Freedom of speech or freedom to stir up the pot for hateful sake?

[Cynthia]

"They are shooting themselves in the foot," said iReport contributor Rich Phillips, who describes himself as an atheist. "Everyone's out there for the holidays, trying to represent their religion, their beliefs, and it's a time to be positive."


http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/12/05/atheists.christmas/index.html

[Plane]

I think they are definately shooting themselves in the foot , but all the more reason to not censor them.

"Why believe in a God?" the advertisement asks. "Just be good for goodness sake."

Begs a question doesn't it?
Is this recursive reasoning really reliable ?

Why are Athiests good , can an athiest define good?

[BSB]

If you need a definition of good you're in trouble already aren't you?

[Amianthus]

Why are Athiests good , can an athiest define good?

Sure they can; why would you think that they cannot?

[Plane]

Why are Athiests good , can an athiest define good?

Sure they can; why would you think that they cannot?

Because my definition of good includes God , who is objective on the subject.

I have to plead ignorance on what is the definition for athiests , and I also don't know how they avoid being subjective and relitive about it.

[Plane]

If you need a definition of good you're in trouble already aren't you?

Do you consider "good " to be instinctively known?

[BSB]

>>Do you consider "good " to be instinctively known?<<

Basicly, yes. Not a long, highly evolved, definition, perhaps, but the day to day interpersonal stuff, yes. 

[Universe Prince]

Freedom of speech or freedom to stir up the pot for hateful sake?

As I recall, we bother to protect freedom of speech so that people can in fact "stir the pot". Regarding the "for hateful sake", to whom are you referring, the atheists or the folks who seek to have the sign removed?

[Amianthus]

Because my definition of good includes God , who is objective on the subject.

So, you're only good because God told you to be good?

[Xavier_Onassis]

Because my definition of good includes God , who is objective on the subject.
=========================================
God makes extremely rare personal appearances, and when he does, he does not hold question-answer sessions. I fail to see how you could define good unless God were a lot more forthcoming.

Socrates was not much of a believer, and one of his main topics was the definition of "the Good". He did not seem to require a Deity of Deities to reach a definition. Mostly, he used logic. Atheists today do the same thing. The main problem atheists seem to have today is that when atheists are called all sorts of names, they do not join one another in rebutting what is said about them.

[Plane]

Because my definition of good includes God , who is objective on the subject.

So, you're only good because God told you to be good?

Yes , though I am not all that good.
Without God I would never be bad , if I wanted it, it must be good. I would never be wrong .

[Amianthus]

Without God I would never be bad , if I wanted it, it must be good. I would never be wrong .

Sad. No self control. Has to have a superior figure looking over his shoulder all the time, to make sure he doesn't do the wrong things.

[Plane]

Socrates was not much of a believer, and one of his main topics was the definition of "the Good". He did not seem to require a Deity of Deities to reach a definition. Mostly, he used logic. Atheists today do the same thing. The main problem atheists seem to have today is that when atheists are called all sorts of names, they do not join one another in rebutting what is said about them.

Ok use some logic to define some good ,try not to out run me though.

[Plane]

Without God I would never be bad , if I wanted it, it must be good. I would never be wrong .

Sad. No self control. Has to have a superior figure looking over his shoulder all the time, to make sure he doesn't do the wrong things.

Right, I rely on instinct , so if I want it , it must be good , I am the final authority myself .

[Cynthia]

Freedom of speech or freedom to stir up the pot for hateful sake?

As I recall, we bother to protect freedom of speech so that people can in fact "stir the pot". Regarding the "for hateful sake", to whom are you referring, the atheists or the folks who seek to have the sign removed?

Well, basically, I read this as atheists who seem to want to share their anti-Christian (anti love for Christ) sentiments via a  "protest board" along side another "board" which was also freedom of expression.

Sure, it's ok to express one's beliefs or non belief system. But, I find it suspect when the signs are placed near another "celebratory voice" of expression.



Like I said, there's nothing wrong with expressing one's feelings, etc. But why didn't they put the sign near the mall .....or on the side walk.....or on their own front porch?