Bendy-buses, like atheism, are a danger to the public!

Or my own take on it is “as there is no proof of God, then such an entity probably does not exist ” should anyone be able to supply such proof I would gladly re-examine my position

Yes, I can live with that…..possibly.

Does that make Christianity (for example) a stance also?

No. Christianity is quite clearly a belief system. One among many, as you clearly recognise.

It has definable dogma, tenets and practices arising from specific supernatural claims, and sets out a moral and ethical code that believers should follow.

Like many other belief systems, past and present, it tells of an afterlife where the righteous will be eternally rewarded and the unrighteous eternally punished.

Atheism, on the other hand, has none of these. It can be defined in full by the simple statement: ‘There are no gods’.

Quite a marked contrast, as I’m sure you will agree.

Atheism is a system of religious belief

No it’s not.

Maybe they do in Hicksville, Texas….

I heard it was just twinned with Nutsville, Essex…

I have trouble with religious believers (of all faiths and/or cults) who try to stuff their beliefs down the throats of others…

and
with athiests who go out of their way to do the same
or to be a disrespectful as possible to those who don’t share their view.

I’ve seen more than a few atheist T-shirts and bumper stickers (the preferred form of expression for those able to make their points in 6 worlds or less and often crude gestures) that were grossly disrespectful of anything not atheistic.

Come on guys, live and let live.

“Spirituality and discipleship officer Rev Jenny Ellis said: “This campaign will be a good thing if it gets people to engage with the deepest questions of life.”

She added: “Christianity is for people who aren’t afraid to think about life and meaning.”

And maybe Atheism is for those who’ve tried Christianity and found it wanting?

Regards,

kev35

I don’t think the Bible is meant to be taken literally as a historical or scientific document. The Bible is about morality, not about science or history. Unfortunately many people miss understand that. I think most hard-core scientists understand that.

The problem faced by organised religions using the Bible as a sacred text is that they HAVE taken it literally for so long in the past that now admitting it to be parables and allegory weakens their authority. If they are God’s representatives on Earth then why did they not know that Genesis wasn’t the literal truth? Didn’t God tell them? Answering these questions would come close to admitting that there is in fact no communication between religious authorities and their deity. And in that case there is no reason for their followers to worship under their guidance rather than sitting at home praying on their own.

Incidentally, Richard Dawkins is not an atheist but an agnostic. I am an agnostic too but find his views a little too intolerant of those with religious beliefs. On the other hand we do need at least someone to express the “other” side of the religious argument.

To me, religion provides a moral framework for society which is currently not promoted by non-religious groups. The real danger is when religion is taken too seriously and used to supress people: that must be resisted vigorously.

It can be argued that atheism is a religious stance…

Yes, I can live with that…..possibly.

Does that make Christianity (for example) a stance also?

I respect your right to follow your religious beliefs but I’m appalled that you think that gives you the right to describe other religious beliefs in the way that you have.

I think atheism is another form of religion; though it be illegitimate; it essentially is the worship of oneself. Atheism is selfishness and shallowness.

Whether you choose to do [God’s] will or not is whether you choose the path of good or evil.

It would not be tolerated to say such things about Christians, Muslims, Sikhs, Buddhists or Jews so why do you think it is acceptable to say it about Atheists?

IMAO I find Richard Dawkins to be quite hateful, selfish, shallow minded and ignorant..

I don’t really know (or care) who Richard Dawkins is or what he believes in (or not).

This is some excerpts from previous posts at other places; including some other individuals comments…

I’m afraid I didn’t read your other post, I don’t know who you are quoting (as the quotes are not credited) but it wasn’t me.

Er…..not quite. Baldness is not a choice!

If you were to say that Atheism is a religion in the same sense that a shaved head is a hair style then I would agree with you.

Well, if you’re going to split hairs….. 🙂

Atheism is a system of religious belief…

It can be argued that atheism is a religious stance but it most certainly is not a system of religious belief.

If it is a system of any kind, then it is one of religious disbelief – quite the antithesis of belief.

Are you, perhaps, confusing atheism with Buddhism?

The latter is a system of religious belief that, apart from some sects, does not involve belief in a god or gods.

Atheism is a religion in the same sense that ‘bald’ is a hair colour.

Er…..not quite. Baldness is not a choice!

If you were to say that Atheism is a religion in the same sense that a shaved head is a hair style then I would agree with you.

Atheism is a system of religious belief and as such it is wrong (and possibly illegal in this country) to say that it is ‘a danger to the public at large’ (as Stephen Green of Christian Voice is quoted as saying).

I don’t worship myself by the way, but if I did, I would at least be worshiping something that I can prove exists :rolleyes:

….I think atheism is another form of religion…

Atheism is a religion in the same sense that ‘bald’ is a hair colour.

IMAO I find Richard Dawkins to be quite hateful, selfish, shallow minded and ignorant.

The Bible is largely parables. I think atheism is another form of religion; though it be illegitimate; it essentially is the worship of oneself. Atheism is selfishness and shallowness. Richard Dawkins, and many atheists are doing exactly what other religious extremists do: take the Bible literally.

God is good. If you believe there is a good and evil. Then in my opinion you believe in God. Whether you choose to do his will or not is whether you choose the path of good or evil.

What a load of rubbish, atheism is not any kind of religion, Richard Dawkins is ignorant! well yes of course he is, most professors at Oxford university are I suppose.

You can be all the things stated in the posts above without having to believe in some sort of god whose existance has yet to be proven.

Like Einstein said: I have no doubt that God created the universe, I just question whether he had a choice. 😉

That’s the Einstein who said:

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.

Maybe they do in Hicksville, Texas but in the real world, absolutely not.

On the contrary. The vast majority of “real world” legitimate scientists that I know of believe in God. Whether they’d be nuclear physicists, cosmologists, or aviation engineers.

Like Einstein said: I have no doubt that God created the universe, I just question whether he had a choice. 😉

The vast majority of hard-core scientist believes in God.

Maybe they do in Hicksville, Texas but in the real world, absolutely not.

This is some excerpts from previous posts at other places; including some other individuals comments and my response.

“Love Your Enemy.” “Turn The Other Cheek.” What Did Jesus Mean?

I think Jesus meant that you should try to be forgiving and passive. (To an extent) I think Jesus was trying to say not to be so vehement and vengeful.

Before Jesus it was commonly preached such things as an “eye for an eye” and “a tooth for tooth”. I think that was meant to encourage law enforcement to discourage the criminal act, however it was often backfiring and escalating, sustaining, and exacerbating; violence and other forms of vigilantism.

I think Jesus largely preached “Love Your Enemy.” and “Turn The Other Cheek.” to counterbalance “eye for an eye” and “a tooth for tooth”.

I think Jesus was saying that the world was becoming a worse place because everyone was running around trying to even the score with vendettas and grudges often based on “perceived” injustices.

Jesus also preached “ye who is without sin cast the first stone” I think that means that a person should not be so eager to run around and settle vendettas with violence, theft or bullying. I think Jesus was saying try to be forgiving especially for minor offenses and make sure that if you to decide to respond with force, make sure you have “just cause” and that is not just an excuse for some delusional “perceived” injustice.

I think Jesus was trying to say whenever reasonably possible “Love Your Enemy.” and “Turn The Other Cheek.” before resorting to “eye for an eye” and “a tooth for tooth”. I think Jesus was saying don’t be so quick and eager act out “eye for an eye” and “a tooth for tooth”. I think Jesus was also saying make sure that you have “just cause” before retaliating.

Jesus was a radical in my opinion. I think that His statements would have been met with a lot of head scratching by a majority of mankind, even now.

Apparently he was crucified in the past. He would probably be crucified figuratively if not literally today.

I think Jesus was a radical also. I don’t think radical or extremist always has a negative connotation. Einstein, Edison, Galileo all were radical extremists. Not all radicals or extremist are wrong or violent.

To me the bible is the greatest story ever written.

It might surprise you but I agree.

The Bible is largely “parables” (fictional or semi fictional stories with a deeper teachings and meanings).

The story is great because not only is it a story but it has teachings on many levels that can be understood on many levels intellectually and morally.

And the modern church is nothing more than a large corporation.

Virtually any organization has to have funds in order to exist, so therefore it is somewhat of a corporation.

There was an ironic misprint/misspelling in our church bulletin one Sunday; the spelling profits and prophets was interchanged. I jokingly accused them of making a Freudian slip.

There is absolutely no proof that anything in the bible is true, but yet several times a year scientists find proof the rebukes many things stated in the bible.

There’s two sides to that. We now know that there were great floods, famines, hellfire, and other cataclysms (that would confirm much of what happened in the Bible). I doubt the whole earth flooded, however the people at that time would have perceived it that way.

Hellfire can easily be understood now as volcanic action and as impact events (comets or meteor strikes). I can’t help but think of the description of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah was much like an impact event. Recently there has been discoveries of impact events that splattered the region. There is a crater of green glass from an impact event that I think is about 50 miles from where Sodom and Gomorrah was thought to be.

The Bible: Genesis (Creation)
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters.

And God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. ” And God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.

At the time that the Bible was written, how do you think the people would describe the Big Bang and nuclear physics to the people of the time with their understanding?

When you describe something to a young child, do you always give a complete proper technical explanation, or do you sometimes use a simplified metaphor? Usually you cannot get someone to understand everything right away, often you have to use oversimplified metaphors that are not fully technically correct, to help raise a person’s understanding to the point where they can understand the bigger picture and the more technically correct truth.

I think if I translated the start of Genesis into more modern understanding it would go something like: In the beginning there was nothing, God created hydrogen, and initiated atomic reactions which gave us light. The nuclear reactions formed other elements which formed matter as we know it. The atomic reactions triggered an explosion that formed the universe as we know it. The Big Bang also set up the conditions for life to spawn. Before there was matter, there was essentially no time, when God created matter it triggered time.

For example: the dead sea scrolls.

The dead sea scrolls have confirmed that much of the writing in the Bible is as it was originally written. However it also shows that there was some changes in the stories whether it be to translation/context errors or “revisionists through artistic or political license”.

Scientists have carbon-dated fossils back to a time before the earth was supposedly created by God. How do you argue with Science???

The problem is that people confuse the Bible and science. They are two much different things.

The study of the Bible, is the study of God’s moral laws for man. The study of science is the study of God’s physical laws for man’s environment.

The vast majority of hard-core scientist believes in God.

I don’t think the Bible is meant to be taken literally as a historical or scientific document. The Bible is about morality, not about science or history. Unfortunately many people miss understand that. I think most hard-core scientists understand that.

I think of the Bible has a lot of parables that mimic historical and explanations for things that people didn’t understand to “get their attention” to “hook them in” to teach them morality.

Unfortunately it was also used and still is used by people to grab power and abuse power. Religion can be (and is) used for good and evil.

I think many people often start out with good intentions, however many wonder from the path. Like they say, power often corrupts.

To me it seems that most Christians these days feel the need to impose their will on others.

Perhaps it is difference where you are, however I see a trend in the other way.

I think in the past there were extreme trends like what is going on much with the Moslem community today. I think much of the Spanish Inquisition message was roughly to the effect convert, expel or die, much like the radical Moslem community is promoting today.

I see less of a trend of Christian religions insisting that you belong to a particular religion or do a certain ceremony, or rite in order to be “saved”. I think it is somewhat dubious to insist on belonging to a particular group or doing a certain ceremony, or rite in order to be “saved”. To me that can be a warning sign of elitism, prejudice, snobbery, brainwashing, cultism. I like many ceremonies like communion and the message behind it, however I think sometimes people use such ceremonies to mislead, and as a form of elitism.

I think atheists evangelize and preach their form of religion (and are more pushy) more than Christians do.

respectfully disagree on Him being a pacifist.

I don’t think he was entirely a pacifist. Like the time Jesus allegedly essentially through a temper tantrum in a market square and vandalized some merchants merchandise, with some apparent protest over materialism and greed.

There are some parts in the Bible that have a confusing mixed contradictory message. The message may have been butchered in interpretation, transcription or translation.

I think Jesus meant to try to solve things peacefully and to be forgiving. However he wasn’t totally a pacifist. I jokingly say that with some of the corruption in today’s world he might be bearing a 50 caliber instead of a cross. I seriously doubt he would do that, however my point is that I think even he agreed some time it was appropriate to use violence.

This guy didn’t even try to defend Himself when he could have and died an excruciating type of capital punishment for it.

The story goes that he refused the opportunity to try to escape to evade prosecution. He also refused to give a false confession under torture.

Allegedly he gave his life so others could be “saved”. I think it also says that it is not always necessary to fight tyranny directly.

It’s like when someone (mainly verbally) assaults you in public. Sometimes by refusing to fight back you make it clear who is at fault and who is the tyrant. Unfortunately I see this trend reversing, however it used to be quite common if a bully would pick on someone that the crowd would shun or fight the bully. Unfortunately now days I see a trend in the other direction, the mob mentality, where a bully picks on a person and of the person doesn’t fight back the mob joins in with the bully.

Part of the reason that Gandhi won his objectives is he let himself be criticized. Part of the reason that the “Tuskegee airmen” or “red ball express” ect… get so much respect is they did not directly attack the racial issue aggressively, instead they proved that they were equal or better by doing their job as good or better than others. They didn’t get their respect by force, they got their respect by doing their job with excellence.

Not that I’m saying that pacifism is always appropriate or always works.

You can’t always achieve your objective, however sometimes by losing you can achieve another objective. Jesus wanted to live, but by letting himself be persecuted, he showed us that you can fight by being passive. Sometimes being passive can let wounds heal and friendships and understanding develop. The Romans eventually became Christians.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7681914.stm

Well those Christian Voice people seem to have a firm grip on reality…

…where do I sign-up? :rolleyes:

IMAO I find Richard Dawkins to be quite hateful, selfish, shallow minded and ignorant.

The Bible is largely parables. I think atheism is another form of religion; though it be illegitimate; it essentially is the worship of oneself. Atheism is selfishness and shallowness. Richard Dawkins, and many atheists are doing exactly what other religious extremists do: take the Bible literally.

God is good. If you believe there is a good and evil. Then in my opinion you believe in God. Whether you choose to do his will or not is whether you choose the path of good or evil.