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 (not one Fahling who is just another individual commentator).

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.

Oh, by the way here is how the court dismissed the "non-religion" point --- essentially saying that the lower court was wrong to assume that atheism is a "non-religion".

The district court went astray when it evaluated Kaufman’s claim on the assumption that he wanted to form a nonreligious group. Based on that premise, it held that the defendants were entitled to assess Kaufman’s proposal under the more restrictive set of regulations that applies to
normal social groups. Had the premise been correct, the conclusion would have followed: no one says that a person who wants to form a chess club at the prison is entitled under the Establishment Clause to have the application evaluated as if chess were a religion, no matter how devoted he is to the game. In addition, the district court correctly noted that in certain circumstances the government may make special accommodations for religious practices that are not extended to nonreligious practices without violating the Establishment Clause.

The problem with the district court’s analysis is that the court failed to recognize that Kaufman was trying to start a “religious” group, in the sense we discussed earlier. 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. As he explained in his application, the group wanted to study freedom of thought, religious beliefs, creeds, dogmas, tenets, rituals, and practices, all presumably from an atheistic perspective. It is undisputed that other religious groups are permitted to meet at Kaufman’s prison, and the defendants have advanced no secular reason why the security concerns they cited as a reason to deny his request for an atheist group do not apply equally to gatherings of Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, or Wiccan inmates.

Enigma, once, and once only will I answer you. Then its silence from here on.

Enigma:

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.

From the Kaufman judgment itself (not one Fahling who is just another individual commentator).

I guess you will rather have them silenced.

Now its convenient for you to call Fahling "another individual commentator". When you thought he supported you, you didnt say he was "just another individual commentator".

Its clear that you are looking but cannot see. I had to put the judgement out, and now you want to copy out parts that seemingly support your case. Lets look at some of your quotes from the judgement.

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) . . . .

What part of this is difficult for you to accept ?

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

In this specialized sense. That is, for the purposes of the first ammendment, not for all or general purposes.

the {Supreme} Court has adopted a broad definition of “religion” that includes nontheistic and atheistic beliefs, as well as theistic ones.

Broad because atheism is not a religion and does not fit. I guess you missed this

(The) plaintiff must show a “substantial burden” on a “central religious belief or practice” to prevail under the Free Exercise Clause. He failed utterly to do so.

1) Atheism is, among other things, a school of thought that takes a position on religion,
2) the existence and importance of a supreme being,
3) 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.

1) is true only to the extent that religion deals with gods and atheists do not recognise them. To qualify this as a religion is absurd as stated severally. For the purpose of the first ammendment, it is a different matter.
2) The atheist position on this is that we dont believe in them.
3) There are no code of ethics.

Here is the clincher

“If we think of religion as taking a position on divinity, then atheism is indeed a form of religion.”

Following this line of thinking, when you reject the Invisible Pink Unicorn as your creator, that is your religion (ie non belief in the Invisible Pink Unicorn). Ditto the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Ogun, Sango, Zeus, Allah, Santa Clause, The Easter Bunny,  etc. The list is endless.

It is unfortunate that you want to continue this line of reasoning, but in a way, it is not surprising.

Question :
Do you believe in God or Gods
Possible answers
1) Yes
2) No.
If you say yes, you are a theist.
If you say no, you are an atheist.
Theism is not a religion neither is atheism. They are just positions on divinity. One admits of a belief, the other does not. How else do you want this explained to you ?

In anycase, it was late when I posted yesterday, I wanted to do a final edit this moring and leave this thread but seeing as you have responded, I thought it would be better to incorporate the edit in a new post and respond to you.

Its a free world, you may interpret the judgment as you see fit, ignoring the obvious. That is the way you read your bible anyway, so no surprises there.
If you want to keep walking into a wall, dont let me stop you.
Be my guest.
Cheers !

PS
as I was about to submit the post, I noticed you posted again. It's good you have been reading . Study some more.
You seek to show that the non-religion point was dismissed.

The problem with the district court’s analysis is that the court failed to recognize that Kaufman was trying to start a “religious” group, in the sense we discussed earlier.

Surely you didnt fail to see the quotation marks around religion. The court is declaring atheism a religion, for the purposes of the first ammendment only. The court does not ordinarily consider atheism a religion. They had to do a lot of "panel-beating" to get it to fit for this specialized purpose.
Please read my posts again. The judgment itself is clear as day for anybody to understand.

jayriginal:

Enigma, once, and once only will I answer you. Then its silence from here on.

Your problem! 

jayriginal:
I guess you will rather have them silenced.

You have the same problem as every other evangelical atheist I've encountered on nairaland: either obtuseness or deceit or both. To answer your question: NO, I do NOT want atheists silenced ; rather, I want evangelical atheists to be honest and to recognise what their beliefs and practises now amount to --- basically a religion.

jayriginal:
Now its convenient for you to call Fahling "another individual commentator". When you thought he supported you, you didnt say he was "just another individual commentator".

I did NOT comment on Fahling's statement at all first time around; only that as a matter of honesty and objectivity, I did not exclude his statement from the material I pasted. So wherever you got the impression that I thought he supported me, only you know! 

jayriginal:
Its clear that you are looking but cannot see. I had to put the judgement out, and now you want to copy out parts that seemingly support your case.

NO, I was the first to link to the full text of the judgment and I did so because I had anticipated what someone like you will do ---- try to spin and misrepresent the judgment. As an aside, you accuse toba of running to the Internet, yet you had to run to Dillahunty (or whatever the name was) & co to help you with the attempted spin. I thought you said you were a lawyer! Can you not analyse a mere 13 page judgment on your own?

jayriginal:
Lets look at some of your quotes from the judgement.
What part of this is difficult for you to accept ? In this specialized sense. That is, for the purposes of the first ammendment, not for all or general purposes.
Broad because atheism is not a religion and does not fit. I guess you missed this1) is true only to the extent that religion deals with gods and atheists do not recognise them. To qualify this as a religion is absurd as stated severally. For the purpose of the first ammendment, it is a different matter.
2) The atheist position on this is that we dont believe in them.
3) There are no code of ethics.

All of this is a waste of time: let me even assume for a minute that the judgment simply says that atheism is a religion for the purposes of the American First Amendment (the judgment says more actually), then you atheists should really be up in arms for being so insulted! There are alternatives for protecting atheists' freedoms without resorting to first claiming a constitutional right to be regarded as a religion ---- anyone heard of free speech protections?

jayriginal:
Here is the clincher
Following this line of thinking, when you reject the Invisible Pink Unicorn as your creator, that is your religion (ie non belief in the Invisible Pink Unicorn). Ditto the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Ogun, Sango, Zeus, Allah, Santa Clause, The Easter Bunny,  etc. The list is endless.

It is unfortunate that you want to continue this line of reasoning, but in a way, it is not surprising.

Question :
Do you believe in God or Gods
Possible answers
1) Yes
2) No.
If you say yes, you are a theist.
If you say no, you are an atheist.
Theism is not a religion neither is atheism. They are just positions on divinity. One admits of a belief, the other does not. How else do you want this explained to you ?

Again, this is pitiful; it seems evangelical atheists simply cannot rise above sleight of hand! It was not the rejection of a particular creator per se that was regarded as a religion. As a lawyer go and read the report again ----- only try to read it dispassionately and objectively (Edited)

jayriginal:
In anycase, it was late when I posted yesterday, I wanted to do a final edit this moring and leave this thread but seeing as you have responded, I thought it would be better to incorporate the edit in a new post and respond to you.

Its a free world, you may interpret the judgment as you see fit, ignoring the obvious. That is the way you read your bible anyway, so no surprises there.
If you want to keep walking into a wall, dont let me stop you.
Be my guest.
Cheers !

Pathetic. All I will tell you is that I know quite a little bit about reading and analysing judicial decisions. As for your comment about how I read the Bible, well that is just idiotic. 

jayriginal:
PS
as I was about to submit the post, I noticed you posted again. It's good you have been reading . Study some more.
You seek to show that the non-religion point was dismissed.Surely you didnt fail to see the quotation marks around religion. The court is declaring atheism a religion, for the purposes of the first ammendment only. The court does not ordinarily consider atheism a religion. They had to do a lot of "panel-beating" to get it to fit for this specialized purpose.
Please read my posts again. The judgment itself is clear as day for anybody to understand.

I had enough confidence to simply post a link to the judgment for people to read and make their own conclusions; you are the one who ran to sympathetic commentators to help you analyse and spin the decision; so far, what I have posted have been text from the decision. Anyone can read them and form their own conclusions. I am confident like that and do not need spin. 

Enigma God bless u. i was seeking the best way to respond to mr jay so as to convince him that the way hes evangelizing his beliefs on this thread wouldnt help push his case beyond that which is already said.

welldone for the nice and well articulated response. i'll await his response before saying anything further than what u've said

toba:

Enigma God bless u. i was seeking the best way to respond to mr jay so as to convince him that the way hes evangelizing his beliefs on this thread wouldnt help push his case beyond that which is already said.

welldone for the nice and well articulated response. i'll await his response before saying anything further than what u've said

You wont get one Toba, Everything is there for any objective person to read and come to his own conclusion. This is as it should be.

I'll just say that what I regard as idiotic (using the same choice words enigma reserved for me) is assuming that because I posted an opinion from a layman, that I used his analysis. For one, I saw it after I had read the judgement. More importantly, anybody reading the judgement for the first time, with an unbiased mind, will come to the same conclusions. The only reason I posted his opinion was to show that the judgement was simple enough for a layman to comprehend.
As I said earlier, I have decided to stop responding. We are only going round in circles and we are on the third page already. The points have already been made. Just note that I analyzed the judgement itself. There are other grounds to show that the judgement is irrelevant, but I preferred to show that relevancy notwithstanding, the judgement does not support your case. Of course if you fail to see this whats the need in continuing the discussion ?

what u have said in the later part of your post, shows u are biased and subjective. u both(Enigma and yourself) were analyzing the judgements from external sources, whilst u disregarded the main aim of the plantiff and the analyses of the party involved, whilst clinging on to what another person said about the judgement.

u attempted to twist what has being said and u forget that this judgement has/had laid a precedents even for our todays discussion on this thread about the true position of things. forget what ever ammendment, becos its the judgement that counts. tomorrow those ammendments can still be further ammended. cant they?

It took u very long time to accept that atheism is a belief in line with my definition of belief. u only partially accepted cos of what your fellow atheist has said. do u have a mind of your own? arent most atheists basing thier thinking and judgement on what the fathers of atheism says?

^^^ Even the Fahling guy relied upon referred to atheism as a belief system!

toba:

1) u both(Enigma and yourself) were analyzing the judgements from external sources,

2) It took u very long time to accept that atheism is a belief in line with my definition of belief. u only partially accepted cos of what your fellow atheist has said. do u have a mind of your own?

Ignoring the rest of what you said,

1) Hell no ! I read and analyzed the judgement for myself. I have already adduced reasons for adding the other post. It may suit you to believe otherwise. It changes nothing.
2) I have in no way accepted that atheism is a belief.
Let me make myself clear here. ATHEISM IS NOT A BELIEF.
I thought I had been saying that since. For the umpteenth time, all that is required to be an atheist is a lack of belief in God(s).

u forget that this judgement has/had laid a precedents even for our todays discussion on this thread about the true position of things. forget what ever ammendment, becos its the judgement that counts.

Read the judgement over and over till you understand.

It's been said many times, but atheism is about a religion as theism is. There are religious atheists as there are religious theists. However, neither is a religion and not all atheists nor theists are religious. Ignoring the context of the terms changes nothing and doesn't begin to add much to a discussion of gods and their seeming lack of existence.

manmustwac:
What is an,evangelical atheist Huh I have never come across or seen an evangelical athiest with his loudspeaker shouting in the middle of bus stop oshodi that "GOD IS IMAGINARY" or "FREE YOUR MIND FROM RELIGIOUS INDOCTRINATION" at the same time handing out leaflets explaining that god dose not exist. Or going from door to door doing the same thing. You and I know that any freethinker that tries that could end up being severly beaten or even lynched. Our country which is still developing will never tolerate such freedom of speech.

Unfortunately, I have read of, and seen, a very small number of atheists handing out leaflets to that effect. I'll argue that it's a very small minority that will go the "Jehovah's Witness route", but it does happen. Not, I'm sure, in Nigeria, though, it would seem by your description.

Lol, I understand you a bit better now Toba. Apparently, you are also a muslim. And I was right, you are indeed in estate management.

jayriginal:

I dont know what your thing is with lawyers.

toba:

I have no issues with them really cos what i do, they supplement it by preparing tenancy and lease agreement for me.

jayriginal:

You must be into real estate then.

toba:

SMDH30000000000000000000000000000 times. Why did  say that? are u certain about this statement? Is it only real estate surveyors that have the need for tenancy/lease agreement?

and now, I found an interview. Toba himself was the interviewee. I think he must have forgotten about it. In the same interview, he unknowingly reveals his other religion and his profession, estate management(Islam).

Excerpts from the interview. (https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-761201.0.html)

First, the appetizer where he reveals his profession.

I asked for this interview with Toba for my blog http://www.coolstuff49ja..com and he duly obliged. I hope you enjoy it as much as I have.

Me: Can you introduce yourself to us?
Toba: My name is Toba as called by friends and family.

Me: Can you tell us about your academic life and the job you do currently?
Toba: Yeah! After my secondary school,I wrote JAMB(UME/PCE). After a couple of years, I got admission to study Industrial Relations and Personnel Management as well as Estate Management, both courses of which I had little idea of some 10 t0 13 years ago. I thought of being an accountant, but either my JAMB cut-off mark or something else prevented me from having my way. I eventually picked Estate Management hoping to cross over to accounting after my first year provided I had at least a 2.2 Graded Points Average (GPA). After my first year, I fell in love with Estate Management and then decided to see it through.

Then the main course where Toba reveals his other religion; Islam.

Me: We both met on Nairaland.com and you once told me there that you attended mosques and even fasted in the Muslim Holy month of Ramadan for some time. How did that happen?


Toba: Yes, you are very correct, sometime between 1994 and 1996, I was with an aunt married to a Muslim and the very close neighbour we had in the opposite flat was a Muslims with an extended family. I and my sibling were very close to this family, we spent time together often and then they would tell us things about Islam. Honestly, this family are a good example of tolerance in Islam with the way we were received and loved. My aunt’s husband who is also a Muslim did tell us about Islam. Hence, we chose to be part of it, whilst still attending our regular church services. We got orientated a bit about Islam, I was taught how to recite fatia (Suratul Fatiha), performing ablution, I used to wake up early during Ramadan and also got to mosque in the evening sometimes to pray.

That settles it. Toba is a Christian Jihadist. I knew there was something wrong with all this. Its just not normal.

Ok finally the dessert. Toba is attracted to Muslim girls. Not one, not two but more than three. (*wink*). Toba can you love all of them equally, as Islam commands you to ?

Me: You have created some sensation with your interest in Muslim girls on Nairaland.com, why is that so?
Toba: Its true, I have been on Nairaland for quite a while since 2006 and I have studied people’s characters online. I wouldn’t want to talk too much but I think the Muslim ladies on Nairaland are more cultured and reserved. [/b]Well it’s online character and maybe different from what’s obtainable in reality though. For now, [b]I think the Muslims are cool

Me: Are there any that have really caught your fancy over time?
Toba: Of course, more than three. There is even one I like so much amongst them. She has really impressed me with everything pertaining to her character online. I wouldn’t even mind giving up anything for her.


Me: Don't you think Christian girls may feel you are not serious about your religion?
Toba: Well I don’t care whatever anyone says.

And now, the mystery is solved. The epiphany !!!
You see I said that assuming we were to adopt Toba and Co's interpretation of the court judgement, it will only make everybody a multi religious person because everybody has a position on divinity. Even "neutral" as distinct from "non belief" is a position. With everybody being multi-religious atheism would not exist and Toba (as an Islamic Christian or Christian Jihadist) cannot have that.

Signing up for two religions I guess is Toba's way of increasing his chances of getting to heaven, for what shall it profit a man to enter the Islamic heaven and rot in the christian hell ?


On the other hand, maybe Toba is obsessed with atheism and needs it to be a religion so that he can also sign up. He has already signed up for Islam, and the religions that dont believe in the IPU, Santa Clause etc. The more the merrier. Isnt it Toba ?

We will have to disappoint you; atheism is not, and will never be a religion. I wont advice you to be an atheist either. That will reduce your chances of going to any kind of heaven because an atheist doesnt believe in God or Gods.

KAG:

It's been said many times, but atheism is about a religion as theism is. There are religious atheists as there are religious theists. However, neither is a religion and not all atheists nor theists are religious. Ignoring the context of the terms changes nothing and doesn't begin to add much to a discussion of gods and their seeming lack of existence.


Unfortunately, I have read of, and seen, a very small number of atheists handing out leaflets to that effect. I'll argue that it's a very small minority that will go the "Jehovah's Witness route", but it does happen. Not, I'm sure, in Nigeria, though, it would seem by your description.

Thank you KAG. You will understand however that people took offence to the term "evangelical atheist".
I do not have eyes everywhere, so I cannot say categorically that people do not hand out leaflets or go the "Jehovah's Witness Route". I am saying that that alone (if it is indeed true) does not reflect one bit on what atheism is.
In the same way that when a "man of God" does something scandalous, and you point him out, christians will be the first to say he is not a real christian.
In no place, did I boldy state that, no atheists handed out leaflets. I addressed the term "evangelical atheism" because of its religious connotations.
Then they tried to show that Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens and Co were "evangelical atheists". They got their authority from spurious sources and when shown that they were wrong, they still continued. Then they dug up a judgement that on reading, did nothing to support their case.
In anycase, I get it now, as I addressed with my previous post. Toba is a Christian Jihadist, a polytheist, and Enigma until I can prove he is not, is also one as well.

jayriginal:
. . . . In anycase, I get it now, as I addressed with my previous post. Toba is a Christian Jihadist, a polytheist, and Enigma until I can prove he is not, is also one as well.

Simply daft!

The fact remains that under the American Constitution, as held by the US Supreme Court and Court of Appeal, atheism IS a religion. Further, definitions of "religion" provided by evangelical atheists themselves show that evangelical atheism is indeed a religion.

jayriginal:

Thank you KAG. You will understand however that people took offence to the term "evangelical atheist".
I do not have eyes everywhere, so I cannot say categorically that people do not hand out leaflets or go the "Jehovah's Witness Route". I am saying that that alone (if it is indeed true) does not reflect one bit on what atheism is.
In the same way that when a "man of God" does something scandalous, and you point him out, christians will be the first to say he is not a real christian.

Fair enough. I don't necessarily agree with the classifications used in the OP, but wouldn't you say that, like theists, there are many shades of atheists? Amongst whom are some who are religious and seek to proselytize? I can appreciate the offence taken at the use of evangelical atheist, though.

I agree that shouldn't impact on what atheism is. What it should show is that Atheists are not a monolithic block. What defines atheism is not believing gods exist.

In no place, did I boldy state that, no atheists handed out leaflets. I addressed the term "evangelical atheism" because of its religious connotations.

I know, I know.

Then they tried to show that Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens and Co were "evangelical atheists". They got their authority from spurious sources and when shown that they were wrong, they still continued. Then they dug up a judgement that on reading, did nothing to support their case.
In anycase, I get it now, as I addressed with my previous post. Toba is a Christian Jihadist, a polytheist, and Enigma until I can prove he is not, is also one as well.

Yeah, this thread is getting weirder by the minute.

SMDH at Jayriginal.

How sure are u that what i said in the interview were facts?


U simply dont know me at allllll. lol.

If u are judging based on that, then something is wrong some where. My NL character cant be taking as my real world character. Hope u grab.

jayriginal:

Thank you KAG. You will understand however that people took offence to the term "evangelical atheist".
I do not have eyes everywhere, so I cannot say categorically that people do not hand out leaflets or go the "Jehovah's Witness Route". I am saying that that alone (if it is indeed true) does not reflect one bit on what atheism is.
In the same way that when a "man of God" does something scandalous, and you point him out, christians will be the first to say he is not a real christian.
In no place, did I boldy state that, no atheists handed out leaflets. I addressed the term "evangelical atheism" because of its religious connotations.
Then they tried to show that Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens and Co were "evangelical atheists". They got their authority from spurious sources and when shown that they were wrong, they still continued. Then they dug up a judgement that on reading, did nothing to support their case.
In anycase, I get it now, as I addressed with my previous post. Toba is a Christian Jihadist, a polytheist, and Enigma until I can prove he is not, is also one as well.

U are yet to prove to us that there are or theres nothing like evangelical atheism. Have u?

Dawkins and co the propagators of the new atheist/atheism movements are indeed evangelical atheists.

Pls see above. I quoted directly words that were credited to the evangelical atheist Dawkins that 'we indoctrinate religion and teach atheism' what does that mean to U

toba:

Pls see above. I quoted directly words that were credited to the evangelical atheist Dawkins that 'we indoctrinate religion and teach atheism' what does that mean to U

You quoted without a reference.

jayriginal:

You quoted without a reference.

Richard Dawkins: Evangelical atheist

Atheism’s most celebrated evangelist continues a glittering career in which he miraculously manages to do as much for belief in God as for disbelief. Following Richard Dawkins’ support for the bendy-bus “Enjoy your life” campaign, this year saw some of the money he helped to raise for that exercise go to follow‑up posters aimed at preventing the religious indoctrination of children. Meanwhile, the good professor endorsed atheist summer camps for children. So we indoctrinate religion, but teach atheism.


I loved this piece from the[b] Daily Telegraph’s Britons of the Year, 2009[/b] (25 notable Britons) which described Richard Dawkins as an evangelical (surely evangelistic) atheist. There’s a great, really withering comment at the end which I’ve highlighted:

http://transforminggrace./2010/01/05/dawkins-evangelical-atheist/

Toba, I salute your courage in once again providing the means of demolishing your position (as you and the other guy have been doing). I knew Dawkins could never have said that. Let us examine the evidence.
You said

toba:

Dawkins and co the propagators of the new atheist/atheism movements are indeed evangelical atheists.

Pls see above. I quoted directly words that were credited to the evangelical atheist Dawkins that 'we indoctrinate religion and teach atheism' what does that mean to U

and I asked for references.

Ok then.
Which do I assume ? That you didnt understand what was written or you made it up ?
This is how easy it is to demolish your propositions. You need to stop.

toba:


Richard Dawkins: Evangelical atheist

Atheism’s most celebrated evangelist continues a glittering career in which he miraculously manages to do as much for belief in God as for disbelief. Following Richard Dawkins’ support for the bendy-bus “Enjoy your life” campaign, this year saw some of the money he helped to raise for that exercise go to follow‑up posters aimed at preventing the religious indoctrination of children. Meanwhile, the good professor endorsed atheist summer camps for children. So we indoctrinate religion, but teach atheism.


I loved this piece from the[b] Daily Telegraph’s Britons of the Year, 2009[/b] (25 notable Britons) which described Richard Dawkins as an evangelical (surely evangelistic) atheist. There’s a great, really withering comment at the end which I’ve highlighted:

http://transforminggrace./2010/01/05/dawkins-evangelical-atheist/

Just like I suspected, you made this Poo up or didnt understand it. There is no place in your link where Dawkins made the above claim.
I would have pointed out several things wrong with that statement.
Indoctrinate has a meaning of its own (look it up)
Relgion too ^^.
We indoctrinate religion (the very thing atheists are against) and TEACH atheism. Can you not see what is wrong with that statement ? For one, it makes absolutely no sense. An atheist is a "use your head person". Indoctrination is "believe because I say so". I could give you definitions, but that guy taking comfort in your shadows will say, I "ran" to this or that.
I decided to hold back till you provided the reference (thank you) because when I talk, the other guy hiding behind you comes up with some foul words and B.S.
Now you have provided the reference, I wonder how you can read that as the words of Dawkins. Those were the words of the blogger. A religious person like you wrote those words and he didnt try to claim they came from Dawkins. He quoted Dawkins in some places and the quotes are clear. Your proof is merely the subjective conjecture of a mind clouded by religion. Dawkins never, ever uttered those words. Why the deception Toba ?

For anybody wanting to verify, I present the link as given by Toba.
http://transforminggrace./2010/01/05/dawkins-evangelical-atheist/


Enigma, I still havent been able to disprove that you are not a Christian Jihadist, so you are still one. While I was at it, I also wasnt able to disprove that you are an atheist , so you must be one too. Infact I do not believe you hold the r.e.t.ar.d.e.d beliefs you profess (because I cannot disprove them as well). I think you just do it to sarcastically expose the christian position. If I'm wrong, you are a sorry poster-boy.
However, there is more.
I finally tried to disprove that you do not exist. Enigma I am sorry to say that I was unsuccessful in this as well. By virtue of the logic of certain christians (names withheld) who insist that since the existence of God cannot be disproved, he must exist, I must now conclude that you do not exist . Never fear though, I recognize you as a non existing Christian Jihadist, who will probably make some vile post in response to this. In advance, may you prove your non existence.
You are truly an Enigma.
http://transforminggrace./2010/01/05/dawkins-evangelical-atheist/
Toba give it a rest. Go to flirting with your muslim chicks here
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-761201.352.html

The only kind of atheist I know, is a FOOLISH atheist, this is something they all have in common !!!   

The bible affirms my position.

jayriginal:
. . . . .

Enigma, I still havent been able to disprove that you are not a Christian Jihadist, so you are still one. While I was at it, I also wasnt able to disprove that you are an atheist , so you must be one too. Infact I do not believe you hold the r.e.t.ar.d.e.d beliefs you profess (because I cannot disprove them as well). I think you just do it to sarcastically expose the christian position. If I'm wrong, you are a sorry poster-boy.
However, there is more.
I finally tried to disprove that you do not exist. Enigma I am sorry to say that I was unsuccessful in this as well. By virtue of the logic of certain christians (names withheld) who insist that since the existence of God cannot be disproved, he must exist, I must now conclude that you do not exist . Never fear though, I recognize you as a non existing Christian Jihadist, who will probably make some vile post in response to this. In advance, may you prove your non existence.
You are truly an Enigma. . . .

^^ Actually, you are even more of a denser mumu than I thought. Anyway, I shouldn't be surprised ---- when a "lawyer" faced with a rather short (mere 13 page) judgment first goes to Wikipedia for assistance in interpreting the judgment!

Oh, by the way I am indeed an enigma even in real life.  

jayriginal:

Toba, I salute your courage in once again providing the means of demolishing your position (as you and the other guy have been doing). I knew Dawkins could never have said that. Let us examine the evidence.
You saidand I asked for references.

Ok then.
Which do I assume ? That you didnt understand what was written or you made it up ?


This is how easy it is to demolish your propositions. You need to stop.

u are


Just like I suspected, you made this Poo up or didnt understand it.  There is no place in your link where Dawkins made the above claim.
I would have pointed out several things wrong with that statement.

[/quote] just confirming my earlier stance about u that u hate to read. go and read the post from the link very well and return here for me to educate u more on how the statement can be credited to him. hope u knew it was an event that was being reported in that link. there are other sources in that same link which u need to read and get proper understanding of what the evangelical atheist Dawkin was talking about. [quote]
Indoctrinate has a meaning of its own (look it up)

what is the meaning of indoctrinate?

Relgion too ^^.

can u please define religion?

We indoctrinate religion (the very thing atheists are against) and TEACH atheism. Can you not see what is wrong with that statement ? For one, it makes absolutely no sense. An atheist is a "use your head person". Indoctrination is "believe because I say so". I could give you definitions, but that guy taking comfort in your shadows will say, I "ran" to this or that.

smdh. do u believe in science? do u believe that the universe is more than 6000 years old? also once u define those two words i asked for above, i will come back to spoon feed u on how it adds up and makes complete sense what your evangelical atheist was trying to tell us.

I decided to hold back till you provided the reference (thank you) because when I talk, the other guy hiding behind you comes up with some foul words and B.S.

of course i also had anticipated this kind of response from u cos of what u ve showed us on this thread about your logic. hope u read how your fellow atheist broke down your post into sections and taught u some new things

Now you have provided the reference, I wonder how you can read that as the words of Dawkins. Those were the words of the blogger. A religious person like you wrote those words and he didnt try to claim they came from Dawkins. He quoted Dawkins in some places and the quotes are clear. Your proof is merely the subjective conjecture of a mind clouded by religion. Dawkins never, ever uttered those words. Why the

well read my submissions above. i actually paused knowing that u ve got nothing more to say in defence of your incredible position. now that i know u dont want to give up on those beliefs, ive got no choice than to return here to start all over again with u. u still havent defined beliefs, dogma and evangelism. im gonna have to bring them out for u again

Toba give it a rest. Go to flirting with your muslim chicks here
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-761201.352.html

is this supposed to be funny or what? im just proving to u my earlier statement that nl personality cant be equated to my real personality. u trying to post BS as one funny and nasty joke is ridiculous. i paused hoping u have gotten the gist but since u havent, i would be be back to still further educate u on this subject. u still havent proven to us that theres nothing like evangalical atheism/atheists

Enigma let the poor lawyer be cos he doesnt seem to realize that hes pushing his case in a very pathetic way.

its a pity my toba ID got knocked by the spam bot hence im confined to using this handle to respond. BRb to educate our barrister in da house

Don't worry toba; actually I had hoped he would push the legal angle in which case I might have been able to explain to him how to read a judgment properly and maybe one or two other things. I guess, he realised he was bound to fail in that angle is why he resorted to "other tactics".

By the way, I really want to say thank you for bringing up that judgment; well done again!

that was why i said ur response was well articulated. i had nothing to add to it. u clearly defeated him flawless.

back to topic

jay kindly define beliefs for us to show us that atheists arent believers


kindly define evangelism to us to show us that we dont have evangelical atheists


thanks mukina or seun for releasing my ID

Enigma:

1)^^ Actually, you are even more of a denser mumu than I thought.
2) Anyway, I shouldn't be surprised ---- when a "lawyer" faced with a rather short (mere 13 page) judgment first goes to Wikipedia for assistance in interpreting the judgment!

3) Oh, by the way I am indeed an enigma even in real life.  

1) Im not surprised at this. The depths a christian jihadist will sink to.
2) Facts are in no way invalidated by opinion (especially when the holder of the opinion doesnt exist). As a tribute to your non existence, you couldnt read the judgement and couldnt understand when I kindly annotated it for you. You should say thank you (where are your manners?)
3) Most definitely. You are non existent (by your logic) yet you manage to come online and post intellectual garbage. How can you not be an enigma ?

jesus.:

Enigma let the poor lawyer be cos he doesnt seem to realize that hes pushing his case in a very pathetic way.

its a pity my toba ID got knocked by the spam bot hence im confined to using this handle to respond. BRb to educate our barrister in da house

I'm sorry to hear about your ID Toba (if you are him). Could it be because of the flirting with the muslim chicks ? What did you type ?
I still find it hard to believe that you and the other guy (who doesnt exist) keep coming back for more.

go and read the post from the link very well and return here for me to educate u more on how the statement can be credited to him.

I'm sorry, I thought you said or implied that Dawkins made those statements. I read the link and I saw nothing of the sort.

smdh. do u believe in science? do u believe that the universe is more than 6000 years old? also once u define those two words i asked for above, i will come back to spoon feed u on how it adds up and makes complete sense what your evangelical atheist was trying to tell us.

Actually no. I do not "believe" in science. I simply trust it better than your book of fables. Science did not make me an atheist. Science simply provides more plausible alternatives to a primitive man made compilation.

of course i also had anticipated this kind of response from u cos of what u ve showed us on this thread about your logic. hope u read how your fello atheist broke than your post into sections and taught u some new things

There you go again. Was there any discrepancy between me and KAG? And can you please stop talking about logic ? Its akin to blasphemy coming from you.

can u please define

Gladly I would have. That non entity hiding behind you will pick it up and use it to harm common sense.
Why dont you do so. Im back to my original approach and I indicated the meaning of indoctrination to you.
Try and knock it down if you can.

Hope you get your ID back. I hope you didnt intentionally change it because I exposed your secret as a Christian Jihadist.

jayriginal:

1) Im not surprised at this. The depths a christian jihadist will sink to.
2) Facts are in no way invalidated by opinion (especially when the holder of the opinion doesnt exist). As a tribute to your non existence, you couldnt read the judgement and couldnt understand when I kindly annotated it for you. You should say thank you (where are your manners?)
3) Most definitely. You are non existent (by your logic) yet you manage to come online and post intellectual garbage. How can you not be an enigma ? . . . . .

You call yourself a "lawyer" and you could not properly identify what the claim was in a civil law suit --- one of the most elementary things. Then you go on an exercise in spin with the assistance of Wikipedia and Dillahunty et al! Pitiful!

^^^ Oh look. Toba got his ID back (if it wasnt a stunt in the first place).

toba:

1) that was why i said your response was well articulated. i had nothing to add to it. u clearly defeated him flawless.


2) Jay kindly define beliefs for us to show us that atheists arent believers

1) Kindly bring back the Dodo while you are at it.

2) I think we both know what it is. In addition, you provided a definition either on page 1 or 2.

Now I need you to explain how a non belief is a belief.

Please take your time

Enigma:

You call yourself a "lawyer" and you could not properly identify what the claim was in a civil law suit --- one of the most elementary things. Then you go on an exercise in spin with the assistance of Wikipedia and Dillahunty et al! Pitiful!

You are a funny little chap. Get behind me Satan.

toba:


Richard Dawkins: Evangelical atheist

I loved this piece from the[b] Daily Telegraph’s Britons of the Year, 2009[/b] (25 notable Britons) which described Richard Dawkins as an evangelical (surely evangelistic) atheist. There’s a great, really withering comment at the end which I’ve highlighted:

http://transforminggrace./2010/01/05/dawkins-evangelical-atheist/

and below is the "great, really withering comment at the end" which Toba wants us to believe came from Dawkins when a glance at the page he gave shows us that Dawkins made no such statement. Infact, the clause "a great, really withering comment" shows exactly what it is. A comment from a Dawkins antagonist.

toba:


Atheism’s most celebrated evangelist continues a glittering career in which he miraculously manages to do as much for belief in God as for disbelief. Following Richard Dawkins’ support for the bendy-bus “Enjoy your life” campaign, this year saw some of the money he helped to raise for that exercise go to follow‑up posters aimed at preventing the religious indoctrination of children. Meanwhile, the good professor endorsed atheist summer camps for children. So we indoctrinate religion, but teach atheism.




http://transforminggrace./2010/01/05/dawkins-evangelical-atheist/

The lengths some people will go is astonishing.

KAG:

Unfortunately, I have read of, and seen, a very small number of atheists handing out leaflets to that effect. I'll argue that it's a very small minority that will go the "Jehovah's Witness route", but it does happen. Not, I'm sure, in Nigeria, though, it would seem by your description.

I have lived most of my life in london and have never ever come across an athiest giving out leaflets or knocking on doors like Jehovahs Witnesses.

manmustwac:

I have lived most of my life in london and have never ever come across an athiest giving out leaflets or knocking on doors like Jehovahs Witnesses.

dont forget that KAG also lives in london. I dont live in london but my travels to those part of the world for whatever reason(s) has made me seen many side of the evangelical atheists. U can check out the large bill bills boards in town and numerous other campaign leaflets like do away with Religion and all other stuff. The funny thing is that, these believers that we shd do away with religion are as convinced about propagating this belief as the theist does.

Like i do say, that u havent herad of or seen it, doesnt make a fact that theres nothing like it. f u would insist that theres nothing like, then u need to provide strong evidence in support of ur claim

The thing i see thats left of u after being confronted with the truth is just to act drama and then crack jokes. u have lacked objectivity thus far, with no attempt at backing up some of ur frivolous assertions on this same thread thus far. what does that tells about u that prefers to run to wiki in oder to have a 'weighty' back up?

jayriginal:

^^^ Oh look. Toba got his ID back (if it wasnt a stunt in the first place).

this is ridiculous and can further confirm my stance that u are a joker and an un serious comedian. do u have any proof to back up ur assumption on the condition that my handle being banned was a staunt? if u cant prove that, then i wonder what other logic u are willing to show us on this thread after abusing logic on 3 pages of this thread thus far. i await ur evidence to ur staunt statement

1) Kindly bring back the Dodo while you are at it.

this is even more pathetic than i thought. u can continue to live in denial. its obvious that the 3 words i have been telling to define since best describes in, hence u are scared of exposing ur folly. I am expressly saying to u that u have a belief. kindly prove that im wrong by defining belief. I am also confidently saying to u that u are indeed evangelizing on nairaland and this makes u an evangelical atheist. u are free to disprove my assertion. all u need do is to consult wiki as usual and lift the deinition of evangelism and we both analyze it. Thirdly i put it to u that u are indoctrinated. simple, give me the definition and i will show u ur indoctrination.

2) I think we both know what it is.

pls dont think we both know it. u are certain to some level that i do but same cant be said of u cos u have been shying away from admitting where u belong in the definition.

In addition, you provided a definition either on page 1 or 2.

now u are coming up gradually. where do u fall judging by what can be deduced from the definition? pls dont lie cos u have lacked objectivity thus far and i hope u wouldnt this time.

Now I need you to explain how a non belief is a belief.

this is pathetic and i see it as the usual atheist opt out when discussion is becoming too hot to handle. U have said it that u believe certainly that the christian God is a non entity isnt it? yet u also claim not to have a belief in any God right. marry the two statements of yours together, therein lies ur answer. of course u can still pretend that u dont get the message. if u do that, it would further confirm whats known of u that u have a very poor deductive reasoning. Remember, we are speaking/using English lang as a medium of communication. for someone who claims to be logical, i hope ur logic wouldnt fail u in marrying what i have said above.

Please take your time

oh no stop being childish. what time length do u think i need to respond to farce? U are a joker and a comedian. tanks for the entertainment anyway. im still around to help u out sha.

You are a funny little chap. Get behind me Satan.

This is patheic. The guy exposed u and is this the best u can come up with? smdh