There is no god. Get over it.

'It was inferred by your claim that atheists have no proof of God's non-existence.'

So when atheists admit (and sensible ones often do) that they have no formal proof that there is no deity, they are claiming the existence of a deity.

Isn't the internet wonderful? Richard, Polly, you must be so proud of the brood you raised.

For God's sake is a well used term these days to express urgency. The vast majority of people use it with non-religious connotations. Furthermore, the "fool hath said" quote is quite offensive. It in effect implies that all atheists are "fools". And it has no other meaning, unlike for God's sake.

And frankly, you can make up any religion and thus what you will be offended by. As a deeply pious acolyte of the flying spaghetti monster, it offends my religious sensitivies that pasta adverts are allowed on TV. As a result, to stop my religion being offeded, I demand that all Dolmio adverts are banned.

Nothing should be dominated by the baseless and irrational beliefs of anyone.

My dad says god in Russian is bog.

@Keir: No, the onus is on the supporter of a position to prove its validity. Insisting that atheists provide proof of a deity's non-existence is just another way of weakly trying to prop up the argument that a deity exists.

In other words, why should we believe in the existence of a deity without proof?

Given that you have been constructing several strawmen of your own regarding atheists you do indeed have a nerve Keir.

@Alex (snap)

And what is the *zing* in "for God's sake" that makes it carry that sense of urgency? It's that you're invoking the highly-loaded G-word. You could try it yourself: "For my dog's sake..." lacks panache and is confusing, "For the sake of providing accurate census information that will allow us to assess the prevalence of Atheism in the UK..." is more factually on-the-money, but could stand to be snappier.

You could absolutely contrive to make up a religion that would find any advert offensive. You may (arguably) have as much of a leg to stand on in terms of justifying your offence in a court as a Christian, Muslim or Jew might in this case. However, aside from what you propose being dishonest (unless you mean to brainwash yourself into actually BELIEVING your made-up religion), the big difference here is that whoever made this decision already knew that there are many religious people in the UK who would likely find the sign offensive.

There is no God, otherwise there would only be one Religion and one Supreme Being. But we have more 'gods' than are sustainable.
The Supreme Being would not have left it to humn imagination and invention.
Question: Where do dead souls go, and what do they do with their time all eternity?

'There is no God, otherwise there would only be one Religion and one Supreme Being.'

Maybe there is.

'Where do dead souls go, and what do they do with their time all eternity?'

Do whatever it is humanists think can be done here if there's probably no God?

Oh dear! Back to the tea-pot again!
Keir:
I have no proof that there isn't a tea-pot orbiting the earth either, but nobody in their right mind would ask me to prove that it doesn't exist.
Why are you asking atheists to prove that the fruit of your imagination doesn't exist??
You do not make any sense my friend.

I am offended every time I read religious adverts. The Alpha course in particular, as it appeals to the vulnerable and the deluded,makes me very angry. Who cares about atheists being offended by religious drivel and lies?? No one.
In a secular state, public places shouldn't be used to spread irrational nonsense in a the name of a religion.If some of this nonsense was pronounced without the protective label of "religion", they simply wouldn't be tolerated. for example the "bible bashers" screaming lunacies in the street as you are going about your business,I found totally obnoxious and unacceptable. If they were not talking in the name of a religion, they would soon be carted off by the Police or, better, by the "white coats" to the local loony bin.
But no! We are expected to RESPECT these lunatics and let them rant. I wonder if atheists would get permission to have a go at explaining why there is (probably) no god, in the street, to passers-by . Most probably not.
The way religion is protected in this country makes a mockery of the idea of a secular state where reason and sanity is supposed to prevail.
We have 2000 years to catch up for freedom of expression and still we can't put a bloody advert on a bus!or should we be grateful they have stopped burning us at the stake?

'No, no. It was invented to convince everyone that, if there is no hell, there damn well ought to be one.'

'Hell is other people' as the internet confirms : )

Why are some of you questioning the divine? I am here for all to see.

Can't they just change it to 'for goodness sake, say so'? That makes more sense anyway, surely?

Trust me, we don't say jings, crivvens, or, indeed, help ma boab in Glasgow.

I expect you to greet this fact with the following phrase:

"Cor blimey guvnor, I'd best get down the apples and pears and have a butcher's at me picalilly"

See what I mean?

On topic:

It's all rather depressing that we can't invoke the name of a non-existent deity to draw attention to the non-existence of the deity. Would it have caused so much offence if it was "for Zeus sake, say so"?

"First up, it's not my responsibility to protect you from what William is saying. Some of it I would disagree with, some of it I think is actually right, but these things are so very easy to ignore if they bother you!"

And yet half this comment page is taken up by you wringing your hands about how William's side *might* take offense and therefore we should shut up and go away to come up with a different slogan, while they continue putting up billboards that openly insult us.

The irony of *you* asking for a demonstration of a double standard is a bit much.

'I have no proof that there isn't a tea-pot orbiting the earth either, but nobody in their right mind would ask me to prove that it doesn't exist.'

They might do. Some careless astronaut might have left a teapot behind, though more likely, a coffee pot. If they can screw up Hubble bigtime, they can do anything.

But nobody's asked anyone to prove anything that they have claimed. Some have asked for proof of what has not been claimed, which may seem rather closer to being out of one's right mind.

Hundreds of thousands of people (a lot of them atheist's taking the mick) put Jedi in the last census. This seems more fun and interesting to me.

What the Humanists are trying to do is evangelize, they want people to sign up to their faith. Not going to church or proclaiming a god does not really make you an atheist since a lot of people just don't think about it, they live a life of good morals and happiness, and when death comes it will be seen (or unseen) what happens then.

This is evangelism, simple, Humanism is a religion and this attitude and wish for people to sign up to it's institution and label shows that. They need to get over themselves and if they believe this is all the life they have they should focus on living it.

What a nerve I've got, daring to separate an atheist from a straw man. I'm lucky not to be burned at the stake. Skeptics must be permitted carte blanche to misrepresent religions as they see fit, but woe betide those who attempt to correct them.

'Alleluia!'

We all know the meaning of Christ's cross.

@qaz

That's fine, just ignore the rest of the comment that didn't fit in with your agenda.

I don't think it's constructive to treat this like a battle with "sides". I think that actually carries with it some of the worst problems with religion. Also, I don't think it's wrong for me to hold "our side" (euch) to a higher standard. After all, we are *supposed* to be the enlightened ones.

No, Ellis: the Humanists are NOT trying to evangelize. We simply want people to answer the question in the knowledge that it will be used as a basis for policy by the Government in matters like faith schools, subsidies to religious groups, contracting out public services to religious organisations and so on - just like the 2001 census. Yet the question used then and to be used again roped into the Christian fold all sorts of people who in no proper sense could be called Christian: the Office of National Statistics was actually pleased to report in a paper to Parliament that it counted as Christian people who had no more connection with Christianity than that they had been baptised in infancy or had got married in church! With the huge majority of the public against faith schools, most of these people would certainly want to think about their answer in the Census if they knew that a weak cultural affiliation to the church would be used to justify stronger religious influence in education. For more such examples see http://census-campaign.org.uk/

And BTW Humanism is not a "faith", which implies wilful belief despite the (lack of) evidence. It is not an “-ism” - it has no source book of unquestionable rules or doctrine. You don’t ‘convert’ to Humanism and then have to take the rough with the smooth. Instead, most people become humanists without contact with any humanist organisation or even necessarily knowing the word. Rather, Humanism is a label for a range of beliefs and attitudes. To the extent that your beliefs and attitudes do or don’t coincide with that range, then the label humanist is more or less appropriate for you.

God’s Wrath Against Sinful Humanity
18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.

24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. 32 Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

I am living proof that these atheists don't know what they're talking about.

Sorry, Keir, but this:

"The truth is, there very few atheists, if there are any at all."

Is absolute nonsense.

'This discussion all seems very, very daft!'

Daft? Maybe that should read 'dastardly'? To the wise and the wary, it doesn't seem daft. You see, folks, it's all of a piece. Why do Greek and Russian Orthodox call themselves Orthodox? Because they are anything but orthodox, as a check on their beliefs will reveal (though they are often reluctant to reveal them). With Catholics, they are inheritors of those Peter warned are those who 'secretly introduce destructive teachings'; so if Russian Orthodox call God 'Old Boggy', or even 'That Bastard', there's no surprise at all, at all.

Constantine, you see, realised that hammering Christians just didn't work. He took note of a heretic who warned, 'The blood of the martyrs is seed.' He said, in finest Latin of course, "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em." And so the Great Fake Church began, gathering up converts by use of the sword and the fire, the fire mostly for copies of the Bible, which became, to the toiler in the field, virtually closed for a whole millennium, until people read it again and realised that they had been completely had, over a barrel, so to speak. And in the far north of Russia, Constantinianism is alive and kicking, kicking people into mental subservience, however mild.

Because the Great Fake Church did not lie down and die, as it should have done. Constantine the tyrant is indeed right there on your census form, that you must read, you must fill in. And I am not for a moment going to advise you not to fill it in. But I am going to explain why the census form is seriously defective, seriously discriminatory. And maybe then Mutley will call back with another insult. And maybe then BHA supporters will realise that they are shouting from the sidelines.

Turn to page 8, Q.20 of the questionnaire. Most of the religious pick their religion, Buddhist, Muslim, Hindu, Sikh. Hindus are Hindus, Sikhs are Sikhs, Shi'ites have agreement with Sunnis on basic issues. But the enormous upheavals of British and European history, that followed the re-discovery of the Bible, that were not engaged in lightly, that led to many martyrs, are treated as if they never happened. Polar opposites of cosmic significance are combined into one; 'Christians' have a single box to tick, whether they believe the Catholic canon that tells them that Protestants are cursed, or whether (far more likely) they are Protestants who necessarily believe that Catholic teaching is spiritually fatal. And even an impartial observer cannot agree that both of them are right.

Of course, there is a census option to fill in 'Any other religion' with 'Christianity', though quite what the govt. computer will make of that is anyone's guess.