Donations welcome for atheist bus banners in London

[westprog]

Because, then your analogy fails.

Edited to explain:
Why not rile them up. It shows their hysterics.
Religion should not receive special entitlement just because it's religion.

I see - the point of trying to get them to behave badly is to show that they are bad people - and correspondingly, you are better than they are.

No analogy there then.

 

[slingblade]

Clearly there are differences between being black, being gay or being a fundamentalist. What I don't see is that deliberately provoking any of these groups is of any benefit.

The groups are not equivalent. This is not a quibble that can be glossed over; it's key to your point.

To imply there might be a flaw in thinking that leads one to be black or gay would be highly offensive. It would indeed be provoking people.

To imply there might be a flaw in thinking that leads one to worship imaginary beings might also be highly offensive, but it provokes thought as well as people.

Is there any sort of "atheist" statement that could be made in a public manner that would not provoke some religious, somewhere? A lot of those religious signs and billboards greatly provoke me, but I don't hear many folks saying it's wrong to do so. In fact, I'd wager a lot of people would agree I need to be provoked, if only so it will inspire me to think about my choices in life.

quod erat demonstrandum

 

[biomorph]

The power of simple messages like this, using the medium of advertisement, isnt something that should be only available to religious movements.
Its available to the large and often silent mass of people who arent religious and are sick of being preached at by superstitious fools.
Heres hoping this campaign might kick start similar ones globally.

Exactly.

 

[lumos]

Why is it a good thing to rile up the fundamentalist community? Would it be a good thing to rile the black community, or the gay community, by putting slogans on a bus to annoy them? If the slogan provoked a violent or silly response, would that prove anything about the argument?

Trying to annoy the other person so he loses his temper is a way to win arguments, but it's not the same thing as making an argument.

While I agree that it's bad to annoy groups and "rile" them up, I don't agree with your comparison. Blacks don't chose to be black, gays don't choose to be gay. They are black and/or gay and that's what they will always be. They are human being with equal rights. Religous people choose to be religious people whose beliefs change over time and are generally inconsistent and not logical. They are generally religious because they are told, by people lying to them, that it's wrong to not be religious.

I also think the "slogan campaign" is a great idea and a great expression of free speech and has no intent to antagonize anybody. It can, however, allow people to recognize that it is acceptable to not believe in imaginary characters.

 

[westprog]

The groups are not equivalent. This is not a quibble that can be glossed over; it's key to your point.

To imply there might be a flaw in thinking that leads one to be black or gay would be highly offensive. It would indeed be provoking people.

To imply there might be a flaw in thinking that leads one to worship imaginary beings might also be highly offensive, but it provokes thought as well as people.

So for example, a provocation of Jews for their beliefs and practices would be an entirely different thing from attacks on Jews for their supposed racial characteristics?

 

[pchams]

The point is, your analogy is flawed. One can choose their beliefs.
One cannot choose their race/sexual orientation.

I will agree it isn't always the best thing to poke sharp sticks at bears, but I happen to be in the Dawkins camp, where I believe that religion shouldn't get a free pass on being examined skeptically.
Religious fundamentalists have been tip-toed around, and capitulated to, too often, for too long.
My opinion. Yours obviously varies, unless we are having a violent agreement.

 

[Nogbad]

I thought the message a little on the gentle side but amusing. I see a number of the more philosophical branches of religion have donated on the basis it is good to talk about these things (and probably were not so keen on the more strident religious messages in the first place).

I disagree that it is a waste of time - it has generated a bucket load of discussion already without a single advert being placed.

Wonder if any of the signs will be in Arabic.

 

[scissorhands]

Update.

Fundraising target: £5,500.00
Donations so far: £ 76,977.26

 

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

Apparently, an atheist blogger named Jon Worth came up with the idea, but his fellow humanists, not known for their generosity, wouldn't stump up the cash. Now Richard Dawkins, whose anti-Christian zeal knows little bounds, is to finance the doomed venture.

If Dawkins is funding the whole thing why are donations still being asked for?

 

[scissorhands]

If Dawkins is funding the whole thing why are donations still being asked for?

He isnt.
Dawkins said he would match the £5500 target when it was reached.
Given the number of donors and the large sum donated, thats a bit irrelevant now.

 

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

He isnt.
Dawkins said he would match the £5500 target when it was reached.
Given the number of donors and the large sum donated, thats a bit irrelevant now.

So Christian Advocacy group uses a strawman? Why am I not surprised?

 

[scissorhands]

http://www.atheistcampaign.org/

"A number of people have concerns about the slogan containing the word ‘probably‘. There’s also a lively debate about this at our Facebook Group Discussion Board. I’ll quote what Ariane wrote there:

…transport advertising regulations are more stringent than normal advertising regulations (for billboards, etc) and the decision of whether to run the ad or not is very much at the discretion of the bus companies. It’s their private space, and their criteria for this (I know it’ll make all atheists reading this bang their head against a wall, but here goes) is that the advert “must not offend religious people”.

In their view, the “probably” gets us around this (and even with it, I’m anticipating that the Advertising Standards Authority will receive several dozen complaints from religious people and organisations). Also, as Dawkins writes in The God Delusion, being an absolute “7″ on the faith scale (insisting “there is no God”) doesn’t make sense, as nobody can ever state this as an absolute. The alternative Dawkins proposes is “almost certainly”, but “there’s almost certainly no God” doesn’t make for an overly catchy advertising slogan!

In short our priority is to get these ads out on the buses, to get people thinking about atheism. That’s the major goal. So we hope plenty more people can back our efforts to reach that goal!"

 

[scissorhands]

double post.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Religion should not receive special entitlement just because it's religion.

So would you then agree it does not deserve special focus in getting it's adherants riled up as well?

 

[pchams]

So would you then agree it does not deserve special focus in getting it's adherants riled up as well?

Not if it was on a level playing field presently, but it isn't.
It's on a pedestal. A false place of honour, and it needs to be addressed skeptically as any other issue.

 

[westprog]

The point is, your analogy is flawed. One can choose their beliefs.
One cannot choose their race/sexual orientation.

I will agree it isn't always the best thing to poke sharp sticks at bears, but I happen to be in the Dawkins camp, where I believe that religion shouldn't get a free pass on being examined skeptically.
Religious fundamentalists have been tip-toed around, and capitulated to, too often, for too long.
My opinion. Yours obviously varies, unless we are having a violent agreement.

I distinguish between skeptical discussion, and deliberate provocation with the sole intent of getting people riled up. Atheists have every right to put forward their beliefs. If those beliefs upset others, that's not the atheists fault. What I quarrel with is the deliberate intention to upset other people for its own sake.

N.b. I'm not claiming that this is what is happening in this case! I'm specifically responding to the idea that doing this would be a good thing. (Though the person who I thought originally suggested this has told me that I was mistaken. I'm not sure where that leaves things).

While religious beliefs, race, nationality and sexual preference are all entirely different things, it remains IMO equally reprehensible to deliberately antagonise someone on any of those grounds for no other reason than to provoke a response.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Not if it was on a level playing field presently, but it isn't.
It's on a pedestal. A false place of honour, and it needs to be addressed skeptically as any other issue.

In this particular situation that is not so. Anyone within reason can apparently purchase advertising space on London buses (as the very adverts in question proves) so you seem to be myopically concerned about religion being particularly deserving of confrontation when it comes to these adverts. Are you similarly upset about, say, lotteries or alt-med?

And I'm sorry, but I have to repeat my rolleyes smilie (which will only do in text) because so many atheists on this forum have raised the bogus "deference and respect" canard when it comes to attacking religion it borders on the cliche at this point.

Just to make sure you don't raise any straw men in your reply to me, I'm an atheist too (in case my user ID shouldn't be a dead give away).

 

[slingblade]

Look, what's basically being suggested here is that atheists shouldn't speak about atheism, because it might upset the religious.

In doing so, you've indicated that the religious have more of a right to freedom of expression than I have.

You may not think that's what you're saying, but you really are.

It's nice that the busses are in a small island nation that doesn't have quite the focus on religion that my country does. In my country, I doubt seriously that message would ever be seen on public transit. The howls of protest would just be the background music for lost revenue, because people would stop riding those busses, would stage strikes, would stage protests.

Or did people forget that this is the nation in which Harry Potter book-burnings were staged?

Freedom of speech doesn't protect approved or acceptable speech. Approved speech has no need of protection. It's the stuff people would howl about, would silence, that needs protection, so that it can be said. That's freedom.

If you just go along, coddling the insecure and superstitious, never saying anything that might "rile them" intentionally or not, ignorance wins. Suppression of free speech wins.

I'm going to ask again, because I haven't seen an answer:

Is there anything that can be said by atheists in support of atheism, in a public venue such as the side of a bus, that wouldn't offend some religious, somewhere?

If the answer is "No, statements in support of atheism would probably offend at least some of the religious," then this "don't rile them up on purpose" argument is purest bunk! Our mere utterances about atheism rile them up, don't you see? To say that you cannot speak because people might be offended goes to the very heart of our right to free speech. You're actually trying to tell me that someone's feelings matter more than freedom of expression; that I should be silent, but they are free to speak.

The other thing to consider is that here in the U.S., taxes fund busses. And if U.S. tax dollars (yes, local and federal) help pay for having mass transit, then the religious shouldn't ever be allowed to advertise churches or say anything of a religious nature in a bus advert. Religious TV programming shouldn't be advertised on a bus; religious figures shouldn't have their faces plastered there; religious organizations shouldn't even sponsor an innocuous "have a nice day--brought to you by 4th Street Baptist church" message.

But they do.

And no one making the "don't poke sticks at bears" arguments even pauses to think about those of us who might be "riled up" by having religion shoved into our faces, sponsored by our own government on all levels, from city to state to federal. Maybe you don't mind riding to work each day with Pat Robertson's crazy, lying face plastered right under your elbow, but I'd resent it in the extreme, especially if I knew my counter-opinion can't be similarly expressed because someone else might be offended.

Complacency never changed anything. Women and minorities didn't get the right to vote by being nice and quiet and trying not to "rile" anyone. Slavery didn't end because the silence about it was so deafening.

But you want us to remain silent, say nothing, don't upset anyone, because it isn't nice???

The fact that people are arguing about whether this is something that ought to be said indicates to me the answer is not only YES, but YES, IT MUST.

 

[brodski]

The problem of london transport.

The problem of reconciling the existence of london transport in the world with the existence of God.

Perhaps it's true, and God is a Yorkshireman...

 

[Safe-Keeper]

[slingblade's post]

And it's not as if "there probably is no god, now get on with your life" is particularly offensive in the first place, especially not when compared to statements that gays ruin society or that I deserve eternal torture due to my lack of a religion.