Religious People with (present day) Political Power

[Falconer02]

Please show me where it has been refuted.

The most basic explanation? Falcon9 page 5- Taking a position on religion isn't equivalent to a school of thought _being_ a religion.
Which brings me to below-

The burden of proof rests with you on this to show that the courts did not declare atheism was the inmates religion.

I've already stated this a few times and I've already agreed to what I quoted from you here- They declared it a religion for Kaufman and anyone caught in this situation so they can avoid discrimination. They didn't suddenly change the proper usage of atheism altogether- they changed it for him and anyone who finds themselves in this predicament. Atheism is protected AS a religion (for the inmate), but it is not a religion (for anyone using the term on an everyday basis).

In keeping with this idea, the Court has adopted a broad definition of “religion” that includes non-theistic and atheistic beliefs, as well as theistic ones.
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1467028.html

Quoting this case as a major claim as to why atheism is a religion would be obvious cherry-picking. That, and it's a weak argument because it only applies when the pieces are set in a precise and specific pattern. Even the code of ethics aspect brought up is still broken- If we were to adopt this case as the proper usage of the term, it would be the same as saying "a botanist studies plants, therefore all botanists are plants".

Interesting that this dictionary says "theism is not a religion".

Slang, bro. It's urbandictionary. It was sort of a joke. However if you want to throw the word theism back into the argument to discuss if it's a religion or not, I'm totally for it.

Present these logical fallacies you accuse me of committing, or withdraw the charge.

.  Where an appeal to authority was used against me I countered with multiple appeals to authority to demonstrate the relevance, including such from the exact same source used against me.

Strawman, authority, popularity, cherry-picking, ad hom. I've already stated why the 'appeal to authority/popularity' you've accused us of using would be extremely illogical to not give thought to (words meaning whatever we want whenever/wherever).

I am not those people, and I don't need others to make my points.  Simply because one person "who added a lot" (which I absolutely take you at your word for this as I am unfamiliar with the thread and find no reason to assume you are being dishonest with this statement) has conceded the point has no relevance to me (although I can understand why it would have to you).  I have ever found myself capable where others fail and this is partly because I am dogged and partly because I can be extremely unbiased and thus quite capable of predicting and realizing counter arguments (that is a strength that is absolutely necessary for decent debate).  I always (well almost always) view a debate from both sides, and even so in this situation.  On more than a few occasions I have realized better arguments than are thrown against me, but that is somewhat subjective and slightly conceited, I suppose.

There was a lot of stupid emotional flak being thrown around (as is normal in these types of threads), so this thread's current argument is a breath of fresh air compared to the others since we're, for the most part, avoiding those issues. My only annoyance is we're all starting to repeat the same things per post now.

[falcon9]

There was a lot of stupid emotional flak being thrown around (as is normal in these types of threads), so this thread's current argument is a breath of fresh air compared to the others since we're, for the most part, avoiding those issues. My only annoyance is we're all starting to repeat the same things per post now.

I not only agree with the points you raised in reply to "Abrupt" but, also concur with your sentiments regarding repetition, (which is likely why I'd posted 'If you want to re-argue prior points, go back and look over the thread to avoid repetitions and try introducing new evidence to support your claims' in response to him).