U.S. Supreme Court Ruling: ATHEISM IS RELIGION

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Poor Richard Saunders:

You don't know what you're talking about. Secular Humanists are atheists by their own admission.

"Humanism: A Brief Overview
Our definition. Humanism is a progressive philosophy of life that, without theism and other supernatural beliefs, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good of humanity."

Humanist Common Ground: Atheism - American Humanist Association

Download this information as a PDF or view our brochure. A lot of people think that atheism is a recent idea. But religious disbelief actually has a long and fascinating history. Just as a student of Christianity would want to know about a few rather significant things that happened 2,000 years...

americanhumanist.org

The U.S. Supreme Court confirmed it at Footnote 11 in the Torcaso v. Watkins case when they included Secular Humanism among various atheist religions such as Buddhism.

[ Footnote 11 ] Among religions in this country 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. See Washington Ethical Society v. District of Columbia, 101 U.S. App. D.C. 371, 249 F.2d 127; Fellowship of Humanity v. County of Alameda, 153 Cal. App. 2d 673, 315 P.2d 394; II Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences 293; 4 Encyclopaedia Britannica (1957 ed.) 325-327; 21 id., at 797; Archer, Faiths Men Live By (2d ed. revised by Purinton), 120-138, 254-313; 1961 World Almanac 695, 712; Year Book of American Churches for 1961, at 29, 47.[/COLOR]

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=367&invol=488

Repeating the same quote over and over doesn't change its meaning to what you want it to mean.
Buddhists don't believe in a single god so under your argument they must be atheists. Taoists must be atheists.
Of course, you didn't follow the rest of the footnote to see the other cases cited.
All the cases involve tax exempt status for societies that don't worship one supreme God.
One of the interesting things in those cases is in Washington Ethical Socy. v. Dist. of Columbia
"The Ethical Movement does not require that any of its members believe in, or have any concept of God."
It also doesn't say they can't believe in a God.
Then there is this from Fellowship of Humanity v. Co. Alameda
"A substantial part of the membership and clergy of the Unitarian Church are humanists. In the "Pocket Guide to Unitarianism," edited by Harry B. Scholefield, appears the following (p. 4): "Some Unitarians call themselves 'humanists' and others call themselves 'theists.' The difference between the two groups is not so much a matter for controversy as for mutual understanding and appreciation."

Humanism is clearly not restricted to atheism based on the court ruling cited in your quote. What the court refers to in Fellowship of Humanity is theistic and non-theistic religions. It doesn't say that non-theistic religions are the same thing as atheists. That is your attempt to skew what the court is saying.

The most important thing about the footnote is that is cites other cases and it is those cases that would be the controlling rulings and not this footnote.

 

[Alter2Ego]

Repeating the same quote over and over doesn't change its meaning to what you want it to mean.
Buddhists don't believe in a single god so under your argument they must be atheists. Taoists must be atheists.
Of course, you didn't follow the rest of the footnote to see the other cases cited.
All the cases involve tax exempt status for societies that don't worship one supreme God.
One of the interesting things in those cases is in Washington Ethical Socy. v. Dist. of Columbia
"The Ethical Movement does not require that any of its members believe in, or have any concept of God."
It also doesn't say they can't believe in a God.
Then there is this from Fellowship of Humanity v. Co. Alameda
"A substantial part of the membership and clergy of the Unitarian Church are humanists. In the "Pocket Guide to Unitarianism," edited by Harry B. Scholefield, appears the following (p. 4): "Some Unitarians call themselves 'humanists' and others call themselves 'theists.' The difference between the two groups is not so much a matter for controversy as for mutual understanding and appreciation."

Humanism is clearly not restricted to atheism based on the court ruling cited in your quote. What the court refers to in Fellowship of Humanity is theistic and non-theistic religions. It doesn't say that non-theistic religions are the same thing as atheists. That is your attempt to skew what the court is saying.

The most important thing about the footnote is that is cites other cases and it is those cases that would be the controlling rulings and not this footnote.

Poor Richard Saunders:

If you can't stand to see the quote repeated, you don't have to show up in my thread. I repeated the quote so that it's easier for readers to follow.

 

[Alter2Ego]

Repeating the same quote over and over doesn't change its meaning to what you want it to mean.
Buddhists don't believe in a single god so under your argument they must be atheists. Taoists must be atheists.
Of course, you didn't follow the rest of the footnote to see the other cases cited.
All the cases involve tax exempt status for societies that don't worship one supreme God.
One of the interesting things in those cases is in Washington Ethical Socy. v. Dist. of Columbia
"The Ethical Movement does not require that any of its members believe in, or have any concept of God."
It also doesn't say they can't believe in a God.
Then there is this from Fellowship of Humanity v. Co. Alameda
"A substantial part of the membership and clergy of the Unitarian Church are humanists. In the "Pocket Guide to Unitarianism," edited by Harry B. Scholefield, appears the following (p. 4): "Some Unitarians call themselves 'humanists' and others call themselves 'theists.' The difference between the two groups is not so much a matter for controversy as for mutual understanding and appreciation."

Humanism is clearly not restricted to atheism based on the court ruling cited in your quote. What the court refers to in Fellowship of Humanity is theistic and non-theistic religions. It doesn't say that non-theistic religions are the same thing as atheists. That is your attempt to skew what the court is saying.

The most important thing about the footnote is that is cites other cases and it is those cases that would be the controlling rulings and not this footnote.

Poor Richard Saunders:

The U.S. Supreme Court made it clear that Buddhism, Taoism, and Ethical Culture are religions that don't believe in a God or gods. The argument of the atheists on this forum is that one has to believe in some type of god in order to be considered being part of a religion. Wrong!


[ Footnote 11 ] Among religions in this country 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. See Washington Ethical Society v. District of Columbia, 101 U.S. App. D.C. 371, 249 F.2d 127; Fellowship of Humanity v. County of Alameda, 153 Cal. App. 2d 673, 315 P.2d 394; II Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences 293; 4 Encyclopaedia Britannica (1957 ed.) 325-327; 21 id., at 797; Archer, Faiths Men Live By (2d ed. revised by Purinton), 120-138, 254-313; 1961 World Almanac 695, 712; Year Book of American Churches for 1961, at 29, 47.[/COLOR]

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=367&invol=488

Repeating the same quote over and over doesn't change its meaning to what you want it to mean.
Buddhists don't believe in a single god so under your argument they must be atheists. Taoists must be atheists.
Of course, you didn't follow the rest of the footnote to see the other cases cited.
All the cases involve tax exempt status for societies that don't worship one supreme God.
One of the interesting things in those cases is in Washington Ethical Socy. v. Dist. of Columbia
"The Ethical Movement does not require that any of its members believe in, or have any concept of God."
It also doesn't say they can't believe in a God.
Then there is this from Fellowship of Humanity v. Co. Alameda
"A substantial part of the membership and clergy of the Unitarian Church are humanists. In the "Pocket Guide to Unitarianism," edited by Harry B. Scholefield, appears the following (p. 4): "Some Unitarians call themselves 'humanists' and others call themselves 'theists.' The difference between the two groups is not so much a matter for controversy as for mutual understanding and appreciation."

Humanism is clearly not restricted to atheism based on the court ruling cited in your quote. What the court refers to in Fellowship of Humanity is theistic and non-theistic religions. It doesn't say that non-theistic religions are the same thing as atheists. That is your attempt to skew what the court is saying.

The most important thing about the footnote is that is cites other cases and it is those cases that would be the controlling rulings and not this footnote.

Who cares if the other cases cited int Torcaso v. Watkins dealt with tax exempt status. We're discussing atheist religions where the belief in a god is NOT a requirement, and that's what Footnote 11 of the Torcaso case points out.


You're an atheist; therefore, you are in a religion. Deal with that.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Empirically, there are four states associated with religion one can fit into in the coarsest sense:

Theist: Has a religious belief in a God or Gods.
Agnostic: On the fence. Accepts there may or may not be a god or gods, undecided.
Secularist: Doesn't know and doesn't care if there is a god or gods. Areligious.
Atheist: Has a religious belief there is no god or gods.

Theists and atheists are religious. They are polar opposites in their beliefs.

 

[Ross Dolan]

Poor Richard Saunders:

If you can't stand to see the quote repeated, you don't have to show up in my thread. I repeated the quote so that it's easier for readers to follow.

Hummm...she seems to think this is her thread.

She has me on ignore, so someone ought to inform her that ANYONE can participate in any thread started. The threads do not belong to its initiator.

 

[Ross Dolan]

Empirically, there are four states associated with religion one can fit into in the coarsest sense:

Theist: Has a religious belief in a God or Gods.
Agnostic: On the fence. Accepts there may or may not be a god or gods, undecided.
Secularist: Doesn't know and doesn't care if there is a god or gods. Areligious.
Atheist: Has a religious belief there is no god or gods.

Theists and atheists are religious. They are polar opposites in their beliefs.

You are correct about both theists and atheists being opposites in their beliefs. BUT although that shows both are belief systems...they are not both religions.

As for agnostics...they are not on the fence. They have a definite position...and that position is the acknowledgement that they do not know if there are no gods or if there is at least one god...and most prefer not to make a guess (and disguise that guess using the word "belief.")

 

[domer76]

Empirically, there are four states associated with religion one can fit into in the coarsest sense:

Theist: Has a religious belief in a God or Gods.
Agnostic: On the fence. Accepts there may or may not be a god or gods, undecided.
Secularist: Doesn't know and doesn't care if there is a god or gods. Areligious.
Atheist: Has a religious belief there is no god or gods.

Theists and atheists are religious. They are polar opposites in their beliefs.

Believers try to perform the same mental gymnastics to claim atheism is a religion that they do to try to prove the virgin birth or resurrection.

 

[domer76]

You are correct about both theists and atheists being opposites in their beliefs. BUT although that shows both are belief systems...they are not both religions.

As for agnostics...they are not on the fence. They have a definite position...and that position is the acknowledgement that they do not know if there are no gods or if there is at least one god...and most prefer not to make a guess (and disguise that guess using the word "belief.")

Agnostic refers to knowledge, not belief. “I don’t know” is different than “I don’t believe”.

 

[Ross Dolan]

Agnostic refers to knowledge, not belief. “I don’t know” is different than “I don’t believe”.

When referring to whether any gods exist (or if there are none)...the words, "I believe..." is nothing more than a blind guess. There is no unambiguous evidence for or against the existence of a god or gods.

Agnostics can, if they choose, make a blind guess about whether there are no gods or if there is at least one.

Refusing to "believe" either way...is as valid as "believing" one way or the other.

 

[domer76]

When referring to whether any gods exist (or if there are none)...the words, "I believe..." is nothing more than a blind guess. There is no unambiguous evidence for or against the existence of a god or gods.

Agnostics can, if they choose, make a blind guess about whether there are no gods or if there is at least one.

Refusing to "believe" either way...is as valid as "believing" one way or the other.

Bart Ehrman, the Biblical scholar, describes himself as both an agnostic and an atheist.

He says he’s an atheist because he doesn’t believe a god exists. He says he is also an agnostic because he doesn’t know. Good summary.

 

[Ross Dolan]

Bart Ehrman, the Biblical scholar, describes himself as both an agnostic and an atheist.

He says he’s an atheist because he doesn’t believe a god exists. He says he is also an agnostic because he doesn’t know. Good summary.

Nobody knows. No theist knows; no atheist knows; no agnostic knows.

To suppose that anyone who lacks a belief a god exists is an atheist is an absurdity...an accident of a misunderstanding of the etymology of the word "atheist."

Previous to the mid-20th century...the word atheist mean "denying the existence of a god. In the mid-1900's, atheists hijacked the word and suggested, erroneously, that it meant "a" (without) + "theist" (someone who believes in a god) = without a belief in a god. Atheists apparently did this so they could claim that they were not "believing" anything, they were just absent a belief in a god.

But that meaning is absurd, because the word "atheist" came into the English language almost 100 years BEFORE the word "theist." Atheist came into English from the Greek through the French...and meant "a" (without) + "theos" (a god) = WITHOUT A GOD...NOT without a belief in a god.

We should get away from using the descriptor words...and instead state succinctly what our position is.

 

[domer76]

Nobody knows. No theist knows; no atheist knows; no agnostic knows.

To suppose that anyone who lacks a belief a god exists is an atheist is an absurdity...an accident of a misunderstanding of the etymology of the word "atheist."

Previous to the mid-20th century...the word atheist mean "denying the existence of a god. In the mid-1900's, atheists hijacked the word and suggested, erroneously, that it meant "a" (without) + "theist" (someone who believes in a god) = without a belief in a god. Atheists apparently did this so they could claim that they were not "believing" anything, they were just absent a belief in a god.

But that meaning is absurd, because the word "atheist" came into the English language almost 100 years BEFORE the word "theist." Atheist came into English from the Greek through the French...and meant "a" (without) + "theos" (a god) = WITHOUT A GOD...NOT without a belief in a god.

We should get away from using the descriptor words...and instead state succinctly what our position is.

Kinda splitting hairs there. There’s no difference, or not one worth mentioning, between a person “without a god” and a person “without a belief in a god”.

Knowledge and belief are two different animals, even though, in the English language, they are similarly used. “I believe I have a dollar in my wallet” is not the same as “I know I have a dollar in my wallet.”

 

[Ross Dolan]

Kinda splitting hairs there. There’s no difference, or not one worth mentioning, between a person “without a god” and a person “without a belief in a god”.

Huge difference, Domer. Huge.

A person without a "belief" in a god...can still have a god if one exists...just as a person with a belief in a god can still be without a god if no gods exist.

But being without a god means there are no gods.

Knowledge and belief are two different animals, even though, in the English language, they are similarly used. “I believe I have a dollar in my wallet” is not the same as “I know I have a dollar in my wallet.”

Correct.

And people who use atheist as a descriptor or part of a descriptor...do it because of belief. They either believe there are no gods...or they believe it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.

NOBODY KNOWS IF THERE ARE NO GODS...OR IF THERE IS AT LEAST ONE. (Except the god if there is one.)

So...anyone saying there IS a god...or anyone saying there ARE no gods...

...are just sharing blind guesses.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Hummm...she seems to think this is her thread.

She has me on ignore, so someone ought to inform her that ANYONE can participate in any thread started. The threads do not belong to its instigator

According to board rules the instigator DOES have more authority than mere posters........

 

[domer76]

Huge difference, Domer. Huge.

A person without a "belief" in a god...can still have a god if one exists...just as a person with a belief in a god can still be without a god if no gods exist.

But being without a god means there are no gods.


Correct.

And people who use atheist as a descriptor or part of a descriptor...do it because of belief. They either believe there are no gods...or they believe it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.

NOBODY KNOWS IF THERE ARE NO GODS...OR IF THERE IS AT LEAST ONE. (Except the god if there is one.)

So...anyone saying there IS a god...or anyone saying there ARE no gods...

...are just sharing blind guesses.

This quote of yours makes no sense. It’s a contorted distinction without a difference.

“A person without a "belief" in a god...can still have a god if one exists...just as a person with a belief in a god can still be without a god if no gods exist.”

 

[PostmodernProphet]

You are correct about both theists and atheists being opposites in their beliefs. BUT although that shows both are belief systems...they are not both religions.

As for agnostics...they are not on the fence. They have a definite position...and that position is the acknowledgement that they do not know if there are no gods or if there is at least one god...and most prefer not to make a guess (and disguise that guess using the word "belief.")

why does it confuse that "we don't know yet" is NOT a "definite position"......

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Bart Ehrman, the Biblical scholar, describes himself as both an agnostic and an atheist.

He says he’s an atheist because he doesn’t believe a god exists. He says he is also an agnostic because he doesn’t know. Good summary.

dude.....his position is I deny God exists but I haven't made up my mind yet......the most irrational of atheists.......

 

[Ross Dolan]

This quote of yours makes no sense. It’s a contorted distinction without a difference.

It is not only a difference...if is a HUGE difference.

"A person without a "belief" in a god...can still have a god if one exists...just as a person with a belief in a god can still be without a god if no gods exist.”

What a person "believes" makes absolutely no difference to the reality. If a person "believes" there are no gods...and there actually is a god...then the person is wrong in what they "believe."

Conversely, if a person "believes" there is a god...and there actually are no gods...then the person is wrong in what they "believe."

If a person "believes" there is a god...but the reality is that there are no gods...the person can believe what they want, but are wrong. The person HAS NO GOD if there are no gods...no matter what they believe.

Same thing from the other perspective: If a person "believes" there are no gods...but the reality is that there is a god...the person can believe whatever it is they want, but they are wrong. The person HAS A GOD if a god actually exists no matter what they believe.

Think about it. It makes perfect sense.




Don't let up on this, Domer. It is important...and if you think you are correct, fight it out with me.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

A person without a "belief" in a god...can still have a god if one exists...just as a person with a belief in a god can still be without a god if no gods exist.

to be fair, that's a cop out.......the argument is, "I'm going to pretend to believe in God because no one will know if I am lying"............but there will always be One who knows and cannot be fooled.......

 

[PostmodernProphet]

to be fair, that's a cop out.......the argument is, "I'm going to pretend to believe in God because no one will know if I am lying"............but there will always be One who knows and cannot be fooled.......

next both the atheists and the agnostics will try to claim the Apathetic.......so their numbers will sell tremendously.......atheists are currently numbered at around 3%.......but obviously most of those can't agree what they even believe.....clutching agnostics increases their weight to 7%.....but forcing the Apathetic into their fold brings them to a whopping 22.8%.....essentially for every denier and every undecided out there are two who just don't give a fuck.....

Religious Landscape Study

Explore the geographic distribution and demographics of America's major religious groups.

www.pewresearch.org