because then anyone who either chooses not have children or can't have children* lose the everlasting battle for genetic supremacy.

 

*I'll let you decide who those people might be.

 

Evolution isn't a set of beliefs, customs, or practices. It's just a description of a natural phenomenon. There's nothing good, bad, or evil about it. It just is.

 

*Those people could be infertile couples or couples with other medical/ health complications that prevent pregnancy. My grandparents were barely able to have my mom. Also, homosexual women can be artificially inseminated and gay men can donate sperm.

And why do some species become extinct?

 

Most species become extinct and there is no singular answer for "why?" besides "life's a b****."

 

I still don't see why any of this would make people uncomfortable with a scientific theory. It's like being afraid of the theory of gravity because it hurts when you fall.

Edited November 13, 200817 yr by StrangeSox

My guess is that you're not religious, therefore, you're not really the target of the offense. So it makes sense you're not offended.

 

 

I don't have to be the target of something to take a offense of it. I just don't think its offensive.

Most species become extinct and there is no singular answer for "why?" besides "life's a b****."

 

I still don't see why any of this would make people uncomfortable with a scientific theory. It's like being afraid of the theory of gravity because it hurts when you fall.

You wouldn't. We can stop here.

I don't believe that many, and certainly not most, religious signs mention baby killers. But maybe in your neck of the woods.

 

If the ad was to help other people for the the sake of helping others, why was God even mentioned? Isn't helping people for the sake of helping enough? Why must you reject God in the process?

 

 

Maybe they are trying to promote atheism also.

I don't have to be the target of something to take a offense of it. I just don't think its offensive.

 

Right, and simply because you don't find something offensive doesn't mean it isn't.

 

 

Again, no one has mentioned my original point: using provocative language to grab headlines was the point of these billboards, not spreading good will.

 

In fact, ironically, these ads by saying "why believe in god?" are not doing good for goodness sake.

Let's recap.

 

If you believe in an afterlife, and you promote your beliefs, you are hoping that others get to heaven also.

 

If you do not believe in an afterlife, and you want to promote your beliefs, you are hoping they don't have a heaven to get into, and they share your nothing else attitude.

 

Which is good for goodness sakes again?

Let's recap.

 

If you believe in an afterlife, and you promote your beliefs, you are hoping that other sget to heaven also.

 

If you do not believe in an afterlife, and you want to promote your beliefs, you are hoping they don't have a heaven to get into, and they share your nothing else attitude.

 

Which is good for goodness sakes again?

 

Talk about generalizing. Sheesh.

 

I don't think everyone who believes in an afterlife hopes that others get into heaven also. Just look at radical Islamists.

 

Likewise, people who don't necessarily believe in an afterlife wouldn't automatically hope there isn't a heaven.

Talk about generalizing. Sheesh.

 

I don't think everyone who believes in an afterlife hopes that others get into heaven also. Just look at radical Islamists.

 

Likewise, people who don't necessarily believe in an afterlife wouldn't automatically hope there isn't a heaven.

Because the poster mentions God, it would seem they are targeting a Christian deity. And because we seem to be debating atheism here, which is an outright rejection of any sort of higher being, I did not think it was too much of a generalization. The poster is the one promoting goodness and rejecting God. So which is goodness for goodness sake?

Because the poster mentions God, it would seem they are targeting a Christian deity. And because we seem to be debating atheism here, which is an outright rejection of any sort of higher being, I did not think it was too much of a generalization. The poster is the one promoting goodness and rejecting God. So which is goodness for goodness sake?

 

But you're using some strong words here:

 

hoping they don't have a heaven to get into

 

You make it seem that all atheists wish ill will towards Christians. I'm sure a large portion of them find the topic of heaven as irrelevant and wouldn't proactively "hope" that it didn't exist.

Because the poster mentions God, it would seem they are targeting a Christian deity. And because we seem to be debating atheism here, which is an outright rejection of any sort of higher being, I did not think it was too much of a generalization. The poster is the one promoting goodness and rejecting God. So which is goodness for goodness sake?

 

 

I don't think the poster was saying that you can't have goodness with god. I think it was trying to say that you can have goodness with god and without god.

But you're using some strong words here:

 

 

 

You make it seem that all atheists wish ill will towards Christians. I'm sure a large portion of them find the topic of heaven as irrelevant and wouldn't proactively "hope" that it didn't exist.

 

 

I don't think the poster was saying that you can't have goodness with god. I think it was trying to say that you can have goodness with god and without god.

 

I see you points, agree that the way I wrote the post does come off that way, so please allow me to rephrase.

 

Different ways to write that poster.

 

Leave off any mention of God. Good for goodness sake. Appeals to the broadest range of humans. Wonderful sentiment that the broadest group of humanity could embrace. What could anyone reject in that? A simple beautiful message for a better tomorrow.

 

Don't believe in God? . . . Again leaves the believers in the mix and invites non believers as well.

Why Believe in God? . . . Challenges those that believe. Tells the believers this isn't for you unless you reject God, and IMHO, all that goes with a Christian God, which would include heaven. Appeals to a smaller, but still sizable segment of humanity and places one group in opposition the other.

 

So which truly is goodness for goodness sake? I do not believe that message was core for this group.

You wouldn't. We can stop here.

 

Tex, I'd honestly like to know where you're coming from here. I really don't see what angle you're getting at.

Just because there's seldom an occasion to post this....

 

Just because there's seldom an occasion to post this....

 

I LOL every time I see that image, and I don't know why.

 

So it is now provocative to ask "why believe in a god?" I would assume that any human with half a brain has asked himself this question many times before? How exactly is that provocative? I would think that the only reason a religious person would find this provocative or offensive is if they are insecure in their faith and why they believe in God. Otherwise, they would have an answer for the question and just move on with their life.

So it is now provocative to ask "why believe in a god?" I would assume that any human with half a brain has asked himself this question many times before? How exactly is that provocative? I would think that the only reason a religious person would find this provocative or offensive is if they are insecure in their faith and why they believe in God. Otherwise, they would have an answer for the question and just move on with their life.

 

 

The question implies sarcasm and condescension. It doesn't say "It doesn't matter if you're an atheist or a monotheist...be good for goodness sake" It says "what's the point of believing in god? just be good for goodness sake"

 

 

Again, no one wants to address the fact that this organization clearly used language that would cause people to complain. This is not "doing good for goodness sake".

 

 

 

So here's a little addition to the discussion. News article from Denver.

 

This billboard says "Don't Believe in God? You're Not Alone."

 

I personally see no issue with them putting up billboards like this with their own money. I don't really understand it being offensive.

 

And here is a bizarre, random walk utterance from a pastor in Denver, asked about the billboards:

 

"The Bible is being fulfilled. It says that in latter days, you have all these kinds of things coming up, trying to disrupt the validity of Christianity," Johnson said. "If they don't believe in God, how do they believe they came about? We denounce what they are doing. But we do it with love, with gentleness, with decency and with compassion."

 

My head hurts.

So here's a little addition to the discussion. News article from Denver.

 

This billboard says "Don't Believe in God? You're Not Alone."

 

I personally see no issue with them putting up billboards like this with their own money. I don't really understand it being offensive.

 

I don't have a problem with it either. I do wonder what their message is, though. Assuming the message is "be good for goodness sakes," the question about God is a major distractor from that message. If their message is something else about believing/not believing, then I suppose they made their point. I think that PA's point was along the lines that the "God" part of their poster distracted from the simplicity and "goodness" of the "be good for goodness sake" message that should resonate with everyone regardless of religion.