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/

Get Amazing Stories Daily!

Signup now and receive an email once I publish new content.

I will never give away, trade or sell your email address. You can unsubscribe at any time.

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

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. Ken Henderson says:

    The point of the question is which would be more convincing, not an enforcement of a ban on religion. It is consistent with religious history that banning others beliefs is a good thing and the hoped for outcome. (Islamist or Christian) That is what religion has been doing for eons. The concept that Christian’s have done all the good of founding hospitals and charities ignores the fact that far more such institutions have been founded by religions other than Christianity. In fact, the secular International Lions Clubs have helped t build many medical facilities. (Bylaws of Lions do not allow discussion of religion or politics at meetings and has as many member countries as the UN).The writer is ignorant of history where bible believers from the southern US supported slavery and considered blacks a sub human race. (Some northerners were guilty and advocated keeping pygmies in the zoo with the other animals.) Many religions allow polygamy and many cases in the bible men have multiple wives and/or concubines. I am not arguing against monogamy, I have been married 36 years, but it is hypocritical to quote the bible supporting monogamy.Fundamental Christians want everyone to believe like them and the government to allow them to practice their religion whenever and however they want as long as it is Christianity. I was raised as a fundamentalist with family members who still believe that way. When will politicians be allowed to run for office without discussing their religion and ending every speech with god bless America, and don’t cite the garbage that we are a Christian country because we are not. The founding fathers were wise enough to recognize that allowing religion to influence government was a slippery slope. We will really know we are a free country when atheists win national elections.

  4. Soren says:

    Granting that, depending on your perspective, there are internally consistent stories told by both Christians and scientists, we have to be clear about our terminology. All of life is faith-based. Period. There is no “proof” that we are not brains in a vat, or that the floor will be there when we step out of bed in the morning. None whatsoever (as any scientist will gladly say, the consistency of past events is no guarantee that they will be repeated). Descartes tried to “prove” God, and found that logically, he can only prove that he exists (or more accurately, that a perspective exists of which he is the owner). Believe whatever you want, but remember: Christian or atheist, it is all faith-based.

  5. AndrewF says:

    I blogged about this the other day..Of course, it’s a bit of fun, and from the outset the idea is put into the same category as bringing back child labour and killing everyone over 80 – i.e. it’s a bad idea. The game is then to sell a bad idea. What is very interesting is how much this ‘spin’ used to sell a bad idea actually sounds a lot like much of the anti-theist / anti-religion rhetoric.In my view, this little exercise, as a piece of fun, showed up the bankruptcy and propagandist ‘spin’ of the anti-religion brigade.

  6. Caleb Land says:

    Ummm…first one, easy. I think the first one would likely work better with a younger audience (teens and twenties) while the second might appeal more to parents and grandparents. Although, I’m a parent and I thought the first was just a better design and slogan all around.But then again, I love Jesus, so what do I know 🙂

  7. Jessica says:

    See, it’s these arguments that make me feel like I may as well just beat my head against the wall, for all the good it does. No one suggested using violence to ban religion, not even once. In fact, last I checked this was all theoretical, just a competition to see which advertisement would more successfully pitch something impossible to sell. You heard him, the show featured invading another country, putting children back in factories, and euthanizing people over 80. None of that is going to happen, and no one in their right mind would try to push those things. It’s A TV SHOW. With that said, I can think of plenty of well-meaning organizations that aren’t affiliated with one religion or another, no one brought abortion into the discussion so I don’t know where that statement is even coming from…ugh. I guess I’ll just pick a problem and go with it.You claim that there is no proof for spontaneous life. That is one of three things: 1. An intentional lie, designed to mislead, 2. An assumption you cling to, without researching it yourself, proving that you have been misled, or 3. Something you are saying to comfort yourself and validate your opinion.You say that atheists claim life came from non-life and have no evidence to support this. Rather, SCIENTISTS claim this, and they have evidence. There has been more than one successful experiment that supports the theory of spontaneous life. I can think of two off the top of my head, and will provide links (though I doubt that will do any good, either): http://www.livescience.com/13339-primordial-soup-chemistry-reaction-amino-acids-life.html Now this first link is fascinating to me, because with the second experiment they found all these proteins after only 49 years (1958-2007)!! So multiply the conditions of the experiment to a planet-wide scale and extend the time to EONS. While this long-forgotten experiment may not have yielded anything self-replicating, it’s not a far leap of logic to make that connection when you blow this experiment to the proportions it would have had in reality, billions of years ago. In fact, it’s a far shorter leap than “Life from non-life, for no reason with no evidence.” But for you to accept this, you would have to believe in it, and for you to believe in it, you have to have RAW, UNWAVERING, UNQUESTIONING FAITH. Or like… half an hour to research for yourself and see that your argument is as fictional as your faith.actually…I’ll stop with one because I already know this is a lost cause. Just keep in mind: Science IS NOT a religion. Scientific theories are not faith-based. Darwin’s theory of evolution is not a church, nor is it the same as the “primordial soup” theory, though they go hand in hand to a degree. If you can’t see the differences, that would be a great place to start your education. You’re obviously intelligent and passionate, if you’re going to be arguing your cause, you better at least KNOW the other side or you’ll only serve to prove your ignorance.

  8. Tom says:

    I think the first ad would appeal to Atheists, i.e. preaching to the choir, whereas the second ad is more emotive and therefore, in my mind, more effective.Having said that, I think the first ad is more likely to make me question my faith. Is religion something that was beneficial during a certain stage of evolution and which can now be abandoned?

  9. 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.

  10. Just A Thought says:

    You fight about whose god is right, or if the people who believe in gods are wrong or right, when there are more important things in the world. Instead of getting together every saturday/sunday or stopping to pray 5 times a day facing your holy place, why don’t you take that time and actually do something good? Imagine the good people could do if everyone took that prayer/worship time and volunteered instead.I’m sure a benevolent being would forgive you and even appreciate that you are doing some tangible good to your fellow human being instead of doing these things that you were told to do just because you are afraid of the retribution if you don’t, and that you want to get into your paradise. Selfish reasons for selfish actions.

  11. Tom says:

    I don’t think many parents are paying big money for private schools because they are (superficially) religious. Parents believe that private schools will help their children to succeed. And there is a push at the moment to replace or supplement religious education in schools with ethics classes.I think Australia is generally a fairly tolerant country, built on Christian values minus the Christian God. We don’t have as many vocal Christians or atheists as the US and everyone seems to like it that way.

  12. 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.

  13. Tom says:

    They were asked to make an advert not deliver a lecture. This means selling an idea not providing an exhaustive list of pros and cons.

  14. Jessica says:

    You’re right, the answer is neither. Neither would be better at convincing me, because I don’t need any convincing. Organized religion has become just as corrupt as any corporation in today’s world, except its got a deeper, more twisted grip on people. I loved the first one, but I don’t think it would impact the world much. It’s not something that encourages epiphanies in religious people, and it pretty much echoes the sentiments of most atheists. (Btw, Jimmie, I don’t think they were given a whole minute to give an argument, so I don’t know how you could expect it to be much stronger than it was)The second gave me goosebumps. I think it needed tweaked a bit, their message could have been portrayed a little more clearly, but I think that would be the way to go.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *