
OK, I am just as pathetic and meek a british citizen as the rest of you, meekly sleepwalking into a police state without having the balls to raise my voice, but this has pissed me off enough to get the green fountain pen out.
In my opinion, the adverts referred to in the above article are grossly inappropriate in a commercial medium as they make claims that, to the best of my knowledge, are unsubstantiated (please, if you have verifiable evidence to the contrary, gaz me).
If you feel that the ASA is in dereliction of its duty in allowing this bollocks, then please complain; they have provided an easy way to make your views heard so I suggest you use it:
www.asa.org.uk/asa/how_to_complain/complaints_form/
for reference, my comment below.
according to the report, groups are posting the following adverts:
"There definitely is a God", "There definitely is a God; so join the Christian Party and enjoy your life." & "There IS a God, BELIEVE. Don't worry and enjoy your life."
Further, according to the article, the ASA rules that "they did not breach acceptable standards. "
So I am asking the ASA to let me know what proof for these outrageous claims has been submitted, as they are both inflammatory and unsubstantiated either by science or indeed 4000 years of philosophy.
I do not question the bodies' right to advertise, but I demand that if they choose to advertise in a conventional medium they be held accountable to the same standards of any other commercial or political body.
I look forward to your response and thank you for your continued efforts in keeping our media out of the hands of charlatans of any stripe.
Sorry this isn't funny, but I very nearly had a fit when I saw this.
( , Fri 6 Feb 2009, 21:05, Reply)

But there is no God so I'm not worrying and am enjoying my life.
But it would be fun if the ASA demanded proof. :)
( , Fri 6 Feb 2009, 21:12, Reply)

The atheist adverts said there 'probably' isn't a god. Fair enough.
The religious adverts say 'definitely'. This is not proven. I am offended that the fundies are claiming unproven facts. Fuck, even Special K cereal has to say 'CAN help weightloss', rather than 'GUARANTEES weightloss'.
Everyone complain. do it. or my non-existent god will get you.
( , Fri 6 Feb 2009, 21:12, Reply)

And my God will deck the bollocks off of your God.*
* only as part of a calorie controlled diet.
( , Fri 6 Feb 2009, 21:21, Reply)

I can GUARANTEE that our responses were far more level-headed and cooly written than the fundies' responses.
( , Fri 6 Feb 2009, 21:22, Reply)

SO you know what "fundamental" christians wrote in their complaints to the ASA?
( , Sat 7 Feb 2009, 0:43, Reply)

Step 4: Who were the advertisers and what product were they advertising?
Who: Christian Party
Product: God
( , Fri 6 Feb 2009, 21:25, Reply)

well for a start I, and the posters above, clearly give a shit.
As should you.
I currently live in a muslim country where you can go to prison for being claimed to have been overheard for criticising the ruler. Where people regularly get imprisoned and beaten for carrying out magical rites. Where Apostasy is punishable by prison or even death. Where they are currently demolishing the only church in the country to build a roundabout, only to also pronounce that any new churches would be illegal (despite the Koran's explicit stance contradicting this).
The United Kingdom, for all it's petty and crazed fuckwittery, has been a place of peace and tolerance for nigh on a thousand years (the odd decade notwithstanding). You have absolutely no idea how precious this is, and how important the bodies, checks & balances are that protect us.
We are the inheritors of a truly incredible civilisation, the litter, the CCTV, the Mail not withstanding, but if you will allow me a tired misquote, the only thing required for vicious bigoted cunts to triumph is for good people to do nothing.
Please reassess your position and get involved, if not in this, in something.
( , Fri 6 Feb 2009, 21:34, Reply)

and you get all huffy about some people suggesting there may not be.
Personally I don't believe we should have respect for other people's beliefs if they're clearly unfounded. That's not the same as saying we shouldn't allow people to hold those beliefs, but frankly God is no more credible than the Flying Spaghetti Monster (bless His noodley appendages) and I have the right to say so.
( , Sat 7 Feb 2009, 11:20, Reply)

"There's definitely a Flying Spaghetti Monster,
Now stop worrying, and enjoy your pasta"?
( , Sun 8 Feb 2009, 14:34, Reply)

a very dull advert on a bus. I doubt the route even goes past where you live, unless Tottenham has moved continents.
( , Sat 7 Feb 2009, 11:45, Reply)

That was the important part of the message, and you seem to have missed it.
( , Fri 6 Feb 2009, 21:31, Reply)

I'm not worried and I'm very entertained when I'm working against a group trying to have us believe fairies, elves, and all other manner of mythical beings are *actually real*.
( , Fri 6 Feb 2009, 22:40, Reply)

I just don't give a flying fuck. Claim satan is real and raping baby p right now for all I care.
I'm intelligent enough to understand that advertising a faith is stupid nonsense.
( , Fri 6 Feb 2009, 22:59, Reply)

why do you give a flying fuck what they believe? Equally what make you think they care what you believe? Wasting your time "working against a group" who clearly aren't going to listen to you isn't going to help anyone, least of all yourself. Just laugh at the nutters and move on.
( , Fri 6 Feb 2009, 23:05, Reply)

or pressing jelly into your nose will make you live forever, that's great.
It's when they start fobbing it of as FACT and preaching to people that they'll burn in hell for eternity if they don't listen that I start having issue.
I've got impressionable children to think of.
( , Fri 6 Feb 2009, 23:22, Reply)

Or at least claims that I'd genuinely love them to validate.
If they can't, and the ASA doesn't do anything about it, I'm going to come out with a new line of products that GUARANTEES you'll get to heaven by buying my REAL Jesus-pass™.
( , Fri 6 Feb 2009, 23:24, Reply)

you are worried about this country becoming a police state, yet you are complaining that someone has a view that is contrary to yours? Sounds to me like you're a bit of a twat....
( , Fri 6 Feb 2009, 21:49, Reply)

I said that I do not have a problem with anyone's right to say anything, so long as they can substantiate it if they choose to advertise it in the mainstream media.
As a case in point, if you could read, you would realise that my post says nothing of the sort.
If you are commenting on my reply to the "who gives a shit" guy... well I just don't think you really get it.
( , Fri 6 Feb 2009, 21:53, Reply)

Hadn't intended on getting involved in a conversation about it, just wanted to raise the level of awareness that a. it was going on and b. that there exists a formal channel to express disapproval, should people feel it.
Aside from that I just get sick of apathy (although I agree that it would be nice if we could all get on with our lives and pretend that people weren't being killed outside abortion clinics/in hotels in Mumbai/on buses in London/etc ad nauseum).
But the reason I posted originally was that these cunts were complaining through official, legal channels that Dawkins (and by extension a lot of B3tans) had no right to say there "probably isn't a god" yet the ASA states that they are within their rights to claim that there "definitely is one".
This is not about the fundies or the atheists, nor indeed about what anyone does or does not believe, this is about the ASA discharging their duties as arbiters of public standards in advertising, which they are clearly not upholding and which, through raising awareness of the complaints procedure, we can change.
( , Fri 6 Feb 2009, 22:07, Reply)

walking into a police state, and then posted a link to complain about an advert that someone wants to publish about their faith. Seems like what I said is true to me.
However, I agree with your point about the adverts, I don't think they should be allowed. But I don't think the Atheist bus adverts should have been allowed either. Religion, Faith, non-belief, whatever is a personal choice. None of the options should be forced down anyones throats as far as I am concerned. We live in a secular country where everyone is free to believe whatever they like, provided it doesn't harm anyone. As you said, you live in a muslim country where presumably, Sharia law is implemented (I can't be sure as you didn't state what country you are in). So surely, with the reservations you have stated about that state you live in, surely suppresing the views of anyone worries you? You can not pick and choose whose views you are willing to listen to. Either you want to ban all religious/anti-religious advertising, or you have to allow anything to be published. How does it affect you in any way if someone who has belief in a higher power wants to say they do in public?
( , Fri 6 Feb 2009, 22:26, Reply)

Let's not have an agency deciding what's true enough to be published.
Does raise an nice moral dilemma, though. Imagine you live in nazi-controlled state where, stupidly, the nazis have introduced a law allowing any publication to be withdrawn from sale and burnt, based on anybody complaining about it. Do you use this unjust law to ban nazi newspapers? I guess this is one of those things where the answer depends whether you regard yourself to be caught up in a desperate war with oppressors or working within a civil society.
( , Sat 7 Feb 2009, 11:33, Reply)

However, what extremely anti-religious people seem to ignore, whether deliberately, or through naivety, is that people who believe in God and Jesus and whatever, do not themselves necessarily require proof, scientific or otherwise. They have faith, and that serves their needs in a more than ample fashion. I myself am not anti science, however I do have certain issues with science. It lacks in one dimension for me. Disregard the impossible, but consider the improbable. Too often in my opinion, people confuse these two.
( , Sat 7 Feb 2009, 14:41, Reply)

1) Faith serves their needs instead of proof:
I disagree with practical arguments for atheism, such as "religion causes wars". It may well do, but that's beside the point.
Faith makes no sense, regardless of whether it's materially good for you or bad for you. Religious types are free to be religious, but they aren't free to be religious and correct at the same time. And we should want to be correct, according to my morality (and most religious people hold that as a value too, I suspect, despite the contradiction).
So if we have a "need" that can be met with faith or alternatively met with reason, that's irrelevant to the question of which we should go for. We should still make sense even if it's a nasty experience.
2) The improbable:
Conjectures are important to science, and for that matter inspiration is important in philosophy, and in art, and anyway there's more to life than science. The view that there isn't is called scientism (although I think the term is only ever used pejoratively, and trying to work out the word for an adherent of scientism is awkward).
Now, scientism is a bad thing. Mr. Spock, for instance, is a tosser, and his claim to always operate on pure logic leads to hypocrisy, because it's unworkable (perhaps illogical). Unfortunately the term scientism is often used as an attack on science and rationality, and in support of religion, in a hand-waving sort of way.
I don't think scientists often *are* scientistic, though it can happen. (Probably it happened more during, say, around 1910 to 1960.)
So ... yes, but I don't think it's a big deal.
Oh, and logical positivism was awful, but that's over now. Having said that, people do still often casually demand proof that a thing (say, God) exists, or doesn't exist, and both of these are wrong-headed. All "proof" can ever be is a challenge to a theory. It's a lot easier to falsify the theory that a thing doesn't exist than to falsify the theory that it does, so we assume things don't exist by default. Given this default, the theory that God exists can be challenged by explanations that better fit uncontroversial facts. i.e. there is no reason to postulate God, any more than celestial teapots, etc. The theory that He doesn't exist can be challenged by producing something best explained as God. Of course this all hinges on one's notion of a best and simplest explanation, and people can be eternally awkward about it if they're irrational enough.
( , Sat 7 Feb 2009, 15:58, Reply)

But then an understanding of evidence and probability never was a strong point of the religious.
( , Sat 7 Feb 2009, 11:22, Reply)

It's a belief, no-one has any right to tell people there beliefs are wrong whether you're an Atheist, Christian or in the House of the flying spaghetti monster. Advertising your beliefs is just asking for conflict and that is just pure twuntery.
( , Fri 6 Feb 2009, 22:09, Reply)

Or does that not count as a belief? What if I stick to it dogmatically?
( , Sat 7 Feb 2009, 13:18, Reply)

but the problem is, these pro-God ads haven't appeared yet. Not sure if you can complain about something that has only been referred to in an article.
If and when the adverts actually appear in public, game on.
( , Fri 6 Feb 2009, 22:15, Reply)

can you lot fuck off with whatever teenage crap you are currently on about, it's sort of killing this place for me
( , Fri 6 Feb 2009, 22:16, Reply)

Once I see an advert, I'll complain.
Until I do, I'll assume this is a Daily Fail tpye thing telling me what to think, and how I should react. Until then, kindly fuck off and don't tell me what to do and how to think.
edit: Jahled: spot on, mate.
( , Fri 6 Feb 2009, 22:23, Reply)

if i had a bunch of money, i would put an advert on the buses saying
" godzilla is real-and he is gonna smash this place up!"
yeh, it will rule!!
if you dont like it, put a big" mothra is gonna nail your big lizard butt. you are going down!" on another bus
:)
( , Fri 6 Feb 2009, 22:44, Reply)

But I must stress this is NOT as a result of your post.
I merely sought an answer to the following:
If I submitted an advert stating that there definitely is not a god, would they accept it?
Or words to that effect.
I think you should take a leaf out of the Humanists book, or possibly Buddhists, as they're quiet most of the time....
( , Sat 7 Feb 2009, 1:00, Reply)

Im a pastafarian and there may be a god but there most certainly is a Flying Spaghetti Monster and I personally feel we need to all chip and get his message of Noodliness to the masses!!!
( , Sat 7 Feb 2009, 1:23, Reply)

They're not fundies, they are religious extremists.
( , Sat 7 Feb 2009, 10:49, Reply)

you need to read about the holographic universe theory which is backed up by strong scientific evidence. It proves the existance of a "soul" and an "observer", yup, that's science proving that and I'm not even religious.
Just get off your high horse, believe what you want to believe and let everyone else believe what they want to believe.
( , Sat 7 Feb 2009, 11:37, Reply)

And "let everyone else believe what they want to believe" is a way of saying "shut up", and strikes me as anti-rational. Opinions can't be literally forced down people's throats. The closest we can get is indoctrination, lying, and argument, and the last of those is a good thing, and it's what you're opposing here. Even when the argument only consists of futile back-and-forth yelling, it's still a marginally good thing.
Unless what you mean is "let everyone say what they want to say," in which case fair enough.
( , Sat 7 Feb 2009, 11:54, Reply)

It doesn't matter two fucks what anyone believes. The only thing that makes any difference is what people DO. To spend time arguing about whether or not an "advert" should be allowed when there's not even an attempt to charge for the "product" is mind numbingly banal and should be made illegal. That's my belief anyway.
( , Sat 7 Feb 2009, 12:00, Reply)

but kinda cant be arsed, plus the adverts havnt appeared yet
dont quite get why so many b3tans are having a go at you on the basis that people can believe what they like, given that you point is about consistency in advertising regulation...
oh well, good luck, be interested to hear of anyone who's ever been converted by something on the side of a bus
( , Sun 8 Feb 2009, 18:33, Reply)

The adverts were an expression of the advertiser's opinion and that the claims in it were not capable of objective substantiation.
The same could be said of the pro-god ones.
Besides, they're shit ads. I'm not going to be buying any God products any time soon.
( , Mon 9 Feb 2009, 13:49, Reply)