Donations welcome for atheist bus banners in London

[scissorhands]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7681914.stm

"The atheist posters are the idea of the British Humanist Association (BHA) and have been supported by prominent atheist Professor Richard Dawkins."


Actually they are agnostic really, but given some persuasion the message could be changed to remove the "probably" and insert "almost certainly" instead.

The complete slogan reads: "There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life."

It is an excellent idea and an antidote for all those religious posters seen on public transport.

You can donate to this worthy cause here.

http://www.justgiving.com/atheistbus

This idea would be worth pursuing right across the UK and abroad also.

As Richard Dawkins says: "This campaign to put alternative slogans on London buses will make people think - and thinking is anathema to religion."

[andyandy]

I have just donated a few pounds. :)

I've read some criticism that this amounts to "evangelising" by atheists, but I think that such criticism is unfounded. If the message was "there is no God, join your local atheist group today!" then perhaps they would have a point, but the message as written seems perfectly reasonable. Indeed, I would support all sorts of messages which were intended to provoke some sort of philosophical introspection:

"free will is just an illusion, you can not do otherwise"

"The only world that exists is inside your head"

And others :)

[andyandy]

It seems that the campaign has gone internet supersonic, the target was £5,000, and it is currently standing at £40,000 in less than a day. With average donations seemingly running at about £10 each, that amounts to about 4000 donors so far. Over a hundred people have registered since I donated about half an hour ago...... forget the bus adverts, maybe they will be able to afford to buy the buses....

this is possibly my favourite ever quote:

But Stephen Green said: "Bendy-buses, like atheism, are a danger to the public at large.

"I should be surprised if a quasi-religious advertising campaign like this did not attract graffiti.

"People don't like being preached at. Sometimes it does them good, but they still don't like it."


who is this Stephen Green with his concern that people don't like being preached at? A spokesman for Christian pressure group Christian Voice (http://www.christianvoice.org.uk/), who preach to anyone who will listen about the evils of homosexuality, the Holocaust of abortion, the need to re-introduce the death penalty, how all sex education should be banned in schools, how all "real" Muslims believe in jihad, and so much more! Oh, the irony :)

[JonWhite]

The Guardian piece about it here (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/oct/21/religion-advertising).

[scissorhands]

The donations have exceeded expectations over seven fold on the first day.
The coverage on the BBC news site has helped with this, thats why I am encouraging posters here to spread this worldwide, and start up similar schemes.
The power of simple messages like this, using the medium of advertisement, isnt something that should be only available to religious movements.
Its available to the large and often silent mass of people who arent religious and are sick of being preached at by superstitious fools.
Heres hoping this campaign might kick start similar ones globally.

[Nogbad]

The Christian Voice chap said "I should be surprised if a quasi-religious advertising campaign like this did not attract graffiti."

Whatever could he mean? I have seen Christian adverts on buses and felt no compunction to get magic markers out. Why would these be specifically targeted. Come to think of it graffiti on a bus is not a common sight - you do well to get on board before the driver heads off never mind try to be Picasso in the middle of the road with the sodding thing.

[andyandy]

The Christian Voice chap said "I should be surprised if a quasi-religious advertising campaign like this did not attract graffiti."

Whatever could he mean? I have seen Christian adverts on buses and felt no compunction to get magic markers out. Why would these be specifically targeted. Come to think of it graffiti on a bus is not a common sight - you do well to get on board before the driver heads off never mind try to be Picasso in the middle of the road with the sodding thing.

The entire press release is almost beyond parody:

Dated 19th October 2008 14.00 hrs

Richard Dawkins is so concerned that the atheist message is dying on its feet that he is to fund a humanist evangelistic campaign, Christian Voice has learned.

But in a twist which will have Christians in gales of laughter, the advertising campaign, which will be based on the catchy slogan 'There is probably no God. Now stop worrying and get on with your life,' is to be stuck on bendy-buses.

Apparently, an atheist blogger named Jon Worth came up with the idea, but his fellow humanists, not known for their generosity, wouldn't stump up the cash. Now Richard Dawkins, whose anti-Christian zeal knows little bounds, is to finance the doomed venture.

Should the ads be placed on London 's Bendy-Buses, it would be a highly-appropriate move since these have proved to be a danger to the pubic and are due for the chop under new Mayor Boris Johnson.

Stephen Green, National Director of Christian Voice, said today:

'How funny that Richard Dawkins is so scared of the threat which evangelical Christianity poses to atheism and his beloved Darwinism that he has to fund a campaign to attack God. He really is the nearest thing atheists have to an evangelist while his belief in non-belief is held with a fervour which many religious people would do well to emulate, so long as they don't make themselves look as inept as he so often does, poor man.

'I should be surprised if a quasi-religious advertising campaign like this did not attract graffiti. People don't like being preached at. Sometimes it does them good, but they still don't like it. The advertising space on a bendy-bus is just the right height as well. But the graffiti artists, and indeed the atheist advertisers will have to be quick or the bendy-buses will be off the road in Boris's purge, taking the anti-God message with them. Bendy-buses, like atheism, are a danger to the public at large.

'It occurs to me that the addition of just a few words from Psalm 14 would make the entire message Biblical: "The fool hath said in his heart ..." '
http://www.christianvoice.org.uk/Press/press109.html

not that he is advocating criminal damage or anything :)

[Nogbad]

The entire press release is almost beyond parody:

http://www.christianvoice.org.uk/Press/press109.html

not that he is advocating criminal damage or anything :)

Well they are the right height and all :boggled:

I know Boris isn't keen on bendy buses - they are pretty scary if you are on a bike - but ordinary buses carry adverts too or haven't they got ordinary buses in London any more?

[scissorhands]

It's about time that adults stopped arguing about who's got the best imaginary friend (especially when they do it with guns). How much for TV ads?

Another great comment on the donation page.

[biomorph]

done my tenner, its up to £56k now

[Undesired Walrus]

In my opinion- A waste of money. Out of all the slogans that could have gone on the side of a bus, they choose something like that? Why is there probably no God? How can this make a single theist think, other than 'Well, it's their word against mine'.

For Atheism's first chance at a breakout, I find this a real shame. Why not a slogan that makes you think? For example, A Sagan quote, like: 'If God is an unaswerable question, why not save a step, and deem the Universe an unaswerable question? There is no need for a creator, there never was'.

[Twiler]

I think a mild slogan is a good idea actually, because it's probably going to rile up the fundamentalist community anyway, and the milder the slogan, the more insane they'll end up looking. It seems to me that the main point of this should be to demonstrate that an atheist community exists, and that the christian moral view is not the only moral view.

[Undesired Walrus]

It's childish and smug though. It's essentially patting a little child (Christian etc) on the head and going 'Don't worry about the bogeyman. Now go back to your sandpit and play with your toys'.

It shows no respect to the person's (And I repeat: the person, not the religion) ability to think for themselves. Non-Theists are supposed to be mature in mind, and this simply shows an immaturity of character. It doesn't provide a probing question that makes people ponder the existence of God, it doesn't even try. It's -and I'm sorry to say this for those who have already donated- a waste of money.

[scissorhands]

Im not sure that its christian fundamentalists that the organisers need to be concerned about riling up.

Also, I dont think anyone is suggesting that fundamentalist religious zealots are the target for this message.

Young people being religiously brainwashed from an early age are likely to be more receptive though.

As for the slogan itself, I agree it could be worded better and since the campaign doesnt start till April, there is plenty of time for suggestions to be sent to the BHA.

[scissorhands]

It shows no respect to the person's (And I repeat: the person, not the religion) ability to think for themselves.

Then they can happily ignore the posters and continue believing in superstitious fairy tales.
Last I checked, there was still at least a concept of free speech in the UK.

[Undesired Walrus]

Do you don't want to see people motivated into thinking for themselves, questioning their faith? What is the point of these banners otherwise?

I'm baffled what free speech has to do with the conversation.

[plumjam]

On those bendy buses a more useful poster would be 'There are probably no ticket inspectors'.

[scissorhands]

Do you don't want to see people motivated into thinking for themselves, questioning their faith? What is the point of these banners otherwise?

Im of the impression that, even in the slogans present form, this will help people get motivated into thinking for themselves.

It is your right to disagree, but introducing such concepts as "disrespect" is one step away from describing the posters of "causing offence".
And what a slippery slope that is.

Luckily thousands of people are donating money in a concerted effort to put the atheist point of view out in public.

[Undesired Walrus]

It is your right to disagree, but introducing such concepts as "disrespect" is one step away from describing the posters of "causing offence".
And what a slippery slope that is.

Disprespect for the capacity of the Human mind to question will never compell those who do not question to do the opposite.

I assure you that I am not sliding down a slope into respecting the religous concept.

[Chris H]

An absolute work of art...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7681914.stm

Chris

[Mr Clingford]

An absolute work of art...

ChrisProbably.

[westprog]

As Richard Dawkins says: "This campaign to put alternative slogans on London buses will make people think - and thinking is anathema to religion."


Every time Dawkins seems to be a fairly reasonable advocate for atheism, he comes up with nonsense like that.

[westprog]

I think a mild slogan is a good idea actually, because it's probably going to rile up the fundamentalist community anyway, and the milder the slogan, the more insane they'll end up looking. It seems to me that the main point of this should be to demonstrate that an atheist community exists, and that the christian moral view is not the only moral view.

Why is it a good thing to rile up the fundamentalist community? Would it be a good thing to rile the black community, or the gay community, by putting slogans on a bus to annoy them? If the slogan provoked a violent or silly response, would that prove anything about the argument?

Trying to annoy the other person so he loses his temper is a way to win arguments, but it's not the same thing as making an argument.

[Matthew Best]

Freedom of speech is neither here nor there in this case. The advertising spaces on the sides of buses are private property so there's no obligation on the bus company to accept your advert. They are also subject to the strictures of the Advertising Standards Authority - so if enough people complain about them and say they were "offended", then the ASA might well insist on the adverts being removed.

[westprog]

It's childish and smug though. It's essentially patting a little child (Christian etc) on the head and going 'Don't worry about the bogeyman. Now go back to your sandpit and play with your toys'.

It shows no respect to the person's (And I repeat: the person, not the religion) ability to think for themselves. Non-Theists are supposed to be mature in mind, and this simply shows an immaturity of character. It doesn't provide a probing question that makes people ponder the existence of God, it doesn't even try. It's -and I'm sorry to say this for those who have already donated- a waste of money.

I think that the slogan might have been more appropriately phrased as a suggestion or idea rather than an order. Slogans in public places telling people what to do aren't an attractive notion.

[tomwaits]

This is an extremely silly idea. How about "This poster doesn't matter in the least. So stop donating to this nonsensical cause and use your money wisely, instead."

[Twiler]

Why is it a good thing to rile up the fundamentalist community? Would it be a good thing to rile the black community, or the gay community, by putting slogans on a bus to annoy them? If the slogan provoked a violent or silly response, would that prove anything about the argument?

Trying to annoy the other person so he loses his temper is a way to win arguments, but it's not the same thing as making an argument.

Actually, what I meant was, any atheist slogan on a bus is going to annoy the fundamentalist community, so it would be better to use a mild one.

[pchams]

Why is it a good thing to rile up the fundamentalist community? Would it be a good thing to rile the black community, or the gay community, ...

So being black, or gay is a choice now?

[liverleef]

Is this really going to change anybody's mind?

[St.Michael]

There's lots of religious advertising on buses and billboards, so why not something opposite?
I like the statement. It is something I've said to myself or at least words to that effect on plenty of occasions.

[slingblade]

Is this really going to change anybody's mind?


Every bit as much as a religious advert would change the average atheist's mind.







...maybe, just maybe, that's not what it's for.

[westprog]

So being black, or gay is a choice now?

Why does that make a difference?

[westprog]

Actually, what I meant was, any atheist slogan on a bus is going to annoy the fundamentalist community, so it would be better to use a mild one.


Sorry - mistook your meaning.

[liverleef]

Every bit as much as a religious advert would change the average atheist's mind.







...maybe, just maybe, that's not what it's for.

Yeah but I don't think religious ads target atheists. I think that they are focused on those people who are highly suggestible and have some sort of void in their life.

[Safe-Keeper]

I didn't get the slogan until I learned the buses typically have hellfire threats on them. Then I smiled.

[geni]

The problem of london transport.

The problem of reconciling the existence of london transport in the world with the existence of God.

[slingblade]

Why does that make a difference?

I'd like to hear how "being religious" is the same as "being black" or "being homosexual."

I perceive differences.

[westprog]

I'd like to hear how "being religious" is the same as "being black" or "being homosexual."

I perceive differences.

Clearly there are differences between being black, being gay or being a fundamentalist. What I don't see is that deliberately provoking any of these groups is of any benefit.

[pchams]

Why does that make a difference?

Because, then your analogy fails.

Edited to explain:
Why not rile them up. It shows their hysterics.
Religion should not receive special entitlement just because it's religion.

[slingblade]

Yeah but I don't think religious ads target atheists. I think that they are focused on those people who are highly suggestible and have some sort of void in their life.

We had (have?) some billboards across at least certain parts of the U.S. that purported to be messages from god himself. A small sample can be found in the article linked below:

http://www.hoosieroutdoor.com/campaign.php

Some of those (and not all of them are shown in that article) definitely target non-believers and/or believers of other faiths. You can see some of the others if you go to google images and plug in "god billboards" without the quote marks.

One that I saw further down the page:

"Will the road you're on get you to my place?"

doesn't seem specifically targeted to believers only, but also to non-believers and members of other faiths.

Church signs often do the same thing. Some messages obviously speak to believers, while others are directed at those who don't.

Just how would an "atheist" message not speak about or target religion?

[westprog]

Because, then your analogy fails.

Edited to explain:
Why not rile them up. It shows their hysterics.
Religion should not receive special entitlement just because it's religion.

I see - the point of trying to get them to behave badly is to show that they are bad people - and correspondingly, you are better than they are.

No analogy there then.

[slingblade]

Clearly there are differences between being black, being gay or being a fundamentalist. What I don't see is that deliberately provoking any of these groups is of any benefit.

The groups are not equivalent. This is not a quibble that can be glossed over; it's key to your point.

To imply there might be a flaw in thinking that leads one to be black or gay would be highly offensive. It would indeed be provoking people.

To imply there might be a flaw in thinking that leads one to worship imaginary beings might also be highly offensive, but it provokes thought as well as people.

Is there any sort of "atheist" statement that could be made in a public manner that would not provoke some religious, somewhere? A lot of those religious signs and billboards greatly provoke me, but I don't hear many folks saying it's wrong to do so. In fact, I'd wager a lot of people would agree I need to be provoked, if only so it will inspire me to think about my choices in life.

quod erat demonstrandum

[biomorph]

The power of simple messages like this, using the medium of advertisement, isnt something that should be only available to religious movements.
Its available to the large and often silent mass of people who arent religious and are sick of being preached at by superstitious fools.
Heres hoping this campaign might kick start similar ones globally.

Exactly.

[lumos]

Why is it a good thing to rile up the fundamentalist community? Would it be a good thing to rile the black community, or the gay community, by putting slogans on a bus to annoy them? If the slogan provoked a violent or silly response, would that prove anything about the argument?

Trying to annoy the other person so he loses his temper is a way to win arguments, but it's not the same thing as making an argument.

While I agree that it's bad to annoy groups and "rile" them up, I don't agree with your comparison. Blacks don't chose to be black, gays don't choose to be gay. They are black and/or gay and that's what they will always be. They are human being with equal rights. Religous people choose to be religious people whose beliefs change over time and are generally inconsistent and not logical. They are generally religious because they are told, by people lying to them, that it's wrong to not be religious.

I also think the "slogan campaign" is a great idea and a great expression of free speech and has no intent to antagonize anybody. It can, however, allow people to recognize that it is acceptable to not believe in imaginary characters.

[westprog]

The groups are not equivalent. This is not a quibble that can be glossed over; it's key to your point.

To imply there might be a flaw in thinking that leads one to be black or gay would be highly offensive. It would indeed be provoking people.

To imply there might be a flaw in thinking that leads one to worship imaginary beings might also be highly offensive, but it provokes thought as well as people.

So for example, a provocation of Jews for their beliefs and practices would be an entirely different thing from attacks on Jews for their supposed racial characteristics?

[pchams]

The point is, your analogy is flawed. One can choose their beliefs.
One cannot choose their race/sexual orientation.

I will agree it isn't always the best thing to poke sharp sticks at bears, but I happen to be in the Dawkins camp, where I believe that religion shouldn't get a free pass on being examined skeptically.
Religious fundamentalists have been tip-toed around, and capitulated to, too often, for too long.
My opinion. Yours obviously varies, unless we are having a violent agreement.

[Nogbad]

I thought the message a little on the gentle side but amusing. I see a number of the more philosophical branches of religion have donated on the basis it is good to talk about these things (and probably were not so keen on the more strident religious messages in the first place).

I disagree that it is a waste of time - it has generated a bucket load of discussion already without a single advert being placed.

Wonder if any of the signs will be in Arabic. :)

[scissorhands]

Update.

Fundraising target: £5,500.00
Donations so far: £ 76,977.26

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

Apparently, an atheist blogger named Jon Worth came up with the idea, but his fellow humanists, not known for their generosity, wouldn't stump up the cash. Now Richard Dawkins, whose anti-Christian zeal knows little bounds, is to finance the doomed venture.

If Dawkins is funding the whole thing why are donations still being asked for?

[scissorhands]

If Dawkins is funding the whole thing why are donations still being asked for?

He isnt.
Dawkins said he would match the £5500 target when it was reached.
Given the number of donors and the large sum donated, thats a bit irrelevant now.

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

He isnt.
Dawkins said he would match the £5500 target when it was reached.
Given the number of donors and the large sum donated, thats a bit irrelevant now.

So Christian Advocacy group uses a strawman? Why am I not surprised?

[scissorhands]

http://www.atheistcampaign.org/

"A number of people have concerns about the slogan containing the word ‘probably‘. There’s also a lively debate about this at our Facebook Group Discussion Board. I’ll quote what Ariane wrote there:

…transport advertising regulations are more stringent than normal advertising regulations (for billboards, etc) and the decision of whether to run the ad or not is very much at the discretion of the bus companies. It’s their private space, and their criteria for this (I know it’ll make all atheists reading this bang their head against a wall, but here goes) is that the advert “must not offend religious people”.

In their view, the “probably” gets us around this (and even with it, I’m anticipating that the Advertising Standards Authority will receive several dozen complaints from religious people and organisations). Also, as Dawkins writes in The God Delusion, being an absolute “7″ on the faith scale (insisting “there is no God”) doesn’t make sense, as nobody can ever state this as an absolute. The alternative Dawkins proposes is “almost certainly”, but “there’s almost certainly no God” doesn’t make for an overly catchy advertising slogan!

In short our priority is to get these ads out on the buses, to get people thinking about atheism. That’s the major goal. So we hope plenty more people can back our efforts to reach that goal!"

[scissorhands]

double post.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Religion should not receive special entitlement just because it's religion.

:rolleyes:

So would you then agree it does not deserve special focus in getting it's adherants riled up as well?

[pchams]

:rolleyes:

So would you then agree it does not deserve special focus in getting it's adherants riled up as well?

Not if it was on a level playing field presently, but it isn't.
It's on a pedestal. A false place of honour, and it needs to be addressed skeptically as any other issue.

[westprog]

The point is, your analogy is flawed. One can choose their beliefs.
One cannot choose their race/sexual orientation.

I will agree it isn't always the best thing to poke sharp sticks at bears, but I happen to be in the Dawkins camp, where I believe that religion shouldn't get a free pass on being examined skeptically.
Religious fundamentalists have been tip-toed around, and capitulated to, too often, for too long.
My opinion. Yours obviously varies, unless we are having a violent agreement.

I distinguish between skeptical discussion, and deliberate provocation with the sole intent of getting people riled up. Atheists have every right to put forward their beliefs. If those beliefs upset others, that's not the atheists fault. What I quarrel with is the deliberate intention to upset other people for its own sake.

N.b. I'm not claiming that this is what is happening in this case! I'm specifically responding to the idea that doing this would be a good thing. (Though the person who I thought originally suggested this has told me that I was mistaken. I'm not sure where that leaves things).

While religious beliefs, race, nationality and sexual preference are all entirely different things, it remains IMO equally reprehensible to deliberately antagonise someone on any of those grounds for no other reason than to provoke a response.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Not if it was on a level playing field presently, but it isn't.
It's on a pedestal. A false place of honour, and it needs to be addressed skeptically as any other issue.

In this particular situation that is not so. Anyone within reason can apparently purchase advertising space on London buses (as the very adverts in question proves) so you seem to be myopically concerned about religion being particularly deserving of confrontation when it comes to these adverts. Are you similarly upset about, say, lotteries or alt-med?

And I'm sorry, but I have to repeat my rolleyes smilie (which will only do in text) because so many atheists on this forum have raised the bogus "deference and respect" canard when it comes to attacking religion it borders on the cliche at this point.

Just to make sure you don't raise any straw men in your reply to me, I'm an atheist too (in case my user ID shouldn't be a dead give away).

[slingblade]

Look, what's basically being suggested here is that atheists shouldn't speak about atheism, because it might upset the religious.

In doing so, you've indicated that the religious have more of a right to freedom of expression than I have.

You may not think that's what you're saying, but you really are.

It's nice that the busses are in a small island nation that doesn't have quite the focus on religion that my country does. In my country, I doubt seriously that message would ever be seen on public transit. The howls of protest would just be the background music for lost revenue, because people would stop riding those busses, would stage strikes, would stage protests.

Or did people forget that this is the nation in which Harry Potter book-burnings were staged?

Freedom of speech doesn't protect approved or acceptable speech. Approved speech has no need of protection. It's the stuff people would howl about, would silence, that needs protection, so that it can be said. That's freedom.

If you just go along, coddling the insecure and superstitious, never saying anything that might "rile them" intentionally or not, ignorance wins. Suppression of free speech wins.

I'm going to ask again, because I haven't seen an answer:

Is there anything that can be said by atheists in support of atheism, in a public venue such as the side of a bus, that wouldn't offend some religious, somewhere?

If the answer is "No, statements in support of atheism would probably offend at least some of the religious," then this "don't rile them up on purpose" argument is purest bunk! Our mere utterances about atheism rile them up, don't you see? To say that you cannot speak because people might be offended goes to the very heart of our right to free speech. You're actually trying to tell me that someone's feelings matter more than freedom of expression; that I should be silent, but they are free to speak.

The other thing to consider is that here in the U.S., taxes fund busses. And if U.S. tax dollars (yes, local and federal) help pay for having mass transit, then the religious shouldn't ever be allowed to advertise churches or say anything of a religious nature in a bus advert. Religious TV programming shouldn't be advertised on a bus; religious figures shouldn't have their faces plastered there; religious organizations shouldn't even sponsor an innocuous "have a nice day--brought to you by 4th Street Baptist church" message.

But they do.

And no one making the "don't poke sticks at bears" arguments even pauses to think about those of us who might be "riled up" by having religion shoved into our faces, sponsored by our own government on all levels, from city to state to federal. Maybe you don't mind riding to work each day with Pat Robertson's crazy, lying face plastered right under your elbow, but I'd resent it in the extreme, especially if I knew my counter-opinion can't be similarly expressed because someone else might be offended.

Complacency never changed anything. Women and minorities didn't get the right to vote by being nice and quiet and trying not to "rile" anyone. Slavery didn't end because the silence about it was so deafening.

But you want us to remain silent, say nothing, don't upset anyone, because it isn't nice???

The fact that people are arguing about whether this is something that ought to be said indicates to me the answer is not only YES, but YES, IT MUST.

[brodski]

The problem of london transport.

The problem of reconciling the existence of london transport in the world with the existence of God. :D

Perhaps it's true, and God is a Yorkshireman...

[Safe-Keeper]

[slingblade's post]And it's not as if "there probably is no god, now get on with your life" is particularly offensive in the first place, especially not when compared to statements that gays ruin society or that I deserve eternal torture due to my lack of a religion.

[scissorhands]

Look, what's basically being suggested here is that atheists shouldn't speak about atheism, because it might upset the religious.

In doing so, you've indicated that the religious have more of a right to freedom of expression than I have.

You may not think that's what you're saying, but you really are.

It's nice that the busses are in a small island nation that doesn't have quite the focus on religion that my country does. In my country, I doubt seriously that message would ever be seen on public transit. The howls of protest would just be the background music for lost revenue, because people would stop riding those busses, would stage strikes, would stage protests.

Or did people forget that this is the nation in which Harry Potter book-burnings were staged?

Freedom of speech doesn't protect approved or acceptable speech. Approved speech has no need of protection. It's the stuff people would howl about, would silence, that needs protection, so that it can be said. That's freedom.

If you just go along, coddling the insecure and superstitious, never saying anything that might "rile them" intentionally or not, ignorance wins. Suppression of free speech wins.

I'm going to ask again, because I haven't seen an answer:

Is there anything that can be said by atheists in support of atheism, in a public venue such as the side of a bus, that wouldn't offend some religious, somewhere?

If the answer is "No, statements in support of atheism would probably offend at least some of the religious," then this "don't rile them up on purpose" argument is purest bunk! Our mere utterances about atheism rile them up, don't you see? To say that you cannot speak because people might be offended goes to the very heart of our right to free speech. You're actually trying to tell me that someone's feelings matter more than freedom of expression; that I should be silent, but they are free to speak.

The other thing to consider is that here in the U.S., taxes fund busses. And if U.S. tax dollars (yes, local and federal) help pay for having mass transit, then the religious shouldn't ever be allowed to advertise churches or say anything of a religious nature in a bus advert. Religious TV programming shouldn't be advertised on a bus; religious figures shouldn't have their faces plastered there; religious organizations shouldn't even sponsor an innocuous "have a nice day--brought to you by 4th Street Baptist church" message.

But they do.

And no one making the "don't poke sticks at bears" arguments even pauses to think about those of us who might be "riled up" by having religion shoved into our faces, sponsored by our own government on all levels, from city to state to federal. Maybe you don't mind riding to work each day with Pat Robertson's crazy, lying face plastered right under your elbow, but I'd resent it in the extreme, especially if I knew my counter-opinion can't be similarly expressed because someone else might be offended.

Complacency never changed anything. Women and minorities didn't get the right to vote by being nice and quiet and trying not to "rile" anyone. Slavery didn't end because the silence about it was so deafening.

But you want us to remain silent, say nothing, don't upset anyone, because it isn't nice???

The fact that people are arguing about whether this is something that ought to be said indicates to me the answer is not only YES, but YES, IT MUST.

Nominated.

[articulett]

Bravo slingblade!

(If their god is real, he needn't worry about advertising that says otherwise, right? I don't like having "in god we trust" on my money-- I think it's embarrassing and silly, but I don't see people bending over backwards to consider my feelings on the subject. Freedom of speech isn't just for the majority opinion.)

[plumjam]

Are there going to be some bus ads saying Harry Potter probably doesn´t exist, too?
Because people here keep saying atheism is simply a ´lack of belief´ in God(s). To which they typically equate the existence of FSMs or unicorns or Santa etc..
If that´s the case then the consistent approach would be to pay for bus ads which list the whole gammut of other things you simply lack a belief in.
Personally I lack belief in toadstools that can climb ladders, wash windows, then descend the ladder and go to the pub to order a pint of Boddingtons (other beers are available), then go home, beat the wife, and watch the football until falling asleep.
Would anyone care to donate to my fund to have my advertising campaign, bringing into question the existence of such toadstools, splashed across London´s buses?

[Prometheus]

Are there going to be some bus ads saying Harry Potter probably doesn´t exist, too?
Because people here keep saying atheism is simply a ´lack of belief´ in God(s). To which they typically equate the existence of FSMs or unicorns or Santa etc..
If that´s the case then the consistent approach would be to pay for bus ads which list the whole gammut of other things you simply lack a belief in.
Personally I lack belief in toadstools that can climb ladders, wash windows, then descend the ladder and go to the pub to order a pint of Boddingtons (other beers are available), then go home, beat the wife, and watch the football until falling asleep.
Would anyone care to donate to my fund to have my advertising campaign, bringing into question the existence of such toadstools, splashed across London´s buses?

Yes. I will donate to your cause as soon as you can show me that organizations which believe in such toadstools are actively advertising that you deserve eternal damnation for not agreeing with them.

[Cavemonster]

Are there going to be some bus ads saying Harry Potter probably doesn´t exist, too?
Because people here keep saying atheism is simply a ´lack of belief´ in God(s). To which they typically equate the existence of FSMs or unicorns or Santa etc..
If that´s the case then the consistent approach would be to pay for bus ads which list the whole gammut of other things you simply lack a belief in.
Personally I lack belief in toadstools that can climb ladders, wash windows, then descend the ladder and go to the pub to order a pint of Boddingtons (other beers are available), then go home, beat the wife, and watch the football until falling asleep.
Would anyone care to donate to my fund to have my advertising campaign, bringing into question the existence of such toadstools, splashed across London´s buses?

I think you'll be pleased to know that the toadstool belief has been nearly wiped out! Almost no one believes in ladder climbing, window washing toadstools. Our job is done!

Unfortunately, a lot of people seem to believe in this "Jesus" character and as a result they want to invalidate one of my friend's marriage (her wife would be so distraught) and throw my other friend in jail for having an abortion! They're also slanting the vote to try to get in line with who their imaginary friend wants as president, which endangers all of us.

The minute your toadstool buddy gains a large active following that threatens the well being of my friends and I, I'll be glad to pay to put warnings about him on buses. The same goes for Harry Potter. Until then, I'll save my money for the real threats.

[biomorph]

I think you'll be pleased to know that the toadstool belief has been nearly wiped out! Almost no one believes in ladder climbing, window washing toadstools. Our job is done!

Unfortunately, a lot of people seem to believe in this "Jesus" character and as a result they want to invalidate one of my friend's marriage (her wife would be so distraught) and throw my other friend in jail for having an abortion! They're also slanting the vote to try to get in line with who their imaginary friend wants as president, which endangers all of us.

The minute your toadstool buddy gains a large active following that threatens the well being of my friends and I, I'll be glad to pay to put warnings about him on buses. The same goes for Harry Potter. Until then, I'll save my money for the real threats.

Ditto, couldn't have said it better.

Looks like it might hit 100k by the weekend..

[slingblade]

Rowling's book plainly states it's a work of fiction, and that the characters are not real persons, living or dead.

If those disclaimers were in the Bible or other religious books, as they should be, you might have a point.

[six7s]

It shows no respect to the person's (And I repeat: the person, not the religion) ability to think for themselves.Disrespect? Don't make me laugh!

Name one individual theist who BOTH deserves 'respect' for their thinking AND will be affronted by the campaign

[Undesired Walrus]

You have unfairly morphed my words into something different than what I originally said. I did not -as much as you try to make it out- say that they deserve respect for their individual thinking, but instead said that Humanity's capacity to think and question for themselves deserves to be respected and acknowledged.

I find no interest in an advert on a topic such as this whose intent is not to change someone elses mind.

[six7s]

You have unfairly morphed my words into something different than what I originally said.Bollocks. quoted you verbatim

I ... said that Humanity's capacity to think and question for themselves deserves to be respected and acknowledged. No, you didn't... maybe that's what you meant... but it ain't what you said

I find no interest in an advert on a topic such as this whose intent is not to change someone elses mind.Good. I have no idea what you mean... but... good, great, smashing, etc

[geni]

Rowling's book plainly states it's a work of fiction, and that the characters are not real persons, living or dead.

If those disclaimers were in the Bible or other religious books, as they should be, you might have a point.

You would have a hard time showing that say Pontius Pilate didn't eaxist.

[Safe-Keeper]

Are there going to be some bus ads saying Harry Potter probably doesn´t exist, too?In context, this is apparently a response to theists using buses to spread fear-mongering about hellfire and damnation. Given this context, I find it a more than appropriate response.

If theists can so openly flaunt their views, which imply atheists are wrong, then we atheists can overtly state that we think there's no god. If left-wingers can state that socialism is the way to go, then right-wingers should be able to reply. It's that simple, plumjam.

[Undesired Walrus]

No, you didn't... maybe that's what you meant... but it ain't what you said


Ok. That's what I meant.

[GreyICE]

Seems to have a lot of fans.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mandrake/3242413/Church-think-tank-donates-to-atheist-bus-campaign.html

Like most advertising, I don't think it will do much beyond raise visibility.

[Sherman Bay]

How's this for a sign: "The bad news is Heaven doesn't exist. But there's good news: Hell doesn't, either."

Wonder if any of the signs will be in Arabic. :)"Sorry, 42 virgins aren't waiting for you anywhere. Only worms and bacteria."

[Primus]

In this particular situation that is not so. Anyone within reason can apparently purchase advertising space on London buses (as the very adverts in question proves) so you seem to be myopically concerned about religion being particularly deserving of confrontation when it comes to these adverts. Are you similarly upset about, say, lotteries or alt-med?

And I'm sorry, but I have to repeat my rolleyes smilie (which will only do in text) because so many atheists on this forum have raised the bogus "deference and respect" canard when it comes to attacking religion it borders on the cliche at this point.

Just to make sure you don't raise any straw men in your reply to me, I'm an atheist too (in case my user ID shouldn't be a dead give away).

The main reason that this campaign came about is because of the huge amount of religious advertisements currently on the pulic transport. Every morning on the way to work I go past at least 12 very large posters advising that Christ is the only saviour and other such nonsense. A lot have links on that lead to websites that claim athiests will burn in hell.
In a country with a very small % of practicing christians and a rapidly growing population of atheists this is incredibly 1 sided. This is simply a small step to redress the situation.
The respect and deference point is that these adverts linking to offensive websites go on the buses without any complaint because they are religious. Any other adverts leading to websites demonising large groups of society would not be allowed to go up.
Also most athiests have better things to do than complain about bus adverts. In this case they did. They made their own.

[Safe-Keeper]

Seems to have a lot of fans.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...-campaign.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mandrake/3242413/Church-think-tank-donates-to-atheist-bus-campaign.html)From this link:
"We thought it was a great opportunity for people to think about faith and God, so we decided to support it," says Paul Woolley, the director of Theos. "It would be hard to come up with a message more self-centred message than this. Stunts like this demonstrate how militant atheists are often great adverts for Christianity."From the article above.

Excuse me? How is this 'self-centered' and 'militant'? And if militant atheists drive people to God, then doesn't it follow that militant theists drive people from their faith, and that religious advertisements should be opposed:confused:?

I think people are forgetting the reason why these ads exist in the first place, and that this is another example of religion getting too much respect, and atheist statements being blown out of proportion. Is he really saying that ads with URLs to web pages (http://www.atheistcampaign.org/about/) stating that atheists would be "condemned to everlasting separation from God and then spend all eternity in torment in hell" is OK, but that a statement telling people not to worry and live their lives is self-centered and unacceptable? Someone needs to talk to this man about perspective.

[kerikiwi]

Rev Jenny Ellis: 'Christianity is for people who aren't afraid to think about life and meaning.'
That has to be one of the most inane statements of all time. Well, one among many...

[Safe-Keeper]

Is this really going to change anybody's mind?Don't think it's meant to. It's a counterattack of sorts against all the religious billboards on buses.

[six7s]

Someone needs to talk to this man about perspective.You can lead fundies to reality, but you can't make 'em think

[GreyICE]

From this link:
From the article above.

Excuse me? How is this 'self-centered' and 'militant'? And if militant atheists drive people to God, then doesn't it follow that militant theists drive people from their faith, and that religious advertisements should be opposed:confused:?

I think people are forgetting the reason why these ads exist in the first place, and that this is another example of religion getting too much respect, and atheist statements being blown out of proportion. Is he really saying that ads with URLs to web pages (http://www.atheistcampaign.org/about/) stating that atheists would be "condemned to everlasting separation from God and then spend all eternity in torment in hell" is OK, but that a statement telling people not to worry and live their lives is self-centered and unacceptable? Someone needs to talk to this man about perspective. Religious people famous for honesty now? Of course it isn't.

I'm just saying beyond raising visibility a little in a place where its already visible, it's not going to do much.

Now America, I would be backing this. Of course America, there'd be a good chance of people shooting the bus signs or protesting or not riding it, and no company would print it.

[six7s]

I'm just saying beyond raising visibility a little in a place where its already visible, it's not going to do much.Marketing 101: There ain't no such thing as bad publicity

Now America, I would be backing this. Of course America, there'd be a good chance of people shooting the bus signs or protesting or not riding it, and no company would print it.All the more reason, I reckon, to start this thing in London - where redneck reactionaries have little or no clout AND it's one of (perhaps the most) ethnically/culturally diverse city in teh free whirled AND has offices of all the major news media agencies

Google: Results 1 - 10 of about 16,700 for "atheist bus". (http://www.google.com/search?q=%22atheist+bus%22&btnG=Search&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&as_qdr=all&sa=2)

[scissorhands]

I'm just saying beyond raising visibility a little in a place where its already visible, it's not going to do much.



The whole point of this campaign is that the atheist message hasnt been visible.

It will be now.


Fundraising target: £5,500.00
Donations so far: £ 102,763.93


Another great comment on the donation page....

"Why should God forgive us through punishing somebody else? It was worse than illogical, it was insane. It made God sound like a psychopath."

[slingblade]

You would have a hard time showing that say Pontius Pilate didn't exist.

Uh...yeah. I think you're agreeing with me?


See, Plumjam said:

Are there going to be some bus ads saying Harry Potter probably doesn´t exist, too?

And I'm trying to show him this isn't necessary, because the world already knows that Harry Potter is a fictional construct. It doesn't seem to know the same thing about gods of any sort, and this causes a lot of problems for a lot of people. I'd honestly say it causes far more harm than good.

But if you meant to disagree with me, Geni, you're going to have to be a lot more clear and stop trying for the pith award. :p

[geni]

Uh...yeah. I think you're agreeing with me?


You can't slap this is all fictional on the bible because it contians real people like Pilate and real events (like say the babylonian excile).

[articulett]

The bus sign doesn't say anything about the bible... and if god is real, he shouldn't have to worry about scrutiny, eh?

[MarkCorrigan]

So for example, a provocation of Jews for their beliefs and practices would be an entirely different thing from attacks on Jews for their supposed racial characteristics?

Yes.

Next question?

[wolfgirl]

We've got a billboard up in the Kansas City area that says "Don't believe in God? You're not alone." And then it gives the Web site to contact for more info. In Kansas City!

[westprog]

Yes.


That's in fact the "wrong" answer, in the sense that I entirely disagree with it. If we lived in a rational, sensible laws-of-economics type world, it would be the right answer.


Next question?

[westprog]

We've got a billboard up in the Kansas City area that says "Don't believe in God? You're not alone." And then it gives the Web site to contact for more info. In Kansas City!

In that it doesn't tell anyone what to think, it seems to be an entirely inoffensive sentiment. Being Kansas, one wonders how things turned out.

[ZirconBlue]

You can't slap this is all fictional on the bible because it contians real people like Pilate and real events (like say the babylonian excile).


John F. Kennedy was a real person, and the investigation of his assassination was a real event. Nevertheless, I'm sure Oliver Stone's JFK, has a disclaimer indicating it is a work of fiction.

[geni]

John F. Kennedy was a real person, and the investigation of his assassination was a real event. Nevertheless, I'm sure Oliver Stone's JFK, has a disclaimer indicating it is a work of fiction.

Yeah I tend to find those disclaimers rather unfortunate

"This is a work of fiction and any resemblance between the characters and persons living or dead is purely coincidental."

When there are at least multiple characters based off real people. Part of the trend to include unforceable or meaningless legal text in the hope that people won't know any better.

[slingblade]

You can't slap this is all fictional on the bible because it contians real people like Pilate and real events (like say the babylonian excile).

Ah.


Wrong.


Works of fiction often contain "real people," but this doesn't then render the fiction into non-fiction. Historical fiction, for instance, often has historic figures in it, but the work is still fiction.

HOWEVER, the point is that Harry Potter is fictional. A notice on a bus isn't necessary. It was a silly question, with no merit.

[articulett]

The bus slogan says: “There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life”-- given all the religious slogans that are inflicted upon me against my will, I think the true believers and their invisible friend can tolerate this sentiment--a truth that may provoke some to think; whereas, before it may not have occurred to them to do so.

[articulett]

Ah.


Wrong.


Works of fiction often contain "real people," but this doesn't then render the fiction into non-fiction. Historical fiction, for instance, often has historic figures in it, but the work is still fiction.

HOWEVER, the point is that Harry Potter is fictional. A notice on a bus isn't necessary. It was a silly question, with no merit.

Indeed... Gone With the Wind centers on a real war, but that does not mean Scarlett O'Hara is based on a real person.

[geni]

Ah.


Wrong.


Works of fiction often contain "real people," but this doesn't then render the fiction into non-fiction. Historical fiction, for instance, often has historic figures in it, but the work is still fiction.


But not fiction to the extent the standard disclaimer would claim. So you are aparently happy with adding a false disclaimer to things.

[Mashuna]

That's in fact the "wrong" answer, in the sense that I entirely disagree with it. If we lived in a rational, sensible laws-of-economics type world, it would be the right answer.

Surely the statement "There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life" is an attack on the beliefs of Jews (and Christians, and Muslims) without being an attack on their racial characteristics?

[kerikiwi]

That's in fact the "wrong" answer, in the sense that I entirely disagree with it. If we lived in a rational, sensible laws-of-economics type world, it would be the right answer.

Can you explain how and why you disagree that beliefs and practices (which are matters of choice) are different from physical characteristics (which are not matters of choice)?
And how it is not rational or sensible to see the difference?

[articulett]

Surely the statement "There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life" is an attack on the beliefs of Jews (and Christians, and Muslims) without being an attack on their racial characteristics?

Indeed... and yet it is less of an attack than the repeated slogans of varying believers that are displayed everywhere. My money says "in god we trust"... I don't believe in any god, and yet I am part of "we". Therefore, this is a false statement. So is the statement "Jesus died for you." Why is okay to inflict these beliefs willy-nilly and yet a big to-do is made about the expression of rational statements made in a far less bullying manner?

ETA (I think it might be more "inclusive" if it said: "There probably are no gods. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life!"--or maybe one that everyone secretly agrees with: "All religions are fairytales (except for yours).")

[slingblade]

But not fiction to the extent the standard disclaimer would claim. So you are aparently happy with adding a false disclaimer to things.

Still trying to derail, because you've found a tiny weakness, and are just itching to exploit it? Your argument is like a chihuahua, and I'll thank you to get the beast off my ankle.

How to respond to pointless silliness? Maybe I shouldn't. But I really do loathe what you've just done there to me. And learn the hell to spell apparently, if you're going to label me with false assumptions. I insist.

I don't add disclaimers. I'm neither a publisher nor affiliated with the law in any regard. I'm neither happy nor sad with it. Your fallacy fails. Show some sense and stop harping about it, because all I'm getting from that is a strong idea that you only want to argue to be arguing.

Harry Potter is not a real child. He does not physically exist as a living person. He was created in a woman's imagination. The only people who may believe Harry exists in the world as a living, breathing person are delusional and mentally ill.

Most importantly, those few, sad people are not trying to have the social policies of entire nations changed (or stopped from changing) based on the things Harry says or does in the fictional accounts of his fictional adventures.

But many, many people believe the events and dictums in the bible are literally true and correct, and they do use this book and these beliefs to either change social policy or stop it from changing for everyone, whether everyone agrees/believes or not.

What Plumjam said (and here I could fallaciously state that you apparently agree with him since you're only attacking my argument and not his) is that if we're going to go this route with gods, it logically follows that we need to do the same thing with everything considered imaginary.

DO YOU AGREE?

If you do agree, do you then feel this means we shouldn't point out that gods are probably also imaginary, unless and until we are willing to point out that leprechauns, unicorns, dragons, wizards, and mushroom people are also imaginary? Is this necessary and sufficient? <-- a term from deductive logic, check it out sometime; it may serve you well.

The point of both Plum's statements and mine, when given proper argumentative attention, is that a belief in mushroom people isn't now being used to keep people who love each other from getting married or adopting children. It isn't being used to still argue, in spite of Roe v. Wade, whether or not women have rights to their own bodies' reproductive processes. No one is using a belief in mushroom people to insist that religiously inspired imaginings about how the universe came to be should be taught as actual science in public school classrooms.

IF IT WERE THE CASE, then yes, similar messages would be useful, and would indeed probably be used to combat this raging ridiculousness.




It's not just that some of us don't like religion.

It's that many are using it, or trying to use it, to dictate how all of us must live and that is intolerable!

To try, at least try, to point out to people that basing public policy on mythology is wrong, unfair, inequitable, and unnecessary isn't a bad thing at all. It's time humanity grew up a little, and grew away from sky daddies who never seem to speak on their own, but which are used as levers and cudgels by people, on people.

It is far beyond time for us to accept that WE make the world the way it is. WE are responsible for ourselves and each other. We think, we choose, and we live with the results and the consequences, right here and right now.

There is probably no god. So stop worrying that Max and Ben want a big white wedding; it's none of your farking business!

There probably is no god. So start taking responsibility for what you do, and bring a condom on your next date, take The Pill, or even get yourself sterilized, but stop acting irresponsibly about your sex life and realize that every time you knock boots, you take the chance of getting pregnant. Gods don't bless you or curse you with children--you do that to yourself. In the meantime, it is your body, so if you want an abortion, it's not for me to say you can't have one. Nor is it any of your business if I want one.

There probably is no god. So stop trying to make me or my children utter the same useless magic spells--er, prayers--you utter in the places we all have a right to be, like the public schools paid for with the taxes of believers and non-believers alike. Stop trying to foist your mythology off as actual science in the classroom. Realize that venues for those beliefs already exist, and bringing them into the schools isn't equitable or necessary. Be aware that if christian prayers are allowed in public schools, then we must, to be equitable, also stop classes 5 times a day for all students so prayers can be said to Mecca. That Tibetan prayer wheels, sand mandalas, Shinto shrines, satanic altars, wiccan groves, and so forth must also be installed in public schools to accommodate all religious beliefs of all students, and then the schools will be more worship than actual learning. You'll have crowded out all the learning just to accommodate religion, when all religions already have their own places to be.

There is probably no god. So start taking the responsiblity so often foisted off on an imaginary creature onto yourself instead.

[articulett]

Indeed. Let me be as free from your religion as you want to be from all the religions you find wacky.

If people would keep religious beliefs as private (or amongst their own) as they keep their fetishes or masturbation habits, then the whole world would be able to get along much better. If their beliefs cannot withstand the scrutiny, then perhaps then they ought not expose it to such. I certainly resent having to curb my opinions to avoid trodding upon the sacred delusions of another when those others have no qualms about inflicting their opinions on me.

[JonWhite]

There is probably no god. So start taking the responsiblity so often foisted off on an imaginary creature onto yourself instead.


Which would make another excellent (if somewhat more wordy and provocative) ad. for the bus methinks.

[Mashuna]

My money says "in god we trust"... I don't believe in any god, and yet I am part of "we". Therefore, this is a false statement.

Ha! My money has a portrait of Darwin on it.

http://www.hayadan.org.il/wp/wp-content/uploads/people/DarwinTenPoundNote.jpeg

[articulett]

*jealous*

[geni]

Still trying to derail, because you've found a tiny weakness, and are just itching to exploit it? Your argument is like a chihuahua, and I'll thank you to get the beast off my ankle.

How to respond to pointless silliness? Maybe I shouldn't. But I really do loathe what you've just done there to me. And learn the hell to spell apparently, if you're going to label me with false assumptions. I insist.

I don't add disclaimers. I'm neither a publisher nor affiliated with the law in any regard. I'm neither happy nor sad with it. Your fallacy fails. Show some sense and stop harping about it, because all I'm getting from that is a strong idea that you only want to argue to be arguing.

Harry Potter is not a real child. He does not physically exist as a living person. He was created in a woman's imagination. The only people who may believe Harry exists in the world as a living, breathing person are delusional and mentally ill.

Some of the more out there otherkin have got into haveing fictional characters(usualy Anime) as otherkin. It is posible that some of them have raided the harry potter universe. Otherkin are normaly considered annoying rather than actually mentally ill.


Most importantly, those few, sad people are not trying to have the social policies of entire nations changed (or stopped from changing) based on the things Harry says or does in the fictional accounts of his fictional adventures.

But many, many people believe the events and dictums in the bible are literally true and correct, and they do use this book and these beliefs to either change social policy or stop it from changing for everyone, whether everyone agrees/believes or not.

What Plumjam said (and here I could fallaciously state that you apparently agree with him since you're only attacking my argument and not his) is that if we're going to go this route with gods, it logically follows that we need to do the same thing with everything considered imaginary.

DO YOU AGREE?


That would depend on what your objectives actually are. However most people would consider it legitimate to prioritise as long as you don't actively attempt to hide the other parts of your belief system.


If you do agree, do you then feel this means we shouldn't point out that gods are probably also imaginary, unless and until we are willing to point out that leprechauns, unicorns, dragons, wizards, and mushroom people are also imaginary? Is this necessary and sufficient? <-- a term from deductive logic, check it out sometime; it may serve you well.

Depends are you trying to present a hardened logic based argument or a slogan for some cause?

Since it appears that you are trying to promote active recognition of the agnostic position within the public space your approach does have some legitimacy yes.


The point of both Plum's statements and mine, when given proper argumentative attention, is that a belief in mushroom people isn't now being used to keep people who love each other from getting married or adopting children. It isn't being used to still argue, in spite of Roe v. Wade, whether or not women have rights to their own bodies' reproductive processes. No one is using a belief in mushroom people to insist that religiously inspired imaginings about how the universe came to be should be taught as actual science in public school classrooms.

That would broadly speaking be correct.


IF IT WERE THE CASE, then yes, similar messages would be useful, and would indeed probably be used to combat this raging ridiculousness.

It's not just that some of us don't like religion.

It's that many are using it, or trying to use it, to dictate how all of us must live and that is intolerable!

Intolerable? No. Not how you would like things perhaps.


To try, at least try, to point out to people that basing public policy on mythology is wrong, unfair, inequitable, and unnecessary isn't a bad thing at all. It's time humanity grew up a little, and grew away from sky daddies who never seem to speak on their own, but which are used as levers and cudgels by people, on people.

That isn't a very nice way to talk about signatories to the US declaration of impendence. Monotheistic sky gods are not required for anything you complain about.


It is far beyond time for us to accept that WE make the world the way it is. WE are responsible for ourselves and each other. We think, we choose, and we live with the results and the consequences, right here and right now.

There is probably no god. So stop worrying that Max and Ben want a big white wedding; it's none of your farking business!


You use we to apparently encompass the entire human species and yet suggest the actions of a pair of that species are not legitimately the concern of the rest of the species.


There probably is no god. So stop trying to make me or my children utter the same useless magic spells--er, prayers--you utter in the places we all have a right to be, like the public schools paid for with the taxes of believers and non-believers alike.

You realise that I would tend to view the whole of the US pledge of allegiance thing in much the same way?


Stop trying to foist your mythology off as actual science in the classroom. Realize that venues for those beliefs already exist, and bringing them into the schools isn't equitable or necessary. Be aware that if christian prayers are allowed in public schools, then we must, to be equitable, also stop classes 5 times a day for all students so prayers can be said to Mecca. That Tibetan prayer wheels, sand mandalas, Shinto shrines, satanic altars, wiccan groves, and so forth must also be installed in public schools to accommodate all religious beliefs of all students, and then the schools will be more worship than actual learning. You'll have crowded out all the learning just to accommodate religion, when all religions already have their own places to be.


Your dislike of duotheistic sky gods is noted (hey Zoroastrians are having a hard time of things in Iran it would be nice if more people remembered them).

There is a difference between allowing something and makeing it compulsory. US schools may allow prayer under certian conditions. French ones will find more issues doing so.


There is probably no god. So start taking the responsiblity so often foisted off on an imaginary creature onto yourself instead.

History suggests that humans as a species only take responsibility when the alternative is very immediate death.

[geni]

Ha! My money has a portrait of Darwin on it.

http://www.hayadan.org.il/wp/wp-content/uploads/people/DarwinTenPoundNote.jpeg

Yes but on the other side it has the portrait of the head of a significant world religion.

[Mashuna]

Yes but on the other side it has the portrait of the head of a significant world religion.

Really? Mine just has a doddery old lady on it.

[Cavemonster]

But not fiction to the extent the standard disclaimer would claim. So you are aparently happy with adding a false disclaimer to things.

I think you're totally right.

In general, referring to religious texts as fiction opens up atheism to pointless attacks about the reality of Pontius Pilate and other historical details.

From now on, all religious texts should be referred to as history books. Really awful, terrible, badly conceived history books with many glaring errors and an obvious agenda.

[kerikiwi]

[QUOTE=geni;4152856

History suggests that humans as a species only take responsibility when the alternative is very immediate death.[/QUOTE]

I can't think of one historical case of homo sapiens as a species taking responsibility for anything.
Can you give us one, whether or not the alternative (?) is death, immediate or delayed.

[articulett]

I had the same question...

[geni]

I can't think of one historical case of homo sapiens as a species taking responsibility for anything.
Can you give us one, whether or not the alternative (?) is death, immediate or delayed.

Couple of small polynesian islands where humans were given the choice betwen population control (by various methods) or rapaid colapse of their enviroment.

[geni]

Really? Mine just has a doddery old lady on it.

That would be Britannia I meant the one on the right.

[articulett]

Couple of small polynesian islands where humans were given the choice betwen population control (by various methods) or rapaid colapse of their enviroment.

Easter Island (Rapa Nui)-- and they didn't take control. Their civilization died out. The population is 1/3 what it was, and they are not descendants of the Polynesians who settled the Island... they, are primarily South Americans that came later and have no ties to the famed statue builders...

Their gods (and the statues they required) contributed to their collapse because they were a major cause of their deforestation... It took a lot of trees to sustain the population that kept growing, and even more to move about their giant statues. They cut them all down in a story not unlike Seuss' Lorax. (A fictional account based on a similar story.) Perhaps a little common sense regarding mythical beings could have saved the civilization of Rapa Nui.

PW2D3xZSUYs

[slingblade]

Some of the more out there otherkin have got into haveing fictional characters(usualy Anime) as otherkin. It is posible that some of them have raided the harry potter universe. Otherkin are normaly considered annoying rather than actually mentally ill.

Any person who believes that Harry Potter was born, is living, goes to a job, pays his bills, and in any and all other fashions lives in a human body, walking, talking, and having a life as real as mine, is mentally ill.

Your argument does nothing to invalidate my point, nor does it, in fact, even speak to it.


That would depend on what your objectives actually are. However most people would consider it legitimate to prioritise as long as you don't actively attempt to hide the other parts of your belief system.

What would you say the objective of the bus adverts are? Take your answer and apply it to my question. Given the same objective or goal as that of the bus adverts, is it necessary and sufficient to also have similar adverts about goblins, garden gnomes, pixies, wizards, and so forth?

Is your point about prioritising to be taken that adverts suggesting that pixies probably don't exist are indeed necessary, but lower in priority than one saying so about gods?


Depends are you trying to present a hardened logic based argument or a slogan for some cause?

I asked a question. Are you going to answer it or not?

Since it appears that you are trying to promote active recognition of the agnostic position within the public space your approach does have some legitimacy yes.

This is a fallacious point. I know, because it requires me to refute something I didn't say or imply before you'll answer me.

I am not trying to promote anything. The ones trying to promote the agnostic/atheistic position are the ones who paid for the adverts. I wasn't and won't be one of them.

1) I'm arguing the point that hurt feelings aren't a proper or legitimate reason to not have or to discontinue the ads.

2) I am also arguing the point that we don't need adverts to point out that Harry Potter, a fictional character, is fictional.

Do you feel it shouldn't be publicly pointed out that gods are probably imaginary, unless and until it is also pointed out that leprechauns, unicorns, dragons, wizards, and mushroom people are also imaginary? Is the latter necessary and sufficient to the former?


That would broadly speaking be correct.

I don't see, and you haven't established, how it would be correct in only a broad sense.


Intolerable? No. Not how you would like things perhaps.

Yes, that was my expression of my opinion. I find it intolerable and most definitely not how I would like things, because it is illogical and harmful.


That isn't a very nice way to talk about signatories to the US declaration of impendence.

Explain the need for me to speak nicely about them. How will it advance the discussion?

For the record, I firmly disagree with basing any public policy on, or in accordance with, any religious dogma, from any source. That people do so or have done so does not change my stance.

Monotheistic sky gods are not required for anything you complain about.

Any gods are central to my arguments. They aren't complaints. Don't drag this to playground level, it's very tiring.

You use we to apparently encompass the entire human species and yet suggest the actions of a pair of that species are not legitimately the concern of the rest of the species.

No, I didn't do that. Another strawman.

I didn't say "all of their actions" as you attempt to ascribe. I specified gay marriage. Two gay men or women getting married is none of my business, and won't hurt me or affect me any more or less than two hetero people getting married currently does. Just as my marriage is none of your business, and doesn't hurt or affect you any more than any other marriage might.


You realise that I would tend to view the whole of the US pledge of allegiance thing in much the same way?

"You realize" is most often used to say "you would be surprised to know."

I am not surprised. I think the pledge is so much bunkum and should be done away with. In the U.S., the most common reciters of the pledge are grade school children. Middle and high school students are generally (though not uniformly, ok?) exempt from reciting. Adults almost completely so. Why do small children need to recite a loyalty oath they can't even understand?

...or did you think I would rabidly defend the pledge, because I'm American? If so, sorry to deprive you of your chortle.

Your dislike of duotheistic sky gods is noted (hey Zoroastrians are having a hard time of things in Iran it would be nice if more people remembered them).

I have tried my best to consistently say "gods," in the plural. It would be nice if more people forgot them, frankly. It is hardly my doing that the focus of the bus advert seems to be on a mono-god, and frankly, I haven't noticed any Zoroastrians having any impact on American or world social policies.

There is a difference between allowing something and makeing it compulsory.

Prayer has ALWAYS been allowed in U.S. public schools. It still is. Any student who wishes to pray cannot legally be stopped, provided their praying is not disruptive. This holds true of any activity in which any student might engage at school. Cheerleaders, for instance, are not allowed to practice cheers in English class. Music students aren't allowed to sing or play an instrument in Math class. A follower of Islam would not be allowed to toss down a prayer rug in the middle of the lunch room.

People everywhere hold this misconception, and it fuels a lot of ridiculous arguments, if not worse. Kids pray in school all the time. I did! Every day! What's the big deal about bowing your head at your desk and praying silently? Who does it hurt? No one, that's why it's not against the law or any school policy.

It's the compulsory prayers that aren't allowed, as is right. It's the school-wide "moment of silence" that isn't allowed. Schools are for educating, and every moment is precious to that goal.

US schools may allow prayer under certian conditions.

Most do not, and those which do (such as the locker-room pre-game team prayer) are finding themselves rightly opposed.

French ones will find more issues doing so.

I don't know why, but I hardly care. What the hell has France got to do with it?

History suggests that humans as a species only take responsibility when the alternative is very immediate death.

No, you are suggesting that's what you find in your study of history. I do not agree. In fact, you don't agree with that, either.

Do you have a servant who routinely carries you to the bathroom, strips you down, bathes you, and dresses you? No? So am I to assume you take responsibility for your own hygeine? Are you at risk of "very immediate death" if you skip a shower once in a while? Do you only bathe because if you don't, you'll be dead by dinner?

Do you accept responsibility for birth control in your sexual encounters, because if you don't wear a condom, you'll actually die a very immediate death, rather than experience le petit morte?

At any rate. The possibility of offending people isn't, in and of itself, a sufficient reason to keep silent. In fact, it usually signifies a need to speak up.

And no, we don't need adverts suggesting unicorns aren't real, either.

[slingblade]

I think you're totally right.

In general, referring to religious texts as fiction opens up atheism to pointless attacks about the reality of Pontius Pilate and other historical details.

From now on, all religious texts should be referred to as history books. Really awful, terrible, badly conceived history books with many glaring errors and an obvious agenda.

:D :D :D



...but you left out "outright fabrications of supernatural events, presented as fact, but plainly impossible. Fictions."


The fiction, unlike the cake, is not a lie.


:p

[kerikiwi]

Couple of small polynesian islands where humans were given the choice betwen population control (by various methods) or rapaid colapse of their enviroment.

Which two?
And how was that humans as a species taking responsibility?

[articulett]

What slingblade said.

(I wish I were as eloquent as she is.)

[Safe-Keeper]

Harry Potter is not a real child. He does not physically exist as a living person. He was created in a woman's imagination. The only people who may believe Harry exists in the world as a living, breathing person are delusional and mentally ill.

Most importantly, those few, sad peopleAre kids who believe magic and perhaps even HP are real delusional, ill or a sad, small group:p?

[articulett]

They're delusional... but "magical thinking" is acceptable in young children. Religion glorifies some brands of magical thinking well into adulthood.

[geni]

Which two?
And how was that humans as a species taking responsibility?

Tikopia. Strict population control.

[slingblade]

Are kids who believe magic and perhaps even HP are real delusional, ill or a sad, small group:p?

Magic is not real. I know it can harm people later in life to foster a belief in magic as a child. They can grow up, often I'd say, to believe in magic as adults, too.

If I simply cant this bit of phrasing over and over, and really, truly believe it, some magical force will be summoned, and my husband will stop hitting me.

I tried that magic for 13 years. Pardon me if I'm a bit cynical about the results.

Yes, children are susceptible to believing what we tell them. This is a tremendous power we have, and a tremendous responsibility. We can convince a small child of almost anything, with only a modicum of art or finesse.

I suppose the line here is "protect their innocence." Innocence in this case is only ignorance. Protect their ignorance.

Well, children of a certain age lack experience. They are unsophisticated, and even primitive, if you will, in their cogency. It is the responsibility of adults to explain, in honest and explicit terms, but until one does, a child might easily believe that HP is a real boy. In that case, no, the child is not ill, or sick, or sad. He's simply ignorant. Ignorance can be corrected.

But I wasn't talking about unsophisticated, inexperienced, ignorant children. I was talking about cogent adults who understand very well what fiction means and would yet persist that Harry is real, that he could be approached, spoken to, phoned, engaged, in exactly the same way as you might engage me.

Now, you want to tell me what your question has to do with:

1) I'm arguing the point that hurt feelings aren't a proper or legitimate reason to not have or to discontinue the ads.

2) I am also arguing the point that we don't need adverts to point out that Harry Potter, a fictional character, is fictional.


How does your question or my answer inform those points?

[articulett]

Tikopia. Strict population control.

Well, this is hardly an example of what you claim it to be an example for since it involved the ready practice of infanticide. Sure, immediate death was staved off and a sustainable culture was achieved... for those who were not the victims of infanticide. The Island's rescue by outsiders after Hurricane Zoe shows that thinking ahead can and does aid survival and the welfare of humanity. And their own infanticide policies are responsible for their own sustainability as a culture. I hardly see how this supports an argument that the bus sign is futile (or whatever it is you are arguing.) What was the point of this small Island example again?

[SusanB-M1]

This morning on BBC Radio 4, at about 07:10 the 'Sunday' Programme had an interview with Araine sherine about her idea for the bus ad. I immediately went to her web site and sent a 'congratulations!' e-mail.:)
By the way, she was asked about the word 'probably' and explained that the Advertising Standards Authority would object to a word such as 'definitely' which cannot be 100% proved. RD would have preferred 'almost certainly' (think that's what she said) but the 'probably' also has allusions to a lager ad.

[Mashuna]

That would be Britannia I meant the one on the right.

My mistake. Two doddery old ladies then.

[six7s]

Still trying to derail, because you've found a tiny weakness, and are just itching to exploit it? Your argument is like a chihuahua, and I'll thank you to get the beast off my ankle.Whole post nominated (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4153912) :)

[six7s]

Ha! My money has a portrait of Darwin on it.

http://www.hayadan.org.il/wp/wp-content/uploads/people/DarwinTenPoundNote.jpeg

My money has me my avatar on it :)

http://www2.physics.umd.edu/~redish/Money/rutherf.jpg (http://www2.physics.umd.edu/~redish/Money/)

ETA: more physicists on the money:
www2.physics.umd.edu/~redish/Money/ (http://www2.physics.umd.edu/~redish/Money/)

[SusanB-M1]

It's a long morning this morning - the clocks have gone back - so I have had time to work my way through the whole thread. I have (as usual) particularly agreed with , and admired, Slingblade's and articulet's posts.
In one post the words, 'but his fellow humanists, not known for their generosity, wouldn't stump up the cash' were quoted, so I wonder where this idea comes from; and I can't help commenting on the fact that the religious writer who is quoted in in #77 as saying:
It would be hard to come up with a messagee more self-centred message than this.'
could have done with a bit of proof-reading!

[humber]

Although the current slogan is rather anodyne, more direct statements may only raise the "offense" bugbear. Atheists should avoid the campaign being seen by the general public as an entertaining bun-fight with the religious.

Organised religions are not so worried about losing the faithful, as not gaining new recruits, and atheists would do better to address the "there might be a god" sector than the already converted.

Religion and culture are heavily intertwined, and it is difficult to attack one without affecting the other. Personally, I don't have a lot of time for the sanctity of culture, but if this is a concern for some, then perhaps they should
ask themselves if they want to continue to support those aspects of their culture that are based upon falsehoods.
This campaign is a good idea, and worthy of continued financial support.

[Mobyseven]

But not fiction to the extent the standard disclaimer would claim. So you are aparently happy with adding a false disclaimer to things.

Whoa, whoa, whoa! This little girl (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Liddell) was most decidedly real - would a statement, therefore, that Alice in Wonderland is a work of fiction therefore be a false disclaimer?

Nonsense.

See, you're getting confused when you talk about this. Yeah, Pilate was a real, historical figure. But that doesn't mean that the Pilate of the bible was a real historical figure (indeed, it seems highly unlikely). Based on a real historical figure, certainly, but still fictional. The same goes for many other historical figures who have made appearances in works of fiction - Hitler was most decidedly real, but the character of Hitler in the movie Max (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0290210/) is for all intents and purposes fictional.

Just because a character shares a name and draws elements (even very heavily) from the life of a real, historical figure, that does not make that character a real historical figure - something that is important to remember in an age where far too many people deliberately blur the boundaries between fact and fiction.

[slingblade]

Thank you, Moby. My brain ran in circles trying to explain something I've always understood, but never had to put into words before. Well done, well explained.
Thanks.

[dogjones]

To quote a friend of mine - "Why spend money on not believing in something? It's dumb and wasteful."

[slingblade]

To quote a friend of mine - "Why spend money on not believing in something? It's dumb and wasteful."

If all you have is a fallacious 15-second sound bite, you're wasting everyone's time, including your own. That's pretty dumb.

[six7s]

To quote a friend of mine - "Why spend money on not believing in something? It's dumb and wasteful."Exactly! There is no reason - other than, I guess, fear of retribution - for religious organisations (esp those with assets in the gazillions), to be subsidised/afforded tax-free status/etc

So... paying for a bit of advertising is a very worthwhile investment :)

[geni]

Well, this is hardly an example of what you claim it to be an example for since it involved the ready practice of infanticide. Sure, immediate death was staved off and a sustainable culture was achieved... for those who were not the victims of infanticide. The Island's rescue by outsiders after Hurricane Zoe shows that thinking ahead can and does aid survival and the welfare of humanity. And their own infanticide policies are responsible for their own sustainability as a culture. I hardly see how this supports an argument that the bus sign is futile (or whatever it is you are arguing.) What was the point of this small Island example again?

It was an exaple of humans being responciple. In their situation and without acess to proper birth control infanticide was a reasonable course of action.

[geni]

Whoa, whoa, whoa! This little girl (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Liddell) was most decidedly real - would a statement, therefore, that Alice in Wonderland is a work of fiction therefore be a false disclaimer?


Absolutely. I regard our entire culture of disclaimers to be problematical. Probably a side effect of reading EULAs from time to time.

[Mobyseven]

Absolutely. I regard our entire culture of disclaimers to be problematical. Probably a side effect of reading EULAs from time to time.

...I spent all morning looking for an epic fail image grand enough to use in a reply to you, but none exist. Alice In Wonderland is most decidedly a work of fiction, and the character of Alice in the book is most definitely a fictional character.

[Cavemonster]

Eh, the only function of those disclaimers is to prevent people from suing by saying that the book is about them.

What holy books really need is a "Religion: Don't try this at home" sticker on the cover.

[geni]

...I spent all morning looking for an epic fail image grand enough to use in a reply to you, but none exist. Alice In Wonderland is most decidedly a work of fiction, and the character of Alice in the book is most definitely a fictional character.

Grab a book and look at the actual wording of the standard form disclaimer. It will be something along the lines of:

All characters in this book are fictitious and any similarity to actual persons living or dead is purely coincidental

any similarity (or sometimes resemblance).

See the problem?

[geni]

Eh, the only function of those disclaimers is to prevent people from suing by saying that the book is about them.

And in that I suspect they are about as effective as a chocolate teapot.


What holy books really need is a "Religion: Don't try this at home" sticker on the cover.

I think the catholic church tried that aproach. Didn't work out too well.

[slingblade]

Grab a book and look at the actual wording of the standard form disclaimer. <snip>
See the problem?


Apparently, you do. Now, having determined there is a problem, what do you intend to do to rectify it?