The godless move in mysterious ways: what the atheist bus campaign’s advert will look like. Ariane Sherine: All aboard the atheist bus campaign – guardian.co.uk
I would add:
1. Why are they advertising – what benefits will they get?
2. The presumption that the there is no-God will lead people to enjoy their life is flawed.
3. Advertising is usually used to propagate or open up a perceived need in the person who sees the advert. This does not to that.
4. Surely the most powerful thing that leads people towards the non-existence of God is simply that many don’t really think about it. This campaign forces people to think about God!
Here’s a billboard advert I found that was quite fun.
tallandrew 
“1. Why are they advertising – what benefits will they get?”
More support for their organization(s). Both in members and in funds.
“2. The presumption that the there is no-God will lead people to enjoy their life is flawed.”
Not completely. No god means no killing other people because they don’t believe your god. No god means no going to hell for silly and arbitrary rules.
“3. Advertising is usually used to propagate or open up a perceived need in the person who sees the advert. This does not to that.”
Not for you, but you don’t speak for everyone.
‘4. Surely the most powerful thing that leads people towards the non-existence of God is simply that many don’t really think about it. This campaign forces people to think about God!’
Actually the exact opposite. Most people simply accept what their parents tell them and don’t think. I can’t count how many atheists say that they didn’t become godless until they read the holy book their family subscribed to.
People thinking = more atheists
Hi there. Thanks for reading.
I can accept your comments for the 3rd point, but not on the others.
2. Your argument is against a straw man – a false idea of who Christians understand God to be.
4. Thinking people are more likely to be atheists? Well, I can see from your blog that you are involved in lots of discussions elsewhere, and that you have read/are reading parts of the Bible. So it is clear that *you* think, but thinking people don’t all have to take your view (I’m sure you would never presume that!)
There are lots of thinking people who do believe and lots who don’t. This idea that “thinking=atheist” too simplistic. People get their ideas of what is true not from objective reasoning, because objective reasoning is not possible. Generally people have a pretty good idea about what they want to believe before they find the evidence to support it. And you can support atheism and theism this way.
Number 2 would be a strawman if I meant it for every Christian, or every believer in god. I do not. Which is why I said “not completely”. I should have been more clear and used the word ‘some’ in there.
“This idea that “thinking=atheist” too simplistic.”
I agree. That’s why I didn’t write that. I said “People thinking = more atheists”. Not all atheists.
I do, however, believe that people thinking will lead them eventually to the truth. I happen to believe that atheism is the truth. If I didn’t think that, I wouldn’t be an atheist.
Now, certainly you can not think and still arrive at the correct answer. But that’s what we call luck. Just like if I were putting together a puzzle, and I had a baby point to the next piece I needed. Probably no thinking there, but there’s a certain small probability that the baby will point to the correct piece.
“Generally people have a pretty good idea about what they want to believe before they find the evidence to support it.”
Which is exactly the problem. Religion supports wish fulfillment. I can understand that, but I can’t be a part of it. I want to believe what is true, regardless if it made me happy or not. I wish more people shared that opinion.
The people who do share that opinion, at least in my experience, tend to be atheists.
I happen to believe that Christianity is the truth and that it works and that it is the ‘correct answer’: that there really was a guy called Jesus and he really did live a good life and for that he really did die in a tortuous way and that he realy did rise again after that. And that this has massive implications for humanity.
I have also met many people who realise that this is the truth, and they have realised this only once they have started to think about major questions of life. For them, thinking has led to finding “the truth”.
But between us we are now talking about two different types of truth, both mutually exclusive. Only one can actually be objectively true. But, as we are incapable of truly objective thinking, neither ‘truth’ can be reached by rational thinking alone. We each take our choice.
“But between us we are now talking about two different types of truth, both mutually exclusive. Only one can actually be objectively true. But, as we are incapable of truly objective thinking, neither ‘truth’ can be reached by rational thinking alone. We each take our choice.”
I disagree. Truth is not as nebulous as you try to make it out to be.
We have a system by which we can understand the real world. That’s called “the scientific method”. And it has been shown to work.
We are all shaped by our experiences, desires, education, and interactions. We can never truly stand in someone else’s shoes. We all also have preferences and biases, that is why pure objectivity is impossible.
Truth can be found, but not purely by scientific method. Scientific method is fine within it’s bounds – that is the created universe. But as it cannot step outside of this, it speak about matters of hope and eternity and God.
In fact, the scientific method itself (founded on Francis Bacon’s views of accumulating knowledge) is pretty good, but it is not flawless. There are thousands of ‘choices’ or ‘steps of faith’ that scientists have to take every step of the way.
If a theory has been hypothesised, tested and debated in the scientific community so that it is generally accepted, we can be almost certain that it is correct, but this reason gives us confidence in our theory, not knowledge.
Even with this confidence, an element of faith is required at every stage of the scientific process. Scientists must begin with the belief that the universe is, in fact, understandable through reason. They must assume the truth of that which they want to prove, be passionate about finding a proof, and refuse to accept contradictory evidence as the final word unless it is overwhelming. From deciding what to investigate, to searching for facts, to analysing the results (discarding ones that look compromised) and testing hypotheses which are believed to be true, faith is required.
Lots of faith required at every stage. As I said, it is still a pretty good method within it’s bounds. But your method simply places reason as the ‘god’ – the authority above all things. And as we’ve already discussed, reason can get you to a lot of different ‘truths’.