Byron wrote:

ispoketoanangel wrote:Thankfully we do have extraordinary evidence for the life, death and resurrection of Christ. Philosopher Richard Swinburne, using modern mathematics, calculated that the probability that the resurrection of Jesus is true is very high given the historical evidence we have.

I have a lot more time for Swinburne than for many, but on this score, he's way off. Worse, he resorts to that apologists' fallback, Bayes Theorem, to "prove" the Resurrection.

But don't you know, if you use lots of complicated math and neat symbols, it's extra specially true!

ISTA, why don't you run us thru Swinburne's "modern mathematics" calculations and give us your detailed explanation of how they work?

In your own words please.

Lion IRC wrote:

Ihavenofingerprints wrote:

J Hubner wrote:Since when are you lot in a position to say that your particular brand of non-belief is the right one?

I smell schism here.

Trying to top Lion IRC for most nonsensical and irrelevant post of the thread?

If you think my post about "Another hideous atheist billboard" is off-topic you know what to do.

You're obviously allowed to make nonsense posts, Lion, or you'd have been kicked off eons ago.

Onyx8 wrote:In your own words please.

Of course.

This review by Christian philosopher Richard Otte is not too postiive:

http://ndpr.nd.edu/news/23553-the-resur ... incarnate/

Without getting into the details (most of which I'll admit are well out of my area of expertise), the endnotes give a pretty good idea of why Swinburne's argument is, shall we say, a bit shaky:

(The prior probability of God becoming incarnate in a divided incarnation) is equal to 1/4 because the probability that God will become incarnate given that he exists is 1/2, and the probability that God exists is 1/2.

At least the pastors were more creepy than the billboard... (For me)

Shrunk wrote:

(The prior probability of God becoming incarnate in a divided incarnation) is equal to 1/4 because the probability that God will become incarnate given that he exists is 1/2, and the probability that God exists is 1/2.

That sounds like the old trick for proving that half the planets in the solar system are inhabited by purple unicorns.

HughMcB wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

Wiðercora wrote:

Byron wrote:This is the opposition, guys. God help you.

I know right?

Maybe RatSkep should club together and hire someone; the world's first atheist billboard which doesn't instantly repulse.

I think we'd be back to that schism Hubner was so excited to manufacture.

I'm going to head up the RakSep People's Front of Billboard Design, who wants to head up the Billboard Design People's Front of RatSkep?

I am up for the billboard idea.

I'll start the brain-storming process.

Concept #1:
The concept : questioning virgin birth.
For the tagline, I'll borrow the lyrics from an NOFX song: "Without DNA testing, would you believe virgin birth?"
The image shows a woman's legs spread apart, giving birth.
In order to not appear obscene and for a more artsy interesting perspective, the camera will be shown from behind, instead of facing the crotch. So, this is essentially a first person view. The viewer imagines himself/herself as the woman giving birth, looking down at the head of the baby emerging from her. But, instead of a human baby's head emerging from between her legs, you see the head of a creature that doesn't share the DNA of human being, something that makes you question the baby's real parents: it's the head of a baby raptor. It's raptor Jesus!

EDIT: After some thought, I realize the image is confusing. So, I'll add a little more detail. Have hay all over the background and probably a few barn animals, so it's now clear that the woman is giving birth in a barn. Ta da!

quas wrote:

HughMcB wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

Wiðercora wrote:

I know right?

Maybe RatSkep should club together and hire someone; the world's first atheist billboard which doesn't instantly repulse.

I think we'd be back to that schism Hubner was so excited to manufacture.

I'm going to head up the RakSep People's Front of Billboard Design, who wants to head up the Billboard Design People's Front of RatSkep?

I am up for the billboard idea.

I'll start the brain-storming process.

Concept #1:
The concept : questioning virgin birth.
For the tagline, I'll borrow the lyrics from an NOFX song: "Without DNA testing, would you believe virgin birth?"
The image shows a woman's legs spread apart, giving birth.
In order to not appear obscene and for a more artsy interesting perspective, the camera will be shown from behind, instead of facing the crotch. So, this is essentially a first person view. The viewer imagines himself/herself as the woman giving birth, looking down at the head of the baby emerging from her. But, instead of a human baby's head emerging from between her legs, we see the head of a baby raptor. It's raptor Jesus!

I think we need to break this down a bit more. Are we just doing billboards? What about those advertisments at bus-stops, or in newspapers, or on buses? We can afford to be a little less 'punchy' there, because people aren't whizzing past at 60 mph.

Yeah, but the billboard must be:
1) attention-grabbing
2) witty
3) humorous, preferably shows atheist humor eg. raptor Jesus

quas wrote:Yeah, but the billboard must be:
1) attention-grabbing
2) witty
3) humorous, preferably shows atheist humor eg. raptor Jesus

I don't think Raptor Jesus would be a good idea. I imagine most people's responses would be 'I don't get it'.

Any advertisement needs to have a target audience and a message. Are we looking to persuade on-the-fencers, fundamentalists, Muslims, Christians who? Are we telling them 'We're here so STFU', 'You don't need God or Religion to have morals', promoting secularism or what? Are we being serious or tongue-in-cheek?

I don't think we can have just 'an atheist billboard'.

Wiðercora wrote:I don't think Raptor Jesus would be a good idea. I imagine most people's responses would be 'I don't get it'.

Yeah, it should be a little confusing at first. It gets people thinking. Like those ads that try to make you think about it. It would be lame to have to print in small letters at the bottom that it's just a punny joke.

Any advertisement needs to have a target audience and a message. Are we looking to persuade on-the-fencers, fundamentalists, Muslims, Christians who? Are we telling them 'We're here so STFU', 'You don't need God or Religion to have morals', promoting secularism or what? Are we being serious or tongue-in-cheek?

Obviously, the Mary giving birth to Raptor Jesus concept is targeted at Christians. You'll have to make another one for Muslims.
It's okay that we have different ads targeted towards different groups. I think it's also okay that the ads have different flavors, some are serious, others are more humorous. After all, there's probably going to be different groups of atheists making these ads.

Byron wrote:By contrast, here's a similar flyer from the Alpha Course.



Night and day. It draws you in visually, communicates its meaning visually, and has a punchy message. It asks a question, subconsciously triggering your curiosity. Inquisition beats declamation.

This is the opposition, guys. God help you.

It looks almost like an atheist billboard to me - expounding on the awe of nature that most of us feel - both theist and atheist. The only difference is that the theists attribute it to their gods.
You can just imagine that the guy is saying "does it get any better than this".

I propose that we copy this one and instead of saying:-
Is there more to life than this? The alpha course explore the meaning of life.
For more information alpha.org

Say:-
Does there need to be more to reality than this? Science understand the reality of life.
For real information rationalskepticism.org

or some such.

The site would have to be expanded. At the moment - as far as I'm aware, at least - it's only a forum, we'd need a front page, articles, contributors, news and probably other things which I can't think of.

I don't think we can just straight-up copy it either. Copyright law.

Wiðercora wrote:The site would have to be expanded. At the moment - as far as I'm aware, at least - it's only a forum, we'd need a front page, articles, contributors, news and probably other things which I can't think of.

I don't think we can just straight-up copy it either. Copyright law.

OK, for copy read "make one like it" and for rationalskepticism.org read "any rational/atheist website that would be suitable". Is my suggestion OK now.

halucigenia wrote:

Byron wrote:By contrast, here's a similar flyer from the Alpha Course.



Night and day. It draws you in visually, communicates its meaning visually, and has a punchy message. It asks a question, subconsciously triggering your curiosity. Inquisition beats declamation.

This is the opposition, guys. God help you.

It looks almost like an atheist billboard to me - expounding on the awe of nature that most of us feel - both theist and atheist. The only difference is that the theists attribute it to their gods.
You can just imagine that the guy is saying "does it get any better than this".

I propose that we copy this one and instead of saying:-
Is there more to life than this? The alpha course explore the meaning of life.
For more information alpha.org

Say:-
Does there need to be more to reality than this? Science understand the reality of life.
For real information rationalskepticism.org

or some such.

To me, that ad speaks to the GREEDY nature of theists. There's so many things in this world, and yet it's never enough and they seek for more (the divine). What if one day they realize that they want more than the divine?

Concept #2:
We have an image of paradise/heaven or what we imagine paradise/heaven to look like (clouds, pearly gates and stuff). So, maybe we have humans in white fabric with angel wings (the stereotypical image of humans who've gone to heaven). And, most importantly, there'll be fruits, flowers, fountains, 72 virgins and all these luscious opulent things that heaven would have aplenty of as described in the Bible/Quran. But the humans all look bored. Dead bored. The tagline says, "Is this all?" or "Is there more to the afterlife than this?"

quas wrote:To me, that ad speaks to the GREEDY nature of theists. There's so many things in this world, and yet it's never enough and they seek for more (the divine). What if one day they realize that they want more than the divine?

Thanks for putting my uneasy and unformulated thoughts about that ad into words that I could not quite express myself.

ABE: the text could be something like "Is this not enough?"

halucigenia wrote:

quas wrote:To me, that ad speaks to the GREEDY nature of theists. There's so many things in this world, and yet it's never enough and they seek for more (the divine). What if one day they realize that they want more than the divine?

Thanks for putting my uneasy and unformulated thoughts about that ad into words that I could not quite express myself.

ABE: the text could be something like "Is this not enough?"

If it's true that theists are insatiably greedy bastards, then we can't simply tell them that science can satisfy them. We need to awaken them to the horrors of the day that will come when they realize that they hunger for more than god, heaven and all that stuff.

So...

After further thought, I think the tagline for concept #2 could be a little more humorous, a little more tongue-in-cheek.

"Be an atheist. No afterlife."

or

"Bored of the afterlife? We can help. RationalSkepticism.org"

How about a picture of a lot of very glum/bored/scary people sitting in a cold church, with the tag line, Is there more to life than this?

Rational Skepticism: No pie in the sky when you die, but cake on the plate while you wait.

(Which I must confess is a variation on something I once heard from an Evangelical preacher)