Tis the season...deja vu anyone?

[Sir Dillon]

Originally Posted by €uroMeinke

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.

[€uroMeinke]

Originally Posted by Sir Dillon

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.

So is this about the constitution or the existence (or non) of God?

[Sir Dillon]

Originally Posted by €uroMeinke

So is this about the constitution or the existence (or non) of God?

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.

[€uroMeinke]

Originally Posted by Sir Dillon

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.

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

[Sir Dillon]

Originally Posted by €uroMeinke

Not interested in the Constitution - heck it can always be amended -

NOT without the appropriate vote.

...the question of God is eternal.

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.

[€uroMeinke]

Originally Posted by Sir Dillon

NOT without the appropriate vote.



Which, clearly, has been debated for CENTURIES (i.e. not proven)!

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.

[Sir Dillon]

Originally Posted by €uroMeinke

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.

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.

[LSPoorEeyorick]

Originally Posted by Sir Dillon

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.

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.

[Sir Dillon]

Originally Posted by LSPoorEeyorick

You know what else is prima facie foolish? To argue and defend something upon which everyone else in a discussion agrees.

NOT everyone within this discussion has agreed. Try again.

No one is disputing that legal fact.

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

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

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

Not because it promotes atheism, but because it doesn't seem like a tactful way to bring the message to those unfamiliar with it.

Those unfamiliar with it!!??!!

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

S.D.

[Not Afraid]

Originally Posted by Sir Dillon

Those unfamiliar with it!!??!!

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

S.D.

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!