|
Post by tygerarmy on Oct 20, 2009 6:05:50 GMT -5
We've talked about them. Atheist tracks. I've handed out in Union Square, with Free Hugs this and NYC prepares Atheist billboards on it's subways Good Without God
|
|
|
Post by catanon on Oct 20, 2009 6:44:13 GMT -5
I LOL'd
|
|
|
Post by caseagainstfaith on Oct 20, 2009 8:21:13 GMT -5
Nice lol My only question is why did the demon kitty have to die on the cross? poor kitty....or is that suppose to be Satan?
|
|
|
Post by Sigmaleph on Oct 20, 2009 9:05:24 GMT -5
It's Satan. It has a pointed tail.
|
|
|
Post by Tiger on Oct 20, 2009 9:22:24 GMT -5
Those seem needlessly inflammatory.
|
|
|
Post by Trevelyan on Oct 20, 2009 10:08:52 GMT -5
Why though Tiger? I mean, yes it does call people idiots and openly mocks their beliefs. Please tell me though how that is worse that telling someone they are going to a place of eternal anguish for not accepting some zombie as their savior. How is it worse that telling people they aren't "people" because they don't conform to some random list of values?
Edit: Also Patton Oswalt on religion.
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Oct 20, 2009 12:32:39 GMT -5
Those seem needlessly inflammatory. I disagree, they are needfully inflammatory. No minority ever got respect by playing nice.
|
|
|
Post by Paradox on Oct 20, 2009 12:38:20 GMT -5
They don't seem any more inflammatory to me than a pro-religious tract.
|
|
|
Post by HonestlyNow on Oct 20, 2009 13:07:11 GMT -5
Those seem needlessly inflammatory. I disagree, they are needfully inflammatory. No minority ever got respect by playing nice. It's true, the most successful religious groups are the ones that make you most want to say "why those little fuckers!!" Though I am mildly annoyed they used the word "ain't" in their leaflet...I like to think we're better than that...
|
|
|
Post by Doctor Fishcake on Oct 20, 2009 13:09:45 GMT -5
Epic win!
|
|
|
Post by id82 on Oct 20, 2009 13:40:49 GMT -5
I do agree with Tiger. If you want to win people over you shouldn't do it with insults. They may do it, but why sink down to their level? They would just use these adds as an example of how "evil" we are.
|
|
|
Post by wackadoodle on Oct 20, 2009 14:04:37 GMT -5
I'm sick of this BS about being 'insulting'. this is no more insulting then any other religion, they just don't use abunch of theological euphemisms for their insults. When an athiest wants to say "fuck off' they just say it, a religious person "prays for you" An athiest calls you a moron, they call you a sinner. An athiest laughs at you for believing in god, they say you deserve to be brutally tortured for all eternity for not believing in their god.
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Oct 20, 2009 14:32:46 GMT -5
I do agree with Tiger. If you want to win people over you shouldn't do it with insults. They may do it, but why sink down to their level? They would just use these adds as an example of how "evil" we are. No, just no. If you look at any civil rights movement, the minority gains exposure and respect not by playing nice, not by appeasing, not by working within the system. The minority gains respect by being loud, by being aggressive, by challenging the authority structure already in place. For the black community, they had protests, they committed civil disobedience. They broke the fucking law. One of the memorable events, with Rosa Parks, that was a pre-planned demonstration where a black individual purposely set out to break the status quo. Of course the bigots attacked her for it, she was just one of those uppity negros with no respect for our white country. It worked. For the gays (which is still on-going), the events that were necessary were riots. Like the one at Stonewall and the White Night riots. These are acts of violence, violence so that homophobes had to actually deal with the minority and listen to them instead of outright dismissing them. It is not enough to say 'we're better than that.' We can't be better than that. They want us to be 'better than that' because it means we shut up.
|
|
|
Post by Tiger on Oct 20, 2009 14:42:35 GMT -5
I'm all for being insulting. FSM knows I've done it enough myself. And I consider the whole "we must respect their beliefs!" thing to be total bull. But when I read those, it just comes across as condescending to the point where it seems like the author placed a higher priority on cramming in swear words (Not opposed to those either, but using "fuck" in every other sentence doesn't make your argument any stronger. It just makes you look immature) and insulting people than actually trying to get a message across. Aren't we supposed to be the supporters of a logical, reasoned approach to the issue? No, just no. If you look at any civil rights movement, the minority gains exposure and respect not by playing nice, not by appeasing, not by working within the system. The minority gains respect by being loud, by being aggressive, by challenging the authority structure already in place. All of which I am for. But we'll get more success if we present a more mature message than "OMG PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE IN GAWD ARE STOOPID DUR".
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Oct 20, 2009 17:56:24 GMT -5
Ah, see, that's a whole different argument. I read that more as a need for being respectful and civil.
Although I don't really see the issue with the language to be honest. Sure, it's not the most erudite, but I don't think it always has to be. It's parody their message and when you mock the stupid, you use their language.
|
|