Illinois police protect atheist sign

[Elmore Furth]

Source: UPI

SPRINGFIELD, Ill., Dec. 24 (UPI) -- A conservative candidate for Illinois comptroller was ordered out of the state Capitol for trying to remove a sign placed by an atheist group, officials said.

William J. Kelly calls the sign, placed by the Freedom from Religion Foundation, "hate speech," saying it mocks the views of believers, CBS2Chicago.com reported. He announced Tuesday he was going to try to remove it and made his attempt Wednesday, only to be detained by police.

The foundation has placed similar signs in several state capitol buildings. It was on display in the Illinois Capitol last year

The group's message reads: "At the time of the winter solstice, let reason prevail. There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell. There is only our natural world. Religion is just myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds."

Read more: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2009/12/24/Illinois-police-protect-atheist-sign/UPI-14301261709429/

---

I'm all for free expression.

Merry Christmas, happy Solstice, happy Hanukkha, good Bodhi Day, happy Al Hijra, happy Santa Lucia Day, happy Kwanza!

Did I leave anyone out?

[Love Bug]

1. The candidate for comptroller was wrong

But I think the group's sign was deliberately provocative. Why didn't they stop after the first sentence? Tell us what you are for, not what you are against. My mother always said you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. Insulting people by calling them "superstitious" isn't going to help this group's cause, frankly, and just turns people off. Ask any marketing executive. But, they do have the right to express themselves however they see fit.

Let reason prevail, because we certainly need more of it.

[onehandle]

3. Exactly right. After the first sentence it was an attack.

The exact wording has been hoisted up in several states.

Believe. Don't believe. I'm fine with both.

What that sign was about was intolerance.

[Trajan]

7. Nonsense ....

An 'attack' ? ....

What kind of attack was it ? ....

Seems like an opinion to me .....

Attack ... Hah .....

Someone doesnt agree with you, and them saying it is makes it an attack ?

Free speech ? ... Who needs it .....

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

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

[Usrename]

63. It is a very biased attack, actually, and factually inaccurate.

"There is only our natural world. Religion is just myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds."

In the common understanding, the term "natural world" is used to identify those things which have not been substantially altered by human intervention, things that are not man-made. The natural world is NOT all that there is. That is just plain wrong, period.

The attack continues with the statement that religion has no other purpose than to harden hearts and enslave minds, which is another blatant inaccuracy. There are at least several religions that are dedicated to opening minds and an softening hearts.

Of course this is an attack on religion, it certainly isn't a endorsement.

My opinion is that it is a pretty mindless attack.

[Marthian]

65. Pray tell,

where the sign says that "religions only purpose is to..." You see what you want to see and your reading and quoting show you didn't understand the sign. And by the way, the natural world includes all human cultural and technological achievements. You argue falsely. It is patently evident that religions do harden some hearts and enslave many minds. You are just insulted because some cherished belief is being taken to account.

[Usrename]

73. Help me out here.

Do you think the sign says something different? What do you think it says? Does it give some other purpose for religion, some purpose that I omitted in my comment?

???

What exactly would be excluded in your definition of the natural world? If you are going to redefine "natural world" to include "everything that exists", then yeah, I guess the sign would be accurate in that sense. It would then be saying that all that exists is "everything that exists" which is pretty stupid, IMHO.

Again, ???

You probably are not aware of the straw-man argument that you created. It is patently obvious that many religions do harden some hearts and enslave many minds, and I never stated anything to the contrary. What I stated was the patently obvious countervailing fact that there are many religions that have the opposite effect. I focused on this particular fact because it is what puts the lie to the original statement that was made on the sign.

[kristopher]

101. Natural world is what we can physically perceive with our senses.

Religion, as an institution, is specifically a means of mind control based on fictions.

"At the time of the winter solstice, let reason prevail. There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell. There is only our natural world. Religion is just myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds."

[Usrename]

207. So, let me see if I have this figured out.

The "natural world" that you are describing is merely the physical world. Ideas like philosophy or law have no real existance in this natural world.

Does that correctly express this view, or is it ONLY religion that fails this test of existance in the natural world?

[kristopher]

223. No, you don't have it right.

"religion" is a recognizable part of the natural world. We can see and predict the effect of religious belief on the behavior of a person. Similarly we can see the effect of education in the natural science on a person. The difference is one of the accuracy of the learned structure as a representation of the world surrounding us.
In the case of religion the foundations are not related to verifiable observations of reality. It has no more substance than if you were to found a worldview on a chance pattern in clouds. In both cases there is nothing more at work than an overactive and faulty pattern recognition capability of the mind. If you were to guide your life on a series of rantings from people who see "gods" in the shape of clouds you'd eventually develop something with as much validity (in relation to actual events in the world) as any theistic religion.

[Usrename]

232. I am having trouble following you.

I don't think I can do these mental gymnastics. The claim on the sign was that only the natural world exists, and religion is just a pantload. You seem to be disputing that statement, which is fine, but that sort of undercuts the whole point of the discussion, the discussion where others were actually agreeing with what the sign says.

Also, I am not sure that your claim that religious foundations are not related to observations of reality is consistent with your claim that we can see and predict the effect of religious beliefs. This sounds like doublethink must be involved somehow, in some way that is eluding me.

In any event, I would venture a guess that religion does have many observable effects related to having faith. The martial arts is one area that comes to mind where observable effects on the physical world could be repeatably attributed to one's belief or religion or faith. Granted, these same effects could probably be achieved through a completely different education based entirely on science or math, at least that would be my guess, but that wouldn't prove that faith is somehow irrelevant.

[kristopher]

246. Then you lack basic reasoning skills.

My words have none of the ambiguity you attempt tp impart to them.

"religion" is a recognizable part of the natural world.

We can see and predict the effect of religious belief on the behavior of a person.

Similarly we can see the effect of education in the natural science on a person.

The difference is one of the accuracy of the learned structure as a representation of the world surrounding us.

In the case of religion the foundations are not related to verifiable observations of reality.

It has no more substance than if you were to found a worldview on a chance pattern in clouds.

In both cases there is nothing more at work than an overactive and faulty pattern recognition capability of the mind.

If you were to guide your life on a series of rantings from people who see "gods" in the shape of clouds you'd eventually develop something with as much validity (in relation to actual events in the world) as any theistic religion.

[Usrename]

247. You are quite wrong about the skills that I posess.

How do you reconcile these two contradictory statements?

"We can see and predict the effect of religious belief on the behavior of a person" and "In the case of religion the foundations are not related to verifiable observations of reality."


It seems to me that you have not thought this through. If we can predict the effects of religious beliefs then we must be able to observe those same effects.

Which is it? Can we actually observe these effects or not? I don't understand how you can argue it both ways.

[kristopher]

260. The beliefs themselves are observable phenomena

You write what you do because of what you believe - that is observable behavior.

An invisible buddy in the sky that tells you how to behave?
Not so much.

As I said, you lack basic reasoning skills.

[Usrename]

264. Now I see where you are coming from.

You just don't comprehend language all that well. Not all religious beliefs involve some invisible buddy in the sky. Your poor ability to differentiate between the meanings of words is what gives rise to your ability to engage in doublethink. I have been sort of studying this ability, and this does seem to fit a definite pattern.

[kristopher]

272. So much for those 4.0s in linguistics, I suppose.

After all, what did those damned professors know?
Intro to Linguistics
Applied Linguistics
Linguistic Anthropology

So let's review:

I wrote:
*Post 101: Natural world is what we can physically perceive with our senses. Religion, as an institution, is specifically a means of mind control based on fictions.



*You reply in post 207" So, let me see if I have this figured out.

The "natural world" that you are describing is merely the physical world. Ideas like philosophy or law have no real existance in this natural world.

Does that correctly express this view, or is it ONLY religion that fails this test of existance in the natural world?
indecision is the main cause of delay



I respond to 207 in 223: No, you don't have it right.
"religion" is a recognizable part of the natural world. We can see and predict the effect of religious belief on the behavior of a person. Similarly we can see the effect of education in the natural science on a person. The difference is one of the accuracy of the learned structure as a representation of the world surrounding us.
In the case of religion the foundations are not related to verifiable observations of reality. It has no more substance than if you were to found a worldview on a chance pattern in clouds. In both cases there is nothing more at work than an overactive and faulty pattern recognition capability of the mind. If you were to guide your life on a series of rantings from people who see "gods" in the shape of clouds you'd eventually develop something with as much validity (in relation to actual events in the world) as any theistic religion.



You respond to 223 in 232: I am having trouble following you.
I don't think I can do these mental gymnastics. The claim on the sign was that only the natural world exists, and religion is just a pantload. You seem to be disputing that statement, which is fine, but that sort of undercuts the whole point of the discussion, the discussion where others were actually agreeing with what the sign says.

Also, I am not sure that your claim that religious foundations are not related to observations of reality is consistent with your claim that we can see and predict the effect of religious beliefs. This sounds like doublethink must be involved somehow, in some way that is eluding me.

In any event, I would venture a guess that religion does have many observable effects related to having faith. The martial arts is one area that comes to mind where observable effects on the physical world could be repeatably attributed to one's belief or religion or faith. Granted, these same effects could probably be achieved through a completely different education based entirely on science or math, at least that would be my guess, but that wouldn't prove that faith is somehow irrelevant.



*I respond to 232 in 246: Then you lack basic reasoning skills.
My words have none of the ambiguity you attempt tp impart to them.
"religion" is a recognizable part of the natural world.

We can see and predict the effect of religious belief on the behavior of a person.

Similarly we can see the effect of education in the natural science on a person.

The difference is one of the accuracy of the learned structure as a representation of the world surrounding us.

In the case of religion the foundations are not related to verifiable observations of reality.

It has no more substance than if you were to found a worldview on a chance pattern in clouds.

In both cases there is nothing more at work than an overactive and faulty pattern recognition capability of the mind.

If you were to guide your life on a series of rantings from people who see "gods" in the shape of clouds you'd eventually develop something with as much validity (in relation to actual events in the world) as any theistic religion.



*You respond to 246 in 247: You are quite wrong about the skills that I posess.(sic)

How do you reconcile these two contradictory statements?

"We can see and predict the effect of religious belief on the behavior of a person" and "In the case of religion the foundations are not related to verifiable observations of reality."


It seems to me that you have not thought this through. If we can predict the effects of religious beliefs then we must be able to observe those same effects.

Which is it? Can we actually observe these effects or not? I don't understand how you can argue it both ways.



*I respond to 247 in 260: The beliefs themselves are observable phenomena
You write what you do because of what you believe - that is observable behavior.

An invisible buddy in the sky that tells you how to behave?
Not so much.

As I said, you lack basic reasoning skills.



*You respond to 260 in 264: Now I see where you are coming from.
You just don't comprehend language all that well. Not all religious beliefs involve some invisible buddy in the sky. Your poor ability to differentiate between the meanings of words is what gives rise to your ability to engage in doublethink. I have been sort of studying this ability, and this does seem to fit a definite pattern.

The only person attempting "doublethink" is you, my confused, poorly reasoning friend.

[Usrename]

274. Doublethink.

I am trying to make a fair study of this stuff. For some time I have been very concerned about people's ability to redefine words, pretty much at will.

Fine, let us use YOUR definition of religion, the one you highlighted, and let's try and use it consistently here.




"Religion, as an institution, is specifically a means of mind control based on fictions."



We can see and predict the effect of religious belief mind control based on fictions on the behavior of a person.

In the case of religion mind control based on fictions the foundations are not related to verifiable observations of reality.


If you can reconcile these two contradictory statements, then do so. I think what you have done is to morph your definition of religion into one meaning in order to make the first statement comport with your world view, while at the same time you morph it into another completely different definition in order to make the second statement comport with your world view. This inconsistency is really what doublethink is all about.

As another example, a most common one, people may hate the federal government while loving the United States of America, never realizing that in one sense the two are EXACTLY synonomous. The United States of America is the official name of our federal government. Only by some trickery, some way of repositioning one's thinking, can this kind of doublethink be accomplished.

When the prophet George Orwell defined the term it seems he had already made a considerable study of this ability. I think he attributed it to lazy thinking or some such, but I am leaning towards some kind of built-in filing system in our pattern regognition ability. Our minds seem to have many multiple paths for accessing the same information, and perhaps that has something to do with it.

[kristopher]

280. Are you for real?

You talk about people redefining at will and then you proceed to do just that to my words.


Religion as an institution is just that - a cultural institution. I further assert that these institutions prey on human fears and ignorance with techniques of indoctrination. This is done for the express purpose of controlling the minds of people to further the political and economic goals of various ruling elites.

Religious beliefs are those beliefs held by individuals related to supernatural explanations of the world around them. They may or may not be part of an institutional religion.

/Religion as an institution/ is not synonymous with /religious belief/.

Therefore your substitution is nuts as is your entire line of discussion.

To expand the theme of how nuts your thinking is, let me address the obvious answer to your observation of "trickery" being behind a view that the United States and the Federal Government are not synonymous.

The United States is among other things, a land mass, a conglomeration of people with a national identity, an persistent ideal, AND/OR an institutionalized governmental entity.

None of those are contradictory, they are instead different perceptions related to the same object - the United States. What is WRONG with the argument in your example is that YOU are imposing restrictions based solely on YOUR lack of understanding without considering that YOU are simply not parsing the expressions properly.


You've attempted to impose similar bizarre restrictions on my words. In the example you've selected I've in one case defined religion by its broad sociological goal or purpose (a means of mind control based on fiction); in the instance you attempt to substitute this usage I am EXPANDING the /fiction/ portion of that definition in order to CONTRAST it with the effects of science based learning.

As I'm sure one with your background of study knows, a standard method of defining words and expressions in detail is to COMPARE AND CONTRAST them with similar words and expressions in order to flesh out the nuances inherent to all human communications.

I again suggest that your reasoning skills are lacking.

[Usrename]

302. You are correct about the use of the term United States.

Nothing that I said contradicts this.

Your argument about religion, the one you are making, shares some similar qualities to the one you make about the United States. That is all that I am saying. You can claim that religion has a purpose (albeit a malicious one) and also that religion has real observable effects on people and yet somehow you can convince yourself that the underlying foundations of religion cannot be not part of the real world. This is what I am talking about.

I suspect that this has something to do with your "invisible buddy in the sky" approach to ridiculing the whole idea of faith. Of course, while this sort of ridicule might be appropriate when directed at the Judeo-Christian faiths, it could be wholly inappropriate when applied to other non-Abrahamic religions. I don't know, it's difficult to tell because your argument seems to be inconsistent, either constantly changing or self-contradictory but in any event very difficult to follow and requiring all sorts of mental and linguistic gymnastics in order to try and make sense of it. That's all I'm saying. You keep asserting different perceptions of the same object (all of which may be individually legitimate and non-contradictory) in order to string them together in a fashion that is nonsensical.

[kristopher]

310. feel free to provide a specific example of a religious institution ...

that is founded on empirical observations of nature.

The closest you'll come is the philosophical slant associated with Buddhism, and that too is inextricably aligned with extremety large doses of mysticism.

Your entire line of thinking is self serving balderdash.

[Usrename]

311. That's pure bullshit.

Pastafarianism is the single example of what I think you are defining as religion, and that's just complete bullshit.

All organized religions are founded on empirical observations of nature, the most basic observation being that life exists, and most religions amount to more than just a way thinking, they amount to a way of living one's life, sometimes through ritual, in a manner that allows one to be truly happy and more in touch with the truth that is all around us.

Or not.

See, you really are playing games with yourself, redefining words to mean things that they don't really mean, in order to comport with your world view. I like MY definition of religion better than YOUR definition because MINE is more accurate and at least it is consistant with itself.

[kristopher]

312. No, you are a "believer" that can't accept facts that contradict your worldview.

And your drive to attack those presenting such fact is fueld by an inner doubt and subconscious recognition of the absurdity of your beliefs. This creates a state of cognitive dissonance that you are compelled to try and reconcile.

[Usrename]

321. You don't know jack shit about me, or what I believe.

Now you are just making more shit up.

I am quite sure that what you are going through has nothing to do with me, or anything that I believe.

I would ask you to give just one tiny little example to indicate how you conclude that my beliefs have been examined or challenged or in any way become a part of this discussion.


You are just making more shit up, that's all.


The ONLY belief that I have expressed here is my (now very confident) belief that your arguments are flawed and self-contradictory and, for the most part, bogus because of that fact.

[kristopher]

326. Your arguments and reasoning are self serving bullshit.

You exhibit no knowledge that would mark you as a true student in the use of language, instead you've put forth a bunch of self serving arguments that are (as I've demonstrated) totally lacking in substance. You persist in pressing those false arguments well beyond the point of reasonable discourse.

You don't need to explicitly state your beliefs for them to be openly revealed in your writings. The FACT that you attempt to deny this obvious truth goes straight to the point of how you are motivated by personal inner turmoil.

[Usrename]

342. Yes, I see.

Failing to find any specific example of anywhere that I have expressed any belief, you continue with your fabrications.


Also, it is interesting that you don't find any particular argument to make about my study of doublethink, and instead you launch a new ad hominem about me not being a "true student" or some such horseshit.


Well played. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection">Projection is considered one of the most profound and subtle of human psychological processes, and extremely difficult to work with, because by its nature it is hidden. It is the fundamental mechanism by which we keep ourselves uninformed about ourselves. Humor has great value in any attempt to work with projection, because humor presents a forgiving posture and thereby removes the threatening nature of any inquiry into the truth. But I would imagine you don't find this to be all that funny.

[kristopher]

343. Your "study of doublethink"?

Perhaps you could share some of the foundations on which your "study" is built?

So far, the only functionality associated with your use of the term is to wave it around as a magic wand that you believe invalidates anything you can't honestly refute. The record on this thread, if it were subjected to an impartial qualitative analysis via techniques such as discourse or similar textual analysis, can provide any trained observer with a wealth of insight into your beliefs.

Your entire approach is a passive-aggressive attack that conveys nothing of substance that is open to direct refutation, yet is designed to negate (in your mind) the validity of the remarks you find offend your sensibilities.

Have you ever wondered why you've settled on the concept of "doublethink" as a cure-all accusation that you hurl at repugnant ideas?

While Orwell had it as the core of his view of a fractured world, in reality the ability to hold conflicting views/beliefs/values simultaneously is a universal human trait that has important functional roles. What makes your use of it so interesting is that it is a concept that is the antithesis of the cognitive dissonance you are attempting to ease by using the term as a bludgeon instead of a useful mental construct.

Think about it - you are "studying" my use of words yet you reject argumentatively my explanation of the meaning of my own words. If you WERE actually studying I'd be what is termed as an "informant" and MY usage and MY intent would be something you'd never argue with. Instead, you'd view my clarifications as important data to be recorded for detailed qualitative analysis.

Religion sucks.

[panzerfaust]

304. Yes. Natural, as in not Supernatural (not as in not artifactual)

The last sentence "Religion is just myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds." does not read well, and comes across as quite intolerant of religion.

The way it is worded, the "just" seems to carry across to "hardens hearts and enslaves minds", when it seems likely that "just" was meant to apply only to "myth and superstition".

Whilst certain I am that the authors are not fond of religion, I doubt they intended to assert that religion only "hardens hearts and enslaves minds," it is beyond argument that it can, and often does - but there is no viable argument that that is all that religion does.

The first part I have no problem with, and if the last sentence were changed to something like "Religion is but myth and superstition, and can harden hearts and enslave minds" I think it would make what is trying to be expressed more clear, and less overwhelmingly negative.

Personally, I would leave out the last sentence altogether and leave it at:

At the time of the winter solstice, let reason prevail.
There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell.
There is only our natural world.


Or, more positively, add something like:

At the time of the winter solstice, let reason prevail.
There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell.
There is only our natural world, which we must cherish.


... or perish.
Peace To All in the New Year


Looking at this: Do you really think it important that you don't eat shrimp?

[Usrename]

323. You have cut right to the heart of the matter.

:toast:

[humblebum]

208. It could just as easily be said that atheism

"is just myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds." History shows that a very similar atheistic campaign took place in the early 20th century with similar advertising and rallying and the result was that millions died. So, atheism can have the same effect. Atheists are certainly no more rational nor logical. Most simply use a different epistemology to arrive at their particular conclusions. Most are positivists. Positivism only recognizes the empirical, and absolutely eliminates any consideration of a supernatural or metaphysical existence. Therefore, atheism is a very narrowly focused viewpoint that is rational only within its narrow perspective.

[DavidDvorkin]

243. Oh, bullshit.

[smoogatz]

268. Hitler was arguably a Christian.

So I guess you're saying Christianity was responsible for the Holocaust, right? As for the rest: show me the evidence that supports your belief in the supernatural.

[Usrename]

271. Hitler makes an appearance, right about on schedule.

http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,594882,00.jpg

http://www.spiegel.de/fotostrecke/fotostrecke-12941.html

http://www.nsm88.org/articles/religion_church_nazi.html

[smoogatz]

278. I was responding to the previous poster's apparent reference to Stalin.

My point being that twisting the basic idea set of atheism OR the precepts of religion to fit one or another murderous ideology doesn't invalidate those ideas/precepts. It's like blaming Darwin for the Holocaust, or for eugenics. The fact that his ideas were perverted and misrepresented in order to justify various acts of genocide is no reflection on his ideas, and to suggest otherwise is to indulge in a childish and transparent fallacy.

[humblebum]

287. I was referring to the tactics of groups the 'League of Militant Atheists'

and 'Society of the Godless'. Who is "twisting" anything? Facts are facts.

[smoogatz]

309. Stalin used atheism as a political tool, the same way Hitler used

religiosity. In Stalin's case you'd have to look at the history of church/state politics--the Russian orthodox church really was an ally and agent of the Czars, and Stalin intended to demolish everything connected with the old aristocracy. He also wanted the Church's property and wealth, which was considerable. Atheism is simply non-belief in god(s). Anything else people attach to it usually has nothing to do with that simple idea.

[humblebum]

313. Atheism existed in Russia long before Stalin or Communism.

Stalin certainly didn't introduce it and it didn't die out after Stalin. "Scientific Atheism" was the name given to the official state atheism.

[smoogatz]

316. So?

[humblebum]

317. When you said that Stalin used atheism as a political tool -

while that is certainly true, it wasn't merely Stalin. By the time of Stalin, atheism was deeply inculcated in the society. Lenin used it, Kruschev used it, as well as Hoxha, Ceausescu, Mao, etc.

[Zhade]

318. And many, like Hitler, used religion to further their goals.

What's your point? Atheism didn't kill Stalin's victims. Stalin did.

[humblebum]

319. You seem to be hung up on Stalin.

Many, many were killed because they were not atheists.

[smoogatz]

320. Right--but that has nothing to do with atheism's merits

as an intellectual construct. The fact that people have used it for political purposes doesn't invalidate it, any more than the sentimental religiosity of the Nazis invalidates Christianity. Atheism wasn't the problem in the USSR, or Maoist China, or wherever--the problem was totalitarianism.

[humblebum]

322. Actually it had much to do with "atheism's merits"-

Communist totalitarianism was the vehicle by which atheism was allowed to spread unopposed. Religion was clearly set in opposition to that totalitarianism. Atheist organizations were not.

[smoogatz]

324. You have an inverted view of history, seems to me.

The Marxist/Leninist/Stalinist point of view, rightly enough, was that religion was a tool employed by the Czars to enslave the people: keep the serfs ignorant and frightened, promise them pie in the sky, convince them that their poverty (and your privilege) is the will of God, and they're easier to exploit--not to mention less likely to revolt. The fact that Lenin/Stalin tried to enforce atheism as a kind of state non-religion was ultimately a political decision, and had more to do with wiping out the last vestiges of the old aristocracy and taking control of church property/assets than freeing the minds of the proletariat. Probably we just disagree about this, though, so this is my last post on the subject.

[humblebum]

325. I think your ideas are partially true. Atheist organizations developed

their own doctrines and methods based on ideals drawn from sources that included a range of orgs. and individuals such as Russell, The Paris Commune, and the Vienna Circle. Not too much different than atheist organizations today.

[fascisthunter]

336. no... actually it can't... it's based purely on what is observable

atheists really do have a more accurate and honest view of the World. Some see this as cold and removed from all that is good in the World. That is a falacy... I am very happy being an atheist and feel free to use my mind independent from what I considered absurd, the religion I was born into.

What some atheists, me being one do sometimes, is doubt the existence of what isn't there to observe, but that in itself, isn't all based on belief. That is actually what keeps us curious as we seek answers that are concrete and explainable. When things cannot be explained, we understand that humans don't know everything and that over time things are proven and dis proven. What atheists don't do, is assume because there are no answer or proof that it must be because of a god or its opposite, a devil.

It is based upon what is and what isn't observable. And there is a really good reason for this... God has never been identified, nor has any miracle been documented and proven as an act of god, as in the spirit and not nature itself. Also, religion has been around since the beginning, and those religions are now myth.

[humblebum]

340. I said that it was based on the observable when I referenced

empiricism and positivism.

[sendero]

349. Religions..

.. in and of themselves do neither (harden hearts etc) - they merely provide a cover for those who already have those attributes to claim they are actually virtues.

[Cronus Protagonist]

142. +10

Clearly, some here have hardened hearts and limited comprehension.

[dysfunctional press]

70. "My opinion is that it is a pretty mindless attack."

which seems appropriate when you consider the target of the 'attack'. :P

[Usrename]

75. Well, that's another thing that sort of bothers me.

Who IS the target of the attack?

I guess the target is anyone who doesn't belong to the particular cult that made up the sign.

on edit> syntax

[dysfunctional press]

88. probably only those who perceive it as an 'attack' in the first place.

:shrug:

[rd_kent]

115. "cult" huh? What cult would that be? The only cults are the ones that have an ideology requiring

you to blindly believe what the cult leaders tell you to believe. Where can we find that, huh? Oh, look, its called religion......

[GoneOffShore]

149. You mean the non stamp collecting people?

How is atheism a "cult"?

[Usrename]

202. What does atheism have to do with the discussion?

This discussion is about anti-religious dogma, not atheism.

My understanding is that atheism is an absense of belief in dieties or a rejection of theism. I think that there are a multitude of religions that have no basis in theism.

On edit> It seems that several fundamental ideas are being conflated in this discussion.

“Love is of all passions the strongest, for it attacks simultaneously the head, the heart and the senses.” - Lao Tzu

[PatrynXX]

194. I'd say the target would be the Coexist sign

http://www.carryabigsticker.com/coexist.htm


that would be the prevailing target. They are targeting every religion. They are the anti coexist people. I'm Christian, yet I respect (kinda have to. they were in the country first) Native American religions.

The sign though is mindless because how many religions do we have? LOTR religions Potter religions, Miley Cyrus religions, beagle religions (thats me) Star Wars Religions and for sure Star Trekkie religions.

About as stupid as the ALF (animal liberation front) doing what they did to some mink years ago. Fly be free.. across a heavily traveled road. Well that kinda killed them fast. o_O

[Usrename]

205. That sounds about right. to me.

If you were to color me in with those coexist folks then I would probably feel like I was being attacked.

[localroger]

85. Natural World

Not to get into the whole argument here, but this is an interesting example of talking past one another. The sign is clearly written from the standpoint of what the late Robert Anton Wilson would have called a "Fundamentalist Materialist," and in that worldview the "natural world" includes humans and human creations -- it particular, it denies that there is anything special about humans compared to other animals, or things we create as opposed to other physical objects. The idea that humans are not part of the "natural world" is much more religious, assuming that humans are somehow special and our actions somehow either wicked or exalted in special measure compared to mere natural things.

[Usrename]

211. I'm still not following.

I don't think there is anything exceptional about humans or the things they make, other than the fact, and it is a fact, that humans and the things that we make can be discriminated (separated out) from all of the other things that exist. This ability to separate the two things (man-made objects from natural objects) in a non-arbitrary fashion is what gives rise to the terminology. At least that is my view.

It seems to me as if there are some mental gymnastics (which I admittedly may not be capable of) involved in coming up with any alternative interpretation of the term natural world. In any event, you failed to answer my question which is: "Under Robert Anton Wilson's view of the natural world, what would be explicitly excluded from being part of the natural world?" If religious beliefs are the only thing that warrants this exclusion then that would tend to make me even more skeptical.

[Chef Eric]

92. We are ALLOWED to attack religion, at least verbally. It's called freedom of speech. nt

[DWilliamsamh]

200. At the very least it is uncivil to attack the vast majority,

...whether or not you agree with them.

[panzerfaust]

306. "...uncivil to attack the vast majority", Neo-Nazis agree with you (NSM 24th Point ...

We demand absolute religious freedom for all denominations in the State, provided they do not threaten its existence nor offend the moral feelings of the White race. The Party combats the Jewish-materialistic spirit within and without us, and is convinced that our nation can achieve permanent health only from within on the basis of the principle: The common good before self-interest.

http://www.nsm88.org/25points/25pointsengl.html



Sorry. Did not realize that as long as the "vast majority" believe something it cannot be attacked unless one wishes to be uncivil - gee when I was a kid ... the vast majority believed than women should not work outside the home, and that, if they did, they should be paid less than men, that blacks were clearly inferior, that Jews should not be allowed in most clubs (and many public accommodations), that if a father beat his children and wife, well - that was a private matter...

Fortunately, a lot of people were willing to be uncivil, and we are moving (or at least we were moving until 2000) to a more just society.

"The majority is always wrong; the minority is rarely right."
Ibsen

[mike_c]

109. recognizing that god is a myth is no more an attack than recognizing...

...that the tooth fairy is a myth. It's just an observation.

[DWilliamsamh]

201. Actually asserting positively that "god is a myth" is no more reasonable

Than asserting positively that "God Exists." Neither statement can be proved conclusively. Anyone who asserts differently is at the very least suffering from hubris.

[Usrename]

217. at the very least suffering from hubris...

or perhaps a debilitating case of doublethink

[DWilliamsamh]

229. O................. ............K........... ............... (n/t)

[Usrename]

233. I think I was agreeing with you.

:hi:

[DWilliamsamh]

235. Sorry if I was being dense....

But I thought so and wasn't sure, hence my waffling noncommittal answer.

:toast: :argh:

[alfredo]

236. We can't prove the existence of Zeus, so stories of him are seen as myths.

If we had proof positive that Zeus existed, then stories of him would be seen as history.

[Odin2005]

114. "Natural World" is being used to mean "physical reality"

As opposed to the "supernatural" realms posited by Religionists.

[Usrename]

220. Actually, that makes a lot of sense.

It seems like a tragic use of the language, but I think you are right, that is what they are really talking about, what they are trying to express.

Of course, how one views the "supernatural" is probably fundamental to how one views religion, and that wasn't really all that clear to me in the original text of the sign. My personal view on the supernatural is more philosophical than religious, which I guess would put me into a monism camp. I think religion has much more to do with faith than it has to do with the supernatural.

[Odin2005]

234. IMO the notion of the "supernatural" makes no philosophical sense, anyway.

The notion of a split reality that so conveniently fits perfectly between the distinction our brains make between "folk physics" (intuitive understanding of our physical environment) and "folk psychology" (intuitive understanding of out socio-cultural environment), strikes me as very suspicious to say the least. I guess my Asperger's Syndrome may play a part in that too because of my deficits in "folk psychology".

A recent book I've read called the Imprinted Brain: How genes set the balance between Autism and Psychosis made a similar hypothesis. Autism involves strong "folk physics" and weak "folk psychology", while according to the author psychotic disorders like Schizophrenia involve the opposite. Which would very much explain why the notion of a personal god never made sense to me (and I am always baffled when people treat a malfunctioning device as if it has evil intentions :rofl: ).

[Usrename]

237. It's not that complicated.

Any attempt to try and differentiate between the natural and supernatural is going to be a completely arbitrary exercise, something which by definition cannot be accomplished using the scientific method. In the immortal words of Rummy:

"... because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns -- the ones we don't know we don't know."

[Odin2005]

239. AHHHH! Not that evil Rummy quote! MY EYES!!!

[Usrename]

240. You've been blinded by the light.

No wonder you have a hard time keeping up.

:rofl:

[sam sarrha]

128. their religion attacks me as an unbeliever that will be condemned to burn in hell forever, screw em.

[defendandprotect]

148. Based on the history of organized patriarchal religion it has "hardened hearts and

ensalved minds" ---

Religion is a personal belief system; it has no basis in any reality.

Something which isn't an "endorsement" is not necessarily therefore an "attack"!!

Why not pull out a few Bible quotes for us to examine --???

How something on women or homosexuals?

Or demands to murder people?

[DWilliamsamh]

203. You threw a LOT of qualifiers in there...that the sign did not.

The sign lumped ALL religions into the same bucket with out even attempting as you so lamely have to narrow it down to a particular religion or type of religion. Your rationalizations of the nastiness of the original text are weak.

[defendandprotect]

216. Specifically I cited "organized patriarchal religion" and "religion" in general . . .

so I don't agree that there were "qualifiers" - -

they are simple declarative sentences.

Obviously when you talk about a "god" you are talking about those who hold the

concept of a 'ONE MALE GOD' -- that's fairly general -- and there would be no

necessity, nor desire, to "narrow it down" . . . !!!

That's the story from the highest perspective -- 'ONE ALL MALE GOD' --

All belief in a god above, or a devil below -- heaven or hell -- is included.


Your rationalizations of the nastiness of the original text are weak.

What original text?

[Usrename]

222. The original text used in the sign, the sign that this thread is about.

Wow!

You responded to a post I made, post #63, where I actually quoted the original text.

Here it is again:

"There is only our natural world. Religion is just myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds."

As DWilliamsamh implied, your whole Bible argument is a straw-man, whether you are aware of it or not. The sign said NOTHING about any particular religion or specific doctrine or text. It attacks ALL religions, whether intentionally or unintentionally.

[defendandprotect]

227. I've discussed what the sign says . . .

Male-supremacist religion in its war on nature and women and other humans

according to various myths of "inferiority" has overall "hardened hearts and

enslaved minds."

There's no question about that from the killing of the original Christians, to

their murderous Crusades, to today's "pro-life" murderers of women's doctors!

Not to mention, destroyed the planet -- i.e., "Manifest Destiny" and "Man's

Dominion Over Nature" --!!!


And EXACTLY as I said . . . the billboard and I are both referring to ALL religion.

All religion is myth and superstition --

Why you would think that the billboard would or should be discussing one religion

rather than all is basic to your confusion.


But, congratulations on finding a distraction from the core argument -- i.e.,

compared with the historical violence and aggression of organized patriarchal religion,

it would be the height of hypocrisy to suggest this is anything but the most gentle

of approaches to pointing to the need for basic questioning and challenging of religion.


IMAGINE . . .





:eyes:

[Usrename]

238. holy moley

What did the moonies do to you, anyhow?

[defendandprotect]

252. Another good distraction . . .

keep at it and you might side-step your way out of the entire thread!!

The discussion is male-supremacist religion -- organized patriarchal religion --

Christianity --

How far do you need to run from real discussion of those issues?

[DWilliamsamh]

231. Yes they are declaratives that the original sign does NOT use.....

You use them to defend the original nastiness, that the authors of the sign in question, used to lump ALL religions and faith traditions of every sort into the same category. My original point stands, and your justifications of such generalized nastiness is till just as weak.

And you make assumptions that others may not: "Obviously when you talk about a "god" you are talking about those who hold the

concept of a 'ONE MALE GOD' -- that's fairly general...." Yes it is fairly general and fairly unfair and inaccurate. Again: weak.

[defendandprotect]

253. The sign refers to ALL religion . . . so do I --

All belief in a god above, or a devil below -- heaven or hell -- is included.



ONCE AGAIN -- YES !!! THE SIGN IS DISCUSSING ALL RELIGION -- SO AM I -- got it now?


And, the hypocrisy in trying to turn this very gentle approach to questioning and

challenging religion requires the ignoring of thousands of years of violence by religion.

When you get over your various confusions, come back and debate.

[DWilliamsamh]

256. Back to my earlier point....

Now that you state blandly that you support the attack inherent in the sign: Attack just leads to counter-attack, etc etc ad infinitum.. Period. That is ALWAYS the result of attack. So you feel attacked by religious dogma? So do I. I resent the influence of religion (any religion) on civil law. I could real off the laws I think are BS based on the Judeo-Christian code of morality.

Where we differ is what to do about it. I believe in working to have the laws stripped of anything but protections against having my safety, health, body, and property violated. Beyond that, no "morality" laws affecting consenting adults or personal adult behavior need exist as far as I am concerned. My tactic is to work against those laws. Attacking religious people will NOT purge the influence of religion on civil/secular society. That was my point.

And again you "eye for an eye" attitude is not only ineffective in the long run, but ironic as it is buried DEEP within religious dogma, and speaks to the darkest parts of humanity.

[defendandprotect]

261. There is no "attack" in the billboard . . .

there is, however, a lot of hypocrisy being expressed here by those who

support male-supremacist religion.

I do, however, support the basis of the billboard which encourages those who

question organized religion and its violence to continue to do so --

Who could fail to agree that "violence breeds violence" -- ??

It's exactly what I have been bringing to your attention in regard to religion in

most of this thread! Our Founders well understood organized religion and its threat

and danger to democracy and equality for all. They had seen the soil of Europe soaked

with blood by religious Crusades. That's why they gave us separtion of Church & State --

not separation of State and billboards.

You've ventured into discussions of organized religion's obsession with controlling normal

human sexuality -- and I agree. This website is dedicated to protecting reproductive freedom

and human rights for homosexuals, including gay marriage.

This billboard, however, is an issue of protected speech --

We all have the right to question and challenge religion --

that's all the billboard is doing.

And this comment points up more confusion on your part . . .

Attacking religious people will NOT purge the influence of religion on civil/secular society. That was my point.

Any challenge and questioning of organized religion is of religious hierarchy -- church

authority. The people of the church do not set policy. On the other hand, I would readily

question why anyone would support organized male-supremacist religion -- and especially why

they might involve their young children in it -- or finance it? But, again, individual

members are not part of church authority nor do they set the agenda for the church or its

teachings.

And as for this . . .

And again you "eye for an eye" attitude is not only ineffective in the long run

If you've read anything of my posts, you understand that that attitude is strictly created

in your own mind and you're attempting to project it onto others who disagree with you on

the billboard.

But here you do make clear that YOU do understand the violence of organized religon ...

"...it is buried DEEP within religious dogma, and speaks to the darkest parts of humanity."

It's vengefulness -- it's god of revenge --

Now you're getting somewhere -- !!!

[DWilliamsamh]

262. Fine...

Then continue to engage in the ineffective tactic of attacking religion and faith communities. See how far it gets you. People will not respond to attacks on their most basic belief systems - no matter how right you think you are. I wager you won't get not far down teh road of inspiring change in their attitudes toward the law or your point of view.. It certainly hasn't worked so far.

Have at it Hoss.

I was not writing so narrowly as just questions of sexuality, although that happens to be the hot button of the year and will continue to be one for years to come. I was speaking much more generally than that - which is why I made my criticism of Jedeo-Christiam morality inspired laws so general.

And have a happy New Year.

[defendandprotect]

275. Again, there is questioning & challenge . . . there is no "attack" except in your mind ...

And, additionally, perhaps your failure to understand that the aggression and violence

is centered in organized religion itself -- and NOT in criticism of organized religion --

points to the need for more discussion of the history of organized religion and its violence

in threads here at DU ...

Again, neither is there any "attack on faith communities" --

The movement for human rights for women and homosexuals does call for an awakening on the

part of those who support organized religion, but the questioning and challenging of organized

religion is centered on the Church, itself -- its hierarchy - its authority -- those involved

with setting policy for the Church, the Church teachings -- especially where based on hatred

and ignorance.

Nor did I suggest that you spoke "narrowly" on the many questions of sexuality . . .

I agree with you -- and acknowledged the support for those concerns on this very website!


Happy Winter Solstice -- Nature's New Year!!




:)

[DWilliamsamh]

286. Keep preaching to your own ears...it is very effective I can tell....

If you honestly can't see the original sign that was being discussed in the OP is at least in part an attack on religion in general - and not just patriarchal hierarchical religions - then you mind is as closed at those whom you denigrate, and I have no need of talking with you about this further.

Good day to you.

[defendandprotect]

288. ALL RELIGION is the subject . . .

How is it that you remain confused over that???

There is no such thing as "just patriarchal hierarchal religions" . ..

The Hebrew and Christian religions are based on "one all male god" and male supremacy --

that's patriarchy.

In fact, the Bible/Old Testament was written to cement male supremacy/patriarcy --

If you understand something of "Jesus'" teachings . . . you understand he was endeavoring

to change the Hebrew faith in that regard. Counter myths suggest that Mary was selected

as successor to Jesus.

The subject of the billboard is ALL RELIGION --

My subject is ALL RELIGION --

John Lennon's subject is ... "and ALL RELIGIONS, TOO" . . . !!!


And, just so you understand the references to "hierarchy" -- it means those who are in

authority within these male-dominated religions.

[DWilliamsamh]

290. YOU are the one who keeps bringing up Patriarchal heirarcical religions --- I was following YOUR FOR

You are a not only self important and way too impressed with your own ideas, you are a muddle headed dope who can't actually discuss the things you yourself have said.

[defendandprotect]

292. Well, I really respect you more now that you've resorted to personal attacks . ..!!

which, I guess, means that you haven't learned very much from the lesson you

were allegedly teaching here?

:evilgrin:

Meanwhile, Patriarchy is underpinned by organized patriarchal religion.

Hierarchy refers to those in authority in those religions.

[DWilliamsamh]

294. It's not a "personal attack" when supported by your writing. (N/T)

[defendandprotect]

300. Your personal attacks make who YOU are quite clear . . . .

[DWilliamsamh]

305. Congratulations.

[DWilliamsamh]

291. Oh.. and you are narrow minded as well as..........

"ALL RELIGION" hardly encompasses JUST Christianity and Judaism. There are other religions, that are not "male dominated hierarchies" in structure and tradition.. I was actually trying to give you some credit for distinguishing between those that are and those that aren't. But you yourself say that you are even MORE close minded than I thought. Get some education and come back when you have a wider perspective on the world at large.

[defendandprotect]

293. Why don't you calm down by listening to John Lennon's "Imagine" . ..

[DWilliamsamh]

295. You aren't fit to lick John Lennon's jock strap.

How do you even dare mention his brilliant work in the same breath as your closed minded drivel?

P.S. --- THAT was a personal attack.

[defendandprotect]

299. Thanks for letting us see so clearly who you really are ... you're on "ignore" . . .!!!

[DWilliamsamh]

257. I understood you perfectly....

You overestimate the complexity of your own thinking, if that's what you want to call it. Eye for an eye goes back to primitive humanity - it isn't exactly high on the intellectual evolutionary scale.

[smoogatz]

167. Natural as opposed to supernatural.

Man and his little projects are part of nature and the "natural world." In any case, it's hard to see an attack here. An attack on whom, exactly? Is all critique of religion, or any either set of beliefs, "hate speech," then?

[Usrename]

224. I certainly don't think this qualifies as hate speech.

But yes, any attack on any belief system should be viewed as an attack. This basic concept (read "fact") should be acknowledged separately from any discussion of whether or not the attack is warranted or justified or appropriate or even accurate.

I don't really understand how this can be viewed as anything other than an attack, since words which carry a derogatory connotation are the words which are being used.

[smoogatz]

267. Attack. Critique.

Depends on your point of view. Do you really feel threatened if 3% of the population thinks your religion is goofy, and an even smaller number have the temerity to say so in public? I've got people knocking on my door and shouting out of my television screen telling me I'm going to hell--isn't that an attack on me and my way of doing things?

[Usrename]

269. Provocation.

David_77 used this description downthread, and I think it is the most accurate one.

[smoogatz]

277. When Jehovah's Witnesses come to my door,

and tell me that my way of thinking is basically in league with Satan, is that a provocation? What's interesting about this to me is that it makes the double standard pretty clear--when theists evangelize, they're just doing their thing. When atheists evangelize, it's an attack. I think my earlier question is still valid: why are theists so easily threatened?

[Usrename]

281. Sure, saying that you are in league with Satan is provocation.

There isn't any double-standard. Any time someone uses this kind of derogotory language in order to attack someone I would think it is provocation.

[smoogatz]

284. So all evangelizing is provocative/provocation?

You'd agree with that? If so, is it a bad thing, necessarily, to challenge others' beliefs?

[Usrename]

303. Sure, I don't see how challenging beliefs can be a bad thing.

At least not if it is done with an honest approach. If someone sees a stupid idea then they should speak up, I guess, and even viciously if necessary. As for the OP, the sign seems honest enough to me, even though it does have a somewhat vicious edge to it, and does seem like its intent is to provoke conflict, which is also fine with me. Sometimes conflict can be necessary or positive.

[boppers]

206. Humans aren't natural creatures?

What are they, then?

[Usrename]

225. Synthetic?

:shrug:

[Lance_Boyle]

333. Oh great arbiter of 'common understanding' - you're quite wrong.

Natural is the not-supernatural in the context of the "attack." But then the godtarded are often loathe to acknowledge contexts or facts that don't quite fit their preconceived notion of the world, its words, and their many meanings.

Idiot.

[panzerfaust]

344. And the appropriate response to an attack on Religion is articulated by Iran's Supreme Leader today

The office of Iran's Supreme Leader ... said: "Those who are behind the current sedition in the country ... are mohareb {enemies of God} and the law is very clear about punishment of a mohareb." Under Iran's Islamic law the sentence for mohareb is execution. The influential parliamentary speaker Ali Larijani joined in the call for punitive action, exhorting: "Identify them, arrest them and firmly punish those who insulted religion." ... http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/now-iran-turns-its-fury-on-britain-1852807.html

So, would you agree with this: That to be mohareb, to insult religion, should be punished by death? Should the writers of this sign be killed for their "mindless" attack on religion?

If only I myself could bask in the warmth of the love of God/Allah/Vishnu/Jove/Woden/Amon/Etc... and share it, with the sword when need be, with the rest of the humanity.

To my mind, the statement being made by the sign writers was less attack, than observation. Observation of the rivers of blood spilt in the name of religion.

Praise Allah, the merciful.

[LanternWaste]

87. No more nor no less of an attack

No more nor no less of an attack than someone saying, "you don't believe like I do-- therefore, you're going to hell". And no one ever complains or feels indignant when told that.

[DWilliamsamh]

204. Yes...and attacks lead to attacks. But at least you acknowledge the attack.

That's more than some others here are willing to say. At least you acknowledge your old testament thinking. (Ironic no?)

[LanternWaste]

289. Old Testament thinking it is...

It it better allows a sense of self-validation, sure-- Old Testament thinking it is...

[marshall]

98. I'd just classify the third sentence as an attack.

The first sentence--definitely an opinion. The second sentence is arguable, but the attack is only implied. The third sentence--definitely an attack--much like Christian attacks that say people who don't believe in diety are going to hell or are immoral or whatever.

[Usrename]

228. Exactly!

:toast:

I don't think it's a big deal or anything, certainly nothing that would motivate me to try and tear the sign down. I might even agree that it is justified if it were more specific or more lucid instead of being scatter-shot, but it definitely is an attack on religion.

[defendandprotect]

147. It's also amazing that all of the power is with Christianity, yet they are so frightened . . .

of something like this --

Why? Because the truth of it would shatter their myths ...

if anyone began thinking about it --


IMAGINE . . . !!!

[Arugula Latte]

159. Yep. Thinking and "faith" in superstitions don't mix. nt

[bjobotts]

186. One of the main prinicples of democracy is "Tolerance".Something Christians need to come to grips wi

[bjobotts]

187. I don't believe in religions but do believe in my own spirituality.

[bjobotts]

188. After all, if you were god couldn't you come up with a better plan than the religions

[DesertFlower]

25. exactly. nt

[AlbertCat]

28. ATTACK!

But there are no devils or ghosts or hell or any of that supernatural stuff. It was made up when mankind was supremely ignorant and everything was magic. Are you children?

Stating the obvious is not an attack (or an opinion really)


Well, at least they didn't condemn anyone to ETERNAL TORMENT and DAMNATION. That's what I call an attack.

[sam sarrha]

129. i choose not to believe in bronze age nomadic goat herders superstitions..

[Detroit Progressive]

54. Intolerance?

The sign was about truth. Don't blame the messenger because you can't deal with it. Reality doesn't disappear just because we bury our heads in the sand.

[AllHereTruth]

55. How is that sign an attack?

Praise our one and only lord Jesus Christ.
He is the true savior of our people.

I have heard these exact words numerous times. I have seen numerous signs, read numerous bumper stickers, all without the slightest thought of 'hate speech' - Yet when it goes the other way it suddenly becomes an 'attack' - It simply states what some choose to believe is truth. It does not call anyone stupid or ignorant. It does not attack. Simple as that.



And let me add, i have experienced much more hate speech directed at me for being atheist then i have ever given out. And somehow religion is supposed to make you moral...I have not seen it with my own eyes, or heard it with my own ears.

[FlaGranny]

67. As an atheist myself

I believe that sign is accurate AND an attack. The way NOT to win friends and influence people is to ridicule their beliefs. That certainly DOES harden their hearts against any further discussion.

[Detroit Progressive]

79. Don't you get it?

You're not going to change minds that have built their lives on belief in religious myths and superstition. This sign is more important for people who secretly question the validity of religious intitutions and myths, but are too afraid to speak out about it. It's also for young people who are exposed to religious dogma on a regular basis by their family and community so that they can see there are people out there who do in fact value sound reason over blind obedience.

[kristopher]

102. Best observation of the thread. nt

[stopbush]

104. Bingo! You've nailed it.

[FlaGranny]

131. People who secretly question -

yes - many do, but I doubt a sign makes up their minds. What makes up their minds is curiosity and intelligence. I never talk about religion to the religious. I always talk science and common sense to the them. When someone speaks to me about God or Jesus I ask them questions designed to make them think about their beliefs. Argument and confrontation are not productive. As for the rest of them, the sign just gives them ammunition for their campaign to "expose" the war on Christians and creates antagonism.

[defendandprotect]

154. Meanwhile, what is obvious is that the intolerance is on the part of male-supremacist religion...

which seeks to have the sign removed . . . !!!

At least someone under that belief system, it seems . . .

[stopbush]

164. I challenge you to find a former believer who can point to a singular event as the thing

that "made up their mind" to become an atheist. That isn't how it works.

No, it's the culmination of many, many impressions one takes away from diverse sources that eventually tips the scales towards abandoning the fantasy world of religion. It's the same way an auto company convinces you to buy one of their cars. They're not putting up A billboard in the hope that you'll drive by and say, "hey, I want to buy a Chevy!" No, they advertise on TV, radio, in the newspapers, on the web and everywhere they can afford to make enough impressions on a potential customer that they become an option when the customer decides to buy a car. It's a strategy of building brand awareness through multiple impressions.

Argument and confrontation happen to be extremely valuable in all walks of life, and that's no different when debating religion. I know plenty of Rs who are Rs for the simple fact that Rs stand up for their beliefs and don't apologize for them. They love to contrast that to milquetoast Ds who are always apologizing for the smallest infraction. They believe such people are spineless.

When it comes to religion, a religionist may strongly disagree with a passionate atheist, but they'll be impressed that a person shows such passion. It's far easier for the religious to delude themselves into believing that atheism is "just a rebellious phase you're going through" when the non-believer shows no passion or commitment or will to fight back and stick up for their non-beliefs. That's why every little bit of fighting back is necessary if religion is ever to be consigned to history's dustbin.

Your post reminds me of those helpful Rs who rush forward to admonish their D friends that "Ds better be careful, or this could backfire on them" every time a D stands up for their belief or talks truth to power and makes a little headway in what passes for received opinion.

The day atheists depend on the "curiosity and intelligence" of the brainwashed and willfully ignorant to make their case is the day we may as well give up the ghost.

[Detroit Progressive]

209. Now you are being willfully ignorant....

...because the sign can be the thing that sparks a young person's curiosity and intelligence, or it can be something that encourages them to not stop being curious and intelligent. And like stopbush said, it's only one of a number of things to encourage people to become independent thinkers. Besides, nothing can be more stupid than to let religious morons dictate how we reach out to our fellow humans in need of support. And you're worried about providing the religious with ammunition? Please! Tell that to the family members of Dr. Tiller and the victims of 9/11! Trust me, they provide for their selves more ammunition than you and I ever could.

[Locrian]

134. A+

perfect explanation.

[defendandprotect]

153. One of the most disturbing parts of male-supremacist religion is how young . ..

they take in kids -- and the constant brainwashinging that occurs --

Unfortunately, parents continue to funnel their kids into these religions!

Why? Go figure.

[hack89]

82. + 1 nt

[skepticscott]

118. And what good has it done for atheists

to quietly sit back and placate the religionists for centuries? What progress have we made towards being treated even as equals by being nice and holding back from speaking the truth? None and none.

[defendandprotect]

155. Like any right wing concept, male-supremacist religion rose on violence . . .

and that's really the only way they can maintain their status --

without armies -- without introducing the cross with the sword -- and

with opposition from democracy and a belief in ideals of human rights, equality, etal --

they will fall --

Unless, of course, they get our government to subsidize them . . . Oh, oops!!

That's already happening!

[defendandprotect]

152. It's a questioning and challenge to organized patriarchal religion . . .

Much as John Lennon's song "Imagine" is . . .

It certainly isn't anything aggressive, nor anything that could be described

as an attack ----------------------

ESPECIALLY, considering the very nature of organized patriarchal religion - it's violence

and it's aggressive tactics.

We have "Pro-life" religious freaks murdering women's doctors --

I'd pretty much say I could identify that as an attack by male-supremacist religion!!!

[ZombieHorde]

56. "There is only our natural world." = an attack? Really?

"There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell." = an attack?

How about, "Spiderman is just a fictional character." Is that an attack?

[onehandle]

91. The sign was designed to be mean and intolerant.

If I put a sign up in my front yard that said: 'My neighbor is wrong and believes in dumb things,' I would be viewed as an intolerant asshole.

[defendandprotect]

156. This is an organized belief system ... and certainly not lacking in numbers

or the ability to protect itself --

Atheists are certainly not aggressors --

Organized patriarchal religion has long been the violent activist, the aggressor!

[smoogatz]

169. Isn't that the message of all evangelical religions?

What I believe is right, what you believe is wrong, dangerous and satanically inspired? Does that make all evangelicals intolerant assholes?

[Marthian]

66. Believers in religious dogma

are the intolerant. The sign was and is about getting the addled and deluded to start thinking for themselves. Jesus and ALL the gods were created by humans. Don't like it? Tough, history is essentially factual and the mythological premise of religions is well documented. You find it acceptable for people to believe in nonsense and to use this nonsense as a means of living in the world of reason and empiricism. I do not. I love humans and don't believe in keeping them stupid and blinkered for the abstraction of fantasy/belief as a right. Religion is a pathological meme and it needs to be washed away before humanity can progress along a path of civility and sociological development.

[saigon68]

77. You Forgot "FESTIVUS FOR THE REST OF US"

LOL

[johnfunk]

341. Ditto that -- just took down the Festivus pole

The airing of grievances and traditional spaghetti bolognese dinner were pparticularly festive this year!

[stopbush]

103. Religion has more than earned the right to be attacked, and attacked vigorously.

If religion can't stand up in the marketplace of ideas, then it needs to go. Thankfully, it IS going in most of the civilized West. It's just that the USA is a decade or so behind the curve.

Religion is and always has been a blight on humanity. Why be tolerant of such a thing? Why elevated fables and fantasy to the level of fact and pretend we're not all engaged in a game of The Emperor's New Clothes? Because people's feelings might be hurt by calling a make believe spade a spade?

Please.

[Odin2005]

113. Criticizing ridiculous opinions is intolerant?

IMO it's no more intolerant than saying 2+2=4, no matter how much you want to say it's 5.

[Blasphemer]

133. While I don't believe it was an attack, I do believe it was intentionally incendiary

Having seen my share of incendiary expressions of free speech from religious organizations (particular when it comes to the abortion issue), I don't believe they are effective methods of communicating a message, no matter who uses them. Those who agree will cheer and those who disagree will be disgusted and potentially incited to action. It's their choice of course and they are well within their rights.

[defendandprotect]

157. "Incendiary" . . . ???

Well, what might you think of "The Hammer of Witches" then . . .

I'd really love to hear --

Or, pastors calling homosexuals "an abomination" from their pulpits on Sundays!!!

Or, the Papal Ghettoes where Jews were confined for 1,100 years -- isolated from

society, education, etal --

Or, perhaps the later 100 years of Vatican propaganda which demonized Jews?

Maybe you want to comment on "Pro-life" murderers of women's doctors?

Any of that "incendiary" . . . ????

[Blasphemer]

190. Yes, I agree there are a lot of incendiary words and actions coming from the other side

I'm an atheist who was raised Christian and had it rammed down my throat despite knowing since I was 7 years old that I was not a believer. I've seen quite a lot of incendiary words and actions coming from that direction (I believe I mentioned that in my original post). I have had many very negative private thoughts about Christians through the years (especially in reaction to being told I was going to hell for not believing in Jesus) but I've never thought it would be fit to respond to them in the same way. I think most of the billboard was perfectly acceptable but the last line went over a line I would never cross and to me, yes, it was incendiary.

[defendandprotect]

213. There is nothing aggressive about the billboard, except truth . . .

and it is that truth which inspires these religious outrages here.

What is now being called "intolerance" would have previously been called

"blasphemy" though they can't get away with that any longer, either --

so we have this updating to use the language of human rights. Unfortunately,

Christianity was a moral step backwards re human rights!

Meanwhile, IMO, what we need to do more often is laugh at the hypocrisy of organized

male-supremacist religions -- and laugh at it in general.

[Blasphemer]

230. I think we are generally in agreement. I am no fan of organized religion, to be sure... :) nt

[Odin2005]

242. Reason IS incendiary to those with closed, faith-based minds.

Reason incinerates comforting delusions and superstitions, leaving facts behind.

[fascisthunter]

350. ding!

[defendandprotect]

144. If we look at most of Christianity's teachings its not only biased,

intolerant and hateful . . . it is murderously hateful.

[sudopod]

189. And telling us that we're going to burn in hell forever is A-OK?

If I remember correctly, the Pope (TM) said that all pagans have hearts of stone in his Christmas Eve speech, once he broke free from the tacklers. I guess he was just funnin with em, though.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

263. No more of an attack than "Nobody goes to the Father but through Me." -nt

[panzerfaust]

307. or "There is NO Salvation, outside of The Church" (RC Dogma to this day)

Everyone else will burn in Hell.

Of course if you are not the (right type of) Christer/Jew/Muslim you will burn anyhow. To a Baptist, Methodists are clearly on the road to Hell.

Humm, even in many (?all) traditions of Buddhism there is a Hell though, given the cyclic nature of life and death in that belief system one's sojourn in Hell is not eternal - though possibly everlasting? Not being Buddhist, it is confusing to me.

Religion is all about inclusion, and, more importantly, exclusion: Us, the good/saved/chosen, them, the bad/damned/rejected.

All religions, save one's own, are self-evident nonsense.

It takes only a moment for a Mormon to tell you what is wrong with the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses, for a Baptist to point out the idiocy of both, for a Catholic to show how all three are Hellbound, for a Jew to look at the discussion with compassionate disgust, or for a Hindu to wonder what all the furor over all these meaningless words might be.

The world is big, religion small.

[bigendian]

4. Drawing flies.....

My mom says something like that too about drawing more flies with honey. I remind her that a big pile of sh*t draws more flies than anything else!

[THUNDER HANDS]

14. actually, vinegar does draw flies really well

at least, fruit flies. Which is rather ironic.

[mbperrin]

45. All good and well. But why would you want to attract flies?

So get rid of the honey and pull out the swatter!

[rasputin1952]

81. Yep...and they have a ridiculously low life span as well...

:D

[Mudoria]

86. I'd equate that sign to a big pile....

and a steaming one at that.

[rd_kent]

116. Many feel the same about religious dogma....

[defendandprotect]

160. Obviously male-supremacist Christianity used "honey" to introduce the cross with the sword--!!!

Those crusaders used a lot of "honey" as well to torture people -- !!!!

:eyes:

:rofl:

[Pryderi]

8. I agree. Adding, "Religion is just myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds. is

unneccessary

[Delver Rootnose]

13. oh I don't know...

...it is accurate though.

[Pryderi]

95. It's flame-bait and you know it. n/t

[skepticscott]

121. Flame bait?

This was a sign, not a chat post. What are you afraid of?

[Pryderi]

255. The last comment was meant to antagonize people of faith.

[AlbertCat]

29. unneccessary

No it's not if that's what they want to get across.

Why don't religions just stop at "god is great"? The rest is unnecessary, isn't it?

[jmowreader]

35. Religion is about control

They don't care whether God is great or not. A religion--ANY religion, whether large or small--is designed to control the people in it. God is a bogeyman: if you don't do what we say, God's going to get pissed and send you straight to hell where you'll burn for all eternity.

[dencol]

42. And I think that gets to the point of how it harden's hearts.

When people do things out of pure calculation to improve their odds of rewards in heaven, do they really have the best interests of others in mind? Obviously not, and that is why you have so many religious folks (with hardened hearts) imposing their beliefs on others. People should do things with a genuine will improve the lives of others without reward or agenda. I think that is love.

[kevinbgoode]

52. Exactly. I have always wondered why so many people need to be bribed

to "create" a good heart towards their fellow man - particularly with the ultimate "eternal life" story.

[Marthian]

69. Furthermore,

much religious intolerance only translates into the actions of a hardened heart. One definition of evil is "the willingness to sacrifice the interests of others for ones own benefit". How does this statement relate to religion? I have been "treated" to more hate speech and threats by religious liars than by all the non-believers I know. The "religious" claim that sacrificing my beliefs would make more sense than them getting a clue. Sounds like they will gladly sacrifice me and my thoughts to their own interests. Religion is evil.

[stopbush]

171. I often hear Xians railing that atheists have hardened their hearts to god's message.

Which is funny as belief in religion usually requires one being soft in the head.

[dencol]

251. Not an atheist here...

But I have to admit my eyes roll every time I hear anything about God's message, so my heart is pretty hardened to their "god's" message. Just like it is hardened to any other messages laced with hidden agendas, manipulation, or hatred.

[penndragon69]

57. You are wrong!

The sign reminds people of the TRUE reason for the season and goes on to state
what their views are. It's direct, to the point and does not involve any
myth or dogma. Now if it said "All christians can burn in HELL..." that would be an
unnecessary attack!

[defendandprotect]

162. Yes ... and a reminder of Christianity's fear based threats against other . . .

who they believe will "burn in hell" . . . !!

And, frequently tell them so!!!!

But, that's not an attack . . . that's not incendiary . . . that's not intolerance . . .

that's just ...

well, frankly, that's just crap!

[Odin2005]

130. It's the truth.

[DesertFlower]

24. i'm an atheist, but i agree with you.

[quakerboy]

58. I am not an athiest, and I disagree

wonder if that makes us even?

As a Christian, I can post just about any crazy thing almost anywhere without drawing so much as a raised eyebrow, but we cannot afford a (by the wording I assume) militant atheist group the same latitude?

[DissedByBush]

36. How many times have I heard Christians tell me

You're an idiot (heard that one on the radio, literally you're an "idiot" if you don't believe).

You're an unwitting follower of Satan whether you know it or not.

You're part of the problem in this world.

You're abusing your children by not raising them to fear God.

All because I don't believe in their chosen deity.

Back to ad speak they do have the market dominant position so I guess they can afford to say this stuff.

[dysfunctional press]

71. +1,000,001

[WildEyedLiberal]

40. + 1,000,000

Yes, they had the right to put that sign up. But it's still an obnoxious, intolerant message. I certainly wouldn't go so far as to say "hate speech" - it doesn't exhort violence against believers - but those who put it up are as narrow-minded and "hard of heart" as the people they freely mock.

[SergeStorms]

60. But religion and the religious.........

AREN'T intolerant? :eyes: Do I even have to list a small number of the hate messages religion and it's followers feel free to bandy about each day? The sheer weight of such intolerance would tilt the Earth off it's axis. Religious people can be as intolerant as they please, but a group that has the courage to stand up to those religious zealots are "hate mongers". :rofl:

Christians, despite their claims of being "forgiven" and "saved", seem to be very thin-skinned and over protective about their supposedly rock-solid beliefs. Why is that? :shrug:

[ScottLand]

78. That's a great point.

This story is really about the conservative being so insecure in his own beliefs that he can't handle opposition.

[WildEyedLiberal]

183. I love it when people use the bigotry of others to justify their own

You're just a model little progressive, aren't you?

[rd_kent]

117. Calling atheists narrow minded? Now thats hypocrisy in all its glory.......

Wow, just wow. A believer calling an atheist narrow minded. Just wow.

[WildEyedLiberal]

182. "Hypocrisy"?

How do you know whether I'm a believer or not? I said nothing one way or another about my personal beliefs in my post. You seem to think that atheists are incapable of being narrow-minded by virtue of their atheism.... I'm not sure what to say to something so patently moronic.

Your reading comprehension is atrocious... wow. Just wow.

[smoogatz]

270. So they should just shut up?

Not respond at all to our great national drift toward theocracy?

[Marthian]

64. No attack.

A commonsense call to rationality and sobriety in thought. Only the religious get offended by the truth that their system of belief is a fantasy.

[mwb970]

68. It's an "attack" in the Sarah Palin sense.

Anyone who criticizes St. Sarah in any way is said by her worshippers to be "attacking" her, regardless of the legitimacy of the criticism. It was the same with bush - if you criticized him in any way you were told you were unpatriotic, hated America, hated the troops, etc.

Like their misreading of scorn and withering disdain as representing hate and fear (the only emotions they know, apparently), conservatives simply cannot process any criticism of one of their own people or ideas as anything other than an "attack". Sadly, some on this board evidently "think" this way as well.

[Usrename]

76. Maybe you are missing the point here.

Palin deserved to be attacked, so did Bush, and so do some specific aspects of religion.

Just because the attacks are deserved doesn't mean that you should try and deny they are attacks.

I think this particular attack on religion is far too sweeping and generalized. It is as if they they are saying that religion has never helped anyone, which seems like a very narrow-minded point of view, or at least I try to keep a more open mind about this kind of question.

[defendandprotect]

163. To call this an "attack" would to be in denial of Christianity's own violence,

aggression, warmaking, torture, genocide, enslavment --

a long list of horrors they have inflicted upon the world --!!

However, the reaction and aggression is on the other side which is threatening the

sign with removal -- that's intolerance!!

[Usrename]

215. No one here is denying anything of the sort.

The only denial that I can see is a denial that religion produces anything good for society. That seems to be the point of the whole controversy, the reason for posting the sign in the first place.

All of these things (violence, aggression, warmaking, torture, genocide, enslavment) existed long before Christianity, but so did things like mercy, charity, justice, love. The argument being made still seems very narrow-minded to me.

[defendandprotect]

221. Unfortunately, it would be hypocritical to suggest any part of this

atheist poster is "intolerance" or an "attack" while ignoring the thousands of

years of Christian violence. If not delusional.


Again, the Vatican/RCC set new PRECEDENTS of violence, brutality, cruelty in the

Crusades. You have only to view a booklet of implements invented to be used in

torturing their victims to understand how much attention they devoted to improving

their methods of torture!

Again, unfortunately, you don't seem to know that the VATICAN/RCC issued Papal Bulls

demanding the enslavement or the murder of the native American and the African enslaved

here. Sadly true, however.

You may not also know that the Mormon and Catholic schools run to indoctrinate Native

American children were notorious for their brutality -- their murderous brutality --

there were beatings, kidnappings, murders, hangings, sexual abuse of every kind, rapes,

etal.

These religions played a large role in the overall destruction of the Native American --

working closely with the US government --

"When they came, we had the land and they had the book,

When they left, we had the book and they had the land."


Nor does anyone need religion in order to act humanely, compassionately -- to show mercy,

charity, justice, or love!

What you are suggesting is that "All the saints are in churches and all the sinners

outside of them." Rather, too often, it looks just the other way around!


The sexual abuse of children also seems to be nothing new -- many of these scandals

are over 50 years old -- and Italians say that this has been the history of the Vatican/

RCC since its beginnings. I guess they would know!


In other words, to suggest there is any comparison between the violence and aggressiveness

of organized patriarchal religion which continues it war on women and homosexuals and

the politness of the billboard would be a huge joke.

And, come to think of it -- maybe we really need to laugh more often at religion!

[beardown]

84. Why don't christians stop after...

putting "under god" into the pledge, putting 'in god we trust' on money, putting the ten commandments on public buildings, putting intelligent design into the science books?

NOW you call for restraint!

Turns people off? Like those uppity colored folks who insisted on riding towards the front of the bus? Religious folks can't be turned off any more than they already are as a president declared they can't be real americans and polls show they'd vote for a child molester over an atheist.

Look, part of the message of the sign (I believe) is to show the problem with allowing religious groups to set up displays on public property and judging by the response both noted in the article and here, it worked very well.

Ah, 20th and 21st century America. Where christians cry persecution when they can't force their religion down other folks' throats. Have you ever noticed how often it's the atheist or non-christian display that get's vandalized or torn down at these public locations?

[defendandprotect]

166. Excellent points . . .

Especially these ...

Look, part of the message of the sign (I believe) is to show the problem with allowing religious groups to set up displays on public property and judging by the response both noted in the article and here, it worked very well.

Ah, 20th and 21st century America. Where christians cry persecution when they can't force their religion down other folks' throats. Have you ever noticed how often it's the atheist or non-christian display that get's vandalized or torn down at these public locations?

I didn't make that connection, but think you are absolutely correct --

And, the aggressiveness of the actions to try to remove the sign also suggests intolerance

is on the other foot --

[fascisthunter]

337. very good observation

who is the oppressed? It should be obvious, but belief in this nation trumps reality and it shows in our government's actions today.

[sam sarrha]

125. freedom of speech is a Bitch.. when you have to let other people have it too...

put up a religious demonstration, you are just begging for this.. there should be no religious displays in/on any government property. unless you want me to put up my Satanist display.!!:evilfrown: :toast: :rofl:

[MNBrewer]

141. Who would want to catch flies?

[defendandprotect]

145. Maybe what we should do is post a few Bible quotes to clear our minds . . .??

[DWilliamsamh]

199. Placing a secular message of good wishes is one thing....no need to stick thumbs in eyes

The 1st part was in fact an attack against all religions/spiritual practitioners. As tempting as it may have been, it was unnecessary. No need for the attacking and belittling of other's beliefs. That part was no different the people loudly proclaiming people who don't believe as they do are "evil." Attacks beget attacks.

Not saying the one who wanted to pull the sign down was right - but I understand.

[niyad]

2. k and r--it fascinates me that so many reichwingers are quick to whine about "hate speech" , with

not the slightest sense of irony in their hatred and destructiveness.

[LiberalFighter]

5. And other religions don't mock other religions or beliefs?

[marshall]

18. I wonder how the state would have handled a Christian attack on Muslims?

Suppose a sign that said "Mohammed was a liar who taught people to hate anyone who didn't believe like them" was put alongside all the other ornamentation? Chances are you'd get more reaction than just someone turning the sign face down.

And the reference to winter solstice is just strange. Are they trying to equate pre-Christian pagan religions with atheism? Because they are definitely not the same. Their quest to be as provocative as possible by throwing in paganism as well as atheism makes their entire message ludicrously garbled. The attitude behind this sign is the stuff that wars are made of (which arguably is the same thing behind many religious messages as well).

I think Labor Day would be a fantastic day for the atheists to choose to spread their message of reason and peace. It is a celebration with no religious baggage or history. It celebrates mankind's working together as powers behind our own shared destiny. It posits that we are collectively the supreme force in our own lives, not some divine force. Choose that day and run with it--spread a message of universal human made peace and a celebration of what is real.

I know it's gratifying to take a negative stand but in the end I think it's more productive and more personally fulfilling to take a positive approach to life.

[Cartoonist]

26. The Solstice

Are they trying to equate pre-Christian pagan religions with atheism?
-
No, they are not. There is nothing paganistic about the solstice. It is a real event.
This is one of my main concerns with Christianity's theft of the holidays. Ask some ten-year olds when the winter solstice is and chances are they won't have a clue what you are talking about. Ask them what the solstice actually is and I'm sure they won't know the answer. But ask them when Christmas is and 100% will know the answer. We have substituted real knowledge of the world with superstition.

[Celtic Merlin]

51. BUT ! ! ! The sign in question was not an attack.

It was a statement of belief. It did not call Jesus a liar or spread lies about him as your crappy example using Muhammad does. It certainly does not attack Christianity or any other religion specifically. And while I agree completely with the ideas put forth in the sign, I'd be happier with it if they had left off the last sentence as that sentence is easily insulting to those who have religious beliefs. One may exhibit one's beliefs without insulting those who disagree. This sign disagrees with religion in general, but is also being disagreeable in its tone and in its insensitivity to the belief systems of others.

Yes, I am an atheist.

The sign's reference to the winter solstice is not strange and your attempt to cast it as outside normal behavior is hereby rejected as non-truth and as insulting a statement as the final sentence of the sign being discussed.

Also, no equation is being made or attempted. The winter holidays (holy(i)days - get it?) of Christians, Jews, and others are centered around the winter solstice. And there is good reason for this. Even the prehistoric people who erected Stonehenge in 2500 BC (4500 years ago - predating Christianity, Islam and even Judaism) knew that the winter solstice was an important event - marking the end of shortening days, the beginning of longer days, and the hope of earthly rebirth brought by spring. Paganism is not mentioned in the sign. Your attempt to equate the statements in that sign with paganism is also an untruth and is an invention of your own mind. Hence your statement that the message is "ludicrously garbled" falls on its face. The attitude of the sign is NOT what wars are made of. Your inaccurate conflations of the statements in the sign with your personal biases is what wars are made of.

Your suggestion that atheists be relegated to a particular day of the year to promote their beliefs is about as intolerant a thing as I've read on DU. Should Christians be limited to only Easter Sunday for the spreading of their message? Should Jews be limited to only one day a year to exhibit the beliefs of their faith? Shame on you for attempting to contain to one day a year a belief system with which you disagree.

Finally, the moron who attacked the sign is an intolerant ass who shows that he does not support the rights and responsibilities enshrined in our Constitution. He's obviously never subscribed to the statement, "I may disagree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it." His attempt to silence the speech of others is truly un-American.

Celtic Merlin
Carlinist

[marshall]

94. Without context your argument makes sense

However the sign is presented within an overall context, not as a stand alone representation of the world view of a particular group of atheists. In a composite display like this, put together by disparate groups, the displays are meant to be interpreted in concert with each other and the event that brings them together at least as much if not more than they are meant to be taken as separate entitities.

[Celtic Merlin]

105. The reply makes perfect sense within the context of it being a reply.

It addresses the message to which it is a reply on a point-by-point basis, and does so with great success. Your response to it counters NONE of the points I made in it. It points out the glaring errors in the original message. It addresses the lack of reality in the message to which it is a reply.

Of course it would make no sense in the context to which you refer as it was never intended to address that venue. It does not address the forum of the statehouse in which the sign was placed nor was it ever intended to address any of the other items which exist in this "composite display" to which you refer. It wouldn't make any sense in a boxing ring either, but that wasn't it's intent any more than it was intended to be placed in the context of where and with what the original sign appeared.

Perhaps next you can tell me all about how it makes no sense as a movie review. That would be exactly as appropriate as your last message.

Your failure to make any attempt at countering the valid and realistic truths presented in my message is typical of those who have no answer to those truths. Your attempt to place my reply into a different and non-valid context: fail.

Care to try again?

Celtic Merlin
Carlinist

[marshall]

108. I'm talking about the context of the display

Which is pointed up very well in the first statement of the sign: peace. But as most people seem to agree, the focus on peace becomes tangential as the sign continues. It becomes provocative even as it criticizes provocation. In a sense it becomes self contradictory.

I do understand your point, and I agree with it when the sign is viewed by itself.

Wishing all a wise winter solstice!

[Celtic Merlin]

298. Again, you address none of my points as I did yours.

And again, my argument stands. It matters not what else is around it. It matters not what it said. Your original argument began with an absurdity and continued with non-truths. That is what I'm countering - your original argument, which does not stand up to scrutiny. If it could do so, you could defend it point-by-point the way my message tore it up - point-by-point.

Celtic Merlin
Carlinist

[quakerboy]

59. But in the end, are we not free to present ourselves as we wish?

If a group decides their image is best represented by that wording, why do we want to force them to have a more neutral wording? I would be ashamed to believe what the crazy phelps(sp?) family believed, but the signs they hold up show the world what crap they are about. This group has the same right to take a more negative turn, if they wish. Just because you or I disagree with their marketing tactic does not mean they are/should not be free to do it their own way.

As to the hypothetical anti-islam sign... Ive seen some pretty crazy signs go up that were not far off of what you describe. We let the right wing spew that crap on the airwaves daily without any getback, and that is heard by far more than see a little sign.

[marshall]

97. I wholeheartedly agree

This group, and any other group, should have the freedom, at least in this country, to make any statement of belief it wants to make. And if that statement is made in context of a juxtaposition to what another group believes that is their right as wel. It places that second group in the center of their argument and identifies the first group as "other", but that is also part of the message.

My main point is best represented in the fallout from the publication of the Danish cartoons criticizing religion in the context of Islam. You'll recall a much different reaction, in part because of the freedoms we enjoy in this country.

[SergeStorms]

61. 'Take a positive approach to life"....

do you mean like religion does? Are we talking Old Testament, New Testament..........what? Because there is more than enough hatred, war, killing, jealousy, rage etc. in the bible needed to choke a horse. People tend to cherry pick the parts of bible they wish to believe, and ignore the parts that get a little messy and contradict the supposed message of "love, peace, and harmony". Anyone whose actually read the book cover to cover can't help coming away somewhat perplexed by it's mixed messages, and sheer hypocrisy.

If the bible - and thus the religion it's based upon - are an example of "a positive approach to life", then I'm a monkey's uncle.

Merry X-mas! :hi:

[SergeStorms]

62. Anyone with more than a cursory understanding.........

of christianity would certainly understand the relevance of the Winter Solstice. When they forced people to accept christianity as the one "true" religion they co-opted their holidays to assimilate them easier. They thought if they threw these people a few bones to their old religion they'd accept the "new and improved" one with less struggle. It worked. Or, if in some cases it didn't, these very religious people would often kill their opponents for being "witches" and such. Now THAT is a very positive way to sway people's beliefs, right?
I wish the religious would study the origins and history of their religion, and not just swallow it whole as it's fed to them from birth. That's exactly how I came to be a non-believer. I was born and raised a christian, but I always had nagging doubts. After decades of study about the origins of the god myth - and the subsequent religions that sprang from it - I came to the conclusion that it's all myth and NOT to be taken literally. It's a method of controlling people. And god knows the elite must control the masses, correct? ;)
I beg those who consider themselves christians to study the origins and history of their god and their religion. A good place to start is "A History of God", by Karen Armstrong.
It's no coincidence that the first lesson of the bible is to "not eat from the tree of knowledge". Because if one were to eat from that tree, to savor the sweet truths that it produces, it renders the tales from that book highly suspect, and dare I say, foolish?

[LiberalFighter]

83. All the more reason religion needs to be phased out fast.

[defendandprotect]

168. I was just saying upthread that without violence, like any other

right wing movement it will die --

No armies -- no religion --

UNLESS they can get our government to subsidize them!!!

hmmm....

:evilgrin:

[stopbush]

106. But the sign didn'tattack Xians, did it? It wasn't at all specific.

The words were a blanket statement about ALL religions.

As far as Labor Day, I think that non-believers have the right in this country to pick their own time to protest against the status quo. What's wrong with them making their point during a season when people are tuned in to such things? Isn't that the same formula retailers use to meet their annual bottom lines? Mayhaps atheists need to be sequestered into some Rovian free speech zone during the Christmas holiday.

BTW - being a freethinker and pointing out the idiocies and overt threats that religion deals in IS a VERY positive approach to life.

[marshall]

111. But the sign isn't used at any other religion's holidays or displays

It would be interesting to do a comparative study of the other displays. That would give an authentic view of how this piece fits in with the overall message of the annual display.

And looking at it from a very broad view, even the Phelps' church tends to target only Christian venues for their protesting critiques of religion. It's all about power--who has it, and who is the "other".

[defendandprotect]

172. Where I think you should begin in seeking attacks and intolerance and

incendiary statements is with your own religion -- with Christianity --

with the most violent book ever written -- the Bible --

With the Papal Bulls which instructed Columbus to "enslave or murder" Native

Americans and Africans enslaved here --

With "The Hammer of Witches" --

with current teachings of male-supremacist religions, including the fact that

the Vatican still does not acknowledge the full personhood of females as it

acknowledges the full personhood of males.

Study the history of Christianity and introducing the cross with the sword!!

Give us some quotes from the Bible to examine and let's see where the aggression

is!!!

[marshall]

178. That's true, but the subject of discussion is the atheist sign

Every discussion can't take in every piece of truth and insight--that's what Christians claim about the Bible. And look where it got them.

[defendandprotect]

180. So you're saying you have to ignore the history of Christanity's violence . . .

in order to judge this sign as "intolerant" . . . ???


:eyes:

[marshall]

184. No, I'm saying the sign joins in with very thing that it seeks to critique

Which may well be the point of it, who knows?

[defendandprotect]

210. As another poster pointed out, clearly we are all objecting to religious symbols

being pushed onto public property -- that's been going on for decades.

The loss of their "prayerful" presence in public schools has made them an aberration

in public rather than something recognized. They don't like the obscurity.

They need to attach themselves to government in some way to gain acknowledgment and

authority from that connection -- needless to say $$$$$.

And, thus, we have the Creche and Frosty the Snowman vying for attention, but accompanied

by the Jewish star, as well.

Meanwhile, no one's practice of their religion is dependent upon their religous symbols

being displayed on public property!!

Perhaps the religious antagonism that this sign evoked may bring that message home to them?

[marshall]

218. True, by putting themselves squarely in the same boat, they press the message

Maybe it's the "no more Mr. Nice Guy/Ms. Nice Gal approach. It certainly gets the media attention. Most causes would never get their messages out if they didn't get ugly.

[FarLeftFist]

6. Freedom from religion, one of my fave sites.

ffrf.org

[defendandprotect]

173. Repeat the name . . .

the http://www.ffrf.org is right?

[madrchsod]

9. belief in christ`s message has`t harden my heart nor enslaved my mind

[AlbertCat]

32. belief in christ`s message

Christ says nothing original, y'know. If you believe he's somehow divine or even a real person without a doubt then your mind has been enslaved. If you cringe or feel panicy or insulted at criticism of your religion, then your heart is a little harder than you might think.

[WildEyedLiberal]

41. Your reply makes no sense and is exactly why atheists get little traction

Actually, Christ's message WAS quite revolutionary for 33 AD. It's not like the Unitarian Universalists were out promoting kindness and equality back then.

And implying that someone's "heart is hard" because they dislike their faith being insulted is not only nonsensical but hypocritical. I bet YOU cringe when your lack of faith is insulted.

Why is it SO important to you to piss on this person's beliefs? Why can't you just leave them alone? Because lots of Christians are obnoxious in forcing their viewpoints down your throat, so that emboldens you to do the same to others? Petty retaliation.... such a liberal thing to do :eyes:

[LostinRed]

43. LOL

[madrchsod]

192. what ever...you have no fucking idea who i am

and i really do`t give a fuck what you have to say...

[rd_kent]

119. Sure it has. The fact you blindly believe something thats not real proves your mind is enslaved

[smoogatz]

170. So you've given everything you own to the poor.

Good for you.

[defendandprotect]

175. Looks like a very aggressive avatar you have there, however????

[SidDithers]

10. Perceived mocking is now "hate speech?

Really?

Sid

[shadowknows69]

11. The First Amendment doesn't protect against your beliefs being "mocked"

[onehandle]

34. So it was a protest?

Of course it was.

[rd_kent]

137. No, it was an opinion, just like yours that relgion is true.

the only difference is that the atheist opinion has facts to support it.

[onehandle]

244. You don't know me. nt

[Name removed]

273. Deleted message

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

[Zoeisright]

46. +1

It always amazes me how fragile many 'Christian's' beliefs are, that they perceive criticism as hate speech. It's quite sad, actually.

[Delver Rootnose]

12. mocking Religion...

...OH my God. I wonder how long it will be before he calls for a jihad for insulting Christ or something like that.

[AlbertCat]

33. What mocking?

They are perfectly serious. No jests of any kind involved here.

[Johnny ramone]

15. "Did I leave anyone out?"

Yes you did ! Festivus !!! :P

[Elmore Furth]

49. Sorry

:shrug:
Nobody's perfect.

[Johnny ramone]

296. Hey. I love your OP.

:)

[alp227]

16. Thank you state police!

If this William Kelly guy wants to live in a land where Christianity is protected by law, he should move to Ireland, which has a law criminalizing blashpemy. Really, it's the kind of America he envisions.

[CLANG]

17. I thought hate speech and hate crimes didn't exist?

At least according to some republicans.

[winyanstaz]

19. On a lot of email sent out by Christians it has a quote to the effect that...

"If by the end of your life you haven't chosen the Kingdom of God it wont matter what you have chosen..."
Meaning their Christian God and that everyone that doesnt chose will go straight to hell.
So how is this sign any different or worse?

[defendandprotect]

176. Think of the many fear-povoking bumper stickers . . .

and the brutality and cruelty of the cross being used as a religious

advertisement!

[winyanstaz]

249. As a pagan I have to agree....

[cactusfractal]

20. It's neither hate speech nor an attack...

The whole point of atheism isn't "You get a god! And you get a god! And you get a god!" C'mon! It's a ● theism , meaning "no gods". So saying there is no god or devil, etc. is exactly what atheist beliefs - or lack thereof - are all about.

It's no more an attack than is the Muslim shahadah ("there is no god but God") or John 14:6 ("No one comes to the Father but through me"). Personally, since I can't prove (and have no interest in proving, FWIW) there isn't some godlike entity, it makes no difference to me. I subscribe to Clarke's posited "sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" myself.

What it IS, however, is protected speech. And the FFRF is entirely right to use civil spaces to promote protection FROM religion, especially given the efforts of evangelicals to enshrine their beliefs in applied public policy.

[onehandle]

31. I don't believe that the entirety of a religion's belief was on display.

Damning people's beliefs on a sign is a lot different than the Christmas tree and nativity scenes there.

It's mean. And it was meant to be mean.

Period.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

44. Do you believe it was hate speech?

Is it protected speech?

"Damning people's beliefs..." - ah, irony. And you probably don't even see it.

[onehandle]

90. My point is that the other displays are not words of 'protest.'

I am not talking about what or what should not be on public property.

The sign was designed to be mean and intolerant.

If I put a sign up in my front yard that said: 'My neighbor is wrong and believes in dumb things,' I would be viewed as an intolerant asshole.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

100. So, do you believe words of protest

are inappropriate for public property? If I protest a war on public property using "mean" words, am I being intolerant?

[onehandle]

126. So you admit it was a protest?

They were using 'mean' words to attack a couple of innocuous displays.

I knew it.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

150. No, you referred to them as words of "protest"

And I asked if you had problems with protests on public property. Can you answer that?

[AtheistCrusader]

47. And Christians aren't damning anyone's beliefs when they inject their religion into public property?

How does a Muslim feel about a nativity scene in a state legislature rotunda? That seem like something of an 'establishment of a state religion to you'? How about the 10 commandments in a courthouse? Think a hindu on trial for something might wonder if he's going to get a fair trial after seeing that?

Not enough they get all that tax free land to assemble and espouse their beliefs, they have to stick it in the halls of Government too.

Screw 'em. That sign was way too polite. Keep the religion off Government property please.

[onehandle]

89. That is a different argument.

I am not talking about what or what should not be on public property.


The sign was designed to be mean and intolerant.

If I put a sign up in my front yard that said: 'My neighbor is wrong and believes in dumb things,' I would be viewed as an intolerant asshole.

[rd_kent]

124. Your dumb example is a PERSONAL ATTACK against your neighbor.

The sign in the display is personal viewpoint.

Again, you are so mired in your own hypocrisy that you cannot see anything beyond your own nose.

[Name removed]

123. Deleted message

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

[defendandprotect]

177. It's "mean" . . .????

Try reading the Bible some time -- the most violent book every written --

Try teading the history of Christianity some time -- for a really violent historical ride!!

[WriteDown]

347. The most violent book ever written?

Link to that claim?

[Gore1FL]

21. To be honest

I believe this sign belongs there as much as a nativity.

Either we should allow religious speech on public property or we shouldn't.

In my opinion, The sign in question, a nativity scene, a Menorah, the ten commandments, a statue of Satan, etc. are all out of bounds.

[KakistocracyHater]

22. yeah, Saturnalia, but very few celebrate it, it being an Ancient Roman Feria

They'd be better off putting up a sign saying:

"DON'T LET RELIGION HARDEN HEARTS OR ENSLAVE MINDS", but that's just my opinion.

[defendandprotect]

179. Winter Solstice can be celebrated, but it should mainly be understood

as part of education --

[Harry Monroe]

23. You forgot to mention "Festivus"!!

Got my aluminum pole up and have been training for my feats of strength for months now. And my list of grievances is long this year!! Happy Festivus to all!!

[jmowreader]

37. I used to sell galvanized steel Festivus poles

Some moran tried being cutesy on me and asked if I had any Festivus poles. As in I wouldn't know what Feativus was, right? I told the dude I had two choices: he could use an aluminum bull float handle for $30, and be authentic to the spirit of the holiday. Or he could get a chainlink fence line post for $7.95 and save money. He bought the $7.95 post.

Idea! I got one of my department's trash cans, emptied it, stuck a dozen 7-foot fenceposts in it, and made a sign: "Festivus Poles For The Rest Of Us. $7.95 each." They sold well.

[Harry Monroe]

259. I'm glad you found a way to make money off "Festivus"...

...but isn't that against the spirit of the holiday? After all, Frank Constanza founded it as a backlash against commercialism!! And now you go and start with your "profit creep"!! Pretty soon it will be just another holiday co-opted all in the name of capitalism!! Shame on you!! :sarcasm:

[jmowreader]

283. Hey, I'm not the ONLY one...

The Wagner Company makes official Festivus Poles, and if you go to

http://www.festivuspoles.com/pages/festivusinabox.htm

you will find Festivus In A Box! Contains a festivus pole, Human Fund cards, Airing of Grievances forms and the technical manual for Festivus celebrations. Good times are had by all.

[Zhade]

27. Good. One, this isn't hate speech. Two, it isn't religious since we atheists LACK religion.

The wording's a bit aggressive, but also happens to be true (though not in all cases, I've known decent believers -- they just happen to believe in unsupported myths).

Glad to see some protection of our first amendment rights.

[Owl]

351. The message is perfectly reasonable to me.

[zoff]

30. Replace "Religion is just" with "Beware of" ...

... as religion holds no monopoly on myth and superstition. Politics, the news, ideology are just as culpable.

[JHB]

38. You missed Festivus...

...for the restuvus.
:smoke:

(on edit: dang! Too late! Missed the Festivus posts above.)

[Suji to Seoul]

39. I prefer "Happy Friday" and moving on.

[Autonomy]

48. I find the sign repulsive

and cannot fault the guy for trying to remove it. Had he used violence, grabbed the sign out of someone's hand, or even been crude while doing it, I would not be on his side. Had they included two words, "We believe" then I would side with group.

Oh, I don't agree that it's "hate speech".

[JoeyT]

Good for you.

Would you be in favor of someone pulling up or otherwise removing a manger scene?
Or do you just support fascism when it's used against people you don't agree with?

[Autonomy]

93. No, I wouldn't

unless the manger scene had a sign that said, "Jesus is your only savior, and you're going to Hell if you believe anything else..." sorta thing, and assuming it wasn't on private property. The taking of that sign would be speech, too, as it was in the above situation.

[proteus_lives]

50. It's freedom of speech.

But I gotta admit, that sign is looking for a fight.

[skepticscott]

165. There already is a fight

and fundamentalist Christians started it. They are absolutely and resolutely determined that their narrow version of their narrow religion should govern legislatures, courts, schools, and all other public institutions. This sign is nothing more than atheists hitting back after centuries of being quiet and taking it.

[Xenotime]

258. It's separation of church and state guaranteed by the constitution.

[timtom]

72. Just a minute!

"The foundation has placed similar signs in several state capitol buildings."

Those signs have no more business being in state capitol buildings than any other statement of religious belief (or disbelief).

Most of this discussion is patently absurd!

[Autonomy]

96. agreed

it's not really a freedom of speech issue because the sign does not belong there. We would have to start allowing religious signs into state capitols, otherwise. I really don't want that.

[panzerfaust]

301. Expect that this sign was only there because religious signs/displays already were

Just a guess.

[rd_kent]

127. Only in places where OTHER religious propaganda is also displayed.

But you are right, there should be NO DISPLAYS at all, in ANY capitol or government building.

[skepticscott]

158. You're right

but signs like this, posted from something other than the fundamentalist Christian viewpoint, seem to be necessary to make people realize what a bad idea it is for governments to get involved in religion at all.

[panzerfaust]

74. Peace to All

The annual rebirth of the sun, the energy source of life on earth, should be a time of Peace and Hope - as it has been to most human cultures throughout history, no matter what story is made up to go along with it.

Peace.


From: Astronomska slika dneva

[rasputin1952]

80. Good...To be honest, I like all of the holidays...

I think it is good for people to express themselves in a variety of ways regardless of faith, or of non-faith.

This nation has a tradition of allowing people to express themselves, w/o fear of reprisal, (although that often is not the case entirely). This man should have been detained by police, as I would think anyone desecrating any other display or sign from any other group should be detained or cited.

Sadly, at this time of year in particular, when there are calls for peace,brotherhood and understanding, some are so blinded by their own foolishness, they fail to comprehend the concept.

I hope he gets a hefty fine...why is it so difficult for people to just accept that others have differing beliefs?

[marshall]

99. His point was probably to draw in votes from his base

If there is a fine placed on him, it'll probably be well worth the publicity that he created by his spectacle. And no doubt cheaper than a paid ad campaign.

[donheld]

107. Yes you left the rest of us out

:D

[Divine Discontent]

110. freedom of speech - and very nasty & intolerant & asking for a fight just to be an ass, but yeah

still freedom of speech.

[rd_kent]

140. You ARE referring to religion, right?

very nasty & intolerant & asking for a fight just to be an ass

because THAT is religion in a nutshell.

[Odin2005]

112. Stupid Christians and their Persecution/Martyr Complex.

:banghead:

[mackerel]

122. When I was a kid they always said "freedom of religion"

I often wonder what that really means.

[pleah]

120. K&R

[Chorophyll]

132. What's sort of assy is that the group

is placing the signs in state capital buildings. We've had dramatic displays of religious groups trying to insert religious symbols in public buildings, which is unconstitutional. Why not just keep these buildings free of anything pertaining to religion or belief at all? They should be neutral ground, not a place to impose our personal beliefs upon one another. (And yes, sometimes atheism strays into the realm of belief.)

[DavidDvorkin]

135. Those are public spaces that have Christmas signs or decorations

That's what caused this response in the first place.

When Christians stop insisting on putting their religious displays in public spaces, the problem will go away.

[rd_kent]

138. You had me in agreement up until the last part.

And yes, sometimes atheism strays into the realm of belief


Please point out examples of this.

[MellowDem]

136. Their definition of religion...

is incredibly juvenile and simple-minded, not to mention just plain false.

One example: science being used with theories on race to keep segregation a reality while religion was a big component of many of the early abolitionists. It's not black and white, but this group seems awfully dogmatic.

[rd_kent]

139. You have no idea what you are talking about, do you?

[MellowDem]

191. Obviously you don't...

hence the non-reply.

[rd_kent]

195. Here ya go....

re⋅li⋅gion –noun
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.


How is that definition simple, narrow minded and just plain false? Thats the definition we ALL use, so again, I ask, you have no idea what you are talking about, do you?

[MellowDem]

285. Wow, you're quite dense, aren't you?

It's funny, because your post actually proves my point, which is that their description of religion is overgeneralized and not part of any "definition".

If you can defend the comment that all religions only enslave minds and harden hearts, then you would have a point. But you won't, because you can't.

"All secularism enslaves minds and hardens hearts" Hmm, this group sounds more "religious" than a lot of religious people I know. Dogmatism and intolerance at its finest.

[onehandle]

308. Note the number...

...of deleted messages within this thread.

Guess who it is.

[defendandprotect]

143. Could we discuss the fact that most of male-supremacist Christianity is hate speech?????

Happy Festus ... !!

:evilgrin:

[WriteDown]

346. Why do you single out Christianity?

:shrug:

[caseymoz]

146. Hate speech? Then "Buddy, I think you're wrong," is hate speech.

It didn't say "believers are the lowest forms of life on earth," or anything like that.

[rurallib]

151. Sad thing is, Kelly probably doesn't care about religion save for

the votes it can deliver him.
This stunt was not done for undying love of Jesus or Mohammed or whoever; it was done to grab tons of publicity and the votes of the sheep.

[Mr. James]

161. Comes to show that...

Christian fundies can dish it out on public property, but they can't take it. You want run? Make room for everyone else then.

[DuaneBidoux]

174. Personally I don't think ANY of those things should be allowed in a government building.

[emarch333]

181. Atheist sign

Read the news release, people. The Capitol authorities had
clearly decided that it would have to be EVERYBODY or NOBODY
and they decided that EVERYBODY could post their holiday
message.

So the question of whether the atheist message is aggressive
or hostile is only relevant to the extent that the messages of
the tree or creche are aggressive or hostile. 
If you are a non-believer, and you may need to accept this on
faith, they most unequivocally, are!

[RedCloud]

185. But in a mere two years, our planet will rip apart just like already happened 1,000 times before.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

And those poor souls from below the equator, they have to die every year except in 2012

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Name removed]

193. Deleted message

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

[earcandle]

197. You can't put religion, only reason is common space.

People of reason do not make their personal spiritual trip a
public issue. They may be religious, but when it comes to
others and our services in common, we are secular people who
just follow the facts that apply to all levels that dictate
our quality of life issues.  

There is no war making within the context of secular
reasoning.  

You cannot run a government that is a Democracy without the
intelligence, character and goodwill that lives in the
principles of Ethics, Logic and Passion.  

We need these secular principles in place to balance us so
that our different beliefs don't cause civil wars.  

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

265. Replace "atheists" with "jews" or "muslims" and wonder how long would that post last. -nt

[earcandle]

196. I got lots of room for diversity! It makes life and relationships much more interesting because we

have to take care and pay attention.  We cannot assume other
cultures have the same speech community as we do, and also the
same non verbal styles, which conveys 70 yo 90 percent of what
we say..  They do not.  Read Dean Barnlund's Book "Public
and Private Self".. uh.. have to get back to you on the
full name of that.. in the middle of making dinner and my
library is not yet set up as a Dewey Decimal system.   Will
get back to you on real name.  But the book analyzes and
compares Japanese and American cultural styles regarding
communication styles.  

In fact, a Stanford Group back in the early days created some
films for business people to understand how to do business
internationally and provide some of the paux faux's to be
avoided when communicating with others outside of the US. 

Their films called "Going International" take a look
at the verbal and non verbal communication styles of South
America, the Middle East, Japanese and Bedouin culture as
well.  Very useful if you want to do commerce.  Not so useful
if you want to steal resources, creating a security industry
to cover your ass when they retaliate against you for doing
so.  Orousboros not good. 

We know how to get along using language to get our needs met,
Just need to take care and pay attention so people can feel
respected and then be willing to work together.  We have a lot
of work to do. 

Of course these movies were made in the context of a Democracy
where all peoples are consider equal and worth the respect
needed that comes from simply taking care and paying attention
coupled with not projecting our worst fears (and most likely
our own blind sided behaviors) on others.  

We recycle our idealogy at lot.  We need to just stop and
start practicing it if we want quality in life. 

[wial]

198. reason is as much a myth as anything else

if the Frankfurt school thinkers and the French deconstructionists are to be given any credence.

"Logos", that Greek concept that got amplified by overreadings of the Bible.

Just another barrier in the way of human freedom.

But whatever makes people happy, in the meantime. We can't all be brave about facing the unknown and not being attached even to that. The most virulent fundie I know is a "science-is-knowledge" fanatic, and he literally yells at anyone he thinks disagrees with him.

[Name removed]

241. Deleted message

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

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

266. Recommended read: "Fashionable Nonsense" by Alan Sokal & Jean Bricmont

http://www.amazon.com/Fashionable-Nonsense-Postmodern-Intellectuals-Science/dp/0312204078

Get it. I'm serious. You won't regret it.

[Raster]

212. My version:

There are no gods, no devils, no angels and no demons. There is no heaven and there is no hell. There is only our natural world.
Religion is but myth and superstition--denying logic and defying fact. Religious bigotry hardens hearts. Religious faith enslaves minds.

[RoccoR5955]

214. And Happy Festivus for the rest of us!

May you be touched by His noodly appendages,
Arrgh and Ramen.

[mdmc]

219. festivis

[Richd506]

226. This is the way I see it

I don't think it was an attack and I do think people have freedom of speech. And anyone who tries to remove it is out of line.

But putting legal matters aside, I do agree that the message would most likely backfire. It will most likely do more to alienate religious people than to change their mind. That is my opinion of the message itself but I do think they have the right to display it.

And btw I am an atheist myself.

[David__77]

245. Do none of yout who oppose this sign's message understand the tactical point?

The point is to get the debate out of the public forum generally. The religious groups should not have messages, and nor should the atheist groups. The the latter or needed in order to draw attention to the fact that one is not more acceptable than the other.

I fully support the tactical intent of the sign, and I also agree with its message, though the latter point is not the key thing.+

[Usrename]

248. I think you have fairly described the purpose of the sign.

I would have to agree with the tactical intent also, but I do have difficulty with the basic clumsiness of the message. It certainly doesn't ring true from my point of view, but if the intent was mainly to make some idiot infuriated enough that he tried to take it down then I guess you cannot argue at all with its effectiveness.

[David__77]

250. Yep, it's "provocation."

And, it has its role in politics in order to achieve a certain goal. I want that sign out, and I want crucifixes and other religious/worldview expressions removed. Government is for strengthening the secular social contract.

[defendandprotect]

254. We all have every right to question and challenge religion . . .

especially when it's brought out into the public arena . . .

It's a very gentle approach to simply saying THINK . . . IMAGINE . . .

Basically, I think we need to laugh at male-supremacist religion more often!!!

:)

[Hansel]

276. I guess it's a test of your faith how offended you get by this stuff.

If you are confident in your belief, why get all offended because someone publicly disagrees with you?

I wouldn't go so far as to say "There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell...Religion is just myth and superstition" because I'm not convinced one way or the other on this subject.

However, I would also not be so pompous as to say "there are gods, devils, angels and heaven and hell" and then get offended or hurt, and often outraged, and try to stop others who disagree from doing so openly like many self-described religious people have been doing for a very very long time.

It is a fact that some people's hearts are hardened and minds enslaved by their taking their religious beliefs to extremes and interpretations perhaps too literally. There is plenty of evidence to back this up and almost every religion has indulged in infractions at some point in time. Billions of lives have been destroyed through war, crusades, torture, terrorism, hate, bigotry, misogyny, inquisitions, witch hunts, etc. all in the name of religion. So that statement as it applies to some is true. It's also true that many lives have been saved and made whole by others whose hearts have been softened and minds inspired by religion.

I don't know one way or another if this sign goes too far, who knows. But if you are truly strong in your faith, I'm not sure why one would be offended by this. Seems like you would feel sorry for the sign maker rather than get angry at the message.

Let the sign stand and the police protect it. It is the right of this atheist to hang it and the right of anyone else to disagree. But if one wants everyone to agree with her/him, perhaps one would be safer to seek out and express religious beliefs in venues where everyone will do so.

[BlueSun]

279. Hypocracy gone amok

For millenia, Christians and other religious sects have been mercilessly persecuting non-believers. They have subjected them to torture, imprisonment, forced conversion, even death (often by burning them alive). Today, it is okay for George H. W. Bush to say "one cannot be America's president without a belief in God." - speech to the National Religious Broadcasters on 1/29/1990 - despite the fact that the only mention of religion in the entire body of the Constitution is in Article VI, which states, "...no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States..."

There is a joke that was popular with Russian comedians in the old USSR (but, only told in private). It went:

Q: What is the main difference between the USSR and the United States.

A: In the USSR, you can criticize the church as much as you want as long as you don't dare criticize the state. While, in the United States, you can criticize the state as much as you want as long as you don't dare criticize the church.

Christians in this country feel that they have the right to say anything, no matter how outrageous, critical, insulting, or threatening, about non-theists. Yet, the moment they sense any real or imagined criticism of themselves, they are outraged...Outraged, I Say!... and start whinging and whining about vicious attacks on the church. Hell, if you say "Happy Holidays" to somebody, Bill O'Reilly will be on your doorstep within an hour, ready to clobber you with a Yule log (which is, Bill doesn't realize, a pagan symbol anyway).

The former Director of Colorado For Family Values told an interdenominational meeting in 1993, "In the end all your knees will bow to Jesus Christ whether you want to or not."

Ralph Reed said, I honestly believe that in my lifetime we will see a country once again governed by Christians...and Christian values. What Christians have got to do is take back this country, one precinct at a time, one neighborhood at a time, and one state at a time.

"I do further promise and declare, that I will, when opportunity presents, make and wage relentless war, secretly or openly, against all heretics, Protestants and Liberals, as I am directed to do and to extirpate and exterminate them from the face of the whole earth, and that I will spare neither sex, age nor condition and that I will hang, waste, boil, flay, strangle and bury alive these infamous heretics; rip up the stomachs and wombs of their women and crush their infants' heads against the wall, in order to annihilate forever their execrable race."

--Pope Paul III, 1576 (I include this for all those who are so willing to denounce Islam as an intolerant religion that calls for violence against infidels - and lest any Jewish reader -my tribe - feel smugly superior, I recommend a careful reading of Deuteronomy).

This type of 'infidel'-bashing has gone on throughout the history of Christianity and continues unabated today.

Its about time that non-theists start speaking up for themselves and questioning the unquestionable in public. Religion has hidden behind its cloak of sanctimonious inviolability for far too long. If you want to dish it out, you have to learn to take it, too.

Blue Sun

Give a man a fish and he will have a pretty nice dinner. Teach him religion and he will starve to death praying for fish.

[Divine Discontent]

297. what?

Give a man a fish and he will have a pretty nice dinner. Teach him religion and he will starve to death praying for fish.


That is laughable. The Earth should have no one left on it if that had any basis in reality since most people believe in a religion and they all should have died supposedly praying for food, instead of growing, harvesting, hunting, & fishing for the food like they have for millions of years. You need a new italicized saying, there's several other anti-religious saying out there, latch onto one of them in your dispersions against belief.

[Vehl]

282. Nothing offensive about it...some of the religious "leaders/members" use much harsher "hate words"

Have none of you folks listened to the tirades of those who claim to represent religions? hell..not only do they use "hate speech" against atheists, but also those not of their religion persuasion. Now when some atheist group gives them a dose of their own medicine(even though i don't support criticizing others for their religions persuasion),the very same guys who don't bat an eyelid when they criticize other religions/atheists raise a big hue and cry. Typical religious-fundie Hypocrisy at its best.


PS: there are some religions that do not condemn others for following a diff religion or for not having a religion at all...but then again..those guys would never bother with this sign in the first place.

[marshall]

315. He might be surprised to find out that not all Christians believe "non-believers" are going to hell

The co-president of the atheist group is quoted as saying "We atheists believe that the nativity scene is mocking humanity," by suggesting that those who do not believe in Jesus will go to hell."

In a world where many folks think all Muslims are bomb-laden terrorists, that's not a surprising point of view.

[defendandprotect]

327. It's about CHURCH and its teachings .. . not about individual Christians . . .

Granted, individuals take up the cause of the church -- whether instigated by the

church or not -- to move this crap onto our public land. We had someone who was

being told NO, but was persisting -- just in case -- in wanting to know how large an

area they would be permitted!? Presumably, this would have included live goats, sheep,

camels!!! Anyway, it didn't happen this time -- but they persist.

And, I would say certainly any administration which moves taxpayer money into Vatican

coffers advances that aggression --

We are now subsidizing the Vatican's "faith-based" organizations . . . and meanwhile,

there is an ongoing investigation into whether the RCC has used that money to pay off

their pedophile lawsuits!!

[WriteDown]

345. Ah...so your beef is with the RCC....

Would be interesting to see what happened if this sign listed a few religions such as Islam, Christianity and Judaism. Maybe they could throw in a line in there like "there is no Allah."

[RetroLounge]

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

Seems about right...

RL

[humblebum]

328. Atheistic "reasoning" is this:

If it can't be seen, heard, smelled, tasted, or touched then it doesn't exist. Yep. that's pretty much it in a nutshell.

[RetroLounge]

329. Maybe you should learn to read.

I never said anything about belief in god or not.

What I quoted was about religion. Not belief.

Religion is not belief.

Now go pray...

RL

[humblebum]

330. You made a statement. I made a statement.. nt

[RetroLounge]

331. Mine was quoting the OP

Yours was nonsensical as usual.

Now go away. God loves you. I don't.

RL

[humblebum]

332. Mine wasn't..

But sometimes the truth hurts.

[RetroLounge]

338. WTF are you talking about? Truth?

:eyes:

RL

[yellowcanine]

335. excellent distinction. Yes. Religion is the problem, not belief, except when we try to force it

on others.

[yellowcanine]

334. Well if Illinois is going to allow religious symbols on the public square, they have to allow

anti religious ones also. It would make more sense to just say no to all of them imo. Decorated trees would still be ok because that is not in fact a religious symbol, no matter how much BillO says it is.

[hughee99]

339. The message has no business being in the Capitol

nor do messages from any other religion. Should I be pleased that the state is upholding the right of the Atheists to post the sign, or pissed because that sign, and any other religious signs on the premises, shouldn't be there in the first place.

[Javaman]

348. Isn't it ironic that the candidate mocks the mockers for mocking?

oh those crazy conservs with their "do as I say not as I do" way of life.