I'm trying to make out what the sign says about atheism.

It's "philosophically absurd, logically invalid, scientifically erroneous, statistically impossible, ethically bankrupt, politically destructive, aesthetically impotent (?), psychologically damaging and spirtually damning."

I'm not sure how statistics enter this. I'm guessing he'd insist that the circumstances that allow earth to be able to support life are so astronomical, as to make the idea that there could be no god behind it virtually impossible. Of course, this is ridiculous. Life was formed to be suitable to the earth, not the earth being made suitable to support life.

But of course, logic doesn't seem to enter into this man's thinking, it seems, since he thinks atheism is so illogical. On the contrary, where can you find evidence of any kind that God exists?

But why bother discussing every point. He's just some lunatic who's so threatened by anyone who doesn't think exactly like him.

Here's a link to the sign.

The guy with the microphone and the mouth is lacking only one thing: A clown suit! I'm sure he also has a good story about a talking snake, a conversation with a donkey, and "no was" arc, too. Ain't the Bible wonderful?

Thanks for the link, Amy. I was correct, I see.

Poor brainwashed fool. Not brainwashed because he believes in God, but because he finds it impossible to believe in the validity of theories apart from his, even to the point of flying in the face of what is there before his eyes.

Atheism is unethical? Obviously, that can't be, when you consider the number of atheists who are productive and upright citizens. I find this particular comment to be the most offensive.

I would submit that Christianity is more unethical than atheism. Atheists who live ethically and morally do so without the threat of God sending them to hell when they die. They choose ethics of their own free will, not out of fear of the wrath of God.

I'm not saying this very well, for some reason. I must need a nap. Congratulations to anyone who made sense out of my ramblings.

I would love to see the sign in the back mentioning empirical evidence. No doubt trying to tear down the law of evolution. I've never understood the need of so many Christians to disbelieve evolution. They believe in an all-powerful being, yet don't think he'd build his creations with the ability to evolve? Seems weird to impose limits on the all-powerful.

I followed the "Ethically Bankrupt" link and was delighted to see mention of my personal favorite God, the FSM. Personally I see the contention that global warming is caused by the declining number of pirates in the world to be much more believable than the Christian notion of intelligent design. I mean there's a chart and everything ( http://www.venganza.org ).

Bad performance art never goes out of style, it seems. Where is Karen Finley and her yam, just when we need them most?

In my experience, the most blatant liars, the most ignorant of the world around them, the least logical and the most egotistical are ardent Christians.

These people need the Bible to be correct, nothing more. That is what they worship, not God, as you will swiftly discover when you ask them key questions about their Creator.

I've had my ears singed enough times not to buy into philosophical viewpoint as an attribute of religion : unless self-hypnosis and uncritical acceptance of any and all tripe foisted upon one on the altar of orthodoxy constitute philosophy these days.
Sheeple think revelation is a doctrine !
I do believe in prayer. Of course I might call it meditation, bio-feedback or another name.
These people are not ardent Christians so much as overwhelmed acolytes. You can tell disciples from prophet without a program. ( p.s. for those who get their exercise jumping to conclusions, find where Jesus is not a prophet, rabbi, teacher as part of his whole person )

Sorry re: double post. Server error/refused post showed.

As an evangelical Christian I often find myself of the awkward position of pointing out that I am not an ass.

For those of you who think I am illogical and ignorant of the world around me check out some of Hugh Ross's book (I recomend Creator and the Cosmos). They are unfortunatly a little dry with all the math and science.

The gist of the book (and others like it) is that what modern astronomy and physics tell us about the beginning of everything (The Big Bang) dovetails pretty exactly with Genesis 1 (the word used for 'day' doesn't neccesarily translate as a 24 hour period. There's plenty of room for 5 billion year or so).

I'll stop myself before I totally geek-out (numbers can do that to me) and apologize for the length of the post. In addition, I am not trying to prosletyze or convert. I just *really* hate being accused of being 'ignorant of the world around me' and illogical.

Thank you for your indulgence,
btw, Aetheists are not bad people. Homosexuals do not need to be 'cured'. Pat Robertson is a jackass. Thank you again.

It's a relief to hear an evangelical calling Pat Robertson a jackass -- which he is.

However, because you find Genesis similar to what modern astronomy and physics tell us is still not proof of god, simply a nice apparent coincidence that helps you sequester your rationality and tell yourself god exists.

Either an invisible man lives in the sky or he doesn't. Whether he exists or not has nothing to do with ethics or morals. Saying atheism is "unethical" makes no sense whatsoever.

I don't agree when people say that atheism is itself a religion. I don't believe in God, but that doesn't mean I'm DETERMINED NOT TO believe in God. There is just no credible evidence to support it, and I won't accept belief in God as a default just because "everyone else" does. Saying you don't believe something doesn't mean you REFUSE to believe it.

the word used for 'day' doesn't neccesarily translate as a 24 hour period. There's plenty of room for 5 billion year or so

LXV (65?) -

I don't think this interpretation of 'day' is any older than about 200 years, ie from the beginning of geology as a science. Until then, I bet a day was a day. But that won't wash any more. If a day is 5 billion years why do people go to church more than once every 35 billion years? How come the evening and morning are mentioned in Genesis and 'day' is associated with the sun and night with the moon?

Seems to me that all you are doing is retrofitting science onto Genesis in the hope of salvaging some credibility. The Muslims do it with the Koran, and no doubt other religions do it too. Do you really think it makes your religion or book seem more believable?

Norman : Don't forget that evaluation of the Bible yields different results depending on how wild one is ready to get and bias in "study" materials.
When I was growing up, my church (Episcopalian) taught the Old Testament for background understanding of the New - as those were the roots of it. I've been at a disadvantage not having studied theology and fumbling around in fits and starts. That said, a technique borrowed from elsewhere radically changed my intuitive biases as to what is subjectively "real" : constant prayer.
Not being willing to "defend" theological turf led me to try and boil down common beliefs into irreducible minimums - what is necessary to sanity.
That seemed to mean an expectation - not always realized - of a seeming predictability to reality.
If you remember the disclaimers about scientific theory and are aware of how they have changed, living with uncertainty is only the human condition. How we cope with that - rationalization - defines our ability to adapt to the fact that we don't and won't understand our world. Working past that to accepting it can be tried sorely by circumstances past our control and unacceptable as a condition of life. That is why the old joke about no atheists in the trenches : whatever you need to do to cope must be done. Failure is not an option.
Religion is just the spin people put on this to capture the minds of the distressed. I think of it as software : not everyone loves Microsoft !

Your point about bible study is valid. I read a book - can't remember what, could have been "Evidence that demands a verdict" or something - and the one detail I can remember is a discussion about the significance of "forty" in things like "forty days and forty nights". Needless to say it doesn't just mean decimal 40. It has other, quite alien, resonances that no-one but a long-term student of the subject would appreciate. There was so much of this kind of thing that I realised that reading the bible was a waste of time. The words are intelligible, at least in local areas, but there could be whole worlds going by without my noticing. The past is a foreign country, and the bible is from a very long time ago.

This completely counters my previous post where I argued that a day is a day. The point about retrofitting stands - it's retrofitting to a naive interpretation of the bible, though.

I haven't been able to see what you're getting at in your post. Predictability is a key: agreed. It's also a key in science. People mistakenly talk about repeatability of scientific experiments. You can't repeat anything in this world. But you can predict, and that's what all scientific theories do. Some do it better than others; we keep the better ones.

I don't know what this has to do with atheists in foxholes. People do all sorts of things in fear of death; they also do all sorts of things when drunk, when happy, etc. So? And are you saying Microsoft is like organised religion? Say, the RC Church? Hmm.

Of course Microsoft is like an organized religion. Millions of people pray that their product works; they actually credit computers for allowing tasks specifically because Microsoft was involved; they mistake their efforts to learn the arcane rituals of computer use as "achievement"...

...and they know there are alternatives out there, but they place great value in "popularity", measured in market share.

Norman - the word 'yom' is the word used in Genesis that is translated as 'day.' The meaning of 'Yom' might more accurately be 'distinct period of time.' Depending on its modifiers it can mean a day, a shift, a week,etc. 'Yom' in Genesis 1 lacks any modifiers. This usually means a 24hr day but not always. There are other words that mean 24hr day.

A interesting little note. If one were standing where the earth would be, watching existance unfold around them, Genesis 1 is a good description. (First there would be light, the space dust coalesces into a planet, liquid water appears and oceans form, green plants appear, the dust in the atmosphere clears and the sun, stars and moon become visible, animals begin to appear, and finally man.)

No, it doesn't prove there is a god (although his existence does become a statistical likelihood.) And no, the Bible is not a scientific book. But I don't see it as retro-fitting anything. Science departed from religion ages ago. It has come up with numbers that make it very hard to believe that the universe could exist on its own. (If anyone is interested I'll be happy to go into these numbers, if not I won't make presumptions on your time and tolerance).
It is interesting to note, that with the exception of the Judeo-Christian tradition (and its offshoot Islam), most 'how the universe began' stories involve a pre-existing world inhabited by gods and goddesses.

Ultimately aetheism is a religion with its own worldview (although it is defined by what it lacks as opposed to what it has.) It takes an amount of faith to *not* believe in God as well. And an amount of strength as well. I imagine that as soon as you mention you're an aetheist lots of people try to point out the 'error of your ways.'

Believe whatever you want (or disbelieve it for that matter) with whatever evidence you want. Ultimately all evidence and facts are seen through our worldview. This worldview, any worldview, can alter facts. (One of Einstein's formulas shows that the universe is expanding, when he realized this - he 'fudged' it so the universe then seemed to be static - the formula then fit in with his worldview. He later fixed this and called it the 'greates mistake' he'd ever made.) I'm sure y'all already have plenty of examples of the religous distorting fact to their worldview.

As I stated in my previous post, I'm not trying to convert anyone here. Truthfully I wouldn't even post except that this community seems open-minded and amicable. I enjoy discussions with people who are thoughtful about their positions. Really, I just hope I'm undoing some of the damage done by Pat Robertson, Falwell, and whomever's under that ape mask.

(To answer your question Norman, you're right about the Roman Numerals, but LXV is just my initials) I hope this post makes sene, I'm writing with about three hours of sleep. Again, thank you for your indulgence.