Umm…..please tell me, for goodness’ sake, what being “good” means to an atheist? What is “good” and “bad” to someone who does not believe in God? It is simply a matter of interpretation. What is a “good person”? In whose opinion? Yours? Where did our laws against theft and murder, etc. originate? Why do we have those laws, and why do we need them, if we are simply a higher animal? If one animal kills another, is it considered murder? If one animal steals something from another, do we consider it a crime punishable by imprisonment? Of course not! So why should “higher” animals be prosecuted for doing the same? An animal is an animal, regardless of how high he ranks on the “evolutionary scale”.

How about?

Be good for goodness sake.

That’s what we have consciences for, and that’s usually quite enough.

American Humanists: http://www.whybelieveingod.org 800-xxx-xxxx

The MFA is currently discussing something similar for our local buses. Earlier this year we put up a billboard (in a somewhat rural fundy location), and we change the message every month or so. Said board remains undamaged, surprisingly. Hemant, make sure you get a pic with our board next time you’re in the South.

I have a “God is imaginary” t-shirt. It is generally considered “offensive” by people. It is merely expressing one of my few sincere religious beliefs. Should I conversely be offended by a “Jesus is God” t-shirt? That is ridiculous, and it is this double standard that really needs to be overcome. You have no right for people to tip toe and show reverence toward your sincere (and usually arbitrary) religious belief.

Exactly my point in my previous comment. Saying “God is imaginary” is telling them, in Dan Dennett’s words:

… do you realize you’ve wasted your life? Do you realize that you’ve just devoted all your efforts and all your goods to the glorification of something which is just a myth?

Not only does the beginning of such a thought make them feel, well, stupid, and deceived by con men, but it also activates the sunk cost fallacy: better to not admit a waste, even if it means to keep increasing that waste, than to face the consequences of admitting it.

Again…a reason why we do not organize is we really do not want other groups speaking for us. This is not an attack I would wage as an atheist who wishes for us progress beyond our current situation.

I think direct attacks like this that have a high ‘cute’ value or that will obviously be miscontrued will have negative impact on us. We are the minority. Attacks will cause defenses. Their defenses will be illogical, but they will be loud and will resonate with the believers.

And here is why that is bad. Ultimately the people who need to be reached out to are people who are questioning their beliefs or have doubts, who need to feel they are not alone and that there are answers. In forums like this it is somewhat private and on a more personal level…as we all hide behind screen names, etc. But open attacks will polarize, and I think that will scare doubters or those questioning away from us, not bring them to us. There is a lot of personal shame and guilt with leaving faith. It is something that is almost always done in private, with tears and some agony. I know…I left religion but when I did, it hurt like a son of a bitch. Bad. To have a campaign like this causing an uproar, it will tend to scare those people away rather than pull them in.

We often ridicule the religious when they insinuate Pascal’s wager…that it would be better to choose to believe, all things considered. We state that gaining a belief is not a choice and so it is not that simple. But then we completely forget that when we are insensitive to just how important their belief is to them. If belief is not somethng we just choose, then lets give them all some credit that they do have personally sacred and special reasons for believing and it is not as easy as just stopping. Belief does not work like that on either side. We should respect that as well, when attacking belief.

And lastly, I do not want to make christians stop believing. Would it be better if their were no religion…sure. But back to reality…there is religion. It is not going anywhere in the near future. We really should be trying to live and work and associate with christians on an equal level…not attacking their belief…as this ad clearly does…despite claims to the contrary.

We should attack when it is warranted. When religious people use their religion to attack gay rights or other citizens rights, based on religious morality, then we should cry foul…on the issues. We should fight religion being included in government and at a policy level. We should not try to fight a war against religion publicaly…at elast not yet. We should be fighting simply to keep religion private to the believers. We should fight a war for atheist inclusion. We should not be making people feel like to accept us they have to stop believing, or that we openly think bad of them because of their belief. We should make them know that despite our belief differences we can all live and work together and that they can follow their religion as they wish and we can be who we are, together in peace and without intolerance. If we make them feel that our agenda is to tear down belief, then they will resist and resist strong.

Irresponsibile campaign, sending the wrong message at the wrong time to the wrong people. And then claiming that is not the case. Duh.

They do not speak for all atheists, and my group of atheist friends all seem to be on the same page with this one. We need to stop getting exictied by the fact that there are atheist ads. That is not a big deal. Anyone with money can wage a big ad campaign. The question is should we and what campaign should we wage. Not this one, I can tell you.