Publicly Promoting Atheism?

[krexia]

Originally Posted by Forever Atlas

The hopes of the campaign is to get more atheists to "come out" and reveal their views. The only reason that word "probably" is in there is because of advertising standards that say it is impossible to prove God doesn't exist. Otherwise the idea they were trying to get across is "There's no God."

This is a gross misrepresentation of the intent of the campaign. Its origins can be found here; it was conceived as a positive, optimistic counter to the fire-and-brimstone YOU WILL SUFFER FOREVER adverts that try to threaten people into Christianity.

Professor Dawkins said: "This campaign to put alternative slogans on London buses will make people think - and thinking is anathema to religion."
Hanne Stinson, chief executive of the BHA, said: "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. "If it raises a smile as well as making people think, so much the better."
...the Methodist Church said it thanked Professor Dawkins for encouraging a "continued interest in God". Spirituality and discipleship officer Rev Jenny Ellis said: "This campaign will be a good thing if it gets people to engage with the deepest questions of life." She added: "Christianity is for people who aren't afraid to think about life and meaning." [source]

And as Ariane Sherine (the woman who initiated the whole thing) says, "There's another reason I'm keen on the 'probably': it means the slogan is more accurate, as even though there's no scientific evidence at all for God's existence, it's also impossible to prove that God doesn't exist (or that anything doesn't). As Richard Dawkins states in The God Delusion, saying 'there's no God' is taking a 'faith' position. He writes: 'Atheists do not have faith; and reason alone could not propel one to total conviction that anything definitely does not exist'. His choice of words in the book is 'almost certainly'; but while this is closer to what most atheists believe, 'probably' is shorter and catchier, which is helpful for advertising. I also think the word is more lighthearted, and somehow makes the message more positive."

Originally Posted by Phoenix

You could probably turn it around and say "There is probably a God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life".

Except that the whole point here was that religious advertisements often involve warning people of the consequences of not being faithful enough - whereas if there's no god, you don't have to worry about unavoidable thought-crimes and eternal damnation.

I'm personally all for any positive message that tries to get people to think about their beliefs.

[_EX]

I dont see a problem with this. Its pretty much like the people who promote various religious groups.

It would be pretty hypocritical if we (Christians) had a problem with this seeing as we advertise a need for God in our lives and do similar things.

[Nevermore]

Originally Posted by krexia

This is a gross misrepresentation of the intent of the campaign. Its origins can be found here; it was conceived as a positive, optimistic counter to the fire-and-brimstone YOU WILL SUFFER FOREVER adverts that try to threaten people into Christianity.

Professor Dawkins said: "This campaign to put alternative slogans on London buses will make people think - and thinking is anathema to religion."
Hanne Stinson, chief executive of the BHA, said: "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. "If it raises a smile as well as making people think, so much the better."
...the Methodist Church said it thanked Professor Dawkins for encouraging a "continued interest in God". Spirituality and discipleship officer Rev Jenny Ellis said: "This campaign will be a good thing if it gets people to engage with the deepest questions of life." She added: "Christianity is for people who aren't afraid to think about life and meaning." [source]

And as Ariane Sherine (the woman who initiated the whole thing) says, "There's another reason I'm keen on the 'probably': it means the slogan is more accurate, as even though there's no scientific evidence at all for God's existence, it's also impossible to prove that God doesn't exist (or that anything doesn't). As Richard Dawkins states in The God Delusion, saying 'there's no God' is taking a 'faith' position. He writes: 'Atheists do not have faith; and reason alone could not propel one to total conviction that anything definitely does not exist'. His choice of words in the book is 'almost certainly'; but while this is closer to what most atheists believe, 'probably' is shorter and catchier, which is helpful for advertising. I also think the word is more lighthearted, and somehow makes the message more positive."

Except that the whole point here was that religious advertisements often involve warning people of the consequences of not being faithful enough - whereas if there's no god, you don't have to worry about unavoidable thought-crimes and eternal damnation.

I'm personally all for any positive message that tries to get people to think about their beliefs.

While some go with the fear approach, in my experience that is actually the least common (and in my opinion, least effective in the long run) method of evangelism. Most emphasize Jesus' love. Christianity is, in fact, a very optimistic ideology.

[Forever Atlas]

Originally Posted by krexia

This is a gross misrepresentation of the intent of the campaign. Its origins can be found here; it was conceived as a positive, optimistic counter to the fire-and-brimstone YOU WILL SUFFER FOREVER adverts that try to threaten people into Christianity.

If you notice I did say it was in response to various religious advertisements throughout the nation.

But what I said wasn't incorrect either, I got everything straight from the sites that support it and news articles. I was very general with my explanation though on purpose so people would do like you did, and read into it more, do more research.

[krexia]

Originally Posted by Forever Atlas

But what I said wasn't incorrect either...

Originally Posted by Forever Atlas

The hopes of the campaign is to get more atheists to "come out" and reveal their views.

Not according to the woman who started it. The primary goal was to make people think about and challenge long-standing views - about religion and about what we consider acceptable in public advertising - and to remind people that it's okay to not be religious. While the website does say that it hopes this campaign will help with public acceptance of atheism, its goal has never been to pressure anyone into doing anything. Your slight rewording of "the campaign hopes that..." to "the hopes of the campaign is..." very much distorts the sentence's implied meaning.

Originally Posted by Forever Atlas

The only reason that word "probably" is in there is because of advertising standards that say it is impossible to prove God doesn't exist.

Again, not according to the woman who started the campaign or its website. The word 'probably' is also there because she considers that a more accurate statement.

Originally Posted by Forever Atlas

Otherwise the idea they were trying to get across is "There's no God."

See above. The woman who started the campaign says explicitly that she feels saying 'there's probably no god' is more accurate than saying 'there is no god', and also points out that most atheists feel the same way.

Originally Posted by Forever Atlas

I was very general with my explanation though on purpose so people would do like you did, and read into it more, do more research.

Actually what I did was go and dig through my post history from forums elsewhere, from when this issue first hit the news over a year ago, and find the same references I'd read back then...

[Heolstor]

I wonder why it's not enough for people to have their own personal beliefs and leave it at that. Everybody needs a group to go to.

[KingBlade]

As an atheist, I approve of this sign as a way of getting more people to "come out the closet" as it is very taboo being an atheist in America. Though, I do like that atheists are trying to have a name for themselves, but it seems that there is this militant atheism that Dawkin's is starting which I do understand but, don't approve of it. He doing exactly what militant theist are doing, shoving their understandings of the universe down other people's throat. And I can't stand people like that. I think at the end of the day people are entitled to their own beliefs or understandings. I believe people should see all different beliefs and understanding from a different perceptive from their own.

[Square Ninja]

Originally Posted by ∞

I don't really see too much wrong with it.

They aren't necessarily trying to offend people, far from it, at the heart of the campaign.
They aren't necessarily trying to convert people either, just get them to realise where their true beliefs of lack thereof lie.

perhaps the same could be said of all religions

[Phoenix]

I wonder why it's not enough for people to have their own personal beliefs and leave it at that. Everybody needs a group to go to.

Pretty sure that's human nature.

[Needle]

Originally Posted by Forever Atlas

I found this very interesting.

About 200 buses in London and 600 more throughout the UK have this slogan plastered to them. In addition it has been on big screens in town squares.



This is a campaign in response to several religious advertisements across the nation.

The hopes of the campaign is to get more atheists to "come out" and reveal their views. The only reason that word "probably" is in there is because of advertising standards that say it is impossible to prove God doesn't exist. Otherwise the idea they were trying to get across is "There's no God."

Now this brings up many issues that have been debated in the past -

Atheism being organized
Atheism publicly promoted
Atheist "evangelists" growing in numbers

Among other things.

What are your views on this? I wont ask too many specific questions but just what are your thoughts towards the campaign in general?

I don't really care if they do it. It just seems like a way to piss off creationists.

[Forever Atlas]

^ As far as I have seen most of the reactions from those who are religious is not negative. As a matter of fact there were several religious leaders who welcomed the signs.

Originally Posted by krexia

Not according to the woman who started it. The primary goal was to make people think about and challenge long-standing views - about religion and about what we consider acceptable in public advertising - and to remind people that it's okay to not be religious. While the website does say that it hopes this campaign will help with public acceptance of atheism, its goal has never been to pressure anyone into doing anything. Your slight rewording of "the campaign hopes that..." to "the hopes of the campaign is..." very much distorts the sentence's implied meaning.

I see no difference in what you just said from what I said. I was being very general and broad in my explanation. I never conveyed the idea that it was trying to pressure anyone into anything. You interpreted it in another way from what I meant I suppose. In addition, I didn't insert my opinions in the OP except that I found it an interesting news item but stuck to the information I read.

Again, not according to the woman who started the campaign or its website. The word 'probably' is also there because she considers that a more accurate statement.

See above. The woman who started the campaign says explicitly that she feels saying 'there's probably no god' is more accurate than saying 'there is no god', and also points out that most atheists feel the same way.

Look up the rules of Britain's Advertising Standards Authority in conjunction with this campaign. A few news sources explained that was a reason for inserting "probably" due to the fact that it is impossible to prove that God does not exist.

They are a group of atheists, not agnostics, they aren't saying "Oh hey, maybe there's a God. But live your life." They are firm in their stance that there is no God. Just as the many theists who advertise are firm in their stance that there is.

[Phoenix]

They are a group of atheists, not agnostics, they aren't saying "Oh hey, maybe there's a God. But live your life."

Theists ads would be so much more likeable if they were like that.

They are firm in their stance that there is no God. Just as the many theists who advertise are firm in their stance that there is.

The word "probably" and "firm" sort of contradict each other.

Look up the rules of Britain's Advertising Standards Authority in conjunction with this campaign. A few news sources explained that was a reason for inserting "probably" due to the fact that it is impossible to prove that God does not exist.

That's the whole point. Saying "God exists" or" God doesn't exist" is claiming knowledge you simply lack.

[Ventux]

Originally Posted by KingBlade

Though, I do like that atheists are trying to have a name for themselves, but it seems that there is this militant atheism that Dawkin's is starting which I do understand but, don't approve of it. He doing exactly what militant theist are doing, shoving their understandings of the universe down other people's throat. And I can't stand people like that.

Dawkins isn't doing anything like that, he is simply raising public awareness about science and encouraging rational thought. At no point has he said "YOU MUST BELIEVE THIS OR ELSE.", or anything of the sort. Questioning religion is not intolerant at all, on the contrary, rationality is key to maintaining an open mind.

Originally Posted by Phoenix

Saying . . . "God doesn't exist" is claiming knowledge you simply lack.

It depends on what sort of "God" you're referring to.

[Phoenix]

It depends on what sort of "God" you're referring to.

Pretty sure it applies to any of them. I can't say Zeus doesn't exist, after all.

[Ventux]

Originally Posted by Phoenix

Pretty sure it applies to any of them. I can't say Zeus doesn't exist, after all.

You can disprove his existence based on the characteristics attributed to him. We know that he does not live on Mount Olympus, we know that he is not the cause of thunderstorms (and does not use lightning bolts to smite people), we know that he is not having sex with mortal women, etcetera.