Boston Area Coalition of Reason Kick Off Event (Nov 2)

[nvidia99999.livejournal.com]

Good without God? Millions of Americans are.
boston.unitedcor.org/

Kickoff Event

When: Monday Nov.2, 7:30-9:30 PM
Where: Harvard Science Center Hall D. Free and Open to the Public

I thought this could be of interest. One of the member organizations is the Tufts Free Thought Society. www.facebook.com/group.php

Comments

[turil.livejournal.com]

These folks would do well to read some marketing and communications theory, including George Lakoff's Don't Think of an Elephant book.

Something more like "Curiosity, it's what makes us want to be better." would communicate the same message, without the defensiveness and negativity and antagonism against "god". Define yourself by what you are, rather than what you are not so that people will feel inspired to follow you...

[cnoocy]

This seemed remarkably non-antagonistic to me, actually. I think you may be reading a lot into three words.

[infinitemorning.livejournal.com]

I agree. "There's probably no God" is mildly aggressive. "Good without God?" isn't.

[turil.livejournal.com]

I understand that it's not always easy to see how language works in the mind, which is why I suggested the Lakoff book. It's a simple book about the complex issue of linguistics and how it effects people, using PR campaigns to demonstrate the power of the word.

[closetalker11.livejournal.com]

I've read that book -- it's one of my favorites -- and I agree with the commenters above. In fact, I think it's good marketing strategy by inviting and legitimizing.

[perich.livejournal.com]

Something more like "Curiosity, it's what makes us want to be better." would communicate the same message

No, it wouldn't.

The original message is a marketing gem: non-antagonistic (good without god, question mark: it's offering a positive state as an option), concise (three words in large text to entice the reader, four words below it in slightly smaller text to elicit more), clear (the most important words are all one syllable or easily visualized terms, like "millions" and "Americans"). It's presented in a readable font with plenty of empty space around it, that space being filled by the non-confrontational image of a blue sky.

Given the issues that non-believers have had marketing themselves in the past, I was frankly astonished when I saw this poster. It's almost unprecedented in its quality.

[turil.livejournal.com]

The current one up there is certainly better than some messages I've seen from the anti-something-about-god folks, but it's still literally antagonistic, just not as obviously so. The term "without" is a negative word, connoting a lack of something, and emptiness, rather than a fullness. Yes, the term "good" is obviously a step in the positive direction, but when you combine the negative "without" with the positive "good" they cancel each other out, and you are left with people hearing nothing beyond "God". Literally.

[arcanology.livejournal.com]

So "flight without feathers" is antagonistic to feathers?

I don't think of bats as so confrontational.

[turil.livejournal.com]

Linguistically, yes. The way the brain works, in the instance of negation of something, is to first imagine (remember~reconstruct) what that something is, and then imagine it disappearing. So in the brain, most people would imagine feathers on something that is flying - "Hey!" the brain says, "I know this one! A bird!" - and then removes the feathers from the image, leaving a very pathetic looking naked and uncomfortable bird flying around in their mind's eye. After a while the higher functions of the brain take a look at that image and compare it to the context of what you were talking about around that bizarre phrase, and decides if you might actually mean something quite different from that unpleasant bird. But even with this correction, the first impression, which is the strongest emotionally, is of something "wrong".

[jovianconsensus.livejournal.com]

But curiosity doesn't make me want to be better. It makes me want to know stuff.

I also read it as "better than those believers," which is only a step below a raised middle finger on the antagonism scale.

Curiosity, it's what makes us want to be even better than we are now.

[turil.livejournal.com]

Does that sound better to you? Or do you have something else in mind that would be even better? :-)

And why do you think you "want to know stuff" (curiosity)? Probably because knowing more stuff makes you better able to work with nature (the laws of the universe) to get more of what you want in life. That may not be how you'd phrase it, but my guess is that, if you are like everyone else I've ever met who's interested in science, you want to learn about the universe because you have imagine that there are so many things you could be enjoying that you don't even know about yet...