Most of my family doesn’t know I’m atheist, but they know I don’t believe in any organized religion, so I’m partially out, which is a step.

I wish we didn’t have to hide our non-beliefs, but this is dealing with centuries of discrimination from the religious against anything remotely different.

Someday it will change.

Keith Olbermann IS THE ANONYMOUS DONATOR, and Keith Olbermann is just his secret identity!

Think about it. Hiding in plain sight. It’s like when Bruce Wayne scoffs at the “vigilante” Batman.

I’m onto you, Keith Olbermann…

(/goofy)

On a more serious note, I have to congratulate the person who devised the ad. It might have gotten a lot of press, but it’s not really as shocking as it could have been. Wallpapering “THERE IS NO GOD” would have been a lot more offensive (just as offensive as “WITHOUT JESUS YOU ARE GOING TO HELL”). It was a very pro-atheist message, not an anti-theist message, and I think there needs to be more of that.

When you live in a society that is afraid of you, the answer isn’t to scream in their faces, it’s to compassionately explain that you aren’t evil, you’re just different.

coming out i know for some may be a big choice and a life changing one but for me its the best thing that i could have ever done! remaining anonymouse for me, my life was miserable… i encourage all anonymous atheists to come out

I might be trying to read too much between the lines, but this seemed to me to be a dig at atheism. First, calling a charitable atheist a ‘worst’ then suggesting that a bit o’ churchin up might benefit Limbaugh doesn’t seem that friendly to the godless movement.

Imagine someone donating a large sum of money to an “out” campaign for gays. Would Olbermann criticize the donor for remaining anonymous then? Some people can’t afford to come out to their families, coworkers, and town. They donate to these causes to help change that fact, to change the world to such a place where, in the future, they can come out in the open without fearing any social repurcussions.

Just kidding (if only…)

I wouldn’t tell, though, even if I did have the money, because I don’t think people should know what kind of money you have. I think if I were to be publicly associated with huge donations, all rounds would be on me forevermore. Further, in college I knew a girl whose parents always donated hugely to our department, which we knew about, and there were always rumors going around that her achievements were based on that fact. She was talented, but the doubt was always there.

Olbermann’s only point was that the person that paid for the ads was anonymous, which was odd because the spokesman said part of the purpose of the ad was to get atheists out of the closet. Olbermann simply made an error of associating anonymous donating with being a closet atheist. He simply didn’t think it through completely.

He did state that he had no complaint with the ad.

Think about it: an atheist makes his list of “worst people” because he promotes a message saying atheists aren’t necessarily bad people?? Not only is it patently absurd to believe otherwise, but it’s depressing to think that no real argument needs to be made on Olbermann’s part (or anyone who claims all atheists are immoral). He will not be held accountable, and few other figures in the media will have the courage to defend atheism. It’s simply assumed that atheism and immorality are identical. There must not even be room for debate in their minds, since the very act of donating to this ad campaign apparently makes this person immoral.

Believe me, I get the irony of an anonymous donor and what the spokesperson said about getting people to stop hiding their atheism. I suppose I just didn’t realize irony qualified one for being a terrible person. Nor did I realize privacy wasn’t actually a right in this country; instead it’s apparently a sign of immorality.