ALTER2EGO -to- ROK2P2:

Being a humanist has nothing to do with not killing people. A humanist is someone who feels he or she can do better without a supernatural God telling him or her what's right and what's wrong. Below is the definition of Humanism.

DEFINITION OF "HUMANISM":
"1. the quality of being human; human nature

"2. any system of thought or action based on the nature, interests, and ideals of humanity; specif., a modern,nontheistic, rationalist movement that holds that humanity is capable of self-fulfillment, ethical conduct, etc. without recourse to supernaturalism"
http://www.yourdictionary.com/humanism

ALTER2EGO -to- ROK2P2:

Downloading stuff from atheism.com, where fellow atheists are trying to minimize the damage done by the Wisconsin court will do you no good. Below is part of your previous quotation in which your pals over at atheism.com are trying to explain away the Wisconsin decision by claiming it applied only to Kaufman, the imprisoned atheist who filed the lawsuit. Keep your eyes on the portion that I highlighted in red.

ALTER2EGO -to- ROK2P2:

You all must be kidding if you don't think all atheists--whether in prison or not--will benefit from what happened in the Kaufman case. Because this set a precedence in Wisconsin at the Federal Court level, any atheist in any part of the USA can file a lawsuit and get a similar ruling about his "religious" rights being violated. In other words, the Wisconsin ruling is not just about Kaufman the atheist. Kaufman the man represents all atheists in the USA.

The Wisconsin judge clearly said atheism is a religion. If Kaufman were to drop dead tomorrow, surely you don't think atheism will stop being viewed as a religion in Wisconsin and wherever else atheist decide to file a lawsuit for "religious" discrimination?

Truth be told, the Wisconsin Federal Court is not the only one that said atheism is a religion. The Supreme Court has said on numerous occasions that atheism is a religion--as you will see in the partial court transcript copied below in dark red. The Supreme Court in its 1961 ruling said: "a religion need not be based on a belief in the existence of a supreme being." In the 1961 case of Torcaso v. Watkins, the court described "secular humanism" as a religion.
http://www.wnd.com/2005/08/31895/


Again, an atheist is a humanist by default, because a humanist is someone who insists he/she can make wise decisions without the need of instructions from a supernatural god. In other words, arguing that atheists aren't humanists is a lost cause. Ask any of them if they can do better without a supernatural god, and see what they'll tell you. If they didn't feel that way about God, do you suppose they would have become atheists from the get-go?

Below is part of the Kaufman case taken from the official court transcript. Keep your eyes on the words in bold print. Everything below in dark red is quoted verbatim.



Without venturing too far into the realm of the philosophical, we have suggested in the past that when a person sincerely holds beliefs dealing with issues of "ultimate concern" that for her occupy a "place parallel to that filled by . . . God in traditionally religious persons," those beliefs represent her religion. Fleischfresser v. Dirs. of Sch. Dist. 200, 15 F.3d 680, 688 n. 5 (7th Cir.1994) (internal citation and quotation omitted); see also Welsh v. United States, 398 U.S. 333, 340, 90 S.Ct. 1792, 26 L.Ed.2d 308 (1970); United States v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163, 184-88, 85 S.Ct. 850, 13 L.Ed.2d 733 (1965). We have already indicated that atheism may be considered, in this specialized sense, a religion. See Reed v. Great Lakes Cos., 330 F.3d 931, 934 (7th Cir.2003) ("If we think of religion as taking a position on divinity, then atheism is indeed a form of religion."). Kaufman claims that his atheist beliefs play a central role in his life, and the defendants do not dispute that his beliefs are deeply and sincerely held.


The Supreme Court has recognized atheism as equivalent to a "religion" for purposes of the First Amendment on numerous occasions, most recently in McCreary County, Ky. v. American Civil Liberties Union of Ky., ___ U.S. ___, 125 S.Ct. 2722, ___ L.Ed.2d ___ (2005). The Establishment Clause itself says only that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," but the Court understands the reference to religion to include what it often calls "nonreligion." In McCreary County, it described the touchstone of Establishment Clause analysis as "the principle that the First Amendment mandates government neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion." Id. at *10 (internal quotations omitted). As the Court put it in Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38, 105 S.Ct. 2479, 86 L.Ed.2d 29 (1985):

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

Simply put you cannot let say christians and muslims form groups in prison for study and prayer and then not allow non-religious groups to do the same. In this narrow sense, relating to the Establishment clause, atheism and non-religion will be considered "religions". Even though the court uses religion withing citation marks to distinguish it from religion

And as far as Secular Humanism as a religion goes there is also this:

from Secular Humanism - Peloza v. Capistrano School District



The Wiki page discusses another case where the Washington Ethical Society got tax exempt status as a religious organization;

Secular Humanism is too vague to be useful in this sense. But as soon as there is more meat to the matter the courts can find that non-theistic organizations can function in the same sense that traditional religions do and "award" tax exempt status.

Damn, and I always thought they were responsible for holocaust or something.

An atheist is not a Humanist by default, as you wrote.
I'm an atheist, but not a Humanist. Humanism is more than what's defined in thefreedictionary.com.

International Humanist and Ethical Union
http://www.iheu.org/bylaws
As for the Kaufman case, it's clear that they made atheism a "religion" for purposes of First Amendment.
Notice the bolded part and quotation marks on the word religion. You will notice both in original appeal.
First quote from my previous post is from the original appeal and link I posted before is the original appeal from original site.

Like you posted original material from wnd.com.

Guy from atheist.com isn't stupid, he probably expressed himself this way because it's correct and he's referring to this specific Kaufman appeal.
Many people know the rulings are used on other cases too.

It's evident from the appeal that atheism is a "religion" for the purposes of the First Amendment (Free Exercise Clause) and not religion in a broader sense.

it's funny cos ur not

I should of said discrimination against religion. But alright.

So, what the OP's title implies, is that a certain concept can be classified as another concept; and that that second concept is, in actuality, a third concept?

Perhaps, when such mental masturbation ceases, a love for Truth might sprout in it's place?

Sorry, masturbation is another thing JWs aren't allowed to do.

I am always impressed by how effective Sam Harris's categorization of how people defend religion is. The three ways are that one tries to argue religion is true, one argues that religion is good or beneficial, or one argues the atheism is itself dogmatic or evil and the like.

Is it not the case that A2E's threads slot perfectly into this categorization? Right now we are on the attacking atheism leg. So the first point is the obvious one that even if everything claimed entirely true, that would not imply that religion was good or beneficial and neither two nor three together start to touch the idea that religion is true. Additionally, it is the height of intellectual dishonesty and hilarity and general to blast atheism by acting as if it is religious...does this really help the case for people who are religious?

Nonetheless, regardless of how irrelevant and self-defeating this argument from theists is, it is worthwhile to dismiss the various nonsense. Firstly, relaxing the use of the word "religious" to be seemingly any belief system or non belief system about the universe is, at best, an abuse of language.

The issue of Stalin is utter nonsense. I reject the idea of putting different people in different camps and counting up their atrocities, although if we did that I think we all know which camp wins. Stalin is hardly a secular humanist, if you are going to nonsensically claim atheism is equivalent to secualr humanism, well then stalin is certainly not a secular humanist. Etc, there are several other dismissals.

here you go, kind sir ; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties

why do you guys constantly argue with idiots or possible trolls

If RGT is anything, it is the infinite online manifestation of an area of human life where people long ago lost track of which idiots are trolling who and for what purpose.

.

ALTER2EGO:
In that case, are you admitting that you are NOT "capable of self-fulfillment, ethical conduct, etc." WITHOUT instructions from God?

ALTER2EGO:
Even if atheism is only defined as a religion for First Amendment purposes, the fact remains it's defined as a religion. Telling me it's not religion in the "broader sense" is your personal interpretation.

In 1961, an atheist named Roy Torcaso filed a lawsuit in the U.S. Supreme Court and won because he complained his First Amendment as well as Fourteenth Amendment rights were being violated. As part of the ruling on his behalf, the U.S. Supreme Court defined "Secular-Humanism" as a religion in Footnote 11, as below. (Everything in dark red is quoted verbatim from the actual court transcript.)

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.

The appellant Torcaso was appointed to the office of Notary Public by the Governor of Maryland but was refused a commission to serve because he would not declare his belief in God. He then brought this action in a Maryland Circuit Court to compel issuance of his commission, charging that the State's requirement that he declare this belief violated "the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States . . . ." 1 The Circuit Court rejected these federal constitutional contentions, and the highest court of the State, the Court of Appeals, affirmed, 2 holding that the state constitutional provision is self-executing and requires declaration of belief in God as a qualification for office without need for implementing legislation. The case is therefore properly here on appeal under 28 U.S.C. 1257 (2).

"We are all agreed that the First and Fourteenth Amendments have a secular reach far more penetrating [367 U.S. 488, 494] in the conduct of Government than merely to forbid an `established church.'. . . We renew our conviction that `we have staked the very existence of our country on the faith that complete separation between the state and religion is best for the state and best for religion.'"

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


Rok2p2, "secular-humanism" aka "the belief that people are capable of self-fulfillment, ethical conduct, etc. WITHOUT instructions from God" is the backbone of atheism. I have not met an atheist yet who hasn't argued that he can do fine without God telling him what to do.

DEFINITION OF "HUMANISM":
"1. the quality of being human; human nature

"2. any system of thought or action based on the nature, interests, and ideals of humanity; specif., a modern, nontheistic, rationalist movement that holds that humanity is capable of self-fulfillment, ethical conduct, etc. without recourse to supernaturalism"
http://www.yourdictionary.com/humanism

Ah, yes, I've only just recovered from my last intellectual thrashing, but I'm a masochist at heart, so hear I am. Perhaps you could return to the evolution thread and provide an example of me contradicting myself, because I can't recall any. I was merely attempting to correct certain misconceptions you have of evolution and scientific theories in general.

I'm referring to, for example, the flood, Sodom, the Ark of the Covenant and the genocide of the Canaanites, each of which was either ordered by or committed by your God.


And yet, there are no such atheists here presenting such an argument. It appears you are once again battling a straw man.


I don't hope to accomplish anything. I'm using the qualifier "your God," because it is the god in which you believe, but I don't.


Religion has been a historical source of conflict. That statement needs no further qualifier. People have engaged in violent conflict over religion throughout history. It could be differences in interpretation of the same religion or hatred of another religion, but the fact remains.

I can't fathom how that's the conclusion you reached from my statement. People who kill the innocent are reprehensible whatever their motive. I was pointing out the false equivalence you were perpetrating by claiming that Stalin derived his murderous ways from atheism in a similar way that religious fanatics derive their murderous ways.

I don't expect a "religion" to do anything. It's the followers of said religion who may undertake evil in its name.

I have no idea what this means and I haven't made any allowances for anyone, nor have I attempted to absolve anyone from responsibility for murder.

Your OP attempted to indict atheism as the force behind Stalin and other atheists' killing. As I demonstrated, this is incorrect, as there is no causal link between atheism and genocidal authoritarianism. Identifying Stalin as an atheist in your criticism of his murders is as irrelevant as identifying him as an opera lover.

Let's look at it another way. If a dog lover gained power and killed 6 million cat lovers because they owned cats and not dogs, would you then indict dog ownership/love of dogs for its role in those 6 million deaths? I highly doubt it as you likely recognize that loving dogs contains no dogma or beliefs that could possibly lead to a justification for killing cat lovers.

I acknowledged in my previous post that people will pervert/distort/misinterpret religion to justify their killing. However, it is often difficult to categorically prove they've arrived at their justification via misinterpretation because so much of religion lends itself to multiple interpretations. Again, be careful making the No True Scotsman argument.

I don't have to separate the two myself. They're already separate. Others have already addressed the court cases. Also, I can''t file an appeal as I have no standing.

Let's say that I accepted this assertion that you can't let go. How do you draw a causal link between secular humanism and authoritarian, anti-religion communism that supports genocide?

Secular humanism is a philosophy, not a religion. It stresses ethics, individual rights and the scientific method. It purposefully eschews the spiritual and faith components present in religion. Courts have moved to recognize non-religious philosophies for the purposes of equal protection under the First Amendment.

Evolution is a recognized scientific field with many relevant and valid experiments, observations and conclusions. It is in no way related to a religion. Also, evolution does not include abiogenesis, a conflation you continue to commit. Therefore, evolutionary theory does not replace god as a potential first cause.