Sunday, November 08, 2009 Last Update:11:25 am ET

World|Wed, Oct. 22 2008 11:10 AM EDT

'No God' Ads to Hit London Buses

By Ethan Cole|Christian Post Reporter

London buses may soon be plastered with ads proclaiming “There’s probably no God,” if a British atheist group has its way.

The slogan is the brainchild of the British Humanist Association (BHA), an atheist organization that seeks to promote a world without religion where people are “free to live good lives on the basis of reason, experience and shared human values.”

Among the campaign’s supporters is well-known atheist activist Richard Dawkins, who promised to match BHA’s goal of raising $9,000 for the ads, according to BBC.

But the group has now raised $59,000 on its own.

“Religion is accustomed to getting a free ride – automatic tax breaks, unearned respect and the right not to be offended, the right to brainwash children,” Dawkins told BBC.

“This campaign to put alternative slogans on London buses will make people think – and thinking is anathema to religion,” he claimed.

BHA will use the funds to purchase four weeks worth of bus-long ad space on the outside of two sets of 30 Bendy buses.

The complete slogan reads: “There’s probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.”

Because more funds were raised than anticipated, BHA will also run posters inside the buses. The group is also considering to expand the campaign to other British cities such as Birmingham, Manchester and Edinburgh.

"We see so many posters advertising salvation through Jesus or threatening us with eternal damnation, that I feel sure that a bus advert like this will be welcomed as a breath of fresh air,” said Hanne Stinson, chief executive of BHA.

"If it raises a smile as well as making people think, so much the better.”

In response, a British Christian group warned that people don’t like to be preached to and that it wouldn’t be surprising if the public retaliated.

“I should be surprised if a quasi-religious advertising campaign like this did not attract graffiti,” said Stephen Green of U.K.-based Christian Voice.

But the U.K. Methodist Church, on the other hand, expressed appreciation to Dawkins for fueling a “continued interest in God.”

“This campaign will be a good thing if it gets people to engage with the deepest questions of life,” said the Rev. Jenny Ellis, a Methodist spirituality and discipleship officer.

She added, “Christianity is for people who aren’t afraid to think about life and meaning.”

It is well known that Christianity is in decline in the United Kingdom and across Europe.

A report by the United Nations, released earlier this year, found that two-thirds of Britons admit they have no religious affiliation. And a BBC poll last year found that four in five people believe Britain is in moral decline.

The Archbishop of York, Dr. David Hope, the second most senior member in the Church of England, declared in a 2004 interview that the United Kingdom can no longer be considered a Christian nation. He noted that Britons are less committed to the church and “secularist” tendencies were increasing.

The bus ads are slated to run in January.

Sort by: Newest | Oldest | Agree | Disagree
All comments on this page are subject to our Terms of Use and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Christian Post or its staff.
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7
  • Thu Oct 30, 2008 6:16 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Sorry prophet, I thought you would undertsand I meant the fossils the rocks contain, apologies.

    Agent, many thanks for explaining what I meant.

    Time for bed in England.

    Steve

  • Thu Oct 30, 2008 5:59 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "I didn't say it was sufficient."

    Ok, then where is the sufficient answers or examples of 'progress' (you've still not defined) that you expect to see and why you expect to see given what we know.

  • Thu Oct 30, 2008 5:51 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "If genes are sufficient to explain the progress you're looking for, what other objections are there?"

    I didn't say it was sufficient. I said it answered my question.

  • Thu Oct 30, 2008 5:36 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Ok, so we've established that genes allow for the propagation for new novel information and traits via hereditary. So where is the objection to the theory itself? If genes are sufficient to explain the progress you're looking for, what other objections are there?

  • Thu Oct 30, 2008 5:28 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Sorry, I didn't respond because the question was already answered. Talking about genes and such.

  • Thu Oct 30, 2008 5:19 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "That's a response? "

    Technically, yes. It's just not the response you wanted, just like how the response I gave asking you for like the 5th time for details and specifics on how you infer 'progress' with regards to evolution.

  • Thu Oct 30, 2008 5:12 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    I said
    "Maybe you could remedy your lack of understanding of the Bible and God. The Bible is readily available online. And God will draw close to those who call on His name, and He will give them understanding."

    Your response was
    "Prophet, 'progress' = ? Details, specificity please."

    That's a response?

  • Thu Oct 30, 2008 5:05 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "I didn't figure I'd get a response from my last post. "

    I did respond, just not the one you preferred, just like I didn't get the one I would prefer. i have read the bible, what do you think, that I know nothing of your religion?

  • Thu Oct 30, 2008 5:03 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    I didn't figure I'd get a response from my last post.

  • Thu Oct 30, 2008 4:53 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Prophet, 'progress' = ? Details, specificity please.

  • Thu Oct 30, 2008 4:37 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Maybe you could remedy your lack of understanding of the Bible and God. The Bible is readily available online. And God will draw close to those who call on His name, and He will give them understanding.

  • Thu Oct 30, 2008 4:34 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "speaking of confusing. Maybe steve could not be so confusing. He should have said what he meant. "

    He did say what he meant, it does require the understanding of the context though. In other words, it would help to familiarize yourself with basic biology. If you don't understand that rocks don't have DNA, RNA, and such, of course I can see how it could be hard to understand.

    "I know nothing about genes, so that won't do me any good."

    Time to remedy that then, you have the Internet at your finger tips. Be specific what you mean by 'progress' and lets see how we fair in finding examples and then why you object to them.

  • Thu Oct 30, 2008 4:30 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    I know nothing about genes, so that won't do me any good.

  • Thu Oct 30, 2008 4:29 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Speaking of confusing. Maybe steve could not be so confusing. He should have said what he meant.

  • Thu Oct 30, 2008 4:24 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Prophet, ""Go and look in/at the rocks there you can see evolution in progress...." He's making evolutionists look back, not to mention himself."

    No, he meant, as I said that rocks themselves aren't evolving (as you wrongly thought by thinking the rock would itself evolve.

    His claim is the fossils in them through the many geological layers emphatically demonstrate the diversification and evolution of life on earth. This is how they show a a brief progress of endless forms.

    If you want examples of 'progress' you can see actively now, I mentioned the evolution of the CCR5 gene. Again, be specific on what you mean by 'progress' so as not to confuse the issue midway through dialog.

  • Thu Oct 30, 2008 4:12 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    orange,
    You might want to talk to your constituant then. This is what steve said:

    "Go and look in/at the rocks there you can see evolution in progress...."

    He's making evolutionists look back, not to mention himself.

  • Thu Oct 30, 2008 4:08 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Prophet, "Ok. I'm going to spend a couple hours staring at a rock to watch it "evolve'"

    I guess this statement is another example in relation to your understanding in what evolution predicts, explains and so on. Rocks don't evolve, nor was steve indicating they would, his statement refers to the fossilized organisms in the rocks and in this manner they demonstrate the diversification and ancestry of life over time.

    Rocks don't evolve for the simple reason that they don't reproduce, they don't use DNA, RNA and thus can't undergo the processes involved in biological evolution.

    By 'in progress' be specific what you're expectations are and lets see how we do.

  • Thu Oct 30, 2008 4:00 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "if you had the evidence you say that is needed to confirm what Prophet or I say happended would you then believe?"

    If there is some evidence for his or your stories, and its objective, independent, tested, critiqued, analyzed per the scientific method and it's still quite compelling in terms of no other likely or possible explanations could explain the phenomena, then I would have to at the very least concede in believe in said evidence. If its there, cite it, and lets go forward.

  • Thu Oct 30, 2008 3:37 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    steve,
    Ok. I'm going to spend a couple hours staring at a rock to watch it "evolve' (can rocks evolve? Maybe we all came from rocks instead of a fish.)

  • Thu Oct 30, 2008 3:25 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    agentorange, if you had the evidence you say that is needed to confirm what Prophet or I say happended would you then believe?

  • Thu Oct 30, 2008 2:43 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "If I say I don't know whether they exist or not it still doesn't change the fact that they exist."

    True, epistemological truth is eternal.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology


    "If I choose to believe you my belief will at best be weak or shallow"

    There is a difference from 'belief' and 'knowing', they're not the same in a philosophical sense.

  • Thu Oct 30, 2008 2:39 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "If I choose to reject your eyewitness account because you cannot prove to me that they exist it doesn't change the fact that they do."

    But star from your point of view you're agnostic to the mountains existence, so your skepticism is justifiable. They may exist regardless of you knowing either way, but this doesn't mean in the absence of evidence to your view that you must affirm they do exist.

    Now, if evidence is produced to further support the claim of mountains, then it becomes more logical to adopt a position in which you affirm they do exist.

    Star, this isn't how logic works. Until, it can be demonstrated via evidence (pictures of them, articles about them, seeing them in person, etc) to YOU personally that indeed they exist, you have no reason to accept them on face value.

  • Thu Oct 30, 2008 2:38 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    star

    There is another thing you could do re mountians. You could experiment on continental crust of which the flat lands are composed, you could then come to the conclusion that such topogrphy could exists when plates collide. Then whilst never having seen moutains you could conclude that such structures where well within the bounds of possibility.

    BW

    Steve

  • Thu Oct 30, 2008 2:33 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "I live in the flat lands. You live in a moutainous region. If I never saw a mountain and you told me that they existed because you were an eyewitness to it but could not prove it beyond your eyewitness account then I can either say that your are lying that mountains don't exist, or I could say I don't know if they do or not, or I could believe you."

    OR, I could just show you endless pictures of mountains, OR I can physically show you by taking you to where they exist so you can verify them with your own eyes. What you're claiming is quite an ordinary claim about mountains, it's not as extraordinary as the evidence for prayers.

  • Thu Oct 30, 2008 2:33 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    prophet

    Go and look in/at the rocks there you can see evolution in progress or go and look at the phylogentic tree, there you can see evolution in action, or at least up to the last universal ancestor (which makes hydrothermal vents very intresting places).

    Regards

    Steve

  • Thu Oct 30, 2008 2:29 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Prophet, "I want to see evolution in progress. "

    Define what you expect to see, 'progress' is vague for this, and based on what evidence why this should be expected and lets see where we go.

    If you think any type of 'progress' is sufficient, then I will introduce you to a the CCR5 gene mutation which in human populations prevents HIV from bonding to T Cells and thus making the host immune.

    "It's not gonna happen, so I don't believe in it. "

    Not gonna happen based on what evidence again? Conclusions are based on evidence and logical reasoning, not a priori assumptions.

  • Thu Oct 30, 2008 2:26 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    agentorange

    <<"But, as I pointed out, God supercedes science because He created the laws that govern our universe."

    Another decry from fiat, got evidence for this? You a prioi assumption is that 1) god exists, and 2) then it created this universe. Without any meaningful, verifiable, or compelling evidence (like something we can test to validate) for this declaration, why should we accept it?>>

    We have the evidence agentorange, you don't. God has already revealed Himself to us and we beleived and received Him as Savior and Lord. As we live our life for Him He manifests Himself to us. Saying that God exist and that He created the Universe is not an a prioi asumption.

    I live in the flat lands. You live in a moutainous region. If I never saw a mountain and you told me that they existed because you were an eyewitness to it but could not prove it beyond your eyewitness account then I can either say that your are lying that mountains don't exist, or I could say I don't know if they do or not, or I could believe you.

    If I choose to reject your eyewitness account because you cannot prove to me that they exist it doesn't change the fact that they do.

    If I say I don't know whether they exist or not it still doesn't change the fact that they exist.

    If I choose to believe you my belief will at best be weak or shallow but if I ever experienced one for myself, then my experience makes my belief strong and validates the truth that mountains exist.

    It is the same with God. If you don't believe that there is a God or you don't know whether He does or does not exist that doesn't negate the fact that He does. If you believe our testimony that there is then it is at best a weak belief. But if God reveals Himself to you then you will know with certaintly that He does exist.

    It is not a prioi assumption for me to say that God exist, that He is a miracle working God, and that He has control over the laws of science because God has revealed Himself to me that He exist and has given me proof that He is a miracle working God and has control over the laws of science in what He has done in my life and in the lives of others that I have prayed for.

  • Thu Oct 30, 2008 2:20 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    I want to see evolution in progress. It's not gonna happen, so I don't believe in it.

  • Thu Oct 30, 2008 2:19 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Well,
    The good thing is that I don't need orange's approval to know the truth and the facts. What happened to my wife and kids mean nothing to him. As I've said before, because it hasn't happened in front of his eyes it doesn't make it truth. Well, the truth is still truth regardless...

  • Thu Oct 30, 2008 2:18 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    star, "Or would you continue to call him a liar or a delusional man who must be smokin something or tripping out on something?"

    Oh grow up, I never called him any such thing, nor did I imply he's on drugs. I merely said I doubt his story, and for the fact that he can't provide outside and independent evidence which is objective this is for obvious reasons why you and he would doubt my declarations about me witnessing Santa clause. What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

  • Thu Oct 30, 2008 2:15 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "How about his wife, his son, and his daughter give testimony to what happened. Would you believe then?"

    Not really, they would just be additional eyewitnesses and since they were involved they have a favorable subjective view of it, it would be preferable to have a 3rd party in doing the evaluation, testing, and such. People who aren't the test subjects (for obvious reasons) doing the confirmation, the evaluation must be 'blind' so intentional bias can removed if not minimized.

  • Thu Oct 30, 2008 2:05 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "Come on agentorange, Prophet is an eyewitness to the miracle his wife, son, and daughter experienced."

    And we know this how? How can we verify it objectively? Like your story all we have is his word and it alone, nothing objective there. Is his decry from fiat any different than me stating I witnessed santa claus in fat red suit flying a sleigh pulled by reindeer and have no evidence to back my claim? No, didn't think so.

  • Thu Oct 30, 2008 2:03 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Come on agentorange, Prophet is an eyewitness to the miracle his wife, son, and daughter experienced. He has lived with his wife since they were married and with his children ever since they were born. He spends time with them everyday. He knows what they were like before the miracle and what they were like afterwards. He can testify to what happened after prayer was offered to his God for their healing.

    Would you believe another eyewitness to the miracle? How about his wife, his son, and his daughter give testimony to what happened. Would you believe then?

    Or would you continue to call him a liar or a delusional man who must be smokin something or tripping out on something?

    I have no reason to believe that Prophet is lying and neither do you. You may not know whether what he says is true or not but claiming that Prophet needs to have something else verify the reality of his experience is nothing more than a lame justification for rejecting that there is a God who can and does the impossible.

    You may not believe what he says is true because you don't believe that miracles happen but that lack of belief doesn't consider whether there is a God or not or whether Prophet is lying or not.

    Tell the real truth agentorange about what you really go thru when you read Prophet's testimony or my own instead of hiding behind the need for some acceptable form of proof.

  • Thu Oct 30, 2008 1:57 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Viking, "Science can make no such judgement"

    But it has, does and continues to do so. Take for instance the study of the efficacy of intercessory prayer.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/31/health/31pray.html

    Obviously such evidence is meaningless to the concept of a Deistic God, but again, most theists don't prescribe to this view and I doubt the sign mentioned is referring to this notion of God.

  • Thu Oct 30, 2008 1:48 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Viking, "how would you describe it"

    Philosophical, though from a scientific leaning it largely depends on how one describes God in the first place. Obviously, from a philosophical and scientific critique, a Deistic God would be far harder to refute either directly or indirectly and this is correlated to the nature of how said God is described. But most theists don't prescribe to such a view, no, they prefer the other god which is more easily refutable, or at least less likely to exist given the nature of reality... thus the sign.

    As the concept of God is a philosophical question, philosophy after is the the study of determining what is reality, the statement is bluster, they might as well gone all out in saying 'no god(s) exists' as the inverse is directly stated all over the world and still neither are refutable empirically so both are philosophically equal. I think the reason for the addition of 'likely' is related to the fact that such an affirmation of knowing no God exists is equally as dogmatic, unjustifiable as the inverse and partly for its still taboo in some sense.

  • Thu Oct 30, 2008 1:39 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Prophet, "Because it didn't happen to them, or isn't in a scientific journal, then it's not legitimate. "

    Surely if what you say is true, then we should have some objective evidence for them outside of simply your word, yes?

  • Thu Oct 30, 2008 1:37 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "But, as I pointed out, God supercedes science because He created the laws that govern our universe."

    Another decry from fiat, got evidence for this? You a prioi assumption is that 1) god exists, and 2) then it created this universe. Without any meaningful, verifiable, or compelling evidence (like something we can test to validate) for this declaration, why should we accept it?

  • Thu Oct 30, 2008 1:33 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    Prophet, "I know. Fact that disputes your claim aren't good enough. I understand."

    Oh please, you haven't assembled anything qualitative, you've not even cited your claims so they aren't substantiated in any manner and should hardly be considered.

    Simply sitting in your ivory tower and decrying 'I was witness to a miracle' isn't sufficient in verification at all, this is no different than me simply decrying I personally witnessed Santa Claus flying in a sleigh with reindeer and when asked for sources, citations and objective evidence I can't deliver (just like you now).

  • Thu Oct 30, 2008 1:29 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Prophet, "We were talking about faith in God and faith in science. So, no it's not going off on a tangent."

    In general sure, but in particular the faith you mentioned was in regards to evolution, so please describe the miracle moment in it. The scientific process itself doesn't consist of using faith in explanation, that is what I was referring to.

  • Thu Oct 30, 2008 1:27 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Viking, "Could you clarify."

    Sure, my point was this. The assumptions used in science you mention regarding how our thoughts are real (not virtualized, imagined, or dream state) and that the world is observable and able to be documented and tested against is the very same principle religions themselves rely on. If they, for instance, presume that thoughts aren't real, then they too would have to forfeit any concept of revelation. It's not something only applicable to science.

  • Thu Oct 30, 2008 7:11 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    viking..

    "I wonder what Augustine, Marcus Aurelius, Luther, etc. would think of those comments"

    You are taking this far to seriously you need to lighten up a little, anybody would think they had got under your skin.

    As for Luther no doubt he would blame the Jews and want their synagouges burned or the Anabaptists and have them drowned (or is that Zwingli?)

    Kind regards

    Steve

  • Wed Oct 29, 2008 10:42 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    Star,
    Yeah, I understand. Because it didn't happen to them, or isn't in a scientific journal, then it's not legitimate. Well, argue as they may, they can't change the truth (fact) that these things happened. God is above science. He is not confined to the laws of science.

  • Wed Oct 29, 2008 8:27 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Prophet - I gave testimony of a couple of miracles God did through my prayers for a dog and for a person and agentorange said that it was hearsay, and worthless because it could not be verified through some kind of documentation, like a newspaper article or some other form of verification.

  • Wed Oct 29, 2008 8:23 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    Hi all, What I find most interesting about this article is the way it highlights the intellectual inconsistency of the group sponsoring the ads. As mentioned to Agent there is of course no legitimate foundation on which they can support the statement. Science can make no such judgement and philosophy does not deal in statistical probabilities. I was delightedly amused when I went to the BHA site and read the discussions there of "humanistic spirituality" At the same time the group avows to hold no belief in metaphysics or the supernatural they espouse "spiritual" development. The irony is delicious when they say they are using the slogans to get people to think and that thinking is anathema to religion. I wonder what Augustine, Marcus Aurelius, Luther, etc. would think of those comments.

  • Wed Oct 29, 2008 8:12 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    So, because it happened to me, it isn't real?

  • Wed Oct 29, 2008 8:04 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Agentorange

    "star2, tell me, what is so disasfying with the notion of being part of nature and being related to animals? The bible says we come from dirt right, well evolutionary theory says pretty much the same thing in that we have lowly origins."

    God's Word says that God gave life to the man He formed from the dust of the ground by breathing into his nostrils the breathe of life.

    Gen 2:7 - "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."

  • Wed Oct 29, 2008 7:58 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Agent, Hi again here is a real question that goes to the articles content. Would you agree that from a scientific point of view there is no validity to the statement "there is probably no god". I suggest this on the basis that science is inherently unable to provide any valid opinion one way or another on metaphysical questions.
    If you do agree that the statement is not scientific in nature how would you describe it (i.e. political, philisophical,???)

  • Wed Oct 29, 2008 7:53 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    I know. Fact that disputes your claim aren't good enough. I understand.

    "...You'd know this if you READ the labels, as age, weight, and many other physical factors can impact how the drugs are absorbed..."
    Um, yeah. The doctor didnt know ANY of that stuff when he prescribed it to her. Give me a break

    "What does any of that have to do with evolutionary theory and its facts? Talk about going off on a tangent."

    We were talking about faith in God and faith in science. So, no it's not going off on a tangent.

    But, as I pointed out, God supercedes science because He created the laws that govern our universe. Meaning He could put 6 trillion animals on the ark if He wanted to.

  • Wed Oct 29, 2008 7:53 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    agent,
    Hi I agree with your first sentence in your response. However I can't understand the second statement. Maybe I don't understand the grammer you were using. Could you clarify.

  • Wed Oct 29, 2008 7:43 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Prophet,

    "So science is a set of visible, or measurable, or noticable evidences. It's built on reason and fact"

    Not quite, science is based around many things, one of which being objectivity (so your personal unsourced experience doesn't qualify) and repeatable testing.

    "Real fact: The meds did absolutely nothing"

    Real fact. Meds do not help everyone in all cases, nor do they help all equally when they do help. You'd know this if you READ the labels, as age, weight, and many other physical factors can impact how the drugs are absorbed, if at all. Not all people can take penicillin for example.

    Also consider meds for such issues are relatively new, so it's not realistic to prescribe perfection from day one. They are not a silver bullet in all cases.

    "Real fact: God closed her hole.'

    And you can cite and back this claim up how? Unless you can source it, it doesn't do either of us any good as it can't be substantiated in any way.

    What does any of that have to do with evolutionary theory and its facts? Talk about going off on a tangent.

Please help us to monitor our message boards by flagging comments that are unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable.
Contact Us if you have any questions, comments, or concerns.
Comment on this story
ID Password

Don't have a Christian Post ID? Signing up is easy. Click Here

  • icon1
  • icon2
  • icon3
  • icon4
  • icon5
The Christian Post reserves the right to terminate the account of any User who violates our Terms of Use.
Also on CP
Advertisement
Advertisement
Zondervan

Struggling to succeed in the Nashville music scene, talented singer/songwriter Parker James finds the competition fierce even deadly. A young woman's murder, industry corruption, a

Featured Advertiser Links