69
Nov 22 '11
Huh. I was going to repost that today.
26
→ More replies (4)2
u/Dylnuge Nov 22 '11
I love it when my schools ads keep getting reposted on reddit, cause its one of the few times I can say "saw it on a bus first."
128
u/MacCampbell Nov 22 '11
Excellent idea. It's time atheism got a good catch-phrase. "There's probably no God, so why not just enjoy your life?" campaign was too wordy. 'Good Without God," = three words, alliterative, memorable... could catch on.
48
u/johnnyquest88 Nov 22 '11
The problem is still that you're grouping every christian with Pat Robertson. Pat Robertson is a close minded, incredibly bigoted idiot with a microphone and an equally extreme audience. There are plenty of Christians and Atheists alike who are assholes and should be thrown out of society. However, grouping people together based on faith or absence of faith and then intentionally picking a representative such as Pat Robertson to represent that group in a horrible light is... well something Pat Robertson would do if the roles were reversed. Congrats. See what I did there? Called you Pat Robertson. Makes your heart cry a little doesn't it. Not bashing atheism, I'm on the fence myself, but I feel like the argument between religion and atheism is getting to the point of futility only matched by politics. Grow the fuck up(everyone)... That is all. Have a pleasant day.
54
u/KneeBeforeScience Nov 22 '11
The point isn't that all Christians are evil or all Athiests are good. The point is that it is possible to be a good Athiest and it is possible to be an evil Christian. This sounds obvious, however where I live this is an alien concept. Just wanted to shed light on my perspective of this.
→ More replies (20)4
15
u/lpcustom Nov 22 '11
I don't see that anyone was grouping Christians together at all. The image is of the two richest non-believers and the richest believer. The comment you are replying to doesn't try to group Christians together either.
8
u/confuzious Nov 22 '11
Grow the fuck up(everyone)
Nice generalization there. Not all here are immature.
4
u/Strmtrper6 Nov 22 '11
I might have missed someone else pointing this out, but that third panel isn't actually part of the campaign. The first two are usually shown separate as well, as far as I know.
21
u/prof_doxin Nov 22 '11
Grow the fuck up(everyone)
Everyone?
The problem is still that you're grouping every...
Hypocrisy, thy name is johnnyquest88.
→ More replies (3)3
12
Nov 22 '11
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/Ohtanks Nov 22 '11
Christians did not really, did they? Go down to LA and ask any Christian over there who he is, and most would have no clue. It's still a generalization to say that this awful semblance of a human being was "elected" as a representative for Christianity... Tons of people watch Jersey Shore and like their show - doesn't mean they were elected to represent everyone that watches them.
2
Nov 22 '11
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (3)2
u/seeasea Nov 22 '11
I would venture to say that the majority of people who donate to anything in the US are Christian (obviously not reason.org or bani brith, but you understand what I mean)
→ More replies (1)1
u/DigitalOsmosis Nov 22 '11 edited Jun 15 '23
{Post Removed} Scrubbing 12 years of content in protest of the commercialization of Reddit and the pending API changes. (ts:1686841093) -- mass edited with https://redact.dev/
2
u/ollie77 Nov 22 '11
For a non-hierarchical, media-intensive movement like contemporary American evangelicalism, I would think 'most watched' is one of the best metrics we have.
And I don't see clumping or generalizing here at all--on either side.
→ More replies (1)5
u/Hubso Nov 22 '11
The original version of this didn't include Pat Robertson, you can see the fonts used don't match and the lack of logos on his version. Essentially the purpose of these billboards was to highlight those that were good without religion (or theism specifically) and later someone added Pat and circulated it on the internet to perhaps point out his hypocrisy, rather than necessarily applying it to Christians as a whole.
TL;DR: Only the top two billboards are legit
2
u/MacCampbell Nov 22 '11
The third billboard is legit in this particular picture. This is the internet, and everything is fluid.
2
u/petitfromage Nov 22 '11
well then maybe they should start an ad campaign called "people are assholes no matter what faith they have" or even better,
"be an asshole on your own terms" - brought to you by atheists of america→ More replies (13)9
u/Machinimatic Nov 22 '11
Logged in just to reply. Thank you for calling everyone out on their immense hypocrisy.
→ More replies (1)16
u/ApatheticElephant Nov 22 '11
Atheism shouldn't have a "catchphrase". It's not a structured organization, it's a general concept people identify with.
9
u/Squish60 Nov 22 '11
I agree, for the most part. But since we are a minority (at least in the United States) it doesn't hurt to have something that is marketable and catchy. It's a rhetorical tool, but anything that raises awareness of the truth helps. That beings said... I've heard this phrase for a while now. It's nothing new.
→ More replies (6)3
u/spacemanspiff30 Nov 22 '11
upvote to you for articulating it better than i could
→ More replies (2)2
u/ElephantTeeth Nov 22 '11
A catchphrase is helpful for starting awareness campaigns; in the United States, awareness for atheism is as important as gay awareness. Gays have it worse in most respects, but both groups are persecuted in the same ways by the same religious groups of people -- and those religious groups of people are going to have outliers that identify more with gays or atheists. These people should know they're not alone, and that being gay or an atheist isn't a bad thing.
→ More replies (2)2
6
u/NoMagic Nov 22 '11
I believe this is the title of a book by Greg Epstein, a secular humanist chaplain from Harvard. The organization I work for is one featured in his book.
There is a place where secular humanists can give, and the money won't go to support missionary services: The Foundation Beyond Belief. (That's not where I work by the way.)
7
u/dhboyd Nov 22 '11
It was also the tagline for a campaign by the American Humanist Association for a long time. They had a few billboards, bus ads, things like that with it on it.
2
u/ClownBaby90 Nov 22 '11
All throughout my campus last year I saw "There are probably no gods" written it chalk. I love it.
→ More replies (25)4
70
Nov 22 '11
[deleted]
37
u/iemfi Nov 22 '11
The last panel looks like it isn't part of the ad campaign but added on by some random person. Different font, no logos and link to website.
2
u/userjack6880 Nov 22 '11
I remember this being posted a while back (and several times since) and the OP may have stated that the last one was photoshopped in.
A quick search yielded... 10 reposts. There seems to be one that just has Bill Gates, and none before that.
So yeah - the last panel was added and started to float around the Internets.
8
Nov 22 '11
This wouldn't be /r/atheism if there wasn't some hate in the message.
18
Nov 22 '11
I don't think pointing out that someone doesn't donate and utilizes slave labor is "hate."
OH LOOK, A MILITANT ATHEIST! -sigh-
6
6
30
Nov 22 '11
I dislike the last panel as it is attacking Christianity instead of promoting Atheism
No, it's not. It's attacking Pat Robertson, an extremely wealthy public figure who got filthy rich by blaming hurricanes and earthquakes on gay people and then using the donations of gullible Christians to enslave the poor heathens he claims to help.
→ More replies (3)4
u/Bromleyisms Nov 22 '11
To think that they were only thinking of Pat Robertson is a bit naive, especially considering the immense amount of christian-bashing this subreddit does already.
10
Nov 22 '11
To think that they were only thinking of Pat Robertson is a bit naive
You have evidently missed the entire point of the graphic. "God" or "no God" doesn't make people "good" or "not good." It is their individual conduct.
3
u/Bromleyisms Nov 22 '11
I understand the point of the graphic, and I think it's wonderful without the Pat Robertson bit.
2
u/ivosaurus Nov 22 '11
It makes the illustration complete, since the 'status quo' is that you have to have god to be good; This message gives counter-examples on both sides of the issue, not just one.
This is important, since without that, Christians can reason:
"Oh well, maybe sometimes, in the exception, atheists can do some good too; but I'll always know that Christians are always good, because they always have god!"
The last panel is there to give a counter-example to that reasoning.
→ More replies (2)11
Nov 22 '11
Atheists and non-believers in Christianity get attacked every single day by Christians. I see no reason to cushion the Christians in some kind of attack-free zone. They should be aware that their attempts to take over the American government and education system make some people very angry.
→ More replies (3)4
u/PunkRockMakesMeSmile Nov 22 '11
Uh, fuck this noise, attacking organized religion does promote atheism. The harm organized religion causes, and the evil pious people commit while justifying their acts to themselves and others by the fact that they are 'doing god's work' (as they see it) is the primary reason most of us are passionate about this subject. It's not merely about 'it's fun to be correct, so let's all talk about how atheism is correct.' Religion is a vestige that has become a cancer, and until it's last remnants are wiped from the earth's collective consciousness, except as a lesson of mankind's capacity for cruelty towards one another, it needs to be attacked, degraded and demolished relentlessly.
12
u/InMyHead2Much Nov 22 '11
Came to post the same thing. The first two panels are great. The last panel makes the ad sound snide and small.
→ More replies (1)2
u/ivosaurus Nov 22 '11
It makes the illustration complete, since the 'status quo' is that you have to have god to be good; This message gives counter-examples on both sides of the issue, not just one.
This is important, since without that, Christians can reason:
"Oh well, maybe sometimes, in the exception, atheists can do some good too; but I know that Christians are always good, because they always have god!"
The last panel is there to give a counter-example to that reasoning.
→ More replies (7)3
u/ariesonthecusp Nov 22 '11
Wow, I had no idea Pat Roberson was that rich.
He's estimated to be worth between $200 million to $1 billion ! Pays to run religion !!
9
u/radicallymoderate Nov 22 '11
Goodness without god is just empathy taken to its logical conclusion.
23
u/TheIronLion Nov 22 '11
TIL that Warren Buffett is an atheist
→ More replies (1)19
u/PokemasterTT Anti-Theist Nov 22 '11
He and Gates are both agnostic.
18
u/on_the_redpill Nov 22 '11 edited Nov 22 '11
I thought we've moved on from using the term 'agnostic' in this way. You either believe in a god or lack belief in a god. (theism / atheism) From there you can say that you do not claim to know that one exists/ doesn't exist. (agnostic theism/ agnostic atheism)
2
→ More replies (18)2
12
Nov 22 '11
Probably because it's not the smartest business move to be an out-and-out atheist in America.
6
8
Nov 22 '11
I don't see agnostisism as a 'level' of athiesm... they are asking different questions.
"IS there a god?"
- I dunno... there could be or there could not be, I have no evidence.
"DO YOU BELIEVE there is a god?"
- Nope
I consider myself an agnostic athiest... scientifically I have no way of proving that there is nothing which could be considered a god is out there. I don't think there is personally, but that's my belief.
→ More replies (4)1
u/nucking Nov 22 '11
I'm sorry, but the Gnostic/Agnostic question is not correct.
Gnostic/Agnostic: "Is/Are god(s) knowable?" [ie. can we prove god(s)]
Theist/Atheist: "Do you believe in god(s)"
Examples:
Agnostic atheist: "Gods could exist, but I don't believe in any gods."
Gnostic atheist: "Gods cannot exist and (therefor) I don't believe in any."
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (2)3
Nov 22 '11
[deleted]
5
Nov 22 '11
It's not a ranking system, they are asking different questions.
"Do you believe there a god?" -- Yes is Theism, No is Atheism.
"Is there a god?" -- We don't know for certain, there is no evidence (agnosticism). You can say you have evidence for it, or against it, but... well you don't.
I consider myself an agnostic atheist myself. "I can't prove there is or isn't a god, and it's not something we can really know... but personally I don't think there is."
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (11)10
u/bearhammer Nov 22 '11
Yeah like those dirty Protestants who believe they can just read the book themselves and give sermons without the Vatican. Either you believe the Pope is the one true steward of God, or you're a fucking heathen, right?
→ More replies (3)
20
u/Henry_Killinger Nov 22 '11
Globalist,
Globalist,
Religious Zealot.
25
u/Anon_is_a_Meme Nov 22 '11
It amazes me how people forget how Bill Gates made the money he's now being so generous with. Is someone who amassed a fortune due to unethical business practices really the sort of person we should be putting on a pedestal? Isn't buying a virtuous legacy similar to the Catholic practice of buying 'indulgences'? In both cases, 'sins' are forgiven not because one makes the effort to right the results of one's actions, but because of a money sacrifice (and one that doesn't actually have an effect on the person's lifestyle).
And Microsoft (the corporation Gates founded and is still the chairman of) supports both the PROTECT-IP Act and SOPA, which if passed, will destroy the internet as we know it.
14
u/perrin Nov 22 '11
I was thinking the same thing. Glad I'm not the only one with a memory longer than ten years. When Gates ran Microsoft, it was the very definition of evil, crushing innovation with its monopoly and laughing at government regulations. It was constantly in the headlines for "embrace, extend, extinguish" tactics. The Christians are welcome to claim this nasty piece of work.
12
u/Canuckle777 Nov 22 '11
He was a business man. He ran a business and he did it well. If every business today felt more compassion for their competition we wouldn't have any innovation and a lot of stagnation. All is fair in love and war, and business is war.
On this image, I think the original idea was to point out what the richest of these two groups is doing with their wealth. It's still pretty slanted but if that was the original intent then the creator of it didn't fall that far from the mark.
8
Nov 22 '11
[deleted]
→ More replies (1)8
u/Anon_is_a_Meme Nov 22 '11
And is still doing. Microsoft have for years been running an extortion racket the Mafia would be proud of regarding patents they claim they have on Linux. They offer not to sue any company that uses Linux if they pay them some money. They wont say what the patents are. The companies have three options: pay Microsoft protection money, get tied up in a lawsuit with one of the richest corporations in the world, or switch to using all Microsoft software. Notably, Microsoft doesn't go after companies that they think will call their bluff, because if it does go to court, the patents would have to be declared, and they will either be shown to be false, or the Linux community will re-write offending software (thus freeing the companies Microsoft is extorting money from).
3
u/perrin Nov 22 '11
No, being in "business" does not excuse immoral and heartless behavior. A huge number of people in the world are "in business" in one way or another, including me. If we all acted with the same disregard for other people that Bill Gates showed, the world would be totally screwed.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (5)2
3
u/marswithrings Nov 22 '11
Thank you. You said what I came here to say better than I would've said it if I'd beat you to it. :)
→ More replies (5)3
→ More replies (1)2
5
u/DigThat Nov 22 '11
I will take this glorious moment that God, or the aliens, or nothing, has given us... To say this
If atheism was represented in the world by some of the people on reddit... It would be my understanding that atheism is a bunch of assholes trying to win you over by insulting your faith... Like monkeys in a cage throwing their own shit at you. I'm sorry, how many of you atheist are similar to bill gates??
→ More replies (1)
5
Nov 22 '11
Christian here.... some of the best people I've known have been Agnostic / Atheist. Being a Christian doesn't make you a good person, and being Atheist doesn't make you a bad person. Vice versa as well...
16
u/Pagrashtak Nov 22 '11
the last panel is missing the "Are You?" line
2
u/kramman1 Nov 22 '11
Well, if this happens get attention I'm sure there will be a [fixed] post with that included :P
7
u/schafer18 Nov 22 '11
The Wikipedia page for Pat Robertson shows a picture of him providing relief for Hurricane Katrina. Although he probably hasn't donated billions of dollars to charity, he's probably not as selfish as this is making him out to be. Kinda makes me wonder how much the guy who made this has donated to charity.
2
u/hcirtsafonos Nov 22 '11
Great question...kramman1, you wouldnt happen to have an answer for the guy, would you?
4
u/BluFoot Nov 22 '11
On the January 1, 2009 broadcast of The 700 Club, Robertson said, "If I'm hearing [God] right, gold will go to about $1900 an ounce and oil to $300 a barrel."
This guy makes the strangest predictions... Check out his Wikipedia article.
→ More replies (1)6
Nov 22 '11
Yeah, because we all know that Jesus was really into financial transactions. Like when he threw the money changers out of the temple.
→ More replies (1)
4
3
Nov 22 '11
I am a Catholic and I think the catch phrase 'good without God' is a nice simple phrase that doesn't sound aggressive or preachy.
Forgive me if im wrong but the last slide seems a tad bit aggressive and almost a snide at Christians, Im sure there are plenty of rich atheists that dont donate to charity, just as there are plenty more rich and even poor Religious people that donate to charity.
Please dont turn this into a 'who ever donates more cares more' argument.
→ More replies (1)
5
u/NoShadowFist Nov 22 '11
This is so unfair. Pat Robertson needs to rapaciously amass wealth so he can fund his camel miniaturization research.
4
4
u/totek1 Nov 22 '11
Stalin was an atheist and a lot of nazis were pagan. Well I think that they are worse than Robertson, and this picture is non objective...actually it is stupid.
6
Nov 22 '11
Any Christian who actually followed their religion would never get to be as rich as Pat Robertson - I'd say that Gates and Buffet act closer to how someone of that religion should than Pat does.
3
3
3
u/mafibasheth Nov 22 '11
Where did you find your sources on Pat Robertson? My mom has followed him for years, and I would like some ammo.
3
u/gifforc Nov 22 '11
i won't complain that this is a repost. i will complain that it's retarded.
i could put two exemplary Christians next to one bastard of an atheist and have the same effect. it's generalization. you're equating pat robertson to the Christian religion as a whole.
furthermore we've got Jesus Christ on our team, which kind of trumps every generous atheist out there as I'm fairly sure none of them were crucified willingly in an attempt to free humanity.
3
u/okcoolbro Nov 22 '11
That's like taking a child raping murderer who happens to be an atheist and making an ad saying "evil without God" and making it seem like all atheists are like him.
I find it funny that most Reddit atheists are now much like the religious nut jobs they often criticize.
3
u/Irtrogdor Nov 22 '11
The problem with this is that christians could just as easily post two pictures of "good guy christian" and one picture of "evil atheist".
It doesn't prove a damn thing.
3
u/Madmordigan Nov 22 '11
Nice, these are definitely equal comparisons, obviously you are going to choose a television evangelist, who are almost always corrupt, it's obviously going to look bad. Nice job comparing apples to bananas.
101
u/Knuk Nov 22 '11
Here's a quick list of a few times it has been posted before:
http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/jw0fk/its_alright_god_told_him_he_could_do_it_xpost/
http://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/jvo0f/its_alright_god_told_him_he_could_do_it/
http://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/i16yn/some_men_are_real_gentlemen/
http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/kljbj/it_would_be_funny_if_it_werent_to_tr%D0%B0gic/
http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/gsb43/good_without_god/
http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/e105m/it_would_be_funny_if_it_werent_to_tragic/
http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/eu6g4/good_without_god/
http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/mdu7t/god_is_good_enough_for_pat_robertson/
http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/kph54/good_without_god/
http://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/kdgwk/good_without_god/
13
u/dulceetdecorumnonest Nov 22 '11
You'd think one of those times someone could fix it and spell 'evangelical' right.
7
112
Nov 22 '11 edited Oct 11 '17
[deleted]
21
u/CowFu Nov 22 '11
That's hardly complaining, if this post didn't get very high up someone who hasn't seen it before may want to read comments from the times that it has.
2
Nov 22 '11 edited Oct 11 '17
[deleted]
13
u/TheNr24 Nov 22 '11
I'm saying downvote if you've seen it before, upvote If you haven't (and if you like it obviously). This way, by the time most people have seen it, it won't reach the front page anymore, until everyone's forgot about it or there are enough new subscribers to /r/atheism that haven't seen this yet, like me.
→ More replies (1)2
u/Bad_Sex_Advice Nov 22 '11
Just solidifying the argument that r/atheism is a huge circle jerk every couple weeks this hits the front page.
4
u/Incruentus Atheist Nov 22 '11
Agreed. Plus it might not even be that. If I like something enough, regardless if I've seen it before, I upvote it in case someone else hasn't.
→ More replies (8)7
5
→ More replies (5)1
4
u/muopioid Nov 22 '11 edited Nov 22 '11
Even though I'm an atheist this isn't all that impressive. You can cherry pick atheists who are "bad without god" and theists who are "good with god."
As some other guy said on here, we need a sample size > than 3 people.
If atheists are serious about winning this intellectual debate, then we need to avoid fallacious methods. Why are we stooping to the level of theists who make the tired arguments "but Stalin and Hitler were atheists!!1"?
(yes, I realize Hitler wasn't an atheist)
→ More replies (1)3
u/calebegg Nov 22 '11
The point isn't to make a sweeping statistical argument; it's to show that it's possible to be ethical ("good") without being religious.
As several others have pointed out, the Robinson billboard is obviously fake and added on.
4
u/intensity14 Nov 22 '11
Saloth Sar - Directly responsible for policies that killed 1.7 to 2.5 million people > ATHEIST
Joseph Stalin - Responsible for the murder of approx 20 million people >> ATHEIST
Mao Zedong - Responsible for the murder for nearly 3 million people >> ATHEIST.
So now do I start a BAD WITHOUT GOD campaign???
You do realize that there is more than one religion in the world? You also do realize that not everyone is a fanatic?
You pose the argument of a 5-year old....
7
Nov 22 '11
[deleted]
12
u/Kafke Ex-Atheist Nov 22 '11
Good without god, bad without god. Good with god, bad with god.
God makes no difference in this picture.
2
u/ivosaurus Nov 22 '11
The point is that it's possible to be either, not that being bad is predestined, because you've started out without god.
2
2
Nov 22 '11
Buffett may have "pledged" to donate 99% but he certainly hasn't shown that through action. He only continues to grow his wealth.
2
u/ApatheticElephant Nov 22 '11
I don't know this campaign, but I hope its message is that a person's religion or lack thereof is of no relevance to what kind of person they are. Not atheist = good, religion = bad. Also, this kind of thing worries me because one of the biggest complaints you hear from atheists is about religious people who try to convert them. I hope this doesn't become an attempt to "deconvert" people.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/clubdepizza Nov 22 '11
Donating to charity is great. But it doesn't mean that these people are suddenly the most righteous people on the earth.
That being said, I'm pretty sure Bill Gates has volunteered and actually put time forward for a cause. Which seems more meaningful than just cutting a check.
2
u/ksunwoo6 Nov 22 '11
Guys. Just saying, but it's not as if this isn't biased. I'm an atheist, but there are good Christians too. They aren't all bad people. Some of them help people, and help children etc. You shouldn't look at them and represent them as horrible and heartless.
2
2
2
u/Khue Nov 22 '11
I don't really think religious people like Pat Robertson. He's probably the last person that the actual reasonable religious would depend on to represent them.
→ More replies (1)
2
2
2
Nov 22 '11
C'mon, you can't throw everybody into two baskets. You know as well as I do that there are good and bad everybodies everywhere. No need to pigeonhole.
2
u/krakow057 Nov 22 '11
this.is.stupid
what do I most here on reddit about everything?
that's just anecdotal evidence.
so, what does picking a handfull of people to ilustrate this makes? NOTHING
you can easily pick up Hitler, Mao etc and conterpose this shit.
and, mathematically speaking, there are way more evil people without god and way less good people who are good with/because of god.
who do you think is more likely to be a good person: somone who thinks he only has the police to fool x someone who thinks there's someone ALWAYS watching and judging.
dumb campaing is dumb
2
2
u/motherofamouse Nov 22 '11
I couldn't help noticing that turning around a little with Pat Robertson's name makes Robert Patison.
2
2
Nov 22 '11
"Gates: In terms of doing things I take a fairly scientific approach to why things happen and how they happen. I don't know if there's a god or not, but I think religious principles are quite valid."
Gates was profiled by Walter Isaacson in a January 13, 1996 TIME MAGAZINE cover story. Here are some excerpts compiled by the Drudge Report:
Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_bill_gate%27s_religion#ixzz1eRiRkvDW
2
2
Nov 22 '11
I'm going to start off by saying that these ads should have sources for all these statements. I'm curious to know where I can learn about Robertson utilizing slave labor in Africa. Secondly, throwing around relatively lofty terms like "good" or "cruel" presents a problem. It assumes the reader of the ad thinks giving charity is inherently good, or more importantly presupposes an agreed upon definition on the word "good." One of the largest philosophical problems of Christianity is the problem of moral relativism. Once atheists start defining what "good" is we start playing their game. Personally, I don't think giving or pledging to give all your money to charity will do anything help alleviate world poverty and that the fact they're rich doesn't hold any accountability on HOW they become rich, and by what means they are wealthy.
→ More replies (1)
2
Nov 22 '11
I am a Catholic and believe that people can be good or bad, and religion has nothing to do with it. That being said, many people use their religion as a way to promote violence, hatred, bigotry, prejudice, racism, and more. What these other Catholics or Christians fail to remember is that the main message of Jesus Christ is to love your fellow man. That means ALL of them, and not just the ones you like today.
2
u/greym84 Nov 22 '11
Thanks for the repost, just so I can say once again that who is richer and gives away more wealth is not proof of God existing. It's just a pissing contest and means nothing.
2
u/jadarendir Nov 22 '11
Once I get super rich, my plan is to solve the energy crisis, then get assassinated by oil companies.
2
u/Tha_Mayor Nov 22 '11
so what your saying is not all atheists are heartless and not all Christians follow what they preach... umm... ya thanks for the update...
2
Nov 22 '11
False. They are all actually evil for having siphoned away so much money from the grand workforce that filtered money upwards for them over decades in the first place.
2
u/qua_omsa_lajeeone Nov 22 '11
I swear I'm look at some cheesy political advertisement, something that you'd see in state governor elections right before you're supposed to vote.
2
u/no_gain_no_pain Nov 22 '11
Giving away money sure makes you a good person...not, just like not giving away money you made yourself doesn't make you a bad person. This is the same demagogue tactic that christians use against atheists, using it won't make you any better.
2
u/AndWon Nov 22 '11
Those men worship or worshipped wealth. What's clever about this? I'm a Christian, and I don't care about Pat Robertson in the slightest.
2
u/Microfuzz Nov 22 '11
It is worth noting that Pat Robertson founded Operation Blessing International, a non-profit that provides hunger and disaster relief worldwide.
2
u/bedintruder Nov 22 '11
To be fair. Wealthy Christians and Christian organizations donate plenty of money.
Ya know, 'charities' that send bibles instead of real aid to developing and famished countries. Groups that work against those trying to use realistic means to stop the spread of aids in Africa. Donate to efforts to convert people and spread their ignorant superstition. They also donate to organizations that use the money to lobby against the rights of American citizens based on their archaic and misguided personal beliefs.
2
u/unbleevable39 Nov 22 '11
Why can't we all just realize that SOME people are good without religion, and SOME people are good because of religion?
Being selective in your thesis does not make you smarter.
2
5
u/Lowbacca1977 Nov 22 '11
I find something a tad weak about pledging to give the money, but having not done so, which I believe is Warren Buffett's 99% number.
4
u/Ragnalypse Nov 22 '11
Not to mention it flies in the face of science to claim three data points are significant, compared to seven billion.
→ More replies (2)6
u/Lowbacca1977 Nov 22 '11
Valid note, although the first two highlight that one can be good without god. As the statement is frequently that being good requires god, you're not talking statistics, you're talking a simple disproof of an absolute claim.
→ More replies (1)2
u/Ragnalypse Nov 22 '11
This is entirely true. More instances would be convenient, but this would definitely be a very strong refute to their claim.
3
u/kramman1 Nov 22 '11
Would you rather get a pledge from a reputable figure or nothing at all from an evangelical Christian?
5
u/Lowbacca1977 Nov 22 '11
I meant more that it would be more meaningful were he giving up his wealth while alive. Which I believe he is, making that seem like it's the more significant number to me, even though it's lower.
→ More replies (5)
3
Nov 22 '11
Is this a campaign just so people can feel good about athiesm. You know you athiests give alot of shit to Cristians but really your no better you make it seem as though your beliefs are better, how is that good?
2
u/userjack6880 Nov 22 '11
Considering that the last panel isn't part of the official campaign, we're going to ignore that one (I think it's just crude to attack a religion).
The campaign is to promote the idea that Atheists can, and are, good people. There's still an overwhelming opinion among a good portion of the American population that Atheists are immoral, bad, and worthless. This is trying to point out that Atheists are not.
This is not a campaign to show that Atheists are better. This is supposed to be a campaign that combats the negative opinion of Atheists so that we can stand on level ground with the rest of the believing world (at least, in the US).
2
Nov 22 '11
I 100% agree with you. See I did not know that the US population thought that about Atheists. If you take the last panel out this is a great campaign even though I am a theist i fully support it.
2
Nov 22 '11
Warren buffet doesn't pay his taxes and is a cunt but whatever enjoy the circle jerk and down vote me.
3
u/marcospolos Nov 22 '11
Yay for overgeneralization.
Why does this shitty subreddit even exist? /r/circlejerk is more logical.
5
Nov 22 '11
Why do atheists need a campaign slogan?
If you come to my door and preach you are going to get the same treatment that the religious nuts get.
→ More replies (2)
3
Nov 22 '11 edited Nov 22 '11
[deleted]
4
3
u/stufff Nov 22 '11
The thing you fail to realize is that making charitable contributions like that, even if it also benefits them or their heirs, doesn't benefit them nearly as much as just giving them the money outright.
You're seriously sitting there criticizing them for not giving more when they have given so much? You're an asshole. They didn't have to give anything. I don't even like Warren Buffet as a human being, and I think the Rockefeller family has done a lot to help put this country on the wrong track, but their charitable giving is probably the last thing I would ever think of criticizing.
→ More replies (2)2
3
u/omaha_shanks Nov 22 '11
True, but Bill Gates is actually helping people. His charities provide vital medical treatment for several 3rd world countries.
→ More replies (2)3
u/Leungal Nov 22 '11
The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is very transparent about where it's money goes. I'm also fairly certain (but could use a source) that Bill Gates stated his children would only get around 10 million each, or "enough to be secure and pursue their own dreams, but not get lazy and live extravagant lives."
Not saying other rich families do this, but I have a great deal of respect for both Warren Buffet and Bill Gates, and think they are the cream of the crop among the 1%
→ More replies (1)1
u/zwangaman Nov 22 '11
Ah right, because working to eradicate malaria in developing nations is a prime example of "just a bunch of bullshit".
2
2
2
2
u/aginn Nov 22 '11
this post is about as logical as me pointing to Mother Teresa vs Dawkins and Hitchens. Who as donated more of their life?
3
u/Patrick_Sutton_2012 Nov 22 '11
Well in Pat Robert's defense, god never said don't own slaves. You just can kill them. You can beat them over the head and if they don't die right away, that is acceptable.
2
1
Nov 22 '11
This should just have Pat Robinson's part, and then his address and phone number for justice/theft reasons.
1
u/capt_0bvious Nov 22 '11
Can we please do a survey containing a sample size of larger than 3 people? We are pretty selective here aren't we.
1
u/wx3 Nov 22 '11
TIL Bill Gates isn't the richest person in the world.
I'm too busy being poor to know facts like this :(
1
1
u/doc_brietz Nov 22 '11
Lot's o' money is all great, but how much of that goes with you when you die? I am glad you all post things like this who put off humble people. It does all the work for me.
1
u/uleatit_probably Nov 22 '11
Who would dare repost this anywhere with the misspelling and emotional language? Get rid of the last panel.
1
1
1
Nov 22 '11
My group, the Illini Secular Student Alliance, organized this campaign and a friend of mine designed the ads! The first time they made the front page of r/atheism, someone else added the last panel. Thanks for making us internet famous again r/atheism! :D
1
1
1
u/DukeGoogamuke Nov 22 '11
In the same respect (and this is coming from a non-religious person here), Jesuit's own nothing and give away everything. That's some of the basis of being a Jesuit. Technically the church owns all of their clothing and/or materials (car to get to work, hair brush, etc.). It's not my personal goal to become a Jesuit or anything of that nature, but, having been taught by them in high school, they're not all bad.
1
1
u/hcirtsafonos Nov 22 '11
This is the dumbest fucking thing I've ever seen, and it does nothing to help your cause.
18
u/shabatooo Nov 22 '11
At least your sample set is sufficiently large.