Dan has decided to equate atheism to vandalism.

     Apparently some people vandalized the side of a church with “atheist slogans.”  Dan would have us believe that such people are “atheist leaders” — hence the title of his post.  Given that whoever did it used the misspelling of atheist so common to fundamentalist christian, I am inclined to believe that christians did it in an effort to make atheists look bad.  Dan goes on to say that all atheists implicitly support this behavior and that to deny that is dishonest.

     Well, I have seen quite a few very public atheists.  Not one of them encourages vandalism in general or vandalism of churches in particular.  Oh, they often support a no-god or even anti-god message.  But vandalism is not the way they pursue that message.  They use public speaking, books, and paid advertising — methods which draw no objection when used by corporations and even churches.

     Seriously, does anyone think that if someone spray-painted “Coke-Cola” on the outside wall of a Pepsi building, that it would be the Coca-Cola executives?  Or even that they might support such an action?  Yet that is the manner in which Dan wishes to portray the vandalism.  It’s another case of fundamentalist-christians-gotta-lie.


4 thoughts on “Dan has decided to equate atheism to vandalism.

  1. >> Dan would have us believe that such people are “atheist leaders” — hence the title of his post.

    Why do you constantly lie? I already stated BEFORE you wrote this post, that the KIDS who spray painted the side of the church was FOLLOWERS. The post is, though, about the leaders that lead the kids to do harmful things, like the Nazi (KKK) Dad who has a KID kill a black person. You’re pathetically lying, but for what purpose?

    What about those Atheists that sued to take that public Mojave Desert cross down and when the Judge ruled it was allowed the cross was, in the act of vandalism, removed.

  2. I’m gonna side with Dan on this one, Pvblivs. I don’t think you were being dishonest, but Dan didn’t imply that the people who tagged the school were “atheist leaders”.

    Still, Dan kinda shoots himself in the foot when he says the following:

    Some may state that I am generalizing and that they would never condone such behavior. But that is irrelevant. It doesn’t matter if you condone or not.

    It does matter, because then you have to show that what those leaders DID advocate and condone led to the vandalism.

    And not surprisingly, Dan merely asserts it, without so much as an attempt to show it.

  3. Whateverman:

         Well, if I’m wrong, I’m wrong. I make no claim of infallibility. But I think he called the vandals the leaders to begin with (paticularly because of that quote and then backpedaled and called them followers. Members do not implicitly endorse all actions of all other members of a group just by remaining in the group. But it is reasonable to say that one endorses a leader’s actions by continuing to accept him as leader. I think his original post can only make sense if you take it as the vandals being the leaders.
         But, even if I am wrong about him meaning the vandals to be the leaders, the rest of my post stands. Atheists do not publicly encourage vandalism. Only a madman would suggest that, were “Coke-Cola” spray-painted on a Pepsi building, if would mean it had the approval of Coca-Cola’s executives.
         One other point. He called the post “Atheist Leaderts.” If we are to take his current claims, he wrote a post of that title that did not talk about atheist leaders in any way. You’ll forgive me if I think it more likely that he is just denying the original meaning of his statements rather than admit that he made a mistake. I could be wrong; but it would require that Dan has considerably less sanity than I currently give him credit for. And I don’t give him credit for much.

  4. even if I am wrong about him meaning the vandals to be the leaders, the rest of my post stands. Atheists do not publicly encourage vandalism.

    Agreed. Even worse, nothing “atheist leaders” say implies vandalism, not even close. Dan has asserted otherwise, but he’s failed to support the argument by either reason or evidence.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s