Atheist billboard removed after complaints by local church
I can’t say that I was shocked to read the following news from the website, “Freedom From Religion Foundation.” Christians have been shunning anyone not like them since the beginning. It’s such a simple billboard. Leave it alone. It let’s those “in the closet” so to speak, know that it’s okay to not subscribe to a religion. That you “can be a good person” regardless of what your parents, grandparents, neighbors,etc. tell you. I say bravo to the FFRF. And by the church taking down this billboard only strengthens that call. And proves our point.
Freedom From Religion Foundation
A billboard featuring a cheerful student saying, “I can be good without God,” was too much for the delicate sensibilities of a local church in Columbus, Ohio, which insisted late last week that a local billboard company remove the message.
The billboard picturing Dylan Galos, a Columbus student and atheist, was removed and is awaiting placement at an alternate eastside Columbus location.
Dylan’s billboard is one of seven featuring local nonbelievers posted within the last week for a month-long lease in Columbus, Ohio, as part of the Freedom From Religion Foundation’s “Out of the Closet” campaign.
The colorful billboards bear the faces and personal views of friendly neighborhood atheists.
“The action of this censorious church shows exactly why our campaign, intended to encourage social acceptance of nonbelievers, is so important,” said Annie Laurie Gaylor, FFRF co-president.
“Do its deacons truly believe one can’t be good without God?” wonders Gaylor. “Nonbelievers know that it is not what you believe, but how you act, that makes you a moral person. We don’t feel the need to be rewarded in heaven or threatened with everlasting punishment in order to do good and be ethical.”
Added Dan Barker, a former evangelical minister who co-directs FFRF, “Everywhere atheists and agnostics go, we encounter advertisements, marquees and other proselytizing messages. This is one of the few public advertisements anywhere in the nation right now, and there isn’t room for it next to a church?”
The Freedom From Religion Foundation, a state/church watchdog based in Madison, Wis., is the nation’s largest association of atheists and agnostics with more than 16,500 members, and about 450 members in Ohio. Columbus is FFRF’s fourth stop on a national campaign to introduce local nonbelievers to their neighbors. FFRF debuted the “Out of the Closet” campaign in Madison last fall. FFRF took the campaign to the bible belt in the spring: Raleigh, N.C., in April and to Tulsa, Okla., in May.
Posted on July 13, 2011, in Atheism, Business, Featured Posts, Lifestyle, Politics, Theism and tagged atheist, church, columbus, dylan, ffrf. Bookmark the permalink. 54 Comments.
Lyn
Isn’t ironic that the atheists wail over the same treatment that they give to Christians demanding that we take down religious symbols. I believe in our freedom of speech, and as a christian, I would support your right to post your billboards if you as an atheist would stop trying to get christians to stop displaying their religious symbols. It is also ironic that atheists don’t dare try to tell Jews not to display their religious symbols.
Blessings on you and yours
John
“Isn’t ironic that the atheists wail over the same treatment that they give to Christians demanding that we take down religious symbols. ”
Except we don’t. We object to you having the federal government put up symbols that express favoritism towards a particular religion. You can put up whatever you want on private property.
“It is also ironic that atheists don’t dare try to tell Jews not to display their religious symbols.”
Last I checked, the Jews weren’t trying to get “In Elohim We Trust” hanging in our court-houses.
Hey Notascientist: You are simply trying to obfuscate the issue. Jews also refer to God and don’t have a problem with in God we trust on our money. If this is an issue with you suggest that you leave the country for one more like what you want say in Iran or Russia.
John Wilder
Nicely put. I second that.
This isn’t the same thing, John. The Christians simply have a monopoly on worldviews. Anyone outside that bubble is considered… well, an outsider. There are religious symbols all over the place, John. No atheist is condemning these symbols on private property. What atheists ARE condemning are the public displays. Doing so, whether there’s truth or not, shows endorsement by the state. Not good. I’ve essentially ecoed you on this NotAScientist; but I think it’s universally understood by all atheists that we can ALL live together so long as we ALL live together. THAT is what we are crying about.
I don’t think he is. He’s merely sharing an analogy. It’s a simple point that not just you, but all Christian, fail to see. We, the heathens, are willing to share the earth with everyone. Not just Christians. EVERYONE. And WE understand that others might not share our views. So in knowing that, WE want the playing field to be as “vanilla” as possible. Yes, this does away with your “Under God…” and all other religious references, but it also does away with references to Jewish symbols, Hebrew, Scientology, atheist, etc. No religion should have preferential treatment, John. Do you see? Atheists have a symbol. The scarlet “A.” Would you be okay with THAT on your dollar bills?
You see our country was founded on these principles. I have no problem with your belief system. I support your right to display billboards indicating your belief system but you are trying to censor religious symbolism and that is where I draw the line.
You are an extremely small minority trying to inflict your views on the overwhelming majority. That is downright un American in my view. While I respect your opinions and your rights to them I have a HUGE problem with you trying to enforce your views on the rest of us.
John
You completely ignore my several attempts to explain that what you are explaining is false. You can deny it all you want and regurgitate the same ol, same ol. The truth is there. Most CAN see it. Did you miss the part about private property?
No I did not miss the part about private property, I just don’t agree with your position.
John
Yes we are unabashedly christian. It would be like the 7th day adventists trying to force the rest of us to worship on Saturday. It is you trying to force your views on the rest of us.
John
So where, exactly, are we forcing our views on you?
Do your views include ‘making the government show preference towards Christianity’?
No one is stopping you from worshiping. No one is stopping you from proselytizing. No one is stopping you from promoting your religion. We just object to you making the government promote your religion.
Government is not promoting our religeoun but it was founded on in God we trust. You are very tiny minority. Since you don’t believe in God, why should it matter to you? Do you want to strike from the Bill of Rights that we were endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights? I will support your rights to your beliefs but fight you to the death when you start trying to rewrite history.
John
Let me put it another way for clarification. We have the American Communist Party which I categorically disagree with. They have freedom of speech. Now comparing apples to apples, would you support them in petitioning our government to cave to their very tiny minority in that they do not agree with our system of government but instead wnat us to change to communism?
John
Lyn, as this is your website, I apologize ahead of time for this.
Marriagecoach1, you are an ignorant, arrogant blogger. I say that because you are writing on the internet, and rather than easily look up the truth you choose to post falsehoods that serve only to make you look as ignorant as you are.
“Government is not promoting our religeoun but it was founded on in God we trust.”
No. Our government was founded on E Pluribus Unum. ‘In God We Trust’ didn’t become out motto until the 50′s in response to the fear mongering of McCarthyism.
“You are very tiny minority.”
So what? Our minority status doesn’t give you the right to persecute us.
“Do you want to strike from the Bill of Rights that we were endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights?”
This statement is so wrong, I’m almost convinced you aren’t a real person. Do some research! ‘Endowed by our Creator’ is a line from the Declaration of Independence, which has nothing to do with the laws of our country. The Bill of Rights, which says nothing about gods or creators, is the first 10 amendments of the constitution.
How about you read a history text book before spouting off this nonsense?
“Now comparing apples to apples, would you support them in petitioning our government to cave to their very tiny minority in that they do not agree with our system of government but instead wnat us to change to communism?”
That example is not comparing apples to apples, nor am I convinced that you even understand what ‘apples to apples’ means, given your stunning lack of knowledge that you’ve demonstrated up to this point.
You will not persuade me by insulting me. This is so typical of liberals name calling and character assasination and yes it is an execellent analogy.
You are never going to get your way about this. You need the majority to vote your way and that won’t happen.
I have to laugh at the persecution idea. Having in God we trust on our money is PERSECUTION. I don’t take it or you seriously since you have decided to name call and insult and do character assasination.
John
Lyn and I don’t agree on things but I have never ever shown him disprespect for his feelings or for him. You would do far better if you emulated that set of ethics.
John
Lyn, yes this is your blog, but I would hope that you would call out this egregious behavior on the part of your fellow atheist.
John
“You will not persuade me by insulting me.”
First of all, I have no interest in persuading you. At this point I’m just concerned with correcting your blatant errors.
Secondly, while I expressed frustration in my post, I actually didn’t insult you. Calling someone arrogant and ignorant are descriptors, and I believe they fit your action perfectly. You act arrogant and then express things that are incorrect, making you ignorant of the truth.
“You need the majority to vote your way and that won’t happen. ”
Welcome to America. We do things (or try to) because they’re just, not because of majority rule. If that were true, blacks would still be slaves.
“Lyn and I don’t agree on things but I have never ever shown him disprespect for his feelings or for him.”
I submit that every time you spout something blatantly incorrect about America or its history, you disrespect every other American.
You could have said, your view is common but mistaken, actually if you review history this was the way that it was and is. Sounds a whole lot better than the insulting and dismissive way that you did character assasination and it was definitely taken as insulting.
John
I could have said it that way, but your arrogance made me frustrated.
And bloggers aren’t important enough to have ‘character assassination’. That sounds melodramatic.
More excuses and justification for your boorish behavior. You sound like the classic wife beater, “well she deserved it because she bugged me and pissed me off”.
Then further insultig by dismissing me by stating bloggers are not important enough
John Wilder
I’m insulted that you would compare writing with physical abuse.
Well I have recieved both verbal abuse and physical abuse and the spoken word is always way more painful. That would account for your boorish behavior.
John
boor·ish /ˈbʊərɪʃ/ Show Spelled
[boor-ish] Show IPA
–adjective
of or like a boor; unmannered; crude; insensitive.
.
——————————————————————————–
Origin:
1555–65; boor + -ish1
—Related forms
boor·ish·ly, adverb
boor·ish·ness, noun
—Synonyms
coarse, uncouth, loutish, churlish. Boorish, oafish, rude, uncouth all describe persons, acts, manners, or mannerisms that violate in some way the generally accepted canons of polite, considerate behavior. Boorish, originally referring to behavior characteristic of an unlettered rustic or peasant, now implies a coarse and blatant lack of sensitivity to the feelings or values of others: a boorish refusal to acknowledge greetings. Oafish suggests slow-witted, loutlike, clumsy behavior: oafish table manners. Rude has the widest scope of meaning of these words; it suggests either purposefully impudent discourtesy or, less frequently, a rough crudity of appearance or manner: a rude remark; a rude thatched hut. Uncouth stresses most strongly in modern use a lack of good manners, whether arising from ignorance or brashness: uncouth laughter; an uncouth way of staring at strangers.
Yep sounds just like you.
John
Definition of IGNORANT
1 a : destitute of knowledge or education ; also : lacking knowledge or comprehension of the thing specified b : resulting from or showing lack of knowledge or intelligence
Fits you perfectly, Johnny-boy.
“Do its deacons truly believe one can’t be good without God?” wonders Gaylor. “Nonbelievers know that it is not what you believe, but how you act, that makes you a moral person. We don’t feel the need to be rewarded in heaven or threatened with everlasting punishment in order to do good and be ethical.”
This is the crux of the matter. The commenter here is completely illogical concerning ‘good’ and ‘morality’. They have absolutely NO MEANING outside the context of God, or a belief in a ‘higher, universal morality’ that is inherent in all humans, regardless of culture, circumstance, nation, etc.
Many people have not truly considered the logic (or lack thereof) of this type of statement. On the one side, they proclaim that there IS such a thing as ‘morality’ and ‘good’. Pls. note that this is verified in the above statement.
So, what IS ‘morality’ and ‘good’? This is the question of the day. Either there is no God and/or a Universal Morality that all humans answer to, there is no alternative but to have mankind define what these are. Has the atheist community ever created any kind of consensus about these concepts? How do THEY define ‘morality’ and ‘good’ for all the people in the world? Or do they advocate that each nation should define these ideals? Or should the family decide these ideals? Or should the race define these ideals? or should the sex define these ideals?
Oh, I would LOVE to see them get all humans in a room and get to agree with a non-God based idea of ‘morality’!
And please don’t say that we (humans without a God) don’t need to define this. Cause how are you going to make laws? Based on consensus? What about those who disagree with you? Based on ‘their’ version of ‘morality’ and ‘good’? How will you accomodate their ‘need’ to break your majority-wins-morality laws? After all, how can you hold them to your ‘morality’ laws when they don’t agree or believe in them? Don’t they have a right to their own beliefs?
Most so-called atheists have never thought about the larger ramifications of their Godlessness. All laws today have been based on the morality of God. At the VERY minimum, on the concept of a Universal Morality. And if you subscribe to the last: what or WHO did that definition come from? How did it get imposed on all Mankind?
Think about it. It only leads to the absurd.
Hey, Not, I find it amusing that you refer to yourself in the negative. To me, this seems appropriate because you do not seem to bother looking at the larger picture. I would ask you to answer the questions I asked in my last comment. Answer them and I will have a little more respect for your comments.
The issue concerning religion in politics has a simple answer: allow all religions to put their highest level beliefs in the federal government. OOPs! guess what, they are all the same! If Jews wanted to call God, Elohim- who would disagree? Elohim is the same God- the great I AM that is the Christian God, the Jewish God and the Muslim God. He is the God of Abraham- whose genetics produced the Jews, the Christians and the Muslims.
I think most people wouldn’t have a problem with adding Buddist ideals to the list. The only ones that EVERYONE would reject are the occult beliefs. That leaves…. atheists. You are the tiniest of tiny minority in the WORLD. Almost no humans agree with you. Should we ALL be told what to do by you? The answer is so logical. No.
So, get over yourself. No one agrees with you. Further, if God or Buddah is not relavant to you, why should you care what us IGNORANT people do? Unless, of course, your version of Morality- if ever you can get other atheists to agree on it- is somehow different than the morality & laws created by those of us who get our morality from a God of some kind.
Lyn, you often bring up Christianity as the ‘bad guy’ who shuns you. You need to think about this. ALL religions shun you. That’s just a fact. Almost ALL humans subscribe to the belief of a GOD. Most subscribe to the God of Abraham- the Great I AM- in the Bible. This includes Christians, Jews and Muslims. There are a few Buddhists and they would shun you and your lack of belief in ANY kind of morality (something that is TRUE for EVERY man) too. Atheists, those who believe that there is NOTHING greater than pure existence, are the tiniest of tiny minorities in the world. In fact, you are so small as to be a mere aberration of human thought. So don’t just target Christianity, Lyn. You are shunned by EVERYONE.
Not, you should apologize. Marriagecoach is a polite person who tries to use reason as his best argument. How DARE you say that he is not a REAL person in your eyes? How intolerant and evil are you? You, on the other hand, are a mere name caller. You always have been. You are 100% wrong in saying our government was not founded on God. It was. All historical documents prove this. You, on the other hand, are doing the very things you criticize Marriagecoach for doing. It is YOU who will not look at history. Our government in NO WAY promotes religion. Politicians’ free speech (including religious free speech) is expressly protected by the first amendment. The GOVERNMENT is forbidden from PROMOTING a religion. This means that the Congress, the President and the Judicial may not make LAWS that promote a religion. Please show me- and any other reader- proof that our LAWS promote any religion.
You say that the tiny minority is being persecuted. PLEASE show how atheists are being ‘persecuted’ in ANY way, under the law.
As for the Bill of Rights vs. God statement. Not, you are not a well read person, nor do you have the reasoning ability of a pin. The legitimacy of the Bill of Rights is derived DIRECTLY from the Constitution. The legitimacy of the Constitution is based in the Declaration of Independence. The legitimacy of the Declaration is GOD granted equality of ALL men- based 100% on the fact that HE created us all equal. This is why the founding fathers justified bloody WAR against the tyranny of England- we were being forced to acknowledge a KING who considered himself worthy of god-like worship and demanded human obedience. Without the Declaration of Independence, the Revolutionary War would have been ‘immoral’ in the eyes of the founding fathers. Would you PLEASE read the second amendment? Every time a group throws off a government, they MUST state their reasons. Hence, the legality of the Declaration of Independence.
Have you EVER heard of legal precedence, NOT? No? Well, it goes like this: you establish the basis for morality (in America, it started with the idea that all men were created equal UNDER GOD. From there, we established a legal structure (the three branches of government) that would enforce this morality. Then we gave the ability to Congress to make further laws based on these principles- another name would be……. trumpets please!….. legal PRECEDENCE!
ALL law, hear me, ALL law is based on legal precedence. If you cannot handled this premise, NOT, then too bad. You are just ignorant and need some schooling. It all goes back to the founding documents- whether or not you or any other atheist would like to change this. It is 100% fact that the United States was founded on a DEEP belief in God and EVERYTHING He stands for. Not only the founding documents either- those men prayed before every Congressional session and printed the first American Bible for school children and injured soldiers.
So, YOU get a grip and YOU read your damned history and don’t insult Marriagecoach for his completely factual statements.
Not, You are truly a joke. You are neither logical, nor are you factual. It is your kind of person that gives atheists a bad name. There really are atheists who can make a valid argument for their side- you are not one of them.
Name-caller.
John, Not is a joke. I don’t know why Lyn gave him any platform for talking. He is ignorant in the basest form. He refuses to acknowledge fact. There ARE arguments that could be made by atheists- but he has not the intellect to make them. I could refute these atheist arguments, but since NOT can’t figure them out, why should I help him? Don’t worry, he will only influence those who are already convinced. And that would be a TINY number of humans on planet Earth.
“Secondly, while I expressed frustration in my post, I actually didn’t insult you. Calling someone arrogant and ignorant are descriptors, and I believe they fit your action perfectly. You act arrogant and then express things that are incorrect, making you ignorant of the truth.”
“This statement is so wrong, I’m almost convinced you aren’t a real person. ”
Hey, NOT, I just love the relative morality of liberals- atheists in particular. In the complete absence of real data, name calling is all you have. After the name calling has been called to the mat, you always say, “hey, me calling you a nasty name is not actually name calling because you really ARE those things!”
Awww. How cute. Well, then should I call you a fag? Cause you are one? Should I call you a moron, because you are one? Should I call you an idiot, because you ARE one? Should I call you a Slug Brain because you have one? Should I call you a a butt fucker, because you do that? Should I call you stupid because you can’t make a factual argument? Why not?
The problem with relative morality is that it leaves morality up to the person. As I said in my earlier post, I can’t wait to see what ‘morality’ and ‘good’ is for the atheist community. In this world of NO GOD, anything goes.
Well, this is going to be fun. To save space, I’ll try to contain my responses into one post. Luckily, a lot doesn’t seem worthy to respond to.
“I would ask you to answer the questions I asked in my last comment. Answer them and I will have a little more respect for your comments.”
You assume I need or desire your respect. Neither is particularly true. But for the heck of it, I’ll answer.
“Or do they advocate that each nation should define these ideals? Or should the family decide these ideals? Or should the race define these ideals? or should the sex define these ideals?”
It seems that the people of Earth have been trying each and every one of those in our history. I submit that we let reason and logic determine such ideals. Though many people will disagree, which leads to the international conflicts we see all the time.
“After all, how can you hold them to your ‘morality’ laws when they don’t agree or believe in them?”
See, we have this thing called a democratic republic. Certain things, or rights, were decided on that can’t be altered because they are pretty basic and fundamental. Other things can change based on legislation.
Not perfect, but I’ve seen worse.
“All laws today have been based on the morality of God.”
No, they haven’t. See: the code of Hammurabi. Which predates your ‘god’s laws’ and is obviously copied by your religious founders.
“allow all religions to put their highest level beliefs in the federal government”
Or do what the founders intended and what is infinitely easier…allow none.
“The only ones that EVERYONE would reject are the occult beliefs. ”
Except those with occult beliefs. So specifically not everyone.
“You are the tiniest of tiny minority in the WORLD.”
Actually we’re not. There’s 16% of us in America, and about a billion of us worldwide. Not terribly vocal, yet, but we’re working on it.
Besides which…might makes right? I guess that explains a lot about how you think. It doesn’t matter what’s right. Just that there’s more of you. Nice…
“No one agrees with you.”
Lyn does. And last I checked, he was allowing you to post on his website.
“You are shunned by EVERYONE.”
Again, might makes right. What are you, every super-villain ever? You’re sounding more and more silly every time you say it.
“Not, you should apologize.”
No.
“You are 100% wrong in saying our government was not founded on God.”
Sure it was. Keep lying to yourself and maybe, one day, you’ll be able to convince yourself of your lies.
“The legitimacy of the Constitution is based in the Declaration of Independence”
No, it really isn’t. The Declaration was a thumbing of our nose at the British. And that’s it. It has no basis in law.
“I could refute these atheist arguments, but since NOT can’t figure them out, why should I help him?”
Which is a very nice cover trying to explain that you can’t, actually, refute my arguments. Good job. Are you trying to convince others, or yourself?
“How cute. Well, then should I call you a fag?”
And the bigot reveals herself. I wondered how long that would take.
“Cause you are one?”
I might be. I might not be. But if I denied it, that would imply that being a fag, or a homo, or gay would be a bad thing. And I don’t think it is. So, cheers for the compliment.
“Should I call you an idiot, because you ARE one?”
I’m not. But by definition, you are ignorant. And Johnny boy too.
“Should I call you a a butt fucker, because you do that?”
Hah! What are you, a 12-year-old-boy?
“The problem with relative morality is that it leaves morality up to the person.”
Yes it does. And I’d rather go by my morality than any your could present, given your behavior.
“In this world of NO GOD, anything goes.”
You believe in a god that got frustrated and then drowned everyone on the planet. I’m not impressed with any morality that thinks that is good.
Not, you are a butt fucking asshole who has his head so far up his ass that you really can’t tell which way is up.
Now, I am perfectly able to say that because there is no right or wrong to contradict me. Let me know when you atheists are done letting reason & logic & consensus figure it out. Until then, I call a free-for-all with you. And you can’t say I am wrong. If you ever get a consensus with all the atheists of the world and agree I can’t call you names, then I will apologize. I really will.
On the other hand, as I subscribe to God-based morality, you can’t call me names. So there, you ass licking, mother fucker, fudge packer.
Here, I think it’s Lyn who decides what is right and wrong. At least on this blog.
But please, by all means, continue demonstrating your maturity
I am demonstrating my freedom of speech and actions based on the very definition of morality that YOU proposed, you dick licker. Since anything goes, then I can say what I want. And this demonstrates EXACTLY the practical result of atheist mentality. If Lyn decides my name calling is ‘wrong’, then I can say that, hey, I am a minority here! Since when does majority rule? Doesn’t that, by YOUR reasoning, make him the ‘biggest supervillian ever’, you little cunt? Hey, Bitch, get with the program. Majority doesn’t rule in this world of yours. Just your own thoughts of what ‘right’ vs. ‘wrong’ is. And by YOUR defintion, I can do WHAT I WANT.
So, you little cunt, bitch. Keep it up or I will kick your skinny little hole fucked twat that has had more meat in it than any slaughter house.
I rest my case. Little dick head.
Lyn, I DARE you to tell me what ‘morality’ is. You had better be ready to define it’s basis. Is it YOU? Is it based on this BLOG? Is it different for other blogs? Is it different in a different room?
You are sliding down a very slippery slope here, so be careful. Not does not have the mental fortitude to make any kind of argument. He calls on YOU, his God for this blog. I hope you are ready for that kind of responsibility.
I am curious as to what you’re trying to prove. Other than your ability to come up with words and phrases that fail to impress or anger me.
Maybe Lyn will take a page out of your gods book and drown you, or ask you to kill a member of your family?
And you didn’t save space, except in your gerbil packing ass hole.
“And you didn’t save space, except in your gerbil packing ass hole.”
I wonder if I can print all this and show it to your children? That would be fun.
“Maybe Lyn will take a page out of your gods book and drown you, or ask you to kill a member of your family?”
See, this is EXACTLY what hell is like, NOT. This is exactly atheist relative morality takes people. I can call you whatever I want, because that is what I call moral. Who are YOU to judge me? And even if you, Lyn, and EVERY other reader thought I was wrong, you have no power to tell me so. Why? because under your OWN rules of morality, doing so would be a tyranny of the majority.
I explained to my children EXACTLY what I did. They agreed that you have no case. They are 11, 9 and 7 and they are smarter than a dumbshit like you, mouse brain.
Hey! Asshole NOT, you can’t take the same thing you dish out.
“Marriagecoach1, you are an ignorant, arrogant blogger”- your statement
“Secondly, while I expressed frustration in my post, I actually didn’t insult you. Calling someone arrogant and ignorant are descriptors, and I believe they fit your action perfectly. You act arrogant and then express things that are incorrect, making you ignorant of the truth.”- your statement
“So what? Our minority status doesn’t give you the right to persecute us.”- your statement
You DO buttfuck, so you are a buttfucker. I am a minority here because most people would say I was being rude & unfair- but… my minority status doesn’t give you the right to persecute me. So, I am absolutely FREE to call you a gerbil packer.
Do you understand now? you limp wristed panty waste coward?
Please show me WHY I can’t do these things in ATHEISTIC ‘morality’.
And people wonder why I keep a short leash on all who come and comment on Conclub. (:
Atheists are attacking churches, Christianity, and conservatism with increasingly frequency and ferocity. A sign of the times I guess.
In the end, every knee will bow and every tongue will confess… whether in this life or the next.
Wow I think short little rebel has lost her temper. I haven’t heard such cussing since I was in the navy. She seems to be able to dish it out, but not take it.
She writes:
“Atheists, those who believe that there is NOTHING greater than pure existence, are the tiniest of tiny minorities in the world. In fact, you are so small as to be a mere aberration of human thought. So don’t just target Christianity, Lyn. You are shunned by EVERYONE.”
I would remind her that “no-religion” is the third category in religious ‘beliefs’ First there is Christians at 2.1 billion, then Islam at 1.5 billion, then non-believers at 1.1 billion, followed by Hindu’s at 900 million, and hundreds of really small sects follow. Judaism is really small with way less than 50 million followers world-wide.
Atheists tend to have a much more logical view of the world because they don’t believe in magic-supernatural-stuff
“I am waiting to hear what reasoning they give to make me stop my vile behavior.”
Why do you assume anyone wants you to stop?
By all means, continue. Your words do not harm me in the least, and only serve to demonstrate the type of person you are.
After this comment I intend to ignore you, as I think that’s the only response you deserve. But don’t let that stop you. By all means.
Just remind me to never piss you off Shorty. (:
Shorty proved she requires a god to be nice. That’s all she proved. In her case I’m really glad her god ‘exists’ because without it she would be a menace to society apparently.
My main reason for posting this is because of the two very adamant christians watching this thread. I have a question.
How can ‘God’ condemn someone simply for not believing in him? I know plenty of pagans, atheists, and homosexuals, all of which are biblically doomed, who head up soup kitchens, save helpless animals, and would give you the shirt off their back even knowing you would spit in their face the first chance you got and yet, according to most biblical interpretations, they are going to ‘hell’ simply for not bowing down to a ‘higher power’ that seems want them to believe without any proof. They do their acts of goodness not out of fear of a fiery damnation or out of desire to be on some personifieds power’s good side but out of pure want to do something nice for someone…to make the world a better place. Isn’t that the epitome of what Jesus teaches? Or am I wrong?
How do Christians reconcile that without pointing to an ancient book that has been translated so many times, often by kings and other forms of government, that it very well may no longer carry the message it once meant to?
It seems to me that some people who claim that their convictions are strong and then resort to name calling and threatening tactics are unsure of who they really are and are scared whether they want to admit it or not that all that they believe in may not be true.
Short must be pmsing again. Go back to the kitchen and make me my dinner bitch. Thats what “your god” designed you for remember? To serve man? Took my rib? Member? bitch? of course you dont haha.
Pingback: $7 for $15 Worth of Takeout from Romeo’s Pizza » Get your daily Groupon deals
Pingback: Want to See Atheist Relative Morality in Action? « Short Little Rebel
Pingback: Want to See Atheist Relative Morality in Action? |
Pingback: Scumbag Style
Pingback: Atheist Billboards Expose Christians as Hypocrites | Mobile Atheist