<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
<channel>
<title>blogTO Recent Comments: All Aboard the Atheist Bus?</title>
<link>http://www.blogto.com/feed/recentcomments/?12075</link>
<description>Comments recently made in this post on blogTO</description>
<copyright>Copyright 2009</copyright>
<lastBuildDate>Sun, 22 Nov 2009 06:10:21 PST</lastBuildDate>
<item>
<title>Parkdalian</title>
<description><![CDATA[
Debate? Where? When? You're on! :)]]>
</description>
<link>http://www.blogto.com/city/2009/01/all_aboard_the_atheist_bus/#c438492</link>
<guid>http://www.blogto.com/city/2009/01/all_aboard_the_atheist_bus/#c438492</guid>
<category>Toronto, City</category>
<pubDate>Tue, 03 Feb 2009 11:06:19 PST</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Heather</title>
<description><![CDATA[
Agree there (that it's odd I mean).  I try my best to watch people instead of ads whenever I'm on the TTC

Thanks for the mini debate :)]]>
</description>
<link>http://www.blogto.com/city/2009/01/all_aboard_the_atheist_bus/#c438474</link>
<guid>http://www.blogto.com/city/2009/01/all_aboard_the_atheist_bus/#c438474</guid>
<category>Toronto, City</category>
<pubDate>Tue, 03 Feb 2009 10:02:50 PST</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Zed</title>
<description><![CDATA[
Remove the word "Probably"]]>
</description>
<link>http://www.blogto.com/city/2009/01/all_aboard_the_atheist_bus/#c438191</link>
<guid>http://www.blogto.com/city/2009/01/all_aboard_the_atheist_bus/#c438191</guid>
<category>Toronto, City</category>
<pubDate>Mon, 02 Feb 2009 12:09:10 PST</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Parkdalian</title>
<description><![CDATA[
Heather: The CABC can spend their money wherever they choose, but where do you draw the line? I agree that religion also goes to the lenghts of advertising their beliefs but it doesn't make it right.

Just seems a little odd to look at a bus sign that asks me whether i think religion is right or wrong for me, that's all.

Big Lebowski?? Ouch! Sorry to disappoint.. haha. Far from :)

]]>
</description>
<link>http://www.blogto.com/city/2009/01/all_aboard_the_atheist_bus/#c438152</link>
<guid>http://www.blogto.com/city/2009/01/all_aboard_the_atheist_bus/#c438152</guid>
<category>Toronto, City</category>
<pubDate>Mon, 02 Feb 2009 09:58:09 PST</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Heather</title>
<description><![CDATA[
I can see what you're saying with the whole constructing a very visible devision where there isn't (or maybe there is and it's just something you and I don't notice?) one.

And I'd be completely on board with you if anyone's taxes were paying for it, but the ads are completely paid for by CABC with money raised through donations.  You could easily argue that people should be putting their donations in more immediately helpful places....  but in the spirit of live and let live (which I'm totally down with) shouldn't they be able to spend their money wherever they choose?

Also, since we've established that you're 'a dude' Parkdalian shall forever give me a mental image of the Big Lebowski.  :)  ]]>
</description>
<link>http://www.blogto.com/city/2009/01/all_aboard_the_atheist_bus/#c438146</link>
<guid>http://www.blogto.com/city/2009/01/all_aboard_the_atheist_bus/#c438146</guid>
<category>Toronto, City</category>
<pubDate>Mon, 02 Feb 2009 09:41:23 PST</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Parkdalian</title>
<description><![CDATA[
You're right Heather, i am a dude. And no dis-respecting being taken thanks.

All right, i didn't mean "shoved-down-our-throats" because it's not personally happening to me. But these atheist ads are and would insinuate that we are being bombarded with religious temptation(maybe historically) but we really aren't. We may be getting that feeling because we watched a little too much US elections lately(and media station debates) but religion is certainly not a huge issue here in Canada(except for maybe some parts in Quebec and Alberta)

So to end, i will agree with JEANIALICE above, and say live and let live. You won't change people minds, ever! So why waste people's tax dollars on this.

]]>
</description>
<link>http://www.blogto.com/city/2009/01/all_aboard_the_atheist_bus/#c432892</link>
<guid>http://www.blogto.com/city/2009/01/all_aboard_the_atheist_bus/#c432892</guid>
<category>Toronto, City</category>
<pubDate>Sat, 31 Jan 2009 18:15:04 PST</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Jeanialice</title>
<description><![CDATA[

It's as simple as that.

All the arguing in the world isn't going to change anyone's mind that's made up.

So even if there IS a God, Stop worrying and enjoy your life. However you choose to.]]>
</description>
<link>http://www.blogto.com/city/2009/01/all_aboard_the_atheist_bus/#c429604</link>
<guid>http://www.blogto.com/city/2009/01/all_aboard_the_atheist_bus/#c429604</guid>
<category>Toronto, City</category>
<pubDate>Fri, 30 Jan 2009 12:17:16 PST</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Jeanialice</title>
<description><![CDATA[
Live and let live.

It's as simple as that.

All the arguing in the world isn't going to change anyone's mind that's made up.

So even if there IS a God, Stop worrying and enjoy your life. However you choose to.]]>
</description>
<link>http://www.blogto.com/city/2009/01/all_aboard_the_atheist_bus/#c429603</link>
<guid>http://www.blogto.com/city/2009/01/all_aboard_the_atheist_bus/#c429603</guid>
<category>Toronto, City</category>
<pubDate>Fri, 30 Jan 2009 12:16:30 PST</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Mike W</title>
<description><![CDATA[
For someone who references Wikipedia, 1% is pretty bold claim. Have a citation?]]>
</description>
<link>http://www.blogto.com/city/2009/01/all_aboard_the_atheist_bus/#c429551</link>
<guid>http://www.blogto.com/city/2009/01/all_aboard_the_atheist_bus/#c429551</guid>
<category>Toronto, City</category>
<pubDate>Fri, 30 Jan 2009 10:35:12 PST</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Heather</title>
<description><![CDATA[
I don't personally feel it's shoved down my face at all.  At least, no more so than the latest H&M Billboard at Queen and Spadina.  Visual pollution is visual pollution.  I'm not usually so fussed about the content.

Some problems I have with your argument:
1) I think you're creating a false dichotomy here.  Just because I don't think people should be forced to practice religion privately doesn't mean I think they should be able to accost people and detain them to share their beliefs.  The choice isn't keep all religion our of public or you're shoving it down someone's throat - there is a middle ground here.  Does it bug you to see someone doing Yoga in a park?  What about Thai Chi?  Both of those come from a religious background (just non judaeo-christian)

2)  You can change some people.  There are heaps of people who don't think that much about religion and so seeing something like this may inspire someone to do more reading or research into something. No disrespect here man (woman?  I always think you're a dude...), but you can make better arguments than this.]]>
</description>
<link>http://www.blogto.com/city/2009/01/all_aboard_the_atheist_bus/#c429542</link>
<guid>http://www.blogto.com/city/2009/01/all_aboard_the_atheist_bus/#c429542</guid>
<category>Toronto, City</category>
<pubDate>Fri, 30 Jan 2009 10:12:13 PST</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>dbo1979</title>
<description><![CDATA[
I think many people are afraid to come to realization that they have a disbelief in god, especially amongst the younger ages.  It's a big step in free thinking to finally admit that everything that you knew as a child could be bs, especially for younger people.  If these ads can ignite just 2 people into a conversation i believe that the campaign is effective, because a vital step in the growth and spread of atheism is open-minded, rational discussions amongst peers.]]>
</description>
<link>http://www.blogto.com/city/2009/01/all_aboard_the_atheist_bus/#c429502</link>
<guid>http://www.blogto.com/city/2009/01/all_aboard_the_atheist_bus/#c429502</guid>
<category>Toronto, City</category>
<pubDate>Fri, 30 Jan 2009 09:02:33 PST</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Mike</title>
<description><![CDATA[
@ That Guy:

"Go science, but keep it open minded, there is tos of shit we don't understand yet and people may dismiss because we don't have the scientific method for it yet.

In no way is this an argument for religion. It seems that people assume people are religious and faith based if they challenge that science is perfect."

Science is, by definition, not perfect.  The scientific method builds upon previous knowledge, giving us better and better approximations of the truth.

But this requires that we first accept that there is an objective reality.  Either DNA is the genetic material, or it isn't; either the speed of light in a vacuum is constant, or it isn't; either god exists or it doesn't.  We have to accept that the universe really is a certain way.  Once we accept that, then the job of the scientist is to use rigorous methods to test hypotheses about the way things are; and most importantly, to develop theories about the way things are that are falsifiable (and to actively attempt to falsify).

I'll say it again: science is not in the business of making truth claims.  Science is in the business of making better and better approximations of the truth, based on the best currently available evidence.  In some cases, the evidence is so strong that we can state with a high degree of certainty that something is "true".  For example, we can state with a very high degree of certainty that DNA is the genetic material, that all living things have evolved from a common ancestor, that water boils at 100C, or that smoking cigarettes dramatically increases the risk of developing lung cancer; we can do this because the evidence in support of these things is so vast and so unidirectional that it is virtually impossible that we will discover evidence suggesting otherwise.

Other scientific theories are not as strong.  Some scientific theories are strong but are mutually incompatible with other theories (see General Relativity and Quantum Theory), suggesting that there is more to know.

That is how science works.

"The theory right now is something like this to me as an analogy. We have rubble (the universe) and the fire department makes a statment that a big explosion caused the rubble. Using science we know it happened 15 to 17 hours ago. This information is a great theorey, and probably true. What it fails to explain is, where the building came from, why was there an explosion, what the building was."

And saying "god-did-it" gets us precisely no closer to the answer to these questions.]]>
</description>
<link>http://www.blogto.com/city/2009/01/all_aboard_the_atheist_bus/#c429474</link>
<guid>http://www.blogto.com/city/2009/01/all_aboard_the_atheist_bus/#c429474</guid>
<category>Toronto, City</category>
<pubDate>Fri, 30 Jan 2009 07:58:47 PST</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Plailtepttauh</title>
<description><![CDATA[
www.blogto.com - great domain name for blog like this)))]]>
</description>
<link>http://www.blogto.com/city/2009/01/all_aboard_the_atheist_bus/#c429461</link>
<guid>http://www.blogto.com/city/2009/01/all_aboard_the_atheist_bus/#c429461</guid>
<category>Toronto, City</category>
<pubDate>Fri, 30 Jan 2009 07:41:00 PST</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Parkdalian</title>
<description><![CDATA[
And woaw... since when did this get into "page long" blog comments?

Seeing that religion seems to be on people's minds(ever since the US elections or further back) there should be a debate roundtable(*Dr.Strangelove style) on this subject. Since everyone wants to spills their beans on this hotly debated subject.

What do you think? Beats having to stare at my monitor for hours on end(*headache) reading people's entries.]]>
</description>
<link>http://www.blogto.com/city/2009/01/all_aboard_the_atheist_bus/#c428462</link>
<guid>http://www.blogto.com/city/2009/01/all_aboard_the_atheist_bus/#c428462</guid>
<category>Toronto, City</category>
<pubDate>Thu, 29 Jan 2009 23:05:46 PST</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Parkdalian</title>
<description><![CDATA[
Heather: It's not very free if you can only do it in your home??

So you're saying you WANT religion to continue to be shoved down your throat? Cause that's what we'd be doing to them with our beliefs.

There's NO POINT AT ALL letting theists know what we think(*or to make them think themselves) You can't change people. The mass majority of the world is religious, you think a transit Ad is going to make theists think twice about their beliefs?? Let them find out for themselves. Or better yet, tell them in person what you believe(*Since you don't want to keep religion in your home)]]>
</description>
<link>http://www.blogto.com/city/2009/01/all_aboard_the_atheist_bus/#c428459</link>
<guid>http://www.blogto.com/city/2009/01/all_aboard_the_atheist_bus/#c428459</guid>
<category>Toronto, City</category>
<pubDate>Thu, 29 Jan 2009 22:59:46 PST</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Gloria</title>
<description><![CDATA[
I am actually a Trekkie already, and pretty happy about it. 
]]>
</description>
<link>http://www.blogto.com/city/2009/01/all_aboard_the_atheist_bus/#c427939</link>
<guid>http://www.blogto.com/city/2009/01/all_aboard_the_atheist_bus/#c427939</guid>
<category>Toronto, City</category>
<pubDate>Thu, 29 Jan 2009 18:05:40 PST</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>That Guy</title>
<description><![CDATA[
Hmm, how to argue this.
We have strong evidence that make sense using current methods.
Where i agree with you is that science is the right approach.
On the other hand i believe our scientific knowledge amount to less than 1% of what there is to know, hence there will be a lot mistakes made. When we first figured out that the world doesn't revolve around earth it took a century to figure out how our galaxy works, there was theories of figure eight patterns and lots of other theories, science eventually narrowed it down, great.

Quck glance at wikipedia shows that there is still many things that don't quite fit with big bang theory, and adjustments are constantly made. More importantly however, the big bang itself is not explained.

The theory right now is something like this to me as an analogy. We have rubble (the universe) and the fire department makes a statment that a big explosion caused the rubble. Using science we know it happened 15 to 17 hours ago. This information is a great theorey, and probably true. What it fails to explain is, where the building came from, why was there an explosion, what the building was.

Big bang theory is  drop in the water in the existence of the universe. Any right scientific mind should note that while true it's a drop in the water compared to the knowledge there is to be had.

Go science, but keep it open minded, there is tos of shit we don't understand yet and people may dismiss because we don't have the scientific method for it yet.

In no way is this an argument for religion. It seems that people assume people are religious and faith based if they challenge that science is perfect.

]]>
</description>
<link>http://www.blogto.com/city/2009/01/all_aboard_the_atheist_bus/#c427925</link>
<guid>http://www.blogto.com/city/2009/01/all_aboard_the_atheist_bus/#c427925</guid>
<category>Toronto, City</category>
<pubDate>Thu, 29 Jan 2009 17:52:38 PST</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Mike</title>
<description><![CDATA[
@ That Guy:

"Can faith be proven ? Nope.
Can the big bang theory be proven ? No, it's a constantly changing theory that probably isn't anywhere near close to what happened."

Wow, false equivocation.

We have strong evidence that the universe as we know it came into existence about 15-17 billion years ago, probably from an infinitesmally small point of pure energy, as predicted from Einstein's theories of Special and General Relativity.

Science does not make truth claims.  It makes better and better approximations of the truth, and is open to new evidence.  Faith does no such thing.]]>
</description>
<link>http://www.blogto.com/city/2009/01/all_aboard_the_atheist_bus/#c427915</link>
<guid>http://www.blogto.com/city/2009/01/all_aboard_the_atheist_bus/#c427915</guid>
<category>Toronto, City</category>
<pubDate>Thu, 29 Jan 2009 17:30:57 PST</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Mike</title>
<description><![CDATA[
@ Badbhoy

"So thank you Reverend ClearGuy, his holiness of the Church of Atheism. It's becoming more clear that what many of you really want is to belong to community of like-minded people much like a church. But the best you could come up with to contribute to society is a bus ad? Why don't you just join a Star Trek club or something?"

You just don't get it, do you?

We live in a world where the vast majority of people believe that the creator of the universe has written a book.  Unfortunately, we have the misfortune of having many such books, which are uniformly mutually incompatible.

We live in a world in which many of these people honestly believe that the creator of the universe wants them to kill gynecologists, avoid the prophylactic use of rubber, and fly planes into buildings at 500 MPH.

We live in a world in which a large proportion of the population believe that the universe and all of its contents were created thousands of years after the Sumerians learned to brew beer, and are dead-set in making sure that our children are taught as much.

And despite all of this, we live in a world in which merely saying "prove it" in response to these things is considered taboo and "oppressive"; where it is, apparently, in bad taste to say "there probably is no god".  Listen to the words as you say them; "there probably is no god".  Nothing harmful about them.

What is most scary is that we live in a country in which most people believe in the literal or inspired truth of one of these books.  While most of them are not what I'd call religious extremists, they are nevertheless guilty of aiding the aforementioned atrocities.  Why?  Because they have made it, as you are doing, taboo to talk about the abject lunacy of religion.  We non-believers (non-alchemists???) are simply asking that we have an honest discussion about this; that we subject this belief to the same standard to which all other beliefs are held; that criticism of religious faith be a legitimate subject of social discourse, much like criticism of alchemy, astrology, and homeopathy are.

These signs are absolutely needed because we live in a world in which 1st century sensibilities about morality co-exist with 21st century weapons technology.  Atheists can no longer afford to be quiet.]]>
</description>
<link>http://www.blogto.com/city/2009/01/all_aboard_the_atheist_bus/#c427912</link>
<guid>http://www.blogto.com/city/2009/01/all_aboard_the_atheist_bus/#c427912</guid>
<category>Toronto, City</category>
<pubDate>Thu, 29 Jan 2009 17:24:59 PST</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Mike</title>
<description><![CDATA[
@ Mark:

All of the atheists who are also empiricists ("I won't believe it until it's been proved") do, in fact, believe in a religion. Their religion is called "science," which (if you study the history of epistemology and the philosophy of science, you'll know) cannot itself be proved.  That is to say, lots can be proved BY science; you just can't prove science itself. There are a number of axiomatic theorems in both science and mathematics (one of the languages of science) that have not been proved, and may succumb to formal indeterminacy. The first half plus of the 20th century was taken up quite unsuccessfully by some philosophers of science attempting to prove science."

Oh Mark, so many things wrong with this, I don't know where to begin.

First off, if you question the validity of science, let me suggest that you jump out of the nearest airplane or tall building without a parachute, or drink 10M HCl.  You believe in the validity of science when it suits you; but when it comes to "are there fairies in my garden?", you claim epistemological superiority?  Give me a break.

Second, science relies on exactly two axioms:  first, that there is an objective reality, and second, that past observations are predictive of future events.  EVERYTHING can be derived from these axioms.  Moreover, the second axiom is subject to the doctrine of falsification; we know that water boils at 100C because in every instance to date, it has done so.  If tomorrow it boils at 105C, we must either look for experimental error, or amend our theory of water boiling; that is, our original theory is falsified.

When religious faith subjects itself to the same internal controls, then it is welcome at the rational thinkers table.  I have yet to see evidence that it will do so. 

"n fact, science can only prove that which falls within the positivist paradigm. Any phenomenon residing outside of that paradigm cannot be proved by science, and hence is parcelled up with various epithets: religion, superstition, not-being-worthwhile (because it cannot be measured), and so forth. Indeed, much that is today considered as science was previously thought to be magic (including the technology that runs your computer), and there are still many phenomena that defy scientific explanation but are, nonetheless, useful technologies. The whole string theory as a unified theory of life, the universe, and everything (so to speak) will likely never be proved to the same standard as that demanded by the atheistic empiricists of God's existence."

Your god-of-the-gaps is getting more and more insignificant.  Where once he parted oceans and cured lepers, he is now confined to the inner recesses of string theory and quantum indeterminancy.  What a sad fall it has been...

Science does not prove anything; it is merely a system through which evidence can be rationally and critically evaluated, and thereby bring us to closer and closer approximations of the truth.  Scientists don't claim "truth"; ministers do.

"I, personally, have faith in a unifying power beyond human comprehension because I have experienced such phenomena. The fact that you have not had similar experiences does not negate mine, nor the "science-equivalent" that I construct to make sense of them. I also believe in much that is science, although I typically practice outside of the positivist paradigm (choosing to work primarily in constructivist and critical epistemologies)."

People of all religions (and atheists) have had genuinely life-changing experiences that seem to go beyond the hum-drum, everyday type of thing.  This does not provide one iota of evidence suggesting the actual existence of god.

""There's probably no God" is like saying, "I probably won't win the lottery," but it does not invalidate the beliefs of those who play, nor diminish the psycho-social benefits they might derive. (And I do understand that too much lotto is like too much religion, in that both often lead to trouble. Yeah, I get that.)"

Not at all the same.  For one, the lottery exists.  The odds of winning the lottery are far higher than the odds of god existing.  For one thing, without some form of evidence, there are an infinite number of gods that may exist.

No one is denying the real benefits that religion brings.  What we are saying is that all of the good things about religion (community, a sense of belonging, the desire to do good) can be had without presupposing anything on insufficient evidence.  Religion gives bad reasons to do good things, when good reasons exist.]]>
</description>
<link>http://www.blogto.com/city/2009/01/all_aboard_the_atheist_bus/#c427896</link>
<guid>http://www.blogto.com/city/2009/01/all_aboard_the_atheist_bus/#c427896</guid>
<category>Toronto, City</category>
<pubDate>Thu, 29 Jan 2009 17:12:58 PST</pubDate>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>