Atheists Call 9-11 Memorial Cross "Grossly Offensive"

[Acanthus]

I love the mental gymnastics to justify religion being made in this thread.

"Without the Bible, we would have no moral compass!"

Weird. Someone tell that to all of the societies that predate the bible. I'm pretty sure that the Egyptians, Babylonians, and Macedonians had laws.

And before you spout off how your moral laws are better than everyone else's, rape, slavery and torture are absent from the ten commandments.

Most of the people that come to Anandtech are smart, rational beings. It is only when confronted with breaking down the walls of the mental prison their parents erected for them at birth that they shut off the rational brain and turn to arguing semantics and ignoring the big picture.

The Bible, all holy documents and all related scriptures were written by fallible men, in a time when smelting Iron was impossible and diseases mysteriously killed everyone around them. They made errors, both philosophical and scientific ones, and where they couldn't fill in the gaps with explanations, they filled in mysticism.

Believe in whatever you want. I don't care if you think mermaids cause the tides and angels make the sun rise every day. When you start outlawing lighthouses because dead sailor bodies feed the mermaids and outlawing astronomy because it angers the angels and causes worldwide famine, we have a problem.

The bill of rights is in place to prevent the government from taking any one religion over others and endorsing it. This means when it comes to religious symbols on public land, you allow all of them, or you allow none of them. It is that simple. Argue about monsters elsewhere. That isn't the argument here.

 

[justoh]

I love the mental gymnastics to justify religion being made in this thread.

"Without the Bible, we would have no moral compass!"

Weird. Someone tell that to all of the societies that predate the bible. I'm pretty sure that the Egyptians, Babylonians, and Macedonians had laws.

And before you spout off how your moral laws are better than everyone else's, rape, slavery and torture are absent from the ten commandments.

Most of the people that come to Anandtech are smart, rational beings. It is only when confronted with breaking down the walls of the mental prison their parents erected for them at birth that they shut off the rational brain and turn to arguing semantics and ignoring the big picture.

The Bible, all holy documents and all related scriptures were written by fallible men, in a time when smelting Iron was impossible and diseases mysteriously killed everyone around them. They made errors, both philosophical and scientific ones, and where they couldn't fill in the gaps with explanations, they filled in mysticism.

Believe in whatever you want. I don't care if you think mermaids cause the tides and angels make the sun rise every day. When you start outlawing lighthouses because dead sailor bodies feed the mermaids and outlawing astronomy because it angers the angels and causes worldwide famine, we have a problem.

The bill of rights is in place to prevent the government from taking any one religion over others and endorsing it. This means when it comes to religious symbols on public land, you allow all of them, or you allow none of them. It is that simple. Argue about monsters elsewhere. That isn't the argument here.

Amen

 

[Paul98]

I love the mental gymnastics to justify religion being made in this thread.

"Without the Bible, we would have no moral compass!"

Weird. Someone tell that to all of the societies that predate the bible. I'm pretty sure that the Egyptians, Babylonians, and Macedonians had laws.

And before you spout off how your moral laws are better than everyone else's, rape, slavery and torture are absent from the ten commandments.

Most of the people that come to Anandtech are smart, rational beings. It is only when confronted with breaking down the walls of the mental prison their parents erected for them at birth that they shut off the rational brain and turn to arguing semantics and ignoring the big picture.

The Bible, all holy documents and all related scriptures were written by fallible men, in a time when smelting Iron was impossible and diseases mysteriously killed everyone around them. They made errors, both philosophical and scientific ones, and where they couldn't fill in the gaps with explanations, they filled in mysticism.

Believe in whatever you want. I don't care if you think mermaids cause the tides and angels make the sun rise every day. When you start outlawing lighthouses because dead sailor bodies feed the mermaids and outlawing astronomy because it angers the angels and causes worldwide famine, we have a problem.

The bill of rights is in place to prevent the government from taking any one religion over others and endorsing it. This means when it comes to religious symbols on public land, you allow all of them, or you allow none of them. It is that simple. Argue about monsters elsewhere. That isn't the argument here.

Thanks for putting much of what is talked about into one post.

 

[Darwin333]

In any universe, in any time, in any society it was wrong.

Hey, we agree on something again!

What about killing innocent children? Would you agree with me that is also universally wrong?

Given this tirade I wonder if I came in defending the existence of tinkerbell this genius adult would come in with the same hatred and venom in denouncing tinkerbell. NO, he'd just call me nuts and be done with it. I think the hatred and venom is evidence that he knows deep down that what he's fighting against is actually the truth.

To the best of my knowledge no one has been or is being killed in the name of Tinkerbell. To the best of my knowledge no one is being discriminated against because of or in the name of Tinkerbell. To the best of my knowledge no one is trying to change science text books because of or in the name of Tinkerbell. And as an absolute fact, Tinkerbell has absolutely zero impact on my day to day life. See the difference?

he knows deep down that what he's fighting against is actually the truth.

Worst argument ever.... If he "knew deep down what he's fighting against is actually true", considering the penalties, I doubt he would be fighting against it.

 

[Darwin333]

We've agreed on an other issue back when we were talking about a multi verse. But who's counting.

My apologies, I think we are up to 3 now then.

 

[Darwin333]

Cool.

For starters the Church didn't believe that the earth was flat in his day in fact it never was that common of a belief in the church. Secondly the earliest we find this quote was well into the 19th century. But I can't "prove" that I exist. I gave you evidence that it is almost certainly a false quote.

I don't recall where I got it from but I did look it up and what I found was it was likely falsely attributed to him in some book/paper.

I honestly don't know what the Church's position was on "flat earth" and when. I DO know what their stance on heliocentric universe was but I haven't actually done the research on the flat earth part. I'll do a quick search if I get the time, if I don't I will take your word on it. Considering when they would have had to hold this view it isn't that significant of an issue either way but hey, it peeks my interests a tad bit.

 

[Darwin333]

It was common enough where enough people bought into it to actually proceed with the evil plan.

There was a lot more to it than that but there are various was to "control" people, religion being just one of them. A lot of evil stuff has been done in the name of religion, does that mean the religion is evil? Of course not, that means some asshole(s) found a way to use that religion to do evil stuff. I personally find it hard to believe that all the people involved in all of those atrocities were actually evil, in my personal opinion they were probably corrupted into doing evil stuff.

So you don't know why its wrong, it just is. Ok.

Its wrong because it hurts others. If I, or any other sane and normal person, were to kick a dog they would hear the dop yelp and they would see the pain on the dogs face. This would cause an emotional reaction in that person and they would know it was wrong. Why we have that emotional response is a question that we are actually making some pretty exciting and interesting progress on.

Nobody said that. What is it with you atheists on this question? You always get it wrong. An atheist can be just as moral as any Christian and in some cases more so,

Thank you for actually admitting that. Now here is a question for you, could an atheist raised completely in a bubble without ever being taught that any religion has ever existed possibly be just as moral as you or I?

it isn't being told or knowing what is right and wrong its the fact that there is a difference between right and wrong.

Ok... Could you elaborate? If you know what is right and wrong than obviously you know there is a difference between right and wrong. It sounds like you are just saying it a different way but with the exact same results.

What does that even mean?

People who continually do evil things often have a few loose wires in their heads. I would argue that a lot of the "evil" people in the world have had serious mental disorders, hence the lacked sanity.

LOL What some chap finds decent isn't decent for the other guy, who decides who is right?

Thats why I try to use the phrase "common human decency", sure there will be some disagreements but we pretty much universally agree on some things like killing innocent children is always wrong.

I used to be an atheist myself so looks like a fair trade. :awe:

LOL. Well played sir.

I didn't think you were a relativist either. But I would argue that the highly evolved society in Germany allowed one of the most heinous violations of decency ever in human history. If the Germans won WW2 the evolution of society would have produced a much different moral landscape. I'd say that Hitler would have had to hide what they did from the masses because deep down everybody on earth knows that it was objectively evil and would have rebelled eventually.

I dunno if society as a whole would have produced a different moral landscape but I do agree that society in generally would have evolved differently, at least in Europe. Sure people might not have been able to be as vocally against some things considering the Nazi's secret police and stuff but I don't see it actually changing peoples morals. I do agree with your last sentence which sort of goes along with my point.

Not much except he continually made the same mistake everybody else is making in this thread with the morality discussion. Plus he was a hero of that city of something dude.

Morality has been debated for centuries and here we are still debating it. Knowing that, how can you make such a definitive statement that whatever position he holds (I honestly don't know) is wrong?

Well of course you don't buy it you're an atheist! If you found it persuasive you'd have gone back to theism. However if it was just "made up" then there should be some knock down arguments against it. I've never seen them.

Please elaborate, knock down arguments against what exactly? Objective morality or theism in general? Regardless, if it was true shouldn't there be some "knock down arguments" FOR it? Some sort of hard evidence or proof? Faith isn't required for things that can be proven to be true.

That's because you're a decent person. From my perspective I'd do it because I think they have intrinsic worth. From yours I feel that viewing them as competitors instead would be just as morally valid.

Please elaborate again, seems you are on to a rather interesting discussion with this one.

I don't think the morals of God are what you're claiming they are. I've dropped that because we weren't getting anywhere.

We can judge him, and other people, based on their actions, no? We say that Hitler was an evil and morally wrong person based upon his actions, why not god(s)?

 

[OverVolt]

I love the mental gymnastics to justify religion being made in this thread.

"Without the Bible, we would have no moral compass!"

Weird. Someone tell that to all of the societies that predate the bible. I'm pretty sure that the Egyptians, Babylonians, and Macedonians had laws.

And before you spout off how your moral laws are better than everyone else's, rape, slavery and torture are absent from the ten commandments.

Most of the people that come to Anandtech are smart, rational beings. It is only when confronted with breaking down the walls of the mental prison their parents erected for them at birth that they shut off the rational brain and turn to arguing semantics and ignoring the big picture.

The Bible, all holy documents and all related scriptures were written by fallible men, in a time when smelting Iron was impossible and diseases mysteriously killed everyone around them. They made errors, both philosophical and scientific ones, and where they couldn't fill in the gaps with explanations, they filled in mysticism.

Believe in whatever you want. I don't care if you think mermaids cause the tides and angels make the sun rise every day. When you start outlawing lighthouses because dead sailor bodies feed the mermaids and outlawing astronomy because it angers the angels and causes worldwide famine, we have a problem.

The bill of rights is in place to prevent the government from taking any one religion over others and endorsing it. This means when it comes to religious symbols on public land, you allow all of them, or you allow none of them. It is that simple. Argue about monsters elsewhere. That isn't the argument here.

The Egyptians had slaves you know.

Unlike Christians in the North during the civil war fighting to free them.

Pretty sure Atheists just make shit up as it suits them but what else would you expect?

The past 5 pages is Atheists complaining about slave passages in the bible. You guys ARE hilarious you know that right?

 

[sandorski]

The Egyptians had slaves you know.

Unlike Christians in the North during the civil war fighting to free them.

Pretty sure Atheists just make shit up as it suits them but what else would you expect?

The past 5 pages is Atheists complaining about slave passages in the bible. You guys ARE hilarious you know that right?

...and every one of your posts seems to be completely dismissive of the issue altogether. As if it never happened.

Why is that?

 

[OverVolt]

...and every one of your posts seems to be completely dismissive of the issue altogether. As if it never happened.

Why is that?

Because the only people who think Christians are pro-slavery because of a couple bible passages are the Atheists. There aren't any churches or anything holding pro-slavery mass. You guys are deluded.

Christians actions in recent history show its the exact opposite, the past 200-300 years or so. Maybe if I was 1,000 - 1,500 years old you'd have a point but you are a little off.

 

[justoh]

Christianity is slavery. Pointless to argue about whether the bible features gods endorsing slavery or genocide or whatever. For reals.

 

[OverVolt]

Christianity is slavery. Pointless to argue about whether the bible features gods endorsing slavery or genocide or whatever. For reals.

lol

 

[justoh]

Interesting that OV finds slavery amusing and lol worthy. I think it's quite telling. I hate to ask, OV, but are you religious? No offense. I think slavery is despicable 🙁

 

[OverVolt]

Interesting that OV finds slavery amusing and lol worthy. I think it's quite telling. I hate to ask, OV, but are you religious? No offense. I think slavery is despicable 🙁

I guess you are like the Atheist village idiot or something. What do you actually disagree about? Go on and say it. You obviously think differently but just let it manifest as trying to play games with me.

 

[sandorski]

Because the only people who think Christians are pro-slavery because of a couple bible passages are the Atheists. There aren't any churches or anything holding pro-slavery mass. You guys are deluded.

Christians actions in recent history show its the exact opposite, the past 200-300 years or so. Maybe if I was 1,000 - 1,500 years old you'd have a point but you are a little off.

Who claimed Christians are "Pro-Slavery"?

That asked, you should be aware that the actual Pro-Slave persons of just 150 years ago were indeed Christian and they indeed used the Bible to defend that practice.

My point remains, the book Christianity is based upon and the "god" Christians claim exists both have no Moral problems with Slavery. I applaud Christians that see this problem and ignore the Bible/"God's" failings in this matter and have adopted the better Moral position of rejecting Slavery for humane reasons. Don't, however, deceive yourself into believing this is a Christian Moral simply because Christians now accept it. There is no basis for such a claim.

That said, I am confident that you once again will read that in some bizarre fashion that maintains your Strawman and that your response will make little sense in comparison to what is being said to you. Prove me wrong, I dare you.

 

[justoh]

I guess you are like the Atheist village idiot or something. What do you actually disagree about? Go on and say it. You obviously think differently but just let it manifest as trying to play games with me.

That's a little ambiguous. You do seem disagreeable. The important point of disagreement i think is the pro slavery stance that you seem to have adopted.

How isn't christianity slavery? Compelled to do shit by someone all powerful and fearful, and forced to love him on top of it?

 

[OverVolt]

Who claimed Christians are "Pro-Slavery"?

That asked, you should be aware that the actual Pro-Slave persons of just 150 years ago were indeed Christian and they indeed used the Bible to defend that practice.

My point remains, the book Christianity is based upon and the "god" Christians claim exists both have no Moral problems with Slavery. I applaud Christians that see this problem and ignore the Bible/"God's" failings in this matter and have adopted the better Moral position of rejecting Slavery for humane reasons. Don't, however, deceive yourself into believing this is a Christian Moral simply because Christians now accept it. There is no basis for such a claim.

That said, I am confident that you once again will read that in some bizarre fashion that maintains your Strawman and that your response will make little sense in comparison to what is being said to you. Prove me wrong, I dare you.

The South lost the war. The 'pro-slave persons' were called the confederates. 🙂 Afterward their religious beliefs became moot.

You don't want to go the wiki fallacies expert route, we can argue using this as a template from now on if you want: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

A straw man would be a misrepresentation of your position but I don't see how I misrepresent your point. You are technically accusing me of a red herring instead, but you are trying to limit my possible responses so that you always appear correct. You guys are definitely guilty of 'raising the bar' where I explain how I disagree on one point and you guys just slightly change your argument and demand more evidence. You already know my position to begin with. What you are doing I think is plurium interrogationum and trying to limit my possible responses.

:awe:

someone asks a question that presupposes something that has not been proven or accepted by all the people involved. This fallacy is often used rhetorically, so that the question limits direct replies to those that serve the questioner's agenda.

Who claimed Christians are "Pro-Slavery"?

You did lol.

 

[sandorski]

The South lost the war. The 'pro-slave persons' were called the confederates. 🙂 Afterward their religious beliefs became moot.

You don't want to go the wiki fallacies expert route, we can argue using this as a template from now on if you want: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

A straw man would be a misrepresentation of your position but I don't see how I misrepresent your point. You are technically accusing me of a red herring instead, but you are trying to limit my possible responses so that you always appear correct. You guys are definitely guilty of 'raising the bar' where I explain how I disagree on one point and you guys just slightly change your argument and demand more evidence. You already know my position to begin with. What you are doing I think is plurium interrogationum and trying to limit my possible responses.

:awe:

😵🙄

Whatever then.

 

[OverVolt]

😵🙄

Whatever then.

argumentum ad nauseam for the win 🙄

Never go full wiki fallacies.

 

[sandorski]

argumentum ad nauseam for the win 🙄

Never go full wiki fallacies.

Are you just trolling, another dishonest Theist, or trying to make a point?

 

[OverVolt]

I was going to ask why you guys dislike religion so much after wiki fallacy trolling (seriously that is a pet peeve of mine when people try that crap).

The real reason why you don't like religion. People say all sorts of stuff from old bible quotes, how people used religion to justify the crusades, yadda yadda, but that is all irrelevant or cherry picking from history, because it has done equal amounts of good (my opinion), and it doesn't really affect anyone's modern day life.. I like it because I still think people are spiritual. I strayed away for awhile, thought the same way you guys think, then realized my life was MUCH better when I was more involved with the church.

Modern day, you CAN spot the Atheists at family events just going through the motions, and I really do think their morals will become unhinged from where they really came from (Christianity). Which is why the OP caught my attention in the first place. Because I see it as evidence for Atheists starting to get unhinged. They really shouldn't be complaining so much about a memorial in the first place its not the time or place.

Atheists as of late have been saying more and more ridiculous/selfish stuff or accusing religious people of being modern day slavers because its in the bible or whatever it is the Atheists think. Even they know its not true its just people have been letting it fly as true as of late. I was getting sick of it.

 

[sandorski]

I was going to ask why you guys dislike religion so much after wiki fallacy trolling (seriously that is a pet peeve of mine when people try that crap).

The real reason why you don't like religion. People say all sorts of stuff from old bible quotes, how people used religion to justify the crusades, yadda yadda, but that is all irrelevant or cherry picking from history, because it has done equal amounts of good (my opinion), and it doesn't really affect anyone's modern day life.. I like it because I still think people are spiritual. I strayed away for awhile, thought the same way you guys think, then realized my life was MUCH better when I was more involved with the church.

Modern day, you CAN spot the Atheists at family events just going through the motions, and I really do think their morals will become unhinged from where they really came from (Christianity). Which is why the OP caught my attention in the first place. Because I see it as evidence for Atheists starting to get unhinged. They really shouldn't be complaining so much about a memorial in the first place its not the time or place. Atheists as of late have been saying more and more ridiculous/selfish stuff.

It is the time and place. Religious symbols do not belong on Public Monuments/land. As others have said, All or None, preferably None, but at least All avoids specific promotion.

As for Atheists becoming "unhinged", I don't see it as such. We're just pointing out the obvious short comings of Religion. You have shown an example of unhinging, IMO. You clearly used dishonesty in this discussion, then when called out on it attempted to side step it. If you are finding Atheists being annoyed, perhaps it's because they expect honesty in conversation.

Stop using Fallacies and people will quit pointing them out. It really is that simple.

 

[OverVolt]

The Atheists of all the stakeholders in a memorial should really care the least about which symbols appear on the memorial. As far as you guys are concerned its just a meaningless symbol.

You know I was being pretty open and got promptly stabbed in the back so I guess you're a typical Atheist asshole. And I'm actually surprised an Atheists is as much of an asshole as you. Here's to giving the benefit of the doubt and being wrong. You are obviously just trying to dig at me. I know where you stand now, you are deluded, the last line in your sig shows as much. So good luck in life. I hope I never see you again.

I'm not using fallacies. I pointed out like 5 you were using. Its a stupid trolling game. Its better to not go down that path. Its dumb. You apparently don't have the self control to not go there. I was honest and said it was something that irritated me and there you go doing it again on purpose. The word for people like you is an asshole.

 

[justoh]

The Atheists of all the stakeholders in a memorial should really care the least about which symbols appear on the memorial. As far as you guys are concerned its just a meaningless symbol.

Well, that's not really 100% true. The symbol represents ignorance and slavery. It's also unconstitutional, and a bit gay

 

[sandorski]

The Atheists of all the stakeholders in a memorial should really care the least about which symbols appear on the memorial. As far as you guys are concerned its just a meaningless symbol.

You know I was being pretty open and got promptly stabbed in the back so I guess you're a typical Atheist asshole. And I'm actually surprised an Atheists is as much of an asshole as you. Here's to giving the benefit of the doubt and being wrong. You are obviously just trying to dig at me. I know where you stand now, you are deluded, the last line in your sig shows as much. So good luck in life. I hope I never see you again.

I'm not using fallacies. I pointed out like 5 you were using. Its a stupid trolling game. Its better to not go down that path. Its dumb. You apparently don't have the self control to not go there. I was honest and said it was something that irritated me and there you go doing it again on purpose. The word for people like you is an asshole.

😵