Atheist advert provokes complaint

[JackC 0]

Apparently, the British Humanist Association has paid to have adverts put on buses that read "There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life". Now apart from the giant "who cares" that these adverts deserve, apparently Christian Voice have complained to the Advertising Standards Agency.

Stephen Green [of Christian Voice] has challenged the adverts on grounds of "truthfulness" and "substantiation", suggesting that there is not "a shred of supporting evidence" that there is probably no god. ~ http://www.politics.co.uk/opinion-formers/press-releases/stephen-green-challenges-atheist-bus-adverts-bha-responds-$1259438$365873.htm



Pure genius.

[shropshire 0]

What a plonka

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[jakee 1,596]

Stephen Green is a fascist prick. Kinda like a modern Mary Whitehouse but even more insane.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[vortexring 0]

Some comments on the advertisment I found rather amusing:

"In the words of Ben Kingsley - 'have you ever looked for a fairy at the bottom of the garden?'

Unless you have searched every garden everywhere you cannot be 100% sure that they do not exist - so words like 'probably' and 'allegedly' just make you look like less of an arrogant twat!

This of course should not extend to personal opinion - just if you are goingto make a statement as fact, make sure it IS fact!"

And:

"The dirty, vicious bastards. It's the crusades all over again, innit?

When will there be a bus along that says "just give this shit a rest already"?'

One more:

"The atheist belief is not that there is definitely no God. The atheist belief is that there is no reason to believe in a God. Whether God MIGHT exist is quite unimportant. Personally I am much happier with the less confrontational slogan which posits God as an irrelevance."

Ok, I lied:

"To those who live in a remote tiny village somewhere in the depths of the world, who ahve never been educated, who have never delved outside of their small village, who do not even posess passports allowingt hem to leave their tiny village, Australia 'does not exist'

why? Becasue in their tiny narrow existence they have never heard of, seen, witnessed, or felt the presence of such a country.

The same can be said for the spiritually deprived, Godless atheists. Theyahve never delved outside of their tiny minds, nor would they ever apply for a passports that takes them out of their own realms of self obsession. So to them, 'there probably is no God'

just because you havent witnessed the Creator, it doesnt mean the creator does not exist."

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

Unless you have searched every garden everywhere you cannot be 100% sure that they do not exist - so words like 'probably' and 'allegedly' just make you look like less of an arrogant twat!

If someone searched a good percentage of the gardens most likely to contain fairies, found none, and proclaimed that they "probably don't exist", I would trust his judgement far more than that of someone who believed in and worshipped one big fairy that supposedly lives in the sky.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[vortexring 0]

Yeah, and?




I couldn't give a tinkers cuss.

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Quote

If someone searched a good percentage of the gardens most likely to contain fairies, found none, and proclaimed that they "probably don't exist", I would trust his judgement far more than that of someone who believed in and worshipped one big fairy that supposedly lives in the sky.

Is that your rebuttal against the DaVinci Code/ bloodline of Christ story? He couldn't have children because he was a big fairy?

[billvon 3,120]

>If someone searched a good percentage of the gardens most likely
>to contain fairies, found none, and proclaimed that they "probably don't
>exist", I would trust his judgement far more than that of someone who
>believed in and worshipped one big fairy that supposedly lives in the sky.

Good point. Stephen Green might be able to use this in _his_ upcoming bus ad - "Garden fairies and God - you can't prove either one doesn't exist!"

[JackC 0]

Quote

Unless you have searched every garden everywhere you cannot be 100% sure that they do not exist - so words like 'probably' and 'allegedly' just make you look like less of an arrogant twat!

Now flip that around. God botherers quite regularly claim God does exist without ever producing a God of any kind, nor do they use any caveats like "probably" or "alegedly". So hows that for arrogance?

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

>If someone searched a good percentage of the gardens most likely
>to contain fairies, found none, and proclaimed that they "probably don't
>exist", I would trust his judgement far more than that of someone who
>believed in and worshipped one big fairy that supposedly lives in the sky.

Good point. Stephen Green might be able to use this in _his_ upcoming bus ad - "Garden fairies and God - you can't prove either one doesn't exist!"

But...but...but...I KNOW garden fairies are real! They gave me the 'shrooms.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[vortexring 0]

Quote

Quote

Unless you have searched every garden everywhere you cannot be 100% sure that they do not exist - so words like 'probably' and 'allegedly' just make you look like less of an arrogant twat!

Now flip that around. God botherers quite regularly claim God does exist without ever producing a God of any kind, nor do they use any caveats like "probably" or "alegedly". So hows that for arrogance?

I couldn't care less mate! I only copied and pasted some comments I found amusing.

To answer your question: An atheists' faith is based on lack of evidence of a deity. A 'God botherers' faith could be based on a whole variety of personal spiritual experiences.

All the atheist has is to go off is lack of evidence; whilst the 'God botherer' may have all the evidence he or she needs. To that end, there isn't any need for such people to use 'probably' or 'allegedly' then is there?

edit: Maybe you could try doing whatever the 'God botherer' did and see if it works for you?

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[SpeedRacer 1]

what does "God botherer" mean?

Someone who is constantly bothering God?

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[vortexring 0]

In the military it's a derogatory term for the Padre, or anybody vocal on their belief in God; although civilian pukes often use the term as well:

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/God_botherer

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[JackC 0]

Quote

To answer your question: An atheists' faith is based on lack of evidence of a deity. A 'God botherers' faith could be based on a whole variety of personal spiritual experiences.

That's not necessarily true though is it. It could be argued that an atheist might have just as much "personal experience" for no god as the believer has for a god. If you are to give credit to one set of personal experiences you should also give it to the other. Unfortunately, neither set are useful for discerning the truth as halucinations and delusions are very common. Which is why actual physical evidence is the best way to tip the balance. But in the case of god, there is no evidence and the usual response to outlandish stories that have no supporting evidence is skepticism.

[vortexring 0]

I do agree with: 'Unfortunately, neither set are useful for discerning the truth as halucinations and delusions are very common' but how can you be so sure of something you haven't experienced? Have you ever tried? Or would you simply see such effort as an exercise in self-delusion?

I dunno, surely experience in something is better than in nothing. . .

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[DannHuff 0]

Now lets see what God has to say on the matter.

'Only fools say in their hearts, “There is no God.”'

Notice it refers to the heart and not the head.

[maadmax 0]

That's not necessarily true though is it. It could be argued that an atheist might have just as much "personal experience" for no god as the believer has for a god. If you are to give credit to one set of personal experiences you should also give it to the other. Unfortunately, neither set are useful for discerning the truth as halucinations and delusions are very common. Which is why actual physical evidence is the best way to tip the balance. But in the case of god, there is no evidence and the usual response to outlandish stories that have no supporting evidence is skepticism.

[LaRusic 0]

i think we need to all switch to the church of the flying spagetti monster

www.venganza.org/

The Altitude above you, the runway behind you, and the fuel not in the plane are totally worthless
Dudeist Skydiver # 10

[billvon 3,120]

>If you can't prove a negative , how can you experience a negative?

You can not experience it.

[JackC 0]

Quote

I do agree with: 'Unfortunately, neither set are useful for discerning the truth as halucinations and delusions are very common' but how can you be so sure of something you haven't experienced? Have you ever tried? Or would you simply see such effort as an exercise in self-delusion?

Have you tried a Pan-Galactic Gargle Blaster? I really want to try a Pan-Galactic Gargle Blaster but I just can't seem to find one (and I've tried). Now why do you think that is?

Quote

I dunno, surely experience in something is better than in nothing. . .

There are lots of things I'd consider it better not to experience. Testicular Cancer, Schizophrenia, Ebola... the list goes on.

[JackC 0]

Quote

If you can't prove a negative , how can you experience a negative?.

But you can prove a negative.

http://departments.bloomu.edu/philosophy/pages/content/hales/articlepdf/proveanegative.pdf

Right now I don't have Ebola. I'm experiencing not having Ebola. I quite like it.

[shropshire 0]

Quote

If you can't prove a negative ....

I have a bank account with less than no funds in ... are you telling me that I don't have a negative balance and that the bank can't prove it anyway - Cool ... I'll just go open some more

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[deibido 0]

Quote

i think we need to all switch to the church of the flying spagetti monster

www.venganza.org/

I think we should all switch to the Church of Reality.

www.churchofreality.org

"User assumes all risk"

[jakee 1,596]

Quote

I do agree with: 'Unfortunately, neither set are useful for discerning the truth as halucinations and delusions are very common' but how can you be so sure of something you haven't experienced? Have you ever tried?

Tried to what? Have a hallucination?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[vortexring 0]

Quote

Have you tried a Pan-Galactic Gargle Blaster? I really want to try a Pan-Galactic Gargle Blaster but I just can't seem to find one (and I've tried). Now why do you think that is?

You've tried!? That's fascinating. What did your efforts consist of?

Quote

I dunno, surely experience in something is better than in nothing. . .

There are lots of things I'd consider it better not to experience. Testicular Cancer, Schizophrenia, Ebola... the list goes on.