Hooray for Dan Barker and Free Speech Rights Next to the Baby Jesus!

23 comments:

Harry H. McCall said...

This type of atheistic display is sure to make the baby Jesus cry!

Anonymous said...

Too bad it was stolen.

Chris said...

I love how the guy said he'd rather look at baby Jesus than a sign that says you have nothing to look forward to when you die. Maybe he doesn't realize that, according to Christianity, billions of people are going to hell when they die. That's not exactly something I'd be looking forward to.

C Woods said...

I've had your blog bookmarked in my favorites for a while. I just started a new freethought blog that will be mostly Quotations on atheism/religion ---and my own thoughts, too.

Check it out:
http://tirelesswing.blogspot.com/

AdamH said...

I don't believe that the ahteist sign was stolen. Dan Barker has admitted even in his most recent book that he is a liar, and is not reliable.

This is most likely a publicity stunt. By his own account, the publicity from this has helped FFRF membership.

Who ya kiddin?

Theological Discourse said...

the irony! atheists say there are no angels, devils, heaven or hell (lets ignore the fact they can't prove that), we don't believe in ANY of that religious mumbo jumbo, BUT WE WANT OUR SPACE RIGHT NEXT TO ALL THE RELIGIOUS MUMBO JUMBO WE DON'T BELIEVE IN!!!

The irony is ASTOUNDING!

Stan, the Half-Truth Teller said...

the irony!

Indeed...

atheists say there are no angels, devils, heaven or hell (lets [sic] ignore the fact they can't prove that)

Why ignore it? Perhaps the reason you want to ignore this is the fact that you don't raise a stink when we likewise say there are no One-eyed, One-horned, Flying Purple People-eaters. For the sake of consistency, shouldn't you also complain that we likewise cannot prove statements like that, too?

...we [atheists] don't believe in ANY of that religious mumbo jumbo, BUT WE WANT OUR SPACE RIGHT NEXT TO ALL THE RELIGIOUS MUMBO JUMBO WE DON'T BELIEVE IN!!!

Correct. The reason for this should be clear, but I fear your judgment may be clouded...

While Atheism is a religion in the same way that not-collecting-stamps is a hobby (which you've no doubt heard before), for legal purposes it is beneficial for the beliefs of atheists to be protected like any other belief system. Atheism is not a religion, nor does the promotion of secular values constitute a violation of the establishment clause, but the beliefs of atheists are protected.

I'm afraid I may have confused you more... The simple fact is that a person's beliefs are constitutionally protected, while promoting a particular system is constitutionally restricted. For better or for worse, anything government does can be viewed as promoting one viewpoint over another (e.g. the viewpoint of the KKK, which we allow to be suppressed), the most inclusive position is generally embraced -- hence secularism. The government needn't declare that, "there are no gods," but they must behave as though the many conflicting positions concerning gods are of equal validity.

This necessarily reduces to making innocuous, irreligious statements ("Happy Holidays" vs. "Merry Christmas"), and allowing equal time to all comers, so long as their proposed statements comply with the stated rules.

The irony is ASTOUNDING!

[sarcasm]
Isn't it? It is astoundingly ironic that if the objectionable sign were promoting Satanism you'd be completely silent on this issue, right?
[/sarcasm]

The fact that Christians would seek to censor this speech is ironic indeed.

--
Stan

mdf1960 said...

Did the baby Jesus know he was God? Could he converse in all known languages? Did he go to school? If so, why? Did he know the cure for cancer? What did Joseph think about being the step-dad of a deity? Did Jesus do his chores the old fashioned way, or did he take "Bewitched" style shortcuts? Inquiring minds want to know.

Theological Discourse said...


Why ignore it? Perhaps the reason you want to ignore this is the fact that you don't raise a stink when we likewise say there are no One-eyed, One-horned, Flying Purple People-eaters. For the sake of consistency, shouldn't you also complain that we likewise cannot prove statements like that, too?

It was ignored because it would go into an entirely different issue, but since you want to bring it up, the burden of proof is on YOU to prove there are no gods, angels, devils, heaven or hell. I doubt you'll respond to this anyway, but you're right let's not ignore it, we also should not ignore your fallacious red herrings about one eyed monsters that have nothing to do with your burden of proof. So I'll look forward to you PROVING there are no gods, angels, devils, heaven or hell.

The fact that Christians would seek to censor this speech is ironic indeed.

the fact that you have somehow connected the irony of the situation I pointed out with restricting free speech PROVES how illogical and irrational you are. That in itself, is ironic since you doubtlessly agree with the message on the sign that says 'let reason prevail' yet your post here contains LITTLE TO NONE logical valid reasoning in it.

Another illogical atheist exposed.

Darrin said...

Successful troll is successful

sconnor said...

TD,

So I'll look forward to you PROVING there are no gods, angels, devils, heaven or hell.

Oh so you believe that other god's exists?

Or is it you only believe in your god?

I'll tell you what TD, Show me how it’s done by proving Zeus, Thor and Poseidon don’t exist, and I’ll use your method. Think about it.

Oh and while we are at it, PLEASE, share with us -- what, exactly, is your religious affiliation?

You've been asked several times now but you are too chicken-shit to divulge that information.

Additionally, you stuck your tail between your legs and bailed on this discussion, care to offer an explanation?

Let the rationalization and excuses, fly...

Still waiting.............

Another diverging coward and religious zealot exposed.

--S.

Gandolf said...

Heck guess that display really caught the attention of some people if it really was taken.However i thought it was good to see that mostly people thought it was fair and ok that all opinions were allowed in rights of free speech.

Which reminds me i once claimed there was "no real evidence available to suggest the existence of pink unicorns".

Dang!guess the burden of proof is on me.I really fell into a nice cozy little trap there.

If only i had stuck to the old tried and trusted lines that sidestep any need for conclusions and just said "well maybe their might be", i could have saved myself a whole lot of trouble of trying to prove something that i really know im never very likely to ever find.

But hey whats with all those silly scientists messing around playing games trying to prove there is such a thing as global warming ,surely the burden of proof first lies with those who claim that its not.We should all just be waiting around to see if they can first disprove it!,before money is spent and wasted on theories in which maybe more people might already agree.

And those idiots trying to find any signs of life outside this planet,what the hell are they doing there?.Dang they must have got their brains from out of some breakfast cereal packet.

Why dont they just leave it to the experts first who might suggest that most likely life outside this planet just doesnt exist.Before they go spending money out there on seeing whether just maybe it does.

I mean its wise isnt it to first spend years or even infinite amounts of time trying to first prove that a mountain can just never be climbed ,before the burden of proof should be placed on some poor fellow who might try to suggest that it can.

Theological Discourse said...

Still waiting for stan and sconner to provide proof for their assertions that there are no gods, devils, angels, heaven or hell. The burden of proof is on YOU since you made the claim.

Once again showing your hypocrisy, criticizing me because I 'skipped out' but you refuse to call out Dishonest Loftus when he did the EXACT SAME THING. More hypocrisy from so called 'logical honest free thinkers' what a joke.

Philip R Kreyche said...

TD,

What part of "one cannot prove a negative" do you still not understand? It's Internet Arguing 101.

SirMoogie said...

"What part of "one cannot prove a negative" do you still not understand? It's Internet Arguing 101."

If I asserted I believed in a god that manifested itself as a 35ft tall rock golem every year at 12:56PM EST, above ground, standing in place on the Earth's surface, at geo-spatial coordinates (42.93 deg. lat., 78.73 deg. long.). You're telling me we could not support the claim of that god's non existence with evidence (e.g., visiting the holy rock god's site, recording the site, etc.)?

What should be unexpected is to find evidence against things for which no known method of evidence gathering has been established (e.g., supernatural entities, the deist god, the Tao, etc). However, this still doesn't remove them from the realm of disproof as these claims could be incoherent in nature, such as a simple God that still possesses mentality*.

* - For this exciting discussion, see: https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=21219785&postID=6880440091963970190

Anthony said...

Theological Discourse, haven't you realized that "discourse" whether theological or not cannot be achieved if you spend a lot of your postings dropping insults on everyone. I would think that you as a Christian would be wanting to take the high road and be calm and cool and the sound of reason for your faith. But I'm sure you'll find a reason to insult me as well.

sconnor said...

TD,

One can propose an infinite amount of magical an unseen entities. There is NO evidence of their existence, therefor one can NOT prove they do not exist -- get it?

Now, if a person, proposes to believe in one of these entities the onus is upon them to provide eveidence of their existence.

Try real hard to understand; I can tell you have a difficult time digesting information.

Small sample of magical unseen beings and magical flights of fancy:

Allah, Poseidon, Krishna, Zeus, The Easter Bunny, Thor, Seven Headed Hydra, Griffin, Kali, Phoenix, Unicorn, Satyr, Ra, Minotaur, Ganesha, Mermaid, Banshee, The Jack-a-lope, Nymphs, Centaurs, Vishnu, Elves, Pixies, Trolls, Tooth Fairy, Rama, Leprechauns, Odin, Brownies, Athena, Fairies, Shiva, Gnomes, Chupacabra, Lakshmi, Pegasus, Flying Tea Kettle, Mothman, Superman, Apollo, Baal, Genies, The Great Pumpkin, Hades, Mithra, Spaghetti monster, Cerberus, Golem, Gremlins, and on and on and on. There are over 330,000 Hindu gods alone!

Do you believe in these magical, unseen, entities?

NO, of course not, because there IS NO EVIDENCE OF THEIR EXISTENCE -- GET IT?

Just like I asked you to: Show me how it’s done by proving Zeus, Thor and Poseidon don’t exist, and I’ll use your method. Think about it.

You did not think about it. You were lazy and skipped over this point. Try real hard to go through your head and prove something doesn't exist. Keep trying maybe a light bulb will go off in your head. You might have a eureka moment.

Still waiting for stan and sconner to provide proof for their assertions that there are no gods, devils, angels, heaven or hell. The burden of proof is on YOU since you made the claim.

There is no evidence for the existence of these entities -- understand?

Additionally, get it through your thick skull and fat head, you can not prove something does not exists -- it's an impossibility.

There is simply NO EVEIDENCE of these entities existing.

Once again showing your hypocrisy, criticizing me because I 'skipped out' but you refuse to call out Dishonest Loftus when he did the EXACT SAME THING. More hypocrisy from so called 'logical honest free thinkers' what a joke.

You are guilty of the same thing you argue against. Loftus has nothing to do with our discussion. I'm not arguing against Loftus; I'm arguing against you. It's the only thing you have left in your arsenal, being that you can not argue to the specifics of my points.

Theological Discourse, (a hypocritical name if ever I heard one) you are not here to debate the specifics of the issues, I brought up; all your arguments boil down to you whining about how someone else diverged, which is in and of itself a infantile diverging tactic.

1. Can you or can you not argue to the specific of my points or are you going to continue to bitch and moan and diverge and use the excuse, "because someone else diverged it's OK that I do it"?

2. Now, care to rescind your claim the JW's say they are not christian?

3. Can you comprehend that one can not prove a negative?

4. Please share; what's your idiosyncratic definition of a true christian

5. Divulge what is your religious affiliation -- what are you scared of?

Still waiting..................

--S.

Gandolf said...

And i was thinking about this atheistic display,ok so some great git only using his eyes and mere stupid logic said to himself "ho hum it looks like its not there anymore it no longer exists!".Then first of all heaps of silly idiots all rushed off in a big flap trying to see where it had gone.

How illogical ! and so stupid really, not at all a very rational move to take .

Now it would have made much more sense for these folk to spend a little more time with great mind control, thinking no my eyes and logic is just not good enough i should not rely at all on what i dont see.I will believe its still there and spend hours first trying to prove that it really is ! and then walla ! most likely it would have reappeared right there before there very eyes.And much wasted time would have been saved from them running around trying to find it.

See all that is needed in this world is a little more faith.Faith can move mountains as well as atheistic displays.Even if after years of no proof we start believing something really doesnt exist,we should still spend more time proving for sure that it really doesnt.Thats being wise see.

Wonderful isnt it ! :)

Theological Discourse said...


"What part of "one cannot prove a negative" do you still not understand? It's Internet Arguing 101."

Good, this is correct. Since you atheists cannot prove negatives I suggest you stop making claims you cannot prove, and stop being hypocrites and telling Christians to do the same. You cannot prove a negative, so you have taken up an ILLOGICAL position to begin with. You can't prove a negative, so don't make the claim. The sign is illogical. Its that simple.

sconnor said...

TD,

The sign is not illogical; it is perfectly logical.

No one (atheists or theists) can prove a negative and unless you can supply objective evidence for gods, angels, demons, heaven, or hell then we will conclude they do not exist just like Elves, Pixies, Trolls, Leprechauns, Nymphs, Genies, Fairies, Gremlins etc.

Do you believe in leprechauns and fairies? Of course not -- there is no evidence for the existence of these entities. Why, you might go so far as to say, THERE ARE NO LEPRECHAUNS OR FAIRIES. Things that make you go hmmmmmmmmmmmm?

If you or I make the claim there are no leprechauns and fairies, does your ridiculous argument hold any water? NO, that's absurd. Think hard and long, maybe, it will start to click, come on, I know it makes your brain hurt.......is it coming to you now?

Until, such, objective evidence shows itself, THEY DO NOT EXIST -- understand?

Is any of this penetrating your brain?

In addition -- for your convenience, I have copied the many questions you continue to cower from:

1. Can you or can you not argue to the specific of my points or are you going to continue to bitch and moan and diverge and use the excuse, "because someone else diverged it's OK that I do it"?

2. Now, care to rescind your claim the JW's say they are not christian?

3. Can you comprehend that one can not prove a negative? (can you see how ridiculous your argument is, yet?)

4. Please share; what's your idiosyncratic definition of a true christian.

5. Divulge what is your religious affiliation -- what are you scared of?

Still waiting..................

--S.

busterggi said...

Sconner, while I am almost in complete agreement with you I have to point out that Lakshmi is very real. I often hear her on NPR.

Keith said...

Dear TD,

Wow, I've met 3 year olds smarter than you. How do you even comprehend the nonsense you post?

Anonymous said...

Hey Sconner,
I dont anyone has the authority to decide who is saved and who isnt. That being said, JW's deny the divinity of Jesus. They do however believe Christ died on a cross and that their sins are forgiven through a blameless man(Jesus) dying and paying the ransom for the rest of us. Its up to God to decide if that is legit, no one elses!
A Christian is a disciple of Christ(acts 11:26). Basically, anyone who accepts Christ as their savior.
My bank proves a negative all the time...talk to them would ya! Some how they even add 30 bucks for nsf...but they dont add, they make the negative bigger: (

Im a Christian, I belong to the Lutheran church missouri synod.

As for the sign, my heart is not hardend and my mind is not enslaved. I dont understand why that type of inflammatory and provocative language has to be used. I dont support the signs designed to denigrate other viewpoints either.

Christmas is a time to celebrate and honor the birth of Jesus. Savior to some, regular Joe or mythical figure to others. The fact is, he is one of the most influential figures who ever lived.

Some would argue that his ideas have killed people, have started wars, and caused massive suffering. Jesus was killed for his ideas, so if you ignore Jesus central message of Love and tolerance then that point is sustained...i guess.

Anyway merry Christmas everybody!