Purist: ^^^ I wouldn't exactly say that anything was "thrashed out". It's not like a consensus was ever reached.

^^^ But you at least know of the debates well enough than to misrepresent me as you did.

Enigma:

^^^ But you at least know of the debates well enough than to misrepresent me as you did.

Did I? I believe my response was in line with your comments on this particular thread alone, especially as you appeared to seek validation from an atheist's personal opinion.

^^^ Wait and follow what happens after the response of the person to whom I directed my post (or of any intellectually honest person) and you might learn something.

Deep Sight:
I sit right now at the service for House on the Rock at Eko Hotel.

Please do not ask me what i am doing here. Its just business, nothing personal.

Pastor Paul Adefarasin is howling his lungs out. Whoever said this fella doesn't work hard for his money.

It has always intrigued me that the faithful do not readily see what a sham religion, and particularly the commercial brand of christianity, has become - particularly in Nigeria. It has always amazed me that simple logic will not faze the faithful. Now i am having a slight peak into the fact that the sheep are actually armed against logic by these 'Men of God'...

Here are some of the sound bites that the Pastor has REPEATEDLY drummed into the faithful today -

"Be prepared for the persecution of criticism and contrary opinions"

"Don't listen to the spritit of thosse who will criticize your faith and belief, dont listen to those opinions about our beliefs"

"Every body is entitled to their opinion. You are also entitled not to listen to their opinions"...

I am still here. Now i can see what goes thru the mind of the faithful when faced with logical arguments from atheists or other 'non-believers'... They are well coached to reject logic... The booming voice of the Pastor's encouragement must ring in their souls..."we are not to yield to the persecution of criticism... We should not listen to those opinions...we are entitled not to listen to their critical views....

Amen...

Any pastor that that preaches believers should avoid critics or not lsiten to them is not sure of his own beliefs neither does he understand his mandate as a christian. Personally as a christian i have subjected my faith and the christian belief sytem to deep scrutiny and at the end of the day my faith was re- enforced because i came to the conclusions that the teachings of christ could only be of divine origin and not human. Whilst my submission here is not about my personal faith. i make bold to say that no true christian can be swayed by critics, infact if he understand his faith very well he might just end up making the critic a believer as the message of the gospel has the power to pierce any soul.

I would be the first to admit that a lot of thrash is preached in churches these days in the name of the gospel. Maybe it is these thrash preachers want believers to believe at all cost. Forinstance CEC members are made to believe Oyaks performs miracles even when it is obvious to the whole world he is a fraudulent charlatan. They are routinely brainwashed against those that criticise the sham. I once even read a teaching of Adeboye were he said believers should not listen to theologians whhen it comes to the issue of tithes as it is the devil that is using the theologians to rob them of the "benefits of tithes". What these preachers are afraid of being criticised is the false doctrines they teach and not the true gospel of christ which was designed to make the world a much better place for all to live in. If these preachers stick to the true gospel, then they shouldn't be afraid of being criticised.

Pastor Kun:

i came to the conclusions that the teachings of christ could only be of divine origin and not human. Whilst my submission here is not about my personal faith.

What is so profound about anything attributed to jesus that can't be found to have been said by any other person in a better way? People say things everyday that are better than anything jesus is aid to have uttered.
What constitutes a "divine" statement and what makes others "human".

musKeeto:
Hmmm... hypocrite.. the questionable ones are those whose services draw less attendance and have clearly fraudulent names like Sign Fireman.. but Oyeds and Oyaks and Adebs are not cos a lot of engineers, scientists, politicians attend their services...

Bullshiitt...

you are the hypocrite here, i do not know what you mean by separating the names above. they are all subjectable to questioning if they do anything questionable.

Martian:

What is so profound about anything attributed to jesus that can't be found to have been said by any other person in a better way? People say things everyday that are better than anything jesus is aid to have uttered.
What constitutes a "divine" statement and what makes others "human".

Bros you need to go and study the teachings of Jesus in the gospels in it's proper context and compare it to normal human thinking which is motivated by Self, greed and ego and you might begin to get an inkling as to what i am driving at. Asides i am not really disposed to arguing with atheists as my experience with them is thata good number of them choose to be deliberately ignorant even in the face of oqerwhelming evidence or even logical reasoning which they claim to use. However if you want to have civil discussion i might be oblidge to indulge you.

Martian: In my opinion,if things are to get better, they have to start seeing things in a variation of ways similar to this.

This-worldliness Nietzsche introduces the concept of the Übermensch in contrast to the other-worldliness of Christianity: Zarathustra proclaims the Übermensch to be the meaning of the earth and[b] admonishes his audience to ignore those who promise other-worldly hopes in order to draw them away from the earth. The turn away from the earth is prompted, he says, by a dissatisfaction with life, a dissatisfaction that causes one to create another world in which those who made one unhappy in this life are tormented.[/b] The Übermensch is not driven into other worlds away from this one.

Zarathustra declares that the Christian escape from this world also required the invention of an eternal soul which would be separate from the body and survive the body's death. Part of other-worldliness, then, was the abnegation and mortification of the body, or asceticism. Zarathustra further links the Übermensch to the body and to interpreting the soul as simply an aspect of the body

'God is dead' means that the idea of God can no longer provide values. With the sole source of values no longer capable of providing those values, there is a real chance of nihilism prevailing.

Zarathustra presents the[b] Übermensch as the creator of new values.[/b] In this way, it appears as a solution to the problem of the death of God and nihilism. (and this nihilism can be found in a corrupt society where people try to find meaning to life by runnning to the most corrupt of people)

the creation of these new values cannot be motivated by the same instincts that gave birth to those tables of values. Instead, they must be motivated by a love of this world and of life.

Christian/Islamic value system rife in Nigeria **edit** as a reaction against life and hence destructive in a sense, the new values which the Übermensch will be responsible for will be life-affirming and creative.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%9Cbermensch

In short, Nigerians need to stop striving for the "afterlife" and concentrate more on ideas for this life. The real one. Maybe I'm just crazy.

I think you are really crazy with ur copy and paste argument. The fact that u dnt believ in the supernatural or cosmic force does not mean it doesnt exist or not operation. Even ordinary dreams pple had while sleepin do hav cosmic effect. Man is a spiri being being house by the body. Man must always thrive to satify spiritual thirst by any means, either thru xtainity, islam, judaism or any other religion. And ur crazy argument cannot alter dat.

true2god: I think you are really crazy with ur copy and paste argument.

That wasn't a copy and paste argument, I said it is an idea I like and I provided the link that partly explains what I like about it. I am the Ubermensch lol and I am crazy!

true2god: The fact that u dnt believ in the supernatural or cosmic force does not mean it doesnt exist or not operation.

If you say so

true2god: Man is a spirit being being house by the body.

And unicorns taste like chicken.

true2god: Man must always thrive to satify spiritual thirst by any means, either thru xtainity, islam, judaism or any other religion.

I'll make the above jargon make sense for you. Here we go....

In a bid to find purpose in life and help salve their existential fears, some people subscribe to religious faith which gives them hope in a world that can seem meaningless. Most take up the faith prevalent in their cultures and are conditioned over time not to question tradition or doubt the existence of the concept that gives them meaning and hope.

true2god: And ur crazy argument cannot alter dat.

calling me crazy is the greatest compliment you can give me. Thanks. I am crazy because I said I like an idea that emphasizes the importance of this objective reality which we all perceive and can strive to make better individually while abrogating the mystics who teach you to yearn for the supernatural.

true2god: Even ordinary dreams pple had while sleepin do hav cosmic effect.

I think you're craaaaaaaaaaaaaaaazyyyyyyyyyy
I think you're craaaaaaaaaaaaaaazzzzzzzzzzzy
I think you're craaaaaaaaaaaaaaazzzzzzzzyyyyy

Posssssibbllllyyyyyyy!!!

Enigma: @Kay 17

Please answer the question that I am posing below.

First consider the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution which says:

You will be aware that many people treat that provision as amounting to "separation of Church and State"; in fact you may be aware of the following thread in which this very issue was addressed extensively: https://www.nairaland.com/934799/reasons-why-obama-not-christian/11#10969297


My question is this: would you say that "atheism" is one of the "religions" that the American State is supposed to be separate from under that 1st Amendment provision (or if you like under the concept of "separation of Church and State" )?

I don't think atheism is a religion in the first place.

Kay 17:

I don't think atheism is a religion in the first place.

OK, would you then say that the American government is entitled to discriminate against "atheism"?

Ppl's thought and conscience is protected.

OK here is a scenario:

In an American prison, Christian prisoners, Moslem prisoners, Rastafarian prisoners, Kabbalah prisoners are all allowed to form groups based on their respective faiths/religions; however, atheist prisoners are not allowed to form groups based on atheism.

Would you call this discrimination and why (or why not)?

Another scenario: in the American military, Christian soldiers can have Christian chaplains, Moslem soldiers can have Moslem chaplains; but atheist soldiers are not allowed to have atheist chaplains.


Would you call this discrimination and why (or why not)?

Enigma: OK here is a scenario:

In an American prison, Christian prisoners, Moslem prisoners, Rastafarian prisoners, Kabbalah prisoners are all allowed to form groups based on their respective faiths/religions; however, atheist prisoners are not allowed to form groups based on atheism.

Would you call this discrimination and why (or why not)?

Another scenario: in the American military, Christian soldiers can have Christian chaplains, Moslem soldiers can have Moslem chaplains; but atheist soldiers are not allowed to have atheist chaplains.


Would you call this discrimination and why (or why not)?

Thoughts groups?! Why not! Atheists shouldn't be discouraged from congregating. If ppl feel they have a common interest or belief, why deprive them of free association?!

Kay 17:

Thoughts groups?! Why not! Atheists shouldn't be discouraged from congregating. If ppl feel they have a common interest or belief, why deprive them of free association?!

Interesting! Except of course that atheists and atheist organisations have not seen the formation of groups in these scenarios as "thought groups"; rather, atheists and atheist groups have argued that what they wish to set up is a religious group!

In reverse: there has been a campaign (still ongoing) to have atheist chaplains for atheists and "secular humanists" in the US military.

The prison scenario is even more clear cut. An atheist supported by atheist groups argued that atheism is a religion and in the prison setting should be accorded the same rights accorded to other religions. See? So it wasn't people like Enigma claiming that (evangelical) atheism is a religion; rather it was evangelical atheists themselves arguing that atheism should be recognised as a religion under the American Constitution and specifically the 1st Amendment provision that I set out for you above. Guess what? The American Supreme Court agreed with the atheists that atheism is indeed a religion and is covered by the provisions of the 1st Amendment as with any other religion.

I have previously summarised the American Supreme Court decision https://www.nairaland.com/546562/atheism-religion/11#9248666 and https://www.nairaland.com/765094/heard-there-different-kinds-atheism/3#9249236

1. Kaufman the atheist claims that atheism is a religion
Court's decision: YES, we agree that atheism IS a religion even though it does not involve belief in a Supreme Being . . .

2. I Kaufman (the atheist) am being prevented from practising my religion of atheism because I am not allowed to form a group for atheists
Court's decision: NO, you are NOT being prevented from practising your religion of atheism since you can practise your religion alone and without forming a group. . . .

3. All religions are supposed to be treated equally but other religions whose followers are allowed to form groups are being treated better than my religion of atheism because there is no greater danger than in their case if I too am allowed to form a group.
Court's Decision: YES, Kaufman's religion of atheism is being discriminated against because if others are allowed to form groups and his own group will not pose any greater risk or danger then he should be given the same right. . . .

EDIT: Important Note: if Kaufman had not won the major claim 1 i.e. that atheism is a religion, then none of his other claims especially claim 3 had any hope. This is why this case is known for deciding that atheism is a religion.

So the decision says: (a) atheism IS a religion and (b) atheism should not be treated worse than any other religion. However, it is possible to practise the atheism religion on your own without forming a group.

So you see, it is chicanery to claim that evangelical atheism is not a religion.

I smell cowardice Pastor Kun

Pastor Kun:

Bros you need to go and study the teachings of Jesus in the gospels in it's proper context and compare it to normal human thinking which is motivated by Self, greed and ego and you might begin to get an inkling as to what i am driving at. Asides i am not really disposed to arguing with atheists as my experience with them is thata good number of them choose to be deliberately ignorant even in the face of oqerwhelming evidence or even logical reasoning which they claim to use. However if you want to have civil discussion i might be oblidge to indulge you.

Enigma:

Interesting! Except of course that atheists and atheist organisations have not seen the formation of groups in these scenarios as "thought groups"; rather, atheists and atheist groups have argued that what they wish to set up is a religious group!

In reverse: there has been a campaign (still ongoing) to have atheist chaplains for atheists and "secular humanists" in the US military.

The prison scenario is even more clear cut. An atheist supported by atheist groups argued that atheism is a religion and in the prison setting should be accorded the same rights accorded to other religions. See? So it wasn't people like Enigma claiming that (evangelical) atheism is a religion; rather it was evangelical atheists themselves arguing that atheism should be recognised as a religion under the American Constitution and specifically the 1st Amendment provision that I set out for you above. Guess what? The American Supreme Court agreed with the atheists that atheism is indeed a religion and is covered by the provisions of the 1st Amendment as with any other religion.

I have previously summarised the American Supreme Court decision https://www.nairaland.com/546562/atheism-religion/11#9248666 and https://www.nairaland.com/765094/heard-there-different-kinds-atheism/3#9249236



So you see, it is chicanery to claim that evangelical atheism is not a religion.

I went through your link and LMAO! I went through the case report and its not a Supreme Court case, however the Court submitted:

"We address his claim under the Free Exercise Clause first. An inmate retains the right to exercise his religious beliefs in prison. Tarpley v. Allen County, 312 F.3d 895, 898 (7th Cir.2002). The problem here was that the prison officials did not treat atheism as a "religion," perhaps in keeping with Kaufman's own insistence that it is the antithesis of religion. But whether atheism is a "religion" for First Amendment purposes is a somewhat different question than whether its adherents believe in a supreme being, or attend regular devotional services, or have a sacred Scripture. The Supreme Court has said that a religion, for purposes of the First Amendment, is distinct from a "way of life," even if that way of life is inspired by philosophical beliefs or other secular concerns. See Wisconsin v. Yoder"

The Court by following a judicial precedent, are not submitting a philosophical view/opinion on whether or atheism is actually a religion with the incidents, but rather expresses and awards atheism as a religion for purpose of the First Amendment. Therefore atheism is that system of thoughts that equally deserves protection. McCreary County, Ky. v. American Civil Liberties Union of Ky.

Other States like Nigeria have such ideals, but place religion as we know it under thoughts and conscience.

I also noted certain attributes for religion listed like narratives and co. In the dictionary definition of atheism, WHERE does Darwinism inevitably fit itself??

Kay 17: I went through your link and LMAO! I went through the case report and its not a Supreme Court case . .

Kaufman v McCaughtry itself is a decision of the US Court of Appeal (7th Circuit) as noted on the other thread and in the link; however, as I said and as noted in the case, the Supreme Court has also stated that atheism is a religion. In fact even you acknowledged this (maybe without realising it ) by saying Kaufman v McCaughtry was following "judicial precedent". In Kaufman v McCaughtry, the Court of Appeal said: "The Supreme Court has recognized atheism as equivalent to a “religion” for purposes of the First Amendment on numerous occasions . . . "

One example is Torcaso v Wilson where the Supreme Court said that there are "religions based on a belief in the existence of God [and] religions founded on different beliefs”; the court then said further that religions which do not teach a belief in the existence of God include Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism and others." "Secular Humanism and others" includes atheism under the eiusdem generis rule and in any event "secular humanism" is basically atheism anyway.

Kay 17: . . . however the Court submitted:

"We address his claim under the Free Exercise Clause first. An inmate retains the right to exercise his religious beliefs in prison. Tarpley v. Allen County, 312 F.3d 895, 898 (7th Cir.2002). The problem here was that the prison officials did not treat atheism as a "religion," perhaps in keeping with Kaufman's own insistence that it is the antithesis of religion. But whether atheism is a "religion" for First Amendment purposes is a somewhat different question than whether its adherents believe in a supreme being, or attend regular devotional services, or have a sacred Scripture. The Supreme Court has said that a religion, for purposes of the First Amendment, is distinct from a "way of life," even if that way of life is inspired by philosophical beliefs or other secular concerns. See Wisconsin v. Yoder"

The Court by following a judicial precedent, are not submitting a philosophical view/opinion on whether or atheism is actually a religion with the incidents, but rather expresses and awards atheism as a religion for purpose of the First Amendment. Therefore atheism is that system of thoughts that equally deserves protection. McCreary County, Ky. v. American Civil Liberties Union of Ky.

Firstly, this makes me laugh because I know it is following the line suggested by evangelical atheists' thought formers and clergy like Dillahunty etc.

It is wrong to say that the courts are not "submitting a philosophical view/opinion on whether or (sic) atheism is actually a religion . . ." because the courts were doing that and so acknowledged even in the Kaufman case saying only that they were "not venturing too far" into the philosophical; for example the court said:

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) . . . .

Now, as expected, you too harp about "for First Amendment purposes" (as recommended by evangelical atheists' clergy like Dillahunty ) but of course the argument is a fraudulent argument or at least bereft of merit and truth. This again is what the First Amendment says (as relevant): "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ."

What your "for first amendment purposes" argument means when expressed properly and truthfully is that: atheism is as much a religion as any other religion under the American Constitution and in particular the First Amendment and this has been confirmed by both the American Supreme Court and Court of Appeal.

So you see,those recommending the "for First Amendment purposes" line are simply trying to hoodwink the uninformed or misinformed.

What is more, you see that it is not just people like Uyi (or Enigma) "turning logic on its head".

As I keep saying evangelical atheists are simply too ashamed to acknowledge that what they are doing is now basically practising a religion i.e. that they too are "religionists" and in fact some of them are fundamentalist religionists.

Of course there are the more duplicitous ones, in America especially but also elsewhere, who want to eat their cake and have it; when it suits them they argue that atheism is not a religion so that atheism can be taught and practised where other religions are prohibited; on the other hand when it suits them the other way, the duplicitous atheists argue that atheism is a religion so that they can enjoy benefits and protections given to other religions.

The powers and concern of the courts does not extend pass what the Law and the makers intend. The courts simply interpret not add volumes to academic exercises or philosophical discourses.

The Court clearly said their judgment has no philosophical value, but to put effect to what the draftsman intended to protect.

Therefore acknowledging thought/conscience is equally as preciously guarded as traditional religions.

Your subsquent conclusions are therefore faulty.

Your own quotes:

Kaufman v McCaughtry, the Court of Appeal said: "The Supreme Court has recognized atheism as equivalent to a “religion” for purposes of the First Amendment on numerous occasion

One example is Torcaso v Wilson where the Supreme Court said that there are "religions based on a belief in the existence of God [and] religions founded on different beliefs

Kay 17: The powers and concern of the courts does not extend pass what the Law and the makers intend. The courts simply interpret not add volumes to academic exercises or philosophical discourses.

You are therefore saying that the lawmakers intended atheism to be a religion.

Kay 17: The Court clearly said their judgment has no philosophical value, but to put effect to what the draftsman intended to protect.

Please point us to where in the judgment(s) the court said the judgment(s) had no philosophical value.

Kay 17: Therefore acknowledging thought/conscience is equally as preciously guarded as traditional religions.

The distinction that the courts have been drawing is between religions; between religions involving a belief in God on one hand and religions (including atheism) not involving a belief in God.

Kay 17: Your subsquent conclusions are therefore faulty.

You are talking nonsense here of course; or in technical parlance, utter bollocks! I need say no more.

Kay 17: Your own quotes: . . . . .

And another of my quotes:

What your "for first amendment purposes" argument means when expressed properly and truthfully is that: atheism is as much a religion as any other religion under the American Constitution and in particular the First Amendment and this has been confirmed by both the American Supreme Court and Court of Appeal.

Enigma:

You are therefore saying that the lawmakers intended atheism to be a religion.

To be protected and acknowledged as special as traditional religions.

Please point us to where in the judgment(s) the court said the judgment(s) had no philosophical value.

"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"

The distinction that the courts have been drawing is between religions; between religions involving a belief in God on one hand and religions (including atheism) not involving a belief in God

You are failing to take into consideration, that the SC has earlier defined Religion but qualified to the Ist Amendment. In accordance with such definition which broadly embraces all thoughts. Saying a belief without a mention of God is preposterous, but understanding the Court's rationale, its valid.

""What your "for first amendment purposes" argument means when expressed properly and truthfully is that: atheism is as much a religion as any other religion under the American Constitution and in particular the First Amendment and this has been confirmed by both the American Supreme Court and Court of Appeal.""

What is the use of saying religion = religion?! With no clarification?!

Kay 17: To be protected and acknowledged as special as traditional religions.

Nope, try again! Again, what the Constitution says is that: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ."

Atheism can only be protected etc under that provision if it is recognised as a religion. Simples.

Kay 17: "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"

You see now that you shot yourself in the foot. That is so not saying that the judgment(s) "had no philosophical value"!

Kay 17: You are failing to take into consideration, that the SC has earlier defined Religion but qualified to the Ist Amendment. In accordance with such definition which broadly embraces all thoughts. Saying a belief without a mention of God is preposterous, but understanding the Court's rationale, its valid.

Wrong!!!

1. I have clearly set out what both the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal said. I can even go beyond what is on this thread if you like --- as I did previously on the other two threads I linked.

2. The Supreme Court definition of "religion" does not "embrace all thoughts"!

3. The 1st Amendment says religion is to be protected; you can only bring atheism under that protection if you agree that atheism is a religion. Kaufman (the atheist NOTE) argued that atheism is a religion; evangelical atheist groups argued that atheism is a religion; the Court of Appeal agreed that atheism is a religion; the Supreme Court agreed that atheism is a religion.

Of course in view of such consensus, it is no surprise they say atheism is protected under the 1st Amendment ---- since atheism is a religion as with every other religion which are also protected under the 1st Amendment.

Kay 17: ""What your "for first amendment purposes" argument means when expressed properly and truthfully is that: atheism is as much a religion as any other religion under the American Constitution and in particular the First Amendment and this has been confirmed by both the American Supreme Court and Court of Appeal.""

What is the use of saying religion = religion?! With no clarification?!

Why do you people say these things?

OK here goes:

--- Atheism is a religion
--- Scientology is a religion
--- Kabbalah is a religion

So which of those is saying "religion = religion"?

Enigma:

Nope, try again! Again, what the Constitution says is that: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ."

The defintion of religion is not to be sought from a dictionary or encyclopedia, the preserve of the Court. The SC did define religion as regards only the first amendment, applying such a definition in other areas of law will be counterproductive not to speak of an academic discourse.

Atheism can only be protected etc under that provision if it is recognised as a religion. Simples.

Coupled with the ideals of a democratic and free society, it is generally considered a human rights beliefs grounded in conscience and conviction. Universal declarations of Human Rights buttress and are continuation of such ideals. Given that, Religion is broaden to give effect to the aforementioned ideals.

You see now that you shot yourself in the foot. That is so not saying that the judgment(s) "had no philosophical value"!

Really?! Why?

Wrong!!!

1. I have clearly set out what both the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal said. I can even go beyond what is on this thread if you like --- as I did previously on the other two threads I linked.

2. The Supreme Court definition of "religion" does not "embrace all thoughts"!

3. The 1st Amendment says religion is to be protected; you can only bring atheism under that protection if you agree that atheism is a religion. Kaufman (the atheist NOTE) argued that atheism is a religion; evangelical atheist groups argued that atheism is a religion; the Court of Appeal agreed that atheism is a religion; the Supreme Court agreed that atheism is a religion.

Of course in view of such consensus, it is no surprise they say atheism is protected under the 1st Amendment ---- since atheism is a religion as with every other religion which are also protected under the 1st Amendment.

Religion with an entirely different meaning. What does has the SC denied under 1st Amendment??

Kay 17: The defintion of religion is not to be sought from a dictionary or encyclopedia, the preserve of the Court.

So are you saying it is only (or it is not) for the court to define religion? You seem to be contradicting yourself because you said earlier that the Supreme Court had a duty to interprete the 1st Amendment which of course includes the word "religion".

In any event, to be clear, please tell us where and how we should derive the meaning of the word "religion".

Kay 17: The SC did define religion as regards only the first amendment, applying such a definition in other areas of law will be counterproductive not to speak of an academic discourse.

Oh you say this because you do not understand. Any other law in the United States that contradicts the 1st Amendment, as interpreted, that atheism is a religion, is invalid. So the provision and the courts' decisions that atheism is a religion affect the entire legal system.

Kay 17: Coupled with the ideals of a democratic and free society, it is generally considered a human rights beliefs grounded in conscience and conviction. Universal declarations of Human Rights buttress and are continuation of such ideals. Given that, Religion is broaden to give effect to the aforementioned ideals.

This is obfuscation! We are dealing with something specific; a specific constitutional provision concerning religion! If atheism wants to be protected as an expression of human rights but not a religion, this could have been done. It could have presented its case under e.g. freedom of speech and freedom of expression provisions for example among others.

Rather we have atheists arguing that atheism is a religion! So let's stop the deceiving.

Kay 17: Really?! Why?

Where did what you quoted say or even suggest that the judgments had no philosophical value?

Kay 17: Religion with an entirely different meaning. What does has the SC denied under 1st Amendment??

I think you need to rephrase this; can't make sense of it!

1. The Court has the exclusive power to interpret laws, as a result, they only can define "religion" in the first amendment.

2. The Court did mention that within the context of the 1st amendment, Religion is defined as . . . Such a definition is exclusive to the 1st amendment. And yes, the Constitution is supreme.

3. Note that the US Constitution and Bill of Rights was the first if not, one of the first secular constitutions. Experience on what and extent of human rights was not detailed.

4. If the Court involves itself in philosophical exercises, its acting on its own frolic. That is outside its powers.

Kay 17: 1. The Court has the exclusive power to interpret laws, as a result, they only can define "religion" in the first amendment.

And the court has ruled (ok under the 1st Amendment) that atheism is a religion ---- as much a religion as any other religion.

Kay 17: 2. The Court did mention that within the context of the 1st amendment, Religion is defined as . . . Such a definition is exclusive to the 1st amendment. And yes, the Constitution is supreme.

No, the definition is not "exclusive" to the 1st Amendment in the way you are suggesting. Even if we say that the definition is "for First Amendment purposes only", I have already told you that this affects the entire legal system and I see you tacitly accepting this by saying "the Constitution is Supreme". Of course what that means is that any other law that does not recognise atheism as a religion consistently with the 1st Amendment (as interpreted by the courts) is invalid and will be struck down

Kay 17: 3. Note that the US Constitution and Bill of Rights was the first if not, one of the first secular constitutions. Experience on what and extent of human rights was not detailed.

I was going to say this is irrelevant but it is even more misleading than it is irrelevant. The Bill of Rights aka 1st Amendment is the same document that protects freedom of speech, freedom of expression etc.

What is more, I could play your game and argue that the 1st Amendment did not originally contemplate that "atheism" would be classified as a religion under its provision because atheism was largely irrelevant in that period. Therefore the atheists squeezing atheism into "religion" under its provisions are duplictous and the courts are misguided in aiding and abetting them.

So if the atheists could successfully stretch "religion" to encompass atheism, they could easily have stretched freedom of expression/speech for the adequate protection of atheism; the real point is they could have also done so without arguing that atheism is a religion as they have done duplicitously under the 1st Amendment.

Kay 17: 4. If the Court involves itself in philosophical exercises, its acting on its own frolic. That is outside its powers.

Now you are changing tune with style style! What you claimed falsely previously was that the courts said that their judgments had no philosophical value. That is quite different from your new song.

1. That is settled.

2. Supreme Court judgments and Superior courts' judgment are binding on all other courts; yes. However in this case, the definition given to "Religion" in the wordings of the 1st amendment is binding on all courts, but outside the 1st amendment and in other parts of the constitution and other laws, the word religion will take its general meaning. All other courts will follow the decision.

3. It would be against free thought to persecute atheists and freethinkers. That's against the ideal of human rights.

4. No, I didn't. I have been saying the same over and over again. The Court just interprets laws. Simple.

Kay 17: 1. That is settled.

In other words it is settled that under the 1st Amendment atheism is a religion ---- as much a religion as any other religion.

Kay 17: 2. Supreme Court judgments and Superior courts' judgment are binding on all other courts; yes. However in this case, the definition given to "Religion" in the wordings of the 1st amendment is binding on all courts, but outside the 1st amendment and in other parts of the constitution and other laws, the word religion will take its general meaning. All other courts will follow the decision.

Do you want to point out which other parts of the Constitution and which other laws? Let us see you put up on this one.

Kay 17: 3. It would be against free thought to persecute atheists and freethinkers. That's against the ideal of human rights.

The point you are missing is that you evangelical atheists could seek this protection under freedom of speech and freedom of expression provisions; instead evangelical atheists themselves CLAIMED AND ARGUED that atheism is a religion.

{{By the way, "freethinker" is another term that has been duplicitously appropriated of course - but a matter for another occasion}}

Kay 17: 4. No, I didn't. I have been saying the same over and over again. The Court just interprets laws. Simple.

Nope, claiming the courts said the judgments had no philosohical value is different from saying the court should not engage in philosophical exercises. In any event, it is inevitable that the courts will occasionally (even often) have to engage in "philosophical exercises".

Anyway, I won't bother stressing you on it as it is peripheral; I only addressed the point because you raised it and used it in a false and quite misleading manner.