Atheists "unbless" highway

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NEXT
 

Blablahb:

Kendarik:
They strike me as foolish people deliberately trying to be jerks. Not much else to be said.

Yeah, how dare atheists exist and even... *gasp* demand the civil rights that all other people have.

Before long those infidels will be claiming the US is a secular country and you can't just go around forcing your religion onto people by acting like you own the place just because you attend church.

Yes, you have described the foolish part perfectly. No rights were denied to these people. I don't belong to the religion that did the blessing, but their actions at least had good intentions. The atheists, they were just trying to give others the finger. Intent matters.

Kendarik:

Blablahb:

Kendarik:
They strike me as foolish people deliberately trying to be jerks. Not much else to be said.

Yeah, how dare atheists exist and even... *gasp* demand the civil rights that all other people have.

Before long those infidels will be claiming the US is a secular country and you can't just go around forcing your religion onto people by acting like you own the place just because you attend church.

Yes, you have described the foolish part perfectly. No rights were denied to these people. I don't belong to the religion that did the blessing, but their actions at least had good intentions. The atheists, they were just trying to give others the finger. Intent matters.

Intent doesn't matter much at all if the person in question has bad priorities. Their chosen verse hardly does them much credit.

Eh, this is the type of atheist I don't like being associated with. When you go out and sort of attack religion like this, you set a bad name for yourself. They're effectively saying "look at how insulting we're being" by doing this. I don't really see the point, unless that is their intention to which I say "How the fuck do you expect this to turn out?"

Mortai Gravesend:

Kendarik:

Blablahb:
Yeah, how dare atheists exist and even... *gasp* demand the civil rights that all other people have.

Before long those infidels will be claiming the US is a secular country and you can't just go around forcing your religion onto people by acting like you own the place just because you attend church.

Yes, you have described the foolish part perfectly. No rights were denied to these people. I don't belong to the religion that did the blessing, but their actions at least had good intentions. The atheists, they were just trying to give others the finger. Intent matters.

Intent doesn't matter much at all if the person in question has bad priorities. Their chosen verse hardly does them much credit.

Where did I say I agreed with what they did? What I said was that they were well meaning, but they could have also been misguided.

On the other hand the atheists had no purpose other than to upset other people. Real life trolls deserve no respect.

Kendarik:

Mortai Gravesend:

Kendarik:

Yes, you have described the foolish part perfectly. No rights were denied to these people. I don't belong to the religion that did the blessing, but their actions at least had good intentions. The atheists, they were just trying to give others the finger. Intent matters.

Intent doesn't matter much at all if the person in question has bad priorities. Their chosen verse hardly does them much credit.

Where did I say I agreed with what they did? What I said was that they were well meaning, but they could have also been misguided.

On the other hand the atheists had no purpose other than to upset other people. Real life trolls deserve no respect.

Where did I say you said that? I said their intent didn't matter given bad priorities. Them being well meaning is pointless if what they think is good isn't. I'm sure there are well meaning racists or some shit, but that doesn't make them any better.

The atheists did it to send a message to them.

Mortai Gravesend:

Kendarik:

Mortai Gravesend:

Intent doesn't matter much at all if the person in question has bad priorities. Their chosen verse hardly does them much credit.

Where did I say I agreed with what they did? What I said was that they were well meaning, but they could have also been misguided.

On the other hand the atheists had no purpose other than to upset other people. Real life trolls deserve no respect.

Where did I say you said that? I said their intent didn't matter given bad priorities. Them being well meaning is pointless if what they think is good isn't. I'm sure there are well meaning racists or some shit, but that doesn't make them any better.

The atheists did it to send a message to them.

Just because you don't agree with them doesn't mean their intent doesn't count. They did nothing harmful, thus the intent matters.

Your assumption that they are racist just shows bigotry on your part.

As you have pointed out, the only reason for the atheists in this case to act as they did was to troll people they disagreed with. They really are the ignorant ones here.

Kendarik:

Mortai Gravesend:

Kendarik:

Where did I say I agreed with what they did? What I said was that they were well meaning, but they could have also been misguided.

On the other hand the atheists had no purpose other than to upset other people. Real life trolls deserve no respect.

Where did I say you said that? I said their intent didn't matter given bad priorities. Them being well meaning is pointless if what they think is good isn't. I'm sure there are well meaning racists or some shit, but that doesn't make them any better.

The atheists did it to send a message to them.

Just because you don't agree with them doesn't mean their intent doesn't count. They did nothing harmful, thus the intent matters.

They did something that was unwelcoming to certain people. Their intent doesn't count because quite simply it seems to be their intent to be unwelcoming.

Your assumption that they are racist just shows bigotry on your part.

That was an example of intent being irrelevant.

As you have pointed out, the only reason for the atheists in this case to act as they did was to troll people they disagreed with. They really are the ignorant ones here.

Hmm. Maybe I gave you too much credit in the second part. It seems like you're deliberately playing stupid. A message is not the same thing as trolling.

Holy shit, bored atheists acting too precious by a half over shit that doesn't matter? The room...is spinning...where am I? How could this be?

If you can tolerate christians watering a highway in a silly ritual then you can tolerate non-christians watering a highway in a silly ritual.

On the one hand it's funny, on the other it's an even bigger waste of time than making the road holy in the first place.

KRAKENDIE:

Revnak:

KRAKENDIE:

A forum is a sanctioned center for expressing beliefs. A bridge isn't.

And yet I can probably still get yelled at if I try to evangelize here about how I should stop forcing my beliefs down other people's throats (and yes I know this applies to atheists as well, or any other view on religion). Yet any other kinds of views are totally fair game. Personally, I don't buy it. I think you don't really believe something until you're willing to argue that you're right.

I don't think you would, as long as it was in the right Forum. Don't get me wrong. My official stand on the matter is, and I quote, "I say let the war continue. All this condescending 'coexist' drivel is putting me on edge."

Bah, I say, Bah! The guys around here would never let me see the end of it. The fear and lack of real religious argument is one of my problems with this community, though the same can be said about most of my country as well. All it is is don't force your beliefs down my throat this or those beliefs are personal that. Even the more confrontational folks can't get that far past invisible friend remarks. It annoys me sometimes. I do agree with you on the coexist thing. Something about the word tolerance doesn't settle well with me. I prefer loving people and not being a dick. I think the end results are better really.

Mortai Gravesend:

Kendarik:

Mortai Gravesend:

Where did I say you said that? I said their intent didn't matter given bad priorities. Them being well meaning is pointless if what they think is good isn't. I'm sure there are well meaning racists or some shit, but that doesn't make them any better.

The atheists did it to send a message to them.

Just because you don't agree with them doesn't mean their intent doesn't count. They did nothing harmful, thus the intent matters.

They did something that was unwelcoming to certain people. Their intent doesn't count because quite simply it seems to be their intent to be unwelcoming.

Your assumption that they are racist just shows bigotry on your part.

That was an example of intent being irrelevant.

As you have pointed out, the only reason for the atheists in this case to act as they did was to troll people they disagreed with. They really are the ignorant ones here.

Hmm. Maybe I gave you too much credit in the second part. It seems like you're deliberately playing stupid. A message is not the same thing as trolling.

So, you think people should throw fits over a whole buch of symbolic acts that there is no way that they can be physically effected by and no longer possesses any observable evidence unless you deliberately go out of your way to find it. People should send messages about actions that in no way effect them. Actions that are completely legal to carry out. Whwr's that offended video when you need it?

Revnak:

Mortai Gravesend:

Kendarik:

Just because you don't agree with them doesn't mean their intent doesn't count. They did nothing harmful, thus the intent matters.

They did something that was unwelcoming to certain people. Their intent doesn't count because quite simply it seems to be their intent to be unwelcoming.

Your assumption that they are racist just shows bigotry on your part.

That was an example of intent being irrelevant.

As you have pointed out, the only reason for the atheists in this case to act as they did was to troll people they disagreed with. They really are the ignorant ones here.

Hmm. Maybe I gave you too much credit in the second part. It seems like you're deliberately playing stupid. A message is not the same thing as trolling.

So, you think people should throw fits over a whole buch of symbolic acts that there is no way that they can be physically effected by and no longer possesses any observable evidence unless you deliberately go out of your way to find it. People should send messages about actions that in no way effect them. Actions that are completely legal to carry out. Whwr's that offended video when you need it?

Why exactly shouldn't they send a message about completely legal actions? It's a perfectly legal thing to do and infringes on no one's rights. That video's stupid anyway.

Also I didn't say they *should* do anything, so do try to have some integrity and not attribute things to me that I didn't say.

Mortai Gravesend:

Revnak:

Mortai Gravesend:

They did something that was unwelcoming to certain people. Their intent doesn't count because quite simply it seems to be their intent to be unwelcoming.

That was an example of intent being irrelevant.

Hmm. Maybe I gave you too much credit in the second part. It seems like you're deliberately playing stupid. A message is not the same thing as trolling.

So, you think people should throw fits over a whole buch of symbolic acts that there is no way that they can be physically effected by and no longer possesses any observable evidence unless you deliberately go out of your way to find it. People should send messages about actions that in no way effect them. Actions that are completely legal to carry out. Whwr's that offended video when you need it?

Why exactly shouldn't they send a message about completely legal actions? It's a perfectly legal thing to do and infringes on no one's rights. That video's stupid anyway.

Also I didn't say they *should* do anything, so do try to have some integrity and not attribute things to me that I didn't say.

How about the whole it doesn't affect them in any way part? And if they shouldn't have done it, isn't that unreasonable, stupid even, or should I assume you believe they should/shouldn't do anything, in those precise words? What in the world are you actually trying to say in this thread anyway?

Revnak:

Mortai Gravesend:

Revnak:

So, you think people should throw fits over a whole buch of symbolic acts that there is no way that they can be physically effected by and no longer possesses any observable evidence unless you deliberately go out of your way to find it. People should send messages about actions that in no way effect them. Actions that are completely legal to carry out. Whwr's that offended video when you need it?

Why exactly shouldn't they send a message about completely legal actions? It's a perfectly legal thing to do and infringes on no one's rights. That video's stupid anyway.

Also I didn't say they *should* do anything, so do try to have some integrity and not attribute things to me that I didn't say.

How about the whole it doesn't affect them in any way part?

Why does it need to? People spouting divisive messages may not affect them much, doesn't mean it should go unopposed.

And if they shouldn't have done it, isn't that unreasonable, stupid even, or should I assume you believe they should/shouldn't do anything, in those precise words?

Maybe you should just not make assumptions? I don't think what they did matters either way. I don't think they *should* do it, nor do I think they shouldn't, I think it doesn't matter. Might as well ask me if I think they should have spent their day playing video games. It's their day, they can do whatever with it.

What in the world are you actually trying to say in this thread anyway?

Exactly what I've said so far.

Mortai Gravesend:

Revnak:

Mortai Gravesend:

Why exactly shouldn't they send a message about completely legal actions? It's a perfectly legal thing to do and infringes on no one's rights. That video's stupid anyway.

Also I didn't say they *should* do anything, so do try to have some integrity and not attribute things to me that I didn't say.

How about the whole it doesn't affect them in any way part?

Why does it need to? People spouting divisive messages may not affect them much, doesn't mean it should go unopposed.

And if they shouldn't have done it, isn't that unreasonable, stupid even, or should I assume you believe they should/shouldn't do anything, in those precise words?

Maybe you should just not make assumptions? I don't think what they did matters either way. I don't think they *should* do it, nor do I think they shouldn't, I think it doesn't matter. Might as well ask me if I think they should have spent their day playing video games. It's their day, they can do whatever with it.

What in the world are you actually trying to say in this thread anyway?

Exactly what I've said so far.

1. Except it really isn't that divisive. And before we bring up that whole line of argument about Psalms 37 again, Psalms 37 is about how the good guys will always triumph or the bad guys in the end.

"12Bad guys have it in for the good guys, obsessed with doing them in. 13But God isn't losing any sleep; to him they're a joke with no punch line." (this lends further credence to my belief that Jews have always been comedians)

If the atheists were truly being looked down on by mean-bad Christians, this passage is not the way to do it. More Superman and Lex Luthor than anything else.

2. So, you have absolutely no opinion over whether or not these actions should have been carried out. Are you just here to try to poke holes in people's arguments again?

3. Ah, yes, that's exactly why you're here, since that's all you've done. Except I shouldn't assume that I suppose. I shouldn't assume anything about you really. You're just so damn enigmatic aren't you.

Revnak:

Mortai Gravesend:

Revnak:

How about the whole it doesn't affect them in any way part?

Why does it need to? People spouting divisive messages may not affect them much, doesn't mean it should go unopposed.

And if they shouldn't have done it, isn't that unreasonable, stupid even, or should I assume you believe they should/shouldn't do anything, in those precise words?

Maybe you should just not make assumptions? I don't think what they did matters either way. I don't think they *should* do it, nor do I think they shouldn't, I think it doesn't matter. Might as well ask me if I think they should have spent their day playing video games. It's their day, they can do whatever with it.

What in the world are you actually trying to say in this thread anyway?

Exactly what I've said so far.

1. Except it really isn't that divisive. And before we bring up that whole line of argument about Psalms 37 again, Psalms 37 is about how the good guys will always triumph or the bad guys in the end.

"12Bad guys have it in for the good guys, obsessed with doing them in. 13But God isn't losing any sleep; to him they're a joke with no punch line." (this lends further credence to my belief that Jews have always been comedians)

If the atheists were truly being looked down on by mean-bad Christians, this passage is not the way to do it. More Superman and Lex Luthor than anything else.

Oh, so you're just going to ignore the obvious juxtaposition of those who have faith in God with the bad guys? Yeah, whatever. Come back with a real argument not just making up an interpretation out of thin air.

2. So, you have absolutely no opinion over whether or not these actions should have been carried out. Are you just here to try to poke holes in people's arguments again?

I don't think these actions matter.

3. Ah, yes, that's exactly why you're here, since that's all you've done. Except I shouldn't assume that I suppose. I shouldn't assume anything about you really. You're just so damn enigmatic aren't you.

Well go ahead and make conclusions, but do try to base them in reality, unlike your previous attempt.

Mortai Gravesend:

Revnak:

Mortai Gravesend:

Why does it need to? People spouting divisive messages may not affect them much, doesn't mean it should go unopposed.

Maybe you should just not make assumptions? I don't think what they did matters either way. I don't think they *should* do it, nor do I think they shouldn't, I think it doesn't matter. Might as well ask me if I think they should have spent their day playing video games. It's their day, they can do whatever with it.

Exactly what I've said so far.

1. Except it really isn't that divisive. And before we bring up that whole line of argument about Psalms 37 again, Psalms 37 is about how the good guys will always triumph or the bad guys in the end.

"12Bad guys have it in for the good guys, obsessed with doing them in. 13But God isn't losing any sleep; to him they're a joke with no punch line." (this lends further credence to my belief that Jews have always been comedians)

If the atheists were truly being looked down on by mean-bad Christians, this passage is not the way to do it. More Superman and Lex Luthor than anything else.

Oh, so you're just going to ignore the obvious juxtaposition of those who have faith in God with the bad guys? Yeah, whatever. Come back with a real argument not just making up an interpretation out of thin air.

2. So, you have absolutely no opinion over whether or not these actions should have been carried out. Are you just here to try to poke holes in people's arguments again?

I don't think these actions matter.

3. Ah, yes, that's exactly why you're here, since that's all you've done. Except I shouldn't assume that I suppose. I shouldn't assume anything about you really. You're just so damn enigmatic aren't you.

Well go ahead and make conclusions, but do try to base them in reality, unlike your previous attempt.

The verse does not in any way presume that all of those who do not believe in God are among the bad guys, nor that all of the bad guys don't believe in God. It says which side God is on, and that the good guys should be on God's side. It tells people not to be wrathful. There is one verse about how the God-hating will be brought down. One out of fourty, though I suppose the bringing down part is a different verse, it is one single thought. Don't know why that's what they're assuming the prayer group is trying to say when fitting wickedness in with drug use works so much better on the whole. It seems to be an assumption that isn't really grounded in reality that well.

Revnak:

Mortai Gravesend:

Revnak:

1. Except it really isn't that divisive. And before we bring up that whole line of argument about Psalms 37 again, Psalms 37 is about how the good guys will always triumph or the bad guys in the end.

"12Bad guys have it in for the good guys, obsessed with doing them in. 13But God isn't losing any sleep; to him they're a joke with no punch line." (this lends further credence to my belief that Jews have always been comedians)

If the atheists were truly being looked down on by mean-bad Christians, this passage is not the way to do it. More Superman and Lex Luthor than anything else.

Oh, so you're just going to ignore the obvious juxtaposition of those who have faith in God with the bad guys? Yeah, whatever. Come back with a real argument not just making up an interpretation out of thin air.

2. So, you have absolutely no opinion over whether or not these actions should have been carried out. Are you just here to try to poke holes in people's arguments again?

I don't think these actions matter.

3. Ah, yes, that's exactly why you're here, since that's all you've done. Except I shouldn't assume that I suppose. I shouldn't assume anything about you really. You're just so damn enigmatic aren't you.

Well go ahead and make conclusions, but do try to base them in reality, unlike your previous attempt.

The verse does not in any way presume that all of those who do not believe in God are among the bad guys, nor that all of the bad guys don't believe in God. It says which side God is on, and that the good guys should be on God's side. It tells people not to be wrathful. There is one verse about how the God-hating will be brought down. One out of fourty, though I suppose the bringing down part is a different verse, it is one single thought. Don't know why that's what they're assuming the prayer group is trying to say when fitting wickedness in with drug use works so much better on the whole. It seems to be an assumption that isn't really grounded in reality that well.

When you make one side 'those who trust in the Lord' and the ones they're being compared to to be "the wicked" it pretty clearly implies where those who don't trust in the Lord go.

What a silly false dichotomy. Did I say drug use wasn't included? No. The verse clearly applies to a wide array of people when it just says 'the wicked'. So talking about what fits better is nonsense when you can fit both. And in context the verse seems to fit both.

Mortai Gravesend:

Revnak:

Mortai Gravesend:

Oh, so you're just going to ignore the obvious juxtaposition of those who have faith in God with the bad guys? Yeah, whatever. Come back with a real argument not just making up an interpretation out of thin air.

I don't think these actions matter.

Well go ahead and make conclusions, but do try to base them in reality, unlike your previous attempt.

The verse does not in any way presume that all of those who do not believe in God are among the bad guys, nor that all of the bad guys don't believe in God. It says which side God is on, and that the good guys should be on God's side. It tells people not to be wrathful. There is one verse about how the God-hating will be brought down. One out of fourty, though I suppose the bringing down part is a different verse, it is one single thought. Don't know why that's what they're assuming the prayer group is trying to say when fitting wickedness in with drug use works so much better on the whole. It seems to be an assumption that isn't really grounded in reality that well.

When you make one side 'those who trust in the Lord' and the ones they're being compared to to be "the wicked" it pretty clearly implies where those who don't trust in the Lord go.

What a silly false dichotomy. Did I say drug use wasn't included? No. The verse clearly applies to a wide array of people when it just says 'the wicked'. So talking about what fits better is nonsense when you can fit both. And in context the verse seems to fit both.

Oh, I didn't know all Christians had to take an all or nothing view of wickedness. Thank you for telling me that. Considering that the passage is supposedly written by David who's main enemies were Saul, his own sons, and some of his generals, I'm pretty certain that whole wicked part is not just, or even largely, about atheists, it is just about jerks. The jerks this group is opposing are drug users.
I think the passage is appropriate in many ways. I also don't think this is an appropriate passage to assume is being divisive as it encourages believers to not be jerks back to the jerks that oppose them and God. And when I say oppose I mean it in the strictest sense, as does the author who characterizes the wicked as bullies. I believe it is a faulty assumption to think that this passage is divisive considering it specifically discourages acting against your opposition.
I think using it to oppose drug crime fits, as many drug peddlers are little more than bullies and the drugs themselves can fit the characterization in certain ways. As they are also trying to help reformed prison inmates, I feel it all works together.

What a jerk move. There's got to be something more constructive you can do with you time than doing something just to deliberately rub a bunch of people the wrong way. Surely the rain has washed away any physical evidence that they did anything at all and you know that they didn't actually do anything to the road by blessing it so why even bother?

Revnak:

Mortai Gravesend:

Revnak:

The verse does not in any way presume that all of those who do not believe in God are among the bad guys, nor that all of the bad guys don't believe in God. It says which side God is on, and that the good guys should be on God's side. It tells people not to be wrathful. There is one verse about how the God-hating will be brought down. One out of fourty, though I suppose the bringing down part is a different verse, it is one single thought. Don't know why that's what they're assuming the prayer group is trying to say when fitting wickedness in with drug use works so much better on the whole. It seems to be an assumption that isn't really grounded in reality that well.

When you make one side 'those who trust in the Lord' and the ones they're being compared to to be "the wicked" it pretty clearly implies where those who don't trust in the Lord go.

What a silly false dichotomy. Did I say drug use wasn't included? No. The verse clearly applies to a wide array of people when it just says 'the wicked'. So talking about what fits better is nonsense when you can fit both. And in context the verse seems to fit both.

Oh, I didn't know all Christians had to take an all or nothing view of wickedness. Thank you for telling me that. Considering that the passage is supposedly written by David who's main enemies were Saul, his own sons, and some of his generals, I'm pretty certain that whole wicked part is not just, or even largely, about atheists, it is just about jerks. The jerks this group is opposing are drug users.

Did I ever say it was just about or largely about atheists? No. Now if you can't have the decency to not misrepresent me I see no reason in replying to your bullshit.

And wtf is with you and assuming it's all about drug dealers? He said mostly.

I think the passage is appropriate in many ways. I also don't think this is an appropriate passage to assume is being divisive as it encourages believers to not be jerks back to the jerks that oppose them and God. And when I say oppose I mean it in the strictest sense, as does the author who characterizes the wicked as bullies. I believe it is a faulty assumption to think that this passage is divisive considering it specifically discourages acting against your opposition.

Yeah, you think they wrote the whole thing out or just that verse he was quoted using? You're also utterly ignoring that particular verse that makes a clear distinction.

I think using it to oppose drug crime fits, as many drug peddlers are little more than bullies and the drugs themselves can fit the characterization in certain ways. As they are also trying to help reformed prison inmates, I feel it all works together.

Yeah, spin it by making up convoluted motives for them instead of just looking at what's clearly there.

This is a shameful display of bullshit and things like this are a prime reason people hate atheists.

Mortai Gravesend:

Revnak:

Mortai Gravesend:

When you make one side 'those who trust in the Lord' and the ones they're being compared to to be "the wicked" it pretty clearly implies where those who don't trust in the Lord go.

What a silly false dichotomy. Did I say drug use wasn't included? No. The verse clearly applies to a wide array of people when it just says 'the wicked'. So talking about what fits better is nonsense when you can fit both. And in context the verse seems to fit both.

Oh, I didn't know all Christians had to take an all or nothing view of wickedness. Thank you for telling me that. Considering that the passage is supposedly written by David who's main enemies were Saul, his own sons, and some of his generals, I'm pretty certain that whole wicked part is not just, or even largely, about atheists, it is just about jerks. The jerks this group is opposing are drug users.

Did I ever say it was just about or largely about atheists? No. Now if you can't have the decency to not misrepresent me I see no reason in replying to your bullshit.

And wtf is with you and assuming it's all about drug dealers? He said mostly.

I think the passage is appropriate in many ways. I also don't think this is an appropriate passage to assume is being divisive as it encourages believers to not be jerks back to the jerks that oppose them and God. And when I say oppose I mean it in the strictest sense, as does the author who characterizes the wicked as bullies. I believe it is a faulty assumption to think that this passage is divisive considering it specifically discourages acting against your opposition.

Yeah, you think they wrote the whole thing out or just that verse he was quoted using? You're also utterly ignoring that particular verse that makes a clear distinction.

I think using it to oppose drug crime fits, as many drug peddlers are little more than bullies and the drugs themselves can fit the characterization in certain ways. As they are also trying to help reformed prison inmates, I feel it all works together.

Yeah, spin it by making up convoluted motives for them instead of just looking at what's clearly there.

Apparently they did both of these actions quite some time ago. I really can't find much good information that doesn't seem like the humanist league of Florida making mountains out of molehills. The bricks had verses 9-11 wrote on them, which do not mention atheism or anything of the sort, it is about how crooks will be brought down and the meek shall inherit the earth. Oh, and that God will be doing the bringing down of the crooks and the wicked. The atheist group is taking the prayer they said out of context, saying that the group prayed that God would check and see if the people in the cars believed in God or not and that if they weren't that they would be put in prison. The members of PUP refuse to comment except to say that they consider the idea ridiculous. Doing more research I found that the atheists thought this because they took a post on the PUP's website that in a strict sense said just that, but applying the verse they wrote on the bricks makes it clear that they were talking about the crooks, i.e. drug dealers, as the last part of the post notes an increase in people brought in for drug crime as a fulfillment of the prayer. Putting everything in context, including the church leaders' quotes saying that he didn't hate atheists, he just thought they were misguided, I am going to say that the atheists here simply took one post on a website out of context and are now trying to make a point about a point the PUP never intended to make. If in fact the league is right about the prayer, which I don't think they are considering they weren't there and just now a year later are making a big deal about it, the PUP would clearly be in the wrong.

And this is accomplishing what exactly...I'm atheist and even I think this is stupid.

keiskay:

Seanchaidh:
Unblessing a road is only as silly as blessing it. Frankly, I see no problem with either group's silliness, though the implication that some Christian blessing will deter drug dealers is perhaps a bit more silly, and also nicely undercut by the large number of Christians in US prisons.

not surprisingly really considering only 3% of the US population is atheist. thats like saying white people are more peaceful cause there isnt many of them in a Chinese or Indian prison.

No, it would only be surprising if someone thought Christianity made people moral, and that's simply laughable.

Gnoekeos:
What a jerk move. There's got to be something more constructive you can do with you time than doing something just to deliberately rub a bunch of people the wrong way. Surely the rain has washed away any physical evidence that they did anything at all and you know that they didn't actually do anything to the road by blessing it so why even bother?

Yeah, that's what's so interesting about this to me. From a Pagan POV this is relevant and significant, from an atheist POV it's bizarre, silly, and illogical.

I'd love to have been a fly on the wall while the group was thinking up this stunt, I'd like to know what they thought they were doing, since by the reasoning of most atheists I've met, the "blessing" did nothing so there's nothing to undo.

keiskay:
not surprisingly really considering only 3% of the US population is atheist. thats like saying white people are more peaceful cause there isnt many of them in a Chinese or Indian prison.

Eh, but the prison population of Atheists is waaay below 3%, so there's fewer in relative numbers, too. Not that I think that is due to Atheism. Rather, people who are socio-economically and educationally well off have a higher rate of being Atheists and people who are socio-economically and educationally well off also commit less crimes. There's correlation, but the causation does not come from Atheism but from what leads to higher rates of Atheism, also.

Polarity27:

Gnoekeos:
What a jerk move. There's got to be something more constructive you can do with you time than doing something just to deliberately rub a bunch of people the wrong way. Surely the rain has washed away any physical evidence that they did anything at all and you know that they didn't actually do anything to the road by blessing it so why even bother?

Yeah, that's what's so interesting about this to me. From a Pagan POV this is relevant and significant, from an atheist POV it's bizarre, silly, and illogical.

I'd love to have been a fly on the wall while the group was thinking up this stunt, I'd like to know what they thought they were doing, since by the reasoning of most atheists I've met, the "blessing" did nothing so there's nothing to undo.

Atheists aren't above doing something a bit weird to draw attention or communicate an idea. They said "This event is not about atheist rights; this is about welcoming everybody into Polk county." If blessing is understood as communicating something, which in their opinion it did-- something unwelcoming-- then unblessing may be understood the same way.

if they recognise that a highway can be blessed and then try to unbless it that means they belive in the "blessing" process and thus are not so much athiests as they are people that just want to piss religious people off
on a related note: "oh no they did-n't *snap*snap*snap*"

Jegsimmons:

Oirish_Martin:

Jegsimmons:
well the top 2 that come to mind is that one group who wants or wanted the 9/11 cross removed from the 9/11 museum, even though its significant to what some people found comfort in, even if it is just wreckage.

I think there's definitely a good argument to be made for not tacking the obvious western religious symbol over what was a pretty bad religiously motivated attack, not least because it doesn't represent all the victims and will just add weight to the notion that this is a clash of different religions.

Also, crossed beams? In a skyscraper? It is more likely than you think - but that doesn't stop some people thinking one particular pair of ripped girders is significant. A cross is hardly a complex shape.

well yeah, but did they really need to have a big friggin deal over it? just let them have it. it wasnt bothering anyone!

"Well yeah"?

So you agree with me?

Then you agree there is a reason for making a deal over it.

I know I'm not that wild about tacking a big obvious cross over what was repeatedly claimed by US administrations wasn't a holy war - especially when cross-shaped rubble is practically an inevitability if you lace your buildings with crossed girders.

Everybody has his own way to rebel. For me, it's questioning everything that reeks of faith. For others, it is unblessing things, apparently. Also unblessing is not a word according to my fire foxes.

It just seems like a pointless thing to do. As has already been said, it's becoming a pissing contest. Unless it was presented in this article, I would not even know or care if a stretch of road was blessed or not.

As much as I am non religious, I still think that atheists can be kind of stupid one-upping a stunt like that, then claiming they are superior.

Seanchaidh:

keiskay:

Seanchaidh:
Unblessing a road is only as silly as blessing it. Frankly, I see no problem with either group's silliness, though the implication that some Christian blessing will deter drug dealers is perhaps a bit more silly, and also nicely undercut by the large number of Christians in US prisons.

not surprisingly really considering only 3% of the US population is atheist. thats like saying white people are more peaceful cause there isnt many of them in a Chinese or Indian prison.

No, it would only be surprising if someone thought Christianity made people moral, and that's simply laughable.

the only people that think that are severely bastardizing Christianity.

keiskay:

Seanchaidh:

keiskay:
not surprisingly really considering only 3% of the US population is atheist. thats like saying white people are more peaceful cause there isnt many of them in a Chinese or Indian prison.

No, it would only be surprising if someone thought Christianity made people moral, and that's simply laughable.

the only people that think that are severely bastardizing Christianity.

Yes, such as the people who blessed a road to ward off evildoers.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked