Christian challenges atheist bus advert

Source: Politics.CO.UK

A leading Christian activist has made a formal complaint about the atheist bus adverts which were launched nationwide this week.

The 800 buses launched for the campaign feature the slogan: "There is probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life."

Now Stephen Green of Christian Voice, who formerly hit the front pages by launching a legal challenge against Jerry Springer the Opera on the BBC, has complained to the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) and is calling for the adverts to be withdrawn.

Mr Green released a statement saying: "I believe the ad breaks the Advertising Code, unless the advertisers hold evidence that God probably does not exist.


Read more: http://www.politics.co.uk/news/opinion-former-index/legal-and-constitutional/christian-challenges-atheist-bus-advert-$1259459.htm

---

http://www.politics.co.uk/photo/christian-challenges-atheist-bus-advert-$7020184$300.jpg

This guy is trying to manipulate their truth in advertising laws. It has nothing to do with being offended.

"Professor Grayling admitted secretly welcoming any Advertising Standards inquiry into the adverts, because it would necessarily impact on Christian adverts as well."

Doesn't usually last long. May be it is more dangerous or just harder in the US. May be it isn't reported as heavily because it is on a different scale.

Because they might get shot or something (Christians and guns just go together in the USA)...or the buses will get torched and so finding a company that will DO it is very difficult. Remember....the Christians over here kill people they don't like too. It's not just in the Middle East or India.

now they might say "Assassinate an Atheist for Allah".

They refute their own position - insisting proof be forthcoming or it's not valid to advertise the belief there is no god. Why can't they see the same criteria should be required for them to advertise their belief that there is a god? Neither position can be backed up with empirical proof, therefore their beef is moot.

Folks who are uncomfortable accepting that some people find it impossible to believe in religious dogma are actually fearful it will undermine their own beliefs. If, by preventing non-believers from expressing their beliefs, it is the only way they can hold onto their own belief in god, then their so-called faith certainly is fragile.

But more than likely they are more fearful they'll lose their cash cow and special privileges.

Yes, But since the Universe appears to be as it would without a god, a god is not needed. So as far as I'm concerned, it's up to religionists to show why there need be some supernatural force to make things the way they are.

And of course:

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof."

nt

The laws are different. The burden of proof is different.
I don't think the Christian has a case because I bet the atheist group can satisfy the legal requirements for showing that they are not lying. However, let's not try to project US laws on a foreign country.

How on earth do you prove there "probably" isn't a God?

This one is laughable.

Sorry, Green, but the burden of proof is on your side.

If that very mild message threatens your faith, then it's not a very strong faith to begin with.

Depending upon the particulars of the law there the burden of proof may be on the group putting up the 'advertisement'. I doubt however that the case will go much of anywhere.

with stupid accusations and court cases. He owed so much money to the BBC (ie we license payers) after he lost a case that he claimed he would go bankrupt if he had to pay it. But the arsehole is still around.

He's a far right nutter, who thinks the EU is the anti-Christ, and that creationism should be taught in schools. He tried to link up with the racist British National Party, until they said they accept evolution:



He hadn't hesitated earlier, although the racist nature of the BNP is well-known to everyone. It was only when they said creationism was rubbish that it ended in tears. That gives you an idea of Green's integrity.

by providing evidence there is a God, since he demands proof that there probably is no God.
Put up or shut up.

Somewhere God (if there is one) is probably laughing his/her ass (if he/she has one) off, although I can't prove it.:rofl:

We should burn every holy book in existence, followed up by every holy man. The world will be better off without religion!

“Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest.”

-- Denis Diderot

They're the nearest thing we've got here to your Christian Right groups. Fortunately they are less influential. We're a MUCH more secular country, and for instance have quite a few openly atheist MPs; and the Church of England tend to be less vehement about social issues than some other denominations. However, this group is nasty: virulently anti-abortion, anti-homosexuality, pro-religion influencing laws, etc.

DU-ers may be interested in their comments on the election of Obama:

Stephen Green, National Director of Christian Voice, said today:

'Too many people are swooning over Obama because he is the first African-American president and they think that means he must understand the plight of the less fortunate.

'But his attitude to the vulnerable may be gauged by his passionate support for abortion, even partial-birth abortion, where a baby is killed at the very moment it is delivered. It gets worse. Obama single-handedly wrecked the Illinois version of the Born Alive Act, which grants medical treatment to babies mistakenly born alive after abortion. Ignoring them, allowing them to die, which Obama supports, has been described by even the most hardened pro-abortion advocates as 'crossing the line between abortion and infanticide.'

'Unless he has a massive God-inspired change of heart, Obama will switch funding from chastity-based projects to sex education models like ours which promote promiscuity, poor money into pro-abortion bodies such as UNFPA and IPPF, and if there is more he can do to promote the death-culture of abortion and gay rights, he will find it. With anti-Christian Democrats now firmly in control of both houses, he should meet no opposition. Barring a miracle of repentance, it is ironic that a man with Kenyan parentage will bring shame on his roots by allying himself with the eugenicists who think there are too many black people in Africa and attempting to impose the cultural imperialism of population control.

'Even the hope of bringing the troops home will not now materialise. It seems Obama will only end the occupation of Iraq to deploy those forces in the blood-bath of Afghanistan . And that is all about building an oil-pipeline.

'To be even-handed, McCain was pro-war and would not have been staunchly pro-life. On other issues, he was so much of a Washington insider that conservatives and Evangelical Christians appear to have been reluctant to vote for him. The best that can be said is that he would have been slightly better at resisting the forces of evil than Obama. McCain's defeat shows a luke-warm Republican candidate will never be elected.

'A man who regards the birth of a child as a punishment and thinks the Sermon on the Mount mandates same-sex unions is not a man who knows the mind of God. I believe an-repentant Obama will draw the USA further into its covenant with death and it will take a miracle from the Lord to annul it. The only bright light is, God is working His purpose out, He is a God of miracles and He knows what He is doing.

'In practical terms, Christians need to be praying for this man to come to his senses like the prodigal son, turn to the Father and choose life. In the meantime, let us forget all the adulation and hope based on Obama's colour and parentage. God does not do race and colour, He does obedience to His word. And His word also warns against judging people by appearances. On the subject of leaders, it specifically says: "Choose able men, such as fear God, men of truth," (Exod 18:21) "Put not your trust in princes ... in whom is no help" warns Psalm 146:3. "It is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in princes", says Psalm 118:9. The Lord Jesus says: "Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment" (John 7:24).

'If Obama does not repent, and if God takes against him as a result, things he tries to do in every area, including economics, are doomed to fail. Then, with the global economic down-turn mutating into recession, the Republicans may yet find this was a good election for them to lose. Assuming they adopt a God-fearing candidate next time round, of course.'


(Their site should be labelled: "Warning - May Contain Nuts'!_

What the hell is "poor money"?

What a moran!

Well first of all, the evidence has been in front of you all your life, its the same evidence that Zeus and the FSM do not exist. Second of all, if they actually up hold the standard, there will be no more public writing about God in Britain, because I know for damn sure no one has evidence that God probably exists.

Religious people tend to be so fucking obnoxious! Keep your fantasies private, or else I'll tell ya all about mine, and I don't think you'd enjoy it!

We must demand a FSM invocation at the Inaugural, and Obama should add the words "so help me Flying Spaghetti Monster" at the end of his oath taking. Only then, we will have change we can believe in.

One of my fundy bosses has a son who's living in London right now with his wife and two children. They sold everything and went to London to set up an internet ministry (apparently you can't minister to someone over the internets from the US). :sarcasm: I bet this makes them crazy every time they see a bus pass by . . . .

Thought not. ;)

I think the burden legally is on the party doing the advertising in their legal system. I could be wrong but I am not sure he needs to prove anything.

It may, it may not. I doubt the atheists would loose either way.

But I cannot for the life of me see any cause for a suit here.

He doesn't like them, fine. I don't, either.

He can't prove his position; they can't prove theirs - they pay the money, they get their ad.

Seems strange to me to find this so upsetting that he'd want to file suit.

It isn't like the atheist group just decided to put the adverts on buses for no reason. It was a response to a christian campaign. So it is a tit for tat kind of thing.

His claimed grounds are that they can not prove what they are saying which may be required under their legal system.

As for his reason the guy is a christian nutter know for such things.

Why else do anything but shrug?

nt

because they have never provide empirical evidence that it does exist. But they continue to assert that it does...

Can this so-called christian just take his own life and leave everybody else alone.:hi:

to us non-believers when we see adverts for Jesus.

There is this huge billboard on I-40 north of Wilmington, NC that I saw last week. It has this comical looking Jesus pointing it's finger (someone here has a similar pic in their sig) in big bold words, it reads, "Jesus has your number. REPENT NOW!"
What a hoot! :silly:

That doesn't violate anything, does it?

Let's let this one go to trial, because if it stands, whenever an ad saying that "God says this" or "God expects that", these ads can be shot down for lack of proof.

Religionists who want to bring up the concept of "proof" as having a bearing on advertising would be wise to be quiet. That could really throw a spanner into their lucrative little racket.