Another Atheist Billboard Vandalized

It is rather depressing that a message that promotes living the life you have is deemed by some a threat. Also, what does it say about the kinds of people who commit such offences? Their state of mind or their worldview?

As much as this annoys me I do entirely agree with the last part of your post, Hemant; those who do support these billboards should never retaliate in a tit-for-tat act of vandalisim.

On the one hand, I can understand the vandals. Sometimes when I see obnoxious Christian bumper stickers or signs, I want to tear them down, I want to write rebuttals on them in magic marker, I want to knock on their window and start telling them they are wrong.

But–and here is the really key part–I DON’T. Because although I am a human with all my irrational impulses, I am also a human with a mind. A human who knows how to override emotional response and respect other people’s rights to believe what they will. Yes, I think they are tragically wrong, and given an opportunity for discussion I might take it. But vandalism is just giving into that base urge to stamp out opposition.

So I can understand the vandals, but I definitely do not excuse them.

Couldn’t agree more with Nora.

Another religious (I presume) ass-hat with nothing better to do with their time on Earth. How predictable. And now just wait for some other idiot get on his/her moral high horse and tell you how they are the “persecuted” ones, of course. Start the countdown…

I second Hoverfrog: let them have their suffering, if they so desire it. We are not some monsters, after all, are we?

Ahh, but these signs are an affront to their faith, their reasoning goes, which makes them just like the Taliban imho, just on a smaller scale (for now).

I wonder if they are also trying to discourage these billboard companies from putting up “Atheist” themed billboards. If companies have to continually replace them for free, they become “high” risk and cost more to put up.

Or do you think i am giving these vandals too much credit?

martin luther said. “if you must sin, sin boldly.” whoever did vandalize the billboard clearly was an amateur.

Jeez, can we get one of these in view of a camera? Find a billboard located near a bank for fuck’s sake. Better yet, find one next to a megachurch; and if teh vandalismz do strike, ask them to work with us on reviewing one of their many camera feeds. Else, they’d appear to be abetting said vandals, y’know.
*grrrr*

Perhaps the vandals surpressed any fear of future punishment for their crime and were simply enjoying themselves.

“Enjoy Life, there may not be an Afterlife”
“Enjoy Life, don’t bet on an Afterlife”

i tend not to mix agnosticism and atheism, myself. i like the strong declarative. atheists should express our views just like we think them in our own heads, which often is not “how can i show consideration to the position of the believer” but “i want to demonstrate that some of us are extremely firm in our atheism, because one project in religious propaganda is to convince people we don’t really exist.” as we say in the queer community “silence = death.” the author stated what he thinks. nobody ever suggests believers modify their billboards to be considerate to people like me. “jeebus loves you, (maybe)” isn’t something i’ll ever see on a church lawn.

Jonas-

I don’t think so, although I would like if that were true. Remember all the “you can be good without God” billboards that have been vandalized? That’s only a simple statement of fact and yet it seems many people take exception to it.

If it’s anything like it is here in the UK, no doubt they’ll just get a slap on the wrist! Please don’t get me talking about UK justice!! A woman who urinated on a war memorial in the northwest English resort of Blackpool was let off with a suspended sentence and community service….after running away from court the first time!

Must grit my teeth!!!!

Once again, the theists can’t even vandalize something properly. What lame-asses!

chicago dyke wrote:

i tend not to mix agnosticism and atheism, myself. i like the strong declarative. atheists should express our views just like we think them in our own heads, which often is not “how can i show consideration to the position of the believer” but “i want to demonstrate that some of us are extremely firm in our atheism….

Personally, I don’t particularly like the idea of adopting any stance of rigid certainty, just to feel or appear ‘stronger’…..just because most believers do this doesn’t mean that atheists need to.

I think my lack of belief is just as valid as someone else’s certainty that there’s no god. I don’t think there’s any particular need to conflate the two things to make valid points about freedom of expression.

I’ve never really understood the believers who express more ‘respect’ for strong atheism than weak atheism or agnosticism ~ what’s more respect-worthy about certainty than uncertainty? especially if the former isn’t warranted?

Some people’s way of enjoying life now is to deface the efforts of others. I’m not condoning such behavior by acknowledging it.

I like how they don’t seem to know what spin to put on it to change the meaning.

I mean all they needed to do was paint the word “LIES” somewhere on the billboard and it would have been a successful piece of vandalism/culture-jamming.

Instead they just throw the paint en masse all over the billboard. Despair is such an obvious state of being.

Well, I think we can put to rest the notion that these are just random youngsters defacing these signs. At this point I think we have a pretty solid trend to show that these signs are being specifically targeted because of the message on them.

Personally, I don’t particularly like the idea of adopting any stance of rigid certainty, just to feel or appear ‘stronger’…..just because most believers do this doesn’t mean that atheists need to.

i work in discourse. politics. media. whatever. it does matter, a lot. “appearing stronger” is sooo very important in our society right now, if you want to claim personal agency. that is something i would argue very strongly on another thread if you’d like. it’s not “rigid certainty;” i’m a scientist and i don’t believe in that. it is media reality, which is a very fuzzy consciousness. which many americans have. learning to operate in that is tantamount, imho.

Mike, your response reminded me of the following from the founding document of my alma mater (http://thomasaquinas.edu/about/bluebook/03.htm):

III. ACADEMIC FREEDOM
This conception of the intellectual life, which is the orthodox Catholic position, seems contrary to the prevailing view of modern society and of those Catholics who are becoming increasingly secularized in their thoughts and their actions. The prevailing view holds as a principle that the uncritical acceptance of religious doctrine not only inhibits, but even destroys the life of intelligence. The statement of this principle takes many forms, but they are finally reducible to the single contention that the believing Christian, since he refuses to submit his belief to rational examination and hence to the possibility of rejecting it, has traded the freedom of his mind for the blind security of unquestioned authority. The consequence is that Christian schools, in so far as they are subject to Christian Doctrine, are thought to be less free, and the education they offer is thought to be necessarily inferior. It is well, therefore, since this is the root objection, to consider it in some detail.

Since the Christian faith involves undoubting belief in certain assertions for which there is no natural evidence, but which are nevertheless taken as the ruling principles of thought and action, the intellectual life of a Christian is generally assumed to be less free. This is because intellectual freedom is customarily defined by the mentality of free inquiry, the mentality which sees itself as not enslaved to any fixed conception but free to subject every doctrine to critical examination and possible rejection. Academic freedom is supposed to be the protection and promotion of this intellectual freedom by institutions of learning. Accordingly, schools whose academic policies are based on religious doctrine limit academic freedom and thereby depress the intellectual life of the scholarly community. Such a view, for example, has been expressed by the American Association of University Professors:

“Freedom of conscience in teaching and research is essential to maintain academic integrity and fulfill the basic purposes of higher education; consequently, any restriction on academic freedom raises grave issues of professional concern.”

(Statement on Academic Freedom In Church-Related Colleges and Universities; A.A.U.P. Bulletin, Winter, 67)

It is clear that they hold religious doctrine to be a restriction on academic freedom, for later in the same statement, the conditions upon which a religious school insists when it appoints a teacher are described as “institutional limitations on his academic freedom.”

Now inasmuch as this conception of intellectual and academic freedom is based on the principle of free inquiry–i.e. the position that every doctrine is subject to critical examination and possible rejection–it is suitable (and hardly unfair) to examine critically the general principle itself. If it claims to be a dogma, the only dogma immune to criticism, by what right does it claim its exemption from the general principle? Or, on the other hand, if it too is open to question, by what principle are we to justify our examination of it? Not by the principle of free inquiry, for it is presently under judgment and therefore in suspense.

To proceed further, free inquiry is usually justified by its effect in the pursuit of truth. More truths will be discovered, and more surely held, it is said, if all beliefs are subject to question and possible reversal. But such an assertion, if it is not a “dogma,” must be grounded on the actual examination of the issues upon which men have disagreed, a judgment where the truth lies in each case, and then a determination of whether and how much the principle of free inquiry was an advantage. It would then follow that the resolution of those issues–the test cases of intellectual progress–would be immune to criticism under the principle of free inquiry, since the value of the principle is predicated on their resolution.

A further difficulty is that the principle of free inquiry would be nullified by the achievement of its stated purpose. As long as a man is ignorant, it is consistent with his condition to remain open to both the affirmative and negative answers to the issue in question. But when and if he comes to know (which is the purpose of his investigation) the matter ceases to be doubtful to him, and his mind closes to the possibility that the opposite might be true. He is no longer free to doubt, except willfully. Thus by the assumed definition ignorance makes free, while knowledge enslaves. A reply to this objection might assume that knowledge is simply unattainable, inasmuch as all things are in all respects always changing, or inasmuch as our minds, not being omniscient, cannot reach the certain truth about anything. But this, as before, would base the principle of free inquiry on particular and controversial philosophical theories, which as a consequence would be immune to criticism under the principle.

Also, every criticism, unless it be simply an expression of the will to criticize, must finally be based on premises not subject to criticism. For if the premises of some criticism are themselves to be criticized, and the premises of this second criticism are in turn to be criticized, and so on, then either the process must rest in premises not subject to criticism, or all criticism is a game which begins anywhere and ends nowhere, advancing not a step towards the truth. Not even logical consistency can be established, for presumably the principles of logic are subject to criticism as is everything else.

Since academic freedom is thought to derive from and be justified by the principle of free inquiry, and since in turn considerations of academic tenure are supposed to be governed by the principles of academic freedom, the college professor comes to be judged by standards which have no relation to the purposes of his life as a scholar and a teacher. For it is usually maintained that the academic standing of a scholar should be determined by his “competence,” while at the same time academic freedom requires that competence be judged in abstraction from what is true and what is false in the area of his competence. But since knowledge of the truth is the end of all study and teaching, to judge a scholar in this way is comparable to judging a doctor while abstracting from all consideration of health and disease, or to judging a cook without tasting what he cooks.

As a result, when scholars must determine the professional standing of one of their colleagues, they must find some definition of competence which prescinds from the very purpose of competence; thus, they are compelled to fall back upon “accepted standards” of competence, standards which are either based on what is altogether secondary, or so vaguely and generally described as to be nearly useless as directives, or which even carry in disguise definite views of the true and the false in the various disciplines. But what is worse, the standards are thought to be standards precisely insofar as they are accepted; in other words, the accepted rather than the true is the standard not only in fact (because of human fallibility) but also by intent. Thus the consistent application of academic freedom becomes by definition the very tyranny which it is supposed to prevent.

Indeed, it would seem that the government of any institution by rules which prescind (or pretend to prescind) from all differences of belief, or which negate in principle the possibility of governing by the truth, must of necessity be tyrannical. For concrete and particular decisions must be made, about the curriculum, student life, hiring and firing, promotion and so forth, but cannot be directed by rules which by their abstract and negative character in effect deny that there are any rules. Thus, no individual decision can be really justified or condemned out of principle, leaving an infinite latitude in practice to the men who actually make the decisions, who thus rule by their own absolute discretion.

Muggle,

I think the answer to your question is found in the science of cosmology.

Apparently, I take this on authority of course, there are infinitely many universes, or, multi-verses so to speak.

Now, infinitely many, which is whole bunch ‘o many, allows, even under the requirements of strict materialistic probablility that in at least one of those universes there is indeed an Easter Bunny.

So by this light, you can neither say there is no Easter Bunny nor that there “is no god”.

Poe’s Disclaimer: I’m joking.

@Heidi

No Invisible Pink Unicorn!??! Blasphemy!

“Enjoy Life, don’t bet on an Afterlife”

How about, “Enjoy life. There is absolutely no evidence that consciousness can or does survive the death of the brain.”

But that’s a bit long for a billboard, LOL.

Tell me why then, Mike, I don’t have to qualify disbelief in the Easter Bunny this way. Why can I say there is no Easter Bunny but not there is no god?

Ridiculous. There is no god.

Caveat: The following may well follow you into the absurd direction you chose to take it.

Assuming we can both agree on the one and only definition of the Easter Bunny and assuming it is the same as my current definition of the Easter Bunny, then I will concede that there is no Easter Bunny.

If, however, my belief is that the Easter Bunny is any young rabbit that I happen to see on the first Sunday after the first full moon after the vernal equinox, then I must adamently disagree with your assertion that there is no Easter Bunny as I have, in fact, seen him with my own eyes even if you have not.

My point? The equation of the extremely complex concept of god with the very simplistic concept of the easter bunny is ludicrous.

There is a huge difference between the assertion “I cannot believe in your notion of god” and the assertion “There is no god.” Once you’ve taken the latter stance, you have closed your mind to the realm of possibility (which is exactly what the fundamentalist does). This is the basis for my initial statement above.

@Gauldar: The Invisible Pink Unicorn is still pretty, whether or not she’s real. And she does have that cool logo. And lots of information written about her. Ok, maybe she is real.

@Mike. In that case, it is my considered opinion that every god and/or body of mythology I’ve heard is absurd, flat out impossible and without the slightest shred of evidence. Though some are more entertaining than others. The only “gods” that have the slightest chance at existing are those whose definition is so vague as to make them meaningless and irrelevant.

Mike

The equation of the extremely complex concept of god with the very simplistic concept of the easter bunny is ludicrous.

I have no concept of gods. I’ve picked up on other people’s ideas about gods or God and had a look at them but find them either nonsensical or so ill defined as to mean nothing. I’ve asked numerous theists to define their deities for me but they are typically unable or unwilling to. Those who attempt it provide self contradictory accounts. That leaves those of us with no idea of what gods are purported to be somewhat confused.

The Easter Bunny though is reasonably well defined.

In other words I agree with you. It would be more appropriate to compare gods with Zargle beasts of the planet Klom. Just don’t ask me about Zargle beasts because I don’t know anything about them except that they want your money to build Zargle temples.

There was a quote I heard once (I wish I could cite the source) attributed to either a Rabbi or Buddhist monk that went along the lines of, “The instant we define God, is the instant we are wrong.” Those serious about seeking god realize this fact (either cognizantly or not) and are thus “unable or unwilling” to commit to an understanding they know will evolve.

As both Hoverfrog and I have already said, such a god is meaningless.

The only “gods” that have the slightest chance at existing are those whose definition is so vague as to make them meaningless and irrelevant.

In case you missed it the first time I said it. What exactly is the point of something you can’t define, describe, observe either directly or indirectly, or even coherently explain as a concept?

Mike

We have been wrestling with the persona of god for millenia. Maybe, just maybe, this is a tad more complex than those scientific principles/tools I listed above. [And yes, you could flip this around and say perhaps those who are studying it are just a tad less bright... but I'm talking about societies and cultures here, not individuals.]

Or maybe they are just chasing a metaphor.

There was a quote I heard once (I wish I could cite the source) attributed to either a Rabbi or Buddhist monk that went along the lines of, “The instant we define God, is the instant we are wrong.” Those serious about seeking god realize this fact (either cognizantly or not) and are thus “unable or unwilling” to commit to an understanding they know will evolve.

So define it and be wrong. Have the error pointed out and correct it. Look at the evidence and see if it fits your hypothesis. Refine your definition until you have something that approaches the truth.

The bold statement: “There is no god” is something that has an unspoken proviso. It means “There is no god as far as we can tell” and this is just the same as “There is no Easter Bunny as far as we can tell“. With deities though I’d go further and say that whatever is meant by “gods” is so ill defined as to be instantly dismissed as irrelevant so I’m not going to waste my time anymore by trying to coax out of people what it is that they mean. If someone wants me to buy into the idea then they can define the idea first.