Publicly Promoting Atheism?

[Bangkok Superpussy]

Originally Posted by Ventux

You can disprove his existence based on the characteristics attributed to him. We know that he does not live on Mount Olympus, we know that he is not the cause of thunderstorms (and does not use lightning bolts to smite people), we know that he is not having sex with mortal women, etcetera.

Only if you want to draw upon the assumption that each and every characteristic ever attributed to this being is true. I think any deity falls apart under that level of scrutiny.

[Phoenix]

You can disprove his existence based on the characteristics attributed to him. We know that he does not live on Mount Olympus, we know that he is not the cause of thunderstorms (and does not use lightning bolts to smite people), we know that he is not having sex with mortal women, etcetera.

By that logic, the Abrahamic God doesn't exist. We know he doesn't turn people into salt, we know he doesn't punish sinners, we know he doesn't intervene to protect anyone.

And so on and so forth. You can't use characteristics that may or may not have been made up.

[ikkuh2]

I think it shouldn't be neccesary, but since it is, i think it is good and a simple use of the right of free speech. The word probably is a clever find, it's a short summary of the vision of many, including mine.

[Ventux]

Originally Posted by Bangkok Superpussy

Only if you want to draw upon the assumption that each and every characteristic ever attributed to this being is true. I think any deity falls apart under that level of scrutiny.

Originally Posted by Phoenix

By that logic, the Abrahamic God doesn't exist. We know he doesn't turn people into salt, we know he doesn't punish sinners, we know he doesn't intervene to protect anyone.

And so on and so forth. You can't use characteristics that may or may not have been made up.

But if they DON'T have the core attributes, the deities as described by those religions do not exist, just beings that could have the name Zeus or Yahweh.

[Phoenix]

But if they DON'T have the core attributes, the deities as described by those religions do not exist, just beings that could have the name Zeus or Yahweh.

Erm, how do you know? How many books from ancient Greece have you read, anyway =/?

[thylings]

It's not a huge issue. Not at all. End of story.

[Kh-allyDelicious]

I don't think something like this is enough to cause a huge battle of philosophy and semantics. It was just a smug get-back at theist , nothing more nothing less.

[Phoenix]

Wait, you think this is some sort of epic battle? Ohohoho, you're new to this section, aren't you?

[Alaude Drenxta]

I see no purpose in it, but as someone brought up with American values, I wouldn't bother to protest their right to do so peacefully.

Any other response would be callous, whiny, and hypocritical on the highest level.

Originally Posted by Ventux

But if they DON'T have the core attributes, the deities as described by those religions do not exist, just beings that could have the name Zeus or Yahweh.

And there are those who say that they are. That each "God" is just the product of the last, modified and changed to fit an ever-changing generation.

Since the 1930's, God has changed a lot.

[Kh-allyDelicious]

Originally Posted by Phoenix

Wait, you think this is some sort of epic battle? Ohohoho, you're new to this section, aren't you?

lol well I've been here for a couple of weeks ... so thats for you to decide. Anyway I was just saying that petty things don't need debates .

[Sleeping Rebirth]

Thats very intresting so i take Christains and Musilms etc were offended?? well Atheists have the right to have there opinions heard and respected in my opinion.

[krexia]

Originally Posted by Forever Atlas

I see no difference in what you just said from what I said.

If your biased wording was unintentional then never mind. But as someone who's taken classes in persuasive language and wording in the media, I can assure you there's a world of difference between the connotations of what you said ("The hopes of the campaign is to get more atheists to 'come out' and reveal their views.") and the actual stated goals of the campaign. You portrayed the campaign's primary goal as being trying to convince atheists to share their views with others, which isn't true at all.

Likewise, you said that the only reason the word probably was included was to satisfy advertising laws. This seriously misrepresents the beliefs of the atheists behind the campaign - rational people who are fully aware that one cannot prove the non-existence of god, and would therefore never say something as ridiculous as "there is no god". Even without advertising laws, it's only a very small minority of atheists who are gnostic; no atheist I know would ever say "there is no god".

Originally Posted by Forever Atlas

They are a group of atheists, not agnostics...

They are agnostic atheists. Dawkins is an agnostic atheist and has explained why several times, including in the quote from The God Delusion that this campaign's founder provided on its website, in the FAQ where she explains why she's "keen on the word probably".

[Square Ninja]

Originally Posted by Phoenix

Wait, you think this is some sort of epic battle? Ohohoho, you're new to this section, aren't you?

yeah they're much more like circle jerks instead of battles

[Phoenix]

yeah they're much more like circle jerks instead of battles

Yup, you're rather fond of that analogy.

[Shade737]

Originally Posted by krexia

They are agnostic atheists. Dawkins is an agnostic atheist and has explained why several times, including in the quote from The God Delusion that this campaign's founder provided on its website, in the FAQ where she explains why she's "keen on the word probably".

Looks like adding another word to it to make it more complicated. I would see them as atheists with some agnostic attributes.