How Bizzare! Whose election?

The Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost…you wait all day for one God and then three come at once!

Honestly, who gets worked up about what’s written on a bus? Who looks at a bus and thinks ‘bugger me, I’d thought of that but now that you mention it…’

How is this remotely offensive?

So was it just deemed too problematic to police truth-telling in political adverts? Just to pick an easy example, could a political party run an advert saying that smoking isn’t linked to cancer? What actually are the rules here?

Basically, they said there ‘definitely’ is a god – which is unprovable.

but the ASA had to upheld the ad because its a political party. As Alex asks above, its still unclear how far political parties can go in making spurious claims.

It was an inevitable response to the Agnostic Bus (there wasn’t an Atheist Bus because of the cop-out ‘probably’): we should just laugh it off otherwise we won’t get to mock believers’ lack of humour the next time they throw a hissy-fit.

These complaints make us look weak.

To say that there probably isn’t a God is also unprovable – if there is no scientific basis upon which to say there either is or isn’t a God then there is no such basis to say that there probably is or isn’t one. As to them being a political party (the bus ads are the first I’ve heard of them), well, one could say that the Tories’ adverts claiming that New Labour = New Labour are also unprovable – does this mean they warrant complaints and possible removal?

I think we should just ignore these ads. I think their tone is unnecessarily provocative and confrontational, and so counterproductive to the aim of getting people to join the party they advertise. The implication that joining their party is some kind of prerequisite to enjoying one’s life is only offensive if the implication that a belief in God makes people worry and therefore prevents them from enjoying their life (as was the case with the Atheist campaign) – and I don’t think either were offensive, just crass and unconvincing though.

I’d like to see a debate between Ariane Sherine and someone from the Christian Party – to hammer out this issue in the public instead of trading insults through bus slogans, which seems a bit childish and doesn’t allow for proper discussion, only one-way messaging.

What about claims made in most advertising ads – how many are true ?

This seems to have more to do with the number of complaints rather than anything else (sad gits).

Incidentally, there is a god – his name is Robbie Fowler.

I remember a thread on CiF a few years back when someone asked if Christians were crucifixes and Jews wear the Star of David, what should an atheist wear? The best answer – by miles – was ‘a knowing smile’.

An air of condecension is a powerful weapon.

*Meant to say “New Labour = New Danger”… obviously.

It seems like another stinking example of religion’s continued privileges that the atheists have to moderate the tone of their message (‘There PROBABLY isn’t a God’) in order to comply with ASA guidelines whilst the religionists get away with spreading their evidence-less claims (‘There DEFINITELY is a God’). Pity the hardcore Christians get away with it by being a political party – what would be needed for the athesist bus campaign to register as a political party so that their undiluted slogans can be plastered on the sides of buses?

The problem with an ‘Atheist Party’ is that we don’t necessarily have anything in common other than a disbelief.

It’s not like a religion, where a belief in the supernatural comes with a particular moral outlook.

Yes, I’m not seriously advocating an ‘Atheist Party’, just imagining the establishment of one being a useful tool in countering Christian party propaganda

Shatterface@6: “Agnostic Bus”

This can get a bit confusing. Traditionally, agnosticism referred quite strictly to one’s position on the evidence for the existence of a god or gods: Either that such evidence is impossible, or at least that it is unavailable. Notably, it says nothing about actual belief, which need not be based on sufficient evidence, and so was compatable with both theist and atheist views. (So you could have a four way split: Gnostic theist, gnostic atheist, agnostic theist and agnostic atheist.)

Nowadays the term ‘agnostic’ is used rather differently, to refer to someone who is not sure 100% sure one way or another (and so it refers to belief rather than knowledge). Nevertheless, what is referred to is still a form of atheism, specifically ‘weak’ atheism.

Atheism is a lack of belief in a god or gods. Where this involves a positive belief that there is no god or gods, this is ‘strong’ atheism. Otherwise it is ‘weak’ atheism, but atheism nonetheless. This is what is now generally referred to as agnosticism. It is generally thought that there is a strict dichotomy here: You either have a belief in a god or gods (theism), or you lack such a belief (atheism).

Now, personally I’m happy to concede that someone could be in the position where they are genuinely unsure whether they believe or don’t believe, and so split this dichotomy. However, what doesn’t split the dichotomy is merely thinking that there is not enough evidence to be sure one way or another. One thing that hasn’t changed is that the theism / atheism split is based on beliefs, not evidence. So it is perfectly conceivable for someone to believe that there is absolutely no credible evidence for a god, and yet believe in one wholeheartedly.

Which is all a long-winded way of saying that while it might be fair to call it an Agnostic Bus, that doesn’t stop it also being an Atheist Bus. ‘Probably’ is still a belief statement. If it said “We really can’t know whether or not there is a God” then at least under the old definition it would be agnostic but not necessarily atheist, as it is compatable with religious belief.

On a last note, I’m not even convinced that “probably” is enough to make it agnostic in the modern sense. We judge most things by probability rather than certainty: If someone said that global warming was probably caused by human activity, would that be enough to make them agnostic on madmade global warming? It seems rather a high bar to avoid the label!

Shatterface

Your first comment on here would seem to imply that all LC regulars are atheists, when some of us (or me anyway!) are actually believers. Even if we are in the minority on here please remember that we are here! Pretty Please

As it happens I think the advert would have been far more convincing by retaining the probably as it would have given the whole thing a greater dose of humour, something that organised religion of all branches could probably do with. It would also have prevented them from being accused of getting around advertising standards on a technicality (something which they clearly have done by doing it as a political party)