´óÏó´«Ã½

William:
That is excellent and productive news that the case is closed...
~Dennis Junior~

I think the whole thing is trivial but maybe 4 points:

1. "Probably", to me, at least, is quantitative (greater than a 50% chance) and so not "opinion".

2. God is undefined and not a religious concept. I'm an engineer and as I cannot see any way of humans designing and building so much as a blade of grass, I wonder about superior beings in the universe -"Gods" to lowly me, just as we may be "Gods" to dogs.

3. The campaign was weak and lacked balls: why not drop the "probably" and have the courage of your convictions. This weasel-word, escape clause in the statement actually meant nothing as the corollary is "God possibly does exist" statistically.

4. Are we also sending out a few invitations to crazed fundamentalist suicide bombers to come onto our buses to dispute the assertion in the advertisement?

5. Who cares anyway, what's the mileage, and why be disrespectful and provocative to the beliefs of others? Live and let live?

Did you really expect any other decision?
A sensible conclusion to this.

The ASA code defines 'objective substantiation' as: "Before distributing or submitting a marketing communication for publication, marketers must hold documentary evidence to prove all claims, whether direct or implied, that are capable of objective substantiation."
In advertising substantiation usually refers to claims that: "tests prove", "doctors recommend" and so on.

The ASA supplement this with: "Unproven claims that are incapable of objective substantiation and that are unlikely to affect behaviour may be featured provided it is clear they are based on the author’s opinion."
As the advert is unlikely to change Stephen Green's belief (or of any other devout religious person) the advert can't be claimed likely to affect his behaviour; those most likely to agree with it are those that reject supernatural explanation, reliance on ancient myths and legends or blind reliance on the authority of any Church and look instead to reason and human compassion?

The concept that God[s] exists is not capable of being substantiated either. A scripture - from any of the myriad of world religions - would not be enough, particularly when countered with evidence from historians that study these documents and periods, archaeologists, anthropologists, geologists, biologists, cosmologists and so on.

Stephen Green's argument that evidence comes from "people’s personal experience, to the complexity, interdependence, beauty and design of the natural world" is tenuous to say the least; he's merely expressing his personal opinion.
Personal testimony is merely a statement of personal belief, no matter how deeply believed.

Whether God exists or not is a matter of personal opinion.
After all, why else do religions have to place so much emphasis on 'belief' and 'faith'?

Surely atheists would want to say that God's non-existence is not merely a matter of opinion, but something that is evidential. They say the evidence goes against God's existence. They don't just say, "it's my opinion that God doesn't exist".

#4. "Surely atheists would want to say that God's non-existence is not merely a matter of opinion, but something that is evidential."

I understand the word 'probably' was inserted on the advice of the advertising agency handling the placing of the ads.
The original copy for the ads read: 'There is no God . . .'

Personally I'd be happy to let the religious attempt to prove categorically that God[s] exists, in court.

William:
In my earlier remarks I forgot to mentioned, that this organistation who put up the signage up on the bus; did not commit any mis-deeds...
~Dennis Junior~

We are living in society with so many differences, including belief and everyone has the right to decide their own belief. The most important thing here is everyone must be repectful to each other.

Bryan, that is absolutely the case. Every day I drive past churches with billboards or adverts outside making wild and crazy claims about their particular god, but as an atheist, I do not get upset. Yet if atheists put up a message, some people get mighty prissy about it, and start playing that soggy dog-eared martyr card. *Some* people - many Christians don't have a problem with it, and these people are showing true tolerance. They recognise that at least 15% of the UK population does NOT believe in a god, and those people are worthy of respect.

In that sense, the Atheist Bus Campaign has been enormously positive, and the silly shenanigans of Christian Voice and others, while risible, have made a welcome contribution to enhancing its profile and getting the message out.

Hug an atheist!

Helio
In terms of the UK, less than 1/3 believes in a "Personal God who is Concerned with your Life". Under 25% believe in God as described by a traditional religion.
Your assertion of 15% atheists is accurate as far as I can see, but it leaves out doubters, those who couldn't care, people who belive in a vague "force for good", or an architect who's a bit too busy to take our calls right now.
The Atheist Bus Advert is aimed at these folk, and is a smart move if you think Atheism is a rational progressive belief. The "stop worrying" is more important than the assertions about probability. That's the part that will reach out to the unconverted huddled masses. "The God Delusion" had a black cover, and lot's of insults. Good for motivating the troops, as it were, but I think the bus will have more impact.
I can argue against Dawkins polemics - but you can't argue against pink, red and orange lettering!

But no, I'm not in the least offended or worried. Locke might have had the advertisers arrested, but I'm more tolerant.

GV

But I'm still not hugging you. Evangelism has it's limits.

To BrownKnows:

I think you answered your question #5 with your question #4!

Graham:

Exactly. It is aimed at the doubters and daylight atheists who need reassurance that they won't be struck by lightning or suffer wailing and gnashing of teeth for all eternity. There are a surprisingly large number of these people about.

I agree with you about Locke. Of course, he didn't tolerate Catholics either.

Helio, you're missing the point about the wayside pulpits outside churches. those posters are not governed by the ASA, any more than a poster outside the British Humanist headquarters would be governed by the ASA. In both cases, these are not published in print newspapers, magazine, or online, or on TV or radio. That's the extent of the ASA's remit. Churches can say whatever they like outside their buildings, as can humanists. That's as it should be.

What about those leaflets that Christians shove through your letterbox. I received one last night from the local FP church telling me that evolution was a load of nonsense and ADVERTISING their upcoming talk on the subject from a visiting "expert".

Brian
Oddly enough, I think it's the "probably" that gives the impression of an "objective substantiation".
And if you can use "probably" as an expression of opinion, why not "definitely"?

Is it because convictions are taboo? Would "definitely" have made the ad less appealing?

I'm not critcising Theists or Atheists - just the spirt of the age.

GV

It's probably for the best :-)

Graham:

If the spirit of the age, as you put it, is to have little conviction and more doubt, then I welcome it. There's been too much belief in the world.

But I wonder if you are right. There is certainly too much conformity and groupthink and not enough individuality about a lot of things.

Brian

To "doubt", in the sense that you value, a person needs to be unable to reach a conclusion after considering the evidence.

I think even considering the evidence is taboo. You might form an opinion and that would be impolite.

Besides certainty isn't the problem. It's what we're certain about, or what we base our certainity on, or how we deal with those who lack our certainty. That's what causes difficulty.

GV