VERY POPULAR
Atheist Campaign: on buses, tubes, everywhere!
7 comments
January 12th, 2009 • Filed under: Atheism
“There is probably no god. No stop worrying and enjoy your life.”
Yeees! We finally got our own propaganda piece! The atheist bus campaign, initiated by the British Humanist Association, has been hugely successful, totally surpassing the initial £5,000 target, to reach £143,000 as of today! This surprising influx of donations can only mean two things: first, that there are way more atheists waiting to come out and get involved than previously expected, and second, there are now more money to extend the campaign
So, instead of the initially planned 30 buses in London, there will now be 800 buses all over England! Further, London underground cards have started to appear from today, “featuring atheist quotations from Douglas Adams, Albert Einstein, Emily Dickinson and Katharine Hepburn [...], alongside the original campaign slogan,” as Ariane Sherine (the campaign creator) states at the Guardian (read her story for more details on the campaign). And I was lucky enough today to see one of the first such cards, featuring a quote by Hepburn:
So: all aboard the atheist trains!
Yeees! We finally got our own propaganda piece! The atheist bus campaign, initiated by the British Humanist Association, has been hugely successful, totally surpassing the initial £5,000 target, to reach £143,000 as of today! This surprising influx of donations can only mean two things: first, that there are way more atheists waiting to come out and get involved than previously expected, and second, there are now more money to extend the campaign
So, instead of the initially planned 30 buses in London, there will now be 800 buses all over England! Further, London underground cards have started to appear from today, “featuring atheist quotations from Douglas Adams, Albert Einstein, Emily Dickinson and Katharine Hepburn [...], alongside the original campaign slogan,” as Ariane Sherine (the campaign creator) states at the Guardian (read her story for more details on the campaign). And I was lucky enough today to see one of the first such cards, featuring a quote by Hepburn:
So: all aboard the atheist trains!
1. dresden road
Philosophers agreed a long time ago that there is no point arguing with the atheists.This happens because they both interpret things differently.Here is an example:
A christian old lady goes in her veranda everyday and shouts:
‘Praise the lord!’
And every morning,her atheist neighbour shouts back
‘There is no god’
This goes on for weeks.Praise the lord the old lady shouts, there is no god the neighour screams.
As time goes by, the old lady faces some financial difficulties and has a real problem buying her groceries. She goes out in her veranda and asks the lord for help,with her groceries and then she shouts praise the lord, as usual.
The next morning as she goes in her veranda she finds the groceries she had requested for. Naturally she shouts, ‘praise the lord’.The atheist jumps out behind a corner where he was hiding and says:
‘Haaaa!I bought these groceries!There is no god.’The woman looks at him and smiles.She shouts ‘Thank you god, not only did you make arrangements for me but you also made satan pay for my groceries.’
A christian old lady goes in her veranda everyday and shouts:
‘Praise the lord!’
And every morning,her atheist neighbour shouts back
‘There is no god’
This goes on for weeks.Praise the lord the old lady shouts, there is no god the neighour screams.
As time goes by, the old lady faces some financial difficulties and has a real problem buying her groceries. She goes out in her veranda and asks the lord for help,with her groceries and then she shouts praise the lord, as usual.
The next morning as she goes in her veranda she finds the groceries she had requested for. Naturally she shouts, ‘praise the lord’.The atheist jumps out behind a corner where he was hiding and says:
‘Haaaa!I bought these groceries!There is no god.’The woman looks at him and smiles.She shouts ‘Thank you god, not only did you make arrangements for me but you also made satan pay for my groceries.’
2. Stavros
“Philosophers agreed a long time ago that there is no point arguing with the atheists”
First, this statement is ambiguous and can be interpreted as “philosophers against atheists”.
Second, many philosophers tend to ask the same questions as theologians and religious people -questions that science is not able to answer. Therefore, it is entirely possible that many philosophers have been arguing with atheists/scientists to no end -the former is typically out of touch with reality and relies to pure logic, the latter resorting to empiricism and reality-based arguments.
Third, the example you mention only demonstrates that whatever happens, a religious person will interpret it as an act of God, even when a perfectly rational explanation is handed down to them.
Finally, in the example, the religious person links the atheist to Satan -an implication that is wrong on so many levels that is worth a post on its own!
First, this statement is ambiguous and can be interpreted as “philosophers against atheists”.
Second, many philosophers tend to ask the same questions as theologians and religious people -questions that science is not able to answer. Therefore, it is entirely possible that many philosophers have been arguing with atheists/scientists to no end -the former is typically out of touch with reality and relies to pure logic, the latter resorting to empiricism and reality-based arguments.
Third, the example you mention only demonstrates that whatever happens, a religious person will interpret it as an act of God, even when a perfectly rational explanation is handed down to them.
Finally, in the example, the religious person links the atheist to Satan -an implication that is wrong on so many levels that is worth a post on its own!
3. dresden road
Regarding the first statement,I would like to say that there is no intense to create any confusion or ambiguity.I do not support neither’philosophers against atheist’ nor ‘atheists against philosophers’. However as we live in a free world, you may interprete it as you wish.
Regarding the second statement isn’t it great that there is so much discussion,
between different groups that finally boils down into nothingness as the same questions remain unanswered for centuries?Call it logic, call it faith call it empiricism…
I fully agree with the third argument. There are many different truths for many different people!
The word satan can only be used by a religious person. An atheist does not have this word in his vocabulary.In greek this is called ’schema oximoron’.
Also may I add that sometimes religious people and scientists have one thing in common. They are both fanatised about proving the other person wrong!
In order to disagree people have to take a stand on mutual grounds.Without even one mutual ground the disagreemnt can never begin because everyone sees everything from his own point of view.
Regarding the second statement isn’t it great that there is so much discussion,
between different groups that finally boils down into nothingness as the same questions remain unanswered for centuries?Call it logic, call it faith call it empiricism…
I fully agree with the third argument. There are many different truths for many different people!
The word satan can only be used by a religious person. An atheist does not have this word in his vocabulary.In greek this is called ’schema oximoron’.
Also may I add that sometimes religious people and scientists have one thing in common. They are both fanatised about proving the other person wrong!
In order to disagree people have to take a stand on mutual grounds.Without even one mutual ground the disagreemnt can never begin because everyone sees everything from his own point of view.
4. Stavros
But science doesn’t care or deal with faith and the “why” questions posed by religion (and some philosophers).
“I fully agree with the third argument. There are many different truths for many different people!”
That is not at all what I was saying! I merely pointed out the usual way of thinking of religious people where no matter how much evidence you show them they will always resort to “god did it” -just like in the example you mentioned!
“The word satan can only be used by a religious person. An atheist does not have this word in his vocabulary”
My point partly. So linking atheism to Satan fails as an idea before it is even raised!
“Also may I add that sometimes religious people and scientists have one thing in common. They are both fanatised about proving the other person wrong!”
Maybe some scientists. But there are a few important considerations here: first, science as a methodology doesn’t really care about religion as it is outside its realms. Second, you cannot prove a religious person wrong -you cannot prove a negative. All you can say is that chances are that God does not exist. One can also point out the various things attributed to God in the first place, but discovered to be the works of natural processes by science eventually. God is left with less and less things attributed to him. Science exposes his nakedness consistently. Finally, religious people trying to prove scientists wrong, is exactly what’s wrong with religion today! Obscuring, denying, and preventing science is the worst evil religion has cast upon this world.
“everyone sees everything from his own point of view.”
Alas, when it comes to the mechanics of the cosmos and reality, one point of view is usually correct and uncoupled from personal biases -guess which one?
“I fully agree with the third argument. There are many different truths for many different people!”
That is not at all what I was saying! I merely pointed out the usual way of thinking of religious people where no matter how much evidence you show them they will always resort to “god did it” -just like in the example you mentioned!
“The word satan can only be used by a religious person. An atheist does not have this word in his vocabulary”
My point partly. So linking atheism to Satan fails as an idea before it is even raised!
“Also may I add that sometimes religious people and scientists have one thing in common. They are both fanatised about proving the other person wrong!”
Maybe some scientists. But there are a few important considerations here: first, science as a methodology doesn’t really care about religion as it is outside its realms. Second, you cannot prove a religious person wrong -you cannot prove a negative. All you can say is that chances are that God does not exist. One can also point out the various things attributed to God in the first place, but discovered to be the works of natural processes by science eventually. God is left with less and less things attributed to him. Science exposes his nakedness consistently. Finally, religious people trying to prove scientists wrong, is exactly what’s wrong with religion today! Obscuring, denying, and preventing science is the worst evil religion has cast upon this world.
“everyone sees everything from his own point of view.”
Alas, when it comes to the mechanics of the cosmos and reality, one point of view is usually correct and uncoupled from personal biases -guess which one?
5. Brian Westley
Stavros, you forgot to mention that the atheist is linked to satan for buying food, and by the person he bought the food for!
“If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous, he will not bite you; that is the principal difference between a dog and a man.” — Mark Twain
“If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous, he will not bite you; that is the principal difference between a dog and a man.” — Mark Twain
6. Stavros
“the atheist is linked to satan for buying food, and by the person he bought the food for!”
Ahhh, but of course; that evil atheist! How could he do such a thing?!? [well spotted Brian!]
Ahhh, but of course; that evil atheist! How could he do such a thing?!? [well spotted Brian!]
[...] Further, London underground cards have started to appear from today, “featuring atheist quotations from Douglas Adams, Albert Einstein, Emily Dickinson and Katharine Hepburn […], alongside the original campaign slogan,” as Ariane …[Continue Reading] [...]
(Email required for authentication purposes only and will not be published. Please also note that if your comment contains links, profanity, or other sensitive content it might be held for moderation. In that case it will not appear until accepted by the administrator. Please do not post the same comment twice.)