…and this is a 
Those rascals at the Coalition of Reason are stirring up mischief again — people are sending me all these news stories about ads going up in the NY subways, Boston, Chicago, and so forth. They are making trouble for atheists! Didn't they get the word that we're supposed to be as quiet as mice, laying low and avoiding antagonizing the elephantine majority that might just squish us? Any active response by a subset of atheists will also mean that some other subset will be doing something different, which will create Deep Rifts, and we can't have that.
Nah, I'm just pulling your leg. Get out there and make some noise. CoR seems to be doing a fine job of coordinating national awareness campaigns.
Politics
Comments
Posted by: Your Mighty Overload | October 22, 2009 8:26 AM
I saw this on Dawkins' site earlier. Looks great, but wouldn't you know, a clergy-mouse complained about us "degrading others". Funny, I can't see anything bad said about anyone....
Posted by: Lighty | October 22, 2009 8:27 AM
Curses #2
Posted by: Richard Eis
|
October 22, 2009 8:27 AM
Can't... busy...babies to eat, Puppies to kick.
Shouldn't the elephant of religion be scared of atheist mice? thatss what tv taught me.
Posted by: Your Mighty Overload | October 22, 2009 8:28 AM
"Asked to comment on the advertisement, Joseph Zwilling, a spokesman for the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of New York, said: “The First Amendment allows these groups to preach their religious beliefs. I hope that the rights of other religious groups will also be respected when they also seek to advertise their beliefs."
Posted by: Lighty | October 22, 2009 8:29 AM
Seriously, I just got back from a trip that took me through London. I hadn't been there in a while and I was shocked by the amount of religous advertising.
Thank Ray Liotta that I'm back in China.
Posted by: jbclew
|
October 22, 2009 8:34 AM
I wonder if I can find a bunch of old yes we can Obama stickers cut off the yes portion and stick them under this ad.
Posted by: JackC
|
October 22, 2009 8:37 AM
Makes me want to take a train-ride down just to ride the subway. I probably would have done so this past weekend, had Richard's events not been all sold out. Drat him and his overwhelming draw. It makes my procrastination so ineffective.
JC
Posted by: Valdyr | October 22, 2009 8:37 AM
Is DEEP RIFTS the new PYGMIES+DWARFS?
Posted by: Zeno
|
October 22, 2009 8:49 AM
Believers are so delicate! How dare nonbelievers be so rude as to bruise their tender feelings!
Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris can be held responsible because of their books.
I guess "Don't ask, don't tell" isn't just for gays in the military. But it didn't work in the military and it won't work for nonbelievers. (At least, that's what I believe.)
Posted by: Free Lunch
|
October 22, 2009 8:55 AM
Can't... busy...babies to eat, Puppies to kick.
Doesn't that make you a member of the Church of Dick Cheney?
Posted by: JJR | October 22, 2009 9:04 AM
The DFW Coalition of Reason just picked up a new member organization, namely my very own Denton Atheists Meetup, of which I am the lead organizer. We also recently affiliated with American Atheists. At our last Meetup we had 12 people show up, which, for a small college town like ours, was impressive. Online we have 40+ members, but in actual practice the turnout is usually around 6-10 depending on how busy people are, etc.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
October 22, 2009 9:14 AM
fyi Ray Comfort is attaching his lamprey like parasitic sucker on to this CoR campaign too.
Posted by: Troff | October 22, 2009 9:15 AM
>> Can't... busy...babies to eat, Puppies to kick.
> Doesn't that make you a member of the Church of Dick Cheney?
... wouldn't that be "faces to shoot"?
Posted by: Paul | October 22, 2009 9:15 AM
Everybody seems to be talking about the Co-efficient of Restitution these days, and I don't understand why.
Posted by: SC, OM | October 22, 2009 9:21 AM
I saw one on the T last night! I didn't know about Boston, so it was a very pleasant surprise.
Would be interesting to ride in a car that has one for a while and see how people are responding and if it's sparking any conversations...
Posted by: Alyson Miers
|
October 22, 2009 9:21 AM
Mr. Zwilling is certainly astute in the first sentence. Though with that second sentence I wonder what planet he lives on. What does he mean, "WILL ALSO be respected WHEN they ALSO seek to advertise their beliefs"? Does he live in some sort of Bizarro world where majoritarian religions don't prosyletize in public?
Ah well, at least he isn't asking us to behave like Harry Potter at the Dursleys' dinner party. "I'll be in my bedroom, making no noise and pretending that I don't exist." Sorry, Muggles; the Weasleys are here and those bars are coming off the window!
Posted by: Free Lunch
|
October 22, 2009 9:28 AM
Mr. Zwilling has the right to advertise his beliefs and his church has not been hindered in doing so, even when it engaged in widespread criminal coverups of child sexual assault. He may be confusing the idea that his right to hold the belief should be respected with the idea that his belief should be respected. Clearly, he has no such right to have his beliefs respected. That's part of the joy of the First Amendment. We have the right to mock silly beliefs as much as we want.
Posted by: nathaniel-tagg.myopenid.com
|
October 22, 2009 9:31 AM
It's first thing in the morning, and no coffee yet, but I swear that a second ago this read
which I also agree with.
Posted by: lordshipmayhem
|
October 22, 2009 9:36 AM
And that pretty much wins the thread right there: They can hold whatever beliefs they want and even take out advertisements defending their beliefs, we can talk about those beliefs and be amused at the sillier beliefs out there.
Posted by: charley | October 22, 2009 9:37 AM
If it's going to be a meme, I think it was "bitter rift".
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
October 22, 2009 9:44 AM
Damned atheists. It's DEEP rift, not bitter rift. You're forming a DEEP RIFT between us, you know.
If we're going to be split right down the middle on this, I choose to be one of the deeps, rather than one of you bitters.
Posted by: SC, OM | October 22, 2009 9:47 AM
Oh, I'm totally a deep. Bitters are assholes.
Posted by: MrFire
|
October 22, 2009 9:51 AM
You can feel it when you go to work. When you go to church. When you pay your taxes... also Are you a Bostonian, SC?Posted by: IaMoL
|
October 22, 2009 9:52 AM
I think you're all suffering from rift drift.
Posted by: WowbaggerOM
|
October 22, 2009 9:55 AM
If I say that it can be both deep and bitter does that make me some sort of accomodationist?
Posted by: SEF
|
October 22, 2009 9:56 AM
Do we get to have black smokers and extremophiles and other such interesting stuff in the deep rift?
What do the bitter rifters get?
Posted by: Andrés Diplotti | October 22, 2009 10:02 AM
Yes, it really offends them that atheists can be good people. Why, when you discuss religion and morality with some of them, you can almost feel they're encouraging you to go out and kill some people so their views can be validated.
Posted by: Moggie
|
October 22, 2009 10:04 AM
#5:
We're a diverse city. If you just mixed with indigenous whites, you'd get the impression that organised Christianity is pretty much dead here, but the churches do better with some sectors of the immigrant population.
Posted by: Alyson Miers
|
October 22, 2009 10:07 AM
I haven't spent much time in New York; are they missing out on the joys of pro-theistic advertising like the rest of us? I work in DC, and I do occasionally see a poster of "Looking for something? Maybe it's God" on the Metro. We also had a few "Just be good for goodness's sake" posters last Christmas, but they don't seem to have scared away the monotheist advertisers. Is New York somehow devoid of theist ads on buses?
Posted by: truthspeaker
|
October 22, 2009 10:08 AM
How militant!
Posted by: Sir Craig | October 22, 2009 10:12 AM
Dammit, Wowbagger, you stole my thunder. I too want to be an accomodationist bitter/deep rifter (unless you're some heathen accomodationist deep/bitter rifter - then it's pistols at dawn)...
Posted by: daveau
|
October 22, 2009 10:12 AM
Saw this on the news in Chicago this morning. They said something about how "atheists and agnostics are trying to start a dialogue about their beliefs." Or lack of beliefs, I would guess.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
October 22, 2009 10:13 AM
Some cocktails.Posted by: Bostonain | October 22, 2009 10:14 AM
Off topic, but a couple interesting things I've seen in the past couple days that people might want to blog about. First, a great article in Wired about the anti-vaccination movement and its consequences: http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/10/ff_waronscience
And a Guardian video about UK teachers addressing creationism in the classroom: http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/video/2008/nov/07/creationism-evolution-teachers
Posted by: SC, OM | October 22, 2009 10:14 AM
Hmmm... You wouldn't think that would be a difficult question to answer, but strangely it is at the moment. For the most part, yes.
:]
Campari. And failed novelists.
Posted by: charley | October 22, 2009 10:18 AM
I don't hate deeps. I've even let them use my bathroom. Of course, it was right after I had been in there a while.
Posted by: Electric Monk's Horse
|
October 22, 2009 10:24 AM
Ads should be coming to downstate Illinois soon. Groups from Champaign, Danville, Springfield , Bloomington, and Peoria are organizing with CoR. Phil will probably post the details, so I won't steal his thunder. We had a very informative meeting with Fred Edwords about how to run a media campaign, issue press releases, etc.
Posted by: Abdul Alhazred
|
October 22, 2009 10:36 AM
The only thing new about "new atheism" is a willingness to drum up publicity.
And that's a good thing. ;)
Posted by: MrFire
|
October 22, 2009 10:50 AM
On the Boston T, I see ads all over the place for the Vineyard, and more recently for a group called Reunion.
Generally seems harmless, happy-clappy stuff, although Vineyard had a bunch of vapid C.S. Lewis quotes for a while that would annoy me. In addition, Reunion's mission statement is mildly ominous:
I don't know if statements like this are so obligatory, that even the non-fundies roll it out without realizing how anachronistic it sounds.
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
October 22, 2009 11:00 AM
Are they likely to quit making ads that evoke religious visuals?
It's not a religion, and we don't privilege the sky.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p
Posted by: Sili
|
October 22, 2009 11:11 AM
SPLITTERS!
Posted by: MrFire
|
October 22, 2009 11:21 AM
I think that would sum me up too, actually. In my case, transplanted from elsewhere. As soon I found good places to eat, I started to warm to the place more.
So I suppose I'll be on the lookout for a fiercely intelligent-looking individual, with a godless, anarchistic air, assume it's you and say hi?
Posted by: suzanna
|
October 22, 2009 11:35 AM
this reminds me of a little song i used to know..
deep and bitter, deep and bitter, there's a rift and it's turning deep and bitter...
nahhh, just kidding :)
i'm proud of the billboards and the noise
Posted by: Brian
|
October 22, 2009 11:57 AM
Deeps are creeps but bitters are splitters!
Posted by: Blake Stacey | October 22, 2009 12:50 PM
Having these ads in the T will provide a pleasant counterbalance to the C. S. Lewis crap I keep seeing all over the place.
Posted by: Braeden | October 22, 2009 1:00 PM
Hail!
I just found out about the CoR a few days ago when I saw a billboard here in Morgantown, WV!
Posted by: JeffreyD
|
October 22, 2009 1:19 PM
Hmmm. Would much rather be a deep than a bitter rifter. The "deepers" still get to eat babies and make mittens from puppies and wear Hawaiian shirts. "Bitters" have to listen to Emo music and wear black. That said, I do like Campari and coffee with chicory. I fear that with this admission, SC will not like me anymore.
Ciao y'all
Posted by: jdhuey
|
October 22, 2009 1:40 PM
Is the "Are you?" questioning the godless part or the good part?
Posted by: J-Dog | October 22, 2009 2:11 PM
I want them to cut the small talk and get to the Good Ads:
If there is a God, then why is there Rush Limbaugh & Glenn Freakin Beckkk?
Or more simply put:
Limbaugh & Beck = no god(s). QED
Posted by: Anodyne
|
October 22, 2009 3:35 PM
The subject of these signs in NY came up a couple days ago on a local morning show. I’ll just paint you a picture of the type off person this one co-host is-- He claims to be a “devout Catholic”. (It should go without saying that he is a hypocrite) He is deeply offended by gays, abortion, blasphemy, powerful women, etc. and likes to tell people how they should live. He worships all things masculine (i.e. football), he’s violent, defends rapists and blames the women, beat up a preacher for no reason, has an obsession with the macabre, likes watching videos of people dying in gore, and highly enjoys running over creatures in the road with his car.. He also has a very low IQ (based on the professionally administered test he took)
Case in point: This sociopath (at the least) got all hot & bothered when he heard that people were *GASP* putting these signs up. And as you’d expect, he was saying a bunch of the typical rhetoric about atheists being inhuman and incapable of morality and blahblahblahblahblah.
He then went on to proclaim, several times with bitter, vitriolic seriousness in his voice, that if he ever finds anyone putting up signs like that, or he finds the people responsible for these ones, that he would “walk up behind him and slit his f-ing throat”. Each subsequent threat increased in anger and violence.
Oh, irony. Christians put up signs of gory baby corpses on billboards, and we do reasonable, appropriate things; atheists put up a billboard with perdy lil’ puffy clouds, and these christard people want us dead.
I know; it’s a generalization. But based on my personal experiences, It seems to be the rule.
God bless America©®™
Posted by: Ken Karp
|
October 22, 2009 3:59 PM
Also coming to New Jersey!
Posted by: Zetetic
|
October 22, 2009 6:10 PM
Of course the religious are offended by a sign like that.
Their lie that morality stems from religion is the only thing that they really have left to rationalize their position any more. Especially since reality hasn't deigned to provide evidence to backup any of their other claims.
Personally, while I respect that the CoR is trying to be tactful in their ads, they need to realize that it the hysteric reaction by the devoutly religious that's probably doing the most good. IMO what the groups should do is come up with some ads that would deliberately offend the religious (and would never likely get approved), just to have the various religious groups give them free advertising in their over-reaction, but then pull the ads for the more tactful versions that can be approved.
The reason is twofold, first it would get far more publicity for the campaign and get people talking about it more. Second, it would help to break down the psychological barriers about openly criticizing religion (in general) in public by helping to desensitize people to critiques of religion.
In other words, if the devoutly religous think that this ad is offensive, then they really need to be offended more often and more deeply to clear out the automotive pileup in their heads.
At least that's my opinion.
Posted by: Carlie | October 22, 2009 6:15 PM
Of course, the signs are already being vandalized by those nice Christians. And in Moscow! I've been there. Nice town, I thought. Maybe not. :(
Posted by: foxfire
|
October 22, 2009 9:18 PM
charlie, @ #20 re deep vs bitter:
Perhaps you are referring to the really bitter rift the Anglicans are going through right now?
Ya gotta hand it to that Ratzi - didn't miss a beat when the coffers are getting empty (after all those sexual abuse lawsuits) to bend Teh Rulz.
Posted by: Richard Eis
|
October 23, 2009 5:22 AM
So we are causing a rift, over whether deep or bitter should be used. I like deep better. It will give us somewhere to throw those bitter heretics of the false rift.
I like Ratsi's thinking...i can see the poster now:
Hate gays?
Women getting uppity and demanding equal rights?
Come join us. Middle-ages dress not necessary.
Posted by: SQB
|
October 23, 2009 7:13 AM
Let's try to come up with actually militant atheistic slogans (but without actually insulting, so no "Believers are stupid!" or variations). I'll start:
"God does not exist. Get over it."
Posted by: Dwight Jones | October 23, 2009 10:24 AM
So sad that true Humanism has been hijacked by simple atheists.
Here is the Renaissance scholar Robert Grudin's sketch of Humanism in the Britannica, note how little it has to do with religion or atheism whatsoever:
"Humanitas meant the development of human virtue, in all its forms, to its fullest extent. The term thus implied not only such qualities as are associated with the modern word humanity—understanding, benevolence, compassion, mercy—but also such more aggressive characteristics as fortitude, judgment, prudence, eloquence, and even love of honour.
Consequently, the possessor of humanitas could not be merely a sedentary and isolated philosopher or man of letters but was of necessity a participant in active life. Just as action without insight was held to be aimless and barbaric, insight without action was rejected as barren and imperfect. Humanitas called for a fine balance of action and contemplation, a balance born not of compromise but of complementarity.
The goal of such fulfilled and balanced virtue was political, in the broadest sense of the word. The purview of Renaissance humanism included not only the education of the young but also the guidance of adults (including rulers) via philosophical poetry and strategic rhetoric. It included not only realistic social criticism but also utopian hypotheses, not only painstaking reassessments of history but also bold reshapings of the future.
In short, humanism called for the comprehensive reform of culture, the transfiguration of what humanists termed the passive and ignorant society of the “dark” ages into a new order that would reflect and encourage the grandest human potentialities. Humanism had an evangelical dimension: it sought to project humanitas from the individual into the state at large."
Posted by: Tulse
|
October 23, 2009 11:41 AM
You think "simple atheists" aren't calling for the comprehensive reform of culture, or trying to transfigure what they see as a passive and ignorant society? Just what do think this fight is about, anyway?
Posted by: thelogos | October 23, 2009 12:29 PM
CoR is also used as an acronym by the Church of Reality.
Posted by: raven | October 23, 2009 12:54 PM
No. They aren't the same thing. You can be a secular humanist...or a xian one.
Atheism is just non belief in gods. You can be a commie atheist or a libertarian one.
Posted by: Alyson Miers
|
October 23, 2009 1:24 PM
Yet another barely-relevant lucubration here to point the finger at us nasty atheists for ruining something that would be so wonderful if we just got out of the way. Lazy. Boring. Also wrong.
If you think we're using humanism to promote atheism, then you're not trying very hard. Atheism, for the umpteen millionth time, is not a philosophy unto itself. Atheism is a negative definition. It is the bulldozer that gets the asbestos-ridden condemned buildings out of the way. Humanism is the crane that builds better structures in the public square. The bulldozer is not the end unto itself, but some things need to be gotten out of the way.
Posted by: Zetetic
|
October 23, 2009 5:48 PM
So sad that Dwight Jones can't get such a simple difference...Either that or Dwight is deliberately being intellectually dishonest about it, as is typical of both apologists and accommodationists.
It's very simple Dwight, any one that is intellectually honest can only come to the conclusion that there is no credible supporting evidence that points to the existence of a god(s). If such evidence did exist everyone would have heard about it a long time ago. Additionally, there is also no logical argument that can be made the existence of a god(s) that doesn't ultimately resort to unsubstantiated assumptions/assertions and logical fallacies (most typically Argument from Ignorance, Argument from Incredulity, and Appeal to Consequences). Again if such an intellectually sound argument did exist, everyone probably would have heard of it by now.
Therefore, it's only logical that those humanists (as well as other philosophies and political views) that are intellectually honest about the subject, would tend to be inclined towards atheism as addition to any other philosophies/politics that they hold.
Of course if you think that "simple atheism" has it wrong, then by all means give us your three very best (as in "slam dunk" or irrefutable) arguments/evidence to support the existence of a god(s). Just make it your very best "If these don't work then nothing will.", arguments or evidence.
Then after we've had fun demolishing them, maybe then we can talk about how simple apologetics and accommodationism are.
Posted by: Dwight Jones | November 3, 2009 1:05 PM
Tulse complained re Humanism:
"You think "simple atheists" aren't calling for the comprehensive reform of culture, or trying to transfigure what they see as a passive and ignorant society? Just what do think this fight is about, anyway?"
Definition: Humanism is an inclusive sensibility for our species, planet and lives. I have no objection to atheism UNLESS someone is using it interchangably with Humanism - as many US and UK atheists do. (E.g. the BHA sponsors the Atheist Bus campaign but not the Humanist Bus. Why is that?)
The reason is Humanism is concerned with species governance - nationalism, militarism, sexism, poverty and corruption - all character problems we as a species must address.
What my neighjbour thinks re: religion is none of my business, or yours. So something about the US war machine and then re-present your credentials.