Atheist organization to erect monument in Florida

[MorningGlory]

I don't understand a group (that denies it is a group) erecting a monument to themselves....after all, atheists believe in nothing (according to them) so what is the point of a monument?  I think they should have it, don't get me wrong, but I'm tired of the American Atheists Association insisting they aren't a movement and hold no beliefs.  Opinions anyone?

 

http://www.christianpost.com/news/fla-courthouse-to-have-first-in-the-nation-atheist-monument-96984/

[WarmRoom]

its not a monument to themselves the courthouse where they are erecting this at already has a ten commandments monument this monument they are erecting is going to parallel the ten commandments monument making a morality statement on the ten commandments. So even though it is being put in place by the AAO it actually has some religious context and value with the Christian god. I would have preferred a monument to the FSM or something like that. This is a perfect example of equal opportunity. Also I don't think the AAO denies that its a group its in the title American Atheist ORGANIZAION. Also if I as an individual sued the gov to give me equal access to a cause and a larger group finances me this does not mean that I support all of that groups position. This is a good example of freedom of speech and harms no one. If Ozymandias erects a monument to himself does that make it religious? this is also not the first secular monument either see Lincoln memorial mount rushmore etc.

[revolutionist90]

The ten commandments monument was basically paid by the Christians who wanted it erected so it was paid with tax payers money. I think putting the bench across from the ten commandments is an unnecessary juxtaposition. The bench is then actually challenging the Christian monument which is no real way to foster peace. I don't think the way the American Atheist organization aggressively challenge Christianity does not really help the two groups foster any type of peace...but then again they might not want peace. They are a tad different from my atheist friends...The writings on the bench are also a little strange/silly to me. The quotes of the founding fathers and their religious position are always a little controversial (i.e freedom "of" religion vs. freedom "from" religion) and most believe that they were very religious (especially since the constitution was created with help from the Bible) so I think it is strange to put the quotes. The founding fathers are also quoted with saying very religious/Christian statements in regards to government and the U.S so the quotes on the bench will only be looking at one side of the coin. But reading the quotes on the bench might foster some curiosity and make some people research what the founding fathers said in hopes to learn more...

[WarmRoom]

The ten commandments monument was basically paid by the Christians who wanted it erected so it was paid with tax payers money. I think putting the bench across from the ten commandments is an unnecessary juxtaposition. The bench is then actually challenging the Christian monument which is no real way to foster peace. I don't think the way the American Atheist organization aggressively challenge Christianity does not really help the two groups foster any type of peace...but then again they might not want peace. They are a tad different from my atheist friends...The writings on the bench are also a little strange/silly to me. The quotes of the founding fathers and their religious position are always a little controversial (i.e freedom "of" religion vs. freedom "from" religion) and most believe that they were very religious (especially since the constitution was created with help from the Bible) so I think it is strange to put the quotes. The founding fathers are also quoted with saying very religious/Christian statements in regards to government and the U.S so the quotes on the bench will only be looking at one side of the coin. But reading the quotes on the bench might foster some curiosity and make some people research what the founding fathers said in hopes to learn more...

I agree the whole thing seems kind of silly to me as an artist it just hurts my eyes!!!! I am telling you if they wanted to make a statement they should have had raptorjesus sitting in the lap of the FSM holding the ten commandments except replacing god with man or something. It's cheeky enough to not be overly offensive and combines enough atheist memes together to make a more universal approach oh well to each their own I guess.

[revolutionist90]

 

The ten commandments monument was basically paid by the Christians who wanted it erected so it was paid with tax payers money. I think putting the bench across from the ten commandments is an unnecessary juxtaposition. The bench is then actually challenging the Christian monument which is no real way to foster peace. I don't think the way the American Atheist organization aggressively challenge Christianity does not really help the two groups foster any type of peace...but then again they might not want peace. They are a tad different from my atheist friends...The writings on the bench are also a little strange/silly to me. The quotes of the founding fathers and their religious position are always a little controversial (i.e freedom "of" religion vs. freedom "from" religion) and most believe that they were very religious (especially since the constitution was created with help from the Bible) so I think it is strange to put the quotes. The founding fathers are also quoted with saying very religious/Christian statements in regards to government and the U.S so the quotes on the bench will only be looking at one side of the coin. But reading the quotes on the bench might foster some curiosity and make some people research what the founding fathers said in hopes to learn more...

I agree the whole thing seems kind of silly to me as an artist it just hurts my eyes!!!! I am telling you if they wanted to make a statement they should have had raptorjesus sitting in the lap of the FSM holding the ten commandments except replacing god with man or something. It's cheeky enough to not be overly offensive and combines enough atheist memes together to make a more universal approach oh well to each their own I guess.

 

Though they really do like equating Christianity to the FSM it would have been a bad idea I think mostly because the FSM is even more offensive than the Founding Fathers quotes. On the flipside your artistic approach would have summed up the organization and their feelings about Christianity well...it just would have been obvious it was trying to negate Christianity and probably would not be allowed to be erected...less you have some type of protest to take it down. And you are right that no one will probably read the quotes since they might be small and most people will probably just sit on it...

[WarmRoom]

well to be fair if they protested to take down my proposal the Decalogue would go with it. So I am not to sure they would try and take it down. The fact that the Decalogue would still be up is probably a win in their book. If they have to deal with some slightly offensive monuments in a reaction to theirs it kinda goes with the territory. I don't think FSM is meant to be as offensive as some people think it is. It is about proving a negative not trying to state that Christianity is evil.

for example I say you cant prove god is real

you say you cant disprove god

then I say the flying spaghetti monster is real

you say it is not

I say you cant prove its not.

it was started as a letter against creationism being taught in public schools. Not against Christianity and still to this day it is not against any religion in particular it is just an example to counter an argument.

Edited June 2, 2013 by WarmRoom

[revolutionist90]

well to be fair if they protested to take down my proposal the Decalogue would go with it. So I am not to sure they would try and take it down. The fact that the Decalogue would still be up is probably a win in their book. If they have to deal with some slightly offensive monuments in a reaction to theirs it kinda goes with the territory. I don't think FSM is meant to be as offensive as some people think it is. It is about proving a negative not trying to state that Christianity is evil.

for example I say you cant prove god is real

you say you cant disprove god

then I say the flying spaghetti monster is real

you say it is not

I say you cant prove its not.

it was started as a letter against creationism being taught in public schools. Not against Christianity and still to this day it is not against any religion in particular it is just an example to counter an argument.

I would have to disagree mostly because the person who really does like to tout the FSM analogy (Richard Dawkins) is pretty aggressive against Christianity especially since he like others (Sam Harris) think those who have a fundamental Christian belief have a psychological disorder. But this is the problem with group mentality (I'm stating that to be offensive). You see the FSM as simply a statement trying to prove a negative because you are an atheist but I (and most other Christians) see it as a bash of Christianity because we are Christians and there are some Atheist who do more than prove a negative (i.e actually do bash Christians as ignorant/psychological disorder etc). The divide between atheist and Christians is more than just a difference in beliefs...

[WarmRoom]

well see that's an argument from a lack of understanding. Just because an argument is used by people who are aggressive towards Christianity does not mean that the argument itself is. You are assigning meaning to it that's not there. Its like guilty by association. Most pastafarians are not anti-religion. In fact pastafarians like to incorporate positive religious influences like the sense of community and support. There is even a pastafarian bible. While it does mock religion in a way its not negative towards religion just arguments used in some apologetics circles. Also Richard dawkins uses pink unicorns in his argument does this mean that pink unicorns are anti-Christian?

Dawkins is also not touched by his noodely goodness so he cant speak to the matter.

Edited June 2, 2013 by WarmRoom

[revolutionist90]

well see that's an argument from a lack of understanding. Just because an argument is used by people who are aggressive towards Christianity does not mean that the argument itself is. You are assigning meaning to it that's not there. Its like guilty by association. Most pastafarians are not anti-religion. In fact pastafarians like to incorporate positive religious influences like the sense of community and support. There is even a pastafarian bible. While it does mock religion in a way its not negative towards religion just arguments used in some apologetics circles. Also Richard dawkins uses pink unicorns in his argument does this mean that pink unicorns are anti-Christian?

Dawkins is also not touched by his noodely goodness so he cant speak to the matter.

I think we have both missed the point of the FSM. I am not intending to assign meaning to every caricature used to insult Christians and I used Dawkins as an example as to why some Christians might be hostile to the FSM approach. Though he is not apart of the FSM you can't deny that he does believe Christians have a psychological disorder and that Christianity is the same as a bed time story to him and just as fake as the Church of the FSM. You also cannot deny that Dawkins and Harris are friends. If you hang out with the crowd that does cause guilty by association.  The problem is when someone takes something that is a certain artifact/phrase that is important to a religion and twists it to show the inadequacy of the religion thus while it might be proving a negative it is doing it in a cheeky even insulting way. Take the fish for example, it was used by early Christians as a symbol to show other Christians it was safe to talk because they were severely persecuted. Some atheist organization or person took the fish, put legs on it, flipped it to go to the right, and some even wrote Darwin. This is a symbol that is suppose to negate creationism with evolution. The problem is not that they are trying to negate but that they took something that was used by those persecuted and mocked it. If they used their own symbol that would be different and those goes for the  FSM too (remember it was used in a painting and replaced God as he reached towards man's finger). The proving a negative by using Christian symbols and twisting them instead of using their own symbols especially symbols that were used by those persecuted is what can cause some hackles to be raised. It would be like if someone twists the star of David to prove negative since it has ties to a group that was persecuted. And I do think it is strange that many atheist use Christians symbols...why not Islam, Buddhists( the or the other myriad of religions since all are silly to those who are atheist. That type of singling out can raise a person's defense because so far the only symbols that have been twisted are those of Christianity which does make it seem like Christians are the ones being  targeted. 

You say I am assigning meaning to something that is not there and I say that since you do not understand a Christian's feelings on the matter (have not walked in a Christian's shoes) you ignore the meaning that I see within the FSM. That is not to be rude I am just making a statement. 

So it is not every single little thing that is used to try to negate Christianity such as comparing unicorns to Christianity. It is when someone takes something of the particular religion that is important (like the fish), twists and uses it in an attempt to defame that religion. That is seen as rude but, no offense, I don't think you will ever see the FSM as being an attack similarly to how I will never see it as being a peaceful argument mostly because of our chosen beliefs. You think it is cheeky and I think it is more than that.

Honestly though we are getting off topic with this thread. We have gone from erecting monuments to talking about flying spaghetti monsters. 

Edited June 2, 2013 by revolutionist90

[WarmRoom]

Yeah lol we have gone a bit off topic hehehe.

You have to understand though a lot of these symbols like the evolution fish etc. come from ex-Christians we use these symbols much like early Christians did to say hey I am an agnostic/atheist its ok to chat with me about these issues if you want. It is an evolution of the symbolism of sorts and I can totally understand why its offensive. It really is more of an inside joke we accept that Christians are not going to get it but it is away of expressing ones frustrations when dealing with a life that was once dedicated to something you no longer believe. Humor sometimes is the best medicine so to speak.

But enough of Flying Spaghetti Monsters and pastafarians lets agree to accept each others differences with empathy and peace =D