Richard Dawkins and Ariane Sherine, the founder of the Atheist Bus Campaign, from Dawkins’ site, which has news and videos.

I’ll post some other photos that I found in the comments below.

The campaign has spread to Spain today and should be near the Vatican for February, and local groups across Canada are proposing local versions.

64 responses to “Brits board the Atheist Bus”

  1. I cant wait until religion dies off. The world will be a much better and safer place for sure.

  2. I don’t quite believe there are Gods. Our ancestors made them up themselves because of our human nature, because we are the only animals in this planet that can actually "think". The only thing we know is life on Earth and everything that comes after is a complete mystery, and that’s what we are afraid of. That’s what religion is all about; fear. The need to know that there is something more after this wonderful life.

    My mind is clear and there is peace in my heart because I know that this is the moment and the time for everything.

    I’m sure my cat doesn’t believe in any God. That’s because he isn’t "rational"; he eats, he sleeps, he plays in my room, ETC, and that’s it. I think that’s EXACTLY how we should see our life on Earth. You have a life, now please enjoy it.

  3. There is no apodictic basis–no scientific basis for that matter, to assert that homo sapiens sapiens is the only animal species that is capable of & does in fact "think"– whatever you (franscene) mean by that word. The fact is we simply do not know whether other animal species (homo sapiens sapiens is, after all, only one of many animal species in Kingdom Animalia) are capable of cognition. This ultimately–as are almost all matters, is an empirical question.

    I would suggest that even the mere utterance of such a statement reveals the underlying presence & operation of the ugly bigotry of speciesism.

    As Gore Vidal has so elegantly noted: The great unmentionable evil in our culture is monotheism.

    Until homo sapiens sapiens can rid itself of its violent bigotry towards other animal species, there will be no peace in this world–& getting rid of that barbaric Bronze-Age text, the Bible, rooted as it is in patriarchy, bigotry, violence, dualism (what Feuerbach termed "reverse anthropomorphism"), & speciesism, is an essential & indispensable first (& primary) step in liberating the world from "evil" & violence.

    And by the way: I notice that you capitalize the word "(g)od," thereby revealing a bias. Only those who profess belief in one of the Sky God religions use a capital "g" when denoting their particular god, the Sky God.

  4. Nickeldice, to see how Catholics debunk Horus, see the work of Phil Vaz:

    http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/HORUS.htm

    Atheists are famous for using non-scholarly, and pseudo-historical works to convert somebody, anybody, away from Christianity…

    Atheists are the new Jack Chick!

    Soon all the hippies will be dead. Hopefully, Hitchy and Dawky won’t be too far behind. And yes, photolitherland, then the world will indeed be a better place.

  5. Ah yes, a fine tradition indeed, wishing for the death of others.

    …and a pox upon those pursuing reason and rationality. No better way to silence those nagging questions….

  6. Yes, perhaps death is a bit harsh. Conversion instead!

    Reason and rationality are fine. But they aren’t the whole picture. They’ll never be able to provide the inhabitants of the earth with a reason to live, or, die.

    Yes, people yearn for a lot more.

    Meaning, to their lives.

    Reason, or natural revelation, however do teach us the existence of God.

    "Naturally stupid are all men who have not known God and who, from the good things that are seen, have not been able to discover Him-who-is" (Wisdom 13:1)

    and, from St Paul,

    "Ever since God created the world, his everlasting power and deity—however invisible—have been there for the mind to see, in the things he has made." (Romans 1:20)

    And if that wasn’t enough…and it wasn’t, look what the final epoch holds, supernatural revelation,

    "At various times in the past, and in various different ways, God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets; but in our time, the final days, he has spoken to us through his Son…"

    Yeah, I’d love to see an actual, live-wire Catholic apologist at a TED conference. In the heart of the Secular City.

    There would be a lot of nervous, and angry, people in that audience.

    Right up until the point they were converted.

    The Gospel is certainly worth spreading. But its always been more than just an idea.

    Heck, even Dawky has thrown science out the window! He’s a philosopher now!!

  7. I am experiencing uncontrollable eye rolling @ Never’s posts.

    "And thus as blah blah blah said in some book, a long time ago." – Me 03:30

  8. i just found out i have no reason to live.

  9. »Reason and rationality are fine. But they aren’t the whole picture. They’ll never be able to provide the inhabitants of the earth with a reason to live, or, die. « — that is true, actually! But it does not lead to religion, specifically, and not to Christianity, more specifically. They are dangerous constructs to fill the void of self-consciousness.

  10. Science, not religion, is the real enemy of atheism

    Because there is a law of cause and effect, the universe can't and won't create itself from nothing.

  11. GOOD LUCK, Truth in Science, the blocks for atheists are not rational, but emotional. Like Communists, they are committed to their worldview in spite of any evidence to the contrary.

    Atheists, rarely, if ever consider the valid (and beyond a reasonable doubt) arguments for Christianity in general, and/or Catholicism, specifically.

    Life is like a M.A.S.H. field hospital. Why waste your time on the most deadly wounded, when you could save 10 or 15 others only mildly, or moderately inflicted?

    In the meantime, here’s something inspirational from this Catholic mother of four: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZdHR12lPcgI&feature=kp

  12. Perhaps the word atheist is misleading. What is the word for a "non-believer of astrology"? Need there be one? If we call it a "non-astrologist" just for parsimony of discussion, we need not criticize them for their "belief" in non-astrology. The absence of belief is not a belief. Maybe they just never were exposed to the system. There is no reason to criticize the "non-astrologist", even if they defend their lack of belief within a culture that is dominated by believers. The same could be said for me as a "non-Mormon" or any other thing that I don’t believe. There are an infinite number of things I don’t believe, both named and unnamed. When framed in this way, there is no reason to label and stereotype the non-believer since there is no unifying generalization uniting the "non-astrologist" (as just one example).

    [https://www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06] — A belief in a "law of cause and effect" is also a belief that tends to be closely associated with the field of Determinism. Not sure that is the worldview you are looking for. =)

  13. [http://www.flickr.com/photos/jurvetson]

    Atheism is not simply a lack of belief. It is a conscious choice between believing in 2 options.
    A supernatural first cause of the universe …. or a natural first cause of the universe.
    Theists believe in the former and reject the latter.
    Atheists reject the former, and therefore choose to believe in the latter.
    So atheism is as much a statement of belief in naturalism, as it is of unbelief in supernaturalism.

    The comparison with not believing in astrology is a red herring, astrology is not a fundamental issue. It is not an either/or issue.
    Unlike atheism, non-belief in astrology needs no intellectual justification, because it doesn’t require any alternative belief.

    Determinism is OK with me, I support the universality of natural laws. I don’t know why you think I should not be happy with that. Those who doubt it are usually looking for a way round the laws because they don’t suit their ideological beliefs. I agree with Hawking on that point, but I don’t agree with his interpretation of it.
    Natural laws apply to the inherent properties and behaviour of natural entities, they can be used to predict how natural entities will behave, providing nothing interferes with that behaviour. If we take the law of gravity, we can predict that an apple falling from a tree will land on the ground, but if someone catches it before it hits the ground, the prediction is wrong. The law is not wrong or violated, only the prediction is wrong.
    If there is a supernatural intervention the same applies. We can predict from natural laws that Jesus could not walk on water, if He does so, it doesn’t mean the laws don’t apply, or are wrong. It simply means that our prediction is wrong, because we did not take into account a supernatural element which changed the predicted outcome.

Leave a Reply to Paul Cardin (Never Was An Arrow II) Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *