Federal Court & U.S. Supreme Court Ruling: Atheism is Religion

Sweet, no taxes for me then right?

A simple understanding of what religion is would set that straight. Guess our "justices" don't get it.

[QUOTE=fat2fit21;1030522703]Sweet, no taxes for me then right?[/QUOTE]

Naw, you need to start a weekly social club where you donate to charities every so often and choose a book that is accepted by the scientific community as a "Good book".

I choose the Zombie survival guide, and Max Brooks is the non Messiah.

[QUOTE=Staberella;1030526423]Naw, you need to start a weekly social club where you donate to charities every so often and choose a book that is accepted by the scientific community as a "Good book".

I choose the Zombie survival guide, and Max Brooks is the non Messiah.[/QUOTE]

That's all well and good, but we're skipping an important step here people; we need a supreme leader in a funny hat.

[QUOTE=CuriousGM;1030469103] Oh wow guys, there may legitimately be tax exemptions available;

[QUOTE] It has occasionally been argued that the Supreme Court, in Torcaso v Watkins, "found" Secular Humanism to be a religion. This assertion is based on a reference, by Justice Black, in a footnote (number 11) to the court's finding, to court cases where organized groups of self-identified Humanists, or Ethicists, meeting on a regular basis to share and celebrate their beliefs, have been granted religious-based tax exemptions. [/QUOTE]

Oh also op;

[QUOTE] However, such attempts to conflate non-religious, secular or scientific ideas and activities with religion have been explicitly rejected by subsequent courts, most notably [b][i]Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District[/i][/b], where U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III ruled that intelligent design is not science, that it "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents", and that the school district's promotion of it therefore violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (see Intelligent Design).[6] In fact, prior to its use by Justice Black, the term "Secular Humanism" had never before been used in any court case, and it is unclear why Justice Black used the term in this instance, other than to perhaps emphasize the groups' non-belief in any divine force. [/QUOTE]

You have a goodnight chief. [/QUOTE]
[color=darkblue][b]ALTER2EGO -to- CURIOUS GM: [/b]
Your first quoted source confirmed what I said in my OP: that Atheism is recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court as religion. So much so, that atheists are allowed tax benefits that were previously allowed only to orthodox religions.

Your second quotation is one that I am familiar with and simply demonstrates the hypocrisy of it all. Atheists have no problem using their religion status when it suits their purposes, as follows.

1. To get tax benefits afforded only to religions.
2. To get their own chaplains and distribute their literature.
3. To conscientiously object to war based upon their religious status


But when they want to promote their atheist ideology in schools by teaching evolution theory, they claim they are not a religion. The above case of [b][i]Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District[/i][/b] resulted when theists filed a lawsuit saying atheists were teaching their religious ideology (evolution theory) in schools, while theists are not permitted to discuss Genesis creation in the very same school. The judge who ruled in the atheists' favor is most likely an atheist. I will quote one source that discusses this hypocrisy/double-standards as soon as I am able to back up my source by being able to include the weblink in my post, along with the quotation.[/COLOR]

[QUOTE=CuriousGM;1030528763]That's all well and good, but we're skipping an important step here people; we need a supreme leader in a funny hat.[/QUOTE]

Too bad George Carlin is dead, he would have loved a funny hat and the tax loophole. He qwould have been the anti pope.

[QUOTE=Staberella;1030529763]Too bad George Carlin is dead, he would have loved a funny hat and the tax loophole. He qwould have been the anti pope.[/QUOTE]

Good old George would have filled the role perfectly, I mean he's already a bishop.

[img]http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8371/8466845342_f94f1f6784.jpg[/img]

[QUOTE=CuriousGM;1030531983]Good old George would have filled the role perfectly, I mean he's already a bishop.
[/QUOTE]

I got to see him live at the Beacon back in the late 90s. He was amazing. Many lulz were had.

[QUOTE=CuriousGM;1030531983]Good old George would have filled the role perfectly, I mean he's already a bishop.

[img]http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8371/8466845342_f94f1f6784.jpg[/img][/QUOTE]

"3/4 people believe in angels...what are you phucking stupid? Has everybody lost their phucking mind in this country?" hnnnnnnnggg

[QUOTE=chimburgandy;1030549463]"3/4 people believe in angels...what are you phucking stupid? Has everybody lost their phucking mind in this country?" hnnnnnnnggg[/QUOTE]

My personal fav:

[quote]“We’re so self-important. Everybody’s going to save something now. “Save the trees, save the bees, save the whales, save those snails.” And the greatest arrogance of all: save the planet. Save the planet, we don’t even know how to take care of ourselves yet. I’m tired of this ****. I’m tired of f-ing Earth Day. I’m tired of these self-righteous environmentalists, these white, bourgeois liberals who think the only thing wrong with this country is that there aren’t enough bicycle paths. People trying to make the world safe for Volvos. Besides, environmentalists don’t give a **** about the planet. Not in the abstract they don’t. You know what they’re interested in? A clean place to live. Their own habitat. They’re worried that some day in the future they might be personally inconvenienced. Narrow, unenlightened self-interest doesn’t impress me.

The planet has been through a lot worse than us. Been through earthquakes, volcanoes, plate tectonics, continental drift, solar flares, sun spots, magnetic storms, the magnetic reversal of the poles … hundreds of thousands of years of bombardment by comets and asteroids and meteors, worldwide floods, tidal waves, worldwide fires, erosion, cosmic rays, recurring ice ages … And we think some plastic bags and some aluminum cans are going to make a difference? The planet isn’t going anywhere. WE are!

We’re going away. Pack your ****, folks. We’re going away. And we won’t leave much of a trace, either. Maybe a little Styrofoam … The planet’ll be here and we’ll be long gone. Just another failed mutation. Just another closed-end biological mistake. An evolutionary cul-de-sac. The planet’ll shake us off like a bad case of fleas.

The planet will be here for a long, long, LONG time after we’re gone, and it will heal itself, it will cleanse itself, ’cause that’s what it does. It’s a self-correcting system. The air and the water will recover, the earth will be renewed. And if it’s true that plastic is not degradable, well, the planet will simply incorporate plastic into a new paradigm: the earth plus plastic. The earth doesn’t share our prejudice toward plastic. Plastic came out of the earth. The earth probably sees plastic as just another one of its children. Could be the only reason the earth allowed us to be spawned from it in the first place. It wanted plastic for itself. Didn’t know how to make it. Needed us. Could be the answer to our age-old egocentric philosophical question, “Why are we here?”

Plastic… @ssholes.”

― George Carlin [/quote]

[QUOTE=Staberella;1030550833]My personal fav:[/QUOTE]

hnnnngggggggg watching that right now as I read your post. I love when he does the action of earth shaking us off. I discovered this guy way too late.

So fellow non believers, would Lewis Black be an acceptable candidate for anti pope since George Carlin (Lulz be unto him) is dead?

Love Lewis Black, Jim Jefferies, Doug Stanhope, even Bill Maher, Bill Hicks (Rest.In.Whatever), and the whole new breed of comedic non-believers who bring light to the topics I could only dream of being as scathing and succinct about while still entertaining the viewers. It's nice to see how gradually but steadily the reluctance and rejection of unfounded beliefs is seeping into the public vernacular and becoming less taboo.

[QUOTE=chimburgandy;1030561673]Love Lewis Black, Jim Jefferies, Doug Stanhope, even Bill Maher, Bill Hicks (Rest.In.Whatever), and the whole new breed of comedic non-believers who bring light to the topics I could only dream of being as scathing and succinct about while still entertaining the viewers. It's nice to see how gradually but steadily the reluctance and rejection of unfounded beliefs is seeping into the public vernacular and becoming less taboo.[/QUOTE]

You know what? The believers in deities worship dead people or people that never existed, why can't we non believers or skeptics just unsaint Carlin and he can be the founder of the atheist umm.. excuse me, the non believer religulous movement? Afterall he was the loudest non believer when most of us weren't even born.

He was an atheist before religious people were bishing about atheism. srsly.

OP is correct. Atheism is a religion. He found out the secret.

[img]http://www.smbc-comics.com/comics/20070422.gif[/img]


In Athe I trust.

[QUOTE=Staberella;1030563173]You know what? The believers in deities worship dead people or people that never existed, why can't we non believers or skeptics just unsaint Carlin and he can be the founder of the atheist umm.. excuse me, the non believer religulous movement? Afterall he was the loudest non believer when most of us weren't even born.

He was an atheist before religious people were bishing about atheism. srsly.[/QUOTE]

Not to say that you've never seen Inherit the Wind ([url]http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0053946/[/url]), but I was shocked to even hear the word "atheism" in a black and white movie made in 1960, not to mention that its based on a court case from 1925. I thought any utterance of god not existing was punishable by extreme measures up until maybe a few decades ago. Many before us have been true trailblazers of a powerful notion and have suffered many injustices in order for us to live in a time where we don't need to be afraid of religious oppression, and put to those who lord over us the right they think they have to determine the course of our lives along with theirs based on fairy tales.

[QUOTE=Alter2Ego;1030323923][color=darkblue][b]ALTER2EGO -to- EVERYONE: [/b]

Atheists consistently attempt to take the higher ground by insisting Christians are mental midgets for believing in a non-existent [b]"sky god." [/b] They insist that the Judeo-Christian Bible is a book of fairytales. At one website where I have debated, the Bible was routinely referred to by atheists as the [b]BuyBull[/b]. Not only that, in most of my conversations with atheists at various websites, their usual accusation is that because of the belief in God, theists have committed all sorts of human rights violations in the name of [b]"cultish religions." [/b] 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 mankind. Remove religion, belief in God, and belief in the Bible--the atheists argue--and the world will be a better place. This latter conclusion is mortally flawed for the following reasons:

[b]1. [/b] Atheists have committed human rights violations en masse throughout history. For instance, Joseph Stalin--the atheist--ordered the deaths of between 40 million to 62 million people (20 million of which were everyday Soviet civilians), compared to the 9 million or so killed by Adolph Hitler the Roman Catholic who merely claimed he was a Christian.

In reality, the problem is not the Bible or God. The problem is people, including those in false religions which have failed to teach the masses Biblical truths. An appreciation for Biblical truths and Jehovah's righteous standards of what's right and what's wrong is the only detriment against people committing human rights violations. Blaming God for the crimes of false Christians and other false religions is an attempt at passing the buck. [/COLOR]

[COLOR="DarkRed"]"See! This only I have found, that the true God made mankind upright, but they themselves have sought out many plans." [/COLOR] [color=darkblue](Ecclesiastes 7:29) [/COLOR]


[COLOR="DarkRed"]"They have acted ruinously on their own part; they are not his children, the defect is their own. A generation crooked and twisted!" [/COLOR] [color=darkblue](Deuteronomy 32:5)


[b]2. [/b] Atheism is itself a religion. While atheist will argue that they don't believe in any god, the issue is not merely non-belief in God or gods but in [b]having [u]ANY[/u] sort of belief system that is vitally important in one's life. [/b] The belief system of atheism is centered around the default atheist philosophy of "Secular Humanism."


[b]3. [/b] Atheism is a religion according to a 2005 Wisconsin Federal Court ruling on the matter of [b][i]Kaufman v. McCaughtry[/i][/b], as well as the [b][i]Torcaso v. Watkins[/i][/b] case by the 1961 U.S. Supreme Court—the highest court in the land—where court rulings become national law. [/COLOR][/QUOTE]

Ummm ok

[QUOTE=Alter2Ego;1030528783][b]ALTER2EGO -to- CURIOUS GM: [/b]
[/QUOTE]

[img]http://i.imgur.com/MKrZsfa.jpg[/img]

[QUOTE=Alter2Ego;1030323923][b]ALTER2EGO -to- EVERYONE: [/b]

Atheists consistently attempt to take the higher ground by insisting Christians are mental midgets for believing in a non-existent [b]"sky god." [/b] They insist that the Judeo-Christian Bible is a book of fairytales. At one website where I have debated, the Bible was routinely referred to by atheists as the [b]BuyBull[/b]. Not only that, in most of my conversations with atheists at various websites, their usual accusation is that because of the belief in God, theists have committed all sorts of human rights violations in the name of [b]"cultish religions." [/b] 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 mankind. Remove religion, belief in God, and belief in the Bible--the atheists argue--and the world will be a better place. This latter conclusion is mortally flawed for the following reasons:

[b]1. [/b] Atheists have committed human rights violations en masse throughout history. For instance, Joseph Stalin--the atheist--ordered the deaths of between 40 million to 62 million people (20 million of which were everyday Soviet civilians), compared to the 9 million or so killed by Adolph Hitler the Roman Catholic who merely claimed he was a Christian.

In reality, the problem is not the Bible or God. [B]The problem is people[/B], including those in [B]false religions[/B] which have failed to teach the masses Biblical truths. An appreciation for Biblical truths and Jehovah's righteous standards of what's right and what's wrong is the only detriment against people committing human rights violations. Blaming God for the crimes of false Christians and other false religions is an attempt at passing the buck.[/quote]

The 'mortal flaw' in your argument here is that you're attempting to claim, one one hand, that people are the problem, but then you try and claim there is such a thing as 'false' religion and 'true' religion. Either people are the problem or they are not. You cannot have it both ways.

[quote=Alter2Ego]"See! This only I have found, that the true God made mankind upright, but they themselves have sought out many plans." [/COLOR] [color=darkblue](Ecclesiastes 7:29)


[COLOR="They have acted ruinously on their own part; they are not his children, the defect is their own. A generation crooked and twisted!" [/COLOR] [color=darkblue](Deuteronomy 32:5)[/quote]

Yawn.
[quote=Alter2Ego][b]2. [/b] Atheism is itself a religion. While atheist will argue that they don't believe in any god, the issue is not merely non-belief in God or gods but in [b]having [u]ANY[/u] sort of belief system that is vitally important in one's life. [/b] The belief system of atheism is centered around the default atheist philosophy of "Secular Humanism."[/quote]

The default philosophy of atheists is [I]not[/I] secular humanism. Atheists do not, by default, have any sort of philosophy. Your entire post is an attempt to shoehorn people into your neat little definitions, boxing them in to support your radically biased worldview agenda.

[quote=Alter2Ego][b]3. [/b] Atheism is a religion according to a 2005 Wisconsin Federal Court ruling on the matter of [b][i]Kaufman v. McCaughtry[/i][/b], as well as the [b][i]Torcaso v. Watkins[/i][/b] case by the 1961 U.S. Supreme Court—the highest court in the land—where court rulings become national law. [/COLOR][/QUOTE]

opie, just because something is law does not make that law right or just. If the law states that women can be beaten, is that just? No. If the law states that black people are second-class citizens, is that right? No. By the same token, if the law states that atheism is a religion, this does not make it so. Atheism lacks the features of a religion, and there are varying degrees of atheism.

[url]http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=6487[/url]

[quote]This list is not definitive. There are many ways to organize and label different kinds of atheism.

For brevity’s sake, I have substituted “gods” for the usual phrase “God or gods.”

1. Difference in Knowledge

A gnostic atheist not only believes there are no gods, he also claims to know there are no gods.

An agnostic atheist doesn’t believe in gods, but doesn’t claim to know there are no gods.
2. Difference in Affirmation

A negative atheist merely lacks a belief in gods. He is also called a weak atheist or an implicit atheist.

A positive atheist not only lacks a belief in gods, but also affirms that no gods exist. He is also called a strong atheist or an explicit atheist.
3. Difference in Scope

A broad atheist denies the existence of all gods: Zeus, Thor, Yahweh, Shiva, and so on.

A narrow atheist denies the existence of the traditional Western omni-God who is all-good, all-knowing, and all-powerful.
4. Difference in the Assessed Rationality of Theism

An unfriendly atheist believes no one is justified in believing that gods exist.

An indifferent atheist doesn’t have a belief on whether or not others are justified in believing that gods exist.

A friendly atheist believes that some theists are justified in believing that gods exist.
5. Difference in Openness

A closet atheist has not yet revealed his disbelief to most people.

An open atheist has revealed his disbelief to most people.
6. Difference in Action

A passive atheist doesn’t believe in god but doesn’t try to influence the world in favor of atheism.

An evangelical atheist tries to persuade others to give up theistic belief.

An active atheist labors on behalf of causes that specifically benefit atheists (but not necessarily just atheists). For example, he strives against discrimination toward atheists, or he strives in favor of separation of church and state.

A militant atheist uses violence to promote atheism or destroy religion. (Often, the term “militant atheist” is misapplied to non-violent evangelical atheists like Richard Dawkins. But to preserve the parallel with the “militant Christian” who bombs abortion clinics or the “militant Muslim” suicide bomber, I prefer the definition of “militant atheist” that assumes acts of violence.)
7. Difference in Religiosity

A religious atheist practices religion but does not believe in gods.

A non-religious atheist does not practice religion.

Of course, there are many more “kinds” of atheism than this, for one may be a Republican atheist or a Democratic atheist, a short atheist or a tall atheist, a Caucasian atheist or an Hispanic atheist, a foundationalist atheist or a coherentist atheist, an enchanted atheist or a disenchanted atheist.[/quote]

The Kaufman case was not about whether or not atheism is a religion, but whether or not atheists as a group could meet at Kaufman's prison. It was a First Amendment issue.

[quote]The Court did not rule that atheism is a religion. Instead, the court ruled that, for First Amendment purposes, atheism is a religion for Kaufman. Those are two very significant qualifiers. It means that atheism isn’t inherently a religion. It means that atheism isn’t inherently a religion for Kaufman — it’s only a religion for Kaufman in this narrow context. It means that atheism isn’t a religion for First Amendment purposes for everyone — just for Kaufman (and presumably some other inmates) in the context of this case.[/quote]

The Torcaso case established that Maryland could not prohibit the holding of office based on religious views. But furthermore:

[quote]This is frequently cited by people on the religious right as that the Supreme Court has declared Secular Humanism to be a religion, but such people are simply unaware of the fact that dicta have no legal force. Ignoring this uncomfortable fact, however, allows them to argue that any hint of Secular Humanism in schools is a violation of the separation of church and state - an ironic argument, since they would be happy to dispense with separation anyway.[/quote]

Potato's, potato's everywhere.

[Img]https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR0YkM9LIa-hIHvwKMDH1bucuE1StziW16hOWi-IDnvP_IMv_rRhg[/Img]

one look at OP, this was the reaction:


[youtube]3dh79Ggx9Js[/youtube]

brb forming atheist church and using it to do a bunch of sh*t on the cheap, thanks op

i love it how a lot of theists buck like a mechanical bull in a dodgy bar, just flailing around to get that pesky burden of proof off their shoulders.

[QUOTE=Alter2Ego;1030323923]
[b]1. [/b] Atheists have committed human rights violations en masse throughout history. For instance, Joseph Stalin--the atheist--ordered the deaths of between 40 million to 62 million people (20 million of which were everyday Soviet civilians), compared to the 9 million or so killed by Adolph Hitler the Roman Catholic who merely claimed he was a Christian.

In reality, the problem is not the Bible or God. The problem is people, including those in false religions which have failed to teach the masses Biblical truths. An appreciation for Biblical truths and Jehovah's righteous standards of what's right and what's wrong is the only detriment against people committing human rights violations. Blaming God for the crimes of false Christians and other false religions is an attempt at passing the buck.[/quote]

Right, their atheism is what made them all kill people, not the fact that they were dictators. That must have had nothing to do with it...


[QUOTE=Alter2Ego;1030323923][b]2. [/b] Atheism is itself a religion. While atheist will argue that they don't believe in any god, the issue is not merely non-belief in God or gods but in [b]having [u]ANY[/u] sort of belief system that is vitally important in one's life. [/b] The belief system of atheism is centered around the default atheist philosophy of "Secular Humanism."[/quote]

You then went on to say that the same can apply to football - ie football is his religion - which is clearly completely different to a faith, ie believing in a god/s. It's like calling an apple an orange. They might both be fruit, but they're totally different.


[QUOTE=Alter2Ego;1030323923][b]3. [/b] Atheism is a religion according to a 2005 Wisconsin Federal Court ruling on the matter of [b][i]Kaufman v. McCaughtry[/i][/b], as well as the [b][i]Torcaso v. Watkins[/i][/b] case by the 1961 U.S. Supreme Court—the highest court in the land—where court rulings become national law.[/QUOTE]

This doesn't prove anything, other than that's what Kaufman v McCaughtr and Toracso v Watkins established. They could say the sky is purple, doesn't make them right.






In general, as has already been said, the OP is probably simply doing this to rustle jimmies. He obviously doesn't like how atheists criticise religions, and so is trying to convince everyone that atheism itself is a religion, as if it would somehow make their criticisms invalid. Unfortunately for you though, Mr Blue, religion is explicitly linked to a belief in god/s, or some form of spirituality, which not believing in gods (ie atheism) is clearly exempt from.

[quote]The typical dictionary definition of religion refers to a "belief in, or the worship of, a god or gods"[17] or the "service and worship of God or the supernatural"

Edward Burnett Tylor defined religion as "the belief in spiritual beings"

The sociologist Durkheim, in his seminal book The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life, defined religion as a "unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things"

Religion (from O.Fr. religion "religious community," from L. religionem (nom. religio) "respect for what is sacred, reverence for the gods,"[5] "obligation, the bond between man and the gods"[6]) is derived from the Latin religiō, the ultimate origins of which are obscure

According to the philologist Max Müller, the root of the English word "religion", the Latin religio, was originally used to mean only "reverence for God or the gods, careful pondering of divine things, piety"

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion#Etymology[/url]
[/quote]

So, the history of the word is to do with reverence to gods and carrying out rituals, and it's meant that for millenia. Atheism is a lack of faith in a god, therefore cancelling out said reverence towards them and rituals. It simply doesn't qualify as a religion in any meaningful sense other than as something to check alongside actual religions on a survey sheet or something.

Calling atheism a religion is like calling a blanket a radiator - the connection is very, very minor, and it obscures the actual meaning of what religion is, seemingly because some people that own radiators are grumpy and want to call blankets radiators to piss off the people with blankets that don't like radiators. It makes absolutely no sense.

LOL at Atheism being a religion!!!

Not worshipping a god is atheism... but is a religion? So not worshipping a god is a religion? BWAHAHAHA!!!!

[size=999][b]Not playing football is a sport.

Not having any symptoms is an illness.

Not murderering someone is a crime.

Not surviving an Earthquake is surviving a natural disaster.[/b][/size]

Nutjobs and their failed logic these days.

[QUOTE=Staberella;1030559553]So fellow non believers, would Lewis Black be an acceptable candidate for anti pope since George Carlin (Lulz be unto him) is dead?[/QUOTE]

I would pay money to see Lewis Black ranting and raving in a silly hat and ornate robes.

[QUOTE=TheJimmyRustler;1030643743]
[QUOTE=Alter2Ego;1030323923][color=darkblue][b]2. [/b] Atheism is itself a religion. While atheist will argue that they don't believe in any god, the issue is not merely non-belief in God or gods but in [b]having [u]ANY[/u] sort of belief system that is vitally important in one's life. [/b] The belief system of atheism is centered around the default atheist philosophy of "Secular Humanism." [/COLOR] [/QUOTE]

You then went on to say that the same can apply to football - ie football is his religion - which is [b]clearly completely different to a faith, ie believing in a god/s[/b]. It's like calling an apple an orange. They might both be fruit, but they're totally different. [/QUOTE]
[SIZE=3][color=darkblue][b]ALTER2EGO -to- THE JIMMY RUSTLER: [/b]

I realize you want to shoe horn the definition of "religion" to mean "a faith" or belief in a god or gods so that you can then argue that since atheists do not have faith in a god, they cannot possibly be in a religion. The U.S. courts do not agree with you, and numerous dictionaries do not agree with you. I even quoted Collins World English Dictionary that uses adoration of football as a religion. The sole requirement is that the ideology be of great importance to the person, at which point, it is considered "religion." [/COLOR] [/SIZE]

[QUOTE=TheJimmyRustler;1030643743]
[QUOTE=Alter2Ego;1030323923][color=darkblue][b]3. [/b] Atheism is a religion according to a 2005 Wisconsin Federal Court ruling on the matter of [b][i]Kaufman v. McCaughtry[/i][/b], as well as the [b][i]Torcaso v. Watkins[/i][/b] case by the 1961 U.S. Supreme Court—the highest court in the land—where court rulings become national law. [/COLOR][/QUOTE]

This doesn't prove anything, other than that's what Kaufman v McCaughtr and Toracso v Watkins established. They could say the sky is purple, doesn't make them right.[/QUOTE]
[SIZE=3][color=darkblue]A U.S. Supreme Court ruling doesn't prove a thing? Really? Since when?[/COLOR][/SIZE]

[QUOTE=Alter2Ego;1030665253]

I realize you want to shoe horn the definition of "religion" to mean "a faith" or belief in a god or gods so that you can then argue that since atheists do not have faith in a god, they cannot possibly be in a religion. The U.S. courts do not agree with you, and numerous dictionaries do not agree with you. I even quoted Collins World English Dictionary that uses adoration of football as a religion. The sole requirement is that the ideology be of great importance to the person, at which point, it is considered "religion."[/QUOTE]

I don't "want" anything, other than for what you're saying to make sense, which it doesn't.

(1) Just because the US courts say something, does [b]not[/b] make it true. If they told you the sky was purple, would you accept it?

(2) What makes you think that atheism is of overwhelming importance to atheists? I'm an atheist, and don't see it as important.

(3) If you choose to use that example (that something being important makes it religious) then it completely makes the term meaningless, since then [b]everything[/b] will be become a religion, from political beliefs, to charity workers, to veganism, etc

(4) I quoted the etymology of the word, as well as other definitions of it, which clearly bar atheism from being a religion, and make perfect sense whilst doing it.


Again, whether atheism is a religion or not doesn't matter one bit to me - it would have absolutely no impact on atheism at all. My objections are that the argument to do so makes absolutely no sense.

[QUOTE=Alter2Ego;1030665253][SIZE=3][color=darkblue][b]ALTER2EGO -to- THE JIMMY RUSTLER: [/b]

I realize you want to shoe horn the definition of "religion" to mean "a faith" or belief in a god or gods so that you can then argue that since atheists do not have faith in a god, they cannot possibly be in a religion. The U.S. courts do not agree with you, and numerous dictionaries do not agree with you. I even quoted Collins World English Dictionary that uses adoration of football as a religion. The sole requirement is that the ideology be of great importance to the person, at which point, it is considered "religion." [/COLOR] [/SIZE][/QUOTE]

We're shoehorning? Even in your own definition you had to go to the 5th variation to make your case. Why? Because the first four all related to faith.

[quote]— 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[/quote]

I'm gonna use the 6th definition and argue that black and white TVs, medieval knights and the Roman Empire are all religions.