SacBee - Atheist groups spread message on Sacramento-area billboards

[The Evil Genius]

Kind of surprised this hasn't gone mainstream (story wise).


http://www.sacbee.com/ourregion/story/2525723.html

http://media.sacbee.com/smedia/2010/02/09/20/3M10BILLBOARD.xlgraphic.prod_affiliate.4.JPG

By Bill Lindelof
blindelof@sacbee.com The Sacramento Bee
Published: Wednesday, Feb. 10, 2010 - 12:00 am | Page 1B

Ever look skyward for spiritual inspiration? You won't find it on 10 new billboards that just went up in the Sacramento region.

A coalition of atheist and agnostic groups has bought billboard space to tell like-minded individuals they are not alone – but not in the godly sense.

The billboards say: "Are you good without God? Millions are." The message appears on a background of fluffy white clouds and blue sky.

The billboards are part of a national campaign that began last year in a dozen cities, including Baltimore, Boston, Cincinnati and New York. Similar ads went up in Seattle and Tampa Bay, Fla., in January.

The Sacramento billboards, which will be up for a month, cost $6,450. The advertising is sponsored by the Sacramento Area Coalition of Reason with funding from the national United Coalition of Reason, based in Washington, D.C.

MORE AFTER LINK


http://www.sacbee.com/ourregion/story/2525723.html

[Buford]

Meh, when I drive up to western pa, I see billboards that are loaded with christian messages, and nobody is upset by it.

[Bang]

Works for me.

~Bang

[The Evil Genius]

Meh, when I drive up to western pa, I see billboards that are loaded with christian messages, and nobody is upset by it.

Mainly because most people don't get upset with that. Now, start questioning people's religion - then we have a problem.

:evilg:

[Teller]

No issues with free speech.

Signed,
The Conservative Christian

[SkinsHokieFan]

Where my family comes from, that gets your hands cut off :ols:

[Rdskn4Lyf21]

No issues with free speech.

Signed,
The Conservative Christian

Completely agree.

Signed,
Another Conservative Christian

[Spaceman Spiff]

I don't understand why the athiest/agnostics have to take such joy in ****ting all over religion.

EDIT: Not that I have a problem with the billboard, it's just like those annoying "Can we talk? - God" billboards I see when I drive to NC.

I guess if some Christians can be equally as annoying with their messages it makes what these athiests are doing okay.

[SKINS@THEGOALLINE]

From the article:
The Sacramento billboards, which will be up for a month, cost $6,450. The advertising is sponsored by the Sacramento Area Coalition of Reason.

It seems a bit unreasonable to me.

[HighOnHendrix]

From the article:
The Sacramento billboards, which will be up for a month, cost $6,450. The advertising is sponsored by the Sacramento Area Coalition of Reason.

It seems a bit unreasonable to me.

What? The cost? $640 per billboard. I've never looked into what they cost, but that seems about right to me.

[hokie4redskins]

Someone should put another billboard below it that says, ".....Until they die."

That'd look great in the Owned thread.

[Prosperity]

I don't understand why the athiest/agnostics have to take such joy in ****ting all over religion.

EDIT: Not that I have a problem with the billboard, it's just like those annoying "Can we talk? - God" billboards I see when I drive to NC.

I guess if some Christians can be equally as annoying with their messages it makes what these athiests are doing okay.

atheists come from a long line of Christians (in the US and Europe at least) ... They are very similar in the sense that they are both missionary religions... always trying to fix everyone else's problems and seldom minding their own business.

[DRSmith]

And atheists tell me they never it is not a religion and one way they prove is by saying they never proselytize. What is this billboard if not doing just that?

[Corcaigh]

atheists come from a long line of Christians (in the US and Europe at least) ... They are very similar in the sense that they are both missionary religions... always trying to fix everyone else's problems and seldom minding their own business.

How is "don't spend my tax dollars on your religion" interpreted as "trying to fix everyone else's problems"?

[Corcaigh]

And atheists tell me they never it is not a religion and one way they prove is by saying they never proselytize. What is this billboard if not doing just that?

I'd guess that the intent is not to proselytize, but to provide support to those who don't have belief. In a predominantly Christian country it's reminding them that they're not alone.

[DRSmith]

I'd guess that the intent is not to proselytize, but to provide support to those who don't have belief. In a predominantly Christian country it's reminding them that they're not alone.

How can you think you are alone?

Like are you watching no entertainment?

Does Bill Maher get through a show without commenting on his belief in no God?

I know tons of atheists, and one should be secure in their beliefs without the need for numbers.

[Prosperity]

How is "don't spend my tax dollars on your religion" interpreted as "trying to fix everyone else's problems"?


It isn't, what's your point?

[rincewind]

I don't understand why the athiest/agnostics have to take such joy in ****ting all over religion.




I don't see how this billboard ****s all over any religion. :whoknows:

[Special K]

I don't see what the big deal is. :whoknows:

I'm a Christian and I don't have a problem with it.

Lots of people don't believe in Christianity or other religions. It's all our own, individual choice here in America. If they want to pay to rent the billboards, more power to them. Free speech is one of the things that make America such a great country...good road infrastructure is another, lol. But I digress.

[Corcaigh]

How can you think you are alone?

Like are you watching no entertainment?

Does Bill Maher get through a show without commenting on his belief in no God?



I'm guessing that's what the intent of the ads is, because that's what the people who place them say. :)

For a long time churches have played a very important role in communities, irrespective of how much the people attending actually believed the particular theology. I would wager that a majority of people who claim to be Christian in Europe couldn't name half the books in the bible. :ols: They're not there because they love their bible study or the assumed guaranteed ticket to salvation.

Folks who chose not to belong to a church may look at the bake sales, barbecues and other community activities with a sense of missing out on something. That's what the billboards are trying to address and then encourage those that see them to join one of the local groups. Unless Bill Maher is your neighbor , I don't see how his being an atheist does much for your sense of community. :)

[Corcaigh]

It isn't, what's your point?

In what way then is atheism interfering in other people's lives?

[AzSkinsFan63]

I'm saddened by it..not mad at it.

God's perfect holiness > Man's contrived goodness.

Live by the law and you will be judged by the law.

Accept Jesus Christ's perfect life, death and resurrection (the sacrifice for you and me)and receive the free gift of salvation (pardon) from that law.

Then repent (change your mind about sin, turn away from) and walk daily with the Lord.

It's that easy.

[Prosperity]

In what way then is atheism interfering in other people's lives?


Interference may be too strong a word, but it's more than simply "don't spend my tax money." Many of it's adherents in this community (ES) and in other communities I belong to proselytize their religion just like the Christians do. The Christians are much more organized, but the intent is the same, to convince others to change their ways, and to find the capital T Truth that they've found.

[Corcaigh]

Interference may be too strong a word, but it's more than simply "don't spend my tax money." Many of it's adherents in this community (ES) and in other communities I belong to proselytize their religion just like the Christians do. The Christians are much more organized, but the intent is the same, to convince others to change their ways, and to find the capital T Truth that they've found.

Your mileage may vary. But I think there's a big difference between defending your turf and beliefs and The Great Commission. :)

[Predicto]

Meh. Those billboards are useless. They are not going to convince anyone of anything, or cause anyone to think about anything. Waste of money.

[Bang]

Someone should put another billboard below it that says, ".....Until they die."

That'd look great in the Owned thread.

Only if you could prove it.
Try sleeping pills.

~Bang

[GhostofSparta]

Good for them. I think it's a waste of money myself, but it's their money to waste and I'm not gonna tell them what to spend it on. Of course, most people really don't read billboards anyway, they're just background scenery to most people (especially if you grew up along the I-95 corridor).

It's not funny, but it's also not offensive. Overall, I give it a B-.

[Destino]

Atheists are indeed turning into a religion. They have groups, newsletters, heavily recruit, and let's be frank they are even often openly hostile to those that don't share their views on faith. The only thing missing between them and the traditional structure is weekly meetings in designated buildings... that is a terribly small distinction in this day and age of communication.

[ACW]

I'm saddened by it..not mad at it.

God's perfect holiness > Man's contrived goodness.

Live by the law and you will be judged by the law.

Accept Jesus Christ's perfect life, death and resurrection (the sacrifice for you and me)and receive the free gift of salvation (pardon) from that law.

Then repent (change your mind about sin, turn away from) and walk daily with the Lord.

It's that easy.So since I'm Jewish I can't be saved?
I'll just be in hell with the fornicators, rock music listeners, and other fun people while you'll be bored for all eternity :evil:

[SnyderShrugged]

It's certainly their right. I feel very sorry for them and wonder what purpose they feel they are serving, but definitely no issue from a rights perspective.

[The Evil Genius]

It's certainly their right. I feel very sorry for them and wonder what purpose they feel they are serving, but definitely no issue from a rights perspective.

What purpose does any billboard serve? They're selling.

[SnyderShrugged]

What purpose does any billboard serve? They're selling.


selling? and what would they be selling? A message of "don't believe"?

again, I have literally zero issue with their billboard, it's just pretty dumb and useless.

[The Evil Genius]

selling? and what would they be selling? A message of "don't believe"?

again, I have literally zero issue with their billboard, it's just pretty dumb and useless.

They are selling the notion that millions of people don't believe. That you, the nonbeliever aren't alone. That you don't have to feel isolated.

[IONTOP]

selling? and what would they be selling? A message of "don't believe"?

again, I have literally zero issue with their billboard, it's just pretty dumb and useless.

They're "selling" their website... It's in the bottom left corner...

Just like any group, you'd like to support other people who share your views...

If you were shopping for a suit, you narrowed it down to a suit from (X) chain of stores, you knew one general manager of a store was a Redskins fan and didn't know anything about the other manager of the other store... You'd probably go buy the suit from the Skins fan's store...

[SnyderShrugged]

They are selling the notion that millions of people don't believe. That you, the nonbeliever aren't alone. That you don't have to feel isolated.


LOL, whatever you want to believe. To me, it's somewhat asinine

[The Evil Genius]

LOL, whatever you want to believe. To me, it's somewhat asinine

I am sure they feel the same way (whatever you want to believe and it's asinine) about organized religion.

:evilg:

[Bang]

LOL, whatever you want to believe. To me, it's somewhat asinine

Well, now you know how we feel just about every day.

~Bang

[The Evil Genius]

Well, now you know how we feel just about every day.

~Bang

I thought you had a religion.

Football?

:ols:

[SnyderShrugged]

I am sure they feel the same way (whatever you want to believe and it's asinine) about organized religion.

:evilg:


You misunderstand me.


I have no issue with atheist beliefs at all. (except I feel sorry for them)

what is asinine is somehow thinking a billboard would have any impact whatsoever.

[Corcaigh]

Well, now you know how we feel just about every day.



You're just bitter and lonely because your worldview isn't built on the belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree.

[SnyderShrugged]

You're just bitter and lonely because your worldview isn't built on the belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree.

Yes, being insulting is always going to help:(

[Corcaigh]

Yes, being insulting is always going to help:(

You feel sorry for us. We feel sorry for you. Fair? :evilg:

[Bang]

You're just bitter and lonely because your worldview isn't built on the belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree.

See, and here I thought it was because my underwear is too tight.

~Bang

[Corcaigh]

See, and here I thought it was because my underwear is too tight.

~Bang

Tight underwear, along with Rock and Roll, is no doubt the work of Satan.

[SnyderShrugged]

You feel sorry for us. We feel sorry for you. Fair? :evilg:


sure

[Vicious]

Someone should put another billboard below it that says, ".....Until they die."

That'd look great in the Owned thread.

Lets see, multiple religions over the centuries all saying very different things, but you've got the right one. When you die, you'll be going to a magical place of pure happiness. All the other suckas, well, they should have been reading the right billboards.

[Zguy28]

Its like deja vu all over again.

http://www.extremeskins.com/showthread.php?t=270526

[grego]

I don't understand why the athiest/agnostics have to take such joy in ****ting all over religion.

EDIT: Not that I have a problem with the billboard, it's just like those annoying "Can we talk? - God" billboards I see when I drive to NC.

I guess if some Christians can be equally as annoying with their messages it makes what these athiests are doing okay.

i agree.

why spend money to spread your message where the benefit of doing so is nothing? not to mention the potential consequences.

agree about free speech and annoying religious folks too. everyone can be annoying.

[Bang]

Its like deja vu all over again.

http://www.extremeskins.com/showthread.php?t=270526

Well, if anything it seems the outrage has died down. That's good, it shows that since the Christmas billboards didn't actually cancel anyone's Christmas, maybe folks will stop worrying about it.

~Bang

[Skins24]

They are selling the notion that millions of people don't believe. That you, the nonbeliever aren't alone. That you don't have to feel isolated.
:ols:
Nah, that can't possibly be a reason. Any atheist feeling even a bit isolated or whatever in this world (the west) is dealing with issues a lot deeper



Edit: Have no problems with the billboard. Don't really see a point, but whatever.


Billboard still exists btw? Isn't it time for those to be replaced by some, I don't know, holographic 3D ads or something?

[Mickalino]

They are selling the notion that millions of people don't believe. That you, the nonbeliever aren't alone. That you don't have to feel isolated.

Maybe if an aetheist is feeling lonely, isolated, and all alone, it's an indication that they need God, not a billboard :2cents:

[DeanCollins]

What? The cost? $640 per billboard. I've never looked into what they cost, but that seems about right to me.

I'm almost sure that figure is per billboard unless there is some kind of fire sale going on. I was withing minutes of a variance (DOT called at the last minute) that would've allowed me to erect a double sided Interstate billboard and the rent per month that the advertisers were paying was $4000 per side ($8000 total) per month , and that was in 1996. So $6500 for one side sounds about right 14 years later.

[Corcaigh]

Maybe if an aetheist is feeling lonely, isolated, and all alone, it's an indication that they need God, not a billboard :2cents:

Or a real friend, rather than an imaginary one. :evilg:

[Mickalino]

I think it would be funny, if someone posted a billboard next to it, as a response with the words "Miss Me, Yet ?....God"
inspired by this...

http://media.npr.org/assets/blogs/thetwo-way/images/2010/02/bushboard.jpg?s=12

[NoCalMike]

I don't see how the billboard is bashing religion anyway. Doesn't say people who do have faith are stupid. Just says plenty of people are fine without it.

[Mickalino]

Just says plenty of people are fine without it.

A person needs to be told that they are fine ?

I seriously doubt anyone is going to look at this billboard, and say :

"Whew, for a minute there, I thought I was headed to destruction. But thanks to the infinite and superior wisdom emanating from this sign, I am now assured that I am A-okay, like the millions of other people that the sign promised I am so similar to. I will now breathe a deep sigh of relief. Now.....where else can I find another life-changing billboard ? Do they show up on my GPS. Oh shoot, now I'm late for work, since I've been meditating on this billboard for so long. But then again, that's A-Okay, because my boss is an atheist, and he will assure me that I am 'fine' since I don't believe in God, even tho I'm late for work ? "

I'm not slamming the billboard or the people behind it. That's their right. But really, what's the point ? Is it worth all the effort and money ? Will it really accomplish anything ?

[Destino]

I don't see how the billboard is bashing religion anyway. Doesn't say people who do have faith are stupid. Just says plenty of people are fine without it.

I agree with you. It's a recruiting effort for atheism not a bash of other religions.

[Bang]

Maybe if an aetheist is feeling lonely, isolated, and all alone, it's an indication that they need God, not a billboard :2cents:

That's not what he's saying. As an atheist, I can tell you that the notion of God is overwhelming, it's all around us every single day. (and i don't mean in the sense of miracles of life and what not, I mean in billboards, bumper stickers ,money, pledges, everywhere.)
It permeates every culture on earth. And many believe that one thing that keeps this world at each other's throats and is the root of many global problems is religion. At times it can create a sense of futility. The world won't change except for the worst, because religion will always persist in being, and it's followers will always try to convince other religions that their story is correct. And historically, that convincing will be done by any means necessary.

As it is now, we have weapons that can destroy the entire planet, slaughter millions with one press of a button.As a prime example of how atheists can feel about how this affects them, if Iran's claims are to be believed now a fanatical theocracy has the technology to create such a weapon of their own.
Speaking just for myself, I can tell you that I believe they will not hesitate to use it. I think it's inevitable that the current regime will use it in an offensive capacity. I've said on this forum a hundred times in the Iran debate, the entire purpose they have in creating it is to use it, which I believe they will before the paint dries. (However, I believe they'll use it trough a proxy. They'll give a bomb to Hezbollah or some other organization that will use it, and Iran can play the innocence game) This has the potential to escalate and can adversely affect all life on earth, if not destroy us entirely. And all of it will be over God.
It can leave one exasperated at times to realize that all of this will happen over what we view as a fairy tale.

Personally, I don't feel any isolation or any superiority because of my perception of what I believe to be the truth. It doesn't matter to me what billboards say. the fact is no one knows for sure no matter how much they pretend they do.
Take Hokie 4 Skins post on page one. He sure seems convinced. In his view, when he dies he'l get his reward, and when I die I'll get my just desserts. In his view when he dies there will be an answer to the eternal question, and that he will be conscious of it.
In my view, once both of us die, neither one of us will ever know if we were right or wrong, because death is the end. Nothing but oblivion awaits.
I can't count the number of people who have told me how 'sad' that is, and how life is meaningless without believing in a hereafter, and in my mind neither of those notions are true, but the concept that gives me peace in that belief is as alien to him as his is to me.

Some people may not be able to reconcile their feeling of futility, and it might be nice for them to know there are others who feel the same way, which is what he says when he hypothesizes the purpose of the billboard.

Me, I think the billboard is a stupid idea, a waste of money. As others have said, it's not going to change any minds. I'm not one who follows the notions of militant atheism. Anger over a lack of God is just as pointless as anger over which God is the correct story. Whatever gives you peace is fine by me. I believe religion (or the lack thereof) is a private matter. Unfortunately there's a good number of people of all faiths or non-faiths who demand that everyone must think the way they do. I see that as intrusive and downright rude.

Live and let live.

~Bang

[ACW]

You're just bitter and lonely because your worldview isn't built on the belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree.:rotflmao:

[techboy]

:rotflmao:

Eh... I thought it was kind of clever the first time I saw it, but it's getting kind of old now.

I'm puzzled as to why this discussion is still going on. No one really seems to care about the billboard. I know I don't.

[Skins24]

That's not what he's saying. As an atheist, I can tell you that the notion of God is overwhelming, it's all around us every single day. (and i don't mean in the sense of miracles of life and what not, I mean in billboards, bumper stickers ,money, pledges, everywhere.)
:ols:
Overwhelming? Are you being serious?
You may see one religious billboard ever 2000 miles. No one looks at money. How many times a day do you say the pledge?


It permeates every culture on earth.
Nah. Stuff may be there, but it is definitely background...and becoming more so.


And many believe that one thing that keeps this world at each other's throats and is the root of many global problems is religion.
Religion is man's invention. If religion is the root of many problems (I personally think money is the #1 cause), then that should come as no surprise.


At times it can create a sense of futility. The world won't change except for the worst, because religion will always persist in being, and it's followers will always try to convince other religions that their story is correct. And historically, that convincing will be done by any means necessary.
Please. The world is becoming less religious not more. The only way some religious war breaks out nowadays is if some aliens come and start killing everyone who doesn't follow their religion. Can't see a scenario in which the current religions would just start killing each other. Places like here in the US are too mixed. If a religious war were to break out, how would that work out? Your neighbor to the left would be claimed as Buddhist territory, while your neighbor to the right may be Jewish territory?


As it is now, we have weapons that can destroy the entire planet, slaughter millions with one press of a button.As a prime example of how atheists can feel about how this affects them, if Iran's claims are to be believed now a fanatical theocracy has the technology to create such a weapon of their own.
Not sure I understand. If a nuke went off it would kill thousands, whether they believe in God or not.
:whoknows:


Speaking just for myself, I can tell you that I believe they will not hesitate to use it. I think it's inevitable that the current regime will use it in an offensive capacity. I've said on this forum a hundred times in the Iran debate, the entire purpose they have in creating it is to use it, which I believe they will before the paint dries. (However, I believe they'll use it trough a proxy. They'll give a bomb to Hezbollah or some other organization that will use it, and Iran can play the innocence game) This has the potential to escalate and can adversely affect all life on earth, if not destroy us entirely. And all of it will be over God.
lol
1. The middle east conflict will not destroy us all.
2. The middle east conflict is NOT all over God. Sure there are certainly some strong religious aspects concerning the origins of it, but it is a lot more complicated than that.


It can leave one exasperated at times to realize that all of this will happen over what we view as a fairy tale.
Thousands....no millions more are killed every year for reasons other than religion or God. And this is something that actually happens, not has the potential to happen but hasn't yet.


Anger over a lack of God is just as pointless as anger over which God is the correct story. Whatever gives you peace is fine by me. I believe religion (or the lack thereof) is a private matter. Unfortunately there's a good number of people of all faiths or non-faiths who demand that everyone must think the way they do. I see that as intrusive and downright rude.

Live and let live.

~Bang
Basically :)

[techboy]

Overwhelming? Are you being serious?

The Judeo-Christian culture is so pervasive in the west that nobody even notices it anymore. It's to the point that even atheists often rely on it without even realizing they are doing so.

Overwhelming is not an inaccurate adjective should one be paying attention.

[Skins24]

It's to the point that even atheists often rely on it without even realizing they are doing so.

Overwhelming is not an inaccurate adjective should one be paying attention.
That's the thing. If they don't realize they're doing so then that means they're not paying attention. Overwhelming means overpowering. I can't think of anything in everyday goings on in this culture that would make atheist feel like they're being overpowered by people's belief in God.

[techboy]

That's the thing. If they don't realize they're doing so then that means they're not paying attention. Overwhelming means overpowering. I can't think of anything in everyday goings on in this culture that would make atheist feel like they're being overpowered by people's belief in God.

Apparently, Bang is paying attention. ;)

[Mickalino]

Or a real friend, rather than an imaginary one. :evilg:

Then go be a friend to those poor, wretched souls.
But be a real friend, and not an imaginary myspace friend.

[Rufus T Firefly]

Maybe if an aetheist is feeling lonely, isolated, and all alone, it's an indication that they need God, not a billboard :2cents:

And maybe poor people should stop trying to find food and should just start believing they have a million dollars in the bank.

[jnhay]

I think that if most people truly believed in God they wouldn't be doing some of the things they do.

[Perky72]

That's the thing. If they don't realize they're doing so then that means they're not paying attention. Overwhelming means overpowering. I can't think of anything in everyday goings on in this culture that would make atheist feel like they're being overpowered by people's belief in God.

The near absolute necessity of every politician to declare or be religious, and to refer to God (usually the Abrahamic or Christian, or he'll face more difficulty getting elected) is one. As are some laws based on religious belief, such as anti-sodomy laws. As are a tremendous amount of arguments on many issues, such as a religious argument against same-sex marriage or abortion.

An atheist saying he's an atheist in mixed company and being bombarded with attempts at conversion is another. An atheist at work whose boss frequently refers to his religious beliefs, and is viewed poorly if he expresses his lack belief is another. On another site there was an atheist whose atheist mother had died, and a religious group a town away, who'd never even met anyone in the family, sent a card expressing sympathy and pushing a pamphlet on religious views. Can't get much more intrusive than poking into someone's period of mourning in order to win converts.

I'm not saying atheists are persecuted, but there's a ton of dogma from the religious, and a very clear expectation in some cases that a person must be religious (often a certain religion) in order to be elected or viewed favorably. Declarations of one's faith also serves to mitigate one's misdeeds, as in this ruling on a religious guy who broke another guy's jaw:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8497365.stm


Ms Booth told Miah that violence had to be taken seriously, but said she would suspend his prison sentence because he was a religious person and had not been in trouble before.

She added: "You are a religious man and you know this is not acceptable behaviour."

The National Secular Society has complained to the Office for Judicial Complaints, suggesting that Mrs Blair acted in an unjust and discriminatory way, and suggesting that she might have treated a non-religious person less leniently.

An overt example of something that happens quite often in different ways. The reverse is also true, many atheists view theists as mentally unfit by default. But atheists don't have nearly the social, political, legal influence that theists have. If nothing else the billboard raises the awareness of atheists, who have tended not to organize previously (hard to organize around a mere lack of belief in something). It also leads to discussions like this one on message boards. Culminating in open debate on how pervasive religious beliefs are thrust onto the non-religious or non-mainstream-religous, how pervasive "aggressive atheism" is, and so on. It's not unhealthy to think about this kind of stuff.

[Jumbo]

An articulate post, Perky. And as odd as that feels to type, it seems more normal than typing "A perky post, Articulate."

I notice these things.

[desioreo87]

Yea. I think religious people think atheism requires no faith when it actually requires just as much faith as christianity.

Being absolutely certain that there is no god = being absolutely certain that there is.

I am a deist, I look at the world and the complexity of nature and wonder how it could have arose on its own. I also don't like the idea of organized religion, its kinda of turned into a corporation and has lost a lot of its spirituality.

[Perky72]

Thanks Jumbo!


Yea. I think religious people think atheism requires no faith when it actually requires just as much faith as christianity.

Being absolutely certain that there is no god = being absolutely certain that there is.

I agree with you, "absolutely certain" is a very similar position to theism. I've had a lot of discussions with fellow atheists, and the definition of atheist as well as what particular ones self-describe as is a huge point of contention among them/us. There's strong atheism, weak atheism, agnosticism, ignositicism, and many atheists attack each other for the level of surety of their disbelief, vs. merely not holding a belief either way. At least a few atheists I've seen refer to agnostics/weak atheists as "apologists", and "wishy-washy fence-sitters" for refusing to take an absolutist stand on the higher power question.

And many refuse to accept that "militant atheists" exist. I think they do when they cross from atheism to anti-theism, which is a very different thing. A lack of belief has no agenda, an anti-theist belief has one.

Some of the billboards I've seen have an element of anti-theism but mostly seem benign imo, mostly just a "we atheists exist" statement.

[Bang]

Thanks Jumbo!



I agree with you, "absolutely certain" is a very similar position to theism. I've had a lot of discussions with fellow atheists, and the definition of atheist as well as what particular ones self-describe as is a huge point of contention among them/us. There's strong atheism, weak atheism, agnosticism, ignositicism, and many atheists attack each other for the level of surety of their disbelief, vs. merely not holding a belief either way. At least a few atheists I've seen refer to agnostics/weak atheists as "apologists", and "wishy-washy fence-sitters" for refusing to take an absolutist stand on the higher power question.

And many refuse to accept that "militant atheists" exist. I think they do when they cross from atheism to anti-theism, which is a very different thing. A lack of belief has no agenda, an anti-theist belief has one.

Some of the billboards I've seen have an element of anti-theism but mostly seem benign imo, mostly just a "we atheists exist" statement.

You say it much better than I could. Good set of posts

~Bang

[81artmonk]

Only problem with that statement is it isn't acurate. But I suppose to an athiest it is true.

[Corcaigh]

There's strong atheism, weak atheism, agnosticism, ignositicism, and many atheists attack each other for the level of surety of their disbelief, vs. merely not holding a belief either way. At least a few atheists I've seen refer to agnostics/weak atheists as "apologists", and "wishy-washy fence-sitters" for refusing to take an absolutist stand on the higher power question.



It's also a matter of disbelief in what. :)

I've yet to meet an agnostic or weak atheist who thought there was a possibility that the Bronze Age god of certain fundamentalist sects exists.

[mistertim]

Only problem with that statement is it isn't acurate. But I suppose to an athiest it is true.

To which statement are you referring? One posted on here, or the billboard itself? If it is the latter...what part isn't accurate factually? If you're going to say that nobody can be good without god then that is just a statement of opinion. If you're implying that there aren't actually millions of athiests, then that is factually incorrect.

[21cents]

I think its stupid not to believe in god.

[mardi gras skin]

My church was approached by comcast to participate a similar campaign. Its just an advertisement for a website that is a clearinghouse for Sacramento atheist churches. The atheist churches all chip in a little to get some publicity.

Its not new or controversial. Other types of churches have been doing this for a while. But the website's especially awful. They need to work on it.

[mistertim]

I think its stupid not to believe in god.

Well...I guess that settles it then! :ols:

[Thiebear]

Technically that is one of my favorite questions.

Can't you be good outside of the 1 hour you spend in church?
I mean really: if 85% of the United States is religious, seems the jails should be empty?
Or we should be changing the message as the news each night is getting worse...

[kramdizzle]

i don't like it but who cares? If a billboard has a message that you don't agree with its not the end of the world; just people voicing their opinion

[mistertim]

Whats the shock? Who doesn't think the large portions of Peoples Republic of Calif is full of the godless?

Would we be the greatest nation on earth if the majority was godless?

Answer No.

Please explain this.

[Destino]

Technically that is one of my favorite questions.

Can't you be good outside of the 1 hour you spend in church?
I mean really: if 85% of the United States is religious, seems the jails should be empty?
Or we should be changing the message as the news each night is getting worse...
Have you heard about the tree of knowledge that man was told not to eat from? Well it's the tree of "knowledge of good and evil" or "tree of conscience". This is significant because once mans cognitive ability grew to the point where he was able to derive joy from doing good and a sick enjoyment out of evil... this ensured that man as a species will never be entirely good or entirely evil. There will be those that make most of their choices in line with one side or the other.

You could force every human being on the planet to go to church 10 hours a day and you'd never be rid of evil. Evil is part of being human and the capacity for it exists in all of us.

[Bang]

Whats the shock? Who doesn't think the large portions of Peoples Republic of Calif is full of the godless?

Would we be the greatest nation on earth if the majority was godless?

Answer No.

Yes, because you're so much a better representative of all that is good and noble about America.
You are by far the single most ignorant narrow minded bigot on this board. I sincerely doubt you could make a post that is not insulting. I try to respect everyone, but you.. I just can't.

~Bang

[Destino]

Please explain this.

There is no way of knowing what path such a society would take. Atheists in the US have a Judeo–Christian value set instilled in them through our society, they no doubt tell themselves that their moral code is there own but there is no doubt that this code would be entirely different had they been born and raised in western Africa or southeast Asia. They may remain as non-believers but their moral code would be greatly influenced by society which is in turn shaped by it's major religions and history.

There is no way to know what a moral code would look like 100 or 200 years from now. Anyone know how concepts of morality are doing in Cuba, China, and Russia in sections that remain free of theism since their atheist leaders forcefully removed it?

[Englands Redskin]

So what do you think of this poster campaign currently running over here?



http://go2.wordpress.com/?id=725X1342&site=brucemhood.wordpress.com&url=http%3A%2F%2Fbrucemhood.files.wordpress.com%2F 2009%2F11%2Fariane-sherine-0013.jpg

Cool eh?

[mistertim]

So what do you think of this poster campaign currently running over here?



http://go2.wordpress.com/?id=725X1342&site=brucemhood.wordpress.com&url=http%3A%2F%2Fbrucemhood.files.wordpress.com%2F 2009%2F11%2Fariane-sherine-0013.jpg

Cool eh?

Choose what for herself? If they're implying homosexuality I personally think it is rather dumb since I don't believe being homosexual or heterosexual is a "choice" that people make.

[DeanCollins]

Whats the shock? Who doesn't think the large portions of Peoples Republic of Calif is full of the godless?

Would we be the greatest nation on earth if the majority was godless?

Answer No.

what good is being "godfull" if you have contempt for most people that don't share your views? :ols:

[Englands Redskin]

Choose what for herself? If they're implying homosexuality I personally think it is rather dumb since I don't believe being homosexual or heterosexual is a "choice" that people make.

Nothing to do with sexuality, it's all about religion. See the text in the background - Buddhist Child, Christian child, Sikh child etc etc.

Basically let yout children decide for themselves.

[mistertim]

Nothing to do with sexuality, it's all about religion. See the text in the background - Buddhist Child, Christian child, Sikh child etc etc.

Basically let yout children decide for themselves.

Ah, my fault. Missed that. I thought they were talking about sexuality at first and I was like "uh...that is a bit weird". But I do agree. Let your kids decide for themselves. Talk to them about it and have intelligent and respectful discussions on the subject.

[desioreo87]

There is no way of knowing what path such a society would take. Atheists in the US have a Judeo–Christian value set instilled in them through our society, they no doubt tell themselves that their moral code is there own but there is no doubt that this code would be entirely different had they been born and raised in western Africa or southeast Asia. They may remain as non-believers but their moral code would be greatly influenced by society which is in turn shaped by it's major religions and history.

There is no way to know what a moral code would look like 100 or 200 years from now. Anyone know how concepts of morality are doing in Cuba, China, and Russia in sections that remain free of theism since their atheist leaders forcefully removed it?

while I am not christian I certainly believe that a lot of the teachings of christianity are fantastic for society, which is why im not against the major religions. They teach you to be good and do good and thats admirable. I just dont buy into the holy trinity thing and all that.

[John Lydon]

So what do you think of this poster campaign currently running over here?



http://go2.wordpress.com/?id=725X1342&site=brucemhood.wordpress.com&url=http%3A%2F%2Fbrucemhood.files.wordpress.com%2F 2009%2F11%2Fariane-sherine-0013.jpg

Cool eh?

I think this is virtually impossible. Children absorb everything their parents do. As a christian, to let my child honestly and fairly choose for himself, I would have to stop praying, reading the bible, going to church, or thinking and acting the way I do. Otherwise, I would be influincing him in a certain direction.
Out of curiosity what is the point of this billboard? Are five year olds claiming they are being persecuted or something?

[Corcaigh]

Out of curiosity what is the point of this billboard? Are five year olds claiming they are being persecuted or something?

I think it's promoting the idea that Richard Dawkins, for one, raised that certain religious concepts should not be part of an innocent child's education. I know I was still in elementary school while talk of eternal damnation and sin was very common.

Also, describing a five-year old as a Catholic was compared to describing them as Socialist or Conservative. It reflects the parent's dogma and not the child.

Again, I'm not advocating these billboards as brilliant ideas, but it's clear they are one way of presenting an alternate point of view.

[jpillian]

Nothing to do with sexuality, it's all about religion. See the text in the background - Buddhist Child, Christian child, Sikh child etc etc.

Basically let yout children decide for themselves.

I've always thought this (the idea conveyed by the billboard, not necessarily by you, ER), while on its face, sounds reasonable -- is a fairly ridiculous sentiment.

As the adherent of any of the major religions, it is something that is supposed to shape your entire life. It's supposed to be a pretty big deal to you.

But you really shouldn't try to pass those beliefs onto your children.

Really? As a parent you pass a million and one things on to your kids, but the most essential beliefs you have in regards to Truth -- those are the things that you really shouldn't teach to your kids. Really?

I can certainly see this as something that would be attractive to an agnostic or an adherent to a pluralistic religion (main point, a group that would not believe in exclusive truth claims). However, for an atheist or an adherent of a religion with exclusive truth claims -- I really don't see this as an attractive sentiment at all.

[Destino]

So what do you think of this poster campaign currently running over here?



http://go2.wordpress.com/?id=725X1342&site=brucemhood.wordpress.com&url=http%3A%2F%2Fbrucemhood.files.wordpress.com%2F 2009%2F11%2Fariane-sherine-0013.jpg

Cool eh?

Seems a little dishonest doesn't it? Don't teach your children about God... brought to you by atheists... and uh yeah it's so they can choose religion later, yeah that's it!

[John Lydon]

I think it's promoting the idea that Richard Dawkins, for one, raised that certain religious concepts should not be part of an innocent child's education. I know I was still in elementary school while talk of eternal damnation and sin was very common.

Also, describing a five-year old as a Catholic was compared to describing them as Socialist or Conservative. It reflects the parent's dogma and not the child.

Again, I'm not advocating these billboards as brilliant ideas, but it's clear they are one way of presenting an alternate point of view.


Thanks for the explanation. Obviously this was a bigger deal before my time. The only instance I can think of is the pledge of allegiance being removed from schools. Which is a whole seperate can of worms I won't open.

[alexey]

How do you explain to children that talking animals are only in fairy tales, but talking bushes are for real?

[Dan T.]

The "Let Your Child Decide" billboard does raise the issue of how unfair it is to children if they are born into the "wrong" religion. They can live their lives as loving, charitable, kind individuals, but if their family didn't teach them that Jesus Christ is their Lord and Savior, or that the Prophet Muhammed's teachings lead to an everlasting life, or that Buddha is the correct fat guy to base your life on, or whatever else...they're screwed.

Which, in a way, points to the parochialism and narrow-mindedness of specific, organized religion.

[Englands Redskin]

I've always thought this (the idea conveyed by the billboard, not necessarily by you, ER), while on its face, sounds reasonable -- is a fairly ridiculous sentiment.

As the adherent of any of the major religions, it is something that is supposed to shape your entire life. It's supposed to be a pretty big deal to you.

But you really shouldn't try to pass those beliefs onto your children.

Really? As a parent you pass a million and one things on to your kids, but the most essential beliefs you have in regards to Truth -- those are the things that you really shouldn't teach to your kids. Really?

I can certainly see this as something that would be attractive to an agnostic or an adherent to a pluralistic religion (main point, a group that would not believe in exclusive truth claims). However, for an atheist or an adherent of a religion with exclusive truth claims -- I really don't see this as an attractive sentiment at all.

I do understand where you are coming from, but essentially, for me anyway, it depends how things are taught to children. Do religious/atheist parents say "this is the truth" or do they say "this is what I beleive to be the truth, and I base my belief (or non-belief) on the following....."

Im an atheist, probably fall into the militant bracket too (although I prefer the term evangelical atheist), but I married a practising Catholic (cupid has a sense of humour eh?) and our kids go to Catholic school and attend mass with my wife. It's something I've had to accept, there is no compromise option, however, my daughter is now 9 and occaisonally we have "spiritual" discussions - I never start them however, I wait for her to ask the first question, she knows my position on God/Jesus/the bible but I do not mock or put down her "beliefs" (if you can call them that, ffs she still believes in the tooth fairy and father christmas), but I do try and have "grown up" chats with her. I'd love it if she said she no longer wanted to be catholic, I've lost count of the amount of lapsed catholics I've met throughout my life, and they all are still weighed down by what they refer to as the catholic guilt. That's what I find the most insidious, the threat that if you are not good and believe you will be damned to hell for all eternity. That's some heavy **** to burden a child with.

[jpillian]

I do understand where you are coming from, but essentially, for me anyway, it depends how things are taught to children. Do religious/atheist parents say "this is the truth" or do they say "this is what I beleive to be the truth, and I base my belief (or non-belief) on the following....."

Im an atheist, probably fall into the militant bracket too (although I prefer the term evangelical atheist), but I married a practising Catholic (cupid has a sense of humour eh?) and our kids go to Catholic school and attend mass with my wife. It's something I've had to accept, there is no compromise option, however, my daughter is now 9 and occaisonally we have "spiritual" discussions - I never start them however, I wait for her to ask the first question, she knows my position on God/Jesus/the bible but I do not mock or put down her "beliefs" (if you can call them that, ffs she still believes in the tooth fairy and father christmas), but I do try and have "grown up" chats with her. I'd love it if she said she no longer wanted to be catholic, I've lost count of the amount of lapsed catholics I've met throughout my life, and they all are still weighed down by what they refer to as the catholic guilt. That's what I find the most insidious, the threat that if you are not good and believe you will be damned to hell for all eternity. That's some heavy **** to burden a child with.

That's a fair response, and I can respect your point of view. I simply find it unfathomable that ANY parent -- if they believe they have found what they perceive to be Truth -- would present it as anything less to their children.

It's like you're saying, "I'll teach you to look both ways before crossing the street, and to brush your teeth twice a day -- but when it comes to your purpose, and your reason for existing -- you're on your own there." Mind boggling.

[Englands Redskin]

Seems a little dishonest doesn't it? Don't teach your children about God... brought to you by atheists... and uh yeah it's so they can choose religion later, yeah that's it!

It's not saying don't teach your child about god, it's advocating teach your child about everything and let them decide, when they are old enough to weigh up all the evidence, whether or not they want to follow any particular religious doctrine. Just give them all the options.

Over here, religious education is a compulsory subject in school, and although it often teaches about other faiths, it does not cover secularism/humanism/atheism etc.

[Special K]

Whats the shock? Who doesn't think the large portions of Peoples Republic of Calif is full of the godless?
Seriously, your constant put-downs of California are getting tiresome. Not to mention they are totally stupid.



Would we be the greatest nation on earth if the majority was godless?

Answer No.
So, you're one of the people who believe in Christianity's God???

[Special K]

The "Let Your Child Decide" billboard does raise the issue of how unfair it is to children if they are born into the "wrong" religion. They can live their lives as loving, charitable, kind individuals, but if their family didn't teach them that Jesus Christ is their Lord and Savior, or that the Prophet Muhammed's teachings lead to an everlasting life, or that Buddha is the correct fat guy to base your life on, or whatever else...they're screwed.

Which, in a way, points to the parochialism and narrow-mindedness of specific, organized religion.See, this I don't get. I was brought up in a specific Christian denomination, but I was never taught by my parents that people from other religions won't be in Heaven. In fact, when I asked my parents this exact question when I was younger, I was told that there will be lots of people in Heaven who might be of different faiths.

[LaxBuddy21]

It's not saying don't teach your child about god, it's advocating teach your child about everything and let them decide, when they are old enough to weigh up all the evidence, whether or not they want to follow any particular religious doctrine. Just give them all the options.

Over here, religious education is a compulsory subject in school, and although it often teaches about other faiths, it does not cover secularism/humanism/atheism etc.

That is because they are not religions. It would be like teaching everything thats not math in a math course. I agree with being exposed to different options. Its why I have studied many branches of Christianity, some Islam and some Judaism. I want to make up my own mind. The common threads between all three religions are astounding and I personally think are the closest thing to truth any of them have. Be a good person and help others whenever you are able. I personally believe if you do those things no matter what your beliefs are, you will enjoy a prosperous afterlife. If there is no afterlife, you have still led a good life and had an amazing impact on people around you. Either way, you leave your mark in a positive way.

[Morneblade]

Well, now you know how we feel just about every day.

~Bang

Pretty much. Still I dont think it's worth it to put up a billboard about it. I'm just glad I got out of the Bible Belt and dont have to put up with the Holy Rollers like I used to. And by and large if your known to be an Atheist, your going to get alot of **** one way or the other. Either you get people trying to convert you all the time, or people telling you that your amoral and are going to go to hell. So most people are pretty quiet about it.

By the same tolken I have a couple of friends that I encourage to go to chruch, because they do much better in life when they have that going. It works for them and at the end of the day when you die and it's all over, it doesnt matter so much that you were happier and maybe kinder to others because you believed in something that wasnt true. With no afterlife, there isnt going to be alot of fingerpointing anyways. ;)

[Destino]

Over here, religious education is a compulsory subject in school, and although it often teaches about other faiths, it does not cover secularism/humanism/atheism etc.

religious education should be compulsory, how else would you make sense of history and world events without understanding a crucial part of the civilizations in question? I agree Atheism and humanism should be taught as they are obviously religious movements in their own right. I would also expect that just as religion is tied to wars and atrocities atheism should be tied to strong armed efforts to remove theism in the nations where this has occurred. Lay out all the fact and let people decide for themselves is something I completely agree with... I was raised by parents that never attended a church and didn't believe in a specific God (dad an atheist, mom is "spiritual" whatever that means). I found my own path.

[81artmonk]

To which statement are you referring? One posted on here, or the billboard itself? If it is the latter...what part isn't accurate factually? If you're going to say that nobody can be good without god then that is just a statement of opinion. If you're implying that there aren't actually millions of athiests, then that is factually incorrect.

That no one can be good without God. It's not opinion becuase without Gods grace, there is only living without forgiveness. No one can truely be good. As soon as you screw up, even if it's a small one, you've forfieted the being good part.

[81artmonk]

Technically that is one of my favorite questions.

Can't you be good outside of the 1 hour you spend in church?
I mean really: if 85% of the United States is religious, seems the jails should be empty?
Or we should be changing the message as the news each night is getting worse...

The problem isn't in the believeing, but the practice. Many who claim to believe in God don't practice what they believe.

I can go to church and than rob a bank on wed.

[81artmonk]

So what do you think of this poster campaign currently running over here?



http://go2.wordpress.com/?id=725X1342&site=brucemhood.wordpress.com&url=http%3A%2F%2Fbrucemhood.files.wordpress.com%2F 2009%2F11%2Fariane-sherine-0013.jpg

Cool eh?

I personally don't care for an ad campaign telling me that I should refrain from teaching my kids my beliefs (faith). Maybe I shouldn't teach them anything and let them learn as they grow up. No morals, no character, no courtesy, nothing, just let them figure it out for themselves.

[techboy]

As soon as you screw up, even if it's a small one, you've forfieted the being good part.

We forgive you for not learning to use the multi-quote buttons yet, but repentance requires action. :pfft:

[mistertim]

I personally don't care for an ad campaign telling me that I should refrain from teaching my kids my beliefs (faith). Maybe I shouldn't teach them anything and let them learn as they grow up. No morals, no character, no courtesy, nothing, just let them figure it out for themselves.

Yes, because anyone who isn't raised Christian or whatever can't POSSIBLY ever be a moral, caring, courteous person. Wow that schtick is so old. I've known plenty of Christians who were total hypocrites or complete *******s, etc and I've known plenty of Athiests/Agnostics who are high character, very kind people. Just being or not being religious doesn't make who someone is.

[desioreo87]

I would say that over 90% of religious people did not choose their religion, they were born into it.

Religion has nothing to do with a person's character.

It really is just a stupid thing to say that you have to believe in God. That has nothing to do with who you are.

[Morneblade]

That no one can be good without God. It's not opinion becuase without Gods grace, there is only living without forgiveness. No one can truely be good. As soon as you screw up, even if it's a small one, you've forfieted the being good part.


This is a very good example of why I dont advertise. And why I'jm glad I'm out of the Bible Belt. You get alot less flack if it's your little secret.

[Prosperity]

I personally don't care for an ad campaign telling me that I should refrain from teaching my kids my beliefs (faith). Maybe I shouldn't teach them anything and let them learn as they grow up. No morals, no character, no courtesy, nothing, just let them figure it out for themselves.

If atheists wanted to turn your kid into another atheist they would put up billboards for catholic school

[Corcaigh]

If atheists wanted to turn your kid into another atheist they would put up billboards for catholic school

Depends on the kid. If the kid has any rational thinking skills I think evangelical Protestant of any sort would be a better option. :)

[Destino]

I would say that over 90% of religious people did not choose their religion, they were born into it.

Religion has nothing to do with a person's character.

It really is just a stupid thing to say that you have to believe in God. That has nothing to do with who you are.
How do you know that? Just because you were raised in some manner doesn't mean you have to carry it on. There are new Catholics all the time, new Christians all the time, new Atheists all the time, etc etc. People just assume that once you are raised as something you can't change... but I was raised in a home without any Christianity in it, and yet that's what I am.

Once you move out of mom and dad's there is no one to make you go to church and yet the churches are full. I think it's little more than a popular (and incorrect) argument of atheists to say that people are only religious because they had it forced on them. What civilization in history, no matter how far flung and removed, evolved without theism of some sort?

The natural state of man is belief. Atheism is the exception to the rule not the natural state of man. I'm not saying they are wrong or lesser or any such thing I just dislike the notion that somehow atheism is proof of individuality and being free of outside influence. It's nothing more than a different view and as a group historically and in my own experience not all that different from it's competing groups.

[mistertim]

The natural state of man is belief. Atheism is the exception to the rule not the natural state of man. I'm not saying they are wrong or lesser or any such thing I just dislike the notion that somehow atheism is proof of individuality and being free of outside influence. It's nothing more than a different view and as a group historically and in my own experience not all that different from it's competing groups.

I think some of how theism and belief came about is very connected to the way the human brain evolved. The brain is basically a pattern matching machine. I read an interesting paper that talked about research showing one side of the brain simply accepts in sensory information, and the other side tries to match it to a pattern that is known or can be classified in order to make sense of the world.

If you think about primitive humans evolving tens of thousands of years ago in this way it would make complete sense that some sort of theism would arise. Lightning would be taken in as sensory input. Then it is processed and pattern matched. The human knows it has seen it before but there is no pattern that can discern WHY it happens or where it comes from. On top of that many other things in nature would be quite terrifying to early humans.

The understanding of "death" would also be lacking at first. All of these things would very understandably lead to belief in some sort of unknown force or forces with massive amounts of power over their lives. A reasonable assumption for a brain that has no concept of how most of the natural world works. This in turn leads to "worship" of those powers that seem to have so much control over their lives. Superstition develops. Then ritual in order to please these "gods" as the developing human understanding would easily mistake correlation with causation. Someone happened to leave a sacrifice asking a "god" for good weather or something of the like, and then when it happens, the brain could jump right into that conclusion because it is easy and it seems to fit.

This sort of thing then persisted and became more and more embedded in societies and civilizations until is was simply a fact of everyday life. Even with the coming of science and the ability to understand the sort of natural phenomena that could easily have created those sorts of beliefs in early humans it still persists, but seems more like an indoctrination nowadays as opposed to the way it was viewed all that time ago. Now, I'm not saying that there aren't people who truly believe in god or the devil or whatever. Just trying to explain my thoughts on WHY the natural state of early humans would be belief, but not necessarily the natural state of people today, other than as a societal thing.

[Destino]

This sort of thing then persisted and became more and more embedded in societies and civilizations until is was simply a fact of everyday life. Even with the coming of science and the ability to understand the sort of natural phenomena that could easily have created those sorts of beliefs in early humans it still persists, but seems more like an indoctrination nowadays as opposed to the way it was viewed all that time ago. Now, I'm not saying that there aren't people who truly believe in god or the devil or whatever. Just trying to explain my thoughts on WHY the natural state of early humans would be belief, but not necessarily the natural state of people today, other than as a societal thing.

Ah yes... a primitive thing. Do you realize how this sounds? This is no different than theists saying atheists are hollow shells missing an important element of being human.

[mistertim]

Ah yes... a primitive thing. Do you realize how this sounds? This is no different than theists saying atheists are hollow shells missing an important element of being human.

Yes I figured someone would latch onto that one statement. By "primitive" I simply mean early humans who had very little understanding of the natural world and how it works. But please, feel free to use that and disregard the rest of my post. And yes, it is different. I am not talking about theists nowadays might view athiests or agnostics since they don't share the same belief system. I was talking about the possible mechanisms that would lead to the belief in gods, etc as humans evolved.

[The Evil Genius]

Looks like some people couldn't handle the threat.

http://www.sacbee.com/ourregion/story/2540576.html

By Bill Lindelof
blindelof@sacbee.com
Published: Tuesday, Feb. 16, 2010 - 9:11 am
Last Modified: Tuesday, Feb. 16, 2010 - 9:22 am

A billboard erected in the Sacramento area by atheists and agnostics has been vandalized.

The billboard along Interstate 80 between Sacramento and Davis once read "Are you good without God? Millions are."

But recently, somebody scaled the big sign and spray painted "also lost?" after "Millions are."

The billboard is one of 10 in the Sacramento area providing the atheist message. They are part of a nationwide campaign that began last year and are sponsored by the Sacramento Area Coalition of Reason with funding from national United Coalition of Reason, based in Washington, D.C.

Similar billboards went up in Seattle and Tampa Bay in January. Last year, they were seen in more than a dozen cities, including Baltimore, Boston, Cincinnati and New York.

Cost of the Sacramento billboards, which will be up for a month, is $6,450.

"(The vandalism) shows loud and clear just how necessary our message is because prejudice against people who don't believe in a god remains very real in America," said Rachael Harrington, coordinator of the Sacramento Area Coalition of Reason, calling it a sign of bigotry.

SACR has asked Clear Channel, the owner of the billboard, to file a police report. Clear Channel will replace the billboard image for free, an SACR news release states.

[Destino]

Yes I figured someone would latch onto that one statement. By "primitive" I simply mean early humans who had very little understanding of the natural world and how it works. But please, feel free to use that and disregard the rest of my post. And yes, it is different. I am not talking about theists nowadays might view athiests or agnostics since they don't share the same belief system. I was talking about the possible mechanisms that would lead to the belief in gods, etc as humans evolved.
So by primitive you meant ignorant... but you don't want me to point that out. Gotcha. Don't get pissy about again either, I'm going by what you wrote: "I simply mean early humans who had very little understanding of the natural world and how it works" which could be restated: "I simply mean early humans who were entirely ignorant to how natural world works and conjured up a god to explain it" Is that pretty much correct?

[Smoot4Prez]

If atheists wanted to turn your kid into another atheist they would put up billboards for catholic school

:hysterical:

These billboards are fine. Of course they aren't going to convert anyone, I doubt they were intended to. Do people set up religious signs/bumper stickers/bill boards in the hopes of converting people? No. They are there as affirmation for believers and to spread the word that there are other options out there if viewers are unhappy with their current belief system. Same as these atheist bill boards.

[81artmonk]

Yes, because anyone who isn't raised Christian or whatever can't POSSIBLY ever be a moral, caring, courteous person. Wow that schtick is so old. I've known plenty of Christians who were total hypocrites or complete *******s, etc and I've known plenty of Athiests/Agnostics who are high character, very kind people. Just being or not being religious doesn't make who someone is.

And your point????? That both christians and non-christians can be jerks. I enjoy how people will take someone they met(ie christian) who happened to be an idiot and than shape their whole belief of who christians are based on how that one person treated them.

News flash, there are plenty of idiots/jerks who are christians.

[81artmonk]

This is a very good example of why I dont advertise. And why I'jm glad I'm out of the Bible Belt. You get alot less flack if it's your little secret.

Personally I don't care. If they like me, I'm not doing my job. It's why alot of churchs are failing, they are preaching the feel good lessons, and not the truth, cuase people don't want to hear the truth. makes them feel uncomfortable.

[Skin'Em84]

And your point????? That both christians and non-christians can be jerks. I enjoy how people will take someone they met(ie christian) who happened to be an idiot and than shape their whole belief of who christians are based on how that one person treated them.

News flash, there are plenty of idiots/jerks who are christians.

Just like there are plenty of idiots/jerks who are islamic, jewish, buddhist, hindu, polytheistic and wiccan.

Idiots come in more shapes and colors than a geometry book on acid.

[JimboDaMan]

And your point????? That both christians and non-christians can be jerks. I enjoy how people will take someone they met(ie christian) who happened to be an idiot and than shape their whole belief of who christians are based on how that one person treated them.

News flash, there are plenty of idiots/jerks who are christians.Well yes, but that's never been in doubt. The fact that there are idiot Christians should never obscure the fact that many Christians are simply wonderful people.

The harder part for is for Christians to accept that there are many wonderful people in this world who are atheists. Who are, in fact, as good a people as Christians are. Many Christians seem to believe that the mere act of being Christian makes them more moral than their atheist brethren. As you have pointed out, ain't necessarily the case.

[nonniey]

Mainly because most people don't get upset with that. Now, start questioning people's religion - then we have a problem.

:evilg:

Heck it is just another religious Billboard itself. Really no room for complaint imo.

[nonniey]

I don't understand why the athiest/agnostics have to take such joy in ****ting all over religion.

EDIT: Not that I have a problem with the billboard, it's just like those annoying "Can we talk? - God" billboards I see when I drive to NC.

I guess if some Christians can be equally as annoying with their messages it makes what these athiests are doing okay.

Surprised there are agnostics involved. Heck I'm surprised there are agnostic groups period. More than likely athiests masquarading as agnostics.

[nonniey]

Atheists are indeed turning into a religion. They have groups, newsletters, heavily recruit, and let's be frank they are even often openly hostile to those that don't share their views on faith. The only thing missing between them and the traditional structure is weekly meetings in designated buildings... that is a terribly small distinction in this day and age of communication.

Heck they've been a religion for years. And I think many/some atheists do have recurring meetings as well.

[alexey]

So by primitive you meant ignorant... but you don't want me to point that out. Gotcha. Don't get pissy about again either, I'm going by what you wrote: "I simply mean early humans who had very little understanding of the natural world and how it works" which could be restated: "I simply mean early humans who were entirely ignorant to how natural world works and conjured up a god to explain it" Is that pretty much correct?
The term "ignorant" carries negative connotations, such as lack of intelligence. His usage of the term "primitive" clearly did not intend such interpretation.

To try and add to the discussion, his post about belief in God arising from early attempts to interpret sensory data is somewhat simplistic. Much more nuanced arguments can be made about evolutionary values of tradition, custom, reverence, etc.

[81artmonk]

Well yes, but that's never been in doubt. The fact that there are idiot Christians should never obscure the fact that many Christians are simply wonderful people.

The harder part for is for Christians to accept that there are many wonderful people in this world who are atheists. Who are, in fact, as good a people as Christians are. Many Christians seem to believe that the mere act of being Christian makes them more moral than their atheist brethren. As you have pointed out, ain't necessarily the case.

I think you missed my point, but par for the course. I agree with you. I equate good with salvation or where you end up when you die. However, being courteious to another human being doesn't require God or belief in God.

When an athiest uses those words in that ad it is a jab at how christians believe and the path to salvation. IMO.

So along those lines, yes no one can be good without God. In general terms of just being kind, anyone can do.

[Skinsfan4life83]

I don't understand why the athiest/agnostics have to take such joy in ****ting all over religion.

EDIT: Not that I have a problem with the billboard, it's just like those annoying "Can we talk? - God" billboards I see when I drive to NC.

I guess if some Christians can be equally as annoying with their messages it makes what these athiests are doing okay.

I am Agnostic and i take no joy in ****ting all over somebody elses Religion. I believe we should be able to worship how we wish and i personally respect any religion(except Scientology). I do however find it funny that people get so damned offended over God. And I do find it funny when Christians tell me I am going to Hell, when it isn't very Christian to judge folks.

[techboy]

When an athiest uses those words in that ad it is a jab at how christians believe and the path to salvation. IMO.

That couldn't be farther from the point of the ad.


I believe we should be able to worship how we wish and i personally respect any religion(except Scientology).

Fret not, scientology is not a religion.

[Vicious]

When an athiest uses those words in that ad it is a jab at how christians believe and the path to salvation. IMO.

So along those lines, yes no one can be good without God.


Pure and utter ignorance.

[techboy]

Pure and utter ignorance.

Pay attention. This poster is an expert witness. :pfft:

[fullnelson9999]

I think you missed my point, but par for the course. I agree with you. I equate good with salvation or where you end up when you die. However, being courteious to another human being doesn't require God or belief in God.

When an athiest uses those words in that ad it is a jab at how christians believe and the path to salvation. IMO.

So along those lines, yes no one can be good without God. In general terms of just being kind, anyone can do.

And when you use those words its a jab to a lot of people on this board and the way they choose to live their lives. Lives which dont affect you.

Its a two way street. Maybe someday you will learn that, and maybe, just maybe, you'll learn to be a little less self righteous.

[81artmonk]

And when you use those words its a jab to a lot of people on this board and the way they choose to live their lives. Lives which dont affect you.

Its a two way street. Maybe someday you will learn that, and maybe, just maybe, you'll learn to be a little less self righteous.

Could you be alittle clearer on what words you are accusing me of using? Before I get offended and go off :)

[Destino]

The term "ignorant" carries negative connotations, such as lack of intelligence. His usage of the term "primitive" clearly did not intend such interpretation.

To try and add to the discussion, his post about belief in God arising from early attempts to interpret sensory data is somewhat simplistic. Much more nuanced arguments can be made about evolutionary values of tradition, custom, reverence, etc.

Primitive strikes me as much more negative and let's face it that's indeed what he meant. The belief of God came from a primitive understanding of the way our world works. It is his belief that God and Gods were used as a means to explain that which early man had no other means of understanding.

I happen to disagree with that. No one I know that has ever found religion for themselves ever did so out of the need to explain the mechanics of anything. Humans are born with a sense of something greater than self. This is the innate belief in God that develops randomly and explains why every society every where developed some form of religious belief absent contact with each other. Those that discount a higher power will write it off as a mental abnormality or trait, something physical that creates a belief in the imaginary. The religious will argue that as God's creation he made certain we understood there was a higher being.

Whatever you choose to believe have at it. If it brings you peace and rings true to you more power to you. So long as it's not hostile towards me I'll return the favor.

[Perky72]

Primitive strikes me as much more negative and let's face it that's indeed what he meant. The belief of God came from a primitive understanding of the way our world works. It is his belief that God and Gods were used as a means to explain that which early man had no other means of understanding.

Our understanding of consciousness is still primitive, relative to what it may be in the future. Our understanding of a soul or afterlife is pure ignorance, when it comes to science. Or pure dismissal of the concept itself, which may be a big mistake.

I don't think "ignorant" should be negative at all, it's just a fact that some people don't know some information. I'm ignorant of a lot of things, so is everyone.


I happen to disagree with that. No one I know that has ever found religion for themselves ever did so out of the need to explain the mechanics of anything. Humans are born with a sense of something greater than self. This is the innate belief in God that develops randomly and explains why every society every where developed some form of religious belief absent contact with each other. Those that discount a higher power will write it off as a mental abnormality or trait, something physical that creates a belief in the imaginary. The religious will argue that as God's creation he made certain we understood there was a higher being.

He did a poor job of it according to that theory, since those hundreds of cultures all or mostly believed in wide variations of a higher power, or higher powers in pantheons. Either that or humans did a poor job of insisting that one can only be saved or understand the higher power(s) if they ascribe to a specific religion/deity.


Whatever you choose to believe have at it. If it brings you peace and rings true to you more power to you. So long as it's not hostile towards me I'll return the favor.

Agreed

[RLeVan]

You bring up a great point Destino. It's my opinion that although it's not as easily defined as you referenced, the origin of the belief in a God or Gods and that which is currently practiced have their foundations focused upon two separate realism's. In essence, in the earliest stages we need to focus on why a belief came to be and attempt to place ourselves within the mindset and societal structure of said founding religion. As that religion becomes widespread, we shift from the origins of the religion to how it can proliferate and move onto faith as well and more importantly, how we pass on to our children.

As an atheist, many religions gained strength and popularity through intimidation but not all of them. However, the fact that isolated cultures throughout the world and throughout history have some portion of their society developing a religion cannot be overlooked. Why? This is the intriguing question to me and I think it lies more within the ability and capacity of human reasoning. It's a question of religion being a coping mechanism for that which we can't understand.

Here is the cool part I think. The fact that we were able to conceive religious beliefs reinforces the idea that our minds have the capacity to eventually understand things beyond what we can currently comprehend and are open enough to admit we don't know the answers. An atheists way of saying "I don't know is by saying I don't know". A religious followers answer to the same question is faith. Oddly enough, I believe both answers are perfectly plausible and OK.

Once again, I don't speak for all atheists.

[Vicious]

Pay attention. This poster is an expert witness. :pfft:


Hey you believe in a magical land of the dead. We can call it even.

[RansomthePasserby]

An atheists way of saying "I don't know is by saying I don't know".

Hmm, I've always kind of viewed that as an agnostic position, not really strictly athiest.


A religious followers answer to the same question is faith. Oddly enough, I believe both answers are perfectly plausible and OK.

Once again, I don't speak for all atheists.

I actually view atheists and theists as two ends of a faith spectrum. An honest athiest would say "I don't know for a fact there isn't a god, but I believe from my own limited observation, that there isn't." While an honest theists would say "From my limited observation I believe there is a god, but I don't know for a fact that there is." Agnostics are more on the faithless, "I don't know" end of things.

[RLeVan]

I actually view atheists and theists as two ends of a faith spectrum. An honest athiest would say "I don't know for a fact there isn't a god, but I believe from my own limited observation, that there isn't." While an honest theists would say "From my limited observation I believe there is a god, but I don't know for a fact that there is." Agnostics are more on the faithless, "I don't know" end of things.

I'd agree with that viewpoint. That's essentially what I meant but you conveyed it much better than I did.

[Destino]

I actually view atheists and theists as two ends of a faith spectrum. An honest athiest would say "I don't know for a fact there isn't a god, but I believe from my own limited observation, that there isn't." While an honest theists would say "From my limited observation I believe there is a god, but I don't know for a fact that there is." Agnostics are more on the faithless, "I don't know" end of things.

That would be agnostic who leans one way or another. Neither of your definitions define either a theist or an atheist. An atheist is certain there is no God, it's all a bunch of made up nonsense, and that everyone else is wrong on the subject. Theist's on the other hand are certain there is a God, their own God more often than not, and that everyone else has it all wrong. :) Eventually people will learn that it's ok not to be in a camp and have less structured and certain view points. I for example consider myself a Christian... I do not however believe in literalism and I'm not certain that all other faiths are not part of the plan.

I'll tell you this... if there is a God (and I do believe there is) he has a doozy of a sense of humor.

[RansomthePasserby]

I'd agree with that viewpoint. That's essentially what I meant but you conveyed it much better than I did.

Cool.

As for the sign, what does it even mean? Millions of people are good without God in what sense? Good as in happy/content? Ok, I can see that.

Morally good? I think that's a little self righteous by definition.

[mistertim]

I'll tell you this... if there is a God (and I do believe there is) he has a doozy of a sense of humor.

Along with a possible streak of sadism.

[DCSaints_fan]

I'd agree with that viewpoint. That's essentially what I meant but you conveyed it much better than I did.

The way I view is in practice, not really belief. Do you go to religious services, and how regularly? Do you give money to any church? Do you pray, and how frequently? Do you look for supernatural explantions to unexplained phenomena, or are you satisifed with "I don't know"? When confronted with ethical situations, do you fall back to moral code proscribed by religions, or do you seek a more secular reason for doing or not doing something?

[Destino]

Along with a possible streak of sadism.

Impossible to know the meaning of human suffering without grasping the length and depth of life. If you consider the possibility of the immortal soul and that fact that we exist in human form immediately after that soul's creation... all this would be the equivalent of being slapped on the ass at birth in comparison to the remaining journey.

This is when I decide to watch funny videos and bring that thinking down a few notches. hahaha

[RansomthePasserby]

That would be agnostic who leans one way or another. Neither of your definitions define either a theist or an atheist. An atheist is certain there is no God, it's all a bunch of made up nonsense, and that everyone else is wrong on the subject. Theist's on the other hand are certain there is a God, their own God more often than not, and that everyone else has it all wrong.

I disagree. Atheism/theism have to do with the belief that there is or is not a God. For example, I'm a Christian as well, I believe with my entire being that God is real, I have faith in Him. However, apart from devine intervention, I cannot prove to anyone He is real, because He doesn't follow any kind of laws or code. So in that sense, I don't know he's real. The reverse is true for the athiest. I really think that's the only thing both sides can honestly say.


I'll tell you this... if there is a God (and I do believe there is) he has a doozy of a sense of humor.

That's for sure.

[RLeVan]

The way I view is in practice, not really belief. Do you go to religious services, and how regularly? Do you give money to any church? Do you pray, and how frequently? Do you look for supernatural explantions to unexplained phenomena, or are you satisifed with "I don't know"? When confronted with ethical situations, do you fall back to moral code proscribed by religions, or do you seek a more secular reason for doing or not doing something?

This one of the reasons I try to avoid religious discussions. Mainly because it eventually comes down to defending my stance/beliefs which ultimately, in my mind, offer nothing to discussions. Why?, because they are based on my unique perceptions of the world around me.

I will however answer your questions. However, it's been my experience that anytime several questions are asked in tandem, my replies usually don't mean much at all.

The only religious services I attend are funerals, marriages, and baptisms out of respect for those that invited me. I don't make a fuss about it. I respect my family and friends enough that I my beliefs shouldn't be the focal point but those who they are in honor of.

I have never given money to a church for the sole purpose of funding a church. That's not to say that I haven't contributed to fund raisers by churches so that kids may go on a ski trip, or to a museum or a zoo. In this light, the contribution to the growth of the kids far outweighs my differing viewpoints with the church.

I don't look for anything supernatural. I keep an open mind that some day we will learn why things are the way they are. Maybe a better phrase than "I don't know" would be "I don't have the answer yet". The former does tend to imply that I've given up and whereas the latter better defines my position.

In terms of ethical situations, I wouldn't say I fall back on a moral code proscribed by religion. Mainly because that leads people to believe that morals never existed prior to religion which I think is false. However, to say that religion offers no benefit towards morality would also be a false statement as far as I see it.

I label myself an atheist because I don't believe in a God. However, I don't find any reason to shut myself off from the religious portion of society because of it. I still volunteer at church functions that have no prayer in them because it contributes to my community. They don't ask my religious affiliation/non-affiliation when I volunteer and I don't try to preach my views on those I work with because it's small beans compared to the bigger picture.

I'm not out to change the world, and I'm not out to prove people they are wrong. I just want to leave this world in a better place than when I joined it.

There's an adage that someone told me when I was reporting to my first ship while I was in the Navy. It goes something like this.

"Everything you do here reflects upon you. When it comes time for you to leave, you will fall into one of two groups of men. The first group throws a party when you leave in your honor for the contributions you made. The second group throws a party after you have left because you contributed nothing that the crew didn't already possess."

[fullnelson9999]

Could you be alittle clearer on what words you are accusing me of using? Before I get offended and go off :)

Nope.

Cause its not going to go anywhere.

[Thiebear]

HA! Vandalized the sign..
Again, why can't you be good Mon-Sat?

Corner of Norton and Franconia. Korean? Baptist
Lighthouse Baptist Franconia
Near Mark Twain Middle School across the street. (unknown)
Across from the Safeway at the Methodist?

Thats 4 constant billboards just to get to the Safeway and buy some (Kosher) dogs? :)

Sometimes the are very clever..

[Thiebear]

That couldn't be farther from the point of the ad.
Fret not, scientology is not a religion.

Some guy wrote a book, and people follow it and call it a religion? Seems rather familiar(Quran/Bible(old/new)/etc...). You will spend an hour a week defending your religion on a redskins off topic board, yet just out of hand dismiss another religion?
Do you also not recognize Kwanza and the other 177 religions should be expunged from wikipedia?

[mardi gras skin]

So what do you think of this poster campaign currently running over here?



http://go2.wordpress.com/?id=725X1342&site=brucemhood.wordpress.com&url=http%3A%2F%2Fbrucemhood.files.wordpress.com%2F 2009%2F11%2Fariane-sherine-0013.jpg

Cool eh?

I constantly label my daughters. I point out specific aspects of their character and label them good (sharing) or bad (hitting). I point out I look in the mirror with them and point out how beautiful the curve of their chins are or the color of their eyes. When they try on their dresses for a "fashion show" I label them "beautiful young ladies. Smart, strong, feisty, sweet. I label them every day. I think it would be cruel not to.

As for religion, they aren't old enough to receive an individual label. They are a part of our household and we practice values and faith together. When they are prepared to establish their own household (even a household of one) they'll be ready to define the values and faith that govern their own households.

[techboy]

Some guy wrote a book, and people follow it and call it a religion? Seems rather familiar(Quran/Bible(old/new)/etc...). You will spend an hour a week defending your religion on a redskins off topic board, yet just out of hand dismiss another religion?
Do you also not recognize Kwanza and the other 177 religions should be expunged from wikipedia?

Thiebear, you know better than that. I didn't dismiss another religion. I wrote that Scientology was not a religion. I wrote this in another thread, but it applies just as much here.

To compare Scientology to any religion, be it Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Wicca, Hinduism, Nation of Islam, whatever, is insane.

Scientology is not a religion. It is a con job. For more on this subject, I suggest reading Scientology: Religion or racket? (http://web.uni-marburg.de/religionswissenschaft/journal/mjr/beit.html) by Dr. Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi in the Marburg Journal of Religion. Dr. Beit-Hallahmi is a highly regarded expert in the field of religious studies. From the conclusion:


Scientology's own documents show an organization which is blatantly commercial, blatantly secular and blatantly predatory, as well as blatantly fraudulent. As Hubbard himself said in 1962, the religion label "is entirely a matter for accountants and solicitors" (Hubbard Communications Office Policy Letter, HCOPL, 29 October 1962). Scientology will use the religion label when it is convenient, and a secular label when it suits better. It will use the cross (as it has done in publications and displays on buildings) just like it has used Sigmund Freud's name.

The preponderance of the evidence indicates that the religion claim is merely a tax-evasion ruse and a fig leaf for a hugely profitable enterprise, where the logic of profitability and profit-making dictates all actions. Scientology is in reality a holding company, a business empire earning profits from a variety of subsidiaries. It is guided by considerations of economic consequences and benefits, a strict business strategy.

The assertion that Scientology is a misunderstood religion seems less tenable than the competing assertion, that it is a front for a variety of profit-making schemes, most of

which are totally fraudulent. The question is only whether Scientology is "an ordinary profit-making enterprise", as Passas & Castillo (1992) suggest or whether "Scientology's purpose is making money by means legitimate and illegitimate" (US District Court, Southern District of New York, 92 Civ. 3024 (PKL) see www.planetkc.com/sloth/sci/decis.time.html ). The most charitable interpretation would be that it is a profit making organization; a less charitable one that it is a criminal organization. The evidence for an explicit policy of deception makes it harder and harder to show any degree of charity.

The story of Hubbard and his brainchild deserves treatment by those who have written on famous impostors and great con men (Maurer, 1940/1999). Similar cases include the phenomenon of "psychic surgeons" in the Philippines, who prey on terminal cancer patients from the West, or the Dominion of Melchizedek (a cyberspace scam, self-described as a "recognized ecclesiastical and constitutional sovereignty, inspired by the Melchizedek Bible"). In the context of United States cultural history, Hubbard seems like a combination of the best-known qualities of Roy Cohn (Von Hoffman, 1988) and Lyndon LaRouche (King, 1990). The similarity between Scientology and the LaRouche organization in terms of ideology and activities seems far from than trivial, but has never been noted.

Some of the scholars claiming that Scientology is some kind of a religion have put their statements to an empirical test. Both Bainbridge & Stark (1981) and Passas & Castillo (1992) did suggest that Scientology would become more religious in the future, just because its claims of efficacy were absurd and unprovable. More than two decades later (for Bainbridge & Stark, 1981) and more than a decade later (for Passas & Castillo, 1992) these predictions have turned out to be totally wrong. Scientology has not become more religious in any discernible way since 1981 or 1992. It is as much a religion today as it has ever been, and as it will ever be.


The problem with Scientology is not that it is new, and proposes supernatural ideas that seem odd to non-believers. Nation of Islam is a religion of about the same age with beliefs at least equally unusual to outsiders (google "Mother Plane" to see what I mean), but it is a religion.

Scientology is not a religion. It is a scam, started by a science fiction writer who basically announced in advance that he was going to make up a religion to make money, which is structured solely for maximum profit, and which only sought status as a religion to get the tax breaks and avoid prosecution on medical malpractice charges.

Anyone with half a clue can see the difference between believing in something on faith, and in believing in a demonstrable scam.

The correct analogy here is not Christianity. The correct analogy here comes from within Christianity, with a guy like Peter Popov. Popov claimed to hear the voice of God, but was caught hearing the voice of his wife reading information cards to him.

Popov was a fraud, and so is Scientology. There is no comparison to Christianity, or Wicca, or Nation of Islam, or Buddhism, or Hinduism, or whatever. Anyone trying to claim that there is just doesn't understand the facts.

It might not matter much, except that Scientology is also a dangerous probably criminal enterprise. An excerpt on criminality from the Marburg article:


21. The Scientology Criminal Record.

Floyd Abrams, the well-known First Amendment lawyer, once said that Scientology is "libel proof" because it has been so often held to commit evil and despicable acts (Horne, 1992). Any way you look at it, the record of Scientology involvements in what may euphemistically be called "legal difficulties" all over the world (i.e. wherever the corporation decides to open an outlet) is indeed extraordinary. It includes not just hundreds of cases of litigation and official inquiries, but scores of convictions for such crimes as burglary; forgery; obstruction of justice, and fraud (Friedland, 1985). Wilson (1970, p. 166) states that Hubbard's move to England in 1959 took place because the organization "risked prosecution in the United States in using the American mails for material and propaganda that might be deemed fraudulent".

Scientology's best known criminal case in the United States came to a legal conclusion in 1980, after 11 Scientology leaders, including Mary Sue Hubbard, were convicted of burglarizing the offices of the IRS and the Justice Department, among other targets, and went to prison. Later court decisions found that the organization burglarized IRS offices, stole government documents, and manufactured and falsified records to be presented to the IRS (USA v. Mary Sue Hubbard, 1984). Contrary to what Passas and Castillo (1992) claim, these are not "white collar" crimes.

From a court ruling between the church of Scientology and the Washington Post (http://www.lermanet.com/scientologylegal/brinkema-washpost.txt):


On the first issue, the Court finds that the motivation of
plaintiff in filing this lawsuit against the Post is reprehensible.
Although the RTC brought the complaint under traditional secular
concepts of copyright and trade secret law, it has become clear
that a much broader motivation prevailed--the stifling of crticism
and dissent of the religious practices of Scientology and the
destruction of its opponents. L. Ron Hubbard, the founder of
Scientology, has been quoted as looking upon law as a tool to

[h]arass and discourage rather than to win.
The law can be used very easily to harrass and
enough harrassment on somebody who is simply on
the thin edge anyway, well knowing that he is
not authorized, will generally be sufficient
to cause his professional decease. If
possible, of course, ruin him utterly.

(Declaraction of Mary Ann Werner, Attachment A, at C5; see also The
Posts's reply brief at p. 24, note 23).

This is not an isolated incident. Scientology has a long and ugly history of attemtping to sue into oblivion any critics.

From the Marburg article again:


20. Litigation, Harassment, and Deception

Scientology has become known for its aggressive way of treating anyone perceived as a critic. The strategy has been called "an ultra-aggressive use of investigators and the courts" (Frantz, 1997a). Scientology's annual legal bill amounts to $20 million or more (Behar, 1991) and it is constantly involved in aggressive litigation. This litigation strategy has been less than fully successful, and Scientology has paid out millions over the years to many plaintiffs (Horne, 1992). While a few successful litigation cases are easily remembered, in others the outcome has been traumatic, far from an easy triumph. Actually, at any given moment, Scientology is involved in scores of ongoing legal battles in the United States and elsewhere. Court proceedings in many of these cases are quite revealing, and what they reveal reminds us again that we may be dealing with a corporation characterized by both profit-making and criminality, rather than a religious movement. What has been revealed in the course of litigation included documents and acts which prove criminal intent and deception (cf. Wilson, 1990 on the unexpected costs of litigation).

Litigation is one part of the intimidation strategy, which includes harassment by various means. Most media reports on Scientology have led to harassment campaigns with journalists and jurists as targets. Richard Behar was harassed by a team of 10 lawyers and 6 private investigators (Horne, 1992; MacLaughlin & Gully, 1998). A California judge was severely harassed (Horne, 1992). Description of Scientology pressure tactics have appeared not just in the mass media, but have been noted in scholarly writings: "Scientology, for instance, employs techniques of harassment against critics" (Cole, 1998, p. 234). That threats are being directed against researchers has also been noted (Ayella, 1990). Wallis (1979) gave a detailed account of Scientology pressures and dirty tricks directed at him. Scientology wants to instill fear, and it does, all over the world. Its operations turn truly malevolent only when threatened, i.e. when profits are in danger.

Scientology's aggressive litigation strategy, which is regularly applied together with the use of private investigators to uncover hidden crimes, is also a projection of Hubbard's own objective situation of invented biography, constant lying, and many cover-ups. This objective situation has led to subjective fears and obsessions. We may call that the "skeletons in the closet" projection.

"And we have this technical fact?those who oppose us have crimes to hide...Try this on your next critic. Like everything else in Scientology, it works.

Sample dialogue:

George: Gwen, if you don't drop Scientology I'm going to leave you.

Gwen: (savagely) George! What have you been doing?

George: What do you mean?

Gwen: Out with it. Women? Theft? Murder? What crime have you committed?

George: (weakly) Oh, nothing like that.

Gwen: What then?

George: I've been holding back on my pay...

Never discuss Scientology with the critic. Just discuss his or her crimes, known and unknown. And act completely confident that those crimes exist. Because they do" (Hubbard, in Foster, 1971, p. 147).

Hubbard assumed that we all lie about our past, present, and future. This may be true for the likes of him, but not for everybody. Most of us clearly do not have as much to hide as Hubbard did when he was alive, and as his brainchild still has.

They also use other methods of harrassment, and as noted above, have stepped into other areas of illegality as well. This is also not a case of the organization running away from the ideals of the founder. As one can see above, these were the ideals of the founder.

Further, Scientology has been known to use front organizations fraudulently in an attempt to gain influence with the unwitting. From the Marburg article:


24. Deception as Policy: Strategies of Masquerading.

In US politics, the use of fronts is common, but covers are easily blown. You may choose an attractive name, but you don't expect your financial backing to remain secret. We know that Citizens for Better Medicare is financed by drug companies, seeking to protect their profits, and that The Coalition to Protect Americans Now is financed by some big defense contractors, just as Americans for Job Security is a front for huge corporations acting to eliminate the rights of workers. In politics we take such actions in stride, but religions are not in the business of setting up fronts.

Scientology's use of fronts is unique in both quantity and quality, and it has been a matter of policy since its inception. This use of fronts has been a major part of the organization's activities, and it indicates an acknowledgement of having something (or more than just something) to hide. Have you ever heard of the Jewish Coalition for Religious Freedom? Will you be surprised to learn that it is a Scientology front? Scientology has operated the Alliance for the Preservation of Religious Liberty, Narconon, Crimonon, the Citizens Commission on Human Rights (CCHR), the Committee on Public Health and Safety (COPHS), American Citizens for Honesty in Government, the Committee for a Safe Environment, the National Commission on Law Enforcement and Social Justice, Concerned Businessmen's Association of America (CBAA), the Association for Better Living and Education (ABLE), the Religious Research Foundation (RRF), Applied Scholastics International, The Way to Happiness Foundation (TWTH), Social Coordination International, and World Institute of Scientology Enterprises (WISE). In Britain, Scientology started the Citizens' Press Association and the Association for Health Development and Aid, among other fronts (Wallis, 1977).

A Scientology document dated 9 March 1970 presents some ideas about the uses of fake identity card policy: "Invent letterhead of some organization that is spurious, i.e. have it printed up and use it to make queries ... Examples "Ford Foto Features" or "Council for Human Relations in Industry". If you have a letterhead of any sort you will get answers to your questions most of the time. Of these using a phoney News Agency is the most successful" (see http://www.holysmoke.org/cos/latey.htm)

This is just the tip of the iceberg. The organization is so bad that iIn 2007, Germany actually considered banning Scientology entirely (http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/12/07/germany.scientology.ap/index.html).


Germany's top security officials said Friday they consider the goals of the Church of Scientology to be in conflict with the principles of the nation's constitution and will seek to ban the organization.

The interior ministers of the nation's 16 states plan to give the nation's domestic intelligence agency the task of preparing the necessary information to ban the organization, which has been under observation for a decade on allegations that it "threatens the peaceful democratic order" of the country.


Again, this is not a case of the organization losing its way when its founder died. This is the way the founder set it up.

[alexey]

I actually view atheists and theists as two ends of a faith spectrum. An honest athiest would say "I don't know for a fact there isn't a god, but I believe from my own limited observation, that there isn't." While an honest theists would say "From my limited observation I believe there is a god, but I don't know for a fact that there is." Agnostics are more on the faithless, "I don't know" end of things.
Meaning of atheism depends on the definition... for me, atheist position is a rejection of a belief in god, not a belief that god does not exist.

There is no way of knowing whether god exists. However, we do have a lot of knowledge about human psychology, physiology, history, belief systems, etc.

Somebody who has a belief in the unknowable may be inclined to define everything in relation to that belief. Somebody who tries to differentiate between the knowable and the unknowable operates differently. In that context, one can be an agnostic atheist (not making any conclusions about the unknowable himself and rejecting such conclusions made by others).

[Thiebear]

Thiebear, you know better than that. I didn't dismiss another religion. I wrote that Scientology was not a religion. I wrote this in another thread, but it applies just as much here.


This was my observation on the different religions based on previous discussions.

now on to the actual differences per religion that you of course crush me in litigation type paragraphs like a 1000$ an hour corporate lawyer.


(please try and keep it to a few words please for my benefit)

Question 1: IF the only way to heaven is to have Jesus in your heart:
Does that mean: Judism/Islam/Buddhism are basically as wrong as Scientology? Yes/No




They also use other methods of harrassment, and as noted above, have stepped into other areas of illegality as well.

-------- are you saying Christianity has not harrassed or stepped over the line? How many people has Scientology killed lets say (round number): adding for those we don't know about: 100
(we know battlefield earth bored 40 of them to death).

Christianity: (we know of 2 entire cities, the entire world once in a flood minus 1 family and 2 of each animal) and a few million not written down.
The Crusades
The Inquisition
The smuggling of Nazi's out of germany and other issues during the war.
recently Priests raping boys and Cardinals moving them around silently. (though admittedly thats not death)
etc. etc..
------------

[alexey]

Here is an example of how human brains work:

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

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

[techboy]

(please try and keep it to a few words please for my benefit)


I'll see what I can do. ;)



Question 1: IF the only way to heaven is to have Jesus in your heart:
Does that mean: Judism/Islam/Buddhism are basically as wrong as Scientology? Yes/No

Yes.

I know you'd like me to leave it there, but the fact is you're wildly missing the point.

I did not write that Scientology is not a religion because it's in error. Christianity is true, and Christianity is exclusive, so every other religion is at least partly in error.

It's not about age or apparent oddity of claims, either. Whether it be an ancient faith like Buddhism or Islam, or a very modern one like Mormonism or Wicca, I have no trouble referring to these faiths as religions.

The reason I wrote that Scientology is not a religion is that it is not. It is a scam criminal enterprise, the founder of which wrote himself that he only calls it a religion for financial purposes.

It is not a religion, as the scholar of religion I cited wrote.


Christianity: (we know of 2 entire cities, the entire world once in a flood minus 1 family and 2 of each animal) and a few million not written down.

Uh, the only way this works is if the story of the Flood is true, in which case at the very least Judaism is correct, so I'm not sure you want to be taking this line of argument. ;)

Again, though, you miss the point. Christians have, indeed, done many horrible things over the years. Some of them have even been sponsored by the Church.

You cannot argue that Christianity's founder set things up to be that way, though, and more importantly, though you might have a point if this was the 9th century, you cannot argue that the Christian Church today is a dangerous criminal organization, especially since there really is no Christian Church (you could make a point about the Catholic Church and its protection of abusive priests, but get if you could magically disband them, it wouldn't end Christianity by a long shot).

And, of course, the dangerous and criminal nature of Scientology has nothing to do with whether or not it's a religion. It's simply a reason to fight the group tooth and nail.

[Thiebear]

Thank you. And I fight Scientology only because i cannot afford the good levels...

[81artmonk]

Nope.

Cause its not going to go anywhere.

Sounds like a plan I should adopt. Spout off. jump on someone. than avoid in order to not have to defend your point. :doh:

And in all honesty, if you didn't intend on it going anywhere, and you didn't intend on explaining yourself, you should have just kept quiet!