Even Worse Bus Ads: Britain Secularist Society

[David E]

In a related topic to the Washington DC bus ads, The British Humanist Association placed ads on London busses that make even less sense: "There's probably no God, now stop worrying and enjoy your life".

I think this merits a separate thread because it's a different argument against people believing in God. But it is an odd one because I thought the classic secular explanation for man creating God is the opposite: that he needed comfort and meaning in a ruthless world that he did not understand. So wouldn't there be LESS to worry about if a torturer or a murderer who was not punished in this life had to face justice in an afterlife, and the good were likewise rewarded?

One example from my own life: My friend from high school had a child named Gabriel, who was born with health problems. In fact, he never left the hospital and died when he was only 6 months old. He cried a lot and probably never laughed. So my question is: do you think my friend can stop worrying and enjoy her life more if there is NO God, or if there is a God?

[Not Afraid]

In other words, stop feeling the weight of all of that church-endowed guilt and enjoy your life.

Sounds like pretty good advice to me.

[Alex]

No, there would not be less to worry about if a murderer is to be punished in an afterlife. Until such time as we have evidence that people in the afterlife can continue killing people in the currentlife and that afterlife punishments prevent this, then I really can't give a damn what is happening there.

Also, separate belief in an afterlife (and the benefits or negatives of this) from the existence of an afterlife since they are independent issues.

Finally, your last paragraph makes little sense to me at all in what question you are trying to ask. If believing that god wanted her baby to die makes her feel better and that's how she can get through the day then who am I to personally try to talk her out of her little fantasia (personally it would make me less happy to believe that there was a god that wanted my baby dead but then I don't believe in it so I'm not trying to stay on its good side).

But that is moot as her belief in god again has nothing to do with whether there is one. If she believes in said god then the existence or non-existence of said god will not in any way impact her happiness level until such time as she is dead and finds out that she was wrong (or, implausibly, right).

That said, believing in something SIMPLY because said belief makes you happier is something that, except in this very narrow sliver of thinking, is generally regarded as defective. Personally, it would make me very happy to believe that if my child dies before its first birthday that 1989-era Elle MacPherson will come lounge about my apartment in a state of undress and grant me eternal life here on earth.

Somehow I doubt, though, that if upon the death of my child I went around saying "It's ok, because now I get naked Elle MacPherson and immortality" that people would smile for me and say "oh, I'm so glad you found this means of comfort."

[€uroMeinke]

Well, having lost a child at the 5th month of pregnancy I'm not sure how the existence of God would have made that experience any easier other than having a deity I could be angry with. God works in mysterious ways, so the the godless universe.

[Strangler Lewis]

I wouldn't deny anyone the consolation of religion, philosophy or the rainbow bridge. If it's important to someone to believe that the death of a suffering loved one is good because it means they are in a better place as opposed to simply being free from that suffering, I can't get too upset by that.

That said, if religion is supposed to be humbling, there's something not very humble in believing that the God who works in mysterious ways took a moment out of his busy day to lay a big steaming dump of mystery right in your particular lap.

[flippyshark]

I think this merits a separate thread because it's a different argument against people believing in God. But it is an odd one because I thought the classic secular explanation for man creating God is the opposite: that he needed comfort and meaning in a ruthless world that he did not understand. So wouldn't there be LESS to worry about if a torturer or a murderer who was not punished in this life had to face justice in an afterlife, and the good were likewise rewarded?


There's no contradiction here. Secularists are saying "Okay, we now have a much better understanding of the world than we did back when we invented all these gods. We know better now, so we can chuck that primitive notion and get on with our lives."

[flippyshark]

If in fact there is a theistic god, one who has moral preferences and will be handing out some form of cosmic justice in the hereafter, this being has not bothered to make itself known in uncertain terms. (Mythical stories of Shamash handing the moral law to Hammurabi, Yahweh giving the lowdown to Moses, etc, are fascinating historically, but obviously human in origin, no longer practiced, and incompatible with modern mores.) There is no single divine story that clearly stands out above the others, except where either individuals prefer it, or power structures declare and enforce it - add to that the fact that the vast majority simply take on the god beliefs they were born to. If I find myself in front of a deity after I die, I will join Bertrand Russell in asking, "Why did you hide?"

[flippyshark]

Here (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-dawkins-qa12-2009jan12,0,3974830.story?page=1) is an interview with Richard Dawkins, who supported the UK bus campaign, but has a couple of preferential differences with it. Always interesting reading with RD.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

One example from my own life: My friend from high school had a child named Gabriel, who was born with health problems. In fact, he never left the hospital and died when he was only 6 months old. He cried a lot and probably never laughed. So my question is: do you think my friend can stop worrying and enjoy her life more if there is NO God, or if there is a God?Disclaimer: I'm going to treat this as a theoretical, not an actual person, so please do not forward my answer here to your friend.

Your friend can stop worrying and enjoy her life more if she comes to terms with the fact that her baby died. A religious person would do so by telling themselves, "God has a plan, everything happens for a reason, my baby is in a happy place now." An atheist would do so by telling themselves, "People die every day, this is no reflection on me, at least my baby isn't suffering anymore." Both paths lead to the same result - coming to terms with a real fact, that the baby is dead.

The lesson I garner from this example is that in most situations, facing facts and then moving on is what is needed. How you get there is your own business.



I would say that this example has nothing to do with the intent of the ads. The ads are trying to say that you should not worry about God's plan, or God's vengeance, or God's requirements. That these things can and will impede upon your ability to enjoy your life.

Through my life experience I have found this to be true. Sure, you can be happy in the concept that someone will eventually iron out all the annoying unfairness in life, but it's a double-sided Sword of Judgement that can be swung your way at any time.

[David E]

In other words, stop feeling the weight of all of that church-endowed guilt and enjoy your life.

Sounds like pretty good advice to me.

Well, sometimes guilt is bad, and sometimes it's good. Depends on what the guilt is over. You would have to give an example of what you mean for it to make sense.

Sounds like you may be speaking from personal experience, in which case you might want to consider whether simply not believing in God any longer (which I assume you already tried awhile back) lifted that burden from you, or does it still persist? In which case, the bus ads may not be so helpful on that front.
___

I'm still a day behind in reading all the other responses since NA's. I'm outnumbered here with no allies to fill in for me if I'm too busy to log in one night, but I'll try to catch up!

[Not Afraid]

Man Refuses to Drive No God Bus. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/hampshire/7832647.stm)

[Alex]

I wonder if the employers would be so accommodating if he were refusing to drive buses with advertisements for fast food or a TV show he finds obnoxious.

[David E]

Personally, it would make me very happy to believe that if my child dies before its first birthday that 1989-era Elle MacPherson will come lounge about my apartment in a state of undress and grant me eternal life here on earth.

And from the other thread:
“b) there is part of me with a purpose that transcends my physical health so I'm just going to lie here and die. If given the opportunity, I will give the gift of such transcendent purpose to that cutie over there by having unprotected sex. If god doesn't want her to die, he'll protect her. If he doesn't, she's just experiencing her purpose. Oh the joy of giving that to her.”

Alex, isn’t it a weak way to make your case to make absurd strawman arguments that you yourself say are not plausible?

Why do you present Elle Mc Pherson as the absurd alternative to no afterlife when you know there are other plausible belief systems such as karma and reincarnation that reflect the cycles seen observed by science in nature and present a rich and compelling understanding of the universe for millions of people?

And in my African AIDS example, why do you use the unlikely example of a moral idiot-philanderer to represent the religious guy when you know that religious people are more likely to be monogamous; and it turns out that the religious practice of circumcision is now being recommended by health officials for adults to combat AIDS?

[€uroMeinke]

when you know that religious people are more likely to be monogamous Um - I think there are lots of religions that allow polygamy - are you perhaps talking about "marital fidelity" - or by religion do you mean contemporary Christian?

[David E]

Um - I think there are lots of religions that allow polygamy - are you perhaps talking about "marital fidelity" - or by religion do you mean contemporary Christian?

Yes, marital fidelity. Less chance of AIDS if you have one or several wives, vs. more promiscuous secular outlook. Since we are talking about Africa, the religion would probably be Anglican or Catholic, but it could be a tribal religion that is polygamous as you say, and my point would be the same: mongamy as opposed to promiscuity, not polygamy.

As you can see, I am arguing for good religion in general vs. secularism. I am not a fan of the emphasis on exclusivity that you point out. Having said that, of all of them I prefer the JC system as compared to the other 5 previously listed for the reasons I outlined.

[wendybeth]

I'm not particularly religious, and yet I manage to remain monogamous. I think I have a less difficult time doing so than many of my religious friends, several who are on their second and third marriages.

I can't help but think of men like Swaggert, Haggard, Bakker and their ilk (not to mention untold number of priests...) when I'm told that religion keeps people on the straight and narrow. Bull****. Personal ethics, mores, whatever you want to call it- maybe even down to a genetic level- are what make people who they are. Religion can influence ones morals, but ultimately their innate self will win out if that's the ONLY reason they can find to 'behave'.

[€uroMeinke]

As you can see, I am arguing for good religion in general vs. secularism. I am not a fan of the emphasis on exclusivity that you point out. Having said that, of all of them I prefer the JC system as compared to the other 5 previously listed for the reasons I outlined.

I guess I'm stuck on the concept of "good" religion - that sort of gets stuck in a circular argument when each religion defines what's "good" making itself defacto good.

It seems for you to even evaluate the morality or "goodness" of competing religions, you have to appeal to something outside the religious structure, using a non-theistic criteria like utilitarianism.

Now if you are saying that all religions are "good" that's one thing, but you seem to regard highly the "utility" of a good religion to motivate and respond to the fear of presumably "bad" religions defeating the "good."

But then again perhaps the "bad" religion defeating the "good"/our prefered religion is okay, becasue that's merely carrying out God's will and we will be consoled we convert and forgive the rape and murder of our heathen misguided wives and children.

[Strangler Lewis]

I wasn't aware that any particular anti-viral transsubstantiation occurred during circumcision.

[Alex]

Why do you present Elle Mc Pherson as the absurd alternative to no afterlife when you know there are other plausible belief systems such as karma and reincarnation that reflect the cycles seen observed by science in nature and present a rich and compelling understanding of the universe for millions of people?

Odd use of the word plausible.

That's my point with the absurd examples. To me, they are equally absurd as what your so-called "good religions" have come up with. And you seem to be arguing (though I must admit I'm exactly committing each post to permanent memory) that regardless of the reality of the facts behind teh beliefs it is valuable to hold the beliefs because it makes the trodden masses behave better and gives them reason to pretend their lives don't suck as badly as it would appear.

My point is that disregarding the fact that I consider this stupid, if that is what is important, then why is it these particular unfounded beliefs that must be the ones providing those services as opposed to the equally unfounded beliefs that result in me expecting to see Elle MacPherson naked in my living room. I assure you that would be more effective behavior control (for me anyway, perhaps Cheryl Tiegs would be better for you but that is why I'd offer up a pantheon) than getting wings and a harp when I'm dead.

You don't seem to view religion as an honest organic belief but rather a tool such that even if people don't believe it on their own someone should lead them there. I to belief that is what religion is. I just think that regardless of whether the tool produces good things, it is a malignancy. Kind of like sandpaper.

[alphabassettgrrl]

when you know that religious people are more likely to be monogamous;

While religious people may value monogamy, which is sanctioned by society and the church, I disagree that they are more likely to actually practice it.

How many married people have affairs? Many. Philandering is an ancient practice, with both men and women having physiological adaptations to guard against their mate's sexual wanderings.