RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion

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

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

Message

Real0ne -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/23/2011 10:25:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster quote: Re-aliment. Re-bound, re-bind. It does not change your point, but your point is based in the flawed argument that etimology equals current meaning. Greetings. and with that position we may as well completely throw proper lexography, etymology, syntactic usage et al right out the window becuase today I pick any meaning I want out of my ass and say thats what it means. Try that in court some day and see how far you get. it means corrected menaing case in point holocaust today it thought to be genocide and that definition militantly defended when the real definition is "wholly burnt offering" Same with gay as homosexual. common usage and actual meaning is completely 2 different things.

Moonhead -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/23/2011 11:09:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne If my argument were "really" bullshit then it would be very easy for you to counter it and disprove it. Your "argument" is based on a specious definition of what constitutes religion: there's no need to provide any map and detail of why an edifice built on a foundation that's pure bullshit looks more than a little shaky.

Real0ne -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/23/2011 11:14:10 AM)
Really? then there you have your specious and meaningless opinion. Your middle name should be obtuse. Sorry though to inform you that its a huge fail unless you can detail and validate your claim as I have mine anything less is purely bullshit.

crazyml -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/23/2011 11:16:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne and with that position we may as well completely throw proper lexography, etymology, syntactic usage et al right out the window becuase today I pick any meaning I want out of my ass and say thats what it means. This said by the dude who can't see the distinction between "I don't believe that pixies exist" and "I believe that pixies do not exist", priceless.

Moonhead -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/23/2011 11:42:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne Really? then there you have your specious and meaningless opinion. Cap'n! The Ironicator cannae take any more! [img]http://www.stargazertwo.com/Database/Scotty/James_Doohan_1980s.jpeg[/img]

Real0ne -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/23/2011 1:04:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne Really? then there you have your specious and meaningless opinion. Cap'n! The Ironicator cannae take any more! [image]http://www.stargazertwo.com/Database/Scotty/James_Doohan_1980s.jpeg[/image] quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: CITATION "Belief is part of the thinking process by every definition available. I explained this before. If you make a mental determination, and acceptance thereof, once that act occurred you now believe the outcome of your mental determination is or will be correct. (lying to others or yourself notwithstanding) Therefore regardless of ones choice to believe or not believe, with regard to the the subject matter, the resultant action is in fact still a belief, and the person accepting said decision has faith in their ability to be correct and belief in the outcome regardless. Therefore "not believe" that atheists use is a specious argument that falls on its face as it cannot be correctly attached to the process involved. Now religion in its essence is a fundamental set beliefs that one has accepted and uses to govern their actions. Same with the word God. You can worship any God you like, it can be anything from a diety to the government to a sacred fart, or even deify yourself. Now that is where I am coming from and I have not heard anything that defeats or even dents this position since it is the precise sequence of events in accord with known definitions on the topic. If you heard whatever from confucious and you made a conscious decision to practice it to govern your life by it etc then it IS YOUR RELIGION. Nowhere in the "Freedom of religion and exercise thereof" does it say "State acknowledged" religion, "academically acknowledged" religion, "philisophicaly acknowledged" religion et al. That said once I declare something my religion who has the legitimate authority to challenge my claim? Therefore confucianism is a religion for those who accept it as such and any claim by outside sources to the contrary is mere unsubstantiated opinion with regard to the owner. As I said I see no measuring stick that anyone can use aside from someones religion causing personal or equitable injury. Any color of law rule ordinance whatever to enforce anything beyond personal or equitable injury is government intrusion, abridgement and abuse." ~ R1 Did that clear it up? theres your citation. Why are you farting around like that? We both know you do not have a counter argument. Feel free to MAP out and detail as I have done in my argument what ever you think is a counter argument, and simply saying confucianism is not a religion is NOT mapping out and detailing a counter argument. But then I expect you know that. I gave you every opportunity to refute this and all you have are unsubstantiated one liners that I guess you expect everyone to read your mind. May as well face it you have NOTHING except your worn out iranocumatoer

Real0ne -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/23/2011 1:09:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: crazyml quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne and with that position we may as well completely throw proper lexography, etymology, syntactic usage et al right out the window becuase today I pick any meaning I want out of my ass and say thats what it means. This said by the dude who can't see the distinction between "I don't believe that pixies exist" and "I believe that pixies do not exist", priceless. Yes but as I have shown there is a distinction between a grammatical difference and a process difference. The process is what deciding factor here. quote: CITATION Belief is part of the thinking process by every definition available. I explained this before. If you make a mental determination, and acceptance thereof, once that act occurred you now believe the outcome of your mental determination is or will be correct. (lying to others or yourself notwithstanding) Therefore regardless of ones choice to believe or not believe, with regard to the the subject matter, the resultant action is in fact still a belief, and the person accepting said decision has faith in their ability to be correct and belief in the outcome regardless. Therefore "not believe" that atheists use is a specious argument that falls on its face as it cannot be correctly attached to the process involved.

Real0ne -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/23/2011 5:00:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne If my argument were "really" bullshit then it would be very easy for you to counter it and disprove it. Your "argument" is based on a specious definition of what constitutes religion: there's no need to provide any map and detail of why an edifice built on a foundation that's pure bullshit looks more than a little shaky. Since I already posted the definitions no need for me to dig them out again. Either way I found a site that may help you. English grammar for the utterly confused By Laurie Rozakis someone wake me up if she ever posts a legitimate response instead of just standing on her soapbox ranting. [image]http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o296/nine_one_one/stuff/smiley-Too_much.gif[/image]

Moonhead -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/24/2011 4:28:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne someone wake me up if she ever posts a legitimate response instead of just standing on her soapbox ranting. [image]http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o296/nine_one_one/stuff/smiley-Too_much.gif[/image] Cap'n! The Ironicator cannae take any more! [image]http://www.stargazertwo.com/Database/Scotty/James_Doohan_1980s.jpeg[/image]

Real0ne -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/26/2011 11:55:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne it is if I say it is and I govern my life according to its tenets and "do not injure" any[living]one with my choice of religion. No, it needs to be recognised as a religion by somebody else besides one solipsist. Sorry. Confuscianism is a philosophy, not a religion. The greatest sage would probably have been quite offended at the suggestion that his musings are a rival religious system in competition with Taoism. [image]http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o296/nine_one_one/stuff/bull_shit_small.gif[/image] Irrelevant to the matter. You are co-dependent on the big daddy "STATE" to "dictate" to you what religion is rather than reasoning it out. [image]http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o296/nine_one_one/Religion/RELIGIONPoliticsasreligiongentile1.jpg[/image] Prime candidate to create a nazi regime. quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne If you heard whatever from confucious and you made a conscious decision to practice it to govern your life by it etc then it IS YOUR RELIGION. No it is not. Or are you going to claim that Objectivism, Marxism and Miss Manners are religions as well? Yes I already laid out the parameters try comprehending how it works. quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead Then why all this shite about confuscianism? Thats supposed to be my question to you, since its your position, unvalidated I might add, not mine. Sweetie, until you can provide a coherent argument that a secular philosophy with no formal structure or cult leaders is a religion, there's nothing for me to debunk. Sorry, but that's how debate works here on our planet. [image]http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o296/nine_one_one/stuff/images-2.jpg[/image] well good for you however that is not a debate. [image]http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o296/nine_one_one/Religion/RELIGIONStephenProthero1.jpg[/image] quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne Thats fine, like moonhead, I accept that you have no citations what so ever, not even the dictionary and that your statement is based solely on roncrockery. Moonhead is still waiting for you to cite a citation that confuscianism is too a religion, sweetie. That's why Moonhead has found nothing in your tirade of drivel to debunk, dig? You just came out with a daft statement, and acted like it was a proven fact rather than a bizarre personal interpretation nobody else holds. That isn't so much an argument as a psychosis, you'll find. [image]http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o296/nine_one_one/Religion/RELIGIONJeffreyLRichey1.jpg[/image] quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead quote: If you heard whatever from confucious and you made a conscious decision to practice it to govern your life by it etc then it IS YOUR RELIGION. This barely qualifies as horseshit. I suggest you pinch yourself a bit harder, and come up with something besides "it's a religion because I say it is". you need to understand what it is. Of course you will think it is horseshit if you dont know what it is.. Blacks law dictionary: [image]http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o296/nine_one_one/Religion/RELIGIOUSFREEDOMBLACKS8TH0001.jpg[/image] The Supreme Court: "Religion need not be based on a belief in the existence of a supreme being." [In the 1961 case of Torcaso v. Watkins, the court described "secular humanism" as a religion.] quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne If my argument were "really" bullshit then it would be very easy for you to counter it and disprove it. Your "argument" is based on a specious definition of what constitutes religion: there's no need to provide any map and detail of why an edifice built on a foundation that's pure bullshit looks more than a little shaky. quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead You just came out with a daft statement, and acted like it was a proven fact rather than a bizarre personal interpretation nobody else holds. That isn't so much an argument as a psychosis, you'll find. [image]http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o296/nine_one_one/Religion/RELIGIONthesocialsystemjfrank1.jpg[/image] The Supreme Court: "Religion need not be based on a belief in the existence of a supreme being." [In the 1961 case of Torcaso v. Watkins, the court described "secular humanism" as a religion.] I guess it is a religion "because I said it is"![image]http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o296/nine_one_one/stuff/fly_swatter-2109-1.gif[/image] [image]http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o296/nine_one_one/Religion/RELIGIONAcademyofHiroseTanso1782-18561.jpg[/image] You had to demand citations as you are not capable of reasoning it out and holding an on point debate, simply you do not understand the constructs required to assess the matter hence wound up with your titty caught in the ringer. [image]http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o296/nine_one_one/stuff/Look.jpg[/image] I hope that helps

Kirata -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/27/2011 12:10:58 AM)
Would you please cite the unidentified references that you scanned and uploaded as images? Thanks, K.

Real0ne -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/27/2011 12:17:49 AM)
I do not read philosophy, I do not need to, so I dont intend to look all that shit up again. save the pics, the authors are in the file name.

Kirata -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/27/2011 12:46:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne I do not read philosophy, I do not need to, so I dont intend to look all that shit up again. save the pics, the authors are in the file name. I'm sorry to hear that. I think they make a good case. I'll see what I can do with the information in the image filenames. However, it would be nice if you would adopt the habit of citing sources in future, if only for the benefit of readers who might find them worthwhile. K.

Real0ne -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/27/2011 1:20:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne I do not read philosophy, I do not need to, so I dont intend to look all that shit up again. save the pics, the authors are in the file name. I'm sorry to hear that. I think they make a good case. I'll see what I can do with the information in the image filenames. However, it would be nice if you would adopt the habit of citing sources in future, if only for the benefit of readers who might find them worthwhile. K. well I had no intention of doing moons homeowrk frankly and my personal assessment that I posted ad boring drives closer to the core meaning than any of those citations do. (and stated much more simplistically) So there was no need for any of their citations. quote: CITATION "Belief is part of the thinking process by every definition available. I explained this before. If you make a mental determination, and acceptance thereof, once that act occurred you now believe the outcome of your mental determination is or will be correct. (lying to others or yourself notwithstanding) Therefore regardless of ones choice to believe or not believe, with regard to the the subject matter, the resultant action is in fact still a belief, and the person accepting said decision has faith in their ability to be correct and belief in the outcome regardless. Therefore "not believe" that atheists use is a specious argument that falls on its face as it cannot be correctly attached to the process involved. Now religion in its essence is a fundamental set beliefs that one has accepted and uses to govern their actions. Same with the word God. You can worship any God you like, it can be anything from a diety to the government to a sacred fart, or even deify yourself. Now that is where I am coming from and I have not heard anything that defeats or even dents this position since it is the precise sequence of events in accord with known definitions on the topic. If you heard whatever from confucious and you made a conscious decision to practice it to govern your life by it etc then it IS YOUR RELIGION. Nowhere in the "Freedom of religion and exercise thereof" does it say "State acknowledged" religion, "academically acknowledged" religion, "philisophicaly acknowledged" religion et al. That said once I declare something my religion who has the legitimate authority to challenge my claim? Therefore confucianism is a religion for those who accept it as such and any claim by outside sources to the contrary is mere unsubstantiated opinion with regard to the owner. As I said I see no measuring stick that anyone can use aside from someones religion causing personal or equitable injury. Any color of law rule ordinance whatever to enforce anything beyond personal or equitable injury is government intrusion, abridgement and abuse." ~ R1 Did that clear it up?

geilematz -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/27/2011 4:32:07 AM)
what I could understand from the last posts is that law experts should better not be called in for expertise on matters outside their own

Edwynn -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/27/2011 9:14:40 AM)
Liebe geile, That only happens in the first place because of the completely wacko UK/US adversarial law system. It induces the lawyers to come to a party with out invitation. This is why people in our society are so inclined, and find it to be great 'Spiele', to twist and contort the meaning of words in every way possible.

Moonhead -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/27/2011 10:47:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: geilematz what I could understand from the last posts is that law experts should better not be called in for expertise on matters outside their own To be fair, he's yet to provide any citation demonstrating that he is a legal expert, has he? Given some of the nonsense he posts, that one's just as likely to be a load of shit as Wilbur's claims to be a war hero.

Edwynn -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/27/2011 2:09:34 PM)
Aw, don't take the fun out of it, Moon. Of course he's not a legal expert, neither does he understand the first thing about logic to begin with. There are an infinite number of things that people don't believe at all, which the facile mind could (and in this instance does) take as that they do not believe -in- whatever hogwash, the latter convenient re-phrasing allowing the facile mind to claim that this constitutes a religion. I don't believe that tossing an empty beer bottle at the neighbor's house before I drive to work will ensure that I will catch all green lights on my travel. That is my religion.

tweakabelle -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/27/2011 6:16:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HeatherMcLeather Is the existence or not of a god a religious question? Primarily but not exclusively. We tend to file beliefs on this question under religion, but that doesn't make them a property or monopoly of religion. It's just a convenient way of organising our thoughts and beliefs. Beliefs about the existence/non-existence of deities have implications that can extend far beyond the religious realm. For some one like me - who doesn't believe in either the existence or non-existence of deities - the question is pretty irrelevant. How can a statement of my position - "I don't know if there is a deity or not" - be interpreted as a belief? Clearly it isn't a belief of any sort. Agnostic positions cannot be said to be religious beliefs, they can't even be said to be beliefs.

AeonLux -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/28/2011 5:09:58 AM)
Yes, like not collecting stamps is a hobby. A lack of something needn't be a religion. I mean, I don't believe in Jedi Magic or The Force. Does the presence or existence of Jediism imply those who reject such are doing so from a place of "faith" based on a religious conviction? No. Stripping away the restrictions many theists often place on nontheism, its definition, there's no issue of "belief" when it comes to weak atheism. It is simply a lack of deities. One who is simply godless. In the same sense one is without belief in other such fanciful, mythical and mythological characters and claims. I lack belief in mermaid goddesses and invisible wish-granting fairies. Does that make such position a "belief"? Not quite. Many, unfortunately, either out of willful ignorance or just plain not knowing, confuse or fail to understand the difference between weak and strong atheism and how greatly they differ. It would make sense to have a full grasp of the various nontheistic positions in order to discuss them in a meaningful way.

Page: << < prev 31 32 [33] 34 35 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.078125