I guess this falls under Freedom of Religion, right?

[Colossus_500]

‘Good Without God,’ Atheist Subway Ads Proclaim
By Jennifer & Lee
cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com

Atheism is coming to the subway — or at least subway ads promoting it are.

Starting next Monday, a coalition of local groups will run a monthlong advertising campaign in a dozen Manhattan subway stations with the slogan “A Million New Yorkers Are Good Without God. Are You?” The posters also advertise the Web site BigAppleCoR.org, which provides a listing of local groups affiliated with the Coalition of Reason, the umbrella organization that coordinated the campaign.

The campaign — which is being paid for by $25,000 from an anonymous donor — follows a similar but unrelated monthlong campaign on buses by New York City Atheists in July. Jane Everhart, a spokeswoman for the New York City Atheists, said that campaign was highly successful and brought in many new members. “We are trying to raise money to do it again,” she said.

The subway station advertisements were chosen for the $25,000 campaign because they were the best deal for the given budget, said Michael De Dora Jr., the executive director for the New York branch of the Center for Inquiry. A Times Square ad would have cost $45,000 to $50,000 for a month, while a campaign that blanketed the inside of subway cars would have cost $70,000.

The subway campaign is timed to a new book called “Good Without God” by Greg Epstein, which is to be released on Oct. 27 by William Morrow. Mr. Epstein, the Harvard University humanist chaplain, is having a book signing at Columbia University Bookstore on Oct. 28.

Other books on atheism, including best-selling ones by Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, have helped to give visibility to an “atheism awakening,” where atheists have been finding strength in numbers. President Barack Obama’s inaugural address even included a reference to “nonbelievers” among an enumeration of various religions.

Mr. De Dora said the million-person estimate of New Yorkers who do not believe in God was an extrapolation from surveys on religion. The American Religious Identification Survey, which was released earlier this year, showed that those who put “none” for religion had risen to 15 percent in 2008, from 8 percent in 1990. Based on their projections, New York City, with its 8.3 million population, would have more than a million nonbelievers, Mr. De Dora said. (It is questionable, of course, whether New York City, given its demographics, is representative of the country as a whole.)

Asked to comment on the advertisement, Joseph Zwilling, a spokesman for the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of New York, said: “The First Amendment allows these groups to preach their religious beliefs. I hope that the rights of other religious groups will also be respected when they also seek to advertise their beliefs.”

A number of atheist-themed advertising campaigns have been promoted this year. The largest so far has been one in Britain that put ads on 800 buses stating: “There’s probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.”

In the United States, the Coalition of Reason has also placed billboards that read “Don’t Believe in God? You Are Not Alone.” in the Dallas-Fort Worth area and Morgantown, W.Va. An Indiana atheist group ran ads in the cities of Bloomington and South Bend that read “You can be good without God.” The group, called the Indiana Atheist Bus campaign, also crossed the border into Chicago, where they purchased ads for 25 buses.

Because New York is so large and diverse, the atheist message is actually harder to promote, Mr. De Dora said. “Collectively, we’ve had a harder time selling our message to New Yorkers,” he said. In addition, since there are so many different atheist and secular-minded groups in New York, they are competing for an audience. Aside from the center, other groups in the coalition include the Flying Spaghetti Monster Meetup, New York City Brights, New York Philosophy, New York Society for Ethical Culture, Richie’s List and the Secular Humanist Society of New York.

The dozen subway stations where the ads are running are:

    * 14th Street-Sixth Avenue
    * 14th Street-Seventh Avenue
    * 14th Street-Eighth Avenue
    * 23rd Street-Eighth Avenue
    * Pennsylvania Station (three ads)
    * 86th Street-Lexington Avenue
    * 96th Street-Lexington Avenue
    * 42nd Street-Sixth Avenue/Bryant Park
    * 66th Street-Broadway/Lincoln Center
    * 72nd Street-Central Park West
    * 86th Street-Central Park West
    * West Fourth Street

[Butterbean]

The campaign — which is being paid for by $25,000 from an anonymous donor —

Interesting way to spend money...getting people to think about something you claim not to believe in.... weird!

[Government_Controlled]

I would say it definitely falls under "freedom" of speech. Some say Atheism is a religion. I guess it depends on how the said one views/practices Atheism.

I'm glad we in this Country still are allowed to practice whatever religion we choose too. I'm very thankful for that.

If Atheists want to promote their message, so be it, doesn't bother me.





GC/DEA_AGENT

[Necrosis]

Interesting way to spend money...getting people to think about something you claim not to believe in.... weird!

do you not understand the reasoning or are you purposely being ignorant?

they are letting people know its ok to not believe in god, you wont burn in hell, get tortured etc.. you can live your life without any oppression. Also, you cannot run for office as an atheist, just look at the reaction people had to obama's speech. Things need to change, religion has done enough damage and people are better off without it, fact.

[Signifying Monkey]

GC/DEA_AGENT

lol

[loco]

do you not understand the reasoning or are you purposely being ignorant?

they are letting people know its ok to not believe in god, you wont burn in hell, get tortured etc.. you can live your life without any oppression. Also, you cannot run for office as an atheist, just look at the reaction people had to obama's speech. Things need to change, religion has done enough damage and people are better off without it, fact.

BEIJING

Professor Zhao Xiao shuttles between the private sector and officialdom, giving elite management seminars to CEOs and advising government cadres on the economy. "If eating Chinese cuisine will make me stronger, then I'll eat it, and if Western food makes me stronger, then I'll eat that," said Zhao, a 40-year-old Communist Party member and economist.

Zhao's interest in Christianity began when he embarked on a study of how economies in predominantly Christian societies differ from non-Christian ones. He visited South Korea, Singapore and Hong Kong. To his own surprise, he began advocating that Christianity could offer China a "common moral foundation" capable of reducing corruption, narrowing the gap between rich and poor, promoting philanthropy and even preventing pollution.

In lectures and writings, Zhao now argues that promoting the 10 Commandments would cultivate "a civilization based upon rules." Likewise, providing business owners with "a motivation that transcends profits" might keep them from seeking shortcuts that have fouled China's environment or cheated workers. And encouraging tycoons to donate some of their wealth would develop China's civic institutions, Zhao argues, just as early American Christians founded Harvard and Yale Universities.

When Zhao took his theory public in lectures to political elites, he braced himself for criticism; as a party member, discussing his newfound faith could stymie his career. Instead he was stunned to discover that many people agreed with him.

Jesus in China: Christianity's rapid rise
By Evan Osnos
Tribune correspondent
June 22, 2008
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-jesus-1-1-webjun22,0,6146849,print.story

[Butterbean]

do you not understand the reasoning or are you purposely being ignorant?

they are letting people know its ok to not believe in god, you wont burn in hell, get tortured etc.. you can live your life without any oppression. Also, you cannot run for office as an atheist, just look at the reaction people had to obama's speech. Things need to change, religion has done enough damage and people are better off without it, fact.

Yes, I understand what they are trying to do...and what they are doing is encouraging people to think about God. 

[Necrosis]

BEIJING

Professor Zhao Xiao shuttles between the private sector and officialdom, giving elite management seminars to CEOs and advising government cadres on the economy. "If eating Chinese cuisine will make me stronger, then I'll eat it, and if Western food makes me stronger, then I'll eat that," said Zhao, a 40-year-old Communist Party member and economist.

Zhao's interest in Christianity began when he embarked on a study of how economies in predominantly Christian societies differ from non-Christian ones. He visited South Korea, Singapore and Hong Kong. To his own surprise, he began advocating that Christianity could offer China a "common moral foundation" capable of reducing corruption, narrowing the gap between rich and poor, promoting philanthropy and even preventing pollution.

In lectures and writings, Zhao now argues that promoting the 10 Commandments would cultivate "a civilization based upon rules." Likewise, providing business owners with "a motivation that transcends profits" might keep them from seeking shortcuts that have fouled China's environment or cheated workers. And encouraging tycoons to donate some of their wealth would develop China's civic institutions, Zhao argues, just as early American Christians founded Harvard and Yale Universities.

When Zhao took his theory public in lectures to political elites, he braced himself for criticism; as a party member, discussing his newfound faith could stymie his career. Instead he was stunned to discover that many people agreed with him.

Jesus in China: Christianity's rapid rise
By Evan Osnos
Tribune correspondent
June 22, 2008
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-jesus-1-1-webjun22,0,6146849,print.story

wow a christian advocating christianity. You guys dont follow the rules, and the facts of the matter are against you, would you like to see them?

[loco]

wow a christian advocating christianity. You guys dont follow the rules, and the facts of the matter are against you, would you like to see them?

A Christian who was first an atheist.  His study probably contributed to his conversion.  And many political elites in his Chinese Communist party agreed with him.

Here is your fellow atheist if you prefer:

Faith does breed charity

"We atheists have to accept that most believers are better human beings"

Roy Hattersley
The Guardian, Monday 12 September 2005

Hurricane Katrina did not stay on the front pages for long. Yesterday's Red Cross appeal for an extra 40,000 volunteer workers was virtually ignored.

The disaster will return to the headlines when one sort of newspaper reports a particularly gruesome discovery or another finds additional evidence of President Bush's negligence. But month after month of unremitting suffering is not news. Nor is the monotonous performance of the unpleasant tasks that relieve the pain and anguish of the old, the sick and the homeless - the tasks in which the Salvation Army specialise.

The Salvation Army has been given a special status as provider-in-chief of American disaster relief. But its work is being augmented by all sorts of other groups. Almost all of them have a religious origin and character.

Notable by their absence are teams from rationalist societies, free thinkers' clubs and atheists' associations - the sort of people who not only scoff at religion's intellectual absurdity but also regard it as a positive force for evil.

The arguments against religion are well known and persuasive. Faith schools, as they are now called, have left sectarian scars on Northern Ireland. Stem-cell research is forbidden because an imaginary God - who is not enough of a philosopher to realise that the ingenuity of a scientist is just as natural as the instinct of Rousseau's noble savage - condemns what he does not understand and the churches that follow his teaching forbid their members to pursue cures for lethal diseases.

Yet men and women who believe that the Pope is the devil incarnate, or (conversely) regard his ex cathedra pronouncements as holy writ, are the people most likely to take the risks and make the sacrifices involved in helping others. Last week a middle-ranking officer of the Salvation Army, who gave up a well-paid job to devote his life to the poor, attempted to convince me that homosexuality is a mortal sin.

Late at night, on the streets of one of our great cities, that man offers friendship as well as help to the most degraded and (to those of a censorious turn of mind) degenerate human beings who exist just outside the boundaries of our society. And he does what he believes to be his Christian duty without the slightest suggestion of disapproval. Yet, for much of his time, he is meeting needs that result from conduct he regards as intrinsically wicked.

Civilised people do not believe that drug addiction and male prostitution offend against divine ordinance. But those who do are the men and women most willing to change the fetid bandages, replace the sodden sleeping bags and - probably most difficult of all - argue, without a trace of impatience, that the time has come for some serious medical treatment. Good works, John Wesley insisted, are no guarantee of a place in heaven. But they are most likely to be performed by people who believe that heaven exists.

The correlation is so clear that it is impossible to doubt that faith and charity go hand in hand. The close relationship may have something to do with the belief that we are all God's children, or it may be the result of a primitive conviction that, although helping others is no guarantee of salvation, it is prudent to be recorded in a book of gold, like James Leigh Hunt's Abu Ben Adam, as "one who loves his fellow men". Whatever the reason, believers answer the call, and not just the Salvation Army. When I was a local councillor, the Little Sisters of the Poor - right at the other end of the theological spectrum - did the weekly washing for women in back-to-back houses who were too ill to scrub for themselves.

It ought to be possible to live a Christian life without being a Christian or, better still, to take Christianity à la carte. The Bible is so full of contradictions that we can accept or reject its moral advice according to taste. Yet men and women who, like me, cannot accept the mysteries and the miracles do not go out with the Salvation Army at night.

The only possible conclusion is that faith comes with a packet of moral imperatives that, while they do not condition the attitude of all believers, influence enough of them to make them morally superior to atheists like me. The truth may make us free. But it has not made us as admirable as the average captain in the Salvation Army.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/sep/12/religion.uk/print

[Necrosis]

A Christian who was first an atheist.  His study probably contributed to his conversion.  And many political elites in his Chinese Communist party agreed with him.

Here is your fellow atheist if you prefer:

Faith does breed charity

"We atheists have to accept that most believers are better human beings"

Roy Hattersley
The Guardian, Monday 12 September 2005

Hurricane Katrina did not stay on the front pages for long. Yesterday's Red Cross appeal for an extra 40,000 volunteer workers was virtually ignored.

The disaster will return to the headlines when one sort of newspaper reports a particularly gruesome discovery or another finds additional evidence of President Bush's negligence. But month after month of unremitting suffering is not news. Nor is the monotonous performance of the unpleasant tasks that relieve the pain and anguish of the old, the sick and the homeless - the tasks in which the Salvation Army specialise.

The Salvation Army has been given a special status as provider-in-chief of American disaster relief. But its work is being augmented by all sorts of other groups. Almost all of them have a religious origin and character.

Notable by their absence are teams from rationalist societies, free thinkers' clubs and atheists' associations - the sort of people who not only scoff at religion's intellectual absurdity but also regard it as a positive force for evil.

The arguments against religion are well known and persuasive. Faith schools, as they are now called, have left sectarian scars on Northern Ireland. Stem-cell research is forbidden because an imaginary God - who is not enough of a philosopher to realise that the ingenuity of a scientist is just as natural as the instinct of Rousseau's noble savage - condemns what he does not understand and the churches that follow his teaching forbid their members to pursue cures for lethal diseases.

Yet men and women who believe that the Pope is the devil incarnate, or (conversely) regard his ex cathedra pronouncements as holy writ, are the people most likely to take the risks and make the sacrifices involved in helping others. Last week a middle-ranking officer of the Salvation Army, who gave up a well-paid job to devote his life to the poor, attempted to convince me that homosexuality is a mortal sin.

Late at night, on the streets of one of our great cities, that man offers friendship as well as help to the most degraded and (to those of a censorious turn of mind) degenerate human beings who exist just outside the boundaries of our society. And he does what he believes to be his Christian duty without the slightest suggestion of disapproval. Yet, for much of his time, he is meeting needs that result from conduct he regards as intrinsically wicked.

Civilised people do not believe that drug addiction and male prostitution offend against divine ordinance. But those who do are the men and women most willing to change the fetid bandages, replace the sodden sleeping bags and - probably most difficult of all - argue, without a trace of impatience, that the time has come for some serious medical treatment. Good works, John Wesley insisted, are no guarantee of a place in heaven. But they are most likely to be performed by people who believe that heaven exists.

The correlation is so clear that it is impossible to doubt that faith and charity go hand in hand. The close relationship may have something to do with the belief that we are all God's children, or it may be the result of a primitive conviction that, although helping others is no guarantee of salvation, it is prudent to be recorded in a book of gold, like James Leigh Hunt's Abu Ben Adam, as "one who loves his fellow men". Whatever the reason, believers answer the call, and not just the Salvation Army. When I was a local councillor, the Little Sisters of the Poor - right at the other end of the theological spectrum - did the weekly washing for women in back-to-back houses who were too ill to scrub for themselves.

It ought to be possible to live a Christian life without being a Christian or, better still, to take Christianity à la carte. The Bible is so full of contradictions that we can accept or reject its moral advice according to taste. Yet men and women who, like me, cannot accept the mysteries and the miracles do not go out with the Salvation Army at night.

The only possible conclusion is that faith comes with a packet of moral imperatives that, while they do not condition the attitude of all believers, influence enough of them to make them morally superior to atheists like me. The truth may make us free. But it has not made us as admirable as the average captain in the Salvation Army.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/sep/12/religion.uk/print

where is this guy getting this info from? secular societies have less crime, better health etc.. all the markers of a "better society", divorce is mostly accomplished by christians, jails are overwhelmingly full of christians.

the facts are ther for all to see, christian nations have more crime, war etc.. then secular ones how is that an argument for morality. Alot of the teachings of the bible are amoral.

there are a number of charities without religous backing, how can he make the conclusions he did?

complete hogwash dude, this guy is a moron.

[loco]

where is this guy getting this info from? secular societies have less crime, better health etc.. all the markers of a "better society", divorce is mostly accomplished by christians, jails are overwhelmingly full of christians.

the facts are ther for all to see, christian nations have more crime, war etc.. then secular ones how is that an argument for morality. Alot of the teachings of the bible are amoral.

there are a number of charities without religous backing, how can he make the conclusions he did?

complete hogwash dude, this guy is a moron.

Yeah sure, it went really well for secular societies under Mao, Stalin and Pol Pot.  

So what your fellow atheist says is invalid only because you disagree?  What your fellow atheist says is true and his information is easily found and verifiable, and so is what the Chinese professor above says.  Have you ever volunteered with the Salvation Army before?  I have.

Divorce is mostly accomplished by Christians?  Where do you get your information?

The things that mostly contribute to divorce among both Christians and non-Christians is lack of education, poverty and cohabitation prior to marriage.

Interestingly enough, "frequent church attendance" has been scientifically established to reduce the chances for divorce.

What Predicts Divorce?: The Relationship Between Marital Processes and Marital Outcomes by John Mordechai Gottman
Page 80
http://books.google.com/books?id=bddqnGeRGJsC&pg=PA80&lpg=PA80&dq=%22church+attendance%22+divorce+rate+-.com&source=bl&ots=Eq4MGFFCz3&sig=h7YDklFrrhzcNliKSZNPAxPbtJI&hl=en&ei=WM6rSsa8Gs6RlAfBr7TlBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8#v=onepage&q=%22church%20attendance%22%20divorce%20rate%20-.com&f=false


Larry Frolick, "Why do people divorce?" Divorce Magazine, http://www.divorcemag.com/c/s3?relationships/whydivorce (30 June 2005)

“Births, Marriage, Divorce, and Deaths: Provisional Data for 2003,” National Vital Statistics Report, Volume 52, Number 22, Center for Disease Control, June 10, 2004.

“The State of Our Unions, 2004: The Social Health of Marriage in America” The National Marriage Project, June 2004, p. 18.

"The State of Our Unions, 2001: The Social Health of Marriage in America," The National Marriage Project, June 2001, p. 23.

Scott M. Stanley, “What Really is the Divorce Rate?” http://www.prepinc.com/main/Docs/what_really_div_rate.html (26 May 2005)

“The State of Our Unions 2004: The Social Health of Marriage in America,” The National Marriage Project, June 2004, http://marriage.rutgers.edu/Publications/SOOU/SOOU2004.pdf (18 May 2005).

W. Bradford Wilcox, “The Cultural Contradictions of Mainline Family Ideology and Practice,” publication pending.
8C. A. Johnson, S. M. Stanley, N. D. Glenn, P. A. Amato, S. L. Nock, H. J. Markman, & M. R. Dion (2002), Marriage in Oklahoma: 2001 Baseline Statewide Survey on Marriage and Divorce (S02096 OKDHS), Oklahoma City, OK: Oklahoma Department of Human Services, p. 25.

[MCWAY]

where is this guy getting this info from? secular societies have less crime, better health etc.. all the markers of a "better society", divorce is mostly accomplished by christians, jails are overwhelmingly full of christians.

the facts are ther for all to see, christian nations have more crime, war etc.. then secular ones how is that an argument for morality. Alot of the teachings of the bible are amoral.

there are a number of charities without religous backing, how can he make the conclusions he did?

complete hogwash dude, this guy is a moron.

What charities would these be? The lion's share of them currently are or once were religious-based. The United Way was started by local church leaders.

Of course, divorce is more by Christians. They make up the bulk of our society here and get married more than their secular counterparts.

do you not understand the reasoning or are you purposely being ignorant?

they are letting people know its ok to not believe in god, you wont burn in hell, get tortured etc.. you can live your life without any oppression. Also, you cannot run for office as an atheist, just look at the reaction people had to obama's speech. Things need to change, religion has done enough damage and people are better off without it, fact.

You can run for office as an atheist. You'll just get your behind kicked, if you do. The reason for that is because athiests tend to be rather condescending towards people of faith. Folks with your attitude are a prime example.

You can't denigrate voters and the religion to which they hold dear (at least on the surface) then act dumbfounded as to why they won't vote for you.

As for people being better off without religion, Loco's example of the Chinese society pretty much says it all. Plus, the last two guys who ran their mouth about oblierating religion (Hilter and Stalin) killed more people in a week than the Crusaders in a century.

Plus, if what I saw from this article (on another site) is correct, and as is often the case with atheists, this isn't just folks merely saying that "It's OK not to believe in God". Weren't they marketing some T-Shirt about "de-baptize now", something I think STella brought up awhile back.

Simply put, atheism (in practice) is hostile toward people of faith. GC hit the nail on the head (as I've mentioned numerous times). Atheism, for practical purposes, is a religion: Simply man worshipping HIMSELF.

[loco]

Of course, divorce is more by Christians. They make up the bulk of our society here and get married more than their secular counterparts.

Exactly, their "Christianity" has nothing to do with it, but other factors play into their divorce.  One of those factors has been shown to be "Infrequent church attendance."  It has been shown that attending church frequently by married couples reduces their chances for divorce.

[MCWAY]

Exactly, their "Christianity" has nothing to do with it, but other factors play into their divorce.  One of those factors has been shown to be "Infrequent church attendance."  It has been shown that attending church frequently by married couples reduces their chances for divorce.

True indeed. If Christians have similar divorce rates, it's because they are, unfortunately, mimicking their non-Christian counterparts. As you said, they're shacking up; couples who do that are FAR more likely to divorce than those who don't.

Kids, whose mothers have live-in boyfriends, are WAAAAAY more likely to be sexually molested. And live-in girlfriends get beat up by their boyfrieds more frequently than wives do by their husbands.

The education part is also a dead-on accurate call. As my old pastor used to say "God gave Adam a job, before He gave Adam a wife!"

That's one of the reasons why ancient marriages were arranged by the parents. They handled the logistics (food, clothing, lodging, ensuring the husband could provide for the wife and future children, etc.).

Reminds me of the lyrics of an old R&B song: "Ain't nothin' goin' on but the rent; No romance without finance."

[MCWAY]

"Good without God"?

"Good" according to whose standards? You can't define something or someone as "good" vs. "bad"/"evil", without some form of guidance or criteria.

So, if atheists don't believe in God, exactly who's making the rules, here?

[OzmO]

‘Good Without God,’ Atheist Subway Ads Proclaim
By Jennifer & Lee
cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com

Atheism is coming to the subway — or at least subway ads promoting it are.

Starting next Monday, a coalition of local groups will run a monthlong advertising campaign in a dozen Manhattan subway stations with the slogan “A Million New Yorkers Are Good Without God. Are You?” The posters also advertise the Web site BigAppleCoR.org, which provides a listing of local groups affiliated with the Coalition of Reason, the umbrella organization that coordinated the campaign.

The campaign — which is being paid for by $25,000 from an anonymous donor — follows a similar but unrelated monthlong campaign on buses by New York City Atheists in July. Jane Everhart, a spokeswoman for the New York City Atheists, said that campaign was highly successful and brought in many new members. “We are trying to raise money to do it again,” she said.

The subway station advertisements were chosen for the $25,000 campaign because they were the best deal for the given budget, said Michael De Dora Jr., the executive director for the New York branch of the Center for Inquiry. A Times Square ad would have cost $45,000 to $50,000 for a month, while a campaign that blanketed the inside of subway cars would have cost $70,000.

The subway campaign is timed to a new book called “Good Without God” by Greg Epstein, which is to be released on Oct. 27 by William Morrow. Mr. Epstein, the Harvard University humanist chaplain, is having a book signing at Columbia University Bookstore on Oct. 28.

Other books on atheism, including best-selling ones by Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, have helped to give visibility to an “atheism awakening,” where atheists have been finding strength in numbers. President Barack Obama’s inaugural address even included a reference to “nonbelievers” among an enumeration of various religions.

Mr. De Dora said the million-person estimate of New Yorkers who do not believe in God was an extrapolation from surveys on religion. The American Religious Identification Survey, which was released earlier this year, showed that those who put “none” for religion had risen to 15 percent in 2008, from 8 percent in 1990. Based on their projections, New York City, with its 8.3 million population, would have more than a million nonbelievers, Mr. De Dora said. (It is questionable, of course, whether New York City, given its demographics, is representative of the country as a whole.)

Asked to comment on the advertisement, Joseph Zwilling, a spokesman for the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of New York, said: “The First Amendment allows these groups to preach their religious beliefs. I hope that the rights of other religious groups will also be respected when they also seek to advertise their beliefs.”

A number of atheist-themed advertising campaigns have been promoted this year. The largest so far has been one in Britain that put ads on 800 buses stating: “There’s probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.”

In the United States, the Coalition of Reason has also placed billboards that read “Don’t Believe in God? You Are Not Alone.” in the Dallas-Fort Worth area and Morgantown, W.Va. An Indiana atheist group ran ads in the cities of Bloomington and South Bend that read “You can be good without God.” The group, called the Indiana Atheist Bus campaign, also crossed the border into Chicago, where they purchased ads for 25 buses.

Because New York is so large and diverse, the atheist message is actually harder to promote, Mr. De Dora said. “Collectively, we’ve had a harder time selling our message to New Yorkers,” he said. In addition, since there are so many different atheist and secular-minded groups in New York, they are competing for an audience. Aside from the center, other groups in the coalition include the Flying Spaghetti Monster Meetup, New York City Brights, New York Philosophy, New York Society for Ethical Culture, Richie’s List and the Secular Humanist Society of New York.

The dozen subway stations where the ads are running are:

    * 14th Street-Sixth Avenue
    * 14th Street-Seventh Avenue
    * 14th Street-Eighth Avenue
    * 23rd Street-Eighth Avenue
    * Pennsylvania Station (three ads)
    * 86th Street-Lexington Avenue
    * 96th Street-Lexington Avenue
    * 42nd Street-Sixth Avenue/Bryant Park
    * 66th Street-Broadway/Lincoln Center
    * 72nd Street-Central Park West
    * 86th Street-Central Park West
    * West Fourth Street

Freedom of speech based on a belief.

[MCWAY]

Freedom of speech based on a belief.

And what is this belief?

That's the issue with some atheists. They spend so much time screaming about what they DON'T believe that you rarely hear them talk about what they DO believe.

[OzmO]

And what is this belief?

That's the issue with some atheists. They spend so much time screaming about what they DON'T believe that you rarely hear them talk about what they DO believe.

From what i understand...they DO believe god does not exist.  And It is a belief because conclusive evidence hasn't come to light yet as much of science is not yet discovered or understood.

However, Atheism is as far from a religion as can be.  This is simply freedom of speech and i encourage it just as i would a religious group or any group, chess club, political, etc.. advertising its beliefs.

[loco]

From what i understand...they DO believe god does not exist.  And It is a belief because conclusive evidence hasn't come to light yet as much of science is not yet discovered or understood.

However, Atheism is as far from a religion as can be.  This is simply freedom of speech and i encourage it just as i would a religious group or any group, chess club, political, etc.. advertising its beliefs.

I agree that they are free, and should be free to spend the money and to post these signs.  I believe everybody here agrees too. 

What some are doing here is simply pointing out the irony of it all and the paranoia displayed by some atheists. 

Faith in God has many good things to offer as I have pointed out on this and on other threads, even the atheist above agrees.

And the belief that society is much better without faith in God is absurd.  Like I said above, just take a look at the secular societies under Mao, Stalin and Pol Pot, where millions of innocent people were murdered.

[OzmO]

I agree that they are free, and should be free to spend the money and to post these signs.  I believe everybody here agrees too. 

What some are doing here is simply pointing out the irony of it all and the paranoia displayed by some atheists. 

Faith in God has many good things to offer as I have pointed out on this and on other threads, even the atheist above agrees.

And the belief that society is much better without faith in God is absurd.  Like I said above, just take a look at the secular societies under Mao, Stalin and Pol Pot, where millions of innocent people were murdered.

I pretty much agree with you loco.  It is ironic, faith in god is good for society, ans society without God wouldn't be good.

[loco]

I pretty much agree with you loco.  It is ironic, faith in god is good for society, ans society without God wouldn't be good.

Glad you think so OzmO!   

[Necrosis]

I pretty much agree with you loco.  It is ironic, faith in god is good for society, ans society without God wouldn't be good.

not true. I in the middle of exams and cant help but make small posts, but the more secular a society, the better it is.

Ill post some stuff on the weekend.

[OzmO]

not true. I in the middle of exams and cant help but make small posts, but the more secular a society, the better it is.

Ill post some stuff on the weekend.

I think as a whole, humans at this point in time, are better off believing there is a God. I am sure you and loco can site many instances on both sides, pros and cons, to whether religious societies or secular societies are better.  I don't think our species has evolved/progressed enough to function without the concept of God.

[suckmymuscle]

BEIJING

Professor Zhao Xiao shuttles between the private sector and officialdom, giving elite management seminars to CEOs and advising government cadres on the economy. "If eating Chinese cuisine will make me stronger, then I'll eat it, and if Western food makes me stronger, then I'll eat that," said Zhao, a 40-year-old Communist Party member and economist.

Zhao's interest in Christianity began when he embarked on a study of how economies in predominantly Christian societies differ from non-Christian ones. He visited South Korea, Singapore and Hong Kong. To his own surprise, he began advocating that Christianity could offer China a "common moral foundation" capable of reducing corruption, narrowing the gap between rich and poor, promoting philanthropy and even preventing pollution.

In lectures and writings, Zhao now argues that promoting the 10 Commandments would cultivate "a civilization based upon rules." Likewise, providing business owners with "a motivation that transcends profits" might keep them from seeking shortcuts that have fouled China's environment or cheated workers. And encouraging tycoons to donate some of their wealth would develop China's civic institutions, Zhao argues, just as early American Christians founded Harvard and Yale Universities.

When Zhao took his theory public in lectures to political elites, he braced himself for criticism; as a party member, discussing his newfound faith could stymie his career. Instead he was stunned to discover that many people agreed with him.

Jesus in China: Christianity's rapid rise
By Evan Osnos
Tribune correspondent
June 22, 2008
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-jesus-1-1-webjun22,0,6146849,print.story

  Even if Christianity did all these things, you are basically saying that the only way people can be moral is if they fear a fictional deity that willpunish them if they misbehave. Why can't people be moral to each other without resorting to the fear of punishment? Sure, psychopaths will only act ethically if they fear punishment since they are unable to empathize, but good people don't need religion to act ehtically. The most ethical people in the World are atheists, exactly because they know there is no afterlife, so they are extremely averse to murder and aggression towards others since they know that homicide is a final act that completely annihilates a person. Compare this to Christians who killed hundreds of thousands of people during the inquisitions because they believed that it was the will of God and that killing them was not a bad thing because they would find redemption in Heaven.

  But let's assume that Christianity does make people more moral and decreases crime. Even then, I would still want to live in a secular society because theistic societies don't offer a good trade-off for the higher morality of the population. Would you like to live in Saudi Arabia? They have very low crime, yes, but their life is extremely restrictive. I wouldn't want to live in such a society despite the lower crime rates. And besides, it is debatable whether the low crime rate in Saudi Arabia is due to them being God-fearing or due to the extremely harsh sentences the Qu'ram gives to those who committ crimes. Maybe if they were lenient towards crime, their crime rate would be extremely high despite the religiosity. So the solution to decrease violence is by better police and harsher jurisprudence and not by establishing a state religion. I and other rational Humans certanly don't require religion to act morally, but if most people do(debatable. I think most people with the exception of psychopaths don't need to fear punishment to be nice to others) need religion to be moral, then instead of establishing a state religion and restriction the freedom of the nice people who don't believe in fictional deities, let's try to restrict crime by making people fear a different kind of punishment than that provided by a fictional deity(the law).

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[suckmymuscle]

What charities would these be? The lion's share of them currently are or once were religious-based. The United Way was started by local church leaders.

Of course, divorce is more by Christians. They make up the bulk of our society here and get married more than their secular counterparts.

You can run for office as an atheist. You'll just get your behind kicked, if you do. The reason for that is because athiests tend to be rather condescending towards people of faith. Folks with your attitude are a prime example.

You can't denigrate voters and the religion to which they hold dear (at least on the surface) then act dumbfounded as to why they won't vote for you.

As for people being better off without religion, Loco's example of the Chinese society pretty much says it all. Plus, the last two guys who ran their mouth about oblierating religion (Hilter and Stalin) killed more people in a week than the Crusaders in a century.

Plus, if what I saw from this article (on another site) is correct, and as is often the case with atheists, this isn't just folks merely saying that "It's OK not to believe in God". Weren't they marketing some T-Shirt about "de-baptize now", something I think STella brought up awhile back.

Simply put, atheism (in practice) is hostile toward people of faith. GC hit the nail on the head (as I've mentioned numerous times). Atheism, for practical purposes, is a religion: Simply man worshipping HIMSELF.

  Hitler, Mao and Stalin didn't kill people because they didn't believe in God; they killed people because they had ideologies that diminished the value of the individual Human Being and aggrandized the collective - society and the state that repesents it in the case of the communists and race in the case of the Nazis. To such ideologies, abstract ideas take precedence over people and their survival as individuals. Most of the wars throughout Human history were either caused or endorsed by religion in one way or the other. People have been killing each other in the Middle East for thousands of years over religion. The kings of medieval Europe invoked God before going into battle and slaugtering thousands of people. The emperors in ancient Rome made offers to Mars, the god of war, asking him to vanquish all their enemies and rape all their women. People have killed in the name of God or gods throughout history, but no one has ever killed because they don't believe in God. It was a mere coincidence that the dictators of the 20th century who killed millions were atheists. They could have been very well like Richard the Lionhearted, who slaughtered a million Arabs, including women and children, in the name of God. If they were monsters because they were atheists, then they should be monsters for evryone equally, but they weren't. Hitler, for instance, valued the lives of Aryans immensely, and even in 1944 when Germany was on the brink of defeat and food was scarce, he never ceased from giving German children milk at schools. He despised only the Human lives of certain categories of Humans, and he did it because of ideology and not because of atheism. If it were because of atheism, then he should have despised the lives of all Humans equally and not only non-Aryans, because if you are only moral if they is a God and you believe there is none, then you should be equally immoral towards everyone.

SUCKMYMUSCLE