No God

I saw this on a bus and chuckled to myself.
Dave Gorman appears to have done the same..

http://gormano.blogspot.com/2009/01/stop-worrying.html

Thats boss.
There is/was a poster of me as a clown at Moorgate too...

If he was an atheist should it not say "there is no god"? Probably implies he is an agnostic - i.e. waiting for evidence.

This is all the work of Richard Dawkins: http://richarddawkins.net/

http://richarddawkins.net/article,3494,Atheists-launch-bus-ad-campaign,Ariane-Sherine

Despite Richard Dawkins being a bit of a prick, i must admit that when i saw one of these on the tube on wednesday it maded me smile, and definately brightened up my morning

Richard Dawkins is one of my heroes. I have read all his books. I also read that a Christian Bus driver has refused to drive one of these buses, and his company are sympathetic to his needs. Thats the trouble with it all, people take it so fucking serioulsy, and won't have it ridiculed. I would have given him a copy of some of his books and a lay off period to reflect upon them if he worked for me

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/16/atheism-christian-advertisements-buses

A bus driver refused to drive a bus which had this slogan on it. The bus company are actually trying accommodate his requests and providing buses without the ads!

Richard Dawkins is a tool. Every time I've met, spoken to him or heard him speak he's impressed me less and less.
He can't answer questions well, and if he chooses not to, he replies in a pathetic childish arrogant way.

His evangelical style of atheism strikes me as just as bad if not worse than the dickheads who follow scientology or those evangelical arseholes on Oxford Cornmarket telling me I'm going to hell if I don't repent and follow some religious figure. My reasoning for this is at least the evangelical religious types are attempting to make you believe in something, rather than trying to force an outright desire to apathy.

spot on henry, he's a hypocrite, if he thought that organised religion was a such a massive waste of time, why would he waste so much time trying to convince the rest of us that it's a waste of time.

Listen to what this prick head of Christian Voice says:

"It is given as a statement of fact and that means it must be capable of substantiation if it is not to break the rules,"

"There is plenty of evidence for God, from people's personal experience, to the complexity, interdependence, beauty and design of the natural world."

It's the ignorance that upsets me. And the blatant changing of the goal posts to suit their needs. One day you'll get into an argument with a Christian and they'll say "Oh, of course you can't prove he exists, it's a matter of faith, you just have to believe." Then, when they're trying to shit on something they don't like using the ASA, it's all "Oh, there's plenty of evidence." So - what is is to be, God-botherer?

Richard Dawkins is a tool. Every time I've met, spoken to him or heard him speak he's impressed me less and less.
He can't answer questions well, and if he chooses not to, he replies in a pathetic childish arrogant way.

His evangelical style of atheism strikes me as just as bad if not worse than the dickheads who follow scientology or those evangelical arseholes on Oxford Cornmarket telling me I'm going to hell if I don't repent and follow some religious figure. My reasoning for this is at least the evangelical religious types are attempting to make you believe in something, rather than trying to force an outright desire to apathy.

Argumentum ad hominem?

Dawkins can be kinda overbearing and repetitve but his arguments are sound. However I much prefer Hitchins for his anecdotes and Harris for his debating style.

I concur with ads, and would also say that he perhaps misses the point by asking religious folk to 'stop worrying and enjoy your life'. It;s monstrous arrogance to assume that religion in soome way precludes 'enjoyment'. Indeed, I'd argue that many people feel that their lives are enriched by their religious beliefs. Dawkins and Co. are attacking their own interpretation of religion, and doing so with all the qualifiers that make their mission pointless.

I concur with ads, and would also say that he perhaps misses the point by asking religious folk to 'stop worrying and enjoy your life'. It;s monstrous arrogance to assume that religion in soome way precludes 'enjoyment'. Indeed, I'd argue that many people feel that their lives are enriched by their religious beliefs. Dawkins and Co. are attacking their own interpretation of religion, and doing so with all the qualifiers that make their mission pointless.

Perhaps he forgot forgot that monstrous arrogance was the preserve of the true believer.

haha maybe, I dont rate advertising religion either, but I think its quite childish to get involved in bus-side wars. I aint religious either, so ultimatley dont give a fuck. I simply thought it worth pointing out that the relgious model here implied, that believeing in God makes you worry about life, is not one that would be recognised by many believers. I'd have thought.

And use the fucking search you lazy hippy cunt: http://www.londonfgss.com/thread11865.html

1 Attachment

what's it got to do with Donkey Dawkins? it's a katherine hepburn quote.

Looks like this is a duplicate thread. Let's talk about the pros and cons of helmets instead.

Let's all go and hide before Tynan wakes up.

It's the ignorance that upsets me. And the blatant changing of the goal posts to suit their needs. One day you'll get into an argument with a Christian and they'll say "Oh, of course you can't prove he exists, it's a matter of faith, you just have to believe." Then, when they're trying to shit on something they don't like using the ASA, it's all "Oh, there's plenty of evidence." So - what is is to be, God-botherer?

there was a documentary all about how Christianity was a major misrepresentation of the person Jesus and his work. It talks about how the bible states there are certain things that needed to be done to count someone as the messiah but this Jesus person didn't do them all, so Christians decided there was going to be a "second coming" just to make it fit. And John the Baptist was actually a Jew and the whole ceremony of Jesus' baptism was actually an act to purify his Jewish beliefs. So changing the goal posts...yes ha

Organised religion is a whole load of nonsense. I dont believe in god but I take what I will that works for me from where ever. I educate myself in many religions simply out of curiosity and if there is something to take and learn I take the best aspects of self appreciation and appreciation for others. Ignore the hallmark shit and I am happy =) and I am quite amazed such a "definite fact" (as represented) hasn't received more stigma. Personally I think it is great.

@ Hobo
even though I had to look up the latin phrase I'll try and respond half decently.

Yes, I'm attacking the person, but no it is not with the purpose of discrediting the argument.
His arguments are, for the most part, those of others, rehashed in a more pugnacious and tedious fashion. He has done some interesting things, but those are far outweighed by the way he 'debates', which is very much in the 'Argumentum ad hominem' vein, especially in person.

I don't like any evangelical activities, and this is by far one of the worst.

I agree with you about Harris, though have not read any Hitchins.

My dad's girlfriend believes in ghosts ... for crying out loud.

I learnt not to give a shit about religious nutcases a long time ago.

There are people everywhere (thickos) who believe in total bollox whether that will be ghosts, God, vampires, Odin (though Norse mythology is the only religion I would ever worship because at least they had good characterisation), Xenu, Fairies etc.

I'm going out to Tour de Ville, to see if that exists.

Odin (though Norse mythology is the only religion I would ever worship because at least they had good characterisation)

YouTube - Amon Amarth - With Odin On Our Side

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=MYXll8KAplg

Thanks, pretty damn good tune.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=MYXll8KAplg

Hell yeah!

If he was an atheist should it not say "there is no god"? Probably implies he is an agnostic - i.e. waiting for evidence.

This is all the work of Richard Dawkins: http://richarddawkins.net/

http://richarddawkins.net/article,3494,Atheists-launch-bus-ad-campaign,Ariane-Sherine

It's simple, because it's the best way to says it to people, rather than "there IS no god", of which is his view, also he didn't do the bus sign, it was actually a *she, *hell, it was in your link (Ariane Sherine).

However, saying probably, is a better way to says it to people and I think, complied with the british trading board (or summat to do with advertising).