RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

gungadin09 -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/14/2011 6:37:13 PM)

Thanks.

pam



Kirata -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/14/2011 9:55:41 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

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.

While I'm pleased that the court allowed the formation of the study group, I find it difficult to imagine what else besides a Deity could occupy "a place parallel to that filled by God" in Theism. Somewhere along the way to this decision we've fallen down the rabbit hole if jailed brokers can start religious study groups on the grounds that their god is Money.

K.



DarthVaderOfLove -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/14/2011 10:14:14 PM)

Atheism is as much of a religion as pacifism is a battle strategy.



SpanishMatMaster -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/14/2011 10:21:11 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DarthVaderOfLove
Atheism is as much of a religion as pacifism is a battle strategy.
Excellent analogy. Thank you.



HeatherMcLeather -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/14/2011 10:34:44 PM)

quote:

Atheism is as much of a religion as pacifism is a battle strategy.
It may be an excellent analogy as SMM contends, but the court disagrees with you, so it really doesn't matter that much does it? [:D]



wilddreams17 -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/14/2011 10:40:42 PM)

maybe this court needed it to classify as a religion in order to make atheism acceptable.
this does not mean that it must be right



SpanishMatMaster -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/14/2011 10:42:13 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: wilddreams17
maybe this court needed it to classify as a religion in order to make atheism acceptable.
this does not mean that it must be right

Of course. Law is law. But actually it only classified it as "religous belief", we have studied here also that difference. Is pacifism an idea about battles? Somehow, yes.

Edited: Hab' dein Profil gesehen. Das kann doch nicht wahr sein... [:)] Gehst du heute zum Demo?



Kirata -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/14/2011 10:46:24 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster

quote:

ORIGINAL: DarthVaderOfLove
Atheism is as much of a religion as pacifism is a battle strategy.

Excellent analogy. Thank you.

Actually, it is neither excellent nor accurate. Hard Atheism is based on the doctrine that there is no God. This is a metaphysical assertion about the ultimate nature of reality that can only be accepted on faith, and it clearly qualifies as a religious belief. Additionally, hard Atheists have joined together in organizations to celebrate their faith's central ritual, namely, Theism-bashing. So I think there can be little argument that the "hard" variety of Atheism constitutes a religion by our currently accepted defintions.

K.



SpanishMatMaster -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/14/2011 10:47:45 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
Actually, it is neither excellent nor accurate. Hard Atheism...

1. The original say only "Atheism".
2. Some forms of pacifism may be pretty bellicous as well, and they actually are and were (remember the 60's).

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
hard Atheists have joined together in organizations to celebrate their faith's central ritual


Please add a "some" here. Many hard atheists are Chinese landworkers who could not care less.
That some forms of Atheism match with philosophies and are therefore much more near religions, in something I handled already in the beginning of page 17. Does not change my point, though, don't you think?

Best regards.



Kirata -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/14/2011 10:50:39 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster

Plz add a "some" here. Many hard atheists are Chinese landworkers who could not care less.

Plz don't read "all" in sentences where it does not appear.

K.



SpanishMatMaster -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/14/2011 10:51:44 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
quote:

ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster
Plz add a "some" here. Many hard atheists are Chinese landworkers who could not care less.

Plz don't read "all" in sentences where it does not appear.
K.

I insist in that sentence it was implicit, as you are qualifying hard Atheism as a whole, and not some kinds of: you wrote "(...) that the "hard" variety of Atheism constitutes a religion by our currently accepted defintions.", the whole hard variety, and not "some varieties of hard Atheism constitute".
But ok, misunderstanding cleared anyway, we can move on on this.



Kirata -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/14/2011 10:59:33 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster

I insist in that sentence it was implicit, as you are qualifying hard Atheism as a whole, and not some kinds of: "the "hard" variety of Atheism" you said, not "some varieties of hard Atheism".

That was not the sentence you objected to.

Don't play quote tricks with me, or I will interpret it as disrespect and hide you. [:D]

K.



SpanishMatMaster -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/14/2011 11:01:55 PM)

Kirata, that was the context of that sentence, and I think now you are just trying to escape the obvious.
You were using in the last sentence the reasoning of the previous, so they had to have the same scope: " So I think there..."
Anyway - I stop this here, it is a minor point and I won't loose more time on this, ok?



Kirata -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/14/2011 11:13:33 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster

Kirata, that was the context of that sentence... I won't loose more time on this, ok?

Well since you realize you would just be wasting your time, yes that's fine. [:D]

Edited to add:

Just for the sake of understanding each other, let's say the context is "Americans" and the following statement is made:

Americans spend more time in church than the citizens of any other Western country.

That doesn't mean ALL Americans spend more time in church, or even that ALL Americans go to church at all. And since it doesn't mean either of those things in the first place, it isn't necessary (at least in English) to say "some" Americans.

Bueno?

K.



gungadin09 -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/14/2011 11:29:30 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: HeatherMcLeather
It may be an excellent analogy as SMM contends, but the court disagrees with you, so it really doesn't matter that much does it? [:D]


Weren't you recently arguing about the exact wording of the 1st Amendment and the fact that the Supreme Court was interpreting it too broadly?  Didn't you say the phrase "shall pass no law abridging the freedom of speech..." meant exactly that, that it was the court's duty to enforce the letter of the law, until the law was changed?  If there was no ambiguity in that case, why is there any in this?  The law doesn't say "religious belief" or "religious philosophy", and it certainly doesn't say "philosophy" or "belief system", it says religion.  And, yeah, i think "firmly held belief system" is what they meant, but they didn't SAY that.  It was a mistake, and the Constitution should have been amended, but instead of waiting for that to happen the courts have reinterpreted the meaning of the term "religion" to fit their needs.  And i think it's quite a stretch to say that atheism is a religion.

pam



Kirata -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/14/2011 11:43:27 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: gungadin09

i think it's quite a stretch to say that atheism is a religion.

In my opinion the "stretch" is to talk about Atheism as if it was some kind of monolithic belief system. "Atheism" can mean more than one thing, and therein (I think) lies much of the problem.

K.



gungadin09 -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/15/2011 12:09:00 AM)

True. As far as this particular case goes, the prisoner apparently had to submit an application to form the study group, describing in detail what his beliefs were and what issues he intended to discuss, study etc. There must not have been much doubt about exactly what "atheism" meant to him, and i'll wager it was "strong atheism", even if he didn't use that exact term.

pam



SpanishMatMaster -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/15/2011 12:49:53 AM)

Kirata: Ditto.



Real0ne -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/15/2011 12:50:37 AM)

I would appreciate if someone would nail "strong atheism" down "exactly".

How can anyone tell the difference?

and if you can tell the difference what difference does it make?

That and if the premise is in violation of the 1st does it matter how strong it is?





blnymph -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/15/2011 1:05:43 AM)

what a rubbish
the safe haven for those once persecuted for their religious beliefs now needs a court decision to define the absence of religious belief as a religious belief to be able to give those ppl the same rights as any bigots ....

dont try to find any reason in this ...



Page: <<   < prev  16 17 [18] 19 20   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875