Kevin's Watch

In response to religious groups advertising on the sides of London buses, this......

CAMPAIGN

The Atheist Bus Campaign launches today, Tuesday October 21 2008. With your support, we hope to raise £5,500 to run 30 buses across the capital for four weeks with the slogan: "There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life."

Professor Richard Dawkins, bestselling author of The God Delusion, is officially supporting the Atheist Bus Campaign, and has generously agreed to match all donations up to a maximum of £5,500, giving us a total of £11,000 if we reach the full amount - enough for a much bigger campaign. Our campaign partner, the British Humanist Association, will administer all donations.

With your help, we can brighten people's days on the way to work, help raise awareness of atheism in the UK, and hopefully encourage more people to come out as atheists. We can also counter the religious adverts which are currently running on London buses, and help people think for themselves.

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

www.justgiving.com/atheistbus

Reminds me of wishful pondering I used to do driving through N. Ireland's bible belt, where there would be roadside messages along the lines of 'Jesus Saves'. I wanted to do my own signs, things like 'Jesus Surfs'.

Wouldn't the opposite of Jesus Saves be Jesus Spends?

And that brings to mind my idea of opening a bank call The Bank of Jesus Christ. Who wouldn't trust their money in a bank with that name?? I'd be rich in no time!

I'd donate 50p.

--A

Hey Av, remember we were talking about how atheists don't push their beliefs on others?

As I understand it, the religious groups in question had ads/slogans that condemned all non-Christian passengers as hell-bound. If that's the case, I'm not surprised atheists are annoyed...

Pointless and Childish... both Atheist and Christians

Haven't people got better things to do with their time other than to push their beliefs down people's throats?

Richard Dawkins... he is meant to be an intelligent man, right? Why the hell is he wasting his time with silly campaigns like 'Atheists for Jesus' and this Bus plus others he has done. Surely he has other things in his life.

Cybrweez wrote:Hey Av, remember we were talking about how atheists don't push their beliefs on others?

I'd scarcely call a bus-side advert pushing though.

--A

Richard Dawkins sucks.

CovenantJr wrote:As I understand it, the religious groups in question had ads/slogans that condemned all non-Christian passengers as hell-bound. If that's the case, I'm not surprised atheists are annoyed...

Heh...

Well said.

Advertising isn't pushing? Another post laments the bus ads and why both sides have to push their beliefs. I think the average person would say ads are pushing something. That's why you advertise.

But as in politics, its hard not to see what we want to.

"There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life."

Scarcely a hard-sell I think.

--A

For God's sake, I think Ichthys on the back of cars are obnoxious. Anyone who seeks to advertise their own morality makes me a little sick. To me, that is the complete anathema of the message of Christ. I actually do think it's funny when atheists poke fun at these things (the "Darwin Ichthys with feet), but it's really probably even more obnoxious.

But then, you can't fault someone who adamantly believes in the damnation of non-believers for trying to convert. We make think those beliefs are foolish, but as long as they are somewhat polite about it it's not worth getting angry about.

The Dreaming wrote:For God's sake, I think Ichthys on the back of cars are obnoxious. Anyone who seeks to advertise their own morality makes me a little sick. To me, that is the complete anathema of the message of Christ. I actually do think it's funny when atheists poke fun at these things (the "Darwin Ichthys with feet), but it's really probably even more obnoxious.

But then, you can't fault someone who adamantly believes in the damnation of non-believers for trying to convert. We make think those beliefs are foolish, but as long as they are somewhat polite about it it's not worth getting angry about.

Agree on the latter point.
I question, though, whether people really know what "the message of Christ" was. If our understanding of it is wrong, then nothing that we think about it follows. IMO, very few people trouble to read everything that Christ actually said and look at it as a whole. Most people find one or two things, take them out of context, and call that "the message of Christ".

It wasn't the JEWS who killed Jesus, it was the Pharisees. Most Christians today (evangelicals especially) seem to me to be the moral equivalent of the Pharisees. I tend to find anyone who wears their morality like a shirt or a gaudy purse to be fairly obnoxious. People who make a point of carrying a bible with them everywhere and reading it in front of other people, for example.

I am a huge Deist though. Truly Christian behavior is so rarely seen. The focus of most Christians couldn't possibly be farther from their own actual "behavior". Does the validity of transubstantiation really make a huge difference in following the message of Jesus?

I agree with your sentiments about show-off Christianity and the fruits of one's true beliefs (as opposed to professed beliefs) being seen in one's life - but that doesn't address my point about knowing precisely what Christ was about, what He was doing here, or as you put it what exactly His message was.

For Lewis, Deism was part of a logical transition from atheism. It in its turn led to theism, which ultimately led him to Christianity.

The Dreaming wrote: It wasn't the JEWS who killed Jesus, it was the Pharisees.

The Pharisees were Jews. They were the religious leaders of the time among the Jewish people.

The Dreaming wrote: People who make a point of carrying a bible with them everywhere and reading it in front of other people, for example.

They carry the word of God with them and actually read it in front of others and thats a bad thing? Sounds to me like they are following the word they are given where we are told to not 'hide it under a bushel'. Should they instead be ashamed of their Christianity and hide it from all others so as not to offend anyone?

What those that wear t-shirts w/any saying on them, are they a problem as well? Bumper stickers? Seems kind of silly to point out bible readers.

I see nothing wrong with trying to persuade people to believe what you believe. It is just the continuation of a dialog we've been having for thousands of years. Isn't that better than using the space to sell potato chips or antiperspirant?

Richard Dawkins sucks.

Care to explain? Have you read any of his books?

I read The God Delusion. I respect Dawkins's work in evolutionary biology (I am a layman; I can do no more than respect it), but as a polemicist I consider him to be very poor. Terry Eagleton's review of it in the London Review of Books basically sums up my opinions on Dawkins. The first sentence says it all: "Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the Book of British Birds, and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard Dawkins on theology." I was saying recently here to rusmeister that I am not fond of theology. That said, one cannot refute theological claims (God exists) without understanding that field. His style is absolutely shrill ("appallingly bitchy" in Eagleton's words) and totally incapable, I think, of convincing anyone who does not want to be convinced. He is extraordinarily arrogant about his claims and the veracity of them, and this always shows through in his writings. I agree with his fundamental claim (God probably does not exist); but the method in which he does it offends me. Rather similar is Christopher Hitchens, who is far and away the better stylist and more amusing writer.

I've started God Delusion awhile ago, and only got thru Intro and Chapter 1, altho I'd like to continue. But that's already given me enough to know, as LM says, his arguments aren't convincing in the least. I've certainly heard alot better here.

In fact, after reviewing my brief notes, I remember now most of those first 2 sections were whining about religion, acts done in its name, the wall of security it has in certain countries, etc. Not exactly the stuff of great thought.

In the intro, he talks about the ills of religion, using specific examples, and then the benefits of atheism, using examples. Is that supposed to be some objective view? Ignoring the good religion has brought about, and the negatives of religion [EDIT: atheism]? In all seriousness, its whining. I think this is what LM means when he says Dawkins only convinces those who want to be convinced.