Semantics has nothing to do with it.

The statements made were general.

The statements made are easily substantiated; far more than any religious statement, general or specific, could ever be.

The only ones to make it a "headline" was 'look at me I'm the best talk show and television pundit' - I have anger management issues - Bill O'Rielly; and religious people who cannot handle either being indirectly or directly questioned regarding their religious observance.

It's funny...when people were protesting the funerals of fallen soldiers and gay marriage with their religiously based picket signs, they cried "freedom of speech" and "expression"; but when an atheist makes perfectly valid general statements contradicting religious dogma...suddenly "freedom of speech" and "expression" doesn't exist. It's merely chalked up to "hate speech," "an ugly sign," and slammed with an ad hominem fallacy attacking it.

Go figure...

A fluffy bunny doesn't quite get the same message across...

S.D.

I'm going to have disagree.

It's not JUST saying, "We don't believe in any god." It doesn't JUST say, "Religion is a myth." It says, "Religion is a myth that makes people worse." I may agree with that statement but it does take things a step beyond "general statement" to "pointedly anti-religious." It's not "I'm a good person without religion." It's "You're a bad person with religion." And personally, it's religion's focus on "you're a bad person" messages that I find most distasteful, so I don't particularly love the same being used to supposedly argue a a point against them.

Now, I fully support their right to make such a statement, but just because I agree they have a right to doesn't mean I have to agree that it's in good taste or shows good judgment in terms of how it will cause people to receive the athiest movement.

Fair enough; but in the absence of proof of the existence of gods, devils, angels, etc...and the mere fact that that which has been declared in various religious texts (e.g. the Bible) have been conclusively disproven (e.g. age of the planet, its place in the universe, Natural Law, etc.) by science and repeatedly justified scientific theories (e.g. theory of evolution)...one cannot help but have to concede that there is more evidence substantiating the statements made within the atheist sign than that which has been proferred in the Bible and professed by numerous individuals without so much as a shred of evidence to substantiate it.

And?

Atheism and/or any statement made in contradiction to religion is by its very nature, anti-religious; and it certain does not make any such statements any less valid.


That is a subjective interpretation of what was said.

Since no specific religion or person was identified (i.e. targeted) within the statement(s) made (hence its generality); any interpretation taking it personally is just that, taking it personally when clearly it was not written or intended as such.

True...but then again that's where the difference between subjectivity and objectivity come into play; no?

S.D.

lol...;)

Don't be silly. We should only summarily imprison, inquisite, and/or execute those who express viewpoints contrary to MY opinion!

Liiiike it, yes I do!:D

LOL!!!

:gnome:

S.D.

It rather objectively reads as, "Religion makes bad people."

It's a message that I don't find constructive to gaining acceptance of atheism. As someone else alluded to, I'm more in line with the message of the group that started the "Be good for goodness' sake" billboard/bus ad campaign. It's a positive "we're good people" message, not a petty, "you're bad people". The sign was clearly the latter.

And your "sustained by facts" defense of it falls apart in the face of the fact that "hardens our hearts and enslaves our minds" is far from a factual, objectively provable statement. It's as much an appeal to emotion as any religious rhetoric and it turns what might have been a good opportunity to make a civil public statement into, "Nyah, nyah, we can take pot shots at you religious folk and there's nothing you can do about it!"

And would a message that said, "Non white people cause problems in this country" pass your "generality" test for being an acceptably non-inflamatory statement that really shouldn't be taken personally by anyone since no one was specifically called out?

And?

I believe the last 2,000 years of human history killing in the name of God more than substantiates this subjective 'objective' interpretation of what was said.

Doesn't change the fact that what was said is factually accurate...no? The most recent example being 9/11, among other religious tragedies where others have been maimed or murdered in the name of religion (i.e. God).

Seriously...that's a line from the song 'Santa's coming to town.' A little weak, don't you think?

Truth hurt?

Really?

So you advocate that blind faith does not 'harden our hearts and enslaves our minds' then?

Hmmm....

Those who escaped Jim Jones, among others, would disagree.

I mean really, I could give you countless factual examples where the ignorance of the masses was 'used' by those who would 'abuse' such ignorance to push their own religious agenda; at the expense of the ignorant for their own self-centered agenda (e.g. the Roman Catholic Church).

Again, you're interpreting their statement "personally," which makes your response tantamount to the same accused logical fallacy.

This is NOT about race - it's about religious dogma and the FREEDOM of the respective opposing views to EXPRESS their opinions, objectively or subjectively, within the public realm.

S.D.