U.S. Supreme Court Ruling: ATHEISM IS RELIGION

[Obtenebrator]

Your jury trial fantasy is nonsense.

Wrong. it is how this type of reasoning is taught in schools.

Your jury trial illustration is nonsense, because it writes off and ignores whole systems of human thought used to acquire knowledge.

No. No it doesn't. It is a means of assessing the truth-value of a claim. Nothing more. And it recognizes that the decision will always be an imperfect one but a result is arrived at from that reasoning.

Were your philosophy classes as much of a fantasy as your glorious geochem PhD?

Are you physically incapable of discussing something WITHOUT attacking the other person personally?

 

[Cypress]

Wrong. it is how this type of reasoning is taught in schools.






No. No it doesn't. It is a means of assessing the truth-value of a claim. Nothing more. And it recognizes that the decision will always be an imperfect one but a result is arrived at from that reasoning.




Are you physically incapable of discussing something WITHOUT attacking the other person personally?

You seem to think that human sensory experience and empiricism are the only ways humans acquire knowledge.

That's undoubtedly why you thought your jury analogy was so clever and deadly.

If you ever study any philosophy, you'll eventually learn that the kind of empirical logical positivism you cling to has long been discredited, and there are other theories of human knowledge.

I'm surprised someone who was awarded a glorious geochem PhD has such a limited understanding of human knowledge and reasoning.

 

[Obtenebrator]

You seem to think that human sensory experience and empiricism are the only ways humans acquire knowledge.

Not really. But when someone proposes an hypothesis that says "X exists" then I am perfectly within rational bounds to test that hypothesis.

Which is exactly what I'm doing. People tell me God exists. I test that hypothesis and see it lacking.

This is not a mathematical proof like in geometry. It isn't a syllogism. It is a claim of existence. That is perfectly within the realm of testing based on empirical evidence.

That's undoubtedly why you thought your jury analogy was so clever and deadly.

It is. It is the EXACT SAME QUESTION FORM. Is the person guilty or not guilty? This is the exact same form of the question of God's existence.

I'm surprised someone who was awarded a glorious geochem PhD has such a limited understanding of human knowledge and reasoning.

You do realize you are the one who has talked more about my PhD now than I EVER have. In fact you are the #1 person to bring it up in just about every discussion.

You seem incapable of discussing a point without personal attacks. Just because I could get a degree you didn't try for (or probably couldn't have achieved) does not change anything about my position. It has no bearing on this conversation.

You resort to this when you are backed into a corner and faced with concepts you don't really understand but you can't allow anyone else to be more knowledgable than you so you resort of attacks. It is ever thus.

 

[Cypress]

Not really. But when someone proposes an hypothesis that says "X exists" then I am perfectly within rational bounds to test that hypothesis.

Which is exactly what I'm doing. People tell me God exists. I test that hypothesis and see it lacking.

This is not a mathematical proof like in geometry. It isn't a syllogism. It is a claim of existence. That is perfectly within the realm of testing based on empirical evidence.




It is. It is the EXACT SAME QUESTION FORM. Is the person guilty or not guilty? This is the exact same form of the question of God's existence.





You do realize you are the one who has talked more about my PhD now than I EVER have. In fact you are the #1 person to bring it up in just about every discussion.

You seem incapable of discussing a point without personal attacks. Just because I could get a degree you didn't try for (or probably couldn't have achieved) does not change anything about my position. It has no bearing on this conversation.

You resort to this when you are backed into a corner and faced with concepts you don't really understand but you can't allow anyone else to be more knowledgable than you so you resort of attacks. It is ever thus.

Back up and try again.

Jury trials rely on witness testimony and physical evidence. That's a process that requires a certain empiricism.

A geometric axiom, the preamble to the declaration of independence, a mathmatical proof, and Aquinas' ontological argument for god are deductions based on rationality, not empiricism.

They didn't teach systems of human knowledge in all that time you spent supposedly acquiring your glorious geochem PhD?

 

[CIA TOTALITARIANISM]

You seem to think that human sensory experience and empiricism are the only ways humans acquire knowledge.

That's undoubtedly why you thought your jury analogy was so clever and deadly.

If you ever study any philosophy, you'll eventually learn that the kind of empirical logical positivism you cling to has long been discredited, and there are other theories of human knowledge.

I'm surprised someone who was awarded a glorious geochem PhD has such a limited understanding of human knowledge and reasoning.

brainwashing isn't human knowledge, Dr. mengele.

 

[Hume]

brainwashing isn't human knowledge, Dr. mengele.

Did you even graduate from high school?

 

[Obtenebrator]

Back up and try again.

Jury trials rely on witness testimony and physical evidence. That's a process that requires a certain empiricism.

The claim god exists is exactly the same type of claim. If God exists but has no bearing on reality whatsoever then there is no reason to care or believe he exists.

A geometric axiom, the preamble to the declaration of independence, a mathmatical proof, and Aquinas' ontological argument for god are deductions based on rationality, not empiricism.

And if someone told me that all three angles of a triangle summed to 180deg I could verify it. The ontoloical argument for god's existence does have a failing point because, as Kant noted, one cannot treat "existence" as a predicate. In a sense, as much as I loved Anselm's argument, it is, at the end of the day little more than a word-game that only makes sense if existence is a predicate. But not really much more.

The real question is still and remains: "Does God Exist?" And if God exists then there must be some impact on reality that would provide evidence of said existence.

The jury trial is just a means of testing a claim. Nothing more, nothing less.

They didn't teach systems of human knowledge in all that time you spent supposedly acquiring your glorious geochem PhD?

Will you please stop obsessing on my degree. I know it is a chip on your shoulder and I dont' know why. I can only assume you are angry that you couldn't complete a PhD and now you have to attack anyone who has one. It threatens your fragile ego because you always need to be the most intelligent person in the room. Sorry but reality doesn't always comport with your best wishes.

So please stop talking about my degree unless it has a bearing on the conversation and given that I almost never mention it I see no reason to bring it up all the time as you do.

Deal with your "issues" somewhere else. Try to discuss the topic and not the person.

 

[Alter2Ego]

don't worry about it child........I'll be ignoring you forever........if you want to get a message to me just ask God to pass it on.....it will be faster.......

Good. Because you have now been added to my Ignore list where I won't have to even read the tripe you keep posting.

You are not representative of the God of the Judeo-Christian Bible; therefore, you are in no position to attempt to chastise atheists or anybody else who rejects God since you are in no better position than they are.

1 Corinthians 10:12​

So let the one who thinks he is standing beware that he does not fall.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Good. Because you have now been added to my Ignore list where I won't have to even read the tripe you keep posting.

You are not representative of the God of the Judeo-Christian Bible; therefore, you are in no position to attempt to chastise atheists or anybody else who rejects God since you are in no better position than they are.

1 Corinthians 10:12​

So let the one who thinks he is standing beware that he does not fall.

don't tell God......he may still let me in if you don't squeal on me.....

 

[Alter2Ego]

Why is what I believe so important to you that you demand it be called a religion? That’s the real question here, and one you seem unable to answer. Courts do not speak for Gid. You are discussing a legal case and trying to turn it into a theological discussion. It’s just one of your logical flaws, of which there are many. Bottom line; what is the point you are attempting to make. You again seem to articulate that point.

Concart:

You are now pretending that I am making things up. Atheist Religionists keep denying court cases that clearly state Atheism is Religion. The lawsuits were filed by Atheists who claimed their religious rights were being violated. Take, for example, the Atheist Religionist named James Kaufman who was serving time in prison and wanted to start an atheist group. His request was denied, so he filed a lawsuit in which he asserted his religious rights were being denied. He lost the case in the lower court, and so he took the matter to the Appeals Court where he won. Below is part of the appeals court transcript.

United States Court of Appeals,Seventh Circuit.

James J. KAUFMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Gary R. McCAUGHTRY, et al., Defendants-Appellees.


No. 04-1914.

Decided: August 19, 2005​

Without venturing too far into the realm of the philosophical, we have suggested in the past that 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. Fleischfresser v. Dirs. of Sch. Dist. 200, 15 F.3d 680, 688 n. 5 (7th Cir.1994) (internal citation and quotation omitted); see also Welsh v. United States, 398 U.S. 333, 340, 90 S.Ct. 1792, 26 L.Ed.2d 308 (1970); United States v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163, 184-88, 85 S.Ct. 850, 13 L.Ed.2d 733 (1965). We have already indicated that atheism may be considered, in this specialized sense, a religion. See Reed v. Great Lakes Cos., 330 F.3d 931, 934 (7th Cir.2003) ("If we think of religion as taking a position on divinity, then atheism is indeed a form of religion."). Kaufman claims that his atheist beliefs play a central role in his life, and the defendants do not dispute that his beliefs are deeply and sincerely held.



The Supreme Court has recognized atheism as equivalent to a "religion" for purposes of the First Amendment on numerous occasions, most recently in McCreary County, Ky. v. American Civil Liberties Union of Ky., 545U.S. 844, 125 S.Ct. 2722, 162 L.Ed.2d 729 (2005). The Establishment Clause itself says only that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," but the Court understands the reference to religion to include what it often calls "nonreligion." In McCreary County, it described the touchstone of Establishment Clause analysis as "the principle that the First Amendment mandates government neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion." Id. at *10 (internal quotations omitted). As the Court put it in Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38, 105 S.Ct. 2479, 86 L.Ed.2d 29 (1985):

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1467028.html

 

[Concart]

Concart:

You are now pretending that I am making things up. Atheist Religionists keep denying court cases that clearly state Atheism is Religion. The lawsuits were filed by Atheists who claimed their religious rights were being violated. Take, for example, the Atheist Religionist named James Kaufman who was serving time in prison and wanted to start an atheist group. His request was denied, so he filed a lawsuit in which he asserted his religious rights were being denied. He lost the case in the lower court, and so he took the matter to the Appeals Court where he won. Below is part of the appeals court transcript.

United States Court of Appeals,Seventh Circuit.

James J. KAUFMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Gary R. McCAUGHTRY, et al., Defendants-Appellees.


No. 04-1914.

Decided: August 19, 2005​

Without venturing too far into the realm of the philosophical, we have suggested in the past that 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. Fleischfresser v. Dirs. of Sch. Dist. 200, 15 F.3d 680, 688 n. 5 (7th Cir.1994) (internal citation and quotation omitted); see also Welsh v. United States, 398 U.S. 333, 340, 90 S.Ct. 1792, 26 L.Ed.2d 308 (1970); United States v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163, 184-88, 85 S.Ct. 850, 13 L.Ed.2d 733 (1965). We have already indicated that atheism may be considered, in this specialized sense, a religion. See Reed v. Great Lakes Cos., 330 F.3d 931, 934 (7th Cir.2003) ("If we think of religion as taking a position on divinity, then atheism is indeed a form of religion."). Kaufman claims that his atheist beliefs play a central role in his life, and the defendants do not dispute that his beliefs are deeply and sincerely held.



The Supreme Court has recognized atheism as equivalent to a "religion" for purposes of the First Amendment on numerous occasions, most recently in McCreary County, Ky. v. American Civil Liberties Union of Ky., 545U.S. 844, 125 S.Ct. 2722, 162 L.Ed.2d 729 (2005). The Establishment Clause itself says only that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," but the Court understands the reference to religion to include what it often calls "nonreligion." In McCreary County, it described the touchstone of Establishment Clause analysis as "the principle that the First Amendment mandates government neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion." Id. at *10 (internal quotations omitted). As the Court put it in Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38, 105 S.Ct. 2479, 86 L.Ed.2d 29 (1985):

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1467028.html

You are making things up. Specially my position. I don’t care what the supreme court says. I don’t believe in God. That’s it. Full stop. Get it?

 

[Obtenebrator]

We have already indicated that atheism may be considered, in this specialized sense, a religion. See Reed v. Great Lakes Cos., 330 F.3d 931, 934 (7th Cir.2003) ("If we think of religion as taking a position on divinity, then atheism is indeed a form of religion."). Kaufman claims that his atheist beliefs play a central role in his life, and the defendants do not dispute that his beliefs are deeply and sincerely held.

Given the Reed quote "IF" they determine that religion is potentially defined as "taking a position on divinity" is pretty weak tea. It is akin to saying that everyone has arms. But some people have "zero" arms. But somehow defining this as a state of "having arms".

Atheism can and does exist as a state in which one simply fails to accept the claims that God exists. That's not really "taking a position" but rather a "lack of position".

Would you consider yourself a "stamp collector" if the last thing you would do is collect stamps?

the Court understands the reference to religion to include what it often calls "nonreligion." I

This is nearly absurd. By this reasoning being gay is a form of heterosexuality (just the Non-heterosexuality form).

 

[CIA TOTALITARIANISM]

The claim god exists is exactly the same type of claim. If God exists but has no bearing on reality whatsoever then there is no reason to care or believe he exists.




And if someone told me that all three angles of a triangle summed to 180deg I could verify it. The ontoloical argument for god's existence does have a failing point because, as Kant noted, one cannot treat "existence" as a predicate. In a sense, as much as I loved Anselm's argument, it is, at the end of the day little more than a word-game that only makes sense if existence is a predicate. But not really much more.

The real question is still and remains: "Does God Exist?" And if God exists then there must be some impact on reality that would provide evidence of said existence.

The jury trial is just a means of testing a claim. Nothing more, nothing less.



Will you please stop obsessing on my degree. I know it is a chip on your shoulder and I dont' know why. I can only assume you are angry that you couldn't complete a PhD and now you have to attack anyone who has one. It threatens your fragile ego because you always need to be the most intelligent person in the room. Sorry but reality doesn't always comport with your best wishes.

So please stop talking about my degree unless it has a bearing on the conversation and given that I almost never mention it I see no reason to bring it up all the time as you do.

Deal with your "issues" somewhere else. Try to discuss the topic and not the person.

you have correctly identified cypress as the biggest bullshitter.

he is the masonic gatekeeper charged with keeping religion stupid and crazy.

 

[Alter2Ego]

The Supreme Court has recognized atheism as equivalent to a "religion" for purposes of the First Amendment on numerous occasions, most recently in McCreary County, Ky. v. American Civil Liberties Union of Ky., 545U.S. 844, 125 S.Ct. 2722, 162 L.Ed.2d 729 (2005). The Establishment Clause itself says only that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," but the Court understands the reference to religion to include what it often calls "nonreligion." In McCreary County, it described the touchstone of Establishment Clause analysis as "the principle that the First Amendment mandates government neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion." Id. at *10 (internal quotations omitted). As the Court put it in Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38, 105 S.Ct. 2479, 86 L.Ed.2d 29 (1985):

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1467028.html

You are making things up. Specially my position. I don’t care what the supreme court says. I don’t believe in God. That’s it. Full stop. Get it?

Concart:

I would suggest that you tell that to the various courts throughout the USA where they ruled Atheism is Religion. Tell them they're making things up. Then come back to the forum and let us all know how that turned out.

 

[Phantasmal]

Concart:

I would suggest that you tell that to the various courts throughout the USA where they ruled Atheism is Religion. Tell them they're making things up. Then come back to the forum and let us all know how that turned out.

Well, that means a new definition in the dictionary.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Well, that means a new definition in the dictionary.

no lib'rul would ever support something like that, would they...........lol.......

 

[dancindave]

Concart:

I would suggest that you tell that to the various courts throughout the USA where they ruled Atheism is Religion. Tell them they're making things up. Then come back to the forum and let us all know how that turned out.

As Christian Nation SCOTUS Fourth Reich July "what is 9/11 ?" Freudian slip Islamidiotocracy where denying a George Washington University Hospital Washington, D.C. born retired WW II Pentagon Staff Sergeant to Eisenhower medical care for Federal Lynching KKK churchstate of hate drug trafficking fiefdom enforcement Mengele "Angel of Death" baptize thine eyes by urinations mass crooks on Capital Hill neuroses of fascism as Federal Lynching KKK churchstate of hate drug trafficking "serve the Pope or die" enforcement fiefdom denying medical care of nurses, physical therapists & occupational therapists to a retired FBI agent genocide pogrom national religion......

 

[CIA TOTALITARIANISM]

Well, that means a new definition in the dictionary.

you people change words all the time.

just like how you started calling fascism "public / private partnership"

and started callling nationalism "fascism".

 

[Concart]

Concart:

I would suggest that you tell that to the various courts throughout the USA where they ruled Atheism is Religion. Tell them they're making things up. Then come back to the forum and let us all know how that turned out.

I don’t have to tell them anything. Do you have a point in all this? After ten years you might want to make it.

 

[dancindave]

Concart:

I would suggest that you tell that to the various courts throughout the USA where they ruled Atheism is Religion. Tell them they're making things up. Then come back to the forum and let us all know how that turned out.

Usually ends up with Federal Lynching KKK churchstate of hate drug trafficking fiefdom enforcement of Christian Nation SCOTUS Rehnquist Fourth Reich July "what is 9/11 ?" Freudian slip in that Mohammed flying flaming chariot pseudoscience Valhalla pedophilia martyrdom human reproduction medical pseudoscience immaculate virgin Mary Jesus the Christ son of Allah not so master race not so master plan Islamidotocracy....