It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Intolerant Atheists Retaliate Against Christian Billboards

page: 1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in


posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 11:32 AM
In the latest example of the game of tit for tat being played out between Christians and non-believers, atheists have responded to a small Christian billboard campaign with a huge nation wide billboard campaign of their own.

Atheists Retaliate Against Christian Billboards

The Tampa Bay area of Florida may be the unfortunate site of the looming apocalypse, as local Christians and atheists battle over billboard space. Six months ago, a retired businessman paid $50,000 to rent 10 billboards that condemned the separation of church and state. In retaliation, the United Coalition of Reason has spent $100,000 to erect signs that read, “Are you good without God? Millions are.”

National director of the United Coalition of Reason, Fred Edwords, intends to plaster the anti-God billboards all over the nation, on bus shelters, billboards, and transit stations. He claims that he has been greeted by positive reactions to the signs. “People are saying, ‘Geez, where have you been all my life? I didn’t know you existed. I thought I was the only one who thought this way.’”

Despite these alleged encounters, 84 percent of the Tampa Bay area is Christian, and another 5 percent are either Jewish or Muslim believers in God. Seemingly, 90 percent of Tampa Bay would disagree with the coalitions’ billboards.

The coalition asserts that it is their goal to bring nonbelievers together and increase the visibility of local Community of Reason societies, specifically the Tampa Bay Coalition that recently opened. They collect information from atheists, secularists, and humanists and bring them together in one place. It also provides training for web hosting and public relations, presumably to arm the members with the proper ammunition to get the “word” out. No group has ever made such an effort to articulate that which they don't believe.

Read more: The New American

Looks like the evangelical atheists are on the move.

They're seeking out converts and spreading their gospel of disbelief through a new network of Community of Reason societies. It looks to me like they're ready to set up their own church of unbelievers to compete with Christianity head on.

[edit on 17-2-2010 by FortAnthem]

+15 more 
posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 11:39 AM
I am a little disappointed you felt the need to add "Intolerant" to you post title. It shows a personal bias against Atheists, and as such, how intolerant you can come across.

Atheisism practiced in such a matter is the same as any other religion. Yes, the United Coalition of Reason is a religion. You either tolerate all of it, or none of it. To ban their group from buying billboards, you would have to ban all of them.

I am finding nothing in the article that indicates atheists are intolerate.

Now, I don't disagree with your conclusions, but I also am failing to see why this is a problem. Could you perhaps expand upon your reasoning? Thanks.

posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 11:48 AM
reply to post by TLomon

I guess the thing I see as intolerant is how the atheist group felt the need to "retaliate" by putting up their own signs to counter the Christian billboards message.

If they had just put up the signs to get the word out to other atheists that they are not alone and that they would be setting up a network for atheists, I wouldn't have a problem with it.

It seems to me the atheist group which paid for these signs posted them out of spite and in retaliation for the Christian signs. That may be just my opinion but, that is the impression I got from the story.

[edit on 17-2-2010 by FortAnthem]

posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 11:52 AM
So the athiest group is intolerant?


Because they had the nerve to defend their position against the Christians?

What makes the atheists intolerant and not the Christians?

To me if an organization is spending boocoo's of money on billbords, there is an agenda.

Both sides are spending boocoo's of money on this.

Neither is intolerant, both are furthering their own agendas.

posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 11:55 AM
reply to post by FortAnthem

So basically what youre saying is that you find anyone who posts a rebuttal to anything intolerant correct?

by replying to my, or anyone elses message, you are showing yourself to be intolerant.

Using the logic you just posted that is.

Pretty stupid isnt it?

posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 11:56 AM
reply to post by FortAnthem

Let these people blow their cash. The war against ignorance won't be won with billboards. How can useful information for or against a religion fit on a Billboard.

For instance, the Church and State thing, I think if the Christians who had put a billboard up condemning separation of Church and State understood what happens when you combine Church and State they would have thought twice. Knowledge is power and you cannot put enough knowledge on a Billboard to debunk or support any belief system sufficiently.

They are wasting their time.

posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 11:56 AM
I agree with hotbakedtater on this. This is two religious organizations furthering their own agendas.

Intolerance is accepting one but not the other.

I accept both, and feel both have the right to do what they want. It is their money after all.

They are competition for each other's groups.

I am still failing to see a problem behind this.

+6 more 
posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 12:08 PM

Originally posted by FortAnthem
reply to post by TLomon

It seems to me the atheist group which paid for these signs posted them out of spite and in retaliation for the Christian signs. That may be just my opinion but, that is the impression I got from the story.
[edit on 17-2-2010 by FortAnthem]

Someone forgot that religion has been forcing its way down the throats of millions for some time now...and at a much higher cost than a billboard sign.

But are you not strong in your faith fortanthem..? It would appear not, as this news article has owned you enough that you felt the need to create a thread about it. And a rather biased one at that.

How 'bout this - both sides have issues...pointing the finger at one particular group negates any real debate - it becomes a flame fest and nothing more.

Why not take up crochet or maybe become a seamstress fort..?

These activities will keep your mind off topics that weigh you down and allow you to be the person you truly are - a wannabe zealot.

posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 12:14 PM

Originally posted by TLomon
Atheisism practiced in such a matter is the same as any other religion.

No, it isn't.

Originally posted by TLomon
Yes, the United Coalition of Reason is a religion.

See previous comment.

I can tell the difference because religion makes me sick, and atheism makes me glad that at least a small portion of human beings actually use the brains their ancestors gave them.

posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 12:15 PM
All the time, I see different groups attacking Christians using the pejorative label "Intolerant". It seem to be the favorite insult of choice for Christian-bashers at the moment.

I thought I would add the word to the title of the thread just to see how other groups like being labeled "intolerant", whether justified or not.

It seems they don't like it much either.

heh, heh, heh.

posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 12:22 PM
Interesting. I never made the claim I was an atheist. I don't like it. What does that tell you about me?

I don't like intolerance in any form. The PC world has been turning more and more about removing anything they find offensive to the point where nothing is allowed. The message should be about teaching tolerance - accept everyone for their beliefs and live and let live.

Intolerance is perpetuating the PC fiasco that we see more and more often in the news. Intolerence is why people are feeling more and more seperated instead of learning to live with each other.

posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 12:35 PM
When will the x-ians learn.

When you vote, your voting for things that you do not want personal responsibility for.

In my home, I dictate religion, my feelings on gays, my views on women, etc...I dont want the government to "take over" my thinking on this nor do I want the federal government to make decisions that belong in my home and immediate community.

Question for the you *really* want the federal government running religion?

Do you honestly think that if the government says follow something or believe in something, it works? Have you seen whats coming out of washington? If anything, instituting state and religion will result in a mass exodus of believers.

Wake up...the things you vote for are not what you would want in your home, its what you no longer want choice in within your home.

posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 12:37 PM
People form "groups" religious or otherwise BECAUSE of intolerance. As far as I know from all my studies, intolerance is NOT just a religious thing, it is a people thing. People tend to be "set in their ways" and don't like to have change. This breeds intolerance and is generally quite harmless. It is when intolerance festers into hate, bigotry and/or racism and the like that we must worry.

As an example, Christianity has been fighting a war of intolerance for 1800 years +/-

the inquisition, Salem Witch trials, tailoring the books of the bible to their needs; omitting texts that went against their agenda and calling them heresy yes, the canon. the crusades of old (and the newer Bush ones).

Or maybe the post civil war era and the intolerance of the south to accept Blacks as people, or the 50's and 60's civil rights movement?

The point is what will YOU as a person DO? Will you tell yourself that your specific brand of religion (Or lack of) is the ONLY correct one and crusade against everyone else? Or will you practice acceptance and tolerance for all people, Much like the Persians did in the "Holy Land" BEFORE the crusades?

Subscribing to a way of intolerance is basically buying into the agenda of these groups and makes you a sheep in their flock.

Quit following. Lead yourself. Be the wolf.

Edited for typos

[edit on 17-2-2010 by pyrael]

posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 12:38 PM
Excuse me for beeing intolerant, but i just had to respond to this out of spite, for reading such a misleading title. I just want to say that you're coming of as pretty sly by having that headline.

One might even say you did it out of spite, because you dont like atheists.. so who's the intolerant one then, by your own logic?

Im sorry if im intolerant.
PS: by responding to this post, you are intolerant.

posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 12:52 PM
what is it with you religious folks?, it's not like most of us havn't had religion forced on us from an early age.

Why are you so bothered what a bunch of atheists do? are you all starting to question how your Christian beliefs no longer chime so true in the 21st centuary, where you feel you have to make you beliefs fit in a world in which they no longer belong.

I say atheists need to be more vocal, to help counter balance the religious dominance in our societies. If this makes me intolerant then so be it.

I'll just be thankful that I am tolerant to all creeds and colours and sexualities, the same of which can not be said for religion.

[edit on 17-2-2010 by woodwardjnr]

posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 01:08 PM
Imagine how many people you could feed with that money? For either side to waste money on billboards that will only encourage more hate is ridiculous. Like either side will change their mind.

posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 01:17 PM
I think it's time for those Christians to take the high road and let the atheists wage their crusade however they want.

The atheists are no better than the ignorant religious, that's for sure.

posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 01:23 PM
I am able to sympathise with the radical atheist position. At first I was attracted to it primarily because I perceived it as sharing my view of religion as pure stupidity and denial of death. For an intelligent person it is easy to form this view especially in western countries where religion has become a way of conveniently ignoring reality, replacing it with a simplistic, moral, black and white world where following some basic rules assures immortality and eternal happiness. Radical atheists see this part of religion, but unfortunately overlook the more complex and beautiful aspects.

The radical atheist movement, led by those such as Richard Dawkins, is yet another modern movement that becomes obsessed with a problem that in itself is not huge, and loses its holistic focus. Much like the neo-Nazis with their fear of non-whites, and Christians with their fear of death, the radical atheists are essentially a negative movement which only tries to eliminate a problem, without offering a genuine solution. These negative movements are doomed to failure because they create an entire ideology out of one aspect of reality, and in doing so lose focus on everything else.

The solution is to perceive the cause of these problems and more importantly, how the process that brings them about can be replaced by a more natural one. Only a positive, holistic view that unites all aspects of society, including religion can stem the tide of modern decadence, or rampant and accelerating individualism. Rather than destroy religion we should concentrate on restoring its inner meaning, that of transcendence; individuals aligning themselves with a higher order of things.

posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 01:23 PM
In my opinion an atheist in the real sense of the word does not care what a religious person believes and if an atheist feels the need to engage on an advertisement campaign then obviously that particular atheist needs to revaluate the meaning of the word.

The United Coalition of Reason’s actions against the believers mean that they have no idea what being an atheist really means and are in effect treating atheism like it is a religion – I see an irony here.

Whatever their agenda the United Coalition of Reason are making real godless folk look bad by acting like this, live and let live, let believers believe as they wish and if it is not infringing on another’s life choices there is no point to this animosity is there?.

posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 01:23 PM
Well, I got halfway down the page & have to reply.
If I tell you that I'm not a fan of team sports, do you automatically assume I'm a track & field fan? Or a sports fan of a different variety perhaps? Sadly, there are many who would.
Of course, there are many other possibilities: I may detest all sport; I may have a little interest but not enough to be a fan; I may have no opinion on anything other than team sports which I've decided I'm no fan of etc. It would therefore be preposterous to describe me as a fan.
It is the same with atheism. It is not a religion. It is merely a facet of many & varied philosophies, aphilosophical & personal outlooks. It is not a statement of belief, but simply 1 of disbelief which implies no other beliefs, or system thereof, at all.

• noun
1 the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
2 a particular system of faith and worship.
3 a pursuit or interest followed with devotion.

Just as one doesn't have to be a track & field fan, or any type of fan, to dislike team sports, one doesn't have to follow any pursuit or interest devotedly in order to not believe in divinity. To equate the 2 positions is actually a ploy of the religious which seeks to undermine the radical difference between religion & other ideas, even non-religious theism, as it seeks to assert that, in matters regarding spirituality, there is only religion when this is patently false.
BTW, I'm not an atheist, I'm an a-intellectual-dishonesty-ist

<<   2  3  4 >>

log in