The atheists are advertising

[ludwig]

Slogan - 'There's probably no god. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life'.

Money well spent, or a waste of time?

http://www.justgiving.com/atheistbus

[jake-the-peg]

I did enjoy the response from Christian voice

"People don't like being preached at" they said.

And they say satire is dead!

[Octavius]

I think that �88k could have been better spent, but thats personal opinion.

[keyplus90]

Professor Richard Dawkins, bestselling author of The God Delusion, is officially supporting the Atheist Bus Campaign, and has generously agreed to match all donations up to a maximum of �5,500,

I would have thought that he would donate more than that. Perhaps he has read his own best selling book in reverse order.

At least they did use word probably so door is open, or perhaps not sure yet.

They would get enough donation from a good number of ABer I am sure. After all it is good to help your faith grow.

[naomi24]

Money wasted.

[WaldoMcFroog]

The fact that this conversation is even occuring means it's already achieving its aims - before any money is even spent.

[tigerlily11]

Money wasted.

[Octavius]

Yes Waldo, everyone is talking about God. (probably, maybe, perhaps)

kerching.

[naomi24]

Kerching is about right.

[Theland1]

If God drank lager, then probably he would drink ............. ?

[WaldoMcFroog]

Yeah, it's been such a failure so far, hasn't it? No one's talking about this campaign at all. They're all just talking about God instead. Apart from all of these minor places, of course: http://www.atheistcampaign.org/news-roundup/

Oh, and these: http://www.atheistcampaign.org/news-roundup-2/

But apart from that, yeah, complete failure. Probably.

[JockSporran]

Atheists think that God is all about not enjoying life. Talk to an atheist and all they'll think about is the Bible. They'll even quote it for you, better than any religious fundamentalist.

[jno]

surely if it says 'probably' they're agnostics rather than atheists? Or are atheists still allowed a scintilla of doubt? (Apologies, I'm not well up on doctrine, but I mean the question seriously.)

[keyplus90]

Jno � I will answer that, or will try answering. First of all even refusal of God is the sign that he exists. Only few people do not know. About your probably which of course I mentioned as well in my previous post, I would say that yes they are allowed a bit of doubt and that is natural. That is what keeps you going or looking for more explanation. I do not personally believe that any one is a complete atheist as they try to show, doubt is always there in their minds sometime they do not even know themselves. That is good news. Better late than never.

[naomi24]

What does this campaign hope to achieve? Believers have decided that they believe, just as atheists have decided that they do not believe - and neither will change the others opinion.

I can't see either, how refusal of God is a sign that he exists. That makes no sense at all. This would seem to suggest that athiests harbour some sort of niggling doubt, but that simply isn't so. If someone doesn't believe, then he doesn't believe. Full stop.

jno, good point. The slogan doesn't appear to match entirely the message it's meant to convey.

[brionon]

naomi24
Fri 24/10/08
10:56 What does this campaign hope to achieve?

Naomi dear, If god exists a lightning bolt will destroy the Bus. At least that's what Theland's god would have done {remember the Midianites ?} So if no lightning bolt -No god. OK ?

[naomi24]

In that case, Brionon, we all need to keep an eagle eye on that bus. This could well be the deciding factor that spells the end of arguments in R&S! Kapow!!!! ........... or not. ;o)

[ludwig]

Naomi/Jno
They've had to put the 'probably' in to be strictly correct.
Ie, they can't state 'There is no god', because they can't possibly know that there's no god. No-one can.

[naomi24]

Absolutely right, Ludwig.

[The Sherman]

No NO NO!

the probably is a very clever admission in science.

you need to read the god delusion to read the correct meaning of his aethiesm but what he basically is saying is that he is not 100% that there isnt a god but all evidence points to there not being a god.

So using that as a principal it is a theory not concrete proof!
Dawkins would be a poor scientist if he completely dismissed the possibility of there being a god.

Waldo back me up if I didnt get that right!