D*** and b**** the atheist bus!

I've just got around to making this video from the launch the other day... it features, in order, Richard Dawkins, Hanne Stinson and Andrew Copson of the British Humanist Associaton, comedy writer Ariane Sherine who started it all off, stand-up comic Robin Ince, and, well....

My illustrious predecessor, Clifford Longley, has complained to the Advertising Standards Authority about the atheist bus. More than 50 others have also done so, including Stephen Green of Christian Voice, so there will be an inquiry. What fun! That will be a judgement to read. Read Cliff's complaint in full below. Meanwhile, what's with the cat, Doorkins Magnificat? See end of post for full explanation.

Clifford Longley, former Religious Affairs Correspondent of The Times and more recently of The Tablet and the BBC's TFTD, writes:

'The statement “There’s probably no God”, as currently seen on the side of London buses, is untrue and dishonest, in so far as the word “probably” completely fails to reflect the true state of the scientific argument. In fact it would be honest and true to say the opposite  - “There probably is a God.” A fair reading of the material below could lead to no other conclusion.

'I therefore call on the ASA to order the withdrawal of this advertising, as incompatible with its code of practice. According to growing numbers of scientists, the laws and constants of nature are so "finely-tuned," and so many "coincidences" have occurred to allow for the possibility of life, the universe must have come into existence through intentional planning and intelligence.

'In fact, this "fine-tuning" is so pronounced, and the "coincidences" are so numerous, many scientists have come to espouse "The Anthropic Principle," which contends that the universe was brought into existence intentionally for the sake of producing mankind. Even those who do not accept The Anthropic Principle admit to the "fine-tuning" and conclude that the universe is "too contrived" to be a chance event.

'Dr. Dennis Scania, head of Cambridge University Observatories, said in a BBC science documentary, "The Anthropic Principle: "If you change a little bit the laws of nature, or you change a little bit the constants of nature - like the charge on the electron - then the way the universe develops is so changed, it is very likely that intelligent life would not have been able to develop."

'Dr. David D. Deutsch, Institute of Mathematics, Oxford University: observed: "If we nudge one of these constants just a few percent in one direction, stars burn out within a million years of their formation, and there is no time for evolution. If we nudge it a few percent in the other direction, then no elements heavier than helium form. No carbon, no life. Not even any chemistry. No complexity at all."

'Dr. Paul Davies, noted author and professor of theoretical physics at Adelaide University, said: "The really amazing thing is not that life on Earth is balanced on a knife-edge, but that the entire universe is balanced on a knife-edge, and would be total chaos if any of the natural 'constants' were off even slightly.”

'When the late Sir Fred Hoyle was researching how carbon came to be created in the "blast-furnaces" of the stars, his calculations indicated that it is very difficult to explain how the stars generated the necessary quantity of carbon upon which life on earth depends. Hoyle found that there were numerous "fortunate" one-time occurrences which seemed to indicate that purposeful "adjustments" had been made in the laws of physics and chemistry in order to produce the necessary carbon.

Hoyle summed up his findings as follows: "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintendent has monkeyed with the physics, as well as chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature.

'I do not believe that any physicist who examined the evidence could fail to draw the inference that the laws of nuclear physics have been deliberately designed with regard to the consequences they produce within stars." Dr. David D. Deutch remarked: "If anyone claims not to be surprised by the special features that the universe has, he is hiding his head in the sand. These special features are surprising and unlikely."

'The August '97 issue of "Science" featured an article entitled "Science and God: A Warming Trend?" in which it stated: "The fact that the universe exhibits many features that foster organic life - such as precisely those physical constants that result in planets and long- lived stars - also has led some scientists to speculate that some divine influence may be present."

In his best-selling book, A Brief History of Time, Sir Stephen Hawking (perhaps the world's most famous cosmologist) stated: "The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers (i.e. the constants of physics) seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life" (p. 125). "For example," Hawking wrote, "if the electric charge of the electron had been only slightly different, stars would have been unable to burn hydrogen and helium, or else they would not have exploded... It seems clear that there are relatively few ranges of values for the numbers (for the constants) that would allow for development of any form of intelligent life. Most sets of values would give rise to universes that, although they might be very beautiful, would contain no one able to wonder at that beauty." Hawking said this was evidence of "a divine purpose in Creation and the choice of the laws of science (by God)" (ibid. p. 125). If you would like further information regarding the science I would refer you to the Faraday Institute at St Edmund’s College Cambridge (with which I have no connection.)

Now, about that cat, which probably does exist.

Apparently, over Christmas, a stray cat 'adopted' Southwark Cathedral as its new home. The cathedral clergy and lay staff met to debate its appearance. Having concluded it did probably exist, it was named  Doorkins, ostensibly because it waits outside the door every morning for the early vergers to unlock. 

Its full name, with respect to the Cathedral's dedication to Our Lady, and the season of its arrival, is Doorkins Magnificat. According to Dean's Verger Paul Timms, 'This is yet another illustration of the way Cathedral congregations are steadily increasing.'  Next step is to be be an application for a cat flap to the Cathedrals Fabric Commission for England. O Felix Culpa, as the cathedral said today in its press release.

Lucky it's not black, is what I say. And more importantly, has it been made a eunuch for the kingdom of heaven?

Comments

[Andrew, Venezuela]

Oh dear me ElizabethR, I owe you my sincere apologies for having just stumbled across your post of 21/01/09 - 10:16:19. My lack of earlier response is not intended as any discourtesy to you.

You are perfectly right to draw attention to my somewhat "clumsy" use of a keyboard. Given the frustratingly small size of the keys, coupled with the fact that I have never been more than a 2-finger typist, I am unable to avoid a few accidents when writing a response to issues. "A bad workman blames his tools", I know, but "to err is human": I can but hope that you would consider humanists to be human also, and therefore just as prone to human error ?. Thank you for your observations on accents, characters etc. in the major Western European languages - you did understand my meaning.

Why should use of the pronoun "one" be considered "aristocratic or an affectation (etc.)" in present-day "little Britain" ?. It is perfectly correct, and much more specific than the use of "you", since this latter term could mean "you" (singular) or "you" (plural). Is "one" now be defined as "non-U" ?.

Just as soon as I have sufficient free time on my hands, I will "shove up" the link you kindly provided, and have a good "oggle" at its content. How fascinating it will be to discover whether this link refers to 16th. or to 19th. Century "humanism" !.

Thank you once again for going to the trouble of advising me on English usage. In return, may I suggest you attempt to disoover the origins of the term "bloody", as used in your own post on this thread of 12/09/09 - 13:36:15 ?. Best of luck in your search !.

[ElizabethR]

"Most keboards [sic] nowadays come with a wide range of characters which enable one to put the correct accents etc..." A from V

Dear A,

You might have a uber-keyboard. My machine works on recycled hot air from pedantic Americans.

It does however come with a built- in Y.

In little Britain the use of 'one' as a pronoun is regarded as aristocratic or an affectation beloved of social actors such as our own dear queen. Pedantry (Arf!)however is universal:-

"Most keyboards nowadays come with a wide range of characters which enable one to put the correct accents etc. on words in the major Western European languages."

Clumsy.

"Most keyboards now provide a wide range of accents and other characters found in Western European scripts." would have sounded far better...

I really cannot be bothered to relate to you the list of quotations chosen to be associated with the bus campaign. Shove up the following link if you really are that interested and all will be revealed.

http://www.humanism.org.uk/home

[Andrew, Venezuela]

Hello ElizabethR, it was nice to see your comment of 20/01/09 - 12:09:39). May I raise two small points for your attention ?.

1. I was most impressed to read your mention of "uber-pedant" as a bastardised version of "ober - ubermensch", che capisco molto bene, grazie !. I wonder if the Germanic prefix "uber" should have been more correctly transliterated as "über" (or as "ueber", if you prefer to anglicise it a bit) ?. Most keboards nowadays come with a wide range of characters which enable one to put the correct accents etc. on words in the major Western European languages.

2. Please elaborate a little bit more on your mention of the "benign variants (which) are to be shoved up inside tube trains and elsewhere". Assuming your election of "shove", rather than "paste", "plaster" or "stuck", was intentional, it would be fascinating to learn exactly up WHAT these benign variants are to be shoved. Surely you are not thinking about the nostrils or anything like that of the intended receptors, are you ?. I don't often have the opportunity to travel on the London "Tube", but on receiving some clarification from you on this particular query, I would be able to decide whether to wear some extra "protective padding" on the next occasion (unless, of course, I may have completely misinterpreted your use of the term "shove up" in this situation).

Please illuminate me on the foregoing as and when may be convenient to you, without any need for us to be "pedantic".

Ta ta for now !.

[J Pearce]

"Are you advocating the theft of these well used assets?"

Andrew, I really don't know where you got that from.

The C of E does have other (money making) assets beyond what you might term its "essential properties". And they are not inconsiderable. To deny this is plain farce.

All I am pointing out is that it is risible for certain Christians to lecture others over financial piety, given the comparative wealth of the modern C of E (and we haven't even mentioned the monied-up RCC yet!). You will notice the original poster has failed to muster a single line in defence of her pedantic observations. QED, I'd say.

Here's a story to make you smile - my son and I (him being 3 and a half years old) were wondering around a disused heritage Church last Sunday gone (he likes Churches, ironically enough), when I heard him shout "Daddy, I've broke the Church".

Turns out he pulled a little too hard on one of the old iron door handles and it snapped in half!

I left a suitably apologetic note in the visitors book, to the effect of "I hope God fogives accidental damages"...

[ElizabethR]

"(should that last bit have read "affixing stickers onto buses" ?)." A f V

Actually Andrew, uber-pedant from Venezuela, (Nietzsche bastardized version of ober - ubermensch, capiche?) the stickers are being plastered onto and shoved into buses. Also some benign variants are to be shoved up inside tube trains and elsewhere.

Thank you for taking the time to explain that you are an academic.

Well, there WOULD just be a spectrum of terms for the open-minded, which rivalled the assortment of irritable little closed boxes containing religion eh? Mind you, here of course, people who go around laughing at nothing in particular are normally sectioned after a while...

Since it appears that you like to be indulged comically, if you want a really good cackle, read the Questions and Answers section on the Alpha Course Website...

Toodlepip.

[ElizabethR]

"...I note that there are secular societies such as the British Humanist Society which appear to seek a more religion friendly society...aiming for a society which displays a warm and open pluralism rather than a cold and excluding secularism." AHolden

Absolutely, my quoted comment was of course tongue in ear, following the diatribe about Dawkins. The BHA backs the bus campaign, not because they wish to impose anything on anybody, but in order for non-believers to have a voice, in a society in which religion exercises some power and control. All but the most affronted or serially bad-tempered Christians would agree that the tone of the sticker was mild, optimistic even, which is a core statement of humanism. Those who have shouted their heads off over it are mostly painting themselves as embracing worn-out assumptions which allow free speech, but only for the religious.

I agree that some professed atheists, and the outfits they claim affiliation to, can seem warlike in their assault on religion. Much in the same way, some republican organisations do themselves absolutely NO favours, by shifting from a stated position in which they campaign for a written constitution and an elected head of state, to one in which they magnify disproportionately every utterance, nuance of behaviour or perceived pecadillo of our illustrious Germanic rulers.

I am not convinced however that 'secularism' for itself displays degrees of heat. It seems to me to have become a pejorative term; the beloved antithesis of religion and almost occupying a role as the user-friendly modern alternative to Satan. If it was actually seen as a guiding principle within the rational machinations of society - in the interests of efficiency and inclusivity - it might also perform the task of allowing the pluralism of religious belief to exist in its many disparate guises - the core business of state remaining unaffected. As it is, rather than anything else, I think it serves more as a polemic, to justify a significant religious dimension in the minds of the pious - one that seeks to influence, whether that is required or acceptable to the wider society or not.

[Steven Carr]

I'm sure that in a couple of years the atheist bus campaign will be as forgotten as the massive 'Talk to JIM' campaign now is.

[Andrew, Venezuela]

Yes ElizabethR (your post of 19/01/09 - 16:45:09), I do fully appreciate and support your affirmation that "Not all atheists are given to calling themselves 'atheists', nor are they busily following Dawkins or shoving stickers in buses" (should that last bit have read "affixing stickers onto buses" ?). In my long experience of University life and of the debates which go on within, I have come across atheists in the guise of of "free-thinkers", "humanists", rationalists", "secularists" etc. - you name it and they have got it - almost as many separate denominations as those which characterise Christianity. Perhaps the "new approach" could conveniently be termed "Dawkinsism", for historical records, in honour of Dr. Dick Dawkins as one of its co-founders ?.

I found the "Atheist Bus Campaign" to be remarkably funny, which is to be expected since one of its guiding lights was a lady comic writer/comedienne. At least it is a better ploy that the usual very dull "psuedo-high brow thought pattern" advanced by so many atheists (sensu lato) in putting their case to people at large. I think the whole matter is worthy of a hearty guffaw of laughter, thereby making unnecessary any use of swear words (sacred or profane in origin). Representatives of both sides of the "divide" can go at it like the proverbial cats and dogs to their hearts content, but that doesn't mean the rest of us can´t have a jolly good giggle about the entire matter. It's always better to laugh than to cry, and the "ABC" is more than enough to make us laugh until we cry !.

[andrew holden]

JP "BTW, all assets are disposable - it just depends on how critical the finacial situation is. "

Well, OK. Yet I happen to think that the situation would have to be pretty critical in order to justify disposing of the heritage assets of the CofE and even more dire in order to justify disposing of the pension assets of elderly clerics!

That said we might not be far from the complete meltdown of society where such things could be justified.....

And I still totally reject the idea that any of the corporate churches are 'rolling in money.' Such money as they do hold doesn't belong to some faceless corporation but to the people who make up the church - its their places of worship, their church offices, their projects for the homeless and elderly, their educational establishments, their (moderate) pension funds and so on. Are you advocating the theft of these well used assets?

Of course it is hard to weigh these things but on balance I'd reckon that the little good works done daily by the little people (lay and ordained) of the church far outweigh some of the nonsense we see and hear from some of our leaders.

[ElizabethR]

"In that way they [atheists] could continue to look just as foolish....." A f V

Not all atheists are given to calling themseleves 'atheists', nor are they busily following Dawkins or shoving stickers in buses - none of which, incredibly, are pre-requisites for failing to join in with the self-torture and batty mindgames played by some of the pious.

Arguably, the dominant cultures of religion, enshrined in pantomime, spectacle, theatre, rancour, 'holy' war, unutterable bad temper and flawed pronouncements, as they ALL are, eclipse either invisible or strikingly rational 'atheists' magnificently.

They have promoted the art of taking offence to new heights and redefined notions of 'normality' to such an extent that few now take them seriously. Gruddely Pod.

[Andrew, Venezuela]

Thank you "J" for your comment of 17/01/09 - 15:50:45 in response to my earlier query.

Obviously, as you state, Christians are not supposed to "take the name of the Lord in vain", but many probably do so - quite innocently - as they let fly with a quick swear word or two. The older and once quite popular term "By Jove !", although deistically-orientated, is not of monotheistic origin.

I was wondering whether "Oh Darn !", when expressed by an atheist, is intended to mean "Oh Darwin !" now that they have sequestered that man's good name to supposedly support their claims ?. Perhaps they would be prepared to replace the older "Ye gods and little fishes" with something much more modern, stylish and atheistically-correct such as "Ye Dawks and little buses !" ???. In thyat way they could continue to look just as foolish.....Just a couple of thoughts en passant.

[J Pearce]

Mr Holden,

I am not, in fact, suggesting that the C of E is failing to do "good deeds" with its bountiful array of assets. I was merely rebuking Jill for her pop at Prof. Dawkins, by illustrating that the C of E itself has considerably more finanacial clout than he does, yet it hardly behaves in a morally impeccable manner.

It’s a moral conundrum I've always found Christians prefer not to address - the corporate Churches are rolling in money, yet prefer to claim that it’s the "root of all evil" and prefer to castigate those who's job it is to actually generate as much wealth as possible. The whiff of rancid hypocrisy is undeniable. Yet without that sort of financial stability, what would happen to Christianity as we know it today?

BTW, all assets are disposable - it just depends on how critical the finacial situation is. And the C of E has a wide portfolio of assets - in line with the advice it received from its investment managers. Which in theory should cushion it from the worst excesses of the recession.

Whereas hundreds of people are being made homeless every day as a result of house reposessions. Our disgustingly secular government is putting aside money to help these and others meet their short term mortgage payments - and what is the Church doing? Sermonising on the evils of debt.

Yeah. That’s just sooo proactively helpful...

[iain rae]

The Athiest bus campaign goes on and money continues to roll in from the public,who are fed up with the likes of Stephen Green and Mr Longley wishing to curtail free speech.

[j]

"Do they possess such a strict mental and verbal control over their minds and tongues, respectively, that their use of swear words is limited to descriptions of the minutiate of certain excretory or reproductive functions alone ?. I've always wondered about that !"

Andrew, I thought that people who do believe in god are supposed not to take his name in vain- its only the atheists who have access to the fullest range of swear words.

And actually they are not meant to refer to the god that others love- there is an element of unreality in swearing. I assume thats just as true of christians who swear, as well. also true of excretion and sex of course- we dont think about that all that closely either...

[j]

"What a wicked waste of money...[strictly from a Christian perspective]" Jill

Absolutely! That sort of sum would keep a near-vacant church going for three weeks...or pay 3% of the organ fund!
"
Or indeed, ER, you could place loads of adverts alleging that gay love flies in the face of god, or perhaps yet more ads on the tube saying that we are all going to hell.

or- tell you what- how about a campaign posting a specially commissioned work of art on bus stops across the country promoting Christmas to anyone who might have missed it.

Surely christians would not waste their cash on this at a time when all should give to charity... er..

[Steve]

I find it instructive that whilst Christians militantly demand the right to cause offence to others by frequently citing article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights they regard any critique of their beliefs as offensive. Clearly they are so insecure about their beliefs that they demand their beliefs trump the deeply held, sincere beliefs of non-believers. They are hypocrites.

[andrew holden]

Interesting development:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hampshire/7832647.stm

I don't think that he has a right to pick and choose. Does he personally endorse every product advertised on his bus? Should he be entitled to a veto on the sale of adverts just because of his religious scrupples? Does he refuse to drive the bus with the 'Famous Grouse' Ad or the one for Durex condoms?

[andrew holden]

"'Down with Religion - Join the NSS' instead of mildly asserting that gods seem improbable, and to regulate human behaviour through fear of the unknown is raving mad. Trust THEM to miss that one! Bloody secularists!"

My problem with some secular campaigning societies is that they often come across as the mirror image of extreme and fundamentalist pro-religious groups - more like the National Anti-God Squad (NAGS) in fact. As I've already said I think that bad religion spawns such religiophobia just as violence tends to breed violence - I also believe that tolerance, whilst it can be abused, is more likely to breed respective tolerance.

Just as I personally lean towards the more tolerant, generally benign forms of religion such as the good old CofE (note this is not a claim to any sort of perfection) so I note that are secular societies such as the British Humanist Society which appear to seek a more religion friendly society than others and seem to be aiming for a society which displays a warm and open pluralism rather than a cold and excluding secularism.

[Jason Mead]

“I find it impossible to believe that such a deeply religous man could behave in such a way.”

Posted by: Steven Carr

It may be difficult to understand but as someone who is aware of the plain deceit and lies of the Creationist (cretinist) movement I find it (sadly) easy to believe. Presumably, Clifford Longley, is a [snip] which is why (word for word) he [snip] from a cretinist website including all their misquotes and sophistry:

http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/creatorfacts.htm.

One only has to visit this link to see that it is obviously a cretinist website but Clifford Longley is too embarrassed to admit that [snip] which is why he didn’t tell anyone including the Times and the ASA.

It only takes a quick Google search or a look at Wikipedia to see that he has also blatantly misrepresented the Anthropic Principle that states that if the universe were not of a kind in which intelligent life could evolve, then we would not be here to wonder where it came from. It is not an argument for design in the way he has suggested.

I can only imagine that once someone believes the bronze age myths of superstitious goat-herders then it is only one small leap to openly [snip] in order to maintain the belief in that fiction. This says a lot about religion being a “source of morality”.

“Maybe he was just trolling...…”

Posted by: andrew holden

He had no real complaint to make to the ASA, he seems to have been motivated by no more than a fit of pique and a childish desire to get a dig back at Dawkins for suggesting that Christians have no real grounds to be offended by the Atheist Bus posters.

In this respect, he is completely indistinguishable from Stephen Green and other religious fundamentalists.

[Steven Carr]

People have spent billions of Euros on building a Large Hadron Collider to try to discover how the universe came to be.

It was a lot cheaper to put an advert on the side of the bus, which provoked Mr. Longley to tell us how the universe was made - 'God did it.'

[iain rae]

ElizabethR you are spot on . Keep up the fight for reason and common sense.

[Christopher]

For the atheists whose "faith" may be crumbling in the face of Jill's criticisms I recommend they read a new book by Dan Barker with a forward by Richard Dawkins, Godless: how an Evangelical preacher became one of America's leading atheists.

[andrew holden]

"If the good Professor had access to even 1% of the C of E's current asset base, he might well be doing good deeds with it..."

Are you suggesting that, those dubious financial practices excepted, the CofE isn't using its asset base to do good deeds?

As I've said before that as an institution CofE is not especially wealthy. Its assets are largely 'heritage' or 'pension fund' and are therefore not disposable. The rest of the wealth comes largely from the pockets of members and is used to pay modest wages and pensions to people who devote their lives to doing good deeds.

The Church Commissioners, who manage the assets, are fully accountable both to Parliament and General Synod - the latter group is rather hard to please when it comes to having an ethical investment program and regularly question not just the legality but also the morality of investments. It doesn't always stop dubious financial practices (especially when they are not yet recognised as such!) but it better than most.

[Christopher]

" If he were a Christian with that much money to spare, I am sure he could have put it to much better use - the relief of poverty, perhaps." You bet Jill! I imagine you said the same to the Christian Institute over their bankrolling of Lilian Ladele's futile campaign to be allowed to discriminate against gay council tax payers in Islington. No? Oh, Lilian Ladele's principles were more important than helping the starving in Africa then? Might have guessed, somehow.

[Steven Carr]

To be fair to Mr.Longley, the only thing we can really say is that there *probably* is no Dennis Scania.

[Andrew, Venezuela]

The title of this article is very tempting, since it raises an interesting question. If, as they claim, atheists do not entertain any belief whatsoever in one or more deities etc., how on earth can they properly vent their wrath without using any of the more frequently used and "deistically-orientated" swear words in common or garden English ?. Do they possess such a strict mental and verbal control over their minds and tongues, respectively, that their use of swear words is limited to descriptions of the minutiate of certain excretory or reproductive functions alone ?. I've always wondered about that !.

[ElizabethR]

"What a wicked waste of money...[strictly from a Christian perspective]" Jill

Absolutely! That sort of sum would keep a near-vacant church going for three weeks...or pay 3% of the organ fund!

[J Pearce]

"What a wicked waste of money. If he were a Christian with that much money to spare, I am sure he could have put it to much better use - the relief of poverty, perhaps."

Hmmm.

"Church of England Accused of Short Selling Hypocrisy" (see link: http://www.money.co.uk/article/1001539-church-of-england-accused-of-short-selling-hypocrisy.htm)

Sample quote:

"However, religion and society think-tank Ekklesia have now come forward accusing the Church of employing the financially-dubious practices they attack.

They claim that the Church have in recent times used hedging to build on their £5.5billion portfolio of assets. And, in addition, have lent foreign stock for a fee, potentially facilitating the short-selling of shares."

5.5 billion of assets? Hedging?

Jill, I think one ought to look a little closer to home before criticising the fiscal preferences of Prof. Dawkins. If the good Professor had access to even 1% of the C of E's current asset base, he might well be doing good deeds with it - and not using financially dubious practices to merely generate more money...

[andrew holden]

"I find it impossible to believe that such a deeply religous man could behave in such a way."

Maybe he was just trolling......

[ElizabethR]

"...as if anybody is going to rush off and join the National Secular Society when they clap eyes on the ad." Jill

Oh I SEE!

THAT was the intended consequence of the rather benign sticker that appears to advise the general abandonment of religious neurotic fear and misery in favour of self-actualisation and loss of institutionalised guilt.

Well, it is clearly a flawed and unworkable codified political recruitment strategy, dreamed-up by Dawkins then. He wants everyone to join the NSS in order to defend the rights of non-believers from the unbalanced demands of religious power-seekers. Plain as the nose on your arse. I think its about time we demonised these Secularists by treating them just like homosexuals.

I am INCREDULOUS that the ad. wasn't sponsored by the NSS, didn't contain its logo or feature punchy words like 'Down with Religion - Join the NSS' instead of mildly asserting that gods seem improbable, and to regulate human behaviour through fear of the unknown is raving mad. Trust THEM to miss that one! Bloody secularists!

Thanks very much for enlightenning us all. I'll keep an eye on Dawkins in the future, now we know what he's up to. Don't forget Jill - 'Hug Neither Tree' Norman.

[Steven Carr]

'What I find very difficult to understand is why Clifford seems to think that it is acceptable to deceive the ASA and Times readers in this way.'

I find it impossible to believe that such a deeply religous man could behave in such a way.

[iain rae]

Even most religious folks don't really believe in a personal god,but would like it to be true as a comfort.Even Bishops are Athiests ,rejecting the hundreds of gods past and present on offer.

[Jill]

I don't find the ad offensive, I think it is just plain stupid. Richard Dawkins contributed over £5,000 to this pathetic attempt to saw off the branch on which he is sitting (as if anybody is going to rush off and join the National Secular Society when they clap eyes on the ad.)

What a wicked waste of money. If he were a Christian with that much money to spare, I am sure he could have put it to much better use - the relief of poverty, perhaps.

[j]

"The anthropic principle is one of the most stupid things I've ever heard.

It should be called by it's real name: argument from ignorance (combined with extreme arrogance). "I'm so awesome but can't explain it why things are the way they are, so it must have been done by a divine being"."

um- could I just say that I did not post this, either there is another J or someone pretended to be me.

Clue that it's not me: I would never misuse the apostrophe ;)

[j]

"So my suggestion is to see the atheist bus as an opportunity for informed and tolerant debate about God - after all what have we got to lose?"

Hooray for Andrew.

This atheist offers up her main criticism of this slogan yet again: people who believe in god arent worrying and they already do enjoy life, all the more because of their faith.

It's the atheists who need to stop worrying and enjoy life.

Discuss.

[Jason Mead]

Plagiarism alert.

Apart from completely misunderstanding the Anthropic principle (that basically states that if the universe were not of a kind in which intelligent life could evolve, then we would not be here to wonder where it came from.) Eagle-eyed commentators have noticed that Clifford Longley has merely cut and pasted most of the text of his complaint from a creationist (cretinist) website:

http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/creatorfacts.htm.

As consequences of this, he has not checked his quotes with any of the scientists he cites and has actually misquoted them including one from a scientist who does not even exist!

Complaints about Clifford’s complaint have now been made to the ASA and one of the scientist he has quote mined has spoken about this:

“I do not believe that the 'fine-tuning' of physical constants provides any sort of argument for the existence of God or anything else supernatural. That is because if the constants had been set intentionally by supernatural entities, then the intentions of those entities must themselves have been at least as 'fine-tuned' when they set the constants, and that fine-tuning would remain unexplained. Hence that supernatural hypothesis does not even address the fine-tuning problem, let alone solve it.

More generally arguing for supernatural explanations on the grounds that the current scientific explanation for something or other is flawed or lacking is always a mistake. There are two main reasons for that. One is that there are always unsolved problems. But they get solved. Science continues to make progress even (or especially) after making great discoveries, because the discoveries themselves reveal further problems. Therefore the existence of an unsolved problem in physics is not evidence for a supernatural explanation any more than the existence of an unsolved crime is evidence that a ghost committed it.”

Dr David Deutsch

What I find very difficult to understand is why Clifford seems to think that it is acceptable to deceive the ASA and Times readers in this way.

Is it not a sin to lie even if it for Jesus or God? A question he can put to himself the next time he is on the Moral Maze.

[Emily D]

Religiophobia? I realise that a minority of Christians actively enjoy feeling oppressed, but I hardly think the advert is evidence of anything except the merits of free speech. I'm personally not a fan of the phrasing, but I can't imagine seeing it as evidence of persecution! Bless the complainers' hearts - it's almost as if they want to provide the campaign with more publicity. (Though I have to say, if Stephen Green joins your campaign, you're probably fighting on the wrong side.)

[Steven Carr]

Why are religiously segregated schools refered to as 'faith' schools?

[Steven Carr]

Is there some way to anger theists and stop them turning the other cheek in the face of extreme provocation?

[ElizabethR]

"The advertisments are offensive - they show the disturbing rise of religiophobia - lack of tolerance of religion - marked at this time." Adam.

How? Are you proposing in a fog of wilful blindness that religion exists in utter beneficence and tolerance itself? What makes you so special that any attempts at challenging 'all your own way' results in taking offence at those who publish their own thoughts? You bunch of precious wimps...!

[andrew holden]

"The advertisments are offensive - they show the disturbing rise of religiophobia - lack of tolerance of religion - marked at this time."

I wouldn't go that far. I agree that religiophobia is on the rise but it's largely the fault of bad religion that it is so. Tolerance is a great virtue but it has to be earned by tolerance. When religion displays intolerance, as it undoubtedly does over things like sexuality, gender and even over other forms of religion or belief, it is hardly surprising that society in general, and alt/no-belief societies in particular become more intolerant in return.

So my suggestion is to see the atheist bus as an opportunity for informed and tolerant debate about God - after all what have we got to lose?

[adam]

The advertisments are offensive - they show the disturbing rise of religiophobia - lack of tolerance of religion - marked at this time.

[Chris Gillibrand]

St Augustine and, of course, St Paul were very militant in their rejection of the divine.

A passage of St Augustine's Confessions comes to mind

"O eternal Truth, true Love, and beloved Eternity, you are my God, and for you I sigh day and night. As I first began to know you, you lifted me up and showed me that, while that which I might see exists indeed, I was not yet capable of seeing it. Your rays beamed intensely on me, beating back my feeble gaze, and I trembled with love and dread. I knew myself to be far away from you in a region of unlikeness, and I seemed to hear your voice from on high: “I am the food of the mature: grow, then, and you shall eat me. You will not change me into yourself like bodily food; but you will be changed into me”.

Accordingly I looked for a way to gain the strength I needed to enjoy you, but I did not find it until I embraced the mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus, who is also God, supreme over all things and blessed for ever. He called out, proclaiming I am the Way and Truth and the Life, nor had I known him as the food which, though I was not yet strong enough to eat it, he had mingled with our flesh, for the Word became flesh so that your Wisdom, through whom you created all things, might become for us the milk adapted to our infancy.

Late have I loved you, O Beauty ever ancient, ever new, late have I loved you! You were within me, but I was outside, and it was there that I searched for you. In my unloveliness I plunged into the lovely things which you created. You were with me, but I was not with you. Created things kept me from you; yet if they had not been in you they would not have been at all. You called, you shouted, and you broke through my deafness. You flashed, you shone, and you dispelled my blindness. You breathed your fragrance on me; I drew in breath and now I pant for you. I have tasted you, now I hunger and thirst for more. You touched me, and I burned for your peace."

Such is the prevalence of late conversions among atheists, Bertrand Russell was forced to issue a statement on his deathbed that he had not converted to Catholicism. Few, if any, hurry in the other direction.

[Tony B]

Offensive? There's probably no God? Don't make me laugh.

[J Pearce]

"The ads should have been rejected on the basis that I'm sure other ad proposals have been -- that they are unnecessarily offensive to a lot of people and do not enhance the city's reputation."

Hmmm.

Consider: "All theists are mentally handicapped pond life who put a terminal brake on human evolution and should be exterminated forthwith".

Now - that WOULD probably be classified as offensive. Even if Russell Brand said it.

But saying there probably isn't a God?

Fairly wooly-jumpered, beardy, wet lettuce stuff, really, isn't it? Veritably Anglican, you might say?

Personally, I've seen more offensive banners being carried by anti-Israeli protestors recently.

[ElizabethR]

Don't be ridiculous Bill from Towomba. The high downgrade of specularised 'fast dust' cloaking our early solar system, was preceded only by a proto-nuclear form of multi-layered inverted 'Yim Ki-Tang' highway. (Named after the famous Chinese illusionist -but you probably know that!)

Universal or galactic arrivals and/or departures within this system could not possibly have reached the dizzying height of 2 billion, far from it and certainly not chronologically.

As you are possibly not willing to admit, the Big Crunch theory has now been replaced by the formal tension between Hard Bangs in general and the Radeekie 'softener' principle, caused by free-radicalised 'Dark Tunnel' malleable jelloids.

If you want to explore this further read Jacob H Kaspertin's 'Chewable Universe - The Ultimate Confectionary' Parigoric (2008) or Titty Harbottle -'Poking about in a Black Hole.' Burberry Press (2007)

Regards

[ElizabethR]

"The ads should have been rejected on the basis...that they are unnecessarily offensive to a lot of people..." Julia

Oh DO give it a rest Mrs 'PC Stupidity'. What are we encouraging here - a virtual world in which taking offence rules out common sense and all forms of free speech, benign or otherwise, so WHAT? Some morally concerned people wish publicly to express their view which, unfortunately, casts doubt on the glorious self-reverential views of some others; that is all.

And YES, it's 'OK to diss theists of all stripes on public transportation', or anywhere else. As yet there are no Gulags here. What are 'theists' then, some precious, rare and protected species of humanity whose personal notions and subsequent message for mankind are absolutes? The bus stickers bear absolutely no comparison with captions or headlines that tell lies, even if some aspects of Islamic extremism ARE undoubtedly 'a threat to Britain'.

So, proselytization is OK for door-knocking evangelists, our cloaked Anglican representatives and the panoply of chattering clerical celebrities - all experts with a critical purchase on EVERYTHING scientific or moral in the known world. We can remain wholly patient, as catamites, whilst all manner of tipped-down religious initiatives are lawfully employed to ensure that we gargle if not choke on the guilt of our own flawed existence. We are able through the wonders of modern science to receive a near-daily diet of threatening messages from unbalanced screaming fundamentalist fanatics, who insist that their bloody religion will be installed, if necessary by force, upon us all?

And YOU dear 'Julia' are worried about a sticker that proposes an alternative view to the guilt-laden concept of languishing in hell for some sort of muddled, 'divine' non-compliance? Holy merde.

(Should you be interested, I do evening classes in relaxation for religious anal retentives, er, not very successfully as it turns out...)

[bill, towoomba]

(from Wikipedia- Big Bounce)

According to some oscillatory universe theorists, the Big Bang was merely the beginning of a period of expansion that followed a period of contraction. In this view, one could talk of a Big Crunch followed by a Big Bang, or more simply, a Big Bounce, or 'Bang Bang Bang'. This suggests that we might be living in the first of all universes, but are equally likely to be living in the 2 billionth universe (or any of an infinite other sequential universes).

The main idea behind the quantum theory of a Big Bounce is that, as density approaches infinity, the behavior of the quantum foam changes. All the so-called fundamental physical constants, including the speed of light in a vacuum, were not so constant during the Big Crunch, especially in the interval stretching 10−43 seconds before and after the point of inflection. (One unit of Planck time is about 10−43 seconds.)

If the fundamental physical constants were determined in a quantum-mechanical manner during the Big Crunch, then their apparently inexplicable values in this universe would not be so surprising, it being understood here that a universe is that which exists between a Big Bang and its Big Crunch. The problem of failed universes (those that fail to produce carbon-based life forms) is also resolved.
One of the main objections to the Big Bounce view is the evidence that has been accumulating that our universe is destined for a Big Freeze or heat death rather than a Big Crunch. However, this evidence does not exclude the possibility that our Big Bang was preceded by the very last Big Crunch, at least the very last one in our vicinity.

[jim]

It still seems some see the anthropic principle as proof or "near proof" of God's existence, when it can just as easily merely point to the huge gaps in our scientific knowledge base. We don't yet have a unifying theory of physics, and may not for a long time. This doesn't mean there isn't one to find. String theory is still a multiplicity of theories, and still doesn't yet verifiably unify general relativity and quantum physics. The critical constants in the equations of our current theories may yet be explained in simpler terms in the future.

There are explanatory gaps in the mind-body problem, and the hard question of how mental states stem from physical processes, remains unexplained. Mental states are not all reducible to physical states or processes as yet, and some will never be reducible. I cannot ever know what is is to have the experience of being a bat (imagining isn't enough), nor experience what it is to be an alien from another galaxy, and can't even experience the world from another human perspective with all the perceptions that encompasses. Consciousness remains a mystery, and anyway is a composite term used for many types of consciousness --- phenomenal consciousness, access consciousness, self-consciousness, etc, etc.

In a thousand years much more will be explained, but there will still be unanswered questions, and some may be unanswerable and irreducible.

None of this implies the existence of a supernatural world, spirits, gods, paranormal phenomena, or an ultimate deity. There is nothing within any of the above that necessarily is "out of this universe". Nothing in the mind-body problem than necessarily requires the addition of processes beyond the animal, human or alien mental and physical processes which are naturally acquired and derived. Moral evolution again does not require the existence of anything beyond our world.

Theism may be right, but the evidence just isn't compelling or even close to verifiable, nor is it necessarily needed to explain anything in our universe that can be or may be explained in other ways. It rests upon faith.

[jim]

About cats: Here are some definitions which may help you in life:

Philosophy is like being in a dark room and looking for a black cat.

Metaphysics is like being in a dark room and looking for a black cat that isn't there.

Theology is like being in a dark room and looking for a black cat that isn't there and shouting “I found it!”

PS: The Anthropic Principle is a theory, not a fact that proves something.