Seattle Atheists Condemn Atheist Plaque in Washington

The Freedom From Religion Foundation has this sign up in the Olympia, Washington Capitol building:

First, a quick update: the nativity scene and atheist sign are now joined by other displays:

Someone applied to put up a “Festivus” pole in honor of the invented holiday featured in the 1990s sitcom “Seinfeld.” Another person wants to create a religious-themed “balloon display.”

A protest against the sign is scheduled for today afternoon.

Now for what I wanted to get to: Since the government should not be promoting one religion over another, or religious faith over atheism, I applaud FFRF for having the balls to put a sign with their beliefs alongside the nativity scene.

That said, I don’t think the sign itself will change anybody’s mind in favor of atheism.

If there are any currently religious people who are swayed to abandon their faith by the wording “Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds,” I’d like to meet them.

Perhaps the conversations that begin as a result of the sign could do it. But not the sign itself. If anything, the sign just makes religious people dislike atheists even more than they do now. It makes quieter atheists dislike the more vocal among us.

Looks like there are other atheists — in the state of Washington — who aren’t fans of the sign either.

Seattle Atheists just put out a press release condemning the plaque:

We at Seattle Atheists feel that the sentiments expressed in the sign are unfortunate. We cannot endorse the language or sentiments expressed on this sign. We feel it was divisive, hostile, and does not represent a good-faith attempt to promote the separation of church and state. In fact, we feel it has done damage to the public perception of atheism.

Seattle Atheists feel that a statement relating directly to the separation of church and state, or a seasonal gesture of universal goodwill and equality would be appropriate if a non-religious sign is to be placed on public property. While the State of Washington is ultimately responsible for giving permission to place private holiday displays on public property, we place a high value on the separation of church and state and support the removal of *all* private displays from the rotunda in Olympia, including the Winter Solstice plaque.

As far as I know, no other atheist organization has openly rebuked the statement. Some individuals have, though.

Michael Amini, another atheist from Washington state and a friend of the blog, was quoted in an article saying he disliked the sign:

Michael Amini, a University of Washington student and president of the Secular Student Union, says he’s glad to see nonbelievers represented among the Capitol displays. But he doesn’t like the sign’s wording, saying it’s inflammatory and divisive.

“Right now, the atheists are the least trusted minority in the United States,” said Amini, who believes the foundation should spend its time and money trying to show people that atheists are “decent people, rational and sane, with legitimate world views. This sign does not send that message.”

I wonder what the public reaction would have been if FFRF put up a plaque that was a combination of a couple of their signs:

There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell.

There is only our natural world.

Reason’s greetings to all :)

I feel like this would’ve accomplished the same things — getting the conservatives riled up, promoting atheism, and being included among the religious displays — but it wouldn’t have included a specific barb against religion. The American Humanist Association started a much more positive dialogue with their atheist bus ads and got plenty of attention themselves (though, admittedly, not as much as FFRF’s sign).

The “enslaving minds” comment crosses the line between promoting beliefs that all atheists agree with and beliefs that even many atheists are uncomfortable with.

That comment is unnecessary to make FFRF’s point.

Kudos to the Seattle Atheists and Michael for speaking their mind. In this case, I hope other groups and people follow in their footsteps.

There’s no contradiction with supporting FFRF while not approving of every single thing they do.

You can still be a Real AtheistTM and say you don’t appreciate what the sign says.

(Thanks to Eliza for the links!)

  • PrimeNumbers

    Would have been far more fun to promote some of the nastier bits of the Bible, but that would not be snappy. Perhaps the UK bus quote would have been snappy, or a quote from Dawkins that he believes in one less god etc.

  • Maakuz

    I find the plaque directed to atheists “in a closet”, rather than turning people away from their religion.
    Using strong, direct language publicly may add to their confidence.

    At least this makes some people thinking. Maybe I´m being militant, but I like the plaque very much.

  • http://atheists.meetup.com/531 benjdm

    Kudos to the Seattle Atheists!

  • http://theframeproblem.wordpress.com Ron Brown

    NO, Hemant! It’s unAtheotic for these unatheist commu–, er, closet-Christians (!!) and appeasers to not support the Pre–, er, FFRF. I mean, for Darwin’s sake, this is no time to show weakness or division in our ranks. WE’RE AT WAR! The War on Christmas, to be exact.

  • Chas

    Although I’m very happy that other atheist groups are speaking up who seem to understand language nuance, too bad it had to be for damage control.

    If we believe the reason atheists are closeted is because they are concerned with how their families, friends, and the culture as a whole will react, the FFRF sign’s language and the media uproar has only given them reason to stay stealth.

    The FFRF’s sign has reinforced many negative views about atheism and would put the nascent atheist in the position of having to also defend the group’s action.

  • http://www.godlessevangelist.com Doug Stewart

    Drawing parallels with the gay movement, I like and appreciate all approaches to promote critical thinking. Most homosexuals I know are no different from heterosexuals in every way imaginable other than the bedroom. However, there are a significant number that promote their gayness in, what some people may say, a grossly “unapologetic” fashion. For example, I loved the movie, Priscilla – Queen of the Desert, and if I were as gay as I were atheistic, I’d be typing this wearing a golden flowing ball gown, feathers, and three inches of makeup.

    The same can be said for the Black Panthers in the Civil Rights Movement; disregarding the doctrine of violence of course.

    All social movements need an ‘in your face’ contingent as well as benign but well focused messengers. I believe the atheist movement needs a similar multi-pronged approach. The important thing is that we stick together. Thanks Seattle Atheists – NOOOOT!

    Many people have indicated that the FFRF sign is too harsh, but no one has ever challenged it as not being true! If you want “harsh”, maybe the religious community would like a medieval picture of a blasphemer being burned at the stake with a sign that says, “Free Speech? We Don’t Need No Stinkin’ Free Speech.” – God.

  • Ungullible

    While I agree that the FFRF’s wording could have been less volatile, I don’t think it is horrible as-is. Christians would have gotten their panties in a wad either way. This whole argument feels like making a mountain out of a mole hill.

    Also, it’s easy to criticize the FFRF’s word choice after the fact, but who of us was involved in their process or was planning our own display? While perhaps not perfect, I am glad the FFRF did *something*. I’ll take their flawed sign over no action any day.

  • J. J. Ramsey

    Doug Stewart: “Many people have indicated that the FFRF sign is too harsh, but no one has ever challenged it as not being true!”

    Actually, that’s not true. See the comments by ollie and me on the post “Is This Atheist Sign Going to Help?”

  • Brett

    Queue clips from the “Go God!” South Park episode on atheist in-fighting. :-)

    (Go Seattle Atheists!)

  • http://www.saintgasoline.com Saint Gasoline

    I can assure you that your “less pointed” version of the original message would have raised just as much controversy and would have been just as unconvincing as the original. (The point of these signs isn’t to sway opinions, but to show the public that atheists exist and are part of the community.) Even the rather tame, “Be good for goodness’ sake” sign on buses has received its fair share of controversy and provoked livid reactions from believers, so it really is quite contrary to reality to suppose that the specific wording of this sign is somehow problematic when we know for a fact that ANY wording that somehow embraces atheism would have resulted in just the same sort of controversy. So many of the objections you raise about its divisive and inflammatory nature are irrelevant and just as applicable to much tamer messages. If atheists were to truly attempt to not provoke any controversy or anger or “divisiveness”, we’d have to stop speaking completely, you’d have to shut down your blog, and so on. I think you should put your money where your mouth is if you truly believe all inflammatory speech should be kept quiet and render yourself completely mute on the subject of religion and atheism, as this would be the only outcome that could truly appease those on the theistic side.

  • llewelly

    I don’t believe in the power of a single sentence to change a person’s mind. However, words against religion much like those on the FFRF sign did play a role in my abandonment of religion.
    For many years, I tried to pretend the ‘angry words’ had not helped me leave religion. I did not want to believe that words that had upset could have played a positive role in my adoption of skepticism.

    As I’ve grown older, I’ve realized that contrary to wanted I to believe, words by people like Russell and Randi, who denounced religion every bit as strongly as that sign, really did play a positive role in my leaving religion.

    The need to find arguments against the claim that religion is but myth and superstition helped drive me to investigate religion, history, and science. Harsher claims like ‘religion hardens hearts and enslaves minds’ helped drive me to investigate history and philosophy. More and more I found the evidence overwhelmingly supported these harsh claims.

    There is this widespread assumption that the FFRF has made terrible mistake. But Dan Barker – who dedicated the sign – was a fundamentalist evangelical preacher for many years. He knows first hand what it is like to be a hardcore religious person. Perhaps he knows what he’s doing.

  • SarahH

    If atheists were to truly attempt to not provoke any controversy or anger or “divisiveness”, we’d have to stop speaking completely, you’d have to shut down your blog, and so on. I think you should put your money where your mouth is if you truly believe all inflammatory speech should be kept quiet and render yourself completely mute on the subject of religion and atheism, as this would be the only outcome that could truly appease those on the theistic side.

    Ah, black-and-white thinking, how often you pop up in comment threads!

    It’s a perfectly rational position to feel that the sign was a good idea in general but quibble about the execution/wording. I mean, what if we took the “stand-by-whatever-gets-written-down-originally-on-principle” approach towards our own Constitution, because we thought it would be wrong to have “in-fighting” when America was just starting out? The Amendments are pretty damn important (call-out to my favorite, the First!) and if no one had criticized the Constitution for not including some basic rights, we’d be in pretty sorry shape.

    Dissent and discussion within a group isn’t a sign of weakness so long as it’s kept civil and no one resorts to violence or shunning, etc. It’s actually a sign of nuanced, intelligent discourse – a sign that people are thinking and forming opinions and actively voicing their thoughts on atheism in the pubic sphere, in this case.

  • llewelly

    The Rancho Cucumonga sign said merely: ‘Imagine No Religion’. It came down – probably due to the city council’s whining. There was all sorts of fuss and bluster about the ‘just be good for goodness’ sake’ sign. ‘Less pointed’ signs have been tried. Professional public theists screamed as if they’d been shot.

    If you’re in the closet, and you try the doorknob, and the professional public theists see it move, they’ll get all bent out of shape.

  • http://asad123.wordpress.com Asad

    Far be it from me to tell atheists how to represent themselves but I would offer the following suggestion. Why not use the lyrics from John Lennon’s “Imagine”?
    “Imagine there’s no heaven
    It’s easy if you try
    No hell below us
    Above us only sky
    Imagine all the people
    Living for today. . .”

    Visit me at my online home, http://asad123.wordpress.com.

  • llewelly

    J. J. Ramsey:

    Doug Stewart: “Many people have indicated that the FFRF sign is too harsh, but no one has ever challenged it as not being true!”
    Actually, that’s not true. See the comments by ollie and me on the post “Is This Atheist Sign Going to Help?”

    What J. J. Ramsey actually said in the previous thread:

    But religions hardens hearts? That’s enough of a half-truth that I don’t want to try to defend it. I’ve seen religion both soften and harden. Religion enslaves minds? That sounds provocative, but it’s too ambiguous to be defensible. This stuff is more in the realm of the former kind of incivility.

    Ramsey and Ollie argued the sign’s final sentence was bad PR strategy. Ramsey claimed it was a ‘half-truth’. Nobody actually offered a reason to believe it was untrue.

    When we have evidence such as Scientology, the Jonestown massacre, religious terrorists, the endless cases of parents who refused their children vital medical treatment due to religious reasons, the Sarah Palin campaign, and the campaigns to infect schools with creationism, that religion really does harden hearts and enslave minds, it is telling that no counter-arguments are offered.

  • http://www.godlessevangelist.com Doug Stewart

    So, ‘religion hardens hearts and enslaves minds’ is a “half truth”? How about the recent success of Proposition 8? Or was that so long ago that you’ve forgotten?

    Of course there are good things about every form of oppression. Nazi Germany for example gave us the autobarnes. (I love the freedom of driving at 120 mph and knowing I’m not going to get a ticket). Oh, and the uniforms looked really smart too! If we could just ignore the slight problems of murdering six million Jews and trying to take over the world, I guess you’re right, ‘Nazi Germany hardens hearts and enslaves minds’ is a “half truth”. “Sieg Hail” everyone.

  • http://gretachristina.typepad.com/ Greta Christina

    There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell.

    There is only our natural world.

    Reason’s greetings to all.

    I might have gone even softer than that. How about:

    “On behalf of atheists, agnostics, humanlsts, secularists, doubters, brights, freethinkers, and other godless people, the Freedom from Religion Foundation wishes everybody a happy winter holiday season.”

    I mean, it’s a holiday display. Why do we have to make our message hostile and critical? We always gripe about the stereotype that atheists are always angry and hostile and sour about life. Why, during a holiday season that’s about family and connection and joy — things we care about — do we reinforce the image of ourselves as the Grinch?

  • J. J. Ramsey

    Doug Stewart:

    So, ‘religion hardens hearts and enslaves minds’ is a “half truth”? How about the recent success of Proposition 8?

    No, I haven’t. I also haven’t forgotten the other half of the picture as well. Greta Christina, as usual, put it quite well:

    Either religion inspires people to act, or it doesn’t. It makes no sense to argue that religious faith inspires people to do evil, but not to do good.

    Religion has both hardened and softened hearts (something that cannot be said for Nazism), so to simply state that “religion hardens hearts” and leave it at that is misleading.

    As for the “enslaving minds” part, it is simply vague. “Enslave” has provocative connotations, but without context, it is difficult to figure out what Dan Barker had in mind when wrote about an abstract thing enslaving a piece of a person. Obviously, Barker is being figurative, but he has not left us much information on how to unpack his figure of speech into a proposition about which one can argue.

  • Aj

    J. J. Ramsey,

    …so to simply state that “religion hardens hearts” and leave it at that is misleading.

    Only if you really really want to take it that way. Normal people not looking for excuses to criticize atheists wouldn’t be making that point. Does religion harden hearts? Yes, also “smoking kills”. How misleading… pathetic.

    “Enslave” has provocative connotations, but without context, it is difficult to figure out what Dan Barker had in mind when wrote about an abstract thing enslaving a piece of a person.

    Dominate someone’s thoughts and feelings for its own ends. Many people can actually work in abstacts, even on “a piece of a person”.

  • llewelly

    Either religion inspires people to act, or it doesn’t. It makes no sense to argue that religious faith inspires people to do evil, but not to do good.

    Either creationism inspires inquiry, or it doesn’t. It makes no sense to argue that creationism inspires people to do pseudoscience, but not to do science.

    Greta’s argument does not follow.

  • J. J. Ramsey

    Nice try, llewelly, but creationism doesn’t spur the wide range of responses that religion in general does. Given that people do both good and evil acts under the banner of religion, it’s cherrypicking to only pick out the evil acts as characteristic of religion.

    Aj: “Does religion harden hearts? Yes, also “smoking kills”. How misleading… pathetic.”

    Oh, please. If smoking promoted healthy lungs in some while harming lungs in others, then it would be misleading to say simply that smoking kills.

    Aj, proposing a working definition of “enslave minds”: “Dominate someone’s thoughts and feelings for its own ends.”

    This is not a helpful definition, since religions aren’t agents with intentions and thus don’t have “ends.” Furthermore, religion varies widely in its dominance.

  • Gullwatcher

    Where are the Pastafarians on this? This cries out for an FSM display… I know they are around, I’ve seen them. C’mon guys, you need to be in Olympia, spreading the word!

  • TheDeadEye

    This would have been my choice:

    “Jesus wasn’t born on Dec 25th and there probably aren’t any gods. Happy Holidays!”

  • http://falterer.blogspot.com Falterer

    Wow, I’d just finished my own blog post on this very subject when I saw this in my feeds.

    Lots of discussion here. I think Greta Christina’s opinion matches my own. It’s the dogmatism religion is famous for that hardens hearts and enslave minds. If we supplant religious dogmatism for an atheistic one, we’ll still end up hardening hearts and enslaving minds, just for different excuses. Instead of sending a dogmatic, negative message, how about a reasonable, positive one?

  • Aj

    J. J. Ramsey,

    Oh, please. If smoking promoted healthy lungs in some while harming lungs in others, then it would be misleading to say simply that smoking kills.

    That’s not the point, and if you’re reading the sign like that then it’s not misleading, you’re just not capable of understanding it. That religion “hardens hearts” doesn’t mean that’s the only thing it does.

    This is not a helpful definition, since religions aren’t agents with intentions and thus don’t have “ends.” Furthermore, religion varies widely in its dominance.

    For you perhaps, for others adding intention is helpful. This probably illustrates your problem with the sign in the first place, one way or the other.

  • J. J. Ramsey

    Falterer, the sign that Barker put up isn’t dogmatic. It has its faults, but that isn’t one of them.

    Aj, when someone says that X does Y, with no qualifications, generally the implication is that X doesn’t do the opposite of Y, not that X is capable of doing both Y and its opposite. You might as well argue that the statement “Sale: up to 50% off or more” is not misleading even if the bulk of the items on sale are 10% off.

    Aj: “For you perhaps, for others adding intention is helpful.”

    That’s nonsense, literally. You can’t just by fiat just “add intention” to something that doesn’t have it.

  • http://www.sheeptoshawl.com writerdd

    “On behalf of atheists, agnostics, humanlsts, secularists, doubters, brights, freethinkers, and other godless people, the Freedom from Religion Foundation wishes everybody a happy winter holiday season.”

    I mean, it’s a holiday display. Why do we have to make our message hostile and critical?

    Amen. That’s something I could back.

    I’m so sick and tired of all the grouchiness and hostile attitudes, I’m not supporting any of it any more — even if I completely agree with the premise. And I especially don’t want to deal with the angry BS at Christmas.

    And in case anyone is thinking, “Well the Christians are acting that way, so we should,” I’m sorry but my mother taught me that two wrongs don’t make a right. I don’t want to lower myself to that level. I got caught up in it too much over the last few years and I am choosing a different path moving forward.

  • http://falterer.blogspot.com Falterer

    J. J. Ramsey, are we talking about the same sign? “Religion … hardens our hearts and enslaves our minds”? Not dogmatic? How about if it were to say “Rejection of Christ hardens our hearts and enslaves our minds,” would that be dogmatic?

  • J. J. Ramsey

    Falterer:

    J. J. Ramsey, are we talking about the same sign? “Religion … hardens our hearts and enslaves our minds”? Not dogmatic?

    Strictly speaking, dogmatism is a property of persons’ minds, not of beliefs. Being dogmatic has to do with how one holds one’s beliefs. If one insists on treating certain beliefs as fixed points, and twists facts to maintain these beliefs, that is being dogmatic. One can hold false beliefs without being dogmatic.

    How about if it were to say “Rejection of Christ hardens our hearts and enslaves our minds,” would that be dogmatic?

    As I said, dogmatism is a property of persons’ minds, not of beliefs, so the answer is still no. It’s wrong, of course, but that’s another matter.

  • Luther Weeks

    For what it is worth, I add my appreciation to the FFRF for creating and placing the sign. They have been placing the exact same message in the rotunda of the Wisconsin state capitol for 13 years.

    Actually “Imagine No Religion” is a much stronger message. Even much weaker statements make this apparent, what if we said:
    - Imagine No Christians”
    - Imagine No Moslems”
    - Imagine No Jews”
    - Imaging No Witches”
    - Imagine No Pastafarians”

  • http://falterer.blogspot.com Falterer

    Strictly speaking, dogmatism is a property of persons’ minds, not of beliefs…

    Ah. Perhaps I’m using the word dogmatic incorrectly, strictly speaking. I understood it to mean the authoritative expression of an ungrounded opinion as if it were a fact, which I consider to be a symptom of the state of mind you refer to.

  • llewelly

    Children, children, please! ‘dogmatic’ is any machine which consistently manufactures dogs without requiring human minding. That is to say, any dog which has not been spayed or neutered.

  • http://falterer.blogspot.com Falterer

    That is to say, any dog which has not been spayed or neutered.

    “Dog” singular? Are you saying dogs are hermaphrodites?
    :)

  • Aj

    J. J. Ramsey,

    …when someone says that X does Y, with no qualifications, generally the implication is that X doesn’t do the opposite of Y…

    No…

    You can’t just by fiat just “add intention” to something that doesn’t have it.

    Humans do it all the time, I can also use anthropomorphication, metaphor, and analogy. The problem does not come from using these, but from taking them literally. That’s antithetical to their function.

  • Josh Pawlikowski

    I was just discussing this with my girlfriend, actually. I’d have agree with Seattle Atheists that the sign was needlessly divisive. If the goal was to try and create a holiday spirit of reconciliation, or even just to illustrate that we atheists are not the miserly, angry heathens we are stereotyped to be… then I’m afraid the sign was an outstanding failure.

    What we need to be doing is to maintain a moral high ground and focus on getting our message out. And part of that message is that atheism is a positive, effective and fulfilling (not to mention rational) way of looking at the world. Telling people- especially those on the fence who may be leaning towards atheism- that they have “hardened hearts and enslaved minds” does not accomplish this. In my opinion, this only serves to widen the divide and reinforce the kneejerk “Oh no, not an Atheist!” reaction many people unfortunately have. We need to show people that atheism is more, much more, than just an angry or stubborn refusal to believe.

  • Lost Left Coaster

    I would like to model the behavior that I would like to see from religious people in the United States. I do not care whether or not people believe in a god, go to church, read their religious texts, etc. What I do care about are attacks against atheists or people of different religions and attempts to inject religion, unconstitutionally, into government and public policy. And I care about people that use religious rhetoric to justify atrocities, whether they be terrorists from abroad or Rick Warren telling Sean Hannity that the Bible tells us it is time to attack Iran. That’s what I care about.

    So I want to model the behavior that I want to see. I don’t want to see a sign in a state house attacking atheists as having hardened hearts and enslaved minds; therefore, I’m not so fond of it happening from our side either.

    As atheists, we are working for cultural acceptance and a place at the table, and it is coming, although quicker in some realms (such as academia) than others (such as politics). Nevertheless, in the USA we currently do not have to deal with the same level of institutionalized discrimination that many people currently or historically have had to deal with. I think by modeling good behavior and letting people know that 1) You can be good without a god and without a religion 2) we believe in the importance of living ethical lives and 3) constitutionally mandated separation of church and state is good for everyone, atheist and religious alike, then we are on a good path. I agree that we should be visible. But I’m not a fan of the visibility that “angry atheists” bring us.

    I know from personal experience plenty of people who were motivated by their religious convictions to do great things. One of my mentors when I was a student antiwar activist in college was a nun who spent her entire life striving for social justice. And she knew I was an atheist. We got along fabulously. Having known people like her, I really can’t accept blanket statements like “religion hardens hearts.”

  • Joe

    from Doug Stewart:
    Most homosexuals I know are no different from heterosexuals in every way imaginable other than the bedroom.

    Every way imaginable? Honestly? C’mon, we freethinkers needn’t fear that honest observation makes us bigots.

    Many people have indicated that the FFRF sign is too harsh, but no one has ever challenged it as not being true!

    Exactly! It’s because that’s the POINT. The harshness of tone, not disagreement with the idea, is the valid reason for objection. You’re upset that theists weren’t being unconstitutional? Damned if you do, etc.

    The government has the discretion to prescribe consistent standards of decorum and tone in a public display, which is not a violation of the freedom of speech, and is also why my “Zeus, Odin and I Bukkake Your Grandma on a Sleigh” display was rejected. And in this case, many thought it proper decorum that everyone not be an intentionally belittling, sanctimonious dee-bag in a display celebrating a season religiously and secularly accepted as a customary time of kindness and goodwill. (What? Your mom’s a drawn-out sentence.)

    If you want “harsh”, maybe the religious community would like a medieval picture of a blasphemer being burned at the stake with a sign that says, “Free Speech? We Don’t Need No Stinkin’ Free Speech.” – God.

    But theists didn’t want “harsh”, from/for themselves or others, that’s the point: they wanted a consistent, equal standard of civility for all involved. And “free speech”, while effective in rallying the ideological masses even when uncritically and indiscriminately draped around anything “expression”, is in this case a red, white and blue herring.

    So just to clarify: are theists dickheads because they’re belligerent and confrontational? Or because they want mutual civility and respect? Or is the mere adherence to theistic belief reason enough to be indignant no matter what behavior is displayed? These mixed signals just leave a gal so confused…

  • http://merkdorp.blogspot.com J. J. Ramsey

    Aj: “No…”

    Wow, there’s a useful rebuttal.

    Aj: “Humans do it all the time, I can also use anthropomorphication, metaphor, and analogy.”

    That’s not adding intention, that’s using figures of speech. I think a certain XKCD strip is called for:

    Communicating badly and then acting smug when you’re misunderstood is not cleverness.

    If you wanted to talk about figures of speech, then you should have said so, but then, you would have had to take into account what I already wrote earlier:

    Obviously, Barker is being figurative, but he has not left us much information on how to unpack his figure of speech into a proposition about which one can argue.

    Your attempt at unpacking was unsuccessful.

  • Pingback: Regator Top 10 Posts of the Week — Regator Blog

  • Jim in Charleston SC

    I don’t know what all the hype is about. One either believes in God or One doesn’t! Signs and symbols mean nothing. I believe in God and I don’t really care if you don’t. I believe there is more evidence for God than there is for Global warming but that is another discussion. Anyway if anyone of you are gamblers -weigh the odds and bet how you will. For me I am not so sure that the Sun will rise tomorrow. If you believe it will -PROVE IT! LOL

  • http://www.CoreyMondello.com Corey Mondello

    What are these Seattle Atheists trying to prove, that they are like the Democratic Party, a bunch of apologists for fear of what people will think. They need to get a clue. The reason why Christianity, fundamental religions, the Relgious Right and the conservative of the USA have aquired so much power in every aspect of our lives; politics, media, military, etc….is because they do not give a hoot about what people will think!.

    Get a back bone !!!


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X