do you find this statement to be offensive?

[Sleeppy]

But the faithful have recruitment offices (aka "churches", "temples", "mosques").
The effort of us heathens doesn't rise to that level.

It does. In the thread about the atheist billboard that was "stirring controversy in the south" or something like that.. They called it humanism. Aside from that, there are probably a few atheist organizations around. Not that it matters; each individual is a recruiter.

 

[Revoltingest]

It does. In the thread about the atheist billboard that was "stirring controversy in the south" or something like that.. They called it humanism. Aside from that, there are probably a few atheist organizations around. Not that it matters; each individual is a recruiter.

Nah....you're claiming equivalency even though our conversion efforts are relatively lame.
I hear that Jews & Catholics even have elaborate conversion standards/methods.
But as I said, we ain't gots no recruitment offices.
Our goofy billboard might even be intended to scare them away.

 

[Sleeppy]

I'm not sure what you're getting at by your usage of "influenced," Sleeppy. Influence is not the same thing as a preconceived notion, and, of course, atheism is precisely a lack of notion, preconceived or otherwise.

Buddha is not a god, just an exemplar. There a currently several Buddhism threads going. Check them out.
--- from the "I have a question about Buddhism" thread.

Sure there are some Buddhists that believe in God or spirits. There are Christian Icelanders who believe in trolls and Muslims who believe in Jinn, too, but these are personal add-ons, not a fundamental part of the religions.

Where does influence and preconceived come into the same sentence? These are the different possibilities I was listing. They're separate. I put influence and recruitment together, not influence and preconceived notions. Edit: When talking of preconceived notions, this would be where I'm referring to the "fellowship" I mentioned.

Being honest, you can't say that all of your thoughts originated from you and are uninfluenced by others. You were recruited to some of these ideas. I'm showing you logical consistency with this. Convincing, teaching, enlightening, whatever - all recruitment. From the beginning, in this thread, I stated something, and you tried and are trying to recruit me toward your pattern of thinking.

Your other points... Let's see:
No, not a jump to a conclusion; a considered opinion.

I don't want to think you're being dishonest with me. It definitely looked as if you were concluding something in that statement.. And I didn't see any written consideration attached.

Didn't you state somewhere that you'd quash an idea you disagreed with? Didn't you come to an unwarranted conclusion about the meaning behind the statement in question, and don't you advocate suppressing it because said conclusion makes you feel uneasy?

Nope. You can quote me, if any of this is true.

So you find all speech intellectual, never banal or just agreeable?
Odd, but OK, we'll leave it at that.

I'd rather leave it where I simply said, "I don't agree."

 

[Sleeppy]

Nah....you're claiming equivalency even though our conversion efforts are relatively lame.
I hear that Jews & Catholics even have elaborate conversion standards/methods.
But as I said, we ain't gots no recruitment offices.
Our goofy billboard might even be intended to scare them away.

I'll just disagree then.

 

[waitasec]

I'm pretty sure hate is a thought.. Not that your thought process concerning my posts is accurate. The swastika means nothing until thoughts are attached. You attached your recollection of its use for hate speech. All of this is your interpretation - thoughts that the swastika provoked, in you.

It's not helping you to try shooting down my comparison.

would it be fair to say, i'm not the only person who attaches the swastika with hate?

and your comparison of the swastika to "in the beginning man created god" is hate how?

 

[Sleeppy]

would it be fair to say, i'm not the only person who attaches the swastika with hate?

and your comparison of the swastika to "in the beginning man created god" is hate how?

You're not getting it. Forget it.

 

[waitasec]

You're not getting it. Forget it.

:run: off again?

impressive....

 

[Valjean]

Inoffensiveness = stagnation. Heresy yields progress. Rabble-rousers are the foot soldiers of progress.

Would civil rights, woman's suffrage, emancipation of the slaves or Independence from Britain ever have come about without subversive and disturbing ideas being forced down the public's throat?
The billboard is nothing. Just a slightly unsettling tweak to the public's complacency; just a seed planted.

 

[cablescavenger]

I'd be just as offended by someone trying to shove their religious ideology down my throat.

I guess you don't see the irony in you saying that and then providing a quote from the bible?

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

As an atheist, obviously I wouldn't be offended by it and in fact, I agree with the idea that man created God. But at the same time, is it something I would put up? Probably not. As someone here noted, it is a form of proselytizing and that's something I'm just not interested in fomenting between believers and non-believers.

In my opinion, the battle between believers and non-believers shouldn't be a battle of beliefs (or lack thereof) but a battle for equal social, political and moral consideration. I don't care that believers believe in God and I don't require them to provide evidence or proof for their beliefs. But I most definitely care that I am not considered morally trustworthy based on beliefs that they can't provide evidence for.

In other words, if a believer morally judges me based on my actions, fine, I won't ask for evidence for his beliefs. We can then live, work and play together in relative harmony. But if a believer judges me as immoral based solely on his belief that I am immoral just because I don't believe God exists then I'm going to have to ask for evidence to support that belief.

 

[waitasec]

As an atheist, obviously I wouldn't be offended by it and in fact, I agree with the idea that man created God. But at the same time, is it something I would put up? Probably not. As someone here noted, it is a form of proselytizing and that's something I'm just not interested in fomenting between believers and non-believers.

i think they're put up because we are in the midst of social change and change is awkward.
atheism is slowly becoming just as viable as the religious status quo as more and more people question the traditional beliefs they were brought up in. and since social change is happening in this country it is inevitable that we are going to experience awkward moments...

In my opinion, the battle between believers and non-believers shouldn't be a battle of beliefs (or lack thereof) but a battle for equal social, political and moral consideration. I don't care that believers believe in God and I don't require them to provide evidence or proof for their beliefs. But I most definitely care that I am not considered morally trustworthy based on beliefs that they can't provide evidence for.

i agree...which is why these inconvenient moments (in a religious society) are important in order for social change to take place.

In other words, if a believer morally judges me based on my actions, fine, I won't ask for evidence for his beliefs. We can then live, work and play together in relative harmony. But if a believer judges me as immoral based solely on his belief that I am immoral just because I don't believe God exists then I'm going to have to ask for evidence to support that belief.

we will continue to experience awkward moments until atheism is an accepted world view

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

i think they're put up because we are in the midst of social change and change is awkward.
atheism is slowly becoming just as viable as the religious status quo as more and more people question the traditional beliefs they were brought up in. and since social change is happening in this country it is inevitable that we are going to experience awkward moments...


i agree...which is why these inconvenient moments (in a religious society) are important in order for social change to take place.

when atheism is an accepted world view in society, until then we will continue to experience awkward moments

You're right that there are and will be awkward moments. I mean, considering that a billboard as innocuous as "Don't believe? You're not alone." can cause such a furor, awkward moments were probably inevitable.

I just mean that I think it's counterproductive to exacerbate the situation by making these kinds of claims that we can no more substantiate than they can theirs. I understand that some atheists/secularists will do so anyway and that is their right, it's just a tactic that I don't identify with and it doesn't work for me.

A tactic that works very well for me is to let them make the claims and then I proceed to ask them a series of questions designed to make them look objectively at their beliefs and illustrate to them that their claim and their premises are basically groundless. Or at least that it is not as solid as they think it is.
Some are more tenacious and patient than others but nine times out of ten they begin to see at some point that the line of questioning and their own answers are bringing them to an uncomfortable conclusion and so they ditch the discussion.

I've been doing the debate forum thing since 2004 and almost every in-depth debate I've ever had with a believer was eventually deserted by them. Mind you, I'm not boasting my debate skills, just making a point. The point is, I wouldn't have gotten very far with "In the beginning, man created God". All we would have done was knocked heads and it's certainly not going to convince him.

 

[Kathryn]

I couldn't care less whether or not someone put up this billboard.

 

[waitasec]

There's really no context with the billboard though... It could be interpreted both ways, and would really come down to what the intent was of the person(s) that put it up. If they were atheists, their meaning would obviously be a bit different than if they were Gnostics..

right there is no context..so no one can point the finger at a particular message... the reader puts into it what they see...
which is the beauty of it all...
the offensive aspect clearly comes from the imagination of those who are insecure, as one who is insecure knows they are susceptible to harm
some over compensate by a false sense of security others are keenly aware and would rather silence a voice that is just as viable as theirs




edit:
sleepy asked what the difference between the swastika and the OP was...clearly the swastika comes with a context

 

[waitasec]

I've been doing the debate forum thing since 2004 and almost every in-depth debate I've ever had with a believer was eventually deserted by them. Mind you, I'm not boasting my debate skills, just making a point. The point is, I wouldn't have gotten very far with "In the beginning, man created God". All we would have done was knocked heads and it's certainly not going to convince him.

there are more atheists today than ever before because of these conversations
i remember when i first debated with an atheist as a theist, i didn't get it...it was another language but thank goodness this person was able to reach into the things i was struggling with...it took awhile for the debris to settle and now i'm slowly picking up the pieces and putting them where they belong

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

there are more atheists today than ever before because of these conversations
i remember when i first debated with an atheist as a theist, i didn't get it...it was another language but thank goodness this person was able to reach into the things i was struggling with...it took awhile for the debris to settle and now i'm slowly picking up the pieces and putting them where they belong

Hey, maybe I was that atheist!

Anyway, I'm glad you found a less confusing path for your life.

 

[gnosisofthomas]

I guess you don't see the irony in you saying that and then providing a quote from the bible?

Let's continue the irony then, because that wasn't from the bible.

 

[waitasec]

I couldn't care less whether or not someone put up this billboard.

but does the hebrew god care? ex 20:3
how about the christian's god? john 14:6

then why wouldn't one care if they adhere to these words?

 

[Kathryn]

but does the hebrew god care? ex 20:3
how about the christian's god? john 14:6

then why wouldn't one care if they adhere to these words?

"In the beginning, man created god."'

No way to prove or disprove this one.

John 14:6
New International Version (NIV)
6 Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

If it all boils down to Jesus, I figure He can reach out to you with our without my help. I don't hide my faith, but I don't

Exodus 20:3
New International Version (NIV)
3 “You shall have no other gods before[a] me.

Atheists don't believe in ANY god so how can they put one before Him?

 

[waitasec]

"In the beginning, man created god."'

No way to prove or disprove this one.




If it all boils down to Jesus, I figure He can reach out to you with our without my help. I don't hide my faith, but I don't



Atheists don't believe in ANY god so how can they put one before Him?

my intention was not to single you out...which is why i left your name out of it...
i purposely waited a few days to respond hoping you wouldn't see my post. but since my plan failed....

if a believer says they 'don't care'...the claim their savior died on the cross for the unbeliever, doesn't jive for some reason.
if a believer adheres to the notion that there is one god that requires total allegiance to it while their god commands them to "preach the gospel to all creation" saying they don't care doesn't jive either.