Tis the season...deja vu anyone?

[LSPoorEeyorick]

Originally Posted by Sir Dillon

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

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.

Originally Posted by Sir Dillon

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

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

"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."

...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.

[Sir Dillon]

Originally Posted by LSPoorEeyorick

Except that you said I was using religion as a weapon.

Please...quote me, word for word, stating you were "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.

Implicit strawman argument.

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

Subjectively, as just admitted, sure...

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

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

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

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

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

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.

[flippyshark]

Sir Dillon,

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

you said:

Originally Posted by Sir Dillon

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

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:

Originally Posted by Sir Dillon

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.

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.

[€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.

[Sir Dillon]

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.

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.

[€uroMeinke]

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.

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

[Sir Dillon]

Originally Posted by €uroMeinke

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

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.

[€uroMeinke]

Originally Posted by Sir Dillon

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.

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.

[Morrigoon]

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.

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

[flippyshark]

Originally Posted by Morrigoon

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

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