No God

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

He is actually a 'she' (the campaign is the work of Ariane Sherin).

The inclusion of the word 'probably' was included at the request of the ASA.

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

See above.

This is a huge topic I'm not getting involved.

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.

Replace the word 'religion' with something you dislike (perhaps passionately so) and see if you sentiment still stands.

"if you think that racism was a such a massive waste of time, why would you waste so much time trying to convince the rest of us that it's a waste of time ?"

"if you think that child slavery was a such a massive waste of time, why would you waste so much time trying to convince the rest of us that it's a waste of time ?"

. . . and so on.

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.

Your argument is entirely ad hominem, and in that respect it is valid, you simply do not like him as a person. But this does not lead anywhere, it does not weigh the argument towards either side.

You then attempt to equivocate his argument to - attempting to force an outright desire to apathy. ?

And come to a bizzare conclusion that it is better (implied by 'at least') that there are people claiming (and massively successfully so) that the unsaved are going to burn in hell.

Puzzling thinking likely borne out of nothing more that a dislike of the character of Ricahrd Dawkins and wilful ignorance of the issues, am I being unfair here ?

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

Pretty much nothing directly, the campaign was the work of female comedian Ariane Sherine who then enlisted the backing of the British Humanist Society who Richard Dawkins is vice president of.

But Dawkins is a stident and vocal critic of religion and our culture has been be nurtured to show nothing but fawning deference to religions bizarre superstitious ideas to the extent that when a message as polite as the one used on this bus campaign are discussed, people rush to condemn Richard Dawkins and his 'fundamentalist', 'evangelical' 'extremist' atheism.

The Pope 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.

Put Pope in it and it's pretty much exactly the same difference.

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

Jesus spoke to me, he said get up you fucking infidel heathen, there is some shit going down.

f

Your argument is entirely ad hominem, and in that respect it is valid, you simply do not like him as a person. But this does not lead anywhere, it does not weigh the argument towards either side.

correct, but that phrase is to describe an attempt to use the person's character as a means of discrediting the argument

You then attempt to equivocate his argument to - attempting to force an outright desire to apathy. ?
yes, apathy- stop worrying- being a phrase used by the bus campaign.

And come to a bizzare conclusion that it is better (implied by 'at least') that there are people claiming (and massively successfully so) that the unsaved are going to burn in hell.

wrong point to take from that, but at least I can see where you're coming from tynan. i still stand by the fact that trying to force someone to believe in nothing is worse than trying to force someone to believe in nothing.

Puzzling thinking likely borne out of nothing more that a dislike of the character of Ricahrd Dawkins and wilful ignorance of the issues, am I being unfair here ?
no, luckily, or unluckily, I've been at Oxford for the past 4 yrs, which has meant I've had the chance to attend lectures, dinners and debates with Prof. Dawkins on a number of occasions, it is not just his character, but his lack of debating ability.

An on a question of the 'willful ignorance of the issues', what issues are you talking about?

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

What would you say was particularly bad about this bus campaign ?

Jesus spoke to me, he said get up you fucking infidel heathen, there is some shit going down.

Impossible. Or at least scientifically unproven.

He's in my kitchen toasting bagels.

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).

Yep ! What Ed said.

The use of the word 'probably' was partly forced on them by the ASA, but it also reflects the views of many atheists, there is no evidence for Odin on Shiva being existent, but of course on the supply of demonstrable proof of their existence it would be intellectually dishonest to not then subscribe to the view that they exist, so to this end 'probably' works.

because i let Carlin make up my mind for me...

YouTube - George Carlin - Religion is bullshit.

MULTI QUOTE MOSQUE ALERT !!!!!!! :)

f
correct, but that phrase is to describe an attempt to use the person's character as a means of discrediting the argument

Which I supected (perhaps wrongly) that you were doing, of course you might not have intended or meant to imply this and I might have misunderstood what you were trying to say.

yes, apathy- stop worrying- being a phrase used by the bus campaign.

You are attempting to traduce his world view to 'trying to force an outright desire to apathy' - by using an atheist bus campaign dreamt up by the female comedian Ariane Sherine simply because he is the vice president of an organization that gave the campaign it's backing ?

You might find yourself making a category error here.

i still stand by the fact that trying to force someone to believe in nothing is worse than trying to force someone to believe in nothing.

Again a wilful (and I suspect simply for the sake of this conversation) equivocation of a position.

You seem to be a gold mine of logical fallacy ! :p In this sentence alone you commit false dichotomy and straw man arguments !

no, luckily, or unluckily, I've been at Oxford for the past 4 yrs, which has meant I've had the chance to attend lectures, dinners and debates with Prof. Dawkins on a number of occasions, it is not just his character, but his lack of debating ability.

You don't like his personality, I will take that as having been said.

This is a huge topic I'm not getting involved.

Holocaust denier.

Impossible. Or at least scientifically unproven.

He's in my kitchen toasting bagels.

In his mini portable hell.

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

That's not really true. Being an atheist means not believing in the existence of god. Not saying you know that there is no god. Most atheists wouldn't say they know beyond a shadow of a doubt one way or the other. They just can't believe in something that has no evidence it exists. Kind of like UFOs. I don't believe that most UFO sightings are alien spacecraft, but they could be. And I will change my mind when I am offered proof.

I guess this is the difference between 'strong' and 'weak' atheism.

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 think the reason the ads are worded as they are is because they are a response to the christian bus ads that said something about non-believers going to hell.

This man looks so damned scary ... if I would have to put a face on the demon, then I wouldn't have to look very far ...

I think the reason the ads are worded as they are is because they are a response to the christian bus ads that said something about non-believers going to hell.

Then they should adress these other ads (which I would also object to), not to belief in God in general.

Dawkins and Co. are attacking their own interpretation of religion.

This is a pretty rote response, even here on LFGSS criticism of religion is usually met with some form of this argument.

If were to post images of the public execution of homosexuals who had fallen foul of Iran's Islamic theocratic rulings (do not be homosexual) these actions would not be met with broad condemnation, but with the usual confused responses that first try and simply claim this is not happening and when met with the fact of the matter head for the safe ground of "This is not Islam/Christianity/Judaism" - it is an atheist/secular/neo-con (seriously!) misrepresentation.

It surprises me most to hear people -* (who openly say they are not a Muslim, have never read the Koran or Hadith, do not live amongst Muslims, have not spent any significant time in an Islamic culture nor are aware of the basic tenets of the religion)* - tell me that the people who carry out these actions, these devoutly religious people, have their understanding of Islamic scripture all wrong and you have it all right.

Following on from that - the doctrine of a literal Hell is a mainstream Chritain belief, it is simply false to claim that to criticism the promotion of these kinds of notions is Dawkins and Co. [. . ] attacking their own interpretation of religion.

I think the reason the ads are worded as they are is because they are a response to the christian bus ads that said something about non-believers going to hell.

The Christian campaign whch the current BHA one responds to linked to a Christian website where amongst things, the idea that "non-Christians will burn in hell for all eternity." was promoted.

Whilst no one was up in arms about the Christian campaign which promoted blatant and malevolent falsehoods to the credulous, the response (which by any measure is polite and tempered - even to the point of being criticised for it's lack of conviction - the use of 'probably') - has been met with the usual religious outrage in some quarters, Dawkin's singled out for his shrill, strident, evangelical atheism ('forcing' people to believe in nothing!) - the usual religious idiots head for the ASA to register that they are offended and people refuse to drive buses choosing instead to take the day off work to nurse the hurt that has been inflicted on them by having their ridiculous superstitions challenged - and I don't doubt there are numerous other superstitious people who will refuse to board these buses that we will never hear about.

Simply put, you cannot have a reasonable debate on this subject without the religious becoming breathless with offence, my own view is that even they recognise that their superstitions are so tenuous and so indefensible that they cannot be defended from even casual enquiry, so at the first sign of challenge (even polite questioning) they pull up the shutters and shout 'persecution' every time.*

*( failing that, the second line of deference seems to be answering unambiguous questions with poetry :P )

because i let Carlin make up my mind for me...

Ahh! Thanks for that, I wondered where the clip in zeitgeist came from.

@MG - Zeitgiest is interesting viewing. Some pretty extreme leaps of logic, but i liked watching - didnt really help me make my mind up but i liked the questions it raised. George Carlin (RIP) had an amazing mind. Almost more of a philosopher than comedian. Plenty of his stuff on youtube.

"non-Christians will burn in hell for all eternity."

This is absolutely true. Don't forget, tynan, that Cliff will die on the cross for our sins. Now rejoice.

Following on from that - the doctrine of a literal Hell is a mainstream Chritain belief, it is simply false to claim that to criticism the promotion of these kinds of notions is Dawkins and Co. [. . ] attacking their own interpretation of religion.

And this is not straw man? The idea that the doctrine of hell is a 'mainstream christian belief' does not mean that Christian's worry about this. Indeed, the fact that they might feel themselves 'saved' compared to the heathen due to their acceptance of God might make them smugly happy about the existance of this hell.

Your undergraduate training in logic is repetative, dogmatic, and dull. In the words of David Brent, cogito ergo sum, I'm right.

I'm a Christian.

These ads are on buses. Good. How can Christians expect to put these sort of posters on buses and deny other people the same right? I think I'd rather people actually thought about this stuff than swept it under the carpet.

To say you're not going to drive a bus because an poster you don't agree with is on it is taking it a bit far. I also find the comment from Christian Voice to be quite embarrassing - they say that the poster states it's beliefs as fact, which it just doesn't. The word 'probably' is crucial here.

So many problems could be avoided if people just showed a little bit of respect for each other rather than taking every opportunity to weigh in on each other. It's things like Christian Voice that leave me having to explain myself (or rather answer for the attitudes and behaviour of christians who ignore some of Jesus' most fundamental teaching) whenever this stuff comes up in conversation - it's just petty bickering that completely misses the point.