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

    • Simple answer is yes, you will still get the Windows updates and as long as browser is up to date, you will be good. Only thing secure boot does is protect you against boot level threats and make it harder to install other OS's. I've been looking into this pretty thoroughly lately myself as wifes computer has secure boot disabled plus my other, older computers that run Linux, don't have secure boot enabled. Have seen all kinds of questions about this on the Linux Mint and MX Linux forums. Just don't suddenly enable secure boot now.
    • How many other companies will follow Ford's lead? Or, have they already gotten lazy and become enslaved to AI--and now can't figure out how to get out of that mess.
    • Why would any self-respecting intelligent person follow any recommendation by Donald's GOP administration? With almost two years of fabrications, deceit, and blatantly illegal behavior, why believe them now? They had best be gone after the November 2026 election, so we'll wait and see.
    • AltSendme 0.4.1 by Razvan Serea AltSendme is a minimal, cross-platform application designed for fast, secure, and private peer-to-peer file transfers. It allows users to send files or entire directories directly between devices without relying on cloud servers, accounts, or any personal information. Everything is encrypted end-to-end using modern protocols like QUIC and TLS 1.3, ensuring both strong security and low-latency performance. Transfers are verified with BLAKE3 for data integrity, and interrupted downloads automatically resume, making the experience reliable even on unstable connections. You can transfer anything—images, videos, documents, and more. Integrity checks are performed on both ends, so your files are automatically verified for correctness during both sending and receiving. AltSendme works seamlessly across local networks or long-distance links, capable of saturating multi-gigabit connections for extremely fast delivery. With built-in NAT traversal and encrypted relay fallback, it connects devices almost anywhere. The app integrates with the Sendme CLI and will soon support mobile and web platforms. Fully free and open-source, AltSendme offers a lightweight, privacy-first alternative to traditional cloud-based services, removing size limits, upload costs, and unnecessary data exposure. AltSendme 0.4.1 changelog: Release Highlights Self-hosted relays: Run your own iroh relay so transfers don't rely on public infrastructure. Includes a full deployment template in deploy/relay/ with Docker Compose for a VPS and configuration examples for production use. Fly.io support: One-click deploy template for Fly.io, including a quick-start config (fly.dev.toml) for testing without a custom domain, plus production setup with Let's Encrypt and your own hostname. Relay settings UI: New Settings → Network panel to choose how AltSendme connects: automatic public relays, custom self-hosted URLs (with optional auth token), or disabled. Test connections, verify latency, and see live relay status in the footer. Disable relays: Turn off relay servers entirely when you only need same-network transfers (e.g. LAN). Direct connections only. No relay hop required when devices can reach each other. Android graduates from beta: Android is now part of the regular release cycle alongside desktop. APKs ship with each version (universal, arm64, and armv7). Other improvements Private relay access control via shared auth token Relay fallback notifications when a custom relay is unreachable Broadcast mode toggle in sharing settings Android release build fixes (split-per-ABI APKs, universal APK preservation) UI polish: mobile safe-area insets, dropzone layout, transfer progress animation Bug fixes for minification-related serialization issues and system tray icon loading What's Changed feat(relay): add relay status functionality and settings UI (a120cdf) feat(relay): implement custom relay server configuration and verification (51276c7) feat(relay): add configuration for private relay access and enhance observability features (48fbabf) feat(relay): enhance relay URL validation, display connection status (d4fffa0) feat(relay): add RelayChangeGuard component and enhance relay-related translations (16ba514) feat(broadcast): add toggle setting for broadcast mode in sharing UI (ca6d977) fix(relay): correct QUIC discovery port, pin image, templatize fly.dev (52a2ba5) fix: More broken serialization due to minification (67491a9) fix(android): preserve true universal APK across per-ABI builds (e9f256f) fix(ui): conditional safe-area insets padding on mobile (1182f0e) refactor(transfer): CircularRing component animation fix (944572b) chore(android): drop x86 and x86_64 release APKs, keep universal+arm64+armv7 (34ada0b) Download: AltSendme 0.4.1 | ARM64 | ~9.0 MB (Open Source) Download: AltSendme for MacOS | Android Links: AltSendme Home Page | GitHub | Screenshot Get alerted to all of our Software updates on Twitter at @NeowinSoftware
    • You are mostly right about the ephemeral nature of it. As I mention in the article, if you dont add a second device or take a backup of your account before uninstalling it, then yes you will lose access to your account. That said, in terms of actual user experience when you sync multiple devices your message history carries across and there's also a Saved Messages chat like there is on Telegram to send messages and attachments between your installs. But yh, what you point out are correct and its not trying to emulate Messenger or Telegram.
  • 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
      495
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      225
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      150
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      75
    5. 5
      FloatingFatMan
      71
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!