Atheists run anti-God ad on buses in DC

And people wonder why atheists, mostly, don't go around trying to de-convert people. If you heard how many times I've been told 'if there were no God, what stops you from rape/murder/pillage (insert nastiness here)', the LAST think you'd want to do is to remove what is apparently that person's sole reason to not go on some kind of psycho rampage.

And it would be fascinating if you could find me one atheist who actually /thinks/ that 'one day the entire plant burst forth into existence and not only the planet but other planets as well and stars and they all just happened to follow a pattern of rotating around the sun which also just appeared one day'. Along with the evolutionary scientist who thinks men actually came from monkeys.

But hey, Michele, keep on believing. We'll apparently all be safer for it.

we atheists do not need any ... to tell us how to live.

Or other atheists.

the atheist comes off as much more reasonable

You know Seuss' The Lorax? Who comes off as more reasonable in that tale ... and yet who's right? Donahue "speaks for the trees." Yeah, I wish he was more classy, so what.

I can’t get all bent out of shape about the recent ad campaign on Washington D.C.’s Metro buses. The campaign sponsored by some humanists. Sign says: Why believe in a God? Just be good for goodness sake…

By the way, a quick correction. I don’t believe in a God either. I believe in God. There’s a difference

But mostly, let’s enjoy this campaign. Good is good. Besides, I have a funny feeling that, given a few weeks at this, the folks who believe it is really clever will discover a few things:

First, they’ll discover that the more good they are the happier they are, and that just might make them try to figure out where the happiness comes from…

Second, they’ll discover being good to others can get a little difficult the more you get to know them, because most people are a real pain in the neck. It gets real hard to love folks who are pretty unlovely. Our advantage is that we don’t love them because they are lovely. We love them because Jesus loves them.

Last, they’ll pretty quickly discover that what Bill might mean by good might be different from what Sheila thinks is good and soon enough they’ll be in a fistfight over who’s good is really good.

Wouldn't guarantee that, Robert. Either one.

I've managed to be relatively non-psycho (no partying like 1999) for most of my 40-some odd years. I don't wonder why it feels good. Come to think of it, I wonder what sort of impetus a person is working under who is apparently only barely restraining their urges to behave in such a way only because of fear of divine retribution.

I've done most of my 'good' working in a shelter, where I find many lovely people, and some real pieces of work. What's 'loving' someone got to do with helping them? They don't have to BE lovely, nor do I even have to particularly like them, much less love them, to help them out. I help them because help is what they need, and what I can give.

Finally, oddly, no fist fights. Manage to reach reasonable compromises on what 'good' is, what 'bad' is, and what falls under 'ain't nobody's business if I do'.

And in the meantime, hopefully, good's gone on being done.

Apparently, Stan, though people DO disagree on which ethics are correct, even when within the same religious tradition (you aren't claiming that all theists... all Christians.. heck, all Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod attenders at Emmanuel Lutheran in Nashville, agree on every point of ethics, morality, or even orthopraxy, are you?) there are points of dissent, nonetheless, we somehow manage to muddle through without continually defaulting to 'But GOD says THIS'. And all without accepting that, just because we don't all agree, that 'kill anyone that gets in my way' is an acceptable ethical position.

Not even mentioning when Divine orders sure seemed to coincide with that particular position.... (Check out most of Joshua for examples.)

Stan
You said: Exactly the problem. You devise your own and I'll devise mine. There is nothing in any of them that would compel another to agree. It isn't "morals and ethics" at that point; it's pragmatism. And if Bob's version includes "kill anyone who gets in my way," on what grounds could anyone protest?

Boris says: If Bob's morals lead him to break the law then he will have to suffer the consequences. The problem really is with Christians and Muslims who think that the law given in their holy book supersede any man-made laws. This is why people like you Stan are very very dangerous.

You said: Oddly, it appears that using a Christian set of morals and ethics is consider a bad thing ...

Boris says: The hijacking of morality and ethics by religion just makes me sick. There is nothing original in the Bible. All the morals and ethics in the Bible were take from much older civilizations that existed long before there were any Christians or Jews. The Christian claim that their religion is the basis for all morality is nothing but a big fat lie. Christianity stole everything it has including the myth of a dying and resurrecting savior king.

"...one day the entire plant burst forth into existence and not only the planet but other planets as well and stars and they all just happened to follow a pattern of rotating around the sun which also just appeared one day."

Funny, I was under the impression that the bible said just that. Except of course that god did it. Atheists are very unlikely to tell you that this all happened in a day. It was a gradual process over a ridiculously long amount of time that humans can't even begin to fathom.

I find it sad that you only behave as a good person because of your belief in a god and a fear of punishment.