Atheism: Redefined?

Big Apple Coalition of Reason ad to be displayed in NYC Subway systems
Big Apple Coalition of Reason ad to be displayed in NYC Subway systems

On Monday, October 26, 2009, twelve New York City subway stations will adorn several advertisements touting the headline, “A million New Yorkers are Good Without God. Are you?”

These ads, part of a month-long campaign sponsored by a coalition of multiple atheist organizations called the Big Apple Coalition of Reason, are meant to inspire Americans, according to an article on CNN.com, and make them realize that they are not bad people if they do not believe in God, or deities of the like. MTA officials say that the ads follow all guidelines put out for advertisements in the subway.

The real question I have. Was this ad campaign a smart decision?

Me, personally, I have no religion. I respect those who do—many of my friends follow a religion. To each his own, as they say. I have nothing against religious groups advocating their beliefs to the general public.

But I suppose I was always under the impression that atheism meant a disbelief in deities of any sort. That’s how the Miriam-Webster dictionary defines it. So when I read this article after I saw it on my Twitter-feed, I was slightly confused, for two reasons: a) Are the atheists turning into a religion? b) If atheism is the disbelief in deities, and fundamentally about not having the concept of deities being pushing onto people, isn’t this campaign, with a headline as forward as it is, slightly contradictory?

Who knows, I could be pulling this out of my ass, but from over here, this ad campaign seems paradoxical.

The headline reads like a challenge. I’m sure the Big Apple CoR didn’t mean for it to sound that way; in fact, from what I read in the article, they just wanted to spread awareness. Awareness of what?

Their lack of religion? The fact that religion isn’t the end all and be all of existence? Those are all values I, as someone without a religion, can appreciate.

But even if I can appreciate those values, I am not sure making subway ads to spread these values was the best advertising move ever made. People are already skeptical of religious advertising; it seems to go against the grain of the purity of religion—or at least the pure connotation associated with religion. Is it wise to use religious advocacy tactics to spread the word about…well, not having a religion?

On the one hand, it’s a clever headline, and it’s a great place to have an ad. Subway advertisements, in my opinion, are underrated. You are able to reach a multitude of people just because they have to be waiting in that one spot for their train to arrive. Especially in a city like New York, subways are a great place to reach a mass audience. The headline is thought-provoking, clear, and straight-forward.

Perhaps a little too forward. On the other hand, would advertising the values of not having a religion be seen as a step towards becoming an organized religion? Is the name of the Coalition of Reason too offensive towards established religious groups?   Sure, the ad headline isn’t offensive. But is the name of the coalition offensive?

I’m not too sure. As someone who doesn’t follow an organized religion of any sort, I don’t truly have an idea of what is and what isn’t offensive, I’m completely taking a  guess at what might offend me if I were a follower of a specific religion. However, one thing I am sure of?

This ad campaign is a bold move. Bold moves catch attention. If that was their goal, the Big Apple CoR subway ads definitely will deliver.

About Melody Tran

Melody Tran (COM '10) writes "Ad Avenue," an advertising column, for the Quad.

View all posts by Melody Tran →

One Comment on “Atheism: Redefined?”

  1. As an MTS student, I think you raise a lot of valid points. It seems their fundamental point is that of humanism, we can have agreed upon values that define us as “good” without recognizing, or requiring, that they are transcendent. That has been an argument going around and around for a long time now. The second, indeed stranger, point is that don’t want religion to have a vice grip on the social institutions of gathering, “fellowship”, or what you might call it. Of course, there have been, and continue to be, plenty of non-religious social institutions whose main point is gathering. One could wonder if this is a step on the slippery-slope to a point at which Dawkins will declare it a blight on society just like religion. It isn’t far from the UU movement as it stands.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *