After being called many names for advertising my position on a very small level, I thought I would show an article my wife found. The article begins "London buses have God on their side — but not for long, if atheists have their way." (full article)
The difference here is exposure, atheists win that fight hands down on this one. Should we move to counter attack?
UPDATE: I guess I spoke too soon. They are now campaigning here in the states also.
Remember, "being good" will not get you to heaven.
This post here reminded me of my very first post on atheists, ah good times.
I love the difference between an article from Fox News and a few from the Guardian (1, 2, 3).
ReplyDeleteIt's obvious from the outset which is a more reputable source.
Interestingly, the second one from the Guardian is written as a Christian response, and the author has this to say:
"Frankly, the slogan is a bit anodyne. It's the non-believing equivalent of "God may very well exist. Now have a nice day". But it will probably still be enough to upset counter-evangelists of the kind who like to tell everybody they are going to hell for not subscribing to their particular doctrine, and who think atheism is very, very naughty."
-- Simon Barrow
"God may very well exist. Now have a nice day". That's a brilliant quote.
In case it wasn't clear, the difference I was refering to was in the titles: Fox wrote:
ReplyDelete"Atheists Plan Anti-God Ad Campaign on Buses" [insert maniacal laughter from Evil Atheist Conspiricy]
While the Guardian wrote:
"All aboard the atheist bus campaign"
"Atheist evangelising?" and
"Arriving soon: atheist bus campaign gets off to a flying start"
The difference here is exposure, atheists win that fight hands down on this one. Should we move to counter attack?
ReplyDeleteUh, Dan, did you read the article? Buses in London already have all kinds of Christian and Muslim advertising on them. Are you seriously claiming that atheism gets more advertising exposure in London, or anywhere in the world for that matter, than theism? It would be hard to find figures, but I'm willing to guess that atheists are outspent at least a hundred to one by theists.
You guys are being too hard on Dan. It's like this -- he doesn't read articles, he just reads headlines. In time, I'm guessing he'll just utilize the Stephen Colbert method, and absorb an article's contents through osmosis into his gut, where he does all his thinking.
ReplyDelete--
Stan
Zilch and Stan,
ReplyDelete"Are you seriously claiming that atheism gets more advertising exposure in London,"
No I am claiming what I said "atheists win that fight hands down on this one" between what I did to John and what they are doing in London and the US. They are getting far more "exposure" then little ol me and I have been chastised for what I did by atheists who possible condone bus and billboard advertising. Just showing the dichotomy of it.
Correction: "possibly" condone
ReplyDeleteDan,
ReplyDeleteThere are states in the "bible belt" where there are billboards on every road every quarter mile promoting some brand of being saved.
And yes, you will see more of this coming to the US.
The funny part is that you are causing your own demise by politicizing your personal faith instead of practicing it.
Froggie,
ReplyDelete"by politicizing your personal faith instead of practicing it."
Innstead of practicing it? Are you in my house? Are you stalking me? Are you judging me? Do you have proof of this claim or is it just an opinion or theory of yours?
Besides aren't you part of the group that posted about me who "labeled their opponent" with foul derogatory language? In a sense, politicizing the issue.
Hypocrisy?
I do actually agree with Dan here, froggie. Gotta find something to be picky on: you were refering to evangelical fundumentalism as a whole, not just dan.
ReplyDeletePerhaps a better way to word it would have been:
"The funny part is that evangelicals are causing their own demise by politicizing their personal faith instead of practicing it."
On a different subject:
Dan wrote:
"No I am claiming what I said "atheists win that fight hands down on this one" between what I did to John and what they are doing in London and the US."
I'm afraid, Dan, that the two are not comparable. Atheist slogans on buses are comparible to evangelical slogans on buses, and your image posting on Johns book would be more comparible to me (hypothetically) going to a Ray Comfort seminar, standing at the door, and telling everyone as they entered that they were wasting their lives.
Hey, that sounds like fun.
Quasar,
ReplyDeleteI appreciate your fairness in your discussions. One could surmise that at least you are fair in love and war.
"would be more comparable to me (hypothetically) going to a Ray Comfort seminar, standing at the door, and telling everyone as they entered that they were wasting their lives."
Isn't that what atheists and all secular humanists in schools and public places are doing? The subject of God isn't limited to one place is it?
Dan wrote:
ReplyDeleteIsn't that what atheists and all secular humanists in schools and public places are doing? The subject of God isn't limited to one place is it?
Well, some Anti-theists (such as Dawkins) are certainly going public about it, but their numbers are small and they are no more vocal about it then their opposite numbers. There are no atheist street preachers.
I don't know what you mean "in schools": atheism isn't even mentioned in schools except in Social studies. Which is more than we can say for Christianity, which (in Australia at least) gets it's own "religous education" class during primary school.
Dan: what Quasar said. Here in Austria, too, atheism is not mentioned in school, and kids are required to take Religion classes for at least six years (there is a choice, however, between Catholic, Lutheran, or Muslim classes). And there are crucifixes hanging in every classroom.
ReplyDeleteI personally have nothing against religion in public schools, if it is taught fairly- that means covering all major religions, and not touting any one of them as being "right" or "wrong". And of course religion should be kept out of science class.
I live in the US and, while I haven't set foot in a public classroom in 19 years, I certainly don't remember any discussion of the validity of Christianity (or any theistic philosophy, for that matter).
ReplyDeleteI can only assume that Dan is talking about lack of mandatory prayer and creation science in (most) US classrooms.
chum tin- I went through the US school system too, and had the same experience: no mention of atheism as far as I can recall, religion only mentioned in history and social studies as part of the cultural background, and science classes blessedly free of religion and atheism: just the facts. All in all, a pretty good education. From what I've heard, though, the quality has gone down in public schools, at least in California where I grew up.
ReplyDeleteQuasar,
ReplyDelete"There are no atheist street preachers."
Are you sure about that? Is this an example of preaching?
Angry Atheist Freaks Out On Street Preacher
He sure preaching his religion to me. BTW did you see his sign? Is he handing out pamphlets also?
Dan wrote He sure preaching his religion to me.
ReplyDeleteEr, no. He's arguing with someone who was preaching, however.
Don't mistake him being an asshat as it having anything to do with atheism. Otherwise, the existence of the KKK allows me to label you as racist...
Whateverman,
ReplyDelete"He's arguing with someone who was preaching, however."
Not so fast! He is handing out a pamphlet and has a derogatory sign about Jesus. He is preaching his message.
"Don't mistake him being an asshat as it having anything to do with atheism."
Valid but not relevant, the claim was "There are no atheist street preachers." I was just proving that claim incorrect.
Ah - I didn't get that far through the video (forst few minutes). All I saw was an obnoxious dude yelling at the camera man.
ReplyDeleteAdmittedly, it's obvious the two had "matched wits" prior to the tape rolling, and it makes me wonder had occurred. They might have some history...
But if you were simply trying to show that atheists preach - well, I guess I've got nothing to counter with. To be sure, it's extremely rare - there's really nothing such a person could say except "God (probably) doesn't exist!"
That's why I labelled him an asshat, rather than an atheist. He seems to be trying to be annoying, rather than promoting atheism...
Whateverman,
ReplyDelete"He seems to be trying to be annoying, rather than promoting atheism..."
Admittedly this man is far from the norm. I guess there are exceptions to every rule.
Would it be fair to say someone running a blog that is Anti-Christianity would render that as a form of preaching?
If that is the case then there are a great deal of preachers out there for atheism.
Dan wrote Would it be fair to say someone running a blog that is Anti-Christianity would render that as a form of preaching?
ReplyDeleteIf that is the case then there are a great deal of preachers out there for atheism.
Weak atheists, by definition, can not preach.
Strong atheists, a minority of the atheist community, can indeed preach. However, I have yet to see one in action.
Dawkins and his ilk? Sure. Selling books which ultimately lead the reader to the author's conclusion that there is no God is a form of preaching.
There may be blogs which advocate the same thing. However, most are personal, and don't have any serious readership; a few who occasionally leave comments. That's not preaching - that's merely making your diary available to the public, and not caring who reads.
Criticism of Christianity or the bible has nothing to do with atheism.
Really, Dan, atheists in general do not preach. Even if you can raise a name or two in protest, the VAST majority of preaching is being done by Christianity.
Whateverman,
ReplyDelete"Really, Dan, atheists in general do not preach."
Well, statistics disagrees.
Your message is getting across quite clear. I believe it's time for a counter attack.
Dan, your link gave no evidence that showed atheists preaching.
ReplyDeleteCare to try again?
Secular media is atheistic in it's agenda proven by statistics, are you claiming Christians are behind the media? They use their medium to promote their agenda. Same with secular scientists and secular teachers.
ReplyDeleteAn American Humanist named John Dunphy said back in 1983:
"I am convinced that the battle for humankind's future must be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers who correctly perceive their role as the proselytizers of a new faith: a religion of humanity that recognizes and respects the spark of what theologians call divinity in every human being. These teachers must embody the same selfless dedication as the most rabid fundamentalist preachers, for they will be ministers of another sort, utilizing a classroom instead of a pulpit to convey humanist values in whatever subject they teach, regardless of the educational level--preschool day care or large state university. The classroom must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and the new--the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with all its adjacent evils and misery, and the new faith of humanism."
There is an definite agenda even if it's denied. Truth is still truth. You are being intellectually dishonest if you claim otherwise. Basic logic tells you this and I would even say, your conscience tells you this. Denial of truth does not equate to truth.
Secular media is atheistic in it's agenda proven by statistics, are you claiming Christians are behind the media?
ReplyDeleteAgain Dan, this is a non sequitur. Atheists do not preach, and nothing you've linked, shown or written has provided evidence otherwise.
I don't know why it took me this long, but this bus is clearly the actual "Straight Talk Express".
ReplyDelete:)
--
Stan
Stan,
ReplyDelete"Straight Talk Express"
Hey, we talked about all your cussing, please refrain from this type of language.
Go Bob Barr! (substitute for Ron Paul)
:)
Hey Dan.
ReplyDeleteWhateverman said it, but nonetheless, let's discuss this:
Dan wrote:
"Secular media is atheistic in it's agenda proven by statistics, are you claiming Christians are behind the media? They use their medium to promote their agenda. Same with secular scientists and secular teachers."
I don't know anything about American media, but off hand I can think of a few reasons for the percieved bias repoted in your link.
- The Nature of News -
Churches have been shouting their message for a rather lengthy amount of time now. "Book promotes christianity" isn't news, it's olds. Atheism is relatively new, in America at least, and people are interested in it, so the media pays attention. If a politition says they're christian, who cares? Most are. If they say they're atheist, however...
- The Nature of Fundies -
Atheists, even antitheists such as Dawkins, are in general nowhere near as extreme as fundimentalists. Most articles about them will be relatively positive, because as far as they're willing to go is a comparison between religon in general, and child abuse/brainwashing. Stories about fundimentalists, however, generally invove the likes of Fred "GodHatesFags" Phelps.
- The Nature of Vocalism -
Stories about christianity will invariably get overwhelmed with the more vocal members: the fundies. Nobody wants to hear about liberal christians (the majority). And the fundies aren't easy to portray in a good light, unless you are a fellow fundie. In the same way, a story about atheists will get overwhelmed by the anti-theists, Dawkins and co... but they at least come across as sane.
- The Nature of Reporters -
The type of person drawn to a reporters job ("seekers of truth", if you will) are generally slightly more liberal in outlook than average people, and certainly more liberal in outlook than those who deny evolution.
None of this is "preaching", it's just an inevitable result of the current society.
And scientists and teachers do not promote atheism, unless you want to equate science with godlessness?
Quasar wrote much but started it with off hand I can think of a few reasons for the percieved bias repoted in your link.
ReplyDeleteThanks Quasar. Much of what you added was itching to be typed by me, but I wanted to keep my response to Dan on-topic.
The issue of media bias is completely different from the issue of preaching. I'm very skeptical of the established Christian media portraying itself as "under siege" by atheist bias. By way of refutation, I'd point out I can barely get through a week without seeing or hearing Christian references in ALL major media outlets.
Every single week, I hear the words "God" and "Jesus" and "Church" and "Bible".
I can not ever remembering randomly hearing "There is no God". Not once.
"Atheist bias" is nothing more than crocodile tears; while claiming they're fighting for freedom of speech, Christian activists seek to dominate the media with their own world view.
Crying about atheist media bias is nothing short of hypocrisy. Until the day when the US has 2 national holidays celibrating "No god - woot!", you've got nothing to complain about whatsoever.
Whateverman,
ReplyDelete"Until the day when the US has 2 national holidays celebrating "No god - woot!", you've got nothing to complain about whatsoever. "
Hate to break you the news but all the holidays are secular/ pagan and geared to focus people away from God. Yes even Christmas.
I thought Feb 12 was Darwin Day anyway. Are you going to be going to the Charles Darwin 2009: 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin's birth. All sorts of fun stuff is planned for that week. Bigger then Christmas, many atheists believe. (OK I added that last part)
Narrow is the path to Salvation, I have to keep reminding myself of that.
Hate to break you the news but all the holidays are secular/ pagan and geared to focus people away from God. Yes even Christmas.
ReplyDeleteAt a minimum, if Christmas and Easter are "geared to focus people away from God", that's Christianity's fault. They're still Christian holidays, celebrating Christian beliefs, and dominated by Christian symbols.
The fact that the entire country (US) celebrates them does not make them secular.
I thought Feb 12 was Darwin Day anyway.
The date my company provides all its employees with a day off is the date on which I will concede your point.
Feb 12!
ReplyDelete[Marks it on calender]
And yes, all the holidays are pagan, but only because they were stolen from the pagans in the first place. Christmas celebrates Jesus's birth, which historians believe occured in March, but is held in December to coincide with the (Northern Hemisphere) winter solstice (we get Chrismas in the worst heat of summer down here in Australia :).
And I can't remember Easters origins, but believe they had to do with the Spring Equinox which, interestingly, is a celebration of the end of winter (a season of death for those in cold climates) and the start of spring (renewal, or "resurrection", if you will).
Word verification: beable.
Don't forget that other semi-famous person who was born on February 12, 1809: Abraham Lincoln. He freed the slaves, and Darwin freed our minds. I'm sure God planned for them to be born on the same day.
ReplyDeleteThere will be a big party in my workshop on the two hundredth birthday of Abe and Chuck. You're all cordially invited. Non-alcoholic beverages will be served as well.