‘You Know It’s a Myth’ Billboard Generates Controversy

“It’s not saying, “Screw all of you who are Christians.” That’s certainly not AA president Dave Silverman‘s style.

It’s also not saying, “Screw Christmas.””

The billboard may not say that, but it certainly is being interpreted that way.
I give it a failing grade.
No matter what kind of billboard an atheist puts up, someone, somewhere is going to whine…I get that. However, this type of ad is nothing if not confrontational. When I first saw it I cringed. Time and energy spent teaching little ones to think for themselves is a much better use of resources. I’m not saying you cannot have several approaches to dealing with religious idiocy, but as our resources are limited, it would be better to see them put to use in more constructive and positive ways. This pushes people away; it doesn’t draw them in.
I don’t believe that bad publicity is better than none.

I think it would be a good idea to group together gods and Santa.

“Have a merry Christmas: with or without Santa.

Enjoy an ethical life: with or without faith.

-Brought to you by American Atheists”

“I don’t think that’s right. We don’t go around telling them what we think about [atheists], so why should they put up something like that,”

Umm…yeah you do, and you do a hell of a lot worse than a benign little billboard that’s not even talking to Christians. Christians parade their beliefs in front of everyone, often to obnoxious levels. Atheists can’t even mention their beliefs without Christians crying “stop persecuting us!”

I celebrate secular Christmas (gifts, togetherness, family, etc.)…Christmas without the myths.

If nothing else, this particular ad is just *rude.* It certainly didn’t do anything to improve the tone of the discussion and if anything it just gave the other side more ammo to fire at us when they make that old ridiculous claim that every atheist is on some sort of organized mission to destroy them.

I am just really disgusted with this ad. I don’t find it shocking at all that it’s getting such a virulent backlash. I’ve seen lots of clever, good-natured atheist outreach attempts and this is not one of them.

Sorry, Nicole, the truth is not rude. The ‘tone’ is always irrelevant when it comes to facts. I am really disgusted with YOUR attitude.

Nicole wrote:

I am just really disgusted with this ad.

May I suggest that you get off your high-horse?

The Godless Monster: Sorry, but bad publicity *IS* better than none! You’re looking at it all wrong.

So how are we *not* teaching our kids not to think for themselves by doing this? Aren’t we HELPING them to think more objectively and get them closer to the truth by doing things like this?
Who are you to say our resources are limited in this area?
How is this not constructive? It’s getting attention and getting people to realize that other atheists are out there, isn’t it?

Reality check, please.

So how are we *not* teaching our kids not to think for themselves by doing this? Aren’t we HELPING them to think more objectively and get them closer to the truth by doing things like this?
Who are you to say our resources are limited in this area?
How is this not constructive? It’s getting attention and getting people to realize that other atheists are out there, isn’t it?

I think you’re right that kids questioning faith is what we want, and could be accomplished by this- but I don’t think that getting a few more older kids/teens questioning/thinking objectively is worth the fact that so many parents will further indoctrinate their younger offspring if the kid asks about the billboard by driving home that atheists are stupid and going to hell. I’d rather have kids not terribly interested in church to begin with to separate themselves from it, think rationally and *come out about their beliefs* when they’re beyond the age where what mommy and daddy say is gospel.

I may be wrong. This might get kids (at least some of the smarter/more questioning ones) thinking. Might get them to move away from their faith more quickly. I just have some pretty strong doubts about it.

please, xtians. Bring It On. you think that billboard is “rude?” please, keep whining. some of us are itching for a more public fight with your foolish mythology. unlike most of you, we’ve actually read your “holy” books. the nativity myth is probably the least ridiculous out of all of them.

what a bunch of whining pansies.

@Ted,
Wow, I’ve been looking at this all wrong!!!
Gosh, thanks so much for straightening me out. I’m seeing the light now.
Not.
How’s this for a reality check…marketing is how I make my living and I make a good living.
If I were to tell prospects that they are ignorant, lying, stupid hypocrites, I might gain the approval of a few of their disgruntled employees or their competition, but I wouldn’t gain them as customers. If the goal is to piss them off, then fine, I concede, but I don’t believe that is what this group intended…do you? If so, produce the evidence.
What exactly IS the goal of such advertising? Mr. Silverman doesn’t seem to be too clear on that himself. He waffles quite a bit. I was underwhelmed by his performance and even more so by what appeared to be a lack of conviction in his own project.

“Who are you to say our resources are limited in this area?”

Who am I? A person who doesn’t need a reality check, that’s who. Resources are finite. How can you even argue about something as silly as that?

@Nicole,
Well said.

I spotted this billboard on the way in to work this morning. Forgive the poor quality. My windshield needs to be cleaned and the phone camera doesn’t do so well in low light settings.

http://anthonyrmiller.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/beginning.jpg

If the resolution isn’t clear enough, or if you can’t access the image, the billboard says “In the beginning God created…” and it has a picture of Earth along with a white circle showing the evolution path of ape to man (abbreviated) with a red cicle around it and a red line through it. Similar to the No Smoking signs.

The message that say’s “Jesus is a myth” hits a special nerve with some Christians.

I think it scares them because they know, but dare not admit to themselves that they have built their world view upon an ancient fairy tale.

“Say it ain’t so, baby Jesus…..!!!!!!”

yeass masser I’ll be good and maybe get to like pigs feet and chitlins for dinner. mayhaps some day I can buy my own farm and sharecrop for you, I know you’ll do me right if I just wait.(for hell to freeze over)

@Nicole
Each ad, no matter how funny, or confrontational or how polite will be met with a predictable response from the religious (why can’t they keep their views to themselves?). Stating that something is a myth isn’t really confrontational – it is made so by the reactions of the religious. Will it be effective ? Depends on what you think the objective of the ad is – No religious person is going to be convinced by any billboard ad , I’d say these ad’s are targetted to giving publicity to a non believer’s viewpoints – in which case the ad is effective.

@Brian Fields,

“…the idea is not to convert Christians. The idea is to catch the attention of those atheists that go to church every day but really don’t believe.”

And just how large IS that demographic? I’m still not convinced that this is an effective way of promoting change.
@Slugsie,

“Each and every atheistic poster/billboard that has gone up, even the simplest, most accurate, most benign of them has been called offensive.”

You make a valid observation, but does that justify upping the ante by truly being offensive? I’m not sure this argument stands up to scrutiny.

@Prime Numbers:

‘For as long as their holy book calls us fools …’

Which means they haven’t read the Bible, or don’t recall the part where it is counseled that if you have a grievance with your brother, you make amends before offering your sacrifice unto the Lord.

But he who sayeth, ‘You Fool!’ shall face hellfire …

The Godless Monster

but does that justify upping the ante by truly being offensive?

But how is “You know its a myth, This season Celebrate reason” being *truly* offensive? Why do non believers buy into this the slightest critique is truly offensive to believers myth? If it indeed is so, then it is the believers problem.

I think this could have been done much better. I like the copy suggested by @brian or even something to draw people to the website like “Whose birth is celebrated on Dec 25th? a. Jesus b. Osiris c. Mithra d. all of the above” with d. circled and a web address for people to visit to learn more. The visits could be tracked and measured, and people could learn more without it being a traffic hazard.

All I could see from the news clip was people dismissing the sign with even engaging in a moments thought. There was no hook to get them to think, the copy just fell into the “atheists are bad people who hate us believers” meme. (I’m not saying the campaign was done out of hate, but that’s how it can be interpreted based on previous incorrect ideas about atheists).

Likewise the catholics made PR gold out of this, by turning it into a 15 minute publicity stunt and implying that they’ll be using the money to help people who need help (they didn’t actually say that, but it gave the impression).

So someone hearing the statement can think “atheists want attention and are self-centred and the church is selfless and charitable” (again incorrect assumptions). Their communications director should get a good christmas bonus for that release.

The concept of closeted atheists should also be cut loose. Leave that concept with the GLBT crowd who have worked hard to own it. Instead show atheism responding to those who question, consider, doubt, ponder, wonder, investigate, search, seek,disbelive, etc. There are lots of terms that people will relate to much more quickly and easily than being “closeted” especially if they still aren’t sure what they (don’t) believe.

Finally, as a number of folks have pointed out, Silverman was not at his best on Fox (ironic how Fox suddenly became a respectable news source when it gave an atheist time to speak).

Beyond chewing his words, he looked bad when he had the quote about “going to war” read back to him, contradicting his earlier claims. Here was a journalist who had done some minimal prep (unlike the one in the other clip) and instead of it benefitting us, it portrayed atheists as having two messages, one for the public and one for “insiders”. Not great for building trust among the general public.

More engaging and less enraging-let’s be a viable option for the typical person and professional religion will suffer through attrition.

how is “You know its a myth, This season Celebrate reason” being *truly* offensive?

The same way “Deep down you know there is a God, you’re just mad at Him” is offensive. You’re not taking the other side seriously.

Silverman says the billboard tries to reach closeted atheists and people who wants to break the law by imposing religion. The problem is, closeted atheists already know that they know it’s a myth. The billboard won’t change their situation, and they will keep lying to keep their friends and lives; and religious lawbreakers don’t know it’s a myth, because they really believe it’s the truth. So the billboard misses both targets.

I’m not sure this billboard is offensive so much as ineffective and nugatory, at least for the vast majority who see it. It all has to do with who’s being targeted, why they’re being targeted, and what the desired outcome is. I don’t think that Silverman explained the goals very well.

Meek and mild won’t get us anywhere, but neither will putting people on the offensive. That’s why I like the “Good Without God” campaign so much. Showing how much people can do without a belief in lies is something more religious folks need to know, and it makes a strong statement in and of itself (though if active conversion is the goal of someone, they probably wouldn’t see it as strong enough).

You have to lead people to the desired outcome, but let them make the “decision” on their own. It’s the illusion of control that people relish and can subtlety convince them to come to conclusions (such as the non-existence of their deity of choice) that they normally wouldn’t. Once they’re at that conclusion, the real message of Rationalism can be laid out and will likely be accepted much more easily.

Does AA have a marketing board or agency? As people concerned with reason, I feel like they’re ignoring basic human psychology on the part of the majority of people who might be inclined to become atheists or skeptics (or “out” atheists) if approached differently.

It is ridiculous to say that Christmas isn’t a Christian holiday. Particularly in Europe and in this country.

Atheists who celebrate Christmas are celebrating a Christian holiday to rejoice over the birth of our savior. They can and do celebrate in a secular manner but they are being hypocritical to do so. If they were being true to their atheists position they would avoid celebrating this holiday, spend time with their family in other times of the year and not exchange gifts. The gift exchange concept grew out of the wisemen delivering gifts to Jesus.

And before we go there, I understand that December 25 was picked as the time to celebrate Jesus’ birth because it lined up with religious celebrations already going on in ancient Rome, however, the time of the celebration is not important, the reason behind it is. We could be celebrating Jesus’ birth in June and the reason for the holiday would still be the same.

The concept of closeted atheists should also be cut loose. Leave that concept with the GLBT crowd who have worked hard to own it.

I don’t think terms “belong” to one group or another, even if they’re typically applied only to that group. And the concept of being “closeted” is apt for atheists like me, who live in very conservative, evangelical, and biased communities. If I were to tell people (who don’t know) that I’m an atheist, or if I were to openly attend a freethought meeting (unfortunately not applicable anymore as the local one folded due to the leaders graduating), the people in my major would be VERY different towards me.

I did attend a bible questioning session at a Campus Crusade meeting with the freethought society during my freshman year, and it’s bitten me in the ass since then. People who know won’t group with me, and aren’t willing to work with me on projects. Projects are a BIG part of my major, as is going out to the lab farm, and until this year, I needed a ride out there every week. It was nearly impossible some semesters, because people in the Campus Crusade for Christ (at least 75% of my classmates in this school) wouldn’t associate with me.

And no, it’s not just me. Since most of the people who knew about my association with atheism have graduated, people have been much more accepting, and have been willing to work with me, even though my personality is considerably less bubbly and more rank than when I first came here. I haven’t brought up or talked to anyone in my college about my beliefs ever since, despite the fact that church and the bible have been brought up often in conversation.

TL;DR: Closeted doesn’t belong to one group. Some towns are shit and the adjective applies to atheists who need to succeed there.

If they were being true to their atheists position they would avoid celebrating this holiday, spend time with their family in other times of the year and not exchange gifts.

No. “Christmas” is a societal celebration, and is a convenient time to come together with family and show our love for each other (gift-wise or not). It’s the dead of winter in the northern hemisphere and winter sucks and we ALL need time to remember and appreciate those who love us. The goofy holiday that happens to fall on Dec 25 is a holiday where most businesses close and most people have off of work. I don’t care whether it’s because of your shit, it’s *convenient*.

Either way, I’m more than happy to work on Christmas day. I’m lucky enough that my family is reasonable and knows that Christmas as a religious holiday is separate from Christmas as a societal event, and they’re always willing to move our get-together.

Robert W

We could be celebrating Jesus’ birth in June and the reason for the holiday would still be the same.

Absolutely right. It would be a myth no matter which day you celebrated it.

Oh, and I wished someone had called that report out on the hypocricy of the Catholic Church. How dare they say $20,000 is better spent on feeding the poor, blah, blah, blah, when, in fact, they hoard treasures worth more than that and spend much more than that on both pomp and circumstances and covering up child rapers?

Not to mention what they do indeed spend on advertising.

Slugsie,

I was responding to the comment made in the interview where the head of the American Atheist says that Christmas is not a Christian holiday. That is a stupid and in accurate comment worthy of a response.

Deepak,

Absolutely right. It would be a myth no matter which day you celebrated it.

You are entitled to your beliefs. I of course disagree with you.

OK a few things:

“No matter what we say, they’re going to be offended” –> True and a valid point. However that does not constitute an excuse for being offensive or unneccesarily mean. I’m all for being offensive about circumcision or legal exceptions for people who pray their babies to death. Being mean about Christmas? To what end, exactly?

“It’s not offensive because it’s true” –> This is utter horseshit. “Your baby died and isn’t in heaven but gone for good” is also true. It’s also horrifically offensive. This notion that truth is never offensive is simply false. If you don’t mind offending, that’s one thing, but don’t pretend you aren’t doing it.

“It’s not offensive/I don’t find it offensive” –> Offense is in the eye of the beholder. Nothing is inherently offensive because offense is an emotion, not an external characteristic. For different people the sight of mutilated bodies, or children in pentacostal siezures, or boys kissing, is offensive, wheras for others they may not be. You are free to reason why you don’t find something offensive or why you feel justified in showing certain things despite the offense of others. Both are perfectly legitimate. You cannot claim it won’t offend and you shouldn’t claim that this won’t affect the result of your message.

I simply see this as poor strategy. The kind of people who are going to be comfortable with this are already in our heathen camp. The go-along get-along sorta Christians or agnostics or even closet atheists are less likely to enjoy a negative approach than a positive one, given that they are more passive themselves. If you are targetting that group, I see a fully positive message as being much more effective to win people over. A lot of people simply don’t want the holidays to be about confrontation, even mildly so. If you want to reach those people, a different message would be better.

Robert W

You are entitled to your beliefs. I of course disagree with you

Ofcourse. But you have already shown your attitude towards the truth – a birthday – why sure you can celebrate it any day , it hardly matters when you were born. What’s that this is a pagan holiday? No no we co-opted it, we took it over, its ours now, how dare someone say that it isn’t a christian holiday.

Claudia

Offense is in the eye of the beholder.

Seriously?
Do you really want me list what all offends fundamentalist muslims?
What is being said , how offensive it is (with a reasonably objective viewpoint) is important. Not everything is offensive because the beholder says it is.

Deepak Shetty, I addressed the specific targets of the billboard as explained by Silverman (he talks about it in the video) in my first comment in this thread: atheists who fake faith and people who want to push religion into the public realm.

“The problem is, closeted atheists already know that they know it’s a myth. The billboard won’t change their situation, and they will keep lying to keep their friends and lives; and religious lawbreakers don’t know it’s a myth, because they really believe it’s the truth. So the billboard misses both targets.”

Of course you can be offensive if you want. I’m not telling them to shut up. I’m just telling what I think about the billboard. They can do whatever they want.

“It’s not offensive because it’s true” –> This is utter horseshit.

LOL!

“I’d totally sleep with you, jose–if you weren’t a disgustingly fat, ugly motherfucker, that is.”

It is ridiculous to say that Christmas isn’t a Christian holiday. Particularly in Europe and in this country.

Atheists who celebrate Christmas are celebrating a Christian holiday to rejoice over the birth of our savior. They can and do celebrate in a secular manner but they are being hypocritical to do so. If they were being true to their atheists position they would avoid celebrating this holiday, spend time with their family in other times of the year and not exchange gifts. The gift exchange concept grew out of the wisemen delivering gifts to Jesus.

And before we go there, I understand that December 25 was picked as the time to celebrate Jesus’ birth because it lined up with religious celebrations already going on in ancient Rome, however, the time of the celebration is not important, the reason behind it is. We could be celebrating Jesus’ birth in June and the reason for the holiday would still be the same.

Dec 25th was a pagan holiday celebrating the winter solstice. Christianity co-opted this date to aid itself in winning converts.

Since that time, the celebration of Dec. 25th has evolved and shifted its meaning. In the modern celebration of Christmas in the western world, we acknowledge that the holiday started as a celebration of the birth of the christian deity, but has come to incorporate swaths of pre-christian pagan ritual, and has taken heavy influence from victorian literature (I submit Dickens’ A Christmas Carol, for example) that have brought heavy doses of humanism to the table.

In the modern day, christmas is at least as much about family, friends, and solidarity in the coldest and darkest parts of winter when our circadian rhythyms are being disrupted, as it has to do with worship. We should all strive to live up to the values of kindness, compassion, gratitude, and generosity. We aren’t being hypocritical, we have brought different meanings to the table.

I think it is a great billboard.
What’s wrong with going after xians?

The beliefs are based on mythology and it’s wrong to point that out? So what, if a bunch of people think your attacking their beliefs, we are, aren’t we? We think those beliefs are stupid and juvenile. We think they are responsible for horrid injustices against many people. Why should we not be direct and confrontational.
Why should we let their whining stop us. If they’re offended hopefully they will think about the stupidity of those belief systems and will evaluate them. The least we can hope for is they will become to ashamed to admit to them.

I think to say we are not going after xians and they’re beliefs is simply cowardly, what the hell is the point of any of it if not to get people, all people, including xians to re-evaluate they’re belief systems.

I think if your offended by this billboard, if your disgusted at the directness of it, if you feel it is wrong to point out the myth, then go climb under a rock and fuck yourself. Personally I am more concerned about our planet and our society to worry about a few little xians feelings. If it takes confrontation to move ahead it’s worth it.

Claudia
Your response offends me(and I didnt even read it yet!). That message was poor strategy on your part. Really you should learn how to get along with me because clearly you only mean to give offense. How militant of you.

See how that works? It’s silly to rethink your message just because I take offense right?

So after actually reading what you have to say

What “objective viewpoint” is that, exactly?

Hence the prefix of reasonably. It can’t be defined but surely you can see the difference between you know its a myth and your baby died and hasn’t gone to heaven?

but I couldn’t pretend they wouldn’t be. Argue that something shouldn’t be considered offensive. That offense under X thing is totally ridiculous.

To me arguing that offense under X is totally ridiculous is the same as stating it isn’t. Im not arguing that some Christians wont find the ad offensive – but that’s their problem – they can consult a psychiatrist if they wish. We don’t have to humor them.

To the people who are offended by it, I don’t really care too much. They’re offended by ANY public statement of atheism. But as others said, I think this ad misses its target and just isn’t really that effective. I’m ok with being a bit more blunt about nonbelief than some past campaigns. But if this is targeted at closeted atheists or undecided unbelievers, it does a poor job of actually directing the message at them, and if its targeted toward those who want to monopolize the season for Christianity, it will be completely ineffective toward them and gain us no support from more casual observers. Trying to hit two targets, I’m not sure it hit either. The other past ads are certain to cause offense, but they definitely contain a message in them that, repeated enough, is going to stick in some (non-taliban-christian) minds. I don’t see any lasting benefit from this one. I’d have liked to see this one more explicitly and effectively target nonbelievers who go through the motions.

@Claudia
I also think a difference in our viewpoints is that I prefer to judge whether an act is offensive whereas you seem to prefer to judge it on the basis of whether people take offense from the act. Admittedly there is no objective standard (but then there are no objective standards for morality either and we still seem to be able to make a determination)

For e.g. If a muslim woman chooses to not wear a burkha is it offensive? – My answer is no. By your standards , that act offends some fundamentalist imam somewhere and therefore the woman must recognise that her actions will offend someone (which is true , and Im not implying that you think she shouldnt do it).

My point is that you get nowhere pretending that you hold no responsibility for offending anyone because something “isn’t offensive”, because you can’t control others emotions, only argue their irrationality.

So the muslim woman should not pretend that she has no responsibility for offending the imam and she shouldnt state the choice “isnt offensive”
Sounds wrong to me.

I have mixed emotions on the billboard. On the one hand, I do kind-of like the association of atheism with being highly educated, intelligent, and well-mannered. On the other hand, social change really only comes through getting “enough” people to be on your side. Perhaps atheism is just now gaining critical mass to start to affect some social change (at least it is becoming news-worthy). With the influx of “new atheists” also comes some that are at least not as well-mannered. Perhaps it is just a sign of the success of the movement.

In traveling through Eastern North Carolina and South-Central Virginia this last weekend, I saw perhaps 15 or 20 different Christian billboards instructing that Jesus was the only way. If people are so used to seeing these Christian billboards that they get upset if there is an occasional billboard that says Jesus may not be the only way, then they will just need to get used to it.

By occasionally being aggressively offensive I suspect that our milder messages will become more accepted and understood.

This is really a great observation. And I think it’s spot-on. If a few of our messages are worded more strongly, then the “lesser” ones will practically be welcomed (“Thank god those atheists toned down their billboards!”).

I absolutely think it’s how homosexuality has become more accepted in my lifetime. I know of people who hated everything about it years ago, even the thought of a mild-mannered, taxpaying gay couple living on their street, who now are friends with that couple and accept them easily but still do not want to have homosexuality “shoved in their faces.”

The couple down the street looks mild in comparison to the gay pride paraders waving their sex toys on TV.

Consequently, the mild-mannered, taxpaying atheist couple doesn’t even register on the radar if you think all atheists are shoving their godlessness down your throat.

Look, if someone put up a billboard that said “Santa doesn’t exist,” I’d probably be upset, too. But I’d be upset because I want kids to enjoy that myth while they can

So, are you the arbiter of what myths kids are allowed to enjoy, then?

@Nicole:

Look, here’s the truth of it, unfair as it is (and yes, it’s horribly unfair): we have more to prove. We have to be twice as civilized, twice as clever, and twice as polite (much as it irks us) …

Yes, you are quite right. I’m generally on the polite end of the scale and I agree with you on this. But this poster qualifies. It is much more than twice as polite as the hateful rubbish that numerous religious groups spout continuously.

The people who say that this poster is insufficiently well-designed or insufficiently creative may be right: by all means come up with something better.

But to the people who say it is too rude, too offensive: sorry, but you really are being a bunch of doormats today. (Except for the religious objectors of course: you are concern trolls.)

Ibis,

You are joking right? Solstice (aka Yule, Saturnalia, Midwinter) gift giving (including the mythic gift-givers: “Santa”, Woden, elves, Strina) is ubiquitous and pre-dates Christianity, just like everything else about the holiday.

You are partially correct. However, the Catholic church, which had banned gift giving as being pagan in origin specifically approved of gift giving in Midevil times based upon saint Nicolas and the giving of gifts to Jesus. So to us today, it is that symbolism that prevails.

Since when was Ryan Reynolds a news anchor?

I love teh Frist vids response from the local church group “2000years of Love and piece”

I think someone need to go back to history class.

David Silverman is an inarticulate spokesperson. Maybe he was nervous but he misspoke several times.

“… because in this case Christianity is the main brunt[sic].”

“It is the main offender of this.” [where it is not clear what “this” refers to.]

“The people who are about to go to church right now and pray to a god in which they don’t exist.[sic]”

Robert,

They can and do celebrate in a secular manner but they are being hypocritical to do so. If they were being true to their atheists position they would avoid celebrating this holiday.

You’ll take my Christmas when you pry it from my cold, dead hands. 😉

Seriously, though, Christmas can be anything you want it to be. If you want to celebrate it as a religious holiday, you’re free to do that. If others want to celebrate it as a secular holiday, they’re free to do that. Aren’t Christians always complaining that Christmas has become secular? I celebrated it long before I ever heard about any deities. Our next-door neighbors growing up (a Buddhist/Sikh couple) celebrated it, too. There’s nothing hypocritical about acknowledging the myth. We can enjoy the holiday knowing that Santa, Rudolph, Frosty, and Jesus are all legendary figures.

@Claudia
Alright.
I’d still like you to specifically address my example. Muslim woman chooses to wear whatever she wants causing offense to some nut.
I say her act is not offensive(and that you can come many more such examples). You agree or disagree or you stick to your offensive in a good cause hence permissible views?

GOD have mercy on you. Ok say it is a myth and there is no GOD, no heaven or hell but….what if there is??!! Christmas is about JESUS birth and if you don’t believe, don’t celebrate. MERRY CHRISTMAS

I’m tired of my non-belief being all about christianity. So many of these signs are about not being christian, I want to move beyond that to something more positive. Christmas is a combination of secular and various religious holidays. As an atheist I am not interested in celebrating a winter solstice as pagans cults did millenia ago nor am I interested in nativity scenes. I want to celebrate a jingle bells, winter-wonderland, santa clause kind of christmas, which I don’t think any particular group owns or has stolen. I would prefer to see positive signs about celebrating this multicultural holiday with love and peace – a universal concept. Leave the words of war to fundamentalists.

@Rich:
Yes, I remember learning about Santa Claus, and I was angry as hell at having been willfully deceived.

@Anna
I concede that its pagan not secular (but i would think that anything concerned with nature is secular in the sense that it is not religious). As far as the taking back goes , its not my view , Im merely attempting to frame the argument to Robert who seems intent on misrepresenting it. Im quite happy having days off – I don’t particularly care if there are religious reasons behind them.

@Robert
Did I make the argument that Christmas is not celebrated by Christians or that it shouldn’t be? The point being made is that it isn’t exclusively Christian.
The manger is objected to for reasons that have already been mentioned.

“Just wait till we start using the rhetoric your pastors constantly use against us.”

OK, I’ll go with that one:

“Thou shalt not suffer a witch priest to live”
” Hell will also punish the sin of those who reject accept Christ”

My favorite part of the CBS story is how the atheists’ 15 minutes of fame can’t compare with “2000 years of promise.”

Yeah, we know, He’ll get around to coming back again someday…

😉

I would like to commend David Silverman on his profound faith!

If he is indeed logical he’ll concede that it takes just as much faith to believe that we are here as the result of chance as it does to believe in God. (Einstein said that the odds of inteligent life coming about by accident is comparable to an explosion in a type factory resulting in a set of encyclopedias).

We all have faith in something, and nothing can prove it other than the conviction of our hearts and minds.

The difference is, we believe that love actually exists, and atheists believe that love is a random firing of synapses in brains that (against all odds) evolved from single celled organisms in warm puddles.

Now that’s some powerful faith! Wecome to the ranks of the faithful!

This article taught me an unexpected and surprising “truth” … Matrix is a movie about aliens!

https://atheists.org/atheism/Christmas

Well hello, Little John!

I’m pretty sure it doesn’t take any faith to follow the evidence.

I’m also pretty sure that you can have right and wrong without absolutes.

No Little John, the evidence is scant and poorly supported by independent sources. Look it up for yourself rather than parroting what your pastor has told you. do a bit of research of your own.

There’s still no evidence for the birth of life itself, so it takes plenty of faith to believe that it was a random accident.

Its a good thing that scientists aren’t claiming that it was a random accident then. Do you know what they are claiming?

I don’t believe that you think that the love you have for your friends is only a chemical response.

It is even a measurable electro-chemical response. Does it bother you that chemistry and biology can explain emotional states? Does it make your love seem less? Just because science can explain something doesn’t make it worthless.

if this is all an accident then there is no such thing as right and wrong

Why would you think “all this” is an accident?

You have to keep asking “But why is it wrong.”

Good. Excellent. Keep questioning. Don’t accept an answer just because it is written in an old book or your pastor tells you something. Apply questions of your faith. If it is true then it can withstand even intense questioning. Can’t it?

@Little John,

there’s plenty of evidence for the birth of jesus / wise men story in Israel 2000 years ago. (Whether or not he was God is a matter of faith, but the event itself, in some form, is not a myth).

Re: The “wise men story”,
Could you please provide some evidence that a star (a star, FFS!) could stop in the sky over a particular spot on Earth so that three mobile gift-bearing dudes could locate a baby in a feed trough hundreds/thousands/whatever miles away? Did their measuring devices have such a precision that would let them know when said star was exactly at their zenith?

And did any other astronomers around the world also notice this “stopped star”?

Hi Hoverfrog,

I ask that you assume (as I do toward you) that I am at least as inquisitive and educated as you. This has nothing to do with what a “pastor has told me,” please assume that we are equally smart and both seeking truth in the best way we can.

1. In terms of evidence, there is far more than scant evidence in the existence and crucifixion of Christ. You need to look into this further. Part of the evidence is that huge populations of people became followers of Christanity immediately following his life.
There are also written accounts, etc. The debate is about whether or not he is God – nobody debates whether or not he existed.

2. In terms of the birth of life, I know exactly what the scientists are saying: that life most likely started when somehow a simple chain of RNA (they’re not sure where the amino acids came from), was formed, maybe even in ice, and that somehow eventually it bacame DNA and then a cell. After that, it was evolution that took it from a cell to where we are now…
I still maintain that the odds against this are so high (without a helping hand) that it takes faith to believe. Especially since it looks like our universe has had only one big bang due to expansion and not enough mass to re-collapse and form a new singularity.

3. You think “all this” is an accident – not me, remember?

4. I’m the one who proposed questioning – I enjoy the debate, unlike the other posters here who get irate (or at least their chemical response does).

We’re arguing about faith, which will always be a circular argument. It will never be solved – we’ll only know the truth when we pass on. It’s about what you choose to have faith in, and how confident you are in your own understanding. If you believe that we are no more than stacks of chemicals, and the love and passion you feel is only a bath of those chemicals, and that there is no God, and no afterlife, you’re betting against what millions of people of faith have believed over the years – and that requires faith. Sort of a reverse Pascal’s Wager.

You BELIEVE that there is no higher power, I believe there is. One of us is right, the other is wrong. Simple logic. If I am proven wrong, so what? I’ll go to sleep. If you are proven wrong, and Christianity happens to be true, could be trouble…

Deepak,

I concede that its pagan not secular (but i would think that anything concerned with nature is secular in the sense that it is not religious). As far as the taking back goes , its not my view , Im merely attempting to frame the argument to Robert who seems intent on misrepresenting it. Im quite happy having days off – I don’t particularly care if there are religious reasons behind them.

Yes, we’re mostly on the same page. Although I do think that the pagan celebrations were religious. They were about nature, but the supernatural played a large part in them, too. Festivals like Yule and Saturnalia were about deities; they just happened to be about Odin and Saturn instead of Yahweh.

But I agree; I couldn’t care less about whether or not those traditions have religious reasons behind them. I think mythology is interesting, anyway, and I don’t care if various peoples thought spirits or gods were real. It’s still just as much fun to decorate trees and sing carols. I can belt out Silent Night and Joy to the World while happily recognizing that the story behind them is an ancient legend.

Dear pinkocommie,
Please expound – I would like to hear your take… I still feel it’s a logical argument, since obviously we both can’t be right.

And it’s also a reaction to those Christians who want to make this a Christian-only time of year even though it’s not. Like those people who refuse to say “Happy Holidays.”

I’d just like to say that “Merry Christmas” is another religious aspect. Saying Merry Christmas is not meant to shove religion down the throats of others. As a Catholic, I don’t get upset when people say “Happy Hanukkah,” or “Happy Kwanzaa,” or even “Whatever, this season sucks.” Why target Christianity? I know there are people who believe that being an atheist will send them to Hell, but there are plenty of people that don’t believe these things anymore. Just as there are plenty of Christians that no longer believe that people who are gay will burn in Hell. I know they exist, but I personally don’t know a single Christian who still thinks this way.
I’d just like to put that out there.

Yessss! Troll successfully averted: +10 charisma!

Ali,

I’d just like to say that “Merry Christmas” is another religious aspect. Saying Merry Christmas is not meant to shove religion down the throats of others. As a Catholic, I don’t get upset when people say “Happy Hanukkah,” or “Happy Kwanzaa,” or even “Whatever, this season sucks.” Why target Christianity? I know there are people who believe that being an atheist will send them to Hell, but there are plenty of people that don’t believe these things anymore. Just as there are plenty of Christians that no longer believe that people who are gay will burn in Hell. I know they exist, but I personally don’t know a single Christian who still thinks this way. I’d just like to put that out there.

We need more religious people like you. I’m always happy when I meet Christians who reject things like eternal torture. I think you may have misunderstood about the billboard, though. This ad isn’t about people saying “Merry Christmas.” It’s not atheists who typically get up in arms over that. Rather, it tends to be a segment of the evangelical/fundamentalist population who object to the phrase “Happy Holidays” because they feel it doesn’t place enough emphasis on Christmas. There are campaigns by some of these groups to try to pressure or punish businesses that use more inclusive terms and that recognize there are a variety of holidays being celebrated at this time of year.

Little John, welcome to the web-site. Its nice to see another real person here to join Robert, Tim and a few others. The rest of everyone here are just soulless skin-enclosed bags of responding chemicals who know not what they are writing.

I do have to warn you about one thing. It was revealed to me that God is disgusted at modern Christians and has put in place a third covenant where Christians are damned to an eternity of hell for presuming to know God and mucking with civil law. Obviously we have different beliefs on this. You think the 2nd covenant is true. I think the third covenant is true. One of us is right. One of us is wrong. (You can only play Pascal’s wager with a false dichotomy). Simple logic. If I am proven wrong, I just go to sleep (I’m just a soulless skin-enclosed bag of responding chemicals… no soul to mess with)… If you are proven wrong, and the third covenant happens to be true, could be trouble.

*[assumes comment is in moderation for having a link…]*

Hoverfrog,

Thanks for the dialogue. meetings all day, I hope to continue speaking with you.

I don’t understand why these atheists did find necessary to show off (on bill boards) their opinion about Christmas? Did anybody (beside them), need it? Did anybody ask for it? If not, what did they want, then by doing so? Why do they do such things? To take other people the pleasure, the joy of Christmas celebration?

First of all, Christmas is a tradition, do they have a problem with that? Why Christmas and not Hanukkah, mister Silverware? That is not a myth related celebration?

Where is your problem if my children (want to) believe in Santa Claus? I did it when I was a child too…do I believe in it still ( now)? Of course not but I don’t recall needing a so called “atheist” to enlighten me to learn about that.

We live in a very arid and brutal world and so little color and happiness has been remained for normal people and kids to enjoy, why do you want to destroy that? What is your real goal?

Then, why should I believe you saying that God doesn’t exist? What is you prove on that? I, for example am not 100% convince about its existence, (at least not in the way it is preached by the preachers) but I am not convince about his nonexistence, either! I do believe that something beyond your 3 dimensional/material world in which you definitely live, Mr Silverman, do exists, no matter how is called it. Only the simple fact that his existence is questioned, is a sign of God’s existence. Only the simple fact that we discuss about him, it is assuming his existence because, otherwise we would never discuss about something what doesn’t exist, isn’t it?

You atheist guys, do you really think that you control the truth and only the truth? I for example, do not think so! I am not sure that God exists but I have also serious doubts that he doesn’t exist and as long as I have these doubts, I cannot play with billboards on the streets of North America, insulting so many people in the entire world with semi-doct opinions.

Now, I really want to hear from you, what makes you so sure about God’s nonexistence? What instrument of research did you use to get to this conclusion and and to make you so sure about it? I would like to hear about that in concrete terms in a philosophical debate, if you want and not by showing off your slogans on bill boards…
What you guys are doing, it is just pathetic, I am sorry to tell you that!

I apologize for my English level, obviously it is not my native language.

Thank you!
Sergiu

Romanian,
Honest doubt is a part of the Christian tradition. Some of the disciples closest to Christ had doubts about his claim that he was the savior. Everyone who is truly honest with himself has doubts. But not Mr Silverman! He is 100% sure that God does not exist, and he is 100% sure that the Christmas story is a myth. (He “Knows” it’s a myth, and put up a billboard to proclaim it). I have been having great dialogue here with some people – but I have also noticed something interesting. I’m accustomed to questioning and doubting aspects of my own faith, even in religious settings like a Bible study, for example. There are aspects of Christianity that I will question until my death. But the overriding mood here is total confidence that God does not exist, and anything to the contray causes ridicule. Keep doubting and keep believing!

Little John said:

But the overriding mood here is total confidence that God does not exist, and anything to the contray causes ridicule.

Some may feel that way but most of the commenters I’m familiar with here take a weaker stance. They just are not convinced of the popular theistic versions of God. Many here, myself included, will simply say “I don’t know” in response to basic deist questions of some kind of creator. We draw the line when you embellish the generic deist god concept with all the theistic trappings. For example, the Christian notions of original sin, damnation, saved, heaven, hell, virgin births, resurections, demon casting, etc.

@Romanian,

mister Silverware

…

what makes you so sure about God’s nonexistence?

The dearth of his/her/its evidence.

What instrument of research did you use to get to this conclusion and and to make you so sure about it?

My allegedly god-given brain is having trouble with the aforementioned lack of evidence — especially due to the fact that the claims surrounding it are so extraordinary.

——————

@Little John,

Keep doubting and keep believing!

Wow. Cognitive dissonance, for the loss.

“2,000 years of peace, love and acceptance”?
did I miss something??

I’ll be celebrating yule/winter solstice with my atheist boyfriend thank you.. and then I’ll celebrate the secular christmas with family.

My boyfriend and I talked about if we had a tree together for yule/solstice/xmas were are going to have the flying spaghetti monster wrapped around the tree with Cthulhu wrapped around the bottom with the presents, with a sun like tree topper to represent the sun ^_^

Hoverfrog

Ahem. Evidence please. Good primary evidence well supported by secondary and abundant tertiary sources. At best you can say that a man probably existed who the myths have been attributed to. It is far from a definite.

“Tacitus (c. A.D. 56-117) should be among the first of several hostile witnesses called to the stand. He was a member of the Roman provincial upper class with a formal education who held several high positions under different emperors such as Nerva and Trajan (see Tacitus, 1952, p. 7). His famous work, Annals, was a history of Rome written in approximately A.D. 115. In the Annals he told of the Great Fire of Rome, which occurred in A.D. 64. Nero, the Roman emperor in office at the time, was suspected by many of having ordered the city set on fire. Tacitus wrote:

Nero fabricated scapegoats—and punished with every refinement the notoriously depraved Christians (as they were popularly called). Their originator, Christ, had been executed in Tiberius’ reign by the governor of Judea, Pontius Pilatus. But in spite of this temporary setback the deadly superstition had broken out afresh, not only in Judea (where the mischief had started) but even in Rome (1952, 15.44, parenthetical comments in orig.).
Tacitus hated both Christians and their namesake, Christ. He therefore had nothing positive to say about what he referred to as a “deadly superstition.” He did, however, have something to say about it. His testimony establishes beyond any reasonable doubt that the Christian religion not only was relevant historically, but that Christ, as its originator, was a verifiable historical figure of such prominence that He even attracted the attention of the Roman emperor himself!”

Feel free to read this website if you’re still unconvinced that there was a man who actually called himself Christ.

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/157

@Maria,
FWIW, there’s a man who calls himself “Christ” popping up every few years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_who_have_claimed_to_be_Jesus

…nor was the Biblical character the first to do so.

@Maria,
The fact that any old nutjob can claim to be The One And Only True Messiah™ proves your point? Quite the contrary. It only casts more doubt on the messianic claim of the one you mentioned. The NT Bible character [whatever flavor of him you choose] wasn’t the first or the last to claim such powers.
Being one-in-a-million isn’t so special when there are 999,999 others just like you.

Little John

Jesus was a historical figure, he was born approx. 2000 years ago

Evidence?

King Herod was a historical figure

You know that George Washington was a real person, an historical figure, and the story of him chopping down a cherry tree is a myth. Using historical figures in stories adds credence to the story but the evidence has to match up with independently verified events. Did Herod leave a diary or have a chronicler that could confirm the events of the nativity? Were children actually slaughtered on his command and where is the evidence for this? Was he actually alive at the time of the purported events?

the magi (in general) are historical (And were astronomers)

That’s an interesting assertion. What were their names and countries of origin? When did they begin their journeys? How many of them were there? Where did they stop on their journey? Where did they pick up the gifts or who did they order to make the gifts? All this interaction should have some record or should at least have been written down on the magi’s return to their native lands.

the practice of returning to one’s home town for census is historical

Not so. Roman citizens may have been recorded in the local census of their region of birth but Rome didn’t care where Hebrews or other occupied people were born as long as they didn’t make a fuss and paid their taxes.

stables attached to homes in israel is historical

OK you’ve got me there. A country that used horses for work and transport had provision for stabling them.

And the written accounts in the Bible are no more or less historical than any other written accounts that we have from that time.

Less. Much less.

We all trust in clues that work together to tell a story, it’s what paleontologists do every day.

Paleontologists have primary evidence in the form of fossilised remains and preserved artifacts. They actually have the clues to work from. You have second and third hand accounts written with an agenda in mind.

Pascal’s Wager, by the way, is perfectly logical in this context.

Then you’ll agree that the Atheist’s Wager is equally logical and compelling?

Are you 100% sure that you are right?

No. There is always room for doubt. That is what having an open mind does for you, it leaves you with a little “but what if…” question. I’m pretty sure though.

—

Maria, Tacitus (c. A.D. 56-117) lived more than a generation after the purported events. He repeated the evidence as he understood it. That makes his account good tertiary evidence. It means that he reported events as they had been reported to him. He was not a witness who wrote about events.

In order to be convincing there needs to exist primary evidence or strong secondary evidence. Tertiary evidence alone is insufficient.

The existence of other “Messiah’s” doesn’t help you. It obfuscates the historian’s search for a possible genuine Jesus. Was there a real Jesus that the myths are ascribed to? Maybe but I doubt it. If I had to bet I’d say that there were at least two.

Bonez
Please take the time to reread my original post.

A man named Jesus Christ most definitely existed, but there is no proof as to whether he was actually the Son of God. There is indeed evidence and records that tells that he existed. There are records of him being crucified and of him being thought of as a “public nuisance.” He may have been the Son of God, or he may have simply been mentally ill. Depends on what you believe.

Maybe you misinterpreted what I said. There was a man named Jesus Christ at one point in time. I don’t understand how you can refute this, you just said there have been people claiming to be the Christ for thousands of years. Is it so impossible that one of them was named Jesus?

You say:

The fact that any old nutjob can claim to be The One And Only True Messiah™ proves your point? Quite the contrary. It only casts more doubt on the messianic claim of the one you mentioned. The NT Bible character [whatever flavor of him you choose] wasn’t the first or the last to claim such powers.
Being one-in-a-million isn’t so special when there are 999,999 others just like you.

Please show me where I said that there was no doubt that the man named Jesus actually held messianic powers. I must be missing that somehow.

Deepak

You do know that other religions have people who have claimed to be God (not just his son , but there have been those too) – Do you accept that evidence? considering that there is as much(or really as little) evidence as your beliefs.

Sure. I don’t belittle the religions of others simply because I don’t believe in it. My mind is open to the fact that my beliefs may be wrong. The fact that you want to say there was never a man named Jesus Christ is what I can’t understand.

Hoverfrog

Tacitus (c. A.D. 56-117) lived more than a generation after the purported events. He repeated the evidence as he understood it. That makes his account good tertiary evidence. It means that he reported events as they had been reported to him. He was not a witness who wrote about events.

In order to be convincing there needs to exist primary evidence or strong secondary evidence. Tertiary evidence alone is insufficient.

The existence of other “Messiah’s” doesn’t help you. It obfuscates the historian’s search for a possible genuine Jesus. Was there a real Jesus that the myths are ascribed to? Maybe but I doubt it. If I had to bet I’d say that there were at least two.

Incorrect. You said there was never a man named Jesus Christ that lived. I was simply showing that he did. The fact that Bonez said that there have been hundreds strengths my point, if anything. If there were tons of them, one of them was probably named Jesus.

Holy crap: I just read the “Atheist’s Wager” and it *is* even dumber than Pascal’s original wager! That’s quite a feat. I can sort of understand how someone could glance at both and think that they share the same problems, but the “Atheists Wager” has some that Pascal’s doesn’t have. Little John is right, if you think that that is an adequate response to the Christian Pascal’s Wager you don’t understand salvation by faith. In addition, it has even larger holes of logic than Pascal’s. Anyone who thinks that this should convince any person (i.e. including a Muslim or someone for whom the Atheist Wager’s misunderstanding of salvation by faith is irrelevant) who believes Pascal’s Wager (i.e. the Islamic version of it) is valid doesn’t understand the problems with Pascal’s Wager.

The problems of the “Atheist Wager” are similar, but greater. Saying that people admitting the Atheist’s Wager is invalid must admit that Pascal’s Wager is invalid is like saying they must admit they can’t lift 1000 pounds simply because they can’t lift 2000.

@Maria

There are records of him being crucified and of him being thought of as a “public nuisance.

What is your source for this – No roman record exists for this as far as I know which would be the only credible source.

it’s clear that atheists don’t understand the Christian faith

That’s a broad brush you’re painting with, LJ.

I myself think the Atheist’s Wager is a tad contrived. I’d personally suggest the simpler axiom of just being good for goodness’ sake. God or no, saved or no, you lived your life well and had a positive impact on the world (and if God’s going to roast your ass anyway because you believed the wrong thing, I don’t think he’s worthy of your praise).

What is your source for this – No roman record exists for this as far as I know which would be the only credible source.

She’s citing Tacitus, paraphrased on the apologetics site she linked above.

That Bill board was genious! Everyone is talking about it and more people will stand up for their faith and make the season even more celebrated then ever before. People are talking about GOD more now then ever. People are actually standing up and fighting for their faith. It is so great!!!!! I think this was a brilliant idea!!!! THANK YOU atheists! You have given GOD even more power and strength then he already had by posting that bill board . WELL DONE!!

Kevin

Just watched it – reminds me how complex religon is – I’ve always boiled it down to the Bible, and if something is truly not clear to me I admit that I’m not sure about that part. In my case, I take the Bible as the inspired word of God, so it’s a different context. (Since I believe in God, I have no problem accepting that He would or could communicate with us through written word. If I didn’t believe in God, it would seem ridiculous to me).

Back to your video link, I think pascals wager was put forth as an argument between two positions, not a formula to figure out which religon is more true. it only works between two opposing views of reality. But still – it’s a much better and smarter anti-pascal take than the atheists wager!

1. @annie, you said:
“Funny how you don’t see any Jews like myself on here complaining about what others think but let me tell you “we” are sick of all of the Christens trying to run our lives. Let everyone believe the way they want to and just leave all of us alone.”

No offense but to use you expression, Annie, “Funny” , yes it is funny to see that a lot of Jews have been, are and will continue to be complaining about…almost everything.

Even mister Silverman who plays the game of the atheist here, is structurally/genuinely one of them. I don’t want to go into this but in many of the dialogues I had with different Jews, when they didn’t have arguments anymore, they begun to accuse me of (subconscious they say -as they would know better than me what I feel) antisemitic feelings. That’s sad, because I know that they know, that I am not antisemitic, and by not hesitating to call me as such, (again – when they cannot sustain their points) it is very disappointing.

On the other hand, would you mind developing the idea of “Christians running over your lives?”. What are you talking about? Who started this discussion? Who launched this stupid anti – Christmas slogans on the street, we, the Christians? Please explain it and don’t spread sinless accusations again. Change these poor tactics because they are not only poor; they are too old and not working in your advantage, anymore! The people are not as stupid as you guys think, please understand and pay attention to that…

2. @ Little John.
You know John, I grew up in a truly atheist country, (Communist Romania), and for the biggest part of my life, I was a convinced atheist. In fact, that was how we all lived like in that country, in that time; that was how we all have been educated like – without God but with Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin and of course, the light of the lights – Ceausescu! I and my generation (of students) have been exposed to a very serious arsenal of anti Christian/anti God theories and arguments, ( not as naive as those slogans from the Mr. Silverman billboards) and unavoidable, we ended up as atheists. Religion in schools has been forbidden; we didn’t have access to any other nature of information, only the materialist-dialectic ones; I didn’t know how a Bible look like and when I found one on a black market, I was paying 100 LEI on it (which as financial effort for me was like $100 for an American in the 70’s).

Later in life, especially in the ’90s when we had the chance to read first, the books of our bigger thinkers (forbidden by Ceausescu regime), then the ones of reputed philosophers like C.G. Jung, CS Lewis and so on and who publicly expressed their conviction about the God existence, made me start questioning the divinity existence. As deeper I went into the searching, the more my skepticism about God Nonexistence, increased. When CG Jung has been asked by a reporter if he believes in God, his answer was: ” I don’t believe, I KNOW!”. Yes, I did understand exactly the way Jung believed in God …and so, he clearly was one of the personalities who made me look at this aspect, from a different angle, from another perspective than the one I grew up within. That’s how my doubts started; another way around, from a atheist child and young boy, to an adult believer (with those specific litle doubts).

3. @ bønez_brigade ;you answered

my questions:
what makes you so sure about God’s nonexistence?

your answer:
The dearth of his/her/its evidence.

my question:
What instrument of research did you use to get to this conclusion and and to make you so sure about it?

your answer:

My allegedly god-given brain is having trouble with the aforementioned lack of evidence — especially due to the fact that the claims surrounding it are so extraordinary.

The fact that your God-given brain has trouble finding the evidence, it doesn’t mean that that evidence does not exist; I cannot say that, do you? We don’t know everything, we know very, very, very little of very small things in our 3 maxim dimensional world. Do you think that this is enough to make statements at such a level? I don’t know if God Exists, but I cannot eliminate the possibility of its existence…
Then,
If the “dearth of his/her/its evidence (you appear pretty irritated by that) , is the argument you base your conviction on then I don’t have to much to say because I cannot determine anybody to see beyond these 3 dimensions of the materialistic world, the only one we know; I cannot convince anybody to think about the possibility of the existence of let’s say 4-5-6-7 etc other dimensions; I cannot make anybody understand that the level of knowledge and science what we achieved till now, is powerful enough to allow us to get conclusions with titles of axioms.

Personally, only by looking back into the mankind history I realized how fragile our knowledge always has been and still is. If I had been telling 4 decades ago to my grandfather that in one day I, as a Romanian, will be able to communicate in writing with you on another part of the world in a real time, he would call me crazy or idiot and that because of your very same “dearth of evidence” he would have based his reaction on. The examples could continue finding the same reactions around the telephone, radio, electrical bulb, any discovery. Shouldn’t that make you take a little more precaution regarding what the future might bring us to evidence, as well? You act like being certain that what we have discovered up until now, it is everything we possible could have discovered and/or it is good enough to state that God, doesn’t exist;

I think that what we discovered till now is providing us enough information to make us jump into firm decision about God existence! The after communist experience made me understand that a high precaution across a domain what I have not enough knowledge about has to be always taken in consideration!

4. @Maria

To admit that Jesus was the son of God, needs the admittance of the existence of God Himself. As long as you don’t admit that, any other discussion about Jesus as son of God it makes no sense. We could philosophize on the subject and in this way, I could bring you arguments (philosophical arguments)that Jesus is the son of God ,as I also could bring arguments related to Christianity as being the right faith,(you all could do that with your faiths, I know), but before that, we need to start from the assumption that God exist. Otherwise, the subject makes no sens! Jesus Christ did exist, he did mark the mankind existence in a supra-historic way. Jesus Christ is not over history, not in history! Everything in history measures in rapport with his existence; and that’s a fact!

5. Bible.

If we take the bible out of our history, what remains for the human history?

Without the bible, Shakespeare became a tragic jokes teller.(P. Tutea)

sorry for being so long but the subject is not easy to be treated in few words.

Have a nice weekend, all of you!
Sergiu

All the stories of people who were taught to believe something as children and later “defected”, regardless of what they were taught to believe, is actually a pretty compelling argument against teaching children religion (or atheism) at a young age.

Mariam

Incorrect. You said there was never a man named Jesus Christ that lived.

Sorry for being so pedantic but your assertion was that a man named Jesus definitely existed. I asked for evidence. I’m sure that a man named Jesus existed and I could pretty much guarantee that someone on this site knows someone named Jesus personally. It isn’t that unusual a name and nor was it 2000 years ago.

Hoverfrog,

As evidence that he was God, and the means of salvation, saying that millions follow him is a.a.p. If you review the earlier post, that’s what was pointed out as argument ad populum, and I agreed, As evidence that he existed on earth, which is how I used it the second time, it’s pretty good evidence – it’s like having 10,000 witnesses to an event. In fact, one could argue that no single person has affected humanity as much.

Do you really think Jesus (the one we’re talking about) didn’t exist, even as a man/teacher, whatever?

I don’t think “that was the point.” I think you sent me that link because you wanted me to see that the wager can be easily reversed – which in that context, it can”t. The wager is not faulty when comparing two contrasting scenarios – that’s all it’s good for.

I also just recently voiced what I felt was the flaw with pascals wager, so I’m not on a mission to defend it. I used it earlier as a comparison. (Although I still think it’s a worthy thought experiment).

Little John

As evidence that he existed on earth, which is how I used it the second time, it’s pretty good evidence – it’s like having 10,000 witnesses to an event.

It really isn’t like having 10,000 witnesses. Do you know what is like having 10,000 witnesses? 10,000 witnesses. A lot of people believing he existed is like a lot of people believing that the moon is made of cheese or a lot of people believing that the sun revolves around the Earth. No hang on. This is better: It is like a lot of people believing in John Frum.

In fact, one could argue that no single person has affected humanity as much.

Only if you can show that he was actually a person.

Do you really think Jesus (the one we’re talking about) didn’t exist, even as a man/teacher, whatever?

The person of Jesus certainly exists as an amalgam of popular myths of the time. Whether they stem from a real person, dozens of people, or a legend is debatable. We simply don’t have enough evidence to say which it is with any confidence.

I don’t think “that was the point.” I think you sent me that link because you wanted me to see that the wager can be easily reversed

Do me the courtesy of taking me at my word please. Pascal’s wager is nonsense, the atheists wager is similarly nonsense. I’ll bet if you look there’ll be a Flying Spaghetti Monster Wager somewhere that will be just a nonsensical.

The wager is not faulty when comparing two contrasting scenarios – that’s all it’s good for.

So it presents a fallacy of false dichotomy. What on Earth are you using it for?

Although I still think it’s a worthy thought experiment.

A very short thought experiment.

“The same logic is applied in Pascal’s wager except for non-belief in gods.”

Not quite.

Pascal’s wager has multiple fatal problems. It presents a false dichotomy when in reality there are infinite Metaphysical constructs to wager on. Most saliently, there is equal reason to believe (none) that the consequences of actions are the exact opposite the wagerer says they are. In other words, it’s just as possible as any religious mythology that a trickster God specifically sends to hell those who follow the one true religion and rewards everyone who does not.

This flaw is so big that it partially undermines one of the most popular criticisms of the wager: that we cannot choose belief. Any supernatural being or pantheon is just as likely to value (or despise) honest faith as they are craven calculation. Arbitrarily postulating a deity that values true faith and does not value cynicism, the wager will not work for such an entity. Most conceptions of the Christian god are of such a being, so only for an infinitesimal slice of religions of which most of Christianity is a member, Pascal’s Wager does have this additional fatal flaw.

It also addresses what is rational to do, rather than what is most likely. Even if the Wager worked, it would still be wholly irrational to think there is a measurable chance of Christian claims being true.

Worst of all, the claim that no sacrifice is necessary to play the game is untrue. For Christianity it is far less of a lie than it is for most religions, as Christianity has the doctrine of salvation by faith. Whereas in other religions holy activity includes wasting time praying, fasting, and even having less sex(!), in (some) Christianity the only sacrifice is the intellectual integrity lost upon believing in the flawed Wager itself. This is the part that fares worst inverted from Pascal into the Atheist’s Wager.

The Atheist’s Wager generally has these same fatal flaws.

It assumes that a benevolent god is likelier than alternatives, much as the theist one assumes that a god rewards those who do as he asks just because he says he does. Likewise, there is a huge cost in merely being good on the chance it will happen to be what a deity will reward. Importantly, because there is no salvation by faith proposed, not only must one sacrifice intellectual integrity to follow this, one would actually have to give up stuff! A Christian unwilling to surrender more than his intellect can rightly distinguish between the two wagers and be less willing to take the atheist one.

The Atheist’s wager arbitrarily postulates a god who rewards wager followers, the same weakness as in Pascal’s. It remains equally likely that a God exists who sends everyone to heaven, except for people who believe in a wager of some kind. (Or one that sends to hell those who die in any month other than June and in any place other than Austin. The safe bet is clearly to book a flight there in advance planning commit suicide…you can’t be too careful when it comes to the eternal afterlife!)

Once again, we are being asked to do something, but the argument does not seek to convince that anything in particular is likely or even possible.

The bit about being remembered fondly is just stupid.

The Atheist’s Wager avoids the objection that faith can’t be cajoled by threats since it calls for action alone. In this sense it is stronger than Pascal’s.

In summary: Pascal’s is stronger insofar as he is not necessarily asking for tangible commitment, and the Atheist’s is stronger insofar as it does not ask for faith at all. Both are nonfunctional, but each has one bit dumber than the other, so you can’t really say that rejecting one has to lead to rejection of the other.

The number of people who believe in Ganpati (a man-elephant hybrid God who is the son of the Shiva – the destroyer in the Hindu trinity) is in millions – Do you believe he existed?

What exactly are you implying?

@Little John:

Hah, just cause the site is called ‘Friendly Atheist’ doesn’t necessarily mean its members are friendly atheists. I’m not a mean atheist, but more of an impatient, snarky, sarcastic atheist.

I get these very same questions every time I talk to my family and it quickly becomes exhausting to have to remind them every time that ‘no, Pascal’s Wager doesn’t work.’ ‘No, there is no first-hand evidence for Jesus.’ ‘Josephus’s writings probably were added in the Middle Ages, Tacitus likely was writing from tertiary sources.’ ‘Believers in or martyrs for Christianity doesn’t make it the ‘one true religion’ because there are as zealous believers and martyrs for other religions.’

It’s exhausting, and I have little patience for Bible-apologists thinking that atheists haven’t heard all these arguments before / haven’t read the Bible / haven’t been in Church / or are ‘missing a little something in their hearts.’

So, sorry. My memory is drawing up a quote about opinions and arseholes.

Jeff,

I agree with your dichotomy statement. I have always viewed the construct of the “wagers” as not comparing two opposing beliefs, but rather two people disagreeing about whether or not a particular belief is true – more like betting on a coin toss than a horse race.
Is that more applicable to this particular debate? I sometimes hear atheists saying that theirs is not a “belief” and should not be pigeonholed as such. So instead of “I believe this, you believe that, one of our beliefs must be right.” it’s more like, “When it comes to your Christian faith, I think it’s false, and I know that you think it’s true – only one of us can be right about THAT.

Kevin,

Do you not think that Christian apologists haven’t heard the same lame arguments from atheists? We have and they don’t get any better. They are based upon wrong and sometimes intentionally false information, or on a false premise that the evidence that does exist isn’t what they would think would be there so the evidence is wrong, etc…..

And to top it off they conclude with the arrogant notion that even though there have been brilliant people of faith through the centuries, anyone who believes in God is a bumbling idiot who has traded in his intellect and they are the ones who only know the truth.

I don’t have much patience for that.

@Romanian,

The fact that your God-given brain has trouble finding the evidence, it doesn’t mean that that evidence does not exist; I cannot say that, do you?

Nope, but it certainly doesn’t look good for the evidence’s existence.

We don’t know everything, we know very, very, very little of very small things in our 3 maxim dimensional world. Do you think that this is enough to make statements at such a level? I don’t know if God Exists, but I cannot eliminate the possibility of its existence…

Yes, you can put existence claims to the test. If the claims fail to hold up, then that says something about likelihood. Easy.

If the “dearth of his/her/its evidence (you appear pretty irritated by that) […]

Irritated? Do elaborate!

You act like being certain that what we have discovered up until now, it is everything we possible could have discovered and/or it is good enough to state that God, doesn’t exist;

Nope. But it sure casts a lot of doubt on all gods conceived up to this point.

I think that what we discovered till now is providing us enough information to make us jump into firm decision about God existence!

Correct. What we’ve discovered until now has cast enough doubt on the existence of God (a personal one, at least) that we can say that his/her/its existence is highly doubtful.

@Robert W.,

Do you not think that Christian apologists haven’t heard the same lame arguments from atheists? We have and they don’t get any better. They are based upon wrong and sometimes intentionally false information, or on a false premise that the evidence that does exist isn’t what they would think would be there so the evidence is wrong, etc…..

Would you be so kind as to provide some specific examples for our scrutiny?
Thanks in advance!

Robert…

Please tell me you see the irony in accusing all atheists everywhere of overgeneralizing.

And I third the request for specific examples of atheist arguments that are “lame,” “wrong,” and “intentionally false.”

Hell just for kicks, I’ll make it easy on you and offer you one of our many (apparently) trite and defeated arguments for you to pick apart. Have you read Carl Sagan’s essay “The Dragon In My Garage?” It’s a fairly easy read. Can you read it, then come back here and tell me exactly what you find “lame,” “wrong,” and “intentionally false” about his central argument?

Little John,

It looks like we are starting to agree on things.

The false dichotomy comes in when considering “Christian” and “atheist” as covering all the possibility space. It leaves out the Muslims, Hindus, etc. There are other beliefs out there besides just Christian.

If you compare “Christian” with “not Christian” then the false dichotomy goes away but the wager breaks down.

For instance, if the Christian is right, then the Christian goes to heaven and the non-Christian goes to hell. If the Christian is wrong, then we don’t have enough information to make any kind of additional statement based only on “non-Christian”. “Not Christian” is undefined and could mean all sorts of things including Muslim, Hindu, atheist, etc. We don’t have enough information to complete the terms of the wager.

Kevin, Bonez, Bernerbits,

As to your requests, Kevin listed some of the arguments I was talking about. You can also include intentionally misrepresenting the date the Gospels were written, the higher standard for historical evidence of facts described in the Bible as opposed to other ancient documents or events, the disregarding of archeological evidence confirmed from the Bible, the whole list of arguments based upon what modern man would expect to see as potential evidence and then claiming that because more is not there it never happened, the false attempt to compare other mythologies to the stories in the Bible and claim they are similar until you look into them and there are no similarities at all (such as saying the story of the birth of Christ is really just a recasting of the story of Hercules for example), the misrepresentation that the Bible translations we have now are not accurate because they were copied several hundred years after they were first written and thus not reliable, the misrepresentation of the Christian beliefs of our founding fathers in an attempt to show this was not a nation founded on Christian principles by Christian people, taking certain passages of the Bible intentionally out of context in an attempt to prove a point, intentionally failing to recognize that the Bible is a book made up of multiple books and stories some of which are clearly allegories and some of which are meant to be historical and thus claiming it can’t be interpreted as such. The list can go on.

As for Carl Sagan’s essay it is lame. It is simply an attempt to show that science based upon natural laws can’t prove the supernatural. I think that would be self evident. It also attempts to claim that all people who believe in God (or gods) are mentally deranged. A pretty bold comment to make about over half of the human population.

As for a broad brush over generalization I apologize. If that description doesn’t apply to you then I am thankful. However I have seen very often on this site comments similar to what I said from multiple posters so there is some basis for the statement.

However I have seen very often on this site comments similar to what I said from multiple posters so there is some basis for the statement.

So? Most integers aren’t prime. This doesn’t mean that there are no prime numbers.

Actually my reading goes well beyond Less Strobel but I have read his books. I would recommend books or essays from Norman Geisler, Alvin Plantinga, William Lane Craig or Timothy Keller for more in depth information.

One of these days I’m going to get around to starting into a reading list over at commonsenseatheism (apparently Hemant’s site isn’t letting me post links) which contains an even balance of skeptics and apologists, including several you mentioned above. I figure knowing both sides is the best way to understand any contentious issue.

As for the Sagan article, what I am saying is that it is not much of an argument to point out that the use of natural laws fails to prove the supernatural. Maybe I wasn’t clear.

I think that misses the point slightly, and I think apologists are too quick to dismiss this argument. It’s all well and good to say “science isn’t the only way we can know truth”, but you must then provide a convincing argument that an alternate epistemology is viable. After his hypothetical scenario, Sagan asks, “Now, what’s the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all?” Put slightly differently I guess my question to you would be, how do you propose proving the existence of something that fails to adhere to natural laws?

By reading all of these comments, it seems to me that this billboard is reflective of the nature of those within the athiest community! You all are so unaccepting of *each other*, some are even incredibly insulting to each other! Why would any non-athiest (like myself) even consider being apart of this community, if whenever I have a dissenting opinion, the result will be a full blown attack on my character and general knowledge? Billboard aside, you all are setting a hell of an example about what being an athiest is all about – and it is not appealing in the least.

William Lane Craig has his list of about five arguments that cumulatively build a compelling case.

These include a cosmology argument, a moral argument, the historical record for the resurrection, personal revelation etc.

And you see, I don’t find any of these compelling. The historicity of biblical accounts is controversial and not accessible to the layperson, the moral argument is easily explained by evolutionary advantage, and the only thing we can conclude from the cosmological argument is that either infinite regress is possible, or something can exist without a cause.

Personal revelation is the weakest because they’re impossible to verify, they’re notoriously inconsistent with one another, and they rely on a person’s trustworthiness and their ability to correctly interpret an experience. If my brother tells me he saw a giant spider on his deck I’d believe him without having to verify the experience myself, because I don’t believe he has cause to lie to me and I know by prior experience that the spiders where he lives are damn scary. But if he tells me that he entered a wardrobe and found a snow-covered world with fauns and witches and talking lions, or that he got acupuncture and it cured his arthritis, or that he had a ghost in his house, you can bet your ass I’d be skeptical, at least until I was able to see any evidence of these claims.

I’m not feeling motivated to get into a lengthy discussion about whether each of these apologetic arguments is sound or not (and please excuse my reticence to discuss them in detail, but that feels like a massive undertaking that I really don’t have the intellectual stamina for), but hopefully I’ve at least shown, since we find your arguments weak the same way you find ours weak, that either of us trying to convince the other is an exercise in futility.

You’re right that humans employ a level of trust (or “faith”) in assessing whether to believe anything at all. But in most cases that trust is trust founded in experience or evidence. But you and I perceive the amount of trust/faith required to accept the existence of a god (let alone tenets of a particular religion or sect thereof) very differently.

Sarah

some are even incredibly insulting to each other!

Some are , Some aren’t. For me it depends – If I believe the view being expressed is harmful , I’m not averse to insulting said person. I do not believe that all views are worthy of respect.

Why would any non-athiest (like myself) even consider being apart of this community,

That depends on what your motivation is. If you want to learn something then join , if you wish that all of your views be treated with respect , unchallenged then dont.

if whenever I have a dissenting opinion, the result will be a full blown attack on my character and general knowledge?

It depends on what the dissenting opinion actually is. For e.g. what is the right way
to respond to an opinion like my religion tells me the earth is 6000 years old?
There are many who might argue with you without being insulting , you can choose only to respond to them.

BTW, Hemant, is there any way you could be persuaded into increasing the dimensions of this textarea box? I vote for cols=150% & rows=20.

Well if religion was only a matter of you believe what you want and I believe what I want , perhaps you would be correct.
The problem is that some religious people try to enforce social constructs (e.g. Marriage is only valid for heterosexuals) , encourage discrimination (e.g. look at surveys about the electability of atheists) , mix religion with politics (government must favor MY religion!), encourage gender discrimination (the womans place is at home), spread nonsense about sex education (the use of condoms increase AIDS!) , deny science (the age of the earth is 6000 years) and so on

Do you *respect* the above beliefs? – if not you are no different than us

I actually do have respect for all those beliefs. I may or may not agree with some of them but i do still respect them. And on the subject of science, I love science. It has always intrigued me , especially the medical aspect science. But, I also think that there is room for both God and science. Really , if there was no science learning ,and discovery , we’d all be bored to death, and actually we probaly would all be dead. So I am pretty sure God planned it that way.

Notheless, I still would never consider placing a huge public buildboard mocking someone elses beliefs for the whole world to see, no matter what they may be. It just seems like something a little kid would do to get someone back for something that annoyed them. That doesnt seem like a really good quality to have as a logical reasonable adult.

Santa Claus, although transformed into a mythical creature by man and time, actually did exist, as a bishop in what is now known as Turkey. His name was St. Nicholas. Just as Christ did exist, but his legacy has also been distorted by time and man. Christmas means Christ’s Mass. Don’t celebrate a holiday you do not believe. How arrogant and foolish to try and engage in a celebration of something in which you despise. You can spend the rest of your lives trying to dispute a creator. One thing is certain, when I look at a beautiful painting I need no proof that a thoughtful painter created it, just as when I look at a person with all of there complexities I need no proof that they also were thoughtfully created. I think Blaise Pascal captured the concept of faith sufficiently…”There is sufficient light for those who desire to see, and there is sufficient darkness for those of a contrary disposition.”
Pensees 149

Merry Christmas

To be clear we are talking about Gender and Sexual discrimination, Science denial (you may not have these views but some religious people do). If you *respect* such views (defined as any common dictionary will) – then I have nothing more to say to you

ok , so yes , perhaps you are right that using the word “respect” was not the correct way to phrase it. And, I am certainly not saying that I agree with any sexual/gender discrimination. I am just saying that even if I totally disagree with another person , and feel that what they believe in is crazy or ridiculous in my mind, that person still has the right to believe in what they want, no matter what others say or think of it. My one and only point here is that , I still wouldnt display a big sign , which basically says ” only idiots can believe in this stuff” ( even if I actually felt the person was one)…. it just seems a bit self righteous to state your belief in such an arrogant fashion? I am not here to debate whose right or wrong in the religious/non religious world, but only that it felt like a deliberate attack on Christianity and the way in which we celebrate Christmas. Perhaps it wasnt meant to be , but still insensitive in my mind…And, I think the Catholic billboard came up only in response to the atheist one. Fair is fair I guess if you’re looking at it in that way. Maybe atheists should have done something on a smaller scale…maybe a bumper sticker? .. in order to avoid all this attention… or possibly ..is that really what they were looking for???

Bernerbits Bonez, and Kevin,

I haven’t ignored your comments. I do agree with Bernerbits that to respond to all of this during this post would be laborious and lengthly. I am sure we will address them all in other posts as we continue.

Kevin, I can tell you that your understanding of the arguments aren’t exactly correct.

I would however direct you all to William Lane Craig’s website reasonablefaith.org for a much more detailed description of his arguments. He also describes them in various debates that you can find on the internet. A particularly good one is with Hitchens.

As for Hoverfrog answering some of these questions we have had discussions on these issues and I have enjoyed them, but must say that I disagree with his information and conclusions.

@RNofHearts

The problem has already been stated why atheist groups target Christmas. There’s nothing wrong with Merry Christmas. There’s nothing wrong with belief in god or gods or whatnot. It becomes a problem when people use that kind of belief to try to push legislation in a way that negatively affects someone – denying equal rights to homosexuals, making women second-class citizens by denying them the right to their own bodies, lying about contraceptives or making it difficult to get them, and the list goes on.

I do not mind Christians, I mind those Christians who tell me ‘you’re evil, you’re going to hell, you have no morals, you hate America.’ It’s not uncommon to hear that at all as an atheist in a predominantly Christian society – and it’s put up on billboards and signs over the entire country.

BUT , If i were to say to a Muslim or a jewish person, “what is wrong with you people , how can you possibly believe in what you beiieve , it’s totally ridiculous” Dont you thinkthat would cause a bit of anger on their part?

Well sure, but it rarely starts with a non believer saying this. As before if people kept their beliefs as a private not imposed on others matter , no one would care. The problem starts for e.g. when the Muslim imposes that his wife must wear a burkha and brainwashes his daughter into doing so. That’s when someone might ask “what is wrong with you?” – Will it cause anger – yes – but the alternative is to keep quiet. You can choose what is better.

But… what is the big deal about saying “Merry Christmas” ?

As far as I know nothing. Non believers wish believers all the time. Its made a big deal because of nutcases like Bill O’Reilly or Bill Donohue. Note that the problems non believers always have is with government endorsement of religion – private individuals are free to celebrate and wish as they choose. I will say that wishing a non believer makes as much sense as making him swear on the bible though.

And if there are actually people who go to church and dont believe in GOD , then that is just insane.

See now your calling me insane(I’m kidding). I go because my wife requests me to come for company (though she knows my views) . I also find it amusing to dissect the sermon. It’s surprising, but I think I’m one of the few who actually pays attention to what is being said – the rest seem asleep – half run away as soon as they get the Eucharist without waiting for the end of the mass. I get a good deal of amusement when they read parts of the Bible that totally contradict whats being done (e.g. that you must pray in private!)

and yes I do believe in one SON of God , but I dont find that arrogant

The arrogance depends on the word “ONLY” son of God.

My belief is that we will have everlasting life after death

Everyone? The good , the bad, the ugly, the evil – all get the same thing? The problem with believing in life after death is either its unfair or its unfair :).

How can anyone “Celebrate reason”? It takes more faith to say there is no god and say that is reason. The billboard may have offended many people who “believe in Christmas,” but like many have said, Christmas isn’t about Santa Claus, Christmas trees,candy canes and all of the parties. Religion is man’s ideas about god, god created in his own image, but Christianity is the celebration of God reaching out to man. Either there was a Jesus born in Bethlehem, who fulfilled the messages foretelling of his birth or there wasn’t. Have people really done their homework?

See now your calling me insane(I’m kidding). I go because my wife requests me to come for company (though she knows my views) . I also find it amusing to dissect the sermon. It’s surprising, but I think I’m one of the few who actually pays attention to what is being said – the rest seem asleep – half run away as soon as they get the Eucharist without waiting for the end of the mass. I get a good deal of amusement when they read parts of the Bible that totally contradict whats being done (e.g. that you must pray in private!

Well I will say this, I am truly impressed that you attend church , because your wife wants your company. That is truly considerate and caring of you, and your wife is very lucky to have you! You are an exception though I think. I think it is very funny how you describe being in church, because I notice the same exact thing. I guess people who have been going for so many years , feel its old hat to them, and if its the Catholic mass your speaking of , then true, its not a lively upbeat song and dance, but that is fine by me, I prefer quiet, calm and peaceful in church anyway. Which brings me back to why would anyone want to go to church if they didnt actually believe?? Unless they are all just going as a nice gesture to their wives?? And dont forget…. church is only an hour tops , so there is plenty of time for praying in private at home.

Everyone? The good , the bad, the ugly, the evil – all get the same thing? The problem with believing in life after death is either its unfair or its unfair

Well, I guess in that case we will just have to wait and see.

@kevin

I went to church on a communion night because my sister wanted me to hear her sing. It was awkward and I was a bit bored and found hilarity in all the preaching about how ‘god was love’ but still I went

Here again, you are going to church because you are a loving brother and being considerate to your sister. Which is different from someone who goes regularly to church “pretending” to be believe in GOD? That just seems very odd to me, and cant imagine why anyone would do that.

@Pat

It may be harder ON the person , who says they don’t believe in God, only because of all the arguments and judgement they may hear. But I feel it is just “easier” for a person to say they dont believe. Then they dont have to deal with trying to comprehend such a thing . Lets face it , GOD is incomprehensible and will make your head spin just trying to imagine that there could be such a force, and that is why it is so hard for some people to believe. It also allows people (some, not all) to not feel guilty if they do something that the Bible has said is not right. I myself cannot live as the Bible teaches 100%, I dont think any person actually can. But i still wont waiver in my Faith.

And I am sure I will get a lot of slack from the atheists AND the Christians for saying these next 2 statements , but I truly believe that the Bible is just a guide, and I really dont think its meant to scare us or anger us. Just help us to do what is right. What is so wrong with TRYING to be a good person? Just trying to do what is right? And YES, that is our own choice how we decide to treat one another.

And secondly, I believe that even if you dont believe for whatever reason…. If you are a person who at least TRYS to do the right thing ( even with a few mistakes in there every now and then) then GOD Is not going to “condemn you to hell”. But that is my personal opinion and I am sure many will disagree.

As a Christian, I was honestly frustrated to see this billboard up, but I am thankful for the insightful discussion that it fostered. I will admit that I don’t agree with everything the Bible has to say or everything that the church does – I hate church and bible-thumpers and believe that everyone should have their own opinion on what they believe, spiritually or religiously. I seem to never fully address issues on evolution and the craziness of most of the Old Testament against my non-Christian friends who want to confront me (or vegans). I just believe and I don’t think anything would change that. When confronting my own issues with self-loathing and suicide, I always look toward passages in the Bible when I am at my lowest. From the book, I have learned that anger will consume you and if you want to change your life, you have to take action. I think Christianity (namely the teachings of Jesus Christ specifically) are about love, hope, and forgiveness. When I think about the deaths of my relatives, the Bible comforts me. I look at the beauty of the world and have some spiritual connection.

Christmas, which is just two days out of the year, is about being with family (even if they drive you crazy). What about Hanukkah and Passover? I don’t see any billboards addressing those holidays, which I think are equally wonderful and important.If you disagree with the holiday itself, then don’t practice it. I have a few Jewish friends who have Christmas trees and celebrate Christmas and I never say that they shouldn’t because the festivities are pagan based.

I have more friends who are atheist, Buddhist, agnostic, and Catholic than those who have the same ideas as me. The general morals of the Bible (mostly the 10 Commandments) have shaped society as a whole as to what is wrong and what is right. Everyone makes mistakes though, so that doesn’t automatically mean that you will go to Hell. Even then, how can there be a Hell anyway? Either everyone is saved or no one is. My point is everyone has a right to believe whatever they want. What I believe is just my choice. God loves everyone – it’s up to us to love each other and love ourselves.

About evolution vs. creationism…does it really matter? You’re here now so you should make the most out of your life. Definitely did not like the other billboard crossing out evolution. HELLO! FREEDOM OF RELIGION and SPEECH PEOEPLE!! I wonder if a billboard said something like “No life here” or “It’s just a fetus” for an abortion clinic if people would have such extreme reactions.

Anyway, great discussion here and I think a lot of people bring up good points. I apologize if anything I said sounded preachy.

@RNofHearts,

I, however do not take the words of the Bible so literally. Some may call me a hypocrite for that, but I honestly believe that most of the writings in the Old Testament are not meant to be followed literally.

What about New Testament writings?
How is one to know whether or not something written in the Bible is to be followed literally?

@RNofHearts:

I used to think somewhat similar to the way you did prior to becoming an atheist. I took the Bible as more of a metaphor than anything, a good thing to read to try to behave properly, with the stories being no more than stories that were used back then. I discounted the way that God was portrayed, I considered the reality of Jesus as more in line of him being a preacher that was elevated by his followers to divinity.

I took a quick look at all of it and realized I’d completely rationalized away everything in the Bible, so why bother continuing to pretend like I was a Christian. The only thing that I went to church for anymore was Tuesday Bible study, but they booted the pastor that taught it (because he got back into drugs because of his back pain.) When he left I didn’t have any reason to go.

I don’t need a god to be happy and to act moral, and I’m fine that way.

But at least we can agree on one thing. Men’s bums are rather nice to look at *laugh*

Hey, I am a Christian and the billboard made me laugh. The world will never be unified in it’s belief system so we have to live life listening to the opinions of others. For me my faith is a story of experiences I have had. A true believer understands that the bull horn doesn’t change people. Anyone who is “converted” by the manipulation of their emotions will eventually return to the state they were in and probably with a lot of guilt. I say that it is my responsibility to live “life” to the fullest, to be honest about my faith, and encourage others to seek for themselves what they believe. The billboard states one of many opinions out there, in the end the truth will be known to us all.
Until then, let us all enjoy every Christmas we have with our loved ones and create our own traditions and stories.
Merry Christmas to all or Happy Holidays “Whatever Cranks Your Tractor”

@Monty

There are “fanatics” in EVERY religion , not only Christianity. And these fanatics will go to extremes to get their point across. Thats not really anything new. I think anyone that displays a billboard against someone elses religion ( that goes for Christains too) are just one of those fanatics that want attention and probably just feel they are the only ones that can be right and theres no room for any other views , opinions or beliefs.

I can totally believe in the research of how the world and humans came to be… and although , scientists may be able to show proof of how it all happened, can they show proof of WHY it happened??? And can they show proof and facts of what was there to MAKE it happen in the first place?? .. I dont think anyone can actually say for a fact the WHY of it all… Sure they can theorize and show all the scientific facts of it all and blah blah blah , but …do they know for sure??? Science is a wonderful thing , but if you really look at how this world is and what it has to offer and how the human body functions , it is really hard for me to believe that it was all just a random thing that just happened all of a sudden…. out of the blue??

How can you Bless anyone if you dont believe in GOD? Its amazing how anyone can think a human being can be GOD…sorry no such thing. …and how can an atheist celebrate a secular Christmas??? I dont get it … it makes no sense at all. If you want to celebrate winter , then by all means celebrate winter, but Christmas means Christ- Mass …and I thought they dont believe in Christ or go to any sort of Mass… now who is calling who a phony ? make up you own celebration and call it something else.

@Doubtsalmon

My only point here is the ONLY REASON Chrstians celebrate Christmas is because of these so called “fairtales” that you believe they are. Sure it is definately hyped up, which I am not a big fan of myself …and other things have been added to the whole holiday, but really, any celebration or party you have, if you think about it, you decorate for and try to make it as festive as possible so whats the big deal? BUT, if I believed they were all fairytales , why would I even celebrate Christmas?? I wouldnt! This is what doesnt make sense to me . Celebrate your birthday, celebrate a graduation, celebrate an anniversary , celebrate ANY special occasion , but for people to celebrate something they dont believe is the only the part i dont get. For example , If i lived among all Jewish people ,I wouldnt celebrate Hannauka just because thats what everyone around me is doing , and the main reason for that is because I dont believe in what they are celebrating. I would be true to what I believe in and stick with that. It just so happens that the Christians outnumber the atheists , so yes I guess you could say you are overwhelmed with Christmas type stuff , but thats just the way it is , why is it such a big deal?

I would never consider a meer human who is flawed God.  to each its own, but how arrogant of us to think humans can compare to God.  By the way, the intent of this comment is to share my opinion, as you have done.  Not shoving anything down anyone throat.  Perhaps the conviction you feel when hearing Christian opinion, is actually God convicting you of the truth.  Food for thought or “reason”.

I urge you to please consider the possibility that human brain processes are not the ultimate knowledge.  That a higher knowledge exist that our brains cannot contain, because we are limited by our humanness. This knowledge explains all things, and the phenomenon of the world in which we live.  This knowledge is belongs to the creator alone, for you can the student be greater than the creator of the student. 🙂