No. In legal cases, how the law is written at the time of the cause of action is what must be used--and judges do not have the power to re-write whole swaths of law.
I agree. Thus, it is easier and more useful to accept a deliberate inaccuracy than to try to get Congress to rewrite a whole bunch of laws. I agree that it makes sense in the cases that you list; I do not agree that it makes sense for the topic we are discussing.
Where did you get that idea? Atheists are free to call themselves whatever they want--and when the Census Bureau wonders where to put down "Atheist" on a Census form, "Religion" is still the right slot.
I got the idea from the fact that in an earlier message you asked me to use the term "all atheists" to refer to what are merely strong atheists and stated that I should agree that "weak atheist" and "agnostic" are synonyms, which they are not. As for your census example, you are assuming your conclusion; the census taker would write "None" in the religion box, not atheism as it is not a religion.
Point 1: Large parts of the US government have a non-agnostic, non-atheist religion. Government service compels these persons to seek secular corellation for any religious conviction they seek to set into law. It does not, and should not, require them to put aside their religious view.
Hence, calling the US Government "Atheist" is, at the least, as misleading as calling it "Chrisitan."
You are treating the government as the collection of people who serve in it, in which case calling it "agnostic" is also wrong as that does not describe even close to a majority of government officials. I am treating it the organization it is which, since it lacks a belief in any god, is atheistic. There are no parts of the government that have "a non-agnostic, non-atheist religion".
Point 2: For someone who claims that Atheism is merely a word and not a creed or religion, you seem awfuly admant about not being called anything else.
You are attempting to make the following argument:
Premise: You are adamant about what you are called.
Premise: Only people who follow creeds or religions are adamant about what they are called.
Conclusion: You are following a creed or religion.
Your second premise is obviously false. For your information, it is not that I am not willing to be called agnostic. I am in fact an agnostic atheist. What I object to is theists attempting to redefine atheism as something it is not. One reason I object to this is that it confuses people about what atheism is and causes them to draw incorrect conclusions about me when I describe myself as an atheist.
I can't help noticing that you seem awfully adamant about redefining atheism as merely "strong atheism" and classifying it as a religion. You seem to be able to accept that there are a lot of people who don't have a religion; why do you object to the word "atheist"?
The term "Agnostic" was coined specifically in a religious context. Your continued definiton of "Atheist" as "someone who does not believe" is emminently compatable with "someone who is of the opinion that we do not have sufficient evidence to believe in God" and, for the purposes of this discussion, "Agnostic" is essentially synonymous with "Atheist."
However, the majority of my preference of the use of the term "agnostic" is that is clearer and more accurate than "non-Strong Atheists" or "Atheist in the matter of weak atheists".
The problem is that this isn't true. Not all agnostics are atheists and not all atheists are agnostics. Not even all weak atheists are agnostics. There is not a 1 to 1 correlation so it is simply not correct. You are asking me to accept an inaccuracy for no reason other than that you don't like the word atheism because it has bad connotations for you. You can keep calling me a zealot until you're blue in the face and it won't change the reality of the situation.
Your main point about considering atheism a religion is your fear that atheists will be discriminated against because such discrimination would not be considered a violation of the "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" clause of the First Amendment. I don't accept that this is a threat because allowing discrimination against atheists in favor of the religious would violate the "respecting an establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment. You think that an entity forbidden to discriminate on the basis of which religion would be allowed to discriminate on the basis of no religion. History does not support that position.
Tomatos aren't vegetables, women aren't men and pet fish are pets. You have stated cases where people have decided to promote a deliberate inaccuracy because it was easier than the alternative (change the law to cover vegetables and fruits, change laws all over the place to cover women and men and rewrite rental agreements, respectively). I do not agree that there is any necessity to do so in this case and given the confusion that already exists regarding the meaning of the term "atheist" I think that any such action would be harmful to atheists.
The whole thing boils down to the idea that weak atheists should call themselves "agnostics" to make things easier for people who don't want to think about the subject. I decline to cooperate. I, much like the United States government, lack a belief in any god so I am an atheist. There are no creeds, no religious beliefs, no vast conspiracy to destroy religion. I will not pretend otherwise for anyone's benefit.
I find I am unable to decide if your persistent misrepresentation of atheism is deliberate or if you are honestly incapable of comprehending the concept.
In all honesty, you should admit that this is the state that we live in now, not some theoretical adjustmet to the state. Atheists are protected by the "Freedom of religion" clause in the First Amendment, and there have been a fair ammount of cases wherein they have benefited from the specific provisions of said law.
No. Atheism is protected by the "no law respecting an establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment. The default position of government is atheistic (the U.S. government does not possess a belief in any god) and the aforementioned clause of the First Amendment prohibits government from promoting any religion.
Essentially no one calls themselves "theists", and as an opposite for atheism (as you used it) it's only tenably acceptable. A much fairer grouping of options would be a list I provided earlier: Monotheism, Atheism, Polytheism, Pantheism, and Transcednence. We could even add "Spirituallity" to the list if we wanted to.
Theist is the opposite of atheist. It's not some word that I just made up. There is no justification for you to describe it as "tenuously acceptable". No one calls themselves "theists" outside of texts discussing religions. Essentially no one calls themselves "Homo Sapiens Sapiens" outside of scientific texts but that doesn't mean the category is non-existent or in some way invalid. The two basic categories are atheist and theist. Theist can be further divided into monotheist, polytheist and pantheist (and probably others as people develop new types of beliefs). These categories can be further divided. Monotheist can be divided into Christian (which can then be further divided), Islamic, and so on. Some people don't bother acknowledging the distinctions but that doesn't mean they don't exist.
Atheism MUST be considered a religion:
When speaking in the context of agnostic government institutions or other public bodies
When applying Civil Rights laws
When evaluating scientific claims that do not pertain to theology or sociology. (i.e., in a physics paper, any mention of God or gods save by parable should be striken, be it pro-God or anti-God.)
I said evidence, not more assertion. You fail to provide evidence for any of these points. To respond to each:
You misspelled "atheistic" as "agnostic" when describing government institutions or other public bodies.
I pointed out your First Amendment error above; atheism does not need to be treated as a religion in order for the rights of atheists to be protected.
You seem to think atheism is "anti-god". It isn't. I think this is the basis of your objection to the term. It seems to make you feel better to erroneously use the word "agnostic" instead of "atheistic" but it simply isn't accurate.
As for when it can be considered a religion, well, there's no stopping people from failing to understand simple definitions.
I find it interesting that you claim that atheism must not be considered a religion when discussing the benefit or harm of religion on society. That again seems to indicate that you acknowledge that it is not a religion so it seems that you just have some reason for promoting confusion about the term.
You have made claims that religions require proof (they do not)
Actually, I believe I used the word evidence, which is distinct from proof. They do not require evidence in order for people to believe in them (this much is obvious) but they certainly require evidence in order to be taken seriously by people who do not believe in them. And for every religion out there, non-believers outnumber believers.
In an attempt to keep your answer clear: Public Bodies supposedly require proof for religious (or otherwise) claims because they are agnostic--t
Quite simply, you have fallen into zealous and rote repetition of dogma even though it is utterly irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
Pot. Kettle.
Baptism/Protestantism: Thou Shalt Not Have Other Gods Before Me.
Which is an argument for seperation of church and state. Bad example.
You requested an example of a Baptist/Protestant religious rule that contradicts the laws of the land. I provided one. You're welcome.
Bullocks. If anyone is making ad hominem attacks it is you.
This is an odd thing for you to say given the insult in the message I replied to plus the ones in your latest message that I will be quoting later on.
The term "Agnostic" was coined to mean PRECISELY what I'm using it for: a third choice between, to use your crude bungling of the language, atheism and theism.
"Crude bungling of the language" is ad hominem. Hope that information helps you can watch out for that sort of thing in the future. As for your actual point, you're wrong. "Agnostic" was coined to describe the position "That it is wrong for a man to say he is certain of the objective truth of a proposition unless he can provide evidence which logically justifies that certainty." This position, when applied to the question of the existence of a god, results in atheism. Weak atheism, to be precise. You continue to claim there is a third choice between having a belief in something and not having a belief in something but you fail to specify the details of what that choice is, just spouting the word "agnostic" as though your mere use of the word made your point for you. It's as though you just expect me to "see the light" and abandon the position of rationality. Read any Jack Chick tracts lately?
Furthermore, I am not attempting to "redefine" what religion means.
I do not believe you are attempting to redefine "religion". You are expressing a desire to treat atheism as if it were a religion even though you seem to understand that it isn't. I see no benefit to atheists were that to happen, although I can see how theists would like to be able to claim that atheism is just another religion and act as though it required proof the same way their religion of choice does. You'll forgive me if I don't fall all over myself to accommodate theists at my own expense.
I simply recognize that language is a flexible thing, and for a good deal of contexts, atheism can indeed be catagorized as "a religion."
You keep saying this and you keep failing to provide examples of these "good deal of contexts". One thing you need to learn about atheists is that we tend to require evidence before we accept a person's assertions. If you really are "seeking understanding" you'll start providing some.
But I suspect that you'll fail to grasp the fine point or the imprecision of our language.
This is another ad hominem. Just so you know, ad hominems usually work best when you have a third party audience of idiots. Your use of them would be an insult to the other people reading this discussion if there were any. I'm guessing that you and I are the only ones here so you needn't bother with the attacks.
I'm also guessing from your final paragraph that you are seeking an end to this conversation. To be honest, you sound like you're getting really stressed out about this. I don't expect to convince you of anything and based on your existing "arguments" (for lack of a better word) you shouldn't expect to convince me of anything. Please feel free to not respond if you're getting stressed. This discussion is not provoking an emotional response in me so I have no problem continuing if you do decide to respond. It's up to you.
Kindly name some tenets of Wicca, Bhuddism, Baptism, or "mainstream Protestantism" that are in opposition to the law of the land.
Wicca and Buddhism are not major religions in the United States. I thought from the context that it would be clear that "major" referred to number of followers and visible influence in government but I guess it wasn't. I apologize for confusing you. I expect at this point that you will get bogged down in the semantics of what "major" means. I acknowledge in advance that the word can be applied in many ways and in certain ways Wicca and Buddhism might be major religions. I have clarified my meaning above. As for Baptism and "mainstream Protestantism":
Baptism/Protestantism: Thou Shalt Not Have Other Gods Before Me.
Reality: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion....
Yes, there is. When discussion such vagarities, we have a word constructed by a "weak Atheist" to describe those who, rather than answering the question, consider the question unanswerable: Agnostics.
You persist in trying to redefine atheism to mean strong atheism only and to redefine agnosticism as meaning weak atheism. Agnosticism deals with whether or not the nature of a god can be understood, not whether or not such an entity exists. I know a man who believes that there must be some god that created the universe, that it could not have come about by itself, but that the nature of this god is beyond his comprehension. He is an agnostic theist.
You are getting hung up on semantics, which reflects poorly on your intellectual ability.
No, I'm hung up on honesty. Trying to change the definitions of words is a common theist tactic but it only works on the dim. As for the ad hominem, fallacies like that won't save you.
Atheism is a creed, like Christianity or the Black Panthers or the Republican Party.
No it isn't. The only thing that atheists have in common is that they do not possess a belief in any gods. That is not a creed. You might be thinking of Humanism.
NO ONE is an atheist who doesn't consider themselves an atheist--and everyone who does consider themselves an atheist is an atheist, even if they're utterly convinced of God's existance.
Wrong. Words have meanings, and the meaning of the word "atheism" precludes anyone who is "utterly convinced of God's existence". You are parroting the words of Maritain, who I mentioned earlier, with his pathetic attempt to define a "Practical Atheist". I'm going to be honest here and admit that I was very surprised to see you write this, as I had come to the conclusion that you weren't a typical theist. Just goes to show the benefits of keeping an open mind and adjusting to new evidence as it appears, I guess.
I do not want Atheists discriminated against, I do not want them forbidden from congregating based on Atheism alone, and I do not want Atheist organizations having a disproportionate influence on the government. If Atheists want to, as Atheists, congregate or express their beliefs or influence the government, they should be treated by the same rules that they helped created to restrain and protect religion.
The first reason given here is irrational. There is no concern that atheists would be forbidden from congregating since the First Amendment specifically acknowledges the right of the people peaceably to assemble. As for the second, the only reason atheist organizations exist is to block theist organizations that attempt to take away our First Amendment rights.
You seem to have this perception of atheists gathering to discuss and celebrate atheism the same way theists do their religion. In general, we don't. I mean, what is there to discuss? "Hey, do you believe in any gods?" "Nope!" "Me neither!" Hardly worth the drive, especially with gas prices these days. In general, atheism is not something we dwell on too much; a lack of belief does no
None of these are harmful to government, simply because any truly dangerous idea would very unlikely make it through the democratic system--and, quite frankly, the risk of a dangerous idea being democratically instituted is less dangerous that the certain dangers of limiting free discourse in government or relying on a non-democratic form of government.
All of the major religions in this country have commandments or rules that violate the constitution and the basic principles of this country. I would disagree with you that promoting them is not harmful to the country. As for the idea of any truly dangerous idea not getting through the democratic system, well I guess there's something to be said for pie-in-the-sky optimism. But the fact of the matter is that dangerous ideas such as the Patriot Act (which has no religious basis and is just intended as an example of danger) do routinely make it through the democratic process. Religion is far from the only cause of such dangerous ideas but every cause that can be eliminated, should.
Note that I'm not suggesting that theists should not have influence in government; that would be ridiculous. The United States (incidentally I've been assuming you live in the U.S.; it's where I live so it's the country I'm concerned with) is for everyone and all voices should be heard. But I stand by my belief that no religious reason can validate a position, no matter how otherwise reasonable that position might be. For example, murder isn't wrong because the Christian God says it is. It's wrong because it ends the life of an innocent person.
Please present evidence of atheism "working against religion". I have never seen such a thing.
(Snip examples given)
If you consider any attempt to prevent the government from unconstitutionally respecting an establishment of religion to be "working against religion" then yes, people who understand the First Amendment (atheists and theists) will continue to "work against religion". Note that none of these examples is actually someone trying to harm or destroy religion.
You persist in using the word "agnostic" where you should be using "atheistic"
No, I don't. The goverment should not believe in any god, and neither should it have belief nor actual absence of belief in any deity or religion. Goverment, and all other public bodies, should be agnostic--unless religion is important to them, as it undoubtedly is to some, they should simply be of the opinion that they, as public bodies, cannot answer any religious question at all.
You just did it again. The position you describe, with government not believing in any god, is atheistic. You keep talking about government having neither a belief nor an absence of belief as though there were some third option. There isn't.
That is not a contradiction in terms. An atheist does indeed have religious beliefs--be they Strong Atheists or Weak Atheists, strict agnostics, empirical agnostics, or Free Thinkiers, atheists and all those who can be grouped under the unbrella of Atheism do have religious beliefs--and these beliefs should be protected and treated as religious beliefs, the same as any other.
You keep asserting this as though your mere assertion made it so. A lack of belief is not a belief. If you think atheists have religious beliefs, list them.
Which, again, gets me back to the original point. I'll even expand it, so you don't get hung up on definitions that even atheists themselves get hung up on.
I'm glad linked to this page since it argues quite effectively against considering atheism is a religion, in the response to the questions "OK, you may think there's a philosophical justification for atheism, but isn't it still a religious belief?" and "OK, maybe it's not a religion in the strict sense of the word. But surely belief in atheism (or science) i
Religion, by and large, is harmless in government, for the simple reason that the only religions that grow to significant size in a country are those that are aligned with the ethics and morals of said country.
I don't agree with this statement. Religion is far from harmless in a government.
If you're going to ban religion, you might as well ban political parties and socio-economic theorists from government as well.
This is a strawman; no one has suggested banning religion.
The definitons that you use are far too vauge for this usage.
The definitions I use are not even slightly vague. A theist is anyone who possesses a belief in one or more gods. An atheist is anyone else.
Strong Atheists share all of the faults of fringe religions
No strong atheist has ever fooled people into believing that they would go to paradise by drinking poisoned kool-aid or killing themselves to catch a ride on a comet.
a "weak atheist government" could in its own way be as bad as a Strong Atheist, or Catholic, or Wiccan government.
A religious government would have every vulnerability that a weak atheist one has, plus additional ones resulting from trying to enforce rules that have no basis beyond their presence in bronze-age texts.
Yes, exactly. Government shouldn't, and by and large doesn't, make a stand either way on whether or not deities--or spirituality of any kind--exist. Government is properly Agnostic--it should simply assume that religious questions cannot be answered by government or law, and act accordintly.
You persist in refusing to accept that atheism doesn't state that "God does not exist". The situation you talk about, not taking a stand on religious questions, is atheistic.
As a practical matter, whenever you find "Atheism" you find it working against religion.
Please present evidence of atheism "working against religion". I have never seen such a thing.
As you've said yourself, atheism does very little but say "your religion is wrong and shouldn't have power over me."
The first part of that statement can be presumed correct unless evidence to the contrary is presented and the second part is unquestionably true.
Of course, this gets us back to my original point: Atheism should be treated as a religion by government and public society. Government, Science, and Economoics should be agnostic, and essentially ignore the religious questions that Monotheism, Atheism, Polytheism, Pantheism, and Transcednence answer.
You persist in using the word "agnostic" where you should be using "atheistic", and you have yet to present a convincing argument that government should ignore what atheism is so that the religious can feel they're on equal grounds.
Any claim an Atheist makes based on Atheism should be given no more or less weight than a claim made by a Christian based on Christianity
No governmental claims are based on atheism; the concept is preposterous. "I don't believe in a god so therefore we should bomb Iraq." It just doesn't happen. Christians, on the other hand, do make governmental claims (such as "abortion should be illegal because a soul enters the body at conception" or "God told me to bomb Iraq") based on Christianity, a belief for which there is no evidence.
the religious belief of an atheist
This is a contradiction in terms.
A scientist that draws a scientific conclusion that "there is no god" should be greeted with the same skepticism than a scientist who claims to have found evidence of the soul is greeted with.
You'd have trouble finding a scientist who claimed they had scientific evidence of the non-existence of god.
A business that forbids religious missionary work should simply forbid religious discussion of any kind.
A business is not a government and is thus irrelevant to this discussion.
On the basis that no religion has demonstrated any evidence of validity. There is no difference between Bush saying "God told me to attack Iraq" and him saying "The Lucky Charms Leprachaun told me to attack Iraq". If you're looking for Constitutional basis, there's Article VI, which states that no religious test shall ever be required to hold an office in the United States.
That's a slippery slope argument. You might as well disallow doctors from spreading into government, based on Dr. Kevorkian. (You know as well as I that for every Roy Moore or Fred Phelps, there are thousands of judges and priests who meld their religion and their jobs and their politics just fine.)
First of all, there's nothing wrong with Dr. Kevorkian so he's not a particularly good example but I understand your point. As long as judges can deal with the law without allowing any religious interference there's no problem if they themselves are religious. But it is never correct for them to make decisions or rulings based on religion.
Public contstructs like government are properly Agnostic, neither themselves atheist nor religious.
Agnosticism is not a third choice between theism and atheism. There is no third choice. Agnosticism deals with whether or not the nature of a god or gods can be understood, not whether or not such entities exist. Your point above seems to suggest that you believe atheism is anti-religion; it isn't. It is the lack of religion, which is exactly what we apparently agree is proper for public constructs like government.
I don't want the government to favor no religion over membership in a religion--hence, the core reason I want Atheism treated by public instututions as just another religion.
This is, I think, the core of the desire of many to treat Atheism as just another religion. If they can convince the government to view things this way then they can push for religion in schools, in courts, etc.
(snip exceptions to my characterizations of religions)
I agree with all of your points. Nevertheless, while all religions meet at least some of these criteria, Atheism meets none of them.
By all means, let us work to stop such false and horrid statements. (Mr. Maritain seems more like a Satanist than an Atheist, truth be told.)
Maritain is actually a Catholic philosopher, the author of The Range of Reason.
To shift gears--if your worry about atheism is misunderstanding and faulty definitions, it seems to me that the best way to counteract this is to form a body of some kind, to argue as a whole for the rights of atheists and aid in the public understanding of atheism. God knows that there are odder churches in the country.
My biggest concern is actually the spread of religion into government, where it has no place. Allowing the government to erroneously categorize Atheism as a religion would pave the way for such things. Fortunately for every Judge Roy Moore who tries to foist religion on the public there's a Fred Phelps to show people why that's a bad thing.
People have a right to commit suicide if that's what they want. It's wonderful that there are hotlines and other services for people who are looking for a reason to live, but if a person decides that they absolutely don't want to live under certain circumstances they have every right to end their life.
No, they call themselves Catholics and Protestants.
If you were to ask a Protestant or a Catholic if they are Christian, they would say "yes". They are admittedly quite different categories of Christian, but I think it stands to reason that if both Muslims and Jews called themselves "Jews" there would still be conflict in the Middle East.
Now, there are doubtless religions that are false and wholly incorrect. Pick any given religion, and at least half of the others will strongly disagree with that religion--and for most tenets, they cannot be objectivly disproven. It is for this reason that all religions should be given equal ground in public society; we simply cannot tell which one is right and which one isn't.
I agree with you, although you assume that at least one is correct and I don't agree with that.
Were Atheism a mere absence of religion, an indecision that does not attempt to answer religious questions, there would be no reason to treat it as a religion.
But Atheism is merely the absence of religion/a belief in gods. It's not so much an indecision as the recognition that there's no reason to make a decision. I'm not indecisive about the existence of unicorns or sidhe. If I were to encounter evidence of the existence of a god I would have reason to consider the possibility. As for answering religions questions, Atheism answers a single one: is there a god? And the answer? "I have no reason to believe there is." Not a very forceful answer but there you go. Religions attempt to answer far more questions than that.
To answer your final question, there are a couple of reasons why I object to Atheism being called a religion. The first is that it simply isn't one. Nor does it act like one.
1) Religions require faith. Atheism doesn't.
2) Religions prescribe specific moral codes. Atheism doesn't.
3) Religions have followers. Atheism doesn't. Atheists like me may enjoy debating the subject, but we're not followers because there's nothing to follow.
4) Religions make promises to their followers. Atheism promises nothing.
5) Perhaps most importantly, religions make positive assertions. Atheism (in general) doesn't.
Now, that last point doesn't apply to strong Atheism. Strong Atheism still isn't a religion but it does make a positive assertion and one could argue that strong Atheists should be required to prove that there is no god. Of course that would mean that Christians would have to prove that there is no Odin and followers of Asatru would have to prove that there is no Yahweh, etc, etc. In practice, no one bothers.
The second reason, which just applies to me personally, is that when I discuss this with people I find that if I don't challenge the assumption that Atheism is a religion then it's a short trip to "Atheism requires faith just like my religion" and other erroneous arguments. I find it's just more efficient to challenge the initial assertion.
As a final rebuttal, can you elaborate on how you feel that Atheism is harmed or wronged by being considered a religion? Atheists are certainly no more disliked by believers of other religions if because they are called "atheists" instead of "unbelievers". And weak atheists are no more wronged by strong atheists being treated like any other religous group than weak christians are.
I don't recall saying that I thought Atheism was harmed by being considered a religion. But it sounds like the actual question is "Why do you care if people call Atheism a religion?" The reason that I argue against that assertion is that it leads to misunderstandings about what Atheism is and definitions like Jacques Maritain's "Practical Atheism". According to him, "Practical Atheists" "believe that they believe in God (and... perhaps believe in Him in their brains) but... in reality deny His existence by each one of their deeds." Moronic definitions like this paint Atheists as weaklings and hypocrits and must be fought. Or at least bickered about.
It's simple. If you possess a belief in one or more gods, you are a theist. Otherwise, you are an atheist.
For some reason, you appear to be an weak atheist who somehow considers himself different from all other weak atheists. But it really doesn't matter whether or not you care that you don't believe. If you don't believe, you're an atheist.
Of course it matters what the definition of the word actually is. You only claim that the OED is irrelevant because it disproves your point.
Your claim about Paul and Mohammad is somewhat bizarre. Both catholics and protestants call themselves "christians" but there are certainly a lot of problems in Ireland, where they seem to have noticed their theological differences. I can see no reason to assume things would be different in the Middle East.
This is actually a debate I have had many times with many different theists. The typical response at this point is to repeat "Atheism is a religion", perhaps adding "La-la-la-la-la I can't hear you." Argument by assertion is typical of theists, who desperately wish that atheism was a religion so they could try to meet it on equal ground. Theists would like to be able to claim that atheism is solely a matter of belief no more valid then their own religion when instead it is simply an open-minded lack of belief in the absence of evidence.
If you decide to respond, please do so with something other than argument by assertion.
The positive belief that there is no god is one type of atheism, called "strong atheism". The other type is the simple lack of belief in any gods (called "weak atheism").
Agnostiscm is the belief that it is not possible to know or understand the nature of a god or gods. Thus, you can have agnostic atheists (it is impossible to understand the nature of a god and I lack a belief in any such entity) as well as agnostic theists (I believe that the universe was created by a god but its nature is unknowable).
Atheism is a religion in much the same way that baldness is a hair color.
It's not a "theology", a "spiritual belief" or a religion.
It's simply a lack of belief.
Which is not to say that there aren't atheists out there who are making the positive assertion that There Are No Gods. I'm not one of them, but they're out there. Those people are only a subset of atheists though, not the entire set.
I'm not sure if my comment is the one you meant to reply to, but if it is you have completely misinterpreted my position.
I am not questioning the GPL's validity; in the U.S. it is a straightforward application of copyright law. There is no question that software is covered under copyright and that copyright owners have the ability to grant others the right to distribute derived works, which is what the GPL does.
The value of "testing" the GPL in court is not to find out if it is valid; it's to have a nice legal reference to point to when Certain Parties spread FUD about the legal standing of Linux and other GPL software. When someone says "the GPL has never been tested in court!" (as though that mattered) we can point to SCO v IBM and the smoking crater in Utah that used to be SCO headquarters.
For those of you who are just tuning in, this is the GPL's test in court, and when it's over SCO's complete destruction will be a harsh lesson for any other company that might try to hijack GPL'd code. GPL'd code that provides a financial benefit to deep-pocketed corporations, anyway.
Since there's no such thing as hijacking BSD'd code, obviously BSD has no problem with it.
As for your last question, I would guess that the sort of people who think (to use the term loosely) that *BSD is dying probably think that Linux is dying as well. The rest of us are a little more realistic.
You imply that Linux is not reliable and that Linux users constantly run into problems with their computers "not working every morning at 8 AM". This is obviously inaccurate.
I use Linux as my desktop at home. I tinker around with it quite a bit because computers are one of my hobbies but it doesn't break during that time. While I'm tweaking window manager settings or compiling a kernel on one desktop, I'm using the web, reading email, and writing documents and source code on others.
I use Linux as my desktop at work (I'm a programmer). I don't tinker with it there because I have better things to do. I set it up initially in the optimal manner for my needs (gotta love UI flexibility) and after that it just works, without tweaking or "jacking up", or rebooting.
OS X is a great operating system; for me, it's the first time that buying a Mac was even a remote possibility. But don't try to pretend that Linux is the Yugo of operating systems; here, at least, people know better.
In the beginning, a lot of people theorized that this was SCO's plan -- annoy IBM to the point where it's simpler and cheaper for Big Blue to just buy them out. In an early interview Darl McBride said that such a buyout was one possible outcome.
The theory now is that IBM didn't want to set up a precedent of being blackmailed into buying worthless failing companies so they decided to fight.
I agree with you, at this point SCO would probably choose option 3. Certainly a buyout offer at this point would hurt Linux's perception in the minds of CIOs; it would appear to be on shaky IP grounds if even IBM had no choice but to buy out SCO.
It's really very simple. You claimed in your original message that a person would have to be "pretty dang stupid" to object to the ten commandments. You further stated that they "all seem like pretty good ideas to me". Don't bother claiming that is not the position you took; we can all see your original post.
I then pointed out that there are several commandments in there that run contrary to basic American ideals about freedom of religion and which are about controlling how people think. I asked you to explain why someone would have to be "pretty dang stupid" to object to those commandments and you have been completely unable to respond.
Instead you resort to ad hominem attacks which suggests that you realize how untenable your position is and are trying to divert attention away from your original statement.
If I'm wrong, then please just explain why someone would have to be "pretty dang stupid" to object to being told which god to worship, whether or not they can dislike their parents and whether or not they can be envious of their neighbor's posessions.
This is a very typical response: all assertion and no argument.
You claim that it is a bad idea to worship whatever gods people want.
This position demonstrates religious intolerance on your part. It's
difficult to imagine how one could defend such a position but of course
you don't. As soon as you can you try to bring the discussion back to
Thou Shall Not Kill and other Statements of the Obvious with your "last I
heard, people are still murdered" comment. Try defending the commandments
I actually listed. Explain to us why it's "unhealthy" to worship whatever
gods we want or to dislike our parents if they are not good people or to
wish we could have car as nice as our neighbors.
Either that or just type "LOL" a few more times as though that made an
actual argument.
I see what you mean. From a computer science CPU architecture standpoint it may not be helpful, but from an "if I buy one of these computers which will be faster" it is. Of course, anyone who chooses whether or not to use OS X based on benchmarks is an idiot. You either like the Mac OS and environment or you don't. To say that one shouldn't buy a G5 because there *might* be a faster computer would be foolish.
What's your criteria for describing Photoshop, an application used by a minority of computer users, as the only relevant application? Quake 3 and Premiere are in the same category but Word is definitely more relevant.
The definition of a desktop OS has nothing to do with so-called "regular" people. I use Linux as my desktop both at home and at work (in a largely Windows-based organization) at it works fine. And I'm not alone; far from it.
Slashdot Mirror
No. In legal cases, how the law is written at the time of the cause of action is what must be used--and judges do not have the power to re-write whole swaths of law.
I agree. Thus, it is easier and more useful to accept a deliberate inaccuracy than to try to get Congress to rewrite a whole bunch of laws. I agree that it makes sense in the cases that you list; I do not agree that it makes sense for the topic we are discussing.
Where did you get that idea? Atheists are free to call themselves whatever they want--and when the Census Bureau wonders where to put down "Atheist" on a Census form, "Religion" is still the right slot.
I got the idea from the fact that in an earlier message you asked me to use the term "all atheists" to refer to what are merely strong atheists and stated that I should agree that "weak atheist" and "agnostic" are synonyms, which they are not. As for your census example, you are assuming your conclusion; the census taker would write "None" in the religion box, not atheism as it is not a religion.
Point 1: Large parts of the US government have a non-agnostic, non-atheist religion. Government service compels these persons to seek secular corellation for any religious conviction they seek to set into law. It does not, and should not, require them to put aside their religious view.
Hence, calling the US Government "Atheist" is, at the least, as misleading as calling it "Chrisitan."
You are treating the government as the collection of people who serve in it, in which case calling it "agnostic" is also wrong as that does not describe even close to a majority of government officials. I am treating it the organization it is which, since it lacks a belief in any god, is atheistic. There are no parts of the government that have "a non-agnostic, non-atheist religion".
Point 2: For someone who claims that Atheism is merely a word and not a creed or religion, you seem awfuly admant about not being called anything else.
You are attempting to make the following argument:
Premise: You are adamant about what you are called.
Premise: Only people who follow creeds or religions are adamant about what they are called.
Conclusion: You are following a creed or religion.
Your second premise is obviously false. For your information, it is not that I am not willing to be called agnostic. I am in fact an agnostic atheist. What I object to is theists attempting to redefine atheism as something it is not. One reason I object to this is that it confuses people about what atheism is and causes them to draw incorrect conclusions about me when I describe myself as an atheist.
I can't help noticing that you seem awfully adamant about redefining atheism as merely "strong atheism" and classifying it as a religion. You seem to be able to accept that there are a lot of people who don't have a religion; why do you object to the word "atheist"?
The term "Agnostic" was coined specifically in a religious context. Your continued definiton of "Atheist" as "someone who does not believe" is emminently compatable with "someone who is of the opinion that we do not have sufficient evidence to believe in God" and, for the purposes of this discussion, "Agnostic" is essentially synonymous with "Atheist."
However, the majority of my preference of the use of the term "agnostic" is that is clearer and more accurate than "non-Strong Atheists" or "Atheist in the matter of weak atheists".
The problem is that this isn't true. Not all agnostics are atheists and not all atheists are agnostics. Not even all weak atheists are agnostics. There is not a 1 to 1 correlation so it is simply not correct. You are asking me to accept an inaccuracy for no reason other than that you don't like the word atheism because it has bad connotations for you. You can keep calling me a zealot until you're blue in the face and it won't change the reality of the situation.
Your main point about considering atheism a religion is your fear that atheists will be discriminated against because such discrimination would not be considered a violation of the "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" clause of the First Amendment. I don't accept that this is a threat because allowing discrimination against atheists in favor of the religious would violate the "respecting an establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment. You think that an entity forbidden to discriminate on the basis of which religion would be allowed to discriminate on the basis of no religion. History does not support that position.
Tomatos aren't vegetables, women aren't men and pet fish are pets. You have stated cases where people have decided to promote a deliberate inaccuracy because it was easier than the alternative (change the law to cover vegetables and fruits, change laws all over the place to cover women and men and rewrite rental agreements, respectively). I do not agree that there is any necessity to do so in this case and given the confusion that already exists regarding the meaning of the term "atheist" I think that any such action would be harmful to atheists.
The whole thing boils down to the idea that weak atheists should call themselves "agnostics" to make things easier for people who don't want to think about the subject. I decline to cooperate. I, much like the United States government, lack a belief in any god so I am an atheist. There are no creeds, no religious beliefs, no vast conspiracy to destroy religion. I will not pretend otherwise for anyone's benefit.
In all honesty, you should admit that this is the state that we live in now, not some theoretical adjustmet to the state. Atheists are protected by the "Freedom of religion" clause in the First Amendment, and there have been a fair ammount of cases wherein they have benefited from the specific provisions of said law.
No. Atheism is protected by the "no law respecting an establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment. The default position of government is atheistic (the U.S. government does not possess a belief in any god) and the aforementioned clause of the First Amendment prohibits government from promoting any religion.
Essentially no one calls themselves "theists", and as an opposite for atheism (as you used it) it's only tenably acceptable. A much fairer grouping of options would be a list I provided earlier: Monotheism, Atheism, Polytheism, Pantheism, and Transcednence. We could even add "Spirituallity" to the list if we wanted to.
Theist is the opposite of atheist. It's not some word that I just made up. There is no justification for you to describe it as "tenuously acceptable". No one calls themselves "theists" outside of texts discussing religions. Essentially no one calls themselves "Homo Sapiens Sapiens" outside of scientific texts but that doesn't mean the category is non-existent or in some way invalid. The two basic categories are atheist and theist. Theist can be further divided into monotheist, polytheist and pantheist (and probably others as people develop new types of beliefs). These categories can be further divided. Monotheist can be divided into Christian (which can then be further divided), Islamic, and so on. Some people don't bother acknowledging the distinctions but that doesn't mean they don't exist.
Atheism MUST be considered a religion:
I said evidence, not more assertion. You fail to provide evidence for any of these points. To respond to each:
As for when it can be considered a religion, well, there's no stopping people from failing to understand simple definitions.
I find it interesting that you claim that atheism must not be considered a religion when discussing the benefit or harm of religion on society. That again seems to indicate that you acknowledge that it is not a religion so it seems that you just have some reason for promoting confusion about the term.
You have made claims that religions require proof (they do not)
Actually, I believe I used the word evidence, which is distinct from proof. They do not require evidence in order for people to believe in them (this much is obvious) but they certainly require evidence in order to be taken seriously by people who do not believe in them. And for every religion out there, non-believers outnumber believers.
In an attempt to keep your answer clear: Public Bodies supposedly require proof for religious (or otherwise) claims because they are agnostic--t
Quite simply, you have fallen into zealous and rote repetition of dogma even though it is utterly irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
Pot. Kettle.
Baptism/Protestantism: Thou Shalt Not Have Other Gods Before Me.
Which is an argument for seperation of church and state. Bad example.
You requested an example of a Baptist/Protestant religious rule that contradicts the laws of the land. I provided one. You're welcome.
Bullocks. If anyone is making ad hominem attacks it is you.
This is an odd thing for you to say given the insult in the message I replied to plus the ones in your latest message that I will be quoting later on.
The term "Agnostic" was coined to mean PRECISELY what I'm using it for: a third choice between, to use your crude bungling of the language, atheism and theism.
"Crude bungling of the language" is ad hominem. Hope that information helps you can watch out for that sort of thing in the future. As for your actual point, you're wrong. "Agnostic" was coined to describe the position "That it is wrong for a man to say he is certain of the objective truth of a proposition unless he can provide evidence which logically justifies that certainty." This position, when applied to the question of the existence of a god, results in atheism. Weak atheism, to be precise. You continue to claim there is a third choice between having a belief in something and not having a belief in something but you fail to specify the details of what that choice is, just spouting the word "agnostic" as though your mere use of the word made your point for you. It's as though you just expect me to "see the light" and abandon the position of rationality. Read any Jack Chick tracts lately?
Furthermore, I am not attempting to "redefine" what religion means.
I do not believe you are attempting to redefine "religion". You are expressing a desire to treat atheism as if it were a religion even though you seem to understand that it isn't. I see no benefit to atheists were that to happen, although I can see how theists would like to be able to claim that atheism is just another religion and act as though it required proof the same way their religion of choice does. You'll forgive me if I don't fall all over myself to accommodate theists at my own expense.
I simply recognize that language is a flexible thing, and for a good deal of contexts, atheism can indeed be catagorized as "a religion."
You keep saying this and you keep failing to provide examples of these "good deal of contexts". One thing you need to learn about atheists is that we tend to require evidence before we accept a person's assertions. If you really are "seeking understanding" you'll start providing some.
But I suspect that you'll fail to grasp the fine point or the imprecision of our language.
This is another ad hominem. Just so you know, ad hominems usually work best when you have a third party audience of idiots. Your use of them would be an insult to the other people reading this discussion if there were any. I'm guessing that you and I are the only ones here so you needn't bother with the attacks.
I'm also guessing from your final paragraph that you are seeking an end to this conversation. To be honest, you sound like you're getting really stressed out about this. I don't expect to convince you of anything and based on your existing "arguments" (for lack of a better word) you shouldn't expect to convince me of anything. Please feel free to not respond if you're getting stressed. This discussion is not provoking an emotional response in me so I have no problem continuing if you do decide to respond. It's up to you.
Kindly name some tenets of Wicca, Bhuddism, Baptism, or "mainstream Protestantism" that are in opposition to the law of the land.
Wicca and Buddhism are not major religions in the United States. I thought from the context that it would be clear that "major" referred to number of followers and visible influence in government but I guess it wasn't. I apologize for confusing you. I expect at this point that you will get bogged down in the semantics of what "major" means. I acknowledge in advance that the word can be applied in many ways and in certain ways Wicca and Buddhism might be major religions. I have clarified my meaning above. As for Baptism and "mainstream Protestantism":
Baptism/Protestantism: Thou Shalt Not Have Other Gods Before Me.
Reality: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion....
Yes, there is. When discussion such vagarities, we have a word constructed by a "weak Atheist" to describe those who, rather than answering the question, consider the question unanswerable: Agnostics.
You persist in trying to redefine atheism to mean strong atheism only and to redefine agnosticism as meaning weak atheism. Agnosticism deals with whether or not the nature of a god can be understood, not whether or not such an entity exists. I know a man who believes that there must be some god that created the universe, that it could not have come about by itself, but that the nature of this god is beyond his comprehension. He is an agnostic theist.
You are getting hung up on semantics, which reflects poorly on your intellectual ability.
No, I'm hung up on honesty. Trying to change the definitions of words is a common theist tactic but it only works on the dim. As for the ad hominem, fallacies like that won't save you.
Atheism is a creed, like Christianity or the Black Panthers or the Republican Party.
No it isn't. The only thing that atheists have in common is that they do not possess a belief in any gods. That is not a creed. You might be thinking of Humanism.
NO ONE is an atheist who doesn't consider themselves an atheist--and everyone who does consider themselves an atheist is an atheist, even if they're utterly convinced of God's existance.
Wrong. Words have meanings, and the meaning of the word "atheism" precludes anyone who is "utterly convinced of God's existence". You are parroting the words of Maritain, who I mentioned earlier, with his pathetic attempt to define a "Practical Atheist". I'm going to be honest here and admit that I was very surprised to see you write this, as I had come to the conclusion that you weren't a typical theist. Just goes to show the benefits of keeping an open mind and adjusting to new evidence as it appears, I guess.
I do not want Atheists discriminated against, I do not want them forbidden from congregating based on Atheism alone, and I do not want Atheist organizations having a disproportionate influence on the government. If Atheists want to, as Atheists, congregate or express their beliefs or influence the government, they should be treated by the same rules that they helped created to restrain and protect religion.
The first reason given here is irrational. There is no concern that atheists would be forbidden from congregating since the First Amendment specifically acknowledges the right of the people peaceably to assemble. As for the second, the only reason atheist organizations exist is to block theist organizations that attempt to take away our First Amendment rights.
You seem to have this perception of atheists gathering to discuss and celebrate atheism the same way theists do their religion. In general, we don't. I mean, what is there to discuss? "Hey, do you believe in any gods?" "Nope!" "Me neither!" Hardly worth the drive, especially with gas prices these days. In general, atheism is not something we dwell on too much; a lack of belief does no
None of these are harmful to government, simply because any truly dangerous idea would very unlikely make it through the democratic system--and, quite frankly, the risk of a dangerous idea being democratically instituted is less dangerous that the certain dangers of limiting free discourse in government or relying on a non-democratic form of government.
All of the major religions in this country have commandments or rules that violate the constitution and the basic principles of this country. I would disagree with you that promoting them is not harmful to the country. As for the idea of any truly dangerous idea not getting through the democratic system, well I guess there's something to be said for pie-in-the-sky optimism. But the fact of the matter is that dangerous ideas such as the Patriot Act (which has no religious basis and is just intended as an example of danger) do routinely make it through the democratic process. Religion is far from the only cause of such dangerous ideas but every cause that can be eliminated, should.
Note that I'm not suggesting that theists should not have influence in government; that would be ridiculous. The United States (incidentally I've been assuming you live in the U.S.; it's where I live so it's the country I'm concerned with) is for everyone and all voices should be heard. But I stand by my belief that no religious reason can validate a position, no matter how otherwise reasonable that position might be. For example, murder isn't wrong because the Christian God says it is. It's wrong because it ends the life of an innocent person.
Please present evidence of atheism "working against religion". I have never seen such a thing.
(Snip examples given)
If you consider any attempt to prevent the government from unconstitutionally respecting an establishment of religion to be "working against religion" then yes, people who understand the First Amendment (atheists and theists) will continue to "work against religion". Note that none of these examples is actually someone trying to harm or destroy religion.
You persist in using the word "agnostic" where you should be using "atheistic"
No, I don't. The goverment should not believe in any god, and neither should it have belief nor actual absence of belief in any deity or religion. Goverment, and all other public bodies, should be agnostic--unless religion is important to them, as it undoubtedly is to some, they should simply be of the opinion that they, as public bodies, cannot answer any religious question at all.
You just did it again. The position you describe, with government not believing in any god, is atheistic. You keep talking about government having neither a belief nor an absence of belief as though there were some third option. There isn't.
That is not a contradiction in terms. An atheist does indeed have religious beliefs--be they Strong Atheists or Weak Atheists, strict agnostics, empirical agnostics, or Free Thinkiers, atheists and all those who can be grouped under the unbrella of Atheism do have religious beliefs--and these beliefs should be protected and treated as religious beliefs, the same as any other.
You keep asserting this as though your mere assertion made it so. A lack of belief is not a belief. If you think atheists have religious beliefs, list them.
Which, again, gets me back to the original point. I'll even expand it, so you don't get hung up on definitions that even atheists themselves get hung up on.
I'm glad linked to this page since it argues quite effectively against considering atheism is a religion, in the response to the questions "OK, you may think there's a philosophical justification for atheism, but isn't it still a religious belief?" and "OK, maybe it's not a religion in the strict sense of the word. But surely belief in atheism (or science) i
Religion, by and large, is harmless in government, for the simple reason that the only religions that grow to significant size in a country are those that are aligned with the ethics and morals of said country.
I don't agree with this statement. Religion is far from harmless in a government.
If you're going to ban religion, you might as well ban political parties and socio-economic theorists from government as well.
This is a strawman; no one has suggested banning religion.
The definitons that you use are far too vauge for this usage.
The definitions I use are not even slightly vague. A theist is anyone who possesses a belief in one or more gods. An atheist is anyone else.
Strong Atheists share all of the faults of fringe religions
No strong atheist has ever fooled people into believing that they would go to paradise by drinking poisoned kool-aid or killing themselves to catch a ride on a comet.
a "weak atheist government" could in its own way be as bad as a Strong Atheist, or Catholic, or Wiccan government.
A religious government would have every vulnerability that a weak atheist one has, plus additional ones resulting from trying to enforce rules that have no basis beyond their presence in bronze-age texts.
Yes, exactly. Government shouldn't, and by and large doesn't, make a stand either way on whether or not deities--or spirituality of any kind--exist. Government is properly Agnostic--it should simply assume that religious questions cannot be answered by government or law, and act accordintly.
You persist in refusing to accept that atheism doesn't state that "God does not exist". The situation you talk about, not taking a stand on religious questions, is atheistic.
As a practical matter, whenever you find "Atheism" you find it working against religion.
Please present evidence of atheism "working against religion". I have never seen such a thing.
As you've said yourself, atheism does very little but say "your religion is wrong and shouldn't have power over me."
The first part of that statement can be presumed correct unless evidence to the contrary is presented and the second part is unquestionably true.
Of course, this gets us back to my original point: Atheism should be treated as a religion by government and public society. Government, Science, and Economoics should be agnostic, and essentially ignore the religious questions that Monotheism, Atheism, Polytheism, Pantheism, and Transcednence answer.
You persist in using the word "agnostic" where you should be using "atheistic", and you have yet to present a convincing argument that government should ignore what atheism is so that the religious can feel they're on equal grounds.
Any claim an Atheist makes based on Atheism should be given no more or less weight than a claim made by a Christian based on Christianity
No governmental claims are based on atheism; the concept is preposterous. "I don't believe in a god so therefore we should bomb Iraq." It just doesn't happen. Christians, on the other hand, do make governmental claims (such as "abortion should be illegal because a soul enters the body at conception" or "God told me to bomb Iraq") based on Christianity, a belief for which there is no evidence.
the religious belief of an atheist
This is a contradiction in terms.
A scientist that draws a scientific conclusion that "there is no god" should be greeted with the same skepticism than a scientist who claims to have found evidence of the soul is greeted with.
You'd have trouble finding a scientist who claimed they had scientific evidence of the non-existence of god.
A business that forbids religious missionary work should simply forbid religious discussion of any kind.
A business is not a government and is thus irrelevant to this discussion.
On what basis, exactly, do you make this claim?
On the basis that no religion has demonstrated any evidence of validity. There is no difference between Bush saying "God told me to attack Iraq" and him saying "The Lucky Charms Leprachaun told me to attack Iraq". If you're looking for Constitutional basis, there's Article VI, which states that no religious test shall ever be required to hold an office in the United States.
That's a slippery slope argument. You might as well disallow doctors from spreading into government, based on Dr. Kevorkian. (You know as well as I that for every Roy Moore or Fred Phelps, there are thousands of judges and priests who meld their religion and their jobs and their politics just fine.)
First of all, there's nothing wrong with Dr. Kevorkian so he's not a particularly good example but I understand your point. As long as judges can deal with the law without allowing any religious interference there's no problem if they themselves are religious. But it is never correct for them to make decisions or rulings based on religion.
Public contstructs like government are properly Agnostic, neither themselves atheist nor religious.
Agnosticism is not a third choice between theism and atheism. There is no third choice. Agnosticism deals with whether or not the nature of a god or gods can be understood, not whether or not such entities exist. Your point above seems to suggest that you believe atheism is anti-religion; it isn't. It is the lack of religion, which is exactly what we apparently agree is proper for public constructs like government.
I don't want the government to favor no religion over membership in a religion--hence, the core reason I want Atheism treated by public instututions as just another religion.
This is, I think, the core of the desire of many to treat Atheism as just another religion. If they can convince the government to view things this way then they can push for religion in schools, in courts, etc.
(snip exceptions to my characterizations of religions)
I agree with all of your points. Nevertheless, while all religions meet at least some of these criteria, Atheism meets none of them.
By all means, let us work to stop such false and horrid statements. (Mr. Maritain seems more like a Satanist than an Atheist, truth be told.)
Maritain is actually a Catholic philosopher, the author of The Range of Reason.
To shift gears--if your worry about atheism is misunderstanding and faulty definitions, it seems to me that the best way to counteract this is to form a body of some kind, to argue as a whole for the rights of atheists and aid in the public understanding of atheism. God knows that there are odder churches in the country.
My biggest concern is actually the spread of religion into government, where it has no place. Allowing the government to erroneously categorize Atheism as a religion would pave the way for such things. Fortunately for every Judge Roy Moore who tries to foist religion on the public there's a Fred Phelps to show people why that's a bad thing.
No they don't. You just legitimzed suicide.
People have a right to commit suicide if that's what they want. It's wonderful that there are hotlines and other services for people who are looking for a reason to live, but if a person decides that they absolutely don't want to live under certain circumstances they have every right to end their life.
No, they call themselves Catholics and Protestants.
... perhaps believe in Him in their brains) but ... in reality deny His existence by each one of their deeds." Moronic definitions like this paint Atheists as weaklings and hypocrits and must be fought. Or at least bickered about.
If you were to ask a Protestant or a Catholic if they are Christian, they would say "yes". They are admittedly quite different categories of Christian, but I think it stands to reason that if both Muslims and Jews called themselves "Jews" there would still be conflict in the Middle East.
Now, there are doubtless religions that are false and wholly incorrect. Pick any given religion, and at least half of the others will strongly disagree with that religion--and for most tenets, they cannot be objectivly disproven. It is for this reason that all religions should be given equal ground in public society; we simply cannot tell which one is right and which one isn't.
I agree with you, although you assume that at least one is correct and I don't agree with that.
Were Atheism a mere absence of religion, an indecision that does not attempt to answer religious questions, there would be no reason to treat it as a religion.
But Atheism is merely the absence of religion/a belief in gods. It's not so much an indecision as the recognition that there's no reason to make a decision. I'm not indecisive about the existence of unicorns or sidhe. If I were to encounter evidence of the existence of a god I would have reason to consider the possibility. As for answering religions questions, Atheism answers a single one: is there a god? And the answer? "I have no reason to believe there is." Not a very forceful answer but there you go. Religions attempt to answer far more questions than that.
To answer your final question, there are a couple of reasons why I object to Atheism being called a religion. The first is that it simply isn't one. Nor does it act like one.
1) Religions require faith. Atheism doesn't.
2) Religions prescribe specific moral codes. Atheism doesn't.
3) Religions have followers. Atheism doesn't. Atheists like me may enjoy debating the subject, but we're not followers because there's nothing to follow.
4) Religions make promises to their followers. Atheism promises nothing.
5) Perhaps most importantly, religions make positive assertions. Atheism (in general) doesn't.
Now, that last point doesn't apply to strong Atheism. Strong Atheism still isn't a religion but it does make a positive assertion and one could argue that strong Atheists should be required to prove that there is no god. Of course that would mean that Christians would have to prove that there is no Odin and followers of Asatru would have to prove that there is no Yahweh, etc, etc. In practice, no one bothers.
The second reason, which just applies to me personally, is that when I discuss this with people I find that if I don't challenge the assumption that Atheism is a religion then it's a short trip to "Atheism requires faith just like my religion" and other erroneous arguments. I find it's just more efficient to challenge the initial assertion.
As a final rebuttal, can you elaborate on how you feel that Atheism is harmed or wronged by being considered a religion? Atheists are certainly no more disliked by believers of other religions if because they are called "atheists" instead of "unbelievers". And weak atheists are no more wronged by strong atheists being treated like any other religous group than weak christians are.
I don't recall saying that I thought Atheism was harmed by being considered a religion. But it sounds like the actual question is "Why do you care if people call Atheism a religion?" The reason that I argue against that assertion is that it leads to misunderstandings about what Atheism is and definitions like Jacques Maritain's "Practical Atheism". According to him, "Practical Atheists" "believe that they believe in God (and
It's simple. If you possess a belief in one or more gods, you are a theist. Otherwise, you are an atheist.
For some reason, you appear to be an weak atheist who somehow considers himself different from all other weak atheists. But it really doesn't matter whether or not you care that you don't believe. If you don't believe, you're an atheist.
Welcome to the club.
Of course it matters what the definition of the word actually is. You only claim that the OED is irrelevant because it disproves your point.
Your claim about Paul and Mohammad is somewhat bizarre. Both catholics and protestants call themselves "christians" but there are certainly a lot of problems in Ireland, where they seem to have noticed their theological differences. I can see no reason to assume things would be different in the Middle East.
This is actually a debate I have had many times with many different theists. The typical response at this point is to repeat "Atheism is a religion", perhaps adding "La-la-la-la-la I can't hear you." Argument by assertion is typical of theists, who desperately wish that atheism was a religion so they could try to meet it on equal ground. Theists would like to be able to claim that atheism is solely a matter of belief no more valid then their own religion when instead it is simply an open-minded lack of belief in the absence of evidence.
If you decide to respond, please do so with something other than argument by assertion.
This is incorrect.
n s.html for more information.
The positive belief that there is no god is one type of atheism, called "strong atheism". The other type is the simple lack of belief in any gods (called "weak atheism").
Agnostiscm is the belief that it is not possible to know or understand the nature of a god or gods. Thus, you can have agnostic atheists (it is impossible to understand the nature of a god and I lack a belief in any such entity) as well as agnostic theists (I believe that the universe was created by a god but its nature is unknowable).
See http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/sn-definitio
Atheism is a religion in much the same way that baldness is a hair color.
It's not a "theology", a "spiritual belief" or a religion.
It's simply a lack of belief.
Which is not to say that there aren't atheists out there who are making the positive assertion that There Are No Gods. I'm not one of them, but they're out there. Those people are only a subset of atheists though, not the entire set.
I'm not sure if my comment is the one you meant to reply to, but if it is you have completely misinterpreted my position.
I am not questioning the GPL's validity; in the U.S. it is a straightforward application of copyright law. There is no question that software is covered under copyright and that copyright owners have the ability to grant others the right to distribute derived works, which is what the GPL does.
The value of "testing" the GPL in court is not to find out if it is valid; it's to have a nice legal reference to point to when Certain Parties spread FUD about the legal standing of Linux and other GPL software. When someone says "the GPL has never been tested in court!" (as though that mattered) we can point to SCO v IBM and the smoking crater in Utah that used to be SCO headquarters.
Nice troll.
For those of you who are just tuning in, this is the GPL's test in court, and when it's over SCO's complete destruction will be a harsh lesson for any other company that might try to hijack GPL'd code. GPL'd code that provides a financial benefit to deep-pocketed corporations, anyway.
Since there's no such thing as hijacking BSD'd code, obviously BSD has no problem with it.
As for your last question, I would guess that the sort of people who think (to use the term loosely) that *BSD is dying probably think that Linux is dying as well. The rest of us are a little more realistic.
You imply that Linux is not reliable and that Linux users constantly run into problems with their computers "not working every morning at 8 AM". This is obviously inaccurate.
I use Linux as my desktop at home. I tinker around with it quite a bit because computers are one of my hobbies but it doesn't break during that time. While I'm tweaking window manager settings or compiling a kernel on one desktop, I'm using the web, reading email, and writing documents and source code on others.
I use Linux as my desktop at work (I'm a programmer). I don't tinker with it there because I have better things to do. I set it up initially in the optimal manner for my needs (gotta love UI flexibility) and after that it just works, without tweaking or "jacking up", or rebooting.
OS X is a great operating system; for me, it's the first time that buying a Mac was even a remote possibility. But don't try to pretend that Linux is the Yugo of operating systems; here, at least, people know better.
Eric Bamberg
In the beginning, a lot of people theorized that this was SCO's plan -- annoy IBM to the point where it's simpler and cheaper for Big Blue to just buy them out. In an early interview Darl McBride said that such a buyout was one possible outcome.
The theory now is that IBM didn't want to set up a precedent of being blackmailed into buying worthless failing companies so they decided to fight.
I agree with you, at this point SCO would probably choose option 3. Certainly a buyout offer at this point would hurt Linux's perception in the minds of CIOs; it would appear to be on shaky IP grounds if even IBM had no choice but to buy out SCO.
It's really very simple. You claimed in your original message that a person would have to be "pretty dang stupid" to object to the ten commandments. You further stated that they "all seem like pretty good ideas to me". Don't bother claiming that is not the position you took; we can all see your original post.
I then pointed out that there are several commandments in there that run contrary to basic American ideals about freedom of religion and which are about controlling how people think. I asked you to explain why someone would have to be "pretty dang stupid" to object to those commandments and you have been completely unable to respond.
Instead you resort to ad hominem attacks which suggests that you realize how untenable your position is and are trying to divert attention away from your original statement.
If I'm wrong, then please just explain why someone would have to be "pretty dang stupid" to object to being told which god to worship, whether or not they can dislike their parents and whether or not they can be envious of their neighbor's posessions.
This is a very typical response: all assertion and no argument.
You claim that it is a bad idea to worship whatever gods people want. This position demonstrates religious intolerance on your part. It's difficult to imagine how one could defend such a position but of course you don't. As soon as you can you try to bring the discussion back to Thou Shall Not Kill and other Statements of the Obvious with your "last I heard, people are still murdered" comment. Try defending the commandments I actually listed. Explain to us why it's "unhealthy" to worship whatever gods we want or to dislike our parents if they are not good people or to wish we could have car as nice as our neighbors.
Either that or just type "LOL" a few more times as though that made an actual argument.
Eric Bamberg
Atheist
I see what you mean. From a computer science CPU architecture standpoint it may not be helpful, but from an "if I buy one of these computers which will be faster" it is. Of course, anyone who chooses whether or not to use OS X based on benchmarks is an idiot. You either like the Mac OS and environment or you don't. To say that one shouldn't buy a G5 because there *might* be a faster computer would be foolish.
What's your criteria for describing Photoshop, an application used by a minority of computer users, as the only relevant application? Quake 3 and Premiere are in the same category but Word is definitely more relevant.
The definition of a desktop OS has nothing to do with so-called "regular" people. I use Linux as my desktop both at home and at work (in a largely Windows-based organization) at it works fine. And I'm not alone; far from it.
I wonder how they were planning to get everyone else in the world to comply with their plan.