Okay, that concludes this aspect of the debate. Conclusion: watch out for religious fundies who gain political power.
I find it funny that your "conclusion" finally reveals the begged question. Wouldn't it have been far simpler to have stated that from the beginning instead of the cryptic method used?
Ask the OP. I didn't find it to be all that "cryptic".
You can personally redefine it as 'cheesewhiz' if you want to; the remainder of the more rational people usually go with:
" ... the service and worship of God or the supernatural; commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance; a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices; a system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith ..." - from merriam-webster
"a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs." -- dictionary.com
The above does not require the especially clause or the usually additional to qualify as its definition and the preceding would certainly be a fitting description of atheism.
Nor would the description apply to atheism since it contains the phrase "a set of beliefs", (atheism is a 'belief in skepticism').
Let us see what the courts have decided about the matter:
Oh, goody - an appeal to authority fallacy, (as if the courts get to decide what's a religion and what's not, for surely someone would have every single religion disqualified on the grounds of the lack of evidence to support them under judicial rules of evidence).
- According to the ruling of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, decided August 19, 2005, atheism is religion under the First Amendment. See Kaufman v. McCaughtry, Case No. 03-C-027-C. Their ruling states:
"Atheism is, among other things, a school of thought that takes a position on religion, the existence and importance of a supreme being, and a code of ethics. As such, we are satisfied that it qualifies as Kaufman's religion for purposes of the First Amendment claims he is attempting to raise."
Taking a position on religion isn't equivalent to a school of thought _being_ a religion. I can check to see if this ruling stood or was overruled.
- Also note, the Supreme Court has said a religion need not be based on a belief in the existence of a supreme being. In the 1961 case of Torcaso v. Watkins, the court described “secular humanism” as a religion.
No doubt examples such as these are why appeals to authority, (especially ones outside of the expertise of the "authority"), are logical fallacies. What justifications were supplied to characterize "secular humanism" as a religion?
- Reed v. Great Lakes Cos., 330 F.3d 931, 934 (7th Cir. 2003) --"And so an atheist (which Reed may or may not be) cannot be fired because his employer dislikes atheists. If we think of religion as taking a position on divinity, then atheism is indeed a form of religion."
Actually, atheists can be fired at will and no appeal to authority can prevent this. Conversely, a religious adherent can often get away with evangelizing in the workplace, (which is a violation of law), and whine to the courts about 'religious persecution' if fired for it. Doesn't mean they'll win their case.
Need I go on or ...
There's no need to continue posting appeals to authority however, you did provide the seeds of an idea concerning having the courts rule on what is _not_ a religion. No doubt the religious organizations would begin taking down churches across the country once the unfavorable rulings come in.
...should we continue to take your word on what an atheist is?
It is my word that's being taken, it's the determination of educated linguists who have compiled the dictionaries.
Notice, I did not initially impose these rulings/opinions/definitions upon you but only use them to refute your claim that some definition in a book determines what is and is not a definition. Regardless of what I have given here, I still take the position that the definition of religion is subject to the person defining it alone and none other.
You can try refuting dictionary definitions by posting alternate appeals to authority through me but, at least the writers of dictionaries have the relevant linguistic backgrounds to determine consensual definitions, (whereas court judges could be of nearly any religious/non-religious background and should be using evidence and logic to arrive at legal decisions, not crap like "takes a position" as being equivalent to "is a religion" concerning atheism). Any first year law student would flunk out of the course on precedents if he coughed up what you did.
Your irrational belief that irrational superstitious beliefs aren't an integrally-defining aspect of what makes a religion a religion is illogical.
Where does such a "belief" exist, (references)? If you are attempting to catagorize an hypothesis, (or various scientific theories), as "beliefs" then I'd say that positing an hypothesis or theory, pending verification, does not constitute a "belief" that such is accurate in advance of supporting evidence. Such evidence as can be ascertained will either support or, fail to support a theory/hypothesis, (either in some aspects or, entirely). "Belief" either way has no impact on the existence or, non-existence of such evidence. The same goes for a religious belief that "goddidit".
Would it not have to exist?
Unless you have a reference to such a claim, implying that it exists without them is dishonest.
Unless atheist have never even entertained the subject (thus making them dishonest by ignorance).
That's sophist nonsense. The skeptical position of many atheists who wonder how life began is stated as requiring evidence to support any contentions put forth. That is "entertaining" the idea by questioning specious claims, (it is not making the claim that 'life came from non-life').
Tell me then where did life come from eh?
It could a meta-emergent phenomenon. This hypothesis awaits confirmational evidence.
You claim you know it didn't come from any divine being and thus you must have proof of how it did arise to be able to so readily dismiss the other.
Nice try erecting a strawman argument of what I _didn't_ claim however, what I did state is that there is no evidence that it came from a "divine being", (for which there is also no evidence). No evidence means your claim that life was created by such is dubious, tending toward being a false claim.
Is there any extant evidence which can be unambiguously attributed to such a supernatural being posited? No. Then such a belief is superstitious in every sense.
Yes, evidence deduced by reasoning of what is missing and reflected through a model of what is given. Our very existence is superstitious by your model.
Specious speculations and suppositions do not constitute deductive reasoning. Notwithstanding the excluded middle fallacy you are engaging in now, what "model" of existence are you imputing to me?
Actually, the constitutionality of E.O.#13199, (Bush's "faith-based initiative"), has been/is being challenged not only by ACLU attornies but, by other lawyers and their clients as well. In practice, religions which are not "xtian" have been unable to obtain the same government assistance under the so-called "faith-based initiative" and that belies the not favoring one religion dodge, (in case you're wondering, "wicca" for instance, is legally recognised as a religion by the U.S. government).
The disposal of said assistance may be being handled in a manner not in accordance with the Bill of Rights and that would be obvious to you if you simply checked the arguments being made. In other words, the handlers may (or may not be) prejudicial towards Christianity, but the executive order itself is not.
If the practical application of the executive order entails a violation of the civil rights of others, (specifically, "wiccans" in the example given), then the E.O. it is based upon inherently violates those rights since it is being applied in an exclusionary manner. As I said, it is being contested as a unconstitutional.
As far as the groundwork for a de facto theocracy goes, E.O.#13199 constitutes an incremental part of that groundwork by opening public funds up for "faith-based initiatives". That means that non-religious taxpayers are at least partially footing the bill for religious evangelizing.
This is allowed within the Constitution and Bill of Rights and in no way is indicative of any sort of theocracy. We, as tax payers, have to pay for a lot of things we don't use or hold to (such as bribes to foreign nationalities, or parties for government workers, or other such things).
[/quote]
While taxpayers are footing the bill for things they may object to, this state of affairs does not mean that using public funds to finance "faith-based initiates" is anything less than a violation of the first amendment on exclusionary grounds.
The "bible" is not a dictionary and there's a certain conflict of interest in a dubious source defining it's own terms. This reminds one of the cheesewhiz defense.
So you are saying that a book that describes the usage for the term it uses is not considered 'controlling' in its manner within itself? You are saying that if you made a game about cheesewhiz and said that in order to level up to "falcon cheesewhizkid level 9" you would have to 'consume' 10 cans of cheesewhiz that you are not allowed to set the conditions of what designates 'consume"? Ridiculous.
Your example is indeed ridiculous since no one is compelled to play such an imaginary game, whereas anyone who wishes to converse intelligently in a language is required to use the established words within the language and definitions of those words.
Community Forum
Topic: Religious People with (present day) Political Power (Read 19463 times)
December 30, 2010, 04:06:32 am
