Meanwhile back at the religious wars..........

[Are_grits_groceries]

Anti-religious sign at state Capitol raises eyebrows

OLYMPIA, Wash. - An atheist group has unveiled an anti-religion placard in the state Capitol, joining a Christian Nativity scene and "holiday tree" on display during December.

The atheists' sign was installed Monday by Washington members of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, a national group based in Madison, Wis.

With a nod to the winter solstice - the year's shortest day occurring in late December - the placard reads: "At this season of the Winter Solstice may reason prevail. There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell. There is only our natural world. Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds."



This will stir the pot.

[silverojo]

1. I'm against this, too.

I mean, it's one thing to say you choose not to worship anything, but this is just needlessly insulting everybody who has any spiritual leanings whatsoever.

This belongs in a forum user's signature line, not in a public place.

[RaleighNCDUer]

3. So all religions can publicly promote their various mythologies

but atheists need to just shut the fuck up.

[spoony]

17. What, really, do you have to say?

Besides repeating that you insist there's no God, what's the message? We're constantly told atheism is not a religion, not organised, not a belief system, and akin to "not stamp collecting." So what's the message and why does it need such urgent and insistent spreading that you lot put up billboards and bus ads and now this? And why does it need to butt into a "stamp collecting" holiday, for that matter? It's pretty clear that it isn't about a message, it's about sticking it to believers celebrating holidays. And that's just a prat move.

[RaleighNCDUer]

18. Religion kills.

Reason saves.

[spoony]

21. Little more specific would be nice.

Reason saves who/what? From whom/what? And what reason that saves (whatever) is mutually exclusive with religion? And that's your message? It needs some polishing.

[LanternWaste]

22. Both kill. Both save.

Both kill. Both save. Both are used to justify evil. Both are used to justify good.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

80. wise words

with which I totally agree.

[Zhade]

224. But only one is real.

NT!

[LanternWaste]

257. Both are human constructs which exist nowhere but our minds...

Both are human constructs which exist nowhere but our minds...

[Quantess]

54. Reason and religion operate independently of one another.

If they happen to cross paths, it is purely accidental.

[RaleighNCDUer]

23. By your same logic, why do religionists have to butt into my secular

world, flaunting the symbols of their superstition 365 days a year, getting national holidays that cater specifically to them, writing laws that impose their primative middle-eastern thunder god's morality on me?

The message IS the message that was posted - just because you don't like it does not mean it is not a message.

[spoony]

26. So we shouldn't get holidays because you don't believe?

Do you similarly wish to disrupt other cultural holidays? This isn't about laws or the RW or anything besides what the OP is about, I know it's hard for atheists sometimes to avoid going off into the crusades et al, but try to stay focused.

[RaleighNCDUer]

32. Jews have to make accomodations to celebrate the high holy days.

Muslims have to change their work schedules to celebrate Ramadan.

No doubt there are many other faiths that are equally discriminated against.

Why should christians get special treatment on easter and christmas?

The OP was about a statement of beliefs. Nothing more. Nothing less. And YOU think that atheists have no right to their beliefs.

That's christian of you.

[spoony]

35. So so many strawmen, so little time

For one thing, Ramadan is a month long, so yes sometimes that will be inconvenient. Secondly, while this is not a "Christian nation" it is a nation largely made up of Christians, so the fact that Christmas is a holiday is not exactly surprising, nor should it be so terribly offensive. And Easter is always on a Sunday, what special treatment do we get there?

Now, please point out where I said atheists "have no right to their beliefs." You can't because I didn't say any such thing, of course. But you might want to rephrase, because a lot of them don't like the idea that their beliefs are...beliefs. Anyway... oh and how original to throw that wonderfully moldy old chestnut of indignation at me in your final line. Too bad it's so devoid of meaning, especially given the case against me is made up of nonsense and things I never said.

[RainDog]

55. more bullshit

atheist's understanding that there is not supernatural agency creating life on this earth, or creating disasters as punishment, or that there was no virgin birth - are "beliefs" that are based upon the empirical scientific method that is the basis of democracy, to use the best example, and the entire movement of humans away from the most base forms of existence through the questioning of reality and seeking to find answers that can be reproduced and explained by natural methods.

Atheists do not accept that "supernatural agency" has had any bearing upon the creation of reality. The onus is upon those who claim that this is not true because atheists are merely looking at the history of the world, of science, of war... and finding that natural explanations of the working of the world serve as explanations for causes, etc.

Supernaturalists, on the other hand, must believe what cannot be seen or reproduced. The reason Europe was mired in a nasty and brutish life for centuries was because supernatural beliefs could not be challenged or tested. Because doctrine could not be disputed. Once there were enough texts available from other belief systems to help the western European mind develop an alternative to blind belief, those beliefs began to crumble.

Religious belief itself cannot stand questioning because the lies that sustain it are then revealed.

[spoony]

64. Is there something in that screed that has anything to do

with my post? Except some remarkably disproportionate reaction to a quip?

In any case you don't seem to have a very solid grip on your European history, which is far more complicated than your "religion bad!" analysis would have a reader think (for anyone to say that doctrine wasn't disputed is nothing short of absurd). Or your history of democratic thought, which has absolutely nothing to do with the scientific method or empiricism, lol. If anything its basis is found in a priori philosophical thought.

[RainDog]

77. you are trying to claim that democratic thought has nothing to do with empiricism?

I am somewhat conversant with the movement of intellectual thought across Europe. I have a masters degree that included quite a bit of study of the spread of information across Europe and if you do not know that Arabic, Jewish and Greek writing that was translated and printed and dispersed in Europe was THE formative issue for the reformation, then you do not understand history.

Spain and then Italy were the conduits for philosophical texts that were held in Arabic libraries, then translated, often by Jewish scholars, and then distributed against the desires of the church. It was illegal to print certain texts because they contradicted christian doctrine.

Democratic thought has several origins. The Onondaga had a constitution long before any European nation - they also had females in positions of power - and they influenced the founders. However, the Enlightenment was the direct intellectual descendant of the spread of information during the late middle ages noted above.

I can cite scholar after scholar to back this up. What do you have to back up your claim, other than your pique?

[spoony]

84. Tell me what it has to do with empiricism

and I will happily cede the point. But none of that explained it. And I'm quite curious as to how Native American philosophy entered into European politics.

[RainDog]

101. you should read more carefully

I noted that, yes, there were other cultures with democratic institutions, but for the rise of democracy, the Enlightenment was key. The Enlightenment is all about empircism. I said that because I am not trying to state that only western intellectual thought could or did create foundations for democratic government.

Empiricism states knowledge arises from experience. This is the basis for the scientific method - experiments should create reproducible results in order for someone to posit a theory (such as gravity) or an idea (such as self-governance) that can then be used in ones day-to-day life or in scientific and philosophical inquiry.

Of course, later Hegel got into the biz and neo-platonic idealism became important - and this lead, over time, to deconstruction, etc, in philosophy- or in concepts of unreliable knowledge - because humans are irrational and are the products of their experience. This pov grew in importance after WWII and the murder of entire cities of people - where was reason then? Where were rational humans then?

[JNelson6563]

251. You are correct, doctrine *was* disputed.

Sadly, prior to later periods, those doing the disputing were killed in some horrific way or had to go on the lam to avoid being killed or, if lucky, imprisoned. No, there is no doubt that for a long period there was just no questioning allowed. Once questioning was in fashion, often the leaders of the new sects were just as hateful (sometimes even moreso!) than those who they criticized.

Just throwin' that out there.

Julie

[Dark]

243. 'atheist's understanding that there is not supernatural agency creating life on this earth'

So, they've disproven God?

[tekisui]

246. Have religionists proven god?

The burden of proof is one the ones making that claim. You cannot prove a negative.

[JNelson6563]

252. How is works.....

Ok, say you tell me "there is a God" and I don't believe you. The burden then falls to you to prove your assertion, not the other way around.

Julie

[nadinbrzezinski]

139. You know at one time the US House and Senate MET on December 24 and 25

they received a bible authored by Jefferson

And Christmas was NOT a holiday celebrated by most folks, as it was seen as nothing less than what it originally was, festivus.

I am sure you knew that

I wish we could go back to that

You know why?

We were also free from the immense pressure to consume. These holidays are nothing more than a consumption frenzy any more

Now back to the scheduled food fight... as is as a Jew I take issue with Madisson Ave attempting to make a MINOR jewish holiday into a spending frenzy as well

[RaleighNCDUer]

144. Aw, they wouldn't do that -

just because there's tremendous profit to be made in EIGHT days of gift giving, as opposed to only one...

[nadinbrzezinski]

146. They have tried for years, and sadly some folks have fallen for it

and even put up hanukah bushes (aka christmas trees... going back to Festivus)

Problem is that most people in this country are UNAWARE of the history of the holidays and how they have morphed

The history channel runs a history of christmas every year... should be required watching for those claiming this is a christian nation and we've always done this...

By the way, I did not expect that argument here on DU... now we both know better

:-)

[Zhade]

226. That's because they're not beliefs.

NT!

[Kalyke]

122. Psssttt... Easter is on a Sunday. Most of the business world

is already off. If you're working retail, you, as Muslims and Jews, have to make special accomodations to celebrate.

Oh - and most of the country does NOT get Good Friday off.

[RaleighNCDUer]

129. I've had Good Friday off every year for the past 15 years, since I

started my STATE job.

Way to separate church and state.

[struggle4progress]

220. I'm not sure why we get Good Friday off here in NC: I never heard of that until I moved here

[varkam]

88. LOL! eom

[Threedifferentones]

167. Of course I wish to disrupt public holidays Spoony.

If you want them to be highly religious! You should keep your religion to yourself and keep the holidays secular. If you push your beliefs in to the public square I will tell you they are wrong and that you are stupid, because that seems a lot easier to prove than the Bible or any other religious doctrine.

I love Xmas and am glad many parts of it are pretty secular. If you want to have a glass of egg nog with me to celebrate "the holiday season," well you're late, I've already started. But if you want to use the month of December as an excuse to talk about Jesus, then kindly STFU or stay in your own house/church.

Remember, truth is on MY side of this issue. None of the gods humans have conceived actually exist, and ultimately I just "disbelieve in one less God than you."

Edited for clarity.

[tkmorris]

253. A-fucking-men Brother! (or Sister) nt

[Goblinmonger]

63. Then they can just not let ANY displays be put up.

That's their answer. Would you bitch about a wiccan display? Pagen? Jewish? Why can't the counter display to religion (i.e. there is no god) not be put up for consideration?

I forgot, I'll go quietly to the back of the bus like you want me to.

[spoony]

73. What an epic case of persecution complex!

Back of the bus! LOL

And, as you so often remind us, atheism is not a religion so why would it belong among religious celebrations of those religions' holidays? For spite? No, not quite a good enough reason.

[Goblinmonger]

82. When the government allows discussion of religion

on public property, it must open that discuss to all, not just one side. That would be excessive entanglement and that would be unconstitutional. If there are displays on private property, I have no problems with it. Once it is in a governmental building, all sides need to be discussed. I am in no way arguing that that sign would be a good thing in a church.

[Quantess]

110. Freedom of religion includes freedom from religion.

You do know that, don't you?

From my perspective, an atheistic message is like a breath of fresh air to atheists, especially during this two month period of heavy handed religious messages. I'm not an atheist, but as a non-religious person, I have some empathy for atheists.

[Zhade]

229. I'm curious - since atheism isn't a religion, how are you different from atheists?

Just wondering.

[Quantess]

234. Not sure if this is a sincere question or a rhetorical one, but I'll bite.

I am not religious, and I am not an atheist, how is being "non-religious" different from an atheist? Is that the question?

I consider myself agnostic, and I believe in spirituality of some unknown mystery. That makes me different than an atheist, who believes that there is no god. I don't have a religion, and I don't believe in any religion.

[Zhade]

227. HAHAHAHAHAHA!!! This from the person who says christians are "discriminated against" on DU.

Funniest fucking thing I've heard all day.

[Marrah_G]

74. Hi Goblin !

I would object to a Wiccan display if it was intentionally offensive to another belief system, especially on their holy day.

I say that as someone who not just marginalized by my beliefs but someone who had my fitness as a parent questioned because of my beliefs. Fortunately the social worker was young, cool, and not a zealot, so I got to keep my kids.

And your subject line is my first choice of action on the topic. Let's not put up any on public land.

[Goblinmonger]

79. That would be my first choice as well.

I agree that the sign in question may be a little gruff, but it really just says that religions are mythology. Not very offensive except for those intensely involved. We call lots of people's religions myth, just not normally our own.

[Marrah_G]

90. I thinks it's just the intention that is offensive, not the message itself

I hope that makes sense.

The sign was placed where it was and when it was specifically to cause others to be upset and uncomfortable. If anything it makes those people dig in deeper and be less likely to be welcoming towards those who are different and that hurts us all.

[Zhade]

230. I disagree -- it's actually an attempt to ease the minds of believers.

If they accept that there's no evidence of things like hell and gods that judge them, they won't be so stressful.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

85. I want all displays

to share their beliefs or world view, but NOT to say, "I'm right and you're wrong." It's this attitude, which is found amongst religious folk and atheists, that I find offensive. Point is, no one knows for certain about EVERYTHING.

[Marrah_G]

97. You have more faith in humanity then I do

I would like to see everyone having tolerance towards their neighbors beliefs, but sadly, human history has shown this to be a rare thing.

The alternative is to take down public displays so as not to show favoritism/bullying.

[Mad_Dem_X]

115. Excellent post!

ITA. The "I'm Right and You're Wrong" attitude offends and disgusts me, no matter which side is saying it.

[RaleighNCDUer]

128. The point is, to an atheist every creche, every holy star says exactly that.

And we have no option to respond.

[Zhade]

231. Well, we know there's no corroborating evidence for gods.

At least, none has been found so far.

[Le Taz Hot]

254. Sorta of like those bumper stickers

I see ALL the time . . . "Christians aren't perfect, just forgiven." Like that?

[Kajsa]

267. Beautifully stated, Ayeshahaqqiqa.

I agree, this "I'm right and you're wrong"
is very offensive and obnoxious, coming
from anyone.

Like you said so well, no one knows everything.

:)

[Warren DeMontague]

188. No, only displays by "real" religions and "legitimate" faiths should be permitted.

You know.

:eyes:

[Threedifferentones]

166. REligious people stick it to Ahetists every day

and then say "well I'm just saying what I think."

This is actually a case in point. Of all the religious monuments ever created, this one tells BY FAR the truth as best as we can determine it. So what do people do? Insist that we shut up and listen to everyone's lies.

History shows that "believers" are almost all quite insecure in their faith, and as such constantly want others to bolster them by sharing in a delusion. So, they preach and shout at us and insist we respect their right to push fantasies as truths. Erecting a religious monument in a public space "sticks it" to atheists, but do believers care?

The message is love humanity because we are all in this together, and ought not be divided by which myths we chose. That is a far more positive message than any mainstream Christian group can claim in this country, save perhaps Universal Unitarianism.

[gaspee]

190. Oh Puh-Leaze

Persecution complex much?

"You Lot" -- that's about all I really need to know about you right there.

I'm sick of my constitutional rights being trampled on by "You Lot" -- ever heard the term blowback?

[MrModerate]

213. I've never heard the comparison of atheism to "not stamp collecting" . . .

But it works for me.

And on one level I don't generally care very much about which specific fantasies others might believe.

However, religion is *not* stamp collecting. Religions invariably attempt to impose their moral views and behavioral norms on the communities in which they reside (because it's "right," presumably) -- even on those who don't share their beliefs and for whom those views and norms are somewhere between aggravating and intolerable.

So, while celebration of the religionist aspects of Christmas is mostly unobjectionable to nonreligionists, the pressure to conform nonbelievers' behavior to that of the faithful is something nonreligionists resist. And have every right to publicize as much as anyone else.

Do I feel a need to post a sign telling the world that I don't collect stamps? Naaah. But anyone who thinks they can force me to collect stamps (or that they have a right to shame me into doing so) has another think coming.

[Zhade]

233. Religion is Amway.

NT!

[Zhade]

217. Someone touched a nerve.

Don't like being reminded that your beliefs aren't supported by one whit of corroborating evidence, do you?

I used to be that way.

[PassingFair]

225. We are proud of being reasonable.

Freethinkers are speaking out, and it's about time.

If Christians go about wearing crosses and posting
ten commandments and planting creches, why can't we
celebrate and identify our believe in reality?

Jeez.

[saltpoint]

258. I am at this very moment not stamp collecting.

It doesn't bother me if someone down the street is stamp collecting, though.

Some religious folks -- I say 'some' and not 'all' -- wish to assert the singularity of their faith. In so doing they assert also their right to block my access to a given book or art exhibit or film locally shown or nationally distributed.

IMO that is the offending variable.

I don't personally care for the Klan marching down the main streets of Jewish communities in my state or elsewhere, but the First Amendment permits them the right to do so.

The FFRF's sign in the Courthouse is a pastiche of several points of view from leading lights over long years. Had they asked me, I would have chosen other words instead, but if a local Baptist or Methodist church can have a presence in the public square, so can anybody else.

Just my take.

[MrModerate]

5. I couldn't disagree more . . .

I'm insulted by the notion that if I lack "spiritual leanings" I'm damned to owning a second-class voice in the public square. Even though I've found it pretty easy to shrug off that insult my entire life (for me, atheism = "I really don't care about fairy tales"), that doesn't make it right.

If religionists can put up displays celebrating their beliefs, why shouldn't non-religionist get the same opportunity? And the holiday season is definitely the time to insist on such parity, because the whole place is awash with religionist propaganda at that time in a way that isn't true (at least in predominantly Christianist cultures) other times of the year.

[spoony]

24. You knowist you dontist havist to addist "ist" to everyist wordist

:)

[MrModerate]

211. "Religionist" is not synonymous with "religious" . . .

"Christianist" is not synonymous with "Christian," etc. I use language precisely. How about you?

[TexasObserver]

12. You're saying those who don't believe should keep silent.

That's terribly hypocritical of you.

When you stop hanging your silly religious beliefs on every building, every lamp post, every door, you might have a point. Until then, you're out of your god damn mind if you think we should be silent while nutjobs continue to spin silly children's stories as fact.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

87. No, not keep silent

but be polite. Rudeness is a turnoff. And I have the same problem with religious displays that tell me I must be of X Faith or I am stupid, condemned, or whatever.

[awoke_in_2003]

181. how is it rude?

it makes its statement politely. It doesn't say "you are a fucking moron for believing in a god", like I would be tempted to say.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

193. Last sentence has a lot of pejorative words in it

To quote:

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


"superstition", "hardens hearts" "enslaves minds" are phrases that, at the very least, overgeneralize and are considered pejorative.

Obviously you don't like religion and feel that everyone who does lacks intelligence. You are entitled to that opinion, but don't expect it to be shared by all DUers.

[awoke_in_2003]

198. I know it is not shared by many DUers...

that is why I don't ever say it (although, like I said, I might be tempted). What else, though, is superstition but a belief in something that has no objective, scientific proof and relies totally on belief?

on edit: I don't really think it is an intelligence thing, more of years of programming. When you are brought up in a religious atmosphere, and it is told to you repeatedly by people you trust, it can be hard to overcome.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

222. then, by your definition,

many forms of art would be superstition, because the art has not objective--it just is.

I would also say that some scientists are looking at things with an open mind when it comes to concepts like consciousness, and how far down the level of life it goes. Then there are mystics who have had personal experiences that cannot as yet be explained--their experiences often form the basis for their beliefs, rather than the other way 'round. Eckhart Tolle would be an example of someone like this.

[RainDog]

223. that's a mis-reading

the statement, as I understand it, contends religion is not based upon objective reasoning, not that it has no object.

As far as mystics - since we do know many more things about cognition now, and the ways in which electrical impulses create "reality" - some people wonder if Saul of Tarsus had a epileptic seizure - Oliver Sacks has written books about the oddities of human consciousness that require no supernatural agency...

people do not require a supernatural being to be awed and amazed by the wonder and beauty of life. If we simply ponder the reality that matter is composed of more nothingness than somethingness - or rather "nothingness" as we understand the term at this time - this is a "miracle" of life. It's not supernatural, but it is outside of our material understanding of the world as we experience it.

nevertheless, this idea operates within the realm of empirical knowledge. the only faith required is that the scientists who study these issues and whose work is then vetted by a jury of their peers is sufficiently rigorous.

[awoke_in_2003]

271. Didn't Saul...

live in an area known for its hallucinigentic mushrooms?

[Zhade]

240. Art exists. We can see it, touch it. Its elements (paint, oil, wood, stone) can be examined. Tested.

None of this is true of religion.

Personal experiences simply are not evidence of anything outside of the experiencer's mind.

[awoke_in_2003]

272. Ah, but we can both objectively

look at a piece of art and agree that it does exist in a material sense. Now, subjectively, we may disagree whether it is good art, but unless one (or both) of us have some mental condition, we can agree it exists.

[Zhade]

239. But it is superstition. It does harden hearts. It does enslave minds.

The truth isn't always pretty.

[snooper2]

68. FUCK THAT SHIT

We need that installed in EVERY COURTHOUSE!!!!!!!


Us non believers get religous bullshit shoved in our faces every fucking day...now you know what it feels like...

[Zhade]

216. No one's being insulted. Their beliefs are being identified as false.

NT!

[quaker bill]

264. An act that most humans find insulting

regardless of what they believe.

[Blarch]

248. Insulting ?

They worship a god that wants me murdered. But we should worry about insulting them with this simple sign ?

Fuck that.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

2. Don't see how this will change anyone's minds

the atheists might be heartened that their opinions have been aired, but it will be seen as insulting to anyone with a spiritual bent, I fear. Just look at the "wars" we have here at DU in Religion/Theology! :)

[MrModerate]

6. I'm not sure it's meant to change minds . . .

So much as to assert the right to express a nonreligious view to counter the religious propaganda that overwhelms Christianist cultures this time of year.

Insulting someone with spiritual bent? Too frakkin' bad. I'm insulted every day by religionists who behave -- and expect society and the law to behave -- as if their fairy tales were fact.

[Fumesucker]

7. Are the religious displays designed to change minds?

I never thought of them that way, even when I was a theist (and most atheists in the US started out as theists).

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

10. I was thinking that the display was to make people

aware of atheists in their midst, but in a way that would open the door for tolerance of them. But if the aim was to merely shout that atheists are here and to slam the door open no matter what, the aim succeeded. However, it is wise to be aware of the possible consequences of these actions, which is likely to be more and not less prejudice against atheists.

[Marrah_G]

15. I was thinking the same thing.

I have a feeling the people who put it up are more interested in causing drama then they are in anything having to do with the Winter Solstice.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

89. Happy Solstice to you!

I've a friend who has made a CD of solstice and Wiccan songs. Very cool, and one I plan to listen to on the longest night of the year. Blessed Be!

[Marrah_G]

93. Thank you Ayes- as always you show such an amazing spirit.

I hope you enjoy the CD and the Holy days.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

126. I'm lucky

I work with a Pagan and the Boss let us decorate the office for Solstice rather than Christmas (no Christian symbols, but lots of greenery and lights)

[awoke_in_2003]

183. You heathens...

:hi:

[nodster]

194. Atheists can't win.

As I type this, there is a billboard in Colorado which simply reads "DON'T BELIEVE IN GOD, YOU ARE NOT ALONE". That is it. It was also here in Jersey this past year.

Sure enough, Christians went/are going apeshit. It proves that it doesn't matter how polite, how civil, how contructive, how innocuous atheists are, their mere existence will be taken as an attack.

It also proves that atheists won't get any coverage in the media unless it looks as if they're picking on the poor victimized Christians. 'Cause I sure as hell don't recall seeing any coverage of this positive billboard in the oh so liberal/secular media.

[MrModerate]

212. I have a dotty old aunt who's convinced that Leprechauns (no shit!) . . .

rearrange the knick-knacks on her shelves. I also have a colleague who's convinced that the public execution of a popular activist some 2000 years ago turns out to be the colleague's ticket to eternal life.

I don't bother challenging either belief.

[anonymous171]

4. Naturalists make good trolls.

And fundies are incredibly easy targets.

[TrogL]

8. What have you got against naturalists?

I originally misread this as 'naturists' who are rarely trolls.

[Quantess]

235. Naturists are too busy walking around nude to be trolls.

:)

[norepubsin08]

9. I love it..Every religious symbol thought should be banned from public

places but in the mean while....if you're going to Xmas trees and the baby what's his name? and some sheep and cows etc...you should have a big enough mind to let these people have their religious or non religious viewpoint and if you're narrow minded enough as a christian to be insulted by it..then FUCK YOU!!!

[TexasObserver]

11. It's about time reason had a place in the holiday season.

"At this season of the Winter Solstice may reason prevail. There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell. There is only our natural world. Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds."

[Zhade]

242. That's my new slogan -- "Reason is the reason for the season".

NT!

[sarcasmo]

13. We Atheists are on fire today, three threads in GD. Religion is the true Evil.

[awoke_in_2003]

184. Yes...

and it time for us to implement Plan R before the GLBT community kicks off its Plan V1 :)

[Marrah_G]

14. I think whoever chose those words, chose poorly

I believe they have every right to place their beliefs out there for all to see.

I also believe it is my right to say that I think they are jerks for doing it.

It creates more of a divide and hinders understanding among groups.

Again: They have every right to do it. I have every right to say I think they are asses for doing so.

[Festivito]

228. DING DING DING, except you're too kind. They're LIARS.

That group claims they have a lack of belief in a god. They go to great and angry lengths to point that atheism is not saying that there is no god, just a lack of belief in a god. Yet, on this poster "there are no gods."

They complain about religious hypocrites and they themselves are hypocrites and fools for not seeing it as they started the labeling.

They say they want separation of church and state, so when they see another religion, they don't respect a wall of separation, they make it a wall of confrontation. They have no care or concern for what the Constitution actually says. They just want to yelp separation as though it came from the Constitution and then define it to mean them confronting others in rude fashion.

[spoony]

16. Lol.

The next time someone on here whines about atheists being discriminated against, just think of what the public face of atheism is: jerk-wad pissing-on-the-parade stunts like this and drunks like Chris Hitchens. You guys suck at PR.

[hfojvt]

20. but they are just trying to share the 'good news'

death is final! death is final! :woohoo: That's total cause for celebration.

[RainDog]

41. this sort of response is why christians are so often viewed as idiots

because you're saying it's better to live lies than to celebrate life as it is. it's better to honor institutions that systematically engaged in abuse toward entire classes or groups of people (i.e. women, homosexuals, anyone "not them") who have worked to create hell on earth because you don't have to fear death.

what a crock.

[spoony]

52. ...only by people who already thought so....

[RainDog]

57. ...because religious people cannot question their own beliefs

[spoony]

69. Where did that come from?

Certainly not from anything in this thread. For goodness sake stay focused. And I've never, ever met a person, religious or otherwise who never questioned what they believe. To deny that of believers just because you disagree with the conclusions they've reached is disingenuous, at best.

[Kajsa]

265. BS.

Not true.

[Mad_Dem_X]

119. LOL!

[RainDog]

38. Atheists are not trying to sell lies

So they don't have "spokespeople." There are people who are atheists who choose to speak their minds - this is different. However, I would put Hitchens up against the self-hating homosexual meth-snorting Ted Haggard any day... Teddy boy made himself a media figure, knowing he was living a lie.. or rather, living a lie and yet being so delusional that he thought it didn't matter.

Or, Robertson and Falwell are great examples - blaming atheists for hurricanes, terrorism - I'm surprised they didn't try to sacrifice a virgin or two to please their version of god - it fits the mindset.

If you want to start insulting atheists, you better be careful because there is a long list of "Christian" spokesmen (sic) who should cause any reasonable person to run away from anyone spouting religious crap.

[spoony]

45. The difference

is that most people have more experience with religious people, because of sheer numbers. So they see a loony like Falwell and can say "that doesn't sound like most religious people I know" (and since most are religious to some degree they can also use themself as a barometer here). On the other hand most of the atheists people know aren't activists, so the ones who are become what people picture when they think of an atheist.

[RainDog]

48. Falwell sounded very much like religious people I knew

I grew up in the south and Falwell was a mouthpiece for the Southern Baptists. He didn't say anything I didn't hear as a child. Do you know that Catholics are going to hell because the Pope is the anti-christ, or the catholic church is the whore of Babylon?

did you know that blacks deserve to be discriminated against because they're from the "tribe of Dan" and god didn't bless them? -- this was actually taught in churches in the south.

So, in fact, Falwell represents a LARGE portion of religious believers in this nation - they're the republican base, in fact.

The real "figurehead" who is speaking out these days is Dawkins, not Hitchens. Hitchens is a journalist. Dawkins is a scientist. I don't happen to agree with everything Dawkins says in his reductionist views, but at least I can look at evidence that he uses to back up his statements rather than look at a text that was written hundreds and hundreds of years after any events were said to have occurred and then think these statements, with exact quotes, etc. etc. are fact.

Religion is metaphor, at its best. When it is literal, it's a problem for this time and place because the Bible is not factually accurate, nor literal.

[spoony]

56. Well that's sad, actually

because most of us are quite sane. And that's enough for most people to have proper frames of reference to discern between us and Falwells, so I stand by my point. And I don't think it helps much to replace Hitchens with Dawkins--not from a PR standpoint as I was saying. His arguments are better (obviously I have problems with both them, and some things you said but this isn't a theology thread) but calling religion delusional isn't winning points with your everyday believer any more than what Hitchens says or how stunts like in the OP are taken.

There are less hostile ways to make points, but I seriously doubt that activists would pursue them because that "stick in the craw" factor *is* part of the point for them.

[RainDog]

60. just like women burned bras in the 1970s

because there comes a point when people say "fuck you" to those who want to make them second-class citizens.

Personally, I like Christmas. I like the story of Jesus and I think Christianity could be a force for great good. However, I cannot abide the "war on Christmas" bullshit or the insistence on putting the ten commandments in any court in the U.S. - this REALLY is disturbing, in fact, because it's a direct attempt to shit on our democratic form of govt.

that's the thing too, see. Lots of literalists are enemies of democracy but they don't even know it. However, their belief systems are in direct conflict with the premises of democracy because our system of govt. holds that reason is "god" where govt. is concerned.

This is the entire problem - when religious people want to force their irrational beliefs upon a system based upon human reasoning and rational decision-making. Beyond that, I could care less what someone believes.

The reality is that we're all lighting lights and putting trees in our homes because of our pagan origins, not Christianity.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

104. flaw in your argument

The flaw in your argument is lumping all believers together. I will heartily agree that fundamentalism is messing up the US and the world in general; but most believers aren't fundamentalists. Many religious sects believe strongly in a secular state, and feel religion is a private matter NOT to be foisted on others.

You like Christmas. I find it a drag. We both agree on its pagan origins. I sure don't want to force my beliefs, rational or otherwise, on you--I am not you. My path is different. This is part of my religious belief.

[RainDog]

120. Since fundies are the ones who have waged a war on the war on Christmas

the thrust of my observations hold - it's not mainline protestants who bray about the 10 commandments in courthouses, or who get pissed off if someone wants to have a menorah alongside a creche.

I honestly do not care if someone has a religious belief. I think there are good reasons for them... and prayer or meditation is a healthy thing to do, no matter what one's beliefs or lack of.

but in this nation, the reaction you get from anyone is to the fundies, not the "everyone else who believes something," and rightly so since fundies have been the most vocal.

Atheists and non-fundies do not have any argument, to me.

[Goblinmonger]

65. Well, we can't all be little rays

of sunshine like you are, now can we.

[varkam]

92. Word.

:fistbump:

[kwassa]

118. "you guys suck at PR"

ain't that the truth.

[Goblinmonger]

151. said in response

to the poster child of sucking at PR.

[kwassa]

168. PR for what?

Responding just to repond?

[Goblinmonger]

171. His position

Your position, I guess, since you agree with him. You don't think it's ironic that someone as brash and abrasive as spoony is talking about how stupid and bad PR it is for someone to be brash and abrasive (and I would argue the plaque discussed in the OP is not nearly as abrasive as he).

[mitchum]

266. "You guys suck at PR"...or is it that you guys have a far more gullible customer base?

I think the whole thing should be called...the Gospel of The Mark

[EstimatedProphet]

19. Is it anti-religion?

Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds

Yep.

I think athiests have every right to put up a public message. This crosses over the line to name-calling, and is no better than religionists putting up a sign saying athiests are all going to Hell.

[RaleighNCDUer]

25. On the contrary. Religionists cannot prove such a place as "hell" exists.

Atheists can prove that religion can and does harden hearts and enslave minds.

[kevinbgoode]

28. Well now....don't forget that some "religionists" spend their lives

trying to create hell for others.

[EstimatedProphet]

34. Doesn't matter in this context

Saying Merry Christmas is pro-religion, but not anti-atheist. Saying Believe in Christmas or go to hell is anti-atheist.

Saying I don't believe in God is not anti-religion. Saying you're mean and stupid if you do is anti-religion.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

108. Who says Hell is a place?

Students of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Arabic understand the allegorical nature of these languages. That "place" called hell may well be a mental state that a soul creates by his own perceptions.

[ZombieHorde]

238. Where do you believe that soul will be?

[Goblinmonger]

66. So if the Christian display

says that Jesus brings peace to earth for all men, you will make the same argument, right? Because that is basically telling me that I'm wrong.

[EstimatedProphet]

86. I think that argument can be made, yes.

But I do believe that it's sketchy, because it is after all a statement of someone's beliefs for themselves. It's the difference between saying I believe X and you're wrong because you don't believe x. You can believe that Jesus came to earth to bring peace to all men without stating that other people who don't believe the same thing are wrong.

[Bill McBlueState]

138. who's being called a name, here?

It can't be name-calling if no person is being called a name.

[EstimatedProphet]

145. Really?

So if I said that being black makes people shine shoes and dance, that wouldn't be calling someone a name?

[Bill McBlueState]

161. being black?

If you think skin color and religious belief are analogous, it will be difficult for us to see eye-to-eye on this one.

But no, your example is not name-calling. It's other unpleasant things, but not name-calling.

[EstimatedProphet]

175. I would say that it is

The group is implied. Being black implies someone is being black, just as religious implies someone is being religious. However, if you want to call it something other than name-calling, go ahead. It doesn't change the point that the statement becomes negative about another group instead of remaining positive about a group.

And, race and religion don't have to be analogous here. It's the relationship that is analogous which makes the point.

[Ignis]

159. Oh yeah, Christians NEVER say, "You're going to hell!"

Because, you know, that would be offensive. :eyes:

Pull the other one. Also, you may wish to learn how to spell "Theism."

[EstimatedProphet]

176. You are aware of the fact that I said this, right?

and is no better than religionists putting up a sign saying athiests are all going to Hell.

Do you understand what I meant by that?

Do you understand that I am condemining statements like that?

Do you now see how blatantly asinine your attack on me really looks?

Must you force me to talk to you like you are a petulant child?

[Ignis]

182. Hello, Mr. Ad Hominem. How are the wife and kids?

1. Atheists already deal with "you're going to hell" from Christians on a daily basis. There's no need to deal in possibilities, when the realities are there for any who have eyes to see.

2. This sign is not at all comparable to daily threats of eternal damnation. Saying "there are no pink unicorns, and the pink unicorn priests just want your money" is neither the moral nor philosophical equivalent of saying "believe in pink unicorns or you spend eternity in unquenchable agony."

3. Non-belief is not a form of belief. (That's to preempt any Fair and Balanced crap.)

4. What line, exactly, was crossed? How? Which words are offensive? What should atheists have said instead to get the message across in a simple sign? Does good taste trump good sense?

5. I notice several other posters had difficulty understanding your oh-so-clear message. Are we all that stupid, or is it at all possible that you may not be the most gifted writer on the planet?

6. Have you figured out how to spell "Theism" yet, or are you too busy with personal attacks?

Have a nice day. :hi:

[EstimatedProphet]

203. Fine.

1. Atheists already deal with "you're going to hell" from Christians on a daily basis. There's no need to deal in possibilities, when the realities are there for any who have eyes to see.

They do? REALLY? Really truly?!?! No shit Mr. Wizard. That's why I made that point. Go right ahead and try to evade the fact that you went out of your way to beat me up for not making a point which I did make.

2. This sign is not at all comparable to daily threats of eternal damnation. Saying "there are no pink unicorns, and the pink unicorn priests just want your money" is neither the moral nor philosophical equivalent of saying "believe in pink unicorns or you spend eternity in unquenchable agony."

No, but it is comparable to having a hardened heart and an enslaved mind.

3. Non-belief is not a form of belief. (That's to preempt any Fair and Balanced crap.)

True.

4. What line, exactly, was crossed? How? Which words are offensive? What should atheists have said instead to get the message across in a simple sign? Does good taste trump good sense?

See point #2. Since it isn't clear to you, let me specify again that it is also beating up on religious people to say that they have hardened hearts and enslaved minds just like it is to say that atheists are condemned. My point, since you are busily trying to not get it, is that they should and do have every right to post their own message, but it is no better for them to post an attack on another group than it is for religionists. That approach just polarizes people.

5. I notice several other posters had difficulty understanding your oh-so-clear message. Are we all that stupid, or is it at all possible that you may not be the most gifted writer on the planet?

No, pretty much just you.

6. Have you figured out how to spell "Theism" yet, or are you too busy with personal attacks?

Hmmm...theism. Guess so. I made a mistake typing before. I apologize profusely. I am unworthy of existence. I must be punished. By the way, what's your punishment for hypocrisy, since you are the one that started personal attacks?

[Ignis]

205. Wow, that's a lot of anger and "name-calling."

you are the one that started personal attacks

Please point out specifically where I initiated personal attacks on you in my first response. I'll wait.

Once you're done, we can continue discussing why you're the best writer EVER and I'm the most stupid and puerile reader alive. :eyes: That seems to be your primary concern, so I don't mind continuing that theme--assuming, of course, that going down this path will eventually result in your getting it out of your system so that we can discuss the topic at hand.

Then again, I don't blow a gasket when someone points out a misspelling on my part or criticizes a flaw in my writing/logic. YMMV. :shrug:

[Ignis]

274. Still waiting.

It's a good thing that being a Freethinker has taught me patience. ;)

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

169. And Christian displays are pro-religion.

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

=

"Accept Jesus into your hearts and you can be saved."

[EstimatedProphet]

178. Really, that is what my point was. However, I disagree with the example.

Instead, I would say:

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

=

"Accept Jesus into your hearts or you will go to hell."

That statement is about condemnation. I don't think the public space should be used to condemn, but I don't have a problem with any group using it for promoting a certain viewpoint.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

197. "I am the one true way, no one comes to the Father but by me."

Standard proselytizing Christian message.

It's a condemnation of anyone who isn't a Christian. So is saying "he died for your sins."

[EstimatedProphet]

204. I agree that it can be seen that way

You have a valid point. What I was trying to get at is that one is close to name-calling, such as the you're going to hell approach. IMO neither of them are effective methods for a message.

[RainDog]

27. Or this quote could have been nice

History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.

-Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, Dec. 6, 1813.

[RainDog]

29. but this would be more in keeping with the season

And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors.

-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823

[donco6]

59. I'd like to see Adams' response to that.

Very interesting.

[RainDog]

67. here's one remark to Jefferson

can't say it's in direct response, tho.

Indeed, Mr. Jefferson, what could be invented to debase the ancient Christianism which Greeks, Romans, Hebrews and Christian factions, above all the Catholics, have not fraudulently imposed upon the public? Miracles after miracles have rolled down in torrents.
-- John Adams, letter to Thomas Jefferson, December 3, 1813,

The question before the human race is, whether the God of nature shall govern the world by his own laws, or whether priests and kings shall rule it by fictitious miracles?
-- John Adams, letter to Thomas Jefferson, June 20, 1815

The Treaty of Tripoli
Signed by John Adams

"As the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen ... it is declared ... that no pretext arising from religious opinion shall ever product an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries....
"The United States is not a Christian nation any more than it is a Jewish or a Mohammedan nation."
-- Treaty of Tripoli (1797), carried unanimously by the Senate and signed into law by John Adams (the original language is by Joel Barlow, US Consul)

Adams had it out for Catholics most of all - but that's consistent with the beliefs of the French Revolutionaries who undertook to dismantle the church/state apparatus that was pervasive in France - the church was rich while people starved. There's a lesson there, of course, for any and all powerful institutions, AIG.

[Ezlivin]

30. The pot has been boiling for some time

People act surprised that atheists would do something like this.

Yes, perhaps it's a bit over the top, but you are looking at a segment of society that has been systematically marginalized and persecuted for hundreds of years. It is only in the last century that atheists could start to be outspoken, to be public about what they believed.

This is the result of pent-up frustration. Imagine going through your entire life and never seeing one sign in public that supported the way you thought. Not only that, but imagine dozens of television stations and hundreds of radio stations that constantly put on the message that you were without morals and that you really didn't have a place in "this Christian nation."

Let me know the next time an atheist knocks on your door and tries to talk you out of your current lifestyle.

[spoony]

31. They don't knock on doors, they proselytise in other ways

Internet, books, signage. Who needs door to door?

Edit: whoops, forgot movies!

[Ezlivin]

33. But which irritates you more?

Having a pair of white-shirt-tie-wearing-clean-shaven young men disrupting your meal or seeing a Christopher Hitchens' book at the store?

One is much more personal and active than the other.

[spoony]

37. Now we're down to which is more irritating?

Well let's see, in the four years I've lived at this address, I have had exactly one visit from anyone peddling religion. JW's, as I recall. Not many other people do that door to door stuff. And it was no more annoying than the few other peddlers we usually get a month. Surely you can't be at a meal all the time.

Now, on the other hand, I log onto DU--a place with no fewer than four places for atheists and others to carry on about religion--and go to General Discussion, and am routinely plied with anti-religion screeds. And God help us all if the Pope had a presser that day. Then I go to somewhere like Straight Dope and get hit with ads for Rational Responders or the film The God Who Wasn't There.

So I suppose depending on one's existing biases either could be considered annoying, no?

[Ezlivin]

40. That's the difference between a private intrusion and a public conversation

None of us here on DU are forcing ourselves on you at your doorstep. We're not banging on your door until you heave yourself out of your easy chair or back away from the dinner table.

When you come to a forum like this it's like entering a vast public hall; you're bound to hear and see things you really aren't enamored of.

[RainDog]

43. oh, but christians don't want to have their myths challenged, so you should shut up

basically that's the thrust of this poster's pov.

[spoony]

50. I'm talking about proselytising

Some here are about as open to "conversation" on their hit pieces as the people at your door would be. DU aside, what about media that is expressly made to "disprove" religious beliefs and the ads that appear on sites not related to religion? You can't "converse" with that.

Level of irritation wasn't my original point anyway, that being that both sides engage in this behaviour.

[RaleighNCDUer]

116. You can ignore them, the same way we ignore seeing a church

on every corner, hearing church bells ringing at all hours, seeing endless channels of religious malarky congesting the television...

Go to Barne's & Nobel. Where is the "Atheist" section? You'll never find it. Where is the "Religious Literature" section? Down the aisle to the right, rows 6,7 & 8.

Are you going through some crisis of faith, that you fear and feel the need to squelch other peoples' opinions?

[madmom]

49. When I go to the grocery store I run into christian bell ringers, inside I hear

christian carols,at the mall or any other store I chose to go to I get the same thing not to mention in the book stores I have to wade through all the christians books in the front of the store to even get in, the crosses and madonnas and all the other religious "symbols" that I have to wade through on a daily basis this time of year just because I want groceries or to buy something.So see it goes both ways!

[spoony]

51. "This time of year"

being the key phrase. It's a holiday, what do you want for it to go away? In any case holiday symbols are not what I'm discussing in this subthread, which is its originator's comment: "Let me know the next time an atheist knocks on your door and tries to talk you out of your current lifestyle."

[madmom]

61. Ok here's another one for you. I used to be a Brownie Girl Scout troop leader, when a mother found

out that I didn't believe in god, she demanded I be removed. She ignored the fact that I was a volunteer, that I had no children in the troop, I was doing it because if I didn't there would be no scouts. She was just appalled that I didn't believe! Why didn't she offer up her time or even help me to learn a little about what we were doing (nothing about religion).
What about the kids in school who are ostracized by the indoctrinated kids simply because they don't go the church? Just to name a few.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

124. I don't tell the general public that I'm Sufi

because they get freaked out over Muslims, ya know. I am sure I would have had the same problem you had if someone found out. So this intolerance isn't limited to atheists.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

121. These things don't bother me

and I'm not a Christian. I see them as expressions of art or music by people of a certain spiritual evolution.

[madmom]

177. I choose to ignore them, but the poster above sited how he/she saw

atheist stuff in books, signs, and internet, stuff that can be avoided. I'm saying I see christian stuff everywhere and unless you don't leave home it's all but impossible to avoid.

[Goblinmonger]

71. Oh, my god

how can you handle it. I can only imagine what it must be like to be bombarded by images, discussions, buildings, etc of something that you don't believe in. HOW DO YOU HANDLE IT?

You might want to crawl off that cross; Jesus needs it back.

[spoony]

81. I know this flew way, way over you head but

the issue is not my personal inconvenience, as I have experienced none, but a reaction to the silly idea that religious people are the only ones engaging in potentially aggrieving acts of proselytising.

And, geez, think up new lines, the next generation of cliches. These are so ridiculously outdated that I have trouble even taking you seriously when you use them.

[PassingFair]

232. How does she handle all that reality and stuff?

I was listening to two mothers talking one day at
at a soccer game...

One of the mothers was talking about having to
take her kid out of parochial school because
money was tight, but was "worried" about what her
child might be exposed to.

The other mother said (and I am NOT making this
up), "Yeah, all that TOLERANCE AND STUFF that
they teach in public schools..."

I barely contained my breakfast.....

:puke:

[hatrack]

179. So avoid annoyance by not reading the posts you disagree with - pretty simple

As opposed to, y'know, burning up this thread.

[timtom]

39. Present post excepted, of course.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

117. but you are generalizing all believers as Jehovah's Witnesses

or Mormons, the only two groups I know of that go door to door trying to sign you up. Sufis often meet in secret, and they do not encourage people to join their ranks--one must seek out Sufis, not the other way round.

[yardwork]

36. When the Christians insisted that their religion be featured, it opened the door for everyone else.

This is why the constitution says that no single religion should be promoted by the government. Get all the religious displays out of government offices and this will end.

People have the right to worship as they please, or not worship, whichever they choose. They do not have the right to impose their personal religion on everyone else. If they insist, then everyone else will start to push their own religions too.

Things will get very crowded in the capital buildings.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

44. Atheism Isn't A Religion. The Sign Is Needlessly Provocative And Downright Dumb.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

70. "There are no gods, religion is a myth" = "Jesus exists. He died for your sins."

No more or less provocative or dumb.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

75. Wrong.

One is needlessly provocative. The other is a religious statement with good intentions.

The only intention of the former is to inflame those who choose to believe in religion. It is immature and worthless.

Fuck fundy atheists.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

78. They're equivalent statements.

Christians believe Jesus exists and he died for your sins.

Atheists believe there are no gods, and religions are myths.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

91. No, They're Not, For Reasons I Explained.

To a simple mind that can only think one level deep maybe they would be. But the issue is more detailed than a simple minded top level only mindset.

The latter group in my previous post's example speaks such messages out of hope, love and faith; due to a deep belief in a particular religion and due to a personal belief that sharing the message can help others find happiness and salvation.

The former group in my previous post's example speaks such messages out of immaturity and intolernace; with the only intent being to inflame those who choose to believe in a religion. They are not doing so with good intention, but out of sheer spite.

No, the statements are far from equivalent. In fact, to be equivalent, the christian statement would need to read "Jesus saves and is the only true God. All other religions' Gods don't exist. Just ours". I would have the same problems with content if I saw a sign saying that.

Fuck fundamentalists of any stripe, including fundy atheists.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

94. You're being very intolerant.

You're perfectly fine with people expressing Christian beliefs. You've done so yourself.

But you get all upset when Atheists express their beliefs.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

99. Atheists Don't Have Beliefs, And I Have Spoken No Intolerance.

Atheism is not a religion. Atheism has a lack of beliefs. They don't have any associated beliefs. They simple refuse to believe in the existence of God.

The ignorant group posted that message out of spite and for reasons of needless immature provocation. That's a fact. They are intolerant and bigoted, and as ignorant as any other fundy group.

Fuck fundy atheists.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

103. Sure we do. We believe God doesn't exist.

That's a belief on a religious matter. And it's just as valid as your belief that Jesus comes down your chimney on Christmas to give you presents. Or whatever it is you believe.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

109. It's A Lack Of Belief. Big Difference.

Atheism is not a religion; and the fact still stands that the ignorant fundy atheist group put up the sign for no more reason than to be spiteful, immature and needlessly provocative. They are assholes of the highest order and as ignorant as racists, and akin to any other group of fundamentalist zealots.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

113. It's not the lack of the belief that God doesn't exist. It's the firm belief that god doesn't exist

"Atheism is not a religion"

Atheism is a system of belief on religious matters, and have just as much right as anybody else to express those beliefs.

"the fact still stands that the ignorant fundy atheist group put up the sign for no more reason than to be spiteful, immature and needlessly provocative"

You're reading minds. You could say the exact same thing about any given religious display.

"They are assholes of the highest order and as ignorant as racists, and akin to any other group of fundamentalist zealots."

You're disrespecting their beliefs and calling them names. You're being very hypocritical on the subject of tolerance.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

127. What A Crock Of Shit ROFL.

"Atheism is a system of belief on religious matters"

No, no, it isn't. It's simply the absence of religion and belief. What a crock lol.


"You're reading minds. You could say the exact same thing about any given religious display."

No, I'm stating the obvious. It's called, ya know, logical deduction. Try it sometime.


"You're disrespecting their beliefs and calling them names. You're being very hypocritical on the subject of tolerance."

They do not have beliefs. They have an absence of beliefs. I am in no way being intolerant. And I have no problem calling ignorant extremists of any color names.

The fact of the matter is that this group posted what they did out of spite and an immature need for needless provocation. They are intolerant ignoramuses that are in the fringe edge of atheism and not representative of the overwhelming majority of atheists whatsoever. They are baiting morons.

That's all I have to say in conclusion, and this going in circles subthread will now cease on my end, since I don't expect to reason with those incapable of it.

[snooper2]

130. You need to learn definitions - you are making yourself...

Look very ignorant :rofl: ( besides believing in invisible creatures )


a·the·ist /ˈeɪθiɪst/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




—Synonyms Atheist, agnostic, infidel, skeptic refer to persons not inclined toward religious belief or a particular form of religious belief. An atheist is one who DENIES the existence of a deity or of divine beings. An agnostic is one who believes it impossible to know anything about God or about the creation of the universe and refrains from commitment to any religious doctrine. Infidel means an unbeliever, especially a nonbeliever in Islam or Christianity. A skeptic doubts and is critical of all accepted doctrines and creeds.







ag·nos·tic /ægˈnɒstɪk/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.
2. a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study.
–adjective 3. of or pertaining to agnostics or agnosticism.
4. asserting the uncertainty of all claims to knowledge.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

142. I'm an atheist.

I have a system of beliefs.

My beliefs include:

The belief that there is no God.

The belief that religions are myths, the same as any extinct religion, such as the belief in Aztec or Greek dieties.

The belief that believing in God is not unlike believing in Santa.

My beliefs are just as valid, from a legal and moral standpoint, as your belief that Jesus is the Song of God and he died for our sins.

Now I can respect people who put up signs and various ornaments expressing those beliefs, and you're under a moral obligation to respect the beliefs of atheists such as these.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

147. You Have A Lack Of Beliefs.

Saying I believe in nothing means I don't believe in anything.

Believing in not believing is still not believing.

Good day. :hi:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

149. You lack the belief that God doesn't exist.

See? We could keep doing this, but it's silly.

I have beliefs.

You have beliefs.

I'm right and your wrong, but I can respect your right to have wrong beliefs.

[RaleighNCDUer]

123. Fuck fundy atheists? what the FUCK?

How can someone be a fundy if, as you just stated, they have no set core of beliefs? What are the "fundamentals" that they are clinging to?

You can't claim that atheism has no beliefs, then turn around and accuse atheists of being fundamentalists. The inherent contradiction in logic is ... boggling.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

125. How Bout Ignorant Extremists. That Better For You?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

143. In what way are they extreme?

[Warren DeMontague]

191. Because when Christians say "God Loves You" they're being friendly and helpful.

When Atheists say "There is no God" they're just trying to upset the natural order of things.

:sarcasm:

[nodster]

195. Extreme about what?

Doing college book tours on little sleep?

Calling religion a myth is "extreme"?

I challenge you to cite literally one example of an extreme atheistic position.

Perhaps this time you'll actually give me a response. Good luck!

[conscious evolution]

256. LOL!

[Threedifferentones]

170. It is not "needlessly" provocative

The only effect hearing a mob of people insist "Jesus died for your sins" has on me is to INFLAME my dislike of totally unreasonable and unsupportable ideas. Whatever else it is INTENDED to do, this is all it actually DOES to me. Hence my response is inflamed, and meant to strike out at those who have offended me.

What is so hard to comprehend about this? You have a bunch of religious monuments throughout history, one tells the truth as best we can know it, and you pick that one to hate on?! WTF?!

Keep your religion private or I will tell you your ideas are wrong and you are stupid. And all the powers of science and logic, limited though they may be, will agree with me, while the believer continues to moan on about "faith."

The way some Atheists, myself and the sign included, speak their views may indeed by immature. Personally I am still a young man, so that's my excuse :). But the idea that truth is worthless has me positively INFLAMED.

Edited to fix spelling.

[Warren DeMontague]

192. Bullshit.

Time and time again, I've mentioned in these threads that there are folks on DU who constantly carp about how "God Exists" is not an offensive statement, but "There is no God" IS an offensive statement worth of the extent to which some believers go bugfuck when they hear it.

Thank you, OMC, for succintly proving my point in an easily bookmarkable post.

[Goblinmonger]

72. When you open up the public square for one group

you need to open it up for all. Period. Why do you have a problem with that? You would be more happy if the city let only Christians display things? That's a pretty bad road to advocate for.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

76. Atheism Isn't A Religion. It Is Needless Immature Provocation By A Bunch Of Ignoramuses.

They are intolerant and dumb.

[Goblinmonger]

83. Atheism involves a discussion of religion.

When the government gets involved in religion, it needs to allow all sides a voice. It's in that thing called the, what's it again, oh yeah, the constitution.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

Atheism Involves No Such Thing. Atheism Is Merely The Lack Of Believing In A Religion.

No where in the constitution does your claim exist. Government cannot favor one religion over another, hinder one's belief in a religion, or force a given religion onto somebody.

What is presented in the OP is a message of intolerance from a fundy group rooted in ignorance. It's that simple.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

100. You're saying the first amendment doesn't protect atheists?

Talk about messages of intolerance.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

106. The First Amendment Protects Everybody.

But not in the way the previous poster inferred.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

107. The previous poster claimed the 1st amendment treats Christians and Atheists equally.

And you took issue with that.

If you'd like to backtrack, that's fine with me.

[RaleighNCDUer]

131. By allowing religious statements, and disallowing atheistic statements,

the government is favoring religion over non-religion. That is against the constitution.

That is why this message stands.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

135. No, It Isn't.

Again; atheism isn't a religion nor a belief.

Bye now.

[RaleighNCDUer]

141. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,

or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

That very explicitly prohibits the favoring of religion. There is no difference between supporting one religion over another, and supporting any religion over no religion - either way, that is giving governmental support to religion.

True, atheism is not a religion - but atheists have beliefs, founded on facts rather than on faith. Those beliefs have as much right to be heard as any religious beliefs, and they cannot be squelched simply because they are not religious - that is covered by:

... or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;

Buh bye.

[Goblinmonger]

156. You have now shown

that you are completely unaware of the case law of freedom of religion if you do not know the concept of religion over non-religion. You might want to do yourself a favor and stop posting about something you are so enormously wrong about.

[Goblinmonger]

164. You should give Antonin Scalia a call

he thinks just like you in regard to favoring religion over non-religion. Thankfully he isn't the majority of the SCOTUS. Nice company for you to be in, isn't it.

[RainDog]

180. Scalia should be impeached

not simply because of the Bush/Gore ruling, tho all five of those assholes should've been sent packing... but because Antonin Scalia is on record saying that, in regard to capital punishment, the problem is "democracy." (in a speech available online called God's Justice and Ours.)

One of the judges on the Supreme Court calls democracy a problem - because it conflicts with his religious beliefs - and no talking head conservative cares enough about the foundations of this nation to call him on it.

Scalia went even further because he complained about "The Enlightenment." He calls Europe "post-christian" because of their human rights laws - which are extensions of enlightenment beliefs. Maybe Scalia was playing spoiler, but since I know he opposes the appointment of anyone who opposes the death penalty, and Scalia's support for the death penalty is grounded in his view of "god's justice" as more worthwhile than democracy - I think the man should be removed.

He is an enemy of democracy if he ranks his religious beliefs as more important for the application of the law than he does the law itself, and especially the foundations of that law.

This constantly amazes me at this time in American life. We consistently tolerate theocrats in our govt. The founders would have taken Scalia out into a field at dawn and shot him.

[yardwork]

173. Exactly. It's hard to imagine why this is so difficult for some to comprehend.

[Goblinmonger]

155. Yes it does exist.

Government can also not favor religion over non-religion. And if allowing only a certain religions views on a religious holiday in the public square is not "forcing a given religion onto somebody" then I don't know what is. You need to google excessive entanglement.

So now the thought that there is no god is ignorance. It's amazing how you can think you are this open-minded tolerant lad when you are so completely the opposite.

[snooper2]

114. in the bullshit department

A business man can't hold a candle to a clergyman. Cause I got to tell you the truth folks, I got to tell you the truth. When it comes to bullshit- Big time, major league bullshit, you have to stand in awe. In awe of the all time champion of false promises and exaggerated claims- religion, no contest. No contest.

Religion easily has the greatest bullshit story ever told. Think about it, religion has actually convinced people there is an invisible man living in the sky. Watching everything you do every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of 10 things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of those 10 things, he has a special place. Full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anquish where he will send you to live. And suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever till the end of time!



But he loves you :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:




George Carlin- A TRUE GOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[yardwork]

174. That's irrelevant to the constitutional question.

[Name removed]

95. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

102. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[nodster]

105. Really?

Those responsible for the sign could say the same.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

111. They Could, But That Would Make Them Wrong, Bigoted And Ignorant.

[Name removed]

132. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

136. BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

:crazy:

[nodster]

137. Please explain

why one's political views are fair to criticize, but the second you do it to a religious view, you're considered an intolerant fundamentalist?

I hold the opinion that religion is irrational.

I also hold the opinion that conservatism is irrational.

Yet, I'm only a bigot when I express the former.

Why?

[nodster]

185. What a shock,

no response. Been asking this question for as long as I can remember, and literally everytime, theists end up running away with their tale between their legs.

Conservatism/Liberalism is irrational. Fair game, legit opinion.

Religion is irrational. FUNDAMENTALIST INTOLERANT BIGOT!!! FUNDY ATHEISTS ARE AS BAD AS RACISTS!!!

Ideals of Libertarians/Socialists are a myth. They could never work. Fair game, legit opinion.

Religion is a myth. FUNDAMENTALIST INTOLERANT BIGOT!!! FUNDY ATHEISTS ARE AS BAD AS RACISTS!!!

The politics of Freepers hardens hearts and enslaves minds. Fair game, legit opinion.

Religion hardens hearts and enslaves minds. FUNDAMENTALIST INTOLERANT BIGOT!!! FUNDY ATHEISTS ARE AS BAD AS RACISTS!!!

So tell me, why is religion immune to the very same criticism of politics? Especially considering how powerful religion is within our government, and how it bombards our private lives and obstructs our civil rights?

[Name removed]

133. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[yardwork]

172. I don't disagree. I didn't write any sign and I'm not defending any signs.

Just pointing out that when some groups insist on having their religion featured in a public place, everyone else is going to want their beliefs to be featured, too.

[Name removed]

199. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Lucian]

154. Agreed.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

42. Can't Stand Fundamentalist Atheists. They're As Ignorant As Racists.

[Evoman]

47. What are "fundamentalist" atheists ignorant about?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

53. The Concept Of Tolerance. They Are Bigots. They Are Scumbags.

[Evoman]

58. Explain further.....what are they intolerant about?

Wbat is the relationship between this intolerance and ignorance? How does this intolerance come about in terms of actions?

[RainDog]

62. this is simply irrational babble.

these statements have nothing to back them up other than some catch phrase from religious sloganeers.

[RaleighNCDUer]

134. You want to re-think that?

"It's all about integrity, respect, honesty, decency, open mindedness, fairness, and genuine desire to wish good upon all. That is why I'm a liberal."

Where did THAT come from?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

148. That's All You've Got Huh? How Pathetic.

:rofl:

[Evoman]

46. That sign sucks....I would have preferred something a little more...deliciously provactive.

Like passion of the stormtrooper.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=105x3891568

[spoony]

96. Alright, lunch time.

I already have way too many posts in this thread, and I hate doing that, so I'll sign off with saying that ayeshahaqqiqa has made very good points and has one of the coolest sig quotes on the site. Good day!

[Marrah_G]

98. She is an amazing woman.

I am totally a fan.

[AsahinaKimi]

112. Just my two cents...

I don't think there would be too much of a problem if some religions didn't try
to aggressively recruit new members. Buddhists and Hindus do not try to recruit people into their religion.

In Japan, for example, Shinto had been the main religion until Buddhism came, and then adaptions were made so both elements could be appreciated and practiced, so today if a Japanese person gets married they will do a Shinto wedding. When they die, the ceremony is Buddhist. The percentage of Christians in Japan is about 1% and yet Christmas in Japan is celebrated like a Valentines day, a romantic holiday. There are the trees, the Santa's ringing bells, and the lovely Christmas cakes. But since most of the population is mostly Buddhists, there are no religious overtones to the holiday. It just has become another adaption..

mmmmmmmmm christmas cakes!

Christianity and the Muslim religion both try to convert people to their side. I don't know if thats
the same case with becoming Jewish. I suppose you can convert if you truly want to. No one will come to your door and ask you to become Jewish.

Perhaps because some feel the need to aggressively recruit people to their side, this can
cause major tension.

I perhaps shouldn't comment, because I don't know enough about some religions but,
there does seem to be a need to aggressively promote beliefs and I always wondered
why this was so.

[nadinbrzezinski]

153. You can convert to Judaism... but proselitation ended a while ago

some two millennia

It is a matter of the maturity of the religion

That said...

Christmas in Japan is like cinco de mayo here... it has nothing to do with the original, which is a state holiday, not a drinking holiday

That said a few of the more fundi Jews are now thinking of extreme measures to define what a Jew is... which is ironic at multiple levels

[Dukkha]

140. we didn't start this war but we're gonna finish it!

by any means necessary!
:evilgrin:

[Lucian]

150. So what's wrong with that?

[anonymous171]

152. Is Atheism a religion?

If so, they should be allowed the space.

[Goblinmonger]

157. Government

cannot favor religion over non-religion. If they let one in, they have to let them all in--even the counter argument to religion.

[anonymous171]

158. Really? I just thought they could not favor one religion over another.

[RaleighNCDUer]

160. ref post 141, above.

The government can do nothing to establish religion. Promoting religion, any religion or all religions, over no religion is a active move to establish religion as the norm. Therefore, it is disallowed.

Repeated court cases support this POV.

[Goblinmonger]

163. The majority of the SCOTUS has

held that you can't favor religion over non-religion for some time. Scalia thinks differently. Enough said.

[anonymous171]

165. Well then, that settles it. They have the right to put the plaque there.

[Warren DeMontague]

187. Define "religion".

I'll wait.

[RainDog]

189. how about the founders? should they deserve a say?

to repeat:

And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors.

-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823

Since Jefferson was commenting on the virgin birth, and about the stupidity of a belief in it, this statement, imo, would be entirely appropriate for a holiday display.

[tekisui]

247. It is not a religion,

but should still not be discriminated against.

[pleah]

162. Damn! I ran out of popcorn!

:evilgrin:

[Warren DeMontague]

186. So, again, statements like "Jesus is Lord" are non-divisive, but "There is no God" is needlessly so.

...Do I have that right?

:eyes:

[hfojvt]

196. no you have it wrong

maybe it would make sense to you if the Christian display had included a Bible verse, like "The fool has said in his heart 'there is no God'" 14.1

[nodster]

200. No, he has it right.

Don't be dishonest. You know EXACTLY what the usual tone of "Jesus is Lord" implies.

[hfojvt]

210. there is no tone in a sign

There's a difference betweeen saying "I believe X" and saying "Everyone who believes Not-X is an a$$hole or an idiot."

"Jesus is Lord" might be, and often is, said or written by people who also believe "those who deny the Lordship of Jesus are doomed to hell".
But two things a) if it is not explicitly stated, you do not know if it is always implied and b) being doomed to hell is not quite the same thing as being an a$$hole or an idiot. Close maybe, but the tragedy of faith is that presumably a lot of intelligent and mostly decent people are going to hell because of their pride.

[RainDog]

202. then...other christians could say you're condemned to hell

matt. 5:22

"But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever says to his brother, 'You good-for-nothing,' shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever says, 'You fool,' shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell."

But then, Jesus was talking about the Christian "10 Commandments," The Beatitudes, which are curiously unimportant to the fundies that try to force their stupidity on the rest of us... I guess they don't want to have blessings to the merciful posted in a court house.. it would go against their general idolatry of war and hate.

I guess there's no contradiction in the Bible, tho, if the same book of the Bible Jesus calls someone a fool. it's okay because Jesus "said" it -

(Matthew 23:17) - "You fools and blind men! Which is more important, the gold or the temple that sanctified the gold?"

Oh, but, in context, we have to realize that Jesus was talking about the Scribes and Pharisees who made a big deal about being religious IN PUBLIC PLACES and used their religion to promote business... selling stuff... he was talking about religious leaders who did not try to stop widows from having their homes confiscated when they couldn't pay mortgages...

That's always a problem when you start quoting scripture because the bible contradicts itself constantly. it's like the i-ching - it can mean anything you want it to, as we have seen across the history of the western world.

[hfojvt]

206. you can find contradictions if you look for them

strain at those gnats. Justify yourself. You know most believers are not gonna worry about those contradictions.

Neither am I.

[RainDog]

209. yes, I know believers don't care that their beliefs are not grounded in fact

and this is why they get so pissy when challenged.

it's not straining at gnats to note that, within the same biographical chapter, Jesus contradicts himself - unless he is the only one who gets to call people fools, in which case, he repudiates the psalm. but he already (as noted below, and in any study of the Essenes) had repudiated the law as part of "true" Jewish doctrine. this basically repudiates any fundie claims to religious opposition to, oh, say, homosexual rights.

Yes, faith doesn't need reality or truth to survive. It is grounded in neither, and that is something that is very important to note. It's important for children to know religious beliefs are based upon myth, not reality, not fact. because when challenged, religious people resort to people putting fingers in their ears saying "I can't hear you..." Just as you are doing here.

... and that's why religion is comprised of so much bullshit.

[hfojvt]

214. I am not getting pi$$y, but clearly there is no point to going round and round

about whatever collection of 'contradictions' you want to bring up. For one thing, I am not a literalist, nor do I strain at each word. Principles are facts too. If the word of God says something like 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 19, 23, 27, 29 etc. I can glean from that the principle of prime numbers. You, however, wishing to strain at gnats will notice that 17 is missing and that 27 really isn't a prime number and therefore the whole thing is bullsh*t and there's no such thing as a prime number.

Doubtless you would like to attack my principles too, if only to convince yourself of my inferiority or the inferiority of my belief system.

[RainDog]

221. lol. no doubt. because it's all about you.

[hfojvt]

237. all? No, but some of it clearly is

"because when challenged, religious people resort to people putting fingers in their ears saying "I can't hear you..." Just as you are doing here.

... and that's why religion is comprised of so much bullshit."

Yep. Religion is bullsh*t because of people like me.

Where would I get the idea that was an attack on me? Probably just another irrational leap of faith.

[RainDog]

207. oh, and to add... we'd have to note that Jesus was an Essene

one of three sects of Judaism who thought the Sadducees and Pharisees were not true Jews. The Essenes were also vegetarian, so I suppose all Christians who are not vegetarians are heretics.

Vegetarianism was an important part of the Essene doctrine - along with their refusal to sacrifice animals - in fact, I'm pretty sure the Essenes thought the books of law in Jewish religion were false doctrine... so all those so-called Christians who use Leviticus to speak against homosexuals are also hostile toward Jesus' beliefs, since he did not support that doctrine. (This is also a reason why Jesus could say he was the fulfillment of the law because his religious sect did not accept it as part of the true covenant with god.)

The virgin birth, btw, was not something Paul ascribed to. He never stated Jesus was born without a human father. The term "virgin birth" is also disputed - and, frankly, it makes much more sense to understand this term as "young girl."

[hfojvt]

218. I might add

that I have read "Putting away childish things" and "Those incredible Christians" and "Bible Fictions" (I may not have the title right.)

[VOX]

201. If the sign's last sentence were dropped, there's no problem. With it, it's judgemental.

In a way, it's tantamount to something like:

"We Baptists love you. Even if you're not a Baptist, we still love you, although your immortal soul faces eternal damnation."
"The Church of Latter Day Saints welcomes you during this blessed season. And that includes you non-believers, too."
"Welcome to the Gentlemen's Club. Let it be known that we no longer exclude women, even though they're the physically weaker gender."

Breaking down the sign in question:

"At this season of the Winter Solstice may reason prevail." This is fine, it's all-inclusive.

"There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell. There is only our natural world." This is okay, it's an opinion, but not really a challenge. No harm, no foul.

"Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds." Now, you've just called out anyone who believes in a higher power and chooses to align themselves with an established church, temple or mosque. It's judgemental, it conveys a position of superiority, and it crosses a line.

[ismnotwasm]

208. Hmm

I don't like the sign. I don't like the ten commandments at publicly funded buildings either. I don't believe atheism is the same as religion--it shouldn't have to have this type of chanting quasi-dogma. (I speak as an agnostic/atheist)

That being said, I suppose I understand the reasons for this type of activism. It could have been worded more appropriately. I don't like church reader boards that tell me I'm going to hell either, but those are usually on church property, not at a State Capitol.

This kind of There-is-no-God-and-religion-sucks stuff accomplishes nothing but controversy, which no doubt was the intent.

[Zhade]

215. The truth usually does.

NT!

[leftofthedial]

219. if we had these displays at every courthouse in the country

instead of shrines celebrating destructive, divisive, anti-human, anti-Earth superstitions,

the world would be a much better place.

[Festivito]

236. This FFRF is a group of plain old LIARS.

That group claims they have a lack of belief in a god. They go to great and angry lengths to point that atheism is not saying that there is no god, just a lack of belief in a god. Yet, on this poster "there are no gods." They went to great lengths only to end up lying.

They complain about religious hypocrites and yet here they exemplify themselves as hypocrites for saying they're not saying one thing and then then writing that they do on a public poster. I thought they were foolish, then they opened their collective mouths on a poster and removed all doubt.

They say they want separation of church and state, so when they see another religion, they don't respect a wall of separation, they make it a wall of confrontation. They have no care or concern for what the Constitution actually says. They just want to yelp separation as though it came from the Constitution and then define it to mean them confronting others in rude fashion is what the founding fathers would just love.

Gentlepersons, have you no shame?

[Manifestor_of_Light]

241. Bullcrap.

The first amendment lets everyone speak their minds. Not only Christians, and not only what YOU think is acceptable speech.

Separation of church and state includes freedom from religion.


There is no such thing as a fundy atheist. :wtf:


If the Christians would stop calling the atheists devils, maybe then the atheists would not have to stand up for their beliefs. As it is in the United States now, churches are on every corner and all over the place. To find a group that is humanist or non-Christian such as Unitarian Universalist, you have to LOOK for them.


I refuse to believe in Christianity because I am FUCKING SICK AND TIRED of hearing about Jeebus and how wonderful he will make my life. It is not true for me. He has done nothing for me and I think he's a sky-daddy that people believe in because life is random and scary.

[Festivito]

244. You might be answering a different post? I hope you're okay.

Some things about your post though:
One person speaking his/her minds, plural, should seek help.

Free speech is a different topic and did not pertain here.

Separation should include non-believers.

There are people who are fundamentally atheist. Using fundy to equate the zeal of believers versus unbelievers might just be hyperbole. Depends on usage. I did not use it here.

To find any particular denomination one must look. The label of devil is derogatory. These so-called Christians should respect your religious choice even if they disagree with you.

You seem decided on the issue of Jesus. Sounds like you've had a bad experience, I imagine in a church so that it did, as you state, not work for you.

I wish you well.

[Ignis]

263. Nice snarky reply. Very Christian of you. (nt)

[tekisui]

249. There is no god.

And that statement has a right to be made. Show me god.

Everyday we are bombarded with god labels. 'In god we trust' one all the money. 'one nation under god'. The separation between church and state needs a WALL. And, it needs confrontation to build that wall.

[Festivito]

255. It would be nice if you addressed what I wrote.

On confrontation, I like the founding father's idea of offering freedoms, as opposed to your idea of offering confrontation, in order to build a wall of separation and leading to a more perfect union.

I think confrontation actually will erode that wall of separation, and I believe the freedoms will build it.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

259. What you wrote doesn't make any sense.

"That group claims they have a lack of belief in a god. They go to great and angry lengths to point that atheism is not saying that there is no god, just a lack of belief in a god. Yet, on this poster "there are no gods." They went to great lengths only to end up lying."

Atheists generally believe their is no God. Agnostics, generally, have a lack of belief in god or gods. If you've got evidence of the same person making contradictory statements, post it.

"They complain about religious hypocrites and yet here they exemplify themselves as hypocrites for saying they're not saying one thing and then then writing that they do on a public poster. I thought they were foolish, then they opened their collective mouths on a poster and removed all doubt."

What exactly in the poster makes them hypocrites or foolish.

"They say they want separation of church and state, so when they see another religion, they don't respect a wall of separation, they make it a wall of confrontation."

What have they done or what have they said indicates they don't respect the wall of seperation between church and state?

"They have no care or concern for what the Constitution actually says."

What's your evidence for this?

"They just want to yelp separation as though it came from the Constitution and then define it to mean them confronting others in rude fashion is what the founding fathers would just love."

"There is no god" is no more rude or confrontational then "there is a god."

"Gentlepersons, have you no shame?"

Have you got a problem with people who have beliefs that are different from your own?

[Manifestor_of_Light]

270. Bornagainhooligan, you are absolutely correct.

No logic in the message you are dissecting.

[Kajsa]

273. According to FFRF's homepage,

their membership is comprised of
atheists and agnostics, so Festivo
is correct.

http://www.ffrf.org/

It's interesting that you see respecting the wall of separation
between church and state as confrontational.

[tekisui]

260. Of course there is absolutely no hypocrisy or contradictions in

christianity, are there? :eyes:

[saltpoint]

245. Well now here we go.

There are no gods but the natural world, but for the gods people have worshipped profitably/prophetably and otherwise for some centuries.

There's a smorgasboard of gods and goddesses to pick from. Some like this god over here, some like that god over there, others like any ol' god that comes down the pike, some can't stomach any at all.

If this sign inspires some intelligent debate into the nature of belief, etc., well, okey doke. If all it does is piss people off, there won't be a debate at all.

I'd rather go for the debate in hopes that some percentage or other of participants might learn something. It's not clear that this sign and those words are aimed at that goal.

[saltpoint]

250. In part, I blame suburbs for some of our difficulties.

When more people lived in cities a proximity of varying beliefs and customs and backgrounds was standard and necessary and, because it encouraged respect for others' differences in essential things, virtuous.

There is a vibrant overlay of respect for differences when one lives just downstairs or upstairs or immediately down the street from people who inhabit those differences.

It is a plus, then, to raise kids to become the sort of kids and later grown-ups who can navigate a diverse landscape and come to think of this as an enormous blessing.

With the flight to the burbs after 1945 especially, a lot of that cultural navigation became endangered. Some of it is lost.

The Courthouse belongs to everybody. It's the people's place. It ought not to favor one tradition over another, or lend the visual impression that it favors one over others, anymore than it should favor citizens demographically by race or religion, etc.

I think I'd find much to agree with in the folks who run the organization who posted the sign, but I agree with others here that the wording in this sign was chosen for its provocative function. It asserts a position, which is fine, but it is pointedly judgmental.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

261. Christians are QUITE judgmental, thank you.

Why is it OK for Christians to tell me I'm a worthless POS due to "original sin" (which is a total scam), but it is NOT OK for atheists to be judgmental of religious people???


I have never gotten in anyone's face and told them to believe the way I do.

[saltpoint]

269. As for not liking the judgmental approach, I'm an equal opportunity

observer.

Point taken.

[DFW]

262. Some people must have a REALLY low opinion of their God.

Although most Christians traditionally call him the "almighty,"
some of them apparently think he's so feeble, he can't manage on
his own without a bunch of indignant, angry posts on blogs and
lots of help from fanatic State legislators. I know squirrels
who are more self-reliant than that.

Fortunately, there are also those who are quietly secure in their
religious faith, or lack of it, who have their beliefs, but feel no
compulsion to jam them in my (or anyone else's) face.

[Kajsa]

268. Hmmm---

Let's see how religion "hardened" his heart.



Reverend Martin Luther King Jr.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

275. Had they just kept the first sentence, I wouldn't have a problem with it.

Even those of us who have a religious belief could also use a little bit of reason.

The problem is the group behind this sign fell right into the same trap that certain atheists and fundamentalists do--it's not just about expressing their own belief, but ridiculing those who don't share in that belief. And that's just wrong any way you cut it.

Think about it for a second--had this been a Christian sign riduculing Jewish or Muslim beliefs (or a Jewish sign ridiculing Christian or Muslim beliefs, or a Muslim sign ridiculing Jewish and Christian beliefs) I think we all would have been rightfully incensed. And really, this sign is no different than that.