'Good without a god': Faces of atheis...

'Good without a god': Faces of atheism in Oklahoma

There are 7527 comments on the NewsOK.com story from Jul 5, 2013, titled 'Good without a god': Faces of atheism in Oklahoma. In it, NewsOK.com reports that:

Rebecca Vitsmun is shown during an interview with a CNN reporter shortly after the May 20 tornado that destroyed her Moore home.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at NewsOK.com.

“Blue Collar Philosopher”

Since: Nov 08

Texas, USA

#7878 May 21, 2014
OKC wrote:
<quoted text>
Anyone who has a job anymore seems like they are drug tested all the time. I was reading a thread a while back about drug testing people who received government assistance and people became furious. Its drug tested people who pay the taxes, which in return pays the people on government assistance. Shouldn't people who draw welfare gets tested just like the rest of us?
I didn't really answer your question.

Yeah. I think people who get welfare should get tested. The petty, jealous part of me would get a measure of satisfaction out of it and satisfaction is getting rather hard to come by these days. One thing I do know about Pot ... it saps your will to do anything, your ambition. Makes you a nice, quiet, snack munching Couch Potato. Probably exactly how They want the Welfare State. Probably NOT how They want the Worker Bees. We are all pawns in a game.
WarForOil

Rowlett, TX

#7879 May 21, 2014
RHill wrote:
<quoted text>

Yeah. I think people who get welfare should get tested. The petty, jealous part of me would get a measure of satisfaction out of it and satisfaction is getting rather hard to come by these days. One thing I do know about Pot ... it saps your will to do anything, your ambition. Makes you a nice, quiet, snack munching Couch Potato. Probably exactly how They want the Welfare State. Probably NOT how They want the Worker Bees. We are all pawns in a game.
Deep Thoughts by Blue Collar Philosopher.
How many beers does producing this wisdom require.
Are chicken wings your favorite food.

“Blue Collar Philosopher”

Since: Nov 08

Texas, USA

#7880 May 21, 2014
WarForOil wrote:
<quoted text>
Deep Thoughts by Blue Collar Philosopher.
How many beers does producing this wisdom require.
Are chicken wings your favorite food.
Burning questions from an inquiring mind! Tell me this and perhaps I'll answer your questions:

Are Question Marks your least favorite grammatical symbols? How many grunts went into producing a turd of your dimensions? Can you feed yourself?

“Blue Collar Philosopher”

Since: Nov 08

Texas, USA

#7881 May 21, 2014
WarForOil wrote:
<quoted text>
Deep Thoughts by Blue Collar Philosopher.
How many beers does producing this wisdom require.
Are chicken wings your favorite food.
Let me guess ..

You're a Pee Taster at a drug testing "lab" and I've offended you. My apologies. I'm sure it beats your first job as head Chewing Gum Underneath Park Bench Remover. Is English your First Language? Why do you hate Chicken Wings? Why did God create a bird, give it wings and then not let it fly? "If God had meant for that bird not to fly, he would not have given them wings!" ... good question. Maybe there's a bit of philosopher in you after all WarForFun.
OKC

Oklahoma City, OK

#7882 May 21, 2014
RHill wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't really answer your question.
Yeah. I think people who get welfare should get tested. The petty, jealous part of me would get a measure of satisfaction out of it and satisfaction is getting rather hard to come by these days. One thing I do know about Pot ... it saps your will to do anything, your ambition. Makes you a nice, quiet, snack munching Couch Potato. Probably exactly how They want the Welfare State. Probably NOT how They want the Worker Bees. We are all pawns in a game.
I hear you brother. I was watching a bit about seneca on youtube and it would seem that there are things that just aren't worth the fight because you know you will lose. Getting off the ramp and getting into traffic on W-i44 at 5:30pm sucks. I could get all upset and act like I'm surprised but I knew ahead of time that it was going to suck. Seneca thinks we should allow a bit of pessimism into our life, to make us a "realist".

Now... Getting back to drug testing the welfare people, I think they should have to face the music just like the rest of us. The next question I would have is what will we do to punish those who fail the drug test? If we cut their benefits then their kids go hungry.
antiatheist

Seminole, OK

#7883 May 21, 2014
So What wrote:
<quoted text>LOL! Show me where I said that, Judas Jr..
Oh you mean you are actually going to judge a behavior?
So What

Newalla, OK

#7884 May 21, 2014
antiatheist wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh you mean you are actually going to judge a behavior?
NO! I'm witnessing to a misguided (you) Christian. The fact that you don't know the difference proves my point.

Karen is back, why don't you go clamber with her for a while.
antiatheist

Seminole, OK

#7885 May 21, 2014
So What wrote:
<quoted text> NO! I'm witnessing to a misguided (you) Christian. The fact that you don't know the difference proves my point.
Karen is back, why don't you go clamber with her for a while.
Oh, I figured you wouldn't condemn child molesters and the like. Unlike you, I don't know Karen and couldn't care less about her. I don't go out of my way to cyber bully her like you do. You have issues lady
Amused

Lowell, MA

#7886 May 21, 2014
RHill wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't really answer your question.
Yeah. I think people who get welfare should get tested. The petty, jealous part of me would get a measure of satisfaction out of it and satisfaction is getting rather hard to come by these days. One thing I do know about Pot ... it saps your will to do anything, your ambition. Makes you a nice, quiet, snack munching Couch Potato. Probably exactly how They want the Welfare State. Probably NOT how They want the Worker Bees. We are all pawns in a game.
The results of this experiment in Florida: over the 4 months that Florida had drug testing before the law was challenged, 108 people failed the test, out of 4,086. That's 2.6%. The tests cost the state $118,140. That's more than the amount of benefits not paid to those who failed the test. The vast majority of those who failed were positive for marijuana. In some states, marijuana is legal, while in a few others, possessing marijuana is a civil matter, like a parking ticket, not even a crime. In those places, it is doubtful one could be disqualified based on a test that was only positive for marijuana.

The program cost Florida more than it saved in payouts. Add in the indirect costs, including the cost of the time welfare workers spent monitoring the sample collection, diversion of resources from other programs that might actually get people off the dole and into paying jobs, the cost of handling appeals of positive tests, etc., and the lesson is clear: drug testing isn't about saving money, it is about bashing poor people. One in 4 major corporations pays no income tax. Many of them actually collect government subsidies, i.e. government handouts for the wealthy. No one talks about that. Keep the middle class hating on the poor, and neither will realize that the wealthy are robbing them both blind.
So What

Newalla, OK

#7887 May 21, 2014
antiatheist wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, I figured you wouldn't condemn child molesters and the like. Unlike you, I don't know Karen and couldn't care less about her. I don't go out of my way to cyber bully her like you do. You have issues lady
What is it you would like me to say to you? Since you are the one that used terms like "Gay Teens" and Jr. High Girls" without provocation, and nobody else has suggested to me that they are a child molester on this forum it leads me to believe you're reaching out for help.
antiatheist

Seminole, OK

#7888 May 21, 2014
So What wrote:
<quoted text>What is it you would like me to say to you? Since you are the one that used terms like "Gay Teens" and Jr. High Girls" without provocation, and nobody else has suggested to me that they are a child molester on this forum it leads me to believe you're reaching out for help.
Its so funny that you refuse to judge any behavior. Well I got news for ya, part of life is making judgments about others. Its all about who you want to judge. You seem to like judging Karen and me and God knows who else.

“Blue Collar Philosopher”

Since: Nov 08

Texas, USA

#7889 May 21, 2014
OKC wrote:
<quoted text>
I hear you brother. I was watching a bit about seneca on youtube and it would seem that there are things that just aren't worth the fight because you know you will lose. Getting off the ramp and getting into traffic on W-i44 at 5:30pm sucks. I could get all upset and act like I'm surprised but I knew ahead of time that it was going to suck. Seneca thinks we should allow a bit of pessimism into our life, to make us a "realist".
Now... Getting back to drug testing the welfare people, I think they should have to face the music just like the rest of us. The next question I would have is what will we do to punish those who fail the drug test? If we cut their benefits then their kids go hungry.
Apparently, according to "Amused" Florida study, it's a non-issue, not economical and essentially a poor-hater attack to suggest such a thing. The statistics (as quoted) seem to bear this out. I'm pretty sure that a similar study would find that working folk who smoke weed are even LESS a burden on Society. I've always felt they could use these statistics for Good (liberalizing MJ laws) rather than Evil (harrassing people and causing them to lose their jobs). Tests should be devised to determine if you are INTOXICATED, not what you did last weekend.

Clearly, workers or Welfare recipients alike, should not be "punished" by having their means of "feeding their kids" taken away. Although instant termination is usually guaranteed to us Worker Bee Stoners. I say 'can' the whole concept on 'Right to Privacy' grounds and be done with it.

“Blue Collar Philosopher”

Since: Nov 08

Texas, USA

#7890 May 21, 2014
Amused wrote:
<quoted text>
The results of this experiment in Florida: over the 4 months that Florida had drug testing before the law was challenged, 108 people failed the test, out of 4,086. That's 2.6%. The tests cost the state $118,140. That's more than the amount of benefits not paid to those who failed the test. The vast majority of those who failed were positive for marijuana. In some states, marijuana is legal, while in a few others, possessing marijuana is a civil matter, like a parking ticket, not even a crime. In those places, it is doubtful one could be disqualified based on a test that was only positive for marijuana.
The program cost Florida more than it saved in payouts. Add in the indirect costs, including the cost of the time welfare workers spent monitoring the sample collection, diversion of resources from other programs that might actually get people off the dole and into paying jobs, the cost of handling appeals of positive tests, etc., and the lesson is clear: drug testing isn't about saving money, it is about bashing poor people. One in 4 major corporations pays no income tax. Many of them actually collect government subsidies, i.e. government handouts for the wealthy. No one talks about that. Keep the middle class hating on the poor, and neither will realize that the wealthy are robbing them both blind.
I've seen the 'Florida Study' before and can understand the 'not economical' aspect. Private industry's policies are more based upon a 'work place safety' aspect. I'm sure they are not really very 'economical' either and frankly, probably have a minimal impact on Safety. Nobody wants anybody to be at work or on the road 'impaired'.

If you feel the need to be 'impaired' at work, on the road or while you are applying for public assistance, you got bigger problems. Still, if I gotta take drug tests to 'feed my family' so, should they. Just to make me feel better. Since when does logic or economics enter government decision making processes?
OKC

Oklahoma City, OK

#7891 May 21, 2014
So What wrote:
<quoted text> NO! I'm witnessing to a misguided (you) Christian. The fact that you don't know the difference proves my point.
Karen is back, why don't you go clamber with her for a while.
Karen is back huh? You stupid delusional insane twit. You are so consumed with her you think everyone is her. I saw you on other forums calling other people Karen. Man you really got a thing for her don't you? As posted by others, I think you have mental issues that are serious enough that make you see things that aren't really there. That's why you sit at home drawing a fruit loop paycheck, Schizophrenic much? You can call me Karen, you can call me Ray, you can call me Ray Jay Johnson, as a matter of fact I could care less what you call me and anything you say is moot anyway because the rest of these people know your crazy as hell too.

Buh Bye now "Slow Twat"
OKC

Oklahoma City, OK

#7892 May 21, 2014
RHill wrote:
<quoted text>
Apparently, according to "Amused" Florida study, it's a non-issue, not economical and essentially a poor-hater attack to suggest such a thing. The statistics (as quoted) seem to bear this out. I'm pretty sure that a similar study would find that working folk who smoke weed are even LESS a burden on Society. I've always felt they could use these statistics for Good (liberalizing MJ laws) rather than Evil (harrassing people and causing them to lose their jobs). Tests should be devised to determine if you are INTOXICATED, not what you did last weekend.
Clearly, workers or Welfare recipients alike, should not be "punished" by having their means of "feeding their kids" taken away. Although instant termination is usually guaranteed to us Worker Bee Stoners. I say 'can' the whole concept on 'Right to Privacy' grounds and be done with it.
Oh I totally agree with everything you say. There is another side of this that we haven't touched on. "Private Prisons" or "for-profit prison". We talked about this is Sociology Class at OSU and it was a real eye opener. The stock market is banking on people who try to stand up for their rights and if I recall correctly there is supposedly a thing called 3 strikes and you are out? Just wrap your mind around an industry that profits from you being incarcerated.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-prison-indus...
And what about the seatbelt law... I can ride a motorcycle without a helmet (or a seatbelt) but if I'm in a big truck with airbags I damn well better have a seatbelt on.

Studying the work of Seneca though, its been known for a long time that there are just some fights that arent worth fight (at this time at least) so I just put my seatbelt on and give a clean UA so i can keep my job.
So What

Newalla, OK

#7893 May 21, 2014
OKC wrote:
<quoted text>
Karen is back huh? You stupid delusional insane twit. You are so consumed with her you think everyone is her. I saw you on other forums calling other people Karen. Man you really got a thing for her don't you? As posted by others, I think you have mental issues that are serious enough that make you see things that aren't really there. That's why you sit at home drawing a fruit loop paycheck, Schizophrenic much? You can call me Karen, you can call me Ray, you can call me Ray Jay Johnson, as a matter of fact I could care less what you call me and anything you say is moot anyway because the rest of these people know your crazy as hell too.
Buh Bye now "Slow Twat"
LOL! I didn't call you Karen. But now I don't have to, because your statement just did. It's funny how you claim to be so much smarter than everybody else, but are to stupid to keep from incriminating yourself.

Your fellow workers at the IRS told me to tell you that it was a very good day when you left. They were tired of having to carry your lazy ass, and the only reason you got the job was because of your Mom.
So What

Newalla, OK

#7894 May 21, 2014
OKC wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh I totally agree with everything you say. There is another side of this that we haven't touched on. "Private Prisons" or "for-profit prison". We talked about this is Sociology Class at OSU and it was a real eye opener. The stock market is banking on people who try to stand up for their rights and if I recall correctly there is supposedly a thing called 3 strikes and you are out? Just wrap your mind around an industry that profits from you being incarcerated.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-prison-indus...
And what about the seatbelt law... I can ride a motorcycle without a helmet (or a seatbelt) but if I'm in a big truck with airbags I damn well better have a seatbelt on.
Studying the work of Seneca though, its been known for a long time that there are just some fights that arent worth fight (at this time at least) so I just put my seatbelt on and give a clean UA so i can keep my job.
LOL! Seatbelts on a motorcycle? That's what I want is a 500lb+ hunk of metal strapped to me in an accident.

For your information airbags don't go off unless your seatbelts are fastened because they will snap your spine if your not secured to the seat. And just so you know automobiles have black boxes that will tell accident investigators if you had your seatbelt on in an impact so you can't sue the manufacturer for the airbags not going off. And if you have an accident and you weren't wearing your seatbelts, good luck suing an Insurance Company. You will have a hard time proving that you weren't liable for your injuries, while breaking the law.

Besides, why should I have to pay higher premiums because you're to stupid to protect yourself.

Who drug tests you, your husband? Or is it the Topix Police?

Since: Aug 13

Dallas, TX

#7895 May 22, 2014
antiatheist wrote:
<quoted text>
Ya I'm sure your brothel job can be very demanding.
Ha, It is the worlds oldest profession.
Amused

Lowell, MA

#7896 May 22, 2014
RHill wrote:
<quoted text>
I've seen the 'Florida Study' before and can understand the 'not economical' aspect. Private industry's policies are more based upon a 'work place safety' aspect. I'm sure they are not really very 'economical' either and frankly, probably have a minimal impact on Safety. Nobody wants anybody to be at work or on the road 'impaired'.
If you feel the need to be 'impaired' at work, on the road or while you are applying for public assistance, you got bigger problems. Still, if I gotta take drug tests to 'feed my family' so, should they. Just to make me feel better. Since when does logic or economics enter government decision making processes?
I've been working for more than 40 years, and never asked to take a drug test. I think they are a legitimate thing for worker's whose jobs are such that trying to do them while impaired creates a danger to the public or to co-workers, but completely unnecessary for the vast majority of workers. A file clerk who misfiles while stoned is not a workplace menace. A secretary typing the same sentence over and over because she keeps losing her place is unproductive, but not dangerous.

The tests are not so reliable. Eating a poppy seed bagel can and has resulted in people testing positive for opiate use. Taking sudafed for a cold or allergy can lead to a false positive for meth.(The reason you can't buy more than a limited quantity of sudafed at any one time is because it is a major component in manufacturing meth. THC from marijuana is fat-soluble, and stays in the body for over a month.

Beyond all of that, it is overly intrusive and derogates from human dignity and freedom. If you choose to work for employers who have no respect for your privacy, that's your choice. Insisting that your choice be imposed on others just to make you feel better about it is irrational.

In most cases, private industry adopts things like this out of lawyerphobia. They fear that if they don't take every possible precaution against every possible scenario where someone might assert liability, they will be sued into starvation. In the case of governments, I don't believe any government anywhere has every refused an accretion of power."Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the Government's purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding." Louis Brandeis, US Supreme Court Justice.

Between exaggerated fear of liability lawsuits and vastly exaggerated fear of terrorism, private industry and the government have successfully menaced the American public with an endless series of hobgoblins, kept us clamoring to be led to safety, and made a mockery of the Bill of Rights.

Since: Aug 13

Dallas, TX

#7897 May 22, 2014
Of those aged 18 to 35, three in 10 say they are not affiliated with any religion, while only half are “absolutely certain” a god exists. These are at or near the highest levels of religious disaffiliation recorded for any generation in the 25 years the Pew Research Center has been polling on these topics.

http://www.salon.com/2014/03/25/calling_the_c...

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
a prayer of salvation for those who are willing (Oct '17) 58 min Eagle 12 - 145
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... (Jun '17) 1 hr Eagle 12 - 5,998
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 hr Eagle 12 - 94,357
News Geoff Robson is wrong about Richard Dawkins, th... 9 hr Prince of Darkness 9
News Christ, Atheism, Quantum Physics, and the Natur... 23 hr nanoanomaly 1
News Egyptian Parliament considers outlawing atheism May 21 Guest 6
Stephen Hawking, now a believer May 8 superwilly 20