Does the atheist ad breach the advertising rules?

A.C Grayling is also pressing the ASA to make the Churches use the word "allegedly" in their advertising.
https://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jan/07/atheist-bus-atheism
Some might want to add their complaints to his.

As Christian churches threaten people with ‘hell and damnation’, also proving that those exist will test the ASA!

And will churches be able to use signs proclaiming ‘Jesus died for your sins’ (Jesus never, ever claims that in the gospels) and ‘Jesus died and rose again? (Be interesting to get some doctors giving a medical opinion on that one.)

In case Stephen Green hasn’t noticed, the best advertising gets free publicity because it gets talked and written about; Labour isn’t working, Hello Boys and so on. If he wanted to make sure that everyone outside London got to know about this he’s going the right way about it. Mind you Green has a history of complaining to the ASA, and losing.

Now if only the Hindus would complain about Green on the grounds of ‘Only one God? There are many . . . ’ we could turn this into a Whitehall farce.

You're kidding me right? You don't have to prove stuff "doesn't exist" it's the opponents whom must prove this imaginary deity exists. Since there isn't really any proof, I'd say the original message is much more true then the message given on Sunday.

Liv

It's wrong to single out Stephen Green as the person bringing this complaint. The complaint is also being brought by Clifford Longley, the former Times religion correspondent and 48 others. The have a clear point. This ad makes a claim that cannot be substantiated.

im glad to see these atheists being shown some manners. Im fed up to the eyebrows with their militant, nasty, patronising style and their irritating icons like dawkins. The bus is more of the same. They should put some money into helping the poor, like the churches do. Churches around the world are the number one funders for humanitarian aid. What do atheists do? Silly adverts on buses, that's what.

The entire thing is absurd. What a dumb waste of time and bus advertising space which could be put to far better use by advertising almost anything else such as toothpaste or donuts.

Since nobody can prove that god does exist or that god does not exist, any statement either way is an opinion. How about the ad which claims "donuts make you fat." Is that an opinion? There have been a lot of fat Irish cops in New York City over the years and for some reason, cops in the US have a reputation for eating a lot of donuts. Ergo. Anyway, a dozen or two Duncan Donuts never hurt anyone. Make mine half Boston Creme with chocolate icing, half jelly filled with powdered sugar...and easy on the cream and extra sugar in my coffee.

Anyone who thought they could write whatever non-libelous slogan they like and pay a company to put it on the side of their vehicles was clearly under the false pretense that they were living in a free society.

There are 'truthfulness' provisions for advertisements? Who'd have thought!

"No marketing communication should mislead, or be likely to mislead, by inaccuracy, ambiguity, exaggeration, omission or otherwise."

And there was me thinking that was the whole point of advertisements; ignore the product and sell a lifestyle. Which is what the Carlsberg ad did first, and best. (Of course they got the general idea from Guinness)

Personally a good few weeks after the initial story on the 'god bus', or is that the 'no god bus' or maybe, perhaps it's just the 'god, no bus' story, I still think about the ad what I did then, only more so. In fact I'll go so far as to say it's probably the worst ad in the world. One, it's a rip off, two, by admission, it's not the ad they wanted to put on the side of the bus, and three those in favour of the ad can't even agree among themselves if it's a success or not and on top of all that, all the talk about the ad focuses on the word probably and not on the 'no god' part or even the 'enjoy' part; indeed there see to be a few folks who were enjoying their faithless selves who are now worrying about a word.

But I've had a thought. What if God was one of us... just a stranger on the bus, what if God was one of us... if God was one of us?

Yea, what if? Whistle it while you're going to bed tonight!

Here's another thing. The picture posted at the top of the page. Is that an advertisement of a bus with the advertisement on a bus, and if so would that make it an advertisement for an advertisement?

Probably no point in worrying about it.

J_W, if someone libel god on the side of a bus, could he sue? Do you think he would? That would make a splash...and...if he shows up in court, that would prove he's not dead. In the words of Mark Twain, reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated. At least I think it was Mark Twain who said it.

BTW, it's Dunkin Donuts. Anyone got coupons?

"it's Dunkin Donuts"

And I thought post 5 was just another one of those weird Amerikan spellings.

"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." William Crawsley's post.

The word 'probably' would suffice in doing that. Hence the "probably the best lager in the world" claim.
It'll be interesting if the claims of religion end up having to adhere to the same standards?
Claims about gaining salvation through Jesus ("all who believe in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life") or threats of eternal damnation ("You will be condemned to everlasting separation from God and then you spend all eternity in torment in hell".) or the old favourite 'The end is nigh' etc.

The bus campaign will move on. There's scope for: 'Morality doesn't come from religion. It's a set of values embraced by individuals and society based on empathy, fairness, and experience' or Why believe in a god? Just be good for goodness' sake' and so on.

Or even just change the topic:
There's probably no Heaven
There's probably no Hell
There's probably no such thing as a soul that lives after your death
You probably won't be judged after you've died
The world probably wasn't created in seven days
Noah probably didn't get two of every living animal onto a boat
Jesus probably didn't rise from the dead
Mary probably didn't have a vigin birth
Reincarnation probably won't happen
Shiva, Vishnu and Ganesha probably doesn't exist
and so on.

"The bus campaign will move on. There's scope for: 'Morality doesn't come from religion. It's a set of values embraced by individuals and society based on empathy, fairness, and experience'"

Yea, it probably will, buses usually do, move, that is. But you'd also probably have to write the 'morality' ad right round the bus, which would sort of defeat the purpose. Somebody could get knocked down trying to read it.

petermorrow, I can't believe Europe is so deprived.

https://www.dunkindonuts.com/

Great java and wonderful donuts. Many varieties, all made fresh every morning. Actually it's Dunkin' Donuts because with the plain ones, you can dunk em in your coffee (nobody I ever knew did.)

It will catch up in time. Once Europe had no KFC, no MacDonalds, no Coca Cola, none of the better things in life. All the UK had was greasy fish and chips....in a newspaper...with the ink coming off right into the food. Ugh.

Marcus, Dunkin closed it's last UK outlet in 2002 - couldn't even make it work during the boom years.

We do have the supposedly superior Kripy Kreme chain (well even Australia does), though I'm not sure this is something to be proud of.

Please let me know when the USA starts producing decent beer. At that point I'd also like to invite you to the UK (I believe you've never been, so you can hardly be expected to comment on our food).

Will the Bus Campaigns be run in Israel, Pakistan and the USA? I think that these present a more useful, if somewhat more difficult target for conversion(?) to Atheism.

I had a large number of British beers in California last spring in Newport Beach Orange County on several business trips. I was at Muldoon's and at The Blue Coral Restaurant as well as several others near the airport. I didn't like any of them. The only beer I like anymore is Samuel Adams. After that everything else disappoints me. Even Becks. Heinekin only tastes good to me on a very hot day on the street in Saint Maartin, otherwise it's too bitter.

A large number of microbreweries have arisen all oeer the US in the past 25 years or so producing beers judged to be very high quality. America has a long history as a beer drinking nation. Our standard national beers, Budweiser, Miller, and Coors are awful. Cat piss. I prefer Sam Adams Boston Lager and Boston Ale above all others. To each his own. Yes, I've had Guinness and Bass ales both straight and mixed with various lagers. Don't much care for either of them. BTW, I like my women hot, red hot and my beer cold, ice cold.

I've commented on English cooking many times based on second hand information and seeing British chefs prepare food on television. Usually what I say gets me in a lot of trouble. I know England is supposed to have one of the best restaurants in the world if not the best one according to The Michelin Guide I think. But everyone I talk to who goes to the UK has nothing nice to say food there. I do take into consideration however they don't particularly care for curry. Anyway, there's more to life than food. I suppose.

A comparable bus campaign will not happen in the US. We would consider it stupid. Besides, people have better things to do with their advertising money...like try to sell cars or toothpaste. Dunkin' Donuts pretty mucy sells itself. Yes we have Krispy Kreme too but I think just in large shopping malls. I only remember seeing a few. Dunkin' Donuts is everywhere.

Lucky you (regarding the large number bit at least!).

Which Sam Adams were you drinking - I think I had some when last in the USA. As with most things, beer quality is of cousre not a black and white issue, and there are indeed some good brew in the USA as well. However the amin stream lagers are universally bad, and not even up to their Euro mainstream rivals.

Lager should be served chilled, most bitters fairly cold, but not chilled. Consequently, hotter climates call for more lager than bitter.

What's stupid about the campaign?

"A comparable bus campaign will not happen in the US. We would consider it stupid."

That didn't always stop Americans before, and neither did it hold back the atheist bus campaign in the US:

https://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2008/dec/11/religion-advertising-atheism-bus

The entire thing is absurd. What a dumb waste of time and bus advertising space which could be put to far better use by advertising almost anything else such as toothpaste or donuts.

Well, it's gotcha talking, hasn't it? Result!

Will, you make a fine point. The Gideons should be targeted first - those silly bibles they leave in hotel rooms need to be edited. "Probably I say unto you, you ought to be born again". "In my father's house I suggest that there are many mansions (n>100). I claim to go there to prepare a place for you (conditions apply, calls from BT landline 50p - other networks may vary)." "The Lord may or may not be my shepherd."

However, if the ASA doesn't tell Stephen Green and his daft cohorts to sling their hook, and actually tries to reach a determination on the matter, I think they may just end up discussing the meaning of "probably". Indeed, they could take the view that since all gods are equally improbable, the probability distribution needs to be spread over the lot of 'em, making each one even more improbable, and justifying the ad.

And as for Christians worrying - at least some of them seem to be worrying about the ad itself, again justifying its existence.

Again, Result!

-H

There is a lot of quite entertaining discussion on this but it is all froth. The ASA has no duty to make a philosophical determination merely a legal one. Its code, in the link I have previously posted, makes it clear that there is only a requirement to be able to substantiate claims that are capable of substantiation.

The only point on which a decision would have to be made is whether or not the existence of God can be objectively substantiated. The Authority is well aware that if push came to shove the arbiter of what can be substantiated will not be a philosopher but a judge and he will be interested in proof in purely legal terms - I do not think this would be a particularly hard decision for him.

When in court I always make a declaration rather than swear an oath but I would be tempted by the possibility of uttering "I swear by an entity of epistemological uncertainty that the evidence I shall give..."

portwyne, you are half right. The code is clear that only claims that CAN be substantiated need to be. But you are wrong when you say the claim in question is the claim that God exists.

The atheist ad makes the claim that god's existence is IMPROBABLY, as Will points out.

Now, THAT claim is one that can be subtantiated or not substantiated according to experts. You are right that a judge is the person to decide this. A judge would consider the expert literature and conclude that the court is out on whether God's existence is probable or improbable.

Ascension: "You're kidding me right? You don't have to prove stuff "doesn't exist" it's the opponents whom must prove this imaginary deity exists."

But if you're making a claim that something doesn't exist, then other people have a right to ask you why you think that.

Anyway, this whole thing seems a bit dumb to me, but why didn't they do something like put a quote on the bus by someone like Richard Dawkins saying 'There is no God'? Would that be more acceptable? Because being a quote, it shows that it's an opinion.

Not that I want to help them out in any way (I believe in God, plus I think the whole bus poster thing is a general waste of time and money!), I'm just interested in whether it would put them on firmer ground?

Sharrieg you are still missing the point. this is not a debate about whether God exists, it's about whether the statement "god's existence is IMPROBABLY" can be substantiated. The atheists say it can, but others disagree. There's no general consensus. The ASA rules are clear that this statement is a matter of opinion and nothing more than that. Atheists should be required to label their product as such.

crosseyes;

"Lucky you (regarding the large number bit at least!)."

Why? I think there are many people like me who can consume as much as they want of whatever they want, pretty much whenever they feel like it. That is why our waist lines have become so large. For this and other reasons, I only drink beer and other alcoholic beverages on relatively rare occasions now compared to the way I used to consume it. Ironically, when I do, I enjoy it even more.

"Which Sam Adams were you drinking"

I've tried several of more than two dozen brews they make. The original Boston Lager is still my favorite. I don't like "lite beer" no matter who makes it. At least I haven't found one yet. Their beers are made in a German style I like best.

" - I think I had some when last in the USA. As with most things, beer quality is of cousre not a black and white issue, and there are indeed some good brew in the USA as well."

Here's a Yogi Berraism I'll coin; personal taste is a matter of personal taste :-)

"However the amin stream lagers are universally bad, and not even up to their Euro mainstream rivals."

The mainstream American beers like Budweiser, Miller, and Coors taste awful to me. I'd rather drink cold water instead. Michelob is not much better than Budweiser. Killian's Red is not good either, it's just red. As I recall from my distant past, mainstream Belgian beer was not at all bad. I drank it when I lived in France.

"Lager should be served chilled, most bitters fairly cold, but not chilled. Consequently, hotter climates call for more lager than bitter."

Again its a matter of personal taste. In general, flavor loses some intensity when liquid gets colder but if it's very intense to begin with, you can still enjoy it. Ice cream is an example. So are many of the best white wines.

"What's stupid about the campaign?"

You may convince some people to try Colgate Total Care toothpaste because it protects your teeth better than the competition with a ad campaign (a claim subject to proof.) You may convince some people to try Burger King hamburgers over MacDonalds because broiled tastes better than fried (clearly an opinion) but how many people will decide they don't believe in god because they saw an ad saying he probably doesn't exist on the side of a bus? Even I give the people of NI credit for more intelligence than that and that's going some.

peter Klaver

""A comparable bus campaign will not happen in the US. We would consider it stupid."

That didn't always stop Americans before, and neither did it hold back the atheist bus campaign in the US:"

It's true that spending money stupidly is a national tradition in America but advertising is almost invariably targeted at making money. While there is money to be made in religion, I don't see how anyone can make money out of atheism. Is this supposed to be a public service ad like "don't smoke cigarettes, they're bad for you?" BTW, I don't think that ad campaign convinced many smokers to quit either. It was forcing them to smoke outside most buildings away from the doors even in the freezing cold, the rain, the snow, or blazing heat that did it IMO. What atheist bus campaign in America? I don't ever recall one and I've been around for awhile. I even used to ride on buses...a long time ago.

How does one compute the probability of god's existance? What mathematical formula is used? All calculations of probability start out with unprovable assumptions. Even the calculation of the odds of tossing a coin in the air 1000 times and coming up with 500 heads and 500 tails is based on what mathematicians call a "fair coin" meaning that it is absolutely symetrical. Since no such thing exists in the real world, the calculation at best is only an approximation, a mathematical abstraction not the absolute truth. Therefore in a real world sense it is unproven.

I think there are four kinds of people. Those who believe in god, those who don't, those who don't know and can't make up their minds, and those who don't give it any thought and don't care. If the world were populated mostly by the last kind, there would be far fewer wars.

I dont think there's any evidence that an atheist bus campaign wouldn't happen in the US. Dawkins has toured america calling on atheists to come out of the closet as such.

"The ASA rules are clear that this statement is a matter of opinion and nothing more than that." #22

Which is what the 'God probably doesn't exist' campaign satisfies. (Though inserting 'probably' does make it agnostic rather than atheist.)
I can't see the ASA allowing the claim 'God does exist' to be allowed without having 'probably' or 'allegedly' in there too; belief is just an opinion.
I imagine we may see more advertising claims being challenged from now on.

I find it interesting is that the religious are happy to accept that their own god exists, but not that other religions' gods do. I wonder how the ASA (or a court) would even start to decide a case between the opposing 'One God' and 'Many Gods' religions? As for which is (probably) the one true faith and the path to slavation? Islam or Christianity?

Google: 'atheist bus america' - and you'll find the bus ads are already running in Washington DC.
see also: https://www.whybelieveinagod.org/

It is worth watching "Hannah and her Sisters" again.
Mickey (Allen's) existential crisis is resolved when he realises that God *might* exist, therefore life *might* have a meaning. So he should stop worrying and enjoy "Duck Soup". And life.
(The film's discussion of the problem of evil is consonant with Mickey's realisation).

A very different sort of agnosticism than that of the Atheist bus.

GV

As a member of Canadian Islamic Congress I would like to see the same atheistic ad, next week, but replacing the word "God" with its Arabic equivalent "Allah". UK is a democratic, egalitarian, open, all-faith embarcing country, isn't it? And next similar ad, replacing word "Allah" with "Yahveh" on all remaing, if any, buses.

Ibn

I do not see any evidence that Allah means anything other than "God". The prophet's (pbuh) father was named "Abdullah", meaning servant of God, before the prophet received any revelation about Allah or his names. We also know that monotheistic groups like the Hanif's existed at the time of the prophet. Christian Arabs have used the word Allah to refer to God for many centuries. The word may have taken on a new significance for Muslims, but I doubt any one group can claim ownership of a word.
May I respectfully suggest that you are attempting to find offence where none was meant.

GV

Graham I read Ibn Warraq's post rather differently than you. May I venture to suggest that he was proposing that the Humanist show us the courage of their convictions by phrasing their advertisement in a manner which might attract a more vigorous rebuttal than that of Christian Voice?

I would happily add my voice to that call - Christians have been the target of choice for "artists", comedians and atheists for far too long - they are, however, a soft target and perhaps, I am sorry to say, an increasingly irrelevant one.

Ibn_Warraq, try just saying it in some place like Saudi Arabia or Iran and if you are overheard, you will soon be dead.

Well, yes, maybe Atheists are just taking advantage of the fact that Christian extremists are generally nicer people than Muslim extremists. The purpose of the ads is to get people to think for themselves, not to get inflamed mobs rampaging all over the place, like what happened with the Danish cartoons (whether the "offence" is feigned or real). So, if you don't mind, we'll start with the word "God" and get round to other people's imaginary sky pixies if time permits.

Heliopolitan;

"The purpose of the ads is to get people to think for themselves."

You must be joking. The purpose of a religious education (indoctrination) starting at an early age is to prevent just that from happening. It seems to work very well too.

The other guy's religion is your "cult." And visa versa.

Helio

I am at heart a sceptic - if this ad gets many people thinking about the existence of God who wasn't already thinking about it I would be very very surprised. If it changes any minds I would be even more surprised.

PW, speaking as an "escapee", the idea that there were people who seriously really did not believe in god, and nonetheless were good normal sensible people really did not occur to me until I was in my 20s (which is embarrassing, yes).

There are people to whom it has never occurred, and some of those people are reachable. Yes, a lot of people are thinking about god, but they may be unaware that the option of flushing the whole sorry mess down the bog is eminently available. Some will pull the handle.

-H

"Well, it's gotcha talking, hasn't it?" Result?

Helio, if you've been observant, you'll have noticed I replaced your exclamation mark with a question mark.

And the result?

The result is, one, we're talking about how dumb the ad is. I mean, you don't believe in God? Just say so. (for goodness sake) Two, we're also taking about God, you know the one who probably doesn't exist. We should thank Ariane for bringing him to our attention, (I had almost forgotten him, not enough 'quiet times' I suppose) in fact, come to think of it, if she wants to go into all the world with the message of God then she should go right ahead! Indeed, such is the modern transport system she could probably take a bus to the ends of the earth.

BTW I thought the purpose of the ad was to get people to stop worrying for themselves. What is the purpose of the ad, remind me... Maybe y'all need an advertising campaign to promote the advertising campaign, like the photo at the top with the slogan, "There's probably going to be an advertisement on a bus near you soon - but if there's not don't worry about it and just get on with your life."

And surely you mean probable/improbable sky pixies?

Now there's an ad everyone could run with. "There are no imaginary sky pixies." The clue is in the word imaginary.

And another thing, has anyone actually seen any these buses... or better still, experienced what it is like to travel on one of them?
I mean I wouldn't want to take it on... ah... you know the rest.

"Some of these people are reachable"

Good god man, you're still within sight of the prison camp! Run, run like hel... I mean, heave... I mean as fast as you can. That's an evangelist talking if ever I heard one.

Go helio, go; if you climb into the sky... If you go underground... if you fly on morning's wing to the far horizon...

If I lay my cards on the table, on this issue I imagine there is little discernible difference between my position and that of Smasher. I am absolute for life: I can conceive of no situation where one human being is morally justified in setting out to deliberately end the life of another, and that includes the ending of the life of an unborn child.

The selection of embryos or foetuses for life or destruction on any basis whatsoever is eugenics and is utterly utterly repugnant to me. If we value human life, I would argue, we should value it in all its forms and all its wonderful variety. When we begin to feel we have the right to determine what is a life worth living for another person, when we even mouth the notion that a person's value to society might be a consideration in allowing them life then we are well down the road to a materialist view of human life, a road whose nadir even the Nazi's failed to plumb.

I have argued before against the weight our society places on the intellect, un-curbed it will destroy us. The human mind was made to think and to feel: dispassionate arguments are not merely inhumane they are inhuman. When we talk about important matters it is not only legitimate, it is essential, that we engage our emotions. The associative power of language is one way in which we do this and to evoke memories and analogies is an important tool in awakening our whole brains to the issue we are considering.

The issue currently under consideration is the future of our species - we owe it the employment of all our faculties.

If anyone wants to feel the horror of a society which has travelled to the end of this road, a society of commodity humans, they should read Kazuo Ishiguro's "Never Let Me Go" - the sense of nausea it inflicts on the reader is, in my experience, unparalleled.

Sorry about my post # 37 - I meant to post it to the Autism thread - must be premature senility, obviously I need to be humanely put down...

Personally, I think the ad is more Agnostic than Atheistic. The word "Probably" surely leaves room for doubt (from the Atheist point of view that is).

Peter: the word "probably" is not the same as the word "maybe". Maybe would have been accurate and substantiated. Probably is a claim whis is not generally agreed.

jovialPTL ~40

You are right, according to dictionaries there is a difference between 'probably' and 'maybe'; as to the degree of certainty expressed.

'Probably' = Most likely; presumably, insofar as seems reasonably true, factual, or to be expected, without much doubt.
(But it does leave a little wiggle room, in that you cannot prove this. Hence my comment above that it is an agnostic advert.)

'Maybe' = perhaps, possibly, it could be, conceivably.

I suspect that the ASA will allow 'probably'.

If ASA is smart...they won't waste their time even considering this nonsense. But then this is NI we're talking about here, anything is possible :-)

I think the ASA must consider this case now that they've received the required number of complaints that trigger an enquiry.

Peter:

You are certainly a faithful defender of the mythical sky pixie. You never fail when a non-believer mocks the little god to jump to his defence and mock back.

I would say that the slogan is a bit of fun. Frankly, who cares what the wording is. An Australian suggested: "Atheism - sleep in on Sunday mornings".

As to whether 'probably' makes you an agnostic rather than an atheist, I would say probably not. 'Probably' is atheist: "There is probably no Christian God". 'Maybe' is agnostic: there may be a creative force(s) which originated the universe, though I doubt it".

Yet there is also a more serious purpose behind a campaign to place secular advertising and publicity on a par with the religious. Humanists seek a secular state, one in which the churches cease to have a privileged role. Contrary to popular belief, a secular state is not a godless state but a neutral one which protects the rights of all citizens to hold their own beliefs, religious or non-religious. In the society at large these diverse opinions compete on a basis of equality and tolerance. State funding, the media and education are not favourable to any but fair to all.

Christians cannot morally object to the concept of a secular state in an open and pluralist society. After all, they too believe in freedom of opinion, the autonomy of the individual, and social justice. Moreover, they cannot reasonably claim a monopoly of morality, for Humanists are just as concerned as the religious about our spiritual and ethical dimensions, the environment, poverty, cruelty and suffering.

Secular Humanists do not deny people the right to a faith of their own choice. All we seek is equality in the public arena to demonstrate that a life without a god can be just as meaningful and moral as a life based on religious belief. In the final analysis, we all share this crowded planet and are concerned about its future. Bertrand Russell summed it up well in a Humanist slogan: "Remember your humanity and forget the rest".

Unfortunately, if we put these fine words on a bus, few people in the media or the general public would probably take the slightest bit of notice. As it is, the campaign has given us enormous publicity. That's what believers generally don't like, publicity for an opinion different from their own.

#43. I think only one complaint is required.
I've just discovered that the ASA have a whole page relating to Religion, Faith and Related Systems of Belief, though this is for broadcast media, I imagine it would act as guidance for printed adverts too.
https://www.asa.org.uk/asa/codes/radio_code/Radio+Code+Religion+Faith+and+Related+Systems+of+Belief.htm

3.6 states a) "Matters of doctrine or belief should not be expressed as unqualified fact and can only be stated in ways which make it clear to listeners that they represent the views of the advertiser."

The use of 'probably' should cover that.

Brian, your persecution complex is coming through again.

"a campaign to place secular advertising and publicity on a par with the religious"

What do you mean "on a par"? Do you mean "as numerous"?

Personally, I'm not sure I've EVER seen a religious advertisement. Certainly not on tv, radio, or a bus.

But if "secular advertising", what ever that is, is somehow not on a par with religious advertising, which I've never seen, surely that's purely financial. If you have the cash, feel free to run as many "secular advertisements" as you want.

You speak as if the church is trying to stop you! As far as I know, no one is.

"Contrary to popular belief, a secular state is not a godless state but a neutral one which protects the rights of all citizens to hold their own beliefs, religious or non-religious"

But woe betide anyone who wants to TEACH religious beliefs in a religious school, eh?

"Christians cannot morally object to the concept of a secular state in an open and pluralist society"

True. I would not like to see a theocracy.

But we can morally object to some of the excesses and immoralities of a secular state...nothing wrong with that. I personally would not like to see a change in the secularism that we currently enjoy. you speak as if we already live in a theocracy.

"Moreover, they cannot reasonably claim a monopoly of morality, for Humanists are just as concerned as the religious about our spiritual and ethical dimensions, the environment, poverty, cruelty and suffering"

That's true. I wouldn't deny it. However, it's a different thing to argue that atheist views of "spiritual and ethical dimensions" are ultimately baseless. There is nothing oppressive about that, and furthermore, it doesn't even detract from the value. I completely accept that you no doubt have a healthy moral attitude. I think the basis of that attitude is misguided, but i fully accept that value of the attitude, as its an attitude I also take, though for different reasons.

"Secular Humanists do not deny people the right to a faith of their own choice"

But woe betide anyone who wants to learn about that faith, or wants their children to learn about it, from the people who know about it.

"All we seek is equality in the public arena to demonstrate that a life without a god can be just as meaningful and moral as a life based on religious belief"

No one's stopping you from DEMONSTRATING anything...in what way have you not got EQUALITY?

If you have the cash you can try to demonstrate anything you like on the side of a bus. The problem is you haven't demonstrated anything

3.6 Doctrinal References and Exhortations
a) Matters of doctrine or belief should not be expressed as unqualified fact and can only be stated in ways which make it clear to listeners that they represent the views of the advertiser;

b) Listeners must not be exhorted to change their beliefs or religious behaviour.

On the face of it, I would say that these standards are deeply prejudicial and discriminatory. They favour (perhaps unintentionally) certain views of religion. For example views that would see Religion as having a social as opposed to salvific role.

Not that I care. It's just that I could take offence if I was feeling sorry for myself.

GV

Brian, hi.

I reckon you are intelligent enough to know that I'm not defending a mythical sky pixie.

But really 'faithful', that's a bridge too far, although I'll take any compliments going, they're pretty thin on the ground in 'our wee province'.

As for mocking, would you rather I fitted the stereotype and took offence, hit the 'gurn' button, and said I wasn't playing anymore? I mean what do you expect when people use phrases like 'pixie' and 'escapee'? (To be honest I expected some of your arguments against God to kindle the doubt which courses through my veins, but increasingly I see no reason not to believe, indeed I'm sort of taken aback at times at how limited the anti theist arguments are.) Anyway, it wasn't all mocking, the ad is pretty weak, and you know it. I imagine that the organizers would have hoped that the campaign would have been more than, 'a bit of fun'.

In fact, while we're on the subject, another thing which interests me is the extent to which the arguments against God are mostly arguments against a cliche. So here's a slogan of my own, shamelessly ripped off from the atheist bus:

Atheism. Probably a weaker argument than you think. Now stop apologizing for your faith and enjoy your life.

Shefftim ...

Those ASA rules about religion apply only to broadcast media. The UK has a law against conversionist broadcasting.

Just listened to the Nolan Show: two Christians versus one Humanist - perfect proof of the need for a counter-advertising campaign. Also, as the woman from Lisburn pointed out, Christians verbally assault her (and me) every Saturday in Bow Street, Lisburn, with their aggressive, megaphone advertising.

Again, Humanists were called 'liars' by one of the Christians (Stephen Green) and 'fools' by the other (Rev David McIlveen).
Is this the kind of 'mature Christianity' that you Christian guys on this blog approve of?

brian I heard it too. Quite honestly I thought humanists came out of that debate smelling of roses. Radio phone-in shows like simple binary stories. In fact, many christians are also angry about those loud street preachers in lisburn. And if a humanist gets insulted by the likes of Green and McIlveen, they should wear it as a badge of honour.

H
Re post 34
Funnily enough, I've moved in completely the opposite direction.

I trusted Christ when I was seven, for reasons that I don't really understand.

My father subsequently converted, and I was churched in "fundamentalist" congregations.

I've always liked reading (as opposed to study). So throughout my teenage years I felt a very deep anxiety - it seemed to me as if all the good, normal sensible people were atheists. And I had a faith that I couldn't shake.

In sixth form I discovered CS Lewis, Josh McDowell and the Creationists. The argument from morality seemed sound (and still does). The evidence for the Resurrection also seemed powerful (if you can buy the idea of a miracle, and I can't see why we should close our minds to that possibility). I wasn't as confident about Creationism, but I did come to the opinion that if evolution happened it was a designed process, a guided process, or both (I can thank Jaques Monod for that - "Chance and Necessity" really sealed the case for design in the living world).

However, I thought these arguments belonged to a counterculture, not mainstream academia. I was very pleasantly surprised to find that mainstream academics proposed better versions of the arguments I'd stumbled on or cobbled together.

And reading Plantinga et al. made me realise that my "evidentialism" was a clumsy and incoherent belief policy. ("The heart has it's reasons" etc etc...).

It just seems ironic that we've moved in opposite directions over the years. And thinking about that got me all nostalgic about teenage existential angst. I felt a need to reminisce and share...

GV

Oh, and I abandoned YEC, lest you worry.

And this brings be to a very embarrassing question that's going to get me into all sorts of bother. But I promised Ben, my son, who is eight, that I'd ask some of the "clever people I type to on my laptop." None of the Science teachers in my school are biologists, and I'd have to look them in the eye when I asked.

Without taking the opportunity to bring in FSMs or sky fairies...

And keeping in mind he's EIGHT...

And thinks evolution is really interesting and I want to keep encouraging him...

And I've told him these creatures really, very probably DO NOT exist...



What could Yeti's have evolved from?

He doesn't buy apes, because they wouldn't have a food source on the Himalayas.

# 53. Good question. I take it he thinks Yeti live above the snowline as they've not been seen and leave 'footprints'.

Not much lives above the snowline, Snow Leopards, yak, Ibex, wild sheep, horse and goats, some wolves and small mammals and birds. No candidates there.
Below that is an alpine climate area, with seasonal visitors. Ibex and Leopard may move down to it in winter; otherwise wild sheep, horse and goats, some wolves and small mammals and birds. No candidates there.
Below that some tropical forest in places. The only Indian ape is the Hoolock Gibbon. Monkeys include Languars, Macaques etc, these are more comfortable in the tropical forests. Possible, but improbable.

A uncontacted tribe - or an ancient sub species (the last Nethanderals?) - of humans? Unlikely. Humans tend to live in settlements, even if nomadic, and would leave more signs. They also would have a hard job finding food in such an environment.

Or could the footprints actually be from an elusive Snow Leopard? Or a climber that passed that way a while before? Hmmm.

#49. Read what I posted. Sigh.

Hi Brian (post 50)

Given a choice between two Christians who use words like 'liar' and 'fools' debating one Humanist, and no Christians debating a Humanist (of course that's a daft statement, but you know what I mean!) I'd choose the no Christian option.

You see, here's another way if thinking about it. If I were a talk show host who wanted to discredit Christianity and promote Humanism/Secularism (and I'm not suggesting Stevie N is a talk show host who is doing any of these things) I'd choose a couple of Christians who were known for their willingness to court controversy and state their case in a curt sort of way. (Though I'm not suggesting that either Stevie G, not the Liverpool guy, or the Rev Dave Mc are either controversial or curt). I'd also deliberately choose to imbalance the panel. That way the Humanist will be perceived as rational, and cuddly, and the Christians as harsh, intolerant and ganging up on the other guy. Sometimes imbalance can work for you.

On the point of the verbal assault of the gospel in Lisburn, (I've heard it too) my view is that is a poor way to communicate, and, like protest, usually does more harm than good. And, in my view presents Christianity in something like the following terms, "Here, listen ya sinner, you're going to hell cos you’re not like me". And that's not the gospel. I agree it is aggressive, but it's probably, however offensive people find it, more 'free speech' than advertising. (Is there a difference?)

So, here's a thought, I've tried it a few times myself. Next time you're passing the guys, rather than shuffling on or casting a disapproving glance (as I have sometimes done) and rather than saying "No thanks" when you're offered a leaflet, say something like, "Oh, hello, thank you very much. Can you tell me why you are doing what you are doing? What does this little tract mean? Would you like to go for coffee and discuss it, I'd love to know what's going on in your head, I'm paying". And if, in the unlikely event the offer is accepted you can put your point of view too and test their's.

In my experience, given these circumstances most people run for the hills, and that is what I find most frustrating about megaphone communication, it's all talk and no listen.

Graham - I would suggest they evolved from the Cyclops - or possibly and,more controversially, the Nephilim...

Graham,

Ehem.... On the evolution of the Snow Monster thing. Did you ever think of an advertisement? You know something like,

The people I type to on the laptop are probably not as clever as you think! Now stop worrying and eat up your spaghyeti.

Oh, I see. You want Christians to be in the minority in these discussions do you. Well, when you hear one on the BBC in which there are two Humanists and one Christian, please let me know. For it will be a true landmark.

My above comment was meant to be addressed to Peter in his #56.


As for Lisburn on a Saturday afternoon, I try to avoid it like the plague.

Brian

You asked what I thought was a civil question, I gave what I thought to be a reasonable answer. What's to get irritated about?

I don't approve of the 'liar', 'fool' or 'megaphone' approach to communication. I made that clear. I also broached the wider issue of perception; sometimes my fellow Christians make me cringe, and I'm quite sure I do that to them, and others, too. What's your problem here?

I'm disappointed you chose to respond the way you did.

I hold to my view, sometimes 'counting heads' is irrelevant, especially if the minority have a better argument or method of communication.

#53. On the Yeti issue I`ve just remembered there`s a Himalayan Brown Bear. Bears do raise themselves into an upright posture and so could have been mistaken at a distance as a hairy apelike creature. This would also help explain Bigfoot sightings in America, Bigfoot reports and legends all come from forested areas also inhabited by bears. I wouldn't suggest Yeti/Bigfoot evolved from them though, just a case of mistaken identity.

As mermaids turned out to be the Manatees, it demostrates that a glimpse of some animal combined with imagination and exaggeration can work wonders. (In Cornwall, Mermaid was slang for a `loose woman`, which explains many stories of sailors being lured from the straight and narrow by a Mermaid`s charms.)

On the bus adverts. Guess we'll just have to wait for the adjudication. Could take a while I understand.

Peter:

I'll give you an example of what is irritating. Rev David McIlveen had two goes in two days on Radio Ulster on this topic, in supposedly secular programmes. This is what I meant about religious hegemony here. A humanist cannot be allowed to go on air without having to face a Christian or two, who will announce in public that we are fools or liars, yet it doesn't work the other way round. Christians can publicise their personalised and insulting views unchallenged ad nauseam.
It was up to Nolan to pick up on their insulting comments, but he didn't. If I went on air and said that Christians are all fools and liars, there would be uproar.

Let me make it clear: McIlveen and Green have a right to say what they said; that's how tolerant Humanists are. But we have every right to criticise them for it. It demeans their own belief to label everybody who doesn't happen to agree with them in this way. I think you yourself know that.

Nevertheless, the bus campaign IS proving its worth. Sure, Christians are getting publicity, but so too are Humanists, even if it isn't really a fair exchange in NI (it rarely is), Christians cannot object to religion being discussed in public.

Hi Brian

Yes, many things on the broadcast media can be irritating. But a number of phrases you use interest me, enough to cause me to ask why you use them.

Rev Dave has been on two days in a row, once on the the Nolan show and then presumably another. Talk Back or something, was it? Now I understand the frustration at the 2 times bit but what's going on with the 'supposedly secular programmes'? It sounds like an approach to programming in terms of 'this is religious' so it's a sky pixies only show, but 'that is secular' so it's a no sky pixie show. I'm not sure what you mean by 'supposedly secular' here. If you’re going to use that general measurement then practically all shows are secular with the imbalance being against religion. Just to be clear though I do not view things that way, I'm not into sacred/secular divides, nor am I into the 'christianizing' of society. But by this measurement which shows are secular and which are not?

Secondly you say, that that Christians are unchallenged, do you really believe that? And even if you do believe that to be the case would you not be better to challenge the argument rather than complain about bias. That's why I made the suggestion about 'taking on' the evangelists in Lisburn. And do you not agree as I said earlier on this thread that sky pixie type phrases don't make for the best of arguments? Personally I don’t find them offensive, I just find them weak debating positions to take. For example on the 'fools' issue, (it's probably a quote from the Psalms, "The fool has said in his heart, "There is no God." " If I were an atheist responding to that I'd ask, "Why is this the case?" or "I don't think it’s foolish, what's foolish about it?" Now it's not up to me to write your debates for you, but as a Christian it would be pertinent of me to ask these types of questions of myself and I expect that what is offensive about comments like 'fools' is that some christians use the words like weapons rather than asking themselves if they are in danger of being the very fools they accuse others of being. In other words there are a lot of presumptuous believers.

A final point about the discussion of religion, I do not object to it at all. Personally I think it's positive, people need to work out what they really think, Christians need to work out what they really believe, for me, the greatest danger to Christianity, and the quickest way to ensure it's demise is for it to remain benignly unnoticed, for God to cast in the mould of a kindly, yet doting, grand-father or grand-mother figure rather than one who grapples with mercy, who unnerves me in my pride, and who seeks that I act as a servant rather than a king. This is why I think the bus campaign, from your point of view, is self-defeating. As you say, the ad resulted in an 'unfair exchange', which means that christians are benefitting more from your ad than you are. The very thing I said when I first saw it.

Another thing, if it's worth anything, I apologise for any offence caused by the use of these words, I don't think you are a fool, but I do think there is more to faith than 'sky pixies'.

Peter:

"It sounds like an approach to programming in terms of 'this is religious' so it's a sky pixies only show, but 'that is secular' so it's a no sky pixie show".

No, I don't mean that and I think you know I don't. I mean that there is no reason to give religion such SPECIAL TREATMENT on a secular programme. I can understand it in a religious programme, but not in a secular one.

I didn't say that Christians are always unchallenged but that they frequently are (whereas Humanists are almost always challenged). For example, there was a recent item on Talkback in which a Christian scientist funded by the Templeton Foundation discussed research allegedly indicating that children are hard-wired to religious belief.

Human minds, he said, have a strong receptivity to belief in gods, in the afterlife, in moral absolutes, and other ideas commonly associated with religion. Children have an innate tendency to interpret events as the outcome of a purposive agency.

There was no one in the studio to question this research, even though there is nothing strange or startling about this so-called discovery. Children also believe in tooth fairies, Father Christmas and a host of other fantastic things, most of which they abandon before puberty.

Piaget, the child psychologist, divided the mental development of a child into a number of stages. The second, or preoperational stage, from the beginning of speech to about seven, is characterised by personalising objects and fantasy, and the child’s thinking is influenced by the way he or she would like things to be. It is perfectly natural for the child not to understand an abstract idea such as: the universe just is and has no person controlling it.

But when the child enters the third stage, of concrete operations, it begins to start thinking logically, and during the fourth stage, of formal operations, after about 11, thought becomes more abstract, and it is time to 'put away childish things'.

No psychologist, humanist or secular philosopher gave this opposing view. So it went unchallenged.

As I have said, the ad has given humanists great publicity, though locally you can be sure Christians will get even more publicity to oppose it.

Frankly, the ad is only a slogan. The media hype proves that the media are generally not interested in serious analysis but prefer to discuss slogans and soundbites. Try to argue a more serious point about it, such as the concept and nature of a secular state and equality of rights in it, and the mainstream media
don't want to know.

Brian

On the soundbite point I agree, weak debate.

I'd like to have heard the Christian scientist discuss research allegedly indicating that children are hard-wired to religious belief, but radios and the classroom don't mix well! Seems a bit strange. I'm not a fan of arguing from a child's point of view, nor am I a fan of child evangelism. Personally my view here is that if the church hasn't the courage to communicate with parents then it shouldn't be focusing on their children.

Just to keep up the little edge though, part of your reply does sound like a pixie view of faith again and 'just is' isn't much of an alternative. Dad would never let me say, 'just because', and he had a point, don't you think?

Peter:

We have argued this point on other threads. If the universe has no cause or rational basis, then it just is. Your dad wasn't right about everything.

Brian

Just is, or, I Am, I suppose.

Peter:

The universe has probably no cause or meaning; human beings have causes and invent meanings.

Oh.

#69, 70. Sorry to butt in, but its estimated that there are 2 billion stars (suns) in our galaxy, the Milky Way. The Hubble telescope shows there are 3,000 visible galaxies, there probably are many more. If you've been watching 'Around the world in 80 faiths' on BBC 2 on Friday nights you may have been struck by the diversity of religious belief.
Many seen irrational, pure superstition or just 'made up' even. And we're just one planet, in one solar system in one galaxy.
It's a bit presumptuous to think that a 'God' thinks ours is special, listens to our prayers, watches over us or has a heaven just for us.
Man created God[s], not the other way round.

Yes Shefftin, there are many 'presumptuous' aspects of religious belief. Of course, the so-called holy books don't contain anything about the universe, the Milky Way, galaxies, DNA, cures for cancer etc., because they were written thousands of years ago by relatively ignorant men, not by omniscient gods.

Moreover, in creating those Gods in their holy books, they made them inferior to themselves by giving them the manners and morals of a spoiled child.

SheffTim, Hi

Don't worry about butting in, no problem, the ad is just doing it's job.

Could well be many more, galaxies, that is. And probably many more faiths than 80. Like faith in the stock market for example. The way it woks certainly seems to be invented. And yes, we're just one planet among all that, I agree. But what makes you think that I, a believer, thinks that 'God' whoever he/she may be is only concerned with earth?

You see that strikes me as just another one of the usual stereotypical arguments or objections made against the idea of faith. (I mentioned this earlier on this thread) Just like the ones used by Brian in post 72. Have you not come up with anything new yet Brian?

The bible doesn't speak of galaxies, or DNA, gee! It was written by 'ignorant' men, what was it was said before, goat herds. Ignorant in what way Brian, are you sure who want to discuss this again? And then a version of the other old chestnut appears again, God has no manners. SheffTim, the usual way of putting this is to cast God in the role of the Marquis de Sade.

And, after having used objections, which don't actually answer anything except perhaps tired old atheist cliches, what is it I am being offered in return, let me see, a meaningless universe which brings forth humans beings who, mysteriously, crave meaning enough to seek it out, debate it, establish it and yes, even 'invent' it.

Tim, please understand this, sometimes (I can explain the reasons why if you like) I want to doubt, in fact sometimes I actually want not to believe, but I'm not hearing anything which is giving me that option.

Peter:

Atheist clichés have nothing on two thousand year old Christian ones.

If the early edition of today's Belfast Telegraph is to be believed, Rev David McIlveen has contacted Translink to pressurise them to decline the Humanist ads, or, as he put it, to 'think carefully' before accepting the campaign: "We're not talking about censorship here, but we're talking about respect - both for the Christian community and for drivers who do not wish to take out buses bearing this affront to their faith".

This from the man who said on Talkback that he supported freedom of speech and is demanding that same freedom for an ad attacking gays.

So it's all right to attack a group of people in public but not all right to voice an opinion that some people don't agree with??

Brian

You already know my views on Rev. Dave. What are you bringing him up for again? I have also, on this blog, spoken against the ad published in regard of the gay community. Anyway, he is wrong about the (bus) ad being an affront to faith, if he had any sense he'd use the ad to his advantage.

Of more concern to me is that you failed to respond to my comments about my own doubt or about the need to invent meaning in a meaningless universe. Surely if you are going to promote the slogan 'there is probably no God' you are going to have to explain and defend the alternative.

Also if I had the budget and the inclination, I'd run another ad alongside the 'Probably no God' one. It would be placed either, beside the atheist one, or on the other side of any bus carrying the atheist one, and it would simply read, '...then again...'

Peter:

Only my first sentence was addressed specifically to you. The rest relates to the thread.

On the question of meaning, I don't think that life has any EXTERNAL meaning, i.e. any meaning outside itself. It has lots of INTERNAL meanings, i.e. projects, aims, activities, hopes, ambitions that we create for ourselves. We need to invent meanings to pass the time between life and death, make ourselves happy, to impose some sense on senselessness, to connect with others, and so on.

I have said it before but I shall repeat it: belief in a god does not supply any meaning to life unless you understand that god's purpose in creating life in the first place. I've never heard a satisfactory explanation of this from a believer. Are you willing to explain one in language that I can understand? Why did your god create me? No gobbledygook, please!

The point about the second part of the statement, 'So stop worrying and enjoy your life', was a response to a website on a Christian bus ad which threatened eternal torment in hell to non-believers.

A happy life for all, free of unnecessary fears, is a key Humanist aim. There is enough fear and suffering and injustice in life without compounding it with imaginary threats.

Hi Brian

I really want, no, I really want to discuss your second paragraph, but you asked a question, and given what I have already said on this thread about communication it would be impolite to ignore it.

I have no idea what you will make of it, maybe it is one you have already heard, and may I say too that it is not a complete answer, from the following simple statement many things will follow. But you have asked, 'Why did your god create me?" and it is a fair question. My answer is this, you were created because creating you was a good thing to do.

I don't understand the point of advertising atheism. Advertising religion can help direct people to certain issues they are having trouble about their faith, while some of the atheist websites seem pointless and shallow. The main American page has a huge article about how it is wrong for children to have a minute of silence in schools, but this minute is valuable as it teaches them to think about others who are less fortunate, not to pray for them but to realise facts about the world. Why would you want to do lots of research on Atheism if you have already decided, once and for all, that there is no god? Therefore I feel that the advert is aimed at religious people, but it comes across as shallow and half-hearted, that it only reinforces people's beliefs of no god (that they had to start with) so they can feel better at themselves and quieten the niggling doubt that there could be something more.

To be honest, when I first saw this advert, I thought it was meant to be ironic and advertising Christianity, as it immediately makes you think "wait there must be more".

Hi Tiptop:

Atheism is the new coming out. David Attenborough is a good example. Many of us knew that he was an atheist, but only now has he plainly said so. You have to ask why so many people, both well known and not well known, have refrained from stating this clearly before now.

The answer has to be partly fear or concern that it would not be acceptable in 'polite' society or to family or close friends. That is an unnecessary fear in a liberal democratic society where you are entitled to your own opinions, and so the campaign, which is not really aimed at religious people, is designed to stress that there is no need to worry. There are many others 'like you' who think the same way. Isn't that great? Enjoy your life without fear of stigmatisation.

Also, there are people who feel that they will be threatened by some 'evil power' if they come out as non-believers. This is an irrational fear and the ad seeks to put their mind at rest. There is no bogeyman under the bed or jealous daddy in the sky. Hooray!

Brian;


"Also, there are people who feel that they will be threatened by some 'evil power' if they come out as non-believers."

That is the strangest thing I've ever read.

Are there really?

More importantly, are those people really atheists.

We've argued about your other points before, but suffice to say that I have never ever ever met or encountered an atheist who was afraid to admit to it, or been in polite society where it was "unacceptable" to be an atheist.

I accept that these may well be very real fears on your part, but I've yet to see them substantiated.

Who is doing all this atheist-ridiculing? For I have never ever encountered it.

Seriously, what are these atheists afraid of? Some transcendent evil power?