Atheist Billboards/Signs/Posters,etc

[Zarquon]

An unusual holiday message began appearing this week in the nation’s capital on the sides of buses and trains. “No god? ... No problem!” reads the advertisement featuring the smiling faces of people wearing Santa Claus (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/s/santa_claus/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier) hats. “Be good for goodness’ sake.”
Over the next two weeks, 270 of the ads will go up on city buses and trains in the Washington area as part of the holiday kickoff to campaigns sponsored by secular groups in cities around the country and abroad. If last year was any indication, the signs are likely to spark a theological war of words.
Source (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/02/us/02atheist.html?_r=1&emc=tnt&tntemail1=y)
So, what do you think about these atheist coming out or evangelizing efforts?
Personally, I think they're doing a fine job of reaching out to a lot of non-theists who are afraid to 'come-out', while also engaging in 'consciousness-raising'(to use Dawkins's phrase) among the public about atheism.
Though, while these may improve public image of atheists from immoral/unusual to somewhat accepted; I don't think you can evangelize about atheism, as:
a.) its a declaration of non-affirmation rather than affirmation(defining yourself by what you're not).
b.) it doesn't offer anything on its own and is essentially non-promotable.

So, while consciousness-raising is fine, I'd rather we promoted critical thinking/skepticism, and humanism, along with putting 'deed before creed' and getting more involved in charity, community service, and [erhaps schooling.

[Donkey]

I think it's pointless confrontation. We don't need to lower ourselves to evangelism. There is a reason religions evangelize: their good books demand it. Tell me what God is demanding that I inform people that he doesn't exist. Meh. All it really does is stir up the already angry fervent religious.

Just because my truth is superior to yours doesn't make it any less annoying on a billboard.

[drgoodtrips]

I voted 'no' because I don't see any usefulness/benefit to it, per se.

[Michael]

I think it's pointless confrontation. We don't need to lower ourselves to evangelism. There is a reason religions evangelize: their good books demand it. Tell me what God is demanding that I inform people that he doesn't exist. Meh. All it really does is stir up the already angry fervent religious.

I agree. I always prefer the moral high road. Let the religious fanatics squander their money and their public goodwill insulting people with their obnoxious billboards. I see no good reason for atheists to do the same.

Just because my truth is superior to yours doesn't make it any less annoying on a billboard.
Damn good point! :thumbsup:

[Non Sequitur]

This makes me laugh. I don't think billboards are a good idea period for this sort of thing, but I didn't vote because I am solidly in the theist camp.

[Americano]

I voted no but did approve of this:

http://thefbomb.org/2009/11/corduroy-skirts-are-a-sin/

[Greendruid]

I voted no but did approve of this:

http://thefbomb.org/2009/11/corduroy-skirts-are-a-sin/

That is just awesome - Michael might even call it ... cool

[Americano]

That is just awesome - Michael might even call it ... cool

I was also pleased that they were no longer welcome on campus with their hate messages.

[Michael]

That is just awesome - Michael might even call it ... cool
<bemused giggles>

Indeed I would. Cool of the old school, as it were. ;)

As an aside, and for anyone is curious (since some have inquired) I should point out here that it was in private correspondance with Greendruid over a period of several years that I created my trademark "bemused giggles" expression! :D

[The Drunk Guy]

I voted no but did approve of this:

http://thefbomb.org/2009/11/corduroy-skirts-are-a-sin/
That is great! A very savvy way to handle that situation.

As for the poll, I voted yes. I'm probably the most "anti-theistic" person here, so that shouldn't come as a surprise.

The American population is very socially dependent, so letting people know that they are not alone in their non-belief is a positive thing. This is especially true around this time of the year when you have so many theistic groups raising their voice about the holiday season. There are so many "Put the Christ Back in XMas" messages and "Christmas Trees are Pagan Deathtrap" billboards that it can drive even a Christian nutty, so seeing a simple, "No God? No Problem" is heart warming to me.

Of course, I live in a much different place than you folks. I have to be careful about my beliefs much more than if I lived elsewhere. Spouting atheist ideas is not healthy for one's social life and career here, so seeing that I'm not alone is always a bright moment for me.

[Americano]

That is great! A very savvy way to handle that situation.

As for the poll, I voted yes. I'm probably the most "anti-theistic" person here, so that shouldn't come as a surprise.

The American population is very socially dependent, so letting people know that they are not alone in their non-belief is a positive thing. This is especially true around this time of the year when you have so many theistic groups raising their voice about the holiday season. There are so many "Put the Christ Back in XMas" messages and "Christmas Trees are Pagan Deathtrap" billboards that it can drive even a Christian nutty, so seeing a simple, "No God? No Problem" is heart warming to me.

Of course, I live in a much different place than you folks. I have to be careful about my beliefs much more than if I lived elsewhere. Spouting atheist ideas is not healthy for one's social life and career here, so seeing that I'm not alone is always a bright moment for me.

Unless the South has changed a great deal a voiced anti-Christian position around the wrong person(s) could easily lose one a job.

[Zarquon]

That is great! A very savvy way to handle that situation.

As for the poll, I voted yes. I'm probably the most "anti-theistic" person here, so that shouldn't come as a surprise.
letting people know that they are not alone in their non-belief is a positive thing. This is especially true around this time of the year when you have so many theistic groups raising their voice about the holiday season.
:agree:

[partofme]

I agree that it's nice to have a reminder that there are others like myself. My job involves dealing with the public and not a week goes by I don't have a client bring up religion with the assumption that I'm a Christian. It's so uncommon for anybody to be otherwise that it's not even considered I could be anything else. I never get asked if I'm religious or believe in God but instead just asked what church I go to.

[Americano]

I agree that it's nice to have a reminder that there are others like myself. My job involves dealing with the public and not a week goes by I don't have a client bring up religion with the assumption that I'm a Christian. It's so uncommon for anybody to be otherwise that it's not even considered I could be anything else. I never get asked if I'm religious or believe in God but instead just asked what church I go to.

What do you tell them? In the bible belt that could make or break a business deal.

[Michael]

I agree that it's nice to have a reminder that there are others like myself. My job involves dealing with the public and not a week goes by I don't have a client bring up religion with the assumption that I'm a Christian. It's so uncommon for anybody to be otherwise that it's not even considered I could be anything else. I never get asked if I'm religious or believe in God but instead just asked what church I go to.

Up here things are quite the opposite where "I'm a Christian" is the surprise/shocking/rare response.

[partofme]

What do you tell them? In the bible belt that could make or break a business deal.

I usually just say what I was raised in but that at the moment I haven't settled on anything and then ask about theirs. It's a way I can make them assume I'm looking. I know it is misleading but being completely up front would usually blow the sale.

[Donkey]

I usually just say what I was raised in but that at the moment I haven't settled on anything and then ask about theirs. It's a way I can make them assume I'm looking. I know it is misleading but being completely up front would usually blow the sale.
It's none of their business. It's perfectly acceptable to lie.

[Michael]

It's none of their business. It's perfectly acceptable to lie.
This may be entirely off-topic, but I'm reminded by a famous saying from Oscar Wilde and, oddly enough, it is the one thing I think Oscar always got wrong.

Wilde asserted that "questions are never indiscreet, only answers are".

Wilde appears to be supporting Partofme and Donkey's position here.

I object. The indiscreet question is the obnoxious action. If the questioner is not honestly interested in an honest answer, the questioner is rude and obnoxious by definition.

As such, I will always turn on the questioner. If I get asked an obnoxious question, I have a tendency to make the questioner eat their own words in embarrassment. Great satisfaction in that! :)

Wisely, I avoid the public-service and sales fields of employment where lying to customers is part of the job description.

[Americano]

It's none of their business. It's perfectly acceptable to lie.

Agreed. If they believe in mythology what's another myth to them?

[Michael]

Agreed. If they believe in mythology what's another myth to them?

More support for their own tightly closed mind.

You pay the price for this policy at the ballot box.

[Americano]

More support for their own tightly closed mind.

You pay the price for this policy at the ballot box.

I think their minds are so closed all disagreeing with them would accomplish is losing the deal.

[Michael]

I think their minds are so closed all disagreeing with them would accomplish is losing the deal.

I think the policy of selling one's soul to mammon is ironically paid back with religious fanatics in government.

As many have observed, one gets the government one deserves. Being too polite to religous folks tends to just inflate their bubble. And that inflated bubble has real public policy outcomes.

[partofme]

This may be entirely off-topic, but I'm reminded by a famous saying from Oscar Wilde and, oddly enough, it is the one thing I think Oscar always got wrong.

Wilde asserted that "questions are never indiscreet, only answers are".

Wilde appears to be supporting Partofme and Donkey's position here.

I object. The indiscreet question is the obnoxious action. If the questioner is not honestly interested in an honest answer, the questioner is rude and obnoxious by definition.

As such, I will always turn on the questioner. If I get asked an obnoxious question, I have a tendency to make the questioner eat their own words in embarrassment. Great satisfaction in that! :)

Wisely, I avoid the public-service and sales fields of employment where lying to customers is part of the job description.

I'm always honest about the product itself. I do put on a part act myself in order to gain their trust and comfort but I never try and make false claims about our products. In fact I get angry when I go into a client's house and they have a old policy from us and thought they had something else because the agent that sold it to them years ago lied flat out. This is common with universal life policies in which the agent sold them on what it would do with the non-guaranteed interest rate which where extremly high 25 years ago or so but then went down to the non-guaranteed rates which made their policies not last as long at the same premium.

[The Drunk Guy]

I'm always honest about the product itself. I do put on a part act myself in order to gain their trust and comfort but I never try and make false claims about our products. In fact I get angry when I go into a client's house and they have a old policy from us and thought they had something else because the agent that sold it to them years ago lied flat out. This is common with universal life policies in which the agent sold them on what it would do with the non-guaranteed interest rate which where extremly high 25 years ago or so but then went down to the non-guaranteed rates which made their policies not last as long at the same premium.
I face similar problems. People who performed my job before me were terrible about lying to the patients about their co-pays and their ownership rights. I have to go in and fix the problem.

Luckily, I'm not making a sale in their eyes. To them, I'm just explaining that the company fucked up before and I'm here to fix things. It counts as a sell to our office because they could leave and go to another company, but they don't realize that in most cases.

This makes it easier for me to tell them I don't go to church. I usually don't proclaim my atheism (although it has happened), so most just assume I'm a Christian without a church.

The part I have to bite my tongue about is when a patient is getting equipment with their Medicare AND Medicaid and bitching about "that goddamned *banned word*, Obama turning us into socialists." The n-word part is usually a line-crosser for me. There is a list of patients I don't take care of because of it.

[partofme]

I face similar problems. People who performed my job before me were terrible about lying to the patients about their co-pays and their ownership rights. I have to go in and fix the problem.

Luckily, I'm not making a sale in their eyes. To them, I'm just explaining that the company fucked up before and I'm here to fix things. It counts as a sell to our office because they could leave and go to another company, but they don't realize that in most cases.

This makes it easier for me to tell them I don't go to church. I usually don't proclaim my atheism (although it has happened), so most just assume I'm a Christian without a church.

The part I have to bite my tongue about is when a patient is getting equipment with their Medicare AND Medicaid and bitching about "that goddamned *banned word*, Obama turning us into socialists." The n-word part is usually a line-crosser for me. There is a list of patients I don't take care of because of it.

I get the ones about Obama being a terrorist or the anti-Christ quite a bit. Not to mention he wants to kill all old people. It's very hard holding back when I normally jump right in on crap like that. I can honestly say I haven't heard a client use the n-word yet.

[Americano]

I get the ones about Obama being a terrorist or the anti-Christ quite a bit. Not to mention he wants to kill all old people. It's very hard holding back when I normally jump right in on crap like that. I can honestly say I haven't heard a client use the n-word yet.

In my southern heritage and experience I think age and familiarity has quite a bit to do with who does and doesn't use the N word. I've associated with educated, well-traveled Southerners who would never utter the word around a majority of people but let the liquor flow among close friends/family and I guarantee you'll hear it from the older males. The ladies prefer using the word 'colored'. If the person is in a mud-covered 4x4 flying a confederate flag, regardless of age, you'll more than likely hear it. I do tend to stereotype, but accurately.

[Americano]

I think the policy of selling one's soul to mammon is ironically paid back with religious fanatics in government.

As many have observed, one gets the government one deserves. Being too polite to religous folks tends to just inflate their bubble. And that inflated bubble has real public policy outcomes.

I don't know how much time you've spent in the US bible belt but they aren't going to change in my lifetime regardless of whether or not I agree with them.

[partofme]

I've heard colored quite a bit actually. I usually just look at them like they are from another planet.

[Greendruid]

Up here things are quite the opposite where "I'm a Christian" is the surprise/shocking/rare response.

Don't paint our country with a broad brush Michael. My experience tells me this is a rural/urban split where the godless masses live in cities and the Christian faithful live in small towns and the countryside. Unfortunately pagans love the countryside and this is in fact the origin of the term.

[Americano]

Don't paint our country with a broad brush Michael. My experience tells me this is a rural/urban split where the godless masses live in cities and the Christian faithful live in small towns and the countryside. Unfortunately pagans love the countryside and this is in fact the origin of the term.

Living in the countryside near a small town does make me miss the godless masses.

[Lily]

In these parts, people still tell *banned word* jokes. And I'm not talking about the rural, peckerwood patients we get in the ER, I'm talking about the educated RNs and physicians' assistants. They're also homophobic, xenophobic and "good Christians."

Sometimes I just want to throw up.

[SMadsen]

Depends on the settings. Here in Denmark, such a campaign would make no sense since religion is not really a player on the public or political scene. However, I understand religion plays entirely different roles in USA, socially and politically. So if religions become expressions of political points of views then I see no harm, or perhaps even a duty, in putting forth opposing political points of views.

So in other settings I would not hesitate voting no but given the circumstances I can't see why the approach should not be approved of.

[Michael]

I agree completely with SMadsen on this - context is everything. :)

In most contexts, that kind of billboard is nothing but an attempt to stir up religious animosity and that's just unacceptable.

But in the context of the USA, where religious animosity is the bread and butter of daily politics, then I see this kind of thing as a reasonable contribution to that debate.

I'd be horrified to see that kind of billboard here in Canada. I'd be cheered to see it in the USA.

[The Drunk Girl]

I use the "N" word myself from time to time joking around. I like to say, "I'm the whitest *****/black/colored person you'll ever meet." People tend to laugh and some are even shocked that I would use the word and/or not make it **gga. But I find that it helps ease some people's minds about the, "Do you prefer to be called colored, African American, or black?" deal. Some people still do not know how to react or act about it, but the point is: I don't give a fuck. I am clueless to the black culture for the most part and am personally very picky about black people I encounter. I have found that a lot of stereotypes fit, which in turn tends to make me uncomfortable.

Poking fun at myself from time to time, has become a way for me to cope with the ignorance that sometimes surrounds me. And, I also figure that if I am going to poke fun at other things, people, and stereotypes than I shouldn't leave myself out.

------------------------------------

A few years back a (white) cousin of mine owned a little country store. This man came in and asked her if she had seen, "that big buck" that had been standing outside her store. My cousin answered, "no" but she would have been thrilled to have seen it. She couldn't imagine a buck getting so close to her store and would have loved some pictures. The guy continued on telling her how it was the biggest damn buck he had seen in his whole life, and that he had his gun with him and was going to shoot it. He decided not to when he saw a white woman sitting in the truck with him!

[Michael]

Upon review of this thread, I realize that I never actually replied to the OP, but only to comments that followed. I shall rectify that now. :D

Source (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/02/us/02atheist.html?_r=1&emc=tnt&tntemail1=y)
So, what do you think about these atheist coming out or evangelizing efforts?
I don't like it one bit.

"Coming out" or "evangelizing" are political acts - ipso facto. They serve the interest of political groups of like-minded interests, not the individuals themselves that are so counseled. Thus, if the policy doesn't directly serve the interests of the object of the counsel, I can't support the counsel. That would be duplicitious.

Secondly, I strongly object on the grounds that 'evangelizing' is a religious act and that only gives credence to the anti-atheist accusation that atheism is just another faith-base religion like all the others.

Personally, I think they're doing a fine job of reaching out to a lot of non-theists who are afraid to 'come-out', while also engaging in 'consciousness-raising'(to use Dawkins's phrase) among the public about atheism.
Are they not guilty of playing exactly the same game as they object to with religion in the first place?

Seeking converts by seduction is vulgar, base and dishonorable.

Indeed, that religions are dependent upon this type of recruitment (along with 'capture' of infants) is a major critique against religion.

Indeed, there is a reason I like to call myself an adeist - that is to distance myself from those religous fanatics who call themselves atheists!

Any atheist that supports this kind of 'recruitment' is guilty of acting the same as the religious groups they supposely abhore.

I stand by my long held position on this matter. Religion ought to remain, a matter of private conscience, protected by the constitution and not dicussed in polite company - to concern one's self with the religion of others is vulgar by definition.

Though, while these may improve public image of atheists from immoral/unusual to somewhat accepted; I don't think you can evangelize about atheism, as:
a.) its a declaration of non-affirmation rather than affirmation(defining yourself by what you're not).
b.) it doesn't offer anything on its own and is essentially non-promotable.

If you believe this, how can you possibly support this billboard nonsense?

So, while consciousness-raising is fine, I'd rather we promoted critical thinking/skepticism, and humanism, along with putting 'deed before creed' and getting more involved in charity, community service, and perhaps schooling.

I'd rather you just did what you think is right and stop worrying about how to get me to do those same things (figuratively speaking of course!).

Indeed, you seem like you are trying to suggest a PR and doctrinal policy for some atheist religious group. :shrug:

Put the deed before the creed. I can live with that. Because as soon as you hit the creed part, you are in religious-land.

[Zarquon]

I stand by my long held position on this matter. Religion ought to remain, a matter of private conscience, protected by the constitution and not discussed in polite company - to concern one's self with the religion of others is vulgar by definition.
We're all products of our eras, and you seemingly are of yours, when that sort of 'secularism' was practiced. I don't think pushing a problem under the table makes it go away, and to not discuss religion is to put it on a pedestal and affirm its sacred/untouchable status, which I refuse to do.

If you believe this, how can you possibly support this billboard nonsense?
You may not have any use for it, but a lot of the American ones do, especially the Southern ones.


I'd rather you just did what you think is right and stop worrying about how to get me to do those same things (figuratively speaking of course!).

Indeed, you seem like you are trying to suggest a PR and doctrinal policy for some atheist religious group. :shrug:

Put the deed before the creed. I can live with that. Because as soon as you hit the creed part, you are in religious-land.
So you're content for atheists and humanists to be a fringe and let the majority be screwed by religion and to let religion enjoy its unjustifiable status in society? (and spare me your 'argument form history', it doesn't mean squat in terms of what can be)
Then you'll always be be bitching about bullshit policies, as progress or (even improvement of the temporal world) is not a goal of the devout, and real change is not going to happen as long as the majority of the population believes some ancient(or recent) text to 'hold all the answers' and adheres to anti-human 'morality', or indulges in myopic anti-intellectual nonsense because of it.

[SMadsen]

Are they not guilty of playing exactly the same game as they object to with religion in the first place?

Seeking converts by seduction is vulgar, base and dishonorable.

Indeed, that religions are dependent upon this type of recruitment (along with 'capture' of infants) is a major critique against religion.

Indeed, there is a reason I like to call myself an adeist - that is to distance myself from those religous fanatics who call themselves atheists!

Any atheist that supports this kind of 'recruitment' is guilty of acting the same as the religious groups they supposely abhore.
Basically, one can only recruit to an ideology, never to an absence of ideology. However, I suppose one can always push towards unrecruitment :D

If said campaign is campaigning for something then it has got to be for an ideology, such as, for example, humanism. Atheism is an absence of ideology and can therefore not serve as something to be campaigned for. With atheism, one can only campaign against something else.

All this makes no difference, of course, to anyone who cannot see the difference (which, incidentally, are primarily those who require that the term 'atheism' exists in the first place). To those people it is nothing but semantics. Ironically, though, it usually makes sense to the very same people to talk about an absence of atheism :lol:

I stand by my long held position on this matter. Religion ought to remain, a matter of private conscience, protected by the constitution and not dicussed in polite company - to concern one's self with the religion of others is vulgar by definition.
It is never vulgar to concern one self with the ideologies of others if the ideologies of others affect one self.