Comment threads for NWACoR Sign

Post Reply
User avatar
Dardedar
Site Admin
Posts: 8191
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Location: Fayetteville
Contact:

Comment threads for NWACoR Sign

Post by Dardedar »

I have posted quite a bit in the news comment threads regarding this sign and keep copies. Perhaps others have too. Post it in this thread if you like. Some of this material may be of interest to others.

*********
Brandon, you make a lot of broad charges but very little makes any sense. Most of it shows you are invested in caricatures and stereotypes of a group of people you don't understand.

The secular movements are growing exponentially and this is happening just fine without recruitment. Not to suggest that there would be any thing wrong with recruitment any way. Those who answer "none" for religious belief in the US has doubled in the last 15 years. While it is about 16% of the population overall, of the youth it is over 30% to 40%. That's what the future holds. This happened in Europe decades ago.

You can be good without God.

The placement of the sign had nothing to do with United Core. A general area of the bypass was asked for, that's it. I think the two signs together show how believers and non-believers can co-exist quite nicely together. There is room for both in America. Especially if folks like Brandon can calm down and actually converse with those who think differently.

We have a church on every corner and they advertise
regularly. The idea that it would be improper for non-believers to pay for one sign to let people know about us, is a little silly when you think about it.

D.

***

Brandon, put "religion america decline" in google (no quotes). Then do a little reading and get up to speed.

BRAN: "You guys think you are growing but you really aren't.">>

DAR
Well, when the Fayetteville Freethinkers started 12 years ago, we had three people, now we have almost 350. I think that's "growing."

Note also from this Newsweek article:

"...the percentage of people who say they are unaffiliated with any particular faith has doubled in recent years, to 16 percent; in terms of voting, this group grew from 5 percent in 1988 to 12 percent in 2008—roughly the same percentage of the electorate as African-Americans... Meanwhile, the number of people willing to describe themselves as atheist or agnostic has increased about fourfold from 1990 to 2009, from 1 million to about 3.6 million. (That is about double the number of, say, Episcopalians in the United States.)"

http://www.newsweek.com/id/192583

That looks like growing too.

BRAN: "Although with the rise of immorality in America.">>

DAR
One persons immorality is another persons... something else.

If you had attended our September Freethinker meeting you would have learned that religiosity correlates very strongly with societal dysfunction. That is, societies (or even states) with LESS religion are much better at solving their social (read moral) problems. The exact opposite of what you would like to believe. Yet there it is.

I can post the link to the 44 summary of the study or perhaps you would prefer this short and excellent summary our local Art Hobson published in the local paper. You can read this here:

http://physics.uark.edu/hobson/NWAT/09.08.29.html

"Religion in the United States and other nations"

Highly recommended.

D.

***

BRAN: "pretty much every science teacher I have ever had attended my church or believed in God.">>

DAR
Maybe we need to send you to a fancier school. Observe:

***
"Leading Scientists Reject God Belief
The July 1998 "Nature" reports its new survey this year finding that 93% of what it categorizes as "great" scientists do not believe in a god.
The 1998 study follows up on the landmark 1914 survey by U.S. psychologist James H. Leuba, who found that 58% of 1,000 randomly selected U.S. scientists expressed disbelief or doubt in the existence of a god, and that this figure rose to nearly 70% among the 400 "greater" scientists within his sample. When Leuba repeated his survey some twenty years later, he found that these percentages had increased to 67% and 85%, respectively.
Nature replicated Leuba's initial 1914 study in 1996, reporting little change, with 60.7% of American scientists generally expressing disbelief or doubt. This year, it replicated the second prong of Leuba's study, studying "greater" scientists (criterion: membership in the National Academy of Sciences). Its survey found "near universal rejection of the transcendent by NAS natural scientists. . . We found the highest percentage of belief among NAS mathematicians (14.3% in God, 15.0% in immortality). Biological scientists had the lowest rate of belief (5.5% in God, 7.1% in immortality)."
Specifically Nature found only 7% of greater" scientists expressed belief in a personal god, compared to 27.7% in 1914 and 15% in 1933, while 72.2% expressed a "personal disbelief" and 20.8% a "doubt or agnosticism." Similar numbers disbelieved in immortality."
--Science News

Couldn't find the original link, this is close:

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/sci_relig.htm

Overwhelmingly the world's leading scientists, those who best understand how the world works, don't believe in a god. This doesn't make their belief right, but it is interesting.

D.

***

BRAN: "What if I am right??">>

DAR
This is known as Pascal's Wager. It's a very old idea, and... it doesn't work. It pops up often enough that we thought we would write a little tract explains why it doesn't work (as even most christian philosophers will admit). You might read it. It's quite short:

http://fayfreethinkers.com/tracts/pascalswager.shtml

D.

***

BRAN:
"You will take those too??>>

DAR
Yes.

BRAN: "What if they believe in God??>>

DAR
They're welcome. Freethinking is not incompatible with belief in God. Freethinking is not a belief but rather a method of arriving at those beliefs.

BRAN: Deists believe in a God too">>

DAR
Deists are pretty few and far between. Deists don't believe in a personal, living God. That's why they are not, theists. Hint: see the definition of atheist given above.

BRAN: "agnostics are people who say that no one can be sure if there is a God or not.">>

DAR
Agnostics do not affirm a belief in God, and thus are really a form of non-believers. There are lots and lots and lots of them in our various groups involved with this sign.

BRAN: Freethinkers(like you) already think there is no God">>

DAR
Sorry, you're wrong. Freethinking is much more inclusive than you think. When I co-founded the Fayetteville Freethinkers, I was agnostic.

BRAN: and that this short, often miserable life is it.">>

DAR
I am sorry you have come to believe that this life is miserable. That's a rather unfortunate belief to hold. I think it is the most precious thing in the world.

BRAN: "I can post a million sites showing evidence of God">>

DAR
If you think you have a good argument for the existence of God we would positively love to see it. Please post it on our freethinker forum here:

index.php

And we will promptly see how it holds up to some skeptical scrutiny. Don't get your hopes up.

BRAN: "Of course you are a well educated person and I am just some dumb hick like all christians">>

DAR
It would be nice if you would stop making things up and attributing them to others. That's not nice, or honest.

I have a high school education, btw. My parents belonged to a religious group that did not allow their children to attend college. For obvious reasons.

D.
---------------
“Many religious beliefs decline as education level rises.” --George Gallup

***

David: "...actually laura hitler was athiest">>

DAR
No, sorry, Hitler was a life long God fearing Catholic, never excommunicated. His SS were required to swear an oath to God and every Nazi had a "God mit Uns" (God with Us) belt buckle. He hated and hunted down atheists.

I have studied this issue for years and can bury you in comprehensive scholarly material on this. It's not a close call. You could also just read his book.

It's a shame that this even gets brought up btw. Brandon, not having any good reasons for his beliefs tries to smear non-believers with his "guilt by association" and communist nonsense. I am NOT indicting Christians because Hitler was some variation of crazy Christian. I am only interested in knowing the truth of the matter. And the truth is, the idea that Hitler was an atheist is a baseless myth and quite contrary to the established record.

D.
----------------------
""Adolf Hitler was raised a Catholic, was never excommunicated by the Catholic Church and signed concordats with the Vatican, as Pulitzer-prize winning biographer John Toland and others have documented. Hitler's religious conviction underpinned his obsession to exterminate those whom he believed "disobeyed the First Commandment." Devout Catholic John Cornwell has chronicled the failure of Pope Pius XII to speak out against Hitler's "Final Solution" in Hitler's Pope.
Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf: "Therefore, I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator. By fighting off the Jews, I am doing the Lord's work." His book is filled with scriptural references. Hitler also targeted the "godless," as an Associated Press story of Feb. 23, 1933, noted: "A campaign against the 'godless movement' and an appeal for Catholic support were launched by Chancellor Adolf Hitler's forces." Hitler opposed "secular schools," he criminalized abortion, and his soldiers wore belt buckles saying "Gott mit uns" ("God with us"). Far from "faithless," Hitler committed his atrocities in the name of his faith.”

***

D. Moody:
"were do you get that it was primarily Protestants who did this?">>

DAR

***
Dr. Franklin Littell of Baylor University speaking at US Holocaust Memorial Museum, on 12/8/93 had this to say:
"[The truth is that] six million Jews were targeted and
systematically murdered in the heart of Christendom, by baptized Roman Catholics, Protestants, and Eastern Orthodox who were never rebuked, let alone excommunicated."

Friedrich Heer, Roman Catholic professor of history at Vienna University admits:
"In the cold facts of German history, the Cross and the swastika came ever closer together, until the swastika proclaimed the message of victory from the towers of German cathedrals, swastika flags appeared round altars and Catholic and Protestant theologians, pastors, churchmen and statesmen welcomed the alliance with Hitler." (Ibid. pg., 13)

Again Professor Heer:
"Of about thirty-two Million German Catholics--fifteen and a
half million of whom were men--only seven [individuals] openly refused military service. Six of these were Austrians."

"More recent evidence indicates that a few other Catholics, as well as some Protestants, stood up against the Nazi State because of religious convictions. Some even paid with their lives, while at the same time their spiritual leaders were selling out the Third Reich."
Paul Johnson's "History of Christianity" says: "Of 17,000
Evangelical pastors, there were never more than fifty serving long term [for not supporting the Nazi regime] at any one time." (Ibid.)

'It may be truthfully recalled that Christian churches, throughout the ages, have always consented to bless war, troops, and arms and that they prayed in a very unchristian for the annihilation of their enemy.' --Martin Neimoeller, a Protestant church leader who did go to a Nazi concentration camp.

"Susannah Heschel, a professor of Judaic studies, uncovered church documents proving that the Lutheran clergy were willing, yes anxious, to support Hitler. She said they begged for the privilege of displaying the swastika in their churches. The overwhelming majority of clergymen were not coerced collaborators, her research showed, but were enthusiastic supporters of Hitler and his Aryan ideals." (Ibid. pg. 14)

etc.

***

BRAN: "Jesus was not an ordinary man.">>

DAR
There is no evidence Jesus wrote anything or told any one to write anything. There is no evidence anyone wrote anything about him during his lifetime. The only NT books with verified authorship are Paul's and he never met Jesus, except in a dream, and dreams don't count. The gospels are anonymous, the names were attached decades and a century later for convenience, the authors don't even claim to be eye-witnesses.

This is all standard, even Christian Bible scholarship available to anyone with a library card.

Everything you think you know about Jesus is based upon faith. People with good evidence for their claims don't appeal to faith. This is why we don't have scientists gathering on Sundays to support a faith in gravity by singing:

"What goes up up up, must come down down down."

Jesus may have existed, and probably did. He may have been an extraordinary man. But much of a case for anything beyond that.

D.

***

BRAN: "most of Darrell's links have been atheist sites.">>

DAR
Sorry, that's nonsense. Is Newsweek "atheist?"

Actually, I don't think I even have any "atheist sites" in the probably hundred or so links in my book mark.

Oh, and dismissing something because of it's source, is the genetic fallacy. Truth is independent of it's source.

Best to avoid fallacies when making your points. Attack the actual argument, not it's source.

D.

***

Here is a evangelical Christian source for Brandon:

----
How Many have a 'Biblical Worldview'?

A new research study from the Barna Research Group indicates a lack of "biblical worldview" among Americans.

For the study, a "biblical worldview" was defined as believing that absolute moral truths exist and that such truth is defined by the Bible. This worldview also includes firm belief in six specific religious views: that Jesus Christ lived a sinless life; God is the all-powerful and all-knowing Creator of the universe and He stills rules it today; salvation is a gift from God and cannot be earned; Satan is real; a Christian has a responsibility to share their faith in Christ with other people; and the Bible is accurate in all of its teachings.

The research indicated that only 9% of all American adults have a biblical worldview as defined above.

Take note that "less than one-half of one percent of adults in the Mosaic generation - i.e., those aged 18 to 23 - have a biblical worldview, compared to about one out of every nine older adults."

http://www.edstetzer.com/2009/03/barna- ... lical.html
----

DAR
If Brandon has any problem because of some source I have used, let him point it out specifically (he hasn't) and I will gladly find him another standard reference.

I don't make claims that I can't back up.

D.

***

BRAN: "the others like the article about christians giving less to charites were from atheist sites.">>

DAR
Wrong. I didn't provide a link or a site for that article (and it doesn't say Christians give less to charities anyway).

It was from a Humanist magazine.

And how is "who gives what to charity" relevant to anything anyway? It isn't. You are just trying to be insulting. Perhaps spend a little less energy on the insulting endeavor.

***

DAR
Right, Christians don't know anything about targeting young people.

Here is another Christian approved site for Brandon:

***
A study by Barna Research, announced on 1999-NOV-12, shows that most conservative Christians are "saved" in childhood. A person who is unsaved at the age of 14 only has a 10% chance of being "saved" later in life. The
survey also showed that about 40% of all Americans consider themselves as having been saved during their lifetime. This number agrees with previous surveys. Age range % saved within that age range

5 to 13 years 32%
14 to 18 years 4%
over 19 years 6%

--"Teens and adults have little chance of accepting Christ as their savior," Barna Research press release, 1999-NOV-15. This release is no longer available online. However, it was publised in the 1999-OCT issue of Barna Reports, which can be ordered at: http://www.barna.org/cgi-bin/PageProduc ... oductID=66

***

David, the co-founder of our freethinker group, Doug Krueger had an extensive debate on this Christian/Hitler issue. It was regarding a review of a Ravi Zacharias book. The link is here:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... copin.html

The bit about Hitler and his Christianity starts a page or two down, at the second sub-heading.

Has a nice picture of the Nazi belt buckles too.

D.

***

BRAN: 'Have any of you atheists thought about after this life??>>

DAR
Yes. Regarding an afterlife, I vote yes. Let's have one. I'm for it. But the question isn't decided by vote, so we will have to look at the evidence.

The first step in becoming a rationalist, humanist, freethinker, whatever, is getting rid of this rather religious notion that wanting to believe something is a good REASON for believing something.

It isn't.

That's wishful thinking.

So if we want to have the best answer to: "Is there an afterlife" we want to look at the best evidence and examine it honestly, and try to set aside what we WISH to be true.

That's hard to do. Especially on this question.

BRAN: Wouldn't you like us to be right??>>

DAR
Yes, but wishing something doesn't make it so. If froggies had wings they wouldn't bump their bums so hard when they jump down the road. But the evidence shows, froggies don't have wings.

And the evidence leans strongly toward there not being an existence after life. See:

"The Case Against Immortality"

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... ality.html

Originally published in Skeptic Magazine, which is not "atheist." So you're safe.

D.
--------------------
ps. Incidentally, the idea of an afterlife was added into the Bible much later. Notice that no one in the entire Old Testament dies and goes to heaven. That was a later invention Christians borrowed from their neighbors.

***

BRAN: "Muslims believe in our God,">>

DAR
Actually they don't. You worship Jesus and consider him God, they don't worship him and consider him a prophet. One of many.

BRAN: "Jews believe in our God.">>

DAR
Actually, they've gotten into a lot of trouble specifically for not believing in your God. You need to read some books.

BRAN: Our religion has been the fastest growing ever.">>

DAR
And now it may be the fastest shrinking. See below.

I trust you will find the source to you liking.

D.
----------------------
"The meteoric rise of secular quasi-religions
Equally startling has been the meteoric growth of secularism in its religious forms. Two immense quasi-religious systems have emerged at the expense of the world religions: agnosticism (also termed secularism, materialism, non-religion, etc.) and atheism (also termed anti-religion or irreligion).... From a miniscule presence in 1900, a mere 0.2% of the globe, these systems have mushroomed to 20.8% of the globe by 1980. They are today increasing at the extraordinary rate of 8.5 million new converts each year, and are likely to reach one billion adherents by the year 1984. A large percentage of their members are the children, grandchildren or great-grandchildren of persons who in their lifetimes were practising Christians. No Christian strategist in 1900 had envisaged such a massive rate of defection from Christianity within its 19th-century heartlands."
[...]
In 1900, Christians numbered 34.4% of the world (37.8%, if adults only are counted; see Global Table 22). This percentage has fallen gradually over the decades until Christians in 1980 numbered 32.8% of the world (34.4% of the world's adults). Likewise, practising Christians have fallen from 29.0% of the world's population in 1900 to 23.3% today." --pg. 7
--*World Christian Encyclopedia,* Ed., David B. Barlett, 1982, Oxford University Press. Under "Christianity in the Global Religious Context," page 5.

***

BRAN: "The big bang theory was also started by a catholic priest.">>

DAR
Never heard that one before. I think you may be confused with how coined the name for it. Regardless, what matters is do we have good reason to believe the Big Bang theory?

And the answer is yes.

Here a few lines of evidence for the Big Bang:

a) Large-scale homogeneity
b) Hubble Diagram
c) Abundances of light elements
d) Existence of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation
e) Fluctuations in the CMBR
f) Large-scale structure of the universe
g) Age of stars
h) Evolution of galaxies
i) Time dilation in supernova brightness curves
j) Tolman tests
k) Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect
l) Integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect
m) Dark Matter
n) Dark Energy

Some of these were predicted decades ago by BB theory and have since been confirmed.

Each one of the above is carefully explained, in laymen's terms here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html

What've you got? Genesis 1:1?

D.

***

BRAN: "Georges Lemaître">>

DAR
Excellent! You used evidence and supported your claim. You are well on your way. And you taught me something new tonight.

Not sure it matters that he was a catholic. Lot's of catholic priests are atheists.

Catholics actually have some of the best science education in the lower grades. And they teach evolution of course.

Right now the Big Bang theory has the best evidence. They're isn't any other in the running as far as I know.

D.
------------------
"Just after a Church of England diocese fired the Rev. Anthony Freeman of West Sussex in July because he had admitted in a recent book that he does not believe in God, 65 of Freeman's colleagues signed a letter protesting their superiors' 'intolerance.' "

-there are at least 100 Church of England priests who do not
believe in a supernatural God.

-some of them are members of something called the "Sea of Faith" network, which has 600 members including 30 active and 20 retired Anglican priests and 30 nonconformist ministers. Their statement of intent is "to explore and promote religious faith as a human creation." This movement also includes some Catholics.

-Freeman wrote a book called "God in Us," in which he said that, "there is nothing out there -- or if there is, we can have no knowledge of it." He defines "God" as the sum of the finest human values, such as love, justice, joy and peace. Prayer is not about talking to an invisible supernatural being. "It is about stillness and recollection, and aligning one's will and one's actions with one's highest values." In a BBC interview, he said, "A substantial number share my views." He added: "A lot of priests would like to be able to say things that they're a bit afraid of -- and what's happened to me is not going to encourage them."

-200 people, including 22 current priests, wrote to the Archbishop of Canterbury to protest Freeman's firing.

One signer, Rev. Graham Shaw, rector in Kent, southern England, said his congregation had trebled in seven years to more than 300 although he had published his disbelief in an objective God." --Eileen McCarthy

***

ROD: "That's when atheists take over NWA and Brandon's world comes to and end.">>

DAR
And it all started... with a billboard.

BRAN: "examples of so called "atheist morality:" Larry Flynt and Howard Stern.">>

DAR
The word "atheist" carries no information about "morality." It only, ONLY, informs you of one thing.

One thing.

That the person is not, a, theist.

That's it. Nothing more.

Anything else is made up. Don't do that.

Larry Flynt accepted Jesus and became born again. A while later he changed his mind and became an atheist. Before all of that he founded a nudie magazine and later a nudie empire. Oh my. Don't like it? Don't buy his stuff.

He also took a free speech issue all the way to the supreme court and kicked the stuffing out of Jerry Falwell's ample behind. For that he deserves praise.

I used to think Stern's show was all T & A. But that was before I actually watched it or listened to it. Then I got Sirus.

Stern is a family man, probably an agnostic, really smart and his show is mainly based on unvarnished honesty with an emphasis on non-censorship. Try again.

If I were to make a list of leading Christians with moral/ethical problems (and I wouldn't, what's the point), it would actually hold up to scrutiny. Yours does not.

And avoid the guilt by association fallacy. It doesn't get you anything.

D.

***

KFSM posts:

http://www.topix.com/forum/state/ar/T3R ... K#comments

***
[The fool saith... no atheists in foxholes]

DAR
"The fool saith in his heart, 'There is no god,' the wise man saith it out loud." --Ps. 14:1 RSV (Revised Secular Version)

The "no atheists in foxhole" saying is a canard. There are lots atheists and freethinkers in the military and they don't change their mind about this because they are engaged in battle.

Check out:

Military Association of Atheists & Freethinkers

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_A ... eethinkers

See also the "Atheists In Foxholes Monument":

http://www.ffrf.org/outreach/atheists-in-foxholes/

D.

***

Mika: "We are not allowed to say Merry Christmas at the places where we work.">>

DAR
Not exactly. Usually you are not allowed to use your position as an employee (especially gov. jobs) to promote a specific religion. "Merry Xmas" does that, Happy holidays does not.

Mika: "We are not allowed to make any religious references.">>

DAR
This comes up if/when you are using your position to proselytize. With private industry it causes trouble and is just not good for business. Religion is divisive. If you work for government, it's not a proper role for the state to endorse religious positions.

Mika: They are attempting to take "Under God" out of the pledge...>>

DAR
Good. Government should be neutral regarding religious claims. Religion is none of the governments business. The "Under God" reference was a late addition, the founders never heard the phrase and not by accident choice a secular and inclusive motto. Note:

"The words, "under God," did not appear in the Pledge of Allegiance until 1954, when Congress, under McCarthyism, inserted them. Likewise, "In God We Trust" was absent from paper currency before 1956. It appeared on some coins earlier, as did other sundry phrases, such as "Mind Your Business." The original U.S. motto, chosen by John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson, is E Pluribus Unum ("Of Many, One"), celebrating plurality, not theocracy."

http://ffrf.org/publications/nontracts/ ... an-Nation/

Mika: should I cite more?>>

DAR
Please.

D.

***

mika wrote:
...those without any religious beliefs are the first to attack those who do.

DAR
I thought you were going to show how you have been attacked? People paying to put up an ad, with one question and a two word answer, is an attack? That's a little touchy don't you think? And it's a question probably 90% of the population agrees with (we'll be taking a poll soon).

MIKA: Why must you attack those of us that wish to believe in something other than the bleak world we live in?>>

DAR
I am sorry your world view leads you to think our world is "bleak." My world view leads me to believe this is the most precious world we know. One view is negative and degrading, the other one affirmative and reality based.

MIKA: "...the statement "Merry Christmas" is no longer used because it interferes with sales.">>

DAR
So? Private companies will conduct themselves as they wish while they work to maximize sales. It's what they do. Do you want government to step in and make them do something different? If you want to have a business devoted to promoting religion, start a church.

MIKA: "...why is it any different for those of us who are believers to be told "shut up" or "hush" when we try to explain our position?">>

DAR
Explain away. It's just probably best not to use your employee position, or government position, to proselytize your religion. Unless your employer doesn't mind losing sales as our society rapidly grows more secular.

D.

***
The bible that you not not believe in said these things would happen before HE comes again
DAR
The Bible says a lot of things. It is also clear that the NT writers expected the "end" in their generation. That was nearly 2,000 years ago and they were wrong. As one famous Christian writer put it:

”The apocalyptic beliefs of the first Christians have been proved to be false. It is clear from the New Testament that they all expected the Second Coming in their own lifetime. And, worse still, they had a reason, and one which you will find very embarrassing. Their Master had told them so. He shared, and indeed created, their delusion. He said in so many words, 'this generation shall not pass till all these things be done.' And he was wrong. He clearly knew no more about the end of the world than anyone else. This is certainly the most embarrassing verse in the Bible.” --C.S. Lewis, "The World's Last Night" (1960)
are you real sure you dont think about that?
DAR
Having written a book about the doctrine of biblical inerrancy, I have thought about the Bible quite a bit. Probably a bit more than you.
i will prayer for you to see the light
DAR
I appreciate the sentiment if not the efficacy of your action.
beware, the lake of fire burns hotter each day
DAR
No modern sophisticated Christians believe in a burning hell. The Bible clearly states what happens to the dead. Paul came up with some other ideas later on, perhaps a sales gimmick. I see no reason to think God changed his mind about life after death. In His Hebrew Scriptures, he said there isn't one.

D.
-------------
"For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten. Also their love, and their hatred, and their envy, is now perished; neither have they any more a portion for ever in any thing that is done under the sun... Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might; for there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave, whither thou goest." Ecclesiastes 9:5, 6, 10.

"For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity. All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again." Ecclesiastes 3:19-20

That's what the Bible says and I think it is exactly right. Now who believes the Bible?

***
why do people jump up and attack billboards, ideals, phrases etc. that refer to ANY religion,..."
DAR
Still waiting for an example of that. Here in NWA we have church on every corner and just about as many advertisements for them. The newspaper gives them a free section doesn't it? I've never complained out this or heard someone attack this, but perhaps they have. I think you'll get over it if they do!

I send money to the ACLU regularly to make sure your right to practice your religion freely is protected and NOT suppressed. But if you work for the government, you can't use your position as an agent of the state, to endorse religion. That's not allowed. And if you work for a private employer, and represent them, they may require that you don't use your position as an agent of them, an employee, to proselytize your religion. Other than that, you're good to go.

D.

***
the word tolerate isnt in the bible in any positive word,...
DAR
Here are a few other words that aren't in the Bible. Let's show this by a quick Bible knowledge test. Which ONE of the following words appears in the Bible? (KJV)

quality
morality
moral
educate
education
fryingpan
culture
research
explore
logic
idea
history

---
The answer (one of the above) will be posted later tonight.

***
"God so loved the world..." (John 3:16)
DAR
Over a hundred years ago, Robert Ingersoll had a different way of putting that verse:

"God so loved the world that he made up his mind to damn a large majority of the human race." [Robert G. Ingersoll]

Doesn't sound so nice when you realize the real implications of a literal interpretation of such a belief system. The literal interpretations are dying out.

***
the Bible contains multiple versions of the Ten Commandments, no two of which are alike.
DAR
You would need four billboards. There is the Protestant version, the Catholic version and Jewish versions and then the real list of ten that none of them like to use.

Very, very few Christians know this.

This is all carefully explained in our nice and short freethinker non-tract here:

http://fayfreethinkers.com/tracts/tencommandments.shtml

D.

***

DAR
You ask several questions, I'll be glad to try and answer them.
Why do atheists need churches.. er, "groups" anyway?
DAR
As they say, "Birds of a feather, flock together."
Do you get together to remind each other what you don't believe in, or why you don't believe it?
DAR
No, everyone remembers that pretty well. But it is fun to talk about such things. People like to talk about why they believe or don't believe in things. People with this rather unique lack of belief in this society often share many similar attributes such as an interest in science, philosophy, history, skepticism, human origins and development, etc. Many have also had unfortunate run ins with religions excesses and shortcomings.
Would the followers of Ronnie Floyd have had a problem if it promoted some Buddhist temple or Muslim mosque?
DAR
Probably if it was for Muslims.
would be funny is if there were an Atheist "Free Thinkers Scholarship Fund".
DAR
Atheism is not synonymous with Freethinker. Being a freethinker does not require being a non-theist. Being an atheist does (the "a" comes from the Greek and simply means "not"). There have been several Freethinker, Humanist and Atheist Scholarships. You can see several of them here:

http://www.collegescholarships.org/scho ... theist.htm

It's not clear why this would be funny. Since having more education is associated with being less religious, they go together quite nicely.

D.
------------------
“Many religious beliefs decline as education level rises.” --George Gallup

***
atheists... what are they worried about in these last days anyway???
DAR
Certainly not that it is "the last days."

When you say the end is near for almost 2,000 years, you don't get to be taken seriously on that one any more.

D.
--------------
"Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here,
which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of
man coming in his kingdom." Matt. 16:28

"But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing
here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the
kingdom of God." Luke 9:27

"But this I say, brethren, the time is short: it
remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though
they had none;..." 1 Cor. 7:29

"Let your moderation be known unto all men. The
Lord is at hand." Phil. 4:5

"For yet a little while, and he that shall come will
come, and will not tarry." Heb. 10:37

"Be patient therefore, brethren, unto the coming of
the Lord... stablish your hearts: for the coming of the
Lord draweth nigh...behold, the judge standeth
before the door." James 5:7-9

"But the end of all things is at hand: be ye
therefore sober, and watch unto prayer." 1 Peter 4:7

Lots more where those came from.

***
How does an Atheist "group" (church) raise enough money for billboards?
DAR
Someone donates it.
There is no reason to feel guilty about not giving 10% of your paycheck to pay for the preachers Mercedes?
DAR
Since we don't have a "preacher" (or a church) we don't have anyone that needs a Mercedes.
What is the point in a group of people getting together to not believe in anything?
DAR
A common mistake. Atheists believe in lots of things. They just believe in ONE less thing than you do. They lack a belief in God.
Also, you may consider that you are an "atheist" with regard to most God claims. There are thousands of supposed Gods that have been referred to over the years. The raw material required to make a new one being readily available (and cheap). I have a book with at least 1,500 of them listed, and it's abridged (Yahweh is in there under Canaanite storm gods). You dismiss all of these gods except for one. An atheist is just a little more consistent and dismisses that last one for the same reason you dismiss all the rest. So we are mostly in agreement.
In areas that are much more secular like Western Europe, Japan or Canada there is very little grouping together of non-believers. Someday, when the US becomes more secular (as is happening quickly) there won't be much interest in such groups here either. Then we can focus on more important things. If the Christians in the US were largely Unitarians and Episcopalians, Freethinkers would have nothing to do. But when you have about 1/3 of the population believing the earth is less than 10,000 years old and that Adam and Eve road a dinosaur to church, it becomes a bit of a problem in a society that is supposed to be advanced.

D.
-----------------
"An atheist doesn't have to be someone who thinks he has a proof that there can't be a god. He only has to be someone who believes that the evidence on the God question is at a similar level to the evidence on the werewolf question." (John McCarthy)

***

BigDaddy seems to be under the mistaken impression that freethinkers and atheists aren't familiar with the Bible or are afraid to read it. To the contrary, if he were to check the Fayetteville Freethinker list of things we do:

http://fayfreethinkers.com/aboutus.shtml

He would see that #2 on the list is:

"Promote up-to-date, scholarly, information about the Bible."

We have conducted several (large) public Bible studies at the University and have even distributed free Bibles at these events. Many of our tracts and handouts are specifically about the Bible. The two founders of the group have both published books, one on the doctrine of biblical inerrancy (it's all about the Bible) the other regarding atheism (has a whole lot about the Bible).

We are very much for educating people, and telling the truth, about the Bible.

D.

***
RESPONSE to email and facebook comments from Dallas, minister in Pea Ridge:

Hello Dallas. I have a little time so I'll respond directly to some of your points. Comments are labeled with name TAGS.

***
DAL:
"What is Truth? Not what is a version of the truth, not what is your truth and what is my truth, but what is the TRUTH.>>

DAR
That is my interest too. I'm open to believing anything that can be shown to be true. History shows that if you want a good reason to believe something is true, you use good evidence, not appeals to faith.


DAL: "...how do we determine what is right and wrong.">>

DAR
Christians often claim to have to have "moral absolutes" or else everything is relative and we can't judge good from bad. If you have a "moral absolute" I would like to see an example of one. By "moral" I mean a rule regarding how humans should treat each other, and by "absolute" I mean, no exceptions.


DAL: "...make sure that you are viewing the so called "problems" with the bible in the proper context."

DAR
I've considered the context of all of the examples of Bible contradictions and errors I use. I also read the standard apologetics for each one.

DAL: "Some would say that there is a problem with the history of the kings of the bible, they say the order and timeline are wrong and not consist ant, problem is that there were two different ways to record the timelines of the kings.">>

DAR
The problem is that these two different timelines cannot be reconciled.

DAL: If you would like more information, I would love to give you the specifics.>>

DAR
I have a detailed chart of these timelines put together by an inerrantist. Even he accepts that there are synchronisms that CANNOT be reconciled. I didn't even bother to include this error in my book.


DAL: "Carl Sagen said: "the cosmos is all there ever was, is or ever will be. Simply in his statement he is saying that there is no God.">>

DAR
Sagan was an agnostic. Don't read too much into his poetic statements.


DAL: "He also goes on to say that we are made of "STAR STUFF". We are a way for the cosmos to know it's self." What he is saying is that we are all products of the "BOX">>

DAR
All of the molecules in the earth and our bodies were forged in stars, as Sagan notes. That is all he is saying.


DAL: If there is no God, nothing beyond the cosmos, no transcendent God participating in our lives, then we have to be made of star stuff because that's all there ever is.">>

DAR
We know we are made of "star stuff" because of very good evidence provided by our understanding of astrophysics.


DAL: "...if there is no God, then their are some questions to be answered: what is the meaning of life,">>

DAR
This question doesn't change because of there being a God, or not a God. Also, moral questions don't change because a God exists, or not. We will still work to figure out what is right and wrong and try to find meaning in life. Postulating a God doesn't solve these problems, it just pushes them off on an unknowable, unverifiable God. It may be the case that there is no overall meaning to life, other than what we create for ourselves. Meaning and morals don't follow from divine fiat (which no one can even agree on).


DAL: "if everything is part of the natural process of life, then what is evil and where did it come from?">>

DAR
Evil is something humans attribute to actions and behavior they judge to be bad. That's it.

DAL: "Why do i exists, and if i do exists, then why do i exists.">>

DAR
You'll have to figure that out on your own.

DAL: "...what is the meaning and purpose of life.">>

DAR
Again, you can figure that out on your own. Or not. If you choose to appeal to a book, supposedly inspired by a God, you are still, in the end, making the decision yourself.

DAL: "How did we get here, not just we as humans, but the universe and all that exists.">>

DAR
I don't know, and you don't know either.

DAL: "If you want to try and impossible task, try answering those questions while trying to leave God out of the picture.">>

DAR
Postulating a God doesn't solve any of these problems, even if one could unquestionably show God's will or intentions (and no one can).

DAL: "When you shut yourself off from the source of the universal truths [God], then it becomes impossible to answer the questions of life."

DAR
No it doesn't. There are several moral theories studied by philosophers. We can (and do) use any number of them to find answers to our moral questions. Divine Command hasn't been taken seriously for a very long time in philosophy. It doesn't go anywhere because no one can show:

a) they can correctly discern God's will or intentions

and

b) why it would prove anything if they could


DAL: Darrel: Is what you say you really believe really real?>>

DAR
If you can show it isn't I will gladly adjust my beliefs to accord with reality.


DAL: Darrel, i use to be as you are now......>>

DAR
Very doubtful.


DAL: truthproject.org..........check out the trailer...it only lasts a few minutes.">>

DAR
I watched it. Flashy graphics but it's obviously an extremely beginner, even childish treatment of philosophical issues aimed at people with no background or understanding of the centuries of work done in this field. We are quite familiar with Ravi Zacharias and his pseudo-philosophical material and have even corresponded with him offering to debate him. They declined.

I am in New York State right now to record a debate on the resurrection. It was last night and went quite well with about 180 attending. We'll probably upload a copy of it to the web so anyone can watch.

regards,

Darrel
User avatar
kwlyon
Posts: 526
Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2009 9:59 pm

Re: Comment threads for NWACoR Sign

Post by kwlyon »

"DAR
Since we don't have a "preacher" (or a church) we don't have anyone that needs a Mercedes."

You are mistaken...I need a Mercedes. You know I am just going to sell it anyways...how about you guys just give me money and I will come "preach" to you about what you should believe. Don't you dare ever challenge my authority however. If you are ever so foolish I swear I will show my moral superiority via convincing half of the free thinkers to blindly follow me in a walkout and we will start our own churc...er...group. Thattle show you...
User avatar
Dardedar
Site Admin
Posts: 8191
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Location: Fayetteville
Contact:

Re: Comment threads for NWACoR Sign

Post by Dardedar »

More exchange with Dallas:

***
Hello Dallas, I'm back in town. I'll respond to your points directly, quoted below.

***
DAL: Darrel, as where i am not impressed with you and friends lack of willingness to meet with me and discuss both of our sides of the philosophical quest for truth,">>

DAR
I definitely know a few folks in our group that will meet and discuss. Maybe you would even like to talk at one of our meetings? Maybe you would like to defend the notion of biblical inerrancy, or the resurrection, in a debate?

DAL: I am impressed with your list of "problems" with the bible.">>

DAR
That's just a small sample. There are many more in my book.

DAL: I am going to do my own research into your "thoughts" on the subject.">>

DAR
Good. Make yourself aware of the modern scholarship regarding the Bible. The doctrine if inerrancy was discarded a very long time ago and has no credibility within scholarly circles. And for very good reasons.

DAL: you have no "FACTS" concerning your ideas, just theories.">>

DAR
Feel free to demonstrate this.

DAL: Just as darwin never called his ideas fact, he did call them a theory.">>

DAR
You repeat a common mistake made by creationists. In science there is not a dichotomy between "theory" and "fact."

That the earth goes around the sun is a theory. It's called the "heliocentric theory." I think you will agree it is also a fact. Same with evolution. It is a scientific theory and also a fact.

Be careful not to equivocate. You are using theory in the common sense of "hunch," like, "I have a theory about who left the door open last night." That's not how it's used in science. Theories are actually the goal of science because theories actually explain how things work. They don't at all mean that the theory in question is not a "fact."

DAL: Darwin if alive today,... his ideas about how the body works would not prove themselves with the knowledge that we have today.">>

DAR
If Darwin were alive today he would be most pleased to see how his theory has been confirmed a thousand times over by our modern technology.

DAL: In reguards to the problems with the bible, people are using their BIASED reasoning to come to conclusions without truly and honestly examining all of the evidence.">>

DAR
I look forward to you showing me "all of the evidence.">>

DAL: "...if i could show you how all of your so called problems with the bible are nothing more than contextual and a lack of knowlegde on our part....would you listen.">>

DAR
Most intently.

Darrel.
User avatar
Betsy
Posts: 800
Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2006 11:02 am

Re: Comment threads for NWACoR Sign

Post by Betsy »

RE: The discussion on Hitler being a devout god-fearing Catholic. I'm in a discussion elsewhere, and the argument is being posed that he was just PRETENDING to be a Christian in order to control people (sort of like GWB did in the 2004 election, only worse). Response?
User avatar
Doug
Posts: 3388
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2006 10:05 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Location: Fayetteville, AR
Contact:

Re: Comment threads for NWACoR Sign

Post by Doug »

Betsy wrote:RE: The discussion on Hitler being a devout god-fearing Catholic. I'm in a discussion elsewhere, and the argument is being posed that he was just PRETENDING to be a Christian in order to control people (sort of like GWB did in the 2004 election, only worse). Response?
DOUG
A. Why shouldn't we believe Hitler's claim about his own beliefs? Since there is no evidence to the contrary, the claim that he was just pretending has no substance.
B. If Hitler had to claim that he was a Christian in order to get the majority of German Nazis on his side, then this implies that most Nazis were Christian. So even IF evidence surfaces to show that Hitler was not a Christian, the nature of the rebuttal (that Hitler was only pretending) still shows that the majority of Nazis were Christian.
"We could have done something important Max. We could have fought child abuse or Republicans!" --Oona Hart (played by Victoria Foyt), in the 1995 movie "Last Summer in the Hamptons."
User avatar
Savonarola
Mod@Large
Posts: 1475
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 10:11 pm
antispam: human non-spammer
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 50
Location: NW Arkansas

Re: Comment threads for NWACoR Sign

Post by Savonarola »

Betsy wrote:RE: The discussion on Hitler being a devout god-fearing Catholic. I'm in a discussion elsewhere, and the argument is being posed that he was just PRETENDING to be a Christian in order to control people (sort of like GWB did in the 2004 election, only worse). Response?
While Doug's response ought to nip that right in the bud, notice that the argument being presented is essentially just a watered-down version of the No True Scotsman fallacy.
User avatar
Dardedar
Site Admin
Posts: 8191
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:18 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Location: Fayetteville
Contact:

Re: Comment threads for NWACoR Sign

Post by Dardedar »

I posted quite a bit about this in this very thread, three full pages down from the top. And I have lots more.

There are a lot of reasons to think Hitler was a Christian. The only thing I have ever seen that looked like a legitimate attempt to make a case (other than floating the unsupported idea that he was faking) is an appeal to a supposed series of interviews where he supposedly admits he was faking. These are referred to as Table Talk. These are rubbish.

Historian Richard Carrier completely demolishes them in this excellent article:

http://ffrf.org/legacy/fttoday/2002/nov02/carrier.php

Was Catholic Hitler "Anti-Christian"?
On the Trail of Bogus Quotes


He also makes many other good points on this topic.

I suppose the Pope could be faking too. Who knows. Usually we let people define themselves and Hitler said he was a catholic.
User avatar
Betsy
Posts: 800
Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2006 11:02 am

Re: Comment threads for NWACoR Sign

Post by Betsy »

thanks - enjoying the thread w/Dallas, too, btw.
User avatar
Doug
Posts: 3388
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2006 10:05 pm
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 0
Location: Fayetteville, AR
Contact:

Re: Comment threads for NWACoR Sign

Post by Doug »

DOUG KRUEGER writes:
Someone has written to NWACoR stating that she would find life "hopeless" if there is no God. I respond below. A copy has been sent to her separately.

This version has a an added reference at the end.

======= Response ==========
XXXXX, you have written to us, who are nonbelievers in God, stating that life without God or heaven seems hopeless. You ask whether we have any solutions for you.

I have solutions for you, two main points.

First, imagine that someone writes to the people running the state lottery here, and that person says, "Just saw your tv show about the lottery numbers. My numbers didn't come up. If what you're saying about the lottery numbers is true, then that leaves me feeling hopeless right
now. I didn't win the millions."

Doesn't that sound rather strange? Do you think that someone should believe whether or not her lottery numbers come up based on the desire for a reward? I doubt it. Surely we should base our beliefs on whether it is true. If the numbers came up, you should believe it. If not, you should believe that they didn't. It's the same with an afterlife. Whether you are feeling hopeless or not has nothing to do with whether there is an afterlife. There's either an afterlife or not regardless of how you feel about it. We as human beings should conform our beliefs to how we find the universe, not the other way around. If the world isn't how we would like it, we should have the courage and the honesty to accept that, not deny reality and force ourselves to believe something that we find more pleasant. So basically my first point is that atheists (and freethinkers in general) do not believe in God or an afterlife because we believe that there are no such things.

In my case, I teach philosophy and world religions classes at a local community college. I have been looking for evidence of God and an afterlife for decades, and I haven't found anything that could be reasonably considered good evidence for God or an afterlife--and I've looked at the top arguments from the brightest minds in the history of Western civilization. We who do not believe in God hold that whether there is a God, a heaven, and so on is a matter to be decided solely by the available evidence, not based on our heartfelt wishes. And if it turns out that the conclusion leaves us feeling hopeless, so much the worse for us. We have no hope of finding our place in the world, with or without God, if we decide that the truth doesn't matter and we should just be content with beliefs that make us feel better about ourselves regardless of whether they are true. Follow the truth wherever it leads. In your quest for finding out about God and heaven and other such matters, try to separate what you would wish to be true from what you actually find to be true. If the two coincide, fine. But if not, be prepared for disappointment. There is no surer way to make God and the world in your own image than to decide to only believe that which you find personally satisfying instead of what is true.


The second main point I want to make is that the lack of a God and an afterlife is no serious impediment to happiness. Imagine this: you live back in the time of Mozart, the great composer. Suppose you meet him at a party and ask him to play something he makes up right on the spot. He was great at this, from all reports. Suppose he begins to play an ingenius piece of music, but someone stops him and asks him whether he is going to write it down afterwards. "No," he says, "I do this all the time. I don't write down everything I create. I'm not going to write this down." Would you then tell him not to waste his time playing for you? Would you feel that since the piece was not going to be preserved for posterity that therefore it was not of any value? Of course not. Before recording equipment was invented, people created all kinds of beautiful art in music, dance, etc. and it was worthwhile even if it was not preserved. The same is true of human life. Our lives will end and one day be forgotten. But so what? Just as an ice sculpture can be wonderful, beautiful, and worth creating even though it does not last long, so can our lives. But to make your life worthwhile you must put effort into it. You need to mold it like the artist creating an ice sculpture or the dancer performing on stage. It takes preparation, work, and diligent effort. Make yourself a better person, and make your society a better society for others to live in. That is the solution. You should not feel hopeless because your existence will not last forever. Life is a work of art, not an endurance contest.

Some books that discuss this topic:

Living Without Religion: Eupraxophy by Paul Kurtz

Society Without God: What the Least Religious Nations Can Tell Us About Contentment, by Phil Zuckerman

Atheism, Morality, and Meaning, by Michael Martin

What is Atheism? A Short Introduction, by Douglas E. Krueger. (This is my own book. I have a chapter on the meaning of life.)

The second book on the list above is interesting. Zuckerman lived in Scandinavia for a year and interviewed 150 Swedes and Danes for this book. Denmark and Sweden have some of the lowest rates of religiosity in the world. As one reviewer put it: "Puts to rest the belief that you need God in order to be a moral person, that irreligious societies are wracked by social problems, and that godless people are unhappy and unmoored. . . . In the case of Scandinavia: God may be dead, but Swedes and Danes lead rich, full lives. - Arlene Stein, author of Shameless: Sexual Dissidence in American Culture

Someone has also recommended this slide show of the 15 happiest countries in the world. The Gallup Organization polled people in 132 countries, with a data pool of more than 136,000 people in each country. Respondents were asked to rate their country in general from 0 to 10, with 10 being the best possible score. They were also asked to respond to other relevant questions. Many of the countries have very low rates of religiosity, suggesting that there is no reason to think that belief in God is a necessary condition for happiness.

See the slide show here.
"We could have done something important Max. We could have fought child abuse or Republicans!" --Oona Hart (played by Victoria Foyt), in the 1995 movie "Last Summer in the Hamptons."
Post Reply