"Christian" war on non-theists holiday celebrants

[NERVUN]

Wow. Not sure where to begin, actually. You are so fundamentally wrong, and arguing with me about things that haven't been mentioned at all that I am actually shocked at reasonable grammar and coherency.

Athiesm is not a religion, you are correct, though you do not seem to understand the English concept of a sentence, wherein one does not whilly-nilly throw out periods. There are other, better ways top provide emphasis.

If you wish to discuss your lack of literacy past elementary school level simplicity, do it in another thread.

Incidentally, failing German in your nationname yet bawing about people using English beyond simple, third-grade level rulesets isn't going to win you any points.

You are also incorrect in your comparison of my logic. Merely because one does not belong to a political party, does not mean they have no political beliefs. If someone disdains politics, and are apolitical, then they still have a political belief, apolitical. Similary athiests have relgious beliefs: No dieties exist. I'm not sure how you came up with your comparison of my logic, but you did an outstanding job of not doing it well.

Okay. Let me get this straight. Here I am, an atheist, telling you that you're a retard, since you interpret a lack of religious belief as... A religious belief. You're telling me (The atheist) that I do, in fact, have religious beliefs. Nevermind that 'Religious Belief' is specifically defined (Not by me - I'm neither a theologist nor a philosopher) as a believe, or faith in, supernatural phenomena.

Which, ya'know, excludes atheism. Which is a belief system, but very specifically not a religious one.

Your last sentence is also fantastic, and incomplete. You give no indication what "it" here represents, and you started a new paragraph, if by "it" you mean your attack on what isn't my argument, then you seem correct.

If you're this incapable of text interpretation, maybe you should avoid text-based media altogether - you're evidently not equipped to handle them. This is sad, and points at either a drastic failure of your education system, or at you being in elementary school (In this case, I commend you. For a fourth-grader, your interpretative skills are actually quite decent).

Knock it off, now.

[Clamparapa]

I must say, I agree with that guy who turned the sign around. Though it may not have been the best thing to do (OK, who really CARES if he turned a SIGN around!), putting that next to a Christmas tree and Nativity scene is terrible.

Disclaimer: These are my views and I stand by them 100%

[New Kereptica]

I must say, I agree with that guy who turned the sign around. Though it may not have been the best thing to do (OK, who really CARES if he turned a SIGN around!), putting that next to a Christmas tree and Nativity scene is terrible.

Disclaimer: These are my views and I stand by them 100%

Would you care if he had been an atheist and wrecked the nativity scene?

[Daistallia 2104]

The problem with the athiest sign listed in the article is that it is not merely a positive support for their belief, but a direct, and open criticism of other people's beliefs.

I can actually agree with that statement. I have to criticise the Atheist organisation. It seems like they are actively trying to diminish the holiday for Christians and using their display to grandstand. Still, they have freedom of speech and their display is an expression of their "belief", so this in no way justifies the actions of the man.

I'll agree stongly, pointing out the comment re sowing the wind and reaping the whirlwind I made before.

If Xians insist on the wind of state supported demonstrations of their beliefs, let them reap the whirlwind of state supported counters. And if they engage in such acts as demonstrated be those of the actor in the OP...

And two particular points:

1) I'm a tolerant non-theist.
2) If one accepts state supported religious displays, one opens the door to state a religion that may well opress one's own religion.

[Clamparapa]

I must say, I agree with that guy who turned the sign around. Though it may not have been the best thing to do (OK, who really CARES if he turned a SIGN around!), putting that next to a Christmas tree and Nativity scene is terrible.

Disclaimer: These are my views and I stand by them 100%

Would you care if he had been an atheist and wrecked the nativity scene?

Yes. Not the same thing, btw.

[Daistallia 2104]

I must say, I agree with that guy who turned the sign around. Though it may not have been the best thing to do (OK, who really CARES if he turned a SIGN around!), putting that next to a Christmas tree and Nativity scene is terrible.

Disclaimer: These are my views and I stand by them 100%

Would you care if he had been an atheist and wrecked the nativity scene?

Absolutely!

While I adamantly do not support at state religious/belief display, violence against said displays is even worse. That is essentially the core to the OP...

[New Kereptica]

I must say, I agree with that guy who turned the sign around. Though it may not have been the best thing to do (OK, who really CARES if he turned a SIGN around!), putting that next to a Christmas tree and Nativity scene is terrible.

Disclaimer: These are my views and I stand by them 100%

Would you care if he had been an atheist and wrecked the nativity scene?

Yes. Not the same thing, btw.

This subject has been beaten to death, but why not?

[Daistallia 2104]

I must say, I agree with that guy who turned the sign around. Though it may not have been the best thing to do (OK, who really CARES if he turned a SIGN around!), putting that next to a Christmas tree and Nativity scene is terrible.

Disclaimer: These are my views and I stand by them 100%

Would you care if he had been an atheist and wrecked the nativity scene?

Yes. Not the same thing, btw.

I'll disagree, to the extent that neither the nativity scene nor the non-theists answer had any business being there.

[New Kereptica]

I must say, I agree with that guy who turned the sign around. Though it may not have been the best thing to do (OK, who really CARES if he turned a SIGN around!), putting that next to a Christmas tree and Nativity scene is terrible.

Disclaimer: These are my views and I stand by them 100%

Would you care if he had been an atheist and wrecked the nativity scene?

Yes. Not the same thing, btw.

I'll disagree, to the extent that neither the nativity scene nor the non-theists answer had any business being there.

Quite.

[Clamparapa]

I must say, I agree with that guy who turned the sign around. Though it may not have been the best thing to do (OK, who really CARES if he turned a SIGN around!), putting that next to a Christmas tree and Nativity scene is terrible.

Disclaimer: These are my views and I stand by them 100%

Would you care if he had been an atheist and wrecked the nativity scene?

Yes. Not the same thing, btw.

I'll disagree, to the extent that neither the nativity scene nor the non-theists answer had any business being there.

This is also true; I was simply referring to the acts of each incident.

I must say, I agree with that guy who turned the sign around. Though it may not have been the best thing to do (OK, who really CARES if he turned a SIGN around!), putting that next to a Christmas tree and Nativity scene is terrible.

Disclaimer: These are my views and I stand by them 100%

Would you care if he had been an atheist and wrecked the nativity scene?

Absolutely!

While I adamantly do not support at state religious/belief display, violence against said displays is even worse. That is essentially the core to the OP...

This is what I was intending to say.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

This subject has been beaten to death, but why not?

Because religion is special and deserves magical special privelages that nothing else does. Why is it so special? Because it is, and even raising the question as to how or why it's special is unamerican^TM.

[North Avayu]

The problem with the athiest sign listed in the article is that it is not merely a positive support for their belief, but a direct, and open criticism of other people's beliefs.

I can actually agree with that statement. I have to criticise the Atheist organisation. It seems like they are actively trying to diminish the holiday for Christians and using their display to grandstand. Still, they have freedom of speech and their display is an expression of their "belief", so this in no way justifies the actions of the man.

I'll agree stongly, pointing out the comment re sowing the wind and reaping the whirlwind I made before.

If Xians insist on the wind of state supported demonstrations of their beliefs, let them reap the whirlwind of state supported counters. And if they engage in such acts as demonstrated be those of the actor in the OP...

And two particular points:

1) I'm a tolerant non-theist.
2) If one accepts state supported religious displays, one opens the door to state a religion that may well opress one's own religion.

It seems as if it is now my turn to agree again (Shouldn't this be a debate forum? Must be the spirit of Christmas). Still, I've got a question:
Is the state supporting religions if t gives every religious group (or non-religious for that matter) which asks for it a piece of public space to put up their displays? Illinois seems to be relatively tolerant in that issue, because they also seem to have a display for a joke religion (at least how I understand it, as I never heard "Festivus" before). Of course in this case the question would be if the nativity scene was put up by the state or by a Christian organisation.

[New Kereptica]

I must say, I agree with that guy who turned the sign around. Though it may not have been the best thing to do (OK, who really CARES if he turned a SIGN around!), putting that next to a Christmas tree and Nativity scene is terrible.

Disclaimer: These are my views and I stand by them 100%

Would you care if he had been an atheist and wrecked the nativity scene?

Absolutely!

While I adamantly do not support at state religious/belief display, violence against said displays is even worse. That is essentially the core to the OP...

This is what I was intending to say.

I fail to see the difference between wrecking a nativity scene and turning a sign around in anything but the amount of violence done, which is really immaterial in this case.

[Clamparapa]

I must say, I agree with that guy who turned the sign around. Though it may not have been the best thing to do (OK, who really CARES if he turned a SIGN around!), putting that next to a Christmas tree and Nativity scene is terrible.

Disclaimer: These are my views and I stand by them 100%

Would you care if he had been an atheist and wrecked the nativity scene?

Absolutely!

While I adamantly do not support at state religious/belief display, violence against said displays is even worse. That is essentially the core to the OP...

This is what I was intending to say.

I fail to see the difference between wrecking a nativity scene and turning a sign around in anything but the amount of violence done, which is really immaterial in this case.

Are you implying that Atheism is a religion?!

[Daistallia 2104]

It seems as if it is now my turn to agree again (Shouldn't this be a debate forum? Must be the spirit of Christmas). Still, I've got a question:
Is the state supporting religions if t gives every religious group (or non-religious for that matter) which asks for it a piece of public space to put up their displays? Illinois seems to be relatively tolerant in that issue, because they also seem to have a display for a joke religion (at least how I understand it, as I never heard "Festivus" before). Of course in this case the question would be if the nativity scene was put up by the state or by a Christian organisation.

I'm OK with it legally if the state OKs all options. But When a potetial state actor doesn't,the we have problems.

[New Kereptica]

I must say, I agree with that guy who turned the sign around. Though it may not have been the best thing to do (OK, who really CARES if he turned a SIGN around!), putting that next to a Christmas tree and Nativity scene is terrible.

Disclaimer: These are my views and I stand by them 100%

Would you care if he had been an atheist and wrecked the nativity scene?

Absolutely!

While I adamantly do not support at state religious/belief display, violence against said displays is even worse. That is essentially the core to the OP...

This is what I was intending to say.

I fail to see the difference between wrecking a nativity scene and turning a sign around in anything but the amount of violence done, which is really immaterial in this case.

Are you implying that Atheism is a religion?!

I'm implying that a lack of religious belief requires the same amount of protection that religious belief does. Neither should be sponsored by the government however.

[North Avayu]

I must say, I agree with that guy who turned the sign around. Though it may not have been the best thing to do (OK, who really CARES if he turned a SIGN around!), putting that next to a Christmas tree and Nativity scene is terrible.

Disclaimer: These are my views and I stand by them 100%

Would you care if he had been an atheist and wrecked the nativity scene?

Absolutely!

While I adamantly do not support at state religious/belief display, violence against said displays is even worse. That is essentially the core to the OP...

This is what I was intending to say.

I fail to see the difference between wrecking a nativity scene and turning a sign around in anything but the amount of violence done, which is really immaterial in this case.

Are you implying that Atheism is a religion?!

I don't think so. But their display was still an expression of their belief, so it's just as valuable as the nativity scene. AEven though it was slightly (or maybe more than slightly) offensice to some Christians.

[Clamparapa]

I must say, I agree with that guy who turned the sign around. Though it may not have been the best thing to do (OK, who really CARES if he turned a SIGN around!), putting that next to a Christmas tree and Nativity scene is terrible.

Disclaimer: These are my views and I stand by them 100%

Would you care if he had been an atheist and wrecked the nativity scene?

Absolutely!

While I adamantly do not support at state religious/belief display, violence against said displays is even worse. That is essentially the core to the OP...

This is what I was intending to say.

I fail to see the difference between wrecking a nativity scene and turning a sign around in anything but the amount of violence done, which is really immaterial in this case.

Are you implying that Atheism is a religion?!

I don't think so. But their display was still an expression of their belief, so it's just as valuable as the nativity scene. AEven though it was slightly (or maybe more than slightly) offensice to some Christians.

I'm one of the Christians who has seen enough attacks on our religion done by other groups and who's kinda tired of it.

However, I digress. I see what you're saying, but I have the feeling that the intentions were different. What if there was no Nativity scene there? Would Atheists still put up a sign?

[The Alma Mater]

I would have preferred the slightly less confrontational British sign:

"There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life."

But of course, Christians protested against THAT as well.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

I would have preferred the slightly less confrontational British sign:

"There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life."

But of course, Christians protested against THAT as well.

Threatening people with hellfire because they don't agree with you is perfectly fine, but even acknowledging that atheists exist and that they have a right to their lack of religion is "militant." Yeah, that's not a double standard at all.

[NERVUN]

I would have preferred the slightly less confrontational British sign:

"There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life."

But of course, Christians protested against THAT as well.

Threatening people with hellfire because they don't agree with you is perfectly fine, but even acknowledging that atheists exist and that they have a right to their lack of religion is "militant." Yeah, that's not a double standard at all.

The logic train was very quickly derailed here.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

The logic train was very quickly derailed here.

How so?

[The Alma Mater]

I would have preferred the slightly less confrontational British sign:

"There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life."

But of course, Christians protested against THAT as well.

Threatening people with hellfire because they don't agree with you is perfectly fine, but even acknowledging that atheists exist and that they have a right to their lack of religion is "militant." Yeah, that's not a double standard at all.

The logic train was very quickly derailed here.

How about this then ? A comment from Hanne Stinson of the British Humanist Association on their buscampaign with the above slogan:

"Our ads were positive and peaceful. They didn’t say, for example, that religious people were ‘fools’, unlike one of the response ads being run, which says that "The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God.""

Christians are free to insult nonchristians it seems - yet some still whine if they get that back.

[North Avayu]

It seems as if it is now my turn to agree again (Shouldn't this be a debate forum? Must be the spirit of Christmas). Still, I've got a question:
Is the state supporting religions if t gives every religious group (or non-religious for that matter) which asks for it a piece of public space to put up their displays? Illinois seems to be relatively tolerant in that issue, because they also seem to have a display for a joke religion (at least how I understand it, as I never heard "Festivus" before). Of course in this case the question would be if the nativity scene was put up by the state or by a Christian organisation.

I'm OK with it legally if the state OKs all options. But When a potetial state actor doesn't,the we have problems.

Now I would like to know how this is handled in America: Is the government putting up Christian displays and also allows displays of other beliefs, or is it the way I thought of. Everything else would of course make problems.

I'm one of the Christians who has seen enough attacks on our religion done by other groups and who's kinda tired of it.

However, I digress. I see what you're saying, but I have the feeling that the intentions were different. What if there was no Nativity scene there? Would Atheists still put up a sign?

Probably, probably not. Still, if they put up the sign is response to the nativity scene, they still express their belief and protest against a display, which has in their opinion (and they are probably right) no business on government ground. It's still freedom of speech.

I would have preferred the slightly less confrontational British sign:

"There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life."

But of course, Christians protested against THAT as well.

I like that sign. It's light-hearted, not excluding and stiull brings across the message.

[NERVUN]

The logic train was very quickly derailed here.

How so?

Let's see here, ""There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life."" and a Nativity scene, vs. Threatening people with hellfire because they don't agree with you is perfectly fine, but even acknowledging that atheists exist and that they have a right to their lack of religion is "militant." Yeah, that's not a double standard at all.

One of these things is not like the other, one of these things is not quite the same...