Originally Posted by Disneyphile (Post 257848)

I keep reading this as "fellatious", which has an entirely different meaning. :blush:

Originally Posted by alphabassettgrrl (Post 257854)

Originally Posted by Disneyphile (Post 257855)

It can also make ya gag, if you go too deep. ;)

Originally Posted by BarTopDancer (Post 257829)

Why must god be a man?

Originally Posted by BarTopDancer (Post 257829)

What if god was one of us?

Originally Posted by BarTopDancer (Post 257829)

Does god like bacon?
How about shiny things?

Originally Posted by alphabassettgrrl (Post 257816)

I'm not sure I defend public religious displays either.



One can't prove a negative, only fail to prove a positive. So I disagree that there is evidence for the nonexistance of god. One can think of god as unnecessary, possibly, but non-existance cannot actually be proven.

People believe things. Some believe in god, of various forms, and some believe in a lack of god. Both are opinions.

Originally Posted by €uroMeinke (Post 257819)

And the proof of free will is?

(I think there are those in the scientific community that dispute that - though I'm not one of them - or even a member of the scientific community)

Sorry you think my Lapland remark mocking, but I'm an existentialist with heavy phenomenological leanings - thus there is no truth other than what we create. For my personal experience that puts God and Lapland in the same category, though I've chosen to believe on and not the other, how could I fault someoen with thinking differently.

As to the horrors of religion on the world, I would broaden those to belong to people who claim to know truth - then you could lump the secular dogmatists (i.e. Nazis, Communists, etc.) in that category as well.

Originally Posted by flippyshark (Post 257828)

Sir Dillon, in response to "We're just questioning the merits of that particular sign," you said:



Okay, questioning the merits of a sign's content is akin to questioning its legal right to be presented on public property? Am I missing something here? Those are very clearly two different things.

1) - I support the legal right for the sign to be displayed.

2) - I don't think the message as written is as effective as it could be.

Where does the second one in any way negate the first? You say they are akin and add two exclamation points.

Heck, theoretically, I could go further and say

1) - I support the legal right for the sign to be displayed

2) - I completely disagree with the message and think it is poorly worded to boot.

And there is still no contradiction. Nor does the second negate the first. Nor are they akin.

What's the deal?