Rebecca Barry
Apparently this woman is a newspaper columnist, for a paper in New Zealand. I defy anyone to get to the end of this without sticking pins in their eyes.

---

IT'S a shame the NZ Atheist Bus Campaign slogans won't appear on Auckland's buses. Some drivers could do with a reminder that a higher power won't necessarily watch the road on their behalf.

On a recent trip from the city to Grey Lynn, the driver spent the majority of the ride shrieking into her walkie-talkie, eyes locked on the rear-view mirror at the bus behind us.

I couldn't help but wonder if a whacking great sign along her wheels reading, ``There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life'' might have rubbed off.

That second sentence could have done all of us good. The guy next to me practically chewed his thumbnail off he was so distracted for his safety.

Secular sentiment seems appropriate on a bus. You'd hardly associate this steaming mode of transport with godliness. I don't know anyone who has married on the bus, been baptised or christened as they ripped the greasy handrail and pulled the buzzer.

Perhaps a more appropriate slogan would be, ``There's probably no God on this bus but you could check the 725. Now stop worrying and catch the train''. (Although, as a friend who recently sat on one for more than an hour waiting for it to leave Newmarket told me, that's run by the devil.) We'll just have to make do and have this debate somewhere else.

It's high time because faith is on the nation's mind this year. First, the questionable conduct of a certain man at the forefront of Destiny Church. Then the controversy surrounding these bus ads, which NZ Bus have refused to run. We now have a new Anglican Bishop of Auckland.

Simultaneously, atheism is supposedly on the rise. This week the Global Atheist Convention in Melbourne had an impressive turnout of 2500 paying punters keen to worship at the altar of rational thought, while defending enlightenment ``from deliberate attack from organised ignorance'', according to speaker Richard Dawkins, who spoke more sense in New Zealand last week.

An atheist convention does seem a bit pointless, a bit like holding a convention for meat-eaters. I'm bored with hearing non-believers blame religion for everything.

That just gets in the way of a debate about what law-abiding, non-radical individuals believe, regardless of the doctrine they choose to follow. Why must a religious debate stray into lectures on terrorism or apocalyptic themes when ordinary citizens are more
concerned with doing the right thing by their neighbours? Shouldn't atheists just stop worrying and enjoy their lives?

I'm no atheist, nor have I ever been religious. While schoolmates wrote Anglican or Catholic on their school identity forms, I wrote ``None''. At school we did Bible readings and sang hymns and the only thing I remember, other than the 13th chapter of 1 Corinthians which we had to learn, was the sound biblical advice, ``Take the log out of
your own eye'', the imagery of which I found amusing.

Even our non-religious maths teacher taught us it was statistically beneficial to believe in God because at least then you have a shot at getting into heaven.

Perhaps I should've paid more attention. Because in later years, realising how little of the world I understood, and with a few bizarre
experiences that I cannot explain away as an over-active parietal lobe, I now lie somewhere in that ambiguous area between logic and
faith.

In Aotea Square one night I almost choked with laughter when a group of well-meaning Christians offered to instantly heal a friend's
broken leg. But when I prayed really hard for a carpark in the city that night, I got it. I can only put this down to some kind of miraculous force at work because the park was on K Rd.

Seriously, though, if scientists can believe in the possibility of parallel universes without testing the theory, and the experience of faith is so real to so many wise and intelligent people, why is it a scary concept that needs campaigning against at an unholier-than-thou
convention?

As long as our minds remain closed to the beliefs of others, barricaded firmly rather than open even just slightly ajar with curiosity, no mutual understanding or change can ever ensue.

Even Dawkins, the world's most famous atheist and whose brilliant and inspiring observations of the evolutionary process I'd come to hear, gave a less than compelling argument against the case for God, calling
him an invention to channel our gratefulness for life. Which is silly because I've always prayed to pixies for that.

I wanted to ask him why atheists chose to use the word ``probably'' in their not-on-the-bus campaign to promote their cause to the world. And what, other than shrieking bus drivers, they think believers are worried about.
(foxy01, Wed 24 Mar 2010, 8:30, 12 replies)

Uh...
I don't see anything wrong with this - I'd read this over your average Daily Mail journo!
(feels_goodman 's brain cogs whirred at, Wed 24 Mar 2010, 8:58, closed)

It is a good bit more erudite
than Jan Moire (and her interference patterns)
( sandettie light vessel automatic New Twitter - @bollocksreally, Wed 24 Mar 2010, 9:23, closed)

Nothing wrong with this
I'm an Atheist myself- and while I disagree with her, the piece is well-written, and doesn't state anything ridiculous. The woman has a right to her opinions.
(EuroSong I love horse meat: best of all the animals, Wed 24 Mar 2010, 9:19, closed)

Nothing wrong at all with that
A sight more thoughful than most UK newspaper columns.
(North Utsira South Utsira, Wed 24 Mar 2010, 9:38, closed)

OK - so it's accommodationist,
and accommodationism is stupid. But - really - it's hardly earth-shattering in its stupidity...
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Wed 24 Mar 2010, 10:06, closed)

They didn't choose to use the world 'probably'.
The posters were meant to say 'there's no god', but the owners of the advertising space made them add the 'probably' or they wouldn't run the ad.
( Bob Todd whee, Wed 24 Mar 2010, 11:02, closed)

Not quite.
At least in the UK, there was a risk that a claim along the lines of "There's no god" would allow fundies to go to the ASA to insist that evidence could be produced. The fundies would've been on a hiding to nothing - except that they'd create faff and be more trouble than they're worth.

"Probably" was added to make the claim an expression of opinion - comparable to the "Probably" in the Carlsberg ads.

At least, that's what I think happened.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Wed 24 Mar 2010, 12:13, closed)

This is pretty much what they said at the book launch for 'The Atheists Guide to Christmas'.

( Devil_In_Tights the *real* DiT!, Wed 24 Mar 2010, 12:43, closed)

I thought it was just because
"Probably..." trips off the tongue better than "Current evidence and logic suggests..." - the main point being that, whilst the fundies will take another lungful of blind faith to proclaim that there is definitely a god, no question about it, nosiree, a scientist can only go on the evidence available.
(LongJohnBaldry, Wed 24 Mar 2010, 13:23, closed)

What are you making a fuss about?
I would like to stick pins in your eyes for wasting five minutes of time though (!). Well, maybe that's harsh. I'm sure there's room to accommodate both opinions.
( disasterprone "Pyjamas caused the Holocaust", Wed 24 Mar 2010, 11:15, closed)

Lost count
of the number of times I rolled my eyes.
Is it that easy to get an "opinion" piece in the newspaper?
(tweebianmonkey Should be known as Widget, Wed 24 Mar 2010, 12:31, closed)

Errrm...
It's hardly an incitement to hatred or religious violence is it? Strangely polite and mild mannered in fact almost like it was written by someone I wouldn't want to stab for having a different view to mine.
( number5 has been fighting tramps and losing., Wed 24 Mar 2010, 16:24, closed)