Husker To Augie_

Yeah, you're probably correct. I have no idea what I was thinking. In fact, clearly I wasn't thinking at all

ALTER2EGO -to- JWA4894:
How do you mean I "can call atheism a religion" if I like? I didn't make it a religion. The U.S. courts did—after the atheists themselves filed lawsuits demanding their "religious" rights.

So let me get this straight: one group of atheists insists they are religious, while some of their fellow RELIGIOUS MEMBERS insist they are not in a religion? Hello! I've got news for you. It doesn't work that way. The U.S. Supreme court ruled atheism is a religion for purposes of First Amendment privileges. The only time atheism is not a religion is so atheists can teach evolution in schools. Below is a partial quotation direct from the court website dealing with the 2005 Wisconsin Federal Court case of Kaufman v. McCaughtry. Click the link following the partial quotation, and go to Paragraph 6, and you will see the same quotation below.

http://ftp.resource.org/courts.gov/c...8.04-1914.html


ALTER2EGO -to- JWA4894:
You shouldn't have asked, because the answer is: "Yes, if you can prove it's a business expense, you probably can." That's right. Atheists have gone so far as to sue for their rights to tax privileges afforded only to RELIGIONS. They sued and won the lawsuit, as noted below.

http://vftonline.org/Patriarchy/defi...m_religion.htm

Yes it does. that's how language works. It evolves and different people sometimes have different meanings. The same word can also mean different things. What is important in a conversation is meaning. That's why defining one's terms is important. If you and the person you're discussing with have different definitions of the word religion, then how far are you going to get in the conversation? First you need to establish the definition being used in the argument, then you can proceed with the argument.

The fact that you have to write "for purposes of First Amendment" indicates that you understand this is a special case and that the word is being redefined for that purpose only.

Context is important in any discussion.

ALTER2EGO -to- AROUET:
Your argument is moot. The U.S. courts repeatedly ruled Atheism is a Religion. It makes no difference if certain atheists want to remain in denial. They belong to a religion whether they like it or not--because the U.S Supreme Court (the highest court in the land) has ruled Atheism is a Religion aka a Cult. No amount of semantics will enable you to talk your way around that fact. Of course if you want to bump your gums over it, be my guest. It won't change those court rulings though.


ALTER2EGO -to- AROUET:
I don't have to write "for purposes of First Amendment." I simply quoted the courts when I wrote that. And no, the 2005 Wisconsin Federal Court case of Kaufman v. McCaughtry, is not a " special case" because this is not an isolated incident. Atheism has been used for 14th Amendment privileges as well.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bi...=367&invol=488

^^^ Still can't figure out that not all atheists are secular humanists.

Alter 2 ego lacks the intelligence to understand that atheism doesn't = secular humanism.

At what age did you drop out of the school system alter2? Were you not allowed a college education?

You are missing the point. The court does not determine the definition of a word in any case. It only does so within the legal context. Oxford dictionary, for example, won't get rid of the other definitions of a word simply because the court defines a new version, though it may add to the new version.

With all due respect, you are playing a semantic game. What is important is not the word being used, but the meaning we attribute to it. Because the court has determined that atheism is a religion for the purpose of certain constitutional rights doesn't change the fact that there are other definitions for religion that are commonly used. What you must do with the person you are discussing with is agree on which definition you are using.

For example, if I was to refer to a person in this discussion, you would naturally assume that I was referring to a human being. You probably wouldn't think that I was using the term person in the legal sense, which can go far beyond human being to corporations, trusts and the like. You might say: a corporation is not a person. I would say: but it is in corporate law. And you would rightly say - but we're not dealing with corporate law here, we're looking at the colloquial meaning of person. As long as we both understood what we were talking about, we're ok.

My advice: stop focussing so much on words, and focus more on meaning.

Right: the reason you add in "for the purposes of the first or 14th amendment" is to make clear that that was what the court was doing. That is, if we're not talking about the particular context of those two amendments in the legal field, we're probably not using that definition of religion.

Remember: language is a living tree. Words change based on commonly accepted definitions. Merriam Webster doesn't define words - it identifies common definitions and sets them out.

Remember: the same word will often have different meanings and no one group has dominance over the others.

The best that you can say about these court decisions is that for certain legal rights Atheism will be defined as a religion. I think you'll find widespread agreement on that. But then you go on to say in your title "religion AKA a cult". Well, you can't use the court definition for that since the court did not define atheism in that sense as a cult. You've got to go back to the common definitions of religion and cult.

I disagree. She understands what she's doing. Don't confuse rhetorical tactics for stupidity. She is clearly not in least bit stupid (IMO).

Atheism is obviously not a religion, but if one uses different defintions from what is "correct" or "orthodox", one can be badly mistaken.

Atheism is simply the absence of belief in any "gods" whatsoever, but not every theist sees this. Perhaps there should be a FAQs section in SMP.

Theists know perfectly well that atheism is not a religion, however by claiming that it is a) they can say "Ah-ha, you are as silly and irrational as we are!" and b) they know it's a good way to infuriate atheists.

Cliffs: Theists claim it's a religion to troll atheists.

Why work yourself up into a lather over semantics - court rulings IMO carry only slightly more weight than the fictional parables of the Bible.

I am an atheist and all, but my respect for you just went up an order of magnitude based upon the bolded along. It implies that you are above playing semantics and I (and I am sure most other posters in this thread) sincerely appreciate that.

I think I am beginning to agree with you. The nature of this debate/proselytizing is far too methodical.

HAHAHAAHAH I'M IN ENGLAND SO IM NOT IN A RELIGION BUT YOU SILLY 'MERICANS ARE. our courts say its not a religion. move here and escape your cult

Actually, I'm afraid you'll have to be even more specific than that. It should read, "no theist who is a Christian that believes in an absolute literal interpretation of Genesis while maintaining belief in evolution myth is in fact holding contradictory positions." You can't make the leap that they are atheists-in-denial, because they can still be theists, but hold beliefs contradictory to what you believe is true Christianity.

First of all, this wouldn't be the first time that courts use words and definitions in ways that stray from the common usage or definition. Secondly, the first Amendment has been held to guarantee freedom of religion. For legal purposes, this also means discrimination for lack of religion is also prohibited.

Let's try an experiment. I'm an agnostic atheist. Knowing this and nothing else about me, what are my religious beliefs?

ALTER2EGO -to- AROUET:
The only person missing the point is you yourself. The point is that the atheists were the ones who initiated the lawsuits, demanding their Atheist/Secular Humanist religious rights. In other words, this wasn't the courts' idea. This was the atheists' idea.

Both atheists lost their cases in the lower courts, after which they took it to the Appeals Court. At the Appeals level, Torcaso lost again and took it all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court--the highest court in the land--where he finally won his Atheist Religious rights.

U.S. Supreme Court rulings become the law of the entire USA. When the U.S. Supreme Court granted Torcaso his Atheist Religious rights, by default, it granted all atheists their religious rights.


QUESTION #1 to AROUET: Since when can someone be granted religious rights, unless they are actually in a religion? You tell me.