Anyone notice that this is a Humanist campaign?

I'm going to share something with you. I'm a Humanist.
This doesn't mean I don't believe in a god - the majority of people in this country were brought up with societies general consensus that there is something divine up there and it is very hard for someone brought up in that environment to entirely discount the existence of a divine being. Much the same as every magazine telling women they are fat and the majority believing it or having a very hard time convincing themselves that it is not true.

Anyway, I digress. Humanism is exactly what it says on the tin.

I will direct you to the wondrous Wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism

and The British Humanist Association http://www.humanism.org.uk/site/cms/contentChapterView.asp?chapter=309

Humanists are not exclusively Atheist and so would not make closed statements such as "God Does Not Exist"

I do agree though that what is proposed is a bit soft, fluffy and PC. I could probably think up something better but I'm not being paid to do that so I'll just chuckle from the sidelines.

Most of the press does not make mention of the Humanist aspect, they bang on about it being an atheist campaign.

To some extent I suspect that the media is patronising the public somewhat and just using a word that most people will be able to relate to and comprehend (i.e. atheist ).

It would seems the BHA have put a lot of money into it which may explain the ambiguous statement - well the truth of it. As I note they are saying they have added probably or the campaign would not have been allowed.

Hmmm I don't see how they can get away with saying it's probably the best in the world tbh.

Here's my tuppence on this matter ...

The statement "there probably is no God" is probably meant to be phrased in a scientific way. It is presumably not meant to be an "atheistic" statement.

From such a perspective it would be unwise to state that "there is no God" because you can't devise a reputable, repeatable experiment to prove or disprove the Christian god.

In the absence of such an experiment, and the presence of conflicting unprovable religious beliefs, then "there probably is no God" is a reasonable statement for a scientist to make.

Don't forget that "atheist" and "agnostic" are Christian terms and non-Christians have no obligation to see the world through a Christian viewpoint, using Christian terms and definitions.

Strictly speaking "There probably are no gods" is the more universally applicable statement in response to the world's major religions.

Everyone's quite rigth about the 'probably'. But how come Christians get away with declaring '...we WILL burn in the fires of hell'?

Double standards by the church yet again.
_________________
"Always look on the bright side of life..... tetum tetumtetumtetum....."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHPOzQzk9Qo

Red's right. It does seem a bit unbalanced that. Your rarely see "maybe" "possibly" "probably" etc. on Christian statements - Choochi0's local church being an exception - but I guess it's down to the fact that this country, like it or not, is still a Christian based country, the queen is still Head of The Church of England, most laws stem from Christian doctrines etc.