WORLD Magazine Library powered by Amazon
Term Life Insurance at Savings up to 75%!
Logos Bible Software for Bible Study
Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Bah humbug to belief
“Why believe in a god? Just be good for goodness’ sake.” That’s the tag line of a new ad campaign set to launch next week on Washington, D.C., buses. The advertisement, which is sponsored by the American Humanist Association, is similar to one started in London last month.
According to spokesman Fred Edwords, the group decided the holiday season was a good time to run the ad because “there are an awful lot of agnostics, atheists and other types of non-theists who feel a little alone during the holidays because of its association with traditional religion.”
But American Family Association President Tim Wildmon is calling the ad “stupid”: “How do we define ‘good’ if we don’t believe in God? God in his word, the Bible, tells us what’s good and bad and right and wrong. If we are each ourselves defining what’s good, it’s going to be a crazy world.”
back to top52 Comments to “Bah humbug to belief”
I posted about this yesterday. Leave it alone. I said, “It has about as much affect as the ‘I believe’ South Carolina license plates.
Or it’s like the commercial that was so irritating that I vowed that I would never purchase that product again. And I wouldn’t if I could remember what it was.
Report comment as offensive
I find it amusing that many of the same Christians who feel entitled to trumpet their beliefs at every opportunity are the first in line to insist that atheists do not have the same right.
The concept that our freedoms of speech and religion apply to all Americans is lost on them.
Report comment as offensive
I find it amusing that many–not all–bloggers on this site put ALL Christians or ALL atheists, All liberals or ALL conservatives in one box. And it is amusing that they are the most strident about when accusing others of it.
Is life like that anywhere?
Report comment as offensive
SteveG,
I think (at least I hope) you will find that most Christians here believe that this humanist organization has every right to purchase the ad.
It doesn’t appear that Tim Wildmon’s quote above is a complaint against the ad being posted–it seems to just be questioning philosophy the ad represents.
That is fair game.
Report comment as offensive
Adios: That is why I took care to say “many,” so it would be clear I wasn’t talking about “all.”
You did the same, though maybe more clearly. I was probably too subtle.
Report comment as offensive
I personally think this will reflect more badly on Santa than on God.
BTW St. Nichols on whom Santa is based would disagree with that statement.
Report comment as offensive
That should be St. Nicholas.
Report comment as offensive
“I find it amusing that many of the same Christians who feel entitled to trumpet their beliefs at every opportunity are the first in line to insist that atheists do not have the same right.”
Again I feel it necessary to point out that no one has protested the atheists right to express their beliefs. What is protested is that atheists do not admit that these are their beliefs. What is protested is that their belief in morality does not have a logical basis. As a world view with no logical basis for a moral system (or even a basis for it’s strong rationalism,) atheism is incoherent for an atheist who wishes to be moral. And do NOT make the mistake of saying that I think that atheists cannot be moral people. How many times must we correct your misapprehension of our point?
Report comment as offensive
SteveG,
Who is saying they shouldn’t be allowed to put up their ads? Everybody has the right to trumpet whatever they want in our country, and that’s lost on nobody that I know. But nobody has the right not be called “stupid” or not to be criticized for trumpeting philosophically dubious beliefs.
Report comment as offensive
SteveG,
At what point in the quote does Tim Wildom insist that athiests do not have the right to advertise their beliefs?
Report comment as offensive
SteveG,
Adios: That is why I took care to say “many,” so it would be clear I wasn’t talking about “all.”
Apparently “many” in your world is synonymous with “none.” Not a single person here was “in line to insist that atheists do not have the same right,” and yet you felt perfectly justified in saying it anyway.
Report comment as offensive
Tim Wildmon is quoted as saying, “If we are each ourselves defining what’s good, it’s going to be a crazy world.”
Where’s this guy been living for the past forty or fifty years? This is what’s happening and we are living in “a crazy world.”
Report comment as offensive
I agree that they should be allowed to put that message out, though it saddens me. But tell me why I wasn’t allowed to put a nativity scene IN my dorm room in college. And I know this has nothing to do with religion, but two days after my RA told me I wasn’t allowed to put up the nativity scene, I was required (at a floor meeting along with the rest of the gals) to put a condom on a banana…I was not allowed to leave the room until I “participated”.
I apologize for being a little grumpy yesterday…Blessings on this rainy day!
Report comment as offensive
“there are an awful lot of agnostics, atheists and other types of non-theists who feel a little alone during the holidays because of its association with traditional religion.”
And this ad somehow helps?
In the immortal words of Bugs Bunny: What a maroon.
Report comment as offensive
MIM: there is nothing logical about religious beliefs, either. If religion were logical, then faith would not be needed.
Report comment as offensive
If Wildmon is a believer, then he should affirm that even secular humanists were made in the image of God, and are thus imprinted with a conscience that speaks to the “rightness” and “wrongness” of various activities. Clearly it’s out of whack, and they need regeneration, but it’s there nevertheless. Romans 2:14-15. So that’s what they’re (perhaps unwittingly) appealing to when they enjoin people to “do good for goodness’ sake”.
Report comment as offensive
Lester,
there is nothing logical about religious beliefs, either. If religion were logical, then faith would not be needed.
If the Biblical definition of faith matched yours, this could make sense.
Report comment as offensive
BuddyGlass,
So that’s what they’re (perhaps unwittingly) appealing to when they enjoin people to “do good for goodness’ sake”.
But as long as they’re denying God, their appeal is incoherent.
Report comment as offensive
SteveG,
You did indeed use the word many and I missed it in my first read, I apologize for that.
Report comment as offensive
“MIM: there is nothing logical about religious beliefs, either. If religion were logical, then faith would not be needed.”
So religious beliefs are all illogical? That’s news to me.
My whole point to SteveG was that the atheist system does not logically lend itself to a coherent moral system - not to mention rationality itself. The corollary to that is, with a belief in God, you now have a coherent, logical system that does support a system of ultimate or absolute morality - not to mention truth. Faith is not affected by that, except that it’s easier for me to have faith in God rather than in No God.
Report comment as offensive
The atheists can buy whatever space they want and put whatever slogan they want on it. ‘Bumper sticker’ theology is mostly worthless. A bumper sticker is not going to change a persons mind.
Report comment as offensive
Ree #18:
Agreed. But look at what Wildmon said. He seems to be arguing that man is entirely incapable of discerning good from evil without benefit of the Bible. That’s why he thinks the bill board is “stupid”: how does one “do good” when one lacks a basis for discerning good from evil?
My point is that while unbelievers lack a specific guide, and lack the guiding of the holy spirit, they are *not* completely without a basis for discerning good from evil.
Report comment as offensive
Without an absolute standard, everyone is left to determine their own “good”. A paedophile, for example, thinks molesting children is “good”.
All of us, left to our own devices and urges, will come up with a lot of severely conflicting versions of “good” and we will have nasty, violent chaos - which the majority of folk would view as not being “good”.
Report comment as offensive
BuddyGlass,
My point is that while unbelievers lack a specific guide, and lack the guiding of the holy spirit, they are *not* completely without a basis for discerning good from evil.
I get your point, but the basis for discerning good from evil is so broken in unbelievers, we have today exactly what the Bible says we’ll have–people calling good, evil and evil, good. That’s the “crazy world” Wildmon refers to. I’m just confused about why he thinks that this is something that would happen, rather than something that, obviously, is happening.
Report comment as offensive
In Florida, an atheist became incensed over the preparation of
Easter and Passover holidays. He decided to contact his lawyer about the
discrimination inflicted on atheists by the constant celebrations afforded
to Christians and Jews with all their holidays while atheists had no holiday to celebrate.
The case was brought before a wise judge. After listening to the
long passionate presentation by the lawyer, the Judge banged his gavel and declared “Case dismissed!”
The lawyer immediately stood and objected to the ruling and said,
“Your honor, how can you possibly dismiss this case? The Christians have
Christmas, Easter and many other observances. Jews have Passover, Yom
Kippur and Hanukkah…yet my client and all other atheists have no such holiday!”
The judge leaned forward in his chair and simply said, “Obviously
your client is too confused to even know about, much less celebrate his own atheists’ holiday!”
The lawyer pompously said, “Your Honor, we are unaware of any such holiday for atheists. Just when might that holiday be, your Honor?”
The judge said, “Well it comes every year on exactly the same date
— April 1st! Since our calendar sets April 1st as ‘April Fools Day’,
consider that Psalm 14:1 and Psalm 53:1 state, ‘The fool says in his
heart, there is no God.’ Thus, in my opinion, if your client says there
is no God, then by scripture he is a fool, thus April 1st is his holiday!
Get it?”
It is now our American duty to pray that we get more judges like this. In the advent of the Obama administration……it’ll take a miracle.
Maybe then, we will have no restrictions putting God where He blongs — IN EVERYTHING WE DO!!
Justus: ’nuff said
Report comment as offensive
It would be hard for an atheist to take a holy day to be sure
My dad loved Christmas, but it was a thorn in his atheist faith.
Report comment as offensive
He decided to contact his lawyer about the
discrimination inflicted on atheists by the constant celebrations afforded
to Christians and Jews with all their holidays while atheists had no holiday to celebrate.
Since the atheist considers nothing holy, it’s absurd and hypocritical for him to ask for a holiday, anyway. Even so, I agree that April 1 is an appropriate day to honor the faith of the atheist.
Report comment as offensive
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. If the atheists feel so strongly about not having a holiday then they should start one of their own. Maybe they’d stop feeling alone and victimized.
They could call it “godless day” or some such….
Report comment as offensive
I have a rule to never fight the market or momentum. When you do you lose horribly. Repubs just learned this.
In this case, 91% of Americans celebrate Christmas and 9% do not. Part of the 9% bought $40,000 worth of ads to run on buses in one of the most anti religious cities in the USA where church attendance is almost nill and churches hard to find. They would not run these ads in Omaha. But this is pipsqueak group with limited funds and very little support except from whack jobs on the left.
Pay them no attention. They are not worth it and it is still a free country to be as stupid as you wnat to be but there might be a new presidential executive order coming out about that pretty soon too. I would worry more about that.
Report comment as offensive
Lester,
The one thing that people of religious belief and atheists have in common is faith.
Report comment as offensive
Here’s a quotation from Monique Davis, a Democratic state senator from Chicago:
This is the Land of Lincoln. This is the Land of Lincoln where people believe in God, where people believe in protecting their children… What you have to spew and spread is extremely dangerous… it’s dangerous for our children to even know that your philosophy exists!
The fact that people like Ms. Davis still exist is the reason that this kind of action is both effective and absolutely necessary.
Report comment as offensive
Effective at accomplishing what? Necessary for achieving what?
Report comment as offensive
Why believe in love?
Why believe in justice?
Why believe in life?
Report comment as offensive
“My point is that while unbelievers lack a specific guide, and lack the guiding of the holy spirit, they are *not* completely without a basis for discerning good from evil.”
Granted, atheists are not without a basis for discerning good from evil. But atheism is without that basis. A world view that limits itself to only that which is it has exiled the transendent should.
Atheists import their moral understanding from outside their atheism, without acknowledging the fatal consequences the universality of transcendent morality has for their narrowly circumscribed philosophy.
Report comment as offensive
MIM - you missed my point entirely.
The one thing that people of religious belief and atheists have in common is faith.
That’s more like it…
Report comment as offensive
I don’t know if I missed your point or not. But I do think you missed mine. Mine was that faith and logic are not mutually exclusive -or incompatible.
Apparently you think so. Am I wrong?
Report comment as offensive
Make It Man at #20: My whole point to SteveG was that the atheist system does not logically lend itself to a coherent moral system - not to mention rationality itself. The corollary to that is, with a belief in God, you now have a coherent, logical system that does support a system of ultimate or absolute morality - not to mention truth.
That’s a very interesting discussion that goes well beyond signs on buses. The key flaw in your reasoning is that the belief in God is just as arbitrary as anything else.
That is, you perceive a rational basis for a coherent moral system based on a presuppositional, unprovable belief, and indeed, a specific interpretation of that belief. But there are other presuppositional, unprovable beliefs that also yield a rational basis for a coherent moral system — including Humanism.
(I use “Humanism” with the capital H to specify the philosophical system that some, but by no means all, atheists adhere to.)
Report comment as offensive
“But there are other presuppositional, unprovable beliefs that also yield a rational basis for a coherent moral system — including Humanism.”
I’d like to see those arguments. The last time someone tried to prove that to me, they sent me to the objectivists. Their whole world view is laughable.
Give it a shot.
Report comment as offensive
MAKE IT MAN,
You are absolutely correct that faith and logic are not incompatible.
We are born with faith - a child doesn’t doubt his parents until logic or accusations make him doubt.
When someone gives us their name and phone number, we typically aren’t skeptical, but have faith the person is honest. If we call the number and get the local pizza shop, then logic kicks in and we begin to doubt.
Faith can be developed and faith can be lost - one loses faith in a friend who never delivers on his word. The boy who cried wolf lost the faith of the other villagers. People develop faith in electricity and cars and computers because they’re so reliable. Faith is the logical conclusion of trustworthiness.
Abraham had great faith because he experienced God’s trustworthiness over the course of his lifetime.
Report comment as offensive
“How do we define ‘good’ if we don’t believe in God? God in his word, the Bible, tells us what’s good and bad and right and wrong. If we are each ourselves defining what’s good, it’s going to be a crazy world.”
Turning over your ethical judgment to an ancient and mythical Hebrew tribal deity isn’t good at all, and it already is a crazy world, partly because of that!
Report comment as offensive
The conceit of those so frail as to need someone/thing else develop their ethical values.
One does not need to resort to faith in a holy book or holy man to construct ideas of good. Almost all humans possess imagination, intuition, empathy etc. from which they construct ideas of right and wrong. Perhaps these values will not be etched in stone but rather subject to situations, utility and the weariness of time yet they still have a presences and effect on people. Given the similarities in humans and our shared genetics, culture, history etc a crazy world doesn’t develop from individual standards of goodness. In fact, the very temporal nature of ethnics will create a healthy sense of doubt which if accepted will lead to tolerance and a willingness to learn from others. The fear of doubt is difficult to overcome and the drive to certainty will lead many to find security in an absolute much to the determinant of those who disagree. In this way, a need for certainty in morality is similar to the need for security in society — in both cases people give up freedom in exchange for certainty.
Report comment as offensive
#39 Interesting analogy. So I used to believe in the Bible, until I cross-checked it against reality. Then logic kicked in! Is that what you mean?
The mythical Abraham didn’t have so much faith, eh? He had a kid w/a second wife ’cause he didn’t believe God’s promise. He was willing to kill his kid to appease this weirdo deity, though. I guess he was glad when fickle Yahweh changed his mind.
But anybody that would trust such a capricious primitive deity in this day and age has truly left logic in the dust!
Report comment as offensive
It was Sarah who didn’t have so much faith; she’s the one who laughed when God said she would have a child (then denied laughing), who gave her servant to Abraham to sire a child for her.
Was Abraham trying to appease God by sacrificing Isaac? Was he lying when he told his servants to wait with the animals until he and his son returned?
Or, being an old man and having experienced God’s faithfulness his entire life, did he simply believe God would work things out somehow, since God had said Abraham would have a multitude of descendants through Isaac?
I believe the latter, since that is exactly what happened. The whole episode also happens to be prophetic of another Father Who would offer up His only Son on that very mount.
Report comment as offensive
“The conceit of those so frail as to need someone/thing else develop their ethical values.”
I think this idea has it exactly backwards. Is it pride or humility to admit that oneself is finite and imperfect? - and to admit that for a moral system to be coherent (and objective), there must be One who is adequate to administer it?
It seems to me to be conceited to think that they can judge for everyone what is objective morality. Because in actual practice, the very moment you judge someone else, you’ve done exactly that.
Report comment as offensive
Llama at #29: one of the most anti religious cities in the USA where church attendance is almost nill and churches hard to find.
Obviously you have no idea what you’re talking about (as usual.) Have you ever been to D.C.? There are churches all over the place. Big ones and small, protestant and Catholic.
There are at least 1,212 in the Yellow Pages.
“Hard to find?” Llamas are not the brightest of bulbs.
Report comment as offensive
Make It Man at #38: The point isn’t whether you can be convinced that Humanism makes sense. The point isn’t whether an atheist can be convinced that Christianity makes sense.
The point is that both Humanist and Christian choose to believe in something unprovable and derive moral ideas from it.
Report comment as offensive
Thank you for the concession that Humanism as well as Theism (of course I believe in the Christian God) is based upon unprovable presuppositions. This is farther than I got with folks like Ed.
However, my point was, and still is, that Humanism, and any other system which does not receive it’s moral ideas from an Objective Infinite Person, is a relative system which can be shown to be incoherent and illogical.
This is shown the first time we are outraged by an action of a person upon a stranger, or even more to the point, the actions of another impact us negatively. It’s not right that someone stole your car. It’s not right for people to steal. And you will not be convinced otherwise when it happens to you. One simply cannot live as though one’s morality is relative. We think a thing is wrong, and it’s wrong for everyone. To say otherwise simply begs the question.
Any truly relative system of morals is self-defeating. Who gets to say that something is wrong if all morality is relative? The majority? What if the majority is wrong? Who gets to say that the majority is wrong? Certainly not the minority.
The whole “protection of the minority” principle is undermined by relative morality. Indeed relative morality undermines itself.
This is why I say that Atheism is incoherent. It’s illogical to think that an impersonal universe “cares” about who lives, who dies, whether there is meaning, or truth, or morality. What is, simply is. If ones neighboring country decides to invade and kill all the inhabitants of your country, then so what? It’s no worse than a colony of ants stripping a wild pig down to the bones. There is absolutely no difference.
We certainly see no idea of mercy and forgiveness in “nature.” So where would we come up with the idea that morality is objective or absolute? You cannot derive it from that example. And you certainly won’t derive altruism from that example.
I can only conclude that Humanism, and all other forms of Atheism are not a good model for what we see around us. Christianity is much more descriptive of what we see around us.
Report comment as offensive
Well spoken, MIM.
Report comment as offensive
#44 MIM
My remark was directed towards those who are critical of people developing their own sense of right and wrong and being good for goodness sake. It takes a lot of conceit on the part of individuals relying on an external Good to critique those who do not resort to such a crutch.
at Humanism, and any other system which does not receive it’s moral ideas from an Objective Infinite Person, is a relative system which can be shown to be incoherent and illogical.
All moral systems are relative including those based on an Absolute. Unless the Absolute speaks to you directly when a decision needs to be made, its your interpretation that counts. And for those who rely on the institutional church for their decision making, a historical look at Christian morality will demonstrate change over time and re-interpretation of the Word.
Report comment as offensive
Make It Man: However, my point was, and still is, that Humanism, and any other system which does not receive it’s moral ideas from an Objective Infinite Person, is a relative system which can be shown to be incoherent and illogical.
The problem with this is that you only believe your moral ideas come from an “Objective Infinite Person.” That is the unprovable presupposition that underlies it.
I submit that because various people who claim to believe in the same OIP come to drastically different moral conclusions on all but a small number of largely universal ones, your system is every bit as relative as the atheist’s is.
Case in point: Some Christians say that homosexuality is ok and that the scriptural prohibitions against it were intended to apply only in certain times and not universally. Other Christians say those passages are binding, and some even go so far as to say one cannot be a Christian and not condemn homosexuality.
So does God condemn homosexuality? The answer depends on which follower of that God you ask.
The few core moral ideas that all Christians would agree to — no murder, no theft, no adultery — are not limited to Christianity but are reflected in most (though not all) of the moral systems ever codified.
My point is that ALL moral systems are relative. Even those that claim to come from an external God have only the pre-chosen belief of their adherents to base that upon, and rarely will you find cases where all adherents agree on just what the rules are.
Report comment as offensive
Steve and hrw have covered the ground pretty well. I will add that in practice, Christians have not behaved that well, as the discussion of genocide points out. Communists committed genocide; Christians committed genocide; other groups have committed genocide.
The way in which the Bush adminstration has rationalized and split hairs about torture, spying on its own populartion (widely endorsed by many here) is another example of the hugely flexible absolute values of Christianity.
The other point is that Christian conservative keep discovering new interpretations and declaring changes that have been forced on them as their own idea in the first place. Inter-racial marriag and women’s suffrage for example. Gay marriage is on the way. Christians will be dragged kicking and screaming into accepting it. At some point they will declare it their own idea.
Report comment as offensive