The Religion of Atheism

I am an atheist, I lack belief, I am not religious.

QED

 

1. Just because a word has "ism" at the end, does not make it a religion.
2. Secularism is not the same as atheism Secularism is about being separate from religion (e.g. a secular government vs. a theistic one) while atheism is about not believing in a god. This brings us to the next point...
3. Neither secularism nor atheism say that immaterial things cannot exist.
4. Even IF what you say is true, then what do you call someone who does not believe in any kind of religion and does not believe in atheism?

 

Repeating the same thing over and over doesn't answer my point that your list would not exist without material existsnce namely human beings. That said god is supposedly independant of man and all material existance. So you point is demonstrated as invalid unless of course you are willing to concede that the existsnce of God like the rest of your list is dependant on the existsnce of humans .

And just posting your list again is not going to qualify as a response.

 

Sorry but I alrady demonstrated that the supreme court decision did not state that secular humanism is a religion. Nor did the Cornell Law Review article or any of the decision cited in the article. You can keep repeating the same fictions over and over but it doesn't make them true.

 

Why don't you try and cite exactly where Torcaso v. Watson described secular humanism as a religion. Quote from the decision if you can.

 

dont forget about this one
For judgment, please download: [2013] UKSC 77
For Court’s press summary, please download: Court’s Press Summary
For a non-PDF version of the judgment, please visit: BAILII

 

So you cannot actually site where Torcaso v Watson states that secular humanism is a religion. That is because it doesn't. I already posted the only place in that decision where secular humanism was mentioned. So time you withdrew your inaccurate claim as to what was actually said in the decision and try again to come up with any actual evidence for any major court decision supporting your claim.

 

do you comprehend what the first amendment is?

Held: This Maryland test for public office cannot be enforced against appellant, because it unconstitutionally invades his freedom of belief and religion guaranteed by the First Amendment
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/367/488/

you dont have to read one word past the syllabus ffs

 

So you are either admitting the Supreme court decision doesn't state that secular humanism is a religion or you are just attempting a rather lame diversion. Why not just be a man and admit that you made it up?

 

I made myself understood in the use of universal, you took issue with it despite it was perfectly clear how I was using it.

You are confusing jiz with jaz LOL and there was no assigned genre definition for that style of music at that time, irrelevant comparison.

Of course they do, and that is not the argument, so does my version.

The fact is that I described the context I was using the word.

No it allows for several and all in one line since that is all that atheists seem capable of reading. I told you 95-99% which was your que that I was using it in the mostly context, but nope you come out here and argue that it means all, completely out of context from my 'described' usage.

 

Nope I am pointing out that there are literally thousands if not millions of articles explaining the decision and you are the only one who does not seem to comprehend that the court would have thrown it out if it was not considered a religion. Give it a rest you really need to educate yourself on how to read and comprehend the meaning of these court rulings. In other words it would not have had constitutional standing if the appellant was not discriminated against on the basis of religion, therefore it goes without saying the court considered it a religion. clear as mud yet?

 

So you cannot site one decision that supports your claim that the courts have declared secular humanism a religion. With all those supposed decisions to draw from one would think you could quote at least one passage from a major decision to support your claim.

And insults don't actually deflect from you inability to support your claim. All you have proven so far is that you didn't actually read the Supreme Court decision.

 

What court has the standing to assert that lacking a belief in any god is a religion (or not)? How nonsensical.

 

There are no established courts that I am aware of that I would consider to have standing in theological matters like this but since everyone accepts our government supreme court as the God of everything US that is what we are stuck with.

Argument from Personal Incredulity:
Asserting that opponent’s argument must be false because you personally don’t understand it or can’t follow its technicalities. One person’s comprehension is not relevant to the truth of a matter

No insult, I already gave you the answer its easy to work backwards.

 

This is not a response to the quote that preceded it. I don't see how "420" or "rad" presents any problem to the approach I suggest. They are not super common, so they are slang (well, in addition to some other criteria). Should the usage change to be more common, they would be part of the normal language. There are plenty of examples of words which have gone through that transition.

I'm not confusing them, they are arguably cognates, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jazz_(word)#Etymology). My point is that Jazz went from slang to part of normal language when usage changed.

If it's so of course, how come you can't seem to present a coherent argument for it?

By what logic do you suggest the courts have power of what language looks like outside of the legal system? (For instance, English is the language of several nations with separate courts)

Just saying "of course it does" is in itself not an argument.

I don't have a problem with that, as I've pointed out. Indeed, I'm using that as a successful example of my approach.

No, at that time, I hadn't figured out how you were using the word (and indeed that you weren't using it to mean "all"). It was still unclear to me 95% of what, and what you expected to be true for that 95% (indeed, still is).

 

Did you do a survey? How do you know these things? I can walk out on the street and say it and everyone around here knows what I am talking about.

No usage changed as I said there was no genre for that style.

Of course it affects our language as a whole. Will it affect language in Nigeria most likely not.

Why you would use what contradicts your approach and premise beats the **** otta me.

most of the religions on the planet.

 

One dark day in the middle of the night
Two dead boys got up to fight
Back to back they faced each other
Drew their swords and shot each other
A deaf policeman heard the noise
And came to kill the two dead boys
If you don't believe this lie is true
Ask the blind man....He saw it too.

 

No you didn't give one single case that stated that secular humanism was a religion. One case you cited actually about Scientology and the Supreme Court decision you cited only mentioned secular humanism in a footnote as a generally accepted religion. To but it bluntly your claim is debunked and without validation.

And I do understand your arguement well enough to realize that it is a fraud. Claiming someone doesn't understand is a pathetic attempt at claiming you have made a valid arguement.

Again I challenge you to cite one major court case and then excerpt the part of the case where the court says secular humanism is a religion. Stop ducking and support your bogus assertion.

 

Actually since the Constitution guarantees freedom of religion determining what constitutes a religion is well within the purview of the courts.

 

The only issue that has constitutional standing in the courts is religion? Are you sure of your facts?

 

The only ones who claim atheism is a religion is your typical televangelist making a sermon.
Naturally he has lots of mindless sheep, who believe his every word.

 

That is silly. The case was about whether or not a belief in god could be used as a criteria to hold public office. It was not about the meaning of religion or if secular humanism is a religion. It was about his freedom of belief and religion and part of that freedom is the right to not have a religion.

367 U.S. 488


Syllabus

Appellant was appointed by the Governor of Maryland to the office of Notary Public, but he was denied a commission because he would not declare his belief in God, as required by the Maryland Constitution. Claiming that this requirement violated his rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, he sued in a state court to compel issuance of his commission, but relief was denied. The State Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the state constitutional provision is self-executing, without need for implementing legislation, and requires declaration of a belief in God as a qualification for office. Held: This Maryland test for public office cannot be enforced against appellant, because it unconstitutionally invades his freedom of belief and religion guaranteed by the First Amendment and protected by the Fourteenth Amendment from infringement by the States. Pp. 367 U. S. 489-496.

 

not that it will help but I underlined it again. Dont waste your time taking the bar exam!

 

I wouldn't say it has to do with whether people "know what you're talking about", I'd say it's about who uses it.

That being said, I'm not adamant on that point, there is some definition of slang, and if a word fulfils the definition, then it is slang. That doesn't really have very much to do with my point though. My point is that once usage is common enough, it becomes part of the language. You gave some examples of words, but you have not put into words why those words should pose a problem for the approach I have suggested.

I'm not sure what you mean, I think that sentence could use some punctuation. It seems to me usage of Jazz changed from meaning semen to meaning a style of music, and the English language changed accordingly. Not sure what distinction between style and genre you're gunning for, but my guess is it doesn't matter, since it doesn't address the point.

If it's so "of course", then how come you can't seem to write down why it's so?

By what logic do you suggest the courts have power of what language looks like outside of the legal system?

Not sure what you're trying to say. I haven't said anything about my use of it. Or are you referring to yourself through an indefinite you?

 

Hmm, here is what that sounds like. We want to include -10 in the definition of natural numbers. But, we do have a word that includes -10, which is the integers. So, in this case, we want to find a word that includes atheism, and we have one, it's ontology. So, we would essentially have to change 'ontology' to 'cult'. In which case, cult just looses it's meaning as a cult, and takes on the information contained in the word 'ontology.'

Well, the point is that if we add -10, then we need to add -1,-2,...-infinity. So, while in both cases, we are talking about infinite numbers, if we say natural, we know it isn't negative. If we add -10, we have lost that piece of information, and now refer to twice as many numbers.