Christian inspiration

[falcon9]

You obviously didn't read their briefs and comments as you would have not asked this question. 

I didn't pose a question in my reply, your specious position was refuted without asking one.  Obviously, you are as unable to discern the difference between a question and a statement as you are the difference between religion and non-religious "atheism".

In addition you don't understand law very well or you would not have asked this question. 

Again, no question was asked in my reply to your nonsense about creating a legal precedent.  Unless you have a degree in law, (and a functioning ability to discern the difference between "treated as if it were ... " and declaring "atheism to be a religion), such arguments are without merit.

I have scarcely challenged your religion at all ...

That's not much of a feat when I have no religion to challenge, is it?

It is a shame that you are so blinded by your religion that you cannot see this ...

Your continued insistance of imputing that a non-religious viewpoint constitutes a "religion" remains irrational.  Such irrational arguments have been refuted by rational ones although it remains your personal choice to cling to specious irrationality and religious beliefs.
                                       
                   

[Abrupt]

You obviously didn't read their briefs and comments as you would have not asked this question. 

I didn't pose a question in my reply, your specious position was refuted without asking one.  Obviously, you are as unable to discern the difference between a question and a statement as you are the difference between religion and non-religious "atheism".

In addition you don't understand law very well or you would not have asked this question. 

Again, no question was asked in my reply to your nonsense about creating a legal precedent.  Unless you have a degree in law, (and a functioning ability to discern the difference between "treated as if it were ... " and declaring "atheism to be a religion), such arguments are without merit.

I have scarcely challenged your religion at all ...

That's not much of a feat when I have no religion to challenge, is it?

It is a shame that you are so blinded by your religion that you cannot see this ...

Your continued insistance of imputing that a non-religious viewpoint constitutes a "religion" remains irrational.  Such irrational arguments have been refuted by rational ones although it remains your personal choice to cling to specious irrationality and religious beliefs.
                                       
                   

You used an implied question and it becomes quite obvious that you have no idea what such is, nor how to recognize it.

No degree in law is required to be capable of discerning and participating in legal processes.  I have personally filed writs and motions and won favorable judgments in every such case.  It is only necessary to understand the language of law and such simple concepts of standing and jurisdiction, scope, precedence, and basic procedure.  Atheism cannot be afforded the protections provided under the freedom of religion clause unless it is considered to have the exact properties of a religion.  You seem to conveniently forget that they determined that atheism was the man's religion and in such a statement there remains no uncertainty as to the ruling.  The other area you have trouble understanding on such legal proceeding is 'damage' -- they cannot act on their own and make a decision about a subject unless damage is shown, and only then can they rule on that area and they cannot go beyond that as such behavior becomes activism.

[falcon9]

Atheism cannot be afforded the protections provided under the freedom of religion clause unless it is considered to have the exact properties of a religion.

False.  The court's ruling regarded treating atheist meetings in prison the same way religious meetings are treated in order to afford prisoners the freedom of choice to attend them, (keeping in mind such secular and "religious" meeting in prisons are sometimes merely opportunities for prison-gangs to meet and plot as well).  The court did not specifically or implicitly rule that atheism is a "religion". 
Seemingly, you remain unable to distinguish the difference between "treated as if" and 'ruled as being a religion'.

You seem to conveniently forget that they determined that atheism was the man's religion and in such a statement there remains no uncertainty as to the ruling.

Quote the unaltered determination by the court which explicitly and unambigiously states that "atheism was the man's religion".

[barbme1972]

Well, I read the story/news about the man handling a rattlesnake, getting bit, and dieing.....all in the name of the Lord and such.  Whether you believe in God or not is beside the point.  This pastor played with fire and got burned.  I am sorry, but anyone dumb enough to play with a rattlesnake whatever the reason will eventually get bit.  It is a wild animal, plain and simple, even if someone was keeping it as a pet or what not.  Where did he get the snake from in the first place is what I would like to know?  People need to learn to leave wild life alone.  Unless they have studied how to handle wild animals, like Jeff Corwin and those kinds of people, and know what they are doing they shouldn't be handling wild animals. Period!

[JediJohnnie]

Again for the benefit of the 3 people who can't interpret the Bible worth a brass farthing,The verse in question Mark 16:18 " they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all;" is meant to represent the children of God and their dealing with unbelievers and false doctrines.And how they will walk among such without having their Faith fail them.

[falcon9]

Again for the benefit of the 3 people who can't interpret the Bible ...

That's just the point; presenting a specious faith-based interpretation still leaves it as an interpretation.  That's why some of JJ's fellow fundies play with snakes - different delusional interpretations being applied.

[JediJohnnie]

[Abrupt]

Atheism cannot be afforded the protections provided under the freedom of religion clause unless it is considered to have the exact properties of a religion.

False.  The court's ruling regarded treating atheist meetings in prison the same way religious meetings are treated in order to afford prisoners the freedom of choice to attend them, (keeping in mind such secular and "religious" meeting in prisons are sometimes merely opportunities for prison-gangs to meet and plot as well).  The court did not specifically or implicitly rule that atheism is a "religion". 
Seemingly, you remain unable to distinguish the difference between "treated as if" and 'ruled as being a religion'.

Afford prisoners freedom of choice?  You seriously overestimate what rights a prisoner has -- remember not even all typical rights such as freedom of speech are retained within a prison.  You could
read more on the Geneva Convention and the Prisoners Bill of Rights to get a better understanding.  They absolutely did rule that atheism was Mr Kaufman's religion.  I understand quite well the subtle variations on considering things and equating them with others, but what you fail to understand is that legal rulings are not based on 'fairness' or any such equivocations.  You could no more apply a law that covers protection of religion to something that wasn't religions as you could a law that covers protection of women to include protection for men.

You seem to conveniently forget that they determined that atheism was the man's religion and in such a statement there remains no uncertainty as to the ruling.

Quote the unaltered determination by the court which explicitly and unambigiously states that "atheism was the man's religion".

Oh, this one you mean?  "Atheism is Kaufman’s religion, and the group that he wanted to start was religious in nature even though it expressly rejects a belief in a supreme being."  7th Circuit Court of Appeals, Kaufman v. McCaughtry

[Falconer02]

Again for the benefit of the 3 people who can't interpret the Bible worth a brass farthing

Why can't you follow your beliefs and be kind and avoid quarreling? I thought Christians were into that sort of thing.

[falcon9]

They absolutely did rule that atheism was Mr Kaufman's religion.  

An appellate court, commonly called an appeals court or court of appeals, or appeal court, is any court of law that is empowered to hear an appeal of a trial court or other lower tribunal. In most jurisdictions, the court system is divided into at least three levels: the trial court, which initially hears cases and reviews evidence and testimony to determine the facts of the case; at least one intermediate appellate court; and a supreme court (or court of last resort) which primarily reviews the decisions of the intermediate courts. A jurisdiction's supreme court is that jurisdiction's highest appellate court. The 7th district court of appeals is not the supreme court/final arbitrator.  

Adjudicator "opinions" of an appellate court do not constitute a final "ruling", appellate courts are bought in on appeals.  Their opinions and rulings can be overturned by a supreme court.  Regardless, there are some more contextual exerpts from the transcripts than the ones you cherry-picked, (which gives a tacit okay to 'cherry-pick' counter-arguments).

You seem to conveniently forget that they determined that atheism was the man's religion and in such a statement there remains no uncertainty as to the ruling.

"Atheism is Kaufman’s religion, and the group that he wanted to start was religious in nature even though it expressly rejects a belief in a supreme being."  7th Circuit Court of Appeals, Kaufman v. McCaughtry

"The officials concluded that Kaufman's request was not motivated by “religious” beliefs.  Accordingly, rather than evaluating the proposal under the state's relatively more flexible policy for new religious groups, see Wis. Admin.  Code § DOC 309.61, they considered it under the procedure for forming a new inmate activity group, see Wis. Admin. Code § DOC 309.365.  Applying the latter standard, they denied the request, stating that they were not forming new activity groups at that time."
- See Kaufman v. McCaughtry, 2004 WL 257133, *4 (W.D.Wis. Feb.9, 2004)

"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 purposes is a somewhat different question than whether its adherents believe in a supreme being, or attend regular devotional services, or have a sacred Scripture.  The Supreme Court has said that a religion, for purposes of the First Amendment, is distinct from a “way of life,” even if that way of life is inspired by philosophical beliefs or other secular concerns."  
- See Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 215-16, 92 S.Ct. 1526, 32 L.Ed.2d 15 (1972).

"We have already indicated that atheism may be considered, in this specialized sense, a religion."
- See Reed v. Great Lakes Cos., 330 F.3d 931, 934 (7th Cir.2003)

"The Supreme Court has recognized atheism as equivalent to a “religion” for purposes of the First Amendment on numerous occasions ... but the Court understands the reference to religion to include what it often calls “nonreligion ... a state cannot “pass laws or impose requirements which aid all religions as against non-believers, and neither can [it] aid those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs.”
- See Id. at 495, 81 S.Ct. 1680
-----------------------------------
The key terms which directly apply are extracted as; "... recognized atheism as equivalent to a “religion” for purposes of the First Amendment",
"... atheism may be considered, in this specialized sense, a religion" and "... atheism may be considered, in this specialized sense, a religion."

That "for the purposes of the First Amendment" protections part does not conflate atheism with being a "religion".  It treats that antithesis of religion as "equivalent" only for First Amendment protection purposes, (again, not to establish atheism as a "religion" in violation of the Establishment Clause).

[Abrupt]

They absolutely did rule that atheism was Mr Kaufman's religion.  

An appellate court, commonly called an appeals court or court of appeals, or appeal court, is any court of law that is empowered to hear an appeal of a trial court or other lower tribunal. In most jurisdictions, the court system is divided into at least three levels: the trial court, which initially hears cases and reviews evidence and testimony to determine the facts of the case; at least one intermediate appellate court; and a supreme court (or court of last resort) which primarily reviews the decisions of the intermediate courts. A jurisdiction's supreme court is that jurisdiction's highest appellate court. The 7th district court of appeals is not the supreme court/final arbitrator.  

Adjudicator "opinions" of an appellate court do not constitute a final "ruling", appellate courts are bought in on appeals.  Their opinions and rulings can be overturned by a supreme court.  Regardless, there are some more contextual exerpts from the transcripts than the ones you cherry-picked, (which gives a tacit okay to 'cherry-pick' counter-arguments).

I understand quite well the various levels involved within the legal system, and where relief and finality lies.  I didn't cherry pick anything, I posted what was relevant and that is all.  You, though, were unable to successfully navigate the material to get to the pertinent parts and actually cited prison administrative decisions -- which have no bearing.

You seem to conveniently forget that they determined that atheism was the man's religion and in such a statement there remains no uncertainty as to the ruling.

"Atheism is Kaufman’s religion, and the group that he wanted to start was religious in nature even though it expressly rejects a belief in a supreme being."  7th Circuit Court of Appeals, Kaufman v. McCaughtry

"The officials concluded that Kaufman's request was not motivated by “religious” beliefs.  Accordingly, rather than evaluating the proposal under the state's relatively more flexible policy for new religious groups, see Wis. Admin.  Code § DOC 309.61, they considered it under the procedure for forming a new inmate activity group, see Wis. Admin. Code § DOC 309.365.  Applying the latter standard, they denied the request, stating that they were not forming new activity groups at that time."
- See Kaufman v. McCaughtry, 2004 WL 257133, *4 (W.D.Wis. Feb.9, 2004)

This is finding of the prison administration and it has no part in legal authority and was included in the ruling as part of evidentiary discovery -- case law can be seemingly complex though and often difficult to easily follow so such confusion is understandable.

"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 purposes is a somewhat different question than whether its adherents believe in a supreme being, or attend regular devotional services, or have a sacred Scripture.  The Supreme Court has said that a religion, for purposes of the First Amendment, is distinct from a “way of life,” even if that way of life is inspired by philosophical beliefs or other secular concerns."  
- See Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 215-16, 92 S.Ct. 1526, 32 L.Ed.2d 15 (1972).

"We have already indicated that atheism may be considered, in this specialized sense, a religion."
- See Reed v. Great Lakes Cos., 330 F.3d 931, 934 (7th Cir.2003)

"The Supreme Court has recognized atheism as equivalent to a “religion” for purposes of the First Amendment on numerous occasions ... but the Court understands the reference to religion to include what it often calls “nonreligion ... a state cannot “pass laws or impose requirements which aid all religions as against non-believers, and neither can [it] aid those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs.”
- See Id. at 495, 81 S.Ct. 1680
-----------------------------------
The key terms which directly apply are extracted as; "... recognized atheism as equivalent to a “religion” for purposes of the First Amendment",
"... atheism may be considered, in this specialized sense, a religion" and "... atheism may be considered, in this specialized sense, a religion."

That "for the purposes of the First Amendment" protections part does not conflate atheism with being a "religion".  It treats that antithesis of religion as "equivalent" only for First Amendment protection purposes, (again, not to establish atheism as a "religion" in violation of the Establishment Clause).

Remember, as was discussed before, there is no agreed upon definition of what the word 'religion' means, and in fact there are definitions that could be described as contradictory.  This word has had contested definitions for thousands of years and is not going to be settled by us.  Such is the reason that the courts do not attempt to define religion as they are well aware of the contentions, but it is worth note that they did conclude that "atheism is Kaufman's religion".  Some of the oldest reference to the use of atheism were when Christians were labeled as Atheists.  Some of the court opinion has been much like when it was applied to 'pornography' with statements such as it not being something that can be readily defined, but it is certainly something that you would know when you see it.  I also stated before that I didn't like to put much weight into legal decisions regarding such matters (I most certainly would not take their definition if it went against my thinking and I absolutely extend the same resistance to you) and I merely used this as evidence in the court of public opinion to counter your claims and quotes and to go beyond what you provided.  I prefer my own sense about such things and in my eyes and based upon your usage of the word and methods, atheism is indeed a religion.

[falcon9]

"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 purposes is a somewhat different question than whether its adherents believe in a supreme being, or attend regular devotional services, or have a sacred Scripture.  The Supreme Court has said that a religion, for purposes of the First Amendment, is distinct from a “way of life,” even if that way of life is inspired by philosophical beliefs or other secular concerns."  
- See Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 215-16, 92 S.Ct. 1526, 32 L.Ed.2d 15 (1972).

"We have already indicated that atheism may be considered, in this specialized sense, a religion."
- See Reed v. Great Lakes Cos., 330 F.3d 931, 934 (7th Cir.2003)

"The Supreme Court has recognized atheism as equivalent to a “religion” for purposes of the First Amendment on numerous occasions ... but the Court understands the reference to religion to include what it often calls “nonreligion ... a state cannot “pass laws or impose requirements which aid all religions as against non-believers, and neither can [it] aid those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs.”
- See Id. at 495, 81 S.Ct. 1680
-----------------------------------
The key terms which directly apply are extracted as; "... recognized atheism as equivalent to a “religion” for purposes of the First Amendment",
"... atheism may be considered, in this specialized sense, a religion" and "... atheism may be considered, in this specialized sense, a religion."

That "for the purposes of the First Amendment" protections part does not conflate atheism with being a "religion".  It treats that antithesis of religion as "equivalent" only for First Amendment protection purposes, (again, not to establish atheism as a "religion" in violation of the Establishment Clause).

Remember, as was discussed before, there is no agreed upon definition of what the word 'religion' means, and in fact there are definitions that could be described as contradictory.  This word has had contested definitions for thousands of years and is not going to be settled by us.  Such is the reason that the courts do not attempt to define religion as they are well aware of the contentions ...

"Religion" is either a belief system, which relies entirely upon "faith", (which is that for which there is no tangible evidence), or it is not. Obviously, "theist"-based belief-systems are religions in that sense and atheism is "not" theism.  Atheism is not a belief system, (since it specifically involves the antithesis of "belief" and eschews the "faith"-basis of belief.  Defining atheism as a belief system would be one of those, (internally inconsistant), contradictory definitions.  Again, treating atheism as if it were a religion for legal purposes is not equivalent to redefining atheism as a religion for the purposes of making an invalid generalisation in an online debate.

I prefer my own sense about such things and in my eyes and based upon your usage of the word and methods, atheism is indeed a religion.

If so, you'd be able to indicate which parts of logical "atheistic" challenges presented qualify as beliefs based upon faith.  Are you implicitly suggesting that "logic" is based upon "faith" or, that rationality is a "belief" for instance?

[Abrupt]

Remember, as was discussed before, there is no agreed upon definition of what the word 'religion' means, and in fact there are definitions that could be described as contradictory.  This word has had contested definitions for thousands of years and is not going to be settled by us.  Such is the reason that the courts do not attempt to define religion as they are well aware of the contentions ...

"Religion" is either a belief system, which relies entirely upon "faith", (which is that for which there is no tangible evidence), or it is not. Obviously, "theist"-based belief-systems are religions in that sense and atheism is "not" theism.  Atheism is not a belief system, (since it specifically involves the antithesis of "belief" and eschews the "faith"-basis of belief.  Defining atheism as a belief system would be one of those, (internally inconsistant), contradictory definitions.  Again, treating atheism as if it were a religion for legal purposes is not equivalent to redefining atheism as a religion for the purposes of making an invalid generalisation in an online debate.

You specifically cherry pick a definition that you think would disallow the inclusion of atheism -- which it actually doesn't at that even.  Faith does not suggest that there is no evidence, simply that such evidence is not required.  You are also equivocating the definition you use of atheism with the description of your methodology as 'atheism' and such is fallacious.   It is as much as a man can call himself a Christian and never display any characteristics of a Christian and then another will try and take this man's traits and define Christianity by them.  This is often done and suggested here and I find the inherent dishonesty in such things very obvious and telling.  The law cannot treat atheism as if it were a religion for legal purposes, unless it qualifies as a religion for legal purposes.  If atheism did not qualify as a religion, the law would have to be expanded to include it in addition to whatever else was included in order to be able to do this -- and such is done legislatively and not judicially regardless of any sense of 'fairness' or reason to expedite.

I prefer my own sense about such things and in my eyes and based upon your usage of the word and methods, atheism is indeed a religion.

If so, you'd be able to indicate which parts of logical "atheistic" challenges presented qualify as beliefs based upon faith.  Are you implicitly suggesting that "logic" is based upon "faith" or, that rationality is a "belief" for instance?

I would not have to qualify any such position as you propose to comply with defining atheism as a religion -- since you are purposely picking a definition that you would be unable to define in such a way and equivocating it.  I can do this though, and in fact I have demonstrated the fundamentals of such early on in one of our other debates.  Your later question reveals the blindness of your thinking.  Your question suggest that you see yourself as some grand device of logic and rationality, and that any who fail to agree with you entirely on everything would be illogical and irrational and thus could not be atheists.  Think about that deeply and you will see the folly of your query.  If every single self-described atheist doesn't exactly agree upon every single position and preference (even into the mundane and material) then only one of them could ever be an atheist.  Such is the way of the logic and rationality that you propose.  Logic hinders progress and blinds people of the truth (yes I realize quite well the implications of such a statement).

You see, people can only actively think logically.  It is in such considerations that when someone displays a habit of consistently being dishonest that certain tendencies in body language and psychological characteristics are revealed.  Such a discussion is more complex than I have the time to cover here.  The brain is a logical computational device that also has emotional/chemical conditioners/modifiers as well as experience factoring.  The root of all thought of the human brain (including the conscious logical portion) actually originates from the emotional wielding sub conscious.  It is only though such that we are able to effectively perform because if we solely relied upon logic we would be shackled into inactivity and caution.  Logic cannot utilize the mechanisms of probability or statistics or historical data and can only qualify known states.  Logic 'knows' that the only known states are purely fanciful and imagined and that any interpretations of the physical senses rely upon 'faith' in such senses being accurate (logic knows that there is no guarantee for such and is well aware that the sub conscious can deliberately manufacture any sensation/imagery/sound/smell/taste 'it' desires without explanation).  There is so much more I could say on the matter, but I fear such expansion would be purposeless if one cannot grasp the gist of what I have said here.

[falcon9]

Such is the reason that the courts do not attempt to define religion as they are well aware of the contentions ...

"Religion" is either a belief system, which relies entirely upon "faith", (which is that for which there is no tangible evidence), or it is not. Obviously, "theist"-based belief-systems are religions in that sense and atheism is "not" theism.  Atheism is not a belief system, (since it specifically involves the antithesis of "belief" and eschews the "faith"-basis of belief.  Defining atheism as a belief system would be one of those, (internally inconsistant), contradictory definitions.  Again, treating atheism as if it were a religion for legal purposes is not equivalent to redefining atheism as a religion for the purposes of making an invalid generalisation in an online debate.

You specifically cherry pick a definition that you think would disallow the inclusion of atheism -- which it actually doesn't at that even.

If these are "cherry-picked", are you contending that religion is not a belief system or that it doesn't rely upon "faith"?  You have contended that atheism is a belief system which relies on faith however, you have not delineated what those unspecified "beliefs" are nor, what any alleged "faith" is in. Go cherry-pick another strawman non-response to that.

Faith does not suggest that there is no evidence, simply that such evidence is not required.

That justification is apologetic and circular; it inherently 'suggests' that "faith" is an asserted claim somehow, (since it's not specified how), exempt from the burden of proof requirements of making an extraordinary claim.  Further, "faith" itself does not make suggestions, faith-holders do and apparently they make specious and irrational ones, (going by yours, for instance).

You are also equivocating the definition you use of atheism with the description of your methodology as 'atheism' and such is fallacious.

Since the partial definition, (as you implied with your continued "cherry-picked" remarks), was not intended as an all-inclusive definition of "atheism", no equivocal fallacies are inherent in my comments. On the other hand, you have  equivocated the defintion of religion to conflate it with non-religious atheism.  Your attempted justifications for doing so have proved to be logically-invalid prevarications.

It is as much as a man can call himself a Christian and never display any characteristics of a Christian and then another will try and take this man's traits and define Christianity by them.

Conversely, we have seen self-declared xtians display bits and pieces of what's loosely described as xtianity and then try to exclude other self-declared xtians such as Jim Jones, the Crusaders or the Inquisitioners from the same religious club.

This is often done and suggested here and I find the inherent dishonesty in such things very obvious and telling.

I agree but, endeavor to address the dishonest claims made by xtians more than any personal dishonesty of xtians themselves, (unless the xtians themselves are unable to separate their own specious beliefs from who they are and conflate the two).

The law cannot treat atheism as if it were a religion for legal purposes, unless it qualifies as a religion for legal purposes.

So, you're implicitly suggesting that the courts can rule on what is, or is not, a "religion"?  You might check with an actual attorney on this because if that were so, there are several 'lawyered-up' groups and individuals ready to bring ruinous class-action suits against organized religions for making false claims.
 

If atheism did not qualify as a religion, the law would have to be expanded to include it in addition to whatever else was included in order to be able to do this --

Consult an attorney about that point, you don't even play an 'internet lawyer' well enough to argue a kangaroo court case. The 7th district court of appeals did not establish a legal precedent with the prison case you're deriving this "atheism is a religion" syllogism from.  An appellate court doesn't do that and supreme courts would rather not, (otherwise xtianity would probably not withstand a rigorous legal test).  What the appellate court did rule by legal opinion was that, for the purposes of an inmate gathering in prison, an atheist discussion group could be considered as a "religious gathering" and thus, not be prevented by the prison administration.  This appellate decision was case-specific and does not extend beyond prison walls.  The supreme court(s) nominally establish legal precedents. Much like your "belief" that atheism is a religion does not extend beyond the walls your own irrationality nor convert a-theism into a religious belief system.

I prefer my own sense about such things and in my eyes and based upon your usage of the word and methods, atheism is indeed a religion.

If so, you'd be able to indicate which parts of logical "atheistic" challenges presented qualify as beliefs based upon faith.  Are you implicitly suggesting that "logic" is based upon "faith" or, that rationality is a "belief" for instance?

I would not have to qualify any such position as you propose to comply with defining atheism as a religion --  
Logic hinders progress and blinds people of the truth (yes I realize quite well the implications of such a statement).

It's always amusing whenever someone ineptly attempts to use logic to disparage logic.  I know you fail to see irony in that however, your illogical opinions don't carry any weight with me.

You see, people can only actively think logically.  

That's a demonstrably-false claim.  There are daily examples of people thinking emotionally/irrationally which don't qualify as logical thinking.
What usually occurs is a selective usage of logic and illogic in their thinking process.  Some of this is conscious and some, unconscious.  Some people have more illogical aspects to their thinking processes than others.  Some selectively apply rational/critical thinking to particular concepts while eschewing them when it comes to specious religious beliefs, (perhaps because they are aware such would not withstand logical inquiry and that strawman arguments need be propped-up in reason's stead).

[Abrupt]

You specifically cherry pick a definition that you think would disallow the inclusion of atheism -- which it actually doesn't at that even.

If these are "cherry-picked", are you contending that religion is not a belief system or that it doesn't rely upon "faith"?  You have contended that atheism is a belief system which relies on faith however, you have not delineated what those unspecified "beliefs" are nor, what any alleged "faith" is in. Go cherry-pick another strawman non-response to that.

No.  Correct.  Sure, why not as such would be your objection contrary to whatever I submitted -- that or you would simply rewrite what I submitted and precede as if such an action had relevance.

Faith does not suggest that there is no evidence, simply that such evidence is not required.

That justification is apologetic and circular; it inherently 'suggests' that "faith" is an asserted claim somehow, (since it's not specified how), exempt from the burden of proof requirements of making an extraordinary claim.  Further, "faith" itself does not make suggestions, faith-holders do and apparently they make specious and irrational ones, (going by yours, for instance).

It isn't at all.  There is an obvious distinction between the claims that you seem incapable of distinguishing.  I suspect this is simply from no other reason than to attempt to belittle the other.  Oh my on your last statement.  Is it now necessary to explain all literary devices to you?  For a man that so boasts his knowledge and intellect for you to be caught so blindly and unaware of such things 'suggests' that you should broaden your intellect and familiarity in said area.

You are also equivocating the definition you use of atheism with the description of your methodology as 'atheism' and such is fallacious.

Since the partial definition, (as you implied with your continued "cherry-picked" remarks), was not intended as an all-inclusive definition of "atheism", no equivocal fallacies are inherent in my comments. On the other hand, you have  equivocated the defintion of religion to conflate it with non-religious atheism.  Your attempted justifications for doing so have proved to be logically-invalid prevarications.

The fallacies are plainly clear for all to see from the definitions you use and your described interpretations of said definitions to your application of such a label upon yourself and your habits and statements.  This is text book equivocation.  There was no equivocation on my part (do you understand the meaning of that word -- I must wonder indeed at this point).  I haven't tried to justify anything and if I had the logic used would be sound and superior to this trifling amateur hour prose of yours.

It is as much as a man can call himself a Christian and never display any characteristics of a Christian and then another will try and take this man's traits and define Christianity by them.

Conversely, we have seen self-declared xtians display bits and pieces of what's loosely described as xtianity and then try to exclude other self-declared xtians such as Jim Jones, the Crusaders or the Inquisitioners from the same religious club.

I can only assume that xtian means atheist, and particularly those athiest's that are only anti Christian.  Other than that I am unsure of what you are trying to say here as it sounds like some paranoid delusionist's diatribe.

The law cannot treat atheism as if it were a religion for legal purposes, unless it qualifies as a religion for legal purposes.

So, you're implicitly suggesting that the courts can rule on what is, or is not, a "religion"?  You might check with an actual attorney on this because if that were so, there are several 'lawyered-up' groups and individuals ready to bring ruinous class-action suits against organized religions for making false claims.

No I actually pointed out that they don't take such positions of irrelevance.  You might check with an optometrist on this because you are reading things that are not written or implied.  If the optometrist fails you then maybe try a shrink.

If atheism did not qualify as a religion, the law would have to be expanded to include it in addition to whatever else was included in order to be able to do this --

Consult an attorney about that point, you don't even play an 'internet lawyer' well enough to argue a kangaroo court case. The 7th district court of appeals did not establish a legal precedent with the prison case you're deriving this "atheism is a religion" syllogism from.  An appellate court doesn't do that and supreme courts would rather not, (otherwise xtianity would probably not withstand a rigorous legal test).  What the appellate court did rule by legal opinion was that, for the purposes of an inmate gathering in prison, an atheist discussion group could be considered as a "religious gathering" and thus, not be prevented by the prison administration.  This appellate decision was case-specific and does not extend beyond prison walls.  The supreme court(s) nominally establish legal precedents. Much like your "belief" that atheism is a religion does not extend beyond the walls your own irrationality nor convert a-theism into a religious belief system.

What are you going on here about?  You do not even address the post you quoted in your insult laden rant of a reply.  I sometimes wonder what great wrongs you imagine in your head when you formulate your answers.  Furthermore I do not have to consult an attorney to comprehend the separation of powers -- but apparently you do and from your statements, have yet to take your own advice.  Until you do this you should refrain from guessing answers to your imagined questions -- or do so and continue to look as foolish as you typically do.

I prefer my own sense about such things and in my eyes and based upon your usage of the word and methods, atheism is indeed a religion.

If so, you'd be able to indicate which parts of logical "atheistic" challenges presented qualify as beliefs based upon faith.  Are you implicitly suggesting that "logic" is based upon "faith" or, that rationality is a "belief" for instance?

I would not have to qualify any such position as you propose to comply with defining atheism as a religion --  
Logic hinders progress and blinds people of the truth (yes I realize quite well the implications of such a statement).

It's always amusing whenever someone ineptly attempts to use logic to disparage logic.  I know you fail to see irony in that however, your illogical opinions don't carry any weight with me.

No I see the irony of your statement quite well, but I bet you don't since you have a penchant to use the word 'irony' incorrectly. 

You see, people can only actively think logically.  

That's a demonstrably-false claim.  There are daily examples of people thinking emotionally/irrationally which don't qualify as logical thinking.
What usually occurs is a selective usage of logic and illogic in their thinking process.  Some of this is conscious and some, unconscious.  Some people have more illogical aspects to their thinking processes than others.  Some selectively apply rational/critical thinking to particular concepts while eschewing them when it comes to specious religious beliefs, (perhaps because they are aware such would not withstand logical inquiry and that strawman arguments need be propped-up in reason's stead).

People don't actively think emotionally, and nobody thinks 'irrationally'.  To think irrationally is an impossibility, even if the outcomes were irrational and that includes deliberate or incidental.  You have a poor understanding of the human mind and thought process and you constantly seem to believe that if people don't behave and act exactly as you would that it somehow means they are doing so in an irrational manner.  Even 'mob/pack' mentality is not irrational, nor is confirmation bias or various other similar conditions.  I would have thought you to be a student of military deception, but it is quite obvious that you are unfamiliar with it from your weak understanding of how people decide and discern.