Some people say that a cross on government property could be a violation of church and state.

Since atheists believe in nothing, isn't "nothing" a symbol of atheism? And as such, shouldn't "nothing" be outlawed on government property?

I mean, say a bunch of atheists went to Arlington cemetery and demanded all the crosses be torn down because they represent Christianity. What would they replace them with? Nothing? But wouldn't that be an endorsement of "nothing" and therefore atheism?

Said the Christian in the desert, "Look at all that nothingness! Goll durn atheists are at it again." Without them, this place would be full of life. And crosses.

Ahem. And have a nice day.

There is a problem with the argument that you present. Atheism isn't a statement of belief in nothing. Atheists believe in something, they just don't believe in a god or gods or any sort of organized religion. For example, an atheist can believe that it is important to live a good life and always be respectful of others. An atheist can believe that this life is all we have, so now is the time to make the best of it.

If atheists want a sticker to represent that belief, how about one of those NOTW stickers without the cross/t in the middle, so it says NOW.

I see those NOTW stickers all the time. What do they mean?

WTF? SO BEING not of this world...where the hell are ya? This IS "Gods" world... if you are a Christer...you believe in an afterlife...and may consider the afterlife not of this world...but this life? we obviously ARE part of this world! OY VAY... the crap some poeple come up with!! :(



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/18/2012 01:31PM by bignevermo.

and I see a lot of those silly decals on cars.

Atheism is the lack of belief in a 'god'. It doesn't mean the lack of belief in 'anything at all'.

Besides, crosses are morbid. Had the Romans hung Jesus instead would we see noosed gallows adorning church tops today? How inspiring would that be?

Ahem. And have a nice day, too, Mr. Passive-Aggressive.

In fact a belief in "nothing"-ness is more representative of anarchy than atheism.

Hahaha! From entropy you came, and re-entrope you will.
:-)

The VA has an atheist symbol for tombstones.
It's a representation of an atom, with a nucleus and neutrons circling around.

"Said the Christian in the desert, 'Look at all that nothingness! Goll durn atheists are at it again. Without them, this place would be full of life. And crosses.'"

I can think of a few atheists who are full of life!

How much of the desert needs to be filled up with crosses?

And why?

There are several on this board who could probably handle this better, but I'll give it a go:

"Since atheists believe in nothing, isn't "nothing" a symbol of atheism? And as such, shouldn't "nothing" be outlawed on government property?"

There are quite a few problems with this line, which is the basis for the rest of your post...

Let's start with belief. You are confusing atheists with something else. Atheists do not "believe in nothing", quiet the opposite, they do not believe in a higher power, supreme being or god. Believing in "nothing" is not the same thing as not believing something.

Now let's talk about symbolism... You're assuming that there is an atheist organization, that all atheists attend and have their Sunday non-worship. There is no such organization. The term atheist is a label given to simplify discussions. Christians generally have agreed as an organization to center much of their faith on the cross. As atheists do not have an organization, and most consider their non-belief to be private, there is no group to organize or center their non-belief around. So, to state that atheists have a symbol at all, let alone that it is "nothing" is just silly.

And most important, lets look at what's outlawed... As far as I can tell, in several cases the law allows for crosses to be placed on government property. All the way up to the Supreme court. Some people have a problem with that. I for one, don't, because while there is no church religion, the government does acknowledge religion... Religion is in society and culture, but the government should not promote one religion over another. The problem I have is that it's a shame that more religions don't get equal representation and respect. Christianity isn't the only religion here in the US, but it does seem to be the only one that gets representation, or even respect.

"The goal of avoiding governmental endorsement of religion does not require eradication of all religious symbols in the public realm, said Kennedy. The Constitution does not oblige government to avoid any public acknowledgement of religion's role in society." - http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126370251

There are always zealots... People who take things too far. I would hope you would agree that the Christian inquisition went a bit too far trying to enforce christian authority, there are pleanty of other examples that I could rattle off.

Just because I don't believe in Christianity, doesn't mean that I should go around equating every christian with the family that let their children die because they prayed to save them from a curable disease... Please don't equate every atheist with a few that you don't agree with.

Excellent. Very well said. Nice restraint.

I have no interest in spectator sports. This doesn't mean I spend hours in front of a turned-off TV watching "no sports."

I do have a hat with no logo it.

Hey Lostmypassword,

I do sit in front of the turned off TV just so I can say to the sports fans at work: Great game, was it not?!

For the others,
I was making a silly joke, not a rational argument.

Actually, when I see emptiness, I always think of the inside of a radical believers head. Not all believers mind you, just the ones that come up with really asinine arguments to try to justify putting up religious memorials every single place they can.

As an atheist, I don't mind many of the older memorials that include religious icons. They are relics of a different time, and have their place. I do take issue with modern attempts to try to use memorials as a means of slipping in religious icons into public spaces. Are modern society has too many people of differing belief systems for that to be right.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/18/2012 12:55PM by forbiddencokedrinker.

I think you are confusing atheism with existential nihilism.

... is like saying not playing baseball, football, etc., is a sport.

Timothy

and don't forget...not stamp collecting is a hobby.

Timothy, Now you're starting to get it.

... and not play with your little factory is mormonism.

Wait, what were we talking about?

There is a place for religious symbolism. I have no problem with the monuments at Arlington. They represent the individual belief of the soldier.

How would you feel about public schools holding prayers to Zeus, or swearing on the Quran before testifying in court?

Lost Mystic,
I dislike all the religious symbolism in public places. In a society with varying beliefs and/or thoughts, it's not possible to satisfy everyone's symbolistic wishes, so the only real way is to eliminate all of them. Unfortunately, the religious often perceive this as attack on their beliefs, thus the real reason for my starting this thread i.e. to bring out the irony of the whole thought process of religious people.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/19/2012 02:32AM by Dave the Atheist.

You can thank me later for the plethora of strawmen. It was truly benevolent of me, wouldn't you say? If you were an apologist, you'd be like a pig in slop.

Sorry Dave the Atheist,

For anyone who is unable to not construct a strawman from a simple statement (apologists), I preemptively apologize for the comment that could be construed to say that I called you a pig or slop, or liking pigs in slop, or being a sloppy pig, or being slop that likes pigs. And I in no way intended to imply that atheists are pigs, slop, or sloppy pigs. Although, one might be able to construct a strawman from this that says atheist pigs are sloppy apologists, but I'm not sure. Perhaps that should be sloppy apologists are pigs? But then "sloppy apologist" is repetitive. And one could say that this is much to do about nothing.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/19/2012 09:04AM by freetimenow.

"For anyone who is unable to not construct a strawman from a simple statement (apologists), I preemptively apologize for the comment that could be construed to say that I called you a pig or slop, or liking pigs in slop, or being a sloppy pig, or being slop that likes pigs. And I in no way intended to imply that atheists are pigs, slop, or sloppy pigs. Although, one might be able to construct a strawman from this that says atheist pigs are sloppy apologists, but I'm not sure. Perhaps that should be sloppy apologists are pigs? But then "sloppy apologist" is repetitive. And one could say that this is much to do about nothing."

The only honorable thing to do when you realized you have made a communication boo-boo is to own up to it and apologize without any qualification. This is 'much to do about nothing'? A man doesn't earn himself any credit when he throws BS into a crowd then reacts to the crowd's protest with 'oh, I didn't mean it, so it was nothing to get upset about'.

You've completely misconstrued what my original intentions were and my responses!!!!!!!!! I meant it as a JOKE and my follow on comments were meant as a joke. I told this same joke to some Christian coworkers and they just laughed. I recently told a Catholic joke during lent to some Catholics and they really laughed even though it wasn't close to doctrinally accurate. So I tell a joke here where a certain amount of atheists talk and I get all this serious, over the top stuff like your comment? Really? Please calm down and stop taking this and life so seriously.

Perhaps, and this is just a guess, but I think you need to understand your audience a little better if you want to be taken as funny.

The "Christian" audience laughed because, 1. they probably don't really understand what an atheist is and 2. They don't like atheists and 3. In your "joke" you are making fun of and disrespecting atheists.

You take the same joke here, knowing that this is an atheist heavy board and get a very different response... Not too surprising because many of your audience here are going to be offended... Misrepresenting atheism ("believe in nothing") and saying things like "Without them [atheists], this place would be full of life" isn't going to make many people here laugh.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/19/2012 01:44PM by Finally Free!.

Know your audience and also realize the many subtle cues in language are lost on a BB. You may have meant it as a joke, but it read like baiting.

Finally Free,
You are correct. I simply thought that a bunch of people who had come from a culture where laughing at oneself was not appreciated, would have a natural ability to laugh at themselves, even when the punch line is a little off.

I know that is one of the things I learned to do as a post-Mormon. As a Mormon, I couldn't even perceive the punch line in many of the Mormon jokes and did like jokes aimed at me.

Now, I mess with people and laugh when they poke back at me, even if their joke attempt doesn't doesn't properly portray me. What jokes really do?

Anyway, no biggy. Sorry for the confusion. I'll be sure to preface jokes in the future.

The crosses are the symbol of the faith of the deceased. Atheists do not want to destroy other people's faith, but want the state to stop officially sanctioning religion.

If there were a cross on the state capitol, then it should be taken down. A cross on a tombstone is a personal display of faith that must be respected.