Intolerant Atheists Retaliate Against Christian Billboards

page: 2
7
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 01:31 PM
link   
While it might seem like a petty act to respond to billboards with billboards, nothing about that action indicates intolerance. It could look like a giant religious (or unreligious) pissing contest to some.

Thats not the message i got from it however. I thought the message behind the boards was not to stamp out christians (or other religions) or to convert people to atheism. I think its pretty clearly stated in the article that the attempt is to create a supportive community for atheist.

Seing as how the article clearly points out that they are in the extreme minority, and given the fact that many of the religious majority ARE trying to convert them to religious beliefs i thhink that this group and the act of spreading the word of this supportive group are very beneficial for atheist.

Im sure there are people out there that feell isolated and condemned because theyy dont beleive in "invisible man in the sky who watches everything you do." to quote George Carlin.

also, the Coalition of Reason is a group of people with common ideas. This does not make them a religion, and if it does than organizations like the boyscouts, girlscouts, chess clubs, and even knitting circles would be religiious groups




posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 01:39 PM
link   
Sorry, but the billboard contains a tame and polite message.

On the contrary, every time I travel down I-75 in Florida I am treated to mile after mile of billboards with disgusting, huge, full-color images of aborted fetuses that are paid for by the aborto-intolerant turbo-religious.

I find this FAR more offensive than a sign expressing an opposing religious/non-religious viewpoint



posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 01:59 PM
link   
What struck me about this article was the way Atheists seem to be taking over the tactics traditionally used by religious to evangelize others to a particular faith.



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.


How long before we have sincere atheists complaining about "organized atheism"?

How long before one group is accused of "heresy" for not holding to the belief system of "organized atheism"?

How long before different sects of atheists break away from the main "church" to found their own denominations?


Ahteists should be careful what they wish for or they might just end up in the same boat as the Christians. 5001 denominations and counting...



posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 02:59 PM
link   
Like some others who have posted, I have a problem with the title of thread.

There is nothing intolerant about any of this. Rebuttal is not "retaliation." Nor is the content of the ads unseemly. They assert a theological proposition, that people can be good without a god. That's debatable, but well within the range of ordinary religious opinion.

Atheism is, of course, a religion, as that word is typically used. It certainly is a religious belief, on pain of words ceasing to have meaning at all. In the United States, people of whatever religious persuasion can witness for their faith publically. The proposed ad campaign is plainly evangelical, but that's permissible in a free country.



posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 03:32 PM
link   
I do not see the big deal, both sides paid for the billboards with donation money. I mean when Gore was running against bush was bush intollerant because Bush ran those smear advertisements?



posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 03:45 PM
link   
Since Atheism is taking on religious evangelism practices, maybe they should have their own 10 commandments.




posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by FortAnthem
 


lol



Thou shal not kill
nor empower a givernment to kill for you


But putting a government in power that will kill you, your friends and family is okay.
Joseph Stalin, Atheist: 20 million plus dead
Mao-Tse-Tung, Atheist: 40 million plus dead
Pol Pot, Atheist: 2 million dead
Kim-Il-Sung, Atheist: 5 million dead



posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 03:56 PM
link   
Reply to post by FortAnthem
 


I think you mean intolerant iconoclastic neo-atheists. The hypocrites that quibble over semantics to shield themselves from the fact that most of the time they are acting no better than those they condemn. You know Dawkin's crowd. But, it's worth noting not all atheists are like this.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



[edit on 17-2-2010 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]



posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 04:05 PM
link   
The original billboards should have been taken down by agencies of the government . It should be written into statute and into law that religion shall play no part in the political affairs of the state . Those that advocate it should be monitored as subversives . It is not against free speech , it is a practical limitation on any ideologies or principles adhering to a 3rd party agenda that does not necessarily benefit the state . Why not let in the advocates for the flat earth society , or the great stamps of Romania collectors appreciation group in for their 2 cents worth . Curtail them all , let them do what they like in their own privacy , but state matters are not their domain , and they should not seek to infringe upon them.



posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 04:11 PM
link   
reply to post by zaiger
 


But you forget the allowances they make for atheism and none other. "That was communism! Not atheism!" they say but despite the obvious obfuscation they have no problem ignoring the political or monetary gain behind all the so called "holy wars" and calling them religion's fault.



posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 04:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Gun Totin Gerbil
 




The original billboards should have been taken down by agencies of the government .

No the government would have no grounds to do that. The first ammendment really works both ways, as long as the people paid for the billboard they have a right to say what they want.



It should be written into statute and into law that religion shall play no part in the political affairs of the state .

It is...


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.




Those that advocate it should be monitored as subversives .

Are you one of those people who say we should sacrafice pur liberties so we can be free and safe?



It is not against free speech , it is a practical limitation on any ideologies or principles adhering to a 3rd party agenda that does not necessarily benefit the state.

It is against free speech any group or organization can support whatever laws and canidates they would like.



posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by zaiger
 


But you forget the allowances they make for atheism and none other. "That was communism! Not atheism!" they say but despite the obvious obfuscation they have no problem ignoring the political or monetary gain behind all the so called "holy wars" and calling them religion's fault.


Oh i know. The bible is full of BS unless it talks about killing people then it is just "more people killed by religion". And then they would have you believe that all religion is just people's greed and how they all want more money unless it is the holly war those were fought for god by the crazy christians.
What i never got is why the Dawkins fan boys think of religion as only meaning Christianity.



posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 05:34 PM
link   
reply to post by FortAnthem
 





Ahteists should be careful what they wish for or they might just end up in the same boat as the Christians. 5001 denominations and counting...


*Sigh*
Are you telling me that you've never heard of religions that are atheistic?

Both the Samkhya and the Mimamsa schools of Hindu philosophy reject the existence of a creator god.

Buddhism is widely regarded as an atheistic religion.

Jains do not worship any "higher" spiritual beings like gods.

On a functional level, at least, both Confucianism and Taoism can be considered atheistic.

A significant percentage of the members of Unitarian Universalist churches are atheists.

Religious humanism creates a religious context without gods.




ATHEISM:
Has only one "rule," and that is the rule of the definition of "atheism" - not having any belief in any gods.

Atheism is not a religion, just like theism isnt a religion.



posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 06:26 PM
link   
reply to post by zaiger
 


And that is supposedly "scientific", "logical" and "rational". Right.
I think it's by and large *but not all* has to do with getting crap as a child from other over zealous Christian children *I know I got a lot of such crap, but I can let go* and not being able to get past that to the point they can't see the forrest for the trees. And it's far easier to generalize.



posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 06:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
 


Yeah but i never got is that evangelical types talk about jesus and god just as much as the one's they oppose. I mean hell even dawkins wrote a majority of his god delusion targeted at only christians and the bible.



posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 06:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by zaiger
reply to post by FortAnthem


But putting a government in power that will kill you, your friends and family is okay.
Joseph Stalin, Atheist: 20 million plus dead
Mao-Tse-Tung, Atheist: 40 million plus dead
Pol Pot, Atheist: 2 million dead
Kim-Il-Sung, Atheist: 5 million dead


There's a huge, intellectually dishonest red herring. Blaming atheism for the deaths of millions when clearly the issue is statism and the madmen that embrace it. Sorry for you you're unable to see things for what they are and embarrassingly place an "lol" emoticon at the finale of your debacle of a statement.



posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 07:05 PM
link   
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 


Yeah not atheisim at all right? It is just coincidence that most of Atheist leaders go on mass murdering campaigns.



posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 07:26 PM
link   
reply to post by zaiger
 


Ach, i can see by your last posts that this is going to be pretty borish, but here goes.



The bible is full of BS unless it talks about killing people then it is just "more people killed by religion


What does this even mean?




you forget the allowances they make for atheism and none other. "That was communism! Not atheism!


(You didnt write it, but you agreed to this)... Who are "THEY"?
What kind of asurd statement is this? Are you proposing that atheism says anything about killing people? You know Stalin didnt believe in the invicible pink unicorn either, does that make everyone who doesnt believe in it somehow part of a disbelief that should be avoided?

Krikey, get a hold of yourself..

Atheism is merely an unbelief in a god or gods. It is a position that is negative (or neutral may be a better term) in the sense that it does not put forth any ideology, tenets, dogma, etc. Stalinism does however.



Stalin did not kill people in the name of, or for the purpose of, atheism. Stalin's oppression of religions was due to the fact that they were an opposing organization that people would feel loyalty to, instead of being loyal to Stalin and/or the state..
..
you just pulled the "stalin card", and its ridiculous.


He killed people in the name of Stalin (or the state, which in his mind was the same thing.



Now 9/11 on the other hand, they killed in the name of God, 9/11 terrorists' actions can be tied to their religous beliefs.

Or the crusaders wiping out the infidel muslims shouting, "God is my sword and my shield!"



Edit to add:
Obviously it should be recognized that what is called religious strife is usually only partly that.. “religious wars” of the 16th and 17th centuries were at least as much about politics.


However:
The dangers of strife and fanaticism come from the very nature of religion itself, which deals with ultimate things.

In a sense people ought to be more ready to fight over religious dogma than over disputed territory, because religious dogma has to do with the "highest" and most important "truths". (It requires some kind of divine revelation to teach us that we should not kill one another over religious dogma.)

Religion is important to the religious because it gives life meaning. Threaten to take it away, and their life will have no meaning (they believe). Thats why they do crazy, extreme things in the name of their religion.

Most religions teach that those who have been specially called, ordained or anointed can also carry out the punishment on behalf of God = VIOLENCE

[edit on 17/2/2010 by Daniem]



posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 07:27 PM
link   
reply to post by zaiger
 


I think Nietzsche said it best:

He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you. into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.

It speaks volumes of mankind's propensity for becoming lost in a fight against what he percieves as evil while becoming every bit as bad as he percieves his enemy to be. I think it has to do with us versus them BS and how we make excuses for whoever is like us.

And I love it when someone does exactly what I said they would. *refering to the answer to your post*



posted on Feb, 17 2010 @ 07:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Daniem
 


You mean the facts are stacking against your bias so you plan to take your ball and go right?
Fair enough. And for the seven billionth time atheism means this according to mirriam-webster:

Main Entry: athe·ism Pronunciation: Function: Etymology: Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek Date: 1546 , 1 archaic : , 1 archaic : ungodliness, wickedness , 2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity

To call it a lack of belief is as intellectually dishonest as calling a contrary thought not a thought. And thank you ever so much for doing exactly as I said you would.





new topics
top topics
 
7
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join