"SeppoP" <seppo_pietikainen@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:68lnumF2rrj6iU1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> SongBookz wrote:
>>
>> "SeppoP" <seppo_pietikainen@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>> news:68ko16F2sprqqU1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> Bible Bob wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 09 May 2008 12:11:34 -0500, Rod <icom706@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Bibon wrote:
>>>>>> TUPELO, Miss., -- A federal court of appeals has ruled in favor of
an
>>>>>> inmate who claimed that Wisconsin prison officials violated his
>>>>>> rights under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment
because
>>>>>> they refused to allow him to create a study group for atheists.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that prison officials erred
>>>>>> because they “did not treat atheism as a ‘religion.’” The court
said,
>>>>>> “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.”
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Brian Fahling, senior trial attorney for the American Family
>>>>>> Association Center for Law & Policy, described the court’s ruling
as
>>>>>> “a sort of Alice in Wonderland jurisprudence.”
>>>>>>
>>>>>> “Up is down, and atheism, the antithesis of religion, is religion,”
>>>>>> stated Fahling.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Supreme Court has said that a religion need not be based on a
>>>>>> belief in the existence of a supreme being. In the 1961 case of
>>>>>> Torcaso v. Watkins, the Court described “secular humanism” as a
>>>>>> religion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ************
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, atheism is a religion and is recognized as such by Federal
>>>>>> Courts in the USA. More ammo for you to use against those who doubt
>>>>>> your FAITH!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Atheism is not a religion..the fact that a judge and lawyers see
it
>>>>> as such is just another indication of the mentality of sickness that
>>>>> permeates society today. Atheism is a mode of existence, a means of
>>>>> living ones life free of unjustified restraint.
>>>>
>>>> Rod,
>>>>
>>>> Atheism is a religion as indicated by the "ism" suffix. While not
all
>>>> atheists belong to the religious cult; many do. Those that do
promote
>>>> their religion and speak against other religions just like
>>>> fundamentalists from other religions do. Atheism involves self
>>>> wor****p, man wor****p, and systems wor****p.
>>>
>>> So, if I don't play flute, according to you I'm a musician who
practices
>>> not playing flute?
>>>
>>
>> Very weak analogy. If you don't play the flute, you're not a flutist -
>> you may or may not still be a musician.
>
> Ok, let's make the analogy better - I don't play *any* instrument *at
> all*, I'm not even interested in playing one. By your reckoning my
> religion is "not playing music"?
>
Still a weak analogy - comparing apples to oranges.
>>
>> "Atheist" means "without Theism" (deity is a synonym). It does not
mean
>> "without religion." Zen is an example of a religion that is also
>> atheist.
>>
>
> Trying to redefine terms you don't like doesn't make your definition any
> better or any more real.
>
>> Atheism qualifies as religion under word's, "religion," definition:
>>
>> - A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the
>> universe - atheists may or may not, but commonly, believe the universe
>> began with a "big bang," life arose through evolution and natural
>> selection, and so forth (and some non-atheists have similiar beliefs).
>> The fact that everyone has beliefs concerning the "cause, nature, and
>> purpose of the universe," indicates that everyone has a religion.
>
> Your redefinition of religion makes *everything* a religion which makes
> it immaterial and absolutely useless.
>
Not my definition - I simply copied the definition from a dictionary.
The fact that all people have a religion doesn't make it any more
"immaterial and absolutely useless" than saying we all have a heart or
lungs
of kidneys makes hearts and lungs "immaterial and absolutely useless."
"Religion" is a word that describes part of the human condition - we all
have one, like we all have livers and spleens.
> You're also trying to redefine the word "belief" conflating religious
> faith with accepting a set of scientific theories as provisional facts.
>
A "provisional fact" isn't really a fact at all now, is it? It might be a
fact, but then again it might not. At one time, a flat earth was a
"provisional fact" and that the earth was the center of the universe was a
"provisional fact" but not any longer.
> I *accecpt* the BB and the theory of evolution as the best scientific
> explanations currently available. However I have no *faith* in those
> concepts and I wouldn't lose one second of sleep if either one were to
be
> falsified tomorrow and a *better* theory with more explanatory power
were
> to replace them.
>
The American Heritage dictionary defines "Faith" as "Confident belief in
the
truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing."
Dictionary.com defines it as : 1. confidence or trust in a person or
thing:
faith in another's ability.
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis
would
be substantiated by fact.
That last particularly describes faith in the BB or evolution. Neither
are
proven but make sense to a large number of people, including a large
number
of theists. Personally, I have no problem with either theory, wasn't
around
back then and don't know anyone who was so it might have happened that
way,
it might not have - makes no difference to me either way.
I do think, however, that religion was necessary to human social
evolution.
It may be counterintuitive now, but when ancient man gathered around fires
at night and began to speculate on his origin that the resulting religious
beliefs enabled man to subvert the need of the one to the need of the
group.
At one time, it didn't matter that people in the Middle East shared one
set
of religious beliefs while people in Europe shared a different set, they
rarely came into conflict, but now, as the earth has (figuratively) grown
smaller, different sets of religious beliefs have come into close
proximity
and created conflict instead of cohesiveness. So, what, in the past,
enabled us to live together is becoming what drives us apart.
Anyway, religion is part of the human condition, it's instinctual. We
have
to believe "something" even if it's a conscious decision to believe in
"nothing."
Terrell
|
