Religious Absurdity Vol 2: "WTC wreckage in the shape of a cross is god's love." - Page 2

It's funny how you try to change the topic and move the goalposts when caught in a lie.

Yes. Of course. Except, the WTC Cross was cleaned up and cut to Christian-Cross proportions.

You claimed it was not found as it looks right now but instead had been cut to the dimensions of a cross. No one ever claimed that someone looked at it the first time and thought "Gee, that looks like a cross." Someone could find some mold tomorrow that they think looks like the Virgin Mary. That doesn't mean it was designed as a religious symbol. It would be like claiming every building with t joints was designed with the intended purpose of creating crosses when they collapse. It's ridiculous on its face.



It's understood you are making crap up and thus want others to shut up so this stops getting pointed out. Again no one ever claimed that some people didn't have religious thoughts related to this piece of wreckage. The point is having thoughts isn't a fucking crime.

Thoughts as crimes and endorsements, welcome to 1984 and you are the Minister of Truth.



What is pretty fucking dumb is trying to control people and their thoughts in a world where you believe there is no purpose and guiding force to human actions.

I mean seriously, follow your philosophy to it's conclusion. The universe is purposeless. The existence of man is meaningless. Life is chance and nothing more. Within this understanding you are worried about what some of your fellow human animals are thinking when staring at a lower case letter "t". It is about the most stupid and inane thing one could imagine wasting time on given that view. To even give it consideration of thought is a gigantic hypocrisy. The biggest proof that atheism is a goof is to watch atheists act like a bunch of controlling religious fanatics who are trying to tell everyone how to live, what to think and that we have to really worry about the purpose of all these purposeless and chance actions.


If it's insanity, then the only thing more insane is being the person who wants to control, direct and sweat the details of that insanity. If they are insane, then let them live their lives and you live yours. I mean per your view no life really has meaning so why sweat the meaning of this. How insane is it to sweat what a couple specks of people on our speck of a planet within our speck of our universe within our speck of a galaxy among many other galaxies think about a lower case letter "t". The only thing that gives their insanity power is your deeper insanity. If there's no higher power and no purpose associated with it, then act in accordance with that view.

Because everybody know THAT piece was chosen specifically FOR its religious significance.

Yet another example of how religion serves no purpose other than to foment animosity.

Why ask me? I am not making this decision.

If I had to guess, it is because other rubble is less recognizable or symbolic to most and people would not connect with it in the same way.

Or to provide people with another way to connect with others. You could have a positive view of it as well...

Oh great... so we pick something that tells the world, "Hey!, look at us!.. we believe in fairy tales!" fooking brilliant! So the rest of us have to be bunched together with you idiots in the eyes of the word? ... at least a statue of an atom would have some TRUTH behind it!

Why? There is nothing in the law that says all religions must be represented. It's also utterly impractical. Third, I call bullshit. You want no religious displays of any kind. Just be a man and say it.



And it is therefore his right to tell everyone else that they are stupid for believing in such "nonsense." The irony here is that atheists like BR are the ones actually violating the spirit of the 1st Amendment. They are trying to interfere with the free exercise of religion.


Who is fomenting animosity? Has a Christian group proclaimed that this should be the only symbol displayed as Christianity is one true religion? Have they sued to keep out Atheist displays? Have they sued to block other religions? Give me a break. Christians...(which make up 3/4 of the population of this nation) wish to display a symbol in which they find meaning. How could that possibly offend anyone, much less be illegal?


There are over 2 billion Christians in the world. There are billions upon billions of Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, et al. Since you're claiming that this religious symbol represents a fairy tale, might we also conclude that you think all of the above are based on fairy tales? What "world" do you think you're talking to?

Source ?

(...and yes, they are all based on fairy tales, unless you can provide some evidence that shows otherwise.)

Go talk to some Hindus... most of them (well, the educated ones that I know anyway) view their multitude of gods as a cultural thing... they don't really believe they exist as "gods" any more than they believe the Easter Bunny exists... their true beliefs would have them classified as agnostic or atheist if we were honest about it.

Say I lived in, oh... Iran. I would tell everyone I was a Muslim even if I didn't believe a word of it. My life would depend on it. I would be counted as one of those "Muslims" in your statistic, even though I was really atheist.
I dare say the same thing goes in the rest of the world with christians. Few people who are counted as christians truly BELIEVE in the fairy tales written out in the Bible.

Many of those (Christians and Muslims) believe what the "believe" only because thats what they were taught to do from the day they were born. They are taught to believe and not to question. They spend their time in Sunday School being brainwashed... told by authority figures that the stories are true, that god is real, that there is no proof but that doesn't matter.
I know NOBODY who has a rational justification for believing in the existence of a particular god.
I know of (or have heard of) NOBODY that has "experienced" god in a way that couldn't be explained better by natural, non-divine processes.

Any yes, I find the cross offensive when it's put up as a government sponsored mass memorial. Many of those killed there were NOT christians.
I get the impression you would have no problem if the U.S. declared itself a christian nation. You would feel that was justified as it's the only true "religion" anyway. (If you DON'T feel that way, then are you admitting that the God of the Bible is NOT necessarily true?)

And I know an internet discussion board is not about to sway any of you people one way or the other... but I find it entertaining ... perhaps one day one of you will actually come up with some real evidence... i keep waiting... Bueller?... Bueller?? ... Bueller ???

Or you could be an ass about it too. Your choice I guess.

How would a statue of an atom have truth behind it? Atoms being split killed plenty of people. Atoms being forged into weapons have ended many a life.

This will tell someone that we believe in fairy tales. It will also remind that people that believe in other fairy tales were the cause as well. Finally we will have a bunch of pissed off people who claim not to believe in fairy tales but are still throwing tantrums like the bedtime story really matters thus justifying all the fairy tales everyone wants to believe or hear.

Arguing that idolatry is important or worth your time makes any atheist look like an idiot at face value. It amounts to saying the fairy tales are very important and thus we have to control which ones are seen, or that all are represented or that they even matter.

When you claim fairy tales don't matter while going to court claiming they do matter, that isn't logic or science. It is pure hypocrisy and idiocy.

If you don't believe in Santa Claus do you care if someone sent you are card that showed him fat, skinny or wearing swim trunks? You don't give a crap because you know what, Santa isn't real. If someone wants to put Santa on his lawn and worship it I don't care because it isn't real.

When you care, it shows that you think there is credence to something you claim doesn't exist.

No... belief in Gods has caused more wars and killed more people on this planet than anything else.
If we could get people to stop thinking that way... to stop just believing something because "the pastor told me so." then perhaps we would have a chance of solving many of our problems.

But as long as there are people out there "on a mission from God" (apologies to Jake and Elwood) they will continue to wreak havoc on civilization as a whole. That's why it matters.

(Santa Clause doesn't matter because nobody over the age of 4 actually believes that crap... the same category that we should allow "God" to fall into.)

It's called Google, champ. It should take you all of 3 seconds to find it.


No religion can definitively prove its doctrine, just as atheists cannot prove theirs.


Did you really just tell me that the majority of the world's nearly one BILLION Hindus don't really believe in God(s)?


So a significant number of Muslims are really not Muslism? They just tell people that at parties? Can you please provide some evidence of that? You can't, because it's the stupidest fucking idea...maybe ever.


See above.


Gotcha. All religions are bullshit.


1. Why you do you get to decide what's "rational?"
2. Funny, because I know (and have heard of) a shit ton of them.


But you don't believe in anything...why do you care?


You are wrong.


1. I don't feel that way.

2. Framing it as "admission" is clearly part of your transparent attempt to invalidate all of Christianity. But I'll address your question: Christian beliefs tend to vary. Some believe the Bible is completely accurate and literal (the term "true" is loaded, so I'll use "accurate" instead). As for me, I believe that some of the Bible is non-literal and perhaps not always "accurate." Contrary to what many believe, the Bible is not 100% the word of God (it doesn't even claim to be). There are many stories (gospels/books) and accounts of God's word. And certainly, the book has been changed by man throughout history. There are even many different versions. None of this invalidates Christianity, but instead speaks to the variety of beliefs within the religion.


Let me tell you what I find entertaining: The fact that you are arguing with yourself. No Christian here is evangelizing. No one is telling you or anyone else what to believe. You are perfectly free to believe or not believe as you choose. But when you go a step further...when you tell others they cannot display a religious symbol found at Ground Zero? That's where most people get off the proverbial bus. Your right to not believe does not invalidate my right to publicly practice and demonstrate my religion just because it offends you. In fact, it'y my constitutionally protected right to do that.

And when you go yet another step further by calling Christians stupid and ignorant and backwards for believing what they do? That's when people like me tell you to GO FUCK YOURSELF.

That's impossible to prove. And I argue that while religion has been at the heart of much violence, there is no evidence that "belief if God" has done the same. You are confusing the two.


It is a grand fallacy to suggest that people believe in God only because "the pastor told them to."


Doesn't that depend on what the mission is?


Who is we? YOU can categorize belief in God any way you wish. "We" don't have to do anything. It's amusing, really. As trump noted earlier, atheists are acting like the very "religious nut jobs" they despise. It is you, sir, who don't want people to freely believe and worship as they choose. You don't believe in God, and no one else should either. That is your message, and it makes you a bigot along with BR.

I'll be a man about it. I want there to be NO religious symbols paid for by public funds or displayed on public property by public decree. It's absolutely unamerican, and unconstitutional. Aren't you righties the ones always (falsely) nitpitcking about constitutionality? Well, buck up.

Put the cross in the privately owned Christian Ground Zero Memorial or whatever other Christian location is at or near Ground Zero.

Holy Crap! (yes, I get the irony in that.)
You're starting to catch on!!!

I'd argue you're quite wrong on the religion killing more people on this planet than anything else. It may have caused more wars in terms of shear numbers of smallish wars or battles but the numbers killed have been much larger in modern and the causes, decidedly not religious.

I mean the crusades aren't even top 10 there. You've got to get another talking point.

Also when we look at how science and the men who claim to rule from it fairs it isn't much better. You've got folks like the Nazi's who used eugenics to murder a race (and religion) of people.

Shouldn't you have a moral higher ground to stand on when you point a finger?

Strictly speaking... OK.
But... (and this is perhaps to complicated to be possible) If numbers of people killed were factored by the efficiencies of the technologies used to kill them, you might consider my point valid... consider also the total number of people available in the region or the world at that point in time. When using swords and sorcery compared to using 7.66 mm machine guns and nuclear bombs. Then yes, of course more dead bodies showed up in WW2 than in the crusades.



Nobody "rules" from science. Science isn't a form of government. Science is merely a way of validating ideas and learning the truth about how the word works.



[/QUOTE]

Shouldn't you have a little evidence before you go basing your world view on something?

So science got rid of the fairy tales but cranked up the murder efficiency index. I'm not quite sure you are helping your cause here.


Actually many advocates of centralized and planned forms of government have claimed science as their mandate.

Science doesn't seek truth. It seeks understanding. You claim science doesn't rule but then use concepts like truth in defending science. Those are words used for value judgements. Scientific understanding is a rather poor basis for explaining the world because it is always incomplete and being refined in terms of the ability to explain. Did the person who had the prior understanding become a LIAR while they were applying it? Were they bad, evil or wrong?


I can base my world off what I observe and reason. Science cannot explain how my brain works. It cannot properly define consciousness. It cannot feel or explain love, pride or motivation. It perhaps can give a bit of insight, but that is about it.

Science cannot explain why atheists, for example, are acting like petulant children on a matter that when considered on a planetary scale or better still on a univeral or galactic scale, amounts to absolutely nothing. Instead of wasting time and energy worrying about what people might think while staring at a lower case t, they ought to be creating the type of lives, and institutions that people see as objectively better and thus follow out of pure reason rather than legal compulsion.

Yet.
That is the whole point of science... we understand these things now much better than we did 1000 years ago... and while it doesn't explain such things entirely yet, one day it may... could be a hundred or several thousand years down the road yet, but the potential for explanation is there.




Thinking people get upset about religious people because those religious zealots hold back intellectual progress (especially on a global, galactic, or universal scale.) They seek to compel what is moral and "legal" based on imagined divine inspiration rather than societal acceptance via reasoning and logic.

I would argue we don't necessarily understand these things better. In fact it often seems that a focus on the parts makes many forget the big picture. Our favorite electronics company here constantly shows us how science is but a small part of the equation. They strive for "magical." They keep design paramount, not specs. Perhaps we have a few more insights into the mechanics in some small ways but really that amounts to little of true understanding. In the meantime though this partial understanding, this attempt at understanding is in no form the "truth" nor should it be held above other items people use to determine how they want to live their lives or help shape the society in which they live.


These "thinking" people should be upset about their own limitations and failure to persuade. Moral and legal are not scientific concepts. You are reversing yourself from two posts ago where you declared no one "rules" from science. Here you admit they want to compel people to do as they desire based off......science because they believe these people hold back "intellectual progress."

Do you think you can force people to think as you want? Is that a sign of intellectual progress? You compel them to do as you desire based of you think instead of what they want to do based off what they think. This is progress? You force them, what at the point of a gun if the need for "intellectual progress" is deemed compelling or their own beliefs unprogressive enough for society at large?

That is progress? That is exactly the sort of thinking that led to every communistic purge which killed millions.

The major religions started at least 1500+ years ago. This was at a time when so little was known about the world, and so much of what is common knowledge today, via science was considered unknown or mysterious. Just 150 years ago, those considering the possibility of "horseless carriages" would risk being burned at the stake for witchcraft. What happened to Galileo, on the basis of evidence he discovered through observation? (The Roman Catholic Church apologized on behalf of Galileo in 1995). And, how would (a) Jesus Christ, for example, fare in today's society? Probably none too well... and running foul of the law in the process.

That part in bold above is absolutely, ridiculously false. Religion in America is interwoven into our culture. And the 1st Amendment was intended to PROTECT the exercise of religion, not prevent it. That protection included prohibiting Congress establishing a national religion. Over the last 50 years, the 1st Amendment has been perverted to mean the exact opposite of what was intended. The founders of this country never intended for God to be banished from public life. Even the Declaration of Independence references God.

Not much to say in response. You clearly believe that faith/religion is outdated as we have advanced well beyond the need for God. To each his own.

God is not banished from public life. God, however, is banished from public funding and government promotion.

How can conservatives say with a straight face that Congress isn't allowed to fund government health care programs because of the 10th Amendment, but somehow the Federal Government is allowed to fund Christian activities and displays? It's insane.

I live 12 minutes from work. Along the way this morning I counted 18 churches. One synagogue. And zero mosques. Christianity is alive and well in this country regardless of what the hag on Fox screams.

That is completely wrong. Look up the Lemon test and familiarize yourself with it.

It's probably because the analogy you are trying to make is utterly wrong and terrible. The government is attempting to mandate you purchase medical insurance. This is very different than funding something that might have an item, that as a secondary purpose, has a religious significance by some percentage of the population.

You know I've learned that Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism find cows to be sacred animals. I'm suing the government because anytime they purchase beef, I think the primary purpose must be to advance religions that do not hold that animal to be sacred and work to the detriment of those religions that do. Sure some people might note that lots of people consume beef to live, but it doesn't matter. It has SOME religious significance to SOME portion of the population and thus, the government must never devote a single cent to beef ever again!

That is exactly what you're arguing for. No religious symbols, activities, statements in public places. Pretty soon we'll be hearing that the President shouldn't say "God bless America." Just watch.


No, that is simply not what the 1st Amendment means, which is the only law that matters. The primary purposes is to protect religious expression. In that vein, Congress is prohibited from establishing an official national religion. Considering that our nation was founded by people escaping religious persecution due to an official state religion in England, this is not hard to understand. Like it or not, the Constitution does NOT prohibit the government from any religious exercise, action, statement, etc.


Conservatives are not saying that Congress "cannot fund healthcare programs." No one has ever argued that to my knowledge. What conservatives say the government cannot do is mandate people buy a product simply because they, as humans, exist on this earth.

As for funding religious activities displays: Government can absolutely do that. What government cannot do is allow one and deny another. For example, if a Jewish group found rubble that looked like a menorah and wanted to display it, the government cannot allow the cross while denying the other symbol...at least not on purely religious grounds.

I thought this was interesting. Just passed by my elementary school today (in Kuala Lumpur)... haven't been there for maybe 10 to 15 years... Interestingly, the cross is still intact.

Most of the students are nowadays ethnic Malay and by default Muslim. Every Muslim student has to take Islamic classes in addition to the usual standard elementary school subjects.

My elementary school was founded by missionaries about 100 years ago but turned semi-government/ semi-secular/ semi-Muslim about 30-40 years ago. Non-ethnic Malays are not required to attend Islamic classes but do "Moral Studies" instead.

After being away for decades it is extremely weird walking under the cross and then through the halls where students were reciting the Quran.

It's not all peachy in this country though, I've written at length in separate threads about the ethnic, religious and socioeconomic conditions here. Upon reflection, this being a somewhat historic elementary school, I think if anybody suggested to remove the cross (since it really isn't a Christian school and hasn't been for maybe half a decade)... it would be a big brouhaha and politically explosive.

As an outsider, I think the average American is being played by both sides. The fundamentalist Christians want to paint themselves as going extinct and atheists are gathering in strength saying they're being crushed by the religious right. Then everybody in between has to then "take a side" in a way by deciding which way to go. For example, agnostic theists, which probably form the majority in Western cultures, may think, Hey I believe in God or something Divine, but some of this Bible stuff makes no sense and some of these Christian fundamentalists freak me out. Or they may think, well, if so many people believe in specifics of the Bible, Torah or Quran, maybe there's something there... What's wrong with these atheists?

As the pressure builds the middle ground gets squeezed.

Everybody around the world needs to start to chill the f*** out. (See my next paragraph)


This century, I think the challenge is this. We've gained massive amounts of new information, have instant access to all this information, and live very different lifestyles.

But a lot of the *human condition* remains unchanged. We don't know when or how we're going to die. Or what happens when we die. We don't know when or how we are going to get sick or get hit by a bus, and we don't know what happens after that. We don't know if the Earth is getting worse for living, or doing fine. Is love any easier to obtain? What about the economy... Certainly it's not a feudal system but it could be inching towards that... If you're in with the big corporations then you may have an easy ride, if you're a Walmart "peasant" maybe not so. But then again, nobody knows. Yes, it depends on individual effort, but rich, poor, savings, investments, debt, stocks, is all still a moving target that science has not really solved. Now with the impending doom of global financial collapse there's even more uncertainty because now we know our economic knowledge is either not sufficient or is not applied correctly by those in "power".

So this century seems to be starting off with this dichotomy of the immense promise of science, knowledge, forgiveness and new methods of thinking not bound by millennial-old texts... but contrasted with the global human condition.

The human body/brain/soul/whatever still craves sensations of comfort, security, and has basic physical and emotional needs that still need to be met. So we are in this whirlwind of rapid change all around us and I think this is what gives rise to discomfort, conflict and reversions to fundamentalism. For some people, if a web page can be changed in seconds, and a book reprinted in weeks, the Bible and the Quran seem like "safe havens". Look at the flight from currency savings to purchasing gold. Sounds ludicrous in this day and age, right?

On the topic of Science. Firstly, Science does not necessarily give answers. It simply narrows the parameters and eliminates certain possibilities. I have a college degree in Molecular Biology. Even at my level of education (even though it's not that high-falutin', I don't have a Masters or PhD), there are so many unanswered questions and huge controversy still on things like "junk DNA" for example. So imagine a layperson, of whom most do not study Science at a college level, how are they to grasp the basics of the scientific method and it's advantages and disadvantages. If one's mother gets breast cancer, the last thing on that person's mind is "Oh, it could be the BRCA1 gene, good on Science!". That person will just be like, WTF, how do we cure this, this sucks!

So you could say, it boils down to uncertainty. Science tells us about randomness of the universe. Faith tells us it is not so random.

So, faced with uncertainty, and especially suffering of any kind, people will seek solutions.

I think the big thing is that Science has not really narrowed the scope of "uncertainty" enough. And it simply breaks down with complex systems like the human body, the environment, financial systems and so on... because of its deconstructionist approach.

Heck, turn on a Windows PC and during a week you may not even know if anything will crash or not.

I think the human capacity to handle complexity is either too evolved that we can rise above it or not evolved enough that we cannot navigate multiple, highly complex systems.

One very last point. Acts of "Evil". This is one thing that has not changed. People still steal, loot, rape, murder, embezzle. There is no real scientific explanation of this yet. Is it brain related? We're also seeing huge gains in controlling mental illnesses but it's still largely taboo in many countries and in developed countries people are now saying mental illnesses are over-medicated.

But we DO KNOW what happens when we die.... NOTHING!

We see it all the time, EVERY time someone dies... nothing happens. You're just dead... that's the end... period.

No, people don't want their life to end, so they imagine what it would be like if there were something else. Then they make up stories about that. It gets passed around until they become so engrained in the culture that people actually BELIEVE that crap.
There's still no evidence and nothing other than imagination to explain such ideas.
Every time someone dies we have fresh evidence that NOTHING happens... but people's desires and fears cause them to cling to their invented "beliefs" for which there is NO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER!

Nothing happens here where you can see it so I guess for you, all that exists is what you can see here. Explains a lot.

That's fantastic for you.

Now tell me which is the greater harm to society.

The person who believes there is an invisible dragon in their garage.......

or....

the person who sues to make sure the government never builds or uses a garage because they know that when some people look at them, they will think of invisble dragons.

I choose the latter.

What, exactly, does it explain ? Do tell !

If you cannot see it, it must not exist.


for example:
http://www.astronomytoday.com/cosmology/darkmatter.html
Apparently 90% of the universe cannot be seen and only appears to exist because of unseen forces.

Try again and learn what the big boys words mean before you point fingers.

I still don't get how in the hell federally funding a cross in a museum is an enumerated power.

Is federally funding museums an enumerated power?

They aren't federal funding a cross. They are placing a piece of debris from the collapse of the towers in a museum. This is the what you can't seem to wrap your mind around.