Billboards Declare Prayer, Bibles Not Helping Disaster Victims

reply to post by Eryiedes


I bet he can play it at high speed, too - lots of arms to hit those licks with!

luciddream
reply to post by undo

 

no i'm talking about radicals like the bolsheviks, pol pot and company, mao and company, castro and company, people who, because they believed that humans are simply animals,

You look like another parrot preaching those awfully wrong debate words.

This goes for you and other parrots that use this stupid phrase over and over again on ATS.



Pol Pot, Mao, Stalin DID NOT KILL in the name of Atheism. It was a political move to keep their dictatorship, they did not want any outside religion influencing their power.

ALL "religious wars" are political moves. They are all predicated on political motivation, and not a single one throughout history has been predicated upon religion. Think about it logically for a second - what kind of deity needs mere humans to do his killing for him? If he needed humans to do his dirty work, I submit that the humans would then be more powerful than the deity, and so the "worship" would be flowing in the entirely wrong direction. If a god needs YOU to do his killing for him, then he by rights out to be praying to YOU for it, rather than the other way 'round.

Now, some megalomaniacs have tried to use this god or that as an excuse for their killing, but not a one has ever "killed for god" - people kill for their own behalf, or in defense of their loved ones from physical harm, but never their god. A real god would not ever BE in danger of physical harm, now would it? A "god" like that would have to do some serious housework and light repair around my house to stay in my good graces!

Atheism means having NO belief in such things.

Which is itself a belief, since it cannot nor ever will be based upon empiricism. If it were empirically justified, then NO belief (or "lack thereof") could exist in any one, any where. Empirical proof would replace both belief and "lack of belief" with certain, provable, knowledge.

You would then not call it "lack of belief", you would call it "certain knowledge", and be able to back that up.

wildtimes

Are you familiar with "DEISM"? Have you read Thomas Paine? Jefferson's Bible? ANYTHING besides the 'Holy Bible' in some random English-language version that is 'preferred' by your particular denomination?

I actually HAVE read the Jefferson Bible. I used to have a copy of it, but it got lost along the way like so much of my other "stuff". Reading that is what convinced me that Jefferson was actually an atheist rather than a deist - it ends on a note of utter hopelessness, not a very deistic notion.

Whatever his religion, the man was a political master, however. I don't miss his bible, but I WOULD miss his political input.

reply to post by nenothtu

Reading that is what convinced me that Jefferson was actually an atheist rather than a deist - it ends on a note of utter hopelessness, not a very deistic notion.

Certainly seems to fall within the spectrum of deism to me. I am more inclined to think since he denied the more supernatural aspects of Christianity that you felt it was of 'hopelessness'. However that's in no way counter to deism.

Here is a deists response to this question "Do Deists Believe in an “Afterlife?”:

"Anyone answering this question with a flat yes or no, simply isn’t qualified to answer this question. The question itself stems from the belief that a church, holy book or organization is supposed to tell its members what to believe and how to believe it.

In its’ simplest form Deism is simply an understanding that a God/Creator exists and we can determine that with reason and logic. The more we examine the universe, physics and science the more, not less real God becomes.

Your fellow Deists then leave it to you to use your reason and your God given logic to determine what that means to you in your life and frankly there after. Hence the answer to the above question is some do, some don’t and those that do have a lot of different views as to what it might be like."

Which continues with

"So the only honest way I can answer this question is to tell you what I personally believe."

moderndeist.org...

That's a deistic notion.

Whatever his religion

If he was atheist or deist he would not have one.

Grimpachi

It is in the OP. A lone sentence so it stands out.

They spent nothing.

But, surely they could have sold that space for profit instead, and donated the money to an atheist charity that only delivered practical items?

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy


Just on for a minute to check a few things and want to ask a question because I want to make sure I am reading you correctly.

You are saying Deists DO believe in god.

You are saying deists do NOT claim to know what god is and do NOT think mankind has acquired sufficient knowledge to be able to make such claims.


However you are saying DO believe that one day through reason and science mankind will discover what that god is.


If that’s what you are saying then at one time I would have been a deist.

I had that confused with agnostic theist until now (if you say I am correct in those assumptions) Strictly speaking I have ever accepted the dogma in religions.

Question though can a person be an agnostic theist which I am sure you get what I am saying but to clarify for others that may read it would mean one wouldn’t be certain that deity exists?

Bedlam

Grimpachi

It is in the OP. A lone sentence so it stands out.

They spent nothing.

But, surely they could have sold that space for profit instead, and donated the money to an atheist charity that only delivered practical items?

Did you find a source saying they owned it? Not good enough that it was free huh? I didn't know this was a hen house.

........................................

People are trying just about anything and everything to turn this around on AA one person even flat out claims it’s a lie they got it for free. No supporting evidence to back that claim up just a firm no it can’t be true. Well can’t argue with that kind of reasoning simply because there isn’t any reasoning behind it. Oh well.

Hell if I owned a billboard I would let them use it for free once in a while. That sort of thing happens all the time in the world but I guess people don’t think atheists are capable of doing it. I have seen some people post on here that we art even real humans their reasoning and language of reminiscent of old footage of Hitler speeches talking about Jews.

Not saying in this thread but in others however I can’t bring myself to read Bo’s posts they are too hard on my eyes. So I have no idea what he has been going on about.
]

reply to post by BO XIAN

Speaking of LUDICROUS . . .

Yelling bold colorful sentences does not make a cogent argument.

something totally devoid of any sort of SACRED FOUNDATION

somehow ends up with a SACRED value.

You are limiting the definition of sacred to religious context. I am not. Nor does modern dictionaries.

THAT'S as absurd of pretending that Creation sprang from CHANCE PLUS TIME--in far too little time, as well--ONLY.

Far too little time? Not sure you are fully appreciating the Universe's timeline here….

Over 13 billion years….

Yet you accuse Christians etc. of ludicrous notions.

I very much do. Thanks for noticing. It's a goal of mine to come across with lucidity

when folks throw God on the trash heap . . . they end up God-izing

Nature . . . with a capital N.

Are you suggesting all non-religious are actually pantheists? O_o

Christ the Founder of Christianity made clear that words were cheap.

Christ didn't officially organize or name it. The named occurred after with groups forming in his wake. Then it was officially organized by the Roman Empire via the formation of the Church and subsequently the Bible modern day Christians use.

IF you think Hitler did the will of God

No. No I do not. Since I don't believe any of us know the 'Will of God'. Including Hitler. I believe Hitler believed he was, yes. Just as you no doubt believe you are.

Are you really that . . . secluded in a deep dark cave somewhere?

Yes. I'm Batman.

Do you REALLY expect rational, aware, observant, informed, educated, bright folks to BELIEVE that?

I mean this with all my heart and maybe-maybenot-soul. I wouldn't expect anyone like THAT to believe in religion.

Atheism has a whole host of dogma riding with a death-grip on it's coattails inherently part and parcel of the RELIGION of atheism.

Great. Now demonstrate that.

Religion has dogma, tenets, rituals, commandments, mandated reading.

So please elaborate so everyone can see you backup your words. Explain how atheism is not just the mere non-belief in god(s), but has all those characteristics as well.

Grimpachi

Did you find a source saying they owned it? Not good enough that it was free huh? I didn't know this was a hen house.

It's the same argument you're using, just twisted a bit. No, it's not good enough that it's free. That space could have been sold for money and the money donated to the disaster relief. Instead it was used for proselytizing for a political viewpoint, namely, that a very minor part of the money provided went to something they didn't favor, i.e. bibles and religious artifacts. They try to make a point that it's ALL being spent for that, and that's not true.

Well, sauce for the goose, IMHO, if you don't like it and spend the time and cost of lost opportunity (yes that's a real cost) on carping about it, it's no different. That's possible capital they could have put toward the disaster, and did not.

And no, I'm not Catholic.

Bedlam

Grimpachi

It is in the OP. A lone sentence so it stands out.

They spent nothing.

But, surely they could have sold that space for profit instead, and donated the money to an atheist charity that only delivered practical items?

That's my thought, too. If the atheists are so against the theists methods, why don't they lead by example? What the atheists need to keep in mind is that you don't make your candle burn brighter by blowing out someone else's. They have a major ax to grind with theists and whose only real life contribution seems to be gritching and moaning about some group they have no desire to belong to.

It's been my long observation that the real charities and helpers of those in need around the world have been Christian organizations, not atheist groups. Now that atheists are forming their own "church" (hypocritical irony much?) maybe they can get on the stick and start opening schools, feeding the poor, sheltering the homeless and generally do something more constructive than badmouth theists.

reply to post by Bedlam


Well if you had read the thread you would have seen I already covered your little attempt.

Many signs around here and across the nation are blank because no one is renting them. Now a whoever owns those signs isn’t making a dime they are an expense just sitting there baren but even if they were not they allocate those signs to nonprofit organizations for a period of time this usually happens around this time of year and those owners can then deduct what they would normally charge from their taxes. Both the board owner and the organization win the owner gets a tax deduction and the organization gets a free sign. Churches and charity’s do it all the time.

Sorry bud your ship has sunk. I worked in a tax office one year.

reply to post by whitewave


I guess that's my point. If you've got a better alternative, then advertise it. "We deliver a higher percentage of your charitable dollar to the victims WITHOUT the religious overhead!" would be fine, if true.

But "Don't give any money to religious charities because we don't like religion and they're spending some of your money on RELIGION! We don't have an alternative, so we'd rather they starve than become religious!" just doesn't have the same moral snap.

Grimpachi
reply to post by Bedlam

 

Well if you had read the thread you would have seen I already covered your little attempt.

Did they donate the tax refund?

Did they use the space to advocate a non-religious alternative?

Or was the message "Don't donate at all because religion"? It seems rather unworthy, even if you are atheist.

Bedlam
reply to post by whitewave

 

I guess that's my point. If you've got a better alternative, then advertise it. "We deliver a higher percentage of your charitable dollar to the victims WITHOUT the religious overhead!" would be fine, if true.

But "Don't give any money to religious charities because we don't like religion and they're spending some of your money on RELIGION! We don't have an alternative, so we'd rather they starve than become religious!" just doesn't have the same moral snap.

Boy you must have selective reading habits. Got news for you they are telling people alternative charity’s to donate to...

One other thing.

On top of that the billboard owner is under no obligation to rent the sign to make money for AA to donate and AA is not the owner of the sign therefore they do not have the right to sublease the sign from the billboard owner. To do that they would have to get into all kinds of property tax law and the contracts and lawyers’ fees could wind up costing more than they could ever make subleasing them.

Your ship is double sunk.


BTW the tax refund goes to the owner of the sign not AA. Most times land owners are trying to afset their property taxes to break even kind of like the reason many people keep a home mortgage when they could pay off the house to offset property taxes.

Look its obvious you don't know much on tax law so instead of me giving you a class if your really interested look it up. This is the wrong thread for it.

Grimpachi
Your ship is double sunk.

I don't have a ship. Nor a dog in the hunt. However, it seems clear that their first priority is to whine about religious charities, rather than being encouraging support of the victims. You know it too, you just don't want to admit it because it blunts your message. You're generally better than that, Grim.

here's an interesting thought experiment. instead of constantly trying to disprove the validity of everybody's else's world view, why don't one of the atheists in the thread play the "devil's advocate" and make a valiant effort to defend it, just to see if perhaps their position is suffering from a lack of understanding. sometimes i have discovered that other world views i was diametrically opposed to, turned out to be more right than i orignally thought, although i still had some disagreements, there were not nearly as many. examples of those are:

zeitgeist
rosicrucianism
buddhism
mormonism
and, in some spots, atheism and agnosticism

Truthfully, I'd probably give through an efficiently run non-religious charity rather than a religious one, but the message comes across as as sort of PETA-like bitter whinging rather than a positive message.

A billboard that gives me the immediate impression the org is a lot of bitter assholes doesn't make me want to leap into action with my money. A nicely staged shot of heroic atheists putting food into some victim's hands with some positive statement about giving without the religious baggage would have been better.

reply to post by undo

why don't one of the atheists in the thread play the "devil's advocate" and make a valiant effort to defend it,

I realize your intentions are good. I don't mean to derail your effort. I have to say though...

It's not on the atheists to make that effort.

"The burden of proof lies with someone who is making a claim, and is not upon anyone else to disprove. The inability, or disinclination, to disprove a claim does not render that claim valid, nor give it any credence whatsoever. However it is important to note that we can never be certain of anything, and so we must assign value to any claim based on the available evidence, and to dismiss something on the basis that it hasn't been proven beyond all doubt is also fallacious reasoning.

Example: Bertrand declares that a teapot is, at this very moment, in orbit around the Sun between the Earth and Mars, and that because no one can prove him wrong, his claim is therefore a valid one."

yourlogicalfallacyis.com...

That said, I mentioned earlier I waiver between atheism and deism. I am not antagonistic to the metaphysical arguments for a Creator, Prime Mover, First Cause, Alpha Omega....

It's one thing to provide those philosophical arguments in support of 'God', but to then connect any particular religious dogma to it without further argument is non-sequitar.

@Grimpachi. I lost my reply to you with an earlier page timeout. Will write it again.

reply to post by Grimpachi


Oh, really?

Pope sends $150,000, as Vatican sets up fund for victims of super typhoon in Philippines
Video at link: YouTube

Caritas.org - Typhoon Haiyan

Pope Francis pleaded for aid for the survivors in the Philippines when he said, "Sadly, there are many, many victims and the damage is huge. Let's try to provide concrete help."

Catholic Relief Services -Typhoon Haiyan
Please look at the Latest News and Updates on the right side of the link.


Whenever there is a disaster my church has a second collection for relief aid. This is commonplace in Catholic churches. I threw in $20 and my house is cold and I am blessed to have just enough.

What did you do besides report bashing?

To all others who have posted here, my apology for not reading your posts.

reply to post by Grimpachi


so grim,

did you read my flood post? consider that if the creation account is egyptian, as recounted by moses,
which i believe it is, this suggests the egyptian god of creation, atum, is synonymous with adam, which is, as a result, mistranslated by translators in various minor ways. note also that it says elohim created males and females in the image of elohim, and called these male and female elohim copies, adam. what's that? yeah some of the elohim copies were female. and this event predates the creation of the eve female, who technically speaking is created from the dna of prior adam. eve was a genetic recombinant dna experiment. oh yeah, there's some real doozies in there, once you start looking closely at it

in effect, not only were select animals re-created after the global event associated with the ice age, so were the adam re-created from the elohim. i thought that was kinda weird and needed some etymological reason for it to make sense. and i found it. in the sumerian kings list ,the first king on the list is Alulim. i believe alulim is elohim, and that it wasn't a single individual, but an entire race of males and females. i also believe this alulim, was the original name for atum and therefore of adam. so everywhere the word adam appears, prior to the creation of the eve, replace it with elohim and it's the same thing.

well almost the same thing.

there were at least 3 different adam
the first adam were the elohim the second adam were copied in the image of.
the second adam were identical copies of the first, but were more like clones
the third adam were human beings. they differentiated the third adam by pointing
out that the femae adam had been modified so that she could procreate (mammalian reproduction)

that book is a treasure trove of advanced science.

p.s. the translators hid this from us by translating adam to be man, in the verse where the first male and female adam are created. naughty translators, naughty
this is why jesus refers to himself as the second adam, and also, the son of man (adam). he was from the second adam who were clones/copies of the first adam. or rather, he was from the second elohim, who were copies of the first elohim. homo sapiens don't show up in the text till eve and adam are genetically modified.