Atheists FAIL: Cheeky Bus Ads Hit Calgary
March 9, 2009 at 8:09 am - By: Ro · About Church.A handful of Calgary Transit buses now sport supposedly 'witty' remarks attacking religion. The ads have been cropping up in major cities worldwide and now Calgary gets to enter the debate. The ads certainly spark discussion but what are they trying to accomplish?
Are atheists trying to point out the futility of religion with remarks such as: "there probably is no God so stop worrying and enjoy your life"?
I don't get it, although admittedly I'm on the 'inside' looking out. But since when is God the source of worry? Firstly, the vast majority of Canadians--something like over 90%--are in some way spiritual in nature. I suppose you can be atheist and spiritual, actually no, that would make you agnostic. Secondly, the notion of God and the community that exists on earth (many religions for that matter) tends to reduce worry not increase it.
Not only are the ads poking fun at the vast majority of Canadians, they are also incorrect if you stop for a moment to think about it.
There is an implicit assumption that life with god is somehow an additional burden. It would also mean indirectly that organized religion is also a burden to a person and subsequently society. This is ridiculous if you make some observations.
There is NO single organization other than the Christian church that does more for the community than any other group, club, etc.
We can poke fun at Christians all we want, but there is no other group that exists to serve the people outside of it more than the people inside. Even though churches probably do an average job of helping the poor, the oppressed, the marginalised in their communities, many do, and the summation of these efforts exceeds the combination of 'secular' organizations that exist to better humanity.
If we took the advice of the organization sponsoring the ads, Free Thought Assoc. (because we're obviously (sarcasm) oppressed in Canada) and gave up our 'fabricated' god the world would be a messy and sad place. Even if you don't believe in god, gods, God, you can't deny that in our society and the majority of others, Christian organizations/communities do more for their neighbour than atheist groups.
Atheists also got it backwards. there probably is no God so stop worrying and enjoy your life..... People who stop to think about the God notion in their life WERE enjoying their life as measured in our modern capitalist terms yet STOPPED along the way because they realised they were headed nowhere but the grave. For some, God is brought into the equation as an answer to their worry.
What do you think about the ads? Cheeky? Clever? Stupid? Offensive? Brilliant?
Ro Says:
BTW, That's my fake ad above, not one roaming around.
March 9, 2009, 8:42 amChimera Says:
Your ad: You may be right. But so are the "atheists" (and I put quote marks around the word because real atheists would not actually use the term "probably" when referring to the existence of a god).
"There is NO single organization other than the Christian church that does more for the community than any other group, club, etc."
The reverse is also true -- no other single organization has ever caused more grief, more upheaval and more divisive strife, either. Babe Ruth was the home run king. He was also the strike out king.
March 9, 2009, 4:27 pmKevin Says:
I think it rules. Go Atheism!
March 10, 2009, 1:33 pmRo Says:
Hi Chimera, thanks for chiming in.
Re: The reverse is also true -- no other single organization has ever caused more grief, more upheaval and more divisive strife, either.
I would disagree, more people have died in the name of no god than in the name of god/religion.
Case in point Stalin who killed more people than Hitler. Hitler, also was not compelled to accomplish what he did purely on religious reason (nor was the church his catalyst, but they certainly are not free from blemish).
What combination of events make the Christian church specifically the greatest contributor of, "more grief, more upheaval and more divisive strife...."?
Appreciate your reply.
March 11, 2009, 1:12 pmBen Keller Says:
Ro:
What does it even mean to kill "in the name of no god"? The people Stalin killed were his political, not theological enemies. The fact that he was an atheist is no more to the point than he was mustachioed. I'd say it is less the combination of events than the bronze-age scriptures filled with bronze-age moral teachings exploited by power-hungry priests and preachers that have caused the pogroms, Inquisitions, witch-burnings, gay-bashings, and Crusades that no reasonable person could say were independent of their religious, and specifically Christian, source.
So yes, Stalin may have killed more people than the witch-hunters or the Crusaders, but Stalin did his killings to achieve political uniformity, not to create a society governed by reason, and his body count was higher because he had more tools at his disposal. Give the machine gun and the motorcar to the Medieval Church, and I would bet they would have given Stalin a run for his money.
March 11, 2009, 10:03 pmShawn Doud Says:
Are they up now? I like your fake one. Just coming from a church planting conference thinking about these things. The church we're meeting at has a movement of 10 churches blessing the city because they view the church as serving the city versus the other way around.
I also hate to mention that our conference was in San Diego. It was 19 and they called it an "arctic front." Hah.
March 12, 2009, 6:40 amRo Says:
Shawn, about 12 up now I think.
Ben, thanks for your thoughts.
[quote]The fact that he was an atheist is no more to the point than he was mustachioed.[/quote]
Well I think it is to the point because the generalization was made above that the Christian church has done as much good as they've done killings. I was pointing out that that's not true, people in the name of X, Y, Z, do just fine killing without God.
[quote]pogroms, Inquisitions, witch-burnings, gay-bashings, and Crusades[/quote]
If the church still performs good today, which we agree they do, then the teachings are not bronze aged, but relevant today. We can agree they should be interpreted in light of their literary context, however, all of the things you mentioned above are not part of the central message of Jesus which boils down to love neighbour an love God.
Do the events you listed above represent this? No. Bad time in history for poor leaders? Yes. Did those events kill more people than stalin? No. Does the action of the church during this time (and church we don't want to lump ALL churches, just the Western one in this case) represent what should be the right message. No again.
All that aside, church is still filled with flawed people and are bound to do stupid things, of which they are not immune.
The fact is, all conjecture aside, people have choices, and they can kill or lead Crusades or commit atrocities using a religious veil or political. To lump all worldwide Christian churches into this era of Western church brutality does not do justice to a) what the central Christian message is about, and b) what the majority of churches are doing today to help their fellow being.
Thoughts?
March 12, 2009, 9:44 amBen Keller Says:
Thanks for the reply Ro,
March 12, 2009, 5:03 pmI'd agree that the churches of today are, for the most part, liberal and tolerant. That is, however, not because the scriptures they are based on espouse a good moral system, but because they are composed of people living in an ethically aware, secular democracy.
The idea of a "central Christian message" is also a muddy concept, as what that message is will vary from one Christian to the next. Things as basic as the nature of salvation (via faith or via works?) are contentious issues between different sects. Even the compassionate elements of Jesus' teachings (elements that most atheists would agree are good teachings) are hardly universally held by all Christians. You would think that an all powerful god would at least be able to explain himself clearly to his followers. Instead what we get is a hodge-podge series of translated and often contradictory texts that, for the most part, offer a brutal tribal morality. Regardless of the actions of those in the church, the very teachings of the Bible are in many cases overwhelmingly evil. You say that "the church is still filled with flawed people", and thus ought not be judged based on the actions of those who do evil in its name. Then I would ask you this: why is it fair to then turn around and do the opposite, and judge the church based on the actions of those who do good in its name. Is it not just as easy for a good church to be "filled with flawed people" as it is for a flawed church to be filled with good people?
Dennis Butcher Says:
Why would you use a fake bus ad for this?
March 12, 2009, 8:54 pmRo Says:
I thought it was funny and clever that's why.
March 12, 2009, 10:05 pmRo Says:
Ben:
The moral system we live in now is based on the scriptures you don't consider. Ethically aware and secular democracy means little to the condition of humanity. We all have the predisposition to wrong; in my opinion we aren't inherently good people but tend to choose selfishness over common good. That would be my observation of humanity in general. Democracy or not, it's the same condition. Within this system you still have yahoos shooting schools and random bystanders.
So do we have a bad ethically aware secular democracy? Or perhaps, all systems aside, people themselves have choices and conditions that combine to provide a response in a particular culture?
Yes, you are correct, but even I wouldn't say faith v works is a basic concept. In my perspective the universal church can all agree on essentially two fundamental components: incarnate Christ (as fully God and fully man) and Triune God (one God expressed in three persons). I would also go out on a limb and add a third surrounding the 'greatest commandment' of love (your God and your neighbour).
So I'm not saying you need to understand these concepts, but I am acknowledging the slew of opinions on different theological issues and suggest we can in fact find common ground on central tenants.
Would disagree. They are universally held yet because we are all messed up people we fail. Because people aren't perfect doesn't necessarily make the message incorrect.
I would lend a perspective that goes like this---unlike other ancient texts, the Bible can be translated. So God therefore can be understood in light of culture and context regardless if it's greco roman or Canada in 2009. So while I argue for fundamental clarity on the issues I mentioned above, we also have an amazing capability as unique cultures and people to interpret certain stories, scenarios, situations differently. When you try to compare individual readings outside of this parameter you'll wind up with serious conflict.
The fact we can translate and use the bible in different cultural contexts speaks to God's capability to be understood regardless if you're an english hippie or a japanese businessman.
When you take the Bible you cannot take individual instances and apply it to your argument, some Christians do that all the time. There is overwhelming evil in the Bible, yes, however, we should look at the entirety of the story. We'd discover that the message is not overwhelming evil, if it were you'd find that an overwhelming majority of churches would want to cut you up and blow up buildings.
The centrality of the message, in my view, surrounds this character Jesus who in his own right is a curious and charismatic fellow. His purpose is reconnecting humanity with God--to establish relationship--and his message is one built over the framework of love. I don't see his existence being completed in the name of 'overwhelming evil'.
I don't suggest turn a blind eye to the past evils of the church, and current ones. I wouldn't agree with them, but I believe ardently that with the overwhelming evidence the majority do not take part in atrocities, but rather contribute positively to society.
Saying the church is filled with flawed people doesn't give free reign for destruction, it merely points out that you and I are imperfect and thus the message of a movement shouldn't be solely based on how you and I represent it. Conversely, if we in fact take an honest look at what a particular faith community contributes we (we'd hope) see, understand, and perhaps experience the message they represent.
Thanks for your comments, they were insightful.
March 12, 2009, 10:29 pmTed Says:
Religious bus ads hit the streets in Calgary. What do you think of them?
March 20, 2009, 11:28 amRo Says:
I think there's a better way to have the conversation rather than bus ads.
March 21, 2009, 4:32 pm