Residents want sign promoting atheism removed

Questioninggeller · 4th July 2009, 08:12 PM

In James Randi's residence, Fort Lauderdale:

Quote:

Residents want sign promoting atheism removed
wsvn.com
July 2, 2009

FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. (WSVN) -- Community residents are protesting a billboard they call offensive to Christians.

The recruitment billboard put up by the Florida Atheist and Secular Humanist Society stands just east of Interstate 95 on Sunrise Boulevard and 27th Avenue, next to a business owned by an African-American preacher.

The members of the community cite two main problems: born-again Christians own the business right next to the sign, and the billboard is located right in the middle of an African-American community.

Neighboring businesses have called to try to get the sign removed. "Muslim, Jew, Hindu, Christian, whoever you are, we all believe in a spiritual higher being. When you have something like this here, people don't want to come and patronize us anymore," said Theodore Hamilton, an employee at a nearby business. "We don't agree with this. We don't like this here in our community, and this is a spiritual based community."

The sign states: "Being a good person doesn't require God. Don't believe in God? You're not alone. www.FreeThoughFlorida.com."
...
The billboard sponsors said they would like the community to show them the same tolerance they fought for during the civil rights era. "The women and blacks in this neighborhood, they've been discriminated before, in the recent past, as early as 30, 40 years ago," Loukinen said, "and yet, they have no problem discriminating against another group, whether it be gays or atheists."

This billboard is expected to be up for four weeks.

Full: wsvn.com (follow the link for video)

Skeptic Ginger · 4th July 2009, 09:12 PM

I posted the following in the comment section:

Shame on the god believers complaining about someone else's free speech.

ClassyElf · 4th July 2009, 09:17 PM

I find it more than a little ironic that the protesters are largely African-American.

(Yeah, I realize I'm judging them based on their oppressed history, but the irony stands. )

Whiplash · 4th July 2009, 09:19 PM

The religious ones are over-reacting.. but I always still wonder about the motivation for these types of things to begin with. It seems to be confrontational to me. At the very least, I can't see how any sensible person could go into the process of making a sign like that and not expect to have people screaming at them about it. It's asking for trouble.

thaiboxerken · 4th July 2009, 09:19 PM

MMM...yea. They don't have any real legal case here. It's BS. Freaking Xians....they support freedom of speech, except when it offends them.

thaiboxerken · 4th July 2009, 09:22 PM

Originally Posted by Whiplash

The religious ones are over-reacting.. but I always still wonder about the motivation for these types of things to begin with. It seems to be confrontational to me. At the very least, I can't see how any sensible person could go into the process of making a sign like that and not expect to have people screaming at them about it. It's asking for trouble.

Do you feel the same of the thousands of billboards across the nation that advertise christianity? I've seen some that have actually said "if you don't believe in Jesus, you'll go to hell." Christians in the USA tend to want special rights when it comes to their religion. All I can say to these people is "eff you."

Do you actually think that the message that "being a good person doesn't require a god" is particularly offensive? Why or why not?

Whiplash · 4th July 2009, 09:33 PM

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

Do you feel the same of the thousands of billboards across the nation that advertise christianity? I've seen some that have actually said "if you don't believe in Jesus, you'll go to hell." Christians in the USA tend to want special rights when it comes to their religion. All I can say to these people is "eff you."

Do you actually think that the message that "being a good person doesn't require a god" is particularly offensive? Why or why not?

No, I don't find the message in any way offensive. I did say I think the religious people are over-reacting. They are showing that they are insecure in their beliefs.

And I do feel the same about Christian (or any religious) billboards. I'd rather people not proselytize at all. I hate to see them too, honestly.

I just feel that sometimes people on the atheist side go a little too far in trying to provoke reaction, or with some of their ridicule. I've stated many times that I believe it to be a completely ineffective way of changing minds. It's my experience it hardens people in their position by making them angry and defensive, and therefore less open to hear what you have to say. And I really feel such methods also only serve as a "back slapping moment" or "high five moment" for the people who are doing the ridicule. I find it childish.

As I've also stated before, I was raised in a strongly religious family. I've lost my faith completely, but maybe sometimes I take up for them defensivley because I share some common roots.

thaiboxerken · 4th July 2009, 09:36 PM

Originally Posted by Whiplash

I just feel that sometimes people on the atheist side go a little too far in trying to provoke reaction, or with some of their ridicule.

And WTF does this have to do with this particular billboard?

Whiplash · 4th July 2009, 09:38 PM

As I said, I find it hard to believe that the person who made it did so thinking it wouldn't cause the slightest problem at all. I question what it's purpose is. I'm saying I think it's possible it was purposely made to provoke a reaction.

Ron_Tomkins · 4th July 2009, 09:41 PM

Originally Posted by Questioninggeller

In James Randi's residence, Fort Lauderdale:

Full: wsvn.com (follow the link for video)

Well, personally I can't say I'm amazed. When I went to visit Randi last year, one of the first things that struck me and that I found ironic was that the area where the JREF is located is filled with churches of all kinds and psychic services

So it's not surprising that such a woo oriented community would be reacting to this kind of thing

ClassyElf · 4th July 2009, 09:42 PM

Originally Posted by Whiplash

As I said, I find it hard to believe that the person who made it did so thinking it wouldn't cause the slightest problem at all. I question what it's purpose is. I'm saying I think it's possible it was purposely made to provoke a reaction.

I'd agree. I think the sign's purpose likely was to get debate going.

Unfortunately, the problem here is that christians don't debate. Christians protest to have their opponents arguments taken down so they don't have to think about them.

Whiplash · 4th July 2009, 09:47 PM

You are correct about that. I suffer that problem every family get together, as my Grandmother is constantly harping me to return to church and how it'll fix all my problems and make my life so wonderful. They not only do not want to debate, but the very idea of debate makes them very upset. They actually feel that for us, as mere humans, to even question or debate "God's Will" is so incredibly blasphemous that I should be ashamed for trying to do so.

I agree with you guys for the most part, I think I just got a little defensive because, at the same time, I know that for my Mother and Grandmother their beliefs are everything. They aren't hurting anyone, and if it could be shown to them they are wrong, it would destroy their worlds. I figure we will eventually grow beyond a need for religion, I just don't see a need to try to force the battle constantly in a world where it is the status quo virtually everywhere, billions strong. I think people delude themselves into thinking they personally are going to save the world from religion, when it's likely to take hundereds of years or more (IMO). And then I think again of my family, and don't want to see them hurt. And I assure you, they aren't hurting anyone.

Quinn · 4th July 2009, 09:56 PM

Originally Posted by Whiplash

As I said, I find it hard to believe that the person who made it did so thinking it wouldn't cause the slightest problem at all. I question what it's purpose is. I'm saying I think it's possible it was purposely made to provoke a reaction.

Possible, yes. But which seems more likely: that the organization put it there to antagonize believers, or that they did it to make other non-believers aware of the organization?

Towlie · 4th July 2009, 10:07 PM

Quote:

The sign states: "Being a good person doesn't require God. Don't believe in God? You're not alone. www.FreeThoughFlorida.com."

Not exactly. The sign has the correct URL. The WSVN website has it wrong.

MattusMaximus · 4th July 2009, 10:29 PM

The irony of this situation is that by complaining about it, the pissed-off Xians are drawing more attention to it which will result in even more non-believers learning about it & eventually supporting the organization running the ad campaign.

Something very similar happened in California last year when the FFRF group ran billboards there. Local religious nuts got pissed off, made a big deal about it in the press, and this resulted in even more non-believers coming out of the closet & joining FFRF.

Let the crybabies complain, I say. It shows just how stupid & immature they are, and ironically they're helping us.

epeeist · 4th July 2009, 10:54 PM

One should try and avoid hypocrisy. If - for instance - a billboard saying "Recant, Kant is not enough - you need God to be good" was put up next to the headquarters of a secular humanist organization or something, I expect there would be almost exactly the same complaint and expressions of annoyance made the other way round ("those pushy theists" or whatever).

Freedom of speech doesn't mean one has to like that speech. If e.g. PETA put up a billboard beside a steakhouse, I'd expect the owner of the steakhouse might be upset. That doesn't necessarily mean there's legal recourse (nor that there should be), but to criticize the owner in such a situation for being upset and wanting the sign gone, would be silly.

Similarly here, to express outrage for a perfectly normal reaction that one would have if the shoe was on the other foot is - well, irrational!

ClassyElf · 4th July 2009, 11:08 PM

Originally Posted by epeeist

One should try and avoid hypocrisy. If - for instance - a billboard saying "Recant, Kant is not enough - you need God to be good" was put up next to the headquarters of a secular humanist organization or something, I expect there would be almost exactly the same complaint and expressions of annoyance made the other way round ("those pushy theists" or whatever).

Freedom of speech doesn't mean one has to like that speech. If e.g. PETA put up a billboard beside a steakhouse, I'd expect the owner of the steakhouse might be upset. That doesn't necessarily mean there's legal recourse (nor that there should be), but to criticize the owner in such a situation for being upset and wanting the sign gone, would be silly.

Similarly here, to express outrage for a perfectly normal reaction that one would have if the shoe was on the other foot is - well, irrational!

It would be irrational and hypocritical if we had evidence that such an event has occurred before and we still said that secular humanists wouldn't protest against the sign.

Can you provide an instance where a secular humanist group has publicly acted against free speech similarly to this?

Edit: If you can't, please post in this thread letting me know that you can't.

Mark A. Siefert · 4th July 2009, 11:12 PM

Originally Posted by Whiplash

The religious ones are over-reacting.. but I always still wonder about the motivation for these types of things to begin with. It seems to be confrontational to me.

The sign says "Being a good person doesn't require God. Don't believe in God? You're not alone."

You think THAT is confrontational?

How milquetoast and mealy-mouthed do non-theists have to in their public speech be to satisfy the religionist mobs? Maybe it would just be better if we stayed in the closet?

Originally Posted by Whiplash

At the very least, I can't see how any sensible person could go into the process of making a sign like that and not expect to have people screaming at them about it. It's asking for trouble.

Oh, so it's blame the victim. You ******* make me sick!

aggle-rithm · 4th July 2009, 11:31 PM

Originally Posted by Whiplash

I've stated many times that I believe it to be a completely ineffective way of changing minds.

I'm not sure what you mean by changing minds...would this be "try to get them to abandon the idea of God", or "try to get them to respect the rights of others not to believe in God"?

I think the second goal is one that everyone, atheist or otherwise, should strive for.

Ron_Tomkins · 4th July 2009, 11:37 PM

I really, honestly, wouldn't worry much about this

In my opinion, Atheism is becoming more and more common in the world population, as a kind of emerging common sense

A bunch of people making some sign against Atheism is only going to make them look sillier

It seems like mankind is drifting more and more towards skepticism
It's my impression at least
Either way, some people making some signs isn't going to do much

epeeist · 4th July 2009, 11:52 PM

Originally Posted by ClassyElf

It would be irrational and hypocritical if we had evidence that such an event has occurred before and we still said that secular humanists wouldn't protest against the sign.

Can you provide an instance where a secular humanist group has publicly acted against free speech similarly to this?

Edit: If you can't, please post in this thread letting me know that you can't.

Are you arguing that, if the situation I posited occurred, there would be no complaints by atheists? I doubt that very much.

Valuing free speech doesn't mean one has to like it. If e.g. I see an advertisement that offends me, I am free to not buy the product, complain to the company, try and start a boycott, whatever, and none of that is anti-free-speech. If I am an employer and refuse to hire someone for insulting me during the interview, that's not anti-free-speech, the person is free to say what they want, I am free to refuse to employ who I want (exceptions if the reason was in violation of anti-discrimination laws).

Complaining about this billboard or wanting it removed is not "acting against free speech", it's engaging in free speech. Asking if there's any legal remedy is not "acting against free speech", it's asking a legal question. Engaging in illegal behaviour, vandalizing the billboard, whatever, would be acting against free speech and none of that seems to have occurred.

A couple of examples showing (presumably) atheist annoyance with billboards generally (not next to a building) giving a contrary message (admittedly stronger than the atheist example in the second instance):

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/6/3/03311/89679

http://atheism.about.com/b/2008/02/1...otry-is-ok.htm

If someone (atheist or not) contacted the relevant billboard owner or advertising agency and complained, that would not be anti-free-speech.

A truly critical thinker - a freethinker, if you will - would, I think, recognize the merit of my argument (if the shoe were on the other foot...) rather than engage in the "if you don't post a link, it doesn't exist" sort of argument.

thaiboxerken · 5th July 2009, 12:02 AM

Originally Posted by epeeist

Are you arguing that, if the situation I posited occurred, there would be no complaints by atheists? I doubt that very much.

There have been many such billboards throughout the USA of such ilk. I've actually seen billboards that say "don't beleive in Jesus? Hope you like the heat." and more. This atheist billboard, and all of the others I've heard of, do not actually condemn people for believing in a god. They try to tell people that atheists are just as decent as they are, with morals and values.

That being said, if I had enough disposable income, I would buy some billboards that would say some extremely offensive things about religion.

Aepervius · 5th July 2009, 12:15 AM

Originally Posted by Whiplash

Tbut I always still wonder about the motivation for these types of things to begin with. It seems to be confrontational to me. At the very least, I can't see how any sensible person could go into the process of making a sign like that and not expect to have people screaming at them about it. It's asking for trouble.

How do you expect atheist to help other or to find each other or do anything , when we have 1) no official "church" building 2) no official place with special history (no vatican, no mecca) 3) no way to recognize each other in the street ?

I see only a few ways, all include advertising a way or another.

It is not limited to atheism, but to any sort of stuff which is not visible on the persons. Stamp collecting, atheism, roleplaying games, and heck, batman figure collecting from 1967 to 1972 , all other date excluded.

There is NOTHING provocative in that ad, as it does not address believer, but non-believer (at least in ,my POV).

ALONE The fact that you find it provocative to do such advertising is IMHO a demonstration of a BIG SKEWING in favor of all religions.

Originally Posted by ClassyElf

I'd agree. I think the sign's purpose likely was to get debate going.

SAme comment to you. PROPOSE a sign to gather other like minded atheist you find less provocative. HECK, it is totally tame by all standard I ever saw.

ClassyElf · 5th July 2009, 12:27 AM

Originally Posted by Aepervius

SAme comment to you. PROPOSE a sign to gather other like minded atheist you find less provocative. HECK, it is totally tame by all standard I ever saw.

What do you have against debate? I hole-heartedly approve of the sign as it is and I strongly hope that it brings debate over religion into the public's conversations.

Originally Posted by epeeist

Are you arguing that, if the situation I posited occurred, there would be no complaints by atheists? I doubt that very much.

No, I'm arguing that, if the situation you posited occurred, there would not be many atheists demonstrating for the sign to be taken down.

Quote:

Complaining about this billboard or wanting it removed is not "acting against free speech".

Agreed. I see my error. Though I still think that protesting for a billboard to be removed makes somebody a dick.

Quote:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/6/3/03311/89679

http://atheism.about.com/b/2008/02/1...otry-is-ok.htm

Thank you. Though I'd like to point out that these people were not calling for signs to be taken down, which is what I have a problem with.

Quote:

A truly critical thinker - a freethinker, if you will - would, I think, recognize the merit of my argument (if the shoe were on the other foot...) rather than engage in the "if you don't post a link, it doesn't exist" sort of argument.

Agreed. I think you're right. Some atheists would call for signs to be taken down. I don't think that many would, but I'm quite sure that some would. The ones that would are dicks and it doesn't make me a hypocrite if I say that people that protest in order to have signs taken down are absolute dicks.

epeeist · 5th July 2009, 12:43 AM

I agree this sign is relatively tame and inoffensive for its content, I just find its location (assuming it was deliberately chosen to be next to a church) understandably bothersome to many people.

I also agree that I find some of the other contrary examples (anti-atheist more than than anti-atheism) more offensive, and arguably unChristian. In the sense that, if one states "you're going to hell for your beliefs" or something to that effect, that does NOT encourage someone to explore Christianity and I suspect would drive even those people who might otherwise be interested in learning something about Christianity even further away from such desire. That is, it seems the opposite of spreading the Gospel.

Something like "Skeptical about Christianity? It's not just you, let us tell you about Thomas the doubter..." would be less offensive, somewhat humorous, and while probably totally unpersuasive to most atheists, at least probably would not drive most even further away from any interest in Christianity.

Aepervius · 5th July 2009, 12:46 AM

Originally Posted by ClassyElf

What do you have against debate? I hole-heartedly approve of the sign as it is and I strongly hope that it brings debate over religion into the public's conversations.

I have nothing against debate, I jsut think that saying the sign was here to "provocate a debate or reaction" is groundless, and that there is no WAY to genuinely advertising an atheist club if by your standard and those of whiplash it was to "debate".

To call that sign to call on a debate or even a provocation, or draw a reaction is IMHO placing a HIGHER standard to respect sensitivities of other group on atheist.

That is why I call all which says it was to provocate a debate or a reaction, to tell us what you would use as a sentence to promote an atheist club or group. By the reaction here "atheist group call 555-56734 to participate" is probably the only one which would be acceptable and not provocating or asking for a debate or reaction. And even then I am not sure.

UnrepentantSinner · 5th July 2009, 12:47 AM

I'm not a big fan of these sorts of billboards (agree with Whiplash in post #7) and the protestors can STFU about it, but I take issue with the "atheist discrimination" tag. People who work and live in the proximity of the billboard are bitching about it. How is that "discrimination*"?

Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins

Well, personally I can't say I'm amazed. When I went to visit Randi last year, one of the first things that struck me and that I found ironic was that the area where the JREF is located is filled with churches of all kinds and psychic services

So it's not surprising that such a woo oriented community would be reacting to this kind of thing

You haven't been in the South much have you?

It is Ft. Lauderdale, but it's still Florida.

* Before some of you post a screed about how the stupid xians are oppressing us or whatever, please stop and try to formulate a rational response to my question.

Aepervius · 5th July 2009, 12:52 AM

Originally Posted by epeeist

I agree this sign is relatively tame and inoffensive for its content, I just find its location (assuming it was deliberately chosen to be next to a church) understandably bothersome to many people.

How big is the density of church there ? I got to understand it was quite dense. Now how far was it from any church ? Where are placed the billboard ? And don't forget the billboard was apparently chosen by the company, not by the group :

Quote:

"I apologize if it's going to affect any business. That's definitely not our intention, and we didn't choose this area specifically. This was one of the billboards available to us."

In my home city there was one church every 2 km (~2200 yards) far more dense if you count convent, chapelle, and altars. If you say that 300 yards is too near a place of worship, there was NO WAY whatsoever to advertise atheism there.

ETA: and to use some part of a SPECIFIC religion holy book or myth to advertise atheism (thomas the doubter) is far more offensive for that specific religion than a tame "being a good person does not require god".

Walter Wayne · 5th July 2009, 01:06 AM

Originally Posted by Quinn

Possible, yes. But which seems more likely: that the organization put it there to antagonize believers, or that they did it to make other non-believers aware of the organization?

I think it is more likely both than exclusively one or the other. Putting the billboard where it is most likely to antagonize believers gets one a little bit of free advertising on the side when it hits the news. Thus reaching a much larger number of non-believers.

GreyICE · 5th July 2009, 01:34 AM

Originally Posted by ClassyElf

It would be irrational and hypocritical if we had evidence that such an event has occurred before and we still said that secular humanists wouldn't protest against the sign.

Can you provide an instance where a secular humanist group has publicly acted against free speech similarly to this?

Edit: If you can't, please post in this thread letting me know that you can't.

http://www.providence.edu/polisci/ca...le-Masters.htm
http://www.freedomforum.org/template...cumentID=16471
http://web.archive.org/web/199711220.../n012397b.html
http://www.aclu.org/studentsrights/r...s20020711.html

Wow, that was easy. The ACLU has countless times defended Christians' right to free speech. Hate to say it, the religious don't have a monopoly on being dicks.

Hokulele · 5th July 2009, 01:42 AM

Originally Posted by GreyICE

http://www.providence.edu/polisci/ca...le-Masters.htm
http://www.freedomforum.org/template...cumentID=16471
http://web.archive.org/web/199711220.../n012397b.html
http://www.aclu.org/studentsrights/r...s20020711.html

Wow, that was easy. The ACLU has countless times defended Christians' right to free speech. Hate to say it, the religious don't have a monopoly on being dicks.

Odd, every one of those articles discusses local government agencies or governmental bodies (other than the one with the broken link). None of them mention secular humanist groups, as ~~Aepervius~~ ClassyElf was talking about in his/her post.

I guess it wasn't very easy after all...

BenBurch · 5th July 2009, 02:10 AM

Whiplash,

I fail to see how this board could have been any more neutral in its language?

Care to re-phrase the message for me in a way you would believe was suitable?

-Ben

kimota · 5th July 2009, 03:33 AM

Originally Posted by From the wsvn article

But, business owners said, the sign has affected their income. Aavion McDonald works at the hair and beauty salon located right below the billboard. "There are people that come in here complaining about the sign," he said, "and that's not good for the business, and it's not good for the neighborhood."

Just as the article might draw more attention to FreeThoughtFlorida, that attention works both ways.
If you have people entering your business, even if it is to complain about something you have no control over, why can't you utilize that to increase your business? If your business is pro-Christianity or whatever other religion, make that abundantly clear and encourage patronage from anyone who walks in the door.

Similar billboards in Portland, OR didn't cause much of a stir, even though they were up during last Christmas season.
http://www.oregonlive.com/news/index...aw_little.html

realpaladin · 5th July 2009, 03:37 AM

Well, I put my money where my mouth is and chipped in.

Ethnikos · 5th July 2009, 03:46 AM

"Don't Believe In God? You Can Still Be A Good Person."
I think that would have been a better way to word it, to not make Christians feel defensive.
I would rather be around a good atheist than a bad person who claims to believe in Jesus. My philosophy is, the more someone claims they love Jesus, the more likely they do not. This is especially true, I think, when it comes to business. If their card has a cross and a fish on it, you should be concerned about being ripped off. Christians should have their own billboard saying:
"If You Are Not A Good Person, Stop Claiming To Be A Christian."

Pink Booties · 5th July 2009, 04:24 AM

Originally Posted by Whiplash

As I said, I find it hard to believe that the person who made it did so thinking it wouldn't cause the slightest problem at all. I question what it's purpose is. I'm saying I think it's possible it was purposely made to provoke a reaction.

I gotta agree. It's intended to be a thorn.

billydkid · 5th July 2009, 06:46 AM

Free speech is all fine and good as long as people don't go around saying anything that bothers anybody! I once heard Bill Buckley say that the reason we have free speech is so that people can express "good" speech.

Tricky · 5th July 2009, 07:50 AM

Originally Posted by Whiplash

As I said, I find it hard to believe that the person who made it did so thinking it wouldn't cause the slightest problem at all. I question what it's purpose is. I'm saying I think it's possible it was purposely made to provoke a reaction.

Oh, I'm sure it was put there to provoke a reaction. They cannot possibly have thought it wouldn't. But when a group is fighting for widespread acceptance, sometimes the first step is to speak out (in a nice way) in a place where you will challenge the status quo.

I'm pretty sure they were counting on the community to react with anger, thereby making themselves look intolerant.

chillzero · 5th July 2009, 08:09 AM

Wait a minute ....

Quote:

The members of the community cite two main problems: born-again Christians own the business right next to the sign, and the billboard is located right in the middle of an African-American community.

... African-Americans can't be atheists?

Andrewsarchus · 5th July 2009, 08:16 AM

To me anyway, the sign is essentially saying "2+2=4, Don't believe in God, you're not alone..."

4th July 2009, 08:12 PM	#1
Questioninggeller Master Poster Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 2,551	Residents want sign promoting atheism removed In James Randi's residence, Fort Lauderdale: Quote: Residents want sign promoting atheism removed wsvn.com July 2, 2009 FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. (WSVN) -- Community residents are protesting a billboard they call offensive to Christians. The recruitment billboard put up by the Florida Atheist and Secular Humanist Society stands just east of Interstate 95 on Sunrise Boulevard and 27th Avenue, next to a business owned by an African-American preacher. The members of the community cite two main problems: born-again Christians own the business right next to the sign, and the billboard is located right in the middle of an African-American community. Neighboring businesses have called to try to get the sign removed. "Muslim, Jew, Hindu, Christian, whoever you are, we all believe in a spiritual higher being. When you have something like this here, people don't want to come and patronize us anymore," said Theodore Hamilton, an employee at a nearby business. "We don't agree with this. We don't like this here in our community, and this is a spiritual based community." The sign states: "Being a good person doesn't require God. Don't believe in God? You're not alone. www.FreeThoughFlorida.com." ... The billboard sponsors said they would like the community to show them the same tolerance they fought for during the civil rights era. "The women and blacks in this neighborhood, they've been discriminated before, in the recent past, as early as 30, 40 years ago," Loukinen said, "and yet, they have no problem discriminating against another group, whether it be gays or atheists." This billboard is expected to be up for four weeks. Full: wsvn.com (follow the link for video)
	__________________ "Paranormal phenomena have a habit of going away whenever they are tested under rigorous conditions. This is why the $740,000 reward of James Randi, offered to anyone who can demonstrate a paranormal effect under proper scientific controls, is safe." --Richard Dawkins

4th July 2009, 09:12 PM	#2
Skeptic Ginger formerly skeptigirl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: headed back to that dark dark house in the dark dark woods Posts: 19,317	I posted the following in the comment section: Shame on the god believers complaining about someone else's free speech.
	__________________ Sk'p' 'el (Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, Republic Party, in response.) (*Tired of the current Republican talking point of naming everything after Pelosi, Reid &/or Obama, I've decided to start adding Republican names to their fault fiascos.)

4th July 2009, 09:19 PM	#4
Whiplash Acting like a maniac Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Shipwrecked and Comatose Posts: 4,002	The religious ones are over-reacting.. but I always still wonder about the motivation for these types of things to begin with. It seems to be confrontational to me. At the very least, I can't see how any sensible person could go into the process of making a sign like that and not expect to have people screaming at them about it. It's asking for trouble.
	__________________ "Questions are a burden to others; answers a prison for oneself" - The Prisoner "Look, I'm a tenth generation A.I. hologramic computer.. I'm not your Mum" - Red Dwarf "Ken Buddah... a smile, two bangs, and a religion" - Monty Python "A little hard work never killed anyone... but I'm not taking any chances" - Upright Citizens Brigade

4th July 2009, 09:19 PM	#5
thaiboxerken Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Portland, Oregon Posts: 13,315	MMM...yea. They don't have any real legal case here. It's BS. Freaking Xians....they support freedom of speech, except when it offends them.
	__________________ All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power & profit - Thomas Paine

4th July 2009, 09:22 PM	#6
thaiboxerken Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Portland, Oregon Posts: 13,315	Originally Posted by Whiplash The religious ones are over-reacting.. but I always still wonder about the motivation for these types of things to begin with. It seems to be confrontational to me. At the very least, I can't see how any sensible person could go into the process of making a sign like that and not expect to have people screaming at them about it. It's asking for trouble. Do you feel the same of the thousands of billboards across the nation that advertise christianity? I've seen some that have actually said "if you don't believe in Jesus, you'll go to hell." Christians in the USA tend to want special rights when it comes to their religion. All I can say to these people is "eff you." Do you actually think that the message that "being a good person doesn't require a god" is particularly offensive? Why or why not?
	__________________ All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power & profit - Thomas Paine Last edited by thaiboxerken; 4th July 2009 at 09:23 PM.

4th July 2009, 09:17 PM	#3
ClassyElf Scholar Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Florida Posts: 83	I find it more than a little ironic that the protesters are largely African-American. (Yeah, I realize I'm judging them based on their oppressed history, but the irony stands. )

4th July 2009, 09:33 PM	#7
Whiplash Acting like a maniac Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Shipwrecked and Comatose Posts: 4,002	Originally Posted by thaiboxerken Do you feel the same of the thousands of billboards across the nation that advertise christianity? I've seen some that have actually said "if you don't believe in Jesus, you'll go to hell." Christians in the USA tend to want special rights when it comes to their religion. All I can say to these people is "eff you." Do you actually think that the message that "being a good person doesn't require a god" is particularly offensive? Why or why not? No, I don't find the message in any way offensive. I did say I think the religious people are over-reacting. They are showing that they are insecure in their beliefs. And I do feel the same about Christian (or any religious) billboards. I'd rather people not proselytize at all. I hate to see them too, honestly. I just feel that sometimes people on the atheist side go a little too far in trying to provoke reaction, or with some of their ridicule. I've stated many times that I believe it to be a completely ineffective way of changing minds. It's my experience it hardens people in their position by making them angry and defensive, and therefore less open to hear what you have to say. And I really feel such methods also only serve as a "back slapping moment" or "high five moment" for the people who are doing the ridicule. I find it childish. As I've also stated before, I was raised in a strongly religious family. I've lost my faith completely, but maybe sometimes I take up for them defensivley because I share some common roots.
	__________________ "Questions are a burden to others; answers a prison for oneself" - The Prisoner "Look, I'm a tenth generation A.I. hologramic computer.. I'm not your Mum" - Red Dwarf "Ken Buddah... a smile, two bangs, and a religion" - Monty Python "A little hard work never killed anyone... but I'm not taking any chances" - Upright Citizens Brigade Last edited by Whiplash; 4th July 2009 at 09:35 PM.

4th July 2009, 09:36 PM	#8
thaiboxerken Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Portland, Oregon Posts: 13,315	Originally Posted by Whiplash I just feel that sometimes people on the atheist side go a little too far in trying to provoke reaction, or with some of their ridicule. And WTF does this have to do with this particular billboard?
	__________________ All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power & profit - Thomas Paine

4th July 2009, 09:38 PM	#9
Whiplash Acting like a maniac Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Shipwrecked and Comatose Posts: 4,002	As I said, I find it hard to believe that the person who made it did so thinking it wouldn't cause the slightest problem at all. I question what it's purpose is. I'm saying I think it's possible it was purposely made to provoke a reaction.
	__________________ "Questions are a burden to others; answers a prison for oneself" - The Prisoner "Look, I'm a tenth generation A.I. hologramic computer.. I'm not your Mum" - Red Dwarf "Ken Buddah... a smile, two bangs, and a religion" - Monty Python "A little hard work never killed anyone... but I'm not taking any chances" - Upright Citizens Brigade Last edited by Whiplash; 4th July 2009 at 09:39 PM.

4th July 2009, 09:41 PM	#10
Ron_Tomkins Satan's Helper Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: NYC Posts: 15,120	Originally Posted by Questioninggeller In James Randi's residence, Fort Lauderdale: Full: wsvn.com (follow the link for video) Well, personally I can't say I'm amazed. When I went to visit Randi last year, one of the first things that struck me and that I found ironic was that the area where the JREF is located is filled with churches of all kinds and psychic services So it's not surprising that such a woo oriented community would be reacting to this kind of thing
	__________________ "I am a collection of water, calcium and organic molecules called Carl Sagan" Carl Sagan

4th July 2009, 09:42 PM	#11
ClassyElf Scholar Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Florida Posts: 83	Originally Posted by Whiplash As I said, I find it hard to believe that the person who made it did so thinking it wouldn't cause the slightest problem at all. I question what it's purpose is. I'm saying I think it's possible it was purposely made to provoke a reaction. I'd agree. I think the sign's purpose likely was to get debate going. Unfortunately, the problem here is that christians don't debate. Christians protest to have their opponents arguments taken down so they don't have to think about them.
	Last edited by ClassyElf; 4th July 2009 at 09:43 PM.

4th July 2009, 09:47 PM	#12
Whiplash Acting like a maniac Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Shipwrecked and Comatose Posts: 4,002	You are correct about that. I suffer that problem every family get together, as my Grandmother is constantly harping me to return to church and how it'll fix all my problems and make my life so wonderful. They not only do not want to debate, but the very idea of debate makes them very upset. They actually feel that for us, as mere humans, to even question or debate "God's Will" is so incredibly blasphemous that I should be ashamed for trying to do so. I agree with you guys for the most part, I think I just got a little defensive because, at the same time, I know that for my Mother and Grandmother their beliefs are everything. They aren't hurting anyone, and if it could be shown to them they are wrong, it would destroy their worlds. I figure we will eventually grow beyond a need for religion, I just don't see a need to try to force the battle constantly in a world where it is the status quo virtually everywhere, billions strong. I think people delude themselves into thinking they personally are going to save the world from religion, when it's likely to take hundereds of years or more (IMO). And then I think again of my family, and don't want to see them hurt. And I assure you, they aren't hurting anyone.
	__________________ "Questions are a burden to others; answers a prison for oneself" - The Prisoner "Look, I'm a tenth generation A.I. hologramic computer.. I'm not your Mum" - Red Dwarf "Ken Buddah... a smile, two bangs, and a religion" - Monty Python "A little hard work never killed anyone... but I'm not taking any chances" - Upright Citizens Brigade Last edited by Whiplash; 4th July 2009 at 09:48 PM.

4th July 2009, 09:56 PM	#13
Quinn Breathtakingly blasphemous. Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 1,018	Originally Posted by Whiplash As I said, I find it hard to believe that the person who made it did so thinking it wouldn't cause the slightest problem at all. I question what it's purpose is. I'm saying I think it's possible it was purposely made to provoke a reaction. Possible, yes. But which seems more likely: that the organization put it there to antagonize believers, or that they did it to make other non-believers aware of the organization?
	__________________ It's not a matter of living life without mystery or wonder. It's a matter of living life without the approval of people who ignorantly assume that by rejecting the irrational, I experience no mystery or wonder. And frankly, I do just fine without that.

4th July 2009, 10:07 PM	#14
Towlie Muse Join Date: May 2009 Location: Miami, Florida Posts: 746	Quote: The sign states: "Being a good person doesn't require God. Don't believe in God? You're not alone. www.FreeThoughFlorida.com." Not exactly. The sign has the correct URL. The WSVN website has it wrong.

4th July 2009, 10:29 PM	#15
MattusMaximus Intellectual Gladiator Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: In the midst of a vast, beautiful & uncaring universe Posts: 7,123	The irony of this situation is that by complaining about it, the pissed-off Xians are drawing more attention to it which will result in even more non-believers learning about it & eventually supporting the organization running the ad campaign. Something very similar happened in California last year when the FFRF group ran billboards there. Local religious nuts got pissed off, made a big deal about it in the press, and this resulted in even more non-believers coming out of the closet & joining FFRF. Let the crybabies complain, I say. It shows just how stupid & immature they are, and ironically they're helping us.
	__________________ Visit my blog: The Skeptical Teacher Critical Thinking Education Group (CTEG) Chicago's First Skepticamp: Skepchicamp - March 6, 2010 Secular & Skeptic Help for Haiti

4th July 2009, 10:54 PM	#16
epeeist Student Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 44	One should try and avoid hypocrisy. If - for instance - a billboard saying "Recant, Kant is not enough - you need God to be good" was put up next to the headquarters of a secular humanist organization or something, I expect there would be almost exactly the same complaint and expressions of annoyance made the other way round ("those pushy theists" or whatever). Freedom of speech doesn't mean one has to like that speech. If e.g. PETA put up a billboard beside a steakhouse, I'd expect the owner of the steakhouse might be upset. That doesn't necessarily mean there's legal recourse (nor that there should be), but to criticize the owner in such a situation for being upset and wanting the sign gone, would be silly. Similarly here, to express outrage for a perfectly normal reaction that one would have if the shoe was on the other foot is - well, irrational!
epeeist Student Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 44

4th July 2009, 11:08 PM	#17
ClassyElf Scholar Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Florida Posts: 83	Originally Posted by epeeist One should try and avoid hypocrisy. If - for instance - a billboard saying "Recant, Kant is not enough - you need God to be good" was put up next to the headquarters of a secular humanist organization or something, I expect there would be almost exactly the same complaint and expressions of annoyance made the other way round ("those pushy theists" or whatever). Freedom of speech doesn't mean one has to like that speech. If e.g. PETA put up a billboard beside a steakhouse, I'd expect the owner of the steakhouse might be upset. That doesn't necessarily mean there's legal recourse (nor that there should be), but to criticize the owner in such a situation for being upset and wanting the sign gone, would be silly. Similarly here, to express outrage for a perfectly normal reaction that one would have if the shoe was on the other foot is - well, irrational! It would be irrational and hypocritical if we had evidence that such an event has occurred before and we still said that secular humanists wouldn't protest against the sign. Can you provide an instance where a secular humanist group has publicly acted against free speech similarly to this? Edit: If you can't, please post in this thread letting me know that you can't.
	Last edited by ClassyElf; 4th July 2009 at 11:26 PM.

4th July 2009, 11:12 PM	#18
Mark A. Siefert Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Muskego, WI. Posts: 3,169	Originally Posted by Whiplash The religious ones are over-reacting.. but I always still wonder about the motivation for these types of things to begin with. It seems to be confrontational to me. The sign says "Being a good person doesn't require God. Don't believe in God? You're not alone." You think THAT is confrontational? How milquetoast and mealy-mouthed do non-theists have to in their public speech be to satisfy the religionist mobs? Maybe it would just be better if we stayed in the closet? Originally Posted by Whiplash At the very least, I can't see how any sensible person could go into the process of making a sign like that and not expect to have people screaming at them about it. It's asking for trouble. Oh, so it's blame the victim. You ******* make me sick!
	__________________ "As the Corpse Lord knows, men today are ill-trained--ignoble: naught but wet anuses dribbling childish terrors and superstitions! Thus is knowledge--history, science, the world of the ancients--lost, never to be regained!" --M.A.R. Barker, "The Man of Gold" Last edited by Mark A. Siefert; 4th July 2009 at 11:16 PM.

4th July 2009, 11:31 PM	#19
aggle-rithm Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 6,745	Originally Posted by Whiplash I've stated many times that I believe it to be a completely ineffective way of changing minds. I'm not sure what you mean by changing minds...would this be "try to get them to abandon the idea of God", or "try to get them to respect the rights of others not to believe in God"? I think the second goal is one that everyone, atheist or otherwise, should strive for.
	__________________ To understand recursion, you must first understand recursion. Woo's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be adequately explained by aliens.

4th July 2009, 11:37 PM	#20
Ron_Tomkins Satan's Helper Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: NYC Posts: 15,120	I really, honestly, wouldn't worry much about this In my opinion, Atheism is becoming more and more common in the world population, as a kind of emerging common sense A bunch of people making some sign against Atheism is only going to make them look sillier It seems like mankind is drifting more and more towards skepticism It's my impression at least Either way, some people making some signs isn't going to do much
	__________________ "I am a collection of water, calcium and organic molecules called Carl Sagan" Carl Sagan

4th July 2009, 11:52 PM	#21
epeeist Student Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 44	Originally Posted by ClassyElf It would be irrational and hypocritical if we had evidence that such an event has occurred before and we still said that secular humanists wouldn't protest against the sign. Can you provide an instance where a secular humanist group has publicly acted against free speech similarly to this? Edit: If you can't, please post in this thread letting me know that you can't. Are you arguing that, if the situation I posited occurred, there would be no complaints by atheists? I doubt that very much. Valuing free speech doesn't mean one has to like it. If e.g. I see an advertisement that offends me, I am free to not buy the product, complain to the company, try and start a boycott, whatever, and none of that is anti-free-speech. If I am an employer and refuse to hire someone for insulting me during the interview, that's not anti-free-speech, the person is free to say what they want, I am free to refuse to employ who I want (exceptions if the reason was in violation of anti-discrimination laws). Complaining about this billboard or wanting it removed is not "acting against free speech", it's engaging in free speech. Asking if there's any legal remedy is not "acting against free speech", it's asking a legal question. Engaging in illegal behaviour, vandalizing the billboard, whatever, would be acting against free speech and none of that seems to have occurred. A couple of examples showing (presumably) atheist annoyance with billboards generally (not next to a building) giving a contrary message (admittedly stronger than the atheist example in the second instance): http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/6/3/03311/89679 http://atheism.about.com/b/2008/02/1...otry-is-ok.htm If someone (atheist or not) contacted the relevant billboard owner or advertising agency and complained, that would not be anti-free-speech. A truly critical thinker - a freethinker, if you will - would, I think, recognize the merit of my argument (if the shoe were on the other foot...) rather than engage in the "if you don't post a link, it doesn't exist" sort of argument.
epeeist Student Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 44

5th July 2009, 12:02 AM	#22
thaiboxerken Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Portland, Oregon Posts: 13,315	Originally Posted by epeeist Are you arguing that, if the situation I posited occurred, there would be no complaints by atheists? I doubt that very much. There have been many such billboards throughout the USA of such ilk. I've actually seen billboards that say "don't beleive in Jesus? Hope you like the heat." and more. This atheist billboard, and all of the others I've heard of, do not actually condemn people for believing in a god. They try to tell people that atheists are just as decent as they are, with morals and values. That being said, if I had enough disposable income, I would buy some billboards that would say some extremely offensive things about religion.
	__________________ All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power & profit - Thomas Paine

5th July 2009, 12:15 AM	#23
Aepervius Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 1,391	Originally Posted by Whiplash Tbut I always still wonder about the motivation for these types of things to begin with. It seems to be confrontational to me. At the very least, I can't see how any sensible person could go into the process of making a sign like that and not expect to have people screaming at them about it. It's asking for trouble. How do you expect atheist to help other or to find each other or do anything , when we have 1) no official "church" building 2) no official place with special history (no vatican, no mecca) 3) no way to recognize each other in the street ? I see only a few ways, all include advertising a way or another. It is not limited to atheism, but to any sort of stuff which is not visible on the persons. Stamp collecting, atheism, roleplaying games, and heck, batman figure collecting from 1967 to 1972 , all other date excluded. There is NOTHING provocative in that ad, as it does not address believer, but non-believer (at least in ,my POV). ALONE The fact that you find it provocative to do such advertising is IMHO a demonstration of a BIG SKEWING in favor of all religions. Originally Posted by ClassyElf I'd agree. I think the sign's purpose likely was to get debate going. SAme comment to you. PROPOSE a sign to gather other like minded atheist you find less provocative. HECK, it is totally tame by all standard I ever saw.
	__________________ Omnes Blessant Ultima necat One doesn't necessarily need evidence to back up arguments. Interresting Ian own's words. Plus that is an old skeptic game, to ask for evidence. Historian's take on skepticism Last edited by Aepervius; 5th July 2009 at 12:23 AM. Reason: changed quote to show the part I was commenting on

5th July 2009, 12:27 AM	#24
ClassyElf Scholar Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Florida Posts: 83	Originally Posted by Aepervius SAme comment to you. PROPOSE a sign to gather other like minded atheist you find less provocative. HECK, it is totally tame by all standard I ever saw. What do you have against debate? I hole-heartedly approve of the sign as it is and I strongly hope that it brings debate over religion into the public's conversations. Originally Posted by epeeist Are you arguing that, if the situation I posited occurred, there would be no complaints by atheists? I doubt that very much. No, I'm arguing that, if the situation you posited occurred, there would not be many atheists demonstrating for the sign to be taken down. Quote: Complaining about this billboard or wanting it removed is not "acting against free speech". Agreed. I see my error. Though I still think that protesting for a billboard to be removed makes somebody a dick. Quote: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/6/3/03311/89679 http://atheism.about.com/b/2008/02/1...otry-is-ok.htm Thank you. Though I'd like to point out that these people were not calling for signs to be taken down, which is what I have a problem with. Quote: A truly critical thinker - a freethinker, if you will - would, I think, recognize the merit of my argument (if the shoe were on the other foot...) rather than engage in the "if you don't post a link, it doesn't exist" sort of argument. Agreed. I think you're right. Some atheists would call for signs to be taken down. I don't think that many would, but I'm quite sure that some would. The ones that would are dicks and it doesn't make me a hypocrite if I say that people that protest in order to have signs taken down are absolute dicks.
	Last edited by ClassyElf; 5th July 2009 at 12:34 AM.

5th July 2009, 12:43 AM	#25
epeeist Student Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 44	I agree this sign is relatively tame and inoffensive for its content, I just find its location (assuming it was deliberately chosen to be next to a church) understandably bothersome to many people. I also agree that I find some of the other contrary examples (anti-atheist more than than anti-atheism) more offensive, and arguably unChristian. In the sense that, if one states "you're going to hell for your beliefs" or something to that effect, that does NOT encourage someone to explore Christianity and I suspect would drive even those people who might otherwise be interested in learning something about Christianity even further away from such desire. That is, it seems the opposite of spreading the Gospel. Something like "Skeptical about Christianity? It's not just you, let us tell you about Thomas the doubter..." would be less offensive, somewhat humorous, and while probably totally unpersuasive to most atheists, at least probably would not drive most even further away from any interest in Christianity.
epeeist Student Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 44

5th July 2009, 12:46 AM	#26
Aepervius Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 1,391	Originally Posted by ClassyElf What do you have against debate? I hole-heartedly approve of the sign as it is and I strongly hope that it brings debate over religion into the public's conversations. I have nothing against debate, I jsut think that saying the sign was here to "provocate a debate or reaction" is groundless, and that there is no WAY to genuinely advertising an atheist club if by your standard and those of whiplash it was to "debate". To call that sign to call on a debate or even a provocation, or draw a reaction is IMHO placing a HIGHER standard to respect sensitivities of other group on atheist. That is why I call all which says it was to provocate a debate or a reaction, to tell us what you would use as a sentence to promote an atheist club or group. By the reaction here "atheist group call 555-56734 to participate" is probably the only one which would be acceptable and not provocating or asking for a debate or reaction. And even then I am not sure.
	__________________ Omnes Blessant Ultima necat One doesn't necessarily need evidence to back up arguments. Interresting Ian own's words. Plus that is an old skeptic game, to ask for evidence. Historian's take on skepticism

5th July 2009, 12:47 AM	#27
UnrepentantSinner A post by Alan Smithee Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: USAian is not a word Posts: 23,209	I'm not a big fan of these sorts of billboards (agree with Whiplash in post #7) and the protestors can STFU about it, but I take issue with the "atheist discrimination" tag. People who work and live in the proximity of the billboard are bitching about it. How is that "discrimination"? Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins* Well, personally I can't say I'm amazed. When I went to visit Randi last year, one of the first things that struck me and that I found ironic was that the area where the JREF is located is filled with churches of all kinds and psychic services So it's not surprising that such a woo oriented community would be reacting to this kind of thing You haven't been in the South much have you? It is Ft. Lauderdale, but it's still Florida. * Before some of you post a screed about how the stupid xians are oppressing us or whatever, please stop and try to formulate a rational response to my question.
	__________________ "The permanence of the stars was questioned, the justice of slavery was not" - Carl Sagan in Cosmos discussing the content of the Library of Alexandria. a post by Alan Smithee explained. Blutoski's taxonomy of woo Join my The Not Cool Kids Club

5th July 2009, 12:52 AM	#28
Aepervius Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 1,391	Originally Posted by epeeist I agree this sign is relatively tame and inoffensive for its content, I just find its location (assuming it was deliberately chosen to be next to a church) understandably bothersome to many people. How big is the density of church there ? I got to understand it was quite dense. Now how far was it from any church ? Where are placed the billboard ? And don't forget the billboard was apparently chosen by the company, not by the group : Quote: "I apologize if it's going to affect any business. That's definitely not our intention, and we didn't choose this area specifically. This was one of the billboards available to us." In my home city there was one church every 2 km (~2200 yards) far more dense if you count convent, chapelle, and altars. If you say that 300 yards is too near a place of worship, there was NO WAY whatsoever to advertise atheism there. ETA: and to use some part of a SPECIFIC religion holy book or myth to advertise atheism (thomas the doubter) is far more offensive for that specific religion than a tame "being a good person does not require god".
	__________________ Omnes Blessant Ultima necat One doesn't necessarily need evidence to back up arguments. Interresting Ian own's words. Plus that is an old skeptic game, to ask for evidence. Historian's take on skepticism Last edited by Aepervius; 5th July 2009 at 12:54 AM.

5th July 2009, 01:06 AM	#29
Walter Wayne Wayne's Words Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Ottawa, ON Posts: 2,126	Originally Posted by Quinn Possible, yes. But which seems more likely: that the organization put it there to antagonize believers, or that they did it to make other non-believers aware of the organization? I think it is more likely both than exclusively one or the other. Putting the billboard where it is most likely to antagonize believers gets one a little bit of free advertising on the side when it hits the news. Thus reaching a much larger number of non-believers.

5th July 2009, 01:34 AM	#30
GreyICE Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 6,544	Originally Posted by ClassyElf It would be irrational and hypocritical if we had evidence that such an event has occurred before and we still said that secular humanists wouldn't protest against the sign. Can you provide an instance where a secular humanist group has publicly acted against free speech similarly to this? Edit: If you can't, please post in this thread letting me know that you can't. http://www.providence.edu/polisci/ca...le-Masters.htm http://www.freedomforum.org/template...cumentID=16471 http://web.archive.org/web/199711220.../n012397b.html http://www.aclu.org/studentsrights/r...s20020711.html Wow, that was easy. The ACLU has countless times defended Christians' right to free speech. Hate to say it, the religious don't have a monopoly on being dicks.
GreyICE Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 6,544	__________________ I love these forums If Hitler was a bloodthirsty psychopath don't you think at least someone would have noticed? - MagZ

5th July 2009, 01:42 AM	#31
Hokulele Official Nemesis TLA Dictatrix Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: To be determined. Posts: 21,346	Originally Posted by GreyICE http://www.providence.edu/polisci/ca...le-Masters.htm http://www.freedomforum.org/template...cumentID=16471 http://web.archive.org/web/199711220.../n012397b.html http://www.aclu.org/studentsrights/r...s20020711.html Wow, that was easy. The ACLU has countless times defended Christians' right to free speech. Hate to say it, the religious don't have a monopoly on being dicks. Odd, every one of those articles discusses local government agencies or governmental bodies (other than the one with the broken link). None of them mention secular humanist groups, as ~~Aepervius~~ ClassyElf was talking about in his/her post. I guess it wasn't very easy after all...
	__________________ You, madam, do not appear to be bound by the physical laws that govern the rest of us. - JoeyDonuts You should listen to the evil one - Don't try to understand it, just experience it. - AJM8125 Last edited by Hokulele; 5th July 2009 at 01:44 AM. Reason: Wrong attribution

5th July 2009, 02:10 AM	#32
BenBurch Gatekeeper of The Left Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one. Posts: 13,785	Whiplash, I fail to see how this board could have been any more neutral in its language? Care to re-phrase the message for me in a way you would believe was suitable? -Ben
	__________________ A Liberal Dose of Talk Dog is my co-pilot. GENERATION 7: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.

5th July 2009, 03:33 AM	#33
kimota Scholar Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 110	Originally Posted by From the wsvn article But, business owners said, the sign has affected their income. Aavion McDonald works at the hair and beauty salon located right below the billboard. "There are people that come in here complaining about the sign," he said, "and that's not good for the business, and it's not good for the neighborhood." Just as the article might draw more attention to FreeThoughtFlorida, that attention works both ways. If you have people entering your business, even if it is to complain about something you have no control over, why can't you utilize that to increase your business? If your business is pro-Christianity or whatever other religion, make that abundantly clear and encourage patronage from anyone who walks in the door. Similar billboards in Portland, OR didn't cause much of a stir, even though they were up during last Christmas season. http://www.oregonlive.com/news/index...aw_little.html
kimota Scholar Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 110

5th July 2009, 03:37 AM	#34
realpaladin Graduate Poster Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: I live not very often where my home is. Posts: 1,261	Well, I put my money where my mouth is and chipped in.
	__________________ --- "Change the rules, challenge the future!"

5th July 2009, 03:46 AM	#35
Ethnikos Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: USA Posts: 1,712	"Don't Believe In God? You Can Still Be A Good Person." I think that would have been a better way to word it, to not make Christians feel defensive. I would rather be around a good atheist than a bad person who claims to believe in Jesus. My philosophy is, the more someone claims they love Jesus, the more likely they do not. This is especially true, I think, when it comes to business. If their card has a cross and a fish on it, you should be concerned about being ripped off. Christians should have their own billboard saying: "If You Are Not A Good Person, Stop Claiming To Be A Christian."