[Sir Dillon]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

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

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.

It's a message that I don't find constructive to gaining acceptance of atheism.

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).

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.

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

It's a positive "we're good people" message, not a petty, "you're bad people". The sign was clearly the latter.

Truth hurt?

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.

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).

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!"

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

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?

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.