Tis the season...deja vu anyone?

[Sir Dillon]

Originally Posted by Not Afraid

Sure, but there are many many many people in the US alone who simply cannot FATHOM someone being atheist.

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

S.D.

[alphabassettgrrl]

Originally Posted by €uroMeinke

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.

Excellently stated.

Originally Posted by Sir Dillon

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.

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

Originally Posted by Morrigoon

But a lack of display at holiday time... could be interpreted as supporting the atheist viewpoint.

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

We're just questioning the merits of that particular sign.

Originally Posted by Sir Dillon

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

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

[Sir Dillon]

Originally Posted by alphabassettgrrl

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

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.

[Sir Dillon]

Originally Posted by alphabassettgrrl

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

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

S.D.

[alphabassettgrrl]

Originally Posted by Sir Dillon

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.

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

Originally Posted by Sir Dillon

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

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.

[Sir Dillon]

Originally Posted by alphabassettgrrl

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.

Agreed.

[flippyshark]

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

Originally Posted by Sir Dillon

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

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?

[Sir Dillon]

Originally Posted by flippyshark

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?

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.

[bewitched]

Originally Posted by Sir Dillon

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.

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.