Bus Wars: The battles are being won.

[U-said-it]

The principal slogan – "There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life" – can already be seen on four London bus routes, and now 200 bendy buses in London and 600 across the country are to carry the advert after a fundraising drive raised more than £140,000, exceeding the original target of £5,500.

The money will also pay for 1,000 advertisements on London Underground from next Monday and on a pair of giant LCD screens opposite Bond Street tube station, in Oxford Street. Organisers unveiled a set of quotes from public figures – including Albert Einstein, Douglas Adams and Katharine Hepburn – who have endorsed atheism, or at least expressed scepticism about a Creator. The words "That it will never come again is what makes life so sweet" are quoted from the poet Emily Dickinson.

It's time for people to come out as atheists.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/ja ... nationwide

[Maturion]

fuck them again. luckily things like that doesn't happen in good old germany.

[Christuserloeser]

Yeah, all hail Odin!

[BlueCrab]

They're advertisements, people are free to ignore them.

Honestly though, people who try to push their religious beliefs (or lack thereof), through advertisements or otherwise, honestly disgust me. Why can't we all just get along, no matter what we believe? Why do we have to insult people who believe something different than we do?

My 2¢.

[Eviltaco64X]

I agree with Maturion. Fuck them.

These "bus wars" are pretty immature on both sides. The more they insult each other, the less they're going to get along.

[Lartrak]

The atheistic ads are a lot less ***holish I have to say.

[U-said-it]

fuck them again. luckily things like that doesn't happen in good old germany.

Can I ask why something like these bus ads wouldn't happen in Germany?

Doesn't your country have several negative past experiences, with religiously motivated actions that caused pain and suffering?

I think it comes down to regions once, or still, strongly motivated religously are trying to ban the dissenting message that there's a good chance that their dogmatic beliefs are unfounded.

[U-said-it]

Honestly though, people who try to push their religious beliefs (or lack thereof), through advertisements or otherwise, honestly disgust me.

"A lack thereof" is the default human position towards religous beliefs. One has to be taught/learn their local, socially, accepted religion.

I'd say the burden of proof, as it where, falls on the person/people making the positive claim that something does indeed exist.

[Jeeba Jabba]

fuck them again. luckily things like that doesn't happen in good old germany.

THIS IS ALL YOU DO IN GERMANY

[lackofsense]

To me atheism and science are beliefs. Believing in the big bang put your faith on heavily corroborated theories. Science doesn't have a theory as to where the matter and anti-matter came from to generate the universe. Belief in the non-existence of a deity has as much proof as the belief in said deity. The events in holy books as well as the version of the beginning of the universe for therein can be refuted with science but not the existence of a deity.

[OneThirty8]

To me atheism and science are beliefs. Believing in the big bang put your faith on heavily corroborated theories. Science doesn't have a theory as to where the matter and anti-matter came from to generate the universe. Belief in the non-existence of a deity has as much proof as the belief in said deity. The events in holy books as well as the version of the beginning of the universe for therein can be refuted with science but not the existence of a deity.

Science is belief based on what is observable. This is different from faith, in which one believes something without requiring any evidence to prove that it is the truth. Atheism is the lack of belief, usually stemming from a lack of evidence.

[Lartrak]

To me atheism and science are beliefs.

Explain exactly how a lack of belief is a belief.

[Quzar]

To me atheism and science are beliefs.

Explain exactly how a lack of belief is a belief.

Atheism is not a lack of belief it is a belief in a specific worldview (ie 'there is no god'). Agnosticism would be a lack of belief. A common misconception of those who bash the sort who 'don't believe in science'. Science does require a sort of belief, one founded in human reason/logic, inductive reasoning, etc.

Or something.

[Ex-Cyber]

Atheism is not a lack of belief it is a belief in a specific worldview (ie 'there is no god'). Agnosticism would be a lack of belief.

Each of those words has multiple meanings. In particular, agnosticism often refers more to knowledge than belief. For example, there is a category of belief called "agnostic theism". Bertrand Russell described himself as both an agnostic and an atheist:

I never know whether I should say "Agnostic" or whether I should say "Atheist". It is a very difficult question and I daresay that some of you have been troubled by it. As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one prove that there is not a God.

On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think I ought to say that I am an Atheist, because when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the Homeric gods.

None of us would seriously consider the possibility that all the gods of Homer really exist, and yet if you were to set to work to give a logical demonstration that Zeus, Hera, Poseidon, and the rest of them did not exist you would find it an awful job. You could not get such proof.

Therefore, in regard to the Olympic gods, speaking to a purely philosophical audience, I would say that I am an Agnostic. But speaking popularly, I think that all of us would say in regard to those gods that we were Atheists. In regard to the Christian God, I should, I think, take exactly the same line.

To the best of my knowledge, this is essentially the position of at least a large minority of people who call themselves "atheist". Even so-called "militant atheist" Richard Dawkins has said and written that he can't be 100% certain that there are no gods.

[Quzar]

Russell was much more open-minded and careful in his thought that the general lot of people out there though (I remember after reading Frege, 'The Problems of Philosophy' was such a breath of fresh air). His perception of the 'popular' sense of atheist seems to fall in line exactly with what I was saying: denying that any gods (or more narrowly, a judeo-christian God) exist despite not being able to prove it.

[Eviltaco64X]

Atheists do share a general belief that there is no God and that their scientific theories explain the origin of the universe and life. Like a lot of religious folk, they strongly defend these beliefs and many even try to shove it down your throat (I don't care which beliefs you hold, shoving them down someone's throat is completely unnecessary).

[U-said-it]

Russell was much more open-minded and careful in his thought that the general lot of people out there though (I remember after reading Frege, 'The Problems of Philosophy' was such a breath of fresh air). His perception of the 'popular' sense of atheist seems to fall in line exactly with what I was saying: denying that any gods (or more narrowly, a judeo-christian God) exist despite not being able to prove it.

Well the burden of proof always falls on the person making the positive assertion, example: - Theres evidence that a god doesn't/does exist. -
I'm not sure how asserting that it's improbable is an evidenciary claim, but I think it tries to show certain people it's okay to be an atheist/agnostic.

Atheists do share a general belief that there is no God and that their scientific theories explain the origin of the universe and life. Like a lot of religious folk, they strongly defend these beliefs and many even try to shove it down your throat (I don't care which beliefs you hold, shoving them down someone's throat is completely unnecessary).

Science doesn't need to, or even try to, replace claims that religions make. It is about discovery, and even saying you don't know <insert question> means nothing. Go ahead it's easy... I don't know.

For me the reason I'm an atheist is, I have found no naturalistic reason up to this point to believe any god from any religious text exists. You could ask me why I don't believe in your god, and I would probably/hopefully be able to say: The same reason you don't believe in the ancient Norse, Greek, or Roman deities exists.

Disproving the very existence of say - the Abrahamic God - would be about as futile as trying to disprove Santa Claus, you couldn't.

Again I don't know about your little areas of the world, but when your country's leader was the first to even acknowledge atheists, this stuff is a sign of progression beyond dark age thinking.

[Eviltaco64X]

Atheists do share a general belief that there is no God and that their scientific theories explain the origin of the universe and life. Like a lot of religious folk, they strongly defend these beliefs and many even try to shove it down your throat (I don't care which beliefs you hold, shoving them down someone's throat is completely unnecessary).

Science doesn't need to, or even try to, replace claims that religions make. It is about discovery, and even saying you don't know <insert question> means nothing. Go ahead it's easy... I don't know.

For me the reason I'm an atheist is, I have found no naturalistic reason up to this point to believe any god from any religious text exists. You could ask me why I don't believe in your god, and I would probably/hopefully be able to say: The same reason you don't believe in the ancient Norse, Greek, or Roman deities exists.

Disproving the very existence of say - the Abrahamic God - would be about as futile as trying to disprove Santa Claus, you couldn't.

Again I don't know about your little areas of the world, but when your country's leader was the first to even acknowledge atheists, this stuff is a sign of progression beyond dark age thinking.

You've gone pretty far off-topic, man. All I said was that atheism bears some similarities to religion (large following, general beliefs, several of those believers always on the defense about it). Is this not true?

I'm not at all saying that science tries to replace claims made by religion. In fact, science is almost the exact opposite of it (exploration and theories rather than faith).

You're also being the perfect example of what I was trying to point out earlier in this thread.. Comparing a deity that really can't be proven but somehow managed to make quite the impact in this world to Santa Claus? That's gonna do nothing but insult millions of people. The more you insult, the more the tension rises.

Santa Claus is pretty much based off the real St. Nicholas, anyway.

I really don't know what you're getting at with that last paragraph. It's really not even relevant to my post, but there was a lot of backwardness centuries ago. Catholics, Protestants, Jews, and Atheists have all had their times of persecution and power. Now, however, is the time to get along and maybe not look down our noses at "the others".

[Ex-Cyber]

Russell was much more open-minded and careful in his thought that the general lot of people out there though (I remember after reading Frege, 'The Problems of Philosophy' was such a breath of fresh air). His perception of the 'popular' sense of atheist seems to fall in line exactly with what I was saying: denying that any gods (or more narrowly, a judeo-christian God) exist despite not being able to prove it.

My point is that there isn't really an accepted, unambiguous term for "lacking belief in the existence of gods". The words "atheist" and "agnostic" both carry a huge amount of baggage, but many do use the term "atheist" in that sense. Some people use "nontheist", but that hasn't really caught on yet.

Atheists do share a general belief that there is no God and that their scientific theories explain the origin of the universe and life.

Some atheists believe in completely unscientific stuff (ghosts, psychic powers, "crystal energy", homeopathy, etc.), and scientific theories are not atheists' theories any more than they are anyone else's. I can't recall ever seeing an atheist claim that there is an accepted scientific theory for the origin of life. Some interesting possibilities have been proposed, but as far as I know it's widely recognized that further study is needed to come up with something solid. As for the origin of the universe, that's practically a philosophical question rather than a scientific one. The big bang theory describes the universe's early state and expansion, but doesn't address the question of what happened before the big bang. It's not clear that the concept of "before the big bang" is even meaningful; Stephen Hawking famously described it as being akin to "north of the North Pole".

[Lartrak]

Atheism is not a lack of belief it is a belief in a specific worldview (ie 'there is no god').

The problem is the term itself has been distorted too much recently. About the only thing the varied definitions of the word have in common is a general lack of belief in god. So, I'm using the broadest usage of the term, rather than a more focused and narrow one. That is, atheism = a lack of belief in God/s.