Free speech is a bitch when the shoe is finally on the other foot. Not much difference than those T-shirts that proclaim "Yes, I believe in God". In your face goes both ways.

If a cross atop a steeple is permitted as free speech, so then is the question posed by the bus ads, regardless of their purpose. Doubt is just as much a part of the human experience as belief.

Ha. Love Dawkins' bus advertising. Love your post.

If Christians are so certain of their faith, why should should they be rattled by such a simple statement?
Are they afraid they will begin to doubt themselves?

I hope the ads come to the U.S. Freedom of religion is also freedom from religion. It's been in my face my whole life and I've never complained. Figures a religious leader whines as soon as someone dares to suggest there's an entire world of people who don't buy into g.o.d. boo hoo. get over it mr. preacher.

Funny how any public display of atheism is somehow "controversial", even "hate speech". I see displays proclaiming Christianity and other religions everywhere I go. Does that mean I should feel outraged because they mock my atheism?

when I was in college, even though there was a rule against solicitation on campus, every year there was a group handing out new testaments to passing students. No one stopped them, no one considered it an affront to students (like myself at the time) who didn't care to have any particular religion handed to them. They're harmless, right? Maybe even well-meaning? They're just handing out bibles...

I swear a was a ream of paper and a Xerox machine away from handing out fliers saying, "come worship Satan with us," just to see the reaction I would get.

Well, that, and I'd be afraid to see who actually showed up.

I think it's fine to say "There's no God", or "There's probably no God." It certainly does not threaten me in the least, and it certainly falls under Free Speech. Anyone who gets all rattled, must be very insecure!
btw, I was Non-Theist/Atheist for 18 years(throughout my 30's and well into my 40's), but have developed a sense of Spirituality the past few years.

I'm (probably) a christian... And I (probably) don't have a problem with this ad. And most of us (probably) have beliefs that we (probably) wish others would share with us. And proselytizing is proselytizing no matter where you are coming from. ...(probably).

The problem with atheism is that it's like every other religion: they just gotta shove their beliefs down everyone else's throat. If I believe or don't believe, it's none of your business. Religious people - and atheists are highly religious - always just want to control what you think in the end. A pox on you all.

Fudo Myoo,

Blasphemer! Satan is sacred; stop your attack ads...

Harry Homeless,

Do you recognize the irony in your comment? By telling Atheists and Theists to stop proclaiming their beliefs, you are doing exactly what you ask them not to do. A pox on you!

HH: I find your religion of believing religion is no one's business highly offensive! I demand you respect my religious belief of dis-respecting other religious beliefs!

I kid, but honestly, calling atheism a religion is like calling not stamp collecting a hobby...

If atheism is a religion then where are all the hallmarks of religion? Atheism doesn't have any churches, nor does it have a hierarchy of priests, bishops, monsignors, preachers and Popes. It doesn't have a central dogma either so explain how a brief statement denying the existence of God or gods somehow equates it to religion.

Love it.
Would love to sit in on one of your classes.
Such clarity!
damn...

I think I read a book "Free Speech for me but not for Thee" once. Maybe we could apply that to other areas of life. Free money for me but not for thee, for example. Or free love for me but not for thee. Could go on endlessly. Humans, as a character in a movie one said, are the craziest people. The character was a monkey. Anyway, this was an interesting and thought provoking post. Thanks.

By the way, is that Anne Arundel Community College? cy

To all: If one defines religion as a belief about God (whether exists or not) then atheism is a religion. To use the hobby analog, if you were to pass out flyers telling me I should collect stamps or that I should not collect stamps, either way I don't want to hear your religion. There's no irony in that, it's not meddling to tell you not to meddle in my life.

err, *analogy*, not analog

And the pox still stands.

I never understood why people who don't believe in God spend so much energy worrying about those who do. If you believe nothing is there, why worry about those who do. Who are they trying to convince?

As for the bus ads, so what, I am sure the metro system could use the money from the advertising. It is the classic preaching to the choir anyway. It will not change any one's mind either way.

I agree with Harry Homeless, the very fact of not believing n anything (and advertising about it) is a belief in itself (like in I belive there is no God).
And for Americain, I do not know where you live, but here in DC, we have a group called Beltway Atheists, that regularly meets, (not to say religiously), to discuss their own Word of Atheism, and they go out trying to proselytize too... Which, in a way, is what these bus ads end up doing to... proselytizing...

Do you all really want to say that anything that is a "belief" is a "religion"? That seems to me to completely sap the word "religion" of meaning...

To whoever asked why atheist's bother to criticize religious beliefs... well, for me it is an objection to the fervor of religious extremism, if you want examples of that, simply read a few of my older posts (and yes, I am well aware that religious ills are not the only ills in our world)...

And cy, yeah, aacc is anne arundel cc...

This is the most interesting and most thought provoking post and thread that I've run across on OS. Somehow, I have sensed in the past that the arguments about the existence of God on one side turn on logic, consistency, and the precision of language. These are usually the con arguments. God doesn't exist. The pro arguments seem from my perspective to function on faith alone, although lately scholars of religion have begun to attempt to explain faith logically. That's a tall order given the task of reconciling the widespread misery and death in the world with a good and all-powerful God. Since this is an inexplicable condition at variance with pure logic and consistency, the religious side will eventually fall back on faith. I think; therefore God exists. The two sides are like two radio signals broadcasting on two different frequencies. If they happen to bump into one another, the result is just static. Not arguing that the discussion is futile but that a means to come together without static would be a wonderful innovation. Somehow, this post and thread are the closest to that innovation I've run across.

On reading the comments here , I see the subject has been brought up about the atheist reaction to faith. I'm 61 ; and when I was in my teens my parents had friends who were atheist . Very bright colorful people. My parents were Chrisitians , very active in the church too. So I was raised in the church. These people were in my life for quite some time. I can honestly say I never heard them speak out against religion. They were mature , intelegent people comfortable in the world they lived in. I have often wondered why the atheists of today are so angry with the Christians. And I say it that way because I honestly never hear them mention any other faith. I mean, if you are an atheist , why not just be comfortable with that , like the people whom I knew back then. Why the need to lash out ? I'm a Christian and I have atheist friends. We just don't discuss religion. I know, I know, you're going to say that it is Christians who cause all the wars ; I've certainly heard that speech often enough. But what it really is ; it's human beings who are responsible for war. It's human beings who muck up the world. Human beings are violent beings. You know , it's the powerful in the world who start the wars. And they do it because they want more power. And they use thier power to tell the masses that God told them it was the right thing to do. But I can tell you this. There has always been plenty of the "faithlful" who have questioned this reasoning. And in this country I think that has been proven by the last election.
War has been going on sense human beings began to exist. Long before there was any religion. And I don't think Hitler was particularly religions. Do you?
I don't know man, like we say in AA. Live and let live. Or like the old book "I'm ok, you're ok.". Or , better yet ; the book "War And Peace". Who in the world, literally ; can put a stop to the madness of war ? Well, if we are ever going to do that, we will have to all work together. Both the religious and secular. I have great hope for our country and the rest of the world now that we have Obama as President. It seems to me he can lead the masses to work together. I'm not saying he's perfect , I'm just saying I think he can lead.
Guess I'd better stop now, I could go on forever.

I hope you find peace in your life, I hope we all do.

peaches

I believe this debate will never end.

To all those who wonder who don't understand "why people who don't believe in God spend so much energy worrying about those who do" then may I direct you to so-called decency laws based on Biblical principles. If you want to buy a car in states where they still enforce the Blue Laws then you can't do it on a Sunday. The one that gets me most is the ability (or lack of it) of non-believers to run for high public office. And then they turned our Pledge into a Christian prayer. When the pious demanded that "under God" be added to our beloved Pledge Of Allegiance there wasn't a single voice to stop them. The Senators voted 100-0 for the measure back in 1956. If just one of those senators had articulated a contrary position and brought it to the floor of the Senate what do you think the odds of his re-election would have been? As a matter of fact a religious oath/belief requirement for public office. Nobody is pushing anything down anyone's throat here, quite the contrary. One group is now pushing back and removing the cow that's been stuffed down their's.

I agree with rijaxn - the debate will never end. Theists cannot define "god" with any precision nevermind provide any usable evidence for God. Atheists can't prove a negative.

As for the bus signs - bring it on. The emperor has no clothes.

For those of you who do not understand why atheists are upset with the level of religious dialog in the public domain consider the following:
1. The discussion of religious views of people running for political office has increased and was very evident in the last presidential campaign.
2. The aggressiveness of religious groups to impose their values on others has increased the most recent example being the California proposition 8 episode.
3. The aggressive actions by "pro-life" movements to suppress women's right to choose and to involve government in other lifestyle choices.
4. Aggressive efforts to suppress the discussion of evolution in textbooks.

As an atheist, I personally feel that people have become much more willing to get in your face about there religious beliefs. While a large fraction of the population professes a belief in God, I doubt that there is actually much agreement about the nature of God. Even as an atheist, I could believe in a definition of God used by Einstein which is fairly close to the sum total of all the physical laws of the universe (from Carl Sagan's book " Varieties of Scientific Experience).

"I never understood why people who don't believe in God spend so much energy worrying about those who do. If you believe nothing is there, why worry about those who do. Who are they trying to convince?"

You ARE joking, right? The religious right continually worries about those who do not "believe" or who "believe" differently. Perhaps THEY are worried that their "blind faith" will be discredited?

Cy: That static analogy is F*#&$#@^ brilliant... mind if I use it some time?

This statement and reasoning " Theists cannot define "god" with any precision nevermind provide any usable evidence for God. Atheists can't prove a negative... " is flawed.

To argue logically one need not "prove" the negative. The onus or responsibility is on the one (theists) making the positive claim. I don't need to prove a negative (that God or pink unicorns or UFO's exist).

Americain - agreed, one needn't defend a negative. This debate however is a special case. The manifold concepts of "god" are, prima facie, accepted as real by most theists. Atheists are put in the position of proving no-god or walking away from the debate. It's an illogical discussion, therefore I think, incapable of resolution. There are no believers in pink unicorns, so while the argument is analogous, you'll never need to rebut with nonbelief.

The bus ad campaign could be effective, especially in the US, where the high level of professed Christian beliefs; Abrahamic God, heaven and hell, and angels is belied by lowering church attendence. A billboard stating, "There probably is no god" could be an effective way of nudging reason and rational thought forward.

The emperor has no clothes.

Americain and shewhowouldprevail,

I hear from both sides this so called threat and impending doom from either Christians or atheist, and frankly it does not really hold water. In this country there is no impedance of beliefs from either side. Christians can worship and believe without any restraint and the same is true for atheist. Christmas is not under attack and atheist are not dragged to the town square and forced to kiss the cross. It is a myth for the most part of persecution. That is not to say in isolated and personal instances some have dealt unjustly with others.

We live in an ordered society. As with every society there will be laws. Most of our laws are derived from and reflect the culture that created them. Americain you exampled some communities who have blue laws still in effect. Most of the blue laws are local and reflect the culture of the local community. The question is does the local community have the right to pass laws that reflect their beliefs? If the community deems it beneficial to their community, don't they have the right to do so?