“Basically the atheists are just stupid…” … “Lol.”

Posted on December 24, 2009 by Michael

An atheist group has a sign up in the Illinois state capitol which reads as follows:

At this season
OF THE WINTER SOLSTICE
may reason prevail.

There are no gods,
no devils, no angels,
no heaven or hell.
There is only our natural world.
Religion is but
a myth and superstition
that hardens hearts
and enslaves minds.

This is the same message that was posted in the Washington state capitol last year. If you click that link, you’ll see Bill O’Reilly’s take on the issue. Now he has the genuinely dumb Ann Coulter chiming in this year.

First Billo says atheists are stupid for making people angry. Really? Bill O’Reilly is making this a central part of his argument? It’s a strategy that has clearly brought him success.

The next point he makes is that this is a “Christian-generated holiday”. First of all, Christmas has its roots outside Christianity. Second of all, it’s a federal holiday that the Supreme Court has ruled has been secularized to the point where it sufficiently lacks enough religious connection to be allowable as a holiday in the first place. As I said last year, if it was deemed to simply be a Christian celebration, it would not be a federal holiday today. Third, the Illinois state capitol does not endorse Christianity.

For some bizarre reason, Billo then says that atheists are demanding to be allowed to call people “idiots” for believing in Christianity or Christmas. First, no. Second, I ‘believe’ in Christmas. I plan on celebrating it like I have every year. I don’t intend on telling everyone at the Christmas party to stop being idiots, myself included. Third, the atheist group is stating its position that belief in gods and devils and angels and other such things are false beliefs. If a Jewish group put up a sign saying there is no hell, that would inherently be telling hell-believing religions they are wrong. Would Billo and Little Anny Coulter be jumping down their throats? Christ. It’s a group promoting its view. Deal with it.

Billo next says it’s just insulting to be called an idiot. Again, no one did that here, but if it makes him feel better, I can get rid of this strawman for him: Billo. You’re an idiot.

Little Anny then goes off into kook land and claims that the U.S. was established on the belief in God and makes distinctions between religions. She’s an idiot, too.

Finally Little Anny tries her hand at analogies. Being someone who is genuinely dumb, she fails – as one should expect. She says this is all like everyone bringing in a picture of his or her pet but then one person brings in a sign that says “I hate Fluffy and Fluffy sucks”. She concludes that this doesn’t fit within “the public forum definition” and thus shouldn’t even be tolerated. (Conveniently, she just defined herself as a bigot for me. Thanks, Anny.) In other words, the Illinois state capitol is open to religious displays and religious displays only. I find this fascinating since Little Anny has time and again argued that atheism is a religion. I guess if atheist signs should be banned for not being religious, then atheism isn’t a religion. Crazy! Who would have thought a genuinely dumb person would hold entirely contradictory positions at once?

Filed under: Atheism/Humanism, Politics and Social | Tagged: , , , , | 1 Comment »

Silly atheist, celebrations are for religions

Posted on December 23, 2009 by Michael

Oh no! Christmas is coming upon us! Me, but a lowly atheist, what am I to do?

As is well-known fact, all atheists are merely “jealous of the Yuletide season”. Isn’t it obvious? We have no Jesus. We have no God. We have no cause to celebrate anything!

So what am I suppose to do this Friday? Sure, I’ve bought presents. My brother, who I hope isn’t a regular reader at the moment, will probably be pretty psyched about his Super Nintendo (complete with Super Mario Kart). And yeah, the rest of my family will be happy to receive their gifts. And yes! I know! All my second cousins, many yet to hit double-digits in age, will glow with joy while A Christmas Story plays in the background during their present opening. And gosh darn it! It’s no secret my aunt and uncle and cousins and (older) second cousins and great aunt and great uncle and parents and brother and grandmother will all be so happy to be together to catch up and remember and reacquaint and even just see each other even though some may have seen each other just the week before. (Deep breath after that one.) But so what? There’s no Jebus!

I mean, honestly. How could I ever derive a cause to celebrate out of all that? I have no deity to worship. I have no stranger-filled church to attend. Where o where might I find reason to do anything this December 25th?

Filed under: Atheism/Humanism | Tagged: , , | 8 Comments »

Morality, step by step

Posted on December 22, 2009 by Michael

The idea that morality from God is morality at all is rather absurd. Should one devote a moment of thought to the matter, it quickly becomes obvious that behaving a certain way because some entity said to do so is entirely devoid of any concern for humanity. That concern may be there as a supplement, but it is not the cause for any action. (In reality it is, but the Moral Majority likes to pretend they’re doing it all for God, not out of some more substantial source of morality.)

Before going on, however, there is one idea that needs to be done away with here. It’s this notion that morality must be objective in order to be morality. This entirely false. There is nothing which inherently demands that morality be ultimately objective in order to exist (well, except for that pesky Moral Majority – but their demands are subjective opinions, so scoff).

Morality derived from religion is merely morality as dictated by men (and only men) of the past. That’s it. But let’s suppose it actually means something. Let’s suppose that an all-powerful god really has told humanity what is right and wrong. What stops God from suddenly changing the rules? If God decrees that rape and murder are totally awesome things, then so it is. The characteristic of being all-powerful demands it. But how many people would readily accept such things? Far from being meaningful, this pernicious idea of ‘objective’ morality has no viscosity; it is allowed to flow and move. More importantly, it allows for no input from any human.

A subjective morality – the only tenable morality – is in the hands of humanity. The closest thing it can have to an objective basis is that of reality. Our morality may move and change with the facts and evidence, but we can go beyond such temporal constrictions and base it on universal principles. Most of mankind once believed that it was okay to enslave certain people because they demonstrated some characteristic or (more often) trait which made them inherently lesser. With the advance of science (and to the chagrin of religion), it has been empirically determined that there is no such inherent lessening property. People of different races are not fundamentally different. In fact, the Human Genome Project taught us that people of the same race can be more genetically diverse than people of different races. (Of course, there was good evidence long before that to help us determine the sameness between and among races and groups.)

The universal principle by which we live in regards to slavery is that it is wrong to make humans do work against their will without just compensation. (A child being forced to eat his peas, for instance, would be given just compensation in the form of health.) We derive this principle partially out of empathy. What if it was me who was enslaved?. Importantly, this is far from simply being a selfish desire. Instead, it is that if we allow some humans to be enslaved, we allow ourselves to be enslaved, and this undermines the goal of doing anything productive, something for which we all strive on some level.

This, of course, raises the issue of why it is good to be productive. (The term does not refer to a particular level of productivity, but rather taking in more energy than is released overall, i.e., living.) Again, the question regresses to yet another question because the answer is that most humans want to live. Why is it good to live?

The answer here is that it isn’t good or bad to live. Living is something which simply is. Our desire to do it (which, incidentally, we could call objective in at least one sense) is powerful. We want life, whether good or bad. That is universal to us as a species. This is ultimately our source of morality, and in several senses. First, our desire to live is borne of the very fact that we are alive: we are here because we are descended from a long line of ancestors who shared the exact same desires. Second, it is agreed upon by humanists, atheists, secularists, Buddhists, theists, and philosophers that in order to call something moral, it must have some sort of basis. “It is wrong to enslave” has its basis in the principle described above. “It is good to live” has its basis in our inherited desires. Every other normative claim can have its basis ultimately boiled down to that phrase (which itself, again, has a basis).

The most glaring flaw in the above paragraph (had I not a response to it) would be that we have desires to do a lot of things, but that doesn’t make anything right or wrong. Agreed. However, those desires are not universal to us as a species. The ones which are universal all come down to living (such as eating). Furthermore, it is necessarily true that the only ultimate desire we can ever maintain is the desire to live. By virtue of being alive we inherit this desire.

What, though, of the minority who doesn’t wish to be alive? What of the Alan Turing’s, Budd Dwyer’s, and Kurt Cobain’s of the world? These cases can always be boiled down to environmental factors, not inherent desires. Turing faced chemical castration and a heap of undue scorn for who he was; Dwyer had been criminally indicted and faced serious jail time and ruination of his career; Cobain was heavily depressed and a drug addict.

But rather than all this, perhaps a more salient point on this matter would be that humans inherently have moral systems. With what we fill those systems may be subjective, but this still goes to an earlier point: morality need not be objective to exist. It is with our familial and personal desires, universal principles and philosophies, experiences and empathy that we create our morality. Ultimately, the vast majority of humans come to a consensus on at least one basis: it is good to live. We need not go further to continue to find middle ground. If we agree on an underlying principle, and if all which follows in our discussions is based upon that agreement, then it is meaningless to then say that we disagree on some other principle.

Finally I turn my attention to an oft-ignored idea. What is the point of morality? It certainly isn’t to demonstrate that one can act according to some objective idea. This goes to the first point that acting without concern toward humanity is not morality at all. Indeed, instead of morality being inherently defined as something objective (which is a notion taken for granted by so many), it is rather defined as something which is a human concern. Go beyond humanity and you’ve gone beyond morality. This, fundamentally, is what morality is all about. Our systems of morality are inherent in all of us and the reason is their utter usefulness. We need and want them in better utilizing our role as individual members of humanity.

Filed under: Atheism/Humanism | Tagged: | 5 Comments »

The faux war on Christmas is back and O'Reilly is leading the charge

Posted on December 7, 2009 by Michael

Bill O’Reilly, silly pundit and man of poor reasoning skills, is back at attacking atheists. This time it’s especially fun because all he does is set up strawmen and make other dumb arguments.

Once again we are in the Christmas season, and the coal-in-your-stocking crowd is back at it.

This sounds like a negative, militant bunch! I have to imagine they have just an awful, awful message. Right?

This year, the American Humanist Association is putting up bus ads in selected cities that say: “No God? No Problem! Be Good for Goodness’ Sake.”

Hang on. This sounds like a positive, upbeat message. (It’s also a minor change to a previous bus ad.) How does this constitute wanting to put coal in anyone’s stockings? It sounds like this atheist group is promoting a positive message imploring people to be upstanding, good individuals. And isn’t it interesting how virtually all atheist groups seem to do this? It’s like reason and rationality lead to better people in general.

The picture accompanying the text shows a group of young people wearing Santa hats. Ho, ho, ho. The virulently anti-God group “Freedom from Religion” has launched a second front. It is celebrating Christmas in Las Vegas with ads that say: “Yes, Virginia, there is no God.” Nice.

Oh, excuse me. It appears Billo has utilized his thesaurus. These atheists are virulent, not militant. Maybe we can start calling all those negroes haughty instead of uppity, too.

The question is: Why bother? Why spend money at Christmastime (sic) to spread dubious will among men? The reason, I believe, is that atheists are jealous of the Yuletide season.

Wow, this one should be fun.

1) Atheists bother because they want to get their message out there. Religion is a stain on society and needs to be put back in its box so that we can all enjoy more liberty.

2) Atheist groups have spent money on these sort of ads all year long. Christmas time, however, is a period when religion’s profile is raised more so than during other times of the year. It makes sense to counter this by intentionally raising atheism’s profile, too.

3) Billo believes we are jealous of this season. Once again, we see a non-rational religious individual going on faith alone; he has no evidence for his silly little belief. See #1 and #2 for real reason why atheist groups are putting out ads.

While Christians have Jesus and Jews have the prophets, nonbelievers have Bill Maher. There are no Christmas carols for atheists, no pagan displays of largesse like Santa Claus. In fact, for the nonbeliever, Christmas is just a day off, a time to consider that Mardi Gras is less than two months away.

Unlike Billo, I make no arrogant claim to be able to speak for all atheists. However, I do know that most still celebrate Christmas. They obviously have little to no interest in the whole Jesus part, but the holiday has come to mean far more than that. Christmas is when family from all over tends to get and come together to enjoy each others’ company. It’s a festive time that does not require any god for it to mean something.

And is Billo suggesting that Mardi Gras is an atheist event? Last time I checked it had its root in religious tradition, since being co-opted by dozens of cultures as a secular celebration – sort of like how Christmas can be and is secular for many. But maybe Billo wants to start claiming the fourth of July or St. Patrick’s Day as atheist holidays next.

But there is a serious side to this, and the American “Humanists” should listen up. Christmas is a joyous time for children, the big upside of celebrating the birth of Jesus.

Spectacular. First Billo spends his time arguing that Christmas is not to be done without God, then he sets up this contrast. First Christmas is a lot of fun for children, however and in edition, it is also a time when people can celebrate the birth of Jesus. Does he not get it? He just admitted that Christmas tends to be celebrated without regard to Jesus. It’s almost like there’s a secular component to the season – one that “is a joyous time”, and not just for children.

Of course, Billo is playing fast and loose with implications here. He’s trying to say that atheists don’t want children (or anyone else) to enjoy Christmas. This is a complete strawman, and an ugly one at that. This guy is just another mudslinger who has no interest in hearing the rational messages of atheists.

Why, then, do people who want to “be good” spend money denigrating a beautiful day?

Again, the denigration is directed at this myth that one needs God to be good, not the idea of Christmas. And again, most atheists celebrate the Christmas season – they just do it by staying connected with reality (i.e., spending time with family, not magic sky fairies).

Could it be that the humanists are not really interested in good at all?

No.

The head Humanist, Roy Speckhardt, says the anti-God signs are worthy because they send a message that atheists shouldn’t be vilified as immoral.

Billo’s slimy article as People’s Evidence 1.

Well, old Roy needs to wise up. The signs actually create resentment and hostility toward atheists. Here’s a bulletin: Many parents don’t want their children to see bus signs proclaiming that God is a big hoax.

Haha. Really? It’s the signs that have created resentment and hostility toward atheists? It has nothing to do with the smear pieces that get published?

As for what parents do and do not want their children to see, it is antithetical to rationality to try and block a child from a harmless message. In fact, parents should be encouraging a dialogue with their children about these ads. They present an important point of view, one which actually seeks to alleviate children of the burden of being told they may burn in hell for eternity for minor transgressions over a roughly 80 year period.

That message may be constitutionally protected, but it is not going to engender much good will among believers.

The broader point here is to start people talking. That has happened as we see here in People’s Evidence 1. As for encouraging good will among believers, I would hope it would do that. It obviously isn’t going to get Billo to do any good because that isn’t in his nature, but rational individuals may be invigorated to do something positive.

Of course, Speckhardt knows that and is being disingenuous with the “just looking out for atheists” posture his group takes.

Speckhardt’s point is that atheists are not inherently immoral. We want to see good things done just as much as the next guy. This is the bulk of what he has said. I don’t see where Billo has any grounds for calling him a liar.

What many nonbelievers enjoy doing is mocking those who embrace theology. I guess that makes some atheists feel better because there is no other reason to run down Christmas. It is a happy day for most human beings.

Non-sequitur alert! Non-sequitur alert!

Why the sudden new charge about mockery? How does that have anything to do with the ad? And “no other reason to run down Christmas”? Didn’t Billo just spend his entire article talking about how jealousy was the reason for these ads?

The latest Rasmussen poll on the season says that 72 percent of Americans like saying, “Merry Christmas,” while just 22 percent prefer the greeting “Happy Holidays.”

So the evidence suggests that despite the American Civil Liberties Union, atheist groups and a politically correct media, Christmas is actually gaining in relevance and, perhaps, reverence.

Here’s another good example of why Billo is not a rational person. He cited a single poll and then claimed it was evidence for a trend. I don’t think I need to go any further on that point.

Most folks know a good thing when they see it, and the converse is true, as well. They know these anti-God signs at Christmastime are dumb and unnecessary.

See People’s Evidence 1 again.

Filed under: Atheism/Humanism, News, Politics and Social | Tagged: , , , , | 2 Comments »

The faux war on Christmas is back and O’Reilly is leading the charge

Posted on December 7, 2009 by Michael

Bill O’Reilly, silly pundit and man of poor reasoning skills, is back at attacking atheists. This time it’s especially fun because all he does is set up strawmen and make other dumb arguments.

Once again we are in the Christmas season, and the coal-in-your-stocking crowd is back at it.

This sounds like a negative, militant bunch! I have to imagine they have just an awful, awful message. Right?

This year, the American Humanist Association is putting up bus ads in selected cities that say: “No God? No Problem! Be Good for Goodness’ Sake.”

Hang on. This sounds like a positive, upbeat message. (It’s also a minor change to a previous bus ad.) How does this constitute wanting to put coal in anyone’s stockings? It sounds like this atheist group is promoting a positive message imploring people to be upstanding, good individuals. And isn’t it interesting how virtually all atheist groups seem to do this? It’s like reason and rationality lead to better people in general.

The picture accompanying the text shows a group of young people wearing Santa hats. Ho, ho, ho. The virulently anti-God group “Freedom from Religion” has launched a second front. It is celebrating Christmas in Las Vegas with ads that say: “Yes, Virginia, there is no God.” Nice.

Oh, excuse me. It appears Billo has utilized his thesaurus. These atheists are virulent, not militant. Maybe we can start calling all those negroes haughty instead of uppity, too.

The question is: Why bother? Why spend money at Christmastime (sic) to spread dubious will among men? The reason, I believe, is that atheists are jealous of the Yuletide season.

Wow, this one should be fun.

1) Atheists bother because they want to get their message out there. Religion is a stain on society and needs to be put back in its box so that we can all enjoy more liberty.

2) Atheist groups have spent money on these sort of ads all year long. Christmas time, however, is a period when religion’s profile is raised more so than during other times of the year. It makes sense to counter this by intentionally raising atheism’s profile, too.

3) Billo believes we are jealous of this season. Once again, we see a non-rational religious individual going on faith alone; he has no evidence for his silly little belief. See #1 and #2 for real reason why atheist groups are putting out ads.

While Christians have Jesus and Jews have the prophets, nonbelievers have Bill Maher. There are no Christmas carols for atheists, no pagan displays of largesse like Santa Claus. In fact, for the nonbeliever, Christmas is just a day off, a time to consider that Mardi Gras is less than two months away.

Unlike Billo, I make no arrogant claim to be able to speak for all atheists. However, I do know that most still celebrate Christmas. They obviously have little to no interest in the whole Jesus part, but the holiday has come to mean far more than that. Christmas is when family from all over tends to get and come together to enjoy each others’ company. It’s a festive time that does not require any god for it to mean something.

And is Billo suggesting that Mardi Gras is an atheist event? Last time I checked it had its root in religious tradition, since being co-opted by dozens of cultures as a secular celebration – sort of like how Christmas can be and is secular for many. But maybe Billo wants to start claiming the fourth of July or St. Patrick’s Day as atheist holidays next.

But there is a serious side to this, and the American “Humanists” should listen up. Christmas is a joyous time for children, the big upside of celebrating the birth of Jesus.

Spectacular. First Billo spends his time arguing that Christmas is not to be done without God, then he sets up this contrast. First Christmas is a lot of fun for children, however and in addition, it is also a time when people can celebrate the birth of Jesus. Does he not get it? He just admitted that Christmas tends to be celebrated without regard to Jesus. It’s almost like there’s a secular component to the season – one that “is a joyous time”, and not just for children.

Of course, Billo is playing fast and loose with implications here. He’s trying to say that atheists don’t want children (or anyone else) to enjoy Christmas. This is a complete strawman, and an ugly one at that. This guy is just another mudslinger who has no interest in hearing the rational messages of atheists.

Why, then, do people who want to “be good” spend money denigrating a beautiful day?

Again, the denigration is directed at this myth that one needs God to be good, not the idea of Christmas. And again, most atheists celebrate the Christmas season – they just do it by staying connected with reality (i.e., spending time with family, not magic sky fairies).

Could it be that the humanists are not really interested in good at all?

No.

The head Humanist, Roy Speckhardt, says the anti-God signs are worthy because they send a message that atheists shouldn’t be vilified as immoral.

Billo’s slimy article as People’s Evidence 1.

Well, old Roy needs to wise up. The signs actually create resentment and hostility toward atheists. Here’s a bulletin: Many parents don’t want their children to see bus signs proclaiming that God is a big hoax.

Haha. Really? It’s the signs that have created resentment and hostility toward atheists? It has nothing to do with the smear pieces that get published?

As for what parents do and do not want their children to see, it is antithetical to rationality to try and block a child from a harmless message. In fact, parents should be encouraging a dialogue with their children about these ads. They present an important point of view, one which actually seeks to alleviate children of the burden of being told they may burn in hell for eternity for minor transgressions over a roughly 80 year period.

That message may be constitutionally protected, but it is not going to engender much good will among believers.

The broader point here is to start people talking. That has happened as we see here in People’s Evidence 1. As for encouraging good will among believers, I would hope it would do that. It obviously isn’t going to get Billo to do any good because that isn’t in his nature, but rational individuals may be invigorated to do something positive.

Of course, Speckhardt knows that and is being disingenuous with the “just looking out for atheists” posture his group takes.

Speckhardt’s point is that atheists are not inherently immoral. We want to see good things done just as much as the next guy. This is the bulk of what he has said. I don’t see where Billo has any grounds for calling him a liar.

What many nonbelievers enjoy doing is mocking those who embrace theology. I guess that makes some atheists feel better because there is no other reason to run down Christmas. It is a happy day for most human beings.

Non-sequitur alert! Non-sequitur alert!

Why the sudden new charge about mockery? How does that have anything to do with the ad? And “no other reason to run down Christmas”? Didn’t Billo just spend his entire article talking about how jealousy was the reason for these ads?

The latest Rasmussen poll on the season says that 72 percent of Americans like saying, “Merry Christmas,” while just 22 percent prefer the greeting “Happy Holidays.”

So the evidence suggests that despite the American Civil Liberties Union, atheist groups and a politically correct media, Christmas is actually gaining in relevance and, perhaps, reverence.

Here’s another good example of why Billo is not a rational person. He cited a single poll and then claimed it was evidence for a trend. I don’t think I need to go any further on that point.

Most folks know a good thing when they see it, and the converse is true, as well. They know these anti-God signs at Christmastime are dumb and unnecessary.

See People’s Evidence 1 again.

Filed under: Atheism/Humanism, News, Politics and Social | Tagged: , , , , | 2 Comments »

So atheists can start crashing churches now?

Posted on November 26, 2009 by Michael

Filed under: Atheism/Humanism, News | Tagged: | 3 Comments »

Not so humble

Posted on November 22, 2009 by Michael

Well, I was wrong – about that, I must be humble.

I recently wrote about the local paper not publishing a letter I sent. I was told by Jim Evans it was because staff had been sick and they were trying to catch up. In the meantime, letters referencing dates and events which took place a full week after I had submitted my letter were being published. The conclusion?

Jim Evans is a liar.

There. Simple.

However, I wrote a second letter (while also submitting my first once again). This was just got published (and in the Sunday edition, no less; Ooo la la).

God does not exist. I say that without hesitation, but not without qualification.

There is no way to prove a negative. As such, no one can say God does not exist for certain. However, that same logic means no one can say for certain that Zeus, unicorns, fairies, and other magical beings do not exist. The necessary conclusion is that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence — however, absence of evidence which should be present is evidence of absence. If, say, the version of the Christian god in which most people believe does exist, we should expect to see certain things. Prayer healing, for instance, should show positive results for those who receive it versus those who do not receive it. This does not happen. This is one piece of evidence that this particular god does not exist.

Of course, losing one’s faith in a god is a process, not a moment. However, should one be lucky enough to complete the course, it will soon be discovered that life is all the better, all the more free.

Atheism has the power to bring about this good, this freedom. It releases the mind of mythical religious burdens and leads to a focus on humanity, on reality. It is itself not a system of belief, so its strengths are limited. This is a good thing. The more free a mind is of dogma and doctrine and ideology, the better.

I implore the great number of atheists reading this to stop coddling religion. It has not earned the deference it is given. We should all stop pretending otherwise. Do not acquiesce to demands of respect by its adherents. Instead, first demand evidence.

Finally, to my fellow atheists, you are not alone. Do not fear speaking our side. The world needs it.

How militant!

Filed under: Atheism/Humanism, Politics and Social | Tagged: , , | 16 Comments »

The Maine Atheist Campaign

Posted on November 13, 2009 by Michael

There is currently an informal campaign being run for the atheists of Maine. The organization is done through the good ol’ Interwebs. The Facebook page can be found here.

The current goal is a cheap and simple one: write letters to the editors. Tell them atheists aren’t bad people. Tell them religion is in opposition to science, reason, and rationality. Let them know that there is no good reason for atheists to face as much hate as we do. We often are good people. We just don’t believe in magical things. And that’s another point in itself: don’t be nice about religion. Don’t give it the respect its adherents demand but have not earned. Be brutal. Call God a Sky Fairy or Magical Daddy Way Up Where.

Of course, this needn’t be limited to Maine atheists. All atheists should write into their local papers. Let everyone know we exist and that there is no good reason we should just shut up. Be loud, be in-your-face. Be, be, be.

Filed under: Atheism/Humanism | Tagged: | Leave a comment »

The atheist martyrs

Posted on November 12, 2009 by Michael

A group of harmless atheists (sorry for the redundancy) in Cincinnati had to take down a welcoming sign due to violent threats.

In the wake of multiple, significant threats, the downtown billboard that says “Don’t Believe In God? You are not alone” came down early Thursday morning.

Oh, how dangerous. A group telling other people that they need not feel alone. Give me a break. It’s a well-known fact that atheists constitute one of the most hated groups in America. More Americans would vote for a homosexual than an atheist. (The fact that either group would be denied votes on such illegitimate grounds is astounding in itself, actually. The first isn’t exactly making a choice. The second shouldn’t matter since there’s that whole separation of church and state thing.)

“Everything that has happened shows just how vital our message is,” said Shawn Jeffers, co-coordinator for the Cincinnati Coalition of Reason. “It proves our point, that bigotry against people who don’t believe in a god is still very real in America. Only when we atheists, agnostics and humanists come together and go public about our views will people have a chance to learn that we too are part of the community and deserve respect.”

It’s a good point, especially because it notes the respect earned by the named groups. Putting one’s self out there for criticism is a good thing and should be appreciated. Most atheists, agnostics, and humanists want to engage their fellow humans in discourse. That cannot be said of most religions, and if so, only quite temporarily (basically until you make them think or question too hard).

The billboard was moved to a location now viewed by drivers heading west on the Sixth Street viaduct. Some say they find it offensive.

“My thoughts? I think the sign needs to come down. Its atheist. Its going to cause problems around all the churches, not just catholic, but lutheran, baptist, all of them,” said Jack Jones of Downtown.

Please excuse the myriad typos in that. Well, actually, don’t. What the hell. And Jack Jones “of Downtown”? Was this journalist imbibing something as s/he wrote, gradually getting more and more grammatically chaotic?

But I digress. I hope this causes problems for all churches. But let’s not stop there. The synagogues and mosques need a smart dose of rational inquiry thrown in their faces.

“We are dealing with it the best way we can. We are not going away so talk to us,” said Welte.

How militant.

Filed under: Atheism/Humanism, News, Politics and Social | Tagged: , , , , , , | 12 Comments »

The Traveler and the Farmer

Posted on October 25, 2009 by Michael

Traveler: God has been mighty good to your fields, Mr. Farmer.

Farmer: You should have seen how he treated them when I wasn’t around.

Filed under: Atheism/Humanism, Humor | Tagged: | Leave a comment »

« Previous Page — Next Page »