Atheists' Billboard Causes Controversy

[geo]

Even if he sometimes sounds too harsh about religion, for me Sam Harris has a talent for putting just the right spin on a point. Although of course he is atheist (adjective), he doesn't call himself an atheist. He doesn't do that for the same reason that he doesn't call himself a non-astrologer; what would be the point of defining himself by thoughts or beliefs he just doesn't have? So the answer, for me, is not to be positive about atheism, but just to be positive about my values and let them speak for themselves.

Sam Harris likes de-emphasize using the word atheist. I believe he's the one who said everyone's an atheist with respect to certain older deities which, as you say, is really a kind of brilliant spin on the definition of the word. Is it possible that those who come from a religious background tend to see atheists as a group of like-minded people, therefore placing positive values as if atheists have tenets or articles of faith? But, in fact, atheists have nothing like that. We are all just people who happen not to believe in a personal god. We are not organized, there are no common beliefs that bind us together except perhaps that many of our numbers tend to place positive value on science and reason. But then so do many people of religion. So DWill makes a good point. It's not atheism per se but our values that we are positive about.

[lady of shallot]

Geo:
I

s it possible that those who come from a religious background tend to see atheists as a group of like-minded people, therefore placing positive values as if atheists have tenets or articles of faith

I just finished reading Sam Harris' "The End of Faith" very readable and of course I very much agree with him. I am from a religious background and of course I do not see us as a group, because other than forums like this I have never had a place to discuss my atheism.

Squelch who started posting here lately talked about the Brights and I see there is an organization with meetings and groups in various cities throughout the world. This interests me because I think its important for atheists to be able to identify themselves as such and to have a part in the public discourse.

I posted a link on here to a youtube video of a Paula Zahn discussion with two religious women and I was appalled at their attitude towards atheists. One said we (atheists) should just shut up and the other said this is a country founded on religious freedom, not freedom from religion. This is out and out bigotry. Could you imagine that being said about any other minority group in this country. That is why it is important to stand up and be counted.

[Dexter]

I posted a link on here to a youtube video of a Paula Zahn discussion with two religious women and I was appalled at their attitude towards atheists. One said we (atheists) should just shut up and the other said this is a country founded on religious freedom, not freedom from religion. This is out and out bigotry. Could you imagine that being said about any other minority group in this country. That is why it is important to stand up and be counted.

I watched that clip, I couldn't believe the sheer stupidity on what is supposed to be reputable news channel.

[johnson1010]

http://www.dangeroustalk.net/billboard- ... #christian

Take a look at the christian vs atheist billboards here.

Informative isn't it?

examples:

Christian


Atheist

[ant]

http://www.dangeroustalk.net/billboard- ... #christian

Take a look at the christian vs atheist billboards here.

Informative isn't it?

examples:

Christian


Atheist

That billboard "Be good for goodness sakes" is implying that people who believe in God keeps them acting "good." That is a myopic view.

[ant]

Yes, of course we knew that it was an forum for atheists. That was the point; to explore whether as an organisation they were anti-religion. In practice I found them poorly organised and confused; there were several formulations of the organisation's aims, some of which were openly anti-religion and some of which were not. In practice the content of the forums as posted by the membership was overwhelmingly and strongly anti-religion, and there was no move to moderate or control that tendency that I could see.

Yeah, an atheist group is going to be anti-religious. I mean, duh, right?

You also sound surprised that the group was disorganized. Atheists by definition are not organized at all. It sounds like the Brights are trying to make a movement based on naturalistic philosophy and promoting a worldview free from religion. But, again, get a bunch of atheists together, you're going to see some anti-religion sentiment.

All I can say is if this happened on BT, I would be incredibly pissed off.

Can I ask why? This is not a private forum; anyone can read it. Isn't it incumbent on us to take responsibility for what we say and do rather than the repsonsibility of others not to read and report it?

These are essentially conversations between members. BT is a community and, speaking for myself, I feel a sense of pride for this group and the level of discourse that you find here. To have someone basically infiltrate BT in an effort to write an exposé feels dishonest to me. Another thing, BT could be made to look bad based on the comments of a small minority. I do wonder how much of an agenda the writer of this article had. Was he trying to make the Brights group look bad? But without seeing the article, I really can't comment further. It would be interesting to get other peoples' perspectives.

Why does an atheist group need to be "anti religious?" Why the inability to co-exist with those that see intelligence as an underlining factor in the natural world?

Why is it that the whole science vs religion war is necessary today, whereas before natural philosophers were "allowed" by the scientific community and the general public to profess their reverence for a "creator" behind the natural world?

This ongoing god does not exist argument is intellectual arrogance. It is not scientific.
The attack is largely against religious fundamentalists. Not everyone who believes in a god is a fundamentalist with literal scriptural interpretations, or belief in a personal god that helps you find a parking space if you pray hard enough.

[lady of shallot]

No, saying "be good for goodness sake" is saying that good in itself is reason enough to behave that way. There is no "myopic" view since nothing is said about who or who is not being good.

[ant]

Here is a quote from the Brights website:

" It offers a way of denoting a full-spectrum worldview, rather than a narrow view focused on religion".

The fact that the Brights apparently leave no room for the possibility of an intelligence responsible for creation is itself myopic.
There are many people of religious faith who are open to natural interpretations of reality.

[ant]

No, saying "be good for goodness sake" is saying that good in itself is reason enough to behave that way. There is no "myopic" view since nothing is said about who or who is not being good.

I understand that. Being good feels "good" despite my belief in "god." There's simply no reason to throw my theological beliefs in my face for it.
It's quite ignorant of anyone that would. Someone with a chip on their intellectual shoulder, I'd say.

[ant]

This year in the town where I work, there were set up in the courthouse square several signs sponsored by American Atheists and Freedom from Religion, promoting reason and giving the genealogy of the Christian religion. This was the result of a challenge to the creche that is always also erected there. The town isn't a liberal hotbed, so it was a bit surprising to see this. I think these alternative messages are best when they state something positive or educational. Anti-Christianity signs aren't as effective.

In the same sense, however, anti-atheism signs aren't as effective either, however they're presented. If people who do not believe in god get to be disrespected, than people who do believe in god have no room to complain about the "disrespect" these signs showed them.

It's childish nonsense is what it is.
It's also unscientific to argue about it.

There is a social/political agenda behind it all - NOT related to pure science.