The atheist advertisements on bus campaign is about over. Thank God! Perhaps now a survey can be done to check out it’s effectiveness. Are people happier now because they have been told that God ‘probably’ does not exist? (See my previous blog post)Are more people convinced that evolution is the only way life became into existence? Are people that believe in this less worrisome?
Some are questioning the UK’s atheist bus advertisements on legal grounds. Worldnet daily reported about the campaign in an article entitled "God doesn't exist? Proof demanded! Dispute is latest in war over bus advertisements." Posted: January 10, 2009. 12:30 am Eastern. © 2009 WorldNetDaily
Officials with the Christian Voice in the United Kingdom have brought the issue of the truthfulness of the "no-God" ads to the attention of the Advertising Standards Authority, which regulates ad statements across the nation.It is doubtful that any legal action will be effective for the atheist bus campaign, but hopefully this type of advertising will not take place again. $200,000 went into the advertising. What is the benefit? Perhaps the British Humanist Association will grow in members. Richard Dawkins also contributed to the effort. Perhaps he will take a survey to see how many Britain citizens worried less due to the advertisement which says "There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life."
"Advertisements are not allowed to mislead consumers," said a statement on the organization's website. "This means that advertisers must hold evidence to prove the claims they make about their produces or services before an ad appears.". . .
"Well, I believe the ad breaks the Advertising Code anyway, unless the advertisers hold evidence that God probably does not exist," he said.
"The ASA does not just cover goods and services, it covers all advertising. The advertisers cannot hide behind the ASA's 'matters of opinion' exclusion, because no person or body is named as the author of the statement. It is given as a statement of fact and that means it must be capable of substantiation if it is not to break the rules."
No comments:
Post a Comment