Can Atheist Billboards Kill Religion?

[rug]

This spring, billboards sprouted across the country like cranky, God-hating daffodils. They proclaimed the bad news that God does not exist, that belief is bad for your soul, that religion enslaves—and they were met with predictable upset. Here Anthony Pinn reflects on the the state of the (A)theist conversation. –Eds.

May 1, 2012
By Anthony B. Pinn

While I do agree on the need for non-theists to be vocal and explicit in their critique and in the presentation of their views, I don't see that this type of activism will result in the demise, the final destruction of churches and other traditional religious institutions. I don’t see that happening, and I’m not sure it’s even necessary.

Non-theists are due for a bit of introspection, for an honest assessment of atheist and humanist missions and objectives: What is the basic concern – the destruction of religion? Or, more specifically, the destruction of the poor patterns of thinking, communication, and practice supported by theistic religion? Does the development of human societies that are reasonable and more progressive require the end of religion or simply the containment of its most harmful dimensions? It’s the latter that matters most. If traditional forms of religion go away (and I use this phrasing because I think the term "religion" isn’t restricted to theistic modalities of expression) some despicable human practices will lose their cosmic rationale.

- snip -

A word of advice to atheists and humanists: deconstruct theistic models of religions—and expose the illogic and destructive thought and practice by those that have done so much graphic damage to human existence; but don’t be delusional concerning the outcomes of such effort.It might be cathartic for atheist and humanists to broadcast their disdain for religion, but it does little to shake the theistic world. Only those who already harboring doubts fall prey to such attacks.

So, my atheist and humanist colleagues should continue to put up billboards, hold public events, lobby, and do everything possible to enter into public conversation on religion. And there is benefit to this, but non-theists of all kinds will continue to struggle and work within an environment composed of competing claims. And while increasing public attention on the limits of theism, it might be a good idea to also do a bit of work to provide a ‘home’ for all those “Nones” who can’t stand the idea of church.

http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/atheologies/5823/can_atheist_billboards_kill_religion/

[CrispyQ]

1. Who knows?

But it's a good thing to get the message out there that "you are not alone."

For too long it has been socially unacceptable to question religion. We can question science (& science wants us to!), but we can never question religion. Already the number of people who are non-believers or who don't profess any organized religion, is growing more than other organized religions. (Did that make sense?)

[dimbear]

2. For years and years there was a billboard outside Wendover that said "Methodists:

Beware of Mormon Crickets."

It probably destroyed Mormonism, I'll have to check.

[mr blur]

3. No. But I'd say that isn't the point/aim.

Rather to let people (especially in the US) who don't feel able to express their disbelief know that they aren't alone.

[eqfan592]

4. This. (nt)

[MineralMan]

5. I can't see how. They might, however,

convince a few people to take another look at the religions they profess. I doubt that religion is threatened much, though. They still have the majority...the very large majority.

Atheism is a personal thing, based on personal decisions and abilities to believe.

Billboards have nothing to do with it.

[rrneck]

6. Nope.

The biggest threat to religion isn't atheism. It's professional sports.

[cbayer]

7. I don't object to the billboards at all when they clearly speak to the purpose that is

outlined by the organizations that are posting them.

If the goal is to tell people that they are not alone, that there are organizations that will support them and that the discrimination against people due to their lack of beliefs needs to stop, then I think they can serve an important purpose.

They won't destroy religion, but I don't think that's their purpose.

[pokerfan]

8. Straw man fallacy

While I do agree on the need for non-theists to be vocal and explicit in their critique and in the presentation of their views, I don't see that this type of activism will result in the demise, the final destruction of churches and other traditional religious institutions.

That's never been an objective as I understand it.

[cbayer]

9. I've not seen it as the stated goal of any of the major atheist organizations, but

I have seen it on the web as the goal of some smaller groups and many individuals.

[trotsky]

10. Yeah, and plenty of Christian groups on the web say the equivalent and worse.

Your point?

[pokerfan]

11. So because some individuals

have stated that the goal of the billboards is to "kill religion" and since that's unlikely to happen, they should cease and desist what is primarily an outreach program?

Yeah, that makes sense.

[cbayer]

12. Absolutely not and I said no such thing.

I support the program.

I have taken a lot of cross country road trips on back roads. You know what offends me? The anti-choice billboards. The billboards that tell people they are going to hell. The boards with racist overtones. Boards that counter those, whether put up by other believers or atheists are ok by me.

What I said was I support them as long as they project the message they intend to. Some have done that quite well, others have been major missteps. But the organizations are relatively young and I think they are learning from mistakes.

Sorry if I wasn't clear.

[pokerfan]

15. I never said you did

I was referring back to the link in the OP that built an entire editorial around the claim that the goal of the billboards was to kill religion.

Like I said, it's a straw man.

[kwassa]

13. They can do what they want.

It is all HOW they do it.

Some of the atheist billboards seem well-done, others deliberately offensive, which will not win them support.

[eqfan592]

14. Actually, I'm willing to bet some of the "deliberately offensive" ones...

...succeeded in causing some folks to ask some pretty tough questions about their beliefs. It gets people talking about things that they may not have been aware of in their own religion.

[kwassa]

16. I would take your bet.

Some of them are really stupid and insensitive.

Like this one posted in a black neighborhood. How to win friends and influence people.



and this one, which was to be posted in a Hasidic neighborhood in New York, in Arabic and Hebrew.

[laconicsax]

17. Just to say, the point of that one was to point out how stupid and insensitve the

Year of the Bible resolution was.

(the one you posted before the edit, of course)

[kwassa]

19. but it failed to make that point

because they don't know how to use words and images properly to make the point they are trying to make.

Their point is buried at the bottom of the billboard in small type relative to the repulsive image associated with a Bible quote.

They need a new ad agency.

[eqfan592]

21. And look at all the attention that has generated now.

Even after being torn down, it's still showing up. We're still here talking about it. And others are seeing it over and over. Somebody right now could be saying "Wow, I had no idea that was in the bible..." in stead of asking "why would they post something that offensive?"

Could they have gone about it in a different way? Absolutely. But that doesn't mean it was 100% ineffective either.

[kwassa]

22. Negative attention. Do atheists want more?

[eqfan592]

23. Those who are bigoted towards atheists anyway will continue to be so.

Those who don't like the billboard but aren't bigoted against atheists may think it stupid, but are unlikely to suddenly change their world view about atheists in general because of it. Those who actually saw the true point being made in the billboard may find they have more questions.

To be perfectly honest, when people trust you about as much as rapists on average, it's pretty damn hard to work your way any lower.

[kwassa]

24. Well, they are working their way lower.

It hardly seems in their best interest to put their worst foot forwards.

[eqfan592]

25. And thus concludes our discussion.

Good evening.

[trotsky]

28. Christians seem to be doing far better in that department than atheists. n/t

[Goblinmonger]

29. Lots of people didn't (and don't) get the point of "A Modest Proposal"

Does that mean it isn't great satire or that some people are just stupid?

[eqfan592]

20. I'm pretty sure the point was pretty much missed.

Which is why they "took the bet" so to speak. But that's alright.

[eqfan592]

18. I think we may need to dial the open animocity back just a notch here.

We really need to avoid being so snappy on each other. She made her position pretty clear up-thread:

"If the goal is to tell people that they are not alone, that there are organizations that will support them and that the discrimination against people due to their lack of beliefs needs to stop, then I think they can serve an important purpose.

They won't destroy religion, but I don't think that's their purpose."

[dmallind]

26. no more than evangelical ones can kill disbelief

Are they supposed to?

[darkstar3]

27. "Final destruction"?

I would lay dollars to pesos that the author of this piece had a Godwin problem edited out...It's too bad, because that would have been a perfect example of Mr. Pinn's problem: hyperbole.

To state that the objective of any atheist billboard is to "kill religion" is hyperbole worthy of mockery, but it does illustrate the primary issue that atheists run into on so frequent a basis: fear. "Oh no! You're one of them! Stay away from my family you evil bastard!"

[Goblinmonger]

30. How is this, in the words of posters here in Religion, not a "conversation stopper"?

cranky, God-hating daffodils

[Mariana]

31. I don't think the writer of that introduction is here on DU.

It was taken from the site. But yeah, it would be nice if certain people here would acknowlege that, in real life, this level of rudeness and disrespect toward atheists is the rule and not the exception.

[Goblinmonger]

32. I wasn't intending to say it was the OP writer's words.

Just that little turd nuggets like that just go basically unnoticed when about atheists, but if Dawkins had said that about theists, then we would have heard about it.

[trotsky]

33. No kidding.

In fact, I'll go out on a limb to say that the entire discussion would have focused around a phrase like that, instead of the actual topic. Ok, I kid. There is no risk getting on that limb because that is exactly how threads have played out countless times.

[eqfan592]

34. Heard about it? Hell, that would have been the headline of its own post.

It would be held up as an example of atheists once again being "counter-productive." And we'd get a diatribe from a certain atheist on the forum about how awful those "militant" and "hateful" atheists are and how he's so glad he's not one of them because really, since HE'S never had any issues with being an atheist in the US, nobody else POSSIBLY could have, and thus they should just sit down and shut up.

But I guess I'm just being "cranky" now....

[cbayer]

35. He's talking about billboards, not people.

I thought it was kind of tongue in cheek, but I sincerely want to hear why you find this offensive.

[eqfan592]

36. One needs to only look at what the possible inspiration for those words was...

...to find why it is offensive. The implication of the words are that the atheists behind those billboards (and possibly atheists in general) should merely be dismissed as "cranky" and "god-hating."

If I were to dismiss a billboard supporting marriage equality as a "cranky, traditional-marriage hating daffodil" what would the reaction be on this forum? Pretty negative would be my guess. Would likely get me PPR'ed

I usually do my best to try and not take offense easily, but the dismissive nature of that statement right at the front of the article (placed there by the editors I believe) really got under my skin. And it's this dismissive nature that is really at the heart of why I personally found it offensive.

[cbayer]

37. Thanks for that explanation.

The statement is from the editors, but the article is written by a non-theistic humanist (his own words) who voices support for non-theistic activism in general and for the billboards in particular, so it is confusing as to what they were trying to convey.

But I can see your point. I wonder if the author objected.

[eqfan592]

38. I'd be curious if the author objected as well.

Tho it's very possible it was placed into the article after it was submitted and just prior to it being published, thus the author may not have had an opportunity to object even if he wished to.

[cbayer]

39. The site, Religion Dispatches, has a whole section devoted to atheism, so

it doesn't appear that they have any hostility towards atheists in general.

The author is a frequent contributor to the site, as well.

I suspect no offense was intended, but it would be interesting if someone posted an objection at the site itself and see if the editors address it.

Perhaps, like some of these billboards, it was just poorly thought through?

[eqfan592]

40. I think you are very likely correct in that no offense was intended...

...and it was just an example of a comment that wasn't given a lot of thought.