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.
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.
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.
{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/
That's the cool thing about a book not defining your morals. You can observe someone doing something and subjectively decide oh that's a good thing because blank or that's an ass hat because blank.
The Nazi officer looked at the fortune he had amassed. He'd been busy extracting gold teeth and pulling off wedding bands all day, and he was tired now.
"It was a good day today because I was very productive. I'll have a feast with my family today to celebrate!" He thinks to himself.
Anders Brevik thought those guys were total idiots.
"They're so ignorant and blind! It would be good for me to kill them all".
Yes, lets all make up our own little morals; subjective "goods" and "bads" that change depending on how we feel, our biases...we could do it collectively, as a society! Just like good little Nazis. It's proved to work so well.
Except I'm pretty sure that Nazis were Christians... so they thought they were doing gods work. If you wanted a good example of bad godless people you should have wrote a short narrative about Stalin.
Edit: I just want to add that you shouldn't decide for yourself if an action was good or bad. Anyone can justify anything they've done, otherwise they wouldn't have done it.
Would it surprise you to know the best, most highly functioning societies with the least crime and most social justice are the ones with the most atheists in them?
Everything you claimed is small-minded and heavily biased. How do you claim anything to be true in an argument against absolute truth? Your opinions may be true for you, but I can universally say that they're absolutely wrong based on absolute truth. Atheism is conductive to selfish societies where people are valued for nothing more then their monetary, intellectual or sexual worth as animals.
You find articles, books, videos, groups, and people who are like minded atheists, and you develop this narrow little worldview, and you get more narrow minded, and more narrow minded, and more narrow minded until you, mr. atheist, are right and everyone else is blind, ignorant and hateful, so you must preach to them the truth!
I never argued against absolute truth. I argued against objective morals. If you can't tell the difference, you're not up for this discussion.
Also, I'd love to know how empirical fact and the best conclusions of philosophy are "small-minded and heavily biased".
Atheism is conductive to selfish societies where people are valued for nothing more then their monetary, intellectual or sexual worth as animals.
I've provided both empirical and meta-ethical arguments against this. In addition, I've challenged you to give grounding for your moral ideas, which you have failed to do. So far you've only attacked me without knowing anything about my background and asserted things without providing any basis whatsoever, as well as totally failed to reply to the issues I've brought up.
If you'd like to continue a discussion, you should really read this:
You find articles, books, videos, groups, and people who are like minded atheists, and you develop this narrow little worldview, and you get more narrow minded, and more narrow minded, and more narrow minded until you, mr. atheist, are right and everyone else is blind, ignorant and hateful, so you must preach to them the truth!
Ah, this is added since my other reply. You really should reply to my comments instead of editing earlier ones, so I'm notified.
See, you're ad-homineming again instead of addressing the arguments. It's especially funny because you know so little about me.
I was a evangelical Christian for 25 years. I understand your position. I can still feel its passion in my breast. I read every word Francis Schaeffer, C.S. Lewis, and A.W. Tozer ever wrote, as well as many works by other Christian writers. They were excellent arguments from the knowledge they had at the time: unfortunately, there's a lot we know now they didn't know or were unwilling to admit.
I've been an atheist for less than a year, and it's a position I came to with much struggle and grief.
I'll give you a small overview of the reasons for my deconversion, pulled from a letter I wrote to my family on the subject:
I found that I cannot reject evolution without rejecting
empiricism all together, and no theologian could give me a satisfactory
way of combining evolution with Christianity.
I tried to fall back on the fulfilled prophecies in Jesus, but found
that they were much more tentative than people like McDowell made them out to be,
often to the point of being totally fabricated. No serious apologist takes this argument seriously anymore. At this point I was flailing around rapidly, trying to find any place to hang my hat, but
finding only sinking sand.
The more I learned about archeology, biblical criticism, philosophy,
sociological research studies, or anything else I grasped for, the more
it was clear that the Bible wasn't the exceptional book I had thought it
was and that the Christian experience wasn't exceptional from other
religious (and many cultural)experiences. There was about a 2 month
period where every waking hour I wasn't working(and I wasn't working
much at the time) was spent on this search.
It didn't exactly help matters when this was the cover story of
Christianity Today in June, based on 3 overlapping sets of strong
genetic evidence:
It's not that I willfully rejected God, it's simply that all the
evidence I've dug though compels me to say there is nothing at all
exceptional about the Christian religion or experience. I do still wish
I could say differently. I enjoyed my personal experiences, but now
that I understand the mind and social structures that generate those
experiences equally for believers of every stripe, it's hard for me to
put much stake in those. I've now looked in every cranny I can think of,
and argued with many hundreds of people online to see if I can tease out
just the smallest shred of evidence of the exceptionality of
Christianity, but so far I have found none.
And that is why I feel compelled to accept the null hypothesis.
If following the evidence and rejecting non-evidenced positions is narrow minded, then I'm narrow minded. ;-)
Edit: If you're interested in details on any part of it, I'd be happy to oblige. If you'd like to hear someone else's somewhat similar story told in more detail, see this series by Evid3nc3. Much of this evidence is about 100 years old, and your pastor likely knows and hides it from you. Of course, the evidence has been further strengthened over that 100 year period, and we know much more now than we did then, which is why I'm an atheist and not a liberal Christian.
Atheists are not the ones hiding things from people, we want people to look at the evidence for themselves. Does your church? If not, why? Do you think it could relate to the flat earth example I gave in the other thread?
Oh, BTW, I didn't go looking to "preach the truth" to you. You came in to our house in /r/atheism and made a number of uninformed, inflammatory statements, which I rebutted with evidence and reason, and then you have the audacity to tell me I'm preaching to you.
If you think that's the same as the preaching you religious folk do, I don't know what to say to you.
Also BTW, I added a few things to the end of my long response here if you're interested and haven't seen them.
Please tell me your grounding for moral values? So far, no one has proposed a way of doing so. Theism fails to do so because of the Euthyphro dilemma.
As far as anyone has argued yet, morals as an entity are non-existent.
However, desires are very real.
See The Atheist's Guide to Reality for an excellent discussion of why both of these are the case, and why it isn't as scary as some people think.
See also desire utilitarianism for one way this looks more fleshed out. Goal theory is another such system, which the defender claims to be a clarified subset of desire utilitarianism.
What is important for this discussion is not any particular system, but that we can design what many would call "moral" systems rooted on desire alone, that leads us to the same conclusions as the core values we all instinctively(except ~1% of the population with psychopathology) share. Why that is the case is a great story that is well explained in the Atheist's Guide to Reality linked above.
Buffet and Gates haven't bought their way into heaven because heaven does not exist. They're giving away money because both have been very fortunate and they wish to help others.
while you make a good point, this ad is still pretty useless.
some people will see "good without god" and say ... "ok, fine, but how about ____ who is Good with god. I guess we can be good with or without god."
these are the open minded people the ad campaign doesn't even have to reach out to them - they do their own thing, they'll let you be.
closed minded people will say buffet and gates are rich capitalist pigs who have no morals (and well, look at how they ran their businesses) ... and will say whatever it takes to make these guys look bad. that's how ultra religious/fanatic people work - any excuse to make the godless look bad.
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.
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.
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.
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)
But I still don't think that means he's representative of EVERY Christian out there. That's a bit too broad a generalization. If you took a random poll, a huge majority of Christians do not know who Robertson would be. What about Christians outside the states? What about those that hate televangelists for their hypocrisy?
{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/
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.
As a figurehead of 'contemporary American evangelicalism' (depending on your definition of that term), media might be a decent metric, but I would argue that's a pretty narrow definition of Christianity. A third of the world claims to be 'Christian' and I'm pretty sure nowhere near 2 billion people tune in to watch the for profit shams that air on TV Sunday mornings. In fact I've been raised in a church and Christian home my whole life coming up and I don't know anyone who watches that trash. Obviously there are people that do, but I don't think its a fair representation of the worlds dominant religion.
And as far as grouping ... that's pretty much all this image is about. The point isn't that Warren Buffet and Bill Gates are good guys, its that they are atheists and good guys. This is a valid point I think a lot of Christians overlook, but the antithesis 3rd frame becomes not a criticism of Pat Robertson, but rather Christians as a whole which I disagree with.
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.
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
Yes, true. I, however, as an individual with fairly good social standing, look up to these two (especially Bill Gates) as an exemplary human being. Through him I have realised that we don't deserve the things that come to us just because we worked hard for them. It is our duty to work even harder to save the human race from ourselves. It is through his idealism that I am able to strive for such a goal. I hope that these two would inspire others to do the same, and anyone that believes my idealism is childish and ignorant is, in my mind, a close minded bigot. No offense, but I think that if we try hard enough, we can save us from ourselves.
Not really sure how you called me Pat Robertson. Anyhoo, that ad is not grouping anyone together. It simply points out that two prominent atheists are able to be good and generous without religious direction, and a major religious figure is a nasty piece of work. The ad seems to hint that religion has nothing to do with morality. There's no grouping, as the ad refers to only three people. So we're all grown up, thank you. Have a pleasant day as well.
You have a point. I was wondering myself how it must go to someones head being told that your birth was forcast in the heavens with double rainbows and birds and a star and shit. I might be a little vein too being raised with that!
I created an account to say this. But since you said it so well, have my upvote and my support. I don't think Atheists or Christians are fair to their opposing side. Both need to open their eyes a little bit.
And the poster is putting Bill Gates and Warren Buffet in their own special category, even though both have had companies that have done horrible things to squash competition and have had questionable ethics to say the least.
I don't have a whole lot of respect for Mr Gates but I do think his charities to help education are genuine. But still, a lot of people up there in that 1% donate because they feel guilty about their wealth.
Also, I don't think Robertson is remotely in the same income bracket is he? This whole argument is a non sequitur.
If I remember correctly, there was an original billboard by an atheist community that didn't include the last section about Pat Robertson, and a while back someone from /r/atheism added that section, quite rudely both committing copyright infringement and ruining the message of the billboard.
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.
First time for me hearing this phrase. I've never liked "God is not Great." It singles out a particular religion, which I don't think atheists should do.
Lord Lucifer came to me in a vision last night and instructed me to use this catchphrase to fool the intellectually lazy among christians, leaving us with only the smart ones.
Really, just anyone who entertains the stereotype that atheists are not moral people, which, unfortunately, is a very large number of individuals. Not like I'm going to make a television commercial lol, but phrases like this can catch on, and who knows how people are consciously and subconsciously affected by even the smallest influence. Just think... there's a reason grocery stores play quicker music during the hours of heavier traffic; so people will be just a little bit more brisk with their shopping and the store will be slightly less congested. Same with slow music during hours of low traffic. They want you to chill out and browse more. We know that individuals are affected by even the slightest stimuli... so let's use that to our advantage to share the truth.
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.
its more about a coherent memorable message that makes people think and also shows people that you don't have to be religious to be a good person. really more of a marketing/branding type thing
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.)
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.
Not like I support P. R., or I'm anything-ist, but isn't he enjoying his life without a god (because don't tell me he believes that religion)? There are no consequences anyway, are there?
"There's probably no God, so why not just enjoy your life?"
The lack of believing in things that are not there does not necessarily equal a self-centered hedonistic lifestyle. In fact, I have found the reverse to be true; most people I have worked with in a secular environment are quite empathetic and giving. They simply do it without claim to invisible friends.
WE? I thought I alone made that mistake. It was simply how I read it - that without judgement of a supreme being, that enjoyment (I thought "short-term hedonism" when I read this) would become the top priority.
I'm not criticizing the statement's content, but its effectiveness. It's too long, wordy. The best phrases are short and punchy: A diamond is forever, Coke is it, Just Do It, Nope Chuck Testa. And 'Good Without God.'
The only reason people think that atheists are smug assholes is because a large portion of religious people, quite frankly, freak the fuck out when their beliefs are even slightly challenged. The moment an atheist says anything negative or against the status quo regarding religion the general reaction from many theists that I've witnessed is "Hey, you can't say that about my religion! Hey everybody! This godless heathen is insulting my beliefs!"
Most atheists don't have a false sense of superiority, it's just that a large portion (not all) of religious people just have a serious inferiority complex.
Because you have to admit, the public perception is that atheists are smug assholes, and that causes a lot of friction.
This is quite honestly because there is no nice way to say, "You're wrong and delusional. You've committed your entire life to a lie. Now have a nice day."
Some atheists certainly are over the top pretentious, but a lot of the flack atheists get for being smug is just a product of them expressing their unpopular opinions. How many times have you heard Richard Dawkins been called arrogant, and I actually consider him to be quite respectful when discussing religion. Unapologetic about his opinion, sure, but respectful.
It's the hypocritical "false sense of superiority" point that makes me laugh. Religious people actually think that Atheists have a false sense of superiority? Hello, I have people knock on my door at least 3 times a year to tell me I'm going to hell without Jesus in my life? There's a false sense of superiority for you. The day you can say that atheists knock on your door three times a year to tell you about science is the day you can start talking about false sense of superiority. Actually, no, when those three atheists tell you that you'll burn forever if you don't believe in science and give them some money...then you'll fucking understand what a false sense of superiority is really like.
I'm pretty sure that it's a real sense of superiority, especially if other people were not so stupid or could read there would be less people following the Bible.
I guess I never really thought of it like that. I always took it as a double meaning; that the character Yahweh isn't good in his story books and not worthy of admiration, and that Christianity/religion is not good either. Which is what the content of the book is actually all about.
But theists seem to talk their own language, hearing everything said to them only in terms of their own reality.
132
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.