I live in orlando. I am embarrassed by the over reaction to this. If peoples religions are so deeply set and unshakable why does a silly billboard bother them. Oh, I know. Because deep down they know “All religions are fairy tales”!

“The billboard rents for $1,400 a month. If an anti-religious group paid to rent it legitimately there is not telling how long it would have been up.”

So- if I accept the blanket statement that all religions are fairytales- then, based on the facts of this story, can I then make the blanket statement that all atheists steal?

The answer, of course, is no. Sweeping statements like that tend to be false. I could not say “all atheists steal” unless I knew each and every atheist, and found out for myself whether each and every one of them was a thief.

Did the creator of this billboard research each and every religion of this world before they made this statement? Did they talk to Tibetan monks? Russian Orthodox laypeople? Voodoo practitioners? Bah’ai teachers?

Or did they just assert this as an article of faith, something they believe… h’mm… if that is the case, then, is the message of this billboard a fairytale as well?

Love

George

Wow George, that made no sense whatsoever.
Congratulations.

Great! Any idea which group did this?
Please come to our forum and discuss. Google CT Valley Atheists.

Dear Greg–

I apologize for not making myself clear.

1. The statement “all religions are fairy tales” is impossible to prove.

2. Since it is impossible to prove, it is an assertion of belief.

3. As an assertion of belief, it represents a larger belief system.

4. Colloquially, larger belief systems are usually called religions.

5. According to the sign, religions are fairy tales.

6. Therefore, the belief asserted by the sign is a fairy tale.

Is that clearer? The sign asserts an absurdity.

Love

George

Dear Ian–

I didn’t say the sign’s assertion was wrong, only that it was unprovable. Also, I accepted the sign’s assertion only to the degree needed to show it to be absurd.

Just to clarify, let me ask you two questions.

First, do you agree with the sentiment expressed on the billboard in question?

And second, if you agree with the billboard, would you please define “religion” and “fairtytale” as you understand it?

Love

George

Hello George,

(Are you the same George who also has been posting over on De-Conversion?)

Religion n. 1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe. 2. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.

Fairy tale n. 1. A fanciful tale of legendary deeds and creatures, usually intended for children. 2. A fictitious, highly fanciful story or explanation.

I agree with the sentiment of the billboard, if not with the circumstances surrounding its posting.

Many years ago I took a good hard objective look at religion. I considered the following:
1. There are over 10,000 religions in the world.
2. Almost all claim to have a lock on the truth. Most preach some sort of penalty in the afterlife for non-believes. Most preach that it is necessary to follow their religion in order to be a “good person”.

I came to the following conclusions:
1. They cannot ALL be right.
2. It is possible that one and only one is right, and all the rest are horribly wrong. (And what are the odds that a particular person is born into a family belonging to the only correct one?)
3. It is possible that one is closest to the truth, some of them come closer to the truth, and all the others are wrong.
4. It is possible that each has some small part of the truth, and none is totally correct
5. It is possible that they ALL are wrong, but that there is a true religion out there waiting to be found.
6. It is possible that they all are wrong, and it is all just stuff that humans made up, to deal with their own mortality, fear of the unknown, and need for social cohesion.

When I look at the true believers of each religion that I have experience with, I find that no group shows a clear superiority over any of the others. They seem equally happy, equally enthusiastic, no group is consistently more virtuous than another, no group has clear evidence that its prayers are effective, no group has more than anecdotal evidence for miracles and supernatural occurrences. All religions have “good people” and “bad people”. If there is a god, and he favors one of these religious groups over the others, I would expect to see some effect from that, but I see none.

I do see that atheists, at least the ones I know, tend to be just as happy and virtuous as any religious believer. (You cannot classify all atheists as a unified “group”. They are all individuals, and think for themselves.) If there were a god, I would think that atheists would lead miserable lives, commit more crimes, catch more diseases, be struck down by lightning more often, etc. I know, read, and interact with lots of atheists, and this is clearly not the case.

Any god that I would consider worshipping would have to do a better job of making his intentions known. Any god that allowed 10,000 equally valid-seeming and contradictory religions to exist without any clear indications of which one is right would be doing a pretty poor job, in my opinion.

I have never seen anything tangible to convince me of the existence of the supernatural. And all of the arguments I have heard trying to prove the existence of a god logically could just as easily apply to the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

So far, all my experience tells me that blind faith is popular because it is easy. It is comforting to think that people die and bad things happen because it is part of some god’s plan. Thinking for yourself, accepting human mortality, and personal responsibility are hard.

I have realized that our universe just makes more sense if you stop assuming that it must have a purpose. Bad things happen because we are an aggressive species competing for limited resources in an often unpredictable world. When we die, we die, and we’re gone. (That’s not actually so scary. Was it scary for you before you were born?) While we are here, we had better take care of each other and this planet, because it’s all we have. I don’t need to be told my purpose in life, I can find my own for myself, thanks.

George, let me address you point-by-point.

“So- if I accept the blanket statement that all religions are fairytales- then, based on the facts of this story, can I then make the blanket statement that all atheists steal?”

See, you took our statement on a belief and compared it to a PROVEN lie about a group of people. Those two cannot be compared.

“The answer, of course, is no. Sweeping statements like that tend to be false.”

They’re false when you can prove them so. I can prove to you that all atheists do NOT steal. Can you prove that all religions are not fairy tales?

“I could not say “all atheists steal” unless I knew each and every atheist, and found out for myself whether each and every one of them was a thief.”

All you have to do is find ONE atheist that does not steal.

“Did the creator of this billboard research each and every religion of this world before they made this statement? Did they talk to Tibetan monks? Russian Orthodox laypeople? Voodoo practitioners? Bah’ai teachers?”

Why would they have to? All they have to know is the beliefs of the religions, which fit the definition of fairy tales.

“Or did they just assert this as an article of faith, something they believe…”

No, they took the definition of fairy tales and found that religions fit under that definition.

“h’mm… if that is the case, then, is the message of this billboard a fairytale as well?”

No. The message of this billboard does not fit under your definition.

Anything else you need cleared up?

Dear Ubi Dubium–

To begin with, thank you for the tone of your post. It was decent, intelligent, thoughtful.

I accept the American Heritage Dictionary as a good source for the relevant definitions. However, we should use the whole definition, as follows:
1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
2. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

Thank you also for disagreeing with the circumstances surrounding the posting of the billboard.

Also, thanks to our friend Greg, for pointing out that he only needed to find one honest atheist to disprove the statement “all atheists steal”. His point is valid.

That being the case, however, I would only need to find one of your ten thousand religions that was not a fairy tale to prove the sign false, agreed?

Finally, I enjoyed reading your personal thoughts on the nature and manifestations of religion. I do disagree with you on several points, however. Maybe we can have a long discussion on them later. But, if I remember correctly, we were discussing whether the message of the billboard was unprovable and absurd.

Love

George

P.S.- I don’t know the site De-Conversion. I’ll take a look at it.

Thanks, George.

I would agree that there is no way to prove that the sign is 100% unquestionably true. Much the same way that most things cannot be proven to be either 100% true or 100% false. But there are a lot of people that feel that it is overwhelmingly likely to be true, and that that is good enough. It can certainly spark off discussion, just as it has here.

I find it possible that there is one true religion out there. But I find that to be an extraordinary claim, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. So far, I have seen no indication of such extraordinary proof, nor do it think it likely that it will ever exist. But I am open to the possibility, however remote. But I still think the odds are that the sign is true.

After all, a god could have just struck the billboard with lighting, out of a clear sky, in front of TV cameras, leaving a scorch mark that read “I am Thor, bow down before me!” and converts would come flocking. The God of the Old Testament did that kind of thing all the time, we’re told. Today, not so much.

p.s.
De-Conversion is a wonderfully thoughtful site designed for those who have recently left their faith, or who find they have serious questions about their faith that they are struggling with. Sometimes the commenters write like philosophy professors, but it is a great resource for those who have doubts and need a largely non-judgmental forum for working through them. (If you preach, they will fuss at you, though.)

Dear Ubi-

Thanks for the tip about De-Conversion. Unfortunately, I found both the articles and the pro/con posts factually incorrect. I tend to lose interest in people’s arguments when they cherry-pick or misstate facts to support their points of view.

There’s a saying– most people know just enough of the Bible to load their pistol.

Your comments about the Old Testament God are interesting. Most people miss that God in the Old Testament goes from being very present to very absent. At the beginning, He’s portrayed as walking and talking with human beings. In the last historical books, Ezra and Nehemiah, God never appears, speaks, grants visions, etc. In spite of the entreaties of his followers, God is completely absent.

Unfortunately, we live in a post-literary world. I find that most supporters and detractors of the Bible know a great deal about it without ever having bothered to read it.

Thanks again for your intelligence and courtesy. There’s not alot of either on the Web.

Love

Bro. geo.

Thanks, George.

Actually I have read the bible – cover to cover, twice. (Once in the Good News version, and then again in the King James.) I have also read Jefferson’s version of the Gospel, the non-fragmentary parts of the Nag Hammadi Library (Gnostic texts), the Book of Enoch the Prophet, and I am now working on the Koran (I’ve finished through the 9th Sura). (Also read the Egyptian Book of the Dead, Greek, Roman and Norse Mythology, the Iliad, Odyssey, Aeneid and Beowulf). Although I have not found any of them to contain Truth, I find the hold that ancient texts can have over a true believer fascinating, and I am still trying to figure out what it is about these texts and human nature that makes people so willing to cling to them so tightly.

From my non-believing viewpoint, the earlier parts of the Old Testament seem to be a conglomeration of myths and folklore, oral traditions, tribal laws, and cautionary tales, together with a smattering of remembered history, all compiled together at a later date. This certainly explains the two creation stories in Genesis, and two versions of Noah, plus all the descriptions of god actually appearing to his chosen people. The later books are more and more the actual records of the history of a bronze-age warlike mideastern tribe, with the records of the wars of their kings, and pronouncements of their prophets. Since it was written by those who were there, or at least not so far removed from real events, divine appearances are rare to non-existent.

Many atheists, in my experience, were brought up in religious families, and are quite well-read in the religious books of their childhood. Often, it was the reading of those books as adults, in greater detail, especially the unpleasant or contradictory parts, that shook their faith and started them on the path to dis-belief.

Have you ever read the holy book of another faith, and, if so, what was your reaction to it? Did it seem a “fairy tale” to you?

It sure is a nice billboard though, isn’t it? I mean, regardless of whether or not its message is epistimologically defendable, it’s a fine piece of marketing. It is both visually appealing and demeaning, making the faithful feel childish and immature. What a tasteful blow to the self esteem of millions. I hope this gets picked up by the national news so this humble guerilla work gets the audience it deserves.

By the way, why don’t we see Atheists renting out more billboards, or tv advertising time, or radio advertising time? Is it because its an ineffective way to influence people or because atheists generally don’t really care what other people believe in?

We don’t do it primarily because we don’t have the near-infinite financial resources of the churches that bilk the poor out of all their income in the hopes of a supposed afterlife.

Dear Ubi-

I never meant to imply that you had not read the Bible. In fact, I assumed that you were well-read. My remarks were about the postings I saw at De-Conversion, both Christian and atheist.

Your description of the Bible matches mainstream Protestant academic analysis– “higher criticism”.

I couldn’t agree more about the brittle nature of fundamentalist teachings, Christian and otherwise. If you’ll excuse another Bible reference, the first sin in the Bible is not when Adam and Eve eat the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, it’s when Eve misunderstands what God asked of her, and loses faith as a result.

And– just to set the record straight– I believe that Genesis 1 and 2 are fairy tales, in the best possible sense; seemingly innocent and simple stories which discuss deep existential problems which we humans have to face. Further, I think the author of them had that in mind; Genesis begins with “In the beginning” (once upon a time), and the Hebrew of Genesis 1 is a weird singsong, not found anywhere else in the Old Testament. And “Adam” and “Eve” are symbolic names- Earth and Life.

Finally, regarding other religions, I studied Tibetan Buddhism for several years, Karma Kagyu Buddhism. In the process I studied other forms of Buddhism as well, namely Theravadan and Zen. I am a graduate of Shambhala Training (website http://sti.shambhala.org/)which is based on what could be called a fairy tale. Having spent most of my life in New Orleans, I am very familiar with Voodoo, an animist religion, although I have never practiced it. And I spent kindergarten through 12th grade in a Jewish school, though I myself am not Jewish. That’s where I learned Hebrew.

“The later books are more and more the actual records of the history of a bronze-age warlike mideastern tribe, with the records of the wars of their kings, and pronouncements of their prophets. Since it was written by those who were there, or at least not so far removed from real events, divine appearances are rare to non-existent.” Sounds like real life to me– not a fairy tale at all.

Spoonman, I am intimately involved in church programs that pour a tremendous amount of money out to the poor– paying utility bills and rent, tutoring children, sponsoring local public schools, paying for healthcare, housing the homeless. I accept that there are Reverend Ike-types in Christianity, preaching the gospel of wealth. You should accept that the majority of time and dollars spent on the poor come from the religious.

Patrick, I’ll let you in on a little secret. Billboards like that don’t make the faithful feel childish and immature. They simply provide an opportunity for the faithful to talk about their faith to others; it’s a pop-fly to anyone with any religious training. And, parenthetically, it puts non-religious people in a terrible light. If you really want to make religion go away, try benign neglect.

Love

George

George

I agree that the most of the latter part of the Old Testament reads like real life, not a Fairy Tale. But I don’t find ancient chronicles of tribal warfare convincing evidence for the existence of a god.

I am glad to hear that you have done such extensive studies of other religions. I wish that everyone would do that before proclaiming themselves “true believers”. I am really curious, though. I hear thundering Fundamentalist preachers proclaim that you don’t need to think, just believe, and that everybody else who does not believe is going straight to hell. You don’t seem to fit into their mold. Given that you are (I am assuming) a Christian, but you are clearly one who has thought deeply about it, how do you feel about those other religions now? Is Voodoo a Fairy Tale? How about Buddism?

Dear Ubi–

The Old Testament lies on the other side of an almost uncrossable divide. The whole idea of personhood, of unique and permanent individuality, didn’t fully appear until after about 300. People back then tended to think of human societies as we think of organisms, and the suffering and death of individuals simply wasn’t as important. (It’s interesting that the name for the Jewish nation was the name of a single individual, Israel.) It’s an intellectual divide which is especially difficult for twentieth-century Westerners, who prize individuality.

Regarding other religions, two thoughts.

First, I used to help out at a conference of Buddhist and Christian contemplative teachers, one where people would get together for a week and talk about a single topic, like suffering. When the different people were using words, they were saying completely different things, but when they were acting, they were very much the same– courteous, kind, humorous, humble. I thought of the description of an enlightened person from the Tao Te Ching– “alert as a warrior in enemy territory, cautious as a man walking on ice, kindly as a grandfather, courteous as a guest.” The description applied to all of them. Experientially, I decided whether a person was of God was shown by how they treated other people; especially, how they treated other people whom the world considered unimportant, culpable, flawed.

Theologically, I follow the reasoning of Origen, an early theologian. When people say Jesus Christ, they don’t realize that they are saying a paradox; a man executed in his thirties, who never went more than a hundred miles or so from his humble birthplace, and the Christ, the eternal light of Reason, the creative principle of God, which was with God and was God, the basic strata of intelligence, the ground of all being, which is above us and in us and through us. You only know about Jesus if you read the Gospels, but the Light of God shines equally into all people at all times and in all places. Therefore, though others may not know Jesus, they still may know the Light, practice the Light, teach the Light.

Regarding damnation, you have to be very careful about declaring other people damned or saved; it’s God’s prerogative, not ours. Christians should remember the thief on the cross, who was neither baptized nor confirmed nor graced by the Spirit, but was still promised a place in Paradise, simply because he was kind to a dying man.

As to specifics, voodoo is a great deal like Greek polytheism, and probably comes from the same source. I don’t know if you have ever read The Metamorphoses by Apuleius, but a voodoo practitioner would feel at home in the story. Almost all of voodoo has to do with manipulating flawed and dangerous minor deities either to get what you want or to hurt other people. As you get further and further away from the Caribbean, it gets more and more debased, a mere panopoly of charms and poisons.

As a rule, I have tremendous admiration for Buddhism. I feel that I did not understand the New Testament writings of Paul until I studied Buddhism. I find, though, that Buddhist teachings are almost completely misunderstood in the West, and especially in America.

Finally, I have a great deal of respect for fairy tales. They are the delivery system of choice for folk wisdom, concealed in an outlandish tale which foolish people can ignore. Take “Cinderella”, for instance. Ninety-five percent of people laugh it off as something stupid and move on. The other five percent get the message– “Treat even the least of people with respect; you don’t know who they really are, or what they will become in the future.”

Love

George

“The Old Testament lies on the other side of an almost uncrossable divide. The whole idea of personhood, of unique and permanent individuality, didn’t fully appear until after about 300. People back then tended to think of human societies as we think of organisms, and the suffering and death of individuals simply wasn’t as important. (It’s interesting that the name for the Jewish nation was the name of a single individual, Israel.) It’s an intellectual divide which is especially difficult for twentieth-century Westerners, who prize individuality.”

As an anthropologist, I totally disagree with this. You cannot pigeon-hole societies like this. There is ample evidence that individuality existed before 300 CE.

Also, when you say “the Jewish nation was the name of a single individual” it is still not clear whether the earlier uses of “Israel” were in reference to a homeland or a people.

Dear Greg–

First, apologies to readers. I want to answer Greg, but it’s going to take a bit of writing to do so.

I apologize for not making myself clear. I was talking about personhood, not individuality. Individuality talks about the basic unit of human society, comparable to how the ancients spoke of atoms in physics. Personality is that which is inherent and unique, that which is self and no other, a persistent and unique identity. We are both human beings, and as such we are individuals; you cannot divide us further without destroying the fact that we are human beings. Personhood is what makes me George and you Greg, what makes us uniquely George and you uniquely Greg, and not just faces in a crowd.

Personhood, the idea of unique identity, was developed as the result of a debate over the Christian Trinity which spanned several centuries. Theologians had to figure out how there could be three beings– Father, Son, Holy Spirit– but only one God. In the end, they simply concluded that , even though each member of the Trinity was fully and indivisibly God, yet each possessed something unique, undefinable, but real in nature. They called that elusive quality “persona”, which is the ancient name for the masks people wore in Greek theatre. The late Roman empire codified the concept under the Emperor Justinian. That,in turn, inspired philosophers in the early modern period, such as Locke, to speak of the unique and unalienable rights which vest in persons. And we, in turn, accept personality to an extreme degree. Under our law, we even grant personhood to corporations, which can never be individuals.

Personhood is a tough concept, partially because it is so familiar. We see it as normal, and we project it on other cultures. But, unless you know Aristotle, it’s a very difficult concept to define and discuss.

I spoke of Buddhism being misunderstood in the West, and especially in America. Personhood is one of the reasons we have trouble understanding Buddhism, because Buddhism lacks such a concept. Nirvana is not liberation of an individual being, but liberation from an individual being. The closest Buddhism comes to discussing personhood is when it discusses the srota, the stream of events which gives rise to the illusion of individuality.

As for the name “Israel”, I spoke from a theological and Biblical standpoint. In the Torah, Israel first refers to Jacob, the individual. Then, in the Exodus story, it refers to a root source or being; Exodus speaks constantly of the “children of Israel”, even though the events described in Exodus occur hundred of years after Jacob’s death. In Deuteronomy, Moses uses “children of Israel” and “Israel” interchangeably. Even later texts refer simply to Israel the individual, as a synecdoche .

In the same biblical and theological framework, the physical territory of Israel is usually referred to as “the land of Canaan”.

Finally, the people who comprised Israel as a political whole were called Hebrews before entering Canaan, Israelites in Canaan, and Jews after the Exile.

Israel thus is a collective whole, a composite being, of whom the Israelites were part. As you well know, it’s not an expression of nationhood; that concept didn’t appear until late medieval/early modern Europe.

Sorry about droning on this way. Greg rightfully pointed out that I needed to clarify my statements about personhood and individuality.

Love

Bro. geo.

Whoops, that was really too long. Sorry. Ubi, where were we?

George – Thank you for your long and thoughtful post. We were on fairy tales. I like how you described them:

“Finally, I have a great deal of respect for fairy tales. They are the delivery system of choice for folk wisdom, concealed in an outlandish tale which foolish people can ignore.”

I feel this way about fairy tales, and also about religions. But I don’t feel that the folk wisdom passed down in fairy tales (or religions) is always a positive message. I’ll take your example:

“Take “Cinderella”, for instance. Ninety-five percent of people laugh it off as something stupid and move on. The other five percent get the message– “Treat even the least of people with respect; you don’t know who they really are, or what they will become in the future.”

I think there is another, stronger, message in Cinderella: “If you find yourself in an abusive situation, don’t take action to get yourself out, instead be obedient to your abuser, don’t complain, wish really really hard, and rescue will come magically.” To me, this is ancient society setting up the expectation in little girls that they should grow up to be docile obedient sheep, and that prayer is better at solving problems than action. This is not a message that I want to send my own children in our modern day and age.

As another example I’d like to use the “Veggie Tales” movie “Josh and the Big Wall” that was sent to my childen by my fundamentalist brother-in-law. It retells the story of Joshua using cute computer-animated vegetables as the actors, it protrays Jericho as a castle topped by slurpee-throwing peas who taunt Joshua in French accents (a la Monty Python), and overall it’s very clever and funny. It’s been given quite the fairy-tale spin. But the film is quite clear that the central message of the story is “do what god tells you, even when it doesn’t make any sense” And they conventiently leave out the uncomfortable part about god ordering Joshua to slaughter every man, woman, child, and animal in the city afterwards.

So I see fairy tales and religion each carrying a mixed bag of good lessons (be kind, work hard, play fair, children can be unexpectedly wise) bad ones (you can’t escape destiny, faith and prayer are more important than actions, never ever be disobedient – even when your ruler is a tyrant, it’s good to abandon your responsibilities to follow a prophet) and downright dangerous ones (Women are responsible for evil, witches must be burnt, I’ts OK to kill nonbelievers, or even your own child – if god tells you to). I am working very hard with my own children to help them sort out these mixed messages out for themselves.

I think our view of people in general is not really that different. You see the “light of God” shining out of people, regardless of which faith they belong to. I see it as the “light of Humanity” shining out of people, regardless of whether or not they believe in the supernatural. The level of basic human decency I see in a person seems totally unrelated to which god or gods they do or don’t believe in.

Well, I think I’ve droned on long enough. George, it’s been refreshing to have a serious talk online with a Christian who does not bible-thump and preach at me. Thank you. I’ll sign off of this thread now, it’s gotten so long. But I will be lurking around this site in the future, so we may talk again.

Dear Ubi–

Thank you. I’ve really enjoyed talking to you. We agree on another thing– any movement, religion, political party, or “cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion” which asks you to check your brain at the door is dangerous.

Aggressive and hateful voices are not the most plentiful in any religion or movement, they’re just the loudest. Your courtesy and thoughtfulness prove that.

Funny you should mention Joshua– I’ve had it on my mind in this conversation. It’s probably the hardest book in the Bible for me to read– very violent. But I know that many of the cities the book says were destroyed were not actually destroyed– you can see that in the books of Samuel. Why the discrepancy?

The language of Joshua and most of the Torah is very late; it shares the language characteristics of books written right before or during the Babylonian exile. To me what the author of Joshua was saying was, “Terrible things are about to happen, things that seem to make no sense (the wiping out of the kingdom of Israel and the exile of the inhabitants of Judah). These things are not random events. Be ruthless in holding to what you believe. These bad things are not the final word.” The message worked; Judaism was, as far as I can tell, the only local Middle Eastern religion of that time that was able to jump from being tied to one locale to being universal. It survived by being as adamant in its beliefs as Joshua.

Thank you for this discussion. I’m sure we’ll meet again.

Love

George

HAHA! “Fairy tails”!