Atheism is/is not a religion

You misunderstand. I know what it means. I was using a movie quote to point out that your application of the term in this case is not valid (explained below where I give examples).

No, I don't believe that he did.

Yes, by you.

First, atheism cannot logically be a religion. We all know you think so, but it doesn't matter how many times you repeat this, it will never actually be true. You are only succeeding in fooling yourself. Second, as already stated, no one is trying to "erase all religion", just trying to keep it out of government.

Of course it's happening. Denying gay-marriage, preventing abortion and contraception, and even cutting off stem-cell research (which admittedly hasn't been in focus since Bush left office) are all examples of religious belief affecting policy.

No, I fully support that. However, the establishment clause clearly limits that expression in public.

Well, you're responding to each point, though that does not necessarily equate to refuting.

Perhaps I should have kept that to myself. I have a habit of speaking my mind and not beating around the bush. Nevertheless, it was merely an observation.

No it isn't. Atheists don't care what you do in private, we just don't want any part of it.

Yes, it does - establishment clause.

Actually, no. That's me being unconstitutionally tolerant, since those kinds of displays do not belong on public property.

Please explain the logistics of that nightmare.

Of course it is. You do understand the concept that being the majority does not make something correct, or to suppress/oppress/supplant/etc the minority? I should hope so, since it is one of the main concepts behind the very foundation of our country.

Do you know the origin and meaning of my avatar? If so, you would not have honestly made this comment, as you would know it to be untrue.

 

You misunderstand, perhaps I was not clear enough. I didn't say (or at least did mean for it to seem like I did) Christians have to confine their expression to private, that was an example. I was specifically using the term "public" in the context of government property, such as a capitol building or courthouse, etc.

I was not trying to suggest that you cannot personally express yourself in public - you have the freedom of speech. There is a difference between you walking around talking about God or praying, for example, and the state allowing religious "stuff" (for lack of a better general term) to adorn its public property.

 

No, that's not what I was saying.

 

LOL, no.

There are a few of you theists on this forum that stick to a certain pattern:

1. We make a statement.
2. You respond by twisting or completely altering the meaning of that statement (which I am fairly confident is deliberate).
3. We respond by correcting your blatant misinterpretation.
4. You start crying, "Look, atheists are dishonest and always changing their position, and have no morals", etc.

It certainly is not the majority, but there are some around here who stick to this method of "debate" almost exclusively. It's repulsive. So some are being unequivocally dishonest, and it isn't the atheists.

 

Look at that, a bunch of specious denials and another vaccuious claim of logic. SOmething cannot logically be a religion because ... an atheist says so. The SCOTUS and atheists suing to receive standing as a religion disagree, but the defecating claims of an atheist says otherwise - so ... what? Its not evidence of logic making the case. Must be dogma then.

I.e. the lesson: do not challenge the dogma of atheism or ... random atheists will say you are illogical, never them though.

Gay marriage is not legal. It is atheism and the homosexual community that are attempting to force other not to tolerate their sexual choices, but to pay them for it.

Te Catholic Church has a right to practice its religion as it sees fit. If you don't like it, don't be Catholic. But when you sign up for a community with known standards, you accept those standards. Once again, it is the atheist community making hash of this and attempting to FORCE change.

Yes, stem cell research of frought ethical question that has produced enough ethical consensus across all lines that a ban is effectivelu in place - especially because alternatives are available to harvesting human embyros.

These are ALL examples of an atheist going out of his way to force his agenda on others and avoid actual debate of subjects by shrilly screaming religion. Its probably why atheist is losing more than it is winning.

I mean who wants to discuss policy with someone who raises ethical consideration, and constantly has to listen to the slave ship mentality of persecuted atheists constantly screaming that ethical discussions are actually repression?

Agh, yeah, you just said that in this thread - that we should keep our religion private, which violates the Establishment clause. Maybe, your offense at our beliefs matter not one iota to us and we would prefer it is your simply learned to maturely agree to disagree and keep your trap shut and frivilous law suits out of OUR lives.

Maybe you should read it rather than vaccuiously claim it like 'logic'?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

You have never actually read it have you? Why else would you tyhink it means that the constitution means we have to keep our religion in private?

Here is a brief treatise on why your opinion violates the constitution and is merely an attempt to establish an atheist anti-theocracy.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/establishment_clause

You are on the wrong side of BOTH the COnstitution and legal opinion. Nice.

See above.

You do not understand, simply because you are atheist does not make your opinion logical - and it appears to conflict with the clear launguage of the constitution.

Try making a case rather than regurgitating propoganda.

We know, its a logical fallacy that deliberately insults people - but heh, our faith says walking around being an obvious dick for no reason is a bad thing. Yours? Apparently enshrines it.

 

You have to add a word to make your point, and that undermines it.
You change the conversation to being about "acivist" atheists. They are certainly more demonstrative. They are a tiny segment of atheists. Most of them simply don't care about what you believe. They simply ignore it and you never realize they are there.
To make a point you changed the goalposts.
Even they don't try to end expression of your faith. They simply insist the government not make those expressions itself, and reserve the right to confront your views.
Have you seen a group out there trying to outlaw churches? Forbid cathedrals? Criminalize baptism?
Of course not.

 

Secularism is an inclusive thing. Religion can be displayed on government property. Banning it entirely gives undo, onconstitutional favoritism to the religion of atheism.

Once again, here is the standing legal consensus on the matter:

"The First Amendment's Establishment Clause prohibits the government from making any law “respecting an establishment of religion.” This clause not only forbids the government from establishing an official religion, but also prohibits government actions that unduly favor one religion over another. It also prohibits the government from unduly preferring religion over non-religion, or non-religion over religion."

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment

Now you can scream, "THEOCRACY, THEOCRACY!!! UNCONSTITUTIONAL, UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!!," all you want. We call this emotional hyperbole. What we do not call it is a case based on logic or evidence.

Which might be why atheists are losing so many cases these days?

Yes, but for fund raising purposes shrill emotionalism seems to work better in atheism than logic and facts. A trend in atheism that this forum does a spectaular job in demonstrating.

 

For a guy not quoting the Estbalishment CLause while making a claim that is clearly at odds with the Estbalishment Clause, and then dismissing the rebuttal based on the actuality of the Establishment clause as deliberate misquote?

No, its once again ANOTHER atheists inability to use standards. Try defining your thesis statement. Because what we see in far too many atheists is the recvolving door of claims that produces things like, "Atheism includes Buddhists! And Einstein! And Jefferson! And anyone who is successful! Prisoners? Well, atheism is now ONLY a strictly applied positive assertion of atheism! You thesists have been warped by your religion!!!! I hate you!"

Nice to see the excuse of victimhood, sans examples (you know, evidenced based arguementation).

And bear in mind, it you who have, in the space of four posts, ha dto make several 'clarifying' statements about your intended message. So perhaps the problem is less that you are being misquoted, then you are simply not being clear.

After seeing your unaltered opinion for several years now, I think the problem is that you simply change your message and then claim to be misquoted. It quite standard among atheists on this forum.

 

sec·u·lar (sky-lr)
adj.
1. Worldly rather than spiritual.
2. Not specifically relating to religion or to a religious body: secular music.
3. Relating to or advocating secularism.
4. Not bound by monastic restrictions, especially not belonging to a religious order. Used of the clergy.
5. Occurring or observed once in an age or century.
6. Lasting

As you can see, secularism isn't about inclusion. It is specifically about being worldly and not spiritual. It isn't about letting all things live together.
This poster has a fairly consistent disconnect with actual definitions of words and instead makes them up as he goes along.
The first is from Free Dictionary. Here's how Webster defines it.

Definition of SECULAR


1

a: of or relating to the worldly or temporal <secular concerns>

b: not overtly or specifically religious <secular music>

c: not ecclesiastical or clerical <secular courts> <secular landowners>

2

: not bound by monastic vows or rules; specifically: of, relating to, or forming clergy not belonging to a religious order or congregation <a secular priest>


3

a: occurring once in an age or a century

b: existing or continuing through ages or centuries

c: of or relating to a long term of indefinite duration <secular inflation>

 

As usual , you make broad brush statements that are simply based on your own disdain of people that don't believe in god. They have no connection to the majority of atheists, as you have no data to make the assertions you make sweepingly in almost every one of your posts.
That is why your credibility doesn't exist. You have no discipline.

 

BB, I see you are again following me around the forum. Pease stop. I have no intention of debating you. You are highly emotional, mean spirited, and cannot maturely handle disagreement. Please stop attempting to engage me.

You can preach, "I can do whatever I want!" Lets just hope one of those things in to choose to be mature enough and caring enough to respect the wishes of those who no longer wish to suffer abuse at your hands.

Please stop following me around the forum.

 

No it isn't, unless by "inclusive" you mean inclusively rejecting or excluding all forms of religion and worship.

LOL, no. It is an enforcement of secularism, which is entirely constitutional.

There you go (underlined).

 

No, there is no difference. It has only been contrived by those who REALLY want to limit our freedoms.

Thomas Jefferson himself adorned Congress with Christian symbolism; led prayer in every session of Congress, and even arranged Sunday Service to be held at the Capitol.

Now tell me how your view of what should be allowed - and what shouldn't be - in the context of the clear and direct contradiction to your views as acted upon by one of the people responsible for WRITING THE DOCUMENT YOU ARE NOW CLAIMING TO UNDERSTAND.

 

This is why this argument is so critical. Secularism...is an -ism. In enforcing it, it is necessary for Government to ban every other form of religious expression; every other -ism.

That is exactly the OPPOSITE of what the Constitution demands. It is simply giving way to those who are in favor of SECULARISM, and plowing under those who are against it. If our Founding Fathers wished your warped version to be enforced, those would have been the words they would have used. They did not, and they did not intentionally.

Proponents can intentionally and obtusely claim that their -ism isn't a form of religious belief, but it is moot, if their belief by definition requires the eradication of public expressions of the beliefs of other. And it most certainly does - and this is the core of the battle.

And I...am vehemently against secularism. I consider it evil.

 

Do you believe that there is plenty of disdain manifested against those who believe in God by those who don't?

I'll assume you must answer yes to this; if you do not, I'll direct you to the 2nd post in the thread from Sean Michael, an obviously polite and non-confrontational poster who immediately receives just what you ostensibly would have denied exists.

That question being resolved, the next question arises: how do you know that your interpretation of Neutral's tone and tenor isn't a natural consequence of having to cope with such a tone from his debate opponents? How can you single out Neutral as culpable for this tone when it is clear that the tone gets elevated if the debate opponent isn't tolerant and polite?

This entire debate exists because of the intolerance of Atheists, and their intentionally propagandized version of what the Constitution actually says. Until that point is resolved - and it isn't - the blame falls at least 50% on the side you represent, does it not?

I, for one, and extremely polite to those who have shown politeness and consideration. I am heavily critical and acrid against those who unmask their disdain in their responses.

It goes both ways, yet you've seen fit only to criticize one side.

 

I don't.
I love engaging the same issues.
You flatter yourself. Your posts just stand out as some of the easiest to tear apart.
They are simply irresistable.
If you don't like it, put me back on ignore.
Have a great Friday!

 

You can. You can display all forms of religion on public property. After all, when American Atheists and other atheist organizations gamed the system in San Fransisco to block the decades old Christmas display with a bunch of atheism propoganda, the display itself was not llegal was it? It was a pretty dickish thing to do though, and teh community knew it.

After all, an atheist can have all the blank walls it wants, but, we can hang art that has reliogious symbols in it as well. It called decore, and only atheists seem to thik that art - but only when it has a religious symbol - bevome a nefarious threat that will unravel the world ... even though the art in question has been hanging for decades in some cases, and only become imbued wit these nefarious and evil qualities when a random atheist happens to notice it.

That's hyperbole, not logic. Art as evil and a threat to the nation? MAybe you should go hunt a few terrorists like I have, and you will see what an ACTUAL THREAT to a nationlooks like? I would wager afterwards, that people shrilly screaming, "Help, Help I am being prepressed there is apicture with the all seeing eye on it in traffic court and the reason my ticket for going 100 in a 35 was upheld is because I am being decriminated against by the unfair display of art in a courtroom where the judge is a sedular humanist! ARRRGHHHH!!!!"

Well, I can see you are in lock step with the propoganda, but that is not a logical arguement is it kiddo? Its a statement of opinion, one repeatedly rejected by the courts - its a claim at odds with reality. THe religious ritual of atheism on display?

Yeah, that includes favoring NON-RELIGION over religion. So when you block ALL display of religious symbols, you are favoring non-religion much the same way REQUIREING RELIGIOUS symbols would favor religion over non-religion.

Its not like Christians walk into China town see a statue of Buddha and start screaming about unconstitutional stupidity and suing everyone. That behavior is the reserve of atheism in all its grandeur.

Perhaps you arguementation should be aimed at convincing others rather than self justification for a change?

 

Well, there you have it. Even after weeks of studiously ignoring an atheist, even spelling out that their disruptions are unwelcome and why, and atheist will indeed FORCE himsefl upon you.

The idea that atheism isn't insistant and out of control are bron out right there.

 

Tell that to CT, IA, MA, NH, NY, VT, DC, and most likely soon to be MD, NJ, and WA. It may not be legal everywhere (yet), but that does not equate to "not legal".

No one is forcing anything on anyone, gay-marriage would have no affect on you.

Once more, no one is forcing the church to change anything. You all are free to continue on being irrational bigotted hatemongers.

I vague pointed out that it isn't much of a concern anymore, there has been some medical and scientific advancement in this field. Nevertheless, that doesn't change the fact that the issues with it previously was based entirely around religious beliefs.

What are you babbling about? Subdermal said that religious beliefs were not influencing policy. I was simply providing examples which show he was entirely incorrect.

Twisting words again. That is not what I was saying.

Again, not what I said.

Not sure what you're getting at. I don't see anything there that disagrees with me.

Tell me, what's the logical fallacy in pointing out why purely religious ideas and concepts should not be taught in science class?

 

I'll assume you must answer yes to this; if you do not, I'll direct you to the 2nd post in the thread from Sean Michael, an obviously polite and non-confrontational poster who immediately receives just what you ostensibly would have denied exists.

I appreciate what you have just stated and thank you for the compliment, though I have on this site on occassions maybe could have replied to some posts in a much more friendly manner than I have. It is something I am trying to work on.

 

Wow, thank you. You could not have more perfectly demonstrated my point. And in the very response it, no less.

 

Well, there is more to it than that.

Several weeks ago, BB was involved in a little flame bait campaign, and has, for some time, been involved in a form of internet stalking. There is a point where it becomes clear that some people simply wish to abuse and overtly attempt to control you, and there is no longer any point in pretending the person has a honest intent to do anything other than malign you.

The deliberate smear resulting in several lengthy discussions with the mods, which resulted in several infractions being issued to BB (Again - he's also done this to Incoproreal). THe decision to ignore BB entirely was mine, and mande several weeks ago. Its been pretty clear that he has been following me around sense, particularly today. I was unaware that he was again seeking to smear me - yet again, with duplicitous and abusive smear tactics.

I am not sure why so many atheists think internet stalking is a good thing?

Aprreciate the heads up, I will let the mod team know.

 

Now, lets see if we can figure out why this symbol means, "Hi, I am a raging dick," rather than, "Hi, I am an even tempered, logical, and ever so sweet guy who happens to be atheist."

It begins with Russell's Teapot:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

As a discussion point, its ultimately fallacious, but, when first made, was an honest attempt to discuss a point of view. One that is raised an thorughly rebutted both on and off this forum.

THe problem is two fold:

#1 - it fallacious and it been rebuted - "Philosopher Paul Chamberlain says it is logically erroneous to assert that positive truth claims bear a burden of proof while negative truth claims do not.[11] He says that all truth claims bear a burden of proof, and that like Mother Goose and the tooth fairy, the teapot bears the greater burden not because of its negativity but because of its triviality, arguing that "When we substitute normal, serious characters such as Plato, Nero, Winston Churchill, or George Washington in place of these fictional characters, it becomes clear that anyone denying the existence of these figures has a burden of proof equal to, or in some cases greater than, the person claiming they do exist."

#2 - making the point EVEN MORE RUDE, does not invalidate the rebuttal. "The concept of Russell's teapot has been extrapolated into more explicitly religion-parodying forms such as the Invisible Pink Unicorn[5] and the Flying Spaghetti Monster.[12]"

Again, it one thing to raise these in discussion, where the FSM pretty much recieves universal denunciation outside of extremist atheist ciricles.

But why would you make the fallacious use of deliberately mockery the center piece of your public persona? Anytone who does so is telling te entire world that they will ignore countering and reasonable arguement to ENSHRINE a dick piece of mockery, not as a debate point, but as the symbol of who they are as a person.

Well, we all have free agency, and I guess you can do whatever you want with your life. Just remember, when you show the world that YOU are the FSM, you join the same illustrious company of this guy:



Enjoy it atheists.

 

I can't directly answer for Neutral, but there is no justification for the Federal Government to address this issue; it is a State's Rights issue. So: you leftist atheist activists enjoy your State-level victories; it has nothing to do with the Constitution of the US beyond the fact that the Constitution leaves all roles not specifically enumerated as a Federal duty to the States.

Which also means that where I live doesn't have to even acknowledge your existence.

I disagree. I consider the allowance of gay marriage to be a decay of traditional family values, which I believe is central to the initial core strength of this country. It is by no means the only avenue of attack on the nuclear family, but it is one of the loudest. I consider it dysfunctional, deleterious and in no way do I believe that ANY Government - at any level - should be addressing taxes differently based upon marriage or relationships. It is because prior liberties have been taken with policy that the proverbial camel's nose has encroached this far.

But it is a different topic for a different thread.

Sure, sure. You consider such a group 'bigoted hatemongers', while expressing nothing but love and admiration for those who feel that way. Because you're just so tolerant in that way. Yes. Definitely.

How do you propose to excise a moral belief from a religious belief? Face it, bubba: our people are imbued with moral belief which springs from religious belief - your attempt to excise all these beliefs will leave society a hollowed-out husk of its former self, and extremely inhuman and dangerous.

And history has taught you nothing of this truth, because you do not wish to learn, and your POV is so ignorant of the mechanism of human nature that you have dismissed the clear and critical role of a consistent morality in allowing it to function to its full potential.

You want to trade it for an inhuman version which is cold and dead - as Stalin created with exactly the same ideology.

You'd better review what I said, because that's not it. I said what I reiterated in this very response: there is no way to separate 'religious belief' from 'morals'. They are soul mates. All law is a simple extension of morality; all morality springs from religious belief, and simply because you deny that you're religious doesn't change that. You've been raised and conditioned in a soceity which is overwhelmingly religious; specifically moral, and guided by these tenets.

You think - somehow - because you are at war with these tenets that they have not nonetheless greatly influenced your own personal morality to a degree?

See your prior statement for a hypocritical example. You said you're in favor of allowing private expression. Your own words bely your denial now. Yes, you explained and clarified - but please don't think that such a threat isn't very real to us who have Faith, and don't think that your intrusions into our way of life don't pose that exact danger.

Because that's exactly how Stalin killed millions of Christians. They didn't have to simply avoid 'public' expressions of their faith. They were killed for being Christian.

You think simple feigned ignorance inoculates your view from attack and defeat? No sir.

Non sequitur. They are not 'purely religious'. The notion of an intelligence beyond ours that could - somehow - have possessed the knowledge and ability to create our reality is not a religious idea; it is scientific. Just because it is an extraordinary concept does not diminish its scientific plausibility in the face of other alternatives. You are your ilk object not because this alone isn't a scientific concept, but because YOU'RE AFRAID of the very real ramifications to accepting the possibility of the notion of a Higher Intelligence: you can clearly see the lack of imagination needed to extrapolate that to the idea - and the validity of the acceptance of the idea - of GOD.

And that frightens you to death, and - as such - you're an avowed opponent of things like ID, when all it does is pursue the notion of discovering repeated designs to fortify the hypothetical of the existence of something we can only guess is metaphysical.

When there is nothing within the discipline that disqualifies the possibility that It could be physical as well.

It's a neat trick you Godless types have created: skew Science into not just being unable to even consider something beyond our level of knowledge, but to arm yourself with your own written rules to justify STIGMATIZING those who believe.

 

It does go both ways.
Not all Christians are defensive and snarky to people who don't agree with them. Not all Christians have a poor comprehension of word definitions. Not all of them make broad brush statements about their adversaries in argument, like you are doing here. But many on line do.
Not all atheists will call people stupid or ignorant or accuse them of living in a fantasy. Not all will create supernatural creatures made of pasta to try to humiliate their opponents with. Not all will try to actively denounce believers in a cruel or dismissive way. But many online do.
You are making sweeping judgments of all atheists by the actions of the vocal ones you confront here, and they are not representative of atheists as a whole, who by and large don't give a fig about these conversations and simply live their lives without the benefit of a belief in a deity, and that is the extent of their atheism. It just isn't a big deal, like you not believing in leprechauns is not a big deal to you. You rarely give that any thought, true? Of course you don't, and neither do they obsess about god. It's a non-issue.
Those of us on here, from both sides, enjoy the debate. We engage it and it focuses our thoughts about the issue. But we aren't the majority. The majority of Christians don't feel they are being persecuted by the state or anyone else, but simply enjoy their faith and the closeness they perceive themselves as having with something greater than themselves. They don't spend pages raging about it. They are simply nurtured by their beliefs. Atheists online like to characterize all Christians as the intolerant, nasty, judgmental people we often run into online, but the majority aren't like that. Christians online like to characterize atheists as the enemy, the emmissaries of Satan and the reason the coming apocalypse will take place due to their lack of morals, but most aren't Machiavellians. They are simply people that don't believe.
Judging a group by the excesses one finds online is a fools errand. Don't fall into it.