Public Atheist Monument Across from 10 Commandments

reply to post by Annee

I know there are some hard core atheist who feel organizing atheists discredits them -- and skirts to

This post was part of a special Halloween Homage to Orson Wells.
Jumping out from behind the server and shouting BOO!

close to organized religion.

I think that kind of thinking is ridiculous, childish, and fear based.

Maybe you can offer a reason why you think this. As of now its unsubstantiated.

reply to post by LesMisanthrope

This post was part of a special Halloween Homage to Orson Wells.
Jumping out from behind the server and shouting BOO!

what the....

reply to post by LesMisanthrope


What's with the Halloween homage thing?

Originally posted by MrInquisitive
As for Satanists, some claim Satan is the Prince of Peace, and that the nasty deity who is beguiling humans is actually the Big G/Y/A (God/Yahweh/Allah), and that the Pope is the Anti-Christ (some good Protestants do feel this way about the Pope). Clearly human-sacrifice practicing Satanists would have a hard time justifying a public monument by current state laws. .

I just wanted to add a bit of clarification to your statement. The official Church of Satan does not believe in any deities such as the Judeo-Christian God, or Devil. They consider themselves atheists, placing primary importance upon the individual, thus you are your own God. Satan is a symbol of ones pride, individuality and liberty, it is an external expression of one's Highest Potential, they do not believe in Satin as a Person, or even a being.

They do not practice sacrifice, human or animal as sacrifice is an act directed towards a Super Natural being such as a deity, as a form of worship or in request for favor. Since they do not believe in any entity of the sort there is no reason for them to be sacrificing anything or being. They do not perform ritual abuse for any purpose nor on any one. And they have strong rules prohibiting the sexual abuse of children or non-human animals. A member who abuses children sexually or otherwise, will have their membership immediately terminated with no opportunity for reinstatement.

They will not accept anyone who is not a legal adult as an active member, and any sexual activity is advocated only between consenting adults.

The Satanism of the Church of Satan was officially recognized by the government of the United States when it was included in their Department of the Army Manual for Chaplains at least as early as 1978.

A wealth of information regarding the Church of Satan can be found on the organizations official website

Church of Satan

Their theory and practice are quite different from the concepts of their organization that are generally promoted as rock solid factual by many organized religious groups.

Theory and Practice

For those interested there is a wealth of information regarding the origins of the Church of Satan, it's growing pains, and it's eventual solidification.

There is also information regarding people who are more enamored with the theatrical image of Satanic worship, dressing up in flamboyant black attire, painting their nails black, their lips black and changing the name they are addressed by to something that is exotic and dark, as an act of rebellion against their families and a means of drawing attention to themselves than they are interested in the official Church of Satan and eventually find themselves dissatisfied with the reality of the organization.

reply to post by LesMisanthrope

Rather than have one idealogical statue, we have two. Both reference the bible; both reference religion; both telling us what we should believe.

"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

Hospitals heal people, whereas churches develop a pensive mentality regarding the emotional aspect of such illnesses. Atheists do things, whereas others contemplate such actions in light of a broader scheme. Atheists get involved because they appreciate this one chance at life, where others constantly reevaluate their time alive in anticipation of an end that will inevitably come.

So one ideological statue recommends a more practical approach, whereas the other advises a more philosophical framework. Both have their merits. Maybe in the course of protesting each other's liberties, we've given ourselves a more well-rounded basis for future growth?

Congratulations. It's a big win for all of us.

I concur. This is an excellent opportunity to observe the best of both worlds.

reply to post by windword


I hate to be the one to say it, but it looks like...

re·li·gion
noun ri-ˈli-jən
Definition of RELIGION
1
a : 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
2
: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3
archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness
4
: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

...atheism might technically qualify as a religion. Please note that I said 'might', as I am unsure as to how definitive the underlined section is. Merriam-Webster is known for including slang and looser definitions as a matter of easing communication.

No one has proven that there is no god. I consider myself a gnostic spiritual atheist because, as I have said before, I possess knowledge that supports my lack of belief. There is more evidence against the existence of a conscious higher power than there is in support of it. While this does nothing to undermine my deep appreciation for the poetry clearly visible in our universe, it does foster a fair degree of sobriety when it comes to religious influence.

I'm sure I am not the only one who feels this way. And because our inability to concretely and absolutely prove beyond any reasonable doubt that there is no intelligent higher power currently in existence, one can technically argue that a certain amount of faith must therefore be involved. This qualifies the above definition. Even if there weren't faith, there is most certainly ardor. Google it if you don't know the definition, then refer to the above definition.

As a result, it can be suggested that anyone who stands for anything is religious. In my mind, this poses to worldwide religions the same threat as inflation poses to an economic system. The more widespread, the less valuable. The less valuable, the less meaningful. And the less meaningful...well, let's just say that religion will begin to lose its importance and be trodden upon as we rush into the hazy future.

When religion becomes as commonplace as money, we will lose sight of its true value. And if religion fails, so does spirituality. This is something I would be severely disappointed to witness.

reply to post by AfterInfinity

Hospitals heal people, whereas churches develop a pensive mentality regarding the emotional aspect of such illnesses. Atheists do things, whereas others contemplate such actions in light of a broader scheme. Atheists get involved because they appreciate this one chance at life, where others constantly reevaluate their time alive in anticipation of an end that will inevitably come.

How do you yourself measure up to this standard? What things have you done? How do Stalin, Mao Zedong and Pol Pot measure up to this woman's vision of an atheist?

Why does the Atheist Monument have so many quotes which denigrate religion, rather than just show atheism in it's best light.
bad choice of quotes, makes them look petty rather than a strong movement.

reply to post by LesMisanthrope

How do you yourself measure up to this standard? What things have you done? How do Stalin, Mao Zed ong and Pol Pot measure up to this woman's vision of an atheist?

I will admit I am not a stellar example of what an atheist could be. Nor am I an excellent model by which to measure the totality of atheism today. But I must ask: are you judging the entirety of atheism by a handful of atheists? Shall we now begin to judge Christianity by the leaders of the Inquisition and those who initiated the Salem witch trials? Or perhaps we can measure Christianity by the standards of the Westboro Baptist Church. Any person who claims to be Christian should do as an admirable representative of everything Christianity stands for. And everything they have done wrong, may as well be shared by the sum of the Christian community. Every belief and every action they have ever held or committed can be assumed to hold the same with every other Christian in existence. Is this what you are suggesting?

Careful now...

reply to post by WilsonWilson

Why does the Atheist Monument have so many quotes which denigrate religion, rather than just show atheism in it's best light.
bad choice of quotes, makes them look petty rather than a strong movement.

This, I will agree with. The monument expresses a poor choice in wording. Had the jabs toward religion been withheld, I would proudly stand beside that monument. I would still stand behind that monument, considering "actions speak louder than words", and the monument is clearly displaying a comparison between actions and words. Thoughts in action are always more effective than thoughts in theory, it seems.

reply to post by AfterInfinity

But I must ask: are you judging the entirety of atheism by a handful of atheists?

What is the entirety of atheism?

I remember feeling much the same way when i heard of Philip Pullmans childrens books, i read interviews where he stated he wanted to wrtie childrens books free of the Christian overtones of books such as "the lion the witch and the wardrode", only when i read his books they were an outright attack on the church, rather than being free of religious colourings.

Doeasnt make sense to me.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by windword

 

I hate to be the one to say it, but it looks like...

re·li·gion
noun ri-ˈli-jən
Definition of RELIGION
1
a : 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
2
: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3
archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness
4
: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

...atheism might technically qualify as a religion. Please note that I said 'might', as I am unsure as to how definitive the underlined section is. Merriam-Webster is known for including slang and looser definitions as a matter of easing communication.

No one has proven that there is no god. I consider myself a gnostic spiritual atheist because, as I have said before, I possess knowledge that supports my lack of belief. There is more evidence against the existence of a conscious higher power than there is in support of it. While this does nothing to undermine my deep appreciation for the poetry clearly visible in our universe, it does foster a fair degree of sobriety when it comes to religious influence.

I'm sure I am not the only one who feels this way. And because our inability to concretely and absolutely prove beyond any reasonable doubt that there is no intelligent higher power currently in existence, one can technically argue that a certain amount of faith must therefore be involved. This qualifies the above definition. Even if there weren't faith, there is most certainly ardor. Google it if you don't know the definition, then refer to the above definition.

As a result, it can be suggested that anyone who stands for anything is religious. In my mind, this poses to worldwide religions the same threat as inflation poses to an economic system. The more widespread, the less valuable. The less valuable, the less meaningful. And the less meaningful...well, let's just say that religion will begin to lose its importance and be trodden upon as we rush into the hazy future.

When religion becomes as commonplace as money, we will lose sight of its true value. And if religion fails, so does spirituality. This is something I would be severely disappointed to witness.

edit on 12-6-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)

Religion suggests the worship of a supreme being. That's not to say that the word religion can't be used a little more loosely, like "He ate his morning oatmeal religiously." Oatmeal eating isn't a religion or a religious ritual.

The American Atheists may have faith in the idea of constitutional "separation of church and state" and an ardor for the American Justice system, but they have no beliefs in gods or a supreme being.

Patriotism isn't a religion, yet people have ardor for their country and faith in governmental systems. Families have ardor for each other and faith in each other, but a family unit isn't a church or a religion.

We can't be intellectually honest if we call all things that evoke passion a religion. Sports enthusiasts would be religions unto themselves too. Imagine the Church of Football and all the NFL sects of Packers, Rams, etc.

Originally posted by WilsonWilson
Why does the Atheist Monument have so many quotes which denigrate religion, rather than just show atheism in it's best light.
bad choice of quotes, makes them look petty rather than a strong movement.

I'm curious, which quotes bother you and why?

reply to post by Annee

There are so many misconceptions regarding atheism. I support an organization that provides actual fact. AND has a specific mission of separation of church and state -- and support awareness for equality.

What about specific corporations wanting to express their support for a religion or opinion, or maybe publicly support a local organization? I don't think this monument says anything different. This is a call to action. But as I have said before, that's my perception of it. I don't think that's why it was put there, but aren't we the ones who decide what it means to us? Any given object or idea is defined by the people who observe it. Minds capable of ascribing value, of creating a connection. This is how all language is born. And our entire reality is affected by this principle. We even affect ourselves. Many religions have recognized this, and any psychologists or historians will tell you the same.

So with all of this ability to change what our reality means, why do we limit ourselves to always following others? Why can we not define the world for ourselves? Why can we not take something with potential and give it our own meaning, take our own pearl of wisdom from it? Why let others decide? Just as with any object in motion, a strong enough external force can change its direction. If we're not satisfied with the message, then change it and use it. As quoted below:

I'm not sure you understand exactly what is meant by the phrase, "Names have power." See, it's not the name itself - it's what the name means to the people who use it. Without meaning, without a definition or a set of parameters represented by the arrangement of symbols or vibrations that speak for those parameters, names mean nothing. Just sound, just letters. Attach meaning, and suddenly, the word has an influence. It's an idea. It carries the power of intent and direction. An exploding can doesn't do much, a wave of uncontrolled force. A bullet, directed force with a specific focus, changes matters.

This applies to virtually any idea we are capable of expressing. For having such diverse and extensive communication, it seems we lack a certain creative drive to master our means of expression. Don't be afraid to teach the world a whole new meaning. Or even just improve upon an idea you feel should be shared.

Atheists, if it means that much, put yourself out there and reinvent atheism. Christians, if it means that much, same to you. It might be more impressive if a Christian did it. Unless they just complain. We've already seen that happen. I just think that with as much familiarity as this country has demonstrated with manipulating the waters of understanding, we should be practicing a little more of it too. Of course, meaning changes with the loss or acquisition of knowledge, so it's important to deny ignorance.

And that, for me, adds a whole new layer of meaning to this site.

Originally posted by rnaa

Originally posted by GeisterFahrer

What about a religion that condones adultery, murder, rape, theft, lying, non-belief in any divine entity, telling your mom and dad to

off, ignore holy days, mock God's name?

Should the Government condone a "religion" that believes and condones immoral and illegal behaviour?

Because the more I think about it, the specific atheist group mentioned in the OP are more like anarchists.

This is one of the quotes planned for the Athiest's monument:

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

In exactly what universe does that equate to "condones adultery, murder, rape, theft, lying, non-belief in any divine entity, telling your mom and dad to

off, ignore holy days, mock God's name"?

The universe where a group wants the 10 commandments taken down maybe?

reply to post by LesMisanthrope

What is the entirety of atheism?

Everyone who says there's no such thing as a god. That's a pretty diverse bunch.

reply to post by GeisterFahrer


You're on to us! We all want the 10 Commandments, in front of courthouses, taken down because it inhibits our desire to kill and steal and have sex with other men's wives! HAHA!

It has nothing to do with the fact that having the 10 Commandments sitting outside a courthouse, where governmental justice is dispensed, could be construed to seem that the Government endorses a set of "laws" making it illegal not to worship "God' , to draw pictures or makes statues of God or his creation, using his name in the wrong way and mowing your lawn in "His" day off!

/sarcasm

reply to post by windword

We can't be intellectually honest if we call all things that evoke passion a religion. Sports enthusiasts would be religions unto themselves too. Imagine the Church of Football and all the NFL sects of Packers, Rams, etc.

"For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them." - Matthew 18:20

I daresay football could be considered a religion. Is that wrong?

reply to post by windword

It has nothing to do with the fact that having the 10 Commandments sitting outside a courthouse, where governmental justice is dispensed, could be construed to seem that the Government endorses a set of "laws" making it illegal not to worship "God' , to draw pictures or makes statues of God or his creation, using his name in the wrong way and mowing your lawn in "His" day off!

That's like saying that allowing homosexuals in schools could turn everyone gay. Christianity isn't a disease. It's a practice. And I don't see why governmental institutions can't have pride in their religions. If such was the case, then every lawyer and every court justice and the Congress would be forbidden to wear any kind of religious symbol. They would be forbidden from attending church. They would be forbidden from discussing or exploring faith. The fact is, half of them wear crosses, a large number attend church fairly regularly, and they all talk about "God" with their children. If such behavior is allowed and religion has not utterly corrupted our legislation, then I don't see how a monument on government ground is going to do anything worse.

So is atheism supposed to balance it out and make everyone agnostic? Pfft.