Double Take... a response

Allie's post 'Double Take' made me think alot... and what was supposed to be a short comment turned out to be something that I thought warranted it's own post. I think you should check it out if you haven't read it, before you carry on here.

I've copied the picture here though for expiediency:

I can imagine just how much this image might scream for a double take, much like gay couple snogging in a public space or a girl flashing her wobbly bits on the sidewalk might. For those with a strong deity based faith (across any and all religous views), this is a truly benign statement. But not everyone has a diety based faith. In fact many of us have been raised in families and community with a deity based faith, but still have doubts.

Athiesm seems to remain as contentious as the differences between the two religous populations in Israel, but without the bloodshed. However if there were an distinctly athiest suburb or principality within a 'fundamentalist' religous state, the above statement might not remain true.
I honestly think we should allow each other to declare religous or other views and recruit support for them too, for that matter. Personally , I try follow this basic tennant: "Accept one another('s views if in their basic form fall) within our basic emotional human needs for Peace, Love, Unity and Respect" (even or especially when your own views don't co-incide).

There's a bit more of a story behind P.L.U.R - but that doesn't warrant discussion now.

That said, I give this campaign two strikes, which anyone who knows baseball will understand still doesn't take it off the playing field and back into the dug-out. Because, I feel, Athiesm needs its day (or two) in the sun!

Strike-one: No P.L.U.R!

This selfish tag line implies that people with a faith do not or cannot enjoy their lives.

Granted there are people living in a faith based society that, beacuse of dogma, don't measure up in some way or other. That leads to varying levels of guilt, self deprication or even condemnation and exclusion, to such extremes, that they may end up suicidal or murdered.

But, there are still plenty of people out there with deity based faiths who have fantastic and fulfilled lives. I suspect most of the regular followers of this blog would probably say they have a strong deity based faith and lead happy and fulfilled lives and who are these (bus advertisers) guys to say otherwise? The tag line baseless and pointless.

Furthermore, as you shall see later in my post, this comment is as I understand it, off the mark for athiesm because the selfish tone of that little tag runs headlong into the very critisicms those who know little about athiesm lay at it's feet.

Strike Two: No Respect for itself...

Use of the word 'probably' comes across as doubt filled. And so, as a supposed campaign for 'recruitment' to a particular point of view, it fails dismally. Most other campaigns by faith based organisations will generally espouse a value or view. NO?

Every other deity based faith does not muddle it's thoughts on its fundamentals. Be they mono or polytihiestic - they know their god/s. Most even declare their love for them.

For goodness sake, if you're trying to recruit - be tall and proud and tell it as you see it: "god does not exist!"

I have some views on athiesm that I'd like to share, beacuse I fee they begin to debunk the greatest detractions thrown at it from deity based faith commentators.

By it's very nature, athiesm is opposed to deity based faith systems (formal or otherwise). Unfortunately beacuse of the propensity of persons of strong faith to argue athiesm from their religous point of view, understandably athiesm often has to make it's stand as challenges to widely accepted faith based 'givens'. There are fundamental differences which the debates address and the athiest will argue that they are illogical or have no real proof (of the scientific kind).

At it's core, athiesm realises life without deity (and all the mysteries dieties bring to the party). My feeling is that most ardent and well balanced/read athiests view religion as a natural human response to searching for answers and providing answers to 'all the big questions' - where there had been an absence of hard proof. There are many, many 'mysteries' that were covered in various religous texts throughout mankind that have been floored by later scientific discoveries. Athiesm admits there are still many things humankind does not know. The origin of life and how we humans became so distinct from the genetically similar yet amazingly different chimp spring to mind- but still, they do not ascribe any of this to diety.

On a different level too (and this is where this advert gets my back up a bit - because it just screams the opposite) athiesm does not reject family and societal values and systems. It does not propose anarchy or the destruction of the worlds faiths and cultures. It has in fact been proven in micro-societies (and I'll have to dig through my source material if you want citations) that these values and systems can exist in the absence of diety based faiths.

In the same vane many athiests, like their religous bretheren, are capable of benevolent acts and do good deeds throughout the world - furthering the advancement of the poorest of the poor or breaking ground with new and exciting research, that positively impacts the peoples of the world.

I believe true athiesm has been a leader in forging a wider acceptance of all of humankind than many religions have, and I don't think I need to go into a history of many of the worlds greatest deeds of human extermiantion to argue this.

Athiesm needs its day in the sun - just not on the side of a bus, not like this!