Atheists Call 9-11 Memorial Cross "Grossly Offensive"

[Retro Rob]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks

You didn't understand my question, maybe.

Saying "theists" are flying planes into building is like saying "scientists" are building and manufacturing nukes.

Nineteen hijackers aren't "theists", in the sense that theists as a whole, which you are dishonestly implying, fly planes into buildings.

Terrorists are flying planes into buildings, not "theists".

 

[Sunburn74]

At the end of the day, it goes back to the symbol for me. People are quietly ok with bibles and crosses slipped into national monuments, but are not ok with korans, crescents, star of davids, and menorahs slipped into them because its not "your religious symbol". The presence of a religious symbol on a public monument is oppressive to the people who don't believe in them.

All the other talk you guys are having about who is morally right and whether religion is needed to be amoral person has honestly been long solved by philosophers for thousands of years. Throwing a divine being into you ethics doesn't solve or improve any of the major fundamental ethical problems we face.

It doesn't change the issue of free will and whether my decisions are truly ethical conscious ones or not.

It doesn't tell you what the right thing to do in a lot of situations
1) Can I break a law I feel is morally wrong or am I forced ethically to follow the law of the land (ie nazi's are persecuting jews, should I hide jews, turn on my country, fight the nazis, etc or simply go along with it)
2) Should I always act in the same unified moral fashion. Should I always for example tell the truth [nazi's are at the door asking for jews to torture and I have ann frank upstairs who has put her trust in me, should I turn her in to the government officials?]
3) Is it ok for me to live in wealth when I know people around me or even across the world live in suffering? Most of you would say yes, but honestly does the bible actually answer this question for you (if anything it points away what is the general consensus today;the whole eye of the needle argument jesus put out and the apostles given their bodies to be burned is really against what is taught in today's mega churches)

In fact, the ethical problems we face on a daily basis are so deep and complex and not assisted in anyway by religion, that philosophers have mostly resigned themselves to just trying to define what the basic question is, let alone answer it (ie what does it mean to be good, to be just, to be happy, what is the good life, etc?). these days they are down to just definings single words: good, happy, justice, etc

I personally have issues with major assumption that God is "good". This is a HUGE assumption. How do you know that the divine being in the universe isn't a bad being, telling people to live good lives of sacrifice and suffering for fun, giving them all challenges that tire and destroy them, and throwing them into hell anyway despite promising the possibility of heaven. People who are bad lie all the time: rapists tell victims sweet promises all the time. He says "I won't shoot you in the head if you go along with what I say and do what I want. I'm a good guy. Just do what I say, follow my rules, and you'll get through this and will see better days when its all said and done" and then they shoot you in the head anyway because they are BAD people. We assume rapists are bad and know not to believe them. We accept that the devil is bad. What evidence do you have that God is not fundamentally bad and not to be believed regardless of the sweet promises he offers (ie he's throwing people into hell regardless so you might as well enjoy the time you have here and make your own moral code). If anything the greeks had it right because they basically thought all their gods to be good and bad and very fickle, and simply followed the guy who had the best interest for them as best as they could figure out. That makes a little more sense to me, though its all still pretty crazy.

 

[child of wonder]

You didn't understand my question, maybe.

Saying "theists" are flying planes into building is like saying "scientists" are building and manufacturing nukes.

Nineteen hijackers aren't "theists", in the sense that theists as a whole, which you are dishonestly implying, fly planes into buildings.

Terrorists are flying planes into buildings, not "theists".

Do you think they would have gone through with the suicide attack if Islamic mullahs hadn't assured them they'd go straight to paradise after they died?

 

[Retro Rob]

Do you think they would have gone through with the suicide attack if Islamic mullahs hadn't assured them they'd go straight to paradise after they died?

I will answer this question with a question:

Why is it, for instance, when even a small group of extremists commit some sort of mass killing, people say "theists are murders", but conversely, when Churches open hospitals, people don't say "theists show kindness"?

When religion does something "bad", we use the broad term religion"....but if religion does good things, we call them "good people"?

So they're theist only when a fool detonates a suicide vest, but good people when millions of them help others.

 

[Juddog]

I read your words here.
You're saying that Rob is interpreting the bible incorrectly so you must know how to interpret it correctly.

I was pointing out the internal inconsistency of his own logic. I guess logic is too hard for you to understand, so I'll break it down into a childlike sentence:

"he doesn't practice what he preaches"

 

[Darwin333]

Education remedies ignorance (not directed at you).

I found it unconscionable until I bothered to do something called "research" and understood the social structures of the time.

What does "the time" have to do with an all knowing all powerful being? Why in the world would he be limited to the social structures of the time versus his far more enlightened social structure?

Matter of fact, according to people who believe the same as you (you haven't said it so I will give you the benefit of the doubt) but god knew damn well that after creating adam and eave that thousands of years later humanity would be doing unconscionable things. What kind of omnipotent being fucks up that bad?

You give me the power that god supposedly has and I can fix most if not all of our planets biggest issues. Maybe god stopped carring after he saw what we did to his son??? Scratch that, he was much more of a bastard before then so I dunno, where has he been lately?

We live in new times yet he still tells us how to sell our daughters as property, why no update? Where is bible 2.0? These are questions that I know you can't answer and neither could I, thus the reason I started to think it was far more likely that it was a fairy tale a few decades ago.

 

[Darwin333]

First thing to consider is that the bible doesn't teach that selling your daughter into sexual slavery is right. That passage doesn't talk about sexual slavery anyway. You've interpreted it that way because you're ignorant of the culture and practices of the society this was addressed to. That isn't the bible's fault, that is your fault.

Oh I am very sorry, "sell your daughter to marry a man who she doesn't want to marry who she will then have no choice but to have sex with until he violates one of gods rules". Does that make you happy?

As I've said that this isn't teaching that sexual slavery is right it isn't talking about it at all. For your information I grew up in a church-less home, I was an Atheist until I was around 27. I wasn't brainwashed as you seem to enjoy to continually hint at.

So you are one of the "special" ones, which would be less than 10% of the religious population. Congrats for making the short list.

 

[Darwin333]

If you really want to try and figure out what this passage is saying you can't just read the words and make grand conclusions. Who was God saying this to? In what context? Etc. etc.

Bottom line is that this isn't describing sexual slavery.

What would you describe being sold to someone who quite literally owns you and has the right to fuck you at will and you must obey his desire to fuck at will unless he breaks a few rather simple rules?

Lets get a dialogue going bud, I am more than willing to call it a "nicer" name if you wish, just tell me what that term is and we can go from there.

 

[Darwin333]

You didn't understand my question, maybe.

Saying "theists" are flying planes into building is like saying "scientists" are building and manufacturing nukes.

Nineteen hijackers aren't "theists", in the sense that theists as a whole, which you are dishonestly implying, fly planes into buildings.

Terrorists are flying planes into buildings, not "theists".

I am happy to wholeheartedly agree with you on this Rob. The vast majority of theists aren't bad people who want to kill those who disagree with them.

 

[Darwin333]

It takes an idiot to believe in fairy tales,

Oh the irony.....

No offense my friend but you said it not me.

 

[Retro Rob]

What does "the time" have to do with an all knowing all powerful being? Why in the world would he be limited to the social structures of the time versus his far more enlightened social structure?

Matter of fact, according to people who believe the same as you (you haven't said it so I will give you the benefit of the doubt) but god knew damn well that after creating adam and eave that thousands of years later humanity would be doing unconscionable things. What kind of omnipotent being fucks up that bad?

You give me the power that god supposedly has and I can fix most if not all of our planets biggest issues. Maybe god stopped carring after he saw what we did to his son??? Scratch that, he was much more of a bastard before then so I dunno, where has he been lately?

We live in new times yet he still tells us how to sell our daughters as property, why no update? Where is bible 2.0? These are questions that I know you can't answer and neither could I, thus the reason I started to think it was far more likely that it was a fairy tale a few decades ago.

Did you not read my previous posts? Doesn't the Bible say (Rev 21:3,4) that everything will be changed permanently after the "apocalypse", as someone put it earlier?

Screw whether or not this is true, and just recognize that time is going by until this time comes. In the meantime, God is (as he was during the slave days) regulating societal norms -- that doesn't NOT mean he's limited to humans morals, as it were, or that he even started slavery (which was well underway before Israel became God's people)

It's not much different that as a business owner, you see you have crappy workers and are working toward hiring new workers. In the meantime, you are tolerating the crappy workers until it's time for you to fire them and hire the new guys. That doesn't mean you want the crappy workers, or are encouraging them to be crappy.

The Bible "2.0" came in the form of "love thy neighbor as yourself" which probably is the single most command that encompasses EVERY life situation... basically, not doing anything you don't want done to you. You can apply that virtually anywhere, any situation, and person despite race, religion, etc.

You can apply that to simple things too!

 

[sandorski]

Did you not read my previous posts? Doesn't the Bible say (Rev 21:3,4) that everything will be changed permanently after the "apocalypse", as someone put it earlier?

Screw whether or not this is true, and just recognize that time is going by until this time comes. In the meantime, God is (as he was during the slave days) regulating societal norms -- that doesn't NOT mean he's limited to humans morals, as it were, or that he even started slavery (which was well underway before Israel became God's people)

It's not much different that as a business owner, you see you have crappy workers and are working toward hiring new workers. In the meantime, you are tolerating the crappy workers until it's time for you to fire them and hire the new guys. That doesn't mean you want the crappy workers, or are encouraging them to be crappy.

The Bible "2.0" came in the form of "love thy neighbor as yourself" which probably is the single most command that encompasses EVERY life situation... basically, not doing anything you don't want done to you. You can apply that virtually anywhere, any situation, and person despite race, religion, etc.

You can apply that to simple things too!

Instead of Firing, would it be ok if an Employer Drowned his employees?

 

[child of wonder]

Instead of Firing, would it be ok if an Employer Drowned his employees?

 

[Retro Rob]

Instead of Firing, would it be ok if an Employer Drowned his employees?

If they are stupid enough to book a room on the titanic while others are abandoning ship, they asked to be drowned.

 

[Darwin333]

Poor grammar on my part.

Should have worded it better to point out "they" means Christians, not atheists.

My apologies, I was rushing and didn't notice the name so my meter wasn't properly adjusted.

 

[child of wonder]

If they are stupid enough to book a room on the titanic while others are abandoning ship, they asked to be drowned.

As I already told you, nowhere in the Bible does it indicate anyone besides Noah and his family had any warning of the impending genocide. The only places that might contradict this are commentaries and vague prophecies that are not part of the Bible. On the contrary, Jesus himself said in Matthew 24:39 that those killed in the flood had no warning at all.

Who's wrong? The author of 2 Peter who used the word "preach/herald" or Jesus?

PS - Bear in mind that 2 Peter was DEFINITELY (not probably or likely) written over 100 years after anyone had the idea of Noah preaching to the heathens before the flood.

 

[Retro Rob]

As I already told you, nowhere in the Bible does it indicate anyone besides Noah and his family had any warning of the impending genocide. The only places that might contradict this are commentaries and vague prophecies that are not part of the Bible. On the contrary, Jesus himself said in Matthew 24:39 that those killed in the flood had no warning at all.

Who's wrong? The author of 2 Peter who used the word "preach/herald" or Jesus?

PS - Bear in mind that 2 Peter was DEFINITELY (not probably or likely) written over 100 years after anyone had the idea of Noah preaching to the heathens before the flood.

You think you can simply rewrite history, and secondly, you just ignoring Peter because of when it was allegedly written, to fit your presupposition?

Don't mind giving me any proof, for more than one credible source, because you just lied changing your "likely" to a "definitely".

 

[Retro Rob]

Child of wonder...


Let's put the flood warning, or lack thereof for a second, aside and grant me that the Bible is totally real.

Its says in Revelation, that the "end" will come. You don't believe it. So if it comes tomorrow and you die, can your ancestors look back and say God didn't warn you, making the same arguments that Revelation was really written in 2020 when it written in the First Century?

...because that's exactly what you're doing now...

 

[piasabird]

I find athiests offensive.

 

[child of wonder]

You think you can simply rewrite history, and secondly, you just ignoring Peter because of when it was allegedly written, to fit your presupposition?

Don't mind giving me any proof, for more than one credible source, because you just lied changing your "likely" to a "definitely".

Where am I rewriting history? Do some research. The majority of Biblical scholars agree that 2 Peter was written between 100 and 150 CE. Since 2 Peter 2:5 is the only mention of Noah "preaching" in the entire Bible and does so only by calling him a preacher, your claim that he warned people for 50 years prior to the flood is dubious at best.

I also pointed out that the origin of Noah preaching anything is non-Biblical because prior to 2 Peter the only mention of it is in commentaries of the Talmud, ramblings of seereresses, and Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews, all of which predate 2 Peter.

Furthermore, JESUS HIMSELF says in Matthew 24:39 that those killed in the flood had no prior warning.

How hard do I need to beat you over the head with indisputable history, Judaic scholarship, and your own fucking Bible using your own Savior's words before you get the point?

 

[Retro Rob]

Where am I rewriting history? Do some research. The majority of Biblical scholars agree that 2 Peter was written between 100 and 150 CE. Since 2 Peter 2:5 is the only mention of Noah "preaching" in the entire Bible and does so only by calling him a preacher, your claim that he warned people for 50 years prior to the flood is dubious at best.

I also pointed out that the origin of Noah preaching anything is non-Biblical because prior to 2 Peter the only mention of it is in commentaries of the Talmud, ramblings of seereresses, and Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews, all of which predate 2 Peter.

Furthermore, JESUS HIMSELF says in Matthew 24:39 that those killed in the flood had no prior warning.

How hard do I need to beat you over the head with indisputable history, Judaic scholarship, and your own fucking Bible using your own Savior's words before you get the point?

Think...for a second.

He was in times of primitive tools, and people SAW him building the Ark. As big as that thing was, it didn't take him 3 days to build it, did it? Eight people working on a thing that large, how long you think it took?

What, you think people didn't ask him why he was doing that?

Use your brain.


Furthermore, you know about the apocalypse now, so you have been warned. Your point fails....you're being warned today.

Now say God isn't warning you, unless you give me a copout.

 

[child of wonder]

Child of wonder...


Let's put the flood warning, or lack thereof for a second, aside and grant me that the Bible is totally real.

Its says in Revelation, that the "end" will come. You don't believe it. So if it comes tomorrow and you die, can your ancestors look back and say God didn't warn you, making the same arguments that Revelation was really written in 2020 when it written in the First Century?

...because that's exactly what you're doing now...

That makes absolutely no sense and is in no way synonymous with my arguments.

 

[child of wonder]

Think...for a second.

He was in times of primitive tools, and people SAW him building the Ark. As big as that thing was, it didn't take him 3 days to build it, did it? Eight people working on a thing that large, how long you think it took?

What, you think people didn't ask him why he was doing that?

Use your brain.

Let's say I'm god and want to kill everyone on earth save for a select few. Do I let those few people warn everyone else or instruct them not to?

Use your brain.

See? I can conjecture and pull things out of thin air just like you!

 

[Retro Rob]

That makes absolutely no sense and is in no way synonymous with my arguments.

That's why I said "put the flood issue aside" a second.

Because you claimed God, in the Bible anyway, doesn't/didn't warn people.

You obviously read the book to some degree, and saw revelation...so lets be honest, is God not warning you?

 

[child of wonder]

That's why I said "put the flood issue aside" a second.

Because you claimed God, in the Bible anyway, doesn't/didn't warn people.

You obviously read the book to some degree, and saw revelation...so lets be honest, is God not warning you?

Now we've devolved from a one sided debate to proselytizing.