Sweet, no taxes for me then right?
|
-
02-23-2013, 08:31 PM #31
-
02-23-2013, 08:39 PM #32
-
-
02-23-2013, 08:40 PM #33
-
02-23-2013, 08:46 PM #34
-
02-23-2013, 08:46 PM #35
ALTER2EGO -to- CURIOUS GM:
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 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District 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.Last edited by Alter2Ego; 02-23-2013 at 08:52 PM.
"That people may know that you, whose name is JEHOVAH, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." (Psalms 83:18)
-
02-23-2013, 08:48 PM #36
-
-
02-23-2013, 08:54 PM #37
-
02-23-2013, 09:00 PM #38
-
02-23-2013, 09:39 PM #39
-
02-23-2013, 09:43 PM #40
My personal fav:
“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*Stopped smoking crew* 2 years and 5 month bishes, and counting.*
*Founder of the, "I hate cold weather!" crew*
Your dreams should never be better than your life. - Karl Pilkington
-
-
02-23-2013, 10:03 PM #41
-
02-23-2013, 10:08 PM #42
So fellow non believers, would Lewis Black be an acceptable candidate for anti pope since George Carlin (Lulz be unto him) is dead?
*Stopped smoking crew* 2 years and 5 month bishes, and counting.*
*Founder of the, "I hate cold weather!" crew*
Your dreams should never be better than your life. - Karl Pilkington
-
02-23-2013, 10:14 PM #43
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.
-
02-23-2013, 10:19 PM #44
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.*Stopped smoking crew* 2 years and 5 month bishes, and counting.*
*Founder of the, "I hate cold weather!" crew*
Your dreams should never be better than your life. - Karl Pilkington
-
-
02-23-2013, 10:22 PM #45
-
02-23-2013, 10:32 PM #46
Not to say that you've never seen Inherit the Wind (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0053946/), 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.
-
02-23-2013, 10:40 PM #47
-
02-23-2013, 11:08 PM #48
-
-
02-24-2013, 03:02 AM #49
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.
Originally Posted by Alter2Ego
Yawn.
Originally Posted by Alter2Ego
Originally Posted by Alter2Ego
http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=6487
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.
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.
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.ignore list: MuscleXtreme
”The Iron never lies to you. You can walk outside and listen to all kinds of talk, get told that you’re a god or a total bastard. The Iron will always kick you the real deal. The Iron is the great reference point, the all-knowing perspective giver. Always there like a beacon in the pitch black.”
–Henry Rollins
-
02-24-2013, 03:21 AM #50
-
02-24-2013, 03:29 AM #51
-
02-24-2013, 03:55 AM #52
-
-
02-24-2013, 04:04 AM #53
- Join Date: Jul 2005
- Location: In a squat rack, curling away
- Posts: 11,471
- Rep Power: 2691
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.
Nov 04-fatass @40%bf
Jan 06- buff(apparently) @ ermm i dunno, still have a gut though,
long term goal= jacked @ 7% bf, get the damn abs to show themselves
-
02-24-2013, 05:02 AM #54
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...
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.
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.
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"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion#Etymology
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.
-
02-24-2013, 05:57 AM #55
- Join Date: Nov 2006
- Location: Gainesville, Florida, United States
- Age: 45
- Posts: 8,503
- Rep Power: 9395
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!!!!
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.
Nutjobs and their failed logic these days.Last edited by Dragger; 02-24-2013 at 07:08 AM.
I'm not saying we should kill all the stupid and lazy people, just that we should eliminate warning labels and welfare, let the problem take care of itself.
I do not support military action in Syria.
-
02-24-2013, 06:47 AM #56
-
-
02-24-2013, 06:50 AM #57
ALTER2EGO -to- THE JIMMY RUSTLER:
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.""That people may know that you, whose name is JEHOVAH, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." (Psalms 83:18)
-
02-24-2013, 07:00 AM #58
-
02-24-2013, 07:21 AM #59
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 not 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 everything 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.
-
02-24-2013, 07:30 AM #60
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.
— 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
Bookmarks