The Advertising Standards Authority is still logging complaints and has not yet decided if it will launch an investigation. The watchdog said the majority of people complained the ad is offensive to Christians and other religions.
Should the ASA investigate the Atheist bus campaign? **Vote** and have your say.
One of those to complain to the ASA is Stephen Green, of Christian Voice, who has challenged the ads on grounds of "truthfulness" and "substantiation", suggesting that there is not "a shred of supporting evidence" that there is probably no god.
Hanne Stinson, the chief executive of the British Humanist Association, said she could not see how the ASA could investigate complaints such as Green's
Stinson said: "I am sure that Stephen Green really does think there is a great deal of evidence for a god but I pity the ASA if they are going to be expected to rule on the probability of god's existence. If they do investigate we will be very happy to respond."
A spokeswoman for the ASA said the complaints are currently "being assessed and no decisions have been taken about what to do with them".
The campaign was launched following an appeal by a Guardian newspaper blogger, Ariane Sherine, who challenged readers to raise enough funds to run an ad telling people "there's probably no god" on a single central London bus route.
In the end, enough money was generated to cover 800 buses across the UK and the tube network.
The £130,000 raised by the BHA has paid for a four-week bus campaign from this week and two weeks of exposure on the tube from Monday, both through outdoor media company CBS Outdoor.
The ad features the strapline: "There's probably no god. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life".
Should the ASA invesigate the Atheist bus campaign? **Vote** and have your say.
Comments
Not a huge surprise, surely. Particularly given that complaining about just about anything seems to have become our new national sport.
A DIAZ - 09/01/2009
I can't think of any body more qualified to answer the age old question of whether god exists or not than the ASA. Good to see the paranoid Christians haven't lost their legendary sense of humour.
Thinking of complaining to the C of E about the banner outside the church on my road that says "Jesus Is Everywhere". I wonder if they'll send someone down to investigate whether that's truthful?
Christian Voice is suggesting that there is not "a shred of supporting evidence" that there is probably no god.
So if the ASA are judging this campaign by that standard then obviously religious organizations will have to provide evidence of the probable existence of God before running campaigns.
I am going to start knocking door to door at 6 o'clock on Sunday morning preaching the new word that Gods a myth.
£130k - that money could have made a really big difference to ANY charity
Arrogant people with closed minds
NicV - 09/01/2009
What a waste of money.
what do they hope to achieve with something like this except alienating the thousands of Christians and making the rest of the people go 'yes, lets do that'. The statement could have been better thought out.... should the Gaurdian not be treated as the BBC was after Sach-gate fiasco?
I think whats good for the BBC goose, is good for the Gaurdian gander
Well done atheists keep it up. The money that the church uses would also make a really big difference to ANY charity
@Dina or should that be Pudsey the bear or Bono. What a ridiculous statement. I've just eaten a Kit Kat. Are you going to tell me the money I spent on it could've made a "difference to ANY charity? The campaign has started a national debate about religeon and the existence of God. How brilliant is that? Well worth 130k I say. One of the best ad campaigns in years.
NH - 09/01/2009
the breakfast of champions, eh roger?
religion - a waste of money - discuss????
I think they spend a bit more than £130k combined? does anyone have any figures comparing their charity work to their costs?
Hi Nicola, is this a deliberate misspelling of 'Grauniad'?
p.s loving the debate it is causing - and want the ASA to try and prove the existance of god. will really raise the industrys spirits ;-)
Unfortunately the right to free speech that we so treasure \(and have fought so hard for) seems to have been caveated with "as long as i agree with it" somewhere along the line. I wonder what Stevie would have to say about some Rastafari ads promoting the use of the holy herb to help you understand god...
Hmm, not "a shred of supporting evidence" that there is probably no God ... what would constitute evidence? Doesn't the 'probably' make the statement a belief not a factual assertion. Did Carling complain that there was no supporting evidence that Carlsberg was 'probably the best lager in the world'?
Brilliant campaign. The only disappointment is that it hasn't generated more complaints. I love Stephen Green saying, I presume in all sincerity, that there is not a shred of evidence proving that there is probably no God. It's got the makings of a brilliant comedy sketch.
I for one cannot wait for the ASA to try and prove the existence of God - should shut us all up one way or another; end the crisis in the middle east; bring about world peace; harmony amongst our fellow man...
And all for the bargain price of £130k - a mere fraction of what the other major religions have spent in the past year \(and beyond) telling us in absolute terms that God exists, but only the right God, not the other one \(s) or you really will go to hell. Bring it on I say!
Nicola - A "waste of money" is purely subjective. It's the principle that atheists should be allowed to spread their message just as freely as any religious group. Don't like it? Well i'm not exactly thrilled about messages on Church billboards either. But I don't find it offensive... simply misguided. Importantly, I don't complain... and I accept their point of view, even when it often stretches the boundaries of what can reasonably be considered false advertising far further than this bus campaign is doing. So why is it that Christians are complaining? Perhaps because they are worried it might actually work...
Well said William, I completely agree. But for some reason it's one rule reglious people and another for atheists. It's completely atheist-ist!
@ William. Couldn't agree more. I hope the ASA treat Atheism with the same respect as Christianity.
Such a good debate. William is spot on. I'll relish reading the ASA outcome if they end up acting on the complaints...
I think some people are missing the point here. If any faith based belief system had spent that much on advertising they would be criticised for it. Why are people spending 130k on a debate that's been around - and raging - for decades? There's nothing stopping the BHA from putting banners/billboards outside their offices and premises. As marketers, surely we can see that there must be a more cost effective way of spreading that message. Admittedly the amount of publicity that has been achieved through the campaign has created more value then the campaign itself but the question that comes to my mind is what would happen if the monarchy decided they wanted to launch an ad campaign? Would we all be defending their right for freedom of speech?
The monarchy would be using tax payer's money if they paid for a campaign - crucial difference i think you will find. The atheist campaign was not paid for from the public purse - it's their money to spend as they see fit.
I notice the number of complaints has now jumped from 48 to 57 in the story above.
I will change the question slightly then, what if the advertising campaign was paid for by money raised from their own estates and not taxpayers to pay for the campaign?
Considering the number of apalling atrocities that have been and are currently being committed in the name of Religion it would seem more than probable to me that God does not exist.
The campaign merely highlights the view of many...including those who contributed to it.
Those of us that mean no harm to others can now enjoy our lives.
Dina, if they then didnt accept money from taxpayers then there would be no problem. Dina what point are you trying to make? The only point I am missing is yours.
Dina - in response to your comment: "other religions would be heavily criticised if they spent 130K on advertising". What are you talking about? Christians are advertising all the time. This atheist ad was produced after a comedian saw a Christian bus ad that linked to a website which told non-Christians they were condemned to Hell for not accepting the word of Jesus.
@Dina, same difference - the public own their estates. When have the Royal Family ever owned or worked for anything that wasn't given to them by the state? Anyway, this is a completely separate issue for another time. You're going way off beam. The BHA is a private organisation not accountable to the tax payer so don't understand why you are bringing the Royal Family into this. We live in democracy with free speech. Anyone should be able to publicise their beliefs within the tolerable boundaries of decency and taste as defined by society at their time in history.
@Dina. Do you really believe the complaints are about the 130k spent? The campaign only set out to raise £6,000 \(to run adverts in London) but within two days, individuals and organisations had pledged more than £87,000. The £135,000 total pledged for the purpose of the campaign surely makes up for the lack of exposure the belief has had versus years of money spent by pro-Christian/pro-God groups. I'm donating, works for me.
While the ASA are on the case they may also want to ban adverts containing that fat white bearded bastard who never bought me a scalectrix, Atari 2600 or a BMX last month.
You mean Brian Blessed? He's fat and white and has a beard. Oh wait...
I'd love to be in the ASA meeting when they're deciding if the complaint should be upheld. No pressure or anything, but they could unmake all existence if they get it wrong, incur God's wrath etc. I can't think of any Christians I know who would be offended by this campaign. Christian Voice has a lot to answer for, some brass it has claiming to represent all Christians everywhere. They are militant anti-freedom of speech cranks.
If the ASA can allow Carlsberg to claim they produce 'probably the best larger in the world' \(which I can assure you is not back up by "a shred of supporting evidence"), then I don't think they can disallow this particular claim...
Furthermore, am am slightly more inclined to believe the theories in Darwin's On the Origins of species to those on the side of a beer can.
Complaints were inevitable \(there will be plenty more), lets just hope the ASA makes the correct decision.
It's rising. Have some of you been busy? I might register a complaint if only to serve a greater amount of publicity. Then I'm going to complain about that publicity and so on.
I cant wait for the retalitory ads from the CoE and Catholic church. I mean, its a creatives dream - sooo much material to work with. I can see this running for a long time.
Absolutely... this is going to run and run like the forever updated variants of the Christian "Fish" bumper sticker that were produced in the US. I can't wait either.
Sticking with the beer ad theme for the retaliatory ads...
"Good things come to those you wait" or maybe
"reassuring expensive"?
Sticking with the beer ad theme for the retaliatory ads...
"Good things come to those who wait" or maybe
"reassuring expensive"?
A DIAZ - 09/01/2009
Good things come to those who wait - maybe they meant heaven and Guinness is a secret Christian sect?
Dina - Where have you gone? I like your comments, they make me dizzy and laugh at the same time, like smoking weed.
NicV - 09/01/2009
The 'waste of money' comment is down to the structure of this campaign. It serves no marketing fuction as it has no company name to it. It's merely a PR ploy to get people talking about a blogger for a paper who has no real claim to fame. The fact that they have chosen such a strong statement I think is a discreditation to Athiests because all it does is turn their beliefs into a marketing ploy. It's sold out the Athiests
Nicola: 1. Why does a marketing campaign have to serve one particular company? Personally, I dont think it does. 2. It may well be a PR ploy for a blogger, but the majority of people won't see it like that, so it doesn't matter if it increases her PR or not. I can't even remember her name. It also increases the PR of atheism, which is a good thing as it traditionally hasn't been given an equal voice against Christianity. 3. I'm an atheist and I'm not bothered if my beliefs are turned into a marketing ploy, as long as this campaign gets atheist thought out there in adland and gets people talking. It's not sold me out - the fact that this campaign has helped someone else \(athiest or not) is just an added bonus and aids the overall cause.
Also, I would argue the statement isn't "strong" at all. It's necessarily weakened by the use of the word "probably" to get around ASA guidelines, which i think are completely reasonable in accordance with false advertising guidelines. But notice how atheists are happy to include such a word. When was the last time you saw a Christian billboard stating that the word of God was "probably" the one to follow?
The statement is definitely not strong. Atheists don't think there is a god, but if you're of the Dawkins school of thought, will be happy to accept that there is if you can prove it. Until which time they'll carry on believing that there "probably" isn't one. If they were to dampen the statement any further it would have to come from an agnostic group. I don't see how they've sold out at all. William's bang on the money though - all this debate about the strength of their POV, yet other religious groups get to make absolute claims without anyone batting an eyelid.
and no, myth & legend do not constitute proof... just to head that off at the pass
The 'probably' part is a bit lame - but this one small story has created a massive and frankly much needed balance in spiritual marketing - if we're going to be all modern and 'let everyone believe what they believe' then why do so many people seem to have such issue with Atheists expressing a view? We're so tolerant of Islam and Christian evangelism... I don't get the fuss about this. \(But I like that it's happening!)
When you think of all the damage caused by religious beliefs - warfare, bigotry, guilt, wasted lives you would think that the statement that God "probably" does not exist is very restrained. It might have been more pertinent to point out the evils of religion and the primitive illogicality on which it is built. As for the waste of money which could have been used for charity, I wonder if there is not some church somewhere which could perhaps manage without some item of Gold altar furniture or ancient art work.
A brilliant campaign, from its blog origins through to its emergence on last week's Any Questions \(Radio 4). For a £130k spend, that's impact, although it does look as if the authors are taking a rationally agnostic line as opposed to an atheistic one. My only quibble is the rather glib pay-off line: "Now stop worrying and enjoy your life." I can't see the connection clearly with the first statement. I know plenty believers in God \(or multiple variations thereof) who don't appear to to suffer existential doubt and do enjoy their lives. Equally, I can think of a number of atheists who are keenly concerned about the moral bankruptcy of the theistic societies they live in, never mind their personal ethical dilemmas. \(Neitzche himself was hardly a happy camper.) So if we had to change something about these ads, let's have another go at the end line - perhaps with a less selfish and more altruistic focus.
Atheism seems to be gearing up to compete with their religious opposites. I look forward to a campaign to march each religious billboard in United Kingdom. Let the media war begin!
Nice one Mark Fiddes, the strap line is the only really questionable thing. Religious people know that God probably doesn't exist, which is why faith is so important \(remember? that's why being religious is a leap of faith, why God gives no proof of his existence etc - so you have to BELIEVE)! Saying that religious people worry more \(or at least more than atheists/agnostics), or that religion is the cause of their worry is really not a good point. Atheists worry too, they just can't pray about it. It's just arrogance really, which I blame on Dorkins, who seems to be starting his own godless religion.
I do wish people would stop trotting out that trite "Dawkins is starting his own religion" rubbish - he's patently not. He's stating the obvious.
Keep banging that drum all you like Ormiston - you are condemning a fairly vast segment of the population to profound ignorance of the "obvious" if you back the militance of Dawkins. I'm not talking about believing in God - although I maintain that philosophically, evidentially, morally, socially and from every other angle that's a perfectly reasonable belief - I'm talking about those who aren't willing to speak definitively on the subject, as they have some modicum of their own intellectual poverty when it comes to comprehending the enormity of the universe. Dawkins' arrogance is almost as large as his contempt for everyone who disagrees with him. Meanwhile, well said Mark and Justin.
But that's the point. Dawkins doesn't speak definitively on the subject - I'll admit he comes close, but saying there's almost certainly not a god is not the same thing.
That aside, how is believing in god a perfectly reasonable belief from an evidential point of view? There is no evidence.
i can see how you wouldn't believe in god with a name like ormiston. no offence
None taken. I'm humbled by such mordant wit.
ok i'm sorry. that was a cheap shot and i didn't mean it.
Has anybody noticed what a wonderful metaphor is being created every time anyone "boards the atheist bus"
And here is the joke in case there is someone it hasn't occurred to:- You wait years for an atheist bus and then 88 come at once.
I'm extremely happy to take up that challenge Ormiston - but this forum is unlikely to be the place. I also fear that comments such as 'evidence only looks like evidence depending on your ideological starting point' will be hailed as not answering the question - however, that's the kind of thing I'd point to. The beauty and magnificence of the universe are pretty good places to start. But I'd literally stake my life on the fact that Jesus died and then rose from the dead - as the people who proclaimed Jesus to the ancient world frequently did, with gory consequences. I trust someone who has come through death to tell me about the universe I live in - and He says there is a God who made the universe. If you're actually interested in looking into it, there are plenty of reasons to believe. I can assure you Dawkins hasn't.
I think it's very slightly amusing that the copy of the bus ad is pretty much a quote from the bible. The Message paraphrase for Ecclesiastes 3 ends with "So I made up my mind that there's nothing better for us men and women than to have a good time in whatever we do--that's our lot. Who knows if there's anything else to life?"
There is indeed "nothing new under the sun"...!
Comments
Richard Hayter - 09/01/2009
Not a huge surprise, surely. Particularly given that complaining about just about anything seems to have become our new national sport.
A DIAZ - 09/01/2009
I can't think of any body more qualified to answer the age old question of whether god exists or not than the ASA. Good to see the paranoid Christians haven't lost their legendary sense of humour.
David Corlett - 09/01/2009
Thinking of complaining to the C of E about the banner outside the church on my road that says "Jesus Is Everywhere". I wonder if they'll send someone down to investigate whether that's truthful?
anthony agarrat - 09/01/2009
Christian Voice is suggesting that there is not "a shred of supporting evidence" that there is probably no god. So if the ASA are judging this campaign by that standard then obviously religious organizations will have to provide evidence of the probable existence of God before running campaigns. I am going to start knocking door to door at 6 o'clock on Sunday morning preaching the new word that Gods a myth.
Dina Morton - 09/01/2009
£130k - that money could have made a really big difference to ANY charity
Nicola Lucas - 09/01/2009
Arrogant people with closed minds
NicV - 09/01/2009
What a waste of money. what do they hope to achieve with something like this except alienating the thousands of Christians and making the rest of the people go 'yes, lets do that'. The statement could have been better thought out.... should the Gaurdian not be treated as the BBC was after Sach-gate fiasco? I think whats good for the BBC goose, is good for the Gaurdian gander
Melanie Dumelow - 09/01/2009
Well done atheists keep it up. The money that the church uses would also make a really big difference to ANY charity
Roger OThornhill - 09/01/2009
@Dina or should that be Pudsey the bear or Bono. What a ridiculous statement. I've just eaten a Kit Kat. Are you going to tell me the money I spent on it could've made a "difference to ANY charity? The campaign has started a national debate about religeon and the existence of God. How brilliant is that? Well worth 130k I say. One of the best ad campaigns in years.
NH - 09/01/2009
the breakfast of champions, eh roger?
jane hovey - 09/01/2009
religion - a waste of money - discuss???? I think they spend a bit more than £130k combined? does anyone have any figures comparing their charity work to their costs?
Richard Waitt - 09/01/2009
Hi Nicola, is this a deliberate misspelling of 'Grauniad'?
jane hovey - 09/01/2009
p.s loving the debate it is causing - and want the ASA to try and prove the existance of god. will really raise the industrys spirits ;-)
Roger OThornhill - 09/01/2009
Maybe the ASA is God
Stuart Aplin - 09/01/2009
Unfortunately the right to free speech that we so treasure \(and have fought so hard for) seems to have been caveated with "as long as i agree with it" somewhere along the line. I wonder what Stevie would have to say about some Rastafari ads promoting the use of the holy herb to help you understand god...
kevin mclean - 09/01/2009
Hmm, not "a shred of supporting evidence" that there is probably no God ... what would constitute evidence? Doesn't the 'probably' make the statement a belief not a factual assertion. Did Carling complain that there was no supporting evidence that Carlsberg was 'probably the best lager in the world'?
Andrew McCormick - 09/01/2009
Brilliant campaign. The only disappointment is that it hasn't generated more complaints. I love Stephen Green saying, I presume in all sincerity, that there is not a shred of evidence proving that there is probably no God. It's got the makings of a brilliant comedy sketch.
Dena Walker - 09/01/2009
I for one cannot wait for the ASA to try and prove the existence of God - should shut us all up one way or another; end the crisis in the middle east; bring about world peace; harmony amongst our fellow man... And all for the bargain price of £130k - a mere fraction of what the other major religions have spent in the past year \(and beyond) telling us in absolute terms that God exists, but only the right God, not the other one \(s) or you really will go to hell. Bring it on I say!
William Howard - 09/01/2009
Nicola - A "waste of money" is purely subjective. It's the principle that atheists should be allowed to spread their message just as freely as any religious group. Don't like it? Well i'm not exactly thrilled about messages on Church billboards either. But I don't find it offensive... simply misguided. Importantly, I don't complain... and I accept their point of view, even when it often stretches the boundaries of what can reasonably be considered false advertising far further than this bus campaign is doing. So why is it that Christians are complaining? Perhaps because they are worried it might actually work...
Laura Buck - 09/01/2009
Well said William, I completely agree. But for some reason it's one rule reglious people and another for atheists. It's completely atheist-ist!
Alex Braxton - 09/01/2009
@ William. Couldn't agree more. I hope the ASA treat Atheism with the same respect as Christianity.
Jacquie Bowser - 09/01/2009
Such a good debate. William is spot on. I'll relish reading the ASA outcome if they end up acting on the complaints...
Dina Morton - 09/01/2009
I think some people are missing the point here. If any faith based belief system had spent that much on advertising they would be criticised for it. Why are people spending 130k on a debate that's been around - and raging - for decades? There's nothing stopping the BHA from putting banners/billboards outside their offices and premises. As marketers, surely we can see that there must be a more cost effective way of spreading that message. Admittedly the amount of publicity that has been achieved through the campaign has created more value then the campaign itself but the question that comes to my mind is what would happen if the monarchy decided they wanted to launch an ad campaign? Would we all be defending their right for freedom of speech?
Roger OThornhill - 09/01/2009
The monarchy would be using tax payer's money if they paid for a campaign - crucial difference i think you will find. The atheist campaign was not paid for from the public purse - it's their money to spend as they see fit. I notice the number of complaints has now jumped from 48 to 57 in the story above.
Dina Morton - 09/01/2009
I will change the question slightly then, what if the advertising campaign was paid for by money raised from their own estates and not taxpayers to pay for the campaign?
Beau Roberts - 09/01/2009
Considering the number of apalling atrocities that have been and are currently being committed in the name of Religion it would seem more than probable to me that God does not exist. The campaign merely highlights the view of many...including those who contributed to it. Those of us that mean no harm to others can now enjoy our lives.
anthony agarrat - 09/01/2009
Dina, if they then didnt accept money from taxpayers then there would be no problem. Dina what point are you trying to make? The only point I am missing is yours.
Jacquie Bowser - 09/01/2009
Dina - in response to your comment: "other religions would be heavily criticised if they spent 130K on advertising". What are you talking about? Christians are advertising all the time. This atheist ad was produced after a comedian saw a Christian bus ad that linked to a website which told non-Christians they were condemned to Hell for not accepting the word of Jesus.
Roger OThornhill - 09/01/2009
@Dina, same difference - the public own their estates. When have the Royal Family ever owned or worked for anything that wasn't given to them by the state? Anyway, this is a completely separate issue for another time. You're going way off beam. The BHA is a private organisation not accountable to the tax payer so don't understand why you are bringing the Royal Family into this. We live in democracy with free speech. Anyone should be able to publicise their beliefs within the tolerable boundaries of decency and taste as defined by society at their time in history.
Alex Braxton - 09/01/2009
@Dina. Do you really believe the complaints are about the 130k spent? The campaign only set out to raise £6,000 \(to run adverts in London) but within two days, individuals and organisations had pledged more than £87,000. The £135,000 total pledged for the purpose of the campaign surely makes up for the lack of exposure the belief has had versus years of money spent by pro-Christian/pro-God groups. I'm donating, works for me.
anthony agarrat - 09/01/2009
While the ASA are on the case they may also want to ban adverts containing that fat white bearded bastard who never bought me a scalectrix, Atari 2600 or a BMX last month.
William Howard - 09/01/2009
You mean Brian Blessed? He's fat and white and has a beard. Oh wait...
Alex Donohue - 09/01/2009
I'd love to be in the ASA meeting when they're deciding if the complaint should be upheld. No pressure or anything, but they could unmake all existence if they get it wrong, incur God's wrath etc. I can't think of any Christians I know who would be offended by this campaign. Christian Voice has a lot to answer for, some brass it has claiming to represent all Christians everywhere. They are militant anti-freedom of speech cranks.
Matt Saunders - 09/01/2009
If the ASA can allow Carlsberg to claim they produce 'probably the best larger in the world' \(which I can assure you is not back up by "a shred of supporting evidence"), then I don't think they can disallow this particular claim... Furthermore, am am slightly more inclined to believe the theories in Darwin's On the Origins of species to those on the side of a beer can. Complaints were inevitable \(there will be plenty more), lets just hope the ASA makes the correct decision.
Eddie Stalwart - 09/01/2009
It's rising. Have some of you been busy? I might register a complaint if only to serve a greater amount of publicity. Then I'm going to complain about that publicity and so on.
Ad- Dick - 09/01/2009
I cant wait for the retalitory ads from the CoE and Catholic church. I mean, its a creatives dream - sooo much material to work with. I can see this running for a long time.
William Howard - 09/01/2009
Absolutely... this is going to run and run like the forever updated variants of the Christian "Fish" bumper sticker that were produced in the US. I can't wait either.
Matt Saunders - 09/01/2009
Sticking with the beer ad theme for the retaliatory ads... "Good things come to those you wait" or maybe "reassuring expensive"?
Matt Saunders - 09/01/2009
Sticking with the beer ad theme for the retaliatory ads... "Good things come to those who wait" or maybe "reassuring expensive"?
A DIAZ - 09/01/2009
Good things come to those who wait - maybe they meant heaven and Guinness is a secret Christian sect?
anthony agarrat - 09/01/2009
Dina - Where have you gone? I like your comments, they make me dizzy and laugh at the same time, like smoking weed.
NicV - 09/01/2009
The 'waste of money' comment is down to the structure of this campaign. It serves no marketing fuction as it has no company name to it. It's merely a PR ploy to get people talking about a blogger for a paper who has no real claim to fame. The fact that they have chosen such a strong statement I think is a discreditation to Athiests because all it does is turn their beliefs into a marketing ploy. It's sold out the Athiests
William Howard - 09/01/2009
Nicola: 1. Why does a marketing campaign have to serve one particular company? Personally, I dont think it does. 2. It may well be a PR ploy for a blogger, but the majority of people won't see it like that, so it doesn't matter if it increases her PR or not. I can't even remember her name. It also increases the PR of atheism, which is a good thing as it traditionally hasn't been given an equal voice against Christianity. 3. I'm an atheist and I'm not bothered if my beliefs are turned into a marketing ploy, as long as this campaign gets atheist thought out there in adland and gets people talking. It's not sold me out - the fact that this campaign has helped someone else \(athiest or not) is just an added bonus and aids the overall cause.
William Howard - 09/01/2009
Also, I would argue the statement isn't "strong" at all. It's necessarily weakened by the use of the word "probably" to get around ASA guidelines, which i think are completely reasonable in accordance with false advertising guidelines. But notice how atheists are happy to include such a word. When was the last time you saw a Christian billboard stating that the word of God was "probably" the one to follow?
Dena Walker - 09/01/2009
The statement is definitely not strong. Atheists don't think there is a god, but if you're of the Dawkins school of thought, will be happy to accept that there is if you can prove it. Until which time they'll carry on believing that there "probably" isn't one. If they were to dampen the statement any further it would have to come from an agnostic group. I don't see how they've sold out at all. William's bang on the money though - all this debate about the strength of their POV, yet other religious groups get to make absolute claims without anyone batting an eyelid.
Dena Walker - 09/01/2009
and no, myth & legend do not constitute proof... just to head that off at the pass
JACK HORNER - 09/01/2009
The 'probably' part is a bit lame - but this one small story has created a massive and frankly much needed balance in spiritual marketing - if we're going to be all modern and 'let everyone believe what they believe' then why do so many people seem to have such issue with Atheists expressing a view? We're so tolerant of Islam and Christian evangelism... I don't get the fuss about this. \(But I like that it's happening!)
Anthony Bevan - 09/01/2009
When you think of all the damage caused by religious beliefs - warfare, bigotry, guilt, wasted lives you would think that the statement that God "probably" does not exist is very restrained. It might have been more pertinent to point out the evils of religion and the primitive illogicality on which it is built. As for the waste of money which could have been used for charity, I wonder if there is not some church somewhere which could perhaps manage without some item of Gold altar furniture or ancient art work.
Mark Fiddes - 12/01/2009
A brilliant campaign, from its blog origins through to its emergence on last week's Any Questions \(Radio 4). For a £130k spend, that's impact, although it does look as if the authors are taking a rationally agnostic line as opposed to an atheistic one. My only quibble is the rather glib pay-off line: "Now stop worrying and enjoy your life." I can't see the connection clearly with the first statement. I know plenty believers in God \(or multiple variations thereof) who don't appear to to suffer existential doubt and do enjoy their lives. Equally, I can think of a number of atheists who are keenly concerned about the moral bankruptcy of the theistic societies they live in, never mind their personal ethical dilemmas. \(Neitzche himself was hardly a happy camper.) So if we had to change something about these ads, let's have another go at the end line - perhaps with a less selfish and more altruistic focus.
Chiemeka Ozumba - 12/01/2009
Atheism seems to be gearing up to compete with their religious opposites. I look forward to a campaign to march each religious billboard in United Kingdom. Let the media war begin!
Justin Driskill - 12/01/2009
Nice one Mark Fiddes, the strap line is the only really questionable thing. Religious people know that God probably doesn't exist, which is why faith is so important \(remember? that's why being religious is a leap of faith, why God gives no proof of his existence etc - so you have to BELIEVE)! Saying that religious people worry more \(or at least more than atheists/agnostics), or that religion is the cause of their worry is really not a good point. Atheists worry too, they just can't pray about it. It's just arrogance really, which I blame on Dorkins, who seems to be starting his own godless religion.
ormiston groove - 13/01/2009
I do wish people would stop trotting out that trite "Dawkins is starting his own religion" rubbish - he's patently not. He's stating the obvious.
Josh Bailey - 13/01/2009
Keep banging that drum all you like Ormiston - you are condemning a fairly vast segment of the population to profound ignorance of the "obvious" if you back the militance of Dawkins. I'm not talking about believing in God - although I maintain that philosophically, evidentially, morally, socially and from every other angle that's a perfectly reasonable belief - I'm talking about those who aren't willing to speak definitively on the subject, as they have some modicum of their own intellectual poverty when it comes to comprehending the enormity of the universe. Dawkins' arrogance is almost as large as his contempt for everyone who disagrees with him. Meanwhile, well said Mark and Justin.
ormiston groove - 13/01/2009
But that's the point. Dawkins doesn't speak definitively on the subject - I'll admit he comes close, but saying there's almost certainly not a god is not the same thing. That aside, how is believing in god a perfectly reasonable belief from an evidential point of view? There is no evidence.
Justin Driskill - 13/01/2009
i can see how you wouldn't believe in god with a name like ormiston. no offence
ormiston groove - 13/01/2009
None taken. I'm humbled by such mordant wit.
Justin Driskill - 13/01/2009
ok i'm sorry. that was a cheap shot and i didn't mean it.
Anthony Bevan - 14/01/2009
Has anybody noticed what a wonderful metaphor is being created every time anyone "boards the atheist bus" And here is the joke in case there is someone it hasn't occurred to:- You wait years for an atheist bus and then 88 come at once.
Josh Bailey - 15/01/2009
I'm extremely happy to take up that challenge Ormiston - but this forum is unlikely to be the place. I also fear that comments such as 'evidence only looks like evidence depending on your ideological starting point' will be hailed as not answering the question - however, that's the kind of thing I'd point to. The beauty and magnificence of the universe are pretty good places to start. But I'd literally stake my life on the fact that Jesus died and then rose from the dead - as the people who proclaimed Jesus to the ancient world frequently did, with gory consequences. I trust someone who has come through death to tell me about the universe I live in - and He says there is a God who made the universe. If you're actually interested in looking into it, there are plenty of reasons to believe. I can assure you Dawkins hasn't.
Nigel Ravilious - 16/01/2009
I think it's very slightly amusing that the copy of the bus ad is pretty much a quote from the bible. The Message paraphrase for Ecclesiastes 3 ends with "So I made up my mind that there's nothing better for us men and women than to have a good time in whatever we do--that's our lot. Who knows if there's anything else to life?" There is indeed "nothing new under the sun"...!