For Radar:P

Don't know if anybody picked up on this yet and I don't have time to go on a search...

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/07/world/europe/07london.html?_r=1&em

I saw something about this awhile ago in the Metro (freebie paper left on buses and trains) and thought, oh I should tell Radar! Then forgot about it. Have just seen a link to the same story as covered by NY Times via another forum.

I particularly love the response from the Methodist Church.

Very nice. If I tried to pull this off in America, I'd be attacked both in person and in the media.

Thats way cool! I especially like the idea of putting famous peoples quotes in the ad. Its about time too.

Not always positively. “I think it’s dreadful,” said Sandra Lafaire, 76, a tourist from Los Angeles, who said she believed in God and still enjoyed her life, thank you very much. “Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but I don’t like it in my face.”

I'd say the same for the other side. I find the religious billboards and post-bills annoying.

An interesting element of the bus slogan is the word “probably,” which would seem to be more suited to an Agnostic Bus Campaign than to an atheist one. Mr. Dawkins, for one, argued that the word should not be there at all.
But the element of doubt was necessary to meet British advertising guidelines, said Tim Bleakley, managing director for sales and marketing at CBS Outdoor in London, which handles advertising for the bus system.
For religious people, advertisements saying there is no God “would have been misleading,” Mr. Bleakley said.

Why "for religious people"? Is there one truth for them and a different one for me? :haha:

I agree Bruce. I'm Christian, but I still think it's pretty presumptuous to think/tell people that they're going to hell if they're not.

There were atheist billboards in Colorado during December.

One said, "Don't Believe in God? You are not alone."

Here's an article about it.

DENVER -- A controversial billboard will likely be popping up in a neighborhood near you, just in time for the holidays.The billboard is paid for by a Colorado atheist group. The message sits against a blue sky backdrop and says, "Don't believe in God? You're not alone."

Ten billboards will pepper metro Denver, while one will be put up in Colorado Springs.

"And we're putting them up in November and December because of the holidays, when church and state issues tend to come up a lot," said Joel Guttormson, with Metro State Atheists. "To let non-believers, free-thinkers and atheists know that they are not alone, especially in a country like ours that is predominantly Christian."

Pastor Willard Johnson of Denver's Macedonia Baptist Church called the billboards a desperate effort to discredit Christianity. "The Bible is being fulfilled. It says that in latter days, you have all these kinds of things coming up, trying to disrupt the validity of Christianity," Johnson said. "If they don't believe in God, how do they believe they came about? We denounce what they are doing. But we do it with love, with gentleness, with decency and with compassion."

Bob Enyart, a Christian radio host and spokesman for American Right to Life, said it's hard to ignore the evidence.

"The Bible says that faith is the evidence of things not seen. Evidence. If we ignore the evidence for gravity or the Creator, that's really dangerous," said Enyart. "Income tax doesn't not exist because somebody doesn't believe in it. And the same is true with our Creator."

The billboards will go up Nov. 17. The atheist group, called Colorado Coalition of Reason or COCORE, also wanted to put up signs in Fort Collins and Greeley, but a billboard company there refused to carry the message.

Johnson said atheism is a rebellion against Biblical principals and the billboard will likely offend many Christians.

COCORE said this is about First Amendment rights."And I've read the First Amendment up and down and nowhere does it say that I have to care about your feelings. We're either 10 to 16 percent of the population, and the reason we don't really know is because people are scared to come out because they're ostracized by the people around them," said Guttormson.

The quoted arguments against the billboards seem weak and ridiculous.

Yeah, there was one of those billboards somewhere near Philly once upon a time. Ah, here's the link, and quote:

Interstates are an unlikely forum for theological debate. Some might even point to the modern commute, with its chaotic swirl of traffic and exhaust, as proof that God, if he ever existed, has absconded, leaving us alone with our dirty world.

And yet, on I-95 (as on other highways across the country), God himself has taken to the road. There, a billboard offers a chance to "Experience God" on a Web site. But God may need to up his game. Because several weeks ago, his competitor bought a billboard, too. Just a short distance away, another sign reads: "Don't believe in God? You are not alone."

The "Experience God" billboard was put up by the Light Houses of Oxford Valley, a church with relaxed worship procedures — wear what you want, feel free to eat and drink. The other billboard was crafted by the Greater Philadelphia Coalition of Reason, or PhillyCoR, an alliance of groups whose members "do not believe in supernatural powers," according to their phone message.

The churchgoers were the first to notice the proximity of the billboards. In a post on the church's blog, Pastor Bob Jones challenged the atheists: "I am not asking you to believe, but simply open your eyes and minds and see if there is something more."

Martha Knox, coordinator of PhillyCoR, read the blog and saw a chance to advance her organization's mission. "We want those who disagree with us to understand that we share the same secular values," she said. Because she believes that "charity is a secular, human value, not a religious one," she called the church to organize a joint day of service.

In the linked story it talks about some similar things in the States.

Personally I think the Advertising Standards Board should have kept out of this one and declined to arbitrate on the provability of either side's claims. The word 'probably' was out of place with the overall sentiment of the advert.

I don't think so. If there is absolutely no physical evidence that something exists, it probably doesn't.

Love it, Dana. I think the "probably" is just fine ....to me it gave the message that it's Ok to be pretty sure it's all bollox and be happy with your decision -you don't have to be an atheist warrior. Over here, there are many atheists, but the majority of them keep quiet not only for political reasons, but because they don't want the atheist warriors to harrangue them to "join the movement" -they just want to non-believe in peace.

monster;520730 wrote:

Over here, there are many atheists, but the majority of them keep quiet not only for political reasons, but because they don't want the atheist warriors to harrangue them to "join the movement" -they just want to non-believe in peace.

I think you've nailed it. They probably take more heat from the warriors than from religious folks.

We have religious billboards all over the South. I don't even notice them anymore.

Maybe you do, but you don't know it. Our subconscious picks up everything.

Radar;520893 wrote:

Maybe you do, but you don't know it. Our subconscious picks up everything.

Wrong.

Really? Prove it.

Philosophy can only be proven to ones self.
Not that I'm a philosopher. Hell I am barely a philanderer.

monster;520730 wrote:

Love it, Dana. I think the "probably" is just fine ....to me it gave the message that it's Ok to be pretty sure it's all bollox and be happy with your decision -you don't have to be an atheist warrior. Over here, there are many atheists, but the majority of them keep quiet not only for political reasons, but because they don't want the atheist warriors to harrangue them to "join the movement" -they just want to non-believe in peace.

I think it works around the same, I honestly don't feel pressure from any group. I would think most atheists keep quiet because they don't really give a shit about negative identification. That is my reason and every atheists (which are the majority of people I am around) reason that I know of.

TheMercenary;520803 wrote:

We have religious billboards all over the South. I don't even notice them anymore.

Radar;520893 wrote:

Maybe you do, but you don't know it. Our subconscious picks up everything.

TheMercenary;520969 wrote:

Wrong.

It's just another ad. People are as likely to respond to it as any other.

I'm not planning on spending a weekend at Jack Frost/Big Boulder, either, and I see that billboard a lot more often.

Radar;520893 wrote:

Maybe you do, but you don't know it. Our subconscious picks up everything.

It's true.
I've been craving the taste of McSemen for days... [cellar link]

Dana I missed this originally, only catching the end of it on the news. I think it's great. In the quoted article, the one thing that made me laugh out loud - yes literally - was that the anti quote came from a Merkin! I bet they couldn't find an English person within walking distamce who was prepared to criticise it :)

Merkin?

I liked this bit:

the British effort has been striking in the lack of outrage it has generated. The Methodist Church, for instance, said it welcomed the campaign as a way to get people to talk about God.

Doomsday is coming! Head for the covers!!

Pie;520486 wrote:

Why "for religious people"? Is there one truth for them and a different one for me? :haha:

Pontius Pie-late?

capnhowdy;521616 wrote:

Merkin?

1) A pubic wig
2) A mop for cleaning out a cannon

Radar;520442 wrote:

Very nice. If I tried to pull this off in America, I'd be attacked both in person and in the media.

Look, Paul -- that's probably less because of any ideas in here than your generally Michael Newdow tone. You know you'd come off like him.

I don't know who that is, much less come off like him. I am me. A defender of liberty and freedom and a man who recognizes the limitations on the powers of our government. A man who wishes freedom and liberty for everyone, but who demands that his government only champion that freedom for our own people. Others must earn it for themselves. That doesn't make me a tyrant, or a person who supports or condones tyrants. It makes me a true libertarian and a good American patriot, unlike anyone who supports the war in Iraq.

Urbane Guerrilla;522873 wrote:

1) A pubic wig
2) A mop for cleaning out a cannon

I think it was a reference to an American, after some thought.;)

Urbane Guerrilla;522875 wrote:

your generally Michael Newdow tone.

I didn't remember him either, so I Googled him. . .

Judge dismisses attempt to ban prayer from inauguration

Attempts by an atheist to bar religious prayer from next Tuesday's inauguration were dismissed by a judge in Washington, D. C., yesterday.

At a packed U. S. District Court, Judge Reggie Walton said the plaintiffs "lacked standing because they failed to articulate a concrete 'harm' that would result from the practices complained of."

The suit was filed by Michael Newdow, a physician from Sacramento, Calif., on behalf of various individuals and organizations, including the Freedom from Religion Foundation and the Atheist Alliance International.

Defendants included the Presidential Inaugural Committee (PIC), John Roberts, the U. S. Supreme Court Chief Justice and the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies. Dr. Newdow wanted to ensure the words "so help me God" did not form a part of Barack Obama's oath of office. The tradition is thought to date to the first inauguration of George Washington in 1789.

Got me wondering what the cellarites think of this. I know there is a large contingent of athiests/agnostics here.

classicman;522938 wrote:

Got me wondering what the cellarites think of this.

The US treats religion from the standpoint of making sure free exercise is allowed, not removing every aspect of religion from the government. This means that the government will not establish an official religion, sponsor a specific religion with tax money, or prevent the free exercise of a religion. It does not prevent the mention of religion within oaths or other minor things like that. There is a valid argument that it prevents the construction of expensive monuments to fictional books with taxpayer money, but that is another issue.

I don't see any reason to change the oath.

Phage, stop being sane and moderate. We can't have that around here!

After Obama finishes saying what the law requires him to say, he can say any fucking thing he wants. To demand the court restrict the President's freedom of speech is preposterous.:rolleyes:

I don't care much about that issue, but from a cursory scan of an article a while back, I think that at least part of the issue was that John Roberts would say "so help you God" as part of what Obama is supposed to repeat, making it more part of the oath than a personal choice. I do have a bit of a problem with that, if I understand it correctly. The only problem I have with Presidents adding it themselves out of religiousness or tradition is the eventual annoying shitstorm if one ever decides not to.

Oh ok, I didn't realize it was included in the official repeat after me.

I wouldn't swear to it (get it?), but that's the impression I'm under.

You forgot the drumroll. :haha: