Intolerant Atheists Retaliate Against Christian Billboards

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by kawacat
reply to post by traditionaldrummer

 

They are attacking Christian billboards. That is the whole point of this thread.

Who is "they"?

"They" are the atheists who choose to have some freedom of expression in a free society, built on the grounds of a division in state and religion.

How about people leave other people with their own beliefs.

Because people cannot stand other people's beliefs.

It is so stupid.

Live and let live, please.

No-one knows the truth, because this world is full of lies.

Reply to post by traditionaldrummer

Weak argument. Yet they never killed anyone for professing to liking to eat meat. People professing to a religious belief on the other hand..... Different story.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Reply to post by Bunken Drum

Your have a dizzyingly high esteem for yourself. Gotcha. If your argument consisted of such gems as what you so recently spewed I can well imagine the real answer isn't the one your ego so readily provides.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

reply to post by FortAnthem


Look up the "Scopes Monkey Trial" on youtube, this is true intolerance, and will give you and insight into how Atheists view Christianity.

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
Reply to post by traditionaldrummer

 

Weak argument. Yet they never killed anyone for professing to liking to eat meat. People professing to a religious belief on the other hand..... Different story.

 

Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

 

The weak argument would be basing the actions of statist madmen exclusively on atheism.

reply to post by FortAnthem

www.thenewamerican.com...

Numerous godless billboards throughout the country have been defaced in retaliation. Likewise, in Cincinnati, Ohio, threats prompted the property owner to remove an atheistic sign only two days after it was put up.

FortAnthem says:

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.

Surely, retaliation can't be a sign of intolerance only when atheists indulge in it. What would Jesus say?

Originally posted by FortAnthem

Looks like the evangelical atheists are on the move.

[edit on 17-2-2010 by FortAnthem]

I must know what this is...An evangelical atheist?????

Originally posted by zaiger
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

And yet you fail to mention the countless more deaths related to religion. There is nothing to compare between these people. You cannot compare people with something like a lack of beliefs just because they were atheists does not meen its the reason why so many were killed because of them. At least with them it wasent their lack of religion that killed millions unlike the christian faith has done to millions over countless years.

Originally posted by rusethorcain

Originally posted by FortAnthem

Looks like the evangelical atheists are on the move.

[edit on 17-2-2010 by FortAnthem]

I must know what this is...An evangelical atheist?????

An ateist who is working to spread the, uh, I guess faith isn't the right word but I hope you get the idea.

evangelize

e·van·gel·ize [ i vánjə lz ] (past and past participle e·van·gel·ized, present participle e·van·gel·iz·ing, 3rd person present singular e·van·gel·iz·es)

transitive and intransitive verb

Definition:

1. convert to Christianity: to convert somebody or the people of an area to Christianity, especially by preaching or missionary work

2. be advocate for a cause: to try to persuade other people to share enthusiasm for specific beliefs and ideals

Source

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.”

The way I see it is that each side has a right to these billboards that they paid for, but personally, I see them as " I am right, you are wrong" childish antics.

If either think they are doing anything good for the community with these billboards, they are wrong. Now, taking that $150,000 to help feed, shelter, clothe people in need would be a far better way to draw attention to themselves in a much better light.

When I see billboards like these, I think of the money wasted that could be doing good somewhere. And it really burns my hide when I see these billboards are paid for by a religious organization.



[edit on 18-2-2010 by virraszto]

Wow. Another debate on religion. This time, the religious side complained about the non-religious side.

I did see that most of the Atheists immediately became defensive after reading OP's post. I have seen this elsewhere and don't know why most Atheists are quick to react. It's mostly the same with Theists, though.

I just feel that Atheists are somehow sensitive when it comes to religion (perhaps something that happened to them in their childhood). I don't see a reason to get angry over what other people think. Unless their feelings are bruised or something, but why even make religion a factor? Just ignore each other.

Originally posted by Unown
I did see that most of the Atheists immediately became defensive after reading OP's post.

It needed to be pointed out that the "intolerant" remark was unfounded.

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows Reply to post by Bunken Drum

 

Your have a dizzyingly high esteem for yourself. Gotcha.

Yes, I do have a high opinion of my ability to use the english language effectively. I also believe that to hide one's light under a bushel is the height of conceit (that was Nelson Mandela, I believe, but he may have been quoting someone else).

If your argument consisted of such gems as what you so recently spewed I can well imagine the real answer isn't the one your ego so readily provides.

Of course, we're all free to imagine whatever we like & believe it too, in the absence of evidence. That's really at the heart of this thread. You can imagine the god of Abraham. I can prefer my own interpretation of the numinous. An atheist can generate their view of the universe without any deity. Fortunately, in this particular instance, the evidence is right where I left it.

Haha, that's awesome! I love it when people do that sort of thing, like last years "There probably is a god so stop worrying and live your life" VS "There probably is no god so stop worrying and live your life" similar billboard/ bus side adds war between Athiests and Religious people. That news article made it onto my bedroom wall I found it so funny
As long as the Christians and Athiests aren't waging war, a little domestic bickering in a comic way can do almost only good. It's a nice example of people non-violently fighting publicly. Pen is mightier then the sword, though I suppose in this case it has a different meaning XD

I'm sorry, I love this stuff!

reply to post by traditionaldrummer


And are you intentionally illustrating my earlier statements? It's all well and good to split hairs like you are but when you only do so to defend your label it reveals much.


[edit on 18-2-2010 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

reply to post by Bunken Drum


And you resort to the childish and breathtakingly annoying tactic of creative context switching...... Too bad other people's statements doesn't mean whatever you decide it does. Goor day sir.

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

 

And are you intentionally illustrating my earlier statements? It's all well and good to split hairs like you are but when you only do so to defend your label it reveals much.


[edit on 18-2-2010 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

I'm sorry, sir. My original statement was in response to a poster named "zaiger". You responded stating I a had a weak argument, I responded to your contention. I'm sorry you find such discourse unacceptable. If so, feel free to stay out of others' exchanges. Nice touch though in promptly editing out the part about your perception of my high self-esteem.

Reply to post by traditionaldrummer

Hey, just pointing out the exceptions you make for label and hypocritically for yours alone. Words cannot express how little I care if you like it.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
Reply to post by traditionaldrummer

 

Hey, just pointing out the exceptions you make for label and hypocritically for yours alone. Words cannot express how little I care if you like it.

 

Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

 

I'm still waiting for you to make sense. Feel free to explain yourself in terms that people can actually understand. Or not.