Enigma: ^^^ Point proven. QED.

How about you take your own advice: Self-deceit is not good for your health.

^^^ Look let those who have some ability and cojones come and continuing addressing the relevant points.

Verily, verily I say unto you: The faithful are being armed against logic indeed.

Praise the Lawd!

^^ Amen!

I'm sure Kay17 will be back at some point; at least that is one person who has genuinely tried to engage.

Enigma: ^^ Amen!

I'm sure Kay17 will be back at some point; at least that is one person who has genuinely tried to engage.

Given the antecedents of this poster as to "bothering to respond" or not, I just have to chuckle at this one.

Enigma:

^^^ Go and read the John Gray piece; when you understand it come and tell us what you get from it.

You know full well that I am Not going to read the John Gray piece. My interest is in the part you quoted in order to buttress your point that Atheism IS a religion. Is belonging or being grouped with religion in some particulars the same as being a religion? That was my simple question for which I asked for a simple answer.

Yoruba says that try as you might to group Adiye and Eyele together the fact is that chicken cannot fly like pigeon. Don't let the chicken's wings deceive you.

Is Atheism a religion? why?

I think a lot of this depends on what we understand as a religion. What are the essential characteristics of a religion? What does it seek to do or achieve? Any failure to address this definition will have everybody going round and around trying to say that something is or is not an ill-defined or vague, if not nonsensical activity.

So a guy claims that his religion, Atheism, is being restricted. Is this guy the authority to what is or is not a religion?

The court treats his case differently which is considered an error cos . . . .

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

Does that mean that the court that passed the judgment did not consider atheism a religion? But as Logicboy says . . .

logicboy01:

The Kaufman vs McCaughty case doesnt not make atheism a religion. The court (in the case) only declared that atheism gets equal protection as religions under first ammendment issues.

Ultimately it seems that Atheism is a religion because a prison inmate says so.

Please I believe that we need to establish a definition of religion for the purposes of this thread.

Pastor AIO:

So a guy claims that his religion, Atheism, is being restricted. Is this guy the authority to what is or is not a religion?

No, the guy is not an authourity: and I will go so far as to say that neither is the Supreme Court - save of course, to the extent that it defines it for legal purposes to protect legal freedoms of everyone.

Pastor AIO:

You know full well that I am Not going to read the John Gray piece. . . .

Below is the first question you directed to me after I posted the John Gray line ---- a single line

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?

That question implies that you think that a case can be made that Communism and murder can be established to be a religion ---- following the arguments that I've presented on this thread.

I have even done better by providing additional materials including a link to the Kaufman case.

If you can prove that Communism or murder is a religion on the basis of the arguments that I've presented in respect of evangelical atheism, I very much welcome you to go ahead.

On the other hand, if it is to prove that Communism or murder is a religion on the basis of what John Gray said, there really cannot be a basis for a meaningful discussion until you have read the John Gray piece.

Oh and of course the court declared atheism a religion.

This is the third time I will post the below ----- incredibly!

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 . . . .

Oh? That may be the third time you have posted that, but perhaps it has escaped you that it has been posted a thousand times that neither Kauffman nor the Supreme Court are authourities on whether atheism is in fact [/i]a religion - as opposed to [i]in legal interpretation on fundamental rights.

Deep Sight:

No, the guy is not an authourity: and I will go so far as to say that neither is the Supreme Court - save of course, to the extent that it defines it for legal purposes to protect legal freedoms of everyone.

That's what man has been trying to drum into enigma's head.

Why dont we just stick with the dictionary -

re·li·gion
noun \ri-ˈli-jən\

Definition of RELIGION

1

a: the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1): the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2): commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance

2

: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices

3

archaic: scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness

4

: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion

Now, if Enigma or Uyi will use (3) or (4) to justify their position, then there is honestly a severe case to reform primary and secondary ENGLISH LANGUAGE USAGE education in this country and elsewhere.

The Ghanaian constitution, the Nigerian constitution, the European Charter and many other countries all separate the right to free thought and conscience from freedom of speech and expression.

Freedom of speech covers outward expression, articles of communication, sharing of information. It involves a second party, a transfer of information.

Whereas conscientious beliefs are innate, thinking, sometimes communal union, even status to which one is associated to. A man who believes life in any form is sacred and in accordance practices that, he inevitably stands out from others, and unfortunately freedom of speech can't adequately cover it.

A law can prohibit Christians from holding public offices, or enjoying marriage privileges and that would inhibit free speech.

jayriginal: An anecdote:

The story was once told of a carpenter who came to learn that the Constitution granted him freedom of association. Consequently, he decided to join the Nigerian Medical Association. He cried foul when he was not allowed to join and continually harped on his constitutional right to freedom of association.

He insisted on his position, even when it was explained to him that while the provision was indeed in the constitution, it was a 'qualified' right and as such had application only in a particular sense and not universally.

In applying the logic of our beloved enigmatic Enigma, that carpenter should indeed be allowed to join the NMA.

Kay 17: The Ghanaian constitution, the Nigerian constitution, the European Charter and many other countries all separate the right to free thought and conscience from freedom of speech and expression.

Freedom of speech covers outward expression, articles of communication, sharing of information. It involves a second party, a transfer of information.

Whereas conscientious beliefs are innate, thinking, sometimes communal union, even status to which one is associated to. A man who believes life in any form is sacred and in accordance practices that, he inevitably stands out from others, and unfortunately freedom of speech can't adequately cover it.

A law can prohibit Christians from holding public offices, or enjoying marriage privileges and that would inhibit free speech.

Ah ha, my dear friend!

Do you realise that you have shifted ground once again?

Earlier you assumed and suggested that freedom of speech and freedom of expression were lumped together with freedom of religion in the 1st Amendment ---- with the further consequent assumption that atheists' freedom could only be protected necessarily by recognising it as a religion.

I see now that after I corrected you on that you have now conceded the separation of freedom of speech/expression from freedom of religion. That is at least a good start.

Now your new suggestion is that the appropriate place to protect atheism is to classify it in terms of 'innate conscientious belief' etc separate from freedom of speech/expression.

Ok then, the Supreme Court agreed with you. The difference is that they say this means that atheism amounts to a religion as with any other whether it be Wicca, Kabbalah, Scientology etc.

Again I repeat what they saw as amounting to religion:

. . . 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.”).

Do you see their outlining of what they consider to amount to religion? And do you want to say that is not "philosophical"?

Finally, do you see what they regard atheism, evangelical atheism to be, to make them conclude that it is a religion ---- as any other religion?

I said the freedom of speech and expression are in the 1st Amendment!!

Prior to that, you had never mention an alternate justification/ground for atheism.

Kay 17: I said the freedom of speech and expression are in the 1st Amendment!!

And the reason you said that was because I pointed out to you that atheists' freedoms could be protected under those provisions without seeking to have atheism declared a religion. You assumed that the provisions were lumped with the freedom of religion provisions.

Now you have confirmed that in that case i.e. of separation of freedom of expression/speech from freedom of religion you prefer to pursue atheists' rights under freedom of religion.

No problem: the consequence is the ruling that atheism is a religion ---- as with any other religion.

As I have pointed out earlier, it is rather an absurd position to have to say: "(evangelical) atheism is a religion but is not a religion."

You will just have to live with it.

Kay 17: Prior to that, you had never mention an alternate justification/ground for atheism.

I'm not quite sure what you are referring to, my discussion with you has been on the decision of the courts that atheism is a religion. This arose because you said Uyi turned logic on its head in calling evangelical atheism a religion.

I have now shown you incontrovertibly that not only Uyi (or I) "turn logic on its head" when we say evangelical atheism is a religion. The American Supreme Court thinks 'does' so too.

You then said the court's decision had no philosophical value. I have now 'discombobulated'* that one.

See, my own position is clear and was summarised earlier but since I'm having to repeat myself so much in the company on this particular thread:

Look in one of the older debates, Jesoul said something that I agree with: ordinarily we would not dignify atheism or even evangelical atheism with the status of religion. For me, however, the present intellectual, political and legal realities as well as the statements, actions and activities of evangelical atheists themselves (including the fundamentalists among them) mean I must accept the situation that evangelical atheism is indeed a religion --- no matter how unpalatable I and others may find that.

(* Thanks to Uyi )

I have now shown you incontrovertibly that not only Uyi (or I) "turn logic on its head" when we say evangelical atheism is a religion. The American Supreme Court thinks 'does' so too.

You still haven't shown why SC's definition is unusual and broader and more expansive than the general definition along with restrictions.

You then said the court's decision had no philosophical value. I have now 'discombobulated'* that one.

I will accept that IF you consider Roe vs Wade, an authority in medicine and history.

See, my own position is clear and was summarised earlier but since I'm having to repeat myself so much in the company on this particular thread:

Look in one of the older debates, Jesoul said something that I agree with: ordinarily we would not dignify atheism or even evangelical atheism with the status of religion. For me, however, the present intellectual, political and legal realities as well as the statements, actions and activities of evangelical atheists themselves (including the fundamentalists among them) mean I must accept the situation that evangelical atheism is indeed a religion --- no matter how unpalatable I and others may find that.

Given you ppl' layman idea of human rightsn, such is understandable.

Kay 17: You still haven't shown why SC's definition is unusual and broader and more expansive than the general definition along with restrictions.

On my part I have accepted the decision of the court and its implications --- that (evangelical) atheism is a religion as much as other religions.

You are the one who have problem with it in your position that "(evangelical) atheism is a religion but not a religion".

Kay 17: I will accept that IF you consider Roe vs Wade, an authority in medicine and history.

You provide a basis for atheism as an "innate conscientious position" i.e. your "philosophical" basis; the courts accept it i.e. they accept and use your "philosophical" basis - pace your quote from the court which you said should conclude (or settle?) it; but they then say that means atheism is a religion. That is what you have to deal with.

Kay 17: Given you ppl' layman idea of human rightsn, such is understandable.

You who did not know the distinction between freedom of expression/speech and freedom of religion ---- now want to say other people have layman's idea of human rights! Yeah right, lol.

Good night!

Good night, well, good morning Kay. It was actually a pleasure and I thoroughly enjoyed the exchange.

By the way we had/have unfinished business on one other thread like that and if you are game, I'm up for contnuing that one too.

Nature is GOD, then. Agreed?

Martian:

You love this argument about nature's inability to do this,that or the other. Humans are nature, humans build huts, so nature has built countless huts. By saying nature can't do this or that, you are ignoring that you're a part of nature;and that is caused by your religious beliefs that your supernatural entity is reponsible for nature itelf.

Anyway, the ultimate reification is God because he's nothing but an abstraction of certain human qualities.

jagunlabi: Nature is GOD, then. Agreed?

Nature is nature.

Martian:

Nature is nature.

Nature is soo beneath God - why the heck would he want to be imperfect

bump

lagerwhenindoubt:

Nature is soo beneath God - why the heck would he want to be imperfect

Indeed but in reality isnt God just nature? At least that explains his imperfection...

Ah, this thread!

By the way, I recently read somewhere in this section that Enigma is a lawyer in real life. That's a joke, right?