Tis the season...deja vu anyone?

[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?

[Deebs]

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

[Morrigoon]

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

(* 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.)

[Sir Dillon]

Originally Posted by Morrigoon

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

Subjective opinion...

S.D.

[alphabassettgrrl]

Originally Posted by Morrigoon

(* 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.)

Personally, it's both the individual nature of the religion (I can't expect you to believe something that I feel) and the belief that I have no right to define belief for another. Proselytizing (sp?) has as one of its roots the assumption that I have the right (ability?) to tell another how to believe, or what to believe, or something along those lines. It can be as mild as "this is what I believe, what do you think?" but that hasn't been the approach of the missionaries I've met.

[Not Afraid]

Originally Posted by Sir Dillon

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.

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.

[Morrigoon]

Originally Posted by Sir Dillon

Subjective opinion...

S.D.

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

[Not Afraid]

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.

[Disneyphile]

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."



Shiny happy holiday thoughts, no?

[flippyshark]

Originally Posted by Disneyphile

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."



Shiny happy holiday thoughts, no?

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.