A good example of why athiests suck

[Reggie Dunlop]

Originally Posted by HOZ

Well that did not change the fact that virtually every nation except Muslim nations in Asia use the Red Cross. The Red Crystal arrived due to the Red Cross Org. idiotic position on Israel's Magen David Adom.

Why was that an idiotic position? Desecularization is a good idea for an international aid organization. What better way than to have a neutral symbol?

[photon]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

When I create a thread stating that a group sucks because of a racial or cultural trait, feel free to play Mrs. Moderator on me.

Though it is pretty inflammatory and nonsensical, since atheists are a diverse group with no common beliefs or philosophy, so to lump them all together doesn't make any sense, unless talking about the lack of belief in a god.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by photon

...But are crosses used as memorial markers really not intended to convey any religious meaning? If an individual chooses a memorial marker for someone, I am very doubtful they would choose a cross unless they associated themselves with Christianity in some fashion, if they didn't they'd choose something either relevant to their beliefs, or something generic (or a laser light show for me).

People make choices all the time to display crosses for non-religious reasons, and I think that because there is such a sizable segment of our population that is religiously nominal (whether they be deists, agnostics, spiritualists or metaphysicists), a fair case can be made that the cross itself is innocuous. How many people who select crosses for their gravesites or those whom they love actually understand the history of the symbol? For them, while it is probably religiously rooted in some sense, is its meaning precisely what is conveyed in the display of a cross on a church steeple?

Originally Posted by photon

...Could it be argued that all the other memorials that have crosses in them have crosses in them because of the influence of religious Christians in the decision making process?

I think that this actually reinforces my point, which in part says that the origins of any given symbol do not necessarily transfer any meaning to their ongoing use. Words are symbols. The meanings of words change over time to the point that their earlier meaning becomes completely irrelevant. I am arguing that the same holds true for all symbols, including religious ones.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Reggie Dunlop

Why was that an idiotic position? Desecularization is a good idea for an international aid organization. What better way than to have a neutral symbol?

Is the Red Crystal a "neutral" symbol if it is certified only at the request of the Jewish state, and the Jewish state is the only one to adopt it?

[Finny61]

Originally Posted by photon

All by itself probably no, but maybe that it was one organization that put them all up and they were all crosses despite most being of a religion that doesn't use the cross that contributed to the decision? It wouldn't be advocating if it was just symbols put up by families, but since it was one symbol exclusively chosen by one group supported by the state they felt it crossed whatever line separates advocate and not?



But are crosses used as memorial markers really not intended to convey any religious meaning? If an individual chooses a memorial marker for someone, I am very doubtful they would choose a cross unless they associated themselves with Christianity in some fashion, if they didn't they'd choose something either relevant to their beliefs, or something generic (or a laser light show for me).

Could it be argued that all the other memorials that have crosses in them have crosses in them because of the influence of religious Christians in the decision making process?

Chicken or the egg?

My thoughts would be that many of these families are content with the cross because it reflects the sacrifice a son/daughter/brother/sister/father/mother made for their own country. Something that can be compared in many ways to the life of Christ. It's not so much an advertisement maybe as it is just a statement of gracious selflessness.

[Devils'Advocate]

I dunno. For me being an atheist was about as much of a choice as homosexuals have a choice. But I did throw Jewish in there for a reason. Is "Jews suck" a good topic?

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Is the Red Crystal a "neutral" symbol if it is certified only at the request of the Jewish state, and the Jewish state is the only one to adopt it?

Touché!

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

I dunno. For me being an atheist was about as much of a choice as homosexuals have a choice. But I did throw Jewish in there for a reason. Is "Jews suck" a good topic?

Probably not. But what would make a good topic is how and why Jewish cultural and national identity is intricately tied to their own collective memories of persecution.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

I dunno. For me being an atheist was about as much of a choice as homosexuals have a choice. But I did throw Jewish in there for a reason. Is "Jews suck" a good topic?

Ugh. You're not even arguing the topic at hand, you're arguing about the thread title.

Devil's fans are idiots.

Also, if the thread included a good example of why Jews suck, then sure. But I'm not Jewish so it's not for me to get upset over. Likewise if there was a thread entitled 'a good reason why Christians suck' I probably wouldn't be bothered by it as some Christians do indeed suck.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

How many people who select crosses for their gravesites or those whom they love actually understand the history of the symbol? For them, while it is probably religiously rooted in some sense, is its meaning precisely what is conveyed in the display of a cross on a church steeple?

Probably not the same, but as you say any meaning it does have originates within Christianity.

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I think that this actually reinforces my point, which in part says that the origins of any given symbol do not necessarily transfer any meaning to their ongoing use. Words are symbols. The meanings of words change over time to the point that their earlier meaning becomes completely irrelevant. I am arguing that the same holds true for all symbols, including religious ones.

And I agree, I wouldn't argue that, it's just a case of has the meaning changed enough, become generic enough, that it didn't cross whatever line there is. For me it doesn't (I think roadside memorials are a bad idea altogether), the judge I guess thought it did (which surprises me). The crosses were 12 feet tall I guess, the association is a secular one, etc.

It'd be interesting to read the full judgment, here's something about the arguments:

http://www.becketfund.org/files/7cb25.pdf

EDIT: Full text, haven't read it yet:
http://orneryconservative.blogspot.c...ncan-text.html

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

I dunno. For me being an atheist was about as much of a choice as homosexuals have a choice. But I did throw Jewish in there for a reason. Is "Jews suck" a good topic?

Given that becomes a common theme of most any thread involving Israel, I would have to say yes... Seriously though, "Jews suck" is a strange case, as objectively it should be treated no different than "Christians suck" or "athiests suck" - or "Canadians suck" or "Americans suck" for that matter. Our society has argued that such sentiments are almost automatically antisemitic, and therefore equivalent to bigotry or racism. Debating whether that is a fair convention would probably take this thread down its fifth or sixth discussion path.

I would like to know the context behind why you are claiming your being athiest is "as much a choice" as someone else being homosexual. With no other explanation of history, I am led to believe at first that your athiesm is environmental - that either you were immersed in a highly athiest family/group as you grew up, or a highly religious one and rejected it. In either case, you would have made a choice of your own free will.

[Finny61]

Originally Posted by photon

Though it is pretty inflammatory and nonsensical, since atheists are a diverse group with no common beliefs or philosophy, so to lump them all together doesn't make any sense, unless talking about the lack of belief in a god.

If only some athiests would recognize the same idea here with religous groups as well, something completely lacking on these forums.

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by FireFly

Devil's fans are idiots.

I see what you did there....

[Reggie Dunlop]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Is the Red Crystal a "neutral" symbol if it is certified only at the request of the Jewish state, and the Jewish state is the only one to adopt it?

Neutral in the context because they aren't allowed to use a red Star of David outside of Israel.

Let me know when synagogues start sporting it.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

I dunno. For me being an atheist was about as much of a choice as homosexuals have a choice. But I did throw Jewish in there for a reason. Is "Jews suck" a good topic?

Only if it's phrased "people who choose Judaism as a religion suck"

No I totally agree, it's still inflammatory, just not quite as much as it could be.

I'd never start a thread called "Christians suck" either.

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by Finny61

If only some athiests would recognize the same idea here with religous groups as well, something completely lacking on these forums.

Well, with Christianity there *IS* a framework for a common set of values and beliefs. Though I guess it would be more correct to slam Christianity's general condemnation of homosexuals (for example), rather than to slam all Christians. Maybe I see it more as "Christianity sucks" rather than "Christians suck"? Even that is way too much... "Christianity's view of homosexuality sucks?" Ah whatever....

[photon]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

In either case, you would have made a choice of your own free will.

Some choice are "free will" but really aren't choices at all. Intellectual honesty demands some things be held as true regardless of how much one wills it. No matter how hard I try I cannot be a flat earther, and many atheists and agnostics profess that level of choice. The choice was to accept the evidence and the consequences, the conclusion is no choice at all.. "I didn't change willingly, I went fighting and kicking" is a common refrain for those who have de-converted.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Reggie Dunlop

Neutral in the context because they aren't allowed to use a red Star of David.

Except that they are. The ICRC allows the use of the Star of David (or any other symbol) inside in non-combat situations. However, good luck convincing a war crimes tribunal that a nation that attacks a caravan sporting the Red Crystal with any of the Star of David, cross or crescent inside was fair game because they weren't flying a technically protected flag.

The main point is that the Red Crystal was adopted to appeal to one nation that objected to both the Red Cross and Red Crescent on religious grounds, and that one nation is likely the only that will adopt it. The symbolism may be intended to be non-religious, but to borrow your line, the Red Crystal is likely to quickly come to represent "oh, here comes first aid from a country with Jewish roots".

In short, the secular meaning is likely to be replaced with a quasi-religious one.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by photon

...The choice was to accept the evidence and the consequences, the conclusion is no choice at all.. "I didn't change willingly, I went fighting and kicking" is a common refrain for those who have de-converted.

Furthermore, the choice of religion or set of beliefs is not always the same in every context. I would argue that it is conceivably much more difficult to "choose" to adopt a form of secular rationalism in a Muslim country, or in a more ancient tribal society that one might find in pockets of Africa or South America. Our own cultural gravitation towards secularism has rendered this choice a much more natural one, and not necessarily one that each of us would make in a different context.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Finny61

If only some athiests would recognize the same idea here with religous groups as well, something completely lacking on these forums.

I disagree that it's completely lacking on these forums, I always try to be careful to be specific about what I am discussing without casting a wide net, and I've noticed some others that try to do the same.

And sometimes it makes sense to speak about the whole religious group, if you are discussing a property which is common to all of those in that group. That's the difficulty with atheists, the only unifying property among them is the absence of something, which makes it very difficult to use to group together.