₦airaland Forum

Deep Sight:
To be honest, I believe I am as certain as I will ever be in this lifetime.

I appreciate that. At least I understand your position. The only puzzle left for me now is your concept of the afterlife. I would be grateful if you can shed light on that (on the other thread of course).

Enigma:
1) EDIT: Now scurry off to trawl the Internet for another definition of religion and I will be happy to school you once again with analysis of it to determine whether or not evangelical atheism is within it. 

2) Now to your chicken-hearted response to the First Amendment provision: well, you have just proven what I said earlier that you do not even understand what you were saying when you kept shouting "for the first amendment purposes only".

3) Today under American law[/b][/color], atheism is a religion in the contexts that really matter but I guess you will not even understand that statement.

4) Finally, even if the ruling is that atheism is a religion "for the First Amendment purposes" only ---- you atheists should be ashamed of yourselves for not rising up in arms to protest the decision. Instead, you have an atheist triggering the decision by asking for atheism to be recognised as a religion.

5) Duplicitous mumus!

1) It shows your readiness to argue without comprehension. Nobody needs the internet to prove anything. You are the master of posting links you do not read or lack comprehension of.
2) The point is clear enough. Whether you accept it or not has no bearing on facts.
3) Only to fit it within the purview of the first amendment (even if you are correct {and you arent} that is America only)
4) If you half read the judgement, you would see that Kaufman insisted that atheism was the antithesis of religion. The court even opined that, that was the reason his request was turned down. Very importantly, he could not show a central belief and he failed to prove his claim under the first amendment. [/b]From the judgement

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. [b]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 bolded parts refer. Of course he failed to do so. What central religious belief or practice is there to show for atheism ? None!

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.

Kaufman failed under the first ammendment/free exercise clause. He could not 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.

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.

Enigma:
^^^^ OK re that definition of "religion", see further my posts numbers 169, 193 and 273 on this very thread. 

Now to the real issue at hand (especially as you are a "lawyer"!):

[size=14pt]What do you understand by the word religion under the First Amendment?[/size] 

You are jumping the gun here. The first amendment does not define religion. It is clear from the Kaufman case that the court "broadened" the scope of religion to include anything that takes a position on divinity. For, against and neutral, and it did so for the purposes of the first amendment. There is no point running to the judgement because it does not support your case.

You havent told me yet if you consider good hygiene a religion since it falls within your definition.

Oh look, he bites.
Enigma, let me point out to you that the first ammendment and the whole of American law applies only in America and nowhere else. By virtue of that, no American court can define the universal position of atheists.

Ignoring that though, let us apply your definition of religion and see what happens.

A collection of practices, based on beliefs and teachings that are highly valued or sacred.

Atheism has no collection of practices based on beliefs and teachings that are highly valued or sacred, so atheism by this definition is not a religion. Full stop.

However, I wash my hands often (a practice), I also have my bath often (a practice), brush my teeth often (a practice), wash my clothes often (a practice) etc. I believe these are a collection of practices. They are based on the belief that good hygiene promotes health. This belief is borne out of teachings I received from home economics, biology classes and my elders. These teachings are highly valued (or sacred implies either one, so Im well within your definition here).
By your definition, good hygiene is my religion. Im sure its your religion too.

thehomer:
1)Who knows maybe he isn't. Its taken him over 6 months to try to understand what he needs to do to get his points across yet he fails at it.

2) Oh so you had educated him on the first amendment and were generous enough to include a link. Yet he comes here whining.

1) Ironically, he is quick to throw words like "dunce" and "idiotic" around.
2) Yes I did. I annotated the judgement for him, then I posted the opinion of a layman who read the judgement for himself (to show him how easy it was to understand). Inspite of all this, he still doesnt understand.
Now he is asking for a definition of first ammendment. The minute you define it, he will find something ignorant to say.
He is neither interested in learning, nor is he interested in a debate.

toba:
Richard Dawkins: Evangelical atheist

I loved this piece from the[b] Daily Telegraph’s Britons of the Year, 2009[/b] (25 notable Britons) which described Richard Dawkins as an evangelical (surely evangelistic) atheist. There’s a great, really withering comment at the end which I’ve highlighted:

http://transforminggrace./2010/01/05/dawkins-evangelical-atheist/

and below is the "great, really withering comment at the end" which Toba wants us to believe came from Dawkins when a glance at the page he gave shows us that Dawkins made no such statement. Infact, the clause "a great, really withering comment" shows exactly what it is. A comment from a Dawkins antagonist.

toba:
Atheism’s most celebrated evangelist continues a glittering career in which he miraculously manages to do as much for belief in God as for disbelief. Following Richard Dawkins’ support for the bendy-bus “Enjoy your life” campaign, this year saw some of the money he helped to raise for that exercise go to follow‑up posters aimed at preventing the religious indoctrination of children. Meanwhile, the good professor endorsed atheist summer camps for children. So we indoctrinate religion, but teach atheism.




http://transforminggrace./2010/01/05/dawkins-evangelical-atheist/

The lengths some people will go is astonishing.

Frosbel, did you know that Bush got a message from God to invade Iraq ?
No ? Ok.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/oct/07/iraq.usa

George Bush has claimed he was on a mission from God when he launched the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, according to a senior Palestinian politician in an interview to be broadcast by the BBC later this month.

Mr Bush revealed the extent of his religious fervour when he met a Palestinian delegation during the Israeli-Palestinian summit at the Egpytian resort of Sharm el-Sheikh, four months after the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003.

One of the delegates, Nabil Shaath, who was Palestinian foreign minister at the time, said: "President Bush said to all of us: 'I am driven with a mission from God'. God would tell me, 'George go and fight these terrorists in Afghanistan'. And I did. And then God would tell me 'George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq'. And I did."

Mr Bush went on: "And now, again, I feel God's words coming to me, 'Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East'. And, by God, I'm gonna do it."

I should probably stop there but you asked for words of Jesus

Will Mathew 10:34 suffice ?

Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.

Enigma:
Oh by the way on your number 1 which you say is "refuted", here is a free legal lesson for you in two ways: (a) free quotes from a US Supreme Court decision and (b) a link to the text of the case for you to practise your case law analysis and remember don't first run to Wikipedia for assistance. 


Quote
. . . neither a State nor the Federal Government . . . . .  can aid those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs.

Quote
Among religions in this country {i.e. the USA} which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism and others.

Torcaso v Watson (1961).


Torcaso v Watson (1961).

I have said it before. You are truly an enigma.
What the hell does the above mean ? Are you including atheism under others? Mr Man focus please. You have come again with your shallow understanding and selective posting. Before you post a link, be sure that it supports your case.

Enigma:
[size=14pt]What does the First Amendment say?[/size]


As you have been going on about "for first amendment purposes only", if you cannot answer the above question then you are simply wasting my time.

Didnt I enlighten you ? You want someone to spoon feed you so you can accuse him of running to wiki ?

thehomer:
Yes you're quite right but like you said, keeping quiet here may be misconstrued as accepting their wrong claims so I feel one must try for the time being.

I find it hard to believe (for the sake of humanity) that this enigma character is not joking.

Enigma:
When you are ready, i.e. having learned basics, we'll talk. 

For now, you have once again shown yourself to be all bluff and bluster with no substance; comes here shouting "for first amendment purposes" not knowing what it means.

Ridiculous!

You have been educated on this. Here, let me post the link again. Keep ridiculing the education I gave you. It was simple enough, yet you failed to comprehend https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-765094.32.html

^^^ Oh look. Toba got his ID back (if it wasnt a stunt in the first place).

toba:
1) that was why i said your response was well articulated. i had nothing to add to it. u clearly defeated him flawless.


2) Jay kindly define beliefs for us to show us that atheists arent believers

1) Kindly bring back the Dodo while you are at it.

2) I think we both know what it is. In addition, you provided a definition either on page 1 or 2.

Now I need you to explain how a non belief is a belief.

Please take your time

Enigma:
You call yourself a "lawyer" and you could not properly identify what the claim was in a civil law suit --- one of the most elementary things. Then you go on an exercise in spin with the assistance of Wikipedia and Dillahunty et al! Pitiful!

You are a funny little chap. Get behind me Satan.

Enigma:
1)^^ Actually, you are even more of a denser mumu than I thought.
2) Anyway, I shouldn't be surprised ---- when a "lawyer" faced with a rather short (mere 13 page) judgment first goes to Wikipedia for assistance in interpreting the judgment!

3) Oh, by the way I am indeed an enigma even in real life.  

1) Im not surprised at this. The depths a christian jihadist will sink to.
2) Facts are in no way invalidated by opinion (especially when the holder of the opinion doesnt exist). As a tribute to your non existence, you couldnt read the judgement and couldnt understand when I kindly annotated it for you. You should say thank you (where are your manners?)
3) Most definitely. You are non existent (by your logic) yet you manage to come online and post intellectual garbage. How can you not be an enigma ?

[quote author=jesus. link=topic=765094.msg9239120#msg9239120 date=1317237887]Enigma let the poor lawyer be cos he doesnt seem to realize that hes pushing his case in a very pathetic way.

its a pity my toba ID got knocked by the spam bot hence im confined to using this handle to respond. BRb to educate our barrister in da house[/quote]I'm sorry to hear about your ID Toba (if you are him). Could it be because of the flirting with the muslim chicks ? What did you type ?
I still find it hard to believe that you and the other guy (who doesnt exist) keep coming back for more.

go and read the post from the link very well and return here for me to educate u more on how the statement can be credited to him.

I'm sorry, I thought you said or implied that Dawkins made those statements. I read the link and I saw nothing of the sort.

smdh. do u believe in science? do u believe that the universe is more than 6000 years old? also once u define those two words i asked for above, i will come back to spoon feed u on how it adds up and makes complete sense what your evangelical atheist was trying to tell us.

Actually no. I do not "believe" in science. I simply trust it better than your book of fables. Science did not make me an atheist. Science simply provides more plausible alternatives to a primitive man made compilation.

of course i also had anticipated this kind of response from u cos of what u ve showed us on this thread about your logic. hope u read how your fello atheist broke than your post into sections and taught u some new things

There you go again. Was there any discrepancy between me and KAG? And can you please stop talking about logic ? Its akin to blasphemy coming from you.

can u please define

Gladly I would have. That non entity hiding behind you will pick it up and use it to harm common sense.
Why dont you do so. Im back to my original approach and I indicated the meaning of indoctrination to you.
Try and knock it down if you can.

Hope you get your ID back. I hope you didnt intentionally change it because I exposed your secret as a Christian Jihadist.

Enigma:
1) The American Supreme Court and Court of Appeal certainly believe and have ruled that atheism IS a religion under the American Constitution.

2)Even definitions of "religion" provided by the evangelical atheists themselves take in evangelical atheism which fits in very well ----- an example on this very thread as demonstrated here:  https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-546562.256.html#msg7314250

1) Refuted
2) Here is the quote you want to make a meal of

A collection of practices, based on beliefs and teachings that are highly valued or sacred.

You havent mentioned the practices or teachings or beliefs. Of course you will want to say that we believe there is no God.
Let me preempt you. Not believing in God (the true atheist position) is not the same as believing there is no God. Let me rephrase for you. Disbelief in God (the true atheist position) is not the same as believing there is no God. Can you wrap your head around that ?
There is no belief, no practice and no teaching. Your theory fails !

@Deep Sight, you remember our discussion a little while back. I opined that you would do well to rid yourself of certain assumptions. These do nought but give a religious/dogmatic zeal to your "spiritual philosophy" as I would like to call it.

We have an interesting discussion going on and I will be happy if you can take out some time to respond to my questions on the thread (the improbability of God).

In the meantime, on this thread, nobody knows for sure (one of the questions I asked you on that is if you were certain of your position). I may as well ask here if you are absolutely certain that your musings are the infallible truth and you have perceived the nature of "God".

Toba, I salute your courage in once again providing the means of demolishing your position (as you and the other guy have been doing). I knew Dawkins could never have said that. Let us examine the evidence.
You said

toba:
Dawkins and co the propagators of the new atheist/atheism movements are indeed evangelical atheists.

Pls see above. I quoted directly words that were credited to the evangelical atheist Dawkins that 'we indoctrinate religion and teach atheism' what does that mean to U

and I asked for references.

Ok then.
Which do I assume ? That you didnt understand what was written or you made it up ?
This is how easy it is to demolish your propositions. You need to stop.

toba:
Richard Dawkins: Evangelical atheist

Atheism’s most celebrated evangelist continues a glittering career in which he miraculously manages to do as much for belief in God as for disbelief. Following Richard Dawkins’ support for the bendy-bus “Enjoy your life” campaign, this year saw some of the money he helped to raise for that exercise go to follow‑up posters aimed at preventing the religious indoctrination of children. Meanwhile, the good professor endorsed atheist summer camps for children. So we indoctrinate religion, but teach atheism.


I loved this piece from the[b] Daily Telegraph’s Britons of the Year, 2009[/b] (25 notable Britons) which described Richard Dawkins as an evangelical (surely evangelistic) atheist. There’s a great, really withering comment at the end which I’ve highlighted:

http://transforminggrace./2010/01/05/dawkins-evangelical-atheist/

Just like I suspected, you made this Poo up or didnt understand it. There is no place in your link where Dawkins made the above claim.
I would have pointed out several things wrong with that statement.
Indoctrinate has a meaning of its own (look it up)
Relgion too ^^.
We indoctrinate religion (the very thing atheists are against) and TEACH atheism. Can you not see what is wrong with that statement ? For one, it makes absolutely no sense. An atheist is a "use your head person". Indoctrination is "believe because I say so". I could give you definitions, but that guy taking comfort in your shadows will say, I "ran" to this or that.
I decided to hold back till you provided the reference (thank you) because when I talk, the other guy hiding behind you comes up with some foul words and B.S.
Now you have provided the reference, I wonder how you can read that as the words of Dawkins. Those were the words of the blogger. A religious person like you wrote those words and he didnt try to claim they came from Dawkins. He quoted Dawkins in some places and the quotes are clear. Your proof is merely the subjective conjecture of a mind clouded by religion. Dawkins never, ever uttered those words. Why the deception Toba ?

For anybody wanting to verify, I present the link as given by Toba.
http://transforminggrace./2010/01/05/dawkins-evangelical-atheist/


Enigma, I still havent been able to disprove that you are not a Christian Jihadist, so you are still one. While I was at it, I also wasnt able to disprove that you are an atheist , so you must be one too. Infact I do not believe you hold the r.e.t.ar.d.e.d beliefs you profess (because I cannot disprove them as well). I think you just do it to sarcastically expose the christian position. If I'm wrong, you are a sorry poster-boy.
However, there is more.
I finally tried to disprove that you do not exist. Enigma I am sorry to say that I was unsuccessful in this as well. By virtue of the logic of certain christians (names withheld) who insist that since the existence of God cannot be disproved, he must exist, I must now conclude that you do not exist . Never fear though, I recognize you as a non existing Christian Jihadist, who will probably make some vile post in response to this. In advance, may you prove your non existence.
You are truly an Enigma.
http://transforminggrace./2010/01/05/dawkins-evangelical-atheist/
Toba give it a rest. Go to flirting with your muslim chicks here
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-761201.352.html

toba:
Pls see above. I quoted directly words that were credited to the evangelical atheist Dawkins that 'we indoctrinate religion and teach atheism' what does that mean to U

You quoted without a reference.

KAG:
It's been said many times, but atheism is about a religion as theism is. There are religious atheists as there are religious theists. However, neither is a religion and not all atheists nor theists are religious. Ignoring the context of the terms changes nothing and doesn't begin to add much to a discussion of gods and their seeming lack of existence.


Unfortunately, I have read of, and seen, a very small number of atheists handing out leaflets to that effect. I'll argue that it's a very small minority that will go the "Jehovah's Witness route", but it does happen. Not, I'm sure, in Nigeria, though, it would seem by your description.

Thank you KAG. You will understand however that people took offence to the term "evangelical atheist".
I do not have eyes everywhere, so I cannot say categorically that people do not hand out leaflets or go the "Jehovah's Witness Route". I am saying that that alone (if it is indeed true) does not reflect one bit on what atheism is.
In the same way that when a "man of God" does something scandalous, and you point him out, christians will be the first to say he is not a real christian.
In no place, did I boldy state that, no atheists handed out leaflets. I addressed the term "evangelical atheism" because of its religious connotations.
Then they tried to show that Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens and Co were "evangelical atheists". They got their authority from spurious sources and when shown that they were wrong, they still continued. Then they dug up a judgement that on reading, did nothing to support their case.
In anycase, I get it now, as I addressed with my previous post. Toba is a Christian Jihadist, a polytheist, and Enigma until I can prove he is not, is also one as well.

Lol, I understand you a bit better now Toba. Apparently, you are also a muslim. And I was right, you are indeed in estate management.

jayriginal:
I dont know what your thing is with lawyers.

toba:
I have no issues with them really cos what i do, they supplement it by preparing tenancy and lease agreement for me.

jayriginal:
You must be into real estate then.

toba:
SMDH30000000000000000000000000000 times. Why did  say that? are u certain about this statement? Is it only real estate surveyors that have the need for tenancy/lease agreement?

and now, I found an interview. Toba himself was the interviewee. I think he must have forgotten about it. In the same interview, he unknowingly reveals his other religion and his profession, estate management(Islam).

Excerpts from the interview. (https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-761201.0.html)

First, the appetizer where he reveals his profession.

I asked for this interview with Toba for my blog http://www.coolstuff49ja..com and he duly obliged. I hope you enjoy it as much as I have.

Me: Can you introduce yourself to us?
Toba: My name is Toba as called by friends and family.

Me: Can you tell us about your academic life and the job you do currently?
Toba: Yeah! After my secondary school,I wrote JAMB(UME/PCE). After a couple of years, I got admission to study Industrial Relations and Personnel Management as well as Estate Management, both courses of which I had little idea of some 10 t0 13 years ago. I thought of being an accountant, but either my JAMB cut-off mark or something else prevented me from having my way. I eventually picked Estate Management hoping to cross over to accounting after my first year provided I had at least a 2.2 Graded Points Average (GPA). After my first year, I fell in love with Estate Management and then decided to see it through.

Then the main course where Toba reveals his other religion; Islam.

Me: We both met on Nairaland.com and you once told me there that you attended mosques and even fasted in the Muslim Holy month of Ramadan for some time. How did that happen?


Toba: Yes, you are very correct, sometime between 1994 and 1996, I was with an aunt married to a Muslim and the very close neighbour we had in the opposite flat was a Muslims with an extended family. I and my sibling were very close to this family, we spent time together often and then they would tell us things about Islam. Honestly, this family are a good example of tolerance in Islam with the way we were received and loved. My aunt’s husband who is also a Muslim did tell us about Islam. Hence, we chose to be part of it, whilst still attending our regular church services. We got orientated a bit about Islam, I was taught how to recite fatia (Suratul Fatiha), performing ablution, I used to wake up early during Ramadan and also got to mosque in the evening sometimes to pray.

That settles it. Toba is a Christian Jihadist. I knew there was something wrong with all this. Its just not normal.

Ok finally the dessert. Toba is attracted to Muslim girls. Not one, not two but more than three. (*wink*). Toba can you love all of them equally, as Islam commands you to ?

Me: You have created some sensation with your interest in Muslim girls on Nairaland.com, why is that so?
Toba: Its true, I have been on Nairaland for quite a while since 2006 and I have studied people’s characters online. I wouldn’t want to talk too much but I think the Muslim ladies on Nairaland are more cultured and reserved. [/b]Well it’s online character and maybe different from what’s obtainable in reality though. For now, [b]I think the Muslims are cool

Me: Are there any that have really caught your fancy over time?
Toba: Of course, more than three. There is even one I like so much amongst them. She has really impressed me with everything pertaining to her character online. I wouldn’t even mind giving up anything for her.


Me: Don't you think Christian girls may feel you are not serious about your religion?
Toba: Well I don’t care whatever anyone says.

And now, the mystery is solved. The epiphany !!!
You see I said that assuming we were to adopt Toba and Co's interpretation of the court judgement, it will only make everybody a multi religious person because everybody has a position on divinity. Even "neutral" as distinct from "non belief" is a position. With everybody being multi-religious atheism would not exist and Toba (as an Islamic Christian or Christian Jihadist) cannot have that.

Signing up for two religions I guess is Toba's way of increasing his chances of getting to heaven, for what shall it profit a man to enter the Islamic heaven and rot in the christian hell ?


On the other hand, maybe Toba is obsessed with atheism and needs it to be a religion so that he can also sign up. He has already signed up for Islam, and the religions that dont believe in the IPU, Santa Clause etc. The more the merrier. Isnt it Toba ?

We will have to disappoint you; atheism is not, and will never be a religion. I wont advice you to be an atheist either. That will reduce your chances of going to any kind of heaven because an atheist doesnt believe in God or Gods.

@thehomer and harakiri, it is a useless exercise reasoning with these folks as I have come to find out. They see only what they want to see and ignore the rest. The Dunning-Kruger effect is in full force here. The unfortunate thing is that if you keep quiet, others may take it as confirmation of their point.

See how they were exposed on the other thread (the one Enigma posted which ironically he claims as a victory). They kept bringing claim after claim, link after link and these were torn down. Finally, they brought what they thought was a clincher. A simple judgement (which they obviously didnt read before posting and if they did, failed to understand), yet I had to post it (not selectively like they tried to do) and annotate it. I broke everything down to the basics, even offering definitions, yet reason could not prevail.

The only thing to be done is to stick to the facts. Let objective people read and decide. Calling atheism a religion is absurd. So also is the tag evangelical atheism. These were effectively refuted here I heard there are different kinds of atheists (https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-765094.0.html)

In any case, I want to tell a story. I will be adapting mine from Aesop's fables. Its the Fox and the Lamb.

A certain fox was hungry and spotted a lamb downstream. He thought it would be nice to gobble up the lamb for breakfast, so he sought an excuse to do so.
"Look here", he growled at the lamb. "Prepare to die, because you were the one insulting me last year".
"But that cannot be Sir" replied the lamb. "For I am only six months old".
"Well then, why are you muddying my water" barked the fox. "For this you shall die".
"But Sir" pleaded the lamb, "that is impossible because the stream flows down to me from you".
Then seeking to placate the fox with a compliment, the lamb said "Oh Sir, you smell really nice today".
"Aha" cried the fox, "So you think you can insult me and walk away, you shall die today"
"No Sir" was the lambs confused reply. "I only said you smell nice".
"So you are still calling me smelling ?" growled the fox, and promptly pounced upon the lamb despite its entreaties.

The moral of the story is; a desperate person will always cling on to whatever he thinks will help.

toba:
1) u both(Enigma and yourself) were analyzing the judgements from external sources,

2) It took u very long time to accept that atheism is a belief in line with my definition of belief. u only partially accepted cos of what your fellow atheist has said. do u have a mind of your own?

Ignoring the rest of what you said,

1) Hell no ! I read and analyzed the judgement for myself. I have already adduced reasons for adding the other post. It may suit you to believe otherwise. It changes nothing.
2) I have in no way accepted that atheism is a belief.
Let me make myself clear here. ATHEISM IS NOT A BELIEF.
I thought I had been saying that since. For the umpteenth time, all that is required to be an atheist is a lack of belief in God(s).

u forget that this judgement has/had laid a precedents even for our todays discussion on this thread about the true position of things. forget what ever ammendment, becos its the judgement that counts.

Read the judgement over and over till you understand.

Frazy:
1)I believe only because I questioned and can’t deny the hard truth within myself and everything around me.

Those with little or no faith have more than enough “proof” of a creator by the millions of footprints God left behind.

2) Just Google “Intelligent Design” It’s impossible to dismiss all the undeniable proof that we and everything around us have been intelligently designed.

3) Now it’s your job to figure out what God is the most likely creator.

4) I’m going with the God of the Bible, The Bible that predicted hundreds of facts that have already come true and are still coming true today.

1) What maybe proof for you may not be for another person.
2) It is possible to dismiss it, maybe just not lightly
3) Basically, your premise is, a supreme being definitely created the world, and its a question of which one. I can understand that
4) This is the main one. Are you aware of the history of the church and the bible ? If you are, how can you take this position above ? Do you feel the bible is infallible and inerrant ?
About the hundreds of facts, what facts (are you also including prophecy in "facts"? ) ?
What do you make of the scientific errors in the bible ?

toba:
i would say the belief in science made evangelical atheists like dawkins stand firm on what they are propagating.

I read one of his comment on the new atheism movement and he openly said 'WE INDOCTRINATE RELIGION BUT WE TEACH ATHEISM'

enough said

Reference please.

toba:
Enigma God bless u. i was seeking the best way to respond to mr jay so as to convince him that the way hes evangelizing his beliefs on this thread wouldnt help push his case beyond that which is already said.

welldone for the nice and well articulated response. i'll await his response before saying anything further than what u've said

You wont get one Toba, Everything is there for any objective person to read and come to his own conclusion. This is as it should be.

I'll just say that what I regard as idiotic (using the same choice words enigma reserved for me) is assuming that because I posted an opinion from a layman, that I used his analysis. For one, I saw it after I had read the judgement. More importantly, anybody reading the judgement for the first time, with an unbiased mind, will come to the same conclusions. The only reason I posted his opinion was to show that the judgement was simple enough for a layman to comprehend.
As I said earlier, I have decided to stop responding. We are only going round in circles and we are on the third page already. The points have already been made. Just note that I analyzed the judgement itself. There are other grounds to show that the judgement is irrelevant, but I preferred to show that relevancy notwithstanding, the judgement does not support your case. Of course if you fail to see this whats the need in continuing the discussion ?

Enigma, once, and once only will I answer you. Then its silence from here on.

Enigma:
Atheists want to have their cake and eat it! They want to use the law for their beliefs and practices to be regarded constitutionally as a religion and to enjoy benefits that normally attach to a religion.

From the Kaufman judgment itself (not one Fahling who is just another individual commentator).

I guess you will rather have them silenced.

Now its convenient for you to call Fahling "another individual commentator". When you thought he supported you, you didnt say he was "just another individual commentator".

Its clear that you are looking but cannot see. I had to put the judgement out, and now you want to copy out parts that seemingly support your case. Lets look at some of your quotes from the judgement.

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) . . . .

What part of this is difficult for you to accept ?

We have already indicated that atheism may be considered, in this specialized sense, a religion,

In this specialized sense. That is, for the purposes of the first ammendment, not for all or general purposes.

the {Supreme} Court has adopted a broad definition of “religion” that includes nontheistic and atheistic beliefs, as well as theistic ones.

Broad because atheism is not a religion and does not fit. I guess you missed this

(The) plaintiff must show a “substantial burden” on a “central religious belief or practice” to prevail under the Free Exercise Clause. He failed utterly to do so.

1) Atheism is, among other things, a school of thought that takes a position on religion,
2) the existence and importance of a supreme being,
3) 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.

1) is true only to the extent that religion deals with gods and atheists do not recognise them. To qualify this as a religion is absurd as stated severally. For the purpose of the first ammendment, it is a different matter.
2) The atheist position on this is that we dont believe in them.
3) There are no code of ethics.

Here is the clincher

“If we think of religion as taking a position on divinity, then atheism is indeed a form of religion.”

Following this line of thinking, when you reject the Invisible Pink Unicorn as your creator, that is your religion (ie non belief in the Invisible Pink Unicorn). Ditto the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Ogun, Sango, Zeus, Allah, Santa Clause, The Easter Bunny,  etc. The list is endless.

It is unfortunate that you want to continue this line of reasoning, but in a way, it is not surprising.

Question :
Do you believe in God or Gods
Possible answers
1) Yes
2) No.
If you say yes, you are a theist.
If you say no, you are an atheist.
Theism is not a religion neither is atheism. They are just positions on divinity. One admits of a belief, the other does not. How else do you want this explained to you ?

In anycase, it was late when I posted yesterday, I wanted to do a final edit this moring and leave this thread but seeing as you have responded, I thought it would be better to incorporate the edit in a new post and respond to you.

Its a free world, you may interpret the judgment as you see fit, ignoring the obvious. That is the way you read your bible anyway, so no surprises there.
If you want to keep walking into a wall, dont let me stop you.
Be my guest.
Cheers !

PS
as I was about to submit the post, I noticed you posted again. It's good you have been reading . Study some more.
You seek to show that the non-religion point was dismissed.

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.

Surely you didnt fail to see the quotation marks around religion. The court is declaring atheism a religion, for the purposes of the first ammendment only. The court does not ordinarily consider atheism a religion. They had to do a lot of "panel-beating" to get it to fit for this specialized purpose.
Please read my posts again. The judgment itself is clear as day for anybody to understand.

Atheism and the Law

Matt Dillahunty
Atheism and The Law

While scanning through my normal news feeds and e-mails, I noticed several news reports stating that the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals declared atheism a religion in a recent decision. Atheism's legal status with respect to religion is one that has always prompted much debate. It's also one of the many issues that I feel very strongly about.

Fearing the worst and hoping for the best, I downloaded the opinion (Kaufman, James v. McCaughtry, Gary) and reviewed it. I'm not a lawyer, but I've spent a great deal of time reviewing Court decisions, especially those which pertain to First Amendment issues. What follows is my assessment of the ruling and some important information about atheism and the law.

What the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals got right:

", 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."

This is an important point and the Court also made reference to the Supreme Court's opinion that a religion is distinct from a "way of life", even if that way of life is inspired by philosophical beliefs or other secular concerns. Essentially, not every belief or belief system is a religion.

The legal definition of religion, with regard to the First Amendment, may be very different from the layperson's definition. The First Amendment, in order to be effective in protecting all beliefs[b] must guarantee the freedom to hold no religious belief[/b]. This is fairly straightforward, especially if you consider - for example - that a Christian may be considered an atheist with respect to every religion except Christianity.

"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.')"

This is, essentially, the basis for their decision. They have, in the past, considered atheism to be a religion in the specialized sense that atheism, like theism, specifically addresses the concept of god for the individual. This definition is an attempt to address the implied protections guaranteed by the First Amendment.

"The Supreme Court has recognized atheism as equivalent to a 'religion' for purposes of the First Amendment on numerous occasions"

They referred to another Supreme Court decision (Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38 (1985)), where the court said:

"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."

As we've seen, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals hasn't declared atheism to be a religion as the layperson might usually define it, they simply acknowledged that atheism hold equal standing with religions with regard to the First Amendment. I can live with that. That doesn't mean the Court got everything correct,

What the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals got wrong:

"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."

What "code of ethics"? No such code exists. Atheism is a single answer to the general question, "Do you believe in a God/god/gods?" For atheists, the answer is no. For theists the answer is yes. Apart from a position on the concept of God, there are no tenets, dogma, creed or code associated with atheism.

If the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals was presented with an atheist code of ethics, I'd love to see it. If they had no such document, they are irresponsible to mention it in a decision. If their opinion in this case was significantly based on this "code of ethics", their decision should be reviewed without regard to any such code.

I mentioned above that one of the reasons that the court ruled atheism a religion was that, like theism, it addresses the concept of god. However, theism isn't a religion. Like atheism, theism is a single position on the question of the existence of God/god/gods.

Under each of these categories are a number of belief systems, which may be classified as religion. Theism includes Catholicism, Protestantism, Judaism, Hinduism etc. Atheism doesn't necessarily have subcategories, [/b]though many Buddhists and Secular Humanists are, generally, atheists.

Be More Specific:

The ruling we've been discussing was with regard to a prisoner (James J. Kaufman) who claimed that his First Amendment rights were violated when the warden refused to allow him to form a group of inmates to study and discuss atheism. Specifically, he cited the Free Exercise clause and the Establishment clause. [b]The court, recognizing that the defendant "utterly failed" to demonstrate that his freedom to exercise his beliefs had been infringed, shot down the Free Exercise claim - and rightly so.

Despite the Court's reference to an atheist "code of ethics", it should be noted that atheism has only one requirement which would qualify under the Free Exercise clause - disbelief. Atheism isn't a religion in the conventional sense and there are no rituals associated with it. In order to violate an atheist's right to freely exercise their beliefs, you'd have to be able to reprogram someone's mind.

In a nutshell, Mr. Kaufman was just as free to exercise his lack of belief alone in his cell. As a prisoner he isn't necessarily afforded all of the other rights guaranteed to citizens of the United States. The right to speak freely and peaceably assemble, which atheists might choose to exercise, don't always apply to a prisoner.

The Court also considered his claim with regard to the Establishment Clause - a subject of much controversy in recent years. The Supreme Court and Circuit Courts have established a set of precedents with regard to the Establishment Clause, in an attempt to curtail religious favoritism. The "Lemon" test (Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971)) is a three-pronged test which the Courts have used on many occasions.

The Lemon Test:

"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 Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, referring to some of their previous decisions, stated:

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

"('[T]he 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.'); Berger v. Rensselaer Cent. Sch. Corp., 982 F.2d 1160, 1168-69 (7th Cir. 1993)"

Despite the controversy, this is just good law. It protects everyone equally, ensuring that favoritism is not afforded to any one set of beliefs at the expense of another - even if one group is a majority.

The Court, in this case, properly recognized that Mr. Kaufman's right to form a group with people who shared similar beliefs was a protected right. Unless the prison system had excluded all gatherings with regard to religion, prohibiting a group of atheists to gather is a violation of the Establishment Clause.

As we've seen, and despite the "shock" headlines to the contrary, they didn't declare that atheism was a religion, they declared that atheism was afforded equal protection with religions under the Establishment Clause.

In the end, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the law and ensured that Religious Freedom is a concept that applies to everyone equally. Apart from the reference to an atheist "code of ethics", I don't think anyone could reasonably ask for a better decision.

http://www.atheist-community.org/library/articles/read.php?id=742

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?

Once again you run to the internet. When will you stop this ?
Actually, I can accuse anyone of being illogical. Its a mere accusation. The question is whether there is substance to that accusation. It would seem that you are not well acquainted with the way the court system works. It would also seem that you did not read what you copied and pasted neither did you read the same thing that was copied and pasted by engima.

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.

You apparently never read Alice in Wonderland either, and possibly you have vaguest notions of the term "jurisprudence". Dont go rushing to buy the movie either, its not the same.

Here is more from your 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 your true "run to the internet and copy and paste anything that agrees with my position" you overlooked many things. The judgement is just 13 pages and I dont think you read it.
If a court of law declared Jesus a myth, would you stop believing in him ?

What you have done is akin to reading the headline of a newspaper and proclaiming facts on that basis. We shall delve in toto the ruling, but first,

Lets go to wiki together

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

so what is this free exercise clause ?

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

ok lets look at the piece you quoted

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."

Let us now review the case. I am going to copy word for word from the judgment itself adding commentary as I see fit.

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.

This is important.

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

Now, here is a man suing under the free exercise clause, yet he is insisting it is not a religion. He did not apply for an activity group, neither did he take advantage of extra protection available under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act.

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.

Pay attention.

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.

Kinda puts things in a clear perspective doesnt it ?

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.

Dont forget, this is for the purposes of the First Ammendment.

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.”

Hey look ^^^. The term non religion appears and is only described as a religion for purposes of the first ammendment.

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.

There is no code of ethics.

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.

Of course he failed to do so. What central religious belief or practice is there to show for atheism ? None!

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.

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.


Moving ahead, we come to

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.

Note 2 and 3, in connection with atheism being defined as a "religion" for the purpose of the first ammendment.

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.

In the sense of the first ammendment. The beauty of the above is that the term "religious" comes in quotes. I did not put them there. They are there in the judgement. It should be obvious what that means.

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.

What then is the establishment clause ?

Under the Establishment Clause, the government may not aid one religion, aid all religions or favor one religion over another

So having established atheism as a religion [b]for the purpose of the first ammendment, Kaufman claims under the establishment clause.

That much is it as far as the court and religion are concerned. We are not inmates of the prison and so we can only speculate. I believe I said somewhere that there is a difference between an association and a sect/religion. I used to be in a chess club and we met often. Did that make it a religion ? No.

Reading the judgement, the court made it clear that the grouping of atheism under religion was only for purposes of the first ammendment. They even opined that Kaufman's application was turned down by the prison "perhaps in
keeping with Kaufman’s own insistence that it is the antithesis of religion".
It is noteworthy also that everytime the court used atheism and religion together, quotation marks were used to denote "religion". This says a lot.

So why did a man who said atheism is not a religion, turn around to apply for a religious activity group, have his request turned down, head to court and obtain judgement in his favour ? Your guess is as good as mine, but one thing is clear, he achieved his aim and atheism is still not a religion. The court has not said so. They simply classified it as one for the purpose of the fist ammendment, which they kept emphasizing. The repeated putting religion in quotes ("" shows this as well.


Now a word about the justice system. Judges are humans and subject to all human failings. There are good and bad rulings. There are also rulings that defy logic. An example was the rivers state case between Omehia and Amaechi. Some judgements are bad in law but necessary. These can only be explained by jurisprudence. Every now and then, a judge might have to deliver a ruling he knows is wrong. Unfortunately he is bound to give reasons and here the realm of jurisprudence will prevail over precedents. I'm sure like I mentioned earlier, a court ruling declaring Jesus a myth will not persuade you. Why then do you get excited over this one point that does not even support you ?

Toba you need to stop doing this. Not long ago, you were shying away from declaring that atheism is a religion, now you found an "authority" and you rush here to post.
I didnt even want to reply, but silence on my part may be mistaken as conceding to you. This took a lot of my time, time I am not going to get back. If I know you well, I have an idea of your reaction to this post.
I will not reply on this thread anymore. Outwardly, your claims seem real, but its a mirage when you look closer.

Even if you post a picture of "God" with tomorrows newspaper in his hand, proclaiming that atheism is a religion, I wont respond anymore.

After posting, this, I will copy and paste from a non lawyer, who analysed the judgement for himself, to show you how easy it would have been to read and understand the issues involved, if you had but taken the time.

@Deep Sight, thank you for your reply. I was also hoping you would say something about my attempt at psycho-analysis.
Notwithstanding, let us continue our discussion. First your reply to MyJoe

In my view therefore, persons who properly apply logic and commonsense should conclude that God exists - even if not as conceived by the Religious theist.

Of course, here you mean your concept of God, who sets the world up, and establishes the law of karma to regulate human affairs. A self contained system. The problem is in the bolded part. I think you should rid yourself of that assumption. It may seem so to you but not to others.
On the basis of the above, let me ask you a bold question. Do you claim that your perception of God, is infallible? If your answer is yes, I can understand why you take the bolded stance. If your answer is no, then you shouldnt say a thing like that. Whats your answer ?
Ok, back to our discussion.

Let us be careful to distinguish between different gods and an altogether different thing – namely – a universal idea of an originating creator, which is however viewed in different contexts.

Im with you here.

1) For most people who believe in the existence of God – religious and non religious alike, agree that their reference to God is a reference to that element said to be the initiator of all existence.
2) Thus there is in fact a common understanding of the core idea of what God is said to be – and for this reason it may not be necessarily true to argue that people – at least those who have a concept of a universal creator – are all referring to different entities. I think it is rather more plausible to argue that they refer to the same element – the creative and causative element – but they very naturally color their various perceptions with attributes arising from their peculiar cultures and histories.

1) Many religions refer to their God as the initiator of all things, I agree.
2) Even though 1 above is correct, you have to still demarcate. One God sets everything up ie the universe and laws of the universe and is best served by living in peace and harmony with those laws and with his fellow men. He shows no preference, all men are born equal and attribute their existence to him.  Another God (the religious type) is almost entirely opposite. The only thing in common is that all Gods created the world. Other than that, the chasm between your type of God and the others is formidable. If you accept that one of the functions of God is to explain what we dont know (and for now, the best intellects are yet to conclusively prove how the world began) then you see that there really is a difference. Saying one of God's functions is to explain the unknown may seem glib, but picture the common man, trying to explain the universe. Non of us were there, how can we know. In a way, it makes sense to say well God did it, but it brings us to the infinite regress problem, and so we have to give God certain qualities, that make natural laws not apply to him. Every religion that claims a creator does this in some form. That effectively puts a full stop to all thinking on the matter. God cannot be found or proved. You claim the hand of intelligence in the design of the universe, other religions agree and science says no. Other than explaining creation and calling it God, I dont think its right to say they are the same element. They are similar but different. I mean you said yourself you do not believe in the bible. You therefore reject the God of the bible but you dont reject the "God" concept. It exists for you, just not the way it is described in the bible. A characteristic of the biblical God is intervening in supernatural ways (you addressed that for me and I'll come to it soon). Through prayers and rituals and all sorts of stuff, you can access him and tell him what you want and if you have faith and it is his will, he will do what you want, including holding the sun still for 24 hours. Their God only admits his followers.
Your God is nothing like that. How then can they be the same?

To use a crude analogy, in much the same way, it is equally possible for both you and I to describe a mutual friend of ours in entirely different ways based on our perceptions, even if we are aware that we refer to the very same individual.

Well like you said its a crude analogy.

1) How can you categorically say what is natural and what is supernatural natural? Do you not agree that a person who lived 2000 years ago would regard an aircraft as a most supernatural thing?

And yet there is nothing supernatural about an aircraft. It works with strictly natural laws of physics.

2) In my view, there is nothing like the word “supernatural”. Everything that exists is natural or unnatural but not supernatural. Artificial creations could be unnatural, but not supernatural, because all things exist in tandem with natural laws of physics and natural laws of existence.

Brilliant submissions. I too do not think there is anything supernatural. Anything that cannot be explained simply falls under the category of "we do not know yet".
In this, I take it to mean that your God does not do the supernatural as understood by the major religions. The point is well taken.

1) God itself, is the compound of all self-existent laws.
2) Those laws act on human lives and deliver natural results through Karma. It’s as simple as that.
3)That is the only conception I have of God “intervening” in human affairs – but it is wrong to call this an intervention as conceived by the religionist. This is because the activity of the laws inherent in existence is all that makes and sustains and dictates life – and so it is no “intervention” but simply the fabric of life and existence itself.

1) If I may rephrase sounds to me like "God is the laws of the universe". Is this a correct rewording? The concept sounds pantheistic which doesnt surprise me because your spiritual philosophy is an amalgamation of many things. I believe it is the product of an intellectual mind searching for the best in all (ok enough psycho-analysis for now).
2) Having, brought up karma, I'm glad you answered my question on reincarnation. I guessed the answer right, we will discuss that soon enough.
3) In other words as you said in the other post, humans by their actions affect what happens to them. If we extend that a little further, you are saying that something may happen to me someday and its not as if it happened out of the blue. I brought it on myself (good or bad) by something I had done sometime in the past. If I do not understand the laws of the universe and karma, I may attribute that happening to an intervention, whereas it is the result of a past action.

^^^Is this correct ?^^^

Did you see how I described what prayer is for me?

I had tried to discuss this sometime ago.

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-652247.0.html

I promise to check this out as soon as I finish posting. If I still have questions, I'll come back here and ask.

I don’t think that inner communion with the source will serve to obviate self-existent laws such as that which delivers Karma. However if one communes with the source, one should develop a refined appreciation for the things of life, such that in one’s thoughts, words and deeds, one becomes a more refined spirit over time, thereby improving the threads of Karma surrounding one.

This is a continuing journey of increasing spiritual purity, and takes nothing away from Karma.

I have heard it elegantly expressed that prayer changes nothing, save, sometimes, the attitude to life of the person praying. This is because in communing with the source, he is also reaching inside himself and trying to understand and refine his spirit. If his attitude thereby changes, this will lead to improved natural results in his life deriving from the self-existent laws which are God.

Meaning prayer changes nothing but tempers the spirit, thus refining the vessel, which improves his karma ?
And by communing with the source (or praying), you mean a deep meditation and appreciation of nature, awe and wonder at the intricacy of the world and life as we know it. This will lead to a deep respect for nature and all that is in it.
In other words, nothing will change your bad karma (because the laws of the universe are not subject to anything but themselves) but through communing with the source, you attract good karma to yourself ?
^^Is my understanding correct here ?^^

1)Yes, I believe in reincarnation.
2) I am of the view that it holds sense especially when we understand that nothing in existence ever ceases to exist – things only change form. This is a reality that one can observe in physics, and as such it makes sense to me that the same holds true for spirituality and consciousness.

3) Aside from this, I have personal experiences which validate that belief for me, but those are experiences personal to me which convince only me, as the person having had the experiences. As such relating them may be of no use to other people.

4) But if I may say this before leaving the subject: The conscious mind that starts a life from a point, and ends it at another point, must recognize that inherent in this simple fact is evidence of a transition – namely – that the mind came from somewhere, and is exiting somewhere else

I don’t know if that is too simple, but I hope it strikes a chord.

1) Ok.
2) It might make sense to you but not to others. Some people will argue that physical matters and spiritual matters are worlds apart.
3) I think thats honest of you. Some people will want others to accept their position based on subjective personal experience, which can neither be verified nor demonstrated.
4) See my reply no 2 above. Other than that, the question might really be asked "what is the mind exactly". I think thats an important question.
Are our thoughts and feelings "the mind". I believe I cam across a thread recently where you debated certain people on this concept. I am inclined to take the side that says our brain is responsible for our experiencing reality. I think I saw where someone mentioned the subconscious and you used that as an argument against the person. Unfortunately, I didnt get to finish reading the thread. I think though that the subconscious is part of the brain, and there is nothing that we can experience without the brain.
I would like to hear your thoughts on this as well.

The self-existent laws which are the summation of reality will deliver to every person that which proceeds from him – be he atheist or theist. If love proceeds from him, in the cycle of creation it is love that will return to him. If evil proceeds from him, it is evil that will return to him. This takes no cognizance of theism or atheism.

Can I refer you to a post where the wisest man on Nairaland articulated this very elegantly? Please read here

Now unlike the other link, I was really curious so I glanced at it. It doesnt answer the question I asked you, though I want to read it because of all the positive reactions it generated.

I want to know about your concept of the afterlife. What happens when we die ?

Thank you for your time.




____
EDIT |
, |
I have seen your description of prayer. It is not prayer as the religious conceive it but deep reflections of wonder and awe at the world. Also, God is clearly non interventionist operating only through the laws of the universe as a self sufficient system for order.

As for the True Meaning of Love by m_nwankwo, I hold it to be a beautiful and poetic write up. It indeed expresses ideals far greater than the Judaism related religions can offer. He also makes reference to the after life.

I still need clarification on your concept of the afterlife. I understand why you feel there is one, but I want to know your concept of it.

Finally, on "The Dilemma of a Praying Deist", you ended one of your posts like this

For, what can we really know, my friend?

This is instructive to me and I'm sure I will make reference to it soon.

@Deep Sight, thank you very much for your response. It was wonderful insight into your way of thinking.
I'd like to discuss some of your responses further.

There is no atheist that says he is not sure. . . such a statement denotes agnosticism.

An agnostic says he doesnt know if there is or there is no God.
I say I do not believe there is a God (I am referring to the religious type of God here). I cannot of course prove that there is no such thing as God (all gods including the deist concept) and neither can anyone else no matter how staunch an atheist is. On the other hand, no gods (including the deist concept can be proven). I think we are both agreed on this point. The only difference is the "label". I mentioned in another thread (perhaps for the first time) that I do not really like being called an atheist. Typically, if someone asks me if I am an atheist or a free thinker or an agnostic, my typical reply is to say "My name is (my name)".
Me admitting that I cannot disprove the existence of God does not make me an agnostic.

I am not religious at all.

But as a spirit being, I am, and always seek, spirituality in my essence and being, in the purpose of my existence upon this watered blue rock circling a red fire ball.

Ok.

Appreciated, but I am aiding nobody: not that they would want or need such aid. They anchor their belief system on faith, which for them moves from the unction of their guts. You and I are free to call it indoctrination, but we will not be the criteria by which they will determine the credibility of their faiths.

You might not actually set out to defend them, but without understanding your position, it seems you are doing exactly that. If an theist is arguing the origins of the universe (a christian lets say), he is necessarily arguing from the creation story (genesis) point of view. If he is arguing with an atheist and a deist jumps to the argument and advances his own notions, it will seem (regarding the topic) that the deist is on the side of the christian. Perhaps the term God is to blame. You have referred to it as the "cause" and the "uncaused cause" which you choose to call God.
Put another way, if I were to discuss with you the probability or otherwise of God, I wouldnt use the same arguments against your God that I would the christian or other religious God. Its not the same God.

The improbability of God refers to the religious God of whatever creed.

Which is shatteringly lazy. No serious thinker should limit himself to the shadowy ideas of religions which they mock. Seriousness should begin by thinking wholly and philosophically about the essentials of a precept.

No Sir. That is a harsh thing to say, considering that we are not writing a text or philosophical treatise. It is a debate which has been narrowed down.
I would agree with you only to the extent that not every religion has the same concept of God and so all cannot be dismissed using the exact same arguments.
In general, the gods of the major religions are all creators and supernatural beings who intercede and break natural laws on behalf of their worshipers. Those gods are easy to dismiss generally.

My questions are as follows
1) Do you believe in the God of the bible ?

My answer will have to be, in general terms, no.

But I should very carefully add that the concept and ontology of God within the bible is varied and evolves, and there are certainly many elements within the biblical precepts of what God is, which are spot on. Such as the idea of the unity and eternity of the God element.

"In general terms no". I think thats a fair answer. As for the eternity of God. That raises another question. Given that he created the world, what is he doing now or what has he done since he created the world or what can he do ?

Having said that, I should again note that the concepts of God in both books is varied and evolves, and in most cases bears a greater resemblance to a blood thirsty pagan deity than the coherent idea of an eternal cause of all things, which I understand to be God.

There are many entities that are worshiped as God or gods. The only that concerns me is that element which I conceive of as eternity itself, and the origin of all things.

Very clear statements. Thank you.

That element, I call God, but in all truth it needn’t have a name.

Exactly my point. Because we all say God, you defend where you have not been attacked. I understand the concept very well and I agree it neednt be named.

3) Do you believe that the God which you recognize intervenes in human affairs by means of supernatural means ?

I believe that God being eternity itself is the compound of all self-existent laws. That is the best definition I can give to it, that element that I call God. I further believe that these laws, being self-existent, are accordingly immutable and take effect within existence according to the intrinsic nature of these self-existent laws. I believe that human beings will have their destinies determine by their attunement to these laws – that is to say, these laws will take effect on the way in which they lead their lives and deliver natural results accordingly.

Deep Sight, I know you can be very clear when you want to as you have shown before.
The question is simple. Do you believe that the God which you recognize intervenes in human affairs by means of supernatural means ? I want a yes or no answer after which you may expantiate.
I detect a reference to karma but the question is simple enough. Thank you.

4) Does your concept of God answer prayers offered to him by mankind ?

Within the core of the human spirit, there rests an unsearchable and unquenchable longing for the depth of God. It is innate, and can also be very personal to each person. I might describe it as the instinct to unite with a source. It is spiritually refreshing to inwardly commune with the source of all things.

However I believe that what determines what happens to people,*(is)* not their prayer, but their Karma.

God itself, being life itself, is a force for life and light, and accordingly there is the inherent grace of God in life. God itself, and God only may know about the dispensation of the grace of God, and the elements therein.

If you are asking if I pray, the answer is yes: I commune with my maker. However I do not do this in the fashion that most people understand. My prayers consist of simple things like the awe and wonder I feel in my heart when I behold the dazzling and wondrous array of the cosmos and living forms.

I speak to my source, I commune with my source within my heart, for I am a living spiritual being from a core that is alive.

See this is another instance of religious terms hindering your expression. The reference to prayers, while I understand it as a spiritual expression, I feel it obscures the very depth you are trying to convey.

About this Karma thing, I think I'll have a bit to say about it at the end of the post.

5) Is there a prescribed mode of reaching/ speaking with him akin to worship ?

I don’t believe so, but my advise to anybody would be to live life to the fullest and absorb every experience with a view towards building himself as a human being, in love with fellow beings and the living world.

As far as I know, that is the real and only way to worship God.

As far as I know, if there was a God, this will and should be the only way to worship him. It is a very beautiful answer and I dont think anyone can fault it.
I do have a problem with it though, but only because it "seemingly" contradicts your answer on prayer. Do you care to shine a little light on the seeming discrepancy ?

6) Is there an afterlife ?

YES.

You were quite emphatic about that. This is the answer that surprised me the most. I guess my follow up to that question is "what happens in the afterlife". Can you give a description of what obtains in the afterlife ? I guess I also have to ask you if you believe in reincarnation.

7) What happens to people who dont believe in your concept of God ?

Nothing. Nobody is required to believe any such, if they can see no reason with it., if it does not resonate within their minds. Even an absolute atheist may be in excellent stead so long as he lives life to the fullest and absorbs every experience with a view towards building himself as a human being, in love with fellow beings and the living world.

I still wish to refer to the afterlife question. What if the absolute atheist, is not such a person. Let us say, he is morally bankrupt and all the qualities many christians believe an atheist to be. Will there be any consequence for the atheist in the afterlife ? I know that from your concept, karma should take care of him in this life (did I get that right?) but I'm interested in the question of the afterlife from this perspective.

9) Where is the God now and how can we prove him ?

God is an intangible and transcendental element, and as such you cannot look for a location for God, because it is an intangible eternal element.

God is proven by the reasoning of causes and effects and the laws inherent within creation. God is proven by the indisputable design elements found in built-for-purpose living organisms with complex and purpose-fitted design elements and organs. Finally, God is proven by the phenomenon of consciousness, and more particularly, sentience.

The bolded part constitutes a big problem.
The second part is what makes you lean to the Deist philosophy and not to the agnostic or the atheist one.

10) If he cant be proven, why not and wherein lies your certainty (or are you just guessing/hoping) ?

Its simple really. There is abundant proof that God exists. It rests in every instant of existence and in the fibre of every thing that is observed in and around us. It’s frankly undeniable and even obvious.

But my personal and real certainty about this rests in my conscious experiencing of the quality of mind. That is the one thing that points to the existence of a core mind, like nothing else does.

This last point can be argued into pages and pages. All I'll say here is that what you take as evidence isnt necessarily so. We all see the same things too.

In anycase, I enjoyed reading your response thoroughly. Permit me though to make a few observations and feel free to correct me if there is a need.

You have referred to yourself as non religious and I think you would rather be regarded as spiritual. However, I see the seeds of religion in your philosophy (I dont mean this in a derogatory way). I do not think what you have explained is a religion in the sense of having many followers, I think it is rather unique to you. I might describe it as the philosphers religion or the thinking mans religion (for want of a better name).
You remember that somewhere in this thread, I had to step back for a while to ask you pertinent questions about your beliefs (resulting in this convo now).

Your (let me call it) spiritual philosphy, seems to admit one and all subject to the overriding condition that they "live life to the fullest and absorb every experience with a view towards building himself as a human being, in love with fellow beings and the living world". I think this is fair, but I also think it explains your tendency to take the side opposite to those who say there is no God, because as I have mentioned earlier, they arent the same thing. Whereas your God started the world and set laws in place for order to come about, their God created the world and intervenes through supernatural means. Their God admits only his followers. Their God can be reached through fasting and prayer, has some outdated laws, gave some barbaric commands and needs to be continually worshiped, praised, prayed to and given money. In fact, the only resemblance your God has with theirs is the promise of an after life. More on that soon.
If you agree with the above, you accept that everybody says God, but means different things.

Ok, heres the part where I try my hand at amateur psychology.
I get the impression that you have made a deep study of the major religions possibly some occultism as well. I think that the best parts of these religions have made an impression on you and these you have inculcated as well as many ideas original to you. I'm also pretty sure you have studied some atheist material as well. A fine blend of the best of the best, a dose of original thinking, soul searching and meditation and the man is born. We now call him Deep Sight.

The afterlife bit is the one I need a little clarification on.
What does the concept entail.
Also the karma thing (I'm assuming your concept of karma is the general one). I wonder how you can believe that there is such a thing like Karma. Maybe when you answer the questions on reincarnation and the afterlife we may address the karma issue.

I hope you take time out to respond as you did previously. It is an interesting  discussion.

Thank you.

PS, nothing posted here is meant to offend. It is all in the spirit of learning

Evil Brain:
No matter how reasonable you try to be, the crazy religious fundies will never tolerate an atheist. That's why in real life I try and keep my lack of religion to myself. There's no point arguing with them, they're completely immune to reason and logic.

True words.

I got this from KAG's response to imhotep https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-585245.32.html

With his kind permission (KAG) I would like to adapt his refutation to this thread.

Christians try to prove atheism to be a religion by such faulty logic as
1) Atheism's belief in the non-existence of God makes it a belief-system.

2) Because it is a belief-system, atheism is a religion.

However, Christians do not believe in the Invisible Pink Unicorn, nor the Flying Spaghetti Monster. They do not also believe in Russel's Teapot or in Santa Clause or in Allah, or Krishna and so on. Since non belief is a belief system by their logic, then they are also practicing these many religions which they do not believe in.

and from thehomer on the same thread

Even if one were to grant that atheism is a belief system, that does not mean it is a religion. Belief systems are not automatically religions otherwise, it would mean cultures and beliefs about the effectiveness of certain economic systems are religions.

That captures it nicely. Somewhere along the line, I had wanted to reduce the argument into absurdity by pointing out that following the logic of "evangelical atheism" we would also have evangelical business men, evangelical professors, evangelical politicians etc seeing that each of them is trying to convince others of his view point.

and from Horus https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-287843.0.html

Christians are the most complex people of any who discuss the Bible. They pose the most difficult challenges in religious communications because they make a wide variety of mistakes when they interact with those of differing beliefs. This is primarily a result of their unique religious philosophy. Christians presume that everyone they associate with has a moral obligation to have the same religious feelings that they do. They firmly believe that others who hold differing opinions are either uninformed or confused and are unable to correctly interpret biblical writings without guidance and insight. Christians never consider that other people's beliefs might be as valid as their own. This is the most insulting characteristic a Christian portrays. He begins interactions with skeptics and analysts with the preconceived attitude that he has all the answers and the other person is ignorant.

and from Martian

God is__________________________

Theists always leave the definition of god as open as possible because they know it cannot be defined because it doesn't exist.

I like Spinoza's definition though. He said, "God is an asylum of ignorance". He's very right, classic case of god of the gaps. Whenever there is a gap in knowledge, theists fit their gods in and shut down their thinking faculties.

A couple of months ago, Neil Degrasse Tyson gave another nice definition. "God is an ever receding pocket of scientific ignorance that's getting smaller and smaller as time goes on"

God is the result of man's fear of the unknown, fear of his own mortality and an illusory insurance policy for his ignorance and fear.

One of the main reasons for christianity/islam's popularity among the downtrodden and ignorant is their promise of life after death. The promise that happens to be the biggest scam in human history. That's one of the main reasons theists are unwilling to examine their beliefs; they need the illusion to help make sense out of life.
Evolution's curse is that it gave man the ability to understand how hostile,ruthless and unfeeling the universe can be. I guess god lets them come to terms with it. They attribute the good things they see to their god and the bad things to their god's adversary. Simplistic,effective and even acceptable but it gets offensive when it ceases to be a private delusion and they try to impose it on the rest of society a la creationists, fundamentalists, politicians that won't keep the separation between church and state, religious convictions threatening national security and well being ( repubs attack on Planned parenthood), fleecing of gullible and helpless masses (every doggone church in Nigeria) and psychos who can't think for themselves even if their lives depended on it ([s]olaadegbu, joagbaje, mabell,sweetnecta and cretins like them[/s]).

These pseudo-intellectuals must be suffering from a case of inferiority complex . "Since you think my belief in unproven entities and my religion is illogical and irrational, I'll say your lack of belief in this hogwash is also a religion. See you are just like me, you have faith too!"

Atheism is the rejection of all gods and so called decrees and commandments attributed to them.
There are no tenets, dogmas or doctrines in atheism. There's no belief in the supernatural. There are no rites, ceremonies or rituals. There's no holy infallible book that was revealed to some illiterate in a cave or written on slabs of stone.
Atheism is the rejection of gods and that's all. It's an acceptance of nature as is, without supernatural embellishments. It's a personal relationship with jesus reality.

And finally, god is nothing, god is a cat, god is a god, god is the air, god is spaghetti etc. because>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>gods aint sh_t!

And to those who keep rejecting evolution and who somehow think evolution is about the origin of the universe, you need to put your religious propaganda down for a minute and expose yourself to some information outside of your religious box.
Humans are apes, whether you like it or not. Look at any type of primate's hands, see the fingers and opposable thumbs? Now look at your hands.
Cats, Lions,tigers, cheetahs, pumas, etc are related. They all look alike in some kind of way. Same things with apes, we just happen to hit the evolution lottery a few hundred thousand years ago, give or take. Years before yahweh was "born" 6000 years ago.
Evolution's is the proverbial nail in the coffin, if you people admit that darwin and all evoultionary biologist that have come after him in the last 150 years are right, then even the gullible ones among you will have no choice to reject stories about talking snakes, dumb unclothed humans and the voyeuristic god who liked to take walks in the garden and play with his unclothed humans or whatever variation of the madness you subscribe too.

Ancient man had a lot of ignorant practices we don't do anymore, but some of us just can let go of the weirdness. That's why some accept the ancient fairy tales but reject scientific knowledge. The same knowledge that they rely on while thinking sky daddy is the one responsible.

Im sure there are many more on nairaland.

toba:
this is a misplaced priority question if u ask me. i think u need to review his post once again to see the valid points he raised and try to rebuke them if u can.

It is certainly not "a misplaced priority question".

now this isnt toba but someone else confirming my stance on different kinds of atheists and evangelical atheism

If he confirms it, does that mean your stance is correct ?

toba:
jayriginal, when u return, we would put our logics to test and also our thinking and deductive reasoning to analyze some key points.

i have asked some questions which u are yet to answer. i would repeat them here and we would both attempt to define the words and then deductively apply them to the subject at hand.

1) Dogma

2) Evangelism

3) Belief.

lets now apply them to what is happening on nl amongst the thiests and the atheists.

thanks in advance

No Sir, I will not indulge you here. You seek to prove the following.
1)Atheism is a religion
2)There are different kinds of atheists
3)In particular, there is evangelical atheism
I seek to rebut 1 and 3 emphatically, and clarify 2.

We can go on and on without making any headway. I'm not sure this is useful. It is better to make the thread ore concise and friendly for readers.

[s]Going back to my original style, I want you to consider this. If you consider atheism a religion and Dawkins et al as evangelical atheists (as absurd as that term is), what do you think would happen if they all suddenly decide there was a God afterall ?

Let me tell you what would happen, and you may feel free to disagree. If the Dawkins' and Harris' and Hitchens' all agreed on a God being in existence, it would not affect one damn thing in the mind of the average atheist.
He or she will evaluate the claims of your "evangelical atheist" and make a decision on his own. The point is these people do not speak or pretend to speak for a body of people called atheists.
Feel free to express a contrary view.[/s]
That is all.

harakiri:
@jayriginal, You really have loads of time to reply that irrevocably deluded pathetic excuse of a human being. What am I talking about anyways? It's a sunday. . . Resting and playing days for non religious people,lol

@Harakiri, I guess its the curse of being new to nairaland. I hardly debate religious matters in the "real world" the reason being that I know its a useless cause.
Its my first time debating online and I had the idea that online debates were better moderated and structured, hence logic would more easily prevail. Funny since I know logic and religion are incompatible (mostly).
As it is, I see little difference.
Sometimes I wonder if Toba is just "finding my mouth". Its all good anyway.

toba:
its now very obvious just as i have detected on my thread that u dont like reading. cant u see that i asked 2 separate question?

pls ans me joh else i go vex with u

Ok I see that you asked about dogma on one and evangelism here. My mistake.
Abeg bros no vex. Go back to the original thread. We both obviously do not like reading because I had addressed evangelism there.

toba:
u may be correct. just said that cos u are my friend. ;

I am most grateful for your concern

why not on this thread? are u scared that im gonna label u based on your response about what u actually are?

Yeah, I told you on the other thread I was scared of you.

what have u refuted? smdh continuously. u have said nothing there now.

I definitely have, you just dont recognize it. I dont see the point in going round and round for 200 pages. As you said, the link is there, and anyone is free to look it up and come to their own conclusion.

but i thought u are here to answer to some queries about atheism and your belief in the non existence of God.

Sure. As long as its in good faith.

Uyi Iredia:
There are different kinds of Christians, Muslims and atheists. This only goes to show how atheism is in fact a worldview. Something which is flatly denied by many atheists. I find Sam Harris' argument to be facile and indeed a word play.

@Uyi, welcome. Did you read the thread or just the last post ? You seem to assume that which you seek to prove.
Please note that not every atheist relies on science to back up his atheism. Speaking for myself, names like Russel, Harris, Dawkins et al, were a blur to me until a few years back and I can trace my journey up until '97. I did not need and I still do not need science to validate my position. Harris and Co may be the most visible atheists you have heard of, but they are not like "Pastors" or the religious equivalent.
If you havent read the entire thread, do so. I suspect that it will be of little effect, considering these threads which you started https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-546562.0.html (Atheism is a religion) and
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-585245.32.html (Atheism is a religion part II).
Seems you have come with your mind made up.
When people know I dont believe in God, they then say "so what are you ? An atheist or free thinker". I tell them, "I am nothing, my name is (my name)". Thats because labelliing something allows you to find dirty ways to treat that same thing. As I have said somewhere on this thread, the term atheist is just a convenient grouping for those that do not believe in a God. That is all.

Take for instance his talk of non-astrologers, if you don't believe in astrology it is very likely that you believe in astronomy (as a viable alternative).

Uyi, astrology and astronomy are worlds apart even if they seem superficially related.

Atheism does in fact have consequences on morality, political views and lifestyle.

This is the problem with labelling. Let us see if a little editing will help.

Non belief in God does in fact have consequences on morality, political views and lifestyle.

Does that make any difference Sir ?
What would the difference be on morality Sir ? I hope you are not one of those claiming that if we dont believe in God, that we are patently immoral?
Political views and lifestyles ?
I for one will not vote a candidate solely on the basis of him being religious neither will the same factor make me not vote for him.
As for lifestyles, does that have anything to do with the morality you mentioned above ?

I also find it contradictory for him to state (as a result of his atheism) science can dictate morality then on the same page deny that atheism espouses nothing.

Since when is science the same thing as atheism ?