American Atheists at it again?

[cablescavenger]

lol tis better in my mind at least, to come up with advertisements which are completely inoffensive to the average person, yet make the opponents squeal (without using ploys like symbolism, hidden meanings and so forth); if you appear to be acting reasonably yet your opponents complain, then they seem unreasonable; it only serves to undermine them, and thus the opposition to your message - making your position seem less problematic.

I agree. I would prefer all religious advertising was stopped. If it is a personal thing between you and God, then why would organisations advertise? unless they think they can make money out of it.

 

[cablescavenger]

No, they are not the same. The "Jesus Saves" one can be compared to the one that simply says "Atheists". Both are non-confrontational and not offensive in the least. The billboard from the OP is more reasonably compared to the billboards scattered across the south that say things such as "Hell is Real". And even then, it would be a more apt comparison if such a billboard was placed in a heavily atheist neighborhood.

One that said just "Christian" or "Religious" would be comparable with one saying just "Atheist".

Perhaps if you had one that said "Atheists save" they would be more comparable and equally non offensive.

 

[9Westy9]

too confrontational for my liking. It makes a bold claim and insults all believers in God. I'm very against

 

[Kathryn]

I don't care much for any of these "pro" or "anti" religious signs.

God doesn't need us to advertise on billboards and to be honest, most of this advertising is pretty tacky.

As for the signs on both sides of the fence - I find the placement of many of these to be intentionally bombastic or divisive.

Anyone who finds or loses their faith via a billboard didn't have a very deep understanding of their faith or lack thereof to begin with.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No, they are not the same. The "Jesus Saves" one can be compared to the one that simply says "Atheists". Both are non-confrontational and not offensive in the least. The billboard from the OP is more reasonably compared to the billboards scattered across the south that say things such as "Hell is Real". And even then, it would be a more apt comparison if such a billboard was placed in a heavily atheist neighborhood.

I think there's a key difference: those "Hell is real"-type billboards are directed specifically at non-believers, while these atheist billboards are directed at closeted atheists within these reigious comunities. IOW, in one case, the offense is the whole point, but in the other case, while it's foreseeable, it's incidental to the main purpose.

 

[Father Heathen]

It would be sad if their only purpose is to destroy the faith of people

Not destroy their faith, but to help them liberate themselves from it. Besides, it appears they're targeting people who already doubt or who are closet atheists.

And i think what some atheists fail to appreciate is that religion is what fills that need in some people.

Sometimes people use drugs or alcohol to fill a need. That doesn't make them healthy or wholesome.

 

[Apex]

I think there's a key difference: those "Hell is real"-type billboards are directed specifically at non-believers, while these atheist billboards are directed at closeted atheists within these reigious comunities. IOW, in one case, the offense is the whole point, but in the other case, while it's foreseeable, it's incidental to the main purpose.

But you could just as easily make the argument that the "Hell is Real" types are directed towards their own believers to keep them in line. Basically a "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" type of advertisement. And I simply can not buy the "closeted atheists" explanation. At least not entirely. The intention to insult believers and cause drama is pretty obvious IMO.

 

[Storm]

I suppose this boils down to whether or not you perceive an honest and earnest reply as some universal "answer". I no more claim to speak for all atheists than I might accept another respondent as universally answerable for the entirety of Christians, monotheists, polytheists, or pagans.

I really don't see the relevance of that.

But if you wish to only engage in verbal gymnastics, you may find me capable in the task as willing foil.

Please spare me your speculations on my motives, as well as your typical wall of text. I'm well aware that you're capable of ridiculous verbosity, and totally uninterested.

In matter of fact, I did "answer" your posed question as both a posited clarification and as a sarcastic rebuttal...

Not really.

Which you invited by very premise...so, you're welcome

And not at all. Try reading what I write, rather than assuming what I really mean.

 

[waitasec]

No, they are not the same. The "Jesus Saves" one can be compared to the one that simply says "Atheists". Both are non-confrontational and not offensive in the least. The billboard from the OP is more reasonably compared to the billboards scattered across the south that say things such as "Hell is Real". And even then, it would be a more apt comparison if such a billboard was placed in a heavily atheist neighborhood.

nope.

"atheists" is just a noun
"jesus saves" is pronoun with a verb...

 

[tumbleweed41]

I don't care much for any of these "pro" or "anti" religious signs.

God doesn't need us to advertise on billboards and to be honest, most of this advertising is pretty tacky.

As for the signs on both sides of the fence - I find the placement of many of these to be intentionally bombastic or divisive.

Anyone who finds or loses their faith via a billboard didn't have a very deep understanding of their faith or lack thereof to begin with.

Agreed. (although I do get a chuckle out of some of the billboards, they are somewhat ineffectual.)

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

But you could just as easily make the argument that the "Hell is Real" types are directed towards their own believers to keep them in line. Basically a "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" type of advertisement. And I simply can not buy the "closeted atheists" explanation. At least not entirely. The intention to insult believers and cause drama is pretty obvious IMO.

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.

 

[Valjean]

More scandalous atheist propaganda: Really, Really, Really Inoffensive Atheist Billboards | Friendly Atheist

 

[Kathryn]

If people would be completely honest, they would admit that most of these signs are meant to be provocative at the least, divisive generally, and at their worst, offensive.

 

[Storm]

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.

As we discussed in chat last night, actions speak louder than words.... I think that the billboard itself undermines the stated mission.

Furthermore, even IF the stated goal is the true one - a big "if" to my mind - then the execution was so stupidly counterproductive that it strikes me as ultimately worse than if they really did just want to cause trouble.

 

[waitasec]

If people would be completely honest, they would admit that most of these signs are meant to be provocative at the least, divisive generally, and at their worst, offensive.

so????

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

*meh*

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Saying "You know it's a myth" is insulting and will likely come off more as an attack than an invitation.

 

[Kathryn]

so????

Do I really have to explain this to you?

I'm not complaining. I believe that these sorts of signs are protected by our Constitution. Lots of things that are poor choices, tacky, ridiculous, corny, offensive, etc are in fact.

My point is that people on both sides of the fence so often act righteously indignant when the exact response the message was meant to provoke is elicited.

 

[waitasec]

Do I really have to explain this to you?

I'm not complaining. My point is that people on both sides of the fence so often act righteously indignant when the exact response the message was meant to provoke is elicited.

i know you are not complaining...i'm just asking, so?

what do you think the purpose of these offensive, at worst, billboards are doing...
offending people? so....?
nothing happens when one gets offended. we teach our children to be people to take "offensive" words with a grain of salt...but then somewhere along the line when religion is the target then all bets are off...

 

[Valjean]

If people would be completely honest, they would admit that most of these signs are meant to be provocative at the least, divisive generally, and at their worst, offensive.

I don't understand how "puppies are cute" is provocative. If the message's author were not displayed I don't think there'd be any problem.
It's the very concept of atheism that sets people off.