THE PROBLEM David and the AFA faces is this....they are seeking to use someone ELSE's space for their campaign.

A bus company has it's reputation to uphold..and I don't see why they cannot disciminate against ANYone who's slogans/Ads they don't like..including the likes of Benny Hinz "Miracle Crusade" would be on my 'don't show it' list bigtime.

But the "Atheism-Celebrate Reason" one is a total insult to all people of faith. That's a clear as the broad side of a barn.

This is probably what the bus company realizes and is sensitive to.

So... KEEP IT UP :).. I can't think of anything better for our own cause than such a slogan on a bus..or a billboard.

David,

Why an atheist symbol? A fish with a dash through it?

As you might recall my beliefs are probably very close to yours'. I tend to avoid the word "atheist" formyself as, to me, philsophically it could be said to suggest infallibility, if God "cannot" exist. I would hold based on all scientific and historical evidence known to humanit God doesn't exist as a tentative proposition requiring ongoing testing. (I keep testing the theists keep failing.)

Dear OUG,

I have moved house internationally and returned to Australian so I have some books still in boxes. That said, I think the Dead Sea Scrools said that Jewish & Jewish style believers wound down their activities Friday evening before the full-day sabbath on the Saturday.

Symbolism is a difficult issue. I would like to see the Union Jack removed from the Aussie flag. But I do not hold the belief so strongly that I would lobby for its departure, given that many ex-military peole believe it should be there. The stange thing is that in the case of WWI, at the least, soldiers/armt fought under the red ensign, not the blue. Concurrently, it dies phase me that many are people are historical incorrect on the issue. Samw goes for religions and non-religious, except where it rubs against separation of Church and State.

There are several chronoligical errors in the Christian Bible because today we date backwards to the period, where, instead one should count the years forward using a Jewish calendar (there were at least four) four. Those having the solar advancing via Enoch have the Jewish Solar Year 4,000 around 60 CE. AD is incorrect, as Jesus was born earlier. Theiring suggests March 7 BCE. This revised date would have Jesus born in the reign of Herod the Great.

-Cont-

A personal obseration is that if Jesus, being born and crucified in March: He was born 6.75 years BCE and was crucified 33.25 CE. Forty years elasped. Forty years represents a (heaven's) generation on Earth according to OT religious dating and the number forty is significant in both OT and NT chrological epic dating: i.e., forty years & forty days. Forty years from birth would have been significant to die or feign a real death (to have a symbolic death.).

Jesus wasn't born in December. It was likely March, 7 BCE. Circa 51 CE the date 1 January was adopted, when Christianity took over Jewish priest-king roles from the Annas, and later adjusted to fit with the December solstice. Also, in line with the Pagani.

There is significant symbolism in the Bible itself, especially Revelations which an account of first century proto-Christianity. Under the surface of a Pesher, it appears there is an account of the Essene, Christian and Zealot history against the competing Herods and Annas dynasties under Roman domination.

Poly,

Would you have objected to Christian graffetti used in Roman times? Recall, the Christians were Atheists to the pantheistic pagani.

Would the symbolism of Jesus saying words to the effect, "the Sabbath is made for Man, not Man for the Sabboth", been an an affort to Pharisees? Deeping questioning the reasoning of their genuine core beliefs?

Regards,

O

A pair of pastors got in strife for doing something similar to Islam that the atheist foundation are doing to religion within a Christian Church. Ironically the bus company might have feared legal action. Just a thought.

I mean the pastors did it within their Church. The atheist foundation are obviously trying to do it on the side of a bus.

With the greatest respect, Mr Nicholls (and as you well know, that is code for "no respect at all") your track record is not particularly scintillating when it comes to listening.

>>You never know, but the AFA may take notice and follow advice, if it is sound, irrefutable and has a basis in reason<<

A somewhat remote possibility, I suspect.

From the start of this particular campaign, you have adopted but one stance, typified by your initial response.

>>The armchair reaction to the intended bus slogans is understandable, expected and frankly, dismissed as irrelevant<<

You are performing the same hands-over-the-ears trick here.

The conclusion I am rapidly forced towards is that this whole issue has been reduced to an opportunity for your personal self-aggrandizement.

I am sure that there are as many militant atheists as there are militant religionists out there, so you are guaranteed at least a baseline of membership for your society. However, I can assure you that you do not speak for me when you undertake such puerile publicity stunts as this.

By the way, has anyone ever told you that you come across as an arrogant, intolerant curmudgeon who cannot accept that he is ever wrong, about anything?

No?

Not to worry, I expect someone soon will.