Darwin Billboard Stolen?

According to the FFRF the "praise Darwin" billboard recently put up in Ohio has been stolen. Here is the press release:


Feb. 17, 2009

A billboard placed in suburban Columbus, Ohio, by the Freedom From Religion Foundation commemorating the Feb. 12 bicentennial of Charles Darwin's birth was stolen only two days after it went up, sometime after nightfall on Thursday, Feb. 12.

A local resident of Whitehall noticed the billboard was missing on Friday, and reported its absence to the Foundation over the weekend.

The Foundation had placed the "Praise Darwin: Evolve Beyond Belief" billboard on East Main and Fountain Lane, Columbus, on Feb. 11, in response to the refusal of the White Hall City Council to adopt a Darwin Day proclamation proposed by city council representative Jacqueline Thompson.

The billboard site is technically in Columbus, so the theft was reported to Columbus police yesterday. The theft is a misdemeanor. Police will be checking videos by local businesses.

The Foundation has been tangling with Whitehall Mayor John Wolfe over the city's unlawful Christian display every December. The mayor had dismissed state/church critics as "atheists, antagonists and a minority," and in public comments had proclaimed that the United States is a "Christian nation."

"It appears the mayor's attitude has encouraged a license against free speech and free thought," said Foundation co-president Annie Laurie Gaylor. "It took a lot of gall--and a very long ladder--in order for a lawbreaker to climb up and rip off our fully-illuminated banner," she noted.

"Our pro-Darwin billboard will be back in Whitehall sometime next week," said Dan Barker, Foundation co-president.

What's "amazing," Gaylor added, is that the same billboard message has been up unmolested for several weeks in Dayton, Tenn., and Dover, Penn., where emotions still run high over their respective classroom battles over teaching evolution.

"Yet when locals in Dayton wanted to respond, they rented a billboard for their creationist views. They didn't suppress our speech or vandalize our property. That's much classier than what happened in Whitehall," said Gaylor. "And," she quipped, "a 'war of the billboards' is good stimulus for the economy!"

The Foundation, the nation's largest association of freethinkers (atheists and agnostics), has 13,600 members nationwide, and 300 members in Ohio.

This year not only marks the bicentennial of Charles Darwin's birth, but also the 150th anniversary of the release of Origin of Species, Darwin's seminal work on evolution.

A challenge to believers; How seriously do you take your claims?

I've always wondered why so few believers seem to take their beliefs seriously. I've met many Christians who say they "believe the bible 100%." However, none of them even attempt to follow the advice of Jesus. They don't sell all their belongings, for one thing.

When I ask them, they all say they agree with Jesus. They all agree that Jesus' statement that it's more difficult for a rich man to get to heaven than for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle is accurate... but they all seek money. They have jobs. They try to get promotions. They buy big screen televisions and Nintendo Wiis and every material thing I can imagine.

They don't seem to take Jesus' claim that faith can move mountains seriously either. When they need to move a mountain they hire mountain movers... metaphorically speaking of course.

What about Jesus' claim that when any two Christians get together and ask for something they get it? "Ask and ye shall recieve?"

As a member of the ACA recently pointed out there must be a lot of selfish Christians out there. Any two of them could end hunger, end the exploitation of children, end war. Of course we all know this isn't true. The bible is just wrong on this. The strange part is that Christians don't take that seriously though. Why don't they care that the bible is wrong? Why doesn't it bother them?

Those are a few of the really straight-forward claims. I'm also wondering about the implications of their beliefs.

Occasionally a crazy person will kill his or her children and say "I sent them to heaven." Nobody takes them seriously... but why not?

Theists... do you not believe these children are in heaven? If so, what did these people do wrong?

I understand you might say "suicide is a sin" but I'm not talking about suicide. I'm talking about kids who were killed. There was no choice. Didn't the parent accomplish their goal? Sure, the parent might go to hell in your view... unless they ask for forgiveness according to some of you... or whatever criteria your church has for getting in.

But the point stands. The kids got to heaven.

And you believe if someone kills you that you will go to heaven too, right?

So why shouldn't I kill you? Wouldn't I be doing you a favor?

You might say "but I'll miss my family."

No problem, I'll kill them too.

And since you will not need your stuff any more, can I have it?

Jesus is Not Great

Okay, I've got an idea for a web site.

Here is my plan.

1. Catalog everything Jesus said and did according to the bible. At least everything that can be considered a moral choice, moral advice, or something with moral implications.

2. Divide it all into four maral categories. Positive, negative, neutral, difficult to say.

3. Get others to rate these items in these categories without knowing who we are talking about.

Theology can justify anything. So I'm not really attempting to show Christians that Jesus isn't good, I'd like to show atheists that Jesus isn't good. So many have the misconception that Jesus is awesome... and when pressed it turns out very very few of them have even read anything about Jesus. They take a second-hand assumption and assume he is fantastic, because that meme is so prevalent in our culture.

Okay, so step 1. I need to do some research.

Skeptics in the Media

Many people I speak to, and apparantly those who write Hollywood scripts, suppose that skeptics are people who, when they encounter something amazing would say "this is not possible." Nothing could be further from the truth. Skeptics are people who when they encounter something amazing would say "how is this possible?" and then seek, with all honesty, the answer.

Atheist Apathy vs. "In God We Trust" on American Currency

I think "In God We Trust" shouldn't be on our money.

I have a hard time understanding why some atheists don't agree or don't care. I realize that this is an issue of secularism, but what I have to say specifically addresses atheist apathy on this issue. Theist apathy on this issue is another matter.

Those that don't agree argue that it doesn't matter what is on our money, as long as we can spend it. They say "it doesn't offend me, why should it offend you?"

It's not that this statement effects me personally. It doesn't offend me. I just don't feel offence is the issue. Every civil rights movement has it's symbolic moments. That is why this is important. We need to challenge this because we need to stand up for ourselves. That is what Mike Newdow and the FFRF is doing. They aren't complaining because they are offended. They are standing up for the rights they deserve.

Those that don't care say "there are more important issues to worry about." Of course there are. I'm not saying we shouldn't address those too. As I said though, any civil rights struggle has it's symbolic moments. What we face is not a spattering of disparate issues, it's a wall. It's built of ignorance and fear. We need to chip away at that wall in every way that we can. We aren't going to succeed by letting our strongest representatives chip away at one or two bricks each. We all need to find our own way to chip away at our own bricks. That is how we bring the wall down. We all chip away, and cracks form. Cracks turn into bigger cracks, and so on. I don't want to stretch this metaphor too thin, I think you get the idea.

It's not always about what gets accomplished though. It's about standing up for ourselves. It's about not allowing the majority to have it's way with us.

When an atheist says "it's not important" I hear "it's not important for me to have all of the rights I deserve." It's one thing to have your rights taken from you. It's another to give them away. You have the right to a secular government. I don't want to give that right up without a fight because I don't want to give up any right without a fight. I'm not willing to let a single one go.

Why are atheists hostile?

I saw this comment on reddit:

"I like to think of myself as a rational person. I'm an engineer by trade, and a practicing Christian. I undstand that's not a popular viewpoint around here, and I can even understand why. I choose to take some things on faith - I don't have emprical data to support it. Furthermore, I can undestand that there are some Christians out there who may be a little (or a lot) off the rocker (Westboro Baptist Church).

If any of you has any questions on Christianity, I'm happy to answer them. I love sharing my beliefs with people, but I understand that not everyone is going to agree with me. I believe that you are wrong, and I would like to share why with you, but if you don't want to hear it, that's OK, I'm not going to try to cram something down your throat, even if it's right. I'm not going to try to tell you being a Christian is mandatory for you to be a good person. Finally, I'm not going to hold you to the Christian moral code.

Now that you know a little about me, I have a very simple question: I disagree with you, but I can tolerate your beliefs and we can get along just fine - even have debates on several points. Why do so many atheists feel the need to be combative with Christians?"

And I responded with the following. I was pretty happy with it, so I've decided to post it here.

""Why do so many atheists feel the need to be combative with Christians?"

For one thing, the fact that you see it this way is a problem. I'm not trying to engage Christians in combat. I'm trying to engage the idea of Christianity in combat.

Why?

Because that is how we decide which ideas are best. We allow our ideas to compete in intellectual combat, and the ideas that don't survive get abandoned, and the ones that do thrive.

I get the feeling that some of what you see as us being combative is actually us doing what we do to ALL ideas.

There is a great story Dawkins likes to tell about a scientist who spent 12 years on his research. Well a younger scientist eventually gave a presentation on why the other scientist was wrong. What was the response from the older scientist? He said "Thank you, for these many years I have been wrong." And the audience applauded.

We see being willing to put your ideas up to scrutiny as a virtue. We see those that question those ideas as virtuous as well.

But I say some of what you see is that for a reason. Some of it isn't. Sometimes we really are fighting you. And there are two primary reasons for this:

1. We will fight when religion seeks to impose itself on us.

2. We will fight when religion causes harm.

And the sad truth is, both are going on almost constantly.

For example, when a Christian group fights for the right to display a nativity scene on public land... then we respond by using the rules that they fought for to put up our own sign... yes, we are fighting. Because your group is spending public money on your religion. You might as well just put a gun to our heads and take the money directly from our wallets.

The second item I think is going to be a source of conflict because it's obvious to me but not obvious to you. Dismissing things like religious wars for now, there is a lot of subtle harm caused by religion. Sexual guilt for example. Telling children that sex is wrong, that they should be ashamed of their bodies. Telling people masturbation is wrong. Or the psychological harm that comes from telling someone they are a "wretch" who deserves hellfire unless they bow down. Or the harm that comes when you pretend that the bible is a "good book" which breeds folk like Fred Phelps who tell the parents of dead soldiers they are burning in hell. I know, you aren't Fred Phelps... but every time you call that book a "good book" you spread the meme that encourages that sort of thinking. Then there is the harm that comes from magical thinking. People waste time and money on faith healers and potions and prayer cards and so on. And those scams are all tolerated because they are labeled "religion." But you also have things like Lordes, the Catholic tourist trap that convinces victims of serious diseases to fly around the world to take a communal bath with 80 million other people with serious diseases and actually lower their survival rates significantly. I could go on and on and on. The philosophy of Jesus is destructive. The theology of Christianity is destructive. These things cost people time and money. They cause strife and suffering. They seek to prevent people who happen to be gay from enjoying whatever sort of marriage they want to have. They hold back scientific progress in favor of mystical nonsense.

I suspect we just aren't going to agree on that one. But if you see us fighting those types of harm, and you ask "What are you fighting for?" The answer is you. We are fighting for you because we detest what your faith has done to you. We have seen our friends and family fall victim to these same ideas, and so yeah, we fight it."

Perhaps I'll clean it up and make it into an essay or something later.

Open-minded.

I was recently talking to a girl, a potential date, and she mentioned she believes in "spirits."

I like to be up-front about these things so I told her I am skeptical about "spirits."

She asked me if I was open-minded on the issue, and I said yes. We continued to talk about it, and eventually she accused me of being closed-minded. This confused me. I said "I'm not... I'm willing to have my mind changed. I'm willing to listen to your evidence... but just because I don't accept it doesn't mean I'm closed-minded."

That ended that conversation.

Today I was talking to another girl, another potential date. This time the topic was adoption. We were talking about kids. I said "I've always wanted to adopt." She said she wanted to give birth. She said she thought adoption was noble, or something like that, but that she didn't want to do it. I said it's what I wanted to do.

Fine, right? Plenty of fish in the sea, no worries, I'm more than willing to move on.

But then she says "I'm willing to be open-minded about adopting, why aren't you open-minded about natural birth?"

I was surprised. Again I said "I am open-minded... I'm willing to listen to anything you have to say on the matter, but none of it has changed my mind so far. That doesn't mean I'm closed-minded, just that you have not convinced me."

She called me an asshole and that was that.

I hear the same thing from theists all the time. They are convinced that god is real... yet they accuse me of being closed-minded. Even though I'm willing to listen to their arguments.

What is the disconnect here? Why is my definition of open-mindedness so different from other people's? Anyone have any idea?