New Donations: how we’ll handle them
1.07.10 | simon | 
Email This Post
We’re keen to show some billboard love to the rest of our fine country, although we need your help. This post will explain how we will handle new donations that are received from today. They will be separate from past donations and will only be used for billboards.
We will collect tax-refundable donations centrally through this website and the Givealittle service, just like before. The goal is to raise enough money to put as many billboards as possible in cities outside of Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch.
The beauty of billboards is that for a relatively small amount of money it is possible to re-locate an existing canvas to a new site in a different city. This will be the first way we’ll use the donated money – to move existing billboards to different cities. Depending on how much we fundraise, the second way we’ll use the donated money will be to commission the printing of additional billboards so we can cover a wider range of sites and cities.
To let us know what cities are most important to you guys, please tell us through the Givealittle site. After you donate you are able to enter a Comment. In this comment write the city in which you’d like to see billboards. We will tally up each time a city is mentioned and work out a plan to bring billboards to the most requested cities. Our decision will also need to be based on the availability of sites and the costs involved, so we’ll need to reserve the right to choose the cities/towns to go to first.
I look forward to seeing which cities out there require the boards the most! Thanks for all the support guys – it’s very much appreciated.
July 2nd, 2010 at 5:11 pm
the clergy have seized on the waffly probably labelling it “uncertainty”. They are correct of course.
July 2nd, 2010 at 9:02 pm
God has no hands but our hands, no voice but our voice, no mind but our mind, and no plan for the future except what we plan
A quote from prof.Lloyd Geering
July 2nd, 2010 at 9:05 pm
@Bruce – how certain are you of these things?
@Tony – Nice, Geering is a legend.
July 15th, 2010 at 10:24 am
Givealittle website wouldn’t let me submit a comment after donating. But my vote is for Wellington.
August 9th, 2010 at 7:03 am
My vote would of course be for Palmerston North. It would have been nice to have a billboard erected just before the bridge leading out to the university. Considering a massive amount of traffic crosses that bridge every day, especially on Aug 4th when Massey University had an Open Day, Palmerston North could offer bang for buck as much as any of the other centres.
Is much happening with the campaign at the present time or, as billboards have now been erected, is it a period of hiatus while you wait for the results of those billboards to come through?
August 22nd, 2010 at 9:25 pm
Including the included phrase, — “There’s probably no god. Now stop worrying and enjoy life.” was/is naive and invites conflict. Objectors can very easily argue that the billboard is encouraging immorality and they have a valid point.
Why not — Goodness, is “God”. Think about it.
August 23rd, 2010 at 12:14 am
Hi Trevor,
Good to see you engage with the debate, that was one of the main reasons that the campaign was created in the first place.
Now to your comments. First you say:
Including the included phrase, — “There’s probably no god. Now stop worrying and enjoy life.” was/is naive and invites conflict.
Not sure how stating only a probability that there is no god, especially given the lack of any Scientific proof of any god or gods existence and then going on to advise those who may feel anxious that in fact they should just enjoy their mortal life, as it is the only one we probably get, can be construed as either naive or could possibly invite conflict.
Generally, a person may be viewed as Naïve as indicating having or showing a lack of experience, understanding or sophistication.
When religious people talk of having direct experience of god, for us in a modern western country, based in no small part on the Scientific foundation of reason and logic, it becomes very difficult for those who have not had the same experience to believe them.
In fact I would go so far as to say that what an increasing amount of Scientific research is actually showing us, is that both the belief and experience that those individuals may honestly feel, is nothing more than the biologically evolved aspects of our brain that make us receptive to such sensations.
If you’re interested in learning more, then a good place to start would be with Richard Dawkins book, “The God Delusion” or if you don’t wish to spend the money or the time, you could also try: http://www.youtube.com/user/richarddawkinsdotnet?blend=1&ob=4
Other authors to consider would be Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens and Daniel Dennet. Most of them also have on-line resources as well.
Now, as far as inviting conflict, you will know that we have a long history of religious based conflicts that have caused enormous suffering over thousands of years and is still with us today. The conflicts and tensions in the middle east, especially related to the Jewish, Christian and Islamic religions.
On a smaller scale, but no less concerning, are the continuing prejudices and violence, often promoted by Christian Fundamentalists in America, who openly promote homophobic actions and in extreme cases, such as the “Pro Life” lobby, are willing to even kill medical Doctors who are carrying out legal abortion.
So I beg to differ, but it would appear to be those of a theistic bent who are creating the conflicts. Without sounding flippant, you don’t see atheists flying planes into buildings or other such extreme behaviour do you.
Next you say:
Objectors can very easily argue that the billboard is encouraging immorality and they have a valid point.
Again, I’m unsure as to how you arrive at this conclusion. If you purely equate religious belief and convictions as a foundation for moral behaviour, then how do you explain the pedophiliac behaviour within the catholic church in particular by priests. If anyone should be an example of morally sound principles, wouldn’t you expect priests of all people, to have the strongest convictions and character to resist behaving in such an immoral way. In addition to this example, there are countless people who have committed crimes in the name of their particular faith. Can you honestly say that a suicide bomber is behaving in a moral way?
Finally you say:
Why not — Goodness, is “God”. Think about it.
As you’ll see from my comments above, I have thought about it and found the god that you believe in sadly lacking, as far as goodness is concerned. If you think I’m wrong, lets see what he actually has to say according to his own words in the bible then:
Who does your god say we should kill? Lets see:
- Homosexuals (Lev.20:13, Rom.1:26-32) - Adulterers (Lev.20:10, Deut.22:22) - Disobedient children (Deut.21:20-21, Lev.20:9, Exod.21:15) - Women who are not virgins on their wedding night (Deut.22:13-21) - All non-Christians (parable told by Christ – Luke.19:27) - Those accused of wickedness by at least two people (Deut.17:2-7) - Anyone who works on the Sabbath (Exod.35:2-3, Num.15:32-6) (not even to kindle a fire,)
And what, pray tell, does the bible say about women?
- It is shameful for a woman to speak in church (1Cor.14:34-5) - A man must OK his wife´s words if they are to have force (Num.30:8) - A woman must not teach or hold authority over a man (1Tim.2:12) - Lot saves the messengers from the men of Sodom by offering up his virgin daughters to ´do to them as you please´ (Gen.19:8) - Kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourself every girl who has never slept with a man (Moses – Num.31:17-8)
So, Trevor, as you can see, I really can’t agree with your viewpoint in any way. But at least we both know where we now stand.
August 23rd, 2010 at 7:56 pm
Kia ora Paul,
Please read and exactly comprehend that which I wrote. I agree there is no god. I did not indicate otherwise. A verbose lecture was not called for.
I was being objective in suggesting, “Goodness, is “God”. Goodness is intangible. The gods some believe in are also intangible. It is therefore logical to persuade them to simply regard their God as goodness and nothing more.
No one can argue. There is no conflict of interest. If I say my god comprises a state of, or the object of achieving, absolute goodness, what is your line of useful debate?
Many find it essential that they have an object to aspire to. Goodness even though intangible, can be presented as that object. Those who wish to, could pray accordingly.
The words “There’s probably no god. Now stop worrying and enjoy life.” are open to objective criticism. The many who do not properly comprehend, will read them as stating, “ Bugger morality, stop worrying, and have a ball regardless.”
As a result the bill boards have directly provided fuel for objectors. It is my opinion that the campaign organisers were naive, in not recognising this flaw.
Please understand what is written before jumping to conclusions and onto a soap box.
I rest my Case, Trevor.
`
`
August 23rd, 2010 at 8:18 pm
Hello again Trevor,
Sorry if I misinterpreted you, it was not my intent. It was just that I didn’t pick-up clearly on your stance from what you posted.
However, I think that what you propose could be a little ambiguous, which is one of the reasons why the campaign is worded the way it is.
It really is intended to promote debate and to empower other atheists. See the FAQ section for more info.
Finally, I didn’t mean to get on a soap box, but I’ve been spending time debating with religious people on christian blog-sites and the like and they can be pretty strident, as you can imagine!
August 23rd, 2010 at 9:18 pm
OK Paul,
My point was and still is, that the statement —“There’s probably no god. Now stop worrying and enjoy life.” is definitively ambiguous. I explained this carefully.
I have read the FAQ section, which is unfortunately a necessity, if one is to understand exactly what the author had in mind. Those reading the bill boards are denied this opportunity and will spontaneously accept the text as read.