It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com 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: 7
7
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 18 2010 @ 11:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Bunken Drum
 


Oh no i read your first post. It made no sense at all, that is why nobody responded to it. It was just a giant blanket statement rife with generalizations that disguised itself as a pseudo-intellectual satire. And to make it worse you churned out the same cookie cutter " LOL I HAVE NO BELIEFS!" Argument. An argument which itself is blatantly intellectually dishonest for the purpose of shutting down inquiry into what you actually believe. Funny how a person who claims that they are a free thinker would resort to such a common tactic.

But that wasn't enough, you then decided to get all smug and write an acerbic diatribe wherein you apologize to "digital archeologists" for what could be described as "stupid religious people ruining the world"
It's like listening to someone complain about how science is impeded by the church, meanwhile on the borders of france and switzerland we have a machine that could potentially tear microscopic holes into the very fabric of existence and usher in an unparalleled era of scientific enlightenment. Carl sagan wrote a book about how religious sentiment and "superstition" was growing and going to endanger science. Meanwhile since his death our understanding of science and the world around us is increasing by two-fold every year. Computers alone are a testament to how effective and unrestricted our science is.

To get back on topic here; What you wrote in both instances was completely irrelevant to the thread and was really a verbose statement of " !@#$ RELIGION AND RELIGIOUS PEOPLE". It was Even more irrelevant than the posts i made.
Your post blatantly (or inadvertantly, you never specified which religious group was the target of your acerbic musings) showed that you have zero respect for people who have an honest belief in something that you do not subscribe to. When you were called out on it you just giggled like a little school girl and instead of choosing to humble yourself and say " i'm sorry i didn't mean to generalize you like that, it's just sometimes my emotions get the better of me. i am human after all" you decided to Completely Rip on Watcher in the shadows for his Grammar and writing style.

Look, Personally i couldn't care what you believe or do not believe in. Put up all the damn billboards you want, it is your right as a human to make yourself heard. Just don't start whining and throwing temper tantrums because people are going to actively call you out on your own brand of BS.

I'm going to copy paste what you said only adjust it to fit into a religious perspective. Try your hardest to look at it objectively and understand why Watcher and i responded to you the way we did.



An open letter to the year 3010, in which I have no doubt there will be a profession called "digital archaeologist".
In your perusal of this archived material, I would ask you to notice that the arguments put forward by the irreligious are quite poorly expressed in comparison to counter arguments; also the grammer is poorer, as is the spelling; although these by themselves are no true indication of stupidity, merely inexperience in being held to higher academic standards.
I would ask you to note that when comprehensively refuted, the irreligious ignore such argument & continue to repeat their position as if the refutation had not already invalidated their position. Such is also a result of a poorer standard of education, not necessarily stupidity. It may seem like only a fool could fail to offer rebuttal when the opportunity exists & then go on to reiterate a disputed argument, but I promise you, these people are not fools exactly, it's just that their education trained them for a particular role & their culture prevented them from attempting to reach beyond that.
You should note that when refuted, the irreligious quickly turn to deflection, obfuscation & unsupported claims, for reasons which I'm sure you now understand. However, do not be so quick to judge this inability to debate formally. Atheism has never had to justify itself through reason until recently, its practitioners therefore are used to being able to use bluster or slyness to wriggle their way out of a debate & then count on support without a reasoned argument to carry their cause. Its really no surprise that such thinking still continues, since that was indeed the very method used to convert them to Atheism in the 1st place. Regarding this last you should also note that the publication "Mirriam-Websters Dictionary" is an example of what we currently call "propaganda" &, in this instance, also "cultural imperialism".
Finally, for the damage we did, I'm truly sorry. Please understand that some of us really did try our best.





Do you see how silly that sounds now?



Christ dude, I might believe in some invisible sky wizard but i sure as hell am not about to start writing posts to "digital archeologists" (was that an onion.com article reference BTW?) about how anyone who disagrees with me is essentially a big stupid poop head who doesn't use logic or reason."



posted on Feb, 18 2010 @ 11:48 PM
link   
Like a couple of kids fighting over a #ing beach ball.
This is about like the whole debate between Evoloutionists and Creationists....Although, the Atheist vs Believer debate makes a little more sense....

I personally do believe that there is a God, or, if you prefer, a creative force. However, I find it rather childish to argue with someone if they refuse to believe. I don't bother.



posted on Feb, 18 2010 @ 11:49 PM
link   
reply to post by DeathShield
 


Not crazy at all.

Faith is something personal that cannot be gained through a book or at church, it reside within you


This is why I cringe when I see billboards like the one mentioned in the OP or with the likes of "hell is hot for sinners"...

Science and religion used once upon a time to be a single entity. Now they are bitter enemies, quite sad.

Does that make any sense?



posted on Feb, 18 2010 @ 11:53 PM
link   
I love it, I live in the tampa bay area and I can't wait to put upmy sign "do you know the Goddess?" and I don't know something about how pagans are becoming the second largest religion.



posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 12:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by ldyserenity
I love it, I live in the tampa bay area and I can't wait to put upmy sign "do you know the Goddess?" and I don't know something about how pagans are becoming the second largest religion.


Wouldn't that be a hoot!


Blessed be her path perhaps added to that?

Never seen a wiccan billboard, you might me a first



posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 12:55 AM
link   
reply to post by miss_silver
 


yeah and funny enough my hubby is in the sign business, he could design it...and put it up!!!!

I like that idea, blessed be her path, good one!!!!



posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 04:18 AM
link   
reply to post by DeathShield
 
As predicted: not a shred of argument, just mischaracterisation (is that slyness or bluster? Both I think.). Granted, you have more skill than Watcher, but nonetheless, failure is failure.
BTW, I have no remorse for belittling the religious of all denominations. In fact, I consider it to be a duty which extends from the spiritual discovery that religion actively impedes that which it claims to foster, ie faith.



posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 05:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Bunken Drum
 


Ah, so pointing out the obvious flaws in a irrational argument is failing to provide a counter-argument? Geee, I wish I could convince myself I could make the rules up as I go along to suit me....



The truest characters of ignorance are vanity, pride and arrogance. Samuel Butler



posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 07:48 AM
link   
Reposted for relevance.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/ecf46406946f.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/5a7b8e60134b.jpg[/atsimg]



posted on Feb, 19 2010 @ 10:43 AM
link   
I'm glad to see there is SOME common ground here lol.

I have a headache right now, it's my fault for not checking these threads often enough


I finally took a look at the original article, as well as the"Press Release by the UCoR" link one of the commenters posted.

If these billboards were put up to promote a book, then how can it be viewed as a freaking attack on christians or any other religios group? Seems to me that it's just a silly FUD filled allegatory article designed to do exactly what the "Don't Be Shocked by Mainstream News" Picture to the left of the screen shows. Gotta love shock and awe.



posted on Feb, 22 2010 @ 07:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
 
Please excuse my inattendance, I had a backlog of fornication, gluttony & drunkenness to catch up on this weekend. In contrast to most religious teaching, I've found that failure to indulge the body causes it to become rebellious, which impacts badly on spiritual peace. Thats something that ought to be on a billboard too!
Be that as it may, describing a person's argument without any attempt to address it does not count as counter-argument, merely commentary. In this case, since we have already witnessed your calibre, its not inconceivable that you dont actually even understand what the word "illogical" means. However, giving you the benefit of the doubt & assuming you do, whether we read today, tomorrow, or in 3010, a reader is left to conclude that, since you have had every opportunity to offer refutation but have instead chosen to wriggle & bluster your way through this exchange (exactly as predicted), you either have nothing of substance or are incapable of expressing what you do have. Personally, I'd take even money on either possibility, as, just as you pointed out, it is indeed the meaning of one's words that count. Sadly, when those words have been learned by reading poorly constructed online arguments & simply regurgitated, it is no wonder when they fail to add up to anything underlying beyond, "You wrong. Me right. Not saying why."
I hardly expect you to engage in a debate: as I stated earlier, religion has had a free ride for so long that its practitioners are way way out of practice when it comes to applying logic to their beliefs & the actions which derive therefrom. So please do have the last word &, when doing so, listen to those keystrokes. Each little click is a metaphorical hammer blow on the nails of the coffin which religion will soon be buried in.



posted on Feb, 22 2010 @ 08:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Bunken Drum
 


I imagine you think I care if you party and that was put out there in the hopes of shocking some "religious" sensabilities you no doubt think I have?
If only you knew how little you knew, particularly on the subject of me. This applies to your summary statement of "nails in the coffin of religion" as well. I don't call you out to "defend religion" as you obviously seem to think, I find both sides of the "debate" annoying and suspect in their own rights. Not that I unrealisticaly expect you to think so.

But, at anyrate, my arrogant friend let's address the rest of your fluff shall we? Firstly, I have been addressing your rather weak and self congratulatory arguments for some time now. Just because you dislike them does not mean I have not. And considering this comes from someone who's only response to me had been to critise grammer and of course constant praise for his own. Well, I don't think you can imagine how little impact you actually have considering your hypocracy.


And, speaking of logic. It's endlessly amusing to have someone commiting as many fallacious arguments tell me I'm illogical in verbose and pseudo-intellectual term tinged goobledgook version of "I know you are but what am I?". Let's look at the arguments thus far:
"No one did answer my argument so no one can answer my argument." Which is of course the following logical fallacies:

The argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam ("appeal to ignorance", or negative evidence, is a logical ignorantiam ("appeal to ignorance" fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is true only because it has not been proven false, or is false only because it has not been proven true. The argument from personal incredulity, also known as argument from personal belief or argument from personal conviction conviction finds a premise unlikely or unbelievable, the premise can be assumed to be false, or alternatively that another preferred but unproven premise is true instead. Both arguments commonly share this structure a person regards the lack of evidence for one view as constituting proof that another view is true.

Which of course covers the illogic behind by both theism (albeit False positive) AND ATHEISM.

False Dilemma
Definition: A limited number of options (usually two) is given, while i reality there are more options. A false dilemma is an illegitimate use of the " or" operator. Putting issues or opinions into "black or white" terms is a common instance of this fallacy.

Then of course there is the fallacious argument of misleading terms, IE classifying active disbelief as non-belief.
You can rely on skin deep, prettily worded arguments of evocation and "cause I say so" all you wish. Doesn't make it true I am sorry to tell you.



posted on Feb, 22 2010 @ 08:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
 


That's about the way that this is looking.



posted on Feb, 22 2010 @ 08:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
 


That's about the way that this is looking.



posted on Feb, 22 2010 @ 08:53 PM
link   
reply to post by SpeakerofTruth
 


Sad isn't it?
Second line.



posted on Feb, 24 2010 @ 12:21 AM
link   
I honestly don't understand why someone's religion offends certain people... especially if said religion doesn't harm them. Why spend all that money bickering when it could be spent helping the homeless or feeding the poor? Seems like they're both self-righteous groups of jerks who have nothing to do but waste their time and money on P.R.

Like a billboard is going to sway someone's opinion in either direction.

What happened to doing good and setting an example? If that money were spent helping those who really need help, wouldn't that be the best P.R. you could give yourself? Certainly much better than an overpriced sign on the highway.

[edit on 24-2-2010 by iamoverrated]



posted on Feb, 24 2010 @ 01:24 AM
link   
reply to post by iamoverrated
 


You would of course be right if either side was rational human beings. Beliefs are weapons to them and they use them accordingly. Thus the constant BS bashing and offensive P.R. war. IMHO how a person goes about something tells you much about why they go about something.



posted on Feb, 24 2010 @ 09:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
 


Very sad. Very sad,indeed. Let them go ahead though....All of them. I still believe what I believe.



posted on Feb, 26 2010 @ 07:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by FortAnthem
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]


Of course it was retaliation. The thesists put out their message so the atheists countered with theirs. But why should they put out their message to only other atheists?
Do christians or other theists only target their own followers with their messages, or is their goal to expand their ranks as well?



posted on Feb, 28 2010 @ 04:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by SmokeJaguar67
...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?.



Well wouldn't it be great if the religious believed what they wished and left the rest of us alone. Sadly is is not so simple. We have had so-called blue laws on the books for decades or in some places for hundreds of years restricting what people can do on Sunday their so-called holy day. In some states there are laws on the books which would prevent atheists like me from holding public office. Then there are states which have sought to outlaw gay marriage (some successfully) and ever since Row v. Wade christians have been seeking to strip women of their reproductive rights.

As if these examples weren't bad enough there is an anti-american religious movement in America today which hates our representative democracy and is working night and day to establish an American Theocracy and reinstate Mosaic law as the basis American jurisprudence. This would represent such a mammoth de-evolutionary step backwards for the US that it would almost certainly signal the beginning of yet another christian dark age.

'Arming' for Armageddon

Resource Directory for the New Apostolic Reformation

Christian Reconstructionism, Dominionism, Theonomy, Dominion Theology, etc.

Let the religious believe what they wish?? In a word, no.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join