For Atheists rights, or done out of spite?

[Retro Rob]

Their biggest point being that the religious monument does not belong on public property. It's too bad they couldn't keep pushing it through the courts so that the religious icon was removed. This has already happened many times when religious groups have attempted to utilize public property to enshrine their belief system. Manger scenes on public property at Christmas are the first that come to mind.

So, put another monument on public property, that'll teach them!

This was out of spite, obviously. But then, Atheism is a defense against religion. It wouldn't exist without religion.

Atheism is a defense "against" religion? The normal definition I get from them is a non-belief in a deity. Now, you're assigning them a cause and saying that they act together in defense against religious influence.

If religion did not exist, Atheism would not exist. If black opression did not exist, it's unlikely the civil rights movement would have existed. If women had been allowed to vote, women's suffrage wouldn't have existed

If the Sun didn't exist, we wouldn't exist. And?

Wait, you mean religions used to be forced on people, and people are now sensitive to it? You mean Religions suggest they should be pushed on others whether others want it or not? Hmmmmm.... It's no wonder Atheists were upset.

Are you saying Atheists are proselytizing now with that bench? What's the difference?

 

[randomrogue]

It is in some places. You can clearly see from some people's posts here though that it's not subject to scrutiny in a lot of places.

 

[shadow9d9]

If so, it wasn't very flattering to their cause or beliefs.

They could have done much better.

Fern

There is no "cause" or "belief" involved in atheism.

 

[shadow9d9]

I didn't know religion wasn't subject to scrutiny already.

If it was, it wouldn't be legislating a certain brand of "morality" all over the country.

 

[PowerEngineer]

I believe the 10 Commandment sculptures and art at courthouses represent law in general and is probably the best recognized symbol of historical law in the western world. The religious aspect of the symbol is not the point, it just so happens that most "law" for a few thousand years was religiously based... but the focus is the law. I have seen other law-related symbols on gov buildings, some religious and some not, but the whole idea is law upholding law. Militant atheists are just being their typically silly selves.

Which is why you'd see nothing wrong with a bench citing sharia law across from the courthouse.

I'm sure we can construct a similar argument that sharia is recognized by many as a symbol of historical law and that its religious aspects are "not the point". The "focus is the law" and "the whole idea is upholding law".

We'd quickly lose count of all the "silly" Christians who would raise a ruckus over a sharia bench. I'm sure that among their arguments they would assert that its proximity to the courthouse implies a connection between US law and sharia law that does not exist and makes its placement there (not its content) misleading and inappropriate.

It seems to me that atheists can make that same argument about the ten commandments bench. And if the ten commandments bench is going to stay, then an atheist bench that challenges the connection it seeks to imply between Christian beliefs and US laws helps restore the proper balance.

Think of this in biblical terms: a bench for a bench!

 

[Pulsar]

...snip....

They should absolutely be allowed to put the bench there. If nothing else, perhaps it will make some people challenge their 'beliefs' with an actual thought process. If we're going to make monuments to unicorns, we should throw in the opposing viewpoint, just as a balance. I'd actually say it's more in protest than in spite.

Your analogies continue to be horrible. Go back in your religions history to understand why I compare it to other oppresive movements. Go over to the polyamorous marriage thread if you'd like to see a more recent example. You might even see someone you know.

Promoting rational thought in that manner probably could be called proselytizing. The difference is that a scientist can reliably and repeatably prove his claims. If you want to see real monuments to Atheism, go find a bust of Albert Einstein, or Marie Curie, or Pasteur.

And regarding this comment:
But Atheists, as far as I have seen, don't erect anything -- I don't think its in their nature as it is with religious persons.

Atheism is non-belief. Why the heck would they raise a monument in non-belief of something? They're putting the bench there in protest of the 10 commandment monument. Nothing more and nothing less.

 

[Pulsar]

Think of this in biblical terms: a bench for a bench!

OMG. The possibilities with that are endless. May the bad puns begin

Love Thy Bench.

 

[randomrogue]

Might be worth mentioning that the 10 commandments date from about the 6th century BC. The Code of Hammurabi dates from the 18th century BC.

Just so you know. As far as laws and justice are concerned the 10 Commandments are unimpressive compared to the latter.

 

[Retro Rob]

They should absolutely be allowed to put the bench there. If nothing else, perhaps it will make some people challenge their 'beliefs' with an actual thought process. If we're going to make monuments to unicorns, we should throw in the opposing viewpoint, just as a balance. I'd actually say it's more in protest than in spite.

I love the "unicorns" analogy. Tell me, how many people over the age of 5 believe in unicorns? I can point to some mature scientists that believe in a God of some sort, or maybe some who even profess Christian belief.

But please, point me to any monument dedicated to the existence of and praise of unicorns and we can have a discussion, since you mentioned them.

Your analogies continue to be horrible. Go back in your religions history to understand why I compare it to other oppresive movements. Go over to the polyamorous marriage thread if you'd like to see a more recent example. You might even see someone you know.

What "analogies"? You didn't provide even a single quote for me to reference in this post of yours.

Promoting rational thought in that manner probably could be called proselytizing. The difference is that a scientist can reliably and repeatably prove his claims. If you want to see real monuments to Atheism, go find a bust of Albert Einstein, or Marie Curie, or Pasteur.

Proselytizing is proselytizing, my friend. I didn't know there was a justification for forcing your beliefs on others. If there's so much proof, then they wouldn't need to force anything... they simply would let the results speak.

Atheism is non-belief. Why the heck would they raise a monument in non-belief of something? They're putting the bench there in protest of the 10 commandment monument. Nothing more and nothing less.

Why? If Moses wasn't real, then why protest fantasy in this manner? I won't raise a monument to protest unicorns if I was fairly sure they didn't exist, no matter if someone raised a monument praising unicorns. Just doesn't makes it sense, does it?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I love the "unicorns" analogy. Tell me, how many people over the age of 5 believe in unicorns? I can point to some mature scientists that believe in a God of some sort, or maybe some who even profess Christian belief.

But please, point me to any monument dedicated to the existence of and praise of unicorns and we can have a discussion, since you mentioned them.

Argumentum ad populum

Proselytizing is proselytizing, my friend. I didn't know there was a justification for forcing your beliefs on others. If there's so much proof, then they wouldn't need to force anything... they simply would let the results speak.

Proselytizing isn't proselytizing when the message is "think for yourself."

Why? If Moses wasn't real, then why protest fantasy in this manner?

Who said Moses wasn't real? And why are you asking "why protest," when the real question is "why does this need a monument on public property?"

I won't raise a monument to protest unicorns if I was fairly sure they didn't exist, no matter if someone raised a monument praising unicorns. Just doesn't makes it sense, does it?

Stupendous. I don't listen to country music. I don't care for liver. My big toe is longer than my 2nd toe on my right foot, but my 2nd toe is longer than my big toe on my left foot. I'm right handed.

This is the point where we share irrelevant details about ourselves, isn't it? It appears that's what you were doing, anyway.

 

[lagokc]

It does sound like it's mocking the Ten Commandments display. Something that very much needs a good mocking.

It also makes a very important constitutional point that is also worth making.

It doesn't sound like it's mocking the Ten Commandments display, it sounds like it's rebutting it.

If they wanted to mock the Ten Commands display they'd make a matching one featuring the Exodus 34 version instead of the Exodus 20 version. I don't know why Christians are so enamored with the version that Moses broke, they're equally terrible.

1: Thou shalt worship no other god (For the Lord is a jealous god).
2: Thou shalt make thee no molten gods.
3: The feast of unleavened bread shalt thou keep in the month when the ear is on the corn
4: All the first-born are mine
5: Six days shalt thou work, but on the seventh thou shalt rest
6: Thou shalt observe the feast of weeks, even of the first fruits of the wheat harvest, and the feast of ingathering at the year's end
7: Thou shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leavened bread
8: The fat of my feast shall not remain all night until the morning
9: The first of the first fruits of thy ground thou shalt bring unto the house of the Lord thy God
10: Thou shalt not seethe a kid in its mother's milk

 

[colonelciller]

Seriously, things like this makes me think theists and atheists would never universally, truly get along well.

I think it's rather sad, actually.

Athiest - no belief in ~10,000 myths
Theist - no belief in ~ 9,999 myths

Athiests have no belief... how no belief can be labeled as a belief is beyond understanding.

The real problem with the 2 groups "getting along" is that the Thiest chooses to believe in make-believe nonsense without evidence. This belief in make-believe is and should be disturbing for those not indoctrinated into the culture of belief without cause. The only sad thing here is that there are people who believe that make-believe is real.

 

[Retro Rob]

Argumentum ad populum

Lol -- please show me where I said that God must be real because a lot of people believe he is... find a quote, or simply keep your mouth shut.

I was illustrating the point that I won't entertain thoughts on unicorns if no one is erecting monuments to unicorns. Try to keep up...mkay?

 

[colonelciller]

I was illustrating the point that I won't entertain thoughts on unicorns if no one is erecting monuments to unicorns. Try to keep up...mkay?

http://www.monumenttotheinvisiblepinkunicorn.com/

checkmate theist
ROFL

 

[Pulsar]

Proselytizing is proselytizing, my friend. I didn't know there was a justification for forcing your beliefs on others. If there's so much proof, then they wouldn't need to force anything... they simply would let the results speak.

The word proselytizing does not contain any negative connotations. It is not 'forcing' your beliefs. I already linked to the Webster's dictionary link to try help you understand that. I can understand why you'd want to be politically correct when it comes to religion considering its history on social issues.

Raising a monument to something doesn't force your beliefs on others. Putting a religious icon up on public property where my tax dollars pay for it is a very inappropriate (and usually illegal) practice though. It's also something that you've repeatedly failed to address, and goes against a fairly widely accepted view of separation of church and state. Moreover a monument to rational thought encourages rational thought. I'm can't think of a situation where that might be bad. I can think of a situation where people don't encourage it though.

I wonder why you feel there is a need for a double standard here. You statement is equally applicable to god.

If there's so much proof, then they wouldn't need to force anything... they simply would let the results speak.

Oh, and colnelciller, stop stealing my thunder!

http://xenophilius.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/xl.jpg

 

[Retro Rob]

The word proselytizing does not contain any negative connotations. I already linked to the Webster's dictionary link to try help you understand that. I can understand why you'd want to be politically correct when it comes to religion considering its history on social issues.

Raising a monument to something doesn't force your beliefs on others. Putting a religious icon up on public property where my tax dollars pay for it is a very inappropriate (and usually illegal) practice though. It's also something that you've repeatedly failed to address. Moreover a monument to rational thought encourages rational thought. I'm can't think of a situation where that might be bad. I can think of a situation where people don't encourage it though.

I wonder why you feel there is a need for a double standard here. You statement is equally applicable to god.

If there's so much proof, then they wouldn't need to force anything... they simply would let the results speak.

Your tax dollars are wasted on things much worse than this. Please.. My tax dollars are wasted on endeavors I don't endorse either... what can you really do about it? Neither of us really can.

The only difference in the bold is that believers, in Christianity anyway, are basically under the command of Jesus to inform people anyway... that's why you see people "preaching" because Jesus personally preached.

Science has no such command. Basically, excuses for not believing in God are eliminated when non-believers are given the opportunity but decline to use it.

Then they can't say "I didn't know", or "you never told me about "X".

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Science has no such command.

Some would say that science does have an obligation to educate and to dispell harmful myths, and many religions fall into that category.

The only point I see consistently being made by you in this thread is that you think Christians should be able to put their nonsense in public places without anyone else saying anything about it. To which I can only respond: too bad.

We need more vocal atheists, not fewer.

 

[cwjerome]

Which is why you'd see nothing wrong with a bench citing sharia law across from the courthouse.

It would certainly be odd, since it doesn't really have any historical and traditional applicability to Western/US laws. I might challenge it on those grounds as being not a wise choice as there are better ones that symbolize law and that the contemporary controversies of Sharia Law make it unnecessarily inflammatory. In theory I have no problem with it but the practicalities make it foolish. Common sense applies.

One thing I remember inside the Supreme Court chamber are the many wonderful sculptures all along the upper walls that depict various great law-givers in history, including Menes, Moses, Confucius, and yes, even Muhammad holding a Koran. It's a very nice representation.

The problem with the 10 Commandments in this context is that some people attach too much religiousness to it in the wrong way, both Christians and atheists, as they battle each other in their foolish little culture war.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Lol -- please show me where I said that God must be real because a lot of people believe he is... find a quote, or simply keep your mouth shut.

You appear to have misunderstood your own fallacy -- I suppose that's par for the course, since you are the perpetrator.

The validity of the unicorn analogy is not dependent upon the number of believers in unicorns, yet you attempted to rebut the analogy on the basis that there weren't sufficient believers. That's an implicit fallacy.

I have not claimed that you "said that God must be real because a lot of people believe he is." It sounds like you had to look up what the ad populum fallacy is, and made some assumptions about my position based on what you read there. That was a mistake.

I was illustrating the point that I won't entertain thoughts on unicorns if no one is erecting monuments to unicorns. Try to keep up...mkay?

Now you're repeating the same fallacy.

 

[Pulsar]

Your tax dollars are wasted on things much worse than this. Please.. My tax dollars are wasted on endeavors I don't endorse either... what can you really do about it? Neither of us really can.

I'm reasonably happy with the current situation with the atheist bench next to it, though if I had my wishes neither would be there. I can continue to donate to atheist funds that fight this sort of thing. I'm happy with that too.

Science has no such command. Basically, reasons for not believing in God are eliminated when non-believers are given the opportunity but decline to use it.

So, if I want to be a non-believer because there is no scientific proof of God, it is an excuse. But someone who decides to be a believer despite a total lack of evidence is making a rational choice. That doesn't make much sense.

 

[Agent11]

I'd rather they spend their energy to get the 'in god we trust' phrase on currency replaced with the original 'mind your business'.

 

[shadow9d9]

I love the "unicorns" analogy. Tell me, how many people over the age of 5 believe in unicorns? I can point to some mature scientists that believe in a God of some sort, or maybe some who even profess Christian belief.

Amount of people believing in nonsense doesn't make it somehow more credible. When the whole world thought the world was flat, it wasn't magically more credible.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Who said Moses wasn't real?

Archeologists (consensus), historians (consensus) and many Jewish and Christian theologians. Most of these are not atheists either, they simply deal with evidence based science and have to follow the evidence regardless of what their religious texts says.

Basically, there exists no records of his existance outside of the Bible and since the stories about Jews being slaves in Egypt are known to be false that is not a reliable source.

Same people agree that king David didn't exist either.

 

[randomrogue]

Yeah every time I try to mention anything with respect religious figures possibly not existing people get their panties in a bunch.

When I was in Istanbul they had Moses' walking stick on display. It was a stick. They also had part of Muhammad's beard and his footprint. These are just holy relics though and who knows if they're really real.

Moses, King David, and Solomon might not have existed. The old testament was very specific about historical sites and events and the archaeology is disputing it so far. There is something mentioning King David later but the dates don't quite match. It's quite possible there was a David but they simply exaggerated everything. The research is ongoing.

Jesus might not have existed either. I struggle to believe that the Jews who waited 800 years for Jesus to show up wouldn't mention it anywhere outside of the new testament decades later and that no historian alive would mention him. The man performed miracles right and left and nobody thought to mention it?

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Yeah every time I try to mention anything with respect religious figures possibly not existing people get their panties in a bunch.

When I was in Istanbul they had Moses' walking stick on display. It was a stick. They also had part of Muhammad's beard and his footprint. These are just holy relics though and who knows if they're really real.

Moses, King David, and Solomon might not have existed. The old testament was very specific about historical sites and events and the archaeology is disputing it so far. There is something mentioning King David later but the dates don't quite match. It's quite possible there was a David but they simply exaggerated everything. The research is ongoing.

Jesus might not have existed either. I struggle to believe that the Jews who waited 800 years for Jesus to show up wouldn't mention it anywhere outside of the new testament decades later and that no historian alive would mention him. The man performed miracles right and left and nobody thought to mention it?

Moses and King David are known falsifications in the OT, theologians that ARE theists have stated as much, there is no archeological or historical evidence of either ever existing and considering how prominent they were it WOULD have been recorded since this does NOT predate recorded history.

Solomon probably existed, Jesus probably existed and both of them existed as historical persons, the fables of the book are things that not even theologians can confirm by historical or archeological findings. Most of the NT was written centuries after the death of Jesus and NONE of it was written by the named authors except MAYBE for Paul the Persecutor of Christians that needed the church to change all scripture to allow him forgiveness and a place as a prophet.

A cast out that wanted power got what he wanted from the church. In the version it exists today the Bible is a collection of false documentation.

It's a nice fable for those who are afraid to die.