Atheism

[KCfromNC]

Militant isn't opposite of being religious - just as one can be religious and strict or religious and anarchy-focused. It's not a hard concept understanding where some Quakers are militanthttp://books.google.com/books?id=WB...6AEwBjgK#v=onepage&q=Militant Quakers&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=WB...6AEwBjgK#v=onepage&q=Militant Quakers&f=falseKeep trying to convince people that Quakers are militant. That'll do wonders for your credibility.

The same dynamics have already been present for atheism - when it comes to those who are militant atheists - others aggressive on advocating atheism and combating religion.

Aggressive isn't the same as militant.

In its ruling, the 1961 court mentioned Secular Humanism, which as we all know is the default religious ideology of atheism.

Nope. Humanism is typically atheist, but not all atheists are humanists. Just like all cats are mammals doesn't prove that all mammals are cats. This is pretty basic logic you're messing up.

If trying to argue against what has already been noted by the U.S - one needs to deal with history on it's own merits. Specifically, the 1961 Supreme Court said the following, and one should keep your eyes on the words that I bolded in the entire document. One should Pay particular note to the words that are bolded at Footnote 11.

Weird that your cites don't mention atheism at all. Were you hoping we'd just take your word for it rather than actually read it?

And again, you have directly avoided dealing with the U.S Constitution on the issue and are inconsistent in the fact that religions are also defined as not believing in gods or goddesses (or a single thing)

By who, exactly? Let's see a legitimate reference which defines religion as not believing in gods. This should be fun.

And one can do better than trying to quote a dictionary for reference

Yeah, my mistake using a dictionary as a reference for the meaning of a word. Better to use a quote from a supreme court decision which doesn't even mention the word in question.

Stronger levels of atheism do share the main element of religion - a belief in the unprovable, since it is neither possible to prove God exists, or that God does not exist. But the weaker levels are simply "I'm not religious", but I would call active disbelief a religion in itself

Why? Does your disbelief in Zeus count as a religion in itself? If so, won't your god be upset that you now worship two religions instead of just Christianity?

You already were inconsistent in the actual definition of basic words

So you say, but for some reason fail to actually demonstrate.

Religion has never been SOLELY defined as simply believing in gods/goddesses - it can also include having reverence for whatever one deems sacred - and atheism is considered a religion due to that. It does not believe in gods or goddesses just as other religions do not - and it holds sacred the belief in knowing gods or goddesses are not real.

This is pretty desperate. Anything we don't believe in is held sacred and is therefore a religion? Is this really the best you can do?

You already distracted from the issue when going on a bunny trail about atheism not being based on religion because of lacking belief in gods/goddesses

Nope, never said this.

where you assumed atheism itself cannot be a religion

Never did this either.

religions can be atheistic for not being based in gods or goddesses.

Yes, I pointed this out several times. You complained it was a circular argument when I did. Now you agree with me. Maybe you should slow down and put together a consistent set of thoughts before writing them in a public forum like this.

And again, ad-homimen

Pointing out an example of poor writing isn't ad hominem. Perhaps a bit more research is in order - maybe there's a supreme court case you can quote-mine to help.

You already added an unconventional definition to atheism when claiming it was based on lack of belief in gods or goddesses

I never said is was based on a lack of belief. I pointed to a dictionary definition showing that it is a lack of belief. If you think dictionary.com is "unconventional" then I might see the root of the problem here.

and then saying religion didn't quality.

No idea what this is supposed to mean, but I since I never said it I don't really care.

 

[smaneck]

Let us not forget Christian dominionism as well, which is referenced on the wiki link.

Triumphalism is merely the belief that because your religion is superior therefore you and your society enjoy greater worldly success. It can be used to justify imperialism but it isn't necessarily militant. For instance, the liberal Christian Century magazine was based on the premise that modernity was not only compatible with Christianity but was insuring its triumph.

Dominionism, however, holds that the government ought to be informed by the laws of the Bible, and since the NT basically has no laws, that means the Old Testament laws. Hard to see how that differs from imposing Shariah law complete with hudud punishments. In fact, I don't think it is any accident that it's founder Rushdoony is from the Middle East.

I also get a little nervous when I see Christians with large amounts of weapons like the Hutaree group. There seems to be a strong correlation between endtimes beliefs and chances of being "more militant".

So do I, although generally speaking traditional fundamentalists are more absorbed with eschatology than are the Dominionists.

 

[smaneck]

Obviously Christians tend to cut at each other a lot; many Evangelicals don't consider Catholics Christian etc. -- All of that ignored, I wonder what the percentage of "real" Christians is in the United States. I'd say really its more like 40-50%. I don't have any scientific basis for that offhand; that just happens to be how I'd guess based on my experience thus far.

77% of Americans identify themselves as Christians and I don't think we can use any other measure than self-identification.

 

[smaneck]

Lewis wrongfully assumed that what we find in the New Testament MUST be a completely (or at least mostly) accurate representation of the historical Jesus. But that's hardly a given.

He also assumed that what Jesus may have intended by claims to divinity is the same as what Christians believe about it today.

Personally, I believe in what Jesus' claims, but I don't believe in what the church claims about Jesus.

 

[smaneck]

I am a software developer and I work close to IT people all day; they deal with issues that people were having on computers 20 years ago. People have been using computers for a long time but to this day they refuse to basic things. Why? It seems to me that people feel they are too good for certain things.

Have a heart. Those of us who were raised BC [before computers] still find technology baffling and somewhat frightening. I was lost when my kid when off to college. The younger generation have no fear in regards to these things.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Personally, I believe in what Jesus' claims, but I don't believe in what the church claims about Jesus.

And at this point, I'd have to ask: WHICH Jesus? I find that the person described in the gospel of the beloved disciple is a completely different character from the individual depicted in the synoptics, which in turn bears only a very limited resemblance to the risen Christ appearing in Paul's epistles.
They tell quite distinct tales, too.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

[/URL]Keep trying to convince people that Quakers are militant. That'll do wonders for your credibility.

Seeing that no one said Quakers were all militant, it is again foolish in argumentation to say such - for one saying that some Quakers are/were always seen as militant and described themselves as such isn't the same as saying all. As it is, you alone claimed Quakers were not militant:

The two words mean very different things - unless you want to claim that religious Quakers, for example, are militant.

That has nothing to do with you attempting to conflate religious with militant. Are you saying that evrey modern day Quaker religious service is militant?

None of that has anything to do with what other atheists (starting with Richard Dawkins) have already noted on what the term militant means in references to individuals/organizations of atheists such as themselves. Moreover, it avoids dealing with the bottom line fact of how the term "militant" was also used of Christian groups - and one cannot backtrack when asking the question of whether Quakers were to be considered militant and many are still today. As no one was arguing for EVERY single Quaker being militant when noting others who were, the same logic is present when speaking of groups of atheists who are militant. Context.

It's not a hard concept understanding where some Quakers are militant (just as MANY atheists are and described themselves as - starting with Richard Dawkins in basic example ..more in An atheist's call to arms - Richard Dawkins - TED 2002 - RichardDawkins.net) - and others are not. These are basic concepts well understood within Christianity when it comes to how the Quakers described themselves/their radical stances - and anyone speaking on them not being militant in many camps shows ignorance of what the Quakers were about. Again, this is rather basic when knowing Abolitionism and American Politics and Government with how the Quakers were seen. Some basic reads on the issue for the sake of readers:

• The Quaker Community on Barbados: Challenging the Culture of the Planter Class - Larry D. Gragg - Google Books

• Abolitionism and American Politics and Government - Google Books

The same dynamics have already been present for atheism - when it comes to those who are militant atheists - others aggressive on advocating atheism and combating religion. Speaking past that doesn't address where you already are inconsistent with what well-known leaders in the Atheist movement have noted on the matter.

​

When you engage in inane antics avoiding where Quakers already had others in their history who were known as militant, you do selective argumentation and Begging the question (petitio principii)



It's on you to show where there were no Quakers who said they were not militant - just as it's upon you to deal with showing where no atheists (Dawkins and others) have already labeled themselves as militant. If you can't do those basic things, oh well - but you already lost credible basis for speaking with the ignorance on what Quakers actually have said.

Aggressive isn't the same as militant.

Not according to what the actual definition of aggressive is - and this goes back to your inability to actually deal with definitions as they are.

Again, from Merriam Webster:

mil·i·tant adjective \-tənt\
: having or showing a desire or willingness to use strong, extreme, and sometimes forceful methods to achieve something

Full Definition of MILITANT

1
: engaged in warfare or combat : fighting
2
: aggressively active (as in a cause) : combative <militant conservationists> <a militant attitude>
— militant noun
— mil·i·tant·ly adverb
— mil·i·tant·ness noun


Examples of MILITANT

• an angry and militant speech
  
• <political radicals with a militant unwillingness to compromise on any issue>

Related to MILITANT

Synonyms
aggressive, agonistic, argumentative, assaultive, bellicose, brawly, chippy, combative, confrontational, contentious, discordant, disputatious, feisty, gladiatorial, belligerent, pugnacious, quarrelsome, scrappy, truculent, warlike
​

It's foolish to do as you did with arguments where you infer that a proposition is true without actually dealing with the definition. And for all the talk of what dictionaries say, it's rather humorous to see you ignore those definitions when it suits you on the matter. That's evidence you don't really care to dealw ith the definitions as they are.

Nope. Humanism is typically atheist,
but not all atheists are humanists. Just like all cats are mammals doesn't prove that all mammals are cats. This is pretty basic logic you're messing up.

Wrong, as atheists identify as Humanist. It is not divorced from atheism when it comes to the central tenants - even though atheists may choose to claim they are not humanist. Attempting a bad analogy on the matter is akin to one saying that all airplanes have wings and then assuming that all biological creatures with wings are airplanes rather than dealing with the original context of what airplanes have.

And with regards to atheism, noting that HUMANISM is a type of atheism isn't the same as saying that all atheists claim to be humanists. To ignore that will always be attempt to escape the system of religion dishonestly. There is no avoiding the fact that it's true that many people who describe themselves as atheist or agnostic also describe themselves as Humanist.

On Humanism, for definition:

The philosophy or life stance secular humanism (alternatively known by adherents as Humanism, specifically with a capital H to distinguish it from other forms of humanism) embraces human reason, ethics, social justice, philosophical naturalism, while specifically rejecting religious dogma, supernaturalism,pseudoscience or superstition as the basis of morality and decision-making.
​

There is a reason that numerous atheists have noted humanism reflects them in light of what secular humanism advocates in the ideas below:

• There are no supernatural beings.
• The material universe is the only thing that exists.
• Science provides the only reliable source of knowledge about this universe.
• We only live this life - there is no after-life, and no such thing as reincarnation.
• Human beings can live ethical and fulfilling lives without religious beliefs.
• Human beings derive their moral code from the lessons of history, personal experience, and thought.

Weird that your cites don't mention atheism at all. Were you hoping we'd just take your word for it rather than actually read it?

Not really concerned with whether you take one's word for anything since your word wasn't worth anything to begin with in regards to avoiding information and yet still asking for addressing. Doesn't take long to actually look up the case since it is well known - and the background involved atheists. Specifically, at the time, the Constitution of Maryland required "a declaration of belief in the existence of God" in order for a person to hold "any office of profit or trust in this State". Torcaso, who was an atheist, refused to make such a statement, and his appointment was consequently revoked. Torcaso, believing his constitutional rights to freedom of religious expression had been infringed, filed suit in a Maryland Circuit Court, only to be rebuffed...and consequently, he took his case to the Supreme Court. Later, the Court unanimously found that Maryland's requirement for a person holding public office to state a belief in God violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

And choosing to avoid what the actual case notes is choosing to be obtuse since Torcaso v. Watkins the Supreme Court "found" secular humanism to be a religion" - with this assertion 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. This also includes atheists - and has ALWAYS included atheists......AND THE MEETINGS for such things are not hidden.

Other atheists have already been far more honest in dealing with the issues since even they know about the U.S. Supreme Court TORCASO v. WATKINS, 367 U.S. 488 (1961) case and others where atheism was included in the religious category. If you disagree with them, it's no different than others claiming atheism and yet being ignorant of what prominent atheists have already said like Dawkins.


As it is,

By who, exactly? Let's see a legitimate reference which defines religion as not believing in gods. This should be fun.

You already avoided Merriam Webster and the Encylopedia.

And for reference (as you are unable to honestly address what was said) - as said best and Merriam Webster:

atheism, in general, the critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or spiritual beings. As such, it is usually distinguished from theism, which affirms the reality of the divine and often seeks to demonstrate its existence. Atheism is also distinguished from agnosticism, which leaves open the question whether there is a god or not, professing to find the questions unanswered or unanswerable.

Critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or divine beings. Unlike agnosticism, which leaves open the question of whether there is a God, atheism is a positive denial. It is rooted in an array of philosophical systems. Ancient Greek philosophers such as Democritus and Epicurus argued for it in the context of materialism. In the 18th century David Hume and Immanuel Kant, though not atheists, argued against traditional proofs for God's existence, making belief a matter of faith alone. Atheists such as Ludwig Feuerbach held that God was a projection of human ideals and that recognizing this fiction made self-realization possible. Marxism exemplified modern materialism. Beginning with Friedrich Nietzsche, existentialist atheism proclaimed the death of God and the human freedom to determine value and meaning. Logical positivism holds that propositions concerning the existence or nonexistence of God are nonsensical or meaningless.

​

And on religion (again from Merriam Webster):

Relation of human beings to God or the gods or to whatever they consider sacred or, in some cases, merely supernatural. Archaeological evidence suggests that religious beliefs have existed since the first human communities. They are generally shared by a community, and they express the communal culture and values through myth, doctrine, and ritual. Worship is probably the most basic element of religion, but moral conduct, right belief, and participation in religious

Coming back with "well, lets see a definition" while IGNORING the definitions is again intellectual dishonesty - but it is humorous to see the attempt at avoiding the issue. Till you can address what the definition said, you really have zero basis talking on dictionary definitions.



For an atheist, the only alternative to secular humanism or any humanism is nihilism, the belief that life has no purpose or meaning. While nihilism is a reasonable inference from atheism, most atheists resist nihilism and argue for what Antony Flew calls Atheistic Humanism: a positive philosophy of life that embraces life as meaningful despite the lack of any divinely created purpose for the human race. This is the philosophy of the Humanist Manifesto I (1933), the Humanist Manifesto II (1973), and the Secular Humanist Declaration (1980).


It is commonly assumed that atheism is the belief that there is no God, and that an atheist is someone who believes there is no God. But most atheists, however, reject these definitions. They point out that the term atheism derives from the Greek a (not, without) and theos (God, god), and conclude that atheism is simply the lack or absence of belief in a God or gods. That is, an atheist does not necessarily deny the existence of a God, but simply has no belief in the existence of a God. Yet although atheists often deny espousing such a dogmatic atheism, they frequently do end up asserting in quite dogmatic terms that God does not or even cannot exist. George Smith wrote, “It is logically impossible for god — a concept replete with absurdities and contradictions — to have a referent in reality, just as it is logically impossible for a square circle to exist. Given the attempts to define god, we may now state — with certainty — that god does not exist."

 

[Gxg (G²)]

[/URL]

Yeah, my mistake using a dictionary as a reference for the meaning of a word. Better to use a quote from a supreme court decision which doesn't even mention the word in question.
.

Please with the excuses - as you didn't even cross-reference with the standard sources of information for dictionary usage (Merriam Webster) or deal logically with the use of Encylopedia information which always gives more detail.

For good review on the matter for the common lurker:

• 
  Is Atheism a Religion

For brief excerpt:

D2-religion is that realm of opinion and knowledge that has to do with D1-religion, regardless of whether or not there is a belief in some deity. In other words, anything that has to do with basic questions of human relations, the meaning of life, the beginning of the universe, etc. – when related to the concept of some higher power (whether or not that higher power is believed in) – is D2-religion. And this entire subject is what the United States Constitution sets apart in its First Amendment. Thus, whereas James Madison successfully blocked Patrick Henry’s Bill for Establishing a Provision for Teachers of the Christian Religion, he wouldn’t have blocked a Bill for Establishing a Provision for Teachers of Mathematics, of Art History, of Geology or of any other non-“religious” topic.

There is the big set - all human opinion and knowledge. Within that, there is a subset of opinion and knowledge that is related to the supernatural … whether it is believed or not. This subset (D2-religion) is what the Religion Clauses require the government to treat differently from all other opinion and knowledge matters. However, within that subset are sub-subsets, including the one that accepts the existence of an “Almighty” (D1-religion), and the one that denies such an entity. It is the differential treatment (by government) of those sub-subsets that the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses forbid.....if one is asking if Atheists believe in supernatural powers, the answer is, “No – Atheism is not a D1-religion.” If one is asking if Atheists should be protected by the Constitution, the answer is, “Yes, Atheism is a D2-religion.” And if one is asking whether Atheists can be moral, the answer will depend upon the participants’ D1-religious views. If an individual contends that belief in God is a requirement for a person to have D3-religion, the answer will be “no.” If that person accepts that morality is a human quality, that needs no supernatural approval, the answer is “yes.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uk9LBVEsIqo


Atheism is “the belief that there is no God, or denial that God or gods exist.” (Webster’s New World, 3d Ed.). As soon as atheism does more than deny God (i.e., offers propositions about the nature of existence or creation) then it becomes a belief system, and therefore, a religion. Beyond belief, further proof that atheism is a religion exists because atheism requires faith, which is defined as “unquestioning belief that does not require proof or evidence.” An atheist cannot prove that God does not exist.

And harping on the issue of "Atheism is not a religion" is senseless when it comes to the extensive amount of things present that occur within religion - including atheists churches:

Godless Gatherings: Lust for life drives UK atheists to church - YouTube

In fact, the Freedom From Religion Foundation has been in a legal battle to end the “parish exemption” that allows ministers to deduct the cost of their mortgage/utilities/parking/furnishings from their taxable income. Specifically, FFRF’s own board has paid its co-presidents Dan Barker and Annie Laurie Gaylor $15,000 each as part of their housing allowance, but because they don’t qualify as “ministers of the gospel,” they’re arguing that the law doesn’t apply to them and, therefore, it’s illegal - and the U.S. Department of Justice is arguing that atheism is a religion, so Barker and Gaylor would be able to qualify for the exemption (more here in http://archive.tennessean.com/assets/pdf/DN210781825.pdf ).

And in the legal system, atheism has been — and should be — treated like a religion. It’s a little easier to understand if you say that all belief systems are equal under the law. For the government can’t promote Christianity over Judaism or theism over atheism

And this also goes right back to the bottom line of atheism being a religion - despite all the screaming of differing atheists claiming "No!"

And with religion, we see this already played out. As said best elsewhere:

As recently reported in the New York Times, military personnel who identify themselves as "Atheists" have requested chaplains to tend to their spiritual needs. As the Times article notes, "Defense Department statistics show that about 9,400 of the nation's 1.4 million active-duty military personnel identify themselves as atheists or agnostics, making them a larger subpopulation than Jews, Muslims, Hindus or Buddhists in the military." Having their own chaplains, the article explains, would give Atheists a sense of legitimacy and help validate their own system of values and beliefs.

...Similarly, it's worth noting the degree to which Atheists routinely, strategically, and often vociferously position what is often described as their "secular-humanist" views against religious traditions. Read or listen to any of the celebrity Atheists of the past decade like Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Sam Harris and you realize that they fashion many of their arguments not against some alternative economic, political, or philosophical position but against organized religion. Religious faith is clearly their primary opponent in the contest for the intellectual allegiance of the population, which makes it hard not to conclude that they offer their views and beliefs as a viable alternative to traditional religious systems.

As the is, the Supreme Court understood the concept of dictionary definition - so bad argument to act as if they were ignorant of the term or acting as if other atheists haven't already referenced back to the case when they felt their atheism wasn't expected. Atheists already have churches


And again, ranting on the matter doesn't change the fact that you've avoided where atheism is also the same as secular humanism, naturalism/materialism and pantheism - all of which are religions and ones atheists have noted to be reflective of true atheism.

Humanism is typically atheist,
but not all atheists are humanists.

Religions are already defined as not being focused on gods/goddesses and the belief in them - they are specifically defined as "Relation of human beings to God or the gods or to whatever they consider sacred or, in some cases, merely supernatural." And the logic you used is already inconsistent since not all religions are formalized or centralized (as goes the accusation against them). That said, it is logical to note that atheists can be religious even though not all atheists consider themselves religious if/when they go forth setting out formal stances for how atheists should conduct themselves.

Atheist groups can be religion-like - and forms of atheisms can be religions, just as forms of theism can be religions. Atheist have regular meetings, shared ideology and even revered symbols — like the Darwin fish or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, a symbol that satirizes intelligent design. When atheists rail against theists, they are using the same fervor the religious use when making their claims against a secular society - and theists and atheists behave g in the same manner, approaching from opposite ends of the runway. For the entire discourse about religion stems from those who think they know more than the other guy.

Secular Humanism is a formal expression of atheism - with that system expressing atheism and being what atheists advocate.

And there can be no avoiding this since Atheism entails naturalism, the belief — as Carl Sagan famously put it, “The COSMOS is all there is, all there was, and all there ever will be.” For most atheists, atheism also entails secular humanism, the belief that human beings must determine their own purpose for life and must solve their own problems. And other well-known atheists have spoken on the issue - A.C. Grayling being one of the most prominent examples (more in A Seminary for Nonbelievers: Is A. C. Grayling Creating His Own Religion? | (A)theologies | Religion Dispatches ) - as is a well-known British philosopher and popular atheist and he spoke on the issue in his lecture entitled “Atheism, Secularism and Humanism.”

A.C. Grayling - Atheism, Secularism, Humanism: Three Zones of Argument - YouTube

He did a good job discussing the differences between atheism, secularism, and humanism (as well as showing where they overlap and exist in unison) - the first being a metaphysical view about what the universe contains (about what exists), the second a commitment to separation of religious organizations from state organizations, and the third being the ethical outlook of any reflective person who does not have any religious beliefs or commitments. Atheists, according to Grayling, divide into three broad categories. There are those for whom secular objection to the privileged status of religion in public life is the driving force of their concern. Then there are those who are principally concerned with the metaphysical question of God's existence. As he noted, "But the third point is about our ethics – how we live, how we treat one another, what the good life is. And that's the question that really concerns me the most."

Why? Does your disbelief in Zeus count as a religion in itself? If so, won't your god be upset that you now worship two religions instead of just Christianity?

Seeing that Christianity does not believe in Zeus, it's a pointless question about my religion - so one can try better if trying to be taken seriously.

So you say, but for some reason fail to actually demonstrate.

When you already avoid dealing with what other atheists have noted, you already show why you don't reflect atheism well...as the OP speaks of.

This is pretty desperate. Anything we don't believe in is held sacred and is therefore a religion? Is this really the best you can do?

For all the talk of dictionary definition, it is hilarious that one can only divert in not dealing with it when the definition is laid out plainly.

Save the excuses - if you cannot be consistent with dictionary definitions when harping on the need for them, then you really have zero clue on what atheism is about.

Nope, never said this.



Never did this either.

False (as with many other things said). Your Words:

Seems that avoiding the worship of a higher being would be the exact opposite of what religion normally means.

.. Atheism is simply the lack of belief in gods

Atheism isn't a religion because it is a simple lack of belief in a single thing, rather than "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs."
.

You already noted atheism was the lack of belief in gods - backtracking gets you nowhere. And you already noted atheism wasn't a religion because of a lack of belief in a single thing - even though other religions (pantheism in specific) also don't hold belief in a SINGLE thing ....and thus, your argument is one of equivocation.

This is why many atheists are also naturalists who believe in the universe giving meaning. According to the US Supreme Court Atheism is classified as a belief regarding the supernatural and transcendental and therefore a religion. And the acceptance of this point has protected Atheists' rights in US jails as well as protected their freedoms when they noted offense on many things...

Yes, I pointed this out several times. You complained it was a circular argument when I did. Now you agree with me. Maybe you should slow down and put together a consistent set of thoughts before writing them in a public forum like this.

Seeing that you already avoided where you were arguing past what was already said, it is lack of ability to focus in on what was noted - and it'd behoove you to think through what you say before you say it. It has already been past what other notable atheists have already said.

And what was pointed out was that atheism is a reflection of pantheism:

Pantheistic Atheism - YouTube

Pointing out an example of poor writing isn't ad hominem. Perhaps a bit more research is in order - maybe there's a supreme court case you can quote-mine to help.

Ad-hominem will always be centered on trying to bring up personal attacks and commentary having nothing to do with the argument - but again, as the best you could do was avoiding what the Supreme Court and dictionaries said, it is another demonstration of why atheists have spoken counter to you.

I never said is was based on a lack of belief. I pointed to a dictionary definition showing that it is a lack of belief. If you think dictionary.com is "unconventional" then I might see the root of the problem here.

Semantics and equivocation that doesn't deal with what atheism is about - and again, you already avoided dictionaries and how other atheists defined things.

No idea what this is supposed to mean, but I since I never said it I don't really care.

Irrelevant.

Hoping you can do better next time....as it's a pity thus far.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Let's not forget that common terms in the Christian vernacular are: "Christian Soldier", "Christian Warrior", "Soldier of Christ", "Spiritual Warrior", "Spiritual Warfare", and that Christianity annually resurrects a "War on Christmas" to battle, and is perpetually in a "Culture War". There are multiple instances of an "Army of God" and in the Christian battle hymn "Onward, Christian Soldier" the church itself is described as God's Army.

So, it would be important that they paint their enemies as militant as well, don't you think?

Technically, it should not be forgotten that some terms were not given by Christians - and were actually given by atheists to define them in opposition to what they believe.

 

[Zoness]

77% of Americans identify themselves as Christians and I don't think we can use any other measure than self-identification.

I think fundamentalist Christians would disagree, "fruits of the spirit" and all. In that regard, they assert very few people are actually Christian. But you're right, self-identification is the only scientific measure. That doesn't mean I can't make estimates based on what I understand of Christianity versus how self-identifying Christians behave, especially since the lines of "good" and "bad" Christians are blurry and arbitrary.

Have a heart. Those of us who were raised BC [before computers] still find technology baffling and somewhat frightening. I was lost when my kid when off to college. The younger generation have no fear in regards to these things.

For the average person who doesn't use computers, that's okay but its these people's jobs to know these things. Very specific demands are made of me as a coder, I often spend my weekends cleaning up messes on the corporate network because people don't bother to ask for things, adhere to documentation or obey scope limitations. I do not get paid for the extra time I work (salary), I do it to make my team's life easier and to make these people happy. This is another example of one of those weekends, you'll forgive me if I am a little less than charitable in this regard because it punishes me personally. I also believe that executives have a legitimate entitlement complex: "I don't have to learn things because people do that for me!".

If its you or my parents or any other person of that generation, I don't have a problem with a lack of knowledge. The problem begins when a basic level of knowledge is required for system safety, development and implementation and when these people don't do what they're told to do, I'm left picking up the pieces.

 

[Zoness]

Technically, it should not be forgotten that some terms were not given by Christians - and were actually given by atheists to define them in opposition to what they believe.

All of the terms JGG listed I've seen in churches over the years. They're thematically common in music and sermons, especially in Protestant churches. It makes sense to me to have these terms, it gets people revved up against a common enemy.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

All of the terms JGG listed I've seen in churches over the years. They're thematically common in music and sermons, especially in Protestant churches. It makes sense to me to have these terms, it gets people revved up against a common enemy.

I've heard them in songs and sermons as well - although I've also heard certain terms thrown out that were used by atheists without any knowledge of where churches said them.

People saying "That's a Jesus Freak!" (a term which became used by Christians later) were doing so originally to insult believers who they felt were radical....and others called Christians "Holy Rollers" or "Radical Christian soldiers".....and it's even the same with the term "Christian" (as the early church didn't always call itself that name - it was given to them by others).

But of course, this all goes back to how others have already have the same mindsets - and with the militant term for atheism, I must say that we cannot be honest on the issue if assuming it was solely a term thrown out by others against them since those in the camp used it to describe themselves. There's even an entire page on YouTube made by atheists called Militant Atheism ( https://www.youtube.com/user/MilitantAtheism101 ):

This is why I am a Militant Atheist... - YouTube
Aggressive atheism - YouTube
BBC Documentary on Militant Atheism after the Collapse of the Atheistic Communist USSR - YouTube

And Richard Dawkins already gave a call to arms for all atheists to openly state their position -- and to fight the incursion of the church into politics and science. If he and other atheists didn't like the term to be used of themselves, they would not describe themselves as such - even though others have equally said that they do not like atheists in their camp who are militant in a negative sense..

RichardDawkins: Militant Atheism - YouTube
Militant Atheism: The Thinking Atheist Radio Podcast #27 - YouTube

 

[ViaCrucis]

Let's not forget that common terms in the Christian vernacular are: "Christian Soldier", "Christian Warrior", "Soldier of Christ", "Spiritual Warrior", "Spiritual Warfare", and that Christianity annually resurrects a "War on Christmas" to battle, and is perpetually in a "Culture War". There are multiple instances of an "Army of God" and in the Christian battle hymn "Onward, Christian Soldier" the church itself is described as God's Army.

So, it would be important that they paint their enemies as militant as well, don't you think?

Those are terms I heard in my Evangelical/Pentecostal upbringing. I've yet to hear any such language within Mainline Christianity: Protestant, Catholic, or Orthodox.

The closest you'll find is when, during the lectionary, we might be reading from Paul's letter to the Ephesians and he, by way of analogy, speaks of a Christian's preparedness with that of the Roman soldier. But it's only that--an analogy. The clarity of the text shows that the enemy Christians face off against does not include people, but is rather "the cosmic powers that are over this present darkness"--sin, death, the devil, etc.

The concept of "spiritual warfare" doesn't have much traction outside of the broadly Charismatic tradition. Concepts like "prayer warriors" wouldn't make any sense in Lutheranism.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[JGG]

Those are terms I heard in my Evangelical/Pentecostal upbringing. I've yet to hear any such language within Mainline Christianity: Protestant, Catholic, or Orthodox.

But in the United States Evangelicals make up almost a quarter of the entire population, and nearly half of all Christians. That's a lot of people who believe they are at war with atheists. Certainly more than there are atheists.

The closest you'll find is when, during the lectionary, we might be reading from Paul's letter to the Ephesians and he, by way of analogy, speaks of a Christian's preparedness with that of the Roman soldier. But it's only that--an analogy. The clarity of the text shows that the enemy Christians face off against does not include people, but is rather "the cosmic powers that are over this present darkness"--sin, death, the devil, etc.

Really now? Who is Christianity's Deadliest Enemy?
http://www.christianforums.com/t7820614/

You say it's an analogy, but we know that the Bible and it's "analogies" will be taken literally by those who want to beat in some atheist heads.

The concept of "spiritual warfare" doesn't have much traction outside of the broadly Charismatic tradition. Concepts like "prayer warriors" wouldn't make any sense in Lutheranism.

-CryptoLutheran

Right. I forgot "prayer warrior".

 

[KCfromNC]

Wrong, as atheists identify as Humanist.

The fact that some atheists are humanists and that some humanists are atheists says nothing about your claim that humanist is the default for atheism.

It is not divorced from atheism when it comes to the central tenants

Seeing as how theist humanists exist, this claim is plainly wrong.

Doesn't take long to actually look up the case since it is well known - and the background involved atheists.

Then how about you do it and show us. Last time you tried, you couldn't seem to find anything from the case saying that atheism was a religion. I'm guessing you won't be able to do any better this time.

As it is, You already avoided Merriam Webster and the Encylopedia.

And for reference (as you are unable to honestly address what was said) - as said best and Merriam Webster:

You mean this definition of atheism from Merriam Webster : "a disbelief in the existence of deity". Nothing for me to avoid, since that's what I've been saying all along.

For an atheist, the only alternative to secular humanism or any humanism is nihilism

Then why did the court case you're so in love with list other alternatives?

Yet although atheists often deny espousing such a dogmatic atheism, they frequently do end up asserting in quite dogmatic terms that God does not or even cannot exist.

Yes, strong atheists exist. They're a subset of atheists, hence the need for an adjective.

 

[KCfromNC]

Please with the excuses - as you didn't even cross-reference with the standard sources of information for dictionary usage (Merriam Webster)

Already showed in a previous post that Webster's definition is the one I'm using.

As soon as atheism does more than deny God (i.e., offers propositions about the nature of existence or creation) then it becomes a belief system

Yep, if it did it would but it doesn't. And if a frog had wings...

Beyond belief, further proof that atheism is a religion exists because atheism requires faith

False. Saying "I don't believe you" doesn't require faith.

And harping on the issue of "Atheism is not a religion" is senseless when it comes to the extensive amount of things present that occur within religion - including atheists churches:

Some atheists are religious, yes. Doesn't mean that atheism is a religion. Just like some men are religious doesn't make being male a religion.

In fact, the Freedom From Religion Foundation has been in a legal battle to end the “parish exemption”

So? Fighting against special privileges for certain religions doesn't turn one into a believer.

And in the legal system, atheism has been — and should be — treated like a religion.

Just not in any way you can actually show. The cites from cases you give say something very different from what you claim they say.

And again, ranting on the matter doesn't change the fact that you've avoided where atheism is also the same as secular humanism, naturalism/materialism and pantheism

Wait, you're saying that atheism is both naturalism and pantheism? Hopefully everyone else can see the problem here.

That said, it is logical to note that atheists can be religious even though not all atheists consider themselves religious

Thanks for admitting that deep down you do know the truth - atheism isn't a religion in an of itself.

And there can be no avoiding this since Atheism entails naturalism, the belief

False. Your supposed authoritative supreme court cite disagrees with this.

For most atheists, atheism also entails secular humanism

Atheists can and do have other beliefs outside of a lack of belief in gods. Doesn't make their lack of belief in gods a religion.

Seeing that Christianity does not believe in Zeus, it's a pointless question about my religion

Which religion - the one that believes in Jesus or the once involving a lack of belief in Zeus? If a lack of belief in a single thing is a religion for some people, no reason to think is isn't in the rest.

- so one can try better if trying to be taken seriously.

If you can't take your own logic seriously when it is applied to you instead of a group you're trying to demonize, what does that tell you?

And you already noted atheism wasn't a religion because of a lack of belief in a single thing

You know, the first time you made this mistake I figured you just misunderstood. But you keep repeating it and it makes me wonder.

even though other religions (pantheism in specific) also don't hold belief in a SINGLE thing ....and thus, your argument is one of equivocation.

Atheism is a lack of belief in gods. Driving my car doesn't requite a belief in gods. Therefore atheism is the same as driving my car.

Yeah, that's the kind of mess you get into when you try to convince yourself things are the same based on a single lack of an attribute, as you're trying here.

Just because some religions are neutral on the idea of god doesn't make a single lack of belief a religion. As the definition says, there's more to it than that.

Ad-hominem will always be centered on trying to bring up personal attacks and commentary having nothing to do with the argument

You're claiming that the contents of what you write has nothing to do with your arguments?

Hoping you can do better next time....as it's a pity thus far.

You were saying something about personal attacks?

 

[KCfromNC]

Those are terms I heard in my Evangelical/Pentecostal upbringing. I've yet to hear any such language within Mainline Christianity: Protestant, Catholic, or Orthodox.

One example originating from the Church of England - Onward, Christian Soldiers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. It is used by the Salvation Army, keeping in the context of the discussion.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

The fact that some atheists are humanists and that some humanists are atheists says nothing about your claim that humanist is the default for atheism.

.

Doesn't change the fact that it was never SOME atheists who were humanist - it was countless ones that have consistently identified as such. Whether or not some others don't wish to do so doesn't deal with the reality of where secular humanism has already been identified as the reflection of atheism.

And again,

Seeing as how theist humanists exist, this claim is plainly wrong.

Moot argument seeing that it was never a discussion of theistic humanist - what was noted was SECULAR Humanism, which explictly and directly reflects atheism and is what numerous atheists identify as and go back to when it comes to their ability to express themselves in the classrooms on the same levels as other religions they are against.

Then how about you do it and show us. Last time you tried, you couldn't seem to find anything from the case saying that atheism was a religion. I'm guessing you won't be able to do any better this time.

No need doing your homework - and it's rather apparent you cannot deal with the facts honestly as other atheists have. For you are the one who needs to show that the case was not about atheism when it was already the case that the man who filed the complaint/took it to the Supreme Court WAS an atheist - and the court case can easily be found if going to 367 U.S. 488, 495 - FindLaw | Cases and Codes. Morever, one can also address Roy Torcaso, 96; Defeated Md. in 1961 Religious Freedom Case or

Roy R. Torcaso was an atheist suing the state of Maryland for the right to hold public office ...

The logic you're using is akin to someone saying Martin Luther King boycotted in Tennessee and then saying "Well how about you do it and show us!!" after it was already brought up in reference and discussed with the official case itself. According to the US Supreme Court Atheism is classified as a belief regarding the supernatural and transcendental and therefore a religion. And the acceptance of this point has protected Atheists' rights in US jails as well as protected their freedoms when they noted offense on many things...

Merriam Webster : "a disbelief in the existence of deity". Nothing for me to avoid, since that's what I've been saying all along.

Incorrect - seeing that the definition was never anything in line with saying that atheism was not a religion (counter to your claim) - AND Merriam Webster already disagreed with your view on religion when said it also including anything one holds sacred. Moreover, according to Britinanica Encyclopedia: - as said best

atheism, in general, the critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or spiritual beings. As such, it is usually distinguished from theism, which affirms the reality of the divine and often seeks to demonstrate its existence. Atheism is also distinguished from agnosticism, which leaves open the question whether there is a god or not, professing to find the questions unanswered or unanswerable.

Then why did the court case you're so in love with list other alternatives?

Seeing that other alternatives listed were other relgions who did not believe in gods/God, the context for that case was showing how an atheist could be included as having the same rights of protection just as atheists could under secular humanism. Again, you just raised another moot point. The Supreme Court noted other religions as alternatives since it was showing the religions that could recieve protection as the atheist wanted.

strong atheists exist. They're a subset of atheists

And this was never in question - as was already noted earlier.

Webster's definition is the one I'm using.

And you were already inconsistent with Websters when it came to noting that religion was strong adherance to whatever one deems sacred. Backtracking will never do you any good - as noted before...

Yep, if it did it would but it doesn't.

Again, bad argument seeing that it already did go into the realm you refuse to be honest in addressing - be it from the atheists churches, atheists seeking chaplains or atheists dogmatically campaigning that God does not exist and seeking to be against other religions.

Hiding your head in the sand doesn't change where your behind is showing

Saying "I don't believe you" doesn't require faith.

Wrong - seeing that faith is believing with certainty whatever you look to. You have faith that when you sit down in a chair that it will not break - otherwise, one's always uncertain. This is a basic in knowing what words mean and being consistent with them.

Some atheists are religious, yes. Doesn't mean that atheism is a religion.

As said before, it was never a matter of "some atheists are religions" seeing how extensive it has been for centuries - and it's circular saying "atheism isn't a religion" when the bottom line is that atheists organize as with religions....have central tennants and do other things found in other religious systems.

So? Fighting against special privileges for certain religions doesn't turn one into a believer.

Red herring, seeing the fact that it was atheists again fighting to be recognized/respected by appealing to protections given to religions - going under their standard.

One does a bad job claiming to be atheists if unable to actually deal consistently with what other atheists and atheists groups do.

Just not in any way you can actually show. The cites from cases you give say something very different from

Incorrect - and again, you have yet to show any logical or credible dealing with the case since arguing "That's not true" doesn't mean squat in showing what a case was about. That is your ignorance alone on the matter.

For the Supreme Court has recognized Secular Humanism as a religion in Torkoso v. Watkins (1961), the Supreme Court said that "among religions ... are Buddhism ... and secular humanism," etc. And this was key for Watkins since he was a former board member of the American Humanist Association, an educational and philosophical group, and a former president of its Washington chapter. And later became a humanist counselor, with the authority to officiate at weddings in some states after the case - but his stance on Secular humanism reflecting atheism was never in question.

And Torkoso was an atheist - who brought the case to the Supreme Court since he didn't like what was happening (at the time ) in Maryland when it was required in the area he was to have belief in God for certain positions. Again, In 1961 the Supreme Court handed down the Torcaso v. Watkins decision regarding a Maryland notary public who was disqualified from office because he would not declare a belief in God. The Court ruled in his favor. It argued that theistic religions could not be favored by the Court over non-theistic religions. In fact, in a footnote that clarifies what the Court means by non-theistic religions, we read, "Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism, and others." ( Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488, 495, fn. 11 (1961). )


This is all inclusive in the background of the case which the Supreme Court addressed and took into account. Whether or not you can actually deal with that is inconsequential.


There are other cases besides that - for again, there's also the Fellowship of Humanity v. County of Alameda 1957. This was a 1957 case in which an organization of humanists, the Fellowship of Humanity, sought a tax exemption on the grounds that they used their property solely for RELIGIOUS WORSHIP. The US Supreme Court determined that the groups activities were analogous to the activites of a mainstream Church and, therefore, they were entitled to such requested tax exemption. This case set the road for secular humanism being deemed as a religion in 1961.

Then there was the Washington Ethical Society v. District of Columbia 1957. This was a case heard in 1957 involving tax issues. The court ruled that the Society functioned like a Church even though it considered itself a non-theistic religious institution. The Society&#8217;s request for tax exemption had been denied by the District of Columbia. The US Court of Appeals reversed the Tax Court&#8217;s ruling and defined the Society as a RELIGIOUS organization and granted its request for a tax ememption. This case is often regarded as one that affirms that a religion need NOT be theistic in order to qualify as a religion under US Law.

Finally, there is the Peloza v. Capistrano School District 1994. This was a 1994 case heard by the 9th US Court of Appeals. In this particular case a science teacher argued that requiring him to teach evolution in his school district was forcing him to teach the RELIGION of secular humanism. The Court rejected this claim because neither it nor the US Supreme Court had ever held evolution or secularism to be religions for Establishment Clause purposes. The US Supreme Court refused to hear this case upon appeal. Of course this decision was highly controversial because, in fact, the US Supreme Court had ruled secular humanism to be a RELIGION.

There is simply no escaping that Secular Humanism, which is directly linked to atheism, is a religious view - for a religion doesn&#8217;t have to posit a god who must be identified or worshiped. Some religions are polytheistic (Hinduism, Mormonism), some monotheistic (Judaism, Christianity, Islam), some non-theistic (Buddhism)...and for numerous atheists, they are more than fine being deemed as a religion since the terms fit them.

atheism is both naturalism and pantheism?

Again, already noted directly context from earlier (#50 ) - as other atheists have also discussed. Hoping one will not try to distract from the issue further - but I doubt it at this point.

Thanks for admitting that deep down you do know the truth - atheism isn't a religion in an of itself.

Never said that - and if one's going to promote falsehood, one needs to do better than that

For whether or not an atheists considers himself religious is NOT the same as saying that atheism is a religion in/of itself. And there is no escaping that atheism is a religion in the same way that Hinduism is a religion and any other.

False. Your supposed authoritative supreme court cite disagrees with this.

None of that has zero to do with actually showing what the Supreme Court said - and arguments of "I don't believe you!!!" (personal incredulity) don't mean anything since you never showed at any point where the Supreme Court disagreed. Either in specific reference or even quotation. Unless one can show where naturalism is not a part of atheism or secular humanism in basic beliefs, it's a moot issue.

Atheists can and do have other beliefs outside of a lack of belief in gods.

And none of that, as said before, does anything to show where atheism does not qualify for the definition of a religion when religion has already been defined as also having a lack of belief in gods as well as dogmatic belief that God doesn't exist.

Which religion - the one that believes in Jesus or the once involving a lack of belief in Zeus?

No need being obtuse/dense on the matter - as Christianity (based on what Christ actually said) was never believing in Zeus's power...OR Ra (if going with Egyptian culture/their gods) or Baal and multiple others. Thus again, it was a false argument on your part that was rather pointless.

If you can't take your own logic seriously ..

No need for the arguments of emotion - and if having to resort to it as you did, then it doesn't say much of what you believe. You have already been at odds with multiple atheists - be it the larger organizations or what prominent atheists thinkers have said. Thus, the rants on your part aren't really necessary since you attempted to change logic multiple times when unable to deal with consistency.

You know, the first time you made this mistake I figured you just misunderstood. But you keep repeating it

When you already are unable to stay consistent with your own words and act shocked when someone notes it, it is humorous to see one backtrack on the matter. If you keep repeating but cannot stay consistent, one wonders if you are unable to avoid that mistake.

Atheism is a lack of belief in gods.

Lack of belief in gods is no different than a pantheist having a lack of belief in gods. The logic of trying to do equivocation on your part is pointless since it's no different than saying "Gang members use guns" - and then trying to say of Hispanic Gang leaders "Well, you're not gang members because I mean Black Gang Members are the ones who use guns" (as if it changes because of a label).

Religion is also a lack of belief in gods - and can be synonomous with atheism (as well as atheism being reflective of religions with a lack of belief in gods/goddesses).

\

You're claiming that the contents of what you write has nothing

Nothing dealing with what was said - seeing that the content of what was written was not in focus. What was noted was that one being unable to deal with something isn't the same as addressing an argument - and likewise, whether or not you feel a sentence is good has little to do with the argument made you avoided. There were several sentences I could have critiqued you on if I wanted to - but it'd be pointless since what matters is addressing the argument.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

The closest you'll find is when, during the lectionary, we might be reading from Paul's letter to the Ephesians and he, by way of analogy, speaks of a Christian's preparedness with that of the Roman soldier. But it's only that--an analogy. The clarity of the text shows that the enemy Christians face off against does not include people, but is rather "the cosmic powers that are over this present darkness"--sin, death, the devil, etc.

There's also what Paul said to Timothy in II Timothy 2 about doing the work of a good soldier....

 

[cloudyday2]

(I'm not sure if I should start a separate topic for this question, but I'll try asking it here first.)

If a person has never seen any evidence for God personally, then should that person be an atheist? I'm asking this because when I have tried to find out why people believe in their religion I get nothing. Most of these people seem intelligent, educated, and mentally stable. Why aren't they atheists? What is their excuse for believing in a religion - particularly a religion that claims to be superior to other religions? Of course I know many people were indoctrinated from childhood. That is understandable. But others actually converted as adults. I don't get it.