Bus driver refuses to drive bus !

scorza · 16 Jan 2009 at 20:13

Skeeter said:
Are you seriously supporting some columnists opinion that 'Probubly' and 'Almost Certainly' arent the same thing, rather than the logical solution being 'whichever wording wont get the advert banned'?

The FAQ on the ad campaign explains the reasoning behind the phrasing.

Crikey - who would have thought that a light-hearted snippet from a newspaper column could offend two atheists in a few minutes...

simisker · 16 Jan 2009 at 20:16

scorza said:
Crikey - who would have thought that a light-hearted snippet from a newspaper column could offend two atheists in a few minutes...

Ooh, someone's making inferences beyond bald words, aren't they?

Just pointin' out the facts. It's what us atheists are probably/almost certainly good at.

scorza · 16 Jan 2009 at 20:20

simisker said:
Ooh, someone's making inferences beyond bald words, aren't they?

Just pointin' out the facts. It's what separates us atheists from the rest, don't you know.

lol I'm genuinely surprised that you both appeared to be offended by it (more aimed at the other guy than you tbf) that's all

Strife212 · 16 Jan 2009 at 20:26

Some extreme Atheists are even worse than the God Squad. Complete morons.

sbi5ar · 16 Jan 2009 at 20:31

Strife212 said:
Atheists are even worse than the God Squad. Complete morons.

care to elaborate?

simisker · 16 Jan 2009 at 20:35

sbi5ar said:
care to elaborate?

"Wow... did you see that?!"

"Yeah... it's like he threw himself right into the keep net..."

"Awesome."

Strife212 · 16 Jan 2009 at 20:40

Well I was exaggerating a bit but heres the reasoning behind what I said.

Atheists are even worse than the God Squad.

care to elaborate?

"There is no god."

A concrete statement based on blind faith. Atheism is basically a religion. There is no proof that there is no god or gods, just like there is no proof that there is a god.

Atheists often shout about science disproving religion. In what way? As a basic example: How do you know that a "creator" didn't start the big bang and leave the universe to evolve?

I don't believe in any gods. But I'm not certain that there are no gods, which is what an Atheist is. What was the point of the advert in question anyway? It's literally just to offend people, is a christian going to look at that sign and suddenly think "oh, wait, theres no god, lol"?

cman · 16 Jan 2009 at 20:58

simisker said:
The FAQ on the ad campaign explains the reasoning behind the phrasing.

I love it when people say:

...as even though there's no scientific evidence at all for God's existence...

I have to disagree:

Also interesting (though more than a bit biased):

sbi5ar · 16 Jan 2009 at 20:58

Strife212 said:
"There is no god."

A concrete statement based on blind faith. Atheism is basically a religion. There is no proof that there is no god or gods, just like there is no proof that there is a god.

By definition atheism it the disbelief in theism (the belief of a higher power etc...)

The second point of the quote is invalid as the Bus ad clearly states the word probable. Why this is used is explained in the FAQ.

Strife212 said:
Atheists often shout about science disproving religion. In what way? As a basic example: How do you know that a "creator" didn't start the big bang and leave the universe to evolve?

How do people whom have a faith prove that a creator created what is now?

Strife212 said:
I don't believe in any gods. But I'm not certain that there are no gods, which is what an Atheist is. Few people are truely atheists.

certain and propably are very similar in meaning, one used over the other for advertising purposes in this case.

Your view as not being certain is valid, however my view of "there is no god" is just as valid (in my oppinion) as i see no real evidence to believe otherwise.

I respect every ones oppion, just others more so.... haha just kidding

Strife212 · 16 Jan 2009 at 21:06

Valid points

Just went on a bit of a rant as I've seen some really rubbish stuff like http://www.rationalresponders.com which just seems pathetic to me.

sbi5ar · 16 Jan 2009 at 21:17

Strife212 said:
http://www.rationalresponders.com

EVERY BODY STOP

I AM A RATIONAL RESPONCER......... NO BODY PANIC

lol..... i can see why you wanted to rant after that website

Dolph · 16 Jan 2009 at 22:50

sbi5ar said:
By definition atheism it the disbelief in theism (the belief of a higher power etc...)

Actually, it isn't. By definition, atheism is the -ism of Atheos (godless). That is, a belief in godlessness.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

In early Ancient Greek, the adjective atheos (ἄθεος, from the privative ἀ- + θεός "god") meant "godless". The word began to indicate more-intentional, active godlessness in the 5th century BCE, acquiring definitions of "severing relations with the gods" or "denying the gods, ungodly" instead of the earlier meaning of ἀσεβής (asebēs) or "impious". Modern translations of classical texts sometimes render atheos as "atheistic". As an abstract noun, there was also ἀθεότης (atheotēs), "atheism". Cicero transliterated the Greek word into the Latin atheos. The term found frequent use in the debate between early Christians and Hellenists, with each side attributing it, in the pejorative sense, to the other.[8]

In English, the term atheism was derived from the French athéisme in about 1587.[11] The term atheist (from Fr. athée), in the sense of "one who denies or disbelieves the existence of God",[12] predates atheism in English, being first attested in about 1571.[13] Atheist as a label of practical godlessness was used at least as early as 1577.[14] Related words emerged later: deist in 1621,[15] theist in 1662;[16] theism in 1678;[17] and deism in 1682.[18] Deism and theism changed meanings slightly around 1700, due to the influence of atheism; deism was originally used as a synonym for today's theism, but came to denote a separate philosophical doctrine.[19]

The fact that atheism as a term predates theism as a term means that the alternative derivation (a-theism) cannot be correct, historically at any rate

Additionally the idea of implicit atheism (ie if you don't actively believe, you are an atheist) is a very new invention, and generally not very popular outside of atheists themselves.

Moving back to the subject of the OP, I'm not really sure what all the fuss is about. The bus driver objected to something written on the side of the bus (I support his right to do this, and would support it whether he was theist, atheist or whatever). His employers listened to his concerns, and between them they worked out a compromise solution (ie that the driver would only drive the buses with the adverts on if there was no other option) that both sides were happy to support. Sounds like a good victory for employer-employee relations if you ask me. Having said that, I would also have supported the company if they'd chosen to discipline the employee, or insist he had to drive the bus, just as I'd have supported the employee if he'd chosen to quit. Again, this support is irrespective of the actual views concerned.

No need for big drama or anything here from my point of view.

Amnesia · 16 Jan 2009 at 23:37

Hodders said:
Story Here

In short a christian bus driver has refused to drive a bus with the "God probably doesn't exist, stop worrying....." message on it.

going against the grain here but if i was religious then i would do the same.
it would be like selling your faith for money.

(havent read the story....going by whats posted above)

AGD · 16 Jan 2009 at 23:37

cman said:
I love it when people say:

I have to disagree:

Also interesting (though more than a bit biased):

Oh dear.

Iraklis F.C. · 17 Jan 2009 at 00:31

Dolph said:
Actually, it isn't. By definition, atheism is the -ism of Atheos (godless). That is, a belief in godlessness.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

The fact that atheism as a term predates theism as a term means that the alternative derivation (a-theism) cannot be correct, historically at any rate Additionally the idea of implicit atheism (ie if you don't actively believe, you are an atheist) is a very new invention, and generally not very popular outside of atheists themselves.

Moving back to the subject of the OP, I'm not really sure what all the fuss is about. The bus driver objected to something written on the side of the bus (I support his right to do this, and would support it whether he was theist, atheist or whatever). His employers listened to his concerns, and between them they worked out a compromise solution (ie that the driver would only drive the buses with the adverts on if there was no other option) that both sides were happy to support. Sounds like a good victory for employer-employee relations if you ask me. Having said that, I would also have supported the company if they'd chosen to discipline the employee, or insist he had to drive the bus, just as I'd have supported the employee if he'd chosen to quit. Again, this support is irrespective of the actual views concerned.

No need for big drama or anything here from my point of view.

Very true

Viggey · 17 Jan 2009 at 00:32

I would hang the driver over a cliff edge and ask him whether he thought the same.

Skeeter · 17 Jan 2009 at 00:41

scorza said:
lol I'm genuinely surprised that you both appeared to be offended by it (more aimed at the other guy than you tbf) that's all

Offended by what? Im not offended. Im not Christian, or Atheist, or religous in any way.

Im just annoyed that Christians forcing there message onto people is accepted, yet non Christians suggesting there isnt a god is somehow massively offensive?

Personally (and I think I may get slated for this) I see no difference between a Christian stood on a street corner preaching to people walking by and a Muslim blowing something up. They are both trying to force there beliefs onto others, just through different means.

Im white, straight, male, and not religious... meaning I have no 'high ground' at all.

z0mbi3 · 17 Jan 2009 at 00:58

I'm going to do my own campaign:

We're possibly all holograms, so quit worrying.

Amnesia · 17 Jan 2009 at 01:40

Skeeter said:
Personally (and I think I may get slated for this) I see no difference between a Christian stood on a street corner preaching to people walking by and a Muslim blowing something up. They are both trying to force there beliefs onto others, just through different means.

how is a muslim blowing something up forcing a belief on u ?
isnt it a msg that he isnt/wasnt happy about something

Andy · 17 Jan 2009 at 08:32

semi-pro waster said:
Not impressed with this man's actions really, I'm sure he's a lovely chap but why pick that particular advert to kick up a fuss over? It doesn't even make a definitive statement about god. What about all the other adverts he must have disagreed with, I'm sure there must have been some yet he felt he could do his job with them on the bus? Do we need signs on the bus stating that the views contained in the adverts may not represent those of the bus company or it's employees? I hope not, I really want to credit people with enough intelligence to be able to discern the difference, something this fellow is apparantly unwilling to do.

It's what you'd expect really from someone who lives their life out of an ancient book :rolleyes:

If it was a Pro Christian message would non Christians say 'I'm not getting on that Bus, i'd rather be late for work!'? Him not driving that bus doesn't change anything. If he wanted to change the world he should find some factual evidence his God is real.