One for you Mozzaok and all other Athiests.

The Atheist Bus Campaign will soon run on buses across the UK capital with the slogan "There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life."(02:01)

http://media.theage.com.au/?category=Breaking%20News&rid=43148

Enjoy

Where do suppose the bus is going sprint?  

I think "Don't worry be happy" has a better ring to it.

It is a curiously soft message. They might as well say maybe God does exist.

Whatever happened to 'religion is the root of all evil', or 'those children must be liberated from their parents', or 'Dawkins has proved that God doesn't exist'. I've seen atheists say all these things, apparently with a straight face. I think even here on this forum.

amadd - sorry about missing that.

my thoughts are being an athiest or not has no bearing on going to hell or not.

Amadd wrote on Oct 27^th, 2008 at 7:36pm:





Hi Amadd,

Atheists are realists.....

.....whereas, religious people are people who believe in faerie tales?






LETS EXPLORE THIS A LITTLE FURTHER....

As we know, it is impossible to prove a negative.

Correct?

Therefore yes, a reason-able atheist, would give himself a 6 [on the above 1 - 7 scale].


+++++


On the other hand, it is possible to prove a positive.

Have you considered, just perhaps, some ppl have 'proved' a positive [within their own experience]?

Hence some 1's from the religious bod's?




Amadd,

In my experience, there are 4 kinds of people walking this earth...

1. There are people who believe that there is no God.
2. There are people who believe that there may be a God. But hey, they don't know.
3. There are people who believe that there is a God, and they pray to him.
4. There are people who know there is a God.


I can guess your next response.

"How can anyone know there is a God???"


May i suggest, those ppl who have been in his presence can.

And many ppl alive today, do in fact make such a claim.

That they have had a 1st hand experience of God.

Saying this [above], i know that atheists, and many others, are always going to be sceptical about such claims.

So be it.

But additionally, let me ask you this Q.

Does the experience of a[nother] person become [in fact] invalid, because YOU have not shared such an experience?

What is YOUR answer to that question?

[Answer recorded]




NOW, PROCEED BELOW....

++++++++++

Now Amadd,

To demonstrate a point of logic, imagine that it were possible for you to take a one way trip, back in time 500 years, to lets say 1500's England.

And you begin to tell the natives of that time, about things from the distant future.

And you tell them [for instance] that it is possible for....

1/ A man-made metal 'bird' of gigantic dimensions [a 747 Jumbo], weighing 300 tons, to fly through the air.
2/ And that it is possible to build a machine which can send images, and messages [by radio waves], many miles away, through the ether, to other people.

Besides the fact that after you tell the natives of those parts these things, you may very well be the very next candidate to be taken to the town common, to be burned at the stake as a witch.....

Wouldn't it be almost impossible for you to prove to those ppl, that you have been a witness of these things, of which you spoke of?

Wouldn't your claims that you had seen those wondrous things, be regarded as unprovable non-sense?




Amadd,

Do you think that the minds, of some ppl who live today, are any less 'closed', than the minds of ppl who lived 500 years ago?

People like Dawkins believe in their own experience.

And that is a reasonable position.

And what ppl like Dawkins are really saying [to those who have a  different  experience] is,
....."Please don't challenge my reality, with your different experience. Because i can not handle my reality and my truth being wrong!"



Reality and truth?

Sadly, reality is reality.

And truth is truth.

And we all come here, to choose our own reality, and to choose our own TRUTH.
.....in much the same way, as the ppl who lived 500 years ago were compelled to choose their reality and their truth.

Let me clarify those last words.

Do i believe in an absolute reality, and an absolute TRUTH?

Yes.

Or should i say, ABSOLUTELY!



But, i do not believe that we humans, being finite creatures, can understand such absolutes, except in a limited [by our own finite-ness] way.


Is my God a 'reality'?

For me, yes.



p.s.
I'm a 1 [on the above 1 - 7 scale].


++++

1 Corinthians 2:9
But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
10  But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
11  For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
12  Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
13  Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
14  But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

It's actually impossible to prove anything, one can only disprove.

That is not true. It depends entirely on the methodology/field of study.

It does not become invalid, it already is invalid.  Without an external method of verification it holds little weight.

Circular reasoning.

freediver wrote on Oct 28^th, 2008 at 1:46pm:


You cannot prove anything in science which requires observation.

freediver wrote on Oct 28^th, 2008 at 1:46pm:


Just how is that circular reasoning.  Anecdotal evidence has to be verified before it become valid.