 |
|
|
|
 A billboard criticizing Christianity is going up in Charlotte, North Carolina, host city of the upcoming Democratic National Convention.
August 13th, 2012
10:03 AM ET
First on CNN: Atheist group targets presidential candidates' faith with billboardsBy Dan Merica, CNN Washington (CNN) - A prominent atheist group is using next month's Democratic National Convention to take aim at the presidential candidates' religion, putting up billboards targeting Mormonism and Christianity in Charlotte, North Carolina. “Our political system is rife with religion and it depends too much on religion and not enough on substance," said David Silverman, president of American Atheists, sponsor of the ads. "Religion is silly and religion has components that are inherently divisive. … There is no place for any of that in the political system,” he said. The billboards go up Monday in Charlotte and will stay up for a month at a cost of roughly $15,000. The Democratic convention runs September 3-6. CNN’s Belief Blog: The faith angles behind the biggest stories The billboard targeting Christianity features an image of Jesus Christ on toast and this description of the faith: "Sadistic God; Useless Savior, 30,000+ Versions of ‘Truth,’ Promotes Hates, Calls it ‘Love.’ ”
The billboard targeting Mormonism lambastes - and, Mormons would say, distorts - specific Mormon doctrines: "God is a Space Alien, Baptizes Dead People, Big Money, Big Bigotry.” The Mormon billboard features a man in white underwear, a reference to special Mormon garments. Follow the CNN Belief Blog on Twitter Both billboards feature the line "Atheism: Simply Reasonable." American Atheists had wanted to put the anti-Mormon billboard in Tampa, Florida, to coincide with the Republican National Convention there later this month. Presumptive GOP nominee Mitt Romney is a Mormon. When no billboard company in the city would lease the group space for such a sign, Silverman said the organization decided to focus solely on the Democrats in Charlotte. “Presidential conventions are for ideas, not ideology - platforms, not platitudes," Silverman said. "If a person believes stupid things, we have every right to question his or her judgment, and that directly impacts how the nonreligious voter votes.” CNN Belief Blog: Atheist leader hopes to mobilize closeted nonbelievers Some religious leaders said the billboards showed a misunderstanding of how faith works. "That billboard makes the most common high-school error when it comes to atheism," wrote the Rev. James Martin, a Jesuit priest and author, in an e-mail to CNN. "It's not arguing against the existence of God, but against religion. The American Atheists need to go back to school on this one." Martin also questioned the language used on the billboard: "And as for 'promoting hate' they're doing a bang-up job themselves with that billboard." Terryl Givens, a Mormon professor at the University of Richmond, called American Atheists "petty and vindictive." “If this example of adolescent silliness is what atheists mean by being reasonable, then neither Mormons nor other Christians have much to worry about," he said of the billboards. "When atheists organize to serve the poor and needy of the world, they will be taken more seriously." CNN Belief Blog: Unbelieving preachers 'come out' as atheists It's not the first time the American Atheists group has released in-your-face billboards. Earlier this year, the group put up two billboards in heavily Muslim and Jewish enclaves in New Jersey and New York bearing messages in Arabic and Hebrew. “You know it’s a myth … and you have a choice,” the billboards said. At the time, Silverman said the signs were intended to reach atheists in Muslim and Jewish areas who may feel isolated because they are surrounded by believers. In addition to the billboards, Silverman said his group plans to stage protests at both conventions. |
  About this blog
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.  |
|
|
|
Prayer changes things
@Atheist,
If you really believed that, you'd stick around and answer questions. Ooops!
HeavenSentJustSayinUnHealthy, does shit stick to your fur like it does to your tongue?
Examples please ?
Templeton Foundation Prayer Study .. Short version:
Conclusion:
Intercessory prayer had no effect on surgical recovery.
But certainty of receiving intercessory prayer had a HIGHER incidence of complications (59%).
You all are here. God bless
Prayer changes things
Proven
@Atheism,
Being afraid to answer questions doesn't impress anyone. Keep hiding.
I found my pants and am wearing them, and this is a great day. God Bless
Sometimes prayer makes things better. Sometimes it makes them worse. Sometimes they stay the same. It's very much like NOT PRAYER.
These are two wonderful Truths, these are facts that do not require questions, first atheism is totally useless, endorsed by over 90% of the worlds population and free thinking people everywhere . Second that God is available for conversation. God bless
The effect of prayer on Cardiac patients proved it had a negative one. Do NOT pray for heart patients. You may harm them.
Becomes atheism
Religion – the original Ponzi scheme.
Troll.
Nope – you're the troll. I was just speaking my belief. People like you don't like it when others express their opinions.
MeFrom. You delivered a one sentence comment. That is trollish and no different than the guy that post "Prayer Changes things".
Its not the view its just the lack of substance you put forth.
@cytwo,
"Atheism was at the core of the belief system those tyrants had....Communism and Atheism are the same coin"
=================
That is a bold faced lie. You know it, I know it, the people on this boar know it and what is more your God knows it. Now what does he say about telling lies???
Atheists murdered more people in the last 100 years than were killed in all the previous centuries.
@truth. Not true. And that's nothing compared to how many the god of the bible killed or commanded the faithful to kill.
"Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man intimately." Numbers 31:17
"utterly destroy all that they have, and don't spare them; but kill both man and woman, infant and nursing baby, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.'" 1sam15:3
Judgement and execution are not murder. The guilty are punished, a concept endorsed by civilized nations around the world.
Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.
truth be told
Judgement and execution are not murder. The guilty are punished, a concept endorsed by civilized nations around the world.
==============
Unlike God, the worlds civilized countries do not have nor support the death penalty. Civilized Man considers it barbaric.
Try murdering someone in Texas or Florida arthur duh
truth be told
Like I said 'civilized countries'.
Question for Christians: Do Sikh's not get to go to heaven? Does Jesus send them to hell when they die?
Jesus can save who ever he pleases.
God's mercy is limitless. No man can condemn another because no man knows what is in another's heart, particularly at his last breath.
They get sent to Hell of course:
"He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned." (Mark 16:16 RSV)
Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me. (John 14:6 RSV)
Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
Matt 7:21
Three replies so far. One quoting the bible suggesting god sends Sikh's to hell because they don't believe Jesus is their savior and two jibberish non-answers.
So you are saying that Sikhs are doing the will of God without having to be Christian. Interesting
Common Christians. You don't have to do so much bobbing and weaving, so much mental gymnastics.
Just come out and say what your doctrine teaches. If Sikh's don't believe that Jesus is god and their savior they go to hell instead of heaven.
Now, if you have difficulty admitting that, perhaps you should reconsider your religion.
You have an agenda. When it is stated that man cannot condemn another man and that only God know's what is in the heart of a Sikh or your heart, for that matter, you call it gibberish. Don't ask a question if you don't want to listen to the answer. You were trolling and you were successful. Congratulations.
Jesus sends almost everyone to hell. The Bible says so. It's not that he wants to. It's just that rules is rules.
>>>”Do Sikh's not get to go to heaven? “
My view I find is similar to Arch Bishop Desmond Tutu.
“We may be surprised at the people we find in heaven.”
And, if I am correct, Sikhs are monotheistic and they hold that there is one God, so maybe. 🙂
WE LIVE IN HOPE !!!!
WHERE DO YOU LIVE – OR DON'T YOU LIVE@ALL ????
Your caps lock is stuck. It's usually on the left side.
Why are you all so angry????
I really was curious if there were any "atheist based" community care type organizations?
I didn't realized unil recently with the Reason Rally and now this today that you were all so organized.
So just to be sure though, you are all going to stereotype me and insult me, one individual, because of what I belive?
Blame "me" personally for all the horrible things "Christians" have done throughout time, and label me as weak-minded for loving my neighbor?
So be it....Sounds like prejudice to me.
Glad I could take the heat for a while.
We can't pick on you for what you believe Rebecca because you didn't state what you believe, you're only daring someone to knock the chip off your shoulder. Hate to say it Rebecca, but you sound quite "angry" to me.
Why the anger? Well, believers have been kicking non-believers around for a few thousand years. It gets annoying after a while.
Post by 'Rebecca' is an instance of the Begging the Question fallacy.
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/glossary.html
Why are you so mad....
For the record: I am going to stereotype you and insult you, one individual, because of what you believe? I blame "you" personally for all the horrible things "Christians" have done throughout time, and label you as weak-minded for loving your neighbor?
I don't do it for myself. I do it for all the poor unsuspecting strawmen on which you would wreak havoc.
Rebecca,
I am actually here making an effort to give you a reply (and I went back from your later post to this one). Good question. No I dont hold you responsible for the atrocities are the history of Christianity. And I personally feel they went a little overboard on this one. But I do have a lot of other issues.
Let past rest in peace, But my question is
1 What is religion doing in the politics of a secular nation?
2. What is religion doing in the public schools of America?
3. When religious extremism starts to affect my children, yes it becomes my problem.
3. Why is there years of intolerance bw Islam and Christianity? (And yes both r to blame)
4. How come the highest Church of Christianity still (evidence available till 2010) protects pedo.philes and the Pope states it is a social problem?
More than that, I dont care what you think or believe as long as it remains in the confines of your personal life.
Rebecca, dont waste your time on pseudo-intellectuals. They hide behind the guise of atheism to allow themselves to do as they please without thought to the repercussions. It is a COWARDS life, plain and simple. Chances are that each of them, or someone they know at least, has recieved help in one form or another from a church organization and they undoubdtedly accepted it willingly. It is laughable to read some of these self-hating comments from them. I hope for their sake that they get out of their "world against me" holes before its too late.
I mean, just take a step back and from an objective viewpoint look at the billboard. Is it not the most poorly laid-out piece of advertisement you have ever seen? It is like a satire. It is like a Nixonian campaign trick plalyed out to make Athesists look silly by claiming to be one of them and doing something profoundly childish, unartistic and mean. It is hilarious. I especially like the little Atom symbol. Is this the American Athesit religious symbol? LOL
Test
Hey we just want to be left alone but you dont seem willing to do that. You continue to try any means to enforce your beliefs and morality on us. You are trying to turn the U.S. into something its not. A christian nation. What happens when your legislation of morality fails like in Roe V. Wade? you try any and everything to stop it. I have no problems with people that believe thats their choice. Please leave me to make my own choices but I know you can't. You are compelled to legislate your morality, beliefs, and everything else to make your opinions law. Why don't you just leave us alone? If we want to marry another man, take birth control, smoke marijuana, so on so forth that is our decision to determine if we believe its right or wrong. Not yours
@W.W
If your purpose is to offend by belittling, please go right ahead. I don't mind.
I don't like these billboards either – I think they are foolish too, but probably for different reasons than you do.
LtMacGowan,
Is your cryptic "Test" a sign that you have run afoul of the silly word filter here?
Bad letter combinations / words to avoid if you want to get past the CNN automatic filter:
Many, if not most, are buried within other words, so use your imagination.
You can use dashes, spaces, or other characters or some html tricks to modify the "offending" letter combinations.
---
ar-se.....as in ar-senic.
co-ck.....as in co-ckatiel, co-ckatrice, co-ckleshell, co-ckles, etc.
co-on.....as in racc-oon, coc-oon, etc.
cu-m......as in doc-ument, accu-mulate, circu-mnavigate, circu-mstances, cu-mbersome, cuc-umber, etc.
cu-nt.....as in Scu-nthorpe, a city in the UK famous for having problems with filters...!
ef-fing...as in ef-fing filter
ft-w......as in soft-ware, delft-ware, swift-water, drift-wood, etc.
ho-mo.....as in ho-mo sapiens or ho-mose-xual, ho-mogenous, etc.
ho-oters…as in sho-oters
ho-rny....as in tho-rny, etc.
hu-mp… as in th-ump, th-umper, th-umping
jacka-ss...yet "ass" is allowed by itself.....
ja-p......as in j-apanese, ja-pan, j-ape, etc.
koo-ch....as in koo-chie koo..!
nip-ple
o-rgy….as in po-rgy, zo-rgy, etc.
pi-s......as in pi-stol, lapi-s, pi-ssed, therapi-st, etc.
p-oon… as in sp-oon, lamp-oon, harp-oon
p-orn… as in p-ornography
pr-ick....as in pri-ckling, pri-ckles, etc.
que-er
ra-pe.....as in scra-pe, tra-peze, gr-ape, thera-peutic, sara-pe, etc.
se-x......as in Ess-ex, s-exual, etc.
sl-ut
sm-ut…..as in transm-utation
sn-atch
sp-ank
sp-ic.....as in desp-icable, hosp-ice, consp-icuous, susp-icious, sp-icule, sp-ice, etc.
sp-ook… as in sp-ooky, sp-ooked
strip-per
ti-t......as in const-itution, att-itude, ent-ities, alt-itude, beat-itude, etc.
tw-at.....as in wristw-atch, nightw-atchman, salt-water, etc.
va-g......as in extrava-gant, va-gina, va-grant, va-gue, sava-ge, etc.
who-re....as in who're you kidding / don't forget to put in that apostrophe!
wt-f....also!!!!!!!
There's another phrase that someone found, "wo-nderful us" (have no idea what sets that one off).
@LT:
Who do you mean by the term "YOU" ????
I am referring to fundamentalists but since I live in the U.S. and its the Christians that have the most political power here I am referring to fundamentalist Christians or any Christian that tries to force their views on others. I was not referring to you specifically WW
The problem is that anytime you spell out the absurd beliefs of the world's religions in simple language religious people take offense. We're supposed to pretend that a loving god requiring a blood sacrifice for stupid transgression made by creatures he deliberately designed to be stupid and gullible isn't a completely ridiculous idea. 98% of Christians can't give the most basic description of what the heck they believe, and the other 2% just sound silly.
It is pretty simple. Love God with your whole heart and mind and Love your neighbor as yourself. There are a few other noble concepts like laying your life down for your friends. Very simple but not very silly.
Drop the god part, little wolfie, and you be getting closer to a good state.
wolfpackbob ... love your neighbor as yourself, do unto others, etc .... are all human ideas. They come from the earliest part of human society, the need to work together ... it's a basic of human evolutionary psychology. God(s) come from the same place.
If you agree that what I believe is good behavior, why the need to condemn why? If I try to love my neighbor as myself, is it of less value than if you do the same for a different reason?
Bob ... your belief is NOT behavior, your actions are your behavior. If they are good, they are good .. no God(s) needed. I do not disagree with your good behavior, just your belief in Deities.
@Horses. I have no problem with agreeing to disagree. My problem is intolerance. From both sides.
Sooo... Frankie whay youre comment is saying is... youre stupid. (Why do atheists make it so easy?)
Says an idiot who is responding to a post from August and can't manage to figure out how the "you're"/"your" thingie works.
Yeah, atheists are the ones that make ridicule a sport. Too bad you're the target and you just got smacked upside your empty head.
@cytwo,
"Atheism was at the core of the belief system those tyrants had....Communism and Atheism are the same coin"
Incorrect. The core of communism is an economic system that believes in the state's, or group's, ownership of means of production, i.e. commune, as opposed to individual's as in capitalism.
Atheism is the lack of a belief in god claims...nothing more. If you try to attach anything else to atheism you are making a category error.
Any one who still connects communism with Atheism is still living with a McCarthy era mentality and simply serves to prove they have little ability to come to their own conclusions and are very easily led.
A different tangent, but why did the U.S.S.R, and currently China and Cuba continue to persecute religion? China for the last 80 years?
bob, you do realize that those are not true communist states right?!
wolfpackbob ... it's possibly because religions are governments without borders, and since they want only to control the largest group possible, are considered by some governments to be competing for power and control.
@wolfpackbob,
Why does any authority persecute any religion? Control and power.
propecia pills cheap propecia online – where to buy cheap propecia
"...atheism is the only religion..."- F A I L
If atheism means NOT theism, then how could it be a religion?
Atheism doesn't DO anything- it means not being a theist.
Does a non stamp collector do anything?
The rest of your post is sheer ridiculous.
Everyone should be allowed to rent space on billboards- even we lowly atheists!
Billboards have been swathed with religious b.s. for years-
I've noticed no matter how bland the atheist quotes are, the religious whine- so I'm glad that the quotes finally got a little edgier.
I've seen lots of billboards that try to scare and bribe me (and presumably young children who can read) that if I don't worship this god they are peddling, I will be tortured for ever and ever- not such a nice sentiment, is it?
If billboard rental companies don't want to herald offensive things (such as they refused these atheist quotes), than why would they rent to xtian groups who promote hate, such as the "worship our master or get tortured for ever" type of stupiity?
When it's little kids believing in magical creatures it's kind of endearing. But when it's adults making policy decisions it's just scary.
Yes it's ok for kids to have imaginary friends. They haven't formed full critical thinking skills yet. But when adults have imaginary friends they are either schizophrenic or brainwashed.
Youre still in the EXTREME minority... enjoy.
And this is why I don't like the American Atheists. Every time they have an opportunity to put up a billboard with an actual message they pop up ones that are rude, highly condescending, and intentionally so controversial as to render them pointless. (The Arabic/Hebrew ones were an exception. They were simple and served a point. The controversy was in their location.)
These don't say "We prefer reason over mythology and it's okay to be godless, you're not alone. Come join us". They say "Hey! Do you hate religion? Are you a total jerk? Great! So are we, come join us." Seriously, a little tact goes a LONG way. Also, fellow atheists, if you claim to be more intelligent, tolerant, and reasonable than the average religious person then ACT it.
-AAP
Well that's fine if that's how you feel.
But American Atheists do what they do and other groups use other styles.
I rather like the mocking idiotic beliefs. It is very effective with certain type of people.
Well said. But you will be trashed here. This stream is poisoned.
It's hard to say. It depends on which audience they are trying to connect with. Young folks not yet set in their ways may not find them so distasteful and in line with media they are accustomed to viewing.
Every time an atheist bllboard goes up, whatever the message, it is viewed by believers and some non-believers as confrontational and petty. Nobody mentions the countless other religious billboards that completely drown out the small voice of dissent. Non-believers are assaulted endlessly by messages that mock our lack of belief with some detailing dire consequences. In a sea of ineqity a few rafts of reason hardly seems inappropriate.
So..what's your point? Since there are other billboards out there...this one's petty att itude becomes less?
Agree with Steve. It's like walking through a forest, coming up to one particular tree, and complaining that it ruins your view of the sky.
Kallesin ... Steve's point was pretty darn obvious, how could you miss it? Intentionally perhaps? Everyday I drive past a sign that says (in big bold bright colors no less) that God loves me .. always gives me a bit of a chuckle.
No...I just see no reason to think it isn't reasonable to challenge the staus quo. These billboards aren't petty unless you view them as a challenge to your beliefs. I see nothing in the text of the billboard that isn't true. The mormons do have a space alien bent to their story and the god of the old testament is>/b< a sadistic monster.
May I know that if atheists are really agaisnt everything Christian then why are they using and living the Christian calendar? or they don't know that the calendar we are using was designed by Pope Gregory the Great that's why its called the Gregorian calendar? Atheism denied the existence of God but to deny the existence of something ,that something must exits first because you can't deny the existence of something unless it exits first. If you have questions about the catholic faith and are really serious searching for truth or maybe not , I suggest you go to catholicscomehome dot org website. They have all the answers to your questions and you can even have a live chat.
I suggest you look into Anselm's ontological argument for the existence of God. Followed by a little bit of Descartes.
These absurd arguments can be used to "conjure up" anything you like.
Please tell me you're not serious...
You are, aren't you.
I think you'd better take a better look at that calendar.
Every week (52 times per year) in English-speaking places we have:
Tuesday = Tiu's day (Norse god)
Wednesday = Woden's day (Norse god)
Thursday = Thor's day (Norse god)
Friday = Frigga's day (Norse goddess)
Saturday = Saturn's day (Roman god)
And every year:
January = in honor of Janus (Roman god)
February = Roman purification rite, februa
March = in honor of Mars (Roman god)
April = in honor of Aphrodite (Greek goddess)
May = in honor of Maia (Roman goddess)
June = in honor of Juno (Roman goddess)
Because Christianity has been the predominant power in the western world for a thousand years or so, we use the Gregorian calendar. There are around 50 other calendars in use in various societies throughout the world.
The International Fixed calendar is arguably the most useful, common sense based calendar.
p.s. the other 2 days of the week honor the Sun and the Moon; and the other months either honor Roman Emperors, July/August, or refer to ancient Roman numbering.
If Christians are against atheists why do they use light bulbs when the inventor, Thomas Edison, was an atheist?
Your numbers are arabic. Why don't you follow arabic law? By your little calendar argument you must agree! I mean, you eat steak, right? Therefore you must be a caveman. Go back to caveman return website.
We don't "deny the existence of god"! You can't deny something that has no evidence.
Atheist simply think (well, at least I do) that there is no good reason to believe any god or goddess exists.
You yourself can't "deny the existence of leprechauns" because there is no evidence (real evidence) that they exist.
But I guess that's too complicated for you.
@ligaya,
Ah, the so-called Christian Calendar. What nonsense!
The Gregorian Calendar is not religious in any way. It is an astronomical (scientific) improvement on the Julian calendar. How different is the Gregorian Calendar from the Julian (named after Caesar) Calendar of 365.25 days per year that preceeded it?
Do you know?
The protestants were so afraid of the papist Gregorian calendar that it took the British empire 172 years to implement it. They were afraid the pope was trying to steal days from their lives.
Christian calender ? The days of the week are named after mythological gods.
@klypto
"Mythological gods" is redundant.
You know it is really hard understand a sect that worships a mass murdering terrorist.
"And it came to pass, that at midnight the LORD smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sat on his throne unto the firstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon; and all the firstborn of cattle. And Pharaoh rose up in the night, he, and all his servants, and all the Egyptians; and there was a great cry in Egypt; for there was not a house where there was not one dead." (Exodus 12:29-30)
(terrorism – killing those with no political power to force political change by those with political power)
No, no it's totally okay, because later on he made a new deal with mankind by sending himself to be sacrified to himself to save us from rules he made.
Sam:
So everyone in the Old Testament had their sins forgiven as a result of that?
@ArthurP
One may only reference the Old Testament when condemning gays.
All the homicidal, infanticidal, genocidal, misogynistic, slavery supporting bits in there are just too embarrassing to try and rationalize otherwise.
Yeah...and pharaoh was given two choices...he made the wrong choice but he did have an option. Of course you don't believe the Bible anyway so why would you quote it?
@KRHODES
Pointing out religious hypocrisy.
"Of course you don't believe the Bible anyway so why would you quote it?" -because you insist on presenting that horrid book as something to take guidance from and to prop up your idiotic beliefs with. The bible sure isn't good moral guidance, when it contains horrid demands from your nasty sky fairy like these:
Numbers 31:17-18
17 Now kiII all the boys. And kiII every woman who has slept with a man,
18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.
Deuteronomy 13:6 – “If your brother, your mother’s son or your son or daughter, or the wife you cherish, or your friend who is as your own soul entice you secretly, saying, let us go and serve other gods … you shall surely kill him; your hand shall be first against him to put him to death”
Revelations 2:23 And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works.
Note that the bible is also very clear that you should sacrifice and burn an animal today because the smell makes sicko Christian sky fairy happy. No, you don't get to use the parts for food. You burn them, a complete waste of the poor animal.
Yes, the bible really says that, everyone. Yes, it's in Leviticus, look it up. Yes, Jesus purportedly said that the OT commands still apply. No exceptions. But even if you think the OT was god's mistaken first go around, you have to ask why a perfect, loving enti-ty would ever put such horrid instructions in there. If you think rationally at all, that is.
And then, if you disagree with my interpretation, ask yourself how it is that your "god" couldn't come up with a better way to communicate than a book that is so readily subject to so many interpretations and to being taken "out of context", and has so many mistakes in it. Pretty pathetic god that you've made for yourself.
So get out your sacrificial knife or your nasty sky creature will torture you eternally. Or just take a closer look at your foolish supersti-tions, understand that they are just silly, and toss them into the dustbin with all the rest of the gods that man has created.
Ask the questions. Break the chains. Join the movement. Be free of Christianity and other superstitions.
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/
@ArthurP – yes. Unless you don't like gays, then you can keep that part of the old testament. That one gets used. The others are all null and void because Jesus died for our sins. So, eat shellfish and enjoy that cotton-poly blend, it's all cool.
Whatever's convenient.
I would love to see ads just say, "Atheism, simply reasonable." that's it, that's all that needs to be said .. any more just misses the actual point & invites argument.
There are already slogans like that out there- this billboard campaign is just a small part of the rationalism kick-back from magical thinking.
Ironically, atheism is the only religion that can never, ever, be actually proven, even in theory. After all, if God does not exist, He is hardly likely to appear and say so.
On the other hand, religions are provable. All it takes is for God to appear, or to help people in miraculous and mysterious ways that only God could do. In fact, many, many, many people say that He does indeed do that very thing. It's just that the atheists don't believe them. For my part, I know God helps me, and I know that atheists will deny that, based on absolutely nothing. No facts, no logic, no understanding, no eyewitness accounts. Atheism is simply based on denying the experiences of other people.
However, I can also see why atheists are so indignant about religion. The abuses of religion are well known. There are many terrible things that are done in the name of religion that get headlines. Many preachers have abused their positions of authority and influence for their own gain, or for political advantage. Many religious people get dogmatic and inflexible, and they use the Bible to justify their own prejudices instead of using it to overcome their fears.
But there are a far greater number of wonderful things that never get headlines. People come together to support each other in time of grief or need. Churches were the only "social safety net" that people ever had before we decided to do that on a much larger scale. Religious groups may be the only place that some people ever think about what is "the right thing to do."
And while people have gone to war based on religion, they hardly lacked for excuses to go to war. The French and Indian War, The American Revolution, the War of 1812, the many wars against Native Americans, the Mexican War, the Spanish American War, World War I, WWII, the Korean War, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, the Hutu massacre of Tutsis, - none of these were religious wars. The strange and new thing that religion provided was a reason NOT to go to war. Sure, there were some popes who went to war, but there were also popes who intervened between kings to stop their wars. Many religions opposed war entirely, and their members were granted exceptions for being conscientious objectors.
Hospitals were invented because Christians believed that they would go to heaven for helping heal the sick, instead of fleeing from them. No matter what you may believe about why the Civil War actually started, Christian soldiers gave their lives to free the slaves because of their Christian beliefs, fighting "brother against brother". Churches were the first organizations that started working for Civil rights in the 60's, and continuing even to now.
Richard the Lion-Heart, when wounded, specifically asked for a Muslim doctor.
George W. Bush cited God as a reason fro going to war with Iraq.
I appreciate your attempt at reasonableness, but you are unfortunately misinformed in many ways.
Of course Atheism cannot be proven as a religion since it is simply not a religion .. but I'm sure you already know that but choose to ignore that simple basic reality. But I do agree, you cannot prove something to be false if it is actually true, as atheism is.
David, I didn't say no wars were started for religious reasons, but I think Bush went to war with Iraq because Cheney wanted him to, not God. Religion can be an excuse for going to war when the real reason is something else entirely, something nobody wants to talk about. Like going to war with the Philippines to bring Christianity there, instead of expanding the markets of the capitalists.
@Horses , You cannot prove that God does not exist so you either KNOW (which implies arrogance for simpy asserting what you cannot prove) or you have FAITH (belief in what you cannot prove). People of faith on both sides usually are tolerant of the other. My guess is that you simply KNOW there is no God.
wolfpackbob ... we also cannot prove an interdimensional purple stegasaurus isn't orbiting Pluto, but that doesn't make it true ... but it's pretty easy to "know" that is doesn't exist. There are an infinite number of things that I can make up that you cannot prove don't exist, that does not get them equal probability in reality, God(s) is just one of those infinitely improbable things. Get it?
What raforrester is doing is known as historical revisionism. There definitely were churches fighting for Civil Rights, but they were hardly the first to start doing it. Just look at women's rights for example... most churches were overwhelmingly AGAINST them so that it was largely a secular movement. Indeed, Christians have overwhelmingly opposed every major advancement in human rights for almost the past 2,000 years. They have implemented a caste system just as surely as the Hindu religion has, but they are running out of outcasts to rally against. Gays are obviously at the bottom of the totem pole at the moment and fundies are foaming at the mouth over them. In 1967, 72% of the nation opposed interracial marriage and thought it was sinful, was redefining marriage, etc. (any of this sound familiar?) Guess what religion the vast majority of that 72% were?
@If horses were Gods,
You say, "Of course Atheism cannot be proven as a religion since it is simply not a religion"
Religion or not, atheism cannot be proven because it is impossible to prove that God does not exist. If you have never had any experience of God then the best you can do is to be Agnostic, as I was for many years. But if you HAVE had an experience of God, then logic demands that you investigate it, test it, repeat it, and if it holds up, then believe it, even if people who don't know what you have experienced don't believe it.
You say, " .. but I'm sure you already know that but choose to ignore that simple basic reality. But I do agree, you cannot prove something to be false if it is actually true, as atheism is."
Actually I was saying you cannot prove something as true if it cannot be proven true. You cannot prove the absence of God, even if He/She/It/They is really absent. Therefore atheism is not provable. I am not ignoring any simple basic reality, because my experience has proven that reality is nowhere near that simple. There is something that has intervened in my life, the kind of thing that people call God. You can call it aliens if you want, or ghosts, or angels, or ESP, or agents from the future, or anything you want. But I know that reality is anything but simple.
And you want to deny that, based on ... what? An irrational belief that reality must conform to your very simple way of thinking? Good luck with that.
Any community will come together in a time of crisis. That is the very purpose of living communally.
Religion is an effective means of building communities. Shared hopes (like redemption/posthumous reward), shared fears (like divine wrath/posthumous eternal torture) and shared rituals help to reinforce the bonds that allow individuals to extend their instinct for self-preservation beyond the level of self and immediate family.
It is not, however, the ONLY method. We all know of failed experiments in godless societies, IE Pol-Pot, Stalin et al – but bear in mind that the leaders of these types of regimes build cults of personality, effectively putting themselves in the Godhead position.
The problem with miracles is that they are invariably subjective and open to interpretation.
As one of the posters on this board is fond of saying – why won't God heal amputees? It seems He was a lot more demonstrative back when He flamboyantly parted the seas. What people claim as miracles turn out to be hoaxes or easily explained.
For example, Sister Marie Simon Pierre Normand attributed her recovery from Parkinson's to prayers offered to Pope Jean Paul II. She was, however, never officially diagnosed with the disease (which is nigh impossible to do positively short of an autopsy) and – most importantly – sufferred a relapse.
"Supernatural" is a null word.
raforrester: Atheist=disbelief in god; Theist=Belief in god; Agnostic/Gnostic refer to knowledge...you either are not sure or you are...most honest people are Agnostic Atheist or Agnostic Theist. No-one knows for certain.
@Horses. You are very proud of your intelligence to the extent you are smarter than Stephen Hawking and can prove and therefore KNOW that there is no God. And you will not tolerate my faith in what we both cannot prove or disprove. Yes, I get it.
wolfpackbob ... neither Stephen Hawking nor I need to prove anything, the reality of probability does that for us. The burden falls on the one making the claim .. and before you start ... I am not making a claim, there simply is no reason to believe God(s) exists so I don't.
Michael, I never denied that there were abuses, and in fact I specifically said that there were people who use the Bible to justify their own prejudices instead of using it to ease their fears. So you are trying to put words in my mouth. In reality the original Christians had women priests, until one very aggressive, conservative branch staged a coup, sold out to Constantine, and used his armies to wipe out the opposition. I don't defend that, but it has nothing to do with the existence of God, only of man's corruption of religion.
But guess what? Things change. Now churches are fighting for gay rights. Major religions are splitting apart because a significant number of members are deciding that being loving to gays is more important than following their old prejudices.
TruthPrevails, yes, I like that. I happen to be a Theist now, because of my experiences. On the other hand, for a long time I was definitely an Agnostic, not an Agnostic/Theist or an Agnostic/Atheist. I took the logical position that if there is a God, He/She/It/We/They/You made it really hard to know that, but I could not actually prove that there is no God. I asked, if there is a God would I behave any differently? The answer was no, so I just ignored the question, until this stuff started happening in my life that made it very clear what the answer was.
@Doc Vestibule
You say: "Any community will come together in a time of crisis. That is the very purpose of living communally.
Religion is an effective means of building communities. Shared hopes (like redemption/posthumous reward), shared fears (like divine wrath/posthumous eternal torture) and shared rituals help to reinforce the bonds that allow individuals to extend their instinct for self-preservation beyond the level of self and immediate family."
That makes a lot of sense. There are many non-spiritual reasons that religions survive, even if they are abusive. Studies show that members of religions seem to be happier, more prosperous, and have more friends and social networks. So the obvious conclusion is that evolution favors the adoption of religion. The future of humanity seems to be guaranteed to be religious. With luck, the religions will also evolve to be kinder and gentler, and I think that is actually happening.
You say: "It is not, however, the ONLY method. We all know of failed experiments in godless societies, IE Pol-Pot, Stalin et al – but bear in mind that the leaders of these types of regimes build cults of personality, effectively putting themselves in the Godhead position."
Again you make sense. Cults based on personality are inherently unstable, because there is no "higher truth" behind them. When the cult leader makes a mistake, dies, is revealed to be abusive, etc. then the cult dissolves in anger and disappointment.
You say: "The problem with miracles is that they are invariably subjective and open to interpretation."
Right again. There is no way for me to persuade anyone in this discussion that my experiences were actually miracles. For one thing, for all you know, I could be making them up. So I am not going to try. On the other hand, you have no way of knowing that what happened to me was not a miracle.
You say: "As one of the posters on this board is fond of saying – why won't God heal amputees? It seems He was a lot more demonstrative back when He flamboyantly parted the seas. What people claim as miracles turn out to be hoaxes or easily explained."
I think the motivations of God, whatever and whoever that is, are not the motivations of humans, just as the motivations of children are not the same as the motivations of their parents. If God wants us to be compassionate, then as far as I can tell the only way for that to happen is for us to either experience suffering or to see others suffering, or both.
@ horses
"we also cannot prove an interdimensional purple stegasaurus isn't orbiting Pluto, but that doesn't make it true ... but it's pretty easy to "know" that is doesn't exist. There are an infinite number of things that I can make up that you cannot prove don't exist, that does not get them equal probability in reality, God(s) is just one of those infinitely improbable things. Get it?"
There are not billions of people who believe in your IPSOP. There are many billions of people who believe in God, something like 90% of the human race. I'll certainly agree that many of them believe that because they were raised to believe. However there is a fraction of them, certainly in the millions, who swear that things happen to them that can only be explained by some force they describe as God, whatever that force may actually be. So until you explain how those things happened to them, they are not likely to believe you when you say it does not exist.
God is not just one of those infinitely improbable things that you can just make up. Weird things happen. When I was exploring this, I started out asking every atheist I knew if unexplainable things had happened to them. Every single one said yes, reluctantly. If you don't want to believe that weird things happen, why not just start asking people you trust? One caveat, you may have to be very patient at this if you are already known to your friends as a radical atheist. These things are often very, very personal, and people may not want to confide those things to you for fear of being ridiculed.
@raforester
First, I'd like to thank you for engaging in civil discourse. Lively and friendly debate is hard to come by around here.
That being said, I would argue that evolution favours the development of communities – but not only those bound by religion.
There are examples of societal ideals based on principles other than Gods. One need look no further than the Declaration of Independence for such as example.
People are inherently selfish. We instinctively do that which is least painful. Children do that which is least painful to themselves. Maturity comes when we are able to put aside our own immediate comfort and do that which is least painful for the group. Were it not for our ability to reason this out and cooperate, our species would not survive. As individuals, we are prey animals – soft, squidgy, slow and bereft of in-built offensive capabilities. As a cooperative group, we have become the dominant species in nearly every eco-system on Earth.
But it takes a mighty big stick to beat the selfishness out of us! Historically, it has been a God sized stick capable to inflicting unimaginable devastation in this life and the hereafter.
Look at this arguments on this board today and see how many people cite Pascal's Wager as their reason for faith.
People are not good to one another by default. Effective cooperation is a learned skill and the successful religions recognize this. Christianity reveals this truth about ourselves most poignantly in the character of Jesus Christ. His message is one of peace, charity, modesty and forgiveness – the traits most important to develop when living in a society. Yet these seemingly obvious truths, given as God's Word in the New Testament, are met with fear and hatred by the ruling powers. Yet Christ knew that to be the case from the beginning because He was perfectly self-aware – the embodiment of what it is to be a human.
But the character of Jesus is not unique – He is an example of an archetype in mythology.
I hope that sociological evolution is leading us away from religion. Not because Christianity, Islam, Hinduism etc are negative in and of themselves, but becuase they are necessarily divisive.
The Old Testament, for example, is a rule book for ancient Jews – but many of those once common sense rules no longer apply to the modern world. We can safely sow two crops in one field or cook pork thoroughly enough to avoid trichinosis.
Religion, like people, has evolved based on the laws of Darwinian evolution in that different environments have brought about different religions. That the 4000 year old mythology of displaced desert people and it's various offshoots has become the predominant religion of "developed" world is too long a history to recount here, but other faiths survive too.
Islam and Christianity supplanted a great number of old world religions in the past, but nobody has been able to build a truly universal God based consensus.
What it will take is democracy. True, participatory democracy based on what is the greatest good for the greatest number – globally.
In the 21st century we have numerous examples of irreligious governments running successful societies, like Ja/pan, Switzerland and my home, Canada.
Some of our elected officials may be religious, but we expect them to act as Humanists, not religionists.
Ultimately, to survive we must reject tribalism.
That will only come under the iron fist of a global dictator or through universal cooperation.
Doc, interesting question, and no time. I have to go to work. I'll post an answer tomorrow.
@ Doc Vestibule
"First, I'd like to thank you for engaging in civil discourse. Lively and friendly debate is hard to come by around here."
Agreed. Thank you too.
You said, "That being said, I would argue that evolution favours the development of communities – but not only those bound by religion.
There are examples of societal ideals based on principles other than Gods. One need look no further than the Declaration of Independence for such as example.
People are inherently selfish. We instinctively do that which is least painful. Children do that which is least painful to themselves. Maturity comes when we are able to put aside our own immediate comfort and do that which is least painful for the group. Were it not for our ability to reason this out and cooperate, our species would not survive. As individuals, we are prey animals – soft, squidgy, slow and bereft of in-built offensive capabilities. As a cooperative group, we have become the dominant species in nearly every eco-system on Earth.
But it takes a mighty big stick to beat the selfishness out of us! Historically, it has been a God sized stick capable to inflicting unimaginable devastation in this life and the hereafter."
I agree with most of what you say here. Yes, cooperation and communities are essential for our survival. Yes, evolution favors the development of communities, but the glue that holds those communities together is a sense of higher purpose. One way to achieve that is with religion, and another way is to have a common mission, like a personality cult, or upholding democracy as an example for the world. I used to feel that the Supreme Court was almost sacred in its defense of consti-tutional principles.
In both religion and democracy, disillusionment arrives when those insti-tutions are shown to be corrupted, as I found out for myself in Bush v. Gore, and many people find out regarding their pastors or priests. However, in the case of religion, the higher principles can remain intact, such as loving your neighbor or going to heaven when you die, and it is far easier to hold onto those things than to have faith in democracy after witnessing the faulty men who run the government.
You say that the God sized stick is capable of inflicting unimaginable devastation in this life and the hereafter, but those things are misreadings of the Bible. For example, the word "hell" is from the Greek word, the grave. From everything I read in the Bible, the real threat to those who are judged not acceptable is that they will not live after death. They will go to the grave, or be burned up like in the flaming trash pit of Gahenna. Basically, they are deleted. They do not achieve immortality.
Likewise, "sin" is from the Greek word for "missing the mark." I don't believe that a God would hold every mistake against us, just as no parent would count the number of times that her child fell over when learning to walk.
There are other religions that do not believe in a he-ll, nor in sin. Even a lot of Christians don't believe in those.
More later.
@ Doc
You say, "Look at this arguments on this board today and see how many people cite Pascal's Wager as their reason for faith."
I think a lot of people, including Pascal himself, use that argument to try to persuade others, when they have completely different reasons for their own faith. It sounds compelling if you are using it against others, not when others are using it against you.
You say: "People are not good to one another by default. Effective cooperation is a learned skill and the successful religions recognize this. Christianity reveals this truth about ourselves most poignantly in the character of Jesus Christ. His message is one of peace, charity, modesty and forgiveness – the traits most important to develop when living in a society. Yet these seemingly obvious truths, given as God's Word in the New Testament, are met with fear and hatred by the ruling powers. Yet Christ knew that to be the case from the beginning because He was perfectly self-aware – the embodiment of what it is to be a human.
But the character of Jesus is not unique – He is an example of an archetype in mythology."
This is a wonderful passage. Do you mind if I quote you? It is true that these obvious truths are met with fear and hatred by the rulers. But look what happened to the rulers, and look what happened to the message of Jesus. Even now people are rediscovering what Jesus really meant by loving your neighbor, in ways that the vast majority of people in Jesus' time could not have comprehended. If Jesus knew that he had to give his life to make his words immortal, I think He would still have made that choice. I'm not actually Christian, but I agree with most Christians that He did know, and He did make that sacrifice. On the other hand, I'm a little unsure about a lot of the theology that has been built up around Him. Trinity and transubstantiation and such. It leads us away from simply doing what Jesus actually said, which is to love God and our neighbors. "The hand pointing at the moon is not the moon." Jesus was pointing at the moon, and people stopped looking at the moon and started looking at Him.
You said: "I hope that sociological evolution is leading us away from religion. Not because Christianity, Islam, Hinduism etc are negative in and of themselves, but because they are necessarily divisive.
The Old Testament, for example, is a rule book for ancient Jews – but many of those once common sense rules no longer apply to the modern world. We can safely sow two crops in one field or cook pork thoroughly enough to avoid trichinosis.
Religion, like people, has evolved based on the laws of Darwinian evolution in that different environments have brought about different religions. That the 4000 year old mythology of displaced desert people and it's various offshoots has become the predominant religion of "developed" world is too long a history to recount here, but other faiths survive too.
Islam and Christianity supplanted a great number of old world religions in the past, but nobody has been able to build a truly universal God based consensus.
What it will take is democracy. True, participatory democracy based on what is the greatest good for the greatest number – globally.
In the 21st century we have numerous examples of irreligious governments running successful societies, like Ja/pan, Switzerland and my home, Canada.
Some of our elected officials may be religious, but we expect them to act as Humanists, not religionists.
Ultimately, to survive we must reject tribalism.
That will only come under the iron fist of a global dictator or through universal cooperation."
Very interesting. I agree with a lot of what you said, but I differ in certain points. Yes, the Old Testament is a rule book for ancient Jews, people who were not much above the level of barbarians. I believe its purpose was not to raise them to the ethical and moral level of modern Christians, but to teach them a fundamental concept essential to the creation of civilization, to obey laws. The idea of an eye for an eye is often held up as a barbaric concept, but the problem at the time was that one village would wipe out another village in retribution for a murder. An eye for an eye was a huge step forward. It was the first step for those people. I think a lot of the most bloodthirsty commands in the Bible were designed to prevent the Hebrews from doing even worse acts. The Old Testament was written for near barbarians, and yet had enough advanced concepts to satisfy those who were more enlightened. Such as Hillel's one-sentence explanation of the Torah: "That which is hateful to you do not do to others. All the rest is commentary. Now go and learn."
Yes, religion has evolved. I am actually a Baha'i, and we believe that each religion came to teach mankind a new lesson on the road to civilization, that each religion also causes a huge blossoming of civilization, but that each one then falls into man-made corruption. Then another one appears to take another step. No religion is "better" than the others, just as no grade in school is better than the others. Each brings lessons appropriate for the times, and builds on the ones that come before. And I agree that the lesson that needs to be learned RIGHT NOW is what you said. To build a truly universal God-based consensus, and to learn to live together in harmony. Not in uniformity, but in unity, like all the different flowers in a beautiful garden. I think that garden can include atheists, and I respect anyone who wishes to help humanity achieve that goal.
I happen to believe that global democracy will not do that by itself, because just as we find here in the US, factions maneuver to seize the power and money, causing disillusionment and divisiveness. But democracy and respect for each other in the context of a God-based universal cooperation could do it. I agree, we must reject tribalism. The Baha'i Faith rejects it. “The earth is but one country and mankind its citizens.” Baha'i communities use democracy, cooperation, consultation, and a strong emphasis on service, being trustworthy, and not criticizing others, to create strong, loving communities, and it is based on a common religious belief that actively discourages divisiveness.
@raforrester
While I'm familiar with your faith (I've a copy of teh Kitab i iqan along with many other Holy books), you're the first adherent with whom I've had discourse.
While I can admire the goal of uniting all the Abrahamic religions of the world, I believe the effort is ultimately doomed to failure because of the tribalism engendered by the various sects.
You guys don't have a very good time in the middle east! Christians don't like the Bahai because you don't buy into the Trinity and Muslims kill you because you don't say that Mohammed is the only prophet.
I agree that people need something to unify us, but I don't think it can ever be something supernatural.
Any proposition that relies on faith can and will be twisted by unscrupulous individuals for their own gain. Its just far too easy to manipulate those who are willing to suspend critical thinking and accept something without evidence.
If only Cochrane would hurry up and invent Warp Drive so the Vulcans can make First Contact! Then we can do away with money, hunger and racism. And also get it on with green skinned women in go-go boots.
@Doc Vestibule
"While I'm familiar with your faith (I've a copy of teh Kitab i iqan along with many other Holy books), you're the first adherent with whom I've had discourse.
While I can admire the goal of uniting all the Abrahamic religions of the world, I believe the effort is ultimately doomed to failure because of the tribalism engendered by the various sects."
It isn't just Abrahamic religions. We also recognize Adam, Zoroaster, the Buddha, and Krisha. I believe that the tribalism of the world is so intense now that people are seeking a unifying religion suitable for modern times. I see it all the time. People see what Baha'is believe and say, hey, I already believe all that! Equality of all people, equality of men and women, progressive revelation of all religions, harmony of science and religion, individual responsibility for spiritual beliefs (no priests), work as a form of worship, elimination of extremes of poverty and wealth, universal literacy, adoption of a single language in addition to local languages, single form of currency, care for the planet, kindness to animals, no corporal punishment for children, no backbiting, no campaigning for election to Baha'i office. And many others.
"You guys don't have a very good time in the middle east! Christians don't like the Bahai because you don't buy into the Trinity and Muslims kill you because you don't say that Mohammed is the only prophet."
Yep, got to ruffle some feathers to make some changes. It's worth it.
"I agree that people need something to unify us, but I don't think it can ever be something supernatural.
Any proposition that relies on faith can and will be twisted by unscrupulous individuals for their own gain. Its just far too easy to manipulate those who are willing to suspend critical thinking and accept something without evidence."
The Baha'i Faith still has all the writings of its founders intact, photographed, and backed up, and they are in the process of translating and publishing them. The leaders are all elected and the members tend to be very well educated and independent minded. Corrupting it will be more difficult than when the writings are pieced together by followers decades or centuries after the founder dies. Yes, someday it will be corrupted, just like all the others, but that will take a while, and in the meantime it can do much good.
"If only Cochrane would hurry up and invent Warp Drive so the Vulcans can make First Contact! Then we can do away with money, hunger and racism. And also get it on with green skinned women in go-go boots."
Interesting that you should mention that. Star Trek was influenced by Baha'is.
If the American Athetists felt the need to billboards in opposition to the beliefs of Christians and Mormons, I would have preferred they would have used the same restraint they used in their recent billboards aimed at Jews and Muslims. Instead they resorted to diatribe against "straw" representations of Christians and Mormons. I view it as another example of groups who epouse "tolerance", but seem highly "intolerant" of religions which they claim intolerant.
Should they be held to a higher standard than churches and religious organizations? Why is that, exactly?
A little intolerance is sometimes warrented. We can't allow laws to be passed that force a particular religious belief on the whole population. When religion stops forcing itself into politics and our laws we will no longer need to be intolerant.
@David,
personally I think they should be held to a higher standard than fundie churches. We should be better than to stoop down to the level of ad hominem attack on a candidate's religion.
As atheists, the the religion professed by a candidate should be immaterial. It has no bearing on how they will act as President.
These billboards are a cheap shot.
Well D.B, they obviously do not know what the definition of tolerance is or they would not have put those signs up. Oh..atheist not using the term tolerance correctly...i thought they were supposed to be smart?
The billboards are admittedly childish, but so is the concept of religion. The younger the target audicence for these ads, the better.