"I think what [he] was trying to say was that the court was just trying to help atheists out, even though most people don't recognize it as a religion.
We certainly don't.
No holy books, no worship or belief in a higher being, no rituals, no heirchy of priests, etc. In short, there's nothing that religion has in common with atheism. Atheism is at most, technically, a viewpoint about religion. That's the closest that one can really get.
It's not even a worldview as atheists have all sorts of viewpoints on social, economic and other issues.
We just don't believe in a god/gods. That's it."
My response was close to:
We certainly don't. (recognize atheism as a religion.)
No holy books, no worship or belief in a higher being, no rituals, no heirchy of priests, etc. In short, there's nothing that religion has in common with atheism. Atheism is at most, technically, a viewpoint about religion. That's the closest that one can really get.
We just don't believe in a god/gods. That's it."
Who are you trying to convince, me or you? You even have two separate holidays!
Now I sent these pictures and links, in jest, to show the hypocrisy of what is being said. I stretched the meanings of some pictures to make a point here. If they can't see how things are being viewed, how can I convince atheists of their error?
Dan,
ReplyDeleteThe links you pasted in were clever, but this really isn't much of an argument.
We don't worship Darwin, in fact, we recognize that he was wrong on certain things. We might as well worship newton and einstein too, according to you. Revering great thinkers is different from worship...particularly in the religious sense. I don't think Darwin is watching me, I don't talk to Darwin, and I don't have a shrine to him. I read his works. Any educated person should.
As for the Humanist manifesto, or the Atheist Manifesto, or any other secular ethics book...how is this a "holy book"? It is an attempt to build a foundation of human ethics and morals based on personal responsibility, pragmatism, and does so without AUTHORITY. We are free to dismiss it if we want, to argue with each other about whether this is how we should behave, or what basis our morality should be built.
Again, I said it once already, if atheism is a religion, then everything is a religion and nothing is a religion.
Hey Dan,
ReplyDeleteI think this is my first comment here, though I'll be dedicating a post to you in my blog this week, which I think you'll find humorous.
Just wondering, what do you think of the many other legal definitions the courts have for basis of adjudication. For example, a corporation is a person, as ruled by the courts. As with taking atheism as literally a religion via the court's ruling, for purposes of adjudication, that atheism is a religion, I take it to mean that you also take it to mean that corporations are literally persons via the courts' rulings?
- JT
Brilliant word use: adjudication
ReplyDeleteI see your point good job. One question though, is a corporation considered an entity or a person? It would make sense for a corporation to be a person for simplification purposes.
So we agree then 'atheism is a religion'. I look forward to your post about me, please be kind.
Corporations are persons. They are a legal person. When before the court, they are persons "having the rights and obligations of a person."
ReplyDeleteTo quote Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific R. Co., "corporations are persons."
If we can agree that a corporation is a person, then yes, we can agree that atheism is a religion.
Outside legal meanings, though, we understand that corporations are most certainly not persons and that atheism is most certainly not a religion (not to be confused with atheistic religions).
Besides, in the judgment you cite it, nowhere, states that "atheism is a religion." In fact, if you will read it, the judge specifically notes that they are considering whether atheism should be considered a religion for the purposes of protection under the First Amendment.
The judge writes that the "Supreme Court has recognized atheism as equivalent to a 'religion' for purposes of the First Amendment" (emphasis added).
I couldn't be happier that atheism is considered a religion for the purposes of the First Amendment. It means that I cannot have my rights violated for my beliefs (or disbeliefs). In fact, the plaintiff in this case filed the suit because the prison refused to allow them to form an atheist study group even though they were allowing "Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, [and] Wiccan" groups. The court found that, for the purposes of adjudication, atheism is considered Kaufman's religion and, as such, he qualifies for protection under the First Amendment. They found that the actions violated the Establishment Clause via the Lemon Test.
There's a broader issue here, though. That is the mingling of lay terms with technical terms. For example, Ray was recently called out for trying to argue against the scientific statement that humans being are animals by quoting a lay definition from a dictionary, while skipping over the scientific definition of the term. Or mangling a lay theory or fact with a scientific theory or fact. You can look up atoms, germs, gravity, and tectonic plates in a science book and they will all be theories as that is the scientific term for them.
The same was done here. Just as you can't confuse a legal definition of "person" with a lay definition of "person," you can't confuse a legal definition of "religion" with a lay definition of "religion." What constitutes a religion for protection under the First Amendment has long been debated in the Supreme Court, and there have been many interesting cases such as the Conscientious Objector cases, the Mormon polygamist cases, and the Amish cases. It is good to see that, yet again, my constitutionally protected right is affirmed.
It should also be noted, though, that this isn't the first time the courts have made this such ruling. If you're interested, you can search for freedom of religion and irreligion, as well as sincere beliefs and philosophies.
I will make a more in-depth post of this issue in my blog this week.
DI,
ReplyDeleteIf that were the case then why didn't the Supreme Court rule that the First Amendment protects the irreligion beliefs also? Why render atheism a religion instead? Pandora's box was just opened. Can one seek to target the discrimination of that 'now' religion? If the courts rendered it an irreligion that is still protected then we wouldn't be having this conversation.
I'm not trying to be disrespectful or obstinate, but what are you talking about, or rather, to what are you responding?
ReplyDeleteDid you read any of my comment?
Did you read about what the ruling actually was?
Did you read about definition of persons?
Did you read about the confusion of lay terms with technical terms?
Did you read any of my comment?
I'm really not sure what to make of your comment. Particularly, the difference between irreligion and atheism being protected under the First Amendment.
Irreligion, including atheism, is something the Court has touched on many times, including in the landmark cases. As a recent example off the top of my head, why don't you read Stevens' opinion in Boerne v. Flores concerning the Religious Freedom Restoration Act? It's yet ANOTHER case where the course discusses religion over irreligion:
"[T]he statute has provided the Church with a legal weapon that no atheist or agnostic can obtain. This governmental preference for religion, as opposed to irreligion, is forbidden by the First Amendment"
Further, though, let's discuss the actual case you mention, Kaufman v. McCaughtry. It doesn't state, anywhere, that "atheism is a religion." It says they will "consider" it a religion "for the purpose" of protection under the First Amendment. It even quotes the Supreme Court in that it is considering atheism "equivalent" to a religion "for the purpose" of protection under the First Amendment.
Did you read any of my comment?
ReplyDeleteDid you read about what the ruling actually was?
Did you read about definition of persons?
Did you read about the confusion of lay terms with technical terms?
Did you read any of my comment?
Yes! now answer my question.
Remember just because I don't want to address a subject doesn't mean I don't understand it or read it.
Unless you agree that irreligion does not have rights as a religion? Pick a side, either you follow the religion called atheism and are protected by the US Constitutions First Amendment or you are irreligious and are not protected. You cannot have it both ways. Pick one.
Atheism isn't the religion of atheists because it doesn't answer questions about the cause, nature, and meaning of the universe. All it does is specify that there are no gods. Likewise, theism isn't a religion because all it specifies is that there are gods.
ReplyDeleteI have no doubt that theism and atheism can be used as core beliefs of religions. Christianity is built up on theist beliefs, whilst true religions such as Secular Humanism is built on atheistic beliefs.
Unlike atheism, Secular Humanism gives direct answers to questions about the cause, nature, and meaning of the universe. Namely that it was caused by the Big Bang, it is governed by natural laws which cannot be broken, and meaning is given only by those who live in it.
I don't think atheism should be protected under the first amendment, but that doesn't mean that atheist religions like Secular Humanism are not.
Dan,
ReplyDeleteI find it awful that you posted this despite we told you how wrong it was. Also, how is is hypocrisy to say that
atheism is not a religion with No holy books, no worship or belief in a higher being, no rituals, no heirchy of priests, etc. In short, there's nothing that religion has in common with atheism. Atheism is at most, technically, a viewpoint about religion. That's the closest that one can really get.
I do not find any hypocritical statement in the whole paragraph. However, I do find hypocritical to say first that it was mostly a jest, yet call the statements hypocritical (this is a contradiction, your purpose was not to make a joke, as mockery, a more appropriate word than "jest", it was intended to imply that those things are equivalents to the things we do not do, nor have).
To compound things, your response to DI was truly that of someone who does not understand, or who does not want to concede even that well-intended moves by courts can be problematic. In the end, the important thing is that it was recognized that not having any belief in god should also be protected.
Your statement is a false dichotomy (remember how you criticized my logic?). We will not follow any religion if we do not want to, and we will be protected by the first amendment. The USA was founded with the ideology of freedom. This has been menaced time and again, but in the end the people of the USA rise to the occasion. Just watch.
G.E.
@Adrian
ReplyDeleteI don't think atheism should be protected under the first amendment
Being that atheism is a religion and I, its self-appointed pope, you are hereby excommunicated for your heresy.
@Dan
Unless you agree that irreligion does not have rights as a religion? Pick a side, either you follow the religion called atheism and are protected by the US Constitutions First Amendment or you are irreligious and are not protected. You cannot have it both ways. Pick one.
Again, you completely miss the point of my comment...
Pick a side, either you are a human and are protected under the law as a person, or you are a corporation and are not protected. You cannot have it both ways. Pick one.
Atheism is not, not, not a religion. If you claim it is, I'd like to know a definition. When Behe claimed Intelligent Design was science, he put forth a definition -- one that was so broad it would include such woo as astrology.
That being said, legally speaking, it most certainly in as it is a sincere belief and is held by a person in parallel to a traditional religious belief. The Court has most certainly noted that it is not a religion but, nonetheless, is entitled to full protection under the First Amendment.
Again, it's just like corporations. Of course they aren't actually persons, but before the court they have all the rights and obligations as persons. The same with atheism. Even though atheism is most certainly not a religion, its adherents have all the same rights and obligations as theists. This isn't what I have ruled; it is what the courts have ruled.
I'll be making a post in my blog in the next day or so where I give a history of First Amendment jurisprudence, starting with Reynolds v US and I will focus especially on what the Court has ruled on irreligion, including atheism.
And also, I'd just like to point out what the judge wrote in Kaufman v McCaughtry, which you posted in your original post about atheism is a religion and how this relates to court rulings. I have emphasized those parts where the judge indicates that atheism is only being considered as a religion in this one special circumstance for the purpose of protecting it under the First Amendment:
ReplyDelete=========
An inmate retains the right to exercise his religious beliefs in prison. The problem here was that the prison officials did not treat atheism as a "religion," perhaps in keeping with Kaufman's own insistence that it is the antithesis of religion. But whether atheism is a "religion" for First Amendment purpose is a somewhat different question than whether its adherents believe in a supreme being, or attend regular devotional services, or have a sacred Scripture.
[...]
Without venturing too far into the realm of the philosophical, we have suggested in the past that when a person sincerely holds beliefs dealing with issues of "ultimate concern" that for her occupy a "place parallel to that filled by... God in traditionally religious persons," those beliefs represent her religion.
[...]
We have already indicated that atheism may be considered, in this specialized sense, a religion. ("If we think of religion as taking a position on divinity, then atheism is indeed a form of religion.")
[...]
The Supreme Court has recognized atheism as equivalent to a "religion" for purposes of the First Amendment on numerous occasions...
The Establishment Clause itself says only that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," but the Court understands the reference to religion to include what it often calls "nonreligion." In McCreary Country, it described the touchstone of Establishment Clause analysis as "the principle that the First Amendment mandates government neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion."
[...]
As such, we are satisfied that it qualifies as Kaufman's religion for purposes of the First Amendment claims he is attempting to raise.
First, with regard to the original post, let me congratulate you on being broad minded enough to, a least, look at some sources relating to atheists. Your conclusions about atheism are mostly wrong and have been adequately dealt with in other replies but I do want to add my view regarding one comment.
ReplyDeleteYou say:
"It's not even a worldview as atheists have all sorts of viewpoints on social, economic and other issues."
This true of both rationalists and non-rationalists when addressed to human affairs.
What is dangerous about the world view of theists is the belief that there is something looking after our well being or that something has and does intervene in our affairs. If this were true there would be incontrovertible reliable, consistent evidence that non of us could ignore - and it follows that there would be no atheists.
Try to get it into your, indoctrinated mind that there is nothing watching over us, nothing listening when we pray. It is all up to us. If we get it wrong there is no supernatural entity to guide us. You and a large proportion of humankind believe in fairy tales and need to grow up.
Hey Dan.
ReplyDeleteI'd like to deal with your links in the original post.
Note for non-programmers: "!=" is the C# representation of "Not Equal To"
No holy books
Secular Humanism != Atheism
no worship or belief in a higher being,
Darwin != Higher being
Ape != Higher Being
Acceptance != Worship
no rituals,
Annual social meeting of skeptics != ritual
skeptics != atheists
no heirchy of priests, etc
Dawkins != Priest
Darwin != Priest
Scientist != Priest
Popularity != Heirachy
In short, there's nothing that religion has in common with atheism.
Once again: Secular Humanism != Atheism
Atheism is at most, technically, a viewpoint about religion.
For the third time: Secular Humanism != Atheism
That's the closest that one can really get.
I'm not sure what your point is with this image: it supports the point that atheism isn't a religon.
We just don't believe in a god/gods. That's it."
Extra points for the bioshock reference, but I recommend you read up on the storyline. The fictional character in the story (Andrew Ryan) believed in what he described as "the great chain", a guided force built out of the industry and commerce of his city.
Dan, if you're going to attempt to debunk atheists, keep this in mind: Atheist is a generic term. If you want to debunk secular humanism, or Richard Dawkins, or the scientific theory of evolution go right ahead. But none of these are a part of atheism. Atheism has only 1 part: lack of belief in a god.
Quasar,
ReplyDeleteSo basically you are saying that Atheism is NOT the same as Hinduism, Shintoism Catholicism or Humanism or any of the other thousand ism's out there?
Atheism is special? Are you trying to convince me or you? Nice Logic
Debunked! next
The thousands of ism's out there? What about:
ReplyDeletelibertarianism
liberalism
conservatism
criticism
barbarism
despotism
plagiarism
realism
witticism
intellectualism
terrorism
heroism
pauperism
pacifism
fascism
racism
agnosticism
Or perhaps you just want to stick with schools of philosophies?
Aristotelianism
Averroism
Avicennism
Cynicism
Deconstructionism
Dialectical materialism
Dualism
Epicureanism
Epiphenomenalism
Existentialism
Functionalism
Hedonism
Hegelianism
Humanism
Idealism
Kantianism
Logical positivism
Marxism
Materialism
Monism
Naturalism
Neoplatonism
Nihilism
Particularism
Platonism
Positivism
Postmodernism
Poststructuralism
Pragmatism
Relativism
Scholasticism
Skepticism
Stoicism
Structuralism
Thomism
Utilitarianism
Perhaps the -ism litmus test isn't so bulletproof after all?
I think he is saying that atheism is not a religion in the sense that "animal" does not describe a living species. It is too overarching a term. There exist multiple incompatible belief systems that are atheistic. In the same way, there are multiple incompatible belief systems that are theistic.
ReplyDeleteTouché DI
ReplyDeleteGood point Pvblivs
I am surrounded by people that think on their feet. I like that.
Thanks guys. I was saying was that Dans efforts seem to be aimed at things other than atheism.
ReplyDeleteAtheist and atheism are the overarching terms that refer to lack of belief in a deity. The only way to debunk something so general is to provide evidence that a deity actually exists.
Your efforts seem to be targeted at more specific things, all of which have a vague relation to atheism and none of which are essential to it.
In short, Dan, you're targeting E,L and X but claiming to be debunking the entire alphabet.
As I said earlier, the only way to debunk atheism is to prove a deity exists, and the only way to debunk theism is to prove one doesn't.
Quasar,
ReplyDelete"the only way to debunk atheism is to prove a deity exists,"
If that is what I was attempting then I would have named my blog that.
Look at my tag line "Debunking Atheists
This Blog has been created for the purpose of debunking atheists."
Not atheism. Get it? The individual not the belief system.
Besides there is plenty of evidence that God exists, just look outside your window. Insert Romans 1:20 here.
You're debunked again. next. (I lovingly tease you)
Oh, I see now. You're debunking us, not our belief system. I mistakenly equated them.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the clarification.
- I'm not a secular humanist, and have never read the manifesto or even skimmed over. That kills three of your links.
- I don't worship anyone or anything. That's another two dead.
- I don't attend skeptic meetings. And thats the last one down.
That was quick.
"Besides there is plenty of evidence that God exists, just look outside your window."
Looking...
...
Still looking...
...
Still... oh hey, there goes the Flying Spaghetti Monster!
"Insert Romans 1:20 here"
Apart from the F.S.M just now, I've yet to clearly see any invisible things. Sorry.
Want some bolonaise?
bolonaise? I am still chewing on nylonase (Nylon-eating bacteria)
ReplyDeleteOthers have refuted your points here, so I'll just refer you to my original reply that you quoted.
ReplyDeleteI've shown here how your claims are bs. Now, you accuse what I've said of being hypocritical?
Back up your claim.
If your links were "in jest" how would you go about making a real case, Dan?
Reynold,
ReplyDeleteNow, you accuse what I've said of being hypocritical?
I don't understand the connection. Hypocritical, where?
To answer for Reynold:
ReplyDeleteIn the Original Post, Dan wrote:
"Now I sent these pictures and links, in jest, to show the hypocrisy of what is being said. I stretched the meanings of some pictures to make a point here. If they can't see how things are being viewed, how can I convince atheists of their error?"
Quasar,
ReplyDeleteOh, that time. I actually forgot it was his original statement.
Yes I called you hypocritical because of what you said. To me it was absurd at the time.