Feed on Posts or Comments 28 July 2014

Christianity &Islam &Judaism &Rationals Thomas on 01 Mar 2011 12:48 am

High School Atheists Are Organizing — Why Are Schools Pushing Back?

High School Atheists Are Organizing — Why Are Schools Pushing Back?

High school student Brian Lisco just wanted to form a student club. A senior at Stephen Austin High School in the Houston suburbs, Lisco wanted to meet with like-minded students; students who shared common interests, who could talk about ideas they found interesting, who could give one another support.

But his efforts were consistently thwarted by the administration at his high school. His requests to form a club were stalled for months, and obstacle after obstacle was put in his path.

Why?

Because the group he wanted to start was an atheist group.

His story is being repeated, with variations, around the country.

61 Responses to “High School Atheists Are Organizing — Why Are Schools Pushing Back?”

  1. on 01 Mar 2011 at 5:19 pm 1.Boz said …

    I found this quote:

    “Godless teens want the same social benefits that evangelical teens find at the annual “See you at the pole” flagpole prayer events at thousands of schools every September, and the court-sanctioned after school Bible clubs, and Christian, Jewish and Muslim student groups.”

    This is why atheism is a religion. They even compare themselves to religious groups. They are looking for their religious freedom and they should get it. Just be up front about being religious.

  2. on 01 Mar 2011 at 8:45 pm 2.Tigerboy said …

    Is being vegan just a different way of eating meat?

    Is bald just a different hair color?

    Is abstinence just a different way of having sex?

  3. on 01 Mar 2011 at 8:47 pm 3.Lou said …

    “This is why atheism is a religion.”

    First of all, by definition, atheism isn’t a religion.

    Is not believing in Zeus or Ra a religion? Of course not.

    Lastly, your comment is irrelevant to the point of the blog article.

  4. on 01 Mar 2011 at 9:11 pm 4.Boz said …

    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.

    Last check, Buddhism is a religion. No supreme being there. Let’s face it, atheist can be as zealous as any religion. I would say the case is closed.

  5. on 01 Mar 2011 at 9:43 pm 5.Lou said …

    “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.

    Last check, Buddhism is a religion. No supreme being there. Let’s face it, atheist can be as zealous as any religion. I would say the case is closed.”

    Disregarding those irrelevant comments, now, back to the point –

    By definition, atheism isn’t a religion.

    Atheism is not secular humanism.

    A person can be zealous, not a religion.

    NOW the case is closed.

  6. on 01 Mar 2011 at 10:56 pm 6.Dutch said …

    Lou

    What are you like 10 years old? SCOTUS has ruled, not only that Wisconsin ruled for an atheist prisoner case. That effectively shuts down your secular humanist argument.

    Buddhism is a religion (No God)
    Atheist is a religion (No God)

    The fact you take such offense strengthen the fact even more.

    Grow up.

  7. on 02 Mar 2011 at 3:17 am 7.OhCrap said …

    This really sickens me, and to think that the USA is one of the most ‘civilized’ countries, oh yeah, and full of religious zealots of course.

    Grow up America.

  8. on 02 Mar 2011 at 3:59 am 8.RealityRules said …

    How ironic. A Christian who, by definition, thinks his form of mental illness is the one, true, delusion, wants to classify those who don’t believe in things that don’t exist as equally delusional as he is.

    Odd, isn’t it, how Christians avoid the subject at hand and attempt to turn the discussion in a playground taunt of “you too are religious. SO THERE!” as if that in any way is related to the actual debate.

    @OhCrap – Too true. Too true, indeed.

  9. on 02 Mar 2011 at 4:00 am 9.Lou said …

    “SCOTUS has ruled, not only that Wisconsin ruled for an atheist prisoner case. That effectively shuts down your secular humanist argument.”

    LoL! Of course it doesn’t. The ruling was:

    “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.”

    The court did NOT classify atheism as a religion. Slowly read it again, concentrating on the words, not your emotions, “[I]t qualifies as Kaufman’s religion for purposes of the First Amendment claims he is attempting to raise.” Even as KAUFMAN’S RELIGION, it was only a religion for PURPOSES OF PROTECTING HIS FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS.

    “Buddhism is a religion (No God)”

    Yes, in the broader sense of the definition of a religion, it is. So what?

    “Atheist [sic] is a religion (No God)”

    Atheism is, BY DEFINITION, a disbelief in the existence of a deity or the doctrine thereof. Doctrine is NOT religion.

    You are greatly confused by the mistaken idea that a concept that denies the existence of a deity is a religion. Here again, we have some people who change the definition of something they oppose in order to present a (false) argument against it. These types arguments are perfect examples of how religion clouds the mind from logical, rational thought, and has historically hindered the advance of knowledge and science.

  10. on 02 Mar 2011 at 7:21 am 10.TGHO said …

    Two points:

    1) Tigerboy already said it, but I’ll repeat it.

    What hair colour is bald?
    How does an abstinent person have sex?
    What meat does a vegan particularly enjoy?

    and

    2) The rulings of SCOTUS apply only in the US. To those of us who are neither US citizens nor live within the US, any rulings of SCOTUS are irrelevant.

    To sum up: get a better argument Boz and Dutch.

  11. on 02 Mar 2011 at 12:19 pm 11.Horatiio said …

    Only (1) point as I sum up more quickly. Religion does not need a god. Buddhism has already been brought up crushed Tigerboys and TGHOs examples. They seem to be unaware so ….

    Religion is only a worldview. Atheism is a worldview and therefore a religion.

    Example?

    Marriage. It was between a man and a woman and now the definition has changed to include man/man woman/woman.

  12. on 02 Mar 2011 at 2:21 pm 12.Lou said …

    “Only (1) point as I sum up more quickly. Religion does not need a god.”

    In the broadest definition of the word, it doesn’t. BUT SO WHAT? That doesn’t make atheism a religion.

    “Religion is only a worldview. Atheism is a worldview and therefore a religion.”

    Here we go again, changing the definition of a word in order to create a false argument. Religion is not a “worldview.” According to your convoluted logic, disbelief in Santa Clause is a “worldview,” and therefore a religion.

    “Example?

    Marriage. It was between a man and a woman and now the definition has changed to include man/man woman/woman.”

    You trying to change the definition of religion simply doesn’t work other than to make you look ridiculously desperate to defend your “worldview.”

  13. on 02 Mar 2011 at 3:03 pm 13.Lou said …

    P.S. Your “worldview” (that atheism is a religion) isn’t a religion.

  14. on 02 Mar 2011 at 8:58 pm 14.Horatiio said …

    LOL, my worldview is not dependent on what you call atheism. You are the one, Lou, getting all hot under the collar. Sorry, but fact is SCOTUS defines secular humanism as a religion. Secular humanism is just the social component of atheism. How about we call atheism the American Buddhism?

  15. on 02 Mar 2011 at 10:22 pm 15.Lou said …

    “LOL, my worldview is not dependent on what you call atheism.”

    I didn’t write or imply that it is.

    “SCOTUS defines secular humanism as a religion.”

    You seem to be confused. I’m not arguing whether or not secular humanism is a religion. I’m arguing that atheism is not a religion.

    The court did NOT rule that atheism is a religion.

    The court did NOT rule that atheism is secular humanism or visa-versa.

    I’ll give you a chance – please quote the SCOTUS ruling that “defines secular humanism as a religion.”

    I’ll also save you some time:

    In Peloza v. Capistrano School District the court ruled “We reject this claim because neither the Supreme Court, nor this circuit, has ever held that evolutionism or Secular Humanism are ‘religions’ for Establishment Clause purposes.”

    In Kalka v. Hawk et al. the court commented “The Court’s statement in Torcaso does not stand for the proposition that humanism, no matter in what form and no matter how practiced, amounts to a religion under the First Amendment. The Court offered no test for determining what system of beliefs qualified as a “religion” under the First Amendment. The most one may read into the Torcaso footnote is the idea that a particular non-theistic group calling itself the “Fellowship of Humanity” qualified as a religious organization under California law.

  16. on 02 Mar 2011 at 11:09 pm 16.Xenon said …

    “The Court offered no test for determining what system of beliefs qualified as a “religion” under the First Amendment.”

    Ninian Smart defined the seven dimensions that make up a religion. They are widely accepted by anthropologist and those who study religions. The seven dimensions are narrative, experiential, social, ethical, doctrinal, ritual and material. Atheism fulfills 6 of the 7.

  17. on 03 Mar 2011 at 1:38 am 17.Lou said …

    “Atheism fulfills 6 of the 7.”

    Please show us, one by one.

  18. on 03 Mar 2011 at 3:17 am 18.Truett said …

    From wiktionary

    #1 A collection of practices, based on beliefs and teachings that are highly valued or sacred.

    #2 Any practice that someone or some group is seriously devoted to.

    #3 Any ongoing spiritual practice one engages in, in order to shape their character or improve traits of their personality.

    #4 An ideological and traditional heritage.

    Yeah, atheism is a religion, easily.

  19. on 03 Mar 2011 at 3:22 am 19.Tigerboy said …

    What complete bullshit.

    Atheists share no common creation narratives. Currently accepted scientific theories are not atheist narratives. They are objective explanations of reality. Atheists tell no common myths

    Atheists share no experiences of anything being sacred. One atheist may be a total animal rights/vegan, while another sees the issue entirely differently. One might support the Death Penalty, while another thinks it’s wrong.

    Just because there are social aspects to religion, social behaviors are in no way inherently religious! Socializing with other humans accomplishes nothing toward the goal of defining someone as religious. Humans are social animals! Almost everything we do can have social components.

    Atheists share no common ethical code.

    There is no “Atheist Doctrine.”

    Obviously, there are no inherently atheist rituals. Atheists may get married, or something, but there is no rite that one must perform that defines atheism.

    Total bullshit.

    Atheists do not necessarily share any common positive beliefs about the Universe. They are merely skeptical about mythologies that offer nothing in the way of evidence. Not buying into other people’s foolishness does not define one as sharing a worldview common to any specific larger group.

    Would you define having “basic common sense” as having a “worldview?” Does having common sense make you a part of a specific group?

    “I’m part of the group that does just believe whatever bullshit we are told.”

    “Oh, really! So, understanding reality is your religion?”

    What idiocy.

    It would seem to me that one of the most obvious things that religious folk have is common is a belief in something supernatural. Being a person who prefers rational explanations for things does not make one a believer in some OTHER form of the supernatural.

    Atheism is NOT a religion. That’s so foolish.

  20. on 03 Mar 2011 at 8:40 am 20.Severin said …

    Tigerboy,

    I debate here for a long time, and all theists, without exception, try to prove atheistm a religion.
    They are so persistant in trying to prove it, that it seems to me that it is of utmost importance to them.
    WHY, the hell, could it be so important to those supersticious people?
    I can not find their reason, or any logic in their persisting in calling aytheists religious.

    I KNOW I am not religious, neither am I supersticious, so what interest could anyone have to try so persistantly to make me a believer in supernatural bullshits?

    To feel better, by trying to share their idiocy with other people?

  21. on 03 Mar 2011 at 8:58 am 21.Severin said …

    18 Truett

    I am an atheist, meaning: I do not believe in supernatural beings and supernatural events.

    However:
    1. I do NOT practice anything based on beliefs and techings that are highly valued or sacred. There is NOTHING “sacred” in my life, and talking “highly valued” things, I highly value arguments and evidences.
    2. So, EVERYONE who is devoted to anything, could be called religious? Real idiocy! Divers from NATIONA GEOGRAPHICS are highly devoted to their jobs. Are they all religious?
    I am devoted to my family, my job,… but NOT to any god
    3. I do not have any “spiritual practice” at all.
    My whole “spiritual practice” is: reading, talking, learning, thinking (in most cases about how to solve some professional problem)
    4. I do not give a shit to “tradition” and ideology.
    I tollerate (in most cases WITHOUT respecting them) traditions and ideologies of other people, in cases they are not dangerous (like traditions and ideologies of all religions are, see 9/11 et al.)

    I obviously do not fit your “rules”. So, WHAT, the hell, makes me religious in anyone’s eyes?

    Your WISH to call me so?
    You are wellcome, because your idiocy will not make a religious person from me.

  22. on 03 Mar 2011 at 2:13 pm 22.Lou said …

    “WHY, the hell, could it be so important to those supersticious people?

    I can not find their reason, or any logic in their persisting in calling aytheists religious.”

    There is no logic, but there is a reason.

    They cannot defend their own delusional beliefs; therefore, they must attack atheists. There is no legitimate, logical way to attack atheists other than to attempt to change atheism into something it’s not so that they can attack it in the context of their own delusional way of thinking. Because their way of thinking is already flawed, it’s very simple for them to actually believe that atheism is a religion. Think about it – they already believe in something that’s undeniably been proven to be untrue, so it’s a simple leap for them to convince themselves that atheism is a religion. As atheists, we all know that atheism is not a religion anymore than disbelieving in Santa Clause is a religion.

  23. on 03 Mar 2011 at 5:54 pm 23.Truett said …

    “As atheists, we all know that atheism is not a religion anymore than disbelieving in Santa Clause is a religion.”

    sigh, such an old and disproven argument. When is the last time those who disbelieve is Santa wrote books, evangelized, started blogs? Hmmm?

    The passion and the outrage above proves your religion. If it wasn’t a religion, you would not care. Bust see how you guys circle the wagons?

    You fulfill the wiktionary definitions easily. I see you as a religion just as SCOTUS does. All your outrage and complaining will not change that fact. BTW, many atheist attend Unitarian churches in my area. Just one more proof.

  24. on 03 Mar 2011 at 7:54 pm 24.TGHO said …

    @Truett,

    You seem to have difficulty understanding basic logic here. Let me help.

    “When is the last time those who disbelieve is Santa wrote books, evangelized, started blogs? Hmmm?”

    When was the last time those believing in Santa tried to pass laws, change society and make other people’s lifestyles illegal?

    The reason that atheists are passionate is because there are extremely conservative christians who want to outlaw many facets of life for no other reason than it’s written down in their mouldy old book. It’s nothing to do with atheism being a religion, it’s to do with STOPPING the christians from ruling the world.

    You don’t get to define what is a religion and what is not a religion. Waffle on all you want, we’ll just recognise you as deluded.

  25. on 03 Mar 2011 at 7:59 pm 25.Lou said …

    “sigh, such an old and disproven argument.”

    Disbelieving in Santa Clause is a religion?!

    “When is the last time those who disbelieve is Santa wrote books, evangelized, started blogs? Hmmm?”

    The reason there are no such blogs is because there’s nobody who’s trying to force their delusional belief in Santa Clause down everybody else’s throats. And even children can understand that Santa Clauseism is impossible and nothing but a fairy tell, much like religion is.

    “The passion and the outrage above proves your religion.”

    No, it doesn’t. You can’t keep redining religion in order to create a false argument.

    “If it wasn’t a religion, you would not care. Bust see how you guys circle the wagons?”

    Wow, you really don’t get. If there weren’t delusional, fanatical, zealots who try to force their religion onto the non-religious, then there would be no such blogs. Atheists “circle the wagons” because they are threatened by the religious who can’t keep their delusions to themselves. Atheists don’t “circle the wagons” just for fun.

    “You fulfill the wiktionary definitions easily. I see you as a religion just as SCOTUS does.”

    How you see atheism is irrelevant. SCOTUS does not see atheism as a religion per se, as has already been explained here. Ignoring the facts and accepting untruth as truth is another symptom of delusional beliefs (a.k.a., religion).

    “All your outrage and complaining will not change that fact.”

    I’m not outraged or complaining about SCOTUS because SCOTUS didn’t define atheism as a religion.

    “BTW, many atheist attend Unitarian churches in my area.”

    Attending any church, in and of itself, doesn’t mean that person believes that particular religion. However, if a person who attends a Unitarian church proclaims “I am a Unitarian,” then by definition, he is not an atheist because Unitarians believe in (a) God while atheists do not. That doesn’t mean that an atheist cannot attend a Unitarian church only for the fellowship.

    “Just one more proof.”

    Nothing you wrote is a proof of anything other than a misunderstanding of religion.

  26. on 03 Mar 2011 at 8:11 pm 26.Lou said …

    TGHO said …

    @Truett,

    You seem to have difficulty understanding basic logic here. Let me help.”

    No kidding. It’s clear to why such people are religious.

  27. on 03 Mar 2011 at 8:24 pm 27.Truett said …

    “SCOTUS does not see atheism as a religion per se, as has already been explained here.”

    Wrong, secular humanism is just the social component of atheism. No difference. Go argue with SCOTUS.

    “Unitarians believe in (a) God while atheists do not.”

    You must be kidding. They believe all religious beliefs lead to the same truth. This may or may not include God.

    “You can’t keep redining religion in order to create a false argument.”

    No you are redefining. I provided the wiktionary definitions. YOU are attempting to redefine what certainly fits.

    Enjoy your religion and the benefits thereof. Don’t let the word scare you. Its just a word.

  28. on 03 Mar 2011 at 8:50 pm 28.Lou said …

    “Wrong, secular humanism is just the social component of atheism. No difference. Go argue with SCOTUS.”

    Please post the direct, word-for-word ruling wherein SCOTUS defined atheism as a religion, IN AND OF ITSELF.

    “They believe all religious beliefs lead to the same truth. This may or may not include God.”

    You are apparently found of Wiktionary, so…

    Noun

    unitarianism (uncountable)

    1. The belief in a single God, not divided into any aspects, particularly when presented as a contrast to Christian trinitarianism.

    “I provided the wiktionary definitions”

    Here they are:

    Wiktionary –

    Noun

    religion (plural religions)

    1. A collection of practices, based on beliefs and teachings that are highly valued or sacred.

    Atheism, no.

    2. Any practice that someone or some group is seriously devoted to.

    Atheism, no.

    3. Any ongoing spiritual practice one engages in, in order to shape their character or improve traits of their personality.

    Atheism, no.

    4. An ideological and traditional heritage. ?

    Atheism, no.

  29. on 04 Mar 2011 at 2:32 pm 29.Lou said …

    “And even children can understand that Santa Clauseism is impossible and nothing but a fairy tell, much like religion is.”

    Correction: fairy tale

  30. on 04 Mar 2011 at 4:11 pm 30.Truett said …

    Lou,

    Go educate yourself. You really believe you can go to a dictionary to define something as broad as Unitarians? There are many branches young fella.

    http://www.uua.org/visitors/index.shtml

    Good luck with your religion. Personally, I don’t care what you call it. I would recommend educating yourself on you religion.

  31. on 04 Mar 2011 at 5:37 pm 31.Lou said …

    Truett,

    LOL! First you use wiktionary to support your arguments. Then when it doesn’t support your argument, you don’t use it.

    The website that you posted is a UNITARIAN UNIVERSALISM website – NOT a UNITARIANISM website. Please show us anywhere in the discussion that you referred to the UNITARIAN UNIVERSALISM religion. UNITARIAN UNIVERSALISM and UNITARIANISM are two different religions.

    Even so, on the UNITARIAN UNIVERSALISM website that you refer to it says [excerpt]:

    “Unitarian Universalism (UU) draws from many sources:

    * Jewish and Christian teachings which call us to respond to God’s love by loving our neighbors as ourselves;”

    The UU idea “to respond to God’s love” requires a belief in God, or at least implies said belief.

    From the same website that you linked:

    “Finally, by bringing together our highest ideals in a single symbol, the idea of God provides a focus for personal devotion or communal worship. These are among the many reasons why God continues to be an important and meaningful symbol for many Unitarian Universalists today.”

    UU believes in God, but they basically allow the definition of God to the individual.

    The UNITARIAN religion does believe in GOD.

    Truett, you sir, are dishonest. If you can’t make your point through logical, rational discourse, then don’t rely on dishonesty to do it. It’s clear and indisputable that atheism is not a religion, regardless of how you fraudulently try to redefine religion.

    Your recommendations are unnecessary and disingenuous. Furthermore, coming from you, they are unworthy of any consideration.

  32. on 04 Mar 2011 at 5:52 pm 32.SV9hbV9teV9nb2Q= said …

    If every American belonged to a common evangelical Christian sect, would the Christians here be happier( opposed to the current state of demographics?)

  33. on 04 Mar 2011 at 7:14 pm 33.Lou said …

    “[W]ould the Christians here be happier?”

    Christians are never happy when someone is happier than they are. That’s one reason they try to make atheism into a religion – not to mention that alcohol can’t be sold in Texas before noon on Sunday.

  34. on 04 Mar 2011 at 7:30 pm 34.Truett said …

    Lou,

    Maybe you missed this:

    “but today individual Unitarian Universalists may identify with Atheism, Agnosticism, Buddhism, Humanism, Paganism, or with other philosophical or religious traditions.”

    Notice atheism and other religious traditions. You are the only dishonest one here. SCOTUS, me and now the UU all recognize your religion.

    I can use wiki for the definition of religion since it already encompasses much. Unitarian branches of into many different sects therefore any definition would be skewed.

    lol, you haven’t disproved a single argument though you do try. Maybe you should visit a UU congregation.

  35. on 04 Mar 2011 at 7:57 pm 35.SV9hbV9teV9nb2Q= said …

    The “or” in the sentence, “but today individual Unitarian Universalists may identify with Atheism, Agnosticism, Buddhism, Humanism, Paganism, or with other philosophical or religious traditions” allows for the author to designate Atheism as either a philosophical or religious tradition. Assuming (which I do) that we all agree that philosophy and religion are different, I believe that Atheism is better described as a philosophy. I do not believe Atheism is a religion. Theists, remember to entertain post #32.

  36. on 04 Mar 2011 at 8:20 pm 36.Lou said …

    34.Truett said …

    Lou,

    Maybe you missed this:

    “but today individual Unitarian Universalists may identify with Atheism, Agnosticism, Buddhism, Humanism, Paganism, or with other philosophical or religious traditions.”

    LOL! You are confused about the meaning of what you quoted. It says that _INDIVIDUAL_ Unitarian Universalists may identify with atheism, not that atheism identifies with the UU religion or that the UU religion identifes with atheism. Perhaps I can use an example that even you can understand. Catholicism condemns birth control, but _INDIVIDUAL_ Catholics use birth control. That doesn’t mean that Catholicism identifies with birth control. Get it?

    But this is totally irrelevant to your false claim about Unitarianism and your attempt to back-track by then referring to Unitarian Universalism.

    When are you going to abandon your incessant reference to SCOTUS? I previously asked you to post the direct, word-for-word ruling wherein SCOTUS defined atheism as a religion, IN AND OF ITSELF, but you haven’t. Presenting another fraudulent claim (about Unitarianism) doesn’t remove the previous one (SCOTUS).

    Finally, why do you give a rat’s ass that atheism (disbelief in a deity) isn’t a religion?

  37. on 04 Mar 2011 at 8:36 pm 37.SV9hbV9teV9nb2Q= said …

    I think that likening Atheism to religion may be the first and most important step in classifying it as a faith based existence. One reason I don’t subscribe to the afore mentioned opinion is because Atheism does not encompass creation, just as evolution does not encompass the origin of life. BTW Happy National Grammar Day.

  38. on 04 Mar 2011 at 9:16 pm 38.Truett said …

    “Unitarian Universalists may identify with atheism, not that atheism identifies with the UU religion”

    If an atheist attends UU, that would indicate they identify….yes?

    So you call atheism a philosophy now? I took a class in college called philosophy and religion. You are getting closer.

    “why do you give a rat’s ass that atheism (disbelief in a deity) isn’t a religion?”

    I don’t have a rat to give but how about this. Why do you care that I call atheism a religion, along with many others? You could tell me I have no religion and wouldn’t even bother to retort.

    Since I don’t care. Bye bye. Take it up with SCOTUS.

  39. on 04 Mar 2011 at 9:51 pm 39.SV9hbV9teV9nb2Q= said …

    “If an atheist attends UU, that would indicate they identify….yes?”

    Only with the / for community, since of coarse Atheists lack any kind of spiritualism.

    “So you call atheism a philosophy now? I took a class in college called philosophy and religion. You are getting closer.”

    I said “better described as a philosophy” than a religion. I am thankful that you “took a class in college called philosophy and religion;” you need not be told that philosophy and religion have no relation.

  40. on 04 Mar 2011 at 10:00 pm 40.Lou said …

    “If an atheist attends UU, that would indicate they identify….yes?”

    NO! You don’t know what’s in the mind of the atheist who attends UU or any other church. And I see now you’ve learned not confuse UU with Unitarianism like you did in your last fraudulent argument.

    “So you call atheism a philosophy now?”

    NO! How many times does atheism have to be defined for you?! Atheism is no more a philosophy than is not believing the Tooth Fairy.

    “Why do you care that I call atheism a religion, along with many others?”

    Because I am an atheist and therefore I’m not religious. You are mislabeling atheists, of which I am one.

    “Since I don’t care. Bye bye.”

    You obviously DO care, enough so that you continuously make fraudlent arguments about it.

    “Take it up with SCOTUS.”

    Again with SCOTUS? I will take it up when you post the direct, word-for-word ruling wherein SCOTUS DEFINED atheism as a religion, IN AND OF ITSELF.

  41. on 04 Mar 2011 at 10:07 pm 41.TGHO said …

    @38 Truett,

    I keep pointing this out:

    SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the *United States*) does NOT apply anywhere but within the US of A. Please be aware of this.

  42. on 04 Mar 2011 at 10:09 pm 42.TGHO said …

    @40 Lou,

    I’d disagree with you on the philosophy point to be honest.

    I suspect that Truett has given up the conversation – score one more for yourself.

  43. on 04 Mar 2011 at 11:59 pm 43.Lou said …

    42.TGHO said …

    @40 Lou,

    “I’d disagree with you on the philosophy point to be honest.”

    OK. If you don’t mind, then I will C & P an explanation about that that I happen to agree with.

    “Atheism is Not a Philosophy:

    A person’s philosophy is their “system of principles for guidance in practical affairs.” Like ideology, a philosophy comprises of two key elements: it must be a group of beliefs and it must provide guidance.”

    Atheism doesn’t provide those things to me. I was raised a Christian, and throughout my childhood I went to church, Sunday school, and vacation bible school. Even as an atheist, I derive most of my moral guidance and values from that, along with parental guidance and what I think is an innate, perhaps even “genetic” or instinctual morality that is common amongst civilized people. Disbelief in a supernatural deity does not provide that.

    Why do you think atheism is a philosophy?

  44. on 05 Mar 2011 at 12:39 am 44.TGHO said …

    @43 Lou,

    Mostly because I see Atheism as a subset of rationalism, realism and skepticism. I’ve not studied philosophy formally, so these are my own views.

    See:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy

  45. on 05 Mar 2011 at 2:14 am 45.Boz said …

    SCOTUS did determine atheism as a religion. I am American so I don’t really care how another nation defined the term.

    Religion is a broad term. It does not require a deity. I can see how atheism could be classified as a religion. Philosophy and religion could even overlap.

  46. on 05 Mar 2011 at 4:48 am 46.TGHO said …

    @45 Boz,

    I’m not an American, so any rulings from your courts have absolutely zero impact upon me. What I am saying is that using the SCOTUS argument is invalid.

    Religion may not require a deity but it does require rituals, a belief system, etc., etc., none of which atheism actually has.

  47. on 05 Mar 2011 at 1:29 pm 47.Lou said …

    45.Boz said …

    “SCOTUS did determine atheism as a religion.”

    (sigh) Aren’t we past this yet? SCOTUS didn’t define (or determine)atheism was a religion, it declared that atheism gets equal protection as religions under the First Amendment Establishment Clause.

    “I am American so I don’t really care how another nation defined the term.”

    His truth goes marching on…

  48. on 05 Mar 2011 at 1:42 pm 48.Biff said …

    Atheist looking for their own clergy or church can find it here. See link below. That covers rituals

    Belief system? The God Delusion is the Bible.
    1. All religions are harmful
    2. Theists are delusional
    3. Nature is all that exists
    4. Always vote Liberal
    6. Most Important: There is no God.

    http://firstchurchofatheism.com/

  49. on 05 Mar 2011 at 9:22 pm 49.Observer said …

    Biffo – You are nothing if not a dumbass. The link you cite is a funny dodge, around the various institutionalized frauds religions are allowed to practice. I love the concept, and if the IRS allowed the tax dodge clergy are allowed, I would become an atheist minister tomorrow. You really are a cretin.

    Earlier in the post someone claims atheism is a religion because it allegedly passes muster on 6 out of 7 criteria used by an anthropologist ( this is a scientist, not minister ) to define religion. Well, 6 out of 7 means it fails the test of being a religion.

  50. on 07 Mar 2011 at 5:00 pm 50.Lou said …

    48.Biff said …

    “Atheist looking for their own clergy or church can find it here. See link below. That covers rituals”

    ROTFLMAO!

    “The First Church of Atheism was born out of necessity. Created by Paul and Jacki McMaster, the FCA is the first society of its kind. Dedicated solely to ordaining atheists so that they too may perform [marriage] ceremonies previously performed by religious men.”

    Biff, where are the First Church Of Atheism that you claim could be found at http://firstchurchofatheism.com? Or are you now claiming that a website is a church?

  51. on 07 Mar 2011 at 6:58 pm 51.Boz said …

    “Atheist looking for their own clergy or church can find it here.”

    lol, Do no-stamp collectors start their own churches? Well, moving on

    Cap that off with atheist evangelism. Yes, the very religious dogma they claim to detest, they too practice.

    http://www.daylightatheism.org/2009/02/renaissance-of-atheist-evangelism.html

    Do non-stamp collectors evangelize stamp collectors to stop collecting stamps?

  52. on 07 Mar 2011 at 7:41 pm 52.TGHO said …

    @51 Boz,

    Do stamp collectors try to make it illegal for gays to use stamps? Do stamp collectors try to make it illegal for anyone to rip a stamp? Do stamp collectors howl and scream if stamps don’t match their exact specifications? Do stamp collectors control the goverment? The courts? The schools?

    Do stamp collectors try to make everyone else into a stamp collector?

  53. on 07 Mar 2011 at 9:20 pm 53.Lou said …

    51.Boz said …

    “lol, Do no-stamp collectors start their own churches? Well, moving on”

    No, of course not.

    Do stamp collectors form churches? No of course not. But they do form organizations with fellow stamp collectors. Are those churches? Of course not. Similarly, there are atheists who were raised as church goers who miss the ritual and fellowship of going to church. They have created organizations wherein other atheists can meet with them, even on Sunday mornings. But like a stamp collectors’ meeting, it isn’t a church meeting.

    “Cap that off with atheist evangelism. Yes, the very religious dogma they claim to detest, they too practice.”

    Those statements are utter nonsense, if not lies. In its most common usage, evangelism is the sharing of a belief in Christianity or Jesus. If you remove Christianity or Jesus (or any other belief in and allegiance to a supreme being or leader), then the simple sharing of ideas is not evangelism. By definition of both dogma and atheism, atheism cannot be “religious dogma.”

    The problem with your continued false arguments is that you can only express yourself (and perhaps think) in the context of religion. So it’s very obvious that the only way you can argue against and attack atheists is to attempt to redefine those terms to fit your “worldview,” because otherwise your arguments are illogical and fraudulent.

  54. on 07 Mar 2011 at 10:02 pm 54.Horatiio said …

    Boz,

    You missed the most obvious. If you can borrow a copy of “The God Delusion” you will find the manual on atheist evangelism. You can throw in some Hitch, some hate-speech of Harris and you have the atheist trinity.

    This is not you father’s atheist.

  55. on 07 Mar 2011 at 11:54 pm 55.Lou said …

    “54.Horatiio said …

    Boz,

    You missed the most obvious.”

    Yes Boz, you did.

    “If you can borrow a copy of “The God Delusion” you will find the manual on atheist evangelism. You can throw in some Hitch, some hate-speech of Harris and you have the atheist trinity.”

    Those statements are obviously more idiotic than yours, Boz. How could you miss that?

    If you all insist on incorrectly referring to atheist evangelicalism, then I will accept that atheist evangelism can only be considered to be one thing – evangelically sensible.

  56. on 08 Mar 2011 at 1:49 am 56.Boz said …

    Hor,

    That may be true, but when you have an atheist organization spending money on billboards all across the country selling atheism (or anti-theism), there is no better example of atheist evangelism in my view. Its not my term, I picked it up from The Blaze.

    Lou,

    You just don’t like the truth. Wake up and get your head out of the sand.

  57. on 08 Mar 2011 at 4:18 am 57.Lou said …

    First, allow me to correct a typing mistake in my comment 55. where I typed “atheist evangelicalism.” I meant to type “atheist evangelism” as I did later in the same sentence.

    Boz, do you consider the Westboro Baptist Church to be “no better example” of Baptist evangelism? Why or why not?

    “Its not my term, I picked it up from The Blaze.”

    Glen Beck’s The Blaze?! Glen Beck, the talk show huckster? Are you serious?!

    As I have repeatedly written here, you are redefining words in order to create a false premise, and thus a false argument. Evangelism is word that has been “stolen” to mean “spreading the word” of whatever idea is being discussed. But that is not what evangelism means.

    Consider the term American Taliban. There’s really not any such thing as an American Taliban. But the term Taliban has been “stolen” and used with American in order to create a sensational definition for a group that already has a name that has nothing to do with the real Taliban, just as with the term atheist evangelism.

    If you labeled the atheists who promoted the billboards as aggressive atheists, then that would be a much more accurate and correct description than evangelical.

    Your or Beck’s “view” doesn’t redefine words. That’s true regardless of whether or not you think my head is in the sand.

  58. on 08 Mar 2011 at 10:39 am 58.TGHO said …

    @54 Horatiio,

    How is Harris hate speech? Honestly?

  59. on 09 Mar 2011 at 12:55 am 59.Lou said …

    58.TGHO said …

    “@54 Horatiio,

    How is Harris hate speech? Honestly?”

    Legally, it isn’t.

    Otherwise, just about anything disparaging that anybody says about a group of people or their ideology is hate speech. In other words, any negative comment you make about anybody is hate speech. The term hate speech is basically P.C. B.S.

  60. on 11 Mar 2011 at 6:08 pm 60.Joshua said …

    I am a little late to this party but it took me all of fifteen minutes to find an article that discussed and linked to court decisions regarding atheism and the first amendment.

    I’ll take Truett by the hand like a lazy toddler and show him the information related to his bald assertions.

    Courtesy of Matt Dillahunty the supreme court does not consider atheism a religion, it considers atheism an equivalent of religion within the specific context of the first amendment. Basically, under the law government privilege of one religion over another injures the minority in the same manner as government privilege of religion over non-religion.

    http://www.atheist-community.org/library/articles/read.php?id=742

    Ta Da

  61. on 16 Aug 2011 at 7:39 pm 61.Suresh said …

    You are fulish

Trackback This Post | Subscribe to the comments through RSS Feed

Leave a Reply