ALL ABOARD the Atheist Bus.

[Ted Max]

Turns other cheek

[PeckhamRose]

Funny!

And so is this.

I must find out what iPM is, though.

Still, it's a start!

[Bizzy]

Hello

This is probably the wrong place for a first post and some of you have strong views but this thread stood out.

The ad campaign is all well and good but what is it trying to do? I narrowed it down to the following:

1) Convert people to Atheism - (Yes, I know it's not a religion but why would an Atheist care about someone elses beliefs when they have no faith?)

2) Make people think about it - (Most people who believe in God will have sympathy and nothing else for anyone to takes heed of the slogan)

3) Something for someone to do because they were bored - (I read somewhere that this was to counter some similar Christian efforts done some time ago, I like a challenge too)

Can anyone add to this? Or can anyone refute any of these assumptions?

Bizzy

[Mark]

I think there's lots of your point 3) in there. I see posters outside churches saying "repent or be damned", "there is only one God inside you", "for He's a jolly good fellow" etc and it's quite a good to know that there are others out there who feel the same annoyance with these and supported the bus poster.

You're not going to convert anyone with the bus poster but hopefully it'll make people think (point 2)) or realise that they don't have to shut up and put up with the Word of God(s) i.e. it's not wrong to not believe in a sky fairy.

And remember Atheists don't have their own buildings around the world where they get together and worship so it's hard to get a message to them when they're a captive audience, like a church does. I guess the side of a bus is just another way of saying to them, be reassured you're not alone in this world.

Amen

[PeckhamRose]

One is not trying to convert people to atheism.

One is merely trying to make the point that this society -

which has Bishops in the House of Lords,

has a law that says we have to all pay towards the BBC when the BBC only allows religious people to have a Thought For The Day,

uses taxes from all of us to fund faith schools,

discriminates against those (teachers) of other faiths or no faith working in faith schools, etc etc and blah -

- is a tad biased towards those who believe in their own version of a God.

So we thought we'd remind people we exist too.

I think that worked, then!

[Huguenot]

We? Is PR coming out as the brains behind this scheme?

[PeckhamRose]

We is an Atheist.

Sorry Huguenot, you are right of course.

I volunteer with the British Humanists Association but it was not even them who thought of the campaign.

They benefited though, and are being sued by Christian Voice!

[Mick Mac]

PR - Can you give the uneducated (me) a brief summary of Humanism. I'm athiest but not sure if I would also fit as a Humanist.

[Bizzy]

Peckham Rose

Everyone knows Atheist's exist. To be blunt (but not nasty) the issues you put forward are trivial and loose.

# - which has Bishops in the House of Lords - I?m sure there?s a few Atheist's in there too

# - has a law that says we have to all pay towards the BBC when the BBC only allows religious people to have a Thought For The Day - I have to pay taxes to causes I?d rather not fund. Who watches BBC anyway? Who needs a broadcaster to tell them what to think about for the day?

# - uses taxes from all of us to fund faith schools - My monthly travel card expense funds TFL bus routes I don't even know about let alone use...

# - discriminates against those (teachers) of other faiths or no faith working in faith schools - don't know the full extent of this, but probably the most plausible point made. I can understand discrimination against a teacher of a certain faith working in a school of another faith, but what would an Atheist be doing teaching in a faith school? Surely working in an environment which has causes that go against their beliefs is a form of suppression.

[PeckhamRose]

Well, maybe I'll go to the office in a few weeks time and tell them all to go home that there is no need for the charity to protect against discrimination against those of us who do not believe.

Mick Mac, I am not a spokesperson for the BHA but just happen to be a member because I felt it right.

I can't define humanism in any way that sounds any different as if I had used the word "Atheist" instead.

I suppose Humanism means I believe Humans are all that's here, that we made God up, and so it's humans who need to sort out the mess because God can't. Or something. So maybe a Humanist is an active Atheist?

I dunno. Anyway, here's the link to the British Humanist Association. See what you think.

[Mick Mac]

Oh yes - i remember seeing this guy Richard Dawkins speak on tv recently - i thought he spoke very well and I agreed with pretty much everything he said - I'm all for a secular society.

Humanism seems to give a name to what i feel about society/religion etc. So I might look into it more.

[PeckhamRose]

Pat Condell's latest videos.

There's a few of him.

I want HIM on Radio 4's Atheist Thought for the Day!

[Keef]

  Quote

there is no need for the charity to protect against discrimination against those of us who do not believe.

Frankly I don't think there is, I am with Bizzy on this one, believe or not, don't start crying victim.

Oh, and my Mrs (Jewish/Atheist) has taught in several faith schools, she told them her beliefs, and they said fine, religion doesn't have to come in to maths/english/science (although in this case there are some dodgy faith academies teaching creationism which is just wrong).

[Asset]

but the example I gave on a previous page is exactly a case of discrimination against non-faith persons. There are other examples in Dawkins's book of unnecessary advantages given to people or organisations because of their religious beliefs that wouldn't be afforded those that are not religious.

What about the 'right to life' militants in the states who actually feel justified to kill people on the grounds of 'religious' beliefs?

[Keef]

I'm not sure that's a discrimination, that's just plain mental!

  Quote

For example: The church in New Mexico given dispensation by the US Supreme Court on the taking of hallucinogenic drugs as they 'believe' it helps them understand god etc.. Yet sufferers of MS who 'believe' cannabis relieves their symptoms are criminals. (lifted from The God Delusion).

That is a great example, but to be fair, some church in New Mexico seems a bit like scraping the barrel.

I don't think christians in this country have any great advantage over anyone else, unless you're that bothered about "thought of the day", which to be honest, is usually a load of shite anyway.

For the record I'm probably best described as Agnostic, or a failed christian. I just don't like the whole "oh poor us" thing.

RE: Dawkins, I like him these days. I once disliked him because I found him (in one particular programme) really patronising to some people. However, more recently I find him quite kind and non judgmental to people, so long as they're not mentalists.

If a christian is forcing it down your throat and telling you you're going to burn in hell, then by all means argue with them. However, it makes me so angry when a christian who is quietly going about their life has to suffer patronising comment from atheists.

[sphillips]

I just get the feeling that some atheists are showing such intolerance towards faith ? and the Christian faith in particular - that it?s potentially as damaging as the religious fanaticism which they oppose.

The fact is that many Christians are just as baffled and angered by what comes out of the mouths of some people who claim to be Christians, for example from the religious right in the US. Christians who selectively quote out of context from the bible to hurt and marginalise others are as misguided as non-believers who selectively quote, often inaccurately, a few words of scripture. As a Christian, my advice would be to take with a very small pinch of salt anyone who begins a sentence ?But it says in the bible...? Because firstly they?re usually point-scoring and secondly they clearly haven?t read it all!

So, what I?d say to people who point to weird sects and cults whether in New Mexico or elsewhere is, yes, I think they?re as nuts as you do, but please don?t tar all Christians with the same brush.

Radio 4?s Thought For The Day is a couple of minutes? reflections from a faith perspective amounting to a tiny fraction of broadcasting time. That?s not excessive surely? Best thing however would be to drop Thought For The Day altogether in my humble - it?s tired and worn out. Get on with the weather forecast! Do Humanists object to Prayer for the Day (crack of dawn on Radio 4) and all religious broadcasting? Where does it stop? Next they?ll be popping into some of the local churches in East Dulwich on a Sunday morning, getting up and announcing at the appropriate moment: ?Excuse me Father, just before you all receive communion, can I have 2 minutes of your time everyone...?

As for Anglican Bishops in the House of Lords, an all elected chamber is the answer to that one. Atheist teachers discriminated against by faith schools. I?d like to see the evidence. Come on, if you can?t tolerate the ethos of the school, don?t apply to teach there. It?s a bit like me applying to work in an animal testing lab - I just wouldn?t dream of it.

Each to their own. Tolerance on all sides. However I do remain unconvinced by this - we poor down trodden non-believers, the God Squad get all the perks - theory.

The bus advert. If it means chill out, believe what you want to, take responsibility for your own life and actions without being made to feel guilty by anyone for holding your beliefs... Amen to that.