American Atheists Billboards Go After Presidential Candidates’ Faith

Yeah, this will work out well for the atheists.

Most republican think Obama is a Muslim so I guess both billboard attacks Romney/Ryan ticket.

Remember in World War II, instead of building tanks and planes, they sent over Momons with their magic underwear? Me neither.

It’s funny how religious people can live in both mental worlds simultaneously. Part of them knows that training and equipment are what’s going to make the difference.

It’s really disappointing to see so many fellow atheists, including some people at AA, not understand what the ‘no religious test’ clause in the US Constitution means. It means the government can’t impose a religious test for office, not that individuals or groups of voters can’t have a personal religious test on who to vote for. If I as an individual only wanted to vote for Buddhist I would have a right to do that and not violate the Constitution in any way (although it would be dumb). It is only violates the Constitution when the government imposes the religious test; I wish secular people would understand that. It doesn’t help our case when we make elementary errors about the Constitution.

I appreciate everything American Atheists does. Really, I do. But it’s time for them to find a new graphic designer.

It seems there is some confusion as to our intentions with this billboard campaign. Our goal is to point out the silliness of religion in politics. We think the future of the United States is serious business, and its leadership should not be based upon the influences of religion in our political system. Take Rep. Paul Ryan’s comments, for example. Ryan stated, “Our rights come from nature and god, NOT from government.” Is this the type of leadership we need in our country? How does he choose which god? What would our rights be under Ryan’s god? The Bible doesn’t give equal rights to women, gays, or those who are not a part of their tribe. The Bible promotes theocracy, not democracy. There isn’t a system of checks and balances, trial by jury, or even racial equality in the Bible. Is this what we want? NO! We are a pluralistic nation. Our intention with this billboards is to show the absolute foolishness of allowing religion to be the litmus test of our policies and government. The framers of the Constitution knew this very well, which is why they ignored their own religious beliefs to create a secular document devoid of religion. At American Atheists, we take a bold stand for equal rights, as we work to protect the freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution. –American Atheists

Was supposed to be a reply… moved to reply.

 I would agree, but they’re getting better. At least there’s some nice grunge themed detail to the background. Much better than the usual ugly solid colour.

My main complaint is that these further the mistaken belief that atheists are anti-religion. In that sense, campaigns like this can backfire, and end up being counterproductive towards the broader community (using the term lightly) of atheists.

The same signs from FFRF would be great; from an organization that appears to represent atheists, not so much.

Romney said that it didn’t matter who was president of the U.S, as long as it was a person of faith. Obama has stated that his faith directs his decisions. Both are for war interestingly enough.

To me the ‘religious test’ means that a president must not be of a specific religion. He/she can still be asked about it. As soon as one brings up ‘their god’, do we not have a right to more details?

Bingo.

 Of course these ads don’t violate the ‘no religious test’ clause. Please read my post again. My whole point is that the no religious test clause only applies to the actions of the government, not to individuals or non-governmental groups. The spokesperson for American Atheists is the one who seem to think that the ‘no religious test’ clause applies to individual voters, not just the government, which is a mistaken view I see all to often from atheists who don’t seem to understand the Constitution.

You mean, you couldn’t actually find fault with the argument… so you call us assholes for telling you what you don’t want to hear.

Personally, I like the ones that say “Atheism: Where a bunch of biological life forms with advanced cranial capacity called human beings invent illusions of morality and purpose to cope with the fact that they are otherwise no more valuable than a garden slug, and in the meantime living a life imposing entirely subjective values (again, illusions as we all know, meant to give us warm and fuzzy feelings of being worth more than a garden slug), on everything and everyone around them, in the hopes of avoiding the truth of ultimately being nothing with more value than a garden slug.”  If that could be put on a bumper sticker, I think we’d have something.

invent illusions of morality and purpose…..

(sigh) not this tiresome, vacuous canard again.

Just because human beings create morality and purpose doesn’t mean they’re illusory, dear.  It just means that they weren’t ‘given’ to us by some speculative entity whose existence no one can substantiate.

We’re meaningful to each other and we value each other ~ there’s nothing illusory about that.

The sad thing is that to you and yours, unless there’s some ‘outside’ thing to value us, then us valuing each other is utterly worthless to you.  Very sad indeed…..

but I’m sorry, if there’s a question of whether or not one’s religious beliefs will affect how they run the country, people should definitely be allowed to question the candidate about it.

And their religious beliefs effects how they run government, it will show in their record. Actions speak louder than words. How they answer that question isn’t important. What’s important is how they’ve behaved in their past political positions.

As I said, these people aren’t infallible, and we shouldn’t hold them up as so. If their personal life is filled with illogical fallacious philosophy, it doesn’t matter as long as they keep that out of their governing duties. If, for example, they’ve made illogical statements about how they’ve voted on bills in the past (religious or otherwise), that should be a cause for concern. But if all their illogical crap has only been observed in their personal life, let it go.

Sure they are.  Because they could all change tomorrow.  And if they do change, upon what grounds will you say they are wrong?  If 500 years from now humanity has concluded Hitler was a great guy, would they be right?  Wrong?  If wrong, why?  Because we in the 21st century say so?  And meaningful?  What’s meaningful?  Define.  Value each other?  No we don’t.  Sometimes we do.  When is it right to do so or wrong?  Is any value placed on any person always right? Why or why not? 

No, the sad thing (or perhaps the great thing) is that atheism avoids like the plague the logical implications of its foundational beliefs.  Atheists may speak a ‘Cosmos is all that ever will be’ philosophy, but when it comes to real living, they invoke completely unverifiable notions of right and wrong and ought to beat your most devoted bible thumping religious believer.

The problem I have with both billboards is that they require a certain level of sophistication and knowledge to understand them. 
Presumably they are designed to strike a chord in religious viewers, but I am positive that most of those supposed to be riled up by either billboard don’t fully know the references and meanings behind them.

That’s not to say that I disagree with the statements therein, but most Christians and Mormons are going to get very upset at them without really understanding why beyond a very superficial level.

I believe we have to try harder to communicate not so much that religion is irrational, that simply is not true for a large slice of the population and to them is a foreign concept, but that we want it out of the political discourse. Especially that we do not want any politician that believes is some sort of divine guidance. 

Again, in general, I agree.  But when someone like Mike Huckabee says something like “that’s what we need to do, is to amend the Constitution so it’s in God’s standards” I don’t CARE if such an attitude ‘shows in his past record’ or not, if he’s making a statement like that, suggesting some future intent, then people are sure as hell justified in asking him about it.

I have to agree.  The stated goal of these billboards is to “get people talking”, but isn’t there a way to encourage that talk to be thoughtful and cooperative?  Do we have to deliberately engineer it so that the talk is about how vicious and negative atheists are?  I know we’re NOT really vicious or negative (as a group), but such accusations are all that these billboards will inspire.  These promote division, they don’t build bridges.

WE’RE supposed to be the more rational, reasonable, intelligent side.  I KNOW it’s possible to put up a message which DOES point out the more ludicrous contradictions of religion (as these do), but which reaches its audience and makes them THINK, rather than make them immediately throw up a wall of resistance.

Mike Huckabee is a TV political pundit. In the grand scheme of things he doesn’t matter (anymore).

When Huckabee asked if Romney would sign a personhood amendment, and Romney said “Absolutely”, THAT is  significant. THAT is what matters. That’s a statement not of just Romney’s personal beliefs, but his political intention.

Do we know whether or not Py is an atheist?

The fact that we are all just biological life forms and everything beyond the material universe are just fanciful illusions meant to give us a sense of meaning while we pass on our DNA before dying and rotting in the ground.  If that’s the case, and we are hip and enlightened enough to get rid of such silly inventions as religion, then why not get rid of any silly invention that we concoct to make sense of our otherwise senseless and meaningless existence?  And once we go there, of course, then it gets ugly.  Again, thank goodness most atheists don’t go there, to the logical implications of their basic premise.

AA is towing the line between “promoting conversation” and trolling. 
It’s pretty clear that the billboards are intended to be offensive, and
to me it really highlights the reason people can get so annoyed with
atheists: they tend to be contrarian (arising from some sort of
superiority complex), and, frankly, juvenile.  This is no way to initiate a civilized discourse on the role of religion in politics.  It’s disingenuous to say
that these were meant to start a rational discussion when the conversation starter is unabashed
ridicule.  The messages it more clearly conveys are a) scorn for silly religious beliefs, b) belief that atheist’s religious beliefs are more valid than any other religious belief, and c) that advertising through controversy is more important to this organization than actual progress. 

And here’s where the superiority complex comes in- Hermant believes it’s a judgement call- as if he can judge who is most rational based on their religious belief.  Actually, if any of you atheists think about it, you have exactly the same amount of evidence that there is no god as the faithful have that there is one: zero.  That is to say, both of your positions are silly, dogmatic, and indicative of trouble with rational thought.  I could make fun of your “religion” with a billboard too, but it would serve no purpose.

The “silliness of religion in politics” is clear to most people here, but this relationship solely exists because of the religious vote: religion is important to some voters whether you like it or not.  If you want to change the role of religion in politics, you have to start by appealing to, and not offending, the religious voter, discussing important issues like the separation of church and state rationally.  However, rational argument requires keeping the snark and the disrespectful images to yourselves. 
 

The last part.

“The constitution makes two mentions of any sort of possible deities by that I can find. It says, “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God…” and then it says ” endowed by their Creator…” Note that it does not say “the christian god” or “god of xyz faith/denomination/religion.” It says nature’s god and creator, which leaves the use of that word god up to hefty interpretation.”

Well, actually, it’s the Declaration, not the U.S. Constitution, to which you refer.  But your point, applied to the Declaration is, of course, correct.  The wide latitude of interpretation was intentional.  But it was never meant to mean “men” or “governments” which is my main point here.

“You want it to mean your god who you believe is also a creator? Fine, then that’s what it means to you, but that’s not what it actually says by any means, so don’t expect the rest of us to fall into lock step.”

On this point I have no such expectations.

“Some pagans might interpret that to mean the Green Man who is reborn each spring. Other faiths might say it’s Vishnu. Still other people, also tax paying, law abiding americans, may believe that nature’s god and the creator refer to Mother Nature, or something else, and that our rights are innate just because we are sentient beings, not something granted by kings or despots, be they earthly or “heavenly.””Exactly.”The DoI by no means specifies that the US should be under christian rule, or that no religious belief should ever be questioned by anyone. Even harshly.”

Of course.

I can’t help thinking that in your mind you’ve attributed to me certain positions on this subject that I simply do not hold.Just sayin’.

Wow, you are really losing it, aren’t you?

It is not being an asshole to make an assertion, even one that many people will disagree with. And a billboard is hardly the place to present an argument! Billboards are for advertising, and this is an advertisement, pure and simple. Get people’s attention, hopefully make them think, hopefully make them explore further.

If I got an answer that dealt with the issue at hand, I might say you’re right.

I just wanted to note that your post here, and my post to which you just responded, are not mutually exclusive.

I enjoy the “I am an atheist/agnostic” campaigns, they present a positive message about nonbelievers by humanizing it, the message lessens the stigma and serves to remind theists that we are not the evil, baby eating, unethical, heathens their faith declares us to be. I’d love to see more like these.

Unfortunately these billboards do the exact opposite, they openly mock faith while trying to assert atheism is “Simply Reasonable”. Ugh. Seems the American Atheists have failed to speak for me yet again.  Is it really that hard to promote atheism without stooping to insults?

You’re goal may have been to point out the silliness of religion in politics, but your billboards don’t do that, they waive a giant middle finger at Christians.  While I suppose that can be satisfying on a visceral level, and what they say is true, that doesn’t change the fact that you’ve utterly failed to get your purported  message across.  The blame for that does not lie with those who don’t interpret your billboards the way you want them to.

“Also, the baptizing of dead people (like Anne Frank and Gandhi) was done by fringe Mormon groups and was later denounced by LDS officials.”

Then why, pray tell, were the databases which revealed this had been happened locked so nobody in the outside world could tell whether it continued?  The Mormons have got a lot to hide, and they are doing their best to hide it.

 The DOI and the Constitution are two very different documents.  The Declaration is a sales pitch, crafted to garner support for independence and phrased in such a way as to appeal to believers and nonbelievers alike.

The Constitution is a working plan for government, and it DELIBERATELY leaves out any mention of gods.  Those who wrote it could’ve easily included gods.  They chose not to.

Poor you, and your grasp of reality was already shaky to begin with.
I would suggest less religion for you, but that would be as useless as advising a junky to stop using heroin.

I´ve read them and my conclusion is that you are again doing your very best to avoid understanding them. It is a byproduct of your delusion.

I am not happy with these billboards at all………

They do not give out any specifics as to why Christianity (and Mormonism) are wrong; they simply make broad accusations that most theologians (and even “average” religious people) would be able to refute.

Finally, the image of the “magic Mormon underwear” on the anti-Mormonism billboard is a juvenile inside joke that’s been popular in the atheist community for a while. It was funny the first time I heard it, but by the second time, it became stale.

Actually I disagree: to the extent that atheism is a belief system that’s founded on a particular belief about the existence of god, I see no difference.  Both are dogmatic and illogical.  But it doesn’t matter- both sides wish to use their positions to change the law.  Reason, integrity, and honesty?  According to whom?  You’re abhorred that they want to use god to discriminate, and they’re upset that you want to use a nonexistence of god to do anything you wish that’s against their morals.

You would likely vote for an atheist candidate, so, what’s the difference?  I’ll tell you: the difference is in numbers, and that’s it.  Stop being offensive and people will take you seriously.

We can be unwavering about our values and ideals and still be civil. Attacking believers because you hate their belief is like hating cancer patients because you hate cancer. Such attacks just make believers double-down on their belief. It’s counterproductive and just doesn’t make any sense. It seems like AA loves rhetoric more than effectiveness. Since we are talking about being reasonable, how about a reasonable scientific approach to communication, which means not using tactics that are proven to fail. Hiring a real ad agency instead of dreaming these billboards up yourself might be a good start.

 But they don’t.  They trumpet their beliefs constantly, and they use them as the basis for very oppressive laws against women and GLBTQ people, and to stick their religion into government in direct violation of the Constitution. 

The DOI is hardly the primary founding document. In many respects, it’s not a founding document at all. It’s a piece of demagoguery, designed to rile up Americans one way, and the British king another way.

It’s not something to place much weight on when assessing the views of the founding fathers when it comes to actual ideas about governance.

The DOI can’t be invalidated by anything, of course, because it was never validated in the first place.

 Because Hitler caused vastly more harm than good, and the good he did cause was not even a result of the harm he did. It’s a central tenet of Humanism, and of the basic empathy that MOST humans are born with and can grasp.

Misinformed opinions by a majority do not and will not change that fact. Just like a misinformed, ignorant majority claiming that a random man claiming to be God and getting himself killed in near-anonymity somehow made everything magical does not make it true.

You really should read about a subject and try to understand it before hammering away with it. While you’re at it, try reading “1984” and see if you can actually figure out how revising history doesn’t actually magically change what has occurred.

Well, I hope we can at least agree that it founded a declaration of independence, even if we disagree on what the delcaration and that independence amount to.

Again, that is hardly my concern here.  Rather, I think the important issue is whence we consider the origin of our human rights.

I side with the text of the DoI on that question, regardless whether the DoI is referring to God, god, Nature, nature, or whathaveyou.

I reject the notion that our rights, in any realy ontological sense, come from another person, or a collection or persons.  I reject that our rights come from people or governments.

I would be very interested to know what you think on that subject, and why.

We’re not trying to change the law. We are trying to get the government to uphold the constitution.

That clause clearly is talking about the government not having a religious test, not citizens. However dumb it may be, it is clearly constitutional for groups, reporters, or individuals to have a religious test for who they will endorse, cover, or vote for. Please actually read the Constituion before making claims about it, this issue is a bad example of fellow atheists misrepresenting the Constituion because it fits into what they want to be true.

Well, if you’re trying to do that, you’re failing miserably by not even being on topic.  And making enemies along the way.

Are you right?  By virtue, or by what mechanism does a vote change the essense of a right?

Do you hold that rights, by their nature, are products of votes (as opposed to rights being upheld or infringed by votes).

In short, my question is, what is the source of human rights, in your opinion?

People?
Governments?
Nature?

Coyotenose, do you really think these billboards will precipitate social change?  Despite what you’ve made up in your mind, agents of social change do not act like rebellious teenagers.  My argument isn’t “pro-religion,” in fact it’s anti-religion and anti anyone who thinks they know something that they cannot possibly know.  Burden of proof?  Use those three words and prove to me that god doesn’t exist.  Nobody’s talking about something as banal as a leprechaun eating my hair (?), they’re talking about a being that is so magnificent and omnipotent that it is incomprehensible to the human mind.  We know next to nothing about the universe, let alone our own world, and for anyone to say they know anything on the subject one way or the other is an absolute absurdity.  You do not know.  Period.  So why take a stance?

Crap, so many iPhone errors in my post.

“When you have to kill a man it costs nothing to be polite.” — Winston Churchill.

As an atheist, I think these billboards will backfire. They are too rude.

If they had any value, they could have been posted on this website without comment, aside from the locations and dates of public appearance. The fact that they needed paragraphs of explanation reinforces that they fail as billboards.

Bold stand my pasty white atheist ass. The only way you could have been more aggressively inflammatory if you’d driven up to them and thrown shit on their cars as you passed.

I don’t know.  As an agnostic, I often got the feeling I was shoving things in the cupboard and not wanting to deal with the logical implications of my own stated beliefs about the question of religion.  I think many do use religion as a sort of cop out.  But many don’t, and religions are often, in fact, radically different.  Take traditional Judaism.  That is certainly not some pie-in-the-sky set of illusions to help them cope.  Look at the ancient Hebrews even more so.  Heck, look at some traditions like the Calvinist tradition of Protestantism.  Sometimes a big problem in atheist debates is the idea that all religions are alike, say the same thing, and therefore anyone who is religious must have the same reasons. 

Are you an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist?

No, he didn’t do more harm unless you can prove that redefining what is a human and acting on that definition is objectively wrong and harmful.  If it is not, that means if cultures in the future decide they can redefine what is and isn’t a human, and see Hitler as quite the visionary, then how can you say they are wrong?  What unmovable value can you appeal to?  The best for humanity?  Define that?  Best described by who?  What happens if tomorrow the world calls wrong something you think is right?  Maybe they conclude gays shouldn’t adopt children.  Will they be wrong, too?  Are we at the zenith of moral evolution?  What basis do you even make such claims as ‘fact’? 

And if you do say it is objectively wrong, then think on abortion.  Why, an entire generation of possible tax payers doesn’t exist right now, does that mean that abortions are bad?  Some say that’s tremendous harm to society and humanity as a whole (at least to the countries in question).  If they are wrong, why are they wrong but you are right about Hitler?  You can’t just say the equivalent of ‘duh, of course he’s like bad dude.’ 

You, like everyone on this thread, are starting with an assumed infallible set of morals with a confidence that would shame a fundamentalist Christian.  Got back a step and say how you can say abortion good, Hitler bad, and no matter what the numbers, it will always be that way and everyone else who ever says otherwise in the past or future will be wrong.  You have to validate that, you can’t just say it as if it’s obviously a fact.  Especially not when all morality is simply a tool people use as they evolve over time.  

No, I’m merely asking where you get an actual according to Hoyle definition of meaningful or right or ought.  You are assuming something means something as if it is as clear as the sun.  Why?  Where did that come from?  Will it change?  What will that mean if it does?  If not, what are its origins?   

I have to say, I don’t really find these messages compelling in any way.

I consider the moral concepts of “right” and “wrong” to be societal definitions, generally arrived at by some sort of unconscious consensus.

Again, the concept of any absolute morality is supported by no objective evidence I’m aware of, so I’m unable to accept it as likely.

Assuming that Py is an atheist (which seems more likely), it’s probably that the stupid atheists hurt his cause.

None of the words “government”, “uphold”  or “constitution”, or any synonyms thereof, or any references to them at all, appear anywhere in the billboards.

The closest they come is the words “Big Money”, which could be interpreted as a comment on the corporate lobby system, but even that would be a stretch.

How much longer would it have taken for women to successfully claim their right to vote if the discourse had been at the intellectual level of these billboards?

Actually I disagree: to the extent that atheism is a belief system that’s founded on a particular belief about the existence of god, I see no difference

This is precisely where you’re wrong.  When a theist presents his/her ‘case’ for believing in a god and the person listening says “that doesn’t convince me”, how, exactly does that reply constitute a “belief system“?

Atheism is merely one LACK of belief, and one stance on one issue does not a “belief system” make.

 Ooooh. Which of you is the mild mannered reporter and which of you is the superhero?

My blog addresses this: The Closeted Atheist & The Billboard http://emilyhasbooks.com/the-closeted-atheist-the-billboard/

OK, despite the overall response to the contrary, I’ll stand up for American Atheists. 

I am a member of this and MANY other secular organizations (FFRF, American United, Center for Inquiry, JREF, Secular Student Alliance, etc). I love them all, and send money to them, subscribe to their magazines, etc. 

American Atheists is on the forefront of boldly challenging the politeness and undue respect given to religions that have not earned such respect. 

Is AA’s tone more aggressive than most 
of us atheists are in our day-to-day lives? Yes. 
Are their ads more “in your face” than most of us atheists are in our day-to-day lives? Yes. 
Might some people (maybe even many people) respond to the ads by thinking “wow, that’s offensive. Atheists are jerks!” Yes. What do you expect from a group started by Madalyn O’Hair?  

BUT…. media coverage will help get the message out that people are openly questioning the validity of religion(s),  (perhaps some feeling that this is even obnoxiously questioning religion, but I don’t find the ads obnoxious). 

Research on “CONFORMITY” shows that all it takes is for ONE voice to be heard challenging the conformity, and it psychologically gives FREEDOM for others to question authority/conformity/dogma. 

Many folks found Hitchens abrasive. Dawkins shrill. So what? Their messages got heard. 

When even atheists buy into religion’s taboo that it is unacceptable to directly challenge religion and point out it’s silliness, then we perpetuate the taboo. We would let mythology keep us quiet. 

When the status quo is so silent in challenging obvious bat-shit-crazy mythology, even a critical whisper can appear like a scream. A guy in suit at a podium with a billboard display is a whisper. Why are we so warped that it appears like a scream? 

Break the silence. Break the spell. Break the taboo of religions trying to be beyond open critique. The emperor has no clothes, and AA will call it out as such. 

Yeah, it is always great for a hated minority (us) to make a highly inflamitory, yet very vauge argument on a bilboard.

As a christian I find these posters more offensive than any religious monument an atheist might come across.

Something is only offensive if you choose to take offense. In this case, if you find it offensive when somebody criticizes your beliefs, it tells me that you are very insecure in those beliefs.

I’m an atheist, and no religious monument has ever offended me in the slightest.

 You are not making any sense.

For the record, I’m in the UK so maybe this isn’t my fight but these days with the internet being what it is….

I agree. These billboards are rude and unproductive. When theists say they hate it when atheists try to jam atheism down people’s throats, this  is exactly what they mean.

How am we supposed to defend atheists and atheism when people pull stunts like this? Where’s our moral high ground? It’s okay when the guys on Reddit do it, it’s okay when we get a bit arsey on here; we’re just idiots with too much free time and an internet connection. But AA have set themselves up as an organisation which is supposed to represent us. When they pull crap like this is makes us all look bad.

American Atheists, rethink these billboards for the sake of the rest of us. Please.

 So…You’re saying God gave us morals via the bible then? Funny, no other species on this planet needs a holy book from god to be able to get along.

“That it’s mockery does nothing to change my point. The only person offended when his beliefs are mocked is a person who is not secure in those beliefs in the first place. ”

Yeah, I don’t think that’s correct in a universal sense.

Certainly it is correct in many, if not most cases, but it doesn’t allow for taking offense at the nature of the behavior itself as an affront to the individual.

But then one could just as easily argue that mockery is the sign of not having an argument.  Of course that could be the case in many instances, but not necessarily so.

In any event, I think “being offended” and high dudgeon have been raised to an art form of sorts.

“You can’t prove god doesn’t exist”.  What a tired argument.  The burden of proof is on the one making the positive existence claim, which is why atheists don’t have to prove that there is no god.

Atheists simply claim that theists have not provided enough evidence for the existence of any gods.  That said, the universe appears to operate exactly as it would if there is no god, which would seem to make the existence of god irrelevant.

 I agree.

LOL Now that’s funny.

Not an expert by any means, but I think the Mormon billboard is incorrect.  It’s Scientologists that believe in space aliens; Mormons have a doctrine something like an early form of transhumanism, deriving from the King Follett Discourse (a sermon given by Joseph Smith after the funeral of an elder) where he explained the doctrine of how God was an exalted man and that men could become gods in their own right.

If one of the points demonstrating how “simply reasonable” you are is flat wrong, that undermines the argument (never mind the silly joke about underwear).  I think this might actually backfire, in that most people who are Christians and who think Mormons are wrong would see the billboard mocking Christianity as well, and decide “Huh – maybe the Mormons aren’t that bad, if they and we are being tarred with the same brush!”

At first I thought this was a completely terrible idea. Attacking religion in the most dickish, straw-man way possible is not going to get people to worry about the candidates’ religious beliefs, and it’s sure as hell not going to be beneficial to atheists, who are already a hated minority, and don’t need the rest of America to be even more encouraged to think that they are all insufferable assholes.

But then I realized that AA’s sole aim here must just be to get a larger membership for themselves. Sure, the rest of America will hate atheists a little bit more every time they see those billboards, and sure this contributes absolutely nothing REMOTELY legitimate to any debate. But some atheists of the douchebag persuasion will love it, and I guess want to join AA, so they can then help publicize the atheists-are-insufferable-assholes point of view with even greater fervour!!

Why are we supporting this organization exactly?

If you’re going to put up crap like this, can you make it clearer that you’re only speaking for your own small group of atheists and not all of us? I suddenly have massive empathy for mainstream Christians when fundamentalists start saying nutty things.

Aside from being smug and annoying, what are you hoping to accomplish in a country where around 90% of people define themselves as vaguely Christian?  I hope the smugness is worth the ill will you’re engendering. Again, maybe you could change you name to “A Group of Insufferably Smug American Atheists” to distinguish yourself from the rest of us.

The only person offended when his beliefs are mocked is a person who is not secure in those beliefs in the first place.

That’s not true. The other person offended is the person who laments what just happened to supposedly rational public debate.