Atheist is really an unsatisfactory term as it doesn't apply to all those who reject religion or a supernatural. Since Buddhism doesn't postulate a god or gods one can be a believer in Buddhism with its concept of a supernatural and yet be an atheist. Irreligious could apply to a religious believer who is lax in observance of religion. One may be an atheist and observe the forms and rituals of a religion, as atheism is a concept in the mind. Unbeliever is not an appropriate term since a believer in one religion might call a believer in a different religion an unbeliever.

I don’t believe in any kind of a supernatural, and atheism is a rejection of only one kind of supernatural belief. I also don’t believe in any ideology with faith in unprovable propositions such as the Marxist belief in the eventual classless society. A person may believe in Buddhism or Marxism and still be an atheist. Such a person is both a believer and an atheist. Yet I would not like to be called faithless since I don’t cheat on my wife. Skeptic and/or doubter are not quite right either.

Guess we’ll have to go with atheist and a belief that faith is a sin.

Fractelle,

There is nothing for me to disagree with there. That was a very well worded post.

runner,

Dawkins leads people to thought. Jesus can bypasses that process and lead people away from it.

A J Philips,

As with Fractelle, what can I add.

David

Davidf's post illustrates my personal hesitation about a) labelling myself and b) allying myself with a group that has a label.

No, I don't believe in a god or gods. But as soon as one accepts the label of Atheist the very nuances and understood concepts that the word was formed to express, are heaped onto one's persona. While, to me, the very concept - like "Christian" - throws up more questions than it answers.

As people have pointed out, there are many different beliefs under the mantle of Atheist and once one has joined a group thus labelled, one is somehow accounted as being partisan to every one of those beliefs.

I answer questions about religion by saying "Non-Christian" Outside of first world countries all Westerners are thought of as Christians anyway, so this answer often leads to discussion - but not on a personal level. While, in countries where Christianity is mainstream people invariably never question it, but assume another affiliation I guess. Anyway, it seems to deflect questions with which I'm not comfortable. My personal beliefs and coda are so much a part of who I am that I feel as though I'm exposing myself if asked to display them.

After reading the discussion here I guess the bus slogan reminds people there are different kinds of belief, which I consider a good thing. Would that it would teach them not to be smug about their own!

Suggestion number 1,656,332: "Atheism - Think for yourself"

As for Atheism not having a moral foundation, if it hasn't been already, why not adopt John Stewart Mill's "Harm Principle" i.e., that people are free to do as they chose, so long as no-one else is harmed in the process (and that's real harm not just perceived harm), as the one and only universal moral imperative.

PS Knocking on my door on the weekends and trying to sell me your indoctrinated beliefs, causes me harm. For that matter, indoctrination itself is extremely harmful.

runner,

Where would i find these teachings of Jesus you talk about, do you mean the Dead Sea Scrolls? Because, aren't all the writings in that book referred to as the New Testament by other dudes? My understanding is that one of Jesus' beliefs was that there should not be organised religion. I think youd find Mr. Christ would have alot more respect for Mr. Dawkins than he would for any of the nutters that call themselves his followers. Were he alive today that is.

Having spent most of the afternoon wading through this entire discussion, like some others I've travelled the full loop from potential donor to wanting to pull out and then back to supporting the idea of the ads. I also think there will be more value in the publicity raised by the planning than there will be in the ads themselves.

I loved the idea of the humorous ads, and I also would buy a t-shirt with "One more godless atheist for world peace and harmony".

All things considered though I think the best idea was to use the same wording as the UK "There's probably no god. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life" - i.e. to get a global thing happening. I've looked at the "regulations" info that David sent to Ozatheist and I can't see that there is are a real problem.

Regarding
a) discriminates against or vilifies a person or section of the community on account of …, religion…;
I can't see that the UK words discriminate against or vilify anybody.

Regarding
(h) depicts …, religious or other subject matter which is contentious,…
I can't see that saying "There's probably no god" is very contentious as there are a lot of people who already believe it and I think the UK crowd have been clever using the word "probably".

If the aim is to get people talking and thinking about this topic then having the ads pulled off the buses by the Minister(and then maybe a court challenge to that decision) would probably be the best thing that could happen. After all nothing sells a book like having it banned.