U.S. Supreme Court Ruling: ATHEISM IS RELIGION

Good grief, that null hypothesis nonsense has never been a convincing argument.
Too funny! Learn what a null hypothesis is. All of science is null hypothesis. All working/functioning technology is based on some null hypotheses of science.

... and you claim that none of it is convincing?

You're like the kid that failed logic and therefore decided that it "doesn't work anyway." Science denial is only part of your problem. Do you deny math as well? The Pythagorean theorem is a null hypothesis. Do you find it unconvincing?

There are no microscopes, mass spectrometers, beakers or test tubes that provide any knowledge of liberty, equality, human rights, fairness.
There is no conclusion that you can draw about liberty, equality, human rights or fairness that isn't a null hypothesis.

Euclid's elements are not based on the scientific experimental method,
They don't have to be. Little purple gremlins could have whispered the information to him in his sleep.

The preamble to the Declaration of Independence is a type of rational argument based on universal principles
What are those principles? I bet they are null hypotheses if they are not axioms.

It is perfectly rational to reason that a rationally intelligible universe could an act of a rational agency, just as it is perfectly rational to reason that the story of Genesis is just metaphor and myth.
It is not rational to look at randomness and conclude that it is intelligently designed.
 
Too funny! Learn what a null hypothesis is. All of science is null hypothesis. All working/functioning technology is based on some null hypotheses of science.

... and you claim that none of it is convincing?

You're like the kid that failed logic and therefore decided that it "doesn't work anyway." Science denial is only part of your problem. Do you deny math as well? The Pythagorean theorem is a null hypothesis. Do you find it unconvincing?


There is no conclusion that you can draw about liberty, equality, human rights or fairness that isn't a null hypothesis.


They don't have to be. Little purple gremlins could have whispered the information to him in his sleep.


What are those principles? I bet they are null hypotheses if they are not axioms.


It is not rational to look at randomness and conclude that it is intelligently designed.
In the Federal Lynching KKK churchstate of hate drug trafficking fiefdom enforcement of Christian Nation SCOTUS Fourth Reich July "what is 9/11 ?" Freudian slip where George Washington University Hospital Washington, D.C. born USA citizens are Islam for Secret Service Same Shiite Different Day as if one would actually consider wasting time to vote for thieving US Constitution Bill of Rights arsonists of McHeil's Navy to make it "one nation under God with equal justice under law" for the Fuhrer's Brainwashing Inqusition......
 
it is fucking hilarous that athiest got called a religion.

that's what they hate the most.

boo hoo..... we're protected too.....
 
it is fucking hilarous that athiest got called a religion.

that's what they hate the most.

boo hoo..... we're protected too.....
Guess Christian Nation SCOTUS Rehnquist Fourth Reich July 9/11 "what is 9/11 ?" Freudian slip where Federal Lynching KKK churchstate of hate drug trafficking fiefdom thieving US Constitution Bill of Rights arsonists Mengel "Angel of Death" baptize thine eyes by urinations on Capital Hill are granted standing for George Washington University Hospital Washington, D.C. born USA citizens are Islam to ignore Arab "death to the infidels" for their national Christiananality pedophilia more perfect union to Mohammed Valhalla pedophilia religion of organized crime for another millenium as the US District Court of Nazington election fixing is just business as usual since who could be bothered to steal a vote for those in the Federal Lynching KKK churchstaet of hate drug trafficking fiefdom that brought 9/11 to the USA........
 
Atheism is Religion according to the 1961 Torcaso v. Watkins case that was affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court--the highest court in the land--where court rulings become national law. In spite of the many court rulings since 1961 that Atheism is Religion, atheists insist on fooling themselves by claiming they are not religious. They attempt to take the higher ground by claiming Christians are mental midgets for believing in a "non-existent sky gawd."


Atheist religionists often refer to the Judeo-Christian Bible as a book of fairytales. At one website where I have debated, the Bible was referred to by atheists as the "BuyBull."


In most of my conversations with atheists at various websites, their usual accusation is that because of the belief in God, theists have committed all sorts of human rights violations in the name of "cultish religions." According to the many atheists I have debated at other websites, it is the belief in God that has caused people to commit the various atrocities common to sinful mankind. Remove religion--the atheists frequently argue--and the world will be a better place. This latter conclusion is mortally flawed for the following reasons:


1. Atheism is itself a religion.

2. Atheists have committed human rights violations en masse throughout history. For instance, Joseph Stalin--the atheist--ordered the deaths of between 40 million to 62 million people (at least 20 million of whom were everyday Soviet civilians). Compare that to the 9 million or so murdered by Adolph Hitler, the Roman Catholic, who merely claimed he was a Christian.

In reality, the problem is not the Bible or God. The problem is false religions that have failed to teach the masses Biblical truths. Blaming God for the crimes of people whose behavior he himself rejects is an attempt at passing the buck.

"See! This only I have found, that the true God made mankind upright, but THEY THEMSELVES have sought out many plans." (Ecclesiastes 7:29)


DISCUSSION POINTS:
1.
Considering that atheists have themselves committed human rights violations under the banner of non-belief in a supernatural God or gods, why can one argue that "belief in god" is not the actual reason behind crimes against humanity?


2. Atheists routinely argue they do not belong to a religion. According to them, non-belief in God is proof positive that they are not religious. Do you agree with the atheists' position? Why so or why not?


3. Based upon numerous court rulings that Atheism is Religion, it is obvious that belief in a supernatural God or gods is not a requirement for being considered part of a religion. What arguments can you present along this line?


An example of a court trying to redefine words. That doesn't work.

Atheism is not a religion. It simply means "no theism" or "no religion".

The Church of No God IS a religion. Like ALL religions, it is based on some initial circular argument (itself NOT a fallacy), with argument stemming from that. The circular argument itself is also called the Argument of Faith.

Atheism does not care whether any god or gods exist or not. It simply doesn't go there. Science, for example, is completely atheistic. So is mathematics. So is logic. NONE of them care whether any god or gods exist or not.

So what IS religion?

This can be reasoned into a definition by examining common traits of religions:

* They all have some initial circular argument, or argument of faith.
* Everything else in that religion stems from that initial argument.

Christianity, for example, begins with the initial argument that Christ exists and He is who He says He is, namely the Son of God.
Everything else in Christianity stems from this initial argument, which is based on faith, and faith alone.

The Church of No God begins with the initial argument that no god or gods exist at all. Everything else in the Church of No God stems from this initial argument, which is based on faith, and faith alone.

Any religion you can name is structured in this way.

Atheism has no initial circular argument. It is not a religion. It does not use the argument of faith at all. It doesn't care whether any god or gods exist.
 
An example of a court trying to redefine words. That doesn't work.

Atheism is not a religion. It simply means "no theism" or "no religion".

The Church of No God IS a religion. Like ALL religions, it is based on some initial circular argument (itself NOT a fallacy), with argument stemming from that. The circular argument itself is also called the Argument of Faith.

Atheism does not care whether any god or gods exist or not. It simply doesn't go there. Science, for example, is completely atheistic. So is mathematics. So is logic. NONE of them care whether any god or gods exist or not.

So what IS religion?

This can be reasoned into a definition by examining common traits of religions:

* They all have some initial circular argument, or argument of faith.
* Everything else in that religion stems from that initial argument.

Christianity, for example, begins with the initial argument that Christ exists and He is who He says He is, namely the Son of God.
Everything else in Christianity stems from this initial argument, which is based on faith, and faith alone.

The Church of No God begins with the initial argument that no god or gods exist at all. Everything else in the Church of No God stems from this initial argument, which is based on faith, and faith alone.

Any religion you can name is structured in this way.

Atheism has no initial circular argument. It is not a religion. It does not use the argument of faith at all. It doesn't care whether any god or gods exist.
Into the Night:

You showed up in this thread late.

The issue is not whether a person believes or does not believe in a God or gods but how important that belief system is. Click the link below and you will see my answer to a previous poster who made a similar comment as yours. It will be Post 390.



Alter2Ego
 
Into the Night:

You showed up in this thread late.

The issue is not whether a person believes or does not believe in a God or gods but how important that belief system is. Click the link below and you will see my answer to a previous poster who made a similar comment as yours. It will be Post 390.



Alter2Ego
False authority fallacy. No dictionary defines any word. That is not the purpose of dictionaries.
Pivot fallacy. You are trying to redefine "atheism" as a religion. It isn't. Redefinition fallacy.
 
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.
Unfortunately, your position is based on an error. "God exists" is not an hypothesis, but an unfalsifiable assertion. This precludes testing. You cannot show it to be false.


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.
Incorrect. The DA's assertion of guilt is argued to merely convince/persuade a jury of humans, not take the jury back in time to the moment of the crime and show them the guilt empirically. A super-convincing DA could feasibly convince a jury that an innocent man is guilty, just as a super-convincing clergyman could feasibly convince you that God exists, but nobody can show any jury unrecorded guilt or innocence just as nobody can show God's existence or lack thereof.

You do realize you are the one who has talked more about my PhD now than I EVER have.
Quantity is irrelevant; you opened the door. If you offer an open bar, you can't complain that some guests drank a lot.

In fact you are the #1 person to bring it up in just about every discussion.
I used to bring it up as well. This is an anonymous forum; credentials don't mean anything. You shouldn't have brought it up in the first place. Everything you post can and will be used against you.

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.
Spot on. Cypress is relegated to asserting stuff that was forcefully asserted on the internet. He has no way of knowing if what he is repeating is accurate/correct so he hopes and prays that it is. He has a compulsive need to be perceived as a thmart perthon and when you catch him making errors, he panics at the thought of his fantasy dissolving.
 
What do you imagine the purpose of dictionaries is?
Dictionaries provide the correct spelling of words, guidance on pronunciation and possible example usages, correct or otherwise.

Dictionaries are like spelling bees, i.e. how do spell a word and how can you use it in a sentence.
 

Dictionaries provide the correct spelling of words, guidance on pronunciation and possible example usages, correct or otherwise.

Dictionaries are like spelling bees, i.e. how do spell a word and how can you use it in a sentence.

In other words: dictionaries define words.
 
Dictionaries provide the correct spelling of words, guidance on pronunciation and possible example usages, correct or otherwise.

Dictionaries are like spelling bees, i.e. how do spell a word and how can you use it in a sentence.
you really are that asshole into the night
 
What do you imagine the purpose of dictionaries is?

This is one of those unique "tells" that link a couple or three posters to one strange "philosophy" about what a dictionary is or is not. It's one of the ways you can kind of determine who might be a sock of whom since this particular weirdness is unique to only a couple people on here.

Personally I've never heard anyone suggest that dictionaries DON'T define words and the only explanation I can find for this position (and believe me this is NOT the first time Into the Night et al have trotted this particular canard out) is that they feel the word "define" means ONLY that it PRESCRIBES usage rather than it's perfectly legitimate alternative of being a DESCRIPTOR of the word's usage etc.

The only thing I can think is related to the French language where there actually is a committee of sorts that acts as gatekeepers to the "official" language and as such can proscribe certain terms and control the language. But no such thing exists in the Anglosphere that I am aware of so it really doesn't have any bearing on the conversation.

And even so, the word "define" is NOT strictly limited to establishing some sort of "command structure" around the terms. I can "define" a circle by giving a radius or I can "define" a word by simply telling you what the word means.

It's just another weird corner of this particularly dysfunctional corner of the internet.
 
Intothenight, IBman are just trolls purposely saying stupid thing to rile people. Just contrarian trolls wasting everyone's time.
 
Intothenight, IBman are just trolls purposely saying stupid thing to rile people. Just contrarian trolls wasting everyone's time.
Hume is just a brainless troll purposely wasting bandwidth as his only recourse for assuaging his fear over Trump's imminent election.
 
Nope. The opposite. No dictionary gets to define or redefine any word. Dictionaries provide guidance/help.

Yeah, you need to buy yourself a dictionary and look up what possible meanings the word "Define" has. It will help you in the long run from looking bonkers.
 
Yeah, you need to buy yourself a dictionary and look up what possible meanings the word "Define" has. It will help you in the long run from looking bonkers.
Why do you believe that if you create a website that you call an online dictionary, that you somehow acquire the authority to redefine words?

Why do you believe that any dictionary is anything more than simple coaching on words?

What is this tyrannical authoritarian perception you have of dictionaries whereby dictionaries somehow get to define what words mean?
 
Why do you believe that if you create a website that you call an online dictionary, that you somehow acquire the authority to redefine words?

Why do you believe that any dictionary is anything more than simple coaching on words?

What is this tyrannical authoritarian perception you have of dictionaries whereby dictionaries somehow get to define what words mean?
you are mentally ill
 
Back
Top