Man refuses to drive 'No God' bus

[Blank]

Man refuses to drive 'No God' bus

 

I was surfing around the news site and this caught my eye. What are your opinions on the subject?

 

I have two things:

 

1) If I ever go to England, I will not patronize First Bus, after reading this statement, "As an organisation we don't endorse any of the products or sentiments advertised on our buses. The content of this advert has been approved by the Advertising Standards Agency and therefore it is capable of being posted on static sites or anywhere else."

 

In my opinion, if you put an advertisement on your bus, you are endorsing that advertisement. People are responsible for allowing someone else to use their property as a platform to send a message. If you want to pretend, "Oh, well, the advertisement is on my property and thus we propagate the message, but that's not our fault, because we as an organisation leave it up to others to filter what goes on and off our property to be propagated." Seriously people, be aware of what is getting painted onto your buses, and don't give that cop out response if something you don't want to propagate ends up on there.

 

2) I appreciate that the Bus Driver cared about what the message implied, even though the message is true on the literal level, because using just 'probability', of course there is not much to support the existence God. Science, math, and statistics never could prove God and they never have claimed to. That said, I think the driver noticed the implications of the advertisement, and I'd say it's an intellectually irresponsible campaign on the part of whichever atheist decided to make it, because it assumes the premise that things that are probable are the only things that matter. In reality, things that are not probable matter quite a bit. It's more of a sadly un-witty bumper sticker than anything.

 

 

Feel free to agree, disagree, or lurk.

Edited January 16, 2009 by Blank

[Volourn]

The bus driver stood up for what he believed in so good on him. I think the bus company handled it well as they told him he wouldn't have to drive buses with that slogan.

 

As for the troublemaking punks who paid for the advertisement, it's obvious just a way to anger people and start trouble. That's all it is - spitefulness 'revenge'. Only a hateful person would go out of their way to purposefully antagonize others in such a public manner.

[Gorgon]

Tell me, how is an advert with the message 'there is no god', different from one that says 'there is one'.

 

Religions across the board are allowed to make all sorts of wild claims regarding the nature of the universe, but when atheists do it it's somehow insensitive. I don't get it.

[qt3.14159]

I like this quote from TFA: "Pressure group Christian Voice has questioned the campaign's effectiveness but the Methodist Church said it would be a "good thing if it gets people to engage with the deepest questions of life" and suggested it showed there was a "continued interest in God". "

 

The slogan "There's probably not a god, so stop worrying and enjoy life" is pretty ridiculous. Most people seek out religion for comfort. It helps them stop worrying, ie "let go, let god."

[Volourn]

"Tell me, how is an advert with the message 'there is no god', different from one that says 'there is one'.

 

Religions across the board are allowed to make all sorts of wild claims regarding the nature of the universe, but when atheists do it it's somehow insensitive. I don't get it."

 

Because this athiest one wa sintended to do nothing but incite and anger. ie. It's the equivelant of real life trolling. It was done out of hatred, and malice along with some spite and vengeful because of the religious messages. The only thing they're trying to accomplish here is drive a wedge of hatred. Which is funny because athiests like to claim the moral high ground all the time. Absolutely pathetic.

 

btw, I'm not religious. I used to be; but not anymore. But, there's no need for such hateful actions.

[J.E. Sawyer]

Cool, I guess I won't see/hear any more people saying, "IT'S MERRY CHRISTMAS NOT HAPPY HOLIDAYS DEAL WITH IT!"* or "JESUS IS THE REASON FOR THE SEASON!"** next year like I have for the past... well, my entire life, I guess.

 

Folks with strong religious beliefs often vote and consequently legislate according to their beliefs. Anyone who lived in California during the Prop 8 ballot understands just how much of an effect someone else's beliefs can negatively impact another person's life. Non-religious or anti-religious people have to deal with faux-persecution complexes thrown in their faces by religious folks all the time (please see the previously listed statements which are used un-ironically all over the U.S.). If anyone is so enraged by a statement as mild as, "There's probably no god," that they are filled with hatred, they should not be interacting with other human beings in 21st century societies. Anyone who reacts to a benign pro-religious message in such a manner is similarly unfit.

 

The advertisement wasn't purchased out of hatred or malice; it was purchased because atheists/agnostics/humanists are an extreme minority and have virtually no voice and certainly no public representation in societies like the U.K. or U.S. Whether you believe the statement in the ad or not, it's saying the same thing that any pro-Christian ad spreading the gospel would be. "Good news: you're saved!" "There's no god, so you can go about your life without worry!" It's only considered audacious because atheists/agnostics/humanists aren't expected to come out and publicly say the fundamental thing they believe/don't believe.

 

It can be pretty hard for a person to come out and say that they believe something that's extremely unpopular. And by "extremely unpopular" I mean that it has been proven time and again that Americans (in particular) view atheists as the least trustworthy minority. Bringing something like this into the public consciousness just makes it that much clearer. But it also says to atheists/agnostics/humanists, "It's okay to believe what you believe."

 

* ignores Kwanzaa, Chanukah, Eid al-Adha, etc.

** ignores Mithras, Sol Invictus, Saturnalia, etc.

[Pavlos]

The advertisement wasn't purchased out of hatred or malice; it was purchased because atheists/agnostics/humanists are an extreme minority and have virtually no voice and certainly no public representation in societies like the U.K. or U.S. Whether you believe the statement in the ad or not, it's saying the same thing that any pro-Christian ad spreading the gospel would be. "Good news: you're saved!" "There's no god, so you can go about your life without worry!" It's only considered audacious because atheists/agnostics/humanists aren't expected to come out and publicly say the fundamental thing they believe/don't believe.

I wouldn't agree with that, you know. The Church of England is essentially a political institution and there is a long-standing tradition in the Commons that if you mention the man upstairs you get nudged down the hall (i.e. to the Lords) and out of office.

 

The U.K. is very much a secular society... and 15% or so of the population are atheists according to the last Census, I believe. If you factor in agnostics then I imagine the number is much higher.

Edited January 17, 2009 by Pavlos

[Tigranes]

Honestly, I've got no problem with atheist *or* religious adverts, as long as they don't directly incite hatred or are focused on negatively portraying 'the other side'. Atheists have just as much right to claim that there is 'probably no God' as, say, christians have to claim his certainty; they have just as much right to imply that a religious life is not an enjoyable one (which is a stupid and illogical train of thought, but never mind for now) as Christians have to imply that a faithless life is without direction and morality.

 

But I also understand what the driver would feel like essentially being the man that ensures the message gets across town, so I think it's well handled by him and by First Bus (who know better than to get mired into the debate by posting anything other than bland neutral comments).

 

"IT'S MERRY CHRISTMAS NOT HAPPY HOLIDAYS DEAL WITH IT!"

 

Some westerners get really up in arms about that. Never mind that the date was chosen to drown out Saturnalia at least, as you mention. Australia this Christmas got absolutely furious when some Post Offices didn't have decorations up - radio caller-ins would imply that this was because the Post Office franchises are mostly owned by "the other lot", "the folk who don't celebrate Christmas and instead celebrate... whatever they celebrate".

 

Going hyper-PC on Christmas is just as stupid as bigots that get up in arms about that PC.

[Darth InSidious]

The advertisement wasn't purchased out of hatred or malice; it was purchased because atheists/agnostics/humanists are an extreme minority and have virtually no voice and certainly no public representation in societies like the U.K. or U.S.

 

With respect, Mr. Sawyer, that is utter twaddle. You may have perfectly well described the situation in the U.S., but in the U.K. the situation is entirely different. The number of atheists in the country has been estimated at between 36 and 44%, and while around 70% of the country claims to be some form of Christian, a 2005 poll by the EU found that only 38% of people in the country believe in a god and 40% believe in some sort of vague "spirit life-force" thing. As to those who claim a religious affiliation, over half have never even been to a service.

 

As for representation, there are many, many non-religious Lords and MPs, and a distinct bias in Parliament against practicing a religion; at least one man was disbarred from a health committee for being a practicing Catholic.

 

Furthermore, groups like the British Humanist Association and the National Secular Society are highly effective and organised in lobbying parliament, raising awareness of their cause(s) in the public eye and in pushing forward their agenda - much more so than the wrong-footed, disorganised and poorly-publicised attempts of the religious lobby groups that exist here.

 

We may speak the same language, have the same cultural origins and even share some principles, but we are not you.

** ignores Mithras, Sol Invictus, Saturnalia, etc.

Sol Invictus was invented by Aurelian in 274. The earliest references to Christmas dated to December 25th come from around 240.

 

Saturnalia was celebrated 17th-23rd of December, and the modern exchange of gifts was popularised by Clement Clarke Moore (in England at least, it was traditional in the Middle Ages to exchange gifts on New Year's.) Current scholarship asserts that the date was chosen for Christmas because it was nine months after the Annunciation (March 25th).

 

M. Junianus Justinus tells us that the Mithraic cults borrowed from Christianity, and comparisons between the nebulously transcendent mystery-cult deities and the insistedly real Jesus are likely to prove fruitless, tbh.

Edited January 17, 2009 by Darth InSidious

[Volourn]

"Folks with strong religious beliefs often vote and consequently legislate according to their beliefs."

 

Um.. this is true for anyone. Religion is irrlevant as last i checked everyone (barring those who 'sell' their votes) vote based on their beliefs. As well they should.

 

 

"The advertisement wasn't purchased out of hatred or malice"

 

Sure it was. The guy who purchased it pretty much admitted it when he basically mocked anyone who believes differently than him. And, the reason for ourchase was not to make people aware but was to counter another message so in essence he just did it one up somebody else in an insulting way. *shrug*

[J.E. Sawyer]

With respect, Mr. Sawyer, that is utter twaddle. You may have perfectly well described the situation in the U.S., but in the U.K. the situation is entirely different. The number of atheists in the country has been estimated at between 36 and 44%, and while around 70% of the country claims to be some form of Christian, a 2005 poll by the EU found that only 38% of people in the country believe in a god and 40% believe in some sort of vague "spirit life-force" thing. As to those who claim a religious affiliation, over half have never even been to a service.

 

As for representation, there are many, many non-religious Lords and MPs, and a distinct bias in Parliament against practicing a religion; at least one man was disbarred from a health committee for being a practicing Catholic.

 

Furthermore, groups like the British Humanist Association and the National Secular Society are highly effective and organised in lobbying parliament, raising awareness of their cause(s) in the public eye and in pushing forward their agenda - much more so than the wrong-footed, disorganised and poorly-publicised attempts of the religious lobby groups that exist here.

 

We may speak the same language, have the same cultural origins and even share some principles, but we are not you.

Really? If you live in such a pointedly secular society, then why is this news? There's also a significant difference between not claiming a religious affiliation and declaring a non-religious affiliation.

 

EDIT: My apologies. Let me clarify: I believe that UK still has a strong religious element in it. I don't want to equate the UK's religious culture with the US's, but I do think you're downplaying the secularism of the UK too much.

 

Sol Invictus was invented by Aurelian in 274. The earliest references to Christmas dated to December 25th come from around 240.

 

Saturnalia was celebrated 17th-23rd of December, and the modern exchange of gifts was popularised by Clement Clarke Moore (in England at least, it was traditional in the Middle Ages to exchange gifts on New Year's.)

My point is that the Saturnalian tradition of gift-exchange pre-dates the Christian tradition and many other festivals currently (and previously) existed around this time. So when folks crow about Jesus "being the reason for the season" they're ignoring that many other festivals and traditions occur around this time, some before and some after the formalization of "Dec 25 = Christmas, let's burn yule logs around the Christmas tree and give gifts."

 

Current scholarship asserts that the date was chosen for Christmas because it was nine months after the Annunciation (March 25th).

Lots of cultures and religions have practiced celebrations and traditions around December. So when people say, "Jesus is the reason for the season!" and "It's Merry Christmas, not happy holidays!" they are pointedly invalidating not only the beliefs of non-religious people, but the beliefs of non-Christian people who currently celebrate (and in ancient times, also celebrated) around December.

 

M. Junianus Justinus tells us that the Mithraic cults borrowed from Christianity, and comparisons between the nebulously transcendent mystery-cult deities and the insistedly real Jesus are likely to prove fruitless, tbh.

Well, as long as we're talking about the "insistedly real" Jesus, I don't think (m)any scholars believe he was actually born in December, much less December 25th, so it's a man-selected day, no matter what.

[J.E. Sawyer]

"Folks with strong religious beliefs often vote and consequently legislate according to their beliefs."

 

Um.. this is true for anyone. Religion is irrlevant as last i checked everyone (barring those who 'sell' their votes) vote based on their beliefs. As well they should.

When people pass legislation that negatively affects you and has no practical impact on their lives (the implications of religious voting on Prop 8, for example), there is often a desire to undermine what some would view as the irrational source that motivates people to vote in that way.

 

 

"The advertisement wasn't purchased out of hatred or malice"

 

Sure it was. The guy who purchased it pretty much admitted it when he basically mocked anyone who believes differently than him. And, the reason for ourchase was not to make people aware but was to counter another message so in essence he just did it one up somebody else in an insulting way. *shrug*

Richard Dawkins didn't personally buy this ad. The ad was purchased by the British Humanist Association.

 

http://www.humanism.org.uk/bus-campaign

 

"The advertisements were designed as a response to particular hellfire-and-brimstone adverts; our slogan is an affirmation for people that it

[Blank]

Cool, I guess I won't see/hear any more people saying, "IT'S MERRY CHRISTMAS NOT HAPPY HOLIDAYS DEAL WITH IT!"* or "JESUS IS THE REASON FOR THE SEASON!"** next year like I have for the past... well, my entire life, I guess

...

It can be pretty hard for a person to come out and say that they believe something that's extremely unpopular. And by "extremely unpopular" I mean that it has been proven time and again that Americans (in particular) view atheists as the least trustworthy minority. Bringing something like this into the public consciousness just makes it that much clearer. But it also says to atheists/agnostics/humanists, "It's okay to believe what you believe."

 

* ignores Kwanzaa, Chanukah, Eid al-Adha, etc.

** ignores Mithras, Sol Invictus, Saturnalia, etc.

I hear what you say. I agree. My main two points have more to do with the cop-out response First Bus made ("As an organisation we don't endorse any of the products or sentiments advertised on our buses"), and the intellectual dishonesty of someone saying that probability directly correlates with relevancy. It would be pathetic for a Christian, in my eyes, or anyone for that matter, to be filled with hatred or distrust for someone on account of a billboard.

 

I am saddened by the way some religious fanatics act, and I am especially ashamed by some actions of those who call themselves Christians.

Edited January 17, 2009 by Blank

[Tigranes]

cop-out response First Bus made

 

Again, it only makes sense to cop out. It would have been suicide to do anything else in the current climate.

[Blank]

cop-out response First Bus made

 

Again, it only makes sense to cop out. It would have been suicide to do anything else in the current climate.

You're right. They probably made the most business-smart decision. I just find it lame since I'm not a business.

 

By the way, Sawyer, I love your work.

Edited January 17, 2009 by Blank

[Darth InSidious]

Really? If you live in such a pointedly secular society, then why is this news?

Why, indeed? Possibly because some minority religious groups feel a need to kick up a stink over it, and there are more than a few hacks desperate to fill up space. And, of course, the BHA will have put out an announcement when the campaign was announced months ago.

 

There's also a significant difference between not claiming a religious affiliation and declaring a non-religious affiliation.

There's also a difference between talking about the country you were born in, raised in, and have lived in for the best part of thirty years, and making enormous generalisations that don't hold.

 

But seriously, though, you're splitting hairs here. The point is that the UK is one of the most secular countries in Europe, has very low religious attendance and is for all intents and purposes atheist or agnostic.

Sol Invictus was invented by Aurelian in 274. The earliest references to Christmas dated to December 25th come from around 240.

 

Saturnalia was celebrated 17th-23rd of December, and the modern exchange of gifts was popularised by Clement Clarke Moore (in England at least, it was traditional in the Middle Ages to exchange gifts on New Year's.)

My point is that the Saturnalian tradition of gift-exchange pre-dates the Christian tradition and many other festivals currently (and previously) existed around this time. So when folks crow about Jesus "being the reason for the season" they're ignoring that many other festivals and traditions occur around this time, some before and some after the formalization of "Dec 25 = Christmas, let's burn yule logs around the Christmas tree and give gifts."

Indeed their were other holidays at this time, but the one which the current practice descends from is ultimately a combination of the Christian tradition and 19th Century literary figures promoting it (cf: Dickens, et al.)

 

In the US it may also relate to continuing tradition in Europe, but over here the celebration fell out of use following the Reformation due to being considered "Romish".

 

Current scholarship asserts that the date was chosen for Christmas because it was nine months after the Annunciation (March 25th).

Lots of cultures and religions have practiced celebrations and traditions around December. So when people say, "Jesus is the reason for the season!" and "It's Merry Christmas, not happy holidays!" they are pointedly invalidating not only the beliefs of non-religious people, but the beliefs of non-Christian people who currently celebrate (and in ancient times, also celebrated) around December.

While I agree in principle, in practice terms like "Happy Holidays" I find annoyingly sickly and part of this rather bizarre move, at least over here, to attempt to make out that all religions preach basically the same thing. Personally, I'd far rather go through the lengthy process of wishing people "Happy Ramadan", or Chanukah, or Kwanzaa, or Sol Invictus and get the actual date right than lump them all together in this way, but that's just me.

 

M. Junianus Justinus tells us that the Mithraic cults borrowed from Christianity, and comparisons between the nebulously transcendent mystery-cult deities and the insistedly real Jesus are likely to prove fruitless, tbh.

Well, as long as we're talking about the "insistedly real" Jesus, I don't think (m)any scholars believe he was actually born in December, much less December 25th, so it's a man-selected day, no matter what.

First, I don't get what this has to do with my point about the Mithraic cults; I was contrasting the vague way in which Mithras was represented and worshipped with the way in which Jesus was understood - and by many still understood - as a historical figure. Second, whether or not it is a man-selected date, that seems to ignore the reason that they selected it for.

 

EDIT: It's 2 A.M. here, and exciting though this rapier-like intellectual cut-and-thrust is, I'm tired and, frankly, could be playing MotB right now.

Edited January 17, 2009 by Darth InSidious

[J.E. Sawyer]

There's also a difference between talking about the country you were born in, raised in, and have lived in for the best part of thirty years, and making enormous generalisations that don't hold.

Again, my apologies for the over-generalization. The UK is much more secular than the US.

 

While I agree in principle, in practice terms like "Happy Holidays" I find annoyingly sickly and part of this rather bizarre move, at least over here, to attempt to make out that all religions preach basically the same thing. Personally, I'd far rather go through the lengthy process of wishing people "Happy Ramadan", or Chanukah, or Kwanzaa, or Sol Invictus and get the actual date right than lump them all together in this way, but that's just me.

When addressing individuals, I agree. But often when these phrases are spoken or printed, they are addressing larger sections of the populace. In an effort to be inclusive (at least in the US) many people will say or print "Happy Holidays". E.g. a business manager sending out warm wishes before a "late-December" break. The US backlash attempts to say, "No, it's Christmas booyah!" which is factually incorrect in its exclusivity and has the side-effect of being very obnoxious for people celebrating other things (or not).

 

First, I don't get what this has to do with my point about the Mithraic cults; I was contrasting the vague way in which Mithras was represented and worshipped with the way in which Jesus was understood - and by many still understood - as a historical figure. Second, whether or not it is a man-selected date, that seems to ignore the reason that they selected it for.

All of these dates (with the exception of Winter Solstice, I guess) are man-selected. Christians have no special claim over this time of year because the historical Jesus almost certainly wasn't born in December -- that's ultimately all I'm trying to say: many people have well-founded reasons to celebrate things in December! Aggressively suggesting otherwise is obnoxious.

[WILL THE ALMIGHTY]

Good for him.

 

But I really really like that slogan. Makes me happy.

[Hurlshort]

I'm confused how this is an advertisement at all. What exactly is the goal of this campaign?

 

I understand why churches advertise. They are trying to get people to attend their business. I have no idea what atheists are trying to achieve by advertising.

[Gorgon]

Churches are on the government tit most places, they don't need customers, they get paid either way.

[WILL THE ALMIGHTY]

I'm confused how this is an advertisement at all. What exactly is the goal of this campaign?

 

I understand why churches advertise. They are trying to get people to attend their business. I have no idea what atheists are trying to achieve by advertising.

Trying to make people live for today? At least they're not advertising any product.

[Gorgon]

The advertising campaign is backed by the British Humanist Association and prominent atheist, Professor Richard Dawkins.

 

Hanne Stinson, chief executive of the British Humanist Association, said: "I have difficulty understanding why people with particular religious beliefs find the expression of a different sort of beliefs to be offensive.

 

The reason for the ad is for people to have the same discussion we are having now.

[Blank]

While I agree in principle, in practice terms like "Happy Holidays" I find annoyingly sickly and part of this rather bizarre move, at least over here, to attempt to make out that all religions preach basically the same thing. Personally, I'd far rather go through the lengthy process of wishing people "Happy Ramadan", or Chanukah, or Kwanzaa, or Sol Invictus and get the actual date right than lump them all together in this way, but that's just me.

When addressing individuals, I agree. But often when these phrases are spoken or printed, they are addressing larger sections of the populace. In an effort to be inclusive (at least in the US) many people will say or print "Happy Holidays". E.g. a business manager sending out warm wishes before a "late-December" break. The US backlash attempts to say, "No, it's Christmas booyah!" which is factually incorrect in its exclusivity and has the side-effect of being very obnoxious for people celebrating other things (or not).

 

All of these dates (with the exception of Winter Solstice, I guess) are man-selected. Christians have no exclusive claim over this time of year because the historical Jesus almost certainly wasn't born in December -- that's ultimately all I'm trying to say: many people have well-founded reasons to celebrate things in December! Aggressively suggesting otherwise is obnoxious.

Agreed. I think it's hard to be 'politically correct' these days toward a crowd when even trying to include everyone offends some.

 

It's also hard to know what exactly the early Christian church was thinking when they set 'Christmas' on December 25th. If you think of it from one point of view, they were trying to take over the season to oust the 'pagans', but from another point of view, what do you expect people who are trying to be righteous to do? Should they not provide fellow Christians with a 'righteous' celebration of their own to give an alternative to the 'pagan' holidays? I don't suggest Christ was born in December, but it makes sense for Christians to have a holiday of their own instead of being party poopers for a whole season while others are out doing whatever it is people did for the winter holidays.

[Hurlshort]

Churches are on the government tit most places, they don't need customers, they get paid either way.

 

Um, what?

 

A church is only as strong as its congregation. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but you make it sound like churches just get free money from he government. They get serious tax breaks, but they have to raise money in order to get the tax break on it. The state doesn't just give money to every guy with a bible and a pulpit.

[Calax]

I don't know, I think that the outrage that a group is advertising that there is no god when they are quite happy advertising for their own religion seems like they're holding themselves to a lower standard than the agnostics/atheists. The whole thing about Christmas is IMHO stupid, there is no war on christmas (like FoxNews is always trying to point out), just the fact that more people celebrate things around December than Christians.

 

Also didn't the Catholic Church steal Jesus's birthday from a pagan god so that those pagans would worship him as their primary deity?

 

And something that I want to ask Catholics, Why do you sprawl so much belief and worship on the feet of Jesus and Mary instead of on your God?