why is it lunacy we have enough people preaching religion at us!

People should go to the church, the church shouldn't go them.

Hey, come to think of it is a little amusing :).

the church isnt going to them though is it!

I think it's more a case of people leaving the church rather than the church not coming to them(by church I mean any sort of church, not specifically the one in the article in case of confusion.

)

"atheism...[is] a danger to the public at large"

Well, I think that leaves everyone on the other side pretty well vindicated. It highlights a great dificulty with faith that people can feel in a position to preach in that way to everyone else.

I wouldn't call it a danger...yet but eventually yes. Although only a minority of atheists are militant(at least IN think so anyway) when there will be enough atheists for the militant ones to form brigades then there'll be trouble.

are you being serious?

No. Brigades is a figure of speech meaning a gang with thousands of members. I'm not sure whether the rise of atheism will continue long enough for that to happen and as for the miniority being militant that's just a guess, the type of atheist I encounter depends on what site I'm on.

I really don't see why this is an issue to anyone. The buses are there to be advertised on. If a church wants to do it they can, if atheists want to advertise they can. Still won't affect my belief (or lack thereof) and if brings in revenue to the bus company!

Yes, as long it helps to keep my bus fare affordable, I don't care!

I saw this too, personally I don't like being preached at by anyone but I do see that they want this to raise questions about religious posters (which we've somehow come to accept)

I think if a christian sees this and gets offended it might make them more aware of how all the christian posters annoy others, but setting out with the mission to offend christians is risky to say the least ;-)

Sioraf I wouldn't worry about militant atheist brigades :-P There are no atheists in trenches after all

i dont care either i just thought it was slightly amusing givern that we never see things like that on buses

(oops the phrase is "there are no atheists in foxholes", not trenches)

I think if a christian sees this and gets offended it might make them more aware of how all the christian posters annoy others,
=============================================
Well that sounds pretty militant...

i disagree completely, its just making the point that if christians get annoyed by the athesist poster then hopefully it will make them more aware about preaching/their own posters and how other people view it, there is nothing militant about that at all.

Ah, that makes sense. I take it back, sorry Kestas, it wasn't personal by the way.

Anyway, I don't get annoyed by any particular religious/non-religious group I hate everyone equally.

What I do not understand is that a smart man like Richard Dawkins says such stupid things. He should know better.

Besides, there's probably a God anyway :D

'I hate everyone equally' (...)

Haha, don't take this game too serious. :)

Yeah, I mean either there is or there isn't!
Just like what Dawkins said about theistic evolutionism: "It's completely wrong, there can be no middle ground on the matter."

Haha, don't take this game too serious. :)
Hai,Ursa-sensei.

whatd did he say that was stupid ursa?there probably is a god but i massively doubt its a christian god actualllly im 100% sure of that!

When I was in England a few months ago they had posters on many buses saying things along the lines of "Jesus will save you" and whatnot. I was honestly quite shocked when I saw them. I think people really need to put this in that context. Its a counter towards bus-preaching rather than a campaign to make more people atheists.

I personally believe that public transport shouldn't be used as a platform to preach religious ideas. At all. On either side of the spectrum. If you're not allowed to wear prominent religious symbols in schools you should not have prominent religous symbols on buses. Buses should be 'neutral' in their war on beliefs.

To believe or not to believe belongs in universities to be discussed by philosophers, not on buses, not on tv, not on the internet, absolutely nowhere public. Regarding secularism I think if humanity can just make an effort to be tolerant we have no need of it.

Here's an article that provides some of the organization's justification for it:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/oct/21/religion-advertising

:) I read more of English newspapers online than when I was actually in England!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/oct/21/religion-advertising-atheistbus

That's the reaction I want to hear.


@ trim:

'Professor Dawkins said: "Religion is accustomed to getting a free ride - automatic tax breaks, unearned respect and the right not to be offended, the right to brainwash children.'

Dawkins uses exactly the right word: 'accustomed'. The rights religion has claimed lie in history and do not just come from nowhere. His oneliner about 'brainwashing' children is even worse.

'This campaign to put alternative slogans on London buses will make people think - and thinking is anathema to religion."'

Yeah right.

(quotations are from the article from the TS)

"thinking is anathema to religion."

I like that.

CJ 92, aren't you also Sioraf as Killeens? Why do you keep swapping between the two accounts....?

The day atheists form brigades is the day I die of irony. I enjoyed Dawkin's books about evolution far more than his books about atheism... but hey, he's doing a pretty good job of "converting".

also sioraf/cj
use one account or the other man, gets confusing

Well well well I actually find myself even responding to Sicarius, (pinches self in sorest place possible) nope it's really happening.

The day atheists form brigades is the day I die of irony.
=============================================
You serious?

@Ursa: So I gather from your statement that you believe that the rights claimed by ancient institutions should be uncontested? Like those monarchies that conveniently were removed a couple centuries ago?

The 'free' world is based on a 'healthy' distrust of authority. Nobody gets a free ride. No institution is exempt from this. Not even theocratic ones.

"thinking is anathema to religion" - notice how he doesn't say that "thinking is anathema to belief"? Considering religion includes the institutions and laws behind the beliefs its fair to say that thinking is set aside from religion. Believe what you want but don't lie to yourself and say that religions tell you to question them. There are admittedly a few exceptions (I believe the Church of LDS is one of them) but most give you pretty fucking strict interpretations over which people threaten damnation if you question their validity. What proof is their to the accuracy of the Bible, the Koran and the like? Most major religions tell you they are absoloutely accurate and refuse to allow questioning. This obviously adversely affects a free society.