Atheism is a religion according to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals

[asaratis]

Atheism IS a religion according to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.

“Atheism is [the inmate's] religion, and the group that he wanted to start was religious in nature even though it expressly rejects a belief in a supreme being,” the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals said.
Read more at Court rules atheism a religion

I rest my case.

Incorrect, you lose your 'case.'

The Supreme Court does not consider those free form faith as following a 'religion':

“[W]hen the underlying principle has been examined in the crucible of litigation, the Court has unambiguously concluded that the individual freedom of conscience protected by the First Amendment embraces the right to select any religious faith or none at all."

Wallace v. Jaffree (1985)

And as we all know the Supreme Court trumps all lower courts, being free from faith is not a 'religion.'

Atheism has no lack of faith. They believe (have faith) that a deity does not exist. They have faith in themselves.

That's the expression of a simpleton which has been refuted many times before.

That is a sign of weak argument, misrepresentation what has been presented in this and other threads already and simple inadequacy.

 

[martybegan]

I wonder why atheists don't want atheism to be a religion?

I can't see a disadvantage to calling it a religion.

I mean, they do have doctrine:

1) There is no God; therefore,

2) I can do whatever the hell I want so long as I don't get caught; and

3) Christians are dummies.

What day do they not have to get up early to go to temple?

Not all religions require compulsory attendance. Hinduism for example can be practiced entirely in ones home.

 

[martybegan]

I wonder why atheists don't want atheism to be a religion?

I can't see a disadvantage to calling it a religion.

I mean, they do have doctrine:

1) There is no God; therefore,

2) I can do whatever the hell I want so long as I don't get caught; and

3) Christians are dummies.

It's not a matter of want or don't want.

Words have meanings. Divorcing the meaning from the word has broad implications.

The OP is arguing that Atheism is a religion, therefore, the absence of religion in public schools is advocating for Atheism.

That's a very dangerous legal construct.

No it is not. The absence of the expression of religious doctrine in government schools, including the doctrine of Atheism does not constitute support of Atheism. It merely bans religion from being taught or supported in any way.

Actively rejecting the concept of a deity is a belief structure, and thus can be considered a religion. Agnosticism is indifference to religion, and is far more supportable as the absence of a belief structure, and thus not a religion.

 

[Montrovant]

As usual what one uses as the definition of atheism is vital in arguing the subject.

If one person argues that atheism is a religion and defines atheism as the belief that there can be no god, while another person argues that atheism is not a religion and defines atheism as simply not believing in any god, neither party can really understand the arguments of the other.

 

[asaratis]

As usual what one uses as the definition of atheism is vital in arguing the subject.

If one person argues that atheism is a religion and defines atheism as the belief that there can be no god, while another person argues that atheism is not a religion and defines atheism as simply not believing in any god, neither party can really understand the arguments of the other.

That is precisely why the silly analogies about bald being a hair color and similar idiocies promoted by the chief idiot Bill Maher and by other Atheist supporters in another thread do not apply to Atheism.

 

[PostmodernProph]

Atheism IS a religion according to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.

“Atheism is [the inmate's] religion, and the group that he wanted to start was religious in nature even though it expressly rejects a belief in a supreme being,” the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals said.
Read more at Court rules atheism a religion

I rest my case.

Incorrect, you lose your 'case.'

The Supreme Court does not consider those free form faith as following a 'religion':

“[W]hen the underlying principle has been examined in the crucible of litigation, the Court has unambiguously concluded that the individual freedom of conscience protected by the First Amendment embraces the right to select any religious faith or none at all."

Wallace v. Jaffree (1985)

And as we all know the Supreme Court trumps all lower courts, being free from faith is not a 'religion.'

Atheism has no lack of faith. They believe (have faith) that a deity does not exist. They have faith in themselves.

That's the expression of a simpleton which has been refuted many times before.

do your refutations carry as much weight as a Supreme Court decision?......

 

[PratchettFan]

As usual what one uses as the definition of atheism is vital in arguing the subject.

If one person argues that atheism is a religion and defines atheism as the belief that there can be no god, while another person argues that atheism is not a religion and defines atheism as simply not believing in any god, neither party can really understand the arguments of the other.

Definitions are meaningless unless they have some connection to reality. You can define a cat as bird, but that won't make it fly. In order to determine whether or not someone is engaged in religion you must first determine what the attributes of religion are. Not the definition, but what actions you would expect to find in someone engaged in religion.

For example, most people would say Christianity is a religion. But if someone just believes Jesus is their savior but never goes to church, discusses their faith, participates in rituals or demonstrates any outside sign of their belief - are they engaged in religion? I would argue they are not.

I think religion is not about what you believe, it is about how you manifest that belief. I have suggested on another thread three basic attributes and I'll repeat them here:

1. A group identity. The participants consider themselves part of a specific group.
2. Belief based. The basic tenets or doctrines are based upon belief rather than objective evidence.
3. Dogma. The tenets are accepted as true without question.

I would argue that the claim Atheism is not a religion by definition is simply an example of dogma.

 

[PostmodernProph]

I think religion is not about what you believe, it is about how you manifest that belief. I have suggested on another thread three basic attributes and I'll repeat them here:

1. A group identity. The participants consider themselves part of a specific group.
2. Belief based. The basic tenets or doctrines are based upon belief rather than objective evidence.
3. Dogma. The tenets are accepted as true without question.

I would argue that the claim Atheism is not a religion by definition is simply an example of dogma.

I'm puzzled.....which of the three would someone believe does NOT describe atheism?.....

 

[PratchettFan]

I think religion is not about what you believe, it is about how you manifest that belief. I have suggested on another thread three basic attributes and I'll repeat them here:

1. A group identity. The participants consider themselves part of a specific group.
2. Belief based. The basic tenets or doctrines are based upon belief rather than objective evidence.
3. Dogma. The tenets are accepted as true without question.

I would argue that the claim Atheism is not a religion by definition is simply an example of dogma.

I'm puzzled.....which of the three would someone believe does NOT describe atheism?.....

Well, if someone simply said they believe there are no gods, then I see no dogma and probably no group identity.

 

[THE LIGHT]

Atheism IS a religion according to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.

“Atheism is [the inmate's] religion, and the group that he wanted to start was religious in nature even though it expressly rejects a belief in a supreme being,” the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals said.
Read more at Court rules atheism a religion

I rest my case.

You can rest your case but first, shouldn't you make one?

It's not an uncommon for you fundies to cut and paste out of context portions of articles you read on fundie websites. Have you ever considered actually researching the issue rather than mindlessly cutting and pasting a single sentence?

ACA Online Articles

I copied and pasted the portion of a ruling that was relevant to my OP topic. Whether you like the outcome of the ruling or not does not change the reality. Your link to an atheist website demonstrates that you are unable to process the facts for yourself without having to rely upon your atheist masters to tell you what to do and say.

Here is the ruling to inform yourself if you dare.

KAUFMAN v. McCAUGHTRY