There is probably no god

Filip.S. · 17-01-09, 12:49

You may have heard about the advertisement campaign being carried out by atheists in the UK: 800 busses are emblazoned with a sign stating "There is probably no god. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life." What you may not have heard about is the extent of complaints these signs have attracted: hundreds of Christians have registered complaints about this simple expression of atheism being so "offensive" that it needs to be removed.

Is it possible for atheists to say anything publicly which won't be declared offensive, intolerant, and/or rude by at least some religious theists? I doubt it. Atheism itself — and in particular atheistic critiques of or dissents from traditional religion — is what's offensive to so many, regardless of how they are expressed. There are certainly better and worse ways to express oneself, especially depending on context, but there is no completely safe way for atheists to be honest about themselves and their ideas in public.

The majority of people complained the ad is offensive to Christians and other religions.

It is thought that the question of whether God exists will be considered a subjective issue under ASA guidelines so will not merit an investigation.

One of those to complain to the ASA is Stephen Green, of Christian Voice, who has challenged the ads on grounds of "truthfulness" and "substantiation", suggesting that there is not "a shred of supporting evidence" that there is probably no god.

If it's "offensive" to merely say that there is "probably no god" and that people should therefore just get about with living, how much worse is it perceived by believers when atheists take extra steps to explain all the errors, fallacies, and problems with religious beliefs? Based on this standard, it wouldn't be possible to mount any sort of sustained critique of religion and theism without "offending" someone, which I think is the point: complaints about being "offended" are a way to undercut critiques without having to respond to them or admit that they might have a point.

Remember all the hand-wringing that people — including some atheists — did over the holiday signs erected by the Freedom From Religion Foundation? Supposedly these signs were "offensive" because they didn't provide a positive holiday message and instead criticized religious beliefs, but the hundreds of complaints in response to the sign in this campaign reveals that it probably wouldn't have mattered what the FFRF display said.

Then I thought about how it might look through the eyes of some of the people who travel on the buses I use from Hackney. The ones who look exhausted returning from a night shift of cleaning. Often they have a well-thumbed Bible or prayer book to read on their journey.

And along comes a bus emblazoned with that advert. A slogan redolent of the kind of triumphal atheism only possible when you have had the educational opportunities, privileges and material security of the British middle class. The faith of this person is what sustains their sense of hope and, even more importantly, their sense of dignity when they are confronted every day by the adverts of affluence that mock them as "losers", as failed consumers. Ouch, I winced that we can be so blindly self-indulgent to this elitist patronising.

So it's "elitist patronising" for atheists to say that there is probably no god," but it's not "elitist patronising" for Madeleine Bunting to suggest that blue-collar workers won't have anything to sustain their "sense of hope" or "sense of dignity" if they lose their religious "faith." It's not "elitist patronising" for Madeleine Bunting to look down her nose at people and presume that without religion, they won't have anything and therefore it's "self-indulgent" for atheists to give people the idea that maybe religious faith is unfounded and best abandoned. Instead of "wincing" over atheists expressing their atheism, I think it might be better for Bunting to engage in a bit of critical self-reflection; maybe then she'll "wince" over her own self-indulgent, patronizing silliness.

I've written about Madeleine Bunting before — and nothing positive, either. Everything I've read from here about atheists, atheism, and even secularism has either been factually false, poorly reasoned, or just downright bigoted. One can probably take it as almost axiomatic that whatever Madeleine Bunting says or thinks about atheism and atheism, the truth is the exact opposite.

Since chance would require that she be correct occasionally, even if only by accident, I have to wonder how she achieves such a consistently high level of falsehood and error if it isn't deliberate — or ideologically motivated. By that I mean that her consistent falsehoods about atheists and atheism are consistent because they may be based on a need to uphold an ideology which requires atheists as a scapegoat, enemy, or target of hatred.

What might that ideology be? Well, based on her past writings, I think it has something to do with "belief in belief" — Madeleine Bunting doesn't use atheists as a scapegoat to defend any sort of traditional religion, but she does attack them because she fears that religious faith will decline. She appears to be one of a growing number of people who don't necessarily believe in any particular religious orthodoxy themselves, but do believe in the importance of other people believing in religious orthodoxies and fear what atheist critiques of religion will lead to.

We can see that fear above, I think, in her concern about how the atheist signs will affect travelers she claims to see on busses — I say "claims" because given the decline of religion in Britain, I really have to wonder how many people one encounters on busses who can be seen with a "well-thumbed Bible or prayer book to read on their journey." Madeleine Bunting is certain that the "faith" of such people is what sustains them and that without it, they won't have anything — as if traditional religious faith is the only means available to human beings to deal with life's burdens and/or maintain a sense of personal dignity. Bunting needs to get out more and learn that there is much more in the world than religion.

source: By Austin Cline

Filip.S. · 17-01-09, 12:54

This is exactly what I mean when I talk about Fosh va Din. Anything that theist don't like call it insulting. Can I say listening to chantings of Quran loudly is offensive to me? Or diplaying large cross?

The highway of reason, logic and tolerance need to have two lane and not a one way street.

Last Breath · 18-01-09, 00:02

Well, taking the other side we dont see ads saying EMBRACE JESUS.

I think Its a matter of going against someones belief . . .

Firstly ive got no problem with the statement on the bus.

But take this example:

You believe in Democracy.
A banner says "The possibility of having a true democracy is next to none, so just forget it! ".

Would that bother you ?

Its kinda the same with this one. The "problem" that some may have is that its shouting against their belief. (not just any belief) A belief that is the center of their lives. Their life is their belief.

OR it could be just plain "hot headedness".
But I think the former is more reasonable and closer to reality.

17-01-09, 12:49	#1 (permalink)
Filip.S. Viking Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 578 Credits: 2,214 Thanks: 2 Thanked 56 Times in 38 Posts	There is probably no god You may have heard about the advertisement campaign being carried out by atheists in the UK: 800 busses are emblazoned with a sign stating "There is probably no god. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life." What you may not have heard about is the extent of complaints these signs have attracted: hundreds of Christians have registered complaints about this simple expression of atheism being so "offensive" that it needs to be removed. Is it possible for atheists to say anything publicly which won't be declared offensive, intolerant, and/or rude by at least some religious theists? I doubt it. Atheism itself — and in particular atheistic critiques of or dissents from traditional religion — is what's offensive to so many, regardless of how they are expressed. There are certainly better and worse ways to express oneself, especially depending on context, but there is no completely safe way for atheists to be honest about themselves and their ideas in public. The majority of people complained the ad is offensive to Christians and other religions. It is thought that the question of whether God exists will be considered a subjective issue under ASA guidelines so will not merit an investigation. One of those to complain to the ASA is Stephen Green, of Christian Voice, who has challenged the ads on grounds of "truthfulness" and "substantiation", suggesting that there is not "a shred of supporting evidence" that there is probably no god. If it's "offensive" to merely say that there is "probably no god" and that people should therefore just get about with living, how much worse is it perceived by believers when atheists take extra steps to explain all the errors, fallacies, and problems with religious beliefs? Based on this standard, it wouldn't be possible to mount any sort of sustained critique of religion and theism without "offending" someone, which I think is the point: complaints about being "offended" are a way to undercut critiques without having to respond to them or admit that they might have a point. Remember all the hand-wringing that people — including some atheists — did over the holiday signs erected by the Freedom From Religion Foundation? Supposedly these signs were "offensive" because they didn't provide a positive holiday message and instead criticized religious beliefs, but the hundreds of complaints in response to the sign in this campaign reveals that it probably wouldn't have mattered what the FFRF display said. Then I thought about how it might look through the eyes of some of the people who travel on the buses I use from Hackney. The ones who look exhausted returning from a night shift of cleaning. Often they have a well-thumbed Bible or prayer book to read on their journey. And along comes a bus emblazoned with that advert. A slogan redolent of the kind of triumphal atheism only possible when you have had the educational opportunities, privileges and material security of the British middle class. The faith of this person is what sustains their sense of hope and, even more importantly, their sense of dignity when they are confronted every day by the adverts of affluence that mock them as "losers", as failed consumers. Ouch, I winced that we can be so blindly self-indulgent to this elitist patronising. So it's "elitist patronising" for atheists to say that there is probably no god," but it's not "elitist patronising" for Madeleine Bunting to suggest that blue-collar workers won't have anything to sustain their "sense of hope" or "sense of dignity" if they lose their religious "faith." It's not "elitist patronising" for Madeleine Bunting to look down her nose at people and presume that without religion, they won't have anything and therefore it's "self-indulgent" for atheists to give people the idea that maybe religious faith is unfounded and best abandoned. Instead of "wincing" over atheists expressing their atheism, I think it might be better for Bunting to engage in a bit of critical self-reflection; maybe then she'll "wince" over her own self-indulgent, patronizing silliness. I've written about Madeleine Bunting before — and nothing positive, either. Everything I've read from here about atheists, atheism, and even secularism has either been factually false, poorly reasoned, or just downright bigoted. One can probably take it as almost axiomatic that whatever Madeleine Bunting says or thinks about atheism and atheism, the truth is the exact opposite. Since chance would require that she be correct occasionally, even if only by accident, I have to wonder how she achieves such a consistently high level of falsehood and error if it isn't deliberate — or ideologically motivated. By that I mean that her consistent falsehoods about atheists and atheism are consistent because they may be based on a need to uphold an ideology which requires atheists as a scapegoat, enemy, or target of hatred. What might that ideology be? Well, based on her past writings, I think it has something to do with "belief in belief" — Madeleine Bunting doesn't use atheists as a scapegoat to defend any sort of traditional religion, but she does attack them because she fears that religious faith will decline. She appears to be one of a growing number of people who don't necessarily believe in any particular religious orthodoxy themselves, but do believe in the importance of other people believing in religious orthodoxies and fear what atheist critiques of religion will lead to. We can see that fear above, I think, in her concern about how the atheist signs will affect travelers she claims to see on busses — I say "claims" because given the decline of religion in Britain, I really have to wonder how many people one encounters on busses who can be seen with a "well-thumbed Bible or prayer book to read on their journey." Madeleine Bunting is certain that the "faith" of such people is what sustains them and that without it, they won't have anything — as if traditional religious faith is the only means available to human beings to deal with life's burdens and/or maintain a sense of personal dignity. Bunting needs to get out more and learn that there is much more in the world than religion. source: By Austin Cline __________________ "Islam is insult to Christianity, Christianity is insult to Judaism, Judaism is insult to humanity"

17-01-09, 12:54	#2 (permalink)
Filip.S. Viking Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 578 Credits: 2,214 Thanks: 2 Thanked 56 Times in 38 Posts	This is exactly what I mean when I talk about Fosh va Din. Anything that theist don't like call it insulting. Can I say listening to chantings of Quran loudly is offensive to me? Or diplaying large cross? The highway of reason, logic and tolerance need to have two lane and not a one way street. __________________ "Islam is insult to Christianity, Christianity is insult to Judaism, Judaism is insult to humanity"

18-01-09, 00:02	#3 (permalink)
Last Breath Triple Ace Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Here Posts: 229 Credits: 1,126 Thanks: 183 Thanked 129 Times in 78 Posts	Well, taking the other side we dont see ads saying EMBRACE JESUS. I think Its a matter of going against someones belief . . . Firstly ive got no problem with the statement on the bus. But take this example: You believe in Democracy. A banner says "The possibility of having a true democracy is next to none, so just forget it! ". Would that bother you ? Its kinda the same with this one. The "problem" that some may have is that its shouting against their belief. (not just any belief) A belief that is the center of their lives. Their life is their belief. OR it could be just plain "hot headedness". But I think the former is more reasonable and closer to reality.