The Humanist Association of Ottawa’s New Website March 27, 2010

The Humanist Association of Ottawa’s New Website

The Humanist Association of Ottawa has a new, revamped website that looks pretty nifty. I love the banner 🙂

They now have sections specifically for locals who want to meet other atheists (even if they don’t want to become official HAO members), a blog that I hope will be updated frequently, and an event calendar bursting with opportunities.

And it’s just fun to say HAO (in my head, I’m pronouncing it HEY-oh).

Check them out, and if you’re in the Ottawa area, join their group!

(Thanks to Tony for the link)

"The way republican politics are going these days, that means the winner is worse than ..."

It’s Moving Day for the Friendly ..."
"It would have been more convincing if he used then rather than than."

It’s Moving Day for the Friendly ..."

Browse Our Archives

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • I despise that billboard for being so cowardly as to include the word “probably.” There is no God. Period.

    The problem with atheists is they are wishy washy.

  • They keep writing “probably” like trying to make it less “offending”, like if we’re trying to sell something.

    We’re doing a great job for agnostics. That’s not an atheist sign.

    Atheism doesn’t stand for probability. It stands for the non-existence of god(s).

    If our message is not politically correct, that’s not our problem -and, we should be used to it-.

    Theists never say “God probably exists”. They take it for granted and we should do the same, even more taking into account we have logic and reason on our side.

  • TSC

    I swear, I move out of a city, and look what happens… missed that boat. Maybe I’ll check them out when I’m back in town for the summer.

    David: Prove to me there is no god. You can’t do it. All you can do is show me that there is an utter and total lack of evidence for god. The same goes for fairies and Russell’s teapot. That doesn’t mean that they don’t exist, just that they probably don’t. Agnosticism is frankly the only logical position to take; being gnostic about the non-existence of god is almost as illogical as being gnostic about the existence of god. In both cases there is a positive belief being expounded in the face of a total lack of evidence.

    All you can say when there is no evidence is that whatever there is no evidence for probably doesn’t exist.

  • Jude

    Oh wow, there’s a humanist association here in Ottawa? This is the happiest day of my life!!!

    Okay, the happiest day of this week, anyway…

  • Valhar2000

    Well, David, I was going to say something, but I figure that if saying that kind of thing keeps you from doing drugs and alcohol it’ll be best to let it go.

  • Epistaxis

    There’s probably no teapot. Now put down the telescope and enjoy your life.

  • Jude: Yeah we’re here, and you just missed a great potluck at my house ;-). (That’s me, third from the left and behind).

    And thanks for the mention, Hemant.

  • Neon Genesis

    I pronounced HAO like “How” in my head.

  • I agree, that “probably is no god” is not a good choice of words.

    there needs to be a different word for the agnostic or non intervening god, and the all mighty meddler.

  • Snap

    It is Canada. It should be pronounced with a silent ‘H’ to give you “EH-oh” ;^)

  • Marlowe

    I can’t believe I never thought of pronouncing it as Hey-oh! It makes so much sense now…

  • In Chinese, HAO is pronounced “How” and means good.

    With regard to the sign, the statement that there is PROBABLY no god is perfectly atheist.
    Atheism is not the assertion that god is not. It is the lack of belief.
    Arguing that there is no god – a proposition incapable of logical proof – merely allows theists to counter with the straw man argument that atheism is then, as a matter of logic, a faith claim just the same as their religion: Belief in a state of affairs for which there is no evidence.

    My response to theists is commonly, “You have no evidence for any of your claims.” It would seem inconsistent, then, to make assertions which suffer the same fault.
    It is, in my view, perfectly acceptable (and required by simple logic) to simply define atheism as lacking belief in the absence of evidence. The statement “There is no god” is not only incapable of proof, but unnecessarily provocative.
    This is not to say that atheism and theism are equally valid perspectives. They are not. The absence of any evidence to support positive assertions renders belief in the claim rather foolish on its face. But there is no need to go any further than “I don’t believe your claim in the absence of evidence.”
    It’s not wishy washy. It’s consistent, especially in avoiding what must, by definition, be called dogma.

error: Content is protected !!