Druidry to be classed as religion by Charity Commission

[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.

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

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.

[PoopShoot]

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.

I 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.

[Recusant]

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.

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.

[PoopShoot]

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.