Christian and atheist soldiers both pay the ultimate price

page: 2
11
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 29 2012 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen
It's one thing to send the Archbishop of Canterbury round, but who do you send to "represent" atheists? Dawkins? A lot of atheists I know really dislike him.


LOL. Dawkins is the most rational atheist there is. If you can't find beauty or belief in his view of the universe then your a duck. So unless your a duck, go read what he actually believes.




The chances of each of us coming into existence are infinitesimally small, and even though we shall all die some day, we should count ourselves fantastically lucky to get our decades in the sun.
-Dawkins

edit on 29-10-2012 by ubeenhad because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 29 2012 @ 06:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by ubeenhad

Originally posted by adjensen
It's one thing to send the Archbishop of Canterbury round, but who do you send to "represent" atheists? Dawkins? A lot of atheists I know really dislike him.


LOL. Dawkins is the most rational atheist there is. If you can't find beauty or belief in his view of the universe then your a duck. So unless your a duck, go read what he actually believes.


I saw him on some program recently, going on about the beauty of evolution and it was... well, a little creepy. No, make that a lotta creepy, he sounded a bit like a perv, if you know what I mean.

I'm all for evolution, but that was just an unpleasant excessiveness.



posted on Oct, 29 2012 @ 07:00 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


Now your attacking his personality? You come across as one of the whinny old retired republican women from new york who settle down in Sun City, AZ near were I was born. Mostly because of your avatar. They all had that same dog. So if your not a whinny old retired republican woman from new york who lives in sun city than I apologize. Unlike some people I try to avoid overly judging people based on trivial assumptions.



posted on Oct, 29 2012 @ 07:06 PM
link   
reply to post by ubeenhad
 


lol, no, I'm not a woman, I'm not a Republican, and I'm neither from New York or Arizona. I'm 50 years old, and the dog is my wife's, who left him in my care when she died in 2010.

Most, including I, consider Dawkins to be insufferably arrogant and narcissistic -- a good evolutionary biologist but a terrible philosopher, which is what he seems to want to be. He's fairly well reviled by some in the far left atheist community, mostly for his "old white guy" condescending attitude towards others.

In other words, there are better representatives, though I reiterate my earlier, on-topic, point that secular veterans are already represented by secular people at these ceremonies, so Dawkins needs not attend anyway.



posted on Oct, 29 2012 @ 07:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Kandinsky
 


I support the presence of religious figure-heads at these services and think that room should be made for the humanists too. It's just about respecting the dead in terms the dead would have appreciated.

I support it, too. I just re-read my post, and it doesn't seem to make it clear:
EVERY soldier and their families deserve regard. In my opinion, there should be NO DEAD due to war. Respecting the dead (especially when they are young, vibrant, healthy, and enthusiastic) is hugely important in our world today.

I do consider myself a humanist. Just so you know.



posted on Oct, 29 2012 @ 07:29 PM
link   
Since in the other topic, you keep arguing segments of my posts, instead of my intended message Ill do the same to you!


What beliefs? Every time I try to bring up beliefs around an atheist, there is a resounding shout of "it's a lack of belief" and every time I try to suggest that there is something more than that, there is a resounding shout of "there is nothing more to atheism than a lack of belief".

If this is the kind of atheist you are talking to, then you should reconsider the people you surround yourself with. In that context they are just being facetious.



It's one thing to send the Archbishop of Canterbury round, but who do you send to "represent" atheists? Dawkins? A lot of atheists I know really dislike him.


Maybe because he is not atheist?


Williams: “You I think, Richard, believe you have a disproof of god.”

Dawkins: No, I don’t! you were wrong when you said that. I constructed in The God Delusion a 7-point scale, of which ’1′ was, ‘I know god exists’, ’7′ was ‘I know god doesn’t exist’ and I called myself a ’6′.

Williams: “Why don’t you call yourself an agnostic then?”

Dawkins: “I do. But I think it’s-”

Williams: “You are described as the world’s most famous atheist-”

Dawkins, “Well not by me. Um..

[laughter]

Williams: “Can I ask you to spell out your argument, your Boeing-”

Dawkins: “I’m a 6.9.”

[laughter]

Williams: “But you have your Boeing 747 argument-”

Dawkins: “Yes, I mean-”

Williams: “-to show that this tiny probability-”

Dawkins: “I believe that when you talk about agnosticism, It’s very important to make a distinction between ‘I don’t know whether X is true or not, therefore it’s 50-50 likely or unlikely’ and that’s the kind of agnostic which I don’t-which I’m definitely not. I think one can place estimates of probability on these things and I think the probability of any supernatural creator existing is very very low. So I’m-let’s say I’m a 6.9.


Now i am just being facetious. But he has the mind of a true scientist. He goes with the data at hand.
As for being a philosopher, or a self proclaimed one, I think he uses a very dry, scientific argument that can only be appreciated by those who are clever enough to catch on. I always hear him say things, and I think to myself " Why did he say it that way, it would be more convincing if he went this way with it instead", only to later realize his thought process or reasoning.

I understand your point, he is dry, but you also tried to say he couldn't represent someone who would want him to speak as a naturalist. And I still argue that he may be one of the best still alive, to do so.
edit on 29-10-2012 by ubeenhad because: (no reason given)

Edit: I wasn't implying that im somehow more clever than someone who doesn't appreciate Dawkins. But now the point is out in the open its safe to say im more likely to be clever than you because I appreciate dawkins. See, just like that it doesn't sound so un-modest.
edit on 29-10-2012 by ubeenhad because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 29 2012 @ 07:30 PM
link   
reply to post by paraphi
 


They are not equal. They are not faiths. Besides, who would represent the atheists? It’s a silly notion is just another attempt to erode religious faith.

They ARE EQUAL!! They are human beings who gave their lives for causes they had no part in CREATING!
A silly notion?

Wow. ..............
wow



posted on Oct, 29 2012 @ 07:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Kandinsky
 


What I find ironic is that Christians will often say that Atheism is a faith in itself and Atheists will say it's absolutely not a faith. Yet now religious people are saying that Atheism can't be represented as a faith and the Atheists are crying foul.

It seems that religious people and atheists all like to define "faith" as a transient concept to fit their current goals.

They, of course, should have representation but I just thought I should point out the inconsistency of the arguments.



posted on Oct, 29 2012 @ 07:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cuervo
reply to post by Kandinsky
 


What I find ironic is that Christians will often say that Atheism is a faith in itself and Atheists will say it's absolutely not a faith. Yet now religious people are saying that Atheism can't be represented as a faith and the Atheists are crying foul.

It seems that religious people and atheists all like to define "faith" as a transient concept to fit their current goals.

They, of course, should have representation but I just thought I should point out the inconsistency of the arguments.



The problem REALLY is with christians generalizing everyone who doesn't believe in religious dogma. Same problem with the bi-partisian government. You cant generalize peoples views and opinions into one or even 10 groups, and expect them to think independently and objectively. Not all so called 'atheists' have the same views or even in the same ballpark. If your atheist and you grew up in a country were God is everywere, then say what you want, your objective. So obviously all the objective thinkers cannot be grouped together under one name.
edit on 29-10-2012 by ubeenhad because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 29 2012 @ 08:58 PM
link   
no #... death doesnt play favorites - dead is dead regardless what people believe.... ridiculous arguing over who should / shouldnt be remembered due to whatever belief they held in life....



posted on Oct, 29 2012 @ 09:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by wildtimes
I don't know if there's a similar org in the USA, but it's absolutely true.



Most beliefs and non-beliefs are now recognized in the US military.

Humanist - Atheist - Wiccan - - etc.

They can be open with their belief or non-belief - - - I know there are groups. Don't know if there is a single organized group.



posted on Oct, 29 2012 @ 10:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Kandinsky
 


we fight together - we die alone



posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 03:53 AM
link   
reply to post by ignorant_ape
 
True


Whatever anyone's views, it's a good thing that so many in the country stop and think for a minute. It's not enough to think of reasons why war isn't always the answer, but it's enough to respect the dead.

Some years back, I was eating breakfast in ASDA at the minute silence. People stopped in the aisles and the silence was upheld apart from a baby crying. It was a tribute to the finer qualities of our society.

(plus it was like a zombie apocalypse scenario
)



posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 04:25 AM
link   
All in all if you make this kind of a sacrifice then you should have the same honor given you as you lived when you die, if not then they should remove all forms with the religion box to check, and if someone dies then the family should be able to decide which type of funeral arrangements these men and women have.

Or at least for those that choose to serve get a new box entered into forms to choose what they want if they die for their country. I know that many will disagree, but there should always be a certain level of respect for those that lose their lives in this way.

Im sure that those that chose not to follow a particular doctrine, would rather have no "remembrance" then one they lived not wanting in their hearts. If atheist were #1 would christians want to be in a ceremony where prayer or a religious ritual did not take place?

Peace, NRE.



posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 04:04 PM
link   
Atheism is not an organisation, nor is it, strictly speaking a religion in and of itself. Although I do not know any serving soliders or servicepersons at present, I do know atheists. The vast majority of the atheists I know, are perfectly happy to be cremated, and have thier nearest and dearest remember them. But the very thing that turns most of the atheists I know, away from actual religions, is the constant reference to a person as being this, or being that, or being represented by people they have never met, who claim some sort of kinship with them, just because of a set of beliefs that they allegedly share.

As a Christian, I can understand that. People always hear that one is a Christian, and then assume that one has a problem with science, or a problem with Muslims, or a problem with those who have no faith etc. I cant bare the association with the "official line" that comes with my definition of my beliefs. If a person chooses atheism for that reason, or similar ones, then I cannot see how representation at a rememberance service is going to honour them! Surely it would be a travesty to them?

I believe that people should be appropriately respectful of all faiths, and philosophical positions. But respect means more than recognising that a person exists, but paying deep and careful attention to the MEANING of the things with which they associate themselves, even if on the face of it, the easiest way to do so is to observe carefully the things they do NOT associate themselves with!



posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 04:24 PM
link   
reply to post by TrueBrit
 
Thanks for your post, it was well-expressed.




If a person chooses atheism for that reason, or similar ones, then I cannot see how representation at a remembrance service is going to honour them! Surely it would be a travesty to them?


According to the article and links, they prefer the term of humanist rather than atheist. I do too as atheism (deserved or not) has garnered a reputation of being opposed to religion. All of which is by the by when the crux of the matter lies in the hands of the Crown and their refusal to allow a non-denominational representative to take their place at the ceremony.

I could be misinterpreting your post, but it seems as if you're opting for a 'screw 'em if they don't believe' solution.
edit on 30-10-2012 by Kandinsky because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 04:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Kandinsky
 


Not at all. I am merely concerned that in trying to be sensitive to the needs of mourner, rememberer, and those who are mourned, those who are remembered, we do not inadvertantly elect to cheapen the beliefs of those who do not subscribe to religions.

My atheist friends and I have discussed funerals before, in morbidity, or in drunkeness. A good friend of mine, John, told me that he had no wish to ever be connected with an organisation, which would represent him in the event of his death. Not a union, not a religion, just his own friends. Obviously, he is not a soldier. He is just an ordinary fellow.

But his sentiment must be shared amongst some of those who have given thier lives. It concerns me that those veiws might not be honoured, and all out of some effort to be politically correct! I imagine you must have a closer connection to the atheist veiw point, and therefore must be better informed about general opinion on the matter.



posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 04:49 PM
link   
reply to post by TrueBrit
 



But his sentiment must be shared amongst some of those who have given their lives. It concerns me that those views might not be honoured, and all out of some effort to be politically correct! I imagine you must have a closer connection to the atheist view point, and therefore must be better informed about general opinion on the matter.


Fair comments.

If military humanists prefer that someone secular marks their passing, it should be so.



posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 04:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Kandinsky
 


I agree. If it is true that service persons desire a representative at memorials and rememberance in particular, then of course they must have it. To do otherwise in the face of overwhelming request and suggestion from within the military, would be in terribly bad taste apart from anything else.



posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kandinsky
reply to post by TrueBrit
 
Thanks for your post, it was well-expressed.




If a person chooses atheism for that reason, or similar ones, then I cannot see how representation at a remembrance service is going to honour them! Surely it would be a travesty to them?


According to the article and links, they prefer the term of humanist rather than atheist. I do too as atheism (deserved or not) has garnered a reputation of being opposed to religion.


I don't know about England - - but here is all the official USA military - - Emblems of Belief for Placement on Government Headstones and Markers.

There is both a Humanist and Atheist symbol. www.cem.va.gov...





new topics
top topics
 
11
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join