Woman Wins Appeal to Wear Colander on Head in DMV Photo as Part of ‘Religion’ to ....

[Jose Fly]

If I say absolute morality comes from God, atheists will (and have) tell me, oh yeah, well that could be the FSM.

If I say atheists have blind unjustified faith in logic, but Christians believe in God who sustains logic and are therefore justified in using logic, atheists will (and have) tell me, oh yeah, well that could be the FSM.

If I say that the universe requires an uncaused cause and that is God, atheists will (and have) tell me, oh yeah, well that could be the FSM.

Notice they cant stick to their own worldview and answer these challenges. They have to propose a god and therefore just lost the debate.

I bet you caused a lot of head-shaking then, because you missed the point completely. They're not actually advocating the FSM as the cause of those things, rather they're trying to get you to understand how merely saying "God/The FSM caused that" isn't at all compelling, because it's nothing more than an empty assertion.

Do you understand? Anyone can say anything. I can say "The moon is made of cheese", but just saying it doesn't make it so. Likewise, saying "Morality comes from God" doesn't make it so any more than saying "Morality comes from The FSM" makes it so.

IOW, they're reflecting your own flawed reasoning right back at you.

 

[quip]

because she cant state or show what so called christian belief requires us to wear something special in dmv pics and that we have some right she doesnt.

You're once again picking at the surface and avoiding the deeper implications. You've done your butt-hurt whining...now let the grown ups debate.

 

[GuySmiley]

So can I conclude that you really don't follow these cases very closely?

The typical scenario is something like this....

Christians in government put up a Christian-themed monument on government property.

Non-Christians object and argue that it constitutes a government endorsement of Christianity, which is unconstitutional.

Christians in government respond by basically saying "We don't care" and leave the monument up.

Non-Christians then apply to have a monument to their beliefs put up on public property, understanding that the government has two choices. It can either, 1) put up the non-Christian monument, thereby creating an open public forum that doesn't favor one belief over others; or 2) deny the non-Christian monument and remove the original Christian monument, thereby removing itself from the issue entirely.

In most cases, the government either chooses #2 on its own, or a court tells them "Either allow everyone, or no one" and the government goes with #2. In some cases they try #1 and it oftentimes turns into a bit of a farce.

So you see the point, right? The non-Christians only apply to put up their own monuments when Christians in government try and put theirs up. And they aren't doing it out of mockery, as much as an effort to force the Christians' hand and make them choose between two legal options (everyone or no one).

Step 1. Christians want to put up a monument and are allowed.

. . .

Step 8. Atheists want to put up a monument and are allowed, but this monument is a meaningless mockery.

In Golden Gate Park in San Francisco there's a Buddha. If somewhere there's a Jewish symbol on public land, that doesn't bother me. What does bother me is if some pathetic loser wants to put up a Swastika right next to that Jewish symbol just to protest hypocrisy and legal double standards. At least put something up you actually believe in! Don't just put something up to cause trouble and display your jealous anger.

 

[brewmama]

Any pro-religious/anti-secular legislation; religious displays in secular public; disfranchisement of homosexuals...etc.

How in the world is that "Christians putting up a monument to something they don't believe in just to mock other people"? Or cognitive bias? Are you always so incapable of completing a point?

 

[GuySmiley]

I bet you caused a lot of head-shaking then, because you missed the point completely. They're not actually advocating the FSM as the cause of those things, rather they're trying to get you to understand how merely saying "God/The FSM caused that" isn't at all compelling, because it's nothing more than an empty assertion.

Do you understand? Anyone can say anything. I can say "The moon is made of cheese", but just saying it doesn't make it so. Likewise, saying "Morality comes from God" doesn't make it so any more than saying "Morality comes from The FSM" makes it so.

IOW, they're reflecting your own flawed reasoning right back at you.

Then they ought to have an explanation from within their own worldview, but they don't. They are left with only proposing some other god that they don't believe in. I know that my saying it doesn't make it true.

 

[Jose Fly]

Step 1. Christians want to put up a monument and are allowed.

. . .

Step 8. Atheists want to put up a monument and are allowed, but this monument is a meaningless mockery.

In Golden Gate Park in San Francisco there's a Buddha. If somewhere there's a Jewish symbol on public land, that doesn't bother me. What does bother me is if some pathetic loser wants to put up a Swastika right next to that Jewish symbol just to protest hypocrisy and legal double standards. At least put something up you actually believe in! Don't just put something up to cause trouble and display your jealous anger.

Then it's clear. You either cannot, or will not get the point. Oh well.

 

[quip]

How in the world is that "Christians putting up a monument to something they don't believe in just to mock other people"? Or cognitive bias? Are you always so incapable of completing a point?

Laws and moral dictates based on selective ideologies are always stronger than the monuments which represent/promote them. You could conceivably pick any church in (supposed free from religion) America as an example of mockery...though they're so ubiquitous you've more than likley grown blind (cognitive bias) against any justful objection to them.

 

[Jose Fly]

Then they ought to have an explanation from within their own worldview, but they don't. They are left with only proposing some other god that they don't believe in. I know that my saying it doesn't make it true.

Then it's clear. You either cannot, or will not get the point. Oh well.

 

[brewmama]

Laws and moral dictates based on selective ideologies are always stronger than the monuments which represent/promote them. You could conceivably pick any church in (supposed free from religion) America as an example of mockery...though they're so ubiquitous you've more than likley grown blind (cognitive bias) against any justful objection to them.

Is that post supposed to make any sense? America was not founded to be free from religion, quite the contrary. What is "justful"? Again, how are churches participating in mockery? You never answer the question.

 

[quip]

Then they ought to have an explanation from within their own worldview, but they don't. They are left with only proposing some other god that they don't believe in.

They've no need to...anti-belief is the very point.

It's a form of argument called Reductio ad absurdum. (The crux of this thread's OP is based as such)

Google it...learn something.

 

[brewmama]

Then it's clear. You either cannot, or will not get the point. Oh well.

Because you actually haven't made one.

 

[Jose Fly]

Because you actually haven't made one.

So you don't get it either, eh? Man, but fundamentalists are fascinating creatures.

 

[ok doser]

to the OP:

she should be arrested if found to be driving without it

 

[brewmama]

So you don't get it either, eh? Man, but fundamentalists are fascinating creatures.

Obviously, since you seem to want to hang out with them so much.

 

[quip]

Is that post supposed to make any sense? America was not founded to be free from religion, quite the contrary. What is "justful"? Again, how are churches participating in mockery? You never answer the question.

They are a mockery of non-belief ...of the non-believer.

 

[brewmama]

They are a mockery of non-belief ...of the non-believer.

That is so absurd that I can only conclude that you are merely trolling.

 

[quip]

That is so absurd that I can only conclude that you are merely trolling.

Then you're making my point for me.

Are you that blind? Why is that absurd?

 

[Dialogos]

If she wants to spend her own money and energy fighting for the right to look stupid in a photo, then I say let her.

I'd, in fact, encourage it.

It is exhibit A that atheism is just about as stupid as it looks.

 

[quip]

If she wants to spend her own money and energy fighting for the right to look stupid in a photo, then I say let her.

I'd, in fact, encourage it.

It is exhibit A that atheism is just about as stupid as it looks.

Bingo! :devil:

That "look" is the very point of her demonstration, exemplifying the stupidities of religion.

 

[Quincy]

I want to be the cop who pulls her over someday.

"Ok miss, I need to see your liscense."

"Thank you, now I need to see your proof of insur........ HAHAHA, oh gosh.... sorry."

"I meant to say your proof of... pfffffffff. Hahaha, ok ok I can do this. Breathe deep."

Well, I wouldn't do that if she was black, :chuckle: .