Scooby Do
New Member
Where's my pic?
Posts: 21,324
|
Post by Scooby Do on Feb 7, 2009 7:43:34 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Beachcomber on Feb 7, 2009 9:12:42 GMT
In order to bring a successful prosecution you'd have to prove God didn't exist.
Quite difficult to prove a negative isn't it ?
|
|
|
|
Post by flatandy on Feb 7, 2009 9:59:14 GMT
Well, I think these, combined with the atheist buses, tell us all we need to know about how utterly sad and pathetic the lives are of people who want to tell us what we should believe.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2009 10:29:43 GMT
3-1
lol
|
|
|
|
Post by takemebacktolondon on Feb 7, 2009 11:03:18 GMT
If Tony Blair says he exists you can be sure he doesn't.
|
|
|
|
Post by tarrant on Feb 7, 2009 11:33:37 GMT
Science is limited to examination of what is objective.
Science is incapable of examining the subjective.
Traditionally, scientists have worked within a code of ethics. Primary among these is they will always present their findings honestly and without prejudice.
As a consequence of this science has always steered clear of subjective subjects.
The activities of Prof Dawkins and the BHA have broken this tradition by attempting to claim scientific backing for their claims about a subjective topic, God.
There can never be any proof of any subjective notion. To dismiss something simply because it doesn't have proof is a nonsense a patent stupidity.
|
|
Scooby Do
New Member
Where's my pic?
Posts: 21,324
|
Post by Scooby Do on Feb 7, 2009 11:38:29 GMT
To dismiss something simply because it doesn't have proof is a nonsense a patent stupidity.
You could say, that to accept it without any proof is also stupid.
|
|
|
|
Post by tarrant on Feb 7, 2009 11:48:07 GMT
Do you have thoughts?
Have you ever felt hate?
Have you ever felt love?
Some examples of subjective topics.
|
|
|
|
Post by bertrus2 on Feb 7, 2009 12:04:26 GMT
Some examples of subjective topics. People express thoughts and emotions. Therefore, thoughts and emotions are open to objective comment. The gods are fictitious characters which our primitive ancestors invented to explain the world. In this sense, religion is failed science. Since religion is transmitted to children before they have the ability to think for themselves and many people exploit religion, religions persist and new ones are continually springing up. |
|
|
|
Post by Victor Meldrew on Feb 7, 2009 12:07:42 GMT
The most alarming aspect to this topic is that the standard of journalism on the BBC still shows no sign of improving.
It was pointed out to them time and time again when the initial adverts appeared on the buses that the phrase "probably no God" is an agnostic point of view rather than atheism, as they'd described it in their reports.
Now there's a follow up story, and yet again they describe the adverts as atheist. Maybe some of our licence fee can be ripped away from the vastly overpaid Jonafan Woss and invested into a school for up and coming journalists.
|
|
|
|
Post by tarrant on Feb 7, 2009 12:43:59 GMT
, thoughts and emotions are open to objective comment. Anything is open to objective comment. But science isn't about comment, that is a subjective subject. Science is about examination and measuring. Subjective matters can't be measured objectively. Hence, honest scientists stay way from these. |
|
|
|
Post by watchman on Feb 7, 2009 14:17:51 GMT
In order to bring a successful prosecution you'd have to prove God didn't exist. No, they are making an unsupportable claim: "God definitely does exist." They're the ones making the claim, the onus is on them to back it up - which they can't. This puts them in clear breach of the legislation on advertising. The only way that slogan can meet advertising rules is if it's made clear that it's a statement of opinion, not fact. In other words, something along the lines of "The Christian Party says...." |
|
|
|
Post by tarrant on Feb 7, 2009 14:33:40 GMT
No. The advertising guidelines say that an advert must not be offensive. Claims only need to be substantuated if they seek advantage. Expressions of opinion are not seeking advantage. This is set to be an increasingly silly public debate with science and many religions coming out without any credability at all.
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7842769.stmHowever, the ASA ruled the adverts were an expression of the advertiser's opinion and that the claims in it were not capable of objective substantiation. |
|
|
|
Post by watchman on Feb 7, 2009 14:38:30 GMT
I'm referring to the Trade Descriptions Act 1968, which makes it an offence for a trader to apply, by any means, false or misleading statements, or to knowingly or recklessly make such statements about goods and services.
The statement "I believe God definitely exists" is not a false or misleading statement.
The statement "God definitely exists" is a false or misleading statement if it is made without any proof being offered.
I look forward to seeing their proof.
*** re the ruling on the atheist slogan, they used the weasel words "probably"; the God-botherer ones that are proposed say "definitely" and appear to be presenting it as fact rather than opinion, in which case I think they should be made to justify their statement.
|
|
|
|
Post by norfolkdumpling on Feb 7, 2009 14:47:41 GMT
It is organised religion that is so often the cause of problems. Putting adverts on busses is unlikely to attract any new believers.
Since the dawn of time, when mankind came into existence, it has been instinctive for the human race to believe in a Creator in some form. They would have been aware of the seasons changing, the way plants appeared out of nowhere, the miracle of birth.
Something is surely in control of the Universe but who or what I don't know.
|
|
|
|
Post by watchman on Feb 7, 2009 14:49:58 GMT
Something is surely in control of the Universe but who or what I don't know. Surely it is none other than Gordon Clunking Fist Iron Chancellor "No More Boom and Bust" "I Saved the World" Brown and his one-eyed trouser snake "Lord" Mandelson? |
|
|
|
Post by norfolkdumpling on Feb 7, 2009 15:01:34 GMT
Something is surely in control of the Universe but who or what I don't know. Surely it is none other than Gordon Clunking Fist Iron Chancellor "No More Boom and Bust" "I Saved the World" Brown and his one-eyed trouser snake "Lord" Mandelson? Heaven forbid. It has to be something vastly bigger than our tiny planet. |
|
radge
New Member
Posts: 1,776
|
Post by radge on Feb 7, 2009 15:09:48 GMT
Science helps us to understand things, religion helps us to misunderstand things. Religion sucks. end of.  And Fat Andy. Your comment pretty much sums up this whole discussion thread. |
|
|
|
Post by bertrus2 on Feb 7, 2009 15:27:40 GMT
But science isn't about comment, that is a subjective subject. You are protected from the real world by a thick carapace of ignorance. We aren't talking particularly about science. The fact is that any claim you care to make about the voice in your head which you take to be your personal god, is perfectly open to comment. |
|
|
|
Post by bertrus2 on Feb 7, 2009 15:30:21 GMT
the phrase "probably no God" is an agnostic point of view rather than atheism, as they'd described it in their reports. It isn't an agnostic point of view. Atheists are not bound to say, "There is definitely no god". |
|
