2/3/09

Atheism Board News

FYI: this post has been moved here.
Share |

TwitThis

Posted by Ken
Labels: , , , , , ,

19 comments:

  1. Andrew T.February 4, 2009 at 8:16 AM

    "Dan Barker, Annie Laurie Gaylor and the Freedom From Religion Foundation gang have again collected donations during a time of worldwide recession not to help anyone in any tangible way but in order to demonstrate just how cleaver they are."

    Tell you what. If you can get Christians to take down all of their billboards, radio, and TV shows -- after all, how do those help anyone in any tangible way in this "time of worldwide recession?" -- then I'll go convince the FFRF to take down their billboards.

    ReplyDelete
  2. zilchFebruary 4, 2009 at 8:39 AM

    Andrew: what you said. Mariano, I posted almost exactly what Andrew said months ago when you first reported about the Atheist Bus Campaign, where you also complained about the waste of money. I'd be curious to know how much time and effort you've spent combating wasteful Christian advertising; or how about the very comfortable ($100,000+) income people like, say, Ray Comfort make on "charitable" donations. This atheist bus thing is a drop in the bucket in comparison.

    ReplyDelete
  3. RhologyFebruary 4, 2009 at 2:21 PM

    True, but it's more pathetic.

    ReplyDelete
  4. RhologyFebruary 4, 2009 at 2:22 PM

    Given that atheism is the grand cosmic So What?, these kinds of advertisement campaigns strike me as ridiculous and inconsistent. If people believe in theism, so what? If people are self-deceived, so what? If people abuse their children, so what? These atheists can't get out of their own way.

    ReplyDelete
  5. AnonymousFebruary 4, 2009 at 3:35 PM

    This is bloody hilarious, I just have to cross-post this: Edge: DOES THE EMPIRICAL NATURE OF SCIENCE CONTRADICT THE REVELATORY NATURE OF FAITH?

    This is a collection of replies to Jerry Coyne regarding his recent article "Seeing and Believing" - what you absolutely must not miss is Sam Harris's response...

    ReplyDelete
  6. metalozFebruary 4, 2009 at 4:32 PM

    "Tell you what. If you can get Christians to take down all of their billboards, radio, and TV shows -- after all, how do those help anyone in any tangible way in this "time of worldwide recession?" -- then I'll go convince the FFRF to take down their billboards."

    Geez glad I live in Australia we obviously dont see any of this kind of thing. you may see a little sign driving past a humble church saying something like "Jesus Saves" but nothing is forced upon anyone religion or otherwise.
    I think most of these western conflicts arise from culture and not belief.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Scary JesusFebruary 4, 2009 at 5:32 PM

    I know, that's a shame, all that wasted money that could go to Benny Hinn, or a museum with dinosaurs and humans together. I'll bet Jesus is seething.

    ReplyDelete
  8. IrishFarmerFebruary 4, 2009 at 6:19 PM

    Tell you what. If you can get Christians to take down all of their billboards, radio, and TV shows -- after all, how do those help anyone in any tangible way in this "time of worldwide recession?" -- then I'll go convince the FFRF to take down their billboards.

    Because atheists are allowed to act morally callous so long as Christians are supposedly acting morally callous? That makes a lot of sense.

    Advertising is only a waste if doesn't provide a "return" (or at least attempt to provide a return).

    In the case of this bus bill board, what's the return? Like Mariano said, atheists can smile and laugh at religion and feel really clever. That's not much of a return. You might say it could prompt someone to be more rational (which assumes atheism is true), but then I could assume Christianity is true and say that Christian advertising is about investing in saving souls and we could call it even.

    Objectively, the way that you could say one side has a greater "return" over the other is to find out if anyone contributes anything to better society. These atheists spent $100,000+ on a billboard that doesn't do anyone any good. When Christians draw crowds with their advertising, they bring in more donations, which means more charitable work and so forth (not all churches do this, but a significant portion do).

    So, if we're going to take an objective look at which money is being used to better society, atheists lose.

    It is, however, fair to say that Christians do waste money that they're given, but a significant percentage of Christians are putting that money to good use. In contrast, 100% of this money was wasted by atheists.

    Keep up the good writing, Mariano.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Scary JesusFebruary 4, 2009 at 8:40 PM

    Hi Irish! good to see you back, hey dude, thanks for your service to our country, you have my respect.

    Another jab for you guys, a lot of christian propaganda is tax exempt. Ponder that one.

    ReplyDelete
  10. RhologyFebruary 5, 2009 at 8:21 AM

    a lot of christian propaganda is tax exempt.

    And public edjamakashun is generally one big advertisement for secular humanism, and that's taxpayer-FUNDED. I've got no sympathy for you.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Scary JesusFebruary 5, 2009 at 9:48 AM

    Who's asking for sympathy, tough guy?

    ReplyDelete
  12. RhologyFebruary 5, 2009 at 9:57 AM

    tough guy

    Rational response at its finest.


    And *you* were asking for it, sir.
    You said:
    Another jab for you guys, a lot of christian propaganda is tax exempt. Ponder that one.

    Ponder? Done and done.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Scary JesusFebruary 5, 2009 at 11:56 AM

    Yeah, I think "tough guy" fits you well.

    You pondered it and decided what? That all religious organizations should have tax free staus because public education doesn't promote your agenda?

    I think you are a dope, and yes I've read your blog. You're a silly person that people are going to avoid as will I.

    tough guy.

    ReplyDelete
  14. IrishFarmerFebruary 5, 2009 at 12:29 PM

    Hey, ScaryJesus. It's good to be "back". I'm writing up a post I hope to have up on the blog soon. I'll enjoy your feedback.

    ReplyDelete
  15. AnonymousFebruary 5, 2009 at 2:09 PM

    tremor -

    You thought Harris was being dishonest???

    It's called "satire."

    ReplyDelete
  16. AnonymousFebruary 5, 2009 at 3:15 PM

    Hum, well I can imagine you might not be able to appreciate the satire as well as atheists. But you'll notice he also took a swipe at Krauss. Harris said himself that "Finding many of the responses to Coyne's essay deplorably obtuse, I decided to try my hand at satire."

    Your description of him as "believing he stands at the top of the hill while stupid Christians crawl down below in the mud" is kind of funny, because it is exactly that kind of person he is impersonating, except in the form of a Christian, standing above the stupid atheists crawling around in the mud.

    ReplyDelete
  17. ReynoldFebruary 6, 2009 at 8:51 AM

    Objectively, the way that you could say one side has a greater "return" over the other is to find out if anyone contributes anything to better society. These atheists spent $100,000+ on a billboard that doesn't do anyone any good. When Christians draw crowds with their advertising, they bring in more donations, which means more charitable work and so forth (not all churches do this, but a significant portion do).
    Let's see some numbers for those "crowds" you mentioned please...remember, you have to show that it's their signs that bring in those "crowds", and that those people would not have donated if not for those signs.

    From what I've seen of xian signs, none of them ask for money (same as the atheist signs), they usually have some pithy saying instead.

    A lot of those signs also happen to be in front of churches where people would be able to see that there are xians there anyway. What evidence do you have that those people who know of the churces' location would not have donated any money if those churces did not have any signs there?

    ReplyDelete
  18. Scary JesusFebruary 7, 2009 at 8:48 AM

    Ok, I was a a jerk to Rhology, that was unwarranted, I just got caught in an irritated mood when I wrote that last comment. He's not a dope, and not silly, perhaps misguided. I thought about it days after I wrote it. I guess it's par for the course that this subject elicits strong emotions. Sorry Rho.

    ReplyDelete
  19. RhologyFebruary 7, 2009 at 9:12 AM

    SJ,

    Apology accepted and appreciated. I'm also kinda new here, so I'll try harder to get off on the right foot with long-timers like I believe you are.

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)