ZOMG! That atheist is TALLER THAN THE POWER LINES!!!
Quickly! We must worship him before the giant crushes us all beneath his stomps!

they recently put up one of those billboards here in san diego. no where near the freeways i go on, but still pretty cool. got us to check out sandiegocor.com and maybe get involved in their meetup groups (especially atheist parents group cause we've got a baby on the way).

Wow. So the loving Christians are issuing threats because this billboard offends them by saying... that atheists exist and they have a group?

Religious nuts threatening violence? Some things will never change.

Religious moderates failing to keep those nuts in check? Same ol', same ol'.

Atheists gathering social groups? Hope for the future.

we had something like this in DC last year, they had posters on the metro that showed some guy in a santa suit and said "Why believe in a god? Just be good for goodness sake." there was quite a holy uproar from the "peaceful", "loving", tolerance free xians...

There's a billboard near where I live (Southern USA) which consists of two "word bubbles" - one coming up from the bottom being answered by one coming down from above. They read "Dear God, please send us someone who can cure AIDS," answered by "I did, but you aborted him."

It's been up for years.

Its not just Christians. Muslims could take offense to it. So can those of the Jewish faith.

Still, the billboard in a way, is a slap in the face to those of the Christian faith. Yes, Christians have dome things like this in the past. But if you do the samething as them, your no better then they are. You loose the philosophical 'high road'. But then, if they were threaten, it could mean anything from a legal issue in the courts (and the person bringing the issue has deep pockets of cash), on up to and including, physical violence.

If, as an atheist, you go, and attack a Christian service, by being obnoiously rude and LOUD. Yes, they WILL get angry and do anything from legal issues to physical violence. One would think, that if Atheist's philosophy was so good, they would have learn from other religions around them? Apparently, not.

^ Please explain how this is an attack in any way?

It's not saying "Don't Believe in God."
It's not saying "God Isn't Real."
It's not saying "All Religious People Are Deluded Morons."

It just says "Other People Don't Believe in God Too." Meaning it's not talking to the people that DO believe in God, but reassuring the ones that DON'T that they aren't alone, that they aren't weird or wrong.

So please explain how this is a slap in the face to anyone, and please use more commas.

Nothing says "jesus loves you," more than calling in a death-threat..

Fuck religions and fuck religious people. I'm tired of having to tip-toe around them, when they are so fucking obnoxious, smug and vicious to non-believers. They wouldn't like it if we struck back in their style. This is NOTHING.

The new one should say:

Are you an unforgiving, hypocritical, violent, bigot? You are not alone.

Wow. So the loving Christians are issuing threats because this billboard offends them by saying

Well - be fair - people who would threaten the life of another person are neither loving, nor very Christian. They may be members of a particular Christian denomination - but since when did being a member of a specific group imply that you were a good exemplar of that group?

I'm not threatened by a billboard. If atheists want to put up a billboard in a zoned area, and they pay the bill, then that's their business.

>> ^gwiz665:
Fuck religions and fuck religious people. I'm tired of having to tip-toe around them, when they are so fucking obnoxious, smug and vicious to non-believers. They wouldn't like it if we struck back in their style. This is NOTHING.


I know too many good, truly honest, intelligent and trustworthy religious people to agree with your sentiments. Doesn't mean I have to agree with their religious beliefs, but I still feel that good human beings deserve respect. Baby with bath water and all that junk.

P.S. I'm not referring to fuck-ass-backwards, violent religious types. I don't keep company with anyone such as that and believe they should be shunned.

>> ^Nithern:
Its not just Christians. Muslims could take offense to it. So can those of the Jewish faith.
Still, the billboard in a way, is a slap in the face to those of the Christian faith. Yes, Christians have dome things like this in the past. But if you do the samething as them, your no better then they are. You loose the philosophical 'high road'. But then, if they were threaten, it could mean anything from a legal issue in the courts (and the person bringing the issue has deep pockets of cash), on up to and including, physical violence.
If, as an atheist, you go, and attack a Christian service, by being obnoiously rude and LOUD. Yes, they WILL get angry and do anything from legal issues to physical violence. One would think, that if Atheist's philosophy was so good, they would have learn from other religions around them? Apparently, not.


Well, it is free speech. So, sincerely fuck that, and any one who wants to silence freedom of expression. Note that in the second sentence I am expressing an opinion. Just because it offends you doesn't mean it is not freedom of expression.

Now on to more rational discussion.

First and foremost, no one was physically attacked with this sign. Secondly any one using money to exploit the court system to seek a politically motivated lawsuit is, arguably, taking part in Vexatious Litigation. Thirdly, no one went into a gathering of the proposed religious and became unruly.

Forth, and most importantly, Atheism is not a religion. Nor has it ever claimed to be. Atheism can be either the rejection of theism,[1] or the position that deities do not exist.[2] In the broadest sense, it is the absence of belief in the existence of deities.[3] Wikipedia

Atheism is a rational and logical system of thought that relies on fact to avoid the absurdity of religions which,in point of fact, rely only on faith.

If it were a religious billboard, as much as I detest the thought, I would be arguing that the people lodging threats against it are no better than those lodging threats here.

Favoring one over the other is not pursuant to good faith and is a slap in the face of the framers. For instance see the Establishment Clause

The constitution provides for all citizens or none at all. One group cannot be held above the others. But then again, I'm thinking of Republics not Democracies.

Well - profanity aside - I agree with the statement that the overriding issue here is one of free speech. If a group pays the money and wants to buy a billboard then that's their right. As long as the billboard isn't profane and doesn't display graphic images then it is no skin off my nose.

That being said - I find a large degree of irony here. Aren't atheists always the ones saying that there shouldn't be public displays of belief - and that anything that even HINTS at a person's belief system is 'insensitive' and 'inappropriate'? And aren't religious groups the ones who are always saying that they should be able to have access to public displays? Seems to me that both groups are being pretty hypocritical.

I'm saying "Don't Believe in God."
I'm saying "God Isn't Real."
I'm saying "All Religious People Are Deluded Morons."

Is that clear enough for you?

>> ^garmachi:
There's a billboard near where I live (Southern USA) which consists of two "word bubbles" - one coming up from the bottom being answered by one coming down from above. They read "Dear God, please send us someone who can cure AIDS," answered by "I did, but you aborted him."
It's been up for years.


Followed up by "Gee god, how did you not see that one coming?"

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Well - profanity aside - I agree with the statement that the overriding issue here is one of free speech. If a group pays the money and wants to buy a billboard then that's their right. As long as the billboard isn't profane and doesn't display graphic images then it is no skin off my nose.
That being said - I find a large degree of irony here. Aren't atheists always the ones saying that there shouldn't be public displays of belief - and that anything that even HINTS at a person's belief system is 'insensitive' and 'inappropriate'? And aren't religious groups the ones who are always saying that they should be able to have access to public displays? Seems to me that both groups are being pretty hypocritical.


To be precise, it's a public display of disbelief.

And religious folks are always happy to complain loudly and vehemently about any public displays of belief that isn't borne of their chosen system. Christians complaining about Muslim women wearing head-scarves, for example.

The true irony is that I'm agreeing with you about something.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Wow. So the loving Christians are issuing threats because this billboard offends them by saying
Well - be fair - people who would threaten the life of another person are neither loving, nor very Christian. They may be members of a particular Christian denomination - but since when did being a member of a specific group imply that you were a good exemplar of that group?


Ok, I'll try to be fair. No, the threatening ones are not loving nor are they "very" Christian, but I'm pretty sure that they consider themselves to be good Christians, and loving is touted as an important component of that religion. I don't mean to condemn all Christians, just pointing out the hypocrisy of the ones that are doing the threatening.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Aren't atheists always the ones saying that there shouldn't be public displays of belief - and that anything that even HINTS at a person's belief system is 'insensitive' and 'inappropriate'?



Ummmm No.

Atheists are the ones saying that there shouldn't be displays of religious beliefs on public property like courthouses, schools, libraries gov't buildings. There's a big difference. If you want to shove your religion in my face by paying for a billboard or sticking a Jesus is Lord bumper sticker on your car, feel free. But don't hang the ten commandments on the courthouse wall (especially if you can't even name them)

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
That being said - I find a large degree of irony here. Aren't atheists always the ones saying that there shouldn't be public displays of belief - and that anything that even HINTS at a person's belief system is 'insensitive' and 'inappropriate'? And aren't religious groups the ones who are always saying that they should be able to have access to public displays?


No.

Atheists are the ones saying that there shouldn't be displays of religious beliefs on public property like courthouses, schools, libraries gov't buildings. There's a big difference.

I disagree. The locations you mention have quotations & images of philosophers, historical figures, poets, authors, actors, atheletes, and public figures of all kinds. Some (not all) of those displays have origins in religion. The historical role of religion in government and law is important. It is part of our culture. For a modern court or school to give a nod & pay homage to that role is not a slap in the face of any particular belief system, nor is it 'advocating' any particular religion.

When a library somewhere puts up a pithy quote from Frued, Nietzsche, or some other sectarian it isn't a big deal to me - even if I disagree with the overall senitment. It doesn't make me want to 'join' an organization that respects the subject. They are just tipping a hat to 'good advice' and great people & events from our shared history. To suggest that some images/quotes/events/displays should be banned because they happen to have their origins in religion is censorship of the worst kind - and people who claim to be 'open minded' should be ashamed to have any part of it.

>> ^NordlichReiter:
Atheism is not a religion. Nor has it ever claimed to be. Atheism can be either the rejection of theism,[1] or the position that deities do not exist.[2] In the broadest sense, it is the absence of belief in the existence of deities.[3] Wikipedia
Atheism is a rational and logical system of thought that relies on fact to avoid the absurdity of religions which,in point of fact, rely only on faith.

Aren't threats of violence against Atheists still 'Religious Intolerance'? Aren't there laws against threatening violence based on religious preferance? If these were threats made against someone displaying a Christian billboard I have a hard time believing the police would look the other way. The obvious act of descrimination is the fact that the perpetrators of these threats were not investigated and prosecuted for their hate crimes.

Good thing those religious people saved the day by getting that billboard down. I heard god was going to do it himself but he was obviously too preoccupied with answering all those prayers like he always is.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
I disagree. The locations you mention have quotations & images of philosophers, historical figures, poets, authors, actors, atheletes, and public figures of all kinds. Some (not all) of those displays have origins in religion. The historical role of religion in government and law is important. It is part of our culture. For a modern court or school to give a nod & pay homage to that role is not a slap in the face of any particular belief system, nor is it 'advocating' any particular religion.
When a library somewhere puts up a pithy quote from Frued, Nietzsche, or some other sectarian it isn't a big deal to me - even if I disagree with the overall senitment. It doesn't make me want to 'join' an organization that respects the subject. They are just tipping a hat to 'good advice' and great people & events from our shared history. To suggest that some images/quotes/events/displays should be banned because they happen to have their origins in religion is censorship of the worst kind - and people who claim to be 'open minded' should be ashamed to have any part of it.


If a courthouse had a display of a dozen different ancient law codes, and the ten commandments was one of them, I don't think it would be a problem for most atheists. The problem is when that is the ONLY one displayed, especially in the form of a "2.6-ton granite monument".

And if you take another look at the ten commandments, only two of them (murder and theft) are still against the law. Well, two and a half, since bearing false witness is sometimes illegal. If you want to "give a nod" to it, fine, but others try to claim it's the "foundation" of our legal system (as in the article). Twenty five percent congruity is not a foundation, and I doubt there is a religion or philosophy where those actions aren't condemned. So "give a nod" to all of the other ones, too.

And I also think it is highly unlikely that your local library would be able to post "God is dead." on the wall. But I'm glad to hear you would let it slide if they did.

If a courthouse had a display of a dozen different ancient law codes, and the ten commandments was one of them, I don't think it would be a problem for most atheists. The problem is when that is the ONLY one displayed, especially in the form of a 2.6-ton granite monument.

Atheists need to be more willing to acknowledge America's historical roots. America's formative underpinnings were always steeped in Judeo-Christian values. The 10 commandments are THE document that epitomizes the origins of both values and laws for that culture. Atheists need to lighten up in that respect. To have a courthouse want to pay homage to one of the most important documents in Judeo-Christian legal history is not a big deal.

That said - if the ONLY thing American courts ever displayed were the 10 commandments then atheists would have a point. But of course that is not true and never was. Courts, schools, and public locations frequently display a great variety of thoughts from many cultures. The 10 Commandments are simply the stock in a stew as far as that goes.

And if you take another look at the ten commandments, only two of them (murder and theft) are still against the law.

It's still the most important 'document' in regards to the historical origins of the values & rules that the courts hew towards. Honoring your parents, not coveting other people's property, telling the truth, and honoring your marriage vows are values very much pertinent today - atheist or not. The 10 commandments have a religious half (1st five) and a behavior half (2nd five). Atheists only have a problem with the 'I am your god, no idols, keep the Sabbath' bit.

And I also think it is highly unlikely that your local library would be able to post "God is dead." on the wall. But I'm glad to hear you would let it slide if they did.

I have never understood why people get so offended just by someone daring to have a different point of view. I'm not so insecure in my values that I dare not see the smack of some other value system. Are atheists so insecure that passing by a stone block 10 phrases on it is going to give them religious cooties? Are Christians really so weak that the sight of a billboard is going to turn all their kids into atheists? Feh!

Any person who demands that different points of view be 'removed' from their presence because they disagree with them is nothing but a coward. I was exposed to the beliefs of all kinds of philosophers, thinkers, and cultures at school. I didn't go around whining about it when I ran up against positions and ideas that I disagreed with, or that I thought were a load of hogwash. Oh no - someone is praying to Allah in my high-school! That's a violation of my 'rights' to be exposed to that! Pht - please - only a coward thinks that way.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Atheists need to be more willing to acknowledge America's historical roots. America's formative underpinnings were always steeped in Judeo-Christian values. The 10 commandments are THE document that epitomizes the origins of both values and laws for that culture. Atheists need to lighten up in that respect. To have a courthouse want to pay homage to one of the most important documents in Judeo-Christian legal history is not a big deal.

Here's the problem with that line of reasoning, the entire idea that Judeo-Christian values are the foundation of our country.

It's circular logic:
1. There are Christian referances on our money and landmarks so that's proof our country was founded on Christianity.
2. Our country was founded on Christianity so we should be allowed to put more Christian referances on our money and landmarks.

So, no...it is not reasonable or acceptable to place Christian symbols in government locations because it gives the appearance the two are linked and misleads people into making the assumptions you appear to have made.

The historical facts don't even support the belief that the country was founded on Christianity. In so far as Christian values were involved, the values you're talking about are basically common across all religions and philosophies. It can reasonably be argued that any 'proof' of the involvement of Christianity in the founding of our country is more accurately evidence of the predominance of Christianity in the culture at the time. It's like saying our country was founded on slavery and the proof is the common use of slaves at the time.

Also consider that more than a few of the founding fathers of our country appear to have been Aetheists. Perhaps the Aethists have a better argument that the country was founded on Aethism and that the Christians subverted the original intention of the founders somewhere around the mid 20th century. But no, the fact is that the founding of this country was a secular endeavor devoid of religious influence and the founding fathers went to considerable lengths to point this out. It's only by willfully ignoring the facts of the matter that anyone can make a claim of Christian underpinnings.

It looks like the Theists hi-jacked this country in the 1940's and the Secularists are now taking it back.

Here's the problem with that line of reasoning, the entire idea that Judeo-Christian values are the foundation of our country.

America was a British colony founded by Judeo Christians. They came to the US so they could have the freedom to believe/express their specific Judeo-Christian beliefs. The founding documents of the nation discuss rights as "God given" using Judeo-Christian terminology. And you're saying Judeo-Christianity had nothing to do with the foundation of the country... I see...

Each to his own I supposed, but I utterly reject the PC obsessed attempt to wage a revisionist pogrom on the history of this country. The background, history, culture, and upbringing of the founders, the nation, and its legal system are primarily Judeo-Christian. That is not the same thing as saying that all citizens are required to be Judeo-Christians. The founders certainly were extremely spiritual men, but also highly intelligent and they drew from many sources. But to imply the primary backdrop of the nation's founding & legal system was NOT Judeo-Christian is absurd.

Its time to stop reasoning with those who willingly proceed to believe in fairy tales. Simply let them live their foolish lives. Until they violate the Establishment Clause of the Constitution then its time to put a stop to it.

This page went haywire. So now there are like 15 different posts made by me.

*dead

This video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by jonny.