It looks like you're using Internet Explorer. Might we
recommend another browser, such as Firefox or Safari?

Open Letter to Fox News

July 30th, 2009


Dear Fox News,

This morning I appeared as a guest on your morning show, Fox & Friends, to discuss the Indiana Atheist Bus Campaign. The other guest on the segment, Pastor Tony Taylor, mistakenly (or perhaps intentionally) claimed that the Bill of Rights of the US Constitution contained the oft-quoted clause, ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…’

He then went on to argue that the Indiana Atheist Bus Campaign was making a ‘mockery’ of the right to free speech granted to us by God. Apart from the inherent irony in this argument, I take issue with Pastor Taylor’s argument in two ways:

Pastor Taylor first neglected to specify what those unalienable rights we were granted actually were: they are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness; freedom of speech/expression is not specifically mentioned. Therefore it is impossible that the Indiana Atheist Bus Campaign could be making a ‘mockery’ of such a right that is not even in the clause to which Mr Taylor referred.

Secondly (and more importantly), Pastor Taylor was incorrect in stating that this clause was in the Bill of Rights. It is not. It is in the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence, which–unlike the Constitution–has no legal standing whatsoever.

The Constitution, and therefore the Bill of Rights, does have legal standing, but God is not mentioned in it. Therefore, the entire premise of Mr Taylor’s argument is false. Given that our campaign surely has many detractors as it does supporters, I was disappointed that Fox News was unable to find a guest who was capable of delivering any kind of remotely sensible argument against our campaign, but then again, I suppose I could have been expecting too much anyhow.

All the same, thank you for having me on your show.


Entry Filed under: Uncategorized

46 Comments Add your own

  • 1. Joe  |  July 30th, 2009 at 7:05 pm

    Excellent! Wish I’d had seen the interview on FOX.

    Good job, Eoban!

  • 2. admin  |  July 30th, 2009 at 7:11 pm

    Hi Joe; if you go to the front page of the site, there is a YouTube video if you scroll down.

  • 3. Rob  |  July 30th, 2009 at 7:19 pm

    Priceless. Fox News and religious figures – what a pair!!

  • 4. Rusko  |  July 30th, 2009 at 7:35 pm

    Well that’s FOX for ya.

    Congratulations on your small victory. It reminds me of the Rosa Parks story. Hah!

    We will be facing the same criticisms in Tulsa soon when we put up the first atheist billboard.

    Wish us as much fortune as you have had.

    Again congratulations.

  • 5. Max F. Exter  |  July 31st, 2009 at 10:10 am

    Wait, wait. Eoban? As in, formerly from (now defunct) RITS Eoban?

  • 6. john doe  |  August 1st, 2009 at 12:56 pm

    The pastor suggested that the bus ads are part of a ‘left wing conspiracy’ to ‘keep religion out of politics and public life.’ Keeping religion out of politics is exactly what the Constitution, which he confused with the Declaration of Independence, is all about.

  • 7. john doe  |  August 3rd, 2009 at 2:04 pm

    The Reverend Taylor mentioned a ‘left wing conspiracy’ to keep God out of politics. If such a ‘conspiracy’ exists, then we must surely add the names of James Madison and Thomas Jefferson to the list of conspirators.

    Madison spent years studying other governments to determine which features were essential for success. He concluded that the separation of church and state was an essential requirement of democratic government. Consequently, we have such separation in our US Constitution (which Taylor unfortunately confused with the Declaration of Independence). The word “God” does not appear anywhere in our legally-binding Constitution, and while “God” is mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, this is not a legal document. Jefferson said the following: “Question with boldness even the existence of God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear.”

    I was surprised that the Reverend Taylor was ‘offended’ at what he called an ‘inflammatory’ assault on religion by the simple statement, “You can be good without God.”

    I do not wish to categorize Taylor’s personal beliefs, but it seems slightly ‘inflammatory’ to me that many religious people believe that atheists will burn in hell. That seems slightly offensive. I never met an atheist who believed any such thing about a fellow human being.

    Thank God the atheist bus campaign has won a major battle for our right to free speech in Indiana!

  • 8. Joseph  |  August 4th, 2009 at 11:22 pm

    What gets me is this idea that your not allowed to say the word “god” if you don’t believe in a god. I presume the moderator doesn’t believe in allah, but they surely find good reason to use the word. Theists don’t have a monopoly on vocabulary.

  • 9. Aaron  |  August 6th, 2009 at 4:54 pm

    Congrats on looking like a total tool on Fox News this morning :)

    Keep on claiming to hate Him whilst being unable to stop talking about Him :) heh

  • 10. Martin  |  August 7th, 2009 at 2:23 pm

    First of all, what does a club of atheist hope to accomplish through the “vital conversations” that the ad provokes? Are the conversations supposed to be about religion in general or specifically Christianity? After all, you do use “God” in the ad, rather than “religion,” “a god,” “Allah,” “Buddha,” etc. Do you hope to convert Christians? Are you trying to attack in a peaceful, rhetorical way what you think is foundational to Christianity? Also, if you support the separation of Church and State, then why are you fighting to put an ad that mentions God on a public bus?

    I read a comment of a person who didn’t understand why the ad was so controversial: he thought the statement “You can be good without God” was obviously true and that this truth should be disseminated in the public sector. Is it true? What exactly does it mean? I see basically two ways of interpreting the somewhat ambiguous ad. On the one hand, it suggests that there are good people who believe in God and “good people” who don’t. In this case, most Christians, I think, would agree with the statement. On the other hand, it suggests that humans can be good even though God doesn’t exist. From this perspective, the ad is an exhortation to humanity to be “good” while simultaneously denying God’s existence. If this interpretation is correct, then I presume that many Christians would agree that humans should be “good” in spite of their religious beliefs; however, they would disagree with anyone who would deny God’s existence.

    Since the ad would be boring and uncontroversial according to the first interpretation, and since an atheist organization leads the campaign, I assume that the second interpretation is the intended message. In other words, your campaign is primarily trying to instigate discussions concerning God’s (in)existence. Why? Do you think that you are capable of proving God’s inexistence better than Christians are able prove His existence? It seems to me that no matter which side of the issue you support you have to have faith in what you believe. Then, why do atheist insist on trying to enlighten the religious (excuse me, Christians) who supposedly live in the dark? I just don’t understand. In the end, aren’t atheist organizations similar to any other religion with a belief system? In the end, in order to be a part of their congregation you have to share their non-falsifiable belief that no deity exists.

    Personally, I would like to see an equally, “obviously true” ad on a bus that said something like, “You can believe in God without being ignorant.” I mean, really!

  • 11. Blondin  |  August 22nd, 2009 at 6:44 pm

    So, Martin, by your logic we must either have incontrovertible proof of the non-existence of Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, the Loch Ness Monster, Leprechauns and Unicorns or we have to admit that they could exist because it requires a mighty leap of faith to believe that they don’t?

    Faith has nothing to do with it. We all make assumptions based on the evidence we are presented with. Some people are better at recognizing what constitutes evidence than others. The most important thing is to be prepared to adjust your assumptions in light of new evidence. That is what makes atheism NOT a religion. Atheists believe that nothing is unquestionable and all answers are subject to change.

  • 12. Martin  |  August 25th, 2009 at 9:04 am

    Good point(s), Blondin. However, I think that you are oversimplifying the antinomy when you compare the (non)existence of a supreme being, like God, to the (non)existence of figures like Santa Clause. After all, it is much easier to prove the non-existence of Santa Clause, etc. than the (non)existence of a supreme being. A better analogy would be to compare the issue to the Raven (or Hempel’s) paradox: the atheist and the “religious” alike, through inductive reasoning, try to prove the (non)existence of a white raven—a supreme being.

    Also, your distinction between faith and assumptions is not very clear, so I am not sure whether or not we disagree. I think that I agree with you that we all—both the atheist and the “religious”—use evidence to make “assumptions.” In other words, we all have beliefs/views based on our interpretations of the evidence. Whether one is an atheist or “religious,” he or she must believe—have faith—that his or her interpretation/assumption of the evidence is correct.

    Finally, it seems to me that you think that the difference between the atheist and the “religious” rests in the claim that atheists “believe that nothing is unquestionable and all answers are subject to change.” Since the whole point of this discussion concerns the (non)existence of a supreme being, I will respond to your claim via the following three interrelated questions:

    1) Does the atheist “question” his or her “assumption” concerning the non-existence of a supreme being?
    2) Is the atheist’s “answer” to the question regarding the (non)existence of a supreme being “subject to change”?
    3) Is the atheist “prepared” to “assume” that a supreme being exists “in light of new evidence”?

    If the answers to these three questions are affirmative, then I concede. If not, then I stand by my previous claim that atheism is just another religion.

  • 13. scott  |  August 26th, 2009 at 1:13 am

    guys don’t make this an argument about the existence of “a supreme being”

    Make this an argument about whether morality (being good) is an attribute of religion.

    It is not.

    The ten commandments are not moral or very well written.

    Graven Images? We will survive.

    Christ’s teachings are cherry picked by our moral standards, the best are promoted, the worst, ignored.

    The idea of christ’s sacrifice itself is a perversion of justice. The idea that the innocent can take the place of the guilty, undermines moral justice. It reduces it to a pecuniary transaction, in which right and wrong are fungible, like money.

    Read Paine on this point.

    If you are going to have this conversation in Jesusville USA, which is soaked in a kind of impervious form of circular logic, at least take the fight to them where you can win it. You can not win an argument with these people over whether or not something exists. Especially something that is “bigger than can be imagined”.

    Take the fight to the weakness and moral laziness of religion itself. Tell people that we need to learn that our moral intuitions are more important that iron age teachings.

    Do not lie down in the chalk outline of your silhouette that your opponents have prepared for you. Please. Get your arguments ready, use them offensively, do not sit there are dick with them over IF there is a God, argue that the religion itself is lacking those things which mean moral.

    Argue that for something to be a moral idea it has to include WHY it is a moral thing.

    Is it really wrong to “covet” something, to think of something, is that immoral?

    Religion isn’t about “if God exists” they are arguing that they know what God is, what he has done and who he is. Make them do the work, not you.

    Buck up.

  • 14. Martin  |  August 27th, 2009 at 8:55 am

    Why don’t you show us how to “argue that for something to be a moral idea it has to include WHY it is a moral thing”, Scott? In your response, please include some concrete examples of “moral things” and clear explanations why they are right/wrong for mankind. Thanks!

  • 15. Kenny  |  August 30th, 2009 at 4:15 pm

    Martin – You are clearly ignorant on the definition of atheist. It is a very, very simple definition – you should look it up. It is no more a religion than non-stamp collecting is a hobby.

    Also, perhaps you can name one single “moral thing” that a Christian can do, that cannot be done by an atheist?

  • 16. casey  |  August 30th, 2009 at 5:56 pm

    Martin, you say it’s easier to prove the non-existence of Santa Claus than it is to prove the non-existence of a “supreme being.” On what basis do you make this remark? How do you define “supreme being,” and how would you go about proving the non-existence of Santa Claus? Thanks!

  • 17. mark  |  August 30th, 2009 at 6:02 pm

    I think it’s deceptive for people to refer to Fox News as a News station. It is not. It’s the propaganda arm of the Republican party.

    Secondly, I think it telling that the Declaration quote above says that people are endowed by :their” creator. It does not say endowed by “the” creator.

    Thus, it is leaving to the reader who it is that is doing the endowing. Religionists like to propagate the notion that our founding documents were based upon the Christian God. But here, in the only document that even mentions a deity, it’s leaving who your creator might be to you.

    Just always thought this was interesting.

  • 18. virgil  |  August 30th, 2009 at 9:54 pm

    the message is to support closet athiests, it helps them feel better about how they feel when all the time bible thumpers are treating you like crap when they find out you don’t believe in their god and say things like “without god humans are blood thirsty criminals” (makes me wonder what insane impulses they are holding back), I know it makes me feel better to know that I am not alone in the idea of how foolish religion is, not to say I think everyone should dump their views, I think a lot of people need hope and guidence through something and now more then ever when we are getting more secluded from the world it is nice to have somewhere that people can go to have community without resorting to bars and online dating but for the ones that are fine in their world and can cope with life as it is we like to know that we don’t have to hide our beliefs to maintain jobs and just have a peaceful life without being marked for prejudice by some group that doesn’t even want to give us rights as humans just cause we don’t join in their way of life

  • 19. Anri  |  August 30th, 2009 at 11:41 pm

    Martin sez:

    “1) Does the atheist “question” his or her “assumption” concerning the non-existence of a supreme being?”

    Yes. I constantly look for evidence that the world was created by someone written about primarily by bronze-age middle-eastern goat herders.
    No dice so far.

    “2) Is the atheist’s “answer” to the question regarding the (non)existence of a supreme being “subject to change”?”

    Yes. Bring all of your testable, repeatable, verifiable evidence for the existence of any particular deity, and let us have a go at checking it.
    If it passes, than we might just have found your god.

    “3) Is the atheist “prepared” to “assume” that a supreme being exists “in light of new evidence”? ”

    Yes, see above.

    I am, of course, speaking only for myself here.
    My atheism is not a dogmatic position, but a conclusion I have reached, and it is subject to revision at any time.

  • 20. Martin  |  September 1st, 2009 at 9:24 am


    I don’t know who is more ignorant on the definition of atheism, you or me. I took your advice and looked it up in several dictionaries. The most common definition is “a disbelief in the existence of a deity; the doctrine that there is no deity” (Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary). (According to the definition, it seems like a religion to me.) Is this definition the one you had in mind? If so, then are you trying to refute my claim that atheism is just another religion by using the following analogy: disbelief is to belief as non-stamp collecting is to hobby? If so, can you explain how your analogy disproves my claim? That is, explain the difference between the following two statements: ‘atheism is a disbelief in the existence of a deity’ and ‘atheism is the belief in the non-existence of a deity’.

    Now, I will respond to your challenge/question: “perhaps you can name one single “moral thing” that a Christian can do, that cannot be done by an atheist?” I never said that Christians could do “moral things” that atheists couldn’t do. In fact, I intimated in an earlier comment that there were “good people” who were Christians and “good people” who were atheists. That said, I’m not sure I understand your point.

  • 21. Martin  |  September 1st, 2009 at 9:24 am


    I’m using the word “supreme being” as a generic term to refer to an omnipotent/omniscient being that exists in an ultimate/transcendental reality. It is basically synonymous with “god.”

    Regarding the non-existence of Santa Claus, my point was that if you could “prove” the non-existence of something, then it would be much easier to “prove” the non-existence of Santa than the non-existence of a “supreme being.” (The comment was in response to Blondin’s oversimplification of the issue.) To “prove” Santa’s non-existence, one simply needs to disclose the reality behind the appearance—the non-Santas posing as Santas. One “proves” Santa’s non-existence when he or she shows that all the apparent Santas are in reality non-Santas.

    It’s easier to “prove” Santa’s non-existence, because we have access to the two “realities”—apparent and “true.” Unfortunately, we don’t have the same access to an ultimate/transcendental reality in which an omnipotent/omniscient being exists. (I guess if one died and came back to life, then we could know more about the (non)existence of a supreme being. However, the issue would be about whether or not one could trust the testimony of the revived person rather than the (non)existence of a supreme being.)

  • 22. Martin  |  September 1st, 2009 at 9:25 am


    If you are sincere, great! If not, then you undermine yourself.

  • 23. Oz  |  September 5th, 2009 at 6:29 am

    Hey Martin, you’re an eloquent guy. Please explain why you chose Christianity over the other many religions (include Atheism in this if you wish) you could’ve opted for. Why did you reject the others?



  • 24. Don Baker  |  September 5th, 2009 at 10:32 am

    One day Evey knee shall bow and every tongue shall confess.that Jesus Christ is Lord..

    one other thing -God so loved us that he sent His only Son to die so we may live

    I’m always amazed at the supernatural hate that will bring out in most people in this type of biog

  • 25. Johan  |  September 15th, 2009 at 3:47 pm

    Hi to all

    Please allow me a moment to share something with you on this from the point of a follower of Jesus.

    The add on the bus has no meaning for me and also poses no threat to what I believe. God is a general term for anything that someone sees as worthy of worship… am not called to defend the name of god but the name of Jesus.

    Please indulge me for a moment but there is however something that really makes it hard for me to understand what you guys(atheists) are actually saying here… If it is indeed so that you believe in nothing then why are you spending so much time and money defending something that don’t exist for you.?? You are of no threat to any other religion nor is any religion a threat to you. So what is the point of this whole bus banner thing then. please forgive me but i don’t get it…

    PS. If I don’t believe in anything… does it make it go away or disappear?

  • 26. Joe Grenon  |  September 18th, 2009 at 12:52 pm

    My creators were mom and dad.

  • 27. James  |  September 18th, 2009 at 1:40 pm

    Faith is the surrender of the mind.

  • 28. Linus bern  |  September 18th, 2009 at 3:14 pm

    Johan, while I am not involved with these ad campaigns, I may be able to suggest some reasons why they are being done.

    Religion is very strong in the US, so much so that it is frequently stated that no politician could ever be public about their lack of religion and hope to win an election. So part of this is to simply raise the profile of atheists in America. It is also probably intended to reach people who don’t believe, but come from such religious communities that atheists have always been presented as deviant, amoral, psychopaths. It is to say to such people that you are not alone.


    I’m afraid your disproving Santa/God distinction is wrong.

    You say, “To “prove” Santa’s non-existence, one simply needs to disclose the reality behind the appearance—the non-Santas posing as Santas. One “proves” Santa’s non-existence when he or she shows that all the apparent Santas are in reality non-Santas.”

    But you could try to find and unmask every Santa in the world and still not be certain that you haven’t missed the real one somewhere. Just as you could unmask every priest or imam as a charlatan spouting nonsense and still not be certain there isn’t a true emissary of god out there somewhere.

    It might seem to be easier to disprove Santa than god, but at the end of the day you still have zero proof of either.

    As for your claim that Atheism is a religion. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the way atheists think. You say, “Atheists believe there is no god.” in reality, atheists THINK there is no god. The difference is one of faith. I think there is no god because there is no evidence that there is. You believe there is a god despite the fact that there is no evidence that there is.

    As for your three questions earlier, if there were definitive proof that god existed, yes I would change my opinion. Now you ask yourself, if there were definitive proof of no god, would you still believe in him?

  • 29. Mackenzie  |  September 18th, 2009 at 4:34 pm

    I think that for a lot of atheists, they feel brow-beaten by religious people. Being an atheist is not considered the “norm” in society and they are often verbally assaulted for expressing their views.

    There are many religious people who are able to keep their views to themselves. There are also many religious people who have been so affected by the presence of God in their lives that they feel the need to share their ideals and their religion with everyone. Is it not possible for an atheist to be so affected by their realization that in their mind there is no God, that they want to share their experience as well?

    There is a huge double-standard in the US when it comes to religion. If you’re religious, you can spout on all day about your beliefs no matter how much it may offend non-believers. Where as when an atheist expresses their beliefs (or lack thereof, depending on how you view atheism) they are often attacked by religious people because they find the atheists’ view to be “offensive” and not in line with their own.

    Regardless of the hype, the US is a country based on the principles of separation of church and state, freedom of speech and religion (among other principles). These principles seem so often forgotten and misconstrued. If the atheist group wishes to express their beliefs on the side of a bus, they are entitled to it, just as a religious group would be entitled to put signs that express their beliefs in the same way. (For instance, in my area, the buses are running signs about Islam, and providing a website for more information. I feel that the goal is to educate and inform people, not necessarily to convert or offend.) It’s not about whether or not it offends your personal belief system, it comes down to the fact that they have done nothing illegal, and thus they have every right to display their ads as they have.

  • 30. James  |  September 18th, 2009 at 6:38 pm

    The ad is not an attack on any belief system, I (athiest) for one do not care what others choose to believe, I was brought up to believe in a supreme being, but later chose when i was around 10, that where was no evidence to back up my belief and the belief of my parents (who are both now athiests), as with the comments above, it is right that people who choose not to believe in a god (one of the many thousands) are slandered and looked down apon by many of those who do, just last week while walking through the middle of Manchester I was called at by a preacher, he was spouting his useal stuff didnt hear him mention god that much just that guy called jesus, apprently cos I dont believe in what he does im going to burn in hell, even tho I help people and do my best in life to make sure others are happy (mostly in the situations where I reap no benifit) I found that very offending, the ads make me happy that there are others out there with the same reasoning, Logical thought processes as me I dont feel like I have to keep quiet anymore.

    Martin question to you,
    What made you decide to become a christian? Im guessing you are if not I apoligize. where you brainwashed as a child and made to believe in a supreme being in fear that you will burn in hell for eternity (I must admit I was scared shitless aswel). Or did a miricle happen in your life that made you rethink your belief and become a theist?. Why not any other religion? even tho they are all exactly the same, some religions even share remarkble likeneses. Why not believe in the greek gods? I think they were the best of the lot cosm on a God who throws lightning down to the ground badass!.
    PS. Lord of the rings is a much better fantasy book try reading that, but dont take every word as fact middle earth does not infact exist….OR DOES IT!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Peace out spread the love

  • 31. Phil E. Drifter  |  September 18th, 2009 at 9:50 pm

    Religitards often misquote. Sarah Palin claimed that Abraham Lincoln said to pray to god to help us in the Iraq war.

    What Lincoln said was “do not pray to god in times of war, surely the enemy would be doing the same.”

  • 32. Phil E. Drifter  |  September 18th, 2009 at 9:58 pm

    Aaron: it’s a pity you can’t accept the fact that *all* gods are man-made and you just can’t grasp the fact that we’re not any different from any of the other species of animals, bugs, plants, viruses, or bacteria on the planet; we, just like they, evolved over millions of years. We are apparently alone, at least in this vicinity of the universe.

    Quit your egotistical imagined self-importance. Everyone dies. You become worm food. Instead of grasping desperately for something that is imaginary, why don’t you work on contributing something to be remembered by?

  • 33. Phil E. Drifter  |  September 18th, 2009 at 10:10 pm

    Blondin: “So, Martin, by your logic we must either have incontrovertible proof of the non-existence of Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, the Loch Ness Monster, Leprechauns and Unicorns or we have to admit that they could exist…”

    Martin: You CAN’T prove something DOESN’T exist. it doesn’t exist, there’s nothing to prove, there’s nothing that can be proven.

    You can only prove something DOES exist. And after countless millenia, you have no proof.

    There is no god. Get over it. Think about it for a second. You *can* think, can’t you? Early humans had no science. They didn’t know how to explain things. They didn’t know why lightning occurred. So they said ‘god did it.’ They didn’t know why death happened, so they imagined (especially with their use of drugs like psychedelic mushrooms, peyote, and cannabis) that the dead person was ‘transported’ to another realm of existence. Then they used it to put ‘fear of the unknown’ into others. “If you do that, god will punish you!” “If you don’t do *this*, god will punish you!” And people, being fearful of what they didn’t understand, complied. They didn’t want to be punished ***for all eternity***.

    Oh, the audacity of the human mind.

    Man, who cannot so much as create a worm, creates gods by the dozen.

    Grow up. Please. You’re an insult to the human race if you refuse to use your brain which is the result of millions of years of evolution, from a tiny one celled organism up until right now. Millions if not billions of years of evolution, and you’d rather ‘believe’ than think.

  • 34. Phil E. Drifter  |  September 18th, 2009 at 10:12 pm

    Martin: ps: “I think that you are oversimplifying the antinomy when you compare the (non)existence of a supreme being, like God, to the (non)existence of figures like Santa Clause.”

    This has to be the funniest thing I’ve read today. Comparing imaginary characters to… other imaginary characters!

  • 35. Phil E. Drifter  |  September 18th, 2009 at 10:21 pm

    Oh, I stand corrected, Martin. “After all, it is much easier to prove the non-existence of Santa Clause, etc. than the (non)existence of a supreme being.”

    it’s easier to prove the nonexistance of Santa than it is to prove the nonexistence of god? Really? How so? Fill me in because you lost me. There is no proof of either. They’re both equally imaginary.

    JUST LIKE GOD, the promise to children of presents for being good. “If you are good, you will get presents. If you are bad, you will get coal!” “if you are good, you’ll go to heaven. If you are bad, you’ll go to burn in hell for all eternity! but god loves you!
    and he NEEDS YOUR MONEY!

  • 36. Phil E. Drifter  |  September 18th, 2009 at 10:31 pm

    Don Baker: 600 years before jebus, there was a greek ‘god’ who was also ‘born of a virgin,’ had 12 followers, ‘healed the sick,’ ‘gave sight to the blind,’ and ‘rose from the dead.’

    So maybe you’re worshiping the wrong god, hmm? Before there was monotheism (although christianity isn’t really monotheistic; after all, there’s ‘god the father,’ ‘jesus the son’ (who is one in the same, so i guess he cloned himself and sent his twin to earth) and ‘the holy spirit/holy ghost,’ who…wait for it…IS ALSO THE SAME GOD!

    You people are an embarrassment, both to yourselves and everyone you know. How you can look at yourselves in a mirror I’ll never know.

    I’m out. Thanks for the entertainment. Stupid people are so funny!

  • 37. James  |  September 18th, 2009 at 10:33 pm

    And writing a letter to Fox News is supposed to accomplish what exactly?

  • 38. Phil E. Drifter  |  September 18th, 2009 at 10:36 pm

    Sorry, one quote from Bertrand Russell:

    The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt.

  • 39. Martin  |  September 20th, 2009 at 8:57 pm

    Phil E. Drifter,

    I THINK that your the one who is apparently “cocksure.”

  • 40. Food4Thought  |  September 21st, 2009 at 3:35 am

    If an atheist is willing to examine evidence supporting the existence of God he is treating God’s existence as an open question and he is not an atheist, he is an agnostic.

    There is no absolute evidence supporting either the theist or atheist position regarding the existence of God. This being the case any individual who takes either position is doing so based upon belief and is, therefore, acting religiously.

  • 41. Martin  |  September 21st, 2009 at 6:26 am

    Oops, I made a mistake in the last post. “Your” should be “you’re.”

  • 42. Alexander  |  September 21st, 2009 at 11:22 pm

    Martin, if you’re going to start correcting your mistakes now, you might as well rewrite ALL your posts. Better get started; it’s gonna be a long night.

  • 43. Logical Man  |  September 22nd, 2009 at 12:37 am

    “That is, explain the difference between the following two statements: ‘atheism is a disbelief in the existence of a deity’ and ‘atheism is the belief in the non-existence of a deity’.”

    OK. Disbelief: “noun
    inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real”

    Thus, when someone asserts that God is real, I cannot accept that assertion.

    But to say the other is to say that I could very well have a belief that that everything that does not exists, well, does not exist. This entails an infinite number of belief propositions that we would need to recount. Thus, if we formulate the belief positively, there is no end to the proliferation of beliefs in the non-existence of things. This is exemplified by the lists of all the gods that we believe do not exist, as well as any number of possible additions, ad infinitum. While it is true that I may be incline to disbelieve these infinitely absent things were someone to assert them, while no one asserts them, you cannot say that I either believe nor disbelieve them.

    On the other hand, disbelief in a certain claim in simply that: the inability to accept that it is true. Disbelief arises vis-a-vie a claim, belief in the non-existence of something takes the form of a proposition or assertion, i.e. “I believe that…”.

    Thus, when anyone makes an assertion, it is subject to belief or disbelief. For some, belief is strengthened by reasons and evidence to support that assertion. When the reason or evidence is found lacking, many find it reasonable to disbelieve both the assertion and those making it.

    So when a theist says that he or she has reasons to believe in God, then the, let’s say agnostic for now, should have the chance to examine those reasons. However, if they do not support the conclusion, then one (not unreasonable) response is disbelief.

    Thus, atheism is fundamentally not a belief in the non-existence of something (perhaps a good analogy would be to ask: Is your disbelief in the Norse god Thor really a belief that Thor does not exist, and thus, according to your own logic, an act of faith?). Rather, atheism is simply the inability (in this case, a logical, not a psychological one) to support the assertion “The proposition ‘God exists’ is true”.

  • 44. Logical Man  |  September 22nd, 2009 at 1:08 am

    Addendum: “I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
    – Stephen F Roberts”

    Mr. Roberts here is using atheist in a manner consistent with your definition (a disbelief in the existence of a deity; the doctrine that there is no deity), in particular, the first part of your definition: i.e. a disbelief in the existence of *a* deity. Thus, the Christian/Jew/Muslim/monotheist (to all of whom this quote should apply), by part of your own definition, is atheistic when it comes to Thor, Pan, Jupiter, Native American gods, Shiva or any other one. If an adherent to one of these religions made the claim to you that these gods exist, I am sure that you would deny it. That is, you refuse to accept the existence of these beings. Why? Well now, that is a complicated question.

    But if it has anything to do with *having no reason* to believe in Adonis…Zeus, then you will understand the root of Mr. Roberts claim.

    Again, the atheist makes no positive assertion–he merely rejects the positive assertions of the theists.

  • 45. Linus bern  |  September 23rd, 2009 at 10:24 am

    Food for thought:
    “If an atheist is willing to examine evidence supporting the existence of God he is treating God’s existence as an open question and he is not an atheist, he is an agnostic.”
    I would say I am solidly an Atheist even though I am willing to change my mind if actual evidence of God’s existence should appear. But I don’t look at the world asking, “is God or physics the cause of that?” Since I have seen no evidence of God in 40+ years I don’t feel the need to act as though he might exist. I might be just as likely to wonder if yogurt brought the universe into existence, as there is just as much proof of that as god.

    “There is no absolute evidence supporting either the theist or atheist position regarding the existence of God. This being the case any individual who takes either position is doing so based upon belief and is, therefore, acting religiously.”
    This statement is nonsense and betrays a lack of understanding, both about atheism, and religion. When there is no evidence of something existing, it doesn’t require faith to conclude it doesn’t exist, but it does require faith to believe it does.

  • 46. Vex Actious  |  September 28th, 2009 at 6:17 pm

    I love it. I am an athiest and my hobby is non-stamp-collecting.

Leave a Comment


Required, hidden

Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed

donate - help continue the campaign find us on facebook follow us on twitter discover an atheist group near you



Friends / Partners / Sponsors