Atheist Bus

[iranu]

I dunno why the religious are getting so worked up about this. It shows their pitiful persecution complex and how shallow and fragile their faith really is. You would have thought that they would just ignore what is ultimately no more than a bit of a jape backed by a prominent atheist, author and scientist. Nobody really gave a flying wotsit when a christian organisation ran adverts so why the hooha now? It's not calling for the abolition of religion or saying we should slaughter christians but they are behaving as if it is. The way they act reinforces my view that I've never actually met a christian and the ones that proclaim a greater devoutness are the least christian of all.

I have visions of waiting for a bus when three turn up at once, firstly the atheist bus, then the christian outrage bus, closely followed by the fail bus. All aboard!

[Stewart]

Stewart, you're being an idiot now. Everyone can express their views, but you are basically just insulting Fuddam without making any particular point.

Of course, you calling me an idiot isn't you doing the same thing.

Do you see?

And I reserve the right to snap Fuddam back into place whenever he has the cheek to say someone else can't see the wood for the trees.

He can be a Christian, Muslim, Hindu, blah, blah, nobody would have a problem with that, but if he starts offering his opinion on Dawkins or anyone else, I can offer my opinion on him.

[MSIC]

I'm not saying you are an idiot generally, i don't know you and have no opinion on that.
I'm saying that in terms of that post you were being an idiot.
And i'm sorry for saying that, because i don't like insulting people.

I however was trying to make a particular point. To me, your post didn't seem to be making much of a point at all, it was simply winding him up. Sorry, maybe i shouldnt have said idiot, but i think if people begin to just start hurling abuse in the middle of an argument it starts to bring down the whole debate.

[Stewart]

Well him having the balls to say Dawkins is deluded wound me up, to be honest.

Dawkins is a man of science. A man of logic. He thinks. He requires proof.

Fuddam reads a story book, accepts it without question.

Fuddam is in no position to say Dakins, or indeed anyone else, can't see the wood for the trees.

I didn't mean to insult him, just pointing out, given the far fetched nature of some of the things he holds true, its probably best he doesn't try to question the ability of others to see clearly.

[MSIC]

Fair enough.

[kalniel]

Dawkins is a man of science. A man of logic. He thinks. He requires proof.

You haven't met very many men of science have you Stewart?

Speaking as one, we often only seem to require proof as it pertains to our own ideas. Dawkins passionatly believes his own theory, and has enough proof for his own belief in it. However I think there is a significant body of science out there that don't agree with his theories in detail - just as there is for many scientific theories. Scientifically his ideas about genes don't fit very well with a more dynamic injection/sharing of DNA by virii, or in fact the role of non-genomic NA, or other inherited factors which have a base in something other than the genetic code itself, such as methlation markers linked to neural activity in rats.

Dawkins commits a couple of scientific crimes IMHO:
1) He tries to use science outside of the problem it's designed to deal with.
2) He doesn't seem to apply the same openness and sceptisicm to his own ideas, even in the realm of science.

YMMV of course, but that's the beauty of science - it isn't absolute.

I dunno why the religious are getting so worked up about this.

We're not.

[fuddam]

Stewart, go and read a book (rather than have me paraphrase things and make a mess of it): The Dawkins Letters

it's quite short, so you should get through it in an afternoon. AND it's cheap, so cost shouldn't be an issue

[Stewart]

Read a book... hmm, didn't you do that one day... and look what happened to you.

I will though mate, I will.

[Rob_B]

Personally I've always thought everyone can believe what they like unless:

- You shove it in my face (ooh-err missus)
- You mock anyone who's views differ (unless they mock you..)
- It/you generally hurt anyone/anything by way of your beliefs
- You accept my views/beliefs
- You ignore/dismiss all proof to the contrary of what you say without actually stopping to think

I'm sure there are more but that covers quite a bit. As far as the bible goes I think it's funny that a collection of stories widely known to have been selected from LOTS of stories that were floating around hundreds of years later then put together by some random people is taken as fact. A bit like how the painting of the last supper has so much read into it (mainly meaning conspiracy theory) was the painter there? NO! Even if he was it would be only 1 persons' viewpoint so don't take it as 100% truth.

I liken this fuss to people who make a big deal (ie shout about it) of being Gay/Black/Disabled/etc (those words purely chosen as I am none of them)...In the nicest possible way & not meaning to offend with apologies if I do but....I don't care, to me you're just another human being.

People should look past beliefs as we (should) do with race/colour but it seems to get away with quite a lot (referring to previous comment on sexism/special treatment) so (IMO) that's why something like this bus advert prompts a lot of attention from atheists as it's some form of restoring balance to the mud slinging which seems fairly one way in favour of the religious.

I'm not saying it doesn't happen both ways but it is more frowned upon to batter a belief than vice-versa, I may find the link that showed Atheists as the most untrustworthy 'group' in the USA (this has now changed & is Scientologists I think) just how does that happen? People who don't believe in a god are untrustworthy?!

I find belief in a god difficult as there is no proof, as someone who's name escapes me said "If you want me to believe in God then YOU have to PROVE there is a God rather than me having to PROVE there isn't" (which is impossible of course)

On the note that this advert wouldn't be in place if 'God' would be replaced by 'Allah' then no it wouldn't, there'd be mass hysteria if it was! Your point that in this country 'God' covers Christianity more than anything else (I totally agree) is kinda difficult to use as an advert like that WOULD be picking out one religion which (IMO) would be uncalled for. Maybe they should have used '..a God..' but it just isn't as catchy!

I think went a bit off track there but one final thing I'll say is most hype is actually created by people being scared that someone might be offended rather than the religious people themselves being offended, this is the dangerous part!

Does anyone recommend reading 'The God Dillusion' as I've always wanted to. I found Derren Browns' book very interesting as I didn't know he was religious until he questioned it, actually that quote above may be from his book!

[TheAnimus]

Stewart, go and read a book (rather than have me paraphrase things and make a mess of it): The Dawkins Letters

it's quite short, so you should get through it in an afternoon. AND it's cheap, so cost shouldn't be an issue

I read a bit of that book before it starts to completely piss me off.

Once again its based on preaching not observable fact. I'm a simple being, been a programmer by trade rely on observable fact. To deny the old testimant god is cruel is insane without trying to justify how getting someone ready to kill their son is anything but a cruel indevor.

I wouldn't buy the book, enless your worried you're going to run out of firewood or toilet paper this winter.

[mediaboy]

Nope, I'm fine for both firewood and toilet paper this winter.

I have all my old school books from old school to burn up at some point


I might go and get the book anyway though, does sound fairly interesting. Dunno, might just borrow it off of a friend for a week or two.

[G4Z]

I would lay money on the fact that Fuddam has never even read a Dawkins book right to the end. Fuddam, if you haven't read one then you really are in no position to comment.

I am just finishing the God delusion and I have found it a really interesting read, like any good scientist he has examples and evidence to back up everything he says which is far more than you can say for the Bible. One of the most interesting things for me was about the Cargo Cults of the south Pacific : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmlYe2KS0-Y

[Bazzlad]

Blah blah blah.

Was wondering how long before you waded in.
Good to see you made such a contribution to the debate, with your normal technique of ignoring the point of the posts made, and picking up on something minor and running with it.

Nice one.

I'll ask you the same question I asked earlier:

Would the bus be allowed the phrase Allah in place of God?

[Bazzlad]

The thing I love about Dawkins, is he is a man of Science, who uses his science to push his personal anti-God Rhetoric.

If he doesn't believe in God, that's down to him, his call, but his self-serving charge to convince people there isn't - meaning he's accepted his own theory as correct - is worryingly closed minded for a man of science:


To use someone's slightly more elegant phrasing:

What many people seem unwilling to say is that Dawkins isn't an atheist. Atheism is a vacuum: it takes no offense at Christianity because it simply doesn't believe. Another reviewer used Dawkins' stamp-collecting analogy, and it's a good one. This is a paraphrase but, essentially, someone who doesn't collect stamps isn't anti-stamps - he just doesn't collect them. Quite.

As a non-stamp collector, I have no feelings on stamp collecting one way or the other. If one worth a fortune popped through my letterbox tomorrow I'd take an interest, but failing that, I'm indifferent. In all likelihood, most non-stamp collectors are indifferent.

Now, were we to write huge tomes of Dostoyevsky proportion violently spewing hatred and rhetoric at stamps, the art of collecting them and those that do, we would have crossed a line into anti-stamp, and everything that comes with that. This is what Dawkins has done.

[G4Z]

Was wondering how long before you waded in.
Good to see you made such a contribution to the debate, with your normal technique of ignoring the point of the posts made, and picking up on something minor and running with it.

Nice one.

I'll ask you the same question I asked earlier:

Would the bus be allowed the phrase Allah in place of God?

I would hope so!

I can imagine that Muslims are perceived as likely to react violently and be more offended than Christians so some might hesitate. To me its a shame, there should be no threat of violence for proclaiming the obvious. I will even say it myself.

God does not exist
Allah does not exist
Vishnu does not exist
Thor does not exist
etc.

[G4Z]

Bazzlad, your example there simply doesn't fly because stamp collectors do not push stamp collecting in your face or push their stamp collecting derived morality on the rest of us. It's just a totally broken example.