Stupid Atheists

I thought atheists were supposed to be  smart. Guess not. Here’s an ad American Atheists have paid $25,000.00 to put up in Times Square.

What’s hilarious about this ill-thought out campaign is that the atheists keep telling us they are only interested in evidence. They only want the facts ma’am. They’re thinkers. They’re rational. blah blah blah.

They’re opposed to “myths”. They don’t like make believe. They think it’s a form of child abuse to tell children stories about big sugar daddies in the sky who will give them everything they want. Religion is, they say, an infantile belief system to bring comfort to the frightened, weak minded babies. The atheists tell us they’re down on fairy tales. They don’t believe in magic sky fairies.

But they want to keep a magic elf who lives at the North Pole and flies through the sky with dancing reindeer? They want to keep the fat fairy man who comes down the chimney of every home in the world in one night while drinking Coca Cola? They want to keep jolly old St Nick who lays a finger beside his nose ’cause ’twas the night before Christmas? They don’t want a God who judges, but they want the old man in the red suit who keeps a list of who’s naughty and nice and checks it twice? They don’t like a God who makes his little children feel good, but they want the happy elf who has his bag full of goodies for all the good boys and girls? Do these atheists tell their children there is such a person as Santa Claus? Do they abuse their little ones with such obvious lies?

In the meantime they dub the crucified Jesus Christ a “myth”? In fact, of the two images, Jesus Christ crucified is just about as far from a myth as you could get. It’s about as mythical as a photograph of an Auschwitz corpse or one of those black and white photos of a lynched negro hanging from a tree. The crucifixion of Jesus Christ is a bare, hard historical fact. The Romans crucified people. It wasn’t pretty. It happened to Jesus of Nazareth. No myth there.

The crazy and stupid thing about this campaign is that it is, well, so crazy and stupid. If they wanted to make their point they could have tried to picture the things about Christianity and Christmas that do seem more mythical and difficult to believe–like the shepherds and angels and wise men with a star or some such. They could also have chosen something more positive and humanistic about Christmas–something pleasantly pagan and mildly materialistic like two people kissing under mistletoe or people on a sleigh ride or some such nonsense.

Then again, maybe the ad is just what it should be and we should rejoice because anyone with half a brain who sees it and thinks things through will realize how vapid the atheists are who thought it up in the first place.

  • savvy

    Spiked Online, my favourite atheist publication has been calling out the New atheists on their stupidity for a while now.

    http://www.spiked-online.com/site/article/13163/

    • Goldstein Squad Member

      The atheist campaign is more than stupid, it is bigotted…especially this poster. And when you have atheists going on about a “Jewish Zombie” they are not far from letting their blatant Anti Semitism come out.

      Some of their blogs, like JT Eberhard’s, positively reek of hate for believers of any kind.

  • MrOzAtheist

    The difference between the Santa story and the Jesus story is that children get told or learn the truth around 10 to 12 years of age. Unfortunately this doesn’t happen with the Jesus story.

    Yes, the Romans used to crucify people and even though you may think you can prove a Jesus of Nazareth crucified, you cannot prove that this person was the ‘son of god’. Therein lies the myth that you people teach children.

    • Fr. Dwight Longenecker

      Or you could admit the stupidity of the atheist ad campaign–which is what the post was about.

    • savvy

      The point is the Santa story has it roots in Christianity or the person of St. Nick. You want St. Nick, but not his God.

    • “Mythoman”

      Why, oh why do I have to remember the old joke about the priest and the positivist scientist? You know the one, where the scientist told the priest that he was a man of common sense who dealt in facts, did have no time for myths and believed only what he could see with his very own eyes. The priest answered: “Okay, before we start, please put your common sense on the table so that we can see it …”

    • MarylandBill

      No we cannot prove that Jesus rose from the Dead… but then again proof really only exists in Mathematics. We do have an interesting chain of evidence. Shortly after the date of Jesus’s crucifixion, the Apostles started boldly preaching the resurrection and to a man suffered greatly for it and all but one were killed for what they preached. Paul, who was a self admitted persecutor of early Christians later became one of their most bold advocates.

      Now I will grant that there are multiple interpretations of this evidence available. Most of those interpretations however seem contrived unless we accept that the Apostles and Paul were convinced that Jesus in fact had risen from the dead.

      • Blahblah

        Actually no, the apostles wrote about jesus 40 years after his supposed death. And with the evidence there is 3 different time periods jesus could have existed in. Also these apostles got the myth from another guy who wrote about jesus and this all taking place in a mythical realm. Not in reality, I think you have confused evidence with hear-say. Jesus possibly never existed since his miracles exist in only one book written at least 40 years after his “death”. Another thing is there are about 20 other egyptian gods I can think of right off the top of my head that resemble jesus christ before jesus. So Uhm yeah, seems mythical to me

        • Goldstein Squad Member

          20 others that you can think of right off the top of your head?
          You just made that up off the top of your head.

          • Zme

            You’re right but (off the top of my head):
            Mithra (Persian – later Mithras growing at the same time as Christianity)
            Herakles
            Dionysus
            Osiris
            Aten
            Krishna
            And there are probably more. Your sacrificed/resurrected man/god is just one in a long procession. With the stranglehold of Christianity weakening, he won’t be the last.

          • Ismael

            @zme
            Not sure if you are trolling or if you are serious and hence ignorant

            “”Mithra (Persian – later Mithras growing at the same time as Christianity)
            Herakles
            Dionysus
            Osiris
            Aten
            Krishna””

            Newsflash: no serious scholar, not even atheists serous scolars, take the “Christ is a copycath of myth xyz” anymore… and they have not done so for many decades.

            The ‘copycat’ theory is a theory from the mis XIX century now long refuted by scholars.

            If you asctually closely study the myths of the mythical figures you listed above you will plainly discover that the similarities between these figures and Jesus is superficial at best.

            Of course maybe you are the kind of person who thinks Zeitgeist -The Movie is akin to a PhD Thesis.

            Let me tell you: it’s akin to bollocks and nothing more.

            Get an education!

  • Rusty Yates

    Merry Christmyth!

    • Anita

      Your answer plays right into his trap, I mean the title. When it’s time for you to die, I doubt it that you would be well-known as Christ was. After 2000 years, people all over the world still talk about him and argue about him, die because of him, live just for him. A strange myth that refuses to go away.
      Anyway, I wish your best in this joyful Season of the myth that God became man from far away land where people don’t even know what the word Christmas means. Strangely, there is some tinkling joy in the air.

      • Will

        Yeah, just like that Mohammed guy. He was totally a prophet of the One True God, ’cause millions of people keep talking about him and killing each other over him even to this day! Heck, they base their LIVES around the hadiths, in some cases. He must have been right! After all, Eid is a magical season, with tinkling joy in the air.

        That is how you sound to non-Christians.

  • Nan

    @OzAtheist,
    Jesus was the son of God. My Church wouldn’t have lasted these last 2 milennia had that not been true. You may choose not to believe, but please don’t denigrate my beliefs. I don’t need to prove anything to you. Oh, and re: Santa Claus? His roots lie in St. Nicholas of Myra, who decided that a heretic was naughty, so punched him.

    If I had your address, I’d send you a miraculous medal; as it is, I’ll just pray for you through the intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary and St. Eligius.

    • Jered

      I’d watch out for your argument there. Islam has been around for 1.5 millennia as you say. Shintoism the same. Buddhism- 2.5, Hinduism- 3.5-5 millennia. So by your argument they are all correct faiths because they have currently withstood the test of a decent amount of time.

      • Nan

        The discussion here is about Christianity v. Atheism so no reason to address polytheistic religions, those that don’t believe in souls or evil death cults.

    • jose

      2 millenia is a lot but not compared to others. Ra was worshipped for roughly 3000 years.

  • Glenn Juday

    Dear MrOzAtheist,
    You have constructed an odd and ineffective argument. There are many things I cannot “prove” on the demand of an imperious interrogator. Of particular relevance, I cannot in that sense “prove” that you exist. It is simply reasonable for me to take it on faith. You, however, are asking each person in the world to stake the entirety of his or her eternal existence on the negative form of your argument – in your life of avoiding religion you now have no “evidence” establishing that a god of reduced dimensions suitable for your purposes exists. Silly, and it must be said, vain. Dangerous, also. But to explore these issues would require dialog and openness of mind that you signal you are not ready for. Altogether, a poor excuse for proper use of the intellect.

    • Truth

      “stake the entirety of his or her eternal existence”

      Is Pascal’s wager intellectually honest, and a proper use of the intellect? If so, please tell me how to determine which one of the thousands of cults one should stake one’s “eternal existence” on. Let me guess, the one you were raised to believe is the truth?

      • Bernard

        The first Christian one and the same one that is still here after 2000 years and will be here until the end of time.

    • Reverend Robbie

      Actually, Glenn Juday, there may be a God who exists but chose not to give us sufficient evidence of his existence, and he gives us a binary choice as a test: (1) Believe in a God – any God – despite the lack of evidence or (2) follow the lack of evidence and reject belief in any God. If we choose the first, we will fail his test and he will torture us forever. Choose the second and he’ll reward us with an eternity of bliss. Now this God may or may not exist, and I can’t prove whether he does or not, but are you willing to risk it by believing in God? Are you asking each person in the world to stake the entirety of his or her eternal existence on the negative form of this argument? Is it worth just believing in God because it’s reasonable to take it on faith?

  • gilbs72

    They also believe the myth that a zillion, jillion, gadzillion, gazillion cells came together by purely accident (and this must have happened over and over for ages) to form human beings and creatures of every kind, objects, animate and inanimate. Wow, They DO have a wild imagination!

    • jose

      You are confusing individual and collective levels. It’s very unlikely you will win the lotto, but it’s very likely *someone* will win the lotto.

    • OverlappingMagisteria

      glibs, I assume you are a Catholic since you are on this blog. If you are, I encourage you to look up what Pope John Paul II had to say on evolution. According to him, there is no conflict between Christianity and all the animals evolving.

  • FW Ken

    I don’t know. The atheists here bought ads on the buses to provision that they are “Good Without God”. Smug self-righteousness seems a step down from smug drivel. But maybe that’s just me.

    • idahogie

      There is a billboard in my town advertising a Christian radio station. It says “Broadcasting the word of God 24/7.” These people really think that they are speaking for God. It seems that there are some smug people around, but it isn’t the atheists.

      • Fr. Dwight Longenecker

        How does it feel to come to a Christian blog and display your ignorance in public? The “Word of God” is Christian jargon for the Bible. All this means is that the Christian radio station bases it’s programming on the Bible.

    • Ismael

      Hehe the ‘Good without God’ ads made me LOL. And ROFL. And other funny acronyms.

      Basically for 2 reasons:
      1- It featured people with a buckload of money, like billionaire Bill Gates give some money to charity… Well that does not make you good… it makes not beign a greedy bastard at best. Just a step above Scrooge McDuck.
      I mean Bill Gates giving 1 million dollars in charity is equivalent to me giving like $10. Also his charities are tax-deuctable…

      Sometimes I give $20… I must be a saint then :D

      I am sure that even atheists would agree that giving a fraction of something you do not really need is not really a particularly heroic action not does make the person particularly good. It makes the person ‘not too bad’ at best… but that depends on the motives as well.

      2- Atheism claims often there is no objective morality, that morality is relative, subjective, etc… mainly because their naturalist philosophy cannot explain objective morality (and this is something atheist philosophers have been saying for decades, including Rosenberg, who wrote the Atheist Guide to Reality)

      Hence their claim ‘Good without God’ is vacuous.

      On the other hand if they are playing the “atheists are doing what you Christians think it’s good” card… well go back to point 1.

      Giving money to the poor, especially if you are rich, does not make you great, nor particularly good.

      Think of the story in Mark 12:42-44:
      —-And there came a certain poor widow, and she cast in two mites, which make a farthing.
      And calling his disciples together, he said to them: “Amen I say to you, this poor widow hath cast in more than all they who have cast into the treasury. For all they did cast in of their abundance; but she of her want cast in all she had, even her whole living.”—-

      So a bunch of fat rich capitalists dropping their pennies is not a Christian standard of good, nor any standard of good at all.

  • Brother

    Father,

    Surely you know an atheist whom you would allow to post a essay to your blog, just as you occasionally allow The Vicar to hold forth? Oh, how we dumb religious folk could benefit from the insights of one of the Smart People.

    • Fr. Dwight Longenecker

      There is an atheist guest blogger: Ed Blanch the Internet Atheist. I think he might write something today about Christmas.

    • Goldstein Squad Member

      Try posting serious oppositon and discussion on JT Eberhard’s blog…you will be banned, or, worse, he will alter your posts to make it look like you said things you never did.

      I don’t know why Patheos lets him do that.

      I am just waiting for the day when he does something actually illegal.

      • http://mrtact.com/blog Tim Keating

        Actually, I think if anyone posted SERIOUS opposition and discussion on JT’s blog, he would thank you for it. Mostly what he gets are cranks and trolls posting the same sort of bad arguments people are using in this thread.

  • Michael

    The more educated a society becomes, the less they believe in gods. I think this is what really scares most Christians. The fact that they have wasted so much of their lives on a fairy tale and are just going to rot in their graves with no magically wonderland afterlife.

    • http://platytera.blogspot.com/ Christian

      I’d say the more educated a society becomes, the less they believe in God, and the more they believe in gods.

      • Al Bergstrazer

        By ‘gods’ I assume you mean idolizing themselves.

    • Jered

      Education and intelligence have absolutely no correlation with a society’s or an individual’s for that matter belief in a creator. They are useful tools to help figure out historical accuracies, but definitively figure out something that for now is no where near scientifically provable, they do not. If you think you are an atheist out of intelligence, you are obviously not as intelligent as you think. I’d say just the same to the person who “knows” there is a God because of the complexity of life, the universe,etc.

  • Will

    I would like to see them try to take their message that “you don’t have to believe the myth to enjoy the holiday” to the Jews who complain that men in red suits, evergreens and candy canes are “Christian symbols” which we are Imposing On Everybody.

    If they would fight it out and let us know who won,maybe we could settle WHAT we are supposed to feel guilty about.

  • DavidCT

    Fr. Dwight I have to agree that the American Atheists have made a poor choice when comparing myths. The story of a Jewish holy man who was crucified sometime in the early first century actually has some evidence to support it. This is opposed to the Christmas story which even Christian theologians agree has no firm basis in fact. The AA folks were attempting to point out some of the ugliness of the story of Jesus but completely missed the boat.
    I do object to your straw man argument about atheist intention to suggest that the Santa story be used as a competing dogma to the Jesus mythology. Santa is used by Christians and non-believers alike as a fun fantasy for children with the intention that it be discarded. This is very unlike the intention of stories about Jesus which are intended to continue a lifetime.
    @gilbs72
    If you insist on making fun of the theory of evolution, you should actually learn about what it is that you are laughing at. This display of willful ignorance only makes for a poor argument. Knocking down someone else’s straw man may impress your friends, but it makes you look foolish.

    • Fr. Dwight Longenecker

      The post never mentions evolution. The Christmas Story has plenty of basis in fact. You chose the wrong theologian.

      • Jered

        I don’t know where the evolution part came from (another article?) but I am not sure about how much of the Christmas story can be based in fact. The existence of Jesus may be a little more corroborated but to say the whole birth story is based in fact isn’t quite accurate. In fact the two books in the the NT that reference the birth aren’t even in agreeance. That’s not even getting into the historical argument of how “Christmas” as we know came to be and why it is on the day it is.

        • Nan

          Nor do we know or when how two hydrogen molecules got together with an oxygen molecule to create water.
          We do know that the New Testament is the Inspired Word of God, so was written by man; Matthew and Luke are the writers. Each wrote about events that transpired in the past, in his own way, much as people who were at the same event will have different memories of it.
          Why we celebrate Christmas when we do? It’s the day Jesus was born. Catholicism isn’t a sola scriptura religion and St. Paul himself, in his second letter to the Thessalonians said to hold fast to the traditions which you have learned whether by word or epistle, thus, we’re to use both Scripture and Tradition, thus, there’s no reason to believe that the tradition of Dec. 25 for the birth of Jesus is incorrect.

          • http://mrtact.com/blog Tim Keating

            “The day Jesus was born”? — probably not. Evidence in the nativity story itself points to Christmas being a manufactured holiday. For example, “shepherds minding their flocks by night” — in that place and time period, the only time shepherds would do this would be when the ewes were pregnant, which is usually the spring.

          • Fr. Dwight Longenecker

            Not true. Check out my other posts on the date of Christmas.

      • Zme

        Good grief…read the text of DavidCT’s comment: he explicitly addresses the person making the asinine comment about evolution (It was gilbs72′s statement concerning trillions of cells coming together accidentally that drew David’s ire).

        And you seem to be incapable of seeing the almost total mythic quality of the Christ story that reduces it to a post-facto Jewish prophesy fulfillment and olio of pre-Christian sacrificed man/gods. The only two positions that are supportable are those of Bart Ehrman (wandering Rabbi with extra myth) or Richard Carrier (constructed from the whole cloth by Pauline follwerers).

        So the FRFF is saying that both Father Christmas and Jesus Christ are myths to encourage thoughtful behavior in children, but when parents explain the Santa myth they should do the same for the Christ myth.

  • AMB

    @Michael: You actually think that society is becoming more educated? While individual scientists and engineers are making advances, the general population in Western society knows less History, Science, Geography, Literature and Philosophy than it did 50 years ago. And frankly, that trend shows no sign of reversal. Our schools and universities are in crisis. The irony is that most of society is not educated enough to recognize their own ignorance.

  • Doc Kimble

    Actually, atheists are clever. They don’t want Santa either. They want to be Santa’s murderer, too.

    • idahogie

      Ignorance is what we atheists protest against, mostly. I raised my kids with Santa — as do almost all atheists I know. I have no idea where such foolishness as expressed in your comment comes from.

      • Fr. Dwight Longenecker

        Did you really lie to your little children and tell them that a fat elf comes down your chimney on Christmas Eve to bring them presents, and if you’re an atheist, why do you want to celebrate Christmas? Shouldn’t you be honest with your children and tell them that the whole thing is nonsense and they’re not getting any presents because Christmas is a myth and so is God? Isn’t celebrating Christmas hypocritical of you?

  • Glenn Juday

    We need to clarify some of the sloppiest thinking I have seen in a long time that has been spooned out here.

    The Christmas story is not a myth. (1) The historical sciences establish with exceptionally high probability that a Jewish male child with the attributes of Jesus was born in the environs of Bethlehem near the earliest years of the first century. (2) All essential elements of the Christmas story as recorded and transmitted in the Church are congruent with established historical facts as confirmed and amplified by recent scholarship. (3) It defies logic to maintain that at the site of this birth, the ancestry, location and circumstances of birth, social and political environment of the time, and the religious traditions and expectations of the people would NOT have been interpreted to have sign or signification value, essentially congruent with the Jewish/Christian tradition. Think of it: a scion of a royal house was born in the right place with confirming signs in clandestine circumstances that the repressed people of the time were reduced to, within a clan that expected to provide a messiah king which was the universally held expectation of the repressed at that time, and the established illegitimate power feared precisely such an event as indicated by action after action that it took. These are established historical facts, not fairy tales.

    So, all the events of Christmas did happen. There remains one crucial point. Was this actually the birth of a Divine person? That is the faith proposition. A number of the anti-Christian commenters on this thread have conflated the established record of the historical events of Christmas with the faith proposition. The form of construction of their comments suggests that they believe that both must be rejected. In this they are deeply mistaken, abuse logic, and reveal a deep character flaw.

    They do not accept revealed faith. They have wished away their chance for an encounter with a living, saving faith. That is their free choice, although they ultimately will experience the full measure of this rejection. However, they cannot wish away historical facts. that is the worst sort of myth making and construction of fairy land existence. If they are having trouble accessing faith, allowing their wills to come into accord with truth and logic, then we can consider it a confession of sorts of a flawed character, and a cry for help. We can rededicate ourselves to pray for them, that they climb out of their mental rut. But in no circumstances can we let their sloppy thinking and emotional and abusive comments to stand unchallenged. It would not be fair to them, especially at this time of year that is so obviously difficult for them.

    • Zme

      Nonsense:
      1) No census that required travel to home towns.
      2) No slaughter of the innocents.
      3) Virgins don’t give birth*
      &c. &c.
      The whole Christmas story is a made up tale recorded to aggrandize Paul’s focus for a religion by “fulfilling prophecies” .
      *Perhaps you’re talking about Jesus H. Christ…where the “H” stands for haploid?

  • http://valleetrails.blogspot.com trailbee

    According to our Constitution, we are allowed to choose our own religion/philosophy for living our lives. Some are just a little more unique than others. :)

  • Mister Mack

    Typical dishonesty in the OP.
    The myth is not that a jewish man called Jesus was cruxified, it’s everything else about him.
    Especially the bits about miracles, and him being a god.
    St. Paul went round gathering stories about him. There’s nothing to suggest he reported them accurately, or that he didn’t add and embellish them, or that the people he was talking to told the truth about everything, and never invented stories.
    In short, the new testament is a book of myths. There might be some true bits scattered in it, but that can be true of most myths. They’re still myths.

    • Fr. Dwight Longenecker

      Your bad spelling, capitalization and grammar errors are proving the point of my headline.

      • idahogie

        Now that’s just childish. Are you unable to act like an adult, here?

    • Nan

      Nobody ever said He was a god. He’s the Son of God. Totally different concept.

  • Melia

    I like that image of Jesus they used. I think about it when I pray.

  • http://platytera.blogspot.com/ Christian

    “Not proven” doesn’t equal “myth.”

  • http://www.marcusallensteele.com Marcus Allen Steele

    Father, that ridiculous billboard says a lot about the atheist mindset. Good post. I commented on it as well, hope you don’t mind my link. http://bit.ly/UkId1b

  • Glenn Juday

    Dear Mister Mack,

    What possible basis, other than your deep personal desire that it be so, can be cited for you interpretive narrative concerning the Catholic/Christian faith and St. Paul? Your short narrative will be instantly recognizable from now until the end of time as a heartfelt statement of the animating mythology of early 21st century atheists.

    You are quite mistaken, as any objective observer could attest, in your sweeping statements about dishonesty and deliberate construction of falsehoods with respect to St. Paul and the historical Christian narrative, including miracles. The accounts of St. Paul are full of admissions contrary to interest, of facts that cross can be cross referenced, of powerful insights into human motivation and actions far beyond the psychological insight of the time, of masterful congruence of message, time, place, action, and motivation of people to withstand otherwise irresistible forces of coercion and torture. That record clearly invalidates any claim that “There’s nothing to suggest he reported them accurately ..”

    The more accurate statement would be, “I have been willful enough to avoid acquainting myself with a basic and fair account of St. Paul’s life and writings, or I have deliberately ignored or misconstrued anything that might challenge the invented narrative about him and Christianity that comforts me.”

    Nobody is forcing you to accept the faith proposition. But you have no right to torture and abuse rational thought and logic no matter how intense your personal desire for whatever motivation. Statements you invent that attempt to do so, no matter how they are presented, are still personal myths.

    • Mister Mack

      So you’re basing your religious conviction on the belief that people 2000 years ago couldn’t tell a good story?
      That’s ridiculous, they were just as capable as we are today.
      The things that are supposedly contrary to interest are the oldest trick in the storyteller’s book. Paul’s story about persecuting Christians is just that, a device to convince the listner that HE was converted, and so should you be. Fundie christians use the same trick today. How many claim to be ex atheists?
      They’re just using the oldest con in the book.
      You seem to think people 2000 years couldn’t concoct a story that would fool YOU.
      I’m afraid that you totally underestimate the skill and sophistication of their story telling, and inventive abilities. But of course, they had plenty of time to practice and fine-tune the stories, and discard the ones that weren’t working. Many many decades of re-telling ensured that.

      • Fr. Dwight Longenecker

        Are you suggesting that there was a large amount of time after the life of Christ and the recording of the gospels? Many many decades? Have you studied the New Testament and its composition or are you just regurgitating something you read somewhere on the internet?

        Even the most liberal dating of the New Testament must have it completed by 90 AD. That is only 60 years after the events of Christ’s death. What happened in our own society just 60 years ago? It was 1952. Plenty of people remember the events of 1952. Why do you imagine that in just sixty years everyone started lying about what happened?

        Even so, sixty years is far more than most scholars date the New Testament. St Paul’s epistles were all completed before his death in 65–that’s just thirty years after the death of Christ, and many think the gospels were composed before 70AD. Get real.

        • Mister Mack

          When gospels were first written is irrelevant, because we don’t know what was in them.
          The earliest ones that modern scholars have seen are dated three hundred years after the crucifiction. THAT is what the gospels are.
          If you can prove that there were no changes, from the earlier documents that they are based on, then you might have a case. As it is, your talk of just a few decades is wishful thinking.

          Putting that aside, forty or fifty years is plenty, to massively change and improve the stories.
          When nothing is written down, people are free to change what they like, if they think it improves the message. Just ONE year, of telling and retelling, and the story can bear little resemblance to what happens. We tend to forget that today, with all the writing and recording that happens.
          And if you think that people don’t invent, or imagine, about religion, just read up on Ballinspittle.

          I was there that year, and I heard people swear that they could see statues move, that it had moved, that they saw tears, the whole lot.
          People say what they WANT to be true.

          • Fr. Dwight Longenecker

            If you learned to spell your arguments would sound better.

          • Mister Mack

            Fr. Longnecker,
            you place SO much importance on grammar and spelling, and yet you base your life on the stories of people who couldn’t read or write.
            Not just that, but COPIES of those stories, written in greek, about three hundred years later.
            By people who cared very little for spelling.
            Why not apply your strict standards to the documents you base your life on?

          • Fr. Dwight Longenecker

            Why don’t you try studying theology, church history and New Testament scholarship before you attempt to speak about it? All you’ve done is exhibit your ignorance.

          • menotyou

            A sure sign that you have lost the argument is to critise spelling and to call someone ignorant instead of critiquing the argument or continuing with the debate.

          • Fr. Dwight Longenecker

            you mis-spelled criticize

          • menotyou

            So I did, so I did…LOL!

          • http://mrtact.com/blog Tim Keating

            Not to mention, five or six decades to a marginally literate society with bronze-age technology is hardly a just comparison to the same time period in the contemporary world, with its greater emphasis on education and modern communication and data storage technologies.

          • Reverend Robbie

            “Why don’t you try studying theology, church history and New Testament scholarship before you attempt to speak about it? All you’ve done is exhibit your ignorance.”

            I think Deacon Duncan over at Evangelical Realism provides a good response to this:

            “… One of the problems with indoctrination as opposed to education is that those who have been indoctrinated have to do a great deal of work in order to master the doctrines they’re being indoctrinated in, and they have a tendency to equate the amount of work with the accuracy and importance of the material they’ve studied. Consequently they tend to feel superior to anyone who has not expended the same amount of time and effort on the doctrines, even when those doctrines are now known to be flawed, superstitious, and inconsequential.”

            Theology hasn’t demonstrated much ability tell us anything about reality beyond what other people claim about God. In and of itself, this is a worthwhile pursuit, but it has its limitations as a method for actually understanding reality and historical events, and indoctrination lets us forget that and confuse rationalization for actual scholarship. Now I know that you’re talking about more than just theology here, but I suspect that theology clouds one’s view of other studies or even simple common sense through confirmation bias and motivated reasoning. One example is Fr. Longenecker’s comparison of our knowledge of history 60 years ago with the knowledge of 60 years of history 2000 years ago. We don’t need much study at all to conclude that there are at least two major differences: (1) We know that people recorded the events of 60 years ago contemporaneously, in writing and electronic media and (2) due to technology, reports are disseminated further and faster and therefore able to be verified timely by various sources. Even with that, we’re still getting quite a few of the details wrong about even recent history. We sometimes get the wool pulled over our eyes or just record and report events improperly. The time and effort people spend in “New Testament scholarship” allow them to create elaborate rationalizations for beliefs rather than actually recognizing some simple characteristics of reality.

            “I’d rather be guilty of being gullible than cynical.” – Fr. Longenecker, in a blog post about the Shroud of Turin

    • Mister Mack

      Dear Glenn Judas,
      you amaze me, if you base a life of faith on your ability to spot if someone is telling the truth, especially when it’s just written material.
      People 2000 years ago were better story tellers than we will ever be. You seem to think they were primitive, and innocent and unsophisticated. I’m afraid you’re miles off the mark.
      The “contrary to interest” trick is the oldest in the book. People include it in their stories to convince gullible people that they CAN’T be lying.
      Paul’s story about previously persecuting christians is a shining example. Christian fundies use it liberally today. Don’t you find it odd, the numbers of them who claim to have been atheists before they “saw the light”?
      St. Paul did teach them something.
      The fact is you CAN’T tell if they wrote truth or lies. Your “evidence of truth” is just a bunch of deliberate devices used by the story tellers.

  • Jason Aloisio

    They can keep silly old Father Christmas.I choose Jesus Christ.

  • Andreas Kjernald

    There really isn’t anything as sophisticated of a defense of Jesus’s birth as a person truly born again and indwelt by the Holy Spirit. There is something to be said for apologetics and history, both subjects I really like and know something about, but the best way to prove the atheists wrong is not to argue with them but to show them.

    Robust, genuine experience of God in everyday life is the best “weapon” we Christians have. Catholic writer Dr. Peter Kreeft calls it ” Personal Holiness”, along with a myriad of other thinkers and writers in the history of the church (and Church). When we look like Jesus and act like Jesus, we win.

    • Glenn Juday

      Andreas,

      I believe there is a difference with this new crop of atheists. They are not the lax agnostics and gentle, well intentioned intellectual atheists of former times. They stake out a radical position with the most contorted and logic-twisting assertions and then intend to drive, and own, the narrative. Their purpose is clearly to drive Christian believers out of the realm of allowable thought and opinion. Once this happens culturally, it can be easily codified and formalized with the full force of the state’s apparatus behind it. Even a couple of years ago this would have sounded like ranting. Today it is a simple, dispassionate statement of empirical fact.

      Listen to them. They are making their intentions clear. They want us gone. Pay them the compliment of taking them seriously. They are succeeding in their agenda more rapidly than perhaps they allowed themselves to believe. The resistance to this cultural aggression must be firm, because make no mistake, the end desired is the destruction of the Christian religion. Our response must be across the spectrum. The witness of our lives is essential. But this is no time the “Just pay them no mind” approach. When we fail to answer the nonsense they offer, we concede that much cultural space to them. They will bank that, and immediately launch the next campaign for more. And this is also no time for a defensive crouch. They can be engaged and relentlessly helped to see the nonsense and folly they are promoting for what it is. That is an act of charity and an obligation we have. Silence on our part only reinforces their sense of validation that we believe nothing fundamental, and that their nihilism is correct after all. If you don’t see this larger picture now, wait a short while and they will confront you in a way that you will. But paradoxically, it only strengthens us and sets the stage for the renewal of faith for which the stage is now slowly being set.

      • GB

        Glenn, You are amazing along with the likes of Fr. L. I wish I had your gift of logic and ability to express knowledge in a firm cogent manner. Please continue to help us.

  • FW Ken

    person who “knows” there is a God because of the complexity of life

    I agree, with the caveat that the wonders of the created world can point us to a Creator. When we come to know Him, we begin to see Him as a loving father, and re-orient our observations around that central reality. That can, of course, be the work of a lifetime.

    For those whose father was absent or abusive, it’s harder, of course, but “Father” is not the only approach. It’s the final truth, but Catholics acknowledge the partial truths of all religions, so we might as well accept that some folk come to God along a roundabout path. The AA folk attribute their recovery to a “Higher Power” or “God as we understood God”. That is not a supernatural being, necessarily, but simply someone outside the addictive self. This does, of course, lead often enough to an orthodox Christian Faith, though in stages.

  • Solid_Spy

    “I thought atheists were supposed to be smart. Guess not. Here’s an ad American Atheists have paid $25,000.00 to put up in Times Square.”

    Response: Implying all atheists are smart or not?

    “What’s hilarious about this ill-thought out campaign is that the atheists keep telling us they are only interested in evidence. They only want the facts ma’am. They’re thinkers. They’re rational. blah blah blah.”

    Responce: yeah, well some of us are. There’s nothing wrong with being rational :s

    “They’re opposed to “myths”. They don’t like make believe. They think it’s a form of child abuse to tell children stories about big sugar daddies in the sky who will give them everything they want.”

    Responce: I like make believe, i think it’s fun :) I think it’s child abuse to force a child into religion.

    “Religion is, they say, an infantile belief system to bring comfort to the frightened, weak minded babies. The atheists tell us they’re down on fairy tales. They don’t believe in magic sky fairies.
    But they want to keep a magic elf who lives at the North Pole and flies through the sky with dancing reindeer? They want to keep the fat fairy man who comes down the chimney of every home in the world in one night while drinking Coca Cola? They want to keep jolly old St Nick who lays a finger beside his nose ’cause ’twas the night before Christmas? They don’t want a God who judges, but they want the old man in the red suit who keeps a list of who’s naughty and nice and checks it twice? They don’t like a God who makes his little children feel good, but they want the happy elf who has his bag full of goodies for all the good boys and girls? Do these atheists tell their children there is such a person as Santa Claus? Do they abuse their little ones with such obvious lies?”

    Responce: yeah I agree it’s bad for parents to lie to their child, but a little fun and imagination doesn’t hurt ;)

    “In the meantime they dub the crucified Jesus Christ a “myth”? In fact, of the two images, Jesus Christ crucified is just about as far from a myth as you could get. It’s about as mythical as a photograph of an Auschwitz corpse or one of those black and white photos of a lynched negro hanging from a tree. The crucifixion of Jesus Christ is a bare, hard historical fact. The Romans crucified people. It wasn’t pretty. It happened to Jesus of Nazareth. No myth there.”

    Responce: True, i agree, but there was no evidence that he was supernatural.

    “The crazy and stupid thing about this campaign is that it is, well, so crazy and stupid. If they wanted to make their point they could have tried to picture the things about Christianity and Christmas that do seem more mythical and difficult to believe–like the shepherds and angels and wise men with a star or some such. They could also have chosen something more positive and humanistic about Christmas–something pleasantly pagan and mildly materialistic like two people kissing under mistletoe or people on a sleigh ride or some such nonsense.”

    Responce: I agree. As an Atheist, I think this was a bad move. I know this may come as a suprise to you, but not all ATHEISTS agree on the same things ;)

    “Then again, maybe the ad is just what it should be and we should rejoice because anyone with half a brain who sees it and thinks things through will realize how vapid the atheists are who thought it up in the first place.”

    Responce: This may also come as a suprise to you, but the atheists who made this just wanted to get attention by using shock value, they got in the media, and they won. Don’t you see?

    Thank you for this amusing article :)

    • Fr. Dwight Longenecker

      You should learn to spell. You’re proving my point about atheists. :-)

    • Glenn Juday

      Child abuse is denying a child his rightful inheritance. It is theft. Denying a child exposure to and training in the formative basis of western civilization, the Catholic Church and its spiritual patrimony, is the worst sort of this kind of child abuse. As is typical of most of the comments we are getting from the currently active generation of atheists, it is a complete inversion of logic and the truth. The child remains free, and at any point he or she can listen to the case put forward by the postmodern atheists who feel that they have outgrown the need for Divine providence and therefore all of society should be just as they are – in the name of freedom of thought, of course. Again, another complete inversion of logic and the truth. We could go on and on, but aren’t we detecting a pattern here? Obviously, a perspective on life and the world, atheism, that is urged on others which is characterized by such a consistent, unthinking pattern of arriving at conclusions cannot be worthy of serious consideration.

    • Nan

      Raising children without religion is child abuse. I know, for I was raised in an environment hostile to religion wherein there’s nothing but self and consumerism. Not a good place to be.

  • Bill

    The entire premise of this article is silly. Atheists don’t like myths? I love myths. They are entertaining and fun sometimes. What atheists generally don’t like is myths presented as fact. And then those presenters trying to force others to live by them. So I’ll celebrate this year as I see fit. I’ll keep whatever Merry and dump whatever myths I like. If the best opposition to that is a schoolyard taunt of “stupid”. I’ll just consider the source and press on.

    • Fr. Dwight Longenecker

      Have a Blessed and myth-free Christmas!

      • DoctorD

        And a Happy Winter Solstice, to you, Dwight.

        • Will

          What about Gurnenthar’s Ascendance? We always get left out!

    • Glenn Juday

      Atheists have an exceptionally weak to nonexistent record of resisting myths presented as facts. As we are periodically reminded by atheist commenters on this blog, atheists are not united in a positive view of anything. They are defined only by what they deny. And what atheists deny is a fact that all cultures and societies have recognized – the existence of a transcendent being in existence outside of and vastly more powerful that humans.

      Beyond that, atheists were prime candidates for recruitment to (although far from principally responsible for) the murderous mythologies of national socialism, international socialism (communism), race superiority, class struggle, etc. And why not? If they belong to the favored group and there is no eternal sanction for the brutality needed to implement utopia, why not embrace a mythological good in the misty future, even if it may be a bit harsh now? The very negation that defines their view of the world makes them peculiarly vulnerable to this sort of nonsense.

      The Catholic Church is the principal institution in the history of the world that resists myths presented as facts. The Church has a term for this. It is called “being a sign of contradiction.” Although many Catholics and other Christians have lost sight of it, this property of resisting myths presented as facts periodically calls for enduring persecution, sometimes to the point of being willing to give up one’s life. That action is called martyrdom, from the Greek word for testimony or witness (to the truth). The Catholic Church needs no introduction to, and certainly no instruction in, resisting myths presented as facts. As is typical, the statement about atheists and myths is another inversion of logic and truth.

  • DoctorD

    The name-calling is not becoming.
    Stupid priest.

  • FW Ken

    What atheists generally don’t like is myths presented as fact.

    What atheists generally don’t like is people who disagree with us. Rather than reason, we simple declare beliefs other than our own to be “myths” and build gulags for those who disagree.

    And then those presenters trying to force others to live by them.

    For force, I’m thinking the KGB. Oddly enough, I’ve never tied anyone up and made them go to Mass butI think this “religion is child abuse” meme probably comes for grownup children still mad at mommy and daddy. True narcissism is to project your own feelings onto others.

    So I’ll celebrate this year as I see fit.

    Enjoy yourself and be grateful that Christians won’t be dragging you to Mass. If it comes on TV, you have the freedom to turn off the TV. No one will be rounding you up for displays in St. Peter’s Square. Too bad Christians don’t have the freedom to celebrate the way they see fit in fine atheist enclaves like North Korea.

    If the best opposition to that is a schoolyard taunt of “stupid”.

    Me, I don’t think you’re stupid, except in so much as arrogance makes you stupid, narcissism makes you narrow, and power makes you murderous. Someone commented that religious people are scared that “rational” atheism will supplant religion in due course. I’m not scared of that: you folks haven’t presented rational arguments, but simply torn at the arguments of others, in flagrant disregard of facts. Of course, for those who do know history, the fear is not an intellectual win for atheism, but rather a return to the murderous rampages of 20th century atheism.

  • David

    I consider myself an atheist, who grew up Catholic. I admit the stupidity of the atheist ad. There is no place for that in our civilized society. I also admit my belief that God is to adults what Santa is to kids – a way to keep people acting in a certain way by promising that they will receive certain rewards. I also admit though, even as an atheist, that there will always be a rightful place for religion in society, and the freedom to practice it, or not practice it, is a fundamental right that should not be infringed. I believe there are different ways to achieve a decent, moral, fulfilling life, which, in my opinion, should be the goal of all people. If you achieve it through religion, great. If you achieve it without the threat of damnation, great. Neither way is better than the other. I believe atheists should not condemn religious people simply because they believe in a religion, hence my objection to the atheist group’s ad. By the same token, I believe religious people should not condemn atheists simply because they do not subscribe to a religion. Peace and love to all, and do unto others as you would have them do unto you. As an atheist, that is all the religion I need.

    • Glenn Juday

      The American republic and our traditional religious liberties would be safe in a citizenry made up of atheists who believed, and acted, in line with your sentiments, regardless of their proportion of the population. I believe the phrase in Luke 2:14 that is so often misquoted is particularly appropriate at this time of the year to those who adhere to the sentiments you have expressed:

      “… and on Earth, peace to men of good will.”

      • David

        Thanks, Glenn. I hope you and yours have a safe and Merry Christmas!

  • Al Bergstrazer

    I”ve never understood Athiests and Agnostics who want to celebrate what is essentially a Christian Holiday of which most of its symbols are related to the birth life, suffering death and resurrection of Christ yet bitterly complain about it all being a myth. I’m not a Muslim and I’d never celebrate Ramadan, even in secular way, (if that were possible). So often as it is with this very poorly thought out ad, it seems Athiests are just wanting attention to their cause while the rest of us go on and do the worst thing we could possibly do which is ignore them. If you think everything we beleive in is a myth, then put your money where your mouth is, and show up for work on December 25th while everyone else is home with their families. As for me I’ll believe in Jesus Christ, who wore a crown of thorns, who was pierced for my iniquity I’ll keep the Christ-mass, and thank the almighty for St. Nick- i.e., the one who had a habit of slapping the snot out of heretics on occasion. Merry Christmas, to all my fellow Christians and to the Athiests, have nice day.

    • Mister Mack

      I’m afraid you’re misinformed.
      The winter solstice was celebrated thousands of years before Jesus was even born.
      Stonehenge was built to celebrate that date, five thousand years ago, and there is evidence of a monument there dating from ten thousand years ago.
      Christianity just adopted the date of an existing celebration, in the hope of exploiting it’s popularity and extinguishing it’s memory.

      • Fr. Dwight Longenecker

        Please do your research about the celebration of Christmas, the winter solstice and pagan celebrations. The date of Christmas is calculated from the Scriptural evidence, documentary evidence from the Jewish religion and early Christian traditions. It was not an adaptation of paganism. There is plenty of scholarly information about this on the web as opposed to popular myths that equate Christian celebrations with paganism.

        • Lucius

          Scriptural evidence? Wherefore? I know of nothing in the New Testament that specifies the actual date of the alleged birth of your savior. Perhaps you might enlighten us as to where in the New Testament a specific date is mentioned.

          • Fr. Dwight Longenecker
          • Mister Mack

            A blog! Fr Longnecker,
            Is that your “evidence” for Jesus being born on dec 25th? And the blogger only tries to make a claim for “late December”.
            The truth is there were always LOTS of festivities around the winter solstice. Few people had calendars of any sort. The day was never exact. That’s why Stonehenge was built in the first place.
            The christians just added their own celebration to the pile of existing ones.

          • Fr. Dwight Longenecker

            Late December is specified by calculating the dates from Zechariah’s service in the temple as a priest. The 25 of December is specified because it is nine months after March 25–the date of Jesus Christ’s conception. The exact day may be off by a day or so, but the main point is not to pinpoint the exact date, but to show that Christians did not devise the Christmas date from pagan festivals. If you are interested to study this further there is plenty of scholarly research on the subject which proves my point, but I don’t sense that you are really interested in the truth. It sounds like you’re happy to suck up the commonly held myths about this subject without too much thought.

          • Mister Mack

            It’s not a big deal. But the winter solstice, and it’s widespread celebration, is the one fact in all of it. Everything else is suppositition. As the earliest gospels in existence were copied three hundred years after the crucifiction, there was plenty of time to change dates and remove any inconsistencies.
            Jesus COULD have been born in late december, or his date of birth could have been assigned to that date to match the many pagan celebrations. There is no way of knowing. It would be perfectly simple to make John the baptist’s details in the gospels match with a december date for Jesus. There is no way of telling if John’s dates were put in earlier or later.

            That’s the problem with evidence that is three hundred years out of date.

          • Fr. Dwight Longenecker

            Congratulations! Your comment was so brilliant it made it into the latest Ed Blanch post!

          • Mister Mack

            It’s not as brilliant as your post though.
            You have the gestation of Jesus taking six months, and three months missing from a year.
            I think you got confused there.
            Jesus’s birth is supposed to have come six months after that of John the Baptist, not six months after his conception.
            But isn’t it an odd coincidence that there were several other gods, supposedly born of a virgin on December 25th, before Jesus came along.
            Probably because the 25th is the first day that you can detect the sun beginning to move back, towards summer. So the solstice was the shortest day, but the 25th was associated with birth or rebirth.

          • Fr. Dwight Longenecker

            I think you have misunderstood: The dates are these: John the Baptist conceived late September, born nine months later: June 21.

            According to Luke’s gospel–Jesus conceived six months after John the Baptist’s conception: March 25. Jesus born nine months later: December 25.

            Please name just one other god born of a virgin on December 25.

          • Mister Mack

            If you look at your own post, you claimed Jesus was born SIX months after his conception, just exactly as I pointed out. I didn’t misunderstand, I was just pointing out a simple error.

            From memory, Mithras, Dionysus, Horus, Attis. Take your pick.

          • Fr. Dwight Longenecker

            There are some similarities between Mithras and Christ, but being born of a virgin on December 25 is not one of them. There is nothing in the Greek myths to indicate that Dionysius was born of a virgin on December 25. The myth is that his mother Semele was impregnated by Zeus, and when the child was torn from her womb Zeus put the fetus in his thigh and gave birth to the child later–thus saying that Dionysius had two mothers. No similarity to the story of Jesus’ birth at all. Horus was not born of a virgin. The myth is that his mother Isis gathered all the dismembered parts of her husband Osiris except his penis. She used magic powers to make a golden penis with which she impregnated herself. Nothing like a Virgin Birth and nothing in the myth about him being born on December 25. The birth of Attis is more complicated: the demon Agsistus was a hermaphrodite. The gods cut off his penis and threw it away, and on the site an almond tree grew. Nana, the daughter of the river god picked an almond from the tree and put it on her belly and Attis was conceived. There’s no mention that Nana was a virgin, and she wasn’t a good mother because she abandoned Attis. No mention of a date for his birth–and no link with December 25. I think you may have been reading stuff on the internet and assuming it is true without checking the facts. This is pretty typical of the atheists who come to my blog.

          • Mister Mack

            According to wikipedia, “According to M.J.Vermaseren, the Mithraic New Year and the birthday of Mithras was on December 25.[53][54] However, Beck disagrees strongly.[55] Clauss states: “the Mithraic Mysteries had no public ceremonies of its own. The festival of natalis Invicti [Birth of the Unconquerable (Sun)], held on 25 December, was a general festival of the Sun, and by no means specific to the Mysteries of Mithras.”
            So you can take your pick.
            It also says that he was born from a rock. It doesn’t mention if the rock ever had sex, but I doubt it.
            But it doesn’t matter to me, because I don’t NEED confirmation, since I haven’t spent a lifetime worshipping him.
            You, on the other hand, worship a character from stories in an old book.
            The internet of the day, 1700 years ago.

          • Fr. Dwight Longenecker

            If you were interested enough to do further research you will discover that both the celebration of Sol Invictus and the full blown Mithraic religion post date the development of Christianity, and that where they resemble Christianity it is more likely that they borrowed from the Christians rather than the other way around.

            Although a cult to Sol Invictus was established in the late second century, the nativity of Sol Invictus as a pagan celebration was not established until the fourth century during the reign of Julian the Apostate who wanted to obliterate the thriving Christian religion by re-introducing and promoting the dying pagan religions.

            What I am most interested in is that when you are confronted with evidence that contradicts your viewpoint you duck away and say the evidence doesn’t matter and you don’t ‘need confirmation’, and resort to silly jibes like “you worship a character from stories in an old book.”

            Here’s some advice: Why not stop wasting so much time, and either get serious and do your homework and learn the truth about these things and search for the truth and then be mature enough to commit your life to it.

            Coming on a blog like this and spouting the half truths, lies and half baked conspiracy theories you’ve read somewhere only makes you look foolish.

          • Mister Mack

            Really? I look silly, but you, who claim some sort of expert knowledge, can say that Jesus was born six months after conception?
            That in itself wouldn’t look silly, but ignoring it and pretending it didn’t happen twice certainly does.
            And what is untrue about my so-called jibe?
            When I said “you worship a character from stories in an old book”, what was untrue or innaccurate about that? You advise me to search for the truth, but you yourself don’t like it, when it’s not couched in flattering terms.

          • Fr. Dwight Longenecker

            I have no idea where you got the idea that I ever wrote that Jesus was born six months after conception. I think you may have picked up a mistake someone made in one of the comments. It’s not in the original post.

            End of conversation for me. Thanks for visiting my blog!

          • Mister Mack

            On 28th Dec 2012 at 9:50pm Fr. Longnecker wrote :
            “Late December is specified by calculating the dates from Zechariah’s service in the temple as a priest. The 25 of December is specified because it is six months after March 25–the date of Jesus Christ’s conception. ”
            I’m quite sure you know what you wrote. It’s only a little way above this post.
            But this is how religion progresses. People WANT a different version of reality. So they create it, rather than live with the real one.

          • Fr. Dwight Longenecker

            It’s called a “mistake”, and if you read the context “25 of December is… months after March 25″ you’d realize it was a mistake — or didn’t you know that December was nine months after March?

  • Fr. Dwight Longenecker

    That’s a good one! I not only posted it, but included it in the Ed Blanch post. Thanks!

  • Sutton

    I find it funny that the USA was founded on Christianity and prospered, became the absolute best country in the world, but now that we’re dropping all this Christianity, the USA has entered a decline.
    But I’m just a young girl…Maybe I was corrupted by being told that Jesus, the son of God, died for my sins.

    • okagami

      The United States was *not* founded on Christian principles. The founding fathers had an eclectic mix of philosophies, religions, and principles, including Freemasonric and Atheist. The myth about the US being founded by Christians is just silly.

      The founding of the US was pretty irreligious… do a search for the word ‘god’ in the preamble of the US constitution: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preamble_to_the_United_States_Constitution

  • Edd

    I think once again the theist is trying to find ways to attack atheists, and as there are few lagitimate arguments for the theist they resort to things like this, some sort of hypocrisy, although you don’t have to be a rocket scientist to tell the difference between Santa, a bit if harmless fun, a genuine fairy tale which is enjoyed and taken lightly throughout the world, and Christianity, a far right wing, religiously invoked political movement that takes advantage of the uninformed and the vulnerable, and have outrageously damaging beliefs and doctrine. We all stop believing in Santa at an early age, any intelligent mind would do the same with the equally rediculous claims of theological religions

  • Lindsay

    I ran across this page while looking to educate myself about all sides of opinions concerning religion. I have my own opinion, as does everyone else.

    Yes, this blog has many good points. But I can’t help but wonder if you really get atheism…

    Personally I will not have my children believe in Santa, the Tooth Fairy, or any other make believe character.
    Even if I did,there is most definitely a clear difference in Santa and Christian (since this is aimed at Christianity) belief. Santa encourages children to be good “he knows if you’ve been bad or good/so be good for goodness sake) with a “punishment” of coal or less presents. Generally Santa is not mentioned frequently with those who believe in him.

    Christianity is seen as a moral compass. Believers often go to church, spread gods word and pray before meals and bed.

    The Santa myth is vague and punishment minimal.
    Christianity is clear and unclear at the same time. Punishment… eternal damnation.
    Everything God says not to do, he has done. Many things God does to “his children” (us) are arrestable, dispicable acts. If he were truly a father…he would be in prison.

    Jesus was an outstanding philosopher. Without all the hoop-la Christianity has attributed to him degrades his name.

    Christianity is vile. Stories passed down and chosen (every single detail) by a committee of, guess what, white elder men.
    A little odd that many things align so well with beliefs and benefits of those who pieced it together.

    From what I gather you are saying atheists pick-and-choose what they believe.
    That is the hallmark of Christianity….
    God meant it when homosexuals are an abomination. After all it isn’t natural, right? Wrong. Many species mate with the same sex. On lizard actually killed off males and are now able to populate on their own. Next argument “reproduction” is most important…gays cannot do that. All sex other than vagina/penis is unnatural. If you’ve been fingered, jerked off, blown or eaten out you are just as guilty. No reproduction.
    Women? Man is to woman as god is to man. Don’t hear any Christian women screaming of that, do you? They should demand lower pay in a job immediately because she was not silent as God asked. She fought man.

    Faith would be beautiful if God was truly telling you these things. But he is not. People are. Why would god trust his word on the hands of the most imperfect creature alive, mankind? Why did powerful white men debate whether or not main characters and events if it was truly his word?

    I have no fear of a god judging me. Because god (if real) is NOT the one setting up the test…people are.

    Religion is deemed true by the common people, false by the wise and useful to a ruler.

  • http://www.intodss.com Daniel Osenga

    Great article. Atheists are some of the most obnoxious people in my opinion. They have never built a successful society. All of their creations have been totalitarian hellholes.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X