‘Out of the Closet’ Billboard Campaign Begins in Spokane, Washington

Spokane is in Washington state.

 My one quibble is with the first billboard, which shows an atheist family. Two of the children look too young to have reached any firm conclusions as to whether there are any gods or not. Ideally they’d be labelled “children of atheist parents” rather than “atheists”, but that would have messed up the layout of the billboard.

These are very tired, but I’ll do due diligence on one of them (writing as another Christian).

> “Is atheism a positive claim now?”

I’ve never heard anyone who identifies as atheist describe their position as “I have scientifically proven there is no God.” They repeatedly describe their position as, “I am an atheist about the Christian God in the same way Christians are atheists about Zeus, or Baal.”

Or are you “agnostic” about Marduk?

The appeal to etymology is a fallacy. “Atheism” means what it means according to use. Pretending otherwise is a pretty tactic, but not an argument of substance.

If you wish to further the stereotype that atheists are arrogant, than most of those billboards are perfect.

Perhaps they could find advertisements that are not based upon pulling believers, and their religion, down in order to push atheists up. The first billboard comes close, but could be better. There is also the problem someone mentioned about showing children in an atheist advertisement when a large portion of the skeptic movement is against giving children any kind of label, religious or atheist, till they come of age and decide for themselves.

I was reading the post and wondering if I would be willing to do this with my family if this came up in my area. I quickly decided that while I might pose with my wife, I would be uncomfortable putting my children on the sign for two reasons. One is the fear of repercussions for them, but the other is that they’re pretty young. One is old enough that he’s heard a little of the concept of god(s), and says he doesn’t think they exist, but he’s not old enough to have really thought much about it, and his exposure has been fairly minimal, so I’m not sure it’s fair to make him a poster child for something he doesn’t really understand.

The counter argument is that it’s an atheist family, not specifically atheist children. It does serve the purpose of showing that atheists are fairly ordinary people, trying to raise good children the best way they can, just like anyone else.

It’s a mixed bag.

Not only are they very white, but they seem to skew older. Of the people pictured alone here, only one appears to be under 65 and 4 of the 7 total picture people who are older. I don’t know about the choice to use predominately white people, I hope that was just who they were able to get to do it and not a conscious choice, because it’s problematic. But the older people seems like a very conscious choice and a good one, in my opinion. Younger people are already leaving religion in droves, and while they certainly need encouragement and support, showing older folks breaks a stereotype. We tend to think of older people as being more, not less, religious, and polls bear this out. But here they’re showing older people, who have lived a long life, accumulated knowledge and, hopefully, wisdom, and who perhaps feel a bit closer to the end of their lives when we’re all supposed to want to convert to save our mortal souls, but these older folks have settled on atheism and are unafraid. I think they make a good statement to theist viewers, like the families, that anyone could be an atheist, that we’re just ordinary people and not demons.

And for you, as well;

Arrogant. “There is a supernatural being who created me special. Who created the whole big universe, just for me. This being loves me. He listens to me. He speaks to me. Upon my entreaties he abrogates the physical laws of his universe, just for me. He died for me. All for me.” 

 You didn’t read it, did you? The children aren’t labeled at all. I would guess that Joshua and Chandra Alto are the parents.

“Truth is real. God is imaginary”

Atheism is not a positive claim. But atheists have many views, which often include positive claims. It is a reasonable assertion that gods are imaginary, as long as one is open to the possibility of being wrong. People make positive claims all the time based on very high, but not 100%, probabilities.

“On bended knee. Not for me”

Being unwilling to kiss the ass of an egotistical god (especially one we don’t even believe in) is hardly arrogant. A human being demeans himself by bending his knee to anything.

“Now preaching REASON not religion”

Not a false dichotomy at all. Religion follows from theism, and theism is inherently based on a lack of reason. It is not possible to be religious and completely rational.

“Freedom from religion lives”

An overly optimistic view, IMO. It is certainly under attack in the U.S., and the rights of atheists are assaulted daily. Maintaining freedom from religion demands constant vigilance. You prove this yourself by claiming that atheists should not be working to remove nativity displays from public settings!

“Our morality comes from reality.”

This represents the only objective viewpoint about morality. It makes no objective sense when turned around.

“Atheist family: Good without a god”

How is a negative stereotype contained in this beautiful assertion?

We are all born atheists. Atheism doesn’t require coming to a conclusion. It requires no intellectual analysis. The children will be atheists simply in the absence of having been actively taught to believe in some religion.

I think it is perfectly reasonable to identify children in such a family as atheists. It is only in the case of religious children, where they “believe” something that they are not intellectually equipped to believe, that I would define them by their parents beliefs. It makes no sense to define everything a child doesn’t believe in (or may never have even heard of) in terms of what his parents don’t believe in.

That you see the positive assertion of people’s beliefs as “arrogant” serves only to demonstrate the weakness of religion, with its demands for humility (which is not a virtue).

That you see any of these views as pulling down believers simply demonstrates the weakness of your own convictions.

“Sounds arrogant.”

And “every knee shall bow” doesn’t?  I get that joke tossed at me all the time.

Who the heck is Leah Libresco? And why should I care what this person said/did/wrote/thinks?

Oh, wait, now I remember. She’s the former catholic who pretended to be an atheist in a couple of Internet postings and then rejoined the church in order to attention-whore her “conversion.”

Didn’t work out too well, though, since very few people had ever heard of her before. After a few stories about “prominent atheist blogger converts to Roman Catholicism” came out, many comments in atheist forums posed this question:

“Has anyone here ever heard of Leah Libresco?”

I don’t recall anyone answering “yes.”

As a member of the atheist community in the Spokane area, I can attest that we don’t have much diversity in the area of race. Not due to any discrimination, but due to population statistics.
Spokane City has a population of about 208k~; and Spokane County (which Spokane is the main metropolis for) has about 473k~. Spokane as a whole is about 89% white, so it should not come as a surprise that a small group in this demographic has few non-whites.

> Who created the whole big universe, just for me.

If you’re going to critisize my views at least do me the courtesy of getting them right. I’ll pretend you eat babies, and you can pretend I think the universe was created for me, and we will get nowhere.

Right you are.

Font is kinda sucks.

> I’ve never heard anyone who identifies as atheist describe their position as “I have scientifically proven there is no God.”

Which is why it puzzles me why you want to advertise atheism like that.

> “I am an atheist about the Christian God in the same way Christians are atheists about Zeus, or Baal

You’re trying to hitch a ride on monotheism. Monotheism replaced polytheism, and offered compelling reasons to believe in a single God. If you also accept the arguments for monotheism (say those of Athenagoras which would work just as well against paganism as against atheism), then why are you an atheist?

There’s a typo in the Facebook link option. It posts as Spokane, Idaho.

It was a typo on my part. Fixed it for the blog but FB ran with the original. No biggie!

 I still posted it!

The invisible unicorn is in MY closet. And it is so deft that one cannot possibly feel it. It works in mysterious ways.

St. Nick may have been a real person, but Santa Claus, the one that most children have been taught to believe in that soars around in a sled pulled by magical flying reindeer is not real. It would be ludicrous for a sane, rational adult to believe otherwise.

Where is evidence that FSM does not exist? That game can be played forever, which is why the onus for proof is on the one making the claim of existence.

Beautiful ad campaign. The ones with married couples and families always choke me up a bit. I married young, before I knew what I really believed about life, and got sucked up in the archaic thinking that being religious somehow equates to righteousness. My spouse is adamantly against any of my atheistic beliefs shining through and possibly influencing our children. I may be stuck between a rock and a hard place, but is it such a joy knowing that there are people like in those billboard campaigns, living life as they see fit. Nonbelievers are getting a voice, and it has a beautiful ring to my ears.

I sincerely hope that one day, Barbara, you too will get a chance to live life as you see fit. It is the very least that anyone deserves.

The arguments I’m thinking of, it was pagans persecuting monotheists (feeding to the lions and all that), not the other way around. Justin Martyr even writes to convince people not to kill them, Athenagoras too. Check out http://www.ccel.org

Here was the situation…In order to be in a picture you had to volunteer. Volunteers were mainly from people who attend meetings regularly as that (and group email) is how the word got out. Apparently many non active members choose not to receive emails or simply did not respond to this summons. I joined the group (in Spokane..I know all these wonderful folks) 6 months ago. I can only remember one other Black man besides Stacey ever attending a meeting and I have only seen him once. Hence the dirth of diversity in this set of billboards. The topic was discussed in meetings as diversity is an important and sensitive issue. We encourage ALL who want to join our ranks to do so. I am glad Stacey and his wife volunteered. Stacey is a very active voice in our ranks and I am pretty sure a member of the board of our chapter. There simply were no other active members of any race who from our chapter who chose to volunteer. Now…I take personal responsibility for this information as I am not on the board but attend all meetings so this info is solid from everything I know and have been told but if you find an error then kick my butt…not the organizers. Jim

I agree about having children in any theist or non theist ad. I understand it is trying to bring in the concept of family but young minds should be free to investigate and decide on their own and this billboard does not send that message.

I meant to say that since this is the group that was involved in putting up the billboards this was the membership we drew from to get folks to photograph.

Good luck fighting the negative stereotypes. 

Thanks. Your post shows the sort of kneejerk reactions and assumptions that need to be overcome just to be heard properly. Or maybe I’m being a little to hasty, do you apply the same sort of scrutiny to Christian billboards?

But Chucky, why do you think it has to be the Christian god that makes sense? Have you looked into other religions and came to the conclusion that they’re all false, except for the Christian one?

“… a large portion of the skeptic movement is against giving children any kind of label, religious or atheist, till they come of age and decide for themselves.”

Really?  Have a citation for the evidence to support this?

I certainly don’t have a problem with it.  Has there been a survey done on this topic?  I don’t recall having my opinion requested, ever.  I agree with the poster who points out that everyone starts out as an atheist, and gets religion shoved down their throats, and sometimes convert to theism.

We are doing a Good Without god booth at the Kootney Co. Fairgrounds this month too….should be interesting…

Your observation is not supported by the many comments we’ve seen over the years from atheist parents who simply avoid exposing their children to religious ideas before they’re able to understand the actual basis of nature. Atheism isn’t a concept to be grasped at all.

I would be dismayed, too, if my young kid came home with a book that presented God as real. That’s worse than pornography, and any adult who would give such a book to a child is guilty of abuse. Religious books for kids are designed to rot their minds.

Yet you advertise a positive claim. That’s what makes it strange.

Your assertion that “atheism” is somehow making a positive claim is what is wrong. It doesn’t. Atheists may choose to do so, and since the non-existence of any god is likely beyond reasonable doubt, it’s quite rational to make the assertion that God is imaginary. It’s no different then stating that unicorns are imaginary. If we all had to frame every statement with a probability, communication would get awfully cumbersome!

It’s not possible to be human and completely rational.

That’s certainly true. But some of us are a lot more rational than others (and your comments about love and forgiveness are a non sequitur, since there’s nothing irrational about either). Religion demands a huge lack of rationality, and in most people, it spills over into the way they operate on many levels. You can only compartmentalize so far.

Am I really understanding you correctly? You think Kant, Descartes,
Planck,, Pascal and Leibnitz were all irrational because they disagree
with you about God? Why is it that you think intelligent, rational
people can’t disagree on this issue, when all the evidence is that they
can, and do?

Yes, all were irrational in this respect, and if you’ve read them, it definitely spills over into some pretty poor thinking about many other things. I do think people can disagree about the existence of gods; but I consider anybody who believes in gods to be strongly irrational (which doesn’t mean they aren’t intelligent). Believing in something for which there is no objective evidence is pretty much the definition of irrationality.

How does allowing nativity scenes in public violate your rights, specifically?

The Constitution explicitly grants me the right to be free from religious ideas presented by the government. A nativity scene sponsored in any way by the government, or present on public land, tramples that right. It’s obscene, and should be fought whenever it occurs.

What do you mean by “This”?

I mean the concept of an absolute morality, imposed by nature or by some god, is irrational. Morality is a human invention. We define it, we modify it, we adopt what works- empirically.

I’ve only been to one atheist event, a book talk at the Palo Alto Humanist Community, and I would guess at least 70% of the audience was over 65. I wonder if older atheists are more likely to be involved in these groups. Most are probably retired, so they have more time, and the groups might be their main form of socialization. Probably the same reason a lot of senior citizens get involved in churches?

Based on your response, I will avoid atheism (and atheists babysitting my kids) at all costs. I will not avoid atheists – just mean spirited, narrow minded people.

We stated I and my wife were atheists, and that it was an atheist family (we do not teach that gods are real, and do not attend places of worship). I feel this accurately reflects our family without claiming any religious or philosophical positions held by our children.

At the end we stated my wife and I were atheists. It is an atheist family as we do not teach that gods are real nor do we attend places of worship. We feel this accurately represents our family without stating the religious or philosophical positions of the children. The children are free to study whatever philosophy and religion they find compelling.

The URL for this page says “spokane, idaho”. wth?

What is the point of all this? Why care so much that others believe. You sound like many religious people who think they are somehow more enlightened then everyone else around them. 
“Humanity”, “Good” those are imaginary, if God is. Just made up ideas by society that in the end don’t mean a thing. 

> Your assertion that “atheism” is somehow making a positive claim is what is wrong

That’s almost the exact opposite to what I actually did say. I said the advertisement made the positive claim, which most atheists don’t.

> and your comments about love and forgiveness are a non sequitur, since there’s nothing irrational about either…

I guess I know a little about game theory, where agents are meant to act rationally. In that framework self sacrifice is irrational, because your payoff is less. Dawkins puts it well in his essay in the Portable Atheist. Acting in a “super nice” way he says is irrational, goes against our evolutionary instincts and is “super stupid”.

> Yes, all were irrational in this respect, and if you’ve read them, it definitely spills over into some pretty poor thinking about many other things.

Like?

> Believing in something for which there is no objective evidence is pretty much the definition of irrationality.

They provide their evidence, carefully reasoning out the reasons they have for believing in God. Why do you think they don’t?
 
> A nativity scene sponsored in any way by the government, or present on public land, tramples that right.

Why are you allowed to display these advertisements in parks and on roadsides, but people aren’t allowed to display nativity scenes?

> I mean the concept of an absolute morality, imposed by nature or by some god, is irrational.

So you think that Sam Harris is irrational. Why?

It seems to me you just label anyone who disagrees with you “irrational”. I have a simpler view. If someone offers a rational argument then they’re being rational. If they don’t, they’re not. That doesn’t mean you have to agree, because there might be stronger arguments against. But going around accusing everyone you disagree with of being irrational is… well it’s irrational.

“Public land” is not the same thing as “in public.” Public land refers to government property. Billboards are generally owned by private companies. “People” are allowed to put up all the religious imagery they want on their private property, no matter how visible it is to the public. Government entities are not.

As an Atheist resident of Spokane, WA, I am so happy to see these billboards!