I made no such hasty generalizations...

Nice of you to acknowledge this; how ironic though after you criticized me for doing no less.

Agreed.

Nevertheless, I argue, as self-evident by your and the other likeminded responses...you're interpreting this personally.

Neither the display nor I have made any specific declarations as to who individually or by group is what and is not regarding violence and religion.

Your personal fallacious interpreation...as with theirs...and not what I stated (i.e. strawman argument).

S.D.

So does the question then become - so what if it is crude and nasty? And if that's a problem and means "something" should be done about it, what? And who decides when it crosses the line.

I hear where you're coming from Sir Dillon - but I must agree with the rest that the message feels a bit harsh. But then that's just how I feel about it. I wouldn't call it hate speech. But it's not going to win any friends. Although I must admit I did go look up the group that's behind it and spend some time on their website so maybe I'm wrong about that.

I've been in situations where I felt compelled to pretend to pray because of what it was - the other side of the family - the work party at christmas... I would rather that didn't happen. It somehow feels like a score for my side. That's not quite the right sentiment - but hopefully you get where I'm coming from.

First of all, I am not using religion as a weapon. Again, like others in this thread, you have no idea what my personal beliefs are.

Just because you've apologized for this statement (which - to me - seems like a greatly personal one towards people who practice a religion) doesn't mean it disappears. You lobbed it out there, and I'm surprised you're taking such offense at people taking such offense at it.

Exactly!!!

Feelings are not a basis of an objective argument.

While I may be passionate about the subject, as self-confessed, I still argue objectively regarding the legal, religious, and philosophical merits of it.

I do, and I apprecaite the candor.

Thank you.

S.D.

Dude, whoa whoa whoa! You might want to get to know people here before you start smashing all the china.


You said you have made no hasty generalizations. Here is one that you made.
It is also a FACT that science has been used as a justification for heinous acts of violence, and a FACT that religion has been used to bring charity and goodwill to people.

Religion has been both good and bad, science has been both good and bad. I'm surprised that I have to point out these FACTS to you, since you use big words, and I figure you'd be familiar with, say, Mother Teresa, communist Russia, and Adolf Hitler.

Godwin, hellz yeah.

And I've never claimed to know what your (or any other) personal beliefs are on the subject.

To the contrary, I'm taking no offense at all as I never interject emotion into my arguments.

Forgive me for tooting my own horn, but I like to think of myself as an intellectual...not an emotive knee-jerk reactive individual who speaks before they think (which, as the Dixie Chicks learned, is akin to shooting without aiming).

I argue the logic, the meaning of words and how they used in the context given; not from personal emotions.

Declaring that...everyone within the forum will know exactly where I am coming from and how I argue/debate/discuss from here on out.

In other words, I don't beat around the bush nor will I coddle another's emotive fallacious arguments.

Respectfully,

S.D.

You know, as an atheist I first thought I had a problem with religion, but I've come to discover my real problem is with dogma - atheist dogma is just as fowl to digest as religious dogma and equally ignorant.

Sorry, but that quote was not a hasty generalization but a statement of fact. Of which I can cite an infnite number of historical facts to substantiate.

Yes, but more often with purpose rather than self-serving agendad the likes seen by centuries of religious violence.

The bad always outweighs the good, figuratively or factually (in the case of religion, factually).

Yes, but religion far is worse in the totality of its existence and effect upon humanity.

Yes, I am familiar with those examples and plenty more. Yet, I am less familiar with anyone noteworthy who has actually done some real good, under the guise of religion, that did not cost anyone their fortune or life.

S.D.

There is no atheist domga...i.e. a doctine presented without proof.

Atheist have nothing but proof (at least far more than religious folk do) to substantiate their viewpoint.

The truly ignorant position is professed by those who believe in religion for the sake of believing without being able to substantiate why they believe.

I have far more respect for those who can argue, defend, and stand on their own justifying their religious belief vs. rationalizaing it through ignorant emotive arguments ascribing negative labels to those who challenge their position (as evidenced by the position taken on the non-religious display side-by-side with the religious display in the Washington State Capitol).

S.D.