quote:Is it constitutional for the government to officially endorse a statement that embodies one of your active disbeliefs? If not, and assuming you think that derives from the first amendment, then there's a meaningful and particularly useful definition of "religion" embodied in the first amendment that must include some of your beliefs.
What if I believe that murder is wrong and that this is a facet of ultimate reality? Is it then unconstitutional to hold others to my belief? Clearly "religion" in the constitutional context means more than simple belief or disbelief, active or otherwise.
The first amendment has NEVER been used to strike down a law because the reason its supporters believe the goal of the law to be good stems from their religious beliefs. The question is whether the law serves a secular purpose. Making murder illegal certainly serves a secular purpose. Saying, "There is no God" does not. The two are clearly different.
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: To answer your question on a personal level, I do not think that congress should officially endorse my own personal beliefs and force them on other people. However, your arguement to me still smacks of "well we want to include atheists in this blanket statement so whatever the definition is, it also includes atheists".
Actually, it's arrived at by examining the purposes of the first amendment: to place certain types of beliefs outside the domain of government. The existence or non-existence of God or whether or not God wants you to accept Jesus as personal savior are well within the confines of that goal.
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: One of my active disbeliefs is that "God wants everyone to accept Jesus as their personal savior." I'm pretty sure the Constitution sides with me on that disbelief. (At least insofar as that disbelief can even be addressed legislatively.)
No, the Constitution doesn't side with you on that as an active disbelief. The Constitution instructs legislatures not to express any opinion or endorsement as to believing or disbelieving it.
And the attitude that somehow the Constitution "sides" with atheists, Pixiest, is why many consider the question important.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by cheiros do ender: It looks to me that, for some in this thread, religion simply means belief in the supernatural. The same individuals have also described it as a form of worship, as if it can't be one without also being the other.
I believe the definition of the word religion is broader than either of these things, encompassing those with formalised beliefs systems that can be recognised by the rest of society.
Now, according to the athiests in this thread, religion can be each of the first two definitions I've listed here (though not one without the other), but not also as I've described in my second paragraph, which fits perfectly with how the word religion is used in the first amendment as keeping socially established worldviews from being able to proselytise via the public sector, or in any way clash with government policy.
I think the key there is "formalized belief system". I am an atheist, but I have no formalized belief system, per se. I'll accept that the constitution is meaning "formalized belief system" when it uses the word "religion" in the first amendment. I'll accept that someone can formalize a belief system that includes atheism as a tenet, and I'll agree that this formalized belief system should also not be "established" in the Constitutional sense.
However, atheism isn't a formalized belief system. In order to "establish" it in the Constitutional sense, it would have to become so, and at that point I'd concede that it had become a religion.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:And the attitude that somehow the Constitution "sides" with atheists, Pixiest, is why many consider the question important.
First, did you mean "KarlEd" here?
I was being a little facetious and have muddied the waters, I think. What I meant was that you can't legislate "Jesus does not want everyone to accept him as his personal Savior" so this belief is hardly a threat to anti-establishment issues.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: Dag, wouldn't that be fixed by stripping all religions of their tax except status?
You really can't possibly be arguing that being Tax Except is a disadvantage religions have.
Not really, since a religious institutions income comes from members who have already paid taxes on that money.
The only thing I can think of to balance this out would be to simply have a sales tax, for everyone except businesses using those products and services to provide further products and services, all this only being taxed at the final point of sale, again avoiding double taxation.
All this, with no other tax (besides possibly land (which wouldn't have the sales tax)) and I'd be pretty happy.
I won't name names though. Posts: 1138 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: I'm declaring that the laws preventing government advancement of religion also prevent the advancement of atheism under either definition of atheism.
I think this is because atheism of either stripe inherently contradicts the religions that those laws are, in part, designed to protect -- not because atheism is a "religion."
The first amendment turns on whether an activity "establishes" religion. If the government is prevented from doing it, it's because what it would do is establish a religion.
quote:Originally posted by twinky:
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: For example, would the aliens prevent you from publicly saying, "The nature of the universe is such that there is no God as described by <X>" or "There is not enough evidence to say that God exists"?
I don't think they would. I think that's pretty much what the aliens would be saying.
I think this element of the hypo more strongly supports my view: "They were “monitoring” the Earth population activity for some (who knows how long) time and decided that all material religious expression must be removed. All temples, churches, mosques etc, all religious books*, all relics, all icons, all idols, all clothing related to religion was wiped out, and any public religious manifestation is to be ceased."
Regardless as to whom is correct about the intent of the poster, it's clear that a definition based on government interaction is certainly reasonable to use.
quote:Dag, wouldn't that be fixed by stripping all religions of their tax except status?
You really can't possibly be arguing that being Tax Except is a disadvantage religions have.
No, I'm not. I'm stating that many government resources are unavailable to religious speech and activities, an undeniably true statement.
quote:First, did you mean "KarlEd" here?
No, I was referring back to Pixiest's post asking why we care.
quote:I was being a little facetious and have muddied the waters, I think. What I meant was that you can't legislate "Jesus does not want everyone to accept him as his personal Savior" so this belief is hardly a threat to anti-establishment issues.
But the government could conceivable want to make a public service announcement with that message - think non-smoking ads - so it's certainly within the ambit of the establishment clause.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: I'm declaring that the laws preventing government advancement of religion also prevent the advancement of atheism under either definition of atheism.
I think this is because atheism of either stripe inherently contradicts the religions that those laws are, in part, designed to protect -- not because atheism is a "religion."
Bingo.
If a public school uses a text book which says "God does not exist" in it, it is unconstitutional. This is true.
It is NOT unconstitutional because it is advancing the religion of atheism.
It IS unconstitutional because it is actively condradicting existing religions, thereby violating the religious freedom of those who believe in God.
Atheism is not a religion simply because the promoting of atheism would violate the establishment clause.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Not really, since a religious institutions income comes from members who have already paid taxes on that money
That's not really true - anyone who itemizes and is exempt from AMT does not pay taxes on the money they donate.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wonder if Daosim would be considered a religion by aetheists that don't consider Aetheism to be a religion? It seems to fit most of the criteria that people are putting forth in this thread for a non-religion.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:In a similar way, I also realized that religion doesn't refer to only "supernatural" beliefs, but rather must refer to all beliefs regarding that same topic. The reason is because I think supernatural is an arbitrary term. I have no way to define what is supernatural and what isn't, other than by resorting to what seems ridiculous and unbelievable (supernatural) and what seems real and likely to exist (natural). That strikes me as an unfair criteria to put on religion. And for that matter, it would make my religion into something that is not a religion - because I think God is as natural as anything else.
(Incidently, if you want an example of something where everyone is talking about the same thing, yet all define it differently, go ask people to define "friend". They will all say different things, such as "someone I can trust", "someone I can have fun with", "someone I care about", and yet I strongly suspect all mean precisely the same thing by the term. It is just a very difficult concept to define. And if someone says "A friend is someone I have fun with", you can suggest that definition is not accurate by pointing out "What if they are a Circus clown - someone you might have fun with but who is not your friend." Then they'd have to refine it - "A friend is someone I have fun with and who I know well" - at which point it might need to be refined further and further. But we all know what a friend is. We just may not agree how to describe it. And I suspect appealing to a dictionary won't prove anything to anyone who thinks they know cases where the dictionary definition is wrong.)
posted
No, Dag. The Constitution sides with no one.
Government can't ban the practice of a religion any more than they can support it. The courts tend to focus on the 2nd part of that and ignore the first.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
If a public school uses a text book which says "God does not exist" in it, it is unconstitutional. This is true.
It is NOT unconstitutional because it is advancing the religion of atheism.
It IS unconstitutional because it is actively condradicting existing religions, thereby violating the religious freedom of those who believe in God.
Atheism is not a religion simply because the promoting of atheism would violate the establishment clause.
Anything that violates the establishment clause is unconstitutional because it would be a government establishment of religion. You can try to alter that any way you want, it still means that what was being established was a religion in the eyes of the court.
If you want to say this definition is inapplicable in any other context, be my guest. But this is a definition of religion that includes atheism and is commonly used, albeit in a particular context.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: No, Dag. The Constitution sides with no one.
That's what I said. That does not mean, of course, that religious speech is not disadvantaged compared to other types of speech. I could provide a hundred examples.
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: Government can't ban the practice of a religion any more than they can support it. The courts tend to focus on the 2nd part of that and ignore the first.
And my examples have all been about the second part, because that's what I'm focusing on.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag: Just because lawyers and judges can't read the constitution, doesn't mean that atheism is a religion.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Anything that violates the establishment clause is unconstitutional because it would be a government establishment of religion. You can try to alter that any way you want, it still means that what was being established was a religion in the eyes of the court.
So let me get this straight...
If I publish a text book and say "Jesus was not the son of God.", it would be unconstitutional (Edit: for a public school to teach from it). The reason it is unconstitutional is apparently because there is "a religion" being established with that statement.
Which religion would that be?
Would all the religions of the world which do not believe in that statement be lumped in with athiesm and agnostism and referred to collectively as "a religion"?
Does that mean there are an infinite number of un-named religions out there, just waiting for recognition every time a statement is struck down?
Or could it possibly be that no matter what the text of the first ammendment, that some things aren't unconstitutional even when no religion is being established?
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Dag: Just because lawyers and judges can't read the constitution, doesn't mean that atheism is a religion.
Excuse me? The criteria given to judge definitions of "religion" have been things like "generally accepted definition, "accepted and formalized," "heard used before," and "useful for the conversation."
This definition meets all of those: it's widely accepted, it's been formalized in a far more rigorous fashion than any of the ones given here, it's certainly been used before, and it's certainly useful.
These are the charges I have been answering with respect to this definition.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It seems the word "religion" has a broader definition than any of the athiests in here can adhere to in the space of individual posts.
Posts: 1138 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:If I publish a text book and say "Jesus was not the son of God.", it would be unconstitutional. The reason it is unconstitutional is apparently because there is "a religion" being established with that statement.
Which religion would that be?
No. You are not state action, so it wouldn't be unconstitutional.
Second, let's look at the text: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." There's no "a religion" in there.
Using it in a public school would be unconstitutional, because it would be establishing religion. Not "a religion."
And the identity of the religion being established is irrelevant.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
So then yes, atheism is a religion by that definition.
There are likewise millions of other religions out there un-identified. With not even a name, and with no one self-classifying as that religion.
I'm sorry, but I find this definition of religion useless.
Edit: When not used in this specific context that is. That certainly was NOT the context which it was used in where myself and others objected to the term.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
What religion is being established by this prayer at graduation? "God, we thank you for allowing these children to graduate. Please guide them as they move on to the next phase of their life."
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: I think this element of the hypo more strongly supports my view: "They were “monitoring” the Earth population activity for some (who knows how long) time and decided that all material religious expression must be removed. All temples, churches, mosques etc, all religious books*, all relics, all icons, all idols, all clothing related to religion was wiped out, and any public religious manifestation is to be ceased."
I don't see how they could do that without making something at least somewhat similar to the statements I quoted, unless the aliens were going to wipe out atheism too. But how would they do that?
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Anything that violates the establishment clause is unconstitutional because it would be a government establishment of religion. You can try to alter that any way you want, it still means that what was being established was a religion in the eyes of the court.
I can't rattle off your Constitution from memory, so I went and read the whole of the First Amendment:
quote:Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
I would put X's example under the "prohibiting the free exercise thereof" clause, but from what you're saying it seems like your courts put it under the establishment clause. If atheism is considered a religion, then it seems to me that it has to go under the establishment clause. IANAL, so I'll take your word for it. However, I think Tom's point about the agnosticism of government has merit.
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: If you want to say this definition is inapplicable in any other context, be my guest. But this is a definition of religion that includes atheism and is commonly used, albeit in a particular context.
I don't think it's applicable in this context, but I do see what you're saying now.
quote:Originally posted by BaoQingTian: I wonder if Daosim would be considered a religion by aetheists that don't consider Aetheism to be a religion? It seems to fit most of the criteria that people are putting forth in this thread for a non-religion.
That depends. Daoism comes in many forms. I think it just comes back to the question of whether incorporation of "supernatural" things into a philosophical framework is the main distinction between such a framework (e.g. utilitarianism) and a religion.
(I'm not sure what I think about that, which is why I haven't answered the question. )
[Edited to fix tags.]
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Xavier: Okay, that's what I figured.
So then yes, atheism is a religion by that definition.
There are likewise millions of other religions out there un-identified. With not even a name, and with no one self-classifying as that religion.
I'm sorry, but I find this definition of religion useless.
Edit: When not used in this specific context that is. That certainly was NOT the context which it was used in where myself and others objected to the term.
And yet it's used weekly to safeguard what many consider one of the foundations of our democracy.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:So then yes, atheism is a religion by that definition.
We're not just talking about this or that definition. We're talking about the definition of the word religion in the First Amendment and whether atheism falls under that definition.
Do you concede it does or not?
Posts: 1138 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
I would argue that a philosophy could cover many more topics than just ultimate truth and its meaning. You could have a philosophy of teaching, or a philosophy of science, or a philosophy of how you arrange your closet. For that reason, I think "a philosophy" is just the overarching larger set of beliefs on a given topic. A religion is also a philosophy, but not all philosophies are religions. A "religion" would then be a certain, specific sort of a philosophy, covering the topic of the ultimate truth and meaning behind the universe.
Sorry, I wasn't ignoring this. I missed it in the page changeover.
Is your definition then that "religion" is the specific philosophy covering the topic of the ultimate truth and meaning behind the universe? If so, I could accept this and still believe that atheism is not a religion. Atheism is the rejection of one particular statement about ultimate truth. It doesn't even address the question of "meaning", although many atheist also may have beliefs about meaning or lack thereof. Atheism is commonly thought to believe "God does not exist" but this has no meaning except isofar as you define God. You mentioned religions that do not include a belief in God or gods. (I'd be interested in hearing more about them specifically, but that's another topic). You could call such religions "atheistic" but that doesn't mean atheism itself is a religion. I believe that there is more needed to qualify a philosophy as a religion than the mere rejection of another specific philosophy.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok, fine, we're a religion. I'm gonna make my 1st Atheist church now. I'm gonna get ordained as an atheist preacher and send out missionaries. "Have you heard the news? There's no god. Quit wasting your life." I'm going to accept tithes and perform gay marriage ceremonies (Hey, it's part of my faith. Don't opress me!) I'm going to get some atheist holidays and get them on the federal calander. May 16th shall now be a national holiday for "No one important was born today"-day.
*sigh* I really hate arguing with you Dag. I like and respect you and I almost always agree with you. But you're so WRONG here.
1. Atheism doesn't fit the generally accepted definiton of a religion or we wouldn't be arguing it all the freakin' time. 2. It is not accepted nor formalized. Read the definitions as they appeared earlier in the thread. Atheism fits none of those 3. Ok, I've heard it before from people with an agenda. 4. It is NOT useful for discussion because there are major differences between atheism and religion. One is belief and faith and the other is its complete abscense.
What's to concede? The real question is whether that definition is useful for the hypothetical discussion of alien invasion -- that is, would the aliens consider atheism a religion? I contend that they would not, because I think that based on the original post they would probably have to be atheists themselves.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:What religion is being established by this prayer at graduation? "God, we thank you for allowing these children to graduate. Please guide them as they move on to the next phase of their life."
Hey, I'm not the one trying to go backwards from the 1st ammendment into a (usefull) definition of religion. I'm the one specifically saying that it is a BAD thing to do.
Plus, I wouldn't say that quote is unconstitutional outside of its context.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I would put X's example under the "prohibiting the free exercise thereof" clause
How does it impair free exercise? (If I'm following the thread correctly, you're speaking of "public school use[ing] a text book which says 'God does not exist'").
A law saying, "Anyone who attends Mass will go to jail" violates free exercise. Not the example given.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Hey, I'm not the one trying to go backwards from the 1st ammendment into a (usefull) definition of religion. I'm the one specifically saying that it is a BAD thing to do.
But the courts do say that violates the establishment clause. I cited it to demonstrate that identification of the religion being established isn't necessary to maintain an establishment clause violation.
quote:Plus, I wouldn't say that quote is unconstitutional outside of its context.
It is if it's from a school official or sponsored speaker at a graduation ceremony.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Ok, fine, we're a religion. I'm gonna make my 1st Atheist church now. I'm gonna get ordained as an atheist preacher and send out missionaries. "Have you heard the news? There's no god. Quit wasting your life." I'm going to accept tithes and perform gay marriage ceremonies (Hey, it's part of my faith. Don't opress me!) I'm going to get some atheist holidays and get them on the federal calander. May 16th shall now be a national holiday for "No one important was born today"-day.
And here you take the term "organised religion" and throw the word organised out the window, as if a religion can only be a religion if it's organised.
Posts: 1138 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:So then yes, atheism is a religion by that definition
No, Xavier, atheism is religion by that definition. Not a religion. I think the distinction is critical.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
What's to concede? The real question is whether that definition is useful for the hypothetical discussion of alien invasion -- that is, would the aliens consider atheism a religion? I contend that they would not, because I think that based on the original post they would probably have to be atheists themselves.
If all you're talking about is that alien invasion scenario, then my time here has been wasted. Posts: 1138 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I wonder if Daosim would be considered a religion by aetheists that don't consider Aetheism to be a religion?
Taoists have a formalized belief system and even a form of clergy. They're religious, whereas atheists are not.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: How does it impair free exercise? (If I'm following the thread correctly, you're speaking of "public school use[ing] a text book which says 'God does not exist'").
A law saying, "Anyone who attends Mass will go to jail" violates free exercise. Not the example given.
I'd say that it does so indirectly, by indoctrinating children, but that depends on whether the definition of "free exercise" includes choice. I'm starting from a couple of assumptions, though: first, that such a textbook would violate the First Amendment, and second, that since I don't view atheism as a religion, it clearly can't violate the establishment clause. After that, I have to find another clause that it might violate.
I think my perspective stems partly from the differences in the drafting and interpretation of laws between the U.S. and Canada.
quote:Atheism is the rejection of one particular statement about ultimate truth.
I agree with you completely. Atheism isn't itself a religion anymore than Theism is. It is just a position on one very specific issue.
However, I do think atheists have religions, although they may not be structured and rigid in the way church religions are. I would consider atheism a class of religious thinking, just like I would for theism.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:*sigh* I really hate arguing with you Dag. I like and respect you and I almost always agree with you. But you're so WRONG here.
Please. I've speaking of one particular context, a context which you haven't bothered to address.
quote:1. Atheism doesn't fit the generally accepted definiton of a religion or we wouldn't be arguing it all the freakin' time. 2. It is not accepted nor formalized. Read the definitions as they appeared earlier in the thread. Atheism fits none of those 3. Ok, I've heard it before from people with an agenda. 4. It is NOT useful for discussion because there are major differences between atheism and religion. One is belief and faith and the other is its complete abscense.
Pix
1. It fits A (that's one of) the accepted definitions of atheism, and I've outlined who accepts it and in what circumstances.
2. Again, I'm speaking of it being formalized in court decisions.
3. Your limited exposure to the situations where the definitions I'm citing are used does not make my contention any weaker.
4. It IS useful in the precise context which I have defined - determining whether or not a particular government action is constitutional under the first amendment.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:And here you take the term "organised religion" and throw the word organised out the window, as if a religion can only be a religion if it's organised.
I submit that "a religion" can only be so if it is organized. However, I will also concede that atheism falls under the general philosophical category of "religion". (See how critical that little article is?)
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:It IS useful in the precise context which I have defined - determining whether or not a particular government action is constitutional under the first amendment.
And yet I submit that a far more useful test in this environment is "does this action prohibit the free exercise of religion," not "does this action establish religion?"
I'd argue that mandating atheism prohibits but does not establish, and is equally banned either way.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Why is it every time I discuss with atheists whether atheism is a religion or not, they start going on about the word "supernatural"?
Always.
quote:
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: How come this "atheism is a religion" fight comes up so often? The religious folks want to brand us with the same brush so they can say "See! See! You believe stuff that's unprovable too!
And yet again you allude purely to the supernatural to define religion.
Where? "believe stuff that's unprovable" doesn't equal "supernatural." You injected that into the argument along with your assertion that atheism is a religion. Both are strawman arguments. You are attempting to define your opponents position for him, and then use your definion against him.
As far as whether atheists always go on about the word "supernatural," it's more to the point that theists "always" insist that atheism is a religion. Not really, of course, but it's a common strawman argument, while your claim that atheists always go on about supernatural is not something that I've heard before, and I've certainly been part of enough arguments over the definition of atheism that I should recognise it if it were common.
Interesting to note that this thread has derailed into an argument over the legal (constitutional) definition of atheism, when the word is not present in that document. I'd be curious to know if the word "atheist" occurs in any law, other than case law where one party was an atheist.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'd argue that mandating atheism prohibits but does not establish, and is equally banned either way.
Yes, but we're not talking only of mandating atheism. We're talking of things that do not restrict others' exercise in any way, but do advance atheism. So while this sentence is true, it refutes nothing I've said.
quote:The real question is whether that definition is useful for the hypothetical discussion of alien invasion -- that is, would the aliens consider atheism a religion? I contend that they would not, because I think that based on the original post they would probably have to be atheists themselves.
I contend that aliens who saw the public manifestation of religion as the cause of strife and pain and who also believed in a God who accepted any path to him might very well attempt to impose such a rule.
quote:Interesting to note that this thread has derailed into an argument over the legal (constitutional) definition of atheism, when the word is not present in that document. I'd be curious to know if the word "atheist" occurs in any law, other than case law where one party was an atheist.
No, it's derailed into an argument over the legal definition of religion and whether it includes atheism, a subtle but important difference.
------------
As of now, I believe I've responded to every post addressed to me through the 12:36 post by Glenn Arnold. If I missed anything you'd like a response on, holler.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Atheism is the rejection of one particular statement about ultimate truth.
I agree with you completely. Atheism isn't itself a religion anymore than Theism is. It is just a position on one very specific issue.
However, I do think atheists have religions, although they may not be structured and rigid in the way church religions are. I would consider atheism a class of religious thinking, just like I would for theism.
We do agree on this, I think.
I'd also like to take this opportunity to apologize for a couple of times in the past that I've been rude to you. I tend to get frustrated with you sometimes in arguing, and I have come (lately) to believe that it is mostly because of semantic differences. Regardless, the rudeness was wrong of me, and I regret it. I vowed that next time I got frustrated with you I'd drop out before I let myself get rude, and I'd try harder to understand your use of key words. I thought of writing this to you privately, but the rudeness was public, so the apology should be, too. Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yes, but we're not talking only of mandating atheism. We're talking of things that do not restrict others' exercise in any way, but do advance atheism.
I'm not sure that atheism -- as atheism -- can actually be "advanced." A set of beliefs including atheism can be advanced, but atheism itself is merely the negation of existing beliefs. It's the default, not a black marker.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'd be curious to know if the word "atheist" occurs in any law, other than case law where one party was an atheist.
I'd be curious to know if the word "hindu" occurs in any law, other than case law where one party was an hindu.
quote:As far as whether atheists always go on about the word "supernatural," it's more to the point that theists "always" insist that atheism is a religion. Not really, of course, but it's a common strawman argument, while your claim that atheists always go on about supernatural is not something that I've heard before, and I've certainly been part of enough arguments over the definition of atheism that I should recognise it if it were common.
See Xavier's first post. It's also often worded "higher power".
Posts: 1138 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:No, it's derailed into an argument over the legal definition of religion and whether it includes atheism, a subtle but important difference.
Fair enough, since atheism by it's definition is a lack of theism. Atheism relates to the first amendment only through context. The establishment of religion implies the negative.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
(Fixed typo.)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
