- Joined
- May 19, 2005
- Messages
- 30,534
- Reaction score
- 10,717
- Location
- Louisiana
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
Yes, but here's the thing. Depending on the number of applicants those numbers don't necessarily change the odds. There really isn't a lot of information about the drawing method, total number of of spots taken, etc.You still have not read the story have you? If you had, you would know that each person who won could claim up to 9 spots(why? I dunno, sounds stupid to me but them's the rules). So there goes the statistical anomaly.
Those who think out their belief systems make affirmations about what they believe and their knowledge for it. These are basically equal for whatever they believe, don't believe and their views of knowledge. When you get down to it there is no difference in the basic framework of the agnostic and atheist to the theist. Those who simply say I don't believe there is evidence for a God, without really putting much effort into what they mean by evidence and knowledge and what their view of these tells them about the universe, usually haven't thought things out too well.The reverse actually.
Yes, but here's the thing. Depending on the number of applicants those numbers don't necessarily change the odds. There really isn't a lot of information about the drawing method, total number of of spots taken, etc.
Edit- I read the story in it's entirety.
Those who think out their belief systems make affirmations about what they believe and their knowledge for it. These are basically equal for whatever they believe, don't believe and their views of knowledge. When you get down to it there is no difference in the basic framework of the agnostic and atheist to the theist. Those who simply say I don't believe there is evidence for a God, without really putting much effort into what they mean by evidence and knowledge and what their view of these tells them about the universe, usually haven't thought things out too well.
I can agree with that.Correct, there isn't, but 2 is not really a statistical anomaly unless the number of christians versus atheists was heavily skewed.
We don't say things like that around religious people. It's at least as believable as the rest of the things they believe.
Yes, but here's the thing. Depending on the number of applicants those numbers don't necessarily change the odds. There really isn't a lot of information about the drawing method, total number of of spots taken, etc.
Edit- I read the story in it's entirety.
To keep it fair and legal, officials in the famously liberal city turned to a lottery to dole out spots in the prime location along Ocean Avenue.
Indeed, Annie Laurie Gaylor, co-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, said December is a busy time for the organization's attorneys, who challenge the use of public spaces for religious messages.
"It's littering — literally, littering — these spaces," Gaylor said of such displays, which she said are a "territorial attempt by Christians to impose their beliefs in this season."
In Santa Monica, atheist Damon Vix called national organizations seeking help because he felt marginalized by the display, and tradition alone didn't merit saving it. Vix, a 43-year-old prop maker from Burbank, said the display "defines Santa Monica as a Christian city, and I feel very excluded by that."
Last year, he put up a display of his own: signs with quotes from Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin and Abraham Lincoln — quotes that his opponents say are of dubious veracity. (It's worth noting that both sides suspect the Founding Fathers would support them.)
Ahh. Okay, those numbers don't line up well. If they did win honestly I want them to pick my powerball numbers.13 people bid for the slots. Each person could bid for a max of 9 slots. From the following article one can only assume that they doled out the spots individually on a 1 spot per drawing basis....
LA Times
According to the OP's article 2 athiests applied for 9 spots each. So...what is the chances of 2 people (out of 13) getting 18 slots on a slot by slot basis?
She seems pretty smug about the whole thing.A few other tidbits that I found interesting in that article....
Guess we know where she stands in all this...I wonder if she would like it if we called her stuff garbage?
My problem is when someone has the idea that inclusion somehow means they get to take cheap shots at people. What a jackass.Wait...the guy feels excluded and yet last year he put up a sign by himself? How is it that he is excluded when he was obviously allowed to put up his own sign? And is it really everyone elses fault if he has no belief system or doesn't celebrate Christmas?
Ahh. Okay, those numbers don't line up well. If they did win honestly I want them to pick my powerball numbers.
13 people bid for the slots. Each person could bid for a max of 9 slots. From the following article one can only assume that they doled out the spots individually on a 1 spot per drawing basis....
LA Times
According to the OP's article 2 athiests applied for 9 spots each. So...what is the chances of 2 people (out of 13) getting 18 slots on a slot by slot basis?
A few other tidbits that I found interesting in that article....
Guess we know where she stands in all this...I wonder if she would like it if we called her stuff garbage?
Wait...the guy feels excluded and yet last year he put up a sign by himself? How is it that he is excluded when he was obviously allowed to put up his own sign? And is it really everyone elses fault if he has no belief system or doesn't celebrate Christmas?
Being an atheist in the 1950's was enough to get you blacklisted for life. Before that, there were times when it was enough to get you killed. Madeline Murray O'Hare was murdered specifically because she was an atheist activist in 1986.
If you want to start lecturing me about fallacies after that ****tacular comparison you made earlier, how about you actually learn what it is.
Argumentum ad populum is suggesting that an individual arguement is true because its popular or holds true for many people then therefore it is universally true. That's not my argument in the least. Now, if you want to talk about "fallacies" go look up strawman. My argument was not that Christianity is "true" because its possible and thus it shouldn't be called mythology.
My argument was that its a tactless and dickish move to make a display like that in a public setting specifically aimed at belittling the view points held by a large population of people. Argumentum ad populum is NOT a fallacy when pointing out that something IS popular and pointing out popularity in and of itself is not a fallacy. My argument relies zero on whether or not Christianity or the Greek Gods are or aren't technically "mythology". Rather, my argument relies on whether or not its true that a majority of people VIEW them as such. A majority of people, especially in academic colleges in the United States, considered Greek Gods to by Mythology thus terming it as such is not some kind of tactless statement nor something that is reasonable to expect someone to think is an "inflamatory remark". On the contrary, stating that JESUS is "mythology" is a view point opposite of what the majority of people in the location of that display views and is something that is reasonable to expect that many people would take as "inflamatory".
This doesn't even however begin to enter into the absurdity of comparing a class, where lenthy discussion and indepth analysis by individuals CHOOSING to take part in it, to a one line display put up in public.
It'd be a dick move regardless of what religion they attacked. Would it possibly be funny? Maybe it would. I find tactless dick moves funny sometimes. Doesn't make them any less of a dick move. But if you want to play the "I don't believe" game or the "this thread would be full of" game, had this been a Christian group putting up a display specifically attacking Muslims, or specifically attacking athiests, I think we'd see this thread full of people talking about the bigotry of Christians and the disgusting way they push their views and I don't believe we'd be seeing you having near the same support for the issue of negatively affirming ones beliefs as the direct expense and targetting of another group.
So long as there is no historical evidence to indicate that their deities existed and did what their followers claim they did, no.
don't you want to spread your beliefs? and how are they oppressing the beliefs of others?
It's rude to try and overpower another's display with arrogance. I believe in spreading my beliefs through my actions, not through offending others and being arrogant. The whole point is that their goal is to displace a nativity scene in the name of their disbelief in God. It's rude, it's legal, but it's only purpose is to offend people.
People looking for something to be offended by will find it every time. How do you know that they weren't trying to educate people about hypothetical constructs?
Because their goal was to displace a nativity scene. Their goal was to overshadow someone else's traditional display and interject their own. This was hardly some innocent educational ploy.
Huh? I didn't say that.
Other religions may want to set up some kind of symbol. You have to either let them all do it, or none.
For somebody with supposedly thick skin you are making quite an effort to complain about a few posters in a different time zone from you.
I grew up in the 60's, and these were never issues. Why now?
The craziest part of this story is the line that "vandal-proof, cage-like areas surrounded by chain-link fencing" will house the displays.
I can't think of anything more inspiring than the navity scene surrounded by a chain link fence. I know, I know that vandals will damage anything but the chain link fence just makes me say Why even bother putting it there.
Can't these two groups of people find something more beneficial for their communities to do ?
These people can put up a nativity scene anywhere they want - a church, their home, maybe even a public park. They aren't entitled to put it in any official space, nor does winning a lottery preventing them from doing so infringe on their "traditional display." They don't need the government to officially bless their religion in order to legitimize it - if they do, they ought to think about how strong their faith is in the first place. They had "interjected" their own display a long time while other couldn't, until the government decided to settle that problem with a lottery, rather than simply banning all displays.
The bottom line is that they lost a lottery. They should deal with it.
Bold part: False. Before this year there were always at least 7 other slots left open in which anyone else could display whatever it is that they wanted. They did not try to crowd out anyone else. These athiests purposely set out to crowd out everyone else.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?