Happy Atheist Forum

Really? (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11457795)

Just what the world really needs... Yet another load of whatever to be called "religion"

Druidry isn't actually as bad as most Christian denominations, I can't really see them doing much harm.  

Quote from: "navvelline"Druidry isn't actually as bad as most Christian denominations, I can't really see them doing much harm.  :hmm:

Quote from: "navvelline"Druidry isn't actually as bad as most Christian denominations, I can't really see them doing much harm.  

Basing your life on zero evidence or reason and being satisfied with not understanding the world, I feel is harmful.

Druids are some of the most studious and philiosophical peoples on the planet, them dudes are deep.

I mean sure you get all kinds of people among them, but the serious ones actually take a lot of time learning about their religion and the people who inspired it. There's a lot more thought and study than just loafing about in a robe.

Well, some people classify atheism as a religion. So I'm not surprised.

Speaking of: Why isn't atheism considered a religion but asexuality is considered a sexuality... when it is defined as a lack of sexuality!?

Besides, depending on the definition you're using atheism could certainly be considered a religion. Though it again falls into the same trap as asexuality being a sexuality.

Quote from: "Byronazriel"Speaking of: Why isn't atheism considered a religion but asexuality is considered a sexuality... when it is defined as a lack of sexuality!?

Because atheism can not be classified as an organised belief in a deity or a doctrine while asexuality is an actual sexual orientation.

QuoteBesides, depending on the definition you're using atheism could certainly be considered a religion. Though it again falls into the same trap as asexuality being a sexuality.

Not really to both points.

It's an orientation, yes... But not a sexuality. Asexuality literally means without sexuality.

Atheism literally means without god, not without religion. Religion can be defined as a set of beliefs about the nature of reality.

I see no reason why modern druidry shouldn't be classified as a religion, if that's what they want (the Druid Network applied for the status that the Charity Commission granted, and the representative quoted in the article was pleased with the designation).  It fits the bill, and is no more or less dubious than Scientology or any other faith that's appeared in the last hundred years or so.

Off Topic:

Quote from: "Byronazriel"Speaking of: Why isn't atheism considered a religion but asexuality is considered a sexuality... when it is defined as a lack of sexuality!?

Besides, depending on the definition you're using atheism could certainly be considered a religion. Though it again falls into the same trap as asexuality being a sexuality.

From "Asexuality: Classification and Characterization" by Nicole Prause and Cynthia A. Graham (http://www.kinseyinstitute.org/publications/PDF/PrauseGrahamPDF.pdf) (PDF):

QuoteThe term “asexual” has been defined in many different ways and asexuality has received very little research attention.

QuoteAsexuals reported significantly less desire for sex with a partner, lower sexual arousability, and lower sexual excitation but did not differ consistently from non-asexuals in their sexual inhibition scores or their desire to masturbate.

(Emphasis mine)

Just because somebody identifies as "asexual" does not mean that their life lacks any sexuality.

You go ahead and call atheism a religion, Byronazriel, if it makes you happy.  It's obvious to me that those who choose to include atheism as a religion are following an agenda, rather than reasonable objective interpretation of the word and the expressed opinions of those whom it describes. You haven't made clear that you actually number yourself among them, but your reasoning in favor of that position so far has failed to justify it. I don't think that it's possible to do so without twisting the definitions of both "religion" and "atheism" to fit within the particular agenda which is being pursued.

Quote from: "Byronazriel"Speaking of: Why isn't atheism considered a religion but asexuality is considered a sexuality... when it is defined as a lack of sexuality!?

Besides, depending on the definition you're using atheism could certainly be considered a religion. Though it again falls into the same trap as asexuality being a sexuality.

What your trying to say is, people without religion should be classified as religion?  

Its like this; if I don't love, does that still make me a lover? No. I simply do love or do not. Either I affiliate with a religion or I don't. Atheism is not a religion as a baseball player is not a football player.

Quote from: "Recusant"You go ahead and call atheism a religion, Byronazriel, if it makes you happy.  It's obvious to me that those who choose to include atheism as a religion are following an agenda, rather than reasonable objective interpretation of the word and the expressed opinions of those whom it describes. You haven't made clear that you actually number yourself among them, but your reasoning in favor of that position so far has failed to justify it. I don't think that it's possible to do so without twisting the definitions of both "religion" and "atheism" to fit within the particular agenda which is being pursued.

Not necessarily.  If one is using the legal definition of religion in order to allow non-belief to garner the same legal rights as superstitions, there need not be any redefinition of either term.

Quote from: "PoopShoot"

Quote from: "Recusant"You go ahead and call atheism a religion, Byronazriel, if it makes you happy.  It's obvious to me that those who choose to include atheism as a religion are following an agenda, rather than reasonable objective interpretation of the word and the expressed opinions of those whom it describes. You haven't made clear that you actually number yourself among them, but your reasoning in favor of that position so far has failed to justify it. I don't think that it's possible to do so without twisting the definitions of both "religion" and "atheism" to fit within the particular agenda which is being pursued.

Not necessarily.  If one is using the legal definition of religion in order to allow non-belief to garner the same legal rights as superstitions, there need not be any redefinition of either term.

how does non-belief classify as superstition? I agree with Recusant, unless you twist and mold athiesm into the lowest possible definition of a religion it will not work. Its foolish to believe atheism is a religion. Atheists (most) aren't superstitious, so how would they classify us as such?

Quote from: "tymygy"how does non-belief classify as superstition?

Replacing "religion" with "superstition" is a redefinition for the purpose of an agenda, and not an honest one.

QuoteI agree with Recusant, unless you twist and mold athiesm into the lowest possible definition of a religion it will not work. Its foolish to believe atheism is a religion. Atheists (most) aren't superstitious, so how would they classify us as such?

None of this applies to using legal definitions for the sake of garnering equal rights for atheists that religions get.  Please address the argument I made, rather than including me in someone else's.

I'm not stating that atheism should be a religion, just that the two are not mutually exclusive based entirely on their definitions.

If you can be non-religous without being an atheist, than it's not much of a stretch that religous people can be atheists.

Quote from: "Byronazriel"religous people can be atheists.

Unitarian Universalists accept atheists.  Buddhists are most often atheists.  Satanists are required to be atheists.  Yes, you can be a religious person and an atheist.

Not ALL Satanists... There are at least two or three sorts of Satanism. I forget what they're called, but one of my old college buddies was a theistic Satanist.

Quote from: "Byronazriel"Not ALL Satanists... There are at least two or three sorts of Satanism. I forget what they're called, but one of my old college buddies was a theistic Satanist.

LaVeyan Satanism is the only sort recognized as a religion.  They require atheism.

Really? that's weird.

Druidry seems to have dropped off the radar for this thread at the moment.  Ah well,,,

Quote from: "PoopShoot"

Quote from: "Recusant"You go ahead and call atheism a religion, Byronazriel, if it makes you happy.  It's obvious to me that those who choose to include atheism as a religion are following an agenda, rather than reasonable objective interpretation of the word and the expressed opinions of those whom it describes. You haven't made clear that you actually number yourself among them, but your reasoning in favor of that position so far has failed to justify it. I don't think that it's possible to do so without twisting the definitions of both "religion" and "atheism" to fit within the particular agenda which is being pursued.

Not necessarily.  If one is using the legal definition of religion in order to allow non-belief to garner the same legal rights as superstitions, there need not be any redefinition of either term.

Please give a citation for "the legal definition of religion."

For now, I'm going to guess that you're referring to James J. Kaufman v. Gary R. Mccaughtry, et al. (http://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-appeals/F3/419/678/617423/)

First, I would like to point out that Kaufman was definitely pursuing an agenda when he brought his lawsuit, though he himself stipulated "it [atheism] is the antithesis of religion."  

The 7th Circuit of the US Court of Appeals, which ruled on this case, does seem to define atheism as a religion, for the purposes of the case:

QuoteFrom the above linked case summary:

5. 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.").

However, this is a very specialized and specific definition, having to do with exercize of rights.  In fact, the Supreme Court of the US is more precise.

QuoteFrom the same source:

6. 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., ___ U.S. ___, 125 S.Ct. 2722, ___ L.Ed.2d ___ (2005).

Note that the wording is "equivalent to a 'religion,'" not  "is a 'religion.'"  So there is a distinction, according to the Supreme Court.

QuoteThe sentence following the above quote:

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."

Thus, the Court itself speaks of atheism as "nonreligion."  Which is it?  I think that it's pretty clear that the "nonreligion" of atheism is only equivalent to religion for the purposes of defining 1st Amendment rights.  

Perhaps you can bring more definitive citations to the discussion, Poopshoot.  I remain unconvinced that there is a clear and unambiguous legal definition of atheism as a religion from my reading of the linked case summary. But even if I'm wrong about that, I see no reason to change my statement that trying to define atheism as a religion is without exception done in pursuit of an agenda, rather than from objective analysis. In the case of the courts, the agenda is protecting rights of citizens.

Quote from: "Recusant"First, I would like to point out that Kaufman was definitely pursuing an agenda when he brought his lawsuit, though he himself stipulated "it [atheism] is the antithesis of religion."  

So what?  I never said otherwise.  In fact, my post clearly stated that one would HAVE TO HAVE AN AGENDA.  Indeed, one must have an agenda in order to bother invoking laws/legal precedents.

QuoteThe 7th Circuit of the US Court of Appeals, which ruled on this case, does seem to define atheism as a religion, for the purposes of the case:

Then at what point would either "atheism" or "religion" need to be redefined?

QuoteHowever, this is a very specialized and specific definition, having to do with exercize of rights.  In fact, the Supreme Court of the US is more precise.

Which was the stated agenda in my post.

QuoteFrom the same source:

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."

Therefore lack of religion counts.

QuoteI remain unconvinced that there is a clear and unambiguous legal definition of atheism as a religion from my reading of the linked case summary. But even if I'm wrong about that, I see no reason to change my statement that trying to define atheism as a religion is without exception done in pursuit of an agenda, rather than from objective analysis. In the case of the courts, the agenda is protecting rights of citizens.

[/quote]
I never claimed otherwise.  In fact, everything here mirrors what I stated.  I was addressing your claim that the terms must be redefined.

Quote from: "PoopShoot"Yes, you can be a religious person and an atheist.

All religious people in a way, all athiests. If religious person believes in the christian god, he does not believe in zues, or neptune, or any other god.

By that logic a pitcher for the mariners is not an athelete because he's not also a linebacker for the seahawks, or a... [Position from baskeball] for the [Basketball team.]

And it's Zeus and Neptune, those are proper names, like Ted Turner or Bruce Banner.

Quote from: "Poopshoot"I was addressing your claim that the terms must be redefined.

"Religion = Nonreligion (atheism)"

Yes, I think that the above qualifies as not only a redefinition, but a rather radical redefinition.  Do you disagree?

I still look forward to your authoritative citation of "the legal definition of religion."

Theism does not equal religion. Atheism means without theism, the word for without religion is non-religious.

It's like the difference between dessicated, dehydrated, and dried. there's not a whole lot of difference between them, they're close enough that they're synonyms, but there is a difference. However slight that may be.

Quote from: "Byronazriel"Religion can be defined as a set of beliefs about the nature of reality.

right...and there are no beliefs associated with being an atheist; so atheism isnt' a religion; it's not really even an ism other than using ism works better in some sentences.

someone who is asexual lacks sexuality...the erason why someone like that has to tick asexual when asked their sexual orientation is because it would be confusing on the form to have it set up any other way...that doesn't mean that lacking sexuality is some form of active sexuality.  Same goes for why sometimes you see atheist under religion on questionnaires.

There's a set of beliefs associated with Objectivism, and Secular Humanism... That would make them religions under that definition. Which would by extension mean that certain atheists who follow such teachings are religious going by that definition, which means that atheists can be religous.

And again, asexuality is a sexual orientation. I never questioned that, only that it by definition can't be a sexuality because it means without sexuality! It's the same reason why an atheist can't be a theist.

To simplify my point: A can also be B, but A cannot also be Not A. Which means that A can be Not B, so long as doing so doesn't make it Not A by extension.

Quote from: "Recusant"Do you disagree?

Yes.  Legal definitions of terms are often different than their everyday-usage counterparts.

Quote from: "Byronazriel"Theism does not equal religion.

I think a lot of people are overlooking this salient point.  Religion is an organization; faith is an internal impulsion.

Religion speaks to conformity, whereas faith speaks to belief.  I know many people who are faithful, yet irreligious; I know many who observe religion, and yet are faithless.

Quote from: "PoopShoot"

Quote from: "Recusant"["Religion = Nonreligion (atheism)"

Yes, I think that the above qualifies as not only a redefinition, but a rather radical redefinition.] Do you disagree?

Yes.  Legal definitions of terms are often different than their everyday-usage counterparts.

Given that James J. Kaufman v. Gary R. Mccaughtry, et al. was decided in 2005, the legal redefinition of atheism as a religion only took place at that time.  I've repeatedly asked you to present a citation for where you get your understanding of the legal definition of religion (as including atheism).  If you are using the Kaufman case, then it was done literally thousands of years after the term "atheist" was coined by the Greeks.  This is a change from, as you say, the everyday usage, as well as the more technical philosophical definitions of the terms "religion" and "atheism." You may disagree, but until you bring some evidence which backs up your contention, I see no reason to take that position seriously.

*********************************************************************************************************

Quote from: "Byronazriel"Theism does not equal religion. Atheism means without theism, the word for without religion is non-religious.

If theism does not equal religion, then neither does atheism.

Quote from: "Recusant"I've repeatedly asked you to present a citation for where you get your understanding of the legal definition of religion

You already presented several, one of which comes from a higher court than any other I could possibly provide.  The only reasons I see that you would ask for information you already have are all forms of intellectual dishonesty.  I see no reason to feed intellectual dishonesty because you can do that just as easily on your own.

QuoteI see no reason to take that position seriously.

Being that you seem to have trouble grasping citations and concepts that you yourself used, I feel the same about your position.

Quote from: "PoopShoot"You already presented several, one of which comes from a higher court than any other I could possibly provide. The only reasons I see that you would ask for information you already have are all forms of intellectual dishonesty. I see no reason to feed intellectual dishonesty because you can do that just as easily on your own.

  You're very amusing, PoopShoot.  I've presented evidence to show that atheism was redefined for legal purposes as a religion as recently as 2005.  If I'm understanding you correctly, you continue to maintain that that was not actually a redefinition.  You refuse to present evidence to back up your position, and yet now you accuse me of intellectual dishonesty.  Pull the other one.  I am not asking for your source for any other reason than to find if you have one that disagrees with mine. It does you no credit to slander your interlocutor, especially if you yourself have not displayed any rigor in your approach to the subject. Even if you can show that atheism was redefined for legal purposes in the US earlier than 2005, that would still only prove that it has been redefined.  However, if you could show that in ecclesiastical (or any other) courts of the past centuries, atheism has been defined as a religion, then you might be well within your rights to crow about my dishonesty. (Though a more accurate cry of triumph might be, "Ignorant dolt!") I'm quite willing to be enlightened by your erudition, but until that happens, your accusation is pure blustering flapdoodle.

Quote from: "PoopShoot"Being that you seem to have trouble grasping citations and concepts that you yourself used, I feel the same about your position.

Please, from your superior grasp of the concepts and citations which I've presented (or any of your own), explain why my understanding is incorrect. I am sincere in this request, because my feeble mental capacity has brought me to the conclusion that atheism has been redefined for legal purposes as a religion only in the recent past. If I'm wrong, I want nothing more than to be shown the error of my ways, so that I might revise my position and cease from spouting misinformation.

Quote from: "Recusant"I've presented evidence to show that atheism was redefined for legal purposes as a religion as recently as 2005.

Show me a prior legal definition, issued by the supreme court, that is different than the definition you posted.  To provide evidence that it changed, you need to post BOTH definitions, otherwise the definition you posted is THE definition, you've not shown a change.