Add new comment

Wait, is religious faith results-based? What results do you feel justify someone personally forcing themselves to have faith (for if you don't decide to have faith, then who decides for you?). Do the ends justify the means, even if the means are based on falsehoods?

Also, do you really think that religion produces great results? With all the bloodshed, discrimination, hatred, division and ostracizing done in its name? I'm not going to deny that many if not most religious people are well-meaning and otherwise sane, but you have to admit that the majority of people throughout history who have started wars, killed indiscriminately, tortured their brethren, held slaves, valued money over human life, denied women full inclusion into society, inflicted horrors upon non-human animals ... were not (are not) most of them religious? What sort of results did their religion produce?

Atheists don't need to prove that nonbelief produces better results than belief. It's pretty obvious to any objective observer that belief (or more accurately, believers) has produced some rotten results.

"...well established fact."

Is religious outreach based on well-established fact? Faith is believing something even though there is an absence of evidence or fact to back up that belief. It's OK for religion to prey on people's emotional insecurities, but it's not OK for atheists to say, "Hey, just so you all know. We're here and we're not going away and we're not shutting up. In fact, we're going to get louder."

It seems to me that these campaigns owe their existence to the many religious people who believe, no matter who atheists are or what they do, that atheists are egotistical, narrow-minded and shortsighted. The messages may not reach you, Sanpete (and I'm sure that the crafters of these messages probably won't mind that they don't reach you), but they will reach a lot of nonbelievers who remain in the closet because of the negative social reactions they fear will come their way if they talk about their nonbelief.