HOORAY for atheism!!!

[karakara]

Kyu, when I last looked, karakara was a member in good standing here just as much as you are. He is not an interloper. Although this is an atheist forum, all people are welcome as members. Additionally, whether or not you agree with me or not on my assertion that sometimes you just have to agree to disagree, that's the truth. Sometimes you do. If you want to ignore that advice, you are free to as you are not breaking any forum rules of course, but the adage of "win the battle and lose the war" comes to mind here. You gain nothing by your current course of action, but stand to gain credibility by taking a higher road and allowing another individual his opinion.

Actually I do gain something ... I continue to demonstrate that Karakra is not observing the generally understood conventions of debate, that makes her look bad and, if the truth be known, I'm entirely happy with that.

Kyu

Wow, you really dislike me. I must be doing something right.

Go ahead and believe that you're demonstrating something, I don't know what .... also, I'm a guy last time I checked.. a 'Kara' is a Sikh iron or steel bracelet , usually very large and heavy, often inscribed.. as are mine, with verses from our Holy Book, Siri Guru Granth Sahib.. and the Kara is mandatory to be worn by all Khalsa. Look up '5 Ks' , google it. Kara is also a common woman's name, I'm aware of this confusion.

How many times do I have to say man that we're in the R E L I G I O N  section of the forum??  I'm not on trial. I dont' play by your stinkin stacked 'generally understood conventions of debate', hell, I was on two debate teams myself, I have more than a passing familiarity with how the game is played.. read my lips pal, I AIN'T PLAYING BY YOUR RULES. Pls. get over it. You're just pissed off because I got under your skin and you've yet to get the better of me. Stop whining.. stop coming across as a numbingly predictable logic algorithm, .. I'll start calling you BOOLEAN-suki .. I'm not convinced you're human at all, in fact..  not only can machines be painfully antiseptic and cold, but they can be annoying..  which to date describes you pretty accurately, as far as I've seen.. and what do you know of truth??

[Kyuuketsuki]

Wow, you really dislike me. I must be doing something right.

Dislike you? No. Contemptuous of you? Oh most certainly.

As for the rest of the drivel in your post I will say nothing except to remind you that you made a claim and in any debate it is neither unreasonable or illogical to expect you to respond postively to a request to justify that claim. That you have not done so speaks volumes about you and fully explains why I will not waste my time and effort debating you.

Titan, OTOH, generally knows how to argue, raises challenging points in a fashion far beyond your ken and is a genuine please to debate with  so I will concentrate my efforts where they have value.

Kyu

[Zarathustra]

Seriously.  I think if Muslim and Christian and other assorted religious messages can travel around unassailed, then atheist messages can too. .

My point exactly! Well put

OK Major Tom, but I expected a more... philosophical ... opinion from you.

Well THAT was respecful...Private Joe... dissing my comment for PipeBox, but not responding to my questions regarding your groundless assertions.
I was going to refute that, but I won't let the issue astray. Therefore I'll give you the chance to do the right and respectfulthing, and try to answer the original post:

There are probably only a handful of places in the U.S. where such nonsense will be tolerated -- I say 'nonsense', because you're not promoting intelligent discourse, but simply being provocative

How so? Elaborate please...

.. there are enough powerful religious community leaders such that this would have zero chance of avoiding conflict.. the banners would be torn off, or the public transit system would be ordered to remove them...not to mention our Jewish, Muslim, etc., leaders who just will not be able to abide this.

Why not? Christians abide Jews openly denying that Jesus was the son of God, Muslims abide the Christians claim that their religion is inherantly evil, and so on and so forth. Why should this be ANY different?

Is that to much to ask? I'll provide you with all the...philosophy... you need in return.

[karakara]

Since the existence of God can be neither proven or disproved

The existence of an invisible flying purple people eater purple can neither be proven or disproven ... would you accept as a working hypothesis that it might exist and that we should all act with that in mind and be forced to justify our stance with respect to the claim?

Kyu

Let's not forget, this is the brainstorm that you seem to be so proud of -- I bet  you stayed up all night formulating, redrafting, etc. I'm thunderstruck at the brilliance of this analogy, why hadn't anyone ever thought of that before, Shazam, your brilliant analogy should act as a true epiphany for any dumb religious person.. wait.. a casual google search of "flying purple people eater"+god shows that atheist just love to spin some version of this nonsensical analogy. Must be some subconscious affinity for their childhood friend 'Barney the Purple Dinosaur' or something equally ludicrous.. but it has entertainment value, I suppose.

Your insultingly disrespectful, flippant and wholly irrelevant analogy is laughable for many reasons, and at the risk of sounding like a broken record myself, I'll restate: some things are self evident. Not truly need further explanation. A child can see that the purpose of that analogy is to mock, ridicule, insult, but mostly to condescendingly dismiss. I'll also reiterate why I don't feel  compelled to conform to your style of argumentation and debate.. to make it simple, when Mr. Kyu, for example, and I are speaking, we come from a radically different mindset, world view, perspective: his  arguments, expectations, rationalization, and logic are fine and necessary when speaking about, for example, any field of science. I would accept his 'rules 'in this case.. science in fact demands the process of The Scientific Method: Observation, Formulation of Hypothesis, Testing of said Hypothesis, Independent testing to prove replicatability, etc.

When we're talking about spirituality, and all that this inadequate umbrella label encompasses, the very nature of the experience or phenomenon(phenomena) is such that to apply the Scientific Method is not only impractical, but nearly impossible. Not totally... but extremely difficult, and in any case, that work simply has not thoroughly been done. Although I've given some thought to how this would be done, and there are ways if you really narrow your hypothesis to something that is actually 'testable' such as, for example, Vilayanur Ramachandran, I mention him as he's highly regarded by Richard Dawkins, so I imagine most of you should have seen his name at least in passing. For those not familiar, he's an extremely interesting Neuroscientist who's managed to inflame Muslims to the point that I fear for his life... I can image a 'Fatwah' being issued on him.. he's theorized that the neurological condition of 'Left Temporal Lobe Epilepsy' often leads to psychological states of spiritual, or 'mystical' trance, and a common experience of 'talking to God'.. or of 'reciting' the words of God or Angels....Now, he not pushing his own agenda, but he's not afraid to ruffle some feathers.. to actually publish his work took courage, and I have admiration for the guy. So, some phenomena or aspects of spirituality can, in fact, be hypothesized and put to some kind of test .. and from this knowledge base, over time, perhaps a better picture will emerge as to the nature of Man, God, Spirituality, etc.

 I'm all for this.. but as I say, 'Perspective is Everything'.. to the atheist, this would probably tend to  reinforce the belief that anything related to 'God' or religion can be broken down, analyzed, tested, then neatly labeled and filed away, case closed. To the 'believer', and I have to find this amusing.. the very same data might very possibly  reinforce his/her belief in God... How? I can't speak for adherents of the Abrahamic faiths, but to those of the Dharmic faiths, who believe that every atom of our being is unfused with God, that God lives and breaths in and through us, that we all possess the ability, through proven methods, of attaining union with God.. from practices of meditation, to more advance 'mystical' practices of experiencing God.. then there is no contradiction with anything that science can show. For example, a Hindu might look at Ramachandran's work and say 'Oh yes, so he is simply showing that in some altered states of cognition, whether self-induced, or brought about by some organic condition, the mind becomes fertile ground for the manifestation of God in the person's awareness..." Now, how to come up with a testable hypothesis to refute that conclusion by our Hindu friends? .. this can spiral and spiral forever, because the base belief systems of the scientist and of the believer are worlds apart... I find it remarkable that probably the  majority of the people on earth can live comfortably in both worlds.. some clear exceptions notwithstanding (fundamentalists of any stripe, etc.). Whether this points to the remarkable ability of Homo Sapiens to compartmentalize his beliefs, or to something else, I can't say.

Another point I'd make is that, depending on who's data or statistics you accept, somewhere in the order of 95-98 percent of the human population believes in a deity or deities.. or come from a culture with a supernatural cosmology, and accept as factual that God, by whatever definition, existed and exists. Not all beliefs and opinions carry equal weight, as I believe, but from such data we can draw the conclusion that acceptance of a spiritual aspect of existence is the Human Norm. I concede, even if 100% 'believed' does this make their belief correct. However, we do need to ask ourselves, if acceptance of spirituality is the 'norm', and it is, then why?? Many reasons, no doubt many having nothing to do with the spiritual, mystical experience itself.. societal pressure, etc. But what to make of the experiences, from time immemorial, recorded, REPLICABLE, by shamans, priests, and simple 'seekers' who claim to succeed in communion with God, with 'knowing' God... often in a trance state, sometimes with the help of hallucinogens, or through meditation, or by guidance of a Guru.. they report remarkably similar experiences. How to test?? How to apply the Scientific Method??  If testable, and the mystical experience truly be 'replicated' by just about anyone.. to experience union with God (however we define 'God')? Mystics and Gurus say unequivacally YES, they can take virtually anyone and train them to acheive 'God Consciousness'.. what to make of this? But for the athiest, my challenge is this: If you truly want to refute God and Religion, then why not have a select number of atheists 'volunteer' to undergo a discipleship of a master Guru who.. naturally, will pledge to teach them how to achieve 'God Awareness'... surely, some soft of hypothesis and testing might occur. And from these experiences, further refining.. perhaps, from a Hindu Master, to a Sikh master, then to a Sufi Master, then from a Chrisitan Mystic, then Kabbalah .. etc. This takes some courage.. it takes a hell of a lot more courage and open mind that posting to atheist forums all day with a dog-eared copy of Sam Harris or Dawkins as reference.

So, my main problem with the Flying Purple People Eater analogy of Kyu is it's insulting , flippant and dismissive tone. Kyu, you may have a logical and rational mind, and be schooled in disciplines of debate, etc., but you also seemed, from day one, to be on a 'search and destroy' mission against any religious type who dared show up on YOUR turf.. I've said some conciliatory and respectful things about atheists, as you might recall, especially to the tone of asserting their humanity and legitimacy of their beliefs.. which you probably won't see too many 'believers' showing up and doing! How about a modicum of respect in return, how about showing a more human side.. considering that I, for the most part, stay in my own 'sandbox' here in the 'RELIGION' section.

Too long winded, rambling, I apologize for that, but I also have a life.. gotta work.

I look forward to any response, no matter how insulting or disrespectful.

Sat Nam

[Zarathustra]

I look forward to any response, no matter how insulting or disrespectful.

Here's one, quoting...yes yourself: Everything you wrote is nonsense...  I say 'nonsense', because you're not promoting intelligent discourse, but simply being provocative

[Kyuuketsuki]

I look forward to any response, no matter how insulting or disrespectful.

I'm still in shock that you have responded and hope to respond in full tonight.

Kyu

[Zarathustra]

I look forward to any response, no matter how insulting or disrespectful.

I'm still in shock that you have responded and hope to respond in full tonight.

Kyu

And I'm envyous, since he won't respond to my questions  

[McQ]

A reminder to all members that the topic of the thread of "Hooray for Atheism" is the advertising on buses. It is not about who can insult who better, or who thinks that someone isn't arguing correctly. I have already said that continuing this fight goes nowhere, and people are proving that to be true. If anyone has a personal issue with another member, please take it to PMs. If you want to continue to discuss and debate differences in religion, philosophy, or the human condition, please take it to the proper thread.

[karakara]

I look forward to any response, no matter how insulting or disrespectful.

Here's one, quoting...yes yourself: Everything you wrote is nonsense...  I say 'nonsense', because you're not promoting intelligent discourse, but simply being provocative

Well, as opposed to the 'intelligent discourse' I run into from Atheist with an attack dog mentality and overt hostility toward anything posted in this... yes, again... RELIGION section of the forum by self-described religious people?? You're entiteled to your opinion, for what it's worth. I haven't read any of your other posts outside of threads I've been involved in, but I should to get a feel for where you're coming from.

 I also have to ask myself, just what is the purpose of having a Religion section of an atheist forum.. which by definition, is all about religion and beliefs, non beliefs, etc.? I happen to think that when the designer of this forum put this together in the way that he/she did, it makes sense, and it's to his credit. There doesn't really need to be a RELIGION section in an atheist forum, but this caught my eye..  an overture to civil discourse as well as meeting place?? I'm not sure what the intent was, but I don't imagine it was to bait religious people into joining and posting, only to be subjected to ridicule and insult by other members. Not all 'religious' people will visit the forum, much less join and post, unless they're looking for a fight.. but the RELIGION section provides something a little different..  I've mostly confined myself to this section because of the nature of the messages that I'm trying to get across, not for the sole purpose of enaging Atheists in debate. That may be why you joined, but not why I joined.

So what's so provactive, relative to the provocation that I see targeted at anyone supporting a spiritual or religious view?? Don't I even get any credit for subjecting myself to attack on enemy turf?? I seem to have ruffled a lot of feathers here..

[karakara]

I look forward to any response, no matter how insulting or disrespectful.

I'm still in shock that you have responded and hope to respond in full tonight.

Kyu

I can't wait. I hope you understand the gist of my taking exception to your analogy. I think you can. I hope you can at least partially accept that when I say atheists and 'believer's 'talk past' each other, this is truly what is happening because of the immense chasm of world view that separate the two.  And if you can accept that, then my claim that your logic, debate, Scientific Method, etc., might be inadequate to fully explain spiritual and religious phenomena could have merit as well.  And what Zar I think sees as 'provocative', I'm not being, I'm being serious when I suggest that if Atheists want to formulate hypotheses and test claims of spiritual nature, then it might take some sort of radical experimentation such as putting Yogis, Gurus, and Mystics of various faiths to the test.. what's so provocative about that? If I can applaud Ramachandran for his work, then what's so provocative about such experiments? Show me atheist who will 'walk the walk' as well as they 'talk the talk', and have the courage to expose themselves to God, to the discovery of their own inner divinity. Who amoung you has this sort of courage.. to put your own world view to the test?

Pls. respond, I want to hear your opinion, if you can believe it.

[Kyuuketsuki]

A reminder to all members that the topic of the thread of "Hooray for Atheism" is the advertising on buses. It is not about who can insult who better, or who thinks that someone isn't arguing correctly. I have already said that continuing this fight goes nowhere, and people are proving that to be true. If anyone has a personal issue with another member, please take it to PMs. If you want to continue to discuss and debate differences in religion, philosophy, or the human condition, please take it to the proper thread.

Again, with respect McQ, threads drift and I wasn't the one who started that drift (dunno who was). As for insults,outside of referring to Karakara as an interloper and stating my contempt for him (justifiable at that time given his comments), I'm fairly sure I've pretty much stuck to the subject (the diverted subject that is).

I presume it would be an easy task for you to split the thread and make a new topic wouldn't it? Why not do that?

Kyu

[Kyuuketsuki]

First of all a recap of our "deliberations" to date in this thread.

Karakara:
Since the existence of God can be neither proven or disproved

Kyuuketsuki:
The existence of an invisible flying purple people eater purple can neither be proven or disproven ... would you accept as a working hypothesis that it might exist and that we should all act with that in mind and be forced to justify our stance with respect to the claim?

Karakara:
I won't get nasty, but simply observe that your analogy is an extremely poor one at best.

Kyuuketsuki:
Why? Exactly what makes my analogy a poor one? Justify your assertion.

Kyuuketsuki:
Karakara ... I'm still waiting for you to justify your assertion.

Karakara:
As far as 'justifying my assertion' .. I don't feel the need, it should be self-evident. Some things are simply self-evident.

Kyuuketsuki:
No it isn't ... please justify your assertion

Karakara:
Well, I'll have plenty of time for 'justifying my assertions', but even so, from our polar opposite perspectives, we'd probably just be talking past each other. But -- hey,a pimple on your ass is ... a pimple on your ass. Self-Evident.

Kyuuketsuki:
Stop avoiding the point and justify the assertion as requested please.

Karakara:
Kyu, I know the game here too well, and I just don't play by your rules as you define them... as I used to define them. I know from my own past that in my 'Atheist' days, I could always win any argument with religious people.. but the game was rigged, the rules skewed. And as I can clearly see today, for all of my hollow debate 'victories', I proved nothing.. I won't convince you of anything, nor will you of me. We have different world view, different perspectives, and different experiences, or lack thereof.

Kyuuketsuki:
Stop avoiding the point and justify the assertion as requested please.

Karakara:
With all due respect, my answer is my answer. I just ain't playing by your rules, been there, done that. Please get over it. Declare victory if it makes you feel
any better, or if you have some psychological need for 'closure'. I'm also trying to bring an obvious 'human element' to counter your.. well, 'sterile' tone.

Kyuuketsuki:
No ... unless you are prepared to state that you are ignoring the basic rules of debate, explain your assertion or withdraw it I will not get over it. You are the interloper here.

Karakara:
Well hell Pal, yes, I'm ignoring basic rules of debate, as I've repeatedly said, I don't play by your rules. Your rules don't apply to some aspects of spirituality. They're inadequate. So I'm the interloper in this case, fair and good. If you want a forum that mandates structured rules of debate, go start your own. As long as I'm given license to post, argue, assert, respond, expound, bloviate, etc., freestyle -- playing it by ear, as I seem fit, I'll do it, as Frank Sinatra says, 'My Way'. From this point on in this particular thread, I feel compelled to ignore your pestering.

Kyuuketsuki:
And I reserve the right to continue "pestering" you for it.

Now once again, please can explain your earlier assertion that my analogy was a poor one? Failing that will you please withdraw it?

Karakara:
Wow, you really dislike me. I must be doing something right.

How many times do I have to say man that we're in the R E L I G I O N section of the forum?? I'm not on trial. I dont' play by your stinkin stacked 'generally understood conventions of debate', hell, I was on two debate teams myself, I have more than a passing familiarity with how the game is played.. read my lips pal, I AIN'T PLAYING BY YOUR RULES. Pls. get over it. You're just pissed off because I got under your skin and you've yet to get the better of me. Stop whining.. stop coming across as a numbingly predictable logic algorithm, .. I'll start calling you BOOLEAN-suki .. I'm not convinced you're human at all, in fact.. not only can machines be painfully antiseptic and cold, but they can be annoying.. which to date describes you pretty accurately, as far as I've seen.. and what do you know of truth??

Kyuuketsuki:
Dislike you? No. Contemptuous of you? Oh most certainly.

As for the rest of the drivel in your post I will say nothing except to remind you that you made a claim and in any debate it is neither unreasonable or illogical to expect you to respond positively to a request to justify that claim. That you have not done so speaks volumes about you and fully explains why I will not waste my time and effort debating you.

OK ... to summarise, you made an assertion, I challenged that assertion with an analogy, you said that analogy was poor, I asked to justify that, you refused saying it was self-evident as to why the analogy was poor, I persisted and it went down hill from there.

Now to your reply.

Your first paragraph was just sarcasm. In your second paragraph you declare, without good reason, that my analogy was insultingly disrespectful, flippant and irrelevant following which you appear to divert to a vague attack on the scientific method as a reason to excuse you from normal debate etiquette. In the third paragraph you start in on something concerning spirituality being scientifically testable which may or may not be true but doesn't seem to be relevant to our earlier deliberations. I'm not at all sure what you were talking about in the fourth except that it, again had no relevance to the one thing we were (certainly I was) deliberating. Yu did much the same in the fifth. Finally in the sixth you come back to topic but simply appear to reiterate pretty much what you said in the second paragraph. In your follow up reply you, rather curiously, said you hoped I understood why you took exception to my analogy.

I have to say I am disappointed (though not entirely surprised) with your response because although you did "deal" with my analogy you did so purely on the emotive grounds that it was an insult of some kind (it wasn't but you can continue to believe that if you wish)? That it was somehow disrespectful? Why?  Because you believe in a god that no one can actually detect? Why would I respect that? Why, especially in an atheist forum, would you believe that such respect is warranted? Why would you even think I would care that your faith is not strong enough to deal with criticism? But the most important question is why do you think that my analogy of an equally invisible, indetectable being is irrelevant? That is essentially what my point was ... would it help if I refer to one of the many other atheist inventions such as the invisible pink unicorn or the celestial teapot?

So yes, the simple answer is yes I understand why you took exception to my analogy but I do not accept that your exception is valid and I utterly fail to see how any of the reply you give above deals with the issue of your avoidance of my analogy.

Like I say ... disappointing but not entirely surprising.

Kyu

p.s. BTW my analogy is nothing to do with Barney The Purple [expletive deleted] Dinosaur but actually refers to something considerably older than that freakish TV show.

[karakara]

OK Kyu, I'm just going to let most of that slide rather than engage you in endless, and probably pointless, back and forth.. I always invite anyone to suddenly declare victory. Go ahead  if you want.. matters not. Consistent with my previous observations that we're 'talking past each other', you won't be surprised that I disagree with much, but not all, of what you've just said.

But here's a notable exception I'll take to your rebuttal:

"....That it was somehow disrespectful? Why? Because you believe in a god that no one can actually detect?"

Somehow disrespectful?? Come on. And as far as believing in a God that no one can actually detect, hell, speak for yourself. I've repeatedly alluded to the ways in which people have direct contact, or knowledge of God.. (and I haven't even gone into my own transformative encounter.. I won't cheapen the experience by exposing it to scrutiny, as it was profoundly personal, powerful and real.) but for some reason this just doesn't register on you radar..  you talk about me avoiding the issues. This is an issue relevant to my argument that you also conveniently gloss over. . For as long as people have been around up until today, there are those who have had direct knowledge of God.. although we can get into exactly what is mean by 'God' in different systems. And what is meant by 'knowledge'. But my point is, a direct experience with God is all the evidence that anyone needs. And to turn that one back on you, I'd say who are you to be so fervent in your dismissal of 'God' when not only , I believe I safely assume, you have never had a spiritual experience, but you're so sure of yourself and your world view that you believe there is no need for a personal, hands-on investigation. What might you be afraid of? I'm telling you, if you were to truly do what it takes to investigate your own latent spirituality and inner divinity, you might come to a radically different conclusion. But, assuming you were to have a mystical 'God' experience, would you even acknowledge it as such, or merely dismiss it as some sort of psychological phenomenon??

Some theists might fire back at you that your own inability to perceive the Divine or lack of such an experience would somehow indicate that there is some missing ingredient, or aspect, in your own life, or maybe a defect.. .  I wouldn't go there, but considering what is probably a willful refusal to investigate your own 'spiritual side', I'd have to ask, are you really qualified to attack and dismiss something of which you have no direct first hand experience? Isn't that rather like the Newtonian Physicist dismissing out of hand any possibility of the validity of Quantum Physics??? If a poor analogy, so be it, I won't get hyper defensive over an analogy...

I'll let other readers of this thread draw their own conclusions to my long post, which I'm betting might be considerably more open and sympathetic to my attempts to engage you, than your own.

Sat Nam

[karakara]

Why would you even think I would care that your faith is not strong enough to deal with criticism?

Oh my, how could I let that one go? I don't recall you having criticized my faith... for that matter, I don't recall anyone here criticizing my faith.. so I don't take offense, since blanket, generalized criticism of 'religion, God, faith, spirituality', etc., etc., is truly meaningless. One point I've repeatedly tried to make and which apparently also either falls on deaf ears or is conveniently glossed over, is that 'God' and 'Faiths' are quite diverse. I've made the observation from reading up posts in other areas of this forum, to which I have actually seldom responded.. but to get a gist of what some of the more strident and vocal Atheists here are venting their wrath at, it seems overwhelmingly against Abrahamic Faiths, and all that goes along with those three. You seem at a loss to deal with Dharmic faiths, no doubt because the atheist movement originated in countries dominated by Abrahamic Faiths, primarily Christianity.

I've attempted, though very modestly.. even sub 'Dharmic Faiths 101' level, to plant a seed of doubt into some minds here over the tendency to generalize about God and all religions.. the fact that I'm uniformly ignored when doing this lends me to believe that you all are at a loss to take me on, on my own turf, so to speak..  where you don't have an adequate supply of canned answers at your fingertips...well, I can see the collective blood pressure rising now. I hope for no other reason than a collective desire on the part of some here to discredit me that you read up on Dharmic faiths, including Buddhism.. if so, then I win, no matter your arguments.. I will have expanded your awareness of the diversity of human spiritual practices and beliefs.. and hopefully nudged you out what I perceive in some as being stuck in a limited Abrahamic Paradigm of religious awareness.. Abrahamic Faiths are a huge part of religion in the modern world, but there is a lot more, and many of your arguments and preconceptions about religion don't apply, imho.

[curiosityandthecat]

Friend, why would you vandalize church signs?  I don't see this as an appropriate analogy.

It's to illustrate a point. Nothing more.

The idea that these messages on buses will somehow hurt the souls of religious folk is, in my opinion, laughable. You want to talk about walking a mile in someone else's shoes? You were an atheist, karakara. You understand the level of Christian hegemony and privilege in the western world. We walk in those shoes every day. We have no alternative. We live in Rome, and are, much to our chagrin, pretty much doing as the Romans do just to get along.

If someone's faith is shaken to the core because they see a sign on a bus that reads "There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life." then, well, I'd say they were about ready to lose that faith regardless of the campaign.

You know me; I always like to try it out with other aspects of life and see if it still holds up: what would the equivalent be for gender, race, class? There is no equivalent. "There probably is no God" says nothing about religious people in and of themselves, whereas replacing it with a message aimed toward one of those other demographics would.

The whole idea behind this is to shock, it's to expose people to something they may not have thought before. Will some people be insulted and angry? Of course. Unfortunately for them, there's no law that says they have the right to not be offended.