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

An interesting story, and a thought-provoking one too.

I don't have a problem with those sorts of slogans being placed on buses - as the article says, Religions are allowed to advertise, and a few slogans on a bus aren't as invasive as some tactics used by some religions.

What I find ironic is that the spokesperson for Christian Voice is deriding Atheists for preaching - when they themselves are from a religious pressure group.

Thoughts?

Interesting, to say the least.

Religion is accustomed to getting a free ride - automatic tax breaks, unearned respect and the right not to be offended, the right to brainwash children.

Automatic tax breaks- true and false. Most churches I know of are nonprofit unless if charity and giving the pastor money to live on (a salary since many pastors don't have jobs beyond well, pastoring) is profitting. Although, a lot of those megachurches are manipulative money-making centers for the preachers.

Right not to be offended- I agree, political correctness is ridiculous. I'd like it if it said in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights said "freedom of religion, nonreligion, and any other perspective" instead of just "freedom of religion".

Brainwashing children. I'll offer my opinion, but I must warn, I am biased on that. I was brainwashed into this myself as a child by my parents. I thereby agree with Richard Dawkins wholeheartedly on that one. Edit: I'll add, I do not have anything against my parents though. They're awesome people.

Meh, I don't have a problem with it, if Atheists want to advertise so be it - besides there probably isn't a God is hardly a definitive statement. As a Christian I'm more than happy for atheists to be vocal, gives an opportunity to discuss and provoke thought.

Meh, I don't have a problem with it, if Atheists want to advertise so be it - besides there probably isn't a God is hardly a definitive statement. As a Christian I'm more than happy for atheists to be vocal, gives an opportunity to discuss and provoke thought.
QFE

First ammendment and that's it. They can advertise if they want. Tell you the truth I don't really argue that point anymore. I guess as Arcesious mentioned in another thread, the Socratic Method on that.

Thing is freedom of speech is a two way street. If one side of an issue can post an advert board then so can the other side. No ifs ands or buts. However that is through rose colored lens.

Frankly, I find the confrontation age old and pretty much the beating of the proverbial dead horse. Other sites I have been on it is the same arguments so really it is a strange loop. Eh no matter. My thoughts are clear, let em post.

I don't have a problem with this either, but I must contend that the theistic side is hardly alone when it comes to brainwashing. I mean, what other purpose does our wonderful public education system serve? Certainly not the teaching of academics. :p

First ammendment and that's it.
It's in the UK. :xp: (Also, I have absolutely no problem with this)

As so many others, I take no issue with it. As said, it's the right to free speech (which is Art.10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, if you're interested:xp:), and anyway, I find it humourous!

It's not a really bad message, it's pretty tame IMO. The addition of "probably", being more an agnostic standpoint than an atheist one, I think really keeps this message from being as nasty as it could be. So that's good IMO, though I'm waiting for the counter to "Jesus loves you." being: "Jesus doesn't love you."

As long as they aren't being derogatory or discriminatory, and they pay the advertising fees, there's no issue for me. I find it less offensive than some of the things I've seen advertised. I was amused at the hedging "There's probably no God" more than anything else.

"There is probably no god"? You have to wonder what sort of evidence there is that they're unsure of.

Additionally, the "probably" kind of takes the impact out of telling people it's okay to go about their business (and do unholy things, I suppose). "It's probable that you won't fry in undying hellfire, but, you know, no guarantees..." Ha. If it weren't for the article they might be accused of creating clever Christian advertising.

The evidence is that there's no evidence against there being a God. There might be, there might not be. It can't be proven either way.

Still, this is pretty lame. Why are they even wasting their time advertising on buses anyway?

Yeah, sometimes I wish that people realize that faith cannot be proven or disproven, but that is on an entirely different topic though...

"There is probably no god"? You have to wonder what sort of evidence there is that they're unsure of.

Additionally, the "probably" kind of takes the impact out of telling people it's okay to go about their business (and do unholy things, I suppose). "It's probable that you won't fry in undying hellfire, but, you know, no guarantees..." Ha. If it weren't for the article they might be accused of creating clever Christian advertising.

I, myself, am an atheist. And my opinion is that if you truly believe in whatever you believe, whatever religion exists will reward you for your faith. Example: You are an atheist, and believe with all your heart and soul that there is no God. You die and you realise that christanity exists, but you go to heaven, because God will reward you for your strength of your faith, despite being wrong.

@Topic Yeah, it's a humorous advertisement, and it is a response to the brain-washing we are suffering as kids (Religious Education in school, church every sunday etc). In Greece, the situation is more serious. I asked once a professor whether God exists, and he expelled me from school for 2 days. Almost everyone in my family is an orthodox christian (typical greek family:xp:), and I'm the only atheist. I even have an uncle that is an "Twelve Gods of Olympus" believer.

If atheists can advertise, christians can advertise, muslims can advertise etc. But if christians can brain-wash, then atheists should be able to brain-wash, muslims too etc. My true perspective is synopsised in this phrase: "There is no God. Religion is the poison of the nations.";)

|I|

You sounded more agnostic until you quoted Marx.

As an atheist I just feel the need to point out that atheism is not a religion. It's simply a label that seems to be necessary in our society in order to identify the people who don't believe in god.
As for the advertising, the "probably" part is obviously there to prevent some of those more religious people from performing ridiculous legal action against the advertiser and client (atheists) and in a world with more and more ridiculous lawsuits, it seems totally justified.

As an atheist I just feel the need to point out that atheism is not a religion.If this is so, would you mind explaining why certain people (not you) feel the need to preach it as zealously (is that even a word?) as any evangelist?

Why are they wasting their time advertising on buses anyway? To encourage discussions such as this community is having now. I don’t believe the advertisement is going to change anybody’s mind. It is merely a way to open people up to the idea and make them think for themselves.

If this is so, would you mind explaining why certain people (not you) feel the need to preach it as zealously (is that even a word?) as any evangelist?

Sometimes people have to talk a little louder than everyone else if they want to be understood, not just heard.

That's hardly a justification if they're trying to cram their views down other people's throats, which is exactly what religious people are always being accused of doing, with, I might add, a fair amount of accuracy. Isn't that a double standard?

I would hardly call such a tame advert 'ramming it down people's throats'...

And for the original point: people argue it zealously (ditto the 'is it a word query') not because it's a religion, but because it's belief that one may, or may not, believe in passionately. Much like someone may get heated about, say, a political matter I suppose.

If this is so, would you mind explaining why certain people (not you) feel the need to preach it as zealously (is that even a word?) as any evangelist?
I wish I could. The only explanation I can think of is that every group has its extremists, as sad as it may be.

I would hardly call such a tame advert 'ramming it down people's throats'...I wasn't referring to the advert... ;)

Oh, and I looked it up: "zealously" is a word. :D

The evidence is that there's no evidence against there being a God. There might be, there might not be. It can't be proven either way.And even your own words don't indicate to you that, whatever form an answer to the question might take, it will not be empirical? Since that's the case, I say again: what (non-empirical) evidence is there that leads them to say "probably"? If it isn't a question of probability then why did they say that God probably doesn't exist?

I, myself, am an atheist. And my opinion is that if you truly believe in whatever you believe, whatever religion exists will reward you for your faith. Example: You are an atheist, and believe with all your heart and soul that there is no God. You die and you realise that christanity exists, but you go to heaven, because God will reward you for your strength of your faith, despite being wrong.Well, if there "is a reward" after a person dies, that reward has no relation to what I would use the word "reward" to describe. A similar (though not exact) case that I might use is: "Your reward for doing these good deeds is to know you've done them." I.e., "Don't expect anything from this except the satisfaction of doing good deeds." But I don't attribute such a reward to God, and the situation I'd use such a phrase in is quite different anyway.

Because they don't have the stones to come out and say 'God is Dead' presumably.

If they said "God is dead", that would be horribly ineffective because people would immediately reject it out of anger of how great of an assualt on their beleifs such a statement is.

That's hardly a justification if they're trying to cram their views down other people's throats, which is exactly what religious people are always being accused of doing, with, I might add, a fair amount of accuracy. Isn't that a double standard?

Yes, to a certain extent, it is. But religion has grown into a dominating force of perspective since 3100 B.C.E. Now it is 2008 C.E.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_world)

That's over 5,000 years of religion...

Secularists have barely even begun their 5000 year turn at shoving stuff down people's throats... :p

If they said "God is dead", that would be horribly ineffective because people would immediately reject it out of anger of how great of an assualt on their beleifs such a statement is.

Arc, this isn't happening in the States, this is happening in Britain, most people here are not devoutly religious, only 2% of the population attend Church, trust me, most people really wouldn't care.

If they said "God is dead", that would be horribly ineffective because people would immediately reject it out of anger of how great of an assualt on their beleifs such a statement is.Nietzsche's sentence "God is dead" is a commentary on how society has changed its views and now has to deal with the consequences - specifically, if we don't accept God as the moral standard then what do we accept? It's not an assault on religion.

That's hardly a justification if they're trying to cram their views down other people's throats, which is exactly what religious people are always being accused of doing, with, I might add, a fair amount of accuracy. Isn't that a double standard?Yes, to a certain extent, it is. But religion has grown into a dominating force of perspective since 3100 B.C.E. Now it is 2008 C.E.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_world)

That's over 5,000 years of religion...That's still not a justification. ;)
Secularists have barely even begun their 5000 year turn at shoving stuff down people's throats... :pOh, lovely. :indif:

Nietzsche's sentence "God is dead" is a commentary on how society has changed its views and now has to deal with the consequences - specifically, if we don't accept God as the moral standard then what do we accept? It's not an assault on religion.

I must be tired, as that completely went over my head until you pointed that out, its nice having a fellow philosopher around to catch the ball when you've missed it :)

Nietzsche's sentence "God is dead" is a commentary on how society has changed its views and now has to deal with the consequences - specifically, if we don't accept God as the moral standard then what do we accept? It's not an assault on religion.


I did not realize that. Interesting point that makes. If religion were to be gone, how would we keep order?

Thing is, religion both creates and destroys order.

In it's place we'd probably need a pretty strogn statement of basic ethical standards. The Universal Declaration of Civil Rights is one good step in that direction.

Oh, lovely.

I was joking. If secularism were to really start to gain some ground, I doubt it would be a crusade of conversion, but instead an attempt at promoting peace, understanding, and less hostility toward scientific progress.

From my point of view, all humans are masoschists (sorry if I didn't spell it quite well) because they always want someone over their heads. Someone in charge. Whether he is named God, Allah, Buddah, Jupiter, Yahvee or anything else. Someone said that humanity can't exist without faith. That's why all people have to believe to something. They want someone to be in charge of everything. That's why, for me, God exists, but only in our minds!;)

|I|

I wasn't referring to the advert... ;)

Oh. In that case see re: rest of post :xp:

Oh, and I looked it up: "zealously" is a word. :D

:D

I was joking. If secularism were to really start to gain some ground, I doubt it would be a crusade of conversion, but instead an attempt at promoting peace, understanding, and less hostility toward scientific progress.

Really? You might want to look up what has been done in some countries to "save" humans from the evil of religion. Heck, having seen how my classmates tend to act towards "strongly" religious (anything above deist), I'm fairly certain that secularism will continue like any other ideology, with success stories and disasters.

Really? You might want to look up what has been done in some countries to "save" humans from the evil of religion. .

before "we" look it up, why don't you just tell us which countries you want us to look at so we can save us all a lot of trouble of going back and forth over which country has done more secular evil than another.

Fair enough: The French(first) and Russian(last) revolutions, had secularism as part of their ideology. A more modern example: Turkey has laws putting religion under state controll, as well as having a secular court with a habit of being rather intolerant of "anti secular" parties. I can find others if needed.

Fair enough: The French(first) and Russian(last) revolutions, had secularism as part of their ideology. A more modern example: Turkey has laws putting religion under state controll, as well as having a secular court with a habit of being rather intolerant of "anti secular" parties. I can find others if needed.

Compared to the Crusades, the hundreds of other wars perperated in the name of God/A God/ Gods, and modern day extremism, I think it's fair to say religion has a higher body-count than those opposed to it.

Well, obviously, though I think that has more to do with number of folowers.

Compared to the Crusades, the hundreds of other wars perperated in the name of God/A God/ Gods, and modern day extremism, I think it's fair to say religion has a higher body-count than those opposed to it.

That is completely incorrect. More people have died under atheist regimes of the last century than died in all previous centuries due to religion combined.

See an article here (http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1121/p09s01-coop.html) and this site (http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm).

Deaths from people being killed under atheist regimes or specifically for being religious in just Russia, China, and North Korea since 1917--about 82 million, not including deaths from WWI and WWII. Some will argue the numbers are even higher.

In addition, were the Crusades wars about religion? No. Religion happened to be an excuse. The Crusades were wars about who was going to control and profit from the important Middle Eastern trade routes. Calling them wars of religion is looking at them entirely superficially.

But remember that the Earth's population during the "atheist killings" was way higher than during the crusades, for instance. Also, there were more efficient methods to kill people available (like guns or chemical weapons) for the "atheists".

It is only logical that the number of victims is higher for such large scale events.

That is completely incorrect. More people have died under atheist regimes of the last century than died in all previous centuries due to religion combined.

Were those people murdered due to atheism?

Were those people murdered due to atheism?
If you're using the same criteria to judge the Crusades and other 'religious wars' as those regime, then yes.

I wasn't. I was including wars that were fought in the name of God, etc. or because of, or over religion, not wars under theist regimes. I was referring to wars directly over secularism or atheists persecuting theists. The regime people were under when they were murdered is erroneous - i was talking about the reasons.

I'm rebooting this discussion because the ad campaign has drawn a complaint... from a Christian Group. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7818980.stm)

"There is plenty of evidence for God, from people's personal experience, to the complexity, interdependence, beauty and design of the natural world.

"But there is scant evidence on the other side, so I think the advertisers are really going to struggle to show their claim is not an exaggeration or inaccurate, as the ASA code puts it."

As of 00.14 GMT, the Press are still awaiting Christian Voice's proof of God's existence.

And, from the end of the article:

"I am sure that Stephen Green really does think there is a great deal of evidence for a God (though presumably only the one that he believes in), but I pity the ASA if they are going to be expected to rule on the probability of God's existence."

I'm rebooting this discussion because the ad campaign has drawn a complaint... from a Christian Group. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7818980.stm)*gasp*)

"There is plenty of evidence for God, from people's personal experience,subjective

"to the complexity, interdependence, [perceived] beauty and [perceived] design of the natural world.Which is nothing more than evidence for the complexity, interdependence, perceived beauty, and perceived design of the natural world. To claim that it is evidence for anything more requires a huge jump in reasoning without any apparent cause other than wanting to.

"But there is scant evidence on the other side,Depends by what one means by "other side".

so I think the advertisers are really going to struggle to show their claim is not an exaggeration or inaccurate, as the ASA code puts it."Anyone wanna bet? :D

Thanks for the update A_K. I needed something to brighten my day.

requires a huge jump in reasoning without any apparent cause other than wanting to.

*sings*
I've got faith in my faith that my faith is faithful to my faith.
*/sings*

Yeah, I think you can check off that any strong believer has "taken a huge jump in reasoning without any other cause than wanting to."

I had the pleasure of listening to this (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=99409410) exchange today.

Synopsis:
Recently, placards went up in buses in Washington, D.C., and other cities asking variations on an age-old question: Why believe in God? They're part of a public discussion on humanism and atheism that's gaining momentum thanks in part to books by Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins.

Guests:

Fred Edwords, director of communications of the American Humanist Association. His organization sponsored the "Why believe in a god?" advertisements.

Joellen Murphy, Washington, D.C., resident. She launched a web site, IBelieveToo.org, to raise money to respond to AHA's ads with "Because I created you and I love you" ads.

Jacqueline Salmon, religion reporter for the Washington Post

The evidence is that there's no evidence against there being a God. There might be, there might not be. It can't be proven either way.

Still, this is pretty lame. Why are they even wasting their time advertising on buses anyway?Because they're tired of fundamentalists running banners linking to sites that condemn atheists to hell, or contain other offensive messages. I'm tired of people who allow the religious to say whatever they want, no matter how hateful, offensive, intolerant or deluded, because "we're supposed to respect religion", while atheists are supposed to shut up, grin and bear it. If person a can state his mind about person b, person b is entitled to reply.

Were those people murdered due to atheism?If you can show me where Mao said, "I'm an atheist, so I'm going to kill 70 million people", I'd be very interested.

Saying that religion can't cause violence because 'atheist' regimes have killed more people than religion is a red herring in my eyes.

If this is so, would you mind explaining why certain people (not you) feel the need to preach it as zealously (is that even a word?) as any evangelist?"Religion" is not a word to describe stances that are vehemently "preached", and lots of religions out there don't have missionary traditions. Jews and Buddhists, for example, are known for not trying to convert people.

A "religion" is a system of belief in a personal god, some sort of life before and/or after death, and other mystical, supernatural beliefs. Atheism, by its very definition, is the absence of religion.

The United States seems almost unique in its approach to freedom of speech. In our legal system the man who tells someone to commit a crime is reponsible for the crime, so this maxim is expanded to encompass public censorship upon the same basis. Our "anti-terrorism" Sedition legislation for example makes it an indictable offense to speak publicly against the government. Journalists are given exemption, however the courts decide who is a journalist (and may not recognise for example e-journalism or fanzine journalism).

I enjoy retelling an author friend's attempt at registering a business name for a Horror Writer's support group and monthly. He was refused the name "Horror Writers' Association" because it sounded "cultlike" he was told. Meanwhile his close friend and publisher of a major local fanzine was raided by the police and had his entire collection of rare Horror movies confiscated (never to be returned) on a warrant of child porn, because he had been "mail ordering Horror movies from overseas for several years." So naturally the Federal Police assumed they must be kiddie porn, wtf?!

Duty of Care can be taken entirely too far, strictly defined as defaulting any action where a danger to others is reasonably prevalent. Someone says they're depressed over a television show and you say, cry me a river, then suddenly there's some legal license for them to go do something stupid and hand responsibility over to you. It's like a little social game among bored psychopaths. You've got to watch what you say around here, no joke, or you'll be relying entirely upon getting along well with the cop that interviews you so he can see your side of it and decide there was no culpability.

Public censorship in an anti-terrorism policing climate is a recipe for disaster. The truth is all sorts of morons manage to get themselves into authority, bringing their bigotry, ignorance and fanaticism with them.
I say it is a door that can't be opened safely. You either have free speech or you don't, there's no in-between. We don't have it. You can be charged and prosecuted with severe penalties for nothing more than saying something totally honest, and totally harmless, in fact in some manners for saying something quite constructive (ie. political).

Holy thread bump from the dead, Batman!

To keep my post on topic, I have no problem with tastefully done atheist or religious slogans on buses. When they are no longer tasteful and are antagonistic, then I don't want to see them.