Atheists Call 9-11 Memorial Cross "Grossly Offensive"

[Darwin333]

If this is the life of your ordinary atheist, I'd rather stay religious and have the mental freedom to use words like "faith" and "belief" with impunity.

Life is easier that way.

LOL, religion and mental freedom don't generally go hand in hand.

You make a valid point about atheists and the word "belief". I don't offer the following as an excuse for their behavior but in all due fairness theists have tried as hard as the possibly can to label atheism as a belief system and a religion itself. Its always been an absurd argument but it is likely the reason so many are reluctant to use the word "belief".

 

[Darwin333]

Thanks for completely misinterpreting my post.



Let the mosques be built. I think there is a problem that many people fear them because of what is happening in Europe being taken over especially England so some people oppose them. It would be nice if the ACLU was this passionate about Christians and their rights being violated and protecting all parts of the Constitution. I haven't heard much about the 2nd Amendment or the innocent Christian who has been in jail for almost a year.

Believe it or not, I would support and fight for your right to build a church, using private property and your own money of course, just as much as I would oppose public money being spent to further your religion. Its called embracing the Constitution regardless if you agree with what its being used for or not.

 

[pmv]

They're actively promoting Atheism it seems to me.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/05/u...nts-atheists-plan-their-own-symbols.html?_r=0

Everyone involved seems a bit confused. The bit you quote says nothing about 'promoting atheism', it says they want monuments to 'secularism', i.e. monuments to the concept of the state not pushing religion or atheism and staying out of it.

Though the monument in the picture is inscribed with "American Atheists" when really it ought to be "American Secularists", so they seem as confused as everyone else.

 

[sandorski]

Everyone involved seems a bit confused. The bit you quote says nothing about 'promoting atheism', it says they want monuments to 'secularism', i.e. monuments to the concept of the state not pushing religion or atheism and staying out of it.

Though the monument in the picture is inscribed with "American Atheists" when really it ought to be "American Secularists", so they seem as confused as everyone else.

Except the organization is American Atheists, not Secularists.

 

[pmv]

Except that many atheists don't treat it like a lack of something. They actually seem proud of their disbelief, treating it as something rather than nothing.

Its not unreasonable on its face to be proud of lacking something. Someone could be proud of not being a racist when everyone around them is.

Still, I think everyone should be cautious when it comes to 'pride'. There are reasons why people come to believe or disbelieve different things, not everyone has the same experiences or needs.

 

[pmv]

Except the organization is American Atheists, not Secularists.

Well, yes, but that's kind-of the point. It sounds as if they are more into promoting secularism, so maybe they ought to emphasise that aspect a little more rather than their own non-belief? Putting their organization's name on the bench seems to me to slightly muddle the message.

I'm entirely in favour of secularism. And I'm an atheist. And I often get annoyed with religion. But I don't particularly regard myself as part of an atheist 'community' or want to promote atheism as such.

 

[buckshot24]

Thats the difference between you and I, I don't know.

This is a basic misunderstanding. I don't know what or who created the universe any more than you do. In my view it is highly probable that the universe must have had a cause and I'm perfectly happy accepting that it could be and probably is God. I'll leave the rest of your diatribe where it is, nothing there I'm interested in covering.

 

[sandorski]

Well, yes, but that's kind-of the point. It sounds as if they are more into promoting secularism, so maybe they ought to emphasise that aspect a little more rather than their own non-belief? Putting their organization's name on the bench seems to me to slightly muddle the message.

I'm entirely in favour of secularism. And I'm an atheist. And I often get annoyed with religion. But I don't particularly regard myself as part of an atheist 'community' or want to promote atheism as such.

They are not the same thing though.

 

[sandorski]

This is a basic misunderstanding. I don't know what or who created the universe any more than you do. In my view it is highly probable that the universe must have had a cause and I'm perfectly happy accepting that it could be and probably is God. I'll leave the rest of your diatribe where it is, nothing there I'm interested in covering.

What if it isn't "Created"?

 

[buckshot24]

Maybe an asshole or two exists that thinks that way but by and large that is utter bullshit. There is absolutely no need to create something to replace the "God conclusion".

Krauss has made statements saying he can use the multiverse he proposes in the way theists use God. Or something to that effect.

The bottom line is that the ad hoc proposal has not a shred of direct evidence to support it. It's a "multiverse of the gaps" argument. Hey if that sort of conjecture is meaningful to you, enjoy it.

History has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the "god conclusion" is used out of ignorance when man has reached the limit of his knowledge.

But you have no problem with ad hoc conjectures like a multiverse? There isn't any evidence a second universe exist let alone an infinite amount of them. Again, enjoy yourself if that is what you find meaningful and rational.

The smartest man in recorded history did so himself and its funny because the only place god comes up in his scientific writings is when he reached the absolute limit of his knowledge. Guess what, we have since figured out what he invoked the "god conclusion" about.

Are you talking about "God doesn't play dice"?

The "god conclusion" has been used basically throughout almost all (if not all) of our recorded history. Luckily for religion they get to continually move the goalposts every time science discovers what the last "god conclusion" really is. That is why you don't believe the sun is really the wheel of some chariot driven around the earth by one of the gods.

As I've pointed out to you before believers don't believe because of gaps in knowledge at least generally.

Your entire argument that science is just bullshitting around in order to disprove a conclusion that is completely and totally irrelevant in science is absurd.

This is an absolute mischaracterization of what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that in cosmology there are those who propose completely adhoc ideas without a shred of evidence to support them. Not all science or not even all cosmologists.

 

[buckshot24]

What if it isn't "Created"?

As in eternal?

 

[Retro Rob]

LOL, religion and mental freedom don't generally go hand in hand.

You make a valid point about atheists and the word "belief". I don't offer the following as an excuse for their behavior but in all due fairness theists have tried as hard as the possibly can to label atheism as a belief system and a religion itself. Its always been an absurd argument but it is likely the reason so many are reluctant to use the word "belief".

Heh, I get your point, but so what if theists think atheism is a belief? Running from the word only gives them more fodder and exposes so-called "insecurities".

Just stand up and embrace the word and say "hey, we're humans too and believe stuff -- just not the same thing you believe". Facing that word will show strength and stability.

See, I am believer, and I have both "faith" and "believe", and trust me, being ridiculed hasn't changed a thing, nor has it kept me from using the words freely.

 

[buckshot24]

Not really, that is one of the things about 'branes is that they aren't very complicated being a two dimensional string ala string theory. They have a size and a vibration but otherwise there isn't really anything to them.

I'm talking about the membranes in the cyclic ekpyrotic model.

Sure, but the question is what is it trying to teach. You had indicated this was not subjective and so my question remains if it is in fact not subjective, why do even basic elements produce radically different results based on the interpreter of the text?

Let me put it this way. We both agree that the constellations in space are objective, as in they exist where they are. Well just because different astrologers try and use them in subjective ways doesn't make the constellations subjective. Also something being objective doesn't mean everybody agrees on what it is.

No, you're just misreading me. Not all evidence is equal, a rumor that Ted killed Tim is evidence of a lesser quality than a gun matching the projectile in Tim with Ted's fingerprints on it is lesser than a security camera video of Ted shooting Tim. Evidence that something is possible is the lowest, most base, least conclusive level of evidence, but is still evidence.

Do you think that an observation that raises the probability that something exists is also evidence that it exists?

I suppose if you would prefer it is the absence of counter-evidence but I prefer to use a more nuanced approach, the reason being that a clear violation of natural law is evidence against. If I find a jar on a chair, what I know about gravity is clear evidence against it having levitated there. If I do not know whether something is a violation of the laws of physics, I cannot claim to have evidence either way, can I? So, if I know something does obey the laws of physics or is at least compatible with them, should I consider that in the same light as not having any knowledge one way or the other when deciding whether I should believe it? I don't think so and so I use a three category approach to evidence on the grounds of does it fit with the laws of physics as we know them. YMMV.

I appreciate your thoughtful reply. I get your point.

I'll just say that saying something isn't impossible is evidence that it exists seems like a cheap semantic game.

 

[sandorski]

As in eternal?

Perhaps, perhaps not. "Eternal" may have no meaning outside the Universe.

 

[Retro Rob]

Perhaps, perhaps not. "Eternal" may have no meaning outside the Universe.

Words not related to the scientific method have no meaning?

In all honesty, and this isn't toward you, I've heard this sort of reasoning before.

The word "nothing" has been changed, perhaps in some circles, to justify that the universe can come from "nothing" or 'quantum fluctuation" which isn't "nothing"... it's something.

This is disturbing as if science has a monopoly on knowledge and words, and if it aint science, it aint true. :whiste:

True, you haven't said this or eluded to it as far as I've seen, but I hope you can see why theists call atheists who are scientists, arrogant and such... because they act as if science can't currently answer something, it can't be answered, and trying to answer it is futile.

 

[sandorski]

Words not related to the scientific method have no meaning?

In all honesty, and this isn't toward you, I've heard this sort of reasoning before.

The word "nothing" has been changed, perhaps in some circles, to justify that the universe can come from "nothing" or 'quantum fluctuation" which isn't "nothing"... it's something.

This is disturbing as if science has a monopoly on knowledge and words, and if it aint science, it aint true. :whiste:

True, you haven't said this or eluded to it as far as I've seen, but I hope you can see why theists call atheists who are scientists, arrogant and such... because they act as if science can't currently answer something, it can't be answered, and trying to answer it is futile.

another strawman

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

In what way?

Unless you are a pharma marketing department, you can't look at 15 studies of a drug's effects and only choose to talk about the 5 that showed positive results.

 

[buckshot24]

Unless you are a pharma marketing department, you can't look at 15 studies of a drug's effects and only choose to talk about the 5 that showed positive results.

I'm not arguing for or against the effectiveness of the scientific method though.

My point is that some scientists propose and use as explanations (possible or not) things that don't have a shred of evidence to support them. Saying that they are possible isn't evidence.

 

[OverVolt]

.........aaaaaaaaaaaaaand atheists begin showing their true colors. You can only simultaneously have christian morals while bashing Christians religion for so long.

 

[OverVolt]

On the science questions, belief in technology is almost like belief in the spaghetti monster. Like we are going to magically discover something that will solve all our energy problems, crime problems, health problems, social problems etc.

Given enough time guys we can solve anything, even the physical limits of the universe.

 

[Darwin333]

Krauss has made statements saying he can use the multiverse he proposes in the way theists use God. Or something to that effect.

Ok, you got me. I disagree with Krauss's statement as does pretty much every legitimate scientist in the world. Happy?

The bottom line is that the ad hoc proposal has not a shred of direct evidence to support it. It's a "multiverse of the gaps" argument. Hey if that sort of conjecture is meaningful to you, enjoy it.

Yes, science does play the "of the gaps" game as well. When there is a gap people come up with hypothesis to try and fill that gap. They then study and model said hypothesis and either refine it or find out they were flat out wrong and ditch it. That is sort of how science works so I really don't understand the point you are getting at.

But you have no problem with ad hoc conjectures like a multiverse? There isn't any evidence a second universe exist let alone an infinite amount of them. Again, enjoy yourself if that is what you find meaningful and rational.

I have no problem with a multiverse theory or hypothesis at all. I do have a problem with ANY scientist that actually attempts to use some hypothesis as proof of anything since by definition a hypothesis is just basically an idea. It gets a little fuzzier with true Theories because all Theories are not created equal. Evolution and gravity most certainly do exist and are used to prove things all of the time yet they are not laws, other Theories don't have anywhere close to the directly observable and testable evidence.

Are you talking about "God doesn't play dice"?

Huh?

As I've pointed out to you before believers don't believe because of gaps in knowledge at least generally.

No, they believe, for the most part, because that is what they were taught/programmed to do. Just like little kids believe in Santa Clause.

This is an absolute mischaracterization of what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that in cosmology there are those who propose completely adhoc ideas without a shred of evidence to support them. Not all science or not even all cosmologists.

Sometimes there is good cause for something like the above and sometimes, I agree, its just bullshit. The great thing about science is that if it is just bullshit it will be challenged, debated, and if found lacking it will be called out as bullshit.

I am failing to see what type of actual point you are trying to make though...

A few assholes in science made a theory for the express purpose of replacing something that can't even be proven to exist? Ok, i'll take you at your word that those assholes exist and I think they are completely wasting their time. Happy?

In science those people get called out for their bullshit though. In religion those people are the "teachers" and "experts".

 

[Darwin333]

.........aaaaaaaaaaaaaand atheists begin showing their true colors. You can only simultaneously have christian morals while bashing Christians religion for so long.

Exactly which morals are you talking about and do you have evidence that those morals did not exist before the advent of Christianity?

 

[Darwin333]

I'm not arguing for or against the effectiveness of the scientific method though.

My point is that some scientists propose and use as explanations (possible or not) things that don't have a shred of evidence to support them. Saying that they are possible isn't evidence.

So you basically have a problem with people thinking and throwing ideas out there to be debated and hopefully be proven (right or wrong) eventually? Why in the hell would you want humanity to stop thinking?

At one point in time there wasn't a shred of discovered evidence for basically everything you take for granted in the world around you. It doesn't change the fact that it has always been true and it was very likely discovered by someone with an idea that didn't have a shred of evidence at the time. The idea is what got them looking for and eventually finding the evidence.

 

[Darwin333]

Words not related to the scientific method have no meaning?

In all honesty, and this isn't toward you, I've heard this sort of reasoning before.

The word "nothing" has been changed, perhaps in some circles, to justify that the universe can come from "nothing" or 'quantum fluctuation" which isn't "nothing"... it's something.

This is disturbing as if science has a monopoly on knowledge and words, and if it aint science, it aint true. :whiste:

True, you haven't said this or eluded to it as far as I've seen, but I hope you can see why theists call atheists who are scientists, arrogant and such... because they act as if science can't currently answer something, it can't be answered, and trying to answer it is futile.

I am sorry my friend but that is absolutely false and actually the exact opposite. Its the theists in science that reach the edge of their knowledge and since they can't figure it out they attribute it to god therefore saying that no one will ever be able to figure it out. Issac Newton himself invoked god when he came to a problem he couldn't figure out.

 

[Retro Rob]

I am sorry my friend but that is absolutely false and actually the exact opposite. Its the theists in science that reach the edge of their knowledge and since they can't figure it out they attribute it to god therefore saying that no one will ever be able to figure it out. Issac Newton himself invoked god when he came to a problem he couldn't figure out.

Newton, as far as I know, didn't become a theists when he ran into a problem -- he was a believer before reaching those problems....so as far as we can realistically know, he attributed everything to God despite how much he knew about the natural world.

You need a better example. If someone always believed in God, then your point fails.

The sheer amount of scientists that are believers should be awfully clear to you that knowledge does NOT mean lack of belief in God. Reality shows the opposite. It also shows that to many, the more you know, the more real God becomes.

Science has built my faith in God -- it didnt and has never destroyed it.

So asking me if God is real is like asking is there water in the ocean, and I thank science for that...seriously.