If one of those billboards appeared where I live, I'm not sure what kind of chaos would ensue. Of course, there are plenty of religious billboards and signs around here. The tried and true ones are the most prevalent: "Where will you spend ETERNITY?"; "Jesus is LORD" (why do they crave all-caps?); "Jesus is coming!" (Not in my eye, Jesus!); and so on.

The worst one I ever saw, which I am including because it made reference to the bible, came just after Obama was first elected. A furniture store changed their sign to read: "Keep your change. I'll keep my Bible, my gun, and my freedom." I have never set foot in that place since. I truly deal with the lowest common denominator. That's fine. It keeps me feisty.

These comments are hilarious.
"Atheist are The First in Line At The Church Soup Kitchen....The First in Line At The well fare Office To Get Money That Has "in God We Trust" on It or Foodstamps That Are issued By a Goverment which has "in God we Trust" On Their money.............Most Atheist are Young And lean Toward Socialism And Comunism in Their political Believes."

---

"I'm positive a declaration about the discovery of the Atheist-gene will be upon us in the not too distant future."

---

"No, He gave all of us free will and a set of 10 rules including "You shall not kill." Atheist like Stalin chose not to follow them; religious people like Mother Teresa chose to follow them. Thus, the different results."

We are all Stalin. 'Satan' starts with an 's' and ends with an 'n', just like 'Stalin'. Coincidence? I think not!

---

"This is again...evidence this country has clearly gone to Hell in a waste basket"

---

Fine with me. Maybe they can together and not pray

---

These trolls are so funny.

(January 28, 2015 at 1:40 am)SteelCurtain Wrote: Reading the comments sections of articles discussing the Coalition of Reason billboards. These are the wholly innocuous billboards that simply say "Don't Believe in God? You're not alone."

How anyone could have a problem with these billboards is beyond me. But the comments sections are internet fucking gold.

Mobile, AL Coalition of Reason Billboard

Colton, CA Coaltion of Reason Billboard

Las Vegas Coaltion of Reason Billboard

Des Moines, IA Coalition of Reason Billboard

I even Youtuberbated a little...

I think there is a perceived difference between
defending atheism and being pro-atheism, which invokes
the equal and opposite reaction of rejection.

Similar to the perceived difference between
defending choice and being pro-abortion which invokes opposition.

And defending gay rights versus pushing pro-gay or special rights
which is going too far and causes equally vocal opposition.

I agree with the comments where Christians express respect for free will
and/or defend freedom to believe, by either free will coming from God
or freedoms recognized by the Constitution. There is nothing wrong
with defending one's views from attack, but another thing to go on
the offensive and promote rejection, especially if the point is to protest rejection.

Can you tell me what you mean by 'pro-gay'? Because to me that doesn't make any sense. Are you pro-straight?

(February 15, 2015 at 6:09 pm)Pandæmonium Wrote: Can you tell me what you mean by 'pro-gay'? Because to me that doesn't make any sense. Are you pro-straight?

I find there are people who are neutral
and believe SOME cases of homosexuality are unnatural and can change
and SOME cases are spiritually born and cannot change.

That would be neutral to be open to both.

Then I find the anti-gay who believe ALL are unnatural and ALL
have a choice to change.

And the pro-gay who believe ALL cases of homosexuality are natural, not a choice, and cannot be changed. so the minute someone identifies as gay, that should be defended against trying to change it period. (And such people believe that any reports of people changing are either lies, repressing it, or not really ever gay.)
so that's what I mean by progay.
this includes people who are so FOR gay marriage they are willing to impose
these beliefs and PUNISH people who don't believe in accepting gay marriage.

I believe all such beliefs should be respected equally and not push too far one way or the other, where it discriminates against either side. I believe in consensus that respects all views or combinations of them. instead of trying to paint all cases the same and say only one of these views is right and others are wrong. until it is proven, these are personal beliefs, so the govt should not be abused to decide such conflicts.

Well, it's not a matter of belief, it's a fact - you don't choose to be gay, just like you don't choose to be straight. So all the other positions are wrong by default and deserve no respect whatsoever, you know, on account of them being totally and utterly wrong.

It's nice to know that you know the positions other people hold better then themselves. So as a hypothetical if a woman says she's gay, then ends up becoming sexually attracted to a man she is by definiton not [solely] gay (perhaps bi-sexual or a variant thereof).

Why mention spirituality? What's that got to do with sexuality, or indeed anything?

People pushing for gay rights seem to be what you define as 'pro gay'. I believe all people regardless of their sexuality should be given the same rights, be they LGBT, straight, asexual whatever. I'm an egalitarian, not 'pro gay'. How is this 'imposing' something when it's a right they are owed by default in a country that purportedly claims to be 'free'? To be clear, in my country (UK), nobody is forcing anyone to marry homosexual couples if they don't want. On the other side however you have people arguing that gays shouldn't be allowed to marry whatsoever. So if wanting to the law applied equally makes me pro-gay, well that's just fabulous

Sometimes Emily, beliefs are just wrong. Like believing that the MMR vaccine gives you autism, or that the sun rotates around the earth. Neutrality towards these kind of subjects is just silly and is actually a very anti-intellectual stance to hold. Behaving in a way that doesn't infringe on the beliefs of others sounds great, but in the example you cite above those who are 'anti-gay' are guilty of acting on prejudice to discrimante against people who can't do anything about the reason they're being discriminated against. So you're happy supporting that position by default by not objecting to it?

(February 15, 2015 at 6:19 pm)emilynghiem Wrote: I believe all such beliefs should be respected equally and not push too far one way or the other, where it discriminates against either side. I believe in consensus that respects all views or combinations of them. instead of trying to paint all cases the same and say only one of these views is right and others are wrong. until it is proven, these are personal beliefs, so the govt should not be abused to decide such conflicts.

Government making decisions in social and political matters is not "abuse". That's what it's for.

I'm not sure what good is consensus you're talking about, if its main goal is to not p*** anyone off. Maybe USA should have let those slave owners, who were pro-slavery keep their slaves, while anti-slavery people would be allowed not to part-take? Would that have been a just, reasonable and satisfying solution? No one has ever proven - to the satisfaction of the racists, anyway - that slavery was "unnatural", or that black people are their "equals". Part of the society decided it was wrong and forced the rest to comply.

Nothing is ever "proven" to people, who hold strong self-serving beliefs, which are not based in reality. Sometimes people who know better, have to force them to "get with the times".

BTW - I understand you're trying to be "neutral", but by taking a "wishy-washy" approach, you're basically offending and antagonizing all sides of the debate. "Consensus" which makes all parties unhappy will not last long...

(February 15, 2015 at 6:19 pm)emilynghiem Wrote: I find there are people who are neutral
and believe SOME cases of homosexuality are unnatural and can change
and SOME cases are spiritually born and cannot change.

Do you believe that there are any cases of heterosexuality that are unnatural and can change?