Religious People with (present day) Political Power

[falcon9]

It is a scary thing Religious People with Political Power.

Not until/unless they use their religious beliefs as an excuse to do something particularly non-beneficial affecting non-believers.  We already have many self-professed religious adherents in political office, senators & congressmen on senatorial & congressional commitees and nominally religious presidents have come and gone.  What hasn't occurred as yet is the 'imperfect storm' combination of influentially-key commitees/oversight groups, supreme court justices, presidential advisors, (whom the people do not elect), and a president who are either all of the same religious affiliation or, loosely affiliated under a broad 'xtian' banner.  The more that the line separating church & state becomes blurred, the closer to a theocracy the government creeps.

There is now no separation between church and state in this country since Bush jr. was president.

While G. Bush disregarded numerous judicial decisions indicating that church-state separation was violated by his scheme to fund religious organizations via Executive Orders regarding "faith-based initiatives", it was suspicious to note that these took effect in the same year that organized religions' memberships, (and self-identifying religious adherents), were declining.  Last reports; numbers holding relatively steady.

It is only a matter of time until we wind up like the Middle East.

Theocractic sheikdoms or, U.S.-based-oil companies getting to sell domestic oil to others after we've tapped-out the middle-east countries, (and for a much higher price too ... possbibly enabling U.S. to offset domestic gasoline to some degree by similar subsidizing using those increased profits ... imagine someone running for president under a $1/gallon pledge), and prices may be over $10/gallon by then.  I'm not suggesting that's the actual strategy by any means - just a hypothetical consideration.

[Abrupt]

Yet, your comments seem contrary to any such awareness.  Why don't you tell me what point you think I'm trying to make instead?

Oh I will leave that up to you since I don't want to indulge your attempt at a red herring.  I am aware of what it is though, it is a type of biased complex question and is alluded to in my empty envelope analogy.  While you state this as your point:  "...the non-religious man may have non-religious beliefs which influence his decisions while the religious adherent has both religious and non-religious beliefs influencing his decisions.", but that is not the entire truth, because that is not the argument here and simple statements of the obvious and other attempts to distract will not conceal this.

What?  It most certianly does not qualify as a religion, (under the defining terms and conditions pertaining to that word, rather than 'crap you make up to support your weak point').  If, by "addressing the nature of religion", you mean refusing to believe unsubstantiated religious claims and vagueness of 'faith', that still doesn't qualify an atheistic position as a "religion".  Since you don't get to whimsically redefine terms, (unless you're nuts), the remainder of responses along such lines will diminish accordingly.  

Atheism contains six of the seven characteristics of religion as described in the framework set forth by Ninian Smart in what is known as the "Seven Dimensions of Religion".  Not every religion has all of these characteristics.  The only characteristic Atheism really has missing is 'Ritual', and even that is starting to appear in Atheism -- with it being a newer religion it lacks the history that breeds rituals.  It is only by a strict definition that Atheists would impose, in that Atheism would not be considered a religion (nor would certain types of Buddhism), but, again that is simply the Atheist's definition.  It is simple enough for most to realize that if Atheism cannot be defined in terms sans religion that it must be in fact a type of religion.

Ah, like "irony", eh?

I suppose, but I have hopes that 'irony' can be restored.

I saw your earlier dissembling, raised you another refutation by lighting your strawman on fire with logic and disregard your empty claim of clarity, (because it lacks evidence, substance and veracity).

I provided no dissembling or strawman, I simply alluded to the fact that the gun you were waiving about had no bullets in it.  In fact, this obvious point you keep bringing up (and something I have repeatedly confirmed to you to be true -- since you apparently lack the ability to ascertain the obvious if you do not have underlying motives for it) is not even in contention.  Yet you waive it around and point it like a weapon frequently within these posts.  It seems that it is only you and the OP that finds significance in it and yet you don't share the concern with others.  Well why don't you simply pull the trigger and see the results, eh?

Then the thread, the OP's point and my subsequent points were not entirely "redundant", (unless by "concern", you meant 'only if you get to be in charge, then it'd be okay'?).  

Overly paranoid is what they are.  The rule of law protects us from the fear you allude to.  If such were to come to be that the action was made then the rule of law would be void and thus our obligations to it.  As free men, we do not look to others for our freedoms because in so doing you are not free. 

You know, I can probably extrapolate the reasons for that, based upon available data.  There are even more religious variations of xtianity now than back when the first amendment was ratified.  It'd be difficult to establish a monolithic theocracy if the subsects are bound to squabble.  Squabbling could lead to shooting, (hel, a theocracy could lead to shooting), and that's a lot of shooting in the name of 'god'.  Sounds familar though.  I do however, agree that a theocracy would be a "bad thing", (likely for reasons at some variance with yours).

If that gives you comfort then go with it.  I have a question for you, if you drove by a church as it was dismissing would you fearfully roll up your windows and lock your doors and hurriedly try to drive by unnoticed for fear of your life?  I ask this as that is the picture it seems you are trying to paint?

Robertson was used an an example, not a herring.  The point you missed was that any candidate has the potential of being a religious fundie, (overtly or, convertly).

And the point you missed was that it didn't happen then when (by your accounts) it would be more probable so how is it more of a concern now?  And even if it had happened then you have absolutely zero proof that a theocracy would be attempted and every bit of proof that it wouldn't (not to mention that it wouldn't be allowed if it were).

(by the way, if we get to use 'boogeyman terms like "secular progressives", I'm going to inflict 'repressive religious republicans' on you in turn ... r3).

How is "secular progressives" a boogeyman term?  I am curious as to why that description stings you so and you feel the need to equate it to "repressive religious republicans"?  The addition of the adjective 'repressive' is glaringly obvious and out of place in such a comparison and shows increased bias and defensiveness on your behalf.  I find that rather curious and somewhat comical.

Wow, sounds like the same thing repressive religious republicans do from all appearances!  

In general, religious republicans want to be left alone and freed from the steadily tightening grasp of government.  They want less regulations and increased personal responsibility where the secular progressives want increased government control and restriction and central planning.
 

If there is no substantiating evidence to support 'faith' then holding such a belief is self-deceptive, (this is because if one had evidence, no 'faith' would be required - the implicit clause being that one must 'suspend disbelief' in a self-deceptive manner in order to make a "leap of faith").

That is a bad comparison.  The 'leap of faith' would be to the ledge that you cannot see from where you are, and not the case you present:  where you can clearly see everything and you see it isn't there.
 

There is no deception in my faith.

You are mistaken; the xtian belief systems, (which you may or may not distinguish significantly from your personal "faith"), are riddled with deception, dissembling, contradictions and outrageous claims made with no supporting evidence, (reference: any 'bible').

It is you who is mistaken, unless you claim to have greater knowledge of my mind than I do.  I suspect that is a level of conceitedness that even you don't possess.

Sure I could. The suspicious spouse could hire private investigators to determine the other's physical fidelity.  No one can hire an equivalent investigator to confirm fidelity in a theoretical supernatural being.  Who ya gonna, faith-busters?

Even that would fail to suffice as the investigators could well be complicit in the infidelity.  There are also times that there would be the absence of the investigators to observe the spouse and one would only have suspicious and circumstantial evidence.  You will notice that you are relying on external agents to qualify the fidelity of the spouse and that alone would require some measure of a degree of faith in their honesty and dedication and capabilities.

Thanks.  I could say I was working with Tesla technology in a undisclosed location northeast of Texas which was completely unrelated to any emergent weather phenomenon whatsoever in the Lone Star state.  Or, that I was on a nice trip to a friend's California beach house, (how they can afford that place, no one will say but, the sunburn supports this more than the occasional static zap from metal - which I don't experience!)
I do know some people around Austin and outer areas but, they're fine.  Plus, I have this tan to prove I was at thebeach the whole time, dammit.

I think your tan came from unsafe interaction with a poorly focused HAARP collision suspiciously coincidental to the tornado outbreak (jk obviously).  I haven't been to a beach in ages and am on the water virtually every day -- I think I need a vacation.

[falcon9]

While you state this as your point:  "...the non-religious man may have non-religious beliefs which influence his decisions while the religious adherent has both religious and non-religious beliefs influencing his decisions.", but that is not the entire truth, because that is not the argument here and simple statements of the obvious and other attempts to distract will not conceal this.

If you are you suggesting that "religious people with (present day) political power" and who hold religious beliefs which influence their decisions is not the argument here, what are you trying to make the argument about?

Atheism contains six of the seven characteristics of religion as described in the framework set forth by Ninian Smart in what is known as the "Seven Dimensions of Religion".  Not every religion has all of these characteristics.

Actually, Ninian characterized those as a "scheme of study":
Smart’s sevenfold scheme of study:
 1.Doctrinal
 2.Mythological
 3.Ethical
 4.Ritual
 5.Experiential
 6.Institutional
 7.Material (added in his 1998 text)

He omits the definition's supernatural aspect and so did you, (presumbly to try lumping atheism in with superstitious religious beliefs).  This is intellectually dishonest, especially so when atheism does not meet #1, 2, 4, or 6, of Ninnie's theorectical parameters of study.  If you want to move the goalposts, find a different game to play.  Atheism is not a religion; "a-theism": not theism.  

The only characteristic Atheism really has missing is 'Ritual', and even that is starting to appear in Atheism

What an outrageous claim and made without providing evidence to support it as well.  Not only is the first part of the claim false, (4 of the 7 characteristics of parameters of study do not apply to atheism), but a vague claim that "ritual is starting to appear in atheism" is challenged.

-- with it being a newer religion it lacks the history that breeds rituals.

 
Again, atheism isn't a religion just because you keep calling it one, (which is a logical fallacy, as you know).

It is only by a strict definition that Atheists would impose, in that Atheism would not be considered a religion (nor would certain types of Buddhism), but, again that is simply the Atheist's definition.

That's hogwash; atheists aren't 'imposing' the definition of atheism, (that's something you're trying to have Ninian do); it's drawn from the dictionary definitions - consensus meaning.  All such definitions are "strict" in such a sense, otherwise we'd redefine xtians as 'zombies' by dint of them meeting the underlying conditions of that term's definition.  Your post-hole digging results in showing empty holes in your argument, not the moving of goalposts.
  

It is simple enough for most to realize that if Atheism cannot be defined in terms sans religion that it must be in fact a type of religion.

Such sophist arguments may be "simple" however, they aren't accurate.  No terms, (concepts consisting of words), can be defined without using other terms, (words).  Atheism is the rejection of superstitious beliefs which comprise a religion.  Atheism cannot be a religion if it contain no such superstitious beliefs.  If you are implying that atheism contains any superstitious beliefs of it's own, state them.

'Atheism is not a belief system. Atheism is not a religion, an ideology, a world view, or anything like that. If this seems wrong, consider the
fact that theism is also not a belief system, religion, ideology, world view, or anything like that. Theism and atheism are single data points or positions: theism is the presence of a belief in the existence of at least one god of some sort, atheism is the absence of any sort of belief.
 
While theism is not a belief system, many belief systems are theistic in that they contain or rely upon theism. Christianity is a theistic belief system (specifically, a theistic religion). Many new age belief systems are also theistic. A political party founded on Christianity would probably qualify as a theistic ideology.
 
All the same is true about atheism: while atheism itself is not a belief system, there are many belief systems which are atheistic. Objectivism and Humanism are atheistic philosophies. There are also atheistic religions: Religious Humanism, Raelians, Ethical Culture, some forms of Buddhism, etc.
 
When you described atheism as a belief system, you made a common error but it is an error nonetheless. If you want to talk about logic, there's a simple observation that might make it clear for you:

If "atheism" is a "belief system," then you should be able to point to the single belief system that is shared by all Objectivists, communists, liberals, conservatives, Buddhists, Raelians, anarchists, Religious Humanists, Secular Humanists, Jews, and libertarians who are atheists. What is that belief system? What are it's various premises, positions, doctrines, propositions, etc.?'

I provided no dissembling or strawman ...

Your preceding replies in this thread belie your simple denial.  Reread them or not, (such 'arguments' fail regardless).
 

I simply alluded to the fact that the gun you were waiving about had no bullets in it. Well why don't you simply pull the trigger and see the results, eh?

What, and miss another opportunity to watch you shoot yourself in the other foot with the blanks of your non-arguments?  Where's the profit in that?

Overly paranoid is what they are.  The rule of law protects us from the fear you allude to.  If such were to come to be that the action was made then the rule of law would be void and thus our obligations to it.  As free men, we do not look to others for our freedoms because in so doing you are not free.  

So, a de facto theocracy would have to manifest overtly as one before you'd take up arms and join the resistance or, you'd be singing "onward xtian soldier, marching as war"?

I have a question for you, if you drove by a church as it was dismissing would you fearfully roll up your windows and lock your doors and hurriedly try to drive by unnoticed for fear of your life?

No.  Unless the 'zombies/walkers' are in direct pursuit or, pose an immenient threat, it's best to let them stumble around aimlessly.

And even if it had happened then you have absolutely zero proof that a theocracy would be attempted and every bit of proof that it wouldn't (not to mention that it wouldn't be allowed if it were).

"Proof" of attempts?  You mean like Presidential executive order #13199 wasn't "allowed"?  Also, the goundwork for a de facto theocracy was suggested and the gap between covert and overt lies in increments between the two.

In general, religious republicans want to be left alone and freed from the steadily tightening grasp of government.  They want less regulations and increased personal responsibility ...

Yet, repressive republicans want megacorporations to steadily tighten their grasp on the economy, free of anything that would restrict this, (while at the same time pulling the "too big to fail" other leg for bailout funds in the billions).  Where's the personal responsibility of wealthy speculators, (both "republican" & "democrat" alike), for crapping where they eat?

... where the secular progressives want increased government control and restriction and central planning.

Generally, a good percentage of people, (secular, progressive, non-secular, backward ...), would prefer that the pillaging and plundering by corporate 'vikings' be either kept to a minimum or, not so obvious that even the dimmer ones notice a recessive economy caused by such.  The 'vikings' haven't been self-restricting or self-regulating thusfar, (although central planning won't have the desired effects, neither would unrestricted deregulation).  The answer?  Pay me for hints; there's no free lunch.
 

If there is no substantiating evidence to support 'faith' then holding such a belief is self-deceptive, (this is because if one had evidence, no 'faith' would be required - the implicit clause being that one must 'suspend disbelief' in a self-deceptive manner in order to make a "leap of faith").

That is a bad comparison.  

Nope, it's quite apt.  There is no evidence extant or presented now therefore, if "faith" is held despite a lack of evidence, it is based entirely on an unsupported belief and trust in something which has every indication of being false, (e.g., deceiving the believer).

The 'leap of faith' would be to the ledge that you cannot see from where you are, and not the case you present:  where you can clearly see everything and you see it isn't there.

Using your comparison to a ledge, the believer is trusting that a ledge they cannot see is there nonetheless and makes a leap of faith.  The non-believer has no such faith that a ledge they cannot see is there anyway and does not make such a leap, (does not suspend disbelief).  Who has the greatest probability of falling; one who leaps, sight unseen, hoping for a ledge that in all probability isn't there or, another who does try to jump the abyss of the unknown by trusting in unseen supernatural ledges?
 

There is no deception in my faith.

You are mistaken; the xtian belief systems, (which you may or may not distinguish significantly from your personal "faith"), are riddled with deception, dissembling, contradictions and outrageous claims made with no supporting evidence, (reference: any 'bible').
[/quote]

It is you who is mistaken, unless you claim to have greater knowledge of my mind than I do.

Read the statement again; ' ... xtian belief systems, (which you may or may not distinguish significantly from your personal "faith")' ...

I suspect that is a level of conceitedness that even you don't possess.

I suspect that you you missed the conditional on the first pass.  If I were as conceited as you project, I'd just assume you were stupid.

You will notice that you are relying on external agents to qualify the fidelity of the spouse and that alone would require some measure of a degree of faith in their honesty and dedication and capabilities.

They've got these devices around nowadays, (video/audio surveilence).

I think your tan came from unsafe interaction with a poorly focused HAARP collision suspiciously coincidental to the tornado outbreak (jk obviously).  I haven't been to a beach in ages and am on the water virtually every day -- I think I need a vacation.

What tan?
Everyone needs a vacation every now and then - even those who haven't been doing anything, (their vacation from doing nothing would be termed as "work").

[Falconer02]

Atheism contains six of the seven characteristics of religion as described in the framework set forth by Ninian Smart in what is known as the "Seven Dimensions of Religion".  Not every religion has all of these characteristics.  The only characteristic Atheism really has missing is 'Ritual', and even that is starting to appear in Atheism -- with it being a newer religion it lacks the history that breeds rituals.  It is only by a strict definition that Atheists would impose, in that Atheism would not be considered a religion (nor would certain types of Buddhism), but, again that is simply the Atheist's definition.  It is simple enough for most to realize that if Atheism cannot be defined in terms sans religion that it must be in fact a type of religion.

I see you've been trying to say atheism is a religion. If that's truly what you think, I can guarentee you that you will always be incorrect no matter how long you pan out your argument. This has already been attempted in a past thread which lasted a couple of pages and Falcon9 had a handful of Christians trying to argue that it is a religion, and they constantly failed no matter what they brought to the table. What it boils down to is that atheism is a simple term- a lack of a belief in deities. As an example, this is what your argument (no matter how technical you make it) boils down to-

"Joe has a hobby of collecting stamps. Jerry does not collect stamps. Therefore we can conclude Jerry has a hobby of not collecting stamps."

It's an absurd claim.

[SherylsShado]

I agree with Falconer02 in that atheism is not a religion.  I have several atheistic friends, aquaintances and know that it's not a "religion" with them but more a "absence of religion" (and that is a good thing...because even Jesus never told anyone to get "religion").

I do know some atheists though that while they don't have atheism as a "religion", they do have it as an "obsession".  (They are the opposites of "Jesus-freaks", they cover their cars in "anti-God" bumper-stickers, wear t-shirts proclaiming "their non-beliefs" and spend all their time/conversations dwelling on the non-existance of God).  I'm not sure what causes people to go in either "extreme",  but I can understand why many consider both to be a "religion" after knowing these types.  To be honest, I prefer my regular atheist friends to the "obsessed atheists" and "Jesus-freaks" I know...to me they just seem more "normal",  if that makes sense.

[falcon9]

I agree with Falconer02 in that atheism is not a religion.  I have several atheistic friends, aquaintances and know that it's not a "religion" with them but more a "absence of religion" ...

That's reasonable enough.

[falcon9]

I do know some atheists though that while they don't have atheism as a "religion", they do have it as an "obsession".  (They are the opposites of "Jesus-freaks", they cover their cars in "anti-God" bumper-stickers, wear t-shirts proclaiming "their non-beliefs" and spend all their time/conversations dwelling on the non-existance of God). 

Whether or not that was intended as an insinuation, I'll just point out two salient aspects of both sides of the coin.  One could support the contention that religious believers are as "obsessed" as the anti-/unreligious non-believing atheists mentioned.  No doubt even the most "obsessive" evidence observed does not constitute the entire behavioural spectrum of the individual, (nor even a majority percentage; especially if only internet posts constitute such evidence sampling).  The more likely scenarios include those in which one would never know someone's religious/non-religious stance unless the matter came up, (especially repeatedly).  This pertains both ways.

I'm not sure what causes people to go in either "extreme",  but I can understand why many consider both to be a "religion" after knowing these types.  To be honest, I prefer my regular atheist friends to the "obsessed atheists" and "Jesus-freaks" I know...to me they just seem more "normal",  if that makes sense.

While it's possible to speculate about causes, such should relate to the effects or they'd be random guesses.  For instance, if one is going about their business when 'suddenly', someone else starts interjecting their religious beliefs into a variety of discussions, (many of which having nothing to do with religious beliefs in the first place), and another challenges those interjections, the one being challenged is the 'obsessive extremist', (not the challenger, since that is a reactive response and not an initiated 'obsessive' behaviour).  Conversely, if someone started interjecting an 'extreme atheist' viewpoint into a matter unrelated to religion, they'd be the one exhibiting some "obsessed atheist" behaviour. 

That said, there are no posts where any nominally "atheist" FC members have _initiated_ such behaviour, (in 100% of the instances of things escalating on every side of the question/s), the exchanges were initiated by 'religious believers'.  This distinction is relevant because it clearly delineates cause & effect/action & reaction exchanges and identifies the initiator of 'obsessive' behaviour as predominately religious adherents on FC.

Elsewhere, (offline or online), such 'atheistic extremists' as are extant are just as capable of initiating such obsessive behaviour as described. All I'm saying is that it hasn't gone down like that since I've been reading the archived posts from up to five years back, oddly enough.

[falcon9]

Atheism contains six of the seven characteristics of religion as described in the framework set forth by Ninian Smart in what is known as the "Seven Dimensions of Religion".  Not every religion has all of these characteristics.  The only characteristic Atheism really has missing is 'Ritual', and even that is starting to appear in Atheism -- with it being a newer religion it lacks the history that breeds rituals.  It is only by a strict definition that Atheists would impose, in that Atheism would not be considered a religion (nor would certain types of Buddhism), but, again that is simply the Atheist's definition.  It is simple enough for most to realize that if Atheism cannot be defined in terms sans religion that it must be in fact a type of religion.

I see you've been trying to say atheism is a religion. If that's truly what you think, I can guarentee you that you will always be incorrect no matter how long you pan out your argument. This has already been attempted in a past thread which lasted a couple of pages and Falcon9 had a handful of Christians trying to argue that it is a religion, and they constantly failed no matter what they brought to the table. What it boils down to is that atheism is a simple term- a lack of a belief in deities. As an example, this is what your argument (no matter how technical you make it) boils down to-

"Joe has a hobby of collecting stamps. Jerry does not collect stamps. Therefore we can conclude Jerry has a hobby of not collecting stamps."

It's an absurd claim.

You're right and I'd noticed the variation on the 'prove a negative assertion' fallacy however, "Abrupt's" argument in that regard seems to stem from attaching "theism" to "atheism" by way of the negating "a", (under the premise that not theism is theistic somehow because of an invalid syllogism that the terms could not be separated - false because they can be, by definition).  Your analysis is more concise than my elaborating upon _why_ atheism is not theistic so enthusiastically.  Thanks, man.

Here's another example to emphasize the point: Parking one's horse in the garage does not make the horse a car.

[SherylsShado]

The more likely scenarios include those in which one would never know someone's religious/non-religious stance unless the matter came up, (especially repeatedly).  This pertains both ways.

  That's exactly what I was trying to say.  It definitely goes both ways, they are "obsessed" because they ALWAYS ONLY want to discuss ONE and the SAME topic, whether or not anyone else wants to hear about it.  (99% of the time, no one wants to hear it.  Doesn't matter if the topic is God, atheism, politics or Elvis.)

Elsewhere, (offline or online), such 'atheistic extremists' as are extant are just as capable of initiating such obsessive behaviour as described. All I'm saying is that it hasn't gone down like that since I've been reading the archived posts from up to five years back, oddly enough.

You're correct, I don't believe or recall encountering any 'atheistic extremists' in the FC forums since my time on here.  I was referring to those in my 'real life'.  It doesn't matter to me if they are 'atheistic extremists', 'christian extremists' or any other kind of 'extremist'...most people feel their stomach sink when they see these people approaching and their minds are quickly devising a plan of escape from them because they are hard to tolerate.  I personally know a entire family of 'political extremists' which I find their conversations quite humorous and I've made jokes about them to my friends.  NONE of my friends (of any faith or non-faith) find them humorous at all and I recently had one of them tell me that if I ever attempt to purposely bring these people into a conversation with him that he will kill me.     'Extremists', no matter what kind they are...seem to always have a "screw loose" and because I know alot of people, I seem to know a variety of different kinds of 'extremists' as well.  I was writing from personal experience and not from anything I had witnessed in the FC forum.

[albefish]

Everyone's religious beliefs inherently plays a part in their daily lives. You cannot suppress what you believe whether it be in politics or any other career choice. Your beliefs will be manifested through your thoughts, actions and what you say. So, don't be too hard on the the politicians for standing up for what they believe in.

[falcon9]

It definitely goes both ways, they are "obsessed" because they ALWAYS ONLY want to discuss ONE and the SAME topic, whether or not anyone else wants to hear about it.  (99% of the time, no one wants to hear it.  Doesn't matter if the topic is God, atheism, politics or Elvis.)

That's the thing though, there'll be a thread about some topic unrelated to a focus of "obsession" with people exchanging opinions, when all of a sudden an out-of-the-blue religious comment skews conversation.  Somehow, it never occurs to the vast majority of those who interject such religious slants into a unrelated topic how "obsessive" of them that is to others.  Instead, they become perturbed when such comments are challenged/debated/objected to and 'attack' those who challenge/debate/object, (sometimes after a brief discussion/debate and sometimes with no discussion at all).  My take on it is, if someone does not wish a subject to be discussed, debated or challenged then they might consider not raising that subject themselves.  An expectation that such subject matter 'should' go unchallenged is an unreasonable one.

You're correct, I don't believe or recall encountering any 'atheistic extremists' in the FC forums since my time on here.  I was referring to those in my 'real life'.  I was writing from personal experience and not from anything I had witnessed in the FC forum.

What I've noticed on these forums at times is a pattern where several religious adherents will make all sorts of 'faith-based' declarations, assertions and claims and then 'accuse' non-religious respondants of anything ranging from 'persecution' through 'attacking their faith' to "bullying" - all while _forgetting_ that their 'faith-based' commentaries/opinions initiated contentions.  That's what was meant about unreasonable expectations; one cannot reasonably expect to poke a hornet's next with a stick, complain that the hornets are after them once they're stung and then hide behind faux-martyrdom.  People are as free to express their religious or, non-religious opinions as others are to express dissenting opinions however, not all opinions are created equally, (e.g., there's a different between unreasoned bias and a rational basis).

As far as the conext of this particular thread goes, discussion & debate has centered around the potential for mixing unreasoned bias, (religious opinion swaying/influencing political decisions and any ramifications of that), with decisions which have some rational basis.

[falcon9]

Everyone's religious beliefs inherently plays a part in their daily lives. You cannot suppress what you believe whether it be in politics or any other career choice. Your beliefs will be manifested through your thoughts, actions and what you say. So, don't be too hard on the the politicians for standing up for what they believe in.

Well, it can be estimated that the degree to which a religious adherent's beliefs impact their daily lives will vary, depending upon how 'religious' they are.  A non-religious person will experience very little impact in their daily lives stemming from the religious beliefs of others unless such are imposed upon them.  Once such an imposition occurs, (whether it be interjected in an unrelated forum subject or, by any resulting political policies of government officials), it would be well to remember that, for every action there is an equal & opposite reaction.

[Abrupt]

If you are you suggesting that "religious people with (present day) political power" and who hold religious beliefs which influence their decisions is not the argument here, what are you trying to make the argument about?

I am not trying to make the argument about anything.  I simply stated the obvious, and it didn't require any clever deduction or critical reasoning skills to perform.  The question posed is not the begged question, and such is glaringly obvious.  As I stated earlier, I wish the OP would have made the declaration or asked the true question instead of the charade and subterfuge.

Actually, Ninian characterized those as a "scheme of study":
Smart’s sevenfold scheme of study:
 1.Doctrinal
 2.Mythological
 3.Ethical
 4.Ritual
 5.Experiential
 6.Institutional
 7.Material (added in his 1998 text)

He omits the definition's supernatural aspect and so did you, (presumbly to try lumping atheism in with superstitious religious beliefs).  This is intellectually dishonest, especially so when atheism does not meet #1, 2, 4, or 6, of Ninnie's theorectical parameters of study.  If you want to move the goalposts, find a different game to play.  Atheism is not a religion; "a-theism": not theism.  

#1 -- Humanists Manifesto
#2 -- I would submit the belief by atheist that life evolved from non life, which is certainly a candidate for 'faith' under the atheist definition and contrary to science and logic
#4 -- public commemoration of the anniversary of Darwin’s birth and a request for the public to do likewise
#6 -- One of two here, and regarding 'nature'  first is resources are for us to use in a "to the best man" sort of way, and second is that resources are to be conserved because all life is sacred sort of way

We will likely never agree on this, though, as defining what constitutes religion has been a debate for centuries that we will likely not finalize.

Again, atheism isn't a religion just because you keep calling it one, (which is a logical fallacy, as you know).

I call it a religion because it qualifies as a religion for all considerations.  Since a definition of 'religion' is as contested as anything else people seem free to choose their own definitions.  I do find it strikingly comical that atheists react to it in the manner that they do.  After all it is but a word.

That's hogwash; atheists aren't 'imposing' the definition of atheism, (that's something you're trying to have Ninian do); it's drawn from the dictionary definitions - consensus meaning.  All such definitions are "strict" in such a sense, otherwise we'd redefine xtians as 'zombies' by dint of them meeting the underlying conditions of that term's definition.  Your post-hole digging results in showing empty holes in your argument, not the moving of goalposts.

Atheist most certainly do.  Whenever they are labeled as such they react in a most irrational and defensive manner and will repeatedly move the goalpost after being scored on.  Again, this is curious and comical to me, but that is all that it is.
  

Such sophist arguments may be "simple" however, they aren't accurate.  No terms, (concepts consisting of words), can be defined without using other terms, (words).  Atheism is the rejection of superstitious beliefs which comprise a religion.  Atheism cannot be a religion if it contain no such superstitious beliefs.  If you are implying that atheism contains any superstitious beliefs of it's own, state them.

Well I don't believe that superstitious beliefs are a prerequisite for a religion.  To satisfy you though I would redirect you to my listing above "the belief by atheist that life evolved from non life, which is certainly a candidate for 'faith' under the atheist definition and contrary to science and logic".  I think that qualifies well enough. 

Additional I don't see my belief in God as superstitious in the colloquial sense, although I would agree that it is super natural in that it is beyond what is observable in the known physical universe.  I have explored the Bible and studied some religious texts to try to get a better understanding for the 'scientist' within me but I have no easy explanation for what insight I have.  I don't know if even a sub par generalization could be made that would qualify as an attempt at a reasonable explanation.  I have a loose feel for it, but only like looking through a view port from a fixed point and focused to a fixed point and with no peripheral benefits. 

What, and miss another opportunity to watch you shoot yourself in the other foot with the blanks of your non-arguments?  Where's the profit in that?

But it is you that has made the repeated challenge regarding whether religious considerations would influence religions Presidents.  I have repeatedly confirmed this to you (I found it very odd that such common sense reasoning would be hidden for you and that it would be necessary to explain to you that peoples beliefs influence them -- none the less I did relate this to you (repeatedly)).  After doing this, what happened?  Not a damned thing.  There were no bullets in the weapon.  That is the attack/defense you used.  Make a point that is obviously true and put it up for contention.  When the opponent agrees, you hope that the other readers are not clever enough to realize that the entire point was obvious and moot.  You hope the readers will go "aha...he agreed so it must be...must mean..well it has to favor the one making the charge or he wouldn't have asked it...but I can't figure out the significance but it must be important".  Classic chewbacca defense but also so obvious as such.

So, a de facto theocracy would have to manifest overtly as one before you'd take up arms and join the resistance or, you'd be singing "onward xtian soldier, marching as war"?

Well I suppose the threat would have to exist before the need to address it, unless you are supposing that we burn some fire walls into the trees we haven't planted to prevent the other trees we haven't planted by being burned by a fire that was never set?  By your own admissions the threat is far less likely now than it ever was and since it never happened before when it was a greater threat, I am puzzled by the fearful reaction you are having (unless your atheist non deity gave you a non premonition of danger or anti-good or whatever method you wish to define such an irrational defense for an entirely imagined and undetected threat?) (yes that really is what your argument sounds like to me and I am not just debating to debate - just for clarification).

"Proof" of attempts?  You mean like Presidential executive order #13199 wasn't "allowed"?  Also, the goundwork for a de facto theocracy was suggested and the gap between covert and overt lies in increments between the two.

And it is allowed by The Constitution as it isn't favoring any religion.  I have no clue to what you mean by the groundwork for a De Facto theocracy so please clarify.

Yet, repressive republicans want megacorporations to steadily tighten their grasp on the economy, free of anything that would restrict this, (while at the same time pulling the "too big to fail" other leg for bailout funds in the billions).  Where's the personal responsibility of wealthy speculators, (both "republican" & "democrat" alike), for crapping where they eat?

The bulk of the bailouts was performed by Democrats.  I opposed every penny of every bailout and sent my share of letters complaining to any foolish politicians who supported any of it.  Obama and Reid and Pelosi want even more bailouts and are already working on a third stimulus and a bailout of homeowners who 'can' afford to pay for their homes.  Corporations produce money or they die (or they would without the government meddling with its clumsy hands and regulations that accomplish the opposite).  They bring more pie to the table, and don't simply eat from the pie that is already there.  The entire financial mess is the fault of the government as is our lingering here and debt and continued obligations.  It is big government that is the source of this problem and not corporations.  Shrink the government to 20% of its size and watch the economic situation improve 5 times.

Generally, a good percentage of people, (secular, progressive, non-secular, backward ...), would prefer that the pillaging and plundering by corporate 'vikings' be either kept to a minimum or, not so obvious that even the dimmer ones notice a recessive economy caused by such.  The 'vikings' haven't been self-restricting or self-regulating thusfar, (although central planning won't have the desired effects, neither would unrestricted deregulation).  The answer?  Pay me for hints; there's no free lunch.

These "corporate 'vikings'" could not plunder a damn thing unless they are first allowed within the castle walls by the central planners.  If the government completely untangles itself from the corporations and social engineering and does its strict job according to The Constitution there would never be a case of care or concern or threat.  It is when it meddles and becomes entangled with that which it binds and regulates that it gains risk (and this is risk without any reward ever being possible).  Such simple foolishness that only the truly dim witted would not see this.  Personal responsibility then falls to each of us.  We become responsible for our actions and if we wish to invest blindly and not pay attention to the companies we invest in (and fail for such obvious lies as 'double your money in one year' then it is our own swords we fall to).  No longer would we blindly risk our earnings, trusting that the government can protect us (as it always says each time it comes up with new regulations to solve the problems that dictated them arising -- but only having the effect of making it harder to detect the next such case from happening (after all Madoff was investigated 5 times before it finally became obvious of his scam and the previous 5 times the details were so complex from all the regulations that the regulators were not sure if there was a crime being committed)).

That is the free lunch, we each are responsible for ourselves and we reap what we sow (to use a biblical saying in a non biblical manner -- simply to annoy you possibly but also because it is fitting). 
 

Nope, it's quite apt.  There is no evidence extant or presented now therefore, if "faith" is held despite a lack of evidence, it is based entirely on an unsupported belief and trust in something which has every indication of being false, (e.g., deceiving the believer).

Do you even know the definition of "faith" in the Bible?  “being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.”

They've got these devices around nowadays, (video/audio surveilence).

Even if implanted that would not suffice.  Such could always be blocked or otherwise shielded or concealed. 

What tan?

Exactly!

Everyone needs a vacation every now and then - even those who haven't been doing anything, (their vacation from doing nothing would be termed as "work").

Some say my work is 'vacation' and that my 'hobby' is work.  Personally I think neither of them qualifies as work, except the days where I catch no fish and burn a ton of fuel.  Those days it truly becomes "going to work and not getting paid".

[Abrupt]

Atheism contains six of the seven characteristics of religion as described in the framework set forth by Ninian Smart in what is known as the "Seven Dimensions of Religion".  Not every religion has all of these characteristics.  The only characteristic Atheism really has missing is 'Ritual', and even that is starting to appear in Atheism -- with it being a newer religion it lacks the history that breeds rituals.  It is only by a strict definition that Atheists would impose, in that Atheism would not be considered a religion (nor would certain types of Buddhism), but, again that is simply the Atheist's definition.  It is simple enough for most to realize that if Atheism cannot be defined in terms sans religion that it must be in fact a type of religion.

I see you've been trying to say atheism is a religion. If that's truly what you think, I can guarentee you that you will always be incorrect no matter how long you pan out your argument. This has already been attempted in a past thread which lasted a couple of pages and Falcon9 had a handful of Christians trying to argue that it is a religion, and they constantly failed no matter what they brought to the table. What it boils down to is that atheism is a simple term- a lack of a belief in deities. As an example, this is what your argument (no matter how technical you make it) boils down to-

"Joe has a hobby of collecting stamps. Jerry does not collect stamps. Therefore we can conclude Jerry has a hobby of not collecting stamps."

It's an absurd claim.

I absolutely consider Atheism a religion.  This is not debatable as we each have our fixed opinions and there is no set judge to preside a ruling.  It is entirely subject to interpretation and personal discretion as to what definition or qualities we will apply.  It is enough that you understand that Atheism is a 'religion' to me and just go with that.

You analogy doesn't hold, because religion is not a hobby, religion is a belief.  For one not to hold a belief on a subject, one is required to have never considered the subject.

[Abrupt]

Here's another example to emphasize the point: Parking one's horse in the garage does not make the horse a car.

And yet they are both methods of transportation.