Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Krieger · 12-20-2002, 03:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DigitalChicken:

I'm sorry if you can't see the difference. The fact that many atheists can't see the difference (which frankly is glaringly apparent to me) is why we will continue to have troubles until we get our shit together.

People who believe "Jesus is Lord" do not have consistent opinions about those of other religions. Some think they are all damned to hell and some think that some can be saved and not others and some think atheists can be moral and some don't and so on. To simply assigned a blanket belief to them all is to dehumanize and stereotype them.

DC

Heh, well you're the only one here that sees it that way.

Quote:

Originally posted by DigitalChicken:
On the first, I disagree. Non-believers would be better off if, when experienced this sort of prejudice (vandalism), we would get sympathy with the message that was vandalized.

Absolutely not! Are African Americans better off when some redneck idiot burns a cross in their yard? Are Muslims better off when some stupid hick torches their mosques? Hell no!

That is very naive to think that hate-filled people will all of the sudden feel sorry for us.

Only other groups that are under attack by rednecks would understand, but Joe-six-pack isn't going to give a damn about it.

Toto · 12-20-2002, 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Shadowy Man:
<strong>Would it be intolerant if Buddhists were to put up a sign that read the following?

"Belief in dieties is an attachment that mires you in Maya and prevents you from reaching Nirvana. Free yourself from attachments, follow the Buddha's Eight-Fold Path and attain enlightenment."

How do you think such a sign would fare?</strong>

I think it would get a rotten tomato aimed at it.

But then so would a sign that said "Football games on the Sabbath are an abomination unto the Lord! Turn off your TV and repent!"

"Coveting your neighbor's SUV is an abomination, and so is the SUV! Repent and take the bus!"

"Thou shalt not kill Iraqis!"

Meditate upon why you don't see the Buddhist sign, and why you don't see Buddhists going door to door with that message.

Shadowy Man · 12-20-2002, 03:54 PM

I guess the point is to determine whether people had a problem with the sign because it was an atheistic message or whether they felt the message was attacking their beliefs.

Next time they should put up a sign with a peaceful secular message and see if it gets treated the same way.

The Admiral · 12-20-2002, 03:59 PM

Shadowman

Bullshit. We didn't deface their sign. I say put the same sign up and have guards with cameras, not guns. Expose these bigots for what they are. I'll volunter for duty.

The Admiral

Shadowy Man · 12-20-2002, 04:39 PM

Admiral:

I agree that just because someone puts up a sign with some offensive (to them) words on it does not give them the right to deface it.

But I am wondering whether they defaced it because it "attacked" their religion or that it was atheistic in nature.

My point in the Buddhist sign is that it would also be "attacking" their religion but not be atheistic. Would they find that offensive as well?

ybnormal · 12-20-2002, 06:09 PM

I think I told DC recently, that to argue against his wonderfully sounding, from-the-heart desire to be tolerant, is to look like an intolerant goob, however, argue against it I must. The folks who will listen to DC, are not DC's "real" problem, and the folks that DC really needs to reach, will never hear his tolerance. My good friend Radorth, all by himself, should allow DC to understand that point. Almost everyone involved, has made serious attempts to reach Rad as just another human being... all have failed miserably, simply because Radorth will never hear of any tolerance. The Radorths will not be bothered by DC's tolerance either, and there's more of them than us.

What DC will never understand it seems, is that no matter what, nor how many good deeds he may accomplish, the xians he needs to reach, will forever see him as a political foe, if not an evil tool of Satan.

Living Dead Chipmunk · 12-20-2002, 07:28 PM

I get the feeling that DC's version of the homosexual movement would include the slogan "We're nice, safe, and not out for your kids. Please don't hurt us. We'll be good. Honest. Watch us simper in the corner until you feel sorry enough for us that you afford us basic human rights."

12-20-2002, 07:49 PM

Cut DC some slack, guys. His heart is in the right place.

Anti-Creedance Front · 12-20-2002, 11:50 PM

I am all for a sign DEFENDING nontheists in the capital, but this one is offensive. This is throwing shots out at anyone who is not an atheist (including agnostics, pantheists, and deists!). Although I don't think the sign should have been stolen, it projects a nasty proselytizing image of atheists. If you are saying it should have stayed there, then you're with the "religionists" in your OPPOSITION of religious freedom. Though the stealing of the sign prompts me to do something nasty as vengeance. >

southernhybrid · 12-21-2002, 05:34 AM

I think that sign was very divisive in its tone. I think the words from Robert Ingersoll's Agnostic Christmas would have been more appropriate.

Quote:

The sun is the god of benefits, of growth, of life, of warmth, of happiness, of joy. The sun is the all-seeing, the all-pitying, the all-loving.

This bright God knew no hatred, no malice, never sought for revenge.

That would have been much more related to the holiday and not as divisive in its message.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-20-2002, 03:54 PM	#33
Shadowy Man Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: A Shadowy Planet Posts: 7,585	I guess the point is to determine whether people had a problem with the sign because it was an atheistic message or whether they felt the message was attacking their beliefs. Next time they should put up a sign with a peaceful secular message and see if it gets treated the same way.

12-20-2002, 03:59 PM	#34
The Admiral Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Racine, Wi. USA Posts: 768	Shadowman Bullshit. We didn't deface their sign. I say put the same sign up and have guards with cameras, not guns. Expose these bigots for what they are. I'll volunter for duty. The Admiral

12-20-2002, 04:39 PM	#35
Shadowy Man Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: A Shadowy Planet Posts: 7,585	Admiral: I agree that just because someone puts up a sign with some offensive (to them) words on it does not give them the right to deface it. But I am wondering whether they defaced it because it "attacked" their religion or that it was atheistic in nature. My point in the Buddhist sign is that it would also be "attacking" their religion but not be atheistic. Would they find that offensive as well?

12-20-2002, 06:09 PM	#36
ybnormal Regular Member Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 430	I think I told DC recently, that to argue against his wonderfully sounding, from-the-heart desire to be tolerant, is to look like an intolerant goob, however, argue against it I must. The folks who will listen to DC, are not DC's "real" problem, and the folks that DC really needs to reach, will never hear his tolerance. My good friend Radorth, all by himself, should allow DC to understand that point. Almost everyone involved, has made serious attempts to reach Rad as just another human being... all have failed miserably, simply because Radorth will never hear of any tolerance. The Radorths will not be bothered by DC's tolerance either, and there's more of them than us. What DC will never understand it seems, is that no matter what, nor how many good deeds he may accomplish, the xians he needs to reach, will forever see him as a political foe, if not an evil tool of Satan.

12-20-2002, 07:28 PM	#37
Living Dead Chipmunk Regular Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: South Carolina Posts: 312	I get the feeling that DC's version of the homosexual movement would include the slogan "We're nice, safe, and not out for your kids. Please don't hurt us. We'll be good. Honest. Watch us simper in the corner until you feel sorry enough for us that you afford us basic human rights."

12-20-2002, 07:49 PM	#38
atheist_in_foxhole Guest Posts: n/a	Cut DC some slack, guys. His heart is in the right place.

12-20-2002, 11:50 PM	#39
Anti-Creedance Front Regular Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Wisconsin, USA Posts: 452	I am all for a sign DEFENDING nontheists in the capital, but this one is offensive. This is throwing shots out at anyone who is not an atheist (including agnostics, pantheists, and deists!). Although I don't think the sign should have been stolen, it projects a nasty proselytizing image of atheists. If you are saying it should have stayed there, then you're with the "religionists" in your OPPOSITION of religious freedom. Though the stealing of the sign prompts me to do something nasty as vengeance. >

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.