ALTER2EGO -to- EVERYONE:

Atheism is Religion according to the 1961 Torcaso v. Watkins case that was affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court--the highest court in the land--where court rulings become national law. As recently as 2005, the Wisconsin Federal Court ruling on the matter of Kaufman v. McCaughtry again ruled that Atheism is Religion. In spite of the many court rulings along that line, members of the Religion of Atheism insist they are not religious.

Atheist religionists frequently attempt to take the higher ground by insisting that because of belief in God, Christians and other theists have committed all sorts of human rights violations in the name of "cultish religions." According to the many atheists I have debated at other websites, it is the belief in God that has caused people to commit the various atrocities common to sinful mankind. Remove religion, belief in God, and belief in the Bible--the atheists frequently argue--and the world will be a better place. This latter conclusion is flawed for the following reasons:

1. Atheism is itself a religion.

2. Atheists have committed human rights violations en masse throughout history and have killed far more people than have those claiming to be theists. For instance, Joseph Stalin--the atheist--ordered the deaths of between 40 million to 62 million of his own Russian people (20 million of whom were everyday Soviet civilians). Compare that to the 9 million or so killed by Adolph Hitler, the Roman Catholic who merely claimed he was a Christian. The point being, anybody can claim they are a theist.

In reality, the problem is not the Bible or God. The problem is false religions that have failed to teach the masses Biblical truths. Blaming God for the crimes of people whose behaviors he himself rejects is an attempt at passing the buck.

"See! This only I have found, that the true God made mankind upright, but THEY THEMSELVES have sought out many plans." (Ecclesiastes 7:29)

DISCUSSION POINTS:
1. Considering that atheists have themselves committed human rights violations under the banner of non-belief in a supernatural God or gods, why can one argue that "belief in god" is not the actual reason behind crimes against humanity?

2. Atheists routinely argue they do not belong to a religion. According to them, non-belief in God is proof positive that they are not religious. The U.S. Supreme Court and other U.S. courts say otherwise. What arguments can you present to effectively dispute the court rulings?

________________
"That people may know that you, whose name is JEHOVAH, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." ~ Psalms 83:18

Just as abstinence is a sex position and not collecting stamps is a hobby.

I'm an atheist and it's not a religion at all. Here's the definition I found using Google (and it seems as good as any other):



None of these definitions apply to atheism. There is no effort expended in being an atheist and that's the beauty of it: it requires so little of your time.

I don't personally think of atheism as a religion.

Having said that, definition #6 from the link below could include atheism, or more specifically, some atheist crusaders (so to speak) like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/religion

6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience:
to make a religion of fighting prejudice.

Kaufman vs. McCaughtry, was the decision that a prison could not deny an inmate's request to form an inmate group on the basis that they were atheist. The ruling was essentially that if Christian groups can form then so can atheists.

That is, the court made a specific ruling regard to the application of law and what kind of beliefs are protected or must be treated the same.

This is very, very different to thinking the court determined that atheism is a "religion" in common parlance. The US Supreme Court doesn't sit around answering philosophical questions. It decides upon issues of law and the interpretation thereof.

But if you want another reason then I'm not American and don't really care what their opinion is.

If you're going to cite that as a definition of religion, then it's so broad as to be meaningless. The bolded example is using the word religion more as a metaphor or a figure of speech. I can't see anyone thinking of fighting prejudice as a religion akin to the world's major religions. This is simply wordplay.

And, fwiw, atheism is not something I believe in or follow devotedly, anymore than my non-belief in unicorns is. I don't believe in god. I'm not religious and I practice no religion. When we start blurring word meanings, discussion is fruitless.

I wouldn't say meaningless, but what a religion is is very much imperfectly defined.

What I'd say is that when a Christian calls atheism a religion, I want to know if they really mean that. When I say I'm an atheist it doesn't entail anything more to me than a single position on a single proposition. I don't think it's true that a God exists.

So when a Christian tells me atheism is a religion, do they actually think their Christianity is so mundane? Do they not think their religion also entails behaviours, practices, multitudes of beliefs, allegory, poetry, prayer, salvation, creation, prophecy and most important of all a genuine relationship with Jesus Christ the Lord and Saviour of all? Because my atheism has none of that.

They can call atheism a religion by all means, but it's a very dim view of what religion is.

I have a very similar response for when people say atheists have "faith" too.

+1

As I said earlier, I do not consider atheism a religion.

Atheism is a non-prophet organization.

An atheist is someone with no invisible means of support.

There was a dyslexic atheist who fervently denied the existence of a dog.

Yes, I saw that in your post. My comments regarding atheism not being a religion weren't meant to be directed at you.



Those are good.

I heard the last one in a slight variation:

Have you heard of the dyslexic agnostic with insomnia?

He stays awake at night wondering "Is there a dog?"

Related, but I always liked the Queen has announced the chairman of the national dyslexic association is to be awarded with and OBE. He said "What's the point, I can't play the bloody thing?".

Did you hear about DAM: Mothers Against Dyslexia?

W0X0F:

You need to look at other dictionaries besides the one you quoted above. The 1961 Torcaso v. Watkins case that was affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court came about when an imprisoned Atheist Religionist filed a lawsuit, claiming that his religious rights were being violated.

The term "religion," refers to anything that is of overwhelming importance to a person, and so religion therefore does not require belief in a god or gods. Below is the definition of religion from Collins Dictionary.


Collins
World English Dictionary
religion (rɪˈlɪdʒən)

— n
1. belief in, worship of, or obedience to a supernatural power or powers considered to be divine or to have control of human destiny
2. any formal or institutionalized expression of such belief: the Christian religion
3. the attitude and feeling of one who believes in a transcendent controlling power or powers
4. chiefly RC Church the way of life determined by the vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience entered upon by monks, friars, and nuns: to enter religion
5. something of overwhelming importance to a person: football is his religion
6. archaic
a. the practice of sacred ritual observances
b. sacred rites and ceremonies





________________
"That people may know that you, whose name is JEHOVAH, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." ~ Psalms 83:18

Bladesman87:

You don't have to be an American to draw the conclusion that the minute any atheist sets foot on American soil, they will be considered as being part of the Religion of Atheism.

I will address another part of your comment in a separate post.

Alter2Ego


________________
"That people may know that you, whose name is JEHOVAH, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." ~ Psalms 83:18

I'm really not bound by how US interpreted in the context of forming inmate groups.

Nobody has the authority in the US to determine someone else's religion.

My understanding is that an atheist argued in court that his religious liberty was being violated by the prison which did not allow him to start an atheist group.

US Supreme court: "The state can not decide on a person's behalf if his views are religious or not".
Alter2Ego: "See? The state has determined that your view is a religion".

Yes, this a legal issue. The laws that protect religious freedom don't necessitate that something is a religion in a philosophical or common language meaning of the word.

Legal definitions and the scope of laws often don't transfer directly to natural language.

This US Supreme Court thing is at best a semantic argument, and not a very good one. As I said before presumably when the OP talks about his "religion" he means something far more than what I mean when I say I'm an atheist. And presumably OP doesn't think it's a bad thing to be religious anyway. OP surely thinks all the things religion gives them are good things and that I'm missing out by not having them.

So I'll ask the OP again, do you mean something more by your religion than simply a single position on a single proposition? Is your religion really so small?

We would have to argue about the meaning of "overwhelming importance." By this definition, I don't think atheism could be construed as a religion, except for a very few. For myself, atheism is not a matter of "overwhelming importance." I simply do not believe in stone age myths. Done, and on to more important things. So when someone says that atheism is my religion, they are just projecting. The claim has no merit.

You can't have freedom of religion without freedom from religion.

He said atheists in America will be considered part of the "religion of atheism" and that's not how it works. The court doesn't determine people's religion. Whether Catholics or Baptists or me and the dude who wanted this group belong to the same religion cannot be decided by courts.

If people are curious where this conversation might go, here is a prior thread by the same OP on this topic.

I probably agree with you. What do you mean by "freedom from religion?" If you simply mean that nobody can force you to join their religion or force you to follow their rules or practices, then I agree with your statement.

Yes, that is what I mean. I am perfectly happy living side-by-side with religious adherents. I have three siblings who are believers (of differing degrees and interpretations) and two other siblings who, like me, are non-believers. I don't try to persuade my believing sibs to come to the "dark side" .

What I do have a problem with is when religious people want to enact laws based on their beliefs which I am expected to abide by. Religion and belief in god has no place in our collective society or government. It is, and should remain, a personal thing.

Also, I find it irritating when people who know my stance on this insist on invoking god or prayer to me. I am expected to respect their belief (and I do), but they don't seem to respect my non-belief.

For example, when I was flying it was our custom to say good by to passengers as they deplaned. Quite often I'd have a passenger say "God bless you" or "Have a blessed day" to me as they exited. I have no problem with that. They aren't trying to tweak me and I accept their well-meant words with a smile and even a "thank you." But my older brother knows where I stand and still often mentions god or prayer to me. I have always just let it go. But on August 3rd he put out this group text to me and my siblings:

"It's been one year since Pop left us. Think of him and Mom in your prayers today. God bless us all."

Sure, it's a harmless sentiment but he knows full well that I'm not a believer and I responded (to all):

"As you know, I don't believe in God and therefore I don't pray. But I do think of them both often and fondly."

One of my younger brothers, also a believer, was outraged by my response and thought I owed my older brother an apology. I respectfully disagreed. My feeling is that I was just addressing his passive aggressiveness. My other 3 sibs (two sisters and a brother) let me know privately that they liked my response.

You're certainly not wrong to express your beliefs and ask them to be considerate but.....they won't. They're family.

I don't say God bless you unless someone sneezes.
No good comes of it really. lol

Thanks for the clarification.