Pharyngula

Posted by: Stardrake | August 6, 2009 10:50 PM

"It's bigotry, plain and simple."

And you are surprised...because?

Remember, the Governor is not on the Supreme Court.

They probably don't even get along....

Posted by: DaveX | August 6, 2009 10:52 PM

Bus boycott!

Posted by: Vito T | August 6, 2009 10:54 PM

C'mon, 80% of the country is Christian, of COURSE the governor condemns these ads- it's a move that speaks volumes to his base.

Why would any politician in their right mind stand up for an atheist movement? It's political suicide.

Posted by: Ben | August 6, 2009 10:56 PM

I live in Iowa. I believe in God. I don't find this ad offensive. Not even the slightest bit offensive. I'm embarrassed. Horrified and embarrassed. By my state and my governor. But not surprised.

Posted by: panic | August 6, 2009 10:56 PM

I am offended that Culver was offended. Once again, atheists are made to feel like second class citizens.

The contact info to let them know how you feel: 515-283-8111 Answering Monday - Friday 8 am to 5 pm CST and dart@ridedart.com. I have already fired off my email and phone call. I kept it civilised and to the point. I did not want to sound like a cacophonous, shrill wingnut like the people who wanted it taken down.

Posted by: Haar | August 6, 2009 10:58 PM

I don't think the decision was made by a coward or a bigot, but rather by a short-sighted administrator who's been deluged by bad media after 7 pedestrian accidents in two years.

Posted by: Candy | August 6, 2009 11:01 PM

I live right here in Des Moines, am an atheist, and my atheist son rides the bus a lot, but I had heard nothing about this.

Culver is a right wing Democrat. He's in favor of capital punishment. He's not a supporter of gay marriage. He's a supporter of corporate farming. In short, he's a dick. However, he was better than the Republican alternative, who probably would have tried to have the atheists burnt at the stake. Sadly, in politics, you do what you hafta do.

Posted by: Ben | August 6, 2009 11:03 PM

Honestly, people say they were offended, but deep down I think they were upset that the ad did NOT contain obscene images or profanity that would reinforce their stereotypes of atheists. An atheist ad that doesn't offend is the most offensive thing to many of these people.

Posted by: Becca Stareyes | August 6, 2009 11:06 PM

Vito, in a better world than this one, most people (theist and atheist) will be wondering why the governor was so thin-skinned as to be offended by a statement of fact: "Atheists exist in Iowa so don't think you're the only one". Does the governor also refuse to read opinion polls lest he be confronted by the fact that some people probably think he's doing a shitty job as governor?

Posted by: Vito T | August 6, 2009 11:08 PM

@16
That's not a bad idea at all. Atheists are horrible at advertising.

Posted by: Bron | August 6, 2009 11:11 PM

All my sense are assaulted by that ad.

Pretty clouds, nevertheless.

Posted by: SciencePundit | August 6, 2009 11:14 PM

That's the same FreethoughtAction design that we put up on a billboard here in Phily last year. There were some complaints, but the reaction was more positive than negative, and the billboard stayed up for the full 2 months (after which it was replaced for one month with a Hail Mary billboard).

Instead of removing the bus ads, the Iowa religioheads should have done what many of their bretheren here in Philly did: spin it to make it sound religious. I wish I could remember the exact quote, but it was something to the effect that "That billboard actually affirms the existence of gØd to those that have strayed. So even if you don't believe in him, you are not alone." I had a really good laugh at that attempt at spin.

I'm not laughing at the cowardly behavior of DART though.

Posted by: Vito T | August 6, 2009 11:19 PM

Becca, recall he was not simply offended, he was "disturbed."

It's sort of understandable I suppose. I can imagine that the blatant, straight-forward advertising of something many people consider to be a very private, taboo and sacred topic could be a bit disturbing.

I mean, think of how you felt the first time you encountered someone who suggested that Santa wasn't real, even if they weren't saying it directly. It's a disturbing thing.

Posted by: Captain C | August 6, 2009 11:21 PM

Under the poll: "Results not Scientific"

That made me laugh.

Posted by: bc23.5 | August 6, 2009 11:24 PM

After reading this story, I'm even more surprised that the ads on the South Bend Transpo busses stayed. I didn't expect that from the Catholics. Funny what tough economic times will push people to do for cash, and I'm sure the Church gave them a thorough dissertation on how gawd will hate them for allowing the ads. I never would have thought that a bus would be a welcome sight after 2 weeks in Houston TX. (maybe that last sentence needs to be read with a snark)

Posted by: Greg Laden | August 6, 2009 11:24 PM

Correction to comment made above: It is not the case that eighty percent of the country is Christian. About sixteen percent is Atheist/Agnostic, and there are a couple of other religions.

Posted by: kamaka | August 6, 2009 11:25 PM

Atheism is no more a scientifically supported claim than is Hinduism.

The absolute lack of evidence for the existence of any kind of god or other supernatural agent is it's own kind of evidence.

The rules of science demand doubt. It's obvious to rational thinking that the supernatural is all pretend.

Posted by: rob | August 6, 2009 11:31 PM

peter @ #10

the God that we believe in here in the U.S. of A. is the dollar.

Posted by: Tom Foss | August 6, 2009 11:47 PM

You are not alone.

It's the Bus of Boe!

Posted by: Kagato | August 7, 2009 12:02 AM

I'm... reading the comments.
(Oh why am I reading the comments)

With each page, my faith¹ in humanity dies a little more.

...

But oddly, the post that made me want to leap through the screen and throttle the poster contained this:

"Just log onto this website, and wallah---keep it up people"

The word is voilà, you illiterate moron! If you don't have the vaguest idea how to spell it or even what the word is, for Christ's sake² don't use it!

1. See definition 1
2. For rhetorical purposes only

Posted by: alloytoo | August 7, 2009 12:07 AM

Next time anyone of any religious ilk demands that scientists teach the controversy regarding Evolution, invite them to "teach the Controversy" regarding their religion.

Tell how persons with apposing viewpoints are tortured, mutilated, murdered & jailed.

And

How there is a compete lack of evidence to support their position.

And

How there are a huge number of religious fraudsters.

Likely?

The hypocrisy is nauseating

Posted by: Blaine | August 7, 2009 12:13 AM

... but wouldn't they get paper cuts on their girlie bits?

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | August 7, 2009 12:15 AM

"wallah"?

*shakes head sadly from side to side*

Posted by: Blondin | August 7, 2009 12:21 AM

Here is another poll about the same issue:

http://www.kcci.com/index.html#

Posted by: panic | August 7, 2009 12:24 AM

@Candy: As a fellow Des Moines citizen, you are absolutely correct. Fallon supporters that "had" to vote for Chet are continually reminded what a lump Culver is. I still have my Fallon signs and shirt, ready to break out any time Ed needs the help.

If Terry runs, ol' Chet is toast.

I am embarrassed by my state today.

Posted by: MadScientist | August 7, 2009 12:29 AM

@Ariel: Spray painting atheist slogans somewhat limits you to variations of "there is no god". I vote for painting bible verses everywhere - like the ones about god ordering people to murder, pillage, and rape.

Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble | August 7, 2009 12:30 AM

Dear Atheists,

I am fully in support of this knee-jerk decision to purge Iowa's buses of your evil proselytizing. As you represent only 5% of Americans, you have no right to expect to have your ideas fairly represented in the world's greatest democracy. Indeed, given that you are fated to burn in hell for eternity anyway, perhaps you could do something truly useful for the Iowa public transport system and offer to have yourselves rendered and made into biofuel? In my happiest Christian dreams I can imagine a world in which every human who was not a conservative, born again, Bible-believing, Spirit-filled, young earth creationist Christian (i.e. the six billion apostates doomed to eternal damnation anyway) was taken up and rendered down. That would leave just a few million of us True Believers (tm) to inherit the entire earth. As you can immediately see, this would solve the world's energy problems, population problems and global warming problems in one hit.

Of course, I am not sure what we believers would do with no one left to persecute once all the rest of you had been rendered, but I'm sure we'd manage. I've always hated Alaskans myself.

Yours in Anticipation of a Godly Solution
Smoggy

Posted by: Kagato | August 7, 2009 12:34 AM

Well, I just finished reading all the comments. All of them.

If I were a drinking man, I believe the prescription at this point would be a double scotch.

I can't understand how anyone can honestly claim offence at sign that says little more than "We Exist".

I suppose the thought process must go something like this:

The sign mentions God, but is not explicitly pro-God. Therefore it must be anti-God, and thus it offends me.

I doubt the actual textual content of the sign is even processed by their brains.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | August 7, 2009 12:35 AM

Smoggy is beyond Poe.

Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble | August 7, 2009 12:43 AM

Dear Panic,

I am sorry, I do not know this person named Poe. I am a Batzrubble from Noo Zillund, sent to this blog by God to win atheists back to Jesus by demonstrating the Lord's great love, kindness and compassion for all of His creation.

If after my best efforts they still won't listen to the Word of God and accept His love, then all I can do is pray that they will be tormented in hell by massively-hung demons for all eternity.

Amen

Posted by: Vito T | August 7, 2009 12:45 AM

Smoggy,
Using people as fuel won't resolve global warming as we're made of mostly carbon.

Plus, it's unrealistic to think that the body mass of 5% of the US population would be enough to fill our energy needs.

Posted by: bc23.5 | August 7, 2009 12:54 AM

lurker, I like your idea. It's a bit like saying, "Shut the f**k up and mind your own business. Let the people who read more than 1 book run the real world." Haha, I really like it. It's not overtly offensive, but if you think about it, (which most xtians won't), it's very snarky.

"No, really, we think you reading your bible is a great pastime and we atheists acknowledge that your family......"

damn, I can't even finish that.

Posted by: Cowcakes | August 7, 2009 12:58 AM

Gov. Chet Culver offends me. You Iowans better submit complaints and get him removed.

Bur seriously how could anyone be offended by a simple statement that a belief, well in this case non-belief, is held by more than one person.

Oh wait, it demonstrates the neurological impulses that exist with the cranial cavity of many believers of religion. (I refuse to say mind as that would imply the existence of some form of intelligence where clearly there is none)

Posted by: chuck | August 7, 2009 1:03 AM

It's moments like this that I remember what Iowa stands for:

I Owe the World an Apology.

/go Gophers!

Posted by: Alverant | August 7, 2009 1:04 AM

Did anyone else read the comments? slstc is really being a jerk!

Posted by: Candy | August 7, 2009 1:13 AM

Well, the whole mess reminded me to join the Iowa Atheists & Freethinkers group, and I don't think I'm the only one, so maybe this cloud has a silver lining.

I didn't expect much from Culver, but he still managed to disappoint me. Worse than Boswell, even, and he's a blue dog through and through. But hell, stacked up next to Chet, Boswell's a veritable mental giant, so there's that.

Posted by: Liveliest Crib | August 7, 2009 1:24 AM

Vito T @ 5:

C'mon, 80% of the country is Christian, of COURSE the governor condemns these ads- it's a move that speaks volumes to his base.

Why would any politician in their right mind stand up for an atheist movement? It's political suicide.

I disagree. To be fair, I don't actually know who this governor's base actually is, but I disagree with the basic political strategy.

Sure, it might seem safest only to pander to perceived public opinion, but even a public as dense as the American one gets tired of being pandered to. I've worked in professional politics, and very often, this is the kind of thinking that can get campaigns into trouble.

What might be suicide is for a politician in a religious community to say, "Well, yeah, I'm one of those atheists, and I like that the ad tells me I'm not alone here."

What might not be suicide is for a politician to say, "This is America, damn it! Where we are all created equal, where we are all endowed with unalienable rights! Do we no longer hold that truth to be self evident? If not, when did we stop? Our Constitution guarantees religious freedom for everyone, including those with no religion and those who are not within the bus ad's demographic. There is nothing more American than standing up and being recognized and making your voice heard, even if I disagree with what's said."

Can I guarantee that the backlash won't unseat the incumbent who says so? Of course not. But it's not necessarily suicidal. Americans do hunger for that kind of leadership. It's newsworthy, it will definitely find a sympathetic audience around the country (possibly launching larger political aspirations), and it's the right thing to do.

Howard Dean essentially did just that when he signed the country's first civil unions bill in Vermont, against all the advice that it was political suicide for him to do so. Instead of pandering to a state that, as of then, was 60-70% opposed to gay unions of any kind, Dean chose to lead, and explain his decision. (Even campaigning in a bullet proof vest for re-election.) By the time the next election actually rolled around, he was easily re-elected, and Vermonters has largely changed their mind, the statistic having reversed itself with 60% in favor of civil unions. And today, Vermont has joined the collection of states that have full gay marriage.

There are a lot of presumed third rails in politics. Eventually, someone grabs on, and realizes that the presumption was wrong.

Posted by: NickDLP | August 7, 2009 1:34 AM

The poll is 93% "NO" now.

Posted by: windy | August 7, 2009 1:44 AM

FLUFFY CLOUDS!!!!

How dare they! Fluffy clouds are a registered trademark of God! But at least they didn't use "Jesus clouds".

Posted by: GMacs | August 7, 2009 1:49 AM

I find the American Dollar Bill utterly offensive.

You think our dollar is offensive? Our 20 bares the visage of a genocidal dictator.

I like British money. Their 10er has Darwin.

Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | August 7, 2009 1:56 AM

FLUFFY CLOUDS? I would prefer if the big sky daddy were Obscured By Clouds.

Posted by: Rob Gordon | August 7, 2009 2:17 AM

That is terrible- we are the only group that it is acceptable to attack with outright bigotry. Only partly related, but I am trying to get the word out on this. That right-wing Christian dating service "eHarmony" is know for rejecting people (like me) for VERY suspicious reasons. I have been participating in a blog discussion, and some guy just came up with the brilliant idea after he was rejected, he answered all their questions the exact same way but pretended he was a Christian. You guess it, the Christian application got accepted, and the Atheist application got rejected. This is an absolutely evil company - the modern equivalent of the old "Whites Only" lunch counters. See this link for more information: http://www.pinoy.ca/eharmony/104

Posted by: Simon Scott | August 7, 2009 2:45 AM

a lurker @52 winz.

Best....idea......ever.

Posted by: Sean Coyne | August 7, 2009 3:02 AM

Iowa, isn't that in Afghanistan somewhere?

Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | August 7, 2009 3:06 AM

Rob Gordon, expand your list of groups it is fine to be bigoted towards. By claiming that homosexuality is a sin that must be controlled; just like murder, pedophilia and drug addiction; it is right to treat LGBT people like criminals. To not fall in line with their point of view is to not show respect for their faith based existence.

Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | August 7, 2009 3:20 AM

Even old New York was once New Amsterdam!

Posted by: Cody | August 7, 2009 3:27 AM

First off, I am a christian, I am methodist.
Further more, I believe in jesus.
However i also believe in the freedom of speech.
If athiests want to get to get together than so be it....
If God feels the need to touch thier spirits then it will be easier for him to find. I feel that banning their wanting to gather with a common intrest, is not right

Posted by: DingoJack | August 7, 2009 3:34 AM

Cody - If god is omniscient, why can't he see dispersed atheists?
Could there be another reason for this gracious concession of the right to freely associate granted to all US citizens in the Constitution? Hmmm - DJ

Posted by: DingoJack | August 7, 2009 3:45 AM

Cody-
It'd be nice if atheists were given the other rights specifically guaranteed in the contitution too. You know:
- The right of free association
- The right to free speech
- The right to petition grievances
Amongst other rights.- DJ

Posted by: DingoJack | August 7, 2009 4:14 AM

What a shame the Scottish couldn't get the right person on their fiver.
try this Australian $50 note^ instead:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Australian_$50_note_paper_front.jpg
Howard Florey et al.: est. 80m lives saved by science*. - DJ
_________
^Circulated 1974 to 1995
*Tell 'em that when they say science is evil!

Posted by: Sean Coyne | August 7, 2009 4:33 AM

Spotted on Richard Dawkins site.

"Atheists on a Bus." The movie.

LOL!

Posted by: Aquaria | August 7, 2009 5:14 AM

I think the big problem is that atheists have been going about this wrong.

First, atheists wanting to put up these signs need to start complaining about all religious billboards in the local area, and how offensive they are. They won't get removed. That's the point. Log every denial to remove a sign. Get it in writing. Tape record. Video--whatever means you can muster. Just get all the denials you can come up with in some solid form.

THEN try to purchase ads. Then make a huge stink when the media comes to make atheists look bad. Show them your data about how religious ads were found offensive, but those ads got to stay up. Why can't the atheist ads? Why does one group get to offend, and another can't? The media thrives on conflict. It will surprise them to see careful documentation of every refusal to remove the offensive religious ads. You might just get them to feed the controversy--in the favor of atheists.

Don't know if it will work, but it's worth a try, anyway.

Ah, and this from #52:

Read your Bible.

I would change it to say,

Read your Bible. ALL of it.

With the ALL in the biggest, reddest honking letters possible.

Posted by: Mike | August 7, 2009 5:22 AM

Any chance of a new ad to be submitted? Perhaps "Des Moines Area Regional Transit Authority... Transport solutions for now, social attitudes for the 1950s"?

Posted by: Nik | August 7, 2009 5:38 AM

If science classes in American schools should "teach the controversy", that is, "evolution" vs. "creationism", should Sunday schools and churches in America also have to teach the controversy of "there is a god" vs. "there is no god"? Seems only fair :)

Posted by: DaveH | August 7, 2009 5:49 AM

Dingo Jack#99 sez

What a shame the Scottish couldn't get the right person on their fiver.

Fair enough :)

Sadly, a couple of Scottish notes have also had missionaries on as well (David Livingstone and Mary Slessor) but I think the angle was more to celebrate their actions against the slave trade. I hope.

Posted by: Billy | August 7, 2009 6:01 AM

the pole is a lot more in our favor

Posted by: DingoJack | August 7, 2009 6:31 AM

Heddle - Yes but Neil Diamond fans deserve it!
What about 'only the lonely'? - ;) DJ

Posted by: Holbach | August 7, 2009 6:47 AM

I wonder if the outcry would have been more vicious if just two changes were implemented: place the indefinite article in front of god in the lower case. "Don't believe in a god?" Now that should be even more blatantly ovbious than the credulous original. And perhaps to put it on the cosmic scale, a view of the Universe, and then the clincher, "We are alone." There you go.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself | August 7, 2009 6:50 AM

Sadly, a couple of Scottish notes have also had missionaries on as well (David Livingstone and Mary Slessor)

But do they put Henry Morton Stanley on a banknote? He's the guy who made Livingstone famous.

Posted by: Ken Cope | August 7, 2009 6:54 AM

Some Christian radio station around here (these little low-wattage broadcasters like to park on the lower FM dial and jam NPR affiliates) has a bus ad campaign with the tagline: "Life without God. How is that working for you?" It works just as well to promote atheism, since everybody's life is without God; some of us are just smart enough to live life without belief in any of them.

Posted by: bastion of sass | August 7, 2009 6:57 AM

Ugh. Horrible flashback. Was on a charter bus trip, riding in one of those tour coaches with TV/DVD monitors hanging every few rows. I was forced, yes, forced against my will, to listen to several hours of Neil Diamond concerts. Why, bus company, why?!

As I result, I think my generally low tolerance for Neil Diamond fans isn't wholly irrational.

Posted by: Holbach | August 7, 2009 7:02 AM

Ken Cope @ 119

It would be nice to insert under the tagline, "Great! Life at it's fullest! (' Uh, what is this god thing?")

Posted by: eidolon | August 7, 2009 7:07 AM

Cargocult@20...

Why does there have to be a why? It has always seemed to me that the question of "Why are we he here?" carries with it the idea that there must be a creator or plan. How's about the concept that there is no plan. It is a random universe governed by physical laws, not some Big Sky Daddy.

As for the statement that atheism has no more support that any religion, that seems somewhat inaccurate. For example, consider the shrinking role of Dog. Struck by lightning? Wrath of God. Ooops - just a big spark after all. Repeat this often enough and the job description of Deity continues to shrink until you are left with only those things that are subjective. At this point, all you have is left is God of the Gaps.

Posted by: bastion of sass | August 7, 2009 7:10 AM

You know, all you atheists and freethinkers had to do to make the ad "OK" was simply add just a few cute little angels peeking from the clouds, even with the same text. Same message; different, inoffensive, and non-disturbing meaning.

"Ah, yes, that's so true. We're not alone because the angels (and God) are always with us."

Posted by: Ken Cope | August 7, 2009 7:14 AM

effectively house-bound

Under quarantine.

Posted by: jkhdfk | August 7, 2009 7:24 AM

@20 though an Ian Banks universe seems interesting, as well"

interesting, perhaps but like @18 "think of the children".

no one ever does...

Posted by: QuestionEverything | August 7, 2009 7:36 AM

Out here in the rest of the world we talk of the Islamic Taliban in places like Pakistan and the Christian Taliban in the US. There is no difference between the two groups. Both are fundamental nut jobs who believe that theirs is the only true belief.

Posted by: Thomas A. | August 7, 2009 7:49 AM

I think the folks who got offended have trouble with basic reading comprehension. My guess is that they didn't understand the question mark at the end, and read it as a command: "Don't believe in God!".

Posted by: Holydust | August 7, 2009 7:57 AM

That is absolutely disgusting... it's not like it says "You shouldn't believe in a god, you dummy!" It merely suggests that there are people out there who don't believe in god and that we don't have to feel bad about it. Apparently that's offensive and scary. It doesn't even market to the religious... wtf.

I'm absolutely fuming. How the fuck do they get away with this shit!? "It isn't in support of my religion, so it's offensive!"

I have to get up and go punch something. This is outrageous.

Posted by: Todd | August 7, 2009 7:58 AM

I'm going to exercise my free speech rights now, so hide the children.

FUCK YOU CHET CULVER. YOU HAVE LOST MY VOTE.

I am reluctantly willing to return Terry Braindead to Terrace Hill over this one.

Posted by: Ranson | August 7, 2009 8:07 AM

@Rev #130

I am ashamed to say that my son is among that group. He picked it up at preschool. I'm hoping he'll grow out of it and see the light one day. It took me a few years after I met her to convince my wife to share the light of mustard, but she came around.

Ketchup on a hot dog is just unnatural. It's tolerable for corn dogs, though -- they're in a different class (although, to be completely proper, mustard must still be involved).

Posted by: windy | August 7, 2009 8:14 AM

I've fogotten. What's the largest city in Turkey called again?

My grandma used to sing that song!

Posted by: Malke | August 7, 2009 8:25 AM

As of my vote, the poll stands at 95.1% votes for NO. 'Nuff said, end of discussion.

Posted by: Anri | August 7, 2009 8:33 AM

Speaking for myself, I'm happy that Culver isn't a better political strategist (or doesn't have a better one on staff).

If so, he'd have made a huge massive fuss about the 'ungodly offensiveness' of the ads... while insisting, for first amendment reasons, that they must remain up!

Something along the lines of "Well, we know that these people are awful, and want to press their views on us, and take away god and eat babies, but this is America, we believe in free speech! Even for horrible heathens and idolaters and naked lesbians and the nasty, nasty ACLU."

For a blue dog, that sounds like a speech that could keep you in 'till the term limits rolled 'round.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 7, 2009 8:42 AM

Rev, you say this from time to time, and I'm curious to know - what should one put on hotdogs?

Posted by: Josh | August 7, 2009 9:02 AM

And how do you distinguish them from the black helicopters of Uncommon Descent denizens--those helicopters providing air support for the materialistic conspiracy?

UD denizens use surplus UH-1As exclusively.

"Well that's what I was told!"

Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | August 7, 2009 9:13 AM

That depends on the hot dog. For example, in Chicago.

It's been a long time since I've had a hotdog, but I've never seen one like that; that's just scary. Here in Australia you generally get them with any (or all) of mustard, ketchup (though we call it tomato sauce), cooked onions and maybe grated cheddar cheese.

However, I remember there was a place in Townsville (Queensland, Australia) a 'Danish Dog' with Danish relish, mustard and crispy dried onions. They were great. Possibly not up to the Rev's exacting high standards, though...

And don't ask me what animal(s) ours are made from. I'd have to take a line from a Simpsons episode and say 'Grade-F meat, mostly circus animals'.

Posted by: Ben in Texas | August 7, 2009 9:24 AM

I think some of the ad ideas above are good and are slowly evolving into some smart concepts. Here's another idea that crossed my mind, growing from the "Read your bible" idea above.

Simply cite a bible chapter and verse, and nothing more. Then put a logo (for whichever organization is buying the ad) underneath.

So, it would go like this:

Exodus 21:17
(logo underneath)

Of course, when curiosity grows--people wondering why an atheist organization would be citing the bible--they will open their bibles and see that Exodus 21:17 says:

"Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death."

You do a full campaign calling attention to various horrific parts of the bible.

Posted by: Dave | August 7, 2009 9:42 AM

Russell:

Damn you, PZ. I clicked through on this just for the naked lesbians masturbating with Bibles. And where are they? Huh? Where are they?

We already have Friday Cephalopods and Monday Metazoans, I think we're ready for Wednesday Naked Lesbians Masturbating With Bibles.

Oh, and bacon porn on Thursdays.

Posted by: Cath the Canberra Cook | August 7, 2009 9:50 AM

I think if you have a really good sausage, then ketchup is the wrong choice. This rarely applies to hot dogs here. Ketchup is great for disguising cheap nasty food with a hefty dose of salt, sugar, vinegar and tomato paste (mmmmm, natural MSG...)

Posted by: LanceR, JSG | August 7, 2009 9:57 AM

Particle man.

Triangle man.

Gov. Chet Culver.

One of these things is not like the others...

(Two annoying song references in one! I'm gonna burn for this!)

Posted by: heddle | August 7, 2009 10:04 AM

James Sweet, #160

Of course, no Christian should be offended by any of these ads. But I especially like what you said about #3:

"Don't believe in God? You're not alone."

You are quite right. People getting upset at manifestly true statements is inexplicable. It once happened to me: I had brake fluid dumped on a car (it eats the paint) because it sported the well-known bumper sticker: "Abortion Stops a Beating Heart" which, like your number three, is indisputable.

Madness.

Posted by: Ranson | August 7, 2009 10:08 AM

I think ketchup/tomato sauce is an abomination on any sausage, though I will admit that most any other condiment can be acceptable. I, myself, have a a fondness for applying refried beans and sauerkraut to a hot dog.

I don't have any human companionship for a while after, but it is a good emal.

Posted by: SayBlade | August 7, 2009 10:10 AM

@ Ben in Texas August 7, 2009 9:24 AM who wrote: "Of course, when curiosity grows--people wondering why an atheist organization would be citing the bible--they will open their bibles and see that Exodus 21:17 says: 'Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.' You do a full campaign calling attention to various horrific parts of the bible."

Oh, I get it. The Bible you don't believe in is the one you take literally. So, you have decided what type of Christianity you don't like and use it as THE definition of what Christianity is. I thought this was a column for freethinkers, but it seems there are a lot of intolerant and inflexible "Atheists" here.

Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | August 7, 2009 10:16 AM

SayBlade wrote:

So, you have decided what type of Christianity you don't like and use it as THE definition of what Christianity is.

But there are Christians who believe that the entirety of the bible - including Exodus 21:17 - is completely 100% true. Why are those Christians wrong and other Christians - who believe in a 'metaphorical' or 'different genres' bible - right, and why?

Posted by: heddle | August 7, 2009 10:25 AM

eidolon

Are you certain the brake fluid was not just random vandalism and unrelated to your bumper sticker? Was the sticker defaced or perhaps it was just the will of Dog that your car gets trashed. My Darwin fish was taken - petty theft or the work of some fundie? I have no way of knowing. Do you?

Not that it matters, but as a matter of fact, yes.

1) It was accompanied by a message saying "Keep Abortion Legal!"
2) It was part of a spree--the perpetrator cased church parking lots and targeted cars with anti-abortion bumper stickers. Over a period of weeks a handful of such cars from our church were vandalized in the same manner, as well as from nearby churches.
3) The man was caught with the goods (brake fluid/notes) and confessed and,
4) just to provide the sad ending to the story--he committed suicide in jail.

Anyone who lived in the Hampton Roads area of VA in the mid-nineties might recognize the story as it was, of course, covered by the local press.

Posted by: Knockgoats | August 7, 2009 10:33 AM

"Abortion Stops a Beating Heart" which, like your number three, is indisputable. - heddle

Typical Christard dishonesty. It doesn't if abortion takes place before the fetal heart starts beating at around 9-10 weeks. I can't find figures for that, but in the USA 88% take place within the first 13 weeks after the last menstrual period. Maybe the person dumping the brake fluid just didn't like liars.

Posted by: diegopig | August 7, 2009 10:37 AM

We had the very same problem, here in Italy.

check out the "The Atheist Bus Campaign" on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uaar

Posted by: Knockgoats | August 7, 2009 10:42 AM

There are people -- significant numbers -- who call themselves Christians who say "the Bible is true, and some of it happened." - SayBlade

What's that piece of nonsense even supposed to mean? If you say "the Bible is true", that implies that it is all true. If you just mean "parts of the Bible are true", then say that.

Posted by: tsg | August 7, 2009 10:44 AM

"Don't believe in God? You're not alone." I'm baffled. Even if you are a bigot, what's offensive about it? What is there to disagree with? If there was a billboard that said, "There are at least two atheists on the planet," would they find that offensive too?

Very simply, because they find the mere existence of atheists offensive and don't like to be reminded of it.

Posted by: heddle | August 7, 2009 10:45 AM

Knockgoats,

What's that piece of nonsense even supposed to mean? If you say "the Bible is true", that implies that it is all true. If you just mean "parts of the Bible are true", then say that.

Yikes! That time you were exactly right.

Posted by: Ben in Texas | August 7, 2009 10:48 AM

SayBlade said:

'Oh, I get it. The Bible you don't believe in is the one you take literally. So, you have decided what type of Christianity you don't like and use it as THE definition of what Christianity is. I thought this was a column for freethinkers, but it seems there are a lot of intolerant and inflexible "Atheists" here.'

How does the ad concept take the bible literally? It simply cites a chapter and verse? Embarrassed by that chapter and verse? You should be. The Christian bible IS an embarrassment.

I don't like any types of Christianity. Whichever one you follow, I don't like it. It's mythology with no evidence to support it. Doesn't stop me from loving my Christian friends. I just wish they'd think rationally. Why don't you try it?

I may appear intolerant here, but this is where I go to vent. I'm bombarded with Christian babble on a daily basis. Yesterday, for example, one of my Christian friends forwarded me a country music video featuring a song that advocated the abolishment of the separation of church and state. Guess which god they want to insert into our government? The Christian god, of course. It was right-wing fundie BS and I'm sick of it. As I said, I come here to vent. If you don't like it, go away. If you want to debate, it's simple: show some evidence for your god.

Posted by: tsg | August 7, 2009 10:51 AM

@Heddle #171:

I'm going to guess that you had the bumper sticker on your car because you think abortion shouldn't be legal. I'm not condoning the vandalism to your car, but you are being disingenuous by asserting that it was only a "statement of fact" and not trying to convince people it shouldn't be legal. You lose the right to complain about people assuming what your intentions are when they are correct.

Now, what was the intention of the atheist ads that warranted having them pulled off the busses?

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | August 7, 2009 10:52 AM

...and if you say "the Bible is true," and therefore mean all of it is true, then you have to spend all that time figuring out how all those parts that are obviously not true could be interpreted as true so as to preserve your earlier conviction that is is all true.

Hey, heddle, how 'bout them Pira...eh, never mind.

Posted by: Siphoneuphoria | August 7, 2009 10:54 AM

I'm with you #37
Thanks for the giggle. I usually have pretty thick skin, but that article amde me sad for some reason. I think it was the "most distrusted minority" part.

Posted by: jshiv | August 7, 2009 10:58 AM

This caught my attention:

"A 2006 survey by sociologists at the University of Minnesota found that atheists are “America’s most distrusted minority.”"

http://iowaindependent.com/18293/acknowledging-existence-of-atheists-is-too-offensive-for-des-moines

Sounds like an interesting and unbiased study!

"Edgell also argues that today’s atheists play the role that Catholics, Jews and communists have played in the past—they offer a symbolic moral boundary to membership in American society. “It seems most Americans believe that diversity is fine, as long as every one shares a common ‘core’ of values that make them trustworthy—and in America, that ‘core’ has historically been religious,” says Edgell."

Hmmm, Why would Penny Edgell say something like that if she was using a fair set of unbiased scientific principles to conduct a sociological study about the effect of atheists on society? Maybe because when it comes to religion her own Christian biases seclude her from being an objective observer.

http://www.soc.umn.edu/faculty/edgell.html
http://blog.lib.umn.edu/edgell/home/

Posted by: SayBlade | August 7, 2009 11:02 AM

@ Sven DiMilo August 7, 2009 10:52 AM who wrote: "...and if you say 'the Bible is true,' and therefore mean all of it is true, then you have to spend all that time figuring out how all those parts that are obviously not true could be interpreted as true so as to preserve your earlier conviction that is is all true."

No. I quoted, "the Bible is true and some of it happened." You are positing that truth is only in facts and a *literal* understanding of The Bible.

Posted by: tsg | August 7, 2009 11:03 AM

No. I quoted, "the Bible is true and some of it happened." You are positing that truth is only in facts and a *literal* understanding of The Bible.

So what you meant to say was "the Bible is true, for small values of 'true'."

Posted by: Josh | August 7, 2009 11:09 AM

No, Heddle quoted all of this:

What's that piece of nonsense even supposed to mean? If you say "the Bible is true", that implies that it is all true. If you just mean "parts of the Bible are true", then say that.

I think he meant that he agreed with KG's sentiment in terms of "saying what you mean."

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | August 7, 2009 11:16 AM

I could find any number Euro girly-men beers but no Iron City.

I'm speechless.

Posted by: Ranson | August 7, 2009 11:27 AM

@ SayBlade

You could get all that from other sources. Why bring religion into it?

Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | August 7, 2009 11:33 AM

Not sure what you mean by "small" but I posit that truth goes beyond mere facts.

The truth that the world is a better place if we're nice to each other - that's a 'truth' the bible contains, and for which no facts are required.

On the other hand, that we were told we should be nice to each other by a man purporting to be the son of a god and who performed miracles is not a truth unless you've got some facts to back it up.

Posted by: Alan | August 7, 2009 11:36 AM

You need to update the the poll results. Check out the results of the poll now.

4.8% Yes
95.2% No

with 6987 votes

Posted by: Ben in Texas | August 7, 2009 11:37 AM

What I usually find when Christians start talking about the "truth" of the bible in abstract terms is that they are generally attempting to claim the ethical and moral high ground. They say, "See, the bible is full of all this great wisdom and wonderful values."

Of course, they ignore all the bad parts, and they ignore the fact that plenty of people (like most of the people on this blog) have outstanding morals and ethics without any supernatural BS. You don't need a god to be a good person. If your god somehow makes you a good person, and you can keep your god out of my face, good for you.

Also, those "values" in the bible existed long before the bible was written. Christians can't claim them as their own.

Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | August 7, 2009 11:46 AM

Ben in Texas,

If heddle sticks around, wait 'til he gets going. He'd spew forth enough sophistry to choke a blue whale to argue that black was white if the bible said it was.

Posted by: E.V. | August 7, 2009 11:48 AM

Biblical truth: at least one male/female set of every known species of animal was within walking distance of Noah's house. God suspended all illness and death of any and all inhabitants of the ark, which was not only large enough for the hordes of animals but also large enough to store enough food the lengthy time they were aboard ship. Not one animal ate the other, so there were stored carcasses for the carnivores and enough grasses/grains for the herbivores. Yeeeaaaah, riiiiiiiiiiight...

Posted by: Ben in Texas | August 7, 2009 11:51 AM

Wowbagger,

Yes, I've seen his work, and it's quite painful.

I've been reading this blog for about two years--don't post much, usually because everyone else usually does a pretty good job of saying many things I'd say myself, yourself included. I'm glad you and others have the endurance to battle some of these ignorant godbots.

One thing that really sets me off is the "Christian values" BS, which, as I mentioned, is sometimes described as great "truths" in the bible. What are these truths? Why do these people need the bible to have these truths revealed to them? It's mind boggling.

Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | August 7, 2009 11:54 AM

How about 'truth' can mean both 'truth' and 'complete fiction but from which a person, by means of some extraordinarily convoluted and profoundly intellectually dishonest manipulation of what the words used mean, can appear to extract something which they can tout as meaningful while protecting the image of their chosen god as being all that they need him to be, i.e. omniscient, omnipotent, omnicognisant and - hilariously - omnibenevolent.'

Posted by: E.V. | August 7, 2009 11:56 AM

Sayblade: Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | August 7, 2009 11:57 AM

'Tis, that's the Old Covenant.
There's a New one that obviates Leviticus pretty much altogether, is my understanding.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself | August 7, 2009 12:00 PM

& another thing: if dark skinned people were from Cain's lineage and centuries later God wiped all humans out except for Noah & Co.... - you see where I'm going with this?

Nope, because the Mark of Cain got transmuted to Noah's son Ham when Ham saw his father's nakedness. Killing a brother = looking at Dad when he's nude = getting dark skin.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | August 7, 2009 12:01 PM

"Swatting a fly stops a beating heart" - which is actually true, and just as morally relevant.

Really? Your scale doesn't slide even a little bit?

Posted by: Knockgoats | August 7, 2009 12:08 PM

A reading of the Genesis story of Adam and Eve's two older sons. Cain who killed his brother Abel could have been someone trying to explain that (not how) Homo Sapiens wiped out Neanderthals. It's not documentation, not history, not rocket science, but it is nonetheless interesting. - SayBlade

No it's not, it's fucking ludicrous. Do you really think oral traditions last upwards of 20,000 years? This is just the sort of blithering nonsense you generally get when you try to defend the "truth" of the Bible in metaphorical terms.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself | August 7, 2009 12:10 PM

Sven DiMilo #219

'Tis, that's the Old Covenant. There's a New one that obviates Leviticus pretty much altogether, is my understanding.

Nope, because certain Christians go by the "homersexuals is a abomination" which comes out of the Old Testament. You see, Christians got absolved of all that "don't eat shrimp, ring a bell if you're a leper, no switching on lights on Sunday" stuff by Jebus. Except, of course, for those things that resonate with Christian prejudices, like homersexuality and giving 10% to the church so the pastor can support his mistress' coke habit.

Posted by: LanceR, JSG | August 7, 2009 12:14 PM

(Heddle @228)...many of us would say that your moral compass comes from God even if you don't believe in him.

I'll take "Unclear on the Concept" for $1000.

Or is that category "Sheer Impossibility"?

I can't read it from here.

Posted by: SayBlade | August 7, 2009 12:16 PM

Oops!

@ Wowbagger, OM August 7, 2009 11:33 AM who wrote: "On the other hand, that we were told we should be nice to each other by a man purporting to be the son of a god and who performed miracles is not a truth unless you've got some facts to back it up."

I DON'T need any facts to back anything up. It's a STORY!

Posted by: Matt Penfold | August 7, 2009 12:20 PM

I DON'T need any facts to back anything up. It's a STORY!

So you admit it is fiction, with no basis in reality ?

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 7, 2009 12:22 PM

When people talk of putting mustard on hotdogs, do they actually mean mustard, or that stuff that Americans have which is almost but not quite totally unlike mustard ?

Well when I talk about it, I mean mustard. But I'll admit I'm not opposed to the Yellow mustard you are probably referring to if that's the only choice.

Posted by: raven | August 7, 2009 12:25 PM

My Darwin fish was taken - petty theft or the work of some fundie? I have no way of knowing. Do you?

They do that out here on the WC too. One guy was caught with a knife trying to get a Darwin fish off a car and said it was because it was a "demonic symbol".

Suspicious activity: 9:11 a.m., . A man with a knife was spotted in the parking lot of an office supply business. The witness was sitting in a car in the parking lot when she saw a man get out of his car, walk over to another car and raise a large knife in the air. When the man realized he was being watched, he returned to his vehicle and drove away. Police stopped the man as he was leaving. The man said he was driving by when he noticed a Jesus fish with Darwin written in the center of it on the back of a parked vehicle. The man said he considered this to be a demonic symbol and intended to pull it off of the car with the knife but decided to leave when he was spotted by the witness. Police warned the man about his behavior and took no further action.

Posted by: SC, OM | August 7, 2009 12:27 PM

Give me Leviticus, or give me death. - heddle

Take both, please. You're welcome.

*extended laugh*

Posted by: Matt Penfold | August 7, 2009 12:29 PM

Well when I talk about it, I mean mustard. But I'll admit I'm not opposed to the Yellow mustard you are probably referring to if that's the only choice.

You mean the hot mustard ? As made by Colemans ?

I once knew an American who mistook Coleman's English Mustard for American mustard and slathered all over a sausage. I believe his taste buds recovered after a couple of days.

Posted by: shen | August 7, 2009 12:30 PM

"featuring naked lesbians masturbating with Bibles."

Wait, do they still have the pictures from that campaign?

....fir research purposes only.

Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | August 7, 2009 12:32 PM

Give me Leviticus, or give me death.

I would settle for heddle trying to life the live of a person from that time period. That would include never using the internet again.

Go live biblically and leave the rest of us alone.

Oh, what the fuck, heddle has been on my killfile for over a year now. It is the rest of you guys who insist on engaging the person who ruin it for me.

Posted by: tsg | August 7, 2009 12:33 PM

Admit? I didn't think I was hiding anything. And, all fiction DOES have a basis in reality.

And hence what I meant by "small values of 'true'".

Posted by: Hypatia's Daughter | August 7, 2009 12:36 PM

#214 E.V.,

& another thing: if dark skinned people were from Cain's lineage and centuries later God wiped all humans out except for Noah & Co.... - you see where I'm going with this?

Personally, I don't think race is involved. I think some descendants of Ham are white. And I am waiting for them true Bible believers to show up at my house, ASAP, to wait on me.

Posted by: Ken Cope | August 7, 2009 12:36 PM

heddle poodled:

I’m sorry, raven, you creepy lunatic,

I'm sorry, but I've never hyper-ventilated before from laughing so hard the cats have left the room and the children have come downstairs to find out what's wrong, and I can't even begin to read anything after that because it will only get funnier.

Posted by: tsg | August 7, 2009 12:38 PM

You mean the hot mustard ? As made by Colemans ?

I once knew an American who mistook Coleman's English Mustard for American mustard and slathered all over a sausage.

You mean that's not how it's supposed to be used?

I believe his taste buds recovered after a couple of days.

Wuss.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | August 7, 2009 12:38 PM

Clearly Heddle has not noticed all those attempts by the religious to force their values on the rest of us. Tyranny of the masses is still a tyranny.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 7, 2009 12:40 PM

That should have been French's Yellow Mustard (as in the company not the country)

Posted by: tsg | August 7, 2009 12:42 PM

Clearly Heddle has not noticed all those attempts by the religious to force their values on the rest of us. Tyranny of the masses is still a tyranny.

Of course he doesn't. Tyrants rarely see themselves as tyrants.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself | August 7, 2009 12:43 PM

That should have been French's Yellow Mustard

One limousine pulls up to another stopped at a light. The window rolls down. "Pardon me, sir, but do you have any cheap, yellow mustard?"

Posted by: Knockgoats | August 7, 2009 12:46 PM

"Swatting a fly stops a beating heart" - which is actually true, and just as morally relevant. - Me

Really? Your scale doesn't slide even a little bit? - Sven DiMilo

My point was that "stopping a beating heart" is not in itself morally problematic; heddle's stupid sticker aims to produce an unthinking response: "Oo, it stops a beating heart, must be bad".

But to answer your point about what you thought my point was, at least until the fetus is capable of feeling pain, abortion is less morally problematic than swatting a fly, which might suffer if you don't swat accurately.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | August 7, 2009 12:51 PM

At people with anti-abortion bumper stickers are being upfront about being misogynistic wankers.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself | August 7, 2009 12:53 PM

Cardiac bypass surgery stops a beating heart.

Myocardial infarction stops a beating heart.

Capital punishment stops a beating heart.

Posted by: MikeTheInfidel | August 7, 2009 12:53 PM

Sven DiMilo said:

'Tis, that's the Old Covenant.

There's a New one that obviates Leviticus pretty much altogether, is my understanding.
Matthew 5:17-19 says otherwise.

17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

18 I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

19 Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Posted by: tsg | August 7, 2009 12:57 PM

They're probably offended by the implication that disbelief in god is socially acceptable.

They're probably offended by the implication that disbelief in god is permitted.

Posted by: SayBlade | August 7, 2009 12:58 PM

@ Ben in Texas August 7, 2009 12:45 PM who wrote: "Many Christians believe that I will burn in hell, even though, in debates, they generally aren't willing to come right out and say it. Instead, they'll say something like, 'Well, that's for god to decide.' (Are you willing to say that your religion damns me to hell if I don't accept Jesus?"

All Christians--yes, all--believe in a supernatural entity without a scrap of evidence to support it."

When you say "*all* Christians" do you mean that in the metaphorical sense?

We don't do hell at my church. Got rid of it.

Posted by: Chrystal Ocean | August 7, 2009 1:01 PM

The poll is definitely going in the right direction. For the No side: 95.2 percent.

Now where are those dancing bunnies when I need them...

Posted by: E.V. | August 7, 2009 1:04 PM

We don't do hell at my church. Got rid of it

Posted by: Ken Cope | August 7, 2009 1:08 PM

It's fun to watch the Christians (disclaimer: not every last one on earth) tap dance around the OT. It's a hideous book and I'd be embarrassed to "own" it, too.

I've got small kids, one of whom is an avid reader of books on anything to do with general science, insects, robots, electronics, astronomy, or dragons (Bowzer is his imaginary friend), while the pre-schooler's favorites are any of our anatomy reference books, but especially the Lennart Nillson book, and the Britannica anatomy overlays. She's starting to call out the bones by name. Mapplethorpe and R. Crumb, fine. Bible? I won't let depravity like that near my kids.

Posted by: raven | August 7, 2009 1:09 PM

Heddle the Death Cultist:

I’m sorry, raven, you creepy lunatic, but you do not know what the hell you are talking about.

OOOHHHH!!!! Heddle is angry. Big deal. We don't get excited until one of the death cultists threatens to kill everyone. Which they do often.

Sign of mental deterioration. This is your brain on toxic religion, getting more and more warped.

bcseweb.org Rushdooney: Our list may not be perfect but it seems to cover those “crimes” against the family that are inferred by Rushdoony’s statement to Moyers. The real frightening side of it is the interpretation of heresy, apostasy and idolatry. Rushdoony’s position seems to suggest that he would have anyone killed who disagreed with his religious opinions. That represents all but a tiny minority of people. Add to that death penalties for what is quite legal, blasphemy, not getting on with parents and working on a Sunday means that it the fantasy ideal world of Rushdoony and his pals, there will be an awful lot of mass murderers and amongst a tiny population.

We have done figures for the UK which suggest that around 99% of the population would end up dead and the remainder would have each, on average, killed 500 fellow citizens.

Chalcedon foundation bsceweb.org. Stoning disobedient children to death

Speaking of creepy lunatics, here is one of countless examples of the agendas of the Death Cultists. Rushdooney was a psychopath. He was also one of the founders of US xian Dominionism and Pat Robertson's mentor. His plan involved killing 297 of the 300 million citizens alive today.

Heddle will just ignore it. His blind spot has evolved to being just a blind religious bigot.

Posted by: Ranson | August 7, 2009 1:11 PM

I'm not on "the Twitter", and doubly not so at work, so this is all I've got. I just don't like some kinds of flame wars. These guys look like they might go to the trenches and break out the mustard gas.

...

Okay, I'm going to hell for that one. That joke was horrible.

Posted by: yo mamma | August 7, 2009 1:13 PM

there are as many dumb fuck atheists as there are dumb fuck christians

Posted by: SayBlade | August 7, 2009 1:15 PM

@ MikeTheInfidel August 7, 2009 1:11 PM who wrote: "Then you may as well be an atheist. Christianity without hell is meaningless. The entire POINT of Jesus' death in Christian dogma is to save people from hell. No hell means no reason to be a Christian."

So YOU say.

Posted by: CJO | August 7, 2009 1:16 PM

There are people -- significant numbers -- who call themselves Christians who say "the Bible is true, and some of it happened." - SayBlade

What's that piece of nonsense even supposed to mean? If you say "the Bible is true", that implies that it is all true. If you just mean "parts of the Bible are true", then say that.

The quotation is of a contemporary rabbi, I believe, I'm forgetting the name, but he is quoted as saying "The Torah is true, and some of it may have actually happened!"

It is supposed to be somewhat koan-like, so I'm not sure calling it a "piece of nonsense" hits where it hurts in this case. It's supposed to sound paradoxical, because its intent is to oppose the term "truth," in an exhaustive sense, with "that which can be verified, or that which is objectively true." The larger idea being that myths can embody "a different kind of truth," not that "parts of the bible are true" in the verificationist sense.

For myself, I'm ambivalent about this, as it smacks of these "other ways of knowing" we're always hearing about. But it makes a hell of a lot more sense as an approach to a diverse and self-contradictory collection of ancient literature than the contortionist antics of inerrantist apologetics.

Posted by: Ben in Texas | August 7, 2009 1:20 PM

Sphere Coupler, you make some good points. Many people don't think much about religion or any gods at all, but if you were to ask them (in the U.S., at least) if they are Christian, they would say yes. Life's easier that way, isn't it? They wouldn't want the stigma associated with atheism. And some of them, you're right, simply think there is no way to know. And a small portion of both groups don't feel the need to ponder it long enough to even reach any personal conclusion. The type of ad I recommended would encourage them to ponder it, I hope. And for those who've been silently thinking the idea of god is pretty silly, the website I describe would possibly help them reach a conclusion. I'm betting more would reach the conclusion that the concept of god is just flat weird.

Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | August 7, 2009 1:24 PM

Posted by: yo mamma | August 7, 2009 1:13 PM

there are as many dumb fuck atheists as there are dumb fuck christians

Yo, dumb fuck! The difference is this, I do not have to try to justify the statements or actions of dumb fuck atheists. Because I do not have to justify faith and go with who has the better arguments and methods, I can condemn all dumb fucks.

Oh, wait a second, you were just setting up a false equivalency. You are truly a dumb fuck.

Posted by: MikeTheInfidel | August 7, 2009 1:25 PM

SayBlade,

Kindly explain the point of Christianity if the afterlife is irrelevant.

I can have EXACTLY the same moral and ethical philosophy you do without any of the supernatural nonsense.

Posted by: JefFlyingV | August 7, 2009 1:28 PM

SayBlade, so you ignore Satan in the life of Christ in your Christian mythology?

Posted by: ursa amjor | August 7, 2009 1:30 PM

95.3%

Posted by: Ken Cope | August 7, 2009 1:31 PM

These guys look like they might go to the trenches and break out the mustard gas.

In the last powerful days of another way of life, when everything happened in cars, when sullen, desperate men would do anything for a tankful, in the troubled years of the 100 year gas war and the terrible food insurrection, when armies mixed mustard and gas, and relished war! In those frightened times, private citizens often had to do the terrifying work of real police. Apprehending criminals and solving tricky moral problems. They had private eyes, but public fists. Full tanks but clean consciences. And tonight's story is only typical!

--Phil Austin, Carhook, Roller Maidens from Outer Space (1974)

Posted by: Patricia, OM | August 7, 2009 1:34 PM

Yeah, there are some dumb fuck atheists out there, but I'd bet the farm there are more dumb fuck christian hypocrites than there are dumb fuck atheist hypocrites.

Do we want to start in on the numbers of christian liars vs. atheist liars?

Posted by: tsg | August 7, 2009 1:37 PM

@Sphere Coupler:

Do you have the same problem saying there's no Santa Claus?

Posted by: B. Scott Andersen | August 7, 2009 1:39 PM

As of 1:38 EDT:

Yes (376 responses) 4.7%
No (7550 responses) 95.3%
7926 total responses

-- Scott

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 7, 2009 1:40 PM

Fun Fact: Bacon that isn't crispy isn't actually bacon.

Did you pick that fact up at the creation museum today?

/ducks

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 7, 2009 1:43 PM

Hot dogs were made for ketchup.

The caveat to the ketchup rule is that it is ok to put it on a hotdog as long as you are under age 16.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself | August 7, 2009 1:45 PM

The caveat to the ketchup rule is that it is ok to put it on a hotdog as long as you are under age 16 6.

Fixed it for you, Rev BDC.

Posted by: Sphere Coupler | August 7, 2009 1:47 PM

tsg | August 7, 2009 1:37 PM

"Do you have the same problem saying there's no Santa Claus?"

What? no, tell me it isn't so. But,but where did my toys come from?

Not the same question as I'm sure you will agree, tho this thing about no Santa is quite disturbing.

Posted by: SayBlade | August 7, 2009 1:50 PM

2 MikeTheInfidel August 7, 2009 1:25 PM who wrote: "I can have EXACTLY the same moral and ethical philosophy you do without any of the SUPERNATURAL NONSENSE."

[emphasis mine]

Ah! Now we seem to be getting somewhere. This depends upon what you mean by supernatural. Are we talking about the "paranormal" here? Or, simply stuff that happens that science or logic cannot yet explain? Perhaps in this discussion too much is being attached to the airy fairy stuff. Some Christians believe it. Some don't.

Yes, you can have exactly the same moral and ethical philosophy as I do. We would have arrived there coming from different points. Doesn't mean yours is wrong. Doesn't mean mine is wrong either.

I have chosen my particular community (my church and my neighbourhood) because it fits me. Good things happen there. No one is coerced into doing or believing anything. We do tangible things that help people in our neighbourhood. We are first in line to speak out against exclusion, marginalisation of anyone including atheists. I like it so well, that I like to tell people about it. Just don't tell me to throw away the Bible.

Do you have a community you like to live in too? If it works for you, fabulous! Why should anyone take that away from you?

Posted by: Ranson | August 7, 2009 1:51 PM

Wow, serious blockquote fail. I don't know what happened to the rest of my comment, either. Weird.

Posted by: tsg | August 7, 2009 1:53 PM

Not the same question as I'm sure you will agree,

I don't. How is it different?

Posted by: stogoe | August 7, 2009 2:01 PM

All you mustard-fascists will not be allowed to disclaim French's Radioactive Glop Mustard as "No True Mustard" any longer. French's belongs to you, gorram it, and your refusal to admit to it is pathetic.

Posted by: Patricia, OM | August 7, 2009 2:06 PM

Holbach - Last year sometime, someone here told me (sorry I can't remember who) that heddles church follows the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy which you can read at:
http://www.sebts.edu/prospective_students/what_we_believe/articles_inerancy.cfm

This is very similar to my old cults beliefs. For a short taste of the stoopid:

1. God, who is Himself Truth and speaks truth only, has inspired Holy Scripture in order to reveal Himself to lost mankind through Jesus Christ as Creator and Lord, Redeemer and Judge. Holy Scripture is God's witness to Himself.
4. Being wholly and verbally God-given, Scripture is without error or fault in all its teaching, no less in what it states about God's acts in creation, about events of world history, and about its own literary origins under God, than in its witness to Gods saving grace in individual lives.

If this is incorrect I'm sure heddle can tell me I'm wrong. There is no wiggle room in the above, that's the basis of heddles tap dancing act.

Posted by: Ben in Texas | August 7, 2009 2:14 PM

Sphere Coupler said:
"There is no logical proof for or against god."

There is no logical proof for or against the idea that my dead grandfather is currently riding a Harley around Jupiter at the moment, but I feel confident concluding that he isn't. Extraordinary claims and all that. That's why I also don't believe in Zeus, Odin, ghosts, leprechauns, etc.

Sphere Coupler also said:
"There is no significance in determination."

Maybe not for you personally, but surely you see the effects that some believers have on society.

Posted by: KI | August 7, 2009 2:15 PM

All the condiment comment has me confused, are we talking the Oscar Meyer/Hormel kind of pink tube bologna? I would think you could put anything on those and it would be an improvement in the taste. If we are speaking of fine wursts, then of course, no ketchup, but the mustard one would put on a hearty bratwurst would be too strong for a delicate bockwurst, and an old-fashioned wiener is another story altogether, being capable of hosting all manner of toppings.

Posted by: Patricia, OM | August 7, 2009 2:18 PM

Don't cry Sphere Coupler, toys is proof that Santa exists, just like dimes is proof the Tooth Fairy exists. All better now?

Posted by: SC, OM | August 7, 2009 2:20 PM

That was Patricia, heddle.

Posted by: MikeTheInfidel | August 7, 2009 2:22 PM

This depends upon what you mean by supernatural. Are we talking about the "paranormal" here? Or, simply stuff that happens that science or logic cannot yet explain?

We're talking about the magic promoted by the Bible and nearly any theistic religion. Things for which there is no evidence - things that have to be taken on faith alone.

Just don't tell me to throw away the Bible.

Like I said: I can have exactly the same moral and ethical philosophy as you without the supernatural nonsense, e.g. the believe that the Bible is anything special. I already threw out the Bible, because there's absolutely nothing of value in there that you can't get from sources that dump the ghost stories and stick to reality.

Posted by: heddle | August 7, 2009 2:23 PM

SC OM and Patricia OM,

Sorry. You OM's all look alike to me.

Posted by: Holbach | August 7, 2009 2:26 PM

Dullblade @ 336

Yes, still bullshit.

Posted by: Patricia, OM | August 7, 2009 2:30 PM

I personally affirm the Chicago Statement.

You have my sympathies. I understand what that means.

Posted by: MikeTheInfidel | August 7, 2009 2:33 PM

Do you have a community you like to live in too? If it works for you, fabulous! Why should anyone take that away from you?

What dishonest sophistry. You and I both know we're not talking about a community here. We're talking about religious beliefs.

Nobody needs to take away a harmless community. But you're also advocating poor reasoning and wishful thinking. Nonsense like your comment above about Cain & Abel being a metaphor for cro magnon and neanderthal is demonstrative of the problems involved in your mindset.

You claim the label 'Christian' but shed the beliefs associated with it. You're confronted with the evil, immoral acts described of your 'god' in the Bible. And you tell us that you just don't believe it. Oh, PHOOEY on that gosh-darned hell! We don't do hell at my church. Got rid of it.

How very convenient. You're not interested in what's actually true - your main interest, as you've professed, is in being comfortable with what you believe.

This is the equivalent of sitting in the corner of a burning building, rocking back and forth, and telling yourself it's not burning. Ignoring reality is called "delusion."

At what point does your "Christianity" become nothing more than universe worship? Clearly your god isn't the one described in the Bible; after all, that one made hell. You worship something entirely different.

I said it before and I'll say it again: If you are a Christian, but you think everyone goes to heaven, you might as well be an atheist. There is no point in your faith or your worship if there is no possible negative outcome. It would be much simpler and more intellectually honest to only believe that for which there is convincing evidence. After all, if you're right about what you believe... you'll still go to heaven.

This kind of newage postmodernist silliness makes me ill.

Posted by: Holbach | August 7, 2009 2:36 PM

Patricia, OM @ 325

But there is wiggle room for heddle. No matter what, his god did it. End of further explanation. But the bullshit is still there no matter what he calls it.

Posted by: E.V. | August 7, 2009 2:38 PM

Magic? No. I don't think the Bible promotes magic at all. In fact if you want [sigh, again!] to read it *literally*, it is against magic.

Magical thinking: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magical_thinking

Posted by: Patricia, OM | August 7, 2009 2:41 PM

Holbach - Then he's a better wiggler than I am, which is one of the reasons I had to give that crap up. Couldn't come up with any more excuses for god.

Posted by: MikeTheInfidel | August 7, 2009 2:43 PM

Heddle thinks that the Bible is inerrant. This is amusing.

Heddle: Go breed some cattle in front of a pile of straight rods. I'd like some striped cows.

Posted by: E.V. | August 7, 2009 2:47 PM

(psst. Mike the infidel. Your "prove a negative" example only works in a closed system)

The bigger issue, Sayblade, is that you have vast holes of knowledge that you are oblivious to, despite your cribbed rebuttals which you don't even seem to quite understand.
You mean well but you're another example of someone who is TSTKTS. We get quite a few here.

Posted by: Scooty Puff, Jr. | August 7, 2009 2:50 PM

By the way, this is the same DART that has hit seven people in two years. That's right, seven people have been hit by DART buses in the past two years. Two of them alone happened last month. And the real kicker? Several of the drivers who hit people had won safety awards. DART is not exactly peopled with the best and the brightest, clearly.

Nor is Terrace Hill. Chet Culver is a complete and total buffoon. Liberals don't want to vote for him, conservatives will never vote for him. As of next year, Culver is done as governor. He should really "pull a Palin" and step down so Patty Judge, the Lieutenant Governor, can run. Or if she's not interested, there's any number of good Democratic alternatives to ol' empty suit Culver. I don't know a single person, liberal or conservative, who approves of him.

Posted by: heddle | August 7, 2009 2:55 PM

MikeTheInfidel,

Heddle: Go breed some cattle in front of a pile of straight rods. I'd like some striped cows.

Oh noes! Not the story of the striped livestock! I was hoping for pi=3 or birdly bats or at the very least cud chewing killer rabbits with nasty, big, pointy teeth.

I wrote about the cows of a different color here in a post called Jacob's Genetic Engineering, which you will not like, but just in case you're interested.

Posted by: SC, OM | August 7, 2009 2:57 PM

SC OM and Patricia OM,

Sorry. You OM's all look alike to me.

That must be because you typically see us looking over your shoulder as you run from a trouncing. Ken Cope probably looks a lot like us to you as well.

Posted by: E.V. | August 7, 2009 3:04 PM

Sayblade: Did you look up Magical thinking? No you didn't but you should go ahead and do that now. Look up logorrhea while you're at it.

Posted by: MikeTheInfidel | August 7, 2009 3:09 PM

So, you are one of those atheists who decides to take the Bible literally. Then you say, "I don't believe in that." Hmm. So, I guess I was right when I first entered this discussion forum. Atheists are a rather intolerant lot. You look just the same as those intolerant religious people. There's no room for free thinking here, is there?

I'll pass on the smug sophistry, thanks. You are incapable of forming a rational argument that one should believe any of the Bible, at all, even metaphorically.

If it were merely metaphor, you could get the same answers elsewhere without the mythological baggage.

You're not free-thinking. You're saying that all truths are equally true - that is, NON-thinking.

BTW Heddle:

I wrote about the cows of a different color here in a post called Jacob's Genetic Engineering, which you will not like, but just in case you're interested.

You just argued that it's not literally saying what it's literally saying. From your post:

Some will argue that it is too easy to invoke a miracle to explain a seeming violation of science. Tough. I don't do it for your benefit, but for my own. God, by definition, is supernatural and can perform supernatural acts. I have no problem with miracles.

Talk about ad-hoc rationalization. But hey, at least you aren't afraid to admit it. You're perfectly happy with invoking magic to explain things that conflict with reality. And that is the opposite of logic or reasoning. If something CAN be tested, but testing it never gives the results claimed in the Bible, your answer is "it was a miracle." It's never a miracle before the testing - only afterwards, when you need an excuse for why it doesn't work.

If something is the answer to everything, it's the answer to nothing. It's a refusal to admit that you could be wrong. In other words, Heddle, you're claiming to be omniscient - incapable of being fooled or mistaken.

Posted by: DingoJack | August 7, 2009 3:11 PM

You know what'll calm hot-tempers? A nice sing-a-long.
C'mon everyone (The atheists sing the bits in square brackets)...
OK..a one and a two and a...
"You will eat [you will eat], bye and bye,[bye and bye]
In that glorious land above the sky [way up high];
Work and pray [work and pray], live on hay [live on hay],
You'll get pie in the sky when you die [THATS A LIE!]
:) DJ

Posted by: Patricia, OM | August 7, 2009 3:20 PM

Sayblade - What is your church's mission statement? Or do you belong to one of those wannabe nonchurchs? Do you even know your church's doctrine? You just aren't fairing so well with a True Christian like heddle as an example.

Posted by: Ken Cope | August 7, 2009 3:21 PM

I'm going to start referring to heddle as the Queen of Hearts:

'Let the jury consider their verdict,' the King said, for about the twentieth time that day.

'No, no!' said the Queen. 'Sentence first - verdict afterwards.'

'Stuff and nonsense!' said Alice loudly. 'The idea of having the sentence first!'

'Hold your tongue!' said the Queen, turning purple.

'I won't!' said Alice.

'Off with her head!' the Queen shouted at the top of her voice.

The way heddle the scientist resolves questions of fact and historicity in the Bible is to claim that science is an accurate way of examining and describing reality, except when it isn't. When he decides that no matter how nonsensical (Jacob's Lamarckian Magic Sticks and their genetic morphic resonance), heddle's miraculous sentence is always in favor of the miraculous: off with science's head.

Some will argue that it is too easy to invoke a miracle to explain a seeming violation of science. Tough. I don't do it for your benefit, but for my own. God, by definition, is supernatural and can perform supernatural acts. I have no problem with miracles. Does that mean the bible can never be at odds with science because one can always invoke miracles? It does not.

Posted by: MikeTheInfidel | August 7, 2009 3:27 PM

Why wouldn't someone who believed that a supernatural transcendent God who created the universe ex nihilo also believe that that same God could perform itty-bitty miracles like tinkering with livestock DNA to further his sovereign plan of redemption? That is, if you deny the big miracle (creation) then you should deny the small one, and if you accept the big miracle, then there is no reason to reject the small one. The inconsistent position would be to accept that God can create the universe, but he can't cause cattle to be born striped.

Except that you never do it beforehand. You only invoke the "miracle" option AFTER you find something you can't explain. It's an ad-hoc justification for a lack of knowledge or an objectively false claim. It's not an answer; it's an excuse. You just dance away from the issue by acting like it's not an issue.

But please, by all means, stick those fingers even FURTHER into your own ears, and chant "LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU" all the louder.

Posted by: E.V. | August 7, 2009 3:32 PM

Just wondering if you can specify which HALF.

You mean all the texts about damnation and all that other difficult stuff you've rationalized dismissed out of hand? That's self evident.
You believe in some form of conscious eternal life because it's in the scriptures, but you've edited out the the parts you don't want to believe which qualifies you as half credulous and in direct opposition to hundreds of years of established doctrine. Congrats! You've reduced xianity to the everyone gets a trophy! mentality. Cafeteria anyone?

Posted by: MikeTheInfidel | August 7, 2009 3:34 PM

If it is true that everything is in transition, always has been and always will be then the god question will always be unknown to the living. ... As I have said I do not believe in god nor do I rule out the possibility, I have no proof either way and will maintain that view, tho I admit, it does not place me in a favorable position with either camp.

That's the point of the whole leprechaun/unicorn argument. Unless there's some evidence that makes it at least plausible, then there's no reason to call it a 'question'.

Posted by: SC, OM | August 7, 2009 3:40 PM

if you deny the big miracle (creation) then you should deny the small one, and if you accept the big miracle, then there is no reason to reject the small one.

Sneaky use of language. There is nothing "denied" or "accepted." As I explained to eric a while back, to say that people "deny" something is to assume its existence (as in the term "Holocaust deniers"; this is the reason AGW deniers reject the label, fitting as it is). No one is denying your silly superstition. Like other ill-defined woo notions, it doesn't even rise to the level of consideration. And you don't "accept" it. You believe.

Posted by: heddle | August 7, 2009 3:43 PM

MikeTheInfidel,

Except that you never do it beforehand. You only invoke the "miracle" option AFTER you find something you can't explain.

Not true (though I don't want to, yet again, get into the doctrine of miracles--suffices to say one of their characteristics is that they are mot willy-nilly) but also not relevant. The same non-criticism applies to science.

I am a scientist, and in science, taking the "you" in your sentence and using it as 2nd person plural, as in "you scientists" we have, with a minor tweak:

You only invoke the "miracle new theory" option AFTER you find something you can't explain.

Posted by: E.V. | August 7, 2009 3:47 PM

Like other ill-defined woo notions, it doesn't even rise to the level of consideration. And you don't "accept" it. You believe.

Posted by: Dorothy Grasett | August 7, 2009 3:49 PM

"Abortion Stops a Beating Heart"

Excuse me, so does swatting a mosquito.
For that matter, there's a lot of carnivores out there. Meat tastes good when you are an omnivore.

Posted by: MikeTheInfidel | August 7, 2009 3:52 PM

Heddle vomited:

The same non-criticism applies to science.
...
You only invoke the "miracle new theory" option AFTER you find something you can't explain.

What absolute, dishonest bullshit.

First, you're equivocating between 'theory' and 'hypothesis' or 'idea'. Second, the difference between miracles and theories is that theories can predict future behavior. You're asserting that it is de facto impossible to do that. Your answer is to claim that an undetectable being meddled with things. That gives your explanation exactly zero explanatory power.

Science built the computer your typing on, using the idea that the laws of nature are inviolable. You would claim that computers can't be guaranteed to work, since God could reach down and stop them. You live in a dream world.

Posted by: heddle | August 7, 2009 3:53 PM

Dorothy Grasett

Excuse me, so does swatting a mosquito.

Um, that was the point. That like the statement "Don't believe in God? You're not alone" the statement "Abortion stops a beating heart" or "Swatting a mosquito stops a beating heart" is beyond dispute--and should therefore offend nobody--but alas we are a nation of thin-skinned sissies.

Posted by: Sphere Coupler | August 7, 2009 3:55 PM

Ben:
This is where we differ in veiw, I say it can not be known.

No one has ever written a paper on the existance of god after death and no one ever will, It is an unknown.I accept this and lead my life accordingly.
It is not a logical question.
It can not be known in this state of being.
It may never be known in any state of being.
It is irrelevant.
It does not matter.
It is futile to resist...whoops got carried away.

Posted by: Benjamin Joseph Clark | August 7, 2009 4:02 PM

as an Iowa native I can say I am not surprised one bit...

Posted by: Ken Cope | August 7, 2009 4:04 PM

My apologies for not being able to manage referring to heddle as the Queen of Hearts even for the duration of the post @369, and referring to him as the Red Queen--an entirely different metaphor.

Posted by: tsg | August 7, 2009 4:08 PM

Um, that was the point. That like the statement "Don't believe in God? You're not alone" the statement "Abortion stops a beating heart" or "Swatting a mosquito stops a beating heart" is beyond dispute--and should therefore offend nobody--but alas we are a nation of thin-skinned sissies.

I addressed this in #185 and you conveniently ignored it. Is it safe to say you are going to continue to do so?

Posted by: 'Tis Himself | August 7, 2009 4:10 PM

DingoJack #365

The Preacher and the Slave by Joe Hill

Posted by: Knockgoats | August 7, 2009 4:16 PM

Winnie the FCCing Pooh Ken Cope

Hey! I only ever got to read the expurgated version :-(. No fair!

Posted by: SC, OM | August 7, 2009 4:18 PM

Um, that was the point. That like the statement "Don't believe in God? You're not alone" the statement "Abortion stops a beating heart" or "Swatting a mosquito stops a beating heart" is beyond dispute--and should therefore offend nobody--but alas we are a nation of thin-skinned sissies.

Don't be so obtuse. People are discussing not only the issue of objection to bumper stickers and acting on the basis of it but their message.

Both stickers are a form of communication that is saying something to an intended audience. You didn't have one saying "Swatting a fly stops a beating heart" Or "Slaughtering a pig stops a beating heart" for obvious reasons. What you're getting at, and its relation to laws to control women's bodies, is evident.

Likewise, the atheist bumper sticker is not actually trivial to many people seeing it - they feel like they're alone, at least in their area, and it gives them information about an organization of people like them. And it differs from yours in that it doesn't in any way feed into a project to control other people's behavior.

Posted by: Ken Cope | August 7, 2009 4:26 PM

Winnie the FCCing Pooh Ken Cope

Hey! I only ever got to read the expurgated version :-(. No fair!

It isn't all that bowdlerized. You just have to read it the way heddle reads the Bible:

"Oh, help!" said Pooh. "I'd better go back."
"Oh, bother!" said Pooh. "I shall have to go on."
"I can't do either!" said Pooh. "Oh, help and bother!"
"The fact is," said Rabbit, "you're stuck."
"It all comes," said Pooh crossly, "of not having front doors big enough."
"It all comes," said Rabbit sternly, "of eating too much..."

Obviously, honey is not an effective lubricant.

Posted by: heddle | August 7, 2009 4:28 PM

Missed it tsg, but:

I'm going to guess that you had the bumper sticker on your car because you think abortion shouldn't be legal. I'm not condoning the vandalism to your car, but you are being disingenuous by asserting that it was only a "statement of fact" and not trying to convince people it shouldn't be legal.

I never said I wasn't making a statement. But that's irrelevant. A statement of fact is a statement of fact is a statement of fact, and facts are morally neutral. You can no more (or rather you shouldn't) take offense at "Abortion stops a beating heart" or "DOn't beleieve in God, you're not alone" than "7 > 3".

Now, what was the intention of the atheist ads that warranted having them pulled off the busses?

Posted by: tsg | August 7, 2009 4:31 PM

tsg : "Then how do you know there is even anything to call "god"? Where did you get the idea from?"

It is a concept that has been used to soothe the evolving mind and has been with us for a very long time, no this does not make it relevant only useful and it's usefulness is in a declining state.

Which is just another way of saying somebody made it up. Why, then, should anyone give it any credibility at all?

"Are you on the fence about Santa Claus?"

I AM THE FENCE.

Really? Santa Claus existing and not existing are equally likely? You can really go either way?

Posted by: Ken Cope | August 7, 2009 4:35 PM

the more atheists who come out of the closet, the better for all of us.

I don't really need to point out that heddle the Queen of Hearts is not likely to be including any atheists in the sense in which he is using the pronoun "us." Just about any time heddle uses the word "us" or "we" I'll be happier if he includes me out.

Posted by: Sphere Coupler | August 7, 2009 4:37 PM

I'm realizing that my indeterminate position is incomprehensible to most and have explained this in the best way I know (at the moment).
Suffice it to say, in my personal life, god plays no role.

Posted by: tsg | August 7, 2009 4:40 PM

I never said I wasn't making a statement. But that's irrelevant. A statement of fact is a statement of fact is a statement of fact, and facts are morally neutral. You can no more (or rather you shouldn't) take offense at "Abortion stops a beating heart" or "DOn't beleieve in God, you're not alone" than "7 > 3".

I can when the person who puts "Abortion stops a beating heart" on their car is attempting to use specious reasoning to convince others to make abortion illegal, while I'd be hard pressed to attribute any kind of agenda to "7 > 3". The intention matters. Facts are morally neutral, but the person deciding which facts to mention and why is not.

Posted by: Janine, OMnivore | August 7, 2009 4:40 PM

I AM THE FENCE.

We could play a Stones song
Sittin' On A Fence
And it will sound pretty good
Until I forget how it ends

Posted by: Sphere Coupler | August 7, 2009 4:43 PM

tsg :
As a small child I was the one who snuck out of bed to eat the milk and cookies left for Santa, Well in the morning *that was entertainment*.

Posted by: SC, OM | August 7, 2009 4:44 PM

Sphere--you just earned +5.

*eyeroll*

(:P)

Posted by: tsg | August 7, 2009 4:46 PM

tsg : As a small child I was the one who snuck out of bed to eat the milk and cookies left for Santa, Well in the morning *that was entertainment*.

Nice dodge.

Posted by: tsg | August 7, 2009 4:50 PM

*Waves both hands*

Um, HELLO?!!

*indicates self and other American Pharyngulites*

-Choir here! The congregation you want to preach to is out there.

*indicates credulous masses on other blogsites*

For the record, I (an American) didn't take the statement to be directed at us (posting on Pharyngula) in particular (and, for the most part, agree with it).

Posted by: SC, OM | August 7, 2009 4:55 PM

*smack*

*ducks back behind a rock*

-25. :D

Posted by: E.V. | August 7, 2009 4:59 PM

tsg:
Put down the SIWOTI blackjack. I agree with him too.

I would have worded that last directive, however, as not to make it seem as though I was preaching to the choir. (I was attempting to demonstrate this in a humorous way)

Posted by: Sphere Coupler | August 7, 2009 5:01 PM

Thanks all,
I have always had a tough time believing anything and as a small child I found it tough to believe that fat fucker in red needed those chocolate chip cookies more than I did...mmmmmm.
The rest of the story was in the complexity of confusion I caused. Maybe that wasn't the beginning of rational skeptic thought but it did help to affirm it.

Posted by: Sphere Coupler | August 7, 2009 5:10 PM

Oh and I might add that after the accusational looks esch parent gave the other it wasn't discovered that mom's little angel had just a smidgen of choc. chip on the pillow case.
Details,details always give you away.

Posted by: Adam Cameron | August 7, 2009 5:27 PM

Email (below) sent to dart@ridedart.com as well as Governor Culver's office.

This is a disgrace.

[quote]
Dear sir or madam:
I am writing in reference to your decision to act prejudicially against atheist people in your recent decision to remove advertising material promoting their beliefs from your vehicle fleet.

To be honest, I am not from Des Moines, nor Iowa, nor even the United States. I am a New Zealander living in the United Kingdom. However I feel very strongly about equal rights for all people, and I am astonished that a municipal body such as yours - in any state or country, especially a country that markets itself as being the epitome of personal freedom - would act so blatantly prejudicially against a minority.

I am sure you have heard all this already, but please stop and think: had someone ran an ad saying "Black? You're not alone", or "Islamic? You're not along" (and, to be honest, in your country - just like mine - I'm sure Islamic people feel a bit insecure these days, and a sense of solidarity might be welcomed), and some bigotted crackpot complained along the lines of "I am offended that you are being seen to support Niggers", or "I am offended you are being seen to support Camel Jockeys", you would absolutely and utterly dismiss them as being completely prejudicial and "out of line" (to put it mildly), and perhaps report them for hate crimes. Why do you not afford atheist people the same respect? You might not agree with their beliefs - just like you might not personally agree with Catholic, Jewish or Islamic beliefs, if you are a Protestant Christian - but you MUST respect that they have their right to their beliefs, even if they conflict with your own ones. This is what your nation is founded upon. This is what every nation should be founded on.

You are doing your city, state and country a huge disservice in acting the way that you have. You should be ashamed. I hope you - at least secretly - are.

If you - the person reading this - are not the decision maker in situations such as this, then you will have the mettle to forward it to the appropriate person. I invite them to respond to my thoughts.

Thank-you for your time, and I hope you have a good day.

Please note: I shall be forwarding this email to Governor Culver's office also.
[/quote]

--
Adam Cameron

Posted by: 'Tis Himself | August 7, 2009 5:36 PM

Patrica OM #432

Self induced bible study turned me into an atheist. None of the christians I tell this to believe me.

I've had exactly the same experience. Reading the Bible sent me on the road to atheism. No Christian (or Jew) that I've told that to believes it. There's a woman I know who refuses to accept that I know anything about Christianity or else I wouldn't reject it.

Posted by: MikeTheInfidel | August 7, 2009 5:46 PM

That's got to be the most dishonestly-designed challenge I've ever seen.

The claim is not that religious people CANNOT be scientists, but rather that faith can lead to poor judgment.

Eric Hovind and Ray Comfort come to mind.

Posted by: Ben in Texas | August 7, 2009 5:51 PM

Patricia and 'Tis,

That speaks volumes. Maybe the "Read your bibles" line discussed above would be the best possible approach. I love the irony.

Posted by: Sphere Coupler | August 7, 2009 6:01 PM

Patricia, OM & 'Tis Himself

My experience to gain religion was a conscious attempt to conform...thru no small part of the book, it failed.

Posted by: heddle | August 7, 2009 6:02 PM

Anri,

Are you saying that you we putting this on your car in hopes of eliciting an emotional response in viewers?

No that was not my intention. I don't think. I can't recall--it was more than ten years ago, and I had just become a Christian--but I think my intention was simply to show my position on abortion and to proclaim solidarity with those of a like-mind. And since I was a new Christian it was probably to wear my new uniform in public, so to speak.

Posted by: heddle | August 7, 2009 6:12 PM

SC, OM,

He's incredibly dishonest to keep presenting his "challenge" as though it hadn't been torn apart numerous times.

Yes, that's true, under the "We commented on it, we patted each other on the back, and therefore we eviscerated it" pattern—a Pharyngula mainstay also known as the Family Feud "Good Answer" Gambit.

Posted by: Gregory Greenwood | August 7, 2009 6:18 PM

"righteous persection?" Did I just invent a new phrase to convey the oppression of my fellow atheists? No, its just a typo (sigh). That should read; "righteous persecution."

Posted by: Anton Mates | August 7, 2009 6:19 PM

Janine:

Flash back quarter of a century when the precipitation was lavender:

I knew a girl named Nikki
I guess you can say she was a sex fiend
I met her in a hotel lobby
Masturbating with a magazine

Obviously, the magazine must have been The Watchtower. It almost makes too much sense!

Posted by: Sphere Coupler | August 7, 2009 6:29 PM

To my friends, acquaintances and adversaries, just a song to enjoy. later

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmUpWFaQgK0&feature=related

Posted by: Paul OFlaherty | August 7, 2009 6:36 PM

Removal of those ads was nothing short of discrimination and infringes on people right to free speech. I am constantly amazed that so called "loving and tolerant" Christians not only stifle other peoples beliefs (or lack thereof)but also refuse to accept the possibility of the existence of any god other than their own, while insisting that theirs i real and others should believe.

I'm an atheist myself btw.

Posted by: SC, OM | August 7, 2009 6:51 PM

I'm going out for a bit, so will have to return to this, but:

You may have answered to your satisfaction your version of my challenge.

It was the version you presented.

But I'm a scientist, and you did not answer the scientific version,

It's (as you're presenting it, though not really in its full real version) a social-scientific question, and I am a social scientist. In the latter post I linked to, I pointed out the design flaws in your ridiculous challenge, which would neither support or disprove any hypothesis. You showed here

But there are many things I believe without evidence. I have a definite belief as to whether Obama’s trillion dollar stimulus will help or hurt. I have a definite belief on the morality of the Iraq war. I don’t approach “God exists” like a scientific hypothesis, if for no other reason than I don’t know how to do that experiment or, for that matter, an experiment for any of the examples listed above.

that you have no respect for or interest in evidence when it comes to social-scientific questions. You also showed that you don't have any understanding of even the basics of research methods in these fields. Your challenge is garbage.

So for the science/faith incompatibility theory,

Here's an idea: Why don't you state what you think the argument is that is being made by the "incompatibilists" with regard to science and religious belief? Just a short paragraph, without commentary, to show you understand it. What sort of incompatibility are Coyne and the rest of us talking about?

I say (from my blog):

If you can't (pick out the believers), then the science/faith incompatibility charge has no teeth, no effect, it is in fact unfalsifiable and indemonstrable, and is therefore meaningless.

Again, I've explained to you why this challenge, in addition to not responding to the incompatibility argument, is fundamentally flawed in its design. You then claim that if it couldn't be met, the question is "unfalsifiable." Crazy.

If you can't do that its just words, no better than if I claimed "PZ would be a better scientist if he came to Christ; he'd find a peace that passes all understanding, which would allow him to focus on his research like never before."

The problem with this was also explained on the Coyne thread (after heddle said it @ #445), if anyone's interested.

In short, we know what you said on your blog, and here, and it's been answered. Your reasoning is crap, and so is your challenge.

Posted by: Ichthyic | August 7, 2009 7:04 PM

You may have answered to your satisfaction your version of my challenge.

for those interested in seeing how far Heddle can run with goalposts on his shoulders, feel free to continue his "scientific" challenge.

phht.

Posted by: Anri | August 7, 2009 7:14 PM

Heddle sez:

"I think my intention was simply to show my position on abortion and to proclaim solidarity with those of a like-mind."

Gotcha.

So, it was option: (quoting myself, sorry, but...)
"(Are you saying that) you put that on your car with no expectations of eliciting an emotional response?
Once again, I think the most charitable we can be is that you were disingenuous."

You didn't think people would have emotional reactions, including taking offense, to that public stance?
I understand it was a long time ago, and that you might not remember, but did you have any emotional reaction to it?

And if so, why is yours more valid than another person's?

Posted by: SC, OM | August 7, 2009 7:47 PM

heddle on the Coyne thread:

The question really is whether a person can swivel between the church pew and the lab bench. That is the important question. That is the only question.

Well, I guess that settles it.

Read the fatwa!

Posted by: Hypatia's Daughter | August 7, 2009 8:08 PM

#329 KI
Now I am embarrassed. I was thinking of those bologna tube hotdogs - definitely ketchup territory (and anything else you can pile on).
But NEVER on sausages & wursts. No never. No sweet relish either. Nope. Mustard all the way (and onions & saurkraut)

Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | August 7, 2009 8:58 PM

Now I'm awake, and you're still talking about hotdogs. Now I want one - and that's a problem 'cause I certainly don't have the ingredients lying around the house.

Porridge it is, then.

Posted by: Josh | August 7, 2009 9:13 PM

There are hot dogs in my future tomorrow. There is no ketchup, however. I'm not a savage.

Posted by: a lurker | August 7, 2009 9:23 PM

I wrote:

How about:

"Read your Bible.

Iowa Atheists and Freethinkers. IOWAATHEISTS.org"

Subversive in a way that is they will have a hard time claiming it is "offensive" or "confrontational." For any to claim it is offensive it will be an admission that merely mention that atheists exist is what they find offensive.
bc23.5 replied:

lurker, I like your idea. It's a bit like saying, "Shut the f**k up and mind your own business. Let the people who read more than 1 book run the real world." Haha, I really like it. It's not overtly offensive, but if you think about it, (which most xtians won't), it's very snarky.

I really don't think of it as snarky per se. I am most definitely did not have any kind of satire or parody in mind. Nor was I really thinking in terms of shut the [censored] up. Indeed if you are familiar with the contents of the Bible, the reason is self evident: making people aware of the contents of the Bible or at the very least getting the issue of its contents into the public square in a way that it is currently not (unless one reads freethinkers or liberal theists).

People really need to know that there really is offensive stuff in the Bible. Even making them aware that "God's" writing with few scattered exceptions can't hold a candle to J.K. Rowling is a victory. The more people actually read the Bible the more atheists there will be and the more fence sitters there will be. Even if they remain theists they will be far less likely to be fundamentalist.

If a handful actually find some kind of faith it will undoubtedly be fewer than those who will lose it. And at least those handful will be able to say they actually read their book which is an improvement.

And probably the best feature of such a proposal is simply that it is not merely preaching to the deconverted with the bonus that those offended by our very existence will have very little that they can whine about without looking foolish even in the eyes of most believers. Not to mention the fact that brains tend to shut down when they get offended regardless of whether or not it is justified. We need the opposite. Indeed we might be able to engage their curiosity. Nothing can get people think more than curiosity. If such a billboard was done the advertised web site should have linked to article explaining in a concise way why atheists want the Bible read.

Posted by: Silvia Possas | August 7, 2009 9:55 PM

@ 110 & 154 about scientist notes

The link provided by DaveH lacks some material. There is nothing about Brazilian notes. It's true that Brazilian present currency only have the symbol of the Republic and animals threatened by extinction, but it used to have people on it before the creation of the Real. During the period of very high inflation, from 1985 to 1994, lots of new denominations to the currency (Cruzeiro, Cruzado, Cruzado Novo, Cruzeiro (again), Cruzeiro Real) and notes were created and among the persons honored were Oswaldo Cruz (a pioneer in medical research and founder of the most important institution of resarch on public health in Brazil), Carlos Chagas (the discoverer of the american trypanosomiasis, who was nominated for Nobel Prize) and Vital Brazil (a researcher on snakes' venoms and the sera that would fight them).
I found images of the note with Carlos Chagas
http://novasinapse.com/wp-content/uploads/nota_dezmil_cruzados.jpg
and of the one with Oswaldo Cruz http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/74/Brasil_Billete_de_50000_Cruzeiros_(1985)_Oswaldo_Cruz_(anverso).jpg/200px-Brasil_Billete_de_50000_Cruzeiros_(1985)_Oswaldo_Cruz_(anverso).jpg

Posted by: Sphere Coupler | August 7, 2009 9:56 PM

One bite ketchup, one bite mustard,one bite horserdish...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCv-od4wYPw

Posted by: tsg | August 7, 2009 10:12 PM

The more people actually read the Bible the more atheists there will be

I think that is going to be my new response whenever some godder asks me if I've read the Bible: "Why? I'm already an atheist."

Posted by: Hypatia's Daughter | August 7, 2009 10:46 PM

#470 Nerd of Redhead, OM,
Is that due to an aversion to sauerkraut or just on hotdogs?
Axshully, I don't care what people put on their dogs. I outgrew food snobbishness many years ago. People declaring their tastebuds should be the gold standard for everyone else are just gastronomic fundies.
(Except - I have yet to figure out why someone would ruin the flavor of a fine steak by putting A1 sauce on it!)

Posted by: tsg | August 7, 2009 10:56 PM

People declaring their tastebuds should be the gold standard for everyone else are just gastronomic fundies.

(Except - I have yet to figure out why someone would ruin the flavor of a fine steak by putting A1 sauce on it!)

Everybody got a gris-gris.

Steak, burnt, with A1. I now yield the floor to all those who claim I'm "ruining" the meat by getting it well done.

And I like Hershey's chocolate over that expensive stuff.

And Maxwell House coffee.

Now, where's my popcorn so I can enjoy the show ;)

(And I'm drinking a "good" beer (Dogfish-head 60 Minute IPA, if you must know), but not pretending it's anything other than personal preference.)

Posted by: 'Tis Himself | August 7, 2009 11:04 PM

I think heddle is being disingenuous.

I wouldn't put the accusation so tentatively. I know heddle is being disingenuous. A case could even be made that he's being duplicitous, mendacious and deceptive, but I'll just go with disingenuous.

Posted by: Patricia, OM | August 7, 2009 11:16 PM

Tis - I solemnly swear that I am up to no good, but you, are just plain naughty.

Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | August 7, 2009 11:26 PM

I think heddle is being disingenuous.

And in news just to hand, water is wet and the sun is really hot...

Posted by: heddle | August 7, 2009 11:27 PM

eidolon,

He was guilty, but you got the story wrong. In fact, his M.O. appeared to be using icepicks on tires - no mention of brake fluid in the story though.

Well then they didn't mention it. I would certainly know if my car got doused with brake fluid or had its tires ice picked. The difference is pretty obvious. But yes, the ice pick rings a bell, now that you mention it--some cars were vandalized like that, My car wasn't ice-picked though--and neither was some others. Several of us had trouble getting our various insurance companies to pay for a new paint job. Of course we had to file police reports, etc. and give copies to the insurance companies.

And the police told us (well me--I was friends with one and he came to my house often) about his being caught with brake fluid--plus the "Keep Abortion Legal" notes.

I can believe I left out some details. This was at least 1995 or 1994. But the gist of the story is certainly accurate--he targeted cars with anti abortion bumper stickers, followed them home (which was particularly creepy) and vandalized the cars in the driveways, and he committed suicide--I thought it was in jail but if you found an article that says it was after he got out I'm sure you are right. He must have been out on bail--because I remember that I was supposed to go to court--but then I didn't have to after he committed suicide. It is possible I assumed he did it in jail or just the memory got garbled.

As for his illness, I don't recall what it was--but I remember he was pretty messed up.

My church ministered to his family after the suicide.

I find it also sad that you apparently know nada about the real situation.

What's the right response? It was fifteen years ago. In truth, all of us had tremendous sympathy and compassion for the man and for his family. So as to your high horse: bite me.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 7, 2009 11:29 PM

I have a hard time getting it well done to my taste. My usual patter is "Extra well done. Burn it. When it catches fire, flip it over. Five minutes past way too long. And can we skip the part where you bring it out medium well to see if that's what I really want?"

Yeah when I'd get the well done order I wouldn't wait for any call to "fire it". It would immediately go on the hottest part of the grill with a top on it. I'd flip it and put the top back on and wait for the other orders for the table to be done. If you want it dried out and burned, hell you're paying for it what the fuck do i care.

Posted by: Ken Cope | August 7, 2009 11:41 PM

What's the right response? It was fifteen years ago. In truth, all of us had tremendous sympathy and compassion for the man and for his family. So as to your high horse: bite me.

Whaddya want? Accountability? heddle the Queen of Hearts was still purt near 95% atheist back in the day, so of course he has nothing but fabricated nonsense memories to draw upon. After all, heddle was only a freshly regenerated pod person then. Here, heddle, nibble on a nicely overcooked Infant Sinner Scooby Snack, fresh from the Spit Roasting Campfires of Hell, and STFU for 24 hours, will you, please?

Posted by: Cath the Ketchup-Eating Canberra Cook | August 8, 2009 12:43 AM

KI has it. It totally depends on the sausage. Ketchup on a fine Barossa wurst would be a crime. Ketchup on mystery pink meat puree in a suspiciously plastic-like tube? Bring it on. Also the chilli sauce, because the more concealment the better. My favourite is weisswurst with onion, sauerkraut and a spicy german mustard.

But wait, how have we managed to get to nearly 500 comments and yet nobody has pointed out the canonical atheist option? Which is, of course, a big pile of sauerkraut with some wieners chopped up in it?

Posted by: Julie | August 8, 2009 2:18 AM

That's absolutely ridiculous. I have no religious affiliation, but I cannot even imagine how that ad could be offensive. What happened to the first amendment?

Posted by: SonicScrewdriver | August 8, 2009 3:09 AM

As of Aug 7 @11:23 pm DART has stated that it will be putting the signs back up without any changes. *smirk*

Posted by: JM | August 8, 2009 6:42 AM

I sent this polite email to the governor's office, not that he'll ever read it:

Dear Governor,

Our ancestors moved to the Americas to obtain religious freedom and fought the Revolutionary War to secure that freedom. Your offense towards atheism threatens that very core belief and compromises the future stability of your state and our nation. I plead with you to grant atheists the same rights and respect as other citizens.

Respectfully,
JM

Posted by: Deliciouscake | August 8, 2009 7:38 AM

Well I for one am INCREDIBLY offended by these ads.

How dare they not show any naked lesbians?!

Posted by: Knockgoats | August 8, 2009 8:10 AM

rydog@502,
Concern troll is concerned.

Posted by: eidolon | August 8, 2009 8:37 AM

Heddle:

Nice rejoinder. Now to the case at hand...

You started out making the point that the banning of the atheist signs which stated a simple fact was equivalent to the acts of the person in question. You stated the man was responding to a simple factual statement by attacking you.

In another reply, you enhanced your tale by citing specifics but you got them wrong. This does not lend a lot of credence to your stand, regardless. Misremembered, spun, or simply time passing, the net effect is the same.

I don't give a damn about your memory though, what I find most distasteful is that you still do not understand that there is a fundamental difference between the actions of a political hack and the actions of this disturbed person. The bumper stickers meant nothing in and of themselves - they were simply markers of potential targets. They marked "bible thumping christians" as he put it.

The truth value of the statement did not matter.

I point this out because the starting premise of this whole thread was that the bus sign made an accurate statement and they were banned. You made the statement that the same thing had happened - in a way - to you when your car was vandalized. What you failed to take into account was the nature of the attack. You claim to have had "tremendous sympathy and compassion for the man and for his family" at the time. It was big news - the paper carried a very lengthy article describing the many issues. Why distort the situation now? Well - perhaps you misremembered again. Come on - just admit that you chose a lousy example.

BTW - thanks for the 'bite me'. Have not heard that one since I taught middle school.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself | August 8, 2009 8:59 AM

Cath the Canberra Cook #493

Thanks for the link about kissing Hank's ass. It explains why Rev BDC is both right and wrong, right on no ketchup, wrong on mustard.

Posted by: SC (Salty Current), OM | August 8, 2009 9:10 AM

What makes me upset about this is atheists are lowering themselves to the level God loving bible thumpers are at.

I know! They have organizations and publicize them, and we do too! Exactly the same!

What a great promotion of your beliefs, or in a connotative way, religion.

Yes, every association of like-minded people is of course a religion.

Your concern is noted, and illogical.

Posted by: KI | August 8, 2009 9:32 AM

TH @508

Yeah, I know, I was just trying to make a little (very little) joke with the "flora and fauna" meme. Same with the punctuation bit. I need to work on my humor.

Posted by: eidalon | August 8, 2009 10:08 AM

O.K. Heddle:

Are you being obtuse on purpose or are you really that thick?

"...only to point that the statement is indisputable and yet it provoked this man into vandalism." What part of the concept that it was not the statement as such that provoked the attack do you not understand? The man was no hitting on all cylinders; firing on all thrusters. He had undergone a major personality change, quite possibly induced by his meds. The sticker was a marker of the "bible thumping christians" - his words.

As for the internal dialog you posit for me - you got that wrong as well. You cite evidence as proof of the truth value of your claims but they are in error.No problem for me there. It would seem that there was much more to the person's actions than your sticker. Insensitive? Nah - you just edit out the parts that would show that you were not the victim of some Pro Abortion thug but rather, a victim of a very sick person.

Clearly, you have no comprehension as to the effects of mental illness, drug induced or otherwise. The issue of "choice" rarely enters into the equation.

Up your nose with a rubber hose!

Posted by: Jeff | August 8, 2009 10:25 AM

You don't believe in God? You believe in God? You're Gay? You're against Gays? Point is, I believe in what I believe. I feel what I feel. I don't believe I should tell you any of this on the side of a city bus. If you want to know what I think, I'll be more than happy to share it with you. If I want to know what you think, I'll ask.

Personally, since you brought it up. I believe you should get a life, and then live it. I have no real opinion about any of you.

Jeff

Posted by: Chad | August 8, 2009 10:56 AM

Feynmaniac - I love how Ken Ham's blog references this page and the conclusion he draws is:

You see, regardless of the creation/evolution issue, these people oppose anyone who believes in God, regardless of whether they accept Genesis as literal history.

Posted by: george.w | August 8, 2009 12:26 PM

Iowa governor, short version:

"I find your lack of faith... disturbing"

Maybe he should show up in a Darth Vader outfit.

Posted by: E.V. | August 8, 2009 12:48 PM

Because you brought it up. (translation :"Nyanya "nyanya nyaaa nyaaaaaa - you did it first!")

Posted by: fropm des moines | August 8, 2009 3:34 PM

Thanks for all your help folks. DART (the bus company) has agreed to put the ads back up.

As for Chet Culver's antics--he manages to piss off the Republicans (who would never like him) and piss off the people who voted for him (like the atheists). He could easily be the first Iowa incumbent in nearly 50 years to lose, so keep an eye on him

Posted by: Marcus Harman | August 9, 2009 2:34 AM

... and as the emperor passed by the little boy said "Look! The emperor has got no clothes on!"

... and as the bus rolled on they all realized that their deity was indeed noting but false hope, fear, a desire to conform, twisted, abhorrent figment of their imagination and it shook them at their very core.

The "offence" and "indignation" that some people report is a mental misdirection against the manifestation of shock, horror, disgust and extreme self loathing at the realization that your favorite imaginary friend is just that. Imaginary.

Posted by: matteo | August 9, 2009 5:17 AM

who cares about these things.....with all the important things that need to solved in this world, people are still arguing on what?? if you believe good, if you don't its also good. Now wake up and go do something useful like evolved people.

Posted by: EvilGod | August 9, 2009 8:49 AM

I think your popularity amongst the rational may have affected the poll a little. :-)

Currently sitting on: Yes = 4.4% & No = 95.6% a mere three days later.

Good article as usual PZ. Keep up the good work.