Here in Aotearoa (NZ) there has been a campaign to put advertising on the sides of buses that says “There’s probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy life.” It’s commonly known as the Atheist Bus Campaign and follows on the heels of the same campaign in the U.K. It has garnered a lot of support and raised the funds necessary to get the messages of the side of buses… but now NZ Bus has backed out of running with the campaign due to complaints from the public.
I am an unashamed Christian. I work for a Christian development organisation, am a theological/biblical studies student, am licensed as a Minister in the Wesleyan Methodist Church of New Zealand, consider myself a devoted follower and imitator of Jesus of Nazareth, believe that he was God incarnate, that he died and rose again and I take the Bible very seriously and have devoted myself to studying it.
I’m one of the last people anyone might call an atheist. That said, I wholeheartedly support the Atheist Bus Campaign. I uphold democracy and freedom of speech where it does not incite violence, as great tools of a healthy and functioning society.
A good community encourages dialogue and conversation that allows opposing opinions to be voiced. The ability for us to share and be heard whilst also listening to others when they share is critical for the development of empathy and relationship within a community. Shutting down some voices while favouring others breeds divisiveness and resentment. This doesn’t mean we have to agree, but it does mean we have to provide room for varying voices and at the end of the day, if we wish for others to listen to us and give us room to speak, then we must be willing to allow the same in return.
The Atheist Bus Campaign provides an opportunity for a group to be heard. It provides an opportunity for conversation and discussion and it gives room for people to air their beliefs about the existence and nature of God where they might have otherwise felt unable to, whichever side of the discussion they feel closest to. The campaign offers a great opportunity that should be supported by people of all thoughts, those who don’t believe in God, but also those who do. We should be supporting the right for the ad to be put out there in the public domain. NZ Bus, please run with the ads.
Related posts:
I’d agree with Frank if I thought that the people behind this Atheist Bus Campaign were seriously seeking some sort of dialogue but I don’t so I don’t, with all due respect. I see the proposed bus-side slogans as no more than an equivalent of bratty child poking out its tongue and chanting “nah nah nana nah” It’s no more than attention-seeking bad behaviour, in bad taste, not what grown-ups, atheist or Christian should want to engage in. Full marks to NZ Bus for pulling out of the arrangement.
Owen, I’d be interested to know how you’ve gone about determining the motivation behind the campaign.
Either way, does it really matter?
Frank thanks for writing this. I agree with you.
However at first when I saw the article about the bus, I disagreed with it and wondered how they could put such a statement out there but I didn’t realize that if it had said “There probably IS a God, so stop worrying and enjoy life!” that I would not have disagreed at all and would not have thought twice about the people who would disagree. I like what Campaign spokesman, Simon Fisher said “It needs to be out there in public. We need to get people in the street to stop and look and think about what they believe, and why they believe these things.” So true. We are all entitled to express and voice our opinions and beliefs. If it helps us to think about and talk about things rather than making a statement through war and violence, I’m all for it! I find this ad also challenges us as to why we believe what we believe, is it because it is what we have always known as in grown up in tradition? Or are we following along mindlessly or are we at the core of it, in it for the heart of God. Real life faith breaking through the drone of tradition and politics. Cool.
The Atheist Bus campaign is surely a complete waste of time and money! Why promote a lack of belief?
Let’s say I were a keen cricket fan. I’d join a cricket club. I’d do all I could to promote the game and get others interested. I’d feel that I had something positive and enjoyable to offer. But if I had absolutely no interest in cricket what would be the point of starting an anti-cricket club or spending money trying to convince people to ignore cricket.
Of course atheists are entitled to their beliefs or lack thereof… but why bother to push a view point that has no more to offer than not enjoying cricket.
Do they really think that belief in God is what stops people from enjoying life? That’s absurd. There are heaps of people who don’t enjoy their lives and only a tiny percentage of those are suffering from religious guilt. Many more people would say they enjoy their lives far more, derive depth, meaning, satisfaction, hope and joy through actually believing in God and experiencing a relationship with him.
If you believe in something tell us about it. If you don’t believe in something – why bother?
I can’t believe people complained about this! It’s such a non-issue. There is so many more important things to worry about, both in NZ and overseas. Get over it people.
Hi all. Good to see some open and considered opinions on this.
Couple of points if I may.
@Jon Shannow
I’m interested that you seem to be framing the campaign as a “negative” belief (the lack of a belief). As an Atheist I completely disagree. This is a belief for me – just as much a part of my value system as I’m sure religous beliefs are to others.
I also think your cricket analogy is missing the point. Cricket doesn’t have the same cultural weight and context as religion does. Even though I don’t believe in God(s), religon is an in-escapable part of my heritage so I feel there is a value in discussing it; in what ever sense.
@Kelvin R
I don’t see how debating religon, which is at the core of pretty much everyone’s ethnicity, and issues of free speech are a “non-issue”. To turn away from the chance of an (hopefully, on all sides) open discussion on anything is never something to get over. Many of the problems to which you may be referring stem from people’s lack of this basic principal.
Thanks for your time.
j
[Jason - for some reason your comment got caught in the site's spam filter and I only just noticed it. My apologies for not spotting it sooner. -Frank 2/3/10]
Great article. As others have pointed out, I believe that Voltaire’s wisdom comes in well here when he said:
“I do not agree with a word that you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”
@Kelvin R: As for there being more important issues in the world, I completely agree. However in 1955, there were more important issues than a lady named Rosa Parks getting off her seat in a bus.
Discrimination is discrimination. Future generations will look on us with shame at our discriminative religious views that run deep through society.
@Evan Floden: of course I wasn’t saying we should only care about THE most important issues, I was only pointing out that people (especially christains it seems sometimes) fixate on little issues while the big problems pass them by.
Hi Frank. Thanks for the post. I found it through the track-back from the campaign blog post.
@Jon, atheism is the absence of belief in the supernatural, but it’s common for atheists to believe their form of rational thought and the way in which they’ve come to their conclusion to be an important part of their views. Sometimes they’ll see that line of thought as being worth promoting in the same way that some religious people like to advertise their views and promote their causes. Personally I think “promoting a lack of belief” is a simplistic way of viewing the campaign. If anything, it’s promoting the belief in and understanding of a certain line of thought.
I consider myself an atheist. I threw $20 to the campaign for several reasons that were significant for me, only one of which was to help subsidise people’s bus fares. People frequently spend money on things that others believe to be pointless (lotto tickets are my pet annoyance), and I’m not sure how this is different.
Cheers.
Mike.
Wise words, Sarah H.
It’s good to turn something on its head like you have done with “There probably IS a God…” and imagine how that would play out. I don’t believe there is a God outside of our imaginations and I wouldn’t find that offensive; I’d disagree but I realise that people are entitled to believe that and to proclaim it from the rooftops so long as harm is not done. And even if I was offended I respect the rights of others to give offence. i.e. if a billboard were to come out saying “There probably IS a God and he hates atheists” I’d be offended by the underlying sentiment and would disagree with the premise but so long as no one was rousing an army of black-tee-shirted Tamikites seeking to oppress me in some way because of my beliefs I’d respect their rights to voice that opinion. (I *would* be a little worried, I have to say).
As it is I think the campaign is a bit naff but it’s pretty inoffensive and I think that the people who have complained have probably made the point more succinctly than this particular phrase ever would have here in NZ.
Mike, thanks for your comment. For what it’s worth, I’m considering throwing a few dollars into the campaign myself, just to show my support for the right of others to have their say.
Damian, good comment mate.
Hey Mike…the person who buys a lotto ticket does so in the hope that they will win millions… even though their chances are less than being kicked to death by a donkey.
The Christian believer is also taking a gamble, dedicating a life to the service of God in the hope that they will someday spend eternity in God’s presence.
The atheist is also taking perhaps the greatest gamble… betting that God doesn’t exist. I just don’t see what they stand to win other than a certain pride in their ruthless rationality and intellectual superiority.
If the atheist is right we live, we die – end of story. If the atheist is wrong he or she has missed out on the chance of a relationship with the creator of the universe.
Jon, I don’t want to speak for Mike but it’s really not a gamble for me. I’ve personally given the matter long, careful consideration and surely that’s got to be a better approach than a ‘gamble’ based on either fear of retribution or of missing out on the grand prize? And if you are in the mood for gambling, have you given proper consideration to the horrific punishments or generous rewards other Gods have in store for you? What if you chose the wrong God?
No, if I were a God I would punish those who flippantly ‘took a chance’ and reward all of the doubters – at least the doubters are responding in the most reasonable way considering I (a God) had gone to such great pains to hide myself. Let us hope that, if there is a God, s/he is not of a similar mindset to me eh? You’ll be in trouble then.
Actually, come to think of it, I wouldn’t go out of my way to punish anyone, that would seem needlessly cruel when I could just as easily let them stop existing when they naturally died. Why punish when there is no chance of correction? The concept of eternal suffering in hell seems to me the most barbaric and petty-minded ever to be conceived.
Of course I’m being a little flippant there because I’m sure you don’t really think you’ve taken a gamble (at least I hope you haven’t) but the argument you put forward is pretty much what Pascal’s wager consisted of. If you are not familiar with it take the opportunity to read the article linked to and the next time someone in your church suggests that this is an effective apologetic argument you’ll be able to tell them otherwise.
But I ramble. Mike, any thoughts there fella?
1.)Why is it, when someone questions the existence of gods, like say Yahweh from the O.T, either they personally or the medium they employ, is attacked in an effort to extinguish this debate? Religion is one subject that is not seemingly open to debate in what is considered an open-society?
2.) Why is the theist position so weak that the proposition of some group saying “it’s possible to live a life and be good” scares them so much they need to resort to threats?Let’s make no bones about it peoples – the reason for NZ Bus declining the campaign is because of threats (commercial and physical) from certain nice ‘loooooving’ followers of Christ.
Imagine the squealing if atheists resorted to such sledge-hammer tactics every time we were confronted with theist propaganda?
There would be riots!
3.) Why are N.Z theists happy to hide behind their rights to have the freedom practice their said superstition – then go out of their way to deny others that very same right – simply because this group has views different to their own?
This goes to prove N.Z is far from a secular country.
Sad indictment on the state of freedom of speech.
Thanks for your message of support Frank.
Paul.
Good on ya Frank! I am an atheist, so we’re unlikely to see eye-to-eye on epistemology, but I’m happy to report that we’re in complete agreement on freedom of speech. It’s been excellent to see a number of theist bloggers take exception to this decision on simple fairness grounds. It’s an excellent antidote to the cowardly, poisonous NZ Bus decision.
The conversation an ad like this could generate is becoming more and more important in our increasingly diverse and pluralistic society.
More power to you!
Damian – how about this as an alternative… there is possibly a God and she loves atheists.
Paul and Dave,
Thanks for your comments. I appreciate you taking the time to come here and comment.
Paul, I have a feeling that the complaints would have been a minority that do not properly represent the wider Christian community in Aotearoa (NZ). At least, that’s my hope
Many of us are not scared of the discussion – in fact, quite a few of us enjoy it.
Dave, you’re right, I think such conversations are very important – otherwise we all retreat to our silos and when we interact with each other, it’s about taking pot-shots. I think we can do better than that.
I love seeing people who disagree on some things taking the time to listen to each other and still express friendship despite their differences. It’s a shallow society we live in if we can only be friendly and converse with people who think exactly as we do.
Ha! I would love to see that one run. I don’t know if there would simply be no response at all or whether there would be riots in the streets. Might encourage a little ‘rigorous’ debate in some Muslim countries (or in the Southern States for that matter). And when I say ‘rigorous’ I mean the with-guns kind of rigorous.
(Sorry, that last one was for Drew)
“Mike, thanks for your comment. For what it’s worth, I’m considering throwing a few dollars into the campaign myself, just to show my support for the right of others to have their say.”
Surely financially supporting the campaign is counter productive to the Christian cause that Tear Fund stands for?
I agree they have the right to say whatever they want, and would agree with you lobbying to allowing them to have their say, but surely contributing financially crosses the line?
Just in case you miss it Frank, Lukas’ dedicated a whole blog entry about you. Well, actually a whole *blog* at this stage.
Well spotted Damian… Frank is well aware of who I am and we have had discussions on a number of issues in the past. I have blogged before but stopped the blog as it was under my real name which is not the best thing when running an online business.
Matthew 18:15
Damian – an excellent, well reasoned and amusing response.
Like you I don’t believe in the absurd contradiction of a loving God who condemns the majority of humans to burn in hell.
But I suggest that much of life is in fact a gamble. Your investments are a gamble. Your insurance policies are a gamble. Every time you get in your car, on a bus, in a plane etc. you take a gamble. Long and careful consideration reduces risk but doesn’t eliminate it.
When you get married you put a lot of time, thought and shared experience into the decision but you’re still taking a risk – knowing about 50% of marriages fail.
If you choose to have kids you’re taking the risk/gamble that they will be healthy, happy and lovable, knowing there’s the possibility that in spite of all your efforts they may go right off the rails or die tragically.
When it comes to faith I have decided – over many years – to believe in God and attempt (very poorly) to follow Jesus. This doesn’t mean that I am free from doubt. The opposite of faith is not doubt but certainty.
I acknowledge that I could be completely wrong but I’m sure I’ve lived a better life, trying to be a Christian, than I would have as a non believer. There’s no way I can prove this but I can honestly say that my greatest joys and most satisfying accomplishments have all flowed out of my deepening relationship with God.
I have to admit that I like Pascal’s “everything to win and nothing to lose” theory but I’m not choosing to believe out of fear or a desire to cover my butt. I believe in God for the same reason I love Galbriath’s Resurrection Ale. I’ve tasted it and I know it’s good. But the first time I shelled out $10 for a goblet was a gamble.
Perhaps God took the biggest gamble of all when he/she created us.
Hi Frank, Jon and Damian. Thanks for the comments about my thoughts.
In the past I’ve thought deeply about the universe and existence and what comes with it, and I’ve come to the conclusion that I don’t understand it in the slightest. Nor does anyone, I think, which isn’t to say we aren’t constantly learning more. I just don’t personally see this conclusion of ignorance as a reason to take a leap of faith. If I did, it might as well be towards the Flying Spaghetti Monster as to any particular religion or god, unless I actually had some evidence one way or another, but I’d rather remain and conscious in my ignorance and be comfortable with what I think I don’t know. This conclusion isn’t the same for everyone, obviously, but it’s my choice.
I guess if the surface phrase (“Stop worrying and enjoy life”) is relevant to anything, it’s Pascal’s Wager. The wager is about fear of what might happen otherwise. There’s a whole other side to Pascal’s Wager, which is for someone like me to ask if the possibility of a specific vengeful god is high enough for me to take a wild stab in the dark, spend my entire life catering to that god and hope I have the right one, or simply to get out and live my life as best I can based on what I know for sure. I don’t think it’s what the bus campaign is primarily about (despite presence of the phrase), but it could be for some people. Atheists and supporters of the campaign are as diverse as any other group.
It’s really cool that it’s sparking a lot of discussion.
My lotto ticket comment was just a tangent to mention that if I wanted to donate money to charity (a-la the lotteries commission), I’d rather do so directly than by buying a lotto ticket that will always give me back less on average, take some for the overheads, and finally donate whatever’s left to charity. The bookies and casinos always win with gambling after all. The only way a player can ever win is by other people losing even more, and often those people are very bad at maths and budgeting and can’t afford to lose.
Have a nice day.
Mike.
Jon- “Like you I don’t believe in the absurd contradiction of a loving God who condemns the majority of humans to burn in hell. ”
May I suggest that you have not grasped fully the story of mankind as per the Bible- from creation with free will to the fall of man to the choice of salvation in Christ?
@Jon What you’re describing is “Pascal’s Wager” The idea that believing in god is “safer” than not believing in god as you potentially lose more by not believing.
The major problem with this philosophical idea is that it assumes the choice is limited to the “Judeo-Christian god” and “no god” as the two choices and as such a 50-50 wager.
The problem is this is not the case, what if the Buddhists are right? The Muslims? The Wiccans?
There are literally hundreds of belief systems and gods to choose from and only one of them can be “right” according to 99% of them. Therefore the wager is _not_ 50-50 and it cannot be assumed that believing in the Christian god is a safer bet than believing in nothing.
Once the choices spread out that far almost any choice is equally _risky_ so the easiest path is simply to assume that if one 99% of the god stories are wrong. It’s as safe bet that they all are and to “stop worrying and enjoy life”
@lukas I think they have in fact grasped it.
We are talking about a god who, you must agree, curses anyone who chooses not to follow him to an eternity in hell.
“…I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” The words of Jesus, according to John 14:6.
Revelation 20:15 “If anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire”
This sounds more like the behavior of a petulant child than what I would expect from the creator of the universe.
“Spend your life trying to live as I tell you and singing my praises or I will torture you for all eternity”
If that was a human being we would classify them as insane or at least try to avoid them at all costs.
Why do we not hold our supposed creator to as high a moral level as we would expect from one another?
Lukas,
Thanks for stopping by and offering your thoughts, mate. It’s always good to hear from you. It would have been cool to put the disagreement in one place though so I wouldn’t have to offer my thoughts in two places.
There’s two separate issues in your concern about me possibly offering a small financial contribution to the campaign.
I will deal with the first now and the second tomorrow when I have more time.
I’ll copy and paste from your blog since that’s where you flesh out your thoughts a little more, but I’m afraid I will limit further discussion to here so I can focus on it in one place
First:
If you go to the “about” page you will notice that it says this is the “unofficial blog of TEAR Fund NZ” – that is stated to demonstrate that whilst it exists in proximity to TEAR Fund, it still maintains a level of independence and does not represent official TEAR Fund comment. Also and extremely importantly it says this:
Any expression from me offering a financial contribution on the grounds of supporting another group (that I disagree with) to get their message heard has nothing to do with TEAR Fund.
If I was putting up TEAR Fund money then maybe you would have a case (which I wouldn’t dream of doing) but any mention of such a contribution is about my own personal money which I am entitled to do with as I wish. Thus my personal mention of a financial contribution has nothing to do with the values TEAR Fund stands for as it is about my own personal money.
This is a place of discussion where opinions can be shared honestly, including mine. Those opinions, as clearly stated in the “about” page, are not necessarily a reflection of TEAR Fund and any position that TEAR Fund might hold. This should be reflected in the fact that there are times when Drew and I disagree on things written here, though we both work for TEAR Fund.
In terms of me financially supporting the campaign as a Christian and Minister, I’ll address that tomorrow.
Dear Frank,
I would like to thank you for your open thinking and rational mind on this subject.
I consider myself an atheist and find it upsetting when people get angry at such a thing. Like these bus ads because it just doesn’t adhere to their beliefs or bias’s.
There always has been religious ones around the city. They wouldn’t agree with my beliefs or maybe even a Muslims so would we have a right to complain in that circumstance? Of course not. Everyone has a right to an opinion in such a circumstance unless it interferes with others rights or is directly offensive. In this case such a thing was not.
Thank you for standing by others who do not posses the same belief system as you. Its humans like you that make this world more tolerable to live in.
And to others out there. Aithestim isn’t a LACK of belief but a belief in science, rationality, skepticism. We believe people shouldn’t be and i will say conned here. Into the fact that you have to worship someone and dedicate your life to them in order to get to some paradise. I believe you should enjoy life, do what you believe is right, build yourself some morals and live by them, Question everything but most of all embrace all of life and simply enjoy it.
Thank you again
@chris – “This sounds more like the behavior of a petulant child than what I would expect from the creator of the universe.”
If you had a little bit more faith you might understand.
[To this commenter, please do not try to be antagonistic under other names (I know the other name you've been commenting under here and would prefer you to keep using that name). It will not help the discussion. Let's do our utmost to respect each other even in our differences. -Frank]
Hey everyone,
Really cool to see some good discussion here – and an excellent level of patience/respect (more than is often seen).
on the various atheists discussing the points about hell and God being childish, etc…
First, on the various atheists discussing the points about hell and God being childish, etc… Annoying as it may be, one really has to (I think) admit that the character and ‘existence’ (a word I hesitantly use, as I don’t believe God merely/only ‘exists’ in the same mode/way that a pancake exists) are two separate (albeit related) questions. Not liking a particular understanding of God doesn’t automatically rule out the real existence of at least some kind of God.
Secondly, on the ‘wager’ notion… As I think Frank has posted before (which I agree with), Christians really shouldn’t use the wager kind of defence – if not for other reasons, simply due to the fact that it places too much emphasis on ‘what happens after you die’. Jesus-shaped faith certainly comes with a promise concerning resurrected bodily life in a new heaven and earth, and the writers indeed speak of final judgment (which includes positive ‘rightings’ as well as the negative –though for many, necessary– extinguishing of evil, etc.)… BUT, Jesus-shaped faith is about the kingdom of God NOW as well. Too many Christians present a ‘gospel’ which is only about securing a ‘good place’ after death, and avoiding a ‘bad place’… A rather huge part of Jesus’ gospel had to do with making this place (the created order) a ‘good place’. Being set right ourselves so we can set things right in the broken world around us. I’m nearly preaching now, so that’ll be all from me (I just feel the need to ‘enlarge’ the gospel whenever I see ‘little’ versions of it!)
Cheers,
-d-
Hey Frank, thanks for taking the time to reply. Sorry, if my initial post comes across as harsh… as the footer says, this is my knee-jerk reactions
As for your leftie persuasions… we all have our faults mate 
I must have miss-read the ‘about’ or remember it wrong. I was under the impression that it was the official Tear Fund blog, for that you have my apologies and I will correct the post.
My concerns still remain about a Minister supporting an atheist campaign, so I will look forward to seeing your comments on that tomorrow.
For your info, an outspoken atheist/ungodly heathen like moi, offered St-Mathews Church $50 to repair their ‘Joseph and Mary’ sign that was being attacked by extremists in December, upset at its message. Personally I thought it was their right to advertise they cause in what-ever form they so choose and it was ‘a cracker’ of a design- made me giggle. So in the spirit of ‘free speech’ I made the offer which was rejected because the sign was forced to come down anyway, but I remember the e.mail reply said they were humbled at the offers of support particularly from those who only motives were for ‘the right to free speech.’
http://canterburyatheists.blogspot.com/2009/12/new-zealands-christian-taliban-demand.html
‘Joseph and Mary’ was another case where debate was being stifled by fringe members of the followers of Christ.
Similarly we now see a new nutty Christian based group that now wants Family Planning closed in New Zealand to prevent another sperm & egg being ‘murdered’ by contraception! WTF?
Atheists in New Zealand aren’t afraid of debating openly being able to be good without the mandate of a god or two, saying it’s o.k to forget theist threats of eternal damnation if you don’t believe their creed.
It’s extreme Christians that are uncomfortable with open debate and resort to bully-boy tactics.
Have a good one.
Paul.
Alright, let me address the concern about me possibly giving money to the Atheist Bus Campaign.
The comment I made is this:
Allow me to stress that at the time of writing that comment, as stated, it was/is something I am considering – I have not committed myself to it.
That said, I have no moral or ethical reason for not doing so. To do so does not contradict anything I stand for.
At it’s simplest it would be a case of me putting my money where my mouth is for the one reason that I stated:
Giving a small donation (and I’m only talking about $10-$20) would demonstrate that support beyond mere words on a blog.
Allow me to state for the record that I do not agree with the statement in the campaign that there probably is no God. My disagreement with that statement should be blatantly obvious – but I wholeheartedly support the right for it to be said and I love the conversations that can come from it, the sort of conversation that is already taking place here.
If the bus company had just gone ahead and displayed the ads I wouldn’t bother donating anything or even be considering it… but it hasn’t, so as a Christian who believes in giving opportunity for others to have a voice and as someone who loves to see forums develop where differing voices coming together, by donating I would be, in a sense, helping to create a forum, helping to spark a conversation, demonstrating a willingness to step beyond the boundary of the Christian circle and sit with another group, giving my help.
I can understand why people would struggle with any move from someone such as myself to donate to this campaign even though the statement of the campaign dismisses something I believe in – but I’ve got nothing to be scared of by saying to people I disagree with, I support you and want you to have your say and I’m willing to front up with something from my wallet to demonstrate that.
It in no way changes anything that I believe in or my wholehearted commitment to living as a disciple of Jesus.
@Lukas – I’m well aware of the literalist interpretation of the Adam and Eve myth and how this relates to the sacrifice of Jesus – I just find it logically unacceptable.
@Chris – don’t go knocking Pacal. Apart from his theology he makes some very nice lollies!
You’re right – when it comes to religions we have a huge variety of choice… even within religions there’s a spectrum of different flavours.
You mention Buddhists – who don’t believe that Buddha is a god, Muslims – who believe in the same God as Christians and Jews and Wiccans – who believe in some sort of Gaia/nature force… as opposed to real witches who believe in the Devil and God more passionately than most theists.
Why do you assume that only one of the world’s religions can be right? Is it not possible that all of them contain some elements of truth and wisdom?
You suggest that because there’s so much choice we should simply reject the lot. My mate Pascal makes lots of different lollies. Some I like some I don’t but I’m not giving up eating sweets because there’s a wide choice.
The obvious solution is to “suck it and see”. About a third of the world’s population – over 2 billion people – have tasted Christianity and found it to be very sweet indeed.
That is fair enough Frank. I still see it as something of a contradiction, but can see (albeit disagree with) your reasoning behind your comments and wont put anything from my wallet in to the pot
Mate, I wouldn’t expect you to put anything in
I can easily see how it could be viewed as a contradiction and completely understand that people might not like me doing it… and if the motivation were that I really wanted to support a statement that says there probably is no God, then it would be a contradiction. But that’s not my motivation – my motivation is to support the right to say it and the overarching conversation.
Thanks to Frank for standing up for the principle of freedom of speech and freedom of expression. I think that’s something most New Zealanders would agree on because it is a freedom purchased with the blood of our grandfathers.
To those who find the campaign immature or irrelevant, those things are not your concern. If you didn’t put money into the pot you are hardly in a position to judge the reasons of those that did.
And lets not get into a debate on the point of Gods existence in this thread. We know we disagree on this point. The issue is whether we abrogate peoples civil rights based on their belief. I would never entertain doing so to a Christian, I would appreciate the same consideration.
Atheism is absolutely *not* an absence of beliefs. It is a flexible view of the world founded in evidence and rational thinking and is apparently held by around 1/3 of our country. It amazes me how many people don’t seem to understand or want to acknowledge that.
While not all atheists will fall into the humanist category, a great many (if not most) will. For those who don’t think atheists can have beliefs or values, feel free to take a look at those listed here: http://www.humanism.org.uk/humanism. Indeed most atheists would have a large overlap in ethical values with those who prescribe to theistic world views, which leaves a lot of room for us to do good in cooperation.
This campaign is not an attack on people’s right to theistic beliefs (as many apparently seem to think) or really even an attempt to persuade people, it is a group of people emphasizing that their world view is as valid as any other and that it’s OK to hold that view. The many negative reactions we’ve seen to the campaign highlight the huge double standard that exists between theistic & non-theistic groups. The fact that so many people here in NZ are offended by and think it’s OK to silence a group with a differing opinion staggers me and makes me very sad for the state of our country. Raising awareness of this kind of prejudice and discrimination in our society is one of the many reasons why I think this campaign is important and very worthwhile.
For those interested in the intent of the campaign (as well as the initial reason for it and choice of wording), you can find it here: http://www.atheistbus.org.uk/faq/
@Frank: Right on brother! You seem to have a great attitude towards freedom of speech and belief. I only wish more people were as open minded and reasonable! Sadly, while I think it’s probably true that it was a small minority who put pressure on NZ Bus to pull these ads, the reaction of a great many people seems to be that the actions of NZ Bus were OK or even warranted. Disturbing stuff.
Frank,
I appreciate your comment on my blog entry on the bus campaign. In fact, I agree with it. You might notice on other posts that I usually attempt to qualify my statements to allow for human diversity.
I should have made it more obvious that I was addressing those theists mentioned in the article I quoted from, those who vocally oppose this campaign and fail to see their own hypocrisy in denying others the same right to speak their opinions as they enjoy.
On the other hand, sweeping and unreasonable generalizations do tend to provoke more contemplation and reaction than moderate comments. I’m usually quite moderate on most topics, even religion, but now and then I take a less moderate position in order to provoke a reaction. After all, the intent of my blog is to get people thinking about their beliefs and assumptions.
For what it’s worth, I’m a former Christian and youth minister. I’m still an ordained minister, just not affiliated with Christianity or any other organized religion. Since there is no precedent for an atheist minister, I’m free to create my own “dogma”. Mine pretty closely reflects the position of the humanists with a bit of non-religious spirituality thrown in for good measure.
Peace.
Jack,
Thanks for this comment, I appreciate it and can completely understand the move towards provocation – sometimes people need to be jolted in order to encourage contemplation and reflection.
I commented as I did on your blog as it was my first view of it, I didn’t have the wider context of your blog to measure it against.
Out of simple curiosity, may I ask what denomination you were a part of and what caused the move away? I’m always interested in people’s stories and the journeys people take.
It is a ridiculous concept to suggest that supporting untruth is supporting freedom of speech. What about statements relating to the authenticity of the Bible, Brian Tamaki, abortion, holocaust denial? Imagine all the possible statements/causes that you would “throw some money at”, just because it’s not allowed on a bus. Frank you crack me up, If I ever need a laugh I know I can rely on you!
I think neutrality is where it’s at, like Wikipedia for example, your neither allowed to present information from a positive or negative point of view. That way the reader can decide for themselves.
Funnily enough one of my dear ex-friends was commenting just yesterday that I should stop supporting children through the likes of tear fund. They suggested donating money toward a tobacco company, as their advertising rights are well struggling, to say the least. Not to mention of course the farmers of the tobacco trying to feed their children etc… apparently there have been devastating widespread effects from the loss of sales. Not to mention that she misses the Marlborough Man, but that’s Esther for you, always thinking of the lost sheep.
I’d just like to do a shout out to Peter and David who I met on this website and haven’t seen since the explosion at the compound last year.
I’m afraid this is my only avenue of communication to them as I am now living somewhere they can’t find me.
I regret I have had to read Frank’s opinion on what atheists want to write on the sides of buses, but I also regret leaving the ingredients for the traditional plum pudding near the window where someone (you David?) decided to go ahead and make it without using the proper full body fire protective suit.
It’s all very depressing really.
…
MODERATE HER FRANK !!!
Hi David and Esther,
Great to hear from you! It’s been a while… and what a coincidence you would both turn up at the same time on the same post after so long.
Glad I could provide a smile and thanks for the smile you’ve given me
Hopefully you won’t be strangers and won’t just comment on posts you find disagreeable… which would be difficult if you find them all disagreeable I guess
Moderate me? Please it was not me who caused a fresh round of violence to erupt between two warring tribes in a small lakeside village in Hungary with the recent publication of my autobiography.
Your foray into the world of paperback publishing (the carrot and I), written under that ridiculous penname which I won’t mention has incited more violence in that town than when the Russians came in.
I can’t believe your comments have been posted straight on here and aren’t awaiting moderation like in the old days.
Don’t trust him Frank, he’s a ferret in wolves clothing.
What are you two on?
If his comments were held in moderation here in the past it would have only been because they contained links.
Ps – for those reading, holding comments in moderation because they contain links is to prevent spam.
Hello Frank,
I trust you have been well, I think I saw you in India while I was fixing the underneath of my bus. I’m pleased to say that my face has heal so well that children no longer cry every time they see me. Esther is, I am sorry to say, justifiably allowed to harbour some malice against me. Something awful happened some time ago but hopefully since then enough water has passed under the bridge. Esther is a wizz on the computer so maybe she embedded some links in my previous posts. Anyhow I’m happy if she’s happy, so for arguments sake (and a small but significant debt) you can censor my comments.
Esther, Hungary was a simple case of your word against mine. It’s like you had never heard of that famous saying “the pen is mightier than the sword”. I wish it were like the “old days” as well but we both know that is impossible, however much we earn.
I’m going to take Franks advice and comment on some global issues, maybe you should too. My first comment was quite good I thought.
As the chairman of a new bus operator, starting in Canterbury later this year and throughout New Zealand from next year, I support this campaign’s right to exist. After all, it gives us something worthwhile and interesting to counter with our own bus ads…
Hey Paul, would your company run the ads?
At the end of the day it appears to be a business decision made by the bus company. Regardless of their reasoning, they must have a right of refusal when it comes to advertising space. I’m sure fashion magazines choose who they allow to advertise through them. I’m not so sure this is a ‘freedom of speech’ issue. What about billboards? Radio/TV ads? Surely there are other avenues?
The bus company does have the right to refuse, just as they have the right to refuse any campaign.
I’ll be interested to see where the campaign does go. I think they’ve been approached by various agencies.