Tis the season...deja vu anyone?
 

Greetings all!

I've been contemplating how I would begin participating in this forum since WendyBeth invited me...join a current discussion or start a new one?

Since so many threads have lengthy discussions...I figured it best to start a new one rather than jump in the middle of one.

So, here goes...

Today on my lunch break I was listening to pundit Lars Larson discussing essentially the first "hot topic" of the Christmas season...the atheist display next to the nativity scene and Christmas tree in the State Capitol of Olympia, Washington.

Having a business associate call in and foster the discussion, both agreed on the following shared opinions/arguments against the Governor allowing the atheists equal access and shared space the freedom to express their view on religion:

1. The atheist display = hate speech
2. By the Governor allowing the atheist display, it is tantamount to agents of the government supporting/proliferating a particular religious belief
3. And the atheist display is patently unconstitutional based on #2

Therefore, it should be removed.

After hearing this, I could not help but be utterly dumbfounded by this argued shared opinion.

First, "hate speech" is not defined or addressed by the Revised Code of Washington. Moreover, the 1st Amendment "freedom of speech" clause protects it (with the Supreme Court reinforcing this protection more than once).

Secondly, what was printed on the display hardly constitutes so-called "hate speech":

"There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell. Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens our hearts and enslaves our minds."

There is enough human history to sufficiently substantiate each expressed "opinion" within that statement. All one has to do is Google 'religious violence,' 'Biblical evil,' 'the Inquisition,' or even '9/11' to get an eye full of nothing short of violent words and images advocating the death of others who believe in a different religion, are gay, or served in the military during the 'war on terror' campaign(s).

I mean really, if Lars and his friend want to invoke the "hate speech" label; why not open up the Bible or Koran and practice what they preach? For there is plenty of "hate speech" within each religious text.

Last but not least, by stating that the Governor allowing this display is tantamount to the atheists being an agent of the government in proliferating a particular 'religous' belief - in violation of the spirit of 'Separation of Church and State' (not even a Constititional provision/protection)...is prima facie foolish and ridiculously absurd! For the very same argument could be made for the Governor allowing the Nativity and Christmas tree display. Talk about your special pleading fallacy...

It has truly amazed me over the past several years just how bad some religious believers can be at whining over opposing arguments. Contesting non-religious views - whether public or private - meanwhile professing they have the greater right to do that which they argue the opposition does not.

I'm sorry, but while the 1st Amendment gives everyone the right to practice their religion unfettered by Congress (i.e. under the law); it also indirectly gives the right of others not to be forced (i.e. under the law) to subscribe to a particular religious practice. As such, both sides have the "freedom of speech" and "expression" in announcing their respective opinions/arguments.

What's even more sad about this story is Bill O'Rielly, who I generally enjoy watching or listening to on the radio, bloviated a little too much on this story.

The underlining fact is that the atheist have just as much of a moral and legal right to place their display opposing religion as those who believe in religion do in displaying the Nativity scene (which is debated to have occurred during Easter, not Christmas) and the Christimas tree (which has far more roots in paganism than Christianity).

Anyhow...any and all comments/responses appreciated. :)

S.D.

If there was a Nativity there as well, wouldn't #2 apply as well?

I'm an atheist and I don't really care about Christmas displays on government property. Like it or not we are a predominantly Christian nation and so long as the same space is generally made avaialable to other groups who'd like a similar opportunity then I don't care.

That said, specifically targeting a Christmas display for a counter-display is a dick move as much as I agree with the sentiment.

Maybe they should combine it all into one and call it a Naivety?

It's a dick move, but I can see why they might have done it. They had to the right to do it, and it's probably a counterpoint to all the religiously inspired political activism (let's rewrite the California constitution the way Jesus would want it!) that has been so very prevalent these days. A friendly little reminder that our intellectual diversity is not a crime, and their message falls far short of the 'hate crime' requirements.

Bill O'Reilly is a dick, so I fail to see why this bothers him. Even his pea brain should be able to grok the situation for what it really is- he's just trying to stir up controversy because people are becoming bored with his shtick.

Maybe if they changed their sign a bit, it would be "ok":

"During this Holiday Season remember: There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell. Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens our hearts and enslaves our minds. Keep this in mind but have a happy holiday anyways - and remember, you don't need to have a mythology to buy presents. Go out there and help our ailing economy!

<ruler of the world mode>

Images of any god should never posted at a governmental building.

Yet the nativity goes up, year after year.

Since it's bloody 2008 and we still have a religious symbol at a state capitol, and no amount of complaints or rational arguments have made a dent in the placement of a freaking idol at our houses of rule, action is warranted.

I dig this idea, as it hits this tradition where it needs to be hit. For my part, I have never complained about a nativity to any authority, because it's just another stupidity I've decided to endure quietly. I'm glad someone has got the balls to make the dick move that this country needs.


As an aside, looks like my city isn't posting their nativity this year. Interesting.

There are numbers, words and links in the OP. Can someone translate , I don't wanna read all that...

And what sick f**k names their kid Lars Larson...

That's what I wanna know...

He talks about respect yet repeatedly refers to other group as silly.

And the b.s. comment that we are granted freedom of religion and not freedom from religion is ridiculously implying that one MUST be of some sort of religion.

Bah.

I'm all for you believing whatever you want - as long as your ok with me doing the same.

Is there anybody as needy as a conservative Christian at Christmas?

Technically, it's constitutional so long as the public space is open to all. However, I do believe the Court occasionally waxes eloquent about tradition, which is how congressional chaplains stay employed and God stays on our money.

That said, as I've said before, I think atheists going "me, too; me, too" at Christmas is also somewhat on the needy side and should be avoided.

If a public space is open to anyone putting what they want, then I have no problem with religious items being put there. If the religious display is brought in and funded by the government, then I have a problem.

I don't think everything in life needs to be fair and balanced.

If your town square has had a nativity scene for the last umteen years then keep it as is.

If Santa makes a yearly appearence at your city counsel meetings great. Tradition should count for something in this country. I don't feel like we need to add a menorah, Kwanzaa thingy, etc... to every town square and building just to be "fair" and I actively resent people who try and stamp out traditional displays altogether as if that is somehow the moral high ground.

Look at the pretty lights, feel a little holiday cheer and get the F' over it.

Note: Just in case you were wondering, Christian symbolism is not exactly my cup of tea, as has been discussed previously I'm more of an Apathyst. Still I don't see the need to rain on the general holiday parade and I do like pretty lights and santa hats.

Love the avatar Moonie!:D

Aside from being constantly amazed at the number of people in this world who think that being mean-spirited is the way to win converts, I was wondering if there were going to be pagans who were put off by solistice references.

Ditto...to this entire post.

I think that the other sign - was it a bus billboard - that referenced being good for goodness sake sort of think might be less inflamatory.

On the other hand, I find it comforting to not feel like the only one and having a public display professing that I'm not alone in feeling that way, is sort of cool.

But does the nativity scene offend me? No. In general, I don't really care much about it at all.

As much as it pains me to do this: I agree wholeheartedly with Moonliner (although I did delete his last ¶)

Given that he is wrong so often, I do need to throw him a bone once in a while so as not to completely demoralize him.

While I might generally agree with Moonliner, I doubt either of you have been been first-hand targets of religious intolerance. I might agree that there's a point where sensitivity becomes over sensitivity, but it's easy to say, "It's just tradition, get over it," when you've never had a religious slur thrown your way.

We traditionally did things like discriminate and that doesn't make it ok.

I do there there is value in the tradition argument, and even when of religious origin, a traditional thing carries some secular value.

I think that argument, however, was shredded when their were lawsuits charging that the traditional thing was not sufficiently religious and therefore more overt religious symbolism should be allowed (attempts to require calling it a Christmas tree rather than holiday tree and then to add a nativity scene).

I'm not saying hatred and intolerance don't exist I'm just saying they are not hiding in every Santa and Nativity scene as some would lead us to believe.

In a Christian society you are going to see more Christian symbols, just as in a Jewish state you would find more Jewish symbols.

Agreed. But there's a line that can be drawn, and in this country that line is at the governmental level. If the government is funding it, I think it's wrong.

GD

I am having a hard time taking you seriously on anything right now because of that animated GIF in your signature. That is just disturbing.

Back on the original idea...

I don't like the sign. A "holiday" tree and nativity are pretty to look at.

The sign is just ugly and based on hate. It attacks the views of others rather than promote the beliefs of it's makers.

Perhaps if they replaced it with a diorama of Newtons laws or a tree all by itself as nature made it...... That would be better.

Um, remember? Wendy told SD that we are all real smart here. Play along, wouldja?

This look funny VDM

I are an English Major

How are general statements about religion (note there was no particular religion specifically mentioned or referenced within the context of the sign), that are far more easily substantiated by facts than the fiction used to rationalize religious dogma, be "based on hate"?

To state that there are "no gods, no devils, no angels..." and that "religion is but myth and susperstitions" is no more hateful than stating there is "no santa clause, easter bunny, or tooth fairy" and all "are but myth and fairytales."

The statements expressed on that sign are pretty innocuous when juxtaposed to some of the real "hate speech" found in the KJV Bible and Koran, for example.

The statements made do not attach the views of others since only general statements are being made; views that express "the beliefs of its makers."

Are they not equally entitled to their public opinions just as religious believers are?

Perhaps we should just simply turn the clock back to the days when anyone who expresses view points contrary to religion (any religion) are charged with heresy and summarily imprisoned, submitted to an inquisition, and/or executed?

S.D.

I can only pretend for so long...

Oh pish posh, hide behind semantics all you want. The sign was made to piss people off and grab a few headlines. That's it.

I would be a much better statement if, like I said previously, it had a some charm and personality, some colorful lights perhaps or a fluffy bunny.

Semantics has nothing to do with it.

The statements made were general.

The statements made are easily substantiated; far more than any religious statement, general or specific, could ever be.

The only ones to make it a "headline" was 'look at me I'm the best talk show and television pundit' - I have anger management issues - Bill O'Rielly; and religious people who cannot handle either being indirectly or directly questioned regarding their religious observance.

It's funny...when people were protesting the funerals of fallen soldiers and gay marriage with their religiously based picket signs, they cried "freedom of speech" and "expression"; but when an atheist makes perfectly valid general statements contradicting religious dogma...suddenly "freedom of speech" and "expression" doesn't exist. It's merely chalked up to "hate speech," "an ugly sign," and slammed with an ad hominem fallacy attacking it.

Go figure...

A fluffy bunny doesn't quite get the same message across...

S.D.

I'm going to have disagree.

It's not JUST saying, "We don't believe in any god." It doesn't JUST say, "Religion is a myth." It says, "Religion is a myth that makes people worse." I may agree with that statement but it does take things a step beyond "general statement" to "pointedly anti-religious." It's not "I'm a good person without religion." It's "You're a bad person with religion." And personally, it's religion's focus on "you're a bad person" messages that I find most distasteful, so I don't particularly love the same being used to supposedly argue a a point against them.

Now, I fully support their right to make such a statement, but just because I agree they have a right to doesn't mean I have to agree that it's in good taste or shows good judgment in terms of how it will cause people to receive the athiest movement.

Fair enough; but in the absence of proof of the existence of gods, devils, angels, etc...and the mere fact that that which has been declared in various religious texts (e.g. the Bible) have been conclusively disproven (e.g. age of the planet, its place in the universe, Natural Law, etc.) by science and repeatedly justified scientific theories (e.g. theory of evolution)...one cannot help but have to concede that there is more evidence substantiating the statements made within the atheist sign than that which has been proferred in the Bible and professed by numerous individuals without so much as a shred of evidence to substantiate it.

And?

Atheism and/or any statement made in contradiction to religion is by its very nature, anti-religious; and it certain does not make any such statements any less valid.


That is a subjective interpretation of what was said.

Since no specific religion or person was identified (i.e. targeted) within the statement(s) made (hence its generality); any interpretation taking it personally is just that, taking it personally when clearly it was not written or intended as such.

True...but then again that's where the difference between subjectivity and objectivity come into play; no?

S.D.

lol...;)

Don't be silly. We should only summarily imprison, inquisite, and/or execute those who express viewpoints contrary to MY opinion!

Liiiike it, yes I do!:D

LOL!!!

:gnome:

S.D.

It rather objectively reads as, "Religion makes bad people."

It's a message that I don't find constructive to gaining acceptance of atheism. As someone else alluded to, I'm more in line with the message of the group that started the "Be good for goodness' sake" billboard/bus ad campaign. It's a positive "we're good people" message, not a petty, "you're bad people". The sign was clearly the latter.

And your "sustained by facts" defense of it falls apart in the face of the fact that "hardens our hearts and enslaves our minds" is far from a factual, objectively provable statement. It's as much an appeal to emotion as any religious rhetoric and it turns what might have been a good opportunity to make a civil public statement into, "Nyah, nyah, we can take pot shots at you religious folk and there's nothing you can do about it!"

And would a message that said, "Non white people cause problems in this country" pass your "generality" test for being an acceptably non-inflamatory statement that really shouldn't be taken personally by anyone since no one was specifically called out?

And?

I believe the last 2,000 years of human history killing in the name of God more than substantiates this subjective 'objective' interpretation of what was said.

Doesn't change the fact that what was said is factually accurate...no? The most recent example being 9/11, among other religious tragedies where others have been maimed or murdered in the name of religion (i.e. God).

Seriously...that's a line from the song 'Santa's coming to town.' A little weak, don't you think?

Truth hurt?

Really?

So you advocate that blind faith does not 'harden our hearts and enslaves our minds' then?

Hmmm....

Those who escaped Jim Jones, among others, would disagree.

I mean really, I could give you countless factual examples where the ignorance of the masses was 'used' by those who would 'abuse' such ignorance to push their own religious agenda; at the expense of the ignorant for their own self-centered agenda (e.g. the Roman Catholic Church).

Again, you're interpreting their statement "personally," which makes your response tantamount to the same accused logical fallacy.

This is NOT about race - it's about religious dogma and the FREEDOM of the respective opposing views to EXPRESS their opinions, objectively or subjectively, within the public realm.

S.D.

[Carol Brady]Kevy's right[/Carol Brady]

If?

The Governor of Washington State was merely allowing equal access to the Capitol to the atheist display as it did the religious display.

There is NO government funding involved.

S.D.

I never claimed there was. I was simply discussing with Moonliner where I draw the line on religious displays on public property.

As your avatar/picture suggests...is that before or after you and the rest of the forest creatures scream your brains out?

S.D.

Fair enough, and you're right; however, it's sort of an irrelvant point since the government, in this particular case, did not fund the display.

In other words, this stated position sort of taints the discussion as a red herring; no?

Question: When has the government - local, state, or federal - ever funded a religious display in contravention of the spirit of 'separation of church and state' (though not a Constitutional measure)!?!

S.D.

I'm really confused as to why you feel the need to be hostile to me. and I'm not interesting in playing tit-for-tat. You're asking me to defend positions I haven't taken and have for some reason come to a very skewed conclusion about where I stand.

You seem to be pretty emotional about this subject, so I think it's best I step out as I was simply trying to have a discussion.

It kind of feeds into my theory on life: Fanatics are hard to talk to no matter what subject or which side they are fanatical about.

Sorry you've interpreted my responses so personally...as none were intended that way. I've been merely replying to that which you state (i.e. your written responses as they've been written and argued based on that and that only...not you "personally").

Neither am I; however, you've made your responses making specific comments about and in contrast to the display 'against' (I use the term losely) the disbelief in religious dogma; that, again forgive me if I am wrong, appears to be in more support of the freedom of religious believers to produce their displays while denying the same freedom to those who are not religious.

I have skewed nothing as I am merely responding to what you write and post in response to my posts.

Seriously...if you say 'white,' I'm going to say 'black.'

Again, just responding to what you write; nothing more, nothing less. Nothing personal.

Not emotional but passionate....which is often misconstrued or incorrectly labeled as being negatively emotional.

I too was partaking in a "discussion"; but if you deem it necessary to bow out, then I respectfully agree to disagree.

S.D.

True, but I am not fanatical about the subject. Just informed, educated, and well read on it.

In other words, I can effectively debate and hold my own on the topic.

I discuss what I know...NOT I guess or feel; which is what "fanatics" do, yes?

S.D.

We've gone around a bit, can you refresh me on what "the subject" is?

Are you arguing for the right to post a stupid sign or in support of the silly message on the stupid sign?

Isn't it true though that if we relied only on what we already know to be true, there'd be no advancement in science? It is only a belief that we do not know everything that pushes us forward.

Maybe I'm a weirdo in that I don't believe science and faith in god to be mutually exclusive.

Do you honestly expect me to answer such a fallaciously based question?

By declaring the sign and/or its message as "stupid" is patently subjective, not to mention fallacious.

Just because you disagree with the statement (and ascribed the ubsubstantiated label of "stupid") does not invalidate the statement.

Notwithstanding, the "bottom line" is those who disbelieve in religion have THE SAME RIGHT as those who do believe in religion to their expression, whether publicly or privately.

This issue is a matter of public display, obviously...and under the 1st Amendment non-religious people have the same freedom/equal access to the Capitol of Washington as religious people do.

However, religious people are claiming the 'special pleading fallacy' in that they, and only they, have such a right; and non-religious people DO NOT have this right.

That, in and of itself, is not only immoral and flies in the face of common sense; it is patently unconstitutional (not to mention hypocritical).

That "is the subject" of this thread.

;)

S.D.

I'm tempted to take the other side to see if you really can hold your own, but heading into the weekend I haven't the energy for it. If it is still going on Monday I just may.

*Settles in on the couch with a bucket of popcorn*

"I gotta see this..."

Then I look forward to Monday ;)

Yours truly,

S.D.

Wow. What an....interesting....way to make a name for yourself in a new environment.

Oh, I think we'll find Sir Dillon VERY entertaining, Prudence. Sit with me here on the couch.

Scoot over. Make room for me. :D

I already apologized via pvt msg for the forward/direct comment; and do so here.

Notwithstanding...such an albeit arrogant or presumptuous forward comment does not change or alter the reality that it is 'the truth.'

Human beings are violent...and over the past 2,000 years religion has been used as a justification for heinous acts of violence between various races, ethnicities, and/or religious denominations.

Obscuring this FACT by criticizing my forward comment to such realities will NOT change this FACT of human history, past or present.

In other words, your comment was patently unfair in regards to my new presence within this forum.

S.D.

One post before the weekend anyway. If that is the issue, then you seem to be arguing about the wrong things. Not one person in this thread has stated an opinion contrary to the idea that whatever group put up that sign should be allowed to. Every person in this thread has said that they do and that they should.

All that has been contested is whether, from a civility perspective the sign posted sends a positive or negative message.

So, you say the former is the issue of this thread, but have spent all of your time arguing about the latter. Please have this confusion clarified by Monday, for if I am going to take the contrary side, I need to know which argument I am actually to be making as one will be much more difficult than the other seeing as it will fly in the face of (on this board anyway) unanimity. It would suck to lose on points because I've been penalized for being masterfully eloquent on the wrong topic.

Scoot over. Make room for me. :D So far I'm giving this thread a 7/10 but I think it could get better.

I really do enjoy an great discussion/debate by intelligent individuals. Don't stop now! :snap:

My comment was more polite than you deserved. Out of respect for Wendybeth, that is as far as I shall go.

Which goes to the very heart of the issue/subject identified.

It's all a matter of interpretation first...all else follow.

As Goulish indicated...it's an "ugly" display of "hate" speech directed at religious believers.

I have plainly stated my argument in the OP and subsequent responses...I invite you to argue from there (either the OP and/or those responses).

Sincerely,

S.D.

I know I said I'd step away but...if you ever credit me with anything Moonliner said again, I'll ban you so fast.... :evil:

Wow...

Your first response to me is to criticize me (i.e. attacking the messenger rather than the message); and when I carify my position in response to this criticism...you attack me, personally, yet again.

Hmmmm........

S.D.

My sincerest apologies...I stand corrected!

S.D.

Ooh, a bunny!

Yeah, I wish they had done it more... tastefully, tactfully, not quite sure what I want, but a blunt "religion is stupid" probably won't win points with anybody. I'm no fan of organized religion, but this is maybe a bit much.

OK so no gov't funding; that helps. It's still public property, though, so I still have some issues with religious anything there.

I'm hoping for some elegance, or such in future displays. There are ways to promote human reason and rationality without being crude and nasty.

I don't. If it's public space provided for public use, the public is free to do as the public pleases. As long as it's not my tax dollars paying to put up a manger, I'm fine with it.

Yet again, another subjective interpretation.

Sorry...but the word "stupid" is not stated or implied (directly or indirectly) in the display's statement.

Quote:

OK so no gov't funding; that helps. It's still public property, though, so I still have some issues with religious anything there.

Agreed in the sense that I would rather have nothing private on public property; nevertheless, goulish is right. Public is public and as I have argued, it's the right of both sides to display something on public property.

Quote:

I'm hoping for some elegance, or such in future displays. There are ways to promote human reason and rationality without being crude and nasty.

Again...making genralized statements stating there are no gods, devils, etc. is NOT "crude and nasty" (a subjective interpretation)


S.D.

Oh, don't act so shocked, sir. You came out swinging with great sweeping statements that seem to generalize all people who are religious. Yes, many people use religion as a weapon. And many others have not. Just like some atheists are respectful and some are not.

So don't be surprised, when you say snide things, when you receive statements in kind.

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.

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.

Not interested in the Constitution - heck it can always be amended - the question of God is eternal.

You know what else is prima facie foolish? To argue and defend something upon which everyone else in a discussion agrees. No one is disputing that legal fact. We're just questioning the merits of that particular sign. Not because it promotes atheism, but because it doesn't seem like a tactful way to bring the message to those unfamiliar with it.

But a lack of display at holiday time... could be interpreted as supporting the atheist viewpoint. So in that sense, it's better to allow all expression than none, because by default, that's atheist expression.

That I don't buy - I think atheism is an opinion and position not just the lack thereof

Please...quote me, word for word, stating you were "using religion as a weapon."

Implicit strawman argument.

Subjectively, as just admitted, sure...

Words have meaning ...sorry, no cofusion there.

My declration of such fallcious are the indetification of those fallacies.

Hence the fallacy of that argument.

Nothing within the statement, context or otherwise, stated that atheism was "the best way" to convince people that "atheism is preferable."

Again, another subjective (and incorrect) interpretation of what was stated.

S.D.

NOT without the appropriate vote.

Which, clearly, has been debated for CENTURIES (i.e. precisely because the existence of God 'His' so-called word prescribing 'His' religious tenants/facts/etc. have not been proven)!

S.D.

And that's why you're my favorite atheist. Most of them are proselytizing atheists, which I can't stand.

NOT everyone within this discussion has agreed. Try again.

Actually, they have; be it indirectly or directly (i.e. Moonlight's comment about it being "hate speech," etc.).

Which is akin to questioning its legal right to be presented on public property!!

Those unfamiliar with it!!??!!

Please...religion has been questioned nearly as long as it is has existed!

S.D.

"That I don't buy - I think 'religious dogma' is an opinion and position not just the lack thereof."

S.D.

And I'm fine with the notion that there are things that just "unknowable" even our own experience of the world cannot be "proven" to be objective truth (I clearly break with Kant on that one). Since neither position can be proven, from a pragmatic sense I find the argument rather pointless.

Sure, but there are many many many people in the US alone who simply cannot FATHOM someone being atheist. It has existed for a very long time, but, growing up, you know how many atheists I knew? None.

Marketing. Atheism needs better marketing.

And, apparently more joy. Get these people an infusion of hedons....and FAST!

The problem is that most atheists are converts to atheism. And we all know how pleasant religious converts can be* :rolleyes:

(* edit: After writing this, it occurred to me that I can't think of one proselytizing pagan, though most of them are converts too. I wonder if it has to do with the individualized nature of their belief system? Maybe the local pagans can suggest hypotheses on this one.)

This couldn't be any further from the truth.

Science and scientific theory (e.g. evolution) have already DISPROVEN many religous stipulations, as argued within my various responses.

It is religion and religious belief that is the negative, not non-religion and its susbsequent belief (or absent thereof).

S.D.

Subjective opinion...

S.D.

Ignorance is bliss...as "many people in the US alone" would say.

S.D.

I guess you have to separate religion and spirituality for me to agree that religion is the problem - and then i probably wouldn't agree to that statement. I LIKE certain religions. I like aspects of MANY religions. I don't find them to be all bad.


Edit to add quote and to say that I take issue to the statement "further from the truth" since that implies that truth is stationary and absolute and I don't buy that.

But since I'm not personally participating in the side debate of subjective arguments vs. objective ones, I don't give a cr*p. :)

Science may have proven that biblical metaphor is just that - metaphor. But I've seen not "scientific" proof of the existence or non-existence of God - and for this point lets define God as Omniscient and Omnipresent (we'll skip Benevolence for now and the problem of evil).

On the other hand many people have claimed to have "numinous" experiences, experiences of the presence of God - so if we accept our senses as legit, then they have a good a claim as those of us who have never had a personal experience of God. (I think scientific knowledge is still based on "observable" repeatable experiments).

If we only accept things as true that we have verified ourselves, we'll then I'm sorry there are a lot of things I'll have to no longer believe, like the existence of Lapland.

We have a GREAT conversation with our niece Danica when she was about 5. It involved knowledge and existence, truth and proof. The look on her face when we asked her "How do you know you are Danica" was priceless - and still discussed at family get togethers.

Excellently stated.

I disagree. "God does not exist" is as much an opinion as "God does exist". Neither can prove their point.

Really? Huh. I didn't see it that way.

No- not the same. Posted anywhere, I would question its merit.

I owe a debt of gratitude to a few proselytizing atheists, because I am a happier person as an atheist than I was as a (very conflicted) Christian. But, how does one identify the line? I've upset and offended a few people just by stating my atheist views out loud, sometimes in response to a direct question about my beliefs. ("You have a right to think whatever you want, but you should keep your mouth shut.") This cuts both ways, of course. Back when I was a believer, I ran into "Keep your religion to yourself" and the very popular "stop trying to ram your beliefs down my throat." And this was after saying something as simple as "I'm a Bible-believing Christian." It's hard to know when stating a position turns the corner into treading on someone's toes.

Most people dislike having their beliefs challenged. (They may also dislike having their non-beliefs challenged.) Most people have settled into something they are comfortable with, so this is easy to understand. It's considered impolite in some circles to even bring it up. ("Never discuss religion or politics.") Personally, I really enjoy a spirited exchange of ideas on religion. I never go into it with the aim of changing anyone else's mind. BUT, I must admit, deep down, I would really love it if some argument I made actually DID cause someone to switch over. Really, it would be a hell of an ego boost, because it would mean the other person found me insightful, thoughtful and most of all RIGHT. Maybe they would also find me sexy.

I'm usually pretty good about backing off before things get too heated, but I do so only because I really don't enjoy watching people get upset. I'm almost always sorry the conversation has ended. When that "agree to disagree" line comes up, it's always disappointing to me.

It took me about ten years to complete my journey from passionate believer to contented unbeliever, so I know that no one conversation is ever likely to do the trick. (Unlike my late-teen conversion to evangelical Christianity, which I used to describe as a Road to Damascus experience - meaning it had a lot more to do with emotion than with reason.)w

Emphatically declaring that the earth is the center of the universe and created in 6 days, much less being less than 10-15k years old is hardly a metaphor...among other ridiculous assertions.

Omniscience negates free will, and omnipresence is patently ridiculous...because of He could be in all places at once, He'd be able to stop all the evil at once. Which goes into the weakness (and your avoidance of) omnibenevolence and the problem of evil.

Many schizophrenics...among other mentally disturbed, claim the same thing (need I give the Jim Jones example again?).


Tell that to the many children who died a horrible death suffering in pain because their parents forced their religious beliefs upon them denying them conventional medicine for curable ailements; because according to them, man's medicine is inherently evil (e.g. The Followers of Christ Church, Oregon).

Mockering is a fallacy...

S.D.

The same can be said for any posted religious display just the same.

Do you not see/understand the inherent irony/hypocrisy in this position?

To defend a religious display simultaneoulsye disagreeing with a non-religious display on public grounds, both having the same 1st Amendment rights of that display, is inherently just that...ironic/hypocritical.

S.D.

Notwithstanding this fact, there is more empirical evidence supporting the former (making it a substantiated opinion) than the latter (an UNsubstantaited opinion)!

S.D.

I think the sign should have stayed in place.

I would have placed a sign next to it stating my beliefs:

"Skepticism = Insecurity About One's Own Intelligence Level. Therefore, skeptics have to make everyone else look dumb in a lame attempt to appear smarter than they actually are."

:D

Shiny happy holiday thoughts, no? ;)

I am guessing you believed this at one point and are angry bout being duped.


ALEX........WHERE ARE YOU???????


And many people who are NOT "crazy" have claimed so as well. And.....?


Yes, but bad people don't make all people bad.


Really? Is that truth? Whose truth?

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.

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.

Sorry, Disneyphile. I'm a skeptic, and couldn't disagree more with your assessment. Speaking for myself, I'm kind, sentimental, fun-loving and out for as many hedons as the next guy. I know many many others in the skeptical (or freethought, secular humanist, etc) movement who are also wonderful, life affirming, positive people. There are asshats in every congregation. Please don't let a few bad apples harden you. Blinking cat or no, your post is calling me stupid, insecure and vindictive, only by virtue of having been lobbed far too broadly. There are lots of us good guys out there. Some of us are skeptics. Try to meet a few. You'll be glad you did.

I was being facetious. ;)

I'm happy to know that. I just hope it isn't "kidding on the square."

Nope. It wasn't even remotely directed at the skeptics that I've known for sometime now. ;)

Would you feel differently if this was a paid for billboard or side of bus advertisment?

pfft. Since "god" hasn't posted here, I doubt he exists...

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?

Why must god be a man?
What if god was one of us?
Does god like bacon?
How about shiny things?

This point bears repeating. Religion didn't invent horrors, nor are the religious the sole practitioners of them, but those that do create horrors do all seem to share a certain affinity for one particular concept.........I'm right and you're not.

But... but, I thought you were God!

Ugh.

Now all my faith is just shattered. Just like that. In one little post.

My spiritual cheese is very sad. :(

God didn't want to be here anyway

I am A god, not THE God...

Phew!

At least my polytheistic faith is now restored.

:D

That will be 7 Rick-Rolls and a Hail Walt please...

Sir Dillon,

In reply to:
"Also, you keep using the word "fallacious." I'm curious; what is the fallacy in our argument?"

you said:

Okay, in your haste to respond, your typing got sloppy. That's fine. But, as near as I can tell, what you meant to say was -

"My declarations of such fallacies are the identification of those fallacies."

First, let me know if that is in fact what you intended to type. IF SO, I'm not sure I understand it. It sounds an awful lot like "They are fallacies because I declare them so." Or perhaps you meant "I have already identified the fallacies in my previous posts." If one of these two interpretations is correct, please let me know. If neither is correct, could you clarify?

In reply to:
"Primarily, it seems people have been arguing that the sign posted wasn't the best way to convince people that atheism is preferable."

you said:

This is so garbled I can scarcely make out your intent at all. That reply doesn't appear to be addressing the issue (the right for the sign to be there as opposed to the merits of its content), and it's confusing in the bargain. Again, please clarify.

I'm here. But I'm thinking I will stick this one out indefinitely. I think the question I would have been pursuing has been settled.

As for the other discussions, I'm sure everybody here knows what I would say well enough that I don't really need to say it. So I'll save it for when it won't be competing with such flamboyance.

How did jonvn get in here?

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

However, it completely changes the context of this whole thread and even makes it a bit funny. So, I think I'll keep reading it as that. ;)

My, we have been a busy board today, haven't we?


Pru, thanks for your sentiment but we are all interconnected via friendships through this board, and when someone pisses us off we generally feel free to address the issue without worrying about upsetting others. SD is a big boy and can handle himself, but I do wish that a little settling-in time had taken place before the flame retardant clothing became necessary. SD, these are good people and you really should get to know everyone better (and let them get to know you) before hitting light speed. Everyone else- SD is very cool as well, and I really do think this thread has turned into a wrong foot sort of thing.

I'm going to go drink now.:cheers:

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

Yeah; you'll never have that problem with me.

Kevy never gags.

I'm sure God asks himself this all the time.

God is all of us.

God loves bacon.
And shiny things.

And kitties.

Agreed.

Agreed.

No deal.

Because so many question it, its message not conforming to what some cosider their version of "good taste," and that it was equal space (which happened to be next to the tree/nativity scene) was used to remove via the court of public opinion; and that opinion used the first (questioning it) in substantiating the second (having it removed on allegations that it was hate speech and amounted to being illegal).

Thank you for the response.

So the inquisition, malleus maleficarum, crusades, etc. were not motivated/initiated (i.e. premised upon) religion?

Agreed

Sorry for the confusion.

Just as much as religious people read the Bible in ways (not what it actually says, but what they want it to say) that to suit their own ends; they also read into the Constitution the same way.

As referenced in the OP, Lars and his caller claimed the 1st Amendment (reading into it what they want it to say, not what it actually does) supported the religious display but not the atheist display. Then claiming it was hate speech and was tantamount to being agents of the government in proliferating that particular belief, they concluded it was an unconstitutional display.

That position is a special pleading fallacy. Holding others to their rules while not holding themselves equally accountable.

The "I'm right...you're wrong" mentality previously mentioned by one of your cohorts.

Anyhow...

Thanks for the response.

So our only option is to agree with the message no matter what it says? We are not allowed to express our opinion that it is a poorly chosen choice of message simply because some people might use that to justify something that you don't agree with?

No one here has "cohorts". We are all quite capable of speaking for ourselves, and do so.

Agreed.

Sorry my passion for a good debate/discussion on topic was mistaken for...I don't know, whatever it was mistaken for.

I'll be taking a large step backwards...back into the hole in the oak; sitting, waiting, watching, and listening.

On that note...thanks to all who participated.

S.D.

PS. Goulish..."Cohorts" was meant as one of the members of this group of companions...since clearly this is a tightly knitted group.

I wholeheartedly agree with everything in this response. However, and correct me if I'm wrong, your replies to some of the previous posts gave the impression you felt those posts were guilty of the same fallacy. I suspect this is incorrect.

I'm happy that greater clarity is making its way into the discussion, but I'll be away the rest of the day. Look forward to seeing where this is heading a few hours from now.

Edited to add - Or perhaps this is a good time to let the discussion rest. Happy hedons to all until later.

I was going to respond to quite a few of your statements but I will restrict myself. And for the record (not that it matters), I am an Atheist.

I think most Christians would be offended every bit as much by a religious "message" if it contained an inherently negative connotation...let alone had little to do with the holiday season, as it were. For instance, I am confident you could expect an outcry from a large group of Christians if any one religious group chose an "End of Days" Christmas display instead of a nativity. Commonsensically, one is more patently offensive than the other, legalities notwithstanding. And I think this is the fundamental point most here are making. As Alex said early on, "specifically targeting a Christmas display for a counter-display is a dick move." By choosing the display they did, they intentionally courted controversy, end of discussion. If their motive had been anything other, they would have tailored it to be less offensive. They knew (or had to have known) they were being offensive; if not, they are a particular group of Atheists with which I would not be associated since I prefer to surround myself with people a few steps above booger-eating moron.

Further, just a semantic point that is really bothering me...

You stated, "There is no atheist domga...i.e. a doctine presented without proof."

You are applying only a very narrow definition of dogma, i.e. religious dogma. Since Atheism is an absence or rejection of the existence of a God/Gods, it is therefore an absence or rejection of religion. Hence, when EM referred to "Atheist dogma" he could only have been referring to dogma being defined as, "That which is held as an opinion; a tenet; a doctrine." [Webster's] Certainly, Atheism is a set of opinions...I would also argue that it encompasses both tenets and doctrines although I concede that the existence of the two could be objectively disputed.

Your statement, "Atheist have nothing but proof (at least far more than religious folk do) to substantiate their viewpoint" notwithstanding, I, as an Atheist have no more proof of the absence of God than a religious person has proof of the existence of God. To argue otherwise is to rely on the same fallacious arguements you have accused religious people of relying on.

I, for one, have found this thread very entertaining. There's nothing wrong with discussions and debates and disagreeing and having to clarify things one has said.

And I think SD that you'll find that although everyone here seems to genuninally like each other, for the most part, it's one of the most open to differing viewpoints without getting nasty message boards I've been a part of.

Just a clarification...

I don't think that because we might agree that we are, in and of ourselves, "cohorts" in the way you are applying it. I, for one, am only tangentally related to most of the group (both by distance and by the limited time of my participation thus far). I hope most here enjoy my participation but my participation is not necessarily predicated on that.

You could perhaps argue that we are cohorts in that many of us here have similar views on many subjects, something that attracted me (and I suspect others) to this site. That being said, I have found that alternative viewpoints are readily accepted-- though vigorously debated which may have lead to you view that the responses here are a result of the "tight knittedness" of the group as a whole. That aside, I really don't think anyone here has disputed the "rights" of an Atheist group to have a display. We are merely pointing out the "assholiness" of the content.

I'm not an Atheist.

I don't mind an 'opposing viewpoint' setup, but this is kind of like somebody standing next to the Santa Claus setup at the mall and yelling at the kids "HE'S A FRAUD! THERE'S NO SANTA CLAUS!" and then wondering why the parents are upset.

It needed fixing. ;)


eta: Ooooo, look! I have 500 posts. :D

1/2 loser.

I know. A cross I shall have to shamefully bear. :(

That wasn't my point.

Since cohorts is often (and commonly) used as a term suggesting an accomplice, I can see why GD had issue with the term. But, maybe you meant the biological definition: an individual in a population of the same species.

(Magenta on a banister is on the brain again.)

The last time someone made such an, um, impactful, entrance on the board, they were spamming for their own restaurant review site. This may be a new record. Two days, from introduction to rampant toe-stomping! Well done. I've been on the board since its inception, and it took me until last week to finally piss off half the board.

I read through several of your blogs on your linked myspace page the night you signed up. If these are the types of topics you're going to start threads with, we may have to create a whole new category heading. Something between Daily Grind and The Parking LoT. Flame-bait Alley, I dunno.

So, just what is it about us largely "PC liberal types" that attracted you to the board?

Let's just give it time....and the benefit of the doubt for now, OK?

SLACKER!!!!!!!!

But everyone's popcorn is getting cold! :D

(I just love learning the new term, "kidding on the square.")

But, if you're not there to see it get cold, how do you know it's cold, huh?

That statement is so fellatious. :p

Don't choke on it! :D

Totally off topic...but I do find it interesting that both of these men have worked as newscasters right here in The Peoples Republic of Portland, Oregon........I guess if you are going to make a career of reporting about liberals it's best to live among them first.

Psssst...I think he does live in Oregon. ;)

Impossible....I hold the title of Right Wing Nut from Oregon.....I refuse to relinquish it:D