It’s time we petitioned the ASA to insist religious claims in any advertising, e.g. on the supposed Jesus’ saving capabilities, include the word ‘allegedly’. Or maybe a health warning?
Unfortunately, the existence of Stephen Green can be far more easily substantiated than the existence of either God or Green’s infantile view of him/her/it.
“I believe the ad breaks the Advertising Code anyway, unless the advertisers hold evidence that God probably does not exist”
What??? So, logically, according to this berk, there IS evidence that god exits? And he thinks its because flowers are pretty and a few mad people say they hear god speaking to them in their heads???
I am SO glad we cleared that up. Why, yes, I can see now, there simply must be a god. And bless the insane and dandelions of the world for pointing that out to me. And here’s me thinking that I needed something a little more tangible as proof, Mr. Green, silly old me.
Its so stupid its laughable.
Ah yes! Stephen “Birdshit” Green the man who would be God’s mouthpiece, except ofcourse God hasn’t phoned, written, or emailed to confirm the job, as yet. “Birdshit” fumes, rants, and is often beside himself with lashings of moral outrage because of us sinfull gays, and we will keep telling him to take his God and shove it up his fundament. No God? No reason for S Birdshite Green or his looney chums, no wonder he hates the message on the bus.
If the poor dear read Pink News like we do, he would know that actually they went through great lengths to get the advert police to approve their message. There’s a statement from one of the ad chiefs that it specifically complies w/ the code b/c it only hints at a possibility of there being no God- it could go either way. Of course, that kind of defeats the purpose of the message, but hey, at least they got something on the buses!
The prev comments cracked me up. We should have a site where there is only commenting about news- it’s so much more informing than the actual news. For instance, now that I know that Steve Green’s middle name is Birdshit, I will take pains to address him by his full name. Maybe he hates homosexuals b/c they don’t address him properly. I’m sorry, Mr. Steve Birdshit Green, it won’t happen again- I promise. And I’ll try not to have sex with girls anymore, but forgive me if I occasionally slip up. And I’ll try to believe in a Supreme Being whom no one’s ever seen or even can give an identifying description of- honest to God I will. It’s terrible that I’m an atheist, I know- I don’t even believe in Santa. I’m going to go to Hell, where there is-oh horrors!- an absence of God. Just like there is in the real world. Maybe that’s because the real world is hell, where people like Mr. Green ruin your lunch.
God can’t possibly exist. No such all-powerful being would have created Stephen Green.
I’m still waiting for the evidence with regards to this god-guy some people keep on talking about. They claim he (always a guy for some reason) exists, but so far no proof. If I claim faeces really are great for your health, I am expected to substantiate. But claim the god-thing and anything goes. Funny world this is.
Every body can trust in his God, but do not force all people to trust his God. Please stop the religous power and stay away from politic
If there is a god, which I doubt, Richard Dawkins would crucify him in a debate on his own existence, and then he’d disappear in a puff of fairy dust. As for Birdbrain Birdshit Green, he’d be flicked aside in the opening comments.
Doesn’t the vile Steven Green have other things to worry about, like paying his debtors, i.e. the people/organisations that had their legal costs awarded against him after the “Jerry Springer The Opera” case?
Don’t worry, I reckon the islamic nutters will do for him if he keeps protesting at their proposed site for a mosque. He won’t be missed.
OH MY GOD – Sorry that’s not my attempt at an ultimate proof of a divine being… it’s merely the expression that accompanies my jaw hitting the floor. Just when I thought Stephen Green had covered all possible definitions of the word ‘stupid’ he adds this to the list.
Yep science has failed to come up with any clinching ultimate proof of the divine, but Stephen Green has his own theory, and he doesn’t care who knows it. Sure Stephen, well just as soon as your gut feeling based on looking at the natural world has been peer reviewed we’ll fish your comments from out of the waste paper basket. Why is anyone still listening to this egit? Next we’ll be taking soundbites from the guys that drink meths under Waterloo Bridge and bark at passing pigeons.
there is no god
the religions have to stop lying and answer to justice and law .
stop all religious teaching and indoctrination now
the governments have to protect the citizen from the lies
I see the “religious commentator” Clifford Longley is annoyed about this, arguing that “probably isn’t” is equivalent to “probably is”. Prat. I hope I’ve argued the case against this nonsence, and his assertion that the complexity of the cosmos requires a god to do it, in a blog piece I wrote yesterday on Pink Triangle. I’d be interested to know if my argument stands up or whether I really am missing something.
Unfortunately, unlike that of God or any of the attributes predicated to him/her/it by his/her/its enthusiasts, the existence of Stephen Green is all too easy to substantiate. If only we had just imagined him – but I suppose we would need serious therapy if we had!
Donate to the atheist bus campaign at http://www.justgiving.com/atheistbus
What is with the word “probably”? If you are going to make a powerful statement, don’t hedge your bets. There is no god. Plain and simple. Worry or don’t; enjoy your life or not. No one says “there’s probably no unicorns”.
Andy Armitage: the proposition is that ‘there is no reason to believe god exists’. Occam is the best answer, it;s easier to assume a piece of DNA existed forever rather than an entitiy that is supposed to have designed this, which would have been highly complex, statistically improbable – and evolution teaches that such beings appeared late in the universe, not early on. so religious people need at least 2, possibly infinite creation stories….to explain who created the designer who invented the creator etc.
Out of all the failed galaxies, collapsed stars, here we are in a tiny corner of an otherwise inhospitable solar system, where intelligent life has only been around for a tiny proportion of the age of the universe, on a planet where humans can only exist on a tiny proportion of the surface, and where 99% of all species are extinct. And will go extinct, because in 900 million years the oceans will have boiled away, they say. Some designer to send us on a collision course with Andromeda – an apprentice designer? And moreover, thanks to the Big Rip theory, there will be nothing again. Case closed, now I need a beer.
The word “probably” was included:
a) to make absolutely sure the poster complied with the ASA rules on substantiation(ironic under the circumstances); and
b) as it is impossible to prove a negative it makes the statement 100% scientifically and philosophically accurate (you cannot say with 100% certainty that anything does not exist – only that there is no evidence and/or that all the evidence is to the contrary and it’s existence is therefore unlikely).
Sadly, religion does not play by these rules and has made a hightly lucrative business and gone on a two thousand year power trip out of what is now the tiniest scintilla of entirely abstract academic theoretical doubt.
I totally agree about this idiot man Stephen Green
but I think its a shame everyone just dismisses the concept of God so easily. Surely the only sane answer is to be agnostic. I dont believe in religions at all but thats a different thing. I find that ad a bit irritating – but I cant stand Stephen Green at all either. I believe in a higher power all the same. I just wanted to say that. I know itll be dismissed out of hand but its what I believe. Id rather have faith in a higher power than in the hollowness of modern life. Ive done worshipping shopping and pissing it up at weekends and it didnt get me any fulfillment at all.
Anwyay, thats my belief. im on your side before people go crazy for disagreeing. Kind of. Kisses. xx
Dan – I appreciate that agnostics have at least considered both sides. That said, the odds of No god versus god are not a standard 50/50 split. A belief that god might make you happier has zero bearing on whether or not he’s real. I could say “I would be happier if Santa existed” but I can’t assert that the odds of him existing are 50/50.
Dawkins is agnostic to a point, in that he cannot DISprove god…It’s impossible to prove something doesn’t exist. Bertrand Russel said that it’s possible to speculate on a teapot orbiting the sun at a distance of 10,000 miles. This teapot is too small to be seen by conventional telescopes, but it could be there. Trouble is, we can’t simply guess it’s there and turn that into concrete fact. Santa may exist in another galaxy, along with unicorns, fairies, dragons etc. Something may be invisible or undiscovered. But in the abscence of hard evidence to the contrary, it’s irrational to pull random beliefs out of the sky and wish them into existance.
Dawkins essentially states that with every new scientific discovery, the gap for god to exist in is shunted further and further into the margins. Thus the ‘probably’. However when new fossils are discovered that bridge the gap between two species in the fossil record, creationists don’t see a bridge in the evolutionary chain, they see two small gaps where one big one was before, which is one reason why Dawkins sometimes gets pissed off.
To critique the value of religious belief on the basis of Stephen Green’s professional crankery is like assessing the value of liberal democracy on the basis of George W. Bush’s foreign policy. Green is an attention-seeker and a crackpot, and deserves to be comprehensively ignored. Unhappily, there will always be people who look to the likes of Green in order to get their daily dose of moral outrage, and to confirm their own prejudices.
Some of the arguments for atheism here, however, are clearly the work of Mr Green’s intellectual peers. It is difficult to argue about religion with people who clearly have no understanding of the system they are attempting to denigrate. “Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the Book of British Birds,” Terry Eagleton wrote recently in the LRB, “and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard Dawkins on theology.” To find atheists talking about the lack of scientific “evidence” for God (as though this were any more relevant than the lack of religious evidence for science), or the need to cram a “God of the gaps” into ever smaller spheres of physical influence, is simply astonishing. Our public discourse on religion now seems largely to consist of pious lunatics like Stephen Green trading inanities with the theologically illiterate and chronically self-satisfied defenders of so-called ‘rationalism’.
Rjb – I’m far from theologically illiterate. I spent most of my youth until age 22 going to regular church sermons, attending weekly RE lessons and have a born-again aunt who talks of little else. What exactly do you think I missed in those 15 years? Have you taken this line of enquiry further?
Besides, to dismiss eminent philosopher Bertrand Russell as the intellectual peer of Stephen Green is a bit rich.
Rjb – By the way, I knew Terry Eagleton’s response to the God Delusion sounded familiar. The standard atheist response to that is this…
RJB – Just felt I should add, re your theological argument…
“It is difficult to argue about religion with people who clearly have no understanding of the system they are attempting to denigrate. “Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the Book of British Birds,” Terry Eagleton wrote recently in the LRB, “and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard Dawkins on theology.”"
This argument usually results in this standard atheist response…
The gist of this is it’s all very well to obsess on the minutae details of theology, but without an underlying grasp of what constitutes actual proof that there is a god to be discussed in the first place, none of it counts.
“It is difficult to argue about religion with people who clearly have no understanding of the system they are attempting to denigrate.”
Don’t patronise us with this crap, rjb. The question is if there is a god has nothing to do with religion. As there is neither definitive proof one way or another, no is there likely to be ever, that there is a god, religion does nothing to improve the argument… religion is simply about power and control of thought. Thinking you have are authority on gods existence simply because you claim to “understand” religion is b*ollox and quite frankly, stupid.
As an aside to this issue: in reference to your mention of Patrick Jones and the cancellation of his poetry book launch – are you sure he is gay?
“Probably no god”.
It’s all a bit lame really, isn’t it?
If they realy wanted to aim for the jugular of the two currently most problematic religions, perhaps they should have drawn attention to the first Christians’ (and probably Jesus’) apocalyptic delusion, and/or Mohammed’s penchant for terrorism, rape, and nine-year-old, ahem, “wives”…