Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

So when Christians express their opinions it's fine.

But when atheists do it, they're provoking people and that's the same of shooting rockets at Israel? And that means its okay to vandalize and censor their opinions?

 Grey Templar wrote:
Set up your own holiday if you want.

Best holiday ever

 Grey Templar wrote:
Thus its really is the Atheists fault for provoking such actions. Doesn't absolve the person who commited them of the sin, but the greater blame is on the person who provoked them.

Depends on how they are expressing it.

The sign about myths was extremely provocative and offensive. Plus the Atheists taking up half the boothspaces.

The straw that broke the camel's back and stuff.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Depends on how they are expressing it.

The sign about myths was extremely provocative and offensive. Plus the Atheists taking up half the boothspaces.

The straw that broke the camel's back and stuff.

People complaining about offensive things is basically saying, "I can't handle my own emotions, so I want you to handle them for me."

Maybe I'm offended by your religion. According to Jesus, I'm going to hell for being an atheist. I'd like to be able to take a stroll down the street without being told I'm goin' to hell, thank you very much.

Frazzled wrote:Who? Coconut eating T Rexes?

Indians.

There are Indians in Santa Monica? Did they cross the land bridge?

Okay, now for some more serious points.
Try most elements of christmas.
As for your other points, that's just it. Most atheists *can't* go about their lives totally ignoring religion, although they'd love to. At least, I would. I'm making a pretty damn good effort, anyway.

Sure they can. Unless they work for a mosque it literally doesn't impact them.

Religions (christianity and islam especially, for some reason) tend not to look too kindly upon those that disagree with them, regardless of whether or not the dissenters are threatening or actively trying to subvert your beliefs. That right there is a very, very good reason to keep a very wary eye on any and all religious activity. But I think that's getting too in-depth and philosophical for this thread.

Yep. And? Thats why we have the Bill of Rights and the Second Amendment to protect us from evil doers. PLus the dark army that are lawyers.

Now, I don't actually agree with what these atheists did - as said, it smacks of trolling, although as I mentioned earlier it started a couple of years ago with one man manning a stall/booth/whatever to make a counterpoint to all the christian imagery being thrown in people's faces in december. That I can respect and even agree with.
Getting organised to be appointed most of the booths just to block the churches - not so much.

Its childish but I am ok if they followed the rules.

Vandalising booths belonging to these atheists, because you got blindsided - also not cool.

Agreed. Unless you have proof those stinking churchers did it though, its just spurious allegations.

Both parties were in the wrong, and I really do think the city was completely in the right when they said: "if neither of you can behave, then neither of you gets to have any stalls." That's just good parenting. Or governing, In this case, the two are pretty much synonymous.

Thye Jesus freaks weren't wrong. They never said the I believe in nothing brigade couldn't put up stalls (unless I missed something).

Again, as a virulent Church/state speratist on the order of the French Republic I'm ok with government "YOU OFF MY LAWN!" I just want the law enforced equally now matter which way.
I actually think the cross carriers will lose unless they can show not everyone has been treated the same.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Depends on how they are expressing it.

The sign about myths was extremely provocative and offensive. Plus the Atheists taking up half the boothspaces.

The straw that broke the camel's back and stuff.

Next person that calls my girlfriend a myth is getting killed! Luckily because they provoked it, I'll have less fault.

Mattman154 wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Depends on how they are expressing it.

The sign about myths was extremely provocative and offensive. Plus the Atheists taking up half the boothspaces.

The straw that broke the camel's back and stuff.

Next person that calls my girlfriend a myth is getting killed! Luckily because they provoked it, I'll have less fault.

You think you're joking but you've almost described the lesser charge of involuntary manslaughter....(or voluntary I forget which).

 LoneLictor wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Depends on how they are expressing it.

The sign about myths was extremely provocative and offensive. Plus the Atheists taking up half the boothspaces.

The straw that broke the camel's back and stuff.

People complaining about offensive things is basically saying, "I can't handle my own emotions, so I want you to handle them for me."

Maybe I'm offended by your religion. According to Jesus, I'm going to hell for being an atheist. I'd like to be able to take a stroll down the street without being told I'm goin' to hell, thank you very much.

Were there signs saying "Atheists are going to HELL!"?

Or were there signs saying "Jesus is the reason for the season", "Jesus loves you", or something to that effect?


One is offensive, one is not. And I'm pretty sure the offensive one was not present.

I'd put an "Atheists are going to HELL!" sign up there in offensivness with the Myth sign.

 Frazzled wrote:

Mattman154 wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Depends on how they are expressing it.

The sign about myths was extremely provocative and offensive. Plus the Atheists taking up half the boothspaces.

The straw that broke the camel's back and stuff.

Next person that calls my girlfriend a myth is getting killed! Luckily because they provoked it, I'll have less fault.

You think you're joking but you've almost described the lesser charge of involuntary manslaughter....(or voluntary I forget which).

You calling my girlfriend imaginary?

I could care less if your GF is real or imagined.

 Frazzled wrote:
You think you're joking but you've almost described the lesser charge of involuntary manslaughter....(or voluntary I forget which).

Involuntary manslaughter sounds interesting

"So Mr Bloggs, why did you stab your wife repeatedly?"

"Well, I have epilepsy and was holding a knife when I had a seizure... I couldn't help it! I was just trying to chop the vegetables for dinner!"

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
You think you're joking but you've almost described the lesser charge of involuntary manslaughter....(or voluntary I forget which).

Involuntary manslaughter sounds interesting

"So Mr Bloggs, why did you stab your wife repeatedly?"

"Well, I have epilepsy and was holding a knife when I had a seizure... I couldn't help it! I was just trying to chop the vegetables for dinner!"

sigged

Mattman154 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Mattman154 wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Depends on how they are expressing it.

The sign about myths was extremely provocative and offensive. Plus the Atheists taking up half the boothspaces.

The straw that broke the camel's back and stuff.

Next person that calls my girlfriend a myth is getting killed! Luckily because they provoked it, I'll have less fault.

You think you're joking but you've almost described the lesser charge of involuntary manslaughter....(or voluntary I forget which).

You calling my girlfriend imaginary?

Only if you live in Omaha and she's "Canadian."

 Grey Templar wrote:

 LoneLictor wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Depends on how they are expressing it.

The sign about myths was extremely provocative and offensive. Plus the Atheists taking up half the boothspaces.

The straw that broke the camel's back and stuff.

People complaining about offensive things is basically saying, "I can't handle my own emotions, so I want you to handle them for me."

Maybe I'm offended by your religion. According to Jesus, I'm going to hell for being an atheist. I'd like to be able to take a stroll down the street without being told I'm goin' to hell, thank you very much.

Were there signs saying "Atheists are going to HELL!"?

Or were there signs saying "Jesus is the reason for the season", "Jesus loves you", or something to that effect?


One is offensive, one is not. And I'm pretty sure the offensive one was not present.

I'd put an "Atheists are going to HELL!" sign up there in offensivness with the Myth sign.

The myth sign says that your beliefs are wrong.

The Jesus sign says that my beliefs are wrong.

Offensiveness is subjective.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
You think you're joking but you've almost described the lesser charge of involuntary manslaughter....(or voluntary I forget which).

Involuntary manslaughter sounds interesting

"So Mr Bloggs, why did you stab your wife repeatedly?"

"Well, I have epilepsy and was holding a knife when I had a seizure... I couldn't help it! I was just trying to chop the vegetables for dinner!"

In Texas, wives have the "he needed killin your honor" defense for murdering their husbands. Thats what my wife told me when we were married.

 Grey Templar wrote:

One is offensive, one is not. And I'm pretty sure the offensive one was not present.

I forget, which amendment guarantees the right to not be offended?

 Lint wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

One is offensive, one is not. And I'm pretty sure the offensive one was not present.

I forget, which amendment guarantees the right to not be offended?

Maybe he's confusing us with the UK


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
Only if you live in Omaha and she's "Canadian."

I'm only in it for the bacon

When did I claim we have a right to not be offended?

I mearely am showing that the Atheists sign was needlessly inflamatory(though perhaps not illegally) and that the Christian's signs were most certaintly not.

People offended by "Jesus loves you" signs are seriously sad people. Ironically they need exactly what the sign says

Grey Templar wrote:
Thus its really is the Atheists fault for provoking such actions. Doesn't absolve the person who commited them of the sin, but the greater blame is on the person who provoked them.

Sticks and Stones. So some atheists wrote some stuff. Why is it their fault that criminal damage resulted? Clearly the religious signs annoy some people but there aren't reports of them being vandalised.

People are responsible for their own actions. You can't seriously excuse the vandals of most of the blame because they saw something they didn't like and seemingly couldnt help but destroy it. Whoever they were made a conscious decision to do that damage. So no, the people who 'provoked' them do not take the greater blame for their actions.

 Grey Templar wrote:
When did I claim we have a right to not be offended?

I mearely am showing that the Atheists sign was needlessly inflamatory(though perhaps not illegally) and that the Christian's signs were most certaintly not.

People offended by "Jesus loves you" signs are seriously sad people. Ironically they need exactly what the sign says

So, you're arguing that it was offensive to you and that means that its okay that its censored?

I'm sorry, I don't completely grasp your argument.

 Grey Templar wrote:
When did I claim we have a right to not be offended?

I mearely am showing that the Atheists sign was needlessly inflamatory(though perhaps not illegally) and that the Christian's signs were most certaintly not.

People offended by "Jesus loves you" signs are seriously sad people. Ironically they need exactly what the sign says

That depends entirely on what offends people. Perhaps a sign saying "Jesus is the reason for the season" is offensive because some may see it as false. You can't really decide what is certainly inflammatory and certainly not.

Edited

Did I say the Vandals had no blame? No, read my quote.

Its just that there is blame on the Atheists for provoking the action as well.


If I walked into a Jewish gathering and said "you know, Hitler wasn't such a bad guy" who's fault would it really be if I got beat up and assaulted?

*This is an OTT example to illustrate my point.


There would be assault and battery charges on my attackers, but it was my stupid action that led to it.

Don't poke a sleeping tiger.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mattman154 wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
When did I claim we have a right to not be offended?

I mearely am showing that the Atheists sign was needlessly inflamatory(though perhaps not illegally) and that the Christian's signs were most certaintly not.

People offended by "Jesus loves you" signs are seriously sad people. Ironically they need exactly what the sign says

That depends entirely on what offends people. Perhaps a sign saying "Jesus is the reason for the season" is offensive because some may see it as false. You can't really decide what is certainly inflammatory and certainly not.

Edited

Objectivly, one can demonstate the sign is correct. If Christianity didn't exist, we wouldn't have a Christmas season. So really, Jesus is the reson for the season is a 100% factual statement.

 Grey Templar wrote:
When did I claim we have a right to not be offended?

I mearely am showing that the Atheists sign was needlessly inflamatory(though perhaps not illegally) and that the Christian's signs were most certaintly not.

People offended by "Jesus loves you" signs are seriously sad people. Ironically they need exactly what the sign says

Would you be offended by a sign saying that everything you believe is wrong? Or a sign that says if you don't believe exactly the same things as the sign represents then you are a bad person? Or a sign which represents a system of belief which you find abhorent (such as one supporting slavery, or terrorism, or pro-life/choice)?

A sign doesn't have to be obviously offensive to be offensive. Personally I don't really give a monkies about the majority of Christmas displays that I see around the place but I can understand why some people might. Just as I personally am not offended by the bus ads that I have seen which say something along the lines of "There probably isn't a god, so why worry?", but I can understand why some people may find them offensive.

Incidentally, I don't need the love of Jesus to be happy, nor do I fell that I am somehow a lesser or "sad" person for being able to live my life without the teachings of whatever religion you belong to and I find the idea that people think that because I do not feel the need to have religion in my life I am somehow incomplete deeply offensive.

Firstly, you just invoked Godwin's law. I'm pretty sure that being an atheist isn't the same as supporting Hitler.

Secondly, what you're getting at is that a Christianity is a sleeping tiger, and if we disagree with it we'll provoke it?

 SilverMK2 wrote:

Would you be offended by a sign saying that everything you believe is wrong? Or a sign that says if you don't believe exactly the same things as the sign represents then you are a bad person? Or a sign which represents a system of belief which you find abhorent (such as one supporting slavery, or terrorism, or pro-life/choice)?

You mean like the atheist's signs were to the Christians?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lint wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

One is offensive, one is not. And I'm pretty sure the offensive one was not present.

I forget, which amendment guarantees the right to not be offended?

True that.

Meh, troll the old faiths into the ground and let's get on with creating our sci fi future already. Take Mass Effect, one of your crew members come up to you and says she's a Christian in an atheist universe. You have the option of patting her on the head and saying, "d'aww", or telling her to keep it quiet. =/

Relegion gives people hope, but there's other, material things that give that too. ...Things that don't have documentation that charts their origins from one piece of silliness to the other. Hey at least the pagans get to dance naked in a field a couple of times a year.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Did I say the Vandals had no blame? No, read my quote.

Its just that there is blame on the Atheists for provoking the action as well.

I read it. Don't be disingenuous now, you didn't just say there is blame on the atheists, specifically you said that they take the greater blame for it.

 Frazzled wrote:
You mean like the atheist's signs were to the Christians?

If you note I made no mention of their signs not being offensive and indeed detailed how I can understand how such signs can be seen as offensive by some people.

incidentally, if you have any proof that any religion/god/supernatural being is anything more than a collection of myths, I'd be more than happy to hear it and submit it to peer review

Why is there such an argument over this?

City has right to not do any of this.

Now... the Christmas holiday is shared among all faiths and atheist.

Hopefully we've learned how to share since being a wee tot.

What I find hilarious... is that Christmas is a pagan holiday.