David, you say:

<< I am open to suggestions that may be better than this campaign >>

However, I made some bona fide suggestions at

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2251#49054

that you ignored.

While I'm not quite as vehement about it as Pericles is, I agree that it seems strange that you dismiss the input of those of us here at OLO who are also atheists, but who aren't dogmatic nor evangelistic about it.

I think you're shooting yourself in the foot - both with your limp slogan and with your attitude to criticism from other non-believers. At the very least, it seems a strange strategy with which to attract support to your cause.

Good Evening David,

I personally don't see anything offensive in your
slogan. And, I believe in God.

I think we need to lighten up on this thread.
And to that end I'm going to list a few slogans
that I found on another web-site.

Here goes:

1) Oh, look, Honey Another Pro-Lifer for War.

2) Another Godless Atheist for Peace and World Harmony.

3) Too stupid to understand science? Try religion.

4) There's a reason why atheists don't fly planes into buildings.

5) Abstinence makes the church grow fondlers.

6) God + whacky tobacky = platypus.

And finally, seen outside a store in Los Angeles:

7) In God We Trust, Every one else pays cash...

That's very funny, Foxy!
I'd love to see slogans like that on buses, just for some humour.

Excellent suggestions, Foxy.

I particularly liked this one:

<< God + whacky tobacky = platypus >>

This time a couple of weeks ago I had the very great privilege of sitting very quietly by a beautiful creek and watching a platypus going about its business. I swear on the Bible there was no "whacky tobacky" involved.

"...I think the saddest part is that you have annoyed more atheists than godbotherers..."

I'm an atheist, I wasn't offended at all. I completely understand that you have a very formidable enemy in the churches and a quotation on a bus is a drop in the ocean in comparison to the taxpayer aided advertising of organised religion.

David, I feel a bit sad that you are being criticised for being logical and rational minded, even arrogant, when to my mind, you have replied with pretty good grace (unless provoked).

As an atheist in a country that is becoming increasingly dominated by the strident demands and voices of the religious, any opposition is welcome, we've been silent and respectful for too long. If it helps some people to feel that they are not so alone in their rejection of organised religion, all the better.

I look forward to seeing the buses.

Dear David_F

you made a specific claim that once people believe they have 'the' truth, they then murder those who don't follow it.

I then chose an extreme example of those who believed they have THE truth.. such as_Calvin_in_Geneva... because to my knowledge that was the only Christian 'Theocracy' in history apart from ancient Israel.

Thus, it is entirely legitimate to use Calvin as an example of one who believed he had 'The' truth and then examine of your claim holds up under historic scrutiny using an example where we would expect (based on your reasoning) for the claim to be manifoldly manifest in the extreme.

Servetus was under death sentence from Spanish and French Catholics.
He was executed under Calvin not so much because he held different beliefs, but that he propogated them aggresivly and at that time, it would have undermined society in the same way that a 'witch' would undermine ancient Israel.

Servetus was not content to 'hold' beliefs.. he was insistent in propogating them far and wide and in so doing, he was attacking the state. This whole affair is testimony to why the Church and State should not be one.

His last words were "Jesus, Son of the Eternal God, have mercy on me."

He uttered blasphemy even in that. His last words contradicted the Bible which clearly shows Christ is "The eternal son of God" (note the difference) He believed Christ was a created being.. so why utter your last words to the creatED rather than the Creator?

As far as I'm concerned, banishment would have been more appropriate than execution. Some in his day did argue for this and Calvin also preferred a non capital punishment.

The bottom line is,... your simplistic 'If they differ, murder them' is very dangerous and is clear rabble_rousing..fostering anti Christian sentiment by irresponsibly overstating the situation dramatically.
It is certainly not based on the New Testament, and that makes you as dangerous as Servetus in one sense. If you published books expressing those sentiments "The Holocaust was applied Christianity" that would make you and Servetus almost brothers.