Atheist Bus Campaign

foofly

Here in the UK we're enjoying the Atheist Bus Campaign. The Atheist Bus Campaign is a reaction to the adverts for a Christian campaign that said that if you didn't believe in god you'd go to hell. So a few months a go a journalist called Ariane Sherine wrote on the Guardian website that if every atheist reading the website donated £5 then she could fund a series of outdoor adverts saying "There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and get on with your life." So people actually got behind her and and she stuck to her word.



I'm putting this up here to ask if atheism requires this kind of voice?

Jason

Yes.

chaosof99

I saw a few news reports about this a few weeks back. I think this is great stuff for consciousness raising.


Oh yeah, and CNN fails in it's captions.

Apreche

Yes.

Indeed. There's a churchy ad campaign in the NY subways right now. It's not telling you that you will go to hell. It's mostly just bible passages and that sort of thing. Regardless, any loud and wrong public speech should be met with louder counter-speech no matter what the subject matter.

Also, the religious ads should not be allowed. It's false advertising. I know the false advertising laws are really strict over there, because Apple keeps getting in trouble.

Jason

Also, they spelled atheist incorrectly under Dawkins' name.

MrRoboto

Yes.

Indeed. There's a churchy ad campaign in the NY subways right now. It's not telling you that you will go to hell. It's mostly just bible passages and that sort of thing. Regardless, any loud and wrong public speech should be met with louder counter-speech no matter what the subject matter.

Also, the religious ads should not be allowed. It's false advertising. I know the false advertising laws are really strict over there, because Apple keeps getting in trouble.

For someone that is so vocal on freedom of speech and the constitution, I find the comment hypocritical, and if its false advertising, could you prove in a court that there's actually no God?

Apreche

For someone that is so vocal on freedom of speech and the constitution, I find the comment hypocritical, and if its false advertising, could you prove in a court that there's actually no God?

I don't have to. You have to prove there is.

Imagine if I was selling some medicine. I wrote on the package that the medicine cures the common cold. You can't prove the medicine doesn't cure the common cold, but I can't prove it does. Is it false advertising? The answer is yes. If I can't prove what I'm saying is right, then it's false advertising. If you want to advertise something, you have to provide evidence to back up your claims. Even if nobody can counter your claims, it doesn't matter. The burden of proof is on the advertiser.

While I'm all for free speech, advertising is something different. Advertising is commercial speech. It has been demonstrated time and time again that the US government, at least, has 100% full power to regulate commerce. So even if speech, which is normally protected, is commercial, the government can regulate it. Thus, advertising falls outside of free speech, and the government can outlaw false advertising.

MrRoboto

For someone that is so vocal on freedom of speech and the constitution, I find the comment hypocritical, and if its false advertising, could you prove in a court that there's actually no God?

I don't have to. You have to prove there is.

Imagine if I was selling some medicine. I wrote on the package that the medicine cures the common cold. You can't prove the medicine doesn't cure the common cold, but I can't prove it does. Is it false advertising? The answer is yes. If I can't prove what I'm saying is right, then it's false advertising. If you want to advertise something, you have to provide evidence to back up your claims. Even if nobody can counter your claims, it doesn't matter. The burden of proof is on the advertiser.

While I'm all for free speech, advertising is something different. Advertising is commercial speech. It has been demonstrated time and time again that the US government, at least, has 100% full power to regulate commerce. So even if speech, which is normally protected, is commercial, the government can regulate it. Thus, advertising falls outside of free speech, and the government can outlaw false advertising.

I thought your system worked on the premise "innocent till proven guilty", so you in fact have to prove that there is no God.
And if it falls under false advertising, then how can you support an atheist campaign?

Apreche

I thought your system worked on the premise "innocent till proven guilty", so you in fact have to prove that there is no God.
And if it falls under false advertising, then how can you support an atheist campaign?

Innocent until proven guilty is for when you are in court.

You go to court under charges of false advertising. We presume you are innocent until proven guilty. Question number one, did you do this advertising? Yes, we have here the contract you signed with the advertising company. Question two, is the advertising false? Yes, you do not have sufficient evidence to support the claims in the advertising. Result, you are proved guilty of false advertising.

The religious advertisements said "you will go to hell". There's no evidence to support that. Therefore, the advertising is false.
The atheist advertisements have a real quote fro Katherine Hepburn. It's something a real person said. They also say that there is probably no god. The lack of evidence for god is in itself ample evidence to support the claim that there is probably no god. The advertising is not false.

Isn't it funny how everyone who understands burden of proof is atheist, and no religious people understand it? I'm sure there has to be an exception somewhere, but I've never come across one. This simple concept of burden of proof, who must provide evidence and for what. When things must be proven right or wrong. We did a whole show on it, but people still don't get it. I think somewhere in the ability to comprehend this concept lies the key.

MrRoboto

So you base the whole validity of the argument on a quote by someone? then who is to say that "You are going to hell" is not a quote from pastor X? The bible passages on the ads were also written by someone, so they mus be as valid? Would you be ok with a "There probably is a God, you are going to hell! -Pastor X-" ad?
I am not defending the Christians nor do I want to go into the whole Atheist/Religious argument. I'm just defending that they have the right to freely exercise their religion or lack of as stated on the first amendment.

Apreche

So you base the whole validity of the argument on a quote by someone? then who is to say that "You are going to hell" is not a quote from pastor X? The bible passages on the ads were also written by someone, so they mus be as valid? Would you be ok with a "There probably is a God, you are going to hell! -Pastor X-" ad?
I am not defending the Christians nor do I want to go into the whole Atheist/Religious argument. I'm just defending that they have the right to freely exercise their religion or lack of as stated on the first amendment.

I'm not basing the validity of the argument on the quote. All I'm saying is that the advertisement contains a quote. That quote is something that person actually said. Also, the contents of the quote are not false advertising. She claimed she was an atheist, and claimed what she believed. There's nothing false about that. If the ad says "I believe in god, and I believe you are going to hell" - Pastor X, that would be fine. But to say "You are going to hell" is false advertising because it can't be supported by evidence.

I am all for people's right to freely exercise their religious freedom. However, false commercial speech extends beyond exercising religious freedom. Just because religion is tied to something doesn't excuse you from breaking the law. You can't murder someone and say it's ok because you are in a murdering religion. You also can't falsely advertise and say it's ok because you believe in false advertising. It's the same thing.

MrRoboto

You can't compare murder with freedom of speech in the first place, as all humans also have the right to live, but there is no "all humans have the right to not hear about other people beliefs", just like I cant sue you for saying "There is no God" yo can't sue someone for saying "There is a God", both "There is no proof that there is a God, therefore there is no God" and "There is no proof that there is no God, therefore there can be a God" are valid.

And since we are in the subject of legality, would that really fly in a courtroom? religion as false advertising? wouldn't that be imposing your beliefs over other peoples? they are not selling something, as you don't have to pay to be part of a church, there is no membership fee, they are not selling a service, since religion is something you can experience personally.

TheWhaleShark

"There is no proof that there is no God, therefore there can be a God"

Flying Spaghetti Monster

I'm not quite sure how the law works, but if you're accusing someone of a crime, you must bring evidence demonstrating the commission of said crime. As far as I'm aware, a religious ad isn't technically selling you something (I would say that it is, but that's a different story), so I'm not sure that it could be considered false advertising.

Any lawyerly types want to weigh in?

Jason

I'm not a lawyerly type, but I can tell you that there's no way to prove damage if you're dead and don't get to heaven. Religion also doesn't sell a product; and then there's that nasty little first amendment thing.

Still, the burden of proof remains on the person making a claim.

Apreche

Religion also doesn't sell a product; and then there's that nasty little first amendment thing.

It doesn't matter if you are selling a product or not. Pharmaceutical companies have their drug advertisements regulated, and while they have products, the ads are aimed at people who can not directly purchase those products. Also, advertisements for a church are selling you on going to church, where they hope you will give them money.

If you want to actually require the advertisement to have a profit motive, the atheist ad is the only one that is only trying to spread ideas and not actually make any money.

Thaed

In the United States, case law treats commercial speech differently from religious speech. Some people think that proselytizing should be treated as Scott would have it.

TheWhaleShark

Religion also doesn't sell a product; and then there's that nasty little first amendment thing.

It doesn't matter if you are selling a product or not. Pharmaceutical companies have their drug advertisements regulated, and while they have products, the ads are aimed at people who can not directly purchase those products.

But they are selling products, and yes, you can purchase those products. You might have to do some other things first, but you can still purchase them. That's like saying a car maker isn't advertising to people who don't have lisences.

MrRoboto

If you want to actually require the advertisement to have a profit motive, the atheist ad is the only one that is only trying to spread ideas and not actually make any money.

The lady did ask for money to place the ads, and I'm pretty sure there must be atheist organizations all over the world that do charity and stuff, but still have to page wages to their employees, they must get a budget from somewhere no?

foofly

If you want to actually require the advertisement to have a profit motive, the atheist ad is the only one that is only trying to spread ideas and not actually make any money.

The lady did ask for money to place the ads, and I'm pretty sure there must be atheist organizations all over the world that do charity and stuff, but still have to page wages to their employees, they must get a budget from somewhere no?

Well, she didn't ask for money. She was just saying that if people clubbed together then it could happen. Someone else decided to actually take her idea and make it solid.

HMTKSteve

Actually it may not be false advertising. There is a "Hell on Earth", Hell, Michigan. I think there is also one in the Caribbean because I remember my parents bringing me back a shirt when they went on a cruise. It was one of those, "my parents went to Hell and all I got was this shirt" shirts.

Whatever group put up those signs about going to Hell could offer a free bus ride there for some atheists. Would that allow them to throw out the false advertising claim without having to prove the existence of God?

Sail

Whatever group put up those signs about going to Hell could offer a free bus ride there for some atheists. Would that allow them to throw out the false advertising claim without having to prove the existence of God?

No, considering that the ads are only run in the UK and buses can not travel over water.

WindUpBird

Eh, I'm a Catholic (although, as I always tend to note, lapsing) and I find this awesome, with the exception of Dawkins, who's a dick.

I want some FSM ads now. We need to raise awareness about the chances of beer volcanos and stripper factories in the afterlife for those who follow the eight "I'd Really You Rather Didn'ts."

Andrew

I find this awesome, with the exception of Dawkins, who's a dick.

Care to elaborate on that opinion?

WindUpBird

I find this awesome, with the exception of Dawkins, who's a dick.

Care to elaborate on that opinion?

Just my opinion, nothing more. I accept and admire the fact that he's a BRILLIANT evolutionary biologist, but I find his particular brand of crusading atheism somewhat irritating. In general, I disagree with crusading anything, which is why I'm losing MY own faith (the Children's Crusade, not removing Gallileo from the list of heretics, and pretty much everything the church did during the middle ages is unforgivable). I have a lot of friends who are atheist and have no problem with atheism in general, I just dislike Richard Dawkins's attitude that religion MUST be stamped out. Violence and evil caused by religion, yes, but I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with believing the statement "God/an afterlife/cyclic rebirth exists," especially if it leads to an overall compassionate attitude (which is why I REALLY like Buddhism).

Luke Burrage

I agree Dawkins is a bit of a dick. But sometimes the world needs some really dickish people to shake things up a bit.

Apreche

I agree Dawkins is a bit of a dick. But sometimes the world needs some really dickish people to shake things up a bit.

He's not a dick. People just hate being told they are wrong, and they hate anyone smarter than themselves. Thus, all smart people who speak their mind are inevitably viewed as dicks.

Omnutia

He's not a dick. People just hate being told they are wrong, and they hate anyone smarter than themselves. Thus, all smart people who speak their mind are inevitably viewed as dicks.

So he's not a dick but he is a dick?

Apreche

So he's not a dick but he is a dick?

He's not actually a dick. He's not angry or hateful or mean. He's friendly and cool. It's just that stupid people will always perceive intelligence as meanness.

gomidog

You know, Scott, Dawkins is a lot like you. He is rather uncompromising in his beliefs and he absolutely refuses to pull punches when fighting for something. I'm a lot more live and let live and I tend to sugar-coat stuff when I make accusations, to avoid making people feel bad. Therefore, people like you and Dawkins can be very abrasive, which leads to the moniker of "dick." It's just the strong, stubborn way you both approach things.

Apreche

You know, Scott, Dawkins is a lot like you. He is rather uncompromising in his beliefs and he absolutely refuses to pull punches when fighting for something. I'm a lot more live and let live and I tend to sugar-coat stuff when I make accusations, to avoid making people feel bad. Therefore, people like you and Dawkins can be very abrasive, which leads to the moniker of "dick." It's just the strong, stubborn way you both approach things.

Look who's talking live and let live! Are you not the same Emily who can't live with someone if they don't follow your orders and do as you say? Are you sure you are the live and let live? That's not how I remember it.

Also, Boasas #300 explains everything.


Think of it like this. You know the old saying, people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones? Well, anyone who lives a lie lives in a glass house. Anyone who lives by the truth lives in a concrete house. When their houses break, they hate the person who lives in the concrete house. They just keep rebuilding the glass house over and over, and they hate everyone who tells them to build a concrete house. Really? Who is the dick? Nobody is a dick. What happening is idiots who can't handle the truth transplant their hate for themselves onto people who bring truth.

Dawkins isn't a mean guy. You really think if you met him in person he would be mean and nasty? He's a polite tea drinking old British professor. He just happens to not be a coward. If being nice means being a coward, count me out. Seriously, someone give me an actual concrete example of something Dawkins has said or done that you think is mean or not true?

If you seriously think that smart people should lie, or keep their mouths shut, in order to not attract the ire of idiots, and others who can't handle the truth, raise your hand now.

Omnutia

If you seriously think that smart people should lie, or keep their mouths shut, in order to not attract the ire of idiots, and others who can't handle the truth, raise your hand now.

So we're either with you or against you? Have you ever considered persuasion?