What in the world do they hope to accomplish with that kind of shit.

I have no problem with billboards that let non-believers or believers know that there is a place for them and that they have options, but attacking the "other" is juvenile and offensive.

And it can't possibly achieve any goal of getting more members.

Agree that it's a POV and not questioning it's legality or anything like that.

It's still offensive.

but that's your right I guess...have a good evening

edit: spelling

Telling someone that their position or argument is wrong, and telling them why, is routinely dismissed as "a personal attack", "harassment", "persecution", "stalking", "bigotry" or just being a big ol' meanie. And pretty much always by the religionists.

How is Are you an Atheist? You are not alone. offensive to anybody?

I see nothing wrong with non-believers reaching out to other non-believers. I have a huge problem with people who think that they're being insulted by that. That's just too damned bad (so to speak ) especially when so many believers openly profess beliefs that I, as a non-believer, deserve eternal torture. I could find that quite insulting if I cared what other people believed -- which I mostly do not.

I find none of those signs personally insulting, even those from Ken Ham, whose whole purpose in life seems to be to insult intelligence. My thinking is that if he thinks that's his purpose in life, that's okay with me. May he reap as he sows.

I have no objection to signs that say that you are not alone or there is a place for you or please check us out if you are interested.

And many of them say that.

It's the one's that attack believers or non-believers that i find offensive.

I admit that I did not look closely enough at that specific link, but if you look specifically for "anti" billboards, you will find them on both sides.

What's the point?

It differs substantially from people like Ken Ham, who wishes solely to win souls for God -- well, specifically and actually for Jesus, whatever that might mean.

My opinion is that I do not give a f*ck if believers find these outreaches to be offensive. That's just too damned bad. When you live in a country with a First Amendment, you can be offended all you want. The First Amendment protects both offending and non-offending speech.

In reality, none of these things would be -- or should be -- offensive except for ideology. The founders of the USA understood this with remarkable clarity and often wrote about that very principle.

There were those that called beliefs myths. There was the one with the african slave. There were ones that said "You know it's all a lie".

That's not outreach, that's provocation and falls into a different category, imo.

Just as this one does.

He is indeed exercising his right and I'm not saying he does not have the right to express it. But it can still be offensive. Those are two different things.

If someone uses racist language around me, they have the right to do so, but I also have the right to be offended, don't I?

If you call women names that I won't type here and I am insulted, is that just too damned bad?

Last edited Mon Oct 7, 2013, 08:39 PM - Edit history (1)

To openly profess offense is to not understand the purpose of the First Amendment.

The use of provocative speech goes back centuries -- millennia really. Try Clemens, Swift, Shakespeare, Galileo, Plato, Homer, etc. One even finds it the Hebrew Bible. If you want real provocation try Thomas Paine sometime.

Screaming offense is tantamount to saying that people have no right to say things. That is something I cannot accept.

Offended? Too fucking bad!

Jefferson and Madison understood that very, very clearly. And they wrote the thing, with the help of the US Congress, which adopted these principles, with near unanimity.

Alas. There are so many today who just don't get it. A free society cannot exist where people can be hushed merely because some people are offended.

I support all of these billboards and bus signs. Yes! Even those from Answers in Genesis.

My regards.

And on the calling women names issue. In case you haven't noticed there has been a fair amount of that going on recently, too. (I know you have, dear friend.) The slut shaming of Sandra Fluke was shameful. And there have been too numerous of other instances, even on the atheist Web, and even here on DU. I find them more than repulsive.

But I would no more claim that people don't have the right to say them than I would say that people could say that they are offensive. Claiming offense is free speech, too. I would not want to stifle that any more than I would the putatively offensive speech.

I find Ken Ham and misogyny (among other things) quite repulsive and offensive. But people have the right to express them publicly. In a way, it helps our cause. The more repulsive society finds these out dated ideas, the sooner they will fade. But when people make decisions on their beliefs, it's best to know where they stand. It won't help if there's a culture that says people don't have a right to say them.

So, I say (since this is a political site). Quoting Cenk Uygur, "Have at it, Hoss!" Speak the most offensive of your beliefs. Do it publicly so everybody knows and we can sort it all out.

That's why the right to offensive speech is just important as that about warm, fuzzy bunnies. And fortunately, it's why what's offensive has changed over the years as society has.

One of the contentious domain left seems to be religion. The reason is, unlike misogyny, no one religion has a claim to being the best social good... in spite that they ALL claim that very fact. That makes religion different. And I think we both know that it is.

Thanks.

anywhere they want?

As someone who often speaks without thinking it through, I sometimes appreciate being told that what I have said is offensive.

I've got nothing against provocative speech and am not making the case that this shouldn't be allowed. So I guess were we disagree is that I don't think saying something is offensive is tantamount to saying that someone has no right to say it.

It's not about silencing Ham. It's about pointing out that what he is doing is intentionally offensive.

To do otherwise would to be complacent with and might even convey silent agreement.

I think we are just using terms differently.

Hope you are well.

And the way it has been interpreted.

I am really not saying that people shouldn't be offended. But they are really saying more than that, aren't they? They are saying people shouldn't say offensive things.

That's where I disagree with them.

As I added to my previous post here, "Have at it, Hoss! Say whatever you want so everybody can sort you out. You want to slut shame women. That's fine. I just hope you aren't running for Congress or anything."

Free speech, even free offensive speech, is an essential to a free republic, as both Jefferson and Madison understood.

What is offensive and not has changed over my very lifetime. Some of what was socially inoffensive in my youth is now grossly offensive. This is enforced by social change, not laws. Fortunately I was brought up to be tolerant and adopted many of today's social norms early on.

It is no longer socially acceptable to be misogynistic, racist, and many other things that were quote prevalent in my youth.

Religion is different. I don't want to get into the benefits of belief or non-belief here. But this is an important battle because there's a lot of mess in its wake. Just as Thomas Paine, Susan B. Anthony, Martin Luther King, were all deliberately provocative, non-believers may today be deliberately provocative.

I know that it's a tact I often use in these very forums. As I am among friends, I hope they will not consider my posts to be insulting. Or, at least I must assume that is so. I at least try to stick to the issue.

In the end, these billboards are part of a battle front for the ever-growing community of non-believers to make themselves known. That's good. Because we are nearly universally reviled and we are much more numerous than anybody imagines.

The issue in being deliberately provocative is to clearly identify who the enemy is. When people use broad categories that sweep up allies in the net, they may take two steps forward and three steps back.

On this site, we are allies. We all have a common enemy in the religious right.

I agree with pretty much everything else you say, as I usually do as we continue to talk.

I need something to eat (and drink) now.

I hope you have a wonderful night.

Always happy to have these discussions. You've taught me a lot here. I don't expect, nor assume that I have done the same with you, or any other here.

My overly verbose, ramblings here may not convince many. I am not sure if that's even my intent. But I post here because I have a very healthy respect for all who post on the DU Religion forum. And at least I feel very comfortable espousing my point of view here.

It's not about necessarily convincing anyone, but to me about understanding others a bit better.

You are articulate and always civil. And you never make it personal. All of these are valuable traits and this group is fortunate to have you as an active participant.

They use the word "probably"

It's to let other atheists know they're not alone. Anyone whose skin is so thin and whose faith is so fragile that they get offended just knowing that people who don't share their belief exist deserves no sympathy and no consideration.

They may claim they are trying to change minds, and I don't doubt (a small) part of their motive may be to express solidarity with other atheists, but the principal goal is to take a jab at the believers.

How are statements like:

"Don't believe in God? You are not alone"

"Are you good without God? Millions are"

"Millions of Americans are living happily without religion. Learn more"

Designed to needle believers, rather than to reach out to other non-believers? Unless, as noted, the believers are so weak-kneed that just knowing that there are millions of people not like them out there makes them feel persecuted and made fun of?

Faith is believing what you know ain't so.

Beware of dogma.

Reject all religious superstitions.

If that isn't needling, what is it?

Last edited Mon Oct 7, 2013, 09:10 PM - Edit history (1)

then we can only assume that you conveniently (and rather dishonestly) ignored all the ones that you thought didn't support your position (which was most of them).

As far as the ones you cite here, let's look at Beware of Dogma. Can you find anyone here, even among the religionists, who will not characterize that as simply wise advice to anyone at any time, as opposed to the persecution complex characterization of "needling"? Get back to me on that, and then I'll take care of the others. With pleasure.

I won't answer for the poster you mentioned, but I definitely believe that dogma is inherently dangerous. Accepting anything without question is dangerous.

I know that's a common usage, but dogma includes any belief or set of beliefs, and dogma is not exclusively religious.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dogma

dog·ma noun \ˈdȯg-mə, ˈdäg-\
: a belief or set of beliefs that is accepted by the members of a group without being questioned or doubted

: a belief or set of beliefs that is taught by a religious organization
plural dog·mas also dog·ma·ta

Full Definition of DOGMA

1
a : something held as an established opinion; especially : a definite authoritative tenet
b : a code of such tenets <pedagogical dogma>
c : a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds
2
: a doctrine or body of doctrines concerning faith or morals formally stated and authoritatively proclaimed by a church

most of the atheist ones you mention are impersonal or reach out to atheists who live in areas that are, frankly, hostile to their very existence.

I don't see the equivalency here, nor a "tit for tat".

The worst of the atheist ones proclaim that there is probably no god, so maybe we should stop worrying about it and enjoy life.

Are you now saying they have no right or reason to do that?

And what do YOU hope to accomplish by belittling and insulting them? Especially when you regularly scold people here for doing the same thing. How about trying to "understand and "tolerate" them instead? That is your agenda, isn't it? That's what you preach from your mountaintop...that's what you make the whole room listen to...why don't you start practicing it for a change?

It proves agnostics are far more complex for we have no simple answers.

Those that think they are right have only convinced themselves of this. While they may be able to convince others, agnostics don't even pretend to know.

That is agnostics can't be taught. You have to find your own way there. And one must become comfortable saying "I don't have a clue about that".

I'm an agnostic too, I don't know either.

I'm also an atheist, I do not possess a belief in a god or gods.

Last edited Mon Oct 7, 2013, 08:50 PM - Edit history (1)

Everybody is entitled to their beliefs and free speech as long as it's not forcing it on me in the form of laws and such. This isn't any different than the Atheist billboards you see around occasionally.

That being said: 'message of truth'? Really?

A collection of fairy tales handed down from illiterate bronze age goat-herders has no more 'truth' in it than does any other mythology.

But, hey people are free to believe what they want, no matter how improbable it may be.

... so they will buy into it and do what we say."

Everybody's already heard it and they're sick of hearing about it constantly.

Ken Ham has any atheist friends.

I'm pretty sure if Ken Ham walked up to me and called me "friend" I wouldn't feel like he meant it.

attempt to annoy people.

Whatever.

The questions are in Ecclesiastes.

Strange order, ain't it.

Not offended. Just think they're wrong. Anyway, there is no right to be free from people disagreeing you.

It disgusts me.

It's a public conversation. And if St. Paul had that attitude, there would be no Christianity.

Anyway, the point is to find the truth and convince others of it. If you are a skeptic, then it is out of a motivation for people to stop worrying about hell or offending god or trying to reconcile reality with theology, etc. If you are Christian, it is out of a desperate desire to save others from an eternity of torture.

It can't be won and it's just a circular firing squad.

Totally pointless.

tolerated.

I think it's important to make a distinction.

Battling with the religious right is what needs to be done and there are many theists who would agree with that.

However, refusing to allow a debate about what are our best methods to combat them is counter-productive, divisive, and wrong. You, cbayer, are telling non-believers who aren't OK with simply out-faithing the right to shut up and sit down lest you label them "anti-theists," shun/ignore them, and/or try to silence them by bullying.

Quoting the bible at the religious right isn't going to work. Appealing to things Jesus said isn't going to work. (If any of that would have worked, dontcha think we would have seen it by now?)

But rather than allowing others to speak and present their points, you actively work against them - dividing our coalition more than those you hate could ever manage on their own.

amendment?

Take abortion, for instance. These people would have me allow them to ban abortion based on their belief in an intangible, unprovable 'soul' thingy, and invest rights in a multi-celled blastocyst that hasn't even implanted yet.

That's not based on reality.

I like my legislation based on reality.

I'm not the one making up metaphysical bullshit to ban something they arbitrarily deemed immoral. Something that injures women, families, etc.

It is fundamentally incompatible with a free society.

the basis for that idea is not yours to determine its merit to be considered except by you individually. You don't get to determine for society what it will consider compatible.

Collectively as a voter, and under the auspices of the powers enumerated or prohibited in the Constitution, however, is a different matter.

Current case law understanding of the 'establishment clause' of the First Amendment clearly prohibits things like asserting by law that a multi-celled blastocyst has a 'soul', and is imbued with rights.

Lemon vs. Kurtzman.

1.The government's action must have a secular legislative purpose; (Purpose Prong)
2.The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion; (Effect Prong)
3.The government's action must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion. (Entanglement Prong)

The government, recognizing by law the existence of a 'soul' to thereby ban abortion because it imbues rights upon recognition of said 'soul', is a violation of all three prongs of that test.

people seeking a law. There is no Constitutional basis to object to any reason someone desires a law to be passed.

law.

I suppose if there is NO connection whatsoever, and the proposed law serves no religious purpose, there is no problem, but I cannot think of any examples of such behavior.

'soul' and saying it is against 'God's law' and even if it was the sole motivation for proposing a law prohibiting abortion the words of the law could be crafted to meet all secular and constitutional demands. If I were to propose laws expanding the social svcs provided to the poor based only on the conviction that God wants us as a society to do so laws could be designed to meet any constitutional requirements. And so I maintain that the motivations are not the determining factor in whether the laws are upheld.

even implanted yet?

Of which most never implant naturally. Of which it does not yet possess a single differentiated nerve or brain cell. etc.
Your point requires that we imbue that cell with rights, based upon..... ?

As soon as you invoke the supernatural to defend it, we're done.

Edit: Your alternate analogy is better, because a secular case can be made for helping the poor. What secular case can be made for protecting a multi-celled blastocyst, post-fertilization, pre-implantation?

Your final point on the supernatural is irrelevant on the societal level at this point in time perhaps one day it will be otherwise. I'll just end with this, religious, philosophical, economic, etc the motivation behind the effort to effect our laws is not the determining factor in the implementation of laws. It may the reason individuals support or oppose them as is there right but outside of overt and concrete religious dogma being established in our secular government it is still just one piece of a personal decision of each individual to support or oppose any prospective laws. My main argument is with the effect of a law not the proposers motivation.

In fact, even though 'the morning after pill' is NOT an abortifacient, the religious right opposes it on the grounds that they think (without scientific basis) that it might interfere with implantation.

Their faith leads them to specify that they believe destroying a unimplanted fertilized ovum is murder.


That is the crux of the impasse.

you hate the idea of disagreement of any sort, but for pity's sake stop preaching the same thing over and over and over. You're completely wrong in saying this has no purpose and you're embarrassing yourself.

Some here may see it; some here apparently do not.

There is maybe no more reviled segment of the US populace than non-believers, atheists, agnostics, humanists, whatever what one calls oneself. The USA is one of the most religious countries in the world, or so say the polls. But is this really true?

It has been so socially unacceptable to profess non-belief in gods that precious few of our Congress critters have ever done so. I think one could count them on one hand and still be able to play "Rock, Paper Scissors".

But non-believers are being impolite and offensive by reaching out to others with non-belief? Even if they use provocative verbiage to do so, it is still protected free speech. (Thomas Paine would have undoubtedly have supported such provocation.)

Note: I also support Ken Ham 's billboards. Let's not call for censorship of provocative political speech, especially since it does not violate any law, nor does it advocate the violation of any law.

Social change comes from provocative speech. This goes back thousands of years. It is the suppression of such speech which impedes social change. I have seen both within my lifetime.

So let's not be calling for anything resembling suppression of speech because it is provocative, or offensive, or insulting.

That's precisely the kind of speech that founded our country and gave rise to the protections within our Constitution, which includes the freedom to state ones mind in spite that it might be unpopular, or offensive, or insulting, or whatever.

that their constant whining and moaning cause many to miss the real problems because they just shut down and no longer listen to the message and may actually resist change and correction when it's needed. Popular speech needs no first amendment protection unpopular speech does.

Thanks.

A significant number of Xstians in this country.

by an atheist group.

They said:

As long as they are using their own money let them spend it. They can keep getting donations from their base, who wil keep giving more and more and then be unable to buy things showing they are no good fur the economy.

I don't find the billboard offensive. We all think the other side is wrong, otherwise we would not belong to our particular groups. Rather, I find how they express it interesting.

"THANK GOD your wrong"

Why the celebration? What is it about the idea of there being no god that they must celebrate that we are wrong in their eyes? Does there not being a god make strawberries taste less sweet? What is there to celebrate?

Implies to me that they have a pretty twisted and warped sense about the way we non-theists see the world.

and end to millennium of ignorance and superstition?