Atheist bus campaign

I don't find anything wrong with the ad campaign. The courts have not deemed atheism or agnosticism obscene as far as I know so I can't really see what the problem is.

mystic fred wrote: Saying  "there is probably no God"  is not the same as saying "there is no God", is it...not really a true Atheist statement at all

As an atheist, I'm going to have to disagree with you here.  Anyone who thinks they know enough to say either "there is a god" or "there is no god" is arrogant and full of sh*t.

All you need to be atheist is to recognize that God is a bad answer to the questions it tries to answer, and from that assume that he probably doesn't exist.  Even Richard Dawkins admits this.

progismylife wrote: 1) I find it amusing that they don't have the balls to say there is no God.

Why do you find it amusing that they're not arrogant idiots?   Does it invalidate your entire view of atheists as a whole?

A Christian who says "there is a God" is dumb.  An atheist who says "there is no God" is dumb.

2) Why is the thought of God something to worry about?

Well people seem to do it a lot, which is what the sign is referring to.


Edited by Pnoom! - February 27 2009 at 07:21

One thing I want to clear up:

Everyone worth talking to is an agnostic to some degree.  I may be 99% sure there isn't a god, but that missing 1% is greater than the difference between being 99% percent sure there is a God and 99% sure there isn't, in terms of which positions are tenable.

The way religious people have set up the concept of God (or, supposing God actually exists, the nature of God) means that it is fundamentally unknowable, and therefore uninteresting.

Pnoom! wrote: The problem is that militant atheism is annoying, just like militant christianity is annoying.

Agreed but I hardly consider this militant. It's like those "Beef. It's what's for dinner" commercials to vegetarians.

The Doctor wrote: So now the atheists are becoming just as evangelical as the Christians and other religions.  I must say, that even as a lifelong agnostic, this kind of "preaching" offends me.  Why can't people just leave their religion, or lack thereof, at home and/or church and stop harrassing others.  Also, I would say that there can be no real point to that message except to offend others.

. I

Sometimes it seems to me that atheism has become as much a religion as religion itself. I am an agnostic too, but I believe that mutual respect is the foundation of any human interaction, and I don't like people (including some here) who state that religion is the root of all evil, or (even worse) that all religious people are idiots. EVen though I had very negative experience with some religious people, I have also met some who were perfectly decent human beings. I strongly believe that, if religion was totally removed from the world, humans would find other ways to hurt each other - be it sport, politics, music, or whatever else.

The sad thing about the whole debacle is that atheists can do anything to make Christians not go reactionary as hell or scare the crap out of primitive people. (Note: not all Christians are primitive, nor even most).

I actually find the position of atheism hard to maintain and have yet to meet a true atheist. what most so-called atheists reject is a certain image of a deity, which admittedly is a very wide-spread one. however, that has nothing to do with denying God per se. let me make this more explicit:
what are the three attributes which God is supposed to have? well, they are omnipresence )in space and time), omnipotence and omniscience. now let us look if there is something to which all these three attributes can be ascribed. and indeed there is something like that: the cosmic process (I seriously hope no-one will reject the existence of the cosmic process; I could also name it "evolution", if you like that better. and evolution is more than just the evolution of species).
so what about the cosmic process? it is obviously omnipresent in space and time. it is also omnipotent, because anything that CAN happen does happen in it. and it appears to be omniscient too, in a way, since scientists have found out that the universe is like a hologram, in which every little part contains the whole already.
the question which remains is: does the universe have a consciousness? well, how do you know other people have a consciousness? can you see it? no, you derive it from their actions because you believe you yourself have a consciousness too. and through this consciousness we plan our actions. but the consciousness of others is invisible to us, yet we have no doubt whatever they have one. then why do you suddenly have a doubt about a universal consciousness? only because you find no "organ" where this consciousness is supposed to be in?
scientist have absolutely NO IDEA where our consciousness comes from; they can't locate it anywhere in the brain. yet they are forced to believe in it because they see its effects. should we then not believe in a universal consciousness too, simply because we see its effects?
as already mentioned,atheists fight an image of God which has been widely propagated, which I call the "old man with the beard" image. it is the image of God the interferer and God the punisher which they reject. this is why one of the most used arguments of atheists is the challenge to point out one of God's acts. but ths is simply ridiculous; it is the position of having the cake and eating it. it is trying to reduce God to a kind of juggler and asking some tricks of him, why the heck should a truely divine being have the need to interfere with the creation? this atheist argument is absurd right from the start.
so what atheists actually do is create an image of God, which they then reject. but that, however, has nothing to do with rejecting God as such; they only reject a certain widespread image of him/her.
so I repeat: I have yet to meet a true atheist. so far I have not found a single one



Edited by BaldJean - February 27 2009 at 08:21

stonebeard wrote: BaldJean wrote: I actually find the position of atheism hard to maintain and have yet to meet a true atheist. what most so-called atheists reject is a certain image of a deity, which admittedly is a very wide-spread one. however, that has nothing to do with denying God per se. let me make this more explicit: what are the three attributes which God is supposed to have? well, they are omnipresence )in space and time), omnipotence and omniscience. now let us look if there is something to which all these three attributes can be ascribed. and indeed there is something like that: the cosmic process (I seriously hope no-one will reject the existence of the cosmic process; I could also name it "evolution", if you like that better. and evolution is more than just the evolution of species). so what about the cosmic process? it is obviously omnipresent in space and time. it is also omnipotent, because anything that CAN happen does happen in it. and it appears to be omniscient too, in a way, since scientists have found out that the universe is like a hologram, in which every little part contains the whole already. Evolution clearly seems to be unguided and random, and in itself indicates nothing to me of consciousness, let alone omniscience.   BaldJean wrote: the question which remains is: does the universe have a consciousness?   I don't know. I haven't felt anything of the sort and there doesn't seem to be really good evidence for it, so why posulate it and maintain it? BaldJean wrote: so what atheists actually do is create an image of God, which they then reject. but that, however, has nothing to do with rejecting God as such; they only reject a certgain widespread image of him/her. so I repeat: I have yet to meet a true atheist. so far I have not found a single one   Atheists just either critique theological arguments (which can be sophisticated) or the common perception of God. I know of no one who builds up a "straw God" just to knock it down.

first of all: evolution is not random at all, and you have not understood even a bit of evolution if you really believe it is. actually I would find it harder to believe in a random evolution than to believe in God. fortunately no-one ever said evolution is random, neither Darwin nor Dawkins nor anyone. the mutation part of evolution is random; the selection part is not random at all. a random evolution would have led to completely random results. while a single event in evolution may appear random (let's say, a predator killing a pray), there nevertheless is a pattern, just like a single quantum event is random, and yet there is a pattern to them, else there would not be the percentages we can give to a certain quantum effect to happen. the famous two slot experiment with light will form a pattern on the wall, though each of the quantum effects that happens when a photon passes one of the two slots is totally random

Trouserpress wrote: And yes, speaking as an atheist myself, I find the whole campaign really quite annoying. It's smug, patronising and a terrible waste of money.

Hey, you really need to stop complaining and eat your sardines.

stonebeard wrote: (Note: not all Christians are primitive, nor even most).

Funny that you should mention that because there is a branch of a church near me called the Primitive Baptist Church.  What I find really amusing is that they actually have a website: http://www.pb.org/

Don't believe me?  Here's an actually picture of one.



Here's an even more primitive one:


But wait, there's more:
http://www.google.com/search?q=primitive+baptist+church&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a


Edited by Slartibartfast - February 27 2009 at 10:30

I  hate these self righteous morons. The self-appointed THOUGHT police.Anyone who takes offence to that should take some happy pills or leave the planet. I thought it was hilarious when it was first proposed. I gotta get a few of those stickers.
There`s a black magic store here in Montréal and there`s this idiot who shows up from time-to-time and throws holy water all over it.