Athiest sign

[Temote]

Re: Athiest sign

In 2006, it was joined by a menorah sponsored by a Seattle Jewish group. A menorah is a candelabrum that recognizes Hanukkah.

That prompted a lawmaker from Spokane to stage a protest at the Capitol, demanding the holiday tree be called a "Christmas tree." It also led a local real estate agent to sue the state to allow the nativity display depicting the birth of Jesus.

There have been no requests for a menorah display this year.

Am I the only one that caught this part?

[sakura080789]

Re: Athiest sign

It is?
Haha. Atheism = non-theism = non-religion = not religion.

Very true the logic is catching up

[All_That_Chaz]

Re: Athiest sign

Very true the logic is catching up

Logic doesn't matter the government recognizes Atheism as a religion so they get the same rights as any other religion.

[sakura080789]

Re: Athiest sign

Logic doesn't matter the government recognizes Atheism as a religion so they get the same rights as any other religion.

Hmmm yeah Chaz i got ya
but my point on this whole subject is: people have the right to do whatever makes them happy

[Svaz]

Re: Athiest sign

Squeek was here and he didn't correct the spelling of the title (Atheist rather than Athiest)? I have to admit I'm kind of disappointed.

[sakura080789]

Re: Athiest sign

Squeek was here and he didn't correct the spelling of the title (Atheist rather than Athiest)? I have to admit I'm kind of disappointed.

hmmm i didn't even notice that lol

[All_That_Chaz]

Re: Athiest sign

It's the most Athiest sign I've ever seen.

[sakura080789]

Re: Athiest sign

It's the most Athiest sign I've ever seen.

hmmm what sign lol

[Squeek]

Re: Athiest sign

I have an idea. Stop posting "lol" in place of punctuation for every sentence.

And try to add something to the discussion once in a while.

Squeek was here and he didn't correct the spelling of the title (Atheist rather than Athiest)? I have to admit I'm kind of disappointed.

I noticed it but it was a little late to do anything about it so I didn't care.

[sakura080789]

Re: Athiest sign

but my point on this whole subject is: people have the right to do whatever makes them happy

to quote myself and to be my final post here ok.

[devonin]

Re: Athiest sign

I object to the sign not because it is "An Atheist sign" but because it doesn't actually express atheism, it just condemns religion.

That sign is not akin to a christmas tree, menorah or nativity scene. Those are positive assertions of religious faith.

If the sign had followed the pattern being used by the bus ads in the UK that read "THERE'S PROBABLY NO GOD. NOW STOP WORRYING AND ENJOY YOUR LIFE".

I'd find it much more defensible. But since the sign contains text like "religion hardens hearts and enslaves minds" is in fect offensive and inappropriate.

[Afrobean]

Re: Athiest sign

See, you can't assert that unless there was a universally accepted model for truth, and you're falling into the Coherence Theory which works for more down-to-earth questions but you can't use it for the metaphysical. Take for example, there is a supreme being out there who is a giant octopus who has a green beard and enjoys drinking Budweiser. Just because we have no way of proving his existence and that it's completely useless for use to have any way to prove his existence, doesn't mean he doesn't exist.

If you're going to make such strong statements of truth make sure that it can stand up to all the models of truth before expecting people to take it as a true statement.

Saying "you can't prove it!" is not a legitimate response to the claim I made. The only one you can really make is to say, "God is not tangible in this universe and we cannot measure any effect he has on reality and there is no scientifically founded reason to suggest we should believe in him, but I still choose to believe that he is real in some way."

If God existed in this Universe, there would be empirical evidence to suggest it, especially if the god we are referring to is the God of the Christian Bible.

And if God does exist and is choosing to not affect anything and not be measurable in any way, how is that any different form him not existing at all? If he's both invisible and abstaining from action, he might as well not exist.

And really, when you get into the "you can't prove it doesn't exist" area of thought, you get into the flying spaghetti monster territory. Saying that you believe in something JUST because it can't be proven to not be true (impossible for ANYTHING, by the way), you might as well hop on the pastafarian train. Really, think of something simple. A simple fact. 2+2=4. But can you prove that for all instances of 2, that the sum will equal 4? Critical thinking will lead you to the conclusion that 2+2 will always equal 4, but can you prove it by looking at every instance of 2?

[dore]

Re: Athiest sign

That's not at all what I was saying. You're trying to disprove the existence of the Christian god by saying there is no empirical evidence that he exists. All I'm saying is that just because you have no empirical evidence of his existence doesn't mean that he doesn't exist, it means that you have no evidence to suggest that he exists but that he may or may not exist completely independent of your (lack of) evidence.

[Squeek]

Re: Athiest sign

I said it before and I'll say it again.

The burden of proof does not lie with those who seek to disprove the existence of a god.

The origin of human thought was that there was no "God". Then some people failed to understand something about the natural world and said "well, ****. We don't know. It must be a god." So then the Greeks made a god for everything, and then the Romans made a god for everything. It's the same with Christianity, but they made it more efficient by collating all the gods into one (or three or whatever). However, the "god did it" argument is becoming less and less established considering how many thousands of times it's been wrong over the course of human history, never once being right. You're batting .000 here.

There's no variable for "God" in any mathematical or scientific formula. Therefore, there's no need for scientists or mathematicians to even bother proving or disproving the existence of one, because it does not play a role in anything they do or will ever do.

[dore]

Re: Athiest sign

I don't disagree with you on that. All I'm saying is that one cannot state "I know for a fact there is no (christian) god because there is no empirical evidence to suggest that he exists" when talking about disproving the existence of a being whose nature (by the definition of those who believe in said being) transcends the physical world as we perceive it.