10
   

'No God' campaign draws complaint

 
 
Thomas
 
  2  
Reply Sat 10 Jan, 2009 01:50 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:
You still have not met that burden.

Bummer. I take it you're still an agnostic then.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Jan, 2009 01:57 pm
Thomas, i had neither alleged that such advertisements "suppress" my freedom, nor that i had "gotten" that from the advertisement that is the subject of this thread. Responding to the subject of the thread, advertisement by atheists for their point of view, i simply commented on the low opinion i entertain of organized religion, and equally of organized "un-religion." Which is to say, that i find no qualitative difference between organized athesim and organized religion.

Please note that this campaign was written by a comedy writer, whom i assume does not take herself seriously (the name is ambivalent, but i'm assuming this is a woman from the spelling); please also note that it is supported by Dawkins, who takes himself and atheism--or more properly, anti-religion--entirely too seriously. Which is why these things occurred to me. I really hadn't thought, though, that i'd have been obliged to explain that.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Jan, 2009 02:03 pm
@Thomas,
Quote:
Bummer. I take it you're still an agnostic then.


I love ya, buddy!

(Were you kidding in the other thread about running in a 10K in Central Park?????)
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Jan, 2009 02:28 pm
Setanta wrote:
I really hadn't thought, though, that i'd have been obliged to explain that.

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

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

That was in December. The one today was a five miler. I didn't run today because I have a cold.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Jan, 2009 02:33 pm
@Thomas,
Quote:
Your abhorrent failure to think just goes to show that you're better off being led by smart people like us.


Us? My experience of your own abhorrent failures to think (such as assuming i was concerned with a suppression of my freedom) suggests to me not only that you ought not to lead anyone, but that you probably need a minder yourself.

If you like, i can check out the local high schools to see what i can come up with in the way of a bear leader for you.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Jan, 2009 03:42 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
Oh...great!!!


Good to hear there is such a campaign.

We were discussing this type of thing yesterday, and, with various religious groups spreading their irrational propaganda so fiercely, it was more than time for a counter campaign.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Jan, 2009 11:02 am
From a blog at the BBC:
Quote:
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.


Link to CAP Code
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Jan, 2009 11:43 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter...that is precisely what I have been arguing in this thread!

Thanks for posting it.
0 Replies
 
Mr Stillwater
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Jan, 2009 02:04 am
Madness has spread downunder....

The Atheist Foundation of Australia (I did not know it even existed!) has been knocked back, not by the Govt or the Churches, but by the folks who actually put up the signage!

Quote:
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

source: http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/atheist-message-misses-local-bus/2009/01/08/1231004199169.html
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Jan, 2009 04:23 am
@Mr Stillwater,
That is a worrying bloody sign.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Jan, 2009 05:51 am
Over the last few decades, Australia has been a leader in the creationist lunatic fringe. Several of the existing "creation science" organizations had branches opened in Australia in the 80s, as their first overseas branches; quite a few other "creation science" organizations which are now big in the United States were founded in Australia. I don't remember his name (nor yet again would want to), but there is a geologist in Australia who is truly scary. When he writes for publication, he is all business, and accepts general geological theory, tending to actually shy away from controversial geological theory. When he writes for "creation science" rags and web sites (a few of which he has founded himself) he blithely contradicts himself and other geologists to support the concept of a biblical, world-wide flood, and to deny the geological basis for a fossil record supporting a theory of evolution.

I would have thought you'd have known this sort of thing.
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Jan, 2009 06:52 am
@Setanta,
Actually, I found out on another thread a while back.

I had no idea prior to that...I knew we had some loony christian folk, but no idea of the numbers.

I just don't run into them...except the odd client....and I don't see their looniness in any media I look at.

But I have my eye on them now.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Jan, 2009 06:55 am
@dlowan,
Quote:
. . . the odd client . . .


Yeah, them boys and girls is pretty damned odd, alright.
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Jan, 2009 06:59 am
@Setanta,
PARENTS.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Jan, 2009 07:04 am
@dlowan,
I agree, there's really no hope when boys and girls become parents . . .
0 Replies
 
Mr Stillwater
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jan, 2009 01:14 am
Sad, but true....

Quote:
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.


A science apostate? Very novel!
0 Replies
 
Mr Stillwater
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jan, 2009 01:29 am
http://creationontheweb.com/

Could you imagine days and days and days on this ******* bus.....
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/images/v18/i1/p50_bus.JPG
... listening to this?

Quote:
‘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.’
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jan, 2009 06:09 am
@Mr Stillwater,
Let's let their dumb tyres down!


Mr Stillwater
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jan, 2009 08:58 pm
@dlowan,
Quote:
Re: Mr Stillwater (Post 3533026)
Let's let their dumb tyres down!


..and pee in the fuel tank!
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jan, 2009 09:15 pm
@Setanta,
I agree with Set and am always, alway, bemused by arguments about all this. Much less campaigns. Or pograms.

Did not any one in all the millenia of thought we read of ever think of "nah?" That is, anyone who lived to tell about it? (Perhaps I can be educated on this.)

No? That's the hardest item to believe.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 01/25/2022 at 01:26:17