Public Atheist Monument Across from 10 Commandments

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by Serdgiam

"A true atheist remains silent on their lack of belief inherently."

What BS.

Atheism means one thing only: lack of belief in a god.

How and what each individual atheist things or believes beyond that is their own personal philosophy.

Remain silent? For what purpose?

LOL!

A good atheist, like a good woman, remains silent!

Yeah right!

reply to post by Serdgiam


More in defense of it than anything else. Whenever I speak of it, I speak to enlighten others as to the specifics of what atheism entails for myself. Not all atheists are the same, just as with any group. I want them to formulate an educated opinion regarding me in particular, which will hopefully give them pause when ready to judge any atheists they meet down the road.

reply to post by windword

LOL!

A good atheist, like a good woman, remains silent!

Yeah right!

Windword, where does all this mockery come from? What grudge do you bear against atheists? Surely it doesn't necessitate the ridicule of users who have expressed nothing but respect for you and your beliefs...

Originally posted by windword
First of all, just to be clear, I'm not an atheist, as I do believe in a spiritual hierarchy and in reincarnation.

We are roughly on the same page with that.. maybe more of just the same book (see the religious reference? ). We could probably have some interesting discussions in another context/thread!

That being said, Christians and other evangelical persuasions are committed to "spreading the word" and converting followers. Atheists have no such mantra.

I agree with the first part of that, and used to agree on the latter. For the past few years though, I am starting to have some sincere doubts about it as evidenced by threads that claim a conversion to atheism, as well as the topic of this thread. It seems the same parties are involved with both discussions, so there might be some cross-over.

While it may not be directly stated (well, usually not), the actions of many modern atheists seem to show a completely different story than their words. It seems that this dichotomy may be part of the human condition, shown through zealotry of different sorts, and as such is independent of belief or lack there-of.

How is someone "outside" of all the religious mess supposed to take it when atheist are claiming proudly to have converted someone much in the same way as the religious? The words and mantras they speak have differences, but the actions seem exactly the same (with the everpresent exceptions, on all sides, of course!).

Atheists, as rule and in my opinion, only speak up when confronted with a religious proclamation, which they then reject. There is first a claim that gods exist, followed by a rejection of that claim.

As a non-believer in the Christian and biblical versions of god, I came to my conclusions through the rejection of what I'd been told was true and embraced what I perceived to be true.

If the given religion is the one that "starts" it, it would seem that atheism may be under the control of it much in the same way as its adherents, just inversely. In math, the "absolute value" of -1 and 1 are both 1. Obviously a massive simplification, but I hope it makes sense.

FWIW, I feel any human vision of a "god," biblical or otherwise, would not be accurate. Pushing ones individual perception of the "truth" is where I start to have issue. Obviously, this puts me in opposition to most religions, but I have also found that in the past years, it also puts me at odds with the atheist community. My individual treatment from both is indistinguishable. What misunderstanding do you feel might be taking place?

Originally posted by Serdgiam

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by Serdgiam

"A true atheist remains silent on their lack of belief inherently."

What BS.

Atheism means one thing only: lack of belief in a god.

How and what each individual atheist things or believes beyond that is their own personal philosophy.

Remain silent? For what purpose?

If you would mind, in that quote where it says "remain silent," what do you perceive that to mean?

Would you mind not getting defensive or emotional about it? I dont mean any disrespect with that, it just makes logical discourse difficult.

I'm going to answer it this way. American Atheists are increasing their media awareness campaign (billboards, bus signage, etc) in a similar campaign as gay rights. In other words, they want atheists to feel comfortable to "come out of the non-believer closet" and be recognized. They want them to speak up and be publicly/socially visible.

If you mean, as a rule, atheists are not vocally confrontational -- I agree.

Originally posted by windword

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by Serdgiam

"A true atheist remains silent on their lack of belief inherently."

What BS.

Atheism means one thing only: lack of belief in a god.

How and what each individual atheist things or believes beyond that is their own personal philosophy.

Remain silent? For what purpose?

LOL!

A good atheist, like a good woman, remains silent!

Yeah right!

Why the victim mentality?

I perceive that you are assuming that the "remain silent" part means to remain silent on all things? Like I said, I struggle to understand how someone could speak *directly* on something which is claimed to have a null value. It makes no reference to speaking on things such as religion. Do you understand what I am saying? I can try to clarify, but only if we can attempt to actually understand what the other is saying.

I understand these things through math, so perhaps that will help you understand where I am coming from.

i]reply to post by AfterInfinity

reply to post by Serdgiam


I'm sorry that you fail to see the irony.

A true atheist remains silent on their lack of belief inherently

Isn't kinda like No True Scotsman

And don't forget what the Bible says:

1 Corinthians 14:34
Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by Serdgiam

 

More in defense of it than anything else. Whenever I speak of it, I speak to enlighten others as to the specifics of what atheism entails for myself. Not all atheists are the same, just as with any group. I want them to formulate an educated opinion regarding me in particular, which will hopefully give them pause when ready to judge any atheists they meet down the road.

If atheism is defined as a "lack of belief" rather than a "belief system," then what is there to defend?

The other idealogies that you may have would make perfect sense to me logically, but the active defense of something which is claimed to not exist is difficult for me to understand. Do you see where I am coming from on this?

I can see all sorts of discussion taking place on our belief systems, but when we invoke the term "atheist," it insinuates a null value. What discussion can rationally take place on something which is said to not exist?

Gosh, I know this is a difficult thing to communicate as I have been trying to understand it for quite some time. I appreciate your candor and openness to actually speak on it without perceiving it as an attack. 99% of the discussions ARE just attack after attack from all sides, and it makes fruitful discussion very difficult.

Originally posted by Annee
I'm going to answer it this way. American Atheists are increasing their media awareness campaign (billboards, bus signage, etc) in a similar campaign as gay rights. In other words, they want atheists to feel comfortable to "come out of the non-believer closet" and be recognized. They want them to speak up and be publicly/socially visible.

To be blunt, I feel that those monies could be better invested back into humanity. I have the same criticism of religion. It says on the monument that they would rather build schools instead of churches. Yet, instead of building something to truly benefit the progress of humanity, they build a monument.

I agree that the persecution of ANY like-minded people is reprehensible. However, I would propose that the solution is not through any single idealogy, but in actually attempting to understand each other and work together towards the unifying goal of ALL of us thriving.

If you mean, as a rule, atheists are not vocally confrontational -- I agree.

I would not agree with that statement at all. The evidence is in the OP, as well as the constant battles between the religious and non-religious. Both sides seem incredibly vocal.

Originally posted by windword

As a non-believer in the Christian and biblical versions of god, I came to my conclusions through the rejection of what I'd been told was true and embraced what I perceived to be true.

Me too. It was actually my search for truth in religion that led me to atheism.

I consider myself atheist because I do not believe in any type religious omnipotent god.

Because I started life having OBEs and other experiences, I know there's more going on then meets the eye and can yet be explained.

I do believe "the gods" are evolved beings, but not of a religious nature.

Originally posted by Serdgiam

Originally posted by Annee
I'm going to answer it this way. American Atheists are increasing their media awareness campaign (billboards, bus signage, etc) in a similar campaign as gay rights. In other words, they want atheists to feel comfortable to "come out of the non-believer closet" and be recognized. They want them to speak up and be publicly/socially visible.

To be blunt, I feel that those monies could be better invested back into humanity.

So, you don't support the gay rights movement?

You don't support full equality in being who you are without bullying and discrimination?

reply to post by Serdgiam

If atheism is defined as a "lack of belief" rather than a "belief system," then what is there to defend?

There are those who believe that meaning can only be present in a universe presided over by a divine power. An intelligent cosmic entity must give us purpose in order for us to have purpose. That is the impression I have received, many times.

I defend the possibility of having an autonomous directive: a mind that gives itself a meaning. We give ourselves a reason to exist, and then act upon that reason. That's one of my tenets as a gnostic spiritual atheist.

The other idealogies that you may have would make perfect sense to me logically, but the active defense of something which is claimed to not exist is difficult for me to understand. Do you see where I am coming from on this?

I do not defend the existence of a god, only the right to believe in one. In turn, I also defend the validity of atheism, but not the need to eradicate religion. Religion has its purpose, and when that purpose is no longer necessary, the rest will take care of itself. Obviously, the birth of atheism is a sign of this.

I can see all sorts of discussion taking place on our belief systems, but when we invoke the term "atheist," it insinuates a null value. What discussion can rationally take place on something which is said to not exist?

Why invent the digit known as zero? So as to express an idea. Zero has its place in all sorts of equations and mathematical functions. Without the zero, where would the ten be? The twenty? The thirty? Where would a hundred or a thousand be? Without zero, how are we to numerically express the absence of value?

Just because you are unable to comprehend the value of an expression, does not mean it has no value. It is good that you ask instead of assuming that this is the case. I respect that in you.

Gosh, I know this is a difficult thing to communicate as I have been trying to understand it for quite some time. I appreciate your candor and openness to actually speak on it without perceiving it as an attack. 99% of the discussions ARE just attack after attack from all sides, and it makes fruitful discussion very difficult.

I thank you for the civil exchange. This is how understanding is formed.

Originally posted by Serdgiam

Originally posted by windword

That being said, Christians and other evangelical persuasions are committed to "spreading the word" and converting followers. Atheists have no such mantra.

I agree with the first part of that, and used to agree on the latter. For the past few years though, I am starting to have some sincere doubts about it as evidenced by threads that claim a conversion to atheism, as well as the topic of this thread. It seems the same parties are involved with both discussions, so there might be some cross-over.

While it may not be directly stated (well, usually not), the actions of many modern atheists seem to show a completely different story than their words. It seems that this dichotomy may be part of the human condition, shown through zealotry of different sorts, and as such is independent of belief or lack there-of.

How is someone "outside" of all the religious mess supposed to take it when atheist are claiming proudly to have converted someone much in the same way as the religious? The words and mantras they speak have differences, but the actions seem exactly the same (with the everpresent exceptions, on all sides, of course!).

Atheists, as rule and in my opinion, only speak up when confronted with a religious proclamation, which they then reject. There is first a claim that gods exist, followed by a rejection of that claim.

As a non-believer in the Christian and biblical versions of god, I came to my conclusions through the rejection of what I'd been told was true and embraced what I perceived to be true.

If the given religion is the one that "starts" it, it would seem that atheism may be under the control of it much in the same way as its adherents, just inversely. In math, the "absolute value" of -1 and 1 are both 1. Obviously a massive simplification, but I hope it makes sense.

For every action there is a reaction. As the indoctrination of a religious dogma and suppression of other and contrary belief systems become intolerable, due to the evolution of a free society, a remedy is included in the equation.

Action - Reaction - Solution

Therein is the birth of the organised outspoken, even evangelical atheist.

FWIW, I feel any human vision of a "god," biblical or otherwise, would not be accurate. Pushing ones individual perception of the "truth" is where I start to have issue. Obviously, this puts me in opposition to most religions, but I have also found that in the past years, it also puts me at odds with the atheist community. My individual treatment from both is indistinguishable. What misunderstanding do you feel might be taking place?

edit on 15-6-2013 by Serdgiam because: changed word for clarity

(FWIW....?)
Pushing any kind of personal truth past the point of mere conversation to fanaticism is offensive in my opinion, whether it be political, moon hoax, UFO's, government cover-ups. or the inferiority of Merlot to Pinot Noir! But when another's fanaticism infringes on my rights, I become annoying too.

Originally posted by Serdgiam

If you mean, as a rule, atheists are not vocally confrontational -- I agree.

I would not agree with that statement at all. The evidence is in the OP, as well as the constant battles between the religious and non-religious. Both sides seem incredibly vocal.

How many atheists have you met in everyday life? Just going about your regular routine?

How many people have come up to you and introduced themselves as atheist?

Have you ever witnessed an atheist confronting a person or group protesting or promoting god in public?

Would you approach them and tell them you are atheist?

What do you think they would do if you carried a sign saying you are atheist?

Do you wear an atheist symbol?

Originally posted by Annee
So, you don't support the gay rights movement?

You don't support full equality in being who you are without bullying and discrimination?

What interesting conclusions!

Judging from this short discourse, and a quick check through your post history, I am not sure that we can actually have the type of discussion that I seek.

I do NOT support the majority of the gay rights movement, as it currently exists. I fully support it in principle (which answers your second question). If you wish to actually understand my stance on this, feel free to ask questions.

The two questions you ask are not related in everyones perspective, though you have asked them in a way that forces me into a corner. You seem more interested in making assumptions about my stance than truly understanding where another being is coming from.

I welcome you to correct me if I am wrong..

Originally posted by Serdgiam

The two questions you ask are not related in everyones perspective, though you have asked them in a way that forces me into a corner. You seem more interested in making assumptions about my stance than truly understanding where another being is coming from.
.

Absolutely they are related.

That you can't see they are the same is the problem.

reply to post by Serdgiam

If atheism is defined as a "lack of belief" rather than a "belief system," then what is there to defend?

In my experience an atheist HAS to defend their right to existence, their morality, their sanity and their science.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by Serdgiam

 

If atheism is defined as a "lack of belief" rather than a "belief system," then what is there to defend?

There are those who believe that meaning can only be present in a universe presided over by a divine power. An intelligent cosmic entity must give us purpose in order for us to have purpose. That is the impression I have received, many times.

I defend the possibility of having an autonomous directive: a mind that gives itself a meaning. We give ourselves a reason to exist, and then act upon that reason. That's one of my tenets as a gnostic spiritual atheist.

While this doesnt address my question at all, its a good discussion. Basically, I feel we can have a very rational and informative discussion about your gnosticism and spirituality, but I still feel atheism has a null value. There is nothing to say on it other than as a proclamation. Im not sure how to clarify this, so I apologize for the lackluster explanation!

How sad is it that so many *need* a god/s to give their life meaning?

I do not defend the existence of a god, only the right to believe in one. In turn, I also defend the validity of atheism, but not the need to eradicate religion. Religion has its purpose, and when that purpose is no longer necessary, the rest will take care of itself. Obviously, the birth of atheism is a sign of this.

I am not sure there is such thing as a "birth" of atheism beyond the birth of religion. Religion makes it relevant, in my mind. I see claims that we are atheist at birth, but if that is the case, it is much, much different than an adult atheist. I do not see many infants talking about any of it, so this would be indicative of what I would consider actual atheism. Only issue is, they dont talk much about anything, which kind of negates any point that could be made on it

Why invent the digit known as zero? So as to express an idea. Zero has its place in all sorts of equations and mathematical functions. Without the zero, where would the ten be? The twenty? The thirty? Where would a hundred or a thousand be? Without zero, how are we to numerically express the absence of value?

Just because you are unable to comprehend the value of an expression, does not mean it has no value. It is good that you ask instead of assuming that this is the case. I respect that in you.

Well, I make a distinction between "no" value and "null" value. Obviously there is some miscommunication between us there. We could do an entire dissertation on the topic of "zero," and I welcome it, but it starts to veer off topic in the extreme.

The main thing I am trying to understand is that many say atheism is defined solely as "lack of belief," but then it is explained in beliefs. Perhaps this part of the discussion is too difficult to try to work out in words. And seeing as how we are having quite a good discussion otherwise, it might be wisest to just move on.

I thank you for the civil exchange. This is how understanding is formed.

Exactly my friend. I only wish to understand, so that we can hopefully understand each other just a little bit better. Our individual beliefs, or lack of them, is of no consequence to us working together towards equality and progress. Though, they are so often used as an excuse to inhibit it. I find that sad.

Originally posted by Annee
Absolutely they are related.

That you can't see they are the same is the problem.

That you so readily dismiss my invitation to learn more about my perspective instead of basing it all on assumptions is the problem with ALL of this. edit: To be clear, I support the principle, but I think the methods used are not addressing the core issue and as such, discrimination and prejudice will continue in a myriad of ways on all sides of the equation.

You do not know me, yet you pretend otherwise. *That* is the problem we are facing on every single level. Not only a lack of understanding of differing opinions, but not even so much as a minor attempt to work through them.

It truly saddens me. I wish the best for you, and hopefully, we can all eventually learn to work together equally.

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by Serdgiam

 

If atheism is defined as a "lack of belief" rather than a "belief system," then what is there to defend?

In my experience an atheist HAS to defend their right to existence, their morality, their sanity and their science.

Oppression of a minority by a majority. Same as the gay rights movement.

As said previously, I've watched the progression of the separation of church and state legal fight since the late 50s.

When I was in public primary school, it was Christian dominated. Everyone participated in the Christmas crafts and Christmas program. There was no option. Jews kept their mouths shut. I wasn't aware of it at the time, but when I look back it disturbs me.