Atheists Call 9-11 Memorial Cross "Grossly Offensive"

[Darwin333]

Actually, atheism makes my "delusion" stronger, because you guys come off as unhappy and angry, and extremely over critical of people whom you've never met. Granted, religious people can be exactly that way too, but generally speaking, atheism seems to only focus on religion for some reason.

Why don't you guys find something "secular" to talk about?

Religious people statistically are happier, and happiness leads to good health and contentment.

Oh come on Rob, I am and have been very active in a lot of threads right here on P&N and the vast majority of them have nothing to do with religion.

One of the biggest reasons you see me so active in threads like these is because of the mischaracterization that a lot, but definitely not all, religions folks make about us.

Atheism is a religion and Atheism is a "belief system" being some of the most common or they use a few peoples words and actions to characterize all atheists or saying that we are trying to use science to somehow replace a god that we don't believe in (how in the hell does the last one make even a bit of sense?).

 

[Retro Rob]

Ok, so you found that one group who identify themselves as a member of XYZ religion that argue the points of what they believe.

You found a second group who identify themselves by their lack of belief and they discuss or argue the reason for their lack of belief.

No offense, but that isn't very shocking. While I personally don't see the need for a "group" of atheists but if others want to find, create or join said groups it doesn't bother me either. Keep in mind that you had to search for them in order to see what they were saying. They didn't come knocking on your door or calling you on the phone or anything like that. If they want to rip on religion among themselves then may I ask why you care?

So what if they don't knock on your door? Does it matter how they reach you? Does it matter if we talk via this thread or I ask you for your home address, Darwin? You know it doesn't matter.

Please, you're trying to establish a "technicality" and that's a dishonest thing you're doing. Preaching is preaching.

Atheists are humans, and they want community -- just like religious people, and they fight tooth and nail against acknowledging this simple fact.

You want community, Darwin, or why are you here? You like talking to fellow atheists, and I really think it's a good thing to talk to like-minded people.

FYI, I googled "atheists forums", then I googled "religious forums" and then "catholic forums"... do the same and you'll find what I find.

 

[Darwin333]

Unfounded? From a scientific POV, there is just as much evidence for the existence of God than there is for his non-existence. As far as science is concern, we both have "unfounded" positions. (please, spare me the burden of proof stuff -- that's not what's being debated here)

You should look up the definition of "unfounded" and it is not an "unfounded position" to not believe in something that has absolutely 0 proof. Furthermore, there IS a lot of circumstantial evidence against religion, not necessarily god(s) but specific religions themselves.

You can't help yourself, can you? Blind faith? Neither of us have seen God, so how can you KNOW my faith is blind?

Because you just said that you have never seen god..... Yet you still believe very wild claims and in his existence. Again, that is the definition of blind faith as it isn't based on any evidence at all and lack of evidence is not evidence of.

See, this is how absurd your (generic) position can be. God's existence can't be proven nor disproven, scientifically. So we don't really know who has "blind faith".

Yes we do, I don't have faith that there is no god, I have weighed the available evidence and came to the conclusion that there isn't enough evidence to warrant my belief. You DO have faith, atheism is the lack of faith. This is one of the mischaracterizations I was talking about.

 

[Retro Rob]

Oh come on Rob, I am and have been very active in a lot of threads right here on P&N and the vast majority of them have nothing to do with religion.

One of the biggest reasons you see me so active in threads like these is because of the mischaracterization that a lot, but definitely not all, religions folks make about us.

Atheism is a religion and Atheism is a "belief system" being some of the most common or they use a few peoples words and actions to characterize all atheists or saying that we are trying to use science to somehow replace a god that we don't believe in (how in the hell does the last one make even a bit of sense?).

Oh I agree that you are not in religious threads, but you're just one of truly secular atheists of many atheists who have made a living (dawkins, Harris, Hitchens) off of focusing on religion, and who make it their business to create facebook pages and forums ripping religion.

 

[Darwin333]

So what if they don't knock on your door? Does it matter how they reach you? Does it matter if we talk via this thread or I ask you for your home address, Darwin? You know it doesn't matter.

In the context of what YOU posted you went looking for them so yes it most absolutely does matter.

Please, you're trying to establish a "technicality" and that's a dishonest thing you're doing. Preaching is preaching.

I am not being dishonest, I am stating a truth. You went looking for them, found them and are trying to use that as you being preached to. That is simply untrue.

Atheists are humans, and they want community -- just like religious people, and they fight tooth and nail against acknowledging this simple fact.

Who fights tooth and nail against that? Yes, humans are communal people and they generally like to seek out like minded people to be communal with. This is, as you said, simply part of being human. I don't personally choose to use religion as the basis for my "community" but lots of others do and if some people want to use the lack of religion as a basis, so be it. Why do you care?

You want community, Darwin, or why are you here? You like talking to fellow atheists, and I really think it's a good thing to talk to like-minded people.

I am here because I enjoy debating various subjects and there a, at least a few, people here that I can engage in intelligent debate about various subjects. Why are you here?

FYI, I googled "atheists forums", then I googled "religious forums" and then "catholic forums"... do the same and you'll find what I find.

I have no desire to find any of those forums, why would you presume that I did? An even better question is, why did you have a desire to seek out atheist forums and why does what they speak about among themselves matter all that much to you?

 

[Darwin333]

Oh I agree that you are not in religious threads, but you're just one of truly secular atheists of many atheists who have made a living (dawkins, Harris, Hitchens) off of focusing on religion, and who make it their business to create facebook pages and forums ripping religion.

Good for them. Why do you care? Personally I think they should use a different tactic as their goal is to make more atheists and imho the best way to get more atheists is to encourage people to read the bible, cover to cover, and actually digest what it says. Thats just my opinion though, it is what started me down the road of losing the faith that I was taught to have since my birth.

 

[Retro Rob]

In the context of what YOU posted you went looking for them so yes it most absolutely does matter.

Nice try, you're trying to reverse this on me. I only posted those forum links to add validity to what was said earlier in thread about atheist being internet "proselytizers"... which they are.

I am not being dishonest, I am stating a truth. You went looking for them, found them and are trying to use that as you being preached to. That is simply untrue.

Read above post.

Who fights tooth and nail against that? Yes, humans are communal people and they generally like to seek out like minded people to be communal with. This is, as you said, simply part of being human. I don't personally choose to use religion as the basis for my "community" but lots of others do and if some people want to use the lack of religion as a basis, so be it. Why do you care?

I don't care, just trying to make a point that atheists are not so much different than us religious folks.

I am here because I enjoy debating various subjects and there a, at least a few, people here that I can engage in intelligent debate about various subjects. Why are you here?

This isn't about why who is here, it's about atheists claiming they have nothing in common but gather on internet boards discussing religion.

I have no desire to find any of those forums, why would you presume that I did? An even better question is, why did you have a desire to seek out atheist forums and why does what they speak about among themselves matter all that much to you?

I wanted you to know I wasn't "picking and choosing" nice religious boards, and finding vitriolic atheists boards -- I wanted you to know I was being fair in my posting.

 

[buckshot24]

Yes, you've argued that. It's a specious argument.

You haven't indicated how that would be the case.

If you can show that the KJV is no longer used by any material number of churches, you have a point. Otherwise, it is relevant. Your objection remains a diversion in any case since the fundamental issue is that Bibles are translations, regardless of whether they have been translated once or twice.

Ok, you've got a point about the KJB.

If that's accurate (and I don't believe it is), so what? I simply stated a fact. KJV translators, in some cases, relied on Latin translations instead of the original texts. I didn't impugn their motives. It is what it is.

I didn't tell you as a rebuttal I just stated a fact (as far as I know it) that the King James translators didn't have parts of the bible in the original languages so they used the Latin version that they did have to fill in the gaps.

I'm not going to wade through the rest of that point by point. You're just going to keep adding more layers of evasions and goal-post shifting. The bottom line is you stated that "arguing what the Bible says isn't [subjective]". Your own words, clearly not true according to your own subsequent comments.

Only because you've applied a wooden interpretation to what I said. Given that there are so many different interpretations to the bible in part and in whole you'd have to think I wasn't aware of that to hold the view you're trying to hold me to. Goalposts do not need to be moved as you've been arguing against a caricature.

Yes, it is objectively true that there are physical objects called Bibles. Yes, those Bibles objectively have pages with letters printed on them. Who cares? What matters is the intellectual content of the words formed by those letters, and that is subjective. Even more, contrary to your direct assertion, "arguing" that intellectual content is highly subjective. Buckshot is wrong.

This has been your blind assertion throughout. If I said that "arguing" about the bible itself is objective then that isn't what I meant. Obviously that isn't the case.

Also this whole subjective line started because I didn't understand the Star wars vs star trek comparison correctly. I used subjective in the way that nerds would argue which one was better as a series or universe. That would be a subjective discussion because there isn't one that is objectively better than the other. I'm a Star Trek guy myself.

You haven't addressed the point that knowledge of the objective is not required for something, in fact, to be objective.

 

[Darwin333]

Nice try, you're trying to reverse this on me. I only posted those forum links to add validity to what was said earlier in thread about atheist being internet "proselytizers"... which they are.

So you posted proof of them proselytizing each other? I am sorry but I don't think that is a very good argument.

I don't care, just trying to make a point that atheists are not so much different than us religious folks.

Well we are all human but I doubt that is the point you are trying to make, could you be a bit clearer?

This isn't about why who is here, it's about atheists claiming they have nothing in common but gather on internet boards discussing religion.

What you just said is fundamentally false. Atheists obviously do have something in common or else there wouldn't be a name for them. I have never seen anyone argue otherwise, could you please point this claim out so I can join you in telling them they are wrong?

I wanted you to know I wasn't "picking and choosing" nice religious boards, and finding vitriolic atheists boards -- I wanted you to know I was being fair in my posting.

Ok....

 

[Retro Rob]

So you posted proof of them proselytizing each other? I am sorry but I don't think that is a very good argument.

Stop the dishonesty....

The point of books, as Mr Dawkins so eloquently put it during an interview, is to get to those "on the fence"... or agnostic about the existence of God -- he has a target audience. He's proselytizing.

Sure, you may not feel that way, but please... the hidden message of atheism is partly to pull people away from religion -- this is why many of them become scientific.

I don't need to be an atheists to realize this.

 

[Darwin333]

Stop the dishonesty....

The point of books, as Mr Dawkins so eloquently put it during an interview, is to get to those "on the fence"... or agnostic about the existence of God -- he has a target audience. He's proselytizing.

Sure, you may not feel that way, but please... the hidden message of atheism is partly to pull people away from religion -- this is why many of them become scientific.

I don't need to be an atheists to realize this.

No, you implied the forums were there to proselytizing. I have never disagreed that a few people in the public DO try to proselytize. I don't understand what point you are trying to get at though, because a very few select atheists do it we all do or something? Or are you just trying to say that a very few atheists do in fact proselytize? If its the latter I have never disagreed, if it is the former I do in fact disagree.


BTW, why do you care that they proselytize?

And as far as the part about science, you have it completely backwards. Most "become scientific" and THEN atheism and not the other way around. That is why that the more science literatte a person is the less likely they are to believe in a god. They didn't turn to science as a career because they didn't believe in a god, they usually believed in a god when they started their education and as they became more educated they started questioning their religion and found what they were taught as children lacking.

 

[Retro Rob]

No, you implied the forums were there to proselytizing. I have never disagreed that a few people in the public DO try to proselytize. I don't understand what point you are trying to get at though, because a very few select atheists do it we all do or something?

People use the internet....religious included. They know that people googling for information about the Bible or various other religious subjects will inevitably come across a site espousing their anti-Biblical opinions, and be curious about what's been said, click on a link, then read.

It's more of an indirect way to proselytize.

We generalize way to much today. I agree, not all atheists preach, just like not all religious people reject science, however, you evidently have no problem lumping all Christians in with the loudmouth, anti-science religious right.

Or are you just trying to say that a very few atheists do in fact proselytize? If its the latter I have never disagreed, if it is the former I do in fact disagree.

I'm under the opinion that proselytism isn't restricted to religious people.

And as far as the part about science, you have it completely backwards. Most "become scientific" and THEN atheism and not the other way around. That is why that the more science literatte a person is the less likely they are to believe in a god. They didn't turn to science as a career because they didn't believe in a god, they usually believed in a god when they started their education and as they became more educated they started questioning their religion and found what they were taught as children lacking.

I don't have it completely backwards. On the surface, atheism has as much evidence for its lack of belief as religion has for its faith -- ZERO! Atheism needs science, as Richard Dawkins stated: "Darwin made it possible for me to be an intellectually fulfilled Atheist".

He also admitted that prior to the 20th Century, there was no good reason to be an atheist. He was right, because evidence wasn't on their side at the time. And scientifically speaking, religion had no evidence either -- so neither side could claim that they were correct.

I think there is a reason atheist in general, are scientific....because without it, they have absolutely nothing.

 

[justoh]

11 pages of people arguing with someone who is by definition irrational. good job.

 

[sportage]

I never got it, why people feel their religion must physically by symbols reflect outside their own internal beliefs.
Getting all pissy about not having the ability to slap up religious symbols seems to defeat the whole purpose or intension of being religious.
If you must wear your religion on your sleeve, Id question if I really understood the meaning of having religion.
Its not the same as being patriotic or flying the American flag on your front porch.

Religion is or should be something you feel inside and live by accordingly.
Attitude and personal opinion is what you shove down others throats.

 

[khon]

As an atheist myself, I get real tired of seeing atheists file suits over stupid shit like this. I mean really, it's not that big of a deal and they come off as asses in the process. Is putting a cross on a metal beam really infringing on your right not to believe in God?

These petty lawsuits give atheists a bad name.

Couldn't agree more.

This petty crap gives atheists a bad name. We should be all about freedom of religion, not these minor distractions.

 

[child of wonder]

I don't have it completely backwards. On the surface, atheism has as much evidence for its lack of belief as religion has for its faith -- ZERO!

He also admitted that prior to the 20th Century, there was no good reason to be an atheist. He was right, because evidence wasn't on their side at the time. And scientifically speaking, religion had no evidence either -- so neither side could claim that they were correct.

I think there is a reason atheist in general, are scientific....because without it, they have absolutely nothing.

These are hilarious quotes.

Without the sky man I have absolutely nothing!

By definition, atheists lead richer and more rewarding lives than theists do for the simple fact that they're living out their existence with the knowledge that nothing comes afterwards. They aren't trying to impress a supernatural dictator so they'll be rewarded in an afterlife, nor are they living in fear of what will happen if they displease their "loving god."

As an "indirectly proselytizing" atheist, I don't need the kind of compulsory love god offers nor would I worship such a vain creature that would create an entire cosmos for the benefit of espousing him forever.

 

[Darwin333]

People use the internet....religious included. They know that people googling for information about the Bible or various other religious subjects will inevitably come across a site espousing their anti-Biblical opinions, and be curious about what's been said, click on a link, then read.

It's more of an indirect way to proselytize.

We generalize way to much today. I agree, not all atheists preach, just like not all religious people reject science, however, you evidently have no problem lumping all Christians in with the loudmouth, anti-science religious right.

When have I done this? I try rather hard not to lump all people of any group together because I know better.

As far as indirect proselytizing, thats a rather big stretch when discussing people basically having a conversation/debate among themselves.

I'm under the opinion that proselytism isn't restricted to religious people.

I am under the same opinion, when have I stated otherwise? If I have led you to believe otherwise then I apologize.

I don't have it completely backwards. On the surface, atheism has as much evidence for its lack of belief as religion has for its faith -- ZERO! Atheism needs science, as Richard Dawkins stated: "Darwin made it possible for me to be an intellectually fulfilled Atheist".

Hate to break it to you but you just did prove that you have it backwards. He didn't go in search of science to disprove god. He learned science and then questioned his belief.

He also admitted that prior to the 20th Century, there was no good reason to be an atheist. He was right, because evidence wasn't on their side at the time. And scientifically speaking, religion had no evidence either -- so neither side could claim that they were correct.

One side has always claimed it was correct and there were plenty of atheists prior to the 20th century although they were generally referred to as "doubters". And I have listed plenty of circumstantial evidence against faith itself in this thread.

I think there is a reason atheist in general, are scientific....because without it, they have absolutely nothing.

I think that religion has always had absolutely nothing but playing on the ignorance of its followers. I guess thank you for agreeing with my point? For the record, science is not required to not believe in fairy tales but it sure does help when you are taught to think critically.

 

[Paul98]

There are those who need the belief in God to help them through the day, to stop them from doing bad things, keep them in line, for answers to unanswerable questions even if the answers are simply made up, have been brainwashed, because they want to think there is something more than this life,... all sorts of reasons.

Then there is the social, community part of religion which brings people together, and teaches some sort of message and beliefs.

The problem is in the irrational belief in these "Gods", the bad messages,... While many have changed their religion and beliefs such that they ignore the irrational, and the bad messages. But with them there they can still justify their bad thoughts, feelings, and ideas if their religion says it anywhere, or they even think it does.

There is a better way, the problem is breaking free of the old constraints. Dropping the supernatural, the bad messages, irrational beliefs,...

 

[Retro Rob]

These are hilarious quotes.

Without the sky man I have absolutely nothing!

By definition, atheists lead richer and more rewarding lives than theists do for the simple fact that they're living out their existence with the knowledge that nothing comes afterwards. They aren't trying to impress a supernatural dictator so they'll be rewarded in an afterlife, nor are they living in fear of what will happen if they displease their "loving god."

As an "indirectly proselytizing" atheist, I don't need the kind of compulsory love god offers nor would I worship such a vain creature that would create an entire cosmos for the benefit of espousing him forever.

LOL

Surveys by Gallup, the National Opinion Research Center and the Pew Organization conclude that spiritually committed people are twice as likely to report being "very happy" than the least religiously committed people.[11] An analysis of over 200 social studies contends that "high religiousness predicts a lower risk of depression and drug abuse and fewer suicide attempts, and more reports of satisfaction with sex life and a sense of well-being. However, the links between religion and happiness are always very broad in nature, highly reliant on scripture and small sample number. To that extent there a much larger connection between religion and suffering (Lincoln 1034).
"[9] and a review of 498 studies published in peer-reviewed journals concluded that a large majority of them showed a positive correlation between religious commitment and higher levels of perceived well-being and self-esteem and lower levels of hypertension, depression, and clinical delinquency.[12] A meta-analysis of 34 recent studies published between 1990 and 2001 found that religiosity has a salutary relationship with psychological adjustment, being related to less psychological distress, more life satisfaction, and better self-actualization.[13] Finally, a recent systematic review of 850 research papers on the topic concluded that "the majority of well-conducted studies found that higher levels of religious involvement are positively associated with indicators of psychological well-being (life satisfaction, happiness, positive affect, and higher morale) and with less depression, suicidal thoughts and behavior, drug/alcohol use/abuse."[14]

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

Happiness is a very subjective term, so all of these studies could be flawed.

Secondly to me, pleasing God is like pleasing your parent as a child, or boss -- not many things makes ME happier than when those in authority are pleased with my work, actions, behavior.

So as far as your cosmos remark, they attest to God's power, and rightfully so. So if it's designed to beautify him forever, I have NO ISSUE with that as I am more than ready to give credit where it's due....forever, if possible. So, I've made a conscience decision to become a believer, stay a believer, and give God the credit he deserves -- nothing "compulsory" involved! 🙂

I am sure atheists are happy and rewarded as well, but religious people and atheists are happy for different reasons. If anything, studies reflect that.

You have miserable people in both camps...so though we may see correlations, causations are very hard to determine.

 

[Darwin333]

LOL


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

Happiness is a very subjective term, so all of these studies could be flawed.

Secondly to me, pleasing God is like pleasing your parent as a child, or boss -- not many things makes ME happier than when those in authority are pleased with my work, actions, behavior.

So as far as your cosmos remark, they attest to God's power, and rightfully so. So if it's designed to beautify him forever, I have NO ISSUE with that as I am more than ready to give credit where it's due....forever, if possible. So, I've made a conscience decision to become a believer, stay a believer, and give God the credit he deserves -- nothing "compulsory" involved! 🙂

I am sure atheists are happy and rewarded as well, but religious people and atheists are happy for different reasons. If anything, studies reflect that.

You have miserable people in both camps...so though we may see correlations, causations are very hard to determine.

If I may ask a few personal questions, are/were your parents religious? If so are you of the same religion as them? Were you baptized as a child? Did you learn religion as a child? Do you teach your own children about your religion? Would your children have a "choice" to go to church with you on Sundays at, say age 5?

 

[buckshot24]

By definition, atheists lead richer and more rewarding lives than theists do for the simple fact that they're living out their existence with the knowledge that nothing comes afterwards. They aren't trying to impress a supernatural dictator so they'll be rewarded in an afterlife, nor are they living in fear of what will happen if they displease their "loving god."

Your hero would have been proud of you, I could read this in his British accent and imagine he was still alive.

If we're going to take this seriously you'd have to provide some justification for the apparent belief that believers just sit back and say "Oh well, I'll get to this in the afterlife". You might argue that there is this potential but I could just as easily argue that believing there is no afterlife could lead people to steal, rape and murder indiscriminately since they won't have to pay for it in the next life.

 

[buckshot24]

If I may ask a few personal questions, are/were your parents religious? If so are you of the same religion as them? Were you baptized as a child? Did you learn religion as a child? Do you teach your own children about your religion? Would your children have a "choice" to go to church with you on Sundays at, say age 5?

As an adult people still need to come to grips with Christianity's truth claims. Lots of people are brought up in a Christian home and fall away, conversely lots come to it from a non-Christian home. Really, whats the point of this line of questioning?

 

[buckshot24]

There are those who need the belief in God to help them through the day, to stop them from doing bad things, keep them in line, for answers to unanswerable questions even if the answers are simply made up, have been brainwashed, because they want to think there is something more than this life,... all sorts of reasons.

Would you include in the "all sorts of reasons" that they actually believe that it's true?

 

[sandorski]

Your hero would have been proud of you, I could read this in his British accent and imagine he was still alive.

If we're going to take this seriously you'd have to provide some justification for the apparent belief that believers just sit back and say "Oh well, I'll get to this in the afterlife". You might argue that there is this potential but I could just as easily argue that believing there is no afterlife could lead people to steal, rape and murder indiscriminately since they won't have to pay for it in the next life.

Indeed Sir, indeed. Only if there were consequences for such things in this life. Then there would be no reason for Eternal Reward/Punishment.

You have won the Internets.

 

[buckshot24]

Indeed Sir, indeed. Only if there were consequences for such things in this life. Then there would be no reason for Eternal Reward/Punishment.

You have won the Internets.

So you're saying the only reason atheists don't go around killing, raping and stealing is because they might get caught?

If you'd like you can put "that they would know they wouldn't pay for it in this life".