ok now-are we blind to irony, better remove that beam

[jackfaire]

Perhaps people are spending so much time looking at/for the specifically religious items that they forget that every item that isn't religious is, by default, atheist.

^-.-^

"Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[2] Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.[3] Atheism is contrasted with theism,[4][5] which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.[5][6]" - Wikipedia entry on Atheism

So what your saying is that if something isn't specifically religious that it denies the existence of God?

So the existence of the universe denies the existence of God?

[Andara Bledin]

We've been over the "definition of atheism" before. The definition as declared by the active atheists of this forum is anyone who lacks a specific belief in a deity. Since we have to have a common definition to move forward with any reasonable debate, that is the one I use.

Atheism is the state of being without a god, not being against them. Atheist is not synonymous with anti-theist.

^-.-^

[jackfaire]

Atheism is the state of being without a god, not being against them. Atheist is not synonymous with anti-theist.

^-.-^

And that is the same thing the definition I posted says. Every Atheist I have spoken to likes to say

"I don't believe in a god"

So you don't believe God exists

"No that isn't what I am saying I am saying I don't believe in a god"

I don't care how many ways you state it your either Agnostic or your Atheist.

The former is a belief that god is unknowable and that the truth of existence is not something that can be known.

The latter is a lack of belief in a god. Not on the basis that you don't know but because you don't believe one exists.

Now that being said something being non religious does not automatically make it atheist as really something not being affiliated directly with a religion has little to no bearing on it's religious orientation.

At best it makes it secular. For example if there is no religious affiliation for a Frisbee that doesn't make it atheist that makes it secular.

[Gravekeeper]

I don't understand why you're so offended by this quote, GK. You're not a Christian. Are you getting offended on other people's behalf? Why would you feel the need to do that?

It has nothing to do with being Christian or not Christian or Atheist or whatever. It has everything to do with being decent to your fellow human beings. A quality which should be universal regardless of what you do or do not believe in. This isn't about whose team scored.

His statement hurt others. He intentionally did this to score a cheap point for his team. Belief or non-belief is irrelevant. If he, and you frankly, truly think Atheism is the superior viewpoint you should be able to look beyond petty bullshit like this. Instead, you're acting like the very same Christian stereotype you spend so much energy railing against and thus end up no better than they are.

Also, you think that being mentioned on the Daily Show is a good measure of dickishness?

It's the best measure your media has. Sadly enough.

and I'm sure the fact that Jon Stewart sits on the 9/11 memorial and museum foundation board had nothing to do with that.....nothing like a nice conflict of interest.......technically he's one of the defendants, so it's in his best interest to make the opposition look bad in the public eye, now isn't it?

Psst, Jon Stewart is Jewish. >.>

[Ghel]

His statement hurt others.

Hurt their egos, maybe, or their position of privilege. I don't see a problem with that. How, exactly, are these Christians harmed by pointing out that what they're saying about this cross piece of rubble indicates that their God is either evil or incompetent?


On the one hand, I think the lawsuit is a waste of time and money, since American Atheists is unlikely to win due to the current political climate.

On the other hand, the Supreme Court recently invented a grandfather clause for Ten Commandments monuments. They said the Kentucky monument has to go because it's a violation of church-state separation, but the Texas state capitol monument can stay because it's been there for decades and nobody has complained about it. So we must object to blatant violations of the establishment clause as soon as they happen, because if we don't, someone could say, "you never complained before."

[Andara Bledin]

I'm still waiting to hear how the cross' very existence is causing "physical harm" to the people named as plaintiffs.

^-.-^

[Ghel]

The harm described in the lawsuit includes "dyspepsia, symptoms of depression, headaches, anxiety, and mental pain and anguish", but the cause is not from "the cross' very existence". Rather, the cause is "the knowledge that they are made to feel officially excluded from the ranks of citizens who were directly injured by the 9/11 attack and the lack of acknowledgement of the more than 1,000 non-Christian individuals who were killed at the World Trade Center." It is not the cross itself that's the problem, but what its placement in the memorial, to the exclusion of all other religious symbols, represents.

[Andara Bledin]

You keep saying "to the exclusion of all other religious symbols," and that is just not the case. For one who claims to be fighting for what they see as "the truth," that's a terrible failure at even the attempt to check facts before posting.

The atheist organizations donations were not rejected for any reason above the fact that they had nothing to do with the event. If they had, as others did, created their offering from actual items that were part of the Pile, then their donation would have been accepted, as was the Star of David piece that will also be on display.

An outstanding article with a little more truth than the frothing that is generally seen in relation this this whole issue at State of Formation:
Museum or Memorial, and Why It Matters: Thoughts on Religious Symbolism
Don't forget to read the comments. Of those I had time to go over, the responses and replies raised the bar.

The fact is that the cross is part of a historical display of how people reacted in the time just after the attacks. It's not a reaction to how people reacted, nor should anyone be allowed to just make up history. It either happened or it didn't, and as much as it appears to gall some people, the cross happened. It was there. The star of David, also part of the display, was created in the immediate aftermath. It, too, was there. These statues that atheist.org wants to donate? They weren't there. In fact, they're still nowhere; they don't even exist. Where was atheist.org during the aftermath? Why is it so hard for them to come up with non-religious symbols relevant to the period of time being represented by the historical display? Is it because they weren't there? Is it because they lack symbols? They could have submitted oral histories as hundreds of others did. Why didn't they do that? There were very many ways to have their voices heard, and I'm certain there are quite a number of actual atheists who went through the process and did just that. It's disheartening that unless it has his stamp of approval, the leader of the organization won't recognize them or their efforts.

^-.-^

[Rapscallion]

Er, the atheist movement wasn't claiming it should be allowed to display its own icons there. I don't feel that's relevant.

Where was atheist.org during the aftermath?

Probably shitting itself in case they were blamed for it? You know, since they're often described as satanists and all that...

Rapscallion

[Andara Bledin]

Er, the atheist movement wasn't claiming it should be allowed to display its own icons there. I don't feel that's relevant.

Please take the time to read the complaint. They are calling for the removal of the cross, an item of historic significance in a display of history, specifically because "equal time" has not been given to other non-Christian items.

I am not the only one who feels that the leadership of American Atheists is using this issue as a way to grandstand off of tragedy - the very thing they claim Christianity is trying to do with the cross.

Yet another well-spoken atheist against the lawsuit, this time in the pages of the Washington Post:
The 9/11 ‘cross’ redux: Free expression the real First Amendment issue

^-.-^

[Ghel]

You keep saying "to the exclusion of all other religious symbols," and that is just not the case. For one who claims to be fighting for what they see as "the truth," that's a terrible failure at even the attempt to check facts before posting.

IIRC, the only other religious symbol that's been allowed is the Star of David made from the debris, and that was only accepted after the American Atheists' lawsuit was filed.

I am not the only one who feels that the leadership of American Atheists is using this issue as a way to grandstand off of tragedy - the very thing they claim Christianity is trying to do with the cross.

Yes, because asking to be equally represented under the law is grandstanding.

Meanwhile, all the calls to prayer, the government-endorsed National Day of Prayer, and all the other calls to religious observance in the wake of the 9/11 attacks aren't grandstanding?

[Andara Bledin]

IIRC, the only other religious symbol that's been allowed is the Star of David made from the debris, and that was only accepted after the American Atheists' lawsuit was filed.

Actually, those are half of the known symbols mentioned in news articles. Please, do at least a little bit of research.

Yes, because asking to be equally represented under the law is grandstanding.

He's not asking for equal representation; he's asking for special dispensation to create a false history so that "his side" can be represented. He's trying to gain Special Snowflake status for his group and is misusing the US legal system in order to do so.

Again, please actually research the case in question so that you can be better prepared with the facts from which to argue your position.

^-.-^

[Rapscallion]

Please take the time to read the complaint.

Please read what I said. Sod the complaint, I was responding to what you had to say about it.

You were talking as if the atheists hadn't done anything such as personal histories or their own symbols. The average atheist doesn't go around shouting from the rooftop that they're an atheist and looking for fights (I save my comments for debate forums such as this). They don't go around having their lives revolve around it, and similarly there are religious people I respect who do tjos and aren't out for a fight. How do you know such atheists didn't put their stuff there?

As for symbols, that's something I'll happily leave in the province of those who claim to have knowledge of something supernatural. Such people seem desperate to have and display meaningful icons. As an atheist I don't believe in such and thus I don't need a symbol.

That said, it would be interesting to see if the atheist movement could get a reaction by offering a Darwin-fish for display to commemorate the atheists who died in the attack. The reaction to that would be interesting.

Rapscallion

[Andara Bledin]

How do you know such atheists didn't put their stuff there?

According to American Atheists, they aren't represented at all. I, personally, don't believe that, think his claims are created out of whole cloth, and believe his entire intent is to try to suppress things he doesn't like while hiding behind the Constitution in his attempt to subvert another part of the same amendment.

That said, it would be interesting to see if the atheist movement could get a reaction by offering a Darwin-fish for display to commemorate the atheists who died in the attack. The reaction to that would be interesting.

If even a single person turned to a Darwin-fish in the aftermath of the attacks as a coping mechanism, then it should be included. Because that's what the museum display is about: How people coped in the immediate aftermath of the attacks.

^-.-^

[jackfaire]

According to American Atheists, they aren't represented at all. I, personally, don't believe that, think his claims are created out of whole cloth, and believe his entire intent is to try to suppress things he doesn't like while hiding behind the Constitution in his attempt to subvert another part of the same amendment.

Which of course is why their lawsuit requested that either other religions be represented or none. You know cuz they want to suppress those other religions that weren't being represented.