Tis the season...deja vu anyone?

[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!

[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?