2 ad agencies compete to make a better ad for the end of all religion

If you were convincible, which of the two would be more convincing for you?

Slightly different question: Despite knowing the answer is Neither, which do you think would have more effect on society at large?

(via MetaFilter)

Read more: http://twentytwowords.com/2-ad-agencies-compete-to-make-a-better-ad-for-the-end-of-all-religion/

12 responses to “2 ad agencies compete to make a better ad for the end of all religion”

  1. Lesley says:

    Thankfully I’m already Agnostic. I think both pitches hold true, but I love love the first one.

  2. Barista_girl says:

    a non-bible believing christian is an individual who believes in christ, but that’s as far as it goes. They tend to reject creationism and embrace the idea of a God-made big bang theory, or evolution in it’s entirety. They question the moral codes and reject the old testament almost entirely in favor of a god of their own design.

  3. Bruce says:

    I’d be more convinced by the first one because of its appeal to a logical/scientific standard instead of emotion. However, I think the second one would probably have a greater influence because it is more emotional, which I think is ironic since it is such a narrow view of religion.And how about that second judge? Someone has had some bitter experiences with religion…

  4. Spliffe says:

    “Australia is an incredibly secular nation” – really? Have you been there recently? Or is your frame of reference 100% limited to the churchiest parts of the US?They’re full of God stuff there and something like 30% of the population is spending $1000s a year to send their kids to religious schools. Not to mention their RE classes in public gradeschools, supposedly actually general religion classes, are generally completely Christian, in fact run by organized prostletyzing Christian groups, without any serious kick-up from parents. And not to mention they’re nowhere, NOWHERE near letting the gays get married despite pretending to be such a bunch of live-and-let-live-no-worries types.

  5. Ben says:

    I’m actually a good target for those ads as someone who has wavered between atheism and agnosticism in my life (currently in the latter camp). But both were pretty weak. The second is pure emotional nonsense. The first didn’t provide any reason as to why religion deserves to be dumped along with slavery and racism and belief in a flat earth, etc. democracy is much older than Christianity and I still think that’s a pretty good idea. that said, I can’t imagine anyone’s mind being changed on such a huge issue by a 30- or 60-second message.

  6. Max says:

    I’m an Aussie and yes, it IS an incredibly secular country. Your point about the high numbers of parents that send their kids to private schools doesn’t hold much water. My four kids go to a school owned and run by Baptists, but it’s a pretty secular school all the same. Most who attend aren’t there for the religious content. They’re there for the better discipline. This is a tough place for Christians, let me tell you. And that’s why I love it. There’s a whole lot less of the nominalism of American “Christians” (I’ve lived there too).

  7. Bruce says:

    What does THAT mean? It’s like saying “Why don’t we ban window-smashing… and NOT window-smashing?” Do you truly want to make EVERYONE a criminal? Cop: You’re practicing religion– you’re under arrest. And you there, the one NOT practicing religion? You’re under arrest, too.You’re probably just joking or trolling, but still… STFU.

  8. Nick says:

    I think the first one would work better. Do I think that either of them present an argument that is worthy of defeating religion? Of course not…but I still think the first one is done better.

  9. d says:

    I think #2 would have more effect on society at large. I could see the propaganda of religions as the root of wars and violence being pretty successful. That could translate into a good reason not to allow people to express their religions. So, yay crazy thought though. I think people would be just as nasty in atheistic societies but using religions is working for us pretty well right now.

  10. Jimmie says:

    The first one actually presented an argument – weak and overly generalized, but an argument nonetheless. The second was simply an appeal to emotion, with nothing to back it up.

  11. Joe S says:

    The irony of the second ad is palpable. Australia is an incredibly secular nation where attempts at proselytizing are met with scorn and open hostility.As far as which would have more effect; the first one is in line with the new-atheists reasoning while the second is more in line with the secularized worldview of the “agnostic” general population. The mocking tone of the first one would not resonate as well as the lets-all-get-along message of the second.

  12. Barista_girl says:

    I would say the second may have more impact. Shock value has much sway with people, emotions more moving to action than reason. Also, the first has been crammed down our throats for years and we see religion still going strong. However, I have a problem with that word “religion.” in the dictionary religion is described as “a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects” Not necessarily referring to Christianity itself, but ALL belief systems. If you look at evolution, Judaism, Buddhism, and other groups, you will find that ALL OF THESE fall under the religious category, YES EVEN EVOLUTION as it has never been satisfactorily proven through science and is therefor blindly trusted by it’s followers, also known as FAITH. To do away with religion, one must discard ALL beliefs, spirituality, and faiths. No one may believe in themselves, the origins of man, the power of a dollar, the forgiveness of a creator. Ghosts, aliens, spirits and demons would not be permitted to exist in anyone’s mind, there would be no battle between good and evil because who would define them for us? Truly, a world without religion might be the downfall of humanity, as, fairy tale or not, religion, beliefs and faith are what guides us to do good. I say this because simple personal moral code is not enough to keep people in line, most, if not all, human beings feel the need to answer to a higher power, to do good for it and to feel as though they may be rewarded and taken care of, and also to fear punishment. It helps if this being is omnipresent and omnipotent so that any misdeeds are sure to be seen.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.