It’s usually used as an argument for “works” as being important in Christianity (to get to heaven), since it clearly states that righteousness (= faith alone? good personal “morals”?) is not enough. In contrast to other parts of the New Testament, where faith alone is the key. Go figger.

A reasonable reading of Matthew 25:31-46 finds the implication that those helping the needy were doing so without regard to god/belief/rewards. Though if you squint at a different angle as you read it, you could instead conclude that those helping the needy were doing so because they saw Jesus in the people they helped. (Somebody should teach god how to give a clear set of instructions.)

But, really, to tick Robin off I bet all we’d need would be a one-liner somehow linking Jesus and “good” atheists – ! (Even if many atheists would object…sorry, guys.)

I vow, that if I manage to get a column this fall, I will dedicate at least one column to atheism.

If Bloomington Transit gives in to this message, then by all fairness, they should post messages with the opposing view such as “Jesus Saves.”

Hmm….that sounds familiar….

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine

Yeah, that was it! That bill that all the Christians are scared of. You know, the one that’s supposed to “quash the voices of Christian talk radio and conservative media efforts?”

Yeah, that one.

only one quick comment

promotion of atheism or religion in any form never works, well unless you also fall for some of the crazy commercials seen on tv or the tv evangelists

Why exactly do atheists feel the need to advertise their point of view anyway? …I have never understood atheists who are constantly on the attack against believers.

Good question, albeit one that’s been addressed in a number of other places in the past.

A few points to make on this: the statement ‘You can be good without God’ isn’t in any way an attack on believers. There’s absolutely nothing offensive, combative or rude in that statement whatsoever, despite the wailing and gnashing by people like Robin Smith.

Now, as two why non-believers need to advertise their point of view to begin with… I can thing of some good reasons.

I can’t speak for other countries, but in America there is a definite stigma in how people in our nation view non-believers. Non-believers are assumed to be less moral, to be nihilistic and un-American and a million other nightmarish adjectives that you can think of.

Because of this it’s important for people to be able to speak up and identify as non-believers. People are far less likely to demonize a fringe population if they know somebody who’s a part of it. People need to know that non-believers don’t just consist of Richard Dawkins, or even a bunch of people sitting around in atheist forums grumbling about religion.

People need to know that non-believers include their children, their neighbors, the nice guy in your office that wrote you a get-well card when you broke your ankle, the lady who heads the latch key program in their neighborhood; people need to know that non-believers are just like them, and want many of the same basic things out of life.

Things like the atheist bus ads really do help with this sort of thing. No, they won’t convert believers into non-believers, but I don’t think that’s actually the point. I think that the point is that it may help non-believers to know that they aren’t alone in their non-belief, and that it’s okay that they look at religion a little bit differently than those around them.

Is it preaching to the choir? Absolutely. But sometimes the choir needs a bit of encouragement, too.

(Forgive me for using church imagery, but the metaphor applies.)

Obviously it makes more sense their way: atheists should have to pay, Christians are entitled to a freebie, and no one else needs to be considered.

I noted that Smith said nothing about payment for the Christian response ad.

Also, at the end of Smith’s piece, she says that atheists can have ads, but not on public transport, thus contradicting what she’d been saying.