Posted 3 months, 8 days ago in 
Loading ...
Atheist Anne Landman’s Aug. 10 column is without meaning – not because I say, but because she does.
First, atheism is a religion because it has something to say about theology, origins and destiny, meaning and purpose. Secondly, the idea that we can privatize our religion is mindless. It is also one that atheists themselves do not practice. They know that to keep our sacred beliefs behind closed doors will ultimately kill those beliefs. Our beliefs inform our actions, whether at home or in the public arena. Beliefs not practiced become meaningless and we end up hating ourselves as we abandon that which we hold most cherished.
The problem of “meaning” stands for the atheist to answer. Landman writes as if her thoughts have meaning and that there are committed “wrongs” that must be made “right.” Meaning and right and wrong are concepts foreign to atheism and must be smuggled in to make the argument. Atheism says things just are. There can be no meaning or purpose and no claim can be made for right or wrong, evil, decency or human morality. Landman, like all humans in the atheist worldview, are meaningless creatures – the result of an unguided, unthinking, purposeless naturalistic process that just happened to produce trees, ants and man along the way. Someone once said, “let the process start over and we don’t make it (neither does any other life that we recognize).”
Where does meaning come from for Ms. Landman? As a meaningless creature, everything that flows from her has no meaning either. She may express an opinion, but there are others with opinions that contradict hers. How do we choose between Mother Teresa and Hitler? How does she come to the table with any basis of condemnation? A “wrong” implies purpose. Without meaning or purpose, she cannot speak of evil or morality.
The face of atheism distorts mankind. It allows evil and indecencies to manifest themselves in public, while mandating that we hide the answers to morality and the meaning of our very self.
TERRY BRIDGMAN
Grand Junction
107 Responses to “Landman’s argument is without meaning”
Posted August 14th, 2008 at 11:11 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
“Atheist Anne Landman’s Aug. 10 column is without meaning – not because I say, but because she does.”
It sure sounds like you’re saying it, especially since you get so much wrong.
“First, atheism is a religion because it has something to say about theology, origins and destiny, meaning and purpose.”
As I and others have said numerous times, atheism is a religion like bald is a hair color. Atheism says nothing about any of those things, other than the atheist does not believe in the religious answers to those questions.
“Secondly, the idea that we can privatize our religion is mindless. It is also one that atheists themselves do not practice.”
How many times have atheists knocked on your door trying to convert you?
“They know that to keep our sacred beliefs behind closed doors will ultimately kill those beliefs.”
First, why? Second, no one is asking anyone to keep their beliefs behind closed doors, only out of government meetings.
“Our beliefs inform our actions, whether at home or in the public arena.”
No argument here.
“Beliefs not practiced become meaningless and we end up hating ourselves as we abandon that which we hold most cherished.”
You neglect to consider that one might find something else to cherish besides religious beliefs. Like truth.
“The problem of “meaning” stands for the atheist to answer.”
No, it stands for each individual to answer. Some choose to accept the meaning that religion offers. Other choose something else. There are other meanings besides religion.
“Landman writes as if her thoughts have meaning and that there are committed “wrongs” that must be made “right.” Meaning and right and wrong are concepts foreign to atheism and must be smuggled in to make the argument. Atheism says things just are. There can be no meaning or purpose and no claim can be made for right or wrong, evil, decency or human morality.”
You were frightened by an atheist as a child, weren’t you? I suppose the idea that someone might not want to commit crimes so as not to suffer the penalties imposed by the society he lives in aren’t enough reason. How about you don’t want to kill the only baker in the village because then you won’t get any bread? How about you don’t want to try and kill anyone because then they would try to kill you? There are lots of reasons for morality that have nothing to do with religion.
“Landman, like all humans in the atheist worldview, are meaningless creatures – the result of an unguided, unthinking, purposeless naturalistic process that just happened to produce trees, ants and man along the way.”
So what? An unguided, unthinking purposeless naturalistic process forms beautiful snowflakes. This is simply an argument from incredulity. Others don’t have that hang-up.
“Someone once said, “let the process start over and we don’t make it (neither does any other life that we recognize).”
Things would quite possibly be different. If an asteroid hadn’t smacked the earth 65 million years ago, the first intelligent life could have been dinosaur-like creatures, and could have been millions of years ahead of where we are now. Again, so what?
“Where does meaning come from for Ms. Landman?”
That is for her to decide. Meaning is not external.
“As a meaningless creature, everything that flows from her has no meaning either.”
That’s just insulting.
“She may express an opinion, but there are others with opinions that contradict hers.”
Life would be pretty boring if there wasn’t.
“How do we choose between Mother Teresa and Hitler? How does she come to the table with any basis of condemnation? A “wrong” implies purpose. Without meaning or purpose, she cannot speak of evil or morality.”
Who did the most to help their fellow man? Why must you accept religion to want to help others?
“The face of atheism distorts mankind. It allows evil and indecencies to manifest themselves in public, while mandating that we hide the answers to morality and the meaning of our very self.”
Well, the ridiculous straw-man version of atheism you are espousing here perhaps. Fortunately, those of us who are actually atheists know better.
Posted August 14th, 2008 at 11:28 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
So, Scott is an atheist that believes in something? Is that the same as a double negative?
Posted August 14th, 2008 at 11:45 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Is it really about atheism and christianity? Isn’t it really about evangelism?
Posted August 14th, 2008 at 12:22 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Although atheism is a faith based belief system, it is the antipathy of religion. The atheists would have you believe that each new demand is about righting a wrong, something that is in the eye of the beholder and they assert their victimization at every opportunity. All the while, they work ever forward on their real goal, which is the total elimination of religious beliefs.
Does the Devil find God offensive? And what would be the devils solution of choice for his pretend offense? The elimination of God? The American people have a choice. They can accept the atheist assertion that religion is bad, and needs to be eliminated or they can reject that assertion. What is clear is that we are fully engaged in the eternal struggle of good against evil. What is also clear is that mankind has a free will, but along with that free will comes the responsibility and consequences for the choices that we make. I for one reject the atheist agenda and all their works.
May God Bless this country and her citizens, and guide and direct their choice.
Posted August 14th, 2008 at 12:33 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Alphalpha,
“So, Scott is an atheist that believes in something? Is that the same as a double negative?”
No. Atheists believe in a lot of things. They just don’t believe in God.
AP,
“Although atheism is a faith based belief system, it is the antipathy of religion.”
Mine isn’t.
“The atheists would have you believe that each new demand is about righting a wrong, something that is in the eye of the beholder and they assert their victimization at every opportunity. All the while, they work ever forward on their real goal, which is the total elimination of religious beliefs.”
I didn’t think anyone could top Willis in missing the point.
“Does the Devil find God offensive? And what would be the devils solution of choice for his pretend offense? The elimination of God? The American people have a choice. They can accept the atheist assertion that religion is bad, and needs to be eliminated or they can reject that assertion. What is clear is that we are fully engaged in the eternal struggle of good against evil.”
The atheists being evil, of course.
“What is also clear is that mankind has a free will, but along with that free will comes the responsibility and consequences for the choices that we make.”
Not if the Christian God exists.
“I for one reject the atheist agenda and all their works.”
Good for you.
“May God Bless this country and her citizens, and guide and direct their choice.”
Hasn’t worked out all that great up till now, has it?
Posted August 14th, 2008 at 12:39 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
I think the God Bless America worked very well until the screwballs began trying to take over and do things the communist, socialist, fascist way.
When it the homegrown variety of citizen legislators, it all worked very well.
Then the power mad folks showed up and decided o show all the stupid people how it should be done. Been going downhill ever since. It shows in the test scores and the dropout rate.
Posted August 14th, 2008 at 1:04 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott,
Oh ye of little faith or in your case, should I say no faith. I should remind you that the greatest trick the devil ever played was to convince mankind that he did not exist. The offense that you claim comes from within your own heart and you will find refuge from what offends you only in the understanding that what you have the free will to accept, you also have the free will to reject. Nothing is set in concrete.
Posted August 14th, 2008 at 1:13 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Why don’t you guys go boycott something?
dc, the word is dominionism, the people doing it are called christianists. Start with wikipedia for lots of info and links.
Posted August 14th, 2008 at 1:22 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
American_Patriot, is this new person just another new creation of proteus/sugarfoot/gjblubber?
I’m not getting the feeling that this is truly a ‘conservative voice coming in from the wilderness’…
Posted August 14th, 2008 at 1:26 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
“Conservative from the wilderness”? What does that mean? Just because I don’t answer your private messages does not mean that I am dishonest.
Posted August 14th, 2008 at 1:28 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Willis,
I don’t see alphaalpha as proteus. He/she seems far too intelligent to be a proteus creation. Perhaps you should inquire if alphaalpha has a history as a helicopter door gunner. Old habits die hard.
Posted August 14th, 2008 at 1:33 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
I think I’ll just sit back and see what develops. There is more to this story than what I know so far.
Class has pretty much disappeared, bobbie, from Delta is quiet, scott is babbling, tmonkey popped in but has been quiet, dc popped in, but is quiet.
Interesting.
Posted August 14th, 2008 at 1:34 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
I just thought you guys needed some help.
Posted August 14th, 2008 at 1:36 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Willis,
It may be foolish of me Willis, but this one might be for real. At least I am going to assume so from this point. I think the invocation issue is starting to pull people out of the woodwork. I have got three emails from people I’ve never met, just this morning, two local and one from out of state. It appears someone is bringing the Grand Junction prayer issue to the attention of Christians in other states.
Posted August 14th, 2008 at 1:41 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
I notice that the original letter was sent around 10:30am. I sure hope this wasn’t sent in from your government computer while you were in your government office supposedly working for us, Mr. Bridgman.
Posted August 14th, 2008 at 1:48 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Uh Bruce, did you have a problem with slick willies antics on the government clock time?
Posted August 14th, 2008 at 1:51 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Yes. Your point?
Posted August 14th, 2008 at 1:53 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP,
Oh ye of little faith or in your case, should I say no faith. I should remind you that the greatest trick the devil ever played was to convince mankind that he did not exist. The offense that you claim comes from within your own heart and you will find refuge from what offends you only in the understanding that what you have the free will to accept, you also have the free will to reject. Nothing is set in concrete.”
And once again, I’m not claiming any offense. And yes, I believe if free will. That’s one of the many reasons I don’t believe in the Christian god.
Posted August 14th, 2008 at 2:02 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Just making sure that you fussed both ways.
The president toying with little girls while keeping foreign dignitaries waiting on the South lawn is equal to a lowly government slug writing a 2 minute letter to the editor.
Posted August 14th, 2008 at 2:03 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Bruce86,
I am sure if you think about your post you will realize that unlike posts, letters go through the paper and are posted by them. So that means that we have no idea when the letter was submitted, since all letters submitted are not posted at all.
Posted August 14th, 2008 at 2:04 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Sorry, that should have read “not all letters submitted are posted at all.
Posted August 14th, 2008 at 2:56 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Willis - You said, “American_Patriot, is this new person just another new creation of proteus/sugarfoot/gjblubber?”
There is at least a 50/50 possibility I’m “alphalpha.” I may be male, female, gay, straight, bisexual or transgender.
I may be a Republican, Democrat, Socialist, Communist or Libertarian.
I may be Christian, Buddhist, Jew, Unitarian, Muslim, Hindu, Deist, Theist or any one of a thousand religions. I may even be an Atheist.
As a Christian, you believe in a supernatural world; and in a supernatural world, anyone can be anyone they choose to be.
Posted August 14th, 2008 at 3:09 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
GJBubba,
You might also be an ex-employee of the Daily Sentinel and nuttier than a fruitcake. The only thing that troubles me about you is that you are not locked up. I don’t care what you pretend to be on this forum. You said you were under psychiatric care. I can just hope you are telling the truth. But that would be contrary to the pattern of behavior that you have exhibited on this forum. If you were not telling the truth, please get help. Do it for yourself, do it for us, but do it quickly.
Posted August 14th, 2008 at 3:16 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP - You’re right, I may be an ex-employee of the Daily Sentinel - I may also be the reincarnation of Jay Silverheels. With modern technology, anything is possible.
Posted August 14th, 2008 at 4:12 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Terry wrote:
“They know that to keep our sacred beliefs behind closed doors will ultimately kill those beliefs.”
Funny, that approach hasn’t worked too well with other religions. Persecution often brings in converts and glamourizes cults with an aura of mystery. Perhaps Terry says this because she secretly knows what a weak, lame excuse for a religion Christianity is. As John Lennon said, it will wither and die.
The Beatles are still more popular than Jesus.
Posted August 14th, 2008 at 5:02 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
WLJ: Class has pretty much disappeared,
Not at all. I am still around. I have been watching the Olympics day and night which is a heck of a lot more entertaining than reading personal insults.
One thing I have noticed with the political commercials (and itsticks out like a sore thumb) is the negativity of McCain. About 80% of any of his commercials are simply Whitewater style attacks on Obama and almost nothing on the attributes of McCain. Every possible appeal to ignorance, racism and bias is made in a subtle, smirky way. Obama’s eds on the other hand (at least during the Olympics) are all positive emphasising his own qualifications. Quite a substantial difference and one that unfortunately Karl rove proved works with a certain type of American voter, of which I suspect there are many in Grand Junction.
Posted August 14th, 2008 at 5:08 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
The author of this letter, Terry Bridgman, is one of those right wing kooks who believes the earth is 6,000 years old and that the principles of evolution were dreamed up by the Devil to deceive human beings. he used to write endless letters on this subject. I see that he is still denying the evidence in front of his face. i will wear my Darwin T-shirt downtown this evening in the hopes of seeing him at the farmer’s market.
Posted August 14th, 2008 at 6:01 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
A Darwin shirt in these “less than harmonious” times out in public? Perhaps the advanced age of the wearer will deter those undereducated, conservative folks from making “less than harmonious” comments or gestures since their “kind” has been taught to respect their elders. You’re a braver man than most, my hat is off to you.
Posted August 14th, 2008 at 6:11 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Low and behold, Class decides to rub elbows with the great unwashed. How would you like to be a farmer down there to sell a few tomatoes and along comes this know-it-all city boy wanting to talk religion, and who said atheistic evangelism was dead. You be careful down there now, Class, and don’t buy any of those Mexican tomatoes or peppers. I hear the FDA is still working on that. And try not to eat anything raw, like your foot.
Posted August 14th, 2008 at 6:48 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP “How would you like to be a farmer down there to sell a few tomatoes and along comes this know-it-all city boy wanting to talk religion, and who said atheistic evangelism was dead. ”
As usual AP you simply display your ever growing ignorance concerning anything about me. All of my relatives are farmers. I have worked several summers in Junior high and high school on the farm picking tomatoes, detasseling corn, feeding the hogs, driving a tractor, etc. Got anything else smart to say, city boy back atcha?
Posted August 14th, 2008 at 6:57 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Sue: “A Darwin shirt in these “less than harmonious” times out in public? Perhaps the advanced age of the wearer will deter those undereducated, conservative folks from making “less than harmonious” comments or gestures since their “kind” has been taught to respect their elders. You’re a braver man than most, my hat is off to you.”
Actually I saw only one Darwing shirt (mine) but I saw several “Jesus Shirts”. Also I did not see any booths of either atheists or scientists trying to proselytize those walking by. But I did see two Christian booths and people standing out in the middle of the street thurusting religious panphlets on the passer by. What does that tell you about evangelism?
AP : Atheistic evangelism?? Darwin? Don’t you even have any feeble awareness that the Pope himself has said that the Catholic Church embraces the concept of the principles of evolution? That many, many Christians believe that evolution laws were set up by God in order to develop the earth? That quite a few scientists who accept evolution are also devout Christians? It is really only the fundamentalists like many of the people in this valley who reject the truth in front of their faces and call it atheistc. The principles of evolution have nothing to do with religion. They are completely separate endevours by humans! Back to the Olympics!
Posted August 14th, 2008 at 7:33 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Class
You wouldn’t have the faintest idea what the difference was between a single tree and a fresno. You worked on a farm when you were a boy. Wow, that makes you practically an expert doesn’t it? Well, not exactly. One could only hope that when you said you were going back to the Olympics that you meant you were headed for China. I can call ahead and warn them if you would like. No that wouldn’t work, if they knew you were coming, they would never let you in. Here is a news flash for you big fella, I am not Catholic. I let you rave on for months about the Pope, because I figured that your assumption would catch up with you sooner or later. I find it pretty amazing that an atheist would be referring to the Pope. But, oh that‘s right, you keep saying you are not exactly. Don’t get me wrong, Class, I have no doubt you are descended from primates. There is just too much in common there, it’s undeniable. Tell me farm boy, what is the procedure for starting an A model John Deere? And don’t forget the compression, or maybe I should go a little further back for you. What do you call that little ring on a harness hame, you know, the one you run the check line through? What is a trace chain? What is the first thing you do when you go to milk a cow? You see Class, your problem is that I can remember when you claimed to be a horse expert and you just had a little bit of trouble answering all those tough questions like which side do you mount from? As I recall, I wrote you detailed instructions. You did print those out for safe keeping, didn’t you? Maybe you could call your buddy the door gunner, maybe he knows more about farming than he knows about helicopters. In fact, I am sure he knows more about farming. I bet it will take you over thirty minutes to post a single answer. The answer to some of those questions I ask you may be a bit hard to find online. Time 7:30PM
Posted August 14th, 2008 at 9:49 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
I KNOW!!! ASK ME!!! ASK ME!!!
I even know that class goes fly fidhing with a surf casting rod and reel, when he’s not bait fishing with a spinning rod and reel, or trolling with a fly rod and a downrigger.
Posted August 14th, 2008 at 11:14 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Well AP Let’s see what you know about agriculture. How many chromosomes does the corn plant have? On which chromosome is the male sterile gene which does away with the need for detasseling. What amino acids are lacking in corn protein which makes them less desirable for feeding hogs?
Soybean and corns belong to two different great classes of plants. What are they? What are the water conducting vessels of plants called. what are the three principal hormones responsible for the growth of soybean plants. How does a seed know to grow shoot side up and root side down no matter how you plant the seed? Which common plant in this part of the country has the fewest known chromosomes? What is the standard plant model for all agricultural genetics today? For what discovery in corn plants crucial for plant breeding did Barbara McClintock win the Nobel prize. Any beginner who knows anything about agriculture beyond how to rake manure could answer those questions in seconds. How long will it take you?
Posted August 14th, 2008 at 11:18 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
WLJ: “I even know that class goes fly fidhing with a surf casting rod and reel, when he’s not bait fishing with a spinning rod and reel, or trolling with a fly rod and a downrigger.”
You don’t know beans and you certainly don’t know anything about fly fishing. Come to our next meeting of Trout Unlimited where we are always glad to teach beginners how to get started. Somebody might even donate to you an old used fiberglass fly rod which you could learn the elements on. We even teach old guys like you.
Posted August 15th, 2008 at 8:11 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Post #34, classless brags that he did good in biology class, probably gave himself a b- for doing so good.
Class, NOBODY CARES who you think you are, we all SEE what you are.
Post#35.
Now classless, you are the one that thinks others go bait fishing with a spinning rod and reel. You brag a lot about your worldwide fishing expeditions, but you know so little about fishing in general.
And, in the end, we only have your ‘word’ on all these things.
Your ‘word’ has no value, unless you consider it to be your ‘bond’. Which from recent memory, makes your bond pretty much valueless also.
Posted August 15th, 2008 at 8:55 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
WLJ: “Post #34, classless brags that he did good in biology class, probably gave himself a b- for doing so good”
Since I said absolutely nothing about myself or my education in post 34, here is another WLJ lie right out in front which everyone can easily see.
Also like AP, WLJ has not a clue about modern agriculture. My 85 year old uncle who has never been to college a single day can answer about half those questions right off the bat.
Hey pipsqueak your knowledge of fly fishing is like your knowledge of evolution and global warming: non-existant. Have you ever been to one of our Trout Unlimited meetings? Oh I forgot, you don’t belong to otganizations where you might be asked to donate time or money for a good cause-in this case the preservation of trout in Colorado for future generations.
Posted August 15th, 2008 at 9:10 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Poor classless little fool, have you forgotten the recent past? As in the entire time you have been posting on here?
You have bragged many times of your (self proclaimed) accomplishments.
In including your prowess with a fly rod, again, self proclaimed.
We don’t care, except for the humor factor little buddy.
You just hang in there no, ya hear?
Oh, and the ‘pipsqueak’ thing, that is so third grade.
Posted August 16th, 2008 at 8:30 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
It came as no surprise to me this morning when I picked up the local news section of the Daily Sentinel to find a large photo of atheist leader Anne Landman proudly standing under her bastardized version of the American Flag, or what has been referred to as the “rainbow flag“.
The headline grabbing Ms. Landman and the atheist groups gadfly semi-retired attorney Bill Hugenberg are on a roll. Their misadventures and issue hopping have made them the darlings of the local media. Their forte is confrontation and controversy, by any means necessary, and such things sell newspapers.
But there are other consequences from the actions of the limelight seeking dynamic duo of Landman and Hugenberg. Their continuous dog and pony show is designed to divide the community, to pit neighbor against neighbor, children against parents and reek havoc in the religious community. On the one hand, they rail against public displays of anything rooted in religion, like the Ten Commandments, In God We Trust on our currency, and One Nation Under God in our Pledge of Allegiance, while with the other hand they aggressively assert their constitutional right to in your face public display of their symbols of non belief.
As I read through the text of the story, which describes Ms. Landman’s desire that a Disabled Veteran be prosecuted for a hate crime, for removing her rainbow flag, I was reminded of a man on the street interview that was aired some years ago during the O.J. Simpson trial. The question to the man on the street was “What are your feelings about O.J. Simpson being charged with murder“? The man being interviewed was an elderly Black man whose hair had turned white with age, and whose face was a war map of crags and wrinkles. I was struck by the wisdom of his rely to the reporter. He said “It is common knowledge that O.J. bought Nicole a very expensive new sports car. It is also common knowledge that her boyfriend was seen driving that new sports car all over town. Now, I can’t condone what O.J. did, if he did it, (referring to Nicole and boyfriend’s murders), but as a man, I can certainly understand it.” While in the process of reading the Sentinel’s coverage of Anne Landman’s rainbow flag controversy, I found myself at the same conclusion as that old Black man. While I can’t condone the Disabled Veteran’s actions of removing Ms. Landman’s bastardized version of Old Glory, I can certainly understand why he did it.
And that understanding begs the question. When will the people of Mesa County say enough is enough and demand an end to the media grandstanding of Landman, Hugenberg and their thirteen anonymous atheists. Perhaps the time has come for the citizens who are chosen to sit as jurors in the August 29th trial of the Disabled Veteran to make the public voice heard by Jury Nullification. Confrontation created by extremists, in furtherance of their agenda, behooves us just such a response.
Posted August 16th, 2008 at 8:52 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP: Confrontation created by extremists, in furtherance of their agenda, behooves us just such a response.
Give me a break! The confrontation was caused by the so called disabled veteran who repeatedly trespassed and stole personal property. I hope he gets the book thrown at him as he deserves. Just because he has been in the military does not give hime the right to break the laws of our country. He wants a jury trial instead of leaving it up to a judge because he is guilty and wants a clever lawyer to play the poor vet card. AP tries to turn this whole sordid lawbreaking on its head and somehow hold the victim Ann Landeman guilty. Disgusting bias.
Posted August 16th, 2008 at 9:56 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
How ironic that Class would accuse me of bias, and this comes from a man with obvious hatred for all things pertaining to our troops who are fighting for his freedom. Many of you will recall his post on the Memorial Day forum to honor all those who have served, past, present and future. What follows is the quote that he posted, and then refused to remove in spite of being asked to do so by over half the users of this forum.
“Sacred cows make the best hamburger”.
Is it any wonder or surprise that Class would oppose the Disabled Vet’s right to a jury trial. Clearly, he seeks retribution rather than justice. Exactly what we have come to expect from him.
All gave some, Some gave all.
Posted August 16th, 2008 at 10:32 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP:What follows is the quote that he posted, and then refused to remove in spite of being asked to do so by over half the users of this forum.
This is another AP lie. Two or three sycophants of AP who would agree with anything he said against me contributed their two cents. Since it had nothing to do with the Mark Twain quote, I obviously ignored this small coterie of malcontents.
AP: “Clearly, he seeks retribution rather than justice.”
What I seek is that the man pay for his crimes like everybody else. Disabled? The article says he was discharged for medical reasons. Do we know what that was? One of my ex students, a hero in Vietnam with several medals and two purple hearts was also finally discharged for medical reasons: impacted wisdom teeth.
Posted August 16th, 2008 at 10:49 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
I refer one and all to the posts by Coloradolady on the forum thread entitled “Freedom of Speech”. It is a pretty clear demonstration of the point of view of the bigoted few who post here. It is disgraceful.
PS. Then check her post on ” Bumperstickers we wish existed”. It is even worse.
Posted August 16th, 2008 at 11:15 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
For those of you who would like to see for yourself which is the liar between Class and myself, here is the story.
Class, in an argument with Willis posted several comments which were inappropriate on a forum to salute our troops on Memorial Day. Seven of the regular posters, who at the time represented a majority, ask him and then the editor to take those posts down. He retaliated with his “sacred cows make the best hamburger” quote. This was even followed by a salute and comments by the editor and Jen. Credibility?
Check it out for yourself. Memorial Day Thank You (forum) started by me.
Posted August 16th, 2008 at 12:14 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP: “Seven of the regular posters, who at the time represented a majority,”
I can’t imagine anyone except yourself cares about this AP, but here is another obvious lie. By my count just those members of this forum whose screen handle begins with A or B totals 45.
As Mark Twain is also reputed to have said: “A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes”
Posted August 16th, 2008 at 12:33 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Class,
I think if you look, you will notice that I said regular posters. I believe that those of the group that are still posting today will verify that at that time, that was a majority. However, one thing is very obvious. It is vastly more than the couple that you mentioned. Equally obvious is your pattern of behavior, and that goes directly to credibility. Of course it would be in your best interest to believe that people don’t care about credibility, but I think they do, and at the moment, your credibility appears to be once again, in the toilet. I am sure that won’t hamper your continuing efforts to degrade your credibility even more, and I predict that you will be successful in doing so. I guess the old saying applies, you can tell when Class is lying, because he’s typing.
Posted August 16th, 2008 at 1:07 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP - Your statement, “When will the people of Mesa County say enough is enough and demand an end to the media grandstanding of Landman, Hugenberg and their thirteen anonymous atheists” is an OUTRIGHT LIE!
If you look at the original letter to the Grand Junction City Council (I’ve personally seen a certified copy), you will find that there are a total of 13 signatures, only one of which is Ann Landman’s. These people had the courage of their convictions and signed their real names - unlike many of the regular posters (including myself) who hide in the darkness of anonymity.
Posted August 16th, 2008 at 1:12 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP/Willis - The vet who illegally trespassed on Ann Landman’s property to illegally tear down her flag has admitted what he did (notwithstanding the fact that he was caught red-handed).
Are you advocating that this vet not be subject to trespassing and theft laws simply because he was in the military at one time?
Posted August 16th, 2008 at 1:14 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
GJBubba,
You must really be desperate. What you quoted can’t be a lie, it is a question. That is why it began with “When will”. You seem to have inherited some of classof52’s incoherent name calling. But I am quite interested in how you will address calling a question a lie. Perhaps you were anticipating what your answer would be.
Posted August 16th, 2008 at 1:19 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
GjBubba,
I suggest you reread my post(re flag). Are you suggesting that he is not entitled to a trial? How deep does your hatred go for our Vets? It is they who secure the rights of liberty including trial by jury for people like yourself who can only invent a fictitious military history. What do you say, door gunner? How about some respect for the people who have actually been there and done that, while all you have is the T-shirt.
Posted August 16th, 2008 at 1:28 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
GJBubba,
It is interesting that you would want to argue whether there were thirteen or fourteen atheists. My information came from an article in the Daily Sentinel which said that Anne Landman was the spokesperson for thirteen atheists. It did not indicate whether she was included in that number. And you will recall Scott’s reply yesterday that to his knowledge, Mr. Hugenberg was an agnostic, not an atheist. You are grasping at straws again. Obviously since the atheists choose to remain anonymous to the public, as you do, whether there is thirteen or fourteen or twelve is of little consequence. They are simply a small, special interest group with an atheist agenda. Perhaps you would prefer if I referred to them as such in the future. Please advise.
Posted August 16th, 2008 at 1:51 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP - I love it - you’ve been going on and on about the atheists for weeks and now admit you haven’t even seen the letter which started it all. You are truly astounding in your arrogance and ignorance.
The FACT is that Ms. Landman and twelve other atheists jointly wrote and signed a letter to the Grand Junction City Manager detailing their concerns about the city’s invocation policy. Ms. Landman’s signature isn’t even the first one on the letter. Ms. Landman was then designated by the group to be their spokesperson.
At NO TIME has anyone who signed the letter attempted to remain anonymous.
You’re continuing to try and blow smoke up everyone’s collective posteriors, and it’s not working. You have no credibility left on this one.
The egg on your face is getting slimier and slimier.
Posted August 16th, 2008 at 1:56 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP - Your words that, “and their thirteen anonymous atheists” is a DECLARATIVE statement WITHIN a question. The intelligent posters on this board know the difference. Nobody’s buying your smoke!
Posted August 16th, 2008 at 2:10 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
GJBubba,
Perhaps you would like to add your name to the list of thirteen. I don’t recall their names having been published, and they have been referred to repeatedly as anonymous. But you seem to indicate that you have the information as to who they are, and if as you say, they have no wish to stay anonymous, then why not post their names. That would be a very easy way for you to prevent them from being referred to as anonymous. No, I thought not. Now who’s blowing smoke? I really do get a kick out of your attempts to find something where there is nothing. Your end up painting yourself into a corner.
Now, how about those names. Yes or No? Don’t weasel. You can confirm that they are not anonymous or you can continue to gripe about people calling them what they are. The anonymous atheist group. Come on, step up to the plate. Be a man. Post the names or quit griping. It just makes you sound disingenuous anyway.
Tell me, GJBubba, how many times have you changed your screen name? I suppose if anyone is an authority on hiding their identity, it would have to be you. Otherwise you would still be proteus, right? The truth is, each time you are exposed as the incredible fraud that you are, you choose a new screen name as if you could recover your credibility. NOT
Posted August 16th, 2008 at 3:14 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP,
Why is posting the names of the atheists here a requirement for not being anonymous? You said back in May that you were going straight down to city hall to get a copy of the letter. In fact, I seem to remember you saying you were going to do that on two separate occasions. Both times you motive was to post the names here so they would no longer be anonymous. Why is the Sentinel site the arbiter of what is anonymous and what isn’t?
You said that your name was known to the city council. I daresay the names of the atheists are known to the city council as well. So since the city council knows your name and the atheist’s names, and none of those are known here, you are every bit as anonymous as the atheists. I call that a double standard, if not outright hypocrisy.
Posted August 16th, 2008 at 3:40 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP: “Now, how about those names. Yes or No? Don’t weasel. You can confirm that they are not anonymous or you can continue to gripe about people calling them what they are. The anonymous atheist group. Come on, step up to the plate. Be a man. Post the names or quit griping. It just makes you sound disingenuous anyway.”
Well back from the Olympics to read this stupidly humourous garbage. I can hardly contain my laughter at this post from a person who cowardly hides in the shade with his hateful anonymous comments, who weaseled out at the last minute from meeting with the Bagel Street Irregulars in a public session since he knew he would be laughed out of the room for his paranoid comments, and who resists every call to come out in public. This is the one who says be a man???? This from the jellyfish. (Is that politically correct?)
Posted August 16th, 2008 at 4:45 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott,
Talk about the anonymous atheists left hand not knowing what the anonymous atheists right hand is doing? GjBubba and Johnb complain because myself and the atheists are both anonymous on this site, while Scott not only agrees with my position but repeats the argument that I made to him only one day ago when Johnb brought it up.By now you should know that I don’t put my business on the street. What I do and when I do it will be known to me and those I choose to tell it to. But I give you something to chew on from time to time. It keeps the information flow going in one direction. You have no idea how much you tell me and don’t think I don’t appreciate it. You guys try to get your act together and just so you understand what I am going to call the anonymous atheists, re-read this last sentence. You guys are a real piece of work. One day you argue one thing, the next something else, but I guess that is the way it is when you don’t believe in anything on top of being anonymous. How about working on the subject for awhile. That shouldn’t be too difficult for you.
How many of you are going to Class’s proposed rant at the County Commission meeting on Monday? That is, of course, if he gets the material he wants in time to make the meeting. It should be interesting, especially with your accusation of death threats and all. And it will give you a chance to get on TV. And you can bet I’ll be watching. And I thought all you guys were “green”, not just the atheists in your group? How can you call yourself green if you drive a big gas hog that you could only hide in a sand dune? Yes, boys and girls, I pay attention, not only to what you say, but also to what you do. And so do a lot of other people. And I think from now on, you are going to be dealing with well informed people.
Posted August 16th, 2008 at 4:59 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Class,
Back from China already, class, I would think by now your might have caught on that purpose is not to amuse or entertain you. It is to oppose you. Do you and your bagel bunch really believe it is that easy? And you are resorting to name calling again class, but I really don’t mind. From you, that is only an indication that I am being effective. If you really want to know who I am, find out. That’s what I did with you, and several of your atheists. It is really quite amusing to me the internal struggle that goes on with you guys. On one hand you want to remain anonymous, on the other hand, subconsciously, you want credit for what you say and do, and don’t have the discipline that is necessary to remain anonymous. Or maybe it is not that at all, maybe it is that you are too lazy to think about what you are saying and revealing your identity is inadvertent. Since you answered a post that was not addressed to you, I assume that you have enough intelligence to realize that I am not speaking of you individually, but rather the anonymous atheists as a group. Not too long ago, I told you that I didn’t read your column. Well, I wasn’t being entirely truthful. I read everything you write, very carefully. For my purposes, there actually is useful information there.
Speaking of Olympics, when are you going to take Willis up on his offer to bicycle race you? Is there a funding problem or something?
Posted August 16th, 2008 at 5:01 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP: “How many of you are going to Class’s proposed rant at the County Commission meeting on Monday? That is, of course, if he gets the material he wants in time to make the meeting.”
No response from the County Commissioners so they have no relevant info they want to share with us-thus leaving the original charge still open. So no point in my going to this meeting. Nothing to discuss.
Posted August 16th, 2008 at 5:05 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP: “Speaking of Olympics, when are you going to take Willis up on his offer to bicycle race you?”
You got it backwards as usual AP. I made the offer to race him, not the reverse. He has chickened out once again by wanting to charge me $1,000,000 to race him. This is called weaseling out and trying to come up with an excuse which does not hold water. Everyone except you sees through this subterfuge.
Posted August 16th, 2008 at 5:09 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
From what I just read about this “race”, you are the most ignorant piece of crap ever to be found in the human race. In a wheelchair, on Oxygen and you challenged him to a bicycle race?
YOU are already the LOSER!
Posted August 16th, 2008 at 5:27 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP,
“Talk about the anonymous atheists left hand not knowing what the anonymous atheists right hand is doing? GjBubba and Johnb complain because myself and the atheists are both anonymous on this site, while Scott not only agrees with my position but repeats the argument that I made to him only one day ago when Johnb brought it up.”
Why are you under the impression that John B. and GJBubba are part of the atheist group? John B. isn’t, and as far as I know GJBubba isn’t either. As independent agents, there is no “left hand” or “right hand” to be coordinating. You are opposed to the atheist agenda, but you don’t even know what it is that you’re opposing.
“By now you should know that I don’t put my business on the street. What I do and when I do it will be known to me and those I choose to tell it to. But I give you something to chew on from time to time. It keeps the information flow going in one direction. You have no idea how much you tell me and don’t think I don’t appreciate it. You guys try to get your act together and just so you understand what I am going to call the anonymous atheists, re-read this last sentence.”
Oooooh.
“You guys are a real piece of work. One day you argue one thing, the next something else,”
Actually, we’re trying to keep up with your arguments. They keep shifting back and forth. First its “no guilt without a court decision” then when the city council agrees with the atheists, that gets forgotten and public opinion suddenly becomes the predominant factor. And what ever happened to your boycott? And don’t even ask me who you’ve got involved in all the conspiracy nonsense. I stopped paying attention to that when you claimed the invocation issue was part of an attempt to repeal the Second Amendment and take everyone’s guns. It’s hard keeping up with you sometimes.
“…but I guess that is the way it is when you don’t believe in anything on top of being anonymous.”
You must take lessons on getting things wrong. No one could do it as well as you without them. Atheists do not “not believe in anything.” They simply don’t believe in God.
“How about working on the subject for awhile. That shouldn’t be too difficult for you.”
But it’s so fun watching you spin in circles jumping at all the shadows that aren’t really there.
“How many of you are going to Class’s proposed rant at the County Commission meeting on Monday? That is, of course, if he gets the material he wants in time to make the meeting. It should be interesting, especially with your accusation of death threats and all. And it will give you a chance to get on TV. And you can bet I’ll be watching. And I thought all you guys were “green”, not just the atheists in your group? How can you call yourself green if you drive a big gas hog that you could only hide in a sand dune? Yes, boys and girls, I pay attention, not only to what you say, but also to what you do.”
Unfortunately, what you think you see and what actually happens are apparently not the same. I drive a Honda Accord. Last I checked, that wasn’t a big gas hog. Guess you don’t pay as close attention as you thought.
“And so do a lot of other people. And I think from now on, you are going to be dealing with well informed people.”
Well informed with nonsense is not really well-informed.
Posted August 16th, 2008 at 5:32 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Class,
Nothing to discuss? Wow, my impression was that you were going to confront the Commission in regard to a death threat. That doesn’t sound really unimportant to me. Now what was it you were saying about chickening out? I think it was something about Willis being a capitalist. But you know how it is. A million bucks here, a million bucks there. Pretty quick it runs into real money.
Posted August 16th, 2008 at 5:36 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP:Class,
Nothing to discuss? Wow, my impression was that you were going to confront the Commission in regard to a death threat.
Where did you get that dumb idea? I am sure they were speaking metaphorically so it is just a bad joke and I have treated it that way in my comments. The issue is Man Camps. They have not given us any response to the issue at this point.
Posted August 16th, 2008 at 5:40 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Alphaapha: “From what I just read about this “race”, you are the most ignorant piece of crap ever to be found in the human race. In a wheelchair, on Oxygen and you challenged him to a bicycle race?
YOU are already the LOSER!”
And you are obviously an ignorant moron. Nowhere did WLJ state that he was in a wheel chair on oxygen or even that he was physically disabled that I am aware of. I certainly did not know it. If that is true the only way you could know that is if you were a relative.
Posted August 16th, 2008 at 5:53 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott,
Me, getting things wrong? I am just flabbergasted. It wasn’t me that made the connection between the second amendment and the atheist group. I just provided the opportunity for the connection to be made. As I recall, that was just before the primary. I guess there is just no rhyme or reason why I did that.
You are probably having trouble keeping up with this post too. You recall the Fair Boards decision? I suppose you are going to blame me for connecting that to the anonymous atheist group, although it did come at an opportune time before the primary. And the connection between the atheist group and Mr. Kearsley as the atheist candidate of choice. Wasn’t that opportunity provided by all the atheist proponents on this site pushing his candidacy? But that did come at an opportune time, before the primary. To hear you talk about it, I am a one man conspiracy. Nothing could be further from the truth. I am just a simple uneducated farm boy trying to make his way through the maze of the world. Everybody knows I am not capable of implementing such brilliant strategic moves. At least that is what all of you atheist proponents keep posting. And I have no reason to disbelieve you. Yeah you guys are a real piece of work.
Have you ever heard the saying, you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink? Well, sure you can if you are smarter than the horse. All you have to do is make him look forward to the opportunity.
Posted August 16th, 2008 at 5:55 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Class,
That’s it class, hide your hands, and disavow common knowledge. After all, no one could possibly prove that you are lying again. Right?
Posted August 16th, 2008 at 6:00 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Classof52 Posted August 15th, 2008 at 1:27 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
“Nope, I do not have that problem at all. At the age of 74, I am 6 ft, 170 lbs and ride 5 miles a day on my bicycle. Although you are younger than I, I will take you on in any running or bicycling race at any time just to see which of us has to run to the bathroom first. That is if you think you can get out of your wheelchair.”
Right?
Posted August 17th, 2008 at 8:02 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott - You said to AP - “You said back in May that you were going straight down to city hall to get a copy of the letter. In fact, I seem to remember you saying you were going to do that on two separate occasions.”
Although the process of obtaining a copy of the atheist group’s letter (which is public information) to the Grand Junction City Manager on the City’s invocation policy is easy and simple, my bet is that AP will not exercise his right to obtain it for two reasons, 1) He’s all talk and no action, and 2) He would leave a paper trail which could lead back to his real identity.
When requesting a public document from the City Clerk’s office, law requires that the person making the request fill out a form detailing what document is desired. Part of that form requires the requester provide their name and address (which the clerk verifies by requiring the requester show a photo ID).
That request form itself then becomes a public document and is subject to the same availability laws as the original document.
This means that if AP obtains the atheist letter, someone else can obtain his request for the letter - including his verified name and address. He might think he can avoid detection by sending a surrogate, but the bottom line that a verified name and address is still available for follow-up investigation.
Because of the danger of detection, AP is clumsily attempting to trick others on this forum to do his dirty work for him. It won’t work!
If AP wants the names (which are readily available), he’s going to have to take a risk - but he’s obviously far too chicken*** for that.
Posted August 17th, 2008 at 10:47 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP,
“Me, getting things wrong? I am just flabbergasted.”
It must be a common feeling for you.
“It wasn’t me that made the connection between the second amendment and the atheist group. I just provided the opportunity for the connection to be made.”
You are the one who claimed Anne Landman was connected to the Sierra Club, whose leader had ties to another organization, which had done anti-war protests with yet another group, and it was all part of a big conspiracy to repeal the Second Amendment and take away all the guns. You brought it up, not anyone else.
“As I recall, that was just before the primary. I guess there is just no rhyme or reason why I did that.”
That much I agree with.
“You are probably having trouble keeping up with this post too. You recall the Fair Boards decision? I suppose you are going to blame me for connecting that to the anonymous atheist group, although it did come at an opportune time before the primary.”
No, that was primarily the Sentinel.
“And the connection between the atheist group and Mr. Kearsley as the atheist candidate of choice.”
Yes, that was you. You took a few people here applauding Mr. Kearsley for his attempt to be considerate of non-Christians and spun it into “Kerasley is the atheist candidate of choice.” If I’m not mistaken, the main people who mentioned Mr. Kearsley at all aren’t even atheists. This one is all yours.
“Wasn’t that opportunity provided by all the atheist proponents on this site pushing his candidacy?”
No, just a few, but that’s never stopped you from generalizing before.
“But that did come at an opportune time, before the primary.”
Yes, the atheists contrived to have the County Fair just before the primary elections. It was all part of the plan. Sheesh.
“To hear you talk about it, I am a one man conspiracy.”
No, you’re a one-man conspiracy theorist.
“Nothing could be further from the truth. I am just a simple uneducated farm boy trying to make his way through the maze of the world.”
While rejecting all attempts to tell you what’s really going on, just because it doesn’t match how you think things are. Am I supposed to be sympathetic?
“Everybody knows I am not capable of implementing such brilliant strategic moves.”
no, but you can certainly claim they are facts, when they are not. The internet makes that easy.
“At least that is what all of you atheist proponents keep posting.”
No, we’re trying to show you how ridiculous those things actually are. That you would prefer to believe them over reality is your own problem.
“And I have no reason to disbelieve you.”
Sure you do. I’m an atheist. Isn’t that reason enough?
“Yeah you guys are a real piece of work. Have you ever heard the saying, you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink?”
That sums up the situation pretty well.
“Well, sure you can if you are smarter than the horse. All you have to do is make him look forward to the opportunity.”
But if the horse doesn’t want to risk being wrong, nothing you can do will change his mind.
Posted August 17th, 2008 at 11:11 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Why is it that no one wants to admit being a part of the anonymous atheist group? There have been numerous people on this forum who claim the authority to speak knowledgably as to the aims and goals of the anonymous atheist group, yet none of these people will admit to being a part of the group. They make assertions that the members of “Western Colorado Atheists and Free Thinkers” are just ordinary people, and many will freely admit that they are atheists, but no one who writes on this forum will admit to being a part of the “group“.
At the same time, they berate Christians for not wanting to understand atheistic thinking, they offer no information as to what that thinking is. Is the atheist the same as a free thinker? Is there a difference? Why do they berate us for not attending their meetings, while at the same time keeping their meetings secret? They refer to Main Street Bagels as a place where some of them meet, but we don’t know whether that is a political group, atheists or free thinkers place of meeting. Why are free thinkers never mentioned in their assertions? Are they not a part of the same group? Are their goals different? What does free thinker mean? Why all the secretiveness? We all freely admit being Christians. Is there some reason why they feel it is in their best interest to withhold information on who they are and what they are doing? I am not asking for their real names. I am just wondering why with all of those on this forum that advocate for the local atheist group, there is no one who we can ask questions of who can give us a straight answer from the group, without the built in viable deniability.
Posted August 17th, 2008 at 11:24 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Gee, with your threats and plans to post names publicly and boycott their businesses and employers, I can’t imagine why anyone would not want to identify themselves as part of the group.
Posted August 17th, 2008 at 11:32 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
A_P-
Maybe, because not all Christians are loving, forgiving, understanding people (like my brother, and a lot on this board actually are, by the way)… some are nasty, mean-spirited individuals who actually get off on doing bad things to people they think are “godless” (all in the name of Jesus, by the way).
A_P, I know you’re smart enough to realize that it’s easy to “admit” you’re a Christian if you’re part of the vast majority.
While I’m not totally on the atheists’ side on this one (I favor a general invocation with local church leaders rotating through, just like Congress does), I think it’s disingenous to ignore that there are some people in this valley who have no problem throwing rocks, keying cars, or making stupid, threatening phone calls because they see a bumper sticker that offends their religious beliefs.
Posted August 17th, 2008 at 11:39 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
“Why all the secretiveness?”
Sooo…what was your real name, again, a_p?
Posted August 17th, 2008 at 12:29 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
How can the atheists criticize us on one hand for not understanding them and withhold information on the other. I specifically stated that I was not looking for Real Names. That is a straw-man, and if you use your screen name, what is the problem with saying you are part of the group? You freely admit that you are atheists. You advocate for the atheist agenda, but you all want to make sure that we have no legitimate source of information on this forum. And not a mention of the free thinkers? Again, why is that? What are you trying to conceal? Anonymity is not the issue. Scott said he had information, but denies being a part of the group and won’t state his information, but constantly lays claims to the group being misunderstood. Is this consistent? First atheist proponents on this site threatened lawsuits and to jail our public officials, then they claim no connection with national atheist group, then a national atheist group threatens to sue on behalf of local atheists. What are we to believe? All we get is conflicting information, and a claim that they are withholding the information out of fear. Yet I am not aware of any Christian group who has threatened them with lawsuit or threatened to put them in jail, or threatened to shove them in a closet. This is beginning to sound a little bit like convenient paranoia
Posted August 17th, 2008 at 12:40 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
A_P;
You do present some good points, and I think it’s reasonable for you to feel there’s been a fair amount of threats (explicit and implied) and “persecution” on both sides of the argument. I, for one, wouldn’t have a problem with Christians boycotting a business based on the owner’s opinion of their religion. I wouldn’t patronize a business whose owner publicy insulted mine. I think you have that right.
But the “what are you hiding?” tactic (employed by both sides, now) is a little too Patriot Act for my taste. Anyone who’s anonymous (and I mean anyone) should shut the hell about about what anyone else’s anonymity is hiding.
Posted August 17th, 2008 at 12:44 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP,
When have I ever denied being part of the group? I haven’t. I’m not saying I am, but I have never claimed I wasn’t. You are assuming again, and incorrectly again.
You are also lumping all of those who you consider against you in the same boat. If someone points out that an elected official who knowingly and intentionally takes an official action in defiance of the Constitution is in danger of personal liability, that is not a threat, it is a fact. If the person who points that fact out is not a member of the atheist group, then why is the atheist group not justified in saying that they made no such threats?
Posted August 17th, 2008 at 12:53 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Curmudgeon,
I am not talking about anonymity, only the issue and meaning behind the issue. They can talk about the issue without giving up their anonymity, I hope.
Posted August 17th, 2008 at 1:02 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Ok, I can accept that distinction; frankly, I think the question “What’s the real meaning behind the issue?” bears raising. I believe Christians have a right to feel that their faith is being assualted on many fronts, just as some people believe (as I do) that there is a definite movement to make Evangelical Christiantiy (and not simply Christianity) the “offical religion” of the United States, despite what the Constititution says.
Posted August 17th, 2008 at 1:10 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott,
Let me see if I have got this straight, Scott. You aren’t saying you are and you are not saying you are not. Then you complain about things said by surrogates, being attributed to your group. So it follows that the agnostic lawyer who works on behalf of your group is not an atheist and you didn’t hire him, and is not a member of the group (or is he?), and the anonymous atheist group is not responsible for what anonymous atheist or agnostics or free thinkers say and free thinkers and agnostics and anonymous atheists aren’t responsible for what the group say. But then, the agnostic lawyer doesn’t speak for the group, (or does he?), and Anne Landman isn’t accessible on this forum, and she is only responsible for what she says. Tell me Scott, have you ever noticed a sign outside Christian churches that say everyone is welcome? Now tell me again, how atheists are people just like Christians.
Quite a cozy little organization you have there. Are you sure there is thirteen members and not just one or two who are picking names out of a phone book? Oh, that’s right, you wouldn’t know, you aren’t a member, or at least you are not saying whether you are or aren’t. Sounds almost like the mafia. At least there are some definite similarities, the use of fear and intimidation, and no one will admit they are a member. Still no word about the free thinkers. Why is that Scott?
Posted August 17th, 2008 at 1:25 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP - You stated, “Why is it that no one wants to admit being a part of the anonymous atheist group?”
First of all, the atheist group is not anonymous, nor ever has been.
As for myself, I am not now, nor ever have been, a member of the Western Slope Atheist and Free Thinkers group, although I have met Ann Landman on several occasions and am a friend of one of the group’s members (who happens to be one of the signatories of the invocation letter).
You also stated, “They refer to Main Street Bagels as a place where some of them meet, but we don’t know whether that is a political group, atheists or free thinkers place of meeting.”
The easiest way to find the answer to your questions is to stop by a meeting on any Friday morning (9:30-11:00am).
We are not a political group per se, but much of our discussion does involve political matters (local, state, national, international). Our regular and casual attendees include Republicans, Democrats, Independents, Libertarians, just about everything. Everyone is welcome to attend and participate.
One of our regular attendees is a member of the Western Slope Atheists and Free Thinkers, but to my recollection, the Friday group has never had a serious discussion about atheism.
Probably the best general description of our little band comes from respected local blogger Ralph D’Andrea (junctiondailyblog.com), who remarked:
“These are serious wonks. They meet once a week to discuss policy and politics because they are students of policy and politics.”
AP - You are welcome to stop by anytime to see what we are all about. Hope to see you soon.
Posted August 17th, 2008 at 1:26 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Curm,
I wouldn’t have the faintest idea, curmie, what the evangelists are up to. One of the things that Scott and co. have consistently overlooked is the fact that I am here posting on Sunday morning and just about every day of the week. They have built a perception in their mind that I am a fundamentalist evangelical Christian, and they have formulated their assertions and statements with that misconception in mind. But I don’t mind. Their stereotyping and verbal assaults only betray their bias. It might have been easy to find an equitable solution to their offense at the invocation had that bias not overwhelmed their reason. The only answers I can get is that they didn’t want to deal with the religious community because, A. somehow in their logic the religious community was not a party to, or would be affected by their demands. That logic to me seems illogical or B. they have some information which they do not wish to disclose to anyone from the religious community for fear that it will not be believed. How can you not believe something you have not heard? That logic also escapes me.
In lieu of any straight answers, it should be no wonder that the public would assume the worst, and I am afraid that situation will continue, because not only can we not get any straight answers, we can’t even get anyone who is accessible on this forum to admit that they are a member of the group. I can only conclude that what information we can get is not valid or official. And I also must conclude that is a deliberate circumstance. What else could anybody think?
Posted August 17th, 2008 at 1:29 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP,
“Let me see if I have got this straight, Scott. You aren’t saying you are and you are not saying you are not.”
I’m simply not saying either way. Contrary to your claim that I did. Of course, all you have to do is cite a post where I denied being a member of the atheist group, but I know you won’t.
“Then you complain about things said by surrogates, being attributed to your group.”
Why not? Is the group responsible for what non-members say? By that logic, the atheist group would be responsible for what you say.
“So it follows that the agnostic lawyer who works on behalf of your group…”
Wrong right there. He is not working on behalf of the group, he has offered his knowledge to the group. This has been explained repeatedly yet you continue to ignore it.
“…is not an atheist and you didn’t hire him, and is not a member of the group (or is he?),”
No, he’s not. This has also been repeatedly explained.
“…and the anonymous atheist group is not responsible for what anonymous atheist or agnostics or free thinkers say”
If they’re not members of the group no. Is that really so hard to understand?
“…and free thinkers and agnostics and anonymous atheists aren’t responsible for what the group say.”
No.
“But then, the agnostic lawyer doesn’t speak for the group, (or does he?),”
No, he doesn’t.
“…and Anne Landman isn’t accessible on this forum,”
Sure she is. She is a registered member of this forum. Just send her a PM.
“…and she is only responsible for what she says.”
Unless she is speaking on behalf of the group, which she has done numerous times.
“Tell me Scott, have you ever noticed a sign outside Christian churches that say everyone is welcome? Now tell me again, how atheists are people just like Christians.”
They are. You just don’t seem to want to see it.
“Quite a cozy little organization you have there. Are you sure there is thirteen members and not just one or two who are picking names out of a phone book?”
Yes I am. Actually, there are a lot more than thirteen.
“Oh, that’s right, you wouldn’t know, you aren’t a member, or at least you are not saying whether you are or aren’t.”
That doesn’t mean I don’t know.
“Sounds almost like the mafia. At least there are some definite similarities, the use of fear and intimidation, and no one will admit they are a member. Still no word about the free thinkers. Why is that Scott?”
Right. The mafia always uses polite letters and meetings to discuss differences of opinion. That’s what the atheist group has done, you realize. Well, maybe not since you apparently haven’t read the letter and were not present at any of the meetings. All you have is speculation.
What do you want to know about freethinkers? It was brought up that not all non-believers consider themselves atheists. The term “freethinkers” has long been used to denote those who choose to think for themselves rather than automatically accept a religion. It includes atheists, agnostics, and others.
Posted August 17th, 2008 at 1:32 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
By the way AP, The atheist meetings are hardly secret. They actually advertise them.
Posted August 17th, 2008 at 1:48 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
GJBubba,
How did we get off the subject of the anonymous atheists, and they are anonymous on this forum, just as you are and I am. I am not asking for them to disclose their names, I am just referring to them as they appear on this forum, anonymous.
Next you state that the Main Street Bagel bunch is not a political group, then you go on to list Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, etc, which the last time I looked were political parties. Then the group is described as discussing policy and politics. Just what policy and politics would that be? You say there is one atheist in the group. You couldn’t exactly call that a quorum of atheists, so I must assume once again that your post has nothing to do with the atheist agenda or a source of official information. Could it be that you don’t extend the same right to anonymity to me that I extend to you and the atheists. Do you hope to expose my identity by inviting me to a political meeting, where twelve of the thirteen atheists do not risk the same exposure?
I do attend political meetings of my choosing, but at the moment, my interest and the subject at hand is how to overcome the total absence of authorized and official information as to the atheist groups agenda and demands, without presenting any risk of exposure to theirs or anyone elses anonymity. It would seem that this is the situation that the religious community must find a solution to in order to get the information that is necessary to find an equitable and acceptable solution to all parties involved. I do not think it is in the best interest of the community or the atheists that they continue to exclude the religious community, and withhold information. No solution can be found, that is, unless someone is willing to be forthcoming, which at this point seems doubtful.
Posted August 17th, 2008 at 1:50 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP - Scott is correct. The Western Slope Atheists and Free Thinkers meet at least once a month in one of the public meeting rooms at the Mesa Mall. I think on Sunday afternoon. The Free Press has the details on dates and times.
Posted August 17th, 2008 at 1:54 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP,
Since you said earlier that you hate double standards, I will expect you to start referring to “the anonymous Christian community” since they are equally anonymous on this forum. I wouldn’t want you realizing you were being hypocritical in this.
Also, did you ever consider that the reason you can’t find any information about the “atheist agenda” is because there isn’t one?
Posted August 17th, 2008 at 2:05 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP - To find out what the atheist “agenda” is, I suggest you attend one of their regular monthly meetings.
Posted August 17th, 2008 at 2:16 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
My concern Scott, isn’t whether you are a member or not. It is whether you can publicly and with authority speak for the atheist group. It is very important that whatever conversations take place between the religious community and the anonymous atheist group be public. Without that, any result would be seen as a behind closed doors deal, with the same lack of acceptance by certain groups, as your deal with the City Council. Obviously the anonymous atheist group is pursuing much the same type of agreement with the County Commission, unless we are to believe that Mr. Hugenberg the semi-retired attorney is not acting on behalf of the atheist’s group. You indicate that he is sharing his knowledge, but is he also making your inquiries and presentations. Does he or does he not represent your group? Does he speak for your group, of does Ms. Landman speak for your group, or do you speak for your group? Will Ms. Landman come on, in open forum and answer questions? Why do you want it done by private message? What’s to hide?
I am afraid I don’t understand your aversion and your continuous resistance to simply stating whether you are a member of the atheist group or not. Why the sandbagging? How can I ask you whether the atheist group has made a decision to continue to exclude the religious community, and seek third party behind closed doors agreements? Even if you were to give an answer, can it be relied upon as coming from the atheist group? How are we to know? You won’t even verify that you are a member. Are you a designated spokesperson? Surely you must realize that you and your groups secretiveness can only be interpreted that you are refusing to talk to the religious community.
As far as any kind of an acceptable, equitable so