So no rebuttals then.
You concede?
What you posted is incorrect. Neither of those cases affirmed that atheism is a religion. What they affirmed is that for the purposes of rulings in First Amendment cases, atheism is considered to be EQUIVALENT to religion. That is NOT the same thing as saying it is a religion, something the Court has never done.
As usual, Alter2ego isn't interested in facts. This is the stereotypical bi-weekly bickering session started by christians trying to classify atheism as a religion so they can bring it down to their level of witchcraft and wizardry.
So what you are asking is that any religious individual be compelled to practice atheism in public, lest you by chance be present and have a religious practice offend you. While you are hypocritically expecting to impact the religious individual with your preference that they act as if they have no religion in your presenec. SO... "for the purpose of the first amendment; Atheism being equivalent to religion, you are promoting discriminating.
The ones that make me smile are the 'Atheism is JUST a religion crowd'; As if it being a religion would be a negative thing.
Curbing the entitlement culture of religions to level the playing field is NOT the same as discriminating.
DISCUSSION POINTS:
1. Considering that atheists have themselves committed human rights violations under the banner of non-bellief in a supernatural God or gods, why can one argue that "belief in god" is not the actual reason behind crimes against humanity?
2. Atheists routinely argue they do not belong to a religion. According to them, non-belief in God is proof positive that they are not religious. Do you agree with the atheists' position? Why so or why not?
re·li·gion noun \ri-ˈli-jən\
: the belief in a god or in a group of gods
: an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods
: an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group
-Webster
1. The outward act or form by which men indicate their recognition of the existence of a god or of gods having power over their destiny, to whom obedience, service, and honor are due; the feeling or expression of human love, fear, or awe of some superhuman and overruling power, whether by profession of belief, by observance of rites and ceremonies, or by the conduct of life; a system of faith and worship; a manifestation of piety; as, ethical religions; monotheistic religions; natural religion; revealed religion; the religion of the Jews; the religion of idol worshipers.
2. Specifically, conformity in faith and life to the precepts inculcated in the Bible, respecting the conduct of life and duty toward God and man; the Christian faith and practice.
3. (R.C.CH.) A monastic or religious order subject to a regulated mode of life; the religious state; as, to enter religion. Trench.
4. Strictness of fidelity in conforming to any practice, as if it were an enjoined rule of conduct. [R.]
-Webster 1913
3. Based upon numerous court rulings that Atheism is Religion, it is obvious that belief in a supernatural God or gods is not a requirement for being considered part of a religion. What arguments can you present along this line?[/color]
<snip>.....Atheism as the publically promoted religion.
ALTER2EGO -to- EVERYONE:
Atheism is Religion according to the 1961 Torcaso v. Watkins case that was affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court--the highest court in the land--where court rulings become national law. As recently as 2005, the Wisconsin Federal Court ruling on the matter of Kaufman v. McCaughtry again ruled that Atheism is Religion. In spite of the many court rulings along that line, members of the Religion of Atheism insist they are not religious. They attempt to take the higher ground by insisting that Christians are mental midgets for being religious and for believing in a "non-existent sky gawd."
Atheist religionists often refer to the Judeo-Christian Bible as a book of fairytales. At one website where I have debated, the Bible was referred to by atheists as the "BuyBull." Not only that, in most of my conversations with atheists at various websites, their usual accusation is that because of the belief in God, theists have committed all sorts of human rights violations in the name of "cultish religions." According to the many atheists I have debated at other websites, it is the belief in God that has caused people to commit the various atrocities common to sinful mankind. Remove religion, belief in God, and belief in the Bible--the atheists frequently argue--and the world will be a better place. This latter conclusion is mortally flawed for the following reasons:
1. Atheism is itself a religion.
2. Atheists have committed human rights violations en masse throughout history. For instance, Joseph Stalin--the atheist--ordered the deaths of between 40 million to 62 million people (20 million of whom were everyday Soviet civilians). Compare that to the 9 million or so killed by Adolph Hitler, the Roman Catholic who merely claimed he was a Christian.
In reality, the problem is not the Bible or God. The problem is false religions that have failed to teach the masses Biblical truths. Blaming God for the crimes of people whose behaviors he himself reject is an attempt at passing the buck.
"See! This only I have found, that the true God made mankind upright, but THEY THEMSELVES have sought out many plans." (Ecclesiastes 7:29)
DISCUSSION POINTS:
1. Considering that atheists have themselves committed human rights violations under the banner of non-bellief in a supernatural God or gods, why can one argue that "belief in god" is not the actual reason behind crimes against humanity?
2. Atheists routinely argue they do not belong to a religion. According to them, non-belief in God is proof positive that they are not religious. Do you agree with the atheists' position? Why so or why not?
3. Based upon numerous court rulings that Atheism is Religion, it is obvious that belief in a supernatural God or gods is not a requirement for being considered part of a religion. What arguments can you present along this line?
The issue isn't an entitlement culture. Freedom to practice religion is a right, that congress shall pass no law prohibiting. I will not prohibit your preference from being practiced and you shouldn't try to prohibit my practice, as long as the practice of our respective religions do not run afoul of law and public safety ie human sacrifice etc... It's not enough to claim offence, and cast out all religion, that leaves secularism / Atheism as the publically promoted religion. That's not any different that promoting Christianity or Judaism, what we need from our government (meaning laws and statutes) on the issue is silence; what we need from our citizens (including government employees) is free practice.
You do realize the atrocities committed under Communists were not under the "banner of non-belief", but rather the banner of absolute State Power. It's not an atheist war or atheist killing, atheism was not the cause of any of that. This whole thing is just some ignorant rant meant to deflect away from critiques and questions you cannot answer.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?