Yeah, those ads over there on the right. Kelly from RRS, Ben Stein’s stupidity movie, take this test to find Atheist singles.I hope they generate good money into American Atheists. But what do you think of them? Should we allow Christians to advertise, even if they offer more money (they do)?
Sure. Let them advertise. I don’t see a down side of much significance. Hot babes in Darwin fish and FSM T-shirts are nice too.
Why not? We don’t fear them. We only disagree with them.
i don’t know.. i got aggravated at one point and just took them off. there must be more interesting things to promote. this can’t all be by about money.
Money is money so I say allow the religious ads.
Unlike the religiously minded we atheists don’t need to censor competing claims because our ideas stand up to scrutiny.
*…all be about money.
How much revenue do they bring in vs. the more secular ads?
Nothing wrong with ads. We use ads at our new site as well. Besides, unless the Christians convert the clickers, they just spend money. You’re taking Christian money and investing it.
I dunno… if there was some kind of “worthy cause” that needed the space…
like, say that space and time magazine you’re always plugging,
you might want to allocate some potential addspace to them.
but if there’s a potential to generate some revenue for AA, which is a good cause in my mind, there’s no reason not to let that illegible ben stein movie take up some space.
Not only is it okay for them to advertize, but if clicking on them generates money for AA, then we all ought to be clicking the shit out of them and taking the idiots’ money while we are at it!
the only reason it bugs me is that, from past experience things like this can confuse new readers. theyll come on here and see these ads and may assume that this site panders to both opinions. a few times ive come on here and been a little annoyed that even here, there is a chrizzo presence..
its like posting ANYTHING about evolution, or dinosaurs or archaeology on youtube – within a day or less the comment area will be dominated by five or six chrizzos arguing over biblical texts and how evolution is a lie. Its bizarre. id like to be able to roam the internet without the hand of the dumb sticking its thumb in every single thing i do.
but then again im a very angry atheist. perhaps it annoys me more than most..
No, you are perfectly fine if you feel that way and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that sentiment.
Wow…what a thread? I think Dave’s concious is bothering him…
It’s Capitalism at it’s finest…
So Christians pay more? Great…so if Google gave ALL advertisers a 10% break in fees, the Christians savings would be greater…simple math you say?
Thanks for giving a perfect example of how to explain “Tax Breaks” that even the “simple minded” can understand…
Comment from: alexatheist
Now Alex…nothing could be farther from the truth.
It’s ok to stand behind that claim on an AA blog site…but it’s not ok to have those views challenged in within a classroom? What are you scared of? The ONLY excuse anyone can offer is the myth…
Instead AA uses the Myth to prevent their views from being discussed. As I’ve said over and over again, this position has repeadedly kept thousands of kids in failing public schools within the inner cities…
what you don’t seem to understand, phreedm, is that the conditions that lead to these failing schools are having too many kids in the hands of undertrained teachers with too little funding.
if we send them all packing to other schools without increasing the total amount of funding to public schools it’ll just create the same problems elsewhere.
as to ID in the classroom, I have no problem with ID “scientists” publishing their proposals till their ears turn blue but untill they produce something that resembles scientific evidence they shouldn’t be allowed to teach it in classrooms.
get it around your head that you are not the best person to design a science curriculum.
I like the way y high school bio teacher taught evolution, he was very willing to give the other “options” their mention. He just stated the amount of scientifically relevant information: some people believe that everything was made by a creator. Then moved on. Made perfect sense for a science class.
Do Christian web sites allow Atheist ads?
I think having ads like the Rational Responders and Evolvefish is great – messages and products that atheists might actually be interested in. However, I find the xian and other nutbar ads extremely annoying, and there’s no way I would click on any of them.
The ads don’t bother me for the simple reason that the christians who hang around this site don’t really have a convincing argument. Most of the time they are arguing points we have heard for years and acting like they have some new information on the subject. In fact, I think they rally even more people to our cause with their weak arguments. christians think they are changing people’s minds, but really they are just bored and wasting some time on the internet. The best they can come up with is, just believe me because I said so. Posting tons of unrelated links is never going to get someone to believe in your cause. We should take advantage of the fact that christians are incredibly arrogant and they think that by quoting some religious website they will get us to change our deeply held beliefs. Sure, you can try, but you have to pay the toll if you want to do that. Just let them keep firing away while we make money and consolidate ourselves.
Challenged with what? intelligent design aka creationsim has zero science or information to back up it’s extraordinary claims so it really doesn’t take any classroom time to teach something which offers absolutely nothing other than “god did it”. Evolution, however, is a scientific fact backed up by decades of research in the same way that gravity is a fact and neither fact is something which a person can have an opinion about-it just is. Have you ever taken any university level biology courses, phreedum? Perhaps it would do you some good to educate yourself about a topic which you obviously haven’t a clue about before you offer criticism.
Following your opinion perhaps we should offer classes in astrology alongside astronomy and alchemy as an alternative view to chemistry just to be fair and balanced and to present all sides. How about we keep religious dogma out of public schools and in turn the schools will keep critical thinking out of the churches, ok?
Let the ads stay. I love the irony in Christian money going to support an atheist web site. Absolutely perfect.
It’s amazing to me that many of you still respond to the blog-vomit regurgitated by that mindless fool, Phreedumass.
Well, good luck with that.
At first I was going to vote for banning religious ads because they’re annoying, and we already have the religious trolls for that. But I find the above arguments convincing. Let them stay!
I agree that they should stay. But perhaps the ad section should be more clearly designated.
Put a box around the ads with the words “Advertisements – not associated with American Atheists”
I love being able to click on the ads and damage religion. The ads make it so easy.
Yes, allow them. The difference is we will or have investigated their ideas and they fail to be put in peer-reviewed journals for a reason.
As long as I don’t get emotional or use name calling what’s the harm? Maybe there are xians lurking in here who will learn something when we refute him becasue I am full aware that he is a hopeless case.
The more money the christians spend on blog ads, the less money they’ll have to buy Prada shoes or bugger little boys.
I’m all for it.
By the way – it’s funny, there’s a religiously insane idiot who made a whole bunch of unsupported inaccurate claims about atheism (something of which he has no knowledge) with no proof that any of his lies have any connection to reality earlier in the comments to this post. And this is supposed to accomplish what? It sure gives a lot of ammunition to those who enjoy pointing out how those who claim to be religious violate their own tenets on a continual basis.
I wonder what would happen if religious beliefs were challenged in a classroom setting? Would the christians go back to crucifixion, or would merely wearing a scarlet letter suffice for this type of offense?
Just out of curiousity, phreedm, why do you come to an atheist website to complain about atheism? Your posts aren’t going to change anyones mind.
Comment from: FlyingWeasel
Simply not true…do some research into the public schools of Washington DC from the 1940’s…many classes had over 40 students in each class and yet they outperformed the “higher funded” white high schools from the surronding communities…
As as for too little funding…you don’t believe $10,000 per student is enough? We spend more on education then any other nation on the planet…
Comment from: alexatheist
Again…simply not true. You need to do more research on ID. Besides having such a “closed approach to education” is no different from what the church did in the dark ages…
There should be NO LIMITS in education. Period…
Comment from: Augustine
Really? You better tell those who have contacted me privately….
Phreedum, you are aware of how much I read so I almost fell of my chair laughing when you suggest that I need to educate myself on ID. I’m willing to bet that I have done my research compared to what you have done.
Really? then you support teaching kids about the reality of homosexuality in their health/sex education classes I presume.
Lots of people contact phreedm privately to convert to his mythology…
Sounds like the kid in Breakfast Club bragging about his “girlfriend in Canada…”
Priceless foolishness from phreedm…
Oh, well, no limits except buggery. LOL!
No limits?
There are 58 creation myths documented at Wikipedia’s Creation Myth page, and they don’t even mention the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
How can we not teach the controversy with respect to each and every one of these mostly mutually contradictory tales? It’s not fair and balanced to limit our teaching to just one of them. High school science students need all the facts before they can make up their minds, right?
Also, shouldn’t we be clear on whether Genesis 1 or Genesis 2 is the correct description? At least one of them is clearly wrong and must have been put in there by the Devil to confuse and sow doubts.
You know what would be really valuable? Hearing the testimony of all those people that have been converted by being exposed to Phreedm’s wisdom on these pages. They wouldn’t mind using their real names, either, just so cynical atheists wouldn’t suspect sock puppetry. Just think how inspiring it would be for those of us he hasn’t yet converted. Dave might have to devote a special thread to it, don’t cha think?
Mxracer, sex education at the high school level should indeed acknowledge how homosexual sex is practised, if only to give safe sex information. Your humour aside, we would no more expect live demonstrations of homo- or hetero- techniques.
Back on topic, I see we are now getting more than just the religious scammers looking for our ‘offerings’. You are now just a click away from learning which get rich quick schemes are actually legit, NOT.
The ‘Upright Ape’ book by an MD did make me click through to see if it weren’t a stealth Creationist tome. Seems like it is legit, though I am not sure how much respect he has in the community.
Being a medical doctor or an engineer seems to be quite common amongst creationists spouting anti-evolution tripe.
Anyways leave the ads. I have clicked on them before, just to get a cheap laugh and earn a few pennies for AA.
Whenever Phreeky opens his mouth all that ever out is “Why isn’t my imagined reality as valid as that proposed by science?” How many times can we answer the same question in its many recycled forms. Time to ban Phreeky?
I personally really find the “you’re a lying poopy head” comments particularly amusing and informative at the same time. A schoolyard mentality using the “is not!” “Is too” form of debate, while never actually addressing the issue but instead confusing it. The relevance of the public (not private) school system in DC in 1940 to the situation of today has been stated but not proven, and looks like yet another red herring to throw the discussion off topic.
Instead of telling everyone absolutely zero about how ID has any credible scientific evidence behind it (any familiar with the discussion want to wager whether they try to use Behe or Dembski as their ‘expert’ if they even get to that phase?), perhaps it would be better to enlighten the audience with some actual, you know, facts, that would show some sort of scientific theory involved. Enough perhaps to devote maybe as much as a month of one class for one school year to study it, as opposed to demanding equal time with well-established scientific theories that take careers to explore. It seems that is too much of a challenge for those who insist that atheists take their propaganda as seriously as they take their money. Besides not being to able to answer the majority of questions, or even respond to the multitude of times they are shown to be factually incorrect in their statements, I mean…
Comment from: alexatheist
Of course…ALL facts about it. Not the politically correct versions…
Hey “What”…there’s hope for you after all…
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23271578-1702,00.html
Of course…ALL facts about it. Not the politically correct versions…
But you said you want NO limits on education so that would mean the inclusion of the “politically correct versions” of gay people’s lives as you call it (whatever that means).
So which creation myths do you propose we teachin our public schools? Perhaps we can start with the Australian aboriginal dreamtime myths of rainbow serpents and eventually get around to the abrahamic myths of eden and adam and eve. After all we must present all sides in order to be balanced. I’m sure the kids who are fans of Harry Potter will love learning witchcraft in their chemistry classrooms as an alternative to accepted science.
Alex,
Creation? How about the creation myth that you believe in? After all…life was created somehow meaning we ALL believe in some form of “creation”.
Now…would you deny these writings to be studied in a classroom?
http://www.creationism.org/symposium/symp4no4.htm
I believe that science will one day answer the biochemical process which brought about life but this is very different from claiming that god magically did it. Until science has an answer it is enough for me to say that we just don’t know.
Man, does this dolt have a learning disorder or what? How many times do we have to tell this pinhead that we don’t believe. He has been spewing his drivel here for a long time (years?) and he still does not get it? No beliefs pinhead. How can we word it so that even an evangelical could understand? I guess we have to speak in tongues. jhsadkk likhd lyg koerm.
The Christian advertisements don’t bother me, either. I some times click on them just for fun and a good laugh and also to “know my enemy”. (I also listen to Christian radio for the same purposes.) Does clicking these ads really make money for American Atheists? If so, I will click them more often. Once the Christian radio station really offended me by saying that a theory is only a fairy tale and that thus biblical creationism is the truth. Speaking of Christian morality– I thought false teaching was immoral. I look forward to the day when the Abrahamic religions go the way of Greek and Roman mythology.
No!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Phreedm,
There would be no point. That article asks plenty of questions but provides no answers and makes no attempt to show that the author actually understands the subject. He attacks Darwin’s texts directly, even though they’re scientifically ancient and primitive, instead of attacking the most recent science. Further, a number of the “inconsistencies” that the author mentions are easily explained by Evolution, but the author either fails to realize this or is too caught up with feeling incredulous to point out the faults of his own thinking.
This author is about as good at teaching evolution as I would be at teaching about Russian history. Sure, I’ve heard of Russia and I know who Peter the Great was, but everything else would be disingenuous guesswork.
If you want to teach your kids crap-science, go ahead. But don’t come crying to us when they’re stuck flipping burgers.
Now…would you deny these writings to be studied in a classroom?
http://www.creationism.org/symposium/symp4no4.htm
In a science classroom, most certainly. They might be appropriate in a class studying how religion tries to distort the truth and implant their fantasies into the curriculum as fact, but sadly almost nowhere else.
They conflate scientific facts and relglious faith, and try and find a way to reverse engineer their religious writings so that they can be used to distort the scientific facts regarding instinct.
There is no there to study. Lots of christianist propaganda to fill little minds up with; not so much on using the scientific method in a classroom to figure out what it’s all about.
alatham – great minds think alike…
Gotta say, I do hate seeing Ann Coulter’s hideous face pop up. Can you at least put in a “Coulter filter” of some kind?
I second that motion!