What city should billboards be in next?
23.09.10 | simon | 
Email This Post
It’s the last days guys! Not in an end times kind of way, but there’s only 1 week to go for you to have your say on which city you’d like to see our billboards in next. If you have already donated towards putting billboards in other cities, thank you – we really value your contribution to this campaign.
We’re raising money to cover the costs of transportation and re-installation of our existing billboards to put them in other cities around New Zealand. It’s important that these messages reach not only the large cities, but those in smaller cities as well.
Currently the most nominated areas are:
- Napier / Hastings
- Hamilton
- Nelson
- South Auckland
Where do you want to see the billboards? Let us know by donating and then typing in the Comment field what city you’d like to see the billboards in.
September 23rd, 2010 at 11:03 pm
I wish you the best for your ATHEISTBUSCAMPAIGN
Here in Germany we say:
“Gottlos glücklich” —-> Lucky without a god.
Best wishes from good old germany
Adiposine!!!
September 24th, 2010 at 3:01 pm
Already donated. Nelson would be great, cheers.
October 6th, 2010 at 9:27 pm
Glad to see that you have nothing better to do with your time and money. God (Yes the one that is also Christ Jesus and the Holy Spirit) loves you so very much
Godbless!
October 9th, 2010 at 9:32 pm
Hi Shannyn,
Firstly, good on you for getting involved in the debate.
Secondly, you say, “Glad to see you have nothing better to with your time and money”
Well, I could argue as an atheist, that spending your time praying to a god that you can’t even prove exists once a week is a waste of your time, but then again that’s up to you, as is the choice of those people who are supporting this campaign in the hope of raising awareness and the issues surrounding all aspects of religion.
Just be grateful that we live in a secular society that allows us to express our opinions so openly as opposed to the christian era of the inquisition that would have meant that I would be burned at the stake as a heretic or even today, if you lived in a fundamentalist muslim state that would at the least persecute you if not kill you for your christian perspective.
Next, I could also argue that contributing money as donations to your religion is a waste, especially if your money is only supporting the religion as opposed to any good causes that that religion is involved with.
This is particularly true of those evangelical ministries which started in the US, but also have examples here in NZ, which appear to exist mainly for the accumulation of wealth by their leaders.
Thirdly you say, “god loves you so very much”. To which I would have to reply, then if that is so, why does he allow people to suffer, both in NZ and all around the globe? Seems a strange kind of love to me.
Finally, I can’t share your delusion of “faith”, as it demands a belief “not resting on logical proof or material evidence.”
October 13th, 2010 at 1:50 pm
Am I the only one who is embarressed by these billboards?
There’s probably no god …
Nothing can follow that without defeating the purpose of this campaign (well at least what I presume the purpose is, showing how atheism is a valid position)
October 13th, 2010 at 4:04 pm
Hi Vera,
Personally, I don’t share your embaressment about the billboards, but then again, that’s just me!
Next, you say: “Nothing can follow that without defeating the purpose of this campaign (well at least what I presume the purpose is, showing how atheism is a valid position)
Well, according to the FAQ section of this site, the original intention of the campaign was to: “Promote in a positive and friendly way a Rationalist/Humanist view of the world. Also, to act as an alternative voice to religious advertising in New Zealand and around the world”.
Which I personally feel it does, although even Richard Dawkins has commented that he would prefer the statement to read: ““almost certainly” as opposed to “probably”.
Anyway, the very fact that you responded here shows that the message has caused you to engage with the debate, regardless of where your personal perspective is, so in short, that shows that the campaign is working!
October 14th, 2010 at 9:39 am
I was harsh and I appreciate what you’re saying.
It get’s attention, I don’t debate that, but does it get the response that is intended?
Imagine you were advising me on advertising a product and you suggested this catch phrase “it’s probably good for you but at least it won’t be harmful”. While that may be true of the product I wouldn’t use that as the selling point.
Again I don’t disagree that the campaign had impact. It was enjoyed by theists the country over.
October 14th, 2010 at 1:08 pm
Hi Again Vera,
You may not be aware of this, but the original ad campaign that inspired the one in NZ and quite a number of other countries too, was started in response to Ariane Sherine’s article that she wrote in reaction to ads she saw on London buses with the question: “When the son of man comes, will he find faith on the earth?” (Luke 18:8).
She also noted that there was also a web address on the ad, and when she visited the site, hoping for a straight answer to their rather pressing question, she received the following warning for anyone who doesn’t “accept the word of Jesus on the cross”: “You will be condemned to everlasting separation from God and then you spend all eternity in torment in hell. Jesus spoke about this as a lake of fire which was prepared for the devil and all his angels (demonic spirits)” (Matthew 25:41).
So, I’m supposed to believe that a man with a beardy face is going to be upset with me, for ever, because I’ve refused to acknowledge his existence, despite the fact that he’s too antisocial to come down here and say hi.
So, to turn around your perspective, if I saw such an ad, I would firstly demand proof for the claim. (Of which there is none) otherwise I would dismiss it (As I do) and secondly, imagine it was advising me to buy into a product, namely religion, with the obvious threat that if I did not I would suffer in the afterlife (which I also see no proof of) Seems a little odd of a loving god?
October 15th, 2010 at 11:13 am
Mr Bennett I’m clearly not explaining myself very well. Hopefully after reading this you’ll understand where I’m coming from.
These are some of the generalisations that believers have of non-believers.
1) They are too interested in temporal pleasures and material gain that they refuse to consider something that might impose upon this
2) They are more interested in enjoying the foibles of believers than being ethical
3) They are either educated in the science field or not educated at all and are incapable of comprehending philosophy or other world views.
While perhaps true of some atheists and agnostics this is not, what I believe, this campaign wants to represent. But think about these slogans
- There’s probably no God now stop worrying and enjoy your life –
This reinforces every generalisation. Firstly it perfectly represents 1. I don’t think I have to explain this further. In part it represents generalisation 2; too busy enjoying life to consider responsibility towards others perhaps? Finally my greatest frustration; you can call yourself what you like but that doesn’t mean you have chosen the best descriptive term. As soon as you say “probably” you are already out of the atheist camp. There is no other way to interpret the meaning of atheist when you consider its etymology. Gk a-without theo-god. If I am without clothes I am naked, not probably naked. If I am without sight I am blind, not probably blind. Therefore along with many high profile so called atheists you have reinforced generalisation 3.
- We are all atheists about most gods some of us just go one God further –
Following from immediately above; if you take the meaning of a word for granted you can get into strife. Let me try and illustrate. To be anencephalic means to be without a brain (Gk a-without, encephalic = brain from Gk en-in kephale-head)
Suppose I said “we are all anencephalic except for the brain that we in our own skull”. Absurd? Yes. Am I being pedantic? Yes
“None of us believe in all of the gods ever imagined by other people, some of us just go further and don’t believe in any” sounds very cumbersome and would never catch. I absolutely accept that (but it is so much more accurate and I love accuracy.)
To prove that I am not all punches and prickles I’ll give my opinion on these last 2.
- In the beginning man created God –
- Good without God? Over 1 million kiwis are –
These are two punchy statements that could start a discussion where the non-believer is not immediately on the back foot. Were I to choose a leading slogan I would chose the last one. It suggests that it is possible for people to be ethical without following a prescribed religion. But I didn’t get off my ass and start a campaign so I will merely criticise the people that have in a very long winded post.
October 15th, 2010 at 1:08 pm
P.S. Mr Bennett have a look at what Billboards have been generated. Can you see anything that fits 1. 2. or 3?
With many ideologies the most prominant voice is not often the best. Do you disagree that that is what is happening here?
October 15th, 2010 at 1:21 pm
Hi Vera,
First you say: “There’s probably no God now stop worrying and enjoy your life” –
This reinforces every generalisation. Firstly it perfectly represents:
1. I don’t think I have to explain this further. In part it represents generalisation
Here is my answer to 1: My interpretation for this, is related to the freedom from religion that atheism allows, in contrast to feeling restricted by the religious dogma you have to abide by. An atheist is much more open minded with regard to new evidence and thinking in regard to the human condition. In fact Sam Harris’s latest book, “The Moral Landscape” provides some revolutionary thinking in regard to how Science may be capable of providing answers to moral questions. Often religious indoctrination can stifle just such discussions as the religious believe they already have pre-determened answers given to them by their gods, prophets, holy books, etc. This in turn can lead to ridiculous situations, such as the Catholic churches stance on the use of condoms to prevent the spread of aids in Africa, as an example. Even you can see that the religious solution is in error, can’t you?
2; Too busy enjoying life to consider responsibility towards others perhaps?
Here is my answer to 2: Again, I have to say that I see this differently. Namely, the enjoyment of living without the guilt or prejudice that many religious people live under, due to the propaganda that their religion has taught them from an early age. Think of the concept of original sin. Who, in their right mind would honestly believe that a new born child is already guilty of sin? Only one who is living under the weight of a religious belief that was born in the old testament tribal society of the middle east. Again, I prefer to live in the 21st century, using the rational powers of my reasoning mind that has evolved through evolution to think for myself, that in turn allows me to consider my responsibility towards others without the prejudice of religious brainwashing to be selective as to whom I help. Here’s one example for you: http://givingaid.richarddawkins.net/
3; Finally my greatest frustration; you can call yourself what you like but that doesn’t mean you have chosen the best descriptive term. As soon as you say “probably” you are already out of the atheist camp. There is no other way to interpret the meaning of atheist when you consider its etymology.
Now, here is the answer to 3, Why only “probably” no god?
We decided to stick with the original UK campaign’s message and design. Quite simply, we like it and want to support it.
The original UK Campaign used “probably” for two reasons. The first was for legal reasons associated with the use of “probably” in other public advertising campaigns, such as the famous Carlsberg ads – “probably the best lager in the world”. Here “probably” helped to ensure the ads didn’t breach advertising codes in the UK.
The second reason, and the more interesting one, is that “probably” is actually a great word. The use of a modifier such as probably supports the view that although there is no scientific evidence for God’s existence, it’s also impossible to prove that God doesn’t exist – just as it is impossible to prove anything doesn’t exist.
As Richard Dawkins states in The God Delusion, saying “there’s no God” is taking a “faith” position. He writes: “Atheists do not have faith; and reason alone could not propel one to total conviction that anything definitely does not exist”.
His choice of words in the book is “almost certainly”; but while this is closer to what most atheists believe, “probably” is shorter and sweeter, which is helpful for advertising.
And as you’ve returned again to debate, I’ll say again, that I think it’s working quite really.
I’m just looking forward to the outcome of the legal case to see the ads back on the sides of buses as originally planned, then I feel there will be even more people getting involved in the debate!
October 15th, 2010 at 1:38 pm
Hi Vera,
Looks like my response to your 11.13am post crossed with your additional post at 1.08pm. My post at 1.21pm relates to your 11.13am one.
Now, as far as your 1.08pm post goes, what can I say?
Firstly, I assume you are referring to the three billboards created by the online atheist campaign.
My understanding is that they were selected from the large number posted on this very site.
Personally, I didn’t get to decide, but do approve of all of them.
As far as your comment:
With many ideologies the most prominant voice is not often the best.
I’m not completely sure of your point, but for the last 2000 years or so, the religious perspective has definitely had the most prominent voice, often through the use of persecution for any dissenting voices. The “Spanish Inquisition” for example.
Atheists are merely finding their collective voice in a direct reaction to what appears to be a even more worrying trend in the form of religious fundamentalism, such as that being exhibited by christians in the US and Muslims in the middle east and europe.
They have very prominent voices who don’t only shout about their beliefs, but are quite willing to fly planes into buildings, kill doctors who run legal abortion clinics, bomb, murder and persecute people who oppose their religious stance.
Or do you disagree that that is what is happening here?
I await your answer with interest.
October 15th, 2010 at 4:12 pm
PS Vera,
Just remembered this story in relation to your comment that said: “They are either educated in the science field or not educated at all and are incapable of comprehending philosophy or other world views”.
Well, not according to a new study by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, released recently, that has shocked many with the revelation that atheists and agnostics tend to know more about the world’s religions than believers do.
For more info use this link: http://richarddawkins.net/articles/528411-the-unbelievable-truth
Or try here instead: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10508457
You never know, you might learn something!
October 16th, 2010 at 11:52 am
I think you are making assumptions about own beliefs because I am criticising these slogans. I am not interested in defending Christianity or any other religious position.
From the perspective of someone without an emotional investment I am merely pointing out the slogans weaknesses as I see them. In fact your rebuttal is confirming what I already think.
1. “An atheist is much more open-minded…” ok. I have to stop right here. Many ‘definitely no god’ people are some of those most closed minded people you will find out there. Open-mindedness is not a quality of a particular belief but the ability to seriously consider other world views. However I presume you are talking about what I would call agnostic so I will continue “… with regard to new evidence and thinking in regard to the human condition.” What’s the evidence for that? Do you realise that many scientists have a belief in a higher being? For these people it is no hindrance in regard to scientific progress. Furthermore, some atheists are hindered in the area of social anthropology and philosophy. Do they have to wait for neuroscience to catch up before they can progress?
2. Why does guilt get such a hard time? You don’t need to have a god to experience guilt. You just to have some kind of moral standard and fail to adhere to it. If you beat up your partner I hope you would feel guilty? The benefit of a bit of extra cash is out weighed by the guilt I would feel stealing from my grandmother (or from anyone else for that matter). You said yourself “…that in turn allows me to consider my responsibility towards others…” What do you call that feeling when you fail other people? A person who does not feel guilt has an antisocial personality disorder. Is that the kind of person you want atheists to be portrayed as?
3. I’ve heard the reason for ‘probably no god’. Probably may be “a great word” but having an agnostic statement to head an atheist campaign is not the best choice. Atheists are people who believe that there is no god of what ever description (see the meaning of the word above). If you believe that the existence of god cannot be unproven you are not an atheist regardless of what you call yourself. Precision in terms is important.
Call yourself an atheist by all means and I will continue to call you irrational or at best unable to read the Oxford Dictionary.
Re: the most prominent voice is often not the best. I am referring to within an ideology. Is the loudest agnosticism? I think not. Particularly as they often incorrectly refer to themselves atheists.
Finally I am referring to the billboard generator on this site; have a look through what people have come up with at http://www.nogod.org.nz/generator/
October 17th, 2010 at 11:23 am
I was in a hurry. The second to last paragraph doesn’t make sense. I’ll repeat how it should be written.
Re the most prominent voics is often not the best. I am referring to within an ideology. Is the loudest voice for agnosticism representing the best that position has to offer? I think not. Particularly as they often incoffectly refer to themselves as atheists.
October 17th, 2010 at 3:18 pm
Yeah okay, debate’s great, but it’s probably a little wasted in these comment forums.
Now to the point: I’ve already donated too, and I nominate PALMERSTON NORTH.
C’mon guys, there’s a massive university campus as well as two other tertiary campuses. There’s a bridge out to two of those campuses that has heavy traffic in the morning and afternoon with people going to and from uni and work.
There is a street here called CHURCH STREET that has no less than five or six big churches on it as well as several just off it.
I have had numerous discussions with Christians at work and out in the public about the billboard campaign and they all think it’s a silly idea. I want to show those people. This is the learning city, it’s population is mostly made up of students.
This is where the billboards should be shown next!
October 17th, 2010 at 6:57 pm
Where do you suggest we have this debate because I am very interested in Mr Bennett’s response?
October 17th, 2010 at 8:38 pm
Hi Vera,
I’ve had a bit of a busy weekend so have been unable to respond until now.
Firstly, you say: “I think you are making assumptions about own beliefs because I am criticising these slogans. I am not interested in defending Christianity or any other religious position.”
To be honest, I can completely understand. I wouldn’t want to be in the awkward position of defending a religious position, especially as it requires “faith”, a belief “not resting on logical proof or material evidence.” Not exactly a strong starting point to argue anything really, so I realise why your reluctant to debate this area.
Secondly, you say: “An atheist is much more open-minded…” ok. I have to stop right here. Many ‘definitely no god’ people are some of those most closed minded people you will find out there. Open-mindedness is not a quality of a particular belief but the ability to seriously consider other world views.”
As I mentioned in comment 13 – Well, not according to a new study by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, released recently, that has shocked many with the revelation that atheists and agnostics tend to know more about the world’s religions than believers do.
If, as you claim, atheists were so closed minded, then why does this study show that they know more than the average theist does about religion? Just possibly, and I realise that this is a radical thought for some theists out there, atheists are more willing to engage with “other world views” namely by actually studying what those belief systems are based on, as opposed to many religious people who either ignore other world views, because they challenge their own beliefs, which have often been force-fed to them since childhood or, as some religions do, they are actively discouraged from learning more. You personally, may not fall into this type, but, as you know, many do.
Thirdly, you say: “I’ve heard the reason for ‘probably no god’. Probably may be “a great word” but having an agnostic statement to head an atheist campaign is not the best choice.
Once again, I can only refer you to my perspective in comment 11, that I gave in response to this. Unfortunately, if you can’t accept that, then that’s your choice. The campaign is being run by the Humanist Association, so if you’re still not satisfied, you could always contact them. I, like you, am just a participant who is willing to comment in this forum. I have no connection with the campaign, other than being a supporter, like many other people in NZ.
Fourthly, you say: “Re the most prominent voice is often not the best. I am referring to within an ideology. Is the loudest voice for agnosticism representing the best that position has to offer? I think not.”
Once again, I can only refer you to the FAQ section of this site, which states: “that promote in a positive and friendly way a Rationalist/Humanist view of the world. Also, to act as an alternative voice to religious advertising in New Zealand and around the world.”
Again, I feel that the campaign is doing exactly what it was intended to do, but that’s just my perspective.
Finally you say: “Finally I am referring to the billboard generator on this site; have a look through what people have come up with.”
I realise, that by allowing all and sundry to post possible slogans for use in the campaign, that that could lead to both inappropriate slogans being listed both by atheists, theists, anyone, but, as I understand it, these were then moderated and the final three that we see were selected for use. Again, if you have an issue with this, then I suggest that you contact the organisers through this site.
Lastly Vera, I will leave you with this fact: Massey University religious historian Peter Lineham has shown that the proportion of New Zealanders describing themselves as Christian fell from 90 per cent to 52 per cent in the 50 years to 2006.
A further 5 per cent now follow non-Christian religions and 32 per cent say they have no religion. His Source: New Zealand Census
So, using that as a guide, by 2056, there should only be approximately 14 per cent of the population identifying as Christian left.
It is harder to judge what may happen to the other religions, but at least my children’s children should at least be able to look forward to a society hopefully based on a more humanist perspective, than a religious one. Here’s hoping!
October 18th, 2010 at 10:46 am
Mr Bennett.
I appreciate the time you’ve taken to respond considering this is not your campaign to defend. I am more interested in discussing the billboards content openly than contacting the organisers… now if they called it the atheist/agnostic campaign NZ I would get onto them.
Anyway I have a couple of points I want to make
The Pew forum and religious life:
1. Knowledge = open-mindedness? If you’ve never met a closed-minded academic you’ve never been to University. From your deduction Mormons are almost as open-minded as atheists/agnostics. (Give or take confidence intervals they could be more open-minded!). That is a huge claim!!! Rather, I suspect that a/a and Mormons have a similar motivation for learning about other religions. Mormons and a/a may want to “engage” with people of other beliefs but is it in order to gain better understanding or to impose their own views? (As an aside; I abhor agnostics and atheists being lumped together. Atheists believe something that cannot be proven, agnostics do not).
2. Most of the questions were facts in relation to religions but not about belief. E.g. “Which religion did Joseph Smith belong to?”
3. The list corresponds to the level of education of each group
4. These guys aren’t great researchers.
Those were some (yawn) interesting statistics you gave there. No relevance to the points I made. No worries.
I have raised some issues above that I don’t think have been dealt with sufficiently. I hope you are still interested enough in this discussion to indulge me.
1. Why such an emphasis on guilt? It’s normal and good for society. People who are over-burdened with it are suffering from anxiety and depression (or they’ve done something terribly wrong). Most studies have shown that people who have religion are happier in general to people who don’t. If they are burdened by guilt why would that be the case? I think religion gives them a sense of release from guilt. I’m not saying that you need religion to make you happy. I’m just saying guilt doesn’t seem to be a problem for religious people.
2. You claim that atheists are more willing to accept new scientific research on the human condition. Why do you believe that? Your claim that the Pew forum study is equivalent to open-mindedness does not actually answer this question.
3. The semantic issues regarding “Atheist About Most Gods”
4. Do you disagree that the Good Without God slogan would be better to head the campaign than Probably No God? Why so?
5. Can an atheist talk about philosophical, moral and social issues that are yet to have any useful scientific research accompanying them? In my experience, people who call themselves atheists struggle with this.
I am of the opinion that this campaign does not achieve its goals because it reinforces negative stereotypes of atheists. The unwavering support from atheists it has received affirm these stereotypes to me. Mr Bennett are you really happy with the campaign slogan or are you just happy that there is any campaign at all?
Finally you said …
“I wouldn’t want to be in the awkward position of defending a religious [let’s say ideological] position, especially as it requires “faith”, a belief “not resting on logical proof or material evidence.” By calling yourself an atheist, Mr Bennett, I am afraid you are very much in this position.
October 18th, 2010 at 1:59 pm
Maybe a debate by email would’ve been better unless the both of you are looking at scoring scene points by publicising your debate?
As such, your debate doesn’t have much to do with the POST AT HAND to which this comments thread relates.
I’m gutted that Palmy seems to be getting such little attention from the Atheist Bus/Billboard campaign. It seems like the impending climax we were all waiting for with thia campaign fizzled out with a “pop” as opposed to a “bang”.
October 18th, 2010 at 5:00 pm
Hi Jon,
I understand your perspective. It probably would have been better to have our debate on the original thread about the creation of the bill-boards.
However, I would say that I was merely responding to Vera’s comments, that she has chosen to post here and, as you can see from my responses, I did try to point out to her that some aspects of the campaign that she disagrees with, really need to be addressed to the organisers of the campaign, of which I am not one.
Finally, as far as the campaign goes, I to share your frustration, but you need to remember that the campaign has only stalled due to the actions of the bus company involved.
To end on a more positive note, it sounds as if we may be approaching some form of resolution to the legal case. So hopefully we should know where we stand soon.
October 18th, 2010 at 6:47 pm
Hi Vera,
Vera, you have raised some issues that you don’t think have been dealt with sufficiently. So, for what it’s worth, here are my thoughts and opinions in response to them.
Vera, you say: Why such an emphasis on guilt? It’s normal and good for society. People who are over-burdened with it are suffering from anxiety and depression (or they’ve done something terribly wrong). Most studies have shown that people who have religion are happier in general to people who don’t.
PB – Firstly mental health specialists have shown that being overburdened with guilt is definitely not good for society, so I can’t agree with you there. Next, the “Happiness Index” that you mention, clearly shows that according to the research, happiness in rich countries now is far more dependent on close personal relationships, good health and job satisfaction. No doubt, personal relationships may relate to being part of a religious community, but I’m not sure how much more I would read into it. In addition to that, Scandanavian nations, such as Sweden, that has one of the highest proportion of non-believers in the western world, (85%) ranks first in the world in the Democracy Index and seventh in the United Nation’s Human Development Index so being atheistic can’t be all bad.
Vera, you say: If they are burdened by guilt why would that be the case? I think religion gives them a sense of release from guilt. I’m not saying that you need religion to make you happy. I’m just saying guilt doesn’t seem to be a problem for religious people.
PB – You’re obviously not aware of the catholic religion then. Some would go so far as to say that the Catholic Church’s lasting contribution to civilization was to pioneer shame as a social control method, and it is very powerful one.
Vera, you say: You claim that atheists are more willing to accept new scientific research on the human condition. Why do you believe that? Your claim that the Pew forum study is equivalent to open-mindedness does not actually answer this question.
PB – The Pew Forum Study was only one example, other studies have also shown a direct link between higher intelligence and lack of belief, namely the analyses of the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Study 1) and the General Social Surveys (Study 2) show that adolescent and adult intelligence significantly increases adult liberalism and atheism.
Vera, you say: The semantic issues regarding “Atheist About Most Gods”
PB – The idea here is that anyone that believes in a personal god really has the odds stacked against them. Hundreds, thousands of gods have come and gone throughout history and they all have failed to stand the test of time. All of them that is, except the one that you happen to believe in. All atheists are doing is extending that obvious pattern one step further.
Vera, you say again: Do you disagree that the Good Without God slogan would be better to head the campaign than Probably No God? Why so?
PB – And I reply again, that that is not my call to make, as I’ve already explained in previous replies to you.
Vera, you say: Can an atheist talk about philosophical, moral and social issues that are yet to have any useful scientific research accompanying them? In my experience, people who call themselves atheists struggle with this.
PB – You could try reading some books by the following: Daniel Dennett, Christopher Hitchins, Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins. There are many more, but these would make for a good starting point for you.
Vera, you say: Mr Bennett are you really happy with the campaign slogan or are you just happy that there is any campaign at all?
PB – To be honest, I’m a combination of both. First, given the background, as this is a campaign that began in the UK and has since spread to a number of other countries around the world, the consistent application of the same slogan is good for all and secondly, I am more than happy that there is any campaign at all, as, given the current bad influence that religion has around the globe, it is needed now more than ever before.
As, I think Christopher Hitchins said about Islamic Fundamentalists and the need to counter their stance: “The reality that someone with the desire to exterminate all who do not share their belief system, may be able to realistically source a weapon of mass destruction, should make every rational person want to get involved in this debate” or words to that effect.
Finally Vera you say: “I wouldn’t want to be in the awkward position of defending a religious [let’s say ideological] position, especially as it requires “faith”, a belief “not resting on logical proof or material evidence.” By calling yourself an atheist, Mr Bennett, I am afraid you are very much in this position.
PB – Hate to burst your bubble Vera, but when attempting to claim such an extraordinary position, such as a belief in god, the onus is on those making the claim to prove it to those who do not believe, not the other way around. This is a principle from the Scientific method.
October 18th, 2010 at 11:14 pm
My apologies J. Pawson but you will notice that there were already 79 posts on ‘The new billboards’. This campaign specifically represents atheists not agnostics so I merely want to discuss them not change them. Now I am too interested in Mr Bennett’s response to give up quite yet because while he is failing to satisfy what I’m trying to discuss here, he at least will attempt it (Unlike many of his fellow believers.)
Mr. Bennett, I am afraid you do not have the pleasure of understanding me.
Re: Guilt: You had better read me more clearly. People burdened with guilt are suffering from a mental illness not religion. This is not good personally nor good for society. Religious people, including Catholics, claim that guilt is not a problem for them and I am inclined to believe them. Even in happier secular nations religious people tend to report even more happiness.
Re: Guilt and Catholics: Find a Catholic still going to church and ask them if the guilt is getting to them. Perhaps I have a wider circle of friends than you, I know some Catholics who would be interested in debating this issue with you. For my part I am afraid you fallen bait to Christian in-fighting. ‘Catholic Guilt’ I believe, is for the large part a Protestant fictition. Do you think Tolkein or Louis Pasteur would have stayed in a religion that was controlling them with guilt?
Re: Semantics: I understand what the slogan is trying to say. I am merely pointing out that it does not work semantically. I.e. the word atheist does not actually work in this context, I am sure this will not be noticed by the public. (What god do you suppose I “happen to believe in.” Is that why no one else has criticised this campaign? Because they automatically get accused of being a theist!)
Re: ‘atheist philosophers’. Daniel Dennett admits that he suffers from what I am speaking of. He cannot progress further in philosophy than empirical studies can take him. Dawkins and Hitchens are no philosophers (except in the sense that we are all philsophers) but are also empirically frozen. Harris I have never read but he is better looking than the rest so I am willing to think better of him. Of course an atheist is capable of philosophy beyond what natural science can tell us but I was wondering if in your personal opinion, whether you thought they should.
Re: Accepting research. The average atheists may be more educated and more intelligent than the average theist but that doesn’t follow that educated and intelligent theists struggle to accept new research on the human condition. Religious scientists must be so ashamed of creationists.
Re: the probably no God slogan. It suits an atheist campaign anyway. It’s not rational so I’ve decided I like it too.
… And finally. You had to pull out the most ridiculous atheist phrase ever coined. “…when attempting to claim such an extraordinary position, such as a belief in god, the onus is on those making the claim to prove it to those who do not believe, not the other way around.”
See here’s the thing.
Firstly, we each have the responsibility to prove to ourselves our own position.
Secondly, I am making no claim of belief. You are. By calling yourself an atheist you are making the extraordinary claim that you know no god exists. Now the onus is on you to prove it.
(I know, you know you can’t.)
October 18th, 2010 at 11:58 pm
Hi Vera,
Given your comments, I am afraid you do not have the pleasure of understanding me either, but no real surprise there really!
Re: Guilt: You have your perspective and I have mine. And it is no surprise to either of us that they don’t match, but there we are.
Re: Semantics: Again, you say potato, I say potatoe! (I admit it loses something in a purely textual form) but, again, there we are!
Vera you say: Is that why no one else has criticised this campaign?
PB – As I’m sure you are more than aware, this campaign has been subject to, and continues to be subjected to criticism, both on this site and other forums.
Vera you say: Of course an atheist is capable of philosophy beyond what natural science can tell us but I was wondering if in your personal opinion, whether you thought they should.
PB – Yes I do, but if your attempting to have me fall for much of the arguments offered up by christian apologists such as William Lane Craig and the like, I wont, seeing as they start with a predetermined answer then fit the so called thinking to come up with a justification to fit their religious beliefs.
Vera you say: Re: Accepting research. The average atheists may be more educated and more intelligent than the average theist but that doesn’t follow that educated and intelligent theists struggle to accept new research on the human condition. Religious scientists must be so ashamed of creationists.
PB – Especially the ones that work for the Discovery Institute don’t you think?
Vera, you then return to this: Re: the probably no God slogan. It suits an atheist campaign anyway. It’s not rational so I’ve decided I like it too.
… And finally. You had to pull out the most ridiculous atheist phrase ever coined. “…when attempting to claim such an extraordinary position, such as a belief in god, the onus is on those making the claim to prove it to those who do not believe, not the other way around.” See here’s the thing. Firstly, we each have the responsibility to prove to ourselves our own position. Secondly, I am making no claim of belief. You are. By calling yourself an atheist you are making the extraordinary claim that you know no god exists. Now the onus is on you to prove it. (I know, you know you can’t.)
PB – You seem to have neatly forgotten that the campaign uses the term, there probably is no god, as to state as a fact that there isn’t would, as I’ve already posted in previous remarks to you, be akin to holding a “faith” position, which rationally atheists do not hold. That is exclusive to those who claim belief.
In fact, on a personal note, I do believe that there is a god. He exists as a concept within the minds of people and, as Science is increasingly showing, there is evidence for this.
October 19th, 2010 at 9:10 pm
So I am afraid we finish where we started off. I am more convinced than ever that atheists are the most foolish believers of all (followed closely by Mormons) and you still stand by this oxymoronic campaign.
October 19th, 2010 at 11:04 pm
Hi Vera,
Nice to see that you display the usual religious intolerance of both non-beleivers and other religions, in particular Mormons.
Brings to mind the quote by the atheist Stephen Roberts: “When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours”
So, as Dave Allen, comedian and atheist would say: “”Goodnight, thank you, and may your god go with you”
October 22nd, 2010 at 8:05 am
Vera, I will not give you the courtesy that Paul is because I believe stupidity should be punished with extreme prejudice, not condoned or even bolstered by arguing with you as if you are an intellectual equal.
The onus on proof is always on those making extraordinary claims. If you can’t see that your delusion is an extraordinary claim, then I pity you.
You have no right to be indignant, no right to deflect constructive criticism. I have known scores of theists who honestly looked at the evidence for the existence of God and are now atheists. In fact, last night, one of them told me until a year ago he was still frightened by movies about the paranormal, demonic possession, etc. Now, with a fresh, rational mindset, he isn’t frightened, but entertained.
Doesn’t this show just how childish and blatantly silly a belief in the supernatural really is?
God?
Please. Grow up!
October 28th, 2010 at 5:40 pm
You are quite right that we are not intellectual equals but I do not hold your inferiority against you. You have demonstrated this by being incapable of comprehending that you are making an extraordinary claim (that is; you can prove that no kind of god exists) and that I am making no claim at all.
I’m so glad that your friend can now enjoy what Hollywood has to offer however it proves nothing. Even your fellow believers will be able to tell you that. There are equally moving stories about atheists becoming theists. What do they prove?
(I am afraid it is not out of a lack of courtesy that you cannot enter an argument)
October 28th, 2010 at 9:26 pm
Hi Vera,
Nice to see you’re back to debate.
Now, seeing as you claim you are intellectually superior to us astheists, I have a question for you.
Do you believe invisible pink unicorns exist?
If your answer is no, please explain why not.
I await your reply with interest!
October 28th, 2010 at 10:19 pm
The statement of intelligence refers to Jon Pawson alone. However all atheists by definition of their belief are irrational.
I know of no-one claiming that invisible pink unicorns exist. I would hate to enter a debate ill-informed.
So instead why don’t you tell me what you think of the story of theist-turned-atheists ability to watch movies. Is that a good reason for agnostics to jump off the fence?