A Christian apologetics group “Answers in Genesis” unveils controversial billboards to challenge evolution and atheism.
Here we go with the shock advertising again. How does this advertisement strike you – as valid or infuriating?
Somewhere in Texas / Photo: Answers in Genesis
Here’s how Answers in Genesis describes themselves:
An apologetics (i.e., Christianity-defending) ministry, dedicated to enabling Christians to defend their faith and to proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ effectively…we also desire to train others to develop a biblical worldview, and seek to expose the bankruptcy of evolutionary ideas, and its bedfellow, a “millions of years old” earth (and even older universe).
Apparently, AIG doesn’t seem to be the only one sprinkling such wonderful Christian sentiment around the US. Dangerous Talk has compiled, and asks people to continue sending in pictures, of the worst Christian AND Atheist billboards around the country.
Personally, I can’t believe they are implying that non-believers, or to whom God “doesn’t matter,” are going to take a gun and shoot someone in the face.
Striking yes; thoughtful, absolutely not.
Here’s the same kid featured in video campaign:
Although supposedly their beef is with evolution, I don’t see how that point is conveyed with this picture. So, according to them, believing what Darwin had to say means a person is lawless and will go on a killing rampage?
I’m honestly surprised they didn’t put an African-American or Middle Eastern child on there. But I guess they know it would completely show their prejudices. With a white kid, they can get away with “anyone can be lawless and moral-free who doesn’t believe in God.”
Equal opportunity to be a murderer, I guess.
What do you think about the message of this billboard? Share your thoughts below.
About the Author
More By This Author
- Thanks for a Great First Year (12 comments)
- The Internet Brain: Our Most Hopeful Approach to Cultural Harmony? (3 comments)
- 'Fare Thee Well': A Mindful Approach to Saying Goodbye (6 comments)
Related Posts
114 Comments... join the discussion!
-
-
Right, because Christians never kill anybody. Ever. *cough* Tiller *cough*
I wish I could say I was surprised, but I think the (totally absurd) idea that atheists are inclined to crime and violence is more widespread than people realize. Awhile back a Member of Parliament tried to get a reference to “God” out of the Canadian anthem, and the “You non-believers are all criminals!” faction came out in force. Fun times.
↵ -
All there trying to say is that moral relativism leads civilization down a scary road, not necessarily you. See, for example, how euthanasia is becoming very popular in Europe. Life loses its value when there is no right and wrong…
↵ -
See, but that’s the common error — the belief that atheism is synonymous with “there is no right and wrong”…
↵ -
Exactly. There is no direct correlation between religious belief and morality.
↵ -
And who said morality should be absolute in the first place? There are no absolutes.
↵ -
Wow, I’m starting feel the tension
@eva@, @madison@ – Not saying you have no morals…as @damnbob@ put it, the problem is when you define your *own* morality… That’s the problem you are not seeing… when push comes to shove, morality becomes whatever is convenient. One path that leads to is that life loses it’s value. Just look at Europe (euthanasia) or China (slave labor)… that’s one fruit of atheism.
Again, as I said before, it’s not *you* individually, but as a society. You may be a very moral person… not picking any fight anyone.
↵ -
“Just look at Europe (euthanasia) or China (slave labor)… that’s one fruit of atheism.”
Oh yes, the near annihilation of the whole of American Indians by the “Christian” settlers in America was very moral.
↵ -
No tension, Ikaruga. Just pointing out the flaws in your argument in a friendly manner.
Atheists don’t just make up whatever moral code they please, you know. The idea that killing was wrong was around for a long time before Jesus Christ, and the absence of Christ (or any religion) in someone’s life doesn’t mean that anything goes. For every example you give of something you deem immoral in a relatively secular society (like your comments about euthanasia being “popular” in Europe), I could answer back with an example of something abhorrent done in the name of religion.
↵ -
A lot of affirmations that are highly debatable : that euthanasia is becoming very popular in Europe, ad that it could be because “life loses its value”. Maybe its because Europeans highly value life, have a keen sense of right or wrong, that eutahanasia is becoming “very popular’ ? But you would call that moral relativism, wouldn’t you ?
↵ -
Religion was one of humankind’s earliest attempts to *codify* morality. It didn’t *invent* it. That’s the common mistake ignorant religious people make. And here I use “ignorant” in the purest sense of really not knowing any better. About anthropology, evolution, etc.
↵ -
Ralph you’re right, religion was one of the first attempts by humans to codify morals. Furthermore, I would argue that most other attempts at codification were based on or at least influenced by religion. Have there been any “moral codes” that have been developed independently of a religion? It seems that religion has a monopoly on moral codes.
↵ -
There are all sorts of ethical codes that weren’t developed in correlation to belief in magical zombie sky-daddies. Try utilitarianism for a start: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism
I can’t say I find anything actually ethical in the grounding of Christian ethics anyway. I’m supposed to be comforted by the fact that the only reason you don’t rape and kill people is because god threatened to burn you alive forever? How about not killing and raping because it causes pain and ruins lives? Do you really need a bullying god to tell you that? Looking at the Bible and at history, it’s clear that Christian ethics are a matter of convenience anyway, judging by the various ghastly and twisted things god does or asks to be done in his name, and quite often in contradiction to the supposed morality he enforces.
↵ -
Ha. Ha. Ha. Ha. Ha. Ha! Slippery slope! Slippery slope!
↵ -
Okay, friends, let’s everyone take a breath. Lunatics on the R and the L have killed in the name of their religion in this country over the last couple of weeks. Tiller wasn’t the only one. Private William Long (24), a new Army recruit, was gunned down by and extremist, too, an Islamic-extremist. Both are HEINOUS crimes, anti-American crimes. No matter our “beef,” to use the writer’s vernacular, we in America do not take up the gun to solve our problems. Or, at least, we’re un-American if we do, not to mention immoral.
As for the billboard…I believe it is meant to provoke discussion, and boy, has it. That said, I’m not sure I’m comfortable with it. I understand its point is that moral relativism erodes morality to the point that what comes to rule the day is brute force (a “will to power” is the more philosophical way of putting it). Yet, it seems over the top. My opinion.
↵ -
OK, this makes me really scared. But we always forget that the problem is not really the belief itself, but the believers. All religions have extremists and they’re the ones who mark the view the other religions have from them. So we should not think that EVERY Christian is like that.
But yes: the ads shown here are wrong and pretty anti-ethical. Isn’t it one of the ten commandments to respect the other people? Wouldn’t it also mean not to kill (I know that one is also a commandment).↵ -
I think what Ikarugu’s trying to say is that if there’s no standard for whats right we can do whatever we want since we define right ourselves. Thats the scary part.
↵ -
And what we’re saying is that atheism doesn’t imply that there is no standard for what’s right. Religion is not the only source of morality in the world. It’s not a clear choice between morality and anarchy here.
↵ -
Furthermore… morality built on religion is at its essence a morality built on the fear of reprecussions (i.e. god’s wrath or not getting into heaven). Is it better to do right because you are scared of what will happen if you don’t, or because you know it to be right and will to do what is right?
↵ -
Euthanasia in and of itself is not wrong. People seek it for themself. Wrong would be their kids putting their parents to sleep in the guise of compassion but really wanting insurance money. You picked a poor example to demonstrate a slippery-slope. People Maintain Themselves, birds of a feather flock together it’s that simple.
↵ -
These kind of statements indicate that they are very frightened about losing their
place in today’s culture. Let’s face it there are a lot of people starting to change
their minds about the value of religions. The atheists are starting to come out with their views about religious dogma. The religions of the desert are starting to seem
dangerous to clear thinking people. A great deal of people would not want a war between people who have deluded thoughts governing their actions.↵ -
As an atheist, this is infuriating to me. To suggest that I have no morals because of my lack of belief in the Christian faith (or any faith) is completely idiotic. One does not need to have religion to be a good person and to know right from wrong. There are plenty of immoral people who are extremely involved in organized religion (Catholic Priests perhaps?) so leave the peaceful atheists alone, ok?
↵ -
I personally trust people who set their own, modern, relevant and well-thought-out morals than someone who blindly believes in something more or less because it is old and therefore must be true.
Just sayin’.
But having lived most of my life in the Midwest of the United States (right on the buckle of the Bible-belt) I’m also not terribly surprised by this groups rhetoric. Fear is a very effective method for inciting a reaction, and if this group is trying to counter what they see as an anti-Christianity movement in their country. They are hoping to push people who are on the fence about the “evolution debate” (quotey-fingers very much emphasized) over to their side.
It’s really too bad when groups like this feel the need to have a firmly established ‘Other’ in order to boost their numbers (and revenues) and get press. That Other is almost always innocent of what they are being accused of and all this kind of targeted ad accomplished are more unnecessary rifts in the social fabric.
↵ -
That is frustrating beyond belief.
Never mind what happened to the Native Americans, as someone pointed out. Or slavery. Or the Holocaust. Or the Crusades.
As Tim said, there’s no correlation. I support everyone’s right to follow (or not follow) any religion, but peacefully and without judging others on their spiritual choices. Unfortunately, it seems that these particular Christians don’t agree with me on the judging thing.
↵ -
Hi Michelle,
You seem to have used the crimes done by christians as a criticism of the poster, I jsut have a few comments;
Firstly you mentioned the Holocaust however Hitler was not a Christian, although people quote that he was a roman catholic in public he very much renounced all christian beliefs in his writings and predicted that it would be gone from earth in 200 yrs. In fact he was an evolutionist. Darwins theory “survival of the fittest” was a huge part of his campaign. The holocaust was him exterminating the “less fit” races so as not to currupt the superior gene pool of people he thought more evolved.
Secondly dictators such as Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot were all evolutionists, believing that there is no God and therefore no right and wrong, obviously rules were important to keep the populace in control but those with the most power or the “fittest” as Darwin would say are free from any higher power’s judgement to do as they like. These men ordered the deaths of millions of people based on these beliefs
In fact if you look into the figures of how many people have been killed in the name of Jesus as to how many have been killed based on the belief of evolutionary superiority you would find the latter number to be much greater.
Thus although I think the sign a little rough especially the use of a kid, i see the point their trying to make. Many poeple have been murdered because of a belief in evolution and the poster is warning of this fact.
↵ -
Julianne, I understand the point you are trying to make, but just because these dictators believed in evolution did not mean that they killed because of their evolutionary beliefs, or in fact did not believe in God. From what I’ve read, Hitler said in Mein Kampf that he felt he was on a mission from God to exterminate the “Marxist” doctrine of Jews.
Direct quote: “I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord..”
And actually many of these dictators very much believed in right and wrong, demanding the people follow the exact “moral”–i.e. right by the people–teachings of Communism, etc. You’re either a believer or you’re not, and if your not, off with your head. Similar to another time in history? Yep, sounds a bit like the Inquisition.
I personally do not believe any of this is about believing in God vs. not believing in God–it is about any human being deciding what is right or wrong given their circumstances or what they are “fighting” for.
He (or she) can skew God’s “word” into justifying any action–think slavery, the extermination of Native Americans, and imperialism throughout the last 500 years in general. Think Bush, et. al. and the invasion of Iraq, blowing up abortion clinics. At the same time, this can also happen through the development of other Gods–namely money and power, or systems of governance such as Communism, and oh, guess what? Capitalism.
And lest we forget, some “atheists” believe in a universal power that calls them to a much higher moral code than what is practiced by “religious” people.
↵ -
1. I am an atheist.
2. I have never killed anyone.
3. Therefore, all atheists are non-murderers.This is ridiculous.
↵ -
Just to point it out, there ARE moral codes that are secular, or not related to any religion, like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Constitution and laws of each country, which are in fact more valid than the Bible or other religious books since they apply to everyone.
In fact the argument that atheists lack moral becomes total invalid to me when you see the reports showing that only 0.2% of the people in American prisons are atheists, for example.↵ -
The simple fact of the matter is that if one follows evolutions tenets to their logical conclusion then morality becomes a meaningless word.
The driving force of evolution is genetic survival, thus whatever you can do to make sure your genes survive and your competitors don’t is simply a natural part of evolution.
Whatever you say about morality is meaningless and counter-productive because you are competing with me for resources. The only morality that evolution supports is survival.
That is what AiG are trying to point out, though not very well I have to admit.
If they are reeally worried about kids shooting people perhaps gun-nuts would be a better target than atheists?
↵ -
But I don’t think evolution is ever taken to that extreme (except in some cases i.e white supremacy). In fact, Darwin didn’t say that the strongest species are the ones more likely to survive, but the more capable to adapt to a situation. And what competitor do we have. that we need to fight against them?
I don’t see evolutionism as a way of life or as a moral belief, but just as a scientific theory. If you believe in evolutionism, you are not going around trying to fight with everyone to make sure you are the one that survives, that seems ridiculous.I understand what you are saying, but I don’t think that’s a realistic approach to evolutionism.
↵ -
I actually take it to the extreme that I don’t believe in morality. Yet I also don’t kill people. While there are many reasons why, what I consider to be the most important is the social implication. Murder is strongly reviled by everyone, therefore if I murder, then I will be reviled. Likewise, I revile murder because 1) everyone else does, and 2) because murderers could kill me. This balance is established because it is a successful social architecture. While it is possible for a society to exist that approves of murder, it is unlikely in practice. Although, I do believe that in some cultures one person is allowed to kill another if, say they were caught cheating with their wife. I have no reference to that, however, so don’t take my word on that. As I understand it, one of the major things that drove the evolution of our brain was the attempt to grasp what was going on in another member of our species` brain. So at a fundamental, evolutionary level, we are empathetic to others. I guess that you could say morality and ethics are a consequence of that.
↵ -
This actually isn’t true, many evolutionary psychologists are currently doing a lot of research on altruism and the evolutionary benefits of helping other people. I’m sure if you google scholar “evolutionary altruism” you’ll find some interesting discussions. Evolutionary fitness is not so simple as killing your neighbour so that you can do better, otherwise you’d never see social groups in nature.
↵ -
I believe Dawkins talks about this in The Selfish Gene. But maybe it was a bad idea to bring Dawkins into this…
↵ -
“The simple fact of the matter is that if one follows evolutions tenets to their logical conclusion then morality becomes a meaningless word.
The driving force of evolution is genetic survival, thus whatever you can do to make sure your genes survive and your competitors don’t is simply a natural part of evolution.”
And yet we as humans are a little different than the “lower” animals in that we have established societies and moral codes that, in fact, help to preserve our genetic lines. We realize that allowing everyone to kill whoever the hell they want is dangerous for everyone, and that even the best fit can fall to a spear, musket, pistol, etc.
↵ -
Eddie said:
“The driving force of evolution is genetic survival, thus whatever you can do to make sure your genes survive and your competitors don’t is simply a natural part of evolution.”
This is precisely the sort of blatant mischaracterization of evolution that leads to willful ignorance.
The driving force of evolution is genetic survival. That means that WHATEVER HAPPENS will affect genetic survival. It does NOT mean that we MUST DO WHATEVER IT TAKES to make sure our genes survive. Either they will or they won’t. You can’t get a moral imperative from a scientific fact.
To claim that evolution devalues life because it emphasizes genetic competition is ridiculous. It’s like saying that since gravity is pulling us towards the earth, we shouldn’t bother trying to stay standing upright, since we’ll just fall eventually anyways.
↵ -
What no one seemed to mention is that societies are first governed by laws, and then by moral principles.
A couple of implications of this that I can readily think of are:
- When laws define what is right or wrong, your actions do not depend on your moral principles.
- Laws are created by the society it’s self AS A WHOLE, and not by certain parts of it (e.g. religious or atheist people)Now, promoting moral principles in such an exaggerated way (as done in the billboard), for me is offensive. The reason is that these principles are promoted with the intention to substitute other moral principles that individuals have chosen to follow.
This makes me think that whoever is responsible for this ad campaign has a definite view of what moral principles are right and wrong, and expects people to abide to them without questioning his authority … this is a bit fascist, no?!
↵ -
Are laws really created by society as a whole? Or are they created by the powerful few in order to control the masses?
↵ -
Leigh, as it seems to me at least, in democratic countries laws are first created for the benefit of the society. However with time the system becomes corrupt and the few powerful ones find excuses in global events (such as an economic downturn, or terrorist activities) to influence amends to the laws/bills in order to benefit themselves..
↵ -
For a slightly more scholarly approach to defending the Christian worldview, I would recommend taking a look at William Lane Craig’s website http://www.reasonablefaith.org. Dr. Craig has published a lot of material on how we arrive at morality. Even if you disagree with him, it will surely make you think.
A point of clarification he often makes, which I think pertains to this discussion, is that belief in God is not necessary to live a moral life. Many atheists lead moral, fulfilling lives. The argument is that some sort of foundation (i.e. God) is needed in which morality can be grounded. Otherwise, it can always be reduced to one person (or group of people) dictating their brand of morality to everyone else. And as the wise kid once said: “You’re not the boss of me!”
I honestly don’t believe the perpetrators of these ads were trying to say all atheists are criminal or immoral. What they were trying to say, albeit very offensively and ineffectively, is that morality needs an objective, absolute foundation in order for us to all agree that human life is valuable, and that murder is wrong.
↵ -
Guns don’t kill people. Bullets kill people. Amoral, atheistic bullets.
Koo-koo…
↵ -
Its actually pretty funny, i think.
i guess ive just seen one to many religious/economic/environmental disasters to care anymore
↵ -
“Xtians”…meh. Who needs them?
↵ -
> The argument is that some sort of foundation (i.e. God) is needed in which
> morality can be grounded. Otherwise, it can always be reduced to one person
> (or group of people) dictating their brand of morality to everyone else.Wrong wrong wrong, “God” keeps one person or group of people, called RELIGIOUS LEADERS, dictating their story about God’s morality to everyone else.
We don’t “believe” you know any more about “God” than we do. And we’re not going to start because you threaten us with crazy violent threats on billboards.
↵ -
What if someone who is certifiably insane tells you the sky is blue? You can’t assume just because he is an unreliable source that therefore the sky is NOT blue. You can, however, ask a scientist. Or a few scientists. Or even go outside and look up.
That’s why I posted the link—so you could go check it out for yourself. If you don’t trust the religious leaders, then it’s up to you to do the research (i.e. consider more than one point of view) and make your own judgment. If you refuse to let your thinking be challenged, then doesn’t that make you just as close-minded as the religious nuts you’re so opposed to?
I don’t see how the billboards “threatened” anyone. And if by “you” you mean me, please understand I had nothing to do with the creation of said billboards, nor do I endorse them.
↵ -
I’ve never met two christians who interpret the bible the exact same way. So, I’m sorry, but I’m not buying the that religion provides uniform moral code.
↵ -
You can also have one Christian that will do no wrong because they don’t want to burn in hell and another who will just accept that that will be his fate. So does religion necessarily induce moral? I don’t think so.
↵ -
The only thing keeping them from shooting someone is God.
↵ -
“There are no absolutes” is an absolute, try again.Also, how can you expect the government or any one to “do the right thing” if you don’t believe in a singular moral code?
↵ -
Yes, but is it about governments doing the right thing for us or us doing the ‘right thing’ for them? Laws, bills, whatever are introduced to make sure we tow the line.
↵ -
and a singular moral code can be used for the same purpose.
↵ -
To a catholic, the pope ( a religious leader) is the last word on faith matters. But to a christian, God is. If you are a christian, it is up to you to check if what you are being told meshes with what is in the Bible. Trying to not get the two confused, i know its hard as we are in fact only human and prone to mistakes, but at least TRY to get to know what we are about before bashing us as nutters.
If you were aware of a fire in a building, but others were not would you not try with all your might to save them? That is what we want to do, not force any thing on you, just give you the truth and let you decide.
Also, i think the point of the ad is not about violence ( it is very confusing and poorly conceived) But that God is the only one who’s opinion matters, i f he were not to care, life would be pointless.↵ -
Angel, I know you’re trying to make a point saying that you’ve never met two Christians who interpret the Bible the same way…well that’s just not true.
All Christians I know agree on the Christian-foundations but some do differ on details like baptism. That does not mean that they are in disarray, just that they want to understand God’s word as accurately as possible.It’s when you misinterpret the Bible to come to certain conclusions like “the earth is flat”, that things go awry.
Values need to be based on an objective moral standard. Constitutions don’t fit that standard. There are many examples of things which are legal, but wrong (caste system in India, babies are not considered “alive” until BORN in many countries, slavery back in the day etc.) and other things which are illegal, but right (equal rights for women in Saudi-Arabia).
Hitler was not a Christian, actually, in his private diary he wrote about making a pact with the Devil (see “HItler, the scourge of Europe”)
Other comments were: “As soon as the idea was introduced that all men were equal before God, that world was bound to collapse.” made on the 26th February, 1942 ”
He started murdering those “unworthy of life” because he was a Darwinist (I’m not saying that it’s the natural conclusion) and wanted to “cleanse the gene pool”.
My values are grounded in the objective values of my faith (Christianity), which do not change along with secular thought. Would you rather have values that are the same yesterday, today and tomorrow or values that change, with the times?
Please don’t tell me something like “there are no absolutes” as that is in itself an absolute statement.
I think that science helps me to interpret the Bible and I believe in evolution. The theory still has a lot of holes (how did life start?), but I think it’s the best explanation of how things came to be after the “Big Bang”, which I believe God initiated.
Peace.
↵ -
This advertisement is ridiculously offensive. I can’t believe any person of any religion would condone this. Has this ultra-religious group overlooked the fact that 98% of convict in American prisons are Christian? I would rather do what’s right because of my own beliefs in who I am as a person than because I want to get in to Heaven at the end. All this group is doing is showing their ignorance and intolerance.
↵ -
I like how Christians view their enemy as Atheists instead of say, Satanists or Anti-Christs.
This billboard is declaring that all Atheists are Nihilists, which is very stereotypical and wrong. Just because they don’t believe in God doesn’t mean they don’t believe in Moral Relativism or Moral Absolutism. (Nihilism is NOT Relativism)
Angel, biblical intepretation amongst different denominations of Christians is irrelevant due to the fact they (and more than likely you) agree on an inherent basic existing moral code.
James, I find a few flaws in your reasoning. An absolute set of rules of what is “Right and wrong” is just as likely if not more to lead to more “immoral acts” or atrocities. Like the numbers of people burned to death after the second millenium in Europe who refused to follow the religion of the prevailing monarch because their lack of belief was held to be “absolutely” wrong. Or like you pointed out, when the South upheld it “right” and legal to capture and exploit slaves. Also, Isn’t it objectively wrong to impose your morality on others?
Either way, referring to the unethical billboard, if one were to say “Life is meaningless” , then who cares because it has nothing to do with how life works which is the basis of morality. If they replied “Life is inherently meaningless, therefore there is no basis of morality” (Which is a lazy nihilist’s answer), then they would just be contradicting themselves by accidentally giving meaning to the meaningless. Life may be inherently meaningless, but it doesn’t mean that it couldn’t be given meaning by the subject.
↵ -
I first thought you wrote Stalinists in your post, not Satanists. Man was I confused until I re-read it.
↵ -
I have to say that I appreciate the manner in which this conversation has been held. We are all clearly passionate about our beliefs but, with the exception of a couple of uneducated and offensive posters, the conversation was respectful.
I am a Christian but I think this is a rediculous ad – someone needs to find a new marketing director.↵ -
Melanie,
I agree about the relatively pleasant manner of the conversation in these comments. I was just thinking that same thought the other day, and have hope for what that might imply…
↵ -
Scary!
I read the sign as a Christian pointing a gun at my head because I’m an atheist.
Who’s persecuting who here? I’m not threatening to point a gun to anyone’s head because they believe different than me! But here Christians are threatening to kill me because I don’t believe in their God!?!?
This is very scary. Are the Christians Neo-Nazists and wanting to cleanse our country from non-Christians? This is a very dangerous trend.
↵ -
Not all Christians have fascists tendencies like you think. True, there are a lot of hardcore Right Wing Ultra-Conservative Christians who believe there way is the only way and are too stubborn and prideful, and a lot of them admit it too. (Even though in their religion, Pride is considered one of the seven deadly sins.) But there are a lot of Christians who are more open minded and less abrasive because they’re actually taking into account all of Christ’s teachings (instead of ignoring the ones that are morally inconvenient) and one of the teachings is that people should respect and love eachother regardless of Race, Class, and Religion. Buddhists and Hinduists preach it too.
These Christian radicals need to stop being so abrasive and condescending. They also need to understand that since God is all-loving, then they should get people to join their church out of kindness, not out of fear. If they’re trying to get people to become Christian out of fear by threatening that they’ll go to hell or end up getting shot by another “non-believer” then they’re not being a true Christian at all.
↵ -
Fascist*
Their*
Ugh. Too many typos…apologies
↵ -
Wait… So the Spanish Inquisition and the Crusades were… what?
↵ -
wow.
you could just as easily put up a billboard that says “if god matters to him, do you?”
but then, since we seem to have a hard time keeping church and state separated, it would no doubt be torn down for being so offensive.
meanwhile, this equally offensive and religiously biased billboard has a few threads posted about it.andrew said “I honestly don’t believe the perpetrators of these ads were trying to say all atheists are criminal or immoral.”
but i think if they were really just “trying to say that morality needs an objective, absolute foundation in order for us to all agree that human life is valuable, and that murder is wrong” they would have chosen their words, not to mention images, a little differently.
the add obviously and offensively implies that if one does not believe in god, nobody matters to them. which is more than a little ridiculous.
no matter what you believe, this billboard is wrong. whether you like it or not, atheists are your fellow man, your “neighbor” (see the ten commandments on how GOD SAID to treat your neighbor.)
↵ -
does Matador Networks have a record for most comments on an article?
↵ -
won’t say too much new, though I could try and say it in away all my own….
that religiong (in this case, Christianty, is not a prerequisite nor a guarranty to moral behaviour. Law, order and governance, on the other hand, is meant to be).….Or I could just smile and subscribe to these comments.
↵ -
Right, it seems to me that even if he DOES believe in god, do you?
in other words, christians never kill anybody do they?
in fact, often they seem to kill in the NAME of god.
just look at dr. tiller’s recent murder.I wonder what makes these people so damn self righteous?
if you ask me they’re scarier than anyone else out there.↵ -
I was relieved to once read that these somewhat extreme christians are not as numerous as we think, they are just noisy and their extreme rantings make good headlines. I hope so. I also hope the boy in the advert does get influenced by his involvement in this campaign and turn into a gun slinging lunatic.
↵ -
does NOT get influenced !!!!! Typo !
↵ -
I think we can all agree with their flawless logic – Christians have never, ever, killed people for no reason. The crusades were perfectly reasonable and in the name of god. Religious extremists who organize cults and take hostages are perfectly reasonable, and in the name of god.
Yes, that’s sarcasm.
↵ -
That was the exact comment I was going to make. THANK YOU!!!
↵ -
What does the theory of evolution have to do with ethics and atheism? It’s not as if there are people who are both religious and accept and understand the theory of evolution. And you could find people who don’t believe in a god who dismiss it or don’t understand it. TOE explains our ancestry and how new species come to be. It does not equate to people going on a killing spree and doing whatever they please in the name of survival. If people better understood TOE–and atheism and agnosticism, for that matter–then we wouldn’t have to deal with this ridiculousness. You don’t need to believe in a god to be an ethical person. And believing in a god doesn’t necessarily make you an ethical person. This shouldn’t even have to be said.
Hasn’t anyone heard of secular humanism?
“Humanists endorse universal morality based on the commonality of human nature, and that knowledge of right and wrong is based on our best understanding of our individual and joint interests, rather than stemming from a transcendental or arbitrarily local source, therefore rejecting faith completely as a basis for action. The humanist ethics goal is a search for viable individual, social and political principles of conduct, judging them on their ability to enhance human well-being and individual responsibility, ultimately eliminating human suffering.”Religion certainly does not equate with morality. Why on earth should we rely on a religion to guide us as to what is moral? Ethics should be weighed and what is ethical and what isn’t can certainly be determined on a case by case basis. Interpreting and blindly accepting what is moral from a religious text is foolish and can easily lead to oppressing and harming others in the name of god. It’s not like it hasn’t happened numerous times or doesn’t still happen today.
↵ -
I don’t believe in invisible sky pixies and I never went on killing sprees. Curious that
↵ -
Well, unlike god, I’m not fictional. You might as well change the add to say
“If Gandalf doesn’t matter to him, do you?”
↵ -
Wow, this was shocking and disgusting once I realized what it was saying. Not believing in the mythical figure of their particular dogma isn’t the same as the figure mattering or not mattering, and there is certainly morality outside of that particular group’s special old book. It seems we ended up developing morals as a way to live together in a society in a beneficial way.
In any case, I’d be surprised (well not really…) if many of that group’s followers thought everything in their book was moral. Genocide as punishment for a ruler’s decision, for instance. Also, there is actually an negative relationship between lack of religion and lawlessness, according to prison statistics. So godless individuals tend to be less criminal and violent people. One can’t really suggest a causation relationship between atheism and behavior like that if even the opposite correlation is found.And as for the link between evolution and lawlessness… evolution is a scientific fact describing the changing of species over time. A fact is neutral of morality.
↵ -
Without having read all the comments to determine whether or not anyone else has said it, the point of the billboard is a very common argument that goes to the explanatory power of religion, specifically Christianity. The basic idea is epistemological: you can’t ground an absolute moral code in the individual, nor in the consensus of individuals, because to do so is to tacitly admit that the code could have been otherwise, thus rendering it non-absolute, relative, pick your term to indicate that, at some time, in some cultures, or in the case of certain individuals ANYTHING is permissible if it does not violate the pertinent moral code. Unless we’re willing to say that no options for human behavior are simply off the table, we have a real difficulty establishing a non-received code. I don’t think atheism has formulated a valid response to this argument, although there are some interesting (yet likely futile) rumblings from people like Edward O. Wilson. Granted, the billboard is indelicate and offensive, but the point appears to have merit, pace Atheist Evangelists.
↵ -
I’m really into all religions and none at all.
↵ -
To whomever said that Hitler was a Darwinist: Yeah, he totally was, that’s why he ordered all copies of TOE to be burned. Oh, shi……
↵ -
Okay, friends, let’s everyone take a breath. Lunatics on the R and the L have killed in the name of their religion in this country over the last couple of weeks. Tiller wasn’t the only one. Private William Long (24), a new Army recruit, was gunned down by and extremist, too, an Islamic-extremist. Both are HEINOUS crimes, anti-American crimes. No matter our “beef,” to use the writer’s vernacular, we in America do not take up the gun to solve our problems. Or, at least, we’re un-American if we do, not to mention immoral.
The R and the L? Are you saying that “an Islamic-extremist” belongs on the left?
↵ -
absolutely.
↵ -
To me, the outrage is the suggestion that, “You’d better believe in God–NOT because the evidence supports it, but because…well dammit, because believing in God helps keep us fearful from doing bad things!”
That said, as an agnostic, I wonder about your comment, “I’m honestly surprised they didn’t put an African-American or Middle Eastern child on there.”
African-American? Why would you write that? As a race, African-Americans overwhelmingly believe in a God.
“But I guess they know it would completely show their prejudices.” Huh? So if you’re a Christian God-believer, it must mean you’re prejudiced against African-Americans? Who is demonstrating more prejudice here? Or is it that your brand of prejudice is more enlightened?
↵ -
Christian morality is not defined by the bible, individual Christians’ cherry-pick from the bible the verses that resonate with their own internal moral code, and either ignore, or “interpret figuratively” the parts they don’t agree with.
One of the main problems is ignorance, not only about science and evolution, but of the bible itself. Have you actually read it? All of it?
Take the 10 Commandments – did you know that the penalty for breaking ANY of these is death? So next time you are rude to your parents, or admire your neighbor’s new plasma tv, or mow the lawn on Sunday, you have committed a capital crime.
The bible is also very clear on the subject of slavery – you should not beat your slaves so much that they can’t continue to work for you.
I could go on and on about the incitements to war and genocide, but there really is no point – those that want to believe will continue to do so, regardless of what I say.
What annoys me is that people who choose not to accept the rantings of bronze age goat herders as a basis for morality are depicted as evil, when clearly the opposite is true.
Have a look at any statistic you like, on any subject at all, and you will find that those who claim a warrant from god produce more suffering and pain and hardship *in this world* than those that don’t.
↵ -
Without having read all the comments to determine whether or not anyone else has said it, the point of the billboard is a very common argument that goes to the explanatory power of religion, specifically Christianity. The basic idea is epistemological: you can’t ground an absolute moral code in the individual, nor in the consensus of individuals, because to do so is to tacitly admit that the code could have been otherwise, thus rendering it non-absolute, relative, pick your term to indicate that, at some time, in some cultures, or in the case of certain individuals ANYTHING is permissible if it does not violate the pertinent moral code.
Well, J, maybe you should read some of those comments. Several have said that there is no need for absolute morals. There aren’t any in the first place, and we all get along without them. You can argue that we can thus pick our morals, but that’s irrelevant, because no one picks their own morals. Our morals are evolved instincts; there is a reason why most of us think killing is wrong, namely that groups of people where killing is common don’t do as well as those where people think it’s a bad thing. Same goes for stealing, for example, but to a lesser extent. And as Ben Payne explains above, Christians themselves can’t even agree on what the morals of the Bible are. Slavery okay? Should we kill our children when they are rude to us?
↵ -
This is dissapointing… All should respect each other’s views rather than make accusations. =*( The god/godess/gods wouldn’t want people to try to use scare tactics to convert people. All have a right to worship as they will or not at all. All have done good and evil throughout history. Decisions are made by individuals, not faiths/ethics, which can be (sadly) manipulated to any view. We all have a responsibility to ourselves, society, our loved ones, and our divine being(s) (if any) to try our best to be morally sound people. I believe that deep inside, somewhere, be it DNA, RNA, or the SOUL, we have the basis for morality. BTW I am a bisexual polytheist who mainly worships Dionysos, Gaia, and the Moon Goddess.
↵ -
BTW I am a bisexual polytheist who mainly worships Dionysos, Gaia, and the Moon Goddess.
DEFinitely too few of those around.
↵
