Evidence for God from Science

In Fort Worth, Texas, an atheist group will be renting ad space on the sides of buses for this message: "Millions of Americans are Good Without God." (Story here: http://www.star-telegram.com/2010/11/30 ... -fort.html)

Like most of the atheist sloganeering, I find this to be another illogical and unprovable statement. How do they define "good"? What standard do they use to define "good"? How do they know it is "without God"? Have they proven that there is no God? Where is the proof? If there is no God, then why bother with a statement like this?

The statement also demonstrates a profound ignorance of Christian ethics. Christianity does not say that one has to be a Christian to sometimes do something that is morally good. Just silly, but unfortunately it may appeal to some who are ignorant.

August wrote: Like most of the atheist sloganeering, I find this to be another illogical and unprovable statement. How do they define "good"? What standard do they use to define "good"? How do they know it is "without God"? Have they proven that there is no God? Where is the proof? If there is no God, then why bother with a statement like this?

The statement also demonstrates a profound ignorance of Christian ethics. Christianity does not say that one has to be a Christian to sometimes do something that is morally good. Just silly, but unfortunately it may appeal to some who are ignorant.

1. They standard by which they define good is dependant on where they live, but also it could be a challenge to religion saying "we can do all those nice things and not believe in god". Yes, it is appealing to a subjective, "feel good" illusory notion of morality but I'm sure you would agree that this type of morality can exist, even if objective does indeed exist.

2. Perhaps not "without God" maybe without religion would be a better way to phrase it, if what you are getting at is that God is the source of goodness in the first place.

3. For the last bit are you saying why bother talking about how morally good you can be if morals don't exist? Or maybe why are they talking about god at all if they don't believe he is there? Either way questions like this and "why not just go party and be immoral" to atheists are very boring to here repeated. The answer is simple : If atheism is true it follows that i cannot just go party and be immoral unless the random structure of matter that makes me up interacts with the environment in a way such that it happens. I have no free will, so what makes you think I could go do all these things on my own accord? With that being said, our intuition says otherwise, and this is a very powerful type of evidence for God that is not in a logical 2+2=4 format so it's not undeniable "proof" for god either.

4. I agree completely with what you said at the end, this is more or less a poster designed to bash religion, and it makes me wonder if with all the "good" atheists claim they can do they aren't up to something less childish and more constructive.

August wrote:In Fort Worth, Texas, an atheist group will be renting ad space on the sides of buses for this message: "Millions of Americans are Good Without God." (Story here: http://www.star-telegram.com/2010/11/30 ... -fort.html)

Like most of the atheist sloganeering, I find this to be another illogical and unprovable statement. How do they define "good"? What standard do they use to define "good"? How do they know it is "without God"? Have they proven that there is no God? Where is the proof? If there is no God, then why bother with a statement like this?

The statement also demonstrates a profound ignorance of Christian ethics. Christianity does not say that one has to be a Christian to sometimes do something that is morally good. Just silly, but unfortunately it may appeal to some who are ignorant.

Just shows how organised and zealous Atheists are becoming with their particular faith. They too want to answer life's questions within their faith, try to convert others, and yet stop short of identifying as a religion.

If it walks like a duck, looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then... I fail to see how mere belief is God necessitates "religion" any more than no belief.

Amen to that Kurieuo!! Spot on!

Just like the rest of evangelical atheism, I'll never understand the reason for any of these. I've spent a lot of time considering the merits of atheism over the last few months as a formerly very close friend embraced it seemingly overnight and became zealously anti-christian. I've come to conclude that the worldview offered by atheism is worse than eternal hell (I'll elaborate sometime), and so can't begin to wrap my mind around how these posters can be of any value.

The bus ads have a valuable purpose.
1. They are catalyst for thought and questions.
2. They make the public aware that morality and ethics does not require a god to exist
3. They show support for those who are questioning their religion and show them that atheists are not bad people, like many have characterized them as.

These ads do not bash religion. They speak nothing of religion. Any philosopher could make the same claim and I doubt they would be chastised for bashing religion. There are other ethical theories in philosophy and making people aware is one way of educating the public.

charlie wrote:The bus ads have a valuable purpose.
1. They are catalyst for thought and questions.
2. They make the public aware that morality and ethics does not require a god to exist
3. They show support for those who are questioning their religion and show them that atheists are not bad people, like many have characterized them as.

These ads do not bash religion. They speak nothing of religion. Any philosopher could make the same claim and I doubt they would be chastised for bashing religion. There are other ethical theories in philosophy and making people aware is one way of educating the public.

How can you have objective morality in a worldview that doesn't have an objective source of truth? According to atheism, what is truth? Isn't morality (or any other behavior) simply a result of chemical chain reactions and other forces acting on atoms in complex arrangements? I mean, aren't you and I nothing more than complex carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, etc shapes? Please, tell me how, in a purely naturalistic universe, you can have objective morality at all? How can you have 'meaning'? It's all an illusion with those assumptions. A delusion, if you will, since atheists should know better. Are you telling me you are suffering from what Dawkins accuses Christians of suffering from?

And, if you want to go the route of "well, there's morality, but its subjective", then we enter another conundrum. Subjective morality is worthless. Although, I would say anything is worthless in a universe where, for an eternal period of time there will be no life and constant absolute zero temperatures throughout all of existence.

So, before we get to ethics and morality, perhaps you'd like to address how any worldview outside nihilism and fatalism makes any sense in an atheistic universe. In this regard, I think Nietzche is the only atheist I've really seen who is consistent.

These atheist bus ads serve one primary purpose that I see: attempt to cause doubt in people who don't really know what they believe but are leaning towards God. People already know what atheism is. People already know what atheists are like (I have found the majority, but thankfully not all, to be more evangelical than Christians I know, but far more obnoxious and far more unable to see problems in their own positions). Buying ads on a bus is evangelism, though to what end an atheist would want someone to enter their gloom I will never know.

The "the fool says in his heart there is no God" psalm seems to be one passage that indicates that unbelievers can't be good.

Athiests are entitled to express their views as much as anyone else.

fromabove wrote:Athiests are entitled to express their views as much as anyone else.

They sure are but that doesn't mean they are logical or coherent statements, it is quite absurd for them to do this and makes no sense.

My only question is: Why should the atheists be bashed for renting out ads when Christians and Mormons have been doing the same for years? In fact, a billboard near my hometown was put up by a church group saying "Join us as we save the foolish from Hell" with a bunch of gay pride symbols. Atheists have come under scrutiny near here as well, for billboards that speak out against indoctrination of children. I personally find most if not all religion-based advertising to be tasteless and solely for the purpose of converting people. Even if I agree with some points, I don't think any religious view needs to be advertised on my way to school every day.

On a bit of a related side note, these advertisements led to a debate in my university's school newspaper regarding the validity and social place of atheism. Interesting stuff, especially when the University of Minnesota released a study showing that atheists are the least trusted group of people in America, ahead of typically outcasted groups here such as Muslims and recent immigrants. While I agree that stereotyping of atheists as all being ultra-militaristic in their views (like Richard Dawkins) has contributed to that statistic, I also think it has to do with the old-world social construct labeling atheists as communists, Nazis, evil, etc.

Basically, I think it's stupid to hold atheists or agnostics to a different standard than religious folk, especially when it comes to their ability to express their views.

My only question is: Why should the atheists be bashed for renting out ads when Christians and Mormons have been doing the same for years? In fact, a billboard near my hometown was put up by a church group saying "Join us as we save the foolish from Hell" with a bunch of gay pride symbols. Atheists have come under scrutiny near here as well, for billboards that speak out against indoctrination of children.

Because their stance is not consistent with their worldview, they are the ones claiming it is not a faith based system of belief yet feel the need to convert people.

I personally find most if not all religion-based advertising to be tasteless and solely for the purpose of converting people.

What is wrong with trying to convert someone into a loving relationship with their maker?

I don't think any religious view needs to be advertised on my way to school every day.

Why should anything be advertised at all, just in case it offends someone?

Basically, I think it's stupid to hold atheists or agnostics to a different standard than religious folk, especially when it comes to their ability to express their views.

I don't think anyone here is saying they shouldn't advertise or not be allowed to but were commenting on the absurdity of it and how it is inconsistent with their worldview.
*edit* I think we are just holding them to the same standard that they hold us to.

Dan

Ivellious wrote:My only question is: Why should the atheists be bashed for renting out ads when Christians and Mormons have been doing the same for years?

As Daniel said, there's nothing wrong with trying to convert people into a loving relationship with God. Sure, sometimes it's done in a somewhat inconsiderate manner, but nobody is perfect. Look, on the other hand, what atheist ads say - "There is no God" is an anti-theist message, and of course it will offend religious believers.

Ivellious wrote:In fact, a billboard near my hometown was put up by a church group saying "Join us as we save the foolish from Hell" with a bunch of gay pride symbols.

What is your opinion on pro-gay advertisement, by the way? Do you think it's different from pro-religious advertisement, and if so, why?

Ivellious wrote:Atheists have come under scrutiny near here as well, for billboards that speak out against indoctrination of children.

I agree with what Daniel said - such messages are logically inconsistent, and I'd also add that they are rather hypocritical.

Ivellious wrote:I personally find most if not all religion-based advertising to be tasteless and solely for the purpose of converting people. Even if I agree with some points, I don't think any religious view needs to be advertised on my way to school every day.

So what? There are plenty of ads that I personally find offensive and irritating, especially those that try to make me accept something, and call me names if I don't (read between the lines). Finally, who asks me what I think or like?

Ivellious wrote:a study showing that atheists are the least trusted group of people in America, (...) I also think it has to do with the old-world social construct labeling atheists as communists, Nazis, evil, etc.

I think it has to do with the fact that an atheist doesn't have an objective reason, other than a social construct, to be trustworthy.

I like the disection reactionary...

Seems like the content has been removed. I wonder if it got too much backlash?