U.S. Supreme Court Ruling: ATHEISM IS RELIGION

[johndylan1]

I'm not really sure what you think the difference between those two things are.

"Free from my religion" implies that you will require a public space free from my religion. You further implied this by suggesting (my paraphrase) that my religious practice is most appropriate in my home or church. While "without respect to my religion" implies that you can coexist without coercion in either direction.

Give me some examples of what you think I'm trying to stop you from doing. I'll tell you what I want you to stop doing. I don't want laws preventing gay people from marrying because of your religious objections. I don't want laws preventing women from obtaining abortions because of your religious objections (there are non-religious objections and we can debate them, but they don't really hold up). I don't want stem cell research stopped because of your religious objections. I don't want schools prevented from teaching accurate science because of your religious objections. I don't want girls to be prevented from having the lives they want because of your religious objections.

I object to many rulings that squelch voluntary public prayer, moments of silence, bible studies and other religious activities in school, sports settings and other public meeting places. Atheists have even attempted to shut down home bible studies using public street parking as a guise.

As to your objections above; These are moral issues based on societal norms and in the case of abortion is a logical extension of murder laws already in effect. The fact that moral judgments also are religious judgments does not mean that religion is guiding law. Moral sensibilities do that.

I don't want seven states to explicitly ban non-religious people from holding office. I don't want US foreign relations to be subject to your religious antipathy against Muslims. I don't want US environmental policy to be subject to myths about god not letting the world change.

Who says I have antipathy towards Muslims? However, foreign relations with differing cultures is always difficult, I'd prefer to avoid unnecessary dealings with cultures that westerners do not understand. As for environmental policy, everyone wants a clean planet, but it is the height of arrogance to believe that you can control climate with carbon laws in some countries. Just insane, and a guise for gaining more governmental control over energy resources.

I want to live my life without interference from religion. So what rights of yours are somehow being lost because you can't control how I live?

I do not want to control how you live based on religion.

Your want is impossible, you have to accept that as long as there is a first amendment to the constitution and others do believe in God; that will influence you as you go about your daily affairs. If it doesn't impose itself and coerce your actions that is a sufficient protection.

In the previous post, I think I summed up the public square nicely, but I want to expound on it. Here's what I said: "If you want to fall to your knees on a street corner and pray, go ahead. Feel free. Shout it to the rooftops how much you love your religion. You'll look crazy to everyone else, but that's still your decision. Just don't crowd other people out of the street corner. That's the deal. You can use it how you like, but you have to share." But here's the rub. You are the majority. There are a lot more of you than there are of us. If you individually want to pray in the public square, you can. No one should force you out. But if you and a hundred other religious people want to take up the public square, individually pray on it, and keep others out, you can't do that. You have to share. That doesn't just apply to individuals, but to communities.

So now you advocate doing away with more of the first amendment by preventing free assembly? For a guy who wants his rights protected you sure don't mind advocating removing others.

And as always, atheism is not religion. It is the lack thereof.

A=No Theos= God, Atheism says nothing about religion, it denies God. Religion can encompass practices that do not include God, ie Buddhism, etc. Atheism is practiced as a religion whether it meets the definition or not.

 

[RogueWarrior]

reduced to the fewest possible words "religion is acting upon a belief".

now if you want to kick atheist ass around the block a few times just keep in mind that "disbelief" is the "belief" that god does not exist. Hence atheism is in fact a religion.

This is incorrect. For many reasons.

Atheism is a reaction to theists who exclaim: "THERE IS A GOD!". That reaction is: PROVE IT!
Most atheists will NOT claim that god(s) [not just the monotheistic christian god you are presupposing] do not exist. Most, if not all, atheists agree that theists have not proven their claims of any god's existence. [Of course that also depends on someone's definition of a god. Someone could claim a totem pole as their god, so therefore could claim their god exists. Whether the totem pole god has any supernatural power, would be real the question.]

Disbelief IS NOT denial. Stop confusing the two, ffs!

The ONLY thing atheists have in common is disbelief of theistic claims. Not denial of the claims, disbelief.

What theists think atheists are saying in response to their claims:
There is a god.
No there isn't

What atheists are really saying:
There is a god.
Prove it.

The reason you theists keep making the error of lumping together all atheists is because you think it somehow absolves you of the burden of proof for making a claim of existence for your god(s). It doesn't. Regardless of the outcome of the denial claim, you still need to prove yours. You theists think that if the denial claim is false or at least not demonstrable, this somehow makes your claim valid. That is absolute willful self delusion. This is the most common fallacy of you lazy asses theists. Buahahahaha he can't prove there are no gods, therefore gods exist! FFS by that logic, any silly, stupid or invented mythical being can be said to exist, since it can't be disproved. Which is the whole point of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, since this irony seems to have escaped many of you theists.

Your claim must, MUST stand on its own merits. Indeed this is true of ANY claim.
There is no lazy way out.

We would gladly entertain any demonstrable, verifiable evidence for your deity(ies) but you don't have any. That is why a belief in a god is faith. How many times have you heard that in your theistic lives? You just gotta have faith in Jesus/God/the Lord/Allah/Vishnu etc.
Faith is belief without verifiable evidence. Faith is a feeling that you can't prove or demonstrate to anyone.

 

[Republic Now!]

I suppose one can say Atheism is a theological position, but a religion implies more than atheism offers.

To call atheism a religion would be to call theism a religion. What core beliefs do atheists hold in common with the exception of the obviously implied lack of a higher power? What core beliefs do theists hold in common with the exception of the obviously implied belief in some kind of higher power(s)?

 

[RogueWarrior]

A=No Theos= God, Atheism says nothing about religion, it denies God. Religion can encompass practices that do not include God, ie Buddhism, etc. Atheism is practiced as a religion whether it meets the definition or not.

Why you use theos is no mystery since it allows you to say it denies God. Presuppositionally, the christian god, we can assume?

Theism on the other hand is the belief that at least one god exists.
A- also means 'without'

hence a-theism is without belief that at least one god exists.

You can try try try to make it about denial but, again, even if theists could make it solely about denial, they STILL have to prove their claims. If there is a failure of the denial claim, that doesn't make the the existence claim true and vice versa. I am sure many theists believe that, but they are totally wrong.

The court room analogy, I think, works best. If the prosecution can't prove OJ didn't kill his wife, that doesn't make him innocent, just not guilty. Theists can't prove there are gods, that doesn't mean they don't exist, it means they are just not proven to exist.

Theists need to provide better evidence. PRO TIP: Don't use your holy books as references. Atheists have the same level of belief in your holy books as they do in your deities. Well maybe a little bit more than your deities. Why?
because there are some geographical, historical aspects that actually have outside corroboration. The supernatural aspects...not so much. In fact, none that has been demonstrated.

 

[beefheart]

reduced to the fewest possible words "religion is acting upon a belief".

now if you want to kick atheist ass around the block a few times just keep in mind that "disbelief" is the "belief" that god does not exist. Hence atheism is in fact a religion.

Now we can take that a step further to its logical conclusion, that which all those black robed assholes on the hill know and are carefully wordsmithing their rulings to protect their weeenies and the existence of state, that 99.9% of all statutes et al created by the state and federal legislatures are also a religion. I have a thread somewhere explaining that you have no right to "exercise" your religion, only "state" approved religion.

cheers!

 

[RogueWarrior]

I suppose one can say Atheism is a theological position, but a religion implies more than atheism offers.

To call atheism a religion would be to call theism a religion. What core beliefs do atheists hold in common with the exception of the obviously implied lack of a higher power? What core beliefs do theists hold in common with the exception of the obviously implied belief in some kind of higher power(s)?

Holy crap
A conservative who makes sense.

:2dancing:

 

[Republic Now!]

Holy crap
A conservative who makes sense.

:2dancing:

Well, to be fair, I am an atheist.

 

[RogueWarrior]

Well, to be fair, I am an atheist.

Holy crap!
A conservative atheist.
The end times are here

:good_job:
:wcm

 

[chromium]

They already exist. It's called the public school system, or the University. Except these folks meet every day. They don't need tax exemption, they are funded by the government.

Public schools taught me the alphabet, so if by that you mean this thing called "learning" automatically makes one into an atheist...even though i never once heard a single statement questioning religion much less bashing (and quite a few endorsing biblical stories), practically all my classmates and teachers were oppressively religious, and the graduation speech kept mentioning Jesus. Yeah, my public school was so atheist that anyone who voiced atheist thoughts or supported gay rights would get beaten routinely. Drink the koolaid from your preacher more please.

 

[Cable]

Public schools taught me the alphabet, so if by that you mean this thing called "learning" automatically makes one into an atheist...even though i never once heard a single statement questioning religion much less bashing (and quite a few endorsing biblical stories), practically all my classmates and teachers were oppressively religious, and the graduation speech kept mentioning Jesus. Yeah, my public school was so atheist that anyone who voiced atheist thoughts or supported gay rights would get beaten routinely. Drink the koolaid from your preacher more please.

Wow. I guess there isn't a shred of truth in my statement. Thanks for clarifying things for me.

 

[johndylan1]

Why you use theos is no mystery since it allows you to say it denies God. Presuppositionally, the christian god, we can assume?

Theism on the other hand is the belief that at least one god exists.
A- also means 'without'

hence a-theism is without belief that at least one god exists.

You can try try try to make it about denial but, again, even if theists could make it solely about denial, they STILL have to prove their claims. If there is a failure of the denial claim, that doesn't make the the existence claim true and vice versa. I am sure many theists believe that, but they are totally wrong.

The court room analogy, I think, works best. If the prosecution can't prove OJ didn't kill his wife, that doesn't make him innocent, just not guilty. Theists can't prove there are gods, that doesn't mean they don't exist, it means they are just not proven to exist.

Theists need to provide better evidence. PRO TIP: Don't use your holy books as references. Atheists have the same level of belief in your holy books as they do in your deities. Well maybe a little bit more than your deities. Why?
because there are some geographical, historical aspects that actually have outside corroboration. The supernatural aspects...not so much. In fact, none that has been demonstrated.

Wow. You completely flew right past my point and went to an unrelated argument. My point to Paschendale was that his defining atheism as not believing in God and therefore also as without "religion", was incorrect. God is not necessary to practice religion, ie Buddhism. See third definition: Religion - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary.

As to the tangential argument you posted; I think there are a lot of assumptions there about the way you anticipate I might think about these issues. I'd say your assumptions are wrong. However I do think we can philosophically prove that monotheism, belief in only one God, is in a different category that believing in many gods.

 

[RogueWarrior]

No I was commenting on your usage of theos as the basis for the word atheism.

I agree that religion and atheism are not mutually exclusive. Theists always get that mixed up.

 

[Maenad]

ALTER2EGO -to- EVERYONE:

Atheism is Religion according to the 1961 Torcaso v. Watkins case that was affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court--the highest court in the land--where court rulings become national law. As recently as 2005, the Wisconsin Federal Court ruling on the matter of Kaufman v. McCaughtry again ruled that Atheism is Religion. In spite of the many court rulings along that line, members of the Religion of Atheism insist they are not religious. They attempt to take the higher ground by insisting that Christians are mental midgets for being religious and for believing in a "non-existent sky gawd."


Atheist religionists often refer to the Judeo-Christian Bible as a book of fairytales. At one website where I have debated, the Bible was referred to by atheists as the "BuyBull." Not only that, in most of my conversations with atheists at various websites, their usual accusation is that because of the belief in God, theists have committed all sorts of human rights violations in the name of "cultish religions." According to the many atheists I have debated at other websites, it is the belief in God that has caused people to commit the various atrocities common to sinful mankind. Remove religion, belief in God, and belief in the Bible--the atheists frequently argue--and the world will be a better place. This latter conclusion is mortally flawed for the following reasons:


1. Atheism is itself a religion.

2. Atheists have committed human rights violations en masse throughout history. For instance, Joseph Stalin--the atheist--ordered the deaths of between 40 million to 62 million people (20 million of whom were everyday Soviet civilians). Compare that to the 9 million or so killed by Adolph Hitler, the Roman Catholic who merely claimed he was a Christian.


In reality, the problem is not the Bible or God. The problem is false religions that have failed to teach the masses Biblical truths. Blaming God for the crimes of people whose behaviors he himself reject is an attempt at passing the buck.

"See! This only I have found, that the true God made mankind upright, but THEY THEMSELVES have sought out many plans." (Ecclesiastes 7:29)



DISCUSSION POINTS:
1. Considering that atheists have themselves committed human rights violations under the banner of non-bellief in a supernatural God or gods, why can one argue that "belief in god" is not the actual reason behind crimes against humanity?


2. Atheists routinely argue they do not belong to a religion. According to them, non-belief in God is proof positive that they are not religious. Do you agree with the atheists' position? Why so or why not?


3. Based upon numerous court rulings that Atheism is Religion, it is obvious that belief in a supernatural God or gods is not a requirement for being considered part of a religion. What arguments can you present along this line?

Don't know where you got this, but I think Justice Black's comment referred to secular humanism as a religion.

It has occasionally been argued that in Torcaso v. Watkins the Supreme Court "found" secular humanism to be a religion. This assertion is based on a reference, by Justice Black in footnote number 11 of the Court's finding, to court cases where organized groups of self-identified humanists, or ethicists, meeting on a regular basis to share and celebrate their beliefs, have been granted religious-based tax exemptions.[citation needed]

Justice Black's use of the term "secular humanism" in his footnote has been seized upon by some religious groups, such as those supporting causes such as teaching creationism in schools, as a "finding" that any secular or science-based activity is, in fact, religion.[4]

Torcaso v. Watkins - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Maybe I'll revisit tomorrow. I'm seriously tired today, finished up all the pressure washing around my house, did laundry, and cooked supper. Not in the mood to read the actual case, but I definitely will when I can.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

Why do you constantly have to tell me what I think? You don't know what I can stand and can't stand.
Do you tolerate pedophiles? Maybe they were born that way too. They just need understanding and tolerance.

You talk about tolerance, when your tag line talks about strangling kings with the entrails of priests.
If you were a true scientific advocate you'd not say you will never know whether Christ is dead or not. Your mind isn't any more open than the ones you think are intolerant.
It seems your world hangs on what can be proven empirically. Can you show empirically that this is the best way to go?

Yes, I do believe in the concept of tolerance, but no, I do not tolerate child rapists. Do you tolerate child rapists? Is that why you asked that?

Being a scientific advocate does not mean you have to accept that every ridiculous claim by desert nomads with no substance or evidence whatsoever should be taken seriously. If you provide some kind of evidence that gives your story credibility, YES, I will listen and change my view of the world accordingly. Christians warp their world around them to fit the bible, while my world view simply updates as new information comes in. Like my lack of belief in god, I don't believe there's a big invisible pink rabbit in the room with me. If anyone provides evidence to the contrary, I'll accept it.

And yes, I can show that science is the best way to go, and christianity ruling a society is the wrong way to go. For about a 1200 year period from 400 AD to 1600 AD christianity ruled western society. It was horrifically brutal, people were massively uneducated, and non-believers were murdered by christians regularly. All knowledge and technology was shunned and those who dared to better man kind were tortured and killed. Then comes the enlightenment. Society decided we don't want to let christians continue murdering people. We accept science, logic, reason, and look how far we've come. Look at the things around you science has given. We live in the most peaceful time in human history, and religious fanaticism is at an all time low. That's pretty conclusive.

 

[Republic Now!]

Of course, to you, every step towards scientific progress and tolerance in our society is a step away from your 2,000 year old religious doctrine, so you despise it. I don't know any atheist that thinks that we'll someday become super human, omnipotent gods. If you can provide a source for that I'd appreciate it.

Listen, cable, about schools and liberalism... Teaching kids to tolerate each other is not liberal propaganda, it's called not being a dick. You can't stand that homosexuals are getting tolerance and equal treatment so you throw a hissy fit and talk about liberal indoctrination. What exactly are the liberal conspirators in the class room doing to our kids?

And no, I will not one day find out whether christ is dead or alive, and do you know why? Because I'll be dead. If you have any evidence to prove that won't be case, please present it.

He could be alluding to transhumanism.

 

[zyzygy]

ALTER2EGO -to- PASCHENDALE:

There is no such thing as "lack of religion." Everybody on this planet has a religion--whether they are willing to admit it or not. Why? Because humans were created with the desire to worship.

No. Here is one human with no desire to worship.

 

[Sababa]

The one of the main proofs of his existence is Christ own testimony of God which has been historically documented.

Where?

 

[ludin]

Where?

Read the bible. the bible is a historical book documenting the life of Christ. trying to label it a book of fiction is a fallacy.
it is not a book of fiction as the bible has described and has been historically accurate in discribing events and cities and people in the exact places that they were found.

archeologist constantly search the bible for clue to cities and their locations. so therefore the bible isn't a book of fiction as people on here claim.
it is a historically accurate document.

 

[ludin]

No. Here is one human with no desire to worship.

whether you worship yourself or something else you worship something.

there is something in your life that you place above everything else.

 

[Sababa]

Read the bible. the bible is a historical book documenting the life of Christ. trying to label it a book of fiction is a fallacy.
it is not a book of fiction as the bible has described and has been historically accurate in discribing events and cities and people in the exact places that they were found.

So does A Tale of Two Cities, does the mean Charles Darney owes Sydney Carton his life? Just because the Bible references things known when written doesn't mean that it is historical.

archeologist constantly search the bible for clue to cities and their locations. so therefore the bible isn't a book of fiction as people on here claim.

\

So? again the book references things known because it attempts to tell a true story. Why wouldn't it do that? Now if the Bible had something in it that was unknown at the time of the writing then that would be something. Alas it does not.

it is a historically accurate document.

no where do we see evidence there was a Massecre of the Innocent under Herod.

The Roman census that apparently put Joseph and Mary in Bethlehem at the time of Jesus' death never happened.

A notable example would be the account of Joshua's conquest and destruction of the Canaanite city of Ai. According to Joshua 8, Israelite forces attacked Ai, burned it, "utterly destroyed all the inhabitants," and made it a "heap forever" (vs:26-28). Extensive archaeological work at the site of Ai, however, has revealed that the city was destroyed and burned around 2400 B. C., which would have been over a thousand years before the time of Joshua. Joseph Callaway, a conservative Southern Baptist and professor at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, spent nine years excavating the ruins of ancient Ai and afterwards reported that what he found there contradicted the biblical record.

The evidence from Ai was mainly negative. There was a great walled city there beginning about 3000 B. C., more than 1,800 years before Israel's emergence in Canaan. But this city was destroyed about 2400 B. C., after which the site was abandoned.
Despite extensive excavation, no evidence of a Late Bronze Age (1500-1200 B. C.) Canaanite city was found. In short, there was no Canaanite city here for Joshua to conquer (Biblical Archaeology Review, "Joseph A. Callaway: 1920-1988," November/December 1988, p. 24, emphasis added).



These are but a few issues.

Want more?

 

[zyzygy]

there is something in your life that you place above everything else.

Correct, but love is not worship.

 

[zyzygy]

deleted.

 

[zyzygy]

Read the bible. the bible is a historical book documenting the life of Christ. trying to label it a book of fiction is a fallacy.
it is not a book of fiction as the bible has described and has been historically accurate in discribing events and cities and people in the exact places that they were found.

archeologist constantly search the bible for clue to cities and their locations. so therefore the bible isn't a book of fiction as people on here claim.
it is a historically accurate document.

No, the bible is very bad history.

 

[ludin]

No, the bible is very bad history.

archeologists and other historians disagree severely with you.

 

[RogueWarrior]

Read the bible. the bible is a historical book documenting the life of Christ. trying to label it a book of fiction is a fallacy.
it is not a book of fiction as the bible has described and has been historically accurate in discribing events and cities and people in the exact places that they were found.

archeologist constantly search the bible for clue to cities and their locations. so therefore the bible isn't a book of fiction as people on here claim.
it is a historically accurate document.

Go ahead and prove that you are not using the bible as proof of its own claims.
While I have no doubt that SOME historical information is at least somewhat accurate, it does NOT confer reliability to ALL the information from the bible.
Certainly not for the supernatural information.

.
Imagine if you treated every book the way you are treating the bible. Think about that for a minute.
Harry Potter travels to London which is a real historical city. Using the same reasoning used to validate biblical claims, it means there is a unknown world of magic all around us.

You cannot point to one piece of accurate historical data and declare all pieces are equally accurate. You can't do it for Harry Potter and you can't do it for the bible.
Every piece is suspect until corroborated by at least one, preferably more than one, source.

The bible cannot be used to validate claims in the bible. Circular reasoning.
You cannot say you can treat the bible differently than Harry Potter stories. Special pleading.

Every claim must be proven by verifiable evidence.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.