Public Atheist Monument Across from 10 Commandments

reply to post by NOTurTypical


Oh, you mean like this?

14 There is something else meaningless that occurs on earth: the righteous who get what the wicked deserve, and the wicked who get what the righteous deserve. This too, I say, is meaningless. 15 So I commend the enjoyment of life, because there is nothing better for a person under the sun than to eat and drink and be glad. Then joy will accompany them in their toil all the days of the life God has given them under the sun.

Doesn't really change the meaning, in my understanding. No blood, no foul. Maybe you see something that I don't? Oh, well, of course you do. You're a Christian, after all.

reply to post by AfterInfinity

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.

I think that's quite a superficial interpretation.

How is one without God when it is used as the subject of all arguments for atheism?

An honest atheist would admit what deities are rather than dismiss them. Deities never exist how they are described, of course, but they are always words and ideals conceived by men. We know this; it's quite obvious. "No god" is merely another ideal, "atheism" is another ideal, and if it is sold as a better ideal than "God" or "Christianity", there is little if any difference between these dogmatic acts of religiosity but the content.

As for your analogy: you would think that would be the end of it, maybe go find another game to play. But then they stand there playing catch with no ball. They don't leave the game of catch; they just stand there, talking about playing catch, but laughing at those who throw balls. Then they put up billboards, monuments, be dogmatic about it and compile mountains of literature on how people should play catch with no balls. They're still playing catch.

reply to post by PuterMan

Does religion require a deity?

re·li·gion
noun \ri-ˈli-jən\

Definition of RELIGION

1a : the state of a religious

b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance

Something like this was already posted earlier, but you apparently missed it. So here it is again.

Is Buddhism not a religion?

Technically, no. Buddhists do not recognize a god.

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?

Is an IPhone not witchcraft? The IPhone is obviously a technological tool with clearly defined mechanisms enabling its functions for those who have bothered to study it, but to people who have no concept of such things, the IPhone is a product of Satan and should be burned before exorcising all the people and areas that were exposed to the evil spirits that lives inside of it.

Point being, nonsense is nonsense, regardless of what its practitioners prefer to call it. The Sun was not a deity, but a force of nature with the same general characteristics as a lion or a bear.

Either way, my earlier point stands. Not only do atheists not recognize a deity, they don't indulge in organized religion or any of its practices. Instead of praying, I get off my keister and I do something about it. Instead of going to church to make myself look good, I put in hours at whatever location I decide requires my services most. Instead of condemning my fellow man for crap that ain't none of my damn business, I find people who are struggling in life and offer them kind words to show them that even in the darkest of hours, there's a ray of light if only your fellow jerkoffs would take a moment from their busy corporate madness to recognize a brother in need.

Basically, I don't do theory. I do practice. Because no one got fed by saying, "God will provide." Get up and march to the store, my good fellow, because your family is hungry and needs you. Welcome to atheism, please leave your religion at the door and someone will be along to recycle it momentarily.

reply to post by PuterMan


The Center for Spiritual Atheism www.spiritualatheism.com...

I consider religion man made. Basically a political set of laws to control society.

Atheism is not a verb. It has no action. It is a descriptive only: Lack of belief in a god/deity.

Atheist Philosophy should not be confused with the meaning of atheism. Atheist Philosophy is what an individual, who considers them self atheist, believes.

I believe everything is energy. That thought is energy which creates and manifests physical. I believe energy consciousness is eternal - - therefore consider myself a Spiritual Atheist. But, as you see it's based in/on a science hypothesis - - not a mystical illusion of any type deity.

---------------------------------

American Atheists main purpose is separation of church and state. You can read it on their website: www.atheists.org

In cases where they can't get religious propaganda removed - - they fight for equal representation.

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
reply to post by windword

 

This seems ridiculous—Sue people for putting up religious monuments but then put up your own religious monument.

The American Atheists are a religious organization seeking to put up a religious monument in honor of their "church" in a public place. They too should be sued. This group promotes and provides information on "atheism", as if their position on God was any different from any other position on God. Pure double-standards and religiosity is what I see here.

And as usual, a person critical of Atheists conveniently ignores the one thing Atheists are RIGHTLY combating - the involvement of religion and state!

Atheists are not attempting to force their rules onto others, that is what religions do. There is supposed to be a separation of church and state, and having a blatant symbol of religion directly outside a state/government building is in direct breach of that democratic principle of a secular nation.

Like it or not, your elected are not there to serve Christians, they are there to serve the people who elect them. THAT is the argument here, and if you cannot see that then you really need to consider if you belong in a free and tolerant society rather than a religious dictatorship.

reply to post by Rocker2013

And as usual, a person critical of Atheists conveniently ignores the one thing Atheists are RIGHTLY combating - the involvement of religion and state!

To be fair, LesMis is neither atheist nor theist, to my understanding. So it's not as though s/he is debating this issue out of principle. S/he is keenly aware of the fact that atheists operate on the slight difference that while they cannot know, they have more reason to believe, which still doesn't qualify them as anything other than a religion in his or her book.

I can see where LesMis is coming from, although there is something to be said for my "margin of error" principle, which states that a certain degree of uncertainty should be vouched for in the event that one party amongst a group of parties is able to defend itself adequately against the opposition of its competitors, independently of the minds that make up its populace. That is to say, even without anyone to defend the premise of such a party, its foundation remains solid and reasonable.

reply to post by Annee


While I possess knowledge that supports my lack of belief in a ruling higher power, this does not undermine my intense appreciation for the artistry that goes into the composition of our reality. The universe and its mathematical poetry holds a beauty just as profound as any divine force.

So I guess that makes me a spiritual gnostic atheist. Hear me rationalize!!

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by Annee

 

That settles it. I am a spiritual gnostic atheist. While I possess knowledge that supports my lack of belief in a ruling higher power, this does not undermine my appreciation for the artistry that goes into the composition of our reality.

In actuality, everyone is agnostic. No one knows. Nether believer or non-believer.

The accurate meaning of agnostic is: god cannot be proven or dis-proven.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by Rocker2013

 

And as usual, a person critical of Atheists conveniently ignores the one thing Atheists are RIGHTLY combating - the involvement of religion and state!

To be fair, LesMis is neither atheist nor theist, to my understanding. So it's not as though s/he is debating this issue out of principle. S/he is keenly aware of the fact that atheists operate on the slight difference that while they cannot know, they have more reason to believe, which still doesn't qualify them as anything other than a religion in his or her book.

I can see where LesMis is coming from, although there is something to be said for my "margin of error" principle, which states that a certain degree of uncertainty should be vouched for in the event that one party amongst a group of parties is able to defend itself adequately against the opposition of its competitors, independently of the minds that make up its populace. That is to say, even without anyone to defend the premise of such a party, its foundation remains solid and reasonable.

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

That's not the purpose of my posting.
I am pointing out that the reason for this monument to exist in the first place is to counter the existence of the other.
The group attempted to have the religious monument removed from its position directly outside the office of governance, and this was refused. The atheists in this instance did not want to have their own monument there, they simply wanted to sever the visible connection between church and state and have the offending monument to Christian principles removed to another location.

The argument here is not about whether one monument can adequately counter the sentiment of another. The argument here is that there is STILL a visible connection of church and state where there should be none

reply to post by Annee

The accurate meaning of agnostic is: god cannot be proven or dis-proven.

Even so, I myself can have more or less reason to believe in a ruling higher power that matches the descriptions commonly touted in this life. As it so happens, I have less reason. And even if there were a god or goddess, I wouldn't relinquish control over my life to appease his or her happiness. Let them curse me - I would still be free. I am neither the toy nor pawn, the foot soldier nor the choir boy, of any divine force. I reserve the right to demonstrate my appreciation how I want to. No more, no less. Considering how pithy any such demonstration would be to a god or goddess, I can't imagine why it would be such a big deal. So I'm grateful. Big deal. A six headed dragon that breathes golden bubbles and defecates jewels would be more impressive and just as easily accomplished.

By godly standards, I would hazard a guess that I am unnecessary, unattractive, and thoroughly expendable. There have been a million of me before, and there will be a million of me after. I am no different from my brethren than a grain of sand in an anthill. I am a mundane phenomenon that will expire in the same moment it was born. With all of this in mind, if there is a god, I deserve to enjoy my life while I still have it. And that is just a fraction of my stance as an atheist.

reply to post by GeisterFahrer


Sorry but you are way off in left field with your assumption because that isn't even close to what I was saying. You are assigning a value to my words that was not intended and shouldn't have been contrived that way. You are free to draw your own conclusions however you would do better to take it at face value instead. I am curiouser if you even watched the movie I mentioned if you haven't I think you should because that should clear up your misconceptions on the matter because it has nothing to do with private schools. I hope you take the time to research the subject some it may open your eyes to the travesty that has befallen the school children of our country due to the far right.

Originally posted by FollowTheWhiteRabbit
The quote on the stone to the right is:

"An Atheist believes that a hospital should be built instead of a church. An atheist believes that deed must be done instead of prayer said. An atheist strives for involvement in life and not escape into death. He wants disease conquered, poverty vanished, war eliminated."

Somebody needs to tell atheists that Christians believe those things too.

There are at least 20 churches between my house and the nearest hospital. If they truly believe that they have a strange way of showing it IMO.

Originally posted by Grimpachi

Originally posted by FollowTheWhiteRabbit
The quote on the stone to the right is:

"An Atheist believes that a hospital should be built instead of a church. An atheist believes that deed must be done instead of prayer said. An atheist strives for involvement in life and not escape into death. He wants disease conquered, poverty vanished, war eliminated."

Somebody needs to tell atheists that Christians believe those things too.

There are at least 20 churches between my house and the nearest hospital. If they truly believe that they have a strange way of showing it IMO.

how many religious hospitals are there? Compared to atheist hospitals I mean ...

Originally posted by honested3
Atheism worships oneself in place of God. Compare the deathbed testimonials of Atheists and Christians, no really, then make your decision. Because at that point, mocking statues and pursuing all the temporary self serving Atheistic ideals of this life will do you no good when your on your deathbed. So have your statues and monuments, because they wont take the joy out of my life.

As a atheist I have never worshiped myself I do not worship anything for that matter I think you have some serious misconceptions about atheism but that is OK you have plenty of company that do as well judging from this thread.

No one is trying to take away what gives you joy unless your joy is derived from mixing religion with government in which case you do have a fight on your hands but if that isn't the case you should feel secure in the knowledge that most atheists do not care about what you and your religion do as long as it does not impede on our rights as American citizens.

reply to post by GeisterFahrer


The quote you were referring to says they would build a hospital instead of a church. I think you misunderstood what they were saying. It is great that religions erect hospitals no one is saying they don't do good things however instead of building cathedrals and churches a atheist would put the money to use building more hospitals and such that would benefit everyone and not just a religious group.

I hope that clears things up for you.

Originally posted by PuterMan
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.

So do the NRA, PETA, and any other organization.

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 see what your saying, but this is hair splitting religion, in which case, sure. legal technical understandings could qualify atheism (and nra / peta / boy scouts) as a religion.
But the overall intent of the theists is that its not a technical loophole religion, its a full blown belief yadda yadda religion (spirit of)...in which case, no.

So, yes and no. Yes in the clever method to achieve tax exempt status due to a corruption of the term through the courts, no to the actual intent of the word itself

I cannot personally understand why any atheist feels any need to get organised to counter religion.

Originally posted by GeisterFahrer

Originally posted by Grimpachi

Originally posted by FollowTheWhiteRabbit
The quote on the stone to the right is:

"An Atheist believes that a hospital should be built instead of a church. An atheist believes that deed must be done instead of prayer said. An atheist strives for involvement in life and not escape into death. He wants disease conquered, poverty vanished, war eliminated."

Somebody needs to tell atheists that Christians believe those things too.

There are at least 20 churches between my house and the nearest hospital. If they truly believe that they have a strange way of showing it IMO.

how many religious hospitals are there? Compared to atheist hospitals I mean ...

Does this one count?

Pretty sure Saint God was a pretty good saint.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by Annee

 

That settles it. I am a spiritual gnostic atheist. While I possess knowledge that supports my lack of belief in a ruling higher power, this does not undermine my appreciation for the artistry that goes into the composition of our reality.

In actuality, everyone is agnostic. No one knows. Nether believer or non-believer.

The accurate meaning of agnostic is: god cannot be proven or dis-proven.

I am agnostic about a vein of gold being under my home
I am atheist about digging for it.

It may be there, but I won't put effort into believing (digging) until some evidence comes forward to show its a worthy venture.

Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee

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.

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

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

Thanks for posting that gif however that usually confuses the hell out of some people. At least that has been my experience whenever I post it. FYI I am a agnostic atheist and believe it or not I had people argue with me that I couldn't be just because they do not believe such a designation can exist. Some people just can't wrap there head around the concept which is a shame IMHO.

I try to clarify what atheism is for people and I usually can but there are some on these threads that try there best to muddy the waters for whatever reason. Atheism somehow threatens them in some way I think. It is better now than it used to be atheists used to be considered as devil worshipers. Yeah I know it sounds crazy but it's the truth. At least now I do not have to hide my lack of belief not that it comes up much outside of these threads but when someone starts to preach to me about something I will simply tell them I am not religious and they will usually leave me alone.

Times are changing for the better in that respect.

reply to post by SaturnFX

I am agnostic about a vein of gold being under my home
I am atheist about digging for it.

Excellent way of phrasing it. I am unaware of the actuality, informed of the odds, and unwilling to grant the benefit of the doubt based on those odds given the odds inherently involve the loss of certain assets I feel I am entitled to under almost any circumstances.

The actuality being the existence of a ruling higher power, the odds being the likelihood such an entity exists in full and active condition today, and the benefit of the doubt that contrary to all critical examination, this entity exists in such capacity but escapes objective notice. Either it exists and isn't actively involved where we are concerned, or it doesn't exist at all. Either way, I am - as stated before - unwilling to grant the benefit of the doubt. The summation of such a web of ideals goes against everything I believe in.

To throw my lot in with almost any theist organization is to forsake nearly everything that I am today. And who am I after that? I'd be worth almost nothing to myself, and if that in itself is worth something to a ruling higher power, obviously it's not in my best interest to invest in it. I'd rather be me and free, than be someone else and spend the rest of my existence as a faux lackey in a jar.

Really, I'm just repeating myself here. Sorry. But I want to make the precise parameters of my decision clear for the sake of anyone who is actually interested in an alternative take on the processes that lead to such a decision.