Maybe we should amend our FAQs to state that sweeping generalizations are not swanky and, therefore not alowed. ;)


Bottom line here is that, we've got a lot of really wonderful people who are MORE that likely to take on a good, intelligent and provocative argument but to do so, there has to be a certain amount of respect for the beliefs of others here. Assholeishness is not really the way to go - although I think most of us do succumb at times.

My own thoughts on the atheist sign are this: It's bad marketing. It's boring. It lacks joy. It's certainly NOT going to win over anyone. Even I would choose a Christmas tree (or, gag, a manger) over an in your face burst of my joyous holiday bubble.

You know I'm not sure there have been and definitive "scientific" studies of the benefits versus of the liabilities of religion - so far I only see anecdotal assertions without any objective methodologies set down to actually measure this.

But I think most of us use reason to justify the truths we feel - even us intellectuals

Studies, like public polling with skewed or improperly worded questions, are devices more often than not skewed towards a particular agenda.

Notwithstanding, no study would substantiate the patent hypocritical position to allow or proliferate a "religious" display without allowing EQUAL ACCESS to do the same for "non-religious" displays.

The 1st Amendment of our Constitution protects both points of view...which is an undisputable LEGAL FACT! Though not popular socially...as clearly represented even within this small microcosm of humanity/society, it is nonetheless a FACT!

To argue or defend otherwise is prima facie foolish...

S.D.

Heh - the first rule of atheist dogma is there is no atheist dogma ;)

I'm not sure about that - but I don't believe in objective "truth" perhaps you do (though I'd be interested in hearing your basis for it) what do you have to show atheism is "more true" than religion? It's very hard to prove a negative after all

So is this about the constitution or the existence (or non) of God?

Belief in God is the negative, not absence in that belief.

The so-called "Word of God" declared the earth was 10,000 years old...disproven.

The so-called "Word of God" declared the earth was the center of the universe...disproven.

The so-called "Word of God" declared a lot of things...most (if not all - I'm not allknowing so I cannot declare this as an absolute) have been disproven.

I know this, you know this, and so do many others.

So please...don't be coy or hold back. I can handle a good debate ;) otherwise.

S.D.

I presented it about the constitution...various red herrings have lead it off into the existence (or non) of God.

Take your pick...I'm more than willing to argue either question.

S.D.

And I still want a bacon martini for dinner. SD, methinks you are making a splashy, if not swanky, entrance.

Except that you said I was using religion as a weapon. That would imply you thought I was using religion as the sword and shield of my argument. I certainly wasn't.

I'm sure you never do. But we don't know you, so we might interpret a statement like this...

...as taking offense. Just as you seem to be confusing some of the things we say.

Also, you keep using the word "fallacious." I'm curious; what is the fallacy in our argument? Primarily, it seems people have been arguing that the sign posted wasn't the best way to convince people that atheism is preferable.

Ok - so if there isn't a God it certainly isn't the "traditional" "Christian" God - but the concept of God is not necessarily limited to that religion (despite it's popularity with Western Culture.)

Most of the truly religious people I know ( and I'm speaking in the spiritual sense) would agree with the above but still hold to a more abstract "higher power." I suspect most of the people on these boards are also not 16th Century Catholics - that is - no one here's argued those points you dispute above.