No, but you just setup and tore down a strawman. I am not attempting to credit religion for science.
You stated Newton's religious beliefs as though they mattered. It certainly wasn't religion that led him to develop a theory of gravity. "God did it" isn't much of a theory, and Newton understood that.
As a Christian I believe God will - in the future - and in person - establish his rule on earth.
I don't suppose you have any objective evidence for this. It's something of a prerequisite if you hope to be taken seriously.
Getting back to this topic - governments are put here for our protection. And for the protection of human beings in general - including unborn children. That's the basis of my position in this discussion.
The problem is that you equate embryos with children, and this is inaccurate. No one has suggested killing children. But that's a nice strawman on your part.
I'm not saying that we give up on the technology, but your assertion that we can do a better job than the evolutionary process (and I'd argue even when we are doing genetic engineering evolutionary forces will be at work) does not stand up to all the evidence to date. Sure, someday we may be able to do a better job by ourselves, but it is FAR from clear that we are currently in that state.
I agree we're not quite there yet, but since the evolutionary process works over millions of years I think we have some time yet.
You're working from a narrow definition of evolutionary process. Why limit it strictly to natural (whatever "natural" means) threats? The bottom line is that a large portion of our population faces the possibilty of death on a nearly daily basis.
Because somehow the idea of evolving bullet-proof skin or perhaps wings to escape airline disasters seems a little far-fetched. I was using 'natural' as opposed to 'man-made'.
I would argue that the history of eugenics, not to mention things like ethnic cleansing, suggest we're not yet better at doing the process by ourselves.
If we gave up on every technology that someone tried to use to harm people, we'd still be living in caves.
At this stage in the game, evolution through genetic engineering would probably result in a genetic monoculture, similar to what we see in operating systems. The net result will be a seemingly strong society which can be essentially wiped out by a single threat.
I don't agree that this would be the case. There is no real connection between the circumstances that produced the current OS situation and genetic engineering.
Actually, it's the complete lack of objective evidence for the validity of any known religion or the existence of any god that makes the concept obsolete.
They'll be in for a surprise when they meet Him.
This is the sort of self-confidence-building statement that theists often make when they're not completely confident in their beliefs and fear (deep down inside) that they've been wasting their life on foolishness. People who are confident in their religious beliefs don't need to keep reassuring themselves. How strong is your faith?
Posts that blindly assume that the author's personal religious beliefs are true or in any way important are often amusing to those who don't share the author's beliefs.
Scientific research is a *great* use of our brain which God gave us.
Assumption without evidence. Assuming your conclusion.
Killing human fetuses and using body parts in the name of science, is a *terrible* use of our brains. We should not do it - period.
Merely your humble opinion.
As you examine the facts about abortion, let alone religion, your conscience (which God gave you) should be whispering quietly "hey, this is wrong".
Assumption without evidence. Assuming your conclusion.
Your problem is that you really really believe this stuff to be true and you think that because you really really believe this stuff to be true that it should therefore matter to other people and to society in general. It simply doesn't. Society has no business (and the U.S. Government is Constitutionally prevented from) making policy decisions based on bronze-age mythologies. If you want religion to be taken seriously, provide objective evidence of its validity.
If you find killing of embryos/fetuses an acceptible payment for the benefits of theraputic cloning, your own conscience will condemn you when you meet God.
Here's a piece of advice. When you're thinking of making a statement like that to an atheist, try replacing the word "God" with the words "Santa Claus" and see if you still like the way the phrase makes you look. Because that's how you sound to us when you say things like this.
You are attempting to credit religion for the benefits of scientific research done by someone who happened to have religious beliefs. This is obviously moronic. The benefits we gained from Newton's theories are the result of science, not religion. The benefits of Perl are the results of technical skill, not religion. We gain these and other benefits despite religion, not because of it.
Western civilization tried religious rule. We now call that time period the Dark Ages.
You're missing the point. The evolutionary process is trial and error, devoted to one thing: survival of the entire species in the face of natural threats. We've evolved to the point where we (as a species) needn't fear natural threats. The goal now should be to improve our quality of life, to make ourselves stronger, smarter, healthier and longer-lived. The evolutionary process has served us well but it is time for it to take its place alongside flint firemaking.
The future is genetic engineering and scientific design of humans. We are better off determining for ourselves which changes to discard and which to keep.
Your suggestion that facts are somehow independant of ethical, moral and religous matters is ludicrous. Facts alone, without some kind of value context, cannot lead to a decision.
Facts are entirely independent of ethics, morals and religion. That is not to say that decisions should be made solely on facts; far from it. Ethics and morality are definitely important in the decision making process. Religion isn't, however, unless someone can prove that one particular religion is correct.
The fact that there is an issue that is encouraging a debate about ethics, morals, and religion is actually an increadibly healthy thing for society. Science is a tool, and they [ethics, morals, and religion] are the hand that guides the tool. The more powerful the tool is, the more important that it be handled with skill.
Religion is definitely not the hand that guides science. Religion has stood in the way of science for hundreds of years. You do have a point about ethics and morality though. A society driven solely by cold-hearted logic would not be much of an improvement over what we have now.
Honestly, I'd argue that the problem in the USA is that most of the ethical, moral and religious thinking that guides our policy is not driven by very thorough thinking. If the populace as a whole spends more time grappling with these issues, perhaps they'll get past the rather shallow analysis that tends to drive policy.
I agree. Good luck getting the general public to concern themselves with these issues. Maybe we need some kind of "American Scientist" competition along the lines of "American Idol" to get people interested.
Simon: Your theory was terrible, I mean really awful.
We're beyond the point where we need to rely on the evolutionary process to improve humanity. Genetic engineering is the future of human development. The solution to the potential overpopulation problem is pretty simple, however. Give people a choice: immortality or fertility. I know which I'd choose.
Of course, there's little reason to continue to rely on the trial and error of the evolutionary process when we have the opportunity to research genetic engineering and improve ourselves in a more direct and efficient way. Of course, many Christians are against that too.
The 14th Amendment is what restricts the states from passing such laws. Section 1 includes the phrase "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States".
As "Agnostic" in a personal-religion sense means "I don't know"*, I find that my original stance, being that "I don't know" or "I do not believe that he exists", is still appropriate to the label "agnostic", leaving "atheist" for the much more commonly understood "I don't think god exists."
Agnosticism deals with the question of whether or not the nature of god can be understood rather than whether or not a god exists. It's distinct from atheism although there are many people who are both.
Then you have left the path of understanding, and are essentially arguing by assertion. It is becoming increasingly hard to believe that any further understanding can come from this discussion.
You continue to define "understanding" as "accepting your position". To reiterate, I understand your argument. I just do not agree with it.
I didn't. You objected to my use, and have repeatedly maintained the existance of "technical atheists" who should not be considered members of a religion named "atheism."
To quote your original message that began this entire thread:
Atheism is a religon--that is, it's an answer to the question of "what's up with all this god stuff?". It being a negative doesn't mean that, as far as politics and law care, that it isn't a religion.
So again, don't say you never said that. You absolutely did.
You have successfully argued the point that the multiple usage of atheism, as lack of any deisitc belief or as belief in the absence of any diviniy, is confusing and brings misunderstanding.
I'm not sure here if you're saying I successfully argued that the definition of atheism was confusing or if I successfully argued against that idea. I'm going to assume the latter because the former would be a complete misrepresentation of my position.
However, you have not given a compelling argument why Atheism should never be considered a religion, regardless of context.
I'm not the one making the positive assertion, so the burden of proof is not on me. But to respond to your point, you have been using the "belief structure" definition of religion; since atheism has no belief structure it isn't a religion under that definition. This seems pretty straightforward to me.
While we could continue to debate this, unless you are willing to accept that language is mutable, I fear that we will simply be unable to come to any kind of understanding at all.
I realize that language is mutable, I just don't agree that there is any basis for mutating the definition of atheism.
Are you switching to assert the existence of a religion called "Positive Atheism"?
Both are or are inspired by a commmon set of beliefs. In addition, Yahoo catagorizes "atheism" under "religion" which, while not in itself existance of a religion entitled atheism, is evidence of my original assertion that atheism is properly catalogued as a religion.
Thank you for actually providing evidence. I would speculate that the reason that atheism links are under this category is the same as the reason why atheist books tend to be in the religion and spirituality section of bookstores: atheism is a topic that most often arises in the context of religion. I would not agree that this makes atheism itself a religion, as atheism is still not a belief structure.
They should just go for the direct approach: threaten to sue anyone who refuses to buy their stock at 25. They've got little to lose at this point.
The big worry will be what happens when sco does give up the ghost. Theres alot of people that depend on the software to run their businesses. They had nothing to do with the lawsuit and will be hurt when the message does at last get to the brain of the beast.
Seems like a golden opportunity for certain enterprising unix/linux companies to offer low-cost plans for migration from SCO installation. Lifeboats to get off the sinking ship.
Your example of "American" is a poor one, as "American" only has a single meaning in our common language.
Wrong. Many people use "American" to refer to anyone who lives in North or South America. This usage is much more common in the other countries of North and South America and in Europe. My example is quite apt, as a person from one of these countries could very easily be annoyed at being called "American" in light of the U.S.'s current unpopularity in certain parts of the world.
To wit: the definitions are not inaccurate, they are imprecise / variable. The innacuracy is in your use of the term "atheist", specifically the grammatical implication that there is a commonality between yourself and a Bhuddist or a Shintoist or a Humanist when your beliefs are not the same.
To suggest that there are no commonalities between myself and a buddhist, shintoist or humanist is obviously false. For example, we are both humans. That is one commonality. Another is that we both lack a belief in god. We are, in fact, both atheists. The term is not in itself sufficient to fully encompass our various beliefs or lacks thereof but it is sufficient to describe one specific aspect.
As I have stated before, any logic that would determine "atheism" to be a religion would also determine "agnosticism" to be a religion.
As I have stated before, I do not agree that atheism is a religion so I do not see the point of discussing any "logic" that would determine it to be such.
In a like vein, a body that is "agnostic" with regards to religion is also, by your preferred definition, "atheist."
If this is your argument then why did you object to my calling the government "atheist" when you yourself called it "agnostic"?
One more point of yours deserves reply (the others are irrelevant, tangental, or unnecessary):
I do not agree but there is no reason to expect that you would stop ignoring my points now.
I did not say that all "technical atheists" belong to the religon of atheism.
Your position from the very beginning has been "Atheism is a religion." Don't say you never said that.
Instead, I stated that there is a religion, identifed by you as "strong atheism", and that this religion is named "Atheism."
And yet again, your stating it doesn't make it so. I have repeatedly asked you to present a reference to the existence of such a religion and you continue to fail to do so. It should be clear to you by now that I will not accept your assertions without evidence.
All members of this poorly-named religion beleive that God does not exist, and various other implications and distrust of various believing religions.
I do not agree that the belief that there is no god (as distinct from the lack of belief) is sufficient to be considered a religion.
That is a specfic context. There are many others wherein Strong Atheists omit the "strong" modifier.
It's one more specific context than you have named.
But there are people with a specific set of beliefs who call themselves "atheists" and nothing else. I was not the one to co-opt the word.
First of all, provide a reference to these people. Secondly, if a small minority of people have co-opted a word that does not mean that the majority needs to accept it.
Based on what do you make this near-malcious ad hominem attack?
Your messages are my basis for believing that your objection to the use of the correct definition of "atheism" is based solely on your view of it as opposing christianity. You have repeatedly raised the concern of atheists expressing views opposing religion and religious people not being able to respond.
"Atheism" is a creed that does attempt to influence the world around it, and spread its own idea of religious truth. It is very likely that followers of this creed have co-opted the word that you choose to describe your own non-affiliated religious position, but they exist nontheless.
You keep saying this but your saying it doesn't make it true. There is no creed called "atheism".
This is what prompts my opinion of atheism as a religion--the fact that there exists a religion (as the term is used by the Supreme Court) that calls itself "Atheism" and does many of the objective things that religions do.
Assuming your conclusion: you have not provided evidence that there exists a religion that calls itself "Atheism". The court case you linked to earlier stated that it was not for government to decide what is and is not a religion, a position that contradicts your implication that the Supreme Court can somehow declare atheism a religion.
I have never made any allegation of the sort--in fact, it has been other parties to this discussion that have implied that religion needs to be "organized" at all.
Your attempt to latch on to the word "organized" to bail yourself out aside, my point follows logically from your assertion that a person who believes in a god but thinks that all religions are false is effectively the same as an atheist.
Furthermore, for the purposes of everyone except for your boss himself, he should be treated very much the same as an atheist.
I disagree. You are saying that the belief in a god is without meaning if that belief is not part of a religion (organized or not). Certainly from the christian perspective I can see how anyone who is not a christian would be treated as a heretic but there are perspectives outside that of christianity.
That's a misallegation of malice. You should know better.
Not at all. You continue to attribute to me positions that are directly contrary to what I have written. In the past I have written it off as carelessness but it has reached the point where it appears malicious.
Your points are incoherent, badly formed, assume facts not in evidence without noting such as speculation, and formed with a manner that reflects a childish adherence to words of authority without respect to real usage or intended meaning.
This little bit of ad hominem applies more to you than it does to me. I have backed up my points with evidence and have labeled by speculation as such. You are too busy ignoring my "verbosity" to actually read what I write.
Atheism is a religion, even if it's not YOUR religion. (Call it "Strong Atheism" if you want--but S.A.'s don't call themselves anything but "atheists" when then engage in public discourse.) A professor who says "God doesn't exist" should be penalized exactly the same as a professor who says "God does exist."
Argument by assertion. Atheism is not a religion because there is no specific set of beliefs that is common to all atheists. This point is important because you and I have both been using the "system of beliefs" definition of religion. Your assertion that strong atheists never refer to themselves as such in public is incorrect. Try reading some discussion forums like alt.atheism for examples. As for the hypothetical professor, do you think even for a moment that this isn't the case?
Doing otherwise gives atheism an unfair advantage; It is inherently unfair to require one party of a discussion to censor their beliefs and allow another to have their beliefs go uncensored.
You're going to have to provide some specific examples of cases where religous people had to keep quiet about their beliefs while atheists deride religion. I have never seen such a case in my private or public life, on line, in college, at work or in public.
A demand such as that is immature and not in keeping with the inhereted rules and common understanding of proper decorum for dialogue.
Irrelevant ad hominem. You appear to have some specific view of how an online discussion should run that is at odds with reality.
A single/. post (or usenet post, or e-mail) is akin to a monologue in a traditional discussion. If you fill your monologue with a myriad of unrelated points without giving the other party a chance to respond, you should not be surprised when some of your points go unreplied.
No. The medium in which we are operating makes it trivial to at least acknowledge all points expressed. You will note that I consistently do so with all of your points. It isn't like a verbal discussion where one person can talk for several minutes and by the time he's finished you don't remember all of his points. All of my points (which are not unrelated) are available to you; if you cannot adapt to this medium you should not use it.
Slashdot Mirror
Your analogy doesn't quite hold water does it? :)
Sure it does. There's the same amount of evidence for Santa's existence as there is for God's.
No, but you just setup and tore down a strawman. I am not attempting to credit religion for science.
You stated Newton's religious beliefs as though they mattered. It certainly wasn't religion that led him to develop a theory of gravity. "God did it" isn't much of a theory, and Newton understood that.
As a Christian I believe God will - in the future - and in person - establish his rule on earth.
I don't suppose you have any objective evidence for this. It's something of a prerequisite if you hope to be taken seriously.
Getting back to this topic - governments are put here for our protection. And for the protection of human beings in general - including unborn children. That's the basis of my position in this discussion.
The problem is that you equate embryos with children, and this is inaccurate. No one has suggested killing children. But that's a nice strawman on your part.
No. Because I used to be an athiest too. And I remember how ridiculous I though it was when that madman told me about Jesus.
I remember what it was like when I first heard about Santa too. What a great guy, gives presents to all the good kids. Then I grew up.
But he was right, and I was wrong.
This is the point at which you're expected to provide objective evidence. Good luck.
I'm not saying that we give up on the technology, but your assertion that we can do a better job than the evolutionary process (and I'd argue even when we are doing genetic engineering evolutionary forces will be at work) does not stand up to all the evidence to date. Sure, someday we may be able to do a better job by ourselves, but it is FAR from clear that we are currently in that state.
I agree we're not quite there yet, but since the evolutionary process works over millions of years I think we have some time yet.
You're working from a narrow definition of evolutionary process. Why limit it strictly to natural (whatever "natural" means) threats? The bottom line is that a large portion of our population faces the possibilty of death on a nearly daily basis.
Because somehow the idea of evolving bullet-proof skin or perhaps wings to escape airline disasters seems a little far-fetched. I was using 'natural' as opposed to 'man-made'.
I would argue that the history of eugenics, not to mention things like ethnic cleansing, suggest we're not yet better at doing the process by ourselves.
If we gave up on every technology that someone tried to use to harm people, we'd still be living in caves.
At this stage in the game, evolution through genetic engineering would probably result in a genetic monoculture, similar to what we see in operating systems. The net result will be a seemingly strong society which can be essentially wiped out by a single threat.
I don't agree that this would be the case. There is no real connection between the circumstances that produced the current OS situation and genetic engineering.
Actually, it's the complete lack of objective evidence for the validity of any known religion or the existence of any god that makes the concept obsolete.
They'll be in for a surprise when they meet Him.
This is the sort of self-confidence-building statement that theists often make when they're not completely confident in their beliefs and fear (deep down inside) that they've been wasting their life on foolishness. People who are confident in their religious beliefs don't need to keep reassuring themselves. How strong is your faith?
Posts that blindly assume that the author's personal religious beliefs are true or in any way important are often amusing to those who don't share the author's beliefs.
Hope this helps.
Scientific research is a *great* use of our brain which God gave us.
Assumption without evidence. Assuming your conclusion.
Killing human fetuses and using body parts in the name of science, is a *terrible* use of our brains. We should not do it - period.
Merely your humble opinion.
As you examine the facts about abortion, let alone religion, your conscience (which God gave you) should be whispering quietly "hey, this is wrong".
Assumption without evidence. Assuming your conclusion.
Your problem is that you really really believe this stuff to be true and you think that because you really really believe this stuff to be true that it should therefore matter to other people and to society in general. It simply doesn't. Society has no business (and the U.S. Government is Constitutionally prevented from) making policy decisions based on bronze-age mythologies. If you want religion to be taken seriously, provide objective evidence of its validity.
That's silly. He'd never have gotten anywhere invading Poland with five-and-a-half-year-olds.
France, maybe.
If you find killing of embryos/fetuses an acceptible payment for the benefits of theraputic cloning, your own conscience will condemn you when you meet God.
Here's a piece of advice. When you're thinking of making a statement like that to an atheist, try replacing the word "God" with the words "Santa Claus" and see if you still like the way the phrase makes you look. Because that's how you sound to us when you say things like this.
You are attempting to credit religion for the benefits of scientific research done by someone who happened to have religious beliefs. This is obviously moronic. The benefits we gained from Newton's theories are the result of science, not religion. The benefits of Perl are the results of technical skill, not religion. We gain these and other benefits despite religion, not because of it.
Western civilization tried religious rule. We now call that time period the Dark Ages.
You're missing the point. The evolutionary process is trial and error, devoted to one thing: survival of the entire species in the face of natural threats. We've evolved to the point where we (as a species) needn't fear natural threats. The goal now should be to improve our quality of life, to make ourselves stronger, smarter, healthier and longer-lived. The evolutionary process has served us well but it is time for it to take its place alongside flint firemaking.
The future is genetic engineering and scientific design of humans. We are better off determining for ourselves which changes to discard and which to keep.
The difference is that science is proven to work and religions is just wishful thinking.
Your suggestion that facts are somehow independant of ethical, moral and religous matters is ludicrous. Facts alone, without some kind of value context, cannot lead to a decision.
Facts are entirely independent of ethics, morals and religion. That is not to say that decisions should be made solely on facts; far from it. Ethics and morality are definitely important in the decision making process. Religion isn't, however, unless someone can prove that one particular religion is correct.
The fact that there is an issue that is encouraging a debate about ethics, morals, and religion is actually an increadibly healthy thing for society. Science is a tool, and they [ethics, morals, and religion] are the hand that guides the tool. The more powerful the tool is, the more important that it be handled with skill.
Religion is definitely not the hand that guides science. Religion has stood in the way of science for hundreds of years. You do have a point about ethics and morality though. A society driven solely by cold-hearted logic would not be much of an improvement over what we have now.
Honestly, I'd argue that the problem in the USA is that most of the ethical, moral and religious thinking that guides our policy is not driven by very thorough thinking. If the populace as a whole spends more time grappling with these issues, perhaps they'll get past the rather shallow analysis that tends to drive policy.
I agree. Good luck getting the general public to concern themselves with these issues. Maybe we need some kind of "American Scientist" competition along the lines of "American Idol" to get people interested.
Simon: Your theory was terrible, I mean really awful.
We're beyond the point where we need to rely on the evolutionary process to improve humanity. Genetic engineering is the future of human development. The solution to the potential overpopulation problem is pretty simple, however. Give people a choice: immortality or fertility. I know which I'd choose.
Of course, there's little reason to continue to rely on the trial and error of the evolutionary process when we have the opportunity to research genetic engineering and improve ourselves in a more direct and efficient way. Of course, many Christians are against that too.
The 14th Amendment is what restricts the states from passing such laws. Section 1 includes the phrase "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States".
As "Agnostic" in a personal-religion sense means "I don't know"*, I find that my original stance, being that "I don't know" or "I do not believe that he exists", is still appropriate to the label "agnostic", leaving "atheist" for the much more commonly understood "I don't think god exists."
Agnosticism deals with the question of whether or not the nature of god can be understood rather than whether or not a god exists. It's distinct from atheism although there are many people who are both.
Then you have left the path of understanding, and are essentially arguing by assertion. It is becoming increasingly hard to believe that any further understanding can come from this discussion.
You continue to define "understanding" as "accepting your position". To reiterate, I understand your argument. I just do not agree with it.
I didn't. You objected to my use, and have repeatedly maintained the existance of "technical atheists" who should not be considered members of a religion named "atheism."
To quote your original message that began this entire thread:
Atheism is a religon--that is, it's an answer to the question of "what's up with all this god stuff?". It being a negative doesn't mean that, as far as politics and law care, that it isn't a religion.
So again, don't say you never said that. You absolutely did.
You have successfully argued the point that the multiple usage of atheism, as lack of any deisitc belief or as belief in the absence of any diviniy, is confusing and brings misunderstanding.
I'm not sure here if you're saying I successfully argued that the definition of atheism was confusing or if I successfully argued against that idea. I'm going to assume the latter because the former would be a complete misrepresentation of my position.
However, you have not given a compelling argument why Atheism should never be considered a religion, regardless of context.
I'm not the one making the positive assertion, so the burden of proof is not on me. But to respond to your point, you have been using the "belief structure" definition of religion; since atheism has no belief structure it isn't a religion under that definition. This seems pretty straightforward to me.
While we could continue to debate this, unless you are willing to accept that language is mutable, I fear that we will simply be unable to come to any kind of understanding at all.
I realize that language is mutable, I just don't agree that there is any basis for mutating the definition of atheism.
Your continual denial of it does not make it false.
A TISPOSATH
Of course not, but the burden of proof is on the person making the assertion.
http://www.atheists.org/
American Atheists is a political organization. It's no more a religion than the ACLU or NOW.
http://www.positiveatheism.org/faq/faq1111.htm#WH
Are you switching to assert the existence of a religion called "Positive Atheism"?
Both are or are inspired by a commmon set of beliefs. In addition, Yahoo catagorizes "atheism" under "religion" which, while not in itself existance of a religion entitled atheism, is evidence of my original assertion that atheism is properly catalogued as a religion.
Thank you for actually providing evidence. I would speculate that the reason that atheism links are under this category is the same as the reason why atheist books tend to be in the religion and spirituality section of bookstores: atheism is a topic that most often arises in the context of religion. I would not agree that this makes atheism itself a religion, as atheism is still not a belief structure.
They should just go for the direct approach: threaten to sue anyone who refuses to buy their stock at 25. They've got little to lose at this point.
The big worry will be what happens when sco does give up the ghost. Theres alot of people that depend on the software to run their businesses. They had nothing to do with the lawsuit and will be hurt when the message does at last get to the brain of the beast.
Seems like a golden opportunity for certain enterprising unix/linux companies to offer low-cost plans for migration from SCO installation. Lifeboats to get off the sinking ship.
Your example of "American" is a poor one, as "American" only has a single meaning in our common language.
Wrong. Many people use "American" to refer to anyone who lives in North or South America. This usage is much more common in the other countries of North and South America and in Europe. My example is quite apt, as a person from one of these countries could very easily be annoyed at being called "American" in light of the U.S.'s current unpopularity in certain parts of the world.
To wit: the definitions are not inaccurate, they are imprecise / variable. The innacuracy is in your use of the term "atheist", specifically the grammatical implication that there is a commonality between yourself and a Bhuddist or a Shintoist or a Humanist when your beliefs are not the same.
To suggest that there are no commonalities between myself and a buddhist, shintoist or humanist is obviously false. For example, we are both humans. That is one commonality. Another is that we both lack a belief in god. We are, in fact, both atheists. The term is not in itself sufficient to fully encompass our various beliefs or lacks thereof but it is sufficient to describe one specific aspect.
As I have stated before, any logic that would determine "atheism" to be a religion would also determine "agnosticism" to be a religion.
As I have stated before, I do not agree that atheism is a religion so I do not see the point of discussing any "logic" that would determine it to be such.
In a like vein, a body that is "agnostic" with regards to religion is also, by your preferred definition, "atheist."
If this is your argument then why did you object to my calling the government "atheist" when you yourself called it "agnostic"?
One more point of yours deserves reply (the others are irrelevant, tangental, or unnecessary):
I do not agree but there is no reason to expect that you would stop ignoring my points now.
I did not say that all "technical atheists" belong to the religon of atheism.
Your position from the very beginning has been "Atheism is a religion." Don't say you never said that.
Instead, I stated that there is a religion, identifed by you as "strong atheism", and that this religion is named "Atheism."
And yet again, your stating it doesn't make it so. I have repeatedly asked you to present a reference to the existence of such a religion and you continue to fail to do so. It should be clear to you by now that I will not accept your assertions without evidence.
All members of this poorly-named religion beleive that God does not exist, and various other implications and distrust of various believing religions.
I do not agree that the belief that there is no god (as distinct from the lack of belief) is sufficient to be considered a religion.
That is a specfic context. There are many others wherein Strong Atheists omit the "strong" modifier.
It's one more specific context than you have named.
But there are people with a specific set of beliefs who call themselves "atheists" and nothing else. I was not the one to co-opt the word.
First of all, provide a reference to these people. Secondly, if a small minority of people have co-opted a word that does not mean that the majority needs to accept it.
Based on what do you make this near-malcious ad hominem attack?
Your messages are my basis for believing that your objection to the use of the correct definition of "atheism" is based solely on your view of it as opposing christianity. You have repeatedly raised the concern of atheists expressing views opposing religion and religious people not being able to respond.
"Atheism" is a creed that does attempt to influence the world around it, and spread its own idea of religious truth. It is very likely that followers of this creed have co-opted the word that you choose to describe your own non-affiliated religious position, but they exist nontheless.
You keep saying this but your saying it doesn't make it true. There is no creed called "atheism".
This is what prompts my opinion of atheism as a religion--the fact that there exists a religion (as the term is used by the Supreme Court) that calls itself "Atheism" and does many of the objective things that religions do.
Assuming your conclusion: you have not provided evidence that there exists a religion that calls itself "Atheism". The court case you linked to earlier stated that it was not for government to decide what is and is not a religion, a position that contradicts your implication that the Supreme Court can somehow declare atheism a religion.
I have never made any allegation of the sort--in fact, it has been other parties to this discussion that have implied that religion needs to be "organized" at all.
/. post (or usenet post, or e-mail) is akin to a monologue in a traditional discussion. If you fill your monologue with a myriad of unrelated points without giving the other party a chance to respond, you should not be surprised when some of your points go unreplied.
Your attempt to latch on to the word "organized" to bail yourself out aside, my point follows logically from your assertion that a person who believes in a god but thinks that all religions are false is effectively the same as an atheist.
Furthermore, for the purposes of everyone except for your boss himself, he should be treated very much the same as an atheist.
I disagree. You are saying that the belief in a god is without meaning if that belief is not part of a religion (organized or not). Certainly from the christian perspective I can see how anyone who is not a christian would be treated as a heretic but there are perspectives outside that of christianity.
That's a misallegation of malice. You should know better.
Not at all. You continue to attribute to me positions that are directly contrary to what I have written. In the past I have written it off as carelessness but it has reached the point where it appears malicious.
Your points are incoherent, badly formed, assume facts not in evidence without noting such as speculation, and formed with a manner that reflects a childish adherence to words of authority without respect to real usage or intended meaning.
This little bit of ad hominem applies more to you than it does to me. I have backed up my points with evidence and have labeled by speculation as such. You are too busy ignoring my "verbosity" to actually read what I write.
Atheism is a religion, even if it's not YOUR religion. (Call it "Strong Atheism" if you want--but S.A.'s don't call themselves anything but "atheists" when then engage in public discourse.) A professor who says "God doesn't exist" should be penalized exactly the same as a professor who says "God does exist."
Argument by assertion. Atheism is not a religion because there is no specific set of beliefs that is common to all atheists. This point is important because you and I have both been using the "system of beliefs" definition of religion. Your assertion that strong atheists never refer to themselves as such in public is incorrect. Try reading some discussion forums like alt.atheism for examples. As for the hypothetical professor, do you think even for a moment that this isn't the case?
Doing otherwise gives atheism an unfair advantage; It is inherently unfair to require one party of a discussion to censor their beliefs and allow another to have their beliefs go uncensored.
You're going to have to provide some specific examples of cases where religous people had to keep quiet about their beliefs while atheists deride religion. I have never seen such a case in my private or public life, on line, in college, at work or in public.
A demand such as that is immature and not in keeping with the inhereted rules and common understanding of proper decorum for dialogue.
Irrelevant ad hominem. You appear to have some specific view of how an online discussion should run that is at odds with reality.
A single
No. The medium in which we are operating makes it trivial to at least acknowledge all points expressed. You will note that I consistently do so with all of your points. It isn't like a verbal discussion where one person can talk for several minutes and by the time he's finished you don't remember all of his points. All of my points (which are not unrelated) are available to you; if you cannot adapt to this medium you should not use it.
In general, demanding a reply to every poin