Campaign: Atheist Bus
21.10.08 | Ariane |
Atheism, Atheist Bus Campaign, Donation, Donations, Fundraising, Humour, London Buses, Richard Dawkins, Slogan, Thank You
** We reached the total at 1006 BST (GMT+1) on 21st October, just over 10 hours after launch – thank you so much to everyone who contributed! If you haven’t donated yet and would like to then please do – we are now aiming to launch a full advertising campaign across the UK! **
The Atheist Bus Campaign launches today, Tuesday October 21. With your support, we hope to raise £5,500 to run 30 buses across the capital for four weeks with the slogan: “There’s probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.” Donate online now!
Professor Richard Dawkins, bestselling author of The God Delusion, is officially supporting the Atheist Bus Campaign, and has generously agreed to match all donations up to a maximum of £5,500, giving us a total of £11,000 if we reach the full amount – enough for a much bigger campaign. Our campaign partner, the British Humanist Association, will be administering all donations.
With your help, we can brighten people’s days on the way to work, help raise awareness of atheism in the UK, and hopefully encourage more people to come out as atheists. We can also counter the religious adverts which are currently running on London buses, and help people think for themselves.
As Richard Dawkins says: “This campaign to put alternative slogans on London buses will make people think – and thinking is anathema to religion.”
856 Responses to “Campaign: Atheist Bus”
Pages: « 1 … 8 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 » Show All
Pages: « 1 … 8 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 » Show All
March 11th, 2009 at 19:00
Hey Werner
“and if it’s up to eoin with his ‘independantly verifiable’ proof – than God would never exist…….”
im taking that as a compliment!
March 11th, 2009 at 19:29
Werner,
You are succeeding in doing what I have been trying to do for ages: you are making religion look silly. Please, keep it up.
March 11th, 2009 at 19:33
Werner@642
“Here is what i believe. God (Yahweh) is the almighty creator of Heaven and Earth. He threw Satan out of heaven along with a third of the angels. These angels became Demons.
Everywhere in the world we find people worshipping something. If it’s not God (Yahweh) it must be Satan…or his demons – conveniently called ganesh, budha, allah – whaterver.
I call them Evil because they are emmisaries of satan. his servants. demons.”
Of all the ways to reply to this, the best repost I think is this:
A good education is a fine thing-more people should have it.
March 11th, 2009 at 23:13
@RedCitrus who said: “You’re views would be laughable if they weren’t so insane. I truly fear for your mental health if you really believe that crap.”
Tut tut RedCitrus, how typically insulting of you! Werner’s views are not on the fringe of Christianity, no matter that you are trying to make him feel isolated.
Your tactic of harassing him with demands that he acknowledge Ganesh have had a result, just not the one you wanted, hey? It’s funny!
Deb
March 11th, 2009 at 23:19
It’s not funny, Debbie. The man is deranged. If his views are not on the fringe of Christianity, then Christianity is even less rational than most of us thought.
March 11th, 2009 at 23:20
@RedCitrus (again) who said “I’m willing to believe…just give me concrete proof!”
If I had $1.00 for every time I’ve heard atheists say this, I could afford that world trip I want… One of them (on h2g2), kept bleating about how he’d be satisfied if God would just re-unite the two halves of the supermarket receipt he’d torn up, and left on his bedside table.
Man, what an ego! He wanted God to do what God doesn’t do, and suspend the laws of physics just for him personally.
There’s a very good chance that God has been trying to reach each and every one of you, but the ‘hands-over-ears-la-la-la-I-can’t hear you’ approach has made sure God can’t get through.
God never gives up, luckily for you-all!
Deb
March 11th, 2009 at 23:34
@Johnnyess who said: “If his views are not on the fringe of Christianity, then Christianity is even less rational than most of us thought”
It’s not about being rational, surely you realise that? Why should religion be what you want it to be? H2g2 atheists are very fond of accusing believers of self-importance, even solipsism, but from my observation, it’s the atheists who’ve cornered the market on self-importance.
Christianity is reasonable, and internally consistent, but it isn’t “rational” in your sense of the word. You gentlemen are never going to understand until you choose to, and it seems to me, that for mostly discreditable reasons, you’d die rather than!
At least, for the moment. The sub-section of the Dawk site notwithstanding, there are few atheists in foxholes, and even fewer in critical care wards.
Deb
March 11th, 2009 at 23:46
Hi all,
I think you will find that Werner wasn’t saying that all these other religions knowingly worship satan. You see satan is a deceiver… he is deceiving these people into worshiping what they think is good and true – just like he is deceiving you atheists into your ‘rational’ thinking and ‘causal proof’. He doesn’t want you to know the love of God.
Phil.
March 11th, 2009 at 23:56
Debbie,
I’d never heard of G2g2 until you mentioned it. Thank you very much. It looks very interesting. And you seem to think everyone is afraid of dying. I’m not. Why should I be? I’ve never met anyone who was even slightly perturbed by the knowledge that he/she didn’t exist for countless aeons before conception, so why should I be concerned about countless aeons of extinction after death?
Phil,
Same question as to Werner (still unanswered). How can you possibly know all this? As Mr Hitchens said, “What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.” The burden of proof is on the believer.
March 12th, 2009 at 0:14
@Johnnyess, 698, who said: “658
johnnyess Says:
March 11th, 2009 at 23:56
I’d never heard of G2g2 until you mentioned it.”
It’s h2g2, and it’s so much less interesting than it seems. Discussions go around in ever-decreasing circles, people insult each other, throw hissy-fits, and eventually ban every believer capable of stringing a sentence together, because of their intense fear of being convinced by anyone articulate. The usual atheist site in other words!
” And you seem to think everyone is afraid of dying. I’m not. Why should I be? ”
On the Dawk site, there are pages and pages of people begging Mr Dawkins to help them overcome their terror of oblivion. Why should I believe you’re any different?
” As Mr Hitchens said, “What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.” The burden of proof is on the believer.”
Although you addressed Phil, I’ll put my two pence worth in.
Mr Hitchens is a particularly bad person to quote – he’s a seething mass of prejudice, especially against Islam, who constantly makes assertions without proof himself! He sets up straw men and knocks them down claiming them to be Islam and Christianity. Gullible people think he’s credible, but he’s no more reliable on the topic of religion, than he was on the topic of Iraq.
At least he’s honest enough to admit that a the bottom of his hatred for religion is his desire for sexual licence!
Deb
March 12th, 2009 at 0:37
Yes, Debbie, G2g2 was a slip of the finger, which I realised as soon as I’d clicked “Submit comment.” So I’m not infallible then.
By “The Dawk Site” perhaps you mean http://richarddawkins.net/
I often look at it, but I’ve never seen any expression of “terror of oblivion.” Perhaps you could provide chapter and verse?
Your ad hominem argument against Mr Hitchens (who, I admit, would never win a charm competition) does not even begin to counter his, well, I suppose I will have to call it assertion. Or is it just a counter-assertion? Would Touchstone have called it the Reply Churlish, the Lie Circumstantial or the Lie Direct? Certainly not, in any case, the Retort Courteous or the Quip Modest. Perhaps it was the Reproof Valiant? Whichever it was, it has not yet been satisfactorily answered.
March 12th, 2009 at 0:50
“By your argument car companies, aircraft manufacturers, manufacturers of cutlery, bleach, pills and rope are all also immoral as these are all capable of causing harm and death.”
No, that’s a distortion of what I said. People who drink alcohol then drive, who run red lights etc, are in a different category and you know it.”
So you’ve made it pretty unclear on how you stand on the subject of homosexuality. You care about people who have anal sex as they’re putting themselves at a health risk – I’m assuming your caring extends to heterosexual couples who dabble in that area of sexual activity also – which is to be admired.
Does that mean you simply care and are concerned that they’re putting themselves at some kind of risk and nothing more than that or are you morally outraged by their activity? You’ve certainly not committed yourself to either side of the fence. Would you care to clarify?
March 12th, 2009 at 0:51
Bizarrely, Deb’s reply to my previous comment to her hasn’t appeared on the site.
March 12th, 2009 at 3:12
@Johnnyess, who said “By “The Dawk Site” perhaps you mean http://richarddawkins.net/
I often look at it, but I’ve never seen any expression of “terror of oblivion.”
Yes, that is the Dawk site, and at one stage I was signed up there… Have a look at the fora, and you’ll see the discussions I mean. I won’t provide chapter and verse, I can’t, but I am sure if you look with both eyes, as my son once said to me in a wholly different context, you’ll see.
“Your ad hominem argument against Mr Hitchens (who, I admit, would never win a charm competition) does not even begin to counter his, well, I suppose I will have to call it assertion.”
I have no clue who or what Touchstone is, and as for going at me for using ad hominem against Hitchens, ‘ma dai!” as they say. I am not trying to counter any of his assertions, I wouldn’t bother, I felt soiled after reading his book about ‘God’, in quotes because the God he speaks of, is unrecognisable to anyone who actually believes in God. (As Hitchens may or may not know, but it’s hard to work out what he actually does know.)
There aren’t words bad enough to describe his weaselly backing of Bush’n'Blair and his asinine claim to still be a left-winger when it suited him, in his defence of an illegal invasion of Iraq.
I’ve been trying to find an article I had ‘favourited’ on my computer in the office, but I seem to’ve lost it, nevertheless I’ll see what I can find,
Deb
These reviews sill do for starters:
http://www.amazon.com/God-Not-Great-Religion-Everything/dp/0446579807
Summed up thus: ” Christopher Hitchens is a brilliant man, and there is no living journalist I more enjoy reading. But I have never encountered a book whose author is so fundamentally unacquainted with its subject. In the end, this maddeningly dogmatic book does little more than illustrate one of Hitchens’s pet themes — the ability of dogma to put reason to sleep.
Copyright 2007, The Washington Post. All Rights Reserved. “
March 12th, 2009 at 8:43
Debbie,
Wrong. There are plenty of atheists in foxholes
http://www.ffrf.org/foxholes/
One of the advantage of being a non-believer, is that believers – and especially christians seem to believe *very* different things. They then claim that *other* beliefs different to their own are *not* Christianity. I have heard many evangelicals state catholism is not christian!! Hilarious!
But Werners views are at the extreme end of christianity compared with say the Church of England.
I dont deny you the right to hold these views – I’m just happy youre in the minority of the religious crowd. And in fact, the more you voice these views, the more secular Europe becomes. Win win situation for us.
March 12th, 2009 at 10:19
Deb says (657):- “It’s not about being rational, surely you realise that?“. I know it’s not rational – I just don’t understand why people choose to be irrational. Nothing you three have said convinces me that purposely dropping rationality is worthwhile.
Phil said:”I think you will find that Werner wasn’t saying that all these other religions knowingly worship satan. You see satan is a deceiver… he is deceiving these people into worshiping what they think is good and true – just like he is deceiving you atheists into your ‘rational’ thinking and ‘causal proof’. He doesn’t want you to know the love of God.”
So, how does Phil know satan isn’t deceiving him? It could be satan speaking in his head (I think that’s what he said happens). According to Phil, satan can decieve billions of people – in India, for example – so surely he could deceive Phil, no?
Or is Phil special?
Paul
March 12th, 2009 at 15:28
Debbie,
If you and I find someone rude and obnoxious, that does not disprove his argument that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” In fact Hitchens was quoting Carl Sagan here. Neither does his support for the invasion of Iraq.
I apologise for going off-topic over Touchstone (a character in Shakespeare’s “As You Like It.”) It was late at night and I got carried away by the sound of the words.
March 12th, 2009 at 15:44
Debbie,
Inspired by your mention of “The Dawk Site” I’ve just clicked onto it. Haven’t so far found any hint of “terror of oblivion,” but I did come across a Forum discussion of the BBC programme “Deborah 13: Servant of God.” Consensus seems to be that this poor child’s upbringing amounts to child abuse.
http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=75045
March 13th, 2009 at 8:01
All the insults – thanks guys – truly appreciated. it means i’m getting to you.
Seriously though – it’s not the first time i’ve been called an idiot or deranged or whatever.
I am – BELIEVE IT OR NOT – a normal guy with my own business, a family, lots of friends (who share my belief mind you) living in a country that’s part of the big big world.
Thanks Phil for clarifying about satan deceiving – and Paul – yes, he can deceive us also – but not to the extent where we worship something else – because we have divine protection from the holy spirit.
Thanks Debbie for: “hands-over-ears-la-la-la-I-can’t hear you’ approach”. I think that pretty much sums it up. You still haven’t answered my question (Paul N) Don’t you believe, or don’t you want to believe, knowing that believing would change your life and rip you out of your comfort zone.
How do we know all of this?? It’s called “The Bible” – available from most reputable book shops.
Most of you are so wrapped up in your humanist viewpoints that you truly are walking around with hands over your ears – because “you are right” and you won’t listen to what anyone else has to say. Typical of satan’s work…
Guys, you are missing out on so much – so many wonderfull things, love, grace, favour, prosperity, wisdom. Take those hands of your ears and listen with your hearts for a change.
later.
March 13th, 2009 at 9:54
Werner says:-Thanks Phil for clarifying about satan deceiving – and Paul – yes, he can deceive us also – but not to the extent where we worship something else – because we have divine protection from the holy spirit. … displaying the arrogance reserved the self-righteous. Billions are deceived, but not Werner. What a guy!
And in response to your rather vague questions – Don’t you believe, or don’t you want to believe, knowing that believing would change your life and rip you out of your comfort zone. – no to the first and the second just shows your wishful thinking. What does ‘wanting to believe’ have to do with it? The truth (whatever that is) surely doesn’t depend on what I personally want, does it?
Paul
Paul
March 13th, 2009 at 9:57
Werner said:
“Guys, you are missing out on so much – so many wonderfull things, love, grace, favour, prosperity, wisdom. Take those hands off your ears and listen with your hearts for a change.”
Well said Werner!!
That’s right, we could discuss and argue for ages – but the longer we do – the longer you are all missing out on God’s love. Come on guys – what is stopping you..? Take the step of faith out of your comfort zone and what you think you know and seek God.
Phil.
March 13th, 2009 at 10:05
Paul N said:
“displaying the arrogance reserved for the self-righteous. Billions are deceived, but not Werner. What a guy!”
Paul, it is not just Werner. Many 10’s of thousands of Christians would believe the same. We are not arrogant in believing these truths, because we know that all the glory is Gods. You see God gives us all these amazing things because of his grace and love – not through anything we have done. We could only be arrogant if we thought that these things were because of something we had done.
Phil.
March 13th, 2009 at 10:36
The arrogance is in ‘knowing’ you’re right, without one scintilla of evidence except a vague statement about voices in your head.
Paul
March 13th, 2009 at 11:02
Werner, Phil
Here we go again. More of the “we know…” rhetoric. You keep persisting with the idea of the bible as evidence.
Once again. The Bible – is – not – evidence.
There are two schools of thought towards the historicity of the Bible, ‘biblical minimalism’ and ‘biblical maximalism’. There is also your approach – a non-historical method of reading the Bible, the traditional religious reading of the Bible.
You need to provide additional sources to back up what the bible claims. However, as Biblical Minimalism states – there simply arent any. The archaeological evidence is quite poor. Even the version of the Bible we have are not even 2nd hand – but ultimate re-copies. Some writers werent even present at the events.
However, the big point here is that – EVEN if you did have the archaeology that proved passages in bible…..it still does not prove the existence of any god. The character Jesus could simply have been a nice guy who did good things and said some nice words. Full stop.
Phil,
You ask “Come on guys – what is stopping you..?”
Simple – it is the same reason I dont believe in unicorns and goblins and elves. The reason – Evidence.
And its ironic – once we mention the E-word – you adopt the “hands-over-ears-la-la-la-I-can’t hear you’ approach”……..
March 13th, 2009 at 11:16
Paul.
Arrogance = “Egotism, conceit, superiority, pride, self-importance”
If i have given you the idea that i am any of the above – i take back my words.
“Self-Righteous” – i would be the first person to admit if i had made a mistake. no matter the circumstances – don’t pretend to know my character based on a few words in a forum post….
“Billions are deceived, but not Werner. What a guy” – have a look at my post again.
I said that we are also deceived. On thousands of other things. Those people who worship idols and statues and budha and what not – have not heard the truth – so they are easily deceived. Satan is the father of deception, lies. Why does a person commit suicide? Because ‘they can’t take it anymore?” BULL! no person in his right mind would ‘hack at his wrists with a blunt bread knife’ – it’s a lie of satan that it would be better to end it. In just the same way he deceives you and me on a daily basis. Alcoholics, druggies, family problems you name it – he deceives. HUMANISM is a lie from Satan – and the best one of them all – Satan’s biggest trick – convincing the world that he does not exist.
I pray that your eyes will be opened and that you will see what is going on around you.
Werner.
March 13th, 2009 at 11:33
“You need to provide additional sources to back up what the bible claims. However, as Biblical Minimalism states – there simply arent any. The archaeological evidence is quite poor. Even the version of the Bible we have are not even 2nd hand – but ultimate re-copies. Some writers werent even present at the events.”
You know this how?
“And its ironic – once we mention the E-word – you adopt the “hands-over-ears-la-la-la-I-can’t hear you’ approach”……..”
Ma dai! That’s cheap and silly, trying to use my expression against us.
Deb
March 13th, 2009 at 11:40
Hi Debbie,
Cheap? Yes. True? Absolutely.
First, are you seriously claiming there *is* archaeological evidence or alternative texts that validate the Bible? If so, I would start writing your paper now, as it will revolutionise the field of biblical historicity.
Second, yes I am claiming many writers were not at the events they write about. Moreover, I’m claiming that many events in fact did not even happen.
Over to you to provide the evidence outside of the bible…………
March 13th, 2009 at 12:07
Werner,
As I said earlier, the arrogance comes in ‘knowing’ you’re right, whilst having zero evidence.
According to your own words, somehow you are immune to Satan’s attempts to fool you (into worshipping other gods), whereas billions aren’t. I think that is a fairly egotistical and superior view to take.
Paul
March 13th, 2009 at 12:23
“First, are you seriously claiming there *is* archaeological evidence or alternative texts that validate the Bible? If so, I would start writing your paper now, as it will revolutionise the field of biblical historicity.
Second, yes I am claiming many writers were not at the events they write about. Moreover, I’m claiming that many events in fact did not even happen.
Over to you to provide the evidence outside of the bible……”
Seriously, later.. It’s 12.29 after midnight and I am off to bed soon…
Deb
March 13th, 2009 at 12:30
Hi All -
I’ve been watching this debate back and forth for a while, and frankly, if anyone on either side actually changes their mind, I’ll eat my hat. I will, in fact, go out especially and buy a hat in order to eat it.
My question, which I raised before and which no one seemed to take up, is that given that neither side is going to change, how can we live together? Can we have common laws and ways of living that respect everyone’s beliefs, or are there always going to be injustices and therefore endless struggle?
Society in general believes in the equality of the sexes, yet some factions of the Christian church do not want to extend that equality to having women priests and bishops. (I do not know enough about Islam, Judaism, Hinduism etc to comment about them.) The debate in my mind is not whether that is right or wrong, but to what extent sincere belief should be allowed to run counter to commonly held values.
In some respects, I am inclined to say that if these people believe that women are not suitable for office, then they should be allowed to do so. After all, any women in their congregations who do not agree can vote with their feet.
But what if such discrimination extended to people because of their sexuality?
And what if it extended to the colour of their skin? Would that – could that – ever be tolerated? Fortunately I do not think that any religion has that belief, but what if they did?
And how do we resolve the conflict when religious law further? There was a case earlier this week, in Saudi (if I remember rightly) where, under Islamic law, a 75 year old woman was sentenced to 40 lashes for consorting with younger men. The woman – a widow – had asked her dead husband’s nephew to bring her some bread. He’d done so and had a friend with him at the time. The men too will get lashed.
I have no doubt that this was done because of some sincere belief, but how do we, either Atheist or Christian, respond to this? Can we simply say “Well, it is up to them”?
I am interested in what other people think about this, because I really don’t know.
Rik
March 13th, 2009 at 12:43
Hi Rik,
You make some interesting points and raise some good questions. I don’t believe for a second either that anyone will change their mind from discussion on here. I’m not sure that it’s the aim though and I quite enjoy the discussion if nothing else! Save me a bit of that hat, if anyone does change their mind though.
Your point about the goings on in places like Saudi, unfortunately I believe it is “up to them”. It’s their law and certainly nothing we say or do in the west will change their ways. Thankfully in this country (the UK) moves have been made to improve liberty to groups that previously didn’t have the same rights as others, homosexual couples being the obvious example, and overall more freedom – shops and the pub being open on a Sunday! – much to the chagrin of the religious organisations in this country I don’t doubt.
Just on an unrelated note, I don’t suppose anyone saw Deborah 13 – Servant of God the other day? It’s on BBC iPlayer for those who didn’t – http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00j6l77/Deborah_13_Servant_of_God/
Alastair
March 13th, 2009 at 13:07
Hi Rik,
Great point. However, I think that we’re moving into an interesting time with this debate. There are some interesting trends occuring:
- the decline in traditional church attendence – each decade the ‘traditional’ churches (CoE + catholic) are declining in number.
- an increase in evangelicalical Churches
- the end of the taboo of critcising belief.
In answer to your question, how can we live together, I believe the answer lies in making the uk a secular state and changing law. After that, anyone can practice what beliefs they like -but inside their temple and their home.
What is interesting is that the level of non-belief has now risen to large enough levels that campaigns can now be co-ordinated.
Can we live in harmony? I dont think so. Thats why the law needs to clearly define what religions can and cant do.
March 13th, 2009 at 13:12
Hi Alastair.
Yes, what happens in Saudi may well be up to them. We just have to turn our backs and say “sorry, not our problem”. Like it’s not our problem that people are starving in the Sudan because the government is corrupt? Where do we draw the line between a corrupt government and one inspired by belief?
What happens when these fundamentalists move to the UK? That seems straight-forward enough: they come here, they follow our laws or go home.
Except what happens when this IS their home? What if someone who is a UK citizen and can trace his or her ancestry back prior to the Romans, converts to Islam and wants to live by those laws?
And what happens when what they do in their country is not so easily isolated and brushed under the carpet? I have seen Christian fundamentalists from the USA on TV, saying that the concerns about global warming are nothing to worry about because it heralds the End Time, and that because of this they will do nothing to reduce their ecological footprint.
Yes, I saw Deborah 13. It is hardly unrelated – it is exactly an example of the problem. She has been brought up to the best standards that her parents could manage. She is loved and cared for. And her viewpoint on the world is narrow to the point of mental abuse.
I believe that whether as a Christian or as an Atheist, no child should be brought up with that restricted a view on life. I would feel as sorry for a child who had never been brought up on nothing but science books.
And Eoin, you suggest that secular law should over-ride all others. But – without reverting to the Atheism is better than Religion debate – why?
Rik
March 13th, 2009 at 13:25
Hi RikGG
The reason that secular legislation is preferable to a religious one is that religious laws always favour one point of view over another, and are often not compatible with one another.
For instance, if we were to cherry-pick laws from the various religions we would ban abortion, alcohol (how would Catholic Mass work with an islamic ban on wine?), homosexuality, adultery, pre-marital sex, suicide, etc. etc. Whilst we may not like the idea of some of these things, it doesn’t necessarily give us the right to ban them.
The point is that secular law generally assumes that people are able to do what they like provided that they do not compromise the rights of others.
Religious law tends to interfere with what people can and can’t do even when it’s nothing to do with the state. Secular law is the fairest solution as religious law will always favour one section of society at the expense of another.
March 13th, 2009 at 13:33
Rik,
While I don’t disagree with what you’re saying, essentially it would mean dictating to countries around the world what their laws should and shouldn’t be. It’s not feasible and it’s simply not going to happen. I hate to sound like a Daily Mail reader but we’ve enough problems at home without trying to solve all the world’s problems as well. Obviously there are certain causes and issues that absolutely we need to be involved with but how can we reasonably instruct the Saudi’s not to sentence 75 year old women to 40 lashes? Or to Pakistan villagers to not stone a man to death? There are far too many examples like this that go on daily that we’re simply not in a position to solve.
As for Deborah, while it made me cringe all the way through, I think really the only thing the parents are guilty of is not preparing her for life on her own. That said, I’m assuming her brother, clearly gay, was brought up in similar circumstances has been able to make friends and cope outside the family unit. What could you try her parents on? Teaching her creationism over evolution? Not letting her know who Britney Spears is? I was more shocked that a family like that actually exists in the UK than anything. I got the impression by and large we reject overtly cultish practices here!
March 13th, 2009 at 13:47
Hi Rik,
RedCitrus put it well. The uk is now made up of many different faiths all with their own specific supernatural beings. I am quite content for people to believe in these beings. However, I am against when religious believers claim their rules apply to us too. So, remove religion from the working of state. No religion should be favoured.
And make it compulsory to teach ALL religions at schools whilst banning selection on the basis of religion. One of the best ways to make religion irrelevent is to teach all of them.
The documentary on Deborah was depressing. However, it was reassuring to see the group of teenagers that she was trying to convert. All of them humored her, yet were non-believers – and were good-natured about the fact they disagreed with her.
March 13th, 2009 at 13:58
Hi eoin…
eoin said:
“However, I am against when religious believers claim their rules apply to us too. So, remove religion from the working of state.”
So, I won’t be arrested for murdering my neighbour or steeling the audi TT from across the street then..?
You see, some of the laws that originate from Christianity actually make sense don’t you think..?
Phil.
March 13th, 2009 at 14:02
Removing religion from the working of the state does not immediately mean chaos. Are you trying to tell us that without christianity, we would be lawfully murdering each other and stealing from each other?
And beside, laws against murder and theft came well before Christianity! What are you talking about? “You shall not kill” and “You shall not steal” was in the old testament, well before Jesus was a glint in Yahweh’s eye!
March 13th, 2009 at 14:07
Phil, are you trying to tell us that it’s only your belief in God that is preventing you from killing your neighbour?
I don’t need the bible to tell me that this is wrong.
Laws against murder and theft are necessary for a functioning society. It’s got nothing to do with the bible.
March 13th, 2009 at 14:12
Come on guys!! Take a joke!! I just wanted to point out that some of what we believe as Christians actually makes sense!!!!
Alastair said:
“And beside, laws against murder and theft came well before Christianity! What are you talking about? “You shall not kill” and “You shall not steal” was in the old testament, well before Jesus was a glint in Yahweh’s eye!”
Exactly – this is from God – what we believe as Christians!!
Phil.
March 13th, 2009 at 14:14
Phil,
“You see, some of the laws that originate from Christianity actually make sense don’t you think..?”
“Do not steal” appears quite clearly in the Yoga Sutras of Patanjali (Hindu scripture).
Many of the laws you claim as Christian appear in ALL religions because they are human principles. Christianity does not have claim to them.
March 13th, 2009 at 14:39
I think that RedCitrus’s point, that “that secular law generally assumes that people are able to do what they like provided that they do not compromise the rights of others” is as good an argument for it as any. It would nice if that were enshrined in some kind of constitution. “People can do what they like, so long as it doesn’t harm someone else.”
But will the believers, of whatever faith, agree to secular law being the deciding factor? Will they agree that “Secular law is the fairest solution as religious law will always favour one section of society at the expense of another.” Or will they feel that secular law favours atheists?
And will they interpret “…so long as it doesn’t harm someone else” the same way?
For example, on the issue of abortion? Anti-abortionists feel that they are obliged by their beliefs (whether informed by religion or otherwise) to come to the defence of those who are unable to speak for themselves.
As for Alastair’s comment that it isn’t practical to dictate to other countries what their laws will be, all I can say is that it doesn’t seem to stop us trying. Or do we only try when it is perhaps in our own interests?
No, I wouldn’t consider prosecuting Deborah’s parents. Their abuse of her was not intended. Perhaps, though, there should be some restriction on home-schooling. At least if she had gone to a regular school she would have some taste of real life. (But then, another recent case, where the school secretary’s 6 year old child was asked to keep her opinions on Hell to herself …)
And Phil … yes, I do hope you were joking. Though I am trying to avoid promoting one side or the other in the question of how we can live together, you should be aware that morality and altruism do not derive from religion or belief.
Rik
March 13th, 2009 at 14:45
Hi Rik,
“But will the believers, of whatever faith, agree to secular law being the deciding factor?”
Of course not…. this highlights the need for more campaigns such as the atheist bus campaign. Secularism is growing rapidly, esp across Europe but non-believers need to support it.
March 13th, 2009 at 15:34
Hi RikGG, I value your comments on this site – its good to have someone in the ‘middle’ as it were.
You said: “But will the believers, of whatever faith, agree to secular law being the deciding factor? Will they agree that “Secular law is the fairest solution as religious law will always favour one section of society at the expense of another.” Or will they feel that secular law favours atheists?”
Well put. How would secular law work… what would Christians be allowed to do..? If the atheists were able to have their bus campaign – could Christians have a bus campaign under a ’secular’ law..? Could we tell people they are special because God made them, that there is reason for hope in this life, that God loves them..? Surely these are good things..?
RikGG also said:
“you should be aware that morality and altruism do not derive from religion or belief.”
I agree – these are not from religion or belief – they are placed inside each one of us by God. It is up to us weither we listen to our conscience or not.
Phil.
March 13th, 2009 at 16:22
Phil
Of course Christians would be able to have their bus campaign – as long as it did not infringe the rights of others. This is a principle of free speech – the expression of an opinion. It should be made clear, however, that this is an opinion.
Whether you could claim that “there is definitely a God” is debatable even now – this is a claim which cannot be substantiated, and the ASA are tackling this issue right now…hence the inclusion of “probably” within the HA’s version.
Any legislative framework should allow for people to believe whatever they choose – to me, this is a fundamental human right. What it should not do is dictate how people live their lives, something that religious legislatures are wont to do.
March 13th, 2009 at 16:23
Phil,
We live in a secular country and I’ve seen both the atheist bus ads and the countering christian bus ads.
You can ‘tell us’ exactly what you want – and we can choose whether to listen to you or not.
This is wholly different from a country run on religious principles.
In Afghanistan recently, a man who wanted to convert to Christianity was tried and convicted of apostasy – the sentence for which is death, no less.
Luckily for him the outrage from other parts of the world stayed the Afghan governments hand and he was allowed to leave the country.
Paul
March 13th, 2009 at 16:38
Hey RedCitrus and Paul N.
Your thoughts sound better than how the law is right now!! So the nurse offering prayer wouldn’t have got into trouble then under your secular law and the kid in the class room and her mum too..? Sounds like a step in the right direction!!
Thanks guys, Phil.
March 13th, 2009 at 16:49
While everyone should be allowed to express their views, does this mean they can be aired unreservedly?
We tell young children there is a Santa, and fairies and all sorts. It is entirely false but, it seems, harmless.
We tend not to tell them there are monsters under the bed, because it upsets them without cause. Someone who did that would be considered rather cruel, don’t you think?
So (without going into the truth or not of them) I don’t think tales of Jesus are going to do any harm.
On the other hand, some people rather concentrate on the going to Hell and being prodded by pitch-fork wielding demons for all eternity aspect of Christianity. (Sorry to pick on Christians – don’t know about other religions.) The school-kid who was told not to talk about religion was doing precisly that, (as I understand it) and frightening her classmates. The program earlier this week, on the girl Deborah showed, to my mind, someone who had been traumatised at a very young age by similar tales. The original bus adverts, which prompted the atheist bus campaign, referred also to the eternal damnation threat for non-believers.
To some people, the threat of damnation may be the goad that makes them adhere to their beliefs. They may also quite genuinely want to spare others the same fate.
I would not want to prevent anyone of any religion airing their views. Life would be very dull if we could not say what we felt. But just as the PC brigade can really get over-zealous in their desire to avoid giving even the slightest offense, overt racism and sexism are not acceptable.
Personally, I think those original ads (were they for the Alpha course) were probably ok. There was nothing on them, (I understand), to directly refer to hell etc, but the if anyone was interested and followed the quotes, they got directed to a passage in the Bible. In other words, nothing to frighten the kiddies. And I think the line could safely be drawn there.
But should that bus driver have been allowed to refuse to drive one of the atheist buses? Could an atheist refuse to drive a Christian (or Islamic or Wiccan or Hindu) bus? Or any permutation thereof ….?
Rik
March 13th, 2009 at 16:53
Phil,
You say:-“So the nurse offering prayer wouldn’t have got into trouble then under your secular law”.
Was she prosecuted? No, the woman who was being prayed for didn’t appreciate it, and made it known. She was re-instated after suspension. See here … http://www.christianlegalcentre.com/view.php?id=684
I agree that the Primary Care Trust was typically heavy-handed in the first place, but the sane, rational outcome prevailed.
It might teach her some bedside manners, though. The last thing on earth I would want in hospital is one of the staff praying for me – it would just tell me that they had given up on conventional methods and I was about to peg it.
I don’t know the story of: “and the kid in the class room and her mum too..” so can’t comment.
Paul.
March 13th, 2009 at 16:55
Phil
I think that these were both massive over-reactions. No, I would not have disciplined the nurse in this situation. These are not examples of discrimination or an infringement of human rights.
However, these were not illegal acts either, so I don’t see how they are relevant to this discussion?