Atheist Brochures, Flyers, Propaganda

Can anyone recommend or point me towards somewhere I can find engaging literature I can print out, either for sticky taping to lamp posts, to church signs, sneakily leave on church pews if I pretend to go to a Sunday service. Things to leave or paste or post where people will notice them, preferably containing thought-provoking stuff on a range of topics (especially science, what with the release of "Expelled" I expect people are soon going to be trotting along safe in their twisted knowledge that evolution makes baby Jesus cry). Why? Because blogging about atheism and sitting at home doing nothing about it doesn't make me too happy, yet neither would running around accosting people on the street or at their homes. I'd make it up myself but my design skills are sorely lacking.
Atheist Answer: 

When searching for such material, it really strikes you how much less there is of it than the Christian equivalent. That doesn't necessarily reflect badly on us, as evangelicals really go overboard in this department. I walked through the National Mall in Washington DC this July 4th and could have pocketed about half a dozen different pamphlets if I'd wanted. (In case you're curious, half were from Jews for Jesus.)

Here is a start: various print media from the Freedom from Religion Foundation. Some of it is US-specific and it's all very wordy, but if you can fit it on a pamphlet it might be useful.

Other than that, pickings are slim.

Perhaps our viewpoint simply comes across better in books than on scraps of paper. If you want something you can whip out the way a Christian would their pocket New Testament, I recommend the compact anthologyThe Portable Atheist, compiled by Christopher Hitchens.

- SmartLX

Edit: At last a resourceful atheist has taken it upon himself to supply us with a handy toolbox of viable paraphernalia. Cheers, Cyberguy.

Why are atheists so angry?

Why are atheists so angry?
Atheist Answer: 

I hear this question all the time. In fact, my Rambo-Kitty avatar is partially inspired by the question. Anyway, today I was reading an article about the debate between Sam Harris and Rick Warren, and was struck by Warren's statement, "I've never met an atheist who wasn't angry."

My first reaction was denial. Many atheists, myself included, are happy most of the time. My atheist friends are great fun to hang out with. We laugh and joke and drink beer, and hardly ever mention religion.

My second reaction, I confess, was anger. How dishonest of him to try to discount atheism by labeling us all as angry malcontents! This is exactly why people like him make me angry!

That's when it hit me, square in the forehead. He's not being dishonest. I don't doubt that every atheist he's met has been angry. If I met him, he'd almost certainly make me angry, too. That's just it! HE makes atheists angry, so they're all angry around him. So, I forgive him for thinking that all atheists are angry. I understand how he made the mistake.

Anyway, I'd like to reflect on "Atheist Anger" for a few minutes, and ask a couple of questions.

First, why is it a bad thing to be angry? The suffragists were quite angry, and for good reason. New Zealand had granted women equal voting rights in 1893, and America, supposedly the land of equality, was violently opposed to the idea twenty years later. There are still plenty of women who are angry because women make less money doing the same jobs as men in many industries, and women are often not even considered for promotions when they're equally (or better) qualified for the position. Are they wrong for being angry? Should they just sit quietly and wait for men to realize the error of their ways? Some people think so. I've noticed that the majority of them are men.

Am I making a valid comparison? Is it reasonable to compare life as an atheist in America in 2007 to life as a woman in the early 20th century? Clearly there are significant differences. Atheists can vote. They can, in theory, hold public office. They can get married, sign contracts, work wherever they're qualified. So, do we atheists have a right to be angry in the same way suffragists had?

To answer that question, I'll recall some more history. In Mosaic law, as we all know, women were slightly better than slaves. They had no property rights. In Roman law, women were completely dependent on male relations for all legal matters, and when they were married, it was a matter of purchase between two families.

Here, we can ask a pointed question. Do women have the right to be angry that they're not making as much as men in the workplace? After all, they can vote, own property, divorce their husband, sue him for child support and alimony, and live quite happily on their own. This country is one of the best places in the world to be a woman! What right do women have to be angry?

If your skin prickled a little bit when you read the previous paragraph, good for you. You're halfway to understanding why atheists have a right to be mad. The reason women still have a right to be mad is that things are still not equal. They have no obligation to remain silent simply because they have it better than someone who lived a hundred, or a thousand years ago. The reason women have it better now is that people were angry all through history, and made small gains here and there over many generations. Without the fuel of anger, women would still be property, and wouldn't even have the opportunity to be mad about making less money in the workplace.

So, what about us atheists? Do we have a right to be mad? Actually, yes. Did you know we've had atheist presidents? We have. I'll let you do your own homework on this, but it might surprise you to learn that many of the leaders of the U.S. throughout history have been openly atheist. Is this possible today? One congressman in California recently admitted to being atheist, and it caused a nationwide stir! It remains to be seen whether he'll be reelected. To be sure, he'll be attacked for being godless and amoral when election time comes around.

Until the McCarthy Era, the pledge of allegiance didn't have the word "God." Money didn't have "In God We Trust." Until the 70s, Christians were not actively involved in politics for the purpose of legislating religious values. Clearly, America is more theist than it used to be, at least politically. So, are things getting better for atheists? I dare say they're not. Unlike women, our situation is not improving. We are not being afforded more respect. Rather, we are being legislatively pushed farther into the margins where we have been quietly lurking for sixty years since the Red Scare.

To bring things back around, recall my comment about my atheist friends and I sitting around having beers and laughs. This is a good picture for you to hold in your mind's eye when you think of me, or any other atheist. This is what we want. We don't like being angry any more than women who'd like to be paid more. I'm sure all the angry feminists would rather things were better for women so they wouldn't have to be angry anymore. It's the same with atheists. If we were a bit less hated, vilified, and marginalized, it would be a lot easier for us to be in the presence of theists and not get angry.

Why are atheists so angry? Because things could be better, and we don't like being marginalized.

Rational Response Squad
My article on this was originally posted here.

Atheism vs Agnosticism

As Agnostic (actually im not really an Agnostic as i do beleive a creator exists, i will leave my justificationof this to another debate) And an opponent of western religion, I have to say it angers me to see so many people taking the stane of an Agnostic and calling themselves athiests. To say " I can not prove that there is a god therefore, I am as the definition describes without god" is simply false. To be unsure, or to exept the fact that one can never know the truth of existence and creation, makes one an agnostic. SO what i am asking is If your true belief is not that there IS no god, then why not call yourself an Agnostic. What is it about Agnosticism that is not part of your theology.
Atheist Answer: 

Atheism is a-theism. Theism is a belief in a god or gods. Atheism is therefore no belief in a god or gods, not a belief in no gods. This means that many people who call themselves agnostics are actually atheists as well. The definitions are not mutually exclusive.

I get your point, and in fact I'm happy to call myself an agnostic atheist. I am an agnostic because I don't know whether there are any gods, and I suspect that I can never know. But I insist to you that I'm also an atheist, because I conclude from this lack of input that there really aren't any. It's a conclusion rather than a belief, and I'd change it if some evidence for gods turned up, but it's my considered opinion that if there were a god, there would be more evidence.

It's like being confident that you won't be struck by lightning tomorrow. You can't say it'll never happen, but it's so unlikely that you live as if it won't happen. In all probability, it never will. If three of your neighbours were struck by lightning in the same week, however, you might reconsider that position.

- SmartLX

Self Contradictory atheism/science

Science insists there must be a 'reason' for everything. Yet when asked for the reason that existence came into being, they say you do not need a reason. How can we argue from this position?
Atheist Answer: 

I'm assuming you mean that everything must have a cause.

Even science isn't so solid on causes anymore, having so far failed to find a cause for the probabilistic quantum mechanics of particles even while predicting them to within microscopic distances.

But let's assume everything generally does need a cause. If it's unreasonable to say that the universe doesn't need a cause, how much more reasonable is it to say that its precursor, its cause, doesn't need a cause itself? Is an eternal universe harder to imagine than an eternal god?

If we assume anything with a beginning needs a cause, something must be eternal and you can't escape that by putting in a god. At least we have some reason to suspect that the universe is eternal, as we know matter and energy exist and they can't be created or destroyed. Basic conservation law. Not really knowing jack about gods, we have no equivalent basis for their existence, let alone their infinite age. Given the initial assumption, I'm going with an eternal universe.

- SmartLX

Do Atheists believe in ghosts or spirits?

Do atheists believe in ghosts, spirits, karma etc.?
Atheist Answer: 

No. Atheism by strict definition is the lack of a belief in gods, but it's generally extended to the lack of a belief in any supernatural entity or substance. That includes ghosts, spirits, souls, angels, demons, vampires, elves, boogeymen, unicorns, phoenixes and the energies of karma, chi, the Holy Spirit, life-force or The Force.

- SmartLX

Did Jesus really exist?

What evidence is there to support that Jesus never existed? What about all the evidence Christian historians point to?
Atheist Answer: 

First, I think it's important to understand the incredible amount of information one has to look over tediously before they can reach a conclusion of a historical or ahistorical nature. The truth is, I've been researching this subject for seven years and there are things I'm just starting to skim over now.

Now that that is out of the way, let's tackle your questions. You ask, "What evidence is there to support that Jesus never existed?" First and foremost, if you can provide me evidence to support that fairies don't exist, I'm all ears. One can't ask to disprove a negative, because there is nothing to disprove. One must look at the available evidence that already exists (or doesn' in this case) and determine if that evidence is sufficient to establish historicity.

To help you better understand this lets use an example given by Christians where they assume that we mythicists assume the historicity of somebody famous without evidence. Aristotle is usually totted around the most by some ignorant or misinformed person as having no contemporary evidence of his existence - as a standard if you will to suggest that Jesus should be considered to be on the same level of accepted historicity as Aristotle. However when comparing the list of evidences between the two, there is no compatibility. Here's a brief list of the differences between Aristotle and Jesus:


  • 1. Facts about Aristotle’s life are not in question. We know when he was born, when he died (384-322 B.C.E), who his parents were, (Nicomachus – father – who was a physician to King Amyntas III, and Phaestis his mother) who his friends were and who his teacher was (Plato).
  • 2. Most importantly, over 45 works are attributed TO him, although some of those are said to be dictated by some of his students in one of his many schools which he taught at.
  • 3. Aristotle never claimed to be perfect, or a God, or even a son of a God. Nobody has a dogmatic philosophy on the life of Aristotle. If Aristotle didn’t exist, nobody’s world view would change.
  • 4. Aristotle changed the course of time, coming up with several new schools of thought, including new ways to look at math, science, philosophy, politics, and ethics. His original thoughts and views helped form and shape the politics of a world.
  • 5. Alexander the Great was taught by Aristotle.
  • 6. Every Greek philosopher and scientist throughout the ages has used Aristotle as a base for their works. Including Harpalus, Hephaestion, Nicomachus and Theophrastus. Even Aquinas used Aristotle.
  • 7. All of the information we have about Aristotle does not conflict with history.
  • 8. There is no reason to doubt the existence of Aristotle, because there is such a large amount of evidence for his existence, as well as nothing that conflicts with history and historical accounts of Aristotle and his life.


  • 1. Jesus’ early life is obscure. We do not know his birth date, or even the year. We don’t have the year of his death. If you are claiming Jesus was just a man, of course nothing exists to prove a natural birth so this evidence is non-existent. We know nothing of his childhood, save at 12, and then he vanishes again. And we know his parents first names.
  • 2. Jesus never wrote one book, one sentence, not even as much as a letter.
  • 3. Jesus claimed to be all three of these attributes, and more. And over 33 million people around the world follow the idea that Jesus was these attributes and more. If Jesus was shown not to exist, his message would be lost and people would no longer be Christian (Because the definition of a Christian is to believe in Christ as the Messiah, that he died for our sins).
  • 4. None of Jesus’ supposed teachings are original. Justin Martyr also admits to Trypho that Jesus’ teachings and that of the Christians were documented earlier in the Greek philosophies of Aristotle (ironically), Socrates, and Plato. All of the teachings of Jesus can be found in religions that existed hundreds if not thousands of years earlier. In John 1:1, a similar passage can be found in Heraclitus.
  • 5. No major figure in History ever had direct contact with Jesus. No historical commentary about any major figure in history ever places them near or around Jesus in any fashion. In all the volumes of Josephus, never once does it state that Herod murdered a great multitude of infants at the birth of some savior figure. Nor does it state anywhere that Pilate killed Jesus in any Roman record.
  • 6. No great work of science or philosophy ever came from Jesus, or one of Jesus’ followers. All are void of intelligent thought, and contain evidence of following in the footsteps of servitude.
  • 7. In the trial alone of Jesus, there contains anywhere from 14-27 infractions of Sanhedrin and Roman law. This does not include a large sum of historical contradictions outside of the trial, which traverse into the hundreds.
  • 8. In every aspect of Christ’s supposed life, there is reason to question his existence because of the errors, contradictions and fallacies not only within the Bible, but concerning the utter lack of evidence concerning the events of his life.

And this is not the half of it. Aristotle not only wrote tomes of prose in his time, by his own hand, but also contemporary accounts exist of Aristotle. As Richard Carrier states on Aristotles contemporary accounts, "There is one fragmentary inscription dedicated to Aristotle still extant at Delphi that I believe was erected in his lifetime. We have substantial portions of the Elements of Harmonics by Aristoxenus, a contemporary of Aristotle, which mentions him briefly. Anaximenes of Lampsacus (not the presocratic of the same name), also a contemporary, wrote an Art of Rhetoric that survives, and it addresses Aristotle. Theophrastus was his pupil and contemporary and we have some few of his writings, but I don't know off hand if they mention Aristotle by name. Isocrates was his contemporary and sometimes opponent and he may have mentioned him, too, but again I can't say for sure if he ever actually names him in extant works. There was certainly a great deal of contemporary writing about Aristotle, but as far as I know little to none was preserved, except in later sources. TLG shows a few hundred contemporary, named references to Aristotle, which are cited or quoted by later authors." Carrier also suggested a book, "Lloyd's book "Aristotle" would probably say what else there is."

This is vital because we have NO accounts of contemporary evidence for Jesus. None. The earliest extant manuscripts for Jesus date to Paul, thirty years after Jesus supposedly died, written by a man who never met Jesus, knows nothing about him, or about any of his deeds, or miracles or speeches. Paul doesn't attribute any words to Jesus nor does he seem to - in any fashion - refer to Jesus in a physical, literal sense.

After Paul, we have a forty year gap of nothingness. At the very end of the first century CE, we have rumors (just rumors) of hearsay about a being Jesus. The earliest Gospel fragment we possess is the P52 fragment, and it's barely a scrap of parchment from what appears to be John. But it's too weak a source to use to compare. That is it. And when is this P52 fragment from? 130 CE and no earlier. That's a hundred years after the supposed death of Christ. Now here's the funny part, we have works from Aristotle that survived from 500 years before THAT, and yet we can't find one contemporary account of a man who is said to have walked on water, and preformed all these miracles, or even rose from the dead?

I hope that helps you understand a little bit as to the problems associated with the question of whether there can be a way to disprove a negative, and also with understanding what sorts of evidence is looked for when trying to determine historicity. Your second question is far easier to answer, as I have already written extensively on the subject.

At this link HERE you will find all you need to know about the supposed evidences for Jesus and why they hold no water. You can ALSO check out THIS LINK for additional information on the Mythicist position and the case against a historical Christ.

Oh, by the way....welcome to the campaign.

In Rationality,

Rook Hakwkins
Rational Response Squad Co-Founder

Syndicate content