'No God' campaign draws complaint

You still have not met that burden.

Bummer. I take it you're still an agnostic then.

I really hadn't thought, though, that i'd have been obliged to explain that.

(Were you kidding in the other thread about running in a 10K in Central Park?????)

Your abhorrent failure to think just goes to show that you're better off being led by smart people like us.

More than 50 people have now made complaints to the Advertising Standards Authority about the Atheist Bus ad campaign. According to the slogan of the campaign, "there is probably no God." Complainants allege that this claim lacks substantiation and is not true. The ASA will now have to produce an adjudication about the slogan, based on the CAP Code.

I've been reviewing the CAP code and the atheist bus ad may well have a case to answer. Under the 'truthfulness' provisions, the Code says, "No marketing communication should mislead, or be likely to mislead, by inaccuracy, ambiguity, exaggeration, omission or otherwise." Under the section dealing with "substantiation", the Code says, "If there is a significant division of informed opinion about any claims made in a marketing communication they should not be portrayed as generally agreed." Similarly, under the "matters of opinion" provisions, the Code says, "Marketers may give a view about any matter, including the qualities or desirability of their products, provided it is clear that they are expressing their own opinion rather than stating a fact."

The atheist bus ad makes the claim that God's existence is "improbable". It's not exactly full-blooded atheism, but it is still a claim. This claim amounts to the statement of an opinion rather than a statement of fact. It is not a "fact" that God's existence is improbable -- the existence of God remains a matter of significant philosophical debate, and the claim that God's existence is "improbable" is also a matter of debate. In fact (and this really is a fact), some contemporary philosophers and scientists argue that the evidence points to the claim that God's existence is more likely than not. They often mount a cumulative case analysis of the available empirical and non-empirical evidence and suggest that this evidence underwrites the claim that God's existence if rational.

To be clear: I am not arguing here that there is compelling evidence for God's existence. I am arguing that there is a real debate about the quality and quantity of evidence available and whether or not that evidence points to the greater or lesser likelihood of God's existence. In other words, the claim that "God's existence is improbable" is not an generally agreed. In the language of the ASA code, there is "a significant division of informed opinion" about this claim. Arguably then, an ad that states this claim as though it is generally agreed is a misleading ad.

If the Atheist Bus ad read "Humanists believe God probably doesn't exist ..." or even (to lose the word "probably") "Humanists say God doesn't exist", these statements would appear to be meet the requirements of the ASA Code because a matter of opinion is clearly noted as such.

If the ASA's adjudication comes to this same conclusion, there may be significant implications for religious ads. On yesterday's Sunday Sequence, the philosopher AC Grayling argued that all future religious ads claiming that God exists should be required to include the term "allegedly". I can see why he would argue that; and the ASA may think he has a point too. I suggested to AC Grayling that those at the ASA who have to make an adjudication in this case may find themselves pouring over many volumes of philosophical theology by Thomas Aquinas -- and outcome Grayling regards as quite delicious.

The Atheist Foundation of Australia was knocked back by Australia's biggest outdoor advertising company, APN Outdoor, on its proposal for a nationwide campaign featuring atheist slogans.

The campaign - with slogans such as "Sleep in on Sunday mornings" and "Celebrate reason" - follows successful attempts by the British and American Humanist Associations to raise awareness for atheism in London and Washington.

APN Outdoor cited no reason for rejecting the $16,000 public transport campaign, and declined to comment.

"The intention was to demonstrate to the public that there is an alternative to religion that is rational, reasonable and worthy of thought," said the president of the Atheist Foundation of Australia, David Nicholls.

"It took three weeks for APN Outdoor to come to a decision, after they initially told me there'd be no problem. The final discussion by phone to an executive ended with an abrupt message that they were not going to take our business."

APN Outdoor refused to comment on whether the company's clients include religious organisations, but Mr Nicholls said buses in Adelaide had been adorned with religious messages such as "John 3:16". He also approached bus advertisers in Hobart, with the same result

. . . the odd client . . .

The Creation Bus is coming
25/09/2001 9:11:45 AM
THE “Creation Bus” with its colourful dinosaur decoration is home for several months of the year to former high school science teacher, Peter Sparrow, his wife Cathy and their teenage son Daniel, and is an outreach of Answers in Genesis, a non-denominational Christian ministry based in Brisbane.

Answers in Genesis organises visits to rural centres throughout Australia in co-operation with local churches and Christian organisations.

The Creation Bus is a mobile home which carries a large quantity of books and videos promoting evidences that neither we, nor our universe, evolved by chance from slime but are products of original creation as taught in the Bible.

‘I am prepared to show that in this sense religion has much to fear from philosophy [i.e., natural philosophy or science], not its facts, but its theories. Whenever those theories invalidate the historical or the physical statements of Scripture; or even when they interfere with our sober and commonly received views of it, they are pernicious. They tend to unsettle men’s minds as to the veracity of the Sacred Writings. They shake the confidence with which the simple and unlearned repose upon them. Simple minds feel unable to untwine those threads of error which they are told run throughout the book; and they cannot distinguish that inspired portion which they ought to hold fast from those uninspired statements of science and history which they are assured they may safely let go. Thus doubt and distrust enter their minds, and never again can they rest with that unquestioning reliance upon the Word of God which they once felt.

The sacred volume is no longer to them a rock which cannot be shaken. To this it may be added, that these theories, where they are admitted disturb the learned and acute mind still more powefully than the illiterate; for the thinking, reasoning man naturally argues, that if any statement of Scripture has been questioned, so may another, and another; and that if historical or physical facts can be disproved, whatever doctrines or precepts rest upon them must give way likewise. Thus scepticism takes gradual possession of the soul. If natural facts cannot be admitted on the mere warrant of inspiration, by what law of evidence, it may be asked, can we be compelled to believe, on the same authority, those which are supernatural? When science has once begun to tamper with Scripture, it is vain to say that it will restrict itself to physical statements, and abstain from the consideration of miracles. Men will no more stop half-way in an argument because you wish them, than a rolling stone will check itself at your bidding when half way down the hill.’

Re: Mr Stillwater (Post 3533026)
Let's let their dumb tyres down!