Great new billboard from American Atheists

[No Joe]

This will be going up on the Jersey side of the Lincoln Tunnel on December 11. :rofl:




http://www.examiner.com/atheism-in-national/american-atheists-announces-new-billboard-campaign

[HopeHoops]

1. The far right one isn't a myth - it's the reason for OWS.

[No Joe]

2. That's insulting

to Satan. ;P

[HopeHoops]

5. Good point.

[zbdent]

22. Satan honors his contracts ...

[redqueen]

35. You just reminded me of a brilliant line from one of my favorite shows:

"This isn't Wall Street, this is Hell! We have a little something called integrity!"

[johnfunk]

3. Truth be told, that's the best photo of Eric Cantor I've seen in years...

... that is all.

[HopeHoops]

6. Oh that's just so wrong to say.

That character had a head on its shoulders, not up its ass.

[brooklynite]

4. Clearly the picture on the right...

...everone knows that demons wear bow ties...

[LeftinOH]

7. "Since 1963" implies that atheism itself is a recent phenomenon, and that Madalyn Murray O'Hair

invented it. That's not the case, of course. I understand why "since 1963" is on the billboard, but it's horribly misleading. Atheists are not obliged to join this particular organization -or any organization.

[barbtries]

9. i don't get your objection

clearly they're trying to get more people to join their organization and mentioning how long they've been around i expect is done as a way to validate its bona fides. doesn't bother me at all. but then i'm one atheist who opts out of such things anyway.

[redqueen]

11. Only if you mistakenly infer they are referring to atheism itself. Which is ridiculous.

Especially since the bottom banner reads, from left to right: American Atheists, since 1963, (website address that I already forgot).

[LeftinOH]

36. I don't mistake the date as referring to atheism itself.. but I'm looking at it objectively;

someone who doesn't know any better (and that's probably 50% or more of the people who will view the billboard) will fail to grasp that 1963 = founding of American Atheists. Rather, they'll assume that 1963 = the date that atheism got a foothold in this country.

I tend to be very cynical about the general level of intelligence in this country.

[cleanhippie]

27. I think that is when American Atheists was founded.

[and-justice-for-all]

96. That is American Atheist establishment date...

I get it.

[TheManInTheMac]

8. Why would an atheist waste their money to spread the word?

These people are just hucksters looking to make a few bucks from their flock.

No thanks; I'm happy with my beliefs AND my money.

[Lance_Boyle]

12. For precisely the same reason a homosexual would spend his/her money to 'spread the word'

that it's OK to be gay, and for gay persons encountering the sign to know they are not alone. Atheism is arguably more hated in this country than homosexuality, and largely by the same "holy" crowd. There is nothing wrong with an organization putting out the message that it's OK not to believe when a great number of skeptics of religion are told constantly that something is wrong with them.

[TheManInTheMac]

16. I've never been told there is anything wrong with me for being an atheist.

In fact, I can't recall one time when anyone even asked.

[beam me up scottie]

24. So because you've never personally experienced it, religious discrimination doesn't exist?

How liberal of you.

[redqueen]

33. Ever tried to run for office? (nt)

[NMMNG]

71. So discrimination doesn't exist because you've never experienced it?

M'kay. :eyes:

[Goblinmonger]

18. The atheists organizations out there

spend a good deal of their money fighting 1st amendment issues. Which, to my mind, is a good cause.

[cleanhippie]

28. Hahahahahahah

Silly.

[Deep13]

88. Silence = Death

Well maybe not immediate death, but when hated minorities don't push back, they are victimized and eventually wiped out, as we have seen.

[lunatica]

10. Why put up this billboard at all?

What a waste of money.

[Lance_Boyle]

14. Yeah, they should tithe instead.

:eyes:

[lunatica]

42. So it's either one or the other?

Either you have to believe in God or you act like you're God telling people God doesn't exist?

At the very least that's pompous. Just like your answer.

[TheManInTheMac]

15. Because they aren't atheists at all.

Like any other opportunist, they see it as a way of fleecing their weak-minded "flock."

[beam me up scottie]

21. Spoken like a true AthIest.

Perhaps you can enlighten the rest of us rubes by explaining why your obviously superior knowledge of Twoo AthIesm© enables you to tell the difference.

[TheManInTheMac]

61. Simple. I don't believe in god.

I don't get offended by the mention of either one. I have neither the time nor the money to waste to try and change ANYONE'S mind otherwise. These "atheists" (as they call themselves) are only trying to drum up attention to themselves to get donations to their organizations. They are no differerent from any other fundie organization.

[beam me up scottie]

64. Geez, mister, thank you! I never thought of it that way. I'se jest one o'dem stoopid uppity atheists

Of course since you have it all figured it out it would be futile to remind you that AA and similar organizations fight for freedom of religion and freedom of speech for everyone, including Twoo AthIests.

Ain't America great?

Ignoramuses everywhere can look down upon and piss all over the people who are actually doing something to preserve their right to remain clueless.


Ignorance is truly bliss.

[TheManInTheMac]

75. You're welcome.

[cleanhippie]

29. Wow. Your demonstration of ignorance is stupefying.

:hi:

[NMMNG]

72. No

It has to do with visibility, and letting others know "you're not alone out there". That means a lot to atheists who are often the only one in a mass of fervent believers (or at least feel they are). Groups like AA can be a lifeline to atheists who live in places like the Bible Belt and flyover territory.

[MarkCharles]

34. Why? Oh Why? Maybe it has something to do with free speech and..

the right of anyone in a democracy like the USA to state their thoughts and ask for money, like all those church ministers do on the TV machine all day every day on those religious cable channels?

Why do they do that?

[NMMNG]

13. Going up December 11

It will probably be vandalized by December 12.

[HopeHoops]

17. Putting the Gingrinch's face on the devil would be a nice touch.

[Deep13]

89. Just thinking the exact same thing. nt

[qb]

19. K&R - For those who are confused by this expenditure, AA is merely looking for more members.

The purpose is to make sure atheists & agnostics are aware of a national organization they can join. For the most part, such organizations are invisible unless they make a splashy announcement once in a while.

[Kurmudgeon]

20. They want your money, so they insult believers. I wonder how many will fall for it.

[beam me up scottie]

23. Why would atheists need to insult believers when religionists' hypocrisy is their own worst enemy?

At least atheists are only asking for money, your religion requires its followers to either convert or exterminate unbelievers.

[Goblinmonger]

25. How is that an insult?

Please explain how the tale of Jesus doesn't fit into the definition of a myth.

[Goblinmonger]

26. Oh, and just to get you on record, how many myths do you see?

Because if your answer is anything other than zero, then we need to talk.

[cleanhippie]

30. Looks like you are falling for it right now.

Or is that failing for it.

[MarkCharles]

32. One can only be insulted if one chooses to feel that way. If I were to..

feel insulted, it is because I chose to feel that way, not because of something someone else states, either on a billboard or a message board.

[NMMNG]

70. Because Christians never put up billboards insulting others

[Deep13]

90. Strength in numbers. nt

[MarkCharles]

31. Great billboard, makes one think, unless one claims to ..

be a Christian and a believer in that myth. To those folks who claim to be believers in Christianity, I bet they will claim the billboard is insulting to them.

[beam me up scottie]

38. Actually, I'm fairly certain some christians on DU don't consider the use of that term an insult.

They realize why stories about their god are considered myths because they understand the definition of the word.

Don't ask me for a citation, I just remember discussing the subject in this forum a long time ago.



***edit: and then there's 'bum...

[MarkCharles]

43. Well, thanks for your response, and I believe you without citations, because..

Christians come in each and every variety.

But if you notice that, above our posts here... there's already at least ONE Christian kurmudgeon person who has posted their choice to feel insulted by that billboard. I'm sure that there are others.

[beam me up scottie]

44. Yeah, that's the reason for the edit in my post.

The knee jerk reaction would be funny if it wasn't so predictable.

It's like he's conditioned to post the same things over and over again.

[trotsky]

47. Oh I know for a fact there are Christians, on DU and elsewhere...

who not only acknowledge the term "myth" applies but absolutely embrace it as a descriptor.

But yeah, and then there's 'bum.

[beam me up scottie]

55. It's unfortunate that their religion is so badly represented by others in this thread.

And people wonder why they avoid this forum.

[humblebum]

37. Need to post a billboard showing famous atheist activists.

Madaline O'hare, Stalin, Pol Pot, Lenin, Ceaucescu, Trotsky. NOT myths!

[Goblinmonger]

39. Never gets old.

Oh, wait, yeah it does.

[humblebum]

40. Funny, never does the atheist crap either. nt

[Goblinmonger]

45. How is the billboard "atheist crap"? n/t

[humblebum]

46. Oh I forgot. We are not allowed to criticize atheism.

I consider American Atheists to be no different than the Westboro Baptists or the KKK and equally as offensive.

[Jim Lane]

50. So you're saying that putting up a billboard is the moral equivalent of murdering people.

You are equally offended by the KKK's reign of terror and by the prospect of someone peacefully expressing an opinion with which you disagree.

It's as if a nonreligious person said, "I find ALL contemporary Christian churches to be no different from the Spanish Inquisition and equally as offensive." See, if we wanted to, we could say things that were almost as stupid. (My example is very slightly less stupid because I didn't employ the "different than" solecism.)

[humblebum]

52. You are the one that made that comparison, not me. NT

[Goblinmonger]

54. Um, you might want to look up a couple posts

when you say they are the same as the KKK. Because that's what the KKK did, you know. Do you even pay attention to what you type?

[humblebum]

57. Um? All inspire hatred, and radical atheism has a stellar record of violence and intolerance. nt

[Goblinmonger]

62. OK...Keep focused.

1. I asked you for specific examples, not just general statements.
2. I asked for examples of how they compared to Westboro AND examples for the KKK.
2.a. I assume you are not kicking out of your claim about the KKK.
3. You made a claim about American Atheist, not a generic strawman of "radical atheism" so keep your focus on examples from AA.

I'm still waiting for your specific examples.

[LeftishBrit]

153. So saying that something is a myth is the same as 'inspiring hatred'?

[beam me up scottie]

51. Of course you do, probably because your religion thinks its okay to kill non-christians.

You can't help the way you were brought up but please try to remember that American Atheists and the ACLU both fight for first amendment rights.

Your brethren in the KKK and Westboro spread hate and fear because they want to see people like us dead.



Let's go over this again;


AA and the ACLU believe that members of the KKK and Westboro baptists have a right to freedom of speech.

Christians in the KKK have actively persecuted and killed people.

Westboro baptists celebrate the death of soldiers and think gay people should be executed, they murder by proxy.


But yeah, fuck those offensive uppity atheists, how dare they make fun of your religion?

[humblebum]

56. All exhort intolerance and foster hatred. And to my knowledge the Westboro

people haven't killed anyone. But they are still hatemongers. Both the KKK and radical atheism have a LONG history of violence and intolerance.

[beam me up scottie]

58. Did you even read my post? I said your fellow christians at Westboro "murder by proxy".

I absolutely love the fact that your inability to separate the degrees of intolerance is finally on record, though.

Comparing Jesus to Santa is the exact same thing as burning crosses and people at the stake.

Got it!

[humblebum]

60. Um? Your cohorts in the old USSR, China, Tibet, Cambodia, Laos, etc.

Murdered relentlessly and by proxy. And atheists have been involved in violent crimes here also. Hate is hate. Even you gave a thumbs up to hatred to be shown towards religion.

[beam me up scottie]

63. You just keep talking, there 'bum, atheists don't have to say a word when you're on a roll.

People like you, your cohorts in the KKK and Westboro baptists do more to promote rejection of religion than a brazillion Santa=Jesus bulletin boards.

:applause:

[cleanhippie]

65. BMUS for the win!

Nice summary. Well done.

[beam me up scottie]

66. Do you see the genius behind those billboards?

It might offend some moderate christians but it drives the fundies absolutely batshit insane and they completely self-destruct.

It's like posting a cartoon of Allah.

[cleanhippie]

73. Its fucking brilliant!

The results are right here for all to see.

[humblebum]

67. i honestly don't ever recall seeing a KKK or Westboro billboard.

so I guess AA is one up on them.

[Goblinmonger]

68. Hey, that's a DIFFERENCE not a similarity. Keep your focus. n/t

[beam me up scottie]

84. The KKK uses more traditional media, that's true:

***********************************************************************************



And the geniuses at Westboro haven't figured out how to make bigger signs, but they still get their point across:










So don't you worry about a thing, 'bum, AA's billboard may be bigger than your's, but it's still only one sign,
and its cute pictures of Santa Claus and the Devil can't begin to compete with your religion's messages of hatred and eternal damnation.

[humblebum]

92. The KKK and Westboro Baptists cannot even begin to compete with the

level of violence and hatred displayed by militant atheists over the past century.

[Goblinmonger]

98. Focus, focus, focus humblebum

We are talking about the organization American Atheists here. THEY are the ones you said were no different than Westboro or the KKK. If you are going to pull the worst of people who have identified as atheists, that hardly isn't fair. You aren't even pulling atheists that are American in your examples much less from this organization.

So what has the American Atheists organization done to gain your disdain?

[humblebum]

100. I would sworn Madeline Murray O'Hare was an American. nt

[Goblinmonger]

101. OK, awesome, so please give me an example of what Madeline Murray O'Hare

has done that was so horrible.

And then on to the Westboro and KKK comparison to the American Atheists.

You better stop making general, dog-whistle, statements because I can ask you for specific examples all day long.

[humblebum]

102. I could not care less what you consider to be "general, dog-whistle, statements."

The similarities are that all public show open disdain for other groups of people. American Atheists is very much a part of that. I'll leave it at that.

[Goblinmonger]

103. Translation: "I've got nothing."

Your BS is so damn transparent. You make these claims about how groups and people are horrible but when asked for an example you have nothing to offer but more general "they're really bad people" bullshit.

What specifically has the American Atheists done that you feel is so bad?
What did Madeline Murray O'Hare do that makes her the subject of your ire?

You have nothing except for a hatred of atheists in general with no substance to back it up.

My suggestion for you: Just stop it. If you have nothing specific to offer, then don't say anything. What you do is akin to me saying "Christians are evil" and offering nothing else. There are evil Christians and I'm willing to talk about those specifics, but for you to put O'Hare in the same category as Stalin is just bigoted bullshit and would be the equivalent of me saying that MLK is an ass because he has the same religious roots as Pope Innocent. Stop it.

[humblebum]

104. Translation: bigotry is bigotry. American Atheists have done so publicly for

a very long time. A bill board with huge letters spelling out the "N" word be no different. They are no different. You stick with your opinion and I'll keep mine, as I watch a couple American Atheists harrassing elderly gentlemen at a Knights of Columbus function, for example. When they endorse movies, TV shows, entertainers, speakers, and your own leaders publicly ridicule or call for ridicule, I feel quite safe in calling it a bigoted group. KKK and the Westboro bunch do much the same things. I'll just leave my statement as is.

[Goblinmonger]

105. Are you saying this billboard is the same?

Because, if so, please tell me how the story of Jesus--even if we believe the bible literally to be true on everything about Jesus--isn't a myth. It is. Clearly meets the definition. There are religious people that have written books about "Christian Mythology." The fact that you think the word "Myth" is the same as the word "Nigger" is just astounding.

As to the KofC incident, you know that these people are from American Atheists how?

Hitchens is a member of American Atheists? And if he is (I have no clue but you seem to, so prove that to me), he was speaking for AA when he made your ONE statement you like to beat like a dead horse?

Your statement is equivalent to "All atheists are the same." Which, if said about Christians here, you and others would have a shitfit about.

[humblebum]

107. Oh cry me a river! The vast majority of historians believe that

the historical Jesus existed. And you bet, I do consider the forms of bigotry the same. Anti-religious bigotry has a long history of violence and repression over the past century. and where did I say Hitchens was a member of American Atheists? I honestly don't know if he is or is not a dues paying member. But, yes he has been endorsed by them on several occasions. And AA did not begin in a vacuum nor does it operate in one today. It is part of Atheist Alliance International, which consists of many atheist groups. That is not to say that all secular/atheist groups are like American Atheists, but AA has certainly been in the forefront of those engaging in and encouraging public bigotry toward religion. and yes those harrassing the elderly were American Atheists from Texas. Wouldn't have been so bad if they hadn't been so old, but as it is old people can be harmed by being so upset.

[Goblinmonger]

108. Wow. So much to say.

1. Give me a list and link to 3 of those "historians" and the proof they have because a claim that "vast majority believe in a historical Jesus" is just you talking out of your ass. There is no proof of a historical Jesus. None. Other than one thing that we already know was a forgery. I have a hard time believing that a majority of historians would believe something for which there is no proof.

2. So Hitchens is part of AA because AA is part of a bigger group? That's just silly.

3. You haven't told me why Jesus, even if real, isn't dead on to a myth. Look up the definition and tell me how it isn't.

4. So are you ready to hold all of Christianity responsible for the acts of a few? Seems like that is what you rail against.

[humblebum]

109. Are you drunk? "Other than one thing that we already KNOW was a forgery"

You do not KNOW anything of the sort. From what I have seen your story is contrived blather, nothing more. Your other statements? You are drunk.

[Goblinmonger]

110. Nice deflection.

Don't offer real examples or anything.

I was assuming that when you are saying there was a historical Jesus, you were talking about Josephus as proof of that. If that is not the case, then let me know what other proof there is. If you have never heard that Josephus is a forgery, then here.

[humblebum]

111. I am very familiar with Josephus, and do not doubt what it says.

For atheists to disprove the historical Jesus, there is a huge number of sources that must be debunked. That indicates that your efforts are agenda motivated. It is no more possible to disprove the existence of Jesus than it is to prove the existence of him. Regardless, American Atheists is a bigoted oragnization simply by definition of the term "bigotry." The story of radical militant atheism really needs to be told. And I think many are catching on.

The other blather you listed in your last post was a bit hard to understand. Sober up.

[Goblinmonger]

112. "huge number of sources that must be debunked."

1. Josephus--done.
2. Bible--really, that doesn't count
3. Anything that relies on the Bible as a primary source--See #2
4. All the Roman records of this major disruption from a society that kept great records--oh, yeah, there are none.
5. References from contemporaries of Jesus--again, none.

What did I miss in that "huge number of sources"?

[humblebum]

113. What a joke. Notice that your argument is structured to give

credibility to your argument. Actually the Bible does count as a collection of writing. and there are certainly more historians and writers to consider besides Josephus. Your argument is narrowly focused for a particular agenda. But the greater fact is that there is NO empirical proof one way or the other. Therefore, your claim of proof is absolute bunk. And American Atheists are bigoted, getting back to mine main point.

[dmallind]

114. Name one

A historian who mentions Jesus.

A history of Rome and its empire naturally mentions people who worship, among many others, Mithras. This is not, I am sure you agree, a record of a historical Mithras.

With that in mind, name a historian besides the laughable Josephus interpolation (that somehow escaped the notice of all Christian commentators on his works until the 4th century CE) that mentions JESUS.

[Goblinmonger]

116. Oh, there were a lot

I mean A LOT. Didn't you read his post where he told you that.

That's the best you're going to get.

[Goblinmonger]

115. The Bible doesn't count as proof of Jesus being a real person.

It wasn't even written during the time he would have been alive, for goodness sake.

But on to your bigger point, what exactly have O'Hare and American Atheists done that make them no different than Westboro and the KKK. Specific examples, please. So far you have the one instance with the KoC people and I don't see that that was something that AA had them do like Westboro does. But if you have something for me to read to understand that event more fully, I'd be happy to skim it.

[dmallind]

117. About as much as Ovid is proof of the gods of Rome surely? nt

[humblebum]

118. Who is claiming proof? Christians do not claim objective proof, but there certainly is

subjective, circumstantial evidence. Besides Scripture and Josephus, there are Origen, Tacitus, and Suetonius. And Irenaeus and Tertullian both record Polycarp as being a disciple of John the apostle. And if the latter is true then there exists a direct personal knowledge and link to an original apostle.

Of course Goblinmonger claims PROOF that there was no historical Jesus, so that no doubt settles the matter. HINT: There is NO proof one way or the other.

[Goblinmonger]

119. I never said that. Don't lie.

I said there is no proof of a historical Jesus. There isn't. And that is different than what you are claiming.

[humblebum]

120. Uh huh. nt

[Goblinmonger]

121. Hard to argue with that retort. n/t

[dmallind]

122. None of those listed were even ALIVE! NT

[humblebum]

123. Ya mean they wrote those things when they were dead? Now

that's what I call a miracle!

[dmallind]

126. Or, more germanely, long before they were born. Origen was born in 184CE!

How in the name of Koresh could he be a witness to events in the life of a zombie carpenter who was nailed up 150 years earlier?

[humblebum]

127. Whoever said he was an eyewitness? Nor was it implied.

What it proves is that there was an active Christianity at the time of writing. And, with other writers, we can go back even farther. No one is claiming absolute empirical proof. And equally important is that this fact also establishes subjective, circumstantial eveidence. It may mean nada to you, but for an atheist group to categorically state that Jesus was a myth, is a lie. And, if Irenaeus and Tertullian were correct in their reports of Polycarp being a disciple of John, the apostle of Jesus, then one does indeed have a direct link to the man Jesus, though it is a second-hand report. Again, Christians do not claim objective, empirical proof.

It is very convenient for atheists to say that the Bible cannot be used as evidence, but the fact is that it certainly can, and especially in conjunction with other writings. If the Polycarp story is true, Then the Apostle John was probably the one who wrote the book bearing his name, and others. No objective proof, but it is very convenient for atheists to totally discount the Bible as having any measure of credibility. To call Jesus a myth is a calculated lie, simply because there IS subjective evidence to suggest that he was indeed real.

[dmallind]

128. Then why suggest him as a historian who could support JESUS' existence as I asked?

I spelt it out for you in very simple words. Historical accounts of Mithras worship do not support a historical Mithras. Same for Zeus, Thor, Kali, etc. Why does it mean anything for Jesus' putative existence? What, precisely, is the difference?

If the Bible is evidence of Jesus, why are tales about any god written by their worshippers not evidence of these other gods?

BTW you DO know what "myth" means I hope.

[humblebum]

130. I am aware of the number of supposedly eyewitness accounts of

people who personally knew Mithras and Zeus, and their roles as actual humans living very human lives. The physical histories are totally different from the information on Jesus. The Atheist argument is agenda driven, for the simple fact that allowing subjective evidence to be used severely weakens the atheist position. So when certain atheists declare that it is OK to ridicule believers, their claim of KNOWING, by reason, that there is no diety is bogus. It is one POV, and by no means proven.


As far as suggesting those writers as historians "who could support JESUS' existence" as you asked - They do support his existence certainly indirectly. Again, no one is claiming objective proof, but the subjective evidence rules out your claiming Jesus to be a myth. And in this case, myth is meant to imply nonexistence when Jesus is portrayed as real as Santa Claus. And yes, I do consider the Bible as part of historical Christianity and that it can be used to support an argument.

[Goblinmonger]

129. Here's the definition of myth.

It's from Dictionary.com but is pretty consistent with most all definitions of myth:

"a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, especially one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature."

Please explain how Jesus is not a myth (notice that nowhere in the definition does it indicate truth or falsehood of the story).

[humblebum]

131. When Jesus is posted beside Santa Claus, or a tooth fairy, or a pink unicorn,

the implication is quite obvious. Or are you saying that there is a chance that the tooth fairy and pink unicorns exist? I think context says it all here.

[Goblinmonger]

132. Do you have proof they don't? n/t

[humblebum]

133. So then, I assume that you do differentiate beween myth and folklore.

Is that correct?

"myth  

Part of Speech:

noun

Definition:

fictitious story, often ancient

Synonyms:

allegory, apologue, creation, delusion, fable, fabrication, fairy story, fancy, fantasy, fiction, figment, folk ballad, folk tale, illusion, imagination, invention, legend, lore, mythos, parable, saga, superstition, tale, tall story, tradition

Antonyms:

fact, non-fiction, truth


http://thesaurus.com/browse/myth

[Goblinmonger]

134. As an English teacher, that's a bad definition.

It doesn't get to the heart of the elements of what a myth is. The one I posted, which isn't from a thesaurus, does cover the traditional literary elements.

And of course there is a difference between myth and folklore. Most notably that individual myths will make up or contribute the the folklore of a culture.

[humblebum]

135. Actually, it is a very well rounded definition, and much more inclusive than

the first one. The definition is equivocal and means fabrication, or fantasy, also.

[Goblinmonger]

136. It's not a good definition. Inclusivity isn't the only standard.

A good definition needs to be inclusive AND exclusive. Your definition is not. According to your definition, me saying "I caught a 1000 pound walleye with a stick and some thread" would be a myth. Hence a bad definition.

A good source for a definition is from the area of expertise that uses the term. Myth is a literary term and your definition does not jive with what is used in the world of literature. Myth is more complex than that.

[humblebum]

138. I said that it was equivocal, which would indicate a broader usage

than the narrow one you imply. Random House Collegiate says, "5. Without foundation in fact; imaginary; ficticious."

[Goblinmonger]

139. Narrow definitions are generally better

because they give you a more clear understanding of what the word means by eliminating all the extraneous stuff.

You do know what being the 5th definition means, right? I don't deny that it is a usage out there, but it is not the widely accepted definition and certainly not the one that the discipline uses. Again, with your definition #5 my saying "Pigs just literally flew out of my ass" would be a myth. Myth is more than just a lie.

[humblebum]

140. The definition says what it says, not necessarily what you intend it to say.

And, you are certainly not the only one here who comes from a career in teaching and research. The fact is that the definition is understood in ways contrary to yours.

[Goblinmonger]

141. I'm not talking about the specific definition anymore

but what makes a good definition. I spent two years as the primary coach and researcher for topicality (a definition-based argument) at a major college debate program. I'll go toe-to-toe with you on what makes a good definition any day.

[humblebum]

143. Take it up with Random House or Webster's or the dreaded OED. And appealing to authority is

a logical fallacy. A person of your stature should know that.

[Goblinmonger]

144. Who's appealing to authority?

Seems like you are. Are you saying that if it is in a dictionary, it has to be a good definition? That's just silly. Of course there are some definitions that are better than others. I am saying that going to an "authority" such as OED is not as reliable in defining as going to an expert in the field. Experts in the field of literature don't define "myth" as "a false story." If me saying I caught a half-ton Walleye fits the same definition of myth as a Lakota creation myth, then that is a bad definition because it doesn't exclude.

[humblebum]

145. Yes, trusting a dictionary for the definition of a particular word is indeed a logical fallacy.

Especially, a lowly one such as the Oxford English Dictionary. SARCASM

I have now heard it all. That darned Alex Trebek always has trouble committing the same fallacy. Shameful. I guess that's why you chose a truly authoritative one such as Dictionary.com. Brilliant, and truly professional.

[Goblinmonger]

146. The fallacy is that you trust it just because it is the OED

and not because of the quality of the definition.

If you want a nuclear physics term defined, are you better off going to the OED or to a nuclear physicist? I'm going to the physicist.

Can I assume you have given up the fight that inclusive/exclusive is a good standard for definitions?

[humblebum]

147. And Websters and Random House, etc. You have not only insulted

my intelligence, but a huge part of the community of scholars.

[Goblinmonger]

148. What are you talking about?

I don't think anyone who writes a dictionary would be offended at the concept that getting a contextual definition from an expert in the field would be better than going to a dictionary. Seriously.

If you are as intimately involved in definitions as you have tried to indicate but have never heard of the inclusive/exclusive standard, then you are the one who is insulting people's intelligence. If you have no concept that contextual definitions from experts in the field carry a great deal of weight, you are putting yourself incorrectly in the community of scholars.

[humblebum]

149. Yes, its just a pity that the publishers of the Oxford dictionary don't hire "experts"

to edit their multi-volume product. Think how much more reliable it could possibly be.

[Goblinmonger]

151. Pretty much done with you misstating what I have said

and taking this to another completely different direction.

Go ahead and think you know everything about defining.

[Goblinmonger]

53. When did I say that no criticism is allowed?

Is asking you to actually substantiate your criticism now not allowed? I'm supposed to let you just toss out BS and not ask why? Seems rather an unfair standard.

So, please give me a couple examples of what American Atheists have done that is the same as what Westboro Baptists has done. And then give me an example of what they have done that is equivalent to the KKK (unless you just want to drop that bullshit claim as the hyperbole it clearly is, but you need to admit it's bullshit--I think you need to do the same with Westboro, but I am guessing that is about 5-10 replies down the thread before we get to that).

Or are you just going to spout out more nonsense and not support your points?

[PassingFair]

124. What differentiates religion from myth?

The numbers of people who believe?

Is it just a matter of being "current" beliefs,
as opposed to "ancient" beliefs?

Obviously, proof is not a factor.

[MarkCharles]

142. That's a very good question. Of course, not all of religion is

mythology, but a good deal of religious beliefs have a mythological figure or figures associated with those beliefs.

[beam me up scottie]

41. Oh I'm sure he would love to use new material.

If it existed.

What I want to know is if he thinks anyone takes him seriously anymore.

[MarkCharles]

48. Those people were CAMPAIGNING for atheism? Only ...

Madalyn Murray O'Hair was a "campaigner", and, as far as I know, she didn't ever kill anyone, and her own murder is still unsolved. No? Nope, I'm wrong, "Waters was found guilty of kidnapping, robbery, and murder in the O'Hair case, and was sentenced to 20 years in prison." 20 years for kidnapping and murder of 3 people, including Madalyn.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madalyn_Murray_O'Hair

Stalin, Lenin, PolPot Ceaucescu, Trotsky, none of them were "activists" on behalf of atheism, but continue to spread misinformation all you want. Jesus wishes his followers would use a little more integrity in their written misrepresentations of what evil people actually believed.

And really, to put poor victim of hate crime murder, Madalyn Murray O'Hair, in the same category as those other sociopaths, sort of shows how poorly informed or how weak that perennial argument is.

Next time: please check the facts, and the spelling of names, too!

[humblebum]

69. Well. let's see.

"Trotsky had direct influence on anti-religious matters. In November of 1922, as head of the new Anti-religious Commission, he asked the Central Committee's agitation and propaganda department (agitprop) to create an anti-religious newspaper for national distribution. The cause of atheism had been judged sufficiently important to merit its own newspaper, and thus the means of organizing, controlling, and promoting Soviet Atheism.
The first issue of 'Bezbozhnik' (Godless or Atheist) appeared late in December of 1922 ... a new era of Soviet atheism began."
'Storming the Heavens: The Soviet League of the Militant Godless' by Daniel Peris p.42.

[redqueen]

59. LOL @ your calling murderous dictators "atheist activists"...

there's this thing called logic... check it out sometime.

[cleanhippie]

74. Oh, thats pretty standard rhetoric for humblebum.

Like a broken record, over and over and over....

[humblebum]

94. But absolutely true. And the story needs to be told much more often.nt

[cleanhippie]

99. Wow, hard to imagine that you would ever agree that I was right about you!

:fistbump:


A new day has dawned!

[Jim Lane]

49. I'm OK with this billboard as long as there's no picture of pasta.

Say what you wish about Poseidon and Santa Claus, but don't go casting any doubt on MY belief system. The FSM is real.

[Sal316]

76. So I guess being insulting is ok if your group does it?

If you support this then don't bitch when fundies put up their ignorant billboards.

[laconicsax]

77. Which part offends you?

Does the story of Jesus need to be literally true in your sophisticated theology?

[NMMNG]

78. Calling myths myths is insulting,

Got it.

[humblebum]

79. Radical atheism getting more popular everyday, yesiree. And I'll bet

that every one of those 37 million non-believers enjoys the new found attention.

[Goblinmonger]

81. Still throwing around non-specific claims?

How is American Atheists "radical atheism"? Please give specific examples of what that organization has done.

And I haven't forgotten the other sub-thread and I'm waiting for what they have done that is worse than Westboro and the KKK.

I'm sure you won't give those examples but just continue to throw around dog whistle words.

[humblebum]

85. Um? Where did I say they were "worse than Westboro and the KKK?"

But I do consider them as bigoted.

[Goblinmonger]

97. OK, you're right. Here's your claim.

"I consider American Atheists to be no different than the Westboro Baptists or the KKK and equally as offensive."

As I indicated upthread, please provide specific examples of how the American Atheists organization is "no different" than the Westboro Baptists and the KKK. Specific examples. And make sure the WB and KKK examples are at least representative.

[beam me up scottie]

82. Actually we just just love watching paranoid christians' heads exploding.

:popcorn:

[laconicsax]

87. I think Sal still believes in Santa and is offended by the suggestion that Santa isn't real.

I will continue to think so unless Sal says otherwise.

[trotsky]

93. !

:spray:

[trotsky]

80. Perhaps you could explain, Sal...

in very small words for us intellectually deficient atheists, why the story of Jesus does not fit the definition of "myth."

Thanks so very much! I eagerly await your response.

[laconicsax]

86. Obviously, the whole thing happened exactly as the Bible says...

You could say that it's literally true.

[Goblinmonger]

83. Were you put off with the publication

of this book? Or the other similar titles?

Also, you would think that someone who was a member of an Anglican religious order, "Brother George Every SSM (3 February 1909 - 2003) was a British historian, theologian and writer on Christian mythology, and poet. He was a member of the Anglican religious community the Society of the Sacred Mission at Kelham, Nottinghamshire from 1929 to 1973. He then joined the Roman Catholic College at Oscott." would not want to write something so offensive as this book.

It is just amazing how much people want to look for a reason to be pissed at atheists.

[Deep13]

91. I support it and will bitch anyway.

If you have aright to tell people including children that they will be eternally tortured unless they accept dominion of a "god" that supposedly loves them, when we have a right to say "you're wrong." Which brings me to my second point. You and the fundies are wrong about god. Atheists are right. Telling the truth creates its own moral justification.

[dmallind]

106. Which went up first? Which makes more offensive claims?

All those things are definitely myths. The religious billboards above make claims that are far from true definitions.

[and-justice-for-all]

95. Excellent...they are all myths of course..nt

[PassingFair]

125. There's an ad on TV for Dr. Pepper....

"I Exist" campaign.



I can't see it without thinking...

"God must be late for the meeting."

:evilgrin:

[Goblinmonger]

137. I wish I were better at Photoshop.

Putting the baby Jesus in Santa's arms can't be that hard, though, can it?

[NMMNG]

150. Ask and ye shall receive

Courtesy of my lovely wife

[Goblinmonger]

152. That. Is. Awesome.

Added to my photobucket.