Public Atheist Monument Across from 10 Commandments

reply to post by AfterInfinity

" 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.

I don't really care that you don't really care. It's the truth that cannot merely be shrugged off. You wear the shirt and not care where its been. To me it still smells.

I don’t like to atheize outside of forums. The two things I try to stay away from in dealing with the public is politics and religion. These forums are a different story.

I am not deluded enough to think anything said on here could sway a person to change their beliefs so drastically as to believe or not believe in deity’s. Some people need religion to cope with life so it would be cruel to dismantle their beliefs. I try to not do that to others but sometimes it is hard to not go into that territory when illustrating a point. Emotions can always run high on this subject matter I even find myself getting frustrated at times when I feel someone just doesn’t get it. It would be all too easy to verbally lash out with a never ending onslaught of information meant to shake them up more than myself however all it would do is perpetuate the cycle.

So to keep from getting caught up in the moment I will take leave for a while to attend to other matters. I will check back latter and see if there are any other serious misgivings about atheism that I as an atheist can help clear up.

reply to post by LesMisanthrope

I don't really care that you don't really care. It's the truth that cannot merely be shrugged off. You wear the shirt and not care where its been. To me it still smells.

I'm not Christian though. Do you employ racial slurs in your conversations? Do you inquire as to the current progress of Communist influence in the affairs of American politics? Do you curse the Japs for their audacity to give our naval forces a black eye? Do you frown in disgust at the sight of a woman engaged in automechanic repairs, when she should be barefoot in the kitchen patiently awaiting the delivery of her unborn child? Do you berate the local teenagers for listening to anything other than gospel music?

Then why do you care what the term "Christian" used to mean? It obviously doesn't mean that now. What's in a name? Nothing but the intention and association behind that name. And if you're still clinging to obsolete definitions, then your confusion is suddenly painfully clear. I can't help you with that. Pick up a dictionary printed after the 1800's and have a read, I guess. Don't know what else to tell you.

reply to post by AfterInfinity

I'm not Christian though. Do you employ racial slurs in your conversations? Do you inquire as to the current progress of Communist influence in the affairs of American politics? Do you curse the Japs for their audacity to give our naval forces a black eye? Do you frown in disgust at the sight of a woman engaged in manual labor? Do you berate the local teenagers for listening to anything other than gospel music?

Then why do you care what the term "Christian" used to mean? It obviously doesn't mean that now. What's in a name? Nothing but the intention and association behind that name. And if you're still clinging to obsolete definitions, then your confusion is suddenly painfully clear. I can't help you with that. Pick up a dictionary printed after the 1800's and have a read, I guess. Don't know what else to tell you.

I'm talking about the term "atheist". I said Christians used to be called atheists.

You know they also make books called "Encyclopedias". You might want to branch out a bit.

reply to post by LesMisanthrope

I'm talking about the term "atheist". I said Christians used to be called atheists.

My point stands - rearview driving. Either you update your database to mesh neatly with the language of the modern world, or your communication skills suffer to humor your outdated understanding. Or maybe you do understand, you just choose to dismiss it in favor of points that have no relevance other than historical value.

I don't see how your point has any bearing on modern events. Christians used to be called atheists because the word "atheist" meant something different. Well, the meaning and application have both changed because our understanding of it has changed. Do you want to reject the current understanding or keep up with the times?

Originally posted by Dondylion

Originally posted by GeisterFahrer
Yes, that Hitler. So the point that he was a propagandist recruiter from a largely Lutheran population escaped you didn't it?

nice try though.

edit on 4-6-2013 by GeisterFahrer because: (no reason given)

So let me get this straight. You're going to ignore the fact that Hitler himself said he was a Christian doing the work of God to make your point?

If you aren't going to take this seriously, there's no point in continuing this discussion.

But you cannot ignore his anti-Christian quotes either.
"National Socialism and religion cannot exist together...."

"The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death.... When understanding of the universe has become widespread... Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity....
"Christianity has reached the peak of absurdity.... And that's why someday its structure will collapse....
"...the only way to get rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by little....
"Christianity the liar....
"We'll see to it that the Churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State."

Considering that Hitler said this about propaganda:
"To whom should propaganda be addressed? … It must be addressed always and exclusively to the masses… The function of propaganda does not lie in the scientific training of the individual, but in calling the masses' attention to certain facts, processes, necessities, etc., whose significance is thus for the first time placed within their field of vision. The whole art consists in doing this so skilfully that everyone will be convinced that the fact is real, the process necessary, the necessity correct, etc. But since propaganda is not and cannot be the necessity in itself … its effect for the most part must be aimed at the emotions and only to a very limited degree at the so-called intellect… it's soundness is to be measured exclusively by its effective result". (Main Kampf, Vol 1, Ch 6 and Ch 12)
one could suggest that anything that could be construed as pro-Christian he said was simply doing lip service as mollification in a primarily Christian nation. To say he was Christian based on a few speeches when the neo-pagan occultism of the Nazi party was evident and obvious is a tad bit simplistic.

Originally posted by ProfessorChaos

Originally posted by SaturnFX
One more pic

edit on 3-6-2013 by SaturnFX because: added info

I take issue with your depiction of a militant atheist; a militant of ANY worldview believes in forcing others to comply with their own beliefs or unbeliefs, and while militant atheists may not be an extraordinary large segment of the Atheist subsection (the same can be said of other belief systems as well), they are certainly not as harmless or unobtrusive to others as your pic suggests.

Pray tell, what are some good examples of atheist terrorism.
not allowed to use dictatorships expanding power whom happened to be atheist...talking about day to day joes going all nuts about atheism to the point of causing others hardship and pain (like wbc) or suicide bombing.

I am sure there will be the odd nutjob. but give me fundy atheists over fundy any religion any day for safetys sake. I think I can deal with coffeeshop philosophy and brow beating

reply to post by AfterInfinity


You are right. I'm merely throwing gas on the fire.

However, when I think of a proud atheist I think of a woman happily wearing Monica Lewinsky's dress despite knowing the stains it has acquired.

If they changed the word "Nazi" to mean "a nice man", would you call yourself a Nazi?

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Originally posted by ProfessorChaos

Originally posted by SaturnFX
One more pic

edit on 3-6-2013 by SaturnFX because: added info

I take issue with your depiction of a militant atheist; a militant of ANY worldview believes in forcing others to comply with their own beliefs or unbeliefs, and while militant atheists may not be an extraordinary large segment of the Atheist subsection (the same can be said of other belief systems as well), they are certainly not as harmless or unobtrusive to others as your pic suggests.

Pray tell, what are some good examples of atheist terrorism.
not allowed to use dictatorships expanding power whom happened to be atheist...talking about day to day joes going all nuts about atheism to the point of causing others hardship and pain (like wbc) or suicide bombing.

I am sure there will be the odd nutjob. but give me fundy atheists over fundy any religion any day for safetys sake. I think I can deal with coffeeshop philosophy and brow beating

Unibomber.
ELF
Jeff Dahmer
and the biggest genocidal dictators in the 20th century.

I think there is enough asshattery to go around.

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
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?

With atheism? Nothing. Nor am I claiming that it has anything to do with atheism. You asked me why I was defending Atheism, and I answered. I answered by telling you that I defend ALL autonomous freedoms. Atheism just happens to be one that happens to provide me with a single facet of my person. I will defend the Christians even if I am a heretic. I will defend Muslims, even if I am called an infidel. It is their First Amendment Right to believe and outgroup me in those ways.

Originally posted by NavyDoc
Unibomber.
ELF
Jeff Dahmer
and the biggest genocidal dictators in the 20th century.

I think there is enough asshattery to go around.

So you've got some evidence that these people were killing because of their atheism and not just atheists who were killing people, right? Can you understand the difference here?

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
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.

What questions are those?
Remember, atheists don't claim there are no gods. that's gnostic stuff. no..an atheist simply is someone whom has no belief in gods..doesn't mean they don't exist..just no evidence provided.
Ask a hundred atheists what the meaning of life is, you will get a hundred different answers perhaps.

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.

Not following. The word has not changed. no belief in deity(s). That's consistant. its derived from the word theist..simply the reverse...not a system of belief, just a simple observation of no evidence.
if 100$ of atheists thought sausage was the best pizza topping, sausage being the best pizza topping would not be part of atheism...just a coincidence. (and blasphemy..pepperoni is the best!)

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.

No worries. I don't have a specific belief in this anyhow.

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.

Why not put then the tenants of "My Pretty Pony". We can all be bronys..hooray. They are sensible, good, and morally correct tenants, and half of em about cutie marks and whatnot well, they can be ignored.
Its not the rules that's objectionable, its the kowtowing to what is deemed imaginary beings. No different than having a ancient religions words there..
in saying that, it would be pretty sweet to have Odin holding a lightning bolt and wall with carved morality..but I am a sucker for history anyhow.
The issue I think is that people take it seriously..not the morality of the words, that's fine, but the historical reference.

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.

The chuch of satan is not represented. They do not follow these tenants. This is very Judeo-Christian centric in its establishment. Have no other gods beside me. A church of Satan person is paying tax dollars for the maintenance of this without equal representation in public place?
See the slippery slope here? By all rights, Satanists should have their black rules on a cool statue right smack dab beside it on public property with equal non issue status.
Unless government is pushing one flavor of religion over another..but they constitutionally cannot (no establish).

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.

Explain the bashing? give me specific quotes that bash a religion verses show an alternative way of thinking?
Victims in this instance are only those wanting to feel like a victim.
It makes far more sense to build a hospital than a church..wouldn't you agree? Does a person with cancer need a priest to talk about a book, or treatment for cancer? Which one has a higher percent chance of keeping that person alive?

Not to say atheists don't bash religion...many do. Depending on what type of atheist also. Some more practical atheists see the whole discussion as chatting about unicorns and simply rise above it. or like a television show they don't watch so have no opinion on (no, spongebob is happy, no spongebob is insane, happy, insane...the practical atheist doesn't watch spongebob as its a kids show, therefore doesn't weigh in due to it being too nonsense for him to bother)

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).

There are a number of secular charities

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Originally posted by ProfessorChaos

Originally posted by SaturnFX
One more pic

edit on 3-6-2013 by SaturnFX because: added info

I take issue with your depiction of a militant atheist; a militant of ANY worldview believes in forcing others to comply with their own beliefs or unbeliefs, and while militant atheists may not be an extraordinary large segment of the Atheist subsection (the same can be said of other belief systems as well), they are certainly not as harmless or unobtrusive to others as your pic suggests.

Pray tell, what are some good examples of atheist terrorism.
not allowed to use dictatorships expanding power whom happened to be atheist...talking about day to day joes going all nuts about atheism to the point of causing others hardship and pain (like wbc) or suicide bombing.

I am sure there will be the odd nutjob. but give me fundy atheists over fundy any religion any day for safetys sake. I think I can deal with coffeeshop philosophy and brow beating

Unibomber.
ELF
Jeff Dahmer
and the biggest genocidal dictators in the 20th century.

I think there is enough asshattery to go around.

I don't know any of those peoples faith stances (or lack thereof)
each one was not doing their thing for faith.
Unibomber was your typical anti-gov nutjob
Dahmer was a crazed cannibal
and I don't know who ELF is. (Santa's helpers is all that comes to mind)

But point is, they didn't do their things to further the cause of atheism..they did their things for their reason, they also may have been atheist, and may have enjoyed anchovi's on their pizza.

reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee


That's quite admiral I must admit. Most atheists seem bent on spreading their fundamentalism, and holding that their beliefs are more special than the beliefs of others. You do atheism proud by not attacking, but defending, our religious friends.

However, rhetoric isn't much of a defence against anything but one's own beliefs, but if it helps us sleep soundly at night, sure why not?

Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee

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?

How you interpret a post of mine is irrelevent. No one has said "Jesus is magic" except you... and Sara Silverman.

My posts are pertainent to the discussions in this thread as much as yours. You keep your posts physical as a physically thinking human, and I will continue to keep mine spiritual as a spiritually thinking human, or is my way of thinking not free to be expressed?

My post was about the 2nd commandment which is one of the 10. The 10 commandments are at the heart of this thread.

God Bless,

reply to post by ElohimJD


More to the point, I think the message here is equality of expression. Your voice is as valuable as mine or any other. Let's keep the oppression to a minimum or this thread will be worthless.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
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"?

I understand your interpretation of the current English word for logic.

As it appears this definition is the context you were using to express yourself I will acknowledge your definition because you used it in that manner (you know your intent when using the word more than I do).

Your man made physically observed "logic" using physical sciences is just as valid a logic as my spiritually observed "logic" using God's spirit to mold and fashion His charcter in a humble and contrite mind.

Both equally valid, whether using your modern definition or the original one for logic.

God Bless,

reply to post by ElohimJD

Your man made physically observed "logic" using physical sciences is just as valid a logic as my spiritually observed "logic" using God's spirit to mold and fashion His charcter in a humble and contrite mind.

In that case, would you kindly explain the principles by which your spiritually "logical" methodology operates? Remember, in order to be described as "logical" in any fashion, it must follow the parameters described in the definition provided previously.

Also:

using God's spirit to mold and fashion His charcter in a humble and contrite mind

I don't see the point in raising your children to be humble and contrite if you yourself are not humble and contrite. How many times has your god apologized or demonstrated humility, in all the cases where his children demonstrated their desire to be treated as equal or demonstrated the nature that both his omnipotence and omniscience determined that they would have?

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
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.

edit on 4-6-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)

In your opinion, and I understand your points.

God has a plan that involves thousands of years and multiple "ages" to bring mankind into the knowledge of all things. He has created a means for the creation to interact with the creator, in fact He created a means for the created to become the creator (Elohim) over TIME. That is your purpose for physical existance. But that knowledge is not designed for this age we live in now.

This is NOT the age for the salvation of mankind, that comes at a different time for a different purpose. Using this age and the manner in which we function physically as the "end all" regarding understanding of the created's interaction with the creator is one example of how limited physical mankind is in our self created observed "knowledge".

God's plan for the salvation of every human being that has ever lived and died on earth is explained through the keeping of the weekly Sabbath and Annual Holy Days. Without the spiritual choice to obey those commanded assemblies, the understanding of this will remain unknown.

So in my opinion, obedience to the commandments of God (10 in stone, weekly Sabbath, Annual Holy Days) is a far more reliable approach to this reality. Why should the clay tell the potter why it exists and how it came to be?

Good thing we have freedom of speech and religion and both of us are free to have those differences in opinion at this time.

God Bless,

Originally posted by ElohimJD

Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee

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?

How you interpret a post of mine is irrelevent. No one has said "Jesus is magic" except you... and Sara Silverman.

My posts are pertainent to the discussions in this thread as much as yours. You keep your posts physical as a physically thinking human, and I will continue to keep mine spiritual as a spiritually thinking human, or is my way of thinking not free to be expressed?

My post was about the 2nd commandment with is one of the 10. The 10 commandments are at the heart of this thread.

God Bless,

The 10 commandments aren't at the heart of this thread. Religious inclusiveness is, and while I understand the irony in me asking you to keep your religious views out of a thread about religious inclusiveness, God hasn't any place in a thread about American secular law.