Slickdeals.net

Slickdeals.net (http://slickdeals.net/forums/index.php)
-   The Podium (http://slickdeals.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=18)
-   -   The American Atheists are monumental trolls (http://slickdeals.net/f/6076850-the-american-atheists-are-monumental-trolls)

Halfspin 06-07-2013 04:36 AM

The American Atheists are monumental trolls
 
{pun intended}


In response to a monument showing the 10 commandments at Florida courthouse the American Atheists file a lawsuit. They lost the case on grounds of free speech so they sought permission and will be installing their own 3/4 ton monument [Gainsville [gainesville.com]]

Quote:

The 1,500-pound granite bench will include a panel inscribed with quotes from American Atheists founder Madalyn Murray O'Hair, Thomas Jefferson and others, as well as Bible excerpts listing the punishments — often execution — for breaking each commandment. It will also quote the Treaty of Tripoli, a peace agreement from the late 18th century that states the U.S. government is not founded on Christianity.
This is the first atheist monument in the country and they focus on bashing Christianity. Does such intolerance have a legitimate place in our society?

vivahate 06-07-2013 05:49 AM

quoting the bible is bashing it? Interesting interpretation.

Halfspin 06-07-2013 06:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vivahate (Post 59936718)
quoting the bible is bashing it? Interesting interpretation.

Why would an atheist group, that fights tooth and nail to remove the 10 commandments from the public square suddenly have an affinity for the Bible? Hint: tolerance is not the answer.

EL_Champo 06-07-2013 06:13 AM

http://i.imgur.com/MB5X6Ai.jpg

It's not enough that they don't believe, it torments them that everyone else doesn't agree with them.

vivahate 06-07-2013 06:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Halfspin (Post 59937066)
Why would an atheist group, that fights tooth and nail to remove the 10 commandments from the public square suddenly have an affinity for the Bible? Hint: tolerance is not the answer.

I think you already know it's to demonstrate that the bible has no place in the legal system.

But quoting something verbatim is not bashing it.

vivahate 06-07-2013 06:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EL_Champo (Post 59937126)
It's not enough that they don't believe, it torments them that everyone else doesn't agree with them.

You miss the point *spectacularly*

How is christians wanting biblical law any different from muslims wanting sharia law? Neither have any place in a legal system.

paperboy05 06-07-2013 06:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vivahate (Post 59937150)
I think you already know it's to demonstrate that the bible has no place in the legal system.

Is a biblical monument placed on judicial land the same as using the Bible as law? IMO, it's not.

vivahate 06-07-2013 06:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by paperboy05 (Post 59937332)
Is a biblical monument placed on judicial land the same as using the Bible as law? IMO, it's not.

Was it a random decision to place the 10 commandments there? Total coincidence?

politicaljunkie 06-07-2013 06:34 AM

Neither monument should be on government property. Government property is no place to engage in an endless pissing match. Militant athiests are just as annoying as those Christians continually whining about being persecuted in the USA (i do understand that there IS true persecution in other countries).

Halfspin 06-07-2013 06:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vivahate (Post 59937150)
I think you already know it's to demonstrate that the bible has no place in the legal system.

But quoting something verbatim is not bashing it.

You're working hard to ignore their intent here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by vivahate (Post 59937192)
You miss the point *spectacularly*

How is christians wanting biblical law any different from muslims wanting sharia law? Neither have any place in a legal system.

If that was their point then why not include a few good quotes from the Quran?
So you think this is a monument to protest?
[sarcasm] How positive and forward looking this group is [\sarcasm].

Quote:

Originally Posted by vivahate (Post 59937192)
How is christians wanting biblical law any different from muslims wanting sharia law? Neither have any place in a legal system.

Then they are producing a straw man. Do you see Christians trying to impose 'biblical law' as the atheists have enshrined it on their tablet?

paperboy05 06-07-2013 06:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vivahate (Post 59937524)
Was it a random decision to place the 10 commandments there? Total coincidence?

I doubt it. Yet unless it's shown that judges in that county are swayed by the monument, shouldn't claims for biblical law be considered specious at best?

EL_Champo 06-07-2013 06:41 AM

Quote:

How is christians wanting biblical law any different from muslims wanting sharia law? Neither have any place in a legal system.
Your fedora is on so tight that you're jumping to conclusions. Finding atheists' childishness laughably pathetic is not the same as wanting biblical law. Looks like you are the one missing the point little buddy!

Halfspin 06-07-2013 06:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vivahate (Post 59937524)
Quote:

Originally Posted by paperboy05 (Post 59937332)
Is a biblical monument placed on judicial land the same as using the Bible as law? IMO, it's not.

Was it a random decision to place the 10 commandments there? Total coincidence?

The 10 commandments represent one of the first codifications of law. From a historical point of view it is an appropriate monument for any court. If this group really cared to create a legitimate counter they should have created a monument with the code of Hammurabi.

You probably don't like it, but judeo-christian values formed the foundation of western law. As such in most western nations there is cultural significance to the 10 commandments.

darkfrog 06-07-2013 06:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Halfspin (Post 59937724)
You probably don't like it, but judeo-christian values formed the foundation of western law.

Every time I hear or read this I ask,"which values in particular?"
yet never seem to get an honest, coherent answer. First you would have to demonstrate that the values are indeed Judeo-Xian before demonstrating where they are enshrined in our law.

vaultaddict 06-07-2013 07:10 AM

too funny

Halfspin 06-07-2013 07:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by darkfrog (Post 59938002)
Every time I hear or read this I ask,"which values in particular?"
yet never seem to get an honest, coherent answer. First you would have to demonstrate that the values are indeed Judeo-Xian before demonstrating where they are enshrined in our law.

Have you ever read Blackstone's commentaries [yale.edu]? They were required reading for all law students at Harvard for more than a century. "They are cited nearly 10,000 times in the reports of American courts between 1789 and 1915." You cannot read Blackstone without seeing that the commentaries are permeated with a judeo-christian world view.

Example: Human rights is a judeo-christian concept derived from the idea that God created us with those rights.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Blackstone
THE abfolute righs of man, confidered as a free agent, endowed with difcernment to known good from evil, and with power of choofing thofe meafures which appear to him to be moft defirable, are ufually fumed up on one general appellation, and denominated the natural liberty of mankind. This natural liberty confifts properly in a power of acting as one thinks fit, without any reftraint or control, unlefs by the law of nature : being a right inherent in a us by birth, and one of the gifts of God to man at his creation, when he endued him with the faculty of freewill. But every man, when he enters into fociety, gives, up a part of his natural liberty, as the price of fo valuable a purchafe ; and, in confideration of receiving the advantages of mutual commerce, obliges himfelf to conform to thofe laws, which the community has tough proper to eftablifh. And this fpecies of legal obedience and conformity is infinitely more defirable, than that wild and favage liberty which is facrificed to obtain it. For no man, that confiders a moment, would wifh to retain the abfolute and uncontrolled power of doing whatever he pleafes; the confequence of which is, that every other man would alfo have the fame power ; and then there would be no fecurity to individuals in any of the enjoyments of life. Political therefore, or civil, liberty, which is that of a member of fociety, is no other than natural liberty fo far reftrained by human laws (and no farther) as is neceffary and expedient for the general advantage of the publick c.


vivahate 06-07-2013 07:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Halfspin (Post 59937592)
You're working hard to ignore their intent here.

I don't think so... I think it's quite obvious their intent is to counter the 10 Commandments monument. Their methodology may be up for debate but I still fail to see how quoting the bible is akin to bashing it.

Quote:

If that was their point then why not include a few good quotes from the Quran?
Because there isn't (is there?) currently a monument to Sharia Law there.

empiretc 06-07-2013 07:21 AM

how many atheists denounce a manger scene, but still celebrate christmas? how many atheists use currency that clearly states "in god we trust"? The official motto of the USA.....

"It is quite obvious that the national motto and the slogan on coinage and currency 'In God We Trust' has nothing whatsoever to do with the establishment of religion. Its use is of patriotic or ceremonial character and bears no true resemblance to a governmental sponsorship of a religious exercise."


do not have anything against anyone's choice of faith (or lack of), but they need to temper their hypocrisy if they choose to live here- everyone is given the same luxury.

Halfspin 06-07-2013 07:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vivahate (Post 59938572)
I don't think so... I think it's quite obvious their intent is to counter the 10 Commandments monument. Their methodology may be up for debate but I still fail to see how quoting the bible is akin to bashing it.

Let me try quoting from someone who can help....
Quote:

Originally Posted by vivahate (Post 57416970)
Not sure I agree with that. Context is everything when using certain language.

Quote:

Originally Posted by vivahate (Post 41399676)
Context only counts when it's the bad stuff... when you cherry pick the nice stuff, context doesn't matter


vivahate 06-07-2013 07:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Halfspin (Post 59938344)
Have you ever read Blackstone's commentaries [yale.edu]?

Here's what Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1824
http://www.yamaguchy.com/library/...right.html
I was glad to find in your book a formal contradiction, at length, of the judiciary usurpation of legislative powers; for such the judges have usurped in their repeated decisions, that Christianity is a part of the common law. The proof of the contrary, which you have adduced, is incontrovertible; to wit, that the common law existed while the Anglo-Saxons were yet Pagans, at a time when they had never yet heard the name of Christ pronounced, or knew that such a character had ever existed. But it may amuse you, to show when, and by what means, they stole this law in upon us. In a case of quare impedit in the Year-book 34. H. 6. folio 38. (anno 1458,) a question was made, how far the ecclesiastical law was to be respected in a common law court ? And Prisot, Chief Justice, gives his opinion in these words: “A tiel leis qu’ ils de seint eglise ont en ancien scripture, covient �_ nous �_ donner credence; car ceo common ley sur quels touts manners leis sont fondés. Et auxy, Sir, nous sumus oblègés de conustre lour ley de saint eglise ; et semblablement ils sont oblègés de conustre nostre ley. Et, Sir, si poit apperer or �_ nous que l’evesque ad fait come un ordinary fera en tiel cas, adong nous devons ceo adjuger bon, ou auterment nemy,” &c. See S.C. Fitzh. Abr. Qu. imp. 89. Bro. Abr. Qu. imp. 12. Finch in his first book, c. 3. is the first afterwards who quotes this case, and mistakes it thus : “To such laws of the church as have warrant in holy scripture, our law giveth credence.” And cites Prisot; mistranslating “ancien scripture,” into “holy scripture.” Whereas Prisot palpably says, “to such laws as those of holy church have in antient writing, it is proper for us to give credence;” to wit, to their antient written laws. This was in 1613, a century and a half after the dictum of Prisot. Wingate, in 1658, erects this false translation into a maxim of the common law, copying the words of Finch, but citing Prisot. Wing. Max. 3. And Sheppard, title, “Religion,” in 1675, copies the same mistranslation, quoting the Y.B. Finch and Wingate. Hale expresses it in these words : “Christianity is parcel of the laws of England.” 1 Ventr. 293. 3 Keb. 607. But he quotes no authority. By these echoings and re-echoings from one to another, it had become so established in 1728, that in the case of the King vs. Woolston, 2 Stra. 834, the court would not suffer it to be debated, whether to write against Christianity was punishable in the temporal court at common law ? Wood, therefore, 409, ventures still to vary the phrase, and say, that all blasphemy and profaneness are offences by the common law; and cites 2 Stra. Then Blackstone, in 1763, IV. 59, repeats the words of Hale, that “Christianity is part of the laws of England,” citing Ventris and Strange. And finally, Lord Mansfield, with a little qualification, in Evans’ case, in 1767, says, that “the essential principles of revealed religion are part of the common law.” Thus ingulphing Bible, Testament and all into the common law, without citing any authority. And thus we find this chain of authorities hanging link by link, one upon another, and all ultimately on one and the same hook, and that a mistranslation of the words “ancien scripture,” used by Prisot. Finch quotes Prisot; Wingate does the same. Sheppard quotes Prisot, Finch and Wingate. Hale cites nobody. The court in Woolston’s case, cite Hale. Wood cites Woolston’s case. Blackstone quotes Woolston’s case and Hale. And Lord Mansfield, like Hale, ventures it on his own authority. Here I might defy the best read lawyer to produce another scrip of authority for this judiciary forgery; and I might go on further to shew, how some of the Anglo-Saxon priests interpolated into the text of Alfred’s laws, the 20th, 21st, 22nd and 23rd chapters of Exodus, and the 15th of the Acts of the Apostles, from the 23rd to the 29th verses. But this would lead my pen and your patience too far. What a conspiracy this, between Church and State ! Sing Tantarara, rogues all, rogues all, Sing Tantarara, rogues all !

vivahate 06-07-2013 07:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Halfspin (Post 59938854)
Let me try quoting from someone who can help....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PK7P7uZFf5o

darkfrog 06-07-2013 07:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Halfspin (Post 59938344)
Have you ever read Blackstone's commentaries [yale.edu]? They were required reading for all law students at Harvard for more than a century. "They are cited nearly 10,000 times in the reports of American courts between 1789 and 1915." You cannot read Blackstone without seeing that the commentaries are permeated with a judeo-christian world view.

Example: Human rights is a judeo-christian concept derived from the idea that God created us with those rights.

So a Xian legal scholar attempts to frame and rationalize laws within the context of his religious views? What a shocker. How is this is supposed to be evidence that our laws are founded on Xian values any better than accepting your assertions? In case you haven't been exposed to them, there are plenty of Enlightenment writers that can give very cogent arguments for things like human rights without appealing to a deity or religion. You might try some Voltaire for starters.

kharvel 06-07-2013 08:12 AM

The more important question to ask is:

What if the Zoroastrians, Buddhists, Hindus, Wiccans, and Jedis want to enact their own monument on the same land and there is not enough room to accommodate all of them?

Should the government choose which religion can build monuments on government land? One way around that is a lottery system whilst all religions have equal chance of landing a spot for their respective monument on the government land. Would that be acceptable to all?

EL_Champo 06-07-2013 08:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Halfspin (Post 59938854)
Let me try quoting from someone who can help....

Hahahah told hard

vivahate status:

[ ] Not told
[x] Told Mountain
[x] No Country for Told Men
[x] Knights of the Told Republic

Dr. J 06-07-2013 09:01 AM

Sure sounds like the definition of trolling to me:

In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is someone who posts inflammatory,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as a forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response

vivahate 06-07-2013 09:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr. J (Post 59941260)
Sure sounds like the definition of trolling to me:

In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is someone who posts inflammatory,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as a forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response

Doesn't this hinge on the comments being inflammatory, extraneous or off-topic?

Which of those do you consider quotes from the bible to be?

bonkman 06-07-2013 09:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Halfspin (Post 59935914)
{pun intended}


In response to a monument showing the 10 commandments at Florida courthouse the American Atheists file a lawsuit. They lost the case on grounds of free speech so they sought permission and will be installing their own 3/4 ton monument [Gainsville [gainesville.com]]



This is the first atheist monument in the country and they focus on bashing Christianity. Does such intolerance have a legitimate place in our society?

Quoting the old testament is bashing Christianity? Holy fark are you wrong.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr. J (Post 59941260)
Sure sounds like the definition of trolling to me:

In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is someone who posts inflammatory,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as a forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response

The difference is that they didn't start out by trolling. They looked for legal recourse first. And when they didn't get it, they did a protest by doing the exact thing that they were told was legal.

Other than the fact that you may disagree with one sides opinions, how is what they did different from what they were complaining about?

bonkman 06-07-2013 09:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Halfspin (Post 59938344)
Have you ever read Blackstone's commentaries [yale.edu]? They were required reading for all law students at Harvard for more than a century. "They are cited nearly 10,000 times in the reports of American courts between 1789 and 1915." You cannot read Blackstone without seeing that the commentaries are permeated with a judeo-christian world view.

Example: Human rights is a judeo-christian concept derived from the idea that God created us with those rights.

and I believe that "rights" are a concept that establishes a productive economy and society. Therefore, I'm right and human rights have nothing to do with Judeo-Christianity.

Halfspin 06-07-2013 09:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bonkman (Post 59941722)
Quoting the old testament is bashing Christianity? Holy fark are you wrong.

The difference is that they didn't start out by trolling. ...

So you admit they are trolling and doing so by selectively quoting from the old testament.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bonkman (Post 59941722)
Other than the fact that you may disagree with one sides opinions, how is what they did different from what they were complaining about?

They are trolling, the Christians weren't. If the atheist group had posted a positive plaque I wouldn't have complained. But their placard is more anti-Christian than pro-atheism.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bonkman (Post 59941830)
and I believe that "rights" are a concept that establishes a productive economy and society. Therefore, I'm right and human rights have nothing to do with Judeo-Christianity.

This is quite juvenile logic, but I'll respond.
Your belief relates to the outcome of "rights" not the origin or permanence. That aside your personal beliefs don't change the historical context through which "rights" became enshrined into law.

amosem 06-07-2013 10:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Halfspin (Post 59942142)
They are trolling, the Christians weren't. If the atheist group had posted a positive plaque I wouldn't have complained. But their placard is more anti-Christian than pro-atheism.

Quoting the bible is anti-christian? Sound foundation you got there.

Quote:

Originally Posted by empiretc (Post 59938586)
how many atheists denounce a manger scene, but still celebrate christmas?

Christmas is a pagan holiday based off the winter solstice that has evolved into rampant commercialism.

Quote:

Originally Posted by empiretc (Post 59938586)
how many atheists use currency that clearly states "in god we trust"? The official motto of the USA.....

E pluribus uhh wait mccarthyism...

bonkman 06-07-2013 10:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Halfspin (Post 59942142)
So you admit they are trolling and doing so by selectively quoting from the old testament.

In the sense of that they're trying to get a reaction with their art, sure.

But in that sense, much art is trolling. I was rolling with the title and Dr. J's statement.

REAL trolling is shouting out something that has literally nothing to do with the topic at hand just to inflame. Like when some posters on TP take a "how can we improve the economy" thread and say stuff like "kick out the muslims/blacks/jews/mexicans/whatever."

Quote:

They are trolling, the Christians weren't. If the atheist group had posted a positive plaque I wouldn't have complained. But their placard is more anti-Christian than pro-atheism.
So YOU consider it trolling because YOU don't agree with it. And thus, we have the entire point.

To them, the original monument is trolling because it's putting something they don't agree with (religion) in a (what should be) secular building central to society and government.

If a different courthouse placed a monument of the Quran, would you consider it trolling? Or would it upset you? Or do you know people who would find that extremely upsetting and/or trolling? Even if the answer to the first two are "no" (though they might not be), the last answer is most certainly in the affirmative.

Quoting the bible isn't trolling. It's not even out of context. They didn't remove the text through which those lines should be interpreted.

Quote:

This is quite juvenile logic, but I'll respond.
Your belief relates to the outcome of "rights" not the origin or permanence. That aside your personal beliefs don't change the historical context through which "rights" became enshrined into law.
:lol:
I agree that it's juvenile. IT'S YOUR LOGIC. Some guy claimed that rights are god-given, you interpret that to mean a Christian god is behind them, and then you insist that therefore a Christian god has bestowed all rights. That was your argument. I'm glad you realize how terrible it is.

There's probably more evidence for my view of rights, actually. There's well documented history of things becoming moral law (ie biblical code) and legal law connected with the idea of "natural rights" based upon societal need/realization of a benefit. Such as the idea that murder and theft are wrong because a society will be unproductive if they spend all their time defending what they have and protecting themselves. No time for inventing new things, worshipping a god, growing crops, etc. OTOH, people saying that rights are god-given simply refer to a holy book of choice and say "see! I told you so." Which of course carries with it the implication that those holy books are complete truth.

PaintTheSkyGrey 06-07-2013 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by amosem (Post 59942980)
Quoting the bible is anti-christian? Sound foundation you got there.

It can count as bashing if certain quotes are taken out of context. It also isn't just bible quotes. It's also quotes from other athiests, and the central theme is denigrating Christianity.

Quote:

Originally Posted by amosem (Post 59942980)
Christmas is a pagan holiday based off the winter solstice that has evolved into rampant commercialism.

Nope. Christmas isn't a pagan holiday; it's a very Christian holiday.


Quote:

Originally Posted by amosem (Post 59942980)
E pluribus uhh wait mccarthyism...

Hint: That was never an official motto of the United States.


All of this being said, I think the 10 commandment monument needs to go. There's no rational reason for it being there if not to influence individuals at the court.

bonkman 06-07-2013 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaintTheSkyGrey (Post 59943196)
It can count as bashing if certain quotes are taken out of context.

Writing the punishments is not "out of context." Out of context means that the surrounding words are required to understand what an ambiguous statement is referring to or change the meaning of the statement entirely. Like this awesome site. [outofcontextquotes.com]

or "I did... not... have sex with that woman."

See more examples here. [wikipedia.org]

Quote:

Nope. Christmas isn't a pagan holiday; it's a very Christian holiday.
Depends on what you consider Christian. It's undeniable that it has pagan roots and is rampant with pagan symbolism. Everything from the date (winter solstice) to the trees and even Santa are found in pagan religion. I believe it's fairly well documented that these things were adopted to appeal to pagans in order to make them comfortable converting to Christianity.

Quote:

All of this being said, I think the 10 commandment monument needs to go. There's no rational reason for it being there if not to influence individuals at the court.
And I think the objective here is for the inevitable lawsuit against the AA monument to result in a tradeoff of "we'll take our monument down when you take yours down."

PaintTheSkyGrey 06-07-2013 10:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bonkman (Post 59943494)
Writing the punishments is not "out of context." Out of context means that the surrounding words are required to understand what an ambiguous statement is referring to or change the meaning of the statement entirely. Like this awesome site. [outofcontextquotes.com]

or "I did... not... have sex with that woman."

See more examples here. [wikipedia.org]

We'll have to agree to disagree. I think there are plenty of elements of the bible that can be taken out of context and skewed to fit one viewpoint or another (this goes for religious and irreligious alike).

Quote:

Originally Posted by bonkman (Post 59943494)
Depends on what you consider Christian. It's undeniable that it has pagan roots and is rampant with pagan symbolism. Everything from the date (winter solstice) to the trees and even Santa are found in pagan religion. I believe it's fairly well documented that these things were adopted to appeal to pagans in order to make them comfortable converting to Christianity.

Sure. It's well-known that Christ's birth was allegedly in the Spring, and Christmas was moved to the winter solstice to attract pagans. The yule log, christmas trees were also pagan symbols adopted to appeal to pagans. It definitely has many features derived from paganism. My objection was to him saying Christmas is a pagan holiday. This is not true.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bonkman (Post 59943494)
And I think the objective here is for the inevitable lawsuit against the AA monument to result in a tradeoff of "we'll take our monument down when you take yours down."

I don't disagree with this. I think it's a pretty straightforward concept. I just don't agree with trying to pretend it's not something it is.

bonkman 06-07-2013 10:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by paperboy05 (Post 59937332)
Is a biblical monument placed on judicial land the same as using the Bible as law? IMO, it's not.

I agree. It is not the same.

But is having the 10 commandments there implying that OT biblical law can be influential in the court? I think absolutely so -- you yourself admit that the choice isn't random -- and that goes against what the judicial system is supposed to be.

And hence, this story.

bonkman 06-07-2013 10:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaintTheSkyGrey (Post 59943606)
I think there are plenty of elements of the bible that can be taken out of context and skewed to fit one viewpoint or another (this goes for religious and irreligious alike).

I ABSOLUTELY agree with you here.

However, this isn't one of those cases. This is a straightforward text. "Here's what happens if you disobey the word of G-d. Death, death, exile, death, death, etc."

Quote:

Sure. It's well-known that Christ's birth was allegedly in the Spring, and Christmas was moved to the winter solstice to attract pagans. The yule log, christmas trees were also pagan symbols adopted to appeal to pagans. It definitely has many features derived from paganism. My objection was to him saying Christmas is a pagan holiday. This is not true.
That's why I said it depends on what your definition of a "Christian holiday" is. I think we can safely say that Easter is a Christian holiday. No religion that doesn't believe in the resurrection of Christ would celebrate his resurrection at that time of year. (Jews are celebrating something very different.) OTOH, pagans would still be (still are? how prevalent is paganism today?) celebrating a holiday that looks a lot like Xmas -- including many of the things we associate with Xmas -- even though they're not Xtian.

So it might not be a "pagan holiday" because you're supposed to be celebrating Jesus bday, but it's much more a "Christians-adopted-the-pagan-traditions" holiday than the other way around.

Quote:

I don't disagree with this. I think it's a pretty straightforward concept. I just don't agree with trying to pretend it's not something it is.
I don't think anyone really is. The whole point is to be a counterexample of why their opponents are wrong (or, why they are equally right).

bridgeburner 06-07-2013 10:56 AM

I consider this monument to be a counterargument to the ten commandment monument. Is it offensive to christians? Sure. But the Ten Commandment monument is offensive to all non-christians. The first commandment on there is "you shall have no other gods but me". That's kind of a "fark you" to the american ideal of "you can believe whatever you want here because it's a free country".

Not to mention, several of the ten commandments aren't actually crimes in the United States. Honestly, I'd rather neither of these things were in front of the building. If the state refuses to remove the Ten Commandments monument, it's just gonna have to live with having an atheist monument.

empiretc 06-07-2013 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bonkman (Post 59943940)
I ABSOLUTELY agree with you here.


x2 and with PaintTheSkyGrey as well. This is why the rule is never bring up religion or politics. Both are endless arguments.



Quote:

Originally Posted by bridgeburner (Post 59944644)
Honestly, I'd rather neither of these things were in front of the building. If the state refuses to remove the Ten Commandments monument, it's just gonna have to live with having an atheist monument.


Agreed.

It is funny how there are various arguments for the american public to be tolerant of so many other things, but not this. they have to throw a hissy fit.

bonkman 06-07-2013 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by empiretc (Post 59945044)
It is funny how there are various arguments for the american public to be tolerant of so many other things, but not this. they have to throw a hissy fit.

this being the atheist monument or the 10 commandments one?

Quote:

Originally Posted by bridgeburner (Post 59944644)
I consider this monument to be a counterargument to the ten commandment monument. Is it offensive to christians? Sure. But the Ten Commandment monument is offensive to all non-christians. The first commandment on there is "you shall have no other gods but me". That's kind of a "fark you" to the american ideal of "you can believe whatever you want here because it's a free country".

Not to mention, several of the ten commandments aren't actually crimes in the United States. Honestly, I'd rather neither of these things were in front of the building. If the state refuses to remove the Ten Commandments monument, it's just gonna have to live with having an atheist monument.

[/thread]

amosem 06-07-2013 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaintTheSkyGrey (Post 59943196)
It can count as bashing if certain quotes are taken out of context. It also isn't just bible quotes. It's also quotes from other athiests, and the central theme is denigrating Christianity.

There's not much to be taken out of context on the matter of who the bible tells you to kill.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaintTheSkyGrey (Post 59943196)
Nope. Christmas isn't a pagan holiday; it's a very Christian holiday.

1 distinguishing christian trait (that's not original in its own right) vs a myriad of pagan traits.

Yup it's christian alright

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaintTheSkyGrey (Post 59943196)
Hint: That was never an official motto of the United States.

So?

PaintTheSkyGrey 06-07-2013 11:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by amosem (Post 59945478)
There's not much to be taken out of context on the matter of who the bible tells you to kill.


1 distinguishing christian trait (that's not original in its own right) vs a myriad of pagan traits.

Yup it's christian alright


So?

You must have watched Zeitgeist. I won't spoil it too badly for you, but 90% of it is an already-debunked crock of shit.

empiretc 06-07-2013 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaintTheSkyGrey (Post 59945542)
You must have watched Zeitgeist. I won't spoil it too badly for you, but 90% of it is an already-debunked crock of shit.


for sure!

amosem 06-07-2013 01:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaintTheSkyGrey (Post 59945542)
You must have watched Zeitgeist. I won't spoil it too badly for you, but 90% of it is an already-debunked crock of shit.

That really is a pathetic attempt to troll.

PaintTheSkyGrey 06-07-2013 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by amosem (Post 59948576)
That really is a pathetic attempt to troll.

I guess you don't believe me.

You should sit back and analyze the movie that tells you THINK FOR YOURSELF! while spoon-feeding you utter crap and rhetoric, and attempts to shape how you think. There are some factually accurate portions of the movie, but they are far and few between. The largest collection of... "misunderstandings..." would be relating to religion. At times, it's almost like they're just making things up because it sounds good with their narrative. Do any amount of research into it, and you'll see what I mean.

Unless, of course, your ill-informed beliefs come from elsewhere. Then, I digress...

amosem 06-07-2013 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaintTheSkyGrey (Post 59948796)
I guess you don't believe me.

You should sit back and analyze the movie that tells you THINK FOR YOURSELF! while spoon-feeding you utter crap and rhetoric, and attempts to shape how you think. There are some factually accurate portions of the movie, but they are far and few between. The largest collection of... "misunderstandings..." would be relating to religion. At times, it's almost like they're just making things up because it sounds good with their narrative. Do any amount of research into it, and you'll see what I mean.

Unless, of course, your ill-informed beliefs come from elsewhere. Then, I digress...

No, you're the one who brought a strawman into the fold that had nothing to do with what I said in an attempt to troll and I think that is pathetic.

bridgeburner 06-07-2013 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaintTheSkyGrey (Post 59948796)
At times, it's almost like they're just making things up because it sounds good with their narrative.


The same could be said of the Bible....

PaintTheSkyGrey 06-07-2013 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by amosem (Post 59948938)
No, you're the one who brought a strawman into the fold that had nothing to do with what I said in an attempt to troll and I think that is pathetic.

If anything, that's not a strawman argument. I was simply assuming that's where you dredged your information from, and stated it was false.

A strawman would be if I were to turn your argument into something else and refute that argument. I did no such thing, no matter how you spin it.

Learn to logical fallacy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bridgeburner (Post 59948950)
The same could be said of the Bible....

See!

This is a good example of a strawman. Well, more of a red herring because it has nothing to do with the factuality of Zeitgeist. But still closer to strawman than my assertion.

bridgeburner 06-07-2013 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaintTheSkyGrey (Post 59948976)
See!

This is a good example of a strawman. Well, more of a red herring because it has nothing to do with the factuality of Zeitgeist. But still closer to strawman than my assertion.


I wasn't trying to enter the debate about Zeitgeist (never seen it) just making a (I thought) well timed comment.

PaintTheSkyGrey 06-07-2013 01:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bridgeburner (Post 59949020)
I wasn't trying to enter the debate about Zeitgeist (never seen it) just making a (I thought) well timed comment.

That really had no bearing on the conversation? Okay... I guess. :confused:

The same could be said of Obama! hurr durr

bridgeburner 06-07-2013 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaintTheSkyGrey (Post 59949070)
That really had no bearing on the conversation? Okay... I guess. :confused:

The same could be said of Obama! hurr durr


No need to be rude.

PaintTheSkyGrey 06-07-2013 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bridgeburner (Post 59949108)
No need to be rude.

Not being rude. Simply don't understand the necessity of your comment if not relative to the current conversation. It's no different than turning that into an Obama-bashing talking point.

amosem 06-07-2013 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaintTheSkyGrey (Post 59948976)
If anything, that's not a strawman argument. I was simply assuming that's where you dredged your information from, and stated it was false.

So you're stating information was false that you assumed was my information source, that had nothing to do with what I actually said, as a valid argument?

You're attacking my position based off an assumption and a movie that you brought into the conversation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaintTheSkyGrey (Post 59948976)
A strawman would be if I were to turn your argument into something else and refute that argument. I did no such thing, no matter how you spin it.

See!

This is a good example of a strawman. Well, more of a red herring because it has nothing to do with the factuality of Zeitgeist. But still closer to strawman than my assertion.

So you're saying your statement is a red herring as well? Considering you bringing up a movie had nothing to do with what I posted.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaintTheSkyGrey (Post 59948976)
Learn to logical fallacy.

:rolleyes:

PaintTheSkyGrey 06-07-2013 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by amosem (Post 59949676)
So you're stating information was false that you assumed was my information source, that had nothing to do with what I actually said, as a valid argument?

I made a judgement based on your assertions. These same assertions are prevalent in the movie and those that fawn over it. And, it still has not been shown that I am incorrect. You haven't denied getting your information from that movie, nor shown how what you said is anywhere near factual.

Quote:

Originally Posted by amosem (Post 59949676)
You're attacking my position based off an assumption and a movie that you brought into the conversation.

The assumption and movie are one and the same. Not two different things. And the assumption has a credible foundation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by amosem (Post 59949676)
So you're saying your statement is a red herring as well? Considering you bringing up a movie had nothing to do with what I posted.

Except the movie is entirely relevant, as you've exactly mirrored talking points from the movie.

bonkman 06-07-2013 05:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaintTheSkyGrey (Post 59949070)
That really had no bearing on the conversation? Okay... I guess. :confused:

The same could be said of Obama! hurr durr

Zeitgeist has nothing to do with this thread either.

You changed the subject because you don't have a counterpoint to what's been said by a number of posters.

And some people took the bait.

PaintTheSkyGrey 06-07-2013 05:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bonkman (Post 59953434)
Zeitgeist has nothing to do with this thread either.

You changed the subject because you don't have a counterpoint to what's been said by a number of posters.

And some people took the bait.

I didn't change the subject. I said it sounded like he had been watching Zeitgeist. And it did.

What, exactly, should I be "counterpointing"? I agree with the notion that the 10 commandments needs to go. I disagree that Christmas is a pagan holiday. Steeped in pagan symbolism, sure. But it was a holiday developed by Christians, for Christians, and to attract Christians. That's not a pagan holiday. I also disagree that the concept of Jesus' birth is unoriginal - and the main conveyance of this belief is Zeitgeist. And it's been debunked in many places. Hence my commentary on the movie. That's where all of this is seen, so it makes sense that's where the poster is getting these silly notions.

bonkman 06-07-2013 06:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaintTheSkyGrey (Post 59953588)
I didn't change the subject. I said it sounded like he had been watching Zeitgeist. And it did.

What, exactly, should I be "counterpointing"? I agree with the notion that the 10 commandments needs to go. I disagree that Christmas is a pagan holiday. Steeped in pagan symbolism, sure. But it was a holiday developed by Christians, for Christians, and to attract Christians. That's not a pagan holiday. I also disagree that the concept of Jesus' birth is unoriginal - and the main conveyance of this belief is Zeitgeist. And it's been debunked in many places. Hence my commentary on the movie. That's where all of this is seen, so it makes sense that's where the poster is getting these silly notions.

Got it -- you're trying to pick a fight.

PaintTheSkyGrey 06-07-2013 06:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bonkman (Post 59953722)
Got it -- you're trying to pick a fight.

Pick a fight? :lol:

If I were going to pick a fight, I'd certainly use something more inflammatory than saying dude needs to stop watching Zeitgeist (which he still hasn't even denied).

I wasn't doing anything other than saying what he believes is untrue and has been debunked.

darkfrog 06-07-2013 08:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaintTheSkyGrey (Post 59953588)
I didn't change the subject. I said it sounded like he had been watching Zeitgeist. And it did.

What, exactly, should I be "counterpointing"? I agree with the notion that the 10 commandments needs to go. I disagree that Christmas is a pagan holiday. Steeped in pagan symbolism, sure. But it was a holiday developed by Christians, for Christians, and to attract Christians. That's not a pagan holiday. I also disagree that the concept of Jesus' birth is unoriginal - and the main conveyance of this belief is Zeitgeist. And it's been debunked in many places. Hence my commentary on the movie. That's where all of this is seen, so it makes sense that's where the poster is getting these silly notions.

I've never seen the Zeitgeist movie but just because they make some claims that have been debunked doesn't mean that there aren't others that are true.
There are some very interesting parallels between Jesus and Dionysus, both being an archetype of the dying and reborn god, along with the Osiris, Horus, Mithras, and others. The discussion of such parallels have been around for some time so one does not need to have seen the Zeitgeist movie to have been introduced to these concepts.

PaintTheSkyGrey 06-07-2013 08:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by darkfrog (Post 59956002)
I've never seen the Zeitgeist movie but just because they make some claims that have been debunked doesn't mean that there aren't others that are true.
There are some very interesting parallels between Jesus and Dionysus, both being an archetype of the dying and reborn god, along with the Osiris, Horus, Mithras, and others. The discussion of such parallels have been around for some time so one does not need to have seen the Zeitgeist movie to have been introduced to these concepts.

I will direct you here:

http://conspiracies.skepticprojec...one/#horus

While you have a valid point, it was also a very popular movie that caused this train of thought in a lot of people. In any case, the facts are pretty cut-and-dried whether it came from Zeitgeist or books Zeitgeist referenced.

BigBananaMess 06-08-2013 06:50 AM

I don't see much to be upset about. It would be interesting to see the quotes on the bench. I looked up some Madalyn O'Hare quotes [brainyquote.com] and they don't seem offensive to anyone.

Gotchaforce 06-08-2013 11:09 PM

Christianity seems to be the most oblivious religion out there. A YEAR ago they placed a monument with the ten commandments in front of a court house.. and theyre whining when someone calls them on their shit? are you kidding me?

Stop being a cry baby and realize that when you try and merge church and state and proselytize to citizens of america that non-christians wont just lay down. Honestly did you expect zero resistance to such a religious creed on state grounds?

Quote:

American Atheists didn't plan to erect a monument to atheism when the Ten Commandments monument was unveiled last year, Muscato said. It wanted the religious monument removed from its perch in front of a government building and sued Bradford County in May 2012, citing concerns about the separation of church and state.

American Atheists' staff and supporters are proud of their new monument, Muscato said, but they would have preferred there be neither a religious nor an atheist one in front of the courthouse.

"If religious groups are going to have monuments, then it's only appropriate that we have matching monuments," he said. "But it's our preference that none of these are here."
I would say its christians that are the trolls, they place ten commandments down (in the year 2012!!!), then act all butt hurt when the atheists do the only thing left to do, and erect a monument of their own.

PaintTheSkyGrey 06-08-2013 11:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gotchaforce (Post 59971658)
Christianity seems to be the most oblivious religion out there. A YEAR ago they placed a monument with the ten commandments in front of a court house.. and theyre whining when someone calls them on their shit? are you kidding me?

Stop being a cry baby and realize that when you try and merge church and state and proselytize to citizens of america that non-christians wont just lay down. Honestly did you expect zero resistance to such a religious creed on state grounds?



I would say its christians that are the trolls, they place ten commandments down (in the year 2012!!!), then act all butt hurt when the atheists do the only thing left to do, and erect a monument of their own.

Yep, cause all Christians are exactly the same, everywhere.

Mighty broad strokes you paint.

Gotchaforce 06-08-2013 11:35 PM

Im just borrowing the same brush your crew has been using throughout the thread to paint all atheists with. Most atheists really dont give a shit about stuff like this at all, its not even a blip on our radar, we have better things to do with our time than be militant.

Its just funny that the OP is forced to flamebait with crap like "This is the first atheist monument in the country and they focus on bashing Christianity. Does such intolerance have a legitimate place in our society? "

PaintTheSkyGrey 06-08-2013 11:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gotchaforce (Post 59971924)
Im just borrowing the same brush your crew has been using throughout the thread to paint all atheists with. Most atheists really dont give a shit about stuff like this at all, its not even a blip on our radar, we have better things to do with our time than be militant.

Its just funny that the OP is forced to flamebait with crap like "This is the first atheist monument in the country and they focus on bashing Christianity. Does such intolerance have a legitimate place in our society? "

My crew?

JackHandey 06-09-2013 02:28 AM

I am intrigued that everyone assumes that the 10 commandments are purely Christian. There are several versions of the 10 commandments out there, depending on one's religion (and the view their religion takes on the 10 commandments).

The 10 commandments existed long before christianity came into being,

There are 3 primary versions of the 10 commandments that I have been able to find. Based on what I see on the monument, it would appear that the version on the monument is the protestant version.

http://shark-tank.net/wp-content/upl...mmandments.jpg

http://i2.ytimg.com/vi/y9r3DSKQH8s/hqdefault.jpg

http://www.biblicalheritage.org/b...dments.htm

http://www.jewfaq.org/10.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Commandments

http://atheism.about.com/od/tenco...rsions.htm

So, agreeing with the OP for the sake of the argument... It would seem that the AA's would be specifically trolling protestants

Oh, and here is the bench.

http://endtimeheadlines.files.wordpr...ists-bench.jpg

bridgeburner 06-09-2013 02:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JackHandey (Post 59972926)
I am intrigued that everyone assumes that the 10 commandments are purely Christian. There are several versions of the 10 commandments out there, depending on one's religion (and the view their religion takes on the 10 commandments).

The 10 commandments existed long before christianity came into being,

There are 3 primary versions of the 10 commandments that I have been able to find. Based on what I see on the monument, it would appear that the version on the monument is the protestant version.

http://shark-tank.net/wp-content/upl...mmandments.jpg

http://i2.ytimg.com/vi/y9r3DSKQH8s/hqdefault.jpg

http://www.biblicalheritage.org/bible%20studies/10%20commandments.htm

http://www.jewfaq.org/10.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Commandments

http://atheism.about.com/od/tencommandments/a/versions.htm

So, agreeing with the OP for the sake of the argument... It would seem that the AA's would be specifically trolling protestants

Oh, and here is the bench.

http://endtimeheadlines.files.wordpr...ists-bench.jpg


Not sure why they think the 10 commandments are at all relevant to american law. Only 2 of those are actually laws (kill, steal). The rest are just considered a sin by christians and have no bearing whatsoever on the laws of the country.

JackHandey 06-09-2013 04:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bridgeburner (Post 59972944)
Not sure why they think the 10 commandments are at all relevant to american law. Only 2 of those are actually laws (kill, steal). The rest are just considered a sin by christians and have no bearing whatsoever on the laws of the country.

About half of them are actually relevant to either law directly, or social decay (which leads to lawlessness), and most of them are in the latter half. I believe bearing a false witness against your neighbor would also be a crime (perjury).

Arguably, fighting social decay is the whole point of law in the first place. Perhaps we would have a better society, were adultery criminal, people did not lust after things that do not belong to them (be they inanimate objects or actual people), and we had a culture that fostered a greater level of respect toward their parents in children.

Whether or not one actually believes in organized religion, it does offer quite a bit of productive material for a better society. It's problem is not that it doesn't offer some very good things, it's that the good information is surrounded by a lot of religious propaganda the church spewed in there for greater control of the masses.

bonkman 06-09-2013 07:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaintTheSkyGrey (Post 59971802)
Yep, cause all Christians are exactly the same, everywhere.

Mighty broad strokes you paint.

And the same thing can be said about atheists.

vivahate 06-09-2013 07:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaintTheSkyGrey (Post 59956094)

I think you have confirmation bias here. You're trusting the debunking without actually investigating. This passage you linked to says (and the emphasis is mine)

Zeitgeist, the movie did not make this up originally, you can find several places on the Internet that make such claims, but there are no sources or suggestions as to where this information came from. It is highly possible all this originates from The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold - If you read the Amazon reviews, you can find that a lot of people who point out how the information is completely unsourced [8]. I went to Barnes and Nobel and actually found this book in the Christianity section. Needless to say it was completely unsourced and was like reading much the other "Christianity Conspiracy" books out there. So, if these claims all originate from this book, there's absolutely no evidence for it [9]. I should note that this book is used as a "source" in Zeitgeist, the movie [10]. And it is worth pointing out the title is only one word away from the title of this part of the movie "The Greatest Story Ever Sold" vs "The Greatest Story Ever Told".


I'm looking at the book right now and there are sources throughout. The Horus part comes mostly from the work of Thomas Doane (and he's quoted throughout the book) as well as Barbara Walker, Gerald Massey, Albert Churchward and a few others.

You can argue that the sources don't cite their research (and I can't say I've sourced the sources either) but to say that "The Greatest Story Ever Sold" in unsourced is quantifiably wrong.

bonkman 06-09-2013 07:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JackHandey (Post 59973392)
and we had a culture that fostered a greater level of respect toward their parents in children.

Guess when the last time was that people believed their kids (and their kids generation) were more respectful to adults than the adults were to their elders back when the current adults were kids.

andyfico 06-09-2013 07:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaintTheSkyGrey (Post 59972062)
My crew?

That sounds racist.

PaintTheSkyGrey 06-09-2013 08:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vivahate (Post 59974430)
I think you have confirmation bias here. You're trusting the debunking without actually investigating. This passage you linked to says (and the emphasis is mine)

Zeitgeist, the movie did not make this up originally, you can find several places on the Internet that make such claims, but there are no sources or suggestions as to where this information came from. It is highly possible all this originates from The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold - If you read the Amazon reviews, you can find that a lot of people who point out how the information is completely unsourced [8]. I went to Barnes and Nobel and actually found this book in the Christianity section. Needless to say it was completely unsourced and was like reading much the other "Christianity Conspiracy" books out there. So, if these claims all originate from this book, there's absolutely no evidence for it [9]. I should note that this book is used as a "source" in Zeitgeist, the movie [10]. And it is worth pointing out the title is only one word away from the title of this part of the movie "The Greatest Story Ever Sold" vs "The Greatest Story Ever Told".


I'm looking at the book right now and there are sources throughout. The Horus part comes mostly from the work of Thomas Doane (and he's quoted throughout the book) as well as Barbara Walker, Gerald Massey, Albert Churchward and a few others.

You can argue that the sources don't cite their research (and I can't say I've sourced the sources either) but to say that "The Greatest Story Ever Sold" in unsourced is quantifiably wrong.

That's not the only place out there. That just happened to be one of the first relevant ones on Google. I'm aware that there have been many attempts to portray that particular story as something taken from ancient myths and modernized for Christianity, but the links have all been pretty tenuous when you actually sit and look at it.

bridgeburner 06-09-2013 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JackHandey (Post 59973392)
About half of them are actually relevant to either law directly, or social decay (which leads to lawlessness), and most of them are in the latter half. I believe bearing a false witness against your neighbor would also be a crime (perjury).

Arguably, fighting social decay is the whole point of law in the first place. Perhaps we would have a better society, were adultery criminal, people did not lust after things that do not belong to them (be they inanimate objects or actual people), and we had a culture that fostered a greater level of respect toward their parents in children.

Whether or not one actually believes in organized religion, it does offer quite a bit of productive material for a better society. It's problem is not that it doesn't offer some very good things, it's that the good information is surrounded by a lot of religious propaganda the church spewed in there for greater control of the masses.


I think the roots of social decay are a) parents working instead of raising kids (because of the economy) and b) technology. It's all well and good to have the wonders of the internet, but I think the anonymous nature of the internet is going to cause a serious problem with society and how we treat each other. I mean just look at the emergence of "trolls". People like that wouldn't exist (or at the very least, would be shunned by normal society) if everyone were still meeting and talking face-to-face. But the fact that people can say whatever they want anonymously with little-to-no social repercussions... I think that's going cause a lot of problems.

vivahate 06-09-2013 06:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaintTheSkyGrey (Post 59975144)
That's not the only place out there. That just happened to be one of the first relevant ones on Google. I'm aware that there have been many attempts to portray that particular story as something taken from ancient myths and modernized for Christianity, but the links have all been pretty tenuous when you actually sit and look at it.

I'm not arguing for the strength of the Horus argument, just that the author of that section of the Zeitgeist debunking is lying. I might otherwise have given them the benefit of the doubt but half the Horus 'talking points' are bulleted with the cites right next to them and the passage quotes extensively from Barbara Walker. It's not like it's even a long section - 2 and a bit pages... it's impossible to miss them.

You (not necessarily you) might not agree with conclusions of Acharya S (the author of The Greatest Story Ever Sold) - I don't agree with them myself and I'm quite a militant mythist at times but the one thing you can never accuse her work of is lacking sources and citations.

PaintTheSkyGrey 06-09-2013 06:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vivahate (Post 59984256)
I'm not arguing for the strength of the Horus argument, just that the author of that section of the Zeitgeist debunking is lying. I might otherwise have given them the benefit of the doubt but half the Horus 'talking points' are bulleted with the cites right next to them and the passage quotes extensively from Barbara Walker. It's not like it's even a long section - 2 and a bit pages... it's impossible to miss them.

You (not necessarily you) might not agree with conclusions of Acharya S (the author of The Greatest Story Ever Sold) - I don't agree with them myself and I'm quite a militant mythist at times but the one thing you can never accuse her work of is lacking sources and citations.

Gotcha. I've never read the book myself, so I wasn't really sure what to make of that. I was more interested in the actual sourced claims the author of the skeptic page made.

JackHandey 06-09-2013 06:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bridgeburner (Post 59978240)
I think the roots of social decay are a) parents working instead of raising kids (because of the economy) and b) technology. It's all well and good to have the wonders of the internet, but I think the anonymous nature of the internet is going to cause a serious problem with society and how we treat each other. I mean just look at the emergence of "trolls". People like that wouldn't exist (or at the very least, would be shunned by normal society) if everyone were still meeting and talking face-to-face. But the fact that people can say whatever they want anonymously with little-to-no social repercussions... I think that's going cause a lot of problems.

On this, we will agree.

JackHandey 06-09-2013 06:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bonkman (Post 59974438)
Guess when the last time was that people believed their kids (and their kids generation) were more respectful to adults than the adults were to their elders back when the current adults were kids.

With each generation, the parents become less involved in the raising of their children... So, it's not hard to imagine why we have each generation respecting their elders less.

bonkman 06-10-2013 06:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JackHandey (Post 59984664)
With each generation, the parents become less involved in the raising of their children... So, it's not hard to imagine why we have each generation respecting their elders less.

cite needed

MrWD 06-10-2013 10:08 AM

From the article:

People have told him his children are going to hell because he is an atheist. Viviano has two daughters, a 5-year-old and a 6-month-old.

That pushed him to get involved in activism so he could promote atheism in a positive light. Most people hear the word "atheist" and think he's a devil worshipper, he said. But he doesn't believe in the devil.

He just wants to be treated equally. "I don't enjoy being condemned to hell every day," he said. "I got really frustrated with the fact that I was supposed to accept what they talked about and what they believed and they thought was real, but they wouldn't even listen to what I had to say."


Those Christians are so kind. Maybe they can text him what hell is like once they arrive long before his children will.

Syrinx2112 06-10-2013 10:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Halfspin (Post 59935914)
{pun intended}


In response to a monument showing the 10 commandments at Florida courthouse the American Atheists file a lawsuit. They lost the case on grounds of free speech so they sought permission and will be installing their own 3/4 ton monument [Gainsville [gainesville.com]]

This is the first atheist monument in the country and they focus on bashing Christianity. Does such intolerance have a legitimate place in our society?


Odd how the truth and facts always "bash" Christianity...

And one has to laugh at Christians whining about "bashing" considering they have been doing that and worse for the past 2000 years. It's long overdue that they get a taste of their own medicine and brought down from the pedastal they've placed themselves upon.

Oh, and I'm not an Atheist.

Syrinx2112 06-10-2013 10:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Halfspin (Post 59937724)
The 10 commandments represent one of the first codifications of law.

The ten commandments aren't even a decent set of laws. Most of them are religious nonsense requiring one to kiss the arse of a specific deity. Obvious has no place in a nation based on secular principles and freedom of worship/religion. The only two commandments that are remotely relevant are not to kill and not to steal, and laws concerning those predate the Bible by millenia.

Quote:

You probably don't like it, but judeo-christian values formed the foundation of western law.
No, they didn't. Our laws are based on those of pagan Greece and Rome.
Sorry!

Syrinx2112 06-10-2013 10:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by darkfrog (Post 59938002)
Every time I hear or read this I ask,"which values in particular?"
yet never seem to get an honest, coherent answer. First you would have to demonstrate that the values are indeed Judeo-Xian before demonstrating where they are enshrined in our law.

Me too, especially considering that Christians had hated and persecuted the Jews for for most of Christianity's existence, culminating with the holocaust. And even to the present day in some Christian denominations/sub cults.

It seems these so-called "Christian values" are just secular/humanist values that Christians have hijacked like they have all the other truly moral/non-religious values this secular nation was founded upon.

darkfrog 06-10-2013 11:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Syrinx2112 (Post 59996660)
Me too, especially considering that Christians had hated and persecuted the Jews for for most of Christianity's existence, culminating with the holocaust. And even to the present day in some Christian denominations/sub cults.

It seems these so-called "Christian values" are just secular/humanist values that Christians have hijacked like they have all the other truly moral/non-religious values this secular nation was founded upon.

If you notice, I still didn't get an answer even in this thread. All I received in response was references to Blackstone's Commentary. This is how it usually goes, someone uses argument from authority or other fallacious reasoning, while I point out that a US based on religious values would be a very different place than what we actually experience.

The very notion of freedom of religion is a violation of the very first Commandment. But, like most of their arguments, the Xians like to cherry pick their 'evidence.'

Syrinx2112 06-10-2013 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by darkfrog (Post 59998060)
The very notion of freedom of religion is a violation of the very first Commandment. But, like most of their arguments, the Xians like to cherry pick their 'evidence.'

Yep, and Freedom of speech certainly isn't a Biblical or Christian value. Equality of women isn't. Abolition of slavery isn't. In fact pretty much ALL of the rights and freedoms we enjoy have been won in direct conflict with Christian/biblical principles and values.

JackHandey 06-10-2013 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bonkman (Post 59990756)
cite needed

It's prima facie, you're picking nits.

bonkman 06-10-2013 06:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JackHandey (Post 60007410)
It's prima facie, you're picking nits.

not in the slightest.

Up until recently, society changed very slowly. How the living generation behaved was basically identical to how the one before behaved.

Rebound 06-11-2013 12:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EL_Champo (Post 59937126)
It torments them that everyone else doesn't agree with them.

Are you referring to the Christians or the atheists?

JackHandey 06-11-2013 03:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bonkman (Post 60008340)
not in the slightest.

Up until recently, society changed very slowly. How the living generation behaved was basically identical to how the one before behaved.

Untrue. Society has been changing fairly rapidly since the beginning of industrialization, socioeconomically. However, the greater impact came with more women working and the greater need for a two income household and/or a greater prevalence of single parents, both through a greater frequency of children born out of wedlock and divorce happening with greater frequency.

I suppose it could boil down to what you define as "recent"... But, I believe the greatest amount of social decay began about 50 years ago.

cborder 06-11-2013 03:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Syrinx2112 (Post 59996660)
Quote from darkfrog :Every time I hear or read this I ask,"which values in particular?"
yet never seem to get an honest, coherent answer. First you would have to demonstrate that the values are indeed Judeo-Xian before demonstrating where they are enshrined in our law.




Me too, especially considering that Christians had hated and persecuted the Jews for for most of Christianity's existence, culminating with the holocaust. And even to the present day in some Christian denominations/sub cults.

It seems these so-called "Christian values" are just secular/humanist values that Christians have hijacked like they have all the other truly moral/non-religious values this secular nation was founded upon.

Nice summation of the OP's thread in your last sentence. They're simply trying to assign ownership of morals to their entire belief system by posting this as some originating source thus the use of stone tablets which infers that it was created at the onset of enlightenment. Thus, diluting this implied "mesage" that there wouldn't be law without religion is absolutely a fair and appropriate use of free speech.

xveganrox 06-11-2013 05:52 PM

What on earth are the ten commandments doing at a *courthouse* in the first place? American Sharia Law much?

MrWD 06-12-2013 01:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xveganrox (Post 60035878)
What on earth are the ten commandments doing at a *courthouse* in the first place? American Sharia Law much?

"Because murica was found and based on Christian values! God is great!"

vivahate 06-12-2013 04:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrWD (Post 60055862)
"Because murica was found and based on Christian values! God is great!"

"and you'd be a fool, or a communist, to disagree"

bridgeburner 06-12-2013 04:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vivahate (Post 60060342)
"and you'd be a fool, or a communist, to disagree"


Don't forget persecuting their religion.

cheap_bastid 06-14-2013 09:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JackHandey (Post 59984664)
With each generation, the parents become less involved in the raising of their children... So, it's not hard to imagine why we have each generation respecting their elders less.

Really?

Just a hundred years ago we had slavery, kids marrying at the ripe old age of 15, women with no rights to vote or education or career.

I think we sure have devolved as a society with each new generation. Shocking...

Religion is the biggest pyramid scam ever set on mankind. Now we have enlightened muslims who are trying to prevent girls from going to school in the middle east, catholics who spend billions of hours each Sunday worshipping a non-provable deity instead of using that time to do community service or some other positive activity.

I grew up religiously, was baptized, but I see how shallow religion really is and how many people are brainwashed to spew nonsense.

MrWD 06-14-2013 09:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cheap_bastid (Post 60100556)
Really?

Just a hundred years ago we had slavery, kids marrying at the ripe old age of 15, women with no rights to vote or education or career.

I think we sure have devolved as a society with each new generation. Shocking...

Religion is the biggest pyramid scam ever set on mankind. Now we have enlightened muslims who are trying to prevent girls from going to school in the middle east, catholics who spend billions of hours each Sunday worshipping a non-provable deity instead of using that time to do community service or some other positive activity.

I grew up religiously, was baptized, but I see how shallow religion really is and how many people are brainwashed to spew nonsense.

In a sense, it seems like many of them are religious for selfish reasons without even realizing it.

But not all are like them. I was fortunate enough to meet a pastor and his church who have been helping the local homeless with food, clothes, and a place to stay on a weekly basis. He made it explicitly clear that he does not want to have a church just to play church. He wants to focus on helping the less fortunate, rather than waste time on matters like, say, the boy scout's policies.

Speaking of a "devolving generation;" getting rid of TV shows that negatively influence the younger generations would be a good start. haha

JackHandey 06-14-2013 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cheap_bastid (Post 60100556)
Really?

Just a hundred years ago we had slavery, kids marrying at the ripe old age of 15, women with no rights to vote or education or career.

I not denying there have been some improvements, but there have also been some new things added that are problematic. Slavery did end over 100 years ago, though.

I'm not against women having the option to choose to have a career over being a stay at home mom, but we should not have a culture that requires both parents to work in order to support children. In fact, I'm not even suggesting that it should always be the mother that stays home with the children. But, at least one of the parents should be able to stay at home and raise the children. The fact that that is pretty rarely the option, and combined with how prevalent divorce has become, has resulted in a very strong trend of social decay.

Quote:

Religion is the biggest pyramid scam ever set on mankind. Now we have enlightened muslims who are trying to prevent girls from going to school in the middle east, catholics who spend billions of hours each Sunday worshipping a non-provable deity instead of using that time to do community service or some other positive activity.
I am against organized religion, as that has long been both a political entity and a money making scam for quite some time. However, it has also been a very strong tool to modify behavior in some very positive ways. Now, if we have evolved beyond that tool, we need to find something to replace it to instill moral values. Religion is assuredly not a bed of roses, and it does have some very strong inherent flaws... The problem is, we have not come up with something suitable enough to replace its role.

I say this as an atheist.

Quote:

I grew up religiously, was baptized, but I see how shallow religion really is and how many people are brainwashed to spew nonsense.
Religion is less the problem, than it is a tool that has been warped and abused over the years by men and women with an agenda... Like any political tool. A tool itself is amoral, and is only as great or horrible as the one who wields it allows it to be.

vivahate 06-14-2013 10:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JackHandey (Post 60101608)
I am against organized religion, as that has long been both a political entity and a money making scam for quite some time.

It's been a political entity since day 1.

JackHandey 06-14-2013 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vivahate (Post 60101906)
It's been a political entity since day 1.

But, it does not have to be. A person can believe in a deity, and worship that deity... And observe the dogma that comes along with it... Without being a part of an organized religion. The problem is, that doesn't happen anywhere near often enough.

MrWD 06-15-2013 01:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JackHandey (Post 60102996)
But, it does not have to be. A person can believe in a deity, and worship that deity... And observe the dogma that comes along with it... Without being a part of an organized religion. The problem is, that doesn't happen anywhere near often enough.

If the being above would send a clear message to his believers, that would be nice.

JackHandey 06-15-2013 05:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrWD (Post 60115806)
If the being above would send a clear message to his believers, that would be nice.

lol that is a bit optimistic.

EscapeVelo 06-25-2013 04:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vivahate (Post 59937150)
I think you already know it's to demonstrate that the bible has no place in the legal system.

But quoting something verbatim is not bashing it.

Actually it is a core basis of common law in European Christian nation states...even still to this day.

EscapeVelo 06-25-2013 04:47 PM

Anyways, the Mohammadeans, already destroyed the Peace of Westphalia. The next century is sure to be very lively.

vivahate 06-26-2013 05:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EscapeVelo (Post 60332406)
Actually it is a core basis of common law in European Christian nation states...even still to this day.

Not in Great Britain which is the basis of US common law

lemontart68 06-26-2013 09:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JackHandey (Post 60102996)
But, it does not have to be. A person can believe in a deity, and worship that deity... And observe the dogma that comes along with it... Without being a part of an organized religion. The problem is, that doesn't happen anywhere near often enough.

You'd be surprised, a lot of Christians are running from the scam that is organized religion...I've been out for years. Problem is, you don't hear about us in the news mainly because it would shatter the stereotype. We don't want dominion, we don't want to control anything or anyone, we simply want to follow Christ. Hard to pull us into politics when we are apolitical.

MrWD 06-26-2013 09:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lemontart68 (Post 60345888)
You'd be surprised, a lot of Christians are running from the scam that is organized religion...I've been out for years. Problem is, you don't hear about us in the news mainly because it would shatter the stereotype. We don't want dominion, we don't want to control anything or anyone, we simply want to follow Christ. Hard to pull us into politics when we are apolitical.

Do you get weird looks or surprises when you answer the question "so, which church do you call home?"

lemontart68 06-26-2013 09:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrWD (Post 60346496)
Do you get weird looks or surprises when you answer the question "so, which church do you call home?"

I tell them my church is here:

Hebrews 8
1 Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens; 2 A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man.

I encourage them to read the Didascalia that set up this system, that it wasn't based on scripture at all.

That is, if they don't condemn me to hell and walk away. :lol:

MrWD 07-01-2013 02:14 PM

http://news.msn.com/us/atheists-u...=ansnews11

Looks like the monument was erected over the weekend.

bridgeburner 07-01-2013 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrWD (Post 60446196)
http://news.msn.com/us/atheists-u...=ansnews11

Looks like the monument was erected over the weekend.

The pictures on that article are awesome. I like the one where the pastor thinks he has the moral highground even though he's holding a confederate flag. :lmao:

jplayland 07-01-2013 04:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Halfspin (Post 59937592)
If that was their point then why not include a few good quotes from the Quran?

Florida

Protestant, 40%
Baptist, 9%
Methodist, 6%
Pentecostal, 3%
Roman Catholic, 26%
Jewish, 3%
other religions, 3%
non-religious, 16%

I'm guessing a target audience of less than 3% wasn't attractive enough.

jplayland 07-01-2013 04:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kharvel (Post 59939794)
The more important question to ask is:

What if the Zoroastrians, Buddhists, Hindus, Wiccans, and Jedis want to enact their own monument on the same land and there is not enough room to accommodate all of them?

Should the government choose which religion can build monuments on government land? One way around that is a lottery system whilst all religions have equal chance of landing a spot for their respective monument on the government land. Would that be acceptable to all?

I'm cool with it. I would prefer the none of the above option, but fair is fair. I have a feeling there would be a lot of peeved religious people from all religions when their religion didn't get picked, especially if it's one of the more common religions (christianity.)

vivahate 07-01-2013 05:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jplayland (Post 60447434)
Florida

Protestant, 40%
Baptist, 9%
Methodist, 6%
Pentecostal, 3%
Roman Catholic, 26%
Jewish, 3%
other religions, 3%
non-religious, 16%

I'm guessing a target audience of less than 3% wasn't attractive enough.

Unless I'm high, those add up to 106% Who are the people who cross multiple categories?

jplayland 07-01-2013 05:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vivahate (Post 60448824)
Unless I'm high, those add up to 106% Who are the people who cross multiple categories?

Got to love wikipedia huh. The point remains the same, my source sucks, but my point is valid.

Danman114 07-01-2013 06:44 PM

Can someone please explain the symbol of a letter A surrounded by electrons?

Do Atheists think this somehow differentiates themselves from those who believe in a god because they are aware of subatomic particles and the alphabet?

vaultaddict 07-01-2013 07:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danman114 (Post 60449832)
Can someone please explain the symbol of a letter A surrounded by electrons?

Do Atheists think this somehow differentiates themselves from those who believe in a god because they are aware of subatomic particles and the alphabet?


http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_whirl

darkfrog 07-01-2013 07:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danman114 (Post 60449832)
Can someone please explain the symbol of a letter A surrounded by electrons?

Do Atheists think this somehow differentiates themselves from those who believe in a god because they are aware of subatomic particles and the alphabet?

An international symbol for Atheism has long been needed. When American Atheists was formed in 1963, a contemporary scientific symbol was chosen; this acknowledges that only through the use of scientific analysis and free, open inquiry can humankind reach out for a better life.

Recognizing the new atomic era, but also emphasizing the truths of older scientific findings, the atomic whirl was chosen. The atom is still a distinguishing unit of all matter, the smallest particle of an element that can exist and still retain the properties of that element.

You may notice that one of the orbital in our symbol is broken, or open-ended. This demonstrates that while Atheists rely on the scientific method for learning about the cosmos and increasing our knowledge about nature, we know that not all of the answers are in. We recognize that with new knowledge come new questions and areas for human inquiry and exploration.

That open orbital forms an "A" to represent Atheism.

The American Atheists Logo is a copyrighted. Permission is hereby granted to all who wish to use the logo for any reason other than to defame. For example: tatoos, gravestones, and billboards are acceptable and encouraged, but you may not distort or modify the logo in such a way as to make it negative or inflammatory.
http://www.atheists.org/about-us/logo

skiman 07-01-2013 07:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danman114 (Post 60449832)
Can someone please explain the symbol of a letter A surrounded by electrons?

Do Atheists think this somehow differentiates themselves from those who believe in a god because they are aware of subatomic particles and the alphabet?

Why are Christians obsessed with the letter "t"?

jplayland 07-01-2013 07:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Halfspin (Post 59937066)
Why would an atheist group, that fights tooth and nail to remove the 10 commandments from the public square suddenly have an affinity for the Bible? Hint: tolerance is not the answer.

I am an atheist.

I'm not the type who cares to convert others. I don't care what you believe as long as you don't impose it upon me. Religous items on public property feels like yet another subtle attempt to brainwash or reinforce brainwashing. I was well brainwashed at CYC (Catholic Youth Camp, in McGregor, MN when I was in 6th grade. It took about a year before I came to the conclusion that I didn't really believe, that there was too much that didn't add up. During that year I was running around acting (in my opinion) like a fool, trying to save everyone. I feel like if I had a few less IQ points I may not have overcome it.

You don't have to agree with me, you just need to realize this is a valid perspective.

Some Athiests, like Christian missionaries, feel a need to enlighen other as to the "truth". It's no different than a Christian wanting to save your soul by accepting Jesus. Some Athiests want to free your mind instead.

There is no way to sell Atheism like other religions, it isn't built atop things that make you feel warm and fuzzy. There is no great reward like heaven. There is no threat of eternal damnation or anything of the like. When you die that is it, it's over, nothing more, sound like a good sales pitch? No, well that may be a hint that it's likely to be true. The best sales pitch options for Atheism are: Evidence against other religions, compare god to magic, compare current religion to mythology (aka old religions), and show all the smart people who agree with you.

If they had the option of saying something warm, fuzzy, and true to sell it, they would. But the key is, it must be true, we don't brainwash.

You can see why they are doing what they are doing if you look at it through their eyes, hopefully I helped you do so.

Danman114 07-01-2013 07:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vaultaddict (Post 60450074)

Uh oh, that doesn't match the statue.

http://newsbcpcol.stb.s-msn.com/amne...rue_lfalse.jpg

I do prefer the Wiki symbol to the monument. It doesn't give the impression that the electrons are floating around the letter 'A'.

Quote:

Originally Posted by darkfrog (Post 60450114)
An international symbol for Atheism has long been needed.

Do atheists really believe this?

Quote:

Originally Posted by darkfrog (Post 60450114)
The American Atheists Logo is a copyrighted. Permission is hereby granted to all who wish to use the logo for any reason other than to defame. For example: tatoos, gravestones, and billboards are acceptable and encouraged, but you may not distort or modify the logo in such a way as to make it negative or inflammatory.
http://www.atheists.org/about-us/logo

I'm surprised this is real. It's almost comical.

I would think on of the first people to point out the ridiculousness of Muslims taking such offense to people drawing degrading versions of their prophet would be this group, yet here they are copyrighting their symbol and attempting to deny others right to portray it 'negative' or 'inflammatory'. Way to take the high road.

Quote:

Originally Posted by skiman (Post 60450220)
Why are Christians obsessed with the letter "t"?

I don't believe all are. Which is why I think it's funny all atheists need a symbol.

vaultaddict 07-01-2013 07:48 PM

those atheists speak for all of us now?

I never got a vote.

jplayland 07-01-2013 07:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danman114 (Post 60450336)
Do atheists really believe this?

No, we don't need our own version of a crucifix.

But it may be helpful in starting/raising money for a legal support organization for Athiests. Much like other small religious groups and minorities have.

You guys need to get better about putting yourselves in other peoples shoes. It shouldn't be hard to figure out why Athiests do things, it's usually the same reason religion did it first.

TRNT 07-02-2013 05:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jplayland (Post 60450264)
I am an atheist.

I'm not the type who cares to convert others. I don't care what you believe as long as you don't impose it upon me. Religous items on public property feels like yet another subtle attempt to brainwash or reinforce brainwashing. I was well brainwashed at CYC (Catholic Youth Camp, in McGregor, MN when I was in 6th grade. It took about a year before I came to the conclusion that I didn't really believe, that there was too much that didn't add up. During that year I was running around acting (in my opinion) like a fool, trying to save everyone. I feel like if I had a few less IQ points I may not have overcome it.

You don't have to agree with me, you just need to realize this is a valid perspective.

Some Athiests, like Christian missionaries, feel a need to enlighen other as to the "truth". It's no different than a Christian wanting to save your soul by accepting Jesus. Some Athiests want to free your mind instead.

There is no way to sell Atheism like other religions, it isn't built atop things that make you feel warm and fuzzy. There is no great reward like heaven. There is no threat of eternal damnation or anything of the like. When you die that is it, it's over, nothing more, sound like a good sales pitch? No, well that may be a hint that it's likely to be true. The best sales pitch options for Atheism are: Evidence against other religions, compare god to magic, compare current religion to mythology (aka old religions), and show all the smart people who agree with you.

If they had the option of saying something warm, fuzzy, and true to sell it, they would. But the key is, it must be true, we don't brainwash.

You can see why they are doing what they are doing if you look at it through their eyes, hopefully I helped you do so.

I mostly agree except for the symmetry that you imply. Christianity (true or false) is based on faith. Atheism (true or false) is based on reason and observation, evaluation, analysis, and conclusion.

However, I agree Christians and followers of other religions rights to believe in whatever they want should be respected.

TRNT 07-02-2013 05:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jplayland (Post 60450864)
You guys need to get better about putting yourselves in other peoples shoes. It shouldn't be hard to figure out why Athiests do things, it's usually the same reason religion did it first.

It seems you have a shoe fetish.

I keed I keed.

:lol:

Halfspin 07-02-2013 06:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jplayland (Post 60450264)
I am an atheist.

I'm not the type who cares to convert others. I don't care what you believe as long as you don't impose it upon me. Religous items on public property feels like yet another subtle attempt to brainwash or reinforce brainwashing. I was well brainwashed at CYC (Catholic Youth Camp, in McGregor, MN when I was in 6th grade. It took about a year before I came to the conclusion that I didn't really believe, that there was too much that didn't add up. During that year I was running around acting (in my opinion) like a fool, trying to save everyone. I feel like if I had a few less IQ points I may not have overcome it.

You don't have to agree with me, you just need to realize this is a valid perspective.

Some Athiests, like Christian missionaries, feel a need to enlighen other as to the "truth". It's no different than a Christian wanting to save your soul by accepting Jesus. Some Athiests want to free your mind instead.

There is no way to sell Atheism like other religions, it isn't built atop things that make you feel warm and fuzzy. There is no great reward like heaven. There is no threat of eternal damnation or anything of the like. When you die that is it, it's over, nothing more, sound like a good sales pitch? No, well that may be a hint that it's likely to be true. The best sales pitch options for Atheism are: Evidence against other religions, compare god to magic, compare current religion to mythology (aka old religions), and show all the smart people who agree with you.

If they had the option of saying something warm, fuzzy, and true to sell it, they would. But the key is, it must be true, we don't brainwash.

You can see why they are doing what they are doing if you look at it through their eyes, hopefully I helped you do so.

I think this is the most positive response to my original question. I guess it is the difference between Atheists and humanists.

Do you really think that Atheists have nothing positive to say? That they can only define themselves by negation?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jplayland (Post 60450864)
No, we don't need our own version of a crucifix.

But it may be helpful in starting/raising money for a legal support organization for Athiests. Much like other small religious groups and minorities have.

You guys need to get better about putting yourselves in other peoples shoes. It shouldn't be hard to figure out why Athiests do things, it's usually the same reason religion did it first.

But that is my point. The goals of the two monuments are different. One is a monument dedicated to culture (religious culture) and an historical event. The other is a monument against that culture that tries to demonize that historical event.
The Atheists built the monument "against the Christian monument". I can understand that an Atheist may feel the 10 commandment monument is against them and this is pay back. But I don't think that you can argue the spirit of the monument placements are at all similar.

jplayland 07-02-2013 07:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TRNT (Post 60455722)
Atheism (true or false) is based on reason and observation, evaluation, analysis, and conclusion.

Yes and no. There is still a belief component for many of us. Many of the conclusions are jumped to, an educated guess at best, and if we want it to be true, it becomes a belief, some we build strong emotions around. I have my own personal theory of everything (big bang variant), it has become a belief to me.

I see the difference between Religion and Athiesm as being, that R is derived from historical stories/books and A is derived from current scientific knowledge. Our beliefs grow and change as we learn, religion changes it's beliefs much more slowly, and usually only when they are challenged by reality/proof.

MrWD 07-02-2013 07:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danman114 (Post 60450336)
Uh oh, that doesn't match the statue.

http://newsbcpcol.stb.s-msn.com/amne...rue_lfalse.jpg

I do prefer the Wiki symbol to the monument. It doesn't give the impression that the electrons are floating around the letter 'A'.


Danman... The Wiki source states that the "A" stands for "America"...

"The symbol contains an upper case "A" that denotes the country that the organization represents, in this case, America."

Sigh... This is why...

jplayland 07-02-2013 07:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Halfspin (Post 60456044)
I think this is the most positive response to my original question. I guess it is the difference between Atheists and humanists.

Do you really think that Atheists have nothing positive to say? That they can only define themselves by negation?

I don't think we want to define ourselves. Atheist literally and simply means we do not believe in a god. After that, we don't nessarrily share any other beliefs, morals, ... It's not a religion, what I have been saying in my previous posts is that many of us build our own beliefs, our own personal religion. It's not a group thing like normal organized religion.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Halfspin (Post 60456044)
But that is my point. The goals of the two monuments are different. One is a monument dedicated to culture (religious culture) and an historical event. The other is a monument against that culture that tries to demonize that historical event.
The Atheists built the monument "against the Christian monument". I can understand that an Atheist may feel the 10 commandment monument is against them and this is pay back. But I don't think that you can argue the spirit of the monument placements are at all similar.

I'm not sure I'm going to agree with the purpose/dedication of the Christian monument. I can and will admit that the Athiest monument is simply a counter to the Christian monument. I believe the Christian monument is about pushing the faith, getting converts, and reinforcing the faith in existing Christians. It's a reminder that you must believe or burn, be good or burn. This is why Athiests would want to counter it.

I would be happiest if we did not allow any new religious references on public property, existing ones can stay as they are now historical.

Danman114 07-02-2013 08:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrWD (Post 60457904)
Danman... The Wiki source states that the "A" stands for "America"...

"The symbol contains an upper case "A" that denotes the country that the organization represents, in this case, America."

Sigh... This is why...

Is there are reason for differentiating by country?

I would imagine being an atheist in Hungary would get a little weird when your symbol looks like someone is drawing a Hydrogen atom with too many electrons flying around it. :lol:

MrWD 07-02-2013 08:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danman114 (Post 60458258)
Is there are reason for differentiating by country?

I would imagine being an atheist in Hungary would get a little weird when your symbol looks like someone is drawing a Hydrogen atom with too many electrons flying around it. :lol:

Please tell me that is not a serious question. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that is not a serious question. Cool?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jplayland (Post 60450864)
No, we don't need our own version of a crucifix.

But it may be helpful in starting/raising money for a legal support organization for Athiests. Much like other small religious groups and minorities have.

You guys need to get better about putting yourselves in other peoples shoes. It shouldn't be hard to figure out why Athiests do things, it's usually the same reason religion did it first.

Sigh... Yeah, they should think more.

MrWD 07-02-2013 08:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Halfspin (Post 60456044)
But I don't think that you can argue the spirit of the monument placements are at all similar.

Eh, apparently, that's subjective.

Danman114 07-02-2013 09:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrWD (Post 60458524)
Please tell me that is not a serious question. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that is not a serious question. Cool?

No, I was sincerely wondering if thought on atheism varied by country or perhaps region?

Do certain regions have certain ideas concerning it? Certainly they have different struggles with recognition, and in may cases I imagine civil rights, but is there more to it? I don't really 'get' the idea of breaking down something like an atheism group down by country otherwise?

darkfrog 07-02-2013 09:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danman114 (Post 60459594)
No, I was sincerely wondering if thought on atheism varied by country or perhaps region?

Do certain regions have certain ideas concerning it? Certainly they have different struggles with recognition, and in may cases I imagine civil rights, but is there more to it? I don't really 'get' the idea of breaking down something like an atheism group down by country otherwise?

I gave you a link to their website. Asking these questions sound like trolling IMO. This is the symbol of the AMERICAN Atheists organization. What more are you really trying to ask?

Danman114 07-02-2013 09:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by darkfrog (Post 60459630)
I gave you a link to their website. Asking these questions sound like trolling IMO. This is the symbol of the AMERICAN Atheists organization. What more are you really trying to ask?

atheists.org seems to be just for American Atheists, right?

Look, there are different sects of Christianity, all I'm asking is if there are different (competing?) schools of thought on atheism. Why have a group just for AMERICAN atheists?

Xygonn 07-02-2013 09:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bridgeburner (Post 60446874)
The pictures on that article are awesome. I like the one where the pastor thinks he has the moral highground even though he's holding a confederate flag. :lmao:

Amazingly, it's an ACTUAL confederate flag on not the one normally bandied about by rednecks.

MrWD 07-02-2013 09:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danman114 (Post 60459876)
atheists.org seems to be just for American Atheists, right?

Look, there are different sects of Christianity, all I'm asking is if there are different (competing?) schools of thought on atheism. Why have a group just for AMERICAN atheists?

Danman... Just because there are different sects of Christianity, does not mean by default that there are different sects for everything else... Just because the followers within your religion don't agree with each other -- thus resulting in different thoughts -- does not by default mean that Atheism would have the same makeup. Please consider thinking outside of the Christian bubble.

Just think of it this way: "American" Atheist is just an organization created by a group of people in the US -- much like the American Red Cross. You're over thinking the American part.

Danman114 07-02-2013 10:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrWD (Post 60460790)
Danman... Just because there are different sects of Christianity, does not mean by default that there are different sects for everything else... Just because the followers within your religion don't agree with each other -- thus resulting in different thoughts -- does not by default mean that Atheism would have the same makeup. Please consider thinking outside of the Christian bubble.

Just think of it this way: "American" Atheist is just an organization created by a group of people in the US -- much like the American Red Cross. You're over thinking the American part.

It's not just the Christian bubble. In areas that have wide ranging areas of thought such as philosophy or economics there can be different schools of thought.

God forbid groups of like-minded atheists have disagreements internally about their own unique view of spirituality.

Xygonn 07-02-2013 10:20 AM

I do think there are different brands of atheism. At the very least you have "agnostic atheists" and "gnostic atheists". I don't think I can disprove the existence of God(s). However, I'm not going to believe in him(them) just because I cannot disprove it.

One of the simplest arguments for atheism is that there are so many religions. If each religion believes that the other several religions are wrong, an atheist just believes that if the majority of everyone disbelieves every other religion, it makes sense to just disbelieve all religions.

The religious often pose a sort of counter argument to atheism that "most people believe in some religion". The reality though is that the majority of people believe the majority of religions are wrong. This is what religious war is about too.

bridgeburner 07-02-2013 10:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danman114 (Post 60461166)
It's not just the Christian bubble. In areas that have wide ranging areas of thought such as philosophy or economics there can be different schools of thought.

God forbid groups of like-minded atheists have disagreements internally about their own unique view of spirituality.

But there's nothing for most atheists to disagree about wrt: atheism. If we disagree, it's about stuff that has nothing to do with atheism. Like science or philosophy or sports teams. These are things normal human beings disagree about. Atheism doesn't have any rules or laws or a moral framework for people to create different sects over. Being an atheist just means you don't believe in any religions. Anything else anyone adds on top of that is its own thing. Like Secular Humanism or stuff like that.

jplayland 07-02-2013 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danman114 (Post 60459876)
atheists.org seems to be just for American Atheists, right?

Look, there are different sects of Christianity, all I'm asking is if there are different (competing?) schools of thought on atheism. Why have a group just for AMERICAN atheists?

Stop thinking of Athiesm as a religion. It's not like that. Athiesm is simply not believing in any god. There are no other shared beliefs. There is no physical meeting place on Sunday or any other day of the week, month, year.

These groups are more about lobbying congress and pushing back against the local religions. It makes sense for them to be divided geographically for this reason.

darkfrog 07-02-2013 12:29 PM

There is HUGE disagreement currently within the Atheism Plus movement. Atheism+ was created to apply the same sorts of critical thinking that led people to atheism and apply it to social justice issues.

Just goes to show you that atheists can have their own internal struggles when they attempt to get together over things that have nothing to do with disbelief in gods.

Xygonn 07-02-2013 01:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by darkfrog (Post 60464764)
There is HUGE disagreement currently within the Atheism Plus movement. Atheism+ was created to apply the same sorts of critical thinking that led people to atheism and apply it to social justice issues.

Just goes to show you that atheists can have their own internal struggles when they attempt to get together over things that have nothing to do with disbelief in gods.

It'll be just like South Park, the United Atheist League, the United Atheist Alliance, and the Allied Atheist Allegiance battling for power, all the while exclaiming "Oh my science!"

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-V3IRay2hco...o/s320/st6.jpg

vivahate 07-02-2013 02:45 PM

SPLITTERS

http://forbiddenplanet.co.uk/blog/wp...of%20Brian.jpg

dynamite 07-11-2013 07:00 AM

Cannot wait for the day when we have enough information to create universes in our labs and those eventual inhabitants refer to us as gods. I created your home now you must worship me.....best ego trip ever!

SigX 07-11-2013 06:08 PM

how about the "hail satan" chanters at the rally in texas.... mega-trolls.

Halfspin 07-12-2013 09:06 AM

1 Attachment(s)
Quote:

Originally Posted by SigX (Post 60640766)
how about the "hail satan" chanters at the rally in texas.... mega-trolls.

This response by the UK chapter [lifenews.com] is interesting. Did they intend the pun?
http://slickdeals.net/forums/attachm...4&d=1373645139

kharvel 07-12-2013 10:34 AM

Why is this always about Christians vs. Atheists?

Why can't the Buddhists and the Zoroastrians get involved?

bridgeburner 07-12-2013 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Halfspin (Post 60651332)

Wait what? "what satanism doesn't represent"? It's satanism... you're either worshiping the personification of all evil and suffering or you're not REALLY a satanist...

Xygonn 07-12-2013 11:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bridgeburner (Post 60654098)
Wait what? "what satanism doesn't represent"? It's satanism... you're either worshiping the personification of all evil and suffering or you're not REALLY a satanist...

Modern Satanism is really about hedonism and embracing carnal pleasure in this life.

trancepire 07-12-2013 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xygonn (Post 60654280)
Modern Satanism is really about hedonism and embracing carnal pleasure in this life.

In that case, they're the Church of Misnomers.

Xygonn 07-12-2013 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by trancepire (Post 60656702)
In that case, they're the Church of Misnomers.

I would argue it's not as bad as "Scientology".

ETA: http://modernsatanismuk.moonfruit...4547433030

Frogstar 07-12-2013 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xygonn (Post 60654280)
Modern Satanism is really about hedonism and embracing carnal pleasure in this life.

:iagree:
They're atheists that like to have a good time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by trancepire (Post 60656702)
In that case, they're the Church of Misnomers.

It stands as an active rejection of Christian ideology. Also, to piss off the squares.

trancepire 07-12-2013 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xygonn (Post 60656998)
I would argue it's not as bad as "Scientology".

True!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xygonn (Post 60656998)

I wonder why they did the creepy music thing.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:38 AM.


1999-2014