If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   Road crosses ruled unconstitutional. Chicken inconsolable   (cnn.com) divider line 642
    More: Sad  
•       •       •

19674 clicks; posted to Main » on 19 Aug 2010 at 8:15 AM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



642 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | » | Last | Show all
 
2010-08-19 10:35:34 AM
The Homer Tax: ace in your face: I am comparing the statements that Christians think a person will "live on in heaven" and an Atheist would believe the person would "live on in their memory". Neither is a condemnation. A condemnation would be "there is no god so he won't be there" or "unlike atheists who will burn in hell he will live in heaven".

That's not what you said, though. I agree with you that adding the second part is crappy. What I was saying was the simple statement that there is no god is a condemnation of no one any more than the statement there is a god is a condemnation of someone.


Saying "there is no god" would be like saying "there is a god". Pointless and silly. To say they rest with angels or in some ones hearts are relevant beliefs. You don't have to get all proselytizy with religion to make it work. Of course christians would have something about believing in god- because thats what they believe in. But do athiests believe in something else (people live on in our memories etc.) or do they just believe in the negativity of god?
 
2010-08-19 10:36:03 AM
FilmBELOH20: Actually, the American cemetery at Normandy is a US Territory, so you're completely wrong. Also, nearly 98% of the tombstones at Arlington have crosses engraved on them. Many of those crosses are different, as they represent the different branches of Christianity, but they're there - everywhere.

I never said there weren't crosses engraved on the markers. The point is that the markers themselves are areligious, and the inscription reflects the religion of the soldier who died (this means all relgions, inclusing non-religions, there's a weird atom symbol or something for athiests).

FilmBELOH20: There are also several large to gigantic crosses all over the cemetery that are not used as personal marks on an individual tombstone:

Again, I never said that there were no crosses in Arlington, I said that the markers weren't crosses.

FilmBELOH20: In other words, you might want to back off the smarmy know-it-all attitude before someone makes you look like a tool...

Physician, heal thyself. On the other hand, congratulations for completely smacking down a point I never made.
 
2010-08-19 10:36:37 AM
Gato Negro: ace in your face: most Christians don't know much about Christ

Who knows the most?


On average? Definitely the Atheists. From my own experience I doubt most Christians have read the Bible beyond the warm and fuzzy verses.

Most Christians believe a whole load of lies as well. I remember sitting in church while the guy in the pulpit told us that we still have Jesus' arrest warrant as proof that he existed. I was about 12 years old so I believed it - I might even have repeated to other people.

Then you get a bit older and you start to think, "So... where is it, exactly?" Surely if we have Jesus' arrest warrant then it's on VERY prominent display somewhere, right? There's no way it'll be hidden in some basement somewhere. But nobody knows. They're all 100% sure it exists but nobody knows quite where. The best the guy in the pulpit can do is "ask somebody" for me.

/Still waiting for the reply
 
2010-08-19 10:37:20 AM
zamboni: R.A.Danny: zamboni: On public land. So, if I decide to use private money to build a McDonald's on public land, you'll back me. B'cause that'd be sweet!

There are McDonald's on public land already.

Cool, and they don't have to pay anything to put them there? Leases, fees, etc?


That would be the private money part. Just answering exactly what you were asking.
 
2010-08-19 10:37:58 AM
Geotpf: ace in your face: jagec: EvilEgg: They are also a distraction, drivers do not need more distractions along the roadside.

You're kidding, right? A small cross by the side of the road is a "distraction"?

What's your opinion on fenceposts, or fire hydrants, or parked cars, or coffee shops, or trees, or pedestrians, or stop signs, or streetlights?

If that's all it takes to distract you, then you shouldn't drive. Heaven help you when you come across one of those giant multicolor flashing video billboards (which ARE an annoying distraction, especially at night or in the rain...but they still don't make me crash).

There is one of those bright ones outside Tacoma wa. I literally did almost get in an accident when I came around a curb one dark rainy night and it flashed in my eyes and aggravated a migraine that had been slight until then. I couldn't see for a second. Scary stuff. Didn't crash but felt pissed the next 15 minutes home.

If a roadside cross is enough to trigger a migraine bad enough that you almost crashed...maybe you should not drive a car.


Normally I don't drive when I have a headache, but it wasn't that bad until the sign flashed in my face. I can't take medicine for migraines right now because i am pregnant.
 
2010-08-19 10:38:27 AM
I am an atheist and this is retarded. The government is not putting these up, grieving families are.

These atheists who sued to have these removed are no different than Westboro Baptist Church.
 
2010-08-19 10:38:32 AM
FilmBELOH20: the American cemetery at Normandy is a US Territory, so you're completely wrong. Also, nearly 98% of the tombstones at Arlington have crosses engraved on them. Many of those crosses are different, as they represent the different branches of Christianity, but they're there - everywhere.

There are also several large to gigantic crosses all over the cemetery that are not used as personal marks on an individual tombstone



Remember that you are talking to smug, sneering liberals who are disgusted by the very sight of a cross. I think it makes them physically ill - much like the sight of an American flag.

It reminds them of their failngs... and they don't like that.


Speaking as a reformed liberal (yes, it's true), I know that (new window)
 
2010-08-19 10:38:57 AM
Bombsauce: ITT: ace in your face gets straight embarrassed by reason over.. and over... and over.. and over again.

I'm arguing for religious tolerance. I'm sorry you disagree with that.
 
2010-08-19 10:39:03 AM
I have no problem seeing a cross on the side of the road. Christians are entitled to their religion.

I have a lot of problem knowing it was government funds that put it there, especially considering they can't ask the dead guy it's supposedly honoring if he/she is ok with it.
 
2010-08-19 10:39:07 AM
zace in your face: But do athiests believe in something else (people live on in our memories etc.) or do they just believe in the negativity of god?

Fundamentally, atheism is defined by the lack of belief in a god. I assert that stating that lack of belief is a condemnation of no one. Certainly no more of a condemnation than stating the possession of a belief in a god.
 
2010-08-19 10:39:36 AM
The Homer Tax: jayg22: My Grandfather is burried under one of these unconstituional crosses in Nromandy.

There's no such thing as an "Unconstitutional Cross in Normandy," as the Constitution has no jurisdiction in France.

In America, however, where the Constitution does have power, is where Arlington National Cemetery is located. How many memorial markers are crosses there?


Nobody read the farking article, apparently.

In rejecting the crosses, the appeals court made several arguments, such as the large size and location of the crosses -- on busy public highways where motorists cannot help but notice. Other similar memorial crosses have been erected on public land such as Arlington National Cemetery to honor fallen war dead. But the judges noted those markers are generally accessible or visible only to those who expressly choose to visit them, unlike roads where citizens cannot help but see them.
 
2010-08-19 10:40:10 AM
Silly rabbits, those aren't crosses; they're plus signs...as in another one bites the dust or +1 for street spread.
 
2010-08-19 10:40:26 AM
FilmBELOH20: the American cemetery at Normandy is a US Territory, so you're completely wrong. Also, nearly 98% of the tombstones at Arlington have crosses engraved on them. Many of those crosses are different, as they represent the different branches of Christianity, but they're there - everywhere.

There are also several large to gigantic crosses all over the cemetery that are not used as personal marks on an individual tombstone



Remember that you are talking to smug, sneering liberals who are disgusted by the very sight of a cross. I think it makes them physically ill - much like the sight of an American flag.

It reminds them of their failngs... and they don't like that.


Speaking as a reformed liberal (yes, it's true), I know that people CAN change... (new window)
 
2010-08-19 10:40:27 AM
Weezer808: everyone is entitled to their own beliefs, which is why I hate Richard Dawkins every bit as much as I hate Jerry Falwell.

You think ancient superstitious practices have a place in government decision making?

What would it take to make you angry? If the USA had invaded Iraq based on a reading of chicken entrails would that be OK with you? Why is the Bible better than chicken entrails?
 
2010-08-19 10:40:42 AM
ace in your face: The Homer Tax: ace in your face: I am comparing the statements that Christians think a person will "live on in heaven" and an Atheist would believe the person would "live on in their memory". Neither is a condemnation. A condemnation would be "there is no god so he won't be there" or "unlike atheists who will burn in hell he will live in heaven".

That's not what you said, though. I agree with you that adding the second part is crappy. What I was saying was the simple statement that there is no god is a condemnation of no one any more than the statement there is a god is a condemnation of someone.

Saying "there is no god" would be like saying "there is a god". Pointless and silly. To say they rest with angels or in some ones hearts are relevant beliefs. You don't have to get all proselytizy with religion to make it work. Of course christians would have something about believing in god- because thats what they believe in. But do athiests believe in something else (people live on in our memories etc.) or do they just believe in the negativity of god?


Deists and atheists can debate the existence of a/the god(s). Theists are full of derp.

You really, really, really need to understand this point before you can even pretend to keep up with the rest of us.
 
2010-08-19 10:43:08 AM
sip111: Well, to be honest, I am pretty easily distracted and still I don't see those causing me to wreck anytime soon. On the other hand they are put their by people who wish to draw attention to something, they're distractions by their own very nature.

A distraction doesn't mean something that will automatically, or even most likely, cause a wreck. It's something that will cause people to pay attention to it rather than the road. And the more lavish it is, with handwritten signs, toys, flowers, drawings, crosses, blah blah blah, the more distracting it will be.

Even in the case of the relatively simple crosses in this article, the things are twelve feet tall and covered with writing. how can that not be a distraction?
 
2010-08-19 10:43:22 AM
Kanaric: I am an atheist and this is retarded. The government is not putting these up, grieving families are.

I'm sure if the Atheists started putting up "God doesn't exist" signs on public land the Christians would be happy.

Oh, wait...no they wouldn't.

These atheists who sued to have these removed are no different than Westboro Baptist Church.

Um, yes they are.
 
2010-08-19 10:44:25 AM
Leeds: ace in your face: The Homer Tax: ace in your face: I am comparing the statements that Christians think a person will "live on in heaven" and an Atheist would believe the person would "live on in their memory". Neither is a condemnation. A condemnation would be "there is no god so he won't be there" or "unlike atheists who will burn in hell he will live in heaven".

That's not what you said, though. I agree with you that adding the second part is crappy. What I was saying was the simple statement that there is no god is a condemnation of no one any more than the statement there is a god is a condemnation of someone.

Saying "there is no god" would be like saying "there is a god". Pointless and silly. To say they rest with angels or in some ones hearts are relevant beliefs. You don't have to get all proselytizy with religion to make it work. Of course christians would have something about believing in god- because thats what they believe in. But do athiests believe in something else (people live on in our memories etc.) or do they just believe in the negativity of god?

Deists and atheists can debate the existence of a/the god(s). Theists are full of derp.

You really, really, really need to understand this point before you can even pretend to keep up with the rest of us.


Neither has any more proof than the other. Get back to me with your "proof" god doesn't exist. "Because it is because it is" isn't a valid argument.
 
2010-08-19 10:45:04 AM
ace in your face: I can't take medicine for migraines right now because i am pregnant.

Oh no. I'm so sorry to hear that.

Now we'll have another non-vaccinated, cult-joining magic believer being home-schooled into thinking that logic is the work of some devil.

I has a sad.
 
2010-08-19 10:45:28 AM
1nsanilicious:
I wonder what are some thing to sue Atheists for?


Come back when you've got something...OK?
 
2010-08-19 10:45:36 AM
ace in your face: Saying "there is no god" would be like saying "there is a god". Pointless and silly. To say they rest with angels or in some ones hearts are relevant beliefs. You don't have to get all proselytizy with religion to make it work. Of course christians would have something about believing in god- because thats what they believe in. But do athiests believe in something else (people live on in our memories etc.) or do they just believe in the negativity of god?

The cross itself says "there is a god" and furthermore says "god is Jesus." The symbol is explicit.

As for the "people live on in our memories" part, that's taking some liberties with the phrase "live on," though you'd be wrong to suggest that atheists can't wax poetic about the memory of their loved ones.

However, saying "LITTLE TIMMY IS WITH THE ANGELS NOW" on a cross isn't all that poetic, and it's fair to say that the people who make those sorts of statements believe that to be literal reality.
 
2010-08-19 10:45:38 AM
Geotpf: Nobody read the farking article, apparently.

I go to Arlington at least once every year. It's right up the street from me. My point was that the actual markers to the individuals at Arlington aren't crosses. As was stated earlier, there are crosses in Arlington.

My point was that I don't understand the need for a giant cross to memorialize the dead state troopers that *doesn't* involve some sort of promotion of religion. They manage to do it just fine in Arlington.
 
2010-08-19 10:47:19 AM
ace in your face: Saying "there is no god" would be like saying "there is a god". Pointless and silly

no, there is a third option.

the first one can be LAZY.

the lazy often say "there is no god" because "it is illogical to believe in a god without evidence".

they would be better off saying "there is probably no god" but that overestimates the probability of there being a god. given the utter absence of evidence as well as various complexity issues, etc that the existence of one would great the probability of their being a god is asymptotically close to zero.


ace in your face: You don't have to get all proselytizy with religion to make it work.

asserting that atheists standing up for the constitution and refusing to tolerate christians forcing their way into government is proselytizing is utterly BS.

Joce678: Most Christians believe a whole load of lies as well. I remember sitting in church while the guy in the pulpit told us that we still have Jesus' arrest warrant as proof that he existed. I was about 12 years old so I believed it - I might even have repeated to other people.

Then you get a bit older and you start to think, "So... where is it, exactly?" Surely if we have Jesus' arrest warrant then it's on VERY prominent display somewhere, right? There's no way it'll be hidden in some basement somewhere. But nobody knows. They're all 100% sure it exists but nobody knows quite where. The best the guy in the pulpit can do is "ask somebody" for me.


one of our interns (18 year old!) believes that people regularly revive from the dead after being prepared for burial in america, but the medical establishment hides it.

because his pastor told him so

i was like "where's the evidence?!"
"my pastor told me so"
"that's not evidence!"
 
2010-08-19 10:47:51 AM
1nsanilicious: WTF is with you Athiests? Are the crosses hurtung you, poor little baby? Are you jealous that Athiests don't have a symbol of remembrance so you have to destroy others?

I dont care that Athiesm was crammed down my throat for years in public schools.

I think it's time we viewed Athiesm as a religion and start suing them for shiat.

I wonder what are some thing to sue Atheists for?



In deference to your poor reading comprehension, I've emboldened the important parts...

The crosses don't bother us.
Every day, Atheists probably see dozens of crosses, stars of david, minarets, ichthys, & what-have-you, and it doesn't bother us.
That's not what this is about.
When the US Federal, State, or Local government starts sponsoring these symbols to be erected, THAT is when we as Atheists start getting upset.
It is not the government's place to endorse religion. You can't deny that.

Oh, and calling Atheism a 'religion' is like saying "Not Collecting Stamps is a hobby"
You can't make a religion out of a lack of being religious.
I know that's difficult for you mouth-breathers to figure out, and it makes your straw-man argument tactics more difficult, but that's the way it is.
 
2010-08-19 10:49:50 AM
Kazan: i was like "where's the evidence?!"
"my pastor told me so"
"that's not evidence!"


Hearsay is a kind of evidence.

t2.gstatic.com

/hot
/Works on contingency? No, Money Down.
 
2010-08-19 10:50:15 AM
Fark Me To Tears: FTFA: A three-judge panel of the 10th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled Wednesday that the 14 large crosses would be viewed by most passing motorists as "government's endorsement of Christianity."

"We hold that these memorials have the impermissible effect of conveying to the reasonable observer the message that the state prefers or otherwise endorses a certain religion," concluded the Denver, Colorado-based court. The state of Utah and a private trooper association have the option of appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Have these judges ever visited Arlington National Cemetery? Following their logic, the grave markers (most of which are crosses) should all be taken down, as the US government placed them there.

I'm all for separation of church and state, but here's a point where the judicial system, in a pedantic exercise, is confusing state endorsement of a particular religion with societal norms or culture. Yes, the cross symbolizes Christianity, but it also symbolizes a memorial to those who've passed on. When you see a road-side cross you also understand that it's a memorial. I'm not offended by the idea of a memorial, even if it's put there by the government.


Nope. And here's why. ARLINGTON DOESN'T HAVE CROSSES! See:
www.destination360.com

what they DO have is flat tombstones upon which, if the family wishes one of the 40 symbols of nearly any religion you've ever heard of may be insribed on the stone (new window)

and therin lies the crucial difference as far as the ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE is concerned.: A religious display on public landss using public money is not prohibited so long as all faiths are welcome to participate and given equal treatment. What the state may NOT do is erect, pay for, provide space for, relgious displays of one faith or sect EXCLUSIVELY.

Putting up crosses and not crescents or stars of David or pentagrams etc etc IS a sign of state favoritism for Christianity which is, under the Constitution, strictly forbidden.
 
2010-08-19 10:50:15 AM
ace in your face: Geotpf: ace in your face: jagec: EvilEgg: They are also a distraction, drivers do not need more distractions along the roadside.

You're kidding, right? A small cross by the side of the road is a "distraction"?

What's your opinion on fenceposts, or fire hydrants, or parked cars, or coffee shops, or trees, or pedestrians, or stop signs, or streetlights?

If that's all it takes to distract you, then you shouldn't drive. Heaven help you when you come across one of those giant multicolor flashing video billboards (which ARE an annoying distraction, especially at night or in the rain...but they still don't make me crash).

There is one of those bright ones outside Tacoma wa. I literally did almost get in an accident when I came around a curb one dark rainy night and it flashed in my eyes and aggravated a migraine that had been slight until then. I couldn't see for a second. Scary stuff. Didn't crash but felt pissed the next 15 minutes home.

If a roadside cross is enough to trigger a migraine bad enough that you almost crashed...maybe you should not drive a car.

Normally I don't drive when I have a headache, but it wasn't that bad until the sign flashed in my face. I can't take medicine for migraines right now because i am pregnant.


It sounds like you have a medical condition that makes driving unsafe for you and everybody else on the road near you. My point is that anything could have triggered your migrane, it sounds like. My step brother is an epileptic and for many years could not drive due to the chance of him having a seizure while driving.
 
2010-08-19 10:50:47 AM
The Homer Tax: zace in your face: But do athiests believe in something else (people live on in our memories etc.) or do they just believe in the negativity of god?

Fundamentally, atheism is defined by the lack of belief in a god. I assert that stating that lack of belief is a condemnation of no one. Certainly no more of a condemnation than stating the possession of a belief in a god.


I don't feel like we are discussing the same thing. I realize that atheism is the lack of belief in god, but my point is that putting "he isn't with god since he doesn't exist he is in our memories" is akin to saying "unlike the atheist he is with god". You don't need to put your negative thought there... you just need to put what you believe aka "he is in our memories" (therefore not with "god" by default) or he is "with god" because thats what you believe in. The use of the word, or thought, "isn't" is what is stupid to me on a grave marker. What does it matter where they aren't?
 
2010-08-19 10:51:42 AM
Joce678: Weezer808: everyone is entitled to their own beliefs, which is why I hate Richard Dawkins every bit as much as I hate Jerry Falwell.

You think ancient superstitious practices have a place in government decision making?

What would it take to make you angry? If the USA had invaded Iraq based on a reading of chicken entrails would that be OK with you? Why is the Bible better than chicken entrails?


No, actually what I said was that ancient superstitious practices shouldn't have a place in government decision making, but if a dead christian want s cross on the site of his death, who are any of us to say no?.

The rest, is just warghbl.
 
2010-08-19 10:52:06 AM
schattenteufel: 1nsanilicious: WTF is with you Athiests? Are the crosses hurtung you, poor little baby? Are you jealous that Athiests don't have a symbol of remembrance so you have to destroy others?

I dont care that Athiesm was crammed down my throat for years in public schools.

I think it's time we viewed Athiesm as a religion and start suing them for shiat.

I wonder what are some thing to sue Atheists for?


In deference to your poor reading comprehension, I've emboldened the important parts...

The crosses don't bother us.
Every day, Atheists probably see dozens of crosses, stars of david, minarets, ichthys, & what-have-you, and it doesn't bother us.
That's not what this is about.
When the US Federal, State, or Local government starts sponsoring these symbols to be erected, THAT is when we as Atheists start getting upset.
It is not the government's place to endorse religion. You can't deny that.

Oh, and calling Atheism a 'religion' is like saying "Not Collecting Stamps is a hobby"
You can't make a religion out of a lack of being religious.
I know that's difficult for you mouth-breathers to figure out, and it makes your straw-man argument tactics more difficult, but that's the way it is.


You have NO idea what the founding fathers meant by a separation of church and state, That ignorance is now shaping your opinions.

You are apparently ignorant of the fact that our government buildings and dcouments are packed with references to religion.
 
2010-08-19 10:53:52 AM
ace in your face:
I'd be fine with Christianity so long as belief in Christ automatically precludes you from all positions in government/education.

So you don't believe in religious freedom or tolerance. Good for you.


You can call me on that me when there's an even mix of Christians, Muslims, Pagans, Buddhists, Shintoists, Taoists, etc., in US Government...not before.
 
2010-08-19 10:54:12 AM
Geotpf: ace in your face: Geotpf: ace in your face: jagec: EvilEgg: They are also a distraction, drivers do not need more distractions along the roadside.

You're kidding, right? A small cross by the side of the road is a "distraction"?

What's your opinion on fenceposts, or fire hydrants, or parked cars, or coffee shops, or trees, or pedestrians, or stop signs, or streetlights?

If that's all it takes to distract you, then you shouldn't drive. Heaven help you when you come across one of those giant multicolor flashing video billboards (which ARE an annoying distraction, especially at night or in the rain...but they still don't make me crash).

There is one of those bright ones outside Tacoma wa. I literally did almost get in an accident when I came around a curb one dark rainy night and it flashed in my eyes and aggravated a migraine that had been slight until then. I couldn't see for a second. Scary stuff. Didn't crash but felt pissed the next 15 minutes home.

If a roadside cross is enough to trigger a migraine bad enough that you almost crashed...maybe you should not drive a car.

Normally I don't drive when I have a headache, but it wasn't that bad until the sign flashed in my face. I can't take medicine for migraines right now because i am pregnant.

It sounds like you have a medical condition that makes driving unsafe for you and everybody else on the road near you. My point is that anything could have triggered your migrane, it sounds like. My step brother is an epileptic and for many years could not drive due to the chance of him having a seizure while driving.


No, I get migraines from weather. I was getting one (t hadn't developed much yet, just some neck cracking) and the sign blinded me for a second because of the night contrast- just like how if you look at the sun you can't see for a second. It isn't like epilepsy at all.
 
2010-08-19 10:54:51 AM
cptrios: Um... I hate to make assumptions based on names (and I'm probably wrong), but does anyone else see something strange in putting up a cross for William Antoniewicz?

No, not really. Why do you ask?
 
2010-08-19 10:55:46 AM
Joce678: ace in your face:
I'd be fine with Christianity so long as belief in Christ automatically precludes you from all positions in government/education.

So you don't believe in religious freedom or tolerance. Good for you.

You can call me on that me when there's an even mix of Christians, Muslims, Pagans, Buddhists, Shintoists, Taoists, etc., in US Government...not before.


Yeah, it's been a long time since the last atheist president. The fact that he was a founding father allowed him to still be elected at the time but nowadays the mouth breathers like pregnant-chick here would never let that happen.
 
2010-08-19 10:57:04 AM
chuckufarlie: schattenteufel: 1nsanilicious: WTF is with you Athiests? Are the crosses hurtung you, poor little baby? Are you jealous that Athiests don't have a symbol of remembrance so you have to destroy others?

I dont care that Athiesm was crammed down my throat for years in public schools.

I think it's time we viewed Athiesm as a religion and start suing them for shiat.

I wonder what are some thing to sue Atheists for?


In deference to your poor reading comprehension, I've emboldened the important parts...

The crosses don't bother us.
Every day, Atheists probably see dozens of crosses, stars of david, minarets, ichthys, & what-have-you, and it doesn't bother us.
That's not what this is about.
When the US Federal, State, or Local government starts sponsoring these symbols to be erected, THAT is when we as Atheists start getting upset.
It is not the government's place to endorse religion. You can't deny that.

Oh, and calling Atheism a 'religion' is like saying "Not Collecting Stamps is a hobby"
You can't make a religion out of a lack of being religious.
I know that's difficult for you mouth-breathers to figure out, and it makes your straw-man argument tactics more difficult, but that's the way it is.

You have NO idea what the founding fathers meant by a separation of church and state, That ignorance is now shaping your opinions.

You are apparently ignorant of the fact that our government buildings and dcouments are packed with references to religion.


The rules are excessively squishy since the Supreme Court can't make up it's farking mind what's allowed or not. Clearly, the point of the constitution was to limit involvement of the church in the state. Exactly how far those limits are pretty unclear.
 
2010-08-19 10:57:10 AM
chuckufarlie: schattenteufel: 1nsanilicious: WTF is with you Athiests? Are the crosses hurtung you, poor little baby? Are you jealous that Athiests don't have a symbol of remembrance so you have to destroy others?

I dont care that Athiesm was crammed down my throat for years in public schools.

I think it's time we viewed Athiesm as a religion and start suing them for shiat.

I wonder what are some thing to sue Atheists for?


In deference to your poor reading comprehension, I've emboldened the important parts...

The crosses don't bother us.
Every day, Atheists probably see dozens of crosses, stars of david, minarets, ichthys, & what-have-you, and it doesn't bother us.
That's not what this is about.
When the US Federal, State, or Local government starts sponsoring these symbols to be erected, THAT is when we as Atheists start getting upset.
It is not the government's place to endorse religion. You can't deny that.

Oh, and calling Atheism a 'religion' is like saying "Not Collecting Stamps is a hobby"
You can't make a religion out of a lack of being religious.
I know that's difficult for you mouth-breathers to figure out, and it makes your straw-man argument tactics more difficult, but that's the way it is.

You have NO idea what the founding fathers meant by a separation of church and state, That ignorance is now shaping your opinions.

You are apparently ignorant of the fact that our government buildings and dcouments are packed with references to religion.


I see you are the end all authority on what the founding fathers thought and meant. Asshole.
 
2010-08-19 10:58:02 AM
The Homer Tax: FilmBELOH20: Actually, the American cemetery at Normandy is a US Territory, so you're completely wrong. Also, nearly 98% of the tombstones at Arlington have crosses engraved on them. Many of those crosses are different, as they represent the different branches of Christianity, but they're there - everywhere.

I never said there weren't crosses engraved on the markers. The point is that the markers themselves are areligious, and the inscription reflects the religion of the soldier who died (this means all relgions, inclusing non-religions, there's a weird atom symbol or something for athiests).

FilmBELOH20: There are also several large to gigantic crosses all over the cemetery that are not used as personal marks on an individual tombstone:

Again, I never said that there were no crosses in Arlington, I said that the markers weren't crosses.

FilmBELOH20: In other words, you might want to back off the smarmy know-it-all attitude before someone makes you look like a tool...

Physician, heal thyself. On the other hand, congratulations for completely smacking down a point I never made.


Actually, you wrote:

There's no such thing as an "Unconstitutional Cross in Normandy," as the Constitution has no jurisdiction in France.


To which I responded that you were incorrect, as the US Cemetery is a US Territory, where the constitution applies.

And then you asked:

In America, however, where the Constitution does have power, is where Arlington National Cemetery is located. How many memorial markers are crosses there?

To which I responded that in addition to the several thousand crosses on individual tombstones, there are several very large crosses placed throughout the cemetery that are not tied to any individual's grave.

Yes, I know fully well that there are other religious symbols, including the Athiest symbol, but the vast, vast majority of symbols on those grounds represent Christianity.
 
2010-08-19 10:58:06 AM
Hey, if we're forcing a mosque to relocate because it hurts some people's feelings, why not road crosses then? It's just a matter of taste and sensitivity for non-christian motorists.
 
2010-08-19 10:58:51 AM
All highway crosses are is a good place for someone else to be hit and killed by a car while tending to said cross.

They are one of the dumbest things ever in recent years.

"I know! Lets mark the spot my loved one died in horrible pain from internal injuries resulting from him speeding while drunk!"
 
2010-08-19 10:59:51 AM
chuckufarlie: schattenteufel: 1nsanilicious: WTF is with you Athiests? Are the crosses hurtung you, poor little baby? Are you jealous that Athiests don't have a symbol of remembrance so you have to destroy others?

I dont care that Athiesm was crammed down my throat for years in public schools.

I think it's time we viewed Athiesm as a religion and start suing them for shiat.

I wonder what are some thing to sue Atheists for?


In deference to your poor reading comprehension, I've emboldened the important parts...

The crosses don't bother us.
Every day, Atheists probably see dozens of crosses, stars of david, minarets, ichthys, & what-have-you, and it doesn't bother us.
That's not what this is about.
When the US Federal, State, or Local government starts sponsoring these symbols to be erected, THAT is when we as Atheists start getting upset.
It is not the government's place to endorse religion. You can't deny that.

Oh, and calling Atheism a 'religion' is like saying "Not Collecting Stamps is a hobby"
You can't make a religion out of a lack of being religious.
I know that's difficult for you mouth-breathers to figure out, and it makes your straw-man argument tactics more difficult, but that's the way it is.

You have NO idea what the founding fathers meant by a separation of church and state, That ignorance is now shaping your opinions.

You are apparently ignorant of the fact that our government buildings and dcouments are packed with references to religion.


Google the term "Ceremonial Deism" , take some time to learn what it means and then you will understand why your argument is nonsense.
 
2010-08-19 11:01:03 AM
ace in your face: Neither has any more proof than the other. Get back to me with your "proof" god doesn't exist. "Because it is because it is" isn't a valid argument.

doesn't work that way.

the default logical position for any assertion is "non belief". that is the position of strength in the absence of evidence, it is the only rational position in the absence of evidence. this is the "negative assertion", and it does not have any burden of proof.

the other position, the "positive assertion" is "i assert X", in this case "i assert $DIETY exists". This carries the burden of proof and is only a logically defensible position in the presence of evidence.

the job of the "negative assertion" position is to call the evidence for the "positive assertion" into question. In a formal debate the "negative" is considered to have won the debate if they can cast reasonable doubt upon the evidence presented by the "positive".

in this situation, as there is no evidence what so ever to support the position of the positive assertion then the negative assertion position "wins by default".

furthermore it is impossible to "prove a negative". the bold part of your quote above is a request to prove a negative. This is impossible and you know it, it is also utterly unnecessary.

In the absence of evidence for the existence of deities (or any other part of the supernatural) the only logically defensible position is lack of belief.



What you have done here is commuted arngumentum ad ignorantiam. The logical atheist does not preclude the possibility of a god, even if we find it extremely improbable. However not excluding the possibility does not change the above fact that without evidence belief is irrational.
 
2010-08-19 11:01:13 AM
FARK IT!!!

I have to work on the holidays (Christmas, Easter and so on) I want to see the atheists work as well on the Holidays that the government has instituted.

NO MORE FREE RIDES, MOTHERfarkERS!!!

You are not being persecuted, you're taking advantage of the system!!!

Yeah, yeah, yeah...

Not very Christian of me.

GFY!!!
 
2010-08-19 11:01:57 AM
Leeds: ace in your face: I can't take medicine for migraines right now because i am pregnant.

Oh no. I'm so sorry to hear that.

Now we'll have another non-vaccinated, cult-joining magic believer being home-schooled into thinking that logic is the work of some devil.

I has a sad.


When you can show where I have said that I am a christian who believes in home schooling or not vaccinating I will have a word with you. Till then you just as judgmental as anyone who thinks that every atheist will raise their kid to steal and kill.

Epicedion: ace in your face: Saying "there is no god" would be like saying "there is a god". Pointless and silly. To say they rest with angels or in some ones hearts are relevant beliefs. You don't have to get all proselytizy with religion to make it work. Of course christians would have something about believing in god- because thats what they believe in. But do athiests believe in something else (people live on in our memories etc.) or do they just believe in the negativity of god?

The cross itself says "there is a god" and furthermore says "god is Jesus." The symbol is explicit.

As for the "people live on in our memories" part, that's taking some liberties with the phrase "live on," though you'd be wrong to suggest that atheists can't wax poetic about the memory of their loved ones.

However, saying "LITTLE TIMMY IS WITH THE ANGELS NOW" on a cross isn't all that poetic, and it's fair to say that the people who make those sorts of statements believe that to be literal reality.


I feel like you are missing my point that you should state what you believe and not bother with what you don't believe.

Kazan: ace in your face: Saying "there is no god" would be like saying "there is a god". Pointless and silly

no, there is a third option.

the first one can be LAZY.

the lazy often say "there is no god" because "it is illogical to believe in a god without evidence".

they would be better off saying "there is probably no god" but that overestimates the probability of there being a god. given the utter absence of evidence as well as various complexity issues, etc that the existence of one would great the probability of their being a god is asymptotically close to zero.


ace in your face: You don't have to get all proselytizy with religion to make it work.

asserting that atheists standing up for the constitution and refusing to tolerate christians forcing their way into government is proselytizing is utterly BS.



I no more think that religion should be involved with the government than you do.
 
2010-08-19 11:02:00 AM
Magorn: ARLINGTON DOESN'T HAVE CROSSES! See:

What are these, then?

www.moonbattery.com

www.tgstopeka.org

www.encyclopedia-titanica.org
 
2010-08-19 11:02:12 AM
ace in your face: Neither has any more proof than the other. Get back to me with your "proof" god doesn't exist. "Because it is because it is" isn't a valid argument.

Let's go over the "sides" here, briefly, to put you on the same footing as most everyone else.

Theists say "I believe there is a god."

Atheists say "I don't believe that."

From there you can get into whys and hows and whatnot, but the atheist side of things boils down to this: "I don't believe there is a god because I don't have any good reasons to believe that." That's it. That's the basis of atheism. We can start to debate what constitutes a good reason, but it's not an illogical position.

Christians (and other theists) have essentially said something very strange, like "I have a spaceship." When asked to show proof of that, they've presented a receipt for "One Spaceship" and a horde of people who believe the spaceship exists (but haven't seen it), and a few people who claim to ride in the spaceship daily. They tell you they can't show you the spaceship itself, but if you believe them then eventually you'll see the spaceship and get to ride in it.

You can't say that it's illogical to simply not believe them, especially when what they're trying to convince you of is so weird.
 
2010-08-19 11:03:28 AM
The Gordie Howe Hat Trick: I don't get the lettering people have done on their cars/trucks memorializing a loved one. It would suck to think my final legacy is lovingly inscribed on the rear window of a 1998 Hyundai hatchback.

stuff like this is supposed to remind people to drive more carefully

nothing like a reminder of death to sober some people up

unfortunately i don't think it works

but i don't think it's an endorsement of any religion
 
2010-08-19 11:05:09 AM
This is farking absurd.
 
2010-08-19 11:05:22 AM
Kazan: ace in your face: Neither has any more proof than the other. Get back to me with your "proof" god doesn't exist. "Because it is because it is" isn't a valid argument.

doesn't work that way.

the default logical position for any assertion is "non belief". that is the position of strength in the absence of evidence, it is the only rational position in the absence of evidence. this is the "negative assertion", and it does not have any burden of proof.

the other position, the "positive assertion" is "i assert X", in this case "i assert $DIETY exists". This carries the burden of proof and is only a logically defensible position in the presence of evidence.

the job of the "negative assertion" position is to call the evidence for the "positive assertion" into question. In a formal debate the "negative" is considered to have won the debate if they can cast reasonable doubt upon the evidence presented by the "positive".

in this situation, as there is no evidence what so ever to support the position of the positive assertion then the negative assertion position "wins by default".

furthermore it is impossible to "prove a negative". the bold part of your quote above is a request to prove a negative. This is impossible and you know it, it is also utterly unnecessary.

In the absence of evidence for the existence of deities (or any other part of the supernatural) the only logically defensible position is lack of belief.



What you have done here is commuted arngumentum ad ignorantiam. The logical atheist does not preclude the possibility of a god, even if we find it extremely improbable. However not excluding the possibility does not change the above fact that without evidence belief is irrational.


As has been discussed, I realize that there is no "proof" for either side. I am also specifically talking about people who make the positive claim that "there is no god" not a person who says "I don't believe in god". I am committing no logical fallacy by saying that neither side of the argument has no proof.
 
2010-08-19 11:07:49 AM
chuckufarlie: You have NO idea what the founding fathers meant by a separation of church and state, That ignorance is now shaping your opinions.

You are apparently ignorant of the fact that our government buildings and dcouments are packed with references to religion.


Quick, without looking it up tell me which founding fathers specifically helped in the formation of what we now know as "separation of church and state" and tell me the venue that term was first conceived. Bonus points if you can also tell me the organization involved.

None of you people who know answer, I wanna see if Mr. Iknowwhattheymeantsonyahnyah actually can back up his words.
 
2010-08-19 11:08:02 AM
ace in your face: I feel like you are missing my point that you should state what you believe and not bother with what you don't believe.

I think you completely missed the point a few miles back when you started arguing against putting a statement of nonbelief on a fake memorial as part of an experiment to gauge the reactions of other people to a statement of nonbelief on a memorial.
 
Displayed 50 of 642 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report