Don’t like Lobster? You are not alone.
If there is one common element to the many atheist billboards that have been put in recent months, it seems to be the universal reaction of condemnation from the religious community. Slogans such as “Don’t believe in God? You are not alone,” and “You can be good without God” have been met with reactions that range from casual indifference, to mild offense, to outright hostility.
Most recently, in respo
nse to the potential bus ad in Iowa with the “Don’t believe in God?” message, Iowa Governor Chet Culver said, “I was disturbed, personally, by the advertisement and I can understand why other Iowans were also disturbed by the message that it sent.” In reaction to the same message on a billboard in Florida, a woman who goes by the nickname “Big Mama” led a small protest (of children who undoubtedly did not know what they were protesting) against the ad, and said, “I don’t know the reason for putting this sign up. It says ‘Do not believe in God.’ How are we going to make it? Look at our schools, everyday. Everyday there’s something going on. Kids are out here killing each other, kids are here using drugs. Who else are they going to believe in?” For a truly bizarre reaction to an ad by the Indiana Atheist Bus Campaign that reads “You can be good without God,” watch this clip from the Fox News show “Fox and Friends.”
Let me first acknowledge that there are some atheist ads that can understandably be called offensive by religious people, just like there are some religious-themed ads that can be called offensive by…well, anyone with a conscience. But to me, the statement “Don’t believe in God? You are not alone,” is little more than an objective fact. Essentially it says that some people do not believe in God, which, regardless of what you believe about anything, is objectively true. It is as true as a statement claiming that Christians exists. The same for the “You can be good without God;” you don’t have to be atheist to be good, but some people are. To me this seems as offensive as a hypothetical billboard that says “Don’t like Lobster? You are not alone.” It says nothing about the merits of eating lobster, or the taste, or really anything about lobster other than some people don’t like it.
I genuinely do not understand why this is offensive to anyone. This is about as uncontroversial as you can get. An ad that says “You are stupid and gullible for believing in God” is understandably offensive. This is not. The ads quoted previously are little more than objective statements of fact. That we are being offended by statements of fact is truly cause for concern.
Such reactions by these people suggest a deep insecurity about their belief in God, so much so that a mere mention of the word ‘God’ outside of the normal context in which God is praised in some way, immediately puts one on the defensive. Are they in some way threatened by the mere presence of people who do not believe in God, or billboards that reflect this fact? Perhaps they didn’t even read the message correctly. Just look at what Big Mama said: “I don’t know the reason for putting this sign up.” Don’t know the reason? Then why are you so angry? Big Mama claims that it says “Do not believe in God,” which, without the question mark, appears to be a command, equivalent to “Stop believing in God.” But it doesn’t say that, and anyone who takes 30 seconds to think about its meaning would see that. Steve Doocy of Fox and Friends obsessed over a similar misinterpretation, asking why INABC used the word ‘God’ if they are atheist. Did he even bother reading the ad? His stunningly ignorant comments evoke the sort of jaw dropping bewilderment (rivaled only by Steve Harvey) that leaves me unable to even begin explaining what a ridiculous question that is.
If you think that one single comment is not an accurate representation of the way religious people have reacted, you have obviously not spent any time reading the “comment” section of any newspaper article that discusses this. This is truly an exercise in futility, so don’t bother. Trust me that the comments there are far more hate-filled and vitriolic that Big Mama’s, but equally ignorant of the point.
If there is a lesson to be learned from this, it is that everyone needs to take a deep breath and try to understand each other a little better before we start shouting, lest we resort to some truly despicable behavior. Freedom of speech is good, but I would argue that the ability to comprehend what’s being said is even better. Once you have taken a moment to understand someone’s position, then you can start shouting.
“If there is a lesson to be learned from this, it is that everyone needs to take a deep breath and try to understand each other a little better before we start shouting, lest we resort to some truly despicable behavior. Freedom of speech is good, but I would argue that the ability to comprehend what
@Paul Scott:
“The conclusion and solution you propose above unfortunately fails to recognize the reality that emotions rule when it comes to the people in question. Common sense and reason do not.”
First off, let me say how much I LOVE how people discussing a point about religion always start off by saying you “fail to recognize” or “fail to realize”. I love being told what I think.
In any case, I see your point, but disagree. To summarily dismiss religious believers as irrational and incapable of reason or common sense is both dishonest and unhelpful. Everyone is capable of SOME degree of rational thinking, religious believers included. The question of religious belief in general aside, my point was that to reject even the most basic, fundamental application of common sense and reason, like the interpretation of an objectively true billboard message, is truly delusional and problematic. I do believe that religious people should be capable of admitting, without offense, that some people have brown hair, like lobster, and do not believe in God. I don’t think I’m “failing to recognize” anything when I say this.
People are free to believe in whatever philosophy they choose, and I’m not saying they should give that up at all–I’m just saying that whatever you believe, at the very least you owe it to civilized society to employ some small degree of rationality and common sense in SOME situations. If you get offended by the mere fact that some people think other than you do, I would argue that you have be pretty dim-witted, or, as @Tony Konrath points out below, simply illiterate. I would say you are probably both. As a society we should find this unacceptable.
If there is any offense to be had here, it should be from phrases like “That is our position. Their position simply does not…” If you are going to frame this as an “us vs them” debate, then count me out. I’m not on anyone’s team.
Side note: I agree that “The Great Derangement” by Matt Taibbi is excellent.
Don’t forget that illiterate people read the “Don’t believe…” not as a question (they leave the question mark off then end) but as an order or instruction. “Don’t believe in god!” The illiteracy causes their affront.
“anyone who takes 30 seconds to think about its meaning would see that”
I always thought anyone who actually takes 30 seconds to think about this things meaning comes to the conclusion its a pro-religious message. Forget your preconceptions of it and let me describe it to you.
You’re driving down the road, you pass a billboard. The billboard says “Don’t believe in God”… “You are not alone” with a bunch of heavenly clouds. The conclusion, God is out there whether you believe in him or not. At least that was how I read it when I first saw one of these.
Anyway, just food for thought. Very good post.
Dear sir,
I am deeply offended by your claim that lobsters don’t taste good and are unhealthy. I love to eat lobsters and the title of your post makes me question whether I, in fact, think lobsters are delicious.
Look, I’m cool with YOU not liking lobster, but it’s in the constitution of the United States of America that you must love to eat lobster. And now you’re making me think I don’t love to eat lobster! Well, sir, you are infringing on my constitutional right.
Maybe if you think about how, with some butter sauce, lobsters actually taste quite good. Think about it. You’re at a nice restaurant and the lobster arrives, cooked to perfection, and there’s that sauce ready to be dripped all over that meat-y tail… mmm… I bet your mouth is watering just thinking about it… Oh, but wait, I thought you don’t like lobster! I’m just going to have to take that lobster away from you. No lobster for you Mr. Writey-pants.
In conclusion, stop your anti-lobster scare tactics. I’m not gonna get salmonella (if the lobster is cooked correctly) and I’m not going to lose my job just by eating lobster, as you claim in your title. Lobster tastes delicious.
The billboard as described is pointless and counterproductive. It conveys the message that Humanists are concerned with the existence or nonexistence of something called “God.” I am not.
Humanism is about humans. It is not a position about unicorns, leprechauns, fairies, gods or mermaids. It is about what is human – and that is undeniably real. Would you bother trying to each out to non-believers in unicorns? Really, who cares? Why bother offending stupid gullible people for no purpose?
I am very concerned about what people DO. But when they go home and close the door I really don’t care if they light a candle and chant “om,” or recite the kol nidre, bow toward Mecca, or pray the Rosary, so long as they are not imposing their superstitions on others.
“Do you believe in God?” is not a real question. It is just a way to elicit a predetermined answer, like asking “Do you believe in kindness to animals?” That silly billboard is just baiting the rubes, like poking the monkey at the zoo with a stick.
Personally I am not a theist or an atheist because I do not choose to define myself by categories of unwarranted unprovable belief or disbelief in speculations about imaginary entities. A skeptic, I say a pox on them all. I do not choose to get down in the sandbox and throw sand at children squabbling over a non-issue.
“The billboard as described is pointless and counterproductive. It conveys the message that Humanists are concerned with the existence or nonexistence of something called
I concur with you on this absolutely and I would like to add my own two cents. I am reminded of something I saw on television just last week. A comedian who is a theist and a Christian was doing a sort of man-in-the-street interview with people discussing god. His basic premise was this: Since god made you he has rights over you. He can tell you how to behave and punish you if you do not live according to his wishes.
Regardless of what laws and rules this man claims god has set it is clear that any belief that posits god as the arbiter of what is moral is not man centered and therefore incompatible with Humanism. While Francis may be unconcerned with what someone does in the privacy of their own home or in the church of his or her choice. Generally I would say he was right, but of course were there a theist who thought allah was telling him to kill people as part of a jihad against the United States. Or a theist who believed that god wanted him to shoot and kill and abortion doctor in a church. Or a theist who believed that god gave his people a parcel of land and this irrevocable covenant was the basis for his country invading and occupying a land 2,000 years after his people had been expelled. I would say there was much to be concerned about with any of these scenarios. He and I both share a concern about what a person does but what I think Francis conveniently ignores is that much of what someone does is directly related to the importance one places on god
In re-reading my post the first sentence of the second paragraph should have stated: Regardless of what laws and rules this man claims god has set it is clear that any belief that posits god as the arbiter of what is moral is not HUMAN centered and therefore incompatible with Humanism.
I apologize for the use of “man” that would seem to exclude females. I assure all of you it was inadvertant.
Some feel that the existence or nonexistence of X is something worth being concerned about, so long as X is something called “God.”
Are they equally exercised about belief and nonbelief in mermaids and leprechauns? Should we set out to recruit the amermaidists and the aleprechaunists?
Personally, I prefer to walk away from such children’s squabbles and say “I am a Humanist. My interest is in what is human – and that includes ethics, a human responsibility. I am not into metaphysics.”
According to Humanist Manifesto 2, Humanism is not a metaphysical stance but is an ethical process through which we can all move above and beyond the assertions and denials of past religions.
Billboards about gods diminish Humanism by presenting the appearance that we care about their “gods.” Do you? If you are not yet free from your childhood indoctrination you may think there is something worth denying. I don’t.
It would make just as much sense to erect signs proclaiming “Don’t believe in mermaids? You are not alone.”
And don’t overlook the unicorns, fairies and Santa Claus. Let’s not make one silly superstition appear more important to us than the others.
“It would make just as much sense to erect signs proclaiming
Well said Clayton!
Responding to:
“You are very purposefully ignoring the sociological and political implications of theism. But ignoring them will not make them go away.”
I am very much concerned about the sociopolitical and political implications of theism. The antonym of theism is not Humanism, it is atheism. Humanism is not about theism or atheism. Humanism is about what is human.
Political implications of anything are issues of politics. Humanism is about ethics.
As to:
“If you want to grow humanism and reach out to all the doubters out there, telling them that even considering the question of their doubt in the existence of a god is childish is not going to bring more humanists to our side.”
I do not have a “side.” I am not in a combat.
I do not feel driven to “reach out to doubters” because I am not a missionary. In fact, I am contemptuous of self-appointed missionaries regardless of the cause that motivates them.
If people choose to believe or doubt in imaginary stuff I really do not care – what matters to me is what they DO. Believing in “Manifest Destiny” was not morally wrong; murdering Indians was.
Mermaids, unicorns, leprechauns, gods and fairies really do not interest me much.
There is a non-existent glorious world out there in cyberspace that has done more damage recently than faith in Christ’s coming glorious Kingdom; it is the withering away of the state achieved by the entirely imaginary process of historical determinism. The Inquisition was formally abolished in 1820 but Mao’s Glorious Cultural Revolution caused 29 million deaths in our time. Let’s worry less about Jesus and more about Lenin.
Comment by Abruzzo 2009-08-19
Well let us look at what Humanist manifesto II actually says on the subject of god
I’ll say more but I had to address this bit of illogic form Francis…
“
“Humanism, a philosophical and literary movement in which man and his capabilities are the central concern.”
That’s why I’m an atheist, Humanism leaves the door open for a belief system, which is human nature, such as “I am Human, therefore I believe what humans believe is true,” that leads to unicorns and trolls and fairies and gods and other myths. “Atheism: lack of belief in God or active disbelief in God” Now we are talkin about what is real and what is imagined.
I believe the reason that slogans such as
Earthling apparently assumes that the Bible is the repository of Christian doctrine. It is not. The custodian of Christianity’s teachings is the apostolic church – which is the body of all properly baptized persons. Jesus did NOT say “Thou art Peter and on this rock I will write my book.”
The majority of the world’s Christians are in the Catholic faiths: Roman, Orthodox and Anglican. It is a fallacy of the Protestant minority to bleat “Sola scriptura!” which is neither traditional nor biblical.
Within this Protestant minority, American fundamentalism is the lunatic fringe. They are dangerous because they have votes and guns. A rabid dog is dangerous because it is rabid, not because it is a dog. Fundies, as Christians, are foaming at the mouth and it is NOT “God” or “the” Bible that makes them crazy. Fanaticism of ANY kind is dangerous to society.
Well-meaning but unwise freethinkers play right into the hands of their enemies by entering into dialogue with the fundie wackos on THEIR terms.
An example is the foolish billboard reference to “God” in the singular, thereby insulting countless millions of polytheists. Exactly WHICH “God” don’t we “believe in” anyway? Kierkegaard’s? Tillichs? Barth’s? The Pope’s? Spinoza’s? Montaigne’s? Kant’s? Mother Teresa’s? It is really dumb to argue “belief” with the crazies about undefined entities.
What matters is their ACTIONS. Those are real, observable and measurable. Fundies’ ACTIONS can be discussed, but they prefer to sucker you into talking about their “God” where THEY have the advantage of “playing on the home ground.”