Thread: Bill O'Reilly: Atheists Are Jealous Of The Holiday

Only christians can enjoy the holidays, as they are founded on christianity exclusively. Also, santa and the easter bunny are christian inventions, read the bible.

Wait, what.

I don't know who's getting it wrong, O'Reilly or those people who make the ads.

Christmas isn't exclusively for Christians. Look at Japan.

We still celebrate harvest festival even though nobody prays to the ancient gods any more.

Originally Posted by erikvv

We still celebrate harvest festival even though nobody prays to the ancient gods any more.

I wouldn't say nobody. Certainly a sometimes entertaining minority but there are folks that claim to follow the old ways out there.

Originally Posted by erikvv

I don't know who's getting it wrong, O'Reilly or those people who make the ads.

Christmas isn't exclusively for Christians. Look at Japan.

We still celebrate harvest festival even though nobody prays to the ancient gods any more.

To answer the question of right and wrong here, the answers to some questions would need to be provided.

First, do the people running those ads (humanists) have a right to run those ads?

Nobody has a "right" to run an ad...it has to be accepted by whoever is producing it.
Aside from that...the reason is clear. It is both an attack on religion and a way to promote themselves.
It isn't complicated.

Originally Posted by iamwhatiseem

Nobody has a "right" to run an ad...it has to be accepted by whoever is producing it.
Aside from that...the reason is clear. It is both an attack on religion and a way to promote themselves.
It isn't complicated.

Non sequitur

Originally Posted by Steerpike

Non sequitur

How is that have nothing to do with it?

Originally Posted by iamwhatiseem

How is that have nothing to do with it?

The humanist group produced the ad and "bought" the ad space from a party that did "sell it to them." Further, there is no reason why someone could not buy both the ad space and produce an ad to run in a space they buy themselves. If you buy a piece of land for a billboard and set up the billboard, then you can run what ads you like on your billboard. So your premise that no one has a right to run an ad is a non sequitur.

As far as reasons go, this brings us to another question. Do the humanists have a right voice their views?

Originally Posted by Steerpike

The humanist group produced the ad and "bought" the ad space from a party that did "sell it to them." Further, there is no reason why someone could not buy both the ad space and produce an ad to run in a space they buy themselves. If you buy a piece of land for a billboard and set up the billboard, then you can run what ads you like on your billboard. So your premise that no one has a right to run an ad is a non sequitur.

As far as reasons go, this brings us to another question. Do the humanists have a right voice their views?

You are over analyzing to the hilt.

To answer your question...again no one has a "right" to have there ads ran. It is not written anywhere in the laws that private companies must run every ad offered.
Your question should be "should humanist have their ads restricted".
The answer to that is of course - no.
Is the ad(s) in bad taste - of course they are. The intent is pretty clear.

That was why Woody Allen quit atheism, no holidays.

Of course he once had a girl break off because she was an atheist and he was an agnostic.

This is one of Billyboys's major things that made him famous. O'Reilly would be just his usual silly bastard self about this if not for the fact that he keeps it up, and slips in more and more snide anti-Semitism as time goes on. (now the Jews didn't just kill Christ, they want to off Santa too)

Originally Posted by iamwhatiseem

You are over analyzing to the hilt.....

According to you, perhaps. But then you are trying to defend a viewpoint which has been shown to be logically flawed.

Originally Posted by iamwhatiseem

......Is the ad(s) in bad taste - of course they are. The intent is pretty clear.

Your opinion that it is in "bad taste" is irrelevant.

What, if anything, is objectively wrong with the intent?

Originally Posted by Steerpike

According to you, perhaps. But then you are trying to defend a viewpoint which has been shown to be logically flawed.

What view point specifically is flawed logically?

Originally Posted by iamwhatiseem

What view point specifically is flawed logically?

The one where the logical fallacy was pointed out. :rolleyes: