Bus Driver Refuses To Drive Atheist Bus!

[De_Maria]

At least everyone in the country has healthcare coverage though

Is that what it’s called? I thought it was “who cares” coverage?

 

[De_Maria]

Grousing about your problems with American healthcare is way off-topic for this thread and this forum. Head back down to the current events section if you want to talk about that.

Oh, oh! Forum supporter taking ownership.

Don’t disagree with forum supporters, they will make their influence felt!

 

[ibkc]

I am a bus driver. But the buses I drive don’t have ads. Well, one, the company logo.

That’s wonderful that you have chosen to drive buses that don’t put you in the position of having to worry about offensive ads. I wonder what you’d do if you saw two men kissing on your bus. Would you proclaim that their behavior is offensive to God and kick them off the bus?

Because, apparently, you don’t hold your faith paramount.

You don’t know enough about me to make that judgment.

And apparently, you think others should believe just as you do.

Let’s see: one of us would refuse to drive a bus that carried an ad that contained a sentiment that is offensive, and one of us wouldn’t refuse. Which one of us thinks everyone should believe just as we do?

But some of us believe we should be Catholic 24/7. Not just when it suits our bosses or our friends.

Some of us might find other ways to refute the message on the bus. A devoutly Catholic bus driver could tape a holy card on the dashboard where he and others can see it. He could have a string of rosary beads or a crucifix with him. There would be no mistaking where that driver stood on the issue.

 

[De_Maria]

That’s wonderful that you have chosen to drive buses that don’t put you in the position of having to worry about offensive ads. I wonder what you’d do if you saw two men kissing on your bus. Would you proclaim that their behavior is offensive to God and kick them off the bus?

Sure would! Especially since its against company policy. Immoral behavior of any kind is grounds for termination.

You don’t know enough about me to make that judgment.

But you would drive that bus? Isn’t that right? And you would drive one with ads for condoms and with two men kissing.

Let’s see: one of us would refuse to drive a bus that carried an ad that contained a sentiment that is offensive, and one of us wouldn’t refuse. Which one of us thinks everyone should believe just as we do?

Non-sequitur.

I care what other people believe as I’m supposed to according to my Catholic faith. But I don’t impose my beliefs upon them.

Neither will I permit anyone to impose their beliefs upon me. My refusal to put myself in a situation wherein I would have to drive buses which have offensive messages is my prerogative. I am not thereby forcing you or anyone else to believe as I do. I am however, living my faith to the best of my ability.

Some of us might find other ways to refute the message on the bus. A devoutly Catholic bus driver could tape a holy card on the dashboard where he and others can see it. He could have a string of rosary beads or a crucifix with him. There would be no mistaking where that driver stood on the issue.

There you go. Now you’re thinking outside the box. Very good.

And another bus driver might tape over the ad.

There’s more than one way to skin a goat!

 

[De_Maria]

Is the USA so different that driving a bus is voluntary work? Bus drivers are employed to drive buses.

That is true. That is why it is even more heroic that this man refused to drive that bus. After all, he could lose his job.

And therein lies the sacrifice element. He loves God and his faith more than making a living. At least, he was willing to risk his job for his faith and His Lord.

I think that is beautiful. A beautiful statement of faith. May God bless that man a hundred fold.

Again ‘I don’t like those trainers we’re advertising, so I will not drive this bus’.

Lets not get ridiculous. Those NHS doctors have to get to work after all.

 

[Kaninchen]

Once again the great miracle of transforming a molehill into a mountain is witnessed before our eyes here on CAF.

Actually, I agree with the Methodist spokesman, anything that might spark a little interest in the Great Indifferent British Public about such matters is no bad thing.

 

[grampben]

Once again the great miracle of transforming a molehill into a mountain is witnessed before our eyes here on CAF.

Actually, I agree with the Methodist spokesman, anything that might spark a little interest in the Great Indifferent British Public about such matters is no bad thing.

Oh well he must be a liberal revisionist! I bet he’s pro abortion too!

I agree. I think the public thinking about ads like this is far better than the trash in the tabloids and on the television these days.

 

[zerinus]

As an atheist, I can tell you that under the definitions used by most modern atheists, atheism and agnosticism are compatible.

Agnosticism and gnosticism deal with what you know.

Atheism and theism deal with what you believe.

So if you claim not to know whether there is a god (or gods) and do not have a belief in any of them, you would be an agnostic atheist.

Human knowledge doesn’t consist of certainty. It might be impossible to know anything 100% for sure, so we generally have to deal in what is likely to be true. Since I have never heard a god claim (for any god or any religion) that is supported by evidence (independently verifiable and confirmable – the same kind we use to discover anything that exists outside of our minds), I do not have a belief in any gods.

I don’t claim to know this for a fact or to be 100% certain, just like I don’t know for a fact that the Hindu gods don’t exist or that leprechauns don’t exist.

But I feel confident in saying that there’s probably no Hindu gods, probably no leprechauns, and…probably no [insert your god here] either.

How do you deal with someone who claims to know that there is a God through personal experience; like Moses for example, who had direct personal contact with God? How does your belief system (or unbelief system) deal with that situation?

zerinus

 

[Kaninchen]

Oh well he must be a liberal revisionist! I bet he’s pro abortion too!

I agree. I think the public thinking about ads like this is far better than the trash in the tabloids and on the television these days.

People forget that they’re not talking about the US when talking about news events in the UK - where the surprise about the story is that something even vaguely religious, that doesn’t involve some kind of ‘SEX SHOCK HORROR’ or ‘MUSLIM ATE MY HAMSTER’, made the news at all!

 

[grampben]

People forget that they’re not talking about the US when talking about news events in the UK - where the surprise about the story is that something even vaguely religious, that doesn’t involve some kind of ‘SEX SHOCK HORROR’ or ‘MUSLIM ATE MY HAMSTER’, made the news at all!

HA! So true. Although when religion is mentioned seriously in British media it is taken seriously (Lambeth conference being another recent example).

 

[Kaninchen]

HA! So true. Although when religion is mentioned seriously in British media it is taken seriously (Lambeth conference being another recent example).

They speak of little else in Barnsley.

In other words, it’s taken seriously by those who take such things seriously but by the Great Indifferent British Public? Only if it’s on ‘I’m A Celebrity Get Me on Strictly Come Dancing’.

Now, if this bus driver could get himself into the Big Brother House . . .

 

[grampben]

They speak of little else in Barnsley.

In other words, it’s taken seriously by those who take such things seriously but by the Great Indifferent British Public? Only if it’s on ‘I’m A Celebrity Get Me on Strictly Come Dancing’.

Call me reactionary, but I think the most dangerous thing to happen to our culture in this century has been the advent of reality television.

 

[Kaninchen]

Call me reactionary, but I think the most dangerous thing to happen to our culture in this century has been the advent of reality television.

I’d go with the ‘Cult of Celebrity’ itself.

 

[grampben]

I’d go with the ‘Cult of Celebrity’ itself.

And people said that civil unions would bring the culture down!

 

[zaffiroborant]

I agree with the above posts. But focusing away from the driver to the actual message for a moment, I think it begins to become more interesting. The advert is by an atheist organization, but the message is an agnostic one! The atheists believe that there is no God. The advert says “There’s probably no God”! That is an odd message from an atheist. Aren’t they sure then? If they aren’t sure, aren’t they taking a bit of a risk, saying “Stop worrying, and enjoy life”? I would want to be pretty darn sure, before taking such an advice!

Why do you think they have expressed their message in that way? Do you think they were afraid of something?

And what do you think that says about atheism vs. agnosticism? Do you think they are basically the same thing?

What are your thoughts?

zerinus

Here is something from the NY Times on why the word probably is used.

*"An interesting element of the bus slogan is the word “probably,” which would seem to be more suited to an Agnostic Bus Campaign than to an atheist one. Mr. Dawkins, for one, argued that the word should not be there at all.

But the element of doubt was necessary to meet British advertising guidelines, said Tim Bleakley, managing director for sales and marketing at CBS Outdoor in London, which handles advertising for the bus system.

For religious people, advertisements saying there is no God “would have been misleading,” Mr. Bleakley said.

“So as not to fall foul of the code, you have to acknowledge that there is a gray area,” he said."*

 

[Kaninchen]

And people said that civil unions would bring the culture down!

As Northcliffe observed many, many years ago (echoing some American): “Nobody ever went bankrupt by underestimating the taste of the British public”.

 

[grampben]

As Northcliffe observed many, many years ago (echoing some American): “Nobody ever went bankrupt by underestimating the taste of the British public”.

Interesting.
From this thread I have learned the things I have learned from many other threads. The difference between American and British culture!

 

[grampben]

Lol!

 

[zerinus]

Here is something from the NY Times on why the word probably is used.

*"An interesting element of the bus slogan is the word “probably,” which would seem to be more suited to an Agnostic Bus Campaign than to an atheist one. Mr. Dawkins, for one, argued that the word should not be there at all.

But the element of doubt was necessary to meet British advertising guidelines, said Tim Bleakley, managing director for sales and marketing at CBS Outdoor in London, which handles advertising for the bus system.

For religious people, advertisements saying there is no God “would have been misleading,” Mr. Bleakley said.

“So as not to fall foul of the code, you have to acknowledge that there is a gray area,” he said."*

Thank you, that was an interesting observation. In that case, it may be that the ad is still in breach of the British advertising guidelines, because it is inherently dishonest or misleading. It is advertizing the wrong product! It is an agnostic slogan purporting to come from an Atheist! A truly atheist slogan should read, “There is no God;” not, “There is probably no God”. If they aren’t sure, why are they calling themselves atheists? It looks like they can’t win!

zerinus

 

[MegaTherion]

If they aren’t sure, why are they calling themselves atheists? It looks like they can’t win!

Atheism isn’t a claim of certainty. It’s simply the lack of a belef in any gods.

There probably isn’t a god, just like there probably aren’t any Hindu gods, and probably aren’t leprechauns.

Do I know any of this for certain? No. But I don’t accept claims that don’t have evidence.