.

4. Noah's Ark is impossible. Every species lived within walking distance of Noah's house?!

I could go further, but based on evidence and contradictions in the Bible it makes logical sense to reject the Bible and the God of the Bible.

[--------]

Whilst we can't directly prove that God doesn't exist, we can infer that it is highly unlikely based on Bible inaccuracies;

1. Young Earth/Universe is not true as the Bible depicts. Evidence is massive, ranging from Cosmic Microwave background radiation, Radiometric dating on Earth, the mere fact that we receive light from stars that are millions of light years away.

2. Genesis claims that the Earth was created before the stars. This is simply crazy.

3. Genesis 1 tells us God made Adam and Eve at the same time, but yet Genesis 2 tells us God made Eve because Adam got lonely.

4. Noah's Ark is impossible. Every species lived within walking distance of Noah's house?!

I could go further, but based on evidence and contradictions in the Bible it makes logical sense to reject the Bible and the God of the Bible.


That's not what I asked.

I asked for a proof that God - any God - doesn't exist.

The opening chapters of Genesis may or may not be inconsistent - that's another argument.

All I'm asking for is a solid, connected proof that there is no God.

[GlesgaeHibby]

That's not what I asked.

I asked for a proof that God - any God - doesn't exist.

The opening chapters of Genesis may or may not be inconsistent - that's another argument.

All I'm asking for is a solid, connected proof that there is no God.

I can't prove that, but we can prove that it is highly unlikely for any religious God worshipped by people on Earth to exist based on inaccuracies in each religious text/doctrine.

[--------]

I can't prove that, but we can prove that it is highly unlikely for any religious God worshipped by people on Earth to exist based on inaccuracies in each religious text/doctrine.



We're back to "probably", mate. :wink:

[hibsdaft]

Actually, we're discussing the ads run by some atheist group saying "There probably is no God..." and the bus driver who refused to drive a bus with one on the side.

i know, and i'm saying that it would be simpler if these were banned along with the advertising of any other beliefs etc.

there are plenty other ways expressing ideas etc other than sticking them in peoples faces in this sort of way.

[Austinho]

I think he's quite within his rights to refuse to drive it. He's obviously a religious man and his faith is important to him so why should he be forced to effectively go against his own beliefs and advertise God's non existance by his own employers?

Can you imagine the outrage if a Muslim driver was diciplined for refusing to drive a bus that claimed Allah didn't exist?

If someone believed the Earth was flat, and refused to drive a bus because they were offended by a picture of a globe on the side of the bus, they would be labelled a lunatic.

[--------]

If someone believed the Earth was flat, and refused to drive a bus because they were offended by a picture of a globe on the side of the bus, they would be labelled a lunatic.



Yes, but the shape of the earth has been proven mathematically and experientially for a very long time now.

Are you saying that all religious believers are insane? :cool2:

[GlesgaeHibby]

Yes, but the shape of the earth has been proven mathematically and experientially for a very long time now.

Are you saying that all religious believers are insane? :cool2:

After great opposition from the church, who also put Gallileo under house arrest for daring to test ideas and advance knowledge.

[--------]

After great opposition from the church, who also put Gallileo under house arrest for daring to test ideas and advance knowledge.


Right. First, the Greek astronomer and geographer Ptolemy (Claudius Ptolemaeus) who lived AD 83-168 wrote his Geographica and drew his maps on the assumption that the world was round. Ptolemy's Geographica was being reprinted as early as the mid-15th century, 150 years before Galileo.

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ptolemy. Check the section "Geography" - no one can draw maps based on degrees of longtitude and latitude unless they're working on the assumption that the earth is round.

In fact, the idea that the medieval Church believed that the earth was flat is a fallacy. The globularity of the earth was taken for granted. The question was, did the earth go round the sun, or the sun go round the earth? Which was the wuestion over which Galileo go into trouble with the Church.

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_earth.

Galileo wasn't even the first to advance the theory - Copernicus completed his De revolutionibus orbium coelestium (On the Revolutions of the Celestial Spheres) in the early 1540s.

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolaus_Copernicus. The Catholic Church only got round to banning the book and proscribing the teachings 60-odd years later. The Reformed Churches generally had no problem with it. It's also fair to say that the more conservative section of the scientific commnity of the day were no happier with Copernicus or Galileo than the Catholic Church was.

We really don't like a nuisance like Copernicus or Galileo asking awkward questions and disturbing our comfortable, settled prejudices, do we? :wink:

[Sir David Gray]

I really don't see the controversy in this campaign. It is merely an opinion that shouldn't cause offence I'm all for freedom of speech as long as it doesn't offend and TBH I was more annoyed at the advert for the movie Zak and Kiri Make a Porno(or whatever the nonsense was called) than any religious message or atheist message.

If this message offends anybody, they need to take a serious look at themselves.

Whilst I would not say I am offended by these adverts (I think they're ridiculous) it's implying that people who believe in God are unable to enjoy their life, which is just absolute nonsense.


Why should religious groups be able to then? Just because someone wrote a few stories a couple of thousand years ago that makes it okay?

Of course, that's assuming you're saying that other religious advertisements should be allowed.

This country should ban all religious schools and stop dividing people with beliefs that there may be a big man in the sky who made everything.

Who made God?

What I am saying is, I think people should be able to publicly advertise religious/atheist beliefs, just not on the side of public transport.

Religious schools are a completely different issue, but it is something that I agree with you about.

Whilst I strongly believe in religion being taught in schools, I don't believe in faith specific schools. Children should be taught together, regardless of religious beliefs.

[GlesgaeHibby]

Whilst I would not say I am offended by these adverts (I think they're ridiculous) it's implying that people who believe in God are unable to enjoy their life, which is just absolute nonsense.



What I am saying is, I think people should be able to publicly advertise religious/atheist beliefs, just not on the side of public transport.

Religious schools are a completely different issue, but it is something that I agree with you about.

Whilst I strongly believe in religion being taught in schools, I don't believe in faith specific schools. Children should be taught together, regardless of religious beliefs.

:confused: So are billboards ok but buses not?

What do you mean by religion being taught? Children being taught about the various world religions and their belief systems, or a specific religion being preached?

[Sir David Gray]

:confused: So are billboards ok but buses not?

What do you mean by religion being taught? Children being taught about the various world religions and their belief systems, or a specific religion being preached?

Billboards are fine, I don't have an issue with Atheist signs on a billboard, as you just walk/drive past it.

In the case of public transport, as has been seen in this case, religious people drive/travel on the transport that is displaying these slogans.

I think billboards and public transport are very different.

In the case of religion being taught at school. I think there is a place for every major world religion to be taught, in some form or another, at school. But I do think Christianity should be the main one.

[hibsdaft]

Billboards are fine, I don't have an issue with Atheist signs on a billboard, as you just walk/drive past it.

In the case of public transport, as has been seen in this case, religious people drive/travel on the transport that is displaying these slogans.

I think billboards and public transport are very different.

coming from this one from the opposite point of view altogether, but totally agree with this :agree::agree:

i would go further mind you and ban them all on billboards too, but then again i would quite happily ban billboards full stop :greengrin

[GlesgaeHibby]

Billboards are fine, I don't have an issue with Atheist signs on a billboard, as you just walk/drive past it.

In the case of public transport, as has been seen in this case, religious people drive/travel on the transport that is displaying these slogans.

I think billboards and public transport are very different.

In the case of religion being taught at school. I think there is a place for every major world religion to be taught, in some form or another, at school. But I do think Christianity should be the main one.

Your argument here falls apart very easily. You say that it is unfair on public transport because a religious driver might be offended at having to drive a bus with an atheist slogan. Yet, what if the guy putting up the billboard poster is religious and is putting up an atheist slogan. You either ban it outright or not at all. Banning it would outright would be IMO dangerous as you are silencing free speech.

Christianity should be the main religion taught at schools, in what way? Surely in an RE class you should spend a large amount of time on all the major religions(Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism), and less time on the smaller ones.

[BEEJ]

Christianity should be the main religion taught at schools, in what way? Surely in an RE class you should spend a large amount of time on all the major religions(Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism), and less time on the smaller ones.
Presumably on the out-dated notion that the UK is still a 'Christian' nation.

Do you think for a second that in the nations of the world where, for example, Islam is the primary faith, that Christianity is given any airtime in their schools, never mind equal billing?

However, that argument belongs to a bygone era when the UK might have considered itself as Christian. Perhaps then 'secularism' should be given the most time in our RE curriculum, with equal time given to 'all other belief systems'. :wink:

[Hibrandenburg]

Can someone tell me why some people of different religions feel the need to shove it in your face.

Could it be that these religions require their followers to be missionaries? :dunno:

[GlesgaeHibby]

Presumably on the out-dated notion that the UK is still a 'Christian' nation.

Do you think for a second that in the nations of the world where, for example, Islam is the primary faith, that Christianity is given any airtime in their schools, never mind equal billing?

However, that argument belongs to a bygone era when the UK might have considered itself as Christian. Perhaps then 'secularism' should be given the most time in our RE curriculum, with equal time given to 'all other belief systems'. :wink:

That probably is an outdated notion given the fact that the majority of the population aren't christians. I agree that Christianity is given little if any airtime in Islam countries, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be teaching kids about all faiths.

[Greentinted]

As an aside, would anyone here object to driving a bus (if indeed you were a bus driver - complete with swagger, fat erse and chewing gum) if it had something like "Hearts are fantasic - Believe!!!" emblazoned on the side?

[Hibrandenburg]

As an aside, would anyone here object to driving a bus (if indeed you were a bus driver - complete with swagger, fat erse and chewing gum) if it had something like "Hearts are fantasic - Believe!!!" emblazoned on the side?

:greengrin With that slogan? Gladly :agree:

Especially if it was the no 70 Bus

[Sir David Gray]

Your argument here falls apart very easily. You say that it is unfair on public transport because a religious driver might be offended at having to drive a bus with an atheist slogan. Yet, what if the guy putting up the billboard poster is religious and is putting up an atheist slogan. You either ban it outright or not at all. Banning it would outright would be IMO dangerous as you are silencing free speech.

Christianity should be the main religion taught at schools, in what way? Surely in an RE class you should spend a large amount of time on all the major religions(Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism), and less time on the smaller ones.

Fair enough, if it was a choice between banning them all or allowing them all, I would allow them all, as I strongly believe in freedom of speech. Although I do think there is a time and a place for displaying freedom of speech.

RE classes SHOULD spend a large amount of time on all the major religions, but I believe in Britain returning to Christian morals and values, and because of that, I think Christianity should take precedence over all other religions.

I'm well aware that the UK is no longer a "Christian country". We probably live in one of the most un-Christian societies in the world, out of all the countries that have a majority Christian population.

[Steve-O]

Prove it. :devil:

If you can't, then that's your BELIEF, and no more valid than anyone else's belief.

There is more proof that there is no god than there is that god exists.

No non-believer is ever going to 'win' an argument with someone who does believe so it is pointless going on.

The whole notion of god / jesus etc etc is just completely bizarre to me. I have never, and will never, understand why people choose to subscribe to any of it.

But, that's just my opinion I guess.

[Steve-O]

http://www.stuff.co.nz/4823257a34.html

[GlesgaeHibby]

Fair enough, if it was a choice between banning them all or allowing them all, I would allow them all, as I strongly believe in freedom of speech. Although I do think there is a time and a place for displaying freedom of speech.

RE classes SHOULD spend a large amount of time on all the major religions, but I believe in Britain returning to Christian morals and values, and because of that, I think Christianity should take precedence over all other religions.

I'm well aware that the UK is no longer a "Christian country". We probably live in one of the most un-Christian societies in the world, out of all the countries that have a majority Christian population.

The Bible is an awful moral guidebook. On one hand it tells you to love one another and on the other it tells you to stone people to death. You can't simply pick and choose the good bits.

The 2001 Census stated that 72% of the population are Christian. That figure is clearly nonsensical as church attendances are really low these days, and from general experience in life Christians are a minority now, with the majority of British people being atheist/agnostic. As such why should we subscribed to out dated barbaric Christian values?

[Sergio sledge]

I really don't see the controversy in this campaign. It is merely an opinion that shouldn't cause offence I'm all for freedom of speech as long as it doesn't offend and TBH I was more annoyed at the advert for the movie Zak and Kiri Make a Porno(or whatever the nonsense was called) than any religious message or atheist message.

If this message offends anybody, they need to take a serious look at themselves.

:agree: I actually find the advert pretty funny, that is coming from someone who is a Christian. It has encouraged debate, and engaged people in that debate who perhaps wouldn't have thought about it before. The only thing disappointing is the inference that people who do believe in God worry all the time and cant enjoy themselves, but I suppose this is the impression that some "religious" people give out.


If someone believed the Earth was flat, and refused to drive a bus because they were offended by a picture of a globe on the side of the bus, they would be labelled a lunatic.

The earth is flat. :wink:


The 2001 Census stated that 72% of the population are Christian. That figure is clearly nonsensical as church attendances are really low these days, and from general experience in life Christians are a minority now, with the majority of British people being atheist/agnostic. As such why should we subscribed to out dated barbaric Christian values?

Where did the census get their figures from?

These figures are clearly not "nonsensical," because they come from people answering the question. The question is voluntary, and there is the option for "No religion." 14.6% of people in England answered "no religion." 7.7% chose not to answer the question.

This says to me, that the vast majority of people in the country still believe in some sort of God, and would class themselves as having a Christian basis. Whether they attend church or not, if they didn't class themselves as "Christian," and didn't believe in God, then they would have answered "no religion" or refused to answer. With respect, I'd rather take this an an indicator of the beliefs of the population, than your life experience. :greengrin

[GlesgaeHibby]

Where did the census get their figures from?

These figures are clearly not "nonsensical," because they come from people answering the question. The question is voluntary, and there is the option for "No religion." 14.6% of people in England answered "no religion." 7.7% chose not to answer the question.

This says to me, that the vast majority of people in the country still believe in some sort of God, and would class themselves as having a Christian basis. Whether they attend church or not, if they didn't class themselves as "Christian," and didn't believe in God, then they would have answered "no religion" or refused to answer. With respect, I'd rather take this an an indicator of the beliefs of the population, than your life experience. :greengrin

When I used to go to church years ago the attendance wasn't that large for the size of town. My hometown has a population of roughly 5000, now going by the census we'd expect to see 3600 of these people regularly attending church(72%). You were lucky if 300 regularly attended. I have no idea why so many people put down that they were religious on the census in 2001. A more recent BSA survey showed the 45.8% of the UK population had no religion, compared to 47.6% of christian denominations.

[BEEJ]

The Bible is an awful moral guidebook. On one hand it tells you to love one another and on the other it tells you to stone people to death. You can't simply pick and choose the good bits.
I'm pretty sure that wherever that biblical reference is, you're taking it way out of context. :wink: "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone etc etc."


The 2001 Census stated that 72% of the population are Christian. That figure is clearly nonsensical as church attendances are really low these days, ...
People would have answered this on the basis of their christening / baptism as a child regardless of whether or not they still attended church at the time of the census.

[Sergio sledge]

When I used to go to church years ago the attendance wasn't that large for the size of town. My hometown has a population of roughly 5000, now going by the census we'd expect to see 3600 of these people regularly attending church(72%). You were lucky if 300 regularly attended. I have no idea why so many people put down that they were religious on the census in 2001. A more recent BSA survey showed the 45.8% of the UK population had no religion, compared to 47.6% of christian denominations.

The census doesn't talk about regular attendees or practising Christians though. It merely asks if the people have a religion. Obviously enough of the people in the census feel that they class themselves as Christians to answer that way.

If your stats about the BSA Survey are true, then that is a huge swing from the 2001 census to 2006. Going from Circa 9 million people with no religion to Circa 27 million in 2006 is huge.

I'd still be more inclined to believe the census rather than a random survey, although I do feel the question probably isn't worded well. Perhaps it might be better to go out and ask how many people actually believe in a deity/omnipotent being, which would give a better picture of where the country lies in terms of belief.

Back to the OP (:greengrin) I don't see why this is even a news story. The guy went to his employers and asked if he would be allowed to not drive any buses with this slogan on the side if possible. His employers agreed that would be ok, and that they would try to organise it for him. He agreed to drive the bus if there was no alternative. Sounds like both sides were reasonable and fair and came to the correct decision. Don't see the need for it to be spread over the news.

[GlesgaeHibby]

The census doesn't talk about regular attendees or practising Christians though. It merely asks if the people have a religion. Obviously enough of the people in the census feel that they class themselves as Christians to answer that way.

If your stats about the BSA Survey are true, then that is a huge swing from the 2001 census to 2006. Going from Circa 9 million people with no religion to Circa 27 million in 2006 is huge.

I'd still be more inclined to believe the census rather than a random survey, although I do feel the question probably isn't worded well. Perhaps it might be better to go out and ask how many people actually believe in a deity/omnipotent being, which would give a better picture of where the country lies in terms of belief.

Back to the OP (:greengrin) I don't see why this is even a news story. The guy went to his employers and asked if he would be allowed to not drive any buses with this slogan on the side if possible. His employers agreed that would be ok, and that they would try to organise it for him. He agreed to drive the bus if there was no alternative. Sounds like both sides were reasonable and fair and came to the correct decision. Don't see the need for it to be spread over the news.

How can you be a non practicing Christian? Being a Christian involves accepting Jesus as your saviour and living as a Christian.

[Sergio sledge]

How can you be a non practicing Christian? Being a Christian involves accepting Jesus as your saviour and living as a Christian.

Yes it does, but there are many people who wouldn't define it this way. Beej explained it better than I can:

"People would have answered this on the basis of their christening / baptism as a child regardless of whether or not they still attended church at the time of the census."

There are also those who attend church once a year (Christmas) who would put "Christian" on the census.

Thats what I meant, probably didn't phrase it very well though. :greengrin

[SlickShoes]

Its says 'probably' because its not been proven, like wise no one can prove that god exists no matter how much someone wants to believe it there is NO proof.

[GlesgaeHibby]

Yes it does, but there are many people who wouldn't define it this way. Beej explained it better than I can:

"People would have answered this on the basis of their christening / baptism as a child regardless of whether or not they still attended church at the time of the census."

There are also those who attend church once a year (Christmas) who would put "Christian" on the census.

Thats what I meant, probably didn't phrase it very well though. :greengrin

Surely the way the Bible defines it, as I outlined is the correct way?

As BEEJ said about the census, and you agree on that you can surely see that the census is inaccurate?

[Sergio sledge]

Surely the way the Bible defines it, as I outlined is the correct way?

Yes, but some people don't define it the correct way.


As BEEJ said about the census, and you agree on that you can surely see that the census is inaccurate?

The census is inaccurate in the sense that it doesn't distinguish between "born again" Christians, and "nominal" Christians, but it does give a fair representation of peoples beliefs in a broad sense. Why would people put Christian down as their religion if they had no belief of any sort in the Christian God, no matter how weak or vague their belief is. This country is still predominantly a "Christian" country, based on a moral and legal code which is broadly based on "Christian" teachings, and born out of "Christian" heritage.

The majority of the country would still put "Christian" down as their religion, no matter how much they go to church, live by the Bible or believe in Jesus as their personal Saviour. IMHO, and judging by the results from the census, the majority of the country still believe in some sort of overseeing God whether it be the God of the Bible, Allah, or some other deity. I don't think that your assertion that the majority of the country are atheists is accurate. Certainly "born again" Christians are a minority now in terms of population as a whole, although of all people who are adherers/believers/regular practiser's of religion, "born again" Christians would probably be the majority group compared to Catholics, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindu's, etc.

Am I making sense, or am I just tying myself in knots here? :greengrin

[Woody1985]

Who made god?

[Mon Dieu4]

Who made god?

Mr & Mrs Sauzee :wink:

[BS44]

Thank God i'm an aetheist.

[Andy74]

There is more proof that there is no god than there is that god exists.

No non-believer is ever going to 'win' an argument with someone who does believe so it is pointless going on.

The whole notion of god / jesus etc etc is just completely bizarre to me. I have never, and will never, understand why people choose to subscribe to any of it.

But, that's just my opinion I guess.

There is not one single shred of any evidence whatsoever that a God exists. None at all.

Unitl proved otherwise it's safe to say there's no God. People get found guilty or not on the balance of probabilities. If there was no evidence at all on one side it would be as close to proof as you can get.

Do you need to use the word probably if you can't prove something? I don't think so if no one can provide one single bit of evidence that something exists.

It's all made up, people made things like this up to explain certain natural phenomena and to give menaing to things. You can see it all over the world. The sooner religious types accept this simple fact the better for all of us.

[ancienthibby]

There is not one single shred of any evidence whatsoever that a God exists. None at all.

Unitl proved otherwise it's safe to say there's no God. People get found guilty or not on the balance of probabilities. If there was no evidence at all on one side it would be as close to proof as you can get.

Do you need to use the word probably if you can't prove something? I don't think so if no one can provide one single bit of evidence that something exists.

It's all made up, people made things like this up to explain certain natural phenomena and to give menaing to things. You can see it all over the world. The sooner religious types accept this simple fact the better for all of us.

Andy,

The proof is given in Scripture through all the witnesses who met with Jesus after his resurrection. You might choose not to belief that as many millions of people do, but the proof resides in the Scriptures.

Likewise there are many many hundreds of millions of people across the globe who choose to believe in the inerrancy of Scripture and who, unlike yourself and many millions of others, do not require proof of God's existence, to believe in Him!

This is called faith and it is what God asks his followers to have. It seems to me that there would be no point in having a 'god' who was visible and concrete, unless yours 'goda' are the bank balance, the house, the car, the share portfolio, etc. The God of Scripture gives to 'those who, not seeing, yet believe' and you will find countless millions who have no need of 'this world's proof' since they have experienced that very thing in their own lives.

One man who did was Elijah and here's what said about him:

A Still Small Voice


And he [the Lord] said, Go forth, and stand upon the mount before the Lord. And, behold, the Lord passed by, and a great and strong wind rent the mountains, and brake in pieces the rocks before the Lord; but the Lord was not in the wind: and after the wind and earthquake; but the Lord was not in the earthquake:
And after the earthquake a fire; but the Lord was not in the fire: and after the fire a still small voice.

-- I Kings 19: 11-12 (KJV)



I believe that it is this still small voice that so many people 'pass up on'. Since Scripture says that the 'spirit of God' is in all His children (and we are all made in His Likeness) it is there throughout our lives, sometimes louder, sometimes quieter (as with Elijah) but always there.

Be ready!

[Sir David Gray]

The Bible is an awful moral guidebook. On one hand it tells you to love one another and on the other it tells you to stone people to death. You can't simply pick and choose the good bits.

The 2001 Census stated that 72% of the population are Christian. That figure is clearly nonsensical as church attendances are really low these days, and from general experience in life Christians are a minority now, with the majority of British people being atheist/agnostic. As such why should we subscribed to out dated barbaric Christian values?

You're right, there are references to Capital Punishment in the Bible and conflicting messages elsewhere in it. Many Christians choose their own views on this particular issue. Even although a lot of my opinions are in line with a lot of other Conservative Christians (particularly on social issues), I am personally against Capital Punishment.

I think it's more to do with individual interpretation, rather than simply "picking and choosing the good bits".

As for subscribing to "barbaric" Christian values, I'm not advocating the use of barbaric punishments against people. When I talk of Britain going back to Christian values, i'm not talking about stoning to death atheists, homosexuals and adulterers. I'm talking about educating our children about things like respect, the importance of family and teaching the importance of taking responsibility for your actions.

We have a large breakdown in those areas in particular and I think it would be good for us to really hit home those sorts of values to our young people.


Its says 'probably' because its not been proven, like wise no one can prove that god exists no matter how much someone wants to believe it there is NO proof.

Of course there's no proof, that's why it is called "faith".

However, there's no less proof about the existence of God than there is about the non-existence of God. In fact, you could claim that there's more proof that God exists than proof that He doesn't. There are lots of people who talk about interacting with God and having experiences that seemed supernatural.

Atheists can't say that they have been told that God definitely doesn't exist.


Thank God i'm an aetheist.

I take it this is an ironic sort of post. If not, that has to be one of the most unintentionally hilarious things i've ever read! :greengrin


There is not one single shred of any evidence whatsoever that a God exists. None at all.

Unitl proved otherwise it's safe to say there's no God. People get found guilty or not on the balance of probabilities. If there was no evidence at all on one side it would be as close to proof as you can get.

Do you need to use the word probably if you can't prove something? I don't think so if no one can provide one single bit of evidence that something exists.

It's all made up, people made things like this up to explain certain natural phenomena and to give menaing to things. You can see it all over the world. The sooner religious types accept this simple fact the better for all of us.

Since you're so certain that God doesn't exist and talk about how people can't prove God exists, so therefore it must all be made up, why don't you provide us with some solid proof that God doesn't exist.

No-one can prove that God doesn't exist, so from my point of view, it's safe to say that God does exist.

Your argument, on this particular issue, works both ways.

This whole argument is one that has been going on for centuries and will continue to go on, without any definitive answer because no-one can PROVE their argument, either way.

It's either something you believe in, or something you don't.

[GlesgaeHibby]

You're right, there are references to Capital Punishment in the Bible and conflicting messages elsewhere in it. Many Christians choose their own views on this particular issue. Even although a lot of my opinions are in line with a lot of other Conservative Christians (particularly on social issues), I am personally against Capital Punishment.

I think it's more to do with individual interpretation, rather than simply "picking and choosing the good bits".

As for subscribing to "barbaric" Christian values, I'm not advocating the use of barbaric punishments against people. When I talk of Britain going back to Christian values, i'm not talking about stoning to death atheists, homosexuals and adulterers. I'm talking about educating our children about things like respect, the importance of family and teaching the importance of taking responsibility for your actions.

We have a large breakdown in those areas in particular and I think it would be good for us to really hit home those sorts of values to our young people.



Of course there's no proof, that's why it is called "faith".

However, there's no less proof about the existence of God than there is about the non-existence of God. In fact, you could claim that there's more proof that God exists than proof that He doesn't. There are lots of people who talk about interacting with God and having experiences that seemed supernatural.

Atheists can't say that they have been told that God definitely doesn't exist.



I take it this is an ironic sort of post. If not, that has to be one of the most unintentionally hilarious things i've ever read! :greengrin



Since you're so certain that God doesn't exist and talk about how people can't prove God exists, so therefore it must all be made up, why don't you provide us with some solid proof that God doesn't exist.

No-one can prove that God doesn't exist, so from my point of view, it's safe to say that God does exist.

Your argument, on this particular issue, works both ways.

This whole argument is one that has been going on for centuries and will continue to go on, without any definitive answer because no-one can PROVE their argument, either way.

It's either something you believe in, or something you don't.

I don't see how you can interpret as you say, for instance a clear instruction to stone to death gays, in a book that is supposedly the word of God. How else can you interpret that?

I agree totally with you on respect, sanctity of marriage, family importance etc it is because of a breakdown of these values that society is the way it is.

"No-one can prove that God doesn't exist, so from my point of view, it's safe to say that God does exist."

Nobody can prove that a teapot isn't orbiting the sun just now, is it safe to assume that it also exists? Thats an incredibly flawed logic. I would never say that I totally believe no God exists, but I believe due to empirical evidence that contradicts all the main holy books that none of the Gods we know of are true.

[Hibrandenburg]

How can you be a non practicing Christian? Being a Christian involves accepting Jesus as your saviour and living as a Christian.

You can believe in God/Christ without believing in the church. I'm sure that Jesus would be wobbling on his cross if he knew what the church got up to after he'd gone.

[BEEJ]

There is not one single shred of any evidence whatsoever that a God exists. None at all.

Unitl proved otherwise it's safe to say there's no God. People get found guilty or not on the balance of probabilities. If there was no evidence at all on one side it would be as close to proof as you can get.

Do you need to use the word probably if you can't prove something? I don't think so if no one can provide one single bit of evidence that something exists.

It's all made up, people made things like this up to explain certain natural phenomena and to give menaing to things. You can see it all over the world. The sooner religious types accept this simple fact the better for all of us.
Well at least that sounds like the official doctrine of the atheist 'church'. Its absolute; its clinical; its determined; its convinced. No sense of 'probability' in there at all.

How on earth they snuck that word into that advert, beats me! :greengrin

[Sir David Gray]

I don't see how you can interpret as you say, for instance a clear instruction to stone to death gays, in a book that is supposedly the word of God. How else can you interpret that?

I agree totally with you on respect, sanctity of marriage, family importance etc it is because of a breakdown of these values that society is the way it is.

"No-one can prove that God doesn't exist, so from my point of view, it's safe to say that God does exist."

Nobody can prove that a teapot isn't orbiting the sun just now, is it safe to assume that it also exists? Thats an incredibly flawed logic. I would never say that I totally believe no God exists, but I believe due to empirical evidence that contradicts all the main holy books that none of the Gods we know of are true.

The references to stoning people to death are mainly found in the Old Testament (i.e. pre-Jesus). Now I know this is part of the Bible and it's not to be disregarded but a lot of Christians base their moral views on the teachings of Jesus (i.e. what's in the New Testament) which is where you'll find the references to "loving one another" that you spoke about.

I know what you're saying about the teapot, but I just made that statement to counter the claim that Andy74 made, which was that because no-one can prove that God exists, it's safe to say that God doesn't exist.


You can believe in God/Christ without believing in the church. I'm sure that Jesus would be wobbling on his cross if he knew what the church got up to after he'd gone.

I pretty much agree with that. A lot of people think that as long as they turn up at Church every Sunday, it makes them a Christian, which is not the case.

[Andy74]

Andy,

The proof is given in Scripture through all the witnesses who met with Jesus after his resurrection. You might choose not to belief that as many millions of people do, but the proof resides in the Scriptures.

Likewise there are many many hundreds of millions of people across the globe who choose to believe in the inerrancy of Scripture and who, unlike yourself and many millions of others, do not require proof of God's existence, to believe in Him!

This is called faith and it is what God asks his followers to have. It seems to me that there would be no point in having a 'god' who was visible and concrete, unless yours 'goda' are the bank balance, the house, the car, the share portfolio, etc. The God of Scripture gives to 'those who, not seeing, yet believe' and you will find countless millions who have no need of 'this world's proof' since they have experienced that very thing in their own lives.

One man who did was Elijah and here's what said about him:

A Still Small Voice


And he [the Lord] said, Go forth, and stand upon the mount before the Lord. And, behold, the Lord passed by, and a great and strong wind rent the mountains, and brake in pieces the rocks before the Lord; but the Lord was not in the wind: and after the wind and earthquake; but the Lord was not in the earthquake:
And after the earthquake a fire; but the Lord was not in the fire: and after the fire a still small voice.

-- I Kings 19: 11-12 (KJV)



I believe that it is this still small voice that so many people 'pass up on'. Since Scripture says that the 'spirit of God' is in all His children (and we are all made in His Likeness) it is there throughout our lives, sometimes louder, sometimes quieter (as with Elijah) but always there.

Be ready!







You do know the history of the gospels and the new testament in general don't you?

Written by people who were not there at the time, Mathew, Mark, Luke and John lived quire some time after Jesus.

They were also hand picked by committee from a number of texts to meet poliitcal means at the time.

I find it a shame that sheer politicism from centuries ago is being relied on these days to give people direction in their life.

[Andy74]

You're right, there are references to Capital Punishment in the Bible and conflicting messages elsewhere in it. Many Christians choose their own views on this particular issue. Even although a lot of my opinions are in line with a lot of other Conservative Christians (particularly on social issues), I am personally against Capital Punishment.

I think it's more to do with individual interpretation, rather than simply "picking and choosing the good bits".

As for subscribing to "barbaric" Christian values, I'm not advocating the use of barbaric punishments against people. When I talk of Britain going back to Christian values, i'm not talking about stoning to death atheists, homosexuals and adulterers. I'm talking about educating our children about things like respect, the importance of family and teaching the importance of taking responsibility for your actions.

We have a large breakdown in those areas in particular and I think it would be good for us to really hit home those sorts of values to our young people.



Of course there's no proof, that's why it is called "faith".

However, there's no less proof about the existence of God than there is about the non-existence of God. In fact, you could claim that there's more proof that God exists than proof that He doesn't. There are lots of people who talk about interacting with God and having experiences that seemed supernatural.

Atheists can't say that they have been told that God definitely doesn't exist.



I take it this is an ironic sort of post. If not, that has to be one of the most unintentionally hilarious things i've ever read! :greengrin



Since you're so certain that God doesn't exist and talk about how people can't prove God exists, so therefore it must all be made up, why don't you provide us with some solid proof that God doesn't exist.

No-one can prove that God doesn't exist, so from my point of view, it's safe to say that God does exist.

Your argument, on this particular issue, works both ways.

This whole argument is one that has been going on for centuries and will continue to go on, without any definitive answer because no-one can PROVE their argument, either way.

It's either something you believe in, or something you don't.

The proof that he doesn't is in anyhting we can see and prove from science and the fact that God has never been seen, heard or felt.

I could make up all sorts of things that you would be unable to prove beyond all doubt are incorrect, it doeasn't mean they are therefore correct.

The balance of probablilites isn't even tested a litle bit by religion, it would be cucked out due to being no case to answer at all, never mind getting as far as evidence. There is no evidence.

[BEEJ]

You do know the history of the gospels and the new testament in general don't you?

Written by people who were not there at the time, Mathew, Mark, Luke and John lived quire some time after Jesus.

Do you?

I believe you'll find that both Matthew and John were numbered among the 12 disciples. The apostle Peter has a couple of books in the New Testament as well. All three were eye-witnesses to the ministry of Jesus Christ.

:cool2:

[horseman]

this might be away on a tangent here but i felt i had to say it .......

up until the last 100 years , the biggest , grandest buildings we made were for our gods . thats all our gods , whether it be christian , muslim ,bhuddist or jew . after this our grandest , biggest buildings have been made in honour of money , all these massive skyscrapers and huge hotels and the like .

anyway if we were all to perish , or most of us and either humans or some other species were to re-populate the earth they would imagine all these huge buildings had been made to honour a god / gods . what i'm trying to say is that have we not all , as a race , lost our faith ? are we not collectively all atheists ? this in a way would kind of explain fundamentaliism ...... maybe ??? who knows , maybe too much wine

[Hibrandenburg]

this might be away on a tangent here but i felt i had to say it .......

up until the last 100 years , the biggest , grandest buildings we made were for our gods . thats all our gods , whether it be christian , muslim ,bhuddist or jew . after this our grandest , biggest buildings have been made in honour of money , all these massive skyscrapers and huge hotels and the like .

anyway if we were all to perish , or most of us and either humans or some other species were to re-populate the earth they would imagine all these huge buildings had been made to honour a god / gods . what i'm trying to say is that have we not all , as a race , lost our faith ? are we not collectively all atheists ? this in a way would kind of explain fundamentaliism ...... maybe ??? who knows , maybe too much wine

Makes quite a lot of sense to me :agree:

[Andy74]

Do you?

I believe you'll find that both Matthew and John were numbered among the 12 disciples. The apostle Peter has a couple of books in the New Testament as well. All three were eye-witnesses to the ministry of Jesus Christ.

:cool2:

Nope, common misconception. They were not written by the same guys.

[Woody1985]

Do you?

I believe you'll find that both Matthew and John were numbered among the 12 disciples. The apostle Peter has a couple of books in the New Testament as well. All three were eye-witnesses to the ministry of Jesus Christ.

:cool2:

Prove it :cool2:

[Andy74]

Prove it :cool2:

Well, you can't, as they weren't written at the time, or even a reasonable time afterwards.

The earliest gospels were written about 70 years after Jesus' death. There were dozens of different gospels, written to give relevance to those times and not the actual events of Jesus' life.

At least 3 of the 4 were written in Greek by people who were were schooled. They certainly weren't fishermen or anyhting like it. About 90 something [percent of the poulation were illiterate at the time.

It was only some time afte that committees decided which gospels were going to be accepted and which weren't and even longer after that the concept of Jesus being Godly was decided on.

Don't underestimate how political the church was and how texts were written or chosen to prove or disprove various things which had political relevance at the time.

I do feel for anyone who lives their lives by these things under the impression they were straight form a God or anyone who knew a God!

[Sergio sledge]

Well, you can't, as they weren't written at the time, or even a reasonable time afterwards.

The earliest gospels were written about 70 years after Jesus' death. There were dozens of different gospels, written to give relevance to those times and not the actual events of Jesus' life.

I'd be interested to know where you are getting your info from, as everything I've ever heard suggests that the Gospels were written before 70 years after Jesus death. Certainly there is enough historical evidence to suggest that the book of Acts was written before 63AD which means that the Gospel of Luke would have had to have been written before this, which means it was written around 30 years after Jesus death.

Matthew is generally held to have been written between 70AD and 80AD which is between 40 and 50 years after Jesus death, making it entirely possible that it was written by someone who saw Jesus life.

Mark is generally accepted to have been the earliest written Gospel, so it must have been earlier than Luke.


At least 3 of the 4 were written in Greek by people who were were schooled. They certainly weren't fishermen or anyhting like it. About 90 something [percent of the poulation were illiterate at the time.

Are you using this as your proof that they weren't written by people who saw Jesus life?

You said yourself that around 90% of people were illiterate at this time, which is why they had scribes who wrote things down for people. Although the people who the Gospels are attributed to probably didn't actually physically put pen to paper, (or quill to papyrus :wink:) they would most likely have dictated to someone who could write in order to put it into writing.

There is less proof to say they didn't write them than there is to say they did, so going by what you said earlier on, the balance of probabilities suggests that they did.

[Andy74]

I'd be interested to know where you are getting your info from, as everything I've ever heard suggests that the Gospels were written before 70 years after Jesus death. Certainly there is enough historical evidence to suggest that the book of Acts was written before 63AD which means that the Gospel of Luke would have had to have been written before this, which means it was written around 30 years after Jesus death.

Matthew is generally held to have been written between 70AD and 80AD which is between 40 and 50 years after Jesus death, making it entirely possible that it was written by someone who saw Jesus life.

Mark is generally accepted to have been the earliest written Gospel, so it must have been earlier than Luke.



Are you using this as your proof that they weren't written by people who saw Jesus life?

You said yourself that around 90% of people were illiterate at this time, which is why they had scribes who wrote things down for people. Although the people who the Gospels are attributed to probably didn't actually physically put pen to paper, (or quill to papyrus :wink:) they would most likely have dictated to someone who could write in order to put it into writing.

There is less proof to say they didn't write them than there is to say they did, so going by what you said earlier on, the balance of probabilities suggests that they did.

There's virtually no evidence at all that these were written by eye witnesses.

Mark is the generally accepted earliest gospel probably at about 70AD. It was first referenced in the 3rd century. There is reference to earlier authors but no mention of who Mark was. Most scholars suggest this was an unknown Mark who's work was derived form a number of traditional sources.

Mark also has about 12 extra verses from the the original Greek, added in later centrires to give a different ending!

Matthew was probably next but it derived heavily from Mark - the original greek carries section almost word for word the Mark gospel. It's significant because it is therefore not likely to have been St Matthew the apostle.

Luke was later and relied heavily from Mark and Matthew but also from Jewish texts which had not been written until the 1st century. It relies on Mark for everything about the life of Jesus.

John is accepted to be post Luke so we are looking at way beyond being a witness to Jesus.

[ancienthibby]

I'd be interested to know where you are getting your info from, as everything I've ever heard suggests that the Gospels were written before 70 years after Jesus death. Certainly there is enough historical evidence to suggest that the book of Acts was written before 63AD which means that the Gospel of Luke would have had to have been written before this, which means it was written around 30 years after Jesus death.

Matthew is generally held to have been written between 70AD and 80AD which is between 40 and 50 years after Jesus death, making it entirely possible that it was written by someone who saw Jesus life.

Mark is generally accepted to have been the earliest written Gospel, so it must have been earlier than Luke.



Are you using this as your proof that they weren't written by people who saw Jesus life?

You said yourself that around 90% of people were illiterate at this time, which is why they had scribes who wrote things down for people. Although the people who the Gospels are attributed to probably didn't actually physically put pen to paper, (or quill to papyrus :wink:) they would most likely have dictated to someone who could write in order to put it into writing.

There is less proof to say they didn't write them than there is to say they did, so going by what you said earlier on, the balance of probabilities suggests that they did.

And I think you can also add that other NT writers were in fact witnesses to Jesus' life and death. These certainly include 'the beloved disciple', John, Simon Peter, his own brother James and the apostle Paul.

I still wish that folks would move away from their own desire to 'have proof'. The Christian Gospel would not be the Christian Gospel if it could be proved in this world. It is predicated, in part, on the personal faith of every believer, as Jesus himself says in John 20.29 - 'Blessed are those who have not seen me but have believed' (See also Mark 16 9-16).

It may be a difficult concept for atheists/agnostics to take on, but since the Christian Gospel is a personal one, it is only when you find the 'hand of the Lord' on your life, you realise you've just received all the proof you can ever need!!

Believe!

[Andy74]

And I think you can also add that other NT writers were in fact witnesses to Jesus' life and death. These certainly include 'the beloved disciple', John, Simon Peter, his own brother James and the apostle Paul.

I still wish that folks would move away from their own desire to 'have proof'. The Christian Gospel would not be the Christian Gospel if it could be proved in this world. It is predicated, in part, on the personal faith of every believer, as Jesus himself says in John 20.29 - 'Blessed are those who have not seen me but have believed' (See also Mark 16 9-16).

It may be a difficult concept for atheists/agnostics to take on, but since the Christian Gospel is a personal one, it is only when you find the 'hand of the Lord' on your life, you realise you've just received all the proof you can ever need!!

Believe!

All very well but that belief is based on things that were decided in committee rooms centuries after Jesus lived to meet the political ends at the time.

I'd have more respect for religions if peple would actually doa little bit of research itno the origins of things which they think they believe.

There are of course, debates and different opinions on all these things but at best the whole story that Christians now consider to be true is as a result of political editing and story telling to suit the times.

[Sergio sledge]

There's virtually no evidence at all that these were written by eye witnesses.

Mark is the generally accepted earliest gospel probably at about 70AD. It was first referenced in the 3rd century. There is reference to earlier authors but no mention of who Mark was. Most scholars suggest this was an unknown Mark who's work was derived form a number of traditional sources.

Mark also has about 12 extra verses from the the original Greek, added in later centrires to give a different ending!

Matthew was probably next but it derived heavily from Mark - the original greek carries section almost word for word the Mark gospel. It's significant because it is therefore not likely to have been St Matthew the apostle.

Luke was later and relied heavily from Mark and Matthew but also from Jewish texts which had not been written until the 1st century. It relies on Mark for everything about the life of Jesus.

John is accepted to be post Luke so we are looking at way beyond being a witness to Jesus.

Some theories which I tend to agree with suggest, as I said earlier, that Luke was written earlier than this date, so if Mark is the earliest it had to be written earlier than this. Also, Jesus death was between AD 28 - 33 so even by your reckoning, they were written a lot earlier than "70 years after Jesus' death."

Anyway, if one were to subscribe to the two source theory, then Mark, Luke and Matthew are based on another piece of writing which was written a lot sooner after Jesus death, or possibly chronicled while he was alive. But there is even less evidence to support this than some of the other stuff!! :greengrin

I think we could end up arguing this for days, as there are so many different theories out there :greengrin Most of them based on interpretations, unverified sources, supposition and leaps of faith.

To be perfectly honest, it doesn't really matter to me whether they were written in AD 60, AD 70 or AD 80, I trust them as the inspired word of God, and that doesn't change according to when it was written, and who was the scribe or author.

[--------]

There's virtually no evidence at all that these were written by eye witnesses.

Mark is the generally accepted earliest gospel probably at about 70AD. It was first referenced in the 3rd century. There is reference to earlier authors but no mention of who Mark was. Most scholars suggest this was an unknown Mark who's work was derived form a number of traditional sources.

Mark also has about 12 extra verses from the the original Greek, added in later centrires to give a different ending!

Matthew was probably next but it derived heavily from Mark - the original greek carries section almost word for word the Mark gospel. It's significant because it is therefore not likely to have been St Matthew the apostle.

Luke was later and relied heavily from Mark and Matthew but also from Jewish texts which had not been written until the 1st century. It relies on Mark for everything about the life of Jesus.

John is accepted to be post Luke so we are looking at way beyond being a witness to Jesus.


Just because you keep saying it doesn't make it so.

The dating you're arguing for is dating accepted only by scholars at one extreme end of the theological spectrum.

The great majority of scholars would argue for a dating of Mark around 50AD, with Matthew and Luke written about 10 years later. John's Gospel, which is textually independent of the other three, is usually dated around 70AD at the latest. The earliest extant fragment of text (on papyrus) from John's Gospel dates from around 100-110AD.

The question of authorship is a LOT more complex than you're making out.

If the above dating is accurate, Mark was written at a time when there were PLENTY of eye-witnesses still alive who could challenge the authenticity and authority of the book. Indeed, the same is true for all the Gospels.

Matthew clearly had Mark's Gospel as the basis for his own writing, but added material that he had in his own possession to make a longer book. Luke had Mark, plus Matthew, plus some of his own material - again, he combined it all to make HIS Gospel. John wrote his Gospel independently, without reference to the others.

I don't know who your "most scholars" are. They're clearly different from the ones I read at New College, who seemed fairly satisfied that Mark is the same person as the Mark who was the companion and co-worker of the Apostle Paul, mentioned in Acts and in a number of Paul's letters. If Matthew was written around 60AD, there's no reason to presume that he was anyone other than the disciple. And there is little reason to assume that Luke is anyone other than Paul's companion who figures repeatedly in the latter sections of the Book of Acts, which he himself probably wrote some time in the early to mid-60's.

You are quoting as fact opinions that can neither be proven nor substantiated. The dating and authorship of Biblical documents is largely a matter of deduction and judgment - examining the texts to learn what we can of the circumstances and situation on which it was written, and from there to try to answer questions about the person who wrote it and the people to whom it was written.

Your comment "I'd have more respect for religions if people would actually do a little bit of research into the origins of things which they think they believe" is really rather arrogant and insulting. I makes the assumption that believers like myself are ignorant oafs who can't be bothered to do the reading that open-minded intellectuals like yourself have done.

If you had actually done the research yourself, you might have realised that people who have already made up their minds that they don't believe opt for later datings of all NT documents. It makes it so much easier for them to disbelieve.

As for the Aprocryphal Gospels like those of Thomas, Judas, Nicodemus and the Ebionites, even those scholars who would argue for their authority admit that they were all written well after the 4 Gospels of the NT. And that they're very different sorts of writing to the writing of the Scriptural Gospels.

[Andy74]

Just because you keep saying it doesn't make it so.

The dating you're arguing for is dating accepted only by scholars at one extreme end of the theological spectrum.

The great majority of scholars would argue for a dating of Mark around 50AD, with Matthew and Luke written about 10 years later. John's Gospel, which is textually independent of the other three, is usually dated around 70AD at the latest. The earliest extant fragment of text (on papyrus) from John's Gospel dates from around 100-110AD.

The question of authorship is a LOT more complex than you're making out.

If the above dating is accurate, Mark was written at a time when there were PLENTY of eye-witnesses still alive who could challenge the authenticity and authority of the book. Indeed, the same is true for all the Gospels.

Matthew clearly had Mark's Gospel as the basis for his own writing, but added material that he had in his own possession to make a longer book. Luke had Mark, plus Matthew, plus some of his own material - again, he combined it all to make HIS Gospel. John wrote his Gospel independently, without reference to the others.

I don't know who your "most scholars" are. They're clearly different from the ones I read at New College, who seemed fairly satisfied that Mark is the same person as the Mark who was the companion and co-worker of the Apostle Paul, mentioned in Acts and in a number of Paul's letters. If Matthew was written around 60AD, there's no reason to presume that he was anyone other than the disciple. And there is little reason to assume that Luke is anyone other than Paul's companion who figures repeatedly in the latter sections of the Book of Acts, which he himself probably wrote some time in the early to mid-60's.

You are quoting as fact opinions that can neither be proven nor substantiated. The dating and authorship of Biblical documents is largely a matter of deduction and judgment - examining the texts to learn what we can of the circumstances and situation on which it was written, and from there to try to answer questions about the person who wrote it and the people to whom it was written.

Your comment "I'd have more respect for religions if people would actually do a little bit of research into the origins of things which they think they believe" is really rather arrogant and insulting. I makes the assumption that believers like myself are ignorant oafs who can't be bothered to do the reading that open-minded intellectuals like yourself have done.

If you had actually done the research yourself, you might have realised that people who have already made up their minds that they don't believe opt for later datings of all NT documents. It makes it so much easier for them to disbelieve.

As for the Aprocryphal Gospels like those of Thomas, Judas, Nicodemus and the Ebionites, even those scholars who would argue for their authority admit that they were all written well after the 4 Gospels of the NT. And that they're very different sorts of writing to the writing of the Scriptural Gospels.

By your own recconing there is maybe one, Matthew who was an eye witness to the life of Jesus, the rest were associates or people who stories have been told to.

People have tried to link Mark to being Mark who was the associate of Paul but the evidence is sketchy.

If it was Matthew who was the apostle who was the Matthew who wrote the gospel surely he had his own narrative on the life of Jesus instead of relying heavily on Mark. It points to it not being the same Matthew. Well done to them all for lasting until theit 70's and starting their writing then as well!

It's a bit differwent to those who think these guys were all there at the time. Chances are none of them were.

There's still the fact that these four were hand picked form dozens of texts to suit a certain political agenda and the deification of Jesus coming at least a century later. At that point other competing versions were supressed and the stories about Jesus embellished to suit the godly staus they were bestowing upon him.

It's all political and nothing I'd want to be basing a belief system on anyway 0 it was all about self preservation in torrid times.

[--------]

By your own recconing there is maybe one, Matthew who was an eye witness to the life of Jesus, the rest were associates or people who stories have been told to.

People have tried to link Mark to being Mark who was the associate of Paul but the evidence is sketchy.

John - one of the first four apostles. Matthew - another of the apostles. The evidence for Mark's identity is more than sketchy - as good as most of such evidence in first-century history. Luke could have got all the information he needed during his visit to Jerusalem with Paul towards the end of Paul's ministry.

If it was Matthew who was the apostle who was the Matthew who wrote the gospel surely he had his own narrative on the life of Jesus instead of relying heavily on Mark. It points to it not being the same Matthew. Well done to them all for lasting until theit 70's and starting their writing then as well!

Matthew saw Mark's work - it was an accurate account as far as it went. He added the material he had of which Mark was unaware. He wasn't "writing a book" the way modern authors do - he was providing information for his fellow-believers. There was no need to re-write what Mark had already written.

It's a bit differwent to those who think these guys were all there at the time. Chances are none of them were.

There's still the fact that these four were hand picked form dozens of texts to suit a certain political agenda and the deification of Jesus coming at least a century later. At that point other competing versions were supressed and the stories about Jesus embellished to suit the godly staus they were bestowing upon him.

Yeah, right. And that political agenda was?

Have you READ some of those other gospels? If Christians were trying to set u a false divinity for Jesus of Nazareth, most of them would fit the purpose better than the ones they chose. The "other" gospels are full of the most amazing (and utterly irrational) miracles imaginable.

It's all political and nothing I'd want to be basing a belief system on anyway 0 it was all about self preservation in torrid times.




Andy, it's clear you've already made your mind up.

But as we say on the board - can you quote your sources?

And would you read your last para again? Please? WHAT exactly is "all political"? In what sense was it "all about self-preservation in torrid times"? That makes no sense. Have you ANY idea of the history of the Church in the Apostolic and Patristic periods?

The simplest way for any of those people to have preserved their lives would have been to deny their beliefs and conform to the ways of the Roman Empire. But they didn't, largely because they were convinced from the moment of the Resurrection that Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ and the Son of God.

[Andy74]

Andy, it's clear you've already made your mind up.

But as we say on the board - can you quote your sources?

And would you read your last para again? Please? WHAT exactly is "all political"? In what sense was it "all about self-preservation in torrid times"? That makes no sense. Have you ANY idea of the history of the Church in the Apostolic and Patristic periods?

The simplest way for any of those people to have preserved their lives would have been to deny their beliefs and conform to the ways of the Roman Empire. But they didn't, largely because they were convinced from the moment of the Resurrection that Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ and the Son of God.

The followers themselves in early times all believed failry different things. The danger is today we have a final view from many ecumenical councils down the ages and we try to instil that belief in the followers at the time.

There isn't any agreement in the texts as to whether there was a bodily resurrection, if Jesus was a prophet or a god, and even what being son of god meant.

There was no agreement on that type of thing for centuries.

Eventually they put togther a creed that was an accepted version of the christian belief, but that was done by council, particulalry to put down conflicting beleifs that were causing conflict within the empire and then amended over the years.

Knowing all the stages the bible has been through, the real doubt over who actually wrote them, despite your assertion that most were eye witnesses, and the centuries of debate and decisions made to give meaning so them that were relevant to the times they were in and not the time of Jesus, I wouldn't want to take any of it as something to have much belief in.

The church has been a very political animal throughout its life and far removed from whatever it was that Jesus was promoting in his time.

It was only centuries after his death that the concept of him being God or one with God was approved, I don't think it's clear that it was the intention of the guy himself to suggest that, or even the intention of the writings. Phrases such as the son of god can be given many meanings from the time.

Anyhow, we're not going to agree so let's call it a day!

[ancienthibby]

The followers themselves in early times all believed failry different things. The danger is today we have a final view from many ecumenical councils down the ages and we try to instil that belief in the followers at the time.

There isn't any agreement in the texts as to whether there was a bodily resurrection, if Jesus was a prophet or a god, and even what being son of god meant.

There was no agreement on that type of thing for centuries.

Eventually they put togther a creed that was an accepted version of the christian belief, but that was done by council, particulalry to put down conflicting beleifs that were causing conflict within the empire and then amended over the years.

Knowing all the stages the bible has been through, the real doubt over who actually wrote them, despite your assertion that most were eye witnesses, and the centuries of debate and decisions made to give meaning so them that were relevant to the times they were in and not the time of Jesus, I wouldn't want to take any of it as something to have much belief in.

The church has been a very political animal throughout its life and far removed from whatever it was that Jesus was promoting in his time.

It was only centuries after his death that the concept of him being God or one with God was approved, I don't think it's clear that it was the intention of the guy himself to suggest that, or even the intention of the writings. Phrases such as the son of god can be given many meanings from the time.

Anyhow, we're not going to agree so let's call it a day!

Andy,

Before you call it a day, go and read the Gospel of John, the Letters of John and the Book of Revelation (by John).

These are amongst the most wonderful words ever given to humanity and speak from the perspective of a first-hand witness who was 'blown away' by what he met in the historically-true Jesus Christ!!

[Woody1985]

Mary was a dirty.

[Hibrandenburg]

You do know the history of the gospels and the new testament in general don't you?

Written by people who were not there at the time, Mathew, Mark, Luke and John lived quire some time after Jesus.

They were also hand picked by committee from a number of texts to meet poliitcal means at the time.

I find it a shame that sheer politicism from centuries ago is being relied on these days to give people direction in their life.

:agree:

The Roman Empire was on deaths doorsteps around 380AD when Christianity was made the official religion of the empire. What better way to control the masses than telling them that the only way into the afterlife was through the Roman Church.

Is it also only coincidence that what used to be the Western Roman Empire adopted the Roman Catholic Church and that what was the former Eastern Roman Empire eventually fell under the influence of the Orthodox Church?

Political maneuvers that Stalin or Hitler would have been proud of.

[ancienthibby]

Mary was a dirty.

If you have not posted on a wrong thread, then you've gone way over the top with this one!

[BEEJ]

Your comment "I'd have more respect for religions if people would actually do a little bit of research into the origins of things which they think they believe" is really rather arrogant and insulting. I makes the assumption that believers like myself are ignorant oafs who can't be bothered to do the reading that open-minded intellectuals like yourself have done.

If you had actually done the research yourself, you might have realised that people who have already made up their minds that they don't believe opt for later datings of all NT documents. It makes it so much easier for them to disbelieve.
:top marks You saved me having to respond to these comments.

'Arrogant' was a polite description. :rolleyes:

[Betty Boop]

Mary was a dirty.:bitchy:

[--------]

The followers themselves in early times all believed failry different things. The danger is today we have a final view from many ecumenical councils down the ages and we try to instil that belief in the followers at the time.

There isn't any agreement in the texts as to whether there was a bodily resurrection, if Jesus was a prophet or a god, and even what being son of god meant.

There was no agreement on that type of thing for centuries.

Eventually they put togther a creed that was an accepted version of the christian belief, but that was done by council, particulalry to put down conflicting beleifs that were causing conflict within the empire and then amended over the years.

Knowing all the stages the bible has been through, the real doubt over who actually wrote them, despite your assertion that most were eye witnesses, and the centuries of debate and decisions made to give meaning so them that were relevant to the times they were in and not the time of Jesus, I wouldn't want to take any of it as something to have much belief in.

The church has been a very political animal throughout its life and far removed from whatever it was that Jesus was promoting in his time.

It was only centuries after his death that the concept of him being God or one with God was approved, I don't think it's clear that it was the intention of the guy himself to suggest that, or even the intention of the writings. Phrases such as the son of god can be given many meanings from the time.

Anyhow, we're not going to agree so let's call it a day!



This is another tangle of unsupported assertions. You seem to be making it up as you go along.

I'll ask you again - state your sources and references, please.

[Chez]

After reading this article, and whether or not someone has the right to refuse to drive a bus with something on it they do not believe in, a question comes to mind:

Do us Hibs supporters have the right to refuse to drive maroon Lothain Buses and request they change their colour??? :greengrin

[Andy74]

This is another tangle of unsupported assertions. You seem to be making it up as you go along.

I'll ask you again - state your sources and references, please.

Unsupported?

The number of ecumenical councils that have sat over the years since about the 3rd or 4th century are well documented.

These have shaped and decided the interpretations of the texts and also what texts were acccepted in the first place. It was done to suit whatever they wanted people to believe at the time.

You know as well as me that there is real doubt over who wrote the gospels and your assertions that they are people who seen Jesus in the flesh cannot be relied upon either. You wouldn't be able to point to any source who tells me you are right. But, my main point is what you are relying on has undoubtedly been shaped by politics, not something I'd want to rely on and take as the word of any God.

[GlesgaeHibby]

Andy,

Before you call it a day, go and read the Gospel of John, the Letters of John and the Book of Revelation (by John).

These are amongst the most wonderful words ever given to humanity and speak from the perspective of a first-hand witness who was 'blown away' by what he met in the historically-true Jesus Christ!!

Revelation is a fantastic piece of literature and is immensely clever. What a way to scare people into believing by depicting the most frightful and horrific images possible.

[ancienthibby]

Revelation is a fantastic piece of literature and is immensely clever. What a way to scare people into believing by depicting the most frightful and horrific images possible.

And you could also say what a wonderful inspiring way to allow individuals to anticipate the most prefect way of living for all eternity (See Rev. 7 9-17)!!

[Andy74]

[/B]

And you could also say what a wonderful inspiring way to allow individuals to anticipate the most prefect way of living for all eternity (See Rev. 7 9-17)!!

Yes, and these things were written to provide people of the time with some hope or context to what was happening in their times.

People are wanting me to provide sources for some of my takes on the various hazy issues there are out there yet are prepared to beleive the fantastical ravings of someone who they aren't even sure who he was and have been translated and interpreted over a couple of thousand years.

Sums up the dangers of religion to me.

[ancienthibby]

Yes, and these things were written to provide people of the time with some hope or context to what was happening in their times.

People are wanting me to provide sources for some of my takes on the various hazy issues there are out there yet are prepared to beleive the fantastical ravings of someone who they aren't even sure who he was and have been translated and interpreted over a couple of thousand years.

Sums up the dangers of religion to me.

No so, Andy.

Holy Scriptures are the revealed word of God as He has chosen to reveal to all generations despite the political machinations that have gone on for more than 2000 years. If God chooses to use a very old former disciple located on a lonely island (Patmos) to be His 'scribe' through revelation and create some of the most powerful words ever, then He is just continuing to do as He has done throughout, using prophets and priests and ordinary people to be instruments in his power to create the entirety of Scripture. See, for very limited example, Moses, Elijah, Ezekial, David, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Micah, Daniel, Peter, Paul, Matthew, etc)

Political machinations may come and go, and we are not short of 'revionists'
in our midst even today (see for example, Holloway and Dawkins) but the Word of God remains authoriative and inerrant.

[Andy74]

No so, Andy.

Holy Scriptures are the revealed word of God as He has chosen to reveal to all generations despite the political machinations that have gone on for more than 2000 years. If God chooses to use a very old former disciple located on a lonely island (Patmos) to be His 'scribe' through revelation and create some of the most powerful words ever, then He is just continuing to do as He has done throughout, using prophets and priests and ordinary people to be instruments in his power to create the entirety of Scripture. See, for very limited example, Moses, Elijah, Ezekial, David, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Micah, Daniel, Peter, Paul, Matthew, etc)

Political machinations may come and go, and we are not short of 'revionists'
in our midst even today (see for example, Holloway and Dawkins) but the Word of God remains authoriative and inerrant.

Again there is some evidence that John on Patmos may not have been the John who wrote the gospel.

The big get out is that it doesn't matter really as it's all the word of God and whatever we end up with is what God intended.

Life throws up things that are good, bad, inspirational, unexpected, whatever, it's a pity people can't credit that to people and reality rather than some God.

There are still isolated tribes here and there who worship Gods to explain away phenomenon that most of the rest of us can now explain why they occur. I'm afraid I can't separate those from other wider religions like christianity.

[--------]

Yes, and these things were written to provide people of the time with some hope or context to what was happening in their times.

People are wanting me to provide sources for some of my takes on the various hazy issues there are out there yet are prepared to beleive the fantastical ravings of someone who they aren't even sure who he was and have been translated and interpreted over a couple of thousand years.

Sums up the dangers of religion to me.



Well?

The opinions you're presenting as facts are no more than opinions.

All I've asked is for you to name your authorities, and when I do, you start insulting people.

"Fantastical ravings"? :cool2:

These are YOUR words:

"Unsupported? The number of ecumenical councils that have sat over the years since about the 3rd or 4th century are well documented. These have shaped and decided the interpretations of the texts and also what texts were acccepted in the first place. It was done to suit whatever they wanted people to believe at the time."

Which council decided the canon of Scripture, Andy? Do you know, or are you just throwing out another opinion dressed as fact?

I would recommend you read CFD Moule's The Birth of the New Testament. It's not long - 225 pages. It's a middle-of-the road assessment of the varous factors in the process by which the present New Testament came into existence.

It doesn't deal with conspiracy theories, I'm afraid, just scholarship. But it's a good place to start. Or you could try JND Kelly - Early Christian Doctrines.



"You know as well as me that there is real doubt over who wrote the gospels and your assertions that they are people who seen Jesus in the flesh cannot be relied upon either."

I could say that there's real doubt over who's writing your posts, Andy. Are you real, or are you a committee? Maybe you're Osama bin Laden. Maybe you're Tony Blair. Maybe you're a roomful of monkeys with PCs. :wink:

What I'm trying to point out to you is that your position is only one of a number of possible positions regarding the question of the dating and authorship of the New Testament documents, and a fairly extreme one at that. There's plenty of evidence in the texts to support my position as reasonable at the very least. There is also more than enough evidence in the texts to suggest that YOUR position is less than reasonable.

You're being dogmatic on a subject where dogmatism isn't a viable option. As the 'believer', I thought I was the one who was supposed to display dogmatic arrogance?

And you refuse to quote any references, any sources, any authorities. Not good enough, Andy.



"You wouldn't be able to point to any source who tells me you are right. But, my main point is what you are relying on has undoubtedly been shaped by politics, not something I'd want to rely on and take as the word of any God."

What politics? You go on and on about how the NT was 'shaped by politics'. WHAT politics?


I'm beginning to think you've been getting all your ideas from The Da Vinci Code.

Have you? :cool2:

[GlesgaeHibby]

No so, Andy.

Holy Scriptures are the revealed word of God as He has chosen to reveal to all generations despite the political machinations that have gone on for more than 2000 years. If God chooses to use a very old former disciple located on a lonely island (Patmos) to be His 'scribe' through revelation and create some of the most powerful words ever, then He is just continuing to do as He has done throughout, using prophets and priests and ordinary people to be instruments in his power to create the entirety of Scripture. See, for very limited example, Moses, Elijah, Ezekial, David, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Micah, Daniel, Peter, Paul, Matthew, etc)

Political machinations may come and go, and we are not short of 'revionists'
in our midst even today (see for example, Holloway and Dawkins) but the Word of God remains authoriative and inerrant.

Does it? If it got things like the age of the universe wrong, missed out evolution and even the first 2 chapters of Genesis conflict on how Eve was made. How can we then trust its credibility?

[ancienthibby]

Does it? If it got things like the age of the universe wrong, missed out evolution and even the first 2 chapters of Genesis conflict on how Eve was made. How can we then trust its credibility?

But did it? Scripture also says that 'one day with God is like a thousand'. In other words His timelines (and ways) are not ours. Scripture also says that with God 'nothing is impossible'.

We all need to broaden our minds/thinking that with the Sovereign God, everything is possible.

[Andy74]

Well?

The opinions you're presenting as facts are no more than opinions.

All I've asked is for you to name your authorities, and when I do, you start insulting people.

"Fantastical ravings"? :cool2:

These are YOUR words:

"Unsupported? The number of ecumenical councils that have sat over the years since about the 3rd or 4th century are well documented. These have shaped and decided the interpretations of the texts and also what texts were acccepted in the first place. It was done to suit whatever they wanted people to believe at the time."

Which council decided the canon of Scripture, Andy? Do you know, or are you just throwing out another opinion dressed as fact?

I would recommend you read CFD Moule's The Birth of the New Testament. It's not long - 225 pages. It's a middle-of-the road assessment of the varous factors in the process by which the present New Testament came into existence.

It doesn't deal with conspiracy theories, I'm afraid, just scholarship. But it's a good place to start. Or you could try JND Kelly - Early Christian Doctrines.



"You know as well as me that there is real doubt over who wrote the gospels and your assertions that they are people who seen Jesus in the flesh cannot be relied upon either."

I could say that there's real doubt over who's writing your posts, Andy. Are you real, or are you a committee? Maybe you're Osama bin Laden. Maybe you're Tony Blair. Maybe you're a roomful of monkeys with PCs. :wink:

What I'm trying to point out to you is that your position is only one of a number of possible positions regarding the question of the dating and authorship of the New Testament documents, and a fairly extreme one at that. There's plenty of evidence in the texts to support my position as reasonable at the very least. There is also more than enough evidence in the texts to suggest that YOUR position is less than reasonable.

You're being dogmatic on a subject where dogmatism isn't a viable option. As the 'believer', I thought I was the one who was supposed to display dogmatic arrogance?

And you refuse to quote any references, any sources, any authorities. Not good enough, Andy.



"You wouldn't be able to point to any source who tells me you are right. But, my main point is what you are relying on has undoubtedly been shaped by politics, not something I'd want to rely on and take as the word of any God."

What politics? You go on and on about how the NT was 'shaped by politics'. WHAT politics?


I'm beginning to think you've been getting all your ideas from The Da Vinci Code.

Have you? :cool2:


If you don't think politics played any part in ecumenical councils then there's not much I can do about that.

I'm not actually painting anything as fact, you seem to be though, I'm saying there is certainly a lot of doubt about things such as who wrote the gospels and when. Due to you having some fixed views on this, and a belief in a God then I can see how you would feel other views, of which there are many, are conspiracies or at the end of a spectrum.

The fact there needed to be so much activity in decidingf what was canonicala nd wehat wasn't, and even the interpretation of those accepted, suggests that what people believed today has been shaped, and that those that did the shaping were acting according to their times. Nicea for example was a political event designed to get unity, one way or another there needed to be a right answer to then follow.

If you are asking what council decided the Canon of Scripture i'm not sure I know that there was one in aprticular. In Italy in the 16th century there was a final and dogmatic ruling but Hippo and Carthage, once or twice, were probably the key early councils.

Yet again though, there is much debate and many differnet local councils that have taken place as well as the recognised ecumenmical councils. Even different brancheds of the same religions accept some as official and some as not.

If that's not all politics then I don't know what is. It certainly doesn't all add up to me to producing a book which gives us exactly what Jesus or god, or whoever, wanted us to hear.

Unlesss you think it was all just God's convoluted way to get the right answer top us of course.

And no, my info isn't from Dan Brown! My uncle was a catholic priest and latterly a canon, my cousin is a catholic priest and I've had many a discussion with both of them although I'm not as well read as you on this I've read enough to know that there is no right answer or almost any of this, that's my real point and that's why I can't take seriously the following of it all as if it is some God's word.

[GlesgaeHibby]

But did it? Scripture also says that 'one day with God is like a thousand'. In other words His timelines (and ways) are not ours. Scripture also says that with God 'nothing is impossible'.

We all need to broaden our minds/thinking that with the Sovereign God, everything is possible.

Yes but he also defined the period of one day as being the difference between successive light(day) and dark(night periods)

And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

I'm pretty sure that defines the period of one day clearly. The evidence for the universe being ancient is colossal.

[ancienthibby]

Yes but he also defined the period of one day as being the difference between successive light(day) and dark(night periods)

And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

I'm pretty sure that defines the period of one day clearly. The evidence for the universe being ancient is colossal.

GH,

Don't think you'll find the concept of 'successive' used in the Creation story in Genesis!! Whether God seperated darkness and light into one day as we understand it, we'll never know until the next world!

Also, we can never define God or what he has done or will do!! That is totally beyond our imagination!!

The way I see it, God looked over the shoulders of all the scribes, prophets, and disciples who composed (via the promptings of the Holy Spirit) the Scriptures as certain things were written and He had a wee wry smile to Himself from time to time and said 'Ah, now that will give the sceptics something to get their teeth into and will also test my believer's faith'!!

Rgds,
AH.

[Andy74]

GH,

Don't think you'll find the concept of 'successive' used in the Creation story in Genesis!! Whether God seperated darkness and light into one day as we understand it, we'll never know until the next world!

Also, we can never define God or what he has done or will do!! That is totally beyond our imagination!!

The way I see it, God looked over the shoulders of all the scribes, prophets, and disciples who composed (via the promptings of the Holy Spirit) the Scriptures as certain things were written and He had a wee wry smile to Himself from time to time and said 'Ah, now that will give the sceptics something to get their teeth into and will also test my believer's faith'!!

Rgds,
AH.

We will know - science can already show timescales far in excess of those laid out in the old testament.

And I've never got why such a God would be so obtuse about things.

To test people's faith? What, does he get excited about that type of thing? And why did he used to make grand shows about things and now just seems to do things on smaller scale?

All God's plan I suppose. Doesn't sound like the type of guy I'd get on with. Pretty disappointing really for the top dog.

[ancienthibby]

We will know - science can already show timescales far in excess of those laid out in the old testament.

And I've never got why such a God would be so obtuse about things.

To test people's faith? What, does he get excited about that type of thing? And why did he used to make grand shows about things and now just seems to do things on smaller scale?

All God's plan I suppose. Doesn't sound like the type of guy I'd get on with. Pretty disappointing really for the top dog.

Kind of blows your catholic priest/friends/relatives views to pieces,no??!!

[Andy74]

Kind of blows your catholic priest/friends/relatives views to pieces,no??!!

What do you mean, I can have them as relatives and not agree with them?

Maybe you can explain what you meant by that?

[GlesgaeHibby]

GH,

Don't think you'll find the concept of 'successive' used in the Creation story in Genesis!! Whether God seperated darkness and light into one day as we understand it, we'll never know until the next world!

Also, we can never define God or what he has done or will do!! That is totally beyond our imagination!!

The way I see it, God looked over the shoulders of all the scribes, prophets, and disciples who composed (via the promptings of the Holy Spirit) the Scriptures as certain things were written and He had a wee wry smile to Himself from time to time and said 'Ah, now that will give the sceptics something to get their teeth into and will also test my believer's faith'!!

Rgds,
AH.

I feel like thats kind of clutching at straws here with the definition of a day, theres other flaws in the creation story too.

My personal view is that there is a 50/50 chance that there is a God/Higher being out there that lit the blue touch paper that caused the big band. Its as equally possible as the big bang spontaneously happening BUT I don't see any religion on Earth that fits with God.

[ancienthibby]

What do you mean, I can have them as relatives and not agree with them?

Maybe you can explain what you meant by that?

Andy,

You earlier quoted a number of relatives/friends of the Catholic persuasion from whom you had learned. All I would say is that if current Catholic priests are so bereft of a clear understanding of the veracity of Scripture then is it any wonder that others, such as yourself, are so given to the current modern state of atheism??

[ancienthibby]

I feel like thats kind of clutching at straws here with the definition of a day, theres other flaws in the creation story too.

My personal view is that there is a 50/50 chance that there is a God/Higher being out there that lit the blue touch paper that caused the big band. Its as equally possible as the big bang spontaneously happening BUT I don't see any religion on Earth that fits with God.

GH,

Your view of the deficiencies of modern religion to truthfully represent the God of Scripture cannot be denied, but I would encourage you to also think that there is a huge band of prominent scientists who do not dispute the view that Christianity and science can co-exist.

If you are interested try this website:
http://www.scienceandchristianbelief.org/

Rgds.
AH

[GlesgaeHibby]

GH,

Your view of the deficiencies of modern religion to truthfully represent the God of Scripture cannot be denied, but I would encourage you to also think that there is a huge band of prominent scientists who do not dispute the view that Christianity and science can co-exist.

If you are interested try this website:
http://www.scienceandchristianbelief.org/

Rgds.
AH


As a practicing scientist I am fully aware of people who are Christian Scientists (although they are still in a very small minority). I think the idea of a God and hope of eternal life and being reconciled with lost loved ones is beautiful and can see why people have such strong faith in their religion.

[Andy74]

Andy,

You earlier quoted a number of relatives/friends of the Catholic persuasion from whom you had learned. All I would say is that if current Catholic priests are so bereft of a clear understanding of the veracity of Scripture then is it any wonder that others, such as yourself, are so given to the current modern state of atheism??

I hadn't learned my views from them, they had much the same views as you guys, but they were well aware of the debate. I'm fairly sure they had a fuller understanding of scripture than any of us!

[Steve-O]

After reading this debate, I am even more convinced that there is no god and the whole concept is, quite frankly, nonsense.

[Dashing Bob S]

Why should some people's believe that God, may not, on the balance of probability, exit, give such offence to others? As has been said, believers have been quick to plaster the so-called message of God onto buses and billboards, or anywhere else they can use to con the gullible into their man-made scams.

I think its highly arrogant of atheists to say that God doesn't exist, they simply don't know, 'probably' or otherwise. But it pales into insignificance besides the relentless religious propaganda, usually Christian or muslim, which tells us: not only does God exist, but we know what he says, and what he wants you to do.

As Doddie said about the prayers in the recent plane crash, most people would like to believe in a higher power. They want to feel that life has more sense and meaning that simple procreation and decay.

This is exploited by the power-trippers of organised religion. These god-botherers are just like any other scam artists. Their only purpose is to get inbetween an individual and 'god' in order to exercise control of others.

If god does exist (and i'd like to believe in a higher life form) then I hope that he holds those scamsters to account. If people want to worship, let them get on with it -quietly, but I don't any of the barstewards coming too my door and I certainly don't want them involved in political or social life.

[Wembley67]

Why should some people's believe that God, may not, on the balance of probability, exit, give such offence to others? As has been said, believers have been quick to plaster the so-called message of God onto buses and billboards, or anywhere else they can use to con the gullible into their man-made scams.

I think its highly arrogant of atheists to say that God doesn't exist, they simply don't know, 'probably' or otherwise. But it pales into insignificance besides the relentless religious propaganda, usually Christian or muslim, which tells us: not only does God exist, but we know what he says, and what he wants you to do.

As Doddie said about the prayers in the recent plane crash, most people would like to believe in a higher power. They want to feel that life has more sense and meaning that simple procreation and decay.

This is exploited by the power-trippers of organised religion. These god-botherers are just like any other scam artists. Their only purpose is to get inbetween an individual and 'god' in order to exercise control of others.

If god does exist (and i'd like to believe in a higher life form) then I hope that he holds those scamsters to account. If people want to worship, let them get on with it -quietly, but I don't any of the barstewards coming too my door and I certainly don't want them involved in political or social life.

:top marks DBS

Just an excuse people use in the world to go to war.

[heretoday]

Would the Humanists who are posting these adverts have the temerity to put it abroad that there is no Allah? Or would that be too controversial? Or does their word "God" encapsulate all worshipped deities?

[PeeJay]

Would the Humanists who are posting these adverts have the temerity to put it abroad that there is no Allah? Or would that be too controversial? Or does their word "God" encapsulate all worshipped deities?

I think it's a clear and a pretty universal "catch-all" message - "they" (me too actually) are saying, there probably is no God - it doesn't matter what you want to call him! It also clearly says that people should stop worrying and enjoy life - that's a positive message, for me. We live in a democracy - free speech and all that, if you don't like it - tough!:cool2:

[Sir David Gray]

I think it's a clear and a pretty universal "catch-all" message - "they" (me too actually) are saying, there probably is no God - it doesn't matter what you want to call him! It also clearly says that people should stop worrying and enjoy life - that's a positive message, for me. We live in a democracy - free speech and all that, if you don't like it - tough!:cool2:

I said this earlier in this thread. That part of the slogan is implying that if you believe in God then you are unable to enjoy your life, which is absolute nonsense.

[PeeJay]

I said this earlier in this thread. That part of the slogan is implying that if you believe in God then you are unable to enjoy your life, which is absolute nonsense.


Perhaps, you didn’t understand it the first time round then either: the postulation that life can only be enjoyed – or even be of any worth when one believes in a higher being is – in my opinion nonsense – “we” have had such patent ‘nonsense’ rammed down our throats for centuries, and that's the point being made here - that’s what is so liberating about the times in which we live, that we can say ‘There (probably) is no God)’ without any fear of retribution or ‘being stoned to death’ or ostracised from society. Of course, it seems to upset some religiously minded, fairy-tale believers, but then let’s face it ‘we’ have had to suffer from Christian,Muslim,Jewish tolerance (sic) for centuries ... I think a few words pasted on the side of a bus pales by far in significance to what the religious amongst us have perpetrated on mankind down through the ages!

[GlesgaeHibby]

Would the Humanists who are posting these adverts have the temerity to put it abroad that there is no Allah? Or would that be too controversial? Or does their word "God" encapsulate all worshipped deities?

To quote Dawkins;

"I know you don’t believe in an old bearded man sitting on a cloud, so let’s not waste any more time on that. I’m not attacking any particular version of God or gods. I’m attacking God, all gods, anything and everything supernatural, wherever and whenever they have been or will be invented."

[GlesgaeHibby]

Perhaps, you didn’t understand it the first time round then either: the postulation that life can only be enjoyed – or even be of any worth when one believes in a higher being is – in my opinion nonsense – “we” have had such patent ‘nonsense’ rammed down our throats for centuries, and that's the point being made here - that’s what is so liberating about the times in which we live, that we can say ‘There (probably) is no God)’ without any fear of retribution or ‘being stoned to death’ or ostracised from society. Of course, it seems to upset some religiously minded, fairy-tale believers, but then let’s face it ‘we’ have had to suffer from Christian,Muslim,Jewish tolerance (sic) for centuries ... I think a few words pasted on the side of a bus pales by far in significance to what the religious amongst us have perpetrated on mankind down through the ages!

:top marks

[Woody1985]

Would the Humanists who are posting these adverts have the temerity to put it abroad that there is no Allah? Or would that be too controversial? Or does their word "God" encapsulate all worshipped deities?

I think what you're saying is that people wouldn't put this sign up in allah worshiping countries for fear of attack. Which pretty much sums up religion IMO.

Religion basically says that if you're an infidel then you're the one with the problem. :faf:

I hope to God that some day, someone can somehow prove it doesn't exist then maybe people on this planet will pull themselves together and stop going on about this BS. On the flip side, if there was evidence that there is a God then so be it. And please don't give me some stories about some guy moving a big rock after he died and was put in a cave etc etc etc.

[heretoday]

I think what you're saying is that people wouldn't put this sign up in allah worshiping countries for fear of attack. Which pretty much sums up religion IMO.

Religion basically says that if you're an infidel then you're the one with the problem. :faf:

I hope to God that some day, someone can somehow prove it doesn't exist then maybe people on this planet will pull themselves together and stop going on about this BS. On the flip side, if there was evidence that there is a God then so be it. And please don't give me some stories about some guy moving a big rock after he died and was put in a cave etc etc etc.


I think I agree with that. But how did it all begin? The Big Bang. What happened before the Bang, and why?

[Woody1985]

I think I agree with that. But how did it all begin? The Big Bang. What happened before the Bang, and why?

If only I could provide the answer.

I work as an systems analyst and by nature like to take things apart and look at logical explanations etc to determine the root of problems to fix them. That's why I would say that I'm 100% certain in my mind that it wasn't some big guy / strange being in the sky that put the earth together in 6 days.

There's also too many unanswered questions surrounding the time before humans were on the planet in their current form, the other planets etc etc. If there was a God then why would there be so much suffering in the world etc (and it's not to test our spirit or whatever the religious explanation is!)

My personal view is that stories were invented in that era when there was no press etc to help keep the population in check and to control them to an extent. And on the same thinking I think that different religions were formed via chinese whispers where similar stories exist but with different characters being God etc

I tend to ridicule things / people too much for religion because of my thoughts above and should perhaps learn to work on that and let people get on with what they want to believe but by nature when I think something is so far fetched that I cannot understand why people would believe it I can't help it. My bad. :LOL:

[Irish Al 2]

Several people on the thread queried the use of the word "probably". The website of the people behind the ads has the story on this here. (http://www.atheistbus.org.uk/probably/)

Basically it was to get the adverts past the advertising laws. Without it the adverts would have been rejected and logically I guess some religous type would have called for the ads to be made illegal under archaic blasphemy laws.

The rest of the site is quite interesting as well covering the reaction to the ads and the response of religous types.

Al

[BEEJ]

If there was a God then why would there be so much suffering in the world etc (and it's not to test our spirit or whatever the religious explanation is!)

If people of faith are to explain why there is suffering in the world, then perhaps the atheists among us can explain why there is pleasure in the world? :wink:

If our world is truly a great cosmic accident, a world of randomness and meaninglessness, where does pleasure come from?

And in such a world without God, what do you think gives us the innate belief that we are entitled to a life without suffering, as opposed to a life without pleasure?

[heretoday]

[QUOTE=Woody1985;1918373]If only I could provide the answer.


If you could you would be the creator and the biggest genius of all time! Have a good old think and come back later!

[horseman]

going back to the original op , i reckon the fella was workshy and was probably at loggerheads with the management and this was the only way he could think of to upset the applecart !! or something ...... nice points though ......:wink:

[Hibrandenburg]

If people of faith are to explain why there is suffering in the world, then perhaps the atheists among us can explain why there is pleasure in the world? :wink:

If our world is truly a great cosmic accident, a world of randomness and meaninglessness, where does pleasure come from?

And in such a world without God, what do you think gives us the innate belief that we are entitled to a life without suffering, as opposed to a life without pleasure?

Pleasure is there for the same reason as pain, fear or any other emotion. We need to eat to survive and reproduce therefore eating can be pleasurable and we do it. Fear is also necessary for survival in some situations and pain reminds us what we're doing isn't good for us.

Evolution has given us these useful tools.

[BEEJ]

Pleasure is there for the same reason as pain, fear or any other emotion. We need to eat to survive and reproduce therefore eating can be pleasurable and we do it. Fear is also necessary for survival in some situations and pain reminds us what we're doing isn't good for us.

Evolution has given us these useful tools.
I haven't worded my post correctly.

In the original post I quoted, the question about 'suffering' was essentially about 'the causes of suffering', not the physical manfestation of suffering. So: 'Why should these causes of suffering exist in a world where there is a God?'

I was asking the mirror image of that question. In a world allegedly without a God, why should there be any experiences that bring about the sensation of pleasure in all its forms?

[Hibrandenburg]

I haven't worded my post correctly.

In the original post I quoted, the question about 'suffering' was essentially about 'the causes of suffering', not the physical manfestation of suffering. So: 'Why should these causes of suffering exist in a world where there is a God?'

I was asking the mirror image of that question. In a world allegedly without a God, why should there be any experiences that bring about the sensation of pleasure in all its forms?

Understood, but my answer would remain the same.