Hannah Cann tells us why she loves political correctness.
Do you have swine flu? No. Do you know anybody who does have swine flu? Probably not. So what's all the fuss about?
Can't afford ethical clothing but can afford a night out at Ziggy's? Jennifer Heyes discusses where students' priorities should really lie.
Three of The Yorker's blogs team have had a hard think about what general rules they live their lives by and written them down in the form of their own Personal Philosophies.
Now is it just me or, for a group of people who base a lot of their argument on the concept of "There’s about as much proof of God existing as there is for the existence of the tooth fairy", are they being about as immature as they are accusing people who believe in God as being?
That’s not to say I disagree with this idea of, as some reports have described it, "atheists having a voice". I think it’s fantastic that people who don’t believe in God are having the chance to voice their opinions, and they’ve done it fairly creatively and without aggression with their favoured slogan of “There probably is no God; now stop worrying and enjoy life”. They’ve taken their ideas, affixed it with ‘probably’ instead of ‘definitely’ and made their opinions public. I like the fact that there was no forum for this kind of opinion that didn’t rely on abusive comments or tense academic debates; so these people have created one.
I think it’s fantastic that people who don’t believe in God are having the chance to voice their opinions, and they’ve done it fairly creatively.
In essence, it’s legalised graffiti, but with a message that makes you apply far more brain power than traditional "blank loves blank 4 eva". I like the way that this makes people think. I like the way that two different groups, both atheists and Christians get to put across their opinions in a creative, if slightly petty, way.
I think one thing to consider though is this: Christians aren’t the only group that believes in God. We have in this country a diverse collection of Muslims, Buddhists, Christians, Jews, and many other mainstream and lesser known groups. So why is it the Christians who are getting the brunt of this yet again?
Could it be because it was a Christian group (not all Christians; there’s a difference) that put up the religious ads initially? Or is it because we British are so concerned that we will be accused of intolerance, or even direct racism, that we simply avoid questioning (that’s right, simply questioning, not attacking) any religion that may A) respond with an accusation of an ‘-ism’ or B) possess a stereotype of responding violently?
I’m not a Christian, but the more I look at them as a group the more I can see why they are used as a soft target for all kinds of issues. Sometimes it seems like people use Christians as a target in the religion debate simply because they are so afraid of being accused of some socially unacceptable bias against another group that they once again start debating the beliefs of a relatively placid and mainly pacifist few.
I don’t agree with everything Christians have to say. I don’t agree with the way that some of them (again, not all of them) try to get people to come over to their way of thinking. Most of all, I don’t believe the same as they do. However, I don’t believe the same as all atheists do either.
Call me indecisive. Call me gullible. Call me weak if you must. Never call me closed minded though. I find the creativity of the atheists in this bus ad debate fantastic, and I think it’s good that we live in a country where somebody looked at the religious slogans and thought "I’m quite tired of just seeing that… I want my opinion voiced too" and was able to do that. It is this kind of action and tolerance of said action that keeps the concept of freedom of expression alive and well.
However, what we as a nation must be careful of is the possibility of becoming way too harsh on a single group because they are the ones who will tolerate it; or becoming too harsh on a group as a whole, when it is a sub-group that is causing the issue (for example, in the case of the poster campaign it was the Alpha Foundation that put up the ads).
Perhaps the correct reaction to this should be a series of responses from different groups. Possibly that would simply perpetuate the pettiness, but at least it would be fair. Even agnostics like me should get a voice, although I don’t think we could be as catchy as either of the two groups so far involved: “There may be a God; if you see him say hi from us” probably wouldn’t have the desired impact.
#13, fair point. I was just pointing out that I come from a scientific background and don't feel any confliction between what I know about the big bang and what I know about God.
#11, he was making a valid point. If you have no reason to believe in "right" and "wrong" and are a radical liberal, you would believe that rape and murder is fine... the fact that most athiests have an ethical code disregards that argument though.
#18, I for one don't wish harm upon LGBT individuals and I feel ashamed when I find Christians that are intolerant. There are plenty of people that I know, however, who are athiests and dislike homosexuality because they see it as "wrong" so I wouldn't blam faith as the reason. Christianity does not provide justification for intolerance in ANY respect and I would argue that point to death.
#20, I would say that I have perfectly rational reasons for believing in God, based on what I have seen in my life. To suggest that I'm acting blindly and without good cause simply causes me to believe that you don't really understand the philosophy of religion at all. Whether you are good academically or not, I am not an irrational being and I am not trusting without good cause. I cannot say that my trust is certainly placed but I can definitely say that I see my beliefs as rationally based.
And also if there wasn't evil on this planet, what would be the point of this entire life? I mean we'd already be without sin so what'd be the point?
Jason. To your earlier post proclaiming the pointlessness of the posters:
Surely the same could be said of any poster proclaiming "God will save you" or "You will go to hell for not believing"? Offering reward or threatening punishment from someone that one doesn't believe in is about as effective as warning an adult that Santa will only come if your good. As an atheist I feel completely unswayed by the threat that someone I don't believe in will send me to a place that I don't believe in because I don't believe in him. Especially as the conception of Christianity based Hell that dominates modern discussion is essentially a fallacy derived from mistranslation.
Jason: You are not being consistent with your faith. Presumably what you know about God is from the Bible?
The bible describes God separating the waters above from the waters below (the earth) with an expanse, and placing all the stars and galaxies in the expanse. If there was an above and below, there must have been a gravity field, which means there must have been a center, and that the rest of the universe is in the expanse strongly suggests that the universe is bounded.
This is very different to the specifically unbounded, and non-centric universe that the big bang assumes.
Which do you believe? If you believe in the big bang then the bible must be wrong. If the very beginning of the bible is wrong why should you believe the rest of it? Jesus continuously quoted from Genesis and never belittled it, so was he also lying? Perhaps what you have learned of God from the bible is also a lie. After all it would be foolish to trust a person whose first words to you turn out to be lies!
If you do believe the bible, then perhaps you should re-evaluate whether it is consistent to believe in the big bang. With different assumptions (centric, bounded universe) the maths and physics don't lead you to the big bang any longer. Do you want to face your creator and have to admit you thought that fallible scientists with their ever changing theories and assumptions knew better than the word of the all-powerful and unchanging God who was there when it happened? Is God's word ever meant to deceive us? If he is omniscient and created our minds, he would know how not to deceive us: by telling the truth!
What would be the point of life without evil? How about to live life in a perfect loving relationship with our creator as he originally intended. Are you suggesting that God intended sin and evil to be in the world? If it was there when he created it why would he see that it was "good"? Is sin good? Why would I need Jesus to save me from my sin if sin is a good part of God's creation?
Note: this isn't meant to offend, but simply to challenge you to be more consistent with what you believe. 
Following on from #15 someone asked me to clarify what i meant when i said i was uncomfortable with the concepts of hell and sin.
Put simply, if hell exists and you can be sent to burn for eternity in it for not doing what God says (being rich, gay, a hindu, an atheist, denying the trinity, worshipping idols, and various other minor misdemeanors) as well as for serious crimes, then God is behaving like a terrorist. Do as I say or suffer. Simple as that.
Similarly with sin, I'm not a sinner because the bible says so, or the talmud says so, or the quran says so, or because some make-believe snake tempted someone to eat an apple. Eating a freakin' apple. Not exactly crime of the century is it?
I try to live my life pretty decently. I wasn't born with any 'original sin'. I give money to charity, i help those less fortunate than myself, but i try to progress my life as well(and enjoy doing so). If that means being rich, eating prawns, having sex before marriage, not getting married at all, being gay, being a hindu, being an atheist, associating with those of other faiths and none, then so be it. I don't consider any of those sins.
I've had sex before marriage and earned some money. God drowned the population of an entire planet, sent an innocent man to death, asked a man to kill his own son as a 'test of faith'.
Who's the bigger sinner?
I can't believe God has the cheek to suggest the answer to that question is me, not him.
#24:
It sounds like you've twisted the meaning of sin to suit you and make God the bad guy. If God were to say to you "you are a sinner", and his intended meaning of sin/evil is along the lines of "doing stuff that displeases God", the meaning of his sentence is "you do stuff that displeases God". Stating your own definition of "sin" does not change anything because your definition of sin is not what he was referring to.
As for hell, surely it is perfectly within God's rights as our creator to prevent those who sin from spending eternity in his presence.
If you were refering to Jesus (as the innocent man) you should also bear in mind that Jesus died willingly, and it was out of love for us that he payed that penalty for our sin so that we could spend eternity in his presence. He didn't have to do such a thing, can you really call that evil?
The "apple": The bible doesn't call it an apple, but the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Their sin was disobeying God's explicit command not to eat from it.
Oh no, I wonder whether Jason Rose will be coming back here..! On one side he has that unstoppable impulse to have his say in everything, everywhere, all the time, but on the other he might have to admit that he's wrong to both believe in God and study Astrophysics... Wait and see, wait and see...
#26: I don't think study of astrophysics depends on belief in the big bang, any more than the study of biology depends on belief in evolution.
My bet is he'll be back 
#22, I think that saying "you will go to hell for disbelieving" is also entirely inappropriate for putting on a bus. Even if it is done with positive intent (which was my point - the positive intent behind athiest advertising is lost on me) it is still a negative message.
#23 I know you didn't mean to offend and I am not offended. I believe, however, that you are wrong in your assertion that I am not being consistant with my faith. I believe that the bible is a collection of writings from throughout the history of Judaism documenting major events. The fact that Genesis wasn't recorded until after Exodus implies that most of the early tales were recorded by word of mouth and are therefore based on chinese-whispers style tales. I do not believe that the world was created in 7 days though I acknowledge that there is no reason why an omnipotent God couldn't make the world in 7 days and then make it appear to be significantly older (I don't know why he would bother with the effort but hey, his brain is bigger than mine 
)
I would be perfectly happy to kneel before the Lord and openly say "hey, sorry about that whole Big Bang thing. I just thought that they were right because they made no sense. I'm sorry - I was wrong all along" and seek forgiveness for that misplaced faith. I still, however, have firm faith in God and that, I believe, is more important.
Regarding that point, the bible also documents prophecies made, first-hand accounts etc. There is no reason that the entire chapter of 1 Kings:20 is included to say that a prophet told him to send a few men into battle. It would be preferable, historically, to say "we were really small and we totally owned them rofl" but by ceding power to the Lord it shows that they believed it. Whether they were doing it ritually or with true faith I can't say but it shows that all the prophecies, which were met in Christ, were made with the belief that they would come true.
That means that born-in-bethlehem, of David's line, died-and-rose-in-exactly-3-days, etc. etc. were real predictions made thousands of years before (which we can confirm with the Dead Sea Scrolls). Think of the chance of that - isn't it incredible? 
#26, was there ever any doubt?
#27, I completely agree. However my point was originally that studying astrophysics shows that I have actually THOUGHT about my faith and am not just humming to myself to block out the scientific arguments..!
Jason:
It doesn't imply they were recorded by word of mouth, simply that they cannot be traced. Even assuming that moses didn't have any divine influence when recording Genesis (which is unlikely given Exodus 33:11 "The LORD would speak to Moses face to face, as a man speaks with his friend"), they were quite capable of written language. For each person in the geneologies the exact age of their father at their birth and their age at death is recorded. Would they really record details like that and then leave the creation of the world to word of mouth? In any case Noah coexisted with six of his ancesters who coexisted with Adam (most of the overlaps are in the hundreds of years) so the chances of chinese-whispers having an effect before the flood really is negledgable anyway. In fact Isaac coexisted with Shem (his great*8 grandfather) who coexisted with Methuselah (Shem's great grandfather) who coexisted with Adam (Methuselah's great*5 grandfather)!
We don't have observational evidence of an old earth. All other dating is about interpretation of the facts (physical objects) given certain assumptions about the past. If you assume the world is old, then naturally you will date things older because you assume stuff happens slower and gradually. Similarly if you assume noah's flood took place then you take it into account when interpreting the geological column. So whether the earth looks old really depends on your worldview.
Fair enough, I hope it goes well 
comment deleted by a moderator
comment deleted by a moderator
comment deleted by a moderator
comment deleted by a moderator "We don't have observational evidence of an old earth. All other dating is about interpretation of the facts (physical objects) given certain assumptions about the past. If you assume the world is old, then naturally you will date things older because you assume stuff happens slower and gradually. Similarly if you assume noah's flood took place then you take it into account when interpreting the geological column. So whether the earth looks old really depends on your worldview."
Erm, not really. You see if you assume that the earth is 6,000 years old your conclusion is that our science is wrong. Whereas if you assume that science is right you conclude that the earth is billions of years old.
But I'm not going to argue the point because it is completely irrelevant. Whether God made the world in a day or a trillion years is immaterial; we should be looking forward to Glory, present at what we can do and past at The New Covenant.
#34: Just 1 more question Jason. How would you respond to Exodus 20:11 which God physically spoke to all Israel and wrote directly on stone tablets?
The consequences of God lying are surely slightly worse than irrelevant to the Christian faith, they are catastrophic to it, because they give us no reason to trust anything else God said. Why should we obey any of the ten commandments if one of them contains a blatant lie?
I acknowledge this compromise won't affect your salvation and I admire your faith, but for a lot of people (myself included) a lying God would be a pretty massive sticking point against accepting the gospel, so it might well be at the expense of other people's salvation.
Personally I would say that the stories up to the end of 2 Chron are all based on truth but that the specifics are misleading. It's obvious in some places that they were very definite in checking numbers but in others they just guessed multiples of hundreds/thousands or said "77" because it's a number that they like. I wouldn't trust those numbers as being historically accurate because 77 simply means "a lot" to them. Likewise when God "spoke" to the priests it could easily mean, as many modern Christians mean it, that they felt in their heart it was right and assumed God had spoken to them. I have absolutely no idea what Moses experienced at the burning bush - maybe God did speak to the whole of Israel.... but maybe they just felt that it was what he said. I can't tell.
It's up to individuals to judge what they see as logical. If it wasn't for science, it could be seen as logical to assume the specifics in Genesis were correct (though, frankly, I doubt that every species of snake is leg-less as a result of the Eden incident) but I personally believe that. I wouldn't say that I am sure - I wouldn't even say that I think I'm correct - but to me it is the thing that I think makes the most sense at present. Ask me again in a year
I have no idea why those four banterous, (and I'm sure even Jason and James will agree) tongue in cheek posts were deleted by an overzealous moderator. To recap what they said, along the lines of:
Post 1: Anyone who believes the earth is circa 6,000 years old is an idiot - fair point.
Post 2: James Hogan believes the earth is 6,000 years old. True.
Post 3: Therefore......(I'm struggling with basic logic....)
Post 4: Ask Jason, he's smart, he does astrophysics....
The end.
"#20, I would say that I have perfectly rational reasons for believing in God, based on what I have seen in my life. To suggest that I'm acting blindly and without good cause simply causes me to believe that you don't really understand the philosophy of religion at all. Whether you are good academically or not, I am not an irrational being and I am not trusting without good cause. I cannot say that my trust is certainly placed but I can definitely say that I see my beliefs as rationally based."
Please do elaborate on this Jason.
You call yourself a "rational being". Surely, a rational being proportions his belief to the evidence and will consider alternative explanations for the same phenomena.
I'm curious to know what evidence you personally think you have.
From my perspective, the evidence that individuals tend to put forward in favour of religion, tends to be explainable in other, more down to earth terms. Even if you were to accept some of this evidence that people put forward as a sign of some spiritual truth, or metaphysical reality, it leaves you in the dark as to which one. People around the world have very different spiritual and religious understandings and beliefs, and it just does not make sense to claim that all of them are true. To take one random example, it is positively irrational to hold both the Christian view of the trinity, and the Muslim view of the unity of God. It just doesn’t work. You can say that all of them are different ways of interpreting the same god, or different understandings of the same religious experience, or something to that effect. But in doing so, you are changing what you claim to believe in. You no longer believe in the true unity of God as metaphysical truth, you believe in some other ultimate form of God/spirituality, of which a unity of God is one acceptable interpretation. Needless to say, the majority of devout Muslims would not be particularly happy with this move.
Claiming to hold your religious beliefs on rationality tends to lead to things getting unstuck somewhere along the way. If you think God can be explained in rational terms you’ll end up with all the fun of working out what omnipotence means, and whether God could create a stone too heavy for Him to subsequently lift. You’ll have to worry about the problem of evil, and of course it leaves you open to the annoying question “So, what evidence would you accept as falsification of the existence of God?”
Frankly, you’d be much better off to do away with the rationality claim altogether, and say that there are some things that you prefer not to be rational about. You don’t base your belief in God in the same way as you base anything else. You don’t go looking for evidence and counter-evidence to justify God’s existence. You just believe in God. You have faith and you’re not trying to be rational about it. Fideism is frankly quite a good solution, and I’m not sure why argumentative Christians don’t use it more often.
#38:
I don't think anyone was suggesting that all religions are true, this is easily disprovable.
Quoting Wikipedia:
"A logical argument is often described as "rational" if it is logically valid. However, rationality is a much broader term than logic, as it includes "uncertain but sensible" arguments based on probability, expectation, personal experience and the like, whereas logic deals principally with provable facts and demonstrably valid relations between them"
Even logic relies on deduction of conclusions from presuppositions, and hence its application always boils down to unlogical assumptions which must be taken by faith (or circular reasoning).
Given that we exist and obviously exhibit characteristics of design, it is quite rational and sensible to believe that there must have been a designer. To suggest otherwise would surely be even less rational and less sensible than suggesting that the space shuttle was not designed (if we had no prior knowledge of its origin). It cannot heal or reproduce, and certainly cannot design anything as advanced as a space shuttle .
#38, you make perfectly valid points. If some being or other was able to influence my mind psychically then I would not be able to tell what the truth was. Indeed many people believe in ghosts and if there were many paranormal extensions to reality then they could be responsible for what I've seen... but the only times that I have seen the impressive things that I have seen have been during Christian periods of time and, logically, that would leave me believing in that being the result.
Ignoring this, you have to look at all of the prophecies that point to Christ, the many points throughout the old testament that make things clear, the conclusion to Judaism etc. I'm too tired now to think deeply but there are things outside of that which I've seen that I see as being logical.
You must log in to submit a comment.
Report