Atheist Ads Cross The Line


TL10
 Share

Recommended Posts

In the pole, cnn asked if you believed in extraterrestrial life and 85% of the respondents said yes.

With billion and billions of suns, how can you NOT believe earth is the only planet to not harbor life? Ancient petrplyps in south America depitc UFO shaped space ships crossing the sky. Aliens have already come and gone. Besides, what if the alien was human like?

As far as psychics, I have a had a few revelations, one that let me to seeing the lives of 10s of thousands many people dead days before it happened. So cannot discount that. Wife was a witness to it.

If I saw that billboard, I would laugh :) Basically a counter productive use of some ones time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 101
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

With billion and billions of suns, how can you NOT believe earth is the only planet to not harbor life? Ancient petrplyps in south America depitc UFO shaped space ships crossing the sky. Aliens have already come and gone. Besides, what if the alien was human like?

To be fair, most people are skeptical about UFO's, not extraterrestrial life. Are there other lifeforms in the universe? It's very possible. Have they been to Earth? Highly unlikely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Today I heard a great commentary on the atheist billboard. The gist was--shame on us Christians that our behavior and example to society is such that our critics understand that they can put up such a comment, and few will come to our defense. In other words, if we don't like it, let's live the kind of lives that make most people say, "Wait...too many of my friends are Christians--and they are not foolish!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Somebody's always going to be offended, but if I were an atheists looking to get Christians to think outside their faith, I might do an ad that asked, "In the beginning...perhaps man created God?" It's still pointed. Some will find it aggressive. However, at least it's open-ended

Ever a teacher, thanks for being that way.

My first thoughts along the same line were pretty close to the same thought.

We really can not change anyone's belief. We can teach, and we can share, but the rest is up to that person.

I worry that people judge others by such things before they even get to know them. I have noticed in my life that really good people do not believe like I do. You have to wonder why they felt the need to go to the expense. I hope they find the peace that they needed.

Edited by prisonchaplain
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here in Canada, there's an athesit group enacting an ad campagin on major citys' transit. This is the second capaign they have done, with the first ad claiming that "there probobly isn't a god..." and so on and so forth. The first one offended me, but this one was just downright innaporopiate and disrespective.

Posted Image

I don't care if you're atheist or not, I won't judge people about their beliefs, but this is just disgusting in so many ways. Yes, there are some people of different faiths (including ours) that are intolerant of other faiths/beliefs, but I for one think that apart from Westboro, these people from other religions don't disrespect one's beliefs like this.

I believe that the atheist group should cease and desist. There are very good people who (in times like these) only have God, or some religious figure, to rely on. I believe this ad takes their faith, and smashes it to bits, instead of holding some sort of respect for them.

What do you think about this?

i wouldnt give a dang if this wwas run in my city.... i'd probably add fire to the pot rather than try to douse it-

I'd take it and add after the 2 lines

requires extraordinary people

do you think you have it in you?

which is probably not the best solution at all tho.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, obviously I didn't get my opinion in the previous post properly explained.

Would you think any of these examples should be protected by freedom of speech.

1) A group of Neo-Nazis have gathered downtown in Anti-Semitic protests. They are holding signs related to the holocaust, Hitler, etc. etc. Casting them in a favourable light while they are using racial slurs against Jews. Would you protect their freedom of speech?

2) Westboro members have gathered across the street from a community center (church, gym, etc.) that is hosting the funeral of a fallen soldier, angerly shouting the typical offending comments such as "God Hates ---s" including torments to the late soldier saying he's ----- to hell. The family members of the late soldier have been offended enough that they're in tears. Would you protect their (Westboro's) freedom of speech?

3) It's General Conference, and naturally, the anti-mormons have gathered across the street from the Conference Center, shouting that Joesph Smith is a liar and such and that we're going to hell. They also bear signs with their offending comments on it as well. Would you protect their freedom of speech?

Here's basically the problem I see. We're being told not to be racist, anti-semetic, et cetera, yet we are still allowing racists, anti-semtics, and anti-mormons to do these things even though they're offending and cursing against politically sensitive demographics. In a sense, we're almost encouraging them. Sure we could arrest some of these guys for hate crimes, but they can always fall back on their admendmants, charter of rights, or whatever human rights laws may be established in our respective country because we protect free speech.

Yes, this ad, isn't as bad as the example's I have given, but you can see future problems arising this ad. This ad to me, is like a test bed (for the select group of athesists who are doing this) to see how far they (the atheists who run these ads) can get away with prodding at one's religion. I'd expect to see far worse things (perhaps not from the same group) in the future related to this.

And yes, I am 16 and Canadian. The only reason I'm going indepth about this is because I like Current Events, and it has been the only subject I'm really good at in High School. All my other subject have been... sub-par. *shifts eyes*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) A group of Neo-Nazis have gathered downtown in Anti-Semitic protests. They are holding signs related to the holocaust, Hitler, etc. etc. Casting them in a favourable light while they are using racial slurs against Jews. Would you protect their freedom of speech?

Yes.

2) Westboro members have gathered across the street from a community center (church, gym, etc.) that is hosting the funeral of a fallen soldier, angerly shouting the typical offending comments such as "God Hates ---s" including torments to the late soldier saying he's ----- to hell. The family members of the late soldier have been offended enough that they're in tears. Would you protect their (Westboro's) freedom of speech?

Yes.

3) It's General Conference, and naturally, the anti-mormons have gathered across the street from the Conference Center, shouting that Joesph Smith is a liar and such and that we're going to hell. They also bear signs with their offending comments on it as well. Would you protect their freedom of speech?

Yes.

We're being told not to be racist, anti-semetic, et cetera, yet we are still allowing racists, anti-semtics, and anti-mormons to do these things even though they're offending and cursing against politically sensitive demographics.

If one only protects popular speech it isn't much of a protection. The true test of Freedom of Speech is when you protect that speech which you despise. What happens when what you want to say is unpopular?

Edited by Dravin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) A group of Neo-Nazis have gathered downtown in Anti-Semitic protests. They are holding signs related to the holocaust, Hitler, etc. etc. Casting them in a favourable light while they are using racial slurs against Jews. Would you protect their freedom of speech?

Yes.

2) Westboro members have gathered across the street from a community center (church, gym, etc.) that is hosting the funeral of a fallen soldier, angerly shouting the typical offending comments such as "God Hates ---s" including torments to the late soldier saying he's ----- to hell. The family members of the late soldier have been offended enough that they're in tears. Would you protect their (Westboro's) freedom of speech?

Yes.

3) It's General Conference, and naturally, the anti-mormons have gathered across the street from the Conference Center, shouting that Joesph Smith is a liar and such and that we're going to hell. They also bear signs with their offending comments on it as well. Would you protect their freedom of speech?

Yes.

Freedom of speech doesn't protect the speech I like. It protects the speech I don't like, because I don't like it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TL...many of the offensive free speech examples you inquire of have indeed been vetted and found to be protected. Thing is, if they can yell at me, then we know who they are and what they stand for. No secret meetings, spreading their hate in whispers. It's all out in the open. And because the exposure is so public, the venom seldom ferments into dangerous violence.

It's surpressed speech that is dangerous. Let fools spew their ignorance, and most discerning folk see it for what it is. Of course, this view is faced upon a unique idea--that most people are reasonable and capable of discernment. Democracy is messy and inefficient. But I prefer it to other forms of governance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"This excerpt is from Brigham Young - Journal of Discourses - Subject United Order and explains that all have rights and why infringement of those rights is wrong.

This kingdom is the kingdom that Daniel spoke of, which was to be set up in the last days; it is the kingdom that is not to be given to another people; it is the kingdom that is to be held by the servants of God, to rule the nations of the earth, to send forth those laws and ordinances that shall be suitable and that shall apply themselves to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints; that will apply themselves to the mother Church, “the holy Catholic Church;” they will commend themselves to every Protestant Church upon the earth; they will commend themselves to every class of infidels, and will throw their protecting arms around the whole human family, protecting them in their rights.

If they wish to worship a white dog, they will have the privilege; if they wish to worship the sun they will have the privilege; if they wish to worship a man they will have the privilege, and if they wish to worship the “unknown God” they will have the privilege.

This kingdom will circumscribe them all and will issue laws and ordinances to protect them in their rights—every right that every people, sect and person can enjoy, and the full liberty that God has granted to them without molestation. "

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TL10,

I know you are in Canada, but here in the US, the First Amendment to the Constitution would protect every situation you outlined. There is a very famous case that is a carbon copy of the first scenario (cf. National Socialist Part of America v. Village of Skokie, Illinois); the second two would likely be protected under the same principle.

I know that Section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is not co-extensive with the First Amendment to the US Constitution, but I have a really hard time figuring that any of the three situations would come out differently under Canadian law. As others have said, freedom of speech laws exist specifically to protect speech that is unpopular or expressive of minority opinions. Laws that only protect speech that everyone feels good about provide little protection that matters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a society of 5 wolves and a sheep, democracy (majority rule) is great - unless you are the sheep. That's why in America we are not ruled by majority. We are ruled by LAW. Freedom of speech guarantees that the sheep is heard when he declares "Sheep are friends, not food" however much that offends the wolves.

There is NOTHING offensive about the ad. It is true. If you are to claim that Jesus Christ lives and He is the Savior - you better be ready to prove it. That goes with Big Foot too.

Edited by anatess
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a society of 5 wolves and a sheep, democracy (majority rule) is great - unless you are the sheep. That's why in America we are not ruled by majority. We are ruled by LAW. Freedom of speech guarantees that the sheep is heard when he declares "Sheep are friends, not food" however much that offends the wolves.

There is NOTHING offensive about the ad. It is true. If you are to claim that Jesus Christ lives and He is the Savior - you better be ready to prove it. That goes with Big Foot too.

Interesting take on it. I like that you look at it that we can step up to the challenge instead of them putting our beliefs down.. if that makes sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Preventing government from officially being involved with a religion is a far cry from taking away freedom of speech. I'm sorry you're outraged that the religion that already permeates the culture of our country can't be "officially" endorsed and/or mandated by our government, but if you're genuinely afraid that the oppressive atheist minority is trying to take away YOUR (as in something you personally say, not in an official government capacity) freedom of speech, you have serious paranoia issues.

Edit: As an atheist, I don't particularly agree with either of those lawsuits, but labeling them as atheists trying to take away the freedom of speech of Christians is ridiculous.

Edited by DigitalShadow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Preventing government from officially being involved with a religion is a far cry from taking away freedom of speech. I'm sorry you're outraged that the religion that already permeates the culture of our country can't be "officially" endorsed and/or mandated by our government, but if you're genuinely afraid that the oppressive atheist minority is trying to take away YOUR (as in something you personally say, not in an official government capacity) freedom of speech, you have serious paranoia issues.

I'm with you on this one DigitalShadow...

Being an American athiest and having to say "One Nation Under God" after bell rings in the government run public schools must be darned annoying. I could completely understand them trying to change that so they won't have to say it and still be counted as an American patriot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Respecting the super-majority of Christians in a country, and the traditions that many vague theists share with them, and yet protecting minority religious groups, as well as those who have no religious affiliation--it's a difficult balancing act. Despite all the "sky is falling" rhetoric that gets put out (especially around Christmas, ironically), me thinks we do a pretty good job in the U.S.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TL10,

I know you are in Canada, but here in the US, the First Amendment to the Constitution would protect every situation you outlined. There is a very famous case that is a carbon copy of the first scenario (cf. National Socialist Part of America v. Village of Skokie, Illinois); the second two would likely be protected under the same principle.

I know that Section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is not co-extensive with the First Amendment to the US Constitution, but I have a really hard time figuring that any of the three situations would come out differently under Canadian law. As others have said, freedom of speech laws exist specifically to protect speech that is unpopular or expressive of minority opinions. Laws that only protect speech that everyone feels good about provide little protection that matters.

Being an East Coast Canadian I can tell you that #1 is illegal as we have laws against inciting hate.

Two under 20 year old brothers got prison terms this Year in Nova Scotia for burning a cross on a mixed couples lawn. According to the older brother he admitted to burning the cross as a way to get even with the wife (white) for telling people he was doing something illegal. He said it was a cross because she was religious, he had no idea it was a hate crime because the husband was Black. The difference was jail time verse a fine.

#2 would be broken up as it is inciting a riot.

#3 would be allowed as long as the demonstration remained peaceful.

TL When we are younger we have fresh knowledge, as we age it changes into wisdom. On the surface what you are saying is true, they should be stopped. But soldiers around the world have and continue to fight for the rights of people who disagree with what we believe to be true to be able to be heard.

It sounds stupid but the ad will get people to think about what is being said, it allows those who might never think of God the opportunity to do so. The wise course is not to remove their right to voice their opinion. Instead follow their lead.

If you find this so very offensive then contact religious organizations and create an ad that voices our opinion in favour of God. We have to remember Satan's plan is to force us all to conform to one way and he was cast out for it. God's plan allows each of us the freedom to choose our path but not our consequence for following it.

At the very least realize that any who truly are against God will be dealt with by God when God is ready.

Hope you're enjoying your snow, we still have green grass!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey PC,

I'm sorry I took so long to respond to this. I've been unwell, but am feeling a bit better tonight.

I just meant a conversation where neither side resorts to name-calling or intentional offensiveness. Low bar, I admit. Interest in the other's POV would be a nice step other. In today's environment, I would robably settle for neither side feeling the need to offend or degrade the other.

You know, in an earlier post Digital Shadow called the ad “snaky.“ (Later edit: DS said "snaRky," not "snaky.")That surprised me coming from a fellow atheist, and that, combined with this discussion, made me really look at this ad to find what was so offensive, and I admit, I still don’t see it.

For example, if, hypothetically, the Corner Baptist Church advertised on a bus that the existence of God is obvious except to those who are blind, it would not offend me. I would disagree with it, but I wouldn’t be offended. I’ve seen similar ads through the years, and I know it’s what they believe. I wouldn’t expect them to say otherwise.

I don’t see the ad in question as any different. It’s what atheists believe, including (for many of us--not all atheists really care that much), the insistence that the evidence standard for God should be just as high as it is for Big Foot or psychic phenomenon. How is stating that any different than the many Christian ads like the one I used as an example above?

Is the Christian ad a slur on atheists? I don’t see it that way. I see it as an attempt to bolster and influence the faith of fellow Christians, potential converts, and perhaps to extend that influence into the public sphere. I don’t doubt that some of them intentionally target atheists, but I see that just as I see human flaws in general--we all have them and we all behave badly sometimes, but generally, we all try our best to do what is right.

I'll admit it's a matter of nuance. However, asking who lit the big bang is far more circumspect than suggesting belief in Jesus has no more merit than belief in psychics.

But that’s what atheists believe. Are you offended by what we believe? Because I don’t sense that you are, and if you’re not, why should the ad pretend otherwise? Why is it okay for a Christian ad say something like those who refuse to believe are blind, but an atheist ad has to couch their beliefs to make it feel less forceful?

Somebody's always going to be offended, but if I were an atheists looking to get Christians to think outside their faith, I might do an ad that asked, "In the beginning...perhaps man created God?" It's still pointed. Some will find it aggressive. However, at least it's open-ended.

But true atheism isn’t open-ended about this--there is no “perhaps.“ It’s, until we have evidence stating otherwise, it’s “not.” I suppose that could be a “perhaps,” but, speaking as an atheist, that would feel disingenuous to me.

I guess I feel like you think we should soften the blow a bit by not clearly stating what we believe--there is no evidence of a god. For me, that feels fake. Christians don’t go around softening the blow for me, and I’m fine with that.

I do see your point as far as what kind of statement welcomes a conversation, as evidenced by this thread where many Christians are offended by the ad. Your “Perhaps” statement is catchy and non-threatening, and a theist would probably be more inclined to respond in a friendly manner--but only to a point. There always is a point where theists and atheists, if they’re honest, will come to where they have to admit they both think the other is wrong. It’s not sort of wrong in a “perhaps“ kind of way--it’s completely and utterly wrong. That’s how I interpret the ad--it cut through all the preliminaries and tells it like it is.

You've gotta admit, even if you believe Christianity is more myth than history, it has a little more substance that a psychic.

I think this is the crux of the issue, because, no, I don’t see Christianity as having any more substance whatsoever than a psychic. I sense that’s hard for you to comprehend, while, for me, it’s just the way it is, so I wonder if this is why we see this so differently.

So, again...It's just a matter of nuance. The purpose seems to be mockery, rather than promotion of a viewpoint.

I’m really trying to understand how you see mockery rather than a viewpoint, because I just don’t see it. I found the website of the sponsors of the ad, called Atheist Bus, and it said:

Why is belief in Bigfoot dismissed as delusional while belief in Allah and Christ is respected and revered? All of these claims are equally extraordinary and demand critical examination.

At CFI Canada we challenge ideas and ask tough questions to promote reason, science, secularism and freedom of inquiry.

I completely support their stance, and I think it’s legitimate to bring these issues to the public via an ad. It’s because I see no evidence of a god, Christian or otherwise, and I am concerned about the influence religion, in my specific case Christianity, has on issues like the sciences, etc.

But it has nothing whatsoever to do with believing Christians are ignorant, gullible, or worse. I don’t think that. It has to do with what I believe are irresponsible religious influences on the government, particularly in the schools, things like that.

That’s all another conversation, but I’m trying to distinguish the difference between an atheist believing the validity of Christianity should be held to the same standard as the belief in psychic phenomenon vs. believing Christians themselves are stupid because of their belief. They are two completely different things to me, and one does not automatically equate to the other, though I admit there are atheists who do conflate the two, But many, I would like to think most us, do not. I know what it’s like to have a belief in God that feels as real as the chair I’m sitting in right now.

I wonder if this is also part of our different perspectives--I don’t think you’ve ever been an atheist--is that right? See, I have been both a theist and an atheist, and I know how it feels to be both--whereas you only know what it feels like to be a theist. That is not a criticism at all--just a thought as to how to explain why you see offense in the ad where I see directness.

BTW...the ad comes nowhere near the line of what should be censored, in my view.

Yeah, I never doubted that. You’re always the epitome of reason. :)

Elph

Edited by Elphaba
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey PC,

I'm sorry I took so long to respond to this. I've been unwell, but am feeling a bit better tonight. You know, in an earlier post Digital Shadow called the ad “snaky.“ That surprised me coming from a fellow atheist, and that, combined with this discussion, made me really look at this ad to find what was so offensive, and I admit, I still don’t see it.

For example, if, hypothetically, the Corner Baptist Church advertised on a bus that the existence of God is obvious except to those who are blind, it would not offend me. I would disagree with it, but I wouldn’t be offended. I’ve seen similar ads through the years, and I know it’s what they believe. I wouldn’t expect them to say otherwise.

I don’t see the ad in question as any different. It’s what atheists believe, including (for many of us--not all atheists really care that much), the insistence that the evidence standard for God should be just as high as it is for Big Foot or psychic phenomenon. How is stating that any different than the many Christian ads like the one I used as an example above?

We live in an age in which people offend easily, and do not assume the best of those they disagree with. That said, I would admit that the offensiveness of this ad is of the mildest sort. It might be what atheists believe, but it's hard not to read a bit of ribbing in this. Really though, we believers ought to smirk about it, not get ruffled. Surely our faith can take this mildest of pokes.

Is the Christian ad a slur on atheists? I don’t see it that way. I see it as an attempt to bolster and influence the faith of fellow Christians, potential converts, and perhaps to extend that influence into the public sphere. I don’t doubt that some of them intentionally target atheists, but I see that just as I see human flaws in general--we all have them and we all behave badly sometimes, but generally, we all try our best to do what is right.

We pretty much agree then. It's just that most on the string are focusing on "those that target."

But that’s what atheists believe. Are you offended by what we believe?

Really? You really believe there is no more rationality to belief in God (Judaism, Islam and Christianity), or even a Higher Power (theism, Alcoholics Anonymous) than there is 1-900-PSYHIC? I know you've concluded there is no god(s). But, surely the 1000s of years of philosphical thought that has gone into historic religious tradition carries a bit more intellectual weight than the typical 3AM mystic infomercial? No?

Because I don’t sense that you are, and if you’re not, why should the ad pretend otherwise? Why is it okay for a Christian ad say something like those who refuse to believe are blind, but an atheist ad has to couch their beliefs to make it feel less forceful?

I am suggesting both sides take the high road, and you seem to contend that the low road is not that bad. Perhaps we're both right?

But true atheism isn’t open-ended about this--there is no “perhaps.“ It’s, until we have evidence stating otherwise, it’s “not.” I suppose that could be a “perhaps,” but, speaking as an atheist, that would feel disingenuous to me.

Perhaps I am reading too much into the ad. I see it implying that there is no more thought that goes into theism than into seeking counsel from psychics. The broader point that evidence is needed gets missed--perhaps by my own thin skin (self discovery is sometimes unpleasant).

I guess I feel like you think we should soften the blow a bit by not clearly stating what we believe--there is no evidence of a god. For me, that feels fake. Christians don’t go around softening the blow for me, and I’m fine with that.

Your point is fair in a discussion. It could well be that we're simply misreading the billboard ad to imply a lack of thought on our part.

There always is a point where theists and atheists, if they’re honest, will come to where they have to admit they both think the other is wrong. It’s not sort of wrong in a “perhaps“ kind of way--it’s completely and utterly wrong. That’s how I interpret the ad--it cut through all the preliminaries and tells it like it is.

I do see your point. Further, I admit that we Christians in particular just aren't used to seeing bumperstick/placard atheism. Well...there are the Darwin-fish things...but...really, we're just not used to it. If I were to look back through many Christian attempts at one-liners, I'd like be silent about any minor offense I might have taken from this ad. How's that for a concession?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really? You really believe there is no more rationality to belief in God (Judaism, Islam and Christianity), or even a Higher Power (theism, Alcoholics Anonymous) than there is 1-900-PSYHIC? I know you've concluded there is no god(s). But, surely the 1000s of years of philosphical thought that has gone into historic religious tradition carries a bit more intellectual weight than the typical 3AM mystic infomercial? No?

Just an odd comment on this. While the term psychic is some what modern there's a lot of reference to them through out history to some people. The idea of seers and prophets to some are exactly that. While today some don't really attribute their "gifts" to a higher power it's not right to say it's exactly a new thing. How much of this in the past was attributed to "gods" when it could very well be they just had no other idea about it, where as now we have a different view on things? Over the centuries we've had to constantly expand our horizons to embrace parts of the world we thought could be explained away by the supernatural or divine. The source of disease and sickness once being attributed to demons or spirits comes to mind. Just a thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really? You really believe there is no more rationality to belief in God (Judaism, Islam and Christianity), or even a Higher Power (theism, Alcoholics Anonymous) than there is 1-900-PSYHIC? I know you've concluded there is no god(s). But, surely the 1000s of years of philosphical thought that has gone into historic religious tradition carries a bit more intellectual weight than the typical 3AM mystic infomercial? No?

An outrageous claim, no matter how much history and tradition is behind it and how many people have died to defend it, is still an outrageous claim. I personally find pagan beliefs and traditions to be beautiful and fascinating, but I see no more rationality or credibility in those religions than in Christianity, Islam, or Greco-Roman mythology. From the atheist perspective, yes, they are all as irrational and unfounded as the psychic hotlines.

I do see your point. Further, I admit that we Christians in particular just aren't used to seeing bumperstick/placard atheism. Well...there are the Darwin-fish things...but...really, we're just not used to it. If I were to look back through many Christian attempts at one-liners, I'd like be silent about any minor offense I might have taken from this ad. How's that for a concession?

Thank you for bringing that up. You're absolutely right, the religious minorities in this country usually aren't very visible, but it's important for the Christian majority to realize that we're out there and we like to advertise every now and then as well. FWIW, I've never received a negative comment when wearing my aforementioned Bad Religion shirt. It's actually instigated some very respectful and open-minded discussions about religion, which is what I was hoping for when I bought it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

An outrageous claim, no matter how much history and tradition is behind it and how many people have died to defend it, is still an outrageous claim. I personally find pagan beliefs and traditions to be beautiful and fascinating, but I see no more rationality or credibility in those religions than in Christianity, Islam, or Greco-Roman mythology. From the atheist perspective, yes, they are all as irrational and unfounded as the psychic hotlines.

Resurrection...healing miracles...demons and angels...warfare that's justified because the enemy is being punished by our God...yes, from an atheist perspective I suppose the end conclusion is the same. You and Elphaba make the cogent point that the billboard simply expresses core atheist doctrine. Thank you for parsing this for me. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOL..Everybody has an opinion and thinks they are right. At the end of the day who cares what motive groups have to teach people not to believe in God and eliminate him from society. As this is the effect it has on a lot of the public. The organization is a coalition of 15 local groups that works to raise awareness of atheists in the Metroplex. There are anti-religious groups that fund a lot of money to these causes as far up as the CIA and FBI.

Those who are ripe for the picking may have their mind opened up and stimulated, while those who agree with atheism can have their testimony affirmed that there MAY not be a God. Let them. They better feel they are doing the right thing but it shouldn't be any skin off our backs. I am not offended by it or them, except I feel compassionate as I know one day they will look upon their horrible folly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry I took so long to respond to this. I've been unwell, but am feeling a bit better tonight. You know, in an earlier post Digital Shadow called the ad “snaky.“ That surprised me coming from a fellow atheist, and that, combined with this discussion, made me really look at this ad to find what was so offensive, and I admit, I still don’t see it.

The word I used was "snarky", not "snaky"

From Merriam Webster

snarky: sarcastic, impertinent, or irreverent in tone or manner

I get what they were going for in the ad and don't think it was meant to be offensive, but I think it came across poorly for many people and I can see why.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The word I used was "snarky", not "snaky"

From Merriam Webster

snarky: sarcastic, impertinent, or irreverent in tone or manner

I get what they were going for in the ad and don't think it was meant to be offensive, but I think it came across poorly for many people and I can see why.

Sorry, DS, I meant "snarky." I didn't think you had said "snaky," (I HATE snakes!), and I apologize for giving people the wrong impression.

Elph

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share