U.S. Supreme Court Ruling: ATHEISM IS RELIGION

While all legislative power is vested in Congress, that legislative power is limited to those listed in Article I, Section 8. Which of those powers listed below gives Congress the power to make laws defining religion? The 1st Amenment clearly forbids Congress to pass such legislation.

Section 8: Powers of Congress​

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards and other needful Buildings;-And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
not that I think the government is doing anything that qualifies, none of those require the government to DEFINE religion.....one other hand, they are banned from IMPOSING a religion.........I think it may be necessary to define religion in order to make sure they aren't imposing one.....
 
I have watched many a podcast, debate, and “evidence” from many apologists. They fall flat every time. They have to resort to incredible mental gymnastics to explain all the errors, inconsistencies and outright violation of physics and biology in their scriptures. Not to mention the amount of savagery and violence and the inability to explain suffering in the context of a benevolent god.
so you should murder them all with a poison vaccine, deep state fascisto-bro.
 
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.
This is a redefinition fallacy on your part. Atheism is a lack of theism. You are desperate to alter the definition of "atheism" to mean "a lack of belief in God." A theism is any set of beliefs about the supernatural, hence no gods are specifically required.

Notice that your "footnote" does not bear the word "atheism" whereas you claim, nay, you insist, that it does:

[ 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]
I don't see the word "atheism" or "atheist" or "atheistic" in there anywhere.
 
I have watched many a podcast, debate, and “evidence” from many apologists.
Why have you watched any at all?

They fall flat every time.
I don't see how that is even possible. Please explain.

They have to resort to incredible mental gymnastics to explain all the errors, inconsistencies and outright violation of physics and biology in their scriptures.
Nope. It sounds like you haven't listened to any such podcasts.

* Just FYI, people whose religion/faith involves physics violations almost always refer to them as "miracles" or "forcings" or "feedbacks."
* Just FYI, people whose religion/faith is based on a major inconsistency usually refer to it as "greenhouse effect" or "ozone depletion."
* Just FYI, people whose religion/faith involves a great evil to be overcome typically refer to that evil as "capitalism" or "carbon dioxide" or "the rich."
* Just FYI, people whose religion/faith require untenable mental gymnastics usually end up professing Global Warming or Ocean Acidification or Accelerating Extreme Weather or Sea Level Rise and normally remind everyone that it might already be "too late".
 
If the SCOTUS rules that for the purposes of meeting requirements of the Constitution of the US...atheism must be deemed to be a religion...then that holds for the US and any jurisdiction where the decisions of the SCOTUS prevail. It certainly does not prevail outside the jurisdiction of that body.

But in no way is atheism a religion. It IS a belief system...specifically, it is either...

...a BELIEF that there are no gods...or...

...a BELIEF that it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.

I repeat...IT IS A BELIEF SYSTEM.

If you want to argue that the SCOTUS decides what is and what is not a religion...I guess you can do that. I simply disagree with you...and the wording of the court.
Theravada Buddhism would be a "belief system" as well then. The Buddha never spoke on the existence of god/s, it is not part of Theravada Buddhism.

Most religion is also a "belief system".... methinks you are making words that sound good to you but failing to actually make a distinction.
 
It is not only a difference...if is a HUGE difference.


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.
There are differences between some kinds of belief that can be easily resolved.

I can believe I have a dollar in my pocket or know I have a dollar in my pocket. That’s easily resolved by sticking my hand in my pocket. My belief about it can be changed to knowledge by a simple effort.

If I believe there is a million dollars somewhere in my name, that belief can never become knowledge until I discover its reality. There may be or may not be. If there is and I never discover its reality, it’s not mine nor will it ever be. I will never “have” that million dollars even if it exists because it remains hidden to me.

The greatest minds of all of history have struggled with the existence of a god. Yet, that god remains hidden, doesn’t it? I can’t, and nobody has been able to put their god-proving hand in their pocket to change that belief, one way or the other, into knowledge.

So, to one who does not believe in a god that remains hidden, despite every effort that person has made to discover reality, he “has” no god.
 
Theravada Buddhism would be a "belief system" as well then. The Buddha never spoke on the existence of god/s, it is not part of Theravada Buddhism.

Most religion is also a "belief system".... methinks you are making words that sound good to you but failing to actually make a distinction.
Of course most religions are "belief systems." I have never suggested otherwise.

But people who use "atheist" as a self-descriptor or part of a self-descriptor want to assert that they are using it because of "not believing" something. I say they are full of shit. The reason anyone uses "atheist" as a self-descriptor is because of belief...either they believe there are no gods...or they believe it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.

Both of those things are beliefs...and are just guesses.
 
The Buddha never spoke on the existence of god/s
The Buddha himself thought gods existed.

The Dhammapada is arguably the most famous Buddhist scripture in existence, and was written, according to legend, by the Bhudda himself.

The Dhammapada does not recognize a creator god, and gods to the extent they exist, are peripheral to Buddhist thought.

But references to gods, demons, and hell as a place of punishment are peppered throughout the Dhammapada, showing that the Buddha accepted the reality of a spiritual plane with dieties and devas
 
There are differences between some kinds of belief that can be easily resolved.

I can believe I have a dollar in my pocket or know I have a dollar in my pocket. That’s easily resolved by sticking my hand in my pocket. My belief about it can be changed to knowledge by a simple effort.

If I believe there is a million dollars somewhere in my name, that belief can never become knowledge until I discover its reality. There may be or may not be. If there is and I never discover its reality, it’s not mine nor will it ever be. I will never “have” that million dollars even if it exists because it remains hidden to me.

The greatest minds of all of history have struggled with the existence of a god. Yet, that god remains hidden, doesn’t it? I can’t, and nobody has been able to put their god-proving hand in their pocket to change that belief, one way or the other, into knowledge.

So, to one who does not believe in a god that remains hidden, despite every effort that person has made to discover reality, he “has” no god.
IF there is a god then EVERYONE has a god...no matter what they believe.
 
We should get away from using the descriptor words...and instead state succinctly what our position is.
That has always been an astute point.

Labels don't matter as much as what one actually believes.

I don't find the biblical literalism of fundamentalism to be convincing in the least. No holy roller has ever convinced me that the bible is inerrant.

On the other hand, atheism seems to imply there is no ultimate purpose in life or the universe, there is no ultimate justice, and there is no objective moral standard standing outside of human opinion.
 
That has always been an astute point.

Labels don't matter as much as what one actually believes.

I don't find the biblical literalism of fundamentalism to be convincing in the least. No holy roller has ever convinced me that the bible is inerrant.

On the other hand, atheism seems to imply there is no ultimate purpose in life or the universe, there is no ultimate justice, and there is no objective moral standard standing outside of human opinion.
Yup.

As for the Bible...while I do not have enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess about the existence of gods...I certainly have enough upon which to make a guess about the Bible. Here it is:



My guess, for what it is worth, is that the Bible is a very self-serving history (of sorts) of the early Hebrew people...a relatively unsophisticated, unknowledgeable, superstitious people who had many enemies in the areas where they lived. Their enemies worshiped barbarous, vengeful, wrathful, unforgiving, demanding, murderous, petty gods. And to protect themselves from those gods, they invented an especially barbarous, vengeful, wrathful, unforgiving, demanding, murderous, petty god...and worshiped it. The story seems to be a necessary mythology. The mythology served a needed purpose at that time and I can easily understand why the ancient Hebrews felt about it the way they did.



The fact that modern theists feel the way they do about it...is disappointing and disheartening.
 
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.
Atheism is a belief system, however someone defines it for themselves. Atheism requires a belief there is no god just as Theism requires a belief that there is a God. Everything else that surrounds that in terms of some religion is window dressing, so-to-speak.

What I don't get is why Atheists are so upset when someone points out that their beliefs amount to a religious system. Atheists don't actually know that a god doesn't exist anymore than Theists know that one does. But both believe what they believe about the existence of god.

Now, if you don't give a shit about whether there is a god or not, then just call yourself a "secularist" because that is accurate. Religion is irrelevant to you and the debate is over. The worst is an Atheist, that pisses and moans about their belief there is no god being called a religion. They are lying to themselves for some idiot reason.
 
Go fuck yourself.

LOL. It's hilarious that you are so upset over your lack of ability to understand pretty straightforward point, but it's kinda sad that this is all you can muster in defense of your own point.

I guess I should try to find educated people to discuss these things with rather than you. :)
 
The Buddha himself thought gods existed.

The Dhammapada is arguably the most famous Buddhist scripture in existence, and was written, according to legend, by the Bhudda himself.

The Dhammapada does not recognize a creator god, and gods to the extent they exist, are peripheral to Buddhist thought.

But references to gods, demons, and hell as a place of punishment are peppered throughout the Dhammapada, showing that the Buddha accepted the reality of a spiritual plane with dieties and devas
The Dhammapada is not rumored to have been written by Buddha, Buddha would not allow his words to be written during his lifetime, when he left this plane his followers wrote down what they remembered. While "hell" is referenced in the Dhammapada, it is not the same thing as a place... in Theravada Buddhism these things are states of being in this lifetime, not places you go to.


Above, is a link to a decent explanation. Theravada Buddhism, like the Buddha is about this life, not next ones, not past ones. You mistake what is written in the Dhammapada and expect it to fit nicely within western concepts, but Buddha didn't speak of your next life, he spoke of this one. When he said they were "reborn into hell plane" he's talking about suffering in this lifetime, not something that happens after your death... Buddha believed that no energy should be spent thinking of where we came from or what happens after we die, it is now that we should seek Enlightenment. (I do get tired when folks who are not on the Path try to tell me what I believe, that is a failing of mine I'll do better).

From the link said:

Do Buddhists believe in heaven and hell?​

Q-60px
Do Buddhists believe in a heaven and hell?
A-60px
Yes. And no…. No, Buddhists do not have a heaven or hell in the sense of something in the afterlife. There is no reward or punishment at the time of death.

Yes, Buddhists have the concept of the universe that we call Samsara which describes the world we live in and it refers to this life (not an afterlife).

There are Six Realms of Samsara. In each Realm, there are beings who dwell among:
  1. Heavenly Beings
  2. Human Beings
  3. Ashura (Fighting Spirits)
  4. Gaki (Hungry Ghosts)
  5. Animals
  6. Hells
These are the Realms that we are constantly migrating through in our present life. One moment, we are filled with goodness and dwell among the Heavenly Beings. The next moment, we may be angry and dwell among the Fighting Sprites.

Buddhism always has been concerned with this life. While we are alive, we have to seek Enlightenment. The Buddha taught that knowing where we came from or what happens after death should not take up any of our energy.
 
Back
Top