The sign’s a bit more involved than you’re asserting: you’re probably just not seeing it b/c you’re prone to be sympathetic to the people who put it up. And that’s fine: we’ve all got differing sensibilities. But I don’t really care about the sign, so I’m dropping it. You’re welcome to jump in with a last word on the issue, if you’d like.

Want to lay out the argument for morality in straightforward, strict logical terms? Because I’m clearly not understanding it. In specific, I’d like to know the logical reasoning that goes in the middle of these philosophical arguments:

1) There exists an action which is a net positive for the well-being of the whole, but results in a net negative on the well-being of the subject.
[INSERT ARGUMENTATION HERE]
N) Subject should perform the action.

1) There exists an action which is a net negative for the well-being of the whole, but results in a net positive on the well-being of the subject.
[INSERT ARGUMENTATION HERE]
N) Subject should NOT perform the action.

Note that “net positive for the well-being of the whole” does not necessarily imply “net positive on the well-being of the subject”, and “net negative for the well-being of the whole” does not necessarily imply “net negative on the well-being of the subject”. We both agree that insofar as “net positive for the well-being of the whole” means “net positive on the well-being of the subject”, that’s the action to take, and if “net negative” lines up, then don’t take the action. This is the tit-for-tat conversation we had before.

But when those issues line up, there isn’t really an interesting moral question. The interesting question is when they break down.

As for the sign- the sign, not the website- being an attack, all the sign said was that 1) Atheists exist and 2) They’re not immoral. That qualifies as an attack (your words)? And even the evidence you’ve presented that their website is an attack is pretty milquetoast- “They quote Nietzsche! They make snide comments about cherry picking from the bible!”

You know what qualifies as an attack? This does.

I think lots of atheists are moral people, but I’m yet to be shown a firm philosophical grounding for moral behavior¹ in atheism/agnosticism (the conversation that started this whole thread). It’s certainly true, though, that a lot of atheists and agnostics go ahead and adopt moral standards anyway. It’s a bit hypocritical, but it’s hypocrisy to a good end, so no reason to knock it.

¹That is, a firm philosophical argument for an atheist to perform self-limiting/self-destructive altruism.

Note that all this is very different than labeling atheists immoral or evil. Although there are specifically immoral (okay, amoral) atheists, that group is a tiny minority compared to the more standard case of atheists who adopt some flavor of the moral set of their surrounding culture.

+1 to Simeon’s:

If you can question the weak points, you can find the personal answers of why you still accept you stance, and thus accept the humour in your beliefs faults.

Life is a whole lot more entertaining if you recognize your faults and limitations. :)

There’s been a lot here—is there something in particular I should speak to?

People freaking out if you have a difference in opinion, which I just don’t get. To me it this shows insecurity in your own beliefs. This has a flip-side of people who are so righteous and can’t even consider there is another foot to try the shoe onto.

And the second point of the PC nature of the world, where every other religion is a sacred cow, but Christians should learn to take a joke. (Well in the New Zealand they do)

Personally I think everyone should question their beliefs, and chose them because they fit. If you can question the weak points, you can find the personal answers of why you still accept you stance, and thus accept the humour in your beliefs faults.

Here’s the thing: atheism doesn’t require a community. You don’t need to find other people of the same bent to find a mate or validate your (lack of) beliefs. And it doesn’t take all that many people freaking out when you bring up the subject to convince you that maybe it’d be better to keep your trap shut and just avoid the subject. So long as an atheist keeps mum, it’s hard to really out them. This means there is even less reason for there to be an “atheist community”. This still doesn’t mean it’s OK to label atheists as immoral and/or evil.

Put the shoe on the other foot: is it bad if Christians put up billboards in primarily Jewish, Muslim, or other non-Christian communities? (And if the locals did complain about them, would they get any sympathy, let alone get the billboards taken down?) And is it OK if non-Christian countries (such as China or Iran) suppress Christian advertising?