thehomer:

What argument do you wish to address?*1

No you have not demonstrated how scientific evidence is ambiguous and subjective.*2

Did you read what you posted? It was specifically about human language.*3

How is it a straw man?*4

Not just inquire but know that it was two parts of an element to one part of another element.*5

No it isn't. Your post is riddled with poor evidence or evidence that actually contradicts what you're trying to say. Here's an example. Can you present evidence of your religion helping us determine the distance from earth to the nearest star other than the sun?*6


I thought it was resolved that what we're discussing are the differences since we agree they are similar on some levels?*7

Not just that, there is also the poor evidence supporting beliefs in such deities even from the religious texts themselves and human reasoning.*8
Nothing to add? That was an example for you.*9

Thank you.

Why not? How then do you actually wish to then point out that atheism of any sort is a religion if you've refused to clarify what you mean by religion?*11

Huh?  *12

What's the relevance of this?

There you go.

Random discoveries do not write theories, humans do.

How is it flawed?*13

I suspect you're speaking of the aphid here. You're confusing a metaphor of a symbiotic relationship for farming. Honey production in bees? What does this have to do with agriculture?*14

Based on the fact that humans humans write theories and not discoveries since discoveries cannot think or write.*15

What is circular there? I simply pointed out how your claim was flat out wrong.
And what's the relevance of Thomas Kuhn to this discussion?*16

What is the specialized knowledge that the cleric requires other than just making stuff up as he goes along?*17

Please do not evade the questions I asked you.

*1 >>> your talk of vestigial organs >>> could you talk more on why this stands as proof of naturalistic evolution. 

*2 >>> I have done so conclusively >>> you have said on this thread that subjective perceptions is one of the hallmarks of science (sic) 

>>> to further bury your notion, lemme emphasise that many scientific theories have been wrongfully ignored or taught as complete e.g Lamarckian theory of evolution, Ptolemaic universal model, Newtonian laws e.t.c

BTW, peer-reviewed scientific research is a fairly new (and reinvented) occurrence in modern scientific history. 

*3 >>> that doesn't restrict me from giving the definition of language I forwarded >>> language is not restricted to human beings alone

*4 >>> because you assume that ideologies can never effect or affect scientific principles >>> which is precisely what I have demonstrated previously >>> read thru my posts again  

*5 >>> of course they did >>> and I'm sure that is how it has been since the time humans appeared on the face of the earth

*6 >>> anytime u see a Christian doing geometry calculations in his/her class >>> u have seen empirical proof of Christianity helping to determine the physical constant you are asking for

*7 >>> let's be clear on what levels they are similar >>> could you please state at what level of 'human construct' science and religion are similar

*8 >>> same goes for the lack of evidence requisite to an atheistic mindset

*9 >>>  First, similarity is the clear fact that both arise from thought and thought processes >>> dead people cannot observe. anything or make any claims

Second, is that both have a framework on which an occurrence can be adjudged (as true or false) >>> in your example, science more processes that are involved in this (ideological) framework

Third, both involve faith and reason (will wrt faith and intellect wrt reason) >>> any number of factors could have so
happened as to make both occurrences true or false 

*10 >>> it shows that you assume darkness to be light >>> u are the kind Plato would refer to as being stuck in a cave

*11 >>> okay ! >>> I say that within the context of my referral to atheism as a religion >>> I define religion as: a hallowed belief system followed by a considerable no. of people

*12 >>> quit playing !

*13 >>> random discoveries effectuate (I did not say write) such theories >>> if there where no discoveries, there would be no theories >>> besides humans can misinterpret a discovery. 

*14 >>> many organisms display scientific kind of thinking >>> more than a few organisms engage in farming >>> and I wasn't talking about the aphid - I was referring to a specific specie of ants >>> stop playing dumb and note that there are many similarities between honey production in bees and human farming >>> go do your homework on this - I have done mine

*15 >>> lemme play the dullard and ask you a question: Do thoughts exist ? Can you empirically PROVE that thought exists ? (keep in mind that brain processes remain par in unconscious or sleeping beings)

BTW, writing was also discovered >>> so methinks that discoveries display a form of sentience

*16 >>> a dismissal of evidence without giving proper proofs and links doesn't count as a dismissal - not at all

>>> Thomas Kuhn was an important personality who noted the faults of the scientific method. Take a course on 'the philosophy of science' or at least read one of his essays

*17 >>> it varies by the person and by the kind of religion one is involved in

for example in my village >>> most pagan clerics were well-respected herbalists or hunters (my grandfather was one)
in present-day churches >>> some kind of Theology certification will make you more acceptable

Uyi Iredia:

*1 >>> your talk of vestigial organs >>> could you talk more on why this stands as proof of naturalistic evolution.

It is evidence for evolution because designers do not design vestigial parts i.e parts that may be of no use, may be detrimental or that have become obsolete being replaced with better functioning parts. These vestigial organs also show a link between organisms pointing to an ancestor in which this organ had a function.

Uyi Iredia:

*2 >>> I have done so conclusively >>> you have said on this thread that subjective perceptions is one of the hallmarks of science (sic) 

Where did I say this?

Uyi Iredia:

>>> to further bury your notion, lemme emphasise that many scientific theories have been wrongfully ignored or taught as complete e.g Lamarckian theory of evolution, Ptolemaic universal model, Newtonian laws e.t.c

BTW, peer-reviewed scientific research is a fairly new (and reinvented) occurrence in modern scientific history.

This still does not demonstrate how scientific evidence is ambiguous and subjective. Are you trying to be evasive?

Uyi Iredia:

*3 >>> that doesn't restrict me from giving the definition of language I forwarded >>> language is not restricted to human beings alone

What else would use language the way you chose to express it?

Uyi Iredia:

*4 >>> because you assume that ideologies can never effect or affect scientific principles >>> which is precisely what I have demonstrated previously >>> read thru my posts again

It appears you simply wish to dance around and throw accusations of fallacies. Where did you demonstrate that scientific knowledge is subject to ideologies? i.e where it changes based on the ideologies a person has.

Uyi Iredia:

*5 >>> of course they did >>> and I'm sure that is how it has been since the time humans appeared on the face of the earth

What religion did you find this knowledge in?

Uyi Iredia:

*6 >>> anytime u see a Christian doing geometry calculations in his/her class >>> u have seen empirical proof of Christianity helping to determine the physical constant you are asking for

This is simply absurd. So if a Muslim is doing geometry that means Islam is working on the problem? How about a Buddhist? So according to this reasoning, all religions are correct and progressing as science progresses? Wow. Christianity now turns into whatever some random Christian is doing.

Uyi Iredia:

*7 >>> let's be clear on what levels they are similar >>> could you please state at what level of 'human construct' science and religion are similar'

They are similar in the attempts of understanding the universe. Science is closer and more accurate while religion isn't though some try to make it so.

Uyi Iredia:

*8 >>> same goes for the lack of evidence requisite to an atheistic mindset

This is the usual false equivalence that religious people trot out when their ideas are pointed out to be wrong.

Uyi Iredia:

*9 >>>  First, similarity is the clear fact that both arise from thought and thought processes >>> dead people cannot observe. anything or make any claims

Good. They are human constructs.

Uyi Iredia:

Second, is that both have a framework on which an occurrence can be adjudged (as true or false) >>> in your example, science more processes that are involved in this (ideological) framework

How is science ideological? Recall that you're yet to demonstrate this. How do we show that a religious person who claims to have been spoken to is making a false claim?

Uyi Iredia:

Third, both involve faith and reason (will wrt faith and intellect wrt reason) >>> any number of factors could have so
happened as to make both occurrences true or false 

This is clearly false. Science does not depend on faith. Religion does. Religion avoids the application of the intellect at its core but science encourages this.

Uyi Iredia:

*10 >>> it shows that you assume darkness to be light >>> u are the kind Plato would refer to as being stuck in a cave

It seems you wish to simply redefine things and run with it. I simply hope you realize that we currently know much more about the universe than our ancestors 2000 years ago did.

Uyi Iredia:

*11 >>> okay ! >>> I say that within the context of my referral to atheism as a religion >>> I define religion as: a hallowed belief system followed by a considerable no. of people

What is "hallowed" about atheism?
How many people makes it "considerable"?

Uyi Iredia:

*12 >>> quit playing !

How am I playing? That was in response to your claim that "and what can be carefully matched is random". What does that even mean? Keep in mind your reference to "random evidence".

Uyi Iredia:

*13 >>> random discoveries effectuate (I did not say write) such theories >>> if there where no discoveries, there would be no theories >>> besides humans can misinterpret a discovery.

What is a random discovery? Do you mean an unexpected discovery?

Uyi Iredia:

*14 >>> many organisms display scientific kind of thinking >>> more than a few organisms engage in farming >>> and I wasn't talking about the aphid - I was referring to a specific specie of ants >>> stop playing dumb and note that there are many similarities between honey production in bees and human farming >>> go do your homework on this - I have done mine

What organism do the ants "farm"? What is the similarity? I hope you realize that the honey is from the bees themselves not some other organism that they consciously choose to improve upon for their benefit. It seems your homework still remains.

Uyi Iredia:

*15 >>> lemme play the dullard and ask you a question: Do thoughts exist ? Can you empirically PROVE that thought exists ? (keep in mind that brain processes remain par in unconscious or sleeping beings)

BTW, writing was also discovered >>> so methinks that discoveries display a form of sentience

What do you mean by "exist"? Thoughts have a physical basis. Brain processes remain at par between unconscious persons and what?

Uyi Iredia:

*16 >>> a dismissal of evidence without giving proper proofs and links doesn't count as a dismissal - not at all

I presented evidence that you were flat out wrong with your implied claim on Einstein requiring clout for his theory to be accepted. Simply try to understand how scientific theories are developed and accepted. You also never demonstrated how my argument was circular.

Uyi Iredia:

>>> Thomas Kuhn was an important personality who noted the faults of the scientific method. Take a course on 'the philosophy of science' or at least read one of his essays

I'm not discussing with Thomas Kuhn here. If you feel his point directly contradicts something I've said, then by all means clearly demonstrate this.

Uyi Iredia:

*17 >>> it varies by the person and by the kind of religion one is involved in

for example in my village >>> most pagan clerics were well-respected herbalists or hunters (my grandfather was one)
in present-day churches >>> some kind of Theology certification will make you more acceptable

Herbalists and hunters actually do have some fields of expertise. One with plants, the other with capturing animals. Does the cleric who has a theology certification know more about God than a lay person who has carefully read his Bible or a person to whom God has revealed himself? Is there even a phenomenon to study in theology?

Cross reference: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-765094.64.html#msg9227593

Summary: in Kaufman v McCaughtry the US Court of Appeal (7th  Circ, 2005) held that atheism is a religion for the purposes of the American First Amendment. The CA also noted that:

The Supreme Court has recognized atheism as equivalent to a “religion” for purposes of the First Amendment on numerous occasions . . . .

Enigma:

Cross reference: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-765094.64.html#msg9227593

Summary: in Kaufman v McCaughtry the US Court of Appeal (7th  Circ, 2005) held that atheism is a religion for the purposes of the American First Amendment. The CA also noted that:

So what? Does this then mean that atheism is a religion in all respects? The key phrase here is "for the purposes of the American first amendment".
For your information, the courts also recognize corporations as persons does this mean you find them wandering the streets? Simply note the context.

^^^ Your own arguments on this thread were shattered with serious damage to your credibility as a person able to think clearly anyway. So your sour-grapes response is not surprising.

I still wonder what part of "ATHEISM IS NOT A RELIGION" don't these people understand. How can a disbelief in something be labelled as a "belief"? Religion involves belief in supernatural and mystic forces. Atheists DON'T believe in such. Why then you people try so desperately to align non-religious people with religious people? Typing out long misleading texts doesn't cut it. At the tail end, we do not believe in religion and neither are we religious. We are just people who have no stake in it. What is so hard about that to grasp? Is that so complex to understand?

Enigma:

^^^ Your own arguments on this thread were shattered with serious damage to your credibility as a person able to think clearly anyway. So your sour-grapes response is not surprising.

Really? They were shattered on this very thread? Why not point to where they were shattered?
It seems you're still bitter at being unable to defend your statements. Don't worry, I understand.

On your Supreme Court post, it seems a single example has shown you the fallacious line you're about to follow.

^^^ Look at this one.  You forget that you became so dazed you didn't know whether you were coming or going with your proffered definition of "religion".  Pathetic!

Have you even read the judgment? I wager you haven't and I expect you, like your fellow evangelical atheist did on the other thread, to first run to Wikipedia for assistance on understanding the judgment! 

By the way, you demonstrate ignorance of 'corporate personality' --- although I can understand that it is outside your field, but then it could also be beyond you anyway.

As for the CA decision in Kaufman, let me help you to understand some aspects of the decision before you run to Wikipedia. I will simply repeat my post from the other thread. 
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Hmmm  the evangelical atheists want to have their cake and eat it! They want to use the law for their beliefs and practices to be regarded constitutionally as a religion and to enjoy benefits that normally attach to a religion. Yet they are ashamed socially, intellectually and philosophically to accept that they are now indeed basically practiising a religion. Talk about speaking from both sides of one's mouth.

Anyway, I repeat that it is just a case of living in denial.

From the Kaufman judgment itself (. . . . ).

Wisconsin inmate James Kaufman {i.e. the atheist} filed this suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming as relevant here that prison officials violated his First Amendment rights. He raises three unrelated issues. Of the three, the one that has prompted the issuance of this opinion is his claim that the defendants infringed on his right to practice his religion when they refused to allow him to create an inmate group to study and discuss atheism.

While at Waupun, Kaufman {i.e. the atheist} submitted an official form titled “Request for New Religious Practice,” in which he asked to form an inmate group interested in humanism, atheism, and free speaking.

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. . . . . A religion need not be based on a belief in the existence of a supreme being (or beings, for polytheistic faiths) . . . .

Without venturing too far into the realm of the  philosophical, we have suggested in the past that when a person sincerely holds beliefs dealing with issues of “ultimate concern” that for her occupy a “place parallel to that filled by . . . God in traditionally religious persons,” those beliefs represent her religion.

We have already indicated that atheism may be considered, in this specialized sense, a religion.

(“If we think of religion as taking a position on divinity, then atheism is indeed a form of religion.”). Kaufman claims that his atheist beliefs play a central role in his life, and the defendants do not dispute that his beliefs are deeply and sincerely held.

. . . . the {Supreme} Court has adopted a broad definition of “religion” that includes nontheistic and atheistic beliefs, as well as theistic ones. Thus, in Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488, it said that 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.”

It is also noteworthy that the administrative code governing Wisconsin prisons states that one factor the warden is prohibited from considering in deciding whether an inmate’s request to form a new religious group should be granted is “the absence from the beliefs of a concept
of a supreme being.”

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.

These should do for now.

Still on the main topic of this thread and on evangelical atheism the religion (again based on an earlier post but this time with one addition courtesy of one of our evangelical atheists friends )
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Evangelical atheism in evangelising action: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7813812.stm

An evangelical atheism chaplaincy(!): http://harvardhumanist.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=8&Itemid=46

Another evangelical atheism body* (goals include engouraging "positive atheist culture"; even meets on Sundays!): http://www.atheist-community.org/

Push for atheist chaplains in the US Military: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/27/us/27atheists.html?pagewanted=all

And finally from http://evangelicalatheism.org/

"Evangelical atheism": Sounds like an oxymoron, doesn't it? But "evangelism" literally means "bringing of good news." I believe that strong atheism, the belief that there is no god, is not only true but is also good news. I also believe that the world would be a better place if there were more atheists. Unless you already are one, I believe you would be happier and the world would be a better place if you were an atheist.

There are already a number of resources on atheism: books, web sites, movies, you name it. Most of them patiently deal with the rational. This is as it should be; atheism is the only rational response to the question of whether there is a god. What I want to focus on, though, is the emotional. I believe that emotion, not reason, is the moat between the fantasy of religion and the reality (Edit: really?) of atheism.

Life is hard, and religionists take comfort in "knowing" that it's all according to God's purpose. But, if true, would it really be comforting? That a benevolent, loving god could think of no better way to do what he needs to do by causing so much suffering along with joy?

Life ends in death, but wouldn't eternal life be worse?

Many people go to religious services to reinforce their love of God, but isn't that palpable feeling really the love of each other?

We all are lonely, but aren't six billion of us, most of whom are really fine people, enough?

So, yes, evangelical atheism does indeed evangelise and is basically a religion.



* For this one I owe thanks to one of the evangelical atheists for bringing it up on the other cross-referenced thread.

harakiri:

I still wonder what part of "ATHEISM IS NOT A RELIGION" don't these people understand. How can a disbelief in something be labelled as a "belief"? Religion involves belief in supernatural and mystic forces. Atheists DON'T believe in such. Why then you people try so desperately to align non-religious people with religious people? Typing out long misleading texts doesn't cut it. At the tail end, we do not believe in religion and neither are we religious. We are just people who have no stake in it. What is so hard about that to grasp? Is that so complex to understand?

Quit with the word play. Atheism is the belief that there are no God/gods. A belief that is being proselytized even as we speak.

@thehomer and harakiri, it is a useless exercise reasoning with these folks as I have come to find out. They see only what they want to see and ignore the rest. The Dunning-Kruger effect is in full force here. The unfortunate thing is that if you keep quiet, others may take it as confirmation of their point.

See how they were exposed on the other thread (the one Enigma posted which ironically he claims as a victory). They kept bringing claim after claim, link after link and these were torn down. Finally, they brought what they thought was a clincher. A simple judgement (which they obviously didnt read before posting and if they did, failed to understand), yet I had to post it (not selectively like they tried to do) and annotate it. I broke everything down to the basics, even offering definitions, yet reason could not prevail.

The only thing to be done is to stick to the facts. Let objective people read and decide. Calling atheism a religion is absurd. So also is the tag evangelical atheism. These were effectively refuted here I heard there are different kinds of atheists (https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-765094.0.html)

In any case, I want to tell a story. I will be adapting mine from Aesop's fables. Its the Fox and the Lamb.

A certain fox was hungry and spotted a lamb downstream. He thought it would be nice to gobble up the lamb for breakfast, so he sought an excuse to do so.
"Look here", he growled at the lamb. "Prepare to die, because you were the one insulting me last year".
"But that cannot be Sir" replied the lamb. "For I am only six months old".
"Well then, why are you muddying my water" barked the fox. "For this you shall die".
"But Sir" pleaded the lamb, "that is impossible because the stream flows down to me from you".
Then seeking to placate the fox with a compliment, the lamb said "Oh Sir, you smell really nice today".
"Aha" cried the fox, "So you think you can insult me and walk away, you shall die today"
"No Sir" was the lambs confused reply. "I only said you smell nice".
"So you are still calling me smelling ?" growled the fox, and promptly pounced upon the lamb despite its entreaties.

The moral of the story is; a desperate person will always cling on to whatever he thinks will help.

The American Supreme Court and Court of Appeal certainly believe and have ruled that atheism IS a religion under the American Constitution.

Even definitions of "religion" provided by the evangelical atheists themselves take in evangelical atheism which fits in very well ----- an example on this very thread as demonstrated here:  https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-546562.256.html#msg7314250

Uyi Iredia:

Atheism is the belief that there are no God/gods.

Here we go again.

So when people believe that there are no God/gods, that makes them religious?

Enigma:

1) The American Supreme Court and Court of Appeal certainly believe and have ruled that atheism IS a religion under the American Constitution.

2)Even definitions of "religion" provided by the evangelical atheists themselves take in evangelical atheism which fits in very well ----- an example on this very thread as demonstrated here:  https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-546562.256.html#msg7314250

1) Refuted
2) Here is the quote you want to make a meal of

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

You havent mentioned the practices or teachings or beliefs. Of course you will want to say that we believe there is no God.
Let me preempt you. Not believing in God (the true atheist position) is not the same as believing there is no God. Let me rephrase for you. Disbelief in God (the true atheist position) is not the same as believing there is no God. Can you wrap your head around that ?
There is no belief, no practice and no teaching. Your theory fails !

^^^ You obviously are a person lacking in thoroughness or you cannot read properly! I'll give you a chance: go through the thread once again --- properly.

Oh by the way on your number 1 which you say is "refuted", here is a free legal lesson for you in two ways: (a) free quotes from a US Supreme Court decision and (b) a link to the text of the case for you to practise your case law analysis and remember don't first run to Wikipedia for assistance. 

. . . neither a State nor the Federal Government . . . . .  can aid those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs.

Among religions in this country {i.e. the USA} which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism and others.

Torcaso v Watson (1961).

Enigma:

^^^ Look at this one.  You forget that you became so dazed you didn't know whether you were coming or going with your proffered definition of "religion".    Pathetic!

I see you're still wailing about your own failings. Why don't you first say what you think a religion is? If you wish to go for the legal definition, simply define it legally then we can proceed.

Enigma:

Have you even read the judgment? I wager you haven't and I expect you, like your fellow evangelical atheist did on the other thread, to first run to Wikipedia for assistance on understanding the judgment! 

By the way, you demonstrate ignorance of 'corporate personality' --- although I can understand that it is outside your field, but then it could also be beyond you anyway.

Rubbish. I was simply pointing out to you that the legal definition of a person can be very different from its ordinary use so you should avoid mixing them up. This is why I'll advice you to first define it to fit the context you wish to use it in.

Enigma:

As for the CA decision in Kaufman, let me help you to understand some aspects of the decision before you run to Wikipedia. I will simply repeat my post from the other thread. 
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Hmmm  the evangelical atheists want to have their cake and eat it! They want to use the law for their beliefs and practices to be regarded constitutionally as a religion and to enjoy benefits that normally attach to a religion. Yet they are ashamed socially, intellectually and philosophically to accept that they are now indeed basically practiising a religion. Talk about speaking from both sides of one's mouth.

Anyway, I repeat that it is just a case of living in denial.

From the Kaufman judgment itself (. . . . ).


Quote
Wisconsin inmate James Kaufman {i.e. the atheist} filed this suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming as relevant here that prison officials violated his First Amendment rights. He raises three unrelated issues. Of the three, the one that has prompted the issuance of this opinion is his claim that the defendants infringed on his right to practice his religion when they refused to allow him to create an inmate group to study and discuss atheism.


Quote
While at Waupun, Kaufman {i.e. the atheist} submitted an official form titled “Request for New Religious Practice,” in which he asked to form an inmate group interested in humanism, atheism, and free speaking.

Quote
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. . . . . A religion need not be based on a belief in the existence of a supreme being (or beings, for polytheistic faiths) . . . .


Quote
Without venturing too far into the realm of the  philosophical, we have suggested in the past that when a person sincerely holds beliefs dealing with issues of “ultimate concern” that for her occupy a “place parallel to that filled by . . . God in traditionally religious persons,” those beliefs represent her religion.

Quote
We have already indicated that atheism may be considered, in this specialized sense, a religion.

Quote
(“If we think of religion as taking a position on divinity, then atheism is indeed a form of religion.”). Kaufman claims that his atheist beliefs play a central role in his life, and the defendants do not dispute that his beliefs are deeply and sincerely held.

Quote
. . . . the {Supreme} Court has adopted a broad definition of “religion” that includes nontheistic and atheistic beliefs, as well as theistic ones. Thus, in Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488, it said that 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.”

Quote
It is also noteworthy that the administrative code governing Wisconsin prisons states that one factor the warden is prohibited from considering in deciding whether an inmate’s request to form a new religious group should be granted is “the absence from the beliefs of a concept
of a supreme being.”

Quote
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.


These should do for now.

I really don't see anything of value that you've put up until you define the position you're arguing for. The curious thing about lots of the posts you've made here is the reference by the parties to atheism being a religion [size=14pt]"for the purposes of the first amendment"[/size]. It is supposed to be a special case. First present your definition of a religion.

Enigma:

Still on the main topic of this thread and on evangelical atheism the religion (again based on an earlier post but this time with one addition courtesy of one of our evangelical atheists friends )
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Evangelical atheism in evangelising action: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7813812.stm

An evangelical atheism chaplaincy(!): http://harvardhumanist.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=8&Itemid=46

Another evangelical atheism body* (goals include engouraging "positive atheist culture"; even meets on Sundays!): http://www.atheist-community.org/

Push for atheist chaplains in the US Military: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/27/us/27atheists.html?pagewanted=all

And finally from http://evangelicalatheism.org/


So, yes, evangelical atheism does indeed evangelise and is basically a religion.



* For this one I owe thanks to one of the evangelical atheists for bringing it up on the other cross-referenced thread.

This of course is still pointless until you're able to give your definition or concept of what a religion is. Or do you think that e.g the civil rights movement was a religion? How about the women's rights movement? I've covered these grounds before so I see no reason to waste more time on it.

Uyi Iredia:

Quit with the word play. Atheism is the belief that there are no God/gods. A belief that is being proselytized even as we speak.

So if someone is spreading a belief, that belief automatically becomes a religion?

jayriginal:

@thehomer and harakiri, it is a useless exercise reasoning with these folks as I have come to find out. They see only what they want to see and ignore the rest. The Dunning-Kruger effect is in full force here. The unfortunate thing is that if you keep quiet, others may take it as confirmation of their point.

See how they were exposed on the other thread (the one Enigma posted which ironically he claims as a victory). They kept bringing claim after claim, link after link and these were torn down. Finally, they brought what they thought was a clincher. A simple judgement (which they obviously didnt read before posting and if they did, failed to understand), yet I had to post it (not selectively like they tried to do) and annotate it. I broke everything down to the basics, even offering definitions, yet reason could not prevail.

The only thing to be done is to stick to the facts. Let objective people read and decide. Calling atheism a religion is absurd. So also is the tag evangelical atheism. These were effectively refuted here I heard there are different kinds of atheists (https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-765094.0.html)

In any case, I want to tell a story. I will be adapting mine from Aesop's fables. Its the Fox and the Lamb.

A certain fox was hungry and spotted a lamb downstream. He thought it would be nice to gobble up the lamb for breakfast, so he sought an excuse to do so.
"Look here", he growled at the lamb. "Prepare to die, because you were the one insulting me last year".
"But that cannot be Sir" replied the lamb. "For I am only six months old".
"Well then, why are you muddying my water" barked the fox. "For this you shall die".
"But Sir" pleaded the lamb, "that is impossible because the stream flows down to me from you".
Then seeking to placate the fox with a compliment, the lamb said "Oh Sir, you smell really nice today".
"Aha" cried the fox, "So you think you can insult me and walk away, you shall die today"
"No Sir" was the lambs confused reply. "I only said you smell nice".
"So you are still calling me smelling ?" growled the fox, and promptly pounced upon the lamb despite its entreaties.

The moral of the story is; a desperate person will always cling on to whatever he thinks will help.

Yes you're quite right but like you said, keeping quiet here may be misconstrued as accepting their wrong claims so I feel one must try for the time being.

thehomer:
. . . .I really don't see anything of value that you've put up until you define the position you're arguing for. The curious thing about lots of the posts you've made here is the reference by the parties to atheism being a religion [size=14pt]"for the purposes of the first amendment"[/size]. It is supposed to be a special case. First present your definition of a religion.

Ah good; chance to test your mettle at your much vaunted logic; chance to test your intellectual mettle.

[size=14pt]What does the First Amendment say?[/size]

Enigma:

The American Supreme Court and Court of Appeal certainly believe and have ruled that atheism IS a religion under the American Constitution.

Even definitions of "religion" provided by the evangelical atheists themselves take in evangelical atheism which fits in very well ----- an example on this very thread as demonstrated here:  https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-546562.256.html#msg7314250

Enigma, did you miss my response to your post? Let me place it here in full so you do not forget what you were supposed to do several months ago. Which you're still failing to do now. It seems you keep making the same mistakes.

thehomer:

I have explained to you why even your "evangelical atheism" is not a religion (i.e it does not fit) but more like a movement like the other movements I mentioned and I presented you with reasons why. You attempted to refute these reasons earlier and I pointed out the flaws in such an attempt here:
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-546562.160.html#msg7135668

Please understand that you are now claiming that your "evangelical atheism" is a religion not me. This then means that you need to present reasons why it is a religion and the other movements I mentioned are not religions.
I've also pointed out that if you wish to maintain that it is a religion, you need to also accept movements as being religions for your reasoning to be consistent.
So some options open to you are for you to present your definition of a religion, or to clearly indicate how you can consider "evangelical atheism" to be a religion but not feminism. Or you could simply accept that movements are also religions.

Now do you remember what you needed to show? Or did you forget that I had responded to your rubbish assertion?

Enigma:


Ah good; chance to test your mettle at your much vaunted logic; chance to test your intellectual mettle.

[size=14pt]What does the First Amendment say?[/size]

Look it up.
First fulfill your obligation here by presenting the definition of religion that you've been avoiding for several months now.

[size=14pt]What does the First Amendment say?[/size]


As you have been going on about "for first amendment purposes only", if you cannot answer the above question then you are simply wasting my time.

Enigma:

[size=14pt]What does the First Amendment say?[/size]


As you have been going on about "for first amendment purposes only", if you cannot answer the above question then you are simply wasting my time.

Nope you're wasting my time because you're yet to define what you mean by a religion after more than 6 months of having this discussion. Is it that difficult?
On the issue of the first amendment, if you're so enamored with it, simply present it and let us see if it somehow defines what a religion is.

So basically you did not know what you were saying when you shouted "for first amendment purposes only"!

What's new?

Typical of evangelical atheists ---- either speaking through both corners of their mouths or through their asses.

Enigma:

So basically you did not know what you were saying when you shouted "for first amendment purposes only"!

What's new?

Typical of evangelical atheists ---- either speaking through both corners of their mouths or through their asses.

Still whining I see. I simply present you with basic things that you need to do for your points to be valid or relevant and you run around whining? Why? Is it too difficult for you? Don't worry, you're free to get help if you think its too hard.

When you are ready, i.e. having learned basics, we'll talk. 

For now, you have once again shown yourself to be all bluff and bluster with no substance; comes here shouting "for first amendment purposes" not knowing what it means.

Ridiculous!

Enigma:

When you are ready, i.e. having learned basics, we'll talk. 

For now, you have once again shown yourself to be all bluff and bluster with no substance; comes here shouting "for first amendment purposes" not knowing what it means.

Ridiculous!

And once again, he rapidly evacuates from the thread with his panties in a bunch.
I really wonder how long you can keep trying to avoid defining the meaning of religion you keep referring to. Its taken you over 6 months to come this far with nothing to show for it. You've now decided to run along because for some reason, you also refuse to show how this first amendment tells you what a religion is.
Just keep running.

Enigma:

Oh by the way on your number 1 which you say is "refuted", here is a free legal lesson for you in two ways: (a) free quotes from a US Supreme Court decision and (b) a link to the text of the case for you to practise your case law analysis and remember don't first run to Wikipedia for assistance. 


Quote
. . . neither a State nor the Federal Government . . . . .  can aid those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs.

Quote
Among religions in this country {i.e. the USA} which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism and others.

Torcaso v Watson (1961).


Torcaso v Watson (1961).

I have said it before. You are truly an enigma.
What the hell does the above mean ? Are you including atheism under others? Mr Man focus please. You have come again with your shallow understanding and selective posting. Before you post a link, be sure that it supports your case.

Enigma:

[size=14pt]What does the First Amendment say?[/size]


As you have been going on about "for first amendment purposes only", if you cannot answer the above question then you are simply wasting my time.

Didnt I enlighten you ? You want someone to spoon feed you so you can accuse him of running to wiki ?

thehomer:

Yes you're quite right but like you said, keeping quiet here may be misconstrued as accepting their wrong claims so I feel one must try for the time being.

I find it hard to believe (for the sake of humanity) that this enigma character is not joking.

Enigma:

When you are ready, i.e. having learned basics, we'll talk. 

For now, you have once again shown yourself to be all bluff and bluster with no substance; comes here shouting "for first amendment purposes" not knowing what it means.

Ridiculous!

You have been educated on this. Here, let me post the link again. Keep ridiculing the education I gave you. It was simple enough, yet you failed to comprehend https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-765094.32.html

thehomer:

And once again, he rapidly evacuates from the thread with his panties in a bunch.  
I really wonder how long you can keep trying to avoid defining the meaning of religion you keep referring to. Its taken you over 6 months to come this far with nothing to show for it. You've now decided to run along because for some reason, you also refuse to show how this first amendment tells you what a religion is.
Just keep running.

Like you ran away on this other thread with the assistance and encouragement of your fellow evangelical atheists to flee ?   https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-715030.64.html#msg8809127

You show yourself each time to be a mere shallow pretender ---- easily exposed for what you really are.

By the way see also posts 169 and especially 193 on this very thread.  

jayriginal:

. . . .

Didnt I enlighten you ? You want someone to spoon feed you so you can accuse him of running to wiki ?
I find it hard to believe (for the sake of humanity) that this enigma character is not joking.

Who knows maybe he isn't. Its taken him over 6 months to try to understand what he needs to do to get his points across yet he fails at it.

jayriginal:

You have been educated on this. Here, let me post the link again. Keep ridiculing the education I gave you. It was simple enough, yet you failed to comprehend https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-765094.32.html

Oh so you had educated him on the first amendment and were generous enough to include a link. Yet he comes here whining.