Skip to main content

Christian complains about atheist buses


Stephen Green of Christian Voice has complained to the advertizing Standards Authority about the Atheist Bus Campaign. 800 buses carry an advert saying "There is probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life."

Green has challenged the adverts on grounds of ‘truthfulness’ and ‘substantiation’, suggesting that there is not ‘a shred of supporting evidence’ that there is probably no god.

See the BHA's response here.

This could be a lot of fun. Suppose Green wins - then the BHA can complain about adverts saying "God loves you" etc. on the very same grounds.

Comments

Peter said…
Green's clearly got a lot of time on his hands. What a sad man.

(I say that as a Christian)
January 8, 2009 at 5:08 PM
Unknown said…
Theos were far better about this. Christian Voice are right-wing-very-conservative-evangelicals
January 8, 2009 at 9:41 PM
Unknown said…
I'm just amazed at how far we've progressed. Ten years ago, you'd have never seen a bus with that kind of sign on it.

What I was really surprised by, is Bill Maher's "Religulous" actually making it to the big theaters. I couldn't believe I was actually sitting in a theater watching a movie that was so openly critical of religion. It was refreshing.
January 8, 2009 at 9:53 PM
Martin said…
Fingers crossed that the ASA ask for the BHA to provide evidence substantiate the claim that "There's probably no God."

I can't wait to see what evidence on the probability of a nothingness looks like. This will take us beyond even the territory that was covered by Jean-Paul Sartre in "Being and Nothingness".
January 9, 2009 at 1:29 AM
MH said…
They can always change it:

There might be a God, but He's likely not yours. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.
January 9, 2009 at 9:10 AM
Tony Lloyd said…
It could be very interesting. Is there any difference between a "shred" (Stephen Green and the BHA) of evidence and a "jot" (Simon Singh and the Chiropracters)?

Now if the Chiropracters actually won their case against Singh, couldn't the BHA sue Stephen Green for libel?
January 9, 2009 at 10:16 AM
Martin said…
I think the BHA may have a way through by claiming that "no god" is a free offer. It's free at the point of sale, there's no delivery charge and as it's widely available there's not likelihood of it running out.
January 9, 2009 at 12:01 PM
Anonymous said…
"This could be a lot of fun. Suppose Green wins - then the BHA can complain about adverts saying "God loves you" etc. on the very same grounds."

The very same grounds? Only if there is no substantiation for the claim that God exists (and that he loves people). Not revealing a bias here, surely. ;)
January 12, 2009 at 10:26 AM
Hambydammit said…
The very same grounds? Only if there is no substantiation for the claim that God exists (and that he loves people). Not revealing a bias here, surely. ;)

Really? Am I understanding you right that you think there is substantiation for the claim that God exists?

Actually, I kind of think it's a good thing that so many people believe there's evidence for god. If this thing stays in the public long enough for a competent first year philosophy student to get some basic epistemology in front of the public... wow... that would be fun to watch.

(Back on planet earth, this thing will get shut down one way or another before it gets to the level of threatening churches making claims about god. Count on it.)
January 14, 2009 at 8:15 PM
The Celtic Chimp said…
I think we would be doing Christians a grave disservice to presume this Green nut is a fair example. A loon by even Christian standards ;P
January 15, 2009 at 11:58 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS

(Published in Faith and Philosophy 2011. Volume 28, Issue 2, April 2011. Stephen Law. Pages 129-151) EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS Stephen Law Abstract The vast majority of Biblical historians believe there is evidence sufficient to place Jesus’ existence beyond reasonable doubt. Many believe the New Testament documents alone suffice firmly to establish Jesus as an actual, historical figure. I question these views. In particular, I argue (i) that the three most popular criteria by which various non-miraculous New Testament claims made about Jesus are supposedly corroborated are not sufficient, either singly or jointly, to place his existence beyond reasonable doubt, and (ii) that a prima facie plausible principle concerning how evidence should be assessed – a principle I call the contamination principle – entails that, given the large proportion of uncorroborated miracle claims made about Jesus in the New Testament documents, we should, in the absence of indepen
159 comments
Read more

Aquinas on homosexuality

Thought I would try a bit of a draft out on the blog, for feedback. All comments gratefully received. No doubt I've got at least some details wrong re the Catholic Church's position... AQUINAS AND SEXUAL ETHICS Aquinas’s thinking remains hugely influential within the Catholic Church. In particular, his ideas concerning sexual ethics still heavily shape Church teaching. It is on these ideas that we focus here. In particular, I will look at Aquinas’s justification for morally condemning homosexual acts. When homosexuality is judged to be morally wrong, the justification offered is often that homosexuality is, in some sense, “unnatural”. Aquinas develops a sophisticated version of this sort of argument. The roots of the argument lie in thinking of Aristotle, whom Aquinas believes to be scientifically authoritative. Indeed, one of Aquinas’s over-arching aims was to show how Aristotle’s philosophical system is broadly compatible with Christian thought. I begin with a sketch of Arist
49 comments
Read more

The Evil God Challenge and the "classical" theist's response

On another blog, FideCogitActio, some theists of a "classical" stripe (that's to say, like Brian Davies, Edward Feser) are criticisng the Evil God Challenge (or I suppose, trying to show how it can be met, or sidestepped). The main post includes this: In book I, chapter 39 , Aquinas argues that “there cannot be evil in God” (in Deo non potest esse malum). Atheists like Law must face the fact that, if the words are to retain any sense, “God” simply cannot be “evil”. As my comments in the thread at Feser’s blog aimed to show, despite how much he mocks “the privation theory of evil,” Law himself cannot escape its logic: his entire argument requires that the world ought to appear less evil if it is to be taken as evidence of a good God. Even though he spurns the idea that evil is a privation of good, his account of an evil world is parasitic on a good ideal; this is no surprise, though, since all evil is parasitic on good ( SCG I, 11 ). Based on the conclusions of se
446 comments
Read more