ATHEIST BILLBOARDS TERRIFY CHRISTIANS

Who's afraid of the big bad billboard?

Really, why should anyone be so worried about whether or not I am going to hell? Is "God" going to yell at them for letting me go? If so, what kind of an a-hole god is that?

Or are they afraid I'll think?

No flag so I gotta watch my fingers. ;-P

Sister Ruth,

You know that putting the word "penis" in your tag line will damn you to perdition. Also, you will be blacklisted in Hollywood, shunned by all right-thinking peoples and made to forgo the jello salad at the church social. Also, you are as to a spider who hangs over the burning abyss, being forced to read aloud from Cotton Mather...

Have I reached that pinnacle of nonsense that will ensure me a place in the heavenly choir? Because I know I can make less sense if I pray on it awhile.

Not yet, Sister Sarah...keep babbli....er, praying.

Amen

Perdition my arse Ruth you are soooo going to damned to purgatory.

Does pergatory only belong to catholics? Is that only a catholic construct?

Just curious, as sev of my fam have sold out to the pope-thing, and (though they did NOT get free rides in the Bullet Proof Gass (I believe in God--Pope Mobile (which I would have held out for. No Ride? No conversion...)
They are still eating Fish on Fridays. Not that Pergatory SHOULD only be for Catholics, I'd be willing to send several selected protestants there, too.
Tomorrow.
Just asking for some info here.
Wilka

Purgatory (a place to purge oneself of sin) was invented by the Catholics as another threat to those who might have doubts as to the "correct" church to attend. Kind of a halfway house/county jail where you had to hang out before final sentencing.

I gave up on Catholics in grade school when I learned that unbaptized babies went to Purgatory for the duration of forever. Just what sin they were supposed to be purging themselves of, or how they would go about doing that were never made clear. Seemed a bit harsh to me.

Sarah, that was "limbo", not purgatory, and it was never church doctrine. It is even less so now.

Aniko - That's what I get for learning the facts of life on the street... I was all of about nine, and my informant the same.

I was then, and am still now confused about how such things as purgatory arise and become doctrine if they aren't in the Bible. I've tried to look up all manner of things that turn out to be add-ons. Jewish lore is even harder, being so much older. Golem et. al. fascinate me, but I don't know where to look them up, so to speak.

Anyway, thanks for once again saving me from my own ignorance. It's almost a full-time job ;- 0

It's funny that the Church theologians are now at least hoping that unbaptized babies will be welcomed by God. My objection as a child was that any god who would damn an innocent baby was not a god I wished to associate with. Perhaps these folk really should get a little child to lead them... (not that I would have been qualified, being a born cynic {;~')

Well, I certainly can't answer that question about how church doctrine arises... I only knew this bit because I remembered that announcement a few years ago about limbo falling out of grace. It was about the same time that Pluto was downgraded by different authorities. :-)

This so called loving god who does not forget anyone will he not remember all those he throws into hell? if he is so kind and forgiving will he not hear the cries of the millions of souls burning in hell. will he turn a deaf ear to their cries of mercy? Give me a break.

"Hell is actually a concept developed in the Middle Ages to keep the serfs in line. I don't think it is mentioned at all in the Bible."

"Hell" is an old Germanic word and originally referred to the pagan concept of the netherworld that Germanic people shared. In the Bible, several Greek and and Semitic words appear (Hades, Tartarus, Sheol, Gehenna). The medieval Christian concept develops from all of these, obviously with additions. That sort of development is the norm in the history of religions, not the exception, as is the continued development of the concept in modern liberal Christianity.

(As usual, the Wiki article is a convenient link to cover all that.)

Wasn't Sheol just supposed to be the grave, and wasn't gehenna the city dump, where all the trash was burned? The story is that the fires burned continuously, and were never put out and restarted, etc..., as trash, the bodies of the impoversished, unclaimed, and the executed criminals were disposed of. In the city dump.

"My question is, why are they so terrified of the notion that some people don't buy into their hype?"

They are afraid of everything Ruth...but most of all, the village idiots are afraid of the truth.

The truth is that the positive claim ...a god exists...is not verifiable. No person can logically claim that a god exists...only that he believes that a god exists. But most persons of faith claim that they KNOW a god exists. I do not claim that I know a god doesn't exist...but I do not believe that a god exists.

But as to my comment...if the Christians want to know the truth..about the world, the universe...our existence...they wouldn't have stopped looking when they read the last page of the Bible.

I'm more of an omnivore, myself.

Even if there wasn't a god, really. Man would have "created him."

And, Peter Pan, God, The toof-fairy, Santa, His Holy Elves, Snow White, The Lochness Monster, Bigfoot, The Abominable Snowman, Rupunzel, E.T. (phone home...) Jaws, Pinnochio, The Wizard of Oz (no matter what Pink Floyd says), Pan, Neptune, Zeus, Minerva, etc. etc. etc.

P.S. Thinking of literature, was Gulliver really Job, or Jonah?


Anyone who has actually SEEN God and documented it, please step forward? (All thinking individuals take one step back....)
Thank you.
Wilka

Jericho? What does that mean?

I don't know what Jericho means, Kathy, but I have lived on the Island of Lesbos (known in Greece as Mytiliny) and can attest to its existence.

Because I believe in GOD (not God) I see there being ONE UNIverse which consists of that GOD ... that being defined as (+=-) ... (and if the author of this thread don't like that she can either delete it or go to ... oops, she might already be there ...) :-)

Slim: "The truth is that the positive claim ...a god exists...is not verifiable. No person can logically claim that a god exists...only that he believes that a god exists. But most persons of faith claim that they KNOW a god exists. I do not claim that I know a god doesn't exist...but I do not believe that a god exists."

Sounds very logical--except most of your Gather rants claim that believers are deluded or irrational--a claim that you are not in a position to make. Put a different way, one who knows something may not be able to prove it to you. I doubt that you could prove to your readers that you yourself exist (as a human being).

Here you're not only irrational; you're obviously not telling the truth:
"But as to my comment...if the Christians want to know the truth..about the world, the universe...our existence...they wouldn't have stopped looking when they read the last page of the Bible." Haven't the data you've been provided in recent threads convinced you that large numbers of scientists working in the US are people of faith? They've clearly read past the last page of the Bible. Straw man argument and obfuscation.

So Dave...are you saying that your belief in a god is conditional? Have you really read past the last page of the Bible? Or are you looking for reinforcement for the beliefs you already hold?

It really is conditioned on a number of things, Mike. I believe in the resurrected Christ. Disprove that historical fact, and my faith is unalterably changed, for example. Beyond that, yeah, I keep reading things and trying to understand more... It's not all a matter of confirmation of understandings; it's understanding the relationship of humankind and me in particular to God and His will. Lots to learn. I hope that clarifies it a bit.

I can't disprove a "historical fact" that has not been established Dave. You do have a lot to learn.

Don't we all ...

But there's so much that you can't prove, Mike. It's hard to keep track of it all! :-)

Not as hard as it is to keep up with what you think you have proved Dave.

Nonsense. But I should point out (or "teach you," since you're into cheap shots at this point) that your Mar 16, 2010, 2:15pm EDT statement is in error. A more than adequate hypothesis exists for the purported "historical fact" for tests of it to be conducted, and many possible, conclusive, negative proofs, from physical evidence of a body, perhaps; to contravening written records; to positive proof of Jesus' survival and later earthly life, and on and on. Sometimes the cookie-cutter answers don't quite work out.

Bullshit Dave. If the resurrection of any person could be proved, the "historical fact" would be part of the history books and science books and not limited to a religious context.

"A more than adequate hypothesis exists for the purported "historical fact" for tests of it to be conducted, and many possible, conclusive, negative proofs, from physical evidence of a body, perhaps; to contravening written records; to positive proof of Jesus' survival and later earthly life, and on and on. "

A more than adequate hypothesis? Tests to be conducted...many possible conclusive...negative proofs??? Perhaps??

This is why I said "what you THINK you have proved".

I'm sorry you're so confused, Slim. Sometimes your templated answers just don't fit the situation.

As I've informed you before, the preponderance of evidence is in favor of the resurrection, as shocking as that may seem to you. Scientific proofs are another question, and based on your various statements, I'm pretty sure you wouldn't realize for how many well-accepted facts that issue applies.

Oh, and you've wandered off point. The question was the availability of negative proofs, of which I provided you a potential list. But you wouldn't admit you were in error in your Mar 16, 2010, 2:15pm EDT comment, would you? I didn't think so.

"...the preponderance of evidence is in favor of the resurrection,"
No...it's not Dave. That is an opinion and one that is very controversial even within the religious historian community.

There are not two sets of standards for proof of a historical events Dave...scientific proofs aren't another question.

Yes Dave...I've wandered off the point. I've been trying to follow your 'points"...

Let me teach you something....if you only look for what you want to find...you will usually find exactly what you are looking for.

I gave you an answer to the immutability of faith at Mar 16, 2010, 1:41pm that dismissed your previous rant and your "followup" question of Mar 16, 2010, 11:43am EDT. From now on, in any post, I'd normally expect no more of your blather about believers "starting with conclusions," being "controlled" by dogma, and being immune to facts. But you don't seem to follow a discussion very well (perhaps because it doesn't follow your template), so the same mistakes keep recurring in your diatribes.

"...the preponderance of evidence is in favor of the resurrection,"
Mike: "No...it's not Dave. That is an opinion and one that is very controversial even within the religious historian community."

Yes, controversial, I agree. It's controversial because people who've looked into the matter agree with my statement. Religion--the entry of God into history--is very controversial, and a great personal challenge to anyone who takes it up. I'm not afraid of controversy.


"There are not two sets of standards for proof of a historical events Dave...scientific proofs aren't another question."

I can't help you with your difficulty there, but a good book or two on the methods of history might.

I know Sage Dave....I rant and you make mistakeless, non misleading, clear and concise unbiased arguments....

So why are my diatribes important enough to you to spend your valuable Sage Dave time on? Keep looking for what you want to find Sage Dave....it's all there.

No acknowledgement of an answer to your question, then? At least one of us has made the attempt to respond intelligibly to what the other has said.

When you say something I agree with, I'll say so, as I have above, here and there.

I'll give you an honest answer about engaging you. First, I have thought that a dialog with a person as intelligent as you clearly are might advance some understandings. I don't know that it's occurring, but that was the idea, anyway. Secondly, whether or not you accept anything I say, others might have an opportunity to compare and contrast. Have a great day, and good luck. I'm away.

First Dave...the subject of unanswered questions or challenges, if posed, must consider the subject equally...from both or all participants in the conversation. If you want to dwell on a challenge you offered me...and feel that I ignored, then the challenges or questions that I have offered you...and which you ignored, must be acknowledged. The subject of negative proofs, for example, was covered by others in the conversion. ONE of the questions I asked of you, which you ignored, was "why is the opinion of a novelist less valuable to you than the opinion of anyone else?"

Another was "If you feel certain qualifications are necessary in order to offer an opinion...what are those and why do you think you hold these qualifications"?

(Neither of these questions is a direct quote of my questions to you.)

"Secondly, whether or not you accept anything I say, others might have an opportunity to compare and contrast. Have a great day, and good luck. I'm away. "

It's not a question of whether I accept ANYTHING you say Dave...it is a question of not accepting ALL that you say....(and how willing I am to ignore the sarcastic, condescending tone you sometimes use in your delivery). The tone of my recent remarks to you is a reaction to the level of civility you set. Your come and go Mr nice guy is a worn disguise for the direction you inevitably, eventually take.

But yes...others do have the opportunity to compare and contrast....that is obvious I think.

You have a good day too Dave.

I'm willing to commit to improving the content and tone of any conversation we have, Mike. I don't know that a degradation of the tone is inevitable. For example, take a look at the tone of my comments prior to your Mar 16, 2010, 2:15pm EDT comment above. Now read your Mar 16, 2010, 2:15pm EDT comment. We can both do "snark," but there's no need.

Before I talk about questions on a different thread, here's a summary of the main "thread" here. Feel free to offer an addendum or revision if you like.

A. You held that all Christians lack knowledge of the world because they don't read "past the last page of the Bible."

B. I questioned that statement, citing data that show that a majority of US scientists and US college professors have a belief in God or a higher power, yet apparently have found a way to learn more than just the contents of the Bible.

C. You asked me whether I had read past the last page of the Bible, and whether my beliefs were "conditional."

D. I said that my beliefs were conditioned on certain things, including the historical fact of the resurrection of Jesus; that proof that it hadn't happened would change my beliefs in significant ways.

E. You said that a negative proof was impossible.

F. I said that on the contrary, I could imagine any number of hypothetical ways that such a proof could be accomplished.

At this point in the dialog, it might have been possible to develop the original line of discussion. I.e., if we were to have stipulated that there were particular complex circumstances in religious belief--and that some of the tenets most intimately connected with the faith were related to questions of history, it would of necessity alter the character of the original proposition, to wit, your claim that Christians either don't want to or are unable to seek the "truth" about the world. That would need to be dismissed as an obviously fallacious statement, and is, as far as I'm concerned.

What we did go on to was talk about the content of historical evidence, and not the relevance to Christians of the history (or any number of other worldly concerns, for that matter, including the Christian call to service, for example). This shunting of the discussion obfuscates the question of the relationship of Christians to the world, and were one to go on, to look at what Christians are all about, it would go well beyond the posting of abusive messages on a billboard somewhere. The hasty generalization is a frequent ploy of yours, and interferes with an understanding of the greater picture.

Regarding the opinions of novelists, while I don't have a problem discussing them, I viewed the comment as misdirection in a thread where the opinion of an author was being compared with scientific research on a particular outcome (religious adherence on cognitive abilities), and where even the research was so sketchy that the article's author denied any claim of drawing conclusions. It's fun to read the opinions of novelists and others, but they are not comparable to scientific research (even to provisional findings that aren't dispositive).

There is an interplay among experience, intellect, attitudes, emotions, religious belief, and one's world view, which lead us into questions about our existence, into expressions of philosophical or aesthetic sensibilities, and into goal-directed activity. Any or all of these elements can become relevant in a particular endeavor. What is the relevance of a particular element in a given case, is the question.

Dave...

At this point, I am not willing to rehash with you what we have already discussed. There is no point.

But if, in future discussions (assuming you have interest in this), I detect any air of sarcastic interjection....implied or implicit...I will step away from the conversation. You are, of course, free to do the same. I don't want to get into another argument...one about who started what...and I will not. But please consider the fact that you are one of the few persons that I have not been able to have a civil conversation with...aside from John Knight which is a result of his repeated sarcastic and derogatory attacks...I refuse to interact with him at all....in any way shape or form. I tried...it does not work.

These are my sincere thoughts....if you disagree...so be it. If you want me to shoulder the blame for this failure of civility...that is fine....blame me but I will not defend myself. I will not argue the issue of blame nor will I engage in further uncivil conservation with you. I have stated my position. Gather is a fairly large forum...there are other people with whom we can BOTH interact and discuss our opinions.

"you are one of the few persons" - I'm not surprised; I point out facts that are probably upsetting to you, Mike. That said, no, there's no need to play a blame game and I've already said that we could both do better on tone.

I'm also not surprised that you'd not want to acknowledge where the content of this sub-thread stands at this point. Good luck next time.

Good bye Dave.

"I point out facts that are probably upsetting to you, Mike."

Facts are only facts if they are based on something besides your own opinion, Dave.

That was a snappy little epigram, Ron. Thanks!

You are sooo welcome, Dave, any time.

Oh, and E.F. Briggs and friends? Idjits on parade in public... and proud of it.

These folks were born stupid, and they've spent their lives since then perfecting the skill.

It's not the ignorance and stupidity that upsets me as much as the venom with which they defend it. This billboard is mild compared to some that think it's okay to descend to execrable name-calling and insulting innuendo as long as what they say is in the name of some god or other.

The venom is a result of the ignorance and stupidity.

"The good, say the mystics of spirit, is God, a being whose only definition is that he is beyond man's power to conceive- a definition that invalidates man's consciousness and nullifies his concepts of existence...Man's mind, say the mystics of spirit, must be subordinated to the will of God... Man's standard of value, say the mystics of spirit, is the pleasure of God, whose standards are beyond man's power of comprehension and must be accepted on faith....The purpose of man's life...is to become an abject zombie who serves a purpose he does not know, for reasons he is not to question." Ayn Rand

Hell...I'd be pissy too.

I think the venom is because they ain't sure they're right.
If they were sure, they would just smile...

Wow, I wrote my response below before I read this string of comments. My first reaction was to consider it 'venom', also.

:-)

Jericho, "Oh, Chuckles- Don't make me come over there."

Didn't we have this conversation a day or so ago?

PS ... only mystics can know mystics ... Rand is no mystic.

Now you take that leetle derringer, and I'll take this Buntline number here, and we walk fifty paces and turn....

I knew that, but what, no one else can play in your sandbox? Excuse me.

Whatever.

W O R S H I P P I N G A M A Y B E.

That's religion for you.
Oh, and give 10% of your income to the Holy Maybe...
Geesch!

The Holy Maybe. Hmmm. Now tha's a great concept, for sure! I like it!

The Holy Maybe. Hard to top something like that. Yea. I like it.

It all ends in civil war ???

oh dear.

The Christians better kill them all now, then, before it spins out of control into an even worse bloodbath.

Witch trials are a pretty reliable way to find out who is who. See who floats.

If they don't, they were innocent...and now a little drowned, and soggy to boot.

God is just...

Yes, and never more so than when he thinks his actions are sanctioned by his God. No man can point out his errors and be even considered, in that light.

i have a friend who's family owns the billboards around pensacola. i am now wishing i had the money to rent one.

And what would you put on it, Ceece?

my artwork of course.

A cthulhu would be appropriate.

i have several pieces that would frighten them nicely.

penisacola ?

yes Jerry. i live in the Taint of the US.

Wow, such venom from believers when their little myths are not even challenged. No one said they couldn't believe their little fairy tales. Just that there are a lot of people who do not believe. and this billboard merely states that someone who does not should not feel isolated, even if they live in a the big dick state of FL where there are an over abundance of loud & pushy believers.

When are atheists going to stop experiencing this kind of prejudice in the US? They don't have a problem in any other civilized, industrialized, Western nation in the world. Why are believers in the US so bigoted against people who are merely practicing freedom of religion and free speech, the rights they seem to cite on a daily basis? They seem to think they are constantly being persecuted in this country - if that is so, can't they relate to atheists who are persecuted in areas that are predominately evangelical believers? Geez, in these states, the persecution of atheists is so obvious - being called 'traitors' and inciting a civil war just because they state the fact that their position is that there IS NO GOD????? Exactly who is doing the persecuting here?

It's the overreaction of fear, Cheryl...fear that they might be wrong, that there may NOT be a Big Sky Daddy looking after them, that they really are on their own among the terrifying "elite" (people who think). Snakes, skunks and evangelists always strike when they're threatened.

Perhaps, but I don't even see a threat here. Even on their billboards, atheists are non-judgemental and supportive.

The very fact of our existence is seen as a threat. We must not be allowed near their children for fear of contamination by doubt, we must not be heard for fear of questioning their version of Truth, we must be silenced, regardless of how innocuous our message may be. The very word "atheist" scares them snotless. If they weren't so dangerously obnoxious, I'd be inclined to pity them.

In the grand scheme of things, Ruth, I very much pity anybody who is so obnoxious, regardless of whether they believe or not. The fact that they profess to 'believe' and 'follow' and then can erect such a horrible billboard, full of hate and intolerance, is ironic and sad. The very thing they are trying to protect and spread ( the message of religion) is the thing they least understand themselves.

DR: "The very word 'atheist' scares them snotless."

I was looking for my snot and couldn't find it; you may have something there! But DR, you're "post-theist," a much more soothing and comforting term.

Seriously, I agree with Sheryl--that sign is horrible. Demented might be a word to describe it.

The pro God billboard had an interestingly Catholic flavor since it was in the form of a syllogism.

I'm not so sure about the validity of the major and minor premise, but the reasoning is mechanically correct if you assume some "alls" were left out for readability.

Oops, I take it back. The conclusion should be "Anti-God is treason." I'm sick today and not completely there.

Nippy...

Father Everett Francis Briggs (January 27, 1908 - Dec. 20, 2006) WAS a Catholic priest..... He was also a dickhead.

In my opinion.........

That certainly clears up the Catholic flavor. I had a couple of close friends who went to Catholic high schools and got a pretty good description of Catholic reasoning from them. It was interesting.

But of course that is inferred, Nippy. It can be further inferred what should be done to traitors, but since that would cross into unprotected speech territory, we get a weaker ending.

I was very close growing up to a Catholic family and the kids were really wild, doing all kinds of things a good Catholic shouldn't be doing ... but every Monday morning they had a fresh slate of forgiveness, and able to do it all over again ... that always made me suspicious of religion in general.

Aniko, I dunno about the chain of inference. :) It does lead to "Take them out and have them shot." Most everything does.

Who was the guy on Fox who said that Tiger Woods should be a Christian rather than a Buddhist because Christians know how to ask for forgiveness and then it is granted?!?

I remember trying to make things up in my mind to tell the priest I had done wrong every week when I went to confession, because I seriously hadn't done anything wrong but I was afraid to walk in to the confessional and tell him that. So, I'd start listing things that were sins, but not bad ones in my head on the way to church, then try to figure out how many Hail Mary's or Our Fathers I'd have to do for each. It was a good mental exercise - critical thinking AND arithmetic.

I've been noticing that, Nippy.

Ahh, the joys of religious debate....blam....blam, blam, ratta tat tat...and so on...;o)

Does anyone remember back in the days of black and white tv when Phil Donahue was still in Dayton, Ohio and he had Madelyn Murray O'Hare on his show? I remember watching as a kid with my mother sitting there telling me how evil O'Hare was and that I shouldn't listen to her or I would go to hell.

Yes, I watched Phil Donahue when I was a kid and before he was syndicated. He was always a likable grown up. The O'Hare show I remember quite well, probably because of the extremely negative reinforcement I received while watching it.

I was on the Donahue radio show when he was still in Dayton...twice. He got so many calls the first time, they called me back for sweeps week. He was (probably still is) a really nice guy and he enjoyed stirring up his audience with controversial people like O'Hair and me. My other brush with her was when my publisher gave me a copy of her manuscript so I could write a blurb for it. After reading a sentence which read "My son was in an accident and I prayed he would be alright", I opted out.

O'Hair! Oi, I misspelled it. She always seemed to me like the atheist version of a Southern Baptist. But I suppose she had to be in order to get heard.

Phil did a good, down-to-Earth talk show. (I don't remember the radio show but I'm guessing it was on WHIO?) I'm glad he got out of it before it all went baby-daddy and hos.

The other show I remember well was KISS. Gene Simmons stuck out his tongue and I didn't need to hear the music.

I always thought that having O'Hair represent American atheists set the movement back a century. She was truly an unpleasant old broad and certainly not typical of the average laid-back non-believer.

When the city had public access, there was an American Atheist program. The guy usually talked about separation of church and state and environmental issues. Not at all pushy and a little on the boring side at times, but about as opposite as O'Hair as you could get.

But considering I was only 6 or 7 the first time I heard her and I never forgot her or what she was about, she did make an impression. I probably didn't think her strange because I was surrounded by loud, rude evangelicals.

I always thought that having O'Hair represent American atheists set the movement back a century.

I dunno about that. Unpleasant as she was, she got a lot of the fundie crap out of local governments and schools. We might still be listening to high school seniors give sermons instead of graduation speeches.

"I always thought that having O'Hair represent American atheists set the movement back a century. "

She was not a nice person. She was a strident ideologue who wasn't above fibbing. Not exactly the postergal for atheism. It's too bad. It's possible that an obsessed crazy was what we needed at the time.

Actually, O'Hair probably represented atheists as well as many TV personality Christians represent their own ... (?)

Meaning that there really are not any real strong standards that apply across the board other than some dogmatic definitions which may or may not be understood to apply.

IMnsHO.

I want to rent one that just says " Oh SHUT-UP !"

It should be pointed out that the anti-atheist billboard is "signed" by a single person and represents his opinion. In a large country where freedom of speech goes a bit further than is most European countries, it's not at all surprising that there should be a billboard like that somewhere. (Kind of like the infinite omniverse theory Jericho mentions--everything that can exist must exist.) I don't think any conclusions can be made about the vast majority of Christians based on this billboard.

And while the atheist billboard is non-judgmental and is meant to support other atheists who might feel alone, it is not true that all atheists are non-judgmental and tolerant. It's not even true on this thread, for that matter.

Aw, Aniko - you're no fun, injecting fairness and accuracy into a perfectly good rant... I bet you don't get invited to many Conspiracy Theory parties either.

Though I have to add that while the board may have been signed by only one person, my guess is that he had at least the financial support of many others. As CC notes, those billboards don't come cheap.

No doubt there are others who agree with the sentiment, Sarah. (You could find a few on this site, as we know.) But there are other Christians who are as opposed to it as you and I are. Yet every time a Christian from the lunatic fringe (for want of a better phrase) does or says something stupid, the rants are pouring in about how stupid believers/Christians are. It's not only unfair and inaccurate, but seriously counterproductive when it comes to dealing with any dangers the lunatic fringe might represent.

"it is not true that all atheists are non-judgmental and tolerant. It's not even true on this thread, for that matter."

I'm not so sure that that evidence sits in this thread, Anikó. We have a transgression here, an imposition, ok, something f*cking idiotic and stupid here--one needs the balance restored; the pound of flesh extracted.

Who's a good enough Portia to argue against that? Hmmm... let me think.

Aniko....

"And while the atheist billboard is non-judgmental and is meant to support other atheists who might feel alone, it is not true that all atheists are non-judgmental and tolerant. It's not even true on this thread, for that matter."

No one said that all atheists are non-judgmental and tolerant. But concerning the billboards....concerning the Briggs billboards...yes there were more than one. This is an attack on those who do not believe as Briggs believes. He has his right to make this attack...we have our right to condemn his attack. We don't have to be non judgmental to exercise that right. So I don't understand you point.

Re the lunatic fringe.... This keeps popping up as a defense for radical or fundamentalist behavior..as if the fringe by definition is an extreme minority and therefore the activities of the lunatic fringe are excusable, must be overlooked or ignored because an association is often made with "mainstream Christians"....don't want to step on their toes.

This is interesting because the atheist billboard reading “Imagine No Religion” was been taken down shortly after it was put up in Rancho Cucamonga, California. There were 90 complaints and the city demanded its removal and the General Outdoor company was more than willing to comply. Yet, the billboard on the right (picture of the same billboard message as this post pictures) a few years ago seems perfectly acceptable in West Virginia. HERE

No Aniko...this isn't just a lunatic fringe sentiment.

And then there's those people from Georgia. We should erect one of those big fences at the border, and not let anything out but an empty bus! Can't they control their own kind? Daggone governor praying for rain and all. They even elected the guy--they're each and every one accountable. I say no excuses from any Georgian! (Except maybe those living in the former Russian state of Georgia.)

Slim:

"No one said that all atheists are non-judgmental and tolerant."

No, but the suggestion has been made (and with fewer qualifications) that atheists as a group are significantly more tolerant and less judgmental than Christians as a group. That's what I was responding to.


"But concerning the billboards....concerning the Briggs billboards...yes there were more than one."

Mercy me--I'm ready to self-deport before the get me!

(Sorry. I seem to have caught a flippancy bug on another thread...)

"This is an attack on those who do not believe as Briggs believes."

Yes, quite clearly. (Hold on to whatever method you used to identify "an attack on those who do not believe as [one] believes"--it's a useful tool you might want to employ at other times.)


"He has his right to make this attack...we have our right to condemn his attack." [emph. mine]

Perfectly true.

"We don't have to be non judgmental to exercise that right. So I don't understand you point."


It was this: "I don't think any conclusions can be made about the vast majority of Christians based on this billboard."

There's a difference between judging the person who actually did something, and judging everyone else we see in the same group with them, as though they had done the same thing. We do, of course, have a "right" to do that, too, legally speaking. It's our constitutional right to be assh... er, unfair. It's just ethically wrong, if you will. And of course it's a cognitive bias--we never do that with our own group.

"Re the lunatic fringe.... This keeps popping up as a defense for radical or fundamentalist behavior..."

That's right, Slim, I was defending "radical or fundamentalist behavior" here. I was going on and on about how there was nothing wrong at all with the good Reverend Briggs's message...

"...as if the fringe by definition is an extreme minority and therefore the activities of the lunatic fringe are excusable, must be overlooked or ignored because an association is often made with "mainstream Christians"....don't want to step on their toes."

Oh, wait, you do realize I was defending those who did not engage in the behavior described above. You're missing that I didn't do so by saying the "activities of the lunatic fringe" should be "ignored" (let alone "are excusable"). It was by insisting that people be judged by their own activities, and not by their membership in a group.


"This is interesting because the atheist billboard reading “Imagine No Religion” was been taken down shortly after it was put up in Rancho Cucamonga, California."

Yes, in an country where the majority is Big-endian, it's going to be easier to put up and keep in place a radical anti-Little-endian billboard than a milder anti-Big-endian one. In the converse situation, the values flip around. So it goes.

As for "lunatic fringe", I did indicate that I don't consider it a very good term. It is useful in that it acknowledges that every group large enough will necessarily have members that cover a wide range, including some with significant mental illness.

Now, if we're going to talk about the mainstream, what percentage of Christians would you estimate agree with the statement "Atheists are traitors to this nation and their existence is likely to lead to civil war"?

I am sure glad sometimes that I don't belong to a typical definable group ... when one is at the center of everything, they do not seem to even exist to the normal dualistic groups ... most certainly not to the ones on the far religious right that emphatically (dogmatically) deny the validity of balance..

Aniko...

"Now, if we're going to talk about the mainstream, what percentage of Christians would you estimate agree with the statement "Atheists are traitors to this nation and their existence is likely to lead to civil war"? "

I don't know Aniko....I don't have the number. But let's talk about the mainstream Christian in numbers that ARE available. What percentage of 'meericans (2004 poll) do you estimate agree with this statement..."God created man pretty much in his present form at one time within the last 10,000 years." ?

I don't think the 45% of Americans who believe this are all lunatics...but I think this is fundamentalist behavior....fundamentalist mindset.

Perhaps part of our disagreement is due to a lack of specific definition for the various levels of Christianity...for the different levels of fundamentalism...for the different Christian points of view. Perhaps what I consider 'out there' and what you consider 'out there' is the problem....what we each consider 'significant mental illness' to be.

""I don't think any conclusions can be made about the vast majority of Christians based on this billboard."

Another problem Aniko...vast majority or majority...both indefinite. We know who was responsible for erecting the sign...we do not know how many Christians support the message. Your guess is that is a few...I think...my guess is that it is more than a few....way more.

I don't know if it's the definitions, Slim. I agree that the young-earth creationist view is not a sign of mental illness, and it's not what I referred to as the "lunatic fringe". As such, it is actually quite irrelevant here, but you know well that you can make me respond anyway...

That view, in my opinion, is simply incorrect according to our current scientific understanding. There are many other views out there that are incorrect in the same sense, such as most people's ideas about what "energy" is. Furthermore, while the connection between certain Christian denominations and this belief is obvious, the cognitive structure of evolution denial is not unique to Christianity or even religion. The arguments used by Hungarian "anti-Finno-Ugrists", for example, are eerily similar to anti-evolution arguments. (There's are other examples I'm thinking of, but I won't go there.) And, ironically, it seems highly likely, given the numbers, that the 45% includes members of churches that specifically acknowledge evolution and reject young-earth creationism.

But my point is that I don't see this view in any way similar to the sentiments expressed on the billboard we're talking about. That might be where we differ, Slim. I do wish people learned a bit more about science and history and stuff, but I'm not bothered by deficiencies in these areas anywhere at the level that I'm bothered by the stereotyping, marginalization, and dehumanization of groups of people.

As to your second comment, it's true that "vast majority" is vague, as are, of course, "few" or "way more than a few". (Incidentally, I suspect our perceptions here differ partly due to where we live: that "few" is likely to be "fewer" here in the SF Bay Area than in Georgia.) But here's something that you're still missing about my position: it doesn't matter. If the "majority", however defined, of Christians believed atheists were sulfur-breathing demons from hell or body-snatching invaders from another galaxy, it would still be wrong to associate the "few" Christians who don't believe any such thing with that belief. They would bear no more responsibility for it than you or I would. (I'm "out there", I suppose.)

Aniko...

If the "majority", however defined, of Christians believed atheists were sulfur-breathing demons from hell or body-snatching invaders from another galaxy, it would still be wrong to associate the "few" Christians who don't believe any such thing with that belief. They would bear no more responsibility for it than you or I would. (I'm "out there", I suppose.)

Bear no responsibility?.... In the sense that no person is actually responsible for the thoughts, beliefs and actions of other individuals...sure..I agree. I also agree that there are MANY Christians who do not embrace the more fundamentalist point of view.

What you do not understand about me is that I view ALL faith only based religions as counterproductive to the overall healthy and productive state of being of this planet. Dawkins: "One of the things that is wrong with religion is that it teaches us to be satisfied with answers which are not really answers at all. " ..I would modify this statement...teaches us to be satisfied with SOME answers which are not really answers at all... and this is true for even the most liberal believer....even the scientist who practices his profession while believing that there are exceptions to the scientific process....two methods of deduction...one based on reason, the other on emotion.

BUT on to the specifics of the sign controversy...all people have a right to their beliefs and a right to express them. I will defend the right of believers to express their beliefs...even those beliefs which seem radical and alien to me. Briggs had the right and the liberty that allows him to express his opinions on a billboard. I have the right to disagree WITH THE MESSAGE. I have stood in support of the freedom of speech...as long as it is not incendiary, for EVERYONE and EVERY GROUP. This is essential for the maintenance of our way of life.

Atheists have the same rights...to post a message on a billboard but their message was censored, in many instances...BY THE CHRISTIAN OUTCRY OF PROTEST....which you defend as yielding to the majority....which is to be expected. (Yes, in an country where the majority is Big-endian, it's going to be easier to put up and keep in place a radical anti-Little-endian billboard than a milder anti-Big-endian one. In the converse situation, the values flip around. So it goes.)


What I EXPECT is the equal application of Constitutional protection. The majority does not rule in this country....equality and freedom ARE the rule.

Aniko, I get the uneasy feeling that you think supporting the less judgmental to be a rational course, when actually, they are no less judgmental, just less in your face about biases they occasionally have shown, all too well. I have no doubt the Vanilla Christians would not save anyone, were we to actually become a "Christian nation". It's not a rational stance, in my opinion. They would all go with the judgment of religious "authorities", of this I have no doubt. The hatred displayed when you get into subjects too close to home for them challenging their faith, belies that rationale.

Slim, I'm glad we agree that each person is only responsible for their own thoughts and actions, and that was my main point.

"What you do not understand about me is that I view ALL faith only based religions as counterproductive to the overall healthy and productive state of being of this planet."

No kidding, Slim. :-)

Really, honestly, I kind of picked up on that... And what I've been trying to show you is that this belief of yours axiomatic, a "conclusion", as you would call it, without evidence. But I won't go through the "answers which are not answers at all" discussion again--it's covered on Bert's thread, and counterexamples to your characterizations abound, from both sides.

I did not defend the majority's ability to interfere with the minority's freedom of speech--I simply described the situation. Obviously, every opinion deserves the same constitutional protection, and we should demand exactly that. What I meant is that we should be surprised if the world doesn't live up to our ideals. (Phew, I managed to put that nicer than on Janna's thread.) Like I said, So it goes.

Ron, no, that isn't what I'm saying at all. But perhaps what I'm saying is "worse" from your point of view...

I disagree that Christians are divided into "more judgmental" or "less judgmental" or that they're divided into "more in your face" and "less in your face". I don't think "judgmental" attaches to groups of people. (Except, to a degree, to the whole species...) I'm saying that if we are fair, we must recognize that many Christians are not "judgmental" at all (see disclaimer in previous sentence). And I'm saying that unless we treat everyone fairly, based on the content of their own character, we're the "judgmental" ones.

As for your "when they come for the non-Christians" scenario, there are plenty of cases in history of Christians giving up their lives to defend non-Christians. Do I really have to provide links here?

I think I can probably cite as many or more where they were doing the slaughtering, or aiding those that were. Funny, I don't get the same idea about that judgment thing, either here in Kansas, or on Gather. Even some of the ones that seem soo open aren't so open when you get down to it, though they soon revert so they can appear above it, and I've been treated worse by a few of them than conservatives here, at times. As for offline, maybe you need to move to the Kansas for a little while, Aniko. It ain't California...

I've only been here for a few years, Ron. The previous place where I lived, "Christian" is still used synonymously with "good person" in everyday conversation, clergymen have a major influence on political decisions, abortion is illegal, (male) homosexuality is criminalized, anti-gay rhetoric is everywhere, and not only does practically everyone support the death penalty, many want to bring back corporal punishment, preferably the public kind. (At least they keep talking about it. Who knows how serious they are--it is an overstating culture.)

But you've probably missed what I said above: I don't care about the numbers, or whether we're counting in one place or the other. I deny the legitimacy of assigning characteristics to groups and then projecting them back onto an individual. If there's a single person that's characterized unfairly, it's wrong--and there are of course many more, in practically every case.

If a European called you a stupid war-mongering Bible-thumping American, you would know they're grievously wrong. If a Mexican called you a rich bloodsucking Anglo capitalist, you would know they're grievously wrong. If a Christian compared you to Stalin or Mao for your nonbelief, you'd go ballistic, and with good reason. It's the same when you do the stereotyping, Ron. The way those things make you feel is how Christians feel when they are stereotyped.

(Yes, I did use the word "deny" this time.)

Hella,
I divide the religious into two categories, myself, actually, though I discount Aniko's description, mostly because I know some of those she speaks of, and have had drastically different experiences with them. that division falls between those that live their religion, and those that forget how to do that, and imagine themselves champions of it. That's how the inquisition, witch burning, and many other things have happened, over and over, down through history. You are not exactly typical of those I encounter here, or offline, near as I can tell, so far.

The only problem I have with that, Aniko, is your perception of some of the people you defend is based only on your own experience with them, and you seem to think your experience is what all experience with them is. They stay fairly civil with you, they like you, they don't with me, and they never have, other than in an effort to manipulate me. When that became clearly impossible, lies, insult, and innuendo is what I have gotten, you don't. You get something else, because you give something else, and always have, a benefit of the doubt they don't deserve, in my book, but do in yours, because we have different experiences with them. Other than that, perhaps, I suppose, your European experience has made you more accepting of some things I never will accept. I don't care, Aniko, what your opinion is on this issue, I didn't respect it when the stuff hit the fan at LYR, especially, and I sure don't respect it now. Have a nice day.

Maybe I should clarify. I don't think it is, in the cases I think we're really talking about here, stereotyping, Aniko, as much as seeing them a little more clearly than you do. I'd rather argue with JK, at least he's less duplicitous.

The conservative evangelical christian right republican (neocon supporters) do surely fall into a group that can be classified as FOX fans ... it all goes together. And their numbers are legion (except maybe in coastal california)

You're on Dame Ruth's post about the anti-atheist billboard, Ron, and the subthread you're commenting on started with my comment on Mar 15, 2010, 10:49pm. It was about how we should be careful not to confuse the outrageous acts of specific people who call themselves Christian with what Christians stand for and believe in general. (I believe that most commenters here understand this perfectly, but the language we use when we're upset often obscures this understanding.) I'm afraid it is that principle I am really talking about above, and what you would want me to talk about, dragged over from somewhere else. That is a nice example of how not to allude to and insinuate things, though.


(My European experience? Surely you realize I wasn't talking about the country that's #13 on the "highest percentage of atheists" list.)

Sorry, Aniko, but considering the previous "experience" I have shared with you, and those you defend, endlessly, I was reducing it, in my comments from the concept you promote, and I would agree with, to something a little more specific. The concept is sound, in theory, but not in your practice of it, specifically. Good luck with that. I am sure we could speak in concordance, if not for that experience.

My "concept" (which I called a principle because it's not something I approach at a merely intellectual level, but something I deeply believe in) is about not projecting stereotypes onto people. It comes with no requirement of judging people if they do fall short of perfection. We all do, frequently, and of course I have some "concepts" about how we imperfect humans should try to treat each other, but it's not what I'm talking about here.

Aniko...

"And what I've been trying to show you is that this belief of yours axiomatic, a "conclusion", as you would call it, without evidence."

A conclusion...yes...an opinion based on observed behavior and statistical evidence. I didn't say that ALL believers share the same level of impaired logic but the very belief in the existence of a god demonstrates a compromised ability to employ critical thought because religion is FAITH only...there is absolutely no proof that a god exists....no verifiable evidence. It is a postulate...it is not proved but offered as self-evident and its purpose includes that of serving as the foundation for other claims that have no verifiable or observable evidence.

But the real difference in my opinion or conclusion and the conclusion of MOST believers is I am not claiming my conclusion is indisputable. My conclusion IS an opinion. Belief in the existence of a god is, for MOST people, a claim of undeniable, indisputable truth. The Truth...not just for believers...but for everyone. Yes...stereotyping can be an accurate manner of grouping people. Within the stereotype...there are specific differences...there are always differences...even in a group of two. The broad category of "believers" CAN and does fit the broad classification of those who hold a specific belief without verifiable evidence and hold the claim that this belief is indisputable....without question.

Right, Aniko :)

Slim:

"A conclusion...yes...an opinion based on observed behavior and statistical evidence."

This was covered on Bert's thread. Bert, who brought the issue up, agreed that the data was not conclusive. Do you have something that wasn't offered there?

"...the very belief in the existence of a god demonstrates a compromised ability to employ critical thought because religion is FAITH only...there is absolutely no proof that a god exists....no verifiable evidence. It is a postulate...it is not proved but offered as self-evident and its purpose includes that of serving as the foundation for other claims that have no verifiable or observable evidence. "

Right, that's what I meant by "axiomatic". But that contradicts what you said above, I think.

We've covered why I think the postulate is not "self-evident": we all believe in a number of things without evidence, by faith. The phenomenon is not unique to religion. Furthermore, while it is clear that faith is different from reason, it does not necessarily follows that it interferes with it any more than art interferes with mathematics.

The rest has been covered, too. Believers lose their faith, or change their beliefs all the time--something must not have been "indisputable" for that to happen. The distinction you're making is self-serving, and is not supported by facts.

"Yes...stereotyping can be an accurate manner of grouping people."

I'm not sure what you mean there--stereotypes are the result of the grouping, not the means of it. By definition, they are grossly simplified and constitute a misrepresentation of the real make-up of the group.

But my point is, still, about the individual the group characteristics get projected onto, since he or she might be a complete outlier, and much less like the stereotype than the person doing the projecting. This happens a great deal, and I hard on those of us with oversensitive irony detectors.

Right, Ron. The thread is there, as you would say, for everyone to see who was talking about what. :-)

That said, if you really want to discuss what groups I see you dividing believers into, or what experience I see you being so upset about, I can. Let me know.

Comparing the two billboards, I'd say the atheists have the cooler sign. As was noted above, the graphic design and layout were far superior. And conveniently, the atheists' sign was not attempting to establish a positive belief in anything. Anyone who saw that sign and did not believe anything could rest assured that bazillions of others also did not believe anything, and find solidarity with them. Not as comforting as, say, an opiate for the masses, but up there with Coke Zero.

On aesthetics alone, the atheists have won this round. It was probably time for some payback, after millennia of sacred art treasures, great cathedrals, and meditative stations of the cross. Let the bright skys be darkened, not with the angry scowl of a fat old white Guy or His abusive henchmen on this blighted planet, but with tasteful pictures of what we might have seen if the view hadn't been blocked--an intimation of nature, a hint of sentient beauty, and the knowledge that however happily received, we'll be right back after this message.

I love Coke zero...

Oh, wait, it's Pepsi One I like. Coke Zero blows.

...SOME "Christians"...and I think the quote marks are needed.

My question is, why are they so terrified

My answer is, because they love to be terrified.

It would seem that way a lot, wouldn't it?

Is annoyance a form of fear?

It's not up to me to speak for Sandy, but you can be sure that lady fears nothing and nobody, up to and including religionists, ridicule, politicians, you or me!

As the worst speller and punctuator on Gather, I am little nervous about entering this thread. Please be gentle, its not my fault. I just have very large hands.

I know exactly what a post theist is, because I was one, after being an an atheist. And then I kept going, and became a theist.

and if you keep on going you may become a panentheist ... :-)

Jerry

LOL. Or a trutheist, or a faitheist, or a mytheist, or an Eartheist. OK, Ill stop. We need a linguist here. Oh Aniko!!! help!!!

Weren't you a post-atheist then? (Actually, I was wondering if that existed, too, earlier while reading this thread.)

But I'm pretty sure you need a panel of theologians and philosophers here, not me.

Yes, you are right, a post-atheist. See, I knew you would get the right word.

Panentheism
First published Thu Dec 4, 2008; substantive revision Tue May 19, 2009
“Panentheism” is a constructed word composed of the English equivalents of the Greek terms “pan”, meaning all, “en”, meaning in, and “theism”, meaning God. Panentheism understands God and the world to be inter-related with the world being in God and God being in the world. It offers an increasingly popular alternative to traditional theism and pantheism. Panentheism seeks to avoid both isolating God from the world as traditional theism often does and identifying God with the world as pantheism does. Traditional theistic systems emphasize the difference between God and the world while panentheism stresses God's active presence in the world. Pantheism emphasizes God's presence in the world but panentheism maintains the identity and significance of the non-divine. Anticipations of panentheistic understandings of God have occurred in both philosophical and theological writings throughout history (Hartshorne and Reese 1953; Cooper, 2006). However, a rich diversity of panentheistic understandings has developed in the past two centuries primarily in Christian traditions responding to scientific thought (Clayton and Peacocke 2004).

Jericho

I dont know really what all these words mean. I strongly believe in the living God, the creator of the Universe, His son Jesus Christ, my redeemer and Savior, and in the resurrection. Is that a deist, or a theist? I have never been an agnostic, as far as I can tell, but I was an atheist.

and with a certain amount of dualist thrown in ... :-)

just listen to the modest mouse song "bukowski"
the line is something like there are a few lines one is "if god controls the land and disese and keeps a watchful eye on me, well god who'd wanna be such a control freak?"
"if god takes life hes an indian giver, well god who'd wanna be such an a$$ hole?"

it never denies god, or says hes a bad guy. just makes you think a little...listen to the song.

thats pretty much my consensus on a higher power. i think there is something there, but who would want to be such a control freak?

You speak of god in place of God, try GOD for Freedom.

Ryan, I think those are legitimate questions. Those are the kinds of questions that someone might ask when they embark on a search to find God. It's where one might begin to determine whether God has any relevance to a person's life. Is God "what people say He is," or is there something more to Him. Is one going to take other people's word for who He is, or find out for oneself. Thanks for sharing that.

If these comments are any evidence, I am more than ever convinced of man's inability to encompass and comprehend the nature of the Universe, and wholly convinced of his inability to discuss it cool and dispassionately.

Yep...and can't you just smell the aroma of frustration in the air as the poor babies try and try to make sense of the incomprehensible?

That may be your silliest assertion yet, young Jericho. If science and religion had ever met, there would be no religion.

We all have access to it, ben; it's just a matter of allowing the Cosmic Consciousness to find its way into our little portion of the Universal Mind. As for it being "divine", as in "emanating from a supernatural creator", I can't go along with that. Logos lies within all energy, human or otherwise, and it's all of a piece, not a disparate entity somewhere "out there".

Uncertainty is acceptable.