10
   

'No God' campaign draws complaint

 
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Jan, 2009 01:41 pm

Atheist bus adverts given green light by watcdog:

Quote:
The atheist bus adverts that declare "there's probably no God" have been given the green light by the advertising watchdog, despite attracting hundreds of complaints.

So far, 326 people have objected to the posters that have been placed on 800 buses around the country, which state: "There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life."

Some claimed the adverts were offensive while others said that their central claim about God's existence could not be substantiated. A Christian bus driver has also refused to get behind the wheel of a vehicle bearing the slogan.

The Advertising Standards Agency, the industry watchdog, has admitted that the adverts go against the beliefs of many people.

But it has decided that they do not breach any part of its code and is not launching an investigation " which could have led to the posters being taken down " into the unprecedented £140,000 advertising campaign by atheists.

The decision is a victory for the British Humanist Association, which organised the campaign, as it had insisted the posters were only intended to reassure non-believers and not mock the religious. The slogan was created by Ariane Sherine, a comedy writer, as an antidote to posters placed on public transport by Christian groups that "threaten eternal damnation" to passengers.

The ASA said in a statement: "The Advertising Standards Authority has concluded that the 'There's probably no God' bus ad campaign by the British Humanist Association is not in breach of the advertising code. The ASA will therefore not launch an investigation and the case is now closed.

"The ASA carefully assessed the 326 complaints it received. Some complained that the ad was offensive and denigratory to people of faith.

Others challenged whether the ad was misleading because the advertiser would not be able to substantiate its claim that God 'probably' does not exist.

"The ASA Council concluded that the ad was an expression of the advertiser's opinion and that the claims in it were not capable of objective substantiation.

"Although the ASA acknowledges that the content of the ad would be at odds with the beliefs of many, it concluded that it was unlikely to mislead or to cause serious or widespread offence."

It pointed out, however, that it has banned several adverts that offend religious groups in the past, including a poster for a morning-after pill that referred to "immaculate contraception" and one for Paddy Power, a betting firm, that showed Jesus and his disciples gambling in a pastiche of the Last Supper.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Jan, 2009 02:02 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
Good for the Authority.

'Bout time skeptism gets some air time!
0 Replies
 
aperson
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Feb, 2009 01:40 am
@Merry Andrew,
Both sides are guilty. You can't cast the first stone. At least atheism conversion more often envolves appeal to reason and logic instead of emotional brainwashing.
0 Replies
 
aperson
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Feb, 2009 01:47 am
@Thomas,
Thank you Thomas. This is the basis of mine and I hope many atheists non-belief. It is not some "heart"-felt conviction, rather a realisation that the existence of a God is laughable, indeed comparable to that of a tooth fairy. It's common sense, in short. An person will eventually develop enough common sense to realise that Santa isn't real. Even if they are told so, they will look back later in life and know how ludicris the idea is. It is exactly the same with God.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Feb, 2009 06:58 am
@aperson,
So....another one who knows there can be no gods.

You "realize" that the existence of a god is laughable...just like the theists "realize" that idea of all this being with a god involved is laughable.

I'll tell you what is laughable, aperson...people who think like those kinds of atheists and theists are laughable.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Feb, 2009 07:01 am
@aperson,
Quote:
An person will eventually develop enough common sense to realise that Santa isn't real.


Goddamnit, i get sick of this . . . i'm just as real as you are, Buster.
Merry Andrew
 
  2  
Reply Wed 4 Feb, 2009 07:23 am
@aperson,
I'm thinking of the famous "Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus" letter. I think something very similar could be written in defense of a belief in God. I hope your position isn't typical of the average atheist, aperson, because you obviously have not given it sufficient thought.
aperson
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Feb, 2009 10:07 pm
@Frank Apisa,
You missed my point. I don't know. I only have as much certainty as you have and I both have that Santa does not exist. There is a subtle but huge difference between this certainty and "knowing".

I agree with you entirely. Anyone who "knows" that God does or does not exist is inviting themselves to be laughed at.
aperson
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Feb, 2009 10:08 pm
@Setanta,
I think you are just a figment of my imagination. Sorry.
0 Replies
 
aperson
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Feb, 2009 10:23 pm
@Merry Andrew,
Could you write it for me, or give me a source?

Not sufficient thought?? Wow, I sure hope I don't give this impression! I have honestly spent countless hours dedicated to thought on the topic of God, existence and reality. On several occasions I have invented and created concepts and arguments which are completely (consciously) original that I later find have already been thought of by other minds, in media that I have never even come close to previously.

Personally I believe my reason for non-belief is as good as any, for any faith. It is not a realisation of common sense that can be simply contracted from average knowledge. It requires a lot of thought, I lot of information and a lot of connection. And of course, willingness.

Of course all of this is besides the point. You didn't actually answer the post that I wrote for you. Could you please do that thanks.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Feb, 2009 08:46 am
@aperson,
Quote:
You missed my point. I don't know.


With all the respect in the world, aperson, I do not think I missed your point at all. And my guess is that you do not know!


Quote:
I only have as much certainty as you have and I both have that Santa does not exist.


That was the point that I did not miss.

The answer to the question, "What is the true nature of the Reality of existence...and does it contain a god or gods...or are there no gods involved?"...

...is not in any way comparable to the answer to the question, "Is Santa Claus a real being or a fictional one?"

If it is for you...pray tell, how do you know for certain there are no gods involved in the Reality of existence?


Quote:
There is a subtle but huge difference between this certainty and "knowing".


It is not so subtle...and it truly does not apply here.


Quote:
I agree with you entirely. Anyone who "knows" that God does or does not exist is inviting themselves to be laughed at.


Good.

Now let me rephrase that: Anyone who thinks there is comparability between knowledge about the true nature of Santa Clause...and the true nature of the the Reality of existence...is inviting themselves to be laughed at.

Do you agree with that one?
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Feb, 2009 08:49 am
@aperson,
Quote:
Personally I believe my reason for non-belief is as good as any, for any faith.


Non-belief is not what you are espousing with your wording earlier..

I am a non-believer...and I am not an atheist.

From the words you have written here...it is obvious you go a step further than non-belief. You have a belief that there are no gods.
0 Replies
 
Merry Andrew
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Feb, 2009 03:06 pm
@aperson,
Quote:
Of course all of this is besides the point. You didn't actually answer the post that I wrote for you. Could you please do that thanks.


Uh...which post was that? I wasn't aware you had asked me a specific question.

Frank has said it all pretty well, better than I culd've anyway. I would add only this: non-belief in the anthropomorphic monstrosity which passes for a diety in the Bible or non-belief in the fairy tales told in church and Sunday school is not the same thing as atheism.
aperson
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Feb, 2009 03:38 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Ok, I think I know where we are not in understanding of eachother now.

You think that the "true nature of the Reality of existence" is not comparable to the existence of Santa. While I agree with you in some aspects, I believe that God is comparable. The reason lies in the meaning of the word God. You are taking, I think, the word God to mean a completely unknowable force, closely related with the "true nature of the Reality of existence". I am not arguing against this God. I am arguing against the religious God, the "practical" God that is refered to in everyday life, not some philosophical concept. This God's fate is tied in with religion, we'll say Christianity. While the "true nature of the Reality of existence" cannot be known, the validity of the Christian God certainly can be, which is why I believe it is comparable to the validity of Santa. The same applies with other religion's Gods.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Feb, 2009 03:42 pm
@Merry Andrew,
Quote:
I would add only this: non-belief in the anthropomorphic monstrosity which passes for a diety in the Bible or non-belief in the fairy tales told in church and Sunday school is not the same thing as atheism.


Why?
aperson
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Feb, 2009 03:42 pm
@Merry Andrew,
This one?? "Both sides are guilty. You can't cast the first stone. At least atheism conversion more often envolves appeal to reason and logic instead of emotional brainwashing."

Come on Merry, I know you're not that dense. I shouldn't need to phrase my argument into a question. Either agree with me or reply, please, don't just ignore me.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Feb, 2009 05:05 pm
@aperson,
Look, aperson...earlier you said:
Quote:
Thank you Thomas. This is the basis of mine and I hope many atheists non-belief. It is not some "heart"-felt conviction, rather a realisation that the existence of a God is laughable, indeed comparable to that of a tooth fairy.


Now you are saying that you were really talking about “the” god...which I now take to mean, the god of the Bible....or of some other holy books.

The use of the definite article versus the use of the indefinite article makes a big difference.

If that is what you are saying, I'm willing to cut this conversation off immediately. I think there are plenty of reasons to GUESS that the god of the Bible is a fable...so much so, that even I have no trouble simply asserting it in casual conversation. (I try to tighten up comments during serious debate or Internet discussion.)

So...unless you come back and tell me I am wrong...I will assume your comment really went to the god of the Bible (and any other holy book gods presently popular)...and not to the question of whether or not the Reality of existence has a component that a reasonable person would call “a GOD.”

If on the other hand you are asserting that there are no gods...I have some questions I'd like to ask about how you determined that.
aperson
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Feb, 2009 05:25 pm
@Frank Apisa,
I am sorry for my incorrect use of words. My apologies.

I think a reasonable person would realise that most atheists don't go around proclaiming that some abstract concept of God, not related to anything spoken of in normal discussion, but instead a philosophical construct used only in intellectual debate (and by the occasional deist) is comparable in validity to Santa Claus.
0 Replies
 
Merry Andrew
 
  2  
Reply Fri 6 Feb, 2009 07:00 am
@Setanta,
Quote:
Re: Merry Andrew (Post 3562990)
Quote:
I would add only this: non-belief in the anthropomorphic monstrosity which passes for a diety in the Bible or non-belief in the fairy tales told in church and Sunday school is not the same thing as atheism.

Why?


The above colloquy between Frank Apisa and Aperson pretty well explains my views as well. I do not consider myself an atheist. But when I profess a belief in God, I'm not talking about the anthropomorphic nonsense that the preachers teach. I believe there is a higher power operating in the universe, a creative power which is completely beyond human understanding. I have no idea what the exact nature of this power is. And, I believe, neither does any self-professed minister, priest, rabbi, imam etc. I call this life force 'God' for the simple reason that 'god' is such a simple word, much easier to say than 'the Force' or 'Allah' or whatever. That, I submit, is not atheism. Atheism is a denial of the existence of any force that can't be explained in purely human scientific terms.

Reading the above posts, it seems evident that this conversation has become largely one of semantics. I say 'tomayto', you say 'tomahto.' I say 'god', you say . . .
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Feb, 2009 07:35 am
@Merry Andrew,
In fact, you haven't really answered the question i asked, which, at one word of three letters, and following a quoted portion of your former text, i thought was reasonably simple.

Quote:
Atheism is a denial of the existence of any force that can't be explained in purely human scientific terms.


A very quixotic definition of atheism. An atheist could, for example, accept the concept of prime mover without believe that such a prime mover were a god. That science does not know what force triggered the existence of the universe is not either evidence that no such force exists, nor that such a force is "god." That would render the definition of "god" an absurdity.

Quote:
I say 'god', you say . . .


. . . i say, i don't believe that. Which is not at all the same as saying that no such thing exists.

You still haven't told me why non-belief in the anthropomorphic monstrosity which passes for a diety in the Bible or non-belief in the fairy tales told in church and Sunday school is not the same thing as atheism.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 01/25/2022 at 02:22:19