Dave Silverman Promotes Reason Rally on CNN

Overall, yay Reason Rally!

But:

I find Mr. Silverman’s argument of “Of course bilboards can’t convert people, we all know that” to be disingenuous.  He appeals to absurdity, “Bilboards can’t convert people!”  Like someone is asking him if they had magical atheist-conversion-rays emminating from the bilboards.  Of course bilboards don’t covert people.  No one can convert anyone but themselves.  Ultimately the believer has to accept the reasoning themselves, no converter is involved.

So no, I don’t agree with Mr. Silverman.  His bilboards have words and pictures that mean something, and if someone who sees them can read and understand the pictures, then there is a message.  Bilboards communicate, in that sense.

So drop the argument, it’s insulting to smart people out there who can in fact convert as a result of messages on a bilboard.

But if someone invented a Deconversion Basebat Bat, I would buy one.  Bonk!

I personally really like American Atheists, and I like Silverman’s in your face approach.  But I feel like he is being a bit disingenuous.  Is his approach really supposed to get people to come out of the closet and find a comfortable place in the atheist community?  

I guess for people like me, The Atheist Experience did that in someone the same way Silverman is doing it.  Maybe I’m just underestimating the closeted atheists though.

David
Silverman did a brilliant job at advertising the reason rally but I
have to say that I’m also suspicious about the billboards making
atheists aware that there are other atheists. How can anybody who
cares or with internet access not know that there are other atheists?
I think the billboards are really aimed at indifferent atheists who
are closeted but might realize that by coming out and being visible
publicly they will contribute to make being an atheists acceptable.

 It’s easy for us, completely integrated into the community, to be aware that there are millions of atheists everywhere, but we need to remember that it’s not like that for everyone. In some communities atheism is only ever discussed in the context of how evil it is. In Orthodox Jewish communities there are often extremely strict restrictions on internet access.

Yes of course pretty much any atheist outside a cult compound knows there are other atheists, but they know it the same way a gay kid in East Texas knows there are other gay people. Yeah, they’re on TV, and you know there are a lot in San Francisco, but here? Here I’m all alone. This outreach is meant to tell closeted atheists that they are not even a little alone, that there are fellow travellers all around them and that they have a community waiting for them. This is a very powerful message, particularly for people who grow up in communities totally centred on religion, where rejection or religion means loss of community.

It must annoy Madalyn O’Hair’s son William Murray, who converted to christianity and made a living for a time peddling “Mommie Dearest” nonsense about his mother, that not only has the American Atheists organization his mother founded managed to survive after her kidnapping & murder, but that it even shows signs of thriving. And to rub salt into William’s wounds, atheism itself shows signs of becoming mainstream in American society outside of any organization’s educational efforts.

 1.  Libraries. 
2.  TAM (The Amazing Meeting) in Las Vegas in July for last few years.

”
Would you really and truly call someone a ‘smart person’ who deconverted due to a single billboard?”

You bet I would!  It took them only one time to see the light!

I am a fan of David Silverman and the great P.R. he gets for American Atheists.
Every time I see him on TV makes me happy that I pay my dues and donations to American Atheists (and other atheist organizations). 

In small towns there nearly are no other atheists. That’s why there also are no billboards.

“Also, the host asks Dave about Alain de Botton‘s idea
of an “Atheist Temple” and Dave says — very calmly, I might add — that
it’s probably not something he would go to, but if it helps someone
who’s an atheist, great. What a far cry from the people going apeshit
ballistic over the suggestion that it might be worthwhile for some
people to take ideas that religious groups use and hone them for a
secular purpose.”

Hemant, I’d like to offer a different way of looking at this.

Yes,  the reaction was strong — a few people went “apeshit ballistic” over it — although I think you severely oversimplify the reactions from most who were critical.

I look at it this way:
1.) Taking de Botton’s claim at face value, I first question what religion has to offer secularism that isn’t already present in its own form. I have yet to have one meaningful item pointed out to me that has value to secularism that currently exists *only* in the context of religion.
2.) Assuming, for the sake of argument, that you did find something valuable of religion that has no secular equivalent, how much religious trappings would you be willing to accept along with it before it would be an unacceptable compromise? Would you be willing to go without some benefit, common to religion, being secularized if it could not make a clean break from its religious underpinnings?
3.) Assuming again that you located such a benefit as yet untapped in a secular framework, and were able to create its secular corollary without issue, how much religious language (e.g. — the so-called “atheist temple” idea) would you be willing to keep using for it before such terminology would unacceptably water down the very thing you are trying to benefit from?

These may seem unusual points coming from me, seeing as I am a Humanist lay leader endorsed by the Humanist Society/AHA who is currently seeking acceptance in that role by the U.S. Military, but I would venture there is no real conflict once you examine the situation in detail. Humanism as a non-religious philosophy of life offers a secular vision of every aspect that the religious claim the secular world (or atheistic views in general) is unable to achieve without religious trappings.

I feel confident in declaring that #1 and #2 as non-issues from a Humanist perspective. (To the degree that #2 is debated, I allege this is due to the falsehood of comparing Humanism directly against religions, rather than comparing its underpinning philosophy against the inherent minimum of religiosity itself and the ensuing baggage.) As for #3, I will admit it gets murkier, as is evident by the very fact of my lay leader application. The problem for me is not that Humanism or Secularism requires the use of religious language, but that religion is so pervasive that we cannot avoid it.

I hate, for example, that Humanism must be called a religion by military regulations (and in general by the IRS, for example) in order for the philosophy to gain a foothold on the landscape currently dominated by actual religions, but it is a pragmatic necessity if we are to advance at this stage in gaining acceptance and support for being non-religious in the military. Once the stigma of being free from dogma is eroded, shedding such unnecessary language will be important, but as long as superstition sustains a stranglehold we cannot gain traction and advance the cause without using the language that the majority understands.

To summarize, much like Dave, I view de Botton’s specific idea of an “atheist temple” as superfluous nonsense. If it helps some, for example by easing the break from religion, then fine; let us not be under any illusion, however, that it represents a reducing of secularism to the lowest common denominator, and that much work will then be required to clean the mud tracked in on our floors in the process…

I think that this is the first David Silverman interview on mainstream TV that wasn’t a cable-news debate with David trying to get in a word edgewise against a religious polemicist. Wow. CNN got something right for once. Good for them.