Atheism is/is not a religion

Well, I am just going to syop you right there, because you seem to be having a problem with the Constitution and what it says. First it was the establishment clause, not its the 14th amendement. Nothing beyond bland propoganda is even being attempted.

So here is what the 14th amendement sates: Its Due Process Clause prohibits state and local governments from depriving persons of life, liberty, or property without certain steps being taken to ensure fairness. This clause has been used to make most of the Bill of Rights applicable to the states, as well as to recognize substantive and procedural rights.

Notice it does not say - we the people acknoweldge gay marriage Ergo, you are going to have to make a case that gay marriage is somehow implicitly spelled out in that clause.

Lets try logic. Lets try actual context and see if this amendment does indeed work.

So gay people's unions are currently not accepted as the same as heterosexual couples relations. So, what are the consequences of this?

Are gay people dying? Nope, so the life portion is right out.

Are they being denied property - or otherwise having it stripped from them? Nope, so the property portions is right out.

That leaves just liberty. So tell me, you are single (clearly by choice), should the government pay you money for that choice? Is your liberty being denied?

Agh, you say, but heterosexuals CAN marry and be paid! So its unfair!!!! Homosexual liberty is under assault - except that science disagrees with that statement. Gay marriage and child rearing are not equal: http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/son-of-two-moms-defends-regnerus-study-on-same-sex-parenting/

In fact when someone dares publish data that doesn't conform to the propoganda, the reaction is McCarthyistic is it not?

Now lets go a bit further and take this sexual McCarthyism a step further. Sex with animals - currently illegal, are zoophilia going to start screaming BIGOT! Pay me Money!!! Well, that would be absurd right?

Sleeping with the dead. Necrophilia community going to raise arms and say that there are unfairly being denied their liberty?

Sleeping with children. Just born that way, sorry, the giovernment is illegally denying your LIBERTY to marry and sexually assault a nione year old - what, her parents gave permission correct? And aren't atheists the ones who often criticize these things in countries where they do happen? Yet, you will use a slanderous piece of arguementation to open the way for these guys in this country?

Tell me, does the government have a right to set tax policy in a way that encourages some choices over others? Like say, offering a tax incentive to buy fuel efficient cars at the expense of gas guzzlers? Was THAT an unconstiutional denial of truck drivers libertous persuit of penis size compensation? Of course not.

Ergo, the government can, should, and indeed DOES, give incentives for couples to choose heterosexual marriage and ths statistically proven benefit, in the aggregate, of those who choose this lifestyle. In contrast, homosexual marriage and rearing, according to the science (once we get past the emotional zealotry), indicates severe challenges to homosexual rearing. That does not invalidate a homosexual desire to couple and raise children to their hearts content.

It does mean that government should not pay people to encourage them to make that choice.

But you go right ahead and ACTUALLY MAKE A CASE that demonstrates that not being given tax incentives for your specific sexual procilivity means your liberty is being denied. Go ahead and actually make that case.

But the more you scream "LIBERTY, LIBERTY, BIGOT, BIGOT, CONSTITUTION, CONSTITUTION," the more all I see is McCarthyistic bullying. I for one have never like bullies.

 

Yep, you are not a chip of the old block of atheistic propoganda yourself. At least one of us can actually make an arguement. Wait, that is two of us, still waiting for an atheist to do it.

Feel free to rally the troops and incite the mods to ban us both! Since obviously, logical discourse is not working our in the defense of your positions ... when, that is, you actually spell them out.

Right now it seems to be: Resolved, why I hate Christians - especially the smart ones.

 

Me either. It may be why we don't get along.
Be that as it may, all of the examples you give to negate gay marriage rights include a partner that can not consent. Animals, children and the dead can not give an informed go ahead to the sex act, and so the element of coersion is present, making the acts illegal.
On the other hand, two gay adults can form consent, and if the marriage is legal in one state, another state has a 14th Amendment issue preventing them from continuing their marriage when they cross the border.
The only citation you give in your post is a religious one, so naturally it comports to your position, but is not a legal authority.
All in all, this is pretty weak.

 

Your post is intellectually illegitimate, but I'm sure you do not know why - so I'll tell you.

You cannot object to supposed disrespect directed towards a God in which you not believe, as you completely forfeit your right to claim to know the nature of said God, or what He expects, if you cannot first acknowledge that He exists.

 

Yessir - that's a good point.

Or when the Atheists started to lean on Stephen Hawkings' creation of "imaginary math" - which is the only way a multiverse can be supported.

 

Theism is not a religion, therefore A-theism is not a religion. QED

 

I am not a Scholar but personally I would say atheism isn't a religion but is a belief. Specifically a belief that God doesn't exist and therefore religions that believe in a God; don't exist. Unless they meet and worship that belief in some manner I wouldn't consider them to be a religion by definition. Do I make sence?

If you are an Atheist, so be it; that is your right.

 

Theism is the overall category for an entire series of religion. Atheism is as well.

You see:

http://www.mwillett.org/atheism/sects1.htm

It flows like this:

Religion
| |
Theism Atheism
| | | |
Christian Muslim Buddhist Er, MORE atheist
| | | | | | |
Catholic Protestant Suna Shia TBTT* Weirdo Brights

* Too Big to Type

Atheism is simply one category under the guise of religion. Even if, by your own classification system, many of you wind up as wierdos in the end.

"Weirdoes
Weirdoes believe anything except Christianity. The Bible is total nonsense but every other culture has beliefs that must be respected. There is a grain of truth in everything. Weirdoes believe in fate, UFOs, the Loch Ness Monster, astrology (western and Chinese), witchcraft and Feng Shui. They are proud of their open minds, their minds are as open as the prairies, open and vacant. I would rather debate with the Grand Inquisitor of the Spanish Inquisition that one of these buffoons. I am not anti-Christian, I am against any superstitious nonsense, wherever it comes from. There is nothing in any of it."

http://www.mwillett.org/atheism/sects1.htm

 

Not at all. I just did a search for LMAO emoticons - I have a row of them in quicklinks atop my browser window.

 

I think you greatly assisted in establishing Atheism as a religion in your post. You see, they do meet. They even have recruitment sessions over at the Freedom From Religion Foundation, and they prothelysize. Alot. In fact, they call themselves the "2nd largest Denomination" in the Country.

Thanks.

 

Bollocks.

 

Hmmm ... I wonder if they are using the definition of atheism that includes Buddhists, generally non-religious, and even famous theists who have achieved notable success, or whether they are using the narrower definition, which one must openly declare that they are atheists and be a card carrying member, asthey do in prison studies, to arrive at the determination that they are the second largest denomination?

Hmmm ... I wonder.

 

I'm reminded of an anecdote I heard many years ago of a Science professor in a secular college who was himself an Atheist. So sure he was that his students were immunized to any notion of a Creator, or any account of Evolution that suggested one, that he invited a Creationist to lecture his class one day - and the Creationist accepted.

As the Creationist scientist was describing his view of how our reality came to be - he was discussing speciation, and how different breeds of dogs came into being - the Secular professor, who had been visibly squirming in his seat, finally couldn't stand it anymore and - rudely - interrupted the lecturer.

"Wait. Just hold on a second. Are you actually asking this learned student body to accept this ridiculous notion of yours...this notion that all species of dogs originated with only one pair of dogs? That's asinine! The student body, in reaction to their professor's indignance, howled in laughter at the very notion.

The Creationist paused for a moment, and answered:

"You believe that it is preposterous to believe that all breeds of dog came from a single breed of dog? You'd have your students believe that all dogs came from a rock."

Bam.

 

Whoa. Too intellectually intimidating for me to rebut...

 

This thread is over 50 pages long and will probably be locked soon. Therefore I created this thread:

http://www.politicalforum.com/religion/267525-atheism-not-religion-ii-return.html

to keep the discussion going in. Feel free to copy posts over to that thread to keep the debate alive.

 

Yup, and now it is