Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Kenneth Montville D.D. on March 26, 2011 at 10:36am

Not to be offensive, but I believe you are suffering from the delusion that a majority of people would be influenced by rational discussion. That the majority of the 76% of the population that considers itself to be Christian would be open to a rational debate of coherent ideas out of hand. I spent my time at a fairly prominent non-profit doing pretty much what AA does and I can say that nay-sayers usually don't understand the media driven culture we live in. they live in a state of denial about how blase our society is to information. Attention grabbing headlines and media blitzes are how you get people to pay attention. When people are paying attention that is when you can slip in a rational message. While inefficient, your proposed method is by comparison not at all efficient. While I think AA should diversify their tactics a little (BBs are good, but there is so much more one can do) I am not offended in the slightest by their choice of tactics. Believe me when I say that their approach is tactical, well thought out and more effective than you can possibly imagine.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by sukhdeep on March 26, 2011 at 6:32pm

i may be wrong but maybe the believers did a better job with their promotion of the religion and also killing most of their opposition with different tactics, so u can't say they stood on the same ground as non-believers in america do at present.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Heather Spoonheim on March 26, 2011 at 11:28am

Not to be offensive, but I believe you are suffering from the delusion that billboards constitute rational discussion. You've established no coherent relationship between your volunteer work, the unspecified nay-sayers you speak of, or how their unspecified misunderstanding relates to this discussion - a discussion that you didn't actually address until you profoundly observed that "media blitzes are how you you get people to pay attention".  You haven't, however, indicated how AA has managed to "slip in a rational message".  I'm not sure that Robert proposed any method, as you suggested, unless you are referring to his indication that 'engaging' rather than 'enraging' better represents how he wishes, as an atheist, to be portrayed.

 

Not to be offensive, but I'll believe you when you offer some evidence that you have any way of forming a metric of Robert's imagination.  I would rather leave faith based swallowing of unqualified, unsubstantiated rhetoric to the theists.

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mike Baker on March 26, 2011 at 11:05am

I've been doing stand up comedy for a while and have some very confrontational religious humor in my act. I've struggled with whether it was worth it to do these bits as they alienate 3/4 of any audience. The reason that I continue to use them on occasion is that there are always a couple of sheepish looking people after a set that come up to me when I'm alone and tell me how they appreciated someone saying out loud the things that they keep quiet about. I get more out of that than making pople laugh about meaningless things.

 

In regular conversation I'm not a bomb thrower and feel obligated to be rational and persuasive. I'm very open about my atheism and refuse to hide it, but I tend not to wear it like a badge in most circumstances.

 

We are already the most hated group in America by far. Every poll tells us so and we are being attacked when indoctrination into theism is forced onto our children in schools and laws are being written with only religious justification. To acknowledge your atheism is to join the front lines of the battle. You will be called out for it and there will be consequences. That's just the times we live in.

 

I understand the desire to appear calm, reasonable and inoffensive. That's who most of us really are. I also understand the the strength and reinforcement that seeing a good swipe at the ridiculousness openly and loudly proclaimed can give to the more timid among us.

 

I think we need both approaches. It's the same argument the gay community has over whether flambouyance in the gay pride parades helps or hurts the community. I think the general concensus is that the gay community is extremely diverse and all facets should be represented. The same struggle happened in the civil rights movement. I don't think MLK could have pulled it off without Malcom.

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kevin B on March 26, 2011 at 12:03pm

I believe that there is validity to your point, but that it is misplaced.

 

You are right that when engaging people who are very religious, one must spark debate for anything meaningful to change. However, the purpose of the billboard campaign was not to bring the very religious into the fold in one fell swoop.

I remember seeing somebody from AA on fox news talking about the campaign, and he said that the purpose was to get more atheists to 'out' themselves. Their intent was for people who are practically atheists already to stop going along with the dogma for no good reason. This also makes sense given the location of the billboards - mostly in city centers.

 

Still, in terms of representing atheists as a whole, I think it could be done better.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Heather Spoonheim on March 26, 2011 at 12:23pm

I can see how the campaign might get some atheists to finally drop any religious acts that they are maintaining. I also see how it might scare the hell out of others and lead to them locking the closet door. I don't feel they have the right to force the timing of that sort of decision though.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Fred Speir on March 26, 2011 at 12:45pm

I see nothing wrong with the signs. They have not been put up in my area though. When I do see them, I feel I am not alone. The billboards are "one liners." They are made to get the point across.

 

I think you are confusing casual conversation with the "one liner" approach. If I was talking with someone concerning this subject manner I would not be using the "gotcha" approach. People's defenses go up when confronted that way.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Heather Spoonheim on March 26, 2011 at 1:07pm

I don't understand how the 'gotcha' approach applies the the billboard that says, "Jesus Affirmed a Gay Couple".

I can't understand why anyone would put a billboard like that up other than to incite the rage of religious fundamentalists who express more than enough hatred towards gays and atheists separately, let alone gay atheists. Can you explain where the 'gotcha' concept plays into that?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Violet Chartreuse on March 26, 2011 at 12:51pm

 

This is a very good topic to discuss. I, too, feel like Robert in that I think Christians are more likely to be won over in a gentle way, rather than by having it shoved down their throat.  Through the years that I lost my religion, different perspectives and attitudes worked on me at different times, so I think that different people can be reached at different points of their deconversion with differing messages.  Comedy, literary discourse, and jibes would all be appropriate to the right person depending upon where they are in their journey.

Additionally, the concept of God is not a single concept, but a multi-faceted one.  I found this Deconversion series here on TA videos some time back that helped me to understand it.  It postulates that the beleif in God is a Mega-belief, held together by many smaller beliefs and that they must be systematically taken apart until the Mega-belief cannot be held together any longer.  It really is an eye-opener.  IMHO if we want to make a difference in deconverting the masses we absolutely must work from this premise.  You can see it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12rP8ybp13s

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by joseph boring on March 27, 2011 at 8:42pm

That seems reasonable to me. It is not black or white but it is stone age philosophy and it takes time and information to change the dynamic

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dale Headley on March 26, 2011 at 2:22pm

So far, all the bus ads I've seen are pretty good; if anything, they are too mild.  And clearly they have been thought-provoking; otherwise you wouldn't be thinking about them, would you?     They show that no longer do we intend to be the least bit apologetic (like you) about standing up for reason against the pious hand-wringing of ignorant religionists.  Their medieval myths do not deserve even a modicum of respect.  We SHOULD be explicit and unambiguous about our humanism.  I'm proud to be an atheist, because it is prima facie evidence that I rely more on my own evolved intellect than the inane, bronze age, non-sequitur blather credulously attributed to some amorphous, white, male, anthropomorphic, magical entity parked somewhere in the unimaginably vast cosmos.  Your poor grammar ("I have wrote to..."?) hurts us more than any negative huffing and puffing from deranged Jesus freaks.  In fact, your manifest illiteracy leads me to suspect that you are actually a Christian pretending to be an atheist.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Heather Spoonheim on March 26, 2011 at 2:54pm

Perhaps you could explain how provoking people's anger equates to standing up for reason? When, exactly, did all Atheists become Humanists? Furthermore, how do errors in grammar or spelling undermine what Robert has to say?

Rather than illustrating your evolved intellect, you have conveyed to me nothing more than a tone of intolerant mental fascism. I respectfully submit that your skills of persuasion could use some tuning.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 5
• 6
• 7
• 8
• 9
• 10
• Next ›
• Page