Why the 'Atheists: You're Wrong' Billboard isn't a Christian Message

[cbayer]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cynthia-jeub/why-the-atheists-youre-wr_b_4066411.html

Cynthia Jeub
Blogger

Posted: 10/08/2013 5:31 pm



I was scrolling through my Facebook feed a few days ago when I came across a picture of the new billboard in Times Square. If you're one of the approximately 1.6 million people who pass through the intersection every day, perhaps you've seen it. Over a light blue backdrop, white lettering reads, "To our atheist friends: Thank God you're wrong."

The billboard, which will also flash an animated version on the Times Square Digital Board every 2 minutes for the next month, is funded by Ken Ham, the founder, CEO, and President of Answers in Genesis. AiG is known among Christian groups as a defender of the creationist young-earth theory, and recently funded the construction of a creation science museum in Petersburg, KY. My immediate reaction was one of shock and shame, and I left a quick comment on both my friend's post and the original post from Ham. Ham deleted my comment, but what I said to the small group of friends was this: "This is an awful idea and I'm ashamed that any Christian supports it."

The first reason I don't think Christians should support this photo should be obvious. To say "you're wrong" is unconvincing. It's also unloving, but while being loving should be first on the list of priorities for people who follow Jesus, my experience with supporters of this kind of thing would say something like "speaking the truth is the most loving thing you can do."

I'm bothered by three other elements of the billboard campaign. First, it points to Genesis 1:1 to make its point, which means the argument is between young-earth creationism and evolution. Second, it says "thank God" on it. Third, it calls atheists "our friends," and proceeds not to treat them in a friendly way.

more at link

[trotsky]

1. Stated with the same fundamentalist-like self-assuredness that Ken Ham has.

Much nicer message, but neither one of them can state what they do with certainty.

[Skinner]

2. I'm probably going to be in the minority on this.

But I believe there is nothing inherently disrespectful or unloving about telling someone that they are wrong. If I mistakenly held on to a belief that was wrong, I would appreciate someone (politely) explaining to me why I was mistaken.

The problem with this billboard is that it does not provide any compelling explanation for why atheists are (allegedly) wrong. I tend to think that being called wrong by the folks at "Answers in Genesis" is hardly something to be ashamed of, seeing as they are themselves wrong on practically everything.

My guess is that the intended audience for this billboard is not actually atheists, but rather "Answers in Genesis"-style believers.

[cbayer]

3. I think you are right about the intended audience,

but his taking a swipe at atheists in order to reach his audience is what I object to.

I also agree that telling someone they are wrong when you have evidence to support that is not disrespectful. However, telling people they are wrong when you have no evidence to back that up can be disrespectful. It implies that you have some special knowledge which the other person is either too stupid or too unenlightened to understand.

His intent was to offend and, by offending, rally his own troops.

While he has every right to do that and I'm not suggesting otherwise, it's just inflammatory and divisive. Not that that is any surprise, considering the source.

[Leontius]

4. Atheists are wrong about God.

If this statement offends anyone tough.

[cbayer]

6. Deleted first reply because I misunderstood this.

That statement is meant to offend, imo. It implies that atheists are somehow deficient and just can't or won't see the "truth". Since no one has the truth, it's only purpose is to provoke.

[trotsky]

9. People who believe in leprechauns are wrong.

Is that offensive to those who believe in leprechauns?

After all, no one has the "truth" about the existence of leprechauns, right?

[el_bryanto]

17. I am not so sure about this argument.

It is implying that a belief in Leprechans and a belief in God is equally ridiculous. But of course most religious folk (at least them what believes in God) see the two beliefs as being categorically different. It seems like the sort of argument designed to flatter one side of the debate, without really advancing discussion.

One equivalent you see on my side of the fence is "How can Atheists have a sense of morality without God?" While there are presumably nihilist atheists (or atheist nihilists), most atheists seem very concerned with right and wrong; their argument against God often takes on a moral shade, discussing the evil that people do in the name of religion.

That's not the point to the argument though - in a sense it has very little to do with Atheists. It's more about saying "Yay Christians! you are way better than Atheists." That seems to be the argument behind this billboard as well.

Bryant

[trotsky]

40. To anyone without a belief in god, they are equally ridiculous.

But apart from an argumentum ad populum, what difference is there?

Anyway, this isn't a commentary on the comparative validity of the beliefs, it's a sincere question: if, as cbayer insists, that it is disrespectful to say god beliefs are wrong simply because they can't be proven wrong, then what about belief in leprechauns? Or unicorns? Or any other mythical creature - we can't conclusively prove that any of them don't exist, so is it disrespectful to say they don't?

[el_bryanto]

41. I don't know - I gather if I met someone who i thought was a good person

and who passionately believed in Leprechans I don't know that I would aggressively say to them "You are wrong!" I'm not sure what that would accomplish (unless their belief in Leprechans interfered with them in some other way).

I guess I would make a distinction between the belief and the believer; i might have to treat the belief disrespectfully but I would want to treat the believer with respect.

That's hard to do though.

Bryant

[trotsky]

45. Again, you seem to be shifting the argument.

This isn't about "aggressively" telling them they're wrong, it's just the ability to tell someone they're wrong. Or even just believe they're wrong.

cbayer thinks that if something can't be conclusively proven one way or the other, it's unacceptable to even *believe* they're wrong.

[el_bryanto]

46. Well I'm not Cbayer, so I can't defend his or her point of view.

It is a reaction to the original Billboard - do you think that billboard is acceptable? Or kind of dickish?

Bryant

[trotsky]

47. Doesn't bother me at all.

I think it's kind of funny. Ken Ham is a goofball, AND he's wrong. (About lots of things.)

[el_bryanto]

48. Well, fair enough then. Certainly does grab attention, I suppose. nt

[skepticscott]

14. Please stop with the

"No one has the truth" meme. It's silly, and even you don't believe it. Do you believe that evolutionists have the truth and creationists don't? Yes. You've said so many times when trying distance yourself from the fundies.

And as far as the existence of "god" goes, someone does have the truth, whether you realize that or not.

[el_bryanto]

18. Who has that truth? nt

[skepticscott]

34. If one person is saying that A is true

and another is saying that not A is true, then one of them has the truth.

[el_bryanto]

42. That makes sense, some people say that God exists and others say that God doesn't exist.

Which one of them has the truth?

Bryant

[Goblinmonger]

44. To me, the more important question is who has the burden of proof.

One person is making a spectacularly bold claim (There is a God who does all these supernatural things). Another is not making a spectacularly bold claim. The one making the claim has the burden of proof. As such, I think saying "you are wrong about there being a god" is, contrary to the attitudes of many, nowhere near as "offensive" as "you are wrong about there not being a god." I'm not making a claim at all--I'm just not buying your claim. I don't have the burden of proof.

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

52. Right on!

[Humanist_Activist]

10. Which one? n/t

[skepticscott]

13. Offends? Amuses, maybe

If I, as an atheist, say "I have seen no convincing evidence for the existence of any of the "gods" that religions worship, and I find no good reason to believe in any of them", how, specifically, am I "wrong?"

[Goblinmonger]

30. Doesn't offend me.

I think you are wrong about god(s), too. Se la vie. As long as you aren't pushing your beliefs into legislation like so many are in this secular government, I couldn't care less. I'm sure we'd enjoy a beer together.

[Leontius]

33. I know a lot of people I think are wrong about different things just as they think I'm wrong

we get along just fine. Life's kinda like that most places. The bar is always open.

[cleanhippie]

49. Not offended at all. In fact. I'm impressed.

You are not afraid to show your rigid adherence to the denial of fact and reality to support your beliefs.

[Leontius]

50. If you could only know how much I value your opinion and comment.

[cleanhippie]

55. Not nearly as much as I value yours.

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

51. Christians are wrong about god.

If this statement offends you, tough.

[Goblinmonger]

32. I don't see it as disrespectful

and it's aimed at me (at least on face--I agree with you on intended audience).

The fact that a young-earth creationist things I'm wrong about something, frankly, makes me feel OK about where I'm at.

[dimbear]

7. Dear Cynthia: please stop using the word Christian as a synonym for good.

That offends atheists, and those who know history.

[cbayer]

8. I think she is criticizing his particular flavor of christian, not equating christian with good.

At any rate, she never implies in any way that people other than christians are not good, just that Ham doesn't reflect the best of christianity, imo.

[Humanist_Activist]

11. If she were simply saying he's being rude or offensive, that's one thing...

but framing this as "acting Christian" or not is just stupid.

[cbayer]

15. I think the point is that HE puts himself out there as the ideal christian.

She is merely saying that there is nothing christian about what he is doing.

[trotsky]

16. In other words, she's putting forth her Christianity as the ideal version.

Totally different.

[skepticscott]

12. She bloviates a bit too much

Like so many other "liberal" and "progressive" believers, she is desperate to distance herself from fundies in any way she can, but she ends up sounding very overblown in the attempt.

"Shock and shame"? Oh, please. Over a freaking billboard that says nothing that any atheist would be surprised or insulted by, and nothing she and zillions of other Christians don't believe themselves? She doesn't speak for all Christians and neither does Ham, and she doesn't answer for what he says.

If she wanted to go off on something, how about holding up the extensive missionary work done by so many Christian churches? That's a gigantic, institutionalized "You're wrong!" from Christians, with cultural (and in the past physical) genocide as part of the deal. Guess that would have involved too much work and thought for an internet hack, and wouldn't have gotten her as much love or as many page clicks as she needed.

[enki23]

54. I have a theory on this:

They expect this to be shocking because they find the equivalent from Atheists to be shocking and shameful. They're the ones who have made a presumed life's purpose out of *needing* to be thinking the right things. It's the most tremendous insult possible to say they're wrong. (Not that I can't be annoyed by that too, but it's a little different. It's not the mere existence of the different opinion that irks me. It's the jaw-dropping temerity they have when they pretend they actually have good *reason* for it, and that I deserve to suffer because I don't agree).

One of people's most common social mistakes, I think, is to assume everyone else is pretty much like them, and any claims they make to being otherwise are actually just a contrarian act they're putting on for perceived social benefit. It's the "people who appear not to think like me actually secretly do, but they're just acting out like willful teenagers" model of human diversity. (It probably doesn't apply very well to willful teenagers either).

[Mariana]

19. Of course it's a Christian message

and Ms. Jeub is dishonest to say it's not. Christians wrote it, designed it, and paid for it. The link is to a Christian website. It's purpose is to promote AIG's particular flavor of Christianity. It IS a Christian message.

[cbayer]

20. Her argument is that it's not consistent with what she holds to be christian principles.

She is one of many trying to make the distinction between different groups under the larger umbrella of "christian".

In short, it's rhetorical, not literal.

[skepticscott]

36. Her "Christian principles" are no more valid

than those of the people she decries, as has been demonstrated here time and time again. So why do you keep repeating this meme?

[hrmjustin]

21. They have the right to do it. I think it is a waste of time putting the board up with this message.

I think if you want to attract new Christians with a board message it should be about the love a Jesus Christ not about someone else being wrong. Just a thought.

[cbayer]

22. I found another article about this that said this was a rebuttal to some billboards

put up by an atheist group last holiday season.

They said:

‘Keep the Merry, Dump the Myth!’, ‘Tell your family you don’t believe in Gods. They just might agree,’ and, ‘You know it’s a myth. This season celebrate reason.’

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2451587/Anti-atheist-billboard-posted-Times-Square-creationists.html

That makes more sense as those were meant to be provocative and offensive as well, imo.

It's a very stupid little war.

[hrmjustin]

24. The money spent on these boards could have been better spent.

Mind boggling.

[cbayer]

26. Much better spent. They can't be cheap.

[hrmjustin]

27. That has to be a pretty penny in Times Square.

I would not give them a dime.

[cbayer]

28. I wouldn't give either of the groups a dime.

With all the good things they could be doing, they choose this.

[Mariana]

23. Skinner figured out the real reason for this

and posted it upthread. I agree with him. This ad is not for attracting atheists, it's for attracting other Christians that believe as they do, but aren't (yet) sending them money.

Edited for clarity.

[hrmjustin]

25. That is a good point. I would not send them money at all though.

[Mariana]

29. I would hope

that you don't believe as they do.

[hrmjustin]

31. My faith is much more inclusive.

[skepticscott]

35. Your faith is much more exclusive

since you apparently exclude creationists from being "true" and worthy Christians, and they constitute a majority of Christians in this country. Their beliefs "include" a lot more people than yours.

[hrmjustin]

37. My faith lead me to believe that we are all God's children. That God wants us all to be

with him in his kingdom.

I disagree with creationist and I will speak out against creationists but I am in no position to say who is worthy. I am not God.

[skepticscott]

38. This is about who is a Christian and whose principles are "Christian"

Who "god's children" are is just another of your red herrings. But you seem to agree that Ken Ham and his followers are just as much Christians as the author of this article, and that no one but "god" has any authority to say otherwise. As usual, you've come around. Though why you speak out against creationists is another mystery, since we have it on good authority here that neither you nor they can have the truth about anything or know anything for certain.

[hrmjustin]

39. I do not say I know, I say I believe. I have not seen Jesus but I believe in him.

I walk by faith not by sight.

No red herrings here.

[LostOne4Ever]

43. Ignoring the claim to knowing the "truth" aspect of this

as we all think we are right and others are wrong, I find it interesting that they say "Thank God."

As if the idea that there might not be a god is in some way a dark and ugly prospect. What is it about there being no god that they (people at AiG) are so scared of? Does the mere possibility of there being no god make ice cream taste less sweet? Lemons less sour? Does it diminish the ceruleans and coral hue cast upon the sky by the setting sun?

Of course, this is a rhetorical question. I have a few ideas on the answers already, but I find it interesting, and disheartening, how so many people see a godless world as a bad thing. I find the prospect liberating and empowering. I don't need a god to give my life meaning, I create that meaning myself.

Often, I see many theist refer to the "beauty" and "wonder" in the world as evidence of the existence of god. Yet, to me, the lack of a god makes that beauty and wonder all the more amazing. That the nature we know today was able to crawl its way out of the primordial ooze and make a place for itself, surviving coutless hardships that ended other species, to become the tree/flower/bird/cat/whatever just makes it more impressive to me.

The ad, if anything, shows me that the people at AiG have either never met or talked to actual non-believers and base their views on us based upon their pre-concieved notions and stereotypes.

Thanks for the fun article as always Cbayer! Also I like the new Gif.

[enki23]

53. My brain automatically substitutes the implied "your wrong".

I'm actually not making that up. I had to check a couple of times.

Anyway, it's as Christian as anything else. Christianity is as it does. In this nation, most of the nastiest elements are Christianity rich, and most of the best elements are Christianity poor. That's just how it is. None of the points of view gets to decide which is the "real" Christian. There is no Platonic ideal, no sufficiently detailed official definition. The best one can do is to go with the plurality (or, sadly, a straight majority in this case).

By that measure, that's a completely consistent, and frankly pedestrian Christian sentiment. Not particularly offensive. The fact that they think I'm wrong is entirely the point. I define part of myself by that. It's like being mocked by a five-year-old. ("PIG NEWTONS!!!&quot It's not really offensive. It's just scary. Because the five-year-old is holding a gun.

[Humanist_Activist]

56. Her view is, ultimately, unChristian, even the Bible labels those who believe or "deny" their God...

as fools worthy of some of the more gruesome punishments.