Bus Wars - The Christians Fight Back

[Mr.Clark]

The Christian ad is backed by faith and a belief that he does exist - so no scientific proof needed.

No other organisation could get away with outrageous advertising slogans like that for those reasons.

"Carlsberg. Definitely the greatest beer in the world."

"Slimfast guarantees you'll lose weight - no willpower required, just have faith."

What makes religion so special?

Also, note the atheist advert didn't say "there's no god" - therefore it's not shackled by faith in the same way religion is.

 

[Dolph]

No other organisation could get away with outrageous advertising slogans like that for those reasons.

"Carlsberg. Definitely the greatest beer in the world."

"Slimfast guarantees you'll lose weight - no willpower required, just have faith."

What makes religion so special?

Also, note the atheist advert didn't say "there's no god" - therefore it's not shackled by faith in the same way religion is.

Because the ASA has already ruled that the atheists are not making objective statements, instead they are making statements of belief and as such they are both making statements that cannot be objectively demonstrated, nor is there a requirement to... and the same rules apply to both sides?

As for not being shackled by faith, it's completely testable and therefore based on assumptions rather than evidence, how is it not a statement of faith?

 

[yantorsen]

No other organisation could get away with outrageous advertising slogans like that for those reasons.

"Carlsberg. Definitely the greatest beer in the world."

"Slimfast guarantees you'll lose weight - no willpower required, just have faith."

What makes religion so special?

Also, note the atheist advert didn't say "there's no god" - therefore it's not shackled by faith in the same way religion is.

religion isn't selling anything

 

[Mr.Clark]

Because the ASA has already ruled that the atheists are not making objective statements, instead they are making statements of belief and as such they are both making statements that cannot be objectively demonstrated, nor is there a requirement to... and the same rules apply to both sides?

Probably is a statement of belief and a matter of opinion.

Definitely is a statement of fact and needs some proof behind it.


Therefore the same rules don't apply to both sides, as one is giving an opinion (like any advert) and the other is claiming something as true. No-one can claim that their product is "definitely" better than someone else;s unless they can prove it.

religion isn't selling anything

HAHA, right. Yes. *snigger*

 

[Dolph]

Probably is a statement of belief and a matter of opinion.

Definitely is a statement of fact and needs some proof behind it.

Not necessarily. If I state "Gordon Brown is an idiot", that doesn't make it so, it's still a matter of opinion or belief.

Therefore the same rules don't apply to both sides, as one is giving an opinion (like any advert) and the other is claiming something as true. No-one can claim that their product is "definitely" better than someone else;s unless they can prove it.

Both sides are giving opinion, it's just that the christians are being more honest about their beliefs.

 

[yantorsen]

HAHA, right. Yes. *snigger*

There not, it's no different to a political party advertising there ideas as fact, when half the time there not.

Just because you have some conspiracies about religion, doesn't change the law, the advert isn't trying to sell anything to make money. Simple.

 

[Mr.Clark]

Not necessarily. If I state "Gordon Brown is an idiot", that doesn't make it so, it's still a matter of opinion or belief.

I'm not saying writing it down makes it true. You would't be allowed to put that on an advert either. If you put "Gordon Brown is blind in one eye" in an advert, that's something you can check on.

Both sides are giving opinion, it's just that the christians are being more honest about their beliefs.

Not really. Only someone foolish would claim to know either way. (I know we're getting back to the semantics of what an atheist is, but use weak and strong atheism again - it's easier than lumping most atheists in with the agnostics where they technically belong. Even Dawkins won't go and say that there's definitely no god)

 

[RDM]

Not really, just having studied a religion properly would help. He seems to think all the wars in the world are a result of religion.

As far as I am aware Dawkins has never expressed that opinion. I would guess the reason why he is so rabidly anti-religous is due to the constant criticism his area of work gets from certain religions. Tends to make you bitter after a while.

Which is just ridiculous. If he knew anything about religion, and the positives it brings then he would eat his words.

What positives are available only through religion?

I wouldn't call myself an expert no, I know quite a lot about religion, but I'm far from an expert.

In that case, how exactly did Judas die? Clock.It never did answer me...

 

[Dolph]

I'm not saying writing it down makes it true. You would't be allowed to put that on an advert either. If you put "Gordon Brown is blind in one eye" in an advert, that's something you can check on.

Not really. Only someone foolish would claim to know either way. (I know we're getting back to the semantics of what an atheist is, but use weak and strong atheism again - it's easier than lumping most atheists in with the agnostics where they technically belong. Even Dawkins won't go and say that there's definitely no god)

Weak atheism is still faith based, there's no evidence for disbelief or belief in god, it's all based on assumptions. You can't even make the probably statement without significant faith based assumptions.

Unless you're trying to use the flakey 'implicit' atheism definition which has come about in atheist circles in modern times, but is generally ignored by everyone else as being a pretty meaningless and useless term with no basis in history, philosophy or linguistics.

 

[vincent1989]

In that case, how exactly did Judas die?

which one?

 

[yantorsen]

As far as I am aware Dawkins has never expressed that opinion. I would guess the reason why he is so rabidly anti-religous is due to the constant criticism his area of work gets from certain religions. Tends to make you bitter after a while.

Have you read the God delusion? He's states often various historical and even more recent wars he claims would not have happened without religion.

What positives are available only through religion?

It makes people happy, a sense of belonging, a supportive community, gets more people involved in charity, it gives people more motives to be "good" (It can have reverse effect in extreme cases, but so can anything), it arugably help society if people are not for example getting pregnant when there teenager etc.

In that case, how exactly did Judas die? Clock.It never did answer me...

He hung himself

 

[clv101]

What positives are available only through religion?

It makes people happy, a sense of belonging, a supportive community, gets more people involved in charity, it gives people more motives to be "good" (It can have reverse effect in extreme cases, but so can anything), it arugably help society if people are not for example getting pregnant when there teenager etc.

Makes people happy? sense of belonging? Only through religion? Eh?

 

[yantorsen]

Makes people happy? sense of belonging? Only through religion? Eh?

I mean a kind of "inner" happiness. Sure you can get that from other means, but religion offers a very good way to get that for those who believe.

 

[RDM]

Have you read the God delusion? He's states often various historical and even more recent wars he claims would not have happened without religion.

Which is a completely different position from all wars are created by religion, which is what you originally stated.

It makes people happy, a sense of belonging, a supportive community, gets more people involved in charity, it gives people more motives to be "good" (It can have reverse effect in extreme cases, but so can anything), it arugably help society if people are not for example getting pregnant when there teenager etc.

All of which can be acheived without religion (some probably better handled outside of religion). So no positives which are only due to religion?

He hung himself

Acts suggests otherwise. Of course with a bit of lyrical magic you can reconcile both, but you have to make stuff up to do it.

 

[Mr.Clark]

Weak atheism is still faith based, there's no evidence for disbelief or belief in god, it's all based on assumptions. You can't even make the probably statement without significant faith based assumptions.

Well in that case belief in the christian god should be given exactly the same relevance in modern life as belief in Zeus, pixies, the flying spaghetti monster and Father Christmas.

The reason that atheists are a bit more positive about the (probability of) non-existence of god than about these others is that the christians are a louder pressure group than the Zeus worshippers.

That's social rather than faith.

 

[GarethDW]

religion isn't selling anything

There not, it's no different to a political party advertising there ideas as fact, when half the time there not.

Just because you have some conspiracies about religion, doesn't change the law, the advert isn't trying to sell anything to make money. Simple.

This is simply not true.

Advertising exists in various forms, and can be used to persuade people to participate in activities that do not require any financial outlay. They are not limited to only persuading people to purchase or consume products or use services that require payment.

Examples of non-paying services for which advertising exists include political parties, recruitment for the armed forces, interest groups and, yes, religious organisations.

However, in all these cases, the advertiser is subject to the same regulations as any other organisation advertising their products. The fact that they are not asking you to part with your cash is irrelevant. They can not make spurious claims of fact without being able to back it up. The exception to this is when an advert expresses an opinion, as in the case of the Atheists' adverts, but that's got naff all to do with the adverts not asking you to put your hand in your pocket.

 

[yantorsen]

This is simply not true.

Advertising exists in various forms, and can be used to persuade people to participate in activities that do not require any financial outlay. They are not limited to only persuading people to purchase or consume products or use services that require payment.

Examples of non-paying services for which advertising exists include political parties, recruitment for the armed forces, interest groups and, yes, religious organisations.

However, in all these cases, the advertiser is subject to the same regulations as any other organisation advertising their products. The fact that they are not asking you to part with your cash is irrelevant. They can not make spurious claims of fact without being able to back it up. The exception to this is when an advert expresses an opinion, as in the case of the Atheists' adverts, but that's got naff all to do with the adverts not asking you to put your hand in your pocket.

They are not advertising a product though. It is simply true.

 

[yantorsen]

All of which can be achieved without religion (some probably better handled outside of religion). So no positives which are only due to religion?

No it can't, you can't get a sense of spirituality without religion/similar. But you probably don't believe in that so it's pretty pointless arguing. I would also argue that religion has created an awful lot of charities, and done an awful lot of good in general, which just wouldn't of happened without it. But of course your going to argue otherwise and we've had this argument before, I don't particularly wish to repeat myself.

 

[Dolph]

No it can't, you can't get a sense of spirituality without religion/similar. But you probably don't believe in that so it's pretty pointless arguing. I would also argue that religion has created an awful lot of charities, and done an awful lot of good in general, which just wouldn't of happened without it. But of course your going to argue otherwise and we've had this argument before, I don't particularly wish to repeat myself.

Yes you can, you don't need religion to be spiritual.

 

[Mr.Clark]

They are not advertising a product though. It is simply true.

You can't prove that, which is kind of the point of this whole discussion...