Atheism is/is not a religion

So we'll just have to agree that we use the word differently. It sounds to me like you use the term "blind faith" in the same way I would simply use the word faith, i.e. believing in something without or even in spite of evidence to the contrary. And you use the term "faith" to include even belief that can be strongly supported by evidence and reason.

 

Atheism is not a religion then they have no protection under the freedom of religion clause because that clause is only for those who are religious.

 

Again you are confused.

There are organized atheists but there is not organized atheism.

This organization no more represents me than the Westboro Church represents you.

 

Theism is a religion, yes. Lots of Founding Fathers were Theists. Uh oh.

Atheism has even been ruled a religion in Court. There's no escaping this; it's obvious. Atheists are pushing their personal beliefs all over the place, and have even created their own symbolic leader:




It really doesn't matter that it is a reaction to the beliefs of another. In fact, that's how religion got its start, according to the very atheists who claim that their faith isn't a religion.

Fail, Atheists.

 

Doesn't say a thing about 'those who are religious"

Why do people who have never read the Constitution keep invoking it?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

Atheists are still protected because Congress can't make laws requiring people to belong to a religion- which in Colonial days was quite common. How would you like to be mandated to be a Mormon? That could have happened prior to the First Amendment.

But all atheists are protected by the First Amendment- by all the language, including Freedom of speech.

 

Your court, perhaps, not mine. Is this the same court that considers corporations to be people? Pardon me if I don't take that as a definitive source.

Not sure how you think a parody is an ACTUAL leader.

Fail.

 

Ooh, I'll remember that, Sarcastic, when we question the veracity of rulings like Constitutionalizing ObamaCare, and Roe v Wade.

Fail, as in: you fail to offer a convincing case? Agreed? There is nothing in the definition of a religion that states that it cannot be a nasty and reactive entity, as Atheism certainly is. Your parody is nonetheless the symbol of atheism - that's why it exists.

Sorry, Atheist. Eat it and own it.

 

I'm unlikely to be involved, since those don't affect me, but if I do, then it'll be in the context of discussing something specific to your country. Atheism is not specific to your country.

You talk of failing to offer a convincing case, and then you are utterly unsuccessful at even attempting to make anything approaching a case backing up your claim about the FSM being a 'leader'?

Sorry, the failure is not mine.

 

Most of the founding fathers were theists yes... Christian theists. Christianity was their religion, not theism.

In these court opinions it says that it is considered a religion for First Amendment purposes only. The same opinions also continuously stress that it is a non-religion.

....Wow. The Flying Spaghetti Monster is a parody of deities. And technically, the religion would be Pastafarianism, not atheism.

 

Nice try, but no. Deism is a general religion, and it's funny how so many of you out of the other side of your face attempt to claim that our Founders were not Christian when it is convenient, but now - suddenly - it's convenient to you that they are?

Ha. I don't wrestle greased pigs, Grasping. You're already in the corral.

Okay, I'll go with that, since that is the concept which is being asserted here anyway.

Uh...no. Unless you want to provide a link for us to these "same opinions". Really, liberal: such a joke to simply mean something new everytime you open you mouth.

Pastafarianism is simply a sect of Atheism. See? Your religion has sects - as do most religions.

BTW: there is nothing about a religion which demands that it is not a parody of another. In fact, it would seem that it is the Atheist's version of a religion, since a parody is a joking copy.

That you also very seriously believe.

 

Muslims believing Allah as described in the Quran is God, and that they should live according to the Quran, just as Christians believing Christ is God and that they should live according to the Bible, is the essence of these two religions, and most other religions (as per the usual definition of the word) are similar in these respects. Would you agree that ''atheism'' however, bears no similarity in these respects, whatsoever?

People ''push'' their ''personal beliefs'' all over the place. Your signature is a good example, but it has nothing to do with religion.

Christians do not accept the beliefs of Muslims to be true, just as Muslims do not accept the beliefs of Christians to be true. Atheists, do not accept the beliefs of either Muslims or Christians to be true.

Do you see your non-acceptance of the beliefs of others, as your religion?

Dusty

 

That last part is not true, there is significant overlap between the three Abrahamic faiths. Though Christians reject that Mohammed was a Prophet, I don't think that, once you remove all the hyperbole, that there is a whole lot that the Prophet taught the we Christians would reject. Even portions of the Koran that deal with Jesus are striking in what they say. Islam is close enough that I have no problem entering into a Mosque and praying to the same God with them, respectfully Cknowledging some different interpretations, but acknowledging that we are both pursuing God to the utmost of out ability.

I find nothing to disagree with in an honest search that is so tantalizingly close to one another. God did after all create us all, and that is something that we three Arbrahamic faiths agree upon. Why look for division between honorable men when there are so many to be found and befriended?

 

Some of them were deists and many of them were probably very heavily influenced by the Enlightenment thinkers of the time. I'm not sure who claims that the founders were not Christian, but I'm not one of those people. Are you Neutral in disguise or something? How about talking to me and not dictating what I think by lumping me into people you have already talked with?

Furthermore, deism isn't a religion, it is a specific rejection of religion that espouses that reason and observation of the natural world can justify the existence of God.

Sure I can. I figure you are referring to this case, since it is the one I encounter the most on this forum when people claim what you are claiming:

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1467028.html

Kaufman v. McCaughtry, Seventh Circuit

"The Supreme Court has recognized atheism as equivalent to a “religion” for purposes of the First Amendment on numerous occasions"

"In keeping with this idea, the Court has adopted a broad definition of “religion” that includes non-theistic and atheistic beliefs, as well as theistic ones"

"The Establishment Clause itself says only that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,” but the Court understands the reference to religion to include what it often calls “nonreligion.”

If Pastafarianism was a real religion, it would be theistic in nature since it has a deity. How could it be an atheistic sect if it is based on a deity? Not to mention that it is a completely fake religion meant to parody other religions. You're just working yourself into a hole ehre.

 

As I've pointed out before, people invent evidence for whatever god they happen to believe in by attributing certain things to it, such as emotional experiences connected with their worship. If they feel some strange emotion, in other words, they'll attribute it to the object of their worship, and then turn around and tell us that's evidence. They might as well claim that Smallpox is evidence of their god.

Apologetics aren't always convincing. I get annoyed at people (like you) pretending that all of the bible's flaws have been fully explained away, or that Yahweh has been proven to exist through rhetoric and tortured logic.

 

Of course there is significant overlap, although adherents of each religion reject the fundamental beliefs of the other religion, that I described, to be true. There is also significant overlap between the beliefs of adherents to religions, and atheists. For example, most people, whether they adhere to any religion or not, believe that murder is wrong.

For the purpose of demonstrating the point I made in this thread. Which is that Christians and Muslims reject each others' beliefs, that I mentioned, and that atheists do the same with both.

And to then pose the question: do you see your non-acceptance of the beliefs of others, to be true, as your religion?

Dusty

 

That is what is to be called a curb stomping.

 

FSM = Intelligent Design

 

In principle you're right. However, I do not know of a single case where faith in a god comes unattached to an entire realm of occult propositions. So for all practical purposes, I will say that any faith in supernatural entities is religious in nature.

Belief in Bigfoot does not belong to this category unless it comes with giving Bigfoot supernatural properties. Good at staying hidden is not such a property. Bigfoot could be found as it is believed to appear. Gods, fairies and leprichauns cannot be found without at the same time loosing their respective supernatural properties.

 

I neither see the point nor agree. The prerequisite of religion is not faith but supernatural presupposition. Such a presupposition is not only a matter of not being proven, it is a matter of being intrinsically unprovable*)

String theory can only become a religion if one or more supernatural properties are tied to it. As the theory, or actually, theories stand now there is nothing supernatural about it and you can believe it all you want without your beliefs qualifying you as a religious person.


*) Intrinsically, because something may currently be unprovable due to, say, a lack of technology to prove it. This does not mean that it's supernatural in nature.

 

Everything you said.

Just the idea that atheist opponents don't get the Flying Spaghetti Monster and consider it a symbol of Atheism is rather hilarious.

 

Lots of people. Mostly atheists. They're sprinkled throughout this forum - some of them reading this very thread in fact - and everyone, to a man, too cowardly to admit it.

Huh?

No, you're manipulating the definition of the word religion as you see fit. Even the Court - as you cite later - utilizes a broad definition, because a broad definition is required.

And there it is. You've cited it. Anything which has strident believers can be considered a religion - and Atheism has certainly among the most strident, activist and nasty believers. They seek to destroy all manifestations of religious belief with which they disagree visible in society.

No, it wouldn't be theistic, because it would be required to be out of this world. Neither pasta (aisle 5) or meatballs (deli) are out of this world - but my mom's spaghetti and meatballs is pretty (*)(*)(*)(*)ed good.

Religions do not have to be based upon a deity. In fact, Gaiaism isn't.

Still a religion. Atheists, btw, are nearly all Secular Humanists, which is its own sect of religion.

 

It is a symbol of Atheism - and it's also ample evidence of just how nasty and intolerant Atheists are as a group. Their beliefs are based upon the disdain of the beliefs of others, combined with the notion that Man should rule Man.

Which is itself the most dangerous manifestation of the religion.

 

That's one of the most laughably idiotic statements I've ever seen your side make - and I've seen plenty.

Anyone else want to stand behind that stupid statement?

 

Hate to stomp on your tiny hardon, but that appears only to the atheist - and a stupid atheist at that - to be anything of the sort.

 

I asked this question on another thread but it was never answered so I'm going to ask it here. If the U.S. government cannot establish a religion (1st Amendment) then what religion is the American government?