Just as one single christian group (westboro for example) does not characterize the whole of Christianity, one atheist group does not speak for all atheists. This "cross" is simply detritus of destruction that people interpret as a cross because of
pareidolia. If this particular piece of rubble gave inspiration to workers, regardless of why, it has merit for being preserved and remembered. It IS NOT really a cross, and for someone to want to exclude it for religious reasons they would have to agree that it is a cross, and not simple pareidolia. As an atheist, I don't buy into the idea that this is a cross, and would attack that premise, but not the act of preserving the memory of inspiration and comfort.
Beardo will not give up his definition of atheism because his definition makes atheism easier to dismiss. If he actually accepted what the atheists position really is, he would have to admit it is actually a reasonable stance. Since he does not want to give credit to the people he disagrees with, he simply labels them agnostic. This allows him to acknowledge that non-belief is valid while still attacking the atheists he has learned to target. This is a classic and embarrassingly blatant use of a
strawman argument, and the predictable result of
cognitive dissonance.
Cognitive dissonance reduction is further demonstrated by his use of the term "RUI atheists". The same things we rui atheists said, are said in the definitions of the terms. If you went to any skeptical community you would find the same attitude, and then have to label them (insert website name here) atheists. Our atheistic stance is the norm and most harmonious with the term. It is not a unique position found only at RUI.
Agnostic can apply to all positions which claim any knowledge is unknowable. You can believe in god yet believe aspects of him are unknowable. I am a rational skeptic who believes we currently have no good reason to believe, but says if you show me reasonable proof then I will believe what the evidence tells me, even if it contradicts my current position. An atheist simply looks at the claim of theism and says this argument (evidence, reasoning, logic) is not valid, therefore I do not accept it. (Notice how that statement says nothing about the ability to know) To go further and claim there is no god, to say we will
never find good reason or evidence of god, is predicting the future, and what rational skeptic believes in that? As an atheist I regard someone who says that to be as thoughtless and sloppy minded as a theist. Atheists reject the conclusion of a deity because of standards of evidence and logic, and claiming there is no deity fails those standards as well.
To paraphrase mindphuk, knowing someone is atheist tells you precisely how they respond to one particular question; it tells you specifically what someone does not believe, and NOTHING about what they do believe.
"In fact, "atheism" is a term that should not even exist. No one ever needs to identify himself as a "non-astrologer" or a "non-alchemist." We do not have words for people who doubt that Elvis is still alive or that aliens have traversed the galaxy only to molest ranchers and their cattle.
Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make in the presence of unjustified religious beliefs."
— Sam Harris
