Atheist Billboards

[Rapier]

Agnosticism is more about not being sure, but tending slightly to the non existence of deities, IIRC. Gnosticism is the exact opposite, of course, but it may include more than one religion.

Edited November 28, 2013 by Rapier

[euklyd]

Agnosticism is more about not being sure, but tending slightly to the non existence of deities, IIRC. Gnosticism is the exact opposite, of course, but it may include more than one religion.

Nope:

Agnosticism is the belief that the truth values of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, as well as other religious and metaphysical claims—are unknown.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

It's often used in a context of leaning towards disbelief, but there's nothing about it that makes it inherently so.

[Fruity Insanity]

Lol, that first billboard.

Christmas is supposed to be representative of Christ's birth. That is, a Christian holiday.

Of course, now it's culturally established as something else, but still, I find it amusing.

Anyway, I find it immature of people to jab another religion (or lack of it, thereof). Just let people believe what they want. And if they do plan on conversion, insulting is definitely not the way to go. That'll just make people defensive.

I see what they're trying to do: Make the other party look bad.

But still.

[dondon151]

I would argue the opposite, but it doesn't matter either way. Christmas is still a holiday focused on Christian ideals and tenants. To claim it as a myth is, indeed, insulting. And yes, there is indeed 'rockball' throwing, especially of the mocking kind by implying that, not only is the Birth of Jesus a myth, but that people know this yet keep pushing it as truth. This is not just a solitary example either as I found at least two other examples which I haven't linked yet of billboards outright implying/stating that faith is a fairytale, myth, stupid and what-have you.

why is it insulting? you are making a strange logical leap here. when i say that i think christianity is a myth, in no way am i saying that christians are stupid.

i hate to be trite, but here is one instance where the phrase "don't hate the player, hate the game" is relevant. a statement in opposition to christianity is not a statement against christians.

The big difference (in my eyes at least) is that most religions have both been around long enough and have made it clear enough that they are about saving peoples souls and dealing with a persons spiritual life first and flinging insults is simply not their concern. Atheism, however, has not. It's only focus is on 'there is no God' (so technically, so long as God/s don't exist, we could have vampires, werewolves, zombies, ghosts, and everything and atheism would still be true). While many atheists claim to be about knowledge, neither truth in this claim or untruth justifies this.

you're right; flinging insults is too trivial for our established religions. instead, they have a history of waging holy war and governing people's lifestyles.

i would appreciate it if you stopped misrepresenting the modern atheist movement. the capacity to think rationally is by no means a requisite to atheism, nor does atheism have a monopoly on rational thinking, but most atheists arrived at their lack of belief this way, which is why the modern atheist movement (as well as the secular and humanist movements) champion rational thinking. and atheism hardly claims to be about knowledge; it is impossible to disprove the existence of a god or gods with 100% confidence.

I honestly can't think of a better way to summarize this. If atheism is, indeed, better than faith, shouldn't atheists be condemning these (remember, I said that not every atheism billboard was bad, even linked one that wasn't, just the attack ones) instead of 'stooping to the same level'? You know, encourage discussion or focus on the benefits of atheism as opposed to going 'Lol! You religious people are so stupid! You believe in Jesus and the Santa bunnyman. What's next? Count Chocula?'

uh, no? there is no philosophy prohibiting the use of billboards. your flagrant strawman aside, the use of billboards is effective at both promoting atheism awareness and at encouraging closet atheists to come out.

Christmas is supposed to be representative of Christ's birth. That is, a Christian holiday.

a christian holiday steeped in pagan tradition, celebrating an event whose date is uncertain!

Just let people believe what they want. And if they do plan on conversion, insulting is definitely not the way to go. That'll just make people defensive.

this wouldn't be a problem if what other people believe doesn't dictate in part my country's social, educational, academic, and foreign policy.

Edited November 28, 2013 by dondon151

[Rapier]

What I don't understand is why atheism is adopting a position on which it stands against other religions. If they don't believe in gods, why should it even matter? And why does it matter if the majority is christian?

[dondon151]

What I don't understand is why atheism is adopting a position on which it stands against other religions. If they don't believe in gods, why should it even matter?

what's so hard to understand about this? the assertion that there is or are no gods is diametrically opposed to the assertion that there is or are gods.

And why does it matter if the majority is christian?

because that's whom we have to talk to?

[Sifer]

I am fine with Atheist and Theist billboards as long as they are no threats in the billboards, I think it is a awesome right when you can have views against the majority and not be persecuted. I lived in a part of the world where if you converted from the official religion of the country you would have been placed in jail. There a nice bunch though, just a different culture and a way of doing things.

Well, in my experience it is always the extremist that you hear about and they drown out the mild sects and makes the other side of the spectrum think there all bad. So it ends up with both sides thinking the others are extremist.

Looks like I got off topic a bit.

Edited November 28, 2013 by sifer

[Rapier]

what's so hard to understand about this? the assertion that there is or are no gods is diametrically opposed to the assertion that there is or are gods.

because that's whom we have to talk to?

I think you didn't understand my question. If you believe that gods don't exist, why even bother with the subject?

[Fruity Insanity]

a christian holiday steeped in pagan tradition, celebrating an event whose date is uncertain!

this wouldn't be a problem if what other people believe doesn't dictate in part my country's social, educational, academic, and foreign policy.

And that changes... what, exactly? I don't see your point. It's a day set apart to represent the birth of Jesus Christ, an important day because, most obviously, Christianity is centered around that person. At least, in a Christian perspective. In a more secular perspective, it's just a holiday on which you go shopping, spend some merry time with your family over a warm Christmas dinner, sharing gifts.

And does it? I mean, in America - and I'm assuming you live in the U.S. - the Constitution, amendments, and Bill of Rights protect us from that... Subjection to beliefs with which you disagree.

Edited November 28, 2013 by Fruity Insanity

[Snowy_One]

why is it insulting? you are making a strange logical leap here. when i say that i think christianity is a myth, in no way am i saying that christians are stupid.

Don't hate the player. Hate the game. And the game says 'saying people believe in an obvious myth while you claim to celebrate reason instead says that you consider your opponents unreasonable and stupid'. Don't hate me. Hate the game. Oh. Also.

you're right; flinging insults is too trivial for our established religions. instead, they have a history of waging holy war and governing people's lifestyles.

Gee. Nice to know our 'intellectual superiors' can look at an ocean and only see the sharks.

i would appreciate it if you stopped misrepresenting the modern atheist movement.

you're right; flinging insults is too trivial for our established religions. instead, they have a history of waging holy war and governing people's lifestyles.

the capacity to think rationally is by no means a requisite to atheism,

You KNOW it's a Myth

This Season, Celebrate Reason!

American Atheists . Reason

nor does atheism have a monopoly on rational thinking,

You sure seem to think you do. After all...

but most atheists arrived at their lack of belief this way, which is why the modern atheist movement (as

well as the secular and humanist movements) champion rational thinking.

Reason is not required to disprove a faith. But most people who disregard your silly notions of faith use it!

and atheism hardly claims to be about knowledge;

You KNOW it's a Myth

This Season, Celebrate Reason!

American Atheists . Reason

it is impossible to disprove the existence of a god or gods with 100% confidence.

-_- 'We use reason to disprove faith, however, reason says we cannot be 100% certain your faith is wrong, so we must use faith to disprove faith. BUT WE FIND FAITH STUPID BECAUSE WE ARE SMART!''

That's what I'm getting from this.

uh, no? there is no philosophy prohibiting the use of billboards. your flagrant strawman aside, the use of billboards is effective at both promoting atheism awareness and at encouraging closet atheists to come out.

I don't think you know what that word means.

'Strawman' arguments happen when someone mis-represents something and then attacks the mis-represention as fact. It does not happen when I'm using photos of the subject in question, saying that some of them are okay but that they should stop with the attack ads because it makes them look horrible, using your own quotes from your own post to counter you, and engaging in a valid and viable discussion.

What is a 'Strawman' though is countering a discussion about why it's not the same for an established religion dealing with spiritual matters to post an attack ad (because it has of focus on saving the soul/spiritual matters) and that atheism (where the only uniting belief is that there is no God) needs a more defined focus before it can claim the same by talking about past 'holy wars' and theocracies as if they were the only thing religion was about.

a christian holiday steeped in pagan tradition, celebrating an event whose date is uncertain!

Yes. And? You make it sound like people don't realize that Santa living up at the North Pole and having elves as workers isn't part of the Bible and that pine trees weren't exactly present at the birth of Jesus inside of a manger. Course, it's perfectly acceptable to accuse Christians of believing in fairy tales and being incapable of distinguishing truth from fiction because you're an intelligent atheist and Christmas emerged 100% the way it was back in 100 A.D. and has not grown, evolved, or the like since then. Here's another surprising fact. Before Poe 'A Christmas Carol' also wasn't part of Christmas! Shocking, no?

this wouldn't be a problem if what other people believe doesn't dictate in part my country's social, educational, academic, and foreign policy.

So why is it wrong for me to dictate your country's social, educational, academic, and foreign policy, but okay for you to dictate my country's social, educational, academic, and foreign policy?

[dondon151]

I think you didn't understand my question. If you believe that gods don't exist, why even bother with the subject?

i've already answered that question. but okay, say that you believe that homeopathy doesn't work. why even bother with the subject?

And that changes... what, exactly? I don't see your point. It's a day set apart to represent the birth of Jesus Christ, an important day because, most obviously, Christianity is centered around that person. At least, in a Christian perspective. In a more secular perspective, it's just a holiday on which you go shopping, spend some merry time with your family over a warm Christmas dinner, sharing gifts.

that doesn't change anything. i was merely stating how un-christian christmas is. as a christian, if you're okay with that, i'm not sure why a few atheists will ruin your christmas.

And does it? I mean, in America - and I'm assuming you live in the U.S. - the Constitution, amendments, and Bill of Rights protect us from that... Subjection to beliefs with which you disagree.

well, yes, it does. abortion, stem cell research, gay rights, science textbooks, and foreign policy in the middle east are among some of the things strongly influenced by religious belief. if you go further back in history, quite a few other things were influenced or justified by religious belief.

[eclipse]

Wow, this blew up in a hurry. ;/

I'd be for banning billboards, period. Both sides make me cringe.

[Fruity Insanity]

that doesn't change anything. i was merely stating how un-christian christmas is. as a christian, if you're okay with that, i'm not sure why a few atheists will ruin your christmas.

well, yes, it does. abortion, stem cell research, gay rights, science textbooks, and foreign policy in the middle east are among some of the things strongly influenced by religious belief. if you go further back in history, quite a few other things were influenced or justified by religious belief.

Un-Christian...? I guess in a sense, it can be. But, believe it or not, there are those of us who are sincere about the date and actually try to revere God by setting apart time on Christmas. I admit, I wouldn't categorize myself as one of those, but I know quite a few whom I would.

Hm, gay rights... I guess I agree on that one, for the most part. Also, I've never seen a textbook heavily influenced by any religion, with the sole exception of this one that I saw the other day, I guess. (And I didn't like it.

But not abortion or stem cell research. Rather than religion influencing those things, I think it's an ethical thing (which may just verify your point because our ethical values stem from religion, I guess). Natural law dictates that when a person encroaches on another person's life or property, that's, well, bad. But when does life begin? That's the question. And I don't think the religion affects that so much other factors. I'm not sure of this, but I think I can safely assume that there are atheists who agree that there is a certain time after which things are just too much. Also, if this world goes into a state of no restrictions, that would be a dystopian society, indeed.

As for foreign policy... I think American should return to isolationism.

But what am I saying, I'm just a 17-year-old. What do I know, right? Arguing with elders like that.

Edited November 28, 2013 by Fruity Insanity

[Balcerzak]

What I don't understand is why atheism is adopting a position on which it stands against other religions. If they don't believe in gods, why should it even matter? And why does it matter if the majority is christian?

Because Christians (or other religions) often attempt to legislate morality. If I want to maintain life under governing I agree with, it is easier if I am able to work with like-minded individuals, and pointing out many of the flaws in Christian (or other religious) doctrine, and helping to bring others to question the faith they were spoonfed from childhood is a decent attempt at accomplishing this.

[dondon151]

Don't hate the player. Hate the game. And the game says 'saying people believe in an obvious myth while you claim to celebrate reason instead says that you consider your opponents unreasonable and stupid'. Don't hate me. Hate the game. Oh. Also.

putting words in my mouth. none of this was ever said.

Gee. Nice to know our 'intellectual superiors' can look at an ocean and only see the sharks.

quit playing the victim complex here, dude, and you're once again putting words in my mouth.

Reason is not required to disprove a faith. But most people who disregard your silly notions of faith use it!

-_- 'We use reason to disprove faith, however, reason says we cannot be 100% certain your faith is wrong, so we must use faith to disprove faith. BUT WE FIND FAITH STUPID BECAUSE WE ARE SMART!''

That's what I'm getting from this.

i'm not even sure where to begin. your understanding of logic is so rudimentary that it would be difficult to explain to you how this works. one can use reason to asymptotically approach the certainty that some faith is false. by nature, it is impossible to prove anything true or false with 100% certainty.

the crux of rational thinking is that evidence leads to some degree of certainty. there is no faith involved.

I don't think you know what that word means.

'Strawman' arguments happen when someone mis-represents something and then attacks the mis-represention as fact. It does not happen when I'm using photos of the subject in question, saying that some of them are okay but that they should stop with the attack ads because it makes them look horrible, using your own quotes from your own post to counter you, and engaging in a valid and viable discussion.

What is a 'Strawman' though is countering a discussion about why it's not the same for an established religion dealing with spiritual matters to post an attack ad (because it has of focus on saving the soul/spiritual matters) and that atheism (where the only uniting belief is that there is no God) needs a more defined focus before it can claim the same by talking about past 'holy wars' and theocracies as if they were the only thing religion was about.

hahaha, okay, go ahead and claim that you are innocent of employing strawmen--

'Lol! You religious people are so stupid! You believe in Jesus and the Santa bunnyman. What's next? Count Chocula?'

oh, wait, turns out i was right in the first place.

[dondon151]

But not abortion or stem cell research. Rather than religion influencing those things, I think it's an ethical thing. Natural law dictates that when a person encroaches on another person's life or property, that's, well, bad. But when does life begin? That's the question. And I don't think the religion affects that so much other factors. I'm not sure of this, but I think I can safely assume that there are atheists who agree that there is a certain time after which things are just too much. Also, if this world goes into a state of no restrictions, that would be a dystopian society, indeed.

of course religion has a huge influence on matters regarding embryos. for instance, catholics (not all of them, mind) claim that life begins at conception. the conceptus possesses a soul. killing a conceptus is tantamount to murder.

now, if you knew anything about embryology, and were capable of divorcing it from religious belief, you would know the following:

1. ~40% of conceptions spontaneously abort

2. embryos do not have a nervous system until the neural tube begins to form

so it is quite easy to justify abortion or the harvesting of embryos for stem cell research before a certain point in development. actually deciding that point is where rational debate comes in. what happens when religion dictates that you cannot abort or conduct research on embryos under any circumstances (slight simplification)? (hint: look at the extent to which president bush had set back the progress of stem cell research.)

Edited November 28, 2013 by dondon151

[eclipse]

Second note: Don't double post.

[Rapier]

Because Christians (or other religions) often attempt to legislate morality. If I want to maintain life under governing I agree with, it is easier if I am able to work with like-minded individuals, and pointing out many of the flaws in Christian (or other religious) doctrine, and helping to bring others to question the faith they were spoonfed from childhood is a decent attempt at accomplishing this

You can live your life pretty much however you see fit without any other religion forcing you to follow certain tendencies, unless you live in a middle eastern country on which people are killed regularly for not believing on the official religion. I also believe that it is not possible to sum subjects about abortion, gay rights etc. as mere christian ranting. They are far more complex than this, and there are non-christians that also are against abortion or are against the LGBT agenda, and so on.

Some people mistake having a high christian influence in culture (we DO know that it influences 1/3 of the western culture, along with the greek philosophy and roman law/rights) as having a christian government.

@dondon

You're trying to establish a relation between two things when there is none. Why should I care about what others believe if it doesn't affect me or others in the slightest? I may have my opinion about the unexistence of a flying spaghetti god, but it's such an irrelevant and silly topic to me that I may as well find something more interesting to do. I've no need to attack the flying spaghetti god worshippers or comment about how stupid it is on billboards, for one, nor discuss about how theorically it is not possible for a flying spaghetti god to exist.

Also, christianity affects science textbooks because, clearly, science started from christianity. Its many contributors also throw the "christians don't use reason or age against science" argument to the trash can, too. What is the issue with this?

[Balcerzak]

You can live your life pretty much however you see fit without any other religion forcing you to follow certain tendencies, unless you live in a middle eastern country on which people are killed regularly for not believing on the official religion. I also believe that it is not possible to sum subjects about abortion, gay rights etc. as mere christian ranting. They are far more complex than this, and there are non-christians that also are against abortion or are against the LGBT agenda, and so on.

Some people mistake having a high christian influence in culture (we DO know that it influences 1/3 of the western culture, along with the greek philosophy and roman law/rights) as having a christian government.

You're missing the point. Just because not all abuse is as flagrant as an "infidel" being beheaded, doesn't mean it doesn't happen, and that atheists shouldn't take steps to try to improve their lot in life. As just an example, in some states atheists are, or were until recently, barred from holding public office. The scope goes far beyond just "abortion, gay rights, etc.", although those are important issues in which some stubborn sects of Christianity are attempting to hold back the march of progress on common decency to our fellow man.

And if you want to try to pull the distinction about "it's not the government that's the problem, it's the culture" then that doesn't really affect things at all. All the more reason to try to put the word out there, to try to change the culture, imo.

Edited November 28, 2013 by Balcerzak

[eclipse]

I don't get the "atheists can't hold public office" nonsense. Isn't government supposed to give no fucks about religion, as long as it's not one that breaks any laws?

[Balcerzak]

I don't get the "atheists can't hold public office" nonsense. Isn't government supposed to give no fucks about religion, as long as it's not one that breaks any laws?

That's because you're a reasonable individual, eclipse, unlike the state constitutions of Arkansas, Maryland, Mississippi, either of the Carolinas, Tennessee, or Texas. The fact that the provisions would likely be thrown out based on the US Constitution's 14th amendment, doesn't mitigate the fact that someone would have to face a court challenge if they could even get elected in the first place. Polls have shown that out of every single minority, the one people would be least likely to vote a qualified individual into office, all other things being equal, are the nontheists.

[Loki Laufeyson]

Perhaps it would have been better to say vocal fringe groups rather than extremes, although these groups are often rather committed to their cause. Although that's not to say anyone with that dedication is inherently bad, I find the vast majority of people rather reasonable.

Pretty much.

...so athiests should do the exact same thing then? are they no better?

Heh. Apparently its ok to invoke the double standard if you are in the minority.

What I don't understand is why atheism is adopting a position on which it stands against other religions. If they don't believe in gods, why should it even matter? And why does it matter if the majority is christian?

I dont get this either.

Wow, this blew up in a hurry. ;/

I'd be for banning billboards, period. Both sides make me cringe.

Meh. Im not a fan of censorship in general so im not exactly for banning the billboards. But i fully agree that both sides are cringeworthy.

I don't get the "atheists can't hold public office" nonsense. Isn't government supposed to give no fucks about religion, as long as it's not one that breaks any laws?

You'd think so given the whole "Separation of Church and State" thing but people just...dont get it and it still weasels its way into our government. (yuck)

[eclipse]

Meh. Im not a fan of censorship in general so im not exactly for banning the billboards. But i fully agree that both sides are cringeworthy.

Hawaii has an outright ban on billboards. It doesn't stop the religious advertising (I see ads on the bus, of all places). I'd rather limit all religious (or lack thereof) advertising to the front of pertinent buildings, and leave the ad space in shopping centers for stuff like relevant restaurants and merchandise.

[BK-201]

Hawaii has an outright ban on billboards. It doesn't stop the religious advertising (I see ads on the bus, of all places). I'd rather limit all religious (or lack thereof) advertising to the front of pertinent buildings, and leave the ad space in shopping centers for stuff like relevant restaurants and merchandise.

Just because a ban has happened doesn't legitimize billboards. Even if there are ways around the prohibition of their usage and negatives to their usage, I don't think that alone justifies censorship.

[Phoenix Wright]

if you need to profess your atheism in this day and age you're just looking for attention. just like the fundies.