New bus ad campaign draws a link between skepticism and atheism

[9-10ths_Penguin]

CFI's new campaign, which is set to roll out on Toronto transit buses soon, has ads that read:

Extraordinary claims
require extraordinary evidence
Allah - Bigfoot - UFOs - Homeopathy - Zeus - Psychics - Christ

You can read more about the campaign here: New bus ads to take on Bigfoot, Christ - thestar.com

What do you think about this?

It seems to me that the ads suggest a link between skepticism and atheism. Is this valid?

Do you think that lumping Christ and Allah in with these other items is fair? Is religion an "extraordinary claim"?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I think if one wants to market something, it is better to market skepticism over atheism, as skepticism is more broad and useful.

I think it's also fair to draw a link between skepticism and atheism, as atheism is an inevitable conclusion of honest skepticism.

I don't think religion is an extraordinary claim, as there are obviously religions - however, the claimed existence of any supernatural entity is an extraordinary claim.

 

[Meow Mix]

CFI's new campaign, which is set to roll out on Toronto transit buses soon, has ads that read:



You can read more about the campaign here: New bus ads to take on Bigfoot, Christ - thestar.com

What do you think about this?

It seems to me that the ads suggest a link between skepticism and atheism. Is this valid?

Do you think that lumping Christ and Allah in with these other items is fair? Is religion an "extraordinary claim"?

I think it's perfectly fair, and there is certainly a link between skepticism and many people's atheism (but not atheism itself in general). For many people atheism is a symptom of their skepticism. I think it's completely valid.

 

[Riverwolf]

I'm personally against marketing beliefs of any kind as if they were products. It's almost insulting.

 

[Riverwolf]

I think it's also fair to draw a link between skepticism and atheism, as atheism is an inevitable conclusion of honest skepticism.

I disagree. I try to be as honest with my skepticism as possible, and I wouldn't describe myself as an atheist.

 

[Nepenthe]

CFI's new campaign, which is set to roll out on Toronto transit buses soon, has ads that read:



You can read more about the campaign here: New bus ads to take on Bigfoot, Christ - thestar.com

What do you think about this?

It seems to me that the ads suggest a link between skepticism and atheism. Is this valid?

Do you think that lumping Christ and Allah in with these other items is fair? Is religion an "extraordinary claim"?

I think a link between atheism and skepticism is valid and it makes sense to me that CFI would enforce the connection. And while I do think skepticism towards miracles or religious claims (like religion as the sole source of morality) in general is warranted, I'm not so sure about skepticism regarding Christ. If the ad had specified "Christ's miracles" or Christianity as the ultimate arbiter of morality it would make more sense to me. I'm not sure if CFI is making a subtle Christ mythicist statement here or not.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think a link between atheism and skepticism is valid and it makes sense to me that CFI would enforce the connection. And while I do think skepticism towards miracles or religious claims (like religion as the sole source of morality) in general is warranted, I'm not so sure about skepticism regarding Christ. If the ad had specified "Christ's miracles" or Christianity as the ultimate arbiter of morality it would make more sense to me. I'm not sure if CFI is making a subtle Christ mythicist statement here or not.

Generally, I take "Christ" to mean "messiah" or "risen Lord", as opposed to "Jesus" referring to the man. I took the mention of Christ in the ad to refer to the supernatural aspect of the Gospel story without even really considering that it could be taken a different way.

 

[Willamena]

Seems to me that they are marketing incredulity rather than skepticism.

Edit: Or what Riverwolf said, in #4.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'm personally against marketing beliefs of any kind as if they were products. It's almost insulting.

How so?

Personally, I kinda like it. IMO, it harkens back to the days when exchange of ideas was encouraged by the distribution of pamphlets. It used to be that people would hand out a small treatise of their position; now we point people toward URLs. It's a different medium, but the spirit is the same... or at least it can be the same in the best examples.

I disagree. I try to be as honest with my skepticism as possible, and I wouldn't describe myself as an atheist.

Do you mentally separate your religious beliefs from your skepticism, or do you consider your beliefs to have been tested and verified?

 

[Nepenthe]

Generally, I take "Christ" to mean "messiah" or "risen Lord", as opposed to "Jesus" referring to the man. I took the mention of Christ in the ad to refer to the supernatural aspect of the Gospel story without even really considering that it could be taken a different way.

You're right. I now have to assume that's how they meant it as well; the ad does begin with Allah and ends with Christ.

I used to do volunteer work with the Hollywood CFI (it got me into some free shows at the Steve Allen theater so it was worth it. ) and many of the CFIers were mythicists so my kneejerk interpretion was the historical Jesus.

It does remind me of atheist pamphlets and state/church separation leaflets I'd get in my copies of Free Inquiry and Freethought Today.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It does remind me of atheist pamphlets and state/church separation leaflets I'd get in my copies of Free Inquiry and Freethought Today.

Heh... I was thinking a bit farther back than that - to the pamphleteering that went on before and during the American Revolution, for instance (Common Sense probably being the most famous example).

As long as there's been a printing press, there have been people writing down their thoughts and saying to everyone around them "Hey! Read this, consider it, and tell me what you think!"

 

[Nepenthe]

Heh... I was thinking a bit farther back than that - to the pamphleteering that went on before and during the American Revolution, for instance (Common Sense probably being the most famous example).

As long as there's been a printing press, there have been people writing down their thoughts and saying to everyone around them "Hey! Read this, consider it, and tell me what you think!"

Well, I'm not that old.

 

[Riverwolf]

How so?

Personally, I kinda like it. IMO, it harkens back to the days when exchange of ideas was encouraged by the distribution of pamphlets. It used to be that people would hand out a small treatise of their position; now we point people toward URLs. It's a different medium, but the spirit is the same... or at least it can be the same in the best examples.

And then, just like now, it's typically nothing more than propaganda (at least in my experience). It's not open discussion; it's just "Believe this/think like this or you're a bad person!" I wish those pamphlets, etc. were simple statements of positions. Luckily, those do tend to exist in books and some online articles.

Advertisement should stay where it belongs: to people trying to sell something for a profit. They have no place in modes of thinking.

Do you mentally separate your religious beliefs from your skepticism, or do you consider your beliefs to have been tested and verified?

My skepticism is simply that I try not to believe an anecdote blindly. I do often take the words of the Sages with a grain of salt, but I don't just believe every word they say outright. But one of the things that the Sages frequently repeat is summed up in: "don't take our word for it; try it for yourself." And so the way I live my life becomes a test of their words.

Here's an example: many Sages and Scriptures have said that enlightened people have a radiance about them; I recently was hugged by Amma, a woman I have no hesitation in calling a Sage and a Saint, but there was no divine glow or "presence" about her; when she walked in the room and everybody started worshiping her, all I saw was a woman. So the statement that enlightened beings (if Amma is enlightened; I think she is considering all she's done) give off some kind of glow has failed a test. However, after I was hugged by her, I was in almost a trance for several hours afterwards. So the claim that meeting an enlightened being has a profound effect on the mind may have been true in this case. At the same time, however, it could have been other things; I was expecting to be able to return her hug, but her attendants wouldn't let me (I think.) When she hugged me, she also said something to me (not in English; I have no idea what it was), and I wasn't expecting that. Not only that, but after being hugged, I was directed to sit off to the side for a bit, and I wasn't sure why. So my trance-like state could have been simply because it didn't quite go as I had expected, and I got confused.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

And then, just like now, it's typically nothing more than propaganda (at least in my experience). It's not open discussion; it's just "Believe this/think like this or you're a bad person!"

Actually, it kinda is. IIRC, the URL on the ad links to the CFI site, where users can post comments on what CFI says about each of the items in the ad, along with a long list of others from Feng Shui to dowsing. If you disagree, you're free to say so.

And even when it comes to the articles on each topic, the statements aren't dogmatically saying "it's foolish to believe in this!" - instead (IIRC) they lay out the evidence for each and ask the reader whether it's a reasonable basis for belief.

Advertisement should stay where it belongs: to people trying to sell something for a profit. They have no place in modes of thinking.

That would get rid of not only the CFI's ad, but also ads from churches, charities, government agencies and even so-called "image" ads from companies. The subway walls would look very bare.

 

[waitasec]

CFI's new campaign, which is set to roll out on Toronto transit buses soon, has ads that read:



You can read more about the campaign here: New bus ads to take on Bigfoot, Christ - thestar.com

What do you think about this?

It seems to me that the ads suggest a link between skepticism and atheism. Is this valid?

Do you think that lumping Christ and Allah in with these other items is fair? Is religion an "extraordinary claim"?

sure it's fair

is it fair to claim religious people hold the standard of morality?

 

[Willamena]

Actually, it kinda is. IIRC, the URL on the ad links to the CFI site, where users can post comments on what CFI says about each of the items in the ad, along with a long list of others from Feng Shui to dowsing. If you disagree, you're free to say so.

And even when it comes to the articles on each topic, the statements aren't dogmatically saying "it's foolish to believe in this!" - instead (IIRC) they lay out the evidence for each and ask the reader whether it's a reasonable basis for belief.

If it were just about skepticism, though, they would promote critical thinking that seeks evidence for all claims. Instead, they pick on "extraordinary claims".

And what is "extraordinary evidence" but evidence that hasn't yet met their criteria?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If it were just about skepticism, though, they would promote critical thinking that seeks evidence for all claims. Instead, they pick on "extraordinary claims".

This isn't the only thing that CFI is doing. They do promote critical thinking across the board. This doesn't mean they can't do campaigns on areas of special focus.

And what is "extraordinary evidence" but evidence that hasn't yet met their criteria?

I don't know. Personally, I think that it's valid to have higher standards of evidence for more extraordinary claims.

If you tell me you had bacon and eggs for breakfast, I'm likely to take your word for it. If you tell me that the eggs were dinosaur eggs, and you had them in Atlantis (which you travelled to on your pegasus) with Bigfoot and Elvis, I'm less likely to do so.

Is this unreasonable on my part?

 

[Riverwolf]

Actually, it kinda is. IIRC, the URL on the ad links to the CFI site, where users can post comments on what CFI says about each of the items in the ad, along with a long list of others from Feng Shui to dowsing. If you disagree, you're free to say so.

And even when it comes to the articles on each topic, the statements aren't dogmatically saying "it's foolish to believe in this!" - instead (IIRC) they lay out the evidence for each and ask the reader whether it's a reasonable basis for belief.

Huh. Never heard of those. Guess all the propaganda in the world has shut me off to all bus or road sign ads that are even remotely related to religion. (Then again, I shut myself off to ads in general.)

Still, I don't see any reason why those need to be on buses. Why not just leave ads like that where people who are actually interested would see them, like on videos or websites that deal with these subjects?

That would get rid of not only the CFI's ad, but also ads from churches, charities, government agencies and even so-called "image" ads from companies. The subway walls would look very bare.

I only ever see movie/theater ads on subway walls. And since I typically ignore them, anyway, bare subway walls wouldn't make a difference to me. The only times I've ever seen churches advertise are the JWs that occasionally visit my doorstep (I haven't gotten any door-to-door Mormons, yet.) I've never seen charity ads, and governments especially need to adjust their ad-campaigns to have real information rather than plays on emotions. Never heard of "image" ads, but if they're from companies, then they're most likely trying to sell a product, and thus it makes sense.

In other words, I wouldn't really notice if most of the things listen in that list disappeared.

 

[Falvlun]

Huh. Never heard of those. Guess all the propaganda in the world has shut me off to all bus or road sign ads that are even remotely related to religion. (Then again, I shut myself off to ads in general.)

Still, I don't see any reason why those need to be on buses. Why not just leave ads like that where people who are actually interested would see them, like on videos or websites that deal with these subjects?

I don't understand why you think only people trying to sell stuff should get ad space. Isn't what we think and believe more important than what we want to buy?

Also, I'm not particularly interested in buying a new car, but I get bombarded with those ads all around me. Again, why do you think that ads pertaining to beliefs should only be put where those interested can find them when companies tell everyone about their stuff regardless of interest? Besides, one of the purposes of advertising is to get people who would normally not consider your product to give it a second thought. Wouldn't it sorta defeat the purpose to make people try to find an ad intending to get people to think about something they normally don't think about?

 

[Willamena]

This isn't the only thing that CFI is doing. They do promote critical thinking across the board. This doesn't mean they can't do campaigns on areas of special focus.

My bad, I should have been more specific. I was talking about the campaign in the OP.

I don't know. Personally, I think that it's valid to have higher standards of evidence for more extraordinary claims.

If you tell me you had bacon and eggs for breakfast, I'm likely to take your word for it. If you tell me that the eggs were dinosaur eggs, and you had them in Atlantis (which you travelled to on your pegasus) with Bigfoot and Elvis, I'm less likely to do so.

Is this unreasonable on my part?

Not at all. But what would qualify as "extraordinary evidence"? What I mean is, if you actually did pull out a Bigfoot as evidence, would it be so extraordinary?