The Atheist Bus, It's Raising Quite a Fuss

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

AliEnvy

Refugee
Joined
Jan 9, 2001
Messages
2,320
Location
Toronto, Canada
This bus has been riding around Toronto with the ads paid for by the Freethought Association of Canada. Apparently the campaign originated the UK.

So far all other major Canadian transit systems have refused to participate.

FAC Vice President of Multimedia Katie Kish.

“There is a terrible lack of dialogue between people of faith, and those of non-faith,” said Kish. “In this campaign, we want not only to educate those who may not know about religious alternatives, but also to open up communication between faith communities and secular organizations."


20090223athiestbus2.jpg
 
To say there is "probably no god" is more in lines with being agnostic rather than atheist...

Atheist have more faith than that...
 
An opposing bus should have a sign that says, "Don't you have better things to do than protest bus signs? - God"
 
For as far as I know, there have been opposing adds on busses on London, paid for by religious (Christian) organizations. They apparently felt the need for a counterattack, which is pretty childish in my opinion. It's not as if there's a shortage of religious imagery in the public domain anyway.
 
I saw no shortage of religious billboards even in my old corner of the Great Lakes. They cannot expect that atheists would never want to react against them. It's the nature of free speech, I guess.
 
Religious organizations have always had billboards, now the atheists have them and the media (of course!) is immediately on top of it. Big deal! It's called Freedom Of Speech!
 
I'd like to see a sign that says,


There might be a God,
so what, enjoy your life!

You do know this is not that far from the final lines of Ecclesiastes...

And actually, 1 Timothy contains a similar concept: "All things are meant for our enjoyment if received from God with thanksgiving."
 
So there are Canadian transit systems not participating?
Why do they hate freedom?

It's their freedom to decide from whom they accept ads on their busses.

It started in London and is spreading. In England some there was a number of voices religious people who said this ad is unacceptable. So it is acceptable that all kinds of religious organisations place ads in public transport and other public places in all cities, but when an aheist organisation starts doing the same it's not acceptable?
 
To say there is "probably no god" is more in lines with being agnostic rather than atheist...

Atheist have more faith than that...
Bullshit, one is hard pressed to prove a negative, even I am technically an agnostic.

I'd really like to see the atheist that leaps to the conclusion there is not, and cannot possibly be, a God.
 
Bullshit, one is hard pressed to prove a negative, even I am technically an agnostic.

I'd really like to see the atheist that leaps to the conclusion there is not, and cannot possibly be, a God.

Do you have some other definition of atheism that I'm not aware of...
 
Or as someone in the Torontoist commented... "There's probably no god.
Now stop praying to him for the bus to show up." :wink:
 
Do you have some other definition of atheism that I'm not aware of...

Not that he has the definitive say on the matter, but even Richard Dawkins, probably the worlds best known Atheist, when asked of the probability of there not being a God (in a spectacularly pointless interview....fuck you Ben Stein), replied "around 99%". Sure when Ben Stein, after pressuring him to put a percentage on it, asked "well how do you know its not 97%?" (are you serious, Ben? are you that much of a fucking halfwit?) Dawkins said he wasnt comfortable putting a number on it, but it shows that he believes that there is no way to be 100% sure of anything
 
The difference between the Christian Right Dominionist crowd and hard core Atheists who both have to loudly proclaim beliefs...ZERO!!!

For your own good...stay away from both groups.
 
The difference between the Christian Right Dominionist crowd and hard core Atheists who both have to loudly proclaim beliefs...ZERO!!!

For your own good...stay away from both groups.

Its only when the Christian Right Dominionists start sticking their cloven hooves into the scientific field that I take offense
 
I'd really like to see the atheist that leaps to the conclusion there is not, and cannot possibly be, a God.

Well, there is Quentin Smith, but I wouldn't say he jumps to conclusions. He has developed an argument that Big Bang is strong indication for the non-existence of a deity, also an argument that a divine cause for the universe is logically implausible, I would be interested to hear what you think of them:

A Big Bang Cosmological Argument For God's Nonexistence

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/quentin_smith/causation.html


Also, his recent essay detailing a cosmological argument for a self-caused universe:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/quentin_smith/self-caused.html
 
In yet another of his essays, Smith develops an argument from evil, leading him to the conclusion that the existence of natural evil implies a malign creator is much more likely than a benign one:-

Given that this is the case, Swinburne has failed to demonstrate that seemingly gratuitous natural evils are not really gratuitous. Given in addition Swinburne's principle of credulity ('things are as they seem to be, unless and until proved otherwise' (1979: 168)) we may conclude that in the light of the considerations Swinburne has offered, it is reasonable to conclude that there are gratuitous natural evils. On the same basis, it is reasonable to conclude that God does not exist, since God is omnipotent, omniscient and perfectly good and thereby would not permit any gratuitous natural evil. But since gratuitous natural evils are precisely what we would expect if a malevolent spirit created the universe, it follows that h' is confirmed. More exactly, P(h'/ee'k) >> P(h/ee'k) since P(h'/ek) = P(h/ek) and P(h'/e'k) >> P(h/e'k). If any spirit created the universe, it is malevolent, not benevolent.

The Anthropic Coincidences, Evil and the Disconfirmation of Theism

Shades of Gnosticism, methinks.

Demiurge - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Personally I think the Auteurs said it pithier:

So how could it be pre-arranged,
when there's no order anyway

('Don't Trust the Stars', the Auteurs)
 
Well, there is Quentin Smith, but I wouldn't say he jumps to conclusions. He has developed an argument that Big Bang is strong indication for the non-existence of a deity, also an argument that a divine cause for the universe is logically implausible, I would be interested to hear what you think of them:

A Big Bang Cosmological Argument For God's Nonexistence

Causation and the Logical Impossibility of a Divine Cause


Also, his recent essay detailing a cosmological argument for a self-caused universe:

A Cosmological Argument for a Self-Caused Universe (The Great Debate)

Science will never be able to prove or disprove the existence of God. It's laughable to even attempt it. God - if it exists - is obviously not going to be bound by the laws of the universe since it was here before the universe was and in fact is responsible for the laws we have - and truth be told, we really don't know how the universe works or even what it's made of. This is not a Chicken and the Egg type scenario.
 
I find the idea of multiple universes fascinating, guys.

That is relevant in so far as I've read some speculating along the lines of our 'big bang' representing the birth point of a new universe (ours) as a sort of blister from another preexisting universe.

I'm afraid I find myself in 'it's turtles all the way down' territory there. The birth and evolution of a universe may prove to be as mundane as the life cycle of a sun... but I still end up wondering where all the universes came from, and why. Mostly why.
 
Well, there is Quentin Smith, but I wouldn't say he jumps to conclusions. He has developed an argument that Big Bang is strong indication for the non-existence of a deity, also an argument that a divine cause for the universe is logically implausible, I would be interested to hear what you think of them:

A Big Bang Cosmological Argument For God's Nonexistence

Causation and the Logical Impossibility of a Divine Cause


Also, his recent essay detailing a cosmological argument for a self-caused universe:

A Cosmological Argument for a Self-Caused Universe (The Great Debate)

I once wrote a term paper on these theories for a Philosophy of Religion class. His arguments are very sound, and while he's arguing a non-provable point he definitely has something interesting to say. :up:
 
It's their freedom to decide from whom they accept ads on their busses.

It was sarcasm/irony, Vinny.

I was playing the dumb American ironically defending Canada, who seemingly can do no wrong on FYM, with a Bush-ism.

While it's usually the Americans taking the stick for a freedom of speech issue such as this around here.

Just dishing some good natured jabs out for my fine feathered Canadian friends.
 
Well, there is Quentin Smith, but I wouldn't say he jumps to conclusions. He has developed an argument that Big Bang is strong indication for the non-existence of a deity, also an argument that a divine cause for the universe is logically implausible, I would be interested to hear what you think of them:

A Big Bang Cosmological Argument For God's Nonexistence

Causation and the Logical Impossibility of a Divine Cause


Also, his recent essay detailing a cosmological argument for a self-caused universe:

A Cosmological Argument for a Self-Caused Universe (The Great Debate)
Looks really interesting, I know that Smolin has invoked the presence of black holes as a reason for the apparent fine tuning of the universe for life.
 
Back
Top Bottom