Friday, January 9, 2009 | Reason : In the News | print version

Print | Comments |

Atheist bus adverts could lead to watchdog ruling on God's existence

Telegraph

Reposted from:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/4177717/Atheist-bus-adverts-could-lead-to-watchdog-ruling-on-Gods-existence.html

Officials at the Advertising Standards Authority are now considering whether to tackle the question that has taxed the minds of the world's greatest thinkers for centuries.

It has recorded 48 complaints since Tuesday when buses first hit the streets emblazoned with the message: "There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life." At least 40 more people were understood to have made objections by last night.

Most of those who have contacted the ASA consider the adverts offensive and say they break guidelines on taste and decency.

However Stephen Green, the Christian campaigner who led the protests against the BBC's broadcast of Jerry Springer – The Opera, is claiming they should be taken down because the statement in the adverts cannot be substantiated.

He said: "If you're going to put out what appears to be a factual statement then you have to be able to back it up. They've got to substantiate this proposition that in all probability, God doesn't exist."

The ASA is now considering whether to investigate his complaint, which could lead to it reaching a deep ontological conclusion about a supreme being.

If it ruled that the wording in the posters was unsubstantiated, it would be interpreted as effectively saying that in all probability God does exist.

Ruling that the words were justified could be taken as an agreement that God probably does not exist.

Members of the public donated £140,000 to the Atheist Bus Campaign after its founder, the writer Ariane Sherine, suggested there should be an antidote to religious posters on public transport that "threaten eternal damnation" to non-believers.

Some supporters of the movement, which has now paid for 800 bendy-buses across Britain to carry the posters for a month as well as placing 1,000 adverts on Tube trains, had wanted a stronger slogan that denied God's existence categorically. But the word "probably" was included in order to meet ASA rules.

The British Humanist Association, which is co-ordinating the campaign, said it was confident the chosen wording will not be banned by the watchdog.

Hanne Stinson, the group's chief executive, said: "I've sought advice from some of our key people here, but I'm afraid all I've got out of them so far is peals of laughter. I am sure that Stephen Green really does think there is a great deal of evidence for a God – though presumably only the one that he believes in – but I pity the ASA if they are going to be expected to rule on the probability of God's existence. However, if they do investigate we will be very happy to respond."

The ASA said: "We are assessing these complaints to see whether there are grounds for an investigation."

Posted: Friday, January 9, 2009 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 50 of 268 | | View Alternate Comment Thread

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #316101 by nickthelight on January 9, 2009 at 9:35 am

Unbelievable. I just can't believe it, the bare faced bloody cheek.

Other Comments by nickthelight

2. Comment #316103 by nickthelight on January 9, 2009 at 9:38 am

Stephen Green is a complete shit. I am aware of him from the Jerry Springer opera saga. I do hope the ASA don't ban this, it would be so depressing.

Other Comments by nickthelight

3. Comment #316105 by hungarianelephant on January 9, 2009 at 9:39 am

"If you're going to put out what appears to be a factual statement then you have to be able to back it up."

And the person saying this is ... step forward Stephen Green (for it is he).

I choked on my cup of tea when I read that.

Other Comments by hungarianelephant

4. Comment #316106 by CaptainMandate on January 9, 2009 at 9:40 am

bring it on!

claiming they should be taken down because the statement in the adverts cannot be substantiated.

where were christian voice when we needed protection from the carlsberg ads (QM)

Other Comments by CaptainMandate

5. Comment #316107 by Tyler Durden on January 9, 2009 at 9:40 am

So, Stephen Green can now prove the existence of his God?

Other Comments by Tyler Durden

6. Comment #316108 by CaptainMandate on January 9, 2009 at 9:43 am

nickthelight

if the ASA do pull this (I really can't imagine they will) then it will still have an effect. it sould give a precedent on advertising the existance of god and so maybe all those church notice boards will be coming down next

the next question will be can the hole in Stephen Greens foot be proved to be stigmata or a shot from his own gun'

Other Comments by CaptainMandate

7. Comment #316109 by hungarianelephant on January 9, 2009 at 9:44 am

Just in case anyone is unfamiliar with Stephen Green, here's one of his offerings:

http://www.christianvoice.org.uk/sin1.html

Here you can read such wisdom as: Keynesian economics is wrong because Keynes was a promiscuous homosexual; men should be allowed to rape their wives; and allowing women to be police officers is an invitation to immorality and marital breakdown.

I'm not making this up. You couldn't, could you?

Other Comments by hungarianelephant

8. Comment #316110 by pwuk on January 9, 2009 at 9:46 am

That's going to be a tough one for the ASA :-)

Other Comments by pwuk

9. Comment #316111 by Richard Dawkins on January 9, 2009 at 9:46 am

I think it might be rather a good thing if the Advertising Standards Agency does indeed rule against us, on the grounds that we cannot substantiate the statement that there's probably no god. It would set a wonderful precedent. It should mean that just about every statement about God that is ever made by a clergymen would have to be banned on the same grounds.
Richard

Other Comments by Richard Dawkins

10. Comment #316112 by markmcrobie on January 9, 2009 at 9:46 am

Did the same idiot object to Carling's advert saying "Probably the best lager in the world" on the grounds that THAT can't be substantiated either?

Other Comments by markmcrobie

11. Comment #316114 by Ed-words on January 9, 2009 at 9:47 am

This problem wouldn't have arisen if the ads said "God POSSIBLY doesn't exist."

(OK, call me a wimp.)

Other Comments by Ed-words

12. Comment #316115 by CaptainMandate on January 9, 2009 at 9:49 am

comments 9&10

what am i a mirage'!

night everyone. look forward to watching this one unfold

Other Comments by CaptainMandate

13. Comment #316116 by MaxD on January 9, 2009 at 9:49 am

"There probably are no leprechauns, so stop worrying and enjoy your life!"

Um..the claim there are probably no leprechauns cannot be substantiated so we are going to have to pull down the signs.

Can you prove there are leprechauns?

Stop you are offending me, and my whiny constituency! Besides, I just couldn't live in a world in which there were no leprechauns. And by the way what a selfish message in these troubling times.

Other Comments by MaxD

14. Comment #316117 by bujin on January 9, 2009 at 9:52 am

You're probably right, Richard. But I'm sure the clergy will come up with some sort of "stop discriminating against me" argument which gives them special dispensation to make unsubstatiated claims in their adverts.

Other Comments by bujin

15. Comment #316118 by sublunary on January 9, 2009 at 9:52 am

Martin Cassan (is that the right spelling?):

The line "probably..." is a very selfish line. In a time of credit crunch, in a time of people tightening their belt buckles... its a time for people to be generous

Is it a common human condition to produce a pipe-stem diarrhoea of non-sequiturs, or is it restricted to people with too little intellectual fibre in their diet?

What the hell is he talking about? Yes, there is a credit crunch. Yes, people are struggling. Indeed, generosity might be very helpful, but unlike him I'm not reading "There's probably no God. Now go out and be a mean bastard. To everyone."

Unless someone has other ideas, he's either an idiot or a manipulative fraud.

Other Comments by sublunary

16. Comment #316120 by Verylee on January 9, 2009 at 9:56 am

I don't think it will happen, but I am with Richard Dawkins and Captain Mandate on this one.

P.S. I am sure that DAR would also be very upset if ASA ruled against the ads....best advertisement for Christianity for a long time so he says! Maybe he could be our spokesman!
(on second thoughts, maybe not)

Other Comments by Verylee

17. Comment #316121 by JFHalsey on January 9, 2009 at 10:01 am

The ASA is now considering whether to investigate his complaint, which could lead to it reaching a deep ontological conclusion about a supreme being.

I love it ^_^

ASA is poised to join the ranks of such famous philosophers and/or theologians as Augustine, Descartes, Spinoza or Neitzsche.

This would make a perfect Stephen Colbert segment; I hope he's paying attention.
"Let the Free Market decide whether or not the Supreme Deity exists!"

Other Comments by JFHalsey

18. Comment #316123 by Inside centre on January 9, 2009 at 10:04 am

Since when did Stephen Green worry about the need to substantiate claims?

Other Comments by Inside centre

19. Comment #316124 by Caudimordax on January 9, 2009 at 10:04 am

"Let the Free Market decide whether or not the Supreme Deity exists!"

Love that! But there's more money in theism than there is in atheism, unfortunately.

Other Comments by Caudimordax

20. Comment #316126 by root2squared on January 9, 2009 at 10:12 am

I think the absurdity of this complaint might have been made clearer had the ad said -

"There probably is no god or Santa Claus. So..."

Other Comments by root2squared

21. Comment #316128 by decius on January 9, 2009 at 10:13 am

I am sadistically pleased by the agitated reaction of the god squad, particularly its loony fringe. That includes you, Robertson.

Other Comments by decius

22. Comment #316129 by serotonin_wraith on January 9, 2009 at 10:17 am

Most of those who have contacted the ASA consider the adverts offensive

In the grand scheme of things, what possible difference can this advert make to their lives?

Seeing as they most likely believe this is just the start of their eternal existence, I'm sure they'll get over it in time. 10 billion years even - and that would be a drop in the ocean to them.

That's why I ignore the cries of the 'offended'. Only those who know deep down they believe a lie could feel any offense. If atheists are going to be wiped out by God, leaving Christians to rule the planet (which they most likely believe too) how can they possibly feel offended by what we do in the here and now?

Other Comments by serotonin_wraith

23. Comment #316130 by Tyler Durden on January 9, 2009 at 10:17 am

"There is no evidnce for God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life."

Factual statement.

Other Comments by Tyler Durden

24. Comment #316132 by baal on January 9, 2009 at 10:20 am

That's hilarious!

I'd love to testify to the ASA that it's unlikely that God exists. After all, it isn't that difficult - you don't even need evolution, just a bit of knowledge of attempted proofs of God's existence, and their fallacies, and the problem of evil. Bang, job done. Sounds more fun than trying to put doubts in the minds of evangelising Jehovah's Witnesses, though maybe only just.

Other Comments by baal

25. Comment #316133 by Ed-words on January 9, 2009 at 10:20 am

root2squared # 20

We KNOW there's no Santa.He's not in the Bible!

Other Comments by Ed-words

26. Comment #316134 by Tyler Durden on January 9, 2009 at 10:21 am

Stephen Green said today:

'There is plenty of evidence for God, from peoples' personal experience, to the complexity, interdependence, beauty and design of the natural world. But there is scant evidence on the other side, so I think the advertisers are really going to struggle to show their claim is not an exaggeration or inaccurate, as the ASA code puts it.

http://www.christianvoice.org.uk/Press/press121.html

Other Comments by Tyler Durden

27. Comment #316135 by b0ltzm0n on January 9, 2009 at 10:21 am

Could the watchdog group rule "with" us, thereby preventing adverts asserting the existence of god in the future?

I mean, if the ASA comes to the conclusion that the Atheist bus slogan is a factual statement, wouldn't that mean any sign asserting god's existence would be breaking the ASA's rule about making false statements?

Other Comments by b0ltzm0n

28. Comment #316136 by Test Secular on January 9, 2009 at 10:24 am

[quote]I think the absurdity of this complaint might have been made clearer had the ad said -

"There probably is no god or Santa Claus. So..." [quote]

That is the first alternative wording I agree with , although running the risk of being accused of traumatizing children's innocence .

Perhaps: '' There is Probably no God or Hobgoblins, so ..... ''

Other Comments by Test Secular

29. Comment #316138 by Verylee on January 9, 2009 at 10:25 am

Is there some sort of "inverse law of offence", or have we been living in a bubble?

Enough of the internet and books, time to take to the streets.

'Cos where they live the game they play is NOT compromise solution.

Other Comments by Verylee

30. Comment #316139 by root2squared on January 9, 2009 at 10:25 am

28. Comment #316136 by Test Secular

Agreed. Didn't think of the children factor.

Other Comments by root2squared

31. Comment #316140 by Ian Bamlett on January 9, 2009 at 10:27 am

Oh, the delicious irony drips like honey from every word.

Better dust off your St. Augustine Green old chap!

Other Comments by Ian Bamlett

32. Comment #316141 by friarjohn on January 9, 2009 at 10:27 am

I'm confused. Is there no freedom of speech in Britain? I'm admittedly sketchy on British law.

Other Comments by friarjohn

33. Comment #316143 by Baron Scarpia on January 9, 2009 at 10:29 am

My prediction (a very tentative one) is that the ASA will put out a carefully worded decision that

a) makes it clear they have no view on the existence of God

and

b) rules that the advert is allowed.

To state outright there is there is probably a god would cause quite a bit of controversy and bad press. Going the other way and agreeing with the advert would also cause bad press, so the ASA will be looking for a way of treading a middle line.

But if they do this, they have no reason then to ban the advert. They may also say that they allow adverts for all religions, which obviously conflict with each other, and so the allowance of the atheist advert should not be taken as endorsement of its position. Just because the ASA allows adverts for Coca-Cola, it does not mean that its staff perpetually drink the stuff.

I suspect they are also aware of Stephen Green's reputation and of the Jerry Springer farce.

Other Comments by Baron Scarpia

34. Comment #316148 by Quetzalcoatl on January 9, 2009 at 10:33 am

friarjohn-

I'm confused. Is there no freedom of speech in Britain? I'm admittedly sketchy on British law.

Of course there is. Unfortunately that means that nutjobs like Green can talk rubbish freely, which he frequently does.

I think Baron Scarpia has summarised it quite nicely. I can't see the ASA banning the advert, they know they'll be opening themselves up to a lot of problems if they do that.

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

35. Comment #316151 by Dark Matter on January 9, 2009 at 10:37 am

At first, I wasn't sure about the atheist bus campaign as one of the things I liked most about being an atheist is that we are independent, free-thinkers that don't feel the need to convert others to an atheist view.

I always felt that the best possible advert for atheism are actually the religious believers themselves with their credulous certainties, infantile logic and foaming-mouthed ranting about hell fire in town centres.

And then comes Stephen Green to make his childish complaint and demonstrate all of what I have said above, proving my case for me.

So I have now changed my mind and think that the atheist bus campaign is a resounding success.

I wish to say a very big thank you to Professor Dawkins for donating his money to achieve this out standing result. Anything that winds up extremely unpleasant fundamentalist like Mr. Green has to be worth every single penny.

I now hope that the campaign now goes from strength to strength with bill boards and perhaps radio / TV advertising. The quotes from many prominent thinkers and artists are a natural progression and definitely the way to go.

Well done everyone involved in the campaign and to everyone who has donated money.

A very big thank you.

Other Comments by Dark Matter

36. Comment #316153 by cvaster on January 9, 2009 at 10:38 am

Comment #316111 by Richard Dawkins

It should mean that just about every statement about God that is ever made by a clergymen would have to be banned on the same grounds.

First: "A clergymen"? That sounds singularly plural...

So, "ever made by a clergyman"?

Since when does the ASA have any authority over statements made by clergymen anywhere except in clergy advertising?

Other Comments by cvaster

37. Comment #316156 by gyokusai on January 9, 2009 at 10:39 am

Richard sez:
I think it might be rather a good thing if the Advertising Standards Agency does indeed rule against us, on the grounds that we cannot substantiate the statement that there's probably no god. It would set a wonderful precedent. It should mean that just about every statement about God that is ever made by a clergymen would have to be banned on the same grounds.
Richard

That would be something indeed. Means, we can't lose. Barring, of course, the Advertising Standards Authority weaseling their way out of this and banning the ad over some surreal technicality or other.

^_^J.

Other Comments by gyokusai

38. Comment #316159 by mtg101 on January 9, 2009 at 10:42 am

If the ASA sides with Green, does that mean churches can't have signs saying 'Jesus Saves' unless they prove that their god exists first? Interesting...

Other Comments by mtg101

39. Comment #316161 by Quetzalcoatl on January 9, 2009 at 10:43 am

mtg101-

That probably doesn't technically count as advertising. Adverts for things like the Alpha Course would come under tight scrutiny, however.

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

40. Comment #316162 by Aquaria on January 9, 2009 at 10:43 am

DIdn't this guy just about single-handedly contribute to the repeal of blasphemy laws in the UK?

Is there a way to wind him up and set him off in more directions? This guy is becoming the anti-Midas for the fundie nutcases. Everything he touches turns to shit for his side!

Other Comments by Aquaria

41. Comment #316164 by Big Gus on January 9, 2009 at 10:47 am

I do agree with Richard as it would open up a whole can of worms re religious adverts. However I think Baron Scarpia has the measure of what will actually happen.

Green is just a wack job who's brain has crashed and needs a reboot! I do like the irony of his assumption that he is not guilty of the same offence though - idiot!

Other Comments by Big Gus

42. Comment #316172 by Inside centre on January 9, 2009 at 10:59 am

Not sure a ruling by the ASA would impact on what is said in the pulpit (though perhaps it should). Also it would be difficult to police and/or monitor. I concure with Baron Scarpia. The middle ground will rule the day.

In addition, I saw Stephen Green on question time once quite a while ago. He used biblical quotes to preface every single answer he gave on each for a variety of subjects. The funny thing was, every time he mentioned the bible he got a synchronised groan from the audience supplememtned by the odd heckle. Restored my faith in the public.... briefly.

Other Comments by Inside centre

43. Comment #316174 by Rosbif on January 9, 2009 at 11:00 am

"Probablility of Yahwe = Probablity of Zeus, so stop worrying and enjoy life"

Can this be substantiated?

But let's thank the Christians for all the free publicity :)

Other Comments by Rosbif

44. Comment #316181 by friendlypig on January 9, 2009 at 11:10 am

Whilst I am not a party to the complaint I thought that I would offer the ASA some guidance on this matter. Just in the spirit of helping fellow human beings you understand. This is the e-mail that they will probably ignore.

Sir,

Would you please pass this information on to the relevant persons.

I understand that a Mr Stephen Green, and others, have made a complaint regarding the display of an advertisement on London buses that there is 'Probably no God'.

Whilst the deliberations are, of course, solely a matter for yourselves, might I ask you to consider first and foremost whether or not Mr Green is in fact the Christian he claims to be.

I would suggest that it is only fair that Mr Green should publicly demonstrate his Christian qualities in order for his complaint to be taken seriously. After all he does claim that the Judeo-Christian bible is the inerrant word of his God.

The test as to whether or not someone is in fact a Christian is laid out in the Gospel according to St Mark, chapter 16 verses 17 to 20 which I have printed below.

Mark 16:17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;

Mark 16:18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

Mark 16:19 So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.

Mark 16:20 And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.

I am sure that London Zoo has any number of poisonous snakes for Mr Green to handle, without gloves of course, and there are any number of hospitals and pharmacies in the London area which can provide suitable lethal substances with which Mr Green can quench his thirst. Maybe they even have the antidotes if his faith is not quite strong enough.

I would also like to point out that the rules laid out in the Bible, which we call 'The 10 Commandments' are in fact written three times and they are not all the same. Off hand I am unable to remember exactly where they are in the Old Testament but the only one called 'The 10 Commandments' has at No. 10 - 'Thou shalt not boil a kid in its mother's milk'. Strange but nevertheless true.

I trust that your colleagues will accept this guidance from Mr Green's Holy book in reaching their deliberations.

Kind Regards

Other Comments by friendlypig

45. Comment #316182 by flying goose on January 9, 2009 at 11:10 am

Stephen Green, the goal behind you is usually the one you don't kick the ball into.

Other Comments by flying goose

46. Comment #316188 by beeline on January 9, 2009 at 11:19 am

I think ASA has to dismiss the case, because it's pretty clear that the word 'probably' is being used in its colloquial form. Consider the following alternatives:

"There are probably no river dolphins left in the Yangzee."

"There are probably no yetis in the Himalayas."

"There is probably no plesiosaur in Loch Ness."

None of those could be seen to be misleading, or in need of further substantiation. Where something 'probably doesn't exist' it generally means that there's been a long and fruitless search for it, which turns up nothing. This is certainly the case for God.

Other Comments by beeline

47. Comment #316189 by WilliamP on January 9, 2009 at 11:21 am

I hope someone holds religions accountable to their claims about god's existence. They really do spread falsehoods to get people's money. Even a religious person knows that religions with beliefs that are not compatible with theirs are full of lies.
If religions advertise their claims about the afterlife and take people's time and money, treat them like everyone else who does so. And if their claims are true, maybe charges for extortion should be considered for throwing people in hell when they don't pay up.

Other Comments by WilliamP

48. Comment #316191 by flying goose on January 9, 2009 at 11:22 am

Richard, Clergymen? What about clergywomen?

Other Comments by flying goose

49. Comment #316194 by AshtonBlack on January 9, 2009 at 11:35 am

@48...

Clergypersons surely?
or perhaps Persons of Clerg

Other Comments by AshtonBlack

50. Comment #316195 by DamnDirtyApe on January 9, 2009 at 11:35 am

...Googles 'dictionary clergi' - ah. Clergy. Sorry, i'm just being silly now... This whole thing looks like it's going to go that way!

Other Comments by DamnDirtyApe

Reload Comments | Back to Top

More Comments: 1 2 3 4 5 6 | Next | Last