Man refuses to drive 'No God' bus

[Aristes]

For my part, I think someone should be allowed to advertise, within reason, an atheistic viewpoint. That is to say, atheists should have the same leeway as religious folks. I also think it's prefectly legitimate to refuse to drive a bus based on the atheist message in much the same way an atheist should not be forced to work in a hostile environment by driving around in a bus something akin to "Believe in God. You have no moral compass if you don't."

 

However, I will take issue with a few things. Some posters here, SteveThaiBin springs to mind, say that I should think. I assume deep thoughts. *shrug* Okay. Maybe I'm not quite as well read as Steve or J.E. or ~Di or... well, you get the picture. On the other hand, maybe I am. Are we going to compare reading lists or something? Start a book group?

 

The other issue is the idea that all folks who voted for Prop 8 did so based on relgious beliefs. I vote for Prop 8, for reasons I explained clearly in a different thread, and religion had no part in my reasoning in the least. There were some religious groups and people who spoke against Prop 8. Since I discard, out of hand, that denying homosexuals the right to marry is the moral equivalent of holding another human being in bondage, denying people of color the right to vote, or forcing native americans to live on government designated reservations, I find the over the top sort of hand wringing over the issue distasteful. Do you think Homosexuals should have the right to marry one another? I do. Did you vote for Prop 8? I did. Hey, maybe the California Supreme Court will overstep its bounds again and overturn a constitutional ammendment. In either case, religion was clearly not the motivating factor for me. I'm Catholic. Of course, having voting against... 24 I think it was, I've already added my voice to those who believe homosexuals should have the right to marry. I just don't think the Supreme Court of California should have overtuned the results on prop 24.

 

Some atheists are hostile to religion. Some religious folks are hostile to atheists. However, the double standard argument really fails on a variety of levels, but most of all because the biggest advantage atheists have over religious people is a message of tolerance. Should atheists be allowed to attack religion? Sure, but I don't think it's the most effective way to get your message across.

 

Finally, I have worked under atheist supervisors in the past who openly ridiculed my religion, either for being a Roman Catholic or having religion at all. I have two specific bosses I could cite right now who on more than one occasion openly and vigorously attacked my religion. Now, I didn't file a grievance or take it up higher. I sucked it up and engaged in good natured debate as much as possible. Since I didn't need either job, I didn't back down from the discussion, but I wonder about folks who have a job they need and an employer who actively attacks their religious beliefs. I'll tell you right now, it is absolutely stupid for any of you to think that fanatical atheists won't act like every other religious group when in possession of power. They will use it to persecute people with alternate views.

 

So pardon me if this statement pertains to people like me: "[n]on-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.)." I think having my supervisor tell me more than once, "only ignorant people are religious," or having another supervisor reprimand me for saying, of all things, "God bless you" after she sneezed is probably a bit beyond the pale. I don't go around bringing this up as a way of saying I was persecuted, although I've heard atheist complain about far less, but rather as an answer to the idea that religious folks aren't 'really' faced with the sorts of things atheist claim as persecution in their own lives.

 

All in all, I don't have a lot of animosity for atheists or opposing religious views. I know a lot of folks on this board are atheists, at least from what I've read, and I don't hold it against them. I appreciate folks who differentiate between religious bigots and people who are religious just as I try to see the difference between hostile atheists and folks who simply have no faith or need in religion. As far as messages go, the idea that folks should consider, "What if there is no God?" is probably a good one. Every religious person should ask and answer that question at the very least on the intellectual level if nothing else.

[Calax]

I donno, but it seems like every time an atheist does something that seems somewhat political media hounds do their best to pick up on it because they (and the majority of America) seem to think that atheism/agnostics are very small portions of the population. For example, A few years ago a man decided to try to sue to remove the words "In God we trust" from the money that we all use. Now IMHO the government oversteps its bounds in that they add that little line to absolutely everything that they do, heck even our justice system uses it, but from what I was led to believe in High School was that the government of the United States would not under any circumstances show preference to any particular religion. While this has been used for hilarity, I also think it has been largely ignored by our heads of state because America during it's formulative years was primarily Christian. Now this may seem to most people like a little thing but ask yourself, why would an A-religious state have God specifically mentioned in most of it's politics.

 

I thought that the Bruhaha over "OMG Obama is going to swear in on a Koran(I know that's not the right spelling but whatever)!" was a little bit too much of religion entering the American political arena. I personally think that a church or religion should be concerned more with the spiritual health of it's flock and less with operations of government. I guess Religious groups just want it to be easy for them to get practitioners by making it so you go to church on sunday, and the rest of the year national law prevents you from sinning. I always thought part of being a good christian was that you were shown vice and/or sin and you were strong enough in will to turn away from it. With the way Churches are trying to influence our politics they would prefer that their flocks never be put to the test. I mean how can you gauge the spiritual health of your congregation without knowing that either did or didn't fight off the temptations put before them.

 

IMHO Tend to your practitioners, leave the governing to the people.

[Volourn]

"IMHO Tend to your practitioners, leave the governing to the people."

 

The problem with that from a religous person's views is that the law often legislates morality so something the religion allows may be actually illegal which leads to potential prison time doing something the law finds punishable. So, of course, religious people are gonna voice their opinion and influence politics - just as any other group would with laws that effect them. *shrug*

 

btw, It's one thing to 'test' one's faith.. it's another to be stuck with a no win decision.

[~Di]

... I vote for Prop 8, for reasons I explained clearly in a different thread, and religion had no part in my reasoning in the least. There were some religious groups and people who spoke against Prop 8. Since I discard, out of hand, that denying homosexuals the right to marry is the moral equivalent of holding another human being in bondage, denying people of color the right to vote, or forcing native americans to live on government designated reservations, I find the over the top sort of hand wringing over the issue distasteful. Do you think Homosexuals should have the right to marry one another? I do. Did you vote for Prop 8? I did. ..

 

That makes no sense to me. You say you believe homosexuals have the right to marry... then you vote for Prop 8, which amends the California constitution preventing homosexuals from marrying. You say that denying homosexuals the right to marry is the "moral equivalent of holding another human being in bondage", and yet you voted for that very thing, denying homosexuals the right to marry.

 

I'm pretty danged confused by your position at this point. Could you clarify?

[Calax]

eh, I'd be a believer if this happened to me:

 

meanwhile back in normal town

 

The problem with that from a religous person's views is that the law often legislates morality so something the religion allows may be actually illegal which leads to potential prison time doing something the law finds punishable. So, of course, religious people are gonna voice their opinion and influence politics - just as any other group would with laws that effect them. *shrug*

 

btw, It's one thing to 'test' one's faith.. it's another to be stuck with a no win decision.

So it's ok to bend the will of a country to fit your personal moral standard but it's not ok for said country to bend itself to another s moral standard because they are heathens?

 

I'm also confused by your statement "so something the religion allows may be actually illegal which leads to potential prison time for doing something the law finds punishable". Now the way I've been taught is that generally you try to make everyone play nice in the sandbox by making rules that generally prevent things like theft and murder, other areas like, say polygamy are legislated because of intense pressure by the religious groups, Honestly? The only religious practice I can think of that'd get you tossed in jail includes either the death of another, or polygamy, and even then polygamy doesn't seem to be all that much enforced.

Edited January 18, 2009 by Calax

[Blank]

Here's what the wife of the dude said,

 

"As the wife of the bus driver concerned I am proud that he stood up for his convictions. I am fully aware of the wide range of views on this subject for and against the advert by those with and without faith.

 

I do accept that some religious advertising may be blatant and dogmatic. I understand why the lady who started the campaign may have found offence. But I understand it was a website. A website you choose to visit. This advert is 'in your face', whether you like it or not. I have not personally seen anything equivalent on public transport.

 

Atheists are all for promoting freedom of speech, and there is freedom of action too, and that is exactly what my Husband did. He acted on his convictions. Thank God for freedom and I really mean that!

 

Is God offended? - using the words of the advert 'probably', but then, He knows what humans are like and He does not have a self-image problem."

Frances Heather, Southampton"

Edited January 18, 2009 by Blank

[Stephen Amber]

but I wonder about folks who have a job they need and an employer who actively attacks their religious beliefs

 

This assumes time, or a lack of duties, making such discussions possible in the first place. If someone brought up "god" where I work he'd get some really strange looks.

[Aristes]

... I vote for Prop 8, for reasons I explained clearly in a different thread, and religion had no part in my reasoning in the least. There were some religious groups and people who spoke against Prop 8. Since I discard, out of hand, that denying homosexuals the right to marry is the moral equivalent of holding another human being in bondage, denying people of color the right to vote, or forcing native americans to live on government designated reservations, I find the over the top sort of hand wringing over the issue distasteful. Do you think Homosexuals should have the right to marry one another? I do. Did you vote for Prop 8? I did. ..

 

That makes no sense to me. You say you believe homosexuals have the right to marry... then you vote for Prop 8, which amends the California constitution preventing homosexuals from marrying. You say that denying homosexuals the right to marry is the "moral equivalent of holding another human being in bondage", and yet you voted for that very thing, denying homosexuals the right to marry.

 

I'm pretty danged confused by your position at this point. Could you clarify?

 

I don't want to turn this thread into a prop 8 discussion, and so I will limit my answer to say that you misread my previous post. To say that denying homosexuals the right to marry is the equivalent of slavery or disenfranchisement is laughable. Other than that, I've spent a lot of time stating my position regarding prop 8. I merely point out that at least one person who voted for prop 8 did not do so based on religion. I guess I might be alone.

[Azure79]

Yay, another religion/atheist topic.

 

I don't have any strong religious belief personally, although I was raised Christian and then Catholic. Then I turned 15, didn't want to wake up early to go to church and I was too big for either of my parents to force me out of bed. Thus began my descent into disinterest in religion.

 

Hmm, I'm not sure what I classify as. I don't believe there is any sort of malicious/benevolent supreme being up there in the sky, watching to see if we are faithful to him/her/it/whatever. I don't think it all ends when we take our final breath either. Will it be heaven or hell or reincarnation, maybe just darkness. Personally I'm a big fan of reincarnation. Hopefully I stack up enough good karma to be reborn as a human again, or maybe some alien, 600 years later and then I'll go space exploring, if we haven't all killed each other off by then.

 

I thought I was an atheist for a time until I had the thought that atheism was kinda like religion except they have faith that there is no God. I was only sure that I would probably never know, that no one on this planet would ever truly know what came after death. So being the easy going guy that I am, I decided not to worry about it and just enjoy life.

 

And if I'm wrong and there is a God, I'm sure he'd understand a questioning (lazy in my case) mind. I imagine having a nice long chat with God if he/she/it/taco pooping icecream really does exist, on why things are the way they are, what the purpose of it all is and why they made a KoTOR MMO instead of K3.

 

Until then I'll work towards helping people out regardless of what their personal beliefs are.

 

Yes, I realize that this thread is about the real world consequences of belief/religion and disbelief/atheism and how it affects everything, but I'm too sleepy to think about that.

[Azure79]

... I vote for Prop 8, for reasons I explained clearly in a different thread, and religion had no part in my reasoning in the least. There were some religious groups and people who spoke against Prop 8. Since I discard, out of hand, that denying homosexuals the right to marry is the moral equivalent of holding another human being in bondage, denying people of color the right to vote, or forcing native americans to live on government designated reservations, I find the over the top sort of hand wringing over the issue distasteful. Do you think Homosexuals should have the right to marry one another? I do. Did you vote for Prop 8? I did. ..

 

That makes no sense to me. You say you believe homosexuals have the right to marry... then you vote for Prop 8, which amends the California constitution preventing homosexuals from marrying. You say that denying homosexuals the right to marry is the "moral equivalent of holding another human being in bondage", and yet you voted for that very thing, denying homosexuals the right to marry.

 

I'm pretty danged confused by your position at this point. Could you clarify?

 

I don't want to turn this thread into a prop 8 discussion, and so I will limit my answer to say that you misread my previous post. To say that denying homosexuals the right to marry is the equivalent of slavery or disenfranchisement is laughable. Other than that, I've spent a lot of time stating my position regarding prop 8. I merely point out that at least one person who voted for prop 8 did not do so based on religion. I guess I might be alone.

 

So were you voting for because disagreed with the overturning of 24 by the CA supreme court? I'm just curious and Prop 8 was interesting. You can just point me to the thread where you wrote your stance and I'll just read that as it seems you really don't want to write down your entire reasoning again.

 

I don't see any reason why same sex marriage should be banned. Same sex couples are happy, it doesn't negatively affect anyone else in any way. So why not?

[Aristes]

but I wonder about folks who have a job they need and an employer who actively attacks their religious beliefs

 

This assumes time, or a lack of duties, making such discussions possible in the first place. If someone brought up "god" where I work he'd get some really strange looks.

 

so your workplace doesn't have discussions of religion? Good. I doubt either atheists or religious folks feel slighted. I've rarely worked anywhere that sexual harrassment has been an issue. However, one of my supervisors did make fun of a co-worker because her breasts were small once. I don't know if she needed the job or not, but she certainly needed income at the very least. So, if he hadn't made the comment, it would not have been an issue. Since he did make the comment, it was.

 

Azure, I simply don't have time. On the way out to San Diego to see the Star Trek exhibit there. I'll either post or pm the link to you when I get back later.

[SteveThaiBinh]

Let's keep this thread for the 'No God' bus, and move Prop 8 discussion somewhere else - start a new thread, maybe?

[Maria Caliban]

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"),

 

I've always disliked the idea that people *must* take sides, and the sides they take are pre-determined and unchanging. They didn't cop-out; as a business, they don't believe in theism or atheism, but capitalism.

 

...the intellectual dishonesty of someone saying that probability directly correlates with relevancy.

 

I don

[Morgoth]

I personally don't believe in god, but I don't feel the urge to advertise that either. And hey, at least the church spends bums a warm soup, Atheists don't.

 

My religion btw is Beer, Schnitzel and woman. *snort*

Edited January 18, 2009 by Morgoth

[Maria Caliban]

I personally don't believe in god, but I don't feel the urge to advertise that either. And hey, at least the church spends bums a warm soup, Atheists don't.

 

My religion btw is Beer, Schnitzel and woman. *snort*

 

Hmmm, I know a number of atheists and many of them give to charities and volunteer their time for good causes. They just do so with groups that don't have anything to do with religion.

[Morgoth]

I personally don't believe in god, but I don't feel the urge to advertise that either. And hey, at least the church spends bums a warm soup, Atheists don't.

 

My religion btw is Beer, Schnitzel and woman. *snort*

 

Hmmm, I know a number of atheists and many of them give to charities and volunteer their time for good causes. They just do so with groups that don't have anything to do with religion.

Yeah. I do give some bums a coin or two sometimes as well. But not in the name of god. But because....I'm a good man.

Edited January 18, 2009 by Morgoth

[julianw]

Well. My question is that people keep drawing the battlelines along atheists and religious people when I always thought atheists believe in the non-existence of God, and is obviously quite religious because of their faith in this non-existence of God. I have always believed that the pure atheists are a very small minority of society where most of the non-religious people are simply agnostic that is to be doubtful or skeptical about the existence of God.

 

Personally, I've always felt that the very religious of the society lacked a bit in the spirit of independent investigation and sort of let faith overrule logic in some cases, so I see nothing wrong with being skeptical about the existence of God. However, I must admit I have trouble understanding the pure atheists since I usually associate that with life without purpose, which would make life entirely pointless to me.

[Hurlshort]

Personally, I've always felt that the very religious of the society lacked a bit in the spirit of independent investigation and sort of let faith overrule logic in some cases, so I see nothing wrong with being skeptical about the existence of God. However, I must admit I have trouble understanding the pure atheists since I usually associate that with life without purpose, which would make life entirely pointless to me.

 

Well said. The extremes on both ends are just a bunch of douches.

[Gorgon]

How can you be an extremist in regards to an either/or proposition. There are ramifications that are inescapable either way. Are you suggesting it's better to wobble somewhere near the median of the scale and not really think on what your stance means.

Edited January 18, 2009 by Gorgon

[Killian Kalthorne]

So far no one has provided a clear cut and conclusive evidence that a God or Gods exist. Of course there is no clear cut evidence that a God or Gods do not exist. Until there is clear evidence one way or another I say let people believe what they will as long as it doesn't harm or inconvenience others.

[Gorgon]

I like the 'so far' part of that. Wouldn't that be nice, irrefutable evidence about the existence of god.

[Volourn]

"So it's ok to bend the will of a country to fit your personal moral standard but it's not ok for said country to bend itself to another s moral standard because they are heathens?"

 

Never said that. I expect everyone - religious, athiests, whatever - to do what they can to have their 'way' in politics. That's why we get to vote in democratic countries. So, we have our opinion matter, and cna help change your country's polices. Everyone votes based on their morals, ethics, and what they feel is proper. Them being religious or not is irrelevant so to bash religious folks for doing so is silly. Perhaps even more silly than believing in a God that doesn't exist.

[Killian Kalthorne]

I do think that it is rather silly to go on belief instead of going on what you know. What you believe to be true may end up being false even if you steadfast believe in it. Going by what you know with certainty what is true have a lot less hang ups. Don't go by what other people say, don't go by what you read in a book, only go by what you know, what you have experience yourself, and try to personally experience everything you can.

[Hurlshort]

How can you be an extremist in regards to an either/or proposition. There are ramifications that are inescapable either way. Are you suggesting it's better to wobble somewhere near the median of the scale and not really think on what your stance means.

 

This seems like an attempt at baiting, to be honest, but maybe we are just misunderstanding one another.

 

Extremists are folks that feel the need to throw their beliefs in everyone's face at any opportunity. You have bible thumpers who go on about going to hell, and you have atheists who rail about the mention of God in any aspect of life.

 

I see spirituality as a something very personal. Sure, I'll discuss my beliefs with someone, but I'm not going to throw it around unsolicited. In the same token, most people on this planet are religious. The majority of people do believe in God. That doesn't mean everyone needs to, but if you don't, you need to get over the fact that much of the world does. You are going to see religious holidays being embraced by capitalists, you are going to see government officials swearing on a religious document.

[Blank]

I do think that it is rather silly to go on belief instead of going on what you know. What you believe to be true may end up being false even if you steadfast believe in it. Going by what you know with certainty what is true have a lot less hang ups. Don't go by what other people say, don't go by what you read in a book, only go by what you know, what you have experience yourself, and try to personally experience everything you can.

That's true to an extent, Killian, and I cannot fault people for playing it 'safe' or whatever in that way. Acting on the facts is good, but I would take many less risks in life that end up being good for me if I never acted on my beliefs. Pretend I work at a youth correction facility. Some of the kids would just be self-destructive and angry at everyone, and the facts are that they act self-destructive and angry, but if I believe they can be changed and helped, I will try to do that, and even though it is unlikely, I may end up helping them be happier and have a better life. I might get hung up when my dreams fail to be realized, but I believe my beliefs are worth acting on, and only acting on the facts would encourage me to give up on some people who have a track record of self-destruction and anger.