Rich Piehl
How ironic.
Let's look at your remarks again, shall we?
---------------- original exchange ----------------------- about atheists: They want their lack of religion to be a part of everybody's life, regardless of personal beliefs. That is what I find offensive."
D-word "I don't have 30' long lighted nativity scene on the lawn next to your house. Does its absence bother you? "
---------- end of original exchange -----------------------
For the purpose of clarity, we will define the term:
Strawman (n) -- a weak or sham argument set up to be easily refuted. ---------------
Your argument: "Atheists want their lack of religion to be a part of everybody's life."
My response -- "prove it." Tell me what it is that we "insist" on having in your face, displayed on your public property, in your courtrooms and in your lives that bothers you? What part of our "freedom of religious expression" is manifested publicly? What?
(For SOME reason you were notably silent on this point.)
As I said: "I don't have 30' long lighted nativity scene on the lawn next to your house. Does its absence bother you?"
It wasn't a straw man, genius. I am illustrating the fallacy ofyourargument. I am illustrating your hypocrisy. Atheists are not sticking the trappings of their "lack of belief" in the faces of the American people -- Christians are. Their are no athiest "trappings," no symbols are needed to represent positions we hold which don't acknowledge the existence of a god.
Your Christian hypocrisy has backed you into a corner, and you don't have a way out. That is not a strawman, that is the sound of your argument failing.
