@ Enigma It's necessary it be a religion. In order to score a political point (raise more awareness, get the same legal advantages given to religions and their sects, coherency in codifying their thoughts etc). I can understand atheists denying that theirs is becoming a religion being that it was opposed to religions but the fact remains that a few are beginning to grudgingly accept that it takes a religion to beat a religion, that's why there are parody religions eg Flying Spaghetti Monster Movement founded by an atheist Bobby Henderson etc. The accusation of religion is legitimate given the activities of atheists in recent times of which I regularly point out codification of their thoughts and active 'evangelism' of their beliefs.

Exactamundo, Uyi.

1. Atheism is a religion under the special definition given to it by SC in context of 1st amendment. Atheism is not religion still.

2. As I have been repeating myself, the Court qualified it under 1st amendment, thus its exclusive to it. I don't need to provide other examples.

3. Which do you contend to be the religion?? Atheism or evangelical atheism??

4. Of course all judgements have jurisprudential value, but I meant was that their powers didn't go beyond interpreting laws and other judicial duties.

@enigma

You bringing the case as an authority to provide that atheism is rationally qualified to be a religion is out of place.

Uyi Iredia: @ Enigma It's necessary it be a religion. In order to score a political point (raise more awareness, get the same legal advantages given to religions and their sects, coherency in codifying their thoughts etc). I can understand atheists denying that theirs is becoming a religion being that it was opposed to religions but the fact remains that a few are beginning to grudgingly accept that it takes a religion to beat a religion, that's why there are parody religions eg Flying Spaghetti Monster Movement founded by an atheist Bobby Henderson etc. The accusation of religion is legitimate given the activities of atheists in recent times of which I regularly point out codification of their thoughts and active 'evangelism' of their beliefs.

There isn't a drop of sense in what you just said. At the end of day, you would be insisting a monstrous absurdity that the irreligious are religious.

Kay 17: 1. Atheism is a religion under the special definition given to it by SC in context of 1st amendment. Atheism is not religion still.

Whatever! I have explained well enough the decisions of the courts and the consequent implications.

Kay 17: 2. As I have been repeating myself, the Court qualified it under 1st amendment, thus its exclusive to it. I don't need to provide other examples.

Of course you will say you do not need to provide other examples ----- because you cannot.

Kay 17: 3. Which do you contend to be the religion?? Atheism or evangelical atheism??

I prefer to be specific to evangelical atheism. The reason is simple: to distinguish the kind of atheism of passive atheists, dogs, cows, monkeys etc from the active evangelising and miltant atheism that is evangelical atheism. Afterall, atheists sometimes proffer the duplicitous argument that atheism is simply a lack of belief in God; well that is true of dogs, cows, monkeys, passive atheists etc but you don't see them going to court to declare their form of atheism to be a religion.

Kay 17: 4. Of course all judgements have jurisprudential value, but I meant was that their powers didn't go beyond interpreting laws and other judicial duties.

And their conclusion that atheism is a religion has practical effect in very real and concrete terms in several spheres of American jurisprudence, law, policy and even general life.

Kay 17: @enigma

You bringing the case as an authority to provide that atheism is rationally qualified to be a religion is out of place.

Nah, not all; not when atheists themselves went to court to claim and argue that atheism is a religion.

Of course you will say yo do not need to provide other examples ----- because you cannot.

Because the language of the Court was very clear. .

"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"

I prefer to be specific to evangelical atheism. The reason is simple: to distinguish the kind of atheism of passive atheists, dogs, cows, monkeys etc from the active evangelising and miltant atheism that is evangelical atheism. Afterall, atheists sometimes proffer the duplicitous argument that atheism is simply a lack of belief in God; well that is true of dogs, cows, monkeys, passive atheists etc but you don't see them going to court to declare their form of atheism to be a religion

Which do you think the SC is talking about??

This chicanery does not work, at least not with me; you have yet to realise this?

Using excerpts from material I have posted elsewhere --- from the court 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.

And court said further:

The Establishment Clause also prohibits the government from favoring one religion over another without a legitimate secular reason. . . .

The district court went astray when it evaluated Kaufman’s claim on the assumption that he wanted to form a nonreligious group. . . .

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. . . .



But the defendants have not answered Kaufman’s argument that by accommodating some religious views, but not his, they are promoting the favored ones. Because the defendants failed even to articulate—much less support with evidence—a secular reason why a meeting of atheist inmates would pose a greater security risk than meetings of inmates of other faiths, their rejection of Kaufman’s request cannot survive . . . .

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 [size=15pt] souls [/size]..."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...

Did i just here you say [size=15pt] soul [/size]? And where did you get that from? I thought u dont believe in the existance of a spirit soul thing?
So wotta happen o?

Even if it is granted that the US Supreme Court deployed such an interpretation in that regard.

I really wonder whether the fact that atheism is considered, in the realm of law, a religion - thereby makes it in fact a religion.

In the same way as I wonder if the fact that a company is considered a legal person in the realm of law, - thereby makes it in fact a person.

joe4christ:

Did i just here you say [size=15pt] soul [/size]? And where did you get that from? I thought u dont believe in the existance of a spirit soul thing?
So wotta happen o?

Stop making assumptions. I am no atheist. I believe in God, and I believe that man is a spirit being.

Deep Sight:
Even if it is granted that the US Supreme Court deployed such an interpretation in that regard.

I really wonder whether the fact that atheism is considered, in the realm of law, a religion - thereby makes it in fact a religion.

American law for that matter.

Deep Sight:
Even if it is granted that the US Supreme Court deployed such an interpretation in that regard.

I really wonder whether the fact that atheism is considered, in the realm of law, a religion - thereby makes it in fact a religion.

In the same way as I wonder if the fact that a company is considered a legal person in the realm of law, - thereby makes it in fact a person.

Legal arbitrariness.

^^ "Legal arbitrariness" indeed" lol

Deep Sight:
Even if it is granted that the US Supreme Court deployed such an interpretation in that regard.

I really wonder whether the fact that atheism is considered, in the realm of law, a religion - thereby makes it in fact a religion.

In the same way as I wonder if the fact that a company is considered a legal person in the realm of law, - thereby makes it in fact a person.

This is the part I really don't get from the guy's argument. So because some Supreme Court in some foreign land defines atheism as a religion under certain circumstances, that definition automatically becomes effective in all realms universally.

Wetin person nor go see for dis Nairaland sef.

Purist:

This is the part I really don't get from the guy's argument. So because some Supreme Court in some foreign land defines atheism as a religion[/b[ [b]under certain circumstances, that definition automatically becomes effective in all realms universally.

Wetin person nor go see for dis Nairaland sef.

But you are ready to quote Bill Maher , and you and your mates are happy to quote Harris, Dawkins etc when it suits you lot --- vey eminent Nigerians they are all too.

Oh and about the company, tell that to the birds: under the same provision, religion whether it is Scientology, Kabbalah or atheism are all treated in the same way.

Enigma:

But you are ready to quote Bill Maher , and you and your mates are happy to quote Harris, Dawkins etc when it suits you lot --- vey eminent Nigerians they are all too.

Lol. What are you on about? I quote whoever I feel articulates or buttresses my thoughts best in a particular discourse.

Enigma:

But you are ready to quote Bill Maher , and you and your mates are happy to quote Harris, Dawkins etc when it suits you lot --- vey eminent Nigerians they are all too.

Oh and about the company, tell that to the birds: under the same provision, religion whether it is Scientology, Kabbalah or atheism are all treated in the same way.

What are you saying again??

^^^ The same thing as I've been saying, my dear friend.

Purist:

This is the part I really don't get from the guy's argument. So because some Supreme Court in some foreign land defines atheism as a religion under certain circumstances, that definition automatically becomes effective in all realms universally.

Wetin person nor go see for dis Nairaland sef.

The point is very simple and succintly made as Kay 17 has very well argued - for the purpose of giving effect to the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by law, the court will consider the atheist entitled to the self-same religious freedoms as anybody else. This is strictly with regard to the laws being discussed. This does not mean that atheism is in fact a religion - any more than any other legal position which "deems" a thing to be such or such - may or may not transpose into reality.

Might I further add that this position is not invalidated even if one million atheists argue that atheism is a religion. It is not a religion.

Furthermore as Jayriginal pointed out, that at all events is legal interpretation for one jurisdiction only - the United States. Will we then hold that atheism is a religion only in the United States? We will be heading down a perilous path of stark absurdity. Is atheism a religion in Nigeria, per example?

I have often vowed not to entertain this sort of discourse: for the very words "religion" and "religious" stand to testify that atheism is anything but. It is the stark reverse, and it beats me that anyone can argue the contrary.

Deep Sight:

The point is very simple and succintly made as Kay 17 has very well argued - for the purpose of giving effect to the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by law, the court will consider the atheist entitled to the self-same religious freedoms as anybody else. This is strictly with regard to the laws being discussed. This does not mean that atheism is in fact a religion - any more than any other legal position which "deems" a thing to be such or such - may or may not transpose into reality.

Might I further add that this position is not invalidated even if one million atheists argue that atheism is a religion. It is not a religion.

Furthermore as Jayriginal pointed out, that at all events is legal interpretation for one jurisdiction only - the United States. Will we then hold that atheism is a religion only in the United States? We will be heading down a perilous path of stark absurdity. Is atheism a religion in Nigeria, per example?

I have often vowed not to entertain this sort of discourse: for the very words "religion" and "religious" stand to testify that atheism is anything but. It is the stark reverse, and it beats me that anyone can argue the contrary.

Completely on point!

DeepSight wrapped it all up.

Something for the road --- just before I change my 'signature'.

"In seeking universal conversion, evangelical atheism belongs with Christianity and Islam." - John Gray

Enigma: Something for the road --- just before I change my 'signature'.

"In seeking universal conversion, evangelical atheism belongs with Christianity and Islam." - John Gray

No, propagation is not the defining factor or test for religion. Marketing products or services would easily qualify as religious.

Enigma: Something for the road --- just before I change my 'signature'.

"In seeking universal conversion, evangelical atheism belongs with Christianity and Islam." - John Gray

Does this make Communism a religion? And does belonging with a religion make something necessarily a religion.

Murderers belong with violent 'jihadists'. Does this make murder a religion?

Pastor AIO:

Does this make Communism a religion? And does belonging with a religion make something necessarily a religion.

Murderers belong with violent 'jihadists'. Does this make murder a religion?

If anyone wants to show Communism, murder etc to be a religion, I will read quite happily.

I think it may be possible to assist anyone who wishes to argue that either Communism or murder is a religion --- in the same way that it has been claimed and established that evangelical atheism is a religion.

The italicised words are to emphasise that the same criteria for judging evangelical atheism to be a religion would have to be used to conclude that either Communism or murder is similarly a religion.

On this thread (and elsewhere before) I have given two sets of criteria for establishing that evangelical atheism is a religion.

1. From a general intellectual perspective

Enigma: . . . . you can also consider the article previously posted at link below to see a reasonable outline of the defining elements for ascertaining a religion and how/why evangelical atheism fits in.

https://www.nairaland.com/546562/atheism-religion/11#9255256

2. From a legal perspective the cases under discussion especially Kaufman v McCaughtry which Kay17 says he was able to find by following the links I recommended. To make life even easier, I give here the link to the text of the judgment. http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/tmp/J51FFBOI.pdf


The task now is: using those two sets of criteria, show how Communism or murder is a religion.

The case with murder, which I think is especially poor, will be interesting ----- it will be interesting for murderers to go to the American Court of Appeal and Supreme Court to argue that murder is a religion which must be protected under the 1st Amendment.

Communism is slightly more understandable because of course in the past there have been actually atheistic regimes which had essentially treated Communism as "state religion". Nevertheless, the task on this thread would be to fit Communism into the two sets of criteria pointed out above.

BUT you were unable to assert convincingly that atheism is actually a religion in the first place, so you building castles in the air

Kay 17: BUT you were unable to assert convincingly that atheism is actually a religion in the first place, so you building castles in the air

If it pleases you to deceive yourself (actually, a standard evangelical atheist practice*), then keep saying the above --- but of course the arguments were sufficient to convince the American Supreme Court, at the behest of an atheist. So even if some find it unpalatable, there must be something convincing about it.


*One example on this very pages is the chap who, in typical evangelical atheist obtuseness and duplicity, says he is entitled to quote "whoever" he wants, even if they are American (including an American id[i]i[/i]ot), while in the same breath complaining about my use of the US court judgment.

OH!! I'm tagged as an evangelical atheist! Thanks bro!

I don't mind repeating myself over and over and over again. Religion defined by the SC for the purposes of 1st Amendment and in the ideal of human rights is different and separate from the general meaning and dictionary meaning of Religion.

As deep sight mentioned, if the irreligious is opposite to, a reverse of, antithetical of religion, how on earth can it be religion?! In a faith world, contradictions are not fatal, BUT in the real world, such a contradiction can not subsist.

A negative is not positive.