Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
It has been fascinating watching the response, city by city, where the advertisement that says "Not religious? You're not alone" has gone up. We've seen bus drivers refuse to drive buses with that ad on them (and get fired for it). In Cincinnati, death threats forced the removal of a billboard with that message.
And now in Nashville, the local yokels are up in arms about an identical billboard. And offering the usual brilliant reasoning to support their position:
"It just absolutely wrong place, wrong town, wrong timing," said Green Hills resident Donnie Cude.Something about the phrase "Not Religious, You're not alone", doesn't sit well with Cude.
"It's a slap in the face to the Nashvillians and the people who have a strong foundation and do so much good for this town," said Cude.
It has become quite clear that the mere existence of people who don't accept their religious views is considered a terrible offense to the most reason-impaired of the righteous. I just can't imagine why anyone else should really care what offends them.
Politics
Comments
To the credit of both the news organization and the source in the story, they reach a reasonably objective conclusion, quote both sides (though the secular guy is conciliatory, maybe defensive) and include a quote in which the same source (Cude) acknowledges that the billboard is within rights. You'll know the campaign has reached a new level when local news doesn't cover it.
ice
Posted by: ice9 | November 23, 2009 9:17 AM
Are the Cincinnati death threats being seriously investigated? Would be nice if they'd catch and try the moron.
Posted by: MikeMa | November 23, 2009 9:18 AM
I bet Police Chief Bill Gillespie put 'Shagbag' right on it. - DJ
Posted by: DIngoJack | November 23, 2009 9:31 AM
MikeMa:
I live in Cincy and have been following what little news there is on the billboards. The news hasn't said anything about any pending investigation, so I assume that there is none. I'm not sure any death threats were even reported. It sounds like the property owner told Lamar, the advertising company, that they were threatened and Lamar moved the billboard to a different property.
Posted by: Bourgeois_Rage | November 23, 2009 9:44 AM
This is why I want to go step farther. If they're going to take offense at our very existence, then let's make our presence REALLY felt. I want to place a billboard that says something like this:
or
or maybe
or how about
I'd like to see this in that same white-on-black theme that the righteous use for those stupid god-quote billboards. And not only do I want to see these billboards put up, but I want to see them in places like Zeeland and Holland. No more Mr. Nice Atheist!
Posted by: TGAP Dad | November 23, 2009 9:51 AM
@TGAP Dad: How about this:
"
" - God.
Gets the message across, right?
Posted by: Jeff | November 23, 2009 9:58 AM
Bourgeois_Rage - Have you seen if the secularist billboard ad has been mounted in the promised new location yet?
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | November 23, 2009 10:25 AM
Bourgeois_Rage,
Thanks for the response. I do hope the billboard is up elsewhere. I love TGAP Dad's billboard ideas. I pass a number of those black & white god quote boards on the Northeast Extension of the PA turnpike. I get good and riled up foaming at the god-bots but it keeps me awake for that part of the drive anyway. Sure would be nice to have competition up there in rural PA.
Posted by: MikeMa | November 23, 2009 10:31 AM
Does this mean you're moving away from deism and towards atheism? Or are you referring to the more general "non-religious" label?
Posted by: FishyFred | November 23, 2009 10:50 AM
If we really wanted to be as offensive as they think we are (and almost as offensive as they are), we could use something like this:
"Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings." -- Victor Stenger
Posted by: Benjamin Geiger | November 23, 2009 10:50 AM
@Jeff: A little too esoteric for my taste, although I personally like it. I'm not sure something this abstract is within the grasp of the target populations. (Yes, I want these right in the faces of the true believers.)
Posted by: TGAP Dad | November 23, 2009 10:54 AM
I've had the impression many times, even from people that I've never had a cross word with, that my passive disbelief directly confronts and offends them. I won't bother with anecdotes because I'm sure everyone out there has them, but I can say that their position comes across as that I actually do believe in their god but I want to piss god, his believers, or both off by being a very spiteful and hateful little boy. I've told people many times that if they want people to respect their religious beliefs they are going to have to give other people that believe differently the same respect. Talk about a concept that doesn't go over well. I might as well have slapped them in the face.
Posted by: Dave Thompson | November 23, 2009 11:19 AM
Maybe I'm the only one, but I think anecdotes are awesome.
Posted by: FishyFred | November 23, 2009 11:33 AM
@FishyFred #9:
Non-religious ~= atheist.
Posted by: Scott Simmons | November 23, 2009 11:33 AM
Dave Thompson: For what it's worth, that hasn't been my experience. The religious people I've spoken to have taken me at my word that I really am an atheist. Some of them (who care about me) would prefer that I weren't, but nobody has felt offended merely by my beliefs, let alone that I "really" believed otherwise.
This is n = about a handful of reasonably intelligent family and friends over the years, well north of the Mason Dixon line and in the suburbs.
Posted by: cm | November 23, 2009 11:37 AM
Dave Thompson,
Not the Christians I know. Most of them (myself included) would try to proselytize, but when that was rebuffed they would dust off their feet (a la Matt. 10.) and move on. I am not offended at all that you do not believe in my God--nor have I ever heard, from any of the many Christians I know, anything that resembles "taking offense" when confronted by a sort-of recalcitrant unbeliever.
If I am on a bus that had a sign "Not religious? You're not alone" I would hardly object to what is manifestly true. (And even if it wasn't true, I wouldn't object.) As always I think it is not uncommon that a minority (the "most reason impaired", as Ed calls them) willing to make a loud obnoxious noise is mistaken for the majority.
Posted by: heddle | November 23, 2009 11:42 AM
Not the Christians I know...
The standard heddle "response."
PS: Love the Stenger quote. That would, in fact, be perfect for one of those "living billboards" so prominent in places like Times Square or Picadilly Circus -- with the collapse of the Twin Towers looping in the background.
Posted by: Raging Bee | November 23, 2009 11:51 AM
Just found this funny.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | November 23, 2009 11:56 AM
heddle, my impression is quite the opposite. I'd say that you're among the minority (out of the pool of hard-core believers) in not being offended. You must not know any Christian parents whose children have become heretics, because if any Christians take offense at recalcitrant unbelief, it's they, let me tell you.
A very large number of people are taken aback at the very notion of atheism, which I suspect is a large part of the reason why, out of the ~15% of people in the US who identify as not traditionally religious, only ~1% identify as atheist.
And I'm sure you can define "offended" in a way such that it doesn't apply to anyone you know, but I'm not interested in word games.
Posted by: Ivan | November 23, 2009 11:58 AM
Geiger, TGAP Dad, got citations on any of those quotes? I'd love to have 'em.
Posted by: Ed Darrell | November 23, 2009 12:15 PM
I do think most people of faith wouldn't object and that it is only the nuttiest or people where its not about faith that are bothered. In my life, I find the people who get the most offended by what they perceive as some kind of left wing attack on religion aren't actually very religious. So why do people who don't worship, don't pray, and don't take part in any other acts of faith get so worked up that other people don't believe?
It's not about belief or unbelief, it's about power and who holds it. The people who seem to care more passionately often seem upset because they feel like they are losing some perceived privledge in society that they may have had by nominally identifying as Christian.
Posted by: katydid13 | November 23, 2009 12:18 PM
Raging Bee,
As opposed to the Christians you, or Dave Thompson, or Ivan know. They are undoubtedly a representative sample. It's the old: any anecdotal evidence supporting my position is sound--but anecdotal evidence supporting an opposing viewpoint is--"merely" anecdotal.
Ivan,
By offended I mean pissed-off or angry combined with some sense of injustice or unfairness. Is that a word game? I know of no Christians who harbor such feelings--though they might be pissed off at certain tactics such as PZ's crackergate theatrics. In that sense they are not offended by PZ's unbelief, but by the fact that he is a grandstanding ass.
But your example, that of one's children, is noted. Indeed there the emotions are raw--and virtually nobody is rational when it comes to their own kids. So while I agree that that is a case in which people will explode, I don't see its application to the general argument. And even then I would say that offense is probably not the right word. In my experience, which admittedly isn't valid like Raging Bee's experience--which of course determines the norm in all cases, parents of unbelievers are not so much offended as they are deeply saddened and fearful.*
--------
* We can't all be like Charles Spurgeon's mom, who, before Spurgeon was converted, told him that while she prayed for his conversion daily if he didn't convert then, on the final judgment when God condemned him to hell, she would have nothing to say but "amen." Or something to that effect.
Posted by: heddle | November 23, 2009 12:24 PM
I agree with Heddle. This post is not aimed at most Christians but at the weird fringe who actually is bothered by the existence of non-believers, a loud and noisy minority of imbeciles. Let's not fall into the trap of applying a label to a large group and then assuming that they all believe what only the dumbest among them believe.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | November 23, 2009 12:29 PM
What katydid13 said matches well with my experiences and her(?) thumbnail analysis rings true. I'll add that I think there's often an element ego as well, a kind of religious machismo to mask an underlying insecurity.
Posted by: Abby Normal | November 23, 2009 12:33 PM
heddle "I know of no Christians who harbor such feelings--though they might be pissed off at certain tactics such as PZ's crackergate theatrics. In that sense they are not offended by PZ's unbelief, but by the fact that he is a grandstanding ass."
Oh, tosh! Perhaps you've forgotten what set off PZ's protest? Anyone who finds his protest to be theatrical grandstanding should've taken their disapproving eyes off PZ and instead helped the poor kid who was getting harassed and receiving death threats and threats of expulsion (and his friend suffered the same, eventually, if memory serves) for hoarding a friggin' cracker at a secular school.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | November 23, 2009 12:34 PM
I live near Nashville and I just joined.
I probably would not have heard about this group if it hadn't been for people's protests.
I am a big fan of irony.
Posted by: DuggleBogey | November 23, 2009 12:39 PM
Modusoperandi #24,
Haven't forgotten.
I was absolutely in favor of defending the student at the heart of crackergate. And I commented many times that Bill Donohue is a jackass. But in my opinion crackergate became about one thing: PZ Myers. It was Myers who, in my opinion, forgot what the episode was all about. To him it revolved around PZ Myers.
Posted by: heddle | November 23, 2009 12:44 PM
heddle: No, to some other people it revolved around PZ. They put him front and center, completely ignoring (or completely ignorant of) the story behind it.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | November 23, 2009 12:47 PM
heddle, before you state merely based on your own recall of a series of unconnected events that you have had as one of the "us" (i.e., a Christian) as opposed to one of the "them" (i.e., an atheist), why not do a short experiment and when you meet new people, pretend to be an atheist. See their reaction, and then gauge whether or not other Christians are the same as you and those Christians that you know.
Recall: there is a serious difference in perception if you are a member of the "them," especially in a discussion of absolute truth (to which religion lends itself to being considered).
I know, you don't have to do the experiment, but if you don't then you've never been a member of the "them" group, and don't really have a valid voice with which to make equal comparisons.
Posted by: mercurianferret | November 23, 2009 12:49 PM
Don't sweat it. I've been offending these people with my mere existence for decades.
Posted by: Owen | November 23, 2009 12:54 PM
Mercurianferret,
I did that experiment. I was an atheist for the first three decades of my life. And just like everyone else I was evangelized any number of times, usually by fundies, and especially in college. Sometimes I was quite rude—I just wanted to read my damn newspaper in Skibo (let the CMU grads, and that is not Central Michigan, understand) in peace. I can honestly say that most of them were far more polite than I was. A few would get upset and say “you don’t have to be rude” and things like that—but none of them acted in a way that I would classify as offended. Of course those are just my experiences. You’ll have to ask Raging Bee for TRUTH™.
Posted by: heddle | November 23, 2009 1:01 PM
heddle,
Raging Bee didn't say that any anecdotal evidence you give is invalid. Any time people are describing Christians in less than glowing terms, your answer is "Not the Christians I know". That's what makes it the "standard heddle response", not whether the anecdotal evidence is sound or not.
Posted by: Paul | November 23, 2009 1:04 PM
Paul #32,
And how is that different from other people, such as Dave Thompson in #12? He spoke, quite reasonably, of "in his experience."
In other words, I am careful to say "the Christians I know" because before I religiously added that caveat people accused me of pretending to speak for all Christians. Damned if I do or don't.
When in fact the admission I don't speak for all Christians, these are just my opinions based on my experience, take them for what they are worth should be understood. For anyone's comment--no just mine. It's absence or presence shouldn't illicit and snide comment such as from RB. It should be friggin' understood that in most cases we all are giving our opinions based on our experiences.
Posted by: heddle | November 23, 2009 1:11 PM
I live in Tennessee. This is not the fringe or minority view here.
Posted by: Deepsix | November 23, 2009 1:23 PM
heddle:
When you quote someone's description of his experience and then say "not the Christians I know," you aren't just saying that your experience is different, you're challenging his report of his own experience.
I have Christian friends (and Jewish friends) who aren't bothered by my atheism; I also know that they are self-selected in various ways and not a random cross-section of Christians.
Posted by: Vicki | November 23, 2009 1:29 PM
@20 Ed Darrell:
#1 is cited on Thinkexist.com, Yahoo Answers, and PositiveAtheism.org. PosAth lists as an excerpt from A Farewell To Arms.
#2 is listed in PosAth as "Eric Hoffer, Reflections on the Human Condition, aph. 13 (1973), quoted from The Columbia Dictionary of Quotations."
#3 from PosAth: "Robert Green Ingersoll, speech (1881), quoted from Jonathon Green, The Cassell Dictionary of Cynical Quotations"
#4 Not sourced as well as I'd like, and I've lost the original reference. There are lots of Google hits on the quote, none of which reference anyone else as the author. (Yeah, yeah, I know...) HOWEVER, Richard Lederer is still with us, and has a web site with contact information here: http://www.verbivore.com/.
Posted by: TGAP Dad | November 23, 2009 1:34 PM
Vicki #35,
Really? Why? I see nothing written in stone proclaiming that when one states my experience is different from your experience that it is tantamount to saying you are a liar. Out of curiosity, what then is the acceptable way to point out that your experience is different?
But somehow it should be taken for granted that the subset of Christians who are offended by unbelievers is representative and that that assumption is beyond challenge? Is it just obvious that the Christians who complain about the sign on the bus are an accurate sampling?
Posted by: heddle | November 23, 2009 1:50 PM
Most of them (myself included) would try to proselytize, but when that was rebuffed they would dust off their feet (a la Matt. 10.) and move on.
Speaking as a Christian, if I expect others to respect my beliefs, I must respect theirs. I'm perfectly willing to discuss religion if someone else brings it up, but I can't and won't proselytize.
This is not political correctness, it's just common courtesy.
Posted by: Shay | November 23, 2009 2:08 PM
Given the vast amount of diversity within Christianity, I'd be skeptical of anyone defining all Christians with one generalization.
I think it's more accurate to also consider socio-economic and denominational characterizations. Even that doesn't allow generalizations for most groups, though I do see a lot of consistency within the fundamentalist movement who are poor to middle class and either didn't attend university or went to a fundie college.
My grandmother attends a Congregational Church, both of her pastors are intellectuals who love engaging with me because they are actually on an honest intellectual journey. I socialize there occassionally and always feel welcome and enjoy the people (most are also university-educated).
The rest of my immediate family that still attends church go to fundie/evangelical churches. Some of these folks try and make a good first impression and some even attempt to engage me, but that doesn't last long. They quickly give up when they realize the talking points they share with each other do not stand up in front of someone who is an actual thinking non-theist (they've bought into the Ray Comfort / Rick Warren characterization). They don't like hearing that Charles Darwin was a great scientist who is not responsible for ethnic cleansing or that there is not a strong correlation between genocide and atheism but there is sure is between genocide and authoritarianism.
They've also created a very insular community which actively avoids having to deal with reality on reality's terms. They are now so large they can actually effectively boycott businesses run by people not in their group (though thankfully there is a large Catholic population here that perfectly tolerant towards non-Catholics).
This insularity, fueled at Fox News at home, is how they still proclaim that President Obama is a Muslim and Sarah Palin can be defined as a "great leader", who is "incredibly honest" and is totally "America first". (I've been fisking reviews at Amazon's comments section of her book, the delusion there is worthy of scientific study, especially how Palinistas react to facts falsifying their fantastical positions).
Posted by: Michael Heath | November 23, 2009 2:09 PM
I haven't read all of the comments yet so I don't know if this has been answered.
The threats in Cincinnati are being given a cursory glance.
My best connection on these matters basically told me they have more important things to be concerned with.
He put it a little more politely than that, but it still came out as don't hold your breath.
The sign went up in it's new location immediately, so at least there's that.
Posted by: Gabby | November 23, 2009 2:31 PM
Let's give heddle a break. It's obvious that he doesn't actually know very many Christians.
Posted by: James Hanley | November 23, 2009 2:47 PM
This post is not aimed at most Christians but at the weird fringe who actually is bothered by the existence of non-believers
They may be wierd, lousy, noisy, and a minority, but they're still important to confront. If nothing else theses billboards are a good idea because they may bring the lunatic fringe to the awareness of the moderate but silent majority.
Remember it was only last year that an Illinois State Senator, as part of official state proceedings,
said: "[Atheism is] dangerous to the progression of this state. And it’s dangerous for our children to even know that your philosophy exists!”
Posted by: eric | November 23, 2009 4:01 PM
TGAP Dad:
And I've followed you from post to post reminding you that it is disingenuous to claim it as a Hemingway quote since it is spoken through a character and cannot be reasonably identified as Hemingway's viewpoint, making it essentially useless for anything like a billboard. (For the record, I think Nietzsche's "God is dead" quote is also somewhat disingenuous, although it is far less of a stretch to claim it as his actual position, which it almost undoubtedly was given everything else he had said in his philosophical treatises.)
Shorter: Just stop it already and find honest quotes, like most of your others.
------
As for Heddle, there's a reason this is his stock response: there continue to be posts like this where a large number (but likely not a majority) of commenters have decided to paint Christianity in large strokes. I say this in part because I happen to agree with Heddle on this to some extent - certainly I am not offended by atheists in the least and often like being around atheists because they are sometimes more rational than the Christians I meet - even though I know several Christians (some of whom I go to church with) who do probably feel this way or similar (disappointment because of a lost soul, etc.).
Then again, I live in the Midwest, so YMMV on whether or not my sampling (which is largely not self-selected: I would probably attend a more "liberal" church at least in terms of politics) is representative.
Posted by: Mr. B | November 23, 2009 4:42 PM
I gotta agree. It was pretty clear that PZ Myers desecrated the communion wafer just so people would pay attention to him. There were better ways for him to get his point across that wouldn't have made the entire religious community (which should have been his target audience) disregard him as somebody not to be taken seriously. I might be willing to give him credit that he did it to take attention off the poor kid, but that wouldn't fit his MO.
Posted by: Brandon | November 23, 2009 5:04 PM
My own personal experience has been mixed. I've met Christians who, like those Michael Heath described, were honest, open, interested, and interesting. I've also met Christians who were horrified by the very idea that I didn't believe, tried to convince me, and then, became angered that their simplistic arguments didn't work. I honestly have to ask, Pascal's Wager? Really???
Personally, what I consider the most telling aspect of this issue is really quite simple, how many Christians have to be concerned their their employers discover they're Christian? How many know, for certain, that their advancement opportunities are effectively shot if they don't pretend to be good atheists? How many Christians go through the motions and pretend to be atheists so they can be elected to public office?
Oh wait, silly me, I reversed that ...
Posted by: dogmeatib | November 23, 2009 5:22 PM
@42 Eric, I think you'd have help from a not inconsquencial number of believers of various stripes. Lots of us think they are crazy and should be called such.
@24 Abby Normal, I think "religious machismo to mask an underlying insecurity" sums up what I was trying to say nicely. And yes, I'm female.
Posted by: katydid13 | November 23, 2009 5:27 PM
dogmeatib ,
Well in my profession (professor at a public university) evangelical Christians are a rather small minority. There is certainly no penalty associated with being an atheist. While I have never experienced any discrimination for being a Christian--I have certainly heard my share of tasteless jokes (some of them quite funny) made at the expense of Christians because people assume that since I am a scientist and a professor at a public university then I am not a Christian.
If I didn't have tenure, then under the general rule of thumb that it is best not to be a nail sticking out, I probably would have kept my blog anonymous. It probably would not have been necessary--but that's what I would have done.
Posted by: heddle | November 23, 2009 5:47 PM
Shay wrote
I respect very few Christian beliefs. However, I respect the right of Christians to hold their bizarre beliefs as long as holding them doesn't result in imposing the beliefs, or (state) actions sanctioned only by those beliefs, on me. Once you understand that difference the desirability of a secular society becomes much more obvious.Posted by: RBH | November 23, 2009 6:01 PM
Heddle,
I think you miss my point, while there was a great deal of sarcasm intended, I was outlining an actual problem for non-believers.
While your colleagues may assume you are a non-believer and you suffer through a few jokes (unknowingly at your expense), there are literal challenges to people's employment, promotions, electability, etc., based on their non-belief. My own personal experience is such that I am certain enough of the outcome not to make any comment that would suggest I am an unbeliever. Based on my experiences here, and supported by events that suggest others have befallen this pitfall, I have the distinct impression that such a revelation wouldn't end my career, but would derail any aspirations towards greater positions of authority.
Again, my own situation (and impression of that situation) is supported by the fact that, across the nation, educators like myself have lost their jobs based on the accusation, not the fact, that they were atheists.
I think your example of a few off color jokes pales by comparison, no?
Posted by: dogmeatib | November 23, 2009 6:06 PM
dogmeatib ,
You miss my point which was: not in my profession. There is no problem for atheists in the academy. Is PZ tenured? Did Jason Rosenhouse get tenured? Yes and yes. I can only speak for the professions: scientist and university professor. In those cases, there is no problem whatsoever if you are an atheist. In fact you'll have many like-minded colleagues. Even here in the bible belt.
What is your profession?
Posted by: heddle | November 23, 2009 6:21 PM
I too am an educator, difference is simply the level.
In K-12 (for myself 9-12), there are far greater regional issues. Also, depending on where you are, the powers that be seem more willing to accept "quirky" teachers, but not "quirky" administrators. Finally, as with the university level, you do have the protective influence of tenure. But, overall, I would argue that the atmosphere is one that is much more chilling towards a free exchange of ideas.
Posted by: dogmeatib | November 23, 2009 6:30 PM
dogmeatib ,
I have no experience in K-12. If it is true that atheism is a stumbling block to upward mobility into administrative positions, then I find that surprising and appalling.
Posted by: heddle | November 23, 2009 6:39 PM
What is the purpose of these Atheist billboards in the first place? As an non-believer myself I wonder what the point would be to deliver a "you are not alone" message to the ignorant public. Is the point to convert the faithful to Atheist belief? Is it to coddle the 1% of Americans who have come to an Atheist conclusion? Or is it just a lot of dick wagging?
Posted by: Saint Miek | November 23, 2009 6:52 PM
I would be upset if some hippy communist atheist put up a freakish billboard like this near my neighborhood.
Who am I kidding? It would make great target practice not to mention a place to walk my dog so he could pee on it. I might even pee on it myself. I just happened to have a ladder handy at the time I took my dog for a walk. AH, what the hell? A good batch of alcohol and a match will take care of the whole situation after the peeing subsides.
Have to go now. I think Frodo is in trouble.
Posted by: Smeagel | November 23, 2009 6:58 PM
Saint Miek "What is the purpose of these Atheist billboards in the first place?"
They seem to come in two flavours:
1) To let atheists in areas where they may feel like the only one of their kind around know that they aren't alone ("You aren't alone", etc)
2) To let non-atheists know that atheists aren't all Stalin ("You can be good without God", etc).
Smeagel "I would be upset if some hippy communist atheist put up a freakish billboard like this near my neighborhood."
I would, too! I'd be all, "Hey, hippy communist atheist! How do you reconcile the anti-authoritarianism of your hippy side with the potentially severely authoritarian communist side?"
"I might even pee on it myself. I just happened to have a ladder handy at the time I took my dog for a walk."
Classy. Are you sure that you aren't royalty or something?
Posted by: Modusoperandi | November 23, 2009 7:08 PM
Saint Miek - I don't see how a the phrase "you are not alone" could possibly amount to "dick wagging". If you want dick wagging, see the comment after yours (posted by an actual dick).
Posted by: Taz | November 23, 2009 7:15 PM
RE: Modusoperandi
I thought the whole point of being an Atheist consisted of the belief that we are, in fact, alone. The idea of a communal Atheism reeks of religion to me. I don't need to gather with a group of like minded non-believers to confirm my non-belief. That's the territory of the religious. I'm okay with being confident non-believer in a sea of religious zealots.
Let's get together and celebrate the lack of a god.
My Jesus fish is bigger than your Darwin fish!
Posted by: St Miek | November 23, 2009 7:30 PM
I thought the whole point of being an Atheist consisted of the belief that we are, in fact, alone.
Don't play word games. Nothing in atheism dictates that the individual must or should be alone in society.
I don't need to gather with a group of like minded non-believers to confirm my non-belief. That's the territory of the religious.
By that definition, any group of people gathering for any reason "reeks of religion" to you.
I'm okay with being confident non-believer in a sea of religious zealots.
Good for you. But if I decide I'd like to get together with a few like-minded individuals at the local pub I'll do it without fearing that I've joined a religious cult. One good thing about atheism is that there is no orthodoxy.
Posted by: Taz | November 23, 2009 7:44 PM
St Miek "I thought the whole point of being an Atheist consisted of the belief that we are, in fact, alone."
Alone in the universe? Possibly. Alone in your own head? Pretty much. Alone in Tuscon, AZ? No.
"The idea of a communal Atheism reeks of religion to me."
First of all, don't capitalize it. Second of all, if knowing that there are others who share your, frankly, disgusting lack of Jesusness reeks of religion, then my library card must mean that I'm in the Free Book Cult.
"I'm okay with being confident non-believer in a sea of religious zealots."
And yet you're here. That may illustrative of the "you are not alone" board, hmmm?
"Let's get together and celebrate the lack of a god."
No way! Atheists are all dorks. Every last one of them.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | November 23, 2009 7:44 PM
Taz: Jinx!
Posted by: Modusoperandi | November 23, 2009 7:46 PM
Re: Taz
My point is, why should we resort to the same billboard methods of advertising a faith, no matter how caring and loving the message may seem? Where is the need? Are (a)theists feeling neglected and alone? Are they crying out for some sort of community support all around the country? Is the "You are not alone" message necessary?
A lot of the responses on this board point out the religious billboards and the proselytizing that occurs. I would guess that many, if not the majority of non-believers, have no desire to wear their non-belief on their sleeves. Why should they? I think you can be a non-believer and yet be totally respectful of those who do believe in a god, and have no desire to feel like they are part of some larger group of non-believers.
Posted by: Saint Miek | November 23, 2009 7:54 PM
Heddle:
The sad thing is that you allowed yourself to be converted by evidence-free nonsense. I've watched you comment for years, Heddle, and have been constantly astonished that you're not the least bit embarrassed to say the things you do. You're obviously an intelligent guy, but watching you stick up for Christianity with your endless apologetics is mortifying . It's a shock to see someone as obviously smart as you are say these things in public without blushing. You really should blush.
Posted by: JoshS, Official SpokesGay | November 23, 2009 7:55 PM
Saint Miek "Are (a)theists feeling neglected and alone? Are they crying out for some sort of community support all around the country? Is the "You are not alone" message necessary?"
Going by some of the stories I've heard of atheists (and theists who became atheists), yes. Yes it is.
Imagine for a moment if you thought you were the only gay eskimo in your tribe.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | November 23, 2009 8:04 PM
I think that people equate "faithfulness" and "faith" and "religious" and "god-fearing" with "GOOD PERSON".
So when you say, "No religious? You're not alone."
What they hear is, "Not a person who likes to help others and have a community spirit and be good to your neighbours? That's OK there are other assholes out there just like you. Keep it up!"
So that's why they're offended. "Faithless" means "Bad Person".
They probably should have gotten the "You can be good without God" billboard.
Oh, and blushing IS fun, isn't it JoshS :) Goodness, let's ALL blush. We really should be all blushing. Man I'm having a good time blushing... Blush blush blush... Aaah SO much fun.
Posted by: Glenn Davey | November 23, 2009 8:06 PM
Saint Miek - The people who are paying for these billboards (I'm not among them) apparently feel there's a need. And since they are autonomous individuals without a dogma or clerical hierarchy to answer to, they're free to do it. Why would it bother you? Compared to the ocean of theistic messages we're surrounded by every day, why complain about the drop of atheism?
We live in a society where it's practically impossible to get elected to public office if you're an atheist. Maybe they want to change that by reminding people that atheists exist and are not any more untrustworthy than your average theist.
Posted by: Taz | November 23, 2009 8:07 PM
Shay:
.All of us, religious or not, have different personalities, and different levels of tolerance for argumentation. Some religious people proselytize actively, some don't. Some atheist/secularists "proselytize" for their viewpoint, some don't.
But don't make the mistake that you "respect" the views of people who find your Christianity daffy. You don't. Nor should you, if you take your beliefs seriously. What you respect is the other person's right to hold that belief. As an atheist, I also "respect" the right of religious people to hold their beliefs. But I do not - make no mistake - respect their beliefs themselves. I think they're quite juvenile and ridiculous.
Don't confuse epistemological approval with manners. "Respect" is a throw-away word that gets used to do a lot of disingenuous work. It lets the person who uses it feign niceness so he/she can present themselves to the world as a "nice" "reasonable" person. Draw your own line in the sand about etiquette, that's fine, we all do. But don't coopt "respect" to mean "I won't criticize you. . tee-hee-hee. . as long as you don't point out the holes in my argument."
I respect you, as a person, enough to take your views seriously enough to engage you in conversation about their basis and their effects on the world. We both live in that world, after all. I'd expect you to do the same. But I do not "respect" your beliefs at all - I think they're ridiculous. And I don't believe for a second that you "respect" my lack of belief.
Posted by: JoshS, Official SpokesGay | November 23, 2009 8:08 PM
MO - Damn, that's almost scary!
Posted by: Taz | November 23, 2009 8:09 PM
@Glenn:
You're quite right. It's frustrating that they equate irreligious with Bad Mean Nihilist, but they do. We have to work toward ending that prejudice.
Posted by: JoshS, Official SpokesGay | November 23, 2009 8:11 PM
As an adoptive parent (once over, trying to do it again) I will say that it makes it relatively difficult to get through the various adoption acceptance processes in this country if you admit that you are an atheist. Even if you do so, you are pressured to lie on the forms and claim you are at least a lazy christian.
This has happened to me twice now in two different states, both in non-rural areas.
I'll leave the analysis to others. You can imagine what I think about it.
Posted by: anon | November 23, 2009 8:38 PM
Taz "MO - Damn, that's almost scary!"
I'm the Mirror Mirror you. Hence the goatee.
JoshS, Official SpokesGay "You're quite right. It's frustrating that they equate irreligious with Bad Mean Nihilist, but they do."
Pah! How can you deny the authority of the Bible?!
Posted by: Modusoperandi | November 23, 2009 8:39 PM
Taz@65 - There are many ideas behind the billboards, but the one that says "people, we're here, get used to it" is a strong reason. A lot of people (including many I've met, though nowhere near everybody) think of us atheists as, well, evil. We have no moral compass, we are nihilists, etc. If we can get people used to the idea that other people, with different beliefs, exist and are your neighbors (surprise!), then we can try to change the culture to a point where an open atheist could get elected on his ideas, not on how well he hides it under a Jebus flag.
It's a consciousness-raising thing (or is it awareness?).
Posted by: Badger3k | November 23, 2009 8:41 PM
@MO:
I refute it thus (flips through Colt Men calendar).
Posted by: JoshS, Official SpokesGay | November 23, 2009 8:44 PM
Smeagel, you forgot you eventually end up disintegrating in Mount Doom. Oh, sure, you can manage to just barely talk in a slightly-above-utterly-dumbass way, but your ideas fall through completely.
And it's 'Smeagol', you fundamentalist bigoted fucktard.
I also wasn't aware you were so illiterate you couldn't read Wikipedia.
Posted by: Katharine | November 23, 2009 9:21 PM
St Miek:
[quote]A lot of the responses on this board point out the religious billboards and the proselytizing that occurs. I would guess that many, if not the majority of non-believers, have no desire to wear their non-belief on their sleeves. Why should they? I think you can be a non-believer and yet be totally respectful of those who do believe in a god, and have no desire to feel like they are part of some larger group of non-believers. [/quote]
I think it depends on the social context. In New Zealand I would think atheist ads were fairly tacky since we're sufficiently secular that they are unnecessary. but in the US I think its a different story. In a country where professing to some religious faith is necessary to attain public office and people seriously consider teaching stories from ancient books as a substitute for science then yes atheists need more profile.
Posted by: James K | November 23, 2009 11:28 PM
Katharaine wwrite:
That was seriously the most offensive part of that post.
We should probably at least threaten to kick his ass for being so un-American.
Posted by: Leni | November 24, 2009 1:10 AM
I think "Smeagel" is confusing proto-hobbits with trolls. - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | November 24, 2009 1:23 AM
Can't you find a better author than Hemingway? In any event, a cursory look at great thinkers belies his claim. Newton, who is far more important than Hemingway could ever hope to be, is one of a long list of counterexamples.
The relevance of Ingersoll depends on the pretentiousness of the atheist, agnostic, or "free thinker" (you get what you pay for, and so called free thinking is no exception) who reads him.
Anyone who is well versed in Late Antiquity, Medieval Civilization, Byzantine Civilization and the Renaissance knows what a stupid remark this is. The term Dark Ages refers to the Barbarian Invasions and their aftermath. The (Roman) Church wielded its greatest influence during the High Middle Ages and it continued to wield great influence into the Renaissance and beyond. The Protestant Churches also wielded great influence in the Renaissance and beyond. Moreover, this moronic comment completely ignores Byzantine Civilization, which flourished for a millennium and was very religious.
You are a stupid bastard, "TGAP Dad."
Posted by: Milesius | November 24, 2009 1:42 AM
Ah history, a whole new subject for Milesius to n00b on. - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | November 24, 2009 2:10 AM
On respect, I can't remember where I saw this analogy but it seems to fit so I'll adapt it.
I can respect your garden by letting you enjoy it and not trampling the flowerbeds or I can respect your garden by telling you how wonderful it is. The first kind of respect I think is near essential to live in a diverse society, the second is unnecessary and can be hypocritical nonsense if you don't in fact like their garden.
To continue the analogy. These posters are the equivalent of saying "You don't have to get a house with a garden, I'm happy without". PZ Myers is the equivalent of the neighbour who mutters "what ugly plants" while walking by but would never think of trying to stop you gardening. And Heddle, he's the guy so busy with the gardening he doesn't know or care what the neighbours are saying.
Posted by: Matty | November 24, 2009 5:00 AM
Matty - heddle's the guy who says:
"Trees? Trees don't exist. I have never seen a tree in my garden." ;) - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | November 24, 2009 6:49 AM
"Anyone who is well versed in Late Antiquity, Medieval Civilization, Byzantine Civilization and the Renaissance knows what a stupid remark this is. The term Dark Ages refers to the Barbarian Invasions and their aftermath. The (Roman) Church wielded its greatest influence during the High Middle Ages and it continued to wield great influence into the Renaissance and beyond."
sayeth Milehighpiles:
Spanish Inquisiton, Roman Inquisition, Tycho Brahe, Galileo Gallilei--yes, indeed, the RCC was a model of enlightenment, specifically by providing nice fires on which to burn heretics.
Still can't figure out how to provide a linklyloo to your ickypoo writing, eh? Fucking poseur.
Posted by: democommie | November 24, 2009 7:03 AM
Re democommie
Don't forget Giordino Bruno, burned at the stake by the Inquisition.
Posted by: SLC | November 24, 2009 7:41 AM
DJ,
Hmmm, maybe a bit more like this:
Someone: Trees are mostly rotten. Look, is are a selection of trees decaying from the inside out.
Heddle: But here in my garden are some beautiful, solid, healthy trees.
Someone: (Eyes rolling condescendingly) Heddle, though he lives among the trees, doesn't know many trees. Even though I don't live among the trees I used to, honest, so I just know my set of rotten trees is a faithful representation of the majority of trees. Trust me.
Posted by: heddle | November 24, 2009 7:57 AM
SLC:
Damn, I left him out deliberately, hoping that Mileperous would show that he too knew sumpin' bout the Cath-O-Lick churches habit of rewarding scientific or philosophic curiousity with. Now I'll have to wrack my brain to come up with even ONE more person who was whacked by Mr. Torquemada and his ilk, other than the jews, witches, necromancers, druids, alchemists, gypsies, etc.
Posted by: democommie | November 24, 2009 8:02 AM
"These trees are rotten."
"Those? Those aren't trees."
I believe it's the No True Scots Pine reply.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | November 24, 2009 8:03 AM
Wups. That middle bit should probably be "Those? Those aren't trees. If they were they wouldn't be rotten."
Posted by: Modusoperandi | November 24, 2009 8:06 AM
Fuck. I hate it when my generally incoherent ramblings are made even more so by the failure to finish sentences.
Should have written:
"Damn, I left him out deliberately, hoping that Mileperous would show that he too knew sumpin' bout the Cath-O-Lick churches habit of rewarding scientific or philosophic curiousity with torture, confinement and gruesome, painful executions."
Posted by: democommie | November 24, 2009 8:12 AM
Mr. Analytical clearly has never heard of this book.
Ah yes 'enlightened Christian Civilisation'. - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | November 24, 2009 8:18 AM
I may be missing some background on his other posts but I thought the Milesius was making the rather pedantic point that historians don't use the term dark ages to refer to the period of christian supremacy not that he was making a claim about that period being wonderful.
Posted by: Matty | November 24, 2009 8:33 AM
I understand that there's a lot of baggage that carries over from one comment section to another, so I'm unaware of all the history, and I'm basing my comment on this thread only.
One way to read heddle's initial comment is: "Yes, there are ignorant people in every group, but be careful not overgeneralize, because I can present examples of many Christians who don't feel this way."
As an atheist, I'm not bothered by this observation. That this may be heddle's "standard comment" is irrelevant and doesn't make it any less true. And, yes, I'm sure not *all* of us were thinking of *all* Christians, but it bears being pointed out.
We may argue (and do) over the degree to which the divergent Christian responses represent them as a whole, and I'm sure heddle thinks the "offended" Christians are a smaller group than do commenters like me.
But I see a lot of responses to interpretations of heddle's comments rather than the words he actually uses.
Posted by: itchy | November 24, 2009 9:04 AM
heddle,
I have no doubt that you know many Christians who aren't offended by the existence of atheists. I have no reason to doubt that you yourself aren't offended by their existence. But when you say, "not the Christians I know," then I face the question of whether you a) know a great number of Christians, none of whom are offended by the existence of atheists, or b) you know only a few Christians, none of whom are offended by atheists. Simple logic tells us that b) has a higher probability of being true.
A third possibility, c), is that you're simply lying, and a fourth possibility, d), is that you're blind to many of your acquaintances thoughts about atheists. Both of these possibilities depend on b) being more probable than a). Following the old rule of never ascribing to malice what can be explained by ignorance, I would suggest d) is the more plausible explanation.
However one parses it, your claim just doesn't have facial validity.
Posted by: James Hanley | November 24, 2009 9:08 AM
James Hanley,
I have no doubt that someone may know many Christians who are offended by the existence of atheists. I have no reason to doubt that that someone may have offended some. But when they say, "atheists offend Christians" then I face the question of whether they a) know a great number of Christians, all of whom are offended by the existence of atheists, or b) they know only a few Christians, all of whom are offended by atheists. Simple logic tells us that b) has a higher probability of being true.
A third possibility, c), is that are simply lying, and a fourth possibility, d), is that they are blind to many of their Christian acquaintances thoughts about atheists. Both of these possibilities depend on b) being more probable than a). Following the old rule of never ascribing to malice what can be explained by ignorance, I would suggest d) is the more plausible explanation.
Posted by: heddle | November 24, 2009 9:14 AM
heddle has a bit of a history of saying that Christians don't believe X, because he has never encountered X in any of the congregations he has ever attended, despite eyewitness accounts to the contrary from other commenters.
It was this that I was gently ribbing him about. (One of his best features is his sly. self-deprecating sense of humour). - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | November 24, 2009 9:22 AM
I am always amused when contemporary Christians take credit for being moderate rather than zealous. It is my opinion that monotheism equates "99% control" to "persecution."
Posted by: jws | November 24, 2009 9:27 AM
heddle - does the church you attend vilify atheists from the pulpit in regards to their:
1) supposedly having no moral framework that demands high standards of morality in practice, and
2) tie past mass atrocities by government powers to atheism rather than authoritarianism?
The reason I ask is these are the two items I've never encountered one biblical literalist rejecting and are also the most popular argument I've encountered being used in retreat when they can't make cogent rebuttals to the existence of God or else just slamming atheists unsolicited from any prior data points.
Secondly, it is even constantly espoused even by evangelicals at least acting as if they intend to be ecumenical (e.g., Rick Warren). I realize there are probably biblical literalist intellectuals who also teach at some church colleges that don't introduce or defend these fallacies. I'm looking towards a more primary influence on congregations in regards to their formal leadership, that which is stated from the pulpit.
Posted by: Michael Heath | November 24, 2009 9:33 AM
heddle,
I neither made nor defended the claim that "(all) Christians are offended by the existence of atheists." Your criticism of that claim in your last comment is spot-on. Of course it's simply a repeat of the criticism I made of you. So it seems to me that you're implicitly admitting that my criticism of you was correct, and a recognition that your claim had as little justification as theirs.
Posted by: James Hanley | November 24, 2009 9:37 AM
Michael Heath,
1) No, in fact atheists are rarely mentioned (other than indirectly--through our missionaries), and when they are mentioned explicitly from the pulpit more often than not it is to scold us (Christians) for being, as a group, morally indistinguishable from atheists.
2) No church I have been in talked much politics, though we often pray for our president and our government and our military. If something like the Holocaust is mentioned, it would be as a human tragedy and an example of human depravity. The political causes would not be discussed.
Posted by: heddle | November 24, 2009 9:53 AM
heddle - thanks for the answers. Is there some way to differentiate the brand of literalism you've been able to congregate around versus the brand that we're exposed to in the public square?
The reason that I ask is that the worst aspects of literalists, which I know you also reject, is all I encounter. You and your congregation is the odd but far more attractive duck. Is it a particular denomination? A fealty to a sub-set theology of literalism?
I ask because much of the social conservative's source of money and political power comes straight out of Southwest Michigan, which is filled with Dutch Reformed Calvinists who in the public square can not be differentiated from the conservative and dominant wing of the Southern Baptist denominations and even many non-Southern fundamentlist/evangelical churches, e.g., James Dobson's or Rick Warren's brand of Christianity. Yes they have more money, are better groomed, and more articulate; but their positions are equivalent. These two aspects are what surrounds me geographically and it also dominates at Fox News and all other conservative media outlets.
You heddle and your church are a very rare duck. Why?
Posted by: Michael Heath | November 24, 2009 10:29 AM
As I understand it Heddle has chosen to attend churches that avoid political debates, which I think includes campaigning on social issues. As such it isn't that surprising that they aren't showing up in the public square since they aren't doing anything public.
Posted by: Matty | November 24, 2009 10:46 AM
Michael Heath,
Are you sure we are rare ducks? In my life as a believer (I converted as an adult) I have belonged to a handful of churches. With regard to your two questions the answers I gave would apply to all of them. And in the last two, I have been an adult Sunday School teacher and Sunday School superintendent, a position in which less deviation from the church's doctrinal statement is tolerated than for a given member. That is, I am not on the fringe in the church. My current church is Southern, Baptist, and affirms biblical innerancy. In that sense we are pretty darn conservative. And yet there is no sign out front: if you are looking for a politically active church with Republican literature, look elsewhere! There doesn't need to be such a sign. So again I ask: Are you sure we are rare ducks?
Matty,
Yes that is one way of looking at it. The other is that the churches and (especially) parachurch organizations like FOTF that do make a lot of noise are assumed to represent all or most Christians.
Posted by: heddle | November 24, 2009 10:58 AM
It seems a useless exercise to try and generalize the individual reactions of Christians to atheists. There are too many variations in the people, relationships, and situations involved. However, the fact that it is virtually impossible for a professed atheist to getting elected in this country does indicate that theists have a preconception about atheists, one that I feel is misguided.
Posted by: Taz | November 24, 2009 12:18 PM
Matty @ 99:
Yes, which is what logically led to my previous questions, paraphrased, "Is there a way to identify these literalist churches who supposedly avoid political issues and do not misrepresent non-theist positions?". I ask that due to my being surrounded both geographically and in the virtual public square with literalists whose congregations are both active in the public square and misrepresent non-theist positions.
heddle's response appears to argue that there is no way to distinguish what I would define as the superior congregants from the literalists whose positions now dominate the GOP and who I argue are inferior to heddle's congregation.
Personally, I don't have a problem, contra Americans United for the Separation of Church and State of which I'm a member, with mixing politics and religion as a long as they pay their taxes; free association, free speech, and right to privacy forming that basis. Of course I reject the congregants as a matter of policy that heddle can't distinguish by category because they are both tax-exempt, promote arguments based on dishonest assertions, and actively promote anti-American/anti-freedom policies while falsely claiming their ideals are the basis of our primary founding documents.
Posted by: Michael Heath | November 24, 2009 1:14 PM
Michael Heath:
You forgot to mention that those GODbots you're speaking about are also smug, self-righteous assholes.
Posted by: democommie | November 24, 2009 2:11 PM
Katharine said
I also wasn't aware you were so illiterate you couldn't read Wikipedia.
---------
I say: I don;t read Wikipedia. It's leftist propoganda. Conservapedia is what I read. Might as well crename yours to WICKEDpedia. Nice language though - I can tell you ever had any raising in a civilized home, else you would talk like a lady, not a bearded sailor. That's not very feminine or charming at all. It's disgusting and outright freakish.
Posted by: Smeagal | November 24, 2009 6:53 PM
Smeagal is clearly a poe.
Posted by: Taz | November 24, 2009 7:26 PM
I wouldn't count on it, Taz. Over-the-top, sure, but that's often symptomatic of insanity.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | November 24, 2009 7:28 PM
Smeagal "I say: I don;t read Wikipedia. It's leftist propoganda. Conservapedia is what I read. "
As a foreigner, let me state that you, sir, clearly have no idea what "leftism" is. Visiting Conservapedia, at least, means that you know what propaganda is (did you know that Darwin lead to Hitler? I know!).
Taz "Smeagal is clearly a poe."
My hypothesis is that one day we'll discover that the entire nutty wing of the Right consisted of Poes.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | November 24, 2009 7:41 PM
I just saw this at Pharyngula: The Washington Post has an article entitled "A Dozen Reasons to Celebrate Darwin"
Number 1 on the list? "Charles Darwin was not an atheist."
Yay.
Posted by: Taz | November 24, 2009 9:42 PM
As a foreigner, you probably brough leftism here in the first place. Shame on you. Leave liberalism and socailism where you found it - on the devil's menu for the day.
Posted by: Smeagal | November 24, 2009 9:56 PM
Definitely a poe.
Posted by: Taz | November 24, 2009 10:25 PM
If that's a Poe it's not a very funny one. It's just really, really lame. Even if it is a Poe, I don't think we should dignify it by referring to it as one.
Posted by: Leni | November 24, 2009 10:35 PM
I'm an atheist, and I offend almost every christian willing to talk to me. It's because I'm curious. I'd like to know, for example, if it was a virgin birth, how did God get his sperm in there? Holy penis, Batman!
Posted by: Philip Tucker | November 25, 2009 7:31 PM
Well if everytime someone who happens to be a christian talks to you about anything you insist on changing the subject to how religion is wrong I can see how that would get irritating. I don't see it has much to do with religion, I expect even a PZ style atheist would not be happy if he asked where the restroom is and you replied with a question about virgin birth.
Posted by: Matty | November 26, 2009 11:12 AM
Matty:
If someone asks you a question about something in which you have a strong beleif and yet you cannot defend it then why are they in error?
Since Mr. Tucker doesn't elaborate on the length, tone or direction that those conversations take I can't know what occurs during them.
If someone asked me for directions to the bathroom and I asked them someting about virgin birth, they might, rightly consider that odd, rude or just nuts. I'm guessing what he's talking about is when they mention their faith, not when they're looking for directions to the loo.
Posted by: democommie | November 26, 2009 11:02 PM
Sorry, I've been in an odd mood and took 'every christian who is willing to talk to me' far too literally. Your interpretation is much more likely.
Posted by: Matty | November 27, 2009 4:23 AM