
Atheist buses denying God's existence take to streets - pmjordan
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/4141765/Atheist-buses-denying-Gods-existence-take-to-streets.html
======
kirse
_"There's probably no God"_

I was going to be critical of that weak use of the word "probably" (especially
in the context of atheistic belief), but then I realized it better explains
the true situation - that it simply comes down to where you assign your faith.

Too many atheists and macro-evolutionists (especially Dawkins), can't think
outside their own dogmatic beliefs and realize that they, too, employ many
powerful background assumptions which are grounded in faith alone. These
assumptions, of course, are then used as a framework for claiming what is the
"truth".

~~~
tokenadult
I've had the privilege of meeting Hemant Mehta, the Friendly Atheist,

<http://friendlyatheist.com/>

at a talk in my town, and I think he gets the issue of communicating with
believers very well, perhaps because he was brought up in the Jain religion.
It is quite an art to understand where the other person is coming from and to
communicate with that person.

 _I realized it better explains the true situation - that it simply comes down
to where you assign your faith._

At the risk of showing I'm not as smooth a communicator as Hemant, "permit me
to not completely agree with this opinion," in the words of my favorite
mathematician. I think what religious belief (which I used to have) and
secular rationalism differ in is HOW they assign confidence to what they rely
on, and I think, properly speaking, the natural scientist doesn't have faith
in the sense of faith in a body of religious doctrine. I think the truth-
seeking of the scientist, and of the members of the general public who learn
from scientists, is different in nature from the truth-assuming of those who
put faith in religions. I've been there, and I've done that. I have a LOT of
compassion for people who have deep religious faith, and I appreciate gentle
efforts to communicate with them, but I don't think people who go through life
in active, fact-tested truth-seeking are just putting their faith in a
different object.

Thanks for making an interesting early comment that got me thinking about my
rather recent "conversion."

~~~
InVerse
i interpreted kirsh's claim as:

"in spite of the theoretical procedural differences in assigning faith, both
camps are substantially influenced by culture and tradition.

------
jws
Atheist buses? You mean some buses believe in one or more deities? Amazing!
I'll bet it's those kneeling buses that lower their front right suspension for
people to get on.

------
Anon84
heh... why bother? "Believers" won't stop believing because of a bus and
atheists already don't.

~~~
netcan
Yes & No.

A book, conversation, argument, radio show or even a bus ad never make anyone
believe or disbelieve anything along these lines 'off the bat'. But then, it
probably doesn't make you buy laundry detergent. But having concepts out there
in this form does have an effect.

A big one is normalising atheism. Making sure it's not something foreign or
taboo. Making people comfortable having it around them. Making sure it's not
an extreme position. The immediate things to counter is the idea that atheism
is an extreme position, an arrogant position or a dangerous one.

~~~
tokenadult
_A big one is normalising atheism. Making sure it's not something foreign or
taboo._

That's an interesting perspective. Having once been an evangelical Christian,
I now as an atheist have more than a little desire to proselytize. I haven't
found any of the "new atheist" literature that I could give to my many
Christian friends with much hope that that literature would communicate to
their concerns. Probably a lot of incrementalism here and there on different
fronts will help more people have space and gumption to begin examining the
world without the assumption that this or that religion is an accurate
description of reality. Then more people can join in the great human
enterprise of investigating reality and sharing what we find out.

I do like friendly, even concessive-to-a-fault statements over harsh, in-your-
face statements, and I think that is a winning approach for many atheists to
take.

~~~
netcan
We people think emotionally. We also think rationally. But emotions always
play a part. It is not just access to different literature that made the
majority of Russians 100 years ago Marxist while making most Americans 40
years ago anti communist free marketeers.

The rational behind most atheists' position is pretty simple. It is also
pretty dry. You can dress it up in Russell's Teapot, Flying Spaghetti Monsters
or Dawkins' garden fairies. That is insulting because what you are inserting
into the framework of the argument is: 'X is stupid. You are like X'

Everything else is politics. Is religion good or bad? Is it an innate human
property etc. etc. None of that is very important to the argument. Nor are the
various arguments within religion presented by atheists (shouldn't you believe
that.. Why do you believe x & not y).

I don't have much contact with 'Evangelicals.' I have had a fair bit to do
with with 'progressive Christians,' Jews of various positions & (mostly expat)
Muslims. I have to say that I think they all react to completely different
things emotionally. The first group are usually concerned with the community &
work of the churches. There are in fact many jobs performed by them that are
otherwise left undone. Jews are often moved by identity issues. Many of the
Muslims I have known seemed moved by a sort of loyalty. The latter is similar
to how I've seen (normally leftists) Americans react to 'foreigners' making
the same complaints they themselves make about their culture.

In none of the questions did the simple argument that convinces me, have much
bearing on anything. Ocasionaly I was indulged with a discussion so that we
could move on to the _more important_ things. These things I find irrelevant
before i am satisfied on the teapot point.

In a way it is similar to the argument I criticised here: The concepts of
'justice' or 'ethics' stand on philosophically unsound foundations. You might
indulge someone for a few minutes if you want to discuss Gaza, Mumbai, South
Ossetia or something, but you don't want to get bogged down in Kant or
Bentham.

But anyway what I am saying in this long winded way is that for the purpose of
'winning' the argument. It is important to acclimatise your audience to an
idea. Convince them that it is not insane. The argument themselves will come
into play are not in defence mode. It may at some later point. A good time is
if/when they ever find themselves defending against a more 'extreme' point.

As I said, I know few evangelicals. But I hear that they often associate
atheism with crime, immorality etc. To counter that, you just need to show
them that morality is _possible_ without believing in god (even if it does
requires His existence). You would have heard all sorts of rubbish said about
Communists back in the day. A young American refusing to buy in & attacking
the anti-communist rubbish (there was plenty that anyone would now consider
rubbish) would have been in a position to consider communism on it's merits.
Dido on Soviets with Atlas Shrugged under the tiles.

They may find themselves defending humanism. Which is step to considering it.

------
run4yourlives
Do we seriously need to open up the god debate on HN too?

I thought this would be deemed off-topic enough to never see the light of day
here. Sigh.

~~~
bootload
_"... Do we seriously need to open up the god debate on HN too? ..."_

Yes, unfortunately.

The foundations of (biological) science (evolution) are under attack by
advocates of 'belief' systems. Everything you take for granted generated by
scientific backed knowledge is the result of 'provable' ideas and to go
backwards as a result of pressure for people with feeble unsupportable, kooky
ideas has to be defended. MMR immunisation vaccines not taken in the mistaken
belief it causes Asperger Syndrome ~ <http://www.badscience.net/2008/08/the-
medias-mmr-hoax/> the Pope declaring "The Pill cuts mail fertility" ~
[http://www.google.com.au/search?pope+Vatican+says+pill+cuts+...](http://www.google.com.au/search?pope+Vatican+says+pill+cuts+male+fertility)
what about Dinosaurs & humans co-existing ~
<http://www.creationists.org/mananddinos.html> The examples go on and on.

As a hacker it's good to have and practice a skeptical mindset. Otherwise
you'll end up like this poor sod, "Quadrant falls victim to its own reasoning"
~ [http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/quadrant-falls-victim-
to...](http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/quadrant-falls-victim-to-
hoax/2009/01/06/1231004021054.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1)

~~~
run4yourlives
\- The foundations of (biological) science (evolution) are under attack by
advocates of 'belief' systems.

No they aren't. 90% of religious people have no objection to science. The two
areas of study to them are not contradictory. Just because there is a vocal
minority, specifically in the US, doesn't mean the world is ending.

Your examples don't really support your claims. The MMR vaccine is based on
faulty science, not religious belief. If anyone actually cared about the
pope's opinions on sex, I'd give a damn. (Although, we should be questioning
the increase of estrogen in our environment, from not just the pill but from
plastics and all sorts of stuff)

Being skeptical and religious have nothing to do with one another. This is
most certainly true if the religion in question isn't Christianity.

------
thomasmallen
I'm not the most religious guy, but I think that posting ads stating that
_THERE'S PROBABLY NO GOD_ is probably a good way to get Him to show up in
interesting ways in the responsible parties' lives.

Also, I find it lame that anti-religious movements would resort to
proselytism.

------
sjs382
Hacker news?

~~~
rms
>Please don't submit comments complaining that a submission is inappropriate
for the site. If you think something is spam or egregiously offtopic, you can
flag it by going to its page and clicking on the "flag" link. (Not all users
will see this; there is a karma threshold.) If you flag something, please
don't also comment that you did.

<http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html>

