Tis the season...deja vu anyone?

[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]

Originally Posted by Sir Dillon

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

I'm going to have disagree.

Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens our hearts and enslaves our minds."

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.

[Sir Dillon]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

I'm going to have disagree.

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

S.D.

[Moonliner]

Originally Posted by Sir Dillon

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.

Fluffy bunny hater!

[Sir Dillon]

Originally Posted by Moonliner

Fluffy bunny hater!

lol...

[Kevy Baby]

Originally Posted by Sir Dillon

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?

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

[Sir Dillon]

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!

LOL!!!



S.D.