"SC Police Hastily Scratch “Lord” and “Matthew 5:9” Off Monument...."

[Subduction Zone]

Currently on display at the Metropolitan Museum of Art:

Permanent display at the Boston Public Library:

Displayed at the Brooklyn Museum:

All of these are displayed in public property that is funded by the public.
Should they be removed?

P.S. How the baby Jesus got a hold of a red crayon back then is beyond me.

Are those the only religious views on display? Do you remember how some Christians went ape**** over "**** Christ"? It is when only one religious view is allowed that monuments become illegal.

 

[BilliardsBall]

What a bizarre question. Why would kooky spooky hocus pocus be a prerequisite?

It's far from bizarre to suggest a subjective basis for atheist morality and self-sacrifice. Are you claiming an objective basis instead?

 

[Cooky]

No doubt.
That's why we have a constitutional.
To protect the rest of us from people like you.
Tom

I know. Nobody should have a life that's "pretty good". I should be ashamed of myself with all my offensive contentness and lack of anxiety.

 

[BilliardsBall]

So, if you were initially willing to risk your life for others, and then found out God didn't exist, would you no longer be willing to risk your life for others? This is implicit in your statement, by the way. Learning that God doesn't exist would make you disbelieve in him, and would make you an atheist. At which point you're saying you would no longer see the point in risking your life for anyone else.

And there's one major difference between you and I then - I would be willing to risk my life for someone who was in desperate need of the help, and certainly for anyone close to me in my life facing even less dire circumstances. And I don't even need belief that "God is watching" to motivate me. Doesn't that make me even more fundamentally principled in that respect than you are? I would say yes - yes it does.

My evolution would of necessity be from "God's glory is the purpose of life" to "There is no purpose in life" which necessitates "I can save this poor person via reflex or desire, but ultimately, me dying to save another's life has no purpose".

If there is an innate longing in all beings to know their true purpose/destiny, can anyone really be a sincere atheist?

And if we are consistent, you're not more fundamentally principled, you are simply more delusional in clinging to purpose and meaning where none exist, yes?

 

[Skwim]

Local yokel whims superceding the Constitution? I think not, but by all means cite some laws that substantiate your claim.

Responsibilities:

Get all sound requirements from either the director or production manager. If the actual audio, music or sound effects, is supplied on disc, thumb drive, or an on-line source, they should come with instructions on how they are to be managed. If they are left to the sound designer to find they should come with explicit instructions on what is needed, and how they should be managed. For example, if a phone ring is required it is essential to know what kind of phone the director has in mind, and how many rings are needed.


Finding a musical cue is best done by searching the internet and recording it into a sound editing program (Audacity, a free program, is excellent). Finding sound effects typically involves searching and trying out various alternatives on the many Sound Effects web sites. Alternatively, one can sometimes find good effects on YouTube and other internet sites. Once a sound effect has been decided upon it's imported into the sound editing program where its manipulated so as to best reflect the needs of the play. It and all the other sound cues are then put into a foulder on one's compter from where it's burned onto a CD or thumb drive.


This is then reviewed by the director to see if any changes are needed. After it's okyed by the director it's then copied into the computer and put on the desk top.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

They're leaving religion behind to become a bunch of New Age hippies not atheists.

https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/11/10/16630178/study-spiritual-but-not-religious

More Americans now say they’re spiritual but not religious

Examining the Growth of the ‘Spiritual but Not Religious’

I'll trump your 3 carefully cherry-picked "sources" with roughly 10 Religion Is Declining sources I used in another post.

Potato-- pah-tah-toe

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I have a little bit more:
Why Are Old People So Religious?

Quote from the article:
Many of us assume that the older you get, the more religious you become—and the evidence seems to support that assumption.

What's interesting, however, is that they don't post the actual results in the article. Instead relying on ambiguous paragraphs like this:

An ongoing survey of religion in America by the Pew Forum finds that while 48% of adults 65 and older go to church on a regular basis, the proportion plummets to just 27% among 18- to 29-year-olds (so-called Millennials). When asked about the subjective importance of religion, 65% of older adults—but only 40% of Millennials—say religion is very important to them. No matter how you slice it, Millennials are less religious than previous generations.An ongoing survey of religion in America by the Pew Forum finds that while 48% of adults 65 and older go to church on a regular basis, the proportion plummets to just 27% among 18- to 29-year-olds (so-called Millennials). When asked about the subjective importance of religion, 65% of older adults—but only 40% of Millennials—say religion is very important to them. No matter how you slice it, Millennials are less religious than previous generations.

Note that they start out saying it is an "ongoing survey of religion in America," but then start specifically (and myopically) talking about millenials and the generations older than them. And then there is the last sentence I highlighted in red... "No matter how you slice it..." which seems to imply that millennials are probably less religious in all ways than the previous generations. As in - the proportion of millennials who are religious is less than that of the previous generations at similar ages - when they were the "younger" generation. "No matter how you slice it..."

On the whole, religiosity in general could be on a steady decline, yet you may still see that in every generation (even though less religious than the previous) the most elderly of any generation are more religious than their younger selves (as in, when their generation was young, they were not as religious as they are in old age). Even through all of that possibility, religion could still be seeing a steady decline, overall. For example:

1. Generation 1 is 45% religious when 18-24, but 75% religious when age 45-65
2. Generation 2 is 35% religious when 18-24, but 65% religious when age 45-65
3. Generation 3 is 25% religious when 18-24, but 55% religious when age 45-65
4. Etc.

See how that works? Each successive generation, religiosity is on the decline, and yet the older version of each generation is more religious than their younger selves. By the time we reach generation 6 in that trend, the incoming generation is ZERO percent religious when 18-24.

The article says NOTHING about this. So you can't conclusively site it as evidence for your position.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

L-O-L

I bet it would hinge on what the plaque said and what the statue was of.

That doesn't prove what you claim. Sorry.

What did the plaque say that you describe as "brutally immoral"?

What were the atheist and Satanist plaques going to say?

It was of the horrific, misogynistic "10 commandments" -- a fundie version.

The first 4? Don't even relate to anyone who is actually sane-- they are mere Ego-Massaging to the bible-bully-god.

The Satanic Statue that would have been put up? Had far more moral sayings-- such as "do no harm, otherwise do as ye will" and so forth. None of that "murder unruly children" or "take care to not kill your slave-- beat him carefully instead" and "never suffer a gay person to exist", you know: the usual bible fare.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

I have a little bit more:
Why Are Old People So Religious?

Quote from the article:
Many of us assume that the older you get, the more religious you become—and the evidence seems to support that assumption.

No-- the evidence does not.

A much better correlation? The more Conservative a person is (read: mental flexibility of hardened concrete) the more likely they are to be a hardened religious zealot.

And? Older people tend towards the concrete-non-think of conservationism. Perhaps due to early onset dementia? Who knows.

 

[The Reverend Bob]

What's interesting, however, is that they don't post the actual results in the article. Instead relying on ambiguous paragraphs like this:
Note that they start out saying it is an "ongoing survey of religion in America," but then start specifically (and myopically) talking about millenials and the generations older than them. And then there is the last sentence I highlighted in red... "No matter how you slice it..." which seems to imply that millennials are probably less religious in all ways than the previous generations. As in - the proportion of millennials who are religious is less than that of the previous generations at similar ages - when they were the "younger" generation. "No matter how you slice it..."

On the whole, religiosity in general could be on a steady decline, yet you may still see that in every generation (even though less religious than the previous) the most elderly of any generation are more religious than their younger selves (as in, when their generation was young, they were not as religious as they are in old age). Even through all of that possibility, religion could still be seeing a steady decline, overall. For example:

1. Generation 1 is 45% religious when 18-24, but 75% religious when age 45-65
2. Generation 2 is 35% religious when 18-24, but 65% religious when age 45-65
3. Generation 3 is 25% religious when 18-24, but 55% religious when age 45-65
4. Etc.

See how that works? Each successive generation, religiosity is on the decline, and yet the older version of each generation is more religious than their younger selves. By the time we reach generation 6 in that trend, the incoming generation is ZERO percent religious when 18-24.

The article says NOTHING about this. So you can't conclusively site it as evidence for your position.

Sure I can. You looked at it and somehow thought it was about numbers and statistics. But if you look at the name of the site it is on you would have probably understood that it is not about numbers at all, it is about how people behave. You got it in your head that it was only about one Pew study when it cites other studies rather than just the Pew study. You didn't read the article at all, you just read what you wanted to read.

Cognitive bias much?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

My evolution would of necessity be from "God's glory is the purpose of life" to "There is no purpose in life" which necessitates "I can save this poor person via reflex or desire, but ultimately, me dying to save another's life has no purpose".

And my honest belief is that there is no intrinsic "purpose" except that which you give yourself, and a smattering of what your instincts dictate are the "best case" for survival after the many thousands of generations humans were in development to become the social creatures we are in modernity. Saving another's life could obviously be contemplated as part of the hope that someone else would be willing to save yours were you found in a similar situation. It's called "empathy," and is a huge part of our being a social species. So your claim of "no purpose" is rendered moot - at the very least it has the selfish component to it that I just mentioned.

If there is an innate longing in all beings to know their true purpose/destiny, can anyone really be a sincere atheist?

There may be such a longing at first, but I, personally, have given up on such notions. I'm years and years into seeing people strive for things, claiming to feel that they are meant for "something greater," only to go in circles because they either aren't willing to put the work in to make it happen (due mostly to their expecting "Destiny" to have a hand in it) or they go down all the wrong rabbit holes to all the wrong opportunities, making themselves depressed, and ultimately doing poorly the one thing I feel our "consciousness" is charged with in the body/mind combo that comprises our entire "self" - and that is, to help the cause to survive and thrive. So, these people choose "destiny" over mental and emotional health. It's dumb, if you ask me. Do some people "make it?" Sure... but enough don't that the endeavor itself should rightly be questioned. It's the same reason parents ask their children to choose some backup plan if they say their dream is to become a professional athlete.

And if we are consistent, you're not more fundamentally principled, you are simply more delusional in clinging to purpose and meaning where none exist, yes?

That's the funniest part - you have no way out of looking the fool here - because it necessarily points to my "principles" being a more "fundamental" part of me... even if they are based on delusions. Your claim is that you only have your principles "because God" - which means you don't even source your principles from within yourself. They are not "fundamental" - they are "God given". Which also means that, ultimately, not even God Himself could take my principles from me. Do you understand that? Now... let's ask Abraham what He might do were God to try and force his hand with respect to his principles... he'd kill his own child. See how that works? It isn't righteous, it isn't "good", it isn't pure. It's terrible, and you have enthusiastically subscribed.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Sure I can. You looked at it and somehow thought it was about numbers and statistics. But if you look at the name of the site it is on you would have probably understood that it is not about numbers at all, it is about how people behave. You got it in your head that it was only about one Pew study when it cites other studies rather than just the Pew study. You didn't read the article at all, you just read what you wanted to read.

Cognitive bias much?

You're just plain wrong. I wasn't even concerned with the numbers - those were just present to show my point - that overall, religiosity could be on the decline, even if within individual generations, the elderly of that generation are more religious. Generation after generation, religiosity could decline, and yet the elderly in each generation could be "more religious" than when they were younger.

I DID read the entire article. Please point to where it specifically says that the group of elderly people who are "religious" increases generation after generation. Can you? No. In fact, MY supposition (that religion is in decline overall, while it may be that individually, people choose religion as they get older) is actually hinted at by some of the wording chosen in the article:

After extensive number-crunching, they concluded that people everywhere do, in fact, get more religious as they age. Whether you’re a Gen-Xer or a Baby Boomer, you’re likely to become more religious as you get older.

Note that they make it about the individual's likelihood to become more religious, regardless of generation, even though they are talking about a longitudinal dataset, within which it should be extremely easy to see whether relgiosity is increasing overall, year on year. They made a point to mention the separate generations, and say that it doesn't matter what generation you're from, elderly of each generation tend to be more religious than their younger selves. Why would they feel the need to mention that it doesn't matter the generation? Because the more recent generations are less religious overall!

The article is focused on people's individual behavior, as you stated... which, again, SAYS NOTHING about overall religiosity as pertains to the population at large. Get a damn clue.

 

[The Reverend Bob]

You're just plain wrong. I wasn't even concerned with the numbers - those were just present to show my point - that overall, religiosity could be on the decline, even if within individual generations, the elderly of that generation are more religious. Generation after generation, religiosity could decline, and yet the elderly in each generation could be "more religious" than when they were younger.

I DID read the entire article. Please point to where it specifically says that the group of elderly people who are "religious" increases generation after generation. Can you? No. In fact, MY supposition (that religion is in decline overall, while it may be that individually, people choose religion as they get older) is actually hinted at by some of the wording chosen in the article:
Note that they make it about the individual's likelihood to become more religious, regardless of generation, even though they are talking about a longitudinal dataset, within which it should be extremely easy to see whether relgiosity is increasing overall, year on year. They made a point to mention the separate generations, and say that it doesn't matter what generation you're from, elderly of each generation tend to be more religious than their younger selves. Why would they feel the need to mention that it doesn't matter the generation? Because the more recent generations are less religious overall!

The article is focused on people's individual behavior, as you stated... which, again, SAYS NOTHING about overall religiosity as pertains to the population at large. Get a damn clue.

It's about behavior of people not populations. Didn't you read the article. It is about how people think and behave hence the name of the publication: Psychology Today. We are talking actions and behaviors or real people not hypothetical numbers or population but how real people think, act and behave. It makes sense if people become more religious as they get closer to their unbirthday. Don't you think?

 

[74x12]

That's ridiculous. The symbol of Christanity isn't a rock, and I don't see the point in debating with you if you're going to be so blatantly dishonest.

Dishonest? Okay ... You just don't want to admit you're wrong.

And the symbol of Christianity could be a rock. Anyway, it doesn't have to be "THE" symbol of Christainity to be considered a "religious symbol".

 

[74x12]

I don't imagine anyone would be happy with a government that's supposed to represent everyone including them that would use their tax dollars to promote religious views that they disagree with.

It's a monument for the police. Apparently, they like it. It isn't there to please you.

 

[74x12]

Some atheists may be offended, though. For me, I don't think it's any big deal, as I don't believe in any God, so there's no deity to actually offend by mentioning it.

I don't believe in Santa Claus, but if someone wants to go around dressed as Santa Claus, it doesn't bother me in the slightest. Sometimes, I might even play along and temporarily "believe" in Santa Claus just for fun.

That's my point. I don't see why atheists act like angry hornets nest when anyone in government position references a scripture verse or whatever.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

It's about behavior of people not populations. Didn't you read the article. It is about how people think and behave hence the name of the publication: Psychology Today. We are talking actions and behaviors or real people not hypothetical numbers or population but how real people think, act and behave. It makes sense if people become more religious as they get closer to their unbirthday. Don't you think?

Yes, it does make sense, and your article confirms THAT. But we originally started discussing religiosity being on the decline overall, not on the increase of religious adherence with age within any specific generation. In fact, no one mentioned that at all in the entire thread before you posted that article in defense of your refutation of my idea that the U.S. culture was on the decline religiously. Remember my 5-step list, and saying that I felt U.S. society was between steps 2 and 3? Obviously I was talking about the whole society... and then you posted your article about INDIVIDUAL religiosity increasing with age after I said you probably had as much proof for your position as I did when you asked me for it and I had none. You said:

You keep dreaming, maybe it will happen. But from what I see, what they are doing is what young people have always been doing for centuries: they are experimenting.

Which doesn't relate to an overall decrease in religiosity, because the fact is that what was being stated was that MORE young people in the incoming generation THAN EVER BEFORE were hailing as "spiritual, not religious." Not that "just as many young people (percentage-wise) as previous generations are hailing as "spiritual, not religious." And even that would only be maintaining status-quo. I honestly should have called you out on this sooner, and let you know that this idea of "new age hippies" is not evidence against overall decline in religiosity at all - and so even the point you made originally is moot to the discussion.

I gave my hypothesis for why I feel religiosity is on the decline OVERALL - that as a society, we're on our way through the steps of a break (entirely) with religion - so what is yours? As it turns out, you still haven't actually shared anything on that topic.

 

[The Reverend Bob]

Yes, it does make sense, and your article confirms THAT.

And that is what I was talking about since the beginning before you went off track with stats. Young people might identify as spiritual and not religious now, but later on in life it is likely they will settle into a more traditional religion as they grow older. The science is there to confirm it.

 

[The Reverend Bob]

Remember my 5-step list, and saying that I felt U.S. society was between steps 2 and 3? Obviously I was talking about the whole society

You can't base an argument on hypotheticals, hypotheticals are non-arguments and shouldn't be considered when trying to prove a point.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

And that is what I was talking about since the beginning before you went off track with stats. Young people might identify as spiritual and not religious now, but later on in life it is likely they will settle into a more traditional religion as they grow older. The science is there to confirm it.

But again, that doesn't refute the current trend that the portion of older people in each successive generation that are religious is smaller as a percentage of the whole generation.

And that was what I was talking about in my original reply to your comment about the young people becoming a band of "new age hippies" rather than atheists. I said I just felt that was a step in the chain toward irreligion on the whole. Then you posted a bunch of crap not related to that point at all - but in defense of the fact that a good portion of those "spiritual, not religious" youngsters of the incoming generation were going to be religious in their elder years. So, if that was your intent, replying to this post:

The young people are the ones LEAVING RELIGION BEHIND IN RECORD NUMBERS.

Then you were the first to go off track - because that post was about "RECORD NUMBERS" of young people not being religious. That is, by definition, ON THE WHOLE. Record numbers - meaning of a higher percentage of population NEVER BEFORE SEEN. That some of those kids will go on to become religious later in life to the tune of some predictable percentage is unimportant to the original point - that religious-adherence is on the decline overall.