It’s on: Christian group files complaint accusing atheist bus ads of being untruthful
posted at 3:46 pm on January 9, 2009 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
You guys don’t really want to litigate this subject in court, where actual evidence matters, do you?
Stephen Green, national director of Christian Voice, complained to the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) yesterday, saying the adverts break the ASA’s codes on substantiation and truthfulness…
‘There is plenty of evidence for God, from people’s 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,’ said Mr Green…
The adverts contain the slogan: ‘There’s probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life,’ whilst the ASA code states that ‘marketers must hold documentary evidence to prove all claims, whether direct or implied, that are capable of objective substantiation’…
Hanne Stinson, chief executive of the British Humanist Association, said they were not taking the Christian Voice complaint seriously.
Scopes Trial II, starring Christopher Hitchens as Darrow and Rick Warren as Bryan. I’m available to work pro bono, provided I get to meet the lovely Ariane. Exit question: What’s the “documentary evidence” that supposedly “proves” the claims made in Christian ads? The gospels? Does the Book of Mormon “prove” Mormonism too?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 Next »
Courts have judges and juries.
JiangxiDad on January 9, 2009 at 3:47 PM
Good thing Olaf has been banned.
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on January 9, 2009 at 3:47 PM
Everything on the interwebs is true, isn’t it?
My worst fears, confirmed.
lorien1973 on January 9, 2009 at 3:48 PM
There’s probably no real AllahPundit, so stop reading his posts and get a life.
Kini on January 9, 2009 at 3:49 PM
A negative cannot be proved, so the best you can hope for is a draw in this kind of contest.
As for not worrying and enjoy one’s life, I imagine that was Ted Bundy’s motto.
Kafir on January 9, 2009 at 3:49 PM
Do. Not. Care.
there are other things to “worry about” then a stupid sign on a bus. If everyone stood back and took a breath after somethign stupid was said, read, insinuated or brought up and took wrong, the world may be a better place. But that isn’t going to stop the stupid!
upinak on January 9, 2009 at 3:50 PM
Yeah, I do. **** Warren. Put me up against Hitchens (who’s far from being intelligent on average, let alone the brightest mind atheism can put forth). He’ll be singing lullabies by the time I’m done with his ignorant,psycho ass.
Darth Executor on January 9, 2009 at 3:53 PM
Wheee, atheism, evolution vs. creationism, Hitchens, and even Mormons thrown into one post. That’s one hell of a synthesis.
Allah is unrelenting so far this year.
darclon on January 9, 2009 at 3:54 PM
I think we could win *GRIN*, but I think it’s a silly thing to feud about.
I mean, HONESTLY.
latinchic on January 9, 2009 at 3:55 PM
ummmm…how about Alvin Plantinga vs Hitch instead.
oggy on January 9, 2009 at 3:56 PM
Let the athiests have their ad. Frankly I am surprised they wrote it more from an agnostic position.
I have more of an issue with hypocrites. Oh look, here is one:
Quote of the Day (Sully classy as ever):
“I met Richard John Neuhaus only a couple of times, but he took the second occasion to tell me to my face, with his clerical collar on, that I was ‘objectively disordered’. I remember this rather well because we were in an elevator at the time and I didn’t quite know where to look.”
Andrew “The Sarah Palin Vagina Monologues” Sullivan
Somehow, assuming this is true, I doubt Father Newhouse’s comment was over Sullivan being homosexual, but being “Sullivan.” As a former fan of Sully, I was shocked how quick he could attack Palin, not on her qualifications (I disagree but fair enough), but on his Baby Trig Trutherism jihad, without a scrap of evidence other than his wild conjectures, without even batting an eye about the hypocrisy of the whole thing. The over the top viciousness of that attack was incredible.
Perhaps Andrew Sullivan should look in the mirror.
Mr. Joe on January 9, 2009 at 3:57 PM
Oh, so atheists are equivalent to Ted Bundy? That makes me trust your logic even more.
Ann NY on January 9, 2009 at 3:58 PM
An atheist was walking through the woods.
‘What majestic trees’!
‘What powerful rivers’!
‘What beautiful animals’!
He said to himself.
As he was walking alongside the river, he heard a rustling in the bushes behind him. He turned to look. He saw a 7-foot grizzly bear charge towards him.
He ran as fast as he could up the path. He looked over his shoulder & saw that the bear was closing in on him.
He looked over his shoulder again, & the bear was even closer. He tripped & fell on the ground. He rolled over to pick himself up but saw that the bear was right on top of him, reaching for him with his left paw & raising his right paw to strike him.
At that instant the Atheist cried out, ‘Oh my God!’
Time Stopped.
The bear froze.
The forest was silent.
As a bright light shone upon the man, a voice came out of the sky. ‘You deny my existence for all these years, teach others I don’t exist and even credit creation to cosmic accident.’ ‘Do you expect me to help you out of this predicament? Am I to count you as a believer’?
The atheist looked directly into the light, ‘It would be hypocritical of me to suddenly ask you to treat me as a Christian now, but perhaps you could make the BEAR a Christian’?
‘Very Well,’ said the voice.
The light went out. The sounds of the forest resumed. And the bear dropped his right paw, brought both paws together, bowed his head & spoke:
‘Lord bless this food, which I am about to receive from thy bounty through Christ our Lord, Amen.’
Sammy316 on January 9, 2009 at 3:58 PM
Will we have to change our currency to remove the In God We Trust?
Kini on January 9, 2009 at 4:00 PM
I consider the “Christians” filing suit as being media whores…so I won’t cast the first stone.
right2bright on January 9, 2009 at 4:03 PM
Exit answer: Krykee doodle!
Don’t cast your pearls before swine, guys. Or people with £135,000 in donated funds.
locomotivebreath1901 on January 9, 2009 at 4:03 PM
Maybe the Christian group should just buy their own bus ads proclaiming .Atheists are probably doomed to rot in Hell. Seems only fair. /sarc
katiejane on January 9, 2009 at 4:05 PM
Way to go AP. I’m trying to figure out how you’re better than Anti-8 Gay Mafia now.
thomashton on January 9, 2009 at 4:07 PM
Epic Lame-o-rama-fest.
Bea Arthur will have to wait.
LimeyGeek on January 9, 2009 at 4:08 PM
Actually, the “burden of proof” could be played either way. Athiests claim that belief in God prevents people from enjoying their lives. Christians could claim that not having a God makes people worry about what happens AFTER this life.
Maybe AP knows something Christians don’t. I wanna hear all about it.
manwithblackhat on January 9, 2009 at 4:09 PM
Oh yeah, AP, because you guys have SO MUCH evidence supporting your claim that there is no God.
Absence of proof is not proof of absence.
jimmy the notable on January 9, 2009 at 4:09 PM
Can you link to some of these ads as they are run in the U.K.?
I’m not familiar with U.K. law, and I’m not sure how much leeway using the word “probably” grants. If the ad had said “may not exist” there’d probably be no case. And doesn’t the U.K. have an official state religion? Does that cause a problem in the case?
That said, I hope the case goes away. I really don’t think any reasonable person interpreted the statement as anything other than an expression of belief.
malclave on January 9, 2009 at 4:09 PM
I can’t wait until a court settles, once and for all, whether or not there is a God. I wonder who the expert witnesses will be?
justfinethanks on January 9, 2009 at 4:09 PM
When?
FloatingRock on January 9, 2009 at 4:10 PM
AP, you have a god – ad revenue… and you come back to the altar quite often, it seems.
;)
Hoodlumman on January 9, 2009 at 4:10 PM
Don’t forget Palin!
jimmy the notable on January 9, 2009 at 4:10 PM
“Probably”??? They don’t seem to be too sure of themselves. Try to prove a negative, wiseguy.
Tony737 on January 9, 2009 at 4:11 PM
No, but not because we’re afraid of losing.
There is no ‘definitive’ proof that God doesn’t exist, thus neither side would win.
That said, these people suing are idiots and should have just left it alone.
I mean, the best “punishment” for those who put the ads on the buses to begin with is to keep the signs up there with that wonderfully wishy-washy “probably” intact.
Religious_Zealot on January 9, 2009 at 4:11 PM
I think these atheist threads will generate ever decreasing returns, AP – as measured by responses. You can only milk something so many times before it starts to dry up.
keep the change on January 9, 2009 at 4:13 PM
My one and only post on this subject: I call “atheist sock puppet”. The last thing Christians should want is a court precedent interfering in religious expression. Let the atheists have their say, ESPECIALLY when they use a civil tone!
Yeah… sock puppets….
RegularJoe on January 9, 2009 at 4:14 PM
Why don’t those who intend to sue use the money on signs of their own instead of on a lawyer…
beththebaker on January 9, 2009 at 4:14 PM
If there was some way to combine Atheism, Palin, and Homosexuality into a single blog post, you could create the longest thread in HA history.
justfinethanks on January 9, 2009 at 4:15 PM
Well, if you could combine Hitchens, Palin and Sullivan into one topic…
Religious_Zealot on January 9, 2009 at 4:17 PM
You really have a spur in your saddle AP.
There are better ways to have dialogue and engage. If someone wants to go this route, then by all means let’s have the conversation. Truth and evidence will prevail.
conservative pilgrim on January 9, 2009 at 4:19 PM
I am not sure why AP finds this incredulous.
I can’t remember whether it’s Hebrews or Romans, but he Bible indeed says (paraphrasing) that no man is excused from belief in God, because of the evidence in the natural world of a Creator.
BigD on January 9, 2009 at 4:20 PM
I’m an Atheist who votes Republican, and even for a Mormon like Mitt Romney.
I personally see the secular environmental religion much more absurd or damaging to the Country than believing in Creationism.
At least with creationism, it won’t impact what type of Light Bulb or energy I use.
However, now that these idiots are thinking of going to court to stop free speech…I’m starting to worry.
Dadvocate on January 9, 2009 at 4:20 PM
Palin was a terrible VP candidate because she believes that a god who doesn’t exist condemns homosexuality?
katiejane on January 9, 2009 at 4:20 PM
if the goal is to win by proving that god exists; negative proof will not do it.
the litigant has to prove their case, the defendant simply has to not let them.
lorien1973 on January 9, 2009 at 4:21 PM
Yea, as an Evangelical, I’ll even say this is dumb.
PersonalLiberty on January 9, 2009 at 4:23 PM
Can’t anybody just ignore anybody else EVER anymore?
The general populace could really give a rat’s a$$ one way or the other, and just wishes all these other in-your-face a$$holes ~ Christians, Atheists, Muslimists, Buddhist, greenists, orangists, reddish and purplishes (Paraphrasing Patton’s aide: “The Venusians! Don’t forget the Venusians!!”) ~ would either go aWAY, or just behave themselves and act like well mannered adults.
SNORT.
tree hugging sister on January 9, 2009 at 4:23 PM
If the plaintiff’s case is that the claim that “god doesn’t exist” is false, then they will logically have to prove that god exists, that the defendants knew he exists, and were therefore lying.
Popcorn time.
LimeyGeek on January 9, 2009 at 4:25 PM
The problem for the atheists is the “probably.”
There’s literally no proof for either side, so for one side to say that their side is “probably” right is just lying. Nobody has a freaking clue.
Religion isn’t about proof anyway, its about belief. So is atheism, for that matter, since atheism can’t prove their views are correct.
jimmy the notable on January 9, 2009 at 4:27 PM
What would be the typical British Muslim’s opinion on something like this? Do they like atheists?
BigD on January 9, 2009 at 4:27 PM
As a protestant evangelical and theological moderate (yes, they are compatible), I don’t have a problem with the ad. It will cause people to “think” about spirituality and ask questions.
If it does go to civil litigation, probability is all that can be gained by either side when it comes to evidence because this is the realm of metaphysics. Certainty cannot be established by either side.
jediwebdude on January 9, 2009 at 4:28 PM
Rick Warren doesn’t even make my list. I’d like to see ColtsFan’s lineup though.
Aside from that … moronic complaint. They want to post their sign? Let em. Unless they’d like to create an environment where they can’t post a sign like “He is risen!” without proof. Silliness.
TheUnrepentantGeek on January 9, 2009 at 4:29 PM
You could also go with “There is probably no hell, so stop worrying and enjoy your life.”
My problem is why is believing you go to hell for doing bad things wrong? I am all for rational behavior ethical behavior, but what is it about modern Christianity that gets these folks all in a lather?
Mr. Joe on January 9, 2009 at 4:29 PM
Some people enjoy being “offended” so they go around looking to be “offended” (note the quotation marks).
I’m about as fundamentalist as you can get (in terms of accepting the Bible as the inspired Word of God) and atheists (and their signs) don’t bother me in the least.
Either you can see evidence for design or you can’t. A billboard (either way) isn’t going to help. I’m more offended (far more offended) by those stupid billboards that purport to speak for a hip God (”Missed you on Sunday”… “You think its hot here”… “Let’s meet at my house on Sunday”).
Blech!!! Where do I go to sue those jerks for that crap?
mankai on January 9, 2009 at 4:30 PM
True, but the sign says, probably, not that God doesn’t exist.
Since when? He was on just this week.
Esthier on January 9, 2009 at 4:30 PM
Oh boy. Here we go with another 1,000+ comment thread where the pro Creation people fight with the pro Evolution people.
SoulGlo on January 9, 2009 at 4:31 PM
Huh? How would I know? The only british muslims I ever knew stank to high heaven, so I never hung around long enough to ask deep theological questions.
LimeyGeek on January 9, 2009 at 4:32 PM
Page 3, Buchanan thread.
SouthernDem on January 9, 2009 at 4:33 PM
The sign was probably put up by those guys from Jefferson High.
mankai on January 9, 2009 at 4:33 PM
See above
SouthernDem on January 9, 2009 at 4:34 PM
I’d pay to see that. Only drawback is that Hitchens’ atheism is too visceral and he’d finally be reduced to mere name calling.
snaggletoothie on January 9, 2009 at 4:36 PM
Thanks. :)
FloatingRock on January 9, 2009 at 4:37 PM
He’ll be back under a new nickname, but the frothing mouth will be unmistakable.
LimeyGeek on January 9, 2009 at 4:39 PM
Perhaps they can subpoena the great wizard himself and, when he doesn’t show, find him in contempt. That would make God a fugitive from justice.
ronsfi on January 9, 2009 at 4:39 PM
Eyewitness accounts that are more corroborated than Plato’s entire oeuvre are nothing like the bizarre Book of Mormon. Given that entire libraries have been written on this subject, suffice it to say: if you can believe anything singular has ever taken place, based on any evidence, you can believe the accounts of the gospels.
Oh my, yes; plus, imagine having William Lane Craig, J.P. Moreland, Plantinga, and Ravi Zacharias against Dennett, Hitchens, Dawkins, and Harris. And of course Allahpundit.
The Bryan/Warren comparison is brilliantly apt.
emailnuevo on January 9, 2009 at 4:39 PM
When you find out, kindly let me know. Apparently God speaks like a fifteen year old.
emailnuevo on January 9, 2009 at 4:41 PM
You first.
Tanya on January 9, 2009 at 4:41 PM
What if there claim is not whether or not God exist?
Study after study has proven that people who believe in god are happier and therefore enjoy life more. Thus telling people to not believe in god and in enjoy life more is a false statement.
mgtanner on January 9, 2009 at 4:42 PM
Atheism is just as big a religion as Christianity or any other. Atheists choose to think that those who believe in a Creator don’t do any thinking for themselves. Well, I’ve done much study on the subject. Even though science knows what life is made of, they cannot create it using their own intelligence. Even though science has tried to prove macroevolution (as opposed to micro) by observing thousands of generations of the fruit fly that lives for about 24 hours, it has failed. It also doesn’t take much thought to believe in the absence of a Creator even though to believe in massive, abundant life occuring spontaneously is to believe it happened under the approximate odds of 1 in 10^100. Stastically, zero. Do your own research on how just narrow of a window everything “just happened” to fall into place. Of course, you’ll have to open a book that isn’t written by an atheist.
Still, I think it’s a ridiculous lawsuit but, Allah is trying to accomplish what he always does with these posts: traffic.
slug on January 9, 2009 at 4:43 PM
Discussion on this could at least 100+ easy.
thomasaur on January 9, 2009 at 4:44 PM
Actually there is definitely a god, as proven back in the 14th century by Aquinas. There’s also quite a bit of empirical, documented evidence (Fatima? Incorruptibles? etc.)
In any case, honest atheists (reasonable ones) would admit that they don’t know one way or the other…not even with the fudge-word “probably” thrown in. So it seems to me there is a case here. Good luck getting a bunch of lawyers/judges to see the reasoning though. Logic is not their forte.
Gaunilon on January 9, 2009 at 4:47 PM
You issue this challenge with OUR court system? Are you daft?
My collie says:
When you challenge us to a duel of this kind, it is customary that the one challenged is permitted to choose their own weapon. Who do you think that should we choose, collie?
My collie says:
Excellent choice collie. His string of victories includes
1) the Karen Silkwood case against Kerr-McGee,
2) the Kim Pring case against Bob Guccione (Penthouse magazine),
3) Randy Weaver and the Ruby Ridge fiasco,
4) Imelda Marcos,
…et al ad naseum
My collie says:
By the time we get through with you Mr AllahPundit, not only will you have to cede the HotAir website to my dog, but Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens wont have a single nickel left between the two of them.
CyberCipher on January 9, 2009 at 4:47 PM
I’m sure you’ll be happy to know I have not been banned!
right4life on January 9, 2009 at 4:50 PM
That would be awesome! :)
FloatingRock on January 9, 2009 at 4:50 PM
I would expect this to be thrown out early.
LimeyGeek on January 9, 2009 at 4:50 PM
Atheism is just religion without a cause.
Although they do have a cool logo, now.
BoomJunkie on January 9, 2009 at 4:50 PM
Ta-Da!
TheUnrepentantGeek on January 9, 2009 at 4:51 PM
Don’t worry, it isn’t going anywhere. We’re just going to improve it:
In O We Trust!
Laura in Maryland on January 9, 2009 at 4:51 PM
I suppose they could argue that it’s not a statement of fact that not believing in God does not cause people to stop worrying and enjoy their life.
Buy Danish on January 9, 2009 at 4:52 PM
I’d a bigger worrier if I thought there was no God.
BoomJunkie on January 9, 2009 at 4:55 PM
Legally, they’ve covered their bases with the word ‘probably’. As far as I’m concerned, people can think and believe or not believe as they wish. I have my beliefs and they work for me and as far as I’m concerned, that’s all they have to do.
Matt Helm on January 9, 2009 at 4:56 PM
Prepare yourself for some unpleasant news…..
LimeyGeek on January 9, 2009 at 4:57 PM
;)
FloatingRock on January 9, 2009 at 4:57 PM
That’s why they call it FAITH
BoomJunkie on January 9, 2009 at 4:58 PM
Back atcha, Limey.
BoomJunkie on January 9, 2009 at 4:59 PM
One can always hope…
I kid, I kid.
SouthernDem on January 9, 2009 at 5:01 PM
There “probably” isn’t an honest politician, but we keep hoping and voting. Lately, hope seems to be overrated.
BoomJunkie on January 9, 2009 at 5:02 PM
Should we get the alters out and ask your god to light it up with a meteorite strike? I think that would be fair, and the atheist could just go light their own on fire.
Zekecorlain on January 9, 2009 at 5:04 PM
Seriously Darth? Based on the drivel you post around here and that lame-ass website of yours, I’m pretty sure my boy Hitch would kick your tier one thinking ass all over creation (no pun intended) even if passed out after downing a bottle of his beloved single malt. What a tool.
dakine on January 9, 2009 at 5:11 PM
CC, you and your dog jumped the shark about 250 posts ago.
dakine on January 9, 2009 at 5:13 PM
Ed and Allah want us to believe that they banned SaintOlaf, but how do we know that he didn’t simply levitate away into cyberspace. In the spirit of this thread, where is the evidence?
My collie says:
Your asking that question of a guy that has a talking dog?
CyberCipher on January 9, 2009 at 5:17 PM
In related news, not collecting stamps is a hobby. I am an avid non-collector of stamps. In fact, I have no stamps at all, it is quite the acollection.
Ars Moriendi on January 9, 2009 at 5:18 PM
Collie, what was it that Steve Martin used to say?
My collie says:
CyberCipher on January 9, 2009 at 5:19 PM
Christopher Hitchens gave birth to Trig Palin via C-Section.
malclave on January 9, 2009 at 5:22 PM
It’s fun to speculate. However, in the spirit of evidence and reality;
-This is in the U.K., not the U.S.
-It isn’t a lawsuit, its a complaint to the ASA.
-Apparently (just based on a few minutes of research) the ASA isn’t a gov. agency, it’s more of an industry association (sort of an ad industry FCC?) and does require “evidence” of ad claims. So… maybe the atheists will have to “prove” that their statement is true, or pull the ad.
Dunno all the ins & outs, just found this interesting and thought I’d look around for a bit. Corrections are welcome from any more knowledgable sources.
cs89 on January 9, 2009 at 5:28 PM
Just another fascist group trying to stifle debate using porrly written laws.
VolMagic on January 9, 2009 at 5:38 PM
I suspect that this U.K. court case will turn out pretty much the same way that the Italian court case was resolved.
My collie says:
It WOULD make for splendid Monty Python skit, though.
CyberCipher on January 9, 2009 at 5:49 PM
Get Norman Geisler on the Phone!!!! Stat!
Tim Burton on January 9, 2009 at 5:53 PM
AllahPundit may exist as a program that barely passes the turing test.
Right_of_Attila on January 9, 2009 at 5:57 PM
The ad seems to claim that people who believe in God are worrywarts who don’t enjoy their lives.
Alana on January 9, 2009 at 6:01 PM
Would it costar “The Bishop” or the Spanish Inquisition though?
Get the Comfy Chair!
Matt Helm on January 9, 2009 at 6:02 PM
When people start putting “non-stamp collector” in their facebook profiles, you’ll have a point. When people start writing books on non-stamp collecting, you’ll have a point. When people start holding conferences on non-stamp collecting you’ll have a point. When people start advertising non-stamp collecting on the side of a bus you’ll have a point. Until then those of us with half a brain will continue to point out that atheists have turned atheism into a religion itself with different denominations. Hell, often I can even tell what an atheist used to be before he turned into one because more often than not they’re just a twisted parody of their former selves.
Darth Executor on January 9, 2009 at 6:02 PM
And I bet these people who put the ad up would be against ID being taught in schools. They’d claim it “wasn’t science.”
Sword cuts both ways.
Tim Burton on January 9, 2009 at 6:03 PM
No, Aquinas didn’t prove that god existed, he just made what is recognized as the best attempt. If he had proved it then his method would be able to be replicated today and there would be no debate. And using “miracles” documented by the church is not empirical evidence.
Ann NY on January 9, 2009 at 6:05 PM
Who are you? Judging my ability to take on some drunk loser without a functioning neuron in his head based on a rant web site is pretty representative of the average atheist’s intelligence though.
Darth Executor on January 9, 2009 at 6:05 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 Next »