Anti-atheist bus campaign launched in London2. Comment #335691 by The Truth, the light on February 6, 2009 at 11:03 am
3. Comment #335694 by tokehashi on February 6, 2009 at 11:04 am
4. Comment #335695 by MadMonkey on February 6, 2009 at 11:06 am
5. Comment #335700 by wengerj on February 6, 2009 at 11:12 am
And the Christians fire back with a bunch of unsupported BS and an insult. How typical.6. Comment #335704 by Richard Dawkins on February 6, 2009 at 11:15 am
We entirely support free expression and freedom of belief, and so fully support the right of these Christian groups to place their ads on buses. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
Of course, there are differences between the Atheist Bus ads and the new Christian ones and I want to take this opportunity to reflect them.
Our ads were a response to ads run by jesussaid.org whose website promised an eternity of hellfire for non-Christians. Our response message, suggested by comedy writer Ariane Sherine was intended to be reassuring, telling people not to worry and enjoy life, as there was probably no god and so no cause to fear an eternity of hellfire.
Our ads were funded entirely by thousands of individual donors who gave small amounts in an outpouring of popular support for the positive message. The ads now launched in response to our response are funded by organisations or wealthy individuals.
Our ads were positive and peaceful. They didn’t say, for example, that religious people were ‘fools’, unlike one of the response ads being run, which says that "The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God."
Our ads were undogmatic and funny, with the addition of the ‘probably’ in line with the continuing openness of humanists to new evidence and in an echo of previous funny ads, like the Carlsberg ad which stated that it was ‘probably the best lager in the world’. The new ads are dogmatic and declaratory, leaving no room for reason and debate.
Of course, these groups are free to express themselves as they choose. Our ads encouraged people to think for themselves and I am convinced that they will continue to do so.
7. Comment #335705 by tvictor on February 6, 2009 at 11:15 am
8. Comment #335706 by rod-the-farmer on February 6, 2009 at 11:15 am
9. Comment #335707 by Cartomancer on February 6, 2009 at 11:17 am
10. Comment #335710 by epeeist on February 6, 2009 at 11:20 am
11. Comment #335713 by scottishgeologist on February 6, 2009 at 11:21 am
12. Comment #335716 by flying goose on February 6, 2009 at 11:22 am
13. Comment #335717 by Quetzalcoatl on February 6, 2009 at 11:22 am
14. Comment #335718 by Sargeist on February 6, 2009 at 11:23 am
15. Comment #335720 by scottishgeologist on February 6, 2009 at 11:23 am
16. Comment #335721 by Verylee on February 6, 2009 at 11:25 am
17. Comment #335722 by root2squared on February 6, 2009 at 11:25 am
18. Comment #335723 by Jack Rawlinson on February 6, 2009 at 11:26 am
19. Comment #335724 by Eshto on February 6, 2009 at 11:27 am
I agree. Howcum they get to say "definitely" and we don't.
20. Comment #335725 by JAMCAM87 on February 6, 2009 at 11:27 am
21. Comment #335727 by flying goose on February 6, 2009 at 11:28 am
22. Comment #335728 by righton on February 6, 2009 at 11:28 am
Wait, isn't this claiming a fact that is not provable? Shouldn't those advertising people be investigating this just like they did with ours?23. Comment #335729 by decius on February 6, 2009 at 11:29 am
24. Comment #335731 by flying goose on February 6, 2009 at 11:29 am
25. Comment #335732 by popeye on February 6, 2009 at 11:29 am
agree. Howcum they get to say "definitely" and we don't ?
26. Comment #335733 by Quine on February 6, 2009 at 11:30 am
27. Comment #335734 by MrPickwick on February 6, 2009 at 11:31 am
28. Comment #335735 by Jeppo on February 6, 2009 at 11:31 am
29. Comment #335736 by righton on February 6, 2009 at 11:32 am
They had a problem with "probably". I think "definitely" should definitely be investigated. They should have to offer proof of this claim right?30. Comment #335737 by debaser71 on February 6, 2009 at 11:32 am
I would think it were a spoof or something but it's really just mean spirited and pathetic at the same time.31. Comment #335738 by Quetzalcoatl on February 6, 2009 at 11:33 am
32. Comment #335739 by scottishgeologist on February 6, 2009 at 11:33 am
33. Comment #335741 by flying goose on February 6, 2009 at 11:33 am
34. Comment #335742 by Sargeist on February 6, 2009 at 11:34 am
'Thus the extreme believers and the aggressive non-believers come together in unholy alliance.'
From without, religious faith is assailed by an increasingly aggressive secularism, which derides faith as contrary to reason and defines faith by conflict.without realising that a) faith is contrary to reason; and b) that secularism means that people like me aren't likely to be abducted and fried alive in a giant pan; is really a total arseface.
35. Comment #335743 by Steve Zara on February 6, 2009 at 11:34 am
36. Comment #335744 by Ian Bamlett on February 6, 2009 at 11:35 am
Woudn't it be nice to see that on a bus'
37. Comment #335745 by Lastandfirstmen on February 6, 2009 at 11:35 am
38. Comment #335747 by neanderslob on February 6, 2009 at 11:37 am
The best part of this whole ordeal is the complete lack of sensationalism on the part of the atheist campaign. Somehow when you replace probably with definitely, you lose the edge of honesty.39. Comment #335750 by flying goose on February 6, 2009 at 11:38 am
40. Comment #335751 by scottishgeologist on February 6, 2009 at 11:39 am
41. Comment #335752 by Dennis Sisterson on February 6, 2009 at 11:41 am
Definitely a case for the ASA, especially since they had complaints about the 'probably'. As for the other one, I'm with MrPickwick: if they can quote the Bible to serve their purposes, so can we.42. Comment #335754 by prettygoodformonkeys on February 6, 2009 at 11:48 am
43. Comment #335755 by liberteraindemocrat on February 6, 2009 at 11:49 am
I am srong libertian, and have fought for rights everwhere, however I believe that the word "Probally" in the bus campign has weaken your agrument, firstly you say that all christians believe in the Old testament god, we do not, secondly the man in the cloud theory of god has been disproven so many times now that no right thinking christain supports it.44. Comment #335756 by Ai Deng on February 6, 2009 at 11:49 am
45. Comment #335757 by scottishgeologist on February 6, 2009 at 11:51 am
46. Comment #335758 by Steve Zara on February 6, 2009 at 11:51 am
47. Comment #335760 by Verylee on February 6, 2009 at 11:55 am
if they can quote the Bible to serve their purposes, so can we.
48. Comment #335762 by Patrick McArdle on February 6, 2009 at 11:55 am
In addition to the other nice comments made here, we should note the advert contains a whopping disconnect.49. Comment #335763 by scottishgeologist on February 6, 2009 at 11:55 am
50. Comment #335765 by OneNationUnderThor on February 6, 2009 at 11:56 am
This article is reposted from a website that accepts comments.
Why not share your comment on the article there as well? CLICK HERE
1. Comment #335687 by benrinnes on February 6, 2009 at 11:01 am
One for the Advertising Standards to look into, " There definitely is a god"?I would expect proof of that statement!
Other Comments by benrinnes