FFRF atheists attack small town over iconic image

[Intangelon]

Agnostic is first and foremost an adjective. It describes what it's attached to.

Hence:

Agnostic theist -- believes there could be a god, but believes we cannot be sure, and/or that proof is impossible. So he hedges his bets toward existence in order to feel somehow comforted without having to undergo some kind of dogmatic rigamarole once or twice a week.

Agnostic atheist -- believes there probably isn't a god, but believes we cannot be sure, and/or that proof is impossible. So he is likely to see that arguing about it is a bit of a waste of time, and does something else instead of undergoing some kind of dogmatic rigamarole once or twice a week.

True, mostly opinions, but I stand by my assertion that using "agnostic" as a noun is like using "very" as a noun. Kinda meaningless.

[Leepaidamba]

A Theist, an Agnostic and an Atheist all talk about the same: God.

Actually, I don't even have to have heard about any god to be agnostic about anything.

On the other hand, you cannot both, believe that you don't know whether God exists, or not, and believe that God doesn't exist.

Oh sure you can. Easily even. You can most certainly believe or disbelieve even in the knowledge of your own ignorance. Nothing prevents me from believing there is no intelligent life withing reach of us outside planet earth and what originates from here, whilst knowing full well that we know only very little about even our own interstellar neighbourhood.
And I'm not even adressing your abuse of the definitions of these words.

[Dyakovo]

Whether you agree with it or not, FFRF alienates people with this kind of bullshit. Just look at the poll, and NSG's fairly liberal. So don't act all surprised, when, during an election, a fundie who has some sense of economics and foreign policy, (not Romney,) is elected. You'll have organizations like FFRF to thank.

"This kind of bullshit"?
Since when has ensuring that the constitution is enforced been bullshit?

[Dyakovo]

Any word on this? I tried Googling them again, all I got was this thread(and a 414 error for a too long url). I'm beginning to suspect the OP made them up.

---

They asked the mayor to change the seal, established their legal basis for this, and the mayor agreed to change it. That's bullying?

---

The implications of this post are...baffling.

I'm a resident and an atheist and what I posted is a paraphrased conversation between a few of us over coffee that day.

edit: I also want to add that, for us, it's not about the cross. It's about an organization coming in and threatening to sue our city (which is not in a financial position to fight back, as FFRF well knows) and that outside organization changing what we had agreed upon months and months ago. Basically, we feel violated. Bear in mind, being such a small town, activists pretty much know each other, so what I'm voicing here is the predominant thought.

Considering the fact that they have at least one member that lives there, it really isn't an outside organization...
Also, FFRF challenged "what we had agreed upon months and months ago" because what you agreed on is illegal.
Being a 'small town' (You're not btw...) does not put you above the law.

[Dyakovo]

They asked the mayor to change the seal, established their legal basis for this, and the mayor agreed to change it. That's bullying?

Didn't they tell him that they'd sue the city, which they knew was cash stripped, unless he changed the seal? Or is YGO's OP making up facts, instead of just spinning them? Cause threatening to sue a cash stripped city - that's bullying.

From the letter sent to the Steubenville city council...

“Any claims of historical or cultural significance to the Latin cross on the Steubenville City logo do not relieve the City of its constitutional obligations. The City of Steubenville must not endorse ‘faith’ and church. While we understand that Franciscan University is a part of the City, the City may not depict the University chapel and cross because to do so places the City’s imprimatur behind Christianity. This excludes nonChristians and violates the Constitution.”

[Tekania]

The seal is n government property, and the government in question is tasked with representing the person in this case, as such suing is perfectly legitimate for him to seak legal recourse to address his concerns where he feels the city is not operating in his interests. That's what we have court for. It's hardly "bullying".

Yeah, but the Seal is not there to promote religion. It's there to commemorate the city's only major landmark, that's also an employer. Religion isn't the primary purpose. Sure, they can sue as a group, America's a litigious society. But, why pick out this specific city, that they knew was cash stripped?

You're confusing me with someone who thinks that the object should under no circumstances be there. However, my personal opinions on the legitimacy of the seal's imagery/usage in no way colors my opinions on whether or not someone who has standing by being a member of the community should be able to bring suit on said government.

[Dyakovo]

Running over your house would put the city out about $140k-300k, depending on where in the city you live outside of the downtown area. If you live downtown, the city will have to pay out an average of $5k-80k. Our city is dicking it that bad.

The difference is FFRF drags suits out. The money used could run into the millions. Had we that much reserve money, we could declare eminent domain on some of the abandoned houses and afford to tear them down. We are trying to rebuild after losing most of our steel mill production due to Mittal (google him) and the only other big employers in town are a Walmart distribution center and the university.

And you're not even allowed to advertise the university on your Seal, thanks to the FFRF.

The problem comes from the fact that they choose to put the university's chapel on the seal. There's more buildings than just the chapel at the university...

[Dyakovo]

Not there but here is. Also, care to explain what the contradiction is?

Agnostic - doesn't know whether God exists or not, and isn't afraid to say it, and doesn't realy dwell on the concept. An agnostic doesn't believe that there is a God, nor that there isn't.
Atheist - believes that no God exists, and can, on occasion, act like a Fundie.

Your definitions are wrong.

[Norstal]

So an agnostic atheist is impossible. Got it. Just as there's no such thing as a Russian-American, a liberal-conservative, Buddhism-shintoism, etc.

I must admit Norstal, you excel at poor comparisons. A Theist, an Agnostic and an Atheist all talk about the same: God. On the other hand, one can be a liberal in terms of economic policy, and a conservative in terms of domestic policy, as those do not necessarily contradict each other. For example you can be a Christian, who supports Universal Healthcare. On the other hand, you cannot both, believe that you don't know whether God exists, or not, and believe that God doesn't exist. You can't believe two opposite things at the same time. You can't believe that you don't know what B is not, and believe that you know exactly what B is not.

Similarly, you can be born in Russia, and live in America, thus becoming a Russian-American. You can even be born and grow up in America, and play for the Russian women's basketball team, and be a Russian-American, like Becky Hammon, as dual citizenship is allowed. I don't know enough about Buddhism and Shintoism, so I won't comment on that.

Apparently you don't know enough about atheism or agnosticism. So you can't comment on that either. But here you are commenting.

Indeed you only look at what either agnostics or what atheists says...never have you ever recognize what agnostic-atheists say.

As others have said your definition is flawed. You're welcome to keep your definition, but no one will recognize your definition. As long as you keep that up we will keep having miscommunication. I'm not in here for me. I'm trying to help you. This is for you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism

[The Irish Marchlands]

I really do not get the American interpretation of seperation of Church and State. Its like most people over there either believe 'YOU LIVE IN A SECULAR SOCIETY WHERE THERE IS NO RELIGIOUS SYMBOLISM ON ANY PUBLIC SPACE REGARDLESS OF HISTORICAL RELEVANCY OR YOUR A THEOCRACY' Honestly motherfuckers, chill. The worst it gets in Europe is France being overly anal about veils and Catholic schools having a crucifex anywhere and Catholic Italians getting pissy at some of the left wingers over there. Its not like you cant have a secular town and have the Franciscan University on the Image. Unless you an American and are just anal.

[New Rogernomics]

I must admit Norstal, you excel at poor comparisons. A Theist, an Agnostic and an Atheist all talk about the same: God. On the other hand, one can be a liberal in terms of economic policy, and a conservative in terms of domestic policy, as those do not necessarily contradict each other. For example you can be a Christian, who supports Universal Healthcare. On the other hand, you cannot both, believe that you don't know whether God exists, or not, and believe that God doesn't exist. You can't believe two opposite things at the same time. You can't believe that you don't know what B is not, and believe that you know exactly what B is not.

Similarly, you can be born in Russia, and live in America, thus becoming a Russian-American. You can even be born and grow up in America, and play for the Russian women's basketball team, and be a Russian-American, like Becky Hammon, as dual citizenship is allowed. I don't know enough about Buddhism and Shintoism, so I won't comment on that.

Apparently you don't know enough about atheism or agnosticism. So you can't comment on that either. But here you are commenting.

Indeed you only look at what either agnostics or what atheists says...never have you ever recognize what agnostic-atheists say.

As others have said your definition is flawed. You're welcome to keep your definition, but no one will recognize your definition. As long as you keep that up we will keep having miscommunication. I'm not in here for me. I'm trying to help you. This is for you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism

Or as that wiki page quotes: "If a man has failed to find any good reason for believing that there is a God, it is perfectly natural and rational that he should not believe that there is a God; and if so, he is an atheist... if he goes farther, and, after an investigation into the nature and reach of human knowledge, ending in the conclusion that the existence of God is incapable of proof, cease to believe in it on the ground that he cannot know it to be true, he is an agnostic and also an atheist – an agnostic-atheist – an atheist because an agnostic... while, then, it is erroneous to identify agnosticism and atheism, it is equally erroneous so to separate them as if the one were exclusive of the other.."

[Ifreann]

They asked the mayor to change the seal, established their legal basis for this, and the mayor agreed to change it. That's bullying?

Didn't they tell him that they'd sue the city, which they knew was cash stripped, unless he changed the seal? Or is YGO's OP making up facts, instead of just spinning them? Cause threatening to sue a cash stripped city - that's bullying.

If they feared for their First Amendment rights I'm sure that the ACLU would have been all too happy to pro bono them.

[Shofercia]

Agnostic - doesn't know whether God exists or not, and isn't afraid to say it, and doesn't realy dwell on the concept. An agnostic doesn't believe that there is a God, nor that there isn't.
Atheist - believes that no God exists, and can, on occasion, act like a Fundie.

Nice try, but "fundamentalist" is an adjective that can apply to any asshole, regardless of denomination or lack thereof. Many atheists do not, ever, act like Fundies.

Nor do many Christians. That's why I said "on occasion". Nice try to you as well.

Still waiting for someone to clarify this:

Keep waiting.

It clarifies itself by being deliberately obtuse.

As obtuse as pissing a bunch of people off in an election year over what a small town has on its Seal?

A Theist, an Agnostic and an Atheist all talk about the same: God.

Actually, I don't even have to have heard about any god to be agnostic about anything.

On the other hand, you cannot both, believe that you don't know whether God exists, or not, and believe that God doesn't exist.

Oh sure you can. Easily even. You can most certainly believe or disbelieve even in the knowledge of your own ignorance. Nothing prevents me from believing there is no intelligent life withing reach of us outside planet earth and what originates from here, whilst knowing full well that we know only very little about even our own interstellar neighbourhood.
And I'm not even adressing your abuse of the definitions of these words.

So you're arguing that a person can believe two things that are the exact opposite of each other? If that's the case, you can also have a theist-atheist. Do you not see the problem with that?

Whether you agree with it or not, FFRF alienates people with this kind of bullshit. Just look at the poll, and NSG's fairly liberal. So don't act all surprised, when, during an election, a fundie who has some sense of economics and foreign policy, (not Romney,) is elected. You'll have organizations like FFRF to thank.

"This kind of bullshit"?
Since when has ensuring that the constitution is enforced been bullshit?

The Constitution was wrong before. Granted, the clearest example comes from 1805, when Constitution allowed slavery, but hey, today we'd both say that it was bullshit. And if this amounts to enforcing the Constitution, perhaps it's time for an Amendment. (And no, I'm not comparing slavery to this. You asked me for an example, so I cited one, just to prove that one exists.)

Yeah, but the Seal is not there to promote religion. It's there to commemorate the city's only major landmark, that's also an employer. Religion isn't the primary purpose. Sure, they can sue as a group, America's a litigious society. But, why pick out this specific city, that they knew was cash stripped?

You're confusing me with someone who thinks that the object should under no circumstances be there. However, my personal opinions on the legitimacy of the seal's imagery/usage in no way colors my opinions on whether or not someone who has standing by being a member of the community should be able to bring suit on said government.

I'm not saying that they can't bring a lawsuit under the current law. Certainly they can. I'm saying that it amounts to bullying if they threaten to. You are certainly allowed to be a bully using money under US law, when engaging in politics, cause hey - that happens every election year, where the Democrats and Republicans use their media cohorts to demonize third parties, in tactics that would be known as bullying on the playground. And hey, they're allowed to. Remember how much Dems bitched about Nader running in Florida, and about how all those third party/Green Party votes were wasted? And the amount of criticism the Greens faced from the Dems as a result?

[Not Safe For Work]

As obtuse as pissing a bunch of people off in an election year over what a small town has on its Seal?

Wait, what?

How does it being an election year matter?

Constitutional freedom of religion should only be discussed between elections?

[Copenhagen Metropolis]

Hmm, what about this?

[Not Safe For Work]

Hmm, what about this?
(Image)

It's pretty heavily unbalanced in terms of composition. Aesthetically not nearly as appealing.

[Shofercia]

And you're not even allowed to advertise the university on your Seal, thanks to the FFRF.

The problem comes from the fact that they choose to put the university's chapel on the seal. There's more buildings than just the chapel at the university...

Usually you go with the most visible part of the place the you're advertising. That's usually how ads are supposed to work.

I must admit Norstal, you excel at poor comparisons. A Theist, an Agnostic and an Atheist all talk about the same: God. On the other hand, one can be a liberal in terms of economic policy, and a conservative in terms of domestic policy, as those do not necessarily contradict each other. For example you can be a Christian, who supports Universal Healthcare. On the other hand, you cannot both, believe that you don't know whether God exists, or not, and believe that God doesn't exist. You can't believe two opposite things at the same time. You can't believe that you don't know what B is not, and believe that you know exactly what B is not.

Similarly, you can be born in Russia, and live in America, thus becoming a Russian-American. You can even be born and grow up in America, and play for the Russian women's basketball team, and be a Russian-American, like Becky Hammon, as dual citizenship is allowed. I don't know enough about Buddhism and Shintoism, so I won't comment on that.

Apparently you don't know enough about atheism or agnosticism. So you can't comment on that either. But here you are commenting.

Well if I'm here commenting, doesn't that mean that I can comment on it?

I think you need to look up the words "won't" and "can't" - cause they're slightly different the last time I checked.

[Shofercia]

Hmm, what about this?
(Image)

What makes that significant?

[Dyakovo]

Hmm, what about this?
(Image)

That actually would be fine, since it does not include any religious symbols.

[Copenhagen Metropolis]

Hmm, what about this?
(Image)

It's pretty heavily unbalanced in terms of composition. Aesthetically not nearly as appealing.

Haha, I'm not exactly planning on sending it in for consideration

[Dyakovo]

The problem comes from the fact that they choose to put the university's chapel on the seal. There's more buildings than just the chapel at the university...

Usually you go with the most visible part of the place the you're advertising. That's usually how ads are supposed to work.

Not my problem.

[Leepaidamba]

So you're arguing that a person can believe two things that are the exact opposite of each other? If that's the case, you can also have a theist-atheist. Do you not see the problem with that?

Yes, I see the problem of that, no, it's not what I'm arguing.
I argue simply that beliefs are not knowledge. I argue that it's possible to believe something to be true or false whilst not knowing it to be true or false in the knowledge of that ignorance. You might call that agnostic belief.
I would also argue that it's not possible to believe something to be true that you know to be false, or something to be false that you know to be true.

Generalized, you must believe a given statement to have the same truth value as you know it has if you know what that truth value is but you needn't know the truth value to have a belief regarding that truth value.\

This is of course disregarding cognitive dissonance.

[Shofercia]

As obtuse as pissing a bunch of people off in an election year over what a small town has on its Seal?

Wait, what?

How does it being an election year matter?

Constitutional freedom of religion should only be discussed between elections?

Of course not! But if you're going to touch on a sensitive issue, it's best to discuss it when tempers aren't already flaring.

Usually you go with the most visible part of the place the you're advertising. That's usually how ads are supposed to work.

Not my problem.

Good rebuttal

[Norstal]

Well if I'm here commenting, doesn't that mean that I can comment on it?

No it doesn't. You don't know the definitions. End of.

I think you need to look up the words "won't" and "can't" - cause they're slightly different the last time I checked.

Still, you commented on something you don't know about.

[Not Safe For Work]

Wait, what?

How does it being an election year matter?

Constitutional freedom of religion should only be discussed between elections?

Of course not! But if you're going to touch on a sensitive issue, it's best to discuss it when tempers aren't already flaring.

By which token, the town shouldn't have been trying to endorse this religious-image-laden icon, now.

Right?