An Inoffensive Atheist Ad Could Appear on Pennsylvania Buses

BRILLIANT! =D A welcoming ad with a bit of a social experiment on the side.

.

I would slightly expand on that a bit, just to make sure the point isn’t lost.  How about “atheists exist”.  The former suggests the concept exists, the latter suggests the person exists.

Oh I don’t think that’s likely. The cat’s out of the bag, the genie’s out of the bottle. We’ll never go back to the invisibility and inaudibility of only haunting ivy covered halls or espresso cafes. This is just a combination experiment and demonstration. In a way, just the single word “atheists” on the ad seems to SCREAM so much more about how WE ARE HERE and we are not leaving, we will not be silent, we will not be suppressed than “atheists exist,” or any of the other slogans.

There will be plenty of other ads.  Some will say more with more words, and some will say less with more words.

But that’s so shrill and strident…..

I think there can be a lot of productivity in understanding why people feel so threatened and acting with sympathy. When you grind someone’s nose in the truth, you hurt them and they become defensive. If you’re gentler, refusing to hide the truth but expressing understanding for their fear, you’re more likely to gain their respect and understanding. 

My vote goes to positive life messages, such as: “drugs darken a bright future” (I’m not very good at this sort of thing, but you get the idea) with an atheist sponsor listed noticably in the bottom corner. That says: “You can be good without God” without actually saying it. 

People have been taught to be petrified of atheists for centuries. We can’t blame them for acting like they do. We need to show them their fears are unfounded, not demand that they let them go.

How about something like:

Atheists think America is pretty great too.
Or
America is so terrific, the right to not worship is right there in the Constitution. USA! USA!

I like it and don’t find it too neutral or passive.  It provokes thought, doesn’t suggest what to think, and gives the curious viewer a resource for more info.  

Nasty?? But this is an opportunity to call out critics and have them consider it isn’t a nasty word!

Love it! And I actually like the idea of buying ad space to encourage good deeds and general happiness and then having a link on the bottom that shows the ad is from atheists. I hope some groups will go with that too. That would show that atheists sometimes choose to use ad money to promote human well-being, not just to promote ourselves. But even just the pretty clouds behind the word is good. The more positive images and words that can be associated with the word “atheist,” the better. It messes with people’s minds in a good way. Goods stuff!

I’ve recently come to realize that many Americans fill in forms asking about religion with simply “non-religious” or “no religious affiliation”.  To be “atheist” means that you have enough intelligence and/or self-evaluative focus to give yourself that label.  Many people just go about their lives without concern about their personal view about a God, cosmology, etc.   Why not address THAT also.  These also are Americans.

I agree.  While the whole concept of a non-offensive billboard is much more agreeable to my humanist lifestance (as opposed to a few insulting billboards put up by other national atheist organizations) – the “kittens are cute” approach does nothing to identify or promote atheism as a valid secular worldview.  

I am from Pennsylvania…where apparently our legislature has declared 2012 as the “Year of the Bible”.  (Read PA General Assembly HR535, and then prepare to pick your jaw up off the floor)  A billboard/ad campaign from the secular minority is critically needed and I wholeheartedly support the recent movement in this community & on this blog to promote atheism as an ethical lifestance, in as non-offensive means as possible.  While I do not think “Kittens Are Cute” is an effective slogan, as it is unrelated entirely to the subject at hand, the above “Atheists.” is still lacking.   If anything, perhaps a more valid ad would be : “Attention Atheists:  Come Join Us & Meet Fellow Free-Thinkers.”   Further to that, if you want to brand atheism/humanism as a valid & ethical lifestance, I would second what a number of other comments on this page suggest – i.e. “Atheists Are Good People, Despite What You’ve Been Told” or  “Without A god, Live Can Still Be Worth Living”  or “Struggling With Your Faith?  We Can Help.”

Hiya, Parse. 

I think I didn’t express myself properly. What I am advocating is saturating the public consciousness with our message (atheists are good people; if you don’t believe you are not alone) in a smart way. Maybe we can rope in experts in psychology and advertising to work out a definite plan, with a specific goal aimed for in stages. That goal being? People hardly even blinking when you say you’re an atheist. It should be everyday, like saying you like cheese.

‘We are’ messages, ‘we think’ messages may be best to start with, rather than messages that jump in the deep end with ‘your faith is a myth’. The former addresses misconceptions about atheists, the latter attacks beliefs which people sometimes base their entire lives on. It won’t be possible to publicise our message without affronting SOMEONE, I realise that full well, but I believe we can try to understand the psychology behind the hostility, and find out what can maybe get behind these unreasonable fears and reach people instead of scaring them and closing their minds to the message because their defences went up. Some will never be reached, they are offended by your mere existence, but perseverance will be the key, and the reasonable majority will be better reached by a persistent but gentle message.

In addition, I’d like to make it clear that I like the original ad, I was not suggesting we water it down, but I can see that I didn’t make that clear. Saying ‘my vote goes for’ gave the impression I didn’t support the ad, if so I apologise. I was replying to a comment which advocated what to me seemed a hostile approach which to my mind will be counterproductive. ‘My vote goes for’ was meant to suggest that we in fact expand this idea. I am advocating for a persistent, widespread campaign to de-sensitise people to the word and concept ‘atheist’. 

After seeing this 
http://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/fzhce/visa/ I now want my own credit card with the clouds and “Under No God(s)”.  Or.. anyone else have any suggestions for text?  Or companies that offer this?  So far all I’ve found it Capitol One.  I want to keep my total card count down, so I might give up my Citicard and switch.

I can’t wait.  I just *know* someone is going to get all butthurt over this, no matter how inoffensive and tame it is and the local TV news coverage is going to be EPIC facepalm fodder.  NEPA isn’t exactly the most non-Christian friendly area in the world, so this should get interesting if the ads go up.

*pops some popcorn*

“What is it with the cloudy sky? How about changing it up once in a while? A sunset on a lake, a waterfall, a Hubble pic of a nebula or galaxies, a closeup of a flower…”

Or maybe just a group of nice looking people having a nice time at a pub, or park, or ballgame or such?

The idea being that atheists are simply nice people in the community like everyone else.

Oh I like that.  I was thinking cloudy sky for my credit card, but now I’m thinking either Andromeda Galaxy, or that cool NASA pic of the Earth.

And now I’m leaning from “Under No God(s)” to “Good Without God”.  Or “Good Without God(s)”.

Nobody gives up their privileges. Rights aren’t given, they are taken. The soft sell doesn’t work.

the fear in expressing the FACT that all religions are based on myth is the problem, honey. you’re clearly part of it, i’m sad to say. 100% of believers and atheists alike are atheists. it’s only that the former reject all god(s) but their own. think about it. there’s nothing harmful or wrong pointing that FACT out. 

Hey – let’s be fair here.

I didn’t see Nadia say anywhere that we shouldn’t be doing the hard sell – only that she prefers the soft sell.

Which is fine. There’s room for both approaches.

Full disclosure: I’m a proponent of the hard sell. I much prefer it, and think it gets more done faster. But sometimes the soft sell works too. It all depends on the context of the message and the audience. There is no one ‘best way’. There’s only a ‘best way  in these particular circumstances‘.

There’s a difference between fear and consideration. 

I agree there’s nothing wrong with pointing out facts, and I partly agree there’s nothing harmful in that. I believe we should do both, and I’d rather support the camp who are putting their efforts towards the soft sell. 

I disagree. 

I’m not missing the point.  I don’t agree with the point.  What IS the point of testing an already known prejudice, of doing something where the intent is simply to see how far removed from our secular mission we need to go before the larger community ignores us?  All this does is  waste limited advertising resources, and provide more fodder for the religious right to laugh at us – and in turn, the angry atheist community to get riled up about.  In and of itself, just putting the word “Atheist.” on a bus only further serves to provoke.  It’s like the little kid who sings “I’m not touching youuuuu” while holding their finger in your face.   It doesn’t do anything except annoy, or be ignored.  It doesn’t enlighten or spark worthwhile debate.  And it doesn’t identify atheists as individuals with a valid moral lifestance.  

I sent the dude a letter:

First of all, thank you from the bottom of Mississippi for all
that you guys are doing for the cause. Any effort means a lot to us in the
bible belt.

I just wanted to pop 2 cents at you about the inoffensive
billboards. I am of the opinion that they will complain no matter what, so
trying to be more tolerant of their views will just end up diluting our message
and weakening  it as well.(which is what
they want) I think we need to have strong, positive messages. Just “Atheists”
doesn’t explain anything and the big deal is that they have and push many
misconceptions about us that we need to address strongly, decisively and
positively. As a comparison, I have noticed that nudists have taken a very similar
“appeal to the enemy” approach, trying not to offend conservatives so they can
get permission to have small, hidden places they can do their thing. They have
failed to advance their cause.  After a
hundred years, nudity is still just as taboo as it was when they started. I hope
you see my point. We have to stand up for EXACTLY what we believe, and not tame
it down one bit. You can’t enact change by fighting to be allowed to exist in
private.

I understand that this might be some sort of test to see if they object, but if
they don’t does that mean we will start putting out billboards that do not
explain anything or challenge their beliefs? If so, then I think we will become
just like nudists, able to exist in private, walled in enclosures as long as we
do not interact with the general public.

Thanks for listening

What do you guys think?

You’re missing the point. Whether it’s the “Puppies are cute” ad or the “atheists” ad, this is an experiment and a demonstration.

As an experiment, it puts to the test the thought that is common among atheists that our mere existence is what “offends” religious people, that it’s not what we say, it’s simply us they hate and fear. As good skeptics, we should put such assumptions to a test.

If the hypothesis is confirmed, and there is a great deal of controversy about such innocuous ads from the religious public, then this will demonstrate how utterly ridiculous that knee-jerk reflex is, how completely based on pure bigotry it is, with no rationalization onto which those who object can credibly fall back. We can refer to these incidents of “outrage” in future interactions with people who want to suppress our speech. They might serve to discredit their objections to other statements we wish to make.

There is nothing implied or necessary coming from these ideas that we must knuckle under and make nice, or tiptoe around, or not have more substantial statements to make, in all sorts of tones. We’ll be making plenty of noise, both “soft sell” and “in your face.” We will still make statements about religion, and statements about ourselves, and we will still debate with each other about what methods serve us the best.

As Justin Vacula has pointed out, these ads are quite cheap. Let the experiment go forth, and whether the public’s reaction is “how dare they” or “meh,” it will be interesting, probably amusing, and more importantly, we will have more information.

Love it! I like the simplicity and everything. To the people complaining… this is just one billboard. There will be more billboards, sponsor your own billboards… just keep doing everything! Every type of message is important.