No God on the bus.

[John Bosley]

I have copied this bit from the Have I Got News thread which was mainly about Alexander taking over or not.

jimbentley wrote:
(the lovely) former contestant Ariane Sherine, who is organising an Atheist Bus Campaign in London (it involves buying advertising space on the sides of buses to display slogans such as "There's probably no God" ...

I wrote>
I am really pleased to hear the news about the Atheist Bus Campaign - and the fund raising is amazing as is the response to people who have said things like - 'So I am not alone after all.'
As a humanist/atheist, I am really happy when people with no belief get to realise that they are not alone - there are many of us. Some say a majority.

... so I have put it in this thread so that anyone who wants to can put their bit in.
For those who are interested there is a good forum for humanists at http://www.thinkhumanism.com
I should have said that humanists are more or less atheists but some are not so sure so the advert on the bus uses the word 'probably'.
There is picture of the bus (and Ariane !) at:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... dvertising

[John Bosley]

I must stop going on about this and get a life - whoops, I can't, there is only one and I've got it already.
Anyway, this link shows what people have given and all the comments they have made etc -


http://www.justgiving.com/atheistbus

[Ralph Gillions]

Yin-Yang principle.
If people can campaign for then it is clearly reasonable to campaign against.
Some people are wary about critizing religion(s).

[Charlie Reams]

To quote Jono, "Religion is a shit that needs to be wiped up."

I don't think he's one of the people Ralph was referring to.

[John Douglas]

"There's probably no God"

My sentiments exactly. Apparently Richard Dawkins wanted "almost certainly" but that looked too long to go on the side of a bus(!).

[Jeff Clayton]

I support anything which positively draws attention to buses.

On the subject of Ying-Yang and arguing for/against, I seem to recall a fairly widespread campaign of external advertising around the country for some Christian faith society a few years back, and this extended to billboards and buses. The main graphic depicted a man struggling to hold upright an oversized red question mark, but the name of the organisation escapes me.

My point therefore is that the pro-monotheism side has had its say already. Vive le bus!


Jeff

[Ben Wilson]

As an agnostic I'm half-tempted to get a campaign started to put a sign saying 'who gives a shit either way?' on the buses.

[Jon O'Neill]

Your sign might as well say "I'm special because both theists and atheists think I'm an idiot".

[David O'Donnell]

Your sign might as well say "I'm special because both theists and atheists think I'm an idiot".

The agnostic argument is that there is no argument worth having: it's ludicrous to debate something which will always be speculatory. As an agnostic I don't distinguish between atheists and theists since they are two sides of the same (Zimbabwe-style inflation ridden currency) coin locked in a debate that is fruitless.

[Charlie Reams]

On the subject of Ying-Yang and arguing for/against, I seem to recall a fairly widespread campaign of external advertising around the country for some Christian faith society a few years back, and this extended to billboards and buses. The main graphic depicted a man struggling to hold upright an oversized red question mark, but the name of the organisation escapes me.

Alpha. They still have posters up at some railway stations. With all the honesty you'd expect from an organisation based around elaborate fabrication, it's made to look like a broad-ranging spiritual exploration course but it's nothing more than Yet Another Christian Mission. My parents wasted a good part of their lives organising such courses until realising that most of the would-be convertees were only turning up for the free dinner.

[Jon O'Neill]

Your sign might as well say "I'm special because both theists and atheists think I'm an idiot".

The agnostic argument is that there is no argument worth having: it's ludicrous to debate something which will always be speculatory. As an agnostic I don't distinguish between atheists and theists since they are two sides of the same (Zimbabwe-style inflation ridden currency) coin locked in a debate that is fruitless.

I still think you're an idiot. Sorry.

[Julian Fell]

it's ludicrous to debate something which will always be speculatory

But that's kind of what we do most of the time on this forum...

[John Bosley]

I am quite surprised that the total raised so far to help pay for 'No God' notices on buses nationwide is over £118,000.
I am a bit fed up with the government (and others) telling me that most people in this country are Christian. Most people are not anything.

Anyway, I think we should all be and do what we want and if you like the idea, go to
http://www.justgiving.com/atheistbus
You don't have to give anything - just have a read about what people are saying.

Cheers
JB

[Jeff Clayton]

The bus is my religion. It's the reason I get up each morning. The whole business model can work smartly aswell as profitably. My aim is to convert everyone else to believing in the same and subscribing to these values.

[/sermon]


Jeff

[Katherine Birkett]

Quick declaration: I'm a member of the British Humanist Association AND the National Secular Society. April this year will be my tenth anniversary of becoming an ardent atheist.

[John Bosley]

Cheers, K. I am a member of them too - all the best to you. John

(you might like the forum at http://www.thinkhumanism.com )

[Lesley Jeavons]

Just something of interest in this thread:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hamp ... 832647.stm

Man refuses to drive 'No God' bus

[Jimmy Gough]

Just something of interest in this thread:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hamp ... 832647.stm

Man refuses to drive 'No God' bus

Yeah, I saw that too. Christians=

[Simon Cooper]

Yeah, I saw that too. Christians=

People who can't cope with those who care enough to believe in something =

[Kirk Bevins]

Yeah, I saw that too. Christians=

People who can't cope with those who care enough to believe in something =

Oi - does this imply non-believers don't care? That's a bit harsh.

[Charlie Reams]

Yeah, I saw that too. Christians=

People who can't cope with those who care enough to believe in something =

Yeah that makes no sense.

However I guess we can learn from this story that bus drivers who drive around with adverts for, say, Hostel 2 on the side are in fact endorsing sadistic mock-violence against women. Otherwise they would've refused to drive them.

[Simon Cooper]

Oi - does this imply non-believers don't care? That's a bit harsh.

No, sorry, Kirk, certainly didnt mean to imply that. Simply arguing that someone shouldn't be regarded as being 'sad' simply because they have the guts to make a principled stand about something they believe in.

[Chris Corby]

Oi - does this imply non-believers don't care? That's a bit harsh.

No, sorry, Kirk, certainly didnt mean to imply that. Simply arguing that someone shouldn't be regarded as being 'sad' simply because they have the guts to make a principled stand about something they believe in.

Religion has killed about 200 million people who would have otherwise lived and the total rises daily. I'm with John Lennon on this one.........................

[Gavin Chipper]

I've never driven a bus, whatever they've had on the side. To be honest, I just disagree with windows.

[Jeff Clayton]

If you drive a bus with a large side advert for the Sex and the City movie on DVD, Sex Drive the film in cinemas etc, does that mean you're endorsing sex on the side?

Jeff

[Dan Vanniasingham]

Did Jeff's joke really nuke this thread? Impressive.

I've just come across another bbc news story which may explain what the anti-bus campaigners have been up to for the past week or so: Attenborough 'received hate mail'

[Hannah O]

Poor Sir Attenborough! The way I see it, Earth has a population of idiots (i.e. people that have committed deeds that are unarguably stupid), and these are randomly distributed throughout the population, therefore wherever you look, in the Christian population, in another religion's population, in the atheist's population, there will be some foolish people (sorry for comma abuse!).

I personally think that an act of stupidity is trying to convert someone who isn't interested. If someone walks up to a Christian, and says "I don't quite understand this..." or "Could you explain exactly what Christianity's about?", then they're fair game and have chosen to possibly convert. However, if someone's walking down the street and minding their own business and a Christian assails them with their beliefs, almost hitting the person round the head with them, that is an act of stupidity. People are stubborn, and if anything, trying to make them think differently will be perceived as an attack and they'll fight against it even more strongly. It's a fine world where everyone respects each other's differences, but it's a pretty lousy world when people force their differences onto each other. I'm sort of agnostic-atheist, but if I see a Christian, I'm not going to approach them and tell them their religion is a load of bunkum. Not only is it offensive (i.e. disrespecting their belief when I wouldn't like it if they did it to me), but it causes a load of trouble which is unnecessary. Idiots on this planet are the type who use their beliefs as a weapon to attack others. It'd be a more peaceful world if an atheist could speak to a Christian without getting into a religious argument- "You're a Christian? Fine." "You're an atheist? Alright." People have free will for a reason, and it extends to choosing their way of life too. You have to respect a person's choice- if that choice includes being religious or not, then that should be respected too.

Then again, even if the universal population stopped getting so fraught over religion, they would probably find something else to argue about. People are generally unhappy unless they have something to complain or fight about

[Jon Corby]

People have free will for a reason

Because God gave it to them.

[Phil Reynolds]

People have free will for a reason

Because God gave it to them.

Yeah, but did he have a choice?

[Katherine Birkett]

Has anyone seen Pat Condell's videos on YouTube?

[Gavin Chipper]

Poor Sir Attenborough! The way I see it, Earth has a population of idiots (i.e. people that have committed deeds that are unarguably stupid), and these are randomly distributed throughout the population, therefore wherever you look, in the Christian population, in another religion's population, in the atheist's population, there will be some foolish people (sorry for comma abuse!).

I personally think that an act of stupidity is trying to convert someone who isn't interested. If someone walks up to a Christian, and says "I don't quite understand this..." or "Could you explain exactly what Christianity's about?", then they're fair game and have chosen to possibly convert. However, if someone's walking down the street and minding their own business and a Christian assails them with their beliefs, almost hitting the person round the head with them, that is an act of stupidity. People are stubborn, and if anything, trying to make them think differently will be perceived as an attack and they'll fight against it even more strongly. It's a fine world where everyone respects each other's differences, but it's a pretty lousy world when people force their differences onto each other. I'm sort of agnostic-atheist, but if I see a Christian, I'm not going to approach them and tell them their religion is a load of bunkum. Not only is it offensive (i.e. disrespecting their belief when I wouldn't like it if they did it to me), but it causes a load of trouble which is unnecessary. Idiots on this planet are the type who use their beliefs as a weapon to attack others. It'd be a more peaceful world if an atheist could speak to a Christian without getting into a religious argument- "You're a Christian? Fine." "You're an atheist? Alright." People have free will for a reason, and it extends to choosing their way of life too. You have to respect a person's choice- if that choice includes being religious or not, then that should be respected too.

Then again, even if the universal population stopped getting so fraught over religion, they would probably find something else to argue about. People are generally unhappy unless they have something to complain or fight about

But these Christians think that the rest of us are going to burn in Hell for all eternity for not being Christians, because God is so loving. So it's understandable that they want to convert us. I'm actually quite happy for Christians to try and convert me. It doesn't really bother me at all. I even had a chat with some Mormons that came round the other day.

[George Jenkins]

Poor Sir Attenborough! The way I see it, Earth has a population of idiots (i.e. people that have committed deeds that are unarguably stupid), and these are randomly distributed throughout the population, therefore wherever you look, in the Christian population, in another religion's population, in the atheist's population, there will be some foolish people (sorry for comma abuse!).

I personally think that an act of stupidity is trying to convert someone who isn't interested. If someone walks up to a Christian, and says "I don't quite understand this..." or "Could you explain exactly what Christianity's about?", then they're fair game and have chosen to possibly convert. However, if someone walking down the street and minding their own business and a Christian assails them with their beliefs, almost hitting the person round the head with them, that is an act of stupidity. People are stubborn, and if anything, trying to make them think differently will be perceived as an attack and they'll fight against it even more strongly. It's a fine world where everyone respects each other's differences, but it's a pretty lousy world when people force their differences onto each other. I'm sort of agnostic-atheist, but if I see a Christian, I'm not going to approach them and tell them their religion is a load of bunkum. Not only is it offensive (i.e. disrespecting their belief when I wouldn't like it if they did it to me), but it causes a load of trouble which is unnecessary. Idiots on this planet are the type who use their beliefs as a weapon to attack others. It'd be a more peaceful world if an atheist could speak to a Christian without getting into a religious argument- "You're a Christian? Fine." "You're an atheist? Alright." People have free will for a reason, and it extends to choosing their way of life too. You have to respect a person's choice- if that choice includes being religious or not, then that should be respected too.

Then again, even if the universal population stopped getting so fraught over religion, they would probably find something else to argue about. People are generally unhappy unless they have something to complain or fight about

Hannah, that was a very good and balanced argument which I agree with. Unfortunately the World is not as simple as you would like it to be. There are always religious "nutters" whom will try to dominate. Like ex-President Bush, and Poodle Tony Blair, whom consulted God about Iraq, and was told by God to bomb Iraq, and presumably thousands of innocent civilians. You see, these people have the power and the means to act as they like, with the votes and support our M.P.s, whom we assume to be intelligent. I saw Blair on television actually state that he asked God for advice and God told him that it was O.K. for war with Iraq. The result of that decision, was suicide bombers killing our civilians. For the words "suicide bombers", substitute "terrorists", then that makes us the good guys. My own brother turned into a religious nutter and his own daughter wouldn't let him come into her house. Because one day she heard him screaming in her baby Son's bedroom. She ran up to the bedroom and asked him what was the matter. He said that he he was screaming at the baby to drive the evil out of him, and that was the last time that he was allowed in the house. He was soon dead because his Mind went. It wasn't so long ago, when our lives were dominated by the "Lord's day preservation Society". So! Hannah, your plea for tolerance will go unheeded. When I was last in a discussion with a friend whom wanted to save my soul and convert me, I suggested that we could prove whether God existed or not. (Can something exist when nobody can see it). I told him that I will take him to the bottom of my garden, and help him over my fence. then he can stand in the middle of the track of the railway line which runs at the bottom of my garden. It will be dark and the train driver won't see him. the train will doing about 60M.P.H. My friend will pray to God to stop the train, and being all powerful and knowing that my friend is a believer, God is bound to stop the train. My friend declined to test his faith. Perhaps it was because I told him what happened to the man whom laid himself in front of my train. He looked up at me (I can still see his staring eyes),and I thought that he was having a joke. Anyway! the Police collected up 11 pieces. I don't allow my Ex-friend near me anymore, because I hate intolerance, unless practiced by me of course, because i've spent a life-time observing the affects of religion on humanity. There is just one thing Hannah, that I would argue with you about. You describe yourself as "agnostic Atheist". this is a label that religious people can attack, and that's why they have labeled you as such, like theists, evolutionists, ect. Creationism is the only word allowed in religious circles, and that was disputed by Darwin. So! hannah, why not describe yourself as I do myself. I am of the order animal, Human, With a much larger brain than another animal. Bull, Bovine. That does away with all fancy labels. George Jenkins.

[Hannah O]

My excuse is if I'd had longer I would have come up with a better polemic!

Gavin: Good point, though I think I remember reading somewhere religious (it might have been a story paraphrased from the Qu'ran, so may not be completely relevant) a tale about a...well, a woman of the night who gave a thirsty dog water as it couldn't reach the well, and a religious figure said something about going to heaven despite not believing if you live your life as a kind and selfless person...then again, it was a year or two ago, so I might be a little wrong with the details. If I think about God, an omniscient and loving being, surely it would be more important to Him that you love your neighbour and live a good life, even if you're a bit of an "atheist"? I'm not assuming anything, as I don't have the relevant expertise to judge, but if I was omniscient and loving, I think I could forgive someone who didn't believe in me but did many generous things in their life.

George: I think I did simplify it a bit too much! I think that the religious "nutters" that we see sadly all too often are examples of the idiots that end up in the religious population. I'm sorry to hear about your brother, and I hope I haven't brought up too many painful memories As for your point on labelling, it makes a lot of sense! Labels are pointless and the only use seems to be for insulting others. Even in non-religious matters, like in a classroom, you get "nerds" and "geeks" and other hurtful names which are just labels. I don't think you can label people properly because it's impossible to say one unique human being is the same as another. I like your description too!

[Rosemary Roberts]

if I was omniscient and loving, I think I could forgive someone who didn't believe in me

You have to remember that you see into "the mind of god" only via the mind of one or other flavour of believer. And they are not omniscient and loving at all - they are narrow minded, petty, mean and vengeful. There is no evidence whatever for any form of supernatural being or supernatural experience apart from the fact that the diseased or disordered mind can create any desired aberration and inanity.

[Hannah O]

You have to remember that you see into "the mind of god" only via the mind of one or other flavour of believer. And they are not omniscient and loving at all - they are narrow minded, petty, mean and vengeful. There is no evidence whatever for any form of supernatural being or supernatural experience apart from the fact that the diseased or disordered mind can create any desired aberration and inanity.

I'm going by the Bible, or at least the parts of the Bible I can recall (forgive my rusty mind), so essentially I'm going directly to the source. I think some believers are perfectly nice people with no grudge against me for having a different opinion to them, and it's only when belief comes between people and ruins friendships that it's really a problem. You can't really generalise one way or the other- not all believers are nice, not all of them are petty and narrow-minded. I do recall one believer whose view I found laughable (thank you for jogging my memory!)
I went to Sunday school one Sunday, and the young woman teaching us (she can't have been more than 21 or 22, and seemed very nice) explained about the tsunami in Thailand being caused by people who believed in other gods. It was then that I was both disgusted and tempted to ask why some British tourists had drowned. People like that make me shake my head in wonder and anger.

You don't necessarily need a 'diseased' mind to invent miracles- if you look at superstition, perfectly sane people believe in it (I'm not saying that being superstitious indicates you aren't actually sane!). I'm not for arguing whether supernatural beings exist or not, I'm just comparing points of view. Then again, there are these miraculous events in which terribly ill people are cured...even if it isn't caused by supernatural beings, I'd still be grateful for the event.

[Jon O'Neill]

God isn't real.

[Jon Corby]

God isn't real.

Can you prove that?

[Kirk Bevins]

God isn't real.

Can you prove that?

Probably by proof by contradiction. Start off with the hypothesis that God is irrational....

[Charlie Reams]

Arguments for tolerance are based on the assumption that atheism and theism are somehow equally plausible and consistent. This is not the case.

[Jon Corby]

Argue properly you slags. I wanna be on the 'God' side of the argument for once, churning out shite about 'faith', and ignoring logic where it suits me etc

[Gavin Chipper]

Argue properly you slags. I wanna be on the 'God' side of the argument for once, churning out shite about 'faith', and ignoring logic where it suits me etc

OK - you can prove that some people's idea of God doesn't exist because they pretty much define him out of existence by setting too high standards for him (omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence etc). But as for just a regular God that happened to create us all without being perfect, it's still a stupid idea. I can't prove he doesn't exist but the same applies for a random horse orbiting a planet in another solar system. Bring it on.

[Charlie Reams]

a random horse

[Gavin Chipper]

a random horse

Right, a teapot then.

[Charlie Reams]

Yeah, this is basically the argument to end all arguments for me. If you believe in anything supernatural (as in, not measurable) then you should also believe in all possible supernatural things. That's quite a lot of things, random teapots and all, and I've never seen anyone adopt that position.

I think the standard response to this is something involving waving a hand and talking about forgiveness and love, which I don't find totally compelling myself.

[Michael Wallace]

From yesterday's Grauniad - I was amused.

[Rosemary Roberts]

I'm going by the Bible, or at least the parts of the Bible I can recall (forgive my rusty mind), so essentially I'm going directly to the source.

All the sources of the bible are exactly and only "the mind of one or other flavour of believer". Some believers are nice people, some of them mean well, but the really dangerous thing about them is that they are all convinced that they and only they have the truth. When such people band together and reinforce each others beliefs they are capable of anything.

I am convinced that there is no god of any kind, no supernatural forces, no eternal life. There is not and never has been any genuine evidence for anything to the contrary. It follows that this is the only life we get. Enjoy it!

And I must say that I derive a certain amount of comfort from the absolute certainty that (e.g.) the 9/11 bombers are not currently enjoying a paradisical life in the company of however many virgins they qualified for, but are rotting along with everyone else at Ground Zero. As will Bin Laden when his time comes.

[Michael Wallace]

http://overcompensating.com/posts/20080414.html

[Rosemary Roberts]

[Phil Reynolds]

From yesterday's Grauniad - I was amused.

Yeah, it's worth reading the full interview in the Radio Times. I was going to quote the bit about having to respect everyone's beliefs being like saying that it's equally valid to believe 2 + 2 = 5.

I also like Richard Dawkins' point in The God Delusion that, when Christians attack his atheism, he observes that they too are also atheists since they don't believe in Zeus, Odin, Apollo etc. He just takes it one further.

[Chris Corby]

I think it was Jo Brand who said that at least we know God is a man because if He were a woman, sperm would taste like chocolate.

[Michael Wallace]

I was going to quote the bit about having to respect everyone's beliefs being like saying that it's equally valid to believe 2 + 2 = 5.

I've never liked that argument, really, since it's not *quite* the same - maths is an artificial construction which can thus have things like axioms, that doesn't really work for anything else though (obviously I understand the whole thing about it being ostensibly a bit dumb to not appreciate the weight of evidence or whatever, but the mathematician in me makes me get fidgety about some things).

[Phil Reynolds]

maths is an artificial construction which can thus have things like axioms, that doesn't really work for anything else

Good point; I think the 2 + 2 = 5 thing is used just as a convenient shorthand for any self-evident or measurable truth, even though (as you say) strictly speaking it's not a particularly good example. Anyway, tell that mathematician in you to leave you alone and mind his own business.

[Gavin Chipper]

And I must say that I derive a certain amount of comfort from the absolute certainty that (e.g.) the 9/11 bombers are not currently enjoying a paradisical life in the company of however many virgins they qualified for, but are rotting along with everyone else at Ground Zero. As will Bin Laden when his time comes.

I like the idea that they've been presented with 72 white raisins for all their "hard work". But unfortunately it's all rubbish! http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2002/ja ... ianreview5

[Charlie Reams]

Each time we sleep with a houri we find her virgin. Besides, the penis of the Elected never softens. The erection is eternal; the sensation that you feel each time you make love is utterly delicious and out of this world and were you to experience it in this world you would faint. Each chosen one [ie Muslim] will marry seventy [sic] houris, besides the women he married on earth, and all will have appetising vaginas.

I don't think Islam is any worse or better than any other form of elaborate superstition, but I must admit I have some respect for any religion which recognises the value of "appetising vaginas".

[Jon Corby]

Once you've married them you won't be getting anywhere near those appetising vaginas though. Why include that clause?

[Peter Mabey]

I'm going by the Bible, or at least the parts of the Bible I can recall (forgive my rusty mind), so essentially I'm going directly to the source.

At school I was pretty well immunised against against that by our R.E. teacher, who told us about the findings of textual criticism. The Bible is now known to be a collection of writings from various sources, written long after the events they purport to describe, and full of inconsistencies. (For example, although 'beat your swords into ploughshares' is often quoted, there's a passage in Joel which says the exact opposite. )
By the way, with all the fiddling with the curriculum in recent years, is it still true that Religious Education is the one subject which is compulsory in state schools here, whilst it's the only one forbidden in the U.S.?

[Rosemary Roberts]

although 'beat your swords into ploughshares' is often quoted, there's a passage in Joel which says the exact opposite

I'm sure any metallurgist would agree that it is perfectly possible to do both, depending on what tool you need next. In fact that is probably the nearest thing to science that the bible gets right!

[John Bosley]

What do female suicide bombers get unless they are lesbian?

[Matt Morrison]

What do female suicide bombers get unless they are lesbian?

Can't men be virgins any more?

[Charlie Reams]

Obviously the correct answer is Islam believes none of this applies to women, because women are too stupid to understand stuff like "moral issues" and should stick to more conventional female activities like staying at home and getting stoned (insert your own Matt Morrison joke here.) But hey, we should respect their opinion right?