Barney Trubble Posted 17 January, 2009 Share Posted 17 January, 2009 People despise religion on here a lot but I have seen hundreds of acts of kindness and love displayed by others in the name of christianity. True Christians should not display intolerance for the views of others, but maybe they are just slightly misguided. What has religion or God got to do with a human being being kind, loving and giving an helping hand to anyone in life or showing acts of kindness? I'm more on the side of humanists and I can say that I don't need an imaginary person called God to tell me what's right and what's wrong. I have a brain and I can work it our for myself, I don't need to read a bible or other religious instruction book on how to conduct my life and decide what is right from wrong. I am a kind and helpful person by nature and will always give a helping hand. My sister is an atheist but has worked in many countries for charities, especially African countries and that is because she's a caring person and not because she's doing the work of God. George Orwell (1903-1950). Orwell's biography calls him an atheist. His books also have themes that are explicitly and/or suggestively anti-religious. In Animal Farm, the parody was a raven named Moses who told the animals stories about a great mountain in the sky that they would go to when they died, called Sugar Candy Mountain. In 1984, the concept of Big Brother is a parody of God: You never see him, but the fact of him is drilled into so many people's minds that they become robots, almost. Plus, if you speak bad against Big Brother, it's a Thoughtcrime Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iowsaintsfan Posted 17 January, 2009 Share Posted 17 January, 2009 Wonder if he drives on a Sunday being Gods day of rest with his double time rate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barney Trubble Posted 17 January, 2009 Share Posted 17 January, 2009 http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=7-NOZU2iPA8 Thought provoking lyrics:smt078;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
revolution saint Posted 17 January, 2009 Author Share Posted 17 January, 2009 There is no disagreement in this case. The bloke simply does not want to advertise that in someones view there is probably no God because it goes against everything he believes in. As I said, if a christian advertised on a bus saying there is probably a God so enjoy life then I would find it perfectly acceptable for an atheist to refuse to drive it. Real Christianity actually teaches acceptance, respect and tolerance for others. It is the misuse of christianity by a minority (and I say minority because most Christians in my experience do not ram it down others' throats, it's the vocal minority who let everyone else down.) which causes the problem. Hate the misuse of religion but please don't lump all world religions together. The teaching of christianity and the Muslim faith for example is vastly different. People despise religion on here a lot but I have seen hundreds of acts of kindness and love displayed by others in the name of christianity. True Christians should not display intolerance for the views of others, but maybe they are just slightly misguided. My view is that religion is not a terrible thing. Millions of people believe different things but that doesn't make them lesser beings. Nobody truly knows for sure, but I'm not going to start belittling my Muslim neighbour for what I believe to be untrue. Hate the player not the game See the thing is I'm not knocking religion, nor have I suggested it's wrong for people to believe in it. Personally I don't agree with their views but that's their right. This isn't about whether religion is a good or bad thing (it's too big a subject for a start). What I am suggesting is it's wrong for anyone to refuse to drive a bus simply because of what's written on it. The driver is not espousing atheistic beliefs by driving it. What he is doing is saying that another person's point of view is so utterly repulsive to him that he can't do his job. That's wrong isn't it? Is saying there probably isn't a god such a vile thing? Wouldn't it be more sensible to actually try and argue why there is a god rather than stamp his feet and throw his toys out of the pram? As I said at the top of the thread it's pretty much live and let live with me, whether I agree with people or not. I wouldn't stop someone or an organisation expressing their views just because I disagreed. For the record though I'd like to point out that religion doesn't have a monopoly on kindness. Sure there are many good deeds done it's name but there are also a matching amount done by non-religious organisations and individuals. There are also a lot of bad things done in the name of religion. My own personal view is that an act of kindness performed simply because it's the right thing to do and not because God told us to, or because a reward is waiting in heaven may be more meaningful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joneth Posted 17 January, 2009 Share Posted 17 January, 2009 I have neither the time or literary ability to explain in complete detail exactly why the idea of 'God' is almost certainly a total fallacy. I will just recommend that everyone reads Richard Dawkins 'The God Delusion'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TopGun Posted 17 January, 2009 Share Posted 17 January, 2009 I have neither the time or literary ability to explain in complete detail exactly why the idea of 'God' is almost certainly a total fallacy. I will just recommend that everyone reads Richard Dawkins 'The God Delusion'. It doesn't sell well in certain countries. I'm sure it would be read if it was allowed on the bookshelves alongside the currently top selling green cover of the Koran. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hamster Posted 17 January, 2009 Share Posted 17 January, 2009 (edited) Okay, if we assume that he has the right to refuse to drive a bus with atheist messages on. He is taking this action on principle, his principles, his very strong God fearing principles. Can anyone explain to me why he has not really stood up for his principles on this one? Why has he not refused to drive ANY bus that is owned by a company who are making money from these ads. It should not matter whether he is driving the bus or not, as a proportion of his wages are being paid by the people behind the ads. I do n ot know the chap, but some have commented that he comes over as a nice chap. Maybe he is, but I would be interested to know who brought this story to the attention of the press? I wouldn't be surprised if it was himself, he seems to be revelling in his tales of getting his own selfish way. I bet a pound to a penny that he would not be quite so amiable if his bosses had not been so soft. It's a good job that he doesn't work in their department that sells advertising space on said buses isn't it. "Oh boss, had a call from those atheist nutters yesterday, I told them to **** off and take their evil money elsewhere. That's okay with you isn't it? After all, it doesn't quite fit in with my personal beliefs. But hey, I closed the deal with 'Bent' magazine, they've got that lovely Kylie girl on this months cover. What do you think? http://mag.bent.com/ Edited 17 January, 2009 by hamster Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kadeem Hardison Posted 17 January, 2009 Share Posted 17 January, 2009 Retard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
revolution saint Posted 18 January, 2009 Author Share Posted 18 January, 2009 Retard. What a great response. Well done! Who would have thought 6 letters would have formed such a coherent reply to the question of whether it's socially acceptable to question the idea of god. Your pulitzer prize is in the post, don't be frightened if it's ticking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kadeem Hardison Posted 18 January, 2009 Share Posted 18 January, 2009 It should have been 6 letters. I forgot to pluralise it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
revolution saint Posted 18 January, 2009 Author Share Posted 18 January, 2009 It should have been 6 letters. I forgot to pluralise it. 7 letters then as you also forgot how to count. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deano6 Posted 18 January, 2009 Share Posted 18 January, 2009 What Is an agnostic? An agnostic thinks it impossible to know the truth in matters such as God and the future life with which Christianity and other religions are concerned. Or, if not impossible, at least impossible at the present time. Are agnostics atheists? No. An atheist, like a Christian, holds that we can know whether or not there is a God. The Christian holds that we can know there is a God; the atheist, that we can know there is not. The Agnostic suspends judgment, saying that there are not sufficient grounds either for affirmation or for denial. At the same time, an Agnostic may hold that the existence of God, though not impossible, is very improbable; he may even hold it so improbable that it is not worth considering in practice. In that case, he is not far removed from atheism. His attitude may be that which a careful philosopher would have towards the gods of ancient Greece. If I were asked to prove that Zeus and Poseidon and Hera and the rest of the Olympians do not exist, I should be at a loss to find conclusive arguments. An Agnostic may think the Christian God as improbable as the Olympians; in that case, he is, for practical purposes, at one with the atheists. I don't know where you got this from - it certainly reads like a quote - but it is wrong. I am an atheist but do not claim to know with absolute certainty that God does not exist as your article implies. I have just found no evidence for it or heard any argument that does not turn out to be seriously flawed under scrutiny, and so dismiss it along with fairies and Invisible Pink Unicorns. I can't say for sure they don't exist, but I don't waste my time on them on the off chance they do. Dawkins says something similar - on a scale of 1 to 7 where 1 is absolute belief in God and 7 is absolute disbelief, Christians would be 1 whereas he would be 6. This is precisely the reason for the word "probably" in the bus slogan. I also take issue with the person who said Atheism is not a position and should not be promoted. Atheism, like religion, forms the basis of many people's views, belief systems and moral codes. Strictly you may say terms like Rationalist and Humanist should really be applied but broadly they amount to the same thing. One belief shared by many atheists, for example, is that society should be based on secular principles. The American Constitution for example was drawn up explicity on this basis and nowhere does it appeal to God, Christianity, Jesus, or any supreme being. I can see the point you are making that the absence of it does not significant in isolation - it also does not mention butterscotch popcorn to my knowledge - but when the prevailing climate is one where religion is dominant it is quite a statement. And to the person who says to believe in Adam and Eve is to believe in incest - this is a complete non-argument. Evolutionary theory states we all originate from a common source. Any two people alive share a common ancestor, as they do with any gorilla, giraffe or sea sponge. Whether you appeal to Creation or Evolution, you find that they both imply 'incest'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dark Sotonic Mills Posted 18 January, 2009 Share Posted 18 January, 2009 7 letters then as you also forgot how to count. To paraphrase Alanis Morrisette - "isn't it ironic..." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ludwig Posted 18 January, 2009 Share Posted 18 January, 2009 Deano, I disagree with you when you place the sole reason for the 'probably' in the slogans as the complete absurdity of absolute atheism, it may be justified as so, but as not to be completely offensive to the haughty political correctness enforcers, such wording is necessary. What else is necessary is the existence of a God, or supreme sustainer. Aquinas' cosmological argument based on contingency is pretty logical in my opinion, sets it out fairly well. I'm not really an unquestioning believer in a God, however, I find myself tending towards theism with revelation coming through logic, I find it irrational for the world to have been without a specific cause beyond 'evolution/the big bang'. The world may have developed through such a thing, but for it to have been 'spontaneous' is absurd and for there to be nothing beyond the big bang, no cause for the big bang, beyond an unreasonable end of a random singularity which expanded dramatically, does not make sense to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joneth Posted 18 January, 2009 Share Posted 18 January, 2009 Deano, I disagree with you when you place the sole reason for the 'probably' in the slogans as the complete absurdity of absolute atheism, it may be justified as so, but as not to be completely offensive to the haughty political correctness enforcers, such wording is necessary. What else is necessary is the existence of a God, or supreme sustainer. Aquinas' cosmological argument based on contingency is pretty logical in my opinion, sets it out fairly well. I'm not really an unquestioning believer in a God, however, I find myself tending towards theism with revelation coming through logic, I find it irrational for the world to have been without a specific cause beyond 'evolution/the big bang'. The world may have developed through such a thing, but for it to have been 'spontaneous' is absurd and for there to be nothing beyond the big bang, no cause for the big bang, beyond an unreasonable end of a random singularity which expanded dramatically, does not make sense to me. So how does God solve the problem? Its an infinite regress and as soon as you invoke a creator you beg the question of its own origin. I dont know what the origin of everything is but that isnt an excuse to just say 'its God' and be done with it. There is a better answer available. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ludwig Posted 18 January, 2009 Share Posted 18 January, 2009 So how does God solve the problem? Its an infinite regress and as soon as you invoke a creator you beg the question of its own origin. I dont know what the origin of everything is but that isnt an excuse to just say 'its God' and be done with it. There is a better answer available. Cause and effect are only definitely axioms of existence in our universe, why does a being that transcends the universe need to have a cause? It's not infinite regress for this reason. 'God' is not necessarily the image that the word conjures, I do not know the nature of God, but I am sure of its existence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
revolution saint Posted 18 January, 2009 Author Share Posted 18 January, 2009 Cause and effect are only definitely axioms of existence in our universe' date=' why does a being that transcends the universe need to have a cause? It's not infinite regress for this reason. 'God' is not necessarily the image that the word conjures, I do not know the nature of God, but I am sure of its existence.[/quote'] That's a lot of long words, and I'll pretend I got the basic jist of of all that. Basically you're saying "something had to cause the big bang"? But denying that argument if you applied it to a supreme creator? So if I'm correct "something had to cause the big bang?" But it's entirely plausible to suggest the supreme creator, or "god", is an entirely spontaneous being without being caused into existence? That doesn't seem to make sense to me but then I don't know as many big words as you. It does strike me that it comes down to a belief system though, which is fine, but not very conclusive. Not that I was expecting an answer to life, the universe etc etc, I just wanted to point out that an atheist/agnostic position is as equally valid as any conventional religious view and should be treated as such. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ludwig Posted 18 January, 2009 Share Posted 18 January, 2009 That's a lot of long words, and I'll pretend I got the basic jist of of all that. Basically you're saying "something had to cause the big bang"? But denying that argument if you applied it to a supreme creator? So if I'm correct "something had to cause the big bang?" But it's entirely plausible to suggest the supreme creator, or "god", is an entirely spontaneous being without being caused into existence? That doesn't seem to make sense to me but then I don't know as many big words as you. It does strike me that it comes down to a belief system though, which is fine, but not very conclusive. Not that I was expecting an answer to life, the universe etc etc, I just wanted to point out that an atheist/agnostic position is as equally valid as any conventional religious view and should be treated as such. All things within the universe were caused. We can observe that. Things outside the universe do not necessarily have a cause. We cannot apply the same laws (physics etc.) to things beyond the universe, because we don't know what applies. From that, it could be said that causation is a phenomenon exclusive to things inside the universe. God doesn't need a cause. God is not affected by time. Time is within the universe. God does not appear at a specific time or place, because for God there is no time, nor space within which to be placed. We can observe causation because of time and space. We can see that something happens after another thing and then attribute this effect to a cause. Cause and effect does not necessarily apply to God. Something had to cause the big bang, because the big bang (and its remnants) is the universe and causation is therefore assumed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ponty Posted 18 January, 2009 Share Posted 18 January, 2009 I disagree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wiltshire Saint Posted 18 January, 2009 Share Posted 18 January, 2009 I disagree. Interesting take on the issue Ponty. I must say that I find your direct approach refreshing. I also disagree (I didn't, but Ponty persuaded me) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ponty Posted 18 January, 2009 Share Posted 18 January, 2009 If we'd had a PAYG option, instead of subscription, all posts would look like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pingpong Posted 18 January, 2009 Share Posted 18 January, 2009 It can't be proven or disproven. There's no degree of probability involved. hmmm. I flew to work, 5 miles from my home, on the back of a flying squirrel, fuelled by the power of thought - i simply thought of an elephant swimming backwards and it gave the squirrel the strength to support my body weightfor the 72 hours it took to fly the distance. I cannot prove it happened, you cannot prove it didn't happen. still no degree of probability involved? some ludicrous ideas are more likely than others. personally, i think my example above is about as likely as the existence of god, but i have no problem with people who choose to believe in god - i have seen the comfort people get from a common belief and a church community can be very helpful for getting favours etc. from a scientific viewpoint, religion can supply positive emotion as well as the perhaps more prominent negative emotions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norwaysaint Posted 18 January, 2009 Share Posted 18 January, 2009 I have to agree with Evil Monkey on this thread. I am an atheist, but this isn't a system of beliefs. Atheism is just a statement that I don't subscribe to that system of beliefs. My beliefs are built on other things that aren't described by atheism. If I took my own system of beliefs and put those on a bus, that would have a point. This is a negative campaign based on a lack of belief, when there is so much more to consider. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
revolution saint Posted 19 January, 2009 Author Share Posted 19 January, 2009 All things within the universe were caused. We can observe that. Things outside the universe do not necessarily have a cause. We cannot apply the same laws (physics etc.) to things beyond the universe, because we don't know what applies. From that, it could be said that causation is a phenomenon exclusive to things inside the universe. God doesn't need a cause. God is not affected by time. Time is within the universe. God does not appear at a specific time or place, because for God there is no time, nor space within which to be placed. We can observe causation because of time and space. We can see that something happens after another thing and then attribute this effect to a cause. Cause and effect does not necessarily apply to God. Something had to cause the big bang, because the big bang (and its remnants) is the universe and causation is therefore assumed. But the bus driver is still a **** though right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kadeem Hardison Posted 19 January, 2009 Share Posted 19 January, 2009 But the bus driver is still a **** though right? What a horrible thing to say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hamster Posted 19 January, 2009 Share Posted 19 January, 2009 God is not affected by time. Time is within the universe. God does not appear at a specific time or place, because for God there is no time, nor space within which to be placed. From this information, can we use the analogy of God being like a number 17A bus? I still maintain my view that Mr Heather (if Heather be his name), would have been treated very differently, had he been a Muslim refusing to drive a bus advertising Cadbury's Cream Eggs at Easter. His managers appear to have bowed to his religious blackmailing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pingpong Posted 19 January, 2009 Share Posted 19 January, 2009 All things within the universe were caused. We can observe that. Things outside the universe do not necessarily have a cause. We cannot apply the same laws (physics etc.) to things beyond the universe, because we don't know what applies. From that, it could be said that causation is a phenomenon exclusive to things inside the universe. God doesn't need a cause. God is not affected by time. Time is within the universe. God does not appear at a specific time or place, because for God there is no time, nor space within which to be placed. We can observe causation because of time and space. We can see that something happens after another thing and then attribute this effect to a cause. Cause and effect does not necessarily apply to God. Something had to cause the big bang, because the big bang (and its remnants) is the universe and causation is therefore assumed. or to put it another way. the universe exists (we can see it), so must have been caused by something (deflation of the previous universe) god doesn't, so no causation is required. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 19 January, 2009 Share Posted 19 January, 2009 or to put it another way. the universe exists (we can see it), so must have been caused by something (deflation of the previous universe) god doesn't, so no causation is required. Eh? What created that then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joneth Posted 19 January, 2009 Share Posted 19 January, 2009 All things within the universe were caused. We can observe that. Things outside the universe do not necessarily have a cause. We cannot apply the same laws (physics etc.) to things beyond the universe, because we don't know what applies. From that, it could be said that causation is a phenomenon exclusive to things inside the universe. God doesn't need a cause. God is not affected by time. Time is within the universe. God does not appear at a specific time or place, because for God there is no time, nor space within which to be placed. We can observe causation because of time and space. We can see that something happens after another thing and then attribute this effect to a cause. Cause and effect does not necessarily apply to God. Something had to cause the big bang, because the big bang (and its remnants) is the universe and causation is therefore assumed. To say something is outside the laws of physics demands a far bigger explanation than the laws of physics themselves. Saying God is outside of the universe doesnt make any sense to me. Its a statement that has no context. The universe is as far as im concerned, the largest (if not infinite) vessel for holding matter, if something is outside the universe then the universe is no longer a....universe. If you get where im going with this! Existance of God aside, Religion as a whole doesnt offer anything positive for me compared with a a basic understanding of cosmology and more particularly the intricacies of evolutionary biology. Fair enough for people to have beliefs however I would be much more satisfied if people made the effort to examine the implications of a range of ideas rather than unquestioningly following what they were brought up to believe. Fair play to the bus driver but he has come across pretty gutless over this. If he wants object, do it properly! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ponty Posted 19 January, 2009 Share Posted 19 January, 2009 Fair play to the bus driver but he has come across pretty gutless over this. If he wants object, do it properly! A bus in a coffin 'n that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 19 January, 2009 Share Posted 19 January, 2009 I remember the days when religious talk was banned around these parts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ponty Posted 19 January, 2009 Share Posted 19 January, 2009 And Politics TDD! We love a good debate on SWF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 19 January, 2009 Share Posted 19 January, 2009 And Politics TDD! We love a good debate on SWF. you cant beat a good old mid afternoon internet tear up on here..... shame (not the) Kevin Moore does not post any more..he was always good for a debate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
revolution saint Posted 19 January, 2009 Author Share Posted 19 January, 2009 you cant beat a good old mid afternoon internet tear up on here..... shame (not the) Kevin Moore does not post any more..he was always good for a debate He was indeed. God I wish I had a job where I could post at work, then again I was an unproductive type when I could so maybe it's not such a bad thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pingpong Posted 19 January, 2009 Share Posted 19 January, 2009 Eh? What created that then? I don't know, maybe it was a superior being who watches our every move and brings pestilence and plague whenever we misbehave too much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 19 January, 2009 Share Posted 19 January, 2009 He didn't want to drive the bus. His employers could accommodate this without any major biggy occuring. I don't see the guy running around trying to burn atheists and infidels. I fully respect the views of people to hold whatever opinion they want, even if it is as cack brained, ludicrous, foetal and dull-headed as belief in a supernatural all-powerful creator being and I fully reserve the right to tell them that and to refuse to assist in the propogation of such beliefs. So fair play to the bloke. Anyhoo, the people who placed the advert will be happy as it's clearly generated some debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildgoose Posted 21 January, 2009 Share Posted 21 January, 2009 I have neither the time or literary ability to explain in complete detail exactly why the idea of 'God' is almost certainly a total fallacy. I will just recommend that everyone reads Richard Dawkins 'The God Delusion'. Fair enough, but while you're at it why not also read 'There is a God - How the world's most notorious atheist changed his mind' - by Anthony Flew? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
(not THE) Kevin Moore Posted 21 January, 2009 Share Posted 21 January, 2009 you cant beat a good old mid afternoon internet tear up on here..... shame (not the) Kevin Moore does not post any more..he was always good for a debate You rang? Working from home today so not subject to filters and the like. I think this is a very interesting debate. However, I would say that this 'Agnostic' campaign (not many atheists would ackowledge any likelihood of a god) was launched in response to a campaign promoting religion, so it's not like these guys were spoiling for a fight, they just were hacked off at organised religions need to badger everyone else into believing the same as them. FWIW, the main guy behind the whole thing is something of a d1ck (and is arguably worse then those he criticises) but I heartily support this campaign myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scudamore Posted 21 January, 2009 Share Posted 21 January, 2009 We should come up with one that says something like "Le God Loves You" That's the sort of campaign i can get behind... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt SFC Posted 24 January, 2009 Share Posted 24 January, 2009 What has religion or God got to do with a human being being kind, loving and giving an helping hand to anyone in life or showing acts of kindness? I'm more on the side of humanists and I can say that I don't need an imaginary person called God to tell me what's right and what's wrong. I have a brain and I can work it our for myself, I don't need to read a bible or other religious instruction book on how to conduct my life and decide what is right from wrong. I am a kind and helpful person by nature and will always give a helping hand. My sister is an atheist but has worked in many countries for charities, especially African countries and that is because she's a caring person and not because she's doing the work of God. A brillant post. Possibly the best thing I have ever read on these forums. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deano6 Posted 25 January, 2009 Share Posted 25 January, 2009 You rang? Working from home today so not subject to filters and the like. I think this is a very interesting debate. However, I would say that this 'Agnostic' campaign (not many atheists would ackowledge any likelihood of a god) was launched in response to a campaign promoting religion, so it's not like these guys were spoiling for a fight, they just were hacked off at organised religions need to badger everyone else into believing the same as them. FWIW, the main guy behind the whole thing is something of a d1ck (and is arguably worse then those he criticises) but I heartily support this campaign myself. Yet another peddling of this ridiculous fallacy (see my earlier post above). Possibly the single biggest reason I am an atheist is its position of consideration of evidence. If overwhelming evidence came along to support God then I, like most atheists I know of, would be prepared to consider it. As there is none we don't, as per the age old Chocolate Teapot argument. But while we can't disprove it, and so "know for certain", that in no way makes us into agnostics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clapham Saint Posted 27 January, 2009 Share Posted 27 January, 2009 So if I formed an advertising campaign to promote the idea that a teapot circled the earth and that teapot is the one true god, though we should call him Trevor, then that would be OK? After all I'm promoting the idea of something? But if someone promotes the idea of "No God" then that's antagonistic and argumentative? Hmmm, that makes sense. Something like this? http://www.venganza.org/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now