Atheist group tips hands with another self-refuting billboard

In what has become an annual self-parody for atheist groups, they throw tantrums via billboards to spread their beliefs.  In the past they claimed that “you can be good without God,” which of course ignores that they have no grounding for the word “good” if there is no God.

Here’s the 2011 version:

Via Atheist Group to Sponsor Anti-Christmas Billboards Featuring Jesus, Santa & Satan:

“American Atheists announced Monday on their “No God Blog” a new billboard campaign in their continued effort in “laboring for the civil liberties of atheists,” but in reality just upsetting those who disagree with their theological stance. A press release for the American Atheists’ new holiday season billboard campaign reads:

“American Atheists announced today that their new billboard is going up in several locations nationwide, including the New Jersey side of the Lincoln Tunnel: the same location as last year’s famous ‘You KNOW it’s a MYTH’ billboard. The new billboard will also be going up in Ohio and Florida.

This year’s holiday season billboard features pictures of Neptune, Jesus, Santa Claus, and the Devil and says, ‘37 Million Americans know MYTHS when they see them. What do you see?’”

Anticipating the inevitability that their billboard will offend others, Dave Silverman, the president of American Atheists, said, “When you question someone’s long-held beliefs and doctrine they are going to be immediately offended and be on the defensive: it’s a known psychological phenomenon.”

Yes, it is a known psychological phenomenon that atheists go nuts when they see a manger scene or a cross, so they have the ACLU sue on their behalf to make them go away.

But here’s the amusing part: Even secular historians are wildly in agreement that Jesus really lived and then died on a Roman cross.  They may not believe that He was divine and rose from the dead, but they believe He really lived.  The atheists are as bad at history as they are at science (where they tend to be pro-abortion and pro-Darwinian evolution) if they believe otherwise.  

Speaking of history, if the atheists are so brave in countering myths why don’t they publicly mock Mohammad’s alleged revelations in a cave, 500+ years after Jesus died on the cross, claiming that it wasn’t Jesus at all? (Koran, Sura 4:157-158)  That might get them the attention that they crave, and would at least put them on the side of accurate history.

Or how about if they did billboards highlighting the myth that gays are “born that way,”  or that they are 10% of the population, etc.?

It is easy to spot a bully: They pick on those they know won’t hurt them back.

My advice to Christians is to treat the billboards the way we treated our daughters when they threw tantrums as very small children: Don’t give them the attention that they crave.  It worked really well for us.  Just narrate to others what the atheists are doing and how illogical their statements are.  After all, if Darwinian evolution was true it would be 100.00% responsible for my faith in the evidence for the life, death and resurrection of Jesus.  So why would they want to criticize their pet theory?

15 thoughts on “Atheist group tips hands with another self-refuting billboard”

  1. how ironic is it that these people spend the amounts of time and money they do on a “non-belief”? I mean, it’s almost like they can’t stand to have anyone think they don’t exist. Just like pro basketball and football players who celebrate after a big play: Mommy Daddy, Look at me!!! Hey over here, did you see what I did?!?!

    Like

    1. Yes,spending $15,000 on a billboard that is insulting a crapload of people just so you can say “hey,we’re atheists and we’re here for you ( unless you are religious then get the !#%@ out ) just in case you need us,okay? Ohhhkaaay”.

      What REALLY pisses me off is that a lot of atheists claim the moral high ground and talk about ALL THE CHARITY WORK they do (as atheists collectively ) and then spend $15,000 on a billboard that accomplishes nothing more than insulting religious people when that $15,000 could have gone to feed the homeless and less fortunate!!
      I dunno,maybe MY ethics are outta whack !

      Like

  2. 1. The myth they are reffering to is obviously that Jesus was the savior, look at the picture that they chose to use. If they wanted to say that Jesus the man was a myth then they would have picked a picture of him as a carpenter, teacher, etc.
    2. If I had the choice to confront 3% of the population or 60%-70% of the population I’m always going to pick the 60-70. Plus Muslim regularly do not try to cram their beliefs down my throat like Christians do on a regular basis.
    3. And I am sure that you have fantastic daughters based off the parenting tips you gave me. Come on now. Try harder.

    Like

    1. 1. That’s just a picture of Jesus, it isn’t a picture of him coming out of the tomb or something.
      2. That proves nothing with respect to the billboard and you must be kidding me about Muslims . . . do you not know how Sharia law works? That is the ultimate in cramming beliefs down throats at the threat of slitting throats. No one is making you trust in Jesus for your Savior.
      3. I do have fantastic daughters, thanks. I give credit and thanks to God for that. We made plenty of mistakes but following his principles made all the difference.

      Like

  3. Ah, the ever-present “persecution complex” that atheists always claim to be living in mortal fear of.

    As opposed to the, you know, real mortal threats being leveled at Christians in countries dominated by atheists.

    Like

  4. “…they have no grounding for the word “good” if there is no God.”
    Huh? Isn’t this statement in itself self-refuting? A blatant assumption that the concept of “good” stems from God. How does that make any sense? Atheist propaganda is all well and hyperbole, but rendering their stance on human morality being separate from religion as flawed because God is the root of such is circular reasoning. Assuming that actions that express morally “good” aspects are only so because of God’s approval and defining of such action is nonsensical.

    Plato refuted a similar claim more than two thousand years ago by arguing that if the gods approve of some actions it must be because those actions are good, in which case it cannot be the gods’ approval that makes them good. The alternative view makes divine approval entirely arbitrary: if the gods had happened to approve of torture and disapprove of helping our neighbors, torture would have been good and helping our neighbors bad. Some modern theists have attempted to extricate themselves from this type of dilemma by maintaining that God is good and so could not possibly approve of torture; but these theists are caught in a trap of their own making, for what can they possibly mean by the assertion that God is good? That God is approved of by God?

    Like

    1. Hi — my statement wasn’t self-refuting. If there is no god then the universe came into being from nothing, life came from non-life and evolved into butterfly/caterpillars, elephants, whales, Angelina Jolie, etc. There would be no point where these random chemical reactions would produce something immaterial called “good” that everyone would be accountable to. “Good” would always be defined by each person, which would mean there is no universal good.

      Like

    2. ” if the gods had happened to approve of torture and disapprove of helping our neighbors, torture would have been good and helping our neighbors bad”

      BUT God DIDN’T approve of torture nor would He because it goes against His divine nature. Christians don’t argue that if the gods approve of some actions it must be because those actions are good. Christians claim God Himself is good and it’s His very nature to be perfect. So,yes Christians “ground” their morals in the perfect un-changing character of the God of the bible. Atheists ground their morals in nothing. Atheists can be good people and moral people but their morality is subjective. I know some atheists adhere to a “objective” moral standard but the bulk of atheists I’ve met have a subjective moral standard.

      Like

  5. tnmusicman
    “Yes,spending $15,000 on a billboard that is insulting a crapload of people ”
    What does a completley useless church (Offensive to many, through I understand you may not be able to empathize) cost?

    Cylar
    “Ah, the ever-present “persecution complex” that atheists always claim to be living in mortal fear of.As opposed to the, you know, real mortal threats being leveled at Christians in countries dominated by atheists.”

    Citation? Imagination & internet fairytales do not count. I want a statistically athiest dominated government that persecutes christians moreso than christians in the U.S. demonstrably persecute athiests. (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/10/us-religion-atheists-idUSBRE8B900520121210)

    eMatters

    “Hi — my statement wasn’t self-refuting. If there is no god then the universe came into being from nothing, life came from non-life and evolved into butterfly/caterpillars, elephants, whales, Angelina Jolie, etc. There would be no point where these random chemical reactions would produce something immaterial called “good” that everyone would be accountable to. “Good” would always be defined by each person, which would mean there is no universal good.”

    Interesting philisophical argument. I want you to do two things; Have a nice cold drink, then kick your bare toe hard against a brick wall. Would you say that, for you, one of those was good and one was bad? What about the person watching? They might enjoy your pain… Though that’s psychologically unhealthy, IMO, and therefore more “bad” than “good”…. But…..

    You see my point.

    You are arguing that there is such a thing as an objective “good” and an objective “bad”, rather than subjective and collective opinions. I challenge you to prove that objective morals exist. That’s the basis of your argument, and without it the rest is fluff.

    Like

    1. What about the person watching? They might enjoy your pain… Though that’s psychologically unhealthy, IMO, and therefore more “bad” than “good”…. But…..

      You are confused about objective morality. It doesn’t require 100% agreement. Of course those violating it have rationalized that they are doing “good.”

      If you re-read your comment carefully you’ll see how self-refuting it is. You obviously think it is objectively true that persecuting atheists is bad. I actually agree. But you have no grounding for that. In a nothingness to molecules to man universe there is nothing wrong with killing atheists for sport. Hey, we must have “evolved” to do this so it must be good for evolution blah blah blah.

      Re. atheist regimes — USSR, China, Nazi Germany (if you try to tell me they were Christians I will just laugh and delete your comment. Do your research first.). They have killed tens of millions.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s