RSS
More Feeds












God's Politics

Atheist Bus Ads Arrive in Seattle

by Eugene Cho 03-24-2009

To support and amplify the already pervasive non-religious reputation of Seattle, the atheist bus ads are set to arrive.  To refresh your memory, read my posts from recent months about these bus ads from the U.K.:  There’s Probably No God, and then of course the Christian response:  The Atheist vs. Christian Bus Ads…

I suspect that in the near future, some Christian group or folks here in Seattle will fund a set of new ads in response to these ads. And then at that point, I’d like to launch my own campaign and Web site called:

http://can’twefindbetterthingstoinvestourmoneyinlike-homelesspovertywatereducationmalariaetc.com

Don’t buy that url. It’s mine.  Anyway, in an earlier post, I shared three reasons why I think these ads can be good:

1.  Christians shouldn’t feel entitled to anything. We live in a larger marketplace — if you will — and we need to compete to have our voice expressed and heard.  Maybe it’s my upbringing in San Francisco and living the past 12 years in Seattle, but while at times it’s tiresome, I enjoy living in a culture and context where the culture isn’t dominated by the christianese subculture.  Being a follower of Christ isn’t part of the cultural expectation but a choice that one must live out.

2.  I find it funny that “atheists” are identified by an opposition to the belief of God.  It’s a reactive belief system. To atheists:  What is your purpose?

3.  Conversation.  They’ve invested tons of money in these advertisements and, frankly, it’s probably been the greatest recent catalyst for conversation about God for many people and churches.  It’s like free advertisement for theists and Christians.

But seriously, we don’t have to go through this in every international city, do we?

From the Seattle PI: Atheists are about to take the city for a ride.

The bus is the pulpit and the bus riders the congregation. A group called Seattle Atheists is planning to display ads inside 40 different city buses. Its message: there’s a community for atheists, too.

“There is a group out there that get together and we talk. There is a sense of community for those who are atheists,” said member Paul Case.

Seattle Atheists are working to rally those who share their thought. A Christian organizer suggested April Fool’s Day as the launch date for the ads.

“He said, ‘What these atheists need is their own holiday. How about April 1st? Yeah, April 1st sounds about right,’” Case said.

The words on the ads are intended to stir thought, not controversy.

One carries the words of Susan B. Anthony: “I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do, because I notice it always coincides with their own desires.”

Another features an Albert Einstein quote: “If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed.”

“In fact, we do like to build bridges with people who are religious,” Case said.

Pastor Bill Berger of All Saints Church agrees the ads will trigger conversations.

“I think it’s very honest and it’s an open dialogue,” he said.

Berger believes the bus stamps will likely preach to the choir.

“Much more nuanced than just saying, ‘Here’s what we believe.’ We’re going to do it in a nice way. Christians around the world are trying to be nice about what they believe in, as well its strategy,” said Berger.

Believers send missionaries. Atheist send messages.

“It’s a faith talk. They have faith to believe that there isn’t a God,” said Berger. “What would people think if Christians put up ‘This is what we believe in’ on the city bus, how would we be received? I think that would be an interesting take on this whole thing as well.”

Eugene ChoEugene Cho, a second-generation Korean-American, is the founder and lead pastor of Quest Church in Seattle and the executive director of Q Cafe, an innovative nonprofit neighborhood café and music venue. He and his wife are also launching a grassroots humanitarian organization to fight global poverty. You can stalk him at his blog or follow him on Twitter.

Categories: Theology
Share or bookmark this post:
  • email
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Mixx
  • NewsVine
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • Yahoo! Bookmarks
advertisement


Comment Code of Conduct

I will express myself with civility, courtesy, and respect for every member of the Sojourners online community, especially toward those with whom I disagree—even if I feel disrespected by them. (Romans 12:17-21)

I will express my disagreements with other community members' ideas without insulting, mocking, or slandering them personally. (Matthew 5:22)

I will not exaggerate others' beliefs nor make unfounded prejudicial assumptions based on labels, categories, or stereotypes. I will always extend the benefit of the doubt. (Ephesians 4:29)

I will hold others accountable by clicking "report" on comments that violate these principles, based not on what ideas are expressed but on how they're expressed. (2 Thessalonians 3:13-15)

I understand that comments reported as abusive are reviewed by Sojourners staff and are subject to removal. Repeat offenders will be blocked from making further comments. (Proverbs 18:7)

  • Lazareus
    I took a couple of days to think about my response to your post. First, let me say, I'm all for your sentiments about ending poverty, curing malaria, and all that. Good for you, and if you set up a real charity with those goals, I'll certainly contribute. :)
    But I really wanted to address the three reasons you think the atheist ad campaign is good.
    1. I'm pretty pleased with this statement. So many Christians seem to think they own American culture, it's refreshing to see one who recognizes you have to work for what you get. Again, good for you.
    2. Here, you really go wrong. Atheism is in no way "an opposition to belief in god". That would be Antitheism. To be an atheist is to say, "I've heard your story, and I don't believe it". No beliefs, or faith of any kind required.
    Now, you asked about purpose, and I think in my answer you can see a clear illustration of the distinction I'm trying to make. I told my parents I was an atheist at about 13, and for 35 years, that was the end of discussion of religion for me. If someone around me got really annoying with god talk, I would just go away. God talk has been a reliable indicator of people to avoid for me. In about the past 2 years however, I learned that my ex-wife has taken my son out of school to home school him in creationism. That was when it became an interest of mine to see religion put in it's place, and I became an antitheist. Does that help? Now, to be clear, if there are folks that get something out of believing in an afterlife and all that, I'm not into denying them. And if you think that it would be a sin for you to be a homosexual for example, I'm all for you having the right to forbid yourself from being one. (good luck with that) But when I see people rioting in the streets over religious precepts stomping on their human rights, then religion has crossed the line. When public schools are having to fight to maintain the integrity of their science curriculum against an onslaught of creationist nonsense, religion has crossed the line. Don't even get me started on the Pope's recent comments on condoms! You guys wanting to impose what you think of as "God's Law" over everyone is just getting way out of hand. Until you knock it off, I, for one, will continue to get in your face.
    3. Ahem, call it a conversation if you like. I think the recent ARIS polls have shown that we Atheists have succeeded in letting a lot of people know that it's okay to come out and say, "I don't really buy into all that religion stuff". Now if it turns into a real conversation that brings some real reform to the bronze age attitudes codified in todays religions, I'm all for it. Like I say, I don't really begrudge you whatever comfort believing in a god brings you, as long as you recognize that belief doesn't put you on any moral high ground.

    I'll continue checking in with you guys from time to time, I find you refreshing.
  • squeaky
    Hey - if you stop by again, here's what you need to do to read more than five comments...at the top, right below the post, you can choose "options". Then choose "community pages."

    Also--if you would register your comments about how ridiculously horrible the comment system is for this blog with the administrators, that might help.

    Hope to see you here again!
  • squeaky
    Thanks guys--that was really cool!
  • gribblemunchkin
    On my comment that when religion and science disgaree, science is always right. I understand that this particularly is the case with those who interpret the bible literally as their beliefs are perhaps the most outlandish (such asthe world being formed after man had domesticated the dog). But it holds true forliberal religion too.

    Liberal religious believers who do not necessarily hold the bible as literal, still make statements about this world. This statments either conform to the standard scientific viewpoints (such as the catholic churches stance on evolution) or they are wrong (such as Pope Benedicts stance on condoms making AIDS/HIV worse).

    I would love to hear about any examples that go against this trend. If i'm wrong about this i'd like to know.

    Next, on atheism and agnosticism. They refer to two different things. Atheism is a belief claim (i do not believe in god) and agnosticism is a knowledge claim (i donotknowif god exists). Most atheists are agnostic atheists (also known as weak atheism, although i don't like the term since it implies unsureness in ones views).

    I am an agnostic atheist. I do not know for a fact that god does not exist. However, i consider it so unlikely that i do not believe in him.
  • hammerud
    You're welcome Siamang.
  • Siamang
    Wow, okay I really can't get it so that I can read further comments on two different browsers I tried.

    This comment system is not very good.

    Thank you everyone for your thoughtful comments.
  • Siamang
    Thanks. I appreciate it.
  • I can't even see my comments so I don't even know if these are getting through, but I'd like to address hammerud's comment as well.

    If that's what he truly feels, that "apart from God nothing matters" etc., then I'm not going to say he shouldn't believe in God.

    But I don't feel that way, and I'm certain many other atheists (even though we aren't a monolithic bloc, remember -- atheism tells you very little about the rest of our lives) don't feel that way. For me, at least, my atheism was a way at coming to peace in my life, in freeing myself up from things that didn't make sense.

    Keep in mind that atheism is not saying, "I know there is no God." Remember, atheism is just a belief position (and within the belief position, there are several parts...one can simply disbelieve in God [that is, lack a belief in God], or one can believe there is no God.) So, for me, I recognize that I am an agnostic atheist. I don't know if God exists or doesn't exist, but I don't see any reason to believe. I don't see any evidence, and I don't have an inclination to believe. So, I do not believe.

    When I try to presume a personal God such as the Christian worldview presents, the world and universe doesn't make sense. However, when I do not try to presume a personal God, the world and universe makes a whole lot more sense. This is not to say that I know everything, but rather in coming to terms that I do not know everything and that better reflects reality than pretending to have an answer for everything.

    I mean, it seems to me that pointing out that there could be a personal God doesn't mean that there is. There *could* be fairies...but do you believe in them just because they possibly could exist? I think that for people with faith, they don't believe in God just because he *could* exist. I think that is a dishonest and disingenuous characterization of theism that makes theism look just terrible. Instead, I think people believe in God because they feel something that uplifts them from such a belief.

    I do not, so I do not believe.

    hammerud says that we can see signs that point to a creator, but I would counter instead that whatever signs we have don't point to any particularly personal, loving, powerful God. I think I would be disrespecting God a whole lot more if I assumed that he created this universe. However, if I do not take a personal God like the Christian one into account, then all of a sudden the seeming chaos and disorder and "valuelessness" of the universe that hammerud decries (and which is the nature of reality) makes sense. It becomes enlightening. And then I know I am free to work through and beyond this.
  • I guess I would like to talk about Eugene's point 2: regarding how funny he finds it that atheists are defined by opposition to a belief in God.

    I think I'd like to say that as an atheist, I find that it's funny too. Because you're absolutely right; the belief system (or rather, lack of belief) is limited simply to a reaction to the beliefs of theists.

    But I find it funny for a completely different reason. I find it funny because I feel like there shouldn't be any reason for me to specifically be atheist. It seems to me that atheism should be the unspoken norm. For example, if I don't have a compelling reason to believe in fairies, then I don't characterize my disbelief in fairies as a position like "afairyism"...because most people also recognize that they shouldn't believe in fairies. However, at least in America for certain, this isn't the same way with God. We seem to have gotten this idea that it's ok to believe in some things by merit of "faith," (and some theists even recognize that faith is not in the same realm as evidence or logic but something beyond it!)

    So, to ask something like, "Atheists: what is your purpose?" kind of misses the distinction. My telling you I'm an atheist shouldn't tell you anything about me, my values, the way I live, etc., It does tell you 1) I do not believe in your God or any such God...and from there you can maybe INFER that I probably do not view things derived from your god as necessarily being valid. I might live a similar life to you, but if so, I live it for different reasons.

    If I told you my purpose, I would still have things to say. But whenever I told you about these things, it would just be that they *wouldn't* have to do with God and they wouldn't have to do with an afterlife or whatever (while, I guess for a good theist, their "purpose" would have to deal with a God or something like that...not to presume, but just thinking). It wouldn't even have to do with atheism, really.
  • hammerud
    Siamang, I want to apologize for the tone of some of my responses. I did not realize that anyone holding an atheistic position was reading this blog. I feel bad that I was sort of rude. Please accept my apology.
  • squeaky
    Yeah--I understand--I used to frequent an atheist blog for awhile, so it was in those exchanges that I learned about what Christians get wrong about atheism. Which is why I encourage the exchange because it is something I want Christians to understand. I tend to cringe at the typical stereotypes, and I do think attempts to understand each other are far more productive than attempts to convert each other. Too many stereotypes being thrown back and forth at each other--not near enough dialogue.

    I can understand why you would be tired of it, though. I do think on this site, you will probably find more open-minded dialogue than you might in most Christian sites. Many of the regulars here come from a very broad range of perspectives on Christianity and tend away from a black and white approach to the world. So hopefully you'll stick around a bit! We can be snarky, but we're overall a friendly bunch.
  • squeaky
    Hi Siaming,
    I appreciate your clarification about atheism vs. agnosticism. I have had a couple of friends who are agnostics, and I would never be able to characterize their commitment to their beliefs as any less than my commitment to mine. Given those experiences, I myself don't view agnosticism in the same way you do, and I guess I didn't realize others viewed it the way you describe. I've always seen it as a more rigorous belief system.
    Anyway--your statement that if everyone was honest with themselves, we would all be agnostics to some degree is a thought I have had. I take my own questioning as a means to continually challenge my faith. I actually think it is a safer stance to take than blind devotion to a belief system.
    As for the "God cannot be detectable by science" argument being a scientific argument...perhaps a better statement would be to say "according to our current understanding of science, there is no way to prove or disprove the existence of god." But even then...
    maybe it is easiest to just explain it as I understand it.

    According to the scientific method, you start with observations, and from there you develop hypotheses to explain those observations. The hypothesis is then rigorously tested, often in attempts to cause the hypothesis to fail. Eventually, if the hypothesis continues to hold up to the testing, it will be considered a theory.

    So, applying this to the question of proving or disproving the existence of god, one would have to devise tests to show the hypothesis is incorrect. And I don't know how you would do that.

    Perhaps there is an assumption about the nature of god in my assertion. But then again, it isn't out of bounds to qualify the subject of scientific inquiry. So, to further qualify, we could try to prove or disprove the Judeo-Christian God using the scientific method. The Judeo-Christian concept of god is of a god who moves outside the realm of the space, time, and the physical, touchable, seeable world. As the creator of the laws that rule the universe, he is capable of working within those laws or bending those laws to his will as he sees fit. Moreover, the concept is of a god who has personality and as such probably won't play along with our tests unless for some reason he wanted to.

    So, that is what I don't believe could be tested scientifically--it would rely on god playing along---and maybe he would, maybe he wouldn't, maybe he would for awhile and decide he had better things to do.

    The most common argument I have heard about why science disproves god's existence, is the argument that since we understand how the natural world works, and we can explain phenomenon that once were thought to be supernatural, and we therefore have explained away god.

    My nutshell response to that is that even if we were able to determine how life initiated in a completely natural mechanism, that still wouldn't disprove god's existence. The reason is, to me, all that has shown is how god did it.

    I'll expand on that--an assumption that many, both Christians and Atheists, seem to hold is that god works entirely in the supernatural realm. Therefore if it can be shown that something really occurred as the result of natural processes, it can't possibly have been the result of god's work. The corellary assumption is that if it occurs naturally, it isn't miraculous.

    This is akin to the joke about the person praying that God would rescue him from the flood, so he sits on his roof while boats and helicopters offer assistance. He refuses saying God will rescue him. So when he drowns, he asks God why He didn't save him. To which God responds, "I sent you a boat, I sent you a helicopter..."

    Alternatively, if god created all that exists, first of all, the natural laws he devised that allow this planet and universe to run are awe-inspiring and amazing in their own right, even if they do run by natural processes--I certainly consider them miraculous, even if they aren't supernatural processes (although, if created by a supernatural god, they are---it's more just that we are used to what happens naturally, and so we don't see it as miraculous). Natural does not, in my book, equate with "lesser than". And second of all, a god who is capable of creating such an amazing system is certainly capable of working his will within the laws of that universe if he chooses.

    So--yeah--it's not that easy to explain all this, so hopefully that made some modicum of sense...

    "... yeah, that wasn't my statement, that was Gribblemunchkins. "

    Oops--sorry about that--I thought you were responding to something I said in response to something you said--shoulda looked a bit further back. My bad.

    cheers!
  • Siamang
    It's not that the statements are offensive to me... it's that they fall into the category of starting out like literally hundreds of conversations I've had so far with online believers. It's the "if they just heard *my* story, they'd come around to Jesus" conversation. Notice that I haven't posted "I've you'd just heard my story, you'd be a nonbeliever" post.

    I think "yes, I have considered your thoughts" is the best way I can give a polite response to one of those type of posts unless I want to get into an argument or a debate, which I find non-helpful.

    Understanding is what I am after, not argument and not conversion (of you OR me). To that end, I've developed a style of discussion (not that I always stick to it, but I do try), that attempts non-debate, and emphasizes questions and de-emphasizes statements that are non "I"-statements. (As in, 'I feel this', or 'I think that'."

    I have come here on what I recognize is a primarily Christian blog, to comment on a story about atheism. I realize I am somewhat of an outsider here... so I come with some groundrules of my own that keep me on my best behavior. I don't come here to convert.

    My main rules are that I will answer any question about me or my beliefs, but by the same token I ask to be asked, not told, what I believe, and I will gently parry away attempts to convert me, rather than respond in kind with an attempt to convert believers.

    I don't have time to fight out my one-thousand-and-first failed conversion attempt.

    I've got a black-belt in internet religion debating. It's not what I'm here for.
  • hammerud
    Those are good points. Thanks for the wisdom you shared.
  • squeaky
    To be honest, I could see Siaming's initial response coming from a mile away. That said, I think I understand where you are coming from.

    It's not so much what you said, I don't think, as it is how you said it. Perhaps a better approach would be to turn your statements into questions. You two seem to have gotten off on the wrong foot, but I hope you will be able to continue the dialogue.
  • squeaky
    I didn't get the sense s/he was shutting off conversation--actually, just the opposite. hammerud made some statements that are actually not unusual for Christians to make concerning Atheists. You then responded concerning why you didn't appreciate the statements. s/he tried to then further clarify the statements.

    You make good points, Siamang, and I wouldn't give up on the dialogue just yet. I'd look at it more as an opportunity to clarify some pretty common misconceptions among the Christian community. hammerud was mostly telling you about his/her life experiences.

    I do think a dialogue could occur here--if you both stay open-minded, and I get the impression that you both are trying to still.

    As a Christian, it is good to understand the arguments that don't fly amongst Atheists--particularly the ones that are considered offensive, and why--so your perspective is definitely welcome.
  • Siamang
    Thanks for responding, Squeaky!

    You asked: "I'm curious why you don't refer to yourself as an agnostic?"

    Because the word agnostic is limited to knowns and unknowns, and doesn't encompass beliefs, nonbelief, disbelief, etc. The word "agnostic" to my mind has been misconstrued popularly as "I'm undecided, preach louder, you might get me!" When in fact, I think that properly all people should be at least partially agnostic about the existence of gods, believers and nonbeliever alike should measure their current beliefs with some healthy skepticism, some looking into claims and a healthy dose of humility. But if you say "I'm an agnostic", often it doesn't quite convey that, yes, I've thought about this question a lot, and yes, I'm as firm in my current thinking as you are in yours. That said, I'm not plugging my ears.

    "So, that statement was not at all a Biblical argument."

    Forgive me, but I didn't know that you weren't making a biblical argument. In my experience it has been that people often can make any sort of argument and find a Biblical passage that backs them up. Perhaps you haven't looked hard enough! ;-)

    Kidding. Anyway, this next part comes to a question I have had generally...


    "On the contrary, it is a scientific argument."

    See, I'm not sure that this can BE a scientific argument. How would one test whether the statement "science cannot prove the existence of God" is true or not with science?

    I can understand it being a *religious* statement. For religions often make statements about the nature of their conception of a god.

    I can understand it being a *philosophical* statement. Or even a philosophy of science statement.

    But I cannot see it being a scientific statement, because there's no way to test or disprove the statement.

    In fact, all the statement is is a rephrasing of the asserion "God is not detectable by science." That cannot be a scientific statement, for it is a description of the nature of God. It must be a religious statement.

    Or am I confused. Anyway, a lot of people say things like this, Stephan J. Gould the famous biologist often talked about religion and science as being non-overlapping majesteria... mutually exclusive ways of knowing, or some such.

    I get where he's coming from *tactically* (as in, don't tick off the politically powerful people who are religious)... but I don't see how one can make that argument without it being a *religious* argument. Perhaps you can enlighten me, or help me to understand your point of view on this.

    "And going back to your statement I was initially responding to:"

    ... yeah, that wasn't my statement, that was Gribblemunchkins. And yes, that was a similarly overly broad sweeping statement on his part that I wouldn't care to defend.
  • hammerud
    You can dialogue if you want. I'm not sure why you infer from my
    answer that I don't want to dialogue since I was not addressing the
    question.
  • Siamang
    I'll take your answer as meaning that you do not wish a dialog, you merely wish us to consider your thoughts.

    I have considered your thoughts.
  • hammerud
    Sorry if I offended you, but "thoughts for dialogue" and "dialogue"
    are two different things. Also, on "without God all of life is vanity
    -- empty, without permanent value, and leading to frustration" -- that
    realization is what caused me to seek God, and God revealed Himself to
    me -- 42 years ago. Life made no sense to me at that time -- Get up,
    work, buy food, eat, sleep, get up , work, buy food, eat, sleep, over
    and over and then die. Bad people die, good people die, no judgment,
    and nothing matters. Anyway, on the concept that life without God is
    vanity, see the book of Ecclesiastes. The vanity of life apart from
    God is the point of Ecclesiastes, and it is God's word. I may have
    sermonized, but I think there are a couple of points there worthy of
    consideration if you are an Atheist.
blog comments powered by Disqus
click here for comments tech support
advertise here
  • MOST VIEWED
  • MOST COMMENTED
  • MOST RECENT
advertise here
advertise here
advertise here
advertise here


HOME | SUBSCRIBE | DONATE | TAKE ACTION | MAGAZINE  
SOJOMAIL | BLOGS | MEDIA | EVENTS | RESOURCES | ABOUT US  
Sojourners | 3333 14th Street NW, Suite 200 | Washington, DC 20010  
Phone 202.328.8842 | Fax 202.328.8757 | sojourners@sojo.net  
Unless otherwise noted, all material © Sojourners 2008