Atheist group targets Muslims, Jews with ‘myth’ billboards in Arabic and Hebrew

[Hollis]

If theists, especially in the US, would mind there own business and keep there religion to themselves you wouldn't hear much at all from atheists. Since that isn't the case, we talk back.

Yep, good old rationalization, "They do, so we do it". Ever thought of having a mind of your own? You don't like someone doing something, so you do it too. Actions are what actually define a person. If you want to act like them, then you are them.

Edited to add: I find evangilism generally disgusting and based on arrogance (bible thumper type). I will not use that tactic, because in my mind it is disgusting. My thinking is, it does not mater what the other person does, It maters what I do. Just because the otherside does it, it not suffiecient reasoning to do it myself.

[Hollis]

I have to disagree with that. I'm an agnostic theist I suppose and I've met a number of people in the same position.

Sorry for the over simple definition. Being a agnostic theist is throwing another "term" into the hopper. Like being a spiritual atheist. Or a superstitious materialist. As I mentioned most people, IIRC, tend to be a collection of things (hogpogists). People tend to take a buffet approach, choosing what fits into their life style rather than fitting their life style into some kind of belief system/philosophy. (Not saying that is you)

From the Merriam-Webster dictionary:

: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

Part of my philosophy about people, I let them define themselves. Whether they fit that definition or not is determined by their actions. Problem with "reasons", there is really no way to materialistically determine the truthfulness of them.

I probably should add, that I consider myself to be a materialist. Yes there is some hogpog aspects to it. I see it as a develop based on new knowledge and understanding as time progress. Basic scientific principles are based on materialism. I don't mind not knowing and don't feel a need to fill in the blanks with some kind of theory or conjecture.

There are holes in materialism. Some thing we can not quantify or qualify. Soft sciences deal with those issues often. Look at psychology, diagnosis are based on perceptions and they are subjective to the individual. They can not be weight, measure or physically determined to 100%. The DMS V is based on conventions by the board of psychiatric medicine or similar group.

Also emotions are also difficult to determine and are again determined by subjective means. Look at love, very often talked about, some what definable, yet it is subjective as whether it exists or not. I accept the concept of love, but I can not physically demonstrate it. It's existence is based on circumstantial evidence. That is a very subjective measurement. A reasonable conclusion and also be very wrong. How often have we heard the term, "I thought he/she loved me"?

So to me, the measurement that we can actually use, is the actions of the person. While the reasoning may be more important, there is no way we can say conclusively that the stated actions are true.

[Rosbach]

If you´re into things, you are an Emotionalist. If you look at things, an intellectual. One step further, a philosopher. Another step, it becomes spiritiual. An agnostic doesn´t need a religion for what he is experiencing.

[Spezz]

I really want to hear and see the reaction from muslims when the billboard goes up. Atheists in the US have been going after the easy target i.e. Christianity for so long that they are in for quite a shock going up against Islam.

Jezus Christ enough with this moronic argument, must have heard it a 100 times here. Christianity has the attention of some atheists because, guess what, Christianity is the by far the biggest religion in America and the western world. It's not about how easy or hard a "target" is. Some atheist respond when religion affects them, most of the time it's going to be Christianity.
So Muslims may respond in a more violent way, how does that discredit any of the atheist's criticisms?
If I'm in a Muslim country, like, let's say SA, I'm not gonna have a debate about how I think they believe in fairytales. That's not me being a coward, that's just me not being stupid and suicidal. As if risking bodily harm somehow make your argument more valid.
****, I guess those suicide bombers are right 100% of the time.

[JJC]

They should have went with Yiddish billboards in Williamsburg. That group of Jews don't speak Hebrew and they don't read English well.

[Hollis]

If you´re into things, you are an Emotionalist. If you look at things, an intellectual. One step further, a philosopher. Another step, it becomes spiritiual. An agnostic doesn´t need a religion for what he is experiencing.

Interesting POV. Not sure about the agnostic part. I have met declared agnostics who did practice a religion. While they did not believe in a deity, they felt it fulfilled a spiritual need. Again my understanding is that agnostic just do not do the deity thing.

[sohaminator]

@thecdn

I have read all the posts in this thread so far and I must say it's very admirable how you have kept your cool in spite of being attacked in so many posts in the last few pages. You have tried to debate your point of view calmly and logically and as a reward been accused of being a troll, ass hat and asked to shut up.

It is sad indeed that barring Hollis and a tiny minority of other posters no one seems to want to debate this issue in a polite manner.

[Vehemence]

It is sad indeed that barring Hollis and a tiny minority of other posters no one seems to want to debate this issue in a polite manner.

There is no other way this topic can be debated but with disdain. One side is right, and the other side deluded.

[Hollis]

There is no other way this topic can be debated but with disdain. One side is right, and the other side deluded.

Or both sides are deluded. Or both sides are right. Don't you hate those dichotomies?

[Vehemence]

Or both sides are deluded.

There either is a god or there isn't. How can both sides be deluded?

[Rosbach]

Spiritual moments last for the rest of ones life. I think religion derives from that crucial event. The philosophy part. When it´s no longer spiritual. Or agnostic

[sepheronx]

There either is a god or there isn't. How can both sides be deluded?

In their reasoning. How they deal with the situations. Example is the OP.

[sohaminator]

There either is a god or there isn't. How can both sides be deluded?

I think what Hollis is saying that both the religious hardliners and atheists who go out of their way to offend theists are shortsighted because being confrontational does not promote dialogue.

[Hollis]

There either is a god or there isn't. How can both sides be deluded?

Theories are unproven, they can be used in science. Assigning a value for it being true at 99% still does not make it 100% true. Even raising the value to 99.99% does not make it 100% true. If you want to believe in a theory being true, go ahead. A lot of people do.

BTW, the inability to deal with dichotomies is a by-product of our culture. Greeco/Roman thinking based on linear thought. Probably each side assumes they are right and that there is only one right. I tend to think people need to believe when they don't know. Fear and insecurities are very strong motivators. Therefore, people will naturally fill in the blanks. Your fill in may be more reasonable, but it is still a fill in. To me a believer would be someone who fills in the blanks with what they would say was true.

[Hollis]

Spiritual moments last for the rest of ones life. I think religion derives from that crucial event. The philosophy part. When it´s no longer spiritual. Or agnostic

Curious, would you define spiritual?