American Atheists Target Christmas in Billboard

[EndDaFed]

I noticed the little atomic looking logo in the bottom of the picture.. Maybe somebody should tell them that the atomic theory of matter is just that - a theory, and might be a myth as well.

The fact that you have working computer is proof enough that atomic theory is working. You couldn't build CPU's without it.

 

[Dr.3D]

The fact that you have working computer is proof enough that atomic theory is working. You couldn't build CPU's without it.

Plenty of theories work, it's just that they have to come up with a theory as to why things work the way they do. So, they postulate as to how it might work and go from there.

Gravity works... but they still don't know exactly what makes it work.

 

[reillym]

The Roman Empire:

Pics or it didn't happen.

Are you seriously attempting to disprove the existence of the Roman Empire?

Really kid?

What they hell do they teach in schools now a days? Was the Holocaust a myth too? Christ.

 

[Theocrat]

Reason is Not "Atheistic"

re the nature of "reason", this seems like a pretty good definition:

Reason: a mental faculty (or ability) found in humans, that is able to generate conclusions from assumptions or premises. In other words, it is amongst other things the means by which rational beings propose specific reasons, or explanations of cause and effect.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reason

Your turn.

In terms of a Christian outlook of the world, that definition makes sense because it touches on an immaterial aspect of human beings, namely, that we have souls which utilize the intellect to make rational connections to come to conclusions about the world.

However, in terms of an "atheistic" outlook on the world, where there are no invisible entities like concepts, souls, or God, that definition is nonsense. There can be no such thing as "mental faculties," "assumptions and premises," or even "cause and effect" in an "atheistic" worldview because each of those things are immaterial in nature. You can't use the five senses to ascertain those entities, after all, but "Atheism" tells us that we only need our five senses to come to truth.

So, "atheists" cannot agree with the definition you provided unless they use another worldview to make sense of the nature of reason, for reason is not made of matter. Of course, that worldview is Christianity, and Christianity is the only worldview that makes sense of reason because reason cannot justify itself (which would be a logical fallacy of reification). It comes from God and reflects His thinking.

Philosophically speaking, "Atheism" cannot justify reason in any way, whether it appeals to a priori assumptions or empirical methods based on experience. At its foundation, "Atheism" starts from irrational premises and tries to argue to rational conclusions. The American "Atheists" are just being arbitrary when they tell people to "celebrate Reason." Their own worldview makes reason anything from eating hot fudge sundaes to using laws of logic. There is no objective way, in an "atheist" universe, to determine what is the best utilization of reason because it makes it all relative, in the eye of the (evolutionary) beholder.

 

[idirtify]

In terms of a Christian outlook of the world, that definition makes sense because it touches on an immaterial aspect of human beings, namely, that we have souls which utilize the intellect to make rational connections to come to conclusions about the world.

However, in terms of an "atheistic" outlook on the world, where there are no invisible entities like concepts, souls, or God, that definition is nonsense. There can be no such thing as "mental faculties," "assumptions and premises," or even "cause and effect" in an "atheistic" worldview because each of those things are immaterial in nature. You can't use the five senses to ascertain those entities, after all, but "Atheism" tells us that we only need our five senses to come to truth.

So, "atheists" cannot agree with the definition you provided unless they use another worldview to make sense of the nature of reason, for reason is not made of matter. Of course, that worldview is Christianity, and Christianity is the only worldview that makes sense of reason because reason cannot justify itself (which would be a logical fallacy of reification). It comes from God and reflects His thinking.

Philosophically speaking, "Atheism" cannot justify reason in any way, whether it appeals to a priori assumptions or empirical methods based on experience. At its foundation, "Atheism" starts from irrational premises and tries to argue to rational conclusions. The American "Atheists" are just being arbitrary when they tell people to "celebrate Reason." Their own worldview makes reason anything from eating hot fudge sundaes to using laws of logic. There is no objective way, in an "atheist" universe, to determine what is the best utilization of reason because it makes it all relative, in the eye of the (evolutionary) beholder.

When comparing a belief in the concept of the soul with a disbelief, it is certainly not reasonable to claim the former is more reasonable than the latter.

To claim that atheism cannot recognize a process such as reason is preposterous. What will you claim next, that it can’t recognize math?

Your whole post depends on a ridiculously narrow definition of atheism at best, or obliterating standard terms at worst.

 

[Liberty4life]

del

del

 

[austin944]

However, in terms of an "atheistic" outlook on the world, where there are no invisible entities like concepts, souls, or God, that definition is nonsense. There can be no such thing as "mental faculties," "assumptions and premises," or even "cause and effect" in an "atheistic" worldview because each of those things are immaterial in nature. You can't use the five senses to ascertain those entities, after all, but "Atheism" tells us that we only need our five senses to come to truth.

Human reason can be explained in terms of physical processes occurring inside the brain, and our interaction with the world through our physical senses. The philosophy of Physicalism holds that all things -- reason included -- are ultimately material things. So there is no need for atheists to believe in immaterial things such as "souls" in order to explain reason.

 

[Theocrat]

A Metaphysical Consideration

Human reason can be explained in terms of physical processes occurring inside the brain, and our interaction with the world through our physical senses. The philosophy of Physicalism holds that all things -- reason included -- are ultimately material things. So there is no need for atheists to believe in immaterial things such as "souls" in order to explain reason.

If reason is reduced to mere physical processes occurring inside the brain, then everyone reasons, whether it's Christians who celebrate Jesus during Christmas, or "atheists" who complain against Christians for celebrating Jesus. Both groups have physical processes going on inside the brain, so how does one determine which one is being reasonable or not? In other words, in a physicalist paradigm, whose brain process becomes the determining factor of reason, say, between a Christian celebrating Jesus or an "atheist" crying about it?

Also, you fail to understand the metaphysical nature of concepts, such as reason. Reason has no physical element to it. It does not take up space, nor can it be observed empirically (by a microscope or something else). For a physical object like a box, we can examine its tangible qualities, such as its weight, length, texture, etc. With other things like reason, we cannot do any such thing. Reason is an immaterial entity. It makes no sense to say "Reason weighs 13 lbs.," or "I took Reason out of my pantry today."

But "atheists" have no way to account for immaterial realities like reason in terms of their worldview because they only allow empirical/physical entities to be observed as true. They have to borrow assumptions and terms from the Christian worldview in order to even appeal to reason. And in so doing, they attest that God is true, even if they suppress knowledge of His existence.

 

[Theocrat]

"Atheists" Just Don't Know

When comparing a belief in the concept of the soul with a disbelief, it is certainly not reasonable to claim the former is more reasonable than the latter.

To claim that atheism cannot recognize a process such as reason is preposterous. What will you claim next, that it can’t recognize math?

Your whole post depends on a ridiculously narrow definition of atheism at best, or obliterating standard terms at worst.

My argument is not that "atheists" don't use reason. In fact, they do. Rather, what I'm arguing is that "atheists" cannot account for why we should use reason or what reason is, in terms of their own worldview. Instead, "atheists" have to work off borrowed capital from another worldview to explain reason, and that worldview is Christianity.

My challenge to any "atheist" is to give an account for why reason should be celebrated (as was mentioned in the OP), and then tell us why all people should agree with their definition and understanding of reason. I say they can't do it, and on philosophical grounds, reason is nonsense for "Atheism."

 

[BlackTerrel]

How is that hypocritical?

I don't recall ever seeing a billboard put up by Christians talking about how full of shit atheists are.

Note: Guys, can't you see that if you keep on with this incessant Christian-bashing, all you are doing is ensuring that the vast majority of Americans will want nothing to do with you or any other ideas that you have? In fact, every time I read yet another thread full of this nonsense, it makes me want to distance myself from people who do not seem to care one iota about other peoples' liberty if those people happen to be Christians.

If you think bashing Christians is helping Ron Paul, you are very wrong.

+1,000. These people hurt Ron Paul and the "movement" more than they know... or maybe they do know and don't care.

 

[BlackTerrel]

1) You can’t credibly deny hostility in a first sentence, and then call a guy an “idiot” in a third sentence.

2) You can’t credibly claim that disagreeing with Christianity is the same as “criticizing ‘Christians’ for everything under the sun”.

1. I think many people are dumb. Does not mean I am hostile to them. And yes this guy is dumb.

2. Perhaps. But there are a number of people on this forum who do just that. Put it this way when that idiot wanted to burn a Koran almost everyone here agreed that he was an idiot.

 

[reillym]

My argument is not that "atheists" don't use reason. In fact, they do. Rather, what I'm arguing is that "atheists" cannot account for why we should use reason or what reason is, in terms of their own worldview. Instead, "atheists" have to work off borrowed capital from another worldview to explain reason, and that worldview is Christianity.

My challenge to any "atheist" is to give an account for why reason should be celebrated (as was mentioned in the OP), and then tell us why all people should agree with their definition and understanding of reason. I say they can't do it, and on philosophical grounds, reason is nonsense for "Atheism."

Prove it. Christianity isn't that old, and most the stories of it (including Jesus) are borrowed/influenced from older religions.

You have borrowing capital from the caveman worldview.

See? I can do it too. I also can act like an arrogant christian fascist.

 

[reillym]

If reason is reduced to mere physical processes occurring inside the brain, then everyone reasons, whether it's Christians who celebrate Jesus during Christmas, or "atheists" who complain against Christians for celebrating Jesus. Both groups have physical processes going on inside the brain, so how does one determine which one is being reasonable or not? In other words, in a physicalist paradigm, whose brain process becomes the determining factor of reason, say, between a Christian celebrating Jesus or an "atheist" crying about it?

Also, you fail to understand the metaphysical nature of concepts, such as reason. Reason has no physical element to it. It does not take up space, nor can it be observed empirically (by a microscope or something else). For a physical object like a box, we can examine its tangible qualities, such as its weight, length, texture, etc. With other things like reason, we cannot do any such thing. Reason is an immaterial entity. It makes no sense to say "Reason weighs 13 lbs.," or "I took Reason out of my pantry today."

But "atheists" have no way to account for immaterial realities like reason in terms of their worldview because they only allow empirical/physical entities to be observed as true. They have to borrow assumptions and terms from the Christian worldview in order to even appeal to reason. And in so doing, they attest that God is true, even if they suppress knowledge of His existence.

You missed a lot of schooling.

Immaterial realities like "reason" are constructs of mankind. Just like god and other fairies. Reason is an idea, an idea that is understand through logic and intelligence. The human race has evolved to gain said intelligence. This is proven by evolutionary biology, something that 99% of all biologists accept as truth based on solid evidence.

Your attempt to argue that Christianity is responsible for ANY metaphysical concept is hilarious dude. That man made religion is very very young and there were many before it, just like it (people controlling other people through fear)

 

[Maximus]

Prove it. Christianity isn't that old, and most the stories of it (including Jesus) are borrowed/influenced from older religions.

You have borrowing capital from the caveman worldview.

See? I can do it too. I also can act like an arrogant christian fascist.

If you studied religion you would see how your claim is not true in any respect. Don't get all your ideas about religion from Zeitgeist.

 

[reillym]

If you studied religion you would see how your claim is not true in any respect. Don't get all your ideas about religion from Zeitgeist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Christ_in_comparative_mythology#Jesus_as_.22true_myth.22

The idea of some guy dying and being resurrected for our sins is not a Christian idea.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-death-rebirth_deity

Just another point proving that religion is a tool that has been used for years to control people.

My claim is very indeed correct. Religious intolerance fails again.

 

[Maximus]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Christ_in_comparative_mythology#Jesus_as_.22true_myth.22

The idea of some guy dying and being resurrected for our sins is not a Christian idea.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-death-rebirth_deity

Just another point proving that religion is a tool that has been used for years to control people.

My claim is very indeed correct. Religious intolerance fails again.

It's not an exclusively Christian idea but the way in which the stories are to be approached is radically different than what you are suggesting.

http://www.wordonfire.org/WOF-TV/Commentaries-New/Father-Barron-on-Zeitgeist-the-Movie-.aspx

 

[eOs]

 

[jmdrake]

It's a little hypocritical of Christians to complain about this. There are still "Blah blah blah -- God" billboards everywhere.

A "blah blah blah -- God" billboard would not be the same. If you wanted an equivalent billboard you would need one that says "Darwin is still wrong" or something to that effect. And atheists could have put up a "Darwinists wish you a happy holiday" season or a "Keep evolution science in the classroom" billboard without being offensive.

 

[jmdrake]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Christ_in_comparative_mythology#Jesus_as_.22true_myth.22

The idea of some guy dying and being resurrected for our sins is not a Christian idea.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-death-rebirth_deity

Just another point proving that religion is a tool that has been used for years to control people.

My claim is very indeed correct. Religious intolerance fails again.

Neither of your links supports the proposition of non-Christian deities dying for sin. But since they are Wikipedia links I suppose you could go and "fix" them.

 

[nate895]

Neither of your links supports the proposition of non-Christian deities dying for sin. But since they are Wikipedia links I suppose you could go and "fix" them.

Not to mention most of them, like the Osiris one (the most commonly cited parallel in my experience), do not resemble Christ's Resurrection in any way at all. Osiris was reassembled and came back as lord of the dead, an actual zombie-type figure. Christ conquered death, not make it a different life in an undead fashion whereby you continue in a state of decomposition or something.

These types of arguments also assume that a true religion would have to be totally different from other religions. However, if one religion were the true religion, then you would see aspects of it in the other false religions. That's exactly what you have with Christianity. If what we call Christianity really did start in the Garden of Eden with Adam and Eve (which is what the Judeo-Christian religion has always claimed), then, since everyone is descended from Adam and Eve, we would expect to see aspects of the one true religion in the other corrupted traditions. Now, I'm not claiming these similarities prove Christianity; I'm saying these similarities are not evidence against it.