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 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 11 … 18 » Show All
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 11 … 18 » Show All
October 23rd, 2008 at 11:41
Just a quick one, regards comment 192 from Karen Grube: I am an atheist. I’ve been in a “foxhole”, under fire. I was an atheist then – a rather scared one, but still an atheist. At NO POINT did I pray, or start hedging my bets about a god. Your assertion has been disproved. Thanks for playing, though!
October 23rd, 2008 at 11:47
“You know the old saying: There are no athiests in a fox hole.”
A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
Many hands make light work.
Lot slept with his daughters.
Hatstands come in red, blue, white and green in the Grattan catalogue.
Is any of that supposed to be pithy?
“So, all of you donating to this nonsense, remember that the next time your great country is threatened by a bombing or terrorist attack and you or someone you love is a victim. My guess is that you’ll be the first praying for God to help save you or your loved one.”
No, I’ll be out there not wasting my time on guff like that digging through the rubble, and hunting down the perpetrators. Weak minded morons sit by and “pray” (or hand wring) when seismic events take place.
“I’m sorry, but this ad campaign is a total crock. If you want to challenge the special privileges given to clergy, do it”
Thanks for the permission, but we really don’t need it.
“but don’t try to deny the existance of God. That just makes you look stupid.”
Why?
I deny the existence of “God”, Allah, Jupiter, Wotan, Saturn et al.
I don’t just *try*, I do it. Why would that make me look stupid?
What would make me look stupid, nay narcissistic, would be if I fell to my knees and “prayed” for my imaginary friend who considers me oh-so-special and obviously will intervene on my behalf over everyone else to change reality around me.
If you feel insulted by this remember that *you* were the one arriving on this website throwing around insults.
October 23rd, 2008 at 12:19
Re: The ‘fox in a hole’ argument has the same status as Pascal’s Wager.
It’s just cod-logic – what happens when a soldier who has been brought in a christian country is facing a soldier from a non-christian country?
According to your theory, they will both resort to praying to their god. But they’ll completely disagree on which god to pray to. I assume you’ll just say the ‘other’ guy is wrong, and end any attempt at a reasoned argument.
And for all those who claim that religious people ‘give’ more – go to Rome and see the splendour and riches of the catholic church, go to America and see the money-soaked preachers who would take the last dollar off their own granny – all in the name of religion. There are many religious people who ‘give’, but there are plenty who ‘take’ as well.
Re #189. Atheist for Real.
Agree with you here … I don’t really class myself as an atheist, in the same way that I’m not an a-tooth -fairy-ist or a-santa-ist … it just doesn’t come into my thinking.
October 23rd, 2008 at 15:09
Let’s spread this campaign. This may be the start of a revolution to rid humanity of the repressive dogmas of religion. Let’s target the biggies – US, Mexico, Brazil – big catholic countries. Money is not so important as is the capilarity of the Internet. Put in Youtube and Orkut! Put it everywhere!
October 23rd, 2008 at 15:22
[...] this on my coworker’s blog, thought it was [...]
October 23rd, 2008 at 15:47
Tony b, i totally agree.
This is the first time there has been a real advertising campaign for rational thinking. Dawkins et al have done amazing jobs, but I think a lot of people just choose to not read their books out of laziness or pig headedness. Exposing fence sitters/agnostics to real advertising could make all the difference.
After the busses, I think radio adverts would be the next way to go. You could fit a whole lot of persuasive information into a 20 second advert.
Alas, I dont think we can ever change the minds of the truly delusional relgion-heads. They need de-programming, which I think can only be done by a psychologist.
October 23rd, 2008 at 15:56
Not sure if you’ll read the comments this far down Ariane, as I fear you may be a bit busier than you first imagined!
However, I have read a lot of comments and a huge number dislike the word ‘probably’. Now, I know why this must be done in order to get around the bus advertising rules, but I do think very strong consideration should be given to a stronger message if a different advertising medium is used.
I for one would love to see a motorway-side hoarding telling people that there is no afterlife so slow down!
October 23rd, 2008 at 15:59
I hope these ads will be strategically placed – on bus routes stopping at as many churches, mosques and synagogues as possible!
October 23rd, 2008 at 16:08
We’re doing our best to read as many comments as possible, but it might take Ariane and I a few days to go through all of them!
October 23rd, 2008 at 16:14
Bravo!!! Al fin gente inteligente en este planeta!!!
October 23rd, 2008 at 16:18
Now this is good!
October 23rd, 2008 at 16:44
Brilliant idea to run a campaign. I would like to suggest some slogans.
-If God created the universe how come he can only have one son?
-After the first billion years wouldn’t Heaven get boring?
-Science has created the modern world – for good and ill.
-300 years ago toothache was a killer disease, thanks to science it is now just a hassle.
-Christianity is very WEIRD – during communion you eat the body and drink the blood of Jesus -Just say NO to symbolic cannabalism.
There’s more of these, but I’ve got to go.
All the best, Mat Stickland.
October 23rd, 2008 at 17:09
Yes, we need to make our voice heard, and not be dismissed (as by Thoughtless For The Day) as having nothing to contribute.
But while it might be fun to tweak the god-botherers’ tails (oh, YES!), we should face the fact that many are as committed to their beliefs as we are. We are not going to change their minds any more than some Jehovah’s Witness banging on my door when I’m halfway through a good film and a bottle of wine is going to change mine.
Ultimately, we need to work towards some kind of society that will allow us all to live side by side. And we won’t achieve that by emulating (no matter how tempted) the intolerance shown by certain other fundamentalists and fanatics.
Nope – I don’t know how. But in a world where Muslims hate Christians, Christians despise Jews and Jews have it in for Muslims, we won’t have contributed much by simply adding another faction to the squabble. That “probably” is a let-out clause; it expresses belief without dogma. We are announcing our presence without laying down any gauntlets
October 23rd, 2008 at 17:16
The “probably” should stay.
A dogmatic message sounds as smug and sneery as the “faith heads” nonsense, and nobody’s going to look at the bus and think “DOH! Why did I never see it all before?”. Some people, however, might be provoked to think or debate.
And if it brings out the rabies in Stephen Green and the Christian lobby that can only be a good thing.
These guys will be so embarrassed when they hear it.
Well, this country has already been bombed and, oddly enough, no revival followed.
If you can accept that we are responsible for our actions, it’s surely self-evident that we’re responsible for our reactions.
“Man first of all exists, encounters himself, surges up in the world – and defines himself afterwards.” – Sartre
Haha!
Your wish is my command.
(Incidentally, you’ve got a cynical link from Andrew Sullivan. That’s big.)
October 23rd, 2008 at 17:20
Your wish is my command.
Ben
(Psst! This will ultimately get reposted, but the last comment’s been reserved for moderation, and Jon and Ariane are presumably a leetle bit busy.)
October 23rd, 2008 at 17:24
I don’t get it…the link doesn’t go anywhere
October 23rd, 2008 at 17:32
Wrong link. Here you go…
October 23rd, 2008 at 17:34
what’s the point of the campaign ?
i simply cannot image Britain to be even more atheistic than it is now…
October 23rd, 2008 at 17:35
Still not a fan of the probably. Probably sounds like 95% sure rather than 99.99% sure. With no advertising restriction from the buses we should definitely debate, refine and identify the best wording to use.
October 23rd, 2008 at 17:51
True, but that’s why so many people are getting rather sick of being preached at.
Up until now, there has been no firm reply, and the church(es) can claim that this country is 75% christian. Technically, that 75% includes me, since I was christened as a baby. As soon as I was old enough to question religion, I gave up on it, but I haven’t been un-christened as far as the good ol’ COE is concerned.
October 23rd, 2008 at 18:22
[...] October 23, 2008 A few final thoughts on the atheist bus… [...]
October 23rd, 2008 at 19:32
Richard said: “And I challenge you to a debate on the television to prove “beyond reasonable doubt” that God doesn’t exist before a totally impartial jury. Are you up for that? I can assure you that you will lose.”
Fair enough. You prove to me that Zeus and Apollo don’t exist I’ll and use your method.
October 23rd, 2008 at 20:50
In the absence of a quote function etc, I am copying-and-pasting from Mat @211…
“Brilliant idea to run a campaign. I would like to suggest some slogans.
-If God created the universe how come he can only have one son? (He doesn’t need any more than one, why should s/he?)
-After the first billion years wouldn’t Heaven get boring? (Heaven isn’t sitting on a cloud with a harp. It’s doing stuff!)
-Science has created the modern world – for good and ill. (Ill. Napalm for starters, oh and nuclear waste!)
-300 years ago toothache was a killer disease, thanks to science it is now just a hassle. (Toothache a killer diseease? Dude you could have picked a much better example)
There’s more of these, but I’ve got to go.
Oh, and Redcitrus, your Santa Claus analogy has more whiskers than the advertising character has! There’s no comparison between Santa Claus and belief in God, no matter what St Richard of Dawkins says! (You guys need some original thinkers in your campaign, not just mindless followers…) Check out Alister McGrath’s excellent book, ‘Dawkins’ God’…
Disclaimer. There’s another Debbie who came along over nignt NZ time, probably from the USA, if her phraseology is any indication. I just want to say I am not her (not that she’s wholly wrong!)
Debbie K
October 23rd, 2008 at 21:41
Over £90,000!
Ariane for Secularist of the Year!
- outstanding achievement!
_____
October 23rd, 2008 at 21:42
Good luck with it. I live in the Netherlands, here preaching is less of a problem but the stupidity of reasoning in most religions still baffles me.
October 23rd, 2008 at 22:11
Sorry, there is a non sense.
Can’t you use any logic?
If God doesn’t exist, why should we waste all this money so stupidly?
I think we should donate all this money raised for charity to help poor people.
God doesn’t exist (PROBABLY), so we are the only people who can possibly help all those poor children that are still praying God for help!!!
Anyone agrees?
October 23rd, 2008 at 22:22
it’s a syllogism
A) God doesn’t exist, so we shouldn’t bother about him
B) We can only hate someone/something that is real. if something doesn’t exist, again, why should we hate it?
C) Either God exist, and this must be why we are all so pissed off…or he doesn’t. So, why this campaign?
October 23rd, 2008 at 23:11
Hi Debbie K. I’ve not read the Dawkins book, so can’t really comment on whether he uses the Santa analogy or not, but I’m all ears if you’d like to explain the difference to me.
As far as I can see, they are both fictional characters which have developed over time in folklore and literature. The character of Saint Nicolas varies from country to country, just like the character of God, so there would appear to be parallels here too. Both are passed down through stories from one generation to another, and, fundamentally, there is no evidence that either exists.
October 23rd, 2008 at 23:48
Redcitrus,
Trust me, Dawkins uses the Santa Claus argument all the time, part I think, of the general elitism of internet-atheists…
But as McGrath points out, adults don’t become believers in Santa Claus, whereas there are many thousands or millions of adults who become believers in God (McGrath and I have that in common, becoming believers as adults.) I was brought up by parents who were an atheist (father) and an agnostic (mother.) They did the Santa Claus thing but didn’t believe it, because they thought we children did, but of course dropped it gratefully when it became clear we children were only pretending to believe in Santa for the sake of our benighted parents…
I offer you a link to McGrath’s discussion in his book, and in case that doesn’t work, do google ‘Dawkins’ God’ by Alister McGrath…
http://books.google.co.nz/books?id=V9dr6167AJ8C&pg=PA87&lpg=PA87&dq=Apologetics+God+and+Santa+Claus+are+not+the+same&source=web&ots=g4-VjGO2_P&sig=7G75xUCdU2lva5ZvUvOqQyPxYg8&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=9&ct=result
I am hunting up some more arguments, but do try googling, in fact I challenge you to do so, though I am reasonably sure that you simply won’t.
Here’s another link that probably will work, I am sorry it’s so American, but that’s google.co.nz for you!
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/unicorns.html
Debbie K
October 24th, 2008 at 0:12
Debbie, seriously…
Believing in god is exactly the same as Santa Claus. The reason why so many adults believe in God is because of “sanity in numbers”.
If a billion people believed in the flying teapot, spoke about it every sunday, made films and books about it, you’d believe it.
You need to step out of your programmed mind for just a coupld of seconds and see the world for what it is.
October 24th, 2008 at 0:34
Is there a connection between the Atheist Campaign and the nonsense of the “Bright” movement? It’s one thing to be outspoken about ones atheism, but pretending it means atheists have anything else in common.
October 24th, 2008 at 0:35
@Rich Savage 230.
Sigh… The reaction I expected! To me, you people are the ones who are programmed!
Did you bother to follow the links I gave? No, of course you didn’t.
What part of “I became a believer as an adult” didn’t you understand? I understand Mr Dawkins doesn’t even accept that phenomenon, people brought up by atheists, living in a hugely secular country and then becoming believers… Maybe he’s never heard of it, or maybe like his followers, he just can’t cope emotionally with it?
DK
October 24th, 2008 at 2:27
Delighted to see someone take positive steps in support of non-belief. I particularly liked the use of the word “probably” on the bus.
Here, in India, it is taken as axiomatic that people who hold religious beliefs, and most do, have a right to be offended if someone questions those beliefs. Apparently the sensitivities of atheists and agnostics do not call for such careful handling. I wish we could start a similar campaign in India. Congratulations
October 24th, 2008 at 2:29
@SJ Sands 154#
“I am curious as to why you would even want to say anything. If you believe there is no god why worry about what anyone says? I know there is a God and I am a very intelligent, thinking, educated person. I feel sorry for folks missing out on the wonderfully challenging and intellectual pursuit of God. I also think that you can get more from folks you want to change if you quit the put downs. Religion is not the antithesis of thinking. Sad to think of you facing the God of the Universe at death with no relationship with Him. thankfully He is a redeeming and forgiving God. He will establish a relationship with you any time you come to Him.
Have a good day and think hard! : )”
You see this is where I start to have problems dealing with this; I DO think hard and the result leads me to conclude that, on balance there is no god.
Also @DebbieK when my mum died there was a room in heaven for her and when my dad died, there was a room in heaven for him. These words were comforting and eased the pain but guess what, after the tears, I’m still an aetheist
As I have said previosly, I do think for myself.
While I’m here, and this is a question I’ve been meaning to ask for a long long time, whenever christians refer to god, they refer to god as ‘Him’ or ‘He’. Does this mean god is male?
(post script-Ive often wondered if my mum’s room and my dad’s room are next to each other)
October 24th, 2008 at 3:14
@Roy 233. IMO, God is neither male nor female but includes both… and there are many, many Christians who avoid He/Him for God for that reason, that saying he/him is ultimately misleading…
If your Mum and Dad are anything like my Mum and Dad, also dead, they are together. (In my case with my two brothers.)
God is the God of the living, and that includes those who are dead from our point of view…
DK
October 24th, 2008 at 5:08
@ Debbie K
After reading some short extracts of the book you linked, I think a lot of the points made ( at least what I read ) are poorly constructed.
October 24th, 2008 at 8:36
“God is neither male nor female but includes both…”
Prove it.
“and there are many, many Christians who avoid He/Him for God for that reason, that saying he/him is ultimately misleading…”
A bit like arguing about the outfits the tooth fairy wears when he/she/it takes your teeth away.
“God is the God of the living, and that includes those who are dead from our point of view…”
White noise. No wonder the religious fear logic, when they speak they speak mystic nonsense.
Prove a single one of your assertions, and you might be making a start. But frankly, I see no difference between this and the ravings of a madman who believes he was taken for a ride on a UFO, or believes he is Napoleon reborn.
October 24th, 2008 at 8:40
Debbie, what makes you think your god is some sort of hermaphrodite? Is that mentioned somewhere in the bible? As far as I recall, they’re usually say “He”.
If that’s the case, what’s the arrangement? Does he have both cock and balls AND a vagina? And boobs?
God, now I’m getting aroused.
October 24th, 2008 at 8:50
What does it require to become a “religious text”?
No, really.
I just re-read Ariane’s exchange with the ASA:
—-
When I called the Advertising Standards Authority, the nice lady said they’d only received two complaints about the bus ads, neither of which had been investigated, because “The quotations used are clearly from the Bible and there’s nothing in the advertising standards code to prohibit advertising a religious message. The website is not part of our remit.”
—-
….and being a nitpicky sort made me wonder: Why The Bible? How come bible quotations (etc) get freedom from audit?
So how about Shakespeare (”first, we kill all the lawyers”)
Or what about The Origin of Species?
I’m just saying basically:
- either all books should be treated equally by the ASA
- or no book should be quoted carte-blanche
- or other books should be declarable as religious texts.
So, which avenue should we attack first?
-a
October 24th, 2008 at 8:53
[...] a bus ad gonna change your beliefs? Atheists think [...]
October 24th, 2008 at 9:13
Hi Debbie K,
You asked us to read your links. I have just read this one … http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/unicorns.html
… this is just an opinion. Please point out where exactly the writer proves his case. He merely refers to the bible.
His argument about differences between god and santa are laughable. Santa isn’t physical, he’s a made-up story – even you accept that.
And he’s also fallen into a trap of his own making. It says … ‘In contrast, atheism would predict that the universe would be eternal. In fact, this belief was prevalent among atheists until the evidence against the steady state theory became overwhelming last century.‘.
This is exactly the difference between relying on an ancient text and updating your view on the world by repeatable experimentation and evidence. He seems to approve.
Paul
October 24th, 2008 at 9:16
@ Debbie K 232.
Of course Dawkins believes it happens. That kind of no-evidence thinking (”NO atheists become religious as adults”), should be left to religious people. Of course SOME people do, for the precise reason I gave: When there are a billion other people believing it, its easy for you to believe it too.
The reason why you dont believe in santa as an adult is because no other adults do. The reason you believe in god is because billions of other people do.
October 24th, 2008 at 9:16
‘agnostic-atheist-canuck | 24.10.08 at 0:34
Is there a connection between the Atheist Campaign and the nonsense of the “Bright” movement? It’s one thing to be outspoken about ones atheism, but pretending it means atheists have anything else in common.’
I think this is such an important point. There is no atheist lifestyle or collective of ideas ,so I always get fidgety when I see ‘atheist groups’ labeled thus, then discover that there are all sorts of philosophical ideas drawn in. Please STOP STOP STOP. There are other groups dealing with the broader issues, most notably the Humanists, but atheism should not be taken any further than its core meaning.
One of the (many) weaknesses in religious criticism of atheism is that they create all sorts of philosophical and social assumptions to try to construct an atheist way of thinking which they can then criticise. Its often represented as an alternative set of beliefs (bit of an irony there!) By representing atheists in this way they really do miss the point, but crucially we musnt think that we are some kind of counter culture. It is not, it is just the absence of belief, every thing else is separate and while im sure we take time to think about the big questions, I for one am not happy to be represented as part of some shared way of thinking.
October 24th, 2008 at 9:18
Oh, and debbie, yes i did read all the links. Yet again, wishy washy dribble. Its amazing what you people think constitues an argument.
October 24th, 2008 at 9:26
Debbie K.
There are a number of flaws in your argument. You seem to be suggesting that because many people believe something, then it must be true.
There are over a billion people in India, 80% of whom are Hindu. That’s quite a lot of people who have a belief which isn’t a Christian one. Doesn’t their vote count for something? You can’t both be right.
Both belief in God and Santa are inherited. A child brought up in complete isolation from the world will not believe in the Christian God (although they may well formulate their own belief system); both God and Santa rely on parents / preachers passing down belief from one generation to the next without providing conclusive evidence that either exists.
I’d be happy to exist in God…all he has to do is to demonstrate that he exists. So far, nothing. Being told that he does by some bloke with a dog collar just doesn’t cut the mustard, I’m afraid.
October 24th, 2008 at 9:31
John
Absolutely right, however isn’t Humanism a subset of atheism, one that adopts a set of values? Such organisations spring up, and you either join them or you don’t. There is no such thing, as you say, as an atheist set of values beyond the self evident.
The religious are trying to taunt the irreligious with “you have no values”, missing the point, for sure, but effectively slandering the atheist.
October 24th, 2008 at 12:47
Well done, love this campaign! I’m just about to out the logo on my webpage. I belong to the Facebook group as well.
October 24th, 2008 at 13:20
when i first heard about this i thought it was an interesting and refreshing idea, more in the sense that it will probably be provoking, make people take notice, turn their heads and say ‘wow look at that bus, how strange!’ or something like that. and maybe for that reason it would be a bit funny and entertaining as well. but i don’t think it goes further than that, and i don’t think it should be taken further than that anyway.
the things that are being said on here for me are just plain scary. people talking of some ‘worthy cause’ or wanting to remove the word ‘probably’ from the slogan. so are we going to have a collective of atheists now fighting for their worthy cause? does this not defeat the point of atheism?
people are atheists because they see no reason to believe in god and/or because they think that religion is responsible for many of the ills of this world.
if they see no reason for believing in god, then they are just quite relaxed about the whole thing and are not too bothered with people that do – they just disagree, but i don’t think that they feel the need to parade their view around a city…apart maybe from wanting to spicen things up a bit, which is fine.
if, on the other hand, they think that religion is reponsible for many bad things in this world, then maybe their atheism has a bit more edge to it, and then maybe they even hate religion in a sense. but if that is the case, why would they even want to start campaigning for atheism and start trying to convert people? wouldn’t that just make them as bad as any other religion?
October 24th, 2008 at 14:11
@Rich #125
Hi Rich,
Nice to see your message but I am somewhat surprised that you think the fossils are eveidence for evolution when they clearly are not and cannot be.
The fossil record is the only so-called material evidence for evolution when really the fossils cry out Creation!
So, what are fossils? When an organism is trapped and swept away by running water, it is buriedat some point by sediment. The sediment becomes compacted into rockand the organisms or their imprints become part of the rock. These are called fossils and they are found all over the world.
To start with, any person examining this subject with an open mind must conclude that fossils are evidence of sudden death and quick burial, and NOT slow gradual death and decay. It is evidence of catastrophism and uniformitarianism. The graveyards of fossils all over the world are “living” evidence of the Biblical account of the universal flood in the days of Noah, as described in the book of Genesis.
If the fossil record favour evolution, we would expect, first of all, to find the oldest layers of rock having the most primitive forms of life, and gradually as we go into different forms of strata we expect to find more and more complex forms of life.
Do we find this? Not at all! There are no indisputable fossils below the Cambrian strata. The, all of a sudden , fossils of billions of animals that are complex, like triolobites, jelly fish and worms, appear in the Cambrian strata. Even if we accept micro fossils of single cells, there is a gap with no fossils at all which, according to evolution took 1.5 billion years. So in this aspect the fossil record is not in favour of evolution.
According to creation all living things were created together, so their fossils appear together as the record shows. Running water usually groups all similar weights and dumps them together, which is why fossils are sorted according to size.
If the fossil record favours evolution , then we would also expect new basic types not to appear suddenly, but to possess characteristics of their ancestral groups. So if fish gave rise to amphibians over 50 million years according to evolution, there must be millions of fossils showing transitional forms, that is fossils with part fins and part legs, or half fish and half amphibian. If reptiles gave rise to birds over millions of years, then we must find fossils with part forelimbs and part wings, or half reptile and half bird.
But in all the fossil records comprising of millions of fossils, not a single transitional form is to be found. Evolutionists cannot blame the size of the record.
There is more Rich but please look at the evidence.
I have faith in a personal God (Jesus) and science completely agrees with His Word, The Bible. Check it out…..
October 24th, 2008 at 14:33
No 125 Rich Savage, the Islamic virgins thing…. I guess these guys don’t count either:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7682240.stm