michael Posted October 21, 2008 Share Posted October 21, 2008 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7681914.stm Bendy-buses with the slogan "There's probably no God" could soon be running on the streets of London. The atheist posters are the idea of the British Humanist Association (BHA) and have been supported by prominent atheist Professor Richard Dawkins. The BHA planned only to raise £5,500, which was to be matched by Professor Dawkins, but it has now raised more than £20,300 of its own accord. It aims to have two sets of 30 buses carrying the signs for four weeks. As the campaign has raised more than anticipated, it will also have posters on the inside of buses as well. The BHA is also considering extending the campaign. The complete slogan reads: "There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life." Professor Dawkins said: "Religion is accustomed to getting a free ride - automatic tax breaks, unearned respect and the right not to be offended, the right to brainwash children. "Even on the buses, nobody thinks twice when they see a religious slogan plastered across the side. "This campaign to put alternative slogans on London buses will make people think - and thinking is anathema to religion." Hanne Stinson, chief executive of the BHA, said: "We see so many posters advertising salvation through Jesus or threatening us with eternal damnation, that I feel sure that a bus advert like this will be welcomed as a breath of fresh air. "If it raises a smile as well as making people think, so much the better." But Stephen Green of pressure group Christian Voice said: "Bendy-buses, like atheism, are a danger to the public at large. "I should be surprised if a quasi-religious advertising campaign like this did not attract graffiti. "People don't like being preached at. Sometimes it does them good, but they still don't like it." The buses with the slogans will run in Westminster from January And in response: Bendy-buses, like atheism, are a danger to the public at large Stephen Green of pressure group Christian Voice Dawkins is a funny one, Russell Brand used to have him on the radio quite a bit and it was always amusing to hear the two of them discussing such things. qSIL9ryHIO0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaz6002 Posted October 21, 2008 Share Posted October 21, 2008 Amazing how they've managed to find a way to expand the amount of people annoyed by bendy buses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorin Posted October 21, 2008 Share Posted October 21, 2008 So I probably don't exist, which would imply I might actually exist after all? Richard Dawkins is possibly a worse atheist than he is an author. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlotte Posted October 21, 2008 Share Posted October 21, 2008 They could have at least had a bit of courage in their convictions and straight out denied the existence of GOD. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tbourner Posted October 21, 2008 Share Posted October 21, 2008 That would mean they could be sued for upsetting people or something though, just saying there might not be a god allows them to get away with it. I'm sure someone will complain none the less. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daston Posted October 21, 2008 Share Posted October 21, 2008 personally I dont see mankind getting anywhere with such ideas. I also love it when people come up with such contradictive comments "Bendy-buses, like atheism, are a danger to the public at large " What and the crusades were just a big hugging match? And the slaugter of the druids just light hearted entertainment? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lbm Posted October 21, 2008 Share Posted October 21, 2008 All hail the bendy bus. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustGav Posted October 21, 2008 Share Posted October 21, 2008 Athism, it is a non-prophet organisation.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Posted October 21, 2008 Share Posted October 21, 2008 Athism, it is a non-prophet organisation.... genius! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lbm Posted October 21, 2008 Share Posted October 21, 2008 Athism, it is a non-prophet organisation.... Yes- I will be using that later tonight Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tannhauser Posted October 21, 2008 Share Posted October 21, 2008 Richard Dawkins is possibly a worse atheist than he is an author. I agree. Is there no end to his excesses? I liked him when he was a science populariser; now he does nothing except bang on about the evils of religion. He's a bit evangelical, one might say. The Dawkins Delusion is pretty good and sets out the flaws in his thinking. He's an embarrassment to atheists and a bit unhinged. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lbm Posted October 21, 2008 Share Posted October 21, 2008 I agree. Is there no end to his excesses? I liked him when he was a science populariser; now he does nothing except bang on about the evils of religion. He's a bit evangelical, one might say. The Dawkins Delusion is pretty good and sets out the flaws in his thinking. He's an embarrassment to atheists and a bit unhinged. Whilst I respect Mr Tannhauser's planet sized brain (mine is somewhat smaller) and very well thought out posts, I haven't found him (Dawkins) as embarrassing as some- (probably due to my small brain- have I mentioned this yet? ) although it may be an idea to check out the 'Dawkins Delusion' for some balance Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kranz Posted October 21, 2008 Share Posted October 21, 2008 I love it how the highly religious types say that they 'believe' in God. In my mind believing in something means that there is some doubt as to whether it exists or not. For example I know that my Dog exists, I have proof of this as I can see him. On the other hand, apparently Ken Dodd's dad had a dog (which is now dead, but that's another story). I believe that his dad had a dog, because someone told me so.... but I don't have any proof other than the word of someone else. Sounds like religion to me Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tannhauser Posted October 21, 2008 Share Posted October 21, 2008 I love it how the highly religious types say that they 'believe' in God. In my mind believing in something means that there is some doubt as to whether it exists or not. For example I know that my Dog exists, I have proof of this as I can see him. On the other hand, apparently Ken Dodd's dad had a dog (which is now dead, but that's another story). I believe that his dad had a dog, because someone told me so.... but I don't have any proof other than the word of someone else. Sounds like religion to me OK, so you distinguish between (a) that you can directly verify by your own senses as proof which is thereforefact and (b) that which has only been related to you, which can at best be belief (if I understand you). This leads you into all sorts of problems. There are many things which you presumably regard as fact, which you can't verify using your own senses: the existence of atoms,for example. So you can't verify atoms as fact any more or less than God (or gods). Alternatively, you could say that the existence of atoms is only a belief, just as much as a belief in God. OK, but scientists can verify the existence of atoms, right? But now you're no further forward, because you're still accepting second-hand information that you can't directly verify. If you say 'the scientist has a proof, but I can't see it for myself', then that's an article of faith as much as trusting a priest. Now, I've got a science degree and though I could tell you in outline about the evidence for atoms, I couldn't interpret the original papers - my Maths isn't good enough. So my belief in atoms comes down largely to a faith in experts who have told me that there are such things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marbleapple Posted October 21, 2008 Share Posted October 21, 2008 They could have at least had a bit of courage in their convictions and straight out denied the existence of GOD. Never commit to anything! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pot Posted October 21, 2008 Share Posted October 21, 2008 I love it how the highly religious types say that they 'believe' in God. In my mind believing in something means that there is some doubt as to whether it exists or not. For example I know that my Dog exists, I have proof of this as I can see him. On the other hand, apparently Ken Dodd's dad had a dog (which is now dead, but that's another story). I believe that his dad had a dog, because someone told me so.... but I don't have any proof other than the word of someone else. Sounds like religion to me Sounds like Dogging to me... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lbm Posted October 21, 2008 Share Posted October 21, 2008 Ok, the results just in from google search. god: 492,000,000 entries dog: 429,000,000 entries As a control: Hamster 21,300,000 entries Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pot Posted October 21, 2008 Share Posted October 21, 2008 Ok, the results just in from google search. god: 492,000,000 entries dog: 429,000,000 entries As a control: Hamster 21,300,000 entries I just got... 528,000,000 for god 420,000,000 for dog 19,500,000 for hamster And : 24,400,000 for supra So Supras are more popular than hamsters Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lbm Posted October 21, 2008 Share Posted October 21, 2008 I just got... 528,000,000 for god 420,000,000 for dog 19,500,000 for hamster And : 24,400,000 for supra So Supras are more popular than hamsters Exactly! Now we're getting somewhere NB Safe search must be off and god, dog & hamster must be written in lowercase. You affect the results considerably if spelling dog- Dog Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tannhauser Posted October 21, 2008 Share Posted October 21, 2008 I haven't found him (Dawkins) as embarrassing as some One of my main problems with Dawkins, and why I think he's an embarrassment, is this attitude: "This campaign to put alternative slogans on London buses will make people think - and thinking is anathema to religion." From Descartes to Kant, from Newton to Einstein, many of the great thinkers in history have had strong religious convictions. Compared to them, Dawkins is an infinitesimal footnote. yet he makes this constant arrogant assertion that you can't simultaneously be religious and think logically. As an atheist myself, I find the refusal to credit believers with the ability to think ludicrous. Nobody has a monopoly on logic. Polls of scientists usually turn up about 50% of them believing in God - so at least half find no contradiction between religion and science. In The Twilight of Atheism, Christian philosopher and science historian Alistair McGrath shows that science and religion haven't been at each other's throats for all that long and that it isn't inevitable either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael Posted October 21, 2008 Author Share Posted October 21, 2008 I just got... 528,000,000 for god 420,000,000 for dog 19,500,000 for hamster And : 24,400,000 for supra So Supras are more popular than hamsters 653,000,000 for sex... make of that what you will. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pot Posted October 21, 2008 Share Posted October 21, 2008 Exactly! Now we're getting somewhere Amen to that!... lol NB Safe search must be off and god, dog & hamster must be written in lowercase. You affect the results considerably if spelling dog- Dog My S/Search is always off - Had the search in lowercase too... Now I'm off to find the Church of Dogging Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lbm Posted October 21, 2008 Share Posted October 21, 2008 One of my main problems with Dawkins, and why I think he's an embarrassment, is this attitude: From Descartes to Kant, from Newton to Einstein, many of the great thinkers in history have had strong religious convictions. Compared to them, Dawkins is an infinitesimal footnote. yet he makes this constant arrogant assertion that you can't simultaneously be religious and think logically. As an atheist myself, I find the refusal to credit believers with the ability to think ludicrous. Nobody has a monopoly on logic.. Well put. Polls of scientists usually turn up about 50% of them believing in God - so at least half find no contradiction between religion and science. In The Twilight of Atheism, Christian philosopher and science historian Alistair McGrath shows that science and religion haven't been at each other's throats for all that long and that it isn't inevitable either. I have to say I'd assumed they've been 'at war' for many many centuries 653,000,000 for sex... make of that what you will. I raise your *sex* with *cat*: 894,000,000 Then I put in *catsex*: Only 297,000 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael Posted October 21, 2008 Author Share Posted October 21, 2008 Mmm catsex... err... I mean well done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pot Posted October 21, 2008 Share Posted October 21, 2008 653,000,000 for sex... make of that what you will. You're more popular than sex mate - Make of that what you will - lol (Attached) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.