[bobbtmann]

I actually don't mind the bench. It's a lot more interesting than I imagined.

[redsniper]

I understand the point they're trying to make - I really, really do - and a bench is a pretty respectful thing, but the part of me just can't help but think they're not helping.

This. So much this.

I think we should work to make atheism as valid and acceptable of a philosophy as any religion in the general public's eye, and exercising the right to erect monuments and such is a good way to do it. (For the time being, at least. In the long run, I think monuments to non-belief are kind of missing the point. ) But the way they're going about it here feels like at best fighting on the same level.

It also has a list of Old Testament punishments for violating the Ten Commandments, including death and stoning.

This in particular is just antagonistic. I like pointing out logical failings of holy texts as much as the next guy, but I don't think it's the sort of stuff you engrave in stone to last forever; it's just low-brow. The whole thing is a nice idea that just reeks of smug redditor-style internet atheism and makes me want to distance myself from the actual label "atheist" much like Neil Tyson does.

If it were up to me, I'd rather go the subversive route. Put up a sculpture celebrating the beauty of nature or something, and then when people stroll over to take a closer look, it has a small plaque with one of the nicer secular quotes on it and "donated by American Atheists". We should push the positives, like helping your fellow man for its own sake and appreciating the inherent wonder of the universe, rather than have a pissing match about who's more wrong.

e: Also, the "capital A and hundred year old atomic model" logo is dumb.
e2: I missed the picture section. Looks like they got a couple good quotes on there, but I still say it's tacky overall.

[Turambar]

This in particular is just antagonistic. I like pointing out logical failings of holy texts as much as the next guy, but I don't think it's the sort of stuff you engrave in stone to last forever; it's just low-brow.

I definitely don't consider pointing the stupid parts of those divinely inspired holy texts 'low-brow.'  If you are going to base your worldview on something so dumb and outdated, you deserve to have it rubbed in your face on every occasion.

[AtomicClucker]

I understand the point they're trying to make - I really, really do - and a bench is a pretty respectful thing, but the part of me just can't help but think they're not helping.

This. So much this.

I think we should work to make atheism as valid and acceptable of a philosophy as any religion in the general public's eye, and exercising the right to erect monuments and such is a good way to do it. (For the time being, at least. In the long run, I think monuments to non-belief are kind of missing the point. ) But the way they're going about it here feels like at best fighting on the same level.

It also has a list of Old Testament punishments for violating the Ten Commandments, including death and stoning.

This in particular is just antagonistic. I like pointing out logical failings of holy texts as much as the next guy, but I don't think it's the sort of stuff you engrave in stone to last forever; it's just low-brow. The whole thing is a nice idea that just reeks of smug redditor-style internet atheism and makes me want to distance myself from the actual label "atheist" much like Neil Tyson does.

If it were up to me, I'd rather go the subversive route. Put up a sculpture celebrating the beauty of nature or something, and then when people stroll over to take a closer look, it has a small plaque with one of the nicer secular quotes on it and "donated by American Atheists". We should push the positives, like helping your fellow man for its own sake and appreciating the inherent wonder of the universe, rather than have a pissing match about who's more wrong.

I've embraced old school intellectual atheism [it rocks] as both an excellent POV and system of rationality, but am quite saddened at the level of low brow tactics and idiocy that has taken hold of Atheism at mainstream. Instead of engaging in humanism, we get "knock offs" like secularist humanism that is essentially the same thing, but a certain level of religiophobia has taken hold in the ranks. Simply put, many Atheists can't approach religion or even the topic without resorting to purile or juvenile tactics. Then when you drag in philosophy, then eyes glaze and Sartre does another rotation in his grave.

It may sound biased, but I've started to seriously wonder if Atheism is starting to become anti-intellectual as well.

[redsniper]

reeks of smug redditor-style internet atheism

I considered adding "like Turambar" after that part in the original post, but thought calling out specific people was taking it too far. I think taking an aggressive approach like that is not only ineffective but also actively hurting the cause.

[Turambar]

Don't worry, I'm an Antitheist, so the labels don't get confused.

[redsniper]

I am defeated. You've won.

[karajorma]

Putting up an atheist monument isn't really proof it's a free speech zone. That will be proved when the Satan worshippers ask to put one up.

[Scotty]

I can't help but think that a monument which deliberately antagonizes another religious/philosophical group for the exact purpose of antagonizing another religious/philosophical group is... not the best idea.

Imagine the uproar if a Christian group (or Muslim group, or any other group you could care to name) had erected this bench, but instead had inscribed "Athiests are going to burn in hell" or other similarly deliberate antagonistic or combative phrase.

I'm not going to be the one to say that religious groups can do no wrong, but I absolutely feel like there's somewhat of a double standard going here.

[bobbtmann]

I can't help but think that a monument which deliberately antagonizes another religious/philosophical group for the exact purpose of antagonizing another religious/philosophical group is... not the best idea.

Imagine the uproar if a Christian group (or Muslim group, or any other group you could care to name) had erected this bench, but instead had inscribed "Athiests are going to burn in hell" or other similarly deliberate antagonistic or combative phrase.

I'm not going to be the one to say that religious groups can do no wrong, but I absolutely feel like there's somewhat of a double standard going here.

The impression I got from the whole endeavor was that erecting the Ten Commandments was insulting, but the builders were too narrow minded to realize this. They assumed that this was some how a universal good, when it was not. The atheist bench was erected to point this fact out. Unfortunately, I don't think the intended audience will fully grasp (or be able to appreciate) what is being said.

[karajorma]

Actually the reason behind the Ten Commandments statue was to publicise the Cecil B. DeMille film.


Seriously, I **** you not.

I can't help but think that a monument which deliberately antagonizes another religious/philosophical group for the exact purpose of antagonizing another religious/philosophical group is... not the best idea.

You mean you think the people who claimed the Ten Commandments statue was free speech would be okay with a tasteful Satanic statue?

[Scotty]

That's the difference, though, isn't it?  Tasteful?  If the Satanists aren't trying to be dicks about it, I see absolutely no problem with it.

The problem here is that this group apparently was trying to be dicks about it with a such a deliberate jab.

[Luis Dias]

But that's the problem of atheism. If atheists aren't being dicks, there's nothing left. There is no atheist mantra. The only thing that "unites" atheists is their non-religiosity, so I see no problems when one atheist group gathers a lot of quotes justifying the non-religiosity of their country. I see that as patriotic, even.

[redsniper]

If atheists aren't being dicks, there's nothing left.

That's bull****. A lack of religious belief doesn't mean all you have left is being a dick.

[Nuke]

there are reasons i do not call myself an atheist. most of the atheists are thumping science as their religion. most of them dont really do science, or even understand science. they still have faith, but not in deities or prophets but in scientists and like minded philosophers, the intellectual works of which become their bible. by this definition the scientists become the prophets and the laws of the universe become god and you got a ****ing religion.

the whole point of atheism is t break down the walls caused by religion, not to put up new ones. if science papers become scripture then what happens when evidence is found that is contrary to their findings. do those scientists become heretics? will atheism take over the role of suppressing science? this is not good. atheism should be beyond the realm of propaganda, symbolism, and blind faith that religion currently thrives on.

Alright that's it. We need a monument to Nuke now.

they are all over the place theres one in every american nuclear missiole silo.

[Luis Dias]

If atheists aren't being dicks, there's nothing left.

That's bull****. A lack of religious belief doesn't mean all you have left is being a dick.

Not as a person. As an atheist, yes you haven't anything left.

For instance, if you happen to be an humanist on top of being an atheist, you'll have lots of other really interesting things to say. Etc.

[bobbtmann]

If atheists aren't being dicks, there's nothing left.

That's bull****. A lack of religious belief doesn't mean all you have left is being a dick.

Not as a person. As an atheist, yes you haven't anything left.

For instance, if you happen to be an humanist on top of being an atheist, you'll have lots of other really interesting things to say. Etc.

So you're saying that not believing in imaginary people makes you a dick? I think you're confusing your distaste of public displays with an entire group of people.

[Luis Dias]

No, I'm saying that the Atheist part of me *is* a dick. By necessity. This atheist guy inside me is always saying stuff like "Come on you don't really believe this ridiculous **** now do you?", and I have to stop it before it starts talking aloud or in words.

[karajorma]

I think that says more about you, than it says about atheists.

Atheism is simply about not believing. Nothing more. Being a condescending douchebag about it is not a requirement.

[Luis Dias]

Ok I'll bite, tell me something exclusively atheistic that isn't about dismissing, ridiculing, refuting, negating, facepalming, etc. any religious mode of thought.

The best you can ever hope to do is to take theology somewhat seriously, but even that exercise is filled with poison and madness if one's an atheist.

e: Hey, I said "dick", you are saying "Condescending douchebag". Pay attention.