Atheist Murals on Bloomington Buses

[BloodEclipse]

I agree totally about religion being the responsibility of the parents. As I said before, the converse is true as well. Belief should be a choice anyway, I would not force my kids to be Christians, that is something they should come to on their own. Why is an atheist parent so afraid of their kids being exposed to Christian beliefs? Shouldn't they make that choice on their own as well?

While I agree in principle with your statement "WE all are supposed to have our own individual freedoms, not to be dictated or controlled by any group, regardless of majority or minority." the fact remains that the minority should not be dictating what the majority can or cannot do. i.e. Political Correctness. It is OK to offend Christians, but it is NOT OK to offend Atheists?

Being Agnostic is something I chose for myself after much research and self examination. That is my choice and not my children's. Both of my kids have been to many different churches and the choice has always been theirs.
While this is not true of all Atheists, a large majority of them had a bad experience with religion and are not really nonbelievers more than they are Anti-Religion. I think that is evident in this discussion.

 

[Roadie]

Being Agnostic is something I chose for myself after much research and self examination. That is my choice and not my children's. Both of my kids have been to many different churches and the choice has always been theirs.
While this is not true of all Atheists, a large majority of them had a bad experience with religion and are not really nonbelievers more than they are Anti-Religion. I think that is evident in this discussion.

I totally respect everything you said. I am glad you have made it your children's choice as well.

Thank you for sharing this with us.

 

[K_W]

OK, I'm back, again please don't take offense, or think I am picking on you. I just like a challenge.

You did, in fact, have religion pushed on you.

I repeat, never once was either a religious or non-religious agenda pushed upon me. Physics, Chemistry, Biology, ect. are not an "agenda", they are established modern science.

You just didn't mind, because you support the Atheist/Humanist religion being taught in schools,

Atheism is not a religion, it is the rejection of theism (religion) or dieties. As such it is impossible to classify it as a religion. Humanism is not a religion either, it is a philosophy. Neither of which is taught in any school I have ever set foot in.

the unproven and unprovable guesses that are being taught as scientific fact.

While evolution is still "technically" a theory, it's validity is not in doubt outside the religious establishments. Biologists are finding more and more evidence in favor of it, at every turn

Darwinism that even Darwin repudiated, beliefs that Darwin pointed out required even more and even blinder faith than Chrisitianity and what has been come to be called "intellegent design."

I have studied Darwin and his theories, I don't think that statement is correct. Please cite your source. If you are referring to a certain line in one of his books, read the rest of that paragraph.

No, ya'll don't mind if Atheism is preached like that to our kids, if your religion is forced on us by the government in such fashion.

Actually, I, and most other Atheists would not want your children to be forced in to anything, religious or not.

You don't mind if the bigoted, dishonest viewpoint that Christianity is responsible for our world's evils (a viewpoint stated several times on just this thread) is forced on kids in history classes, despite the absolute, deliberate dishonesty of such teachings.

Again not trying to offend you personally, but there is no way to sugar coat this part...

It's a fact that Christian texts, as well as those of alot other religions, past and present, clearly direct their followers to attack, in one form or another, those who do not believe as they do. Such passages have been used to justify grave atrocities throughout history.

How is that dishonest? What would you have us put into the history books?

You call such teachings legitimate. Hitler said the same about his anti-religious beliefs.... he was just honest about his goals for folks who's religious beliefs he hated. I think you people have the same wishes for Christians. But you can't say so.. not yet.

I'm not sure what you mean, in reference to Hitler, but I can tell you myself and every other Atheist I know, mean no harm or ill will to individual believers, it is the belief system which we take issue with.

Klukkers and atheists. Frankly, I often can't tell the difference.

Please stop grouping us together, it's not right.

You say it's "militant" atheists. We both know it's not true. It's so called mainstream atheists, doing all they can to force us underground, to silence our right to speak, spitting on the Constitution with every effort they take to use Government force to supress our First Amendment rights.

I took your original point to mean that you know of individual Atheists pointing to individual believers and blaming them personally for the past misdeeds of their chosen belief system. If you do, I apologize, those guys are jerks.

Most Atheists, like most other rational human beings, would take care not to trample on your feelings, much less your rights, as it has been done to them and they don't want to do the same to you.

I await your response, or anyone else's.

 

[antsi]

While evolution is still "technically" a theory, it's validity is not in doubt outside the religious establishments. Biologists are finding more and more evidence in favor of it, at every turn

Just to be very clear - people mean very different things when they say "believe in evolution." So when we say that evolution is strongly supported by scientific evidence, we should be very clear what we mean by 'evolution.'

Three basic belief sets that people call 'evolution' in general usage:

1) Variations within a species (like longer necks, bigger feet, better night vision; whatever) that confer a survival advantage are more likely to be passed on to offspring than variations that are survival-neutral or that have a negative impact on survival. Over time, this process repeating itself causes changes in the anatomic form and physiologic function of a species. This is what Darwin was talking about.

2) Natural selection, the process described in 1), is also same process that causes differentiation between one species and another

3) The universe came in to existence, and life arose from non-living matter, according to the everyday natural processes of chemistry and physics. In other words, the advent of the universe and the advent of life occurred independently of any special agency or intervention from outside the scientically observable world.

1) is certainly backed up with impressive scientific evidence.
2) is supported by some scientific evidence, but not as strongly as 1).
3) isn't supported by any science at all. It is a purely faith-based statement. Atheistic faith, perhaps, but faith nonetheless.

I realize that real, professional scientists don't use definition #3, but lay people often do. When a lay person says "I believe in #3, and that belief is an established scientific fact," they're being totally clueless.

 

[K_W]

I tried to respond... didn't come out right on account of being so tired it's hard to type... will try tomorrow.

 

[Caleb]

I think this is exactly why they didn't want controversial ads on the buses. No matter what side you pick, there's one universal truth...these ads are only intended to sway people to ad supporter way of thinking. They cause division, and some cases, offends people that don't agree. Now that atheists got their way, who do you think is going to get pissed if the christians decide to use the same exact rights as the atheists?

 

[ATF Consumer]

I think this is exactly why they didn't want controversial ads on the buses. No matter what side you pick, there's one universal truth...these ads are only intended to sway people to ad supporter way of thinking. They cause division, and some cases, offends people that don't agree. Now that atheists got their way, who do you think is going to get pissed if the christians decide to use the same exact rights as the atheists?

The Satanist

 

[lowriderjim]

Fox and friends discussed the bus signs thiis AM. The text was somthing like you cam be good without God. The show questioned a rep of the atheist about using God on thier banners when thay don't believe in God. His answers did not make sense to me.

I believe that the Bill of Rights states that our basic rights are granted by god.

I believe in the right of free speech which gives these folks a right to speak what they believe but I don't have to agree.

 

[Windwalker]

For those who think that government under this administration can't tell a specific business how it must be run, look at General Motors.

 

[Annie Oakley]

Interesting conversation. I am an atheist and only want to not have people trying to cram their beliefs down my throat. I don't do it to them. If churches are allowed to advertise than why can't non-believers? I don't think these ads are meant to do anything except to point out that you don't have to believe to be a good person.

Over the years I have helped and been helped out by people of all beliefs. No one group is better than another and we all are free to have our own opinions.

 

[jontheturboguy]

The universe came in to existence, and life arose from non-living matter, according to the everyday natural processes of chemistry and physics. In other words, the advent of the universe and the advent of life occurred independently of any special agency or intervention from outside the scientically observable world.

Oh really? So you mean to tell me that a bunch of inert gasses decided to explode - randomly - just one day and due to the explosion they increased their matter exponentially? That's a new feggin magic trick....

1) is certainly backed up with impressive scientific evidence.

Interesting. I've never seen proteins, carbons, alkali, and silicates become a living organism in a science lab.

3) isn't supported by any science at all. It is a purely faith-based statement. Atheistic faith, perhaps, but faith nonetheless.

I realize that real, professional scientists don't use definition #3, but lay people often do. When a lay person says "I believe in #3, and that belief is an established scientific fact," they're being totally clueless.

So you mean to tell me that if a computer, that is capable of trillions of processes a millisecond, wakes up one day and sees its creator (a human) that it's not a logical, clue full, rational explanation for the computer to determine a creator or intelligent design?

 

[antsi]

jontheturboguy,

You need to re-read my post.

You're arguing against things that I am also arguing against.

You're asserting things that I am also asserting.

Your reply is trying to argue against me, but we're actually saying the same thing.

Match up the numbers.
Both of the #1's go together. Both of the #2's go together. Both of the #3s go together.

For #3, I am not outlining a belief that I actually share. I'm outlining a belief that I hear people espouse all the time, and pretend that it is "scientific," when in fact it is not.

Oh really? So you mean to tell me that a bunch of inert gasses decided to explode - randomly - just one day and due to the explosion they increased their matter exponentially? That's a new feggin magic trick....

No, I don't mean to tell you that. In fact, I am speficially arguing against this belief in the lower #3, saying that it is really an atheistic faith statement, not a science based statement.

Originally Posted by antsi
1) is certainly backed up with impressive scientific evidence.
Interesting. I've never seen proteins, carbons, alkali, and silicates become a living organism in a science lab.

Neither have I seen such. And again, you are misunderstanding. Again, match up the #1's. There is plenty of tangible evidence for micro-evolution (changes of characteristics within the same species).

Please, go back and re-read, and match up the numbers. Once you understand what I was saying, I think you will find we are much more in agreement than your initial impression.

 

[Crystalship1]

Interesting conversation. I am an atheist and only want to not have people trying to cram their beliefs down my throat. I don't do it to them. If churches are allowed to advertise than why can't non-believers? I don't think these ads are meant to do anything except to point out that you don't have to believe to be a good person.

Over the years I have helped and been helped out by people of all beliefs. No one group is better than another and we all are free to have our own opinions.

Well stated. Unfortunately, here like in life we have people who don't believe that we all have rights. And when we do stand-up for those rights they some how turn it around and start railing about us hating them and say we are demanding they respect our rights while we refuse to respect theirs which was never the case.

This has been a great and mostly civil thread with everyone trying to be objective with only two glaring and stereotypical exceptions.

 

[techres]

What happened to simple debate in open society with the goal being an open exchange of ideas and the goal being a market of ideas that fairly and honestly compete for the handful of seekers that have not found a home?

I find myself discouraged that this debate often turns into a race towards victimhood. Whose the bigger victim, whose group has a war waged against them, etc.

That should not be who we are, or the way to represent the faith we value so deeply.

 

[ATF Consumer]

 

[Agent 007]

.

 

[mikea46996]

What happened to simple debate in open society with the goal being an open exchange of ideas and the goal being a market of ideas that fairly and honestly compete for the handful of seekers that have not found a home?

I find myself discouraged that this debate often turns into a race towards victimhood. Whose the bigger victim, whose group has a war waged against them, etc.

That should not be who we are, or the way to represent the faith we value so deeply.

Where is my plus 1000 smiley?????

Everybody complaining and take sides of my religion or lack thereof is better then yours should take this man's advice!!!!!!!!!!

Putting flame suit on!!!

This statement came from a Jewish member!!!!!! The most persecuted religion I know of.... Everybody needs to realize FREEDOM OF SPEECH and RELIGION is what this country was founded on!!!!!

Techres THANK YOU!!!!

 

[Roadie]

I'm not an atheist, I'm an agnostic. Not only do I know if a god exists or not, I don't particularly care. Given the astounding injustices I've seen in this life, I can't imagine that a benevolent god exists. Doesn't your bible say that most won't enter the "kingdom of heaven?" I find it hard to "love" a god who has predetermined that he's going to torture the large percentage of beings that he created in fire for all eternity. Kinda like burning my kids with cigarettes because they don't behave. Nice.

Fervent atheists are just as bad as fervent religious kooks. Completely convinced that they know something that is unknowable. That's fine, as long as you acknowledge that you may be wrong. If you don't have the intellectual capacity to understand that your particular unprovable religion just MAY be wrong, then you are nothing but the same type of mindless sheep that is often scorned on this board.

I'll take intellect and fact over superstition and voodoo any day of the week. Maybe someday in my life, I will see something that makes me think differently, but for now, you are free to worship any one of a hundred different versions of Jesus that you want, and I'll just keep on being a good person. Those who attach being a good person to adherence to some sort of religion are not the good people that they think they are. But hey, they've got "god" on their side, right?

Mindless sheep eh? Wanna compare IQs (edit) friend? Don't assume that because I am a Christian, that makes me an ignorant savage, you would be sorely mistaken.

Now that you have gone on your anti Christians rant, do you feel better?

Good. Now. Go back and re-read my post, and the post I responded to, and see what the actual point was. I can explain it to you if it is beyond your level of comprehension.

 

[Crystalship1]

Careful, gentle christian........ I got in trouble for calling somebody "Goob". I'm sure "Sparky" qualifies too. You probably ought to keep your rants as clean as possible too!!!

 

[Roadie]

Shouldn't his "mindless sheep" balance out my "sparky"? lol

Thank you for the reminder.