₦airaland Forum

toba:
would u participate in discussion on threads opened in the section should your quest be granted?

karo93:
you cannot respect a god you invent except you are trying to re brand an existent God who you believe was not portrayed rightly.

toba:
im now an atheist. op can i give u my bbm pin? just that i dont have bb but i can still borrow one.

harakiri:
@poster, Why don't you create a dud email address strictly for this. People can then reach you and you choose who to add and how to ignore. Personally, I would like to add the likes of mazaje,globexl,manmustwac,seun,jesoul,chaircover,jennykadry,pro1, just to mention a few. Adding someone like FROSBEL could make me hang myself (I don't wanna wake each day with BB spam from "reliable sources". If you're game,let's get this show on the road.

justcool:
@jayriginal
Thanks for addressing my post, but I'm afraid you are a little off.

I never said that an atheist must subscribe to science, evolution, big slam and etc.

Here is where you are off. A strong atheist does not hold the "i don't know" position.
"I don't know" implies that you are open to the idea of God; this is passivity. Those that hold this position are called agnostics, not atheists. At best one can call them weak atheists. You cant do away with the fact that there are dgrees to atheism. 


An atheist(a strong atheist, a true, or a pure atheist) is not that passive. A strong atheist claims that he knows; he claims to know that God or gods do not exist.

While an agnostic is open minded, an true atheist is closed minded.

Please consider these links:http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-difference-between-an-atheist-and-an-agnostic.htm
http://ask.yahoo.com/20030527.html

In reality true atheism is not just the absence of belief; strong atheism involves belief, the belief that God or gods do not exist.

Once again I never said that an atheist must subscribe to science. I have maintained many times in different threads that atheism is not science. It is not more scientific than theism.

Thanks

While an agnostic is open minded, an true atheist is closed minded.

justcool:
Simple!!!! If you believe that the universe is was not caused; you simply believe that it is “uncaused causer” The same way that religionist believe that God is uncaused!!!!!

moderatorr:
He was the one who healed kanu nwankwo's heart disease and probably encouraged him to open kanu heart foundation. He also healed daniel amokachie of his life long leg injury.

davidylan:
Read the bible . . . no where do we see Christ compromising with the pharisees and sadducees all in the name of "tolerance". On mount carmel, Elisha slew 450 prophets of baal, he didnt go around holding them by the hand or asking them to usher him into their temple in the spirit of "love". You dont seem to understand your bible at all.
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-741322.0.html

zataxs:
We spoke about this on the other thread. Dawkins is but a man. He can only assert what he knows.

<<
You are also but a man, and you can only assert what you know from a book printed by men.
and stories in it written by men, not barbaric ones if I may add.
There is no proof whatsoever that God wrote any book or inspired anything, none at all.
If you wrote a book and you said that God inspired it, then we only have your word to proof it, which sad to say it is not good enough.
People pass on religion to their children, if God was the creator of the bible he would not be at the mercy of Sunday school teachers or semi-illiterate pastors.
>>

The very origin of the universe itself he never claimed to know. He says it is not within his field.
Anybody (absolutely anybody) can claim "God did it".
<< All except scientist who take the trouble to find a better answer
??

Deep Sight:
Jay, changing the title will not mean anything. The fact remains that Dawkins set out to discredit the idea of an intelligent first cause of all things, but sadly, he did not address anything even close to the origin of things. He starts his premises with already existent things. This is an inescapable flaw on which the whole write up collapses because an article on the improbability of God, must naturally first address the origin of all things in existence, which he does not do.

Deep Sight:
Cardinally, the article - "The Improbability of God" - (being directed at the original creative factor which is said by creationists to be an intelligent agent), must naturally commence its submission from the point of view of the commencement of existence and life - since that is what is at issue.

Rather than do this, the entire article completely evades and sidesteps that critical issue - which is at the centre of the matter. I had said in the other thread -

As it happens, he does not even address this necessary commencement and the irredeemable riddle contained therein at all: he simply


   a. Assumes the existence of things already


   b. Avoids the question of the first instance of generation of living things and


   c. Commences his discussion with a full fledged biological evolutionary process already magically in place –


And thereby assumes that this suffices to obviate the requirement for an initial causative factor going beyond the scenario that he has ridiculously commenced with.

I hope you can understand the simple fact that it is beyond id.iotic to advance an argument against the existence of a creator, by writing an article which does not make any attempt to address the initial question of how things came into being - - - > but rather commences its premises from the point of already existent things - when the core question is and remains how such things came to exist ab initio!

On that, you must see reason.

There is a little more that needs to be said. Evolution by natural selection explains a lot, but it couldn't start from nothing. [/b]It couldn't have started until there was some kind of rudimentary reproduction and heredity. Modern heredity is based on the DNA code, which is itself too complicated to have sprung spontaneously into being by a single act of chance. [b]This seems to mean that there must have been some earlier hereditary system, now disappeared, which was simple enough to have arisen by chance and the laws of chemistry and which provided the medium in which a primitive form of cumulative natural selection could get started. DNA was a later product of this earlier cumulative selection.
Before this original kind of natural selection, there was a period when complex chemical compounds were built up from simpler ones and before that a period when the chemical elements were built up from simpler elements, following the well-understood laws of physics. Before that, everything was ultimately built up from pure hydrogen in the immediate aftermath of the big slam, which initiated the universe.

There is a temptation to argue that, although God may not be needed to explain the evolution of complex order once the universe, with its fundamental laws of physics, had begun, we do need a God to explain the origin of all things. This idea doesn't leave God with very much to do: just set off the big slam, then sit back and wait for everything to happen. The physical chemist Peter Atkins, in his beautifully written book The Creation, postulates a lazy God who strove to do as little as possible in order to initiate everything. Atkins explains how each step in the history of the universe followed, by simple physical law, from its predecessor. He thus pares down the amount of work that the lazy creator would need to do and eventually concludes that he would in fact have needed to do nothing at all!
The details of the early phase of the universe belong to the realm of physics, whereas I am a biologist, more concerned with the later phases of the evolution of complexity. For me, the important point is that, even if the physicist needs to postulate an irreducible minimum that had to be present in the beginning, in order for the universe to get started, that irreducible minimum is certainly extremely simple. By definition, explanations that build on simple premises are more plausible and more satisfying than explanations that have to postulate complex and statistically improbable beginnings. And you can't get
much more complex than an Almighty God!

As it happens, he does not even address this necessary commencement and the irredeemable riddle contained therein at all: he simply


   a. Assumes the existence of things already


   b. Avoids the question of the first instance of generation of living things and


   c. Commences his discussion with a full fledged biological evolutionary process already magically in place –

I hope you can understand the simple fact that it is beyond id.iotic to advance an argument against the existence of a creator, by writing an article which does not make any attempt to address the initial question of how things came into being - - - > but rather commences its premises from the point of already existent things - when the core question is and remains how such things came to exist ab initio!

On that, you must see reason.

, and Dawkins in his write up forcibly conceded that it is altogether implausible. What is strange is that which he then advanced – and which you have supported – the notion that such could have nonetheless developed through a combination of luck and natural selection. Any casual observation of the eye debunks this – especially in terms of Dawkins statement that it could have “sprung out of bare skin in a single lucky step”

We can safely conclude that living bodies are billions of times too complicated - too statistically improbable - to have come into being by sheer chance. How, then, did they come into being?

The answer is that chance enters into the story, but not a single, monolithic act of chance. Instead, a whole series of tiny chance steps, each one small enough to be a believable product of its predecessor, occurred one after the other in sequence. These small steps of chance are caused by genetic mutations, random changes - mistakes really - in the genetic material. They give rise to changes in the existing bodily structure. Most of these changes are deleterious and lead to death. A minority of them turn out to be slight improvements, leading to increased survival and reproduction. By this process of natural selection, those random changes that turn out to be beneficial eventually spread through the species and become the norm. The stage is
now set for the next small change in the evolutionary process. After, say, a thousand of these small changes in series, each change providing the basis for the next, the end result has become, by a process of accumulation, far too complex to have come about in a single act of chance.
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-758572.0.html

For instance, it is theoretically possible for an eye to spring into being, in a single lucky step, from nothing: from bare skin, let's say. It is theoretically possible in the sense that a recipe could be written out in the form of a large number of mutations. If all these mutations happened simultaneously, a complete eye could, indeed, spring from nothing. But although it is theoretically possible, it is in practice inconceivable. The quantity of luck involved is much too large. The "correct" recipe involves changes in a huge number of genes simultaneously. The correct recipe is one particular combination of changes out of trillions of equally probable combinations of chances. We can certainly rule out such a miraculous coincidence. But it is perfectly plausible that the modern eye could have sprung from something almost the same as the modern eye but not quite: a very slightly less elaborate eye. By the same argument, this slightly less elaborate eye sprang from a slightly less elaborate eye still, and so on. If you assume a sufficiently large number of sufficiently small differences between each evolutionary stage and its predecessor, you are bound to be able to derive a full, complex, working eye from bare skin. How many intermediate stages are we allowed to postulate? That depends on how much time we have to play with. Has there been enough time for eyes to evolve by little steps from nothing?

Eyes and wings cannot spring into existence in a single step. That would be like having the almost infinite luck to hit upon the combination number that opens a large bank vault. But if you spun the dials of the lock at random, and every time you got a little bit closer to the lucky number the vault door creaked open another chink, you would soon have the door open! Essentially, that is the secret of how evolution by natural selection achieves what once seemed impossible. Things that cannot plausibly be derived from very different predecessors can plausibly be derived from only slightly different predecessors. Provided only that there is a sufficiently long series of such slightly different predecessors, you can derive anything from anything else.
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-758572.0.html

noetic16:
okay . . .do u believe in the existence of mamajubajingi?

Deep Sight:
When i consistently have dreams that play out in reality in exact detail as appeared in my dream, and when this has happened consistently since my childhood and continues up till now (I am in my thirties) this tells me that there is a super-structure about this reality beyond that which is observable with our physical senses.

Can't prove that to anyone but myself though.

If however I have no idea as to who Shiva or leprechauns is, then I would neither believe nor disbelieve.

in 1952, Russell wrote:

   Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot

Hitchhiker's Guide of the Galaxy
written by Douglas Adams

   The Book: The Babel fish is small, yellow, leechlike, and probably the oddest thing in the Universe. It feeds on brainwave energy received not from its own carrier but from those around it. It absorbs all unconscious mental frequencies from this brainwave energy to nourish itself with. It then excretes into the mind of its carrier a telepathic matrix formed by combining the conscious thought frequencies with nerve signals picked up from the speech centers of the brain which has supplied them. The practical upshot of all this is that if you stick a Babel fish in your ear you can instantly understand anything said to you in any form of language. The speech patterns you actually hear decode the brainwave matrix which has been fed into your mind by your Babel fish.
   Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mind-bogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the NON-existence of God.
   The argument goes like this:
   `I refuse to prove that I exist,' says God, `for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.'
   `But,' says Man, `The Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED.'
   `Oh dear,' says God, `I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly disappears in a puff of logic.
   `Oh, that was easy,' says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing

thehomer:
You dull fellow. Go and reread the rubbish you wrote then ask yourself how it helps your case.

PS: Get your special ed. instructor to help you next time you encounter minor difficulties in English comprehension.

Enigma:
Look, you have to thank me first for schooling you on the First Amendment in particular and your nonsense about the Establishment clause as well as on the Kaufman case generally before you earn the right to a response to from me. 

Any response I provide for you until then is an act of grace and charity ---- like now asking you whether anyone said science and religion were the same thing.

toba:
give what a rest? have u heard of for better for worse, till death do us part?

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. I would classify Christian faith as part of the doctrinal dimension rather than experiential. 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

Now, let us return to Woodward's statement "Evolution is a Philosophy". It is clear now to everybody who carefully read Ruse, that the statement "Evolution is a Philosophy" is not what Ruse said. Above that, it is a too crude level for an analysis of Darwinistic logic. It is as crude as the symposium title "Darwinism: Science or Philosophy?" Apparently it is good enough for religious propaganda, as people like Woodward and Johnson show us. http://home.wxs.nl/~gkorthof/korthof7.htm

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.

toba:
Didnt u copy/lifted materials from the internet to defend your position on this thread? your thread improbability of God doesnt have internet lifted contents on it right? your thread atheist faq doesnt have internet lifted contents thereon? Smdh at this your pathetic response

'Toba is a player. Just go to the Islamic forum and find out.'

1) Smh. I told u what mattered in the quote was the fact that atheists has/have belief.
2) u quoted your fellow atheist who also confirmed that atheism is a belief system. isnt it?

i gave u the platform to reason logically and argue like a literate person but u failed

toba:
its obvious jayriginal has no substance to offer on this thread other than to pick on charater. u have called me a player. let me quote for me to have evidence to report u u need to back up your frivolous claim once again

toba:
1) u see u are not even denying that u are a comedian smdh.

2) u are an evangelical atheist.
3) u have evangelized that the xtian God is a non entity so that i can change my mind and stop believing in a non entity right? u have also told me that science offers something better than my fable books and human compilation isnt it? u are an evangelical atheist.

toba:
this is another culled angle to see that atheists indeed have belief. it may be different from that of the theists but belief is belief by virture of definition

Evangelical Atheism Published by Janus on July 1, 2008
,
,
,

So you can see that the "wiki" passage that you quoted with approval does suggest that Kaufman won under the Free Exercise clause.

2. But then in truth yet somewhat contradictorily, you did say: "]Kaufman failed under the first ammendment/free exercise clause. He could noy prove a central religious belief to qualify under the clause, even though the court was willing to describe atheism "as a religion" for the purpose of the first ammendment."

A. Under the Free Exercise Clause

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
Thus Kaufman wins this crucial major point.

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.
Thus Kaufman loses this point which, while it may be important to him, is insignificant compared to whether atheism is a religion in the first
place.

Kaufman argues that the defendants’ refusal to permit him to meet with other atheist inmates to study and discuss their beliefs violates the Free Exercise Clause. “ ‘[W]hen a prison regulation impinges on inmates’ constitutional rights, the regulation is valid if it is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests.’ In the context of the Free Exercise Clause, Kaufman must first establish that his right to practice
atheism was burdened in a significant way. plaintiff must show a “substantial burden” on a “central religious belief or practice” to prevail under the Free Exercise Clause); Civil Liberties for Urban Believers v. City
of Chicago, 342 F.3d 752, 760 (7th Cir. 2003) (collecting cases). 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.

The defendants submitted an affidavit stating that allowing any group of inmates to congregate for a meeting raises security concerns and requires staff members to supervise the group. Prison officials unquestionably have a legitimate interest in maintaining institutional security. We cannot say that their denial of Kaufman’s request for a study group was not rationally related to that interest. Accordingly, the district court properly granted summary judgment on Kaufman’s claim insofar as it arises under the Free Exercise Clause.

Toba: Evangelical Hornny Pharisee: Hates all things Muslims, Non-Believers, especially Atheist.

Enigma:
^^^ Yawnnnnnn! Well in the spirit of your last line I don't want to say anything anymore really. I have taught you and your fellow evangelical atheist religionist enough already. Free law lessons, free comprehension lessons. You guys and your other fellow evangelical atheist religionists should make do with that.

Enigma:
Now let me even show you how much of a bad "lawyer" you are (leaving aside your shameful ignorance of the status of the Establishment Clause):

Here now you are claiming Kaufman won under the Establishment Clause and not the Free Establishment Exercise Clause.

Ha, but when you first started on the other thread by running to Wikipedia for assistance, your case was that Kaufman won under the Free Exercise Clause --- yep, the very one that you now say he didn't win under. So which is it now Mr confused  "lawyer" or is it puff puff "lawyer"?

Remember this? https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-765094.32.html#msg9226232

A lawyer going to Wikipedia for assistance in reading a 13 page judgment! SMDH as my friend toba would say! 

toba:
Enigma. whatever the case may be, its still very good. atheists have also hidden behind the term logic and that the theists are illogical. now the supreme court made pronouncement(not toba even though i brought out the link) that atheism is in deed a religion even though atheists are believers in the non existence of a god. can the atheist on nl accuse the supreme court judges that gave the judgement of being illogical?

Brian Fahling, senior trial attorney for the American Family Association Center for Law & Policy, called the court's ruling "a sort of[b] Alice in Wonderland jurisprudence.[/b]"

"Up is down, and atheism, the antithesis of religion, is religion," said Fahling.

Fahling said today's ruling was "further evidence of the incoherence of Establishment Clause jurisprudence."

"It is difficult not to be somewhat jaundiced about our courts when they take clauses especially designed to protect religion from the state and turn them on their head by giving protective cover to a belief system, that, by every known definition other than the courts' is not a religion, while simultaneously declaring public expressions of true religious faith to be prohibited," Fahling said.
http://www.cornswalled.com/2007/07/court-rules-atheism-religion.html

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

The Free Exercise Clause is the accompanying clause with the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause together read:
“ Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Exercise_Clause_of_the_First_Amendment

The court decided the inmate's First Amendment rights were violated because the prison refused to allow him to create a study group for atheists.

Brian Fahling, senior trial attorney for the American Family Association Center for Law & Policy, called the court's ruling "a sort of Alice in Wonderland jurisprudence."

"Up is down, and atheism, the antithesis of religion, is religion," said Fahling.

Fahling said today's ruling was "further evidence of the incoherence of Establishment Clause jurisprudence."

Kaufman’s argument (was) that the prison officials violated his constitutional rights when they refused to give him permission to start a study group for atheist inmates at the prison. The events underlying Kaufman’s lawsuit occurred while he was an inmate at Wisconsin’s Waupun Correctional Institution.

While at Waupun, Kaufman submitted an official form titled “Request for New Religious Practice,” in which he asked to form an inmate group interested in humanism, atheism, and free speaking. The group would work “[t]o stimulate and promote Freedom of Thought and inquiry concerning religious beliefs, creeds, dogmas, tenets, rituals and practices[, and to] educate and provide information concerning religious beliefs, creeds, dogmas, tenets, rituals, and practices.”

Kaufman also submitted a list of atheist groups and literature. The officials concluded that Kaufman’s request was not motivated by “religious” beliefs. Accordingly, rather than evaluating the proposal under the state’s relatively more flexible policy for new religious groups, see Wis. Admin. Code § DOC 309.61, they considered it under the procedure for forming a new inmate activity group, see Wis. Admin. Code § DOC 309.365. Applying the latter standard, they denied the request, stating that they were not forming new activity groups at that time.

Kaufman argues that the defendants’ refusal to allow him to create the study group violated his rights under both the Free Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. We note that Kaufman relies only on the First Amendment and at this stage of the litigation has not tried to take advantage of the added protections of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc et seq.

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.

A religion need not be based on a belief in the existence of a supreme being (or beings, for polytheistic faiths), nor must it be a mainstream faith. Without venturing too far into the realm of the philosophical, we have suggested in the past that when a person sincerely holds beliefs dealing with issues of “ultimate concern” that for her occupy a “place parallel to that filled by . . . God in traditionally religious persons,” those beliefs represent her religion.

We have already indicated that atheism may be considered, in this specialized sense, a religion. See Reed v. Great Lakes Cos., 330 F.3d 931, 934(7th Cir. 2003) (“If we think of religion as taking a position on divinity, then atheism is indeed a form of religion.”). Kaufman claims that his atheist beliefs play a central role in his life, and the defendants do not dispute that his beliefs are deeply and sincerely held.

The Supreme Court has recognized atheism as equivalent to a “religion” for purposes of the First Amendment on numerous occasions, most recently in McCreary County, Ky. v. American Civil Liberties Union of Ky., 125 S.Ct. 2722 (2005).

The Establishment Clause itself says only that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment
of religion,” but the Court understands the reference to religion to include what it often calls “nonreligion.” In
McCreary County, it described the touchstone of Establishment Clause analysis as “the principle that the
First Amendment mandates government neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion.”

As the Court put it
in Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38 (1985): At one time it was thought that this right [referring to the right to choose one’s own creed] merely proscribed the preference of one Christian sect over another, but would not require equal respect for the conscience of the infidel, the atheist, or the adherent of a non-Christian faith such as Islam or Judaism. But when the underlying principle has been examined in the crucible of litigation, the Court has unambiguously concluded that the individual freedom of conscience protected by the First Amendment embraces the right to select any religious faith or none at all.

In keeping with this idea, the Court has adopted a broad definition of “religion” that includes nontheistic and atheistic beliefs, as well as theistic ones.

Thus, in Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488, it said that a state cannot “pass laws or impose requirements which aid all religions as against non-believers, and neither can [it] aid those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs.” Id. at 495. Indeed, Torcaso specifically included “Secular Humanism” as an example of a religion.

It is also noteworthy that the administrative code governing Wisconsin prisons states that one factor the
warden is prohibited from considering in deciding whether an inmate’s request to form a new religious group should be granted is “the absence from the beliefs of a concept
of a supreme being.” See Wis. Admin. Code § DOC 309.61(d)(3), cited in Kaufman v. McCaughtry, 2004 WL
257133, at *9. 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.

Kaufman argues that the defendants’ refusal to permit him to meet with other atheist inmates to study and discuss their beliefs violates the Free Exercise Clause. “ ‘[W]hen a prison regulation impinges on inmates’ constitutional rights, the regulation is valid if it is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests.’  In the context of the Free Exercise Clause, Kaufman must first establish that his right to practice
atheism was burdened in a significant way.  plaintiff must show a “substantial burden” on a “central religious belief or practice” to prevail under the Free Exercise Clause); Civil Liberties for Urban Believers v. City
of Chicago, 342 F.3d 752, 760 (7th Cir. 2003) (collecting cases). 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.

The defendants submitted an affidavit stating that allowing any group of inmates to congregate for a meeting raises security concerns and requires staff members to supervise the group. Prison officials unquestionably have a legitimate interest in maintaining institutional security. We cannot say that their denial of Kaufman’s request for a study group was not rationally related to that interest. Accordingly, the district court properly granted summary judgment on Kaufman’s claim insofar as it arises under the Free Exercise Clause.

The same is not true with respect to Kaufman’s Establishment Clause claim. The Supreme Court reaffirmed
the utility of the test set forth in Lemon v. Kurtzman. A government policy or practice violates the Establishment Clause if (1) it has no secular purpose, (2) its primary effect advances or inhibits religion, or (3) it fosters an excessive entanglement with religion.
The Establishment Clause also prohibits the government from favoring one religion over another without
a legitimate secular reason.

First Amendment does not allow a state to make it easier for adherents of one faith to practice their religion than for adherents of another faith to practice their religion, unless there is a secular justification for the difference in treatment.” (“Under the Establishment Clause, the government may not aid one religion, aid all
religions or favor one religion over another.”).

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

Atheism is Kaufman’s religion, and the group that he wanted to start was religious in nature even though
it expressly rejects a belief in a supreme being. As he explained in his application, the group wanted to study freedom of thought, religious beliefs, creeds, dogmas, tenets, rituals, and practices, all presumably from an atheistic perspective.

It is undisputed that other religious groups are permitted to meet at Kaufman’s prison, and the defendants have advanced no secular reason why the security concerns they cited as a reason to deny his request for an atheist group do not apply equally to gatherings of Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, or Wiccan inmates. The defendants argue that all they are doing is accommodating religious groups as a whole, as they are required to do under RLUIPA. See Cutter, 125 S.Ct. 2113; Charles, 348 F.3d at 610-11. But the defendants havenot 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 secularreason 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 the first part of the Lemon test. See Lemon, 403 U.S. at 612-13; Books, 235 F.3dat 301. We therefore vacate the grant of summary judgment in the defendants’ favor on Kaufman’s claim under the Establishment Clause [/b]and remand for further proceedings.

Enigma:
Mr "lawyer" you are now trying to wriggle and weasel your way out of astounding ignorance of very basic law (EDIT after consulting Wikipedia again?)! Your words again ----- to haunt you for as long as you live! 

Enigma:
Ah, the dunce accepts at last that evangelical atheism IS indeed a religion ---- albeit he wants to restict that acceptance to some "contexts".

Enigma:
^^^ Let me help you a bit,

Your own type of "lawyer" does not know that the Establishment Clause is part of the First Amendment? Wunderbar! 

@ All Toba said