NationStates Jolt Archive

'No God' slogans for city's buses

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

The BHA planned only to raise £5,500, which was to be matched by Professor Dawkins, but it has now raised more than £20,300 of its own accord.

It aims to have two sets of 30 buses carrying the signs for four weeks.

As the campaign has raised more than anticipated, it will also have posters on the inside of buses as well.

The BHA is also considering extending the campaign to cities including Birmingham, Manchester and Edinburgh.

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

Professor Dawkins said: "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.

"Even on the buses, nobody thinks twice when they see a religious slogan plastered across the side.

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

How dare they indoctrinate the true God-fearing public? The children could see this on their way to school and suddenly turn into amoral degenerates! Sunday schools must be made mandatory for all aged 3-15.

The best quote, however, comes from a Mr Stephen Green "of pressure group Christian Voice":

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

A good idea?

Bendy-buses I can understand, but how is atheism dangerous?

Seems like an utterly pointless exercise. That's not going to change anyone's mind.

Ought not religion be a private matter?

Eugh. As an atheist, I feel I must say : This is boring and indeed stupid. People have their own views, and having buses driving around making all of us look like arseholes doesn't help anything.

Seems like an utterly pointless exercise. That's not going to change anyone's mind.

Yeah, apart from a couple of Jehovas Witnesses I work with, everyone I know is either an atheist or just doesn't really think about god. Of course that is just my personal experience but it does seem that there are a lot of us in Britain..

If God doesn't believe that there is a higher power than Him, doesn't that make Him an atheist?

Bendy-buses I can understand, but how is atheism dangerous?

Well, it might cause children to attack others in RE classes, or try to burn down churches.

Ought not religion be a private matter?

This was my reaction (underlying any attempt at satire). I can't say I've ever seen a Christian poster on a bus, but even if they do exist, why would this be at all effective in changing people's minds? "There's probably no God" is hardly a statement that will change lives.

I dislike this as much as I dislike religions indoctrinating people.

Eugh. As an atheist, I feel I must say : This is boring and indeed stupid. People have their own views, and having buses driving around making all of us look like arseholes doesn't help anything.

I can't say I was surprised to read Dawkins was behind this.

I feel we are, in general, a rather apathetic nation when it comes to religion. Such propaganda is more annoying than thought-provoking.

There's no indoctrination going on here. A private group paid for advertising on a bus. It's no different than Christians paying money for billboard and commercial space.

Well, it might cause children to attack others in RE classes, or try to burn down churches.





It won't though, will it? They probably won't even notice it.. Besides, kids already burn stuff and bully anybody who professes some kind of faith...

Yeah, apart from a couple of Jehovas Witnesses I work with, everyone I know is either an atheist or just doesn't really think about god. Of course that is just my personal experience but it does seem that there are a lot of us in Britain..

Well, there is a fair portion of the actual religious. But it seems most are atheist, but call themselves 'Christian', because they go to the odd service, and kind of like the values and traditions.

I think it is fun. :)

Put whatever you like on the side of the bus I still won't pay any attention to it.

The fact that I catch the bendy bus as 3 AM whilst drunk is irrelevant

I think its an utterly pointless thing to do however I don't find it remotely annoying because of its pointlessness. If I actually thought it might impact on someone's opinion then perhaps I'd considor it more seriously.

I would add that if Christian groups or any other groups can place these bus adverts then so can atheists. Having said that, I don't believe a Christian advert would turn this atheist into a christian so yeah... pointless.

There's no indoctrination going on here. A private group paid for advertising on a bus. It's no different than Christians paying money for billboard and commercial space.
And a great many of them do it.

Personally, I don't like it when anybody does it, but we have freedom of speech, so there you go.

I think its an utterly pointless thing to do however I don't find it remotely annoying because of its pointlessness. If I actually thought it might impact on someone's opinion then perhaps I'd considor it more seriously.

I would add that if Christian groups or any other groups can place these bus adverts then so can atheists. Having said that, I don't believe a Christian advert would turn this atheist into a christian so yeah... pointless.

It's not pointless. I keeps the currency in circulation..

It's not pointless. I keeps the currency in circulation..

Atheist posters are good for the economy. *nod*

Atheist posters are good for the economy. *nod*

Indeed.


If God sent us a sign down from above would He put it on the side of a bus?

Indeed.


If God sent us a sign down from above would He put it on the side of a bus?

No. God has a clear preference for nailing His signs to wood.

No. God has a clear preference for nailing His signs to wood.

What about a burning bus?

What about a burning bus?

A bit old school, but He might go for it.

A bit old school, but He might go for it.

Surely everything God does is old school. I mean, I've yet to be able email or IM my prayers to him so I still have to rely on those church things with the pointy spires to aim the prayers up..

Surely everything God does is old school. I mean, I've yet to be able email or IM my prayers to him so I still have to rely on those church things with the pointy spires to aim the prayers up..

You mean I've been talking to God@hotmail.com for no reason? :$

You mean I've been talking to God@hotmail.com for no reason? :$

Quite possibly. I'll see if I can find the correct passage but I'm pretty sure the Book Of Revelations implies the God uses Yahoo.

If God doesn't believe that there is a higher power than Him, doesn't that make Him an atheist?

No, it makes him a poor soul with a superiority complex. :( :D

You mean I've been talking to God@hotmail.com for no reason? :$

iGod (http://www.titane.ca/concordia/dfar251/igod/main.html)

God uses Gmail. Get it right, blast you!

Really, though, regarding atheist slogans on buses, if there are religious signs in place on buses, there is no reason why the opposite should not be allowed.

I'm a religious person, Christian to be exact, and personally, I think there're a lot of people on both sides of the religion/atheism argument who have terribly bad ideas and ways of doing things.

I would, however, like to take this moment to say that the problems Dawkins listed, namely wanting "unearned respect and the right not to be offended, the right to brainwash children," are also prevalent in the atheist community.

I have my views and care very little if they offend somebody else. That said, it is my policy to respect everybody else's right in life to have independant views.

iGod (http://www.titane.ca/concordia/dfar251/igod/main.html)

Awesome. I asked for a bigger penis and God asked if I wanted more than one saying that they'd be cheaper in quantity..

I still don't have a bigger penis though..

iGod (http://www.titane.ca/concordia/dfar251/igod/main.html)

Tres amusing.

Me: So what is your response to the Gettier problem?
God: Really. I don't have a problem.
Me: What is the nature of justice?
God: Being just and fair, administration of the law, assigning rewards or punishments.
Me: Wrong.
God: What would you have said?
Me: Justice is loving oneself and others in such a way that all become better.
God: And loving oneself and others in such a way that all become better is Justice.
Me: now you're getting it
God: Why now? Do you think I should tone it down?

Well, there is a fair portion of the actual religious. But it seems most are atheist, but call themselves 'Christian', because they go to the odd service, and kind of like the values and traditions.

Agnostic would be a better word for them.

When I saw this earlier, I thought the advert simply said 'There is no God'. I found it a bit depressing - no one wants to see that on the way to work - its like seeing a sign saying 'No one really likes you' or 'You've wasted your life'. The 'enjoy life' bit made it nicer though.

Surely if someone is made to question their faith by a sign on a bus they were never a true believer anyway?

When I saw this earlier, I thought the advert simply said 'There is no God'. I found it a bit depressing - no one wants to see that on the way to work - its like seeing a sign saying 'No one really likes you' or 'You've wasted your life'. The 'enjoy life' bit made it nicer though.

Perhaps we should apply to have some demotivational posters put up.

Surely if someone is made to question their faith by a sign on a bus they were never a true believer anyway?

I would be worried also, but then I don't really expect a lot of people to have seriously questioned what they believe. Perhaps it more of a poster to make them think every time they see it, which might be every day or more often.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o

I call god the conglomerate of the laws of physics. They dictate how everything forms and happens in the universe and that is what the idea if a god is, however with one difference the COLOP doesn't have a conciousness, furthermore I assume that it cares not about morals and whatnot so for that I have the fonz

In my religeon the
creator IS the COLOP.
moral guidence is The fonz.

Wow, they certainly are good at wasting money. Why not give it to a charity instead of a PR stunt that will probably make people like them less?

God:
You and I are on the same wavelength, god means I am an idiot

oh boy . ..

Wow, they certainly are good at wasting money. Why not give it to a charity instead of a PR stunt that will probably make people like them less?
This.

Seriously, spending valuable time and effort on subduing free and open thought through media indoctrination is precisely what most of us don't like about Religion. By embarking upon this quest, Dawkins is not fighting irrational Religion, but promoting its values and methods.

I can't say I was surprised to read Dawkins was behind this.


Where did it say he was 'behind' it. I thought it just said he supported it?

Seriously, spending valuable time and effort on subduing free and open thought through media indoctrination is precisely what most of us don't like about Religion. By embarking upon this quest, Dawkins is not fighting irrational Religion, but promoting its values and methods.

At one point I admired Dawkins outspoken contempt for certain aspects of religion, now I feel he's becoming a hypocrite.

How dare they indoctrinate the true God-fearing public? The children could see this on their way to school and suddenly turn into amoral degenerates! Sunday schools must be made mandatory for all aged 3-15.

The best quote, however, comes from a Mr Stephen Green "of pressure group Christian Voice":

A good idea?

There is a huge double standard. Drawing attention to it might not be 'the English Way', but it might well be the way to make it change.

They make a good point - religious icons and messages are accepted as part of the landscape, and there's certainly a suggestion that you SHOULDn'T get offended at such things, and if you do - the problem is with you being overly sensitive.

But, if Atheists do the same thing, the problem is with the message...

Good on them, I say.

Where did it say he was 'behind' it. I thought it just said he supported it?

It did just say he supported it, but I suspected he was more involved than the article made out. I don't actually know how much he is involved with the BHA.

They make a good point - religious icons and messages are accepted as part of the landscape, and there's certainly a suggestion that you SHOULDn'T get offended at such things, and if you do - the problem is with you being overly sensitive.

But, if Atheists do the same thing, the problem is with the message...

Good on them, I say.

But if they're trying to distinguish themselves from religious institutions, why would they want to use similar tactics? Otherwise, they're just proselytizing like the very religious institutions they oppose (or hate, as appears to be the case with Richard Dawkins).

Religious beliefs aside, this is quite possibly the worst advertising slogan I have ever seen. "There is probably no God." Wow, that will get people to become atheist. It's almost as good as the "You should probably buy an iPod" campaign, or "Why not get a Ford, if it's not too inconvenient for you."

I'm a little bothered by this campaign only because, like similar campaigns, it is solely a reaction to the beliefs of others. Why not something like "Embrace reason" or "Critical thinking is your friend?" I think Dawkins would have a lot more success if he explained and promoted secular humanism in addition to attacking theism.

But if they're trying to distinguish themselves from religious institutions, why would they want to use similar tactics? Otherwise, they're just proselytizing like the very religious institutions they oppose (or hate, as appears to be the case with Richard Dawkins).

Saying "there's PROBABLY no god" isn't even on a par with the actual content of evangelism. One is expressing a doubt... maybe even encouraging thought about it - while the other is claiming an absolute fact.

Indeed, from the precise wording, it looks like they went to some pains to avoid doing exactly what you're accusing them of.


But my real problem with what you're saying isn't that - it's that it's a nonsense. If you don't want a country to invade you, and you complain about them marching soldiers into your towns and shooting people... does that remove your 'right' to march your own soldiers into those same towns and shoot the enemy soldiers?

Atheism cannot fight against religion. We don't have places of worship, or special tax exemptions, or a scripture we can use to claim certain rights, or a dresscode, or any of that. What we have is (mostly) doubt, and questions about the nature of truth.

The battlefield is fundamentally uneven, and attempts to level the field are attacked. Why ARE you attacking Atheists putting messages on the side of a bus? What's 'wrong' with it?

"There is probably no God." Wow, that will get people to become atheist. It's almost as good as the "You should probably buy an iPod" campaign, or "Why not get a Ford, if it's not too inconvenient for you."


I laughed out loud at this.

Religious beliefs aside, this is quite possibly the worst advertising slogan I have ever seen. "There is probably no God." Wow, that will get people to become atheist. It's almost as good as the "You should probably buy an iPod" campaign, or "Why not get a Ford, if it's not too inconvenient for you."

I'm a little bothered by this campaign only because, like similar campaigns, it is solely a reaction to the beliefs of others. Why not something like "Embrace reason" or "Critical thinking is your friend?" I think Dawkins would have a lot more success if he explained and promoted secular humanism in addition to attacking theism.

I don't think the point is conversion. I think the point is claiming equal right to speak.

The battlefield is fundamentally uneven, and attempts to level the field are attacked. Why ARE you attacking Atheists putting messages on the side of a bus? What's 'wrong' with it?

There is no 'battlefield', the battle is not between Religion and Atheism, the battle is between the enlightened and the ignorant, the intolerant and the accepting, the stubborn and the progressive. Good education is what is needed to win this battle, if this good education results in more atheists, then so be it.

If God doesn't believe that there is a higher power than Him, doesn't that make Him an atheist?I would think he'd be an autotheist. He believes there is a God--Himself.

I don't think the point is conversion. I think the point is claiming equal right to speak.

That seems fair, but the BBC article made it sound like they were trying to spark discussion. To quote Professor Dawkins, "This campaign to put alternative slogans on London buses will make people think - and thinking is anathema to religion." Later in the article, a representative from the Methodist Church said something similar (except for the "thinking is anathema to religion" bit.)
If the ads are meant only to make people consider how little they heed the religious imagery constantly bombarding them, I think they will be effective. However, I don't think it will really spark discussion, or even thinking about whether or not God exists.

There is no 'battlefield', the battle is not between Religion and Atheism, the battle is between the enlightened and the ignorant, the intolerant and the accepting, the stubborn and the progressive. Good education is what is needed to win this battle, if this good education results in more atheists, then so be it.

I'd like to congratulate you on this post.





I'd like to... but I can't, because it's horseshit.

There absolutely IS a battle. While rights are granted according to religion, while preferences are given to the religious, and while being areligious is attacked, there absolutely is a battle.

Education is important, sure. But it's only part of the answer.

I'd like to congratulate you on this post.





I'd like to... but I can't, because it's horseshit.

I knew you'd say that. :tongue:


There absolutely IS a battle. While rights are granted according to religion, while preferences are given to the religious, and while being areligious is attacked, there absolutely is a battle.


That's a different battle entirely, the first two problems you mentioned is mainly a battle between the secular government and the establishment of the Church of England, the third issue mentioned simply doesn't really happen in the UK, at least not in any institutional or universal sense.

That seems fair, but the BBC article made it sound like they were trying to spark discussion. To quote Professor Dawkins, "This campaign to put alternative slogans on London buses will make people think - and thinking is anathema to religion." Later in the article, a representative from the Methodist Church said something similar (except for the "thinking is anathema to religion" bit.)
If the ads are meant only to make people consider how little they heed the religious imagery constantly bombarding them, I think they will be effective. However, I don't think it will really spark discussion, or even thinking about whether or not God exists.

It already has sparked discussion... and the tenor of the discussion it has sparked (which basically comes down to whether it is good/bad or right/wrong) is exactly the sort of discussion I think it was aimed to start.

A couple of years ago now, I created an NS meme that I still occassionally see touted, from time to time. I'm not claiming it for glory, or anything... some people might remember what I did... and some might have some very strong feelings about it... but the point was that I did something remarkably similar to what this group is doing, and experienced almost exactly the kinds of responses their actions are receiving.

The message isn't important - it's just the catalyst and the flavour. What is important is the iconoclasm.

Religious beliefs aside, this is quite possibly the worst advertising slogan I have ever seen. "There is probably no God." Wow, that will get people to become atheist. It's almost as good as the "You should probably buy an iPod" campaign, or "Why not get a Ford, if it's not too inconvenient for you."
You, sir, are a god among men . . . probably.
I don't think the point is conversion. I think the point is claiming equal right to speak.
By which you mean, they are hoping someone will do something rash in retaliation, and that this will give them more material for whining about how they're oppressed.
There absolutely IS a battle. While rights are granted according to religion, while preferences are given to the religious, and while being areligious is attacked, there absolutely is a battle.
Would it be an "attack" to tell you to get off your goddamn cross? Or perhaps that would be religious oppression?

There absolutely IS a battle. While rights are granted according to religion, while preferences are given to the religious, and while being areligious is attacked, there absolutely is a battle.

Education is important, sure. But it's only part of the answer.
I understand your point, but I don't see how the "battle" metaphor can help the cause. A battle ends when one side vanquishes the other; the victor does not display tolerance for the defeated. No one is fighting to crush the religious, they are fighting to have atheism treated just as equally as society treats other belief-systems.

I knew you'd say that. :tongue:


Sigh. I'm so predictable. :p


That's a different battle entirely, the first two problems you mentioned is mainly a battle between the secular government and the establishment of the Church of England, the third issue mentioned simply doesn't really happen in the UK, at least not in any institutional or universal sense.

I remember when the laws changed to allow Sunday trading. Last time I was in the mothercountry (and this might have changed since) there were still things you theoretically, at least, couldn't buy on a Sunday.

Atheists are fighting a war against religion in the UK, if for no other reason than it's omnipresence and scope of influence.

As for the third point - the simple fact that there's been a backlash at all suggests that there IS attack against the areligious. Expressing an areligious view publically, in a way that would be acceptable if it were religious, is attacked.

I'm a little bothered by this campaign only because, like similar campaigns, it is solely a reaction to the beliefs of others. Why not something like "Embrace reason" or "Critical thinking is your friend?" I think Dawkins would have a lot more success if he explained and promoted secular humanism in addition to attacking theism.

Embrace reason because the side of a bus told you to? :D

It already has sparked discussion... and the tenor of the discussion it has sparked (which basically comes down to whether it is good/bad or right/wrong) is exactly the sort of discussion I think it was aimed to start.

Ah, it's some weird sort of Zen paradox. I can't argue there is no discussion without discussing. Unless I can undiscuss. Hmm...

By which you mean, they are hoping someone will do something rash in retaliation, and that this will give them more material for whining about how they're oppressed.


Fail.

I told you what I 'hope for'. That the right to express your sentiments are treated equally.

Did I say I hope for rash responses? No - I hope there aren't any. I'd love for the response to be reasoned discussion, some stroking of beards, maybe a little clacking of tongues, and then a new equilibrium being found.


Would it be an "attack" to tell you to get off your goddamn cross? Or perhaps that would be religious oppression?

If anything, it would be areligious oppression, surely?

Fail again, I think - this isn't a martyr situation, this is a protest. An incitement to think, perhaps. An invitation to examine how you treat different perspectives... and maybe to re-evaluate it.

I understand your point, but I don't see how the "battle" metaphor can help the cause. A battle ends when one side vanquishes the other; the victor does not display tolerance for the defeated. No one is fighting to crush the religious, they are fighting to have atheism treated just as equally as society treats other belief-systems.

Battles don't need to have one side defeated and the other victorious on piles of bodies.

A battle can be over just because the two sides stop fighting. For example, when they both accomodate the same vision.

Embrace reason because the side of a bus told you to? :D

If you consider that religious people will believe that a collection of old Middle-Eastern stories contain all truth based on their Sunday school teacher's say-so, it seems quite possible that they might embrace reason if the suggestion came from an equally reliable source.

Atheists are fighting a war against religion in the UK, if for no other reason than it's omnipresence and scope of influence.


But the 'war' you're referring to is political and legal, not cultural. Yelling vague slogans to people about things they likely kind of agree with will not help to disestablish the Church of England etc...


As for the third point - the simple fact that there's been a backlash at all suggests that there IS attack against the areligious. Expressing an areligious view publically, in a way that would be acceptable if it were religious, is attacked.

I think the 'areligious' are attacked less than the religious are attacked in the UK. All views are attacked, that alone is nothing to start a 'battle' over.

I really don't think that it will make much of a difference. Signs on buses are decidedly not life changing. But since it was a private group, they should be allowed to spend their money on any manner of stupidity they like

I think the 'areligious' are attacked less than the religious are attacked in the UK. All views are attacked, that alone is nothing to start a 'battle' over.

The areligious are attacked less than the religious in the UK because we're not causing a big fuss.

Look what happens when we cause a fuss... even a little one. Posters on buses, for god's sake.

Battles don't need to have one side defeated and the other victorious on piles of bodies.

A battle can be over just because the two sides stop fighting. For example, when they both accomodate the same vision.
Maybe (although I can't think of any right now), but as a figure of speech "battle" or "war" are usually all-or-nothing campaigns. We aren't planning to negotiate with poverty, come to an armistice with drugs, or accept a peace without victory from terror.

The areligious are attacked less than the religious in the UK because we're not causing a big fuss.

Look what happens when we cause a fuss... even a little one. Posters on buses, for god's sake.

I don't see it as inherently wrong that the religious are doing it (assuming they are actually attacking it, I haven't seen any attacks though), they have every right to oppose something being put on a bus that they likely find incredibly offensive. Also, just because you're attacking this move, doesn't mean you're attack the atheists.

If anything, it would be areligious oppression, surely?
No, I meant "religious oppression;" in the way that a kid working in a sweatshop is a victim of Capitalist Oppression.
That series of letters your using, it isn't a word.
Fail again, I think - this isn't a martyr situation, this is a protest. An incitement to think, perhaps. An invitation to examine how you treat different perspectives... and maybe to re-evaluate it.
You're the one whining about how much you're under "attack," not the sign people.

No, I meant "religious oppression;" in the way that a kid working in a sweatshop is a victim of Capitalist Oppression.
That series of letters your using, it isn't a word.


Which series of letters?

Areligious? You think areligious isn't a word?

Your ignorance is not my failing.


You're the one whining about how much you're under "attack," not the sign people.

I don't recall saying I was under attack, at all. Whining or otherwise.

Wow. You really fail HARD today.

Maybe (although I can't think of any right now), but as a figure of speech "battle" or "war" are usually all-or-nothing campaigns. We aren't planning to negotiate with poverty, come to an armistice with drugs, or accept a peace without victory from terror.

But the examples you cite are all concepts. What I'm talking about is conflict between two factions - just like 'real' battles.

Which series of letters?

Areligious? You think areligious isn't a word?

Your ignorance is not my failing.
Spell check, Merriam-Webster and the Oxford Dictionary all agree, you're full of crap and neologisms. On Google, a search for "areligious" turns up fewer results than such non-words as "crappola" and "stooopid," and only slightly more results than "shittle."
Irreligious is a word, and it probable means what you seem to think "areligious" might mean.
I don't recall saying I was under attack, at all. Whining or otherwise.
Am I going to have to quote you? Does the phrase, "while being areligious is attacked," sound familiar?
Wow. You really fail HARD today.
Keep saying that; maybe it will become true some day.

Spell check, Merriam-Webster and the Oxford Dictionary all agree, you're full of crap and neologisms. On Google, a search for "areligious" turns up fewer results than such non-words as "crappola" and "stooopid," and only slightly more results than "shittle."
Irreligious is a word, and it probable means what you seem to think "areligious" might mean.


Webster's New Millenium Dictionary of English says:

Main Entry: areligious
Part of Speech: adj
Definition: not practicing a religion; indifferent to or uninfluenced by a religion
Example: The US advocates an areligious education.


Dictionary.com Unabridged (based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary) says:

a·re·li·gious /ˌeɪrɪˈlɪdʒəs/ [ey-ri-lij-uhs]

–adjective unconcerned with or indifferent to religious matters.

Irrelegious is similar, but different.


But - as I said, your ignorance is not my concern.


Am I going to have to quote you? Does the phrase, "while being areligious is attacked," sound familiar?


I'm not in England. Quote away. It's not ME they're attacking.

And... pointing out that a faction is being attacked... not an identity with 'whining'.


Keep saying that; maybe it will become true some day.

It did. You seem to be confusing cause and effect.

Irrelegious is similar, but different.


It's a very insignificant word, wikipedia just redirects it to irreligious.

The best weed comes from British Columbia.

But - as I said, your ignorance is not my concern.
I'm sorry, is my unwillingness to accept your neologism making you feel sad? Well too bad.
It did. You seem to be confusing cause and effect.
The only thing failing here is your English skills.

The pregnancy test came back positive?!

There absolutely IS a battle. While rights are granted according to religion, while preferences are given to the religious, and while being areligious is attacked, there absolutely is a battle.
Uhu... not in the UK, neither side is usually aggressive and irritating like this, and being an atheist is not something special, nor is being into whatever other religion you like.

I misread this as British Athletes indoctrinating the public :):p

It's a very insignificant word, wikipedia just redirects it to irreligious.

Okay. And... let me be perfectly clear that I'm understanding this here... this quibbling over the wording is ever so important?

I used a word that exists. Game over, one would have thought.

I used a word that - even if it hadn't already been coined - can be easily deduced from the etymology. Game well and truly over, one would have thought.

I don't care what wikipedia does - it's not the arbiter of language. I don't care if you deem the word 'insignificant' - I'm not using it for popularity. I use the words that fit my usage.


What is really kind of pathetic is - two people complaining about a word, who BOTH understood what it means, and who BOTH apparently looked it up and found evidence of it's existence... but STILL want to contest it.

I dislike this as much as I dislike religions indoctrinating people.

Uhu... not in the UK, neither side is usually aggressive and irritating like this, and being an atheist is not something special, nor is being into whatever other religion you like.

Simple advertisements are "indoctrinating people"?

And advertising one's views is being "aggressive and irritating"? I guess all those crosses on churches should come down.

Uhu... not in the UK, neither side is usually aggressive and irritating like this, and being an atheist is not something special, nor is being into whatever other religion you like.

That rather depends on perspective. As an atheist in the UK, I was often 'irritated' by the 'aggressiveness' of Christians.

Whether or not you think it 'special', there is discrimination. Both direct discrimination, and this unspoken discrimination.

I'm sorry, is my unwillingness to accept your neologism making you feel sad? Well too bad.


You apparently had nothing to add to the debate, and so concentrated on attacking my vocabulary.

As it turned out, I was right, and you were wrong...

I'm not quite sure why you think that would make me sad.


The only thing failing here is your English skills.

Again, all you bring to the table is vitriol. And, since you've been shown to be in error... it's not even good vitriol. Consider yourself excused.

This was my reaction (underlying any attempt at satire). I can't say I've ever seen a Christian poster on a bus, but even if they do exist, why would this be at all effective in changing people's minds? "There's probably no God" is hardly a statement that will change lives.

How about the Agnostic slogan?
"There may or may not be a God, we really dont know, and there isn't much point in guessing, now is there? Why dont we all just get along? I mean, come on, if there isn't a God, we can make life better here and now by being nice to each other, and if there is a God, then being nice to each other not only improvies this life, but might get you better treatment in the next. Oh, and stop lumping us in with Atheists."

That might be hard to fit into just one ad, though. You'd need to have it run the length of the bus. Maybe on one of those electric rotating signs or something.

No, I meant "religious oppression;" in the way that a kid working in a sweatshop is a victim of Capitalist Oppression.
That series of letters your using, it isn't a word.

You're the one whining about how much you're under "attack," not the sign people.

Spell check, Merriam-Webster and the Oxford Dictionary all agree, you're full of crap and neologisms. On Google, a search for "areligious" turns up fewer results than such non-words as "crappola" and "stooopid," and only slightly more results than "shittle."
Irreligious is a word, and it probable means what you seem to think "areligious" might mean.

Am I going to have to quote you? Does the phrase, "while being areligious is attacked," sound familiar?

Keep saying that; maybe it will become true some day.

You apparently had nothing to add to the debate, and so concentrated on attacking my vocabulary.

As it turned out, I was right, and you were wrong...

I'm not quite sure why you think that would make me sad.

Again, all you bring to the table is vitriol. And, since you've been shown to be in error... it's not even good vitriol. Consider yourself excused.

Whoa, whoa, people. Calm down.

On the one hand, I have trouble accepting the use of word that isn't found in the Oxford English Dictionary or most online dictionaries.

On the other hand, if the word does exist and we know what was meant by the word, why does it really matter?

Go to your respective corners and cool down. :wink:

Hallelujah!

Religion is indoctrination, if this inspires one person to have the confidence to break with it, then good.

-snip-

My main point was that if it's not the same as irreligious, then why does wikipedia redirect it to that? Remember, wikipedians get really anal about the correct definition towards your position on God as well.

I misread this as British Athletes indoctrinating the public :):p

You know, it wouldn't surprise me if they were. Britain is so unused to success that the gold medal winners are still getting congratulatory open-top bus parades and being interviewed on numerous daytime programmes (I know this because I'm a student, its my duty to know whats on daytime TV). Who is to say they aren't working together to use these numerous boring TV appearences to spread subliminal messages while the audience is in a semi-awake state?

You know, it wouldn't surprise me if they were. Britain is so unused to success that the gold medal winners are still getting congratulatory open-top bus parades and being interviewed on numerous daytime programmes (I know this because I'm a student, its my duty to know whats on daytime TV). Who is to say they aren't working together to use these numerous boring TV appearences to spread subliminal messages while the audience is in a semi-awake state?

DUNNNN DUNNNNN DUNNNNNN :eek:

DUNNNN DUNNNNN DUNNNNNN :eek:

I just hope the authorities catch up with them. Though they are quite fast.

I just hope the authorities catch up with them. Though they are quite fast.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1a_Z-ywTc4w True true :D

You apparently had nothing to add to the debate, and so concentrated on attacking my vocabulary.
My point was exhausted awhile ago.
1) You, like most atheists, have a martyr-complex, which is quite ironic and very annoying. Atheists are not a persecuted minority just because the King of Sweden has to be Christian, Jehovah's witnesses sometimes come to your door and some places won't sell you booze on a Sunday. As an atheist I have managed to get into a prestigious Western University, have several jobs, get along with my (fanatically religious) family and have never once felt my self in danger because of my lack of belief.
2) This particular stunt is simply hoping for an overreaction on the part of a few nutcases.
As it turned out, I was right, and you were wrong...
No. Areligious is not a word; it's not even commonly enough used to be slang. I'm not sure how much clearer I can make that. There are many perfectly serviceable words (Secular, Irreligious, Non-religious) that can be used instead, words that have a widely known and acknowledged meaning.

But if they're trying to distinguish themselves from religious institutions, why would they want to use similar tactics? Otherwise, they're just proselytizing like the very religious institutions they oppose (or hate, as appears to be the case with Richard Dawkins).

You assume that the problem is with proselytizing as such, rather than with proselytizing blatantly false and socially harmful doctrines.

iGod (http://www.titane.ca/concordia/dfar251/igod/main.html)

Awesome...

Me:
well, it wouldn't have to be a mystery if you let me know if god is a title or a name
God:
Interesting. Tell me more about it.
Me:
is this just the emacs psychiatrist function?
God:
Yes I think this is just the emacs psychiatrist function, but I'm not completely sure.
Me:
how can you not be sure, you're god?
God:
That is a good epistemological question.

How about the Agnostic slogan?
"There may or may not be a God, we really dont know, and there isn't much point in guessing, now is there? Why dont we all just get along? I mean, come on, if there isn't a God, we can make life better here and now by being nice to each other, and if there is a God, then being nice to each other not only improvies this life, but might get you better treatment in the next. Oh, and stop lumping us in with Atheists."

That might be hard to fit into just one ad, though. You'd need to have it run the length of the bus. Maybe on one of those electric rotating signs or something.

Hooray for the Agnostics!! All you atheists and religious people may or may not be wrong. So there you smug, unrealistic, think you know everything, you know what you ares. At least we hope you do.

Other people say they like vacuum cleaning robots, humanoid robots and chat robots.
Me:
Interesting
God:
Would you like to know more?
Me:
I'm not sure, would I?
God:
Could you ever be certain? I don't care.
Me:
Can't argue with that.
God:
Makes sense to me.
Me:
Me too!
God:
I'm glad we agree.

As I suspected, we're each our own god.

As I suspected, we're each our own god.
Yeah, I'm discovering this too...

God:
Perhaps. Ooops I sent you the wrong question.
Me:
you make a lot more mistakes than people say you do.
God:
Yup.
Me:
that must suck, dealing with those unrealistic expectations.
God:
What would you say?
Me:
if people thought I was perfect?
God:
That is a hypothetical question.
Me:
yes it is.
God:
Our thoughts are one, SARAH.
Me:
good to know.

My point was exhausted awhile ago.
1) You, like most atheists, have a martyr-complex, which is quite ironic and very annoying. Atheists are not a persecuted minority just because the King of Sweden has to be Christian, Jehovah's witnesses sometimes come to your door and some places won't sell you booze on a Sunday. As an atheist I have managed to get into a prestigious Western University, have several jobs, get along with my (fanatically religious) family and have never once felt my self in danger because of my lack of belief.
2) This particular stunt is simply hoping for an overreaction on the part of a few nutcases.

No. Areligious is not a word; it's not even commonly enough used to be slang. I'm not sure how much clearer I can make that. There are many perfectly serviceable words (Secular, Irreligious, Non-religious) that can be used instead, words that have a widely known and acknowledged meaning.

It's not a word, but you can offer me other words tha 'mean the same'.

The irony is delicious - but Cat is right. There is nothing to be gained from this sidetrack with you.

The Atheism bit might be worth taking up, but I don't want to get involved in why you think your martyr complex stretches any further than your own head. So... I'll just leave it, thanks.

As I suspected, we're each our own god.
It says so right there under her name.
There's been plenty of other clues too, you know.

It's not a word, but you can offer me other words tha 'mean the same'.
Generally, when using quotation marks, it is considered polite to actually, you know, quote someone. I never said they "mean the same," because "areligious" (not a word) is meaningless. I can guess at your meaning contextually, but I could do that if you'd said "Flarblanagers."
If you use a real word, however, I can grasp the full meaning, implication and tone of your statement.
The irony is delicious - but Cat is right. There is nothing to be gained from this sidetrack with you.
There would be irony if I had actually said, "mean the same." As I didn't, there isn't, so I have no idea what you're eating.
The Atheism bit might be worth taking up, but I don't want to get involved in why you think your martyr complex stretches any further than your own head. So... I'll just leave it, thanks.
I'm nobody's martyr. The world and Internet, however, are filled with atheists who wander around complaining that they're persecuted (cue the Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination_against_atheists)) and trying to make trouble for themselves.

I can't say I was surprised to read Dawkins was behind this.
He wasn't. I remember reading his comments when the BHA proposed the idea, and he stated at the time that he'd donate to the fund for it, but it certainly isn't one of his initiatives.

I'm completely ambivalent about the idea. On the one hand, I can see why the BHA would want to put their message out there as a counter to all the religious advertising that already appears on buses up and down the country, but on the other hand it doesn't seem like it'll do a great deal to change things. I suppose that just by stimulating some small amount of discussion it's a good thing, overall.

I do like this quote from the BBC article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7681914.stm), though...
But Stephen Green of pressure group Christian Voice said:
...
"People don't like being preached at. Sometimes it does them good, but they still don't like it."

Emphasis added, but priceless all the same. :tongue:

How dare they indoctrinate the true God-fearing public? The children could see this on their way to school and suddenly turn into amoral degenerates! Sunday schools must be made mandatory for all aged 3-15.

The best quote, however, comes from a Mr Stephen Green "of pressure group Christian Voice":



A good idea?

I do think it's a good idea, if only because it challenges the free ride that religion does tend to get in society. It's offensive, sure, but I've seen a lot of offensive bus ads, and I've not exactly gone into cardiac arrest or anything because of it.

I think though, that once the point is made, they should be taken off.

I remember when the laws changed to allow Sunday trading. Last time I was in the mothercountry (and this might have changed since) there were still things you theoretically, at least, couldn't buy on a Sunday.

Just down the road in Oireland a recent law* has banned the opening of off licenses** on certain days. Christmas and Easter Sunday are among them, IMS. Further, off licenses can't open until 12.30am on Sundays, Bank Holidays and St. Patrick's Day, as opposed to 10.30am every other day of the year.

I, for one, suspect it may be somewhat related to the Catholic tradition. Maybe I'm crazy, though.


*The Intoxicating Liquor Act 2008
** Liquor Store

*The Intoxicating Liquor Act 2008

One of those Acts that sounds great, but isn't.

One of those Acts that sounds great, but isn't.

When I heard the name I figured the government had gotten pissed and wrote some kind of crazy law.

I don't get the fuss. Does the UK not have religious ads? There are a bunch of religious billboard ads around town, and there's a Vineyard church that has ads on public transit right now. The Church of Scientology runs TV commercials. That's just what I can think of offhand, I know I've seen more. If an atheist organization wanted to put up an ad they'd have to pay the same money as everybody else. I don't see how it's different.

In fact, the idea offends me much less than the constant barrage of buy-this-so-you-can-improve-your-identity commercialism. I'm one of those people who can't not read things, so if I spend too much time in ad-space I start wishing I had Roddy Piper's sunglasses. I'd rather have ads that make me think.

EDIT: Having re-read the article, I see that the UK does have religious ads, so I understand even less why this is a news story. The fact that it is, whereas an evangelistic ad campaign would not be, does lend credence to the idea that atheism is somehow unusual or suspicious in a way that Christianity is not.

Atheism cannot fight against religion.
Not from the position of being an Atheist, anyway.

Here's why I dislike this: It ties opposition to Religion to a belief that God does not exist. The reasoning is akin to claiming that a belief that God does exist must be tied to a particular religious faith; the same sort of things that lead religions to war at the expense of humankind.

There are plenty of other channels through which Religion can be challenged; basic, consequentialist ethics being the most obvious. I would prefer it that Atheists did not jeopardize this necessary challenging by imposing their belief in a lack of God upon all others who would try to challenge it. It has the potential to undermine any attempts to change religious institutions by villainising those who would change it as "unbelievers" - a labelling that, however justified in one person, is clearly unfairly applied and unhelpfully applied if the whole of opposition to religion is branded by it.

I don't get the fuss. Does the UK not have religious ads?
Rarely. The big Religious presence in British media comes from radio and TV stations dedicated to Religion, and these are widely scorned when they engage in evangelical practice.

Rarely. The big Religious presence in British media comes from radio and TV stations dedicated to Religion, and these are widely scorned when they engage in evangelical practice.

That's what happens when you have an established church, I suppose.

72% of britain does not believe in a personal god.
Its just pandering to the masses

I don't get the fuss. Does the UK not have religious ads?
No.

LOL is it indoctrination if it isn't christian?

Evangelicals are doing far more indoctrination in the the UK than any atheist has! In fact, atheists are far less agressive and proactive about it than certain christian and muslim groups! Richard Dawkins is ONE atheist, one that (although I am also an atheist) I do not agree with! it is possible to be atheist without hating anyone that does believe in god or without insulting them, I just think I'm right and they are wrong just like they think the same about me, but that doesn't mean that I would go out and tell them that as long as they dont tell ME I'M wrong!

HOWEVER
Atheists have as much right to promote their religious views (or lack of them) as Christians and Muslims and Buddhists and Jews!

Generally, when using quotation marks, it is considered polite to actually, you know, quote someone. I never said they "mean the same," because "areligious" (not a word) is meaningless. I can guess at your meaning contextually, but I could do that if you'd said "Flarblanagers."
If you use a real word, however, I can grasp the full meaning, implication and tone of your statement.


My single apostrophes were used to indicate that it wasn't a verbatim reference. The point is (and you know it's the point, so I don't know why you're acting like you don't) that you clearly DID understand the meaning of the word - since you were capable of telling me what you thought the word was that I should have used.


There would be irony if I had actually said, "mean the same." As I didn't, there isn't, so I have no idea what you're eating.


The irony is that you understand the word well enough to offer alternatives, and even the word you THINK I mean... and yet you STILL argue that it's not the right word.

You can't even show that the word isn't used, because you already acknowledged that there ARE sources confirming it... you just don't think there are enough, or something.

So - the irony is that you're pitching a fit about me using the wrong word... despite the fact that you're ALSO acknowledging the implicit rightness of the word, by being able to suggest synonyms.


I'm nobody's martyr. The world and Internet, however, are filled with atheists who wander around complaining that they're persecuted (cue the Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination_against_atheists)) and trying to make trouble for themselves.

You brought up the martyr argument. No one else did. You claim it's an atheist phenomenon, and claim to BE an atheist in the same post.

So - it's only reasonable to assume you are the sort of atheist-whining-about-martyrdom that you are complaining about.

Rarely. The big Religious presence in British media comes from radio and TV stations dedicated to Religion, and these are widely scorned when they engage in evangelical practice.

No.

Well, we do in Sheffield. On our buses, no less.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,443705,00.html

Who's actually tried herding cats, anyways? Or atheists, for that matter? Yee-haw, gettalong little heathen...

Well, its far more interesting than the Starbucks ads they run on buses around me.

Do you think anyone's lifestyle will be dramatically altered based on what they read on the side of a bus?

I love how they call it an 'anti-god' campaign. No, the whole point of these ads is to raise awareness of the fact that atheists exist is significant numbers, and to let other atheists know that they aren't alone.

Leave it to Fox news...

Rolling squid;14129919']I love how they call it an 'anti-god' campaign. No, the whole point of these ads is to raise awareness of the fact that atheists exist is significant numbers, and to let other atheists know that they aren't alone.

But if there's no God aren't we all alone?

But if there's no God aren't we all alone?

Yes, but we're all alone together. Also, I love your username.

We've already had a thread on this...

But if there's no God aren't we all alone?

No more than you were a few seconds before you found it out...

Ah, missed it. And by missed it I mean I didn't look.

I think this is the late response to the old "Think God" campaign.


God would be pissed if he wasn't dead

http://www.brownsteins.net/RichsFamily/FamilyPhotos/George%20Burns.jpg

We've already had a thread on this...

Eight pages worth:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=569847

God would be pissed if he wasn't dead
God is dead.
-Nietzsche

Nietzsche is dead.
-God

So christians can post signs everywhere telling me im going to suffer for all eternity if i dont worship their invisible super power and when an atheist does the same its big news? Classic religon for you.

So christians can post signs everywhere telling me im going to suffer for all eternity if i dont worship their invisible super power and when an atheist does the same its big news? Classic religon for you.A couple British cities don't count as "everywhere", silly =P

But if there's no God aren't we all alone?

look around you. Do you see god? can you feel god? can you hear god? Now ask the same questions about other people. Which makes you feel more welcomed, hanging out with friends, or praying?

Pfft, real atheists would fund an ad campaign where it says "Bow down to the almighty Thor ye mortals!"

It's not ignorance of God's non-existence that is responsible for the popularity of theism. People *like* believing lies. Why waste money trying to convince the irredeemably stupid? I just wish I was good at lying so I could become one of those rich evangelists.

Who's actually tried herding cats, anyways?

I've herded Pakistani truckers, which is quite similar.

It's not ignorance of God's non-existence that is responsible for the popularity of theism. People *like* believing lies. Why waste money trying to convince the irredeemably stupid? I just wish I was good at lying so I could become one of those rich evangelists.

You don't even have to be good at it - see scientology.

Pfft, real atheists would fund an ad campaign where it says "Bow down to the almighty Thor ye mortals!"

I assume this is supposed to be funny, although I have yet to work out why?

I assume this is supposed to be funny, although I have yet to work out why?

Because Norse gods are awesome - Chuck Norris was actually a Norse god, but he quit because he was too awesome for them.
And because it makes no sense.

Because Norse gods are awesome - Chuck Norris was actually a Norse god, but he quit because he was too awesome for them.
And because it makes no sense.That's kinda sad, actually. :)

Ought not religion be a private matter?

The Eleventh Commandment: Thou Shalt Keep Thy Religion to Thyself.

The Eleventh Commandment: Thou Shalt Keep Thy Religion to Thyself.

The Twelfth Commandment: Love thy neighbor, but keep it down in the middle of the night.