Tis the season...deja vu anyone?

[LSPoorEeyorick]

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.

Originally Posted by GD

It's a positive "we're good people" message, not a petty, "you're bad people". The sign was clearly the latter.

Originally Posted by Mr. Sir

Truth hurt?

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.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

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.

Originally Posted by Sir Dillon

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.

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.

[Sir Dillon]

Originally Posted by Cadaverous Pallor

Dude, whoa whoa whoa! You might want to get to know people here before you start smashing all the china.

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.

It is also a FACT that science has been used as a justification for heinous acts of violence...

Yes, but more often with purpose rather than self-serving agendad the likes seen by centuries of religious violence.

...and a FACT that religion has been used to bring charity and goodwill to people.

The bad always outweighs the good, figuratively or factually (in the case of religion, factually).

Religion has been both good and bad, science has been both good and bad.

Yes, but religion far is worse in the totality of its existence and effect upon humanity.

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.

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.

[Sir Dillon]

Originally Posted by LSPoorEeyorick

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.

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

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.

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.

[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.

[Disneyphile]

Originally Posted by flippyshark

"Also, you keep using the word "fallacious."

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

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.

[alphabassettgrrl]

Originally Posted by Disneyphile

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

That made me giggle.

[Sir Dillon]

Originally Posted by flippyshark

Sir Dillon,

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.

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.