Just....insane

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7681914.stm

wow i personally dont believe in god but wtf is that?

im an atheist, but this kind of posterwork is just stupid all it will do is enrage people who although i think those offended will most likely be retarded, still shouldn't stir s*** for the sake of it.

I actually like it, something like this would go down very well down here, with plenty of smiles and giggles.

Like Dawkins said: "Religion is accustomed to getting a free ride". Why not use that space to advertise happy living and a non-ideology instead of telling us our only hope is in an imaginary friend?
It's about time the idea of religion is looked at again closely; it's momments like these that indicate the start of a social revolution, one (heavily critisised) step at time untill society can accept that they may just happen to be deluded... and we all know how much we need a social revolution in these stagnating times.

I like it as well personally. It may outrage some but sometimes you have to upset people. I get Churches cramming leaflets down my throat walking to my lectures. So therefore why can't atheists do the same with a bus.

I agree with FD and Zaney on this.

I was listening to a debate about this on 5 live last night, and i dont see whats wrong!

Whats so different between an atheist and a beliver expressing their views?

I don't have a problem with it per se (as a Christian) although it doesn't justify the claim "there is probably no God", and it's very hypocritical of them in a whole plethora of ways. This isn't about freedom of speech. It never has been.

Free Jack wrote:im an atheist, but this kind of posterwork is just stupid all it will do is enrage people who although i think those offended will most likely be retarded, still shouldn't stir s*** for the sake of it.

Hypocrisy here too?

Oh and Zaney, why do you just assume that a religious way of living isn't a happy one?

I was being literal ...that's the problem with debating using text, it's very difficult to determin different nuances of speaking styles that you normally portray with tone etc.

Litteral as in it is advertising happyness in and of itself, whereas religious advertisement normally advertises happyness as either a payment by god for your faith (or a natural result, debateable). Or the result of a filling in your life that isn't directly related to happyness itself but might not allow for happyness without it (e.g. forgiveness, compassion, protection etc)

I prefer to go with the first, litteral, one; as happyness is nothing more than a flood in your brain of a hormone

What I am surprised by is the asnwers they recieved from the Christian Voice group,

Bendy-buses, like atheism, are a danger to the public at large

Atheism no danger, what has caused more deaths and war, Atheism or religion?

I love the Methodist response though

However the Methodist Church said it thanked Professor Dawkins for encouraging a "continued interest in God".

That is great

tl;dr comments but yes, I like it.

Enef Freestar wrote:What I am surprised by is the asnwers they recieved from the Christian Voice group,

Bendy-buses, like atheism, are a danger to the public at large

Atheism no danger, what has caused more deaths and war, Atheism or religion?

In the 20th Century, since the advent of atheism based states? Probably atheism. Also, if you take into account the motives of the people causing these wars/deaths, i'd say it's not too greatly, if at all, in atheism's favour.

Religion can inspire, religion can kill.

Atheists can be inspiring, atheists can kill.

It's really the nature of the person, not the doctrine they choose to follow.

Yes, people who were religious have (in the past) caused deaths and war but realistically the wars would have happened for another reason if they'd had to - see the Teutonic Crusades for example.

Blaming religion for the sins of the religious is like saying the devil made you do it.

Gawd. We can have religion. We can have sin. We can have atheism. Comparing them to each other is like asking why your potato plant wasnt growing apples.

zaney wrote:Litteral as in it is advertising happyness in and of itself, whereas religious advertisement normally advertises happyness as either a payment by god for your faith (or a natural result, debateable).
I prefer to go with the first, litteral, one; as happyness is nothing more than a flood in your brain of a hormone

Ummm? Not a theologically sound statement. And i question the truth of your comment about hormones too.

Religion is not the cause of war, it is the excuse.


Coming from a christian over here.

twaters, that's why I added the brackets, I knew you would be uncomfortable with that statement you put in bold.

And the comment about happyness: It is entirely true. It is the same reason taking MDMA makes you feel 'love' and 'happyness'... The same reason they cure depression with hormone balances and endorphine/seritonin boosters or receptor enhancers. Your brain is a series of chemical and electrical (RE)actions and while a soul is debateable...emotions themselves have been utterly proven to be physical.
Of course it's bad practice of me to say all this without providing sources, but i'm a bit swamped with tafe and erepublik work at the momment

Siobhan Griffin wrote:Religion can inspire, religion can kill.

Atheists can be inspiring, atheists can kill.

It's really the nature of the person, not the doctrine they choose to follow.

Yes, people who were religious have (in the past) caused deaths and war but realistically the wars would have happened for another reason if they'd had to - see the Teutonic Crusades for example.

Blaming religion for the sins of the religious is like saying the devil made you do it.

Exactly, I'm not a strict Catholic, but Religion can play an important part, not everybody has to be a born-again Evangelist...Religion is just like any moral code...
Also, Religion is an excuse for war, that happen anyway like we have seen with many places, the name of Religion has been used to disguise grabs for power, land and money

I dont think as many people wouldve fought in such a war (the 3 holy crusades in jerusalem) if it wasnt for religious purposes.
All parties (The Turks, Saracens and European Catholics) all fought in those wars because Jerusalem was a major symbol of each party's religion.

True, they would've found another reason to fight.. but there wouldnt've been such an immense amount of supporters for each aprty united under one common cause.. religion.

My two cents. Roman Catholic here, but im a man of science lol

Well, I personally support science...so does the majority of the official Roman Catholic Church...it's the weird evangelist Hicks from Cult Christian groups that are always complaining...my favourite is the site called anti-spore

Tecchi wrote:True, they would've found another reason to fight.. but there wouldnt've been such an immense amount of supporters for each aprty united under one common cause.. religion.

Catholics in the Middle Ages didn't restrict their Crusades to just fighting non-Christians, they had at least one pretty bloody one on their own soil.

Teutonic Crusade, the Crusade continued on for bloody years even after the 'heathens' actually converted to the Christian faith.

Oops?

And as for the wars over Jerusalem, it was one of the richest cities in the known world, while also having all kinds of religious pretexts for attacking it (as opposed to the very well defended Orthodox Christian Byzantium... which they sacked at one point anyway).

Then we have the Inquisition - a true example of the horrors of religious fanaticism... sorta. Except somehow what began as genuine inquiry became more and more torture and horror (and death) as the ramifications of the teensy little codicil awarding the property of the deceased 'heretic' to the Church - more accurately to the Inquisition, and fair tithe of it to the Inquisitor who carried out the questioning.

The pre-Torquemada Spanish Inquisitional Office actually received a tongue-lashing over it.

All kinds of evils have been and are carried out under the mantle of religion - I actually think it's a good idea to have the ads, as it encourages people to think about religion, whether they believe or not.

well sed sio

Kudos for Sio's post!
...this forum needs a Kudos system.

I was actually thinking of this one. That said, organised anything has flaws so it isn't like religion is unique in this regard.