The atheists are advertising

[ludwig]

Slogan - 'There's probably no god. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life'.

Money well spent, or a waste of time?

http://www.justgiving.com/atheistbus

[WaldoMcFroog]

You're right, Sherman, but not because I pop up and agree with you.

[naomi24]

Why No, No, No, Sherman? Didn't we say no one can prove there isn't a God? I have read the God Delusion, and I am aware that proof either way eludes even the admirable Richard Dawkins.

[terambulan]

God is your conscience.....that's what speaks to you. That's what you hear.

[chakka35]

As a positive atheist I'd like to answer a couple of points:

1. 'Probable' does not depict any moral uncertainty: it is a perfectly correct scientific convention. Unlike religion which rests purely on immutable dogma, all scientific principles, however well and long established, are provisional, accepted unless and until a better or conflicting theory comes along.
Thus it is right to say 'Electricity probably comprises a flow of electrons' and 'The earth probably orbits the sun'. And negatively, 'Santa Claus probably doesn't exist' and 'There are probably no fairies at the bottom of my garden'.
Similarly 'There is probably no God' is correct, even to someone who has no doubts about the matter.

2. I agree with naomi that neither atheists nor believers will be moved by these ads. But there are a lot of closet atheists out there who are only just beginning to realise that atheism is now socially acceptable; they won't be tortured, burnt at the stake or treated as pariahs any more. They are now 'coming out' as homosexuals have done in recent years. These ads, providing they don't go on long enough to become irritating, will be an encouragement to them, and, at long last, the imbalance that has existed for millennia will start that long haul towards balance.
What can be wrong with advertising truth after so many years of falsehood from the Church?

[Octavius]

So is atheism a social identity now then?

I wouldn't go all technically defensive and moralistic about the use of 'probably', it was primarily added in order to overcome the CAP Code advertising regulations.

[ludwig]

Chakka/Octavius - Yes, like I said. They had to put the probably in to be strictly correct. If they'd omitted it they would have been making claims they couldn't prove.

[chakka35]

If you knew more of the work of Richard Dawkins, a prime mover in this ad campaign, you would know that he has always gone to enormous pains, as a scientist, to emphasise the importance of that 'probably'.
The CAP argument is trivial. As I have said many times before it is not for rational people to disprove the claims of the irrational. Would an advert saying 'There are probably no fairies' - part of the promotion of a film, for example - be banned on the grounds that it cannot be proved? Come on.

And think on this: the claim on the bus is a reasonable one. The adverts outside churches that say 'Jesus lives', 'God made the world', 'Come and receive life everlasting' cannot be proved either and are very unreasonable. When was the last time a church was subjected to the Code?

Anyway, my aim was not to persuade anyone of anything, merely to explain. If you don't like the explanation, then you don't have to accept it.

[ludwig]

Yes, so it's like I said then. They had to put the probably in to be strictly correct.

[chakka35]

Sorry, I destroyed my own logic there by putting 'probably' in the fairies analogy! My point is that if an advert said 'There are no fairies' it is ludicrous to claim that it would be banned on CSP grounds, though they might refuse to carry it so as not to disappoint children.

[Octavius]

Yeah, well that�s all very nice and stuff, but if my local Church came to me and said that they wanted to plaster loads of adverts over a route master in London and they needed my cash to do it, I would decline and say I preferred the money was spent on 3rd world missions or the local children�s hospice or something.

Whilst I think atheists have every right to project their non-beliefs - or whatever you wish to call it - giving money to an ad agency doesn�t do much to promote the humanitarian nature of many of them, it shows them to be just as gullible as they think the religionists are ....maybe��.?

[ludwig]

How about if your church came to you and said they wanted to build a massive palace in Rome and fill it full of treasure, and needed your money to do that. Would you be equally as indignant?

[modeller]

I think the point is not whether there is a God but rather that can his representatives, the clergy , prove that what they preach is correct. Let me take a basic belief of most religions, the power of prayer. I can positively say I have never had a prayer answered, not since as a small child, and no one is more innocent or sincere than a a small child. Some would say that I need others to pray for me , well how many ? One billion prayers were offered up for the safe return of Madeline McCaine and over a year later there is not even a clue of her whereabouts. I've no doubt that if she was found tomorrow or in 20 years time the believers would still claim their prayers were answered.