Tis the season...deja vu anyone?

[Kevy Baby]

GD

I am having a hard time taking you seriously on anything right now because of that animated GIF in your signature. That is just disturbing.

[Moonliner]

Back on the original idea...

I don't like the sign. A "holiday" tree and nativity are pretty to look at.

The sign is just ugly and based on hate. It attacks the views of others rather than promote the beliefs of it's makers.

Perhaps if they replaced it with a diorama of Newtons laws or a tree all by itself as nature made it...... That would be better.

[Sir Dillon]

Originally Posted by Moonliner

Back on the original idea...

I don't like the sign. A "holiday" tree and nativity are pretty to look at

The sign is just ugly and based on hate.

How are general statements about religion (note there was no particular religion specifically mentioned or referenced within the context of the sign), that are far more easily substantiated by facts than the fiction used to rationalize religious dogma, be "based on hate"?

To state that there are "no gods, no devils, no angels..." and that "religion is but myth and susperstitions" is no more hateful than stating there is "no santa clause, easter bunny, or tooth fairy" and all "are but myth and fairytales."

The statements expressed on that sign are pretty innocuous when juxtaposed to some of the real "hate speech" found in the KJV Bible and Koran, for example.

It attacks the views of others rather than promote the beliefs of it's makers.

The statements made do not attach the views of others since only general statements are being made; views that express "the beliefs of its makers."

Are they not equally entitled to their public opinions just as religious believers are?

Perhaps we should just simply turn the clock back to the days when anyone who expresses view points contrary to religion (any religion) are charged with heresy and summarily imprisoned, submitted to an inquisition, and/or executed?

S.D.

[Moonliner]

Originally Posted by Sir Dillon

How are general statements about religion (note there was no particular religion specifically mentioned or referenced within the context of the sign), that are far more easily substantiated by facts than the fiction used to rationalize religious dogma, be "based on hate"?

To state that there are "no gods, no devils, no angels..." and that "religion is but myth and susperstitions" is no more hateful than stating there is "no santa clause, easter bunny, or tooth fairy" and all "are but myth and fairytales."

The statements expressed on that sign are pretty innocuous when juxtaposed to some of the real "hate speech" found in the KJV Bible and Koran, for example.



The statements made do not attach the views of others since only general statements are being made; views that express "the beliefs of its makers."

Are they not equally entitled to their public opinions just as religious believers are?

Perhaps we should just simply turn the clock back to the days when anyone who expresses view points contrary to religion (any religion) are charged with heresy and summarily imprisoned, submitted to an inquisition, and/or executed?

S.D.

Oh pish posh, hide behind semantics all you want. The sign was made to piss people off and grab a few headlines. That's it.

I would be a much better statement if, like I said previously, it had a some charm and personality, some colorful lights perhaps or a fluffy bunny.

[Sir Dillon]

Originally Posted by Moonliner

Oh pish posh, hide behind semantics all you want.

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 sign was made to piss people off and grab a few headlines. That's it.

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...

I would be a much better statement if, like I said previously, it had a some charm and personality, some colorful lights perhaps or a fluffy bunny.

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

S.D.

[Ghoulish Delight]

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?

[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.

[Prudence]

Originally Posted by Sir Dillon

Truth hurt?

Wow. What an....interesting....way to make a name for yourself in a new environment.

[Sir Dillon]

Originally Posted by Prudence

Wow. What an....interesting....way to make a name for yourself in a new environment.

I already apologized via pvt msg for the forward/direct comment; and do so here.

Notwithstanding...such an albeit arrogant or presumptuous forward comment does not change or alter the reality that it is 'the truth.'

Human beings are violent...and over the past 2,000 years religion has been used as a justification for heinous acts of violence between various races, ethnicities, and/or religious denominations.

Obscuring this FACT by criticizing my forward comment to such realities will NOT change this FACT of human history, past or present.

In other words, your comment was patently unfair in regards to my new presence within this forum.

S.D.

[lashbear]

Originally Posted by Kevy Baby

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

[Carol Brady]Kevy's right[/Carol Brady]