"Bendy-buses, like atheism, are a danger to the public at large"

[Rusthall Seagull]

Well yes, obviously. As they do to any truly reasoning human being.

so, I am not a reasonable human being ?

 

[Notters]

like the facts they dealt with in the 70's when they told us we were heading for an ICE AGE?

Opinion on this is divided, but it is certainly still possible. Global warming certainly won't lead to increasing temperatures everywhere and we simply don't know what the effects on the Earth's thermohaline circulation system will be.

 

[Notters]

so, I am not a reasonable human being ?

He was probably being a bit unreasonable there, but I certainly don't find systematic, recorded research based on data baffling.

 

[Was not Was]

Surely no-one can deny that - despite there being no evidence for them being true - religious views are privileged in our culture.

Religions are taken really seriously, are taught in school, get airtime, their representatives are consulted on policy and in the media, etc, etc, etc. Yet if anyone invented a new, equally absurd set of ideas for which there's no evidence, they would get laughed out of the place, and probably locked in a padded cell in they got strident about it.

This goes much deeper and is much more established than the 'everyone gets offended' culture that many NSCers moan about.

Atheism fits the evidence, but because it just lets you get on with your life, we atheists don't usually make a song and dance about it.

And when we do (for the first time, on the outside of a bendy bus!), theists claim to be offended.

I suspect it's because it makes the millions of adults who have a faith really uncomfortable to be told that, actually, it's ok to not buy into this crazy belief system. DEEP DOWN, THEY KNOW WE'RE RIGHT!

I'm just off to make a donation to the campaign, btw.

 

[Curious Orange]

I agree with you about free speech and wouldn't want to see this stopped!

BUT, to repeat my earlier point, I just think its a bit destructive without a purpose. A company wouldn't be allowed to bring out an advert purely to try and discredit a rival, without actually promoting anything themselves, yet this seems to be what this idea is doing.

Whilst it's exercising free speech, I think its actually a bit dangerous for an open society - not because it opposes religion but because it is taking a random swipe at a perfectly acceptable (and positive) element of society for absolutely no reason.

Erm, how does the slogan "There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life." attack or undermine any religion? And how is the promotion of enjoyment of life a bad thing?

 

[The Spanish]

Well, if it was, that's what he should have said, not drawn a ridiculous, hyperbolic analogy. Although, as has been said it's not picking solely on Christians, is it? As far as I'm aware(and I'm happy to be corrected) it's the same God in the Torah, Bible and koran, so saying God probably doesn't exist is aimed equally at all three, I imagine. At least, that's how I read it.

I am still reeling from the shock that BBC London News, The Offical Broadcaster for Multiculturalism, has just pulled them up on it (they have just been on) and asked would they have done this if it was aimed at Islam. It was Riz Latif asking, so BBC London were playing their multicultural joker, but still a surprise.

 

[ATFC Seagull]

Surely no-one can deny that - despite there being no evidence for them being true - religious views are privileged in our culture.

Religions are taken really seriously, are taught in school, get airtime, their representatives are consulted on policy and in the media, etc, etc, etc. Yet if anyone invented a new, equally absurd set of ideas for which there's no evidence, they would get laughed out of the place, and probably locked in a padded cell in they got strident about it.

This goes much deeper and is much more established than the 'everyone gets offended' culture that many NSCers moan about.

Atheism fits the evidence, but because it just lets you get on with your life, we atheists don't usually make a song and dance about it.

And when we do (for the first time, on the outside of a bendy bus!), theists claim to be offended.

I suspect it's because it makes the millions of adults who have a faith really uncomfortable to be told that, actually, it's ok to not buy into this crazy belief system. DEEP DOWN, THEY KNOW WE'RE RIGHT!

I'm just off to make a donation to the campaign, btw.

Nothing wrong with holding that point of view, but WHY do you want to actively discourage people from holding religous views? No-one has answered that point yet. I think its quite pathetic to be honest - I respect that you are not religous, but why you would donate money to try and dissuade people away from religion suggests to me that YOU are a bit insecure!

 

[ATFC Seagull]

Erm, how does the slogan "There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life." attack or undermine any religion? And how is the promotion of enjoyment of life a bad thing?

I admit its hardly a crusade, but its purpose is surely to try and promote non-membership of religion, albeit through quite a fun, "harmless" phrase. I have nothing at all against people who have no religous beliefs, but I don't see whats in it for them to encourage people away from institutions that do a world of good.

 

[Buzzer]

I'll believe this isn't anti-Christian when they put signs up saying "Allah doesn't exist".

It's the same, right? No difference so why not post that? (Answer - They ain't got the balls)

And since when did Christians ever get a free ride? Take a look on this thread with the sneery comments about religion.

 

[Was not Was]

Nothing wrong with holding that point of view, but WHY do you want to actively discourage people from holding religous views?

Fair question. Two answers:

1. To redress the balance just a little. I could give a hundred examples but to use just one - we get taught about religions in school but humanism, athiesm and evolutionary theory get much less time.

2. Because, personally, I think that religious views stop people fulfilling their potential, and that we all suffer as a result, and believe that this is worth doing something about. Again, one example from a hundred possible - when you believe that your values, ethics and behavioural code come from the word of god transcribed and translated 2000 years ago, you close your mind to how good people can be just because we want to be, because we are (due to evolution) naturally altruistic.

I think either reason is reason enough. Does that answer your question convincingly?

 

[Curious Orange]

I admit its hardly a crusade, but its purpose is surely to try and promote non-membership of religion, albeit through quite a fun, "harmless" phrase. I have nothing at all against people who have no religous beliefs, but I don't see whats in it for them to encourage people away from institutions that do a world of good.

Some do, some don't... In any case the slogan isn't telling anybody to do anything, but it does encourage thought and debate - religions aren't afraid of thought or debate are they? The representative from the Methodist Church they had on the BBC London News seemed to think it was quite a positive thing.

 

[ATFC Seagull]

Fair question. Two answers:

1. To redress the balance just a little. I could give a hundred examples but to use just one - we get taught about religions in school but humanism, athiesm and evolutionary theory get much less time.

2. Because, personally, I think that religious views stop people fulfilling their potential, and that we all suffer as a result, and believe that this is worth doing something about. Again, one example from a hundred possible - when you believe that your values, ethics and behavioural code come from the word of god transcribed and translated 2000 years ago, you close your mind to how good people can be just because we want to be, because we are (due to evolution) naturally altruistic.

I think either reason is reason enough. Does that answer your question convincingly?

Yeah it does actually . Like I've said above I am an open-minded person and don't have an issue with free speech or people who are not religous.

Regarding your first point, I think thats fair enough about exposure and education. All I will say is that religious communities gain from having members, and suffer from losing members, whereas I am not sure that converting people to atheism has the same effect on its own believers.

Secondly, I do actually have to disagree. In my religion (Christianity), the main commandment is to treat others as you would have yourself treated, which I think is almost a re-phrasing of what you just said about being good for being a good person. I find most religions are actually quite up to date with modern-thinking, and quite relevent in their teachings. I personally believe less harm is done in the world through people wrongly and stubbornly interpreting religous ideas than by people who hold no religous beliefs and therefore do not feel bound to any rules (again I am aware this is very much the minority!!).

Anyways, pub time, and if you wanna put your money into that then go for it!

 

[John Bumlick]

Think its probably best I avoid this one. I'm religous but am quite open-minded to the concept of other religions, and of course those that choose not to accept the existence of religion at all.

are there really people who don't accept the existence of religion?

 

[John Bumlick]

I personally believe less harm is done in the world through people wrongly and stubbornly interpreting religous ideas than by people who hold no religous beliefs and therefore do not feel bound to any rules (again I am aware this is very much the minority!!).

oh yeah, those suicide bombing extremists who "wrongly and stubbornly [interpret] religous ideas" are pretty harmless, aren't they?

 

[Happy Seagull]

Church goers are just a bunch of c.u.n.t.s....FACT!

 

[Soton Seagull]

The world is not flat, germs cause illness etc etc When will elements of society join us in 21st century and catch up; realising these flawed, hypocritcal and blatantly made up fairy stories were/are used as tools of control by worried leaders?

 

[Biscuit]

Well I think its Brilliant

 

[Rusthall Seagull]

Church goers are just a bunch of c.u.n.t.s....FACT!

you are a total f***ing prick! no, sorry, you are a f***ing retard ****

 

[Dandyman]

Think its probably best I avoid this one. I'm religous but am quite open-minded to the concept of other religions, and of course those that choose not to accept the existence of religion at all.

What I WOULD like to ask, however, is what the purpose of this campaign would be?

Religions that advertise are not trying to convert as such, but more to encourage back into the fold those who have at some stage been in touch with such beliefs. This has several benefits - financial sustainability as well as boosting the community and having extra pairs of hands for various good causes that the majority of places of religous worship in this country take part in.

However this advert seems to seek purely to UNDERMINE the other religous adverts, as opposed to doing something constructive. I find this quite petty and counter-productive - are those behind it so insecure with the idea of other people having religous views that they feel the need to dissuade them? As I said above, religous groups in this country offer so much, I feel its out of line to actively discourage membership.

I know people will point to the problems religion has caused in the world, but I hardly think the 7/7 bombers got their ideas from the side of a bus.

I note that one of the things religous groups are offering this week is denying the women of Northern Ireland any control over their own bodies.

Stop religion living off my taxes and end it's privileges and state sponsored propaganda then we can start the debate again.

 

[ATFC Seagull]

oh yeah, those suicide bombing extremists who "wrongly and stubbornly [interpret] religous ideas" are pretty harmless, aren't they?

1) I have several times mentioned people like that in this thread and said they are irrelevant to the issue of advertising on buses

2) The exact point of mine that you have quoted is acknowleding people like that, and putting them into perspective in the wider world as the minority. Of course they are not harmless. Are armed robbers, serial killers, political terrorists who don't have religous convictions harmless? Of course not. But these idiots don't represent the majority on either side.

Do you work for the Sun? If not I really suggest you do, although they might be a little left-wing and factually accurate for you...