Just....insane

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7681914.stm

wow i personally dont believe in god but wtf is that?

im an atheist, but this kind of posterwork is just stupid all it will do is enrage people who although i think those offended will most likely be retarded, still shouldn't stir s*** for the sake of it.

I actually like it, something like this would go down very well down here, with plenty of smiles and giggles.

Like Dawkins said: "Religion is accustomed to getting a free ride". Why not use that space to advertise happy living and a non-ideology instead of telling us our only hope is in an imaginary friend?
It's about time the idea of religion is looked at again closely; it's momments like these that indicate the start of a social revolution, one (heavily critisised) step at time untill society can accept that they may just happen to be deluded... and we all know how much we need a social revolution in these stagnating times.

I like it as well personally. It may outrage some but sometimes you have to upset people. I get Churches cramming leaflets down my throat walking to my lectures. So therefore why can't atheists do the same with a bus.

I agree with FD and Zaney on this.

I was listening to a debate about this on 5 live last night, and i dont see whats wrong!

Whats so different between an atheist and a beliver expressing their views?

I don't have a problem with it per se (as a Christian) although it doesn't justify the claim "there is probably no God", and it's very hypocritical of them in a whole plethora of ways. This isn't about freedom of speech. It never has been.

Free Jack wrote:im an atheist, but this kind of posterwork is just stupid all it will do is enrage people who although i think those offended will most likely be retarded, still shouldn't stir s*** for the sake of it.

Hypocrisy here too?

Oh and Zaney, why do you just assume that a religious way of living isn't a happy one?

I was being literal ...that's the problem with debating using text, it's very difficult to determin different nuances of speaking styles that you normally portray with tone etc.

Litteral as in it is advertising happyness in and of itself, whereas religious advertisement normally advertises happyness as either a payment by god for your faith (or a natural result, debateable). Or the result of a filling in your life that isn't directly related to happyness itself but might not allow for happyness without it (e.g. forgiveness, compassion, protection etc)

I prefer to go with the first, litteral, one; as happyness is nothing more than a flood in your brain of a hormone

What I am surprised by is the asnwers they recieved from the Christian Voice group,

Bendy-buses, like atheism, are a danger to the public at large

Atheism no danger, what has caused more deaths and war, Atheism or religion?

I love the Methodist response though

However the Methodist Church said it thanked Professor Dawkins for encouraging a "continued interest in God".

That is great

tl;dr comments but yes, I like it.

Enef Freestar wrote:What I am surprised by is the asnwers they recieved from the Christian Voice group,

Bendy-buses, like atheism, are a danger to the public at large

Atheism no danger, what has caused more deaths and war, Atheism or religion?

In the 20th Century, since the advent of atheism based states? Probably atheism. Also, if you take into account the motives of the people causing these wars/deaths, i'd say it's not too greatly, if at all, in atheism's favour.

Religion can inspire, religion can kill.

Atheists can be inspiring, atheists can kill.

It's really the nature of the person, not the doctrine they choose to follow.

Yes, people who were religious have (in the past) caused deaths and war but realistically the wars would have happened for another reason if they'd had to - see the Teutonic Crusades for example.

Blaming religion for the sins of the religious is like saying the devil made you do it.

Gawd. We can have religion. We can have sin. We can have atheism. Comparing them to each other is like asking why your potato plant wasnt growing apples.

zaney wrote:Litteral as in it is advertising happyness in and of itself, whereas religious advertisement normally advertises happyness as either a payment by god for your faith (or a natural result, debateable).
I prefer to go with the first, litteral, one; as happyness is nothing more than a flood in your brain of a hormone

Ummm? Not a theologically sound statement. And i question the truth of your comment about hormones too.