Science = moon. Religion = buildings.

victor stenger bus Science = moon. Religion = buildings. Science! Religion Humor

Just saw this today and thought it was hilariously true.

SwitchAds

Please like MCS on Facebook

Leave a comment ?

58 Responses to Science = moon. Religion = buildings.

  1. So true. I just wish you could do things like that here in the states. Land of the free my hat!

  2. So Religion = Yay?
    I mean: What the FUCK do I want on the moon? There’s nothing up there! In buildings on the other hand…

  3. @VilaWolf:
    Too true. Everybody’s just too afraid of offending everybody else. And let’s not forget how too many people are just so “sue-happy”. Bastards!

  4. This BS, yeah its an ongoing campgain by atheist in London, their is a counter movement by Pro-religion already ongoing buses. Good to see that both these groups have the money to spend on such a retardly wasteful endeavor. Not like that money could be better served you know going to charity.

  5. @Teutonic Logic: Christers have spent billions of dollars on advertising similar to this over the last 100 years. Atheists? Just what they spent on that bus campaign. But it’s the Christers that have the mandate to support charity, not atheists!

    @VilaWolf:
    This campaign has spread to the US. I believe these ads are running in Washington, at the very least. The time has passed when Christers can intimidate us!

  6. Who cares what people believe or don’t believe? Except muslims. Fuck them and allah.

  7. @AlecDalek

    Let me get this straight your saying christians have spent billons of dollars advertising on buses over the last 100 years? You would think that would be pretty ubitious, but I have never in my life seen a single Christian advertisment on a bus. A few adverts on television encouraging people to go to a particular, but how is that intimidation? Is coca cola intimidating you to buy their product?

    As for the charity, I’m saying human beings should have the decency to help their fellow human beings not waste money on something so polarizing and stupid. What does this effort accomplish? Do you really think a people are going to see these and say “there right now I’m an atheist.” it is not going to convince anyone its just ment as provocation.

  8. Apollo 11 astronauts: All Christians.

  9. @Teutonic Logic: “I have never in my life seen a single Christian advertisment on a bus”

    Clever wording. Maybe not on a bus, but on billboards, I’m sure you have. Not to mention TV commercials cost many times more than small bus adverts.

  10. but this isnt a war between atheist and believers. People can believe whatever they want, atheism isnt a religion it isnt about converting people. So what is the goal of this advertisment campgain? As I asserted its pure provacation, its goal is to get a rise out people. What is noble about that? In this economic time wouldnt it be better to spend that money on something more meanful like relief for the homeless or the hungry. Charity shouldnt just be a mandate for religion, it should be a mandate of human beings.

  11. @Teutonic Logic: “What does this effort accomplish?”
    It made me laugh. That is sufficient justification. In fact, more money should be spent specifically for my entertainment. Others may incidentally benefit, but only those who don’t have a stick up their ass.

  12. Pro Tip:
    This is shooped.

    Original Atheist ad said:
    “There is probably no god. Now stop worrying and enjoy life”

    Godfag rebuttal said:
    “There definitely is a god. Now join the christian party and enjoy life”

    This image is from the atheist bus ad generator:
    ruletheweb.co.uk/b3ta/bus/

  13. @ando

    Does it really matter what was actually said, bus advertisments shouldnt be the forum to discuss religion. For or agaisnt. The pro-religious groups are just as bad for wasting their money. They shouldnt respond to the adverts just ignore them, and go on with your life.

  14. fanatacism flies you into buildings

    fix’d

  15. @Teutonic Logic:

    Atheism isn’t about converting people, that is true, but that doesn’t mean that religion can “work the flock” and atheists should just lie down and roll over…I like it that Atheism has a voice.

  16. 1: Subways here in NY have religious adverts all over them. Almost every church has purchased ad space in those cars. So, yes, chuches do advertise in large cities. Just like any other business looking for new clients.

    2: Religious fanaticism can lead to idiotic and deadly things. History proves that again and again.

    3: Scientific fanatacism can lead one to be an arrogant asshole. But it can also lead to new ideas.

    End of the day, I’ll take snobbery over oppression and death.

  17. @starkiller

    yeah but athiesm is an idea (an idea that defines itself for what it is not), it is nothing more. Athiesm isnt a way of life, and what is its voice going to say? besides I would guess that most church adverts are not aimed at athiests their goal is to poach church members from other churchs. (the nobility of this is obviously dubios) Athiests arent going to be converting people who are religious by bus advertisements. So to get back to my point, what is the intention of this advert? I would say it is provocation, getting in Christians face and pissing them off. Again what purpose does that serve? How does it bring people to your idea, how does it strengthen your position?

  18. @Teutonic Logic: What? My previous justification wasn’t enough? How about this: the purpose isn’t just to convert “unbelievers” but to embolden “believers”. Ads like this let people know that even though they are a minority, they are not alone. This, in turn, makes them more willing to speak and act on their point-of-view. For someone who self-identifies with Germanic thinking, your grasp of practical propaganda is weak.

  19. do you really think athiest think they are alone in this world? In the UK they appear to be the majority, and in the western world we live in a thourghly secularized state in general. What further goals are on the Athiest agenda? getting rid of “under god” (I’m a believer and even i think this is stupid), seperating church and state further (I think that churchs in the US have become to political), ending tax exemption for churchs and charity organizations?

  20. @Teutonic Logic:
    I was just clarifying.
    My only beef is that the ASA allowed an unsubstatiated claim in an advert.

  21. @Timmay72: Apparently the atheists putting signs on buses care what people believe, too.

    Seriously, people, this whole thing is just dumb. Just live your life and let people live theirs. Arguing over religion is such a pointless waste of time, and atheists who engage in it prove they’re just the same sort of proselytizing dumbfucks as Christians.

  22. I would think that the purpose of this campaign, as partially every other campaign, is to raise awareness for one. But I agree with you it’s also about provocation.

    I myself respect religious people and know a lot of people who believe in some form of higher power, which is great and I’m sure fells kinda nice, but Religion also invokes idiocy in some people if taken too literally, I think that’s another target of this campain. To show an alternate way of thinking.

    So in closing I would say that it’s important to note that not believing in god doesn’t mean that you can’t have an opinion about it.

  23. www.upi.com/Odd_News/2009/02/16/Atheism_bus_advertising_stalls_in_Italy/UPI-60601234834600/

    “GENOA, Italy, Feb. 16 (UPI) — Atheists’ first rolling advertisement in Italy got off to an ignominious start Monday when the bus touting their doubt in God, perhaps inexplicably, conked out.”

    WHERE IS YOUR GOD NOW?

  24. Oh, and science sure ass hell hasn’t gotten me, personally, on the moon. So I’m still waiting.

  25. @natedog: Homeless on the street somewhere asking for money and food, whilst proclaiming he is the lord.

  26. @CathyLong: Scientific Fanaticism can lead to bad things too. Just because it’s not a form (as Christianity is) doesn’t mean it can’t do bad things. Atomic Bomb for instance.

    My opinion is that this tells HALF the story. Christianity can do good. Science can as well.
    Christianity can do bad. Science can as well.
    And I will not waste one single second quantifying both so I can see who’s “Caring Penis” is bigger. I will not bash any belief that truly helps people, regardless of it’s fanatic fans.

  27. @Kishi: I agree. Religious debates are Idiotic. You’re slinging mud to decide who gets to wash the car.
    IT ISN’T HELPING.

  28. @MacheteJak:
    It wasn’t science that dropped the first a-bomb, science isn’t good or bad, it just explains stuff. Political fanaticism dropped that bomb.

  29. Plane (Science) drops Bomb (Science) for reason (whatever it is).

    No Science, just people yelling.

    Then Again: What are they yelling about?

    *Flings mud at the Car* MY TURN TO WASH IT!

  30. @MacheteJak:
    I’m not going to bother arguing this further here because you could write volumes on the subject. But the atom bomb was never designed to do ANYTHING but kill people and was openly advertised as a weapon.

    Telling a large mass of people that if they don’t kill/objectify/oppress a certain group of non believers then they will be denied salvation is also promoting violence. Religion’s just more secretive about its agenda.

    Take almost any faith, read what it teaches and then read what they TELL you it teaches. You will find, in most cases, that all is not as benign as it seems.

  31. The atomic bomb has almost certainly saved millions of lives. First by eliminating the need to invade Japan and later on by acting as a deterrent to WWIII.

  32. @reboot: The atomic bomb also killed thousands of civilians and left a large radioactive site. Which people are still sick from to this day. Also the threat of Global Thermonuclear War which hangs over the worlds head to this day too. USA has enough to bomb the entire world three times over.

    Religion, Science, Politics and Greed are all to blame for Humanity failing at an epic scale.

  33. everyone always talks about how many people religious fanatics kill. In the 20th century specificaly athiests ideologies (communism, fascism) killed oh about 40 million in china, 3 million in Cambodia, 20 million in Easter Europe and this is not counting those lost in fighting in ww2. So just keep in mind that athiests can go on a tear and pile up the bodies just as high as religious fanactics.

  34. @Teutonic Logic:

    Dude, stop making sense. Everyone knows that the world would be all unicorns and cotton candy if we all stopped believing in god. Also atheists are completely rational and logical people who never resort to cheap advertisement campaigns or rudimentary insults to advance their agenda. Oh and remember atheists have NO AGENDA AT ALL. Nope, they just want people to be able to think for themselves…by buying billboard ads insisting that people stop believing in God, and belittling those who do not agree with them.

  35. @thelotuseater725: As soon as Christians quit passing laws like Prop 8 or trying to redefine science in schools, then you can get snarky about an atheist agenda. This little campaign is harmless compared to damage being done in the name of religion today. Not 30 years ago or 60 year ago, Teutonic Logic, TODAY: religion still continues to be a force for ignorance, suffering and oppression.

  36. @thelotuseater725

    nice, that should probably wrap this thread up.

  37. @reboot

    First off I know you know this but I should bring it up, it really doesnt make sense to lump all 1.5 billion Christians into one group. For instance I strongly favor science being an intergral part of education, I do believe in evolution. Why because I’m not pentacostal or evanglistic. Moderate Christians are engaged in a quarrel for the direction of their individual churchs and sects. However, provactional attacks make it more difficult. And when you lump all Christians together and remorseless at us, we natural band together and pushing things to a more moderate stance becomes difficult if not impossible. As for Prop 8, what can you say thats democracy the law reflects the beliefs of a majority of the people of california, is that belief bigoted (maybe). But how do you regulate when the majority should be overruled? It seems to me it becomes somewhat subjective. People have to fight hard for what they believe in, what have you done to change the law? What have you done to organize for gay rights? You clearly see it as an injustice.

  38. Everyone has an agenda. I don’t really have any arguments beyond that. But they do.

  39. Can’t we all just get along?

  40. Just chiming in to point out a small hangup; the US is a Democratic Republic, not a straight up true democracy. Elected officials do the majority of voting on issues, so that the public’s time isn’t consumed voting. A nice side effect is that this makes sure that majority rule doesn’t turn into mob rule and completely flush the rights of the minority down the toilet. As in the example you gave.

  41. @Teutonic Logic: I agree. Saying all people who have religious people (be they Christians or otherwise) are illogical, science-denying, homophobic fanatics is an appalling display of bigotry in itself. I have personal religious beliefs culled from various faiths and doctrines, but when a religious concept contradicts science, fact, logic, common sense or compassion, I simply discard it. Ergo, I believe in evolution, and I fully support personal freedoms, including gay marriage rights.

    Oh, and I’d much rather fly to the moon than into a building. See? I got common sense, me.

  42. the real truth is that neither science nor religion will do either for almost everyone.

  43. @ twosticks

    I would go farther and say this is a straight republic, I will stand by my statment regarding prop 8 because I believe that it is a case of direct democracy (as most referendums are).

    The rights of the minority vs. those of the majority has always been an intregral part of American politics. However if you look back through American History, the minority group has not been given protection until they forced the majority to recognize their position. The movement for civil rights by African-Americans and the feminist movements are both notable examples that continue on. However the Gay rights movement seems to have stalled (as has the other two movements I mentioned) and maybe because many of the prelimanary goals were met, but the bottom line is that Gays have to demand their rights and work hard to attain them (I’m not saying thats right). Nothing worth anything is easy to attain.

  44. African-Also, Africa. of or from Africa; belonging to the black peoples of Africa, also; a native or inhabitant of Africa.

    American-a citizen of the United States of America. a native or inhabitant of the Western Hemisphere. an Indian of North or South America.

    African-American-a black American of African descent.

    European- of or pertaining to Europe or its inhabitants. a person of European descent.

    European-american- Not fucking found?!?! WTF?!

    I always mark other now.

  45. @Drunkin: Well Europe is a continent made up of many nations. You have to be more precise: Belgian/ Italian/ German… American. We’re all human in the end though. So much more then our nationality.

  46. @Puulaahi: I understand. But what about africa? not to be a sarcastic prick, but isn’t africa full of many nations just like europe? And in order for me to be more precise I would have a pretty long ass title to add. However, I agree with you about humanity. But I hate political correctness.

    But hey I’ll give it a try:
    French-(scotch-irish)-british-swedish-german-native-american.

    nope too fucking long.

  47. @Drunkin: Works for Africa too. Naturally a citizen of Africa will call themselves more than simply an African Citizen. That’s generalizing. Have to narrow it down. Kind of a large continent that’s not united.

    And that does work. Usually people pick and choose one or two though.

    Personally, I am neither for or against political correctness. But when people come off as racist and ignorant. I’m for it.

  48. @reboot: Y’know reboot,-forgive me if i am being scornful or condescending here- How can a man of your knowledge be so bigoted when it comes to these issues. What factual evidence do you have that supports this belief that all Christians and all religious people are Bigoted idiots who deny science, and furthermore where are you getting this supposed “factual” data from? I’m not talking about citing the Witch hunts, Crusades or the Inquisition or other historical. the thought process and philosophy behind those actions has long been considered obsolete. Any modern following that embraces the theology and practice of those horrible times exists in the smallest sects of the faith. Furthermore where do you keep getting this notion that all christians Deny Science? Ok so loudmouth groups of christians are using shoddy science and try enacting legislature to prevent the teaching of “true” science. I will give you that, but it does not represent all 1.5 billion known christians. I don’t think all atheists are pedophiles because TheAmazingAtheist uses atheist arguments that support pedophilia.

    I have a few interesting articles for you to read and one of them is from an atheist website(well an atheist section of the website), it will most certainly blow away your preconceived notion that us religious folks are science haters. The first two articles are related to eachother. I chose to present articles that discuss evolution given that they effectively cover the “science vs religion” debacle and are also representative of a hot button issue in the christian faith. The links are within the blockquotes.

    atheism.about.com/b/2006/02/12/strong-
    support-for-evolution-among-american-clergy.htm

    We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as “one theory among others” is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children. We believe that among God’s good gifts are human minds capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator.

    www.newscientist.com/article/dn11145

    Support for “Evolution Sunday” has grown 13 per cent to 530 congregations this year, from the 467 that celebrated the inaugural event last year. Organisers see it as increasing proof that Christians are comfortable with evolution.

    www.thirdway.org.uk/334

    The third fact which deepens the mystery even further, is that this anti-Darwinian crusade is a very modern phenomenon. Mainstream denominations in the 19th century were rather quick to baptise evolution into the Christian doctrine of creation. The historian James Moore writes that ‘with but few exceptions the leading Christian thinkers in Great Britain and America came to terms quite readily with Darwinism and evolution’, and the American historian George Marsden reports that ‘…with the exception of Harvard’s Louis Agassiz, virtually every American Protestant zoologist and botanist accepted some form of evolution by the early 1870s’. Ironically, amongst the writers of the Fundamentals, that mass-produced series of twelve booklets published in the period 1910–15 which later contributed to the emergence of the term ‘fundamentalism’, we find a number of evangelical writers firmly committed to Darwinism, such as Benjamin Warfield, who called himself a ‘Darwinian of the purest water’, James Orr and the geologist George Wright.

    @twosticks:
    That is very true. Also becuase it is a democratic republic the people have the option of voting their senators and representatives out of office when they begin making decisions that they are not happy with. Ideally senators and representatives are supposed to read letters/e-mails and phone calls that people send in and base there decision off of what the people have said. Again this is not always the case.

  49. @Puulaahi: right but I was refering to the whole african-american vs european-american subject. Not the same as saying “I am an american” or “I am african.” Of course one could naturally say “I am kenyan.” I understand and agree with that part. I guess the point I am trying to get to is throwing all this african/mexican/japanese/(you get the point)-american is fucking retarded. Last I checked, you are born here, or are a citzen one should be labeled an American? Or is my logic so compeltely fucked I should clean my gun while its loaded and happen to look down the barrel as I “accidently” pull the trigger?

  50. @Puulaahi:

    Puulaahi
    Can’t we all just get along?

    Only if we can cuddle afterwards.

  51. Again, this underscores why I am more of a Deist than anything else. Kinda hard to reject science when a core “article of faith” is that the more we understand the world and universe around us, the more we come to understand the nature of its creator.

    Further muddying of the waters comes about when people use words like “belief” to describe their opinion on Evolution. The Theory of Evolution is exactly that: a Theory in the truest scientific sense. It is not an article of Faith, or bit of scientific dogma for me to believe in unquestioningly. It is a theory to be either accepted or rejected based on supporting or refuting evidence. Belief has nothing to do with it. Right now there is a lot of evidence to support it.

    But since the core of this particular little discussion seems to be the validity of atheism versus theism, I thought I’d look to see if good ol’ Tom Jefferson had anything to say on the matter.

    Guess what? He did:

    From a draft of the Virginia Constitution:
    “All persons shall have full and free liberty of religious opinion; nor shall any be compelled to frequent or maintain any religious institution.”

    From a letter to Elbridge Gerry:
    “I am for freedom of religion, & against all maneuvres to bring about a legal ascendancy of one sect over another.”

    From a letter to Richard Rush:
    “Religion is a subject on which I have ever been most scrupulously reserved. I have considered it as a matter between every man and his Maker in which no other, and far less the public, had a right to intermeddle.”

    And while he thought very highly of the teachings of Christ, he had this to say on the authorship of the New Testament, in a letter to John Adams:
    “In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills.”

    But(and I apologize for the giant blocks of text; my HTML fu is weak) I think the most important thing he had to say concerning religion was this, from a letter to Dr Thomas Cooper:
    “Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.”

    There are a lot more interesting quotes at wikiquote if you want to read further.

  52. Holy crap, how did I leave out these two?

    From a letter to Miles King:
    “Our particular principles of religion are a subject of accountability to our god alone. I enquire after no man’s and trouble none with mine; nor is it given to us in this life to know whether yours or mine, our friend’s or our foe’s, are exactly the right. ”

    And my favorite of all, from a letter to Peter Carr:
    “Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because, if there be one, he must more approve the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear.”

  53. @Drunkin: Well some people are proud of their family heritage. Nothing wrong with that.

  54. @Puulaahi: and so am I. But appearantly in some parts of this nation thats a crime if your skin is of a lighter tone than light brown. Doesn’t make sense to me.

  55. @thelotuseater725:
    The original Atheist ad wasn’t cheap, insulting, insistant or belittling.

  56. @CathyLong: What the fuck is “scientific fanaticism”?

Leave a Comment




Tags!

Alcohol Animated Image Art awesome Awesome Things Cars Comic Books Computers cosplay Cute As Hell Animals Cute As Hell Animals Dark Humor Fantasy - Science Fiction fashion Food Forum Fodder forum fodder funny Gaming GIF GIFS Humor interesting lolcats Military Movies Music Nature not exactly safe for work Politics Religion rss post Sad :( Science! Sexy Space Sports star wars Technology Television Visual Tricks Wallpaper Weapons women wtf