Just in Time for the Holidays, the Flying Spaghetti Monster Comes to the Wisconsin Capitol Building

It just got a little more cluttered in the Wisconsin Capitol building.

There’s already a “natural nativity scene” there thanks to the Freedom From Religion Foundation:

And FFRF also put up a couple of signs in honor of the Winter Solstice:

That’s all in addition to the Festivus pole that’s also on display.

Now, the Atheists, Humanists, and Agnostics at the University of Wisconsin–Madison are adding a display of their own to the mix: The Flying Spaghetti Monster.

AHA’s sign urges onlookers to “Be touched by his noodly appendage, before it is too late!” The Flying Spaghetti Monster is a light-hearted parody of religion, which is commonly used to argue against the teaching of creationism in public schools.

In this case, AHA is using the mock deity to draw attention to the problem of allowing religious symbols to be displayed in government buildings. According to AHA president Sam Erickson, AHA’s intention is to advocate for the separation of Church and State. “We would prefer to keep our Capitol secular,” explained Erickson, “but if the State decides to turn it into an open forum, they have opened the floodgates. We hope everyone takes advantage of this opportunity to advertise their own viewpoints, no matter how silly.”

“Parody”?!

The sign will only be up through December 31st, so you might as well get your pilgrimage planned before it goes away!

At some point, Christians will have to realize that their precious Nativity scenes are in the middle of a circus. If they want Jesus to get any respect, maybe they should think about moving those mangers to, you know, a church.

(via AHA)

About Hemant Mehta

Hemant Mehta is the editor of Friendly Atheist, appears on the Atheist Voice channel on YouTube, and co-hosts the uniquely-named Friendly Atheist Podcast. You can read much more about him here.

  • Art_Vandelay

    FSM isn’t nearly as funny when you have to explain the joke.

  • http://bearlyatheist.wordpress.com/ Bear Millotts

    Heretic!

  • Art_Vandelay

    Hey man, I didn’t call Him ridiculous. It’s those infidels pictured above!

  • http://bearlyatheist.wordpress.com/ Bear Millotts

    Sorry, I just said “Heretic!” because that’s what I thought everyone did when faced with religious thoughts outside the mainstream of their faith.

  • KMR

    This is an excellent strategy. I’m wincing just looking at the pictures. Can’t imagine how ridiculous it all looks in person.

  • Keyra

    What better way to separate Jesus from the holiday, than to respond with a child-like protest and call it “reason” (this is exactly something a child would do if he doesn’t get his way). If I was still an atheist, this would be degrading. Why not add the flying pink unicorn, martian teapot, or garage dragon while they’re at it? Can’t think of another way to combat fundamentalism, than to reduce to mocking the entire faith and giving all believers the giant middle finger instead of just the fundies who are the only problem? Try doing this during a Muslim holiday in Saudi Arabia and imagine the reaction. It would be New Atheism’s masterpiece…but would New Atheist desperation go this far? Find out next week on “The Desperate War Against Religion…but primarily Christianity (Slogan: What better way to avoid God, than to fixate on him?)”!

  • EdmondWherever

    Something a child would do if he doesn’t get his way? But everyone is getting their way! Everyone’s display is going up. Who isn’t getting their way? This seems perfectly fair.
    .
    Oh, you mean CHRISTIANS aren’t getting their way, in being the ONLY display allowed. I see why that would seem like a giant middle finger.
    .
    And why would we try to exercise American constitutional freedoms in Saudi Arabia? Are you suggesting that there’s something wrong with both atheists and theists following the laws that we’ve mutually agreed upon in our country? Are you saying Saudi Arabian laws are handling this matter better?

  • Keyra

    No, but it seems New Atheists get their way when childish stuff like this is on display. Mocking Christians is their nectar. And I was just saying, why don’t New Atheists show people over there what they can do? Brave enough to fight Christians over here, but not Muslims over there. And constitutional freedoms is not entirely a Christian issue. Even if atheists have more rights than others, our country would still have problems. We’re in an economic shithole and this silly New Atheist crusade isn’t making things any better, just stirring up more conflict

  • Richard Thomas

    A) Take your pot-stirring complaints to the christian leaders who blame school shootings, hurricanes, earthquakes and tornadoes on The Gays.
    B) Economic shithole? http://taxthechurches.org/

  • Keyra

    If it makes you feel better to blame Christians on all our country’s problems, then go ahead

  • baal

    Well, I do blame xtians for trying to defund public schools, erode the teaching of science in science class, increasing teen pregnancy rates and abortion rates as well as starving some towns of much needed property tax.

  • Banks

    Richard just wants to blame Christians because he doesn’t know who else to blame.

  • Richard Thomas

    Yes. The poor, poor christians. How did you guess.

  • Bad_homonym

    But why can’t xtians just have their way by putting the displays up at churches or homes? Why the demand to violate the constitution. The backbone of your very freedoms? It’s a simple as recognizing any other equal right. You don’t live in a Christian nation, and when the demographics swap ( sorry it wall happen ) you will be glad for that founding document that in fact does and will continue to protect your rights

    Cheers

  • http://youtu.be/fCNvZqpa-7Q Kevin_Of_Bangor

    Had to do it.

  • Keyra

    Nah, there’s numerous rational approaches. This was not one of them. For example, why not display “Be a real Christian, be like Jesus. Do not impose” with various images, or something like that.

  • http://youtu.be/fCNvZqpa-7Q Kevin_Of_Bangor

    And I see the joke flew right over your head.

  • GubbaBumpkin

    Or how about “Be a true Christian, stop lying like Keyra.”

  • Keyra

    Lol very cute. But how am I “lying”?

  • GubbaBumpkin

    But how am I “lying”?

    I thought I’d give you the benefit of a doubt. The other possibility is that you’re dumber than a rock.

  • KMR

    If someone lacks critical thinking skills does that automatically make them dumb? Personally I don’t think so. Critical thinking skills can be taught and learned to a great extent. Dumb can’t be fixed and I don’t see that here.

  • busterggi

    All of the above.

  • Banks

    GREAT comeback. So well written and thought out. Please, I want to hear more from your witty self.

  • Blacksheep

    People on FA say that you are “lying” if you say that you believe something that they don’t – the implication (I guess) being that a person of faith doesn’t believe what they are saying, and is therefore lying (or dumb).

  • busterggi

    Which of the 42,000 + variations of Jesus is the real one?

    Oh yeah, yours of course.

  • Keyra

    No, but a nation forged on Christian values (gradually). And why do you gotta call us Xtians? If you wanna fight the fundies and misrepresentatives, by all means try. We’re all opposed to what they do. But mocking Christianity and God as a whole isn’t the way to do it

  • Terry Firma
  • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

    You mean a nation forged on secular, Enlightenment ideals?

    I do agree on the gradually part. It took a bloody war to get rid of the Christian value of slavery, for example. Harsh? Yeah. Also majorly oversimplifying things. But at the end of the day, it was almost exclusively Christians waving the Bible around justifying both slavery and racism, while it was a coalition of various liberal Christian denominations (such as Quakers), working with non-Christians such as deists and atheists, who were the most ardent anti-slavery proponents. And I can’t say the racist, pro-slavery Christians read their book wrong either, which says pretty bad things about the book.

  • EdmondWherever

    Yes, atheists SHOULD “get their way” (have their displays allowed alongside others that are allowed), when childish stuff (like ANY religious advertising in a governmental context) is on display.
    .
    Why don’t we show people in Saudi Arabia… what? How to follow American laws? We have enough trouble showing Christians how to do that HERE. Let’s make sure our own system works correctly, before we attempt to impose it onto another culture, hm? Besides, keep in mind that there ARE atheist activist individuals and organizations throughout the Middle East, attempting to do exactly what you suggest.
    .
    And of course we see the same argument used here that we see used on the gay rights movement, in an attempt to get activists to drop the matter entirely. “We have other problems! The economy! We can’t work on your issues until we solve that!”
    .
    Yes, we can. Our legislators can work on more than one problem at a time. You aren’t going to convince us to table our issue, so that we can wait on some nebulous time-frame while the economy is solved. It’s NEVER going to be solved. It’ll ALWAYS be a problem requiring attention. So will poverty, hunger, disease, human trafficking, pollution, corruption, etc etc. But that’ll never mean that we can only work on one issue at a time. Religious over-reach will always merit vigilance.

  • busterggi

    “Brave enough to fight Christians over here, but not Muslims over there. ”

    The Muslims over there aren’t shoving their religion into the government over here, the Christians are.

  • dandaman

    Way to sling the blame around. If anything, this “atheist crusade” to bring people to use reason and common sense, can only make things better. Trying to keep the state from endorsing religion is a worthy cause; it’s a shame the lawmakers can’t do the right thing and keep religion off public property in the first place. As for the Muslims, they’ll have to fight their own battle for a constitutional democracy, I’m not going to die trying. My guess, is you miss the old crusader days when xians could slaughter and maim without consequences, just like the Jihadists do. Fighting to defend one’s rights is not “stirring up conflict”, it is just the opposite. If the religious right wasn’t trying to force their views on the rest of us, there would be no “conflict”.

  • God’s Starship

    “We’re in an economic shithole and this silly New Atheist crusade isn’t making things any better, just stirring up more conflict”
    I’m no Paul Krugman, but I’m pretty sure our economy doesn’t hinge on a handful of holiday displays.

  • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

    +1 for mentioning Paul Krugman.

  • paulalovescats

    The shithole that the Texan golf pro put us in?

  • Malcolm McLean

    The question is whether you have to allow an “anti” display to be neutral. Say Wisconsin decides to permit the local South Africans to put on a display to honour Nelson Mandela. Do they have to allow an anti-Nelson Mandela display of equal prominence, erected by the Ku Klux Klan? What if it’s thinly disguised as a memorial to Mandela’s victims, or an honor for a notable apartheid politician, though everyone knows that really it’s there to ridicule or show Mandela in a bad light?

  • Keyra

    I guess. But New Atheists are playing the victim card. But instead of focusing on those who done them and others wrong, Christianity itself is to blame (as well as Jesus)…but this is exactly the sort of thing Jesus knew would happen. Misrepresentatives have done wrong, Christianity itself has not. Why should Jesus’ holiday (yea, I’m well aware Dec 25 was originally a pagan holiday, but BECAME Jesus’ holiday because nobody knew when his bday was, so the Romans picked one of their own holidays), become a godless one just because atheists have been hurt by those who claimed they were for Jesus when their actions spoke different. Why can’t atheists make their own holiday, like how Chinese celebrate Chinese New Year, and how Africans celebrate Kwanzaa? Instead of changing ours?

  • mikedave

    Where is the victim card exactly, they are playing by the rules established by people pushing a religious agenda. Everybody gets to play by the same rules, if you don’t like it you can campaign to get all displays removed.

  • baal

    ” Instead of changing ours?”
    You mean by not wanting the government to host your religious displays? I don’t think atheists ask for more than that.

    What we do privately is otherwise our business.

  • http://bearlyatheist.wordpress.com/ Bear Millotts

    Why can’t atheists make their own holiday, like how Chinese celebrate Chinese New Year, and how Africans celebrate Kwanzaa? Instead of changing ours?

    What are you? Five years old?

    No one “owns” December 25th, much less any other day of the year. It’s childish to think otherwise.

    Grow up.

  • Pitabred

    Oh… so it’s perfectly fine for Christians to take over Pagan holidays, but now that they “own” it, nobody else is allowed to celebrate the re-lengthening of days, enjoy family and friends without genuflecting to someone else’s deity? Gotcha. Christians sure aren’t very good at sharing holidays, much less countries.

  • Art_Vandelay

    yea, I’m well aware Dec 25 was originally a pagan holiday, but BECAME Jesus’ holiday because nobody knew when his bday was…

    Why can’t atheists make their own holiday, like how Chinese celebrate Chinese New Year, and how Africans celebrate Kwanzaa? Instead of changing ours?

  • http://boldquestions.wordpress.com/ Ubi Dubium

    “Why can’t atheists make their own holiday, like how Chinese celebrate Chinese New Year, and how Africans celebrate Kwanzaa? Instead of changing ours?”

    We did that. We have Festivus, the Winter Solstice, Monkey and Holiday, just for a start. You don’t own a particular day or month on the calendar. We aren’t changing the way you celebrate your holidays in your homes and in your churches, and we’re not suggesting that you change that. But you’re used to having all the public spaces all to yourselves too, and that’s not OK. Either you share those with everybody, even those you think are silly, or you put your nativity scenes back in your churchyards where they belong.

    Notice how you have never seen an article on this website complaining about the holiday decorations in people’s private homes and churches?

  • Blakely

    Because Atheist have the absence of God. What does the absence of God entail? The Enemy. The Enemy is going to do everything in his power to stop people from coming to the Lord.

  • Foridin

    …No, people are going to do things with the hope of getting our government to enforce its own rules. Just because you’ve always had a position of power in the gov’t doesn’t mean you deserve it.

  • baal

    Your “the Enemy” is just another fictional character who stands next to the fictional character “God”. Both of them stand near “Allah” (can of pasta sauce be on him) and the “FSM” (pbuh).

  • dandaman

    You do realize, that there is no evidence Jesus even existed, so a birth date is quite a reach. The Romans did not pick the holiday, the Church did as to usurp as many pagans as possible by melding holidays. Solstice takes precedence, move J-day to Easter. The real victims are the rule of law and impartiality of our public representatives.

  • mikedave

    I don’t see this as anti anything, this is pro separation of church and state. This is hardly in the league of anti-Nelson Mandela or pro Ku Klux Klan where do you dredge up this crap.

  • Pitabred

    When the existence of atheists is enough for many people to define it as “anti-Christian”, there’s nothing that we can do to be equal. Even saying “I don’t believe in god” is taken to be as an “anti” display. Opening the floodgates to that kind of subjective decision of what is “anti” and what isn’t is playing into the tyranny of the majority, allowing them to control the conversation one sidedly.

  • Blacksheep

    David, I agree, and especially from all of the time I’ve spent here on FA i know that most atheists are not “anti-christian” – but the language on the sign is “anti.” (As opposed to being “for” solstice, it uses most of the word count to list all of the things that the writer thinks are wrong. The engraved sign actually IS a an”anti” display).
    A display that says “Happy Solstice” (for example) is not anti anything, it’s 100% positive. (I use the solstice example because it’s an irrefutable natural event that everyone experiences).

  • Pitabred

    The problem I had is with the word “allow”. You may dislike and disagree with it, and I agree with you that the sign is explicitly “anti”, but opening the door to actively disallowing “anti” signage is simply a tool do shut down dissent, because “anti” is such a nebulous concept, and one person’s neutral is another’s “anti”.

  • Blacksheep

    As a libertarian I would never want to shut down dissent!
    I come at it more from a politeness perspective (of course I understand that being polite should not get in the way of justice).

  • Malcolm McLean

    No, not really. The holiday is Christmas, a Christian feast. You can say that it shouldn’t be celebrated at all, or should be celebrated in a secular way, which is the practical current situation. (Almost no-one holds an office Christmas party during the 12 days of Christmas, from 25 December to 6th January, they’re invariably during Advent, so 100% secular).
    But you shouldn’t pretend to be celebrating the solstice, for which there is no American tradition, except in the case of Wiccans, who have some sort of argument.

  • Blacksheep

    I would not be pretending anything. I celebrate Christmas, which is an amalgam (for me) of my Christian faith / the birth of Christ along with the sights and sounds of a northern Christmas, incuding snow, pine trees, “one horse open sleighs” and all the rest (things that have nothing to do with Bethlehem 2000 years ago, probably in summer).

    I was referring to displays saying “happy solstice” – as opposed to posting a list of things that are wrong with religion.

  • Blacksheep

    By the way: what makes a Christmas party religious or secular depends entirely upon the intent of the celebrants, not whether or not it falls with the “12 days of Christmas.”

  • Anat

    Christian feasts should be celebrated in churches, not state capitol buildings.

  • EdmondWherever

    Sure, allow the anti-Mandelas too. Why one and not the other?
    .
    The very point of the FSM display is that it’s inappropriate for the government to allow ANY of them. The government is not the advertising arm for human causes, religious or otherwise. Religious folks can put up their religious paraphenalia in their yards. Churches can put them up on their grounds. Mandela supporters have private areas where their displays can go. NONE of these groups should be leaning on the government to provide them with display space.
    .
    But if ONE of them gets to have it….

  • Richard Thomas

    There is no clause in the Constitution re: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of Nelson Mandela, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

    Please take your red herrings elsewhere. They’re starting to stink up the joint.

  • Anat

    The constitution specifically forbids establishing a particular religion, it does not forbid supporting a particular view on other matters.

  • Gehennah

    Nelson Mandela wasn’t a religion

  • Bad_homonym

    A Mandela display would not be religious, therefore not in violation of the constitution. Not that complicated

  • Richard Thomas

    How do you avoid something that doesn’t exist? If anything is being “fixated” upon, it’s the fact that the christian right is trying to erode Constitutional freedoms in America. This is the season for gingerbread men, NOT straw men.

    EDIT: “Why not add the flying pink unicorn, martian teapot, or garage dragon while they’re at it?” Why not, indeed.

  • Keyra

    Something you don’t believe exists, you mean. And the Christian right is far from most of our country’s problems, hun. Season of gingerbread, not straw men…haha, cute.

  • Richard Thomas

    I also don’t believe in FSM, flying teapots, or pink unicorns. However, those entities don’t have prominent proponents trying to stifle scientific and humanist progress in this country and abroad.

    PS believing in god != god exists, no matter what your pastor says.

  • Keyra

    Like I said, Christianity isn’t the problem, fundamentalism and misrepresentation is (but only in part)

  • http://bearlyatheist.wordpress.com/ Bear Millotts

    Like I said, Christianity isn’t the problem, fundamentalism and misrepresentation is (but only in part)

    No, Xianity is the problem because it promotes belief in something based on faith, not reason and evidence.

    “Hey, gawd told me, using this 2000+ year old mess of translations upon translations of a book that a guy jumped up alive after 3 days dead!”

    “Cool. I believe that, too. Hey, this book also says kill gays and witches! Let’s go do that!”

  • Terry Firma

    I’m in favor.

  • Psychotic Atheist

    A child would use their powers of equal protection to equally express their views? Sounds like you know some excellent children! Why not add an infinite number of unfalsifiable entities and worldviews, that would be equal representation. As would having none. Which is the more tenable and childish position? That only one viewpoint gets a privileged place on government property, that all or none do? I vote none – are you voting just one? Why should it be Christianity?

    Saudi Arabia does not have a strict separation of church and state, or a law about equal representation of religious views in matters of State. Are you saying that America should become the Saudi Arabia of Christianity? What if you were the wrong kind of Christian and the Puritan’s version became protected?

  • Keyra

    But God isn’t equal to all these made-up things. And no, nobody with an ounce of common sense believes in the FSM, the IPU, or any of that. While billions believe in God. “Are you saying that America should become the Saudi Arabia of Christianity?”, did I ever imply such a thing? I was saying, if they have the balls to make a mockery of God over here, why not try it over there? “What if you were the wrong kind of Christian and the Puritan’s version became protected?”, being the person I am, I would oppose that the Puritain’s version; it was a disgrace to Jesus’ name in every conceivable way…but that sort of thing isn’t protected now…shit, Christianity as a whole isn’t as “protected” as you make it out to be.

  • Graham Martin-Royle

    While billions believe in God.

    Doesn’t make it real though.

  • Keyra

    Doesn’t make it false either. And in no way, equal to them, when described

  • GubbaBumpkin

    Believing or disbelieving in invisible pink unicorns doesn’t make them true or false either. The best way to get people to believe in invisible pink unicorns would be to offer some evidence. We’re waiting to see your evidence that God exists.

  • KMR

    “Christianity as a whole isn’t as “protected” as you make it out to be.”

    But it IS protected as it should be. Every Christian can worship exactly as they please on private property and most atheists would fight tooth and nail to protect those rights because they want to be able to do what they want on private property also. It’s the public property where we run into conflicts. Sure Christians have put up religious displays on public property for a long, long time. Their religion historically has been given special privileges. It’s these privileges that are coming under attack as they should be. Look at it this way. More and more people are coming into this country with all their different religions and becoming citizens. According to our constitution they have equal rights. You want them to get the same privileges that Christians do? I don’t. That would suck. But if we continue to give you those privileges then we have to give the same to them. It would be completely annoying and a circus like freak show for everyone – exactly what is on display in this government building.

  • Keyra

    But nobody’s stopping atheists or any non-Christians from these rights. I mean stuff like this is on display for crying out loud. If mockery is tolerated, then it’s not so protected after all. Everything’s coming up roses for New Atheists (except wisdom). I’m beginning to think this is more personal and self-assurance-driven, than truly caring for the well being of everyone’s rights (not-at-all implying all atheists think this way). Our country was just doing fine as it is (until the recent recession). But throw fundamentalism in the mix with real Christianity, and they got another enemy to focus on, other than poverty. Well, if it helps them sleep better at night, I guess.

  • KMR

    So it is the sarcasm that bothers you? Do you feel it’s mean spirited? You must remember that this is a strategy. The privileges have to end and so they’re showing to the extreme what would happen if they continued. If you don’t like these extremes (and as a Christian of course why would you), then simply stop asking for special rights. There is an easy way to correct this issue and these rather insulting displays are going up so that you have a great incentive to do so. And also what do you mean our country was doing fine until the recent recession? Are you talking about economically? At any rate, regardless of what you mean by that I can safely say I would disagree. IMO we are reaping the rewards of some mistakes made decades ago some of which have to do with the Christian right wing agenda being intertwined in politics. Many of us believe that by forcing Christians to abide by our constitution we are actually helping to insure some of these mistakes don’t happen again.

  • KMR

    Also, would you not want mockery protected? You really want to live in a country where speech has to pass a “nice” test before being uttered? Think about that. Who gets to decide what is nice? What rule do we go by? Can you not see the problems in that? Just because we allow mockery among adults in the US doesn’t mean something/someone is not protected.

  • Bad_homonym

    Mockery is the problem? I f you believe the ridiculous you should expect to be mocked. I’m sure the pastafarians do, but guess what? At least they are being treated equal. As for earlier statements about Chinese or African Americans, do you equate an untenable belief with being born a certain way? I used to be Xtian as did many other non theists. Now I can’t have my enjoyment my way with my loved ones? You seem fairly nice but not really fair. I good dose of empathy might help a lot. It’s the right time of year for it

    Cheers

  • phantomreader42

    Why am I not surprised that your precious faith is too weak to survive without constant protection from dissent and mockery.

  • GubbaBumpkin

    But God isn’t equal to all these made-up things…

    You are making assertions without defining key terms. What is your definition of “God”? What is your evidence that He “equals” anything?

  • Keyra

    All-knowing, all-powerful, all-wise, genderless (but all-gendered), no resemblance to any sentient being (but can take any form), outside the universe & time (but ever-present via Holy Spirit). In others words, beyond human comprehension…but it’s the easiest thing in the world to assume It’s nonexistent. At least that’s how I see it

  • GubbaBumpkin

    (but all-gendered)

    Excellent. Your God can go fuck himself.

  • cyb pauli

    *zing*

  • Mario Strada

    So, if that’s true, couldn’t god decide to take the form of a plate of spaghetti & meatballs? And Brother Bob could be an inspired prophet. Maybe god decided to use humor as part of his message.

  • Graham Martin-Royle

    All-knowing, all-powerful, all-wise,

    But not all loving I notice? It couldn’t be could it?

    If it knows everything and is all powerful then why does it allow pain and hurt to innocents?

  • phantomreader42

    If your god is so beyond human comprehension, why do you and your fellow cultists feel so confident telling people what god wants them to do? Oh, yeah, because you’re all lying sacks of shit.

  • mikedave

    If you have such great big ball why don’t you go to Pakistan and explain to some tribesmen why Islam is incorrect, you can put up a nativity scene and see how that goes over. This is such a stupid argument I can’t believe I’m say yeah you too, but there it is.

  • Psychotic Atheist

    The FSM is a god. Some IPU theologies have her as a goddess. Obviously they differ from your God in that we can identify approximately when and quite specifically why they were invented.
    You think the fact that some people believe in these things makes it important. You forget that the FSM is being used in this context to represent belief in the seperation of church and state. Which many people believe in.
    Would you be comfortable if it were leszi, domovoi, Baba Yaga, the life of Mohammed, kali, Satan, Czernobog were all vying for space, just so long as secular views were forbidden? Rest assured there are innumerous entities that people believe in.
    There are reasons they don’t try it over there. 1) It’s probably illegal 2) It’s not the country they live in 3) violent social ramifications that the state turns a blind eye too because of its support of the religious justification and so on.
    Anyway, they not making a mockery out of God, they are making a mockery of Christian privilege and a clearly untenable policy of allowing anyone who wants it to have a display on government property via reducto ad absurdum. Don’t like the absurdum? Remove that which allows it: Government displays of random group’s opinions.
    Christianity is perfectly protected. What you seem to be complaining about is the pain of losing the dominance Christianity has had in legislature, policy, in schools etc. Christianity is just as protected as Islam is. If you don’t want Muslim teachers trying to convert your kids in school, for example, you’d support a law that prevents any religious teacher from using their captive audience to preach their religious viewpoint. It would prevent Christians, Muslims and even atheists from so doing. This is equal position in the law.
    They are equally protected. Christianity is more protected than atheism (Ceremonial deism / outright theism (in Jesus name!) in government contexts is much more common than outright atheism in government contexts (atheism as opposed to secularism). Christians get to do all manner of things that a Muslim would get booed for, outcry over the Islamists and so on. What could you possibly think demonstrates that Christians are less protected than atheists and Muslims?

  • Mario Strada

    “…nobody with an ounce of common sense believes in the FSM, the IPU, or any of that. While billions believe in God. ”
    The argument from popularity? Really?

    Please disprove the FSM to us, in a way that I cannot apply to the Christian god (or any others for that matter) without recurring to logical fallacies. I’ll grab the pop corn.

  • Blacksheep

    There’s always the honesty card: you don’t truly believe that the FSM is real, while Christians do truly believe that God is real. That’s one striking difference between the two ideas. (although I do love spaghetti and meatballs)

  • phantomreader42

    So, Blacksheep, can YOU disprove all of these other gods? Or are you just as much of a worthless lying coward as Keyra?

    Amaterasu
    Bastet
    Celestia
    Dionysius
    Enki
    Frith
    Ganesh
    Hathor
    Isis
    Janus
    Kali
    Loki
    Marduk
    Nerull
    Odin
    Poseidon
    Quetzalcoatl
    Ra
    Suzumiya Haruhi
    Tiamat
    Utu
    Vishnu
    Wakahiru-me
    Xochipili
    Yevon
    Zeus

  • phantomreader42

    Your god is every bit as made up as every other. Your cult has had TWO THOUSAND YEARS to provide a speck of evidence that your imaginary friend is real, and all of you have failed miserably. The only way you could ever hide from the total lack of evidence for your invisible sky wizard was by murdering anyone who dared point it out, and you can’t get away with that anymore.

  • Psychotic Atheist

    Incidentally – there would be Puritans who view your opposition as un-Christian, uncivil, militant, petulant/childish and all those words we atheists are used to these days.

  • http://bearlyatheist.wordpress.com/ Bear Millotts

    Try doing this during a Muslim holiday in Saudi Arabia and imagine the reaction.

    Nice. Fatwa envy. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Fatwa_envy

    You’re jealous that Muslims in Saudi Arabia can kill apostates with impunity and Xians can’t do the same in America.

    You’re as immoral as your non-evidenced god.

  • Keyra

    If you wanna think that, go ahead. But if you truly think there is no God, why not preserve that “truth”? Show your balls over there as you do here (another way of saying, if you’re so confident there is no God, show it…unless there’s the possibility of there being a God after all). Never heard of an atheist martyr.

  • Black Leaf

    There’s no god, but there’s certainly plenty of crazy religious people willing to kill someone for the slightest imagined offense. Some people may be willing to die to make a point, but not everyone is.

  • Keyra

    “There’s no God”? Proof, please?

  • GubbaBumpkin

    After you.

  • Keyra

    As God is beyond our universe and time, and is omnipresent via Holy Spirit (spirits cannot be detected by physical means), God cannot be scientifically proven, no matter what anyone says. But saying “there is no God” is overconfidence…but simply not believing and/or being skeptical is another story.

  • mikedave

    By this logic of course the FSM is fully equal to your god since you can’t disprove he exists.

  • randomfactor

    Proof, please?

  • GubbaBumpkin

    (spirits cannot be detected by physical means)

    If it interacts with physical things, it can be detected.

    God cannot be scientifically proven, no matter what anyone says.

    Possible reasons for that:

    A) Some undemonstrated limitation on the scientific method.

    B) God doesn’t exist.

    I’ll go with B.

    But saying “there is no God” is overconfidence…but simply not believing and/or being skeptical is another story.

    Saying “there are no invisible pink unicorns” is overconfidence… but simply not believing and/or being skeptical is another story.

  • GubbaBumpkin

    As God is beyond our universe and time…

    And yet He seems positively obsessed with the mating habits of one particular species of social primate on this planet in this universe.

  • COOOL

    Interesting theory? I guess I must have missed that part in the bible where “God is obsessed” with that?

  • http://bearlyatheist.wordpress.com/ Bear Millotts

    As God is beyond our universe and time, and is omnipresent via Holy Spirit (spirits cannot be detected by physical means), God cannot be scientifically proven, no matter what anyone says.

    If your non-evidenced god can interact with the universe, then that interaction can be detected and examined.

    But saying “there is no God” is overconfidence…but simply not believing and/or being skeptical is another story.

    Oh, but saying “there is a god” isn’t overconfidence? You’ve already said you can’t provide any evidence for your god.

    So what’s the difference between a god you can’t evidence and a god that doesn’t exist? Nothing!

  • COOOL

    So let me get this straight. You believe God doesn’t exist because that’s what the evidence tells you, and you believe the evidence because you’ve decided it’s true. That is also circular reasoning. Tell me, are you always right?

  • http://bearlyatheist.wordpress.com/ Bear Millotts

    So let me get this straight.

    Oooo, a challenge! Sir Knight, bring forth your best argument!

    You believe God doesn’t exist because that’s what the evidence tells you,

    Actually, it’s not what the evidence “tells me.” Evidence cannot speak directly to me. I review the available evidence, weigh it against my skepticism and evaluate it for truth using scientific principles. It’s how it is done.

    So I find no compelling evidence that your non-evidenced god exists.

    Let’s take the crux of Xianity for example: a translation upon translation (multiple languages) story, written over 2000 years ago, with no supporting historical records, and written decades (if not a nearly century) after the supposed events claims that Jesus died and rose from the dead 3 days later.

    A guy died and jumped up alive 3 days later. Really? Bull$#!t. Dead people, even singular individuals, stay dead after they’ve been dead for 3 days. I don’t have to have seen every single dead person in the history of Planet Earth to know that dead people stay dead. People die all the time. None of them come back after 3 days.

    So, no, based upon an old book with sketchy historical provenance, lack of any supporting evidence and professing something occurred that goes totally against reality, the biblical account does not provide enough evidence that that event (some guy dead after 3 days suddenly came back to life) occurred.

    and you believe the evidence because you’ve decided it’s true.

    No, I’ve evaluated the evidence based on scientific principles.

    I’ve seen Dr. Who regenerate through 11-odd incarnations but should I believe it really happened because I saw it on t.v.?

    That is also circular reasoning.

    (Joe Polanco, is this you? I bet it is.)

    No, you misunderstand circular reasoning if you believe that “requiring evidence before believing something is true” is circular reasoning.

    Xianity is full of circular reasoning. Case in point: the bible says god is true. The god in the bible says the bible is true.

    Tell me, are you always right?

    Alas, Sir Knight, you’ve failed spectacularly in your quest.

    I’m not always right, but I can smell horse$#!t when someone tries to shovel some in front of me.

    But I’m willing to change my mind, since I’m only 51% certain about anything. I might move 2% towards your side of the argument if you provide your evidence that a dead guy got up and walked around after being dead for 3 days. Care to give it?

    Like I said: I am willing to change my mind. Can you say the same? What evidence would convince you that your god belief was wrong? If you say nothing will convince you (and I predict that’s what you’ll say), then you are simply intellectually dishonest.

  • Blacksheep

    By your line of reasoning, love, fear, and hope do not exist either since they cannot be proven other than as “feelings.”
    We KNOW it when we love someone, we KNOW when we are afraid, we KNOW when we are happy. I suppose that a brain scan during those emotions could serve as evidence – but if so you would have to admit brain scans during prayer, religious services, etc.

  • cyb pauli

    Except we already believe prayer and religious services exist.

  • Blacksheep

    Right – who wouldn’t? We’re speaking about reactions in the brain to practicing those things.

  • http://bearlyatheist.wordpress.com/ Bear Millotts

    By your line of reasoning, love, fear, and hope do not exist either since they cannot be proven other than as “feelings.”

    Wrong, sir. Wrong. So wrong even the Wrong family from Wrongville couldn’t get it more wrong!

    Love, fear and hope can be, and have been, measured by chemical processes in the brain. They can also be, and have been, measured by physical reactions in the body.

    That still doesn’t mean that your non-evidenced god exists.

    We KNOW it when we love someone, we KNOW when we are afraid, we KNOW when we are happy.

    All chemical reactions in the brain and physical reactions in the body, able to be tracked by science.

    That doesn’t mean your still-un-evidenced god exists.

    I suppose that a brain scan during those emotions could serve as evidence – but if so you would have to admit brain scans during prayer, religious services, etc.

    Sure, I’ll admit brain scans during prayer create a euphoric effect in the person, but so does euphoric effect in a person taking drugs or reading a good book or watching a rock concert or having sex.

    That still doesn’t mean your non-evidenced god being prayed to exists.

    Care to provide any evidence for your unsupported god?

  • Blacksheep

    Saying “wrong” 5 times does not make it so.

    “Love, fear and hope can be, and have been, measured by chemical processes in the brain. They can also be, and have been, measured by physical reactions in the body.”

    No, you’re a little off – it’s the reactions to those things that are measured, not the things themselves. Same as if you measured chemical processes in response to faith.

    “Care to provide any evidence for your unsupported god?”

    …please re read my first point. I never claimed that I had evidence – only that there are many things in life that we believe in for which there is no evidence. Atheists don’t tend to admit things like changed lives as evidence, or despair turned into hope… but to the faithful those things stand as evidence.

  • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

    But, you see, we do have evidence for emotions. Aside from people all generally agreeing on what they mean (anger, love, hatred, jealousy, awe, etc are pretty universal among humans and across time and culture), brain scans and heart rate monitors and other medical scans do indicate that emotions exist.

    So what, exactly, do we believe in for which there is no evidence? Emotion certainly isn’t it.

  • Blacksheep

    The evidence does not at all prove that “love” exists, it simply shows a physical reaction to what we think of as “love.” So if physical reactions prove that something is real, and faith shows a physical reaction, then God is as real a cause as love is. Maybe emotions are unreliable and we can’t in fact prove that love exists at all?

  • allein

    So you’re arguing that God is simply an emotional reaction and not an actual being that physically exists out in the universe somewhere? I can buy that, but that’s not the definition most people use.

  • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

    Uh, what? No nono. Physical reactions don’t “prove” anything is real, but they do provide evidence of it. The physical reactions, combined with the universality across time and culture, suggest very strongly that emotion is quite real. Plus, we can actually see people in the grip of strong emotion- they flush or turn pale, their pupils dilate or relax, they clench their fists or hyperventilate or cower or become sexually aroused or have other physical reactions. This suggests that something is most definitely happening, and we call that “emotion”.

    Faith showing a physical reaction means that faith is real. We knew that. We are perfectly aware that people believe in things for which there is no evidence. What it does not show is that what people have faith in is real, especially considering that people have similar faith experiences to people who are doing secular meditation or praying/meditating in other religious contexts or just generally being contemplative. You don’t need to convince me that faith is real, you have to convince me that what you believe is real, and thus far you’re doing a very bad job of it.

  • http://bearlyatheist.wordpress.com/ Bear Millotts

    Saying “wrong” 5 times does not make it so.

    Actually, it does. You claimed that I said something that I didn’t. Saying “by your line of reasoning” was a lie.

    No, you’re a little off – it’s the reactions to those things that are measured, not the things themselves. Same as if you measured chemical processes in response to faith.

    Really? Do you know how brain chemistry works well enough to make that claim? Chemical pathways are formed in the brain for loved ones, not as a mere reaction to love, but actual chemicals that induce pleasurable feelings of love. How is that simply a reaction?

    …please re read my first point. I never claimed that I had evidence –

    Great! Excellent! Then why should we believe that your god exists? Oh, wait, you have nothing but faith, that catch-all crap that means the equivalent to “I refuse to believe otherwise because I can’t” despite all evidence to the contrary.

    only that there are many things in life that we believe in for which there is no evidence.

    Really? No evidence at all?

    You said love: I know my wife loves me because every day she exhibits behavior that is evidence for love: talks kindly to me, holds my hand, offers me the bigger piece of toast, buys me socks, and thousands of other little things that someone who hated me would not do.

    You said fear: I saw fear by action and by expression when a dear relative was in the hospital, fighting for her life.

    You said hope: I’ve stood on the side of a soccer field and felt the hope swell around me in the behavior of the fans as a player rushes towards to goal with the ball.

    Chemical and physical processes, all.

    Atheists don’t tend to admit things like changed lives as evidence, or despair turned into hope… but to the faithful those things stand as evidence.

    Why should we? That you get euphoric for your belief in an un-evidenced sky fairy is not, nor will it ever be, evidence that your god is real, any more than movie-goers watching hockey-mask-wearing Jason in the Halloween horror movies and feeling fear is evidence that Jason is real.

  • EdmondWherever

    If God is “beyond our universe and time” and “cannot be scientifically proven”, then why establish a belief in a god at all? Why not admit that such speculations are beyond our capacity to prove or perceive, and that we therefore should not be presuming assumptions about them? What can be known about things that are beyond our universe and time? What examples do you have of OTHER things from beyond our universe and time, which demonstrate what can be known about them? Isn’t saying “there IS a God” overconfidence as well? Doesn’t it make the MOST sense to simply say “These are things we do not know, and CAN not know, and so I will not establish beliefs about them at all, but instead I will wait for good evidence to lead me to a belief”?

  • Blakely

    Nailed it. Just like they cannot prove there is no God. And just like they cannot prove the sun is going to rise tomorrow.

  • http://bearlyatheist.wordpress.com/ Bear Millotts

    Nailed it.

    Like your proverbial non-evidenced god to his proverbial cross?

    Just like they cannot prove there is no God.

    You’re brilliant and have foiled our dastardly plan.

    But wait! That logic applies equally to many gods, like Vishnu or Allah — Can you prove there is no Vishnu or Allah?

    Ahh, your own logic just bit you in the @$$. How does that feel?

    Perhaps, instead of asking someone to prove a negative, you should actually provide evidence in support of your non-evidenced god.

    And just like they cannot prove the sun is going to rise tomorrow.

    You do realize that the rotating Earth revolves around the Sun, thereby seeming to “rise” in the East and “set” in the West? We’ve discovered that fact through scientific principles. Or do you believe that Ra rides his boat across the sky or Apollo drives his chariot across the sky?

    Short of the Earth stopping rotating about it’s axis or the Sun supernova-ing, the Sun will “rise” tomorrow and the next day and so on.

  • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

    I think if the Earth stopped rotating about its axis or the Sun went supernova, we’d have a few more things to worry about (in the not-very-long before we all died) than whether or not the sun was going to rise tomorrow …

  • http://bearlyatheist.wordpress.com/ Bear Millotts

    Except that Blakely could then say “See? See? The Sun didn’t rise! Checkmate, scientists!”

  • allein

    Gee, how convenient…

  • Black Leaf

    And the award for completely missing the point goes to…

    Did you just not read the rest of my post or something?

  • phantomreader42

    Keyra never reads anything it can avoid. Missing the point is the goal.

    I wonder if ANY christian apologist has ever even
    tried actually COMMUNICATING with a real live atheist. Not preaching in the general direction of their own poorly-constructed strawmen, but making even the most rudimentary effort to understand what atheists actually think, and interact with them as human beings rather than as flame-disposable scoring tokens in the Win Souls For Jeebus Game. Oh, of course they’d never dream of doing a thing like THAT, if they even thought of such a thing all their shitty apologetics would evaporate and they’d have to face the fact that they don’t have any EVIDENCE!

  • Bad_homonym

    There’s no unicorns , or pixies, or werewolves. Right back at ya. When you understand why you don’t believe in those, you will maybe grasp why I don’t believe in yours.

  • Robert Jory

    You don’t seem to understand the burden of proof. You claim there is a god and atheists say prove it. You can’t so we say there is no god. If you make a claim with no proof we can deny it with no proof. Understand now?

  • Blakely

    The Christian presupposes that God is the source of truth and the only way we can know what’s true is through the Bible. There is no such thing as brute fact. That is to say, nothing is true in and of itself. A thing is true because God makes it true. All the evidence for evolution is untrue because God hasn’t made it true. But how do we know the Bible is the Word of God? Because it tells us (2 Tim 3:16). And why should we believe the Bible? Because it’s infallible (Jn 17:17b). And why is it infallible? Because it is the Word of God. One of the most common atheist criticisms is that Christianity is founded on circular reasoning. The atheist relies on himself to be the arbiter of right and wrong, truth and falsehood. He will try to say he relies on evidence to support his belief that God doesn’t exist. Why does he believe the evidence? If he is honest, he must eventually concede that he believes the evidence because he has decided it’s true. He believes there is no God because that is what the evidence tells him and he believes the evidence because he has decided it’s true. This is circular reasoning.

  • Robert Jory

    You can’t claim the bible is true because the bible says it is. Assuming one premise is true when arguing a side is just ‘begging the question’. If I say I’m right because I say I’m right doesn’t make me right. See how stupid you sound? Goodbye.

  • Blakely

    So what are you basing your beliefs off of? You rely on yourself.

  • Robert Jory

    I base my beliefs on people who are experts in their field of study. I’m sure you drive a car so you put your life in the belief that they built a reliable and safe car. Since they are the experts at making cars we can rely on them. The same goes for evolution biologists who tell us evolution is true. Most Christians have not read the bible cover to cover and can in no way be called experts on the thing they devote their entire life on. It’s sad really.

  • Blakely

    Are you saying scientists are always 100% correct?

  • Robert Jory

    No, I’m not. But in science they have a thing called peer review. If one scientist says one thing every other scientist can test their hypothesis to see if it’s correct. If it’s not then the news travels fast and that hypothesis is debunked. Would you like to let other religions peer review your holy book and you agree to their verdict? Didn’t think so.

  • Blakely

    The’s the beauty of Free Will that God gave everyone.

  • Robert Jory

    I don’t believe in free will given by a creator. To tell someone they have free will but if they make certain choices I don’t approve of I will torture them for eternity is a lie. There’s no choice in that, no free will. That’s an ultimatum. Do what I want or I screw you over forever. To believe in that and think it’s a god of love is pure stupidity.

  • Blakely

    Not every Scientist is going to believe the same theory is correct/incorrect. Explain Scientists that believe in God and not Evolution?

  • cyb pauli

    There are practically no scientists in the field of biology (or any discipline where biology is being actively studied) who don’t accept the theory of evolution. Scientists who don’t accept the theory of evolution are usually people pretending to be scientists or who are in an unrelated science field and using their science credentials to gain acceptance of their anti-science views.

  • Blacksheep

    Yes but: “…can the mind of man, which has, as I fully believe, been developed from a mind as low as that possessed by the lowest animal, be trusted when it draws such grand conclusions?”

  • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

    When tested against reality and proven reliable, yes, yes it can. That’s what’s so awesome about the scientific method trying to mitigate our own biases as much as possible.

    I’m sorry, was that supposed to be a hard question?

  • phantomreader42

    Quote-mining is not proof of anything except that you’re a dishonest asshat.

  • Robert Jory

    There are scientists that believe in god or certain religions and might not believe in evolution. Less than 5% are biologists. If you said a computer engineer doesn’t believe in evolution I wouldn’t care. It’s not their field of expertise. An overwhelming majority of biologists are agnostic or atheist and agree that evolution is fact. Not all scientists are biologists, though.

  • baal

    I set my beliefs in consultation with a living entity that resembles this dead one.

    EDIT it’s a cthulhu turkey incase you’re sensative to food that is actually scary.

  • KMR

    Just to let you know that’s pretty much the grossest thing I’ve ever seen. You may have just ruined turkey for me forever.

  • cyb pauli

    The Bible is the main proof that AG doesn’t exist.

  • http://bearlyatheist.wordpress.com/ Bear Millotts

    But how do we know the Bible is the Word of God? Because it tells us (2 Tim 3:16). And why should we believe the Bible? Because it’s infallible (Jn 17:17b). And why is it infallible? Because it is the Word of God.

    (A) —> Word of god —> 2 Tim 3:16 —> John 17:17 —>go to (A)

    Looks pretty circular to me.

  • KMR

    There is no evidence that God doesn’t exist being that it is extremely difficult (many say impossible) to prove a negative. Christians are right about that. But there is also no evidence that he does exist. It’s this lack of evidence where there should be evidence that dictates the atheist’s lack of belief.

  • Blakely

    I would also like to see that proof.

  • God’s Starship

    Prove there’s no flying spaghetti monster.

  • phantomreader42

    As soon as you prove each of the following gods don’t exist, to the same arbitrary and self-serving standards you demand for disproof of YOUR imaginary friend:

    Amaterasu
    Bastet
    Celestia
    Dionysius
    Enki
    Frith
    Ganesh
    Hathor
    Isis
    Janus
    Kali
    Loki
    Marduk
    Nerull
    Odin
    Poseidon

    Quetzalcoatl
    Ra
    Suzumiya Haruhi
    Tiamat
    Utu
    Vishnu
    Wakahiru-me
    Xochipili
    Yevon
    Zeus

    So, Keyra, can you hold those gods to the same standard you demand for yours? Do you believe in and worship all of them because you can’t disprove them? Or are you just a lying sack of shit who demands that YOUR imaginary friend be given a special exemption from any and all rules because you know it’s too WEAK to survive even the mildest scrutiny?

  • http://bearlyatheist.wordpress.com/ Bear Millotts

    If you wanna think that, go ahead.

    Thanks, but I don’t require your permission. You do have Fatwa Envy. Too bad America ain’t a theocracy, huh?

    But if you truly think there is no God, why not preserve that “truth”?

    You seem to be under the mistaken impression that you (and your non-evidenced god) get to tell me what to do and how to do it.

    Show your balls over there as you do here (another way of saying, if you’re so confident there is no God, show it…unless there’s the possibility of there being a God after all).

    What a completely vile human being you are. Do you tell blind people to step into traffic as well? What about feeding poison to pigeons in the park or kicking old ladies?

    Apostasy will get you killed in many countries in the world, that doesn’t make the claims of the religious more true, just more evil.

    That you would “triple-dog dare” me to go over to Saudi Arabia makes you and your religious beliefs weaker and shows the depths of your immorality.

    Never heard of an atheist martyr.

    Never heard of a theist martyr either. Just a delusional person killed by others who have a different, but competing, delusion.

  • qWaaaa

    This almost a joke. Just avoiding the remark of “prove there is no God.” None of you can do it.

  • cyb pauli

    I feel it when I pray. I have access to the spirit world and I feel it deep in my heart that there is no God. That means I’m right.

  • Blakely

    Pray to whom? Atheists believe in no higher power. Pray to yourself?

  • KMR

    Poe’s Law :)

  • cyb pauli

    I DO believe in a higher power, I believe in Richard Dawkins and his only son Hitch conceived by the Holy Sagan. That is who I pray to, and when I do it tells me there is NO GOD, and I feel it in my heart to be true.

    The God Delusion also, my holy text, is de facto evidence that God is a delusion … it’s in the name. I didn’t even read it. I don’t have to because I believe in the power of Hitch.

    Hail Sagan.

  • http://bearlyatheist.wordpress.com/ Bear Millotts

    This almost a joke.

    It’s sad and pathetic, but no joke. Keyra is jealous that Muslims in Saudi Arabia can kill apostates with impunity. That is truly vile.

    Just avoiding the remark of “prove there is no God.”

    No avoiding at all. I’m simply pointing out that Keyra is an immoral person for wishing someone to be murdered by theists.

    It severely weakens Keyra’s position that his/her non-evidenced god is a moral being when he/she professes that belief yet acts vile and supports evil, immoral behavior.

    None of you can do it.

    Interesting. You’re brilliant and have foiled our dastardly plan.

    But wait! That logic applies equally to many gods, like Vishnu or Allah — Can you prove there is no Vishnu or Allah?

    Ahh, your own logic just bit you in the @$$. How does that feel?

    Perhaps, instead of asking someone to prove a negative, you should actually provide evidence in support of your non-evidenced god.

  • baal

    it’s a little inconsistent of you to point out how an atheist on parade in Saudi Arabia will receive violence and then say you’ve never head of an atheist martyr. Also, did you miss the guy shot in India this year or the Egyptian who was almost killed via multiple stabbings?

  • phantomreader42

    Keyra, why are you and your fellow death cultists so eager to murder anyone who questions your imaginary friend? Oh, yeah, because you know your cult is full of shit and the only way you can hide from criticism is by murdering critics.

  • GubbaBumpkin

    If I was still an atheist…

    (roll-eyes)

    Why not add the flying pink unicorn, martian teapot, or garage dragon while they’re at it?

    Great idea, we’ll get right on it.

    Can’t think of another way to combat fundamentalism, than to reduce to mocking the entire faith and giving all believers the giant middle finger instead of just the fundies who are the only problem? … Find out next week on “The Desperate War Against Religion…but primarily Christianity…

    Because there can only be one “problem.”

    In this case, the problem is endorsements of religion on government property. You have not demonstrated that this is merely a problem with “the fundies.” It is a problem with anyone who thinks that endorsements of religion on government property are acceptable.
    As soon as Muslims and Hindus start putting up religious displays on government property, we’ll be objecting to those too. But in this country, the problem of displays endorsing religion on government property is primarily attributable to Christians.

  • busterggi

    I believe you were an atheist the way I believe there is a god.

  • cyb pauli

    You are mistaken when you claim that fundies are the only problem. The fundies stand on the tacit and passive support of a billion high stack of Christian Waffles. Without the Waffles the fundies couldn’t exist.

  • God’s Starship

    “Why not add the flying pink unicorn, martian teapot, or garage dragon while they’re at it?”
    Not a bad idea!

  • Yabbi Yum

    Because it’s all a big silly fairy tale that you have self-hypnotized yourself into believing. It’s a self-fulfilling scam. Don’t believe? You’re damned! Well, good for you, enjoy it. You and your pointless post are such a snore, it is pathetic. World coming to an end? Good. Buh-bye.

  • http://springygoddess.blogspot.com/ Astreja

    The Dragon from Carl Sagan’s Garage is already there, Keyra. You just can’t see her. 😀

  • phantomreader42

    I know it hurts you to admit this, Keyra, but christians don’t own the entire month of December (named after a pagan Roman emperor). They don’t own the concept of light bulbs (invented by an atheist). They don’t own solstice celebrations (stolen from pagans). They don’t even own christmas carols (many written and sung by jews, and most completely lacking actual religious content). And they CERTAINLY don’t own America, nor do they have any exclusive right to have their cult’s decorations, and ONLY those of their cult, displayed on public land (the Constitution of the United States of America forbids this, and the Supreme Court has backed it up). Christians don’t get to demand sole and eternal ownership of everything in the fucking country, then whine like spoiled children when it’s pointed out that people who don’t believe in their imaginary friend are allowed to EXIST. Quit whining, butthurt death cultist!

    Keyra, if your cult wants to put your shit on public land, then everyone else gets the same access. If you don’t like that, then quit putting your shit on public land! Again, you and your sick death cult don’t own America, and you don’t get to declare that only your fellow cultists are allowed rights. If you’re so eager to live in a theocracy, move to Iran. No one will miss you!

    And since you’ve made it obvious that your precious faith is too WEAK to survive any criticism, your idiotic delusions are not worth defending.

  • Malcolm McLean

    The Flying Spaghetti Monster clearly exposes the limits of a “religiously neutral” position.

  • Blacksheep

    What does “honoring the Winter Solstice” have to do with Christianity & religion? The winter solstice was celebrated before Christ was born. Why does “honoring the winter solstice” include a point-by-point criticism of faith?
    It’s exactly the same as a Christmas sign saying:

    “This Christmas, may Christ prevail. Jews are wrong, Muslims are wrong, and atheists are wrong.”

    Why not actually celebrate solstice in the same way the people of faith celebrate their own religions? (a parody is not a faith, it’s a parody).

  • http://boldquestions.wordpress.com/ Ubi Dubium

    What do you mean it’s a parody? We have a holy book, ritual meals, special clothes, and I’m even ordained clergy! If you don’t celebrate Holiday, that’s your business, but don’t tell me and my pirate crew that we have to take your talking snakes and evil fruit seriously.

  • Blacksheep

    :)

  • michaelfugate

    Keyra seems to be telling us that fundamentalists are a parody of “true” Christians.

  • Blacksheep

    I don’t want to make any judgements as to a “true” Christian (or atheist) is – we’re all trying to seek truth and be good to others while we do it. (ideally). If someone is blatantly going against Christ’s teachings, I guess you could call him on it.
    (“yeah, I’m a Christian but I think it’s 100% OK to cheat on my wife and steal money” might qualify someone as not being a “true” Christian.)

  • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

    So, like every televangelist megachurch pastor ever isn’t a True Christian (TM)?

  • baal

    What we want is for the apparent governmental endorsement of your religion to end. As such, we’re trying to be at least somewhat offensive under the “open to all” banner so that when you want to throw us out (silencing the offense) that you also have to give up your at least somewhat offensive religious symbols.

  • Atwatersedge

    You do realize that, when you poison the well, people stay away from the entire town square, right?

  • baal

    You do realize that the same offense you feel at non-christian banners going up in the halls of government is the same offense I feel at seeing your god on parade in the same halls? If anyone is poisoning the well, it’s you and your ilk.

  • Atwatersedge

    My “ilk?” I’m not involved in any of this? I’m not even offended anymore. It’s all so juvenile and attention seeking. My point is being deliberately offensive, even in what you perceive as somewhat offensive, makes people trust other people less and be less open to them because getting a negative response makes one question what response will come next.

    I’m already resigned to stick with my own kind and distrust outsiders, but I’m not representative.

  • baal

    Again, your concern is noted. You’re complaining about a problem (less trust in public) that the religious created (and in your words, it’s juvenile and attention seeking to put up nativities on gov property everywhere). The atheists strategy here has worked repeatedly to a good outcome with minimal harms along the way.

    Really, have you complained to a local gov yet about the xtians being offensive and poisoning the well?

  • Atwatersedge

    There is no solution to this problem now that we are so divided.

  • baal

    Wrong. It’s damn easy to not put up a nativity at the steps of the capital. I assure you that were the nativity scenes not going up, you’d not have pastafarians demanding equal access and nary a Festifvus pole would litter the same grounds.

  • Atwatersedge

    What I mean is, now we have dislike and distrust on both sides. The problem as you perceive it is the presence of the nativities. The problem as I perceive it is that many people hate and mock and feel comfortable hating and mocking. And I don’t want to have anything to do with them, even accidentally.

  • baal

    And yet here you are telling us to shut up. How does our problem get better by continuing to suffer your bad acts?

  • Atwatersedge

    Did I say to shut up? When did I say that? And when have you suffered *my* bad acts? Unless you mean “you” in the plural sense, like “your ilk.”

  • Rain

    Nice touch with the “Thou Shalt Not Steal”. I was browsing twitter’s religion category and as far as I could tell they have exactly zero sense of humor. Couldn’t find one single funny tweet in the lot.

  • http://boldquestions.wordpress.com/ Ubi Dubium

    Can we put up a big sign next to the crèche that says “Thou shalt not make graven images”?

  • Rain

    Even better!

  • Mick

    I wonder why nativity scenes are set in a stable. There is no mention of a stable in the New Testament stories about the birth of Jesus. In fact, according to Matthew 2:11, the wise men saw Jesus in a house.

  • Mario Strada

    It’s because the birth narratives have been mixed together by popular culture. Otherwise each book has its own unique narrative, different from the others.

  • GubbaBumpkin

    Nowadays the best place to see him is in a tortilla.

  • Mario Strada

    Only until December 31? What about January 6? When the pirates bring the tomato sauce, basil and olive oil as a gift?

  • virginiay

    Now.. where’s Lord Shiva, Thor (and Loki?), Athena, my favorite cat god ??? (It is going to be more crowded next year) LOL


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X