Jihadist:
I hope those southern front lawns filled with 12 foot crosses saying "Jesus died for your sins" or "Jesus saves" don't accidental burn up and give impressions of KKK provocatively scaring other folks.

It's actually a very interesting form of "keeping up with the Jones". If someone puts a 10 foot cross up on their front lawn, eventually someone else will erect a 12 foot cross on theirs. It's a form of Christian inflation.

I haven't seen any KKK activity down here and based on my understanding, the KKK had its roots in conservative Christianity.

But there certainly is a lot of bible thumping. Our local county commissioners start each official meeting with a word of prayer and when told that this may be illegal, they became even more adamant about it. They close their prayers with "in Jesus name...." so there isn't even the pretense of not favoring any particular religion.

Where I live in the south, front lawns are filled with big, 12 foot crosses that say things like "Jesus died for your sins" or "Jesus saves".

*******************************************

I hope those southern front lawns filled with 12 foot crosses saying "Jesus died for your sins" or "Jesus saves" don't accidental burn up and give impressions of KKK provocatively scaring other folks.

Jihadist, so is your point that atheists appear to you be naive about marketing and public relations?

While I can't speak for anyone else, I'm not necessarily trying to sway anyone to a particular viewpoint. Instead, I'm simply defending certain principles of knowledge, and condemning ideas that seem to me to be harmful or that shouldn't go unchallenged.

*******************************************

Carstonio,

I agree with Ms. Jacoby on consideration of "cost benefit". Not only in the case of the AA ad, but in anything one does. And to add - clarity of objective, and target group.

You are underestimating yourself as a genuine secular humanist. And your posts are among the most considered, more emcompassing and nuanced in defending principles of knowledge, and condemning harmful ideas I've read in all these time in "On Faith". I never skipped reading your posts.

"Atheists as secular humanists." Jesus essentially said if you hear my voice than you are mine and if you don't hear my voice, then you do not belong to me. If Jesus is speaking to you and you don't know it, it would be a good thing to learn it. Secular humanist, indeed.

I am very disappointed in Susan with this opinion piece. This billboard was extremely cost effective because it captured much time and attention from network and local news programs. Because of that the value of the wider delivery of the message was at least an order of magnitude greater than to cost of the billboard. It had its desired effect of substantially increasing the visibility of secular world views.

Susan is also incorrect in asserting malice against other secular groups as the motivation. She has no evidence for this view and it is most likely a reflection of her political agenda. Not all secularists desire any specific political agenda. Some just want to communicate their views of the real world. They have a right to do that and should not be condemned for doing so.

short as a sneeze
and
broad as a breeze

sweet as a kiss
and
sharp as a hiss

simple as breath
an'
detailed as death

As for ads and slogans of any types, you do know well too it's the norm to have short and memorable taglines in promotions and advertising to distinguish and make your ideas and products memorable and different from the pack - short, sweet, easy to remember and seemingly the sum of your idea and/or product, what you are and stand for - from promoting beliefs to promoting tourism in countries. For example:

"Islam is peace" "Jesus is Love"
--------------------------
"Public Relations"

Stuart Ewen, "PR! A social HIstory of Spin"
----------- "All Consuming Images

Terrifying. Should be required reading throughout the US and beyond.

Judaism does not have signs and billboards. It's that God thing--no images, no idolatry. Hashem is neither short nor sweet nor simple.

Jihadist said, "One would imagine it would be as irritating and futile if I were to put up a sign on a bus, "There is no God, but God" or “Jesus saves” to antsy atheists on religious-related signs and ads in the public square."

Where I live in the south, front lawns are filled with big, 12 foot crosses that say things like "Jesus died for your sins" or "Jesus saves".

I don't find it particularly irritating. And many of the bigger churches have electronic bulletin boards quoting the bible. But if they want to spend their money on that, so be it.

The bill board calling the Jesus story a myth is good in my view. It adds to the public dialog. It does no harm while possibly stimulating some thought.

Jihadist, so is your point that atheists appear to you be naive about marketing and public relations?

While I can't speak for anyone else, I'm not necessarily trying to sway anyone to a particular viewpoint. Instead, I'm simply defending certain principles of knowledge, and condemning ideas that seem to me to be harmful or that shouldn't go unchallenged.

As an example, years ago when I first got married, we received James Dobson's "Love for a Lifetime" as a present. I was horrified when at one point, Dobson claimed that his god designed women to be inferior and subservient to men. Now that I'm the father of daughters, my response to Dobson is along the lines of "Over my dead body."

I don't find the last two offensive, but I would ask that you make your point with them more explicit. Such as how "reality" differs from "facts", or what you mean by "human comprehension." I have a preference for specifics, which is why billboard slogans of any type can be frustrating to me if they're too short or too broad.

*******************************************

You do know too well having "facts" is not necessarily an advantage if one don't have sufficient avenues, deprived from avenues to channel them, or don't have funds nor revenues to get them across oneself. To have avenues requires a certain degree of access of most effective channels in terms of access to put forth "facts".

The "reality" is, in the marketplace of ideas and products, whomever controls channels for communication (states, companies, say Fox Media) will decide on general infomtation flow, what to put out in the mass media, how the content is presented etc. One has to dig through for more depth of content from more specialised sources on any given matter.

If books are one's channel, it must be first accepted to be published, and readers must want to read them. Likewise blogs if one is seeking a recourse in electronic self-publishing to get one's facts across.

As for ads, whomever has the most funds by donations, revenues from products, the most organisational linkages, networks and access can afford to have more promotions and ads.

You do know too well human comprehension is understanding human nature encompassing hopes, fears, needs and wants. Most folks don't take too well to ideas which assails them negatively and do react with hostility. There's other ideas in the marketplace of ideas which makes them feel good and these they go for, judging by lots of sales of be good, do good, feel good advise books and what they chose to see, read, hear.

As for ads and slogans of any types, you do know well too it's the norm to have short and memorable taglines in promotions and advertising to distinguish and make your ideas and products memorable and different from the pack - short, sweet, easy to remember and seemingly the sum of your idea and/or product, what you are and stand for - from promoting beliefs to promoting tourism in countries. For example:

"Islam is peace" "Jesus is Love"
"Surprising Singapore" "Malaysia Truly Asia"

Any number of folks can and do dispute those too short or too broad tags, but they encapsulates how faith groups, countries, products by companies, people see themself and how they want others to see them in gist.

So, one would think that for small organisations or companies with limited funds, better for them to do "smart targetting" as they can't obviously afford "carpet bombing" of their messages.

Oviously, from softwares to ideas, God and the devil, bugs and worms, flaws and strengths are in the details.

G'night.

"Atheism is humanism without human comprehension"

"Atheists are brights on facts and dims on reality"

I don't find the last two offensive, but I would ask that you make your point with them more explicit. Such as how "reality" differs from "facts", or what you mean by "human comprehension." I have a preference for specifics, which is why billboard slogans of any type can be frustrating to me if they're too short or too broad.

The billboard will hopefully help generate more members and that means more money to be used in promoting reason in schools among other important projects?

Jousting and jesting on the atheists' strategy and tactics to win hearts and minds?

Putting up a billboard with tags such as "You know it's a myth. This season, celebrate reason" around Christmas time is savvy? Into niched marketing or into mass marketing?

You know it’s a myth some atheists use reason as per money, timing and location for their ads “to celebrate reason”.

One would imagine it would be as irritating and futile if I were to put up a sign on a bus, "There is no God, but God" or “Jesus saves” to antsy atheists on religious-related signs and ads in the public square. Dollars down the drain certainly, but for the admen to celebrate Christmas and New Year in generous style.

In this day and age, hard to see how billboards can make a great impact without the constant barrage of ads in the print and electronic media. One would rather see Calvin Klein and Prada ads.

Good thing folks are not into religion related advertising mass advertising and/or public square billboard advertising here. It would irritate just about everybody. As for religion-related bumper stickers, too many of those. Seeing “Islam is the way” on a car which landed into a tropical drain is quite something.

One has to scrape all sort of bumper stickers (if one wants to) before trading in or selling a car one owes. Anyone wants to go around driving a second hand car with a bumper sticker saying “I Just Want to Spread Your Wealth” if they are not Tea Partiers?

Billboard ads or any sort and messages clutter and deface the environment. Unless one is hiding shabby buildings and neighbourhoods. And to putt something, anything in a nutshell for branding of ideas and conjuring images on self or others.

Anyway, some wee proposals for atheist ads:

"Atheism is free from imagination"

"Atheism is reason without practical logic"

"Atheism is humanism without human comprehension"

"Atheists are brights on facts and dims on reality"

That's a wee confrontational and/or offensive enough. For atheists.

walter-in-fallschurch

You wrote, "but i suppose if you can contort "you" and "this generation" into meaning "humankind"...well, then touche... but then why all the urgency? why all the "the end is near" business if it wasn't coming for going on 2000 years?"

Well, there's nothing wrong with thinking out of the "box" and there are many, many "boxes" that people have constructed.

The "end is near" does not only apply to the "big end", so to speak, which one could look at as a new "beginning" but also to our own "individual end".

You also wrote, "huh...well, ok, but he was supposedly talking about the destruction of the temple, right?"

May have been but if He was, then it hasn't completely come about has it?

"No stone upon another stone", or words to that effect, the "Wailing Wall" is still standing, isn't it?

Right, wrong or indifferent, I do not try to "figure out" every last thing in the bible, there is plenty in the bible that I do not have a clue what it means.

There are plenty who know what is written in the bible better than me and yet some of these seem to know nothing about God, maybe except for God's Name.

The bible can help lead some to God but for some all it seems to do is help them justify, in their own hearts and minds, that which is unjustifiable to God but as Jesus said on the cross, "Father forgive them...", there is no * after them even tho many like to add an *.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Leave it to the SJ and left to tell other people how they should spend other people's money!

The billboard is fine and a lot more tasteful than say an ad for God is NOT Great, How YOUR religion poisons everything.

The current situation along Wisconsin travel corridors finds a mesmerizing groupthink of religious and anti-abortion billboards. It is a form of control, this market saturation, and any competition in any form is better than none. Viva the dialectic!

Regarding the metaphysics somehow being invalidated if the christ wasn't an actual person or if he wasn't an actual deity or any of the later prophets were nothing but madmen... if it is required to be uttered from a god before you will decide if something is right or wrong, then you really should just disconnect your frontal lobes and sell them for research.

Great truths are great truths because they resonate with our core nature, the successful archetypes, the stuff that brought us from Africa to the four corners of the earth.

Scholarly pursuit, getting at the small truths of physical reality, the history of the world and the cosmos is fine and dandy, but the great human Truths are in the evolution of social interaction, where biological need meets the drive of conscious action and consciousness itself.

Understanding the nature of existence requires its myths to be as allegory and symbol, not myths as living historical dogma.

"Let he who is without sin ...." carries no less weight because it was written by some cave-dwelling monk hundreds of years after it was supposedly uttered by some man-god-ghost.

When name-calling begins, debate ends.
I am done.

- GABRIELROCKMAN

******************************************

:) What debate?

That's just too bad. So, forget about "getting along" then, even when diagreeing and they are "mistaken". Try some of these as per American Atheists (AA) on their cheeky chic activist billboard ad:

- The said billboard, if one don't read it, looks like a celebration of Christmas and the birth of Jesus.

- The said ad is wee drop in the deluge, the Great Flood of Biblical substance and proportion of ads and promos on the side of buses, streets, print and electronic media in this Christmas season.

- If AA is the Greenpeace of the atheist community, then which organisation is the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) of the atheist folks? The WWF did more substantive work and have more funds.

- Atheists, or rather those who call themseles secular humanists, are into donating to human rights, enviromental and humanitarian groups of their choice too, apart from political parties of their preferences. They would be strecthed to decide on which, and how much funds they can give to myriad atheist organisations too.

- "God/s", if seen as a "product" marketed successfully for thousands of years, is being competed in the marketplace of ideas by AA as a "non-product". They have no brand/model apart from "humanism" as opposed to the Krishna brand/model, the YHWH brand/model, the Christ brand/model, the Allah brand/model etc.

- Those myriad God/s brand/models are being updated, and inconvenient, sputtering parts and accessories are being taken off or updated or modified or finetuned to meet consumer demands and comes with a warranty too. They all have great after sales services and customer support. However, use your head which brand/model you chose and which mechanic you go to to fix you God/s vehicle to drive through life on the Right Path in life.

- I don't think American Atheists (AA) as an organisation, or the whole American atheists as a community can b Christian America as a community and various orgnisations - in marketing, funding, organisations, lobbying, ownership of media, universities etc. in the States in the next 50 years at least.

- Churches may be losing attendance, affiliations and support in the US, but like McDonald's and Coke, they have oversea markets and are benefiting from overseas "consumers".

- If AA put up a billboard saying "There is no God", One can always add in spray paint, "but God" to it. But that would be graffitti, no?

Walter,

I indulged in a minor stoush with Rcofield on the Thanksgiving thread. His smug sanctimony galled (irritated even the serene DITLD), so I thought he deserved a splash of sauce on his crisply laundered Blessed Assurance.

Another theomachinist with a TULIP in his teeth.

onofrio,
pam and i have been sort of tag-teaming it w/peter. haven't heard from pam in a few months, though. since pam left a real caustic fellow, a pastor no less, named "rcofield", joined us. made me appreciate peter's demeanor.... oh well. if you come across rcofield, ask about how pastorin' is too difficult for women, due to how god designed them...

Thisishowiseeit,
great idea, that - an islam-inspired atheist ad. as onofrio points out it would be like an irresistible flame to the terror-inclined among muslim moths. homeland security could just set up camp around the billboards and arrest bad guys as they line up to blow up the sign... maybe set the ads up outside airports to "draw off" potential plane-bombers.

That is a huge problem that calls into question their basic theories not some minor mass and rotation problem.

So what alternative theories would you propose instead? They know damn well that their understanding of the universe is incomplete, and that the available theories are inadequate to explain their observations. They've been studying the issue for decades, and while that doesn't mean they know everything, it does mean it would be arrogant of me to presume that I know more than they do.

Karma works on the concept of cause and effect, just like science.

What testable evidence do you have that a Mystic Law exists, or that karma exists? Christianity in particular rejects the latter concept. The theme of the gospel song "Farther Along" is that often the wicked prosper and the innocent suffer.

Walter,

Pure gold, that. Have you (and the redoubtable Pam) jousted with Peter Huff of late?

onofrio!

Tyrell: I'm surprised you didn't come here sooner.
Batty: It's not an easy thing to meet your maker.
Tyrell: What could he do for you?
Batty: Can the maker repair what he makes?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0083658/quotes
-------------

thomas,
enigmatic, as always. i'm pretty sure "jesus" had no idea about evolution (or that 99%+ of god's/his creations have gone extinct - i.e. were failures...).

about jesus' long-overdue end times prophesies, you said,

"Could be that Jesus was telling us that "these things" would happen and that no cataclysmic event, whether natural or manmade, would occur to wipe out mankind before "these things" happened."

huh...well, ok, but he was supposedly talking about the destruction of the temple, right? christians like to say, "see how he predicted the destruction of the temple" (even though it's just as likely that these verses were written after that fact). anyway, jesus said it was supposed to be the destruction of the temple AND all that "son of man on a cloud...w/trumpets" stuff. supposedly, he kept saying ALL THESE THINGS.

but i suppose if you can contort "you" and "this generation" into meaning "humankind"...well, then touche... but then why all the urgency? why all the "the end is near" business if it wasn't coming for going on 2000 years?

Thisishowiseeit,

Thee:
"It's sad that the group has yet not found the courage to put an ad questioning the faith in the deity of Islam, a fast growing danger to our freedoms"

And if the group does find this "courage", and jousts/jests derisively at Eid, Mecca, the Qur'an or some such:

1) would the average American have a clue what it's on about?

2) would you "find the courage" to defend the dumb billboard with your life and limb, as affronted fanatics line up to pink-mistify you?

Why don't you trial-run your bold protest in a majority Muslim country during Ramadan, and show us all what you're made of.

I know it's late in the piece, but may I say the featured piece of Xmas Reasonmongery strikes me as lame, damn lame, yea legless.

Celebrate Reason? How, pray tell? Whence will this clean cult get the requisite scent of blood that alone can truly warm the cockles of the faithful - sorry, reasonful?

There once was a god-damning Cult of Reason, and its requisite blood sacrifices were supplied efficiently by La Guillotine. Those who would festively valorise Reason might do well to take a trip down unremembered lane to dismembering Père Duchesne and the Hébertistes, circa 1793, and reflect on "what is past, or passing, or to come".

And another thing: myths may well express "truths that lie too deep for taint". Reasonmongers, mind your feet as you shoot hip-hooray...

It's sad that the group has yet not found the courage to put an ad questioning the faith in the deity of Islam, a fast growing danger to our freedoms, specially the freedom to change or drop religion. It has been correctly said that all it takes for the devil to triumph, is for all others to do nothing.

तत् त्वम् असि

Ah, Farnaz, it's a rum thing that you deem my net worth pen-ultimate.

After me comes one whose sandals I am not worthy to untie...

HI Onofrio,

Thanks for the post! You are the most glorious penman on the internet. I'm jealous.

Farnaz :0

Hi Ed,

Definitional games make my head hurt. The unifier that I see mostly expressed by atheists, although I don't believe it is universal, is that there is no metaphysical reality. I disagree with that tenet but do not believe the metaphysical reality fits the common conception of a "God". Also common to atheists is a great deal of faith placed in science. Science is a great discipline and its handmaiden, technology, is a case of actual proof.
---------------------------
Well spoke. For many atheists, Science is, indeed, an idol of the tribe, standing on the shelf alongside Reason.

Given his depth and breadth of thinking, Bacon might well wince at the current battle--of the gods?

The failure of many to recognize that the HOlocaust was, from one perspective, the triumph of instrumental reason is, in some ways alarming. It is alarming in light of the age of this conclusion, along with the obvious ways in which Science and Reason are deeply interested and implicated.

As Horkheimer and Adorno noted decades and decades ago, Enlightenment resided in myth, and myth in Enlightenment.

There is, in sum, no shortage of unrecognized overlap in the professions of many atheists and believers, which may be way they have so much difficulty speaking to one another.

On black holes, etc., there has, I've learned been significant progress, but on that, you probably know much more than I.

Edbyronadams,

Thee:
"Karma works on the concept of cause and effect, just like science."

Yep, she's quite the biyatch when all scienced up, that Karma. But Thoth can calm her with tall tales. Get her laughing, and she'll shed all her empirical veils - one to seven - and dance back to the sun.

Thee:
"The fact that all effects are not immediately manifest may fool you. The universe is filled with cycles."

Yes! Unicycles, ridden by leprechauns. I have seen them, riding (not seaward) off the shoulder of Orion.

Alas, All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.

Time to die.

walter-in-fallschurch

You asked, "i'm trying to figure out what you mean by "an "evolutionary" way of speaking". a little help, please?"

In the three places that you referred to, Jesus spoke of "present generation", this "present generation" could be speaking of mankind rather than the specific group He was speaking to.

Prior to the "generation" of modern man, there were "generations" of pre-moderns, were there not?

Weren't there also many "generations" of other life forms, some of which have long been extinct?

Could be that Jesus was telling us that "these things" would happen and that no cataclysmic event, whether natural or manmade, would occur to wipe out mankind before "these things" happened.

Sometimes things can be literal even tho they might not be literally the way we literally thought that they literally had to be.

In other words, sometimes words get in the way.

Have you ever heard that "days" in Genesis refers to "periods of time" as opposed to 24 hrs?

That is what I was referring to as "an evolutionary way of speaking".

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Thomas Baum,

You are a saint.

That's spelled S,A,N,E, and +

Leprechauns are about...and though we take care, we'll never be quite ready! :^)

Hey Farnaz,

"There is no consensus among historians that Jesus existed."

But made-up Jesus most definitely exorcisted. Sure knew how to ekballise a Legion or two, that phantasy theurgist...

And getting affixed to that sliding, time-slicing, equinoxial intersection, aped reific in Roman staves: a pretty bold move for a Logos, clad as a Galilee goes. Almost makes me want to cry, but for the atrocitaceous apostolical aftermathematics, and anathematics, and acrobatical aggro...

Edbyronadams,

Thee:
"My faith is that we, and everything else, are fractal images of the Mystic Law."

Hey Ed, my unfaith is that we, and nothing else, are misty fractures of the Magic Lore.

Leprechauns are about...

ThomasBaum,
i'm trying to figure out what you mean by "an "evolutionary" way of speaking". a little help, please?

walter-in-fallschurch

You wrote, "he sure did! re-read mark 13, matthew 24, and luke 21 and you'll see that he promised it to people standing right in front of him. he was totally wrong, yet some still treat him as a true prophet... what's up w/that?!"

Have you ever thought that Jesus may have been speaking in an "evolutionary" way of speaking?

Something to think about.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

"They're proposals to deal with anomalies in calculating mass and rotation"

Dark energy is needed to explain a universe that is not only expanding but accelerating due to unknown energies. That is a huge problem that calls into question their basic theories not some minor mass and rotation problem.

"The metaphysical concept presupposes a division of realms when we have no basis for making any such presupposition either way."

In my mind there is no division. Karma works on the concept of cause and effect, just like science. The fact that all effects are not immediately manifest may fool you. The universe is filled with cycles. I would argue from analogy that the cycle of birth, life, death and rebirth occurs for us as well. My faith is that we, and everything else, are fractal images of the Mystic Law.

The unifier that I see mostly expressed by atheists, although I don't believe it is universal, is that there is no metaphysical reality.

I think that at least some non-religious people share my objection to the metaphysical as a concept, which is different from blindly rejecting the possibility of its existence. It simply amounts to an argument from incredulity or "magical thinking." It's too easy to claim, "Oh, the cause must have been some beings or forces in some other realm or plane." That's like the old Family Circus panels where the spectral beings Not Me and Ida Know are responsible for breaking things. The metaphysical concept presupposes a division of realms when we have no basis for making any such presupposition either way.

This is not an argument against the existence of the metaphysical, but an argument against treating it as anything more than speculation. If any hypothesis for its existence can't be falsified, then the concept isn't worth serious consideration.

In fact, the huge fudge factors of dark energy and dark matter make current cosmology look pathetic.

Cosmologists do not assert the existence of those things as irrefutable facts. They're proposals to deal with anomalies in calculating mass and rotation. I suppose they count as fudge factors in the mathematical sense, but they're not even close to arguments from incredulity.

Farnaz,

Definitional games make my head hurt. The unifier that I see mostly expressed by atheists, although I don't believe it is universal, is that there is no metaphysical reality. I disagree with that tenet but do not believe the metaphysical reality fits the common conception of a "God". Also common to atheists is a great deal of faith placed in science. Science is a great discipline and its handmaiden, technology, is a case of actual proof. However in the larger questions, the origin and fate of the universe, the beginning of life or even the basic forces of the universe, it has, to date, failed. In fact, the huge fudge factors of dark energy and dark matter make current cosmology look pathetic. However, atheists and many agnostics keep the faith.

O, and I'm glad they wrote "You KNOW it's a myth..."

When a secularist group ran a bus ad campaign in Britain, they had to write "There probably is no God..." because of some rule about not being allowed to state it as fact. (Theist ads, of course, can make affirmative statements like "Jesus is alive.")

Let's hear it for the First Amendment.

Billboards are an effective announcement to those who live in a social reality in which everyone believes in a contrary notion. It can serve as a wake up call for some to see that there are believers in a different creed out there in the world.
-------------
Ed,

These are interesting claims. Do you think atheism is a creed? Are atheism and theism elements of larger creeds?

In fact everyone carries bedrock ideas not based on reason. There is no reason to love, to friendship, to pleasure, to loyalty or to anger. These emotions and feelings are the drivers of human behaviors. Reason is used to provide a thin covering over the deeper urges.

ED,

I tend to agree with you here. God(s) are just products of human emotions. It's when people conclude that a supernatural being is anything more than a manifestation of human emotion that they depart from logic and reason.

When name-calling begins, debate ends.

I am done.

Ed,

Thanks very much for your post. This "mantra" like chant of reason which is what most atheists have to offer has nothing to do with reason and explains nothing. At times, they probably mean "common sense."

The extent to which theism is nonrational rather than irrational remains up for debate.

Carstonio,

Don't get sucked in. You're dealing with a lunatic. Not stupid, merely insane. On the other hand, if you can manage not to upset him (and he is a walking landmine), you might have an interesting exchange.

At all events, good luck!

Billboards are an effective announcement to those who live in a social reality in which everyone believes in a contrary notion. It can serve as a wake up call for some to see that there are believers in a different creed out there in the world.

My objection is that once again, it betrays the conceit that atheists display that they have an exclusive on reason. Reason is a good tool and it is used almost exclusively in the service of non rational axiomatic beliefs. In fact everyone carries bedrock ideas not based on reason. There is no reason to love, to friendship, to pleasure, to loyalty or to anger. These emotions and feelings are the drivers of human behaviors. Reason is used to provide a thin covering over the deeper urges.

For a moment, I thought Gabriel Rockman migt be genuine and not a Moderate sock puppet. Alas, I was wrong. It reveals itself in yet another Alter, backspace.

Too bad, really, since the discussion could have been interesting, had it been initiated by almost anyone else.

IN fact, I dug out the old Aristotle. Oh well.

Humans are not the only creatures to observe the law of gravity. Additionally, the law of gravity predates humanity.

Would you explain? When we talk about the law of gravity, we mean in part that the pull that objects have on one another can be calculated and predicted. The assumptive leap is the claim that the equations involved are somehow embedded into the fabric of the universe, and the claim usually involves conscious entities creating those equations.

Coming from the headmaster of The School of Salem , herself?

"It's possible that physical laws have some inherent existence, but we don't know if they do or not."

Precisely, and this is where scientists investigating their disciplines' metaphysics
are currently focusing.

"What you have attempted to describe is a situation where A implies not A. Logic is not your friend today."

A does not "imply" not A because it is not A.
See m previous post. (Apologies to ARistotle.)

You are aware, are you not, of current investigations into the metaphysics of contemporary science.

"What we call "physical laws" are human-created classifications for the order observed in the universe. "
I disagree with them being human-created. Humans are not the only creatures to observe the law of gravity. Additionally, the law of gravity predates humanity.

"It's possible that physical laws have some inherent existence, but we don't know if they do or not."

I agree with you there, and I still consider them to be physical laws, even if knowledge of these laws is inaccessible to humanity.

"No one's ever successfully predicted anything based on God."

People have both successfully and unsuccessfully predicted events based on God. People with Cancer and other terminal illnesses have gotten better through what they claim to be prayer. Others have tried prayer and still died. Others have tried without prayer and 'miraculously' gotten better - and Christians will try to claim that prayer worked in those situations.

There is no consensus among historians that Jesus existed. There is no contemporaneous mention of him in any extant texts. JOsephus was discredited in his own time.

MOreover, in that terrible period prophets were coming out of the woodwork, as it were, and were deemed symptomatic of the brutal occupation. It is for that reason that the end of the age of prophecy was declared and decided that the "prophets" should not be disturbed. Reason.

In the battle against the metaphysians, the positivists, logical though they were, neglected a few things, superstitions such as Jew, Black, woman. Perhaps, they were too busy debunking the heavenly to notice they were reifying with the benighted believers among their fellow terrestrials.

"Taking 500 million years to create a bacteria cell and 3 billion more to grow a second one."

The problem with atheists is they make facts from hypothesis.

Oops, I mean that "both are open questions."

"If a city becomes 100% atheist or 100% unrighteous, it's time to move out as fast as you can."

You do realize that if a city is 100% atheist, and then if there is someone who moves out as fast as they can because they believe God is about to destroy the city - that will then prove that the city actually was not 100% atheist before that person left.

Thus, the existence of someone who feels the need to move out will indicate the lack of a need to move out. Hence a paradox is created.

What you have attempted to describe is a situation where A implies not A. Logic is not your friend today.

If there are instances where no physical law can explain what has been observed, then there is some law superior to physics in play.

No, that's an assumption for which there is no basis. What we call "physical laws" are human-created classifications for the order observed in the universe. The same is true of "species." It's possible that physical laws have some inherent existence, but we don't know if they do or not.

Until we find a Theory of Everything, God's existence will be what Mathematicians like to call 'an open question.'

First, I would amend that to say that the existence of anything deemed "supernatural" is an open question. The term "God" effectively treats polytheistic religions and other spirit religions as mistaken or false.

Second, it doesn't make sense to say that the existence of gods is an open question while insisting on the existence of "some law superior to physics." Both are open question.

There is an even greater consensus among historians that Jesus existed than there is among scientists that Global Warming is a real threat.

Yes, and both questions suffer from the fact that most of the research is being publicized by advocacy organizations with a motivation to reach a particular conclusion.

However, this also indicates our inability to state for certain that metaphysics does not exist, and therefore indicates to me the impossibility of proving God to not exist.

You can't prove God doesn't exist for much the same reason you can't prove a sequence of numbers is random. You can prove a sequence of numbers is non-random by predicting how the next one can be derived by some rule. No one's ever successfully predicted anything based on God.

Spidey's abiogenesis initiator could exist. It just has so little power it bears no resemblance to what most people mean when they say "God." Taking 500 million years to create a bacteria cell and 3 billion more to grow a second one.

God told Abraham that He won't allow a city to be destroyed if there are at least 10 righteous people present. In fact He may not allow it if there is even 1 person.

If a city becomes 100% atheist or 100% unrighteous, it's time to move out as fast as you can.

Doomsday does not mean the end of humanity. It only means the end of so much stupidity.

To clarify: when I mention metaphysics, I refer to observations of our physical world which cannot be explained by physics. If there are instances where no physical law can explain what has been observed, then there is some law superior to physics in play. This law superior to physics is metaphysics, and depending on your idea of God, may or may not rightly be described as God.

Due to our inability to find a "Theory of Everything", we are unable to state for certain that metaphysics (i.e. laws superior to physics) exists. My belief is that Godel's incompleteness theorems indicate the futility of our attempts to find a theory of everything. Thus, my belief is that there is no theory of everything, and therefore, that metaphysics can never be proven to exist. However, this also indicates our inability to state for certain that metaphysics does not exist, and therefore indicates to me the impossibility of proving God to not exist.

Until we find a Theory of Everything, God's existence will be what Mathematicians like to call 'an open question.'

There is an even greater consensus among historians that Jesus existed than there is among scientists that Global Warming is a real threat. Whether he was a lunatic on the street corner or the Son of God is a very different question.

GABRIELROCKMAN said, "The physical existence of Jesus is provable or disprovable (as it does not involve metaphysics), and there is significant historical evidence that Jesus was real."

Actually, there is very little historical evidence for the existence of a single individual named in the bible as Jesus. The evidence normally cited by Christians are the eye witness accounts described in the new testament. There are no corroborating accounts among Roman records. Even historians of the time -- Josephus to name one of the more prominent -- seemed to reference Jesus in such a casual way that experts have concluded the two references were probably added later by someone else.

And Susan, this is one area that I disagree. For too long, non believers have hidden. Putting a couple of billboards out there is not what I'd call aggressive or "in your face". It's a nice, subtle reminder that not everybody believes in these myths.

Spiderman,

Maybe, we should stop building nukes. Jesus was loving, no? So he will approve of us not blasting ourselves out of existence.

spidermean2, you said,
"Jesus said that Doomsday is coming. It was prophesied when gunpowder was not even discovered yet."

he sure did! re-read mark 13, matthew 24, and luke 21 and you'll see that he promised it to people standing right in front of him. he was totally wrong, yet some still treat him as a true prophet... what's up w/that?!

"This season, celebrate REASON"

Actually this is a very good slogan if one defines reason in a truthful manner.

When atheists mentions "reason", they actually mean stupidity. These people don't know what's the meaning of reason or how to use reason as a tool of science.

It's not surprising why God calls unbelievers as FOOLS.

Jesus said that Doomsday is coming. It was prophesied when gunpowder was not even discovered yet.

Today, the reality of Doomsday cannot be denied with thousands of nukes with megaton payloads under the hands of opposing countries.

Jesus does not exist? You are only fooling yourselves.

Further, there isn't an educated atheist alive who would say that metaphysics does not exist.

Farnaz, from my reading of Gabriel's post, "metaphysics" seemed to be a synonym for "supernatural" and not a reference to the school of philosophy. My own post reflected the former meaning.

If atheists advocate reason, then they should be able to reason out that the only way to know that there is no metaphysics is to know all of the physics. Until physics can explain everything, the possibility must remain that some things cannot be explained by physics.

Some people say they don't believe that gods exist, and others say that they believe that gods don't exist. But some in both groups use the atheism label for their positions. I tend to stay away from the label because I think there is more nuance to my position than that.

And what is my position? You're right that it's possible that things exist that we cannot perceive. But I would ask you to be specific about what things cannot be explained by physics.

While metaphysics may exist, it's still invalid as an explanation precisely because it's untestable and unprovable. It's a one-size-fits-all answer that is really no answer at all, but merely another question. Invalid in this case doesn't mean incorrect. The metaphysics idea makes the baseless assumption that anything that cannot be explained by physics has to have roots some otherdimensional or other-realmish. It ignores the possibility that there may be some aspect to how physics works that hasn't been discovered.

So when an event defies any explanation under physics, the prudent course is not to assume a metaphysical explanation but to leave the event as unknown. An explanation for an event must be testable and provable or else it's not worth our time. We're only interested in what we can demonstrate to be factual, otherwise we risk being wrong and not knowing it.

i'm starting to warm to the idea of atheist billboards. i know it's "advertising" and it doesn't seem to me like anyone's opinions about theism/atheism could be changed by a silly ad - but now i'm starting to think they could be kind of funny.

the ads could be carefully crafted with warm and fuzzy religious symbols/icons (as this one was with star of bethlehem, the magi and camels) to draw theists in, then somehow demonstrate the absurdity of those beliefs.

there could be an easter one where the apostles are all gathered around jesus' corpse (maybe with poses/clothing/symbolism evoking the da vinci's last supper)... and someone says something like, "how long are we supposed to wait? it's been 3 weeks now. it's starting to stink in here."

or you could have the same "last supper" setup, and have one apostle ask, "what's for dinner?" and have another answer, "let's eat jesus!"

of course all the horrible O.T. scenes could provide wonderfully jarring juxtapositions: show moses/joshua/david ripping an infidel baby in half and have him say, "no...it's ok: i'm on a mission from god."

reminds me of a t-shirt i once had made. it said, "JESUS SAVES" in giant letters, then in much smaller letters under that it said, "s&h green stamps"

HI Spiderman,

Long time! Welcome back! Set a spell.

GabrielRockman:

Re: your post

We have not found leprechauns, but I don't think it foolish to claim there are none.

Further, there isn't an educated atheist alive who would say that metaphysics does not exist. If it didn't, Susan would not have to write her columns (for which I gave thanks to Non on Thanksgiving), and you and I would not be blogging here.

Metaphysics is real. Jesus isn't.

How can atheists celebrate reason when they are the dumbest people on earth?
Do you idiots use your brains?
Posted by: spidermean2
-----------------------------------

'Tis the season to be jolly
Fa-la-la-la-la La-la-la-la

"This season, celebrate REASON."

How can atheists celebrate reason when they are the dumbest people on earth?

How can they say there is no God when nobody on earth can explain how a fertilized egg can form into eyes, ears, nose, lungs, tongue, blood and kilometers of veins and all of which under the control of the brain?

No God? What are you? Brainless idiots?

Man is a super-intelligent creation. The only explanation why man is formed in a very complex and super intelligent manner is because there exist a God.

Do you idiots use yur brains?

As a mathematician, I see the fallacy behind anyone claiming that they "know" that God is real, as well as the fallacy behind anyone claiming to "know" that the story of Jesus is a myth.

The physical existence of Jesus is provable or disprovable (as it does not involve metaphysics), and there is significant historical evidence that Jesus was real. The validity of the metaphysical claims about Jesus are untestable and unprovable.

If atheists advocate reason, then they should be able to reason out that the only way to know that there is no metaphysics is to know all of the physics. Until physics can explain everything, the possibility must remain that some things cannot be explained by physics.

We have not found life on other planets, yet it would be foolish to claim that we "know" life doesn't exist on other planets, and even more foolish to claim that reason allowed you to arrive at that conclusion.

Reason brings us far enough to realize that the question of God's existence is beyond our ability to prove or disprove. Reason brings you to agnosticism. To make the jump to either Atheism or Theism requires faith to believe in an idea which you are unable to prove.

Fred Edwords,

Thank you very, very much for your post. I have visited your site and am greatly encouraged.

For years, I have blogged here on the importance of coalition building and grassroots efforts.

Atheists talking amongst themselves, having occasional meetings with a legislator or two will not get rid of the Ben Nelsons, Bart Stupaks, et al, currently representing the Vatican and right-wing Christian fundamentalists.

We are at a point in American history when the bishops of the RCC publicly, and repeatedly, blame the nuns for those elements in the health care plan that they deem objectionable. This is as if to say that the entire legislation was in their hands. As, in fact, much of it was.

Their shameless arrogance was so astonishing that bloggers posted to their publicity nun to insist they did not elect the "bishops" to represent them in Congress.

To get the RCC off his back, Patrick Kennedy went public. Would the rest of Congress had his integrity.

The best way to combat the religionists whose control of Congress is increasing, to eliminate faith-based funding, conscience clauses, etc., is through the sort of big-time lobbying that the RCC and Fundies do. Combine that with grassroots initiatives, demonstrations, etc. Locate charismatic spokespersons. Conduct demonstrations in Washington. Get in the news and write for newspapers.

We need an umbrella organization of atheist associations, Barry Lynn's group, and all other secularists.

And we need to act. Sooner rather than later.

I will contact you.

Hi Susaan, come on it is just a few billboard, It will take all kinds of tactics and strategies that need to be used to get our point across. It was in the ninth grade in an Indian Catholic school, a classmate refused to stand up, just once, when the prayer was being broadcast on the PA system got me thinking. Eventually I overcame my superstitions. Likewise there may a be a few who will be prompted to think about it. In fact I think such ADs scatterd far few in between may have a salutary affect on the borderline cases. I do feel tactically speaking too many of these ADs may have very low marginal returns. But I wouldn't sweat it about a little bit of advertising.

One oddity I've noticed - most of the Jesus Saves type of billboards seem to be in areas that are heavily populated with evangelical Christians, often near billboards for adult entertainment venues. If the goal was to find new converts, one would think that these groups would spend their money in areas with many more non-evangelicals. (The evangelical churches in my area advertise in Spanish, which leads me to speculate that they're trying to skim recent immigrants from Catholicism.)

For such a prime advertising location, the price must have been tens of thousands of dollars--money I think would be better spent on anything from setting up "evolution libraries" for children who live in areas where the schools are controlled by right-wing Christians to publicizing the policies of hospitals that not only deny medical care if it violates their administrators' religious beliefs but refuse to refer patients who want non-religious care to other providers.

That's an excellent point. Even without those other possible uses for the money, can something like reason (not necessarily atheism) be boiled down effectively into a billboard slogan? Religious doctrines involve many absolutes, and part of reason is the recognition that life is about the gray areas. (I sometimes say that the only real absolute in life is that it's finite.) Absolutist concepts simply work better as quick, catchy slogans. Even Bart Ehrman's rebuttal to the C.S. Lewis trilemma (below) might not work, because one would have to explain that Lewis only offered straw men as the alternatives to his position.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/04/AR2006030401369.html

I think FFRF's billboards pay for themselves
from the new members they bring in.

These ads give agnatheism invaluable (and FREE)
publicity in the local media.

And they put the religious zealots on notice
that we can play offense, too.

(The money gap is narrowing.)

Please.

Congrats on coming up with something original. How long did they spend thinking up the idea to poke fun at a deeply emotional scene from the Bible?

Impressive.

Perhaps next time, you can think for yourself and educate the reader on the secular answer to death, war, and drug addiction?

I know, I know. But the hard makes it good.

Don't move before you see it.

I hear this occasionally about the billboards and bus ads that I launch--that the money would be better spent on some charitable activity. But wait, don't major charities (and churches) advertise? Yes they do! Advertising is how you let people know you exist and where to find you so they can get organized and good works can be done.

Then there's the claim that this billboard is a product of "the predictable, if unseemly, internecine warfare over market share in secular America." But as a matter of fact, the various groups in secular America are on excellent terms with each other. They hold annual meetings of all the leaders and are planning a major joint event. At both the national and local levels, cooperation has never been better. So there is no "great gnashing of teeth in the more decorous (relatively speaking) precincts" of the secular movement. Each organization has its own style, and the combined effect of all the styles is recognized as good.

After all, if the Gay Rights movement benefited from a wide spectrum of expressions--everything from Act Up to Log Cabin Republicans--secular America is benefiting as well. Let a thousand flowers bloom!

Fred Edwords
National Director
United Coalition of Reason
www.UnitedCoR.org

I have never seen an atheistic bill board or advertising anywhere in my entire life. And I go places and do stuff, pretty much like anyone else would.

I have also never seen any Islamic advertisments.

I have seen a couple of Jewish advertisements.

I have seen BOAT-LOADS of Christian advertisements, all over the place, everywhere, in cities, towns, and villages, and even out in corn fields by the side of the road.

I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one. First, I belong to several different atheist and humanist groups. I don't think they are competing for market share since one can belong to multiple groups. While this isn't the billboard I would have preferred, I don;t really have a problem with it either. I am partial to the UnitedCoR billboards personally.

To my knowledge every time an atheist themed billboard has generated national headlines, it has increased membership not only in the group which put up the billboard, but also in other atheist/humanist groups.

In the marketplace of ideas, religion doesn't do very well. However, if religious ideas are the only ideas in that marketplace, then they win. When atheist groups put up advertisements like this one, we are entering the marketplace of ideas and showing people that there is an alternative. Just being out there is a win not just for American Atheists, but for the greater community of reason and for the world as a whole.

This billboard will hopefully help generate more members and that means more money to be used in promoting reason in schools among other important projects.
-Staks
http://www.DangerousTalk.net

SJ in Comments @ 3:37:

And I have a perfect First Amendment right to say that no one's thinking is going to be changed by a sign of this kind.

Literally "no one"?

People who know marketing real well have determined that the billboards at the tunnel can motivate people to visit Atlantic City hotels, buy expensive watches and see particular Broadway shows, if I remember my last visit correctly.

A lot of people probably never even really thought about questioning "is my religion accurate" enough to pick up a Four Horsemen book.

Some of them will at least think about it and perhaps generate a water cooler conversation. That's step one.

It's really a sign of the times that so many people react to any criticism of any group's tactics as if it were a suggestion that the group ought to be denied First Amendment rights. I think one of the reasons I am so put off by this kind of thing is that it does remind me of religious evangelizing. As for reaching more people with a billboard than a book, that's one of the things wrong with our society. But if a rich atheist wants to shell out $20,000 for a billboard, he has a perfect First Amendment right to do so. And I have a perfect First Amendment right to say that no one's thinking is going to be changed by a sign of this kind.

And I completely agree with Richard Dawkins that "getting along" with certain religious people doesn't mean that I think their views are right.

No, atheists should be denied their First Amendment Rights along with Muslim American citizens.

It's in the Bible.

When Richard Dawkins gave a lecture at Duke earlier this year, he was asked a question as to why he couldn't get along with the more liberal religious people. His response was (probably not exactly) "by all means, lets be friends, but that doesn't mean I accept that you're right in your beliefs".

I'm not sure how I feel about all the signage, but surely it gets people's attention a lot more than a website or a book that people can choose to see or not to see. Every major city and town is choked with churches some of which have clever signs, others which have impressive buildings, others which send me unasked for junk mailings. They think that they are doing outreach and saving souls, but to me it all seems a little intimidating, or at the very least, a deliberate over simplification of a complicated. Perhaps seeing some counter-evangelism will make them realize just how intrusive all this stuff is, and just how hard it is to say "no, I don't believe in your God" when everyone treats it like a slap in their face.

American Atheists the Greenpeace of the atheist folks?

Can't have that. Soon, they'll be buying boats and plane agitating against and preventing Muslims on boats and in planes going for the Hajj.

Every group have their radicals, activists, agitators, exremists etc. They highlighted their concerns, gripes in "confrontational" ways - from billboards (very harmless) to bombing abortion clinics (extreme) and trade centres (very extreme).

Nice artwork on billboard by the admen hired by American Atheists though, as a reminder of their core message.

I don't see how such billboards are really going to "turn" off anyone as much as bombings and killings in the name of a "cause".

I think it is ironic the author is condemning the athiests for a slogan, when the fundamentalists have reduced the complexity of Christianity in much the same way. It is also funny that critics are worried about exposing children to the realities of mythology, but nobody seems to be concerned about filling their heads with myths and peddling them as truth. The signage is not about one secular group vying for power in the secular heirarchy. It is a bold coming out ceremony for a minority of Americans who have been in the closet for far too long. I commend the athiests for their bravery. www.killingmother.blogspot.com.

susan,
it does seem unseemly to have advertising promoting atheism - like it's a consumer choice... funny, because being atheist is more like choosing "none of the above".

Returning to Manhattan after Thanksgiving, I was greeted at the New Jersey entrance to the Lincoln Tunnel with a huge blue-and-white billboard, financed by the organization American Atheists,

Someone out-bid Donald Trump for ad space there?

My second reaction was that the real purpose of this billboard is to get the American Atheists talked about, to make them stand out from other secular groups in the predictable, if unseemly, internecine warfare over market share in secular America.

You would know this better than I, but intra-group warfare is hardly the first issue I'd prioritize about the various secularist advocacy groups. One problem is simply getting people involved in organizing around non-interest in a subject. Still, I didn't like some of Madelyn Murry O'Hair's tactics, and am glad we have better spokesmen today.

I grew up in a place and time with "Jesus Saves" billboards on the shoulder of every highway, and they didn't turn me into a believer.

I live near a fair number of mega-churches, so I see a lot of billboards with words like Love, Grace and Saves on them, accompanied by a picture of the pastor. A little diversity of billboard thought would be a welcome thing.

Still, a billboard doesn't seem to me the most effective way to shake anyone else's faith...Whether the billboard is really meant to push atheists out of the closet or to rile up devout religious believers, the cost-benefit ratio just doesn't seem, well, reasonable.

Not everyone is going to read stuff out of the Center for Inquiry. It also might help if 100% of secularist publicity didn't personify the kind of hard-line liberalism its opponents accuse it of. Someone might use reason to support capitalism, want to defend America militarily, oppose universal multiculturalism, and not want gay marriage.