Atheist bus adverts could lead to watchdog ruling

Originally posted by Zaitsev Yet this message isn't exactly going to stop them, especially if it DOES result in some negative press for Atheists. More likely it will result in a step up in Christian advertisements, which I also do not want to see as they're typically from far-right-wing evangelicals. Regarding my previous analogy, are not Atheists producing annoying signs to counter annoying signs? Which in many ways is making them what they are complaining about, hence my reference to sayings such as 'drinking for sobriety' and the like.

I see your point, however, I still think the atheist advertisements in this case are both logical and pragmatic. It is possible the evangelicals will try to make more advertisements. But their organisation has finite financial resources, and can only drain their supporters of so much money. Additional financial strain is going to unbalance their organisation. It is more likely that the scale of the atheist advertisements will give them an idea of just how widely the general public in the UK is opposed to evangelical advertising. To continue to pour money into such a demographic would result in a poor return on investment (lots of money invested for minimal conversion numbers). It seems more likely that they would instead either invest their advertising money in other areas e.g. charity works, or simply reorient their unsolicited preaching to a new country.

I don't think the analogy with "drinking for sobriety" is a valid one, but I do think the "fighting for freedom" is a valid one. For years now non-evanglical people have done the opposite of the evangelicals: nothing. Has it worked? No. If anything, zero response has emboldened these evangelical groups to escalate their advertisements to the point of publicly threatening commuters with becoming hell bound.

When an army invades a nation, it will probably conquer it if it meets no opposition. Having met no substantial opposition, evangelical groups continue to expand their operations in both scope an intensity. When the invaded nation develops the willpower to create a well designed defence force, it can repulse the invader. When the general public develops the willpower to intelligently show their displeasure at unsolicited and threatening public advertisements, they too can stimulate the retreat of the organisations making those statements.

Originally posted by CXI I don't think the analogy with "drinking for sobriety" is a valid one, but I do think the "fighting for freedom" is a valid one. For years now non-evanglical people have done the opposite of the evangelicals: nothing. Has it worked? No. If anything, zero response has emboldened these evangelical groups to escalate their advertisements to the point of publicly threatening commuters with becoming hell bound.

It just occurred to me that the portion of the human brain that thought up these advertisements is exactly the same portion of the human brain that prompts Hamas to shoot rockets at Israel. Quite a different situation of course, but the reaction is analogous.

Everybody seems to be overlooking the fact that these ads say 'Don't worry' whereas they are countering ads that say 'Be fearful'.

If it's a 'nice little upper' of course it serves a purpose: it cheers people up. Lots of people have found the whole thing amusing, which can only be good, unless you prefer people to be unhappy.