Talk:Atheist Bus Campaign/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 11 August 2024. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

Gentelmen at the uther website! operation Back Of A Bus is underway!

Watch out Gentleman Ken, teh Atheists have launched a campaign that will soon be having a significant showing in the world. Just google "Atheist" and "Bus" to see what we mean! Bondurant 07:03, 18 February 2009 (EST)

BWAhahahahah! ArmondikoV^{d hominem} 07:10, 18 February 2009 (EST)

Propaganda

I see that we define propaganda as: "Propaganda is the misuse of information and information technology in order to manipulate a population's conception of reality. It is usually done for political reasons, although religious propaganda exists as well. Some would argue that much of modern advertising is propaganda."

As I don't think project this involves the "misuse of information and information technology" I have removed the cat.--Bob^{bing up} 11:03, 18 February 2009 (EST)

RW: "Propaganda is the use of media and other information sources in order to affect or control the perceptions and behaviour of a population."

WP: "Propaganda is the dissemination of information aimed at influencing the opinions or behaviors of large numbers of people."

Google:define: "information that is spread for the purpose of promoting some cause" "The promotion of specific ideas or views, often political in nature."

It's quite clear that "propoganda" has become somewhat of a loaded, negative, term in recent years, but generally, it means any message that plugs a POV. Therefore, this is propaganda. ArmondikoV^{d hominem} 11:16, 18 February 2009 (EST)

I agree with Armondikov. Bob was quoting the definition at category:propaganda, which was much too narrow (I've now ammended it). "Misuse of information" implies that there is such a thing as right and wrong ways to use information, & that using information to try to influence people's opinions (something we all do at RationalWiki - e.g. in this discussion) is somehow "misusing" it. "Propaganda" is often used negatively as a snarl word, but it is hypocritical to say that it's only propaganda if it's saying something you don't agree with. I think that any advertisement which is promoting a concept or opinion rather than a product can be classed as propaganda, even if you might not use the word to describe it as such in everyday speech. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 12:05, 18 February 2009 (EST)

It's a bit rich to go back and edit a definition so it then agrees with a point you want to make isn't it? --Bob^{bing up} 12:12, 18 February 2009 (EST)

No, it's editing the category's definition to match A) the titular article and B) the wider, broader and accepted definition. Although with the wider and broader definition, we do have to start including a lot of other things. ArmondikoV^{d hominem} 12:17, 18 February 2009 (EST)

(EC) I edited it to match standard definitions such as the one in our propaganda article (quoted by Amondikov above). If you think the way I have changed it is inaccurate, change it again - likewise the definition in the article. They should match each other, not contradict each other. If you include the phrase "misuse of information", it will need to be qualified in some way - what is the objective difference between "correct use" & "misuse" of information? ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 12:21, 18 February 2009 (EST)

If we want to clarify that, the discussion will be best off being transplanted to the article/cat itself. But IMO, they should match no matter what they say. We can't have the article as a definition and the category as a snarl word. ArmondikoV^{d hominem} 12:24, 18 February 2009 (EST)

I agree. But my objection was based on the category which was used at that time and on the definition of that category at that time. It seems to me that changing the definition of the category without debate so that the category then fitted the article is a little - how shall I put it .... sneaky?--Bob^{bing up} 12:30, 18 February 2009 (EST)

It wasn't sneaky. Notice that I haven't put this article back into the propaganda category, that I openly stated above that I had reworded the definition given on the category page & why I had done do, and the previous definition is still available for discussion on this page. My changes were fairly minimal & no deceit was involved. I changed it because it didn't match the definition given in our article, & because the "misue of information" thing made little sense. If you think "misuse of information" is a phrase we should use, you'll need to substantiate how correct use or misuse of information is determined. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 13:58, 18 February 2009 (EST)

I merely looked at the definition of the category which you added to the article, and pointed out that the article didn't fit the definition of that category. I took issue with your simply editing the definition so that it now fits the article. It is entirely possible that the original definition of the category was incorrect, but perhaps it would have been better to check what the category apparently meant before adding it to the article.--Bob^{bing up} 14:06, 18 February 2009 (EST)

So what is your issue? That I should check the wording in every single page I link to? Or that, having seen that the wording is inaccurate after I'd linked to it, I shouldn't then correct it? ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 14:11, 18 February 2009 (EST)

As it was under dispute it would have been politer to discuss it rather than simply change the definition to fit your argument. I think this was the first point I made. I'm sorry if was not clear.--Bob^{bing up} 14:14, 18 February 2009 (EST)

Alrighty then, I've reverted it back to how it was. So, returning to your original objection that the Atheist Bus Campaign doesn't involve "misuse of information ", can you define what you consider to be misuse of information & why this doesn't apply? ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 14:18, 18 February 2009 (EST)

The definition may well be wrong - as I said above: It is entirely possible that the original definition of the category was incorrect. Nevertheless, the word "propaganda" has an obvious negative implication which somehow (at least to my mind) implies manipulation of the truth. I personally, don't feel this an appropriate description of the campaign. I fully accept that this is a personal, subjective opinion. So what say you that we start a debate: Is the Atheist bus campaign propaganda?--Bob^{bing up} 14:26, 18 February 2009 (EST)

Dawkins

"world's most famous atheist?" Really? Ever hear of a guy name Friedrich Nietzsche? ħuman 03:21, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Who would most people mention when asked to name a famous atheist? OK, so we can't ask "most people", but I'd put my money on Dawkins.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 07:04, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I still think the phrasing is stilted and over the top. Ask "most people" who said "God is dead"? I doubt most people even care either way. I find the phrase lame and time-limited, at best. ħuman 07:09, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, it's also a bit western-centric. Perhaps people in China would say Mao. On the other hand Dawkins has the advantage on not being dead. So "arguably the west's most famous living atheist."--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 07:26, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd say he probably is. Although it's not a massive issue, really, is it? Anyway, I think it'd be more accurate as "prominent" but that would be repeating the word twice in that sentence. ^narchist 19:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd run with Bob's comment - the winner might be, say, Stalin. Or Bertie Russell. Is there a way to do more than just invoke His Name? Ie, is there a good quote out there where he expresses support? Then we could just quote him and have done with it. ħuman 01:39, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Stalin is not famous as an atheist. Dawkins arguably is - David Gerard (talk) 08:01, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

You obviously have not read enough conservapedia. I would argue Dawkins is actually, simply "not famous" really. Stalin is famous, but, yeah, perhaps not "as an atheist". ħuman 08:04, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Is there a need for an atheist bus campaign?

I mean, really--User:Brxbrx/sig 22:31, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Now unbot yourself. Ty^talk 22:35, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

So new atheists haven't been trolling the religious enough, is that it?--User:Brxbrx/sig 22:38, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, pretty much. Ty^talk 22:40, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

This is just another round in the pissing contest between fundies and organized atheists--User:Brxbrx/sig 22:41, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Hwa? Ty^talk 22:42, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

The atheist bus campaign did not achieve any goals other than the goal of trolling religious people.--User:Brxbrx/sig 22:44, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Nonsense, I love my copy of TAGC. Ty^talk 22:47, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately I am not gifted with natural knowledge of acronyms. The Anti Group Company? Is that it? Can you explain the relevance?--User:Brxbrx/sig 22:51, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

The Atheist's Guide to Christmas Ty^talk 22:52, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Or read Arianne Sherine's first couple of columns on the subject. ADK^{...I'll dry your Playstation 3!} 22:54, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

So for reference, Brx, i ride the bus home, and pass 4 churches all with placards on the front with some silly proselytizing slogan; there are 2 banners on the interstate on my way home, with "god loves you", adn something in spanish and a cross; there are three missions in down town that we pass (on the same bus), all with crosses on the out side and "jesus saves". The mormans have taken out an ad on my bus. Just today. And there is not one atheist anything, anywhere. So yeah, an ad campaign saying "we are here and were queer godless (doesn't rhyme, got to fix that) is necessary. (I say something about the level of atheism and the lack of religious speech in france, but that would be beating a dead horse, muwahahahahah)--GodotTue pour toujours, et tu veux vivre aussi. 22:59, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

No, it's not. Why do you need to announce you're an atheist? I don't. I don't believe in god or in anything supernatural. That doesn't warrant a poster. I don't care if I'm "outnumbered." That's not the point.--User:Brxbrx/sig 23:02, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Oooh, of the top of my head... the fact that apostasy in Islam is officially met with the death penalty, that anyone not believing in God in Catholicism has something wrong with them, that if you have doubts it's always your fault for having insufficient faith. Live in any place where religion dominates and atheism is something you have to "come out" as. If you don't get this, or think atheists should shut up because, then you'll never get it so don't bother asking. If you find it distasteful, no one is forcing you to be open about being a non-believer. But that isn't going to help the kid out there that has to hide a copy of The God Delusion under his mattress in case his parents find it. ^{...I'll liberate your copy-paste!} 23:16, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

There are no such apostasy laws in the United States. And I'm not quite sure how to respond to the rest- but don't think you've stumped me. It's more of a not even wrong thing--User:Brxbrx/sig 23:27, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Did I say they were US laws? Pay attention. ^{...I'll rinse your home theater system!} 13:44, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I have attention deficit disorder, but I was was paying attention in this case. How are apostasy laws relevant to a bus campaign in the US?--User:Brxbrx/sig 18:07, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘It's not gonna convert anyone but why shouldn't atheists have some representation? At least twice a week I either get stopped down my own street by Jehovah's Witnesses or have them knocking on my door as early as ten o'clock on a Saturday morning when I'm trying to fucking sleep, trying to convert me. It's only my common courtesy that stops me from saying to them "fuck off." I think a few signs on a few buses saying "There probably is no God" is a very polite, non-inflammatory way of representing those who do not WANT a religion. It's not like we're knocking on people's doors and asking them what God they believe in and why, which is, for some reason, acceptable if you're a Christian. You get enough people doing that in the name of atheism and you'll get a scathing article written about you in the Daily Mail. SJ ^Debaser 18:29, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Try this. It's silly to have atheists act as a group in the first place--User:Brxbrx/sig 18:33, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

No more silly than gay people wanting to be seen and heard, so belonging to PFLAG groups. Do you know (and yes, this could never be upheld in any court, but still...) it is illegal in one state to be an athiest? And there are a dozen or so states that do not allow atheists to hold office? Again, it would never be upheld, but the pricipal is there. Besides, I'm sick and tired of being invited to dinner parties where the ASSUMPTION is that we all believe and pray. Why is it not polite to ASK FIRST. But the general assumption is that everyone believes in god. when you say you don't, they stare at you like you are from mars. Signs help change this. People wearing A's help change this. "I'm out, I'm proud" is not just for gays any longer, I guess. why are you so offended? GodotGet over it!. 18:38, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

So yeah. There is.Ty^talk 02:04, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I guess it depends on what you mean by "need".--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 11:56, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Acceptable: [1]; [2]; [3]. Shrill/trolling/sit down, shut up: [4] The horrors. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:47, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

To answer at greater length. "Needed" by whom?

• Society - does society need to know there are other opinions? Pretty obviously, yes.
• Atheists - do athiests need to know that there are other people who share their lack of belief? Another big "Yes" there.
• Theists - do Christians, Muslims and the rest need to be reminded that they don't have the monopoly on making public pronouncements? Hey! Another "yes"!

But maybe you were thinking of another group who don't "need" the campaign?--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 18:53, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Not just public pronouncements in that last part, but on morality. Remember how batshit people went over the campaign that said you could be good without God, how is it that it's acceptable to imply and preach that a particular group of people are completely devoid of any moral foundation? ^{...I'll write your glue!} 19:20, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I have seen teachers be told not to talk about their atheism in class - highschools- cause it' might be offensive. When I was in middle school, i wrote often about feeling left out (dad a minister) for not believing, and was told blantently by my teachers "you're too young to know what you believe". of course, had i said "i believe in god" no one would have said squat. The more I talk about growing up atheist, the more i do see real parallels to being gay. not as drastic, i don't see too many atheists killing themselves, and we can marry, but a touch of the same feelings. being told you don't know what you know; being told you shouldn't talk about yoru veiws... yeah, we need these campaigns. GodotGet over it!. 19:56, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah... You're comparing gay rights to atheism.--User:Brxbrx/sig 19:59, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Why yes, I am. That is how humans understand the world, by comparing with other things we are familiar with. I did not say they were equal, just that there is a huge sense of isolation, "being different", and being "unacceptable" for being an atheist. I've seen kids drug to church for being atheist, not as extreme as being kicked out, but the feelings are similar. I've known kids who had to "come out" to their parents, which was extremely hard. not traumatic like it might be for gay kids, but very emotional never the less. It is more likely you will see an openly gay man be president before you will see an open atheist be president. GodotMoi j'dis, laisse beton 20:02, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Not being religious does not affect your life in the same way being gay does, unless you're an arrogant prick like Richard Dawkins--User:Brxbrx/sig 20:05, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, because kids being guilt tripped into going to church, being forced to pray by peer pressure when they're not sure they believe, losing a job because someone finds out you're a non-believer, risking your family disowning you for leaving the church or receiving letters condemning you to hell - and don't say something patently ridiculous like "but that doesn't matter if you don't believe in hell" because the intent doesn't change at all, the belief of the person making the threat is what the important part is. Doesn't affect your life at all. ^theist 22:09, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

And of course it matters, Brx. That's rather judgmental to say it doesn't. I've been an atheist for my entire life. My father is a Methodist minster. I grew up aware that I didn't agree with anything he said. More importnatly, coming from a small town Colorado, people asked "why aren't you in church" "what do you mean you don't believe in god, do you worship satan?" Just rude stuff. adults said I clearly didn't know what I was talking about, and just hadn't heard the truth. I was picked on FOR BEING AN ATHEIST and for believing in science. And I was lonely, Brx. When I was 12, i went to bible camp and got on my knees and prayed to this god i didn't believe in -- not so i would believe, but because if i did that, my friends accepted me. I lied to them for nearly 2 years, cause I was lonely and you cannot be an atheist in rural America. Then I moved to France, and my life changed. Suddenly, no one gave a shit if you had god or not. NO one cared if you went to church or didn't. Religion was such a non-issue there. That was the first time in my life I'd felt comfortable with other people about religion. So yeah, it does matter. Is it as bad as the shit gay kids go through? Course not. But saying "well, we don't have to address it, cause it's not as bad" is a hollow argument. GodotMoi j'dis, laisse beton 22:17, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘It's easier to hide being an atheist than being gay, though the fact that atheists rank below gays and Muslims in opinion polls is saying something. Not that it matters to Brx. He is a practitioner of what I will call "vulgar accommodationism" -- the belief that public statements of faith are valid, but public statements of disbelief are, well, YOU BIG MEANIE! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 22:34, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Whatever we do we mustn't rock the boat by offending those of a religious disposition by telling them it's all rubbish. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 22:44, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't even get that, Neb. how can it be "mean" to say "I don't believe in that"? how could this ever offend anyone? And to say on a bus "If you are someone who doesn't beleive, you're not alone". or "we don't harass you cause you don't believe in leprechauns" who could that possibly offend. But never the less, it offends TONS. and i'm dumbfounded.GodotMoi j'dis, laisse beton 22:51, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

1. Sarcasm, 2. Have you forgotten this already? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 22:59, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from with it being easier to hide being atheist, but I think in Godot's example of a small community it's very noticeable who does and doesn't go to church. The only way to hide in this case would be to go to church and effectively lie your way through it all. By comparison to being gay (not that the analogy is a brilliant one) to hide you don't need to do anything. Of course, this is very situation dependent. In a community that isn't tightly focused around church but is constantly trying to set you up on dates because that's socially the norm, then hiding homosexuality will be more difficult. It's all about whether someone is comfortable being who they are and showing what they believe openly. ^{d hominem} 23:06, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I fully believed in God's genuine existence up until about six years ago - I didn't know much about the Bible apart from the Old Testament bedtime stories (which I always thought of as fictional bedtime stories), but I believed that God existed because growing up I was somewhat surrounded by the idea of God, not by my family but by society; school prayers and hymns, Cub Scouts, and a Christian youth club I went to (though that was admittedly voluntary). When I left that I actually realised I knew fuck all about religion and had simply believed that God existed because I'd been told since about five years old that he did, at which point I became agnostic. My earliest experiences on CP marked the first times I realised that people read the Bible literally and I became a very sceptical agnostic. Then I realised that the Bible was the only evidence for the God which I'd believed existed, and I pretty much stopped believing. No one I knew gave a crap, as in Britain most people mind their own when it comes to religion. Why should we be content to have children indoctrinated to believe in God without good reason? Why should atheists not stand up for their disbelief? SJ ^Debaser 00:06, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Love that story SJ. Title: "Reading conservapedia made me an atheist." Best story I've read today. --Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 08:01, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Brx makes the point about why should atheists need to be be organised. The problem is that all the religions are organised and unless you actually stand up for the secular position then the religionists will gradually take over with an ver increasing number of laws that support their position and undermine the position of atheists. In the USA the religious affiliation of presidential candidates is wel known and it would be the kiss of death for someone to openly admit to being an atheist. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 09:17, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Quoth some "religionists": "Our sentiments are uniformly on the side of religious liberty--that religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals--that no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious opinions--that the legitimate power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbors." -Danbury Baptist Association to Thomas Jefferson

"Finally, I believe in an America where religious intolerance will someday end; where all men and all churches are treated as equal; where every man has the same right to attend or not attend the church of his choice; where there is no Catholic vote, no anti-Catholic vote, no bloc voting of any kind; and where Catholics, Protestants and Jews, at both the lay and pastoral level, will refrain from those attitudes of disdain and division which have so often marred their works in the past, and promote instead the American ideal of brotherhood.

That is the kind of America in which I believe. And it represents the kind of presidency in which I believe — a great office that must neither be humbled by making it the instrument of any one religious group, nor tarnished by arbitrarily withholding its occupancy from the members of any one religious group. I believe in a president whose religious views are his own private affair, neither imposed by him upon the nation, or imposed by the nation upon him as a condition to holding that office." -Religionist-in-Chief John F. Kennedy Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 07:05, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

And your point is what? That people of religion have expressed the right to religious freedom? Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 10:20, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

The one thing uniting those quotes is that they talk of religion as being a personal affair, they abhor enforcement of religious belief. They only implicitly (through talking about it as personal) defend the right not to believe, rather than explicitly. Seeing similarly placed people explicitly defending the right to non-belief would be a different matter. This is because even mentioning acknowledging the existence of non-belief seems to be constantly interpreted as an attack on religion; believing in a different God can be passed off as just a reinterpretation of the fundamental belief and faith people hold, recognising non-belief explicitly suggest that it all could be bullshit. This is something I don't think people are comfortable with hearing, so it's likely US Presidents would never defend non-belief too explicitly. ^pathetic 10:42, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

"That people of religion have expressed the right to religious freedom?" Exactly. The notion that "religionists" are moving en bloc to eat away the separation of church and state is ahistorical nonsense. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:46, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, some do want to eat away at it. But that says nothing more than the fact that some atheists want it imposed so strictly as to effectively destroy religion for any innocent believers does. ^theist 17:43, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how that negates my claim. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:56, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't, that's the point. ^narchist 19:55, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Neb's claim is spurious, I never claimed that there was a move erode the the separation of church and state; there are far too many religious denominations in the US for that ever to come about. What is the issue is the amount of power wielded by the religious over the secular in a country where so many people would rather the president be a muslim than an atheist: where organised religious groups try to set creationism and ID on equal footing with evolution. That's why humanists and secularists need to stand together and be counted. There is a reason that the Discovery Institute called their strategy a "wedge". Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 21:01, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree that we should stand together, but do you really think we're alone in, say, fighting creationism? Here's a list of statements from religious organizations on that issue. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:12, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

No I don't think it is only the non-religious who object to creationism, I merely presented that as an example. Laws that restrict freedom of speech, disbar atheists from public office, restrict activities on Sunday, the automatic assumption that you must belong to a church, regard those that affirm rather than swear on the Bible as somehow less honest - these all demean the status and integrity of the non-religious. There are many religious groups who push an agenda and often it is those who are most voluble who get things changed because of mainstream indifference. That's why secular groups need to get out and be heard. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 21:52, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Why does atheism need converts, anyways? What goal do we have as people without religion? Perhaps New Atheists should make more effort to distinguish themselves from other atheists, that they may have their own religion ideology distinct from the various ideologies of nontheists.--. 13:02, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Because this has between zero and nothing to do with converting people. ^theist 13:22, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Really? Because that's what it looks like. "There probably isn't a god, enjoy life" seems like preaching to me. This whole atheist bus campaign seems like a quest for negative attention.--. 23:48, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

How is this a quest for negative attention? ^postate 00:50, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

That's a strange view, i'd think. Given that the vast majority of the abrahamic rule structures are about restricting people's freedoms to think, defining what they should be doing and should not be doing, and controlling how a person lives, saying "relax, there's probably not god" seems more than rational to me.GodotSome would use a tautology to describe it ("The way things are done around here is the wa 01:18, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Next up he'll want NPOV. And a naughty word filter. ArchieGoodwin (talk) 16:09, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I want to know more about looking for "negative attention". Does one go about shouting, "IGNORE ME YOU BASTARDS" or what?--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 17:23, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

"I'm an atheist, and if you are not one too, you will rot in hell, burning in satanist wrath - is that what you want? is that what you want for your children? The schools are teaching something other than atheism.. THIS WILL LEAD YOUR CHILD TO BURN IN HELL!!!!!!!!!!! IS THAT WHAT YOU WANT?????" hum, you're right, that kind of language telling others that their children are doomed, IS seeking negative attention! GodotI live in the Infinite monkey cage 17:30, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Is the campaign still going?

Google has no results more recent than 2011. Proxima Centauri (talk) 15:37, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

The "1in4" campaign in Washington

A quick search about this campaign shows that people of faith and the faithless found it "inaccurate" and a "misrepresentation", while, as it were, the campaign got it right. One example of skepticism (and later validation of the "1 in 4" claim) was Hemant Mehta here :https://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/2011/12/13/are-one-in-four-people-really-atheists/

I feel like the immediate contention around the claim by all sides involved was proof of it working, at the very least, to get some mental gears turning. Perhaps worth a mention.

Also, the reference link to the "1in4" campaign is broken.^{— Unsigned, by: GhettoSauce / talk / contribs}