At what point are sensible yet brainwashed people going to give the conflicting religions the credit they deserve? They should be vredited as a great idea in times gone past, but a maturing society will only be limited by the restrictions created by religion. The various religions began as a way for the few to control the many, using an ideology based on fear of the unknown? The human race has now grown out of its infancy. All of the so called facts of the various bibles and dogmas were once not able to be disproved. This has changed with the advance of science. There is not one shred of proof that the stories in these ancient publications have any basis of fact. So many issues present a case for the abolition of religion, including Paedophile priests, the unequal distribution of wealth from the catholic church and all of the religious unrest throughout the world (think the Middle East, France, Africa, 9/11, Mumbai, bible belt USA etc). Isn't it about time the human race grew up and started to take responsibility for it's own actions instead of hiding behind the crumbling facade of religion?

Allow me to clear up a few points:

The intended advertising on buses is an international campaign to, as Richard Dawkins says, “Make people think”. . (This appears to be working – in some cases) The aim in a nutshell, is to demonstrate to civilisation that it is OK to reject the idea that a god exists and in doing so, you are not alone.

This is not a membership drive as the AFA is not a religion or political party; it is an education/philosophical organisation with an already strong membership, the largest of its type in the Southern hemisphere. People who join the AFA empathise with our aims and join as a free-will choice.

All persons in the AFA are none-paid volunteers. Those that know me and observant others do not consider I am on a personal ego-trip. To be frank, when someone else wishes to be president of the AFA, I will gladly hand it over to her or him. It is not an easy job but it is a task in need of doing.

Let us assume that a religious organisation (Or a pony club etc) approached the bus companies to place an advert on their vehicles. The message: “Celebrate reason!” (Most mainstream religious persons and those in pony clubs consider they are reasonable)

What would the reaction be and why is it different to an Atheist organisation stating this message.

‘Militancy’ or ‘fundamentalists’ and Atheism are oxymoron’s resulting from religious propaganda unbefitting of Atheist usage.

mjpb,

I do wish you would read my words. I was commenting on merediths phrase that I was “Vilifying Atheists”, not everything said.

Pericles,

Who is in a better position to understand the consensus of Atheists about the bus slogan, Meredith or I?

“Hiding”, meaning inactive and compliant with religious absurdity.

I think you should point out the reasons for the continuous vitriol and ad hominem comment in your posts. I would like some solid stuff here, not just weak-arsed interpretation of my words that you consider are so off the planet you need to act like a schoolyard bully.

David

david>>The intended advertising on buses is an international campaign to, as Richard Dawkins says,“Make people think”.>>

david to think about what?

how do you not think about god
when people possably wernt till your advert made them

it somehow seems a double negative

dont think about god
still makes one think about god[but your standard is he dont egsist]

so your message is think about something you think dont egsist[lol] bro what medication are you on?

>>Let us assume that a religious organisation(Or a pony club etc) approached the bus companies to place an advert<<

they would say have you thought of god today

or RE{this pony club had an addvert]
puting down drivers of cars

,ie like
''if your not riding a horse ,you.... a stinking car''

bro the point is you dont have concensus to upset others,with in the face advertising
[advising]people to think about a thing
they arnt thinking about till you made em.

adverts make us remember[how do we remember to forget?]

>>Who is in a better position to understand the consensus of Atheists about the bus slogan,Meredith or I?>>

bro what concenus?
we agree about what?

wether you[or meredith]have this consensus?
[please when will you re-define your meaning of concensus?]

>>Hiding”,meaning inactive and compliant with religious absurdity.>>

see your doing it all the time

now we are redefining'hiding'[lol]
it now means being inactive?

[IE doing nothing re a NON-egsistant god?]

and compliant?[one who does as you decree?]

tell me what does'unbefiting',mean[by your re definitions]
does it tie in to the god theory somehow?

im playing devils advocate
[meaning i know [believe to know]
god is real so thats what devils advocate means[right]?

are you patenting these new word definitions?

[who knows you may be exposing a new religion[that excludes god but got all the dogma and saint's][god knows you allready got the visions [read vidio] and the holy scriptures [all the writing deneying god]

[proving a negative]?

try to remain positive bro
they might crucuify you[you never know
[crucify means 'save'

[two can play the redefinition game

AFA Inc.
David,
You should retire gracefully you are not going to win on your current stance it is nit picking defensive and becoming even more shrill.

You are simply out of your depth and digging in deeper. You left logic behind some time back. I repeat being an athiest doesn't mean you have to be intollerant of peoples needs.
There is a decided difference between public policy and private rights. The problem with some religious fanatics is that they too have difficulty with the differentiation

one under god & examinator,

With all due respect, but if you cannot keep up with the debate it may be better if you refrain from making comment that is irrelevant, puerile and non consequential. You will not gain a detailed response with postings of this kind.

The discussion here is about whether discrimination is involved in Atheists placing slogans on buses.

It is not as simple as winning or losing the debate as what is at stake; that being, freedom of expression.

I genuinely ask you to read carefully the content of the posts presented, respond to the points made, and not follow predetermined ideas you may hold, no matter how fervently you may hold them.

Without this method, the discussion does no lead to a conclusion, only to confusion. You may feel you are making smart comment, but let me assure you, it is far from that.

It may be better if you stick to topics on which you have some knowledge and not deviate into areas where you are obviously floundering.

You need not take this advice as it is only a suggestion.

All the best,

David

Ok, seems we are, (including David) in agreement now that the Oxford Dictionary gives the correct definition. So fighting religion(atheist or not) is unconnected to atheism.

You are some kind of anti religion lobby group, you're not a representation of atheists. You actully do need a new name.

Have you considered a lot of atheists simply grow up free of religion and their atheist POV isn’t resentment or rebellion to god or the church. I’ve little problem with most religions, and when I do protest one it isn’t because I’m atheist, it will be policy or social effect. It's vital for you to remember theists protest religion too.

Can you comprehend what a mistake your blanket assumptions are. Ex: my neighbour is actually a well versed gay/queer activist, a believer in god and deeply opposed to the church over gay issues.

Your website dictates, (according to the Oxford Dictionary incorrectly), what *us* atheists think of abortion, euthanasia the USA and war… David is utterly wrong to assume authority on these issues on behalf of any group of people. It is outrageous.

Your cartoon view of atheists is deeply irresponsible and selfish.

Mjpb, Thanks for clarifying so clearly, I appreciated that. It’s interesting, I think we have theists, atheists, left and right wing here… all rightly annoyed at this and for pretty varied reasons too.

The bus conversation/publicity lost the main conversation posts ago… The string is now mainly discussing your misuse of the atheist umbrella. Examinator and UOG are well up in the conversation…. You don’t own the conversation just because you started it, just as you don’t own atheism cuz you have a website on it.