Posted on 12/29/2004 7:16:59 PM PST by DaveLoneRanger
An effort to boost Christmas Tree recycling in Chicago has come under fire by atheists (search), who say it unfairly benefits Christians. Authorities planned to hand out a year's worth of blue recycling bags in exchange for one used tree, but atheist activist Rob Sherman says the program is inherently unfair to those without Christmas trees.
Officials told him he could bring someone else's tree but Sherman complained that "Atheists shouldn't have to go begging from home to home for a Christian who will sponsor them." The city will now offer the blue bags to anyone who visits a tree recycling location and brings a large bag of any recyclable material.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
(((::: ? :::)))
What about Atheists that own Christmastrees, celebrate Christmas and don't hate Christians?
(Hint: That's me)
If Sherman thinks he's being discriminated against now, wait until he sees what he's in for, once he dies.
Whew, those atheists are beyond belief!;)
Pathetic. And evil. And a total urination on the Constitution and the founding documents by the ACLU and other virulently anti-American and Christian hating vermin.
This guy is suggesting that one must be a Christian to buy a Christmas tree. Not so! Anyone with $75 can buy a tree, regardless of religion.
It took me a little while, but I got it.
The way this guy is complaining, he has turned atheism into a religion. If he was a true atheist, he wouldn't care.
Pssst, that's me too.
*grumbles*
Rob Sherman in his maroon stetson and gold polyester blazer.
As I do not consume alcohol or soda, will the ACLU take up my case of discrimination for my lack of bottle return change. These people will gripe and moan over anything.
50,000 people go to a baseball game, but the game was rained out. A refund was then due. The team was about to mail refunds when the Congressional Democrats stopped them and decreed that they send out refund amounts based on the Democrat National Committee's interpretation of fairness. After all,if the refunds were made based on the price each person paid for the tickets, most of the money would go to the wealthiest ticket holders. That would be discrimination!
The DNC plan says People in the $10 seats will get back $15, because they have less money to spend. Call it an "Earned" Income Ticket Credit. Persons "earn" it by demonstrating little ambition, few skills and poor work habits, thus keeping them at entry-level wages.
People in the $15 seats will get back $15, because that's only fair.
People in the $25 seats will get back $1, because they already make a lot of money and don't need a refund. If they can afford a $25 ticket, then they must not be paying enough taxes.
People in the $50 luxury seats will have to pay another $50, because they have way too much to spend. The people driving by the stadium who couldn't afford to watch the game will get $10 each, even though they didn't pay anything in, because they need the most help.
Unfrickinbelievable. People have way too much time on their hands. Sadly, it appears the city caved to this crybaby moron when they should've laughed in his face. Until the rest of us stop bending over for this kind of nonsense it will continue.
IT'S NOT FAIR!! WAHHH! WAHHH!
Gads. Do they people have a mental age of 5? Are they stamping their widdle feet and squeezing out tears?
Michael Medved was talking to athiests on his talk show recently. One of the callers asked the athiest, "if I'm wrong, all I get is buried in the dirt. What happens if YOU'RE wrong?" Interesting point, I must say.
Thank you for the clarification, I was starting to suspect a secret atheist scripture that forbade Christmas trees. I do know a druid who doesn't appreciate the tradition on religious grounds, but I hardly think he would be dorky enough to complain about a recycling program for them, geeesssh.
A variant of Pascal's famous wager.
A variant of Pascal's famous wager.
Good tax analogy. It pretty much sums it up.
Ok, let's look at that. I'm an atheist, what if I am wrong? Well, it would stand to reason that if I'm wrong, and there is a God, Goddess, or any combination of the two, I'm screwed.
That's the problem with your question though. Even if I were to accept face value, right now, that I'm wrong, I'm really no closer to the truth. Having eliminated atheism, there were would still be a world of theistic choices to choose from, and according to all the theists, if you pick the wrong one, you're just as screwed as I am.
Well, I am an Atheist and I am the first on line when it comes to getting a Christmas-tree and gifts for my loved ones.
Yep, I caught that. Don't they teach that Pascal's Wager is a textbook example of illicit distribution anymnore? Have we really sunk so far that even simple, evident, logic is beyond most?
You have got to be kidding!!!!!!!
Can we assume Mr Sherman is against Gun Buy Back Programs, too? How about Cheese Give Aways to The Poor? Does He believe Govenment Offices should be open 7 days a week?
Rabid Athesists are very often "Blue Staters" or "Greens" & pacifist/Nerf Worlders. Yet, They are less than consistant in their views, than they claim to be.
Agnostics are everywhere, and can be Good Neighbors, even Church Goers! {Lot's of us are NRA members & vets}. We don't claim to be Perfect or Consistant. We respect your Right to Faith; And Government's obligation to Respect that Faith. We tend to quote Twain & Heinlein.
They've learned from our tax system. People who don't pay taxes still get 'refunds' in the form of EIC.
I don't know, sweetie. I don't have all the answers. I am a Christian and as a believer, it just seems like a huge gamble to be a non-believer.
BWA HA HA!
(For a moment I thought I was reading a DU thread!)
Just remember, you're the non-believer to millions of believers of other religions. Then again, from what I've seen of christians, from denomination to denomination.
That's exactly how I feel! They are acting like little children. They need to "get a life!"
Exactly. His lack of religion does not matter. He'll get the recycling bags if he turns in an evergreen.
Number one, Rob doesn't even LIVE in Chicago, he lives in Buffalo Grove, about thirty miles northwest of the city.
We're used to him. He's been trying to be the next Madalyn Murray O'hare for the past few decades, and he seems to get anxiety if he doesn't see his name in the papers for a few months. Fox News has merely fed the monster, and this assures that the newly empowered made-national-news activist won't be quiet for the forseeable future.
Always runs for some small public office, sometimes as a write in for a library post for which there are fewer candidates than openings. He just isn't happy unless he's p---ing off a bunch of Christians, kind of like the atheists that post on the religious threads, but their "atheist" tagline only appears there, not the regular news threads.
Rob's vanity plate is "ATHEIST."
Thanks a lot, Brit.
Yeah, but you guys tend to get REALLY looney as you age though. Like either way, there's not much time left.... I call it "Aging Atheist Syndrome."
Egads... do people lay awake at night thinking of things to complain about? I would think by NOT BEING A CHRISTIAN and not tithing to a church on a regular basis, these nitwits would have the funds to buy their own recycling bags. Get a life whiners...
I have heard it all. These people are pathetic. I share the sentiments of post #3 This country is turning into one big parasite factory.
Don't confuse me, I'm confused enough already.
Massive insecurity problem.
Isn't that a bit fatalistic? We are all going to die so why go to the doctor? Have you already determined the outcome of your search before you take the first step?
Such objections point not to an error in tuffydoodle's argument, but to a disinterest (for lack of a better word) on your part.
WTF? I know lots of atheists who celebrate Christmas with trees.
Buy a tree - give it to city; prollem solved, except for the next chance to whine.
That's the way I read your statement at first!! ;-P
It doesn't really matter if it's fatalistic or not. In either event, I've found myself unable to believe in gods. Note that I said unable, and not unwilling.
Such objections point not to an error in tuffydoodle's argument, but to a disinterest (for lack of a better word) on your part.
Quite the contrary, the objections were textbook refutations of Pascal's Wager which is itself a textbook example of a logical fallacy: Illicit Distribution. Simply put, Pascal illicitly distributed subset christianity into all of set theist.
It's the government's money. They can hand out bags to whomever the bureaucrats please. On the other hand, one can buy a years worth of recycling bags with the money saved on not buying a tree.
It's not me you need to convince. It's the One before whom you will stand. Think of how it will sound. You are standing before the Creator of the universe, the One who created time, the One who put the genetic library in every cell of your body. Will he accept, "Well, Lord, I just couldn't motivate myself to look into it," or "I presumed upon your merciful character," or "I just couldn't believe?" An employer wouldn't even accept such excuses from an employee. But it's your soul, your destiny. Only you know if it is can't or won't. If you're planning on arguing your case before One who knows you better than you know yourself, give it up.
Quite the contrary, the objections were textbook refutations of Pascal's Wager which is itself a textbook example of a logical fallacy: Illicit Distribution. Simply put, Pascal illicitly distributed subset christianity into all of set theist.
Nonsense. Somehow skeptics feel an answer is the same thing as a refutation. Pascal's logic is undeniable: If you are wrong, you lose everything. Permanently.
The same could be said for you. If you're wrong, and it turns out that Vishnu created the universe, you're screwed. Which is of course what I've been trying to explain all along, but you obviously didn't follow the logic.
It's not "logic" since it assumes fictional gods and idols are no different than the Creator. That is an uninformed assumption. But identifying who the Creator is follows the first step which is establishing His existence. You seem to want to avoid looking into His existence because, you feel, you won't be able to identify Him. Tony Flew took a bit more thoughtful approach.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.