Atheist Bus Campaign determined to roll on despite set back
23.02.10 | simon | 
Email This Post
Example ad image from the UK Campaign (thanks Jon Worth)
The NZ Atheist Bus Campaign, which late last year raised in excess of $20,000 from public donations, has met a set back in their plans. Nationwide bus company NZ Bus, who had tentatively approved the campaign’s ads on buses in major city centres, have now rejected them.
NZ Bus stated that they have received a number of complaints from the public about the proposed ads, which read “There’s probably no god. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.”
Spokesperson for the Atheist Bus Campaign Simon Fisher says “It’s concerning that peaceful atheist messages are not allowed on buses while religious messages are often seen on buses and in public. Messages of atheism are rare in New Zealand and we aim to raise awareness for the one-third of New Zealanders who are unconvinced by the claims of religion.”
Organisers of the Campaign tried to reach a resolution with NZ Bus, and later attempted mediation sessions through the Human Rights Commission. NZ Bus refused to participate in these mediation sessions. Because they are refusing to discuss the matter and reach an agreement, the organisers of the Campaign are now investigating the possibility of taking this case to the Human Rights Review Tribunal.
Simon Fisher says “we’re disappointed at the response from NZ Bus and plan to look at options going forward. We owe it to the thousands of Kiwis who have supported this campaign with donations and messages of support.”
Advertisements with identical wording ran in the United Kingdom, Canada, Germany, and Spain. Similar campaigns also ran successfully in Croatia, Finland, Holland, Italy, America and across the Tasman in Australia.
“We are gravely concerned that in New Zealand we’re unable to present an atheistic message, showing that we do not have the same practical freedom of expression as in other first world countries. It highlights why this campaign is so necessary.” said spokesperson Simon Fisher.
The Campaign will continue to accept donations for advertising, see http://www.nogod.org.nz for further details.
February 25th, 2010 at 10:14 am
Dennis Cooper
Regarding the portion of your comment directed at me, there’s only two things that are incorrect.
The first is the use of the term the evolutionary 2-parent family.
A two parent family system is just one of the many family structures discovered by evolution. While it is true that a two parent family is an evolutionary model for procreation, so is a single mother, or a harem, or serial monogamy. From the way your comment is worded, it implies that the two parent family is especially ‘evolutionary’ when the others are not.
Additionally, the notion of the human family has taken almost every form imaginable over the histories of the shared cultures of our species. The two parent model isn’t special.
Note that I have nothing against the two parent family. I think that for the most part it’s actually pretty damn good. But that doesn’t mean it’s the only option, or that we should turn away from other models just because they don’t fit with this preconceived ideal.
I’ve always considered that the beauty of family lies in unconditional love, and that in the face of this conforming to society is at best irrelevant and at worst detrimental. But what the hell do I know, I’m just an atheist, right?
Your comments on family are just another instance of the naturalistic fallacy, tarted up with the word ‘evolution’> I dismiss them as such.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=naturalistic+fallacy
The second is that you think that by associating me with homosexuality and abortion you are insulting me.
You seem to be so committed to your opinions and prejudices regarding these terms that you think them implicitly insulting. This shows that you are incapable of engaging with them rationally – the very definition of bigotry.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=bigotry
Just to clarify – I have no problem that someone should hold a negative view of these topics. I strongly disagree and would argue against this view, but I would grant a person’s right to disagree with me in fair discourse.
However, you haven’t really offered anything resembling discourse. You’ve merely attempted to taint me by association with these topics – but an idea or an opinion cannot be tainted. An idea may be illogical or unreasonable or prejudiced or bigoted, but I recognize no form of crimethink.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=crimethink
Your labels don’t scare me, Dennis.
February 25th, 2010 at 10:27 am
Everyone
I’ve received a response from my email to NZBus. It doesn’t address a single thing I actually said in my original communication, so I think they’re templating out a standard response.
I’d like to see if anyone else’s response looks the same as my own.
From NZ Bus
Dear Daniel
Thank you for your email.
Mr Fisher as spokesperson for the NZ Atheist Bus campaign launched his campaign in early December. This resulted in a number of press articles and broadcast coverage.
As a result of the publicity the campaign launch received, NZ Bus fielded a number of enquiries from the public asking about our involvement in and support of this campaign, raising their concerns. Additionally, a number of emails were received from customers expressing their distaste for the campaign and their distress. Similar concerns were also raised by a number of staff.
Mr Fishers campaign drew significant reaction from the travelling public and our people to be deemed controversial and divisive. NZ Bus has the right to decline advertising that may, in its perception, be considered controversial or divisive.
We have said no thank you to Mr Fisher and have wished him well in his endeavors to secure a bus company to work with.
Kind regards,
(image signature)
February 25th, 2010 at 10:29 am
Yup got the exact same message meself.
February 25th, 2010 at 10:31 am
Yes, I got the same response. What will they do if/when we complain about every ad they now display. It’s rare that an ad isn’t distasteful or offensive to someone.
February 25th, 2010 at 10:32 am
I got the same message too.
I tend to see that as a good sign. You don’t create a form response unless you have too many messages to respond to…
February 25th, 2010 at 10:32 am
Yup, got the same cookie-cutter reply. Heh, I actually thanked the lovely Katie Greenaway for a personal response. Huh.
February 25th, 2010 at 10:50 am
My response, with some formatting lost due to cut/paste.
———————————–
Hi
I would like to say thank you for your email – it does seem the decent thing to do, as that’s how you opened to me.
However, it has become apparent that the email you have sent me is a template response that has been trotted out to those who have complained. This is immediately apparent, as your email has actually restated most of the facts I have mentioned in my original.
So I find myself unable to say thank you for your response, since it wasn’t really a response at all. It’s just white noise. And it’s obvious that it’s white noise.
I’m actually a little insulted. I can understand why NZBus would be too busy with emails to reply to them all properly. Even for little old me, replying to my morning emails take ages. So no email at all? That I can live with. I was happy to send in my complaint and be done with it. But to offer me the response you have given, as if it would have some kind of pacifying effect… That’s just an insult to my intellect. This kind of cynical PR isn’t always as effective as I’m sure your marketing staff/consultants think it is.
I’ll close on an observation:
When a religious organization makes an advertisement about their religion, there are many other regious and non-religious individuals in New Zealand that disagree with it.
I don’t like religious advertisements. They bother me. In that sense, they are is divisive – they removes from me the notion that everyone in this country agrees with me. But that’s fine. I’m big enough and tolerant enough and emotionally secure enough to handle that.
But when a non-religious organization has attempted to run an advertisement about their non-religion, there are many that disagree that are also small enough and intolerant enough and emotionally insecure enough to cause a great big stink, and make a ‘controversy’ out of a mere differing opinion on religious matters. Or at least, these individuals are numerous enough to sway the opinion of NZBus.
A non-religious advertisement is no more ‘divisive’ than a religious one. The only difference is that significant numbers of the non-religious don’t stir up a big stink and a manufactured ‘controversy’ every time something is posted on the side of a bus that we disagree with. It would seem that significant numbers of the religious community do.
Why NZBus chooses to be persuaded by the smallest and most intolerant amongst our society is beyond me.
That is all for now.
An email in response that actually addresses what I have actually said would be nice.
Failing that, no reply will be understandable – I expect you’re busy.
Sending me the same template response again would be as hilarious as it is insulting.
Sincerely,
Daniel Schealler
February 25th, 2010 at 10:54 am
I got the same one. Although my name was quoted. I don’t think they believe my name is just Gold.
I took the time to reply however. Here’s what I said;
February 25th, 2010 at 11:21 am
NZbus may realise they have more controversy on their hands now that they have removed the Ad.
KEEP THE PRESSURE ON!!
I got the template reply and will send one back about my disappointment in them.
The more pressure the better
February 25th, 2010 at 1:34 pm
My email to NZ buses.
——-
Dear sir or madam,
I was very disappointed to read and hear in the news about NZ Bus’s
refusal to not only display the proposed advert on the buses but also
to refuse to enter discussion with the organisation! I have recently
emigrated to New Zealand from the UK, which has successfully run a
similar campaign. The UK is a far more staunch Christian nation than
New Zealand, yet the bus companies in the UK who ran the advert did
not consider them to be “divisive” or “distasteful”. The same goes for
many other countries, who’s bus companies have run the same and
similar campaigns. This campaign is no more distasteful or divisive
than Government warnings on packets of cigarettes, on TV warning
people to drive more safely, and encourages people to think about
their beliefs.
I have recently emigrated to New Zealand for the very fact that this
country is considerably more open minded, forward thinking and
transparent than the UK, and must express my disappointment at your
decision. I have been using NZ Buses regularly in Wellington since I
arrived but I am willing to, and will, inconvenience myself by no
longer using NZ buses until you reconsider your stance on the
placement of this advertising campaign. I will proactively encourage
friends and work colleagues to do the same.
Alastair Moore
February 25th, 2010 at 3:06 pm
Another email people are welcome to use…
To whom it may concern,
I wish to register my concern and distress at your attitude regarding the placing of atheist advertising on your buses.
Given that you feel it is appropriate to place religious advertising on your buses, you must in good conscience also place atheist advertising.
I personally find religious advertising somewhat offensive (Not to mention the other forms of advertising material you often see fit to display). However I believe that people do have a right to freedom of expression – as this freedom also protects my rights.
Your company apparently does not hold those same ideals – as demonstrated in your recent behavior – by arbitrarily deciding whose messages you will support, based on your personal views. Will you also be making similar decisions about which party to support at the next election?
I strongly urge you to accept the advertising that the Atheist Bus Campaign has submitted to you. You are damaging your brand, and the rights of New Zealanders.
Sincerely
Your name
February 25th, 2010 at 3:35 pm
Don’t forget to hit them up at Infratil as well. The company that actually owns NZBUS
I’ve just posted the following on their facebook discussion page.
http://www.facebook.com/board.php?uid=57993919565
I expect that they will kill it off.
What is the real reason that NZBUS, a subsidiary company of Infratil, turns down an income stream. What has been put forward so far from NZBUS is simply not acceptable or credible. I would have thought at where the share price currently is for Infratil, that any legal income stream would be of benefit to the shareholders?
http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/national/3366649/Atheists-claim-bias-over-rejection-of-No-God-ads
The proposed advertising campaign on NZBUS by NZ Atheist Bus Campaing is even supported by Christian groups.
http://www.humanitarianchronicle.com/2010/02/atheist-bus-campaign-let-it-roll-on/
It would appear that NZBUS is acting with discrimination to the atheists when it has happily taken advertising from religious groups in the past, but won’t take an innocuous message from an atheist group. After all the message is that of the advertiser not of the NZBUS company.
Bryan Edwards makes a relevant point in his blog – “the sure and certain fact that nothing can draw more attention to a commercial than banning it.”
February 25th, 2010 at 4:50 pm
[...] 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 [...]
February 25th, 2010 at 10:20 pm
I suggest that the advert reads
There’s probably no God, but what if there is.
February 26th, 2010 at 11:18 am
those who call themselves “freethinkers” are actually in the deepest bondage imaginable – they simply are not permitted to countenance the possibility that there actually IS a God !
I have respect for the honesty of Agnostics but I cannot understand the crass and willful ignorance of those calling themselves Atheists as though they actually have the faintest clue about existence…. The Creator says it best in Psalm 14 verse 1
February 26th, 2010 at 12:59 pm
Why not make use of the campaign funds to feed many poverty-striken hungry kids in Africa and Asia? Are you atheists really trying to make the world a better place?
February 26th, 2010 at 1:15 pm
Yosuke,
Because people are contributing towards this campaign with the expectation that this campaign plans to provide an alternative voice on buses in main city centres and to raise awareness of humanism and atheism. The campaign aims to spread a positive and humanist message that there probably is no God, and that you can live just fine without believing in one, as is says above on the right.
If I had contributed towards a “help the children” and later discovered your contribution had gone to help the aged, while I have no problem helping the aged, my money was going towards one campaign, not another.
February 26th, 2010 at 1:15 pm
Yosuke,
Because people are contributing towards this campaign with the expectation that this campaign plans to provide an alternative voice on buses in main city centres and to raise awareness of humanism and atheism. The campaign aims to spread a positive and humanist message that there probably is no God, and that you can live just fine without believing in one, as is says above on the right.
If I had contributed towards a “help the children” and later discovered your contribution had gone to help the aged, while I have no problem helping the aged, my money was going towards one campaign, not another.
February 26th, 2010 at 1:20 pm
Alex,
You’re hilarious, talking about willful ignorance.
February 26th, 2010 at 1:26 pm
All good points. But be careful – please don’t fall into the trap of reverse-trolling the trolls.
By all means, engage if they present an actual argument. But if they don’t, could we all please opt to just starve them of attention?
Most people will recognize genuine cranks and dismiss them (if they are an atheist) or cringe and dismiss them (if they are a theist). There’s no benefit (other than personal satisfaction) to joining a cranks argument on their terms on the comments section of a news post on the internet.
Sorry to get all preachy. It’s just that I’ve been impressed with how civil the comments of this site have been so far, and I’d like to keep it that way if at all possible.
Please don’t let them drag us down to their level.
February 26th, 2010 at 1:47 pm
“Why not make use of the campaign funds to feed many poverty-striken hungry kids in Africa and Asia? Are you atheists really trying to make the world a better place?”
Good questions. Answers from my POV:
- why don’t religious people stop donating to their religious causes and buy food for the poor instead, eh? For the same reason…
- … that we think spreading our convictions makes the world a better place. Just like the religious folks. Except we’re probably right, of course
February 26th, 2010 at 1:49 pm
Totally agree with you Daniel, by and large the conversation’s been very constructive. The trolls don’t have too much to crow about, especially given the presence of the word “probably” in the text. If they have an actual argument to make, then by all means… other than that, the theist responses I’ve seen can be easily ignored. That which can be asserted without evidence…
Lovely to see the godless out there making their thoughts known to NZ Bus in such a reasoned and reasonable manner. Kia ora, all!
March 2nd, 2010 at 8:18 pm
[...] March 2, 2010 The Greatest Argument of All Posted by viewfromreality under Uncategorized Leave a Comment “There probably is no God, so stop worrying and enjoy your life.” These words, plastered over buses around the world, are not offensive to me but they seem to be for a good many people. So offensive that NZ Bus refuses to post them on their buses in major centres. [...]
March 3rd, 2010 at 1:42 am
Well said, awesome post !
March 4th, 2010 at 12:30 am
There’s two options to this whole “Is there a God or isn’t there?” thing:
a) If there’s no God then that’s fine; Christians were wrong and atheists were right – big deal. If this is the case then we’ll never know anyway as if there’s no God then there’s no afterlife, we simply die and that’s that. No “i told you so”.
b) There is a God and atheists are foolish (Psalms 14:1) and wrong! This means that everything the Bible says is true; true Christians will spend eternity with Jesus Christ and all God haters and sinners will spend eternity separated from God in suffering and darkness.
Hmmm…I think option b) is a no-brainer.
March 4th, 2010 at 9:29 am
I think option B is a no-brainer too, in addition to being part of a false dichotomy. You’re making Zeus furious, and don’t even know it!
March 4th, 2010 at 1:49 pm
@RossN
In a) you assume an afterlife can only exist if God exists. Personally I don’t believe there is anything after we die, but you obviously do. However, what if we’re both wrong? God doesn’t exist (you’re wrong), but there is still an afterlife (I’m wrong)?
This leads us to the situation where I, as an athiest, have found that there is more to life than the physical existence I just lived though. This would leave me, personally, surprise and amazingly jubilant at the prospects of the future.
You on the other hand, find yourself in a position where you have lead your life in a certain style, denied yourself certain pleasures along the way to appease a god you “know” full well exists, only to find that your God doesn’t exist after all.
How would you feel then?
Personally, I’d feel ripped off.
This is of course on the assumption that God exists. However, the conclusions you draw from the final proof that God exists (you dying and meeting the big guy) are still incorrect.
b1) God exists, this means that everything the Bible says is true.
The problem here is that the Bible has been proven to be factually incorrect on many, many things already. The cognitive dissonance of Christians to hold on to “everything the Bible says is true” is astounding.
b2) God exists, true Christians will spend eternity with Jesus Christ
Given that the previous condition (“everything the Bible says is true”) is proven to be incorrect, and this “promise” is made in the same book, it’s validity and correctness has to be questioned.
b3) God exists and all God haters and sinners will spend eternity separated from God in suffering and darkness
See b2.
In addition, what about those atheists that don’t hate God? Personally, I don’t believe in your God, or any god for that matter. But I don’t hate Him, or them. Personally I think it’d be fantastic if God was real. Being able to do what ever I liked and absolve myself through confessional. Being able to externalize responsibility of my own actions because “it’s Gods will”. The comfort of this perfect place to live for eternity provided I follow a set of rules (which set of the thousands though?) for less that 100 measly years.
It would be comforting. I’d like to believe. But there’s just not enough evidence.
March 4th, 2010 at 2:19 pm
He’s trolling. No-one who thinks about it for more than ten consecutive seconds ever takes Pascal’s Wager really seriously. It’s only ever trotted out as atheist-bait.
Just starve him of attention.
March 4th, 2010 at 2:27 pm
True enough, but plenty of theists do find Pascal’s wager compelling, no matter how debased the logic. I did at one time, but to be fair I was 15. However, I think a reply is useful for those feeling their way towards throwing off their faith.
March 4th, 2010 at 5:10 pm
Heh. Now that shows me.
You’re right, of course. Methinks I’m getting too jaded about what people do and don’t take seriously.
I was always dismissive of Pascal’s Wager, because it never cuts in all directions. If you point out that the Wager applies to Zeus, they just say something like: “But everyone knows Zeus isn’t real!”
So I’ve always been inclined to interpret its use negatively. Now that you point it out, I’ll admit I’ve been wrong to do so.
Carry on. ^_^
For my two cents:
Aside from the problem that the Wager applies to Brahma just as much as it does to Yahweh, there’s another issue to consider:
Hedging your bets isn’t the same as actually believing something. If someone really believes in God, they shouldn’t need the Wager to help convince them.
So if the current reader is both a believer and considers the Wager to be a good reason to believe… Consider the true nature of your beliefs more closely. Do you believe, or do you just go through the motions of belief and hope nobody notices? Pretending to yourself that you believe isn’t the same as actually believing.
On the off chance that God does exist, I doubt He’d be any more impressed with the quality of your ‘belief’ than I am.
It’s worth some reflection.