Tis the season...deja vu anyone?

[€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.

[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.

[Morrigoon]

Originally Posted by alphabassettgrrl

OK so no gov't funding; that helps. It's still public property, though, so I still have some issues with religious anything there.

But a lack of display at holiday time... could be interpreted as supporting the atheist viewpoint. So in that sense, it's better to allow all expression than none, because by default, that's atheist expression.

[€uroMeinke]

Originally Posted by Morrigoon

But a lack of display at holiday time... could be interpreted as supporting the atheist viewpoint. So in that sense, it's better to allow all expression than none, because by default, that's atheist expression.

That I don't buy - I think atheism is an opinion and position not just the lack thereof

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Sir Dillon]

Originally Posted by €uroMeinke

But a lack of display at holiday time... could be interpreted as supporting the atheist viewpoint. So in that sense, it's better to allow all expression than none, because by default, that's atheist expression.

Originally Posted by Originally Posted by Morrigoon:

That I don't buy - I think atheism is an opinion and position not just the lack thereof

"That I don't buy - I think 'religious dogma' is an opinion and position not just the lack thereof."

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.