That’s a bit disingenuous. One is in the dictionary, one is a new concept, which gets quotes the first time at least. And it is at least as factual a concept as the Aether, whether or not someone believes in it. Obviously the English language has a clear religious bias.
The road is a Bitumenous Cube, which I believe is always neutral. Not sure if unholy water affects only Good creatures, or non-Evil creatures. Is there a “Kinda holy, but also a little evil water” for neutral creatures?
Yeah, but you don’t need to be an atheist to oppose teaching ID, or a committed anti-biker to not want to be forced to wear leather and denim all the time.
Religions typically get a pass on their ridiculous claims and posturing. Our society traditionally exempts religiosity from the kind of criticism that other similarly implausible public activity gets. This has the negative effect of tending to legitimize it, and letting it define much of the conversation, and letting children conclude religiosity is part of the definition of normal and proper.
I think atheists unblessing the highway do the same good for society as the little boy who shouted that the emperor has no clothes.
WOW, it does. It is now evident to me that God is using these Atheists to remove that unholy curse placed by that church.
Yes this is really how I do see it, and how I do believe God works in our world, God’s use of non-believers is not dependent on their belief, they are doing the right thing and will be blessed for it.
You would think that the occasional thunderstorm that you normally see in Florida would make any and all of this a moot point…but instead, it’s all about one-upping each other. I thought Florida had lots of other fun things to do instead of enlisting for this passive-aggressive bullshitfest…I guess I was wrong.
I dunno. At first I found it amusing, and of course it makes a point-- to those who already get the point.*
But the backlash can cause even more problems than the original issue. I’ll use the analogy of PETA. I love animals, I help rescue and rehabilitate animals, I’m vehemently against the abuse of animals, I think endangered species should be vigorously protected.
However, I think PETA makes a mockery of animal rights activists. I don’t hunt, but I do not care if people want to hunt non-threatened species. I don’t care if people wear leather. I do not think that animals have the same rights as people-- only that they should be treated humanely. That includes letting them live healthy, happy lives before we eat them.
But because of PETA, my “animal rights” position lumps me in the same category as those who think that owning an animal is equivalent to human slavery. I have two dogs and two cats who are doing just fine, thank you.
Sorry if this turned into a hijack.
Another favorite from Mark Twain: "Religion will make a man good-- if he was a good man to begin with."
Scientist: “Oh come on! It would take hours for us to fire up the Big Bang Generator just to extract some fresh-made space dust from a new pocket universe! And you wouldn’t believe the electrical bill on that thing.”
Atheists have been doing good deeds as long as they have existed; they go almost totally unrecognized. It is simply generally assumed that atheists are by nature evil. Doing good deeds is good for its own sake, but an atheist doing good isn’t going to convince any believers that atheists aren’t monsters.
Nor by the way is acting “polite” and not publicly questioning or criticizing religion going to make religious people any more polite or any less hateful towards atheists.
I agree. It’s good to call people on religious nonsense, and “ignore them and they’ll go away” doesn’t work.
Well your atheist beliefs about unholy water are just as much a matter of faith as my beliefs about holy water. Can you positively prove it is unholy?
And don’t give me any nonsense about you merely having no positive belief about it being holy. That’s not what you mean by unholy, no matter what you say.
Huh? I didn’t say that I believed that anything could be unholy any more than it can be holy, barring a actual demon showing up and saying “Yup, that’s our stuff.”
Stop me (heh, you can’t!) if you already heard this story (more than likely fictional):
A congregation from a christian church were praying to God to stop the construction of a topless bar in their town. A week later, a thunderstorm rolled through the town, and lightning struck the construction site, and the nearly completed building burned to the ground. The congregation was so smug at the turn of events, that the owner of the business decided to sue the church for the cost of the damages. The church said they were not responsible for the damages…but the Judge found himself in a quandary and addressed the court…“I have a plaintiff who actually believes that God answered the congregation’s prayers, and a whole congregation who do not believe that God did this on their behalf, even when they prayed for it. In other words, the owner of the topless bar has more faith in God than a whole congregation.”
The story doesn’t have a verdict in it, because the point was already made…
PETA aside, modern industrial farming precludes “letting them live healthy, happy lives before we eat them.” And of necessity, “humanely raised” animals will be a number so small as to be insignificant, when it’s not just a marketing lie. So your choices are effectively “don’t eat them” or “pretend to myself they lived healthy, happy lives.”
On the other hand, its perfectly ok to waste time blessing a road rather than going out and starting a foodbank or somthing similar?
Furhter, although it matters not to me, but by “blessing” the road, aren’t you in some sense “claiming” it for you religion? How would a Muslem feel about travelling on a “Christian” road? Or a Hindu, etc etc…isn’t it a bit selfish to bless a road, and come what may for any other religion?