Athiest sign causes uproar at Illinois State Capital building

[bik0]

They claim the sign mocks their religion. The sign is telling it like it is IMO...

SPRINGFIELD, Ill. (CBS) ―

A conservative activist and Illinois comptroller candidate was escorted from the Illinois State Capitol building Wednesday when he tried to remove a sign put up by an atheist group.

William J. Kelly announced Tuesday that he planned to take down the sign put up by the Freedom from Religion Foundation, and on Wednesday, he tried to make good on his plan.

But Kelly said when he turned the sign around so it was face down, state Capitol police were quick to escort him away.

The sign 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."

http://cbs2chicago.com/politics/capitol.atheist.display.2.1387754.html

[ChairmanAgnostic]

1. kelly's an idiot, with no election budget.

He's trying to make a name for himself with the religious nuts, so he can manufacture a base.

[Speck Tater]

2. I'm an atheist, and I find the absolutism and intolerance of that sign offensive.

It explicitly says "My unproven belief system is superior to your unproven belief system. Followers of my unproven belief system are reasonable and rational, while followers of your unproven belief system are superstitious and have hard hearts and enslaved minds. See it my way and you are righteous. Disagree and you are evil."

That is not the sentiment of an atheist, it is the sentiment of an anti-theist. There is a big difference. Bigotry and intolerance are not acceptable under any banner, including the "enlightened" banner of atheism.

Yes, I am an atheist, but I also recognize that I cannot prove that my position is correct any more than a theist can prove that their position is correct. I accept, therefore, the possibility, no matter how remote, that I may be wrong. Anything else is arrogance and hubris.

[bik0]

4. Atheism is not a belief system - nor does it have followers

That said - the sign may have went overboard by stating the opinion that religion is based on superstition and enslaves minds. As an athiest, I agree with the statement but don't see the reason for pointing it out. It does nothing to enlighten. Making a statement about on the beliefs religions are based on is different than making a statement about religion itself. I can see how one would take that personally and be offended.

[Speck Tater]

12. You believe that atheism is not a belief system, and I believe it is.

Who can say who's belief is correct? Not me.

As for followers, those fanatics over at Skeptical Enquirer sure fit my definition of followers. As a long-time subscriber I must say I've found as much irrational pseudo-science in that magazine as in any religious magazine.

But I won't argue the point with you because there's nothing to be gained arguing against a person's faith.

[ThomCat]

15. Do you also believe that

Total baldness is a hairstyle, or perhaps darkness is a color of light?

Absence of belief in something is not belief in something. That should be a very simple concept to understand.

This idea you have that atheism is itself a belief system basically states that atheism is a religion. That is absurd. It is the absence of religion, and the absence of faith in any religion.

If you truly think Atheism is a belief system, try to define it. The only rule would be that you have to use only positive statements of belief, not negative statements. State what you believe, not what you don't believe.

[Speck Tater]

18. There is a big difference

between an absence of belief in God (which is my position), and the belief in the absence of God, which is the position of many so-called atheists who are actually anti-theists.

The sign mentioned in the OP does not claim an absence of belief in God, but a belief in the absence of God.

You ask: "The only rule would be that you have to use only positive statements of belief, not negative statements. State what you believe, not what you don't believe."

What I believe is that the question of the existence or non-existence of God is undecidable. I have NO beliefs regarding God, one way or the other. I do not believe that God exists, and I do not believe that God does not exist. I am without religious beliefs of any kind, and therefore an atheist. But not a anti-theist, who DOES believe that God does not exist. However, I tend to use the term "agnostic" since too many people think that "atheist" (without God) means "anti-theist" (against God). Many who call themselves atheists are actual anti-theists, with a POSITIVE belief in the NON-existence of God, rather than simply the negative absence of a belief in God.

So which best describes you position:

1) I believe that God exists.
2) I do not believe that God exists.
3) I believe that God does not exist.

Numbers 1 and 3 are positive beliefs. Number 2, which is properly atheism, is NOT a belief system. You claim to NOT have a belief system only as long as you disagree with statement #3. To agree with statement #3 is to have a positive belief system.

[ipaint]

20. Unicorns don't exist either and I can state that as fact because of total lack of evidence.

Same with fairies, pink elephants and santa. All of us do that. it's not that I don't "believe" in unicorns, there is no such thing as a unicorn. Substitute god.

[Speck Tater]

28. I have seen no evidence whatsoever for unicorns.

Therefore I conclude that unicorns do not exist.

That conclusion, however, is NOT proof, and does NOT grant me license to say "unicorns do not exist".

May I recommend: http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Logic-Irving-M-Copi/dp/0130770787

That's the text I used to teach freshman logic from back in the 70's. Read it. Learn it. Then tell me what I mean and don't mean.

And since I'm retired and I don't have to give you a grade for what you do or do not bother to learn, that's all I have to say on the subject.

[ipaint]

36. I'll stick with carl sagan.

"Sagan relates the story of the invisible fire-breathing dragon living in his garage. He asks, "what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true."

What does it mean to say god exist, unicorns exist, santa exists. Nothing.

[ipaint]

37. Dragon in the garage.

"Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder. What I'm asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so. The only thing you've really learned from my insistence that there's a dragon in my garage is that something funny is going on inside my head. You'd wonder, if no physical tests apply, what convinced me. The possibility that it was a dream or a hallucination would certainly enter your mind. But then, why am I taking it so seriously? Maybe I need help. At the least, maybe I've seriously underestimated human fallibility. Imagine that, despite none of the tests being successful, you wish to be scrupulously open-minded. So you don't outright reject the notion that there's a fire-breathing dragon in my garage. You merely put it on hold. Present evidence is strongly against it, but if a new body of data emerge you're prepared to examine it and see if it convinces you. Surely it's unfair of me to be offended at not being believed; or to criticize you for being stodgy and unimaginative -- merely because you rendered the Scottish verdict of "not proved."

Imagine that things had gone otherwise. The dragon is invisible, all right, but footprints are being made in the flour as you watch. Your infrared detector reads off-scale. The spray paint reveals a jagged crest bobbing in the air before you. No matter how skeptical you might have been about the existence of dragons -- to say nothing about invisible ones -- you must now acknowledge that there's something here, and that in a preliminary way it's consistent with an invisible, fire-breathing dragon.

Now another scenario: Suppose it's not just me. Suppose that several people of your acquaintance, including people who you're pretty sure don't know each other, all tell you that they have dragons in their garages -- but in every case the evidence is maddeningly elusive. All of us admit we're disturbed at being gripped by so odd a conviction so ill-supported by the physical evidence. None of us is a lunatic. We speculate about what it would mean if invisible dragons were really hiding out in garages all over the world, with us humans just catching on. I'd rather it not be true, I tell you. But maybe all those ancient European and Chinese myths about dragons weren't myths at all.

Gratifyingly, some dragon-size footprints in the flour are now reported. But they're never made when a skeptic is looking. An alternative explanation presents itself. On close examination it seems clear that the footprints could have been faked. Another dragon enthusiast shows up with a burnt finger and attributes it to a rare physical manifestation of the dragon's fiery breath. But again, other possibilities exist. We understand that there are other ways to burn fingers besides the breath of invisible dragons. Such "evidence" -- no matter how important the dragon advocates consider it -- is far from compelling. Once again, the only sensible approach is tentatively to reject the dragon hypothesis, to be open to future physical data, and to wonder what the cause might be that so many apparently sane and sober people share the same strange delusion."

Carl Sagan
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/Dragon.htm


If verifiable evidence happens to arise I'm all ears. Until then just like the dragon god doesn't exist.

If other folks want to believe in an invisible entity called god that's their choice.

[Speck Tater]

68. Exactly! Which is why I DO NOT say any of those things.

I DO NOT say God exists. I DO NOT say unicorns exist. I DO NOT say Santa exists. You have put those words into my mouth as a straw man for you to knock down. You are not answering my point, but answering some imaginary point I did not make.

[TreasonousBastard]

46. Just as an aside, Copi was the text in my intro course...

back in the 60s.

I'd like to replace my disappeared copy, but that price is a bit of a turnoff-- it seems to still be the preferred text.

[KittyWampus]

30. and here is one way to show how philosophically inept most atheists are. Unicorns certainly exist

They appear in song, artwork and the human imagination. Have for thousands of years. There is an overwhelming material evidence that unicorns do exist.

So they sure do exist and only a fool would assert otherwise.

Now you can try and make a weak attempt at defending your original statement by pointing out that unicorns don't exist as flesh and blood in which case I'd smack that feeble crap down by pointing out that Boogiemen aren't made of flesh and blood either and yet the Bush Administration used them to scare the shit out of people, thereby advancing their fascist agenda.

The Blob wasn't made of flesh and blood and yet watching it on the screen made lots of people's blood pressure rise and yielded them unable to sleep.

Reductionists are a sad lot of blind fools.

[ipaint]

31. Please point me in the direction of a flesh and blood unicorn.

This I got to see.

[winyanstaz]

52. look in the bible if you believe in the bible to find out about unicorns....

Job, Psalms and Isaiah is a good place to start...
and here is a link for you.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v2/n1/unicorns-in-bible

History and myth and cultures around the world speak of both dragons and unicorns..

So although they might no longer exist on the physical plane, I believe they were once here and like the dodo bird are now extinct.

[ipaint]

59. I'm not refering to a belief.

Or your belief. I'm asking for real scientific evidence. Beliefs aren't evidence of the existence of anything but that you believe.

[rd_kent]

72. Hahahahahaha!

Your premise starts with the bible being a work of non-fiction. Can you prove that first, please?

[Meshuga]

75. The Hebrew re'em was at one point translated as "unicorn"

It does not mean it is referring to the same mythical figure you have in mind.

Perhaps you should use this fossil here as stronger evidence:

[MindPilot]

39. Mighty broad brush you got there missy!

How ironic that you respond to a criticism of your woo-woo mythology with a personal attack.

[Confusious]

50. Not suprising that you would be defending

the existence of unicorns and miss the entire point of the discussion.

[dmallind]

76. Perhaps we need to assume that the word "exist" means what it says. NT

[bik0]

23. This is word play - there's no difference in what you're saying.

"There is a big difference between an absence of belief in God (which is my position), and the belief in the absence of God,"

Just because you say it with different syntax, it doesn't change the meaning.

[Speck Tater]

26. I had a lot of trouble getting that across to my freshman logic students

back when I taught that subject at Cal State Univ. Oh well. Some people just don't get it. Apparently, there's nothing I can do about that.

'Nuf said. I won't waste any further time on the matter. Believe what you choose to believe.

[dmallind]

77. Ermm...yes it does.

An absence of belief and a belief in the absence of ANYTHING are very very different.

I say I am a millionaire. Do you not believe me until I offer proof (which could only be a fairly moderate 401K and a deed to a reasonably nice but hardly palatial home)? Or do you take it as an article of faith to accept without proof that I am not, cannot possibly be, a millionaire? Whether you care one way or the other is immaterial. Do you believe or not? Here we have a much much simpler claim - millionaires undoubtedly exist, and are not even that rare. But do you believe, lack belief, or believe in the absence of my status as one of them? Surely you can see the difference between the second and third options.

Most atheists are indeed belief lackers. These are weak (nothing to do with their commitment or capability) atheists. We are willing to accept the idea of some kind of god as (barely) possible, but see no evidence at all for any so far. Only very few atheists are strong atheists who take it on faith - and it is indeed faith since no strong atheist has universal knowledge any more than anyone else - that no gods can possibly exist.

Some of the confusion comes from the difference between generic gods and specific gods. We CAN say that some god claims are false because they are internally contradictory or where known data irrefutably contradict these god claims. There can be no married bachelors. No even prime numbers above 2. No creator gods who are omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent (tooth decay alone nixes that idea). There can however be gods who are ineffable, entirely transcendent, or any two of the three omnis. No sign of them, but no reason at all to assume that there never will be.

[bik0]

84. OK - here's the difference in not believing the existence and believing in the absence

Lacking a belief in something means I don't spend any mental energy, I don't think about it, I don't pay attention to it because it's meaningless. I can think of an unlimited number of imaginary things that don't exist but after that mental exercise I wouldn't waste a nanosecond of mental energy or even one brain cell of consciousness on the subject. So the difference is that I thoroughly investigated the existence of God, immersing myself in different religions, studying the bible & mythology, studying history & science, studying philosophy, praying, meditating etc. to the point that I gave up the belief in God that I acquired. I was born with no belief in the existence of God but gradually acquired a belief in God from being taught and conditioned by authoritative influences (parents, teachers etc.) but realized that their acceptance of God was based on authoritative influences in their lives. There was no critical thinking or investigation on their part - they just accepted it on faith and expected me to do the same. Once I started investigating, the power of my beliefs gradually eroded to the point that I no longer believed. So now there's no mental effort involved. I don't have a lingering compulsion to believe in God that I have to resist. If that were the case then believing in the absence of God would make sense. Believing in the absence of God would require effort so it implies a conflicted mind. A true athiest does not believe and is of one mind.

"I say I am a millionaire. Do you not believe me until I offer proof (which could only be a fairly moderate 401K and a deed to a reasonably nice but hardly palatial home)? Or do you take it as an article of faith to accept without proof that I am not, cannot possibly be, a millionaire? Whether you care one way or the other is immaterial. Do you believe or not? Here we have a much much simpler claim - millionaires undoubtedly exist, and are not even that rare. But do you believe, lack belief, or believe in the absence of my status as one of them? Surely you can see the difference between the second and third options."

[dmallind]

85. But they are still two different options

Obviously your arriving, as did mine, at the informed and considered stage of lacking belief required mental energy to get to that point, even if it requires little to none to sustain. But it is still lacking belief. You can also lack belief with no more energy invested or thought concerned than mindless unexamined belief. The currently fashionable term is apatheists - lacking belief because you don;t give a crap about the question.

Since I am in thie state of lacking belief due to already expended thought, study and consideration, I can also easily postulate what might change my mind. All too often theists complain that atheists are rigid and inflexible and can never be persuaded. What you call "a true atheist" (I don't like the terminology, but I think I understand it) are not going to conform to this stereotype. In ten minutes I can detail a dozen experiments that would have me believing - all variations on the Elijah test.

Instead a strong atheist, who can have come to that position either through study and consideration (although with incorrect conclusions in my opinion) or through innate bias or prejudice, has reached a different option. They have decided that gods do NOT exist, period. The only even vaguely rational approach to strong atheism is also based on the conclusion that gods CANNOT exist, as the need for universal knowledge is easily apparent and never claimed otherwise. It may take no more effort and no more conflict for them to maintain this position than it takes you or I to maintain weak atheism. For example let's say you followed this path to strong atheism.

NOTE - OBVIOUSLY I DISAGREE WITH THIS

1) Gods by definition are entities that can suspend physical constants and contradict physical and scientific laws by an act of will. If they cannot then they are bound by even greater powers and are therefore not supremely powerful and therefore not gods

2) Therefore a god could make pi = 6

3) It is impossible for pi to equal 6.

4) It is therefore impossible for a god to exist.

Having followed that faulty syllogism to its cinclusion, you would become a strong atheist and require no more conflict or energy at all.

This doesn't make the strong atheist not a true athiest any more than being, say, a Catholic who believes in transsubstantiation stops you from being a true Christian. The absence of belief is still there, it is just augmented by an unprovable and irrational certainty. It does indeed become a belief that absence exists rather than JUST an absence of belief as in weak atheism.

[spoony]

25. You are correct.

But don't expect anyone besides me to say so, because they are emotionally invested in being beyond having beliefs.

[Speck Tater]

27. Exactly. They mistake belief for certain knowledge. It's a shame really. nt

[trotsky]

69. The source of all the problem here is the definition for the word "god".

Define "god" first, and then we can talk about whether denying its existence is logical or not. (For instance, disbelieving in something with a logically inconsistent definition would not be a belief system.)

[dysfunctional press]

48. is not believing in the greek gods of mt. olympus a "belief system"...?

[Matariki]

53. If you feel compelled to post signs about it, it probably is.

:shrug:

[dysfunctional press]

56. so- the only athiests with a 'belief system' are the ones who post signs about it...?

is that what you're saying?

[dmallind]

78. Really? So if Olympian believers were imposing laws based on those beliefs

It would take a competing belief system to object to this?

The statement is indeed one of strong atheism. I suspect this is intentional, as I know FFRF appreciate the difference. It is of course then a belief statement in and of itself, but since atheists have no central credo speaks only for the people who put it there and no others.

[mr blur]

51. Well, you're wrong. (eom)

[darkstar3]

29. Oh, you're an atheist, now?

And here I thought you were a staunch agnostic...Did something happen to change your mind?

[dmallind]

79. It's easy to be both. One is ontological the other epistemological

I am both too. However I use the terms only in their correct frames. No discussion of belief in religion or gods will see me use the term agnostic as the primary or sole descriptor of my opinion.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

60. Ah, I see. You're a "Lifelong Atheist But".

[Deep13]

80. Sorry, but all the evidence is on our side.

We may not want to recognize that proof, but it is inescapable. Everything from the lack of direction of evolution, to our nuerological wiring that makes us want to believe, to the history of religions, to the twisted logic of theodicy and the absolute lack of anything remotely miraculous no matter how closely we look all point to a lack of gods.

Anyway, how is this any different that expressing any other point of view. If there is no god, then that is a fact. Period. If there is one or several, then we are wrong and there is no way around that. Why is it okay for Christians to tell everyone that we are born damned and that we have to believe that a guy who was also god was tortured to death 2000 years ago to somehow make us less guilty. Aren't they expressing intolerance not only for nonbelievers, but for every other kind of believer in the world?

[DeSwiss]

82. Who gives a crap if you're offended?

Freedom of speech and expression doesn't require that people have to "like" my speech or expression. Just ask the KKK. They say shit I hate all the damned time. They could put a sign up there to if they wanted. It's their right. But as everyone knows, the KKK has no balls so they probably won't.

The point of our freedoms sir, is that I be allowed to be as offensive and expressive as the next person. No more, no less. Or at least as offensive as the next church sign that implies that my life is all fucked-up and wrong and that I'm going straight to hell for eternity (a concept btw that no one can seem to define) if I don't join their cult of the insane and deluded.

- I demand to have the same rights as the insane and deluded religious Americans. It's the least America must do for its citizens under our Constitution.....

[Smarmie Doofus]

3. This would have worked better:

"At the time of the winter solstice, let reason prevail."

And drop the rest of it.

Everyone knows what is meant , but there is no explicit challenge to rival belief systems.

[Matariki]

6. Exactly. The rest is an attack on what other people believe and value.

[bik0]

8. I don't have a problem with this statement...

"There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell. There is only our natural world."

I don't feel offended when I see signs stating the opposite.

[KittyWampus]

32. that is beautifully put.

[Matariki]

5. Good. That sign is rude.

It belittles other people's beliefs. Had it only said "There is only our natural world", that would have been one thing, an assertion of a world view by Atheists - but it has to go rudely on to call other world views myth and superstition.

Fuck them. They're as bad as Fundies.

[MineralMan]

16. Yeah? Plenty of signs about some deity being responsible for

everything. Same stuff; different point of view.

I'm not offended by the deity signs. Why be offended at signs that say there isn't one. Is your faith that insecure?

[Matariki]

17. I'm offended by signs that say - If You Don't Believe What I Do -

You Are Stupid Or Crazy.

I don't care if they are Theist or Atheist.

That sign is offensive.

[Ghost in the Machine]

40. Are you equally offended by practitioners of these beliefs telling me

that I am going to burn in hell for all of eternity if I don't accept their belief system, worship their deity and dedicate my life to serving him?

:shrug:

[Matariki]

44. Yes. Absolutely.

And most especially if done on government property.

[MindPilot]

33. There are DUers who are also FFRF members.

You might do well to remember that when you say "Fuck them".

[Matariki]

45. I meant the people who put up that sign.

I don't know who the FFRF is, but if they created that sign, it's rude and intolerant. If that's what they are about, then I have little respect for them. Are they only able to define their own beliefs in the context of negating and belittling others?

Why couldn't they just stop with 'At this season of the winter solstice may reason prevail'? Why do they have to go on to insult other people?

And yes, I'm just as offended by people of various religions disrespecting others who don't share their beliefs. Why does any of this stuff need to be on government property anyway?

[MindPilot]

63. "Why does any of this stuff need to be on government property anyway?"

That is the over-reaching question and exactly the issue to which that sign is crafted as a response.

No different than "Jesus is the reason for the season" mocks my non-belief.

[ipaint]

7. I wish I had seen that sign as a kid.

I could have started thinking freely a lot earlier. Wasting time as a kid trying to convince myself god exists when I knew better was pointless.

[madrchsod]

9. i think there was a post about this thursday...

so far the conversation is polite...the other post`s replies were not.

[Myhrejl]

10. It's nice

I enjoy seeing displays like this after dealing with decades of televised christian messages. Watch even this very small display get shouted down.

[randr]

11. Just another asshole that does not believe in the good ol American

value of separation of church and state. These people need to be tagged for what they really are:
UnAmerican, anti-freedom loving, disrespective to all who have died to grant us our freedoms, and lacking a basic understanding of our Constitutional Rights.

[Myhrejl]

13. I mean sure

the country was founded on separation of church and state, but since we are mostly christian we can overlook the rights of minorities like atheists.

For three days the sun hangs in near death, on the winter solstice, and after the third day it rises ever so slightly signaling the rebirth of the earth and the coming of spring (in the northern hemisphere).

[beyurslf]

14. Don't they also have a Festivus pole up there? :)

[SidDithers]

19. Put him in jail...nt

Sid

[Skittles]

21. I don't want to see that sign

any more than I want to see the religious drivel I'm constantly subjected to

[tritsofme]

22. Sounds like that group is a bunch of pricks.

There are better ways to get your message out.

[MindPilot]

34. There are DUers who are also FFRF members.

You may want to consider that the next time you feel like expressing your Christian values by writing "that group is a bunch of pricks".

[tritsofme]

41. If people want to associate with assholes like that, it is not my problem.

I'm not a particularly religious person, but I sure do think they are "a bunch of pricks" for putting up those types of signs.

Let people enjoy Christmastime.

[MindPilot]

42. "I'm not a particularly religious person"

Your need to qualify your supposed lack of religious belief while making another bigoted statement against Atheists says a lot. Are some of your best friends Black?

[tritsofme]

43. I was only responding to your characterization

that I might claim to represent "Christian values" which is most certainly not my intention.

You can think these folks are pricks regardless of your religious beliefs.

[MindPilot]

62. So your immediate response to the mockery of an idea

is a personal attack. Got it.

[TreasonousBastard]

47. Since they have no problem calling me a delusional idiot, I have...

no problem with calling them pricks.

Sorry-ass, rude, ignorant pricks, at that.

And not because they might be atheists, that's OK. It's because they make the unforgivable mistake of insisting without any evidence in public that their opinion is more valid than mine and mocking my beliefs.

[MindPilot]

61. Ridiculous beliefs deserve to be ridiculed.

[TreasonousBastard]

65. Do they? And, who set you up as the arbiter of "ridiculous beliefs"?

[SidDithers]

71. +1...nt

Sid

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

64. Oh, great. The brand new irony-o-meter I got for Christmas just blew up.

"They make the unforgivable mistake of insisting without any evidence in public that their opinion is more valid than mine and mocking my beliefs."

:nuke:

[TreasonousBastard]

66. Yeah. Got a problem with that? If some alleged Christians said...

something that pissed you off, how does that give you the right to mock my beliefs?

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

67. Ah, I got it. You can, we can't.

Well, fuck that. You ARE going to see more of this. Billboards, signs, demonstrations, authors like Richard Dawkins gaining prominence, the works.

And there's not a damn thing you can do about this, short of turning the West into a Christian version of Saudi Arabia. Which won't happen.

So choke on that.

[TreasonousBastard]

87. I'm not choking on anything and I never said you can't...

preach your own ignorant, ridiculous beliefs in public. And preaching that there is no god is pretty much the same as preaching that there is no matter how much you may love to think that it is somehow a superior and more rational position. It is an unprovable assumption with no more evidence that asserting there is a god.

(Besides, you haven't even bothered to define the god you say isn't there. At least we know what unicorns are supposed to look like.)

What you can't do is mock others-- it's rude, and some of them might be right after all.

[rd_kent]

92. What you fail to understand is that if the religious would keep religion to themsleves

then atheists would do the same..........

Ahhh, what a wonderful world it would be with NO ONE spewing their beliefs in public........

[Soylent Brice]

86. *chuckle*

[trotsky]

70. Funny.

... they make the unforgivable mistake of insisting without any evidence in public that their opinion is more valid than mine...

Which never, ever happens in any other sphere. Like politics, for instance. :eyes: Fuck, this whole site is about declaring that Democratic positions are more valid than Republican ones. Sometimes we have some evidence. But not for everything, and that doesn't stop us from proclaiming that the liberal approach is better than the conservative one. Are we all making the same "unforgivable mistake"?

and mocking my beliefs

Happens all the time to Republican beliefs on DU. Hell even different stances on positions within the Democratic party get roundly mocked and shouted down on here. It's funny when uber-sensitive Christians like yourself get their underwear knotted up simply when your religion gets treated like just another issue or position.

[TreasonousBastard]

88. Still ain't right, and in politics there are..

underlying realities that the "beliefs" are affecting.

Putting up a sign declaring religions are bullshit in a Christmas display is the height of arrogance and unnecessarily rude.

[rd_kent]

91. No its not.

Putting up a sign declaring religions are bullshit in a Christmas display is the height of arrogance and unnecessarily rude.

Putting up a display that espouses ones beliefs in a government building is the height of arrogance and unnecessarily rude. The atheist sign is no more rude or inappropriate that the other religious displays.

[trotsky]

94. rd_kent nails it.

Why do Christians have to keep trying to get their beliefs endorsed by the state, either directly or indirectly? THAT'S the arrogance and rudeness that started it all. Maybe someday they (and you) will understand.

[darkstar3]

96. +10! n/t

[rd_kent]

73. Oh, there is PLENTY of evidence that your opinion is wrong....

the fact that religion has yet to prove that their beliefs have any truth whatsoever is all the reason one needs to mock it. Aside from the scientific advances that have continually invalidated most of the claims of the religious over time is just icing on the cake.

[TreasonousBastard]

89. Religion is not entirely about gods, much less...

the god of the gaps, as you would know if you weren't so full of yourself.

At any rate, there is no "scientific" evidence either for or against the existence of any gods. Perhaps we can let Zeus and Odin pass as reasonably sure they don't exist, but modern concepts of non-anthropomorphic gods are different and their existence cannot be proven one way or the other.

(And, defining just what these gods are that don't exist would help.)

[rd_kent]

90. Strawman Alert! Strawman Alert!

First of all, Yes, religion IS all about gods. Without those gods there would be no religion.

I never claimed that there was any evidence against the existence of gods. We both know that but you decided to put up that strawman anyway. We DO know there is NOT any evidence to support the existence in a god, but what I did say was Aside from the scientific advances that have continually invalidated most of the claims of the religious over time is just icing on the cake. What I am talking about is that as we have become more enlightened about the world we live in, the religious myths that once explained things are being dispelled and proven to be entirely untrue.
Things like the earth being flat, the earth being 6000 years old, the existence of creatures great and small that the creators of religion had no idea even existed, modern medicine, the list goes on and on and on....and as time moves forward, so will new discoveries, scientific discoveries, that will continue to dispel the myths of religion.

So again, religion IS all about gods and the belief in them without proof of their existence and in the face of evidence that supports the contrary.....to me, that is willful ignorance and irrational behavior. If you want to choose to be ignorant and irrational, that your choice, just keep it out of my life please.

Oh, and just to be clear...I will ALWAYS respect your RIGHT to believe whatever you want, but I am under NO obligation to respect the ACTUAL beliefs you hold, and since they seem to me, to be ravings of the delusional, I will mock them when they are publicly spoken. Heres a deal for you, if you keep your religious beliefs in your church, in your home and to yourself, I will do the same. Deal?

[TransitJohn]

95. Right, because putting fact up against

mythology in a public arena is "being a prick." :eyes:

[Feron]

24. A god that is threatened by a sign is an impotent one...

Rudeness of the sign really isn't an issue. You can be sweeter than sugar, but fundies will attempt to remove the sign regardless. There is no compromise with these people.

This is out of line:




But this is perfectly fine:



The perils of having a government sponsored religious display is that you have to cover the entire spectrum of belief which includes us pesky atheists and agnostics.

Perhaps if Mr. Kelly would take that Yule tree out of his ass he'd feel a lot better.

[winyanstaz]

55. excuse me but the YULE tree belongs to us Pagans....

:) and we would prefer it not stuck in anyone tush..thanks anyways. It's already bad enough our religious holidays and symbols were stolen and high jacked by the Christians without people sticking them in other peoples tushes....just saying..thats nasty.
hahahaa
However...I hear you.....they cannot have it only their way and force everyone else out..including pesky atheists and agnostics...and pagans :)
I also have to agree...ANY God that has to have people kill for him or take signs down for him...is a poor sorry excuse of a God.

[piratefish08]

58. I want my pagan yule tree back!

Thieving Christians!!

[gopwacker_455]

35. Another reason to hate this country

[rd_kent]

74. Enjoy your stay....

I'm sure it will be short.

[DeSwiss]

83. You hate your country? You hate Australia????

Even the cute little koala's???

:P - Now that's just being mean.....

[Romulox]

38. "Take THAT daddy!!!1!!1!!"

:rofl:

[TreasonousBastard]

49. I don't know if this sign deserves to be torn down, but it is rude and...

flies in the face of all of the positive religious and secular thoughts made public this time of year.

I never saw a Christian sign celebrating the birth of Christ while claiming Jews, Muslims, and Hindus were too stupid to see the real religion.

Nope-- 'tis the season for peace and goodwill, and signs like this are anything but.

[Luminous Animal]

54. The simple claim that Jesus is Savior is insulting to many religions.

And holy fucking hell, it nigh impossible to walk 5 minutes in any shopping area during christmas without that insulting idiocy being broadcast.

[TreasonousBastard]

57. And a very merry Christmas to you, too.

[DeSwiss]

81. Don't you just LOVE.....

...seeing all that RELIGIOUS TOLERATION on display????

- The Founding Pilgrims would be so proud......

K&R

[rd_kent]

93. Kick