American Atheists at it again?

[InformedIgnorance]

It would be like billboards targeting homosexuals saying "You know it's a mistake, and you have a choice"

 

[Me Myself]

It would be like billboards targeting homosexuals saying "You know it's a mistake, and you have a choice"

1st- I honestly don´t think it´s that bad of a billboard. I mean, it has the right to be there and be as wrong as it is. People can ignore. But then, the counter billboard would be equally allowed: "You know it´s okay to be gay!"

2nd- the billboards didn´t target the theists but the closet atheists that feel hated or alone because of all the rest of community and people making them feel it is wrong to be an atheist (and thinking they will suffer eternally for it). Likewise, it forces this kind of intolerant people to accept atheism as an legaly acceptable belief with as much right to be as their beliefs .

I say more billborads like this should exist, because there are far more people trying to deny the rights of atheists and treating the atheist wrong for who they are than the other way around.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

It targets those that currently call themselves theists in an attempt to find those amongst them that are having difficulty with their faith... some would call that predatory

 

[Me Myself]

It targets those that currently call themselves theists in an attempt to find those amongst them that are having difficulty with their faith... some would call that predatory

Didn´t penguin put on a link saying that it targeted closet atheists?

I don´t know "predatory", quite honestly, it´s just an ad. If you are not interested, it won´t change your mind at all. Ads are not made to change one´s mind, they are made to remember you something (I tell you that because I study advertising) or at LEAST give you an emotional directive towards something.

In this case the ad would be a completely ineffective way of seeking converts. That doesn´t make it immoral or rude though.

 

[waitasec]

I agree that those billboards are offensive - heck I even said earlier that those 'Jesus Saves' billboards could potentially be seen as offensive since they imply that non believers NEED to be saved.

however, i don't see anyone protesting these billboards, do you?

i do see these protests however
Atheist Billboard to Protest Pennsylvania's 'Year of the Bible', Christian News

i googled
atheists protesting religious billboards

and this is what turned up

atheists protesting religious billboards - Google Search

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Didn´t penguin put on a link saying that it targeted closet atheists?

And what are closet atheists? Oh yeah that's right, theists (and agnostics) who are experiencing difficulties with their faith.

I don´t know "predatory", quite honestly, it´s just an ad. If you are not interested, it won´t change your mind at all. Ads are not made to change one´s mind, they are made to remember you something (I tell you that because I study advertising) or at LEAST give you an emotional directive towards something.

Emotional directive... as in it DOES provide direction, and for someone who is having problems with their faith, this is more likely to lead them towards the direction you want them to go, hence it helps sway those who are questioning, so it can 'change' minds. The fact that it only really effects those who are at such a point of questioning their faith is what makes it predatory (striking while their faith is weakened)

In this case the ad would be a completely ineffective way of seeking converts. That doesn´t make it immoral or rude though.

Personally I do not find it offensive either; that said, it could readily be construed as such - particularly given that it uses the word 'myth' (with all its negative connotations) to describe what many people consider to be divine truth, integral to their understanding of themselves and reality itself.



Lol, well atheists do not really seem to concern themselves with complaining about billboards, instead they target the things that have a higher priority, such as the well established religious influences within areas that are supposed to be religiously neutral, such as prayer in schools and so forth.... when you compare the battles that atheists have against theistic influence on them, there are so many with much higher priority; on the other hand theists only have relatively few areas where there is real atheistic influence on them with a much lower level of priority... so their efforts can be directed against useless things like billboards; particularly when you factor in the fact that there are more theists than atheists, allowing their complaints to be heard more easily.

 

[Sunstone]

And what are closet atheists? Oh yeah that's right, theists (and agnostics) who are experiencing difficulties with their faith.

No, that's not correct. A closeted atheist is an atheist who has not come out to others as an atheist.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

In which case there is no need to tell them it is a myth is there? Since they already believe that. No, that is clearly directed at theists who are questioning their beliefs.

 

[Me Myself]

In which case there is no need to tell them it is a myth is there? Since they already believe that. No, that is clearly directed at theists who are questioning their beliefs.

Think a little bit more. It´s not about informing them it is a myth, it is about informing them they are not alone in "knowing" such, and that knowing it "being" it (atheist) is okay.

I agree, it is not very good in this as another I´ve seen (which was more specific about the subject of "you are not alone" ) but it still counts.

 

[waitasec]

In which case there is no need to tell them it is a myth is there? Since they already believe that. No, that is clearly directed at theists who are questioning their beliefs.

so???

 

[Me Myself]

And what are closet atheists? Oh yeah that's right, theists (and agnostics) who are experiencing difficulties with their faith.

I´ll just QFT what Sunstone said:

No, that's not correct. A closeted atheist is an atheist who has not come out to others as an atheist.

Emotional directive... as in it DOES provide direction, and for someone who is having problems with their faith, this is more likely to lead them towards the direction you want them to go, hence it helps sway those who are questioning, so it can 'change' minds. The fact that it only really effects those who are at such a point of questioning their faith is what makes it predatory (striking while their faith is weakened)

Sure it does. So what? you think it evenly competes with the amount of christinity directive messages that exist in US? Are you SURE? Come on, you can´t be that far on denial.

You may call it predatory if you feel it is appopiate, but a predator wants to eat his prey so he can survive. In this case, an atheist wants to inform someone else about what they find enlightening, so not only them may catch on the truth. If you call that predatory, well... I guess you can but wrong I wouldn´t call it.

They are simply sharing what they deem as the truth, and it is only fair, specially with the amount of "In God we trust" they have to put up to. I mean, the money is full of it. It´s not even an even fight. The fact that you think it is "predatory" as in "Mwahahaha! we worship the devil and want you to stop beliving in what makes you happy to spread the misery!" is completely... well... I don´t know, how many cartoons do you watch? They are cool and all, but don´t confuse them with the news

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Think a little bit more. It´s not about informing them it is a myth, it is about informing them they are not alone in "knowing" such, and that knowing it "being" it (atheist) is okay.

I agree, it is not very good in this as another I´ve seen (which was more specific about the subject of "you are not alone" ) but it still counts.

Oh I thought about it a lot (if anything I do too much of that, which btw is why I am neither a theist nor an atheist), that was how I read it through the very first time - however my objections is not based so much on the 'its okay' part of the message, so much as the specific term used ('myth') and the connotations it has with respect to an issue of great importance and highly sensitive to many people. It is the use of 'myth' or similar dismissive (in this case) words to describe something so personal and emotionally charged, which is offensive to many people who hold such beliefs.

so???

That was my point; the advertisement may have been stated to have been aimed at atheists who pretended to be theists, however it was more aimed at theists who are having religious difficulties. Hence it is predatory.



edit; for the post after I began writing

Sure it does. So what? you think it evenly competes with the amount of christinity directive messages that exist in US? Are you SURE? Come on, you can´t be that far on denial.

... I have said time and again that I find many of their messages to be offensive... I really do not know what more you are expecting.

You may call it predatory if you feel it is appopiate, but a predator wants to eat his prey so he can survive.

I was using it more in the colloquial, such as sexual predators being those who target those who are unable to fend for themselves and who present an opportunity etc; it is not a comment on morality but a description of behaviour, you could use opportunist if you prefer.

In this case, an atheist wants to inform someone else about what they find enlightening, so not only them may catch on the truth. If you call that predatory, well... I guess you can but wrong I wouldn´t call it.

I do not care either way, I am merely explaining WHY so many theists (which I am not) take issue with such messages.

They are simply sharing what they deem as the truth, and it is only fair, specially with the amount of "In God we trust" they have to put up to. I mean, the money is full of it. It´s not even an even fight. The fact that you think it is "predatory" as in "Mwahahaha! we worship the devil and want you to stop beliving in what makes you happy to spread the misery!" is completely... well... I don´t know, how many cartoons do you watch? They are cool and all, but don´t confuse them with the news

See my use of the word predatory rather than going into fantasy land.

 

[Rakhel]

You could make that claim, but unless you had something to back it up, it woud just be a hollow assertion. Why would you think that a billboard that says "Hell is real" isn't about scaring sinners?

While I only just heard about this campaign, I've heard Dave Silverman and other representatives from AA talk about similar messages in past campaigns, and they've always said that this has been their intent.

I read a strange sign once. It was on one of those billboard signs that are usually attached to a church and can be changed when they want to.
The massage read "Nails didn't hold Jesus to the cross, Love did."
I have often wondered who that was directed at.

 

[Me Myself]

Oh I thought about it a lot (if anything I do too much of that, which btw is why I am neither a theist nor an atheist), that was how I read it through the very first time - however my objections is not based so much on the 'its okay' part of the message, so much as the specific term used ('myth') and the connotations it has with respect to an issue of great importance and highly sensitive to many people. It is the use of 'myth' or similar dismissive (in this case) words to describe something so personal and emotionally charged, which is offensive to many people who hold such beliefs

Those who find it offensive are at fault. The billboard is not offending anyone and ideas don´t have feelings, so saying things like "It offends my religion" is senseless. It offends THE PERSON that has the religion because such person dosnt want to hear such religion questioned. Well, they may look the other way.

They have every right to believe what they believe is holy, but they do not have a right to make everyone else believe it is when they don´t choose to. If it is not holy then it´s a myth. It´s simple, either you believe Jesus´s miracles are real, or you believe they are myths. It´s very straigthforward. That´s exactly why they used the word myth most probably: so peole can think of hercules and think "humm.... how different is his story from Jesus´s one really?" . Effective? maybe from those of "weak" "faith". For the pridefull ones who sense their feelings affected it is "outrageous" and for the closeted or even outed atheists it is a relief. They are not a alone, and even if they are a minority, their voice is out there, the same as everyone else´s.

 

[Me Myself]

I read a strange sign once. It was on one of those billboard signs that are usually attached to a church and can be changed when they want to.
The massage read "Nails didn't hold Jesus to the cross, Love did."
I have often wondered who that was directed at.

maybe Christians just wanted other christians to smile

frubals*

 

[Me Myself]

I was using it more in the colloquial, such as sexual predators being those who target those who are unable to fend for themselves and who present an opportunity etc; it is not a comment on morality but a description of behaviour, you could use opportunist if you prefer.

All those terms have pejorative meanings that are almost inseperable of them. And you are arguing about the word "myth" which is not inherently pejorative

"en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_predator - Traducir esta página
The term sexual predator is used pejoratively to describe a person seen as obtaining or trying to obtain sexual contact with another person in a metaphorically ..."

Opportunism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunism - Traducir esta página
[edit] General definition. Opportunism is the conscious policy and practice of taking selfish advantage of circumstances – with little regard for principles

I didn´t even ahd to click into those wiki pages, those come straight from the first descriptions of google when I put the words in.

They are only "predators" and "oportunists" if their intent (showing somebody what they believe is a truth that will set them free) is evil.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Those who find it offensive are at fault. The billboard is not offending anyone and ideas don´t have feelings, so saying things like "It offends my religion" is senseless. It offends THE PERSON that has the religion because such person dosnt want to hear such religion questioned. Well, they may look the other way.

The same argument could be made of racial comments.

They have every right to believe what they believe is holy, but they do not have a right to make everyone else believe it is when they don´t choose to.

Never said they had the right to implement mind control (I hope to hell they never get that sort of technology, because they WILL use it, first for the degenerates like paedophiles, then onto lesser crimes, then onto social engineering)

If it is not holy then it´s a myth. It´s simple, either you believe Jesus´s miracles are real, or you believe they are myths. It´s very straigthforward. That´s exactly why they used the word myth most probably: so peole can think of hercules and think "humm.... how different is his story from Jesus´s one really?"

Yet the connotations are not neutral, it has strong negative implications (not as bad as a word like nonsense, but still...) once again, that is what I am explaining, some people find these negative connotations to be vastly offensive, not the questioning, but the labelling of central tenants of their faith by a term that equates it with nonsensical absurdities, religion may be wrong but it is not silly, to label it with terms like myth is to do just that though.

Effective? maybe from those of "weak" "faith".

Dunno what you mean here, assuming to have something to do with effective as a mechanism by which to undermine their religious position in order to champion atheism.

For the pridefull ones who sense their feelings affected it is "outrageous" and for the closeted or even outed atheists it is a relief. They are not a alone, and even if they are a minority, their voice is out there, the same as everyone else´s.

Yes, but there is no NEED to use that voice to insult other people's beliefs. As I mentioned earlier, a more pleasant message that still engenders complaint is more beneficial to your cause.

All those terms have pejorative meanings that are almost inseperable of them. And you are arguing about the word "myth" which is not inherently pejorative

...

They are only "predators" and "oportunists" if their intent (showing somebody what they believe is a truth that will set them free) is evil.

Edit and those are almost exactly the connotations I was attempting to convey, see how you were able to pick those up without me having to explicitly write them? The same holds true for myth, it carries connotations of the subject being nonsensical fantasy that is foolish to hold as being truth.

 

[Rakhel]

so what?

i don't see what the big deal is...
let the words in the context speak for itself...

So is that "You" general or specific?
shouldn't it be read literally based who it's targeting?

 

[waitasec]

So is that "You" general or specific?
shouldn't it be read literally based who it's targeting?

whom ever gives it the power...

 

[Me Myself]

The same argument could be made of racial comments.

We talked about this comparison, and you ended up with no real argument there.

Yet the connotations are not neutral, it has strong negative implications

The word in itself doesnt at all. I love greek myths, I never said so in a pejorative way. What is "offensive" to them is that anyone dare say that what they have chosen to believe to be true is not true. So it is not the word itself at fault, but the fact that they want that anyone who doesn´t share their beliefs shut it. That is unacceptable.

And yes, they have 1000% right to say anything is an absurdity in a billboard.
I am sorry, but they do. If they can´t stand to see it, the more they need to, because it is far more likely that their "faith" is based on denial.

Dunno what you mean here, assuming to have something to do with effective as a mechanism by which to undermine their religious position in order to champion atheism.

U did understand what I said you just said it

Yes, but there is no NEED to use that voice to insult other people's beliefs. As I mentioned earlier, a more pleasant message that still engenders complaint is more beneficial to your cause.

You cannot insult a person´s belief. The belief has no conscience nor should have any rights. The person has rights. You cannot insult the person. If the ad said "People who believe in this myths are stupid" then it would be different. That´s not what the ad says though.