A group called American Atheists is spending their hard-earned money on a billboard campaign this Christmas season featuring a little girl writing a letter to Santa, in which she states: “Dear Santa, all I want for Christmas is to skip church. I’m too old for fairy tales.”
Atheist activists are taking their campaigns to the Bible Belt this Christmas with a provocative billboard campaign that is expected to stir controversy in America’s religious heartlands.
The giant advertising hoardings in the Tennessee cities of Memphis, Nashville, St. Louis and Fort Smith, Arkansas show a mischievous-looking young girl writing her letter to Father Christmas: “Dear Santa, All I want for Christmas is to skip church! I’m too old for fairy tales,” she writes.
The advertising campaign by the American Atheists group will run until Christmas Eve and is the first time the group has aimed its anti-God adverts directly at residential religious areas, having previously targeted urban audiences in big venues such as Times Square in New York.
“Today’s adults have no obligation to pretend to believe the lies their parents believed. It’s OK to admit that your parents were wrong about God, and it’s definitely OK to tell your children the truth,” said David Silverman, the group’s president, as he launched the campaign.
But “what is truth,” as Pilate asked Jesus? Atheists pretend to believe in “science,” as if it’s some kind of religion to them. They claim they only believe in things that can be proven scientifically. Can an Atheist provide scientific evidence that supports the following assertion: “Truth is only that which can be arrived at using the scientific method.” How would they go about proving something like that scientifically? They can’t, because it’s fundamentally a philosophical question, not a scientific question. Their first premise is that empirical evidence is the basis for truth. But they can’t prove that empirically. They take it on faith.
The whole idea of “truth” should be absolutely meaningless to a consistent Atheist. There should be no such thing as “truth.” Everything is random. Things either happen, or they don’t. That’s it. That’s the extent of reality. There is no connection among facts. There’s no rhyme or reason for anything that happens. There are no over-arching “principles” that describe the way the universe is “governed.” Acknowledging such would presuppose the very thing they claim doesn’t exist.
Of course, Atheists claim they believe in science. They claim to believe in the scientific principles that describe the way our universe and our world operate. What I’m saying is that they have no basis to believe in those things.
So, how can they even discuss what the “truth” is when they have no basis to even believe in truth?
How do Atheists answer their kids when they ask, “Is it wrong to kill someone?” The Atheist parent might respond with something like this:
“Well, it depends on the circumstances. If a person is being attacked by someone else to the point that that person legitimately feels like he might die as a result, then it’s okay to kill that person. That’s what we call ‘self-defense,’ and it would be the right thing to do. But, if that victim was not able to defend himself adequately, and he succumbed to the attacker to the point that he died, then the attacker would be guilty of murder, which is wrong.”
If the Atheist parent had instilled in his child a sense of “independent thought” and was trained to question everything, then hopefully the child would continue to ask questions. Perhaps he might ask this:
“So, in both cases, the outcome is exactly the same: someone dies. But in one case, it’s right, and in the other case, it’s wrong. What’s the scientific evidence that shows that such a distinction is warranted?
Further, we find countless cases of less-evolved animals ‘murdering’ and eating each other. Since such a thing is observed in nature all the time (that is, it’s completely natural), why are we not allowed to emulate it?”
The parent responds:
“We can’t imitate it, because we’re more evolved, and we know better. As for your first question, the distinction is warranted, because morality is all about what promotes the most happiness and well-being in other humans. Something is wrong if it causes pain and suffering. Something is right if it promotes happiness and well-being. It’s that simple.”
The conversation continues:
Child: Based on what scientific evidence?
Parent: The science shows that through billions and billions of years of evolution, our species was able to thrive only when morality was adhered to. A society that promotes killing others obviously doesn’t survive very long. So, we shouldn’t kill others, unless there’s someone else acting as an aggressor, in which case he should be stopped, and if necessary killed to prevent him from killing others. Make sense?
Child: I guess. So, it’s about promoting survival and making people happy?
Parent: Pretty much.
Child: So, how about rape? I mean, that makes the rapist happy, and it has the potential of “promoting survival” in the case of a pregnancy. That’s a good thing, right? And we see it all the time in nature, so it’s a totally natural drive, and humans have been raping each other for hundreds of thousands of years.
Parent: Yeah, but rape also causes pain and suffering to the victim, so that would be off-limits. Do you understand?
Child: I get it that certain things cause pain and suffering, and other things promote happiness and well-being. I get that, and I get that it can be proven scientifically. (Somewhat, anyway.) But what confuses me is why the things that cause pain and suffering are morally wrong. Or why other things that promote happiness and well-being are morally right. We don’t find the idea of morality anywhere in nature. Animals don’t care about morals. When they’re hungry, they hunt other animals and eat…
Parent: Okay, but –
Child: …When they feel sexually aroused, they rape. That’s just the way life is for “less-evolved” animals, and they’ve been able to survive and thrive longer than we have…
Parent: Now just a second –
Child: …The fact that we’re “more evolved” doesn’t necessarily lead to the conclusion that we should adopt moral conventions, does it?
Parent: If you’d let me –
Child: …And just whose moral convention are we using? Someone somewhere at some point in time had to come up with the idea of “right” versus “wrong,” and we’ve been adhering to it ever since. Yet, there’s no scientific evidence proving that it even exists…
Parent: Just trust me, it’s –
Child: We permit abortion, even though it causes pain and suffering to the most defenseless of us; and it kills, something you told me was wrong when the person being killed was not the aggressor…
Parent: The Supreme Court settled that decades –
Child: …There’s no scientific evidence that consensual sex is permissible, because it promotes happiness and well-being; or that rape is wrong, because it causes pain and suffering. Someone just made that up….
Parent: Look, if you can’t tell the difference between consensual sex and rape, you’re a special kind of stupid! You must be hanging around those science-denying, bigoted and racist Christians too much. That’s it. No more hanging around them. They’re poisoning your mind!
Child: I’m just doing what you’ve taught me to do. Question everything. And any time anyone makes an assertion about anything, particularly things pertaining to religion or morality, I’m supposed to ask for scientific evidence to prove that they’re wrong. If there is no scientific evidence supporting the assertion, then we’re not permitted to believe that assertion. Isn’t that right?
Parent: Okay, okay. Just stop right there. What I meant was to question everything, except Atheism. Question Christianity. Question the existence of God. Question the existence of Jesus. I mean, the whole story of Jesus’ birth, life, death and resurrection is a myth, because there’s no scientific evidence backing it up!
But don’t question Atheism! Not too much anyway. It’s what I’ve taught you from your earliest days, and it’s what my parents taught me. We have to believe in Atheism, because the alternative is intolerable!
Child: Based on what scientific evidence?
The folks over at American Atheists pretend to be in favor of telling kids the “truth,” whatever they think that is. Like what Jack Nicholson’s character Colonel Jessup said in A Few Good Men, they can’t handle the truth.