"No God" adverts to run on bendy buses in London

[BlueLancer]

People get sued when they teach about there being a god in school

 

 

 

My Social Studies teacher is teaching us about Hinduism and Buddhism, and he isn't sued?

 

Because those aren't real gods. Jesus and his father are. :lol:

 

 

 

More people follow hinduism and buddhism than christianity :lol: [/appeal to popularity]

 

 

 

Pastors are usually a great source of comfort to those in need, no strings attached.

 

 

 

At least where I come from, pastors would help anyone coming to them seeking for it, regardless of their religion, skin color, age, social status... That's one good part of religion, now that I think of it, I can't ever recall meeting discriminating or unfriendly ministers of any faith. The imams I've met as well were extremely tolerant and helpful.

[whiteguy]

Egypt introduced new identity cards in 2004 which identifies each citizen of Egypt as one of three religions: Muslim, Christian or Jewish. No other entries are possible, nor is it possible to leave the space for religion blank. If atheists are unwilling to lie about their religion, they are denied many basic human rights. Egyptian atheists cannot obtain birth certificates, death certificates, marriage or divorce certificates or passports. Without identity cards they have no access to medical treatment, cannot vote, cannot be employed, cannot do business with banks, not even to withdraw money from their own bank accounts.

 

 

 

This treatment is a requirement of Sharia law, which is the basis of the Egyptian constitution.

 

 

 

 

 

This is very wrong.

 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination_against_atheists

 

 

 

 

 

As for the ads, i don't really care, if you can have religious ads on buses, why not atheists? I would probably cheer up if i saw one of them after a bad day. :D

[RichieMcD]

Wow, are you [bleep] kidding? People get sued when they teach about there being a god in school, but it is perfectly legal to advertise there being "no god"? Holy [cabbage] what has this world come to?

 

 

 

If a church is allowed advertise "come to St. Johns church on 'x' street and receive salvation" on public transport then I think Atheists should be allowed propose their message that there is no god, the religious one is a form of fear while the way BHA did it was in a manner of trying to help people relax.

[warri0r45]

Wow, are you [bleep] kidding? People get sued when they teach about there being a god in school, but it is perfectly legal to advertise there being "no god"? Holy [cabbage] what has this world come to?

 

 

 

We're talking about advertising here, not teaching things in school. People can advertise any concept they want others to buy into, and religion freely does that all the time. The fair thing would be to let atheists do the same, which is basically the topic at hand here.

 

 

 

When it comes to school, I'm sure a teacher would get just as much flack, if not more, if they said to kids that "there is no god" during class. Especially so in the America, where probably 70-80% of the students would go home and tell their parents who would then seek to get the teacher fired, if not seriously disciplined.

 

 

 

School is basically where kids go to get an objective education with no influence for or against religion. Advertisement is vastly different - it's an auction of ideas where the highest bidder gets to spruik the crap they're selling.

[Ginger_Warrior]

Wow, are you [bleep] kidding? People get sued when they teach about there being a god in school, but it is perfectly legal to advertise there being "no god"? Holy [cabbage] what has this world come to?

 

You should really understand the UK education system before you criticise it. Both my primary school and my secondary school were state-run comprehensives, and we frequently prayed in assemblies, not necessarily to a Christian entity, but praying nonetheless. We also have compulsory RE classes (which I don't oppose) where we were taught about other people's faiths, beliefs and stances on certain controversial issues such as abortion, the environment, the manifestation of God (etc.). Religious speakers are allowed to come in with a standard CRB check, and they did come in from time to time. I remember the local Imam came in a few times (my school had a high Muslim population).

 

 

 

As others have said, there is a distinction between advertising there may not be a God, and teaching in schools there definitely isn't a God.

 

 

 

So, what has this world come to? Well, nothing you should really be afraid about, unless you're against people thinking for themselves.

 

 

 

Errdoth - here's the difference:

 

[hide=]

 

OMG IT BENDS! AWESOME!!!

 

 

Boring...[/hide]

[Mercifull]

http://www.justgiving.com/atheistbus

 

 

 

Target: £5,500. Donations recieved: £53,788.24 lol

[BlueLancer]

http://www.justgiving.com/atheistbus

 

 

 

Target: £5,500. Donations recieved: £53,788.24 lol

 

 

 

Hah, so typically british. Although a donation amount this big would've probably happened in any nordic country too. (for american comparison, that's about $100,000, while the target was just $11k)

[angryjoe]

Just one guy gave £500! :o

[Sly_Wizard]

lol @ the whole "encouraging people to think for themselves" line. If you're into the whole "thinking for yourselves" thing, then why are you still using arguments some Greek guys (Mainly Lucretius and Democritus) thought up over 2,000 years ago? #-o

 

 

 

D'oh!

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

And this is why I stand by comment that Richard Dawkins is an idiot. A monkey makes more sense than he does.

[Nadril]

I can't take you seriously when you continue to actually state that Richard Dawkins is an idiot Sly. Just because you don't understand what he is saying doesn't mean it doesn't make sense.

[Sly_Wizard]

I can't take you seriously when you continue to actually state that Richard Dawkins is an idiot Sly. Just because you don't understand what he is saying doesn't mean it doesn't make sense.

 

 

 

Okay. Let's try this another way. How about this statement?

 

 

 

"Atheism is tantamount to communism."

 

 

 

Just because you don't understand what it means, doesn't mean it doesn't make sense.

 

 

 

Edit: Like I said earlier, Richard Dawkins is an idiot because he can't form one, just one, cogent argument against religion and God. His entire argument is as such ---> "You're an idiot if you believe in God. And only because I say so." But, hey, since you don't see anything wrong with that, then you shouldn't have any problem with my above statement ;)

[Ginger_Warrior]

Edit: Like I said earlier, Richard Dawkins is an idiot because he can't form one, just one, cogent argument against religion and God. His entire argument is as such ---> "You're an idiot if you believe in God. And only because I say so." But, hey, since you don't see anything wrong with that, then you shouldn't have any problem with my above statement ;)

 

Paley argued that, just as a watch is too complicated and too functional to have sprung into existence merely by accident, so too must all living things, with their far greater complexity, be purposefully designed. According to Dawkins, however, natural selection is sufficient to explain the apparent functionality and non-random complexity of the biological world, and can be said to play the role of watchmaker in nature, albeit as an automatic, nonintelligent, blind watchmaker.[50]

 

How is the theory of evolution not a cogent argument against the theory of creationism, given the weight of empirical evidence behind it?

[Sly_Wizard]

Edit: Like I said earlier, Richard Dawkins is an idiot because he can't form one, just one, cogent argument against religion and God. His entire argument is as such ---> "You're an idiot if you believe in God. And only because I say so." But, hey, since you don't see anything wrong with that, then you shouldn't have any problem with my above statement ;)

 

Paley argued that, just as a watch is too complicated and too functional to have sprung into existence merely by accident, so too must all living things, with their far greater complexity, be purposefully designed. According to Dawkins, however, natural selection is sufficient to explain the apparent functionality and non-random complexity of the biological world, and can be said to play the role of watchmaker in nature, albeit as an automatic, nonintelligent, blind watchmaker.[50]

 

How is the theory of evolution not a cogent argument against the theory of creationism, given the weight of empirical evidence behind it?

 

 

 

I am totally going to direct you towards the 19th century with the advent of theistic evolution which stated that there was nothing fundamentally conflicting with the theory of evolution in relation to the Bible (Of course, the Catholics were late to the party as even in 1931 they still held the view that the theory of evolution was incompatible with the Bible in relation to man. It was okay to believe that plants and animals evolved, though).

 

 

 

And, before you come out and say it, creationism =/= ID.

[Cup Lion]

The message has some advantages and disadvantages:

 

 

 

Actually, to be honest, I can't think of any advantages. I was literally typing out that a person could think, I shouldn't be worrying about all the bad things I do in life. I should just live it. Yet, that seems like a sad approach to life.

 

 

 

Another person could think, Hell, there probably isn't. I might as well go out, party, get drunk, have sex, and all that jazz while I am alive. I won't get another shot at it.

 

 

 

It wouldn't get me to think at all; unless it provides a link to an atheist site or something, I would just see it as a poor attempt to advertise the idea of atheism.

[Ginger_Warrior]

Edit: Like I said earlier, Richard Dawkins is an idiot because he can't form one, just one, cogent argument against religion and God. His entire argument is as such ---> "You're an idiot if you believe in God. And only because I say so." But, hey, since you don't see anything wrong with that, then you shouldn't have any problem with my above statement ;)

 

Paley argued that, just as a watch is too complicated and too functional to have sprung into existence merely by accident, so too must all living things, with their far greater complexity, be purposefully designed. According to Dawkins, however, natural selection is sufficient to explain the apparent functionality and non-random complexity of the biological world, and can be said to play the role of watchmaker in nature, albeit as an automatic, nonintelligent, blind watchmaker.[50]

 

How is the theory of evolution not a cogent argument against the theory of creationism, given the weight of empirical evidence behind it?

 

 

 

I am totally going to direct you towards the 19th century with the advent of theistic evolution which stated that there was nothing fundamentally conflicting with the theory of evolution in relation to the Bible (Of course, the Catholics were late to the party as even in 1931 they still held the view that the theory of evolution was incompatible with the Bible in relation to man. It was okay to believe that plants and animals evolved, though).

 

 

 

And, before you come out and say it, creationism =/= ID.

 

So really, what you're saying is this.

 

 

 

Any argument made against the concept of there being a God is met by the Church with a "Well, the Bible really said that anyway. We were just taking a 'literal' stance before".

 

 

 

How am I supposed to take an organisation that flip flops that much, whilst being openly hostile against Atheists who might find out more evidence to cast doubt over God's existence seriously?

 

 

 

Because, you see, while we can't prove God doesn't exist, we certainly have strong amounts of evidence to suspect he doesn't. You, however, have none at all, except the teachings of someone who claimed to be God in human form.

 

 

 

You're clearly into metaphorical comparisons. If I walk into a courtroom as a solicitor and go "My client is the Son of God, and he teaches people to love and be fair to each other. Anyone who says otherwise just hates him and all that follow him", would that honestly stand as a defence?

 

 

 

No.

 

 

 

So really, what I'm asking is this: If you have a problem with the message on this bus, give me one cogent argument to suggest God does exist.

[Sly_Wizard]

So really, what you're saying is this.

 

 

 

Any argument made against the concept of there being a God is met by the Church with a "Well, the Bible really said that anyway. We were just taking a 'literal' stance before".

 

 

 

Pee emm gee.

 

 

 

I know the educational system in the U.K. can't be this bad. The theory of evolution has nothing to do with God nor does it have anything to do with arguing against a concept of God nor does it, in the words of RD, lead one towards atheism. Either you really don't understand the theory of evolution, or you're just being obtuse for fun.

 

 

 

Oh, and for the record, if-- Yeah, that's a big if-- You knew anything about Christianity you'd know that it was argued by St. Augustine way back in the fourth century that Genesis should not be interpreted literally. But I'm guessing you knew that. It's not some new phenomenon which just popped up.

 

 

 

How am I supposed to take an organisation that flip flops that much, whilst being openly hostile against Atheists who might find out more evidence to cast doubt over God's existence seriously?

 

 

 

A.) I don't feel like pointing out to you that it took approximately twenty-five years for most social sciences to accept the theory of evolution, which was slightly less time than it took for most major religious denominations to accept the theory of evolution.

 

 

 

B.) Stated yet again, the theory of evolution has nothing to do with God or about casting doubt on his existence. You really don't understand the theory of evolution, do you?

 

 

 

Because, you see, while we can't prove God doesn't exist, we certainly have strong amounts of evidence to suspect he doesn't. You, however, have none at all, except the teachings of someone who claimed to be God in human form.

 

 

 

Hold on a second.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lemme' see your "strong amounts of evidence to suspect he doesn't [exist]". This shall be fun. Very fun, indeed. I "strongly suspect" you're going to try to pass science of as [seriously can't think of the term now lol] but, whatever. Go ahead and amuse me.

 

 

 

You're clearly into metaphorical comparisons. If I walk into a courtroom as a solicitor and go "My client is the Son of God, and he teaches people to love and be fair to each other. Anyone who says otherwise just hates him and all that follow him", would that honestly stand as a defence?

 

 

 

No.

 

 

 

Minus two points for not understanding the basis of religious beliefs. Care to try again?

 

 

 

...Oh, and hooray for not understanding that the aim of defenses isn't to prove anything, but rather show why and how something could be true.

 

 

 

So really, what I'm asking is this: If you have a problem with the message on this bus, give me one cogent argument to suggest God does exist.

 

 

 

You haven't been reading my responses. Stated for the third time, I don't care.

[Ginger_Warrior]

I'll ignore the rest of the post. I understand the Theory of Evolution perfectly well and I'm willing to bet my qualification in Biology is higher than yours, although warrior's is probably highest here so let's leave the "you don't understand Evolution" semantics to him.

 

 

 

If you can't see how the Theory of Evolution directly contradicts the Bible then you're just being ignorant, quite frankly. Even if you don't feel it does, it doesn't matter, I do and it's me you're trying to convince.

 

So really, what I'm asking is this: If you have a problem with the message on this bus, give me one cogent argument to suggest God does exist.

 

You haven't been reading my responses. Stated for the third time, I don't care.

 

So in other words, you've got nothing against these ads then?

[Sly_Wizard]

I'll ignore the rest of the post. I understand the Theory of Evolution perfectly well and I'm willing to bet my qualification in Biology is higher than yours, although warrior's is probably highest here so let's leave the "you don't understand Evolution" semantics to him.

 

 

 

How much do you want to bet on that? :lol: Unless you've got a graduate degree, then I don't think it is.

 

 

 

If you can't see how the Theory of Evolution directly contradicts the Bible then you're just being ignorant, quite frankly. Even if you don't feel it does, it doesn't matter, I do and it's me you're trying to convince.

 

 

 

...And, as I said, it doesn't since the theory of evolution, much like all of science, attempts to provide naturalistic explanations to naturalistic phenomena. You have yet to explain how this contradicts the Bible. I mean, we know how the sun, the Earth and the moon formed. Does this contradict the Bible? Just because you claim evolution invalidates the Bible over and over again doesn't make it so. Unless you can show me, in the Bible, where it gives a scientific claim to as to how God created plants, animals, man etc., then you're just speaking out of your, well, you know. The only possible argument you can make for the theory of evolution being contradictory to the Bible is by applying your own literalist interpretations to Genesis (Which, stated yet again, have been argued against as early as the 4th century), but then you'd only be speaking for yourself and not anyone else.

 

 

 

You have no argument.

 

 

 

So in other words, you've got nothing against these ads then?

 

 

 

Stated for the fourth time, I don't care about the ads.

[lordkafei]

I don't have a problem with the ads - and actually, I quite agree with the message of them.

 

 

 

BUT

 

 

 

These will just serve as a magnet for every extremist nutjob in London with extra duct tape & explosives.

 

 

 

 

Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and it annoys the pig.

 

[Ginger_Warrior]

I'll ignore the rest of the post. I understand the Theory of Evolution perfectly well and I'm willing to bet my qualification in Biology is higher than yours, although warrior's is probably highest here so let's leave the "you don't understand Evolution" semantics to him.

 

 

 

How much do you want to bet on that? :lol: Unless you've got a graduate degree, then I don't think it is.

 

If we're going by who has a higher qualification in evolutionary biology wins, then RD's credentials wipe the floor with yours any day, believe me. ;)

 

 

 

...And, as I said, it doesn't since the theory of evolution, much like all of science, attempts to provide naturalistic explanations to naturalistic phenomena. You have yet to explain how this contradicts the Bible. 1) I mean, we know how the sun, the Earth and the moon formed. Does this contradict the Bible? Just because you claim evolution invalidates the Bible over and over again doesn't make it so. Unless you can show me, in the Bible, where it gives a scientific claim to as to how God created plants, animals, man etc., then you're just speaking out of your, well, you know. The only possible argument you can make for the theory of evolution being contradictory to the Bible is by applying your own literalist interpretations to Genesis (Which, stated yet again, have been argued against as early as the 4th century), but then you'd only be speaking for yourself and not anyone else.

 

How many interpretations of a story do you want? I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, the whole point of that story is to give one explanation as to how we're even living on this Earth. It seems daft you'd try to argue I'm selecting the wrong one.

 

 

 

1) Interesting you should say that, when the Church at one point argued the Sun orbited around the Earth, and not the other way around.

[Lenticular_J]

I just think he talks too much about stuff that just isn't his specialty. And he isn't a good talker, despite how often he does it.

 

 

 

Hold on, I just noticed something. The ads are running on the bendy buses, right? So that means the straight buses are good enough for you atheists? Man.

 

 

 

Also, you know what would be the most hilarious thing ever? If, the day the ads started running, every bus broke down. Hehe.

 

 

 

Interesting you should say that, when the Church at one point argued the Sun orbited around the Earth, and not the other way around.

 

If we're bringing once upon a times into this, once upon a time, scientists didn't know how to make fire.

[Sly_Wizard]

If we're going by who has a higher qualification in evolutionary biology wins, then RD's credentials wipe the floor with yours any day, believe me. ;)

 

 

 

Ummm... No kidding. Which is why I've never said anything bad about him as a biologist, where's he's actually quite brilliant. It's the fact that he's a terrible theologian who makes pathetic arguments which essentially boil down to "You're an idiot" I have a problem with.

 

 

 

How many interpretations of a story do you want? I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, the whole point of that story is to give one explanation as to how we're even living on this Earth. It seems daft you'd try to argue I'm selecting the wrong one.

 

 

 

Not what I'm saying. To say your interpretation is right and then declare that everyone who doesn't believe the same as you to be wrong is, well, it's hypocritical considering you lambaste others for doing the exact same thing.

 

 

 

1) Interesting you should say that, when the Church at one point argued the Sun orbited around the Earth, and not the other way around.

 

 

 

...So did science? What's your point? I don't think you really want to get into a "Who has argued wrongly" more debate as I can name quite a few scientific theories (Or, should I say, hypotheses) which were accepted for a fairly long-time with those who argued otherwise being ridiculed.

[monkeyboo2]

 

How many interpretations of a story do you want? I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, the whole point of that story is to give one explanation as to how we're even living on this Earth.

 

 

 

Yes...Maths time :)

 

So baring in mind the idea that 100% of the point of that story was 'to give an explanation as to how we're even living on this Earth' (or something similar-that is a quote)... How much % of the point of the story is to tell the truth or give an atall accurate account of what happened?

 

 

 

(either literally or any interpretation)

 

 

 

You see where i'm coming from? Its simply a story to fill (falsely) a gap in knowledge. Nothing in the story can help you about the origins of the Earth. It is based on no evidence.

[Faux]

Dawkins is intelligent. But he is a troll.

 

 

 

He has the best job ever. Earning $$$$ just by trolling religious peeps.

[MuffinMaddy]

I'm a Christian, but honestly I don't care if buses have signs like this. Anyone who converts religions because the bus said so is an idiot. Now if it's accompanied by anti-god protests then I'd be concerned, but the freedom to practice religion isn't just in the US, so I can't really do anything about it. Oh well. I'm not going to let bus ads interfere with my faith. Of course some people will be offended, that's perfectly natural. These bus ads are basically saying every belief in a god is wrong. As for me? I'm gonna get on with my life. Not that the people offended are wrong, because I am annoyed by this as well, it's just that I know that fighting it is a hopeless case. It's just bring a bad name to theistic religions when we protest.

 

 

 

In my opinion, that is the perfect reply. I'm a Christian but like many other people have said, atheists should be able to put up messages too. I'm not exactly supporting it, but I'm not against it.