However, one thing: "So, by the logic of their statement on how the non-god believers are offensive to them one can say that, by the same reasoning, god-believers are offensive to those who do not believe."
This actually shows the flaw in their argument (and one we've been making, too). We do not know that *all* God-believers are offended, just as we do not know that all non-God folk are offended at religious advertising. That, and using logic to state that something must be true simply because we have found a false argument on the opposing side is the fallacy of argumentum ad logicam, or "argument to logic," as there may be other logical arguments that can prove their side, even if the one doing the arguing is clueless about such "proofs." Logic can only prove or disprove if there's no other logical explanation... and, over time, even older logical proofs can be revisited in the light of new theorems. (Example: God showing up to smack non-believers around, first-hand, in-person, would cause all sorts of anti-God "proofs" to change.) Of course, this is also why there still remains many arguments even among the scientific community in non-religious contexts. ;-)
But yeah, those billboards should be allowed. I'm not offended by it, nor by most of the religious ones. Of course, I'd have to take 'em on a case-by-case basis for evaluation.
True enough. I guess I was just going for the total lack of awareness that what they are really saying is that "Signage promoting one religion is promoting hatred toward all those that believe differently" which applies as equally to them as it does to the other religions... Whether a hyperbole or not, it applies equally and is equally a generalization no matter who is saying it and which religion they are saying it to.
However, one thing: "So, by the logic of their statement on how the non-god believers are offensive to them one can say that, by the same reasoning, god-believers are offensive to those who do not believe."
This actually shows the flaw in their argument (and one we've been making, too). We do not know that *all* God-believers are offended, just as we do not know that all non-God folk are offended at religious advertising. That, and using logic to state that something must be true simply because we have found a false argument on the opposing side is the fallacy of argumentum ad logicam, or "argument to logic," as there may be other logical arguments that can prove their side, even if the one doing the arguing is clueless about such "proofs." Logic can only prove or disprove if there's no other logical explanation... and, over time, even older logical proofs can be revisited in the light of new theorems. (Example: God showing up to smack non-believers around, first-hand, in-person, would cause all sorts of anti-God "proofs" to change.) Of course, this is also why there still remains many arguments even among the scientific community in non-religious contexts. ;-)
But yeah, those billboards should be allowed. I'm not offended by it, nor by most of the religious ones. Of course, I'd have to take 'em on a case-by-case basis for evaluation.
- James -
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment