Public Atheist Monument Across from 10 Commandments

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee

 

You know exactly what I meant. I am NOT playing the semantics game with you.

Actually, I have no idea what you mean.

reply to post by Grimpachi


I reject it as an externalized entity. I recognize it as a spiritual quality that may be recognized within any sentient species. It is at best a metaphor for something we fail to understand about ourselves.

Originally posted by Grimpachi
reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee

 

First it seems you do not have a firm grasp on what atheism is yourself I do not feel you should be trying to educate people on something you do not understand.

Your flaw in thinking is that atheists have REJECTED something as I explained on the previous page this is not a common attribute to atheism. No rejection required. Do you reject unicorns spaghetti monsters or how about the notion that you are god. I bet those things just do not make sense to you they may even be Ludacris notions in your mind. For myself I tried to become a Christian many times in my life but I just couldn’t get past the inconsistencies gaps or double standards being taught. Obviously many people can and used to envy them in a way at times mainly because I was singled out for not believing as they did. The truth is religion isn’t rational to me. So in summery I am not religious = atheist.

Let me add that before I had even heard of the concept of god I was an atheist no rejection required. Also there is a difference in people believing in aliens and people worshiping aliens or gods.

No, you need to reread my responses in this thread before making claims about my flawed thinking. I have repeated several times now that the human default is non-belief. One must be taught to believe and what to believe in. The rejection of belief comes when confronted with the idea of God.

Originally posted by Phoenix267
Are you trying to say man is not smart enough to understand the universe? Is that what you're trying to say?

edit on 3-6-2013 by Phoenix267 because: (no reason given)

That is what Solomon said 3,000 years ago as the wisest man to walk the Earth.

ECCL 8:17
"then I saw all that God has done. No one can comprehend what goes on under the sun. Despite all their efforts to search it out, no one can discover its meaning. Even if the wise claim they know, they cannot really comprehend it."

We are physical beings, and as such are resticted to physical observation (known as "science"). Reality is both physical and spiritual, how can a limited mind constrained to only the physical realm possibly come to understand the whole of reality?

You must be transformed from limited (physical) to limitless (spiritual) to come to know all things, that is the plan of God and your purpose in creation.

God says we cannot know all things in our current state, only vanity can convince the mind otherwise. I believe God.

But all are free to choose what they believe in this age by perfect design, this is not the age for all things to be known to man, so it is best for you to make your own decisions; that way God can teach more thoroughly the contrast of your "knowledge" (beliefs) in this age, and what is actually true in life in the ages to come.

Great thread OP.

God Bless,

Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee

Originally posted by Grimpachi
reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee

 

No, you need to reread my responses in this thread before making claims about my flawed thinking. I have repeated several times now that the human default is non-belief. One must be taught to believe and what to believe in. The rejection of belief comes when confronted with the idea of God.

And that is your flaw even if you do not recognize it. There is no rejection required to being an atheist.

The simplest and most accurate description of atheism is not believing in deity’s you are trying to add an attribute to it by claiming rejection is needed which is a false assumption on your part.

reply to post by LesMisanthrope


" It was used to label someone impious, godless.

You might want to do a little research into what you call yourself."

I really don't care what 'Christian' used to mean. Times change, as do languages.

reply to post by Grimpachi


I would argue with that. Its something like a cultural rejection. The social mentality is still present, which can then be rejected.

Originally posted by Grimpachi

Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee

Originally posted by Grimpachi
reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee

 

No, you need to reread my responses in this thread before making claims about my flawed thinking. I have repeated several times now that the human default is non-belief. One must be taught to believe and what to believe in. The rejection of belief comes when confronted with the idea of God.

And that is your flaw even if you do not recognize it. There is no rejection required to being an atheist.

The simplest and most accurate description of atheism is not believing in deity’s you are trying to add an attribute to it by claiming rejection is needed which is a false assumption on your part.

rejection of belief = not believing

You are having a simple misunderstanding over the meaning of words. Now, I could go into it further, but I think I have gotten you past the idea that you had that "Atheism = Not Religious". I will let you work on your understanding of language on your own time.

reply to post by SaturnFX

there is no deity in atheism, therefore it is not a religion regardless of how much you would like to twist the word.

atheism is a form of belief system attempting to provide answers to base philosophical questions, it also has a large following of devoted and organized members.

atheism has all the functional properties of a religion or cult. the meanings of words have changed so often over time that refusing to acknowledge atheism for what it is simply because it does not include a single principle from a whole spectrum of beliefs is silly.

i think it stems from wanting to retain the ability to bash "religions" from a high horse.

none of my post is meant to disrespect you or your beliefs in any way, and i would be happy to discuss them civilly.

back on topic:

do i have a problem with this? no, not really, though i would ask atheists what they find objectionable in the 10 commandments. almost half of them deal with an entity atheists don't believe exists, and the other half are sensible moral rules.

as for the constitutionality of a monument such as the 10 commandments, it does not breach any rights. attempting, at first, to have it removed seems rather childish to me, and while i find including an atheistic monument to be
just and fair, the contents of that monument disturb me.

an equal monument might state what atheism has historically brought to the table in terms of laws that our nation respects, but the monument in question only seeks to bash another belief system. perhaps they could take their own advice and use all the private money they've spent to establish a hospital or soup kitchen? nahh...it's a better use of that private money to point out how another group doesn't use it's private money "wisely" (wisely in quotes acknowledging that the definition is subjective).

reply to post by AfterInfinity


I have met many people who share your beliefs or similar ones I even went through a period in life where I would have been considered spiritual I think that it is natural and healthy to do so.

For myself I no longer give any of it much thought outside of these forums anymore I am usually to tied up with doing other things to where it never comes up. I do subscribe to a magazine called Shambhala Sun dealing with Buddhism and meditation which I find some of the articles interesting but that is about it.

reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee

rejection of belief = not believing

i think i've spotted the problem. atheism isn't the "rejection of belief", it is the rejection of A belief.

a belief in a supreme being(s).

as i've said before, the attempt to get the monument removed first, then when that failed, switching to making a second monument with the intent of bashing the first smacks of wanting to retain the ability to bash "religion" while having a separate belief system on the origin of the universe(s) that attempts to answer base philosophic questions within a group of people who believe that system is true ("believers" for short).

in other words, you have faith that there is no god. faith being synonymous and inseparable from belief, one could say you "practice a faith".

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by LesMisanthrope

 

Do you mean to tell me that logic is just as much an opinion as the phrase "Jesus Saves"?

Yes it is EXACTLY the same thing.

Logic = root word: Logos; thoughts which reveal how one thinks.

Logos = greek translation: Word; thoughts (spoken or written) which reveal how one thinks.

Jesus, who was the Logos of God made flesh (God's logic), and agreeing with His Logos (way of thinking) is just as "logical" as self created logic in ones own mind, by the very deffinition of the Word used.

It all simply depends on which set of logic you employ in your personal conviction of mind, is "your" mind in you to do your will (belief in self created logic, through personal physical experience), or the mind of Jesus Christ in you to do His will (belief in God created logic, through personal spiritual experience).

Both are equally valid logic.

"let this mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus"

God Bless,

Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee

Originally posted by Grimpachi

Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee

Originally posted by Grimpachi
reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee

 

And that is your flaw even if you do not recognize it. There is no rejection required to being an atheist.

The simplest and most accurate description of atheism is not believing in deity’s you are trying to add an attribute to it by claiming rejection is needed which is a false assumption on your part.

rejection of belief = not believing

You are having a simple misunderstanding over the meaning of words. Now, I could go into it further, but I think I have gotten you past the idea that you had that "Atheism = Not Religious". I will let you work on your understanding of language on your own time.

I think you are just trying to be argumentative and spiteful seems like you have some issues because at this point if you are trying to assign a value of rejection to atheism as a negative value it is either willful ignorance or agenda driven. The term I like to use is you are purposely muddying the waters. Seeing as how I think you are intelligent enough to grasp this subject matter it leads me to believe you are agenda driven. This must be a form of entertainment for you with a tit for tat word game I have witnessed small people play. From now on I will keep in mind your personality when reading your posts.

Originally posted by Grimpachi
I think you are just trying to be argumentative and spiteful seems like you have some issues because at this point if you are trying to assign a value of rejection to atheism as a negative value it is either willful ignorance or agenda driven. The term I like to use is you are purposely muddying the waters. Seeing as how I think you are intelligent enough to grasp this subject matter it leads me to believe you are agenda driven. This must be a form of entertainment for you with a tit for tat word game I have witnessed small people play. From now on I will keep in mind your personality when reading your posts.

Ah, yes. This is the ATS I know.

I do not agree with your assertions so I must have an agenda to muddy the waters about Atheism.

Keep denying that ignorance, friend.

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee

 

rejection of belief = not believing

i think i've spotted the problem. atheism isn't the "rejection of belief", it is the rejection of A belief.

I didn't make the claim that atheism is the "rejection of belief". I was simply pointing out that rejecting belief is equivocal to not believing.

I have addressed the rest of your sentiments so many times that I simply do not wish to address them anymore. My responses to everything you have said are already in the thread, however if you read my responses and still feel that you are addressing something that I haven't touched on, I welcome the continued dialogue.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by ElohimJD

 

I wonder if that was meant to be a subtle reminder that we cannot truly know the nature of such beings. Like we should not limit our understanding to physical representations of such entities or the ideals they represent.

100% correct AfterInfinity.

That is the spiritual purpose of that particular law.

Don't pretend to know what God has not given you to know, that is intellectual vanity and sin toward God's way of thinking.

God Bless,

Originally posted by ElohimJD

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by ElohimJD

 

I wonder if that was meant to be a subtle reminder that we cannot truly know the nature of such beings. Like we should not limit our understanding to physical representations of such entities or the ideals they represent.

100% correct AfterInfinity.

That is the spiritual purpose of that particular law.

Don't pretend to know what God has not given you to know, that is intellectual vanity and sin toward God's way of thinking.

God Bless,

Can we have one thread that doesn't turn into a "Jesus is Magic" thread, please?

reply to post by ElohimJD

Yes it is EXACTLY the same thing.

Logic = root word: Logos; thoughts which reveal how one thinks.

Logos = greek translation: Word; thoughts (spoken or written) which reveal how one thinks.

Oh, right, because words and their meanings don't change at all over hundreds of years. I mean, it would be ridiculous to think that perhaps words become compounded and their meanings consequentially warped as cultures fade into other cultures and the world begins to grow out of its old skin.

We should start calling umbrellas 'shadows', since their root comes from the Latin word umbra. And why not call tables slabs instead? Considering the root of the word, tabula.

Point being, languages evolve. Logos is only a shadow of what the word 'logic' now means today:

log·ic
noun \ˈlä-jik\

Definition of LOGIC

1a (1) : a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration : the science of the formal principles of reasoning (2) : a branch or variety of logic (3) : a branch of semiotics; especially : syntactics (4) : the formal principles of a branch of knowledge

So in other words, a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration is just as much an opinion as the phrase "Jesus Saves"?

reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee

The tattooed numbers on my great grandfathers wrist is why I defend autonomous freedoms. If someone is going to come for the Christians, they will have to get through me first. The same with the Muslims, Homosexuals, Atheists, or anyone else deemed undesirable.

And what does that have to do with atheism?

reply to post by ElohimJD

100% correct AfterInfinity.

That is the spiritual purpose of that particular law.

Don't pretend to know what God has not given you to know, that is intellectual vanity and sin toward God's way of thinking.

I don't feel comfortable with the idea that, hypothetically speaking, he didn't give mankind a way of discerning the precise nature of the cosmic powers so as to develop an efficient means of interacting with said powers. The way people are going at it right now, it's interpretation-based trial and error sprinkled with self-fulfilling prophecy and flavored with a strong kick of willful ignorance.

Atheism is a far more reliable approach to this reality.