U.S. Supreme Court Ruling: ATHEISM IS RELIGION

[Kafka]

Atheism is a belief system, however someone defines it for themselves.

So if someone asked you if Santa Claus was real you would say it is your BELIEF that he is not? Easter Bunny same? Tooth Fairy?

Atheism requires a belief there is no god

So in your world people commonly have to prove negatives?

You only have a BELIEF that an invisible sasquatch doesn't live in your back yard. Right?

What I don't get is why Atheists are so upset when someone points out that their beliefs amount to a religious system.

Probably because in our world words have meaning. It is clear that in your world words mean whatever you want them to mean. So in your world hobbies include NOT golfing. NOT playing football. NOT collecting stamps.

Atheists don't actually know that a god doesn't exis

Correct. But it is incumbent upon the believer to provide evidence that he does. That's how it works.

You don't KNOW that the toothfairy doesn't exist, do you?

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.

Your lack of knowledge of atheism at a technical level does not put you in a position to define what is accurate or not about the topic.

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.

"Some idiot reason" is the very same reason that you don't believe in Santa Claus. It isn't a "belief" for you that the tooth fairy doesn't exist.

So that "idiot reason" is the exact same one YOU use in your daily life.

 

[Kafka]

On the other hand, atheism seems to imply there is no ultimate purpose in life or the universe

Why does that bother you so much?

, there is no ultimate justice, and there is no objective moral standard standing outside of human opinion.

Why does there need to be? What "objective moral standard" do you think exists?

 

[Cypress]

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.

Loading…

mbtchicago.org

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...

You're right, the Dhammapada is a collection of sayings attributed to the Bhudda.

I know Eastern religions have to be understood on their own terms. I have read major sacred texts from Buddhism, Daoism, Hinduism.

What I was responding to was your claim that the Bhudda never acknowledged the reality of gods. Having read the entire Dhammapada twice, I can tell you it is peppered with refences to dieties and devas, although they are only peripheral to Buddhist thought and practice.

That only makes sense. Buddhism was an offshoot of Hinduism in antiquity.

 

[Damocles]

You're right, the Dhammapada is a collection of sayings attributed to the Bhudda.

I know Eastern religions have to be understood on their own terms. I have read major sacred texts from Buddhism, Daoism, Hinduism.

What I was responding to was your claim that the Bhudda never acknowledged the reality of gods. Having read the entire Dhammapada twice, I can tell you it is peppered with refences to dieties and devas, although they are only peripheral to Buddhist thought.

That only makes sense. Buddhism was an offshoot of Hinduism in antiquity.

Tantric Buddhism is an offshoot of Hinduism, Theravada Buddhism is its own thing. Buddha spoke in allegory that the Hindi folk would understand, because that is where he was from and who he was speaking to. It does not change that Buddha was not telling you to follow god/s, he used allegory to speak about the different states and how to end suffering. While some Buddhists are of sects that believe these things, it is not often found (almost never in fact) among folks in Theravada Buddhism.

You keep telling me what I believe rather than listening. I get that you "know" these things, but I am telling you what I experience.

 

[Cypress]

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.

I agree with most of that, except your statement that the bible was written out of self serving motivations.

There are many stories in the bible that cast an unfavorable light on Israelite kings, Hebrew tribes, the disciples of Jesus.

In critical literary analysis, it is understood by convention that anyone writing propaganda is not going to include embarrassing, humiliating, or degrading stories. That's why to some extent, the bible is considered something of a primary written source for the study of certain aspects of antiquity.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

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




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.

You can't ignore the other cases in the footnote since those cases are the cause of the statement you claim makes atheism a religion. You MUST go to those cases to find out why those cases call those 4 things religions. To be a religion you must have regular meetings which is what the Ethical Culturalists and the Secular Humanists did in those cases which is why they were considered a religion under the law and why the building they met in could be tax exempt. Those cases refer to the religions that are not theism as non-theism. They have some belief system that they practice regularly and in the case of the Secular Humanists, they replace God with ethics of man

This is the definition of religion from Fellowship of Humanity

Fellowship of Humanity v. Co. Alameda

Fellowship of Humanity v. Co. Alameda, California Court of Appeals

law.justia.com

Religion simply includes: (1) a belief, not necessarily referring to supernatural powers; (2) a cult, involving a gregarious association openly expressing the belief; (3) a system of moral practice directly resulting from an adherence to the belief; and (4) an organization within the cult designed to observe the tenets of belief.

 

[Cypress]

Tantric Buddhism is an offshoot of Hinduism, Theravada Buddhism is its own thing. Buddha spoke in allegory that the Hindi folk would understand, because that is where he was from and who he was speaking to. It does not change that Buddha was not telling you to follow god/s, he used allegory to speak about the different states and how to end suffering. While some Buddhists are of sects that believe these things, it is not often found (almost never in fact) among folks in Theravada Buddhism.

You keep telling me what I believe rather than listening. I get that you "know" these things, but I am telling you what I experience.

No tradition or strand of Buddhism would even exist without the Buddha, who's teachings and thoughts are canonized in the Dhammapada.

I didn't say the Bhudda was telling me to follow gods when I was reading the Dhammapada.

I wrote that the Dhammapada, and by extension the Bhudda, acknowledged the reality of gods. Then I said that even if gods are real they are only peripheral and play no direct role in Buddhist practice.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

So if someone asked you if Santa Claus was real you would say it is your BELIEF that he is not? Easter Bunny same? Tooth Fairy?

Reductio ad absurdum (RAA) fallacy.

So in your world people commonly have to prove negatives?

You only have a BELIEF that an invisible sasquatch doesn't live in your back yard. Right?

More RAA fallacy.

Probably because in our world words have meaning. It is clear that in your world words mean whatever you want them to mean. So in your world hobbies include NOT golfing. NOT playing football. NOT collecting stamps.

And, more RAA in the form of ad hominem

Correct. But it is incumbent upon the believer to provide evidence that he does. That's how it works.

No, it isn't. A Theist no more has to prove there is a GOD than an Atheist has to prove there isn't. Both have beliefs in their position.

The Greek philosopher Democritus hypothesized that smaller particles than things he could observe existed. He termed these atomos. He was never able to prove that hypothesis nor would anyone else for something like more than a millennia.

Both philosophers and scientists have been quoted as saying, Absence of proof is not proof of absence. That applies here.

You don't KNOW that the toothfairy doesn't exist, do you?

More RAA

Your lack of knowledge of atheism at a technical level does not put you in a position to define what is accurate or not about the topic.

No true Scotsman fallacy. You are redefining my generalization.

"Some idiot reason" is the very same reason that you don't believe in Santa Claus. It isn't a "belief" for you that the tooth fairy doesn't exist.

So that "idiot reason" is the exact same one YOU use in your daily life.

Negative conclusion from affirmative premises fallacy. You are using your initial RAA fallacy to draw a conclusion that is supposed to prove my position wrong.

 

[Hume]

Reductio ad absurdum (RAA) fallacy.


More RAA fallacy.


And, more RAA in the form of ad hominem


No, it isn't. A Theist no more has to prove there is a GOD than an Atheist has to prove there isn't. Both have beliefs in their position.

The Greek philosopher Democritus hypothesized that smaller particles than things he could observe existed. He termed these atomos. He was never able to prove that hypothesis nor would anyone else for something like more than a millennia.

Both philosophers and scientists have been quoted as saying, Absence of proof is not proof of absence. That applies here.


More RAA


No true Scotsman fallacy. You are redefining my generalization.


Negative conclusion from affirmative premises fallacy. You are using your initial RAA fallacy to draw a conclusion that is supposed to prove my position wrong.

duhhhhhhhhhhh fallacy duhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

 

[Cypress]

Why does that bother you so much?



Why does there need to be? What "objective moral standard" do you think exists?

There might be no ultimate purpose to life, and morality might just be a matter of opinion, with no objective moral standard. I am not the final arbiter on it.

That is fine for atheists to believe, but it is an aspect of atheism I do not find particularly appealing.

A belief that there is no ultimate purpose or meaning strikes me as cynical and nihilistic.

A belief that there is no ultimate justice means Joseph Stalin died peacefully in his Dacha, and got away scott free for a lifetime of mass murder, cruelty, and diabolical inhumanity.

A belief that that morality is a matter of opinion, and that there is no objective ontological standard of morality we can appeal to means Hitler and the millions of Germans who supported him could justify their belief that the murder of Jews, gypsies, and the disabled was perfectly justifiable in the interests of the Aryan peoples.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

duhhhhhhhhhhh fallacy duhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

Go back to the kiddie table, the adults are talking.

 

[Hume]

Go back to the kiddie table, the adults are talking.

Fuck off troll. You're piece of shit.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Fuck off troll. You're piece of shit.

 

[Hume]

bye asshole

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

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.

Refusing to believe something when there is no evidence of its existence is not the same thing as believing something when there is no evidence of its existence.

 

[Hume]

There might be no ultimate purpose to life, and morality might just be a matter of opinion, with no objective moral standard. I am not the final arbiter on it.

That is fine for atheists to believe, but it is an aspect of atheism I do not find particularly appealing.

A belief that there is no ultimate purpose or meaning strikes me as cynical and nihilistic.

A belief that there is no ultimate justice means Joseph Stalin died peacefully in his Dacha, and got away scott free for a lifetime of mass murder, cruelty, and diabolical inhumanity.

A belief that that morality is a matter of opinion, and that there is no objective ontological standard of morality we can appeal to means Hitler and the millions of Germans who supported him could justify their belief that the murder of Jews, gypsies, and the disabled was perfectly justifiable in the interests of the Aryan peoples.

Weird you always profess belief in god and deny that you believe in god. No one understands your resistance.

 

[Hume]

Refusing to believe something when there is no evidence of its existence is not the same thing as believing something when there is no evidence of its existence.

Amazing how many people don't understand basic logic.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Refusing to believe something when there is no evidence of its existence is not the same thing as believing something when there is no evidence of its existence.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Yes, you are exactly like a 3 year old that believes in Santa.

 

[Hume]

Yes, you are exactly like a 3 year old that believes in Santa.

Gardner, like all Trumpers, thinks belief makes it true.