U.S. Supreme Court Ruling: ATHEISM IS RELIGION
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
Bladesman87:
You are not disputing? Really? Then why are you up in this thread insisting that atheism is not religion--despite numerous court rulings that says it is?
I just explained that to you. It's equivocating. I'm not bound to the various legal definitions of the US Supreme Court. I don't nor have I ever lived in America. And, even if I did, it would still be equivocation.
The question that you refuse to answer, however, is still whether your religion is as small as my atheism? Is it really
Bladesman87:
I'm just getting back to this discussion with you since I've been gone from this website three years.
Notice the portion of your last response within this thread where I bolded it in red. That response is laughable. You're attempting to give the word "religion" in and of itself have a sacred meaning, when it is not. I previously gave one definition of "religion" from Collins Dictionary at Post #11 within this thread. Here is the weblink:
https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showp...
Religion is defined as anything that is very important to a person. Below is another definition of "religion" from Oxford online dictionary. You will find it as definition #3 at their website.
"3 [singular] a particular interest or influence that is very important in your life
For him, football is an absolute religion.
Football has become an alternative religion for many people."
https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.c...
To an Atheist, non-belief in a God of gods is very important. True or False?
Alter2Ego
________________
"That people may know that you, whose name is JEHOVAH, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." ~ Psalms 83:18[/QUOTE]
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):
re·li·gion
/rəˈlijən/
(1) the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
(2) a particular system of faith and worship.
(3) a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance.
None of these definitions apply to atheism. There
W0X0F:
Look at definition (3) in your own response. See that? It's one of the definitions of religion.
Alter2Ego
________________
"That people may know that you, whose name is JEHOVAH, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." ~ Psalms 83:18
Bladesman87:
I'm just getting back to this discussion with you since I've been gone from this website three years.
Notice the portion of your last response within this thread where I bolded it in red. That response is laughable. You're attempting to give the word "religion" in and of itself have a sacred meaning, when it is not. I previously gave one definition of "religion" from Collins Dictionary at Post #11 within this thread. Here is the weblink:
[/QUOTE]
Chocolat is very important to me , it’s a religion .
I just need to create a diety and name it …
Ps: what is the name of god in the religion of football I wonder …
PSs:
A religion has a deity at its top , no diety = no religion.
Now if u want to say atheist is a form of philosophy about the meaning of life ? Yeah ok.
One’s actual religion is about what they do religiously, about what they practice daily. It’s not about what you do in a pew on Sunday, or what we profess with our mouth. It’s not about our magical thinking, our being rescued by the supernatural, our claims of supernatural realms for which there is no support other than a myriad of conflicting stories. It’s much more about our nature than claims of supernature, much more about the nature of being human and trying to experience fulfillment.
What we emphasize in our actions and our living as being supremely important … that’s what religion is when it’s not being run through some supernatural magic-type story. What is important to us in life as actually demonstrated in our activities and lifestyle.
That can be a lot of different things. For Ben Hogan, it was golf. He revered the game, the competition, the beauty of the manicured courses, nature, the experience, the improvement, the demands on character … THE PRACTICE.
In this Hogan example we can see a principle from Buddhism that has struck me as profound: that of practice. There’s no supernatural stand in, no magical savior … just you and life. You live your values and the highest values as demonstrated by your life are your religion. Likewise with any pursuit that reaches spiritual levels – that is fulfilling to the human spirit – there is the element of the self facing the predicament of existence and the experience of hosting a consciousness … searching the landscape of reality for what is important, even supremely important/sacred.
Superstitious magic-believing cultures invented untold numbers of supernatural gods to fill this slot, this need. When we choose one of these doctrines, its archetypes in effect come alive in our consciousness; are “there” to be related to and with, given reification by virtue of our imagination and our abstraction capacities. And we have an experience with it. Zeus, Ra, Loki, Yahweh, Ganesh, Shiva, Oden, Allah, Vishnu, Buddha, Krishna, hundreds more … all are and were equally real in the minds of the believers.
When we come into the natural and secular realm, there is still the issue of one’s highest values. This hierarchy of importance does not disappear because we remove it from the supernatural realm. Then we begin looking into the nature of human consciousness and reality, and the interplay between the two, for establishing the hierarchy … this instead of ceding it into magic realms.
So, where our practice is, there our religion is. Consumerism and materialism tends to be the religion most strongly practiced in the west, even while huge lip service is paid to other things. In that dynamic the right hand is all about piety and devoutness, while the left hand and the life is all about the cookie jar. If we can wake up to the hypnotic spell cast by formal supernatural religions, we are face-to-face with a starker issue. How we live in this life is the religion we are practicing.
For example, many of us on this forum have put a thousand times more energy into poker, winning chips, etc, than into helping others. It hardly matters that we can then say, “Yeah, but I believe in so and so …” That’s lip service, not religion. That’s self-deluding and virtue signaling, not religion. Of course religion has become synonymous, nearly wholly conflated with this type of “believing.”
Atheism is not a religion. Humanism certainly could be said to be a religion, with an implied set of tenets and prescriptions for living. “I don’t believe that god story” – whether it be about Thor, Zeus, or Jehovah – is hardly a religion in and of itself.
Chocolat is very important to me , it’s a religion .
I just need to create a diety and name it …
Ps: what is the name of god in the religion of football I wonder …
PSs:
A religion has a deity at its top , no diety = no religion.
Now if u want to say atheist is a form of philosophy about the meaning of life ? Yeah ok.
Montrealcorp:
That's false. Some of the people who have adopted Buddhism are atheist who do not believe in any gods.
https://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/buddhis...
Alter2Ego
________________
"That people may know that you, whose name is JEHOVAH, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." ~ Psalms 83:18
Montrealcorp:
That's false. Some of the people who have adopted Buddhism are atheist who do not believe in any gods.
https://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/buddhis...
Alter2Ego
________________
"That people may know that you, whose name is JEHOVAH, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." ~ Psalms 83:18
It’s a highly debated opinion to claim Buddhism is a religion instead of philosophy…
Try again .
It’s a highly debated opinion to claim Buddhism is a religion instead of philosophy…
Try again .
Montrealcorp:
Highly debated or not, Buddhism is a combination of philosophy and religion.
The U.S. Supreme Court says Buddhism is religion. Notice how this is stated at Footnote 11 of the TORCASO v. WATKINS lawsuit in which the atheist, Torcaso, sued for his religious rights.
"[ 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."
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-sup...
Encyclopedia Britannica says its both philosophy and religion.
"Buddhism, religion and philosophy that developed from the teachings of the Buddha (Sanskrit: “Awakened One”), a teacher who lived in northern India between the mid-6th and mid-4th centuries BCE (before the Common Era)."
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Buddhis...
It doesn't matter which of the above you go with, they both use the word "religion" in their definition of Buddhism.
Alter2Ego
________________
"That people may know that you, whose name is JEHOVAH, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." ~ Psalms 83:18
So what ?
Some say it’s a religion other says it isn’t .
Point is a religion in 99.99999% needs a diety .
So in Buddhism there is no word of a god .
That is why it’s more of a philosophy of life then a religion .
But some people think when the beliefs is in , it is a religion shrug .
It’s man words
All of this stems for thinking atheism is a religion where atheism negates the existence of god .
Atheism do not believe in god .
How can 0= something ?
Now if everything for you can be a religion it’s fine .
Doesn’t mean it share by most people .
Anyway if u want to denigrate of the importance of religion with a diety by allowing almost anything to be considered a religion without a diety , it’s fine by me !
It just reduce the importance of god itself 😀.
So what ?
Some say it’s a religion other says it isn’t .
Point is a religion in 99.99999% needs a diety .
So in Buddhism there is no word of a god .
That is why it’s more of a philosophy of life then a religion .
But some people think when the beliefs is in , it is a religion shrug .
It’s man words
All of this stems for thinking atheism is a religion where atheism negates the existence of god .
Atheism do not believe in god .
How can 0= something ?
Now if everything for you can
He's probably just going for the "atheists HAVE a religion too" ... even though the atheism itself isn't a religion. "I don't believe that god story" can't possibly be a religion. One's humanist of naturalist philosophy can of course be akin to a religion in its doctrine and prescriptions for living. Meanwhile the fools who speak for a specific god are legion in all the religions, and they just can't fathom extricating themselves from the indoctrination, presupposition, and assuming so inherent to true belief, and begin to wake up to the realization that the religions are all pretty much trying to accomplish the same thing, thus can actually be integrated with each other instead of presuming the "mine has the exclusive" claim.
A whole lot of presuming going on and very little, "Let's start from scratch. What is true here? How do we know that it is true? Is it borne of the same impulse as most of the rest of the supernatural religions, and with the same reliability? What is the difference between a religious doctrine and reality (for my religion as well as for the one's I don't believe)? Is it really moral to kill every child and infant on earth, or is that kind of a barbaric claim?" They just don't do those kind of things ... actually put the reality and morality of the thing to the test and instead just cede all morality to barbarian times and stories.
I mean, atheists can't even define morality in their world. They also can't answer for language, or many things. I think if evolution is true... and i'm not saying the Earth is 6000 years old. I'm saying, the Early Church Fathers thought the Earth was old. I tend to lend my mind to a longer period for kinds and everything to play out. We know floods are in every area of recorded history. I think it's bizarre, even language. Like, ask an Atheist to tell you how... and we have no signs of the things that were responsible for getting to "Science Humans"... I think chance is preposterous. I think atheists are just playing to their emotions. They got their lucky nothingness ego to deal with hard times. BTW.. I'm done posting here. LOL alcohol and weed get me banned.
That just didn’t make no sense at all .
Atheists don't have to. Atheism is just not accepting the claim there is a god, doesn't mean you have answers for morality.
But secular humanists have defined morality in terms of human well being, you don't have to accept that definition, but it makes a lot more sense than claiming an "objective" morality derives from the opinions of a mythical god who is also claimed to massacre innocents regularly, endorses slavery and murder of gay people, and created hell to punish us so he could be born in a virgin and crucified in order to forgive us for a rule he created and setup mythical forebears to break by leaving a talking serpent he knew would talk them into breaking.
They also can't answer for language, or many things. I think if evolution is true... and i'm not saying the Earth is 6000 years old. I'm saying, the Early Church Fathers thought the Earth was old. I tend to lend my mind to a longer period for kinds and everything to play out. We know floods are in every area of recorded history. I think it's bizarre, even language. Like, ask an Atheist to tell you how... and we have no signs of the things that were responsible for getting to "Science Humans"... I think chance is preposterous.
I guess this word salad is referring to evolution, but there is no "chance" in evolution. Evolutionary change is directly selected by the most successful variations in genomes.
"I'm atheist but not religious" is the new "I'm spiritual but not religious".
Atheists don't have to. Atheism is just not accepting the claim there is a god, doesn't mean you have answers for morality.
But secular humanists have defined morality in terms of human well being, you don't have to accept that definition, but it makes a lot more sense than claiming an "objective" morality derives from the opinions of a mythical god who is also claimed to massacre innocents regularly, endorses slavery and murder of gay people, and created hell to punish us so he could be born in
Atheists cannot give an account for where morality, logic, reason, etc...comes from let alone define it. And yes, you do have to have answers for morality if want to use the word in an argument.
And your last paragraph is a low tier misrepresentation, misunderstanding and mockery of what Christianity is. It's beyond stupid. You have no ability to define "well being" since your worldview is entirely relative.
Atheism IS a religious belief. Claiming it's not doesn't make it not so. I can just say that believing there is a God just means I don't believe in secular humanism and that it's not religious. It goes both ways.
I suggest listening to Jay Dyer on YouTube if you want to see how the Christian worldview destroys atheism in a debate format. Atheism is the easiest worldview to destroy. It's comical how bad their best debaters do against Christians.
I suggest listening to Jay Dyer on YouTube if you want to see how the Christian worldview destroys atheism in a debate format. Atheism is the easiest worldview to destroy. It's comical how bad their best debaters do against Christians.
You already lose when you claim atheism is a "worldview". It's merely not yet accepting god claims, nothing more. Atheists can believe many different things about the world, just like the thousands of Christians sects can believe many different things about God and Jesus.
And if you think atheists lose debates to Christians, then you are blinded by your own "worldview". Pretty sure Jay Dyer was "destroyed" by Matt Dillahunty.
But in reality "debates" are meaningless. You can "win" a debate with emotional arguments that appeal to your audience without factual or rational support for them. If you are unwilling to question your beliefs, you are biased to reject every Dillahunty argument, no matter how well founded and rational, and accept all Dyer arguments, no matter if some are emotional and poorly founded.
If you really had good reason to believe Christianity is true, then you wouldn't need to appeal to an authority like Dyer, just like I don't need to appeal to an authority like Dillahunty to justify my confidence in atheism.
Instead why don't you tell us the rational reasons why you think atheism isn't justified and why we should be Christians. Not only are you obligated to if you are a true christian under Paul's edict, but no one here wants to go to hell if it truly existed, so you could easily convert some of us.
Atheists cannot give an account for where morality, logic, reason, etc...comes from let alone define it. And yes, you do have to have answers for morality if want to use the word in an argument.
My definition of morality is treating others as they want to be treated, and expect them to do the same for me. That's all I need, and I think innately we all evolved to understand that as social animals who need to live and work together to prosper.
And your last paragraph is a low tier misrepresentation, misunderstanding and mockery of what Christianity is. It's beyond stupid. You have no ability to define "well being" since your worldview is entirely relative. .
I understand how difficult it is for you to deal with the numerous documented acts of evil the bible claims your god committed, ordered or endorsed. You want to believe that "absolute" morality exists, but you base it on the opinions of a god you can't show exist, and if he does exist, did many immoral things.
So instead of describing in detail why what I wrote was wrong, you just call it "beyond stupid" because its an impossible hill for you to climb.
Atheism IS a religious belief. Claiming it's not doesn't make it not so. I can just say that believing there is a God just means I don't believe in secular humanism and that it's not religious. It goes both ways.
Atheism IS NOT a religious belief, claiming it is does not make it one. We can play this game all day, so instead why don't you what you define as "religious belief', and why you think saying "I don't think there is reasonable reason to believe god exists" is adopting a religious belief.
PS: Also F that midget Putin and his bankrupt third world nation with an economy smaller than Italy.
Atheists cannot give an account for where morality, logic, reason, etc...comes from let alone define it. And yes, you do have to have answers for morality if want to use the word in an argument.
And your last paragraph is a low tier misrepresentation, misunderstanding and mockery of what Christianity is. It's beyond stupid. You have no ability to define "well being" since your worldview is entirely relative.
Atheism IS a religious belief. Claiming it's not doesn't make it not so. I can just
lol explain that to me ?
I don’t see the correlation at all .
Secularism do not reject the existent of god ?
Before calling others or their arguments stupid maybe you should try to think about the ones you give ?
I suggest listening to Jay Dyer on YouTube if you want to see how the Christian worldview destroys atheism in a debate format. Atheism is the easiest worldview to destroy. It's comical how bad their best debaters do against Christians.
Here is a great quote for you .
“The difference between Christian’s and atheist is that atheist reject only 1 god more then Christian among the thousands of gods in history created by humans “.
Think about that for a minute would you ?
Ps: the odds are extremely high another god will come along in the coming centuries to surpass the one you believe in today .
Humans just don’t learn enough from history.
You already lose when you claim atheism is a "worldview". It's merely not yet accepting god claims, nothing more. Atheists can believe many different things about the world, just like the thousands of Christians sects can believe many different things about God and Jesus.
No...just no. Believing in a universe without a divine creator subsequently entails many corresponding beliefs you must hold to to have that belief. Thus it's most certainly a worldview.
And lmfao, Dyer crushed Dillamonkey.
Here is a great quote for you .
“The difference between Christian’s and atheist is that atheist reject only 1 god more then Christian among the thousands of gods in history created by humans “.
.
Just because humans have believed in many gods does not make it true or not that there is one supreme God.
If you match atheism up against the Orthodox Christian worldview it smashes it along with every other theology out there.
Andrew Wilson (The Crucible), MadeByJimBob, and Dyer are all Orthodox Christians and also some of the best debaters out there. They dismantle atheists every day. Dillamonkey literally walked off the stage with Wilson before the debate between the two began.
