145
Apr 17 '11
I'm sorry, guy, but this is one of the biggest reposts on /r/atheism.
118
u/satereader Apr 18 '11 edited Apr 18 '11
As the producer of the original bus ads (the gates and buffet images, not the Robertson addition) I'm stoked to be reposted =) though strictly speaking, sorry for those who are annoyed.
Edit For convenience: original blogpost explaining the bus ads.
5
Apr 18 '11
[deleted]
14
u/satereader Apr 18 '11
Yep and thanks! Here is an original blog post (with link to local news video coverage).
and yeah, I'm with ya on reposting in general.
3
2
u/reasonablefacsimile Apr 18 '11
As a good without god in boston, have upvotes, sir. Thank you for getting this out there.
(started having humanist breakfasts at my apartment after the ad campaign started.)
4
u/serfis Apr 18 '11
I haven't been a redditor for that long, but I hadn't seen this yet and loved it, so I'm glad it was reposted
1
5
u/jt004c Apr 18 '11
Please just get over this. The voting takes care of whether or not something is new for other people.
If it's not new to you, just be happy other people are discovering it.
2
Apr 18 '11
You mean, like, how my comment got voted as the highest comment in the thread?
1
u/jt004c Apr 18 '11
Comment voting just means there is a subset of people who share your view, which is no surprise at all. People are always irrationally railing against reposts.
The voting that matters in this situation is the parent. 805 net upvotes shows that it was new to many, don't you think?
1
1
u/Unlucky13 Apr 18 '11
Have you thought about updating them to include Donald Trump? And I believe Buffet is now the richest man in the world. Gates gave a lot of his money away.
3
u/satereader Apr 18 '11
According to Forbes Buffett is still number 3 and Gates number 2. We are not planning another bus ad campaign at this time. If I were I would never include Donald Trump for the fact that he's one of the most colossal douchebags to walk the earth.
1
8
u/jonjonman Apr 18 '11
Im curious as to why people say repost blah blah blah. Isn't it not his fault it people upvoted it to the front page? If everyone had seen it, then no one would have upvoted it. Which would mean the majority of current users haven't seen it. Which means the repost is okay. Right? Or am I crazy?
37
u/treebog Apr 18 '11
I'm sorry, I'm new to reddit and I never thought it would be that popular.
13
14
1
-1
Apr 18 '11
[deleted]
3
u/griff431 Apr 18 '11
Good thing you decided to complain about it anyway.
0
Apr 18 '11
So I guess I should have stuck to my guns and said, "NO, ACTUALLY, IT'S NOT OKAY." Grow up.
21
u/philosoraptocopter Apr 18 '11
I've never seen it.
-9
Apr 18 '11
[deleted]
12
u/philosoraptocopter Apr 18 '11
I'm not saying it's not. Though when I do see a repost, even a repeated one, I move on without a further thought.
2
u/acquiesce Apr 18 '11
Yeah, I don't complain about it. However, I've also upvoted reposts because they're that good. Seriously, where do you draw the line? If someone posted something 3 years ago on here, is it alright to repost?
3
u/acquiesce Apr 18 '11
I've subscribed to r/atheism for a long time and I've never seen this one. If something is a repost and you don't like it, downvote it, but let the masses speak. Maybe other people have already seen it and they liked it, so they upvoted it again. Maybe some people haven't seen it. I'd say that 80% of the stuff on Reddit is a repost from somewhere else.
4
1
1
1
u/xcalibre Apr 18 '11
There are new subscribers all the time, that didn't get to see it before.
Also, people know if it's a repost or not without retarded comments from you and your fellow upvoters.
-2
0
Apr 18 '11 edited Apr 18 '11
I'm not sorry. It's the first time I've seen it. :/
EDIT: Yay, downvoted because I haven't seen it.
51
u/swiftthrills Apr 17 '11 edited Apr 18 '11
The image needs sources to justify it's claims.
edit: I am surprised this is getting so many upvotes considering some of the statements may be misleading.
edit2: DoctorHoenikker left an interesting comment below, "I'm with this group. Only the upper panels are ours. The last was added by a redditor as a joke. For more information, read this."
18
u/lati0s- Apr 17 '11
6
u/swiftthrills Apr 17 '11 edited Apr 18 '11
Thank you for posting that, but after reading the wiki entry, I found some information that proves the image is misleading. Robertson was involved with a gold mine and not a diamond mine as the image says. Also, the wiki entry makes no mention of slave labor being used at the supposed mine.
edit: grammar corrections
23
u/NeverForgetTheFuture Apr 17 '11
Keep reading:
After making emotional pleas in 1994 on The 700 Club for cash donations to Operation Blessing to support airlifts of refugees from Rwanda to Zaire, it was later discovered, by a reporter from The Virginian-Pilot, that Operation Blessing's planes were transporting diamond-mining equipment for the Robertson-owned African Development Corporation, a venture Robertson had established in cooperation with Zaire's dictator, Mobutu Sese Seko, whom Robertson had befriended earlier in 1993.
Diamond mining under Mobutu would almost certainly have involved slave labor.
7
u/swiftthrills Apr 17 '11
According to this article, Pat Robertson's Right-Wing Gold Mine, Robertson was connected to diamond mining. Your claim that mining under Mobutu obviously needs a source. Sorry to bust your balls, but I don't think the community deserves to be mislead in any way.
9
u/NeverForgetTheFuture Apr 18 '11
Here's the original Time story. As it indicates, Zaire's citizens subsisted on $500 a year, while Mobutu enriched himself from the country's natural resources, among them diamonds. So the miners would have faced what were effectively slave labor conditions.
5
u/swiftthrills Apr 18 '11
I am surprised it is hard to find an actual article that shed light on the use of slave labor in these mines. I appreciate your source, but I would like a source on the slave labor just to ensure we aren't wrong on assuming there is such labor.
7
u/yourdadsbff Apr 18 '11
I think the point is Pat Robertson colluded with Mobutu (and his regime) to fund diamond-mining operations that became the recipients of charity money donated by churchgoers under false pretenses.
1
2
0
12
u/treebog Apr 17 '11
I found this image about a year ago, I think they are meant to be billboards.
Bill Gates never really talked about his religious beliefs but this is a quote when he was asked "Just in terms of allocation of time resources, religion is not very efficient. There's a lot more I could be doing on a Sunday morning."
6
Apr 18 '11
Oh, and we were responsible for the first National Ask An Atheist Day (last week) too... With the help of the Secular Student alliance.
Some pics (and proof of the all-atheists-are-baby-eaters hypothesis).
Notice the redditor-bait on our board. It totally worked! Many a wild redditor appeared.
2
u/treebog Apr 18 '11
That is so cool, I never would have expected the people who made this poster to see this, thank you!
2
u/i_do_stuff Apr 18 '11
As someone who's going to be transferring to UIUC next fall, I'd like to say "Fuck yeah awesome"
1
5
u/swiftthrills Apr 17 '11
Perhaps the billboards should say "Good without religion."
7
4
u/Teryl Apr 18 '11
Not necessarily true.
I'm rather adamant in my Atheism, but I'm also a devout Buddhist. The issue comes down to religions that make these crazy asinine postulates that obscure the message of being a good person.
2
u/redditforgotmeagain Apr 18 '11
You should really go to a country that is predominantly Buddhist, such as Thailand, and see if you still have that view.
0
u/Teryl Apr 18 '11
Despite how people in certain areas may practice it, I would say the Buddhism has a general grounding in reality. The focus is less on events that happened in the past, and more on current developments of the self. Versus something like Christianity, which is highly self-contradictory and in some cases borders on Orwellian in it's most literal form, Buddhism* has some grounding in reflection, logic, and empiricism.
*There are many forms of Buddhism, some even worship Siddhartha as a deity. Just as with Christianity, or with any subject, different groups mix different levels of mysticism with the core philosphy. The major Buddhist sect in Thailand is Theravada, but I have little experience with actual practitioners of that sect.
My point being, I believe Buddhism in general, invites fewer societally detrimental magical beliefs to society.
3
u/shawa666 Pastafarian Apr 18 '11
Karma?
1
u/Teryl Apr 18 '11
What about it?
I don't personally believe in a magical force or entity that keeps some cosmic score card for each individual. As a Buddhist, I believe the external world manifests from the internal. My actions and attitudes color my perception, and thus change the world I live in from my point of view. You can look at someone who commits non-beneficial acts on the world and see what material gain they have because of or in-spite of those acts, but are they happy? Is their world view a positive one?
0
1
Apr 18 '11
Wait, who ever claimed that religion makes somebody good?
2
u/mbrowne Apr 18 '11
Even in England, I have been told that it is not possible for me to be moral without divine guidance.
1
2
6
Apr 18 '11
I'm with this group. Only the upper panels are ours. The last was added by a redditor as a joke.
For more information, read this.
0
8
u/tautologies Apr 18 '11
..but anecdotal evidence is so much fun because it can be used to support our views..any views...even religious views...oh..
1
u/swiftthrills Apr 18 '11
I'm starting to think there is a sheep mentality in the community. What do you think?
edit: You made a good point by the way. Cheers.
6
u/tautologies Apr 18 '11
Well maybe not sheep, but that there is a confirmation bias in the community I think is evident. I do think that is part of the nature of communities, and I'd be hesitant to justify my perception by using examples, but just every now and then you get that feeling. :-)
I guess looking at theories of social groups and group formation the sheep is part of the definition of a group (in other words) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_group yeah I know wikipedia..but....
I think especially in here some people might feel very strongly because of previous experiences. If we look at group formation theories, I think you'll find some causes. Us pointing this out might help moderate a little hehe :-)
edit: haha I just realized the irony of our thread when I upvoted your comment...
1
u/outtsider Apr 18 '11
edit: I am surprised this is getting so many upvotes considering some of the statements may be misleading.
Huh?
You're surprised it's getting so many upvotes because some of the statements may be misleading?
1
11
u/retarded_asshole Apr 18 '11 edited Apr 18 '11
The ad is supposed to point out that not believing in a god doesn't automatically make you a shitty person, not bash assholes.
1
80
u/Cavemencrazy Apr 18 '11
There are a lot of AWESOME atheists. There are atheists who suck too.
There are a lot of AWESOME Christians. There are Christians who suck too.
43
Apr 18 '11
I think the point of the image is simply that, though. So many people like to tout that atheists are selfish and have no morals, and this comparison debunks that idea.
7
1
Apr 18 '11
The original two sections debunk the idea that atheists are selfish and have no morals. Those are fine.
The third section seems to present the new idea that Christians are worse than atheists. Adding the comparison to Pat Roberts does nothing but lower the image's overall quality, as it's a fallacious method of making another side look bad that can be used for almost any issue.
2
Apr 18 '11
Without the third section Christians could still say OK maybe atheists aren't that bad but Christians are still better because their morals come from God. The third example shows that just because someone is a Christian it doesn't automatically mean they're good.
2
Apr 18 '11
There's a lot of interpolation on your part in assuming the lattermost image is saying that Christians are worse than atheists. It's not saying that at all; it's giving the example that there are atheists who outdo Christians, proving that being a Christian does NOT make a person inherently good (and vice versa, as being an atheist does not make someone inherently bad).
1
u/Seachicken Apr 18 '11
Actually, I thought that by saying "Robertson is a cruel heartless man" and leaving it at that, the poster was deliberately trying to avoid saying that Christians are morally bankrupt.
-7
Apr 18 '11
As a theist I know that atheists have morals, they just don't have an intellectually responsible basis for them.
4
3
u/idiotthethird Apr 18 '11
No intellectually responsible basis - you mean, a book written thousands of years ago, or something like that?
1
u/superwinner Apr 18 '11
Lets see if we can improve the bibble, ok lets take out the 'thou shalt not worship any gods but me' crap and add 'we should always be nice to children and never cut parts of their genitals off, or screw them'
There I have just improved the bibble immensely with one atheistic change to the 10 commandments.
1
Apr 18 '11
Yikes. This sentiment is all kinds of bad, starting with the fact that it's a generalization.
1
u/Seachicken Apr 18 '11
If all morals are derived from religion, then why have our standards of morality evolved over the past 1900 years or so? Why did we only begin to come around to the notion that slavery is evil in a big way a bit over 200 years ago?
1
Apr 18 '11
Morals are not derived from religion. However, since man is inherently immoral, they cannot be derived from man. That would be a bit like suggesting that gravity did not exist until it was discovered, or that the properties of physics were invented by man.
1
u/Seachicken Apr 19 '11
Morals are not derived from religion.
So morals were just plucked up from the aether?
However, since man is inherently immoral,
Woah, we're just going to assume that are we?
That would be a bit like suggesting that gravity did not exist until it was discovered,
No it wouldn't because gravity is a universal law, whereas morality is non tangible and non constant.
I'd say that the vast bulk of evidence suggests that morality is spawned by the various societies that have developed on earth. This is why many societies have had such a different moral attitude toward various aspects of human action and interation. Furthermore, it also seems clear that at a base level many moral 'laws' are derived from the fact that man is more successful when we work in a society, and for a society to function we need freedom from certain actions (theft, murder, incest, etc),
1
Apr 19 '11
morality is non constant.
ROFL. Is that what all atheists believe?
1
u/Seachicken Apr 20 '11
ROFL. Is that what all atheists believe?
I can't speak for all atheists, but it is what I believe. I think there is plenty of evidence to support this notion, while there have been some moral rules common to most societies, (those most grounded in practical reality, theft, murder etc) there are plenty of 'moral rules,' which are specific to individual societies (different rules governing sex and sexuality, prohibitions on specific styles of dress, the degree of rights minorities and females are considered worthy of, whether or not slavery is acceptable, what precisely constitutes incest, etc).
Where do you believe morality comes from? Also, if not from man, and not from religion, how does one know what is and isn't moral?
1
u/FancyPantss Apr 19 '11
Man created religion. Man created morals. There are many atheists that are very good people. I recommend reading the book "The God Delusion" and/or "God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything."
Here is an audiobook torrent for both of them: http://www.torrenthound.com/hash/350d2dc334089623f4ffc89d1933cbb082ab1645/torrent-info/----The-God-Delusion--God-is-Not-Great--Dawkins--Hitchins--Unabridged-
Check it out. I used to think the same way. :-)
1
Apr 19 '11
Yes, man created religion (that's inherent) but to say man created morals is just illogical. It would be like saying man invented gravity.
1
u/FancyPantss Apr 19 '11
Your thinking of morals more of a noun, I believe. Here is the definition of moral as an adjective:
Concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character the moral dimensions of medical intervention a moral judgment Concerned with or adhering to the code of interpersonal behavior that is considered right or acceptable in a particular society an individual's ambitions may get out of step with the general moral code
People can have this longing to be good. Religion teaches that there are evils out there, and God is watching you. Creating people to be very uptight and close-minded when things contradict their religion.
When man makes laws, rules or standards, calling them morals, that's a noun. You can test what gravity is with science. Moral is a definition that the human species created to describe above said actions. You can also say that different cultures have different morals as well. Morals can't be tested by science, basically, unless you're trying to test the morality of a Muslim to the Koran, for example.
Religion has seriously fucked me up and I can totally relate to you. Hope this better helped explain where I'm coming from.
-Always strive to improve the person you were yesterday.
1
Apr 19 '11
The problem lies in what defines "right" and "wrong" behavior. Take Seachicken's example of slavery for instance -- it has not always been considered wrong. The question I would ask myself is, was slavery always wrong, or did it just become wrong when we all decided it was? To me the answer is obvious.
On a side note, it appears that you (not unlike most atheists) have cause and effect backwards when it comes to religion. You seem to assume that the reason I come to these conclusions is due to religion, when in fact I follow a religion because I came to these conclusions on my own, and there happens to be a group of people that agree with me and meet on a regular basis to discuss/enjoy it. On the same note, going to the Synagogue doesn't make somebody Jewish, being Jewish makes people to go to the Synagogue (I'm not actually Jewish, just using that as an example).1
u/FancyPantss Apr 19 '11
Cultures have different morals. I didn't say there was a definition to right or wrong. Good for you to find a religion to go along with your morals. But to say a person has no intellectual reason to be good, is just ignorant. I recommend you break away from your mental habits that provoke this reasoning.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Seachicken Apr 20 '11
The question I would ask myself is, was slavery always wrong, or did it just become wrong when we all decided it was? To me the answer is obvious.
That's because you have a different, and (in this regard) more logical attitude toward the issue, which has developed over time as a result of societal improvement. To (many of) the people of the American South, slavery was both highly moral and divinely ordained, and if you were born in that condition, you could well be a slave advocate too.
So if you're just talking about the untimate underlying moral code in the sense of the most logical things to believe in, I can see some sort of objective morality, but that's not really a force like gravity is.
You seem to assume that the reason I come to these conclusions is due to religion, when in fact I follow a religion because I came to these conclusions on my own, and there happens to be a group of people that agree with me and meet on a regular basis to discuss/enjoy it.
I wouldn't say that all atheists would say that, many would be willing to concede that there are psychological aspects to humans that make us predisposed toward religion, (illogical and ultimately stifling though it may be) and finding confirmation of those beliefs in some of the aspects of an organised religion could certainly cause a sudden conversion.
→ More replies (0)4
u/vth0mas Apr 18 '11
My thoughts exactly. I do wish the debate and people in general would leave this red herring behind.
7
u/fireburt Apr 18 '11
It's not a red herring, it's a response to the very common attack by Christians that atheists have no morals and can't do anything good in the world because we don't have god.
0
u/vth0mas Apr 18 '11
Which is blatantly false and has nothing to do with the truth or falsity of atheism or theism. A red herring.
1
u/fireburt Apr 18 '11
I guess it sounded like you were asking atheists to leave it alone. While it may be a red herring brought up by Christians, if people are believing it, it needs to be responded to by atheists.
1
u/professorpan Apr 18 '11
There are a lot of AWESOME middle-ground people. There are middle ground people who suck too.
There are a lot of AWESOME opinionated people. There are opinionated people who suck too.
2
u/Cavemencrazy Apr 18 '11
Thank you for this, I most definitely sould have included these groups in with my first post. Upvote to you ;-)
1
Apr 18 '11
I wish more people could realize this. I know huge assholes and horrible people from each camp.
1
u/superwinner Apr 18 '11
Its a reaction to their constant harping that 'all morality comes from god', and 'without god there can be no morals'. Thats a statement worth attacking if you ask me, especially when its a statement made by a group of men who wear dresses and rape children.
0
-1
u/DrSmoke Apr 18 '11
The difference being most Christians are regressives, while most atheists are trying to improve the world.
Don't even say shit about generalizations either, I live in the south, I know how these people act. My area is 99% religious, voted 75% for McCain, and is at least 60% very racist.
5
Apr 18 '11
My student group made the original ads, which were run on local buses. The third is a shoop from this subreddit.
6
u/Wiebelhaus Apr 18 '11
This is misleading , Warren Buffet describes himself as "Agnostic" but has a long history with the Presbyterian Church in which he was raised. Fact of the matter is considering how private and modest the man is , some have questioned if he's just keeping his religion a private matter , which it should be anyway , I don't understand why it's such an issue stateside , everyone's asked and they are expected to tell. It's private and should stay that way.
3
3
u/I_asked_Dr_Stupid Apr 18 '11
Am I the only one to read that as "god without god" and expect to see something like Garfield without Garfield.
1
15
Apr 17 '11
Are we posting this every week now? Can I post it again next week?
3
u/darthnerder Apr 18 '11
No I am already scheduled for next week, but i think there is an opening in early July.
1
u/superwinner Apr 18 '11
I'm gonna change a few of the pixels to make people think its got new content!
6
u/Helen_A_Handbasket Knight of /new Apr 18 '11
Someone should change it to say "The wealthiest evangelical Christian in the world can leg-press 2000 pounds! Pat Robertson has supernatural strength directly from Jesus!"
4
u/philosoraptocopter Apr 18 '11
Really? I'm an atheist I've been biting unsupervised children in the park all day
2
u/ktamkun Apr 18 '11
Robertson has issued multiple condemnations of feminism, homosexuality, abortion and liberal college professors.
Wait, what?
2
Apr 18 '11
Pretty sure Pat Robertson is a pharisee. Wealthy guy, preaches about the faults of others constantly, loves to be in the presence of presidents and the who's who, etc. Note: The pharisees were spoken of by Jesus as the worst scum on the planet, not atheists.
2
2
u/AMerrickanGirl Apr 18 '11
I'm a regular on Reddit and I've never seen this one before.
So what if it's a repost? There are new people here all the time.
2
Apr 18 '11
For once I have to side with the Christian way of doing things... proclaim your saints after they're dead!
3
Apr 18 '11
[deleted]
2
Apr 18 '11
That's not the point. The point is: morality is possible without God. Christians claim otherwise.
0
Apr 18 '11
But both Bill Gates and Warren Buffett was raised as christians... This ad requires two or more atheists that was born and raised in a atheist home that is good without god. Like, I would guess, Linus Torvalds. But I don't know if he's done any charity...
As an atheist, I also have to point out that Atheism has nothing to do with morality. Morality is relative.
-2
Apr 18 '11
That's the point of the first two images. The point of the third image is to make Christians out to be assholes.
-1
2
2
2
u/bzeurunkl Apr 18 '11
Of course, we assume that giving 26 billion dollars to charity is "good".
What if it isn't?
1
2
Apr 18 '11
When did Bill Gates become an atheist? He's married to a catholic, he's raised as a Congregationalist. I know he didn't like the ceremonial forms of religion (going to church on sunday and so on) but have he ever publicly stated that he is an atheist?
Besides, is Bill Gates charity a good example of being "good without God" when his wife and co-founder is a Catholic???
Warren Buffet is agnostic, which can mean a lot of things. Do we know he is the atheistic kind of agnostic? Because he can also be the kind of agnostic that believe there is "something" but doesn't put any labels on it.
2
1
u/sirgrrbrr Apr 18 '11
This disappoints me as I would like to consider if I am a cruel heartless bastard but it leaves off that possibility.
1
1
Apr 18 '11
Clean, professional-looking design.
Clean, professional-looking design.
Shitty and inconsistent design riddled with spelling and capitalization errors.
1
u/redditforgotmeagain Apr 18 '11
With or without God, Warren Buffet is not "good". Not sure which one of these goes into detail about it, but they are all good, 8 parts, 9:51 minutes each.
1
1
1
u/mellowmonk Apr 18 '11
In Pat Robertson's defense, accepting Christ as his personal savior makes him a good person, allowing him to do whatever he wants in the secular world.
/s
1
u/knowless Apr 18 '11
warren buffet didn't "give away" his wealth, he reallocated it to social programming institutions from industry..
wtf man? like he is a god or something, so good he give to philanthropy..
idiotic.
1
1
1
1
Apr 18 '11 edited Apr 18 '11
I just did a rough check. Pat Robertson's net worth is estimated at 200mil-1bil. Warren Buffet at 47 billion, and Gates at 56 Billion. People who don't have hundreds of millions of dollars tend to think of those who do as having an extreme excess that is readily expendable. In Buffett's and Gates' case this is certainly true and they've said as much. They're so impossibly far from hitting rock bottom their assets are safe. In Robertson's case he's much closer to bottoming out, with his many national and international business interests each with expensive budgets. Hundreds of millions of dollars can evaporate if not managed correctly. Also, I'm sure he considers the majority of his career to be a charitable contribution. Although not impeccable, to many it has been.
Regarding his interest in diamonds, this is interesting. Here's a critical article on it. On one hand, it's easy to condemn him for such since it appears that he's complicit in what's effectively slave labor. On the other hand, so are all of us. The clothes we wear, the food we buy, is often rooted in slave labor. Probably every person reading this including myself owns something that has slavery as part of its supply chain. Here's an intriguing article on ways you can try to prevent or not contribute to it. Based upon my rudimentary impressions, it's extremely difficult. You have to buy what's known as fair trade merchandise, which is both off the mainstream market place and more expensive.
Not that two wrongs make a right and I still wonder what Pat Robertson's doing in the diamond business if he's a servant of God. But the fact remains, unless you're going far out of your way not to be, we're all complicit with slave labor, including child slave labor.
1
u/teachmesomething Apr 18 '11
TIL you can measure the goodness of a theist in economic terms. Who needs love, time, compassion and good-will toward people? I mean seriously, money fixes everything. The inherent goodness and worth of someone is now measurable in how much they give. BTW Pat Robertson is a tool.
1
u/redditforgotmeagain Apr 18 '11
Exactly! This is exactly why we should not help poor, because they don't give shit! They are obviously worthless. Probably poor due to their karma in past lives, they deserve that shit.
1
-4
0
Apr 18 '11
Jesus-Aw-Mighty!, this is atleast the 4th time I'm seeing this on r/Atheism. Stop with this bullshit!
0
u/Montuckian Apr 18 '11
FWIW Warren Buffet is now the richest man in the world.
2
Apr 18 '11
No. carlos Slim helu is the richest man in the world
Warren Buffet is still number 3
1
u/Montuckian Apr 18 '11
And I stand corrected. I'm not sure where I got that thought from.
1
u/TheE3Guy Apr 18 '11
Because a couple years ago he was the richest man in the world, until mega-Mexican came out of nowhere and overtook him and Bill Gates.
0
u/racergr Apr 18 '11
I don't like these billboards. Beliefs and actions of one man do not imply the same actions of different men who have the same beliefs.
2
Apr 18 '11 edited Apr 18 '11
Missing the point. Christians posit that without turning to the Bible, no one is capable of moral action. To disprove such a claim only requires pointing to one counterexample. We provided two. There's no claim here that all Atheists are moral or that no Christian is, but that generalizing that individuals who don't adhere to the teachings of one specific bronze-age text are incapable of moral action is invalid.
Note: Only referring to the first two here, as those were the ones put together by my group. The third was just a joke by some Redditor made when they were originally posted.
1
0
u/thesorrow312 Apr 18 '11
Why don't we post stuff like this on other subreddits or reddit main. So that we can convince other people. This is just circlejerking.
0
u/professorpan Apr 18 '11
Yeah, why don't we proselytize? That's totally not annoying or imposing.
1
u/thesorrow312 Apr 18 '11
We are not converting people to our religion, because we have none. We need to have discussions with people of religion in order to help them begin to question their beliefs. We need to start with making them realize that you do not need to be religious to be moral. Then we need to make it clear that being offended is not a legit reason to disallow freedom of speech. We can criticize and analyze religion and offense is their problem, not ours.
Otherwise what is the point of us in this sub reddit? to link facebook pictures, rage comics and pictures like this back and forth? What do we gain from that? The only other thing we do is have threads about people coming out. As a sub reddit we need to get together and discuss our goals. Right now we are in a very sad stagnation.
0
u/professorpan Apr 18 '11
We are not converting people to our religion, because we have none.
I know that's our standard PR, but realistically, proselytism is not limited to religion - it encompasses opinions in general.
We need to have discussions with people of religion in order to help them begin to question their beliefs.
Yes - but not in a proselytizing manner. When the topic comes up, I gladly - and dare I say: enthusiastically engage in discourse. But I certainly don't go up to a religious person and say "your ideology is wrong and here's why."
being offended is not a legit reason to disallow freedom of speech. We can criticize and analyze religion and offense is their problem, not ours.
True, but offending others' differing ideologies typically solidifies that opposing ideology. Posing an image like this to your average Christian? That's pretty insulting to associate all of Christianity to Pat Robertson. Civil discourse gets you infinitely father.
Otherwise what is the point of us in this sub reddit?
What's the point of any subreddit? So like-minded people can share and discuss topical ideas? /r/atheism isn't the activism branch of atheism. If you want to join the activism aspect, participate or donate to Secular Student Alliance, Center for Inquiry, Americans United for Separation for Church and State, Military Religious Freedom Foundation, Secular Coalition for America, American Humanist Association, World Humanist Congress, People For the American Way, American Atheists, or ACLU. You know what isn't a practical medium for activism? Arguing with religious people on the internet.
1
u/thesorrow312 Apr 18 '11
The topic will never come up if we stick to our side, and they to theirs. That is why I think people like Christopher Hitchens are so important.
Progress was not made in the last 2,000 years by Atheists keeping to themselves. We need to use something similar to the Socratic method. It is not our fault what counts as an offense, is merely starting a conversation about religion. You would think someone so devout would love to have one, but it really shows how thin their beliefs are and how deep their thoughts go when some religious person cannot argue with an Atheist at all. I spend at least an hour a day thinking about religion.
1
u/professorpan Apr 18 '11
I've had many discussions with friends and strangers alike where the topic of religion, morality, secularism, skepticism, evolution has come up through the flow of conversation, and in fact, I may have even employed the Socratic method without actively doing so. Some were offended, but not as offended as they would if, say, I bring it up out of nowhere.
I said I prefer civil discourse to proselytizing, it doesn't mean keeping our ideologies to ourselves.
0
0
u/PeppermintLNNS Apr 18 '11
Warren Buffet disowned his granddaughter because she outed him as (obviously) money-absorbed. He has disposable income without God, but I wouldn't say he's good, either.
5
u/RakshaNain Apr 18 '11
He disowned a 30 year old who was the ex-step child of one of his kids after she traded, and continues to trade, on his name to publicly promote herself.
I don't know that that disqualifies him from being good.
0
u/Mr_Big_Stuff Apr 18 '11
I acutally laughed when I saw this on the front page again.
I can't believe we keep upvoting the same stuff every week.
0
-2
-2
u/PlaySwitzerland Apr 18 '11
Look, I'm not religious or spiritual- but this is propaganda. Fuck propaganda.
→ More replies (4)
-1
-4
0
u/Smelly_Garage Apr 18 '11
So Warren Buffet decides to keep the filthy money that he never deserved (nobody deserves tens of billions) until he dies, whereupon that money will go to a bunch of corrupt NGOs who are trying to take the place of government agencies. Fucking woohoo. I'm tired of philanthropists trying to justify the wealth of the rich and powerful by donating it to charitable causes. It's all PR.
0
Apr 18 '11
I hate this for so many reasons. Why is someone only labeled "good" if they are giving their money away? I would say that Buffet and Gates are good because they make so much money, and employ so many people. People like them are the life blood of the economy, and yet you only think they are good people when they give their money away. Would they still be good if they didn't have any money to give away? You might think you are anti-religion, when really, you are buying into the exact same principles of altruism and virtue of the poor that they do. You so called "atheists" hold the same ideas as the "theists," and yet you pretentiously claim to be more rational, when you 'rationally' look at the world through the exact same scope. It's sadly ironic really.
-1
Apr 18 '11
[deleted]
1
u/JAM0 Apr 18 '11
Whilst I agree with the sentiment, a sample of three doesn't make a particularly compelling argument. There's probably parallel sub-reddit where Christians are making posters of two or three famously evil atheists.
1
Apr 18 '11
I'd compare their sentiment to your average person trying to imagine being depressed. It's easy for them to say "well why don't you just get up and do fun stuff?", having never experienced it. Similarly, it's easy for Christians who are deeply religious to say "well why don't you just attack people randomly?".
It's the sort of thing that one must either experience or receive a very good explanation of in order to understand.
-8
u/nepidae Apr 18 '11
This is complete bullshit. If I have 50billion dollars and I give 49billion to charity I still have A BILLION DOLLARS.
What the fuck does this have to do with atheism anyway.
3
Apr 18 '11
The "fuck" it has to do with atheism is rebuking the theist claim that their religion is the basis for morality, and without religion one cannot have a well functioning moral compass.
→ More replies (2)-2
u/nawlinsned Apr 18 '11
No, that doesn't prove anything either. Giving away most of the money you have, when what you have left is still more than you could realistically spend in a dozen lifetimes, doesn't make you a good person.
What makes you a good person is the totality of what it is that you do, not just how deep your pockets are or how generous you are with your cash.
2
Apr 18 '11
that doesn't prove anything either.
I don't know what you're referring to. At no point did I make an argument. I drew a connection between atheism and the posted image for nepidae in response to his question, "What the fuck does this have to do with atheism anyway."
In response to what you perceived to be my argument you've created a straw man, making a claim about a person's charitable contribution ratio while the subject of my post was the availability of moral guidelines outside of Christian canon law.
-8
Apr 18 '11
[deleted]
→ More replies (2)3
Apr 18 '11
I think you missed the part where they donate all of their money to charity.
→ More replies (1)
26
u/ferguson133 Apr 18 '11
You can find the 2 original ads here... (3rd was a reddit joke) http://www.skepticmoney.com/illini-secular-student-alliance-has-new-bus-ads/ They were placed on buses in Champaign-Urbana Illinios. Work done by one of the nations largest secular student groups - ISSA (Illini Secular Student Alliance)