OK, then I guess Quakers are just religious/militant rather than militant, whatever that means.
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 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 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.
Looks impressive when you write the term, but it doesn't really mean anything. Kind of like when you said the same thing about atheism - ignoring the factual error that atheism isn't a religion.
None of this - as with other things you noted - has anything to do with addressing the facts as is the case within U.S Culture. It is again a distraction from dealing with the issue of how atheism is treated as a religion under the U.S Constitution and the Supreme Court has addressed the matter repeatedly.
Again,
Atheism is a religion according to a 2005 Wisconsin Federal Court ruling on the matter of Kaufman v. McCaughtry, as well as the Torcaso v. Watkins case that was affirmed by the 1961 U.S. Supreme Court--the highest court in the land--where court rulings become national law. It is pointless if you choose to routinely argue atheist do not belong to a religion because you feel that non-belief in God is proof positive that they are not religious.
And if you're going to speak further on what is or isn't religion, deal with the facts rather than making things up. For the instant an atheist who is a foreigner sets foot on U.S. soil, he/she is automatically considered part of the Religion of Atheism. You cannot escape how the Scopes Monkey Trial was in 1925...and the case opened the way for Atheism to be classified as a religion.
It was not until 1961 that the U.S. Supreme Courtthe most important court in the landcemented atheism as a religion in the case of Torcaso v. Watkins. In its ruling, the 1961 court mentioned
Secular Humanism, which as we all know is the default religious ideology of atheism.
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.
U.S. Supreme Court
TORCASO v. WATKINS, 367 U.S. 488 (1961)
367 U.S. 488
TORCASO v. WATKINS, CLERK.
APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND.
No. 373.
Argued April 24, 1961.
Decided June 19, 1961.
Appellant was appointed by the Governor of Maryland to the office of Notary Public; but he was denied a commission because he would not declare his belief in God, as required by the Maryland Constitution. Claiming that this requirement violated his rights under the
First and
Fourteenth Amendments, he sued in a state court to compel issuance of his commission; but relief was denied. The State Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the state constitutional provision is self-executing without need for implementing legislation and requires declaration of a belief in God as a qualification for office. Held: This Maryland test for public office cannot be enforced against appellant
, because it unconstitutionally invades his freedom of belief and religion guaranteed by the First Amendment and protected by the Fourteenth Amendment from infringement by the States. Pp. 489-496.
223 Md. 49, 162 A. 2d 438, reversed.
[ Footnote 11 ]
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. See Washington Ethical Society v. District of Columbia, 101 U.S. App. D.C. 371, 249 F.2d 127; Fellowship of Humanity v. County of Alameda, 153 Cal. App. 2d 673, 315 P.2d 394; II Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences 293; 4 Encyclopaedia Britannica (1957 ed.) 325-327; 21 id., at 797; Archer, Faiths Men Live By (2d ed. revised by Purinton), 120-138, 254-313; 1961 World Almanac 695, 712; Year Book of American Churches for 1961, at 29, 47.
Doesn't take long t
o find out if actually looking it up- and if the best you can do is bring up "Well, the dictionary says different!!" - by all means go to the U.S Supreme Court and argue that a dictionary definition is something they didn't keep in mind
Who is making that claim? 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."
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) - that includes Pantheism as well, which is a protected religion in the U.S and practiced globally.
And one can do better than trying to quote a dictionary for reference. As it is, Atheism runs along a scale, from
Implicit/soft atheism - also called unconcerned atheism - the scale from "I don't care" to "I don't believe".
There's also
Explicit/strong atheism - "I believe that there are no gods".
And there's
hardcore atheism - "I oppose belief in gods, and seek to spread that opinion".
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
You know, the dictionary definition of religion :
Religion | Define Religion at Dictionary.com
When we get to the point that we have to ignore the basic definitions of words for your points to make sense, maybe it is time to reconsider what you're pushing here.
You already were inconsistent in the actual definition of basic words - and it doesn't make you look aware of what atheists have already said on the matter.
And again, we already have the Supreme Court (which also played a hand in the dictionary made ) and the Encylopedia.
For basic reference,
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
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.
No idea how pointing out that atheism is simply the lack of gods is ranting, but keep trying to distract from that simple fact the best you can.
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 - and ignoring what other atheists and even dictionaries have said. It doesn't help you in the slightest..
You mean the fact that atheism is simply the lack of belief in gods. Sure, certain religions can be atheistic - i.e. not include a belief in god. That doesn't mean that atheism itself is a religion.
And again, that has zero to do with showing atheism as not being a religion - it is an argument of begging the question where you assumed atheism itself cannot be a religion but religions can be atheistic for not being based in gods or goddesses.
Holy run on sentence, Bat Man. Can anyone make sense of what this is supposed to mean?
Seeing that you didn't even have ability to deal with what Richard Dawkins already said on militant atheism, it's no surprise some of the more simpler things don't make sense to you.
And again, ad-homimen doesn't help with dealing with the issues. Either one can deal with it - or they divert...and you've chosen the latter, unfortunately.
All I can see it that we can add an unusual definition of religion to the unconventional definition of atheism you seem stuck on. By this definition, the US Constitution is a religion. As is football. Weird, I guess most Christians have multiple religions by this definition - their god is gonna be mad at that.
You already added an unconventional definition to atheism when claiming it was based on lack of belief in gods or goddesses and then saying religion didn't quality. That doesn't deal with history or what other atheists have said - and the argument you gave doesn't deal with the point whatsoever. That's an argument of exaggeration
Some mentally ill people aren't great moral teachers therefore no mentally ill people can be a good moral teacher is an example of a logical fallacy called hasty generalization.
As no one said that a mentally ill person can't be a great moral teacher, it is an argument of red herring that you already applied. What was noted was that there are others who are mentally ill who would never be considered moral teachers at all - and the same can be applied to Christ if assuming it's wrong to say he couldn't be a moral teacher saying what he did while ignoring where other mentally disabled people are also deemed to not be moral teachers (i.e. Hitler, Stalin, Ted Bundy, etc.). You cannot do equivocation on the matter
One cannot make an argument based on what no one said - and if already assuming one has to be mentally ill as a teacher without verifying it, then it is an argument of begging the question.
