Advert Authority Has To Say If God Exists!

Biggins · 09-01-2009 09:59PM

The probably twats complained the ads break the Advertising Standards Authority's codes on substantiation and truthfulness.

Probably twats, probably twats, probably twats! There... I said it!

Now they can have a go at me - bring the probably twats on!

Other write-up: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1110027/Atheist-bus-adverts-claiming-Theres-probably-God-reported-watchdog.html

javaboy · 09-01-2009 10:07PM

DarkJager wrote: »

You're describing the core reason I don't buy into religions. None of it can be backed up.

Neither can atheism. So the same standards of advertising should be applied.

However I don't feel adverts like the atheist one should be suspended. As much as I hate religion, the concept of free speech is enshrined in the constitution.

That's fair enough. Once the belief system of atheism gets the same treatment as other belief systems.

is freedom of speech in our constitution out of interest?

monkeyfudge · 09-01-2009 10:09PM

It's really more of an agnostic advert really.

Thoie · 09-01-2009 10:13PM

javaboy wrote: »

is freedom of speech in our constitution out of interest?

No, but the bus is in England. But England doesn't have a consitution anyway...

Dammit, someone drive that bus to America!

javaboy · 09-01-2009 10:13PM

monkeyfudge wrote: »

It's really more of an agnostic advert really.

Leaning very heavily towards atheism I would say. What's the basis for them determining the probability of God's existence?

ShooterSF · 09-01-2009 10:13PM

There's a simple work around the church use that atheists could use too. Get some guy called say Steve or something have him right a pamphlet with something like 12:21 God probably doesnt exist and then quote him in the ad rather than claim that god doesn't exist. Done.

"Steve 12:21 God probably doesn't exist"

See basically the same as quoting John, Matthew, Luke or Austin.

dSTAR · 09-01-2009 10:16PM

javaboy wrote: »

If you think the Higgs Boson is God for instance, then you can reasonably estimate the probability of God's existence.

Good answer. I didn't know you were a burgeoning quantum theorist.

I want to know God thoughts, the rest are details.

Biggins · 09-01-2009 10:17PM

This is just an attempt to silence any opposition to the religious nuts.
They can dream on...
Sorry, not all of us are willing to be dumb sheep to be herded by supposedly a bearded man carrying a staff with a crook.

I'm ALL for seperating the church from the state! This is just pure balderdash.
Jeeze, they want to start a religious war now on the buses.
TWATS!!! (probably)

R0ot · 09-01-2009 10:48PM

Well its a double edged sword really, on one hand you have the christians wanting the advertising agency to say wether god exsists or not on the basis that they claim the advert is false but at the same time the atheist group that payed for the advert could make the same arguement against the christian groups "Jesus Saves" posters.

Really it boils down to freedom of speech (which by the way doesn't exsist in my opinion in this politically correct world we live in), the advert company either allows all religious based adverts or none they can't become the judge on wether god exsists or not as that matter is down to each and every person who chooses faith or not.

I honestly don't see why the christian group is going mental over this, 'judge not yet ye be judged' they really shouldn't be arguing over such things and continue to persuade people through the telling of gods word and not getting stuck up over what someone else says.

Edit: To say that god doesn't or does exsist shouldn't fall down to any one person, people in this thread saying "silly christians" and saying who would believe in something with no evidence, its a matter of faith nothing more nothing less. You choose not to believe that's fine, don't go around burdening others by saying they are "silly" because they do. I'm not saying the christians in question aren't "silly" but there are lots of non-christian or religious people that are also "silly".

Biggins · 09-01-2009 11:03PM

I'm so incensed by these twats (probably) I donated money to the bus cause!
Long may it roll on driving...

09-01-2009 11:32PM

This post has been deleted.

jackal · 12-01-2009 11:12AM

javaboy wrote: »

Neither can atheism. So the same standards of advertising should be applied.

That's fair enough. Once the belief system of atheism gets the same treatment as other belief systems.

is freedom of speech in our constitution out of interest?

The "probably" part is not just a way of pussying out. In Dawkins "The God Delusion" there is a chapter on it, which reaches the same conclusion scientifically. On the balance of evidence rather than blind faith, there is probably no God. Thats the whole point.

KTRIC · 12-01-2009 11:16AM

This will leave the doors open for scrutinisation of other ad's, for example the Coca-Cola ad for Christmas. "Holidays are coming, Holidays are coming", are they , are they really ??

Prove it :mad:

javaboy · 12-01-2009 12:12PM

jackal wrote: »

The "probably" part is not just a way of pussying out. In Dawkins "The God Delusion" there is a chapter on it, which reaches the same conclusion scientifically. On the balance of evidence rather than blind faith, there is probably no God. Thats the whole point.

What evidence? Can you summarise it for me?

Biggins · 12-01-2009 12:18PM

javaboy wrote: »

What evidence? Can you summarise it for me?

Surmmised... himmm!
...Habeas Corpus?

javaboy · 12-01-2009 12:26PM

Biggins wrote: »

Surmmised... himmm!
...Habeas Corpus?

Absence of proof is not proof of absence. In the case of the murder of a human, it's theoretically possible to quantify the probability of a body being found because certain facts are known such as the laws of physics which said body must adhere to, where the body was last seen etc.

There are no such equivalents when estimating the probability of God's existence. You cannot say "I don't see his fingerprints anywhere" because we don't know if God leaves prints. We can't say "I've never seen or heard God" because we don't know if God exists in the same space as us.

Habeas Corpus simply does not apply. It is a technicality in law, not a reasonable basis to establish something's non-existence.

Biggins · 12-01-2009 12:35PM

javaboy wrote: »

Absence of proof is not proof of absence. In the case of the murder of a human, it's theoretically possible to quantify the probability of a body being found because certain facts are known such as the laws of physics which said body must adhere to, where the body was last seen etc.

There are no such equivalents when estimating the probability of God's existence. You cannot say "I don't see his fingerprints anywhere" because we don't know if God leaves prints. We can't say "I've never seen or heard God" because we don't know if God exists in the same space as us.

Habeas Corpus simply does not apply. It is a technicality in law, not a reasonable basis to establish something's non-existence.

...in your opinion - which is fair enough.

For me, until somebody show me substantive proof that a being existed, walked the earth, that had magic powers, etc, I'll carry on living day to day safe in the knowledge that I'm not going to be tripping over faeries, leprechauns, minoutars, gremlins, etc as I take a step forwards every day one foot in front of the other.

Puddleduck · 12-01-2009 12:38PM

Biggins wrote: »

...in your opinion - which is fair enough.

For me, until somebody show me substantive proof that a being existed, walked the earth, that had magic powers, etc, I'll carry on living day to day safe in the knowledge that I'm not going to be tripping over faeries, leprechauns, minoutars, gremlins, etc as I take a step forwards every day one foot in front of the other.

Do you mean god, in the christian sense or god as in all religions...not all religions had Jesus.

The Master · 12-01-2009 12:45PM

Won't somebody please think of the children!

javaboy · 12-01-2009 12:46PM

Puddleduck wrote: »

Do you mean god, in the christian sense or god as in all religions...not all religions had Jesus.

Took the words right out of my mouth.

Puddleduck · 12-01-2009 12:56PM

javaboy wrote: »

Took the words right out of my mouth.

Do you want them back?

I think proving theres a god would be hard to do, how do we know what to look for, how do we know that the signs arent there but we arent reading them correctly. Both arguements are justified but its small minded to presume because you believe in a God that your 'silly' or stupid or herded

Biggins · 12-01-2009 01:21PM

Puddleduck wrote: »

Do you mean god, in the christian sense or god as in all religions...not all religions had Jesus.

Well, speaking for myself, I take the use of the term "God" on the bus in terms of reference to the context of monotheism and henotheism, even polytheistic usage.

Tigger · 12-01-2009 01:29PM

no it isn't

god is an imaginary friend
i didn'y have one when i was 6 and i don't want one now

Biggins · 12-01-2009 01:37PM

Tigger wrote: »

no it isn't

god is an imaginary friend
i didn'y have one when i was 6 and i don't want one now

lol

Your afraid there might be a character like the one in Drop Dead Fred aren't you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drop_Dead_Fred

I'd be too. I'd want to kill the irritating twat!

norbert64 · 12-01-2009 03:35PM

lol, this could turn out like the movie Miracle on 34th Street.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0110527/

In the movie

Santa wins, because of God.

jackal · 13-01-2009 02:43PM

javaboy wrote: »

What evidence? Can you summarise it for me?

Well, I read Dawkins "God Delusion" a while ago. Brilliant book if you genuinely are interested in questioning things, but I would imagine it would be an infuriating read if you do not have an open mind about the possibility there is no god.

The very basics are that in all probability, life started spontaneously and evolved on earth, there was/is no creator. In all probability means just that - the odds are stacked in favor of life starting spontaneously due to the huge variety and number of environments in the known universe.

A common argument for the existence of god is that its too much of a coincidence that every little thing came together to make life possible here on earth. Indeed, the set of circumstances needed are very exacting. However, knowing how big the universe is - it was bound to happen, and has probably happened in many other places scattered throughout the universe. He uses the analogy of flipping a coin. It will generally land heads or tails, but it is possible for the coin to land on its edge and stay there. If you tried to do it 100 times, you would probably fail. If you tried to do it 100000000000 times, you would probably succeed. If you throw big enough numbers at almost impossible propositions, they become not only probable, but inevitable.

Here is another example (he is fond of coins!).

If I was to come up to you on the street, and make a bet with you that I could produce for you someone that can win 10 coin tosses in a row, it would like a very improbable proposition and you would probably consider the bet to be in your favor. The odds of someone winning 10 consecutive coin tosses is 1 in 1024.

I could however organize a tournament, using exactly 1024 people. I could have the 1024 people pair up and toss a coin, with the winner passing on to the next round. The second group would consist of 512 winners, who would again pair up and toss a coin, with the winner passing through to the next round. This would continue, from 512 to 256, and from 256 to 128, and from 128 to 64, and from 64 to 32, and from 32 to 16, and from 16 to 8, and from 8 to 4, and from 4 to 2. Each round would involve a group of people who had so far won every round of coin toss they had participated in, and every round would guarantee 50% of the group to win and move on, and 50% of the group would lose.

At the end of this tournament, I would have produced a winner, who would be an individual that won 10 consecutive coin tosses. It takes something with the odds of 1 in 1024, and reduces it to a complete, guaranteed certainty.

SilkySmooth · 13-01-2009 02:53PM

jackal wrote: »

Well, I read Dawkins "God Delusion" a while ago. Brilliant book if you genuinely are interested in questioning things, but I would imagine it would be an infuriating read if you do not have an open mind about the possibility there is no god.

The very basics are that in all probability, life started spontaneously and evolved on earth, there was/is no creator. In all probability means just that - the odds are stacked in favor of life starting spontaneously due to the huge variety and number of environments in the known universe.

A common argument for the existence of god is that its too much of a coincidence that every little thing came together to make life possible here on earth. Indeed, the set of circumstances needed are very exacting. However, knowing how big the universe is - it was bound to happen, and has probably happened in many other places scattered throughout the universe. He uses the analogy of flipping a coin. It will generally land heads or tails, but it is possible for the coin to land on its edge and stay there. If you tried to do it 100 times, you would probably fail. If you tried to do it 100000000000 times, you would probably succeed. If you throw big enough numbers at almost impossible propositions, they become not only probable, but inevitable.

Here is another example (he is fond of coins!).

But what did life spontaneously start from ? Energy / matter just doesn't appear out of thin air does it?

I'd be much more interested in what Dawkins has to say if he wasn't so arrogant. I read recently he thought that fairy tales were bad for children because they encouraged them to believe in things with a non-scientific basis / explanation. :rolleyes:
http://www.independent.ie/lifestyle/the-trouble-with-harry-1554633.html

ScumLord · 13-01-2009 03:02PM

Biggins wrote: »

For me, until somebody show me substantive proof that a being existed, walked the earth, that had magic powers, etc, I'll carry on living day to day safe in the knowledge that I'm not going to be tripping over faeries, leprechauns, minoutars, gremlins, etc as I take a step forwards every day one foot in front of the other.

Did anyone ever say God walked the earth? Jesus did and then his life story was blown completely out of proportion to create a new religion it doesn't take away from the man and what he did though.

If your on the side of science there's allot of things the "believe in" but can't prove, like dark matter.

It's also just as likely something did create our universe especially seeing as our scientists reckon they can do the same thing.

The bible(s) is an attempt at explaining the world. Just because their wrong doesn't mean God doesn't exist.

javaboy · 13-01-2009 03:17PM

jackal wrote: »

Well, I read Dawkins "God Delusion" a while ago. Brilliant book if you genuinely are interested in questioning things, but I would imagine it would be an infuriating read if you do not have an open mind about the possibility there is no god.

The very basics are that in all probability, life started spontaneously and evolved on earth, there was/is no creator. In all probability means just that - the odds are stacked in favor of life starting spontaneously due to the huge variety and number of environments in the known universe.

A common argument for the existence of god is that its too much of a coincidence that every little thing came together to make life possible here on earth. Indeed, the set of circumstances needed are very exacting. However, knowing how big the universe is - it was bound to happen, and has probably happened in many other places scattered throughout the universe. He uses the analogy of flipping a coin. It will generally land heads or tails, but it is possible for the coin to land on its edge and stay there. If you tried to do it 100 times, you would probably fail. If you tried to do it 100000000000 times, you would probably succeed. If you throw big enough numbers at almost impossible propositions, they become not only probable, but inevitable.

Here is another example (he is fond of coins!).

That explanation only tries to debunk the "creator type God" who sculpted the heavens and the earth blah blah blah. I accept the explanation that the Earth and the planets and life essentially happened by accident.

What Dawkins doesn't explain (at least in the part you summarised) is where the initial energy came from. Science cannot explain it yet and I'm not sure it ever will. I don't think some God is necessarily the right answer but that's only my guess. I have no evidence upon which to base that on or to establish some probability and neither does Dawkins imo.

Portia 27 · 13-01-2009 03:18PM

Biggins wrote: »

Begs the question - what about Santa and advertising!
Madness, where will it end?

Santa = St Nicholas.

Made a saint and worshipped as Santa for being so good and following the Roman Catholic Pope in killing off millions who did not obey without question.

The Red is the blood.

God, sure we are great - teaching our children Santa comes on reindeer etc.

If only we all got told the truth re the Cathars, The Shining Ones of Tara, who spread only love and peace instead of the Roman Catholic war and killing of the true innocent ones.

Advert Authority Has To Say If God Exists!

Comments