If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support
style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.
These stupid articles always center around reactions and rebuttals from christian groups. How come whenever a priest molests a child, news outlets don't immediately ask atheist's their opinions?
Atheists could put up a billboard that says "'Have a good day' - Courtesy of the Freedom From Religious Foundation" and people would still complain.
Britney Spear's Speculum:Atheists could put up a billboard that says "'Have a good day' - Courtesy of the Freedom From Religious Foundation" and people would still complain.
That's why. The mere existence of atheists drives religious people crazy.
I don't agree with flat out calling christmas a myth, especially where they put Santa on the billboard. There are better, more clever ways to deal blows to the religion industrial complex. Maybe switch Santa out with Satan.
Kelbel:Thanks for driving your opinion on me. I don't buy billboards to push my beliefs.
Man if you think a billboard is distasteful and is pushing religious beliefs, then don't. for your own sanity, look at the back of a dollar bill. DON'T DO IT!
Kelbel:Thanks for driving your opinion on me. I don't buy billboards to push my beliefs.
Not that I agree with the idea of the billboards, but how are they driving their ideas on you? It's a billboard. You glance at it for a couple of seconds while you're driving. Hardly driving beliefs onto anyone.
Despite the negative attention the billboards receive, American Atheists Communications Director Blair Scott said the signs aren't meant to offend people, but that he understands why it happens.
"When you question someone's long-held beliefs and doctrine they are going to be immediately offended and be on the defensive: it's a known psychological phenomenon," he told Opposing Views.
You're not helping... This makes it sound like your goal is converting people to your faith.
One sign will feature the phrase "2 Million Floridians don't believe in gods,"
Keep signs like this and quit with the attention whoring "Christianity is a myth!" signs.
Kelbel:Huh? I spend the money to keep the economy going. I don't look at other than the value of what it is.
The US government puts "In God We Trust" on the back of billions and billions of dollars printed. But you're gonna biatch and moan at the people who disagree with this when they voice their objections. Got it.
You brought up the back of a dollar. I work hard for my dollars. Did not go to college and seems that if you can pay 38,000; unless it was by grants, you make way more than I do.
ftaBut atheists aren't the only group looking make their mark on the holidays.
In what the Washington Post defines as the "war over Christmas," several groups including humanists and Christians have launched their own movements to reclaim the season.
Britney Spear's Speculum:Kelbel: Huh? I spend the money to keep the economy going. I don't look at other than the value of what it is.
The US government puts "In God We Trust" on the back of billions and billions of dollars printed. But you're gonna biatch and moan at the people who disagree with this when they voice their objections. Got it.
So do you not spend your money either? Or do you spend MORE so as to spread around the Word of God? ;)
FTA:"Only the most dense and simple-minded person would put [Jesus] in the same category as the other three. Clearly, even those who lack a personal commitment to Jesus recognize that there was in fact some historical figure by this name -- religious leader and teacher -- around 2,000 years ago."
Kelbel:You brought up the back of a dollar. I work hard for my dollars. Did not go to college and seems that if you can pay 38,000; unless it was by grants, you make way more than I do.
I'm pretty sure she/he is working pretty damn hard for his/her money. Medical school ain't exactly a cakewalk.
And it's almost certainly paid by loans. You think medical students have time to work much on the side?
\Working your way through college is an absolute myth. \\Unless your family can pay for it, you're taking out loans.
This seems like it would be pretty ineffective. Those of us that know that Jesus was likely born around August and who still choose to be Christians probably won't change our mind because of a billboard, and people who are determined to be Christian no matter what will just be resentful.
I think that if atheists really want to convince other people that religion is just fairy tale bullshiat, they should step back and let the Dominionist types do their work for them. A nutcase like Michele Bachmann makes me question my own faith way more than any atheist's viewpoints ever have.
"Only the most dense and simple-minded person would put [Jesus] in the same category as the other three. Clearly, even those who lack a personal commitment to Jesus recognize that there was in fact some historical figure by this name -- religious leader and teacher -- around 2,000 years ago."
That's some fine delusional cognitive dissonance. Bottle that and sell it.
well, christ IS a myth http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/myth
"a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, especially one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature."
and yet, people are still gonna have a problem with this.
FishyFred:Britney Spear's Speculum: Atheists could put up a billboard that says "'Have a good day' - Courtesy of the Freedom From Religious Foundation" and people would still complain.
That's why. The mere existence of atheists drives religious people crazy.
How would you know?? I am a Christian and I have no problems with Farkers, atheists, FSM followers, jews...to each his/her own. The gospel is an invitation that can be rejected...does not affect me whatsoever.. What does irk me is people who say that are opposed to blind intolerance practicing the same. Put your broad brush back in it's holster. We agree more than we disagree but I am not the kind to explain myself unless I really think you care. You probably don't. This is fine. Atheists can be closed minded and blind as well.
As an atheist, I don't really support things like this. Let people believe what they want to believe, quit being a douche. Yeah I get it, God is a fairy tale and there's a bunch of pedophile priests. There's also millions of every day people like you and me that have religious believes which help give their lives meaning. Let them be.
Britney Spear's Speculum:Kelbel: Thanks for driving your opinion on me. I don't buy billboards to push my beliefs.
Man if you think a billboard is distasteful and is pushing religious beliefs, then don't. for your own sanity, look at the back of a dollar bill. DON'T DO IT!
justoneznot:As an atheist, I don't really support things like this. Let people believe what they want to believe, quit being a douche. Yeah I get it, God is a fairy tale and there's a bunch of pedophile priests. There's also millions of every day people like you and me that have religious believes which help give their lives meaning. Let them be.
I much prefer the "Don't believe or questioning the existence of God. Come meet other people like you" line of advertising.
cptjeff:\Working your way through college is an absolute myth.
It didn't used to be. I worked summers and managed a pizza restaurant during the school year. It covered everything with enough left over for a little fun.
Britney Spear's Speculum:These stupid articles always center around reactions and rebuttals from christian groups. How come whenever a priest molests a child, news outlets don't immediately ask atheist's their opinions?
Look, don't take this as *my* opinion, I'm just pointing out to you what should be obvious: No one in the media cares what atheists think.
thelordofcheese:"Only the most dense and simple-minded person would put [Jesus] in the same category as the other three. Clearly, even those who lack a personal commitment to Jesus recognize that there was in fact some historical figure by this name -- religious leader and teacher -- around 2,000 years ago."
That's some fine delusional cognitive dissonance. Bottle that and sell it.
I'm sure there WAS, in fact, a rabbi named Yeshua ben Joseph, who lived and died around 2000 years ago in Judea, who preached a form of Judaism known as millennialism that was actually fairly common in the region (there were at least two other preachers of the same general type, Apollonius of Tyre and another named Dionysus a few decades later). For whatever reason, perhaps the dramatic circumstances of his death, Jesus was the one who became most associated with the teachings and the others faded into obscurity.
That has absolutely nothing to do with anything ELSE associated with Jesus, or the validity or non-validity of his teachings; except to say if he was even one-tenth as holy a man as his followers claim, he'd be a thousand times more godly than any of those who claim to be "Christians" today.
Smelly McUgly:I think that if atheists really want to convince other people that religion is just fairy tale bullshiat, they should step back and let the Dominionist types do their work for them.
I've often thought that. Let the freaktard fundies take over for a few years. That would do more to damage the church than anything we could ever do.
/of course, I'll be safe in China while you conduct the experiment.
jingks:justoneznot: As an atheist, I don't really support things like this. Let people believe what they want to believe, quit being a douche. Yeah I get it, God is a fairy tale and there's a bunch of pedophile priests. There's also millions of every day people like you and me that have religious believes which help give their lives meaning. Let them be.
I much prefer the "Don't believe or questioning the existence of God. Come meet other people like you" line of advertising.
If there was an atheist organization that got together and had meaningful discussions I think that would be great, I'd like to be part of something like that. But from what I can tell most of them are so caught up in hating Christianity, it's like they have this grudge that will never go away and it's all they focus on.
Unfortunately there seems to be a lot of atheists who became atheists not through critical thinking but out of rebellion. And maybe I shouldn't blame them, there are some Christians who try to shove their beliefs down peoples throats. But most of them aren't like that and we shouldn't treat them all as if they were.
Just because there's some dickhead religious fundie that annoys everyone on TV doesn't mean we can't be friendly with the Christians we work with or who are part of our family.
Hey Christians, did you know that Christmas is of pagan origin and your god has said he hates it? You might want to read Jer. 10 before you put up your Christmas tree this year and light the Yule log. Christians, face it, you're pagans - just come out of the closet already.
Gyrfalcon:thelordofcheese: "Only the most dense and simple-minded person would put [Jesus] in the same category as the other three. Clearly, even those who lack a personal commitment to Jesus recognize that there was in fact some historical figure by this name -- religious leader and teacher -- around 2,000 years ago."
That's some fine delusional cognitive dissonance. Bottle that and sell it.
I'm sure there WAS, in fact, a rabbi named Yeshua ben Joseph, who lived and died around 2000 years ago in Judea, who preached a form of Judaism known as millennialism that was actually fairly common in the region (there were at least two other preachers of the same general type, Apollonius of Tyre and another named Dionysus a few decades later). For whatever reason, perhaps the dramatic circumstances of his death, Jesus was the one who became most associated with the teachings and the others faded into obscurity.
That has absolutely nothing to do with anything ELSE associated with Jesus, or the validity or non-validity of his teachings; except to say if he was even one-tenth as holy a man as his followers claim, he'd be a thousand times more godly than any of those who claim to be "Christians" today.
On what evidence, outside of the Bible or secondary references to it, do you base your belief that Jesus was an actual person who existed?
untaken_name:Hey Christians, did you know that Christmas is of pagan origin and your god has said he hates it? You might want to read Jer. 10 before you put up your Christmas tree this year and light the Yule log. Christians, face it, you're pagans - just come out of the closet already.
Dumbass. We know. We just don't care; that's the part you just can't hoist in.
untaken_name:Hey Christians, did you know that Christmas is of pagan origin and your god has said he hates it? You might want to read Jer. 10 before you put up your Christmas tree this year and light the Yule log. Christians, face it, you're pagans - just come out of the closet already.
Christmas is actually just a replacement holiday for Saturnalia? That explains the continued tradition of buggery in the Catholic Church then.
TheHopeDiamond:Dumbass. We know. We just don't care; that's the part you just can't hoist in.
Oh, on the contrary. That's the absolutely most awesome part for me. It shows just how hypocritical the whole religion is, and you (as you've admitted yourself) don't even care. Delicious.
farkityfarker:On what evidence, outside of the Bible or secondary references to it, do you base your belief that Jesus was an actual person who existed?
Let's see. There's burnt toast, frying pans, water stains, wood grain, cancerous tumor, a dog's ass hair... do you want me to go on?
As a guy who will only believe in gods when I experience them myself, I don't even bother changing other people's beliefs. If they ask me why I don't believe, that's the only time I'll tell them my ideas, but I won't be advertising anything that's supposed to change their minds for the sake of it. It's just about letting people be happy however they want since it doesn't affect me negatively anyway. I still enjoy christmas and all the holidays, it's fun and I get gifts too, but that doesn't mean I believe in a little baby god who's both mean and kind (and also is a 3-in-one person) at the same time.
FishyFred:Britney Spear's Speculum: Atheists could put up a billboard that says "'Have a good day' - Courtesy of the Freedom From Religious Foundation" and people would still complain.
That's why. The mere existence of atheists drives religious people crazy.
don't generalize. the existence of atheists doesn't make me crazy. it saddens me, but i truly understand why they have their beliefs.
I have lived god with in my heart,and without. i just wish i had believed earlier
Ryan2065:Despite the negative attention the billboards receive, American Atheists Communications Director Blair Scott said the signs aren't meant to offend people, but that he understands why it happens.
"When you question someone's long-held beliefs and doctrine they are going to be immediately offended and be on the defensive: it's a known psychological phenomenon," he told Opposing Views.
You're not helping... This makes it sound like your goal is converting people to your faith.
One sign will feature the phrase "2 Million Floridians don't believe in gods,"
Keep signs like this and quit with the attention whoring "Christianity is a myth!" signs.
Drive trough Pulaski, Tennessee on I-65. Next time I go trough there I'm going too take some picks but the billboards are all about the rapture and you could be saved if only you act now. /I mean really the atheists are obnoxious? /Oh and my fave a big black billboard with white writing purporting to be a message from God sign by God /but yea atheist be crazy
RexTalionis:Kelbel: Thanks for driving your opinion on me. I don't buy billboards to push my beliefs.
Not that I agree with the idea of the billboards, but how are they driving their ideas on you? It's a billboard. You glance at it for a couple of seconds while you're driving. Hardly driving beliefs onto anyone. Would you say the same thing if it was one of those pro-Christian billboards? Personally I can't stand the Christians who have to make their views public. This atheist group is just as ridiculous as the Christians. I find it funny how hypocritical the atheists are. They cry foul when the Christians do it, but will support these stupid billboards.
James F. Campbell:FTA: "Only the most dense and simple-minded person would put [Jesus] in the same category as the other three. Clearly, even those who lack a personal commitment to Jesus recognize that there was in fact some historical figure by this name -- religious leader and teacher -- around 2,000 years ago."
... And? Even if that were true, so what?
Wait, is he saying that Saint Nicholas, aka Santa Claus, was a myth? Because there's a whole hell of a lot more evidence of Saint Nick than there is of Jesus.
In Europe, the christians killed most of them in the 1930s and 40s. You won't see any billboards about that.
In all fairness, a coalition of peoples, many of whom identified themselves as "Christian," also banded together and stopped the group you're referring to. Just sayin'.
I have lived god with in my heart,and without. i just wish i had believed earlier
Yeah, it makes it all so much easier doesn't it? You can just do whatever you want, and as long as you ask forgiveness, you still get to go to The Magical Place In The Sky(tm)! YAY!!
The essence of Christianity transcends the story and the religion. Be nice to poor people, be humble and forgiving. You may not see a lot of Christians like this, but there are hundreds of millions of them out there. Just like there hundreds of millions of Muslims out there who try to act the same. People aren't perfect and the most visible in these religions are inevitably the most proud and hypocritical. If you write them all off because of a few you'll miss knowing a lot of decent people. You can scoff at the stories if you like, but they help a lot of people try to live decent lives and give them hope in difficult situations.
jingks:farkityfarker: On what evidence, outside of the Bible or secondary references to it, do you base your belief that Jesus was an actual person who existed?
Let's see. There's burnt toast, frying pans, water stains, wood grain, cancerous tumor, a dog's ass hair... do you want me to go on?
Damn, I always got those images mixed up as Arlo Guthrie.
tinfoil-hat maggie:Drive trough Pulaski, Tennessee on I-65. Next time I go trough there I'm going too take some picks but the billboards are all about the rapture and you could be saved if only you act now.
I think that might be the main cause of the difference of opinion on these matters. People who live where there are Christians pulling that kind of crap and those who live elsewhere.
Jubeju:I have lived god with in my heart,and without. i just wish i had believed earlier
Yeah, it makes it all so much easier doesn't it? You can just do whatever you want, and as long as you ask forgiveness, you still get to go to The Magical Place In The Sky(tm)! YAY!!
This is a really interesting viewpoint. You must have met some real assholes who used Christianity as a Get Out of Jail Free card in your day. I'm sorry.
One of the things that used to bother me is the idea that Fred Phelps gets into heaven, whatever heaven is supposed to be, but the Dalai Lama is farked. I think that you are picking the very worst, most disingenuous folks who identify as Christian, though, and projecting them as the norm. I am sure that you will disagree with me, but honestly I think most people in general are trying to do the best that they can do for others regardless of their beliefs.
justoneznot:As an atheist, I don't really support things like this. Let people believe what they want to believe, quit being a douche. Yeah I get it, God is a fairy tale and there's a bunch of pedophile priests. There's also millions of every day people like you and me that have religious believes which help give their lives meaning. Let them be.
I agree there is a bunch of pedophile priests....and coaches, and judges, and cops, and Jews, and Muslims, and atheists, and agnostics, and (insert religion, race, color, creed, profession, etc. here).
However, there is nothing 'shocking' about an atheist pedophile, and therefore not 'news' worthy.
Cucullen:The essence of Christianity transcends the story and the religion. Be nice to poor people, be humble and forgiving. You may not see a lot of Christians like this, but there are hundreds of millions of them out there. Just like there hundreds of millions of Muslims out there who try to act the same. People aren't perfect and the most visible in these religions are inevitably the most proud and hypocritical. If you write them all off because of a few you'll miss knowing a lot of decent people. You can scoff at the stories if you like, but they help a lot of people try to live decent lives and give them hope in difficult situations.
Being nice to other people or being charitable and forgiving doesn't require following any particular religion. Heck even animals do that. Telling people they're sinners for doing something they enjoy, but goes against someone else's personal squeamish levels or telling people to "donate" money to one's personal coffers. That, that takes a religion. Practically all religions follow this rule. I think Buddhism may be the closest to not using supernatural beings to exploit the masses.
jingks:hristianity transcends the story and the religion. Be nice to poor people, be humble and forgiving.
Then why does Jesus want tens of millions of Americans to not have health care if they become ill?
Because America isn't a Christian nation...
It's like Supply Side Jesus always says, "If an investor attempts a hostile takeover of your corporation with one hand, try to unload a bunch of worthless bundled derivatives into his other," Or something like that. I'm sure He has a parable or teaching that is related to that lesson. Maybe, "Teach a man to fish, and you have to provide benefits as an employer. Let him fish without providing company guidelines, and he can be an independent contractor -- so you don't need to incur the expense of providing him health care or pay someone else to deal with the payroll tax withholding."
I will issue a challenge to atheists right here, right now.
Go to a Muslim country, and put up you billboards full of atheist bullshiat. Let's see what happens.
Just remember that you farksticks would be burned at the stake in basically any other country than the US.
You idiots feel emboldened to shout down religion everywhere? Uh, HELLO McFLY, huge conflicts have started over religion, do you REALLY think telling the warring sides that their gods don't exist is the right path?
I want to see a billboard with the following images (full-color photos if possible) in all their graphic glory:
A man being hung, just before the rope pulls taut A man in front of a firing squad at the moment of impact A man on the rack Jesus on the cross A man being drawn and quartered A man being flogged bloody A man impaled Vlad-syle
If it's ok to show one form of torture and execution in public, it should be ok to show them all.
mainstreet62:I will issue a challenge to atheists right here, right now.
Go to a Muslim country, and put up you billboards full of atheist bullshiat. Let's see what happens.
Just remember that you farksticks would be burned at the stake in basically any other country than the US.
You idiots feel emboldened to shout down religion everywhere? Uh, HELLO McFLY, huge conflicts have started over religion, do you REALLY think telling the warring sides that their gods don't exist is the right path?
Come on, no way they get burned at the stake by Muslims....
...
...
...
...
they would get rocks hurled at them until they were bludgeoned to death...shish, get it right yo!
mainstreet62:I will issue a challenge to atheists right here, right now.
Go to a Muslim country, and put up you billboards full of atheist bullshiat. Let's see what happens.
Just remember that you farksticks would be burned at the stake in basically any other country than the US.
You idiots feel emboldened to shout down religion everywhere? Uh, HELLO McFLY, huge conflicts have started over religion, do you REALLY think telling the warring sides that their gods don't exist is the right path?
Sure thing. Right after a Christian group tries to promote their beliefs via billboard in the area, followed by an encore with Fred Phelps and his band of morons spending a month picketing for their brand of crazy with anti-Islamic signs.
mainstreet62:I will issue a challenge to atheists right here, right now.
Go to a Muslim country, and put up you billboards full of atheist bullshiat. Let's see what happens.
Just remember that you farksticks would be burned at the stake in basically any other country than the US.
You idiots feel emboldened to shout down religion everywhere? Uh, HELLO McFLY, huge conflicts have started over religion, do you REALLY think telling the warring sides that their gods don't exist is the right path?
The Southern Dandy:Did you tell him the 'A' meant "without" as in "Godless"?
Mmhmm. Godless. As in, 'no gods.' Yanno, actively believing that there are no gods. Najust saying oh there might not be a god, I'm not sure, don't get your hopes up, but a firm, definitive resolution that there are no gods. Against god.
moothemagiccow:Najust saying oh there might not be a god, I'm not sure, don't get your hopes up, but a firm, definitive resolution that there are no gods.
Actually, atheism is simply a lack of belief in gods. You don't have to have a firm, definitive resolution that there are no gods to be an atheist.
moothemagiccow:Mmhmm. Godless. As in, 'no gods.' Yanno, actively believing that there are no gods. Najust saying oh there might not be a god, I'm not sure, don't get your hopes up, but a firm, definitive resolution that there are no gods. Against god.
The only difference between Christians/Muslims/Jews and atheists is that atheists only deny the existence of one more god than they do.
jingks:tinfoil-hat maggie: Drive trough Pulaski, Tennessee on I-65. Next time I go trough there I'm going too take some picks but the billboards are all about the rapture and you could be saved if only you act now.
I think that might be the main cause of the difference of opinion on these matters. People who live where there are Christians pulling that kind of crap and those who live elsewhere.
Well I sorta live in an area that an atheist group couldn't even buy a billboard let alone rent or lease one.
tinfoil-hat maggie:Ryan2065: Despite the negative attention the billboards receive, American Atheists Communications Director Blair Scott said the signs aren't meant to offend people, but that he understands why it happens.
"When you question someone's long-held beliefs and doctrine they are going to be immediately offended and be on the defensive: it's a known psychological phenomenon," he told Opposing Views.
You're not helping... This makes it sound like your goal is converting people to your faith.
One sign will feature the phrase "2 Million Floridians don't believe in gods,"
Keep signs like this and quit with the attention whoring "Christianity is a myth!" signs.
Drive trough Pulaski, Tennessee on I-65. Next time I go trough there I'm going too take some picks but the billboards are all about the rapture and you could be saved if only you act now. /I mean really the atheists are obnoxious? /Oh and my fave a big black billboard with white writing purporting to be a message from God sign by God /but yea atheist be crazy
That billboard has NOTHING on what you'll read further down in Mississippi and into Oklahoma.
0Icky0:cptjeff: \Working your way through college is an absolute myth.
It didn't used to be. I worked summers and managed a pizza restaurant during the school year. It covered everything with enough left over for a little fun.
Fark I'm old.
It still isn't a myth. I did it without anyone's help. Worked my ass off. The problem is most of these lazy, self-entitled douchebag snowflakes want you to think it's hard. If anything, university is much easier today than it was 20 years ago.
eraser8:moothemagiccow: Najust saying oh there might not be a god, I'm not sure, don't get your hopes up, but a firm, definitive resolution that there are no gods.
Actually, atheism is simply a lack of belief in gods. You don't have to have a firm, definitive resolution that there are no gods to be an atheist.
You can be an agnostic atheist (or an agnostic theist), correct? Which one is the one that is actually firm and definitive about their being no gods? It isn't either of the ones that I mentioned, but I forget my little four-square belief chart.
moothemagiccow:The Southern Dandy: moothemagiccow: If there's anyone I hate more than christian activists, it's atheist activists. The dipshiats deserve each other.
Last atheist dick I met complained christians treated him like he "was against god." I had to inform him about what the A in atheist meant.
Did you tell him the 'A' meant "without" as in "Godless"?
Did you think I meant they were againsttheists? fark me, give yer random farker some credit
Atheist does mean one is against God. It only means one doesn't believe in God. I firmly believe there are no leprechauns. Doesn't mean I'm against leprechauns. Are you atheist when it comes to Zeus? Do you believe in Zeus? Are you against Zeus?
farkityfarker:The only difference between Christians/Muslims/Jews and atheists is that atheists only deny the disbelieve in the existence of one more god than they do.
autopsybeverage:mainstreet62: I will issue a challenge to atheists right here, right now.
Go to a Muslim country, and put up you billboards full of atheist bullshiat. Let's see what happens.
Just remember that you farksticks would be burned at the stake in basically any other country than the US.
You idiots feel emboldened to shout down religion everywhere? Uh, HELLO McFLY, huge conflicts have started over religion, do you REALLY think telling the warring sides that their gods don't exist is the right path?
Sure thing. Right after a Christian group tries to promote their beliefs via billboard in the area, followed by an encore with Fred Phelps and his band of morons spending a month picketing for their brand of crazy with anti-Islamic signs.
Uh huh. So you're going after a splinter group of Christians that even 99.9999% of all Christians think suck donkey balls. Seriously?
I find it amusing that atheists think they should be listened to. Women and gays around the world had to fight for rights. They have been legit oppressed, and are earning hard fought freedoms.
And then atheists come swooping in, all butthurt because no one takes your one stupid idea seriously.
The Bible, the Koran, and plenty other religious texts have a moral code embedded within to help people treat fellow man with love and respect. What have atheists written that does the same?
What will allow atheists to write any kind of moral code when their one idea, the assertion of a lack of God, relegates religious texts with moral codes to the fiction section?
Britney Spear's Speculum:These stupid articles always center around reactions and rebuttals from christian groups. How come whenever a priest molests a child, news outlets don't immediately ask atheist's their opinions?
Oh brother. Here, let me try explaining the painfully obvious to you: The billboards are intended to make people question Christianity, so naturally the article includes the reactions of a few Christians. They're directly related to the story. (And if any Satanists, Poseidon-worshippers, or Santa-loving children publicly express their feelings about these ads, there's likely to be a followup.) OTOH, while a priest molesting a child is a terrible, terrible thing, it has f*ck all to do with atheism. You might as well ask why articles about the Sandusky scandal don't feature the opinions of people who don't like college football. The article makes perfect sense, it's your question that's stupid.
mainstreet62:I will issue a challenge to atheists right here, right now.
Go to a Muslim country, and put up you billboards full of atheist bullshiat. Let's see what happens.
Just remember that you farksticks would be burned at the stake in basically any other country than the US.
You idiots feel emboldened to shout down religion everywhere? Uh, HELLO McFLY, huge conflicts have started over religion, do you REALLY think telling the warring sides that their gods don't exist is the right path?
autopsybeverage: It's like Supply Side Jesus always says, "If an investor attempts a hostile takeover of your corporation with one hand, try to unload a bunch of worthless bundled derivatives into his other," Or something like that. I'm sure He has a parable or teaching that is related to that lesson.
Parable of the Talents. It's where Jesus endorses hedge fund performance fees.
Smelly McUgly:You can be an agnostic atheist (or an agnostic theist), correct?
That's correct.
Smelly McUgly:I forget my little four-square belief chart.
Let it stay forgotten.
If you don't believe in gods, you're an atheist...and it doesn't matter whether you lack belief because you think the existence of gods is an impossibility or whether you lack belief merely because you've seen no positive evidence to support the hypothesis.
mainstreet62:autopsybeverage: mainstreet62: I will issue a challenge to atheists right here, right now.
Go to a Muslim country, and put up you billboards full of atheist bullshiat. Let's see what happens.
Just remember that you farksticks would be burned at the stake in basically any other country than the US.
You idiots feel emboldened to shout down religion everywhere? Uh, HELLO McFLY, huge conflicts have started over religion, do you REALLY think telling the warring sides that their gods don't exist is the right path?
Sure thing. Right after a Christian group tries to promote their beliefs via billboard in the area, followed by an encore with Fred Phelps and his band of morons spending a month picketing for their brand of crazy with anti-Islamic signs.
Uh huh. So you're going after a splinter group of Christians that even 99.9999% of all Christians think suck donkey balls. Seriously?
I find it amusing that atheists think they should be listened to. Women and gays around the world had to fight for rights. They have been legit oppressed, and are earning hard fought freedoms.
And then atheists come swooping in, all butthurt because no one takes your one stupid idea seriously.
The Bible, the Koran, and plenty other religious texts have a moral code embedded within to help people treat fellow man with love and respect. What have atheists written that does the same?
What will allow atheists to write any kind of moral code when their one idea, the assertion of a lack of God, relegates religious texts with moral codes to the fiction section?
Sarah Palin's Conscience:mainstreet62: I will issue a challenge to atheists right here, right now.
Go to a Muslim country, and put up you billboards full of atheist bullshiat. Let's see what happens.
Just remember that you farksticks would be burned at the stake in basically any other country than the US.
You idiots feel emboldened to shout down religion everywhere? Uh, HELLO McFLY, huge conflicts have started over religion, do you REALLY think telling the warring sides that their gods don't exist is the right path?
Yes.
Act on your belief, then. Put up a billboard in Turkey, let us see the hilarity that ensues.
Good. I'm so glad to see that the majority of people believe in nothing. I mean, according to revelations, armageddon, etc., it is during the times when nobody believes in God that God will destroy everything and I, for one, welcome that.
I can't stand to live in a world where nobody believes in anything. What's the farking point of existing? Seriously, can one of you so-called aethiests answer that for me? Why continue to survive if there's nothing to survive for? Religion aside, I happen to believe in life beyond this one and reaching a higher existence. And that is considering everything from the basic principles of physics and energy principles all the way to string theory and multidimensional mathematics.
/Yes, I agree religion as an organization destroys the spirituality behind one's personal theology. //But if you don't believe in anything, why the fark must you want everyone else to believe the way you do? It's a huge contradiction. True aethiests don't bother imposing their beliefs on others. Here's one image that always sums up these hypocritical ''aethiests'':
Sarah Palin's Conscience:tinfoil-hat maggie: Ryan2065: Despite the negative attention the billboards receive, American Atheists Communications Director Blair Scott said the signs aren't meant to offend people, but that he understands why it happens.
"When you question someone's long-held beliefs and doctrine they are going to be immediately offended and be on the defensive: it's a known psychological phenomenon," he told Opposing Views.
You're not helping... This makes it sound like your goal is converting people to your faith.
One sign will feature the phrase "2 Million Floridians don't believe in gods,"
Keep signs like this and quit with the attention whoring "Christianity is a myth!" signs.
Drive trough Pulaski, Tennessee on I-65. Next time I go trough there I'm going too take some picks but the billboards are all about the rapture and you could be saved if only you act now. /I mean really the atheists are obnoxious? /Oh and my fave a big black billboard with white writing purporting to be a message from God sign by God /but yea atheist be crazy
That billboard has NOTHING on what you'll read further down in Mississippi and into Oklahoma.
One of the white letter on black background said something like 'I'm so proud of how you treated one another after the storms" That was after the April 27th tornado outbreak and it was signed God. /I f y'all have worse I feel sorry for you
KelbelThanks for driving your opinion on me. I don't buy billboards to push my beliefs.
justoneznot: As an atheist, I don't really support things like this. Let people believe what they want to believe, quit being a douche. Yeah I get it, God is a fairy tale and there's a bunch of pedophile priests. There's also millions of every day people like you and me that have religious believes which help give their lives meaning. Let them be.
Smelly McUgly I think that if atheists really want to convince other people that religion is just fairy tale bullshiat, they should step back and let the Dominionist types do their work for them.
-So the best atheist is a silent atheist, that's what I'm getting here...
Amigajoe:KelbelThanks for driving your opinion on me. I don't buy billboards to push my beliefs.
justoneznot: As an atheist, I don't really support things like this. Let people believe what they want to believe, quit being a douche. Yeah I get it, God is a fairy tale and there's a bunch of pedophile priests. There's also millions of every day people like you and me that have religious believes which help give their lives meaning. Let them be.
Smelly McUgly I think that if atheists really want to convince other people that religion is just fairy tale bullshiat, they should step back and let the Dominionist types do their work for them.
-So the best atheist is a silent atheist, that's what I'm getting here...
1) life is interesting. Just because we don't expect any afterlife doesn't mean we don't experience great pleasure from the things we experience while we're living.
Sarah Palin's Conscience:mainstreet62: autopsybeverage: mainstreet62: I will issue a challenge to atheists right here, right now.
Go to a Muslim country, and put up you billboards full of atheist bullshiat. Let's see what happens.
Just remember that you farksticks would be burned at the stake in basically any other country than the US.
You idiots feel emboldened to shout down religion everywhere? Uh, HELLO McFLY, huge conflicts have started over religion, do you REALLY think telling the warring sides that their gods don't exist is the right path?
Sure thing. Right after a Christian group tries to promote their beliefs via billboard in the area, followed by an encore with Fred Phelps and his band of morons spending a month picketing for their brand of crazy with anti-Islamic signs.
Uh huh. So you're going after a splinter group of Christians that even 99.9999% of all Christians think suck donkey balls. Seriously?
I find it amusing that atheists think they should be listened to. Women and gays around the world had to fight for rights. They have been legit oppressed, and are earning hard fought freedoms.
And then atheists come swooping in, all butthurt because no one takes your one stupid idea seriously.
The Bible, the Koran, and plenty other religious texts have a moral code embedded within to help people treat fellow man with love and respect. What have atheists written that does the same?
What will allow atheists to write any kind of moral code when their one idea, the assertion of a lack of God, relegates religious texts with moral codes to the fiction section?
[maximumtrolling.jpeg]
I'M TROLLING?! Because I asked atheists to describe what alternative written moral code they would have us live by?
By destroying the idea that deities exist, they destroy the Bible which is based on the fact the God exists.
Isn't it morally reprehensible to kill a moral code that allows goodwill towards men and not replace it? Does it exist? What are a large majority of US laws based on?
I want to know why I should take an atheist seriously if they aren't selling ideas that promote inner peace and goodwill towards others. Enlighten me!
The Southern Dandy: Atheist does mean one is against God. It only means one doesn't believe in God. I firmly believe there are no leprechauns. Doesn't mean I'm against leprechauns.
I don't believe in unicorns, or androids.
But if there were unicorns and androids, I would be for them, because that's awesome.
Cucullen:The essence of Christianity transcends the story and the religion. Be nice to poor people, be humble and forgiving. You may not see a lot of Christians like this, but there are hundreds of millions of them out there. Just like there hundreds of millions of Muslims out there who try to act the same. People aren't perfect and the most visible in these religions are inevitably the most proud and hypocritical. If you write them all off because of a few you'll miss knowing a lot of decent people. You can scoff at the stories if you like, but they help a lot of people try to live decent lives and give them hope in difficult situations.
See here's my problem, the most visible tend to be the "leaders" and it appears that most of these "leaders" definitely have a stake in keeping their flocks in perpetual ignorance and fear so as to keep the racket going.
Couple of "not so cool stories, bro"
I grew up having to go to the church that doesn't believe in doctors. Now my family did go to doctors, but Mom took us to this church to keep her family happy. Can you imagine a 6 year old kid every Sunday watching an old man's nose rot off his face because his "faith" was going to do a better job removing that cancer than a doctor? The man was revered in the church until the day he died by the "elders" because he had such strong faith. My dad, years later, had the same cancer this old man had on his nose and in less than an hour doctors had it removed with nothing to show for it but a slight notch in his nose. Many kids were scarred for life by the image of that old man and his rotting face and it didn't have to happen if the "leaders" of the church instead of praising him maybe said "hey, god works in mysterious ways, go get that shiat cut out". That's just one horror story. Let's not talk about the dead young mothers to the hands of midwives, the "crippled to the point of not being able to support their families" men who thought god would heal their broken arms or legs, or the dead kids whose parents thought god would heal their concussions or virii that antibiotics would have taken care of in a day.
Second story, my brother-in-law had a problem with drugs. He went to a christian rehab clinic, which I'll admit did wonders for him. When my sister and he moved back home from out-of-state the first thing he wanted to do was find a nice church to go to. He found one in our hometown, and my parents (who hadn't been to church for years) out of support joined the church with him and my sister. In less than a month, let me repeat, less than a month, my fairly liberal family turned into a recruitment poster for the most hard-core fundamentalist neocon assholes you've ever met in your life. One sunday dinner, my former "pro-gay rights" sister informed everyone that the problem with this country was "those damn queers". She was well on her way to believing the "autism was caused by vaccinations" bullshiat, also. My brother-in-law informed me that he used to love nature and science shows, but he doesn't watch them anymore since he now "knows" that the world is only six thousand years old. Oh did you also know that we don't have a president in the white house, we have a n**ger, mexicans are stealing our jobs, and that every muslim in the world is a crazy terrorist.
Now what in the world could've caused this rapid change in my family? Well, I guess you could say they were gullible and ignorant people, but they didn't used to be. I met the pompous prick they call their "pastor", and all I can say is that he had this smug look on his face that can only come from having so much control over other people. But hey, guess what, they're adding on to their already huge ass church every day so I guess I'd have a smug look on my face too. Pretty soon, it'll be all bmw's and banging chicks (or dudes) in the youth group at the expense of other people's families. Aint religion grand?
//Of course these stories will be downplayed because of their "anecdotal" qualities. Which, as a critical thinker, I'm just fine with. //Wouldn't have a problem with religion in America if it wasn't so much "fox news on a bun" that it appears to be nowadays.
Amigajoe:KelbelThanks for driving your opinion on me. I don't buy billboards to push my beliefs.
justoneznot: As an atheist, I don't really support things like this. Let people believe what they want to believe, quit being a douche. Yeah I get it, God is a fairy tale and there's a bunch of pedophile priests. There's also millions of every day people like you and me that have religious believes which help give their lives meaning. Let them be.
Smelly McUgly I think that if atheists really want to convince other people that religion is just fairy tale bullshiat, they should step back and let the Dominionist types do their work for them.
-So the best atheist is a silent atheist, that's what I'm getting here...
I think that if anyone wants to get others interested in his or her beliefs, the trick is to be nice and treat others with the utmost kindness. When someone invariably asks you why you are so kind or wants to know what the philosophy is that you espouse which makes you such a nice person, then you might let that person know what you believe without being all "CONVERT BEFORE YOU BURN IN HELL" or "JOIN US BECAUSE WE DON'T BELIEVE IN SKY WIZARDS."
That's probably more effective than being aggressive about not only what you believe, but what idiots others are who don't think like you.
Now, I say this here, but I'm sure I'll be shiat-talking a conservative in some political thread. It's true, though.
eraser8:If by "point" you mean some grand plan or design, I don't think there is one.
Perhaps not.
Two main reasons:
1) life is interesting. Just because we don't expect any afterlife doesn't mean we don't experience great pleasure from the things we experience while we're living.
mainstreet62:Because I asked atheists to describe what alternative written moral code they would have us live by?
Why would you need a written code?
Human morals don't come from the Bible or from the Koran or from any written book. Morals are not dictated by authority, they're reasoned by human beings.
If you follow the code written out in the Bible, you're not being moral. You're being obedient. By coincidence, some of the code of behaviors set out in the Bible IS moral. But, sometimes, it is manifestly immoral.
The Ghost of Tom Ace:Good. I'm so glad to see that the majority of people believe in nothing. I mean, according to revelations, armageddon, etc., it is during the times when nobody believes in God that God will destroy everything and I, for one, welcome that.
I can't stand to live in a world where nobody believes in anything. What's the farking point of existing? Seriously, can one of you so-called aethiests answer that for me? Why continue to survive if there's nothing to survive for? Religion aside, I happen to believe in life beyond this one and reaching a higher existence. And that is considering everything from the basic principles of physics and energy principles all the way to string theory and multidimensional mathematics.
/Yes, I agree religion as an organization destroys the spirituality behind one's personal theology. //But if you don't believe in anything, why the fark must you want everyone else to believe the way you do? It's a huge contradiction. True aethiests don't bother imposing their beliefs on others. Here's one image that always sums up these hypocritical 'aethiests':
[lh3.googleusercontent.com image 640x445]
Oh yes, I like that logic. Atheists don't believe in God therefore they don't believe in anything and lead meaningless lives.
mainstreet62: I'M TROLLING?! Because I asked atheists to describe what alternative written moral code they would have us live by?
By destroying the idea that deities exist, they destroy the Bible which is based on the fact the God exists.
Isn't it morally reprehensible to kill a moral code that allows goodwill towards men and not replace it? Does it exist? What are a large majority of US laws based on?
I want to know why I should take an atheist seriously if they aren't selling ideas that promote inner peace and goodwill towards others. Enlighten me!
Not an Atheist, but the general feeling I get from them is that we should all be allowed to do whatever the fark we want, whenever the fark we want, and anyone who questions why they did what they did, or tries to tell them what they did was 'wrong' is simply trying to 'keep them down' by imposing 'made up fairy tales' on them.
Not saying this is how they ALL think, but I KNOW I have meet some who have told me just as much.
Baryogenesis:The Ghost of Tom Ace: Good. I'm so glad to see that the majority of people believe in nothing. I mean, according to revelations, armageddon, etc., it is during the times when nobody believes in God that God will destroy everything and I, for one, welcome that.
I can't stand to live in a world where nobody believes in anything. What's the farking point of existing? Seriously, can one of you so-called aethiests answer that for me? Why continue to survive if there's nothing to survive for? Religion aside, I happen to believe in life beyond this one and reaching a higher existence. And that is considering everything from the basic principles of physics and energy principles all the way to string theory and multidimensional mathematics.
/Yes, I agree religion as an organization destroys the spirituality behind one's personal theology. //But if you don't believe in anything, why the fark must you want everyone else to believe the way you do? It's a huge contradiction. True aethiests don't bother imposing their beliefs on others. Here's one image that always sums up these hypocritical 'aethiests':
[lh3.googleusercontent.com image 640x445]
Oh yes, I like that logic. Atheists don't believe in God therefore they don't believe in anything and lead meaningless lives.
You clearly missed the point, but that's ok. Could you please tell me what Aethiests do believe in? Not trolling, I'm very curious to know. Would they happen to be the same virtues that the deities and doctrines of most of the world's theological beliefs represent? I guess to restructure my point, I could say that I would hope that aethiests still believe that being morally benevolent is beneficial for all. I'd like to think that we are all connected; we are all one spirit, all one consciousness.
mainstreet62:Sarah Palin's Conscience: mainstreet62: autopsybeverage: mainstreet62: I will issue a challenge to atheists right here, right now.
Go to a Muslim country, and put up you billboards full of atheist bullshiat. Let's see what happens.
Just remember that you farksticks would be burned at the stake in basically any other country than the US.
You idiots feel emboldened to shout down religion everywhere? Uh, HELLO McFLY, huge conflicts have started over religion, do you REALLY think telling the warring sides that their gods don't exist is the right path?
Sure thing. Right after a Christian group tries to promote their beliefs via billboard in the area, followed by an encore with Fred Phelps and his band of morons spending a month picketing for their brand of crazy with anti-Islamic signs.
Uh huh. So you're going after a splinter group of Christians that even 99.9999% of all Christians think suck donkey balls. Seriously?
I find it amusing that atheists think they should be listened to. Women and gays around the world had to fight for rights. They have been legit oppressed, and are earning hard fought freedoms.
And then atheists come swooping in, all butthurt because no one takes your one stupid idea seriously.
The Bible, the Koran, and plenty other religious texts have a moral code embedded within to help people treat fellow man with love and respect. What have atheists written that does the same?
What will allow atheists to write any kind of moral code when their one idea, the assertion of a lack of God, relegates religious texts with moral codes to the fiction section?
[maximumtrolling.jpeg]
I'M TROLLING?! Because I asked atheists to describe what alternative written moral code they would have us live by?
By destroying the idea that deities exist, they destroy the Bible which is based on the fact the God exists.
Isn't it morally reprehensible to kill a moral code that allows goodwill towards men and not replace it? Does it exist? What are a large majority of US laws based on?
I want to know why I should take an atheist seriously if they aren't selling ideas that promote inner peace and goodwill towards others. Enlighten me!
Fine, I'll bite.
Religion is a piss poor place to try and establish a moral code for humanity.
The Bible promotes bigotry, hatred, murder, slavery, and fear, just to name a few. I cannot, in good faith, raise my daughter on this book, because it promotes all of the above. It will tell her that she is only as good as a man she marries, and can never speak against a male or rise above him.
She will learn from this book that she is unclean and cannot be touched if she has her period, or bears a child.
She will learn that a supposed loving God is a vengeful, spiteful, hateful thing that will completely fark up your shiat just to prove a point to Satan.
This forgiving God killed his people because he disapproved of their actions, when he had the power to change them to good people.
He practices favoritism, choosing one people over another simply because they kissed more ass.
The Good Book also promotes that parents treat their children badly. Remember how Noah banished his son for laughing at his stupid, drunk, naked ass? Remember how God cursed his seed?
Or how about Lot's daughters, who got Lot drunk and then raped him and bore his children? I certainly don't want my daughter to preserve my SO's seed should something happen to me.
Or the big J himself, who beat the shiat out of money changers? I don't promote violence in my house. How can I ban her fighting others when Jesus did so himself?
Let's not even crack into other religions, who all have their shortcomings, which all preach bigotry and hatred.
I will NOT teach my daughter to act good ONLY because an invisible being is watching her every move, judging her every action, and that she will receive eternal damnation if she goes against this loving god's hypocritical commandments.
Instead, I will teach her the basics of human kindness, respect, and dignity. I will teach her to not be a dick to others. I will teach her that her actions are her worth and a direct reflection of her character.
I will raise her the way she was born: as an atheist and as a good human being.
Divinegrace:Not an Atheist, but the general feeling I get from them is that we should all be allowed to do whatever the fark we want, whenever the fark we want, and anyone who questions why they did what they did, or tries to tell them what they did was 'wrong' is simply trying to 'keep them down' by imposing 'made up fairy tales' on them.
Well, telling someone he shouldn't be able to work on the Sabbath because it is forbidden by a book IS simply trying to "keep him down" by imposing "made up fairy tales" on him.
Telling someone she shouldn't be allowed to marry the woman she loves because it is forbidden by a book IS simply trying to "keep her down" by imposing "made up fairy tales" on her.
Telling someone that he can't have bacon on his burger because it is forbidden by a book IS simply trying to "keep him down" by imposing "made up fairy tales" on him.
eraser8:Morals are not dictated by authority, they're reasoned by human beings.
What makes you think those things are mutually exclusive? Did you sit around helping to reason out your local, state, or Federal laws? Laws are codified morality enforced through the police power of the State. They are absolutely dictated by authority, as well as reasoned by human beings. Your position appears to be ill-thought.
The only billboards related to religion that I have ever seen were pro religion. I even saw one pushing for the teaching of creationism in schools on the Mass Pike (hopefully a hostile audience). So I would find atheist billboards a refreshing change.
eraser8:Divinegrace: Not an Atheist, but the general feeling I get from them is that we should all be allowed to do whatever the fark we want, whenever the fark we want, and anyone who questions why they did what they did, or tries to tell them what they did was 'wrong' is simply trying to 'keep them down' by imposing 'made up fairy tales' on them.
Well, telling someone he shouldn't be able to work on the Sabbath because it is forbidden by a book IS simply trying to "keep him down" by imposing "made up fairy tales" on him.
Telling someone she shouldn't be allowed to marry the woman she loves because it is forbidden by a book IS simply trying to "keep her down" by imposing "made up fairy tales" on her.
Telling someone that he can't have bacon on his burger because it is forbidden by a book IS simply trying to "keep him down" by imposing "made up fairy tales" on him.
Sarah Palin's Conscience:mainstreet62: Sarah Palin's Conscience: mainstreet62: autopsybeverage: mainstreet62: I will issue a challenge to atheists right here, right now.
Go to a Muslim country, and put up you billboards full of atheist bullshiat. Let's see what happens.
Just remember that you farksticks would be burned at the stake in basically any other country than the US.
You idiots feel emboldened to shout down religion everywhere? Uh, HELLO McFLY, huge conflicts have started over religion, do you REALLY think telling the warring sides that their gods don't exist is the right path?
Sure thing. Right after a Christian group tries to promote their beliefs via billboard in the area, followed by an encore with Fred Phelps and his band of morons spending a month picketing for their brand of crazy with anti-Islamic signs.
Uh huh. So you're going after a splinter group of Christians that even 99.9999% of all Christians think suck donkey balls. Seriously?
I find it amusing that atheists think they should be listened to. Women and gays around the world had to fight for rights. They have been legit oppressed, and are earning hard fought freedoms.
And then atheists come swooping in, all butthurt because no one takes your one stupid idea seriously.
The Bible, the Koran, and plenty other religious texts have a moral code embedded within to help people treat fellow man with love and respect. What have atheists written that does the same?
What will allow atheists to write any kind of moral code when their one idea, the assertion of a lack of God, relegates religious texts with moral codes to the fiction section?
[maximumtrolling.jpeg]
I'M TROLLING?! Because I asked atheists to describe what alternative written moral code they would have us live by?
By destroying the idea that deities exist, they destroy the Bible which is based on the fact the God exists.
Isn't it morally reprehensible to kill a moral code that allows goodwill towards men and not replace it? Does it exist? What are a large majority of US laws based on?
I want to know why I should take an atheist seriously if they aren't selling ideas that promote inner peace and goodwill towards others. Enlighten me!
Fine, I'll bite.
Religion is a piss poor place to try and establish a moral code for humanity.
The Bible promotes bigotry, hatred, murder, slavery, and fear, just to name a few. I cannot, in good faith, raise my daughter on this book, because it promotes all of the above. It will tell her that she is only as good as a man she marries, and can never speak against a male or rise above him.
She will learn from this book that she is unclean and cannot be touched if she has her period, or bears a child.
She will learn that a supposed loving God is a vengeful, spiteful, hateful thing that will completely fark up your shiat just to prove a point to Satan.
This forgiving God killed his people because he disapproved of their actions, when he had the power to change them to good people.
He practices favoritism, choosing one people over another simply because they kissed more ass.
The Good Book also promotes that parents treat their children badly. Remember how Noah banished his son for laughing at his stupid, drunk, naked ass? Remember how God cursed his seed?
Or how about Lot's daughters, who got Lot drunk and then raped him and bore his children? I certainly don't want my daughter to preserve my SO's seed should something happen to me.
Or the big J himself, who beat the shiat out of money changers? I don't promote violence in my house. How can I ban her fighting others when Jesus did so himself?
Let's not even crack into other religions, who all have their shortcomings, which all preach bigotry and hatred.
I will NOT teach my daughter to act good ONLY because an invisible being is watching her every move, judging her every action, and that she will receive eternal damnation if she goes against this loving god's hypocritical commandments.
Instead, I will teach her the basics of human kindness, respect, and dignity. I will teach her to not be a dick to others. I will teach ...
This is as simplified as the guy who thinks that atheists cannot possibly have moral codes.
Sarah Palin's Conscience:This forgiving God killed his people because he disapproved of their actions, when he had the power to change them to good people.
It's worse than that. The Christian god, on more than one occasion, used his power to encourage people to do things specifically so he could disapprove of them and punish them.
The Ghost of Tom Ace:Baryogenesis: The Ghost of Tom Ace: Good. I'm so glad to see that the majority of people believe in nothing. I mean, according to revelations, armageddon, etc., it is during the times when nobody believes in God that God will destroy everything and I, for one, welcome that.
I can't stand to live in a world where nobody believes in anything. What's the farking point of existing? Seriously, can one of you so-called aethiests answer that for me? Why continue to survive if there's nothing to survive for? Religion aside, I happen to believe in life beyond this one and reaching a higher existence. And that is considering everything from the basic principles of physics and energy principles all the way to string theory and multidimensional mathematics.
/Yes, I agree religion as an organization destroys the spirituality behind one's personal theology. //But if you don't believe in anything, why the fark must you want everyone else to believe the way you do? It's a huge contradiction. True aethiests don't bother imposing their beliefs on others. Here's one image that always sums up these hypocritical 'aethiests':
[lh3.googleusercontent.com image 640x445]
Oh yes, I like that logic. Atheists don't believe in God therefore they don't believe in anything and lead meaningless lives.
You clearly missed the point, but that's ok. Could you please tell me what Aethiests do believe in? Not trolling, I'm very curious to know. Would they happen to be the same virtues that the deities and doctrines of most of the world's theological beliefs represent? I guess to restructure my point, I could say that I would hope that aethiests still believe that being morally benevolent is beneficial for all. I'd like to think that we are all connected; we are all one spirit, all one consciousness.
/Did a lot of LSD, what can I say?
No, you missed the point. Atheism says only one thing about the atheist. Any other beliefs, ethics or philosophies are completely independent of not believing in God. And believing in God isn't necessary for a person to have meaning, morals or something to live for. Therefore your question is meaningless, atheism doesn't work that way.
Sorry, by what metric? Don't play the same game the religious try to play. There's no such thing as a "good human being", just as there's no such thing as a "bad human being". There are only human beings, and things they do which are subjectively "good" or "bad" depending upon whose point of view you're looking at things from. I.E. slavery is pretty bad from the point of view of the slave, and pretty good from the point of view of the master. But there is no objective measure of what is absolutely "good" or "bad", and trying to pretend that there is reveals your unconscious religious bias.
Does American Atheists put up similar billboards during Ramadan? Do they put up billboards claiming the prophet Muhammad is a myth? Do they ever put up billboards during Rosh Hashana? The target of American Atheists seems to be curiously selective.
untaken_name:Sarah Palin's Conscience: good human being.
Sorry, by what metric? Don't play the same game the religious try to play. There's no such thing as a "good human being", just as there's no such thing as a "bad human being". There are only human beings, and things they do which are subjectively "good" or "bad" depending upon whose point of view you're looking at things from. I.E. slavery is pretty bad from the point of view of the slave, and pretty good from the point of view of the master. But there is no objective measure of what is absolutely "good" or "bad", and trying to pretend that there is reveals your unconscious religious bias.
I cannot put it better than George Carlin did. "Don't be a dick."
I find this to be a pretty good measure of a "good" human being.
untaken_name:What makes you think those things are mutually exclusive?
The nature of morality.
untaken_name:Laws are codified morality enforced through the police power of the State.
So, the laws that permitted slavery were moral? The laws that permitted segregation were moral? The laws that permit abortion or moral?
You are confusing authority and obedience with morality. As I wrote earlier, sometimes, coincidentally, commands from authority will also be moral. But, in other instances, they will be manifestly immoral.
david_gaithersburg:Does American Atheists put up similar billboards during Ramadan? Do they put up billboards claiming the prophet Muhammad is a myth? Do they ever put up billboards during Rosh Hashana? The target of American Atheists seems to be curiously selective.
I wasn't aware that these were government holidays, with huge marketed celebrations.
I wasn't aware that these religions push their moral code into every day life in order to pleas their god/s.
I was completely unaware that they were able to put their god/s into laws and legislation. That they had a lot of sway in American politics, that they were a protected class.
No, I'm equal opportunity disbelieved, but I generally target the diety whose followers restrict my booze buying until after Sunday service.
Baryogenesis:The Ghost of Tom Ace: Baryogenesis: The Ghost of Tom Ace: Good. I'm so glad to see that the majority of people believe in nothing. I mean, according to revelations, armageddon, etc., it is during the times when nobody believes in God that God will destroy everything and I, for one, welcome that.
I can't stand to live in a world where nobody believes in anything. What's the farking point of existing? Seriously, can one of you so-called aethiests answer that for me? Why continue to survive if there's nothing to survive for? Religion aside, I happen to believe in life beyond this one and reaching a higher existence. And that is considering everything from the basic principles of physics and energy principles all the way to string theory and multidimensional mathematics.
/Yes, I agree religion as an organization destroys the spirituality behind one's personal theology. //But if you don't believe in anything, why the fark must you want everyone else to believe the way you do? It's a huge contradiction. True aethiests don't bother imposing their beliefs on others. Here's one image that always sums up these hypocritical 'aethiests':
[lh3.googleusercontent.com image 640x445]
Oh yes, I like that logic. Atheists don't believe in God therefore they don't believe in anything and lead meaningless lives.
You clearly missed the point, but that's ok. Could you please tell me what Aethiests do believe in? Not trolling, I'm very curious to know. Would they happen to be the same virtues that the deities and doctrines of most of the world's theological beliefs represent? I guess to restructure my point, I could say that I would hope that aethiests still believe that being morally benevolent is beneficial for all. I'd like to think that we are all connected; we are all one spirit, all one consciousness.
/Did a lot of LSD, what can I say?
No, you missed the point. Atheism says only one thing about the atheist. Any other beliefs, ethics or philosophies are completely independent of not believing in God. And believing in God isn't necessary for a person to have meaning, morals or something to live for. Therefore your question is meaningless, atheism doesn't work that way.
mainstreet62: Isn't it morally reprehensible to kill a moral code that allows goodwill towards men and not replace it? Does it exist? What are a large majority of US laws based on?
Divinegrace: Not an Atheist, but the general feeling I get from them is that we should all be allowed to do whatever the fark we want, whenever the fark we want, and anyone who questions why they did what they did, or tries to tell them what they did was 'wrong' is simply trying to 'keep them down' by imposing 'made up fairy tales' on them.
I'm an atheist, and I'm flabbergasted.
Seriously guys? Seriously?
Morality doesn't have to be dipped in religion, and when you get right down to it, morality is basically a personal thing anyway. Everyone chooses what they consider moral or not and what they're going to do or not do.
Sometimes a person's own moral compass runs afoul of what society as a whole considers moral (Jeffrey Dahmer for example). Just because I'm not religious doesn't mean I'm going to run out and eat people.
For me, there's only one big moral rule, and that's to not cause unnecessary harm (physical or emotional) to other people. (Unnecessary in that if someone breaks into my house in the middle of the night, I will have no qualms about shooting them).
Sarah Palin's Conscience:Smelly McUgly"This is as simplified as the guy who thinks that atheists cannot possibly have moral codes."
Out of all that I pointed out, you single out my summarization and then call my reasoning simple?
Everything you pointed out was simplified and petty. "All religions are bad and say evil stuff" is silly.
If we want to have a discussion about something like "the Ancient Hebrews and Paul say teh gheys iz bad," we have to talk about a) the ancient Hebrews trying to establish a society and thus encouraging the type of sex that makes babies and b) Paul probably being gay. We don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. In fact, there are more practicing Christians than you know that understand that the ancient Hebrews were trying to establish a culture and society and that numerous churches have inserted their own junk into the NT.
Your assertion that because the Hebrews were trying to utilize their religion in part to establish a code of law and a set of societal rules that everyone could play by so that they could stop being nomads, this makes any religion that utilizes the Torah EEEEVUL is so simplified that it defies belief.
I hope that you are able to have a frank talk with your daughter about the history behind the Bible (or any other holy book) if she asks questions about it. Let her know that we are lucky to have advanced as a society and we don't have to look at Leviticus so that you can determine her bride price. Telling her "HURR DURR EVIL BOOK SKY WIZARD" is pretty short-sighted. At the very least, she will have an interesting lesson in history, literature, and human culture.
The Ghost of Tom Ace:But if you don't believe in anything, why the fark must you want everyone else to believe the way you do?
So they'll stop bothering us about it and stop using it as a criteria to judge others as unworthy or less human.
It's really that simple. It's the verbal and emotional abuse they use to bring others into their fold. The less of them there are, the less acceptable it becomes in our society.
lordargent:mainstreet62: Isn't it morally reprehensible to kill a moral code that allows goodwill towards men and not replace it? Does it exist? What are a large majority of US laws based on?
Divinegrace: Not an Atheist, but the general feeling I get from them is that we should all be allowed to do whatever the fark we want, whenever the fark we want, and anyone who questions why they did what they did, or tries to tell them what they did was 'wrong' is simply trying to 'keep them down' by imposing 'made up fairy tales' on them.
I'm an atheist, and I'm flabbergasted.
[files.sharenator.com image 400x297]
Seriously guys? Seriously?
Morality doesn't have to be dipped in religion, and when you get right down to it, morality is basically a personal thing anyway. Everyone chooses what they consider moral or not and what they're going to do or not do.
Sometimes a person's own moral compass runs afoul of what society as a whole considers moral (Jeffrey Dahmer for example). Just because I'm not religious doesn't mean I'm going to run out and eat people.
For me, there's only one big moral rule, and that's to not cause unnecessary harm (physical or emotional) to other people. (Unnecessary in that if someone breaks into my house in the middle of the night, I will have no qualms about shooting them).
I find this to be a pretty good measure of a "good" human being.
Yes, but it's subjective. I'm not saying there is no good or bad, I am saying that good and bad are subjective. Like pretty or art. There will be things most people agree on, and things they disagree heavily on. But there is no objective good or evil or right or wrong. It doesn't exist. It's fantasy.
david_gaithersburg:The target of American Atheists seems to be curiously selective.
If my flat is regularly infested with cockroaches, but once or twice a year I see an ant or a spider, I'm still going to invest in roach spray and not worry so much about the ants and spiders.
Smelly McUgly:Sarah Palin's Conscience: Smelly McUgly"This is as simplified as the guy who thinks that atheists cannot possibly have moral codes."
Out of all that I pointed out, you single out my summarization and then call my reasoning simple?
Everything you pointed out was simplified and petty. "All religions are bad and say evil stuff" is silly.
If we want to have a discussion about something like "the Ancient Hebrews and Paul say teh gheys iz bad," we have to talk about a) the ancient Hebrews trying to establish a society and thus encouraging the type of sex that makes babies and b) Paul probably being gay. We don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. In fact, there are more practicing Christians than you know that understand that the ancient Hebrews were trying to establish a culture and society and that numerous churches have inserted their own junk into the NT.
Your assertion that because the Hebrews were trying to utilize their religion in part to establish a code of law and a set of societal rules that everyone could play by so that they could stop being nomads, this makes any religion that utilizes the Torah EEEEVUL is so simplified that it defies belief.
I hope that you are able to have a frank talk with your daughter about the history behind the Bible (or any other holy book) if she asks questions about it. Let her know that we are lucky to have advanced as a society and we don't have to look at Leviticus so that you can determine her bride price. Telling her "HURR DURR EVIL BOOK SKY WIZARD" is pretty short-sighted. At the very least, she will have an interesting lesson in history, literature, and human culture.
All of that is fine for ancient civilization. Please, tell me how we can use these in our modern society. The way I see it, we have very little to no use for these silly stories. They are nothing more than a tool use by the ignorant to stop progress.
Now, about the over-simplification you've pegged me for...
The Ghost of Tom Ace:Baryogenesis: The Ghost of Tom Ace: Baryogenesis: The Ghost of Tom Ace: Good. I'm so glad to see that the majority of people believe in nothing. I mean, according to revelations, armageddon, etc., it is during the times when nobody believes in God that God will destroy everything and I, for one, welcome that.
I can't stand to live in a world where nobody believes in anything. What's the farking point of existing? Seriously, can one of you so-called aethiests answer that for me? Why continue to survive if there's nothing to survive for? Religion aside, I happen to believe in life beyond this one and reaching a higher existence. And that is considering everything from the basic principles of physics and energy principles all the way to string theory and multidimensional mathematics.
/Yes, I agree religion as an organization destroys the spirituality behind one's personal theology. //But if you don't believe in anything, why the fark must you want everyone else to believe the way you do? It's a huge contradiction. True aethiests don't bother imposing their beliefs on others. Here's one image that always sums up these hypocritical 'aethiests':
[lh3.googleusercontent.com image 640x445]
Oh yes, I like that logic. Atheists don't believe in God therefore they don't believe in anything and lead meaningless lives.
You clearly missed the point, but that's ok. Could you please tell me what Aethiests do believe in? Not trolling, I'm very curious to know. Would they happen to be the same virtues that the deities and doctrines of most of the world's theological beliefs represent? I guess to restructure my point, I could say that I would hope that aethiests still believe that being morally benevolent is beneficial for all. I'd like to think that we are all connected; we are all one spirit, all one consciousness.
/Did a lot of LSD, what can I say?
No, you missed the point. Atheism says only one thing about the atheist. Any other beliefs, ethics or philosophies are completely independent of not believing in God. And believing in God isn't necessary for a person to have meaning, morals or something to live for. Therefore your question is meaningless, atheism doesn't work that way.
Preach on, hypocrates. Preach on. Convert us!
What in the blue fark are you talking about?
There is no atheist doctrine or shared philosophy other than not believing in God. Asking what atheists believe in is a non starter. I can tell you my views on ethics, but I can't speak for atheists overall.
The Ghost of Tom Ace: You clearly missed the point, but that's ok. Could you please tell me what Aethiests do believe in?
As a general group, atheists don't believe in anything, think of this group as one huge circle that encompasses the core definition of atheism (not believing in a god).
Within this circle, there are many other identifiable groups that have other things in common other than just atheism.
For example, Taoism is an atheistic religion (they do not believe in deities).
Buddhism is also an atheistic religion (for the most part).
Then you have people who have never been exposed to the concept of a god.
And then you have people who don't have the mental capacity to have a belief in god (babies).
And then, you have people that worship other things, that are not deities (For example, they worship the water spirit, fire spirit, etc). These are also technically atheists because they don't believe in a god.
Then you have people like me (and this is the biggest group), who basically don't believe in god and don't give a whit about what religious folks (of any religion) do, as long as they leave us alone (IE, don't make laws that prevent us from buying beer on your sabbath day, don't come knocking on our door early in the morning, etc), and we're not out to convert anyone to atheism especially because we despise it when people try to convert us to one religion or another.
And then you have the jackoffs that post billboards promoting atheism. Which atheists like me also don't want to have anything to do with. Feel free to fark with those dudes all you want, just leave me out of it.
untaken_name:Sarah Palin's Conscience: I cannot put it better than George Carlin did. "Don't be a dick."
I find this to be a pretty good measure of a "good" human being.
Yes, but it's subjective. I'm not saying there is no good or bad, I am saying that good and bad are subjective. Like pretty or art. There will be things most people agree on, and things they disagree heavily on. But there is no objective good or evil or right or wrong. It doesn't exist. It's fantasy.
I never really thought of it that way.
However, I fail to see how that would pave the way to rape, murder, and thievery. These have been firmly established as big "no"'s in our society.
Maybe my line of thinking is too narrow on this one?
Sarah Palin's Conscience:Smelly McUgly: Sarah Palin's Conscience: Smelly McUgly"This is as simplified as the guy who thinks that atheists cannot possibly have moral codes."
Out of all that I pointed out, you single out my summarization and then call my reasoning simple?
Everything you pointed out was simplified and petty. "All religions are bad and say evil stuff" is silly.
If we want to have a discussion about something like "the Ancient Hebrews and Paul say teh gheys iz bad," we have to talk about a) the ancient Hebrews trying to establish a society and thus encouraging the type of sex that makes babies and b) Paul probably being gay. We don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. In fact, there are more practicing Christians than you know that understand that the ancient Hebrews were trying to establish a culture and society and that numerous churches have inserted their own junk into the NT.
Your assertion that because the Hebrews were trying to utilize their religion in part to establish a code of law and a set of societal rules that everyone could play by so that they could stop being nomads, this makes any religion that utilizes the Torah EEEEVUL is so simplified that it defies belief.
I hope that you are able to have a frank talk with your daughter about the history behind the Bible (or any other holy book) if she asks questions about it. Let her know that we are lucky to have advanced as a society and we don't have to look at Leviticus so that you can determine her bride price. Telling her "HURR DURR EVIL BOOK SKY WIZARD" is pretty short-sighted. At the very least, she will have an interesting lesson in history, literature, and human culture.
All of that is fine for ancient civilization. Please, tell me how we can use these in our modern society. The way I see it, we have very little to no use for these silly stories. They are nothing more than a tool use by the ignorant to stop progress.
Now, about the over-simplification you've pegged me for...
Use what? A dumb rule about homosexuality that doesn't apply to our culture, or the concept of going to the trouble of drawing water from the well for anyone who comes past asking for a drink, even if that person is otherwise reprehensible to you? That's a bit of a trick that most of us still haven't mastered.
I'm not saying that you need the Bible to do the latter, but let's not act like there isn't incredibly useful insight anywhere in the book simply because it's old.
Look, I don't really care what you believe as long as you're nice to other people. If you're doing that, you're ultimately doing it right. However, you are taking an incredibly short-sighted view of this Holy Book, so I can only imagine how misguided you are about the others that you pooh-poohed in a single sentence.
It still flabbergasts me that the position of believing only what is apparent somehow requires defense. A rubber ball rolls behind a screen. It COULD be the case that it turns into a cat and walks to the other side, changes back into a ball and rolls out the rest of the way from the screen. That is the religious version of reality. Not believing something so cockamamie shouldn't be a "belief system" on par with religion as if they are on a level playing field.
The "what I'd like to be the case" vs. "what you actually see" religions (aka theism and atheism) will have to do battle and I hope the former gets ground up into dust along with any non-converts.
lordargent:The Ghost of Tom Ace: You clearly missed the point, but that's ok. Could you please tell me what Aethiests do believe in?
As a general group, atheists don't believe in anything, think of this group as one huge circle that encompasses the core definition of atheism (not believing in a god).
Within this circle, there are many other identifiable groups that have other things in common other than just atheism.
For example, Taoism is an atheistic religion (they do not believe in deities).
Buddhism is also an atheistic religion (for the most part).
Then you have people who have never been exposed to the concept of a god.
And then you have people who don't have the mental capacity to have a belief in god (babies).
And then, you have people that worship other things, that are not deities (For example, they worship the water spirit, fire spirit, etc). These are also technically atheists because they don't believe in a god.
Then you have people like me (and this is the biggest group), who basically don't believe in god and don't give a whit about what religious folks (of any religion) do, as long as they leave us alone (IE, don't make laws that prevent us from buying beer on your sabbath day, don't come knocking on our door early in the morning, etc), and we're not out to convert anyone to atheism especially because we despise it when people try to convert us to one religion or another.
And then you have the jackoffs that post billboards promoting atheism. Which atheists like me also don't want to have anything to do with. Feel free to fark with those dudes all you want, just leave me out of it.
That was pretty much my point earlier about how this whole billboard thing is kind of hypocritical and, quite frankly, disrespectful to atheists in general. It basically goes against the atheist grain to impose a belief unto others, yeah?
Smelly McUgly:I'm not saying that you need the Bible to do the latter, but let's not act like there isn't incredibly useful insight anywhere in the book simply because it's old.
I don't think anyone's made that claim.
The point, as I've noted several times, is that our morality is determined by our own reasoning. It doesn't come from a book. In fact, it can't. That's a point you seem to agree with...considering that you're perfectly willing to ignore the parts of the Bible that you don't feel are relevant to you.
By virtue of picking and choosing, you prove that is is YOU and not the book that is guiding your moral choices. Can the Bible provoke insightful thoughts? Sure. Any book can.
Is it a manual for how to live your life? I see no reason why it should be...and several reasons why it shouldn't be.
Smelly McUgly: "Use what? A dumb rule about homosexuality that doesn't apply to our culture, or the concept of going to the trouble of drawing water from the well for anyone who comes past asking for a drink, even if that person is otherwise reprehensible to you? That's a bit of a trick that most of us still haven't mastered.
I'm not saying that you need the Bible to do the latter, but let's not act like there isn't incredibly useful insight anywhere in the book simply because it's old.
Look, I don't really care what you believe as long as you're nice to other people. If you're doing that, you're ultimately doing it right. However, you are taking an incredibly short-sighted view of this Holy Book, so I can only imagine how misguided you are about the others that you pooh-poohed in a single sentence."
My initial argument was about how we shouldn't be using religion as a moral compass, and as a Southern American atheist I used the Bible as an example because it is the book that is dominant in my culture.
The question I answered was where could I, as an atheist, possibly gather morals when I have no religion. I pointed out how piss-poor the Bible is to get morals from and why I as a human and as a mother reject them.
To say that I should ignore all the bad parts and focus on the good is, in my opinion, incredibly ignorant.
To say that there are good parts which we can still lean from while simultaneously ignoring the terrible parts which are used to dehumanize, belittle, and outright make illegal is dangerous.
Now, please, tell me how the stories and lessons learned from the Bible and similar holy texts can be used in a modern society. I still hold the opinion that it has very little to no use and can he easily discarded.
I have no problem with religion or its absence as long as I don't have to deal with annoying signage. Fanaticism bothers me, no matter how it manifests.
If you see a person in the middle of the street telling you that an invisible man in then sky told him what should and shouldn't be done, you'd call the nuthouse.
However, dress that man in an expensive suit or some funny robes and a big hat, and put him in in an ornately decorated building with a cross on top of it, and suddenly, that crazy man hearing voices from invisible man in the sky is a preacher or priest, and is to be respected and revered.
Fark religion. Man should have outgrown this tribal bullshiat and need for an invisible alcoholic dad in the sky to have to make them be decent. At this point, religion is only doing as much harm as good.
Frederf:It still flabbergasts me that the position of believing only what is apparent somehow requires defense. A rubber ball rolls behind a screen. It COULD be the case that it turns into a cat and walks to the other side, changes back into a ball and rolls out the rest of the way from the screen. That is the religious version of reality. Not believing something so cockamamie shouldn't be a "belief system" on par with religion as if they are on a level playing field.
The "what I'd like to be the case" vs. "what you actually see" religions (aka theism and atheism) will have to do battle and I hope the former gets ground up into dust along with any non-converts.
Not that I disagree with your conclusion, but the idea of things not working the same out of observational view is a very reasonable theory. Consider video games and other simulators. Do you really believe it's generating and displaying all of the terrain and physics that it can in the places you're not looking at the time? No, of course not. There may not even be enough calculation speed to do it in many cases.
Even so, this does make for a very selfish world where reality really does revolve around the observer. However, as we get better at making that illusion ourselves, we must realize that there are not only rationales for doing so but also more complex methods to allude its detection. The real issue for this type of system would be finding the boundaries where it calculates things differently. The simple way would be a radius around the observer; however, to avoid clever experiments you may wish to make it lag around where they've been or calculate around objects that the observer has interacted with indefinitely.
I'm not saying it's going on, but I'm saying it could be and we ourselves are trying to do exactly that across several fields and mediums. Simply: until we know a way to disprove it, it's an interesting idea just like any other theology. Since things like this always seem to avoid detection by their nature, the theory can likely not be tested until someone comes up with something clever enough or finds an error/hole in the illusion. All things considered, we have better things to do, families to feed, and enough emotional security to ignore it.
Grow some balls atheists, and let's see you mock the Muslim religion..or kwaanza or something other than a Christianity
Mocking Christianity is the last form of accepted bigotry. If they put up a billboard attacking Mohammed or something, there would be riots in the streets..
publikenemy:Grow some balls atheists, and let's see you mock the Muslim religion..or kwaanza or something other than a Christianity
Mocking Christianity is the last form of accepted bigotry. If they put up a billboard attacking Mohammed or something, there would be riots in the streets..
....pussy ass atheists are pussies
Right, because Christians don't put up billboards mocking and insulting atheists.
When Jews and Muslims in the U.S. start insulting atheism, I'll worry about it.
I never see these hatemongers pick on islam. Maybe it's because it's easier to pick on a people that have sworn a life of peace as Christians have.
One day we will get tired of being bullied. And when that day comes people will point fingers, but forget the constant vexing and badgering that came before it.
Dracolich:The Ghost of Tom Ace: But if you don't believe in anything, why the fark must you want everyone else to believe the way you do?
So they'll stop bothering us about it and stop using it as a criteria to judge others as unworthy or less human.
It's really that simple. It's the verbal and emotional abuse they use to bring others into their fold. The less of them there are, the less acceptable it becomes in our society.
Verbal and emotional abuse are age-old methods for attacking people who don't conform to the majority view. Physical abuse is even more popular, as is mass slaughter, though such over-enthusiastic debate techniques are currently frowned upon in polite Western societies. Whether you're dealing with religion, politics, or even just musical preferences, people have always drawn up sides and demonized their opponents, and without some major evolutionary rewiring of our thinking, that's never going to change. It certainly won't happen just because one belief system goes away and gets replaced by another. The methods used to maintain that belief will remain the same, because people are inherently dicks.
I can understand someone thinking that worldwide acceptance of a single religion would finally bring peace. Religion is all about magical solutions. But thinking the total rejection of religion and spirituality would achieve the same thing? Commonsense observation - the very thing you claim to be championing - is facepalming so hard it's leaving fingerprints on the back of its head.
TedNigma:I never see these hatemongers pick on islam. Maybe it's because it's easier to pick on a people that have sworn a life of peace as Christians have.
One day we will get tired of being bullied. And when that day comes people will point fingers, but forget the constant vexing and badgering that came before it.
I think it's more like aiming for center of mass than trying to a headshot at range. There's a lot more Christians across the nation than there are Muslims/Hindus/Jews/Gozer Worshippers/etc.
TedNigma:I never see these hatemongers pick on islam. Maybe it's because it's easier to pick on a people that have sworn a life of peace as Christians have.
One day we will get tired of being bullied. And when that day comes people will point fingers, but forget the constant vexing and badgering that came before it.
First you say that you've sworn a life of peace, then you go on to issue a thinly veiled threat.
TheHopeDiamond:My only complaint is that if they did it to any other religion, people would be having kittens over how they're being oppressed.
Yeah I was thinking the same thing. This is a politically correct ad hominem. Perhaps if I see signs ridiculing Ramadan and Muhammad ibn Abdullah during Muslim holy month, I might be convinced they actually oppose religious thought, rather than the obvious specifically anti-Christian agenda that we see now.
For every atheist putting up billboards inciting the hornets' nests of religious people, there are many multiples of us who live our lives peacefully and lovingly tolerate our religious friends and family as we'd like them to tolerate us.
(I will admit, though, when I was in my early twenties and threw off my religious upbringing, I was a jerk for a little while about it. I regret that, but it was understandable - I was pissed for being lied to for so long.)
FishyFred:The mere existence of atheists drives religious people crazy.
No, just the intolerance, destruction of property and who knows what else the mililtant atheists are doing. You don't believe, so you have to make no effort to get along with the rest of the population. If not for that, you could happily set in your parent's basement posting nonsense and no one would care.
OR it could be a question of populace. Of religious people in the USA most are Christian or a flavor of Christian, while the religions you mentioned are small percentages. Just saying.
I'll believe Christians are peaceful when doctors aren't gunned down anymore for providing abortions and Christian religion isn't being pushed as law. And before you say most Christians don't do that, well if you're going to judge Athiests by the loud minority, I'm free to do the same to Christians.
/As an apatheist, I don't care about religion you may have or have not, until you try to legislate with it. Keep your religion, whatever it may be, out of law.
The Jami Turman Fan Club:publikenemy: Grow some balls atheists, and let's see you mock the Muslim religion..or kwaanza or something other than a Christianity
Mocking Christianity is the last form of accepted bigotry. If they put up a billboard attacking Mohammed or something, there would be riots in the streets..
....pussy ass atheists are pussies
Right, because Christians don't put up billboards mocking and insulting atheists.
When Jews and Muslims in the U.S. start insulting atheism, I'll worry about it.
Show me these billboards specifically mocking atheists. Even if there were a billboard like you say, it would be nowheres near the same thing. There is no central belief with atheism so how can they attack it? Mocking the birth of Christ can not be paralleled in any way with an attack on atheism since there is nothing equivalent to mock.
How about just letting people be and not worrying what people believe or don't believe in? How about showing some respect for other people's beliefs?
Liberals love to talk about how we should let Muslims have their prayer time, and how they are free to practice their beliefs, and we should all be tolerant. Actually, they say that about all beliefs...except for Christians...they are free to attack
Why are even the grown up Atheists so full of teenage angst and trying to be edgy? I'd expect this from some 15 year old rebelling against their parents. I believe in God and Jesus but dang I don't go spewing it every chance I get.
publikenemy:Liberals love to talk about how we should let Muslims have their prayer time, and how they are free to practice their beliefs, and we should all be tolerant. Actually, they say that about all beliefs...except for Christians...they are free to attack
Pretyy stupid ploy. You would think these braintrusts would have better things to do. It would be like putting up an anti-rap billboard just because you thought urban black youth music was stupid.
ThrobblefootSpectre:Yeah I was thinking the same thing. This is a politically correct ad hominem. Perhaps if I see signs ridiculing Ramadan and Muhammad ibn Abdullah during Muslim holy month, I might be convinced they actually oppose religious thought, rather than the obvious specifically anti-Christian agenda that we see now.
This doesn't mention the Christian gods. It just says god. Get over your poor persecuted self.
Mama's Boy:Why are even the grown up Atheists so full of teenage angst and trying to be edgy? I'd expect this from some 15 year old rebelling against their parents. I believe in God and Jesus but dang I don't go spewing it every chance I get.
This "teenage angst" is the anger I feel when I see the religious pushing their religion into my life through campaign, law, and legislation. It is the anger I feel when I am shunned by my peers, mocked and taunted, ignored and belittled because I do not believe in their god/s.
What you see as an attempt to be "edgy" is me asserting my rights and defending my world view.
My atheism was not a result of a teen-age rebellion against my parents, but from a love of Greek mythology as a child.
You have a right to your belief and me to a lack of mine. If you truly wish to keep your religion to yourself, then do so with your money and your votes. Do not allow your brethren to vote on propositions to ban abortion because it "murder babies." Do not agree to prohibiting the sale of alcohol on Sundays. And don't treat out assertion of rights and beliefs as a childish act fueled by pubescent emotions.
cptjeff:Kelbel: You brought up the back of a dollar. I work hard for my dollars. Did not go to college and seems that if you can pay 38,000; unless it was by grants, you make way more than I do.
I'm pretty sure she/he is working pretty damn hard for his/her money. Medical school ain't exactly a cakewalk.
And it's almost certainly paid by loans. You think medical students have time to work much on the side?
\Working your way through college is an absolute myth. \\Unless your family can pay for it, you're taking out loans.
Totally untrue, I did it. It takes twice as long, but it can be done.
Fart_Machine:publikenemy: Liberals love to talk about how we should let Muslims have their prayer time, and how they are free to practice their beliefs, and we should all be tolerant. Actually, they say that about all beliefs...except for Christians...they are free to attack
[www.goldrush.com image 350x262]
So wtf is that supposed to mean? There are a lot of Christians so we should attack? Stupid point guy...
Tolerance is key..just because you don't hold a similar belief, doesn't mean it's wrong. Atheists are so angry that others have beliefs. Let it be man let it be
Ah yes, insults and condescension. I assume from that you are atheist. It is a familiar pattern by now.
Anyway, to address your confusion (or intentional lie, whichever) - the signs in the article are specifically about Christmas and Jesus. It matter of factly says that in the article, so it's not really a matter of debate. Which is why I mentioned Ramadan and Mohamed as Muslim equivalents. That seems pretty clear.
publikenemy:Fart_Machine: publikenemy: Liberals love to talk about how we should let Muslims have their prayer time, and how they are free to practice their beliefs, and we should all be tolerant. Actually, they say that about all beliefs...except for Christians...they are free to attack
[www.goldrush.com image 350x262]
So wtf is that supposed to mean? There are a lot of Christians so we should attack? Stupid point guy...
Tolerance is key..just because you don't hold a similar belief, doesn't mean it's wrong. Atheists are so angry that others have beliefs. Let it be man let it be
No, it means you should calm down princess. Nobody is trying to oppress you.
ThrobblefootSpectre:Anyway, to address your confusion (or intentional lie, whichever) - the signs in the article are specifically about Christmas and Jesus.
FTA: One sign will feature the phrase "2 Million Floridians don't believe in gods,"
Britney Spear's Speculum:Atheists could put up a billboard that says "'Have a good day' - Courtesy of the Freedom From Religious Foundation" and people would still complain.
Actually, that would probably do more to help their cause than ruining some people's favorite time of year.
ThrobblefootSpectre:Anyway, to address your confusion (or intentional lie, whichever) - the signs in the article are specifically about Christmas and Jesus. It matter of factly says that in the article, so it's not really a matter of debate. Which is why I mentioned Ramadan and Mohamed as Muslim equivalents. That seems pretty clear.
Yes, I know. The sign in the article is stupid and ugly. I was addressing your generalization that atheists only "attack" Christians.
You're at church one fine Sunday when your farmer neighbor, Abraham leans over to you and tells you, "God has told me he requires me to sacrifice my son to him. I am to take my son directly after church to the middle of my south pasture and plunge a knife into his heart."
As a "person of God" what do you do? To call the police is to admit that your 'God' is imaginary, and that Abraham has a few screws loose.
Whiskey Priest:Britney Spear's Speculum: Atheists could put up a billboard that says "'Have a good day' - Courtesy of the Freedom From Religious Foundation" and people would still complain.
Actually, that would probably do more to help their cause than ruining some people's favorite time of year.
Whiskey Priest:Britney Spear's Speculum: Atheists could put up a billboard that says "'Have a good day' - Courtesy of the Freedom From Religious Foundation" and people would still complain.
Actually, that would probably do more to help their cause than ruining some people's favorite time of year.
And Christians screaming about a pretend War On Christmas is helping everyone enjoy the season?
It would be hilarious to see an OWS version of that pie chart showing the 99% shouting "Help! We're being oppressed!"
You're kind of clueless aren't you?
Either being the majority implies you cannot be oppressed or it doesn't. Can't have it both ways.
The point of OWS is that a wealthy elite have a huge control over the economic and political process. Do you believe non-Christians have the same control over their majority Christian counterparts?
Aw, is it that time of year when a few whiny insecure atheists need to do some attention whoring because they're feeling left out? Bless their hearts. I mean, I know plenty of atheists who don't care, so don't let these folks give any of y'all the wrong idea. Just shake your head and move on. They're not changing anyone's mind with their little billboards.
Baryogenesis:Or there is more to each position than just simply being part of a majority
True. But I am addressing that specific graphic in particular, which shows only relative proportions. I still think it would be hilarious to see an OWS version of the 99%. Maybe I'll do one in powerpoint today.
I don't freak out when i see billboards that say "turn to God before you get a divorce" (and yes that is an actual billboard in my area though I may have the wording a bit off). I just ignore it. Why? because I'm confident in my belief, or non-belief if you want to be technical. The fact that others have different beliefs doesn't "offend" me, not does it bother me that they try to express that belief publicly. I'm not an insecure person like so many Christians seem to be.
When others try to force their beliefs on me, by crafting laws based on religious texts, or forcing me to pray in school (or even remain silent while others pray) that doesn't just offend me. It infuriates me.
Do what you want personally but leave me out of it.
Nabb1:Aw, is it that time of year when a few whiny insecure atheists need to do some attention whoring because they're feeling left out?
It's also that time of year when a few whiny insecure Christians get butthurt over a billboard or their local chain merchant for printing banners with Happy Holidays.
The "atheists are as bad as christians" comments are always amusing.
You see, the big difference is that when atheists argue their lack of belief, they're correct and intellectually honest, but when religious people argue their beliefs are being crazy, delusional children (except that they're often 18 years of age or older!!!).
Thus, if you're part of the "atheists are as bad as christians" brigade, it shows you don't care about intellectual honesty and the problems that it causes our sad society because of religion's presence and all the other intellectually bankrupt, stupid ideas people have.
Way to let emotions get in the way of making good, mature decisions! Children.
eraser8:untaken_name: What makes you think those things are mutually exclusive?
The nature of morality.
untaken_name: Laws are codified morality enforced through the police power of the State.
So, the laws that permitted slavery were moral? The laws that permitted segregation were moral? The laws that permit abortion or moral?
You are confusing authority and obedience with morality. As I wrote earlier, sometimes, coincidentally, commands from authority will also be moral. But, in other instances, they will be manifestly immoral.
Um, I am not the one confused as to what morality is. By what metric do you measure what is moral and what is immoral? In what way are things "manifestly immoral" about some laws?
Jon iz teh kewl:WHY DONT ATHEISTS USE THIS MONEY TO ADVERTISE CD SALES OF THEIR SERMONS OR SOMETHING OH WAIT THEY DONT HAVE AN AGENDA THEY ARE JUST ___?
However, I fail to see how that would pave the way to rape, murder, and thievery. These have been firmly established as big "no"'s in our society.
Maybe my line of thinking is too narrow on this one?
/not snarky //honestly curious
It is generally religion which has established those things as "no"s. Even when people are not personally religious, they cannot escape the effects of religious programming on society. Nature doesn't abhor rape, murder, or thievery - they are RAMPANT in nature. There is no intrinsic value to human life - any more than there is intrinsic value in the life of cockroaches or birds. We have deluded ourselves into believing there is because of religion, and not just Christianity. Humans have a need to believe they are part of something larger than themselves, because the awful truth that we are completely alone and there is no objective good or evil is just that - awful. Most people are not prepared to face it, whatever they claim their philosophy is.
I find it very hard to care about this, or the other side argument that always spill off of it, like that old, "How can you prove that Jesus actually existed, regardless of whether he as a god?"
When I see a story like this, what it makes me think is that the highways are already glutted to the point of vomiting with billboards, especially in the urban areas. All with huge "BUY ME BUY ME" messages on them.
So if you want to make a connection between billboards, and what we worship in this country, there you go.
Kibbler: When I see a story like this, what it makes me think is that the highways are already glutted to the point of vomiting with billboards, especially in the urban areas. All with huge "BUY ME BUY ME" messages on them.
So if you want to make a connection between billboards, and what we worship in this country, there you go.
eraser8:Divinegrace: Not an Atheist, but the general feeling I get from them is that we should all be allowed to do whatever the fark we want, whenever the fark we want, and anyone who questions why they did what they did, or tries to tell them what they did was 'wrong' is simply trying to 'keep them down' by imposing 'made up fairy tales' on them.
Well, telling someone he shouldn't be able to work on the Sabbath because it is forbidden by a book IS simply trying to "keep him down" by imposing "made up fairy tales" on him.
Telling someone she shouldn't be allowed to marry the woman she loves because it is forbidden by a book IS simply trying to "keep her down" by imposing "made up fairy tales" on her.
Telling someone that he can't have bacon on his burger because it is forbidden by a book IS simply trying to "keep him down" by imposing "made up fairy tales" on him.
Don't stop there...
Telling someone that he/she can't cheat on their spouse because it is forbidden by a book IS simply trying to 'keep em down' by imposing 'made up fairy tales' on em.
Telling someone that they can't take what they want because it is forbidden by a book IS simply trying to 'keep em down' by imposing 'made up fairy tales' on em.
Telling someone that they kill someone they don't like because it is forbidden by a book IS simply trying to 'keep em down' by imposing 'made up fairy tales' on em.
Damn all those 'fundies' for trying to 'keep us down' by imposing 'made up fairy tales' on em.
I will tell you this, I fear no man, government, or death. Take away my love and respect for God and I will fark this world, and anyone who gets in my way, up six ways come Sunday. Have no doubt I would get away with it too!
Even if you DON'T have faith, count your blessing that I DO. I double dog dare you to actually make me lose mine.
Britney Spear's Speculum:These stupid articles always center around reactions and rebuttals from christian groups. How come whenever a priest molests a child, news outlets don't immediately ask atheist's their opinions?
Atheists could put up a billboard that says "'Have a good day' - Courtesy of the Freedom From Religious Foundation" and people would still complain.
Except this isn't a neutral message. It's an insult to Christians faith. Yes asking for the insulteds reaction is natural.
These kind of assholes, and you for defending them, are one of the reasons I hate to identify myself as atheist.
Jesus may not be my reason for the season, personally I celebrate family, food, and Santa but why do you need to slam on those who do believe?
As a concerned Christian I would like to take a moment to say...
Go ahead and put up the billboards. you have that right and I will defend that right to my very last dying breath. If some one's faith can be shaken by looking at a bill board for 2 seconds then their faith was not that strong to begin with.
As long as i can put up a pro christian sign with out you going apecrap about it then all things equal out. and I am cool with that.
Until someone is fed to a bloody great lion there is no "war on Christanity" in the USA.
thank you and God bless (if you believe that sort of thing, if not then have a nice day anyway)
\Working your way through college is an absolute myth. \\Unless your family can pay for it, you're taking out loans.
Hmm... 3 years at Univ No loans No grants or gifts No help from parents Walked out with a degree and no debt Some myth Did walk out with callouses on my hands and a good understanding of how a construction site works
as an atheist, one of the things that bugs me the most is when people foist their religious views on me. so i find this billboard to be really misguided and wrong. it only serves to feed negative stereotypes of atheists as whingeing fun-haters.
personally, i don't give a fark if you worship some sky wizard or whatever. just don't shove it down my throat, mmkay?
/christmas™ as we know it - santa, trees, elves, presents, etc. - has nothing to do with religion. it is a celebration of consumerism, and i'm a-ok with it.
Britney Spear's Speculum:These stupid articles always center around reactions and rebuttals from christian groups. How come whenever a priest molests a child, news outlets don't immediately ask atheist's their opinions?
Atheists could put up a billboard that says "'Have a good day' - Courtesy of the Freedom From Religious Foundation" and people would still complain.
You have to understand the media today is all about getting some ignorant moron to go DERP! DERP! DERP! It is hard to find atheists an that goes DERP! DERP! DERP! While on the other hand you can't swing a dead cat in the US with out hitting some Christian retard going DERP! DERP! DERP!
I understand that "normal" Christians get upset about "activist" atheists and feel put upon, but what those "normal" Christians -- particularly in America -- need to understand is that Atheists aren't pushing back against them, they are pushing back against a concerted effort by activist Christians to enact into law the subjective, short sighted, bigotted and, frankly, nonsensical and hypocritical beliefs of a particular brand of Christianity. When religous organizations attempt to lobby lawmakers and push referendums, they need to be stopped. Their stupid, xenophobic rules about sexuality and behavior should stay inside their temples and churches.
America is a secular nation. That is one of its greatest strengths.
Ryan2065:Despite the negative attention the billboards receive, American Atheists Communications Director Blair Scott said the signs aren't meant to offend people, but that he understands why it happens.
"When you question someone's long-held beliefs and doctrine they are going to be immediately offended and be on the defensive: it's a known psychological phenomenon," he told Opposing Views.
You're not helping... This makes it sound like your goal is converting people to your faith.
Well, the idea is to get people to abandon erroneous beliefs; however, that doesn't make it the equivalent of proselytizing. There's any number of "myths" the billboard could have been talking about - like, say, the various misconceptions a lot of people have about evolution or global warming - but I'd think that sensible people wouldn't see those as attempts to convert people to some "faith".
SuwonROKs:RexTalionis: Kelbel: Thanks for driving your opinion on me. I don't buy billboards to push my beliefs.
Not that I agree with the idea of the billboards, but how are they driving their ideas on you? It's a billboard. You glance at it for a couple of seconds while you're driving. Hardly driving beliefs onto anyone.
Would you say the same thing if it was one of those pro-Christian billboards? Personally I can't stand the Christians who have to make their views public. This atheist group is just as ridiculous as the Christians. I find it funny how hypocritical the atheists are. They cry foul when the Christians do it, but will support these stupid billboards.
Atheists are just as bad as Christians.
Uh, yes? I'll ignore it, because my views aren't so fragile as to be disturbed by a billboard, nor do I care about something I see for a few seconds on the road.
You should know better than to ask rhetorical questions that you don't already know the answers to.
Slaves2Darkness:Britney Spear's Speculum: These stupid articles always center around reactions and rebuttals from christian groups. How come whenever a priest molests a child, news outlets don't immediately ask atheist's their opinions?
Atheists could put up a billboard that says "'Have a good day' - Courtesy of the Freedom From Religious Foundation" and people would still complain.
You have to understand the media today is all about getting some ignorant moron to go DERP! DERP! DERP! It is hard to find atheists an that goes DERP! DERP! DERP! While on the other hand you can't swing a dead cat in the US with out hitting some Christian retard going DERP! DERP! DERP!
It's not hard to find atheists "an that goes DERP" when they helpfully put up billboards to announce their derpitude. Fortunately these particular derpers aren't representative of the larger group. Nor are smug derpsh*ts like you, thank science.
"The only appropriate attitude for man to have about the big questions is not the arrogant certitude that is the hallmark of religion, but DOUBT. Doubt is humble and that's what man needs to be."
Jon iz teh kewl:WHY DONT ATHEISTS USE THIS MONEY TO ADVERTISE CD SALES OF THEIR SERMONS OR SOMETHING OH WAIT THEY DONT HAVE AN AGENDA THEY ARE JUST ___?
"woot"? Come on, if you are going to troll with first-letter-of-words-spelling-another-word, at least have it spell out something good like boobies.
Blame Hofmann:The "atheists are as bad as christians" comments are always amusing.
You see, the big difference is that when atheists argue their lack of belief, they're correct and intellectually honest, but when religious people argue their beliefs are being crazy, delusional children (except that they're often 18 years of age or older!!!).
Thus, if you're part of the "atheists are as bad as christians" brigade, it shows you don't care about intellectual honesty and the problems that it causes our sad society because of religion's presence and all the other intellectually bankrupt, stupid ideas people have.
Way to let emotions get in the way of making good, mature decisions! Children.
This. I dont care so much for making billboards or debating metaphysical ideas. But i dont get all worked up when i see an atheist billboard. Im pretty sure ill never meet an atheist who'll tell me who i should or shouldn't put my pee pee in or heaven forbid, drink a beer on a sunday.
unLurked:I understand that "normal" Christians get upset about "activist" atheists and feel put upon, but what those "normal" Christians -- particularly in America -- need to understand is that Atheists aren't pushing back against them, they are pushing back against a concerted effort by activist Christians to enact into law the subjective, short sighted, bigotted and, frankly, nonsensical and hypocritical beliefs of a particular brand of Christianity. When religous organizations attempt to lobby lawmakers and push referendums, they need to be stopped. Their stupid, xenophobic rules about sexuality and behavior should stay inside their temples and churches.
America is a secular nation. That is one of its greatest strengths.
It's always easy to say "Gee, aren't you guys overreacting?" when the group in question is in the minority and public opinion is against them.
justoneznot:Unfortunately there seems to be a lot of atheists who became atheists not through critical thinking but out of rebellion. And maybe I shouldn't blame them, there are some Christians who try to shove their beliefs down peoples throats. But most of them aren't like that and we shouldn't treat them all as if they were.
I was basically raised agnostic but celebrated Christmas and Easter, and I would have called myself a Christian by default until I was confronted by my college RA who tried everything to get me to get saved. I didn't rebel against her but she prompted me to think about religion and realize that I don't know or care whether any of it is true and I don't think anyone else can know anything so it's a waste of time for me to think about.
That said, Christmas is still my favorite holiday and things like this are obnoxious. Instead of spending the money on a billboard, why don't they donate it to a charity or some other way to help people? This serves no purpose other than to try to get a reaction from people.
I'm all for it. I think it helps present some type of counter to the farkbrain Christians running around this country thinking that we all must believe what they do - and God help us if we don't. (Irony, get it?)
As an atheist I've cooled on my abhorrence of religion. I just don't care to piss off others with my non-belief or to openly mock religion anymore. If people shove religion in my face I'll calmly denounce it as a farce, but even that doesn't really do any good. Religion will go away on its own as the world slowly becomes more free thinking and education rises; pissing off religious folk will only make them cling to it longer.
Friggin' show offs. Yes, yes, you're an atheist because you came to the obvious conclusion that the supernatural doesn't exist. Congratulations; look at the brain on you. Now shut up and don't spoil Christmas.
/Christmas is an American holiday involving lovely decorations and presents and food and booze and family gatherings and children's stories. That's all it needs to be, because that's AWESOME.
unLurked:Atheists aren't pushing back against them
I take exception with people who phrase things like this. Atheists aren't pushing back against anybody just because they publicly state a fact.
Stating obvious facts and refusing to arbitrarily assume the validity of a group's claims isn't "pushing back" against anything. Christianity is no more valid than Islam is no more valid than Judaism is no more valid than Zoroastrianism is no more valid than Tengriism is no more valid than thinking that some drunken orgy of the gods resulted in them pooping out the entirety of human existence.
Stating those facts is no more an assault on anything than saying 1+1 = 2 is an assault on anybody's beliefs.
Facts don't stop being facts, nor do they become assaults of any kind, just because a few people get butthurt when you state them in public. And getting all butthurt in the first place just because somebody refuses to acknowledge your own myths and legends as fact is just stupid.
Slaves2Darkness:Britney Spear's Speculum: These stupid articles always center around reactions and rebuttals from christian groups. How come whenever a priest molests a child, news outlets don't immediately ask atheist's their opinions?
Atheists could put up a billboard that says "'Have a good day' - Courtesy of the Freedom From Religious Foundation" and people would still complain.
You have to understand the media today is all about getting some ignorant moron to go DERP! DERP! DERP! It is hard to find atheists an that goes DERP! DERP! DERP! While on the other hand you can't swing a dead cat in the US with out hitting some Christian retard going DERP! DERP! DERP!.
Meh. If it were just about that, they'd be trolling muslims. You know, "Muhammad is a myth" or some such. Now THAT would be some quality DERP.
A Pagan Celebration about the "birth of the sun" (return of longer days and shorter nights) is highjacked by the Christians and turns into a celebration about the "birth of the Son".
mbillips:Friggin' show offs. Yes, yes, you're an atheist because you came to the obvious conclusion that the supernatural doesn't exist. Congratulations; look at the brain on you. Now shut up and don't spoil Christmas.
/Christmas is an American holiday involving lovely decorations and presents and food and booze and family gatherings and children's stories. That's all it needs to be, because that's AWESOME.
Yes, only Americans celebrate Christmas. We invented it, right?
Barakku:unLurked: I understand that "normal" Christians get upset about "activist" atheists and feel put upon, but what those "normal" Christians -- particularly in America -- need to understand is that Atheists aren't pushing back against them, they are pushing back against a concerted effort by activist Christians to enact into law the subjective, short sighted, bigotted and, frankly, nonsensical and hypocritical beliefs of a particular brand of Christianity. When religous organizations attempt to lobby lawmakers and push referendums, they need to be stopped. Their stupid, xenophobic rules about sexuality and behavior should stay inside their temples and churches.
America is a secular nation. That is one of its greatest strengths.
It's always easy to say "Gee, aren't you guys overreacting?" when the group in question is in the minority and public opinion is against them.
Yup. For other examples of this in action, see: Blacks, Jews, Women, Gays, Vegetarians, Hispanics, Asians, etc. All of these groups have "overreacted" at one time or another. And the majority saw them as so out of line by wanting equality, or at least a different role in life, that various medical diagnoses were created with very "put you in your place" style cures. A slave who didn't want to be a slave was diagnosed with drapetomania and the cure was to beat the slave and take away as much freedom or authority as the slave had. A woman who expressed emotions strongly (particularly distress at her life) was diagnoses with hysteria and had her vagina fumigated (long ago when they thought the cause was a wandering uterus) or were told to sexually satisfy and serve her husband (up until the 20th century, when they thought it was caused by distress over the man's well-being).
The Christian reaction specifically and the religious reaction in general towards atheists is not surprising. Up until the Tea Party, atheists have consistently been considered the least trustworthy group of people in the country.
Meanwhile many atheists that I know continue to call it christmas. And even enjoy putting stars on top of the tree. Granted X-wings, and other random star wars ornaments are placed on the tree
mbillips:/Christmas is an American holiday involving lovely decorations and presents and food and booze and family gatherings and children's stories. That's all it needs to be, because that's AWESOME.
All of which has nothing to do with religion, so what's the problem with stating that fact?
/was at a coffee shop last night trying to study but had a table full of Republicans sitting to my left going on about evil Democrats wanting to rig elections and a table full of Christians sitting to my right congratulating themselves over their presumed superior understanding of probably the only book they've ever read in their lifetimes. I wanted to blow my brains out. //no idea what that has to do with anything
StrangeQ:mbillips: /Christmas is an American holiday involving lovely decorations and presents and food and booze and family gatherings and children's stories. That's all it needs to be, because that's AWESOME.
All of which has nothing to do with religion, so what's the problem with stating that fact?
/was at a coffee shop last night trying to study but had a table full of Republicans sitting to my left going on about evil Democrats wanting to rig elections and a table full of Christians sitting to my right congratulating themselves over their presumed superior understanding of probably the only book they've ever read in their lifetimes. I wanted to blow my brains out. //no idea what that has to do with anything
FTFA: "Santa, Jesus, Poseidon and the devil" "Only the most dense and simple-minded person would put [Jesus] in the same category as the other three. Clearly, even those who lack a personal commitment to Jesus recognize that there was in fact some historical figure by this name -- religious leader and teacher -- around 2,000 years ago."
Actually, of those four, Santa is the only one based on a historical figure (Saint Nicholas). No, Jesus is not a documented historical figure. No, the bible is not a historical document.
david_gaithersburg:StrangeQ: mbillips: /Christmas is an American holiday involving lovely decorations and presents and food and booze and family gatherings and children's stories. That's all it needs to be, because that's AWESOME.
All of which has nothing to do with religion, so what's the problem with stating that fact?
/was at a coffee shop last night trying to study but had a table full of Republicans sitting to my left going on about evil Democrats wanting to rig elections and a table full of Christians sitting to my right congratulating themselves over their presumed superior understanding of probably the only book they've ever read in their lifetimes. I wanted to blow my brains out. //no idea what that has to do with anything
Jon iz teh kewl:WHAT IS SO HARD TO BELIEVE. THAT SOMEONE AS NICE AS JESUS ONCE EXISTED?
SOMEONE THAT DIDNT FIGHT WITH OTHERS ACTUALLY EXISTED?
OR ARE U DETESTING THE FACT THAT JESUS WAS BORN FROM A DIFFERENT FATHER. THAT PART BOTHERS U INTO THINKING ITS NOT A REAL EVENT.
LOTS OF KIDS ARE BORN TO DIFFERENT FATHERS TODAY HOW STUPID ARE U PEOPLE??
Oh I don't know, probably the whole son of god who is god/virgin birth, walking on water, turning water into wine, healing the sick, rising from the dead. You know all the things that pretty much sound like a fairy tale or ideas that were stolen about other mythological characters etc.
You call atheists stupid? We're not the ones who believe in talking snakes, talking burning bushes, man was created by dust and women by a man's rib, all animals were within walking distance to a boat and even arctic animals like polar bears could survive the trip and they could all fit, get along and eat/drink on the boat as well.
jingks:Christmas isn't a myth. It's a public holiday that occurs every year. What a bunch of idiots.
Not to mention the fact that various races celebrate a version of Christmas, just not as a Christian holiday. Heck, every anime has an episode or two on Christmas, and even one for Valentine's Day.
/and despite public opinion, Santa Claus isn't a myth, it's a legend. it is based on a real person.
jaymanchu:Jon iz teh kewl: WHAT IS SO HARD TO BELIEVE. THAT SOMEONE AS NICE AS JESUS ONCE EXISTED?
SOMEONE THAT DIDNT FIGHT WITH OTHERS ACTUALLY EXISTED?
OR ARE U DETESTING THE FACT THAT JESUS WAS BORN FROM A DIFFERENT FATHER. THAT PART BOTHERS U INTO THINKING ITS NOT A REAL EVENT.
LOTS OF KIDS ARE BORN TO DIFFERENT FATHERS TODAY HOW STUPID ARE U PEOPLE??
Oh I don't know, probably the whole son of god who is god/virgin birth, walking on water, turning water into wine, healing the sick, rising from the dead. You know all the things that pretty much sound like a fairy tale or ideas that were stolen about other mythological characters etc.
You call atheists stupid? We're not the ones who believe in talking snakes, talking burning bushes, man was created by dust and women by a man's rib, all animals were within walking distance to a boat and even arctic animals like polar bears could survive the trip and they could all fit, get along and eat/drink on the boat as well.
/feeding the troll
UH DID NOAH KNOW POLAR BEARS EXISTED? NOPE> SO HE GOT "ALL" ANIMALS
AND REGARDING TALKING ANIMALS.
DOGS TALK. CATS TALK. WHY NOT SNAKES. IF UR TOO STUPID TO HEAR THEM UR PROBABLY STILL TAKING SEROQUEL.
Let us all take a moment to thank Drew and the rest of the Fark team for providing such a convenient new way to ignore people who type in all capitals.
Thank you, Drew and Fark team. You guys are the best.
People_are_Idiots:/and despite public opinion, Santa Claus isn't a myth, it's a legend. it is based on a real person.
Santa Claus isn't really a legend, it was an invented product of the late 1800s and was created by Thomas Nast. It draws on analogues from other countries, but its actual link to the real St. Nicholas is pretty darn tenuous.
CapnBlues:Let us all take a moment to thank Drew and the rest of the Fark team for providing such a convenient new way to ignore people who type in all capitals.
Thank you, Drew and Fark team. You guys are the best.
justoneznot:As an atheist, I don't really support things like this. Let people believe what they want to believe, quit being a douche. Yeah I get it, God is a fairy tale and there's a bunch of pedophile priests. There's also millions of every day people like you and me that have religious believes which help give their lives meaning. Let them be.
I'm torn. I also think that these ads are douchey, but I do think that region is harmful to society. In general though, when you're dealing with people's deeply held beliefs, you need to tread lightly. jmadisonbiii:Slaves2Darkness: Britney Spear's Speculum: These stupid articles always center around reactions and rebuttals from christian groups. How come whenever a priest molests a child, news outlets don't immediately ask atheist's their opinions?
Atheists could put up a billboard that says "'Have a good day' - Courtesy of the Freedom From Religious Foundation" and people would still complain.
You have to understand the media today is all about getting some ignorant moron to go DERP! DERP! DERP! It is hard to find atheists an that goes DERP! DERP! DERP! While on the other hand you can't swing a dead cat in the US with out hitting some Christian retard going DERP! DERP! DERP!.
Meh. If it were just about that, they'd be trolling muslims. You know, "Muhammad is a myth" or some such. Now THAT would be some quality DERP. [www.danzfamily.com image 388x310]
The US doesn't have a huge population of extremist Muslims, we do have a huge population of extremist Christians.
Uncle Tractor:FTFA: "Santa, Jesus, Poseidon and the devil" "Only the most dense and simple-minded person would put [Jesus] in the same category as the other three. Clearly, even those who lack a personal commitment to Jesus recognize that there was in fact some historical figure by this name -- religious leader and teacher -- around 2,000 years ago."
Actually, of those four, Santa is the only one based on a historical figure (Saint Nicholas). No, Jesus is not a documented historical figure. No, the bible is not a historical document.
By your critera, Herodotus, Plato, Tacitus, and Pliny are also figments of people's imaginations.
Doubt you'll find too many classical scholars agreeing with you.
Flubb:Uncle Tractor: FTFA: "Santa, Jesus, Poseidon and the devil" "Only the most dense and simple-minded person would put [Jesus] in the same category as the other three. Clearly, even those who lack a personal commitment to Jesus recognize that there was in fact some historical figure by this name -- religious leader and teacher -- around 2,000 years ago."
Actually, of those four, Santa is the only one based on a historical figure (Saint Nicholas). No, Jesus is not a documented historical figure. No, the bible is not a historical document.
By your critera, Herodotus, Plato, Tacitus, and Pliny are also figments of people's imaginations.
Doubt you'll find too many classical scholars agreeing with you.
well... not many people are making crusades out of the ideas of those people, either. i mean, i can't remember ever hearing anyone say "what would Pliny do?" Or "I'm going to try to live every day like Herodotus"
With great power comes great responsibility. One might even say that with claims of divinity comes the burden of proof.
Smarshmallow:I'm torn. I also think that these ads are douchey, but I do think that region is harmful to society. In general though, when you're dealing with people's deeply held beliefs, you need to tread lightly.
I disagree. Let's take another dangerous false belief that is deeply held by a large segment of the population and see if it sounds douchey:
"Doctors know it's a myth: This season, get your children vaccinated. It could save their life."
Nope. Not douchey at all. Prudent, succinct, and supporting a factual view that is more beneficial to society than respecting people's silly counter-factual beliefs.
I see no reason to tread lightly when people are adamant about being so dead wrong on an issue. We marginalize racist worldviews, we marginalize Holocaust denial, we marginalize UFO conspiracy theorists... Why not go the extra mile and marginalize equally wrong and crazy beliefs that just happened to have existed for hundreds or thousands of years.
RexTalionis:People_are_Idiots: /and despite public opinion, Santa Claus isn't a myth, it's a legend. it is based on a real person.
Santa Claus isn't really a legend, it was an invented product of the late 1800s and was created by Thomas Nast. It draws on analogues from other countries, but its actual link to the real St. Nicholas is pretty darn tenuous.
Ehhh... here, the Wikipedia article. Link (new window)
"Santa Claus, often abbreviated Santa, is a figure in North American culture who reflects an amalgamation of the Dutch Sinterklaas, the English Father Christmas, and Christmas gift-bringers in other traditions. Santa Claus is said to bring gifts to the homes of good children during the late evening and overnight hours of Christmas Eve, December 24. Santa Claus in this contemporary understanding echoes aspects of hagiographical tales concerning the historical figure of gift-giver Saint Nicholas, the man from whom the name of Santa Claus derives and in whose honor Santa Claus may be referred to as Saint Nicholas or Saint Nick."
FishyFred:Britney Spear's Speculum: Atheists could put up a billboard that says "'Have a good day' - Courtesy of the Freedom From Religious Foundation" and people would still complain.
That's why. The mere existence of atheists drives religious people crazy.
........and the existence of religion drives atheists crazy.
Kome:I see no reason to tread lightly when people are adamant about being so dead wrong on an issue. We marginalize racist worldviews, we marginalize Holocaust denial, we marginalize UFO conspiracy theorists... Why not go the extra mile and marginalize equally wrong and crazy beliefs that just happened to have existed for hundreds or thousands of years.
Simple answer: too many people still believe it. We couldn't marginalize racists until the civil rights movement was well under way and enough former racists and racists' children had a change of heart. When racists were a small enough percentage of the population we were able to marginalize them. Until religious belief falls well below the current 90% of the population there won't be enough people to attempt to marginalize such beliefs to be effective.
Talon:Kome: I see no reason to tread lightly when people are adamant about being so dead wrong on an issue. We marginalize racist worldviews, we marginalize Holocaust denial, we marginalize UFO conspiracy theorists... Why not go the extra mile and marginalize equally wrong and crazy beliefs that just happened to have existed for hundreds or thousands of years.
Simple answer: too many people still believe it. We couldn't marginalize racists until the civil rights movement was well under way and enough former racists and racists' children had a change of heart. When racists were a small enough percentage of the population we were able to marginalize them. Until religious belief falls well below the current 90% of the population there won't be enough people to attempt to marginalize such beliefs to be effective.
I believe the civil rights movement was, among other things, an attempt to marginalize racist views before that kind of overt discrimination based on skin-color was a minority viewpoint. I get what you're saying, I just don't see the need to wait to start marginalizing dangerous views now just because they happen to be religious (and keep in mind, religious views have been and are intimately connected to racist views, sexist views, and so on, so challenging those kinds of views have been rebuked by some as an attack against this or that religion anyway).
Careful, those billboards are going to jump down and convert you and the next thing you'll know, you'll be paying tithes to a mega-church and telling everyone within earshot of how Jesus Christ is your personal lord and savior so much that even Tim Tebow will think you are laying it on too thick.
Most Christians don't give a flying fark about atheists. And the vocal evangelicals who are largely responsible for those sorts of antagonistic billboards annoy the heck out of everyone. You're not persecuted.
Talon:Kome: I see no reason to tread lightly when people are adamant about being so dead wrong on an issue. We marginalize racist worldviews, we marginalize Holocaust denial, we marginalize UFO conspiracy theorists... Why not go the extra mile and marginalize equally wrong and crazy beliefs that just happened to have existed for hundreds or thousands of years.
Simple answer: too many people still believe it. We couldn't marginalize racists until the civil rights movement was well under way and enough former racists and racists' children had a change of heart. When racists were a small enough percentage of the population we were able to marginalize them. Until religious belief falls well below the current 90% of the population there won't be enough people to attempt to marginalize such beliefs to be effective.
Seems like a waste of effort to try to marginalize religious beliefs. Who cares what somebody else thinks about religion so long as they're not forcing it on you? I don't believe. I generally don't have a problem with believers. Heck, I even go to church or temple with them if they ask nicely (as long as they feed me afterwards for my time).
(For the points where they're trying to force religion on you, by all means, push back. But pushing just to marginalize the belief is stupid - you'll never get much of anywhere and you would've expended a lot of effort for nothing.)
Flubb:By your critera, Herodotus, Plato, Tacitus, and Pliny are also figments of people's imaginations.
Doubt you'll find too many classical scholars agreeing with you.
I wonder what you think my criteria are.
As for the four you mentioned; all four left evidence of their existence, something Jesus did not. Also, unlike Jesus, they never violated the laws of nature. I suppose to mentioned Tacitus and Pliny because they are often used as examples of "documentation" that Jesus lived. Unfortunately, that's not much;
Pliny wrote about the persecution of early Christians. That does not in any way prove the existence of Jesus.
Tacitus mentioned the death of Jesus, but it's not a first-hand account, nor does it give any specifics that could lead to actual evidence. What he wrote about Jesus could just as easily be something he was told by a christian.
The idea that Jesus is a well-documented historical figure is just a truism. If there is any evidence that he existed, then I have yet to see it. (not that that proves anything)
How come you billboard happy folks don't try this with Islam? You know, find a Muslim neighborhood, and put up a billboard during Ramadan that says something like, "Why are you skipping lunch? You know it's a myth. Eat something and ditch that silly Mohammed." How come it's always Christmas you're after?
farkityfarker:That has absolutely nothing to do with anything ELSE associated with Jesus, or the validity or non-validity of his teachings; except to say if he was even one-tenth as holy a man as his followers claim, he'd be a thousand times more godly than any of those who claim to be "Christians" today.
On what evidence, outside of the Bible or secondary references to it, do you base your belief that Jesus was an actual person who existed?
You mean besides the recorded oral tradition of the cultural to which he was a member?
Smelly McUgly:You can be an agnostic atheist (or an agnostic theist), correct? Which one is the one that is actually firm and definitive about their being no gods? It isn't either of the ones that I mentioned, but I forget my little four-square belief chart.
Nabb1:How come you billboard happy folks don't try this with Islam? You know, find a Muslim neighborhood, and put up a billboard during Ramadan that says something like, "Why are you skipping lunch? You know it's a myth. Eat something and ditch that silly Mohammed." How come it's always Christmas you're after?
Are Muslims putting up billboards along the highway proselytizing their religion?
Fart_Machine:publikenemy: Liberals love to talk about how we should let Muslims have their prayer time, and how they are free to practice their beliefs, and we should all be tolerant. Actually, they say that about all beliefs...except for Christians...they are free to attack
[www.goldrush.com image 350x262]
Go ask the Syrians how accurate that pac-man graphic is.
FishyFred:Britney Spear's Speculum: Atheists could put up a billboard that says "'Have a good day' - Courtesy of the Freedom From Religious Foundation" and people would still complain.
That's why. The mere existence of atheists drives religious people crazy.
Obviously the mere existence of religious people drives atheist crazy, or at least enough to by bill boards to antagonize
Peacedog:Cucullen: The essence of Christianity transcends the story and the religion. Be nice to poor people, be humble and forgiving. You may not see a lot of Christians like this, but there are hundreds of millions of them out there. Just like there hundreds of millions of Muslims out there who try to act the same. People aren't perfect and the most visible in these religions are inevitably the most proud and hypocritical. If you write them all off because of a few you'll miss knowing a lot of decent people. You can scoff at the stories if you like, but they help a lot of people try to live decent lives and give them hope in difficult situations.
See here's my problem, the most visible tend to be the "leaders" and it appears that most of these "leaders" definitely have a stake in keeping their flocks in perpetual ignorance and fear so as to keep the racket going.
Couple of "not so cool stories, bro"
I grew up having to go to the church that doesn't believe in doctors. Now my family did go to doctors, but Mom took us to this church to keep her family happy. Can you imagine a 6 year old kid every Sunday watching an old man's nose rot off his face because his "faith" was going to do a better job removing that cancer than a doctor? The man was revered in the church until the day he died by the "elders" because he had such strong faith. My dad, years later, had the same cancer this old man had on his nose and in less than an hour doctors had it removed with nothing to show for it but a slight notch in his nose. Many kids were scarred for life by the image of that old man and his rotting face and it didn't have to happen if the "leaders" of the church instead of praising him maybe said "hey, god works in mysterious ways, go get that shiat cut out". That's just one horror story. Let's not talk about the dead young mothers to the hands of midwives, the "crippled to the point of not being able to support their families" men who thought god would heal their broken arms or legs, or the dead kids whose parents thought god would heal their concussions or virii that antibiotics would have taken care of in a day.
Second story, my brother-in-law had a problem with drugs. He went to a christian rehab clinic, which I'll admit did wonders for him. When my sister and he moved back home from out-of-state the first thing he wanted to do was find a nice church to go to. He found one in our hometown, and my parents (who hadn't been to church for years) out of support joined the church with him and my sister. In less than a month, let me repeat, less than a month, my fairly liberal family turned into a recruitment poster for the most hard-core fundamentalist neocon assholes you've ever met in your life. One sunday dinner, my former "pro-gay rights" sister informed everyone that the problem with this country was "those damn queers". She was well on her way to believing the "autism was caused by vaccinations" bullshiat, also. My brother-in-law informed me that he used to love nature and science shows, but he doesn't watch them anymore since he now "knows" that the world is only six thousand years old. Oh did you also know that we don't have a president in the white house, we have a n**ger, mexicans are stealing our jobs, and that every muslim in the world is a crazy terrorist.
Now what in the world could've caused this rapid change in my family? Well, I guess you could say they were gullible and ignorant people, but they didn't used to be. I met the pompous prick they call their "pastor", and all I can say is that he had this smug look on his face that can only come from having so much control over other people. But hey, guess what, they're adding on to their already huge ass church every day so I guess I'd have a smug look on my face too. Pretty soon, it'll be all bmw's and banging chicks (or dudes) in the youth group at the expense of other people's families. Aint religion grand?
//Of course these stories will be downplayed because of their "anecdotal" qualities. Which, as a critical thinker, I'm just fine with. //Wouldn't have a problem with religion in America if it wasn't so much "fox news on a bun" that it appears to be nowadays.
"Religion is excellent for keeping the common people quiet" -- Napoleon Bonaparte
Religions exist as a tool of social control so that the elite ruling class in their palaces doesn't get overrun by the unwashed proles who toil in the fields. It works just as well for the 1% over the Teahadists as it did for Napoleon - remember, he became emperor only a couple of decades after the overthrow of Louis XIV.
Religions can be a force for good - such as telling Jews in 3,000 BC not to eat prawns becaue back then they didn't live in Upper West Side apartments with refrigerators.
I know many people who are quietly Christian, Hindu or Muslim who have excellent morality and do good for others.
However, religions and the corrupt oligarchies they create and sustain are responsible for a lot more evil and harm than good.
Another issue is the suppression of the truth - religious power structures derive their authority from the myths they promulgate, and the truth is a challenge to that power. As a result, they suppress science and learning, to the detriment of the progress of our civilization.
Any pop psychologist can explain why the concepts of gods and afterlives are so appealing; however, I think it's quite clear that religions have outlived their usefulness and impede our development as a species.
As a tween, there was lots of cool stuff I wanted to believe in: aliens visiting earth, Atlantis, ghosts, room temperature fusion, the Loch Ness Monster. As a teenager, I came to accept that none of that stuff exists, just like gods and Leprechauns don't.
It's perfectly possible to be content and have a fulfilling life knowing that you are just a lump of meat and that when you die your consciousness will simply cease. Just like a 3 year old no longer needs a pacifier, humans don't need the emotional crutch of a religion.
Atheist, but only because I'm a scientist and I don't get choices about my beliefs; I use techonology to measure and understand the world around us, and whatever the data shows, that is what I "believe".
Reality is not scary ... come on in, the water is fine.
"I contend that we are both atheists; I just happen to believe in one less god than you"
Nabb1:How come you billboard happy folks don't try this with Islam? You know, find a Muslim neighborhood, and put up a billboard during Ramadan that says something like, "Why are you skipping lunch? You know it's a myth. Eat something and ditch that silly Mohammed." How come it's always Christmas you're after?
Because doing that sort of thing in a theocracy is bad for your health, which is why US atheists are right to at least try to make people think. After all, the US has had at least one president who's said that atheists are not citizens of the US.
Also, why should atheists in the US bother putting up billboards about Islam? They're not a threat to the US. Not the way christians are, anyway.
/not that your post doesn't sound like a "why are you picking on us" whine //nope not at all
Nabb1:How come you billboard happy folks don't try this with Islam? You know, find a Muslim neighborhood, and put up a billboard during Ramadan that says something like, "Why are you skipping lunch? You know it's a myth. Eat something and ditch that silly Mohammed." How come it's always Christmas you're after?
In the US, Christians are the majority by a wide margin. And, to be fair, a lot of the anti-Muslim sentiment in the US comes from Christians, so criticizing that delusion is pretty well covered.
Fart_Machine:Nabb1: How come you billboard happy folks don't try this with Islam? You know, find a Muslim neighborhood, and put up a billboard during Ramadan that says something like, "Why are you skipping lunch? You know it's a myth. Eat something and ditch that silly Mohammed." How come it's always Christmas you're after?
Are Muslims putting up billboards along the highway proselytizing their religion?
Oh, so you have a problem with billboards, then? You know, if billboards were that influential, I'm fairly certain I would have spent my life savings at South of the Border when I was living in South Carolina. Personally, I don't think too much of any billboards, but if you find them that intrusive into your life, well, good luck and godspeed in your crusade.
Eh, or just "good luck." Don't want to offend anyone.
This text is now purple:Fart_Machine: publikenemy: Liberals love to talk about how we should let Muslims have their prayer time, and how they are free to practice their beliefs, and we should all be tolerant. Actually, they say that about all beliefs...except for Christians...they are free to attack
[www.goldrush.com image 350x262]
Go ask the Syrians how accurate that pac-man graphic is.
My own view on religion is that of Lucretius. I regard it as a disease born of fear and as a source of untold misery to the human race. I cannot, however, deny that it has made some contributions to civilization. It helped in early days to fix the calendar, and it caused Egyptian priests to chronicle eclipses with such care that in time they became able to predict them. These two services I am prepared to acknowledge, but I do not know of any others. -- Bertrand Russell
By the standards of many in this thread, that opinion means that Russell was an asshole. Sorry, not buying it.
Uncle Tractor:Nabb1: How come you billboard happy folks don't try this with Islam? You know, find a Muslim neighborhood, and put up a billboard during Ramadan that says something like, "Why are you skipping lunch? You know it's a myth. Eat something and ditch that silly Mohammed." How come it's always Christmas you're after?
Because doing that sort of thing in a theocracy is bad for your health, which is why US atheists are right to at least try to make people think. After all, the US has had at least one president who's said that atheists are not citizens of the US.
[i560.photobucket.com image 466x368]
Also, why should atheists in the US bother putting up billboards about Islam? They're not a threat to the US. Not the way christians are, anyway.
/not that your post doesn't sound like a "why are you picking on us" whine //nope not at all
No, I'm not whining. Your impotent rage means f*ck all to me. I haven't been to church in years and don't really ascribe strongly to any particular beliefs one way or another. I'm just lack the insecurity to feel threatened by other beliefs. And I just like trolling zealots. I used to do it to the evangelicals when I grew up in SC, too.
mainstreet62:Sarah Palin's Conscience: mainstreet62: I will issue a challenge to atheists right here, right now.
Go to a Muslim country, and put up you billboards full of atheist bullshiat. Let's see what happens.
Just remember that you farksticks would be burned at the stake in basically any other country than the US.
You idiots feel emboldened to shout down religion everywhere? Uh, HELLO McFLY, huge conflicts have started over religion, do you REALLY think telling the warring sides that their gods don't exist is the right path?
Yes.
Act on your belief, then. Put up a billboard in Turkey, let us see the hilarity that ensues.
Mrs PH was in the cult that send the blondes to Afgahnistan to prosleytize in 2001 just before 9/11 so getting a kick out of your reply.
Social freedoms in the USA are excellent, but they have nothing to do with Christianity; in fact, the majority of efforts to reduce freedoms come from the more extreme Christian sects ... overturning Roe v Wade being the most obvious example.
Social freedoms in Western Europe are even better, and this might arguably be correlated with the growing secularization of those nations.
Kome:I believe the civil rights movement was, among other things, an attempt to marginalize racist views before that kind of overt discrimination based on skin-color was a minority viewpoint. I get what you're saying, I just don't see the need to wait to start marginalizing dangerous views now just because they happen to be religious (and keep in mind, religious views have been and are intimately connected to racist views, sexist views, and so on, so challenging those kinds of views have been rebuked by some as an attack against this or that religion anyway).
Thinking like that was very popular in 1910s Russia.
Wasn't as humanist a concept in execution as you might hope.
Nabb1:No, I'm not whining. Your impotent rage means f*ck all to me. I haven't been to church in years and don't really ascribe strongly to any particular beliefs one way or another. I'm just lack the insecurity to feel threatened by other beliefs. And I just like trolling zealots. I used to do it to the evangelicals when I grew up in SC, too.
The only good thing about the evangelical zealots that I've found is that they're happy to give you free bibles if you ask them.
ParaHandy:Social freedoms in the USA are excellent, but they have nothing to do with Christianity; in fact, the majority of efforts to reduce freedoms come from the more extreme Christian sects ... overturning Roe v Wade being the most obvious example.
I would say DOMA is the most obvious example, because they've made a lot more headway towards that goal than overturning Roe v. Wade. Although the progress being made in that area by religious folks is still scary to contemplate.
I can sort of understand a non-religious objection to abortion that is defensible (though not at the level of a federal law). I cannot think of a non-religious objection to letting gays and lesbians get married (and especially not one that would make it a federal law).
Nabb1:Fart_Machine: Nabb1: How come you billboard happy folks don't try this with Islam? You know, find a Muslim neighborhood, and put up a billboard during Ramadan that says something like, "Why are you skipping lunch? You know it's a myth. Eat something and ditch that silly Mohammed." How come it's always Christmas you're after?
Are Muslims putting up billboards along the highway proselytizing their religion?
Oh, so you have a problem with billboards, then? You know, if billboards were that influential, I'm fairly certain I would have spent my life savings at South of the Border when I was living in South Carolina. Personally, I don't think too much of any billboards, but if you find them that intrusive into your life, well, good luck and godspeed in your crusade.
Eh, or just "good luck." Don't want to offend anyone.
No, you asked why they'd target Christians (which is one billboard, since the others apparently are non-specific). They don't have any billboards specifically referencing Judaism or Hinduism either. What is your fixation with Islam?
MayoSlather:As an atheist I've cooled on my abhorrence of religion. I just don't care to piss off others with my non-belief or to openly mock religion anymore. If people shove religion in my face I'll calmly denounce it as a farce, but even that doesn't really do any good. Religion will go away on its own as the world slowly becomes more free thinking and education rises; pissing off religious folk will only make them cling to it longer.
halfof33:Fundie Atheists are hilarious. Good luck with your proselytizing billboards!
Atheists "proselytize" the same way that English teachers proselytize about proper grammar and spelling, and how Math teachers proselytize about proper order of operations.
RexTalionis:Nabb1: No, I'm not whining. Your impotent rage means f*ck all to me. I haven't been to church in years and don't really ascribe strongly to any particular beliefs one way or another. I'm just lack the insecurity to feel threatened by other beliefs. And I just like trolling zealots. I used to do it to the evangelicals when I grew up in SC, too.
The only good thing about the evangelical zealots that I've found is that they're happy to give you free bibles if you ask them.
Yeah, but it's the wrong version.
Fart_Machine:No, you asked why they'd target Christians (which is one billboard, since the others apparently are non-specific). They don't have any billboards specifically referencing Judaism or Hinduism either. What is your fixation with Islam?
I don't have a fixation with anyone. Except maybe Kate Upton. She's teh hawt.
BurnShrike:halfof33: Fundie Atheists are hilarious. Good luck with your proselytizing billboards!
Atheists "proselytize" the same way that English teachers proselytize about proper grammar and spelling, and how Math teachers proselytize about proper order of operations.
Teachers take out billboards?
Oh wait, Atheists are hired by someone to proselytize?
Hey, maybe you should get someone to proselytize about a little logic, hmmm?
Again, I have no problem with the Atheist's Religious Billboards. Good for them! Freedom of religion and whatnot.
Divinegrace:mainstreet62: I'M TROLLING?! Because I asked atheists to describe what alternative written moral code they would have us live by?
By destroying the idea that deities exist, they destroy the Bible which is based on the fact the God exists.
Isn't it morally reprehensible to kill a moral code that allows goodwill towards men and not replace it? Does it exist? What are a large majority of US laws based on?
I want to know why I should take an atheist seriously if they aren't selling ideas that promote inner peace and goodwill towards others. Enlighten me!
Not an Atheist, but the general feeling I get from them is that we should all be allowed to do whatever the fark we want, whenever the fark we want, and anyone who questions why they did what they did, or tries to tell them what they did was 'wrong' is simply trying to 'keep them down' by imposing 'made up fairy tales' on them.
Not saying this is how they ALL think, but I KNOW I have meet some who have told me just as much.
Meh, that sounds like a bunch petulent kids, i.e. 16-26, who are mad at mommy and daddy. One of the problems that atheism has is that it is cool among the college set right now. Those kids are some of the most asinine, rude, little shiats who don't do the cause any good.
Most of these folk will get married, have kids, and go back to worshiping the god of their mothers and fathers. Not all granted, but most of them.
James F. Campbell:FTA: "Only the most dense and simple-minded person would put [Jesus] in the same category as the other three. Clearly, even those who lack a personal commitment to Jesus recognize that there was in fact some historical figure by this name -- religious leader and teacher -- around 2,000 years ago."
... And? Even if that were true, so what?
Saint Nicholas existed. In fact, there's more non-biased evidence for his existence than there is for Jesus.
BurnShrike:halfof33: Fundie Atheists are hilarious. Good luck with your proselytizing billboards!
Atheists "proselytize" the same way that English teachers proselytize about proper grammar and spelling, and how Math teachers proselytize about proper order of operations.
Late to the party, but as an Atheist, I think this billboard is pretty douchey. Not that there aren't 1 million douchey religious billboards, but let's not play at a douche level, mmmkay?
I have a huge problem with this in that it is November farking 16th. Can we at least wait to fire the annual opening salvos in this yearly wharrrr until after Thanksgiving?
ParaHandy:MayoSlather: As an atheist I've cooled on my abhorrence of religion. I just don't care to piss off others with my non-belief or to openly mock religion anymore. If people shove religion in my face I'll calmly denounce it as a farce, but even that doesn't really do any good. Religion will go away on its own as the world slowly becomes more free thinking and education rises; pissing off religious folk will only make them cling to it longer.
THIS, and lots of it.
Bad ideas do not go away on their own. It took concentrated effort to reduce the racist, sexist, and homophobic attitudes that have existed in much worse and more prevalent states in human history, and it's taking just as much effort now to reduce those views even more. Bad ideas spread like wildfire - look at anti-vaccination views since 1998, or acceptance rates of homeopathic "medicine" over the last few decades years, or how quickly Obama being a Muslim became a fact to such a large number of people in the United States over a period of months. Religious ideas are more entrenched bad ideas, personally and socially. It will take much more effort to diminish the influence of those delusional, bad ideas. Idly sitting by accomplishes less than nothing when it comes to combating erroneous views.
It's probably because I only hear about their more provocative deeds, but I feel like American Atheists has become the PETA of religious debate. I identify with their cause and generally support their message, but they go about presenting it in an insulting, dickish way.
Leeds:BurnShrike: halfof33: Fundie Atheists are hilarious. Good luck with your proselytizing billboards!
Atheists "proselytize" the same way that English teachers proselytize about proper grammar and spelling, and how Math teachers proselytize about proper order of operations.
I know you are very angry that I am pointing out that the Athiests in the linked article are hypocrites and are guilty of the same proselytizing they accuse other religions of, but hand waving it away with baseless claims of trolling is the cowards way out.
mainstreet62:What will allow atheists to write any kind of moral code when their one idea, the assertion of a lack of God, relegates religious texts with moral codes to the fiction section?
It's frightening that this billboard is even necessary.
We have put men on the moon, we travel around faster than the speed of sound, we can drop a rover on a different planet, we can plant the organs of one human being into another one and we all have incredibly powerful computers in our pockets that allow us to communicate with virtually anyone on the planet with delays measured in milliseconds.
It's painful to note that despite all of these advances there are still people who believe in magic.
If silly religious people would only grow up, we sure as hell wouldn't have to put up billboards like this one reminding them that reality > magic.
EdgeRunner:Slaves2Darkness: Britney Spear's Speculum: These stupid articles always center around reactions and rebuttals from christian groups. How come whenever a priest molests a child, news outlets don't immediately ask atheist's their opinions?
Atheists could put up a billboard that says "'Have a good day' - Courtesy of the Freedom From Religious Foundation" and people would still complain.
You have to understand the media today is all about getting some ignorant moron to go DERP! DERP! DERP! It is hard to find atheists an that goes DERP! DERP! DERP! While on the other hand you can't swing a dead cat in the US with out hitting some Christian retard going DERP! DERP! DERP!
It's not hard to find atheists "an that goes DERP" when they helpfully put up billboards to announce their derpitude. Fortunately these particular derpers aren't representative of the larger group. Nor are smug derpsh*ts like you, thank science.
So if it is not hard to find atheists do you know any personally and do they say inflammatory stupid shiat in interviews like, "No, I don't know that christians should be regarded as citizens, nor should they be regarded as patriotic. This is one nation without God.... I support the separation of church and state. I'm just not very high on christians. "?
If you don't recognize the paraphrasing of that quote let me give it to you in all it's glory No, I don't know that atheists should be regarded as citizens, nor should they be regarded as patriotic. This is one nation under God.... I support the separation of church and state. I'm just not very high on atheists. Geroge H. W. Bush, President of the United States.
You see how an atheist could feel a little threatened when the farking president of the United States goes around telling people that you are not a citizen. Of course it is atheists that are being assholes by professing a non-belief in god, but christians who put up giant JESUS! billboards or 100' crosses across America are a-okay with you. Just like arresting Jews was a-okay with all good Germans.
halfof33:Leeds: BurnShrike: halfof33: Fundie Atheists are hilarious. Good luck with your proselytizing billboards!
Atheists "proselytize" the same way that English teachers proselytize about proper grammar and spelling, and how Math teachers proselytize about proper order of operations.
I know you are very angry that I am pointing out that the Athiests in the linked article are hypocrites and are guilty of the same proselytizing they accuse other religions of, but hand waving it away with baseless claims of trolling is the cowards way out.
Thanks.
/by the way, You Mad, bro?
No but the fact that you seem unwilling to grow up and accept reality seems to have left you pretty butthurt. I'd suggest laying off the religious/anti-religious threads for a while. Perhaps you could use the time off to read up on this subject so that you aren't just a whiny little magic-believeing crybaby. We adults will be still be here when you get back.
PYROY:Believing you know there is nothing is just as stupid as believing you know there is something.
True. Unless there is evidence for either of those beliefs, it is stupid in and of itself. However, most atheists don't believe there is nothing. Most atheists accept the fact that there is no unambiguous evidence for the affirmative belief, so they don't believe in supernatural nonsense. And given that the burden of proof goes to the person making the affirmative belief, even if atheists did actively belief they know there is nothing supernatural is not as logically an untenable position as theists believing they know there is something in spite of the complete lack of evidence for that belief.
Slaves2Darkness:If you don't recognize the paraphrasing of that quote let me give it to you in all it's glory No, I don't know that atheists should be regarded as citizens, nor should they be regarded as patriotic. This is one nation under God.... I support the separation of church and state. I'm just not very high on atheists. Geroge H. W. Bush, President of the United States.
You see how an atheist could feel a little threatened when the farking president of the United States goes around telling people that you are not a citizen. Of course it is atheists that are being assholes by professing a non-belief in god, but christians who put up giant JESUS! billboards or 100' crosses across America are a-okay with you. Just like arresting Jews was a-okay with all good Germans.
That was twenty years ago. And he lost re-election. I completely agree that was not a nice thing to say at all and he should not have said such a thing, but you should really be over that by now. And giant billboards or large crosses may be in poor taste or be eyesores, but they aren't necessarily antagonistic. If Christians put up billboards insulting other beliefs, that's no less obnoxious than atheists doing the same. And to compare people who are okay with that with Germans tolerating the holocaust is incredibly stupid. If you think you are oppressed anything like the Jews in the Holocaust, you have some serious persecution complex.
Leeds:It's frightening that this billboard is even necessary.
We have put men on the moon, we travel around faster than the speed of sound, we can drop a rover on a different planet, we can plant the organs of one human being into another one and we all have incredibly powerful computers in our pockets that allow us to communicate with virtually anyone on the planet with delays measured in milliseconds.
It's painful to note that despite all of these advances there are still people who believe in magic.
If silly religious people would only grow up, we sure as hell wouldn't have to put up billboards like this one reminding them that reality > magic.
Well there is this damn thing called tolerance and the First Amendment.
Doesn't get much respect in Atheist circles, unfortunately.
Divinegrace:eraser8: Divinegrace: Not an Atheist, but the general feeling I get from them is that we should all be allowed to do whatever the fark we want, whenever the fark we want, and anyone who questions why they did what they did, or tries to tell them what they did was 'wrong' is simply trying to 'keep them down' by imposing 'made up fairy tales' on them.
Well, telling someone he shouldn't be able to work on the Sabbath because it is forbidden by a book IS simply trying to "keep him down" by imposing "made up fairy tales" on him.
Telling someone she shouldn't be allowed to marry the woman she loves because it is forbidden by a book IS simply trying to "keep her down" by imposing "made up fairy tales" on her.
Telling someone that he can't have bacon on his burger because it is forbidden by a book IS simply trying to "keep him down" by imposing "made up fairy tales" on him.
Don't stop there...
Telling someone that he/she can't cheat on their spouse because it is forbidden by a book IS simply trying to 'keep em down' by imposing 'made up fairy tales' on em.
Telling someone that they can't take what they want because it is forbidden by a book IS simply trying to 'keep em down' by imposing 'made up fairy tales' on em.
Telling someone that they kill someone they don't like because it is forbidden by a book IS simply trying to 'keep em down' by imposing 'made up fairy tales' on em.
Damn all those 'fundies' for trying to 'keep us down' by imposing 'made up fairy tales' on em.
I will tell you this, I fear no man, government, or death. Take away my love and respect for God and I will fark this world, and anyone who gets in my way, up six ways come Sunday. Have no doubt I would get away with it too!
Even if you DON'T have faith, count your blessing that I DO. I double dog dare you to actually make me lose mine.
So what you're saying, then, is that, absent your belief in your particular religion, you are a homicidal, animalistic, misanthropic psychotic who, upon identification, should immediately be put to death to protect the rest of society. Correct?
Then I believe I have identified the reason you hate atheists: they are capable of self-generating and adhering to ethical behavior completely independent of the belief in your fairy tale... while you, by your own admission, cannot. The definition, I believe, of the difference between "children" and "adults."
But by all means -- continue to believe. It's safer for the rest of us, apparently.
untaken_name:Hey Christians, did you know that Christmas is of pagan origin and your god has said he hates it? You might want to read Jer. 10 before you put up your Christmas tree this year and light the Yule log. Christians, face it, you're pagans - just come out of the closet already.
Hey brother, are you not searching for answers? And meaning for your life? How did you get here, did you make that choice? No. Did you choose where you would live, who bore you, fathered you, brought you to life, from nothing? All you "atheists" - you're not atheists: you don't know what you are. You don't know you have a soul within your physical "shell", you don't know how you're able to talk, or think, or move; all these things you take for granted, yet none of you can explain how any of it came to be. Now that is funny! Yet you mock others for believing there is something more than what we can see or measure, but can you explain light? No. Yet you just happen to be able to see, with your eyes - objects so complex, and perfectly designed to take in light, and transfer images that the brain can interpret instantly. You ask for evidence, and you live inside of it! But you don't think on these things. Instead, you attack those that give credit to a Master builder, Whose understanding of physics is beyond measure. And what of what is considered spirit? Or soul? If the physical world is too complex to take in, how can one explain what makes up a spirit? A "life"? Where does that come from? What "substance" constitutes the spiritual? You atheists are more ignorant than a 5 year old child, more stubborn than an ass, and more cock-sure than Dan Rather - but you are all blind to the source of Life. The Jesus you mock, you will see, face to face. We will give account for everything done, everything we've said. And you, and I, will be judged. "Everyone who calls on the Name of the Lord will be saved." - Acts 2:21 That is your single, one, narrow path, WAY, out - that's it. Out of what? You know what. You know that you (and I) have missed the mark - you have said things and done things that you cannot undo, and have no way to make it right - you and I have missed the mark. But... Regardless of the traditions of men, regardless of the ignorance of people, regardless of the hypocrisy of false teachers/preachers/leaders/churches...regardless of all...God loves people! He has a crazy, insane love for you and me. He showed this love, when He sent His Son, Jesus, to bear all of the load for all people in the most hellish, torturous death, for all our wrongs - wrongs unnoticed by men or horribly and globally tragic. There is one step, that each person must take, to receive this great gift: you must turn around. Simply turn around, like a child who is hearing his father say, "Hey you, come back here...I'm coming to get you!" And what does the child do? He runs away faster...And what does the father do? He closes the gap in pursuit of the child He loves! Why not stop running, and turn around, to the One who loves you? Face God. Eye to eye. And call on Him. He will come running to you! As He did to me! Nobody is a bigger mess than me! And He will sweep you up in His arms! He will kiss you! You will weep, wondering how He could love you, and He will say, "You belong to Me! You are my son! You are my daughter!"
Leeds:No but the fact that you seem unwilling to grow up and accept reality seems to have left you pretty butthurt. I'd suggest laying off the religious/anti-religious threads for a while. Perhaps you could use the time off to read up on this subject so that you aren't just a whiny little magic-believeing crybaby. We adults will be still be here when you get back.
I'm sorry that pointing out the hypocrisy of the Atheists has caused you regress to third grade level insults.
I'd point out the irony in your last post, but I don't think you'd understand.
Where do aetheists get their ethical or moral codes? How do they come to a general agreement on what is right and what is wrong, and why do they hold those beliefs? Is it kind of like a spirit-fingers community-based voting system a la OWS?
i.e. we all hear the "don't hurt other people" basics, but why not hurt other people? What makes that "wrong" to atheists?
And I ask this out of genuine curiosity, not as a troll.
I save my trolling for gay marriage and illegal immigrants. They took err jerbs, and farked err dudes, etc.
halfof33:Leeds: No but the fact that you seem unwilling to grow up and accept reality seems to have left you pretty butthurt. I'd suggest laying off the religious/anti-religious threads for a while. Perhaps you could use the time off to read up on this subject so that you aren't just a whiny little magic-believeing crybaby. We adults will be still be here when you get back.
I'm sorry that pointing out the hypocrisy of the Atheists has caused you regress to third grade level insults.
I'd point out the irony in your last post, but I don't think you'd understand.
Hey, maybe you'll enjoy this!
Link (new window)
Can't we all agree that you're both pretty annoying right now?
Uncle Tractor: I wonder what you think my criteria are.
As for the four you mentioned; all four left evidence of their existence, something Jesus did not. Also, unlike Jesus, they never violated the laws of nature. I suppose to mentioned Tacitus and Pliny because they are often used as examples of "documentation" that Jesus lived. Unfortunately, that's not much;
Pliny wrote about the persecution of early Christians. That does not in any way prove the existence of Jesus.
Tacitus mentioned the death of Jesus, but it's not a first-hand account, nor does it give any specifics that could lead to actual evidence. What he wrote about Jesus could just as easily be something he was told by a christian.
The idea that Jesus is a well-documented historical figure is just a truism. If there is any evidence that he existed, then I have yet to see it. (not that that proves anything)
It's true Jesus didn't leave any physical artifacts behind. Yet, you've got 4 eponymous eyewitness accounts written within 40 years of the events taking place, and between 10 and 12 secular sources (of varying quality, some highly hostile) written between 50AD-200AD. Those secular sources repeat (in short form) pretty much the same things that the 4 gospels do. When you've got multiple attestations from a variety of sources, you have to be pretty obtuse to say they're all out of their gourds :) You're well within your rights to say that the events that took place are suspect, (as sources cannot prove that miracles took place), but you can't deny the fact that people around Jesus thought he was doing something miraculous *and* then wrote about it. There are very few biblical scholars who will outright deny the existence of a man called Jesus (Robert Funk and George A Wells come to mind, although the latter changed his mind some years ago), and most of them reside on the 'woo' side of biblical scholarship (I'm looking at you Barbara Thiering).
It also beggars belief to assume that tens of thousands of people would suddenly decide to throw in their lot with a belief system, that was not only opposed to and persecuted by the reigning governmental and religious systems, but was also nothing but a fabrication by the remaining twelve apostles. This is not to say that people won't believe stupid and untrue things, but Christianity offered so very little reward in contrast to what was around people at the time, that *something* must have convinced them that it was something true and worthy of belief (although this changes post-Constantine). The idea that 12 people would be able not only to maintain a lie, but also proselytize that lie for no benefit stretches my credulity at least.
halfof33:Leeds: It's frightening that this billboard is even necessary.
We have put men on the moon, we travel around faster than the speed of sound, we can drop a rover on a different planet, we can plant the organs of one human being into another one and we all have incredibly powerful computers in our pockets that allow us to communicate with virtually anyone on the planet with delays measured in milliseconds.
It's painful to note that despite all of these advances there are still people who believe in magic.
If silly religious people would only grow up, we sure as hell wouldn't have to put up billboards like this one reminding them that reality > magic. Well there is this damn thing called tolerance and the First Amendment.
Doesn't get much respect in Atheist circles, unfortunately.
For a while you started to seem like less of a troll and more of an incredibly butthurt little girl.
But now you say that atheists putting up a billboard to explain their viewpoint indicated that they don't respect the first amendment. Wow. That's a bold troll there!!!
In case you really are as stupid as you claim to be- the reason I'm laughing at you is that the first amendment is something that these people seem to understand quite well, as that's what allows them to put up the billboard in the first place.
Bravo idiot. You are now officially the laughing stock of fark.
publikenemy:Show me these billboards specifically mocking atheists. Even if there were a billboard like you say, it would be nowheres near the same thing. There is no central belief with atheism so how can they attack it? Mocking the birth of Christ can not be paralleled in any way with an attack on atheism since there is nothing equivalent to mock.
"Only the most dense and simple-minded person would put [Jesus] in the same category as the other three. Clearly, even those who lack a personal commitment to Jesus recognize that there was in fact some historical figure by this name -- religious leader and teacher -- around 2,000 years ago."
Prove it.
Funny how nobody at the time bothered to comment on the existence of this guy.
Kome:PYROY: Believing you know there is nothing is just as stupid as believing you know there is something.
True. Unless there is evidence for either of those beliefs, it is stupid in and of itself. However, most atheists don't believe there is nothing. Most atheists accept the fact that there is no unambiguous evidence for the affirmative belief, so they don't believe in supernatural nonsense. And given that the burden of proof goes to the person making the affirmative belief, even if atheists did actively belief they know there is nothing supernatural is not as logically an untenable position as theists believing they know there is something in spite of the complete lack of evidence for that belief.
I've had conversations with my believing friends and they always ask "How do you KNOW there's no God." First, I tell them that I don't know that there's no god, only no proof of a god. If God came down and proved to me that he existed, or even if someone gave me undeniable proof, my being an atheist would still be correct. There being a proof of a god doesn't change my outlook on the world in terms of the way I believe things or not, because I don't rely on faith.
I don't know if I explained that clearly, but when I tell people this, I generally blow their minds.
daveUSMC:Where do aetheists get their ethical or moral codes?
Codes of personal conduct and rules on how to live peaceably in society pre-date organized religion. Do you need to believe in a divine entity to have morality or ethics? Our prisons are filled with self-professed Christians.
forfarkonly:you don't know how you're able to talk, or think, or move; all these things you take for granted, yet none of you can explain how any of it came to be. Now that is funny! Yet you mock others for believing there is something more than what we can see or measure, but can you explain light? No. Yet you just happen to be able to see, with your eyes - objects so complex, and perfectly designed to take in light, and transfer images that the brain can interpret instantly. You ask for evidence, and you live inside of it!
What are you rambling on about?
I'm pretty sure we know how we're able to talk. Scientists, studying the body, discovered vocal cords, muscles, nerves, tongues and lips. That's how we talk. It's fairly well established.
We also know how we think. Again, scientists studied the body. We have what's called a "brain" with neurons firing signals to each other. We've known this for years.
We know how we move. They're called muscles, and when attached to bones and given the right signals, they flex.
Scientists discovered all of these things. No mention of any of that is in the Bible.
Then you move on to your light argument. We have a fairly good understanding of how light works. We don't know exactly what it is, in an over-arching way, but scientists (see how that word keeps coming up?) have studied the properties of light for centuries.
If I'm reading you correctly, your argument is based around the idea that "science doesn't know everything, therefore Jesus is the right answer".
You talk about "You atheists are more ignorant than a 5 year old child" but then immediately start spouting off about how magic is real and invisible people watching you and judging you. That sounds pretty ignorant to me, and rather childish.
Why are people debating religious views via billboards when we could be doing it better on sitcoms? Link (new window). Community does a fine job of it. Billboards are ugly (both the Christian ones and the atheist ones).
Flubb:Yet, you've got 4 eponymous eyewitness accounts written within 40 years of the events taking place, and between 10 and 12 secular sources (of varying quality, some highly hostile) written between 50AD-200AD.
Ah, ha ha, no. The four canonical gospels are generally written well after the death of Jesus, with Mark being the oldest (and least varnished) version being written around, what, 60AD or just after? None of them were contemporary accounts, and some of them were written over a century afterwords. Heck, a most (or rather all, if I'm not mistaken) of the gospels were written in Greek rather than Hebrew or Aramaic, which pretty much guarantees that none of them are eyewitness accounts.
And, if you read any of the gospels closely, most of them do not identify the author as a particular apostle. The "author" is generally anonymous within the gospel itself and wasn't actually attributed to any particular apostle until much later, sometimes hundreds of years after the death of Christ.
daveUSMC:Where do aetheists get their ethical or moral codes? How do they come to a general agreement on what is right and what is wrong, and why do they hold those beliefs? Is it kind of like a spirit-fingers community-based voting system a la OWS?
i.e. we all hear the "don't hurt other people" basics, but why not hurt other people? What makes that "wrong" to atheists?
And I ask this out of genuine curiosity, not as a troll.
I save my trolling for gay marriage and illegal immigrants. They took err jerbs, and farked err dudes, etc.
Personally, I find most atheists are humanists. Meaning if we want good in the world, then we are the only ones who are capable of making that goodness.
It's a biological imperitive to be good to the people around you as we are social animals. Very complex society is part of our human nature. We can live better when we work in groups. No culture allows for wanton killing annd stealing as that would interrupt the benefits of society. Wolves, chimps, lions, etc, all social animals don't kill eachother inside of the group (not counting power struggles with the alphas- which also happens in our society)
Fart_Machine:daveUSMC: Where do aetheists get their ethical or moral codes?
Codes of personal conduct and rules on how to live peaceably in society pre-date organized religion. Do you need to believe in a divine entity to have morality or ethics? Our prisons are filled with self-professed Christians.
Why, though? Is it out of self-preservation? I am not questioning that atheists have moral codes, I am just curious as to why bother having them if they believe that they are their own "god" per se. What determines right and wrong, and why bother to follow those principles?
Again, you'll have to trust that I am not Trollin' fer Jesus here.
Nabb1:Slaves2Darkness: If you don't recognize the paraphrasing of that quote let me give it to you in all it's glory No, I don't know that atheists should be regarded as citizens, nor should they be regarded as patriotic. This is one nation under God.... I support the separation of church and state. I'm just not very high on atheists. Geroge H. W. Bush, President of the United States.
You see how an atheist could feel a little threatened when the farking president of the United States goes around telling people that you are not a citizen. Of course it is atheists that are being assholes by professing a non-belief in god, but christians who put up giant JESUS! billboards or 100' crosses across America are a-okay with you. Just like arresting Jews was a-okay with all good Germans.
That was twenty years ago. And he lost re-election. I completely agree that was not a nice thing to say at all and he should not have said such a thing, but you should really be over that by now. And giant billboards or large crosses may be in poor taste or be eyesores, but they aren't necessarily antagonistic. If Christians put up billboards insulting other beliefs, that's no less obnoxious than atheists doing the same. And to compare people who are okay with that with Germans tolerating the holocaust is incredibly stupid. If you think you are oppressed anything like the Jews in the Holocaust, you have some serious persecution complex.
Yeah 20 years ago, but the sentiment has not gone away those people still believe that shiat and they still have more power then anybody should be comfortable with. As for comparing people to good Germans being paranoid: "Frst they came for the communists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me."
Maybe you have not been paying attention, but the Tea Bagging crowd and the sentiment that goes with it is coming real close to fascism and revolution. Those folks make me real nervous, they also prompt me to buy more guns.
Leeds:But now you say that atheists putting up a billboard to explain their viewpoint indicated that they don't respect the first amendment. Wow. That's a bold troll there!!!
In case you really are as stupid as you claim to be- the reason I'm laughing at you is that the first amendment is something that these people seem to understand quite well, as that's what allows them to put up the billboard in the first place.
Bravo idiot. You are now officially the laughing stock of fark.
It is rare when someone allows themselves to become so blinded with Rage that they lose their bearings. Now leeds, I fully understand that you are angry, but it appears that you have forgotten what the first amendment actually says.
here let me quote it for you because you appear unaware of what it actually says:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Did you notice the bolded part? First time you've seen that, huh?
Now, leeds, go back and re-read what I wrote.
I think you'll find that when I said that Atheists don't understand or respect the First Amendment, I'll just point to your post.
Who is the laughing stock leeds?
/it really never occured to me that he didn't know what the first amendment said. Kind of sad really. But Fundie Atheists, what are ya gonna do?
Lollipop165:I've had conversations with my believing friends and they always ask "How do you KNOW there's no God." First, I tell them that I don't know that there's no god, only no proof of a god. If God came down and proved to me that he existed, or even if someone gave me undeniable proof, my being an atheist would still be correct. There being a proof of a god doesn't change my outlook on the world in terms of the way I believe things or not, because I don't rely on faith.
I don't know if I explained that clearly, but when I tell people this, I generally blow their minds.
You've had better experiences than I have, it seems. I get people who, after I say something similar, will repeat verbatim the same line of questioning as though I didn't respond. Only rarely do I get people who relent and sort of acknowledge the possibility that what I said makes sense. Still, you explained that quite clearly.
Lollipop165:daveUSMC: Where do aetheists get their ethical or moral codes? How do they come to a general agreement on what is right and what is wrong, and why do they hold those beliefs? Is it kind of like a spirit-fingers community-based voting system a la OWS?
i.e. we all hear the "don't hurt other people" basics, but why not hurt other people? What makes that "wrong" to atheists?
And I ask this out of genuine curiosity, not as a troll.
I save my trolling for gay marriage and illegal immigrants. They took err jerbs, and farked err dudes, etc.
Personally, I find most atheists are humanists. Meaning if we want good in the world, then we are the only ones who are capable of making that goodness.
It's a biological imperitive to be good to the people around you as we are social animals. Very complex society is part of our human nature. We can live better when we work in groups. No culture allows for wanton killing annd stealing as that would interrupt the benefits of society. Wolves, chimps, lions, etc, all social animals don't kill eachother inside of the group (not counting power struggles with the alphas- which also happens in our society)
Ah, more what I was looking for.
So there are no morals, just societal ethics and best practices? Or am I typing words in your keyboard?
daveUSMC:Fart_Machine: daveUSMC: Where do aetheists get their ethical or moral codes?
Codes of personal conduct and rules on how to live peaceably in society pre-date organized religion. Do you need to believe in a divine entity to have morality or ethics? Our prisons are filled with self-professed Christians.
Why, though? Is it out of self-preservation? I am not questioning that atheists have moral codes, I am just curious as to why bother having them if they believe that they are their own "god" per se. What determines right and wrong, and why bother to follow those principles?
Again, you'll have to trust that I am not Trollin' fer Jesus here.
A great many animal species have social codes for behaving with each other. Most mammals care for their young, their mates, and their pack-mates. They share food, show compassion for each other, help others when they're in distress, defend them from predators.
They do it because they expect similar treatment when their luck is down. It's an evolutionary adaptation to make the survival of the entire group a more certain thing.
daveUSMC:So there are no morals, just societal ethics and best practices? Or am I typing words in your keyboard?
Don't need a religion to establish a schema for morality. Frankly, I think people generally and fundamentally sense what is right or wrong and that is the basis for morality. In any case, if your heart and mind tells you that it's wrong to kill people, does it matter whether there's a religion governing it?
halfof33:Leeds: But now you say that atheists putting up a billboard to explain their viewpoint indicated that they don't respect the first amendment. Wow. That's a bold troll there!!!
In case you really are as stupid as you claim to be- the reason I'm laughing at you is that the first amendment is something that these people seem to understand quite well, as that's what allows them to put up the billboard in the first place.
Bravo idiot. You are now officially the laughing stock of fark.
It is rare when someone allows themselves to become so blinded with Rage that they lose their bearings. Now leeds, I fully understand that you are angry, but it appears that you have forgotten what the first amendment actually says.
here let me quote it for you because you appear unaware of what it actually says:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Did you notice the bolded part? First time you've seen that, huh?
Now, leeds, go back and re-read what I wrote.
I think you'll find that when I said that Atheists don't understand or respect the First Amendment, I'll just point to your post.
Who is the laughing stock leeds?
/it really never occured to me that he didn't know what the first amendment said. Kind of sad really. But Fundie Atheists, what are ya gonna do?
You aren't even highlighting the relevant parts of the first amendment, idiot.
Fark is more fun when you middle-schoolers aren't posting derp on all the threads. It sucks having to spend so much time explaining things to your retards that should be self evident. (Like magic is make-believe).
daveUSMC:Fart_Machine: daveUSMC: Where do aetheists get their ethical or moral codes?
Codes of personal conduct and rules on how to live peaceably in society pre-date organized religion. Do you need to believe in a divine entity to have morality or ethics? Our prisons are filled with self-professed Christians.
Why, though? Is it out of self-preservation? I am not questioning that atheists have moral codes, I am just curious as to why bother having them if they believe that they are their own "god" per se. What determines right and wrong, and why bother to follow those principles?
Again, you'll have to trust that I am not Trollin' fer Jesus here.
Probably the same evolutionary origins for morality and ethical behavior that exist in other species of animals, notably primates and some other social mammals. And like most other things about humans that have their evolutionary origins in ancestral species we have it in a quantitative and/or qualitatively different manner.
I don't mean to imply that a particular moral prescription or prohibition is a biological imperative (although some, like the incest taboo, might be) but that our cultures and societies developed in ways that were conductive to our biological predispositions for and against certain behaviors. Add in unique flavors that make us human (handedness, clothing styles, etc.) and suddenly you might begin to have a coherent explanation as to why humans have moral codes even when they don't have religion.
I admit I'm reaching a little bit as the psychology of moral development isn't what I'm most familiar with, but it is tangentially related to things I do study so I'm not pulling this entirely out of the air. I hope this makes sense to you, though.
Leeds:You aren't even highlighting the relevant parts of the first amendment, idiot.
Fark is more fun when you middle-schoolers aren't posting derp on all the threads. It sucks having to spend so much time explaining things to your retards that should be self evident. (Like magic is make-believe).
Face palm.
Freedom of Religion is not relevant in a thread about Religion.
Ok leeds, I get it, you are a true believer, I'll just farky you as Fundamentalist Nutjob Atheist and move along. Good luck with that. Hey, call me an idiot again.
daveUSMC:Why, though? Is it out of self-preservation? I am not questioning that atheists have moral codes, I am just curious as to why bother having them if they believe that they are their own "god" per se. What determines right and wrong, and why bother to follow those principles?
Self-preservation by acting as a community which is the way society has always functioned. Throwing a god or gods into the mix is irrelevant to this.
And atheists don't believe they are their own "god". We refer to those people as megalomaniacs.
/And a Farker. S/He's everyone, and everything. //Particularly enjoying God right now, thanking Him for the fresh corn on the cob and organic butter I'm having for lunch. :-9
mainstreet62:autopsybeverage: mainstreet62: I will issue a challenge to atheists right here, right now.
Go to a Muslim country, and put up you billboards full of atheist bullshiat. Let's see what happens.
Just remember that you farksticks would be burned at the stake in basically any other country than the US.
You idiots feel emboldened to shout down religion everywhere? Uh, HELLO McFLY, huge conflicts have started over religion, do you REALLY think telling the warring sides that their gods don't exist is the right path?
Sure thing. Right after a Christian group tries to promote their beliefs via billboard in the area, followed by an encore with Fred Phelps and his band of morons spending a month picketing for their brand of crazy with anti-Islamic signs.
Uh huh. So you're going after a splinter group of Christians that even 99.9999% of all Christians think suck donkey balls. Seriously?
I find it amusing that atheists think they should be listened to. Women and gays around the world had to fight for rights. They have been legit oppressed, and are earning hard fought freedoms.
And then atheists come swooping in, all butthurt because no one takes your one stupid idea seriously.
The Bible, the Koran, and plenty other religious texts have a moral code embedded within to help people treat fellow man with love and respect. What have atheists written that does the same?
What will allow atheists to write any kind of moral code when their one idea, the assertion of a lack of God, relegates religious texts with moral codes to the fiction section?
You don't need religion to know what's wrong and what's right.
Flubb:It's true Jesus didn't leave any physical artifacts behind. Yet, you've got 4 eponymous eyewitness accounts written within 40 years of the events taking place, and between 10 and 12 secular sources (of varying quality, some highly hostile) written between 50AD-200AD.
Not even close. The gospels were 'recorded' by people born two generations AFTER the time of Jesus's death. I repeat, there is nothing in the Bible writen by people that WERE ACTUALLY THERE. In addition, the bible didn't even take form until the Synod of Hippo in 393 - a whopping 360 years after the actual events happened. Before that there was a swirling mass of writings of all kinds being used by different groups of people who claimed to be Christians. All kinds of bizarre scriptures and gospels were chucked out when the bible was actually 'written'.
So after considering that, isn't it a little strange that we have all of these direct quotes and stories in the Gospels which people accept as the Word of God? Hell, we have very few direct quotes from the American Founding Fathers when they were actually acting against Britain. And that is in a time 150 years more recent and it benefits from the printing press being in common use.
halfof33:Leeds: You aren't even highlighting the relevant parts of the first amendment, idiot.
Fark is more fun when you middle-schoolers aren't posting derp on all the threads. It sucks having to spend so much time explaining things to your retards that should be self evident. (Like magic is make-believe).
Face palm.
Freedom of Religion is not relevant in a thread about Religion.
Ok leeds, I get it, you are a true believer, I'll just farky you as Fundamentalist Nutjob Atheist and move along. Good luck with that. Hey, call me an idiot again.
Have a Blessed Day!
youMADbro.jpg/ lulz
What's being called into question is freedom of speech, as in "I'm religious and I don't think they should be able to say that on a billboard."
Leeds:halfof33: What's being called into question is freedom of speech, as in "I'm religious and I don't think they should be able to say that on a billboard."
You really aren't start enough for fark, are you?
No I guess I'm not "start" enough.
"Well there is this damn thing called tolerance and the First Amendment. Doesn't get much respect in Atheist circles, unfortunately."
Every post you make you establish without a doubt that you don't understand tolerance and the First Amendment.
daveUSMC:Fart_Machine: daveUSMC: Where do aetheists get their ethical or moral codes?
Codes of personal conduct and rules on how to live peaceably in society pre-date organized religion. Do you need to believe in a divine entity to have morality or ethics? Our prisons are filled with self-professed Christians.
Why, though? Is it out of self-preservation? I am not questioning that atheists have moral codes, I am just curious as to why bother having them if they believe that they are their own "god" per se. What determines right and wrong, and why bother to follow those principles?
Again, you'll have to trust that I am not Trollin' fer Jesus here.
See, that's guilt and fear coming from religion. Atheists don't have the burden of religious guilt. What I get from your statement, "..why bother to follow those principles" is that guilt and fear motivate religious moral codes.
I don't need a guilt trip or the threat of hell to tell me stealing is bad. I don't need a book to tell me murder is bad. Just can't wrap my head around the idea "if there was not religion, we'd not know right from wrong".
If there was not religion, there would be a lot less guilt and fear, that's for sure.
BurnShrike:halfof33: Fundie Atheists are hilarious. Good luck with your proselytizing billboards!
Atheists "proselytize" the same way that English teachers proselytize about proper grammar and spelling, and how Math teachers proselytize about proper order of operations.
There's a story about today about a math teacher who taught her student that the correct order of operations is + - + - + - + -...+ - + - = BANG!
Kome:ParaHandy: MayoSlather: As an atheist I've cooled on my abhorrence of religion. I just don't care to piss off others with my non-belief or to openly mock religion anymore. If people shove religion in my face I'll calmly denounce it as a farce, but even that doesn't really do any good. Religion will go away on its own as the world slowly becomes more free thinking and education rises; pissing off religious folk will only make them cling to it longer.
THIS, and lots of it.
Bad ideas do not go away on their own. It took concentrated effort to reduce the racist, sexist, and homophobic attitudes that have existed in much worse and more prevalent states in human history, and it's taking just as much effort now to reduce those views even more. Bad ideas spread like wildfire - look at anti-vaccination views since 1998, or acceptance rates of homeopathic "medicine" over the last few decades years, or how quickly Obama being a Muslim became a fact to such a large number of people in the United States over a period of months. Religious ideas are more entrenched bad ideas, personally and socially. It will take much more effort to diminish the influence of those delusional, bad ideas. Idly sitting by accomplishes less than nothing when it comes to combating erroneous views.
I do agree with you on some level, but just not in this case. I feel it's better to ignore it and stop letting it be a red herring that shapes public opinion. Republicans troll on religion and mention god all the time because they know it will piss off the left and cause a response, which only further serves to separate people that largely have the same base interests. Openly bashing religion as an atheist is only biting on the troll bait.
daveUSMC:Hmmm, points taken. I'll leave before we start derping each other in the butt.
I think your point is, in the context of our greater societal understanding of moral principles (codified laws, religious prohibitions, etc.) it was a good question to ask, and a very important conversation that needs to be had. Because, sadly, there are many people who think that lacking a religion equates to having no strict moral code or behaving immorally. I.e. the billboard that SPna15 posted a picture of.
So, whether you leave or not I think it was an important conversation to discuss.
MayoSlather:Republicans troll on religion and mention god all the time because they know it will piss off the left and cause a response, which only further serves to separate people that largely have the same base interests.
I disagree. The majority of liberals are themselves religious, the majority of Democrats are themselves religious. I suspect that the Republicans troll on religion because it excites their base, not their opponents base.
halfof33:BurnShrike: halfof33: Fundie Atheists are hilarious. Good luck with your proselytizing billboards!
Atheists "proselytize" the same way that English teachers proselytize about proper grammar and spelling, and how Math teachers proselytize about proper order of operations.
The Jami Turman Fan Club:Wait, is he saying that Saint Nicholas, aka Santa Claus, was a myth? Because there's a whole hell of a lot more evidence of Saint Nick than there is of Jesus.
Lord Dimwit:Saint Nicholas existed. In fact, there's more non-biased evidence for his existence than there is for Jesus.
Why the fark do you people keep bringing up Santa Claus?
RexTalionis:Flubb: Yet, you've got 4 eponymous eyewitness accounts written within 40 years of the events taking place, and between 10 and 12 secular sources (of varying quality, some highly hostile) written between 50AD-200AD.
Ah, ha ha, no. The four canonical gospels are generally written well after the death of Jesus, with Mark being the oldest (and least varnished) version being written around, what, 60AD or just after? None of them were contemporary accounts, and some of them were written over a century afterwords. Heck, a most (or rather all, if I'm not mistaken) of the gospels were written in Greek rather than Hebrew or Aramaic, which pretty much guarantees that none of them are eyewitness accounts.
That's what 'written within 40 years of the events taking place' means (unless you want to get pendantic and include the birth of Jesus) - the earliest (Mark) written around the late 50's-60's, and the last (John) coming in around the 80's. Granted, John is just outside the 40 year range, but Matthew (written in Hebrew/Aramaic, Irenaeus points to a 40-50AD origin), and Luke (circa 70's, also pointing to a 40-50AD origin) still fit reasonably within that period. You'll also need to distinguish when a book is found and when a book is written (or may have been written) - simply because you can only date Mark to 60AD, doesn't mean it wasn't written down before that.
It's anachronistic to think that an account can only be accurate if it's written down at the moment it took place (which apparently is shorthand for 'as the person was speaking'). Your point hinges on whether oral sources are accurate or not, and the most recent scholarship indicates so (as per Richard Bauckham). There are also semitisms in some of the texts that indicate a non-native Greek origin, and considering that Christianity was an proselytizing religion, it would make sense that things were translated into Greek asap.
And, if you read any of the gospels closely, most of them do not identify the author as a particular apostle. The "author" is generally anonymous within the gospel itself and wasn't actually attributed to any particular apostle until much later, sometimes hundreds of years after the death of Christ.
You're correct in that none of the gospels specifically tag a name to them. But all 4 are tagged within a very short amount of time, within a hundred years. They're not considered pseudoepigraphic unlike many other works floating around at the time. The only really problematic gospel is John, which is mostly down to the fact that it's heavily theological and less biographical. Modern scholarship has a problem with John, early scholarship doesn't, and the book itself said it was written by the 'disciple whom Jesus loved', and there is a fair amount of internal evidence to suggest that it was written by someone there.
I'm not going to argue that every case is water-tight, or is free from problems, but it's certainly not as loose as it's often made out to be.
FTA "equally thought-provoking and spark plenty of conversations nationally"
It's very thought provoking, first thought is; what a bunch of assholes, and that's usually the centerpoint of the conversation.
Look, I really don't care what you believe, or what you don't. If someone wishes you a Merry Christmas, Happy Hollidays, Happy Hannakuh, or Happy Kwanza or whatever, instead of going instant asshole about it, simply accept that they are giving you good wishes, appreciate the intent, and get on with your life. The atheist who insists on this kind of action isn't any different than the born again types insisting that I need to be saved, you're BOTH assholes.
And sorry, the excuse that their religion "affects" you because of how it affects they way they vote and the way they act is groundless. They have their moral code because they've decided that is what is "right", which is exactly as much justification as your moral code has, it's simply what you've decided is "right". Yours is no more superior, and no more valid to be enforced upon me than theirs is, everybody is free to express and vote their conscious, welcome to freedom, it exposes you to that you might wish to avoid by forcing others to be exposed to your particularly brand of idiocy as well.
We'd all be a lot better if you'd all adopt an attitude of not farking with other people, and just because someone is farking with you doesn't justify your farking with somebody else. Leave me alone to run my life as long as I'm not directly impacting you, and live yours as you chose with the same restriction of not directly impacting my freedoms to do the same.
This isn't about provoking thought or discussion, it's simply about provoking, which just makes you an asshole.
James F. Campbell:Why the fark do you people keep bringing up Santa Claus?
Because TFA mentioned an atheist billboard that showed Santa Claus, Jesus, Satan and Posiedon. A christian in TFA commented that only one of those figures is based upon a real historical person (Jesus). Now the arguement is that Santa is also based upon a real historical person.
Kome:MayoSlather: Republicans troll on religion and mention god all the time because they know it will piss off the left and cause a response, which only further serves to separate people that largely have the same base interests.
I disagree. The majority of liberals are themselves religious, the majority of Democrats are themselves religious. I suspect that the Republicans troll on religion because it excites their base, not their opponents base.
Not all republicans act that way, mind you. There are more atheist Republicans out there than most people realize.
We (Atheist Republicans) are the libertarian faction of the GOP and we're currently fighting with the magic-believing anti-science types over who controls our party.
santadog:mbillips: Friggin' show offs. Yes, yes, you're an atheist because you came to the obvious conclusion that the supernatural doesn't exist. Congratulations; look at the brain on you. Now shut up and don't spoil Christmas.
/Christmas is an American holiday involving lovely decorations and presents and food and booze and family gatherings and children's stories. That's all it needs to be, because that's AWESOME.
Yes, only Americans celebrate Christmas. We invented it, right?
Actually, in its modern form, yes. Nobody had a family-oriented Christmas with a decorated tree and present-giving to children, with the Santa Claus myth as we know it, until Washington Irving and other members of the Knickerbocker Club stitched it together from various other Christmas traditions and passed it off as "traditional." Prior to that, Christmas was largely ignored by devout Protestants, and for everyone else it was mainly a booze up; more like today's Slutoween. Commercialized Christmas (aka the good kind) was invented in America; editorialists in the mid-19th century were already biatching about how gift-giving was ruining this (brand new, and inherently commercial) "traditional" holiday.
Leeds:Kome: MayoSlather: Republicans troll on religion and mention god all the time because they know it will piss off the left and cause a response, which only further serves to separate people that largely have the same base interests.
I disagree. The majority of liberals are themselves religious, the majority of Democrats are themselves religious. I suspect that the Republicans troll on religion because it excites their base, not their opponents base.
Not all republicans act that way, mind you. There are more atheist Republicans out there than most people realize.
We (Atheist Republicans) are the libertarian faction of the GOP and we're currently fighting with the magic-believing anti-science types over who controls our party.
True, I should have been more specific and said the Republicans who appeal to the Christian right, but I figured since we've all been speaking with broad brush strokes here it wouldn't matter that much. Thanks for the catch, though. Precision is important.
unLurked:halfof33: BurnShrike: halfof33: Fundie Atheists are hilarious. Good luck with your proselytizing billboards!
Atheists "proselytize" the same way that English teachers proselytize about proper grammar and spelling, and how Math teachers proselytize about proper order of operations.
Teachers take out billboards?
[www.nysut.org image 480x214]
/are you really that intellectually lazy?
Face palm. Son let me walk you through it shall I?
Silly Claim: Atheists "proselytize" the same way that English teachers proselytize about proper grammar and spelling
Response: They buy billboards to proselytize about proper grammar and spelling?
Your "intellectually lazy" response: Picture of a billboard that does not proselytize about proper grammar and spelling
Next time that you accuse someone of being intellectually lazy, don't shiat the bed and ignore the farking context, OK?
Otherwise it makes you look like an ignorant jagoff.
RexTalionis:Nabb1: No, I'm not whining. Your impotent rage means f*ck all to me. I haven't been to church in years and don't really ascribe strongly to any particular beliefs one way or another. I'm just lack the insecurity to feel threatened by other beliefs. And I just like trolling zealots. I used to do it to the evangelicals when I grew up in SC, too.
The only good thing about the evangelical zealots that I've found is that they're happy to give you free bibles if you ask them.
NoGods:Because TFA mentioned an atheist billboard that showed Santa Claus, Jesus, Satan and Posiedon. A christian in TFA commented that only one of those figures is based upon a real historical person (Jesus). Now the arguement is that Santa is also based upon a real historical person.
CheekyMonkey:RexTalionis: Nabb1: No, I'm not whining. Your impotent rage means f*ck all to me. I haven't been to church in years and don't really ascribe strongly to any particular beliefs one way or another. I'm just lack the insecurity to feel threatened by other beliefs. And I just like trolling zealots. I used to do it to the evangelicals when I grew up in SC, too.
The only good thing about the evangelical zealots that I've found is that they're happy to give you free bibles if you ask them.
SirCodeAlot:Atheists are so cute...So sure they are right with no way to prove it, same as the theists.
With a post this short and this stupid, I know you're just a troll, but I wanted an excuse to post this quote anyway:
"I am an atheist, out and out. It took me a long time to say it. I've been an atheist for years and years, but somehow I felt it was intellectually unrespectable to say one was an atheist, because it assumed knowledge that one didn't have. Somehow, it was better to say one was a humanist or an agnostic. I finally decided that I'm a creature of emotion as well as of reason. Emotionally, I am an atheist. I don't have the evidence to prove that God doesn't exist, but I so strongly suspect he doesn't that I don't want to waste my time." - Isaac Asimov, Free Inquiry (Spring 1982)
(And now you're going to be Sir Not-Appearing-In-My-Threads.)
FTFA: But one pastor told the Christian Post the new sign shows "ignorance."
"Only the most dense and simple-minded person would put [Jesus] in the same category as the other three."
I gotta agree with the pastor on this one...at least partially. Jesus most likely existed. He wasn't some magical, son of God-type being. He was an average Joe who might have been right jolly, like St. Nicholas, the inspiration for Santa Claus. Santa Claus was not magical. Jesus is basically like Santa Claus. Adding in Poseidon and the devil to this group is just trolling.
Leeds:We (Atheist Republicans) are the libertarian faction of the GOP and we're currently fighting with the magic-believing anti-science types over who controls our party.
May I suggest you and any other sane republicans who are left go fund a new party? You could just call it "The Conservative Party" or some such thing. With some luck, you'll manage to recruit the right wing of the Democrats.
IMO the GOP is a lost cause. Can't be saved. Teabaggers and crazy loons. Even if that description fits less than 10% of republicans, it's a 100% fit of the way normal people view the GOP.
daveUSMC:Where do aetheists get their ethical or moral codes? How do they come to a general agreement on what is right and what is wrong, and why do they hold those beliefs? Is it kind of like a spirit-fingers community-based voting system a la OWS?i.e. we all hear the "don't hurt other people" basics, but why not hurt other people? What makes that "wrong" to atheists?And I ask this out of genuine curiosity, not as a troll.
OK, I'll play. Humans are social animals, having found that life is easier living as a group and cooperating with each other. This living arrangement requires a mutually-agreed-upon set of rules, dictating which behaviors are prohibited, for the good of the group (society) and the individuals who make it up.
mbillips:santadog: mbillips: Friggin' show offs. Yes, yes, you're an atheist because you came to the obvious conclusion that the supernatural doesn't exist. Congratulations; look at the brain on you. Now shut up and don't spoil Christmas.
/Christmas is an American holiday involving lovely decorations and presents and food and booze and family gatherings and children's stories. That's all it needs to be, because that's AWESOME.
Yes, only Americans celebrate Christmas. We invented it, right?
Actually, in its modern form, yes. Nobody had a family-oriented Christmas with a decorated tree and present-giving to children, with the Santa Claus myth as we know it, until Washington Irving and other members of the Knickerbocker Club stitched it together from various other Christmas traditions and passed it off as "traditional." Prior to that, Christmas was largely ignored by devout Protestants, and for everyone else it was mainly a booze up; more like today's Slutoween. Commercialized Christmas (aka the good kind) was invented in America; editorialists in the mid-19th century were already biatching about how gift-giving was ruining this (brand new, and inherently commercial) "traditional" holiday.
[Citation] (new window)
Uhm.. my family is from Germany. Like, Mom is off the boat in 1948 German. They had trees over there. They gave gifts. It was a family gathering. Lutherans. German Christmas (new window)
The tradition of of a decorated Christmas tree is said to have originated with Martin Luther in Germany in the middle ages. The tree used most widely in Germany is the Norway spruce. Some people prefer the more expensive blue spruce. The Christmas tree tradition most likely came to the United States with Hessian troops during the American Revolution, or with German immigrants to Pennsylvania and Ohio.
BurnShrike:halfof33: Fundie Atheists are hilarious. Good luck with your proselytizing billboards!
Atheists "proselytize" the same way that English teachers proselytize about proper grammar and spelling, and how Math teachers proselytize about proper order of operations.
PYROY:Believing you know there is nothing is just as stupid as believing you know there is something.
Lol, you are noob to the "atheism v. theism debate." What you stated is not what atheism means. Educate yourself about fundamental definitions before you make claims. Or don't; that's what other stupid people do.
daveUSMC:Where do aetheists get their ethical or moral codes? How do they come to a general agreement on what is right and what is wrong, and why do they hold those beliefs? Is it kind of like a spirit-fingers community-based voting system a la OWS?
i.e. we all hear the "don't hurt other people" basics, but why not hurt other people? What makes that "wrong" to atheists?
And I ask this out of genuine curiosity, not as a troll.
I save my trolling for gay marriage and illegal immigrants. They took err jerbs, and farked err dudes, etc.
Lol "you have to believe in myths that almost certainly aren't true to believe that killing and rape etc. are wrong." That's quite pathetic.
You don't hurt other people because it makes you feel bad personally, among other reasons. If you need to believe in metaphysical sophistry not to hurt others, rather than not hurting others because it would make you feel personally bad, then you are a sad sad person. But, such is humanity.
from the video... how in flaming hell did Christianity steal Christmas? Isn't Christmas a Christian holiday???
I can't quite figure out atheists like this. Not believing in something would generally end in not participating but these idiots go out of their way to participate. If it is important to prove to the World how atheist you are go to work on Christmas day.
Flubb:It's true Jesus didn't leave any physical artifacts behind. Yet, you've got 4 eponymous eyewitness accounts written within 40 years of the events taking place,
How do you know they weren't just making the whole thing up? How do you explain the miracles? If they could make that up. why not everything else as well.
and between 10 and 12 secular sources (of varying quality, some highly hostile) written between 50AD-200AD.
What secular sources? The ones I've seen so far were hearsay, third-hand knowledge, and outright forgeries by later clergy.
Those secular sources repeat (in short form) pretty much the same things that the 4 gospels do. When you've got multiple attestations from a variety of sources, you have to be pretty obtuse to say they're all out of their gourds :) You're well within your rights to say that the events that took place are suspect, (as sources cannot prove that miracles took place), but you can't deny the fact that people around Jesus thought he was doing something miraculous *and* then wrote about it. There are very few biblical scholars who will outright deny the existence of a man called Jesus (Robert Funk and George A Wells come to mind, although the latter changed his mind some years ago), and most of them reside on the 'woo' side of biblical scholarship (I'm looking at you Barbara Thiering).
I'll go out on a limb and guess that most biblical scholars were / are christians who believed Jesus was real before they started looking into the matter. Again: It's a truism that believers generally don't bother to look into.
It also beggars belief to assume that tens of thousands of people would suddenly decide to throw in their lot with a belief system, that was not only opposed to and persecuted by the reigning governmental and religious systems, but was also nothing but a fabrication by the remaining twelve apostles. This is not to say that people won't believe stupid and untrue things, but Christianity offered so very little reward
Au contraire, christianity offered the "Kingdom of God" as a reward. You just had to die before you could collect. This could be very tempting for people who had nothing and nothing to hope for from the pagan Roman faith.
in contrast to what was around people at the time, that *something* must have convinced them that it was something true and worthy of belief (although this changes post-Constantine). The idea that 12 people would be able not only to maintain a lie, but also proselytize that lie for no benefit stretches my credulity at least.
People believe in scientology, "trickle down economy," astrology, the "gay agenda," ZOG, little green men with anal probes, that Obama is a Kenyan crypto-muslim atheist al Qaeda commie, racial supremacy, that a brick on chicken wire proves that 911 was an inside job, and so many other stupid idiotic things that there is nothing so far out that I would be surprised to learn that somebody somewhere believes it.
RexTalionis:CheekyMonkey: RexTalionis: Nabb1: No, I'm not whining. Your impotent rage means f*ck all to me. I haven't been to church in years and don't really ascribe strongly to any particular beliefs one way or another. I'm just lack the insecurity to feel threatened by other beliefs. And I just like trolling zealots. I used to do it to the evangelicals when I grew up in SC, too.
The only good thing about the evangelical zealots that I've found is that they're happy to give you free bibles if you ask them.
You need rolling papers that badly?
I won't say no to a free book.
I thought everyone already had a bible. I know I had 2 or 3 by the time I hit my teens. How many copies do you need?
\needs another bible about as badly as I need a copy of the 1974 Guinness Book of World Records...
eraser8:Smelly McUgly: You can be an agnostic atheist (or an agnostic theist), correct?
That's correct.
Smelly McUgly: I forget my little four-square belief chart.
Let it stay forgotten.
If you don't believe in gods, you're an atheist...and it doesn't matter whether you lack belief because you think the existence of gods is an impossibility or whether you lack belief merely because you've seen no positive evidence to support the hypothesis.
Let's not forget it. There is a VERY distinct difference between an agnostic atheist (AA) and a gnostic atheist (GA). In common usage the term agnostic refers to agnostic atheists to make that distinction. strangely enough, the only people who have a problem with this is the gnostic atheists. Now, I'll distinguish that there are GAs who don't raise this issue, but then again it is ONLY GAs who do. I've never seen an agnostic theist (AT) make a fuss about the use of agnostic in that context, it is ALWAYS a GA. GAs and AAs do NOT share the same beliefs, there is a similarity, but also that distinct difference. But why is it always so that some GA has to attempt to conflate the two?
BTW, Agnostic Theist here. And for ease of communication, it's a whole lot easier to refer to GAs as atheists, AAs as Agnostics and lump the theists together. Except for that inevitable asshole GA who wants to pretend that those differences don't exist.
VetteLT193:from the video... how in flaming hell did Christianity steal Christmas? Isn't Christmas a Christian holiday???
I can't quite figure out atheists like this. Not believing in something would generally end in not participating but these idiots go out of their way to participate. If it is important to prove to the World how atheist you are go to work on Christmas day.
Most of the celebratory things done around Christmas were not Christian in origin. A virgin birth of a divine being is Zoroastrian in origin (Mithras), celebrating around the solstice is Greek (Dionysis) while putting up stockings, a midnight ride by a mystical being to give presents, and leaving food for the midnight rider are Norse (Odin and his steed Sleipnir). So I wouldn't say Christianity stole Christmas inasmuch as they created their holiday around the holidays and religions of other cultures that predated their own. Imitation is the highest form of flattery, and all that I guess.
Leeds:We (Atheist Republicans) are the libertarian faction of the GOP and we're currently fighting with the magic-believing anti-science types over who controls our party.
Flubb:It also beggars belief to assume that tens of thousands of people would suddenly decide to throw in their lot with a belief system, that was not only opposed to and persecuted by the reigning governmental and religious systems, but was also nothing but a fabrication by the remaining twelve apostles.
Um, most of those people aren't really atheists. Jefferson and Franklin: Deists Darwin and Lincoln: both believed in God, probably not Christians though. Einstein: pantheist
Uncle Tractor:Leeds: We (Atheist Republicans) are the libertarian faction of the GOP and we're currently fighting with the magic-believing anti-science types over who controls our party.
May I suggest you and any other sane republicans who are left go fund a new party? You could just call it "The Conservative Party" or some such thing. With some luck, you'll manage to recruit the right wing of the Democrats.
IMO the GOP is a lost cause. Can't be saved. Teabaggers and crazy loons. Even if that description fits less than 10% of republicans, it's a 100% fit of the way normal people view the GOP.
It is true, the fundies seem to be louder than the normal people in my party. But that's true of the Democrats as well. Most democrats are probably nice hardworking Americans, but it's pretty hard not to see them all as corrupt mafia (union) backed thieves stealing from people who actually work for a living.
It would be great if both parties jettisoned their idiots. But I'd settle for just one doing it.
mainstreet62:autopsybeverage: mainstreet62: I will issue a challenge to atheists right here, right now.
Go to a Muslim country, and put up you billboards full of atheist bullshiat. Let's see what happens.
Just remember that you farksticks would be burned at the stake in basically any other country than the US.
You idiots feel emboldened to shout down religion everywhere? Uh, HELLO McFLY, huge conflicts have started over religion, do you REALLY think telling the warring sides that their gods don't exist is the right path?
Sure thing. Right after a Christian group tries to promote their beliefs via billboard in the area, followed by an encore with Fred Phelps and his band of morons spending a month picketing for their brand of crazy with anti-Islamic signs.
Uh huh. So you're going after a splinter group of Christians that even 99.9999% of all Christians think suck donkey balls. Seriously?
I find it amusing that atheists think they should be listened to. Women and gays around the world had to fight for rights. They have been legit oppressed, and are earning hard fought freedoms.
And then atheists come swooping in, all butthurt because no one takes your one stupid idea seriously.
The Bible, the Koran, and plenty other religious texts have a moral code embedded within to help people treat fellow man with love and respect. What have atheists written that does the same?
What will allow atheists to write any kind of moral code when their one idea, the assertion of a lack of God, relegates religious texts with moral codes to the fiction section?
If you noticed, I led with any generic Christian group that advertises with large billboards. I chose Phelps as a follow-up because I thought that was something we could all enjoy ripping on.
VetteLT193:from the video... how in flaming hell did Christianity steal Christmas? Isn't Christmas a Christian holiday???
I can't quite figure out atheists like this. Not believing in something would generally end in not participating but these idiots go out of their way to participate. If it is important to prove to the World how atheist you are go to work on Christmas day.
Brumalia was an ancient Roman solstice festival honoring Bacchus, generally held on 25 December and possibly related to the ancient Greek Lenaia (held in honour of Dionysus). The festival included drinking and merriment. The name is derived from the Latin word bruma, meaning "shortest day" or even "winter".
A celebration of the return to longer daytime hours (birth of the Sun) was highjacked by Christians in an effort to wipe out all Pegan celebrations, and became a celebration of the "Birth of the Son".
Pagans had long worshipped trees in the forest, or brought them into their homes and decorated them, and this observance was adopted and painted with a Christian veneer by the Church.
Norse mythology recounts how the god Balder was killed using a mistletoe arrow by his rival god Hoder while fighting for the female Nanna. Druid rituals use mistletoe to poison their human sacrificial victim.[8] The Christian custom of "kissing under the mistletoe" is a later synthesis of the sexual license of Saturnalia with the Druidic sacrificial cult.
In pre-Christian Rome, the emperors compelled their most despised citizens to bring offerings and gifts during the Saturnalia (in December) and Kalends (in January). Later, this ritual expanded to include gift-giving among the general populace. The Catholic Church gave this custom a Christian flavor by re-rooting it in the supposed gift-giving of Saint Nicholas
So yeah.. it might be a Christian holiday now, but it's origins are of Christians snuffing out Pegan Celebrations.
And so, as an Atheist, I celebrate Christmas because to me, it's a gathering of family, and that's all that matters to me.
daveUSMC:Where do aetheists get their ethical or moral codes? How do they come to a general agreement on what is right and what is wrong, and why do they hold those beliefs? Is it kind of like a spirit-fingers community-based voting system a la OWS?
i.e. we all hear the "don't hurt other people" basics, but why not hurt other people? What makes that "wrong" to atheists?
And I ask this out of genuine curiosity, not as a troll.
I save my trolling for gay marriage and illegal immigrants. They took err jerbs, and farked err dudes, etc.
Your thinking on this is exactly backwards. Whoever told you that religion is the source of morals and ethics was lying to you, and you bought it. Please note: this is a VERY common error, and I do not look down on you for it. Some of my very favorite people in the world have bought this same line of faulty reasoning.
Your moral code, your ethics, your knowledge of right and wrong came to you the same way mine came to me: social conditioning (and, to a degree, innate human nature, as others have alluded to). The way your parents raised you, the way your teachers taught you, the way your community reinforced "the rules" in your developing mind as a child... this is the way everyone learns morality. Religion merely ritualizes it.
SuwonROKs:It still isn't a myth. I did it without anyone's help. Worked my ass off. The problem is most of these lazy, self-entitled douchebag snowflakes want you to think it's hard. If anything, university is much easier today than it was 20 years ago.
Oh hell yeah it's a myth nowadays. Costs of colleges have risen way ahead of inflation, and finding a good job that pays beyond minimum wage for a college-age student right now is next to impossible.
A 40-hour a week minimum wage job will give you take-home pay today of around $15,000. A public in-state university, figuring in tuition, room & board, books, food, etc. almost universally exceeds $20,000. The work doesn't cover the costs even if you are a full-time student and worker. Over four years, that would add up to $20,000 in loans (+ interest).
And you can say all you want to just find a job that pays more, but frankly they're just not out there now for those without a college degree.
Bukharin:well, christ IS a myth http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/myth
"a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, especially one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature."
and yet, people are still gonna have a problem with this.
I don't. What's wrong with myths? They're the glue that holds societies together. Everyone's got myths--ENJOY them!
/Pagans LOVE myths //I pretty much figured God at least was a myth when I was Christian, though ///I also did not care.
FirstNationalBastard: Fark religion. Man should have outgrown this tribal bullshiat and need for an invisible alcoholic dad in the sky to have to make them be decent. At this point, religion is only doing as much harm as good.
Besides, when it comes to religions, the Judeo Christian god is kinda plain jane vanilla.
/ I'm more of a fan of Egyptian gods, but that's probably because I watched too much Stargate SG-1. Plus "Anubis", "Osiris" and "Isis" sound so much cooler than "Jesus".
TedNigma:never see these hatemongers pick on islam.
It happens. However, Islam's a bit under 1% of the US, and American Moslems tend pretty gung-ho in favor of separation of church and state (compared to, say, US Protestants); thus, the same proportion of impact on Christians has more significant political consequences.
publikenemy:How about just letting people be and not worrying what people believe or don't believe in?
Unfortunately, the beliefs other people have influence the preferences among their choices; which choices sometimes have conseqeunces secularists subjectively consider "bad". Overt participation in a open and vigorous free marketplace of ideas is a traditional American response.
Divinegrace:Take away my love and respect for God and I will fark this world, and anyone who gets in my way, up six ways come Sunday.
While Atheists are simply Good for Goodness' sake. How odd.
lordargent:FirstNationalBastard: Fark religion. Man should have outgrown this tribal bullshiat and need for an invisible alcoholic dad in the sky to have to make them be decent. At this point, religion is only doing as much harm as good.
Besides, when it comes to religions, the Judeo Christian god is kinda plain jane vanilla.
/ I'm more of a fan of Egyptian gods, but that's probably because I watched too much Stargate SG-1. Plus "Anubis", "Osiris" and "Isis" sound so much cooler than "Jesus".
I always liked the idea of the Chinese idea of the gods being celestial bureaucrats.
SPna15:publikenemy: Show me these billboards specifically mocking atheists. Even if there were a billboard like you say, it would be nowheres near the same thing. There is no central belief with atheism so how can they attack it? Mocking the birth of Christ can not be paralleled in any way with an attack on atheism since there is nothing equivalent to mock.
TedNigma:I never see these hatemongers pick on islam. Maybe it's because it's easier to pick on a people that have sworn a life of peace as Christians have.
One day we will get tired of being bullied. And when that day comes people will point fingers, but forget the constant vexing and badgering that came before it.
I've never had a member of Islam try to tell me what I should believe. I've never had a member of Islam tell me I was going to hell. I've never had a member of Islam not hire me because I didn't believe what "they" did. I've never had a member of Islam knock on my door and hand me a brochure about his/her religion. I've never had a member of Islam call me a hatemonger.
I don't hate Christians.. I just hate how pushy they are, and how they think it's their way, or the highway.. to hell. Not a fan of all the guilt.
/Love the Amish though. They keep to themselves for the most part.
Divinegrace:I will tell you this, I fear no man, government, or death. Take away my love and respect for God and I will fark this world, and anyone who gets in my way, up six ways come Sunday. Have no doubt I would get away with it too!
lol then you don't really care about being a moral person. You just do what you think your God says to do. I think you are not a truly moral person but rather a sheep.
"Take away my love and respect for unicorns, and I will fark this world, and anyone who gets in my way, up six ways come Sunday. Have no doubt that I would get a way with it too!"
I know that most atheists are fair-minded and reasonable, likable people. For that matter, so are most vegans. And so are most Christians.
The problem is that all three groups have certain segments within their population that make you hate them because they're determined to prove that they can be just as big an asshat as the people they hate, if not moreso. So if you are the standard reasonable variety and belong to one of the above groups, welcome to the club of "let's just agree to disagree without being jerks to each other." We feel your pain.
On the other hand, if you're the kind that enjoys being a jerk just for the sake of ruining someone's day... Well then congratulations on ruining it for the rest of your respective group as well. How many times do we have to explain to you that it's not about proving what THEY are. It's about representing how YOU are supposed to be in contrast. If you honestly think you can win people over to your opinion by being the bigger turd, you deserve to be ridiculed by school children. Fark you, and have a nice day.
Flubb:RexTalionis: Flubb: Yet, you've got 4 eponymous eyewitness accounts written within 40 years of the events taking place, and between 10 and 12 secular sources (of varying quality, some highly hostile) written between 50AD-200AD.
Ah, ha ha, no. The four canonical gospels are generally written well after the death of Jesus, with Mark being the oldest (and least varnished) version being written around, what, 60AD or just after? None of them were contemporary accounts, and some of them were written over a century afterwords. Heck, a most (or rather all, if I'm not mistaken) of the gospels were written in Greek rather than Hebrew or Aramaic, which pretty much guarantees that none of them are eyewitness accounts.
That's what 'written within 40 years of the events taking place' means (unless you want to get pendantic and include the birth of Jesus) - the earliest (Mark) written around the late 50's-60's, and the last (John) coming in around the 80's. Granted, John is just outside the 40 year range, but Matthew (written in Hebrew/Aramaic, Irenaeus points to a 40-50AD origin), and Luke (circa 70's, also pointing to a 40-50AD origin) still fit reasonably within that period. You'll also need to distinguish when a book is found and when a book is written (or may have been written) - simply because you can only date Mark to 60AD, doesn't mean it wasn't written down before that.
It's anachronistic to think that an account can only be accurate if it's written down at the moment it took place (which apparently is shorthand for 'as the person was speaking'). Your point hinges on whether oral sources are accurate or not, and the most recent scholarship indicates so (as per Richard Bauckham). There are also semitisms in some of the texts that indicate a non-native Greek origin, and considering that Christianity was an proselytizing religion, it would make sense that things were translated into Greek asap.
And, if you read any of the gospels closely, most of them do not identify the author as a particular apostle. The "author" is generally anonymous within the gospel itself and wasn't actually attributed to any particular apostle until much later, sometimes hundreds of years after the death of Christ.
You're correct in that none of the gospels specifically tag a name to them. But all 4 are tagged within a very short amount of time, within a hundred years. They're not considered pseudoepigraphic unlike many other works floating around at the time. The only really problematic gospel is John, which is mostly down to the fact that it's heavily theological and less biographical. Modern scholarship has a problem with John, early scholarship doesn't, and the book itself said it was written by the 'disciple whom Jesus loved', and there is a fair amount of internal evidence to suggest that it was written by someone there.
I'm not going to argue that every case is water-tight, or is free from problems, but it's certainly not as loose as it's often made out to be.
My daughters were born in '99 and '03. I'm going to ask them, without researching, to write about President Kennedy and all of his accomplishments. How accurate do you think that would be? The only difference, is there's a plethora of information, footage, books, writings etc about Kennedy. My oldest has probably already studied about him, but I'm sure she couldn't write anything accurate about his life.
Literally NOTHING was written until well after magic zombie man was dead. You'd think with all the astonishing things he supposedly did, someone would have had the intelligence to at least write some shiat down. We are talking about the son of God (who is god) right?
santadog:mbillips: santadog: mbillips: Friggin' show offs. Yes, yes, you're an atheist because you came to the obvious conclusion that the supernatural doesn't exist. Congratulations; look at the brain on you. Now shut up and don't spoil Christmas.
/Christmas is an American holiday involving lovely decorations and presents and food and booze and family gatherings and children's stories. That's all it needs to be, because that's AWESOME.
Yes, only Americans celebrate Christmas. We invented it, right?
Actually, in its modern form, yes. Nobody had a family-oriented Christmas with a decorated tree and present-giving to children, with the Santa Claus myth as we know it, until Washington Irving and other members of the Knickerbocker Club stitched it together from various other Christmas traditions and passed it off as "traditional." Prior to that, Christmas was largely ignored by devout Protestants, and for everyone else it was mainly a booze up; more like today's Slutoween. Commercialized Christmas (aka the good kind) was invented in America; editorialists in the mid-19th century were already biatching about how gift-giving was ruining this (brand new, and inherently commercial) "traditional" holiday.
[Citation] (new window)
Uhm.. my family is from Germany. Like, Mom is off the boat in 1948 German. They had trees over there. They gave gifts. It was a family gathering. Lutherans. German Christmas (new window)
The tradition of of a decorated Christmas tree is said to have originated with Martin Luther in Germany in the middle ages. The tree used most widely in Germany is the Norway spruce. Some people prefer the more expensive blue spruce. The Christmas tree tradition most likely came to the United States with Hessian troops during the American Revolution, or with German immigrants to Pennsylvania and Ohio.
Read the book. As I said, American Christmas (which has become the main way it's celebrated worldwide) was cobbled together from other traditions. Yes, Germans had a tree, but they didn't wake up on Christmas morning and exchange gifts, nor did they have a Santa Claus. Santa Claus, btw, was a revival and reworking of Sinterklaas (St. Nicholas), whose celebration in the low countries that had largely died out because of Protestantism, until he was revived through faux-traditional, American mythmaking like "A Visit from St. Nicholas." Americans didn't invent Christmas from whole cloth, but they created the middle-class, child-centered, commercial Christmas.
Leeds:Uncle Tractor: Leeds: We (Atheist Republicans) are the libertarian faction of the GOP and we're currently fighting with the magic-believing anti-science types over who controls our party.
May I suggest you and any other sane republicans who are left go fund a new party? You could just call it "The Conservative Party" or some such thing. With some luck, you'll manage to recruit the right wing of the Democrats.
IMO the GOP is a lost cause. Can't be saved. Teabaggers and crazy loons. Even if that description fits less than 10% of republicans, it's a 100% fit of the way normal people view the GOP.
It is true, the fundies seem to be louder than the normal people in my party. But that's true of the Democrats as well. Most democrats are probably nice hardworking Americans, but it's pretty hard not to see them all as corrupt mafia (union) backed thieves stealing from people who actually work for a living.
It would be great if both parties jettisoned their idiots. But I'd settle for just one doing it.
Put that way, if either party were to do so, I'd probably vote that way the rest of my life. They both have points I support, and both have idiocies I refuse to be part of.
FubarBDilligaf:Leeds: Uncle Tractor: Leeds: We (Atheist Republicans) are the libertarian faction of the GOP and we're currently fighting with the magic-believing anti-science types over who controls our party.
May I suggest you and any other sane republicans who are left go fund a new party? You could just call it "The Conservative Party" or some such thing. With some luck, you'll manage to recruit the right wing of the Democrats.
IMO the GOP is a lost cause. Can't be saved. Teabaggers and crazy loons. Even if that description fits less than 10% of republicans, it's a 100% fit of the way normal people view the GOP.
It is true, the fundies seem to be louder than the normal people in my party. But that's true of the Democrats as well. Most democrats are probably nice hardworking Americans, but it's pretty hard not to see them all as corrupt mafia (union) backed thieves stealing from people who actually work for a living.
It would be great if both parties jettisoned their idiots. But I'd settle for just one doing it.
Put that way, if either party were to do so, I'd probably vote that way the rest of my life. They both have points I support, and both have idiocies I refuse to be part of.
I think we are in complete agreement on this.
Interestingly, the field of Republican candidates is very diverse this cycle. I don't think two people could be more different in their views than Ron Paul and Rick Santorum, yet they are both vying for the GOP nod. This sort of diversity in our candidates is something you just don't see on the other side of the aisle.
mbillips:santadog: mbillips: santadog: mbillips: Friggin' show offs. Yes, yes, you're an atheist because you came to the obvious conclusion that the supernatural doesn't exist. Congratulations; look at the brain on you. Now shut up and don't spoil Christmas.
/Christmas is an American holiday involving lovely decorations and presents and food and booze and family gatherings and children's stories. That's all it needs to be, because that's AWESOME.
Yes, only Americans celebrate Christmas. We invented it, right?
Actually, in its modern form, yes. Nobody had a family-oriented Christmas with a decorated tree and present-giving to children, with the Santa Claus myth as we know it, until Washington Irving and other members of the Knickerbocker Club stitched it together from various other Christmas traditions and passed it off as "traditional." Prior to that, Christmas was largely ignored by devout Protestants, and for everyone else it was mainly a booze up; more like today's Slutoween. Commercialized Christmas (aka the good kind) was invented in America; editorialists in the mid-19th century were already biatching about how gift-giving was ruining this (brand new, and inherently commercial) "traditional" holiday.
[Citation] (new window)
Uhm.. my family is from Germany. Like, Mom is off the boat in 1948 German. They had trees over there. They gave gifts. It was a family gathering. Lutherans. German Christmas (new window)
The tradition of of a decorated Christmas tree is said to have originated with Martin Luther in Germany in the middle ages. The tree used most widely in Germany is the Norway spruce. Some people prefer the more expensive blue spruce. The Christmas tree tradition most likely came to the United States with Hessian troops during the American Revolution, or with German immigrants to Pennsylvania and Ohio.
Read the book. As I said, American Christmas (which has become the main way it's celebrated worldwide) was cobbled together from other traditions. Yes, Germans had a tree, but they didn't wake up on Christmas morning and exchange gifts, nor did they have a Santa Claus. Santa Claus, btw, was a revival and reworking of Sinterklaas (St. Nicholas), whose celebration in the low countries that had largely died out because of Protestantism, until he was revived through faux-traditional, American mythmaking like "A Visit from St. Nicholas." Americans didn't invent Christmas from whole cloth, but they created the middle-class, child-centered, commercial Christmas.
You didn't even read what I posted. Nevermind. Carry on.
whiterrabbit:FishyFred: Britney Spear's Speculum: Atheists could put up a billboard that says "'Have a good day' - Courtesy of the Freedom From Religious Foundation" and people would still complain.
That's why. The mere existence of atheists drives religious people crazy.
How would you know?? I am a Christian and I have no problems with Farkers, atheists, FSM followers, jews...to each his/her own. The gospel is an invitation that can be rejected...does not affect me whatsoever.. What does irk me is people who say that are opposed to blind intolerance practicing the same. Put your broad brush back in it's holster. We agree more than we disagree but I am not the kind to explain myself unless I really think you care. You probably don't. This is fine. Atheists can be closed minded and blind as well.
Leeds:Kome: MayoSlather: Republicans troll on religion and mention god all the time because they know it will piss off the left and cause a response, which only further serves to separate people that largely have the same base interests.
I disagree. The majority of liberals are themselves religious, the majority of Democrats are themselves religious. I suspect that the Republicans troll on religion because it excites their base, not their opponents base.
Not all republicans act that way, mind you. There are more atheist Republicans out there than most people realize.
We (Atheist Republicans) are the libertarian faction of the GOP and we're currently fighting with the magic-believing anti-science types over who controls our party.
Annnnnd welcome to my favorites list.
/also an agnostic/atheist libertarian working toward restoring some sanity to the Republican party. //have you looked into the Republican Liberty Caucus? ///www.rlc.org (new window) ////typing HTML on a mobile phone sucks.
daveUSMC:Where do aetheists get their ethical or moral codes?
It varies. Most common seems to be accepting some of the common conclusions, reasoning back to general principles, and then using the general principles to infer further implications. The results vary; Soviet Communism and Randite Capitalism are both atheist philosophies. These days, something on secular humanism seems more common among US atheists; however, I've met examples of both Communists and Randites locally.
You might find this an illuminating example -- but note that considering it an example does not imply I agree with premises, conclusions, or validity of particular inference steps.
A slightly different question, which for one sense requires a little bit of background to explain the answer.
Morality involves having a set of choices, and an ordering relationship for element pairs. Skipping a little of the most tedious set theory, you may have A is better than B, B is better than A, A and B are equivalent, or A and B are incomparable:
(A>B) (A<B) (A=B) (A||B)
Given the existence of a non-empty set of choices C, and using boring set-theory axioms, it's possible to constructively show the existence of a set O of ordering relations on the set. The question, then, is which element of O are you referring to.
Essentially, it comes down to a semantic definition. "This is the ordering relationship I mean by the word 'wrong'". Usually, there's a preference for one that results in an ordering with non-trivial similarity to human traditions and instincts. However, in some degree it's giving a bridge from is-to-ought as a proposition that may ultimately be unjustified from philosophical priors ("on faith").
Kome:The majority of liberals are themselves religious, the majority of Democrats are themselves religious.
Contrariwise, these days the majority of liberals are either not very religious or unaffiliated. (Of course, so is everything "slightly conservative" or left).
SirCodeAlot:o sure they are right with no way to prove it
That depends on what sense of the word "prove" you have in mind....
FubarBDilligaf:everybody is free to express and vote their consciousconscience
(FTFY.) Which means atheists are free to try and persuade theists to change their minds.
Leeds:There are more atheist Republicans out there than most people realize.
Of Republicans and Strong Republicans (who are about 23% of US adults, who in turn are about 76% of the US population, which is about 309 Million), approximately 0.6% are religiously unaffiliated and do not believe in God. So, about 325,000.
Sweet! I was hoping for some cake, too, which I'll get around to after I'm finished roasting these newborns on the fire. ;-)
/My way of thinking goes something like this; if you're a believer in some flavor of invisible deity, and are as invisible to me as your deity (meaning your belief has no impact on my life, politics, schools, government, public health policy, etc.), I'm fine with that, and I'll leave you alone as you have left me alone.
//But the instant you decide to proselytize, or parade around your contemptible ignorance as though it's some sort of badge of honor, you have abandoned all rights to not be mocked, ridiculed, and generally taunted. Claiming ignorance of scientific fact, or being deliberately obtuse about reality, deserves nothing less than unabashed scorn, in spades.
supayoda:The problem is that all three groups have certain segments within their population that make you hate them because they're determined to prove that they can be just as big an asshat as the people they hate, if not moreso.
That's part of the problem.
Unfortunately for the argument, the comparison is usually not made accurately; experimentally, the "pushy" atheists run only about as zealous as the typical 3-4 times monthly churchgoer, not the normal levels for actual fundamentalists.
supayoda:If you honestly think you can win people over to your opinion by being the bigger turd
No, no; but being a snarky git can be surprisingly effective.
Britney Spear's Speculum:These stupid articles always center around reactions and rebuttals from christian groups. How come whenever a priest molests a child, news outlets don't immediately ask atheist's their opinions?
Because when it's a priest abuse scandal they focus on the reaction of the family impacted? There is no real comparison to be drawn between a family suffering from abuse by a priest and Christians offended by this billboard, but it is a much more appropriate comparison than what you made.
That being said: at least the Atheists are funny ref this billboard:P.
abb3w:Unfortunately for the argument, the comparison is usually not made accurately; experimentally, the "pushy" atheists run only about as zealous as the typical 3-4 times monthly churchgoer, not the normal levels for actual fundamentalists.
Yeah, I'm not so sure your numbers run true to form over here are fark, where the Zealous atheists tend to run at about Westboro Baptists levels of derp.
//But the instant you decide to proselytize, or parade around your contemptible ignorance as though it's some sort of badge of honor, you have abandoned all rights to not be mocked, ridiculed, and generally taunted. Claiming ignorance of scientific fact, or being deliberately obtuse about reality, deserves nothing less than unabashed scorn, in spades.
It is really sad just how much of that crap is going on in this world.
halfof33:abb3w: Unfortunately for the argument, the comparison is usually not made accurately; experimentally, the "pushy" atheists run only about as zealous as the typical 3-4 times monthly churchgoer, not the normal levels for actual fundamentalists.
Yeah, I'm not so sure your numbers run true to form over here are fark, where the Zealous atheists tend to run at about Westboro Baptists levels of derp.
Your inability to grasp the concept of a null set is troubling but typical of someone who has not yet entered highschool.
From the logical standpoint, anyone who actually understands the concept of logic is by definition an atheist. (One could not logically make a positive claim about the existence of deity). Magic believers like you are only magic believers because you don't understand the topic at hand. These threads serve as a good place to attempt to educate you, the ignorant cross-kissing masses.
But go on and pretend that every topic you don't understand is simply "derp."
TedNigma:I never see these hatemongers pick on islam. Maybe it's because it's easier to pick on a people that have sworn a life of peace as Christians have.
One day we will get tired of being bullied. And when that day comes people will point fingers, but forget the constant vexing and badgering that came before it.
Reading through this whole thread and this was the Boobies that bugged me.
Darwin wasn't an atheist. He went to theology school and was a Christian.
Einstein considered himself an agnostic.
These guys are in many ways my heroes, and I am an atheist, but it's silly to misrepresent them like that.
And Lincoln and Franklin and Jefferson were deists, not atheists...Leeds:From the logical standpoint, anyone who actually understands the concept of logic is by definition an atheist. (One could not logically make a positive claim about the existence of deity). Magic believers like you are only magic believers because you don't understand the topic at hand. These threads serve as a good place to attempt to educate you, the ignorant cross-kissing masses.
But go on and pretend that every topic you don't understand is simply "derp."
And true to form, we get a scathing angry response from a True Believer in the Church of the Risen Atheist, loading in fallacy after fallacy (not the least of which are begging the question and ad hominem attacks)
All because I dared to point out the hypocrisy involved.
Use the word "magic" again, come on it really shows that you are a reasonable thinking logical person. Or call me an idiot again? Or crybaby?
halfof33:Yeah, I'm not so sure your numbers run true to form over here are fark,
Which is not a representative sample of the wider population. Fark appears pretty shockingly low in Christian Fundamentalists, and is pretty high in organized atheists. Thus, the number of asshat atheists may well be higher here than the number of asshat fundamentalists, in part just because of the anomalously high fraction of atheists and anomalously low fraction of fundamentalists, and even without addressing the degree your perceptions are non-objective.
Leeds:halfof33: abb3w: Unfortunately for the argument, the comparison is usually not made accurately; experimentally, the "pushy" atheists run only about as zealous as the typical 3-4 times monthly churchgoer, not the normal levels for actual fundamentalists.
Yeah, I'm not so sure your numbers run true to form over here are fark, where the Zealous atheists tend to run at about Westboro Baptists levels of derp.
Your inability to grasp the concept of a null set is troubling but typical of someone who has not yet entered highschool.
From the logical standpoint, anyone who actually understands the concept of logic is by definition an atheist. (One could not logically make a positive claim about the existence of deity). Magic believers like you are only magic believers because you don't understand the topic at hand. These threads serve as a good place to attempt to educate you, the ignorant cross-kissing masses.
But go on and pretend that every topic you don't understand is simply "derp."
Just so you know, you're making the rest of us look bad. Please stop.
Divinegrace:Telling someone that they can't take what they want because it is forbidden by a book IS simply trying to 'keep em down' by imposing 'made up fairy tales' on em.
I don't need to rely on a book to consider taking what belongs to another is wrong. I can figure that out for myself. It's logical and promotes social living.
I DO need to rely on a book to consider owning another human being to be okay. I DO need to rely on a book to consider homosexual relationships immoral.
One manifestly hurts other people...but, a book says it's okay. Another hurts no one and provides great comfort...but, a book says it's not okay.
I don't expect you to recognize the difference. You've pretty much advertised that you're a psychopath.
untaken_name:Um, I am not the one confused as to what morality is.
You absolutely are.
You have claimed that law and morality are indistinguishable. But, that's nonsensical.
Not even the law itself makes that claim. The law distinguishes between things that are forbidden because they are "immoral" (by social convention) and things that are forbidden merely because such prohibitions are considered useful (but, not necessarily bad in principle).
That is, the law distinguishes between mala is se offenses (those that are considered immoral in principle) and mala prohibita offenses (those that are forbidden because of convenience).
But, a more important question arises: why, if laws define morality, should laws ever change? If we can ascertain a priori that anything prohibited by law is immoral, what possible reason would we have to amend the law?
untaken_name:By what metric do you measure what is moral and what is immoral?
Human reasoning determines what is moral and what is immoral. I am not claiming that there is an objective standard of morality. I am saying that morality is determined by human judgments. And, when laws conflict with human judgments of morality, they are manifestly immoral -- for the person making the judgment.
abb3whalfof33:and even without addressing the degree your perceptions are non-objective.
I was about to chime in with a comment about equating funeral-protesting zealots with snark-posting Farkers in specifically dedicated atheism/religion discussion threads... but I think you just covered that.
Gotta love the christians and their terminal obsession with islam... and their longing for the days of the Crusades, so that they, too, can murder in the name of their lord again.
Hey, guys; this "fatwa envy" is NOT very becoming of you, or very progressive at all. It's bad enough we've got one religion stuck in the 4th Century - yes, I understand christianity is stuck there, too, but one religious group killing people for no good reason is quite enough, thank you very much. We don't need christian talibangelicals making the blood run in the streets as well; kthxbye.
Thorndyke Barnhard:I was about to chime in with a comment about equating funeral-protesting zealots with snark-posting Farkers in specifically dedicated atheism/religion discussion threads... but I think you just covered that.
Well, if it walks, talks and squawks like an intolerant bigot....
oh look who just chimed in:
Leeds:halfof33: Or call me an idiot again? Or crybaby?
Worse- I'll call you by your other fark handle, "I drunk what."
abb3w:(FTFY.) Which means atheists are free to try and persuade theists to change their minds.
Thanks for the fix, and yes it does, just as much as the theist are free to try to "save" the atheists.
eraser8:Not really. Anyone who lacks a belief in a god or gods is atheist.
Atheism (or theism) is a statement of belief. Agnosticism (or gnosticism) is a statement of knowledge.
Going back and rereading what I've said, I'll stand by it. I'll grant that you did make the argument you've stated, and that my reply was in response to my misreading it. Yes, anyone who lace a belief is an agnostic, however, not all agnostics are atheists, you also noted that. So, other than not knowing you were an AA, which makes you the first I've seen making the arguments you have, I wasn't wrong. And no, a/theism is not a statement of belief, it is a position that you have that knowledge or belief about (there is, or is not, a god or gods), a/gnosticism is the statement of either belief or knowledge. Which the chart you dismiss points out. And you're the first I've seen argue the definition of the terms.
A Gnostic Atheist "knows" there is no God. He will tell you the facts prove his position.* An Agnostic Atheist, as you've pointed out, doesn't claim knowledge, but rather that he doesn't believe that God exists**. An Agnostic Theist, as I am, doesn't claim knowledge, but believe that God exists. A Gnostic Theist "knows" that God exists. He will point out the facts that prove his position.*
The problem is that it's not valid to lump together those who do hold a positive statement of belief (They believe there is no God) with those who do not hold a belief (they neither believe nor disbelieve in God) Until something better comes along, calling the first group atheists and the second agnostics works as well as anything.
*The "facts" are not factual, if they were, there wouldn't be any discussion. **Even within that there is room for more division, within the AAs there are those who hold no belief, and there are those who do hold a belief, some don't believe that God exists, but also do not hold a belief that he doesn't exist, and the others do hold a definite belief that God does not exist.
Sarah Palin's Conscience: Now, please, tell me how the stories and lessons learned from the Bible and similar holy texts can be used in a modern society. I still hold the opinion that it has very little to no use and can he easily discarded.
Unfortunately, without the Bible, you will not understand much of Western European literature. The motifs are too deeply ingrained into out cultural strata.
I am a Pagan. My background is Judaism, with a mixture of Zen and various Neopagan traditions. I own and have read a copy of the Bible. I plan on teaching my daughter a "Bible as literature" class when she is old enough.
The goal of the exercise is to understand when an author is making a reference to a Biblical story. E.g the name Job or Noah may be carefully chosen by the author to refer to the traits associated with those characters.
There are way too many of these to count. So, if you will understand why in The Matrix: Revolutions Neo's arms are spread wide when the machines take his body down, you will need to either read or become familiar with the stories in the Bible.
forfarkonly:All you "atheists" - you're not atheists: you don't know what you are.
Actually, I know what I am, and it isn't an atheist. Nor is it a pagan, nor is it a Christian. You might want to worry a little more about what you are, and stop worrying so much about what other people are.
FubarBDilligaf:So, other than not knowing you were an AA, which makes you the first I've seen making the arguments you have
Technically, Dawkins is an agnostic atheist under this convention.
FubarBDilligaf:The problem is that it's not valid to lump together those who do hold a positive statement of belief (They believe there is no God) with those who do not hold a belief (they neither believe nor disbelieve in God) Until something better comes along, calling the first group atheists and the second agnostics works as well as anything.
Depending on preference of anthropology versus philosophy, or Heyting versus Boolean logic.
Raven Darke:I am a Pagan. My background is Judaism, with a mixture of Zen and various Neopagan traditions.
Interesting.
So, what's your personally subjective take on the history and prescription of "separation of church and state"?
halfof33:Thorndyke Barnhard: I was about to chime in with a comment about equating funeral-protesting zealots with snark-posting Farkers in specifically dedicated atheism/religion discussion threads... but I think you just covered that.
Well, if it walks, talks and squawks like an intolerant bigot....
oh look who just chimed in:
Leeds: halfof33: Or call me an idiot again? Or crybaby?
Worse- I'll call you by your other fark handle, "I drunk what."
I can think of a few good reasons to be intolerant, prejudiced, and show animosity towards religion and the religious. Sometimes a little bigotry towards demonstrably destructive institutions is perfectly justifiable. Still, we should probably be polite and respectful towards each other regardless of our views on magic, or weather or not any of us actually are being crybabies or idiots.
Slaves2Darkness:So if it is not hard to find atheists do you know any personally and do they say inflammatory stupid shiat in interviews like, "No, I don't know that christians should be regarded as citizens, nor should they be regarded as patriotic. This is one nation without God.... I support the separation of church and state. I'm just not very high on christians. "? If you don't recognize the paraphrasing of that quote let me give it to you in all it's glory No, I don't know that atheists should be regarded as citizens, nor should they be regarded as patriotic. This is one nation under God.... I support the separation of church and state. I'm just not very high on atheists. Geroge H. W. Bush, President of the United States.
You see how an atheist could feel a little threatened when the farking president of the United States goes around telling people that you are not a citizen. Of course it is atheists that are being assholes by professing a non-belief in god, but christians who put up giant JESUS! billboards or 100' crosses across America are a-okay with you. Just like arresting Jews was a-okay with all good Germans.
Take a deep breath and go change your diaper, and then I'll share some wonderful news with you. George Bush didn't set up any atheist internment camps, he didn't take away any of your rights, and he's not pushing to revoke your citizenship later on down the line. He's not even President anymore, and though I can't totally guarantee this, I'm willing to bet he's not hiding under your bed waiting to grab at your ankles when the lights go out. The bad scary man is gone and you don't need to fear him anymore.
As for the rest of your outlandish assumptions, I find the giant crosses and Jesus billboards equally obnoxious, but also equally ignorable. I don't appreciate anyone shoving their beliefs in my face, but unless they're planning to push those crosses or billboards on top of me, I can't say I feel all that threatened by them. I certainly don't think that putting up billboards is in any way, shape or form comparable to Nazis arresting Jews. Come on, seriously??? If you're not trolling and are truly that paranoid, perhaps you should seek counseling and talk through some of your concerns with a qualified professional. I'm not saying that to be insulting (okay, maybe just a little insulting), I honestly think you sound like you're harboring deeper issues that need to be worked through.
People_are_Idiots:So love it when a sign posts making the Deism of the 17-1900s the exact same thing as Atheism.
To talk of immaterial existences is to talk of nothings. To say that the human soul, angels, god, are immaterial, is to say they are nothings, or that there is no god, no angels, no soul. I cannot reason otherwise: but I believe I am supported in my creed of materialism by Locke, Tracy, and Stewart. (source)
eraser8:You have claimed that law and morality are indistinguishable. But, that's nonsensical.
No, I did NOT make that claim. If you think I did, post it. I said that law is codified morality, which it is. That's not the same thing.
eraser8:Human reasoning determines what is moral and what is immoral. I am not claiming that there is an objective standard of morality. I am saying that morality is determined by human judgments. And, when laws conflict with human judgments of morality, they are manifestly immoral -- for the person making the judgment.
This is nonsensical. "Manifestly" means abundantly evident. If you have to reason your way to something, and it doesn't come out the same way every time, then it isn't "manifestly" anything. Laws conflict with the judgements of morality of EVERYONE WHO BREAKS THEM. Thus, a murderer feels that laws against murder are immoral. Yet those laws are not, as you claim, "manifestly immoral". Saying that every human is able to determine what is moral is exactly the same thing as saying that everything is moral and nothing is. It's useless. That's what I mean when I say there is no objective standard of morality, and claiming that you can use subjective values to prove or disprove anything is retarded. You can't make the claim that something is "manifestly immoral" if the definition of "immoral" changes from person to person - yet that is what you're trying to do. Ridiculous. I say again, I am not the one who is confused about morality.
jaymanchu: My daughters were born in '99 and '03. I'm going to ask them, without researching, to write about President Kennedy and all of his accomplishments. How accurate do you think that would be? The only difference, is there's a plethora of information, footage, books, writings etc about Kennedy. My oldest has probably already studied about him, but I'm sure she couldn't write anything accurate about his life.
Literally NOTHING was written until well after magic zombie man was dead. You'd think with all the astonishing things he supposedly did, someone would have had the intelligence to at least write some shiat down. We are talking about the son of God (who is god) right?
Your daughters live in a chirographic culture. The 1st century was primarily oral, together with the mechanisms that promote the oral retention of information. Why would you write something down when you've got the perfectly usable brain inside your head?
Flubb:Your daughters live in a chirographic culture. The 1st century was primarily oral,
There are plenty, PLENTY of texts from those times and before. It was the freaking Roman Empire for Koresh's sake. And slightly before that, part of the literate Alexandrian Empire. And the Jews had been writing ever since space aliens gave writing to Moses. Is illiteracy really the excuse you want to be reaching for?
Uncle Tractor:Flubb: It's true Jesus didn't leave any physical artifacts behind. Yet, you've got 4 eponymous eyewitness accounts written within 40 years of the events taking place,
How do you know they weren't just making the whole thing up? How do you explain the miracles? If they could make that up. why not everything else as well. How you do know Hitler is *really* dead? Have you touched his bony skull with your own hands? Were you there when they shot him? How you do know that the Soviet reports are accurate? Is Wikipedia lying to you? You're welcome to extreme skepticism of course, but that can be levied at *any* situation and event (cf 9/11). Most historians don't submit to this however. and between 10 and 12 secular sources (of varying quality, some highly hostile) written between 50AD-200AD. What secular sources? The ones I've seen so far were hearsay, third-hand knowledge, and outright forgeries by later clergy.
Tacitus, Pliny, Seutonius, Lucian and Celsus. On the Jewish side, Josephus (and no, it's not monolithically agreed that everything he said was a Christian interpolation), and the Talmud (baraitha Sandehrin and baraitha Shabbat). Are they eyewitness accounts? No. But then why would you assume that there would be any secular eyewitnesses? There are no American accounts of the coronation of Richard I, but why should that invalidate Roger Hoveden's account? Again, if multiple sources refer to the existence of someone, then there's a good chance they existed. We only have about 7 copies of Plato's works and that's including a 1200 year gap between when he was supposed to have written, and when the first copy surfaces, and yet nobody denies his existence or the veracity of what he wrote. In fact, all you have to do is look at the arguments around when he was born - nobody agrees when he was born, or when he died, but nobody says he doesn't exist.
Also, Diocletian orders the destruction of all Christian churches, books, and manuscripts in 303AD, so we have no idea what information was lost then. I'll go out on a limb and guess that most biblical scholars were / are christians who believed Jesus was real before they started looking into the matter. Again: It's a truism that believers generally don't bother to look into.
Well in that case, every scholar better throw his degree in the bin because some kid on Wordpress wrote a post about how Jesus is a myth. If you don't know how biblical scholars and historians get to a conclusion, then simply read some more and give people their due for having worked in a field for many years with the qualities necessary to exist in a peer-reviewed environment. It's a truism because the evidence strongly supports the existence of a person called Jesus, rather than not. What that Jesus is like is another argument, but his existence is only denied by fringe scholars and people with books to promote. Even the current atheist darling Bart Ehrman thinks he existed.
I could also argue that people who argue against Jesus being real do so because they've already started from a position of believing he isn't real :) Au contraire, christianity offered the "Kingdom of God" as a reward. You just had to die before you could collect. This could be very tempting for people who had nothing and nothing to hope for from the pagan Roman faith.
If you think the hoi polloi are going to throw away instant gratification and tangible reward for something like the future promise of a better life, I have to wonder how much you actually know about pre-Constantine Christianity or Roman religion. Why bother joining a religion that places so many restraints and requirements on you, and has the dubious quality of being actively persecuted? Would you rather be boning temple prostitutes as an act of religious devotion, or singing songs hiding in some crypt? Is it easier to toss a few grapes on the household altar, or refuse to do so, losing your property and life in the process? People believe in scientology, "trickle down economy," astrology, the "gay agenda," ZOG, little green men with anal probes, that Obama is a Kenyan crypto-muslim atheist al Qaeda commie, racial supremacy, that a brick on chicken wire proves that 911 was an inside job, and so many other stupid idiotic things that there is nothing so far out that I would be surprised to learn that somebody somewhere believes it.
I'd agree - people believe in stupid things. Yet with all your examples above, very few of them require you to sacrifice your life, your possessions, or your family (scientology excepted perhaps).The closest analogue would be another religion (or variation), and even then, it's mostly the Abrahamic ones that would fit that pattern. Just because a stupid person believes something, doesn't make it untrue, simply that a stupid person believes something. Conversely, simply because you die for something, doesn't make it real or true, only that you are convinced of something being true and real.
0Icky0:Flubb: Your daughters live in a chirographic culture. The 1st century was primarily oral,
There are plenty, PLENTY of texts from those times and before. It was the freaking Roman Empire for Koresh's sake. And slightly before that, part of the literate Alexandrian Empire. And the Jews had been writing ever since space aliens gave writing to Moses. Is illiteracy really the excuse you want to be reaching for?
I never mentioned anything about illiteracy, I said that it's primarily oral. Things are written down when they become important. Your expectation seems to be that everything must be documented in writing at the precise time of the event taking place to have any validity. Oral history doesn't work like that. You write things down only when it becomes necessary, which is why early Christians begin to write things down once they start expanding outside of the Levant. As for the Jews writing down everything down, that wasn't the case, as the numerous messianic claimants, (for whom we have little to no evidence for), attest to, and the sheer number of Jewish books which the Jews don't have copies of seems to belie your assertion. Yet, you don't find people lining up on the internet claiming that Theudas or Athronges don't exist.
If the Roman empire was so good at writing things down, why do we see no mention of Pilate anywhere except the gospels? That was one of the reasons people thought it was made up, he didn't exist, until someone found evidence for him in 1961, almost 1900 years after the first mention of him. Seriously, it's not that difficult to note the vast numbers of missing texts we don't have access to. We don't even have texts written well after the Roman empire collapsed.
Flubb:That's what 'written within 40 years of the events taking place' means (unless you want to get pendantic and include the birth of Jesus) - the earliest (Mark) written around the late 50's-60's, and the last (John) coming in around the 80's. Granted, John is just outside the 40 year range, but Matthew (written in Hebrew/Aramaic, Irenaeus points to a 40-50AD origin), and Luke (circa 70's, also pointing to a 40-50AD origin) still fit reasonably within that period. You'll also need to distinguish when a book is found and when a book is written (or may have been written) - simply because you can only date Mark to 60AD, doesn't mean it wasn't written down before that.
Even if we assume that your timeline is correct (which is, really, not as certain as you seem to think it is), it's still rather ridiculous to assume that any of them were eponymous or eye-witness accounts. They were all written 40-100 years after the death of Jesus, for crying out loud. Considering that all the eyewitnesses were in their 20s and 30s at the very least when Christ was died, and considering this is the first century we're talking about, what do you think is the likelihood of any of it being written by the named writers (discounting the fact that even the accounts don't identify any of the apostles which we've already mentioned).
And, in any case, if you look at Mark and all the later books that came after Mark, the later books borrow heavily from Mark to the point where sections are just paraphrased portions of Mark. Many scholars believed that the later books of the gospel copied portions from Mark. Why would eye-witnesses need to borrow from an earlier book?
Flubb:0Icky0: Flubb: Your daughters live in a chirographic culture. The 1st century was primarily oral,
There are plenty, PLENTY of texts from those times and before. It was the freaking Roman Empire for Koresh's sake. And slightly before that, part of the literate Alexandrian Empire. And the Jews had been writing ever since space aliens gave writing to Moses. Is illiteracy really the excuse you want to be reaching for?
I never mentioned anything about illiteracy, I said that it's primarily oral. Things are written down when they become important. Your expectation seems to be that everything must be documented in writing at the precise time of the event taking place to have any validity. Oral history doesn't work like that. You write things down only when it becomes necessary, which is why early Christians begin to write things down once they start expanding outside of the Levant. As for the Jews writing down everything down, that wasn't the case, as the numerous messianic claimants, (for whom we have little to no evidence for), attest to, and the sheer number of Jewish books which the Jews don't have copies of seems to belie your assertion. Yet, you don't find people lining up on the internet claiming that Theudas or Athronges don't exist.
If the Roman empire was so good at writing things down, why do we see no mention of Pilate anywhere except the gospels? That was one of the reasons people thought it was made up, he didn't exist, until someone found evidence for him in 1961, almost 1900 years after the first mention of him. Seriously, it's not that difficult to note the vast numbers of missing texts we don't have access to. We don't even have texts written well after the Roman empire collapsed.
lordargent:The Southern Dandy: Atheist does mean one is against God. It only means one doesn't believe in God. I firmly believe there are no leprechauns. Doesn't mean I'm against leprechauns.
I don't believe in unicorns, or androids.
But if there were unicorns and androids, I would be for them, because that's awesome.
[s3.amazonaws.com image 500x598]
Your logic is only true if the thing you deny does not exist. If I were to deny you existed, when in fact you do exist. ( I can only assume you do exist because I have not seen you or spoken to you, nor do I know anyone one who knows you ....) But anyway, if I actively preached and tried to convince others that you do not exist, it would be easy to make the jump to the idea that I was 'against you'. To be honest, I can not think of a more dramatic way to be 'against' someone than to deny the existed.
Kind of like a country declaring you Persona non grata
Even if we assume that your timeline is correct (which is, really, not as certain as you seem to think it is), it's still rather ridiculous to assume that any of them were eponymous or eye-witness accounts. They were all written 40-100 years after the death of Jesus, for crying out loud. Considering that all the eyewitnesses were in their 20s and 30s at the very least when Christ was died, and considering this is the first century we're talking about, what do you think is the likelihood of any of it being written by the named writers (discounting the fact that even the accounts don't identify any of the apostles which we've already mentioned).
The timeline isn't anything wildly disputable, the traditional understanding is a 40-60 year gap.
As for the gospels being written 40-100 years afterwards (I would dispute the latter date), this is where we get into the validity of eyewitness accounts. Assume the apostles are 30 years old at the crucifixion (you started following a rabbi at around 15, so let's err on the side of caution) - this gives them up to about 90AD before they're all dead (most of them died much earlier). Heck, lets go with the Wiki account of their deaths. You've got eyewitnesses dying anywhere up till about 90AD. That's *just* the apostle eyewitnesses, as there would have been others (Luke refers to them). So for 60 years after the crucifixion, you've got people running about relating stories. That's certainly enough time for things to be committed to print (the general estimation is 40-60 years). For contrast, Mohammed's biography took 125 years to come into print, Siddhartha Gautama takes 350 years, and even Hillel, one of Israel's greatest Rabbi's takes 100 years after his death for his works to come into print. No scholar says Hillel is suspect.
This is in a culture where to follow a rabbi, you'd have to memorize the entire Torah and most of the Old Testament by the age of about 15. And not only do you have to recall those books, but be able to do so indicating that you understand the material involved. You were constantly tested on your ability to recall and contextualise. When Judah ha-Nasi brings together the Misnah in 200AD, it's all the learning of approximately 150 rabbis - a modern print version runs to well over a thousand pages, so it's no mean feat.
Once you hit 100AD onwards, you begin to have secondary commentary on the Gospels, their authorship, and how they were put together. So Eusebius quotes Papias who says that Mark wrote down what Peter said, which neatly fits into the fact that portions of Mark focus on Peter's perspective of a situation. He also affirms Matthew's authorship. Irenaeus refers (I'm having to pull this from memory so I'm not 100% on it) to the authorship of all 4 gospels as being put together by the 4 writers. He's only 1 disciple removed from John, so it's not that much of a gap.
And, in any case, if you look at Mark and all the later books that came after Mark, the later books borrow heavily from Mark to the point where sections are just paraphrased portions of Mark. Many scholars believed that the later books of the gospel copied portions from Mark. Why would eye-witnesses need to borrow from an earlier book?
Well, while the similarities between the synoptics are well documented, so are the differences. Mark writes the first account (via Peter) and that is incorporated into what is understood to be independent compilations - Luke compiles using some of Mark, as does Matthew. There's nothing fishy about that, they're simply using what sources are available. There's also the possibility of Q (sources which Mark used), L (sources which Luke used), and M (which Matthew uses) as being additional material for each gospel. This doesn't obviate the eyewitness perspective, simply that they use what they can find. Mark only comprises about 40% of the content in Matthew and Luke, so there's a good 60% of new material. There's also the fact that if 6 people see an event and write an account of it, there's going to be repetition somewhere. Put together people's memory of 9/11, and everyone will say 2 planes crashed into the towers.
abb3w:People_are_Idiots: So love it when a sign posts making the Deism of the 17-1900s the exact same thing as Atheism.
To talk of immaterial existences is to talk of nothings. To say that the human soul, angels, god, are immaterial, is to say they are nothings, or that there is no god, no angels, no soul. I cannot reason otherwise: but I believe I am supported in my creed of materialism by Locke, Tracy, and Stewart. (source)
Po-TAY-toh, Po-TAH-toh....
0Icky0: Yeah, that was pretty stupid.
There clearly are some differences, yes.
"In this situation of this Assembly, groping as it were in the dark to find political truth, and scarce able to distinguish it when present to us, how has it happened, Sir, that we have not hitherto once thought of humbly applying to the Father of lights to illuminate our understandings?... I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth - that God governs in the affairs of men."
"But we were good boys...we didn't break the Sabbath often enough to signify--once a week perhaps... Anyway, we were good Presbyterian boys when the weather was doubtful; when it was fair, we did wander a little from the fold. "
TexasRedbud:lordargent: The Southern Dandy: Atheist does mean one is against God. It only means one doesn't believe in God. I firmly believe there are no leprechauns. Doesn't mean I'm against leprechauns.
I don't believe in unicorns, or androids.
But if there were unicorns and androids, I would be for them, because that's awesome.
[s3.amazonaws.com image 500x598]
Your logic is only true if the thing you deny does not exist. If I were to deny you existed, when in fact you do exist. ( I can only assume you do exist because I have not seen you or spoken to you, nor do I know anyone one who knows you ....) But anyway, if I actively preached and tried to convince others that you do not exist, it would be easy to make the jump to the idea that I was 'against you'. To be honest, I can not think of a more dramatic way to be 'against' someone than to deny the existed.
Kind of like a country declaring you Persona non grata
Not to get too nitpicky, but YOUR logic is only true if God can be proven to exist.
Arguing if a unicorn exists and arguing if a poster on this board exists is not the same argument. A unicorn cannot be proven to exist but a random farker can...
Alright, fine, then prove that each of the 4 Gospels were eponymous eye-witness accounts. You seem to have all the answers. Prove it.
The short answer is that people close to the sources and time period said they were.
What, the church had no motivation to say that these were the direct writings of one of Jesus's apostles rather than Fred who compiled it from accounts by Bob and Joe who heard it from Jack and Jill who each got theirs from a guy who knew Peter?
Alright, fine, then prove that each of the 4 Gospels were eponymous eye-witness accounts. You seem to have all the answers. Prove it.
The short answer is that people close to the sources and time period said they were.
What, the church had no motivation to say that these were the direct writings of one of Jesus's apostles rather than Fred who compiled it from accounts by Bob and Joe who heard it from Jack and Jill who each got theirs from a guy who knew Peter?
Much of the accounts could actually be legitimate. Except any parts that reference magic, miracles, the gods, souls, reincarnation and being sucked into the sky.
But I think we can all get behind the parts that describe them hanging out fishing and chugging wine.
Kelbel:Thanks for driving your opinion on me. I don't buy billboards to push my beliefs.
No, people like you just put up huge road-side crosses, big butter Jesus, ect. And actually, yes, at least in my area, there are frequently religious billboards. And you know what, I don't throw a hissy fit every time I see one. I think "Oh, another one of those, then", and go on with my day. I don't get offended and worked up every time I see a cross on a church, or a bumper sticker on a car- why does seeing an atheist billboard rile you up so much?
Alright, fine, then prove that each of the 4 Gospels were eponymous eye-witness accounts. You seem to have all the answers. Prove it.
The short answer is that people close to the sources and time period said they were.
The same could be said about alien abductions and the ghost of Resurrection Mary.
Robin Hood and King Arthur legends (and the earlier related mythical cycles) are probably based in part on several real people and the stories that grew around them. How do we know that "Jesus" was not the result of stories about several Jewish reformers who captured the public imagination and were merged into stories that people liked because they felt repressed by the Romans and the Pharisees? Later, when all the stories were collected, the leaders of the most influential parts of the new cult which grew around the "Jesus" legends could have decided which stories were gospel and which were apocryphal (or just plain wrong).
abbarach:Kelbel: Thanks for driving your opinion on me. I don't buy billboards to push my beliefs.
No, people like you just put up huge road-side crosses, big butter Jesus, ect. And actually, yes, at least in my area, there are frequently religious billboards. And you know what, I don't throw a hissy fit every time I see one. I think "Oh, another one of those, then", and go on with my day. I don't get offended and worked up every time I see a cross on a church, or a bumper sticker on a car- why does seeing an atheist billboard rile you up so much?
I know you will find this hard to believe. But it has come to my understanding that ALL Christian Farkers are completely enlightened, "pray in the closet" types. You will not find a single one that will support or enter a church with a sign displaying a theistic message on it's yard. Nor, will you find a Christian Farker who has not burst in to one of those churches and demanded the minister/preist tear down their "In your face", outwardly evangelical, sign. They complain endlessly at the douchy way in which Christians in America postulate they're faith on radio, TV and in government. They argue with they're friends and family for attending any church which publicly states their theistic position, for the Christian Farker is a solemn Christian, constantly turning the other cheek, and quietly breathing Gods air with thankful indignation.
tinfoil-hat maggie:One of the white letter on black background said something like 'I'm so proud of how you treated one another after the storms" That was after the April 27th tornado outbreak and it was signed God.
What, no billboard where He says why He sent the storms? "One of your kids has teh ghey." "Billy and Suzy saw a book on Wicca at the bookstore." "Somebody watched a news channel other than Fox." etc...
Alright, fine, then prove that each of the 4 Gospels were eponymous eye-witness accounts. You seem to have all the answers. Prove it.
The short answer is that people close to the sources and time period said they were.
The same could be said about alien abductions and the ghost of Resurrection Mary.
Robin Hood and King Arthur legends (and the earlier related mythical cycles) are probably based in part on several real people and the stories that grew around them. How do we know that "Jesus" was not the result of stories about several Jewish reformers who captured the public imagination and were merged into stories that people liked because they felt repressed by the Romans and the Pharisees? Later, when all the stories were collected, the leaders of the most influential parts of the new cult which grew around the "Jesus" legends could have decided which stories were gospel and which were apocryphal (or just plain wrong).
Perhaps the the Romans helped orchestrate the legend to divide (and subdue) the Jews.
We have but a glimmer of the beginning of Christianity through ancient writings from the likes of Tacitus, Pliny and others. Notice, none of the writings (save Josephus) link the Christ character with a name.
But if I was being intellectually honest I would say they only provide perspective on only the empirical element of a Christ (the anointed one) cult(s) around that time. In my opinion, that's all historical writing can do. Without an empirical subject (like say physical evidence), they will always create a blurred and often argumentative version of reality.
It's important to note that there is the historicity of Jesus, and the history of Jesus (myth/legend). It's important not to conflate the two for arguments sake.
Alright, fine, then prove that each of the 4 Gospels were eponymous eye-witness accounts. You seem to have all the answers. Prove it.
The short answer is that people close to the sources and time period said they were.
What, the church had no motivation to say that these were the direct writings of one of Jesus's apostles rather than Fred who compiled it from accounts by Bob and Joe who heard it from Jack and Jill who each got theirs from a guy who knew Peter?
Much of the accounts could actually be legitimate. Except any parts that reference magic, miracles, the gods, souls, reincarnation and being sucked into the sky.
But I think we can all get behind the parts that describe them hanging out fishing and chugging wine.
That's the kind of Bible I want to read: a historical account of the origins of the Jewish tribe, its transition to nation-state and its fall, and the resulting movement that birthed the Christ myth, and its spread to pagan territories. None of this "trumpets caused Jericho's walls to fall" or "feeding the thousands with 5 loaves of bread" nonsense.
Alright, fine, then prove that each of the 4 Gospels were eponymous eye-witness accounts. You seem to have all the answers. Prove it.
The short answer is that people close to the sources and time period said they were.
What, the church had no motivation to say that these were the direct writings of one of Jesus's apostles rather than Fred who compiled it from accounts by Bob and Joe who heard it from Jack and Jill who each got theirs from a guy who knew Peter?
Much of the accounts could actually be legitimate. Except any parts that reference magic, miracles, the gods, souls, reincarnation and being sucked into the sky.
But I think we can all get behind the parts that describe them hanging out fishing and chugging wine.
That's the kind of Bible I want to read: a historical account of the origins of the Jewish tribe, its transition to nation-state and its fall, and the resulting movement that birthed the Christ myth, and its spread to pagan territories. None of this "trumpets caused Jericho's walls to fall" or "feeding the thousands with 5 loaves of bread" nonsense.
That's the kind of bible the United States' founding fathers wanted to read as well.
Nick the What:It's important to note that there is the historicity of Jesus, and the history of Jesus (myth/legend). It's important not to conflate the two for arguments sake.
Fair enough, but the original post claimed the gospels were eyewitness accounts that proved something (I'm not sure if he meant the existence of a actual person named Jesus on whom the gospels were based or that he thought the gospels proved the events described were true). Granted the gospels and other sources provide some evidence for the possible (and some would say probable) existence of a historical "Jesus" but as you noted, this type of evidence is subject to many interpretations and falls short of proof.
Overall, I agree with you. I was just pointing out his proof was faulty (as have others). But then again, for members of most religions faith is required. "You don't fix the book, it fixes you." While I am not a Christian I can have a certain respect for their faith (up to a point). I just don't think the Bible is literally true, and as a historical document, it has limited value beyond its mythological and cultural significance.
Also, believing that Hitler is dead does not require belief in the supernatural. Believing in Jesus does. People keep claiming that Jesus really lived. Fine. Where's the proof?
You're welcome to extreme skepticism of course, but that can be levied at *any* situation and event (cf 9/11). Most historians don't submit to this however.
Believing that Hitler is dead is not extreme skepticism. Nor is doubting the existence of a man who was supposedly able to walk on water, raise the dead, and returned from the dead.
and between 10 and 12 secular sources (of varying quality, some highly hostile) written between 50AD-200AD. What secular sources? The ones I've seen so far were hearsay, third-hand knowledge, and outright forgeries by later clergy.
Tacitus, Pliny, Seutonius, Lucian and Celsus. On the Jewish side, Josephus (and no, it's not monolithically agreed that everything he said was a Christian interpolation), and the Talmud (baraitha Sandehrin and baraitha Shabbat). Are they eyewitness accounts? No.
So, which of those accounts are more than hearsay or third-hand knowledge? Maybe you could tell me about the *one* account you find to be the best evidence of his existence (assuming it's not just more hearsay) and I'll look at that. The names I recognize in your list did not impress me.
Know what I'd think of as good evidence? An eyewitness account of the meeting of Jesus and Pilate, written by a roman who was present. Or a roman sergeant writing something along the lines of: "Today we nailed up a local troublemaker. Claimed he was the king of the jews. Went by the name of Jesus."
But then why would you assume that there would be any secular eyewitnesses?
Where did I make that assumption?
There are no American accounts of the coronation of Richard I, but why should that invalidate Roger Hoveden's account? Again, if multiple sources refer to the existence of someone, then there's a good chance they existed.
Not when those sources claim that that someone violated the laws of nature. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, etc.
We only have about 7 copies of Plato's works and that's including a 1200 year gap between when he was supposed to have written, and when the first copy surfaces, and yet nobody denies his existence or the veracity of what he wrote. In fact, all you have to do is look at the arguments around when he was born - nobody agrees when he was born, or when he died, but nobody says he doesn't exist.
Plato did not perform miracles, and he left actual texts behind that can be read today. There is no
Also, Diocletian orders the destruction of all Christian churches, books, and manuscripts in 303AD, so we have no idea what information was lost then.
That doesn't mean we should make assumptions about what was lost.
Well in that case, every scholar better throw his degree in the bin because some kid on Wordpress wrote a post about how Jesus is a myth. If you don't know how biblical scholars and historians get to a conclusion, then simply read some more and give people their due for having worked in a field for many years with the qualities necessary to exist in a peer-reviewed environment. It's a truism because the evidence strongly supports the existence of a person called Jesus, rather than not.
Then. Where. Is. This. "Evidence?"
I could also argue that people who argue against Jesus being real do so because they've already started from a position of believing he isn't real :)
And you would be correct to make that assumption. If I told you about the existence of invisible flying unicorns, wouldn't you immediately take the position that there was no such thing? This is healthy skepticism. Nothing more.
Ask yourself this; what kind of evidence would it take to convince you that scandinavian trolls really exist? That's probably the same kind of evidence it would take to convince me that Jesus really lived.
Au contraire, christianity offered the "Kingdom of God" as a reward. You just had to die before you could collect. This could be very tempting for people who had nothing and nothing to hope for from the pagan Roman faith.
If you think the hoi polloi are going to throw away instant gratification and tangible reward for something like the future promise of a better life,
People do that all the time.
I have to wonder how much you actually know about pre-Constantine Christianity or Roman religion. Why bother joining a religion that places so many restraints and requirements on you,
Say what? All you need to do is believe in Jesus and ask forgiveness for your sins, and you're assured an eternity in Heaven.
Aunt Crabby:Nick the What: It's important to note that there is the historicity of Jesus, and the history of Jesus (myth/legend). It's important not to conflate the two for arguments sake.
Fair enough, but the original post claimed the gospels were eyewitness accounts that proved something (I'm not sure if he meant the existence of a actual person named Jesus on whom the gospels were based or that he thought the gospels proved the events described were true). Granted the gospels and other sources provide some evidence for the possible (and some would say probable) existence of a historical "Jesus" but as you noted, this type of evidence is subject to many interpretations and falls short of proof.
Overall, I agree with you. I was just pointing out his proof was faulty (as have others). But then again, for members of most religions faith is required. "You don't fix the book, it fixes you." While I am not a Christian I can have a certain respect for their faith (up to a point). I just don't think the Bible is literally true, and as a historical document, it has limited value beyond its mythological and cultural significance.
I just scanned the thread so far. So sorry for jumping in. Again, I don't think it is helpful to think of writing, any writing, whether it is the gospels or the Testimonium Flavianum as possible proof. It is only useful for perspective, or to help push empirical investigation forward.
Here is an example of proof through empirical evidence. There exists a contemporary statue of Plato ca. 370BC. This is not direct evidence (nor is writing attributed to him), but it is evidence through inference. For example, an image of a non-existing person displayed openly does not make sense. We can infer a made up, contemporary image would be immediately proclaimed a fraud, and thus not likely to be produced in the first place.
I've heard appologists use Alexander the Great, as a comparable argument. But again, through inference we can reasonably conclude their existence. Example: Contemporary, empirical evidence of his army and conquests exist. Armys do not fight for non-existing people, nor are cities named for them or coins with his image displayed circulated when he said to have existed.
abb3w: Raven Darke: I am a Pagan. My background is Judaism, with a mixture of Zen and various Neopagan traditions.
Interesting.
So, what's your personally subjective take on the history and prescription of "separation of church and state"?
Church and state are and should be separate. Even Christ claimed that. Hence the whole "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's (And render unto God those things that are God's)". As well, the Founding Fathers of the USA knew the dangers of "Deo Gracia Rex".
Basically, my belief is that religion, or lack thereof, is an intensely personal matter. I worship the Divine in my own way. I expect tolerance for this and grant tolerance of others' ways in return. If you are attemping to sway my perspective, I expect you to be articulate and convincing. So far none have met my criteria.
I believe in the Gods in the same way most people believe in rocks and trees. They are there. I am not convinced that they have any presence beyond our psyches, in the same way Jung had his Archetypes. But they definitely exist.
When you have an Experience of the Divine, you have one of two options. You can choose to ignore it. This is neither bad nor wrong. Personal contact with Deity is a frightening thing. The other option is to embrace it. This is a hard path and confusing. Many people mistake the message that they receive as something other than a personal message, (i.e, as a universal message). I say not that I have heard The Word of God, but rather that I have heard A Word. Whether it is truly from God or my own subconscious is irrelevant. I am embracing the Archetype. I am taking strength and guidance from that part of myself or part of the Universe.
In the end, all that is relevant is what I do with that.
Raven Darke:abb3w: Raven Darke: I am a Pagan. My background is Judaism, with a mixture of Zen and various Neopagan traditions.
Interesting.
So, what's your personally subjective take on the history and prescription of "separation of church and state"?
Church and state are and should be separate. Even Christ claimed that. Hence the whole "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's (And render unto God those things that are God's)". As well, the Founding Fathers of the USA knew the dangers of "Deo Gracia Rex".
Basically, my belief is that religion, or lack thereof, is an intensely personal matter. I worship the Divine in my own way. I expect tolerance for this and grant tolerance of others' ways in return. If you are attemping to sway my perspective, I expect you to be articulate and convincing. So far none have met my criteria.
I believe in the Gods in the same way most people believe in rocks and trees. They are there. I am not convinced that they have any presence beyond our psyches, in the same way Jung had his Archetypes. But they definitely exist.
When you have an Experience of the Divine, you have one of two options. You can choose to ignore it. This is neither bad nor wrong. Personal contact with Deity is a frightening thing. The other option is to embrace it. This is a hard path and confusing. Many people mistake the message that they receive as something other than a personal message, (i.e, as a universal message). I say not that I have heard The Word of God, but rather that I have heard A Word. Whether it is truly from God or my own subconscious is irrelevant. I am embracing the Archetype. I am taking strength and guidance from that part of myself or part of the Universe.
In the end, all that is relevant is what I do with that.
Nick the What:I just scanned the thread so far. So sorry for jumping in. Again, I don't think it is helpful to think of writing, any writing, whether it is the gospels or the Testimonium Flavianum as possible proof. It is only useful for perspective, or to help push empirical investigation forward.
Don't be sorry. I jumped in too. I agree with you, I was just explaining why I wrote what I wrote. :)
BTW I am pretty sure Plato existed, but it would make no difference to me whatsoever if he did not. The idea's attributed to him are important, and the stories about him are just interesting extras.
When you have an Experience of the Divine, you have one of two options. You can choose to ignore it. This is neither bad nor wrong. Personal contact with Deity is a frightening thing. The other option is to embrace it. This is a hard path and confusing. Many people mistake the message that they receive as something other than a personal message, (i.e, as a universal message). I say not that I have heard The Word of God, but rather that I have heard A Word. Whether it is truly from God or my own subconscious is irrelevant. I am embracing the Archetype. I am taking strength and guidance from that part of myself or part of the Universe.
In the end, all that is relevant is what I do with that.
Especially if the word is "Kill."
As of yet I have received no word on that whole killing thing. Maybe it is just as well.
Anyway....beating up your little brother does not impress your mom. So don't try this at home, kids.
Raven Darke:Church and state are and should be separate.
Expected; for the most part, I can work with that.
Raven Darke:When you have an Experience of the Divine, you have one of two options. You can choose to ignore it. This is neither bad nor wrong. Personal contact with Deity is a frightening thing. The other option is to embrace it.
Sounds like a false dichotomy. Trying to understand it is not choosing to ignore it, but does not require embracing it. EG, you may examine it closely, and decide that an alternative explanation not involving deities may be more probably correct.