Recommended Posts

Religion is a belief.

I am agnostic as I cannot prove nor deny a G-d exists.

So they should be allowed to preach what they believe as it has not been dis-proven.

Technically they are making the claim that god can heal so that would mean its up to them to prove that first not the other way around.

Wow. So many haters and not one Christian posting here? God CAN heal. Bash me, slash me, I don't care. Are all the Christians here going to be like Peter and deny him???

Which god can heal, Allah, Zeus, Oden, Osiris, FSM? How is it hateful to point out that facts are lacking when claims like these are made?

Do you believe that the wind blows? Of course you do. You can feel it. If you were a Christian you can feel God and you would know God can heal.

That's based on a belief, not factual evidence. If I imagine hard enough I can feel the invisible unicorn looking over my shoulder. Does that make it any more real?

I notice that they didn't claim that god can cure cancer - apparantly they didn't have enough faith in their god, or did their legal team mention that if they even remotely looked to be claiming that god can cure cancer they would be answering to a real judge and not a imaginary one.

And as I recall praying for people was scientifically tested a few years ago, with the result that people who were seriously ill tended to die more often if they new that they had been prayed for. So not only are their claims breaking advertising standards but they are also scientifically unfounded and so technically a lie.

Do you believe that the wind blows? Of course you do. You can feel it. If you were a Christian you can feel God and you would know God can heal.

This.

As a Pastafarian I can feel God's tentacles and I know God can heal.

  • Like 3

So now I am idiotic? I think this entire thread is idiotic..................

So now banning lying advertisements (which is what this thread is about) is idiotic? I think your religion is idiotic.

/let's continue calling stuff idiotic

I notice that they didn't claim that god can cure cancer - apparantly they didn't have enough faith in their god, or did their legal team mention that if they even remotely looked to be claiming that god can cure cancer they would be answering to a real judge and not a imaginary one.

And as I recall praying for people was scientifically tested a few years ago, with the result that people who were seriously ill tended to die more often if they new that they had been prayed for. So not only are their claims breaking advertising standards but they are also scientifically unfounded and so technically a lie.

As a man of faith from a christian background who now has a semblance of spirituality instead of a religion, I don't think you can test for something like that, I believe prayer is useless. Let me explain, it might be a way to express your feelings spiritually but, God decided way before you prayed what was going to happen and you praying will not change that. Praying for healing is ridiculous, if God wanted you alive, he would not let you die or get sick. We are at Gods mercy and should accept the good and the bad as his will. Prayer should only be used to thank him for our life and as a symbol that we want his guidance.

You can call it flawed all you want. Everyone has the right to believe as they want to, To have your beliefs censored by anyone or any thing is wrong.

Of course everyone can believe what they want, but when it comes to advertising, in the UK they have to be able to PROVE their claims or they can't make them. Period. There are no exceptions to this and it has nothing to do with the religious nature of the claims.

I don't think anybody is arguing that. The original material that was banned said that the group believes that prayer MAY heal. It didn't say "Pray and we'll cure your cancer." - The primary issue is that the ASA seems to want to prevent them from talking about their beliefs on their website.

That's because as of last year, the ASA also governs web advertising as well.

I believe that God can heal... most people. I believe it is the placbo effect!

People of every religion believe that. So they can't all be right. Believing that praying cures you, may actually have a very strong psychological effect. And make you feel recovered.

And also, there is strong evidence, that this 'thought process' also has physiological benefits. Positive attitude can do wonders, and it matters little, which god you are praying to.

I believe that God can heal... most people. I believe it is the placbo effect!

People of every religion believe that. So they can't all be right. Believing that praying cures you, may actually have a very strong psychological effect. And make you feel recovered.

And also, there is strong evidence, that this 'thought process' also has physiological benefits. Positive attitude can do wonders, and it matters little, which god you are praying to.

Perhaps and, as you said, there is some evidence that a positive attitude can help heal physical ailments. However, that's quite different from saying that a supernatural being is actually responsible for any healing that takes place. Just because you've convinced yourself that your imaginary friend exists and can help you doesn't mean that they actually exist.

Perhaps and, as you said, there is some evidence that a positive attitude can help heal physical ailments. However, that's quite different from saying that a supernatural being is actually responsible for any healing that takes place. Just because you've convinced yourself that your imaginary friend exists and can help you doesn't mean that they actually exist.

Please read the last line of my previous post, again.

Religion is a belief.

I am agnostic as I cannot prove nor deny a G-d exists.

So they should be allowed to preach what they believe as it has not been dis-proven.

Proof only works in the positive sense. For something to be true and considered as such, there must be proof in favor or against it, not an absence of proof. There is no proof that pink elephants don't exist (like the complete genome of an elephant demonstrating that pink skin is impossible) but that doesn't automatically mean pink elephants exist because there is proof in favor of it as well. The burden of proof lays with who makes the claims and since they cannot prove what they're advertising (because it's faith and therefore, by it's own nature as such, cannot be proven), the ban is correct and should stand.

And the random bold is just to fit in the formating style of this thread.

And can any of you doubters prove God does not exist? Show me in scientific equation or mathematics formulae that he doesn't. From both point of views, according to scientists, are just theories. It has not been proven that God does or doesn't exist. I theorize that God does exist. Can I prove my theory yet? No. But we are still compiling all available evidence.

Everyday, you hear that scientists have proven things that are in the Bible are fact. It's only time that more things will be proven. Can science ever prove that God exists? I don't know. Will science ever prove the existance of God to be false? I truly hope not.

But back to the OP. Should our lives be censored? Should someone or some governing force be able to control what you say or believe? I as an American, say no. Human Rights. I feel strongly about that, I have fought to protect that very fact. Not just for us here in the States, but every where. I maybe old now, but I woulld not hesitate to put my uniform back on and go where I am ordered.

Human rights should not be violated and when they are, that is called tyranny and tyranny should be crushed.

And can any of you doubters prove God does not exist? Show me in scientific equation or mathematics formulae that he doesn't. From both point of views, according to scientists, are just theories. It has not been proven that God does or doesn't exist. I theorize that God does exist. Can I prove my theory yet? No. But we are still compiling all available evidence.

Everyday, you hear that scientists have proven things that are in the Bible are fact. It's only time that more things will be proven. Can science ever prove that God exists? I don't know. Will science ever prove the existance of God to be false? I truly hope not.

But back to the OP. Should our lives be censored? Should someone or some governing force be able to control what you say or believe? I as an American, say no. Human Rights. I feel strongly about that, I have fought to protect that very fact. Not just for us here in the States, but every where. I maybe old now, but I woulld not hesitate to put my uniform back on and go where I am ordered.

Human rights should not be violated and when they are, that is called tyranny and tyranny should be crushed.

Can you prove God exists?

Can you prove God exists?

Did you not read my entire reply?

Can I prove my theory yet? No. But we are still compiling all available evidence.

But can you prove God's non-existance?

But back to the OP. Should our lives be censored? Should someone or some governing force be able to control what you say or believe? I as an American, say no. Human Rights. I feel strongly about that, I have fought to protect that very fact. Not just for us here in the States, but every where. I maybe old now, but I woulld not hesitate to put my uniform back on and go where I am ordered.

The ASA arent censoring your life, you are free to believe what you want to believe, Christians just like any other business or organisation in the UK are governed by the ASA if they want to advertise.

Its like Coca Cola advertising that their drink can cure cancer and everyone should buy a Coke.

Did you not read my entire reply?

But can you prove God's non-existance?

We arent claiming that God exists, you are, the onus is on you to prove that he does exist.

Everyday, you hear that scientists have proven things that are in the Bible are fact.

... o... k... a... y...

Its like Coca Cola advertising that their drink can cure cancer and everyone should buy a Coke.

As long as you truly believe it to be the case, Lo Tec thinks it's OK to advertise it.

As long as you truly believe it to be the case, Lo Tec thinks it's OK to advertise it.

That is incorrect. I do not believe in blatant lies. Saying "God can heal" is not a lie.Until someone proves God does not exist, I will continue to believe the way I do.

  • Like 1

That is in correct. I do not believe in blatant lies. Saying "God can heal" is not a lie.Until someone proves God does not exist, I will continue to believe the way I do.

Saying "God can heal" is a lie because you have no proof of that.

You can say it to your family or friends during a conversation - at worst you'll get weird looks - but you cannot say it in an advertisement because ads have to be based on verifiable facts to make such bold statements.

What you don't understand is that the bigger your claim, the harsher the regulations.

"XXX makes you look cool" is not a proven fact, but it's OK (be it Coke, God, unicorns...). "XXX cures cancer" is a very bold statement and cannot be made without adequate proof.

If that christian group made "God can help you" ads, they wouldn't be banned.

BTW, your "God exists as long as nobody proves he doesn't" argument is nice, but you can only use it for yourself (and I respect that; it's your beliefs). What atheists condemn is using that kind of logic to force someone else - relatives, children, friends, strangers - to share your faith.

That is in correct. I do not believe in blatant lies. Saying "God can heal" is not a lie.Until someone proves God does not exist, I will continue to believe the way I do.

Please stop with the rhetoric. All this talk about tyranny is silly here. The simple facts are these:

The law allows you to believe what you will.

The law does not allow you to make claims about health and medicine with out being able to prove these are true, it does not fall on the law to disprove your claims.

They are making a claim that could encourage people to stop interventions that have been shown to work for something which hasn't. It doesn't matter if someone can't show it doesn't work but they have to show it does. If they can then there is no problem and they can write their claim in any advertising. The problem is they can't prove it.

This goes for any medical claim, religious or otherwise.

The case does not hurt their religious freedom.

As for saying that God can heal is not a lie. Well you are right. It is not a lie but it is also not a proven fact and so cannot be claimed as such. The law is not saying that it is a lie but you can't claim it as truth either.

If they said 'we believe God can heal' instead of 'God can heal you' then there would be no problem.

There are real cases of religious persecution. It serves nobody's interest to quibble over a situation which is sorted out very easy and does not need to be compared to tyranny to put forward an argument instead of just thinking for a moment.

You can say whatever you want, as long as you are not saying "buy my product because it heals you." In this situation, they are not saying that. So, they are not lying. So to censor a non-ad in this case is wrong and the ASA is wrong in this aspect.

Edit:

I am not trying to force anyone to believe how I do. But when people are forcing the fact that God does not exist is just wrong no matter how you put it.

Now I will leave this thread with this thought: To me and millions of others, God does exist and can heal. I do not care what you call God. I know many Christians, Muslims and other religous and spiritual people are reading this post here at Neowin, know what I say is truth. But this ongoing fight about the existance of God will continue even after any,some or all scientists prove that it is false or correct.

Now I bid this thread farewell.

You can say whatever you want, as long as you are not saying "buy my product because it heals you." In this situation, they are not saying that. So, they are not lying. So to censor a non-ad in this case is wrong and the ASA is wrong in this aspect.

Essentially it is an advert as they are offering a service (to pray for people) and this is how they are telling people about it. It doesn't matter if it is paid for or free (either the advert or the service). If it isn't an advert I don't know what is.

Adverts don't just appear on TV, newspapers, movies and magazines. There is a growing trend of people dressing up adverts as news or opinions or on blogs or other websites. Some people get away with with it but these guys didn't. It doesn't make it right but the ASA needs to work harder on enforcing the law everywhere but it is a huge space and they can only deal with what comes to their attention.

Also people here may be asserting that God does not exist but the Law and this ruling doesn't say this. So we are confusing the issue by even talking about the existence of God part of the discussion on the thread.

You can say whatever you want, as long as you are not saying "buy my product because it heals you." In this situation, they are not saying that. So, they are not lying. So to censor a non-ad in this case is wrong and the ASA is wrong in this aspect.

Edit:

I am not trying to force anyone to believe how I do. But when people are forcing the fact that God does not exist is just wrong no matter how you put it.

Now I will leave this thread with this thought: To me and millions of others, God does exist and can heal. I do not care what you call God. I know many Christians, Muslims and other religous and spiritual people are reading this post here at Neowin, know what I say is truth. But this ongoing fight about the existance of God will continue even after any,some or all scientists prove that it is false or correct.

Now I bid this thread farewell.

Typical Christian, when you cant backup your claims you run away.

418999_357441890942043_186213348064899_1353414_81652658_n.jpg

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Posts

    • Yup, that's a doozy right there 😄
    • It's a bundle of tools created by a variety of people, so things can go wrong sometimes. It's a great addition to Windows, and I use a lot of the tools on a daily basis. Also, it's still a 0.**** release so quick updates are to be expected 😉
    • Oh, I did. And it's even worse than I was hoping! Besides a lot of techno-babble jargon (yes I understand 100% of it but it's still all just techno-babble) there's 2 key points that make me super-weary about even considering testing this out. -- By default, after installation, a relay is automatically set up, so you do not need to care about that. * Non-chatmail apps use email servers as a long-term message archive while chatmail clients use email servers for ephemeral instant message relay. * Supporting the full variety of classic email setups would require considerable development and maintenance efforts, and complicate making chatmail-based messaging more resilient, reliable and fast. -- Basically, the end-user device is the 'server' (relay) so there is NO ARCHIVING whatsoever because every message is necessarily ephemeral. Great for techno-paranoia (and for illicit activities preferring no tracks to cover) but terrible for everybody else. It's also ironically contradictory to engineering principles of redundancies besides the transport layers due to the explicit absence of any persistent storage. Instead of 'classic email address' retaining multi-GB messaging archives on its server, now every device must retain 100% of those storage demands. (Email messages were originally meant to be short correspondences, not the multi-MB attachments boondoggle that now exists with unlimited spam engines flooding every potential recipient.) Any device swap or reset (or loss) makes the entire message history go bye-bye forever... lest there's an off-device auto-archival "relay" mechanism that's really a separate server that holds onto all transported messages (an email server) that utilizes 'chatmail email address' identities (like an email server) and its own persistent storage archive (like an email server). But... this solution is hoping to exist alongside real-world email address identities (based on the email server relay pathway) but simply render messages in chat thread format in an ephemeral manner (with contents being encrypted, and messages auto-expiring) ... In the end, it's a chat app/experience for the Web3/P2P-at-all-costs zealots. (I have accts on all sorts of federated web3 services so I understand the technical and non-technical alike.) For any practical users, however, it's just another service to download/install, register, cross-share id cards/qr codes, but know that there's no history/archive whatsoever (by design) so no account/message recovery whatsoever... update the device, install a bummed update patch, or dare upgrade your device... all history, poof, gone. Ya gotta start everything over again like they're a brand new person.
    • You've tried DuckDuckGo and Brave Search, now get serious with SearXNG by Paul Hill Over the last decade, it has become quite trendy to dump Google Search in favor of privacy-preserving alternatives such as DuckDuckGo, Startpage, and Brave Search. These search engines have done a very good job at highlighting dodgy practices by Google, such as adjusting search results based on what it thinks you’ll like (filter bubble) and stalking you around the web to advertise to you. While these search engines are good starting points when compared to non-private services like Google, there are still quite a few issues with them. For example, both DuckDuckGo and Brave Search require running non-free JavaScript in your web browser, which is comparable to running proprietary software on your computer, meaning you can be sure about what it’s actually doing in the background. Another issue is that these search engines are hosted on the respective companies’ servers, and you are using a service that you don’t control. Finally, DuckDuckGo, while offering privacy features, relies heavily on Microsoft’s infrastructure for its results and, in the past, has permitted Microsoft tracking scripts. If you are looking for a more private search solution than DuckDuckGo, Brave Search, and Startpage, then I recommend taking a look at SearXNG. It is a privacy-respecting metasearch engine that can be used via different public instances, which is useful for mobile users, or you can install it on your computer or server and run it locally with maximum control. Unlike Google, Bing, or Brave Search, which crawl the web and have their own search indexes, SearXNG is a metasearch engine, meaning it taps other search engines, stripping your identifying data, such as IP address, user agent, and cookies, in the process. Your search query is sent to the other search engines you enable before aggregating the results. SearXNG has deployment flexibility. If you are a casual user or a mobile user and don’t want to run SearXNG locally, you can use a public instance that is hosted by someone else. The main problem with this is that you are putting trust in the maintainer of the instance regarding stuff like logs that they may keep; good hosts should have a privacy policy explaining their policies. If you are trying to use SearXNG, you can also install the software on your device and then head to 127.0.0.1:8080 in your browser and search from there. While you don’t have to worry about a third-party admin like the public instances, search engines could ultimately block your IP address if they frown on you pulling in their search results locally. If you want to run it locally, it’s a good idea to use proxies or VPNs to hide your actual IP. You don’t have to worry about this with a public instance, as search engines never see your IP address. The main privacy benefit of using SearXNG is that it isolates your identity from the underlying engines that it’s capable of searching, such as Google and Bing. These search engines will only see requests coming from a generic server, so they can’t profile you and create a bubble filter that influences what results you see. This also ensures that your search engine doesn’t turn into an echo chamber that prevents you from reading alternative points of view. As a free software project, you are allowed to inspect SearXNG to make sure there are no negative features bundled inside. This sets it apart from the privacy search engines mentioned earlier because you can’t check their source code. As a meta search engine, you are not restricted to getting results from one source. Due to the fact that it scrapes content from other websites, your SearXNG instance will periodically get blocked from different providers, so it’s good to select a range of sources as a backup. While enabling all of the services will give you great results, this can make searching slower. I am personally happy with slower searches for the best results, but you can always check which providers are slowing down your search from the search results page and disable them to speed things up. If you want decent results quickly, enable the main search providers such as Google, Brave, DuckDuckGo, Qwant, Bing, and Yahoo. This way, you get wide coverage without the latency. On the Engines tab in Preferences, do note that there are different tabs, such as General, Images, and Videos, with their own providers that can be toggled and are not covered by "Enable all" while on the General tab, so be sure to dig into each. Just a note, if you want to enable everything, press "Enable all" in one tab, then hit save at the bottom of the page, then do the next tab, and so on. If you press "Enable all", then do that in each tab, and then save, nothing will stick. When I had just some of the search engines enabled, I searched “define nefarious” and results came back with the definition of “define” - obviously that was a sucky result. However, when I had everything enabled, it found dictionary pages for the word “nefarious” and even had an inline definition on the sidebar, which is quite nice too - that was delivered by WolframAlpha for anyone wondering! Probably the worst thing about this meta search engine is that the engines you select are saved with a cookie, so you must enable them on every new device you use SearXNG on, including if you decide to go into incognito mode with your web browser. Honestly, I would say this is the most annoying aspect, and perhaps if your browser lets you choose a separate private browsing search engine, then it would be best to use DuckDuckGo for this portion of your browsing. Another weakness of SearXNG is the random blocking of it by search providers. When you are on the results page, expand the “Response time” box, and it will show things like “Suspended: too many requests” or “access denied”. This is why it is good to enable several providers so that there is always a fallback to get results from. I won’t pretend SearXNG will be for everyone, however, if you enable all of the providers and put up with the slower response time, the results can be really amazing. Even if you don’t want to use it as your daily driver, keeping a bookmark handy that links to it is a good idea if you ever feel like doing a deep dive into a niche topic where other search engines are just failing to bring up any good result, due to the amount of sources it looks on. If you’re interested in radical user control over the software you use, installing SearXNG locally can also be a good idea, but be prepared to be temporarily blocked from sites if you trigger bot sensors without a VPN. Personally, I’ve opted to use a public instance, rather than install it myself. If you want to use it via a public instance, head over to searx.space to find a provider. Let us know in the comments if you have used SearXNG or its predecessor, Searx. What do you think about the quality of the results?
    • Dear Neowin, If it is not too much trouble, can you start using the new-ish designations for Insider Preview? "Experimental" is different than "former Dev" as it can apply to different models, eg 26H1 or 26H2 etc, right? No need to seed confusion IMHO. And, please "finally" update your graphics. OK?
  • Recent Achievements

    • Week One Done
      flexorcist earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      Woland13 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      Woland13 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Year In
      bernmeister earned a badge
      One Year In
    • Week One Done
      Scoobystu earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      503
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      226
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      158
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      75
    5. 5
      FloatingFatMan
      71
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!