All Aboard the Atheist Bus?
Anyone who reads Boing Boing (or, y'know, the news) heard about the atheist bus-ad campaign that rolled through London early this year with an (un)holy fervour.
The UK campaign took out ads on public transit featuring quotes from famous atheists, with the chaser slogan of "There's Probably No God. Now Stop Worrying And Enjoy Your Life."
When fundraising for their ads, the UK campaign raised 2400% of their target (*cough*miracle*cough*). So instead of 30 buses spreading the word, they had enough for 800. Would you like a loaf with that fish?
Now a group has formed to spread the hellfire-free word to Canadian cities, comme Toronto.
The Canadian Atheist Bus Campaign is a collaboration between Chris Hammond, a first-year political science student at York, Katie Kish, and the Freethought Association of Canada.
In the one week they've been live for donations, the campaign has raised more than $20,000. They had hoped to raise $7,000 by May.
The proposal is currently waiting for blessing from the powers-that-be at Toronto transit. They've been told to expect the (lower-case) judgment by the end of this week.
Personally, I'm thrilled. I developed deep Brit-envy when I heard about London's ads. It seemed so... fair. Atheists went a bit nuts when Richard Dawkins rose to prominence, because finally they'd found an articulate figurehead to call their own. It can wear on a soul if your position is almost always described by negation. Many atheists have already reclaimed "godless" and "heathen" (and the twofer "godless heathen") as their own, but still, it's nice to see a more uplifting message being spread in our name.
What do you think? Would these ads on the TTC make or break (or have no effect on) your day? Take our poll below.
UPDATE: They have approval.
Photograph by bonbinibabe1 in the blogTO photo pool.
Comments (92)
Religious zealots and fanatical atheists can go at each others throats all they want, I am agnostic :P
Remember kids, freedom of religion needs to include freedom of no religion.
Hear, hear. I'm an atheist, which means I don't believe there's a God, but that doesn't mean that IF I'm given evidence, I will still reject a God. Up until that point, however, there is no reason for me to even entertain the possibility, just like how I don't spend my days sitting on the fence about unicorns or yeti.
Some people think that means I'm an agnostic, but I think they just don't know what atheism means to many people.
Athiesm is so irritatingly fashionable now, and it serves an economic purpose. People need reverence. If there is no God, we are left only to revere what is most accessible in the modern world: our employers and corporate brands.
What's the point exactly? There is such smugness among atheists now since it has become more accepetable. Fair enough, you don't believe in God and in some cases vehemently oppose organized religion. But why do you insist on diminishing the value it brings to many lives by joking about unicorns, zombies, etc.?
If you want some social credibility why not spend those donations on a non-denominational charity organization instead of an ad campiagn that essentially pokes fun of others beliefs?
Dawkins was right: agnosticism is for pussies. Do you have evidence there's a god, or not? If you do, you're off your meds. If you don't, there's no god, just like no Santa Claus or Flying Spaghetti Monster.
If you say, 'I have no evidence, but I have faith', you are at least honest (the argument of an educated Catholic or Anglican) but it's still meaningless. Don't tell me what you believe, tell me what you know. People will believe any damned thing. There's no god, because there's no evidence, and I don't believe anything fantastic unless I have 'put my hand in his side' as it were.
Religion or any faith based structure is a way to keep us in fear and living within that organizations rules and illusions.
Gloria and James
I srongly disagree with the statement that somethign doesn't exist because there is no evidence. Also Gloria your stance is closer to agnosticism than atheism as it is defined today. For me, i just don't believe anything without proof, but i won't disbelief anything, unless you prove to me it's not out there.
To me the bible is as real as lord of the rings.
What is more interesting that existance itself doesn't make sense.
My argument about god is that it would have had to come from somewhere. But than there is the whole thing of even empty space being something.
To me it's philosophy, there is no faith. Agnosticism is science. It's just an approach that respects not knowing something.
Blind faith in science. Our current knowledge of science compared to what is out there (yes i am reaching) is equivalent to learning to count to 5 and knowing that 2+2 is 4.
all religious/atheist jousting aside (and kudos to Catherine for pandering to those two classes of insufferable bores...this post is prolly gonna wrack up more comments than a loblaws closure), this is a fucking wickedly written post!
James further more for you.
I can give you a scenario where god can exist. As your stance is not atheism, it's ignorance.
Let's look at humans, right now we could make a genetic organism and populate a planet with it. By definition we are the species creators and their god. The species will never know and most likely not have the means to find how they were created, and may make up some silly rituals to worship some iconized version of their creators based on pure fiction.
Your stance is not science, it's ignorance.
Apparently the campaign has been approved by TTC. "Atheism is so irritatingly fashionable." Oy. If only the cynical hipster pose wasn't.
I don't get the slogan. What does God have to do with my worries? He doesn't sign my paycheque.
Also....I'm not sold on the "probably". I'd be less worried (were I worried) if the slogan was definitive! One way or the other...Jesus!
'That Guy', yawn... "The bible is as real as lord of the rings [i.e., it's not real]. What is more interesting [is - sic.] that existance itself doesn't make sense." The more confident than educated in epistemology come out of the woodwork!
That Guy: It's near impossible to prove something does not exist. Nowhere else in humanity's body of knowledge do we "hold off" on something's existence until its existence is "dis-proven."
Nowhere in atheism (except perhaps among its most fundamentalist) does it say that it is closed to evidence contrary to its principles (should it present itself). There is simply, at this moment, no evidence. Acknowledging that one could in the future be wrong does not mean we need a name for it. In my view, it's just unnecessary labelling.
I have no problem with religious faith, as it's a point of view that bases itself on principles entirely outside of scientific proof. I object to agnosticism because it wrongly implies that science is rigid and dogmatic. Science tries to know what can be empirically proven and demonstrated -- but it can change and it has. But no one has ever suggested that we need a particular name for it.
Curious to know how the atheists/agnostics/hellbound heathens would feel about advertisements on buses for religious groups. Would it offend you or do you simply accept it as someone else's point of view?
Yes, as long as it doesn't advocate some kind of discrimination (e.g. anti-gay, etc.). I can't speak for everyone, but that's my point of view, mentioned in a previous comment.
Ads for religious groups already exist and have for a long while. I haven't been bothered because they just advertise Bible groups, etc., like any other organization or company.
@Michael: If you Google this topic, you'll find out why the ad contains the word "probably."
see, the thing is, and why this doesn't make as much sense in toronto, is that the ads in the UK were apparently in response to another set of ads for something called Alpha Course, which is like a course in christianity.
so in the UK the atheism ads were something of a defensive move, whereas if they end up here, they just seem to be to push people's buttons, as they're not really in response to any advert-preaching that's already going on (that i know of, anyways).
for this reason, i don't think they should run the ads. it will just get people up in arms, and make the atheist population look like they're suddenly on the offensive, which they're not.
badbhoy.. pretty indifferent as long as people aren't killing each other
Gloria: between us it soems down to definition of terms. Wikipidia breaks it down nicely. There is Atheist Anagnostics, and than there is Theological Anagnostics. I place my self in the atheist category. I believe that there is other life forms in the universe, not on faith, but rather that it just seems to make sense. I do not believe in the allmighty, in fact i believe in nothing, i just admit that there is no basis for me to make assumptions about the orgin of my existence. Big bang theory seems a bit blah, i do believe in evolution though. The puzzle is just a bit incomplete. Religious types say god created us in his image, wouldn't another race of humans dumping us on this planet qualify as that ? Anything is possible.
That's the part I don't get. I asked how people would feel if they saw advertisements for other religious organizations but honestly I cannot recall every seeing any in Toronto. It's not like we live in the bible belt where religion is often in your face and organizations are politically influential.
I always enjoyed the fact that in Toronto we respect religious freedom but for the most part expect that it be a personal experience rather than a public one. This ad campaign seems like atheists are saying "bring it on" but in response to what exactly?
It's very simple:
Until such time as good evidence is proffered in support of the existence of the tooth fairy, there is no good reason to believe it exists.
Until such time as good evidence is proffered in support of the existence of Zeus, there is no good reason to believe he exists.
Most people have absolutely no issue with these statements; we are not agnostic about the existence of Zeus, Apollo, Thor, or the tooth fairy. In the absence of evidence, our default position is that a positive statement ("Zeus exists") is false. When evidence arrives, we amend our position, if need be.
Similarly, we should not be agnostic about the existence of Yahweh, or the divinity of Jesus, or whether Mohammed ascended to heaven on a winged horse. These things are either true or they are not; in the absence of evidence in support of these claims, our default position is, as it should always be, that they are false.
We are, I suppose, agnostic toward these things in the sense that we cannot completely rule out that they are true. But we should be quite clear that we are agnostic about Yahweh in the same sense as we are agnostic about Zeus or the Easter Bunny. In functional terms, however, we can safely conclude that these Zeus, the Easter Bunny, and Yahweh do not exist, due to the complete lack of evidence for their existence.
I like this idea because I think there's a lot of people who should know that it's okay to not believe in god.
Badbhoy said:
"I always enjoyed the fact that in Toronto we respect religious freedom but for the most part expect that it be a personal experience rather than a public one. This ad campaign seems like atheists are saying "bring it on" but in response to what exactly?"
Part of the reason this campaign is a good idea is that it gets people thinking about WHY they believe in god; to ask whether it is logical and rational to do so.
Moreover, we should also note that religious moderates (and I would agree with you that most religious Torontonians fit this description) are not above blame for the actions of religious literalists. Religious moderates provide intellectual cover for religious literalists, by making faith virtuous, rather than shameful. Moreover, religious moderates ask us to focus on The Golden Rule, and forget the horrors of Deuteronomy and Leviticus (and, to be fair, parts of the New Testament as well).
This sign poses absolutely no threat to religious freedom; the sign does not call for the killing of religious people, or for religion to be banned. It merely asks that people consider the reasons for their beliefs.
Mike, i agree with all you said.
But look at my interpretation of being agnostic.
I am atheist when it comes to the existence of god as defined per religion. I am agnostic towards the existence of an intelligent lifeform that can be interpreted as any of those things.
badhoy: I think other than some bible passages i seen on the street car it's pretty empty. Than again there is always peole pushing falun gong, islam and jesus when you go to dundas square. Still this campaign does have a ring it on vibe. Some atheists are zealots that equals the worst of religion can offer, or even the zeal of apple fanbois. I stay away from that shit.
I had good reason to believe in the existence of a tooth fairy. I put teeth under my pillow and it was replaced by pocket change. The minute I believe otherwise....no more pocket change. To hell with the truth of the matter.
If inexplicable good or bad stuff happens to adults, wouldn't it be fair (or should I say, understandable) to believe a God had a hand in it. We all can't run massive scientific inquiry on every happenstance.
I'm not saying, I'm just saying.
Who said it wasn't okay to not believe in God? Why do you need a bus advertisement to tell you this?
I understand there was a time when atheists were ostracized (and worse I'm sure), but in Toronto in 2009? How has atheist activism gone from freedom to not believe to actually preaching the "non-belief" to others who don't give a shit anyway. It's like you are becoming an organized religion or something. :)
@Badbhoy: There already are ad's for bible study on the TTC. I don't mind them, but I would start to mind them very much if the TTC decided to not allow the "Probably no God" Campaign.
I have no problem with people preaching to me, as long as they except that I have a right to say 'no thanks'.
@ That Guy:
"I am atheist when it comes to the existence of god as defined per religion. I am agnostic towards the existence of an intelligent lifeform that can be interpreted as any of those things."
And I am agnostic about the deist god you describe in the same was as I am agnostic about the existence of four-headed turtles on Mars. There's nothing wrong with that, but for the sake of clarity, I think we should be clear about the things that we either do believe in, do not believe in, or are not sure about. What makes the difference? The quality of the evidence.
I'm an agnostic and i also don't believe in wasting money away for such a project.
Both theists and atheists should keep these matters private.
@ Michael:
"If inexplicable good or bad stuff happens to adults, wouldn't it be fair (or should I say, understandable) to believe a God had a hand in it. We all can't run massive scientific inquiry on every happenstance."
You cannot invoke "God did it" as evidence for the assertion that "God exists". That is circular reasoning. We cannot ascribe any event or thing to the actions of god without evidence that god exists. To do so merely begs the question. I could just as easily ascribe the event to my aforementioned four-headed Martian turtle, and I would be on exactly the same epistemological foundation as those who invoke Yahweh/Zeus/Thor/etc.
When we do science, we collect data that serves as evidence for a particular hypothesis. When sufficient data emerges that are all consistent with the same hypothesis, we can effectively claim that they hypothesis is true. Moreover, we can test the validity of this claim by designing new experiments that SHOULD give a certain result if the hypothesis is true; that is, the hypothesis is falsifiable.
@ Parkdalian:
"Both theists and atheists should keep these matters private."
100% agree. Slight problem, though: religious people have a bit of a habit of telling us that we're going to hell for all eternity if we don't toe the line. Even worse, they have an historic tendency of burning us or flying planes into our buildings because of our lack of belief (or different belief, or very-slightly-amended belief).
One does not have to publicly identify oneself as a "non-astrologer" or "non-alchemist"; the notion that we have to identify at all as "atheist" is ridiculous to begin with. But I think, after thousands of years of being unable to say anything at all, it might be time for a small gesture from the atheists. Perhaps a bus sign, non?
Oh, I understand the scientific process. But I am not about to foist my faith in that process upon others. One of the most shameful aspects of religion is the motivation to convert the non-believers. Or in this case....believers.
And I still don't know why the non-existence of God makes my worries go away.
@ Michael:
"And I still don't know why the non-existence of God makes my worries go away."
That's not what the sign means; it means that you should stop worrying about what god thinks about what you do (or think, or dream about, or who you sleep with, etc).
You'll still have worries, but they'll be about real things, with real consequences on your real life.
As an atheist myself, I'm all for these's ads, but I do not agree to promoting it in a public space. For what purpose does this serve? to Create more money to promote it more. As much as i dislike ANY religous propaganda (because I do not feel that people's thoughts and opinions should be forced upon others), at least some of the money raised for religious institutions would be going towards, churches, social programs, etc etc. Where is this money going?!
Mike: You're right, signs are a good small gesture.
But we're not going to change people, no matter what we throw at them with billboard signs. If you want to tell folks what you believe, or not believe, tell them in person.
Just don't go to extremes. Two wrongs don't make a right.
I love anything that provokes thought... that's been Dawkins' prerogative and I'm all for it. See the bible bus ads for an opposing view?
"But I think, after thousands of years of being unable to say anything at all, it might be time for a small gesture from the atheists."
Since you are an official group now raising funds for awareness campaigns, will Atheists being applying for minority status? I mean you've all been so hard done by throughout history. How about reparation payments for your oppressed Atheist ancestors?
Nick, there were Alpha Course ads in Toronto as well. I remember seeing this billboard at College & Bathurst...
The world is progressing. We don't need to fear burning in hell to be good to one another. 2 hands working does more than thousands of hands clasped in prayer.
@ Morga:
"The world is progressing. We don't need to fear burning in hell to be good to one another. 2 hands working does more than thousands of hands clasped in prayer."
Couldn't agree more. Prayer is a great way to make yourself feel useful, without actually doing anything.
That said, there are a large number of people who absolutely think we need to fear hell in order to be good to one another. And unfortunately, some of them are cabinet ministers.
@ Parkdalian:
"Just don't go to extremes. Two wrongs don't make a right."
Quite right, but let's not make a false equivalence. Stating plain facts ("There probably is no god") is not the same as fear-mongering and out-and-out hate (pick your favourite Bible passage).
@ Badbhoy:
"Since you are an official group now raising funds for awareness campaigns, will Atheists being applying for minority status? I mean you've all been so hard done by throughout history. How about reparation payments for your oppressed Atheist ancestors?"
The advancement of rational thinking is payback enough.
"I don't care if it rains or freezes, as long as I've got my Plastic Jesus, Sittin' on the dashboard of my car..."
There are many different types of religious ads on the TTC already. I've seen ads for different churches (where they are, what they're about, when they meet), and I've seen ads with scripture verses ("bus stop bible study" or some such)
Why not let atheists do the same?
Personally, I can't wait until the uber-religious folks start vandalizing the ads.
They'd both be fundraising for the money via donations, who does it really matter what other people want to spend their money on?
Personally, I love it. Spend a million fighting it out; the TTC can take the ad revenue and get to work on 'transit city' even faster.
Also, why should they keep it private? I mean, religious freedom should mean you're free to do your thing, whatever religion you do / don't prescribe to. It's not very free if you can only do it in your home.
Religion has been getting too much respect for too long. At this point, it has convinced the general population that even the most polite criticism like "there's probably no god" is strident.
Does "there's probably no tooth fairy" sound strident?
Does "there's probably no hobgoblins in the basement" sound strident?
Religion in general, and Christianity in particular (in North America at least) hears any criticism and claims to be oppressed.
That's funny.
http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2008/12/17/christians-are-oppressed/
Does anyone else see the fucking madness in this or just me? You are the ones that are not supposed to care! Now all of a sudden you want your collective voice to be heard? We already live in a godless, secular society but we need this to be reinforced?
Some of the comments are hillarious. Debate between two atheist or how they define themselves as a group! I don't even practice a religion myself but the thought that I need to define my beliefs (or non-belief) with a defined title is just as ludicrous as the religions you love to critisize.
You may as well be asking me if I have heard the good news or would I like a copy of the Watchtower or Dianetics. My eyes are glazing over just the same.
Ontario legislature opens with a prayer every day.
Ontario provides public funding to a separate, religious-based (Catholic) school system.
Would these things happen in a godless, secular society, I ask rhetorically?
You are proving my point actually. If you feel strongly about ensuring that we remove all references to religion in the public forum then why are you joining the party by supporting a bus advertisement to express your views on human existence? Why not create a bus ad that instead denounces the fact that a prayer is said in legislature? This would make more sense and could of course be supported by members outside the Christian faith.
And since there is apparently now a tightly-knit community of Atheists and a fund raising organization, why not put the money to better use? Many atheist critisize the fact that many charities are affiliated with religions and are seen as recruiting tools. So why not create a non-religious charity and advertize that instead? It would certainly help shake the stereotype that Atheists "self-serving heathens" and demostrate that you believe in social responsibility without believing in God.
No, instead we get a childish ad campaign that essentially says "we don't believe in God and we have every right to tell you" . The ad campaign should include a picture of an 8 year old with a thumb on his nose.
As I said in a previous comment:
Religion in general, and Christianity in particular (in North America at least) hears any criticism and claims to be oppressed.
"Waah! This reasonably-worded ad campaign mildly criticizes my faith! Stop oppressing me! Anyway if you were truly critical of my faith you wouldn't say anything about it, you'd just ignore it! Waa!"
As I said in a previous comment, I do not practise any religion so you are not offending my faith, just my sensiblilities with the hipocrisy of your comments.
Badbhoy, the issue is that we DON'T live in a godless, secular society as only 16% of Canadians chose No Religion in 2001 census and religion (particularly a mix of Judeo-Christianity) permeates the country. The other issue is whether this campaing makes sense or not but your "godless, secular" claim is a bit far out.
Fair enough. Godless and secular may be a bit extreme. But let's look at the census figures for a moment.
In Toronto, where the ads are to be displayed, the number chosing "no religion" is actually closer to 20%. Outside of Christian based faiths at 50%, it is the largest group. I am also sure that a good number of the 50% of Christians have never been in a church outside of weddings or funerals. The census of course doesn't account for the Athiests that seem to believe that Athiesm IS a religion and problably responded "other". Given some of the ridiculous responses here, I am sure some of these people read this blog.
The fact is the ads are preaching to the choir in a childish manner and proving a point that doesn't need proven.
I'm totally all for this.
I was too a bit jealous of the Brits when this campaign debuted there. It's only fair; constantly while riding public transit I'm bombarded with "bus stop bible studies" ads, not to mention the incessant annoyance of those assholes from the Church of Latter Day Saints.
I saw a bum get kicked off the streetcar the other day for asking people for change. Yet the streetcar driver on the 501 yesterday refused to kick off these guys as they're systematically harassing every single person they set eyes on.
All of the atheists who are also empiricists ("I won't believe it until it's been proved") do, in fact, believe in a religion. Their religion is called "science," which (if you study the history of epistemology and the philosophy of science, you'll know) cannot itself be proved. That is to say, lots can be proved BY science; you just can't prove science itself. There are a number of axiomatic theorems in both science and mathematics (one of the languages of science) that have not been proved, and may succumb to formal indeterminacy. The first half plus of the 20th century was taken up quite unsuccessfully by some philosophers of science attempting to prove science.
In fact, science can only prove that which falls within the positivist paradigm. Any phenomenon residing outside of that paradigm cannot be proved by science, and hence is parcelled up with various epithets: religion, superstition, not-being-worthwhile (because it cannot be measured), and so forth. Indeed, much that is today considered as science was previously thought to be magic (including the technology that runs your computer), and there are still many phenomena that defy scientific explanation but are, nonetheless, useful technologies. The whole string theory as a unified theory of life, the universe, and everything (so to speak) will likely never be proved to the same standard as that demanded by the atheistic empiricists of God's existence.
I, personally, have faith in a unifying power beyond human comprehension because I have experienced such phenomena. The fact that you have not had similar experiences does not negate mine, nor the "science-equivalent" that I construct to make sense of them. I also believe in much that is science, although I typically practice outside of the positivist paradigm (choosing to work primarily in constructivist and critical epistemologies).
"There's probably no God" is like saying, "I probably won't win the lottery," but it does not invalidate the beliefs of those who play, nor diminish the psycho-social benefits they might derive. (And I do understand that too much lotto is like too much religion, in that both often lead to trouble. Yeah, I get that.)
yes, mark...and the earth was created in six days. and it rests on giant turtles. and you mustn't eat pork. or shelfish. or cow. god says...puhleeeeaaaze
His comments are just as ridiculous as those of the Church of Atheism that seems to be recruiting here. Talking about history of oppression, we strive for the advancement of rational thought and "it's time 'our' voice was heard"...puhleeeeaaaze.
Actually, "there's probably no god" is like saying "there probably aren't any hobgoblins in my basement."
It's not like saying "I probably won't win the lottery."
The difference is: There really IS a lottery. There are lots of them, and you can actually buy tickets, and if you buy tickets, you can actually win. Names of winners are published. They're interviewed. You might have even met some yourself.
The probability of you winning the lottery can be calculated, and yes, it's vanishingly small, but it is more than zero percent (if you've bought a valid ticket, etc.).
There is lots of evidence to suggest that the lottery exists. And there is lots of evidence to show that you actually might win one, if you buy a ticket, and meet all eligibility requirements.
But there probably *aren't* any hobgoblins in the basement, because all inspections of the basement so far have not revealed any, and all we have are legends of people in the past who claim to have seen them--but don't have any photos, videos, or other corroborating evidence.
The evidence to back up the "hobgoblins in the basement" theory is entirely lacking, and all the hearsay in the world won't convince someone who goes into the basement and doesn't see one. But it also would be irrational to say "since I don't see hobgoblins in the basement, I conclude that they absolutely do not exist."
You can only truthfully say "based on all evidence, it would appear that there are probably no hobgoblins in the basement."
That's why the "probably" is in the message. To claim otherwise would be dishonest.
But as Richard Dawkins said when interviewed about the British atheist bus campaign: (quote) "I don't think that total atheism is a totally rational position. Anyone that definitely says there is no God -- you can't rationally say that any more than you can say there are definitely no unicorns, there are no dragons, there are no fairies.... You can't disprove the existence of Santa Claus.
To the extent that I'm an "a-fairyist" or an "a-unicornist," I am an atheist." (end quote)
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-dawkins-qa12-2009jan12,0,3974830.story
So I agree with Richard Dawkins. To the extent that I'm an a-hobgoblinist, an a-unicornist, an a-fairyist, I'm an atheist.
I want to clear a few misconceptions here, as you can be an agnostic-atheist and an agnostic isn't a 'fence sitting' position between atheism and theism.
Agnostic is from the Greek A-without and Gnostics-knowledge. And while it is true that we lack knowledge of the existence of a god, we also lack knowledge of the existence of Zeus, Fairies, Teapots in Solar Orbit, and places where 2+2=5. However, I'm sure you don't believe in any of them, simply because there is no evidence supporting them. Therefore you are atheistic towards Zeus and agnostic towards him as well because you don't have absolute knowledge that Zeus doesn't exist.
Someone who is a strong atheist, or a Gnostic-atheist KNOWS there is no god and would say 'There is NO GOD, and I have proof', while an agnostic atheist can't disprove the existence of a god due to lack of absolute knowledge, but doesn't believe. She would probably put up a sign saying 'There probably isn't a god.'
The interventionist god of popular fiction who floods lands, burns bushes, and burns his virgin mother in toast has no evidence supporting himself, therefore I highly suspect he doesn't exist.
For theists who believe Jesus is the son of god, how come you don't believe in Zeus being the son of Chronus? Or why don't you think your lack of stoning adulterers, as instructed in the bible, isn't going to be punished in the afterlife?(I hope none of you stone adulterers) You don't believe in the millions of gods worshiped by people throughout the ages, and when you realize why you don't you'll discover why atheists just go a few gods further.
matts:
You may be missing the point. It has to say probably, because there is no scientific way of proving other wise. If you assume that there is none, you are assuming on faith. Strong Atheists have a faith, it's science.Sometimes it's just as narrow minded as the church was.
ClearGuy: Thank you for that. I wasn't quite able to express that idea.
You are an atheist and I am totally fine with that. In fact I agree with most of what you have said. The fact though that you feel the need to explain your position on human existence, give yourselves a collective title and champion the rights of your fellow atheists is the same damn thing every other religion does.
So thank you Reverend ClearGuy, his holiness of the Church of Atheism. It's becoming more clear that what many of you really want is to belong to community of like-minded people much like a church. But the best you could come up with to contribute to society is a bus ad? Why don't you just join a Star Trek club or something?
Badbhoy:
From your comments i notice that you spotted of the religious trends strong atheists have adopted. Still the comment by ClearGuy is probably the most reasoned here, and he doesn't seem to preach hard atheism. The bus thing may make no sense, advertisers and TTC profit from it, maybe the billboard placement companies. However i think it's awesome that the bus thing can be done, if it was illegal to do this, than I'd probably contribute to make sure this view is valid. Beyond that I have no use for organized faith based atheism.
The simplest term for me is agnostic, i don't take a political stance with it, i just want to have that freedom of thought.
Can faith be proven ? Nope.
Can the big bang theory be proven ? No, it's a constantly changing theory that probably isn't anywhere near close to what happened.
I would presume to be a hard believer in any theory because to me no from existence can be explained. The fact that there is 3d dimensional empty space can not be explained to me, never mind where the shit that fills that empty space came from. Was it always there ? No ? Than when did it arrive, and what was there before. Shit like that boggles my mind, so i will happily say i don't know. For all i know this universe is simcity running on a really good computer.
@ Mark:
All of the atheists who are also empiricists ("I won't believe it until it's been proved") do, in fact, believe in a religion. Their religion is called "science," which (if you study the history of epistemology and the philosophy of science, you'll know) cannot itself be proved. That is to say, lots can be proved BY science; you just can't prove science itself. There are a number of axiomatic theorems in both science and mathematics (one of the languages of science) that have not been proved, and may succumb to formal indeterminacy. The first half plus of the 20th century was taken up quite unsuccessfully by some philosophers of science attempting to prove science."
Oh Mark, so many things wrong with this, I don't know where to begin.
First off, if you question the validity of science, let me suggest that you jump out of the nearest airplane or tall building without a parachute, or drink 10M HCl. You believe in the validity of science when it suits you; but when it comes to "are there fairies in my garden?", you claim epistemological superiority? Give me a break.
Second, science relies on exactly two axioms: first, that there is an objective reality, and second, that past observations are predictive of future events. EVERYTHING can be derived from these axioms. Moreover, the second axiom is subject to the doctrine of falsification; we know that water boils at 100C because in every instance to date, it has done so. If tomorrow it boils at 105C, we must either look for experimental error, or amend our theory of water boiling; that is, our original theory is falsified.
When religious faith subjects itself to the same internal controls, then it is welcome at the rational thinkers table. I have yet to see evidence that it will do so.
"n fact, science can only prove that which falls within the positivist paradigm. Any phenomenon residing outside of that paradigm cannot be proved by science, and hence is parcelled up with various epithets: religion, superstition, not-being-worthwhile (because it cannot be measured), and so forth. Indeed, much that is today considered as science was previously thought to be magic (including the technology that runs your computer), and there are still many phenomena that defy scientific explanation but are, nonetheless, useful technologies. The whole string theory as a unified theory of life, the universe, and everything (so to speak) will likely never be proved to the same standard as that demanded by the atheistic empiricists of God's existence."
Your god-of-the-gaps is getting more and more insignificant. Where once he parted oceans and cured lepers, he is now confined to the inner recesses of string theory and quantum indeterminancy. What a sad fall it has been...
Science does not prove anything; it is merely a system through which evidence can be rationally and critically evaluated, and thereby bring us to closer and closer approximations of the truth. Scientists don't claim "truth"; ministers do.
"I, personally, have faith in a unifying power beyond human comprehension because I have experienced such phenomena. The fact that you have not had similar experiences does not negate mine, nor the "science-equivalent" that I construct to make sense of them. I also believe in much that is science, although I typically practice outside of the positivist paradigm (choosing to work primarily in constructivist and critical epistemologies)."
People of all religions (and atheists) have had genuinely life-changing experiences that seem to go beyond the hum-drum, everyday type of thing. This does not provide one iota of evidence suggesting the actual existence of god.
""There's probably no God" is like saying, "I probably won't win the lottery," but it does not invalidate the beliefs of those who play, nor diminish the psycho-social benefits they might derive. (And I do understand that too much lotto is like too much religion, in that both often lead to trouble. Yeah, I get that.)"
Not at all the same. For one, the lottery exists. The odds of winning the lottery are far higher than the odds of god existing. For one thing, without some form of evidence, there are an infinite number of gods that may exist.
No one is denying the real benefits that religion brings. What we are saying is that all of the good things about religion (community, a sense of belonging, the desire to do good) can be had without presupposing anything on insufficient evidence. Religion gives bad reasons to do good things, when good reasons exist.
@ Badbhoy
"So thank you Reverend ClearGuy, his holiness of the Church of Atheism. It's becoming more clear that what many of you really want is to belong to community of like-minded people much like a church. But the best you could come up with to contribute to society is a bus ad? Why don't you just join a Star Trek club or something?"
You just don't get it, do you?
We live in a world where the vast majority of people believe that the creator of the universe has written a book. Unfortunately, we have the misfortune of having many such books, which are uniformly mutually incompatible.
We live in a world in which many of these people honestly believe that the creator of the universe wants them to kill gynecologists, avoid the prophylactic use of rubber, and fly planes into buildings at 500 MPH.
We live in a world in which a large proportion of the population believe that the universe and all of its contents were created thousands of years after the Sumerians learned to brew beer, and are dead-set in making sure that our children are taught as much.
And despite all of this, we live in a world in which merely saying "prove it" in response to these things is considered taboo and "oppressive"; where it is, apparently, in bad taste to say "there probably is no god". Listen to the words as you say them; "there probably is no god". Nothing harmful about them.
What is most scary is that we live in a country in which most people believe in the literal or inspired truth of one of these books. While most of them are not what I'd call religious extremists, they are nevertheless guilty of aiding the aforementioned atrocities. Why? Because they have made it, as you are doing, taboo to talk about the abject lunacy of religion. We non-believers (non-alchemists???) are simply asking that we have an honest discussion about this; that we subject this belief to the same standard to which all other beliefs are held; that criticism of religious faith be a legitimate subject of social discourse, much like criticism of alchemy, astrology, and homeopathy are.
These signs are absolutely needed because we live in a world in which 1st century sensibilities about morality co-exist with 21st century weapons technology. Atheists can no longer afford to be quiet.
@ That Guy:
"Can faith be proven ? Nope.
Can the big bang theory be proven ? No, it's a constantly changing theory that probably isn't anywhere near close to what happened."
Wow, false equivocation.
We have strong evidence that the universe as we know it came into existence about 15-17 billion years ago, probably from an infinitesmally small point of pure energy, as predicted from Einstein's theories of Special and General Relativity.
Science does not make truth claims. It makes better and better approximations of the truth, and is open to new evidence. Faith does no such thing.
Hmm, how to argue this.
We have strong evidence that make sense using current methods.
Where i agree with you is that science is the right approach.
On the other hand i believe our scientific knowledge amount to less than 1% of what there is to know, hence there will be a lot mistakes made. When we first figured out that the world doesn't revolve around earth it took a century to figure out how our galaxy works, there was theories of figure eight patterns and lots of other theories, science eventually narrowed it down, great.
Quck glance at wikipedia shows that there is still many things that don't quite fit with big bang theory, and adjustments are constantly made. More importantly however, the big bang itself is not explained.
The theory right now is something like this to me as an analogy. We have rubble (the universe) and the fire department makes a statment that a big explosion caused the rubble. Using science we know it happened 15 to 17 hours ago. This information is a great theorey, and probably true. What it fails to explain is, where the building came from, why was there an explosion, what the building was.
Big bang theory is drop in the water in the existence of the universe. Any right scientific mind should note that while true it's a drop in the water compared to the knowledge there is to be had.
Go science, but keep it open minded, there is tos of shit we don't understand yet and people may dismiss because we don't have the scientific method for it yet.
In no way is this an argument for religion. It seems that people assume people are religious and faith based if they challenge that science is perfect.
Heather: It's not very free if you can only do it in your home??
So you're saying you WANT religion to continue to be shoved down your throat? Cause that's what we'd be doing to them with our beliefs.
There's NO POINT AT ALL letting theists know what we think(*or to make them think themselves) You can't change people. The mass majority of the world is religious, you think a transit Ad is going to make theists think twice about their beliefs?? Let them find out for themselves. Or better yet, tell them in person what you believe(*Since you don't want to keep religion in your home)
And woaw... since when did this get into "page long" blog comments?
Seeing that religion seems to be on people's minds(ever since the US elections or further back) there should be a debate roundtable(*Dr.Strangelove style) on this subject. Since everyone wants to spills their beans on this hotly debated subject.
What do you think? Beats having to stare at my monitor for hours on end(*headache) reading people's entries.
@ That Guy:
"Go science, but keep it open minded, there is tos of shit we don't understand yet and people may dismiss because we don't have the scientific method for it yet.
In no way is this an argument for religion. It seems that people assume people are religious and faith based if they challenge that science is perfect."
Science is, by definition, not perfect. The scientific method builds upon previous knowledge, giving us better and better approximations of the truth.
But this requires that we first accept that there is an objective reality. Either DNA is the genetic material, or it isn't; either the speed of light in a vacuum is constant, or it isn't; either god exists or it doesn't. We have to accept that the universe really is a certain way. Once we accept that, then the job of the scientist is to use rigorous methods to test hypotheses about the way things are; and most importantly, to develop theories about the way things are that are falsifiable (and to actively attempt to falsify).
I'll say it again: science is not in the business of making truth claims. Science is in the business of making better and better approximations of the truth, based on the best currently available evidence. In some cases, the evidence is so strong that we can state with a high degree of certainty that something is "true". For example, we can state with a very high degree of certainty that DNA is the genetic material, that all living things have evolved from a common ancestor, that water boils at 100C, or that smoking cigarettes dramatically increases the risk of developing lung cancer; we can do this because the evidence in support of these things is so vast and so unidirectional that it is virtually impossible that we will discover evidence suggesting otherwise.
Other scientific theories are not as strong. Some scientific theories are strong but are mutually incompatible with other theories (see General Relativity and Quantum Theory), suggesting that there is more to know.
That is how science works.
"The theory right now is something like this to me as an analogy. We have rubble (the universe) and the fire department makes a statment that a big explosion caused the rubble. Using science we know it happened 15 to 17 hours ago. This information is a great theorey, and probably true. What it fails to explain is, where the building came from, why was there an explosion, what the building was."
And saying "god-did-it" gets us precisely no closer to the answer to these questions.
I think many people are afraid to come to realization that they have a disbelief in god, especially amongst the younger ages. It's a big step in free thinking to finally admit that everything that you knew as a child could be bs, especially for younger people. If these ads can ignite just 2 people into a conversation i believe that the campaign is effective, because a vital step in the growth and spread of atheism is open-minded, rational discussions amongst peers.
I don't personally feel it's shoved down my face at all. At least, no more so than the latest H&M Billboard at Queen and Spadina. Visual pollution is visual pollution. I'm not usually so fussed about the content.
Some problems I have with your argument:
1) I think you're creating a false dichotomy here. Just because I don't think people should be forced to practice religion privately doesn't mean I think they should be able to accost people and detain them to share their beliefs. The choice isn't keep all religion our of public or you're shoving it down someone's throat - there is a middle ground here. Does it bug you to see someone doing Yoga in a park? What about Thai Chi? Both of those come from a religious background (just non judaeo-christian)
2) You can change some people. There are heaps of people who don't think that much about religion and so seeing something like this may inspire someone to do more reading or research into something. No disrespect here man (woman? I always think you're a dude...), but you can make better arguments than this.
Live and let live.
It's as simple as that.
All the arguing in the world isn't going to change anyone's mind that's made up.
So even if there IS a God, Stop worrying and enjoy your life. However you choose to.
It's as simple as that.
All the arguing in the world isn't going to change anyone's mind that's made up.
So even if there IS a God, Stop worrying and enjoy your life. However you choose to.
You're right Heather, i am a dude. And no dis-respecting being taken thanks.
All right, i didn't mean "shoved-down-our-throats" because it's not personally happening to me. But these atheist ads are and would insinuate that we are being bombarded with religious temptation(maybe historically) but we really aren't. We may be getting that feeling because we watched a little too much US elections lately(and media station debates) but religion is certainly not a huge issue here in Canada(except for maybe some parts in Quebec and Alberta)
So to end, i will agree with JEANIALICE above, and say live and let live. You won't change people minds, ever! So why waste people's tax dollars on this.
I can see what you're saying with the whole constructing a very visible devision where there isn't (or maybe there is and it's just something you and I don't notice?) one.
And I'd be completely on board with you if anyone's taxes were paying for it, but the ads are completely paid for by CABC with money raised through donations. You could easily argue that people should be putting their donations in more immediately helpful places.... but in the spirit of live and let live (which I'm totally down with) shouldn't they be able to spend their money wherever they choose?
Also, since we've established that you're 'a dude' Parkdalian shall forever give me a mental image of the Big Lebowski. :)
Heather: The CABC can spend their money wherever they choose, but where do you draw the line? I agree that religion also goes to the lenghts of advertising their beliefs but it doesn't make it right.
Just seems a little odd to look at a bus sign that asks me whether i think religion is right or wrong for me, that's all.
Big Lebowski?? Ouch! Sorry to disappoint.. haha. Far from :)
Agree there (that it's odd I mean). I try my best to watch people instead of ads whenever I'm on the TTC
Thanks for the mini debate :)
View More Events
Suggest an Event
Join the blogTO Flickr group
Join the blogTO YouTube Group
RSS
