Some idiot commenter wrote this to Dan Barker concerning the billboard in the story below: “So tell me, in order to deny that there is a God you must first accept that there is a God. How can you deny something that doesn’t exist? Sounds very illogical to me.”
In order to deny that there is a God you must accept first that there is a God?????? WTF???
Atheist sign, Christmas tree installed at Capitol
Washington became the second state in the country to host an atheistic billboard in its capitol today, when the Freedom from Religion Foundation placed one in the Legislative Building.
“Over superstition and faith, we think reason may prevail,” said foundation co-president Dan Barker. He was joined by about a dozen people at a dedication.
The group’s sign says there is no god or other supernatural power, and that religion “hardens hearts and enslaves minds.” It sits on the third floor, a few paces from a Nativity, which depicts the birth of Jesus Christ, the central figure of Christianity. His birth is the basis for Christmas.
A 30-foot tree was also moved into the Capitol this morning, which will be decorated and lit in a celebration Friday.
Another commenter who claims to “follow no religion” wrote the second comment of the thread: “This is why I won’t even say I’m an athiest. The few that demand stupid signs like that one be put up make the rest of us that don’t follow any religions look like jerks.”
So, is Freedom from Religion Foundation going to far with the signs, making all of us look like jerks? I don’t think so. I suspect commenter #2 is actually a Xian and neither one of them understand what the sign is saying and why it is being placed in the Capitol next to the Christmas tree
Addition: The sign at the Capitol is engraved with the following inscription:
“There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell.”
“There is only our natural world.”
“Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts
and enslaves minds.”
2 comments:
It cracks me up when some supposedly atheist freaks out about an atheist sign. Maybe they don't like to churn the waters up, so to speak, but some do! I for one am happy about the signs and such.
"How can you deny something that doesn’t exist?"
The same way we deny Pegasus exists.
If I asked, "how can we affirm something exists?" would this question be intelligible? Such 'how- questions' are meaningless. Immanuel Kant was the first to turn them into an art form, asking how space was possible, how judgment was possible, and so forth. One might as well ask how it is possible that the Earth has one moon, or how is it possible the White Sox play in Chicago.
In short, people are getting lost in language. When we ask how something is possible, we usually mean we have two propositions improbable in relation to each other, and we seek at least one more that increases the probability. "Bob is from a rich family. How is it possible that he is poor?" A: "Bob spent all of his money, and his family hates him." But a how question for an atomic proposition, or even a substantive noun, is simply silly.
Post a Comment