Atheist billboards mock Romney, Obama religion

[cbayer]

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/Religion/post/2012/08/atheism-mitt-romney-paul-ryan-mormon-christianity/1#.UCkKyUIZfzJ

Aug 13, 2012
By Cathy Lynn Grossman



Hey, President Obama and contender Mitt Romney, the American Atheists want your attention. They're unveiling a new in-your-face-to-the-faithful billboard campaign, timed to the national presidential nominating conventions.

Today's press conference billboard reveal includes signs that call God "sadistic," Jesus "useless" as a savior, and conclude that Atheism, by contrast, is "simply reasonable."

Presumably, Catholics such as Vice President Joe Biden and Romney's running mate choice Paul Ryan, are covered in this "hit" on Obama, a mainline Protestant.

But evidently the American Atheists don't consider Mormons to be Christians, since they prepared a separate billboard attack on their faith. It derides their idea of God as a "space alien" and notes that Mormons offer a proxy baptism to dead relatives -- a practice the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints acknowledges has gotten out of hand with some believers inappropriately baptizing Holocaust victims and others not related to their own families.)

more at link

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

1. I have no difficulty understanding why someone would be an atheist

Indeed, I could make the arguments against religion just as well as they can. What I don't understand is why so many of them feel compelled to be nasty about it.

[longship]

2. A measured response to yours and OP

I adhere to the Phil Plait school, Don't be a dick.

However, I am also a member of what many might call militant atheists.

So, so how do I split the difference? (BTW, that's what I really do.)

Simple. I despise religion, but love the religious. I have nothing but vitriol for religions and their most vocal supporters. The church leaders, the megabuck pastors, the charlatans, the sects' organization bodies, and, above all, the apologists.

But some person on the street who happens to believe? They don't bother me at all. I may engage them in polite, respectful discussion, and often do. But, it does me no good if I it appears that I am attempting to proselytize atheism. Instead, I always frame the discussion as this is how I see a path to truth. I invite them to relate how they see that path.

What is surprising is that these discussions almost never devolve into vitriolic arguments even though I am relating my condemnation of religion.

Don't be a dick is good advice.

Thank you, Phil Plait, the Bad Astronomer.

[cbayer]

3. You are a great example of how to do it right, imo, longship.

We have deeply disagreed many times, but it has never become personal or vitriolic.

Don't be a dick is a great philosophy.

So, do you think these billboards are dickish?

I am really puzzled by them, as I don't really understand what they are trying to achieve.

And I can't find a press release that explains it any more than the article does.

[longship]

4. I deliberately did not address the billboards. ;-)

I cannot take a measure of them. I certainly agree with them, but I don't know what good they do, if any. On the other hand, I do not think they do much harm.

My favorite atheist billboards were the series put up by FFRF (Freedom From Religion Foundation) earlier this year which featured local atheists. These literally put a face on atheism. They basically featured the visage of a local atheist with a catchy and positive saying. The message was that atheists are your neighbors, your friends, your relatives. It was expressly a Don't be a dick framing.

BTW, I really love Dan Barker. He's the one who helped initiate the Clergy Project, a safe haven for current and former clergy who no longer believe in god. When you consider what a bummer it would be to have to preach every sabbath and not believe any of it, you may get an idea of how many would feel trapped. For many, that's all they know. The Clergy Project helps them with support services and just a secure place to vent since many of them dare not admit publically that they have lost their faith for fear of losing their sole source of livelihood. Barker is doing yeoman's work here. I applaud him for that.

But these billboards are okay with me, although I am uncertain about what good they do.

Am I being oblique enough for you?



See ya in church, friend.

[cbayer]

5. I though a lot of the FFRF ones were good as well and agree with their agenda on

the "neighbors" ones.

Also a fan of the Clergy Project.

Oblique is fine and probably a very wise course of action.

See you in church as well!

[eqfan592]

14. Very well said.

And I love the Bad Astronomer! I remember when his page was only about TV and movie astronomy goof-ups (prior to his blog being carried on the Discover website). Great guy!

[longship]

15. Thanks, and I agree about Dr. Plait (obviously).

Check out his TED talk about asteroid impacts. It's iconic Plait, and I really, really mean that.

[skepticscott]

16. Religion does not exist

separate from "the religious". Religion would not be the way it is if religious people weren't the way THEY are. Religion would be literally nothing if there were no religious people practicing it. Your splitting of the difference is just a rationalization.

[unblock]

27. "so many of them"???

in my experience, this is as warped a view of atheism as the notion that "so many" muslims are terrorists.

the OVERWHELMING majority of atheists in this country keep their religious views EXTREMELY quiet and personal.

when was the last time you saw a football player celebrate a touchdown with screams of god denial?
when was the last time you saw an atheist in the street loudly proclaiming the non-existence of god and looking for converts?
whan was the last time you saw a meeting, any meeting, begin to a brief moment of reflection on godlessness?


a very, very tiny fraction of atheists have managed to gain a very small microphone, and yes, some of them have of late gotten a bit nasty about it.

but there's absolutely no basis to attribute their tactlessness to the rest of us.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

28. I notice that you do not answer my question

[unblock]

36. sorry, i see no question marks in the post to which i was replying.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

39. You do not see the question?

I wrote:

I have no difficulty understanding why someone would be an atheist. Indeed, I could make the arguments against religion just as well as they can. What I don't understand is why so many of them feel compelled to be nasty about it.

Yes, there is no question mark, but the implied question should be quite evident.

[unblock]

41. fascinating. and yet you dismiss my post as unresponsive.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

59. Because it was unresponsive

It should be obvious that when I wrote that many -- and yes, "many" is the correct word -- atheists seem to feel it necessary to be nasty to non-atheists, there was an implied "And why is that?"

I notice that you still have not given a meaningful response in your wholly unresponsive posts.

[unblock]

60. consider the following conversations:

questioner: when did you stop beating your wife?
responder: i never started beating my wife.
questioner: i notice you did not answer my question.

questioner: why are many atheists nasty?
responder: it is not the case that many atheists are nasty.
questioner: i notice you did not answer my question.

see any similarities?

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

62. Consider the actual conversation

questioner: why are many atheists nasty?
responder: I am not a nasty atheist, and I do not believe that some other atheists are nasty.
questioner: i notice you did not answer my question.

That, sir, is what the actual conversation

Notice that you did not answer my question.

[unblock]

64. you need to reread my post, perhaps several times, because that is not what i said.

i agreed that a "a very, very tiny fraction of atheists have managed to gain a very small microphone, and yes, some of them have of late gotten a bit nasty about it."

how can you read that and then say my post said that "i do not believe that some other atheists are nasty"?

some small fraction of any population is rude, obnoxious, and nasty. pick any combination of gender, nationality, race, hair color, religion, wealth, income, birth order, whatever, some usually rather small percentage will be nasty.

some atheists are nasty, some christians are nasty, some jews are nasty.

because some people are just nasty, and it has nothing to do with any of the above mentioned characteristics.


as for answering your question, let me spell it out for you:

just as "i never started beating my wife" is responsive by rejecting the false premise of the original "when did you stop beating your wife?" question, i responded to your "why are so many atheists nasty' question by rejecting your false premise that "so many" atheists are nasty.


the question "when did you stop beating your wife?" becomes moot once the premise that wife-beating ever started is rejected.
similarly, the question "why are so many atheists nasty?" becomes moot once the premise that so many atheists are nasty is rejected.



now, to answer a question that you did not ask, "why are a few atheists nasty?" i answered that above. a few people in any population are nasty, because, well, it's human nature for some people to be nasty. moreover, it's also human nature to pay disproportionate attention to people who are being nasty.

[cbayer]

63. In my real life, I have rarely run into atheists who were nasty to non-atheists.

But my online experience has been a whole different story.

[Goblinmonger]

48. My reaction to that, for what it's worth,

was that it was a passive-aggressive jab at atheists and not a real implied question. Not sure you intended it that way after reading this subthread (also think you still might have ), but that's how it read to me.

[dimbear]

6. Galatians 6:7 " .......God is not mocked........ "

Evidently spoke too soon.

[cbayer]

8. Complete Galatians 6:7

7 Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows.

[rug]

7. "the Marines of free thought"

[onager]

22. Then we have "God's Marines..."

The Society of Jesus (Latin: Societas Iesu, S.J., SJ or SI) is a Christian male religious order that follows the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. The members are called Jesuits and are also known colloquially as "God's Marines"[2] and as "The Company", these being references to founder Ignatius of Loyola's military background and members' willingness to accept orders anywhere in the world and live in extreme conditions.

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

As a former Marine and atheist, I resent being linked with the Jesuits. If they want a snappy military nickname, they can pick on somebody else.

e.g., I have no objection to "God's Stormtroopers," "God's Spetsnatz," or "God's Blue Division." The last would be most appropriate, since Ignatius Loyola was Spanish and Franco was a very devout Catholic.

[rug]

23. Don't forget the Domini Canes, the Dogs of the Lord.

The Dominicans can kick both their asses.

[humblebum]

9. bigots. nt

[Goblinmonger]

10. You keep using that word

I don't think it means what you think it means

[humblebum]

11. Actually if it conveys the intended and commonly understood meaning, it fits perfectly.

AA is the atheists' version of the Westboro baptists. They do atheists no favors and if I were an atheist I would not want them representing me in any way.

[Goblinmonger]

12. 2 question

1. What exactly is bigotry on those billboards?
2. What exactly is the exact same as Westboro?

[cleanhippie]

19. We both know that humblebum will never tell you that. Ever.

Wanna bet 100 bucks that he does anything BUT answer your two questions directly?

[Goblinmonger]

46. The rest of this subthread

is why I didn't take you up on your bet. Shocker that it went the way it did, huh?

[eqfan592]

53. Yeah, his response of "Because I say so" was pretty much what I was expecting.

What's truly laughable is that he likely thinks his response was somehow meaningful.

[humblebum]

20. Well.

Answer #1. If it fits the textbook definition, it probably is. And it does.

Answer #2. The Westboro people don't see anything bigoted about what they do either, nor do they care.

[Goblinmonger]

24. So, you don't have an answer.

Rather than just throwing out "bigotry," why don't you give specific examples?

SO.....
1. What specifically on the billboards meets the "textbook definition" of bigotry?
2. What specifically on the billboards is "exactly like Westboro"?

[humblebum]

25. Answers have been supplied and should be easily understood. You are simply

in denial or scrounging for a good straw man argument. For #1, look it up, and for #2 "exactly like Westboro" is your quote, not mine. However, both groups are unsparingly bigoted.

[Goblinmonger]

31. Answers have not been supplied and you made the affirmative claim

You need to back that up.

1. What is specifically bigoted in the ads?
2. You did make the connection.

AA is the atheists' version of the Westboro baptists.

Which lead to the question of what in the ads is the same as Westboro?

I am not "scrounging for a good straw man argument." I am simply asking you to provide some semblance of data for your claim. You know, the basic building blocks of an argument.

[humblebum]

37. I gave you my answers. What you care to do with is your business. nt

[Moonwalk]

32. Actually, no, it doesn't fit the textbook definition nor does it fit Westboro....

And haven't you just called the kettle black? In accusing these athetists of being just like Westboro you've actually fufilled the textbook definition of a bigot, and by your own definition, if you don't admit this, then you're also as bad as the Westboro baptists. Ironic, no?

(1) There is no textbook definition about being a bigot against a philosophy--and disagreeing with any philosophy, even rudely, isn't bigotry (it's being a dick, perhaps, but not a bigot). Textbook definition of bigotry is that you judge a person by a misperception. For example, that a person who is Jewish is rich, or a black woman is a welfare queen. There is no relationship between the religion of Judaism and being wealthy, but the bigot has made an unsubstantiated connection between the two and so all Jews are Shylocks. YOU made an unsubstantiated connection between these atheists and Westboro church, so you are a textbook bigot. Meanwhile, they made assertions about what certain religions and religious texts say (observations about certain philosophies and belief systems, but not about those who believe in them)--thus, they are not textbook bigots.

(2) Westboro church may be bigoted and not see it, but that's a pretty thin connection between the two if you mean to label these atheists as the same. By that definition anyone who has some bigotry that they don't recognize is equal to Westboro--you included as you seem bigoted against atheists If you are going to accuse the two of being the same, then the atheists have to be doing the same things Westboro does (or very similar) in order to achieve the same ends. I don't see atheists crashing funerals, do you? Nor do I see them supporting laws to take away anyone's rights. They're not arguing that religious believers should be imprisoned or killed so far as I can see...so where is the similarity?

Hence, you've created a false equivalency in a thinly veiled attempt to people to avoid this group for fear of being Westboro-like. This is similar to when certain pundits call Obama a Nazi in hopes that everyone will run from Obama because they don't want to be a Nazi. It's hyperbole that is, ultimately, nonsense and doesn't lead to any real discussion of why this group is not a good group--in and of itself, not by comparison to anyone or anything else.

These billboards argue is that believing the things that these religions preach isn't a good idea. Anyone can argue that without being a bigot. Everyone here argues that what teabaggers believe isn't a good idea, right? And I can argue that it's not a good idea for climate change deniers to believe what they believe; I can even mock what they believe. This doesn't make me a textbook bigot--i.e. would I refuse to let a climate change denier get married and make laws keeping them from that right? Would I, as true bigots do, try to make sure climate change deniers could only live in certain parts of town, get only certain jobs, etc.? If not, then I am not a textbook bigot any more than the democrats here are bigots against republicans. And we're certainly a long way from being anything equal to Westboro however much we may hate Teabaggers.

[humblebum]

49. Looks pretty darned text book to me. I'll stick with my opinion. This is hardly an isolated incident

"Bigotry is the state of mind of a bigot, defined by Merriam-Webster as "a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially: one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance".[1] Bigotry may be based on real or perceived characteristics, including age, disability, dissension from popular opinions, economic status, ethnicity, gender identity, language, nationality, personal habits, political alignment, race, region, religious or spiritual belief, sex, species, or sexual orientation. Bigotry is sometimes developed into an ideology or world view."

Radical atheism definitely an ideology and worldview.

[eqfan592]

54. So your argument is that hating the belief is equal to hating the believer?

Cuz that is the only way your opinion makes any level of sense, and if that is the case, then I call BS.

[humblebum]

55. Why do you throw hate into the mix? I called it bigotry. It mocks the beliefs

and culture of another group of people, and promotes intolerance for those beliefs. That's bigotry and you are clearly rationalizing it.

[eqfan592]

56. From the definition you posted...

..."one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance."

So you brought it into the mix with the definition of bigotry you posted.

Also note that it is talking about treating members of a group with intolerance and hatred, NOT the beliefs themselves. I may think your belief is bat-shit crazy, but that doesn't mean I hate you or will not tolerate your right to hold such a belief.

[humblebum]

57. That was a pretty broad definition. But the intolerance part holds true.

Hatred, that's debatable. In any case this group of radical atheists does do any other atheists any favors. One thing is for sure, and that is that they are a very intolerant group. Let the public be the judge.

[eqfan592]

65. Actually, I'd say your personal definition of what constitutes bigotry...

...is what is broad. You expand it to encompass not only intolerance of people but also of ideas and beliefs. By that definition, each of us on this forum would likely qualify, as there are certain ideas and beliefs most of us do not tolerate and challenge at every opportunity. However, I think the original definition you posted, which applies to intolerance and hatred of people or persons BASED on those beliefs to be a far more fitting (and useful) definition.

However, I have a feeling you are either unable or unwilling to separate the belief from the person when it comes to religion, thus I doubt there is any hope of us seeing eye to eye on the issue.

[humblebum]

66. By any measure the sign is bigotry. No amount of spin is gonna change that.

"big·ot·ry   [big-uh-tree]
noun, plural big·ot·ries.
1.
stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own."

It just cannot be anymore plain. Not one mention of persons, just creeds, beliefs ...

[Moonwalk]

67. Which makes you a bigot. And by your own definition, equal to Westboro Church...

as all that you require to be equal to them is that the bigot not see his/her bigotry.

"stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own."

Sounds like you. Complete stubborn and complete intolerance for a lot of beliefs and opinions. The opinions of atheists for one, but I bet you also have complete intolerance for, oh, say, the beliefs of certain republicans and such.

Thank you for helping us to define you; I think we know why there's no dealing with you. We might as well be dealing with a member of the Westboro church.

[humblebum]

68. So then you are admitting that the sign is bigotry. Thank you. nt

[eqfan592]

69. Actually, I think what he is saying is that if the sign qualifies, then you qualify as well.

At least under the broad definition you wish to use.

So the sign is as bigoted as you are, under your own definition.

[eqfan592]

71. Lol, by any measure my ass.

Even under THAT definition, it doesn't qualify.

[humblebum]

72. Tell ya what. We'll just let the public decide. nt

[skepticscott]

47. Except that nothing fits the textbook definition

So...lie. But you do know that everyone reading this can see you have nothing, don't you? Does it not feel pathetic to flail and pretend like this, knowing that?

[humblebum]

50. If nothing fits the textbook definition, then

where do textbooks obtain the information to define what they are defining? "Pathetic...flailing ...lying" standard skepticscott blather. Now that is pathetic. LOL

[skepticscott]

58. You do indeed have a high threshold of shame

to post something that everyone on the board, even your most enthusiastic supporters among the apologists and religionists, is shaking their heads in dismay at. I'm beginning to wonder if you even have a grasp that of course I meant that nothing on that billboard fits the textbook definition of bigotry.

But keep going...you're doing yourself proud, and I wouldn't dream of stopping you. There are whole new generations of DUers who need to know what you're all about.

[humblebum]

61. Now you aren't just spinning as usual. You are spinning your own spin. LOL.

[eqfan592]

70. humblebum, it's really laughable for you to be accusing anybody else on this planet of "spinning."

[eqfan592]

13. It's been a while, but this post is well deserving of it.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

17. LOL

Like clockwork...

[humblebum]

21. But oh so necessary.nt

[cleanhippie]

18. Projection. nt

[Auggie]

26. Terrible billboard

Way too busy to read at highway speeds

[MineralMan]

29. I do so wish that that symbol of atheism

did not have the one orbit cut off. I've never understood that.

As for the billboard, I don't use billboards as a source of information, whatever's on them. That one seems pretty ineffective, overall, and would not entice me to join that organization. Really, there's no atheist organization that tempts me to join. Atheism is a personal thing, and says nothing about the person except that the person has no belief in deities. Beyond that, what do atheists have in common?

Billboards are not interesting.

[cbayer]

30. I think atheists do have some things in common.

Separation of church/state and ending discrimination against non-believers are both causes that many atheists are enthusiastic about.

Like other groups, religious and non-religious, some members are activists and some are not.

I support both of the goals above, but sometimes am critical of the tactics.

[amuse bouche]

33. With no apologies

I love it.

I'm so completely sick of people calling this a Christian nation and their anti-equality bigotry

[snappyturtle]

34. Frankly I don't find these billboards anymore offensive than those of

the Christian right, Evangelicals or pro-lifers....or their looming massive crosses along the highways. Here's' a link to a video about these two specific billboards. Video is in most recent entry and from a local teevee station.

https://www.facebook.com/AtheistBillboards

[cbayer]

38. Some of those Christian right billboards are really offensive to me.

And they are everywhere.

The anti-choice ones are the worst, imo.

Can't watch your video due to download speeds, but I haven't seen any press release to further explain what they have in mind here.

[snappyturtle]

40. Here's what I got from the video:

Basically the man who put them up did so to attract the attention of the DNC convention. One is near the Charlotte, NC airport and the other on a busy thoroughfare. He said he did it on purpose to send the message to keep religion out of politics knowing full well they would be offensive to most of the Charlotte citizens. The billboards will be displayed for a month and cost $15,000 "for both" as reported.

I live in TX and see so much Christian intolerance that maybe that is part of the reason for the rise of the atheists billboards across the nation. First Amendmet and all of that..........?!

[cbayer]

42. Does that message say "Keep religion out of politics" to you?

If that's what he wanted to convey, why didn't he state it more clearly. I think that would have been much more effective and many believers would agree and support that.

[snappyturtle]

43. Here's the exact quote:

"The right thing to do is to make politics about politics and not about religion" which is about as confusing as my 'remembrance'.

The person interviewed and responsible for putting up the signs is David Silverman, President of American Atheists. He also said he's using his first amendment rights to ridicule the silliness of religion so people can decide if they want this kind of person (religious?) in the WH.

He tried to get one put up in Tampa for the repub convention but couldn't find a sign company there to do it.

[cbayer]

44. I had read that no one in the Tampa area would take his signs.

I still think he is missing an opportunity to make his point with these particular signs.

Is he saying, religion is silly so we shouldn't elect anyone who identifies as religious? That's not going to go very far. I would argue that had he said what you say, politics is not about religion, that would make more sense and get much more support.

Anyway, I think he's missed the mark, and an opportunity.

[JoeyT]

35. I don't really object to the message,

I object to how ugly the things are. These billboards look like a geocities banner designed by a 13 year old.

[dimbear]

45. Very reminiscent of the story of David and Goliath. A small spunky upstart vs. an entrenched

opponent. In the Bible story, Goliath mocks David and David mocks Goliath, and in general a good time was had by all.

The moral of the story was that Goliath was caught off guard.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

51. Billboards mock Romney, Obama Religion? The displayed billboard doesn't mention Romney or Obama

at all.

It doesn't mock Romney or Obama.

Do you have a photo of a billboard that does?

[cbayer]

52. They were developed for display outside the conventions where a a Mormon and a Christian

will accept the nominations.

FWIW, I didn't write the headline.