Controversial Atheist Sign Defaced

26 CommentsFamous Lost Words

The “Under God” spray-painted by vandals onto an atheist billboard on Billy Graham Parkway over the weekend won’t be gone until just before July 4, a spokesman for Charlotte Atheists & Agnostics said today.

“It was done by one or two people off on their own who decided their only recourse was vandalism rather than having a conversation.” Warren said. “It does show how needed our message is. As atheists, we want to let people know we exist and that there’s a community here. See the sign and read the rest here.

Comments (26)

  1. BathTub

    Reply

    It’s great that some ‘christian’ was so offended by the pledge of allegiance that they had to vandalize property and generate more publicity about it.

  2. Nohm

    Reply

    What interests me here is that there are far more (percentage-wise) pro-secular comments in that link (charlotteobserver.com), or at least people acknowledging that vandalism was the wrong way to deal with this, compared to the same article on yahoo (which has around 10k comments last I checked).

  4. Bizzle

    Reply

    That was a very Christian thing to do. I hope whomever vandalized the sign prays for repentance.

  5. Rich

    Reply

    What amazes me is how many ignorant people think the pledge was originally written with ‘under God’ in it. I remember saying it in elementary school without!

  6. adam

    Reply

    I hope the pissed off christians keep vandalizing signs because it means more publicity. More publicity might mean a few more people will start to question the idea of a deity. There is strength in numbers and atheists/agnostics are gaining numbers every day.

  7. Glenn Parker

    Reply

    Adam, you’re right! Atheists are gaining in number, and the “very elect” are being deceived by that same nonsense. In fact this was prophesied thousands of years ago. Check out 2 Thessalonians if you want to see what else is going to happen.

    The other co-incident prophecies ought to make you shudder.

  8. Paul Latour

    Reply

    I’m a Christian. I’m embarassed.

    Nothing and nobody, especially Christians, can justify what took place here. In a word, this was CRIMINAL!

    We Christians are called by Jesus to “do unto others as you would have done unto you”. Outright vandalism is not something any Christian would be willing to tolerate if the tables were turned in this scenario.

    As well, this not the way to get a message across to atheists nor the people who read the billboard. This does much in the way of damage and nothing in the way of good. It doesn’t put Christians in a good light.

    Basically, this was willful destruction of someone else’s property that was paid for with their money. It is my hope that the culprits are caught and dealt with by the full force of the law, be rebuked by fellow Christians and be made to pay the cost of replacement.

    Atheists have just as much freedom to express their views as believers of any faith and their property respected. There are better ways than vandalism to profess the existence and love of God.

    Shame on the those involved.

  10. Thomas Moore

    Reply

    Paul Latour, I agree with you 100%. This is not the way to do it. Like you said atheists have a right to express their views just as much as anybody else (I don’t agree with the billboard of course nor the vandalism that has taken place. I do agree of course that the phrase “Under God” should be in the pledge). Everything else that you said was well put on this criminal act. There is no reason to do this because God is going to win in the end. His glory is going to be seen throughout the earth. And even if there is no one who worships Him,

    “that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father.”-Philippians 2:10-11

    One other interesting point is that there was no reason for this. The billboard itself (without the vandalism, which now puts believers in a bad light) was enough for God to use to create conversation among people and by the power of the Holy Spirit, repentance and salvation in Jesus. Though God can thankfully still use this situation for his glory and people’s salvation. With all the media hype that it is generating. He is a God, the only God that has WON, does WIN and will WIN in the end!!! Praise Him!!!

    -Thomas

  13. Nohm

    Reply

    Glenn Parker wrote:

    “The other co-incident prophecies ought to make you shudder.”

    No, not really, for the same reason that you don’t shudder that the Qur’an says that you’re going to Hell.

  15. Glenn Parker

    Reply

    Nohm, that’s true. Except the Koran didn’t exist before 600AD. It’s a baby compared to the Bible, and guess what? The Koran claims to have been revealed by the very angel that told Mary she was pregnant, and that “parts” of the Bible are true and worthy of inclusion in the Koran. I don’t think so.

  16. Nohm

    Reply

    Glenn Parker wrote: “Except the Koran didn’t exist before 600AD”

    And the Bible didn’t exist before 300AD, so what’s your point? I assume you know that there are holy books that were around long before the Bible (such as the Vedas).

    But does the age of a holy book have anything to do with its veracity? If you think it does, why?

    “It’s a baby compared to the Bible”

    And the Bible is a baby compared to the Vedas. So, again, what’s the relevance of this statement?

    “The Koran claims to have been revealed by the very angel that told Mary she was pregnant”

    Correct. You call him Gabriel, they call him Jibril.

    “and that “parts” of the Bible are true and worthy of inclusion in the Koran. I don’t think so.”

    Look, if I say “I don’t think so” regarding the statement “The Bible is God’s word”, would you care? Would that mean anything to you? Would my statement of “I don’t think so” have anything to do with the veracity of the Bible?

    So why should I consider your use of “I don’t think so” any differently?

    It’s one thing to say that you don’t think so, and a completely different thing to explain WHY you don’t think so.

  17. Azou

    Reply

    So age is validity now?

    Finally, I can worship Ra with confidence. I mean, that makes Christianity downright pre-fetal!

  18. Glenn Parker

    Reply

    Okay, the first 39 books of the “Bible” that we know existed wholly as of 300BC, which was when the Greeks undertook translation of the Old Testament into Koine Greek that we call the Septuagint. Parts of the Old Testament came together by 1500BC. The New Testament was written by the end of the first century AD by people that happened to believe the Old Testament.

    I am sure you guys know this, but with your self-worshipping glasses on it won’t make any difference. The fact that the Bible is quite old, coupled with the fact that it is filled with facts that modern science is just uncovering *IS* significant. The fact that it has been considered God’s Word for 3500 years now is significant.

    The fact that ancient Egyptians worshipped Ra and stopped doing it thousands of years ago is also significant. Azou, I wonder if you can see the difference.

  20. Nohm

    Reply

    Glenn, and none of what you wrote deals with the Vedas, which are still older, and still in use.

    “Okay, the first 39 books of the “Bible”…”

    Uhm, yeah, nice movement of the goalposts there, Glenn.

    When was the Council of Nicaea? About 300AD, right?

    “The fact that the Bible is quite old, coupled with the fact that it is filled with facts that modern science is just uncovering *IS* significant.”

    Glenn, please look up “scientific miracles of the Quran“. Your claims are no more significant than their claims.

    “but with your self-worshipping glasses…”

    And Glenn, since you don’t know me and can’t read minds (gah, AGAIN with this stuff??), please hold off on saying that I worship myself until you have actual evidence that I do so.

    As usual, people like yourself are persuading me to think you’re wrong. As I’ve told Thomas, if you’re wrong and lacking knowledge about stuff that I actually know about, how can I believe you when you make claims about things I don’t know?

    “The fact that it has been considered God’s Word for 3500 years now is significant.”

    Huh, I thought you were a Christian; didn’t know you were Jewish, sorry.

  21. Nohm

    Reply

    Glenn, do you know that the Bible is hardly the oldest holy book in the world, but you’re avoiding that to try to make some points on me?

    Or do you actually not know this?

    And your claim that “it has been considered God’s Word for 3500 years now” kinda ignores a particular testament that I would imagine you find slightly important.

    Equivocation, Glenn; it’s something you shouldn’t do.

  22. Glenn Parker

    Reply

    Nohm, you know as well as I do that the council of Nicea did not form the Bible. They met to officially declare the Books that were considered to be part of the Canon of Scripture. This was needed because of heretics trying to claim that errant doctrines were part of the canon. The council merely ratified what the Church at large already recognized to be Scripture.

    I never said that just because something’s old makes it God’s Word! You guys can extrapolate with the best of them. If something is old, explains things that no human could have known at the time of its writing, and itself claims to be inspired by God himself, then it deserves a look.

    Oh and yes, you might call me Jewish with a recognized Messiah. The Book of Hebrews will describe this in detail for you. Christians are “grafted” into the Nation of Israel under a new covenant.

    Nohm, you seem to be convinced of your own convictions. Let me ask you a couple of questions:

    1. What is your best evidence that God doesn’t exist? You can’t lean on “lack of evidence”.

    2. What is your best evidence that the Bible is not God’s Word?

  23. Azou

    Reply

    1. Proving a negative is very hard, which is why burden of proof is on you. It has to be a falsifiable claim, otherwise God gains new superpowers to refute our claims.

    For example: prove that an all-powerful, invisible squirrel did not create the universe. You cannot lean on lack of evidence.

    2. There is a lack of other sources that can back up the Bible. You’d think a global flood would have garnered more commentary.

  24. Nohm

    Reply

    Hi Glenn,

    Sorry it took so long for me to reply; I was away all weekend.

    1. You’ll notice, if you actually spent the time to go through all of my posts on stonethepreacher.com (which I obviously don’t think you’re obligated to do), that I’ve never made the claim that God doesn’t exist.

    This is because I try to make sure that I don’t make claims that I can’t support.

    Regardless, this is simply a moving of the goalposts again. You are claiming that a god exists, therefore it is your responsibility to support the claim, otherwise we’re back to “Glenn, prove that you don’t owe me $10,000, and you can’t lean on ‘lack of evidence’.” I think we both know why that doesn’t work.

    But that’s pretty much what you asked me there, and I’d hope that you’d see why “lack of evidence” is just fine as a response to “prove to me that you don’t owe me $10,000.” Certainly any court would accept “lack of evidence” as an argument on your part.

    But let’s get to it: I don’t believe in any gods because I don’t believe the believers, such as yourself. We have a world full of people that believe in a variety of different gods, and all of these people are sincerely convinced that they’re right, and everyone else is wrong. In fact, even people who supposedly worship the same God (e.g., Sunnis and Shias, Catholics and Baptists) can’t agree on exactly what their God views as most important.

    Combine that with my opinion that theists make some of the worst arguments I’ve ever seen in my life (e.g., Pascal’s Wager, Paley’s Watchmaker), and I’m left with thinking that these people, with all of their conflicting reports, are more than likely incorrect.

    Combine that again with my own experiences as a believer, when I was never able to “feel” God, or “communicate” with God, and combine that AGAIN with my research into psychology, and the power that belief can have, and I end up with:

    It’s my opinion that believers have bought into their belief so much, and have emotionally attached to it so much, that almost nothing can change their mind, even if they were faced with absolute proof that they were wrong.

    2. First, I would have to 1. believe in a god, 2. believe that something is “God’s Word”, and 3. have some method of determining that.

    I have not been presented with a workable method of determining whether or not something (e.g., Vedas, Bible, Qur’an) is “God’s Word”. What I have been presented with are arguments that clearly show that the person began with the conclusion that their holy book is “God’s Word”, and have then looked for data to support that.

    That method does not work.

    The scientific method, a method that actually WORKS, says that you gather data first, THEN you can come to a conclusion. My conclusion is that the Bible, just like all ancient holy books, matches with the mythological stories (e.g., Greek, Egyptian) that I study.

    But really, again we’re doing the whole “prove that you don’t owe me $10,000”. You have presented your reasons for thinking that the Bible is God’s Word, and I have found your arguments to be fallacious. The burden of proof, to show that the Bible is “God’s Word”, is still on you.

    Glenn, I’m not trying to convince you that God doesn’t exist, or that the Bible is not His Word. I don’t think for a second that I’d be successful at that, for the psychological reasons I mentioned above, and for the simple fact that I myself wasn’t argued out of belief; I came to non-belief on my own.

    So, here are my real answers:

    1. Because I haven’t been given any persuasive reasons to believe that He exists.
    2. Because I haven’t been given any persuasive reasons to believe that it is “God’s Word”.

    One last thing: I use the word “persuasive” there on purpose, because if there’s one thing I find from listening to theistic arguments, it’s that I find them to be dispersuasive. Yeah, I know, I made that word up. But there really isn’t an english word to explain the reaction it gives me… that not only am I not persuaded, but theistic arguments actually persuade me to think that the person hasn’t fully thought out the argument, and I’m therefore “dispersuaded” (i.e., persuaded against the argument).

    This is why I tend to ask “have you researched the criticisms of that argument?”

    Sorry about the length, but I hope this all made sense.

  25. Nohm

    Reply

    Glenn wrote:

    “Nohm, you know as well as I do that the council of Nicea did not form the Bible. They met to officially declare the Books that were considered to be part of the Canon of Scripture. This was needed because of heretics trying to claim that errant doctrines were part of the canon. The council merely ratified what the Church at large already recognized to be Scripture.”

    Yeah, it’s safe to say that you and I have very different views about this. I would argue that that’s quite a bit of spin.

    But let’s get to an issue I wanted to discuss:

    “I never said that just because something’s old makes it God’s Word! You guys can extrapolate with the best of them.”

    And if either Azou or I had said that was your claim, you might be right to admonish us. Glenn, please read our comments again; you’ll see that we do not say that was your claim:

    Azou: “So age is validity now?”

    Nohm: “But does the age of a holy book have anything to do with its veracity? If you think it does, why?”

    Which were both in response to you writing:

    “[The Qur’an is] a baby compared to the Bible”

    and

    “The fact that the Bible is quite old, coupled with the fact that it is filled with facts that modern science is just uncovering *IS* significant.”

    and

    “If something is old, explains things that no human could have known at the time of its writing, and itself claims to be inspired by God himself, then it deserves a look.”

    So… you appear to find the Bible’s age important, and that it has at least some bearing on its validity.

    Which is what Azou and I were calling you on, not that you were claiming that’s what makes it God’s Word.

    Otherwise, why would you even mention the age THREE times?

    Also, getting back to this quote again:

    “If something is old, explains things that no human could have known at the time of its writing, and itself claims to be inspired by God himself, then it deserves a look.”

    1. Who cares if it claims to be inspired by God himself? That’s every holy book! Do you care that the Qur’an claims to be written by Allah? That you would even present this as an argument stuns me.

    2. Do you realize that that’s pretty much, verbatim, exactly what Muslims claim about the Qur’an? That it’s old, explains things that no human could have known at the time of its writing (again I point you to “Scientific Miracles of the Qur’an”, and claims to be written by God.

    Therefore, it deserves a look, right? In the original Arabic, right?

    So, how am I to decide which of them really is God’s Word, since you both use the same arguments AND you are both sincerely convinced you’re right (in a mutually exclusive issue)?

    Qur’an says that Muhammed split the moon. Do you believe that claim? Why, or why not?

    Because that’s the way I feel about claims like “Moses brought the Jews out of Egypt” or “There was a worldwide flood about 4,000 years ago where only eight humans survived.”

    The math just doesn’t work.

  26. Nohm

    Reply

    Lastly, Glenn wrote: “Nohm, you seem to be convinced of your own convictions.”

    A “conviction” is “a fixed or firm belief.”

    Firm? Sure, I’m convinced that my convictions are firm, since I get my convictions by being convinced. That’s how the word works.

    Fixed? No, not at all. I’m not emotionally attached to my opinions. For example, let’s say that something happens tomorrow to make me believe in God.

    What am I going to say? “No, I don’t want to”? How stupid would that be? If God exists, then He exists, regardless of my opinion on the matter.

    Therefore, I don’t get emotionally attached to my opinions.

    It’s my opinion that you’re projecting there.

    And seriously, AGAIN with the attempt to read my mind? Don’t you guys ever quit with that?? Don’t you get to a point of being wrong so often with your attempted telepathy that you finally stop??

    Glenn, you cannot read minds.

    What is it with that???

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *