ALL ABOARD the Atheist Bus.

[VeryBerryCherry]

Atheist Bus Campaign Goes Nationwide

  Quote

A ?140,000 advertising campaign aimed at persuading more people to "come out" as atheists was launched today with a plan to broadcast a message doubting God's existence on the sides of buses, the tube and on screens in central London.

Its slogan ? "There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life" ? can already be seen on buses in central London. A total of 200 bendy buses in London and 600 buses across England, Scotland and Wales will carry the slogan from today and tomorrow following a fundraising drive which raised more than ?140,000.

So the Atheists are "outing" themselves. What do you think?

A great idea? A way of stirring up trouble? Necessary? Irrelevant?

[*Bob*]

"There's probably no God"?

Sounds like 'The Atheist Society' need to do some coming-out as Atheists themselves - before spouting a half-arsed namby-pamby wishy-washy position to everyone else.

Rubbish.

[Marmora Man]

Rationalist, atheist, humanist - a good basis for life.

I applaud the campaign, what is of interest is that the original aim was to raise just ?5,000 but there was such strong support that the target was exceeded 25 fold very quickly.

[taper]

As a teapot agnostic, I donated to the campaign. But I was nearly run over by a bus this morning and wonder whether this is a sign I should hedge my bets a bit more.

[RosieH]

Nice work taper - living proof that Pascal's wager may have some merit!

[HonaloochieB]

It's a start and I applaud it, especially as a contrast to the ads for preachers that infest the place.

Now let the next run of ads read 'Religion Is Bunk'.

[Jeremy]

Pascal's wager has zero merit... surely if there was a god, he/she/it would know that Pascal's position was a cop-out!

*Bob*, I think the inclusion of "probably" is sensible. We cannot know with 100% authority whether there is a god or not. What we can do is look at the world around us, consider the evidence, and conclude that the existence of a god is very, very unlikely indeed.

I am broadly with Marmora Man on this one (although I don't think it's such an issue in this country). There are lots of examples round the world where religion is having a very negative influence on politics, education, health, and more. I think this campaign is a little weak, but the message is sound.

[*Bob*]

Jeremy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

We cannot know with 100% authority

> whether there is a god or not.

Well I do.

There isn't one.

That's what I 'believe'. I'm an atheist, see? That's what atheism means.

[Jeremy]

I think you are getting slightly confused over the semantics, *Bob*.

Saying that you definitely believe there is no god, is not the same thing as saying that there definitely is no god. They are very different things.

The slogan on the side of the bus is not really an opinion or belief.

[????]

I'm happy going on this bus as long as it has rosary beads wrapped round the rear view mirror

[*Bob*]

There's no semantics about it, Jeremy.

Of course there's been some general discussion of late about the nature of altheism ("oooh.. I'm a soft Atheist!" etc), but essentially there are only two positions:

Atheist - No God

Agnostic - Don't know.

Clearly some Atheists at Atheist Bus Campaign HQ are hedging their bets. Lame.

[Strawbs]

slightly amusing more than anything else!

[Mark]

If the statement had read "There is no God..." then that would have offended religious groups and the Advertising Standards Authority would not have allowed it, so they had to compromise and stick "probably" in there. My sign would say something like:

If there is a God why does he allow the killing of innocent schoolchildren?

It's because he doesn't exist, accept it and enjoy being more responsible for the world around you.

I know it's not as amusing but may get the message across.

[edited once]

[*Bob*]

Essentially, The Church does quite well out of 'probably'.

If it wasn't for all those coffin-dodgers rushing into church during their twilight years 'just in case' there'd be even more tumbleweed rolling between the pews.

If churches are allowed to advertise their medieval nonsense wherever they please in public places and even encourage their hapless followers to try and press badly printed pamphlets into my hands first thing on a Saturday morning, then we ought to be allowed some sort of comeback.

[Ted Max]

Your comeback is not going to church/ mosque/ synagogue/ temple/ standing stones. Isn't that enough?

The buses will provide only sermon-fodder for a thousand ministers short of material after Christmas. Will they convert anyone to atheism, or relieve guilt in the doubters? Not really. And if not, what's the point? It's a lot of self-indulgent wank that will only confirm and encourage certain religious types in their belief that they are under attack, when the reality is that they are not.

In short, counterproductive.

[Jeremy]

*Bob* Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Atheist - No God

> Agnostic - Don't know.

No no... an Atheist *believes* there is no God, a religious person *believes* there is a god/gods/whatever. Neither has definiteive, undisputable evidence, so therefore it remains a belief.

It's nothing to do with altheism or "soft atheism", or even agnosticism. It's about being objective.

Throw belief and opinion out of the window. Approach the question from an open minded, scientific perspective - consider the facts - and arrive at a conclusion. The problem is that because Christians claim that God operates outside of the phyiscal universe (and is therefore exempt from laws of science), they have a theory which is impossible to disprove. Again, from an objective and scientific perspective, the best you can say is that their theory is very unlikely.

But I get the feeling that you and I are coming from a slightly different angle, *Bob*... we have to just agree to disagree on this one...

[*Bob*]

It's counter-productive in that the Atheist Bus Campaigners don't seem to know whether there's a God or not, and have gone to print to say so.

If the Atheists don't know, then who does?

[Ted Max]

God. And he's not telling.

[*Bob*]

I can't agree to disagree when I'm right, Jeremy.

'Believing there is no God but not having definitive evidence' is as ridiculous a position as 'believing that dandelions can sing when no-one's around to hear them'.

[Jeremy]

You can't agree to disagree? So does that mean you dis-disagree - therefore you agree? Excellent!

[mockney piers]

I guess by the book (the dictionary not that book) I'm an agnostic.

But it's not a cop out, it's more saying that if a higher power/intelligence/life form had a hand in the miracle and complexity of life (i find the universe less miraculous, maths seems to be getting to grips with that one, the rest is just physics and chemistry) then jolly well done, round of applause.

But were that to be the case, (rather than life being a natural facet of the entropic process of the aforementioned maths and physics and chemistry) then frankly we are but bacteria in the petri dish, and who are we to claim our visions or write up our myths and traditions as diktats from above.

So I'll live my life as best I can without the need for a Pascalian wager or to pick a particular religious poison thanks.

[PeckhamRose]

The Advertising Standards Authority actually had them include the word "PROBABLY".

I volunteer at the British Humanist Association. So to me, there is no god, and anyway, the ethos about it is "Let's concentrate on what we can do to help one another for the sake of humankind itself and NOT because of the carrot of heaven or the stick of hell".

[Tony.London Suburbs]

I don't believe in Atheism so I won't be hopping aboard.

[taper]

Dawkins said he would have prefered "almost certainly no God", which accords more accurately with his teapot stance. "Probably" was indeed insisted upon by the ASA. But it still represents a sound philosophical basis for rationalists in so far as you remain open to the possibility that, if evidence of a deity is forthcoming, you will adapt your views accordingly.

[Jeremy]

Yes... "almost certainly" would have been more consistent with a rationalist viewpoint!