Atheist Billboards

[Snowy_One]

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

So wait. We can only play the 'games' you like with the subtext you like? Ignoring that the very first post here was talking about how these attack-ads are openly insulting and hurt the image of atheism? If you really can't figure out how I got that from an ad saying 'You know it's a myth. Celebrate Reason.' and what the whole point of the topic is (that ads like this portray atheists as little more than childish bullies throwing rockball arguments), not to mention having it stated multiple times... Well. You're honestly not worth responding to.

Especially since, despite claiming that I'm 'mis-representing the modern atheist' by saying their pretty much childish snobs with no knowledge of what they're talking about jumping up and down shouting 'you're wrong because I'm smart', you then leap to their defense by mocking my intellect and inability to 'follow your logic', talk down to me, can't even grasp a basic analogy (seriously? You didn't get that I was saying you're looking at an entire religion with various people who have done a multitude of things both good and bad in the name of it, and only focus on the 'dangerous' ones? Heck. If you really were an intellectual you'd even see there was a second layer since only a very small portion of sharks are dangerous and, likewise, not every 'religious war' is about religion and has religion functioning as more of a banner or scapegoat for political/personal maneuvering), all while claiming you are smart despite your apparent inability to use the shift or caps-lock key even once.

From now on, I will only respond to you when you have a point worth responding too. I could be doing far more productive things like responding to other people.

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.

Indeed. Many of these issues are very multi-faceted to the point where no simple answer can suffice. With abortion you have a whole slew of things like 'what if a woman decides to abort simply to spite the father? Does she have the right to terminate a life at will or does she have to prove intent every time?' I'm not going to pretend to even begin to know the answers to questions like that. It's not just religion, though they are certainly the most vocal group.

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.

Actually, Western Culture is way more than 33%. It's almost entirely Christian while the Middle East is Islamic with some Judaic and Hindi influences (especially in India which is VERY Hindi) and the East/Far East is very heavily based in Chinese Tradition/Shino/Bhuddism. Errrr... Anyways, Europe and America is almost entirely Christian-influanced.

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.

I have no objection to atheists trying to improve their lot in life. As I pointed out, it is entirely possible to have pro-atheists billboard ads that aren't offensive. Just that some of them are really bad to the point of not only potentially/certainly being offensive, but portray atheists in a very bad light too.

[Fruity Insanity]

[spoiler=But whatever.]

Y'know one thing I try to do when I argue?

Stay objective about things, open to ideas.

Hurling insults will only result in more insults.

That one discussion was almost a year ago. I've rearranged my views somewhat now.

You reap what you sow.

And sowing a condescending tone will get you nowhere.

You don't dismiss what you hear as ignorance just because it conflicts with what you know, but rather, take it, analyze it, and see if it has merit before snarky remarks. Even then, you argue civilly. We humans are capable of rational thinking, something both atheists and theists agree on.

I mean, I often see this here. And I don't like it.

It's like treading on weak ground here.

Edited November 28, 2013 by Fruity Insanity

[Aizenberg]

i say get rid of all billboards. i don't want some idiots opinion thrown in my face. i think for myself

Edited November 28, 2013 by Aizenberg

[Baldrick]

There are some atheists that give the others a bad name? That's not a surprise, basically any group that large has a few extremists that do stupid shit. But if the worst thing they do is put up billboards decrying the concept of Christianity, they seem fairly tame to me.

Atheism isn't even the most rational religious view anyway, it's pretty irrational to be so certain about an unfalsifiable hypothesis.

But seriously, what is the most important tenet of Christianity? Matthew 22:36-40 puts belief in God second to love thy neighbour, but who would God really care about? And which one most closely emulates Christ? To be frank anyone offended by those billboards doesn't get it.

can't even grasp a basic analogy (seriously? You didn't get that I was saying you're looking at an entire religion with various people who have done a multitude of things both good and bad in the name of it, and only focus on the 'dangerous' ones?

How do you figure that? He answered it, he said you were putting words in your mouth. Personally, I object to the word "only". Of course there are reasonable Christians. But just like dolphins being around doesn't mean the shark's teeth is any less sharp, there being reasonable Christians doesn't stop unreasonable Christians from doing their thing.

claiming you are smart despite your apparent inability to use the shift or caps-lock key even once.

Are you serious?

[Shuuda]

Atheism isn't even the most rational religious view anyway, it's pretty irrational to be so certain about an unfalsifiable hypothesis.

That's not what Atheism means. Being an Atheist means you don't believe that any god exists, not that you're absolutely certain they don't exist. Shockingly enough, most Atheists can also be considered Agnostic, too. They don't know for certain whether one exists or not, but they personally don't believe they do.

And no, just because some Atheist acts certain, that doesn't mean most are. The word encompasses as much variety as the word Theist does.

Edited November 28, 2013 by Shuuda

[Rapier]

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.

This is exactly why the Constitution exists. I am also against the teaching of Christianity in public schools. I give atheists all the reason to protest against these kind of things, so long as they don't mistake a Free Religion State for an Atheist State (ie, if they want to teach about religion in some private schools, then it's their choice and the kid's parents' choice). This is not a problem within Christianity, though. It's a problem with how those governors took in their beliefs, unless you say that all other states are atheists

I wouldn't say that some stubborn sects of Christianity are attempting to hold back the "march of progress" because they don't agree with abortion, gay rights etc. just because of their religion. There are arguments against abortion, even outside of religious matters, for example, the one that you're effectively killing a potential human being, even if there are 50% chances of it aborting itself - there are still 50% chances that it WILL turn into a human being (embryos not having a nervous system until later doesn't matter in the slightest, for it still doesn't change the fact that it CAN turn into a baby, and that's what matters). Gay rights sound just silly because they should only be treated like everyone else instead of more specially, and I see a lot of victimism within their movements, just like with feminism. It' s not that simple.

I don't see a problem with the culture, and I'd say it's dangerous to go with this "let's change the culture" idea. You can be an atheist and still live your life without anyone forcing you to follow any Christian tendencies, and I'm glad I live in a country that defends free religion, something that wouldn't happen in an atheist state (or, in other words, a country that accepts no religions) or in a muslim country (which hunts you for holding different beliefs from the official religion). Christians are, in their MAJORITY, tolerant, and don't bother anyone (unless you count ringing your door bell to preach about God as annoying... which I'll have to agree with =P).

Especially since, despite claiming that I'm 'mis-representing the modern atheist' by saying their pretty much childish snobs with no knowledge of what they're talking about jumping up and down shouting 'you're wrong because I'm smart', you then leap to their defense by mocking my intellect and inability to 'follow your logic', talk down to me, can't even grasp a basic analogy [...]

I have to agree with you here. Some arguments comming from some atheists sound so stupid that it sounds like we're using a Strawman Fallacy here. Except we're not, as the billboards on the first post proved. And I'm not referring only to the average atheist. Carl Sagan and Richard Dawkins are (in)famous for doing these as well.

Atheism isn't even the most rational religious view anyway, it's pretty irrational to be so certain about an unfalsifiable hypothesis.

There's also this. Both atheist and theism share something in common: Both use faith. Faith isn't theist exclusive, because you can't disprove the existence of gods as well as you can't prove that they exist.

Edited November 28, 2013 by Rapier

[Makaze]

It's ironic that people think Christmas is being secularized.

The week leading up to 25th was originally a secular and Pagan holiday tradition under Roman rule. One of the main ones was called Saturnalia and consisted of a week long period of various festivities. Notable Pagan celebrations of this festival included a period of lawlessness during which all laws were ignored by Roman courts and a victim was chosen to be fattened, raped and eventually killed on the last day of the festival. Others included gift giving, the trees and other symbols we use today.

Christians secularized and tamed it by Pagan standards by claiming it was the birth of Christ, using their own version of the holiday to turn it into a conversion tactic and pull themselves away from the un-Christian festival.

The secularization of today tames it even more, making it more acceptable to people of all faiths and no faith. Christians have little ground to stand on concerning December 25th. Just as Christians reclaimed a Pagan holiday for themselves, others may reclaim it for a time of family gatherings and gift giving.

The billboards may be going a bit far, but they are patronizing at best, especially compared to the religious ones. None of the atheist billboards posted have been aggressive toward people. They advocate reason and suggest questioning your beliefs as an individual. Religious billboards have been claiming that nonbelievers are morally repugnant.

Take Shin's second billboard.

Atheists and lawyers who defend atheists are not just lunatics, they are traitors.

Theist billboards attempt to demonize and marginalize atheists instead of appealing to them. I haven't seen anything suggesting that atheists are defaming characters with billboards. The atheists are criticizing ideas, not people. They are trying to convince theists to change and question. Theist billboards suggest that the reader stop associating with atheists or mock them with faulty information. It's clear which is the more militant between the two.

Edited November 28, 2013 by Makaze

[Baldrick]

That's not what Atheism means. Being an Atheist means you don't believe that any god exists, not that you're absolutely certain they don't exist.

Yes, I should have qualified I meant strong atheists. Weak atheists are inherently agnostic, and would also disagree with the message of the atheist billboards.

[eclipse]

Theist billboards attempt to demonize and marginalize atheists instead of appealing to them. I haven't seen anything suggesting that atheists are defaming characters with billboards. The atheists are criticizing ideas, not people. They are trying to convince theists to change and question. Theist billboards suggest that the reader stop associating with atheists or mock them with faulty information. It's clear which is the more militant between the two.

Both extremes are undesirable - they only lead to strife (and personal attacks).

[Makaze]

Both extremes are undesirable - they only lead to strife (and personal attacks).

Conceded. I only mean to question the purpose in singling out atheist billboards when they are actually fairly tame.

[Rapier]

Theist billboards attempt to demonize and marginalize atheists instead of appealing to them. I haven't seen anything suggesting that atheists are defaming characters with billboards. The atheists are criticizing ideas, not people. They are trying to convince theists to change and question. Theist billboards suggest that the reader stop associating with atheists or mock them with faulty information. It's clear which is the more militant between the two.

They criticize the ideas and those who believe on those ideas. Take the first billboard in the first post as an example. "This week, celebrate reason" implies that Christians are not following reason, because... Well, they haven't explained this part yet. Also, there's this one:

The religious intolerance should have been made clear. I admit there are Christians who want to force their ethics into others, because nutcases exist everywhere in the world, but that's why we live in democracies - we have laws and rights that protects us from the desires of a group, and we can fight against impositions that may come from any group of intolerants (which certainly do not limit themselves to christians). Demozining religion with a "Imagine No Religion" billboard not only is extremely totalitarian but also anti-democratic.

They're not as innocent as you claim.

Edited November 28, 2013 by Rapier

[Balcerzak]

They criticize the ideas and those who believe on those ideas. Take the first billboard in the first post as an example. "This week, celebrate reason" implies that Christians are not following reason, because... Well, they haven't explained this part yet. Also, there's this one:

The religious intolerance should have been made clear. I admit there are Christians who want to force their ethics into others, because nutcases exist everywhere in the world, but that's why we live in democracies - we have laws and rights that protects us from the desires of a group, and we can fight against impositions that may come from any group of intolerants (which certainly do not limit themselves to christians). Demozining religion with a "Imagine No Religion" billboard not only is extremely totalitarian but also anti-democratic.

They're not as innocent as you claim.

Longer post when I'm not pressed for time, but the message on that billboard is functionally identical to one expressed in a well-beloved Beetles song*. I hardly would consider that "demonizing religion". Additionally "This Season Celebrate Reason" is a clever play on the traditional "Jesus is the Reason for the Season". It's not suggesting Christians are inherently non-reasoning people, imo. Citing these as strong attack ads is a large stretch.

Imagine there's no countries

It isn't hard to do

Nothing to kill or die for

And no religion too

Imagine all the people living life in peace

(emphasis mine) Edited November 29, 2013 by Balcerzak

[-Cynthia-]

I wouldn't say that some stubborn sects of Christianity are attempting to hold back the "march of progress" because they don't agree with abortion, gay rights etc. just because of their religion. There are arguments against abortion, even outside of religious matters, for example, the one that you're effectively killing a potential human being, even if there are 50% chances of it aborting itself - there are still 50% chances that it WILL turn into a human being (embryos not having a nervous system until later doesn't matter in the slightest, for it still doesn't change the fact that it CAN turn into a baby, and that's what matters).

'

Christians often cite religion as their basis for the argument against abortion, gay marriage, etc.- to argue against this one must either argue against Christianity or dismiss Biblical arguments as irrelevant. While there are non-religious opponents of abortion, gay marriage etc., Christians make up the vast majority of the opposition in the United States.

Gay rights sound just silly because they should only be treated like everyone else instead of more specially, and I see a lot of victimism within their movements, just like with feminism. It' s not that simple.

Being treated equally in comparison to everyone else is gay rights. Some cases of victimism does not diminish this. It is that simple, you're just making excuses like 'they want to be treated special' and 'victimism' to protect Christian bigotry.

I don't see a problem with the culture, and I'd say it's dangerous to go with this "let's change the culture" idea. You can be an atheist and still live your life without anyone forcing you to follow any Christian tendencies, and I'm glad I live in a country that defends free religion, something that wouldn't happen in an atheist state (or, in other words, a country that accepts no religions) or in a muslim country (which hunts you for holding different beliefs from the official religion). Christians are, in their MAJORITY, tolerant, and don't bother anyone (unless you count ringing your door bell to preach about God as annoying... which I'll have to agree with =P).

This is not true. A gay person cannot marry, adopt children in many places, serve in the military etc. for instance. They cannot live their life without following 'Christian' tendencies, since these 'tendencies' explicitly discriminate against them. It may be beneficial to realize that as a non-discriminated group, you may not have the experiences to talk about how a discriminated person either can or cannot live their life as they choose.

There's also this. Both atheist and theism share something in common: Both use faith. Faith isn't theist exclusive, because you can't disprove the existence of gods as well as you can't prove that they exist.

Not believing in something does not mean you need to disprove it. I don't believe that we are all actually a science experiment of a giant alien, because there is no evidence to suggest it. The burden of proof is on the person claiming that something does exist.

Edited November 29, 2013 by -Cynthia-

[Light-Heart]

Thoughts on this ?

Both sides are being childish and acting like Children

Both sides are being disrespectful to each other

Both sides are basically flipping the finger to each other with the Billboards

Both sides are being attention-seeking

Both sides are looking butthurt and desperate to prove the other wrong

Religious and Atheist Billboards are both silly, and they're both in the wrong. And should you be following them or looking up to them anyways ? You should be making your own choices in life, not what a Billboard says, otherwise you are nothing close to being a Robot just following orders and not what you believe in, positive or negative towards God.

About the Christmas thing, it's not even Jesus's real birthday, 25th December was a Roman Celebration, to celebrate Saturn and then was pushed under the rug and disguised as a Christian Holiday. Jesus according to studies was born in Spring, about March 25th- 28th.

You can insult Christmas all day if you desire, because it's just a fraud holiday that is extremely poisoned and even more so thanks to Companies wanting your money and people sucking into greed, stress, paranoia, anger, loss of sleep. and even close Family or Friends deaths.

Yes I am Bah Humbug.

Edited November 29, 2013 by glenncoco

[Dwalin2010]

You can insult Christmas all day if you desire, because it's just a fraud holiday that is extremely poisoned and even more so thanks to Companies wanting your money and people sucking into greed, stress, paranoia, anger, loss of sleep. and even close Family or Friends deaths.

What's wrong with Christmas, even if we don't consider it from the religious point of view? I mean, all the happy spirit, the trees, decorations, presents, holiday movies, famlilies celebrating together etc. I am not Catholic, therefore to me the 25th of December isn't really a religious holiday, but I still like the general atmosphere of those holidays, what's wrong if people select some days to celebrate and be happy?

Edited November 29, 2013 by Dwalin2010

[Snowy_One]

What's wrong with Christmas, even if we don't consider it from the religious point of view? I mean, all the happy spirit, the trees, decorations, presents, holiday movies, famlilies celebrating together etc. I am not Catholic, therefore to me the 25th of December isn't really a religious holiday, but I still like the general atmosphere of those holidays, what's wrong if people select some days to celebrate and be happy?

It's not the holiday, it's what the holiday represents. July 4'th isn't the day the Declaration was signed so much as the day it was finalized. Easter was unlikely the day Jesus was reborn but ended up being the day it was celebrated due to pagan holidays. It's almost universal for all holidays, especially those that were 'celebrated'. However, many of these dates have taken on more meaning in addition to their 'original'. Christmas is now not just about Jesus's birth but unconditional unity between everyone for example.

[Parrhesia]

Both the antitheist "lol religion's a myth, sheeple" and the fundamentalist "y'all going to hell, scum" are both equally bad, stupid and pointless. They're both claiming another belief/lack of belief is invalid, holds no place in the world and generally shouldn't exist.

Which is fucking idiocy, everyone has or should have a right to religious freedom. Australia seems weighted heavily against religious people, America seems (from the outside) heavily weighted against atheists, but either way it all evens out in the end, and both extremes/vocal minorities/whatever are wrong. To clarify, that's vocal, smug antitheists and fanatical, open-attempts-at-conversation fundamentalists.

Yes, 'the right way is always in the middle' is not a valid argument. I'm saying that both extremes are fucking stupid and held by totally worthless people, and anyone with an ounce of common sense knows to hold the middle ground, because it's the only place not covered in metaphorical spikes.

[Nightmare]

Yes, 'the right way is always in the middle' is not a valid argument.

It's only not a valid argument when it isn't. But you clearly outlined the reasons for why both extremes are terrible. Which, if you think about it, aren't really on different sides of the spectrum anyway. Same basic idea of decrying the other side's beliefs, the only difference being their different beliefs which actually doesn't factor as far as this argument is concerned. This makes it so the argument isn't even a "truth is always in the middle" case.

[Chiki]

Which is fucking idiocy, everyone has or should have a right to religious freedom.

It's not incompatible to believe in religious freedom and to believe that religion is a myth. Richard Dawkins believes in religious freedom but he also thinks that religion is a myth. People should have the right to believe in what they want, and people should have the right to express their opinion that religion is a myth. To suggest otherwise, that the two views are incompatible, is stupid and ignorant.

It's a bit silly to call two compatible claims "fucking idiocy." You obviously don't even have a basic understanding of the issue, so you should probably not be calling anything stupid. You should instead not be posting at all on this issue.

I'm saying that both extremes are fucking stupid and held by totally worthless people,

Lol.

To clarify, that's vocal, smug antitheists and fanatical, open-attempts-at-conversation fundamentalists.

I'm saying that both extremes are fucking stupid and held by totally worthless people,

with an ounce of common sense knows to hold the middle ground

Who's the smug person here? Honestly, your post makes you look a shitload worse than the people you hate. It's funny that most misanthropes tend to be even worse people than the people they hate.

Edited November 30, 2013 by Chiki

[dondon151]

Both the antitheist "lol religion's a myth, sheeple" and the fundamentalist "y'all going to hell, scum" are both equally bad, stupid and pointless.

yeah okay lol

i look at those two statements and see a clear gulf in stupidity.

Yes, 'the right way is always in the middle' is not a valid argument. I'm saying that both extremes are fucking stupid and held by totally worthless people, and anyone with an ounce of common sense knows to hold the middle ground, because it's the only place not covered in metaphorical spikes.

contradiction in two sentences

The religious intolerance should have been made clear.

i see no religious intolerance there whatsoever. for a three-word statement, the atheist undertone is rather subtle, and it doesn't even explicitly depict religion as a harmful establishment. a billboard that claims "religious people are traitors" (which is a claim that one could rationalize on an advertisement, given that american tradition should be fundamentally secular) would be an entirely different story.

again, the victim complex is at play here. before you hastily label a statement as offensive, think for a moment whether the statement targets an idea or a group of people. if it's the former, well, try not to cry wolf.

Yes, I should have qualified I meant strong atheists. Weak atheists are inherently agnostic, and would also disagree with the message of the atheist billboards.

no, they wouldn't. under your definition, i am a weak atheist because i am only 99.9% certain of the nonexistence of a god or gods (floored to the nearest tenth of a percent). i strongly agree and support the atheist billboards (at least, the ones that have been mentioned).

Both extremes are undesirable - they only lead to strife (and personal attacks).

why is conflict bad?

It's not the holiday, it's what the holiday represents. July 4'th isn't the day the Declaration was signed so much as the day it was finalized. Easter was unlikely the day Jesus was reborn but ended up being the day it was celebrated due to pagan holidays. It's almost universal for all holidays, especially those that were 'celebrated'. However, many of these dates have taken on more meaning in addition to their 'original'. Christmas is now not just about Jesus's birth but unconditional unity between everyone for example.

or it's about giving things to other people

one of the most remarkable oddities about christmas is that in countries with no christian tradition that celebrate christmas (like japan), it's totally different compared to countries with a christian tradition. christmas has been secularized in japan. they couldn't care less about when jesus was born.

Edited November 30, 2013 by dondon151

[BK-201]

again, the victim complex is at play here. before you hastily label a statement as offensive, think for a moment whether the statement targets an idea or a group of people. if it's the former, well, try not to cry wolf.

Yeah it seems this thread's complaints are mainly built around "You disagree with me and expressed your disagreement in some way, therefore you're being offensive".

[eclipse]

As I see that being civil is now out of the question, I'm locking this.