Atheists on the offensive?

[Whickerman]

Atheists are starting an advertising campaign to alert the public to the fact that there may not be a god.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7813812.stm

My question is this. I am not a god botherer, in fact I'm pretty much as far from that as you can get, but when did atheism becom proselytizing? Why spend �140,000 promoting your beliefs if your beliefs are that everyone else is wrong? Surely by definition that's fundamentalism, and therefore defeats the point of atheism? Or am I completely at 6s and 7s here?

[keyplus90]

Ohhh my god, really? I never knew that and now I am so scared.

[naomi24]

Your choice, but I have a funny feeling that history will repeat itself.

[keyplus90]

In other words you are trying to propagate that there is some sort of history where keyplus begged to few people here for sanction. First of all I would love to know what the histroy is and then depending upon few peoples choice, perhaps repeat it.

One thing you have never learnt so far Naomi, stop bluffing.

[Octavius]

If the atheist bus campaign gets anyone (atheist or religionist) to think seriously about this and to live life more joyfully, then certainly it is a good thing.

[jno]

joyfully, Octavius? This isn't what I'd consider the most joyous of threads. See for instance the claim that religous people are mentally ill, thus writing off pretty well everyone who lived in Europe for 1900 years. I sometimes wonder how such enlightened people as ourselves are descended from centuries of mental defectives.

[Octavius]

Well if that is their opinion jno then so be it. I am content to consider the possibility proposed by the campaign and will continue to live life joyfully with my fellow humans, even as a deranged illogical misguided thick uneducated irrational deluded Catholic. The campaign is working.

[naomi24]

Keyplus, no other words - and you should know better than to accuse me of bluffing. Sadly for you, your memory never did serve you well. Never mind. Perhaps Birdie has jogged it slightly.

Octavius, Ah, the Atheist buses rear their heads again. How opinions change - and all within the course of just a few hours. Amazing!

[keyplus90]

My little birdie - why do you like wasting other people's time by these long post where half of the answers you are giving yourself. But still I will try solving your problem. No wonder you have put in CAPITAL letter the word that I would put as bold CREATURES because that is where this website where you copied and pasted have gone wrong and people like you are usually mislead.

You know about Fruits and veg bit where Quran uses word "Samarat" and then word "Zojain". Two verses, 43:12 and 51:49. Who told you that Quran is talking about Sex? Although Arabic is not my language but even from Urdu I can tell that �Zojain� means opposite, and I think you know Arabic (as you said once) so be honest and tell me if I am wrong. Are night and day two different sexes? Is far and close two different sexes? Good and bad, Hell and heaven, believer and none believer etc.

Now its your problem that you go through all the biological terms and all the names of the creatures from a book you must have read somewhere. Quran is not a book of biology. So it can not mention all of billions creatures by name. Tomorrow you may say Quran does not talk about a dog called �mandy� owned by your next door neighbour.

Why don't you try to think on these lines and see if they make sense and keep your mind open and keep thinking. It�s a good sign.

[keyplus90]

And sorry for the disappointment Naomi. I keep on accepting that I am not an expert and still I am answering most of the question posted by birdie. You see he will post another long one with lots of cont:.

[naomi24]

No need to apologise, Keyplus. I'm not disappointed.

[keyplus90]

No- Naomi my apology was to disappoint you because you expected me to be jogged a bit by birdie. But Alhamdullilah (by the grace of God) that did not happen. So you must be disappointed due to the effort in vain by my little birdie.

[naomi24]

Ah, well, yes I did hope you'd be jogged a bit by Birdie's post, but on reflection I don't know why I held that hope. You rarely listen to anything anyone else has to say, which is why you know nothing about anything except the teachings of Islam.

[brachiopod]

�can we say the same thing about you, as it does not agree with what you believe in so you are saying it is a pile of rubbish. Or please let me know the title of any book you have written on the geology.�

I can�t say I�ve written many books on �the� geology, many essays perhaps, and a thesis or two, but I�m with Jake on this one � it is a pile of rubbish, and I totally agree with his point about �selecting and twisting the evidence!�

Mind you, it is not Frank Press I�m talking about. I just happen to have a copy of �Earth� by Frank Press and Raymond Seiver on my lap as I type. Yes, a text that is �referred by most of the universities throughout the world� � that much is true.

HOWEVER, I can find no bloody mention of this quote about �mountains being there to stabilise the Earth�s crust�. Perhaps keyplus could provide chapter and verse reference for this text in the same diligent way as the so-called �same information� in the Quran is quoted? � because I certainly can�t find it.

He does, however say �though all mountains are the result of upward tectonic or magmatic movements, their forms are mainly dictated by the erosional process, the rock of which they are formed, and its structure.�

Jake, all the �twisting to fit� and "taking out of context� is being done by the person seeking to make modern science confirm some ancient ramblings � not by said author !

[brachiopod]

Jake, you forgot;

5. Select inaccurate and out of context quotes from (relatively) obscure scientific texts in order to affirm that modern science concurs with your chosen religous text.
Hope that no-one has either access to the source, or can be bothered to check the accuracy of the quote. Provide no specific reference just in case somebody does actually try.