Respectfully submitted to atheists: do you think these titles are effective?

Question

On R&S I've seen websites listed with web addresses such as www.evilbible.com and www.godisimaginary.com. Similarly, there's the Christopher Hitchens book "God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything."

Now, I personally am a bit annoyed by titles like that but it doesn't stop me from reading the contents and assessing the claims. And I know the point is to get people's attention.

But it seems like the more staunch conservative Christian could be put off by a title like that completely, and absolutely disregard the book or website, therefore missing the potentially valid content.

Maybe Christians aren't the intended audience, so it doesn't matter anyway. I don't know. What are you opinions on this?

Non-atheists are welcome to answer, too.

Fuzzy: I'm not sure what you mean by "people like you."

I'm currently reading the Hitchens book but I can't get over the "How Religion Poisons EVERYTHING" tagline. It seems way too extreme, and I laugh every time I read it.

Another point I'd like to make is that I've seen those websites listed as sources non-Christians ask Christians to read. While I always try to follow-through, I know that some other Christians may not go any further just becuase of the title of the website.

Answer 1

In order to be effective, they would have to have a desired effect. If the desired effect is reaching out to people like you, then obviously not. If the desired effect is "rallying the base", as politicians say, I think they might be.

(Edit) I guess I mean the "religious moderates." There seems to be a belief by a lot of secularists that moderate Christians just need some coaxing to leave religion. Dawkins in particular seems to believe that most "moderate Christians" are really just feigning belief and that the only thing keeping them in belief is the lack of a "way out."

When non-believers say to moderate Christians, "someday you'll come around", I think that's condescending. And I see that a lot in literature that's been floating around the Internet. I wish people wouldn't do it.

Answer 2

Rachel,

I didn't have time to parse all the responses, so I'm sorry if my answer repeats someone else's.

Knowing enough people in marketing and in media, there is a simple trick to generate buzz for your or your client's work - give it a controversial title and take/ask controversial stances and questions.

Take Hitchens's book. Why are you reading Hitchens in the first place and not Smith's "Atheism: The Case Against God"? Or "nicest atheist" Daniel Dennett's "Breaking the Spell"? And why has Hitchens's book been so widely discussed? I am sure there are a few answers, and I'm sure most answers either directly or indirectly relate to the controversial title. Also, the book title prompted you to ask a question and now 40+ people of thought about the book title and took time to discuss it. Word of mouth marketing at its finest - all publicity is good publicity.

Same with Dawkins's book. What if his book was titled "The God Polemic" instead of the "The God Delusion"? When an average person is flipping channels and are they going stop and listen to a discussion on a book titled "A Thoughful Refutation of Religion" or "How Religion Poisons Everything".

Another illustration of this principal is that monster Ann Coulter - if she wasn't intentionally controversial we wouldn't know who she is and she wouldn't have sold any books.

This is something you already know; college professors urge descriptive titles and strong openings for student papers in order to draw in readers. This is the same principal exaggerated for marking's sake.

So is it effective? From a marketing and money making standpoint, yes. And it could be argue that because it reaches a wider audience then it has succeeded in it's intent.

Answer 3

I think the titles are quite effective. They will draw attention from both the people who agree with them and from people who are violently offended. The R&S forum here is a perfect example of how far people will go to voice their indignation at something :P

On the other hand, the title also dissuades certain people from reading it. Mostly it dissuades the people who do not want to waste their time mulling over the opinions of someone who would write under such a title. In that sense, it's helpful too. Because those people wouldn't really get incensed by it, they'd just feel mildly sick and it would ruin their day :P

The people least likely to read anything with those titles are the middle of the road types who dislike fanaticism of any kind, be it god-inspired or atheist. Everyone else would love to read what it says so that they can either love it or hate it :)

Answer 4

I'm not an athiest, but I will answer your question (I am actually a Buddhist).

These titles DO put me off. While I don't believe in or accept Christianity, I do not have the depth of anger and mockery necessary to find that appealing. I can just peacefully disagree with something without feeling the need to tear it down. In fact, spreading logic and truth to Christians would probably be much more easily done through calmness, rationality, and not attacking them so violently.

Many athiests are very ANGRY at Christianity. I think that this may be because they are having a reactionary stance to it - maybe they were burned badly by an experience with Christianity, and feel the need to lash out at it.

Just as I feel Christianity is incorrect, I also feel that geocentrism is incorrent. I am not, however, compelled to write a book called, 'Geocentrists - flat earth morons!!'

As soon as people can learn to be calm about what they do not believe, and focus on what they DO believe, the world will be a much better place.

Instead of choosing to view religion (or lack thereof) as a battle; a war of opposing forces, Christians and athiests alike need to realize that it is not productive to think like this. People need to accept religion for what it IS - a personal belief that should be internalized within yourself to find your own truth - not a holy (or unholy) crusade against the other mindsets of the world.

If you bang your head against a brick wall all day, at the end of the day, it is still a brick wall, but now you have a headache and have wasted your day.

In a nutshell, if you see something you believe is fundamentally incorrect, don't believe in it. Quit wasting your time thinking about it, and get on with your own path. Wasting your time muddling around with what other people should believe in hinders your own zen.

Namaste.

Answer 5

Well, it's like this. There are several sites that deal with the debunking of religions.

Some have tame names, i.e. www.skepticsannotatedbible.com
Some have the more controversial names, like the ones you mentioned.

From the POV of someone who was a Christian and read all these sites during her investigation of her religion, I can tell you the names upset me somewhat, but didn't keep me from reading the content.

I think having a spectrum of different approaches to reaching the same goal is usually a good thing. The people whose minds are closed to a site because of its name or presentation aren't going to make very good skeptics anyway :p

Answer 6

Oh darn. You wrote "titLes". I misread the question at first. I was all set to critically analyze something else entirely.

I think some of the web sites and books have deliberately inflammatory titles. It generates controversy and there ain't no such thing as bad press when you're trying to sell something. On the other hand, I agree with you that it limits their effectiveness by being a complete turn-off to a great many people.

Answer 7

I agree that the titles may come off a bit strongly to believers, but I think that sometimes its a good thing to freely express controversial opinions without worrying about who may be offended. If the authors of such books and websites tip toed around the issues with euphemisms, insincere apologies, and guarded statements, the intent of the message would be lost. Most people need to have their sensibilities shaken now and then anyway.

Answer 8

These are valid and honest titles that state exactly what they are about. To hide a concept behind a title is to admit somehow that the concept is deficient or defective. I highly doubt the conservative christians will read Chistopher Hitchens' book. The audience is more likely the vast undecided, agnostic, or simply interested people in the world who are observing the hideous and heinous events that some religions are perpetrating on the world at the moment.

Answer 9

As an Athiest....I get really upset when other athiest make really stupid moves....such as the titles of the websites above...

What I find a lot more effective are people who are honest in every aspect of life...like dawkins title was "the god delusion" that is a lot less offensive to religious people, who might wanna consider a different way of thinking. The god delusion implies that it is not your fault for believing in religion...its the delusion that is put off by fundamentalist...

and in the end....religion has done a lot more harm than good. and that is not a matter of opinion. that is a fact.

Answer 10

These are examples of why atheists can be hypocrites too. They love to point the finger at Christians for evangalizing and forcing their beliefs, but this is no different, it just goes in the opposite direction of spirituality. If these books/websites were really about atheism, and it's merits I'm sure atheists are creative enough to come up with some titles that do not insult believers.

Answer 11

This is a great question, Rach.

I personally think that people that are maybe on the fence are the ones that are most targeted with titles like that. Certainly, as you pointed out, "staunch" Christians are going to immediately dismiss it due to the title and never look back.

I would dismiss it, too, honestly, and I'm not even a Christian. While I consider myself agnostic, I don't appreciate a "sarcastic" or "arrogant" attempt by anyone to convince me of anything. evilbible.com, in my opinion, is just disrespectful.

Just my two coppers.

:o)