“There’s probably no God,” “Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.”

[yeahwho]

pic of the ad on a London bus (http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2009/01/07/world/07london-inline1-650.jpg)

Atheists Send a Message, on 800 British Buses (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/07/world/europe/07london.html)

LONDON — The advertisement on the bus was fairly mild, just a passage from the Bible and the address of a Christian Web site. But when Ariane Sherine, a comedy writer, looked on the Web site in June, she was startled to learn that she and her nonbelieving friends were headed straight to hell, to “spend all eternity in torment.”

That’s a bit extreme, she thought, as well as hard to prove. “If I wanted to run a bus ad saying ‘Beware — there is a giant lion from London Zoo on the loose!’ or ‘The “bits” in orange juice aren’t orange but plastic — don’t drink them or you’ll die!’ I think I might be asked to show my working and back up my claims,” Ms. Sherine wrote in a commentary on the Web site of The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jun/20/transport.religion).

The odd thing about this story to me is, while people are trying to get a grip on their spiritual/non spiritual beliefs we still elect total corporate asses who are real and tangible, why not start a campaign aimed at fucked up politics?

[HAL 9000]

I doubt many atheists really care what others believe until it starts impacting the real world and in that sense, religion is a very important political topic.

In most democracies, politicians have to win the votes of an electorate which believes the world works through some sort of magic. This seems to lead to genuine harm in society. In Britain, members of the church have seats in our unelected House of Lords. This is hardly a foundation on which to address serious issues in a rational and intelligent way.

I think it is very hard to separate the fucked up politics from religion. Afterall I don’t think it is conceivable that someone like George Bush could have become president without religion.

I think the bus campaign is a good idea if it helps people realise that they are not alone in working out that god does not exist. We now have (in the UK) an openly atheist leader of a political party and I noted Obama’s reference to non-believing Americans in his inaugural address, these are small steps but I think they show that the humanist movement is gaining momentum.

[Carlos]

yeah exactly.. when both Bush and Blair talk about God telling them what to do, especially in relation to war mongering we gotta start being scared!!!

radicalism (igorance) is our greatest threat to this world. That's why poking it with a stick is about the worst thing you can do... and why Obama is such a refreshing change.. he clearly has the intellect to grasp why and how people become radicalised.. somehing which Bush obviously couldn't fathom, although Cheney (and his neo-con elite) clearly knew full well!!!

Classic right wing (fascist) methodology: Use the power of mythology to create and then fuel an enemy of no specific idendity, watch the people flock to the power of authority. :rolleyes:

[kaiser soze]

I also appreciated that Obama put emphasis on science again.

I pray he is quite rational with his decisions in office. To marginalize or even defame others would be a slap in the face of all civil rights leaders past and present.

You can be religious without being ignorant

[saz]

best ad campaign ever (y)

[rirv]

I think deliberately antagonising people who hold certain beliefs is just juvenile. I can't really see any other purpose to this campaign than to wind people up and get attention.

[saz]

its purpose is essentially a "fuck you" to the christian freakazoids, who took out the previous ads on the bus proclaiming that rational people would burn in hell for not sharing their crazy beliefs. personally i think it's great that the rationalists who organized this campaign had the balls to stand up to these nuts.

[HAL 9000]

I think deliberately antagonising people who hold certain beliefs is just juvenile. I can't really see any other purpose to this campaign than to wind people up and get attention.

Clearly it cannot be a reasonable principle to say that it is always juvenile to challenge peoples beliefs, particularly if those beliefs place harm on society - racism and homophobia being obvious examples.

So in this case, the question must be one of whether the belief in god is harmful to society and IMO (and an opinion I am prepared to have challenged) it is.

The campaign in the UK will hopefully give confidence to those who have worked out that god does not exist but are still trapped in a religious social environment - in my experience there are many people like this. This campaign just highlights that there is a significant portion of the population who do not see 'faith' as a positive attribute and hopefully that will be empowering to anyone suffering 'doubts'

[Carlos]

I just think the irony is classic; as it's a completely un-scientific statement.. or rather wrong - as it's just as likely there is such a force/entitity (whatever u wanna call it) than there isn't - as by definition it/he(lol) is unmeasurable..

It's just atheists being as lame as rightous chritians - trying to spread their own belief system... fuckin funny to be honest :D

[HAL 9000]

I just think the irony is classic; as it's a completely un-scientific statement.. or rather wrong - as it's just as likely there is such a force/entitity (whatever u wanna call it) than there isn't - as by definition it/he(lol) is unmeasurable..

It's just atheists being as lame as rightous chritians - trying to spread their own belief system... fuckin funny to be honest :D


I don’t agree. Your claim that the probability of an unobservable or unmeasureable entity existing is exactly ‘½’ is highly specific but I doubt it stands up to much scrutiny.

For comparison, the number of invisible massless unicorns sitting on your keyboard is also unmeasurable – yet the probability that such unicorns are present is low.

When humanists refer to God – they typically refer to a personal god ie an entity who performs miracles, punishes the naughty and answers prayers. If one wants to assign the name ‘god’ to whatever caused there to be something rather than nothing then obviously there is a ‘god’. It is certainly valid however to say the existence of an entity like Yahweh, Xeno, Zeus, etc is low.

[rirv]

Clearly it cannot be a reasonable principle to say that it is always juvenile to challenge peoples beliefs, particularly if those beliefs place harm on society - racism and homophobia being obvious examples.

I'm not saying it is juvenile to debate and challenge beliefs, science, politics or anything. I just think that by putting these adverts out it is offensive to many people. I doubt an atheist gets offended when he sees a sign outside a church welcoming him in for prayer.

On the one hand religion as a giant international entity can be harmful such as the Catholic church condemning the use of comdoms in countries where AIDS is ravaging the population or extremist Muslims proclaiming Jihad in the name of Allah but these adverts are not going to change any of that.

Religious organisations on a local level are where these adverts will most likely have an effect and in my opinion local religious organisation are a great force for good in communities. I don't think I've ever seen the local atheist organisation serving food to the homeless or helping out in hospitals. Of course, individual atheists help out and not all religious people are nice, but on the whole local community based religion is a force for good whether or not you believe in the same things.

[saz]

but on the whole local community based religion is a force for good whether or not you believe in the same things.

yeah, preaching homophobia and condemning abortion is so noble.

[rirv]

yeah, preaching homophobia and condemning abortion is so noble.

Not everybody who believes in a god or goes to church also believes that gays and women who choose to abort should burn in hell, just as not everyone who denies the existence of a god shoot heroin whilst beating up tramps. Although I do think that getting angry about things that definitely do exist (homosexuality and abortion) is a lot more logical than getting angry about things which you believe do not exist. I'm sure Richard Dawkins loves logic.

Perhaps I'll write a book about how Father Christmas does not exist and publish large posters with the same message around London.

[100% ILL]

yeah, preaching homophobia and condemning abortion is so noble.

I assume advocating the same is noble?

[funk63]

Not everybody who believes in a god or goes to church also believes that gays and women who choose to abort should burn in hell.

According to the Bible thats what they should believe.

[Carlos]

I don’t agree. Your claim that the probability of an unobservable or unmeasureable entity existing is exactly ‘½’ is highly specific but I doubt it stands up to much scrutiny.

I didn't say exactly 1/2.. as probability is based on ratios, a ratio 'relates' 2 measurements. When something is unmeasureable it's probability is by definition infinity.

my point was it's meaningless to say such a thing - especially coming from that so called scientist DORKing.. lol..

but bottom line its just a classic silly English stunt - which actually no one cares about here.. religion is like a minority race over here now.. shopping has been the religion of the last few years ;)

[HAL 9000]

I didn't say exactly 1/2.. as probability is based on ratios, a ratio 'relates' 2 measurements. When something is unmeasureable it's probability is by definition infinity.

my point was it's meaningless to say such a thing - especially coming from that so called scientist DORKing.. lol..

but bottom line its just a classic silly English stunt - which actually no one cares about here.. religion is like a minority race over here now.. shopping has been the religion of the last few years ;)


Actually you did say it was 1/2 - your post is still displayed above if you want to check but I will quote you for simplicity.

it's just as likely there is such a force/entitity (whatever u wanna call it) than there isn't

It doesnt matter, I was just pointing out that you were wrong which I guess you would now concede. You now say that the probability of an unmeasurable thing existing is 'infinity' which is odd as probabilities are generally expressed as a value between 0 and 1. I suspect statistics is not an area of strength for you.

Richard Dawkins is an actual scientist by the way (note his work developing the 'Selfish Gene' theory).

The stunt may be silly indeed it started as a joke - but due to the overwhelming support the campaign received and number of donations received - it has grown into a significant debating point in the UK. Clearly many people in the UK do not regard it as silly.


Dorking - vey good use of humour, well done (y)

[saz]

I do think that getting angry about things that definitely do exist (homosexuality and abortion) is a lot more logical than getting angry about things which you believe do not exist. I'm sure Richard Dawkins loves logic.

there is absolutely no justification whatsoever for people to get angry over a woman's right to do what she wants with her body, or if two consenting adults choose to be intimate regardless of their particular sex. biggotry, sexism and homophobia should not be tolerated in any instance.

I assume advocating the same is noble?

what, believing in gay and women's rights? damn straight.

[Dorothy Wood]

believing in god doesn't automatically mean that you hate gays and abortion (not that anyone loves abortion).

religion serves a purpose in society, if it didn't, it wouldn't have even come about.

I'm not a big fan of people pushing their beliefs on others either way.

I'm agnostic, but my mother's very christian in an innocent way. she believes in god and jesus because it comforts her and is a force for good. she accepts homosexuals and is pro-choice. though I disagree with her on a lot of things and stand up for myself as a non-christian when required, I would never try to embarrass her or talk down to her because of her beliefs.

[Lyman Zerga]

theres probably too many gods

[saz]

believing in god doesn't automatically mean that you hate gays and abortion (not that anyone loves abortion).

religion serves a purpose in society, if it didn't, it wouldn't have even come about.

I'm not a big fan of people pushing their beliefs on others either way.


i'm aware that believing in an invisible space god that resides in clouds, which your ghost will party with for eternity once you die, does not immediately imply that you are homophobic and opposed to abortion. however, a lot of the churchies like to push their intolerant beliefs through their sermons etc and justify their biggotry through "moral values", "christian values" or whatever.

in terms of assisting the poor, the malnourished, homeless and those in dire straights i have no qualms. that serves a purpose. but other than that religion serves zero purpose and organized religions only came about to control various societies and tell people how to think and act, whether it was one of the many forms of paganism to christianity to whatever.

[Lyman Zerga]

way too many lack morals wether they believe or not

[Dorothy Wood]

i'm aware that believing in an invisible space god that resides in clouds, which your ghost will party with for eternity once you die, does not immediately imply that you are homophobic and opposed to abortion. however, a lot of the churchies like to push their intolerant beliefs through their sermons etc and justify their biggotry through "moral values", "christian values" or whatever.

in terms of assisting the poor, the malnourished, homeless and those in dire straights i have no qualms. that serves a purpose. but other than that religion serves zero purpose and organized religions only came about to control various societies and tell people how to think and act, whether it was one of the many forms of paganism to christianity to whatever.


well, it's not just christians that believe in a god or gods. spirituality is not necessarily tied to organized religion and spirituality does serve a purpose in society and human development.

basically it helps people cope with life and provides a sense of belonging. if we were all godless, I imagine there'd be way more suicides and murders. I understand that you might think it's bullshit (as do I for the most part), but I think people who hold strong beliefs should be respected as long as their beliefs are not encroaching on others' rights (which sometimes they do, unfortunately, and in that case I think people are acting on hunger for power rather than dedication to god).

[mikizee]

This so called God told Bush to invade Iraq, if only God also gave him the slighty useful info that there was actually no WMDs.

God really dropped the ball on that one

[HAL 9000]

basically it helps people cope with life and provides a sense of belonging. if we were all godless, I imagine there'd be way more suicides and murders.

I don’t think I agree with this, superficially it seems that countries which are religious tend to have much higher crime and murder rates than secular countries while marriage stats show that atheist / secular marriages have much lower divorce rates than those where both where both parties are religious. It would be wrong to assume a causal link in these statistics but it is certainly good evidence that religion does not make people more moral or more happy.

Religion can obviously do good and clearly religious organisations do a lot of charity work (although often the chief beneficiary of that charity is the church itself). But I really don’t think anyone really needs religion in their lives – although I would agree it is traumatic for a person to leave a religion once they are in. Bit like smoking really.


I understand that you might think it's bullshit (as do I for the most part), but I think people who hold strong beliefs should be respected as long as their beliefs are not encroaching on others' rights (which sometimes they do, unfortunately, and in that case I think people are acting on hunger for power rather than dedication to god)


I think any reasonable person would agree with this, – the trouble is that most religious beliefs are designed to encroach on others. Any successful religious belief (like any good virus) is only going to spread if its principles and values include replicating itself in the soft gooey heads of others. All the religious belief that is designed to be kept to oneself in quite contemplation is obviously doomed to be forgotten (which is why you rarely hear about it).

Children of religious people are particularly vulnerable to indoctrination and I would view it as a violation of a childs rights to force ones religious views on them, but it does not really sound reasonable to forbid someone from indoctrinating their children (smoking analogy works here too – don’t mind people smoking in private but don’t give ciggies to your kids!). The best way I can see to progress is to challenge the ‘taboo’ of confronting superstition and gradually win people over with reason and logic. Sure some people will get offended (and it is very easy to come across as a jerk), but it only because they people being confronted about living a life based on a lie – long term this approach has got to be a positive thing (in my opinion).

[yeahwho]

This is interesting in the aspect that someone would actually be compelled to win over another persons belief system to say it doesn't exist. Then once an individual is convinced they were wrong to have that set of beliefs, what is the next step? Probably to convince others that they are now much clearer in their own thinking without the previous belief system.

Yet now your possessing a whole other set of values as you go about your day, the non-believing values. That has it's own set of doubts and social realm of which a different standard is set. Coincidences become your value system and you enjoy the company of others who believe the vastness of the universe is a coincidence. That seems almost as if it's a religion. Especially if your day is based on intolerance of others belief systems.

Hey I'm not smoking weed, it just seems like spirituality is always going to be part of life for mankind. The end result is your own beliefs will always pervade the day no matter what you do or do not believe.

I'm all for this ad campaign and the thought processes it brings to people, but in the end it's just another lifestyle to trump up just like the Worlds religions. If it became the dogma of the day, I think the civilization would be justifying individual misdeeds less compassionately and society as a whole would become more restless.

Maybe the masses need an opiate.

[funk63]

if we were all godless, I imagine there'd be way more suicides and murders.

A lot less genocides and holy wars though.

[HAL 9000]

This is interesting in the aspect that someone would actually be compelled to win over another persons belief system to say it doesn't exist. Then once an individual is convinced they were wrong to have that set of beliefs, what is the next step? Probably to convince others that they are now much clearer in their own thinking without the previous belief system.

Yet now your possessing a whole other set of values as you go about your day, the non-believing values. That has it's own set of doubts and social realm of which a different standard is set. Coincidences become your value system and you enjoy the company of others who believe the vastness of the universe is a coincidence. That seems almost as if it's a religion. Especially if your day is based on intolerance of others belief systems.

Hey I'm not smoking weed, it just seems like spirituality is always going to be part of life for mankind. The end result is your own beliefs will always pervade the day no matter what you do or do not believe.

I'm all for this ad campaign and the thought processes it brings to people, but in the end it's just another lifestyle to trump up just like the Worlds religions. If it became the dogma of the day, I think the civilization would be justifying individual misdeeds less compassionately and society as a whole would become more restless.

Maybe the masses need an opiate.


I don’t really see atheism as a religion any more than not collecting stamps is a hobby. I find it fairly depressing to think that there are people who need to believe falsehoods in order to function although I admit there is no rational reason why this should not be the case. I can only reference my own experience in noting that I (and I am nothing special) have no need for superstition (although Im sure I have some).

In my professional life, my job is to ensure that efficient markets find efficient solutions to economic problems. The key to this is to reduce barriers to perfection within those markets (asymmetric information, monopolies, inaccurate data, barriers to entry/exit and so on). In society religion, and superstition more generally, are barriers to good decision making because they include erroneous assumptions about the world, our place in it and the nature of ethics and morality. Just as one can never remove market imperfections completely, one can (probably) never irradiate religion but that doesn’t mean that progress can not be made.

In the UK, churches get seats in parliament and tax breaks while faith schools indoctrinate children. These are issues where debates can be had and won in this generation. I suspect that round two of the bus campaign will focus on specific issues like these (Faith schools, church tax status etc).

[saz]

basically it helps people cope with life and provides a sense of belonging. if we were all godless, I imagine there'd be way more suicides and murders. I understand that you might think it's bullshit (as do I for the most part), but I think people who hold strong beliefs should be respected as long as their beliefs are not encroaching on others' rights (which sometimes they do, unfortunately, and in that case I think people are acting on hunger for power rather than dedication to god).

i agree, well said.