Dear Atheists,
If you are so smart? How ‘come you are so dumb? And racist?
Two atheist groups now believe they made a mistake with a controversial billboard attacking the Bible.The Pennsylvania sign, which was first vandalized and then taken down, bore a verse from Colossians 3:22: “Slaves, obey your masters.”
While intended as a message against Keystone State legislators who designated 2012 as the “Year of the Bible,” many felt the sign — which also featured a shackled black man — were racist.
The billboard, created and financed by the American Atheists and the Pennsylvania Nonbelievers, went up on Tuesday.
The vandals attacked the sign a day later, and it was gone from an intersection in Harrisburg, Pa., about 24 hours after first appearing.
“I want to say that I’m truly sorry that many people have misunderstood this billboard,” said Pennsylvania Nonbelievers president Brian Fields.
Sorry we misunderstood it? How about sorry you completely misunderstand the bible and in your rush to show how smart you are, all you proved is how dumb you are. But no worries, I am sure natural selection and birth control will rid us of your ilk soon enough.
March 10, 2012 at 7:16 pm
Their genetic sequences made them do it.
March 11, 2012 at 3:09 am
As an atheist, it was a dumb sign. Irony makes for bad billboards.
If we need a billboard or rational thought, there are many better than this dumb one.
Rover.
March 11, 2012 at 10:45 am
Remember, "Brights" is a movement named on the same principle as People's Democratic Republics.
March 11, 2012 at 11:21 pm
As an atheist, Rover, how do you explain your existence? If in denying our Creator, you deny your existence, how come you have not annihilated yourself, except that at some level you accept God and your God-given humanity?
March 11, 2012 at 11:55 pm
To clarify Mary's excellent point, the Christian God is not merely the Creator in the sense of "agent of coming-into-being", but also in the sense of "cause of existence". Indeed, he is existence (the fact-anything-exists, not that-which-exists).
Science is insufficient to explaining our existence, because before one can discuss biology and evolution, or the physics from which they arise, one must account for the existence of the mathematical principles they depend upon to function. Even were there no time, mathematical and other concepts would exist, and that existence would require a cause, since no existent thing necessarily contains existence as a part of its definition. Only Existence itself, which is the Christian God, automatically contains existence as a part of its (his) definition.
In short, the statement "God does not exist" is logically equivalent to "water is not wet" or "salt is not salty"—the quality being denied is defined by the thing it is being denied to.
March 12, 2012 at 12:31 am
Mary, really? I have no need to explain my existence. I live each day to the fullest! I have no future after my death. If you think Heaven is awaiting you, how do you not rush towards it?
I would rather be in hell than the heaven as I understand it. No growth, learning, challenge, only praising your creator (and I don't respect him from the OT btw).
March 12, 2012 at 12:32 am
opps, sorry Mary, The above post is from Rover.
March 12, 2012 at 1:12 am
Rover, you have missed the point. Mary's asking you to overcome the contingency argument, also known as the prime mover argument. My guess is that you dismiss it out of hand as unimportant or not worth addressing, that the universe needed nothing to start or cause it.
March 12, 2012 at 4:09 am
You want a hilarious example of a similar stupidity? check out the fb page ACCESS DENIED SEX STRIKE. How stupid can stupid get?!
Tis the antichristian girls denying their guys sex for two whole weeks to force the government to ensure that the church's pay for the free contraception. Needless to say, it is turning into a royal mess for them over there. LOL, it is just too funny!
Barb
Fiat Voluntas Tua
March 12, 2012 at 6:01 am
I don't understand…
From an atheist point of view, why was it a bad sign?
I mean, yes, granted, atheists are typically far more literalistic and unsophisticated in their comprehension of the Bible than the most illiterate snake-handling fundamentalist preacher in the backwoods of Kentucky. They seem unaware that calling something the "inerrant word of God" doesn't prevent a college-educated man from interpreting literature with due respect for the kind of literature, the time and place, and the intent of the (human) author.
What is going on here is that atheists erroneously believe that St. Paul's admonition to slaves then is to be followed by slaves today in the same way, despite the fact that it was written when Christianity had not yet sufficiently transformed civilization and the consciences of individuals to make the abhorrent nature of slavery intuitive to most persons. Under those circumstances, St. Paul's admonition was correct. It cannot, of course, be taken as a commendation of institutionalized slavery even then, let alone today, and a sophisticated reader — or one who paid attention in Sunday School — would know that.
So atheist ignorance of scripture is a problem.
But let's suppose for a moment that their interpretation of this verse as indicating that Christians today are obligated to support the institution of slavery was actually correct. Let's grant for a moment that Scripture really was treated in such a boneheaded and disrespectful way by the Christian religion.
If that were true, then…why wouldn't this billboard be a perfectly valid commentary for atheists to make against Christians? I mean, if Christianity did really require reading the Bible that way, I'd probably make a similar remark.
So, since atheists actually do believe that Christians read the Bible that way, isn't this billboard a perfectly reasonable argument to make, from their point-of-view?
Beyond that, I don't understand those calling the billboard racist. It obviously isn't. It isn't even bigoted or prejudiced.
Racism is the ideology which holds one ethnicity as inherently superior to another (often on some pseudo-scientific basis). Racial prejudice (not the same as racism, but required for it) is the view that traits common to an ethnicity (in reality or in perception) consistently apply to every individual member of that ethnicity. Racial bigotry (also slightly different from racism) is antipathy (felt or expressed) towards members of an ethnicity on the basis of that ethnicity.
Looking at the billboard, what do we see?
The presence of the picture of the black slave is clearly intended to show the viewer the cruelty of slavery. That means the black man in the picture is intended as a sympathetic figure. The viewer's emotions are being manipulated to side with the slave against the (presumed) support of Christian scriptures for slavery.
That's not racist, nor is it racially prejudiced, nor is it racially bigoted.
So unless and until atheists begin to learn that their own unsophisticated approach to Christian Scripture is not the approach Christians take, this billboard (a.) is not racist and (b.) expresses what atheists actually think.
Why, then, shouldn't they embrace it?
March 12, 2012 at 9:26 pm
To Sophia's Favorite: So slavery was okay at the time because God couldn't talk humanity out of it? So much for all-powerful.
March 12, 2012 at 10:04 pm
Being "all powerful" is a capacity, not an action. For example, I have the power to lift 100 pounds, but that does not mean I am constantly lifting 100 pounds. If God was all powerful, in a Calvinistic way, then he has ceded no power to man. If he is all powerful in a way that describes his capacity, but not his actions and he in fact ceded free will to man to follow or reject his commands, then man can harden his heart towards God and a stop gap measure could be implemented. See, for example, Jesus's discourse on divorce.
March 13, 2012 at 5:29 pm
I think you're missing my point. If God commanded people not to own slaves, they wouldn't have owned slaves. Why didn't he give that command?
March 13, 2012 at 6:38 pm
I believe God commanded his people not to kill, steal or commit adultery, so I'm not sure the addition of another commandment would have stopped much of anything. Disobedience is why man was banished from the Garden of Eden and was subject to the Mosaic Law. Second, slavery in ancient Israel was not chattel slavery, but generally debt slavery. The ownership of slaves came with a relatively long list of requirements on how to ethically treat them and a provision for their release after 7 years. It's not 1840s American slavery. Additionally, debt slavery acted as a primitive welfare system of the destitute. In exchange for a term of service, they were provided for and their debts were forgiven at the end of their bondage term.
1st century Roman slavery ran the gamut from forced labor to relatively independent individuals who could own property and become independently wealthy enough to purchase their own freedom. However, Jesus made it clear his mission was to proclaim release to the captives and to give liberty to the oppressed. Not exactly a ringing endorsement of slavery.
March 13, 2012 at 6:54 pm
So there exist circumstances under which slavery is okay?
March 13, 2012 at 8:55 pm
It depends on your definition of slavery and the conditions of society as a whole. In the US, modern day, slavery is prohibited under the 13th Amendment unless you are convicted of a crime. In that situation, people incarcerated for violation of the law could be considered slaves. I would assume you believe slavery is morally acceptable in that situation.
In third world countries with no domestic infrastructure or support for the starving masses (eg Zimbabwe, Liberia, Somalia, etc), it may be moral to have debt bondage, in other words, work for another for a specific period of time in exchange for food, shelter, care and a discharge of debts. This contract must be entered into voluntarily, not as a result of sale by another, and the indentured servant should be treated in a humane manner. I'm sure you would agree that indentured servitude is preferable over starvation.
New World chattel slavery is never acceptable.
Of course, the ideal is the Garden of Eden with no slavery under any definition.
March 13, 2012 at 9:39 pm
Slavery: owning another human being as property. In the Old Testament, God orders his followers to take slaves as spoils of war. In your view, is this moral? If not, why would God order it?
March 13, 2012 at 10:28 pm
Of course whatever God commands is moral, however, I believe you are still conflating New World slavery with slavery in ancient Israel when no real comparison can be made. For example, if slaves were truly just property, why could their masters be executed for killing them? Why could they not be over worked? Why were injured slaves permitted to go free? Why couldn't they be made to work on the Sabbath? Do you think the same conditions applied to American slaves? Since slaves were commanded to be treated with human compassion, it was clear they were not just property. As a result, your question is based on a false premise.
I have answered your questions, if you do not mind, please answer a few of mine:
Is it logically consistent that a being with free-will can actively oppose the will of an all-powerful God?
Do you agree slavery is still legally practiced in the United States under the 13th Amendment?
Is that practice moral? If not, why not?
Could debt slavery as practiced in the Old Testament provide a marked improvement in the quality of life for millions living in the 3rd world?
If you reject the idea of a law giver God, is there such a thing as good or evil? Why? How do you decide which is which? If there is no good or evil, why is any type of slavery impermissible?
March 14, 2012 at 1:27 am
Can I use this verse on my children since our last name is Masters?
😉 shalimamma
March 14, 2012 at 6:18 pm
How is taking a human being as spoils of war not treating them as property? Are you serious suggesting being slaves was a good thing for these people?
On to your questions:
"Is it logically consistent that a being with free-will can actively oppose the will of an all-powerful God?"
An all-powerful God is not logically consistent.
"Do you agree slavery is still legally practiced in the United States under the 13th Amendment?"
No.
"Is that practice moral? If not, why not?"
Of course not. Owning another human being as property is morally reprehensible.
"Could debt slavery as practiced in the Old Testament provide a marked improvement in the quality of life for millions living in the 3rd world?"
I suppose, but I'd want to see the scholarly research on the topic. I also fail to see how that's relevant, given that I was asking about taking slaves as spoils of war.
"If you reject the idea of a law giver God, is there such a thing as good or evil?"
Perceptions of good and evil vary by culture.
"How do you decide which is which?"
Personally, I follow my conscience.
"If there is no good or evil, why is any type of slavery impermissible? "
I didn't claim there was no good or evil. I fail to see how slavery is justifiable under any circumstances.