American Atheists create Super Bowl billboard ad at the Meadowlands

[Playinghardball]

It’s not a $2 million ad buy. But will a billboard by the activist group American Atheists at the Super Bowl draw the same kind of attention?

The 14 foot by 48 foot digital billboard in East Rutherford, half a mile from the Meadowlands and Metlife Stadium, is what Super Bowl visitors Sunday will see heading west on Route 3. Once every 10 minutes, it has displayed the American Atheists design, a priest with a football and a message, “A ‘Hail Mary’ only works in football. Enjoy the game!” The ad will continue through Sunday.

It’s a dig at prayer in sports and the conflation of religion with athletics. But it’s also the latest attempt by the group to draw attention to the cause, inviting public confrontation.

In December, American Atheists unveiled a billboard in Times Square that asked, “Who needs Christ during Christmas? Nobody. Celebrate the true meaning of Xmas!” as the backdrop lit up with words like, “snow,” “music,” “family,” “fun” and “lights.”

The Times Square billboard provoked a Republican state senator, Andrew Lanza, to denounce the group, lamenting, “This is part of a continued ‘War on Christmas,’ Lanza said, “and also upon the belief and value system of millions of Christian, Jewish and Muslim people who have faith in God. Religious persecution of the kind that similarly lead to the Holocaust began with small evil baby steps of ridicule and hatred of the religious beliefs of others.”

More at: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/02/01/american-atheists-create-superbowl-billboard-ad-at-the-meadowlands/

[Nye Bevan]

1. Genius. That ad will make people abandon their religion in droves. (nt)

[MellowDem]

7. Not one ad...

But as part of a general mocking of a ridiculous idea that used to be sacrosanct from any criticism, it's doing it's part.

[snooper2]

53. not a whole lot of help for the people who are already "convinced" (that was a nice word :) )

It's they young ones we have to target..

12-20 years old- Show them the stupidity at all angles that religion is, mock it, they might think yeah, I don't want to believe in fairy tales as an adult-


based on raw data alone over the past 50 years, it's working

[LostOne4Ever]

2. I wish they would have focused the ad more

on showing more of us that we are not alone, that we are good people, and that we shouldn't have to be afraid to be who we are; rather than focusing on what we don't believe in.

[Cha]

16. I know I'm a good person.. I've had many

years with no religion and I'm doing fine. I don't begrudge those who have it though. We're all different. My sister's a good example a Liberal Christian Dem.

Full disclosure.. I've never had religion.

[bravenak]

28. I feel the same way.

My family are religious, but I'm not. We get along fine and they understand why I am the way I am.
I don't need religion to be a good person.

[Cha]

39. Everyone I know.. even my son is(that doesn't include going to Church though)..

another Liberal Dem. The only one who isn't is my daughter and her family that I was writing about last night. But, you know.. it doesn't bother me and evidently doesn't bother them.

What I needed to become a "good person" was some of life's hard lessons and I got 'em!

[LostOne4Ever]

29. I havent believed in over a decade

And I know we are good people. What I meant was that I think there were far better messages they could have chose.

As an non-theist living in West Texas I know how very lonely things can be. I am the only atheist I know, and I am surrounded in a sea of fundamentalism. Knowing that there are others out there like ourselves would be a great message to use the billboard for instead.

Similarly, there is a horrible smear against us claiming that we are immoral because we lack any beliefs in god or religion. That billboard would have been a great way to communicate to everyone (theist and non-theist alike) that one does not need God or religion to be a good and decent person.

Finally, I feel it would have also been a great place to put an ad encouraging other non-believers to come out and not feel frightened or ashamed of being who we are.

I just feel the message of the ad is a waste for such an advertisement. It should be promoting us rather than focused on mocking them. There is a time and place for mockery. However, I just feel the AA are picking their battles poorly with this message for the ad and the holocaust memorial.

[Cha]

36. Totally agree, LostOne4Ever!

The Billboard is divisive, imho. And, that never ends well. Whatever makes us nice. It's the faux "Christians" I take exception to. The biggest fake crap in the world is to proclaim one is Christian and preach hate and intolerance. Who the hell do they think they're shitting?

[napkinz]

60. This says it all for me ...

https://www.facebook.com/beingliberal.org

[Cha]

63. Precisely~

napkinz

[Jamaal510]

3. This is exactly

the type of message that is going to alienate people away from Atheism and hurt their cause--this arrogant thinking that other people's beliefs and practices are in vain. It's almost the same as the religious fundamentalists, where the people who came up with this message seem to think that only their perspective is correct, and everyone else is wrong.

[MellowDem]

8. It's not the same as religious fundamentalism...

It's not arrogant to point out ridiculous wrong beliefs. Religion got a pass for a long time, these ads are slowly destroying the idea of religion as something sacrosanct.

[Gravitycollapse]

21. A "Hail Mary" is about as religious as someone screaming Jesus Christ...

when they stub their toe.

[MellowDem]

25. Not to many devout Christians...

It's very religious for them. And, also the basis for a lot of harm IMHO.

[Gravitycollapse]

27. The ad is addressing the football game, not a mass of Catholics.

Which is sort of like metaphorically poking a bunch of people in the eye for no apparent reason. It's obnoxious.

[MellowDem]

33. It's not poking them in the eye...

It's stating an opinion that their beliefs are wrong. As for the reason, well, there can be many, one being that believing in made up things is bad for society. Another is that religion gets a pass that other beliefs which are equally ridiculous do not get. Like astrology. It's breaking down the privilege slowly.

[Gravitycollapse]

38. No doubt about it, religion gets many passes.

That religious fanatics don't know when to shut up doesn't give everyone else just cause to act like a bunch of sophomoric pricks.

Your argument is reductionist and historically ignorant. At one point in time, both astrology and theism were instrumental in scientific institutions. And, despite their incorrectness now, (although even that is an oversimplification as astrology is still a remarkably accurate pseudo-science), they provided for the furthering of scientific thought and reason.

It is actually the case that some of the most important eras of scientific reason in human history occurred in deeply religious societies and institutions. Not by accident, either. It was popular belief that to be a religious individual demanded endeavoring into science and mathematics; such things were downright Godly.

[MellowDem]

43. Astrology and theism have never been instrumental to science...

They both undermine what science stands for. They both presume something is true without evidence.

People can compartmentalize beliefs. Scientists can apply one standard to their work and another to their beliefs in the after-life. That doesn't validate their beliefs or make them any more right. Scientists are much more likely to be atheist than the general population. The general population is becoming more non-religious. Those aren't coincidences.

Science advanced in spite of religion, and religion has had to adapt to accommodate reality as our understanding of the world has progressed. Part of this was embracing reality while retaining claims on the supernatural, things which, by definition, could never be tested. Not all have, of course. Ken Ham arguing for creationism is being more consistent and intellectually honest in his faith than most, for example.

Religion used to make many claims, now they make few, because so many of their claims have been shown to be false. Most of their claims now are the ones that science could never test anyways. That's not a coincidence.

[Gravitycollapse]

45. "Astrology and theism have never been instrumental to science" - Patently false.

But you keep on believing that if it makes you happy.

The belief in God, astrology and intelligent design were, at various points in history, evidenced based. How we define evidence now is what has changed. Although astrology is a cleaner example since it's not quite as historically significant, and thus not quite as vast to address, and, much like phrenology, was in vogue among scientific and philosophical circles, academic and social, for a very long time. And it absolutely helped contribute to scientific understanding. In the case of astrology, it was a fundamental pretext to astronomical observation and even the development of what could be referred to as proto-psychology.

[MellowDem]

48. Astrology and theism aren't science...

Neither of them contributed to the formation of the scientific method. Indeed, both opposed it in many instances.

Just because they came before science doesn't mean they contributed to its creation or are useful in any way in the present.

[Gravitycollapse]

50. Of course they aren't science. Astrology is pseudoscience.

Theism is many things, potentially.

Arguably belief in God predates anything we are talking about. But astrology isn't so easy to define. It is of course ancient in origin. But it became highly advanced as a pseudoscience and, as I've already stated, intermingled with early scientific fields of astronomy and psychology. Not to mention philosophy.

The same goes for intelligent design. It was interwoven with other scientific and philosophical thought and up until recently was on equal footing. Mostly, again as I've already said, this shift was due to a change in what is considered "evidence."

[Major Nikon]

58. Throughout history there have been many endeavors financed by organized religion

This includes both science and the arts. But before you start giving organized religion undue credit it's worth pointing out what would have been without organized religion. For most of recorded history organized religion and government were synonymous. I don't believe it's reasonable to assume that without organized religion there would have been no collectivism which would have done all those things anyway. Without the yoke of some mythical sky daddy calling the shots by proxy of those who pretend to speak for him, it's not too far fetched to imagine that humankind would have accomplished a lot more a lot sooner. Libraries don't burn themselves to the ground.

[linuxman]

4. LOL

WTF? Are these people really this out of touch? This billboard doesn't do anything except to reaffirm to the sponsors that they have answer. What is the point of a message board without an audience outside of its creators?

[liberal_at_heart]

5. self righteous satisfaction.

[MellowDem]

9. It's normalizing the idea of mocking religion...

Something that's desperately needed in the US. It's OK to ridicule terrible ideas, religion included, and out loud at that.

[Whisp]

6. love it.

but not footsball. feh.

[Skip Intro]

10. I don't understand why they have to attack what other people believe.

Last edited Sun Feb 2, 2014, 02:08 AM - Edit history (2)

Why not put up a billboard with a website or phone number or something that promotes their view, if that's what they want, without attacking Christianity (which seems to be the only religion they're focused on tearing down).

When I see religious billboards (and I'm sure there will be some exceptions found on the vastness of the internet) they promote their view, they don't ridicule atheists. Many, like the LDS commercials on tv, promote a positive message, like "make time for family" or something.

If I were having doubts in my faith, and were looking for alternatives, I'd never be compelled by such unnecessary nastiness. Who wants to hang out with a bunch of starved-for-attention, arrogant ****s?

[Logical]

11. Well, I think it works fine! nt

[Union Scribe]

14. the answer is...other "starved-for-attention

arrogant *****s". Militants are militants no matter what they're militant about and they're basically all assholes imo.

[snooper2]

54. no, just opening the eyes of young folks

I don't think anyone who has been "religous" for 40, 50, 60 years is going to change anytime soon.


That would take a big realization that...oh shit, I've been wasting HOW much time praying and going to church

[MellowDem]

19. Because those beliefs are worthy of ridicule...

This whole site is dedicated to attacking what conservatives believe. We ridicule those beliefs at times to make a point. Religion has just got a pass for a long time, so people criticizing and mocking it still shocks some and offends others.

[Skip Intro]

65. You think DU is dedicated to bashing Christainity?

That's ridiculous nonsense. Plenty of religious people here, plenty of them Christian. As for the intent of the site in that regard, just take a look at the avatar selection.

Those who mock that to which they purport to offer an alternative rather than promote the strengths of that supposed alternative strike me as frauds, void of a compelling argument.

[MellowDem]

75. No, read it again...

I don't know where you got that impression.

[CreekDog]

70. where's that South bashing you said I did?

just wondering.

[Skip Intro]

71. Even as a host of GD you're going to chase me around the board?

You've frequently made light of the fact that I'm from SC, in your larger effort to paint me as a racist. You've started threads mocking those decrying the South-bashing threads that percolate here at times. I mean, Creek, come on, after all this time, do you really think you have anyone fooled as to what you do here?

[CreekDog]

72. sounds like you don't have a link

apparently you've confused criticizing you with criticizing the South.

[Skip Intro]

73. Go find somebody else to bug, CreekDog.

You're boring.

[CreekDog]

74. sounds like you don't have confidence in your assertions

[yortsed snacilbuper]

12. religiosity doesn’t like criticism!

If they get upset about a billboard they must be running scared!

[Union Scribe]

13. Proselytizing, it's not just for breakfast--er, religion--anymore. nt

[MellowDem]

20. It never has been...

The big difference now is that religious privilege is falling away and religion is no longer exempt from ridicule like any other bad idea.

[Gravitycollapse]

23. Just because something is ridicule does not mean it's intelligent or reasoned.

Sometimes being an asshole is just being an asshole, regardless of one's belief in religious conviction.

[MellowDem]

26. There's nothing assholish about it...

Ridiculing bad ideas doesn't make a person an asshole. DU is dedicated to ridiculing bad ideas. It doesn't make us assholes.

[Gravitycollapse]

30. Reminds me of the "free thinkers" I often ran into on campus.

The ones who would intentionally start arguments with random Christians (or, better yet, argued with the actually insane dooms-day preachers) because they had no conception of tact.

The idea behind such assholery is "any criticism, any time," regardless of its intelligence. The goal is to get a rise out of people, not rouse reasoned discussion or questioning.

[MellowDem]

37. DU reminds you of them?

Or you apply a different standard when the issue is religion and not politics? This billboard may cause some people to be offended. But so what? I bet plenty of pro-lifers get offended by a pro-choice billboard. Doesn't make the people who put it up assholes. People get offended for no good reason all the time, and if they can't actually point to a good reason for being offended, it's probably because they are wrong.

This billboard can definitely cause reasoned discussion or questioning. Ridiculing and mocking bad ideas often is effective at doing just that.

If a person is personally offended because an idea they hold is mocked, then they must be pretty insecure in their belief in said idea.

[Gravitycollapse]

41. So offense is always a sign of insecurity? That is an incredibly privileged position to take.

Maybe people are offended because they want to watch a football game without being proselytized by a bunch of strangers. Wait, no, that's you're argument; but only with Christians. My mistake.

[MellowDem]

44. Strawman time?

Putting up a billboard is going to ruin the game for people who want to watch it? If so, then they're insecure in their belief I'd say.

Being offended for no good reason by the mocking of an idea is usually a sign of insecurity in that idea.

[Gravitycollapse]

46. I doubt it will ruin the game. I doubt most will even notice it. Which is good.

Because it's an embarrassment to non-theists.

Being overly confident about things you very clearly don't understand (pseudoscience, for example) is also a sign of insecurity.

[MellowDem]

49. Pseudoscience is simply a claim, practice etc. presented as science...

Which is in fact not science. That's always a bad thing, because it promotes false beliefs with the supposed credibility or validity of science. Racial "science" is a great example of this.

The billboard doesn't embarrass me. I bet there are many theists who may feel embarrassed to admit their beliefs, and maybe will question them given enough nudging, through mockery or ridicule of said beliefs especially, it can shock someone out of their blind acceptance. I know I did, and so did many other atheists who were indoctrinated as children but became non-believers over time.

[Gravitycollapse]

51. Pseudoscience is most often a once scientifically valid field...

With methods that are now antiquated. Generally because of a shift in what it means to be evidence based.

Alchemy
Astrology
Phrenology
Homeopathy
Intelligent design
Vapor theory of disease
etc.

These were fields that at various points in time encompassed what it meant to be scientific or philosophical. Which means they were integral to the development of epistemic and metaphysical thought. Which then means they were absolutely crucial to the intellectual evolution of science and reason.

[yortsed snacilbuper]

55. It was called the "Dark Ages"!

[Ghost in the Machine]

15. Reply #'s 2 & 3 about sum it up for me. Atheists.org??...and a *convention*???

Sounds like someone is trying to turn atheism into an organized religion, lol! I'll have to check the site out to learn more about this group before I comment any further on them.

As for atheism itself, I'm a self proclaimed atheist, but that only reflects my own views, ideas and beliefs/disbeliefs. I don't push my views on others out of respect, just like I don't like people pushing their religion down my throat... and that is hard to avoid living in the Southern "Bible Belt".

I guess it wouldn't be a bad thing to have a group of like-minded people around to talk to, but I couldn't see it turning into weekly meetings or trying to turn it into some new kind of "religion", or would that be an "anti-religion"?

I go by the "live & let live" philosophy. Believe what you want, as long as you're not harming anyone else, or shoving your beliefs down MY throat.

Peace within, Peace between, Peace among....

Ghost

[MellowDem]

22. Some atheists believe religious belief harms others inherently...

For all sorts of reasons. Many are anti-theists, and it's no surprise they try to change the minds of others, just like liberals try to change the minds of others on ideas as well.

[Gravitycollapse]

24. I've never met an atheist who thought "religious belief harms others inherently."

You're confusing religious institutions, religious dogma and master texts with religious thought or belief. The two groups are not the same.

[MellowDem]

31. I've met quite a few, and I'm one of them myself...

I'm not confusing anything. The very basis of religion is harmful because it encourages people to believe things that are not true. That is what makes religion fundamentally bad IMHO. Faith-based beliefs are always bad, and religions often make faith, which is a terrible basis for examining or understanding anything, a virtue. Which is why I and many others think it is harmful, to the point I have no problem discussing the ideas of religion to discredit them.

Just like I have no problem speaking out loud against various conservative theories and policies.

[Gravitycollapse]

34. Oh, believe me, you're confusing a lot of things.

Such as the difference between belief and dogma. Or religious questioning and religious institution.

I think everyone here is aware that you have no problem discussing this. No need to persist on that front.

[MellowDem]

40. Why should I believe you?

What am I confusing? Be specific, provide examples. All I see are strawmen right now.

[Gravitycollapse]

42. You said religious belief inherently harms others.

Which is, at face value, a load of bull. Does religious belief have the potential to harm others? Absolutely, and it very often does. Does it inherently harm others? You've spread the paint too thin.

[MellowDem]

47. It's a load of bull why?

Because you say so? I say believing false things is always bad, and can harm others in a myriad of ways, and religion encourages just that, even makes a virtue of it.

For example, the Pope believes god wants him to help poor people. That's not bad, right? Harmless, maybe even helpful? Yet, the Pope believes the devil is behind marriage equality. The reasoning for his helping poor people is the exact same as his reasoning for being a bigot and spreading bigotry. That's the harm.

And what if I'm religious, but say that sure god wants us to help the poor, but god meant charities, not government. There is no good religious argument to counter that notion. Because religious arguments are not good arguments, they're not persuasive, they can't be proven, they aren't from reason. So even if a person's religion just happens to say god wants them to do all these progressive things, religion harms their ability to convince others to do so as well, much less defend them from critique.

Do you want to address that point?

[Gravitycollapse]

52. You're confusing wrong with harmful.

And you're reducing the complexity and nuance of religious belief to talking points from obnoxious organizations like the AA.

[Humanist_Activist]

77. Beliefs are fine, faith is a problem though, it elevates gullibility to a virtue...

when it should be a vice, it leads to "garbage in, garbage out". And yes, many beliefs, specifically religious ones, are based on faith.

We need to expand critical thinking skills, not suppress them.

[Gravitycollapse]

80. I absolutely agree critical thinking skills need to be expanded.

Especially in this debate on both sides. If the only thing one can say about religious belief is that it hurts everything, that is a sign of utilizing almost no critical thinking skills.

[Humanist_Activist]

81. Religious beliefs are based on faith, they are beliefs without evidence, and...

and people are encouraged to elevate said beliefs to be above inquiry, criticism and reproach by everyone, because they are based on faith.

Faith is damaging in that it leads to worldviews that are inaccurate and untestable. The worst thing to give a person is faith, because then its easy to con them, whether its a preacher or a motivational speaker, a guru or a psychic, people are taken advantage of, every day, because they were never taught critical thinking skills, skills that, when used against faith, destroys it.

[Demo_Chris]

57. Hi, my name is Chris. I am an anti-theist....

Nice to meet you. I believe allowing religion into society is like allowing toxins into food.

[rhett o rick]

69. I have met non-believers that think religious beliefs harm others. nm

[Ghost in the Machine]

59. I can usually tell the difference between an atheist & what I call a "hatetheist"...

I like to think I coined that term right here on DU. I thought of it one day, had never seen it used before and went ahead and used it in a post on here. I've seen it used a few times since then, by other people, but before I even used it the first time, I googled the word and got zero returns on the search.

You can google it now and find a lot of uses from 2012 -2014, and I saw one use from 2010, but here's a link to my original post from 2008: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=173633&mesg_id=173675

I also agree that religious beliefs can, an DO, harm others. Just look at the whack-a-doodles who kill abortion doctors, or blow up clinics, and claim that their invisible sky daddy who lives in the clouds told them to do it. Other examples can include parents who don't vaccinate their kids, or who don't seek medical attention for their kids, claiming that their god is all the healing they need and the kid just needs to pray harder and/or have more faith.

Peace,

Ghost

[Violet_Crumble]

17. That's pretty cool. I like it n/t

[Gravitycollapse]

18. This is why we can't have nice things.

[bravenak]

32. If people can knock at my door at 8 am on Sunday and bother me with tall tales.

Then they can take looking at a billboard.

[defacto7]

35. And that's the spirit pf America

The atheists have a point to make, the religionists make theirs, the beer companies promote beer and we all have our say. We are criticized for it but we say it. We learn from it or we don't. That's the magic of free speech.

[Lost_Count]

56. Probably could have used that for something other...

... Than a 3rd grade poke in the eye.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

61. Silly. God never misses a game and decides the outcome before it's played.

Sorta like he planted the apple tree in a spot that A&E could find it and knew they would eat it the fruit thereof.

[Throd]

62. They need a new marketing director.

[Nye Bevan]

64. Next up: "MUHAMMED WAS JUST SOME DUDE! DON'T WASTE TIME PRAYING TO MECCA!"

Ummmm, on second thoughts, maybe they would decide not to run this one.

[Skip Intro]

68. Yeah, wake me whent that happens. nt

[Humanist_Activist]

78. Is this close enough?

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/01/atheist-group-targets-muslims-jews-with-myth-billboards-in-arabic-and-hebrew/

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

66. Bummer. I support debunking religious belief. I just wish they'd have come up

with something more impactful than this particular billboard. They need Don Draper to create an ad campaign for atheism.

[yortsed snacilbuper]

67. I agree with you, the Athiests need to come up with better slogans,

something like what Benjamin Franklin said "Lighthouses are more useful than churches", something like that gets your message across and doesn't piss everybody off!

And we all know the religiosity likes to play the victim.

[DesertFlower]

76. i'm an atheist and i don't feel a need

to advertise it. i don't hide it but i don't feel i have to tell everyone that i am.

[Riftaxe]

79. Proselytizing Atheists

are as annoying as their religious counterparts.