Atheists or Creationists - who's got more faith?

[HMS_Beagle]

I don't think Jorge believes there is any difference between 'equivalent to a “religion” for purposes of the First Amendment applications.' and 'is a religion'. Perhaps you should focus on why the two statements are or are not the same. (I say you because, as I said, I doubt Jorge can recognize why anyone would see them as different let alone make an argument one way or the other).

Personally I could make Jorge's case better than your own, so I'd like to hear your case. That is:

1) Atheism is a religion in the sense that it is guaranteed the same protections as a religion under the free exercise clause. Therefore it functions legally as a religion.
2) Atheism does express a belief concerning God. Specifically, it expresses the belief that there is no God. This is no less a statement of belief than 'there is a God'. It is a belief. It is still about God.

I just don't see any effective argument against that. It is a belief - it is not objectively provable. It is about God.

I've always seen the only response to the question of God(or gods) that does not invoke some element of belief (and hence lend itself to being considered a religion) to be that of the agnostic. "I don't know if there is or is not".

The cases Jorge cites are giving Atheism a legal protection under the law through the free exercise clause. I don't think it is logically consistent nor ideologically honest to seek the legal protection given to religions and then at the same time also attempt to claim one's beliefs aren't in fact religious in nature. That would be an abuse of the legal system.

Jim

Sorry Jim but that's just as weak as Jorge's misunderstanding.

Here's a better analogy.

A traveling salesman who drives thousands of miles for business can write off depreciation of his car as a business expense tax deduction for income tax law purposes.
A fisherman then sues and is legally allowed to write off depreciation on his boat as a business expense tax deduction for income tax law purposes.

That ruling doesn't make a boat be a car, it just makes the boat be equivalent for this particular narrow legal purpose.

[oxmixmudd]

Sorry Jim but that's just as weak as Jorge's misunderstanding.

Here's a better analogy.

A traveling salesman who drives thousands of miles for business can write off depreciation of his car as a business expense tax deduction for income tax law purposes.
A fisherman then sues and is legally allowed to write off depreciation on his boat as a business expense tax deduction for income tax law purposes.

That ruling doesn't make a boat be a car, it just makes the boat be equivalent for this particular narrow legal purpose.

No, that is not a better analogy. It sidesteps the issue at hand. No one is trying to say Atheism is Christianity or Atheism is Buddhism. The issue is how we define 'religion' and when we can make use of that definition to gain a legal advantage in a certain situation. When for the purpose of taking advantage of the free exercise clause for legal protection we accept the definition that atheism qualifies because it is a belief about God, then the door is then open to saying atheism is a 'religion'.

For your analogy to offer insight into the situation, it would need to include the idea that the law used to enable depreciation for a car was derived from an overarching capacity to depreciate 'necessary transportation for business'. Cars for traveling salesmen being for some reason universally recognized as qualifying, but boats not. The fisherman then makes the case for his boat also being a 'necessary transportation for business' and therefore can be deducted. The court then agrees that his boat most certainly is 'necessary transportation for business' and allows the deduction. So while a car is not a boat, both cars and boats can be 'necessary tools for business'. Likewise, while Islam is not Christianity, nor is either Buddhism, they are all religions under the definition used the debate access to protections under the free exercise clause. And Atheism has gained access to those same protections by showing it can be defined as a religion.


But in the analogy thus defined, one would then wonder why that for some reason fisherman don't like calling their boats 'necessary transportation for business' when they are not trying to claim exemptions on their taxes.


Jim

[Jorge]

The answer is creationist, plain and simple. Atheist don't rely on faith.

See, it is true --- IGNORANCE does have a voice!

Jorge

[Jorge]

As per usual vomits up some unsupported nonsense from a YEC website when none of the actual cases define atheism is a religion. The cases do exactly what I said they do, recognized atheism as equivalent to a “religion” for purposes of the First Amendment applications.

You are without doubt one of the most intellectually-dishonest vermin that it has been my displeasure of coming across. I'm delighted in the fact that we are not in the same neighborhood because I'd likely have to move to avoid even the sight of you.

Jorge

[Jorge]

Naturally. That's why I know your list of cases is (i) from the COPE website, and (ii) garbage. For example, Torcaso v Watkins doesn't state that atheism is a religion, it states that some religions are atheistic.

It's also how I knew, unlike you, that your 'Dima' quote was fake.

The same post I just put up for Beagle Boy applies to you.

Jorge

[HMS_Beagle]

No, that is not a better analogy. It sidesteps the issue at hand. No one is trying to say Atheism is Christianity or Atheism is Buddhism. The issue is how we define 'religion' and when we can make use of that definition to gain a legal advantage in a certain situation. When for the purpose of taking advantage of the free exercise clause for legal protection we accept the definition that atheism qualifies because it is a belief about God, then the door is then open to saying atheism is a 'religion'.

For your analogy to offer insight into the situation, it would need to include the idea that the law used to enable depreciation for a car was derived from an overarching capacity to depreciate 'necessary transportation for business'. Cars for traveling salesmen being for some reason universally recognized as qualifying, but boats not. The fisherman then makes the case for his boat also being a 'necessary transportation for business' and therefore can be deducted. The court then agrees that his boat most certainly is 'necessary transportation for business' and allows the deduction. So while a car is not a boat, both cars and boats can be 'necessary tools for business'. Likewise, while Islam is not Christianity, nor is either Buddhism, they are all religions under the definition used the debate access to protections under the free exercise clause. And Atheism has gained access to those same protections by showing it can be defined as a religion.


But in the analogy thus defined, one would then wonder why that for some reason fisherman don't like calling their boats 'necessary transportation for business' when they are not trying to claim exemptions on their taxes.


Jim

Sorry Jim but atheism has never been defined as a religion. Religions worship supernatural entities, have rites and rituals, are generally organized into distinct sects. Atheism has none of that. Saying Atheism actually IS a religion really is like claiming not playing tennis is a sport. You are certainly free to believe Atheism is a religion just like you can believe not collecting stamps is a hobby but you'll have a hard time getting folks to agree with you.

Being judged equivalent to a religion for legal purposes doesn't make Atheism be a religion. Not today, not tomorrow, not any day.

[HMS_Beagle]

BWAAAK! BWAAAKK! buk buk buk BWAAAAK!!

Thanks Clucky for your usual level of intellectual discourse.

[oxmixmudd]

Sorry Jim but atheism has never been defined as a religion. Religions worship supernatural entities, have rites and rituals, are generally organized into distinct sects. Atheism has none of that. Saying Atheism actually IS a religion really is like claiming not playing tennis is a sport. You are certainly free to believe Atheism is a religion just like you can believe not collecting stamps is a hobby but you'll have a hard time getting folks to agree with you.

Being judged equivalent to a religion for legal purposes doesn't make Atheism be a religion. Not today, not tomorrow, not any day.

And that is actually a really great argument the plantiffs in the cases should not have been granted protections guaranteed to those that practice a religion. Which is more where I come down on this. Atheism is a philosophical position, not a religious practice. Therefore atheists as a group really should not try to use the free exercise clause for legal protection.

But if they do, them they are in effect allowing atheism to be defined as a religion. I don't think that both is and is not is a logically consistent position.

Those provisions exist to protect people that do practice a religion from government interference with their practices. If atheism is not a religion, then there should be no need for an atheist to ever need those protections.

Jim

[carpedm9587]

As many of you may recall, since my first day here on TWeb I've stated that Atheists/Materialists are religious folk - deeply religious folk - they just don't like to admit it. BTW, that is why I always capitalize Atheist/Atheism and Materialist/Materialism -- because theirs is a religious position every bit as much as is Christianity, Buddhism, etc. That religious position makes its way into Evolutionism (but that's another story).

I recently came across the following short video (< 5 minutes) in which a PhD astrophysicist states the essence of one of my arguments. I definitely do not agree with everything he says but on that one point he is correct.

https://www.prageru.com/videos/whats...-or-multiverse

Be sure to enjoy, especially the Materialist/Atheist faithful among you.

Jorge

Since the common definition of "religion" is "the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods," it is hard ot see a position that such beings do NOT exist as religions. There are also relatively few actual churches dedicated to atheism. However, if your position is actually that atheism is as much a position of faith as theism, then I would agree with you there. Because the idea of god is not subject to scientific examination, belief that god does not exist is as much a statement of faith as belief that god does exist.

[oxmixmudd]

Since the common definition of "religion" is "the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods," it is hard ot see a position that such beings do NOT exist as religions. There are also relatively few actual churches dedicated to atheism. However, if your position is actually that atheism is as much a position of faith as theism, then I would agree with you there. Because the idea of god is not subject to scientific examination, belief that god does not exist is as much a statement of faith as belief that god does exist.

I think 'statement of faith' is actually inappropriate. "statement of belief" is more correct. Faith is, in English, generally applied in the positive, belief in something that can't be proven. Atheism is the inverse of that - the belief in the non-existence of something. To use 'Faith' in that context is actually contrary to its semantic sense, in spite of its potential use as a synonym for belief (but in the positive sense), and especially contrary to the Christian definition of the same: "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen".

What I see is that Jorge is really more or less trying to 'stick it too' the atheists because some have chosen to twist the intent and meaning of the free-exercise clause opportunistically. From my perspective, the flaw is that some Judge was able to be convinced such an application made sense. Atheism is not a religion. Therefore it is not entitled to protection under the free-exercise clause. More specifically, the free-exercise clause can't be (or should not be able to be) used to restrict the rights to free-exercise of those that do practice a religion because there are no 'religious beliefs' of that atheist that are being violated by the religious person's exercise of his or her religion. The religious are entitled to exercise their religion. And those that are not religious should not be allowed to limit that unless some right other than the right to their free-exercise of their religion is being violated. Because, quite simply, it is impossible to violate the right to free exercise of their religion of a person with no religion in the first place.

Jim

[carpedm9587]

I think 'statement of faith' is actually inappropriate. "statement of belief" is more correct. Faith is, in English, generally applied in the positive, belief in something that can't be proven. Atheism is the inverse of that - the belief in the non-existence of something. To use 'Faith' in that context is actually contrary to its semantic sense, in spite of its potential use as a synonym for belief (but in the positive sense), and especially contrary to the Christian definition of the same: "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen".

What I see is that Jorge is really more or less trying to 'stick it too' the atheists because some have chosen to twist the intent and meaning of the free-exercise clause opportunistically. From my perspective, the flaw is that some Judge was able to be convinced such an application made sense. Atheism is not a religion. Therefore it is not entitled to protection under the free-exercise clause. More specifically, the free-exercise clause can't be (or should not be able to be) used to restrict the rights to free-exercise of those that do practice a religion because there are no 'religious beliefs' of that atheist that are being violated by the religious person's exercise of his or her religion. The religious are entitled to exercise their religion. And those that are not religious should not be allowed to limit that unless some right other than the right to their free-exercise of their religion is being violated. Because, quite simply, it is impossible to violate the right to free exercise of their religion of a person with no religion in the first place.

Jim

I would apply both "belief" and "faith" to atheism. Atheism is a worldview I hold to be true, but I cannot prove it to be true. So it is a leap of faith to accept it on the basis of the existing evidence, and it is a belief I hold. As for religion, I agree there is no way to prevent someone from participating in their "religion" if they do not have one, there ARE ways to force them to participate in a religion (or belief system) they do not want to be a part of. I'll give you a simple example: our currency. The words "in god we trust" we added to our currency in the 1950s as part of the anti-communist wave. For the over 150+ years preceding that, our money (like our Constitution) said nothing about god.

Now, when I hand out U.S., currency, I am handing out a "business card" to a belief system I do not hold to be true. I have no choice in this matter. Imagine how you might feel if the currency said, "We do not trust in god." That would fly in the face of your personal beliefs, and I have to wonder how long it would take Christians to rise up and resist such a thing. If the currency simply said nothing about god (what does god have to do with money?), it would violate no one's belief systems.

I don't spend a lot of time fretting about this - but it is one of the many ways that atheists are forced to participate, at least in some fashion, with a belief system they do not share. The country is still predominantly theistic, so I do not see this changing in my lifetime, and it's not worth my time to fight against it. Furthermore, with the increase in electronic payments, I seldom need to handle actual money anymore.

[Roy]

2) Atheism does express a belief concerning God.

Atheism could be said to express a belief regarding gods. It does not express a belief regarding God, since to do so would mean implicitly accepting the claims of one particular subset of religions.

It is a belief - it is not objectively provable. It is about God.

It's not about God, any more than it is about Vishnu, Ourobouros, Xipe Totec or Rongo. Atheism is about the claims of people who believe in gods.

Atheists reject everyone's religions, not just yours. You should understand this by now, Jim.

[Roy]

Sorry Jim but that's just as weak as Jorge's misunderstanding.

Here's a better analogy.

A traveling salesman who drives thousands of miles for business can write off depreciation of his car as a business expense tax deduction for income tax law purposes.
A fisherman then sues and is legally allowed to write off depreciation on his boat as a business expense tax deduction for income tax law purposes.

That ruling doesn't make a boat be a car, it just makes the boat be equivalent for this particular narrow legal purpose.

You might as well use Catholic dietary regulations to argue that beavers are fish.

[Roy]

You are without doubt one of the most intellectually-dishonest vermin that it has been my displeasure of coming across. I'm delighted in the fact that we are not in the same neighborhood because I'd likely have to move to avoid...

... paying out on a bet you welched on.

[Roy]

And that is actually a really great argument the plantiffs in the cases should not have been granted protections guaranteed to those that practice a religion. Which is more where I come down on this. Atheism is a philosophical position, not a religious practice. Therefore atheists as a group really should not try to use the free exercise clause for legal protection.

Atheists don't use the free exercise clause, they use the preceding no establishment clause.

Those provisions exist to protect people that do practice a religion from government interference with their practices.

They exist just as much to protect people who do not practice a particular religion from interference with their lack of practicing.

If atheism is not a religion, then there should be no need for an atheist to ever need those protections.

Atheism is not a religion, and there is a need for US atheists to protect themselves against those who would mandate their own religion.