I love this poll idea. I think it's really embracing non-religious people and trying to show we're not enemies. I'm not angry at all about the atheist bus thing, just interested. This is the place of open minded discussion after all.

Love it. Great question.

Did we make sure there was no 'stealing' of ideas before we launched the ad?  I hope so, because it was brilliant!  Good thinking!

Maybe we need some multi-faith/non-faith discussions to happen - just like the UCC often strikes up conversations with Muslims & Hindus & Jews, how about with an atheist group like the Freethought Association?

Toronto Star article

 

I'm a Quaker, but moving towards what a lot of us are calling nontheism. Although everyone defines these things differently, to me it means I don't believe in the traditional view of a God as a being up there, who exists independently of us, and/or who listens to individual prayers and acts on them. To me, "God" is more of a metaphor.

I think the problem with the word "God" in our society is far too many people have this extremely conservative interpetation of it (though mostly not United Church people!). As such, I support the atheist bus campaign, and have donated to it.

 I'm an atheist, and supporter of the campaign. It is unfortunate that many people of faith are angry and offended by this campaign.

Belief is a very personal thing. Islam is a religion of peace. Jesus preached forgiveness and love. If somebody else's beliefs offend you, how are you being faithful to your beliefs? If you cannot tolerate the scrutiny of your faith, how strong is your devotion?

It is true that some people of faith are angry and offended.  Others are happy to see issues of faith in the limelight (so to speak), and welcome the opportunity for dialogue.  

Given that the use of the word "probably" is meant to imply a degree of certainty, upon examination of the available, empirical evidence on the specific subject--I'm curious how "There probably 'is' a God" reflects an honest evaluation of evidence.

 

Too often the bible (not to be exclusive to other texts) is used as "evidence". I'm also curious to understand how otherwise very practical, rationale, empirically grounded individuals in every other aspect of their lives, can cite a passage from a 2,000 year old text as evidence... to the point where the use of the word "probably" implys the evidence is of a very persuasive nature.

 

Further - after examining this text and finding the necessary "evidence" to support the probability that God exists, how, after such a close, scrupulous evaluation, do these same rationale people not question the pervasive contradictions and more importantly, how it was that Christians over the last 2,000 years have somehow known that not all of the bible is... applicable... ? 

 

I am very much a spiritual person - however, I am a-theist about the judeo-christian notion of religion and god. I'm sincere in my curiousity - and am not here to attack. My questions reflect a genuine lack of comprehension/understanding.

 

 I love this poll - but I was really hesitant to vote on it! I share the same opinion as MrMatt - belief is an extremely personal thing, so I always hesitate to put my opinion out when it risks being seen as a black-and-white response.

 

In my opinion, God exists - at least for me. Well, God/The Creator/The Universe - all I know is that there is something out there bigger than me (more than size-wise, I mean). It's a comfort and a sort of deterrent from doing anything I'd regret - a Guardian of my own personal Honor System, I guess. I have to say, though, I do love how the ad campaign uses "probably" - it means they're not sure either. Shows consideration, in my opinion.

 

Hugs,

Mouse

I commend mouse for hitting the basis of the religious belief system on the nail - it is a comfort and offers a moral code to those who feel they need it.  If the religious community on the whole could be so enlightened, we wouldn't be defending our right to question the 'indisputable' evidence to the existence of "God".  The right to believe is just as prevalent as the alternative classification of religion being a false sense of security.  Is it not the bible that spouts: Judge not, lest ye be judged? (Matthew: 7:1)

I do find it amusing that a small bus ad has caused such a tremendous uproar in the various religious communities when non-believers have remained silent on the tens of thousands of church billboard and pylon signs professing God as the only answer, which is a much more aggressive marketing campaign.  Perhaps we should start a door-to-door initiative asking people to question the propaganda they've been fed their entire lives, to consider the bible a story and to behave under a core considerate human being code of ethics.

The statements are simple and yet need to be qualified. The concept of God differs from one person to the other. Some people believe that God thinks, feels and behaves just like humans - only with supernatural powers who can intervene with the forces of nature. Others believe God to be an indifferent being while  some thinks it's an energy. The list goes on.

I voted in favour of the probability that there's God in whatever shape or form solely on one reason. The universe is  vast and mysterious that the human mind is so minute to be able to comprehend the span of knowledge that have yet to be learned in the millions of years to come. My options are open to the probability the each baby step mankind takes leads to the discovery of new knowledge. And that new knowledge, be it incidental or not, directly or indirectly affirms the existence of something bigger than the human mind had ever imagined in the past.

There is more to my belief in God than scriptures, my traditions or my upbringing.  Some believers like me have experienced God and have enjoyed being in God's presence. I know from my own experience that God exists and is not a figment of my imagination.  There are so many times that I feel and know that God is with me, and I know and understand that God exists because God relates to me and speaks to my heart.  I also observe ample evidence of God in the order, vastness and beauty of creation; I observe further evidence of God in the goodness and generosity of human kindness; I observe yet further evidence of God in the wonder of the ingenuity and creativity of human thought and imagination; I observe yet even further evidence of the God I know (a God who does not force anyone to believe) in the human propensity to doubt God's existence.  My subjective experience is more than enough to complement the experiences and accounts of others (including accounts of scripture), which describe God's workings in human lives.   

Skeptics may doubt if they wish; and I don't need to argue with anyone, because in my mind and in my heart of hearts, I have every confidence that God exists as God has made herself/himself known to me.

I'd like to move the emphasis to the second part of the quote.  The enjoy life part.  I can't imagine having survived the last few years without God, and I don't think I would have been able to recapture any joy without God's healing.  I don't think I'm alone, as the article in the Washington Post indicates.  

 

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/30/AR2009013003372.html

 

I am anxious to read the research article. 

 

I do not accept a simple read through the scriptures of any religion to be considered a study of deity, any more than I consider the reading of Stephen Hawking's brief history of time to be a study of physics.  

 

I am amazed at the popularity so called religious study which is produced by  people like Richard Dawkin.  I doubt Dawkin would accept such poor work in his own area of study.  Then again, its popularity could result from the fact that his theistic work requires little, if any thought.  There is, however, a great deal of good atheistic argument and writing which has been presented--such as that of Bertrand Russell, whose calibre of work can provide for a conversation which is scintillating.

 

Having said this, I think it's important to point out that quantitative research is not the only type of accepted evidence in scientific communities.  Qualitative studies (especially when relationships are involved) are also valid in many situations.  

 

I value my freedom of speech so long as it's not harmful to others (such as that defined as "hate crime" in Canada).  If I value my freedom of speech so that I am able engage in public conversation about religion from the perspective of someone who believes in a Divine being then I have no choice but to value the freedom of speech of other individuals who do not share my perspective and who can, perhaps, intrigue and argue with me in such a way as to stimulate all parties involved in the conversation, and promote a deeper understanding of what each of us believes and disbelieves.  

The advantage of process/relational understanding of God as panentheistic I can remove the word probably - this does not mean the ad bothers me for often I discover in discussion - oh I don't believe in that God - because the god most are uspset about is that classical supernaturalists one -  now for some atheists the issue is not belief in God but whether life is meaningful - some rejection of the transcendence does lead to nihilism, but that is not always the case. In suggesting we determine meaning, that can be both narcissistic and extreme relativism or it can be an affirmation of the common good.  It is the latter both the atheists and the theist ought to be concerned about - living well is living well for all.

Love the campaign. Using it in my sermon tomorrow.

To display ones ignorance over such a moot issue in this time is a reflection on our society on general. This carry over that was conceived by man ,thousands of years ago , stemming from fear, ignorance, and superstition and fed by intimidation to this day, is inconcievable. One could argue over any conceived superstition that is unprovable. Life is too short and precious to waste on such tripe.

To Goodskeptic,

"I'm also curious to understand how otherwise very practical, rationale, empirically grounded individuals in every other aspect of their lives . . . "

.

Goodskeptic - you need to realize that we ALL, even otherwise practical, rational, empirically grounded individuals, are arguing from within our models of the universe.  You may believe the universe is as it appears to your senses.  That model works.  It probably explains enough of what's happening for you to cope with living.  I say "probably" because our five senses do not explain everything.  For example, we still don't have an explanation for such an every day thing as gravity.  Why do two masses attract one another?  We really don't know.  We need a model to explain the universe.  Was it created by a Big Bang or by the Hand of God?  Even scientists admit that all they have is a theory.

.

You ask specifically about the bible.  How much is truth?  How much is historical?  Is it a literal document or a thought provoking one?  It has been used by Christians in all of these contexts.

.

There is a tendency to over-simplify in this type of argument.  Science morphs into truth and religion become myth.  Let's recognize that there are limitations to all models and use the appropriate model to explain the question at hand.  Do you want to understand how life evolved?  Try science.  Do you want to know how to live?  Try religion.

 BillK,

 

I like what you have posted.  I know that often I am trying to understand what is fact and what is truth.  Empiricism can, at times, be quite deceptive.

Both options are agnostic view points.

Do the leaders of the united church of canada promote the idea that "god is probabaly true", or that "god is absolutely true" ?

rduggal, The leaders of the United Church invite us to that discussion.  Is that not a good thing in itself?

I'm not sure why debate is even necessary. The belief or not in God is a personal matter, like sexual orientation. Why we see the need to rub each other's faces in our beliefs just makes me ashamed that that the human race is primitive, hopefully the sun doesn't burn out before we stop pushing and shoving over this issue.  

Now let us have a survey re the world conflicts in which  Christianity (Crusades killing Muslims) and Judaism (Israel killing Palestinians) were used to justify the violence. The crusaders wanted to "protect" the holy land and the Israel wants to occupy it by displacing the  idigenous population-the Palestinians.  I believe that the world would have been more peaceful without these 2 monotheistic religions.  Moreover Islam would not have existed without the 2 other monotheistic religions.

musings from an atheist

Congratulations on a brilliant campaign. I almost spit up my cornflakes when I saw your Globe and Mail ad. I look forward to what promises to be an inspiring conversation. I note that so far there has been no mention of the "humanist" movement. As one who is not a person "of faith", I have great respect for any belief system that places responsibility on the individual to live well, treat others with kindness and decency, and discover your own truths, (relatively) free of dogmatic or coercive influences. One doesn't need faith in a supernatural being in order to live a rich and moral life. Enjoy your life indeed!

 

If there is probably no God, then the following bunch probably never existed either.

Oh.What's that? Yes, those never did, but mine does? How parochial.

 

Agdistis or Angdistis

Ah Puch

Ahura Mazda

Alberich

Allah

Amaterasu

An

Anat

Andvari

Anshar

Anu

Aphrodite

Apollo

Apsu

Ares

Artemis

Asclepius

Athena

Athirat

Athtart

Atlas

Baal

Ba Xian

Bacchus

Balder

Bast

Bellona

Bergelmir

Bes

Bixia Yuanjin

Bragi

Brahma

Brigit

Camaxtli

Ceres

Ceridwen

Cernunnos

Chac

Chalchiuhtlicue

Charun

Chemosh

Cheng-huang

Cybele

Dagon

Damkina (Dumkina)

Davlin

Dawn

Demeter

Diana

Di Cang

Dionysus

Ea

El

Enki

Enlil

Eos

Epona

Ereskigal

Farbauti

Fenrir

Forseti

Freya

Freyr

Frigg

Gaia

Ganesha

Ganga

Garuda

Gauri

Geb

Geong Si

Hades

Hanuman

Hathor

Hecate (Hekate)

Helios

Heng-o (Chang-o)

Hephaestus

Hera

Hermes

Hestia

Hod

Hoderi

Hoori

Horus

Hotei

Huitzilopochtli

Hsi-Wang-Mu

Hygeia

Inanna

Inti

Iris

Ishtar

Isis

Ixtab

Izanaki

Izanami

Jesus

Juno

Jupiter

Juturna

Kagutsuchi

Kartikeya

Khepri

Ki

Kingu

Kinich Ahau

Kishar

Krishna

Kukulcan

Lakshmi

Liza

Loki

Lugh

Luna

Magna Mater

Maia

Marduk

Mars

Medb

Mercury

Mimir

Minerva

Mithras

Morrigan

Mot

Mummu

Muses

Nammu

Nanna

Nanna (Norse)

Nanse

Neith

Nemesis

Nephthys

Neptune

Nergal

Ninazu

Ninhurzag

Nintu

Ninurta

Njord

Nut

Odin

Ohkuninushi

Ohyamatsumi

Orgelmir

Osiris

Ostara

Pan

Parvati

Phaethon

Phoebe

Phoebus Apollo

Pilumnus

Poseidon

Quetzalcoatl

Rama

Re

Rhea

Sabazius

Sarasvati

Selene

Shiva

Seshat

Seti (Set)

Shamash

Shapsu

Shen Yi

Shiva

Shu

Si-Wang-Mu

Sin

Sirona

Sol

Surya

Susanoh

Tawaret

Tefnut

Tezcatlipoca

Thanatos

Thor

Tiamat

Tlaloc

Tonatiuh

Toyo-Uke-Bime

Tyche

Tyr

Utu

Uzume

Venus

Vesta

Vishnu

Volturnus

Vulcan

Xipe

Xi Wang-mu

Xochipilli

Xochiquetzal

Yam

Yarikh

Yhwh

Ymir

Yu-huang

Yum Kimil

 

Both ads in the Globe and Mail are worth thinking about. Justin Trottier is right when he says that dialogue is important. I thank the United Church for the ad and its moderation.

I voted in the "probably no God" box, because I have no reason to believe there is such an entity. I believe life is random, and death is certain. We must try to do good things now, while we are here. There is no "hereafter".

The categories are bothering me. I'm not a believer, not an atheist, not an agnostic.

"Probably" no God? That's an odd way to put it.

In any case, is it necessary to believe in God for one to believe, or suspect, that there's more to our existence than the phenomenal world?

I have a decent discussion going here, if anyone wants to participate:

http://drdawgsblawg.blogspot.com/2009/01/darwin-dawkins-and-i.html

"God" is a bit of a red herring, in my opinion. The real question should be: is there more to what we are than what can be observed through science?

 

I think it is a fabulous campaign - on both sides.

For the record, I voted for God.

But I think many Christians would be hard pressed to say why they believe in a God other than making references to the Bible. Why, for example, do natives in remote areas believe in a God even though they haven't seen a Bible? I feel churches in general rely too heavily on the Good Book.

Dr. Dawg wrote - ".... is there more to what we are than what can be observed through science?"

In other postings on this site I have suggested that science could easily find God before the church does. Churches need to broaden their search and their readings.

      When I saw the full page ad in the Globe and Mail today (Saturday), my heart sank. The ad took the atheist slogan "There is probably no God" and presented an alternative: "There probably is a God."

      Slick, I thought, but surely there’s a catch: here is another religious group about to vilify atheism and agnosticism. So it was with trepidation that I logged on to the site, fully prepared to wade through angry, incoherent harangues, replete with misspellings and tortured syntax.

      What a surprise. I found a group of Christians who openly welcome the views of atheists and agnostics. Here is a community of believers whose God does not need to be defended by threats of violence.

      Congratulations to the United Church of Canada. Thank you for your openness.

    By the way, I don’t know if you meant it, but you gave the atheist bus campaign a needed boost. We atheists could never afford such a pricey ad.

    All the best, anyway.

 Some have asked does it matter if we talk about God?  Well, there are still zillions of people using the name of God for war, for judgement, for harrassment...  they care, and the people being brutalized in God's name deserve some sort of action.

What might not matter is whether we find an answer.  The important thing is that as we debate & explore, we find a better world full of people trying to be more than they have been, and reaching out to their neighbours.  My sense of God is the fullness of this.

Keep talking, and even more, keep listening!

If all the religious arguments were as civilized as what we read here, there probably would be a reason to continue accepting the existence of organized religions.

But the historical record, along with everyday readings about the various flshpoints in the world today, where the name of whatever god is constantly being used to justify the frequent snuffing out of human life, seems to point to a dead end.

One can probably say that the time has come to stop teaching children about the truth contained in texts, some of which were written one or two or three thousand years ago by people that heard voices in their heads.

After undergoing 4 billion years of (lucky) evolution, and having had 150 years to analyse the (lucky) findings of Darwin, one could probably say: "Even if the probability of the existance of god is proven today, there probably is no chance of this pile of flesh and bones continuing on to an after life, once the brain is deprived of oxygen."

Was it Mark Twain that said: "Life is but a short period of light in between two long nights"?

Now: thar's an old sawing I can entirely identify with!

There are two sides to a coin and I have lived on both 1) didn't know, 2) knowing. God is a Spirit and when He is allowed to enter our spirit then comes the knowing- life, regeneration, born again spirit. I know because I know. I KNOW.