Religious advertising

[OH MY WORLD!]

Why do you keep small rats?

[jeremyp]

I am glad the atheists here are against those stunted atheist propaganda slogans on public transport. (snork)

I'm not against any advertising as long as it is not misleading or overly intrusive.

[ProfessorDavey]

I'm not against any advertising as long as it is not misleading or overly intrusive.

Me neither, although I don't like these over cover adverts that are often on newspapers these days (actually like the one in the OP link). To my mind when you pick up a newspaper the front page should be the front page, not an advert masquerading as the front page.

[Leonard James]

How easy it must be to classify billions of people as credulous and stupid.

I have never said they are stupid ... just credulous. There are stupid/intelligent people among both atheists and theists.

Stupid , credulous Gonnagle stupid credulous Rhiannon,old sainted mother o NS, how stupid and credulous is she!

You are so good at creating straw men I wonder you don't start a business. 

[2Corrie]

no need to worry, I can't imagine ever seeing a newspaper fronting the story 'Who is Jesus?'  not PC.

[Shaker]

no need to worry, I can't imagine ever seeing a newspaper fronting the story 'Who is Jesus?'  not PC.

Never mind not PC, it's a question without a definitive answer, only beliefs that vary from one Thomas, Richard and Harold to another.

[Nearly Sane]

I have never said they are stupid ... just credulous. There are stupid/intelligent people among both atheists and theists.

You are so good at creating straw men I wonder you don't start a business. 

You previously said no atheists would be stupid to do something, making a generalised claim. That's when I challenged you and you added the word credulous either as either a qualification or extension, i simply used both posts together. No straw needed. Btw I'll still object to the idea that you can claim all theists are credulous since you don't have the information on all theists experiences to make that judgement.

[Leonard James]

You previously said no atheists would be stupid to do something, making a generalised claim.

Yes, I was answering Shaker's posted joke site about atheist door-knocking. Go and look at it. I stand by the fact that no atheist would be that stupid.

That's when I challenged you and you added the word credulous either as either a qualification or extension, i simply used both posts together.

That's alright, I forgive you! 

 

Btw I'll still object to the idea that you can claim all theists are credulous since you don't have the information on all theists experiences to make that judgement.

To believe something for which there is no verifiable evidence you have to be credulous.

[Nearly Sane]

Yes, I was answering Shaker's posted joke site about atheist door-knocking. Go and look at it. I stand by the fact that no atheist would be that stupid.

That's alright, I forgive you! 

 
To believe something for which there is no verifiable evidence you have to be credulous.

(a) that's a postive claim about what evidence all theists have - so prove it.

(b) there isn't variable evidence for free will so you are classifying yourself as credulous.

[Leonard James]

(a) that's a postive claim about what evidence all theists have - so prove it.

The only evidence all theists have is personal experience, either their own or somebody else's. Not verifiable.

(b) there isn't variable evidence for free will so you are classifying yourself as credulous.

The evidence for free-will is that everybody can choose how they act. They can either follow their instinctive decision or ignore it.

[Hope]

In order to do that you would need to know in advance that it was going to be included (most people won't) and when (again most people won't) - the first most people will know about it is when it comes throughout their door, so too late.

And I doubt you'd get very far telling your local newspaper not to deliver just one copy to you. They simply wouldn't do that, and indeed I don't think they really have the mechanisms in their delivery process to selectively deliver to numbers 1, 3, 5, 9, 11, 15 etc, but not to number 7 and 13.

They have the mechanism, PD, because most of these things are delivered by volunteers.  All one has to do is put a 'No junk thank you' sign on the front door, and most deliverers will have been instructed to honour such notices.

[Nearly Sane]

The only evidence all theists have is personal experience, either their own or somebody else's. Not verifiable.

The evidence for free-will is that everybody can choose how they act. They can either follow their instinctive decision or ignore it.

Those two comments are in direct contradiction.

[Leonard James]

Those two comments are in direct contradiction.

I don't agree. 

[Hope]

If anybody can tell me of an atheist group seeking to do the same thing, I shall contribute immediately.

Religious advertising can mislead young minds.

Len, there are stacks of groups who do this kind of thing from an atheist pov.  British Humanists immediately come to mind.  Many scientific and political journals and everyday media do it as well; they may not set out to do it as part of their overt raison d'etre but many of the articles they publish are written with the underlying philosophy of how humanity can help itself.

[Hope]

I was irritated by it. I would have been irritated if it had been any other faith or the BHS. If I want this stuff I'll go looking for it.

We get a lot of stuff through the door, either within magazines we have subscribed to or buy regularly, local newsletters that are delivered by hand or as part of the Royal Mail's efforts to stay a float such that they are paid by some organisations to deliver what is no more than junk mail.  If I was to get het up about the waste of paper, the invasion of my privacy, etc. every time one arrived I'm not sure I'd have that much time to be involved in the board, let alone do anything else.  I generally goes straight into our paper recycling container.

[Hope]

I have never said they are stupid ... just credulous. There are stupid/intelligent people among both atheists and theists.

So, by that measure, there must bew credulous atheists, Len.  Perhaps, unwittinhgly, you're one of them.

You are so good at creating straw men I wonder you don't start a business. 

I think NS was simply taking a lesson from you, Len   

[Leonard James]

Len, there are stacks of groups who do this kind of thing from an atheist pov.  British Humanists immediately come to mind.  Many scientific and political journals and everyday media do it as well; they may not set out to do it as part of their overt raison d'etre but many of the articles they publish are written with the underlying philosophy of how humanity can help itself.

That is not the same as an overt publicity campaign to promote atheistic views, which is what the op appears to refer to.

[Shaker]

Len, there are stacks of groups who do this kind of thing from an atheist pov.  British Humanists immediately come to mind.  Many scientific and political journals and everyday media do it as well; they may not set out to do it as part of their overt raison d'etre but many of the articles they publish are written with the underlying philosophy of how humanity can help itself.

Well of course. Who else is going to?

[Hope]

The only evidence all theists have is personal experience, either their own or somebody else's. Not verifiable.

Wrong, there are people who have been given copies of their medical records that show healing that has  had nothing to do with medical intervention.  I appreciate that this kind of thing rarely gets into the news, if only because good news isn't newsworthy, but I have seen a couple of local newspaper articles that have had a copy of the documentation for folk to view - even if they have had to have a magnifying glass to read it in the photo.

[Leonard James]

So, by that measure, there must be credulous atheists, Len.

To be credulous you have to believe something for which there is no evidence. There is no evidence for gods, so atheists are not credulous.

[Shaker]

Wrong, there are people who have been given copies of their medical records that show healing that has  had nothing to do with medical intervention.

... which resolutely remains not-evidence-of-supernatural despite your desperate wish to make it so.

[Hope]

Well of course. Who else is going to?

Precisely, the very forms of material that many of us don't think twice about buying and bringing into our houses.  I actually have no problem with this - it seems more to be those here who claim to have no, or very personalised, faith positions who seem most worried.

[Leonard James]

Wrong, there are people who have been given copies of their medical records that show healing that has  had nothing to do with medical intervention.  I appreciate that this kind of thing rarely gets into the news, if only because good news isn't newsworthy, but I have seen a couple of local newspaper articles that have had a copy of the documentation for folk to view - even if they have had to have a magnifying glass to read it in the photo.

That simply shows that spontaneous healing can take place. What has that to do with evidence for gods?

[Hope]

... which resolutely remains not-evidence-of-supernatural despite your desperate wish to make it so.

So, you are happy to provide scientifically unverifiable evidence to counter scientifically unverifiable evidence, Shakes.

[Shaker]

So, you are happy to provide scientifically unverifiable evidence to counter scientifically unverifiable evidence, Shakes.

Come again?