₦airaland Forum

zataxs:
@enigma, even if someone says 1+1 = 2 many times it does not cease to be true, if "The Dunning-Kruger Effect" is in effect here in NL. I'd like to see you actually produce tangible evidence to the contrary.

zataxs:
You say you want an original argument,  then you must also step up and give more reasonable counter-arguments. Something I am yet to see.

zataxs:
@enigma, saying atheism is a religion is like saying not having a car is a type of car. Part of the definition of a religion is a supernatural being.

thehomer:
And this is the new and improved Christian argument?
Not surprising considering the punishments I've put you through.

thehomer:
Awww are you bitter that the arguments generally fly above your head?

Why are you so bitter that you have to label your "evangelical atheists" as mumus?
Who needs to change those arguments when they work so well against the rubbish you and your fellows parrot? We've not discarded the theory that germs cause diseases though it is so old why?
[size=14pt]Because it works[/size]
So dry your tears. The fact that you cannot do any better really cannot be helped since many like you have tried and failed. Those "stock material" are so good, they're the gift that keeps on giving so if you have better arguments, maybe you'll get different responses.

JeSoul:
4. They love to engage in endless, abstract, hypothetical, strange, controversial subjects based on endless speculations that usually lead to anger and strife. They seem incapable of accepting the fact that there are some things that cannot be explained, some things that just don't have an answer and cannot be "proven" as it leaves no room for faith which the bible tells us "is what we need in order to please God"

These "debates" are only an exercise in self-worship, a time for them to showcase their self-ascribed 'intelligence', thinking they have somehow attained an intellectual prowess that they have out-smarted God and the bible. . . .

frosbel:
^

Atheism is a religion. The way some of you go on about it here, even the Jehova Witensses will be green with envy !
. . . .

jayriginal:
@Enigma, try as you may, atheism still is not a religion. I looked at your seven conditions. Atheism still does not fall into those categories.

The coloured part refers. What about intelligent design ? What is your position on that ? As for the rest, it is not necessary for an atheist to accept the theory of evolution. I believe I have mentioned this before. An atheist simply does not believe in God. He/She does not have to know the origins of the universe. Atheism is not a religion.
Did you define christian faith with a straight face ?
Anyway, atheism is not faith in science. An atheist does not have to explain the origins of the universe. Now back to that Dawkins quote. The reason why Dawkins said that Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist, is the fact that christians like to point to creation as evidence for God. One of the first questions a christian will ask an atheist is "who created you?" Darwin has made it possible to answer that question logically and factually without referring to fables. Why for instance should I believe God created the world in six days and reject the story that Oduduwa came down from heaven on a chain and he had a cowrie shell (or is it snail shell) of sand, and a chicken (Im sure you know the rest of the story). They both sound fantastically impossible. If I had to choose one, I would choose the African version, not a slave religion. With the theory of evolution, one can discuss without referring to "tales by moonlight". Evolution is not a prerequisite for atheism. In other words, an atheist does not have to accept the theory of evolution. To know an atheist, just ask him if he believes on God or Gods. If he says no, then he is an atheist. That is all.
^^^ This is simply rubbish. Evolution is not a belief. No matter how many people twist facts for the sake of argument, facts are sacred and will remain facts. For the records, Ruse never said evolution is a religion. It is people like you that have further twisted what others (like you) originally twisted. The original twist is that Ruse said evolution was a philosophy and now you have converted philosophy for religion. Let me quote a review More nonsense. So without God or a set of rules, we will all be evil ? What kind of argument are you making here ? Let us assume the "Humanist Manifesto" prohibits stealing, I do not know if it does, but if I do not steal, I am adhering to a document I do not know ? Well, any time you do not steal (for example) you are also adhering to the "Humanist Manifesto" even if you are not aware of the contents. You have no point. There is no doctrine in atheism. Again I will remind you that atheism is a lack of belief.
See the bolded. What the hell is an ethical system based on the evolutionary narrative ?
There are many atheists (being people who do not believe in god) and they are free to do whatever they want. If anyone wants to be a secular humanist, that does not affect his lack of belief in God. Evolution is not a religion, no matter how badly you want it to be. It is a scientific theory that has not been disproved. Accepting or rejecting evolution has no effect on atheism. Nobody needs science to be an atheist.
Do you actually think before you post ? Do you really want me to start posting the horrible crimes of christianity ? Throughout the ages ?
So anything one atheist does applies to all atheists ?
Before you start an argument, you should consider if such an argument applies to you.
I do not believe in God. That does not mean that if you give me rice on christmas day I will not eat. I do not know Darwins birthday nor do I know when his book was published (though I have a copy). I have not read any of his books (Darwin) but I will eventually. You call birthdays a secular ritual and christmas a religious ritual. You are playing with words. I will not engage you therein. I will just say that christmas is a pagan religion and as such, by your arguments,you are a pagan.
Again, an atheist is one who does not believe in supernatural entities. That is all.
You cannot take a small piece and from that make an assumption of the whole.


Ok Enigma, are you serious ? You actually hold that science is a religion ? Please answer.

Lastly, atheism cannot be taught. It is not a religion. Calling a fork a spoon will change nothing.Its still a fork.

You people try desperately to tag atheism as a religion. Why ?

In Florida, an atheist created a case against the upcoming Easter and Passover holidays. He hired an attorney to bring a discrimination case against Christians, Jews and observances of their holidays. The argument was that it was unfair that atheists had no such recognized holiday.

The case was brought before a judge, who, after listening to the passionate presentation by the lawyer, banged his gavel declaring: "Case dismissed!"

The lawyer immediately stood objecting to the ruling saying: "Your honor, how can you possibly dismiss this case? The Christians have Christmas, Easter and other holidays. The Jews have Passover, Yom Kippur and Hanukkah, yet my client and all other atheists have no such holidays."

The judge leaned forward in his chair saying: "But you do. Your client, counsel, is woefully ignorant."

The lawyer said: "Your Honor, we are unaware of any special observance or holiday for atheists."

The judge said: "The calendar says April 1st is April Fools Day. Psalm 14:1 states, 'The fool says in his heart, there is no God.' Thus, it is the opinion of this court, that if your client says there is no God, then he is a fool. Therefore, April 1st is his day. Court is adjourned.”

[size=14pt]Has Atheism Become a Religion?[/size]
Posted: 5/26/11 02:35 PM ET

Before you dismiss the question out of hand, consider these four inter-related bits of evidence:

1) As recently reported in the New York Times, military personnel who identify themselves as "Atheists" have requested chaplains to tend to their spiritual needs. As the Times article notes, "Defense Department statistics show that about 9,400 of the nation's 1.4 million active-duty military personnel identify themselves as atheists or agnostics, making them a larger subpopulation than Jews, Muslims, Hindus or Buddhists in the military." Having their own chaplains, the article explains, would give Atheists a sense of legitimacy and help validate their own system of values and beliefs.

2) The U.S. Government reports that in 2008 those identifying themselves specifically as "Atheist" composed the 18th largest group of 43 possible categories of "self-described religious identification." The number of persons so identifying themselves almost doubled from seven years earlier. Admittedly, "Atheist" is one of the options listed under "no religion specified," but given that other options for respondents included checking "Agnostic" or "No Religion" or not answering the question at all, it appears that identifying oneself specifically as an Atheist, as opposed to simply "not religious," is growing in appeal. This points to the utility of a distinction made by Jonathan Lanman between "non-theists," those with no particular religious belief, and "strong atheists," those who view religion not only as irrelevant but as misguided and dangerous.

3) Similarly, it's worth noting the degree to which Atheists routinely, strategically, and often vociferously position what is often described as their "secular-humanist" views against religious traditions. Read or listen to any of the celebrity Atheists of the past decade like Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Sam Harris and you realize that they fashion many of their arguments not against some alternative economic, political, or philosophical position but against organized religion. Religious faith is clearly their primary opponent in the contest for the intellectual allegiance of the population, which makes it hard not to conclude that they offer their views and beliefs as a viable alternative to traditional religious systems.

4) Finally -- and you probably knew this was coming -- consider all the comments made by self-identified Atheists on articles published in the Religion section of the Huffington Post. Seriously. Either Atheists have way more time on their hands than the rest of the population or they've got something to prove. This assertive, us-against-them tone (in this case, against established religion) is characteristic of new religions. (Think of the Christian gospels', especially Matthew and John, stance toward first-century Judaism, for example.) As Rabbi David Wolpe observed a few months ago, there is an astonishing garrulousness to the comments made by Atheists to posts about religion that suggest not simply a lack of interest in, or even disdain for, religion but a competitive anger directed against persons of traditional religious faith. (Obviously plenty of religious folk radiate the same garrulousness, but this post is about Atheists.)

Taken together, these four elements suggest that Atheists regularly demonstrate attributes -- desire for spiritual sustenance, the importance of self-identification, offering their worldview as an alternative to other religious systems, and an assertive if not competitive style of engagement with other religious points of view -- usually exhibited by religious folk of all persuasions.

While Atheism as a movement doesn't have the formal structure, celebrations, or creedal dogmas of organized religions, we might at least identify Atheism as it exists today as an increasingly vibrant faith tradition. Still, when speaking of Atheists, why use the f-word (for "faith," silly) rather than speak of a worldview or personal philosophy? Three reasons suggest themselves.

1) It conveys that both a conventional religious worldview and atheistic worldview require a measure of faith. I don't mean this simply about the rather limited question of whether God exists, but rather about whether the material, physical dimension of life immediately apparent to our senses is all there is. The question can't be reduced, as Atheists regularly have, to observing that there are many beliefs -- in the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus as well as God -- that can't be proved and must be taken on faith, but rather to ask whether there is a dimension of existence that supersedes or eludes our physical senses. Ultimately, any speech about God implies such a dimension that conversation about the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus do not.

2) Religious faith -- and I'd argue atheistic faith -- doesn't begin and end with the question of God or a spiritual dimension to life. One needs also to construct an interpretation of life (describing its purpose, goal, worth) and set of values by which to live that life. Ethics and values are not self-evident from religious creeds -- witness, for instance, the distinct values of the varieties of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam that run the gamut from liberal to fundamentalist. Similarly, there is no self-evident value system shared by Atheists and projecting such a system requires imagination, critical reflection and, yes, faith.

Third, characterizing both organized religion and emergent Atheism as distinct faith traditions invites a measure of mutual regard and even respect that is sorely lacking in present discourse. Professing belief in God, as well as rejecting such belief, each requires equal measures of imagination and nerve. As it turns out, doubt is not the opposite of faith; certainty is. For this reason, we can hold out the hope that religious and non-religious believers alike may recognize in each other similar acts of courage and together reject the cowardice of fundamentalism, whether religious or secular. Being able to disagree respectfully is a small but significant step that believers and non-believers could take as they, together, contemplate admiring, understanding, and preserving this wondrous world we share.

[size=14pt]Loving God with all your mind: logic and creation[/size]
by Jonathan D. Sarfati

Summary
Logic and reason are far from being incompatible with biblical Christianity. Rather, they are essential. Without them it is impossible to deduce anything from the true propositions of the 66 books of Scripture, the Christian’s final authority. This applies to Creation, one of the foundational doctrines of Christianity. Examples of valid and fallacious reasoning are discussed, with emphasis on showing how logical reasoning can support the truth of biblical creation, and demonstrate the fallacies in many evolutionists’ arguments.

Logic is the science of the relations between propositions. Logic can tell us what can be inferred from a given proposition, but it cannot tell us whether the given proposition is true in the first place. All philosophical systems rely on logical deductions from starting assumptions—axioms—which, by definition, cannot be proven from prior assumption. For our axioms, it is rational to accept the propositions revealed by the infallible God in the 66 books of the Bible.

Scriptural Considerations
Martin Luther correctly distinguished between the magisterial and ministerial use of reason.1

The magisterial use of reason occurs when reason stands over Scripture like a magistrate and judges it. Such ‘reasoning’ is bound to be flawed, because it starts with axioms invented by fallible humans and not revealed by the infallible God. But this is the chief characteristic of liberal ‘Christianity’. It is refuted by Scriptural passages such as Isaiah 55:8–9

8 ‘For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,’ declares the Lord.

9 ‘As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.’

Note that this does not say ‘My logic is higher than your logic’. If so, then if we believed 2+2=4, God could believe 2+2=5. What it does mean is that God knows every true proposition, while we know only a part. Another passage is Romans 9:19–21

19 One of you will say to me: ‘Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?’

20 But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’

21 Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?

The ministerial use of reason occurs when reason submits to Scripture. This means that all things necessary for our faith and life are either expressly set down in Scripture or may be deduced by good and necessary consequence from Scripture.2

Many Scriptural passages show that Christians are not supposed to check in their brains at the church door, but to use their God-given minds in subjection to God’s Word, e.g. Isaiah 1:18

18 ‘Come now, let us reason together,’ says the Lord. ‘Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red as crimson, they shall be like wool.’

Matthew 22:36–38

36 ‘Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?’

37 Jesus replied: ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’

38 This is the first and greatest commandment.’

Romans 12:2

2 Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.

1 Corinthians 2:16

16 ‘For who has known the mind of the Lord that he may instruct him?’ But we have the mind of Christ.

Note—mind of Christ, not feelings or emotions of Christ.

Much confusion arises when some people disparage ‘head knowledge’. For example, Geoff Smith, who was Pastor of the large Auckland Bible Church (New Zealand), has pointed out that in some churches, anything that has to do with rational thinking is suspect and strongly discouraged.3 Rational thinking is branded as something coming from the flesh. People of the Spirit won’t try to understand what’s happening—they will simply accept the ‘blessing’. The catch words are unmistakable: ‘Don’t try to understand this’, ‘Don’t try to analyse this’, ‘Don’t try to figure this out with your mind’, etc.

In such thinking there is no real understanding that faith is always built on knowledge. The prophet Isaiah asks repeatedly ‘Do you not know, have you not heard?’ (Isaiah 40:21,28).

Jesus repeatedly asks: ‘Have you not read …?’ and tells the Sadducees that they are in error because they ‘do not know the Scriptures or the power of God’ (Matt. 22:29).

In his letters Paul constantly shows that true, functional faith is always built on knowledge. Conversely, deficient faith is traced back to its unmistakable cause—deficient knowledge. Paul repeatedly asks the question ‘Don’t you know …?’ (Rom. 6:3, 16; 11:2; 1 Cor. 3:16; 1 Cor. 5:6; 1 Cor. 6:2, 3, 9, 15, 16, 19; 1 Cor. 9:13, 27). Notice also the same question being asked by James (James 4:4). Philip asked the Ethiopian eunuch: ‘Do you understand what you are reading?’ (Acts 8:30).3

Part of the confusion lies in the misunderstanding of the word ‘heart’ in the Bible. Some people make a false contrast between ‘head-knowledge’ and ‘heart-trust’. When interpreting Scripture, it is important to work out what the authors meant by the term. In this case, one should work out what ‘heart’ meant to ancient Semites, not what it means in Hollywood pop-psychology. In the Bible, the word ‘heart’ is used 75% of the time to mean the mind or intellect. However, the Bible frequently contrasts the heart and the lips—sincerity vs. hypocrisy, for example:

Genesis 6:5:

5 The Lord saw how great man’s wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time.

Psalm 14:1:

1 The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God.’ They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good.

The New Testament concept of faith is compatible with reason. The Greek word for ‘faith’ is πίστις (pistis) which is related to the verb πιστεύω (pisteuo) meaning ‘believe’, and πείθω (pietho) meaning ‘to convince by argument.’ It never has the connotation of ‘believing six impossible things before breakfast’, but ‘is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.’ (Heb. 11:1). Many non-Christians have a misconception of biblical faith, and unfortunately some Christians have accepted this.4

[size=14pt]Atheism: A religion[/size]
by Daniel Smartt

Published: 4 May 2010(GMT+10)


Atheism is the belief that there is no god. According to the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

“Atheism is the position that affirms the non-existence of God. It proposes positive belief rather than mere suspension of disbelief.”1

Buddhism is atheistic in the sense of denying that there is any overarching deity such as the Creator-God of the Bible. Atheism in the western sense excludes Buddhism, and adherents claim that it is not a religion. One Atheist said:

“Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair colour”2

However, atheists make such claims so Atheism can avoid legal imperatives placed on religions in many countries, and can avoid some of the ideological hang-ups people have about “religion”. It also creates a false dichotomy between science (which they claim must be naturalistic and secular) and religion.  {Enigma's addendum: except that the evangelical atheists are even duplicitous enough to claim that atheism is a religion so that they can enjoy some legal rights reserved for religion e.g. the Kaufman case above}

Atheism3 will be defined in the contemporary western sense: not just the lack of belief in a god, but the assertion about the non-existence of any gods, spirits, or divine or supernatural beings. Atheists in this sense are metaphysical naturalists, and as will be shown, they DO follow a religion.

Religion is a difficult thing to define. Various definitions have been proposed, many of which emphasize a belief in the supernatural.4 But such definitions break down on closer inspection for several reasons. They fail to deal with religions which worship non-supernatural things in their own right (for example Jainism, which holds that every living thing is sacred because it is alive, or the Mayans who worshiped the sun as a deity in and of itself rather than a deity associated with the sun)5; they fail to include religions such as Confucianism and Taoism which focus almost exclusively on how adherents should live, and the little they do say about supernatural issues such as the existence of an afterlife is very vague; they also don’t deal with religious movements centred around UFOs—which believe that aliens are highly (evolutionarily) advanced (but not supernatural) beings.

A better way to determine whether a worldview is a religion is to look for certain characteristics that religions have in common. The framework set forth by Ninian Smart,6 commonly known as the Seven Dimensions of Religion, is widely accepted by anthropologists and researchers of religion as broadly covering the various aspects of religion, without focusing on things unique to specific religions.

The seven dimensions proposed by Smart are narrative, experiential, social, ethical, doctrinal, ritual and material. Not every religion has every dimension, nor are they all equally important within an individual religion. Smart even argues that the “secularisation” of western society is actually a shift of focus from the doctrinal and ritual to the experiential.

Narrative
Every religion has its stories. Almost all religions have stories explaining where the universe came from and what humanity’s part in it is. Smart calls this Narrative.

Narrative is a particularly important aspect of western Atheism. As the prominent Atheist Richard Dawkins said, referring to Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution:

“Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.”7

Evolution is an explanation of where everything came from: the cosmos (came out of nothing at the big slam—nothing exploded and became everything); humans evolved from non-human creatures, hence humanity’s place in the cosmos is being just another species of animal. Some have gone so far as to say that humanity is a parasite on earth, and advocate killing up to 90% of humanity.8 There are some who attempt to combine belief in God with belief in evolution, not realizing the foundational nature of evolution’s connection to Atheism.9 {Enigma edit: in fairness though, some Christians do manage it well enough} The testimony of those who after learning about evolution in “science” reject Christianity should alert church leaders to the incompatibility between evolution and the Gospel.

Experiential
There are two aspects to the experiential dimension. The first is the events experienced before someone founded a religion (for example the Disciples physically saw and touched the bodily resurrected Jesus). It is often asserted that Charles Darwin, after observing evidence from around the world during his voyage on HMS Beagle, developed the theory of evolution. (In reality, he had already learned a version of evolution from his grandfather Erasmus’s book Zoonomia and similar ideas were around at the time).

The second aspect of the experiential dimension concerns the experiences of latter adherents. Many people feel certain emotions when they participate in certain religious ceremonies. Atheists often believe that Atheism is freedom from religion, and some Atheists have reported feeling liberated after converting.10 Karl Marx said that the removal of the illusion of happiness by the removal of religion was a step towards true happiness. Atheistic denial of the divine entails denial of an afterlife. If there is no afterlife,11 then ultimately is no higher purpose in life for Atheists than to be happy. According to the Humanist Manifesto II, the only meaning in life is what the person gives it. In the Humanist Manifesto III, this was changed to finding meaning in relationships. Belief in evolution also causes people to aim for self preservation and to spread their own genes.12

Smart also seems to include “faith” as part of the experiential dimension. The meaning of the word “faith” is often twisted to make it mean things it does not. In Christianity, faith is logical, being defined in Hebrews 1:11 as “being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.” This is not blindly believing the impossible (which is how many Atheists define faith), but rather trusting the promises of God, whose past promises have all been fulfilled. [/b]I would classify Christian faith as part of the doctrinal dimension rather than experiential. [b]On the other hand, Atheism requires “faith” (using their own definition) that the laws of chemistry, physics and biology were once violated and life arose from non-life via chemical evolution.

Social
The social dimension of religion looks at the hierarchies and power structures present within the religion, such the Hindu caste system. In missionary religions, it also includes how people get converted and how missionaries go about their work.

Contemporary Atheism has been fueled largely by authors promoting their Atheistic beliefs. In the preface to The God Delusion, Dawkins says,

“If this book works as I intend, religious readers who open it will be atheists when they put it down.”

Dawkins is saying he hopes that his book converts “religious” people to his worldview – exactly what a missionary of any religion hopes to do.

Communist countries often made the state religion Atheism, often to the point of persecuting (other) religions.13 This followed from Karl Marx’ statement:

“It [religion] is the opiate of the masses. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness.”14

Marxists saw the removal of religion as a step toward true happiness for the common people, although in practice this did not occur, and contemporary critics see Marxism itself as a religion15. (I would contend that Marxism is a sect of a larger religion: Atheism).

Many scientists are high up on the social hierarchy of Atheism because their research enhances their understanding of the world. Particularly honoured are those scientists who write extensively about evolution. Because of this, many scientists include a little about evolution in their research papers, even when there is little or no relevance (one recent example concerns research into the chameleon’s catapult tongue and suction cap; see Created, not evolved)

Atheism is also taught to children in many schools in science classes as evolution. As atheistic philosopher Michael Ruse admits, “evolution is a religion”, and it could be considered the narrative dimension of Atheism. Thus teaching evolution is teaching Atheism. Several Atheists even support teaching lies, as long as the end result is more children believing evolution.16

Doctrinal
Doctrines are the beliefs and philosophies that develop out of a religion (not necessarily being specifically stated in the religious narratives, etc). For example, the Christian doctrine of the Trinity, while not directly stated in the Bible, is logically derived from it.

Contemporary Atheism gained popularity in the 18th and 19th centuries, after the “enlightenment”. In 1933, some prominent Atheist philosophers realised the effects the lack of a belief in a god would have on the morals of society and wrote what they believed would be a suitable set of beliefs and goals for a secular society in the 20th century. In doing so, they formed the branch of Atheism known as Secular Humanism. By and large, Atheists believe and adhere to the things written in the Humanist Manifesto, even if they don’t know the specifics of the document. After all, many Atheists do want to do what is good.

The doctrines, ethics and goals outlined in the Humanist Manifesto, while being atheistic and accepting evolution as true, are opposite of what would be expected if they were solely derived from the evolutionary narrative. This is because Humanism also makes the assumption that humans are basically good.

In 1973 however, the Humanist Manifesto was updated because of the atrocities that humans inflicted upon other humans during the intervening years (specifically mentioned are Nazism and communist police states).

Ethical
Atheism is a morally relativist religion. Most Atheists adhere to one ethical system or another, but in Atheism there is ultimately no foundation for morality, as atheists Dawkins and Provine admit. Many systems of ethics have been proposed; utilitarianism is probably the most popular one.

Some people have taken a further step by creating ethical systems based on the evolutionary narrative and the principle of “survival of the fittest”. People who have lived by such principles include the perpetrators of the Columbine Massacre, the Jokela School Shooting in Finland, and on a much larger scale, the Nazis.

Most people (Atheist or not) inherently know that systems that lead to such atrocities must be wrong, but Atheists cannot give a logical reason for why it is wrong. This contradiction was highlighted by Dawkins when he said “I’m a passionate Darwinian when it comes to science, when it comes to explaining the world, but I’m a passionate anti-Darwinian when it comes to morality and politics.” It was also graphically shown when two evolutionists wrote a book claiming that violation is an evolutionary mechanism to spread male genes—and see how one of them squirmed to justify why he agreed that violation is objectively wrong under his philosophy.

A world governed purely by Atheistic, evolutionary ethics has been shown by history to be a horrible place to live. Most Atheists recognise this and choose to live by the ethical systems of other religions instead, or at the very least, live by the laws enforced by the government.

Ritual
Ritual is the only dimension which on the surface might appear to be absent from the religion of Atheism. In some religions, rituals have meanings attached to them, such as Passover commemorating the Israelites’ escape from Egypt. Because Atheism is a relatively recent movement, it doesn’t have much of a history to commemorate. In other religions, rituals such as sacrifices and dances are done to appease the gods or the spirits. Because Atheism denies the existence of gods and spirits, it doesn’t have the second type of ritual either. Many Atheists do practice “secular rituals” such as their birthday celebrations, or the ‘ritual holidays’ of other religions such as the Christmas and Easter public holidays of Christianity, but this is usually to simply maintain the tradition of a public holiday, and the original meaning of the celebrations are rejected. It’s noteworthy that in recent years, the atheists’ public commemoration of the anniversary of Darwin’s birth each February (and even of the publication of his Origin of Species in November), along with calls for the general public to do the same, is rapidly becoming something of an annual ritual, even in some “churches”. One might even say that this modern Atheistic commemoration is being ‘celebrated’ with greater fervour and passion than many longstanding religious rituals.

Material
The material dimension of religion, says Smart, includes all the physical things created by a religion such as art and buildings, and also natural features and places treated as sacred by adherents. While Atheism by its nature of denying the divine can’t have objects that represent the divine (such as icons or idols), nature is treated as sacred by some Atheists in and of itself.

There are two extremes in the range of ideas held by Atheists on the ‘material’:

natural resources are here to be exploited because of “survival of the fittest” and humans are obviously the fittest species; or
we should respect all of nature, particularly living things because to kill them is tantamount to murdering a cousin. This second view essentially holds that all life is ‘sacred’.
Both ideas can be derived from the evolutionary narrative, but views tending towards the second idea are more prevalent than the views tending towards the first. But as G.K. Chesterton said a century ago:

“Darwinism can be used to back up two mad moralities, but it cannot be used to back up a single sane one. The kinship and competition of all living creatures can be used as a reason for being insanely cruel or insanely sentimental; but not for a healthy love of animals. … The main point of Christianity was this: that Nature is not our mother: Nature is our sister. We can be proud of her beauty, since we have the same father; but she has no authority over us; we have to admire, but not to imitate.”
An Atheist’s view of the material dimension is strongly influenced by their view of the ethical dimension.

Conclusion
Atheists often claim that their belief is not a religion. This allows them to propagate their beliefs in settings where other religions are banned, but this should not be so.

Contemporary Western Atheism unquestionably has six of the seven dimensions of religion set forth by Smart, and the remaining dimension, ritual, has also started to develop. Thus it’s fallacious to assert, “Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair colour”. Perhaps a better analogy would be calling a shaved head a “hairstyle”. Other than the denial of the divine, there is little difference between Atheism and other worldviews typically labelled as religions.

The dichotomy that Atheists try to create between science and religion is false. The conflict is between interpretations of science coming from different religious worldviews.

Atheism shouldn’t be taught or enforced in settings where other religions are banned and shouldn’t be favoured by laws which imply a religiously neutral government.

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.

In the context of the Free Exercise Clause, Kaufman must first establish that his right to practice atheism was burdened in a significant way. . . . .

He failed utterly to do so. Kaufman introduced no evidence showing that he would be unable to practice atheism effectively without the benefit of a weekly study group. The defendants apparently allow him to study atheist literature on his own, consult informally with other atheist inmates, and correspond with members of the atheist groups he identified, and Kaufman offered nothing to suggest that these alternatives are inadequate.

Moreover, an inmate is not entitled to follow every aspect of his religion; the prison may restrict the inmate’s practices if its legitimate penological interests outweigh the prisoner’s religious interests.

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 . . . .

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.

In the context of the Free Exercise Clause, Kaufman must first establish that his right to practice atheism was burdened in a significant way. . . . .

He failed utterly to do so. Kaufman introduced no evidence showing that he would be unable to practice atheism effectively without the benefit of a weekly study group. The defendants apparently allow him to study atheist literature on his own, consult informally with other atheist inmates, and correspond with members of the atheist groups he identified, and Kaufman offered nothing to suggest that these alternatives are inadequate.

Moreover, an inmate is not entitled to follow every aspect of his religion; the prison may restrict the inmate’s practices if its legitimate penological interests outweigh the prisoner’s religious interests.

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 . . . .

Joagbaje:
Thanks , Actually from my study of Gods word, it is very evident that men prophesy according to their measure of faith. Isaiah was not correct here ,

Isaiah 45:7
    I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.

In those days generally men believe God was behind every thing, both good and evil.There was no revelaion of demons as much as now.if a man dies ,it is believed God killed him. People wrote prophecies according to the light they had. . . . . .

Joagbaje:
My sister, God is not author of evil .I know quite well the erronous doctrine you have believed ,but its not consistent with Gods nature. I have greater light than Isaiah, God is love.

Joagbaje:
I have the life of Christ in me which Elijah never had.
Well I dont have much to say with you here,  I cant blame you for the level of truth you dont know. When you really get to know who the new creation is, you will know who you are in christ, and all these truths will no longer be mystries to you. The newest convert today in Christ is more than all the prophets put together.

Matthew 11:11
    Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding[b] he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he[/b].

jayriginal:
Why dont you quote where I made the above assertion ? You cant. Infact, I'll help you. I'll post my annotated judgement for you. Maybe a second read might make the difference. I will copy verbatim from the other thread. Its all relevant, but the bolded blue italicized parts expose your intellectual cheapness. Too bad you cannot be bothered to read.

In the United States, atheism is protected under the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause. In August 2005, in a case where a prison inmate was blocked by prison officials from creating an inmate group to study and discuss atheism, the court ruled this violated the inmate's rights under the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed previous Supreme Court precedent by ruling atheism be afforded equal protection with religions under the 1st amendment.[12][13]

There are also online churches that have been created by atheists to secure legal rights, to ordain atheist clergy to hold ceremonies, as well as for parody, education, and advocacy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism_and_religion

jayriginal:
Im not surprised you cannot appreciate the First Amendment and its separate components.
You are apparently immune to reason. You cannot see that I have been emphasizing for "First Amendment purposes only". To you there is no difference between the free exercise clause and the establishment clause (both under the first amendment).
Again, no surprises there. Someone breaks it down for you, you spit on it. Someone leaves you to figure it out on your own, you cant.
Truly an enigma. No wonder the judgement eludes you till now.

jayriginal:
. . .

[size=14pt]Kaufman only won his suit under the establishment clause, not the first amendment.[/size]

Lets review this.
Kaufman claimed under the first amendment/free exercise clause and the establishment clause.
The court engaged itself in "judicial contortions" and managed to bring atheism under the purview of the first amendment by including anything that takes a position on divinity as a religion. It said it did this in a specialized sense, broadening the scope for the purpose of the first amendment only. It even put religion in quotes ("religion").

You keep shouting "what do you understand by religion under the first amendment", when a simple glance at the judgement shows that [size=14pt]Kaufman didnt win his claim under the first amendment. He won it under the establishment clause[/size]. The court only defined atheism as a religion for the purposes of the first amendment and his claim thereof failed.

My annotations to the judgement are here https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-765094.32.html for anyone willing to see for themselves. Thereafter, I put an analysis from a layman to show how easy it is to understand the judgement.

5) I hope that makes you feel smart.

thehomer:
Nah I've responded to your poor questions but for some reason, you seem to be unable to understand it.

It is a shame to see one with potential be so dense. Did you read my response to your poor posts? What is your conclusion? Is the civil rights movement a religion? Please at the very least, put in some effort to read my responses. They're still there for you to take along with you and read till you're able to understand. I give you permission to print them and hand them out to your educators to help you interpret them in ways you can understand.

Nope for my purposes here, the definition is adequate. As usual, you're still unable to present your own working definition of religion. I wonder if its because you're too dull or lazy to find one.

I understood it. The question is did you?

How do you decide the contexts that matter? Remember, they are contexts. The meaning of words can vary depending on their contexts.

For the purposes of the first amendment, it is perfectly fine to do that otherwise, religious zealots like you and your ilk would try to use that to prevent citizens from having their own point of view e.g prisoners and soldiers. Please try and read the posts on this thread and the other thread that made you resurrect this thread and vomit your usual faeculent material.

jayriginal:
. . .

Kaufman only won his suit under the establishment clause, not the first amendment.

Lets review this.
Kaufman claimed under the first amendment/free exercise clause and the establishment clause.
The court engaged itself in "judicial contortions" and managed to bring atheism under the purview of the first amendment by including anything that takes a position on divinity as a religion. It said it did this in a specialized sense, broadening the scope for the purpose of the first amendment only. It even put religion in quotes ("religion").

You keep shouting "what do you understand by religion under the first amendment", when a simple glance at the judgement shows that Kaufman didnt win his claim under the first amendment. He won it under the establishment clause. The court only defined atheism as a religion for the purposes of the first amendment and his claim thereof failed.

My annotations to the judgement are here https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-765094.32.html for anyone willing to see for themselves. Thereafter, I put an analysis from a layman to show how easy it is to understand the judgement.

5) I hope that makes you feel smart.