Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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
    More: Sad  
•       •       •

19697 clicks; posted to Main » on 19 Aug 2010 at 8:15 AM (6 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



641 Comments     (+0 »)
 


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

 
2010-08-19 11:08:34 AM  

Epicedion: 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.


Review the emboldened part. Again, I am speaking of people who actively pursue and try to convince people there is no god. I am not talking about people who simply believe that they do not know, or do not care whether there is a god. My point is that pursuing people and saying there "is"/ "is not" god and you are wrong and here is why is silly regardless of which side you are on.
 
2010-08-19 11:08:38 AM  
FTA: The service group said their main message was not religious in nature, but among other things, to serve as "a lasting reminder to UHPA members and Utah highway patrol troopers that a fellow trooper gave his life in service to this state" and to "encourage safe conduct on the highways."

A memorial does not have to contain a traditional religious symbol in order to remember someone or to encourage safe conduct on the roadway:

i734.photobucket.com
 
2010-08-19 11:08:52 AM  

fruitloop: RIP Charing Cross Road

/sorry, couldn't resist
//are the kids still doing this?


We've got a "Burns Crossing Rd" near my house. Maybe it's my dyslexia, or maybe it's cause I'm white, but I can't say it right to save my life.
 
2010-08-19 11:09:17 AM  

nukeim: Boobiesontheside: We can get something as innocuous as a cross on a highway ruled unconstitutional, yet the very clearly unconstitutional 'drunk driving' checkpoints continue unabated. If only memorial crosses made the state money those bereaving families could have their way.

But driving is a privilege, not a right!


You can bet you ass The Framers®™ would have included cars as part of 'freedom to travel'. Oh well.
 
2010-08-19 11:10:20 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.


now you're being an ass.

Weezer808: 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?.


what you're missing (intentionally i must suspect) is that these were paid for by the state, with the state symbol on them, and they were not in a context which conveyed any sense that other religions could participate. (the last item is what makes Arlington and the Normandy memorials legally and ethically not a problem)

Joce678: 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.. when there is a member of congress who is openly atheist... that would be the day.

a Pew research poll found that about 7-10 americans would vote against an otherwise qualified candidate simple for being an atheist. that's more than the 6-10 who would vote against an otherwise qualified muslim.

so yeah ace in your face why don't stop trying to falsely portray atheists as intolerant and go talk to the religious bigots who won't vote for someone simply because they're atheist.

Shakin_Haitian: I see you are the end all authority on what the founding fathers thought and meant. Asshole.


i think the end all authority on what the founding fathers thought... was the founding fathers.


Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen,-and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

US Treaty with Tripoli November 4, 1796

the Senate unanimously ratified the treaty. it was published in major newspapers for people to read. no objection to article 11 was recorded.
 
2010-08-19 11:10:27 AM  

Epicedion: 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.


I think its an attention whorey thing to do and I don't believe in doing things for the sake of being attention whorey. I think it would further the cause of being accepted as an atheist to put up an actual memorial for an atheist.
 
2010-08-19 11:12:20 AM  

Kazan: 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.

now you're being an ass.

Weezer808: 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?.

what you're missing (intentionally i must suspect) is that these were paid for by the state, with the state symbol on them, and they were not in a context which conveyed any sense that other religions could participate. (the last item is what makes Arlington and the Normandy memorials legally and ethically not a problem)

Joce678: 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.. when there is a member of congress who is openly atheist... that would be the day.

a Pew research poll found that about 7-10 americans would vote against an otherwise qualified candidate simple for being an atheist. that's more than the 6-10 who would vote against an otherwise qualified muslim.

so yeah ace in your face why don't stop trying to falsely portray atheists as intolerant and go talk to the religious bigots who won't vote for someone simply because they're atheist.

Shakin_Haitian: I see you are the end all authority on what the founding fathers thought and meant. Asshole.

i think the end all authority on what the founding fathers thought... was the founding fathers.


Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen,-and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

US Treaty with Tripoli November 4, 1796

the Senate unanimously ratified the treaty. it was published in major newspapers for people to read. no objection to article 11 was recorded.


Thats not what this thread deals with. Like I said to the last person accusing me of such a thing, meet me in a thread about an article on that poll and you will see what I have to say about it.
 
2010-08-19 11:12:26 AM  

ace in your face: 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.


You are not argueing for religious toerlance... You are bashing atheism based on your perceptions of how Atheists behave, saying that it's identical to the problems with Christian belief. I actually agree with you on a lot of points as a Jewish Agnostic, but that doesn't mean that I go around bashing atheism because I actually recognize how logically they tend to think. The only difference between myself and an atheist is that I have the ability to conveive the potential for some sort of deity (not at all the christian one) to exist and I just havent gotten my necessary proof yet.
 
2010-08-19 11:12:53 AM  

ChrisSuperstar: I think everyone needs to RE-READ THE farkING ARTICLE! This isn't about banning crosses that family members put up to "honor" members who died in crashes, this is about the government putting up crosses to "honor" fallen state troopers! This is the government paying for crosses for dead officers (who may or may not have been Christian, wonder how they'd feel about a cross if they were a Jew.) So before everyone starts whining about how now they can't put up a cross for little Jimmy who drove into a tree while texting, this has nothing to do with that. It's only about the government erecting religious images.


We got off topic? Horrors! Here they have road signs that say "Trooper Fortson memorial highway" for an officer that was shot during a traffic stop. Oh no! Where's the justice?!!!!!!
Am I doing it right now? Oh it was a cross? Yeah, because all the people buried under a cross are Christians? Yeah, RIGHT! At Arlington, don't they put a Star of David on the cross if you are Jewish?
 
2010-08-19 11:13:19 AM  

jayg22: MyNameIsRobertPaulson: Fark Me To Tears: Have these judges ever visited Arlington National Cemetery?

Have you?

My Grandfather is burried under one of these unconstituional crosses in Nromandy.


So is my uncle.
 
2010-08-19 11:14:53 AM  

Bombsauce: ace in your face: 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.

You are not argueing for religious toerlance... You are bashing atheism based on your perceptions of how Atheists behave, saying that it's identical to the problems with Christian belief. I actually agree with you on a lot of points as a Jewish Agnostic, but that doesn't mean that I go around bashing atheism because I actually recognize how logically they tend to think. The only difference between myself and an atheist is that I have the ability to conveive the potential for some sort of deity (not at all the christian one) to exist and I just havent gotten my necessary proof yet.


No actually, my initial argument bashed both extreme atheists and extreme christians, the difference is that the atheists all came out and took issue with it and no christians came out and needed to be told they are just as demented. If someone comes in here saying that anyone who doesn't believe in god is an effing moran then I will call them out too.
 
2010-08-19 11:15:21 AM  

ace in your face: Epicedion: 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.

Review the emboldened part. Again, I am speaking of people who actively pursue and try to convince people there is no god. I am not talking about people who simply believe that they do not know, or do not care whether there is a god. My point is that pursuing people and saying there "is"/ "is not" god and you are wrong and here is why is silly regardless of which side you are on.



For consistancy, do you take the same view on people who disbelieve in the Big Foot or leprechauns? There is no proof one way or the other, so anyone insisting either way is foolish.
 
2010-08-19 11:17:22 AM  

Nattering Nabob: ChrisSuperstar: I think everyone needs to RE-READ THE farkING ARTICLE! This isn't about banning crosses that family members put up to "honor" members who died in crashes, this is about the government putting up crosses to "honor" fallen state troopers! This is the government paying for crosses for dead officers (who may or may not have been Christian, wonder how they'd feel about a cross if they were a Jew.) So before everyone starts whining about how now they can't put up a cross for little Jimmy who drove into a tree while texting, this has nothing to do with that. It's only about the government erecting religious images.

We got off topic? Horrors! Here they have road signs that say "Trooper Fortson memorial highway" for an officer that was shot during a traffic stop. Oh no! Where's the justice?!!!!!!
Am I doing it right now? Oh it was a cross? Yeah, because all the people buried under a cross are Christians? Yeah, RIGHT! At Arlington, don't they put a Star of David on the cross if you are Jewish?


Arlington doesn't mark its graves with crosses, as has already been pointed out numerous times. They do mark your grave with a star of david, or a crescent, if you are of that particular religion. I know I have seen ones for soldiers who were atheists but I can't remember what they had on them- although it certainly wasn't a cross.
 
2010-08-19 11:17:56 AM  
lemme get this straight...road crosses are bad, but its ok for the religion that blew up the WTC to build a mosque right next to ground zero?
 
2010-08-19 11:17:58 AM  
That's just the violence inherent in the system
 
2010-08-19 11:18:08 AM  

ace in your face: 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.


But this is the whole point in a nutshell- you are not intelligent enough to even understand the problem with your painful misunderstanding of logic.

Requesting "proof" from both sides is a good standby when it applies to the situation. In arguments like this one it does not.

Theist- There are gods.
Appropriate question for Theist- Please show some proof that "there are gods."

Atheist- There is no proof that there are gods.
Inappropriate question for Atheist- Please show me proof that there is no proof that there are gods.

Are you really that stupid that you can't even follow this simple discussion?

I know you're in your second trimester but I probably speak for 99% of farkers when I implore you to have a late term abortion.
 
2010-08-19 11:18:23 AM  

fracto73: ace in your face: Epicedion: 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.

Review the emboldened part. Again, I am speaking of people who actively pursue and try to convince people there is no god. I am not talking about people who simply believe that they do not know, or do not care whether there is a god. My point is that pursuing people and saying there "is"/ "is not" god and you are wrong and here is why is silly regardless of which side you are on.


For consistancy, do you take the same view on people who disbelieve in the Big Foot or leprechauns? There is no proof one way or the other, so anyone insisting either way is foolish.


Lies. There are pictures of big foot.
 
2010-08-19 11:19:09 AM  
So, lemme get this straight.

A crescent and star marking the islamic attack and murder of 300+ US/Canadian?British/-sorry if I missed your country- is fine with you. Aok! It's "Free Speech" and such.

But a cross marking the deaths of fallen officers serving an unappreciative public is wrong?

Mother fark America. Take back the US before it's to late. Of course reading posts here, Americans don't seem to care who rules them, as long as they are ruled.

ppffsstt. Try that shiat on the Highway of Heroes in Canada, and watch that judge get fired.

Oh yeah, Americans can't fire judges and such. LOL!! Sorry about that. In for 'life' eh?
 
2010-08-19 11:19:14 AM  

DesertDemonWY: lemme get this straight...road crosses are bad, but its ok for the religion that blew up the WTC to build a mosque right next to ground zero?


no
 
2010-08-19 11:19:38 AM  

FilmBELOH20: 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.


but since it is clear other religions are represented, and that the symbol engraved on/the symbol the marker is shaped after is based on the beliefs of the individual soldier it is not a government endorsement of religion. as the reasonable observer would understand that it is merely reflective of the beliefs of the individual soldier.

that's why a few years back the army got flack when it wanted to refuse to approve a pagan symbol for use on a grave at Arlington

ace in your face: I no more think that religion should be involved with the government than you do.


then stop attacking atheists for getting angry when the religious openly violate the constitution. this situation isn't even a case where they tried to make an end-run around it, this is a straight out violation.

ace in your face: 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.


you are committing a logical fallacy in this thread though. you're committing a straw man by constantly arguing against the "positive assertion atheists" when none of them are present in this thread.

ace in your face: Review the emboldened part. Again, I am speaking of people who actively pursue and try to convince people there is no god. I am not talking about people who simply believe that they do not know, or do not care whether there is a god. My point is that pursuing people and saying there "is"/ "is not" god and you are wrong and here is why is silly regardless of which side you are on.


a "negative atheist" (negative assertion atheist) like me or many others in this thread still very much has grounds to attempt to argue people out of their fairy tale beliefs. it does not require a "positive atheist" for that.

it's called: the people are believing in illogical things. furthermore they're believing in illogical things that cause them to become a threat to the freedom, mental and physical health of others.

(now i just made a positive assertion, and i will defend it)

ace in your face: I think its an attention whorey thing to do and I don't believe in doing things for the sake of being attention whorey. I think it would further the cause of being accepted as an atheist to put up an actual memorial for an atheist.


you're changing the subject. he's not talking about attention whoring, putting up crosses is attention whoring too.

he's talking about how Christians would flip their shiat if someone put up a patently atheist roadside memorial. however since there is no universally recognized symbol for atheism (like there are for Christianity, islam, judaism, etc) that would have to be done with words.

stop ignoring his point with "well.. that's attention whoring!"
 
2010-08-19 11:20:07 AM  

ace in your face: Review the emboldened part. Again, I am speaking of people who actively pursue and try to convince people there is no god. I am not talking about people who simply believe that they do not know, or do not care whether there is a god. My point is that pursuing people and saying there "is"/ "is not" god and you are wrong and here is why is silly regardless of which side you are on.


First of all, you've flip-flopped between "actively believe in the nonexistence of god" and "try to convince people of their position."

Yes, people who believe "there is no god" have a problem with actually providing evidence.

However, your other position, that people shouldn't try to convince anyone else of their position, is ridiculous, because you're creating a special exception for religion.

I could say something like, "Abortion is wrong and should be illegal!" and if you try and explain to me why my position should be revised, by your methodology I could tell you that you're wrong and silly for trying to convince me to change my beliefs, and that we should never talk about it ever.

We have to have these sorts of conversations, it's how people learn.

ace in your face: I think its an attention whorey thing to do and I don't believe in doing things for the sake of being attention whorey. I think it would further the cause of being accepted as an atheist to put up an actual memorial for an atheist.


You're ignoring that "experiment" part, again.
 
2010-08-19 11:20:19 AM  

FilmBELOH20: 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.


My point was that Arlington found a way to both memorialize our war dead and not promote religion. It seems to work great for everyone.

I don't understand the need to use the state to promote your religion when honoring the dead (war, LEO, other), when there are perfectly cromulent ways of doing so without. It seems AW-ie to me.
 
2010-08-19 11:20:27 AM  

DesertDemonWY: lemme get this straight...road crosses are bad, but its ok for the religion that blew up the WTC to build a mosque right next to ground zero?


If it's ok for you to associate the 9/11 terrorists with all Muslims, is it ok if I associate all Christians with Fred Phelps?

Also ... it's not right next to ground 0. It's over 2 minutes walking at a brisk pace from the very edge of ground zero.
 
2010-08-19 11:20:32 AM  
Remember the fallen at their graves, not beside the road. Roadside memorials are a distraction that will cause accidents when people gawk at them.
 
2010-08-19 11:20:41 AM  
3000+ murders on 9-11. Sorry, was to slow on the 0.

BTW, only 10% of muslims want you dead. That is only 150 million is all.
 
2010-08-19 11:21:11 AM  

Leeds: ace in your face: 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.

But this is the whole point in a nutshell- you are not intelligent enough to even understand the problem with your painful misunderstanding of logic.

Requesting "proof" from both sides is a good standby when it applies to the situation. In arguments like this one it does not.

Theist- There are gods.
Appropriate question for Theist- Please show some proof that "there are gods."

Atheist- There is no proof that there are gods.
Inappropriate question for Atheist- Please show me proof that there is no proof that there are gods.

Are you really that stupid that you can't even follow this simple discussion?

I know you're in your second trimester but I probably speak for 99% of farkers when I implore you to have a late term abortion.


I have already said I am addressing the POSITIVE statement of "there is no god". I'm sorry your reading comprehension has failed you so badly. Telling me you hope my baby dies is really a great way to further the thought that you can be an atheist and a humane person. I am sure you will win lots of hearts and minds to your ideas with your 14 year old attitude.
 
2010-08-19 11:21:40 AM  
Sorry boys, you've just been ruled unconstitutional....
spschultz.files.wordpress.com
 
2010-08-19 11:21:58 AM  

TedNigma: A crescent and star marking the islamic attack and murder of 300+ US/Canadian?British/-sorry if I missed your country- is fine with you. Aok! It's "Free Speech" and such.


On Public Land? Where is this?
 
2010-08-19 11:22:19 AM  

ace in your face: Again, I am speaking of people who actively pursue and try to convince people there is no god. I am not talking about people who simply believe that they do not know, or do not care whether there is a god. My point is that pursuing people and saying there "is"/ "is not" god and you are wrong and here is why is silly regardless of which side you are on.



To be fair, religious people all over the world have had 10,000 years to prove their deity exists and none have.

That's right: Not ONE religion has offered acceptable proof.


So, I think that puts the atheists on pretty solid ground if they choose to "know" there is no god...
 
2010-08-19 11:22:46 AM  

ace in your face: For consistancy, do you take the same view on people who disbelieve in the Big Foot or leprechauns? There is no proof one way or the other, so anyone insisting either way is foolish.

Lies. There are pictures of big foot.


1.bp.blogspot.com

Seriously though, this is the same position. Belief in Big foot, alien abduction, the loch ness monster, etc. should all be given the same deference if you actually believe that both sides are equally valid.
 
2010-08-19 11:23:01 AM  

Bombsauce: The only difference between myself and an atheist is that I have the ability to conveive the potential for some sort of deity (not at all the christian one) to exist and I just havent gotten my necessary proof yet.


atheist: i do not belief
agnostic: we cannot know

you can be both at the same time, but "we cannot know" is actually a positive assertion that must be defended, so you're actually in a weaker logical position than the "negative atheist"


-----------------

Attn All
from this point out I'm going to stop being specific about what type of atheist I'm referring to, since the vast vast majority are "negative atheists" assume I'm speaking about them
 
2010-08-19 11:23:46 AM  

ace in your face: No actually, my initial argument bashed both extreme atheists and extreme christians, the difference is that the atheists all came out and took issue with it and no christians came out and needed to be told they are just as demented. If someone comes in here saying that anyone who doesn't believe in god is an effing moran then I will call them out too.


no, actually your initial argument had the significant effect of appearing to paint any atheist who takes exception to Utah doing this as an "extreme atheist".
 
2010-08-19 11:27:10 AM  

ace in your face: I have already said I am addressing the POSITIVE statement of "there is no god".


Ok, miss idiot, I'll bite. Who made that POSITIVE argument that you are arguing against? Because it seems to me that up until just now, you've been arguing against people in this thread (the one right here, now, on this page) and we are not making any such claims.

So in short- the way to weasel out of the pile of derp you have encased yourself in is to say that you are not arguing with any of us, your arguments on this thread are arguments against people who aren't even here?

I could have sworn you were trying to engage farkers with your drivel, I had no idea that you were conducting a thought experiment about an argument with non-existent people in this thread.

You have just crossed to an even lover level of stupid that you were in before.
 
2010-08-19 11:28:57 AM  

mark12A: Sorry boys, you've just been ruled unconstitutional....


Guess how I know you didn't read the article all the way through.
 
2010-08-19 11:29:15 AM  

Epicedion: ace in your face: Review the emboldened part. Again, I am speaking of people who actively pursue and try to convince people there is no god. I am not talking about people who simply believe that they do not know, or do not care whether there is a god. My point is that pursuing people and saying there "is"/ "is not" god and you are wrong and here is why is silly regardless of which side you are on.

First of all, you've flip-flopped between "actively believe in the nonexistence of god" and "try to convince people of their position."

Yes, people who believe "there is no god" have a problem with actually providing evidence.

However, your other position, that people shouldn't try to convince anyone else of their position, is ridiculous, because you're creating a special exception for religion.

I could say something like, "Abortion is wrong and should be illegal!" and if you try and explain to me why my position should be revised, by your methodology I could tell you that you're wrong and silly for trying to convince me to change my beliefs, and that we should never talk about it ever.

We have to have these sorts of conversations, it's how people learn.

ace in your face: I think its an attention whorey thing to do and I don't believe in doing things for the sake of being attention whorey. I think it would further the cause of being accepted as an atheist to put up an actual memorial for an atheist.

You're ignoring that "experiment" part, again.


How does that create a special exception for religion when I have already said its equally annoying when they do it?


Kazan: FilmBELOH20: 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.

but since it is clear other religions are represented, and that the symbol engraved on/the symbol the marker is shaped after is based on the beliefs of the individual soldier it is not a government endorsement of religion. as the reasonable observer would understand that it is merely reflective of the beliefs of the individual soldier.

that's why a few years back the army got flack when it wanted to refuse to approve a pagan symbol for use on a grave at Arlington

ace in your face: I no more think that religion should be involved with the government than you do.

then stop attacking atheists for getting angry when the religious openly violate the constitution. this situation isn't even a case where they tried to make an end-run around it, this is a straight out violation.

ace in your face: 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.

you are committing a logical fallacy in this thread though. you're committing a straw man by constantly arguing against the "positive assertion atheists" when none of them are present in this thread.

ace in your face: Review the emboldened part. Again, I am speaking of people who actively pursue and try to convince people there is no god. I am not talking about people who simply believe that they do not know, or do not care whether there is a god. My point is that pursuing people and saying there "is"/ "is not" god and you are wrong and here is why is silly regardless of which side you are on.

a "negative atheist" (negative assertion atheist) like me or many others in this thread still very much has grounds to attempt to argue people out of their fairy tale beliefs. it does not require a "positive atheist" for that.

it's called: the people are believing in illogical things. furthermore they're believing in illogical things that cause them to become a threat to the freedom, mental and physical health of others.

(now i just made a positive assertion, and i will defend it)

ace in your face: I think its an attention whorey thing to do and I don't believe in doing things for the sake of being attention whorey. I think it would further the cause of being accepted as an atheist to put up an actual memorial for an atheist.

you're changing the subject. he's not talking about attention whoring, putting up crosses is attention whoring too.

he's talking about how Christians would flip their shiat if someone put up a patently atheist roadside memorial. however since there is no universally recognized symbol for atheism (like there are for Christianity, islam, judaism, etc) that would have to be done with words.

stop ignoring his point with "well.. that's attention whoring!"


There have been people, in life and on fark who have made the assertion that "there is no god". Those are the people I take issue with. I have REPEATEDLY stated that. I do not think that the government should be erecting crosses with their money, but I do think that people should be able to put them up and care for them with private money. I absolutely disagree that being christian by definition impairs anyones freedom, or physical or mental health, the same way I would disagree that being atheist by definition would impair the same things.
 
2010-08-19 11:29:27 AM  

ace in your face: No actually, my initial argument bashed both extreme atheists and extreme christians, the difference is that the atheists all came out and took issue with it and no christians came out and needed to be told they are just as demented. If someone comes in here saying that anyone who doesn't believe in god is an effing moran then I will call them out too.


You've lumped two groups together that don't necessarily need to be:

Group 1: There is definitely no god.
Group 2: Anyone who believes in god is an idiot.

They're not actually saying the same thing. I can tell you that anyone who actually believes in the Flying Spaghetti Monster is an idiot, but I'm unable to tell you that there definitely isn't one.

I can tell you that anyone who actually believes in Wicca is an idiot, but I can't definitely tell you that none of it is true.

Of course, I won't catch any flak for saying that people who believe in the FSM are idiots (and only a little for saying things about people who actually believe in Wicca). But if I say "people who believe in the Christian God are idiots" I can expect quite a bit of backlash.

The worst part is, if I say "I don't believe in any gods and I find them highly improbable" I can expect similar backlash, especially when people start confusing that position with the "definitely no / idiots for believing" position.
 
2010-08-19 11:29:28 AM  

ace in your face: I know I have seen ones for soldiers who were atheists but I can't remember what they had on them- although it certainly wasn't a cross.


upload.wikimedia.org

Full list of approved symbols (new window)

ace in your face: Lies. There are pictures of big foot.


i hope that is a joke

TedNigma: .....


you're a moron. try not misrepresenting an interfaith center several blocks away from ground zero, in a city that you usually shiat on for being liberal. related to an attack your politicians shiat on the emergency workers who responded to it.

you know what?

fark you.

(to the tune of: my body lies over the ocean)
If i had the wings of a sparrow
and the dirty ass of a crow
i'd fly over your dumb ass
and shiat on the bastard below

shiat on,
shiat on,
shiat on the bastard below, below

shiat on,
shiat on,
shiat on the bastard below, below

TedNigma: 3000+ murders on 9-11. Sorry, was to slow on the 0.

BTW, only 10% of muslims want you dead. That is only 150 million is all.


and only 1/3rd of US Christians want to turn this country into a theocracy.

what's your point you bigoted hypocrite.
 
2010-08-19 11:31:19 AM  

Gato Negro: Is Christmas unconstitutional?


Where I grew up there were always big lights on the Town Hall for Christmas. MERRY CHRISTMAS in lights, it was a time of celebration, and thankfulness. Nothing more. I mean; IMHO, Christianity for the most part is just being grateful for what you have, treat others kindly, and help when you can. Period. Some skew that, however I stand by it.

Then some farking muslims moved in, and -blah blah- Short hairs of the issue is the lights say "Happy Holidays", however during Ramadan the lights spell Ramadan.

Why? "Because there is no greeting for this holiday season, as like 'merry or happy' so it must be spelled out."

uummm, ok...

That was in 1995. It says "Merry Christmas" now, and it will always say Merry Christmas.

Let's just say the complainers had a choice. Deal with our traditions, or leave town with help. They still live there. Hell my nieces/nephews play with their kids. I don't care. Just don't force yours without a taste of mine.

MERRY CHRISTMAS!!!

And Mohammad was a child raping retard. THAT is for the record. The Quarn states it as fact.

However, Jesus was a car jacking pimp daddy. Read the bible a tad, Jesus was not always a 'kind dude'. However, he only retaliated, never picked a fight. That's the muslims job it seems.
 
2010-08-19 11:32:07 AM  

ace in your face: but I do think that people should be able to put them up and care for them with private money.



Me too. As long as it is on private property and not on public property or property that my tax dollars are used to buy and maintain. Like a road for example.

People would have a fit I started putting little Buddhas all over the streets of Tucson or if I started putting those little Darwin fish by roadside accidents...
 
2010-08-19 11:32:48 AM  

ace in your face:
So you don't believe in religious freedom or tolerance. Good for you.


Nah, you're right. I don't believe in religious freedom. I don't believe I should freely allow White Power movements, Nazism, etc.

I'll "tolerate" only those things which don't harm other people (or animals/environment). Anything else would be stupid of me.

How about you
 
2010-08-19 11:33:08 AM  

ace in your face: I know I have seen ones for soldiers who were atheists but I can't remember what they had on them- although it certainly wasn't a cross.


It's a helium atom with an A in the middle
 
2010-08-19 11:33:17 AM  

fracto73: ace in your face: For consistancy, do you take the same view on people who disbelieve in the Big Foot or leprechauns? There is no proof one way or the other, so anyone insisting either way is foolish.

Lies. There are pictures of big foot.

Seriously though, this is the same position. Belief in Big foot, alien abduction, the loch ness monster, etc. should all be given the same deference if you actually believe that both sides are equally valid.


Frankly I don't mind that. I don't believe in leprechauns but if someone says they have seen a leprechaun then how the hell do I know? It seems silly to me to say "there is no such thing" if you can't prove it any more than someone else can prove it exists. Now if someone told be there were no such thing as dinosaurs (I have been told that BTW) I write them off as retarded.
 
2010-08-19 11:34:20 AM  

ace in your face: There have been people, in life and on fark who have made the assertion that "there is no god". Those are the people I take issue with.


Why though? This was the point I was trying to make to you? Why do you take issue with someone saying "there is no god?" But you don't take issue with people who say "There is a God."

It's literally the exact same type statement, the only thing that's different is to position of the speaker.
 
2010-08-19 11:36:12 AM  

FilmBELOH20: To which I responded that you were incorrect, as the US Cemetery is a US Territory, where the constitution applies.


Say a couple of frenchies get in a fight in the cemetery and one kills the other. Who's going to be doing the prosecuting and under what laws? Also, since the US owns it, could we do away with the cemetery and build a nuclear waste dump there?
 
2010-08-19 11:36:21 AM  

ace in your face: Frankly I don't mind that. I don't believe in leprechauns but if someone says they have seen a leprechaun then how the hell do I know?



And if some kid's parents were teaching him/her that leprechauns are real and then filed a complaint against the teacher who told the class they were not real, you would support the parents?

I mean, you can't walk all over people's beliefs without any proof. So what you've now set up is that in schools all across the country no teacher can tell the class that something doesn't exist: Fairies, elves, leprechauns, monsters under the bed...

You can only talk about what has been proven.
 
2010-08-19 11:36:29 AM  

Dancin_In_Anson: Rapmaster2000: Please. You just don't like your tired talking points turned against you.

What talking points? That private individuals should be able to put up memorials for people lost in traffic accidents? The same 'talking point that you somehow try to link to the Rapmaster2000: NANNY STATE

I'll stick with my contention that you really suck at Fark.


I didn't read this.
 
2010-08-19 11:37:27 AM  

Epicedion: 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.


That's actually tremendously false; particularly where you try to define the atheist stance as being "I don't believe there is a god because I don't have any good reasons to believe that."

Allow me to clarify:

Think of me as a detective. I sit down and listen to the Christian's stance on belief and the foundation of his belief. In this case, it is the bible. So I sit down and read the bible (or the many versions of it). When I finish reading it, I go back and fact check some information, particularly the parts that make very specific and concrete scientific or historical claims. Take the entire Exodus thing. The bible says that Moses took his people into the desert for 40 some-odd years. So I go speak to an archeologist who tells me that there is absolutely zero evidence of a culture living in the desert at that time period in that part of the world. So I discount it and move on. Maybe the Christian just goofed, but I give him the benefit of the doubt.

I move on to the creation story and I have some real troubles outside of the very obvious. The creation story says that everything was created in 6 days by a supernatural intelligence. I find this strange, but I do a little digging into the details. The story says that plant life was created before the sun. This causes a dilemma because all science, hardened by concrete facts, says that the sun came before all life. Plus, we've learned that this creation story was roughly 6K years ago. If this supernatural being created the sun and other stars 6K years ago, when we look up into the night sky, we would not see any stars because their emitted light would not be here yet due to their being millions of light years away. This defies the natural order of things and I just take my sharpie out and scratch out the entire creation story. Obviously, the fact of evolution also pokes holes in the creation story.

Then I move on to the funnier stories such as Noah's Ark. Well, aside from the preposterous like being able to put all animals on one boat without their eating each other, what about the wood worms? Wouldn't they eat the boat? What happened when salt water mixed with fresh water? All of the marine life on the planet would have died. Furthermore, the fossil record has no evidence of any mass extinction dating back this near to the present, so I cancel this plausibility too. The Christian's argument is getting weaker and weaker by the minute!

Then I go on and on, and I am able to nix a tremendous about of claims from within the pages of the bible, leaving only some nice passages about morality, but soon learn that they actually originated in Jainism and Buddhism, meaning that the Christian is merely mimicking East Asian culture with a few added nuggets that causes a divide among cultures in present day. This makes me sad.

In the end, this detective is left with not much of a foundation to work with. That is, if I can discount a large portion of the claims made within the pages of the Christian's book, what makes me think the rest is reliable? A lawyer who argues an amazing case for a month, but gets caught lying in his closing statements will lose the case. The same goes for the Christian when arguing his case - I am able, very concretely and without a shred of doubt, discount too much of his argument to accept the grander statement.
 
2010-08-19 11:37:30 AM  

TedNigma: So, lemme get this straight.

A crescent and star marking the islamic attack and murder of 300+ US/Canadian?British/-sorry if I missed your country- is fine with you. Aok! It's "Free Speech" and such.


What are you talking about?

But a cross marking the deaths of fallen officers serving an unappreciative public is wrong?

The problem wasn't the cross, it was the government putting up crosses which was the problem. I know there are people who would object to the officers' brothers in the force putting up crosses with their own money, but I doubt it'd be more than a minority...and a judge barring them from putting them up on religious grounds would be unconstitutional.

Mother fark America. Take back the US before it's to late. Of course reading posts here, Americans don't seem to care who rules them, as long as they are ruled.

I agree we need to take back America. I may be a church-going midwesterner, but it worries me that theocrats are determined to "take back" America. Have you ever read up on what my Puritan ancestors did? Cripes, people biatch about "happy holidays" but don't even realize that at one point in American history we had theocrats who made Christmas illegal.

ppffsstt. Try that shiat on the Highway of Heroes in Canada, and watch that judge get fired.

Oh yeah, Americans can't fire judges and such. LOL!! Sorry about that. In for 'life' eh?


Depends on the judge, and whether it's a federal judge or not.

On the bright side, we've avoided being subjects for the past 234 years.
 
2010-08-19 11:37:56 AM  

ace in your face: There have been people, in life and on fark who have made the assertion that "there is no god". Those are the people I take issue with. I have REPEATEDLY stated that. I do not think that the government should be erecting crosses with their money, but I do think that people should be able to put them up and care for them with private money.


first) no atheist in this thread has made that argument

second) as I stated previously: they might have just been being lazy as it is simply to say than the actual qualified statement

third) why to you persist in arguing against people WHO AREN'T IN THIS THREAD? that has the primary effect of making your argument appear to paint the atheists in this thread as the type you're arguing against. that constitutes a straw man

ace in your face: I absolutely disagree that being christian by definition impairs anyones freedom, or physical or mental health, the same way I would disagree that being atheist by definition would impair the same things.


see, here's where i have you. because i DO have evidence to support that assertion i made.


they infringe upon my freedom when they pass patently religious laws - laws against "obscenity", laws against "gay marriage" (note: i'm straight and married, i'm speaking hypothetically), laws supporting their position. they infringe upon my freedom when they attack school curriculum based on their beliefs.

they harm my physical health when they bomb doctor's offices, and murder doctors. when they ban medical research because their religion doesn't agree with it. when they attack science because it disagrees with them. they harm people's physical health when they refuse to teach them proper sex education. they harm my physical health when the insist unneeded, irreversible, unjustifiable medical procedures be performed on infant males altering their anatomy.

they harm people's mental health when they perpetuate the idea that various natural healthy things (masturbation, non-martial sex, non-traditional relationships [between consenting adults]) are "bad"/"evil"/"sinful". they harm people's mental health when they perpetuate the idea that mental illness is "demons" that must be "exorcised" (Yes this still happens in the US).


I have a book to recommend to you (new window)
 
2010-08-19 11:38:05 AM  
As an atheist, I find this stupid and a waste of time. I am outraged by the buttfarks who sued over this petty crap. They are just memorials FFS, leave them alone. Eventually the people maintaining them will get over it and let them decay. Have some farking heart and let them grieve.

Unless tax money is being spent on their construction and maintenance, just leave 'em alone. Any Muslims or Jews want to put crescents or stars on the road in the same manner, feel free. Buddhists can put up those newfangled squigglies and Hindus should feel free to plop golden cows. Us atheists can feel content to simply remember our lost friends and family without ridiculous memorial displays. In the mean time, stop being such epic douchebags.
 
Displayed 50 of 641 comments


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



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report