So the Atheist Bus Campaign are delighted that they’ve raised £135K to put up adverts around the place telling people not to worry cos there probably isn’t a God.
So, let’s get this straight – their logic is that putting God-bothering ads on buses is a stupid idea. So in response they… put up anti-God-bothering ads on buses. Genius! An eye for an eye. An ad for an ad. Maybe we can just start having whole conversations via 15 word slogans on the sides of buses. it’s a pretty nuanced way to talk about things.
Oh no, my mistake, it’s a fucking stupid way to discuss anything. Regardless of my own beliefs/faith/whatever, I’ve always been baffled by posters stating ‘facts’ about God, or with bible verses on them. It always smacked of some kind of talismanic evangelical witch-craft; ‘if we use bits of the Bible, it has special powers and people will be saved‘… Surely actually talking about this stuff is more useful. As some fab Welshmen once said, ‘this is my truth, tell me yours‘.
But, to counter it with equally bogus ‘there probably isn’t a God..’ banners helps no one. It does as much for discussion of the merits of faith and atheism as the original posters do. Precious little.
The picture at the top is my contribution to the debate. Happy new year, whatever your faith-persuasion. 
Amen!
as with most things about religion, i’m taking my never changing stance of complete apathy. I’m amazed anyone takes evangelist, or anti evangelist posters and the like seriously. Up in Perth where i went to college there’s a load of jesusboards between my old flat and the college and they brightened my day because they’re so bloody stupid!
i did quite like the sentiment of the athiest bus, in that they were saying there ‘probably’ isn’t a god so don’t get your knickers in a twist, but alas with any kind of public opinion you get a whole load of people taking it too seriously.
granted busses aren’t really good for encapsulating the near limitless topics of spirituality etc, but they must be serving some good if we’re discussing it here and amongst our friends.
I would agree with you (Steve) if the stakes were not so high. There is a whole host of literature on the merits, or otherwise, of above the line advertising and communication and its influence upon public debate. But if it the case that the government refused to acknowledge the existence of people of secular persuasion in the last census, then the debate has to be started somewhere. I don’t know if you have children but schools are under pressure to include religious instruction/education or an act of worship. Religious groups have been spreading their word and influence through means like this for a long time. They know the importance of public awareness and how this influences decisions on like faith schools being publicly funded.
Yes we can ignore them, but why react to this one when you do not react to the religious messages–have they become simply part of the background noise, a simple acceptance of what is there.
It is also curious that you state “that saying there isn’t a god” is an equally bogus statement. No doubt stating there is an evil alien spaghetti monster watching our every move would be bogus. It’s just that one statement challenges deeply held, but impossible to prove beliefs, whilst the other is just impossible to prove.
I think it (the “advert) has created exactly the reaction that is was looking for.
I’ll put a tenner in the hat Steve…
I dunno. You’re right Steve, there’s no way you can have a serious debate via billboard. But these adverts are only supposed to be a light-hearted antidote to theist adverts.
Like Paddy, I usually find ‘jesusboards’ funny, but every now and then it is depressing to be reminded that a significant minority of English people truly believe in the supernatural. Anything to cheer up my fellow athiests has to be a good thing.
(ps I’ve been enjoying your article on social media. Useful stuff!)
Ashley:
“Religious groups have been spreading their word and influence through means like this for a long time.” & “Yes we can ignore them, but why react to this one when you do not react to the religious messages”.
The fight fire with fire approach is never ending. The lunacy of putting ‘get into Jesus or you’ll burn in hell’ isn’t – as far as I can tell – counteracted by the atheist posters, it’s fuelled by them. It becomes a supremely crass public discourse between two fundamentalisms, both of them trying to take the moral high-ground by arguing that the other is cynical/evil/sinister etc…
the argument isn’t over whether either of them is right, for me. I don’t object to the Jesus ones because they’re ‘wrong’ or because of some fear of faith schools etc. I just don’t like proselytizing. It doesn’t ‘work’ and it doesn’t help. I don’t think the discussions about the rights and wrongs of religious education are in anyway helped or hindered by mad people with a bus-budget on either side.
The Dawkinsization of public spiritual discourse has been a travesty. It’s polarised the discussion even further, and one of the results is that people like Tom write things like “it is depressing to be reminded that a significant minority of English people truly believe in the supernatural.” – why on earth should that be depressing?? What’s depressing is that people fall out over this stuff and throw tens of thousands of pounds at bullshit campaigns to suggest that each other are ‘wrong’. It’s moot, it’s irrelevant, because the process is wrong. It’d be like having a singing competition to decide a political election – the whole forum is redundant to the task.
Your last point is an interesting one:
“It’s just that one statement challenges deeply held, but impossible to prove beliefs, whilst the other is just impossible to prove.”
You’re suggesting that theism and atheism (or anti-theism) aren’t both faith positions? Atheism clearly requires faith, even if it’s just a faith that not giving a shit will ultimately prove to be an OK position to adopt.
Fundamentalist Atheism of the Dawkins variety requires a massive amount of faith given how much is unprovable on both sides, but how much is at stake. That’s a huge gamble… (and I don’t mean ‘at stake’ in the eternal damnation sense at all, I mean the risk to his credibility as a writer, peddling indefensible bile-ridden ranty bollocks about things he knows precious little of…)
Time and again, I come back to the Manics album title as the only workable start point for spiritual/religious discourse – ‘This is my truth, tell me yours’.
of course, where my lovely wooly liberalism falls down is when the meta-narrative (be it theistic or otherwise) inspires the adherent to behaviour that is damaging or anti-social… but that’s the whole point of avoiding a polarised clash of fundamentalisms, and instead, move towards a friendly, humble discourse, be it a public discourse on the influence of faith on society, or a private discourse in which we share our stories, ideas and experiences of spiritual – or otherwise – things.
“The Dawkinsization of public spiritual discourse has been a travesty. It’s polarised the discussion even further, and one of the results is that people like Tom write things like “it is depressing to be reminded that a significant minority of English people truly believe in the supernatural.” – why on earth should that be depressing?? What’s depressing is that people fall out over this stuff and throw tens of thousands of pounds at bullshit campaigns to suggest that each other are ‘wrong’. It’s moot, it’s irrelevant, because the process is wrong. It’d be like having a singing competition to decide a political election – the whole forum is redundant to the task.”
word.
having said that, i’d be dead curious to see who’d win if it were a singing competition (out of the current people we’ve got, christ knows we’d end up with some xfactor eejit if anyone was allowed to do it)
I’m a Christian and still, I like the ad. It sends the message: people who believe in God worry too much. Which is very often correct. My response if I had a bus would be:
There probably is a God, so don’t worry!
How about £15 then..
They’ll be telling us there’s no father christmas next.
Paddy, the original bus statement was going to be “There is no god”, rather than “there’s probably no god” – apparently they had to go with the latter because of advertising rules…
That being said, I quite like the campaign, since immature lols do it for me….
I’m an Apatheist, myself. The question isn’t important, and the answer no longer matters.
Personally, if people want to spunk their money away by putting slogans on buses – whatever their religious position (yes, I’m treating atheism as a religious position, sue me) – well, that’s their lookout. Billboard away, I really, honestly, couldn’t give a flying furgle at a rolling doughnut.
D
I agree with Steve. As someone growing up in 12 years of Catholic school, there is nothing that irritates me more than people blindly trying to shove their thoughts and beliefs down your throat. That being said, that applies to both sides of the coin.
Think of it this way, which argument is more productive:
A. Husband and wife screaming at each other about how the other is wrong and doesn’t care about the other’s feelings. This escalates to throwing stuff at each other, a lamp and Nintendo Wii get broken. Wii fit no longer works, they both get overweight and have heartattacks (ok, last sentence not accurate).
B. Debating in sometimes heated, but never really raising your voice debate. Both sides get a chance to exchange points. In the end there may not be an agreement, but at least an understanding of the otherside. Wii Fit causes the couple to live another 100 years.
My point: extremes in most cases don’t really apply. People need to calm down and think before they yell (myself included). The Dalai Lama has some great writings on this, I would recommend “Ethics for the New Millennium.”
JIM
Since we cannot (yet) prove the thing one way or the other I think everyone should be able to say whatever they want about God’s existence or non-existence, argh! even on buses if they feel they really must…(Utopian sentiment, obviously
) Happy New Year Steve!
I think you’ve hit the nail on the head, Linda – it’s the connection between ‘not provable’ and ‘must’ – the imperative is not there in the thesis. It can’t be. Clearly people of faith feel like they have something special they want to share with their friends. It feels to them like endless money-off coupons, and they fail to remember what it was like when someone else tried so hard to convince them of something they hadn’t experienced for themselves (it’s kind of how I feel about Radiohead evangelists – yes, I’m glad you like it, now stop trying to play it to me all the time!)
But when that eagerness tips over into a kind of blanket broadcast fundamentalism, and the nuance of story-telling falls to the bull-dozering of the fear-mongers (you’d better dig the baby Jesus, or you’ll end up in hell – way to go introducing people to this loving God you’ve met…) …it all goes to shit.
So Bus-ads are great for telling people ‘if you keep smoking, you’ll get ill and die’, cos it’s provable and the shock works and is needed. It’s not so good for enabling people with wildly different experiential paths to share those in a way that helps ANYBODY. It just pushes people further into entrenchment and smugness or feeds resentment.
Can you actually imagine anyone ever saying ‘well, I used to be an atheist/christian/muslim/satanist, but then I saw this bus ad, and it got me thinking…’ It’s nuts. It’s bollocks and it’s a tragic waste of a chance to talk about some REALLY interesting stuff, and most likely find out that truth-seekers have more in common than they think, regardless of their current set of temporary conclusions…
I really want to donate cash to whatever group wants to put Steve’s new slogan on a bus.
There was a great book out about 10 years ago called “Scepticism Inc” (by Bo Fowler)- telling the story of a metaphysical betting shop, where you could bet on anything that couldn’t be proved. In short, the worlds religious leaders try to out-bet each other to prove that their faith is the strongest, until they start bankrupting themselves.
It’s hard to get hold of now (at least, in bookshops) but it’s a great read.
So, I’m now considering setting up a metaphysical advertising agency: “Prove your faith by telling the world.” I reckon it could make me a millionaire…
sorry to butt in here again but must just add :
“….a tragic waste of a chance to talk about some REALLY interesting stuff, and most likely find out that (and here’s the bit I really like:) truth-seekers have more in common than they think, regardless of their current set of temporary conclusions…”
Lovely sentiment Steve! I’m applauding
You can’t have a serious debate via ads, but it can (apparently) produce interesting discussion. What about “There may be no God. So let’s incarnate him ourselves.”?
Hi Steve
In short, atheism is not about holding a belief on the basis of faith, and is not necessarily about proving there is no god—the basic notion is that there is no actual foundation for believing there is a god other than wanting to (and speaking personally, for those that wish to do so– well good for them–no sarcasm intended.) You cannot prove that god doesnt exist—but that is true of an infinite number of things that do not exist.
Couching the debate in termsof extremes is erroneous, there is no spectrum of beliefs upon which these two viewpoints lie. The basic atheist position is that they do not belive in god because there is no actual reason to belive in god. That is why belief in god has to be about faith. Maybe the debate should be taking place upon what constitutes a resonable belief–and obviously what we mean by reasonable.
you may find the debate lacking in quality when carried out in this form (bus slogans)–it is bound to be–but the process as work here is not about debate, its about creating awareness of other ways of thinking. The debate occurs elswhere–like here.
Because you dont like prosletysing, doesn’t mean that it doesn’t have an impact—and when it comes to views being imposed–try getting your child to be allowed to leave the act of worship that many schools insist on carrying out. You are allowed to do it, but your child will quickly be singled out as being different.
I know that you are interested in discussions on social capital, but currency in such things is created and traded in many ways–even irritating bus ads.
(enjoying the debate, even if it is not about your initial point)
Ashley, if atheism is about the negation of the rationale of belief in any kind of deity, there has to be faith in one’s own ability to interpret enough of that which is observable in the physical world to give an alternative – and equally difficult to ‘prove’ – meta-narrative. While a lot of atheists will be happy to say ‘I don’t care how we got here, it just doesn’t make any sense to suggest it was ‘God’ just because there’s no ‘reason’‘ elsewhere’, that too doesn’t remove the faith-commitment that anyone has made by choosing to not pursue any of the various theisms of the world.
…Maybe this is about the semantics of the word ‘faith’…
But there is, as far as I can see, a very clearly delineated spectrum of belief… it’s not linear, and there are as many different degrees of rationality and reason within atheists as theists…
The problem with the polarising effect of these kinds of campaign is that they turn it into a dualistic challenge of ‘non-belief’ against ‘belief’ – I find that the people I am most inspired by, be the inspiration metaphysical in nature, or more practical – are from right across the belief spectrum. There are Christians who make me want to change the world for the better, and who act out of the inspiration of their faith, and there are atheists whose concern for people and the planet inspires me to want to copy them.
Ultimately, I’m far more interested in shared story and narrative than I am in demonising faith or lack of it.
The school example is an interesting one – surely that’s an issue of culture, not faith – I remember being singled out as a vegetarian as a child, and in my decidedly more evangelical past, being made to look like a freak for opting out of halloween celebrations… It’s not something I’d do now, but I’d still defend the right of God-botherers the world over to opt out, same as I would the atheists to avoid acts of meaningless worship.
Thanks for the discussion – it’s a great discussion, but £135K seems a little bit over the odds as a catalyst. Maybe I should blog about more spiritual stuff, just so they don’t need to waste the money and clutter up buses next time
Awesome scenes. This is like being back in sixth form.
x
I’ve always been terribly suspicous of people with faith, and to a lesser extent people who don’t drink, but then, the opposite is me. I do however, marvel at the wonder of our existance, and try to absorb the strides we have made to understand our place.
But then I was brought up without doctrine, so what do I know.
Hi Steve
Thought you might talk about faith in one’s ability to interpret what is observable. I guess this is where we move beyond semantics and more towards the grounding of knowlege.
)
The ontological commitmnet to a faith position is quite different from one that argues for more than desire to a foundation for something to be “true”. If it becomes simply an acceptance that we cannot critique one meta narrative on the basis the “priciples” of another meta-narrative then in our wonderful post modern world we end up reduced to solipsism. Whilst differnces in meta narratives can lead to misunderstandings in the end we all exist in the same world which allows access to some form of intersubjective “truth”. If we take the position that this is not possible then it becomes impossible to account for anything resembling a society. I am being deliberately contentious (learning form the master
I do agree that good things can come from people of a religious persuasion and that where common goals can be established this should be celebrated–Maybe my issue is more with organised religion and its impact upon the legal system. I viewed the bus adverts from that perspective and the desire to get people to think a little about it.
Maybe some kind of electronic device that was linked to other social media so that people could watch and/or engage in the debate whilst sat on the bus would be of use, a moving social forum, the “God Bus” destination unkown or unkowable–how would you get them to start watching in the first place?
enjoy the rest of your tour
Ashley
thanks so much for the on-going discussion. Fascinating stuff.
“The ontological commitmnet to a faith position is quite different from one that argues for more than desire to a foundation for something to be “true”.”
The implication in what you’re saying seems to be that atheism is essentially rational, and faith is irrational, ergo, atheists have the scientific upper hand because while they can’t ‘prove’ that there is no deity, the deists are floundering around believing in something for which there is no rational or logical basis at all… That’s what it sounds like – feel free to correct me…
I’d suggest that there’s no greater or lesser degree of rationale at work in the broad areas of theism and atheism. Both areas have their whackos, their fundies, their rationalists and their vast majority of adherents who believe what they believe because it was presented to them at the right time and it works on a day to day basis… People can believe all kinds of things for good and bad reasons, regardless of whether what they believe has veracity or not… It’s quite possible to end up believing something that is verifiably true, but to arrive there by spurious reasoning… I’m sure a large part of my own world view is informed thusly
And I guess this is where my whole love of narrative, of shared paths, story telling and invited experience works best for me.
I operate on a functional framework of ‘pragmatic assurance’ (I wrote about it here from an artistic perspective) – I behave as though my assumptions about the world are right, whilst be constantly open to the possibility that I’m wrong, if something comes along that ‘proves’ otherwise. I work like that because otherwise we’d get nothing done, but I’m also more than self aware enough to know that I’ll probably have a markedly different set of beliefs in 10 years time than I do now, but I want that shift to be a deliberate, creative, step forward into goodness, rather than a lazy slide into intellectual atrophy…
For me to dismiss any area as broad as theism or atheism as being fundamentally less ‘rational’ would be to claim a depth of understanding of other people’s journeys and reasoning that I can’t lay claim to, nor are there enough hours in my finite tiny time on this planet to do them all justice…
For fun reading, have a look at this fabulous review of The God Delusion – the reviewer highlights the MASSIVE holes in Dawkins’ research, his bias and the eventual mish-mash of criticisms of things that most people of faith would also regard as abhorrent.
Ergo, bus adverts telling people that ‘You’re going to hell’ (way to go telling people you think God loves them, ass-hole) or ‘there probably isn’t a God’ (which they wanted to put as ‘there is no God’ – the arrogance of it!) are utterly counter to the process of discussion, respect, shared story and the possibility that someone else’s experience can inform yours even without the mutual comfort of a tidy exclusive meta-narrative.
And in other news, the moronic face of Christian fundamentism responds to the crass comedic face of atheistic fundamentalism.
Oh joy, £135K to get Christian Voice to send a complaint to the ASA. Maybe they could be sued for claiming they speak for ‘Christians’ – I’m not sure I know ANY who would be in favour of their lunacy…
Thanks for blogging this. I hear what you’re saying. As a Christian, these ads didn’t really bother me. If anything, they opened up an opportunity for discussion. (http://www.needgod.com)
Atheism Proves Nothing.
Faith Proves Nothing.
So what’s to argue about? The argument is about what people have faith in, and why. I call my faith “reasonable” because I need to see reasonable proof before I believe that something exists. For you to tell me that I have “faith” that there is no god is technically true, but irrelevant, just as it is irrelevant for you to say that I have “faith” because I don’t believe a little green polka-dotted troll rules the universe.
What’s more relevant is why we believe what we believe. What’s even more relevant to me–as an American–is to know there really ARE atheists out there like me, and we shouldn’t all have to shutup about what we believe. I see signs of religion almost everywhere, and can’t say anything about it without fear of offending someone and starting an argument.
So tell me again please… why is it wrong to trigger discussions with a sign on a bus?
Btw Steve when I said “you”, I wasn’t meaning the you you. I probably should have said “others” instead of “you”.
Hi Steve
Nice reply, agree with the pragmatic assurance approach–I wish all would follow such an approach.
Read the link on the Dawkins book. and do agree on the comments about dawkins going beyond what he can substantiate on his own grounds–though the reviewer seems to ignore many of Dawkins’ own caveats to what he claims. But the reviwer focuses on the question as to whetehr or not having a relious perspective is a good thing–i.e does religion lead to a better world.
There is an argument to be had that it can act as a cohesive force in peoples’ lives and give some kind of grounding for social norms–but it eaqually can become a basis for dismissing other peoples’ norms. It comes back to: well if you want to believe in this, fine by me, but you don’t have a basis for telling me what constitutes good or bad behaviour. Whilst Such social norms are influenced by people with such beliefs, as they are part of society, they require grounding in something that acknowledges that we have to scome up with these norms for ourselves. In short you do not need religion to be moral.
The debate I was having–possible with myself–was more about issues surrounding the actual existence of deities and other such non material entities. Whilst consciousness is still underexplained then there will always be room for such devices to fill the gap of explanation–but let’s not mistake it for explanation–it is simply an assertion–an act of faith—
This so much mor fun than marking dissertaions, thanks
Wow, this comment thread is fantastic. Thanks so much for the discussion, people!
Acme, you said:
“For you to tell me that I have “faith” that there is no god is technically true, but irrelevant, just as it is irrelevant for you to say that I have “faith” because I don’t believe a little green polka-dotted troll rules the universe.”
2 things come to bear here – firstly, your ‘faith’ is, as far as I can see, that there is ‘nothing’ rather than something… it’s not as specific as ‘there is no Christian God or Muslim God etc… as an atheist, I assume you believe that ‘this is all there is’, for which there is precious little ‘evidence’ either way, beyond my second point…
…which is that you have faith that all the REALLY intelligent, bright, wise, deep, inspiring people who represent that absolute best of what each of the faith traditions represent are all completely deluded. That, I would suggest, is a faith. In the same way that part of the faith of a person who does believe in some kind of deity is that those who don’t are wrong…
The specific nature of a theistic world view is a layer of explanation, culture or interpretation on top of the belief that there is ’something else’ rather than ‘nothing else’.
So I’m not drawing any kind of ‘you’re as religious as they are’ parallel, just trying to build some sort of parity between different perspectives in a space where all of us have a minutely limited view of ‘all that there is’.
So what’s the problem with the bus? That it’s not a discussion trigger, it’s an argument trigger. It’s a way of annoying people, of making people who agree even more entrenched. It’s closed rather than open, combative rather than inclusive, and seems very much to come from the premise that ‘if they can do it, then we can too…’
I find the big-ass ‘Hell Is Real’ and ‘Where Will You Spend Eternity?’ signs that litter the road side of middle america abhorrent, annoying and naive – I have no idea what the people who put them up are trying to achieve, beyond absolving themselves of some erroneous sense of responsibility for the damnation of others thanks to their ‘having told them about Hell’ or some such bullshit… But to respond to it with counter-signs just perpetuates the conflict.
So does that mean that the bus-advert-world and the american road-side religious ranting world is handed over to the fundamentalists? possibly, yes. No, I don’t have an alternative, but I’m just not comfortable to sinking to the level of mindless shouting into the wind. Cos then the one with the biggest budget wins… And that’s horrible.
thanks for the comment – much appreciated!
Ashley:
“The debate I was having–possible with myself–was more about issues surrounding the actual existence of deities and other such non material entities. Whilst consciousness is still underexplained then there will always be room for such devices to fill the gap of explanation–but let’s not mistake it for explanation–it is simply an assertion–an act of faith—”
I think that most people of faith would argue that there’s more to their faith than filling in gaps… Whether or not their reasoning is circuitous is a whole other question, and there are just as many dreadful reasons to be an atheist as there are to follow any of the faiths…
But I think your point about understanding that morality is not the exclusive domain of the religious/spiritual is a really important one. The smugness of faith-based organisations who claim some kind of moral superiority thanks to their chosen faith profession is pretty sickening… but again, it seems something that’s better suited to dialogue, to finding a shared space for moral discourse rather than a slogan-based shouting match for 135 grand a round…
This thread is evidence that it’s possible, I guess
thanks!
I see this thread as an indication of the positive effect of the bus sign, even if that was not your intent. Thank you, too, for this!
Meanwhile, I don’t want to go too far off that original topic (of the effect of bus signs), but I just realized something important wrt how we decide to define “faith”. As I endeavor to understand the world in terms of some kind of objective “reality” (and with some kind of humility, conceding that we mortals just can’t know “everything” at once), it’s just much easier for me at this moment to split my world into subjective spiritual, and objective scientific worlds. Ie, even tho I’m an atheist, I still acknowledge the power of larger consciousness and purposeness, not yet fully explained with science theory. So I think I have “faith” that derives from some kind of spirituality, and “theory” that derives from science. They coexist in me without much conflict. Perhaps one day they will even inform each other better. (Does that make sense?)
Btw, by “larger consciousness”, I’m thinking specifically of the need we all feel to help each other and make the world a better place. Even animals act this way, for their common good. (Therefore I feel all animals must have a real “consciousness” of some sort and to varying degrees.) When I’m doing “good”, I’m doing it to serve humankind, not god.
Meanwhile, the largest difference between faith and theory (which btw also relates to subjective/objective) is that theory is self-corrective based on observation, while faith is more of an unquestioned feeling that derives from somewhere deeply internal and locked to me, personally and emotionally. (And THIS I think illustrates how the “me”, or spirit part of me connects intimately with the larger “us”, imposing mostly-static priorities, purposes, and relationships.)
To answer one of your points about whether masses of really intelligent people can be deluded, my answer is YES. We know for sure that most religions differ from each other enough to illustrate that MOST of them must be wrong, if any are right. Yet they are all quite willing to accept their delusion, for whatever brand of religion. I’ve even read and heard religious people say that logic and/or reason has no place in faith. The biggest problem with this discussion may that “delusion” is not a nice word. However, for what it’s worth (and this would go WAY of topic), I’m even quite happy to accept that free will is a delusion. This is yet another example of how “faith” (eg in free will) coexists peaceably with theory.
A pic I liked today
(via a tweet)
I liked the signs. I think bus signs are a valid way to get a conversation going, as evidenced by this thread.
And I loved Obama’s shout out to “Unbelievers” in his inaugural address. Nice to be recognized in the midst of the religion drenched pageant that is the presidential inauguration.
Hi Jonny,
I liked that bit too – all the prayer ‘n’ politics stuff makes me uneasy – seems like a fairly divisive thing to do, but the old Yoda-dude at the end said some fantastic stuff in his prayer. Top quality.
Obama def. seems like someone who is willing to acknowledge the validity of a multiplicity of religious and philosophical view points. Getting away from the idea of a ‘christian’ country seems like a fairly major step forward for dialogue-over-polemic.
Atheism clearly requires faith, even if it’s just a faith that not giving a shit will ultimately prove to be an OK position to adopt.
Hmm… did you really mean to equate atheism with “Not giving a shit”? In what sense? Seems a bit dodgy to me.
Maybe I should blog about more spiritual stuff, just so they don’t need to waste the money and clutter up buses next time
And why not
B.t.w., only tangentially relevant, but I was pointed at a fascinating article the other day: Jesus & Alinsky. Gives a perspective on Jesus’ teachings that I’d never heard anyone explain before!
Hi Jennifer,
not equating atheism with giving a shit at all, in the grand scheme of things, just that for some people, ‘non faith’ is a default because ‘theistic faith’ does seem like it’s even worth considering. In that case, not giving a shit is just the non-response to a non-considerable alternative.
I don’t think it’s the usual position for atheism, and is highly unlikely to be the position for those who are willing to spend money on bus-signs. They clearly give a shit, lots of shit
BTW, I’m so glad you take the time to comment here – what are you up to musically these days? I get asked about you more than almost any other solo bassist!
I think the sign is a good thing, it shows that its okay to non believe. That there are people out there that don’t I grew up in a place where no-one spoke about not believing, and it was only when I was older that I began to feel okay with my own non belief. If only I had known as a child it was okay not to belief…
So yes I think the signs are great.
what are you up to musically these days? I get asked about you more than almost any other solo bassist!
Ooh, what a lovely thing to hear!
Well I do have a few things slowly developing for the return of SB in the fullness of time. So unless I accidentally die first, there will be something at some point. Just not sure how soon. But you will certainly be one of the first to know when things start happening again
In fact whenever you post about music on the web I’m usually pondering “now would that work for me, and if so how?”
Less than a hundred thousand spent on a non-religion bus campaign vs.
BILLIONS spent on religious ones that should have gone to helping people in order to promote there own religion and gain more followers or is it customers…..
If you truely believe in your religion, than what does it matter what a bus says.
Jennifer: “In fact whenever you post about music on the web I’m usually pondering “now would that work for me, and if so how?” – Cool! We should have a chat about it some time, maybe I could interview you for this ‘ere blog
Spector – indeed. If you read my post again, I’m not even remotely defending the God-bothering stuff on buses. Both are utterly pointless. The trigger for this, I guess, is that I expect over-zealous churches to put up stupid signs on buses and billboards, and have got good at shutting them out. My sadness is that the intelligent response was deemed to be ‘fight fire with fire’ or ‘fight dumb-ass posters with more dumb-ass posters’. That seems tragic to me.
Your last sentence sums up the utter futility of it. If someone truly believes their religion (or their conviction that religion is BS), then they aren’t about to be changed by a poster. And if they aren’t, I’m sure 15 word slogans pointing them in either direction aren’t about to do justice to the depth and magnitude of the topic, and just present them with the idea that the alternatives are ‘believe in our version of God or go to hell’ or ‘anyone with any kind of theistic faith is clearly as nuts as the people who put up the ‘jesus says’ posters, therefor they should all be patronised with our expensive stoopid poster.’
Both are wasteful, divisive and ultimately anti-dialogue, as far as I can see. I’d rather see neither, TBH.
We should have a chat about it some time, maybe I could interview you for this ‘ere blog
Sounds to me like a fine plan