Sounds a lot like a billboard that was put up here in Arizona a month ago. It causes a good stir among the republifundies. There are multiple "god is great" whoop-de-do signs around Arizona, but only this one makes the news. Can't have people thinking for themselves.

Ding Dong Seven: The term Free Thinkers has been around for ages.

Circa 1692, belike.

Brainmeat: Reality is ruled by majority.

However, you are only eligible to vote if you are a Universe.

vertiaset: A law that is universal and applies equally to all of humanity and in all times and places.

Your scope is too limited.

kerpal32: it all depends on the level of fanaticism (and ignorance)of the individual.

br0g: JQPublic

That's funny right there. I could actually hear the background music from the mac ads accompanying the crack of the bat against the scientologist's head. Good stuff.

Haha yeah, this was the first thing I thought of :)

abb3w:
Brainmeat: Reality is ruled by majority.

However, you are only eligible to vote if you are a Universe.



so full of win I think I pissed myself...

From_The_Year_2000: Most people that believe in god unquestioningly are morons. It's a troll thing to say, but it's also true

Actually, I agree. How can you get any answers if you don't ask questions? Blind faith is what makes families strap C4 onto their sons and daughters.

Also, anyone that thinks a sign is threatening to Christianinty has little to no faith in God.

/Self-righteous Athiest indignation in 5,4,3....;)
//No, I will NOT get into a pathetic flamewar

vertiaset: I personally like this billboard. It is less a advertisement for atheism than an appeal to atheists to adhere to a moral system. I think this is a good idea.

One of my main problems with atheists is that all too often in abandoning their faith they also abandon any sense of morality. Many, certainly not all, become moral relativists or, even worse, amoral. After all, if man is the measure of all things and there is no right or wrong, just "things people do", then there is no evil and, conversely, no good.

What a strange ... and dangerous ... world view.

I don't see the problem.

You're saying that a lot of people give up on God, and then without their belief in God, throw away their morals and cease seeing good/evil and simply do whatever they feel like doing.

I would assert that such people are inherently immoral and that if the only thing keeping them in line was fear of not going to heaven and not being judged well by God, then they had bigger issues.

The same goes for those who still believe in God and always believe in God. If the only (or even primary by a longshot) reason that they are moral, ethical, and good is that they fear not going to heaven or not being viewed well by God, then something is very wrong with that person to begin with.

I look around me and see about as much evidence that God exists as I do the tooth fairy or santa claus, and as such I believe that God is about as likely to exist as the aforementioned figures. Despite this, and despite the fact that I don't think there is a heaven or hell necessarily, I think I'm all around a pretty decent person. I don't break any major laws (besides jaywalking and speeding every so often), I treat people with kindness and respect when they deserve it, I am generous with my friends, I speak ill only of he who merits it, don't do drugs/alcohol, and I try to be considerate to others at all times. I do these things not because I fear punishment or judgement but because I believe they are what a good person would do and I want to be a good person.

My point is, there are good theists and there are bad/immoral theists (adulterers, drug addicts, murderers, thieves, all around jackasses, etc.). There are good atheists and there are bad atheists (same as aforementioned list). Being a good/moral/ethical person has nothing to do with what you believe in and everything to do with how you act and what choices you make in life. If belief in God helps more people to make positive choices then that's swell, but there's still an inherent problem with those people if without their belief in God and judgement after death they would make evil or wrong choices. I would argue that such people are flawed individuals, even if not outwardly so.

letrole is his DURR-name


Unless someone believes every single word of the Bible (even the stuff that contradicts itself, doublethink ftw) then obviously they get their morality from something other than it.

If you say "I don't believe this part" then you must have a moral compass apart from religion telling you that it's wrong. For example if you're a Christian and eat shellfish. It says in the Bible eating an aquatic animal that posesseses no scales is 'abomination'. If you are a Christian and don't believe that then theres a voice inside you telling you it's wrong, this voice doesn't come from the Bible does it now?

It's sad that many religious people have to have the fear of eternal torture looming over them in order to be moral.

Atheists realise this is the only life we have and it's precious. So most of us try to enjoy our life without imposing on others happiness.

Tanishh: vertiaset: I personally like this billboard. It is less a advertisement for atheism than an appeal to atheists to adhere to a moral system. I think this is a good idea.

One of my main problems with atheists is that all too often in abandoning their faith they also abandon any sense of morality. Many, certainly not all, become moral relativists or, even worse, amoral. After all, if man is the measure of all things and there is no right or wrong, just "things people do", then there is no evil and, conversely, no good.

What a strange ... and dangerous ... world view.

I don't see the problem.

You're saying that a lot of people give up on God, and then without their belief in God, throw away their morals and cease seeing good/evil and simply do whatever they feel like doing.

I would assert that such people are inherently immoral and that if the only thing keeping them in line was fear of not going to heaven and not being judged well by God, then they had bigger issues.

The same goes for those who still believe in God and always believe in God. If the only (or even primary by a longshot) reason that they are moral, ethical, and good is that they fear not going to heaven or not being viewed well by God, then something is very wrong with that person to begin with.

I look around me and see about as much evidence that God exists as I do the tooth fairy or santa claus, and as such I believe that God is about as likely to exist as the aforementioned figures. Despite this, and despite the fact that I don't think there is a heaven or hell necessarily, I think I'm all around a pretty decent person. I don't break any major laws (besides jaywalking and speeding every so often), I treat people with kindness and respect when they deserve it, I am generous with my friends, I speak ill only of he who merits it, don't do drugs/alcohol, and I try to be considerate to others at all times. I do these things not because I fear punishment or judgement but because I believe they are what a good person would do and I want to be a good person.

My point is, there are good theists and there are bad/immoral theists (adulterers, drug addicts, murderers, thieves, all around jackasses, etc.). There are good atheists and there are bad atheists (same as aforementioned list). Being a good/moral/ethical person has nothing to do with what you believe in and everything to do with how you act and what choices you make in life. If belief in God helps more people to make positive choices then that's swell, but there's still an inherent problem with those people if without their belief in God and judgement after death they would make evil or wrong choices. I would argue that such people are flawed individuals, even if not outwardly so.

For this very reason though I never take on any type of personal crusade against theism. We can all agree that there are people out there who are the "flawed individuals" you speak of. ("I was an inbreedin killin sunuvagun, but then I found Jesus, and he saved me!"). And I for one, would rather they have a flawed source of morality than none at all.

Corvus: onebadgungan: Corvus: So my city having a giant cross on public land is ok but people privately having a billboard like this is not?

I immediately thought of San Diego, where I live.
(checks profile)

Yep. Cool deal. Fark party, y'all?

I hate all the "save our cross people".

If they want to "save the cross" how about they collect millions in private money and buy it privately and not have our public tax money pay for it.

They went it against that idea when they couldn't rig the auction to sell it to them for a cheap price.


It drives me nuts these are the same people who are against "government waste" and spending and when you say well it's a waste to spend money on a giant cross on a hill they flip out like that's the most important spending the government should do.

They are crazy lunatics.

I agree. A war memorial is fine, but it should represent all of the people, not just one segment, if it's on government land. Come up with a good design, let us vote on it, and install it - be done with it and move on. Or get rid of the land and let whoever you sell it to do their thing.

The universe is always in balance. The number of atheists in Hell is always equal to the number of Christians in Heaven. That is the way the universe balances its books.

/I'm doing my part.

Do you really need any more of a moral or ethical base than the Golden Rule (Modern interpretation): Do you like it when people act like assholes towards you or somebody you like? Then don't act like an asshole towards someone else.

And perhaps the Heinlein definition of sin: The only real sin lies in hurting other people unnecessarily. Hurting yourself isn't a sin, it's just stupid.

Dr_Gats: For this very reason though I never take on any type of personal crusade against theism. We can all agree that there are people out there who are the "flawed individuals" you speak of. ("I was an inbreedin killin sunuvagun, but then I found Jesus, and he saved me!"). And I for one, would rather they have a flawed source of morality than none at all.

But I do wish they would shut up about it.

If there really was a God there wouldn't be a Ft Lauderdale.

skinned: If there really was a God there wouldn't be a Ft Lauderdale.

No shiat. He's be up in Palm Beach with the well-to-do folks.

khonshu: yay! atheism thread:

Ooooh, apparently I have a cult to go start.

Dr_Gats: Wasn't somebody mentioning something about Atheism, not a religion, symbols, organizing, etc?

/just fuel for the fire, since it's hot, like my link

Gee, I guess that means the NRA, Goodwill, and the National Football League are all religions....

khonshu: yay! atheism thread:

As someone who just described himself as "50% atheist" and falling in the middle between ENTP and INTP I find that chart very disturbing.

abb3w: 2) "evolution toward" implies a linear path, as opposed to the non-uniform drunkard's walk in a minefield (in an n-dimensional space) that evolution uses

Or perhaps an exponential path towards complexity and purpose.

Lenny_da_Hog: Dr_Gats: Wasn't somebody mentioning something about Atheism, not a religion, symbols, organizing, etc?

/just fuel for the fire, since it's hot, like my link

Gee, I guess that means the NRA, Goodwill, and the National Football League are all religions....


Hey, I was just completing a list...


kerpal32: symbol

kerpal32:

...it all depends on the level of fanaticism (and ignorance)of the individual. At what point does a "non-belief" become the equivalent of a "belief".
- when you insist you're right in a non-falsifiable debate from either side?
- when you discuss it in forums on the internet with other 'non-believers'?
- when you organize around it?
- when you have representation of your non-belief?
- when you seek to 'convert' (for lack of a better word) as many as possible to your philosophical view?
- when some people whom you share this philosophical view (non-belief, insistence in philosophical materialism and naturalism, etc.) want a symbol so they can identify themselves with other people who share the same non-belief?



So now we just need rituals and a door to door convert program...

If you believe in god fine, don't bring it up and beat people over the head with it.

If you don't believe in god fine, don't bring it up and beat people over the head with it.

Same thing goes for sexuality. Most people don't care quit AW'ing for no good reason. If you are being an asshole about it your the problem.

1. A person with a strong faith saying God bless you, isn't insulting you. They mean it.
2. An atheist not joining in a prayer when they don't believe isn't insulting. They think different than you.
3. If all you wear are religious T-shirts your overcompensating. I banged your daughter in high school....in da butt.
4. If your straight a picture of the wife and kids are fine, but covering your desk is being a douche.
5. If you are gay showing up in extreme clothing is asking for ridicule. Same as Emo's. Dress appropriatelyfor work.

Most people know these rules and have no problems. If you are offended by them guess what. Your the problem.

eqtworld: bushbot111: eqtworld

Where is thst?

GISville

WTF is wrong with Protestants, evolution does not mean there is no god! I currently live in a country with more roman catholic churches per person that any other country in the world and almost everyone here believes in evolution. Although that Benedict dickhead is trying to change that.

This thread is still going?

Good G-d.

globalwarmingpraiser: If you believe in god fine, don't bring it up and beat people over the head with it.

If you don't believe in god fine, don't bring it up and beat people over the head with it.

I'm pretty happy to never mention my non-belief in God. Like I don't mention pink elephants, the Roswell aliens, or the female orgasm. There's just not much point in talking about stuff that doesn't exist.

It's those religious people who make all the noise that pretty much force our hands. Flipping channels tonight, caught a guy preaching about how God gave us the vote, and how we need to vote according to the Bible, making Biblical morality the law of the land, so we're not found wanting when Jesus returns. Or some such crazy shiat.

Believe me, I'd rather it never came up. But I'm not sitting around while bible-thumpers try to take my rights, teach kids demonstrably false "science", or try to convert me. fark that.

Godscrack wins this thread. The LULZ is strong with that pic.

vertiaset: One of my main problems with atheists is that all too often in abandoning their faith they also abandon any sense of morality. Many, certainly not all, become moral relativists or, even worse, amoral. After all, if man is the measure of all things and there is no right or wrong, just "things people do", then there is no evil and, conversely, no good.

This is just weak. How does it follow that, if man is the measure of all things, there is no right and wrong? Why do you think these concepts are not human inventions?

A moral relativist is a person who doesn't believe in moral absolutes, i.e. that the same moral standards apply equal to all people in all times, places and situations. Do you believe in moral absolutes? If so, please share.

Sometimes Christians cite the Ten Commandments as a basis for morality. I've never heard a Christian describe their applied interpretation of "Thou shall not kill" in anything other than morally relativistic terms.

DemonEater:
Believe me, I'd rather it never came up. But I'm not sitting around while bible-thumpers try to take my rights, teach kids demonstrably false "science", or try to convert me. fark that.

I agree with the first two.

I don't care if they try to convert me, though. I kind of view it from that standpoint that while I think they are gravely in error, if they really think they are savings souls, I can see why they're doing it, and as long as their interference in my life extends just to basically annoying me, I'm not going to get too angry over it.

I am polite and tell them I'm not interested, or in the worst case scenario tell them I do not have any religious beliefs and ask them if they'd like a cup of coffee (I do this for the Jehovah's Witnesses who somehow always know which weekend I decide to sleep in -- good chaps, but my "YOU JUST WOKE ME UP YOU BASTARD" bloodshot eyes scare them). I've found most people tend to respect you when you say you aren't interested and leave it at that.

Your Faith is Creepy: vertiaset: One of my main problems with atheists is that all too often in abandoning their faith they also abandon any sense of morality. Many, certainly not all, become moral relativists or, even worse, amoral. After all, if man is the measure of all things and there is no right or wrong, just "things people do", then there is no evil and, conversely, no good.

This is just weak. How does it follow that, if man is the measure of all things, there is no right and wrong? Why do you think these concepts are not human inventions?

A moral relativist is a person who doesn't believe in moral absolutes, i.e. that the same moral standards apply equal to all people in all times, places and situations. Do you believe in moral absolutes? If so, please share.

Sometimes Christians cite the Ten Commandments as a basis for morality. I've never heard a Christian describe their applied interpretation of "Thou shall not kill" in anything other than morally relativistic terms.

Thou shalt not make repetitive, generic music.
Thou shalt not make repetitive, generic music.
Thou shalt not make repetitive, generic music.
Thou shalt not make repetitive, generic music.

abb3w:
Brainmeat: Reality is ruled by majority.

However, you are only eligible to vote if you are a Universe.



I like that response. You made me snerk.

Here's a very interesting Standford lecture on the relationship between the crazies and religious belief.

Link (new window)

FitzShivering: Thou shalt not make repetitive, generic music.

So the biggest sinners by atheist lights are John Williams, Yanni, Mannheim Steamroller, Kenny G and John Tesh?

I can get behind that.

rustylite: CruiserTwelve: W. T. Fark: First sensible thing I've ever heard you say.

So a post is only sensible if you agree with it. I see how that works now.

aaaaaaaaaand back to being an idiot again

Raed my post again and think about it.

vertiaset: Two things Sport, first you need to switch gears when you go from replying to letrole to me, the simplistic atheist spiel you use with him does not serve you well in a more sophisticated discussion.

I smell another kerpal32 alt...

Religion. I choose not to participate.
If anyone tries to convert me to their way of thinking they have instantly empowered me to try and convert them to my way of thinking. Once I start talking over them about my way of thinking - they run a mile. Interfering nuisance dealt with.

/Noli nothi permittere te terere.
//Dopey exhortations are more forceful in Latin

jso2897: letrole: If you're an Atheist, then there is no moral difference between killing a man and blowing out a candle.

If you are an insurance salesman, there is no difference between listening to the radio and spitting on a snake.
If you are a lion tamer, there is no difference between folding a paper airplane and ordering out for pizza.
If you are an artichoke farmer, there is no difference between having your tonsils out and painting a Volkswagen.

Discuss.

That's what I've been trying to say this whole time.

You just made your way onto my favorites list. Good job.

madblader: Here's a very interesting Standford lecture on the relationship between the crazies and religious belief.

Link (new window)

While that was a fascinating lecture, and I thank you for linking it...
Fark you for posting it at 4:30am.
I am now going to have to stay up.
Bastard.

I sure don't wanna go to heaven,being assigned a job of guardian angel for all eternity to protect some creep politician or corporate criminal from harm on this earth.
If God? created man in his? image,I sure don't want nothing to do with that loser.
I believe the Virgin Mary did not pop out jebus,it was the stork that delivered him.

MaxRebo: JQPublic: MaxRebo: Farkshower1972: letrole: Atheism is a Religion.

Calling 'Atheism' a religion is like calling 'Bald' a hair color.

One of the stupidest attampts at an aphorism I ever read. If bald had NOTHING to do with hair at all I might have some reason to agree with the analogy. It almost sounds smart until you realize how stupid an argument it is.

Let's not use any analogies so they don't confuse the issue.

Not believing in any god is NOT THE SAME as believing there is no god. NO ONE CAN PROVE god exists or does not exist (not in this world).

Atheism IS a religion. They are trying to create converts just like any other faith-based group (faith defined as belief without proof).

So not believing in stuff that doesn't exist is a religion?
Unicorns?
Leprechauns?
1+1=3?
Flat Earth?
Geocentrism?

Those must be religions too.

Not believing is not the same as believing not (read and understand my post before responding next time). Try again. I don't believe in any of those things either, but I don't waste ANY time telling others not to believe in them, or get all pissy about it when I don't get my way.

When your kid is failing math because he believes 1+1=3 come back to us.

/dumb ass.

Khanmots: (I'm an agnostic if you can't tell; I'll leave it unsaid if I'm an athiest agnostic or a thiest agnostic)

I'm amused by your dogmatic, militant belief in things being unknowable. Are you a pixie agnostic too, or do you just trot that word for things you can't disprove that also happen to be "God".

And I'm going to guess you're a smug theistic agnostic who retreated to agnosticism when apologetics failed.

You're all going to Hell! (new window)

/loves The Bastard Fairies

A leading African-American theologian weighs in. . . (new window)

Dear lord,
I read this entire thread...
My eyes are bleeding and its getting bright out.
I've gotta stop clicking these god threads.

Being a Christian, I can attest that what the billboard says is true. You DON'T need to believe in God to be a good person.

You're still gonna go to hell, though...

Zombalupagus: As someone who just described himself as "50% atheist" and falling in the middle between ENTP and INTP I find that chart very disturbing.

"Disturbing" in what way? Like in a creepy "Ouija Board" way, or just an I-didn't-expect-that-chart-to-be-accurate way?

xanadian: You're still gonna go to hell, though...

Who told you that?

DarnoKonrad: Billboards. That is militant. Think of the children. They must be stopped.

The children must be stopped?


vertiaset: Yes, and a fine one at that. I wonder though, how many of the fuzzy headed "sky wizard" atheists on Fark have ever even heard of "Humanism".

Um... everyone?

vertiaset: My favorite atheist. A man who was not an ideologue. Not a hater. A man who knew both religion and science. A man who realized one could be a skeptic and a believer. A true seeker after the "Truth" ... yes with a capital "T".

He also said things like:

Creationists make it sound as though a 'theory' is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night.

...and...

Humanity has the stars in its future, and that future is too important to be lost under the burden of juvenile folly and ignorant superstition.

...and...

I don't believe in an afterlife, so I don't have to spend my whole life fearing hell, or fearing heaven even more. For whatever the tortures of hell, I think the boredom of heaven would be even worse.

...and...

The saddest aspect of life right now is that science gathers knowledge faster than society gathers wisdom.

...and...

There is a single light of science, and to brighten it anywhere is to brighten it everywhere.

...and...

To surrender to ignorance and call it God has always been premature, and it remains premature today.

...all of which would have him instantly branded on Fark as an "intolerant, militant ATHIEST ZOMG!!!" (The misspelling is important.)

And yet all he was was awesome.


The Icelander: People with an incomplete knowledge of evolution think this, but they're wrong.

...somewhat implies they are looking for "completeness" as opposed to "ammo."


Vangor: No. I stated an often overlooked fact. If the deity determines what is good and evil, this does not make good and evil absolutes. The concepts are still arbitrary and dependent upon the will of the deity. If one wishes to argue the deity cannot alter concepts such as good and evil, obviously something greater set those concepts firmly, but the same rules apply to this "something".

This is why moral absolutes fail for an argument.

That's one situation. The other is that God commands some things because they are Good(TM), but that would put God in a superfluous role. If Good(TM) is absolute, it can be reached without God(TM).

Not to mention there's that whole "functional" layer, where if you ask ten different theists what God commands, you usually get twenty different answers, so... Even if you WERE granting that Good exists and God tells us what it is, the methods used are way too incoherent for proper interpretation.


Marcintosh: Huh -


I'll be damned

WINRAR!


letrole: STOP ASSIGNING WESTERN THOUGHT TO THE DEFAULT STATE OF MAN.

letrole: You think murder is murder, theft is theft, whatever, only because you were brought up in a Judeo Christian society. Try as you might, you can only find ways of "scientifically" explaining the things that you were already taught.

Hee-hee... This dude is so adorable.


bartink: Lets have an experiment. Everyone in the world should believe I'm banging Megan Fox and Sasha Grey.

Please.

Unfortunately you put both of them too close, so we're really just going to believe that Sasha Grey is banging Megan Fox.

Still pretty much a win for everyone, though.


vertiaset: I have been asked, more than once, where I personally find my ethical center. I have made several comments regarding moral relativism and, despite further queries by some of you I did not really follow up on the subject. I do not want to be seen as avoiding the issue. Moreover, since I asked this question of atheists it is only fair. My response was a simple bibliography and I think was less than thoughtful. So, having given it some more thought, this is my more thoughtful answer:

/morality is relative
//not when you have decided what your objective should be

vertiaset: Some people, like many Fark "atheists" who have not actually given much thought to their atheism, take the view that morality is entirely relative and is dependent upon the mores of the society in which it exists. This leads to the idea that since it was as a religious necessity in the culture of the Aztecs to defeat their neighbors in warfare and tear their living hearts out that this was a "moral" act. Likewise the same could be said of slavery, the witch hunts of medieval Europe, the Inquisition or the Holocaust. These folks are known as "Moral Relativists".

...and yet you are completely incorrect. Anthropologically-speaking, we can say they believed they were acting morally, but certainly we are under no compunctions to label it "moral," since we judge it by our perspective. (And I'd like to think we've come at least a LITTLE ways since the days of human sacrifice.) In the same way that if we're discussing particular evolutionary drives in human nature, we are discussing it in that capacity, not saying that "because it is natural, it is both 'good' and 'moral' to society." Your comments are precisely as asinine as those always trying to link evolution and eugenics, for precisely the same reason.

Frankly, alla them evil "moral relativists" I find are far MORE moral than others, because they tend to define "society" as "everyone" (usually branching out to other species as well), look at societies past and present for markers, and apply only thought to the matter, without having any sort of scriptural override.

It is only the recognition that morals are relative, and frankly understanding that is rather necessary to trying to properly figure out a way to blend all the divergent relativists (who think they aren't) in the world in some fashion where we can stop killing each other all the time, kthxplz.

We also recognize that there's a drive for males to mount finely-proferred posteriors, but there's no rutting that goes on in the middle of the street.

...usually.


ninjakirby: ...someone needs to re-take highschool biology.

o_O

Grade school biology.


abb3w: However, these usually have long term drawbacks that make them losing tactics overall.
And you have to remember that THE GAME never ends.


...and yet you just made all of us LOSE IT, damn you!


Jeffrey.Rodriguez: I'm not aware of anyone killing anyone else over the tooth fairy.




bartink: If you locked me in a box with Selma Hayek, when would we be considered to have consummated the relationship?

I'm guessing something approaching infinity.

Oh yeah, dumbass? How are you getting any FOOD in there without opening the box? That's a consummation-limiter right there!


Gawdzila: Haha yeah, this was the first thing I thought of :)

Your spoon is way too big, dude.



I'll end with an Asimov quote, too:
Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.

JQPublic: The sign is located in Los Angeles on the 105 Freeway.

Link (new window)

the fact that these people are stupid enough to think that atheism means "belief in nothing" or that an atheist believes that "nothing made everything" means that one cannot argue with them. they are beyond the grasp of intelligence.