Public Atheist Monument Across from 10 Commandments

Originally posted by Phoenix267
reply to post by GeisterFahrer

 

I did not allege that only a religious scientist contributed to all "good" discoveries, and that only atheist scientists made bad discoveries. I was alleging that beliefs do matter.

Well, I misread you then. But it did sound like you were presenting atheist scientist in a bad light. Which I explained about how race is not a factor. But what the scientist does. Also I think Albert Einstein was a pantheist. He didn't identify as an atheist.

The intent of the individual scientist and the direction in which they are going with their discovery is more or less what I was trying to point out. What are they attempting to prove or disprove? Are they attempting to save lives (penicillin) or destroy them (anthrax, ricin) ? Weaponize for defense, or weaponize for assault? Expand our knowledge of the natural universe, or disprove those pesky religious fanatics?

That was all I was trying to point out

Each discovery made can be used for "good" (nuclear reactors for power) or "evil" (leveling an entire city and turning it to ash with a nuclear bomb).

reply to post by GeisterFahrer


Now I understand what you're saying. I guess it's replying to more than one user at once. I understand why you guys are confused about atheism and why atheist chose to live certain life styles. It's more individual in a way. Even if there are groups out there. With so many misconceptions out there it's understand to see different people from a different light. Like how people will dress or listen to music you don't like. As an American I'm very used to seeing various degrees of yahoos.

reply to post by Phoenix267


Anyway! I'm getting sleepy. No problem with the little debates about atheism and evolution. It's all good and I wish if you guys had questions just message me. I didn't think we would derail the thread from the OP's topic. Whether you agree or disagree with me I respect you guys and gals.

reply to post by windword


It´s quite funny to read that

"An atheist believes that a hospital should be built instead of a church. An atheist believes that a deed must be done instead of a prayer said. An atheist strives for involvement in life and not escape into death. He wants disease conquered, poverty banished, war eliminated." – American Atheists founder Madalyn Murray O'Hair

And instead of sticking to his sayings, he goes to a court just to erect a monument with secularist quotes, next to a monument with the 10 commandments.

Peace

Originally posted by cass1dy09
A person with scripture in their signature making a pro-atheist thread.. my head it spins.


Edit: (unless you're mocking in your sig)

edit on 2-6-2013 by cass1dy09 because: (no reason given)

The scripture in the SIG is mis-quoted.

reply to post by cass1dy09

A person with scripture in their signature making a pro-atheist thread.. my head it spins.

In case you didn't notice, that particular line of scripture isn't exactly religious. It makes no mention of a god or venerating one.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


It actually isn't. I just looked it up, and it is indeed there. But I can see how such a line might hold true with or without any religious foundation. That's probably part of why Windword likes it.

reply to post by borntowatch

10 commandments are relative to the Hebrew religion, Christianity only has two

One more thing that confuses me. How is there so much dissimilarity between two religions that share largely the same source material? Why is it that they must do things so differently?

reply to post by SaturnFX

therefore it is not a religion regardless of how much you would like to twist the word.
It is simply a observation and a stance based on that observation. Nothing superhuman or paranormal in its suggestions, no structured system of things to believe in. Atheism is to religion what unicorns are to automobiles. Completely unrelated. Automobiles are not trying to be unicorns, and atheism is not trying to be a religion.

Whilst I understand what you are saying, and agree with you, the US legal definitions could be construed to encompass Atheism if Atheism exhibits certain tendencies.

Religious belief is "not merely a matter of personal preference, but one of deep religious conviction, shared by an organized group, and intimately related to daily living." United States EEOC v. IBP, Inc., 824 F. Supp. 147, 150 (C.D. Ill. 1993)

By being American Atheists - an organisation - they are exhibiting tendencies that could be defines as religious.

I believe that another definition may let American Atheists off the hook by mention of the word deity...

Religious Activity is defined as any activity that primarily promotes or manifests a particular belief in or about a deity or an ultimate reality. Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of the Univ. of Va., 515 U.S. 819, 825 (U.S. 1995)

but this has to be examined with reference to 'religion' or beliefs that do not centre upon a deity or deities.

In Torcaso v. Watkins, the Court broke the theistic mold which had theretofore restricted the American legal definition of religion. According to the Court, the first amendment precluded government from aiding "those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs." The Court noted that "[a]mong religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism and others." This expanded position reflected a recognition of the great diversity of religious beliefs in modern America.

Source

By this definition Atheism could actually be defined as a religion in particular if it is 'organised' as in American Atheism'. Secular Humanists are by partial definition Atheists. Atheists however are not necessarily Secular Humanists.

I cannot personally understand why any atheist feels any need to get organised to counter religion. I accept that people have different beliefs and, unless a religion or sect is inherently criminal in it's actions, I believe that all should be permitted to go about their daily lives believing what they wish. Some of the most caring people I know are not religious at all.

I do not think that any one belief has any right to refer to another belief system as wrong or evil, and that includes those lacking any belief such as myself.

Do as you would be done by.

reply to post by LesMisanthrope

Why would they need to politicize an organization to hand out pamphlets on "atheism"?

Any "ism" is an ideal. Communism, capitalism, fascism etc. When it's an ideal that concerns itself only with religion—Jainism, Sufism, Buddhism,etc—and sells itself as an 'ism', makes t-shirts, billboards, Darwin fishes, political groups to put up monuments, holds meeting, has faith only in a certain literature and resorts to outright dogmatism—you better believe it is a religion.

Where does one write "atheist" on the census? It is not a job title; it is not a position in a certain tax bracket; it is not a race; it is a position strictly within the realm of religion.

While you are correct, I would argue that you are missing the key element here.

Atheism battles on the religious front for a less dominant religious influence in our country. Just as you have Republicans and Democrats fighting one another for control (supposedly) you have atheists attempting to loosen the grasp of religion upon the political and economic movements of our nation in order to improve circulation and make room for fresh ideas that will get this shipwreck back into condition.

Atheism seek to nullify religion. Plain and simple. Lack of religion counteracts excess of religion, and as a result, there's less religiosity and more rationality involved in making both minor and major decisions nationwide. Atheists believe that religion is more harmful than beneficial in many regards, so they've taken their personal disbelief to the streets and encouraged an awareness that will hopefully dilute the religious mentality that has begun to mire our wagon wheels like so much quicksand.

Sure, atheism is based within the realm of religion - but that's because in order to fight something, we must acknowledge its existence.

reply to post by windword


If I flew to another planet, to send greetings to the residents there on behalf of Earth, and upon my arrival I am greeted with robe wearing creatures who are excited about meeting their first Earthling. They have many questions about Earth, and our history.

When all of a sudden, someone wearing a brown tunic exclaims "Are you a believer in Glorf! What say ye' about Glorf!" To which another being in a blue robe exclaims "Glorf does not exist! There is no Glorf!"

To me it appears that EVERYONE has a fully defined thing in mind called Glorf, some who embrace him, and some who deny him. But they are ALL Glorfians to me. Just brown Glorfians and blue Glorfians.

I have no idea who Glorf is, or what he is or is not. I cannot possibly answer their challenge, and seeing that this could erupt the planet into chaos based on my response, I would choose to politely smile and get back into my spaceship and then leave -

Which, were I a smart Earthling - would mean I would never be able to land nor reveal myself in the first place - given this mass hysteria over Glorf.

This planet would just have to sit for a while. Until they figured out that it just did not matter.

reply to post by PuterMan


It sounds like you're suggesting that "religious" includes everything between belief and disbelief according to how deeply you embrace your particular philosophies and employ them in your lifestyle. I'm not religious. I am spiritual. Religion requires a deity. I recognize none. Therefore, atheism and a number of other philosophies should not be labeled as "religious".

reply to post by AfterInfinity

Atheism seek to nullify religion. Plain and simple. Lack of religion counteracts excess of religion, and as a result, there's less religiosity and more rationality involved in making both minor and major decisions nationwide. Atheists believe that religion is more harmful than beneficial in many regards, so they've taken their personal disbelief to the streets and encouraged an awareness that will hopefully dilute the religious mentality that has begun to mire our wagon wheels like so much quicksand.

Sure, atheism is based within the realm of religion - but that's because in order to fight something, we must acknowledge its existence.

How does one nullify religion by participating it?

reply to post by LesMisanthrope

How does one nullify religion by participating it?

How are they participating in it? They consistently deny the existence of a god. It doesn't get more anti-religious than that. That's like asking, "How does one nullify a game of catch by throwing the ball into a lake?"

Um, pretty easy. That's how.

To everyone and no in in particular, I'm really enjoying the discussion here. So many thoughtful and thought-provoking comments.

I know that semantics can be a real pain in the butt, but as I understand it, there's some confusion of atheism with agnosticism. Atheists have a definite belief: There is no deity. Period. Agnostics, on the other hand, don't know if there's a deity and don't care. So while the agnostics claim no knowledge and no belief system, atheists do claim a specific belief system. Is that technically and definitively a "religion"? I don't know. Does religion require fellowship and organization? I know many people who claim a specific faith, but do not congregate with others of the same faith to worship. Is that still religion? Or is it spirituality?

For these purposes, does it really matter under the 1st amendment and the law? Not in my opinion. These rights for all individuals must be respected equally under the law.

reply to post by Boadicea


We atheists doesn't claim belief. We claim the knowledge that in this day and age, there is no real reason to believe in a god when there are a dozen other available explanations that are easier to prove than the existence of a deity. Besides, religious society has shown that its methods are less than sufficient for a world that is swiftly advancing beyond the age of shepherds.

We have more reason for our knowledge than theists do for their beliefs. If it makes them feel better, then okay. But keep it to yourself and your circle of friends while we work to make the world a better place for you.

Originally posted by Boadicea
To everyone and no in in particular, I'm really enjoying the discussion here. So many thoughtful and thought-provoking comments.

I know that semantics can be a real pain in the butt, but as I understand it, there's some confusion of atheism with agnosticism. Atheists have a definite belief: There is no deity. Period.

Again, you seem to be confused.

Not having a belief is not the same as believing in the opposite of someone else's belief.



There are basically four kinds of people as demonstrated by the map.

Gnostic Atheists
Agnostic Atheists
Gnostic Theists
Agnostic Theists

The axis we are interested in is the A/Theism axis, not the A/Gnostic axis.

reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee


Hmm...by that chart, I would classify myself as gnostic atheist, as my "having knowledge" supports my "lacking belief". That is to say, what I have known and experienced of subjective reality, as analyzed through an objective lens, supports my lack of belief in a ruling higher power.

If, of course, at any time I were given sufficient reason to reevaluate my stance in the matter, I would do so. If, for instance, a god or goddess were to materialize before me and convince me beyond a doubt that his or her nature were precisely as he or she declared it to be, I would concede the point and reconcile myself to theism - sans worship and all that subjugation crap.

Until that happens, however, I have stated my position in the matter.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee

 

Hmm...by that chart, I would classify myself as gnostic atheist, as my "having knowledge" supports my "lacking belief". That is to say, what I have known and experienced of subjective reality, as analyzed through an objective lens, supports my lack of belief in a ruling higher power.

If, of course, at any time I were given sufficient reason to reevaluate my stance in the matter, I would do so. If, for instance, a god or goddess were to materialize before me and convince me beyond a doubt that his or her nature were precisely as he or she declared it to be, I would concede the point and reconcile myself to theism - sans worship and all that subjugation crap.

Until that happens, however, I have stated my position in the matter.

I also consider myself Gnostic Atheist.

reply to post by AfterInfinity

It sounds like you're suggesting that "religious" includes everything between belief and disbelief according to how deeply you embrace your particular philosophies and employ them in your lifestyle. I'm not religious. I am spiritual. Religion requires a deity. I recognize none. Therefore, atheism and a number of other philosophies should not be labeled as "religious".

I was not seeking to suggest anything. I was merely observing that the framework of law in America could construe atheism to be a religion if atheists behave in a certain manner. I did not say that atheism was a religion. Read again friend.

Does religion require a deity? Is Buddhism not a religion? Is Sun worship not a religion? The Sun is obviously not a deity in the modern times when we know about such matters, but to people who don't and who worship the Sun, is the Sun not a deity?

You state "I am spiritual" and that you recognise no deity. That is fine, but how do you define spirituality? Most spiritualism aspire to communion with a higher plane I believe, and indeed it is only recently that the words spiritual and religious have come to have different meanings. At the end of the day, and please do correct me if I am wrong, spiritualism is a religious like concept in that it assumes a higher organisation.

I am an atheist. When die I cease to exist. Earth to earth, dust to dust, ashes to ashes. My parts will be recycled by nature eventually. End of story. Does spiritualism allow you to continue? If it does it has the element of religion.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


Yes, it "actually" is.

Only half of the verse is quoted. That is by definition a mis-quote.