I dont deny the possibility for A God so im probably not a real atheists.

But all the implications of denying the biblical God come to all people who deny it not just atheists. So it would be more like a non True Believes worldview then an atheist one.

Legal status of atheism as a religion

In the United States, atheism is considered equivalent to religion under the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause. In August 2005 the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed previous Supreme Court precedent[11] by ruling atheism was equivalent to a religion for 1st amendment purposes.[12][13] The plaintiff in the case was a prison inmate who was blocked by prison officials from creating an inmate group to study and discuss atheism. The court ruled this violated the inmate's rights under the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause.
[edit]

How do you think the court meant secular as religious? Can you step in their shoes and explain it?

Yes but you want to use the colloquial meaning and apply it in some narrow philosophical sense. If I say "I'm going to die if the Yankees don't win this game tonight" and then they lose and I do not in fact cease to live, does this mean that 'death' means 'life'? No, it's just an expression. "He studies religiously" is an expression. What the **** bro?

Try reading the opinion. They are speaking strictly in legal (First Amendment) terms. It's completely obvious what the court means to do here. If you don't understand, that's not my problem. Courts do not arbitrate matters of philosophy or language, they are legal institutions... their opinions are legal in nature.

All im seeing is a quick fix to make sure everyone has their rights respected. Perhaps you can explain to me how the court really meant 'is infact a religion' when they say equivalent to religion for this or that purpose?

[x] Megenoita claims he was an atheist.
[x] Megenoita claims he was pressured into being an atheist due to secular education.
[x] Megenoita quotemines.
[ ] Megenoita asks by what authority some atheist has to question God, or be moral.
[ ] Megenoita claims he is too busy to answer questions and will return to thread later.

yeah I listened to that too but I cant remember which one it was on... was it The Geologic Podcast? I listen to a ton weekly... if it was "vibraphone"

Does this mean that all atheist organizations are now tax exempt?

They already are afaik

I have no idea what you're getting at here.

I'm not sure if you are aware that you make my point by referencing the First Amendment. And commentaries on the decision talk about the nature of atheist groups being that of a religion, hence why the First Amendment would apply to them (such as the newspaper I quoted).

And courts certainly arbitrate matters of language and philosophy as they relate to the law.

All your discussions seem to follow this pattern. You remind people you were an atheist, sometimes reminding people your dad was one too. Then you claim it was schooling that did it. You quotemine a few things to 'prove' your point. Sometimes, you'll go, 'by what authority do you have the right to question god, the concept of god, a moral decision, etc.." When you have your back against the wall due to your terrible logic, you claim you are too busy now and wish to discuss things in PM, or will return later, often times you never do.

But I guess i make these claims because of my 'logical incoherence and presuppositional delusion as you claim'

See post 72ish for this in http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/13...lution-790918/

You sir are an intellectually dishonest self righteous piece of crap.

As expected you don't understand. There's nothing I can do for you now.

I'll try to explain further, although I'm disappointed you didn't already come along. When someone says, "I study x religiously", they are taking a part of the strict meaning of "religious" (concentrated devotion, perhaps) and applying it more loosely. This procedure can contribute to how words are used colloquially, but it's not necessarily so, and that a phrase is a colloqialism does not nullify its ability to demonstrate my point. If you study etymology, or even the etymology of virtually any word, you can see how certain aspects of a meaning of a word are taken and left depending on the purpose of the user, and how over time the strict meaning can change based on how popularly a meaning is used.

Let me give you an example from Exegetical Fallacies by D.A. Carson. On page 36 he says:

Observe that from a to b, the inclusion of court was lost (much like affirmation of a deity or deities is lost in the usage of "religion" for an atheistic group or worldview). B also developed a connotation or overtone of faith. In c, the specificity of death was added. Finally in e, personal faith was lost, and it became more generic--dying for a cause.

These transitions would not be possible if usage were not as I've presented.

Hopefully this sheds some light on how words are used, and how over time they change based on pliability.

In many of the most prominent senses of the word religion, atheism as a worldview fits.

I think you make these claims because when people don't understand something, they judge it based on their perception, which is nearly always an oversimplification and a caricature. As you just did now.

*I do talk about thinking in terms of atheism as it has been a big part of my life.

*I do often ask "by what authority..." because it is an enormously inescapable problem for atheism, and it is relevant in many contexts, especially those where atheists judge, and as you demonstrate here and in many of your posts, those situations are plentiful.

You assert I have faulty logic, but can you demonstrate it?

This thread

Atheism is not a worldview, it does not imply a world view either. We already covered this. You could say that many atheists believe atheism implies worldview P, but this would not make it true. Oh and because you used to be an atheist and believed that worldview P followed also does not make it true.

Are you seriously happy with blind assertions? Where in this thread? Which law of logic did I break, if any? How is my logic faulty, or do you mean a looser sense of the word (logic) in which you mean reasoning in general (which I would be more amenable with your accusation since I can see how your reasoning would vary drastically from mine given our different presuppositions)?

Atheism can be a worldview (just google "atheism as a worldview" and you see perspectives where it is), but even if you're not ready to concede that, demanding the strictest of definitions for atheism, you can insert, "any particular atheistic worldview". If a person is an atheist, he must make sense of the world somehow, and any way he does, since it includes atheism (and I still argue atheism has many profound implications), it is an atheistic worldview in that sense.

http://atheism.about.com/b/2004/11/0...-worldview.htm

I think I've made my case well enough if there are objective readers who go through the thread. I'm off for now, have a good one.

OP if atheism isn't a religion then why do so many atheists pass out advice?

I would say belief level in atheism is significant from that fact/activity alone.

If you really don't have a belief system then you simply move on. (I know this will excite the politicos but then religion and politics are both full of so many zealots you are fair once again in treating atheistic politicians like religious zealots. I know because many zealots on here tried to fundamentalize me politically although I hold weak and often undefined political positions in areas they are hyperfocused on. Just the mention that you believe the bible is the word of God and reliable or infallible excites this "fundamentalization phenomenon" they engage in and they then go on to stereotype you and project all kinds of generally bigoted things on you like you are a cartoon character and not an individual with all kinds of interesting foibles and reasons for the wrinkles in your position. Overcoming the stereotype they are acting under then becomes impossible because they are hyperfocused on this pic in their own heads. Believe me no one has the energy to correct all these group misperceptions.)

I believe New Atheist zealots need to "nutify" the opposition. Karen Armstrong in her book "The Case for God" remarked on the same thing. Though of course that could just be certain contentious personality types who like to get personal and stereotyping people self permits them that type of latitude. The result is New Atheists end up looking little different from religious zealots in the way they express themselves.

Also I believe the media has contributed to the "nutification" phenomena because New Atheists like to treat all religious people no matter how reasonable they are like they are all Jerry Falwell. Indeed the leaders of the New Atheist movement, Sam Harris in particular, have said it is necessary to treat religious moderates the same as fundamentalists. To me that's an Orwellian Big Brother approach and you're no longer playing in a neutral pool any longer. Its a rigged pool because you've already been "fundamentalized" hence your voice has no force.

LOL.

The only people who use the word that way are theists who want to get atheists' backs up and/or equate atheism with their unreasonable worldviews. They want their silly superstitions but they don't want to suffer the blow to their credibility. Or, at least, they want everybody else to take that blow too.

"Words evolve" is not a sufficient argument when this world clearly hasn't evolved in the way you claim. I know this because nobody uses it this way.

Atheism can be part of a worldview, sure. Say there is worldview X and atheism is a subset of this belief system. We have a word for worldviews which atheism is a part of, it is secular. Secular means not religious. So if you claim that a secular worldview is religious you are simply being incoherent.

OK Splendour, I'll give you that the existence of atheistic zealots would be +1 for the pro side of the "Atheism is a religion" debate.