Religious People with (present day) Political Power

[Falconer02]

wasn't modified, it was enforced and clarified.  Where previously there was insufficient precedent or case law to make the point clear, or where in this case those executing the laws were violating the rights of the individuals, the courts established clarification of meaning.

And, as I've already stated, those clarifications were wrong due to Atheism not having a 'code of ethics'. The definition was either ignored, changed, or picked in favor of equality for this one man in prison. For the sake of the First Amendment, Atheism is a religion for Kaufman via his and the courts stretches on technicalities. They didn't rule on Atheism being a religion and that the definitions should be redefined in dictionaries and the like. They ruled it was a religion for Kaufman so he could have his little study group. Referring back to my "being royalty" example- there's a major difference.

Here you are making both an appeal to popularity and to authority by citing "the religious".  Considering you have indicated some disdain for them in the past, I find it most suspect that you would also indicate them as a reference.

Just to clear this up- it depends on the person and their motivation. I really don't have many problems with Theists. I have problems with people pushing a corrupted religious agenda which happens all over the world. For example-
http://boingboing.net/2012/04/13/indian-skeptic-charged-with.html

Regarding the logical fallacies, I'm simply stating what has already happened in this thread (even though your POV says differently, I'm stating the obvious). You've shown no reason to regard Atheism as a religion except for cherry-picking terms and the use of numerous logical fallacies.

Additionally, I would hardly call one affirmation of agreement to be quantitative enough to make such a broad claim, especially when the only other religious position I could find on this thread clarifying a position was myself (and I am certainly not in agreement with the other).  In fact I find that I cannot even see an agreement with but two votes and one being yes and one being no.  If this was a 'trap' as I suspected, that was nicely done and that is the good stuff I like to see and a type of craft I am wanting to encounter and debate against

Well not only in this thread, but other religious/theists have argued your position in the past on this forum and if I recall correctly (Falcon9- tell me I'm wrong here) those users were pretty much doing the same thing you're doing.

I haven't been scrounging for anything and Falcon9 has been unable to refute my positions.

He has been for a while now.

[falcon9]

(Tt)wasn't modified, it was enforced and clarified.  Where previously there was insufficient precedent or case law to make the point clear, or where in this case those executing the laws were violating the rights of the individuals, the courts established clarification of meaning.

And, as I've already stated, those clarifications were wrong due to Atheism not having a 'code of ethics'.

That was not the only omission; no religious tenets or doctrines have been attributed to atheism, (which means either that there aren't any, that none have been presented as yet or, that it isn't a religion).

The definition was either ignored or changed in favor of equality for this one man in prison. For the sake of the First Amendment, Atheism is a religion for Kaufman via his and the courts stretches on technicalities. They didn't rule on Atheism being a religion and that the definitions should be redefined in dictionaries and the like. They ruled it was a religion for Kaufman so he could have his little study group. Referring back to my "being royalty" example- there's a major difference.

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals held that atheism is entitled to the same treatment that traditional religions receive under the Constitution. This is not equivalent to redefining atheism itself as being a religion.

Here you are making both an appeal to popularity and to authority by citing "the religious".  Considering you have indicated some disdain for them in the past, I find it most suspect that you would also indicate them as a reference.

Just to clear this up- it depends on the person and their motivation. I really don't have many problems with Theists. I have problems with people pushing a corrupted religious agenda which happens all over the world. For example-
http://boingboing.net/2012/04/13/indian-skeptic-charged-with.html

Additionally, I would hardly call one affirmation of agreement to be quantitative enough to make such a broad claim, especially when the only other religious position I could find on this thread clarifying a position was myself (and I am certainly not in agreement with the other).  In fact I find that I cannot even see an agreement with but two votes and one being yes and one being no.  If this was a 'trap' as I suspected, that was nicely done and that is the good stuff I like to see and a type of craft I am wanting to encounter and debate against.

Well not only in this thread, but other religious/theists have argued your position in the past on this forum and if I recall correctly (Falcon9- confirm this if I'm incorrect) those users were pretty much doing the same thing you're doing.

If I'm not mistaken, at least three other religious adherents on FC have maintained that atheism is a religion, ("jcribb16", "Surveymack10" and possibly another who no longer posts here).

I haven't been scrounging for anything and Falcon9 has been unable to refute my positions.

Uhh...yeah. He has been for a while now.

It was predictable that he'd continue to deny this.  When I was in elementary school decades ago, there was a kid who played 'wargames' with a bunch of us and he's constantly deny when someone 'hit him' with imaginary gunfire.  "You missed, you missed!", he'd yell while all the other kids witnessed a 'clean kill'.  Now I've got to ask "Abrupt", Mark, is that you?, (because you haven't changed a bit).

[Falconer02]

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals held that atheism is entitled to the same treatment that traditional religions receive under the Constitution. This is not equivalent to redefining atheism itself as being a religion.

Correct. My previous post was primarily aimed at the individual in the case Abrupt brought up. But yes, atheism is not a religion but can/does share the same treatment as one in this country.

[falcon9]

My previous post was primarily aimed at the individual in the case Abrupt brought up. But yes, atheism is not a religion but can/does share the same treatment as one in this country.

As far as precedents go: Africa v. Pennsylvania, 662 F.2d 1025, 1030 (3d Cir.1981) ("Judges are not oracles of theological verity, and the Founders did not intend for them to be declarants of religious orthodoxy."); id at 1034 n. 18 ("The judicial branch is neither authorized nor equipped to pronounce upon the veracity of a religious precept.")

Interestingly, there was a somewhat parallel case several years back wherein an inmate was trying to establish a "religion", under the same establishment clause, in which a major 'tenet' was that members are required to eat steak.  I've been trying to locate references to this online however, various search parameters are turning up other, (tangentially-interesting), results.

http://www.paganinstitute.org/PIR/prison.html#Faith-Based Fudging

[Abrupt]

Atheism is not a "type of religion" because it's not a type of theism and theisms are types of religions.

A belief in 'one god', (theism), such as a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects as in the xtian religion is theistic.  Therefore, the xtian religion is theistic.  Since atheism means not theistic, it also means that it's not a religion.
The flaw in your argument is that, if "atheism" is a "belief system," then you should be able to point to the single belief system that is shared by all Objectivists, communists, liberals, conservatives, Buddhists, Raelians, anarchists, Religious Humanists, Secular Humanists, Jews, and libertarians who are atheists. What is that belief system? What are it's various premises, positions, doctrines, propositions, etc.?

What you have committed here, is a most obvious fallacy.  Yes, all theism's are types of religions.  Yes atheism  is contrary to theism.  This, though, does not mean that atheism is contrary to religion and that is what you seem to be having great difficulty understanding.  Let us try your logic some and show the error when it is applied to other tests:  Dogs are not a 'type of animal' because they are not a type of cat and cats are types of animals.  Yep, using your exact same 'logic' we see that dogs are not animals, but since we know they are then the problem lies with your logic.  You didn't even make the correct argument there, as the one you wanted involves a colorless cat.

I haven't dodged your question, I simply found it meaningless due to it having an obvious answer.  In recognizing this there is no reason to counter as you would deny and dance around any points raised if you lack the ability to also see the obvious answer in your pose.  For the sake of simplicity, though, I will answer in the event you posses any means of reason in the matter.  The common belief would be "there is no god".  Wow that was rather simple wasn't it.  Too bad you will dance and dodge and deny this.

Since you put so much authority and emphasis on dictionary definitions, let us explore some:

a·the·ism [ey-thee-iz-uhm]
noun
1.  the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2.  disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

(source: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheism)

re·li·gion [ri-lij-uhn]
noun
1.  a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2.  a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3.  the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4.  the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5.  the practice of religious  beliefs; ritual observance of faith.

(source: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion)

Okay so here we see that atheism is a belief taking a position on a god or gods.  We also see that religion is a belief taking positions on a god or gods (it does so exclusively from your claims, although in actuality it doesn't always).  It is undeniable by these definitions that atheism is indeed a religion.  This isn't the only way to argue it as such though but it seems that based upon your preferred defense that such a counter is required by you in order for you to agree that atheism is a religion.  Still, though, I doubt you will agree.  I understand your resistance to such an agreement as your entire argument is absolutely based on your fallacious reasoning that atheism is not a religion.  It is much like a preliminary hearing where you suddenly realize every bit of evidence you have was based upon an illegal search and thus you fall victim to the "fruits of the poisonous tree" and are left with no case remaining.

You've dodged the question posed, (again). What are atheisms religious premises and doctrines?

I didn't dodge anything as your question is much like asking what is a Christians religious premises and doctrines.  A person's religion is simply the collective of their beliefs on a god/gods or the supernatural.  For the atheist it is simply based on one thing, and that is the non-existence of a god or the supernatural.  Everything else an atheist believes is drawn from that one belief.  Most atheists believe in evolution because they cannot believe in creation since they don't believe in a creator.  Evolution is therefore a doctrine of atheism and thus we start to see more clearly the set of beliefs. 

When one definition of the same word contradicts another, (attempting to posit that atheism is both not a religion and is a religion at the same time), one must also look at the definition of "religion" where we find that atheism lacks the defining aspects of a religion.

The definitions are not contradicting, it is you that posits it is not a religion solely due to your misunderstanding what religion is.  You are using circular reasoning in that you say "since atheism is not a religion, any definition of atheism as a religion is wrong".  I have clearly shown that atheism does have the aspects of religion and this is irrefutable by your own arguments.

Sure it does.  Atheism cannot be both a religion and not a religion at the same time as these are mutually-contradictory positions.

Correct, and thus it is a religion.  The only way you can simply 'not have a belief' on a subject, is if you have no awareness and consideration of the subject.  When you say you don't believe a god exists, you are actually saying you believe that no god exists.  It is only when you are queried about something you have no knowledge or understanding of at all that you may 'not have a belief' on it.

I have the exact same claims to support my evidence as you have (same dictionary and same definition for the same term), and I have other sources too such as additional dictionaries ...

Once again, when two definitions of the same word contradict one another, (in this instance, your insistance that atheism is both a religion and not a religion), there's a logical inconsistancy present.  Since I dispute your classification of atheism as a religion, (on the grounds that not theism means not a religious belief), it is your position which is logically inconsistant and therefore, refuted.

Where have I insisted that atheism is not a religion?  I haven't insisted that at all and on the contrary I have stated that it is a religion.  Once more, 'not theism' would mean "not a belief in one or more gods", and is not the same thing as religion which is "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe".  There is no logical inconsistency here, there is only your lack of comprehension of the difference between theism and religion.

[Abrupt]

wasn't modified, it was enforced and clarified.  Where previously there was insufficient precedent or case law to make the point clear, or where in this case those executing the laws were violating the rights of the individuals, the courts established clarification of meaning.

And, as I've already stated, those clarifications were wrong due to Atheism not having a 'code of ethics'. The definition was either ignored, changed, or picked in favor of equality for this one man in prison. For the sake of the First Amendment, Atheism is a religion for Kaufman via his and the courts stretches on technicalities. They didn't rule on Atheism being a religion and that the definitions should be redefined in dictionaries and the like. They ruled it was a religion for Kaufman so he could have his little study group. Referring back to my "being royalty" example- there's a major difference.

I think you are misunderstanding that 'code of ethics' bit.  Also dictionaries take definitions from usage and do not determine the usage of a word (beyond etymology).  An obvious example is slang.  Since the courts declared atheism as a religion then it would be perfectly reasonable for a dictionary to agree with such if the subject arose.

Here you are making both an appeal to popularity and to authority by citing "the religious".  Considering you have indicated some disdain for them in the past, I find it most suspect that you would also indicate them as a reference.

Just to clear this up- it depends on the person and their motivation. I really don't have many problems with Theists. I have problems with people pushing a corrupted religious agenda which happens all over the world. For example-
http://boingboing.net/2012/04/13/indian-skeptic-charged-with.html

Regarding the logical fallacies, I'm simply stating what has already happened in this thread (even though your POV says differently, I'm stating the obvious). You've shown no reason to regard Atheism as a religion except for cherry-picking terms and the use of numerous logical fallacies.

What logical fallacies have I used.  The ones I was accused of using that I proved to be mistaken accusations?  I have shown every reason to regard atheism as a religion, even though the burden is rightfully on atheism to show that it isn't one.

Additionally, I would hardly call one affirmation of agreement to be quantitative enough to make such a broad claim, especially when the only other religious position I could find on this thread clarifying a position was myself (and I am certainly not in agreement with the other).  In fact I find that I cannot even see an agreement with but two votes and one being yes and one being no.  If this was a 'trap' as I suspected, that was nicely done and that is the good stuff I like to see and a type of craft I am wanting to encounter and debate against

Well not only in this thread, but other religious/theists have argued your position in the past on this forum and if I recall correctly (Falcon9- tell me I'm wrong here) those users were pretty much doing the same thing you're doing.

Then they won their arguments.

I haven't been scrounging for anything and Falcon9 has been unable to refute my positions.

He has been for a while now.

Wow, put him in your mouth why don't you.

[falcon9]

Atheism is not a "type of religion" because it's not a type of theism and theisms are types of religions.

A belief in 'one god', (theism), such as a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects as in the xtian religion is theistic.  Therefore, the xtian religion is theistic.  Since atheism means not theistic, it also means that it's not a religion.
The flaw in your argument is that, if "atheism" is a "belief system," then you should be able to point to the single belief system that is shared by all Objectivists, communists, liberals, conservatives, Buddhists, Raelians, anarchists, Religious Humanists, Secular Humanists, Jews, and libertarians who are atheists. What is that belief system? What are it's various premises, positions, doctrines, propositions, etc.?

What you have committed here, is a most obvious fallacy.  Yes, all theism's are types of religions.  Yes atheism  is contrary to theism.  This, though, does not mean that atheism is contrary to religion and that is what you seem to be having great difficulty understanding.  

On the contrary, you've repeatedly demonstrated that you have no awareness of taking a mutually contradictory position, (e.g., an admission that "atheism is conrary to theism" = they're opposites and, since "theism's are types of religions" that atheism is nonetheless a type of religion).
You can't have it both ways by declaring that atheism is "contrary to theism" and "atheism is a religion", (theistic).  Although you've claimed that not all religions are theistic, the parameters of the definition of "religion" include theistic beliefs, (which excludes atheism on that basis).
  

I haven't dodged your question, I simply found it meaningless due to it having an obvious answer.  The common belief would be "there is no god".  

That isn't a "common belief" since atheism is generally considered to be a _disbelief_, (not a belief), that there are 'god/s'.  That is, you are attempting to impute a strawman argument that atheism initially asserts that "there is no god" when the accurate position is that atheism challenges the assertion made by religionists that 'there is a god' by requesting substantiating evidence to support that claim.  Under the burden of proof process, one is not required to provide evidence that something does not exist, whereas a claim which asserts that something does exist must either be supported by evidence or, considered to be a specious claim/empty opinion.
 

Since you put so much authority and emphasis on dictionary definitions, let us explore some:

a·the·ism [ey-thee-iz-uhm]
noun
1.  the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2.  disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

(source: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheism)

Look at #2, "disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings", (a disbelief is not a belief by definition; they're opposites).  Your focus upon #1 avoided "doctrine" and zeroed-in on "belief", (albeit, such was not specified as a 'religious belief' - which is a critical distinction you apparently want to avoid).  So, sans your cherry-picking, it can be derived from that definition that atheism is a doctrinal position that "there is no god", (as an implicit position, rather than a stated assertion), and that this doctrine or "belief" isn't itself a 'relgiously theistic' one, (nor does it meet the basic requirements to be considered a religion).

"re·li·gion [ri-lij-uhn]
noun
1.  a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs."

So, an astrophysics theory "concerning the cause, nature and purpose of the universe" would be classified as a "religion"?  Hardly, this is why the second part of that definition must be included to refine the definition, ("especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs").  Under those parameters, atheism definitely doe Not qualify as a religion.  If you're going to pick cherries, you aren't going to end up with an apple pie.

"2.  a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion."

You'll note that a _disbelief_, (atheism), is not listed as a religion there.

"3.  the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions."

Once again, religion is mentioned in the example, (not atheism).

"4.  the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5.  the practice of religious  beliefs; ritual observance of faith."
-(source: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion)

Since neither the "life or state" of an atheist, (being non-religious), is "to enter a religion", nor falls under #5, atheism cannot be defined as a religion.

Okay so here we see that atheism is a belief taking a position on a god or gods.

Taking a position on religious beliefs is not itself equivalent to a religious belief.

I didn't dodge anything as your question is much like asking what is a Christians religious premises and doctrines.  A person's religion is simply the collective of their beliefs on a god/gods or the supernatural.

I call foul; once again, taking a non-religious position does not qualify as a religion in and of itself.  A disbelief in the religious beliefs of others does not qualify as a religion therefore, atheism is not a religion.

For the atheist it is simply based on one thing, and that is the non-existence of a god or the supernatural.

Your continued focus upon trying to falsely characterize a _disbelief_ as a belief indicates that you are at least peripherally-aware that demonstrating this as a false premise refutes the argument derived from that false premise.  Predictably, an insistance that the premise isn't false,
(by continuing to assert the refuted syllogism that a disbelief is a belief and, that it hasn't been refuted), is illogical.

When one definition of the same word contradicts another, (attempting to posit that atheism is both not a religion and is a religion at the same time), one must also look at the definition of "religion" where we find that atheism lacks the defining aspects of a religion.

The definitions are not contradicting, it is you that posits it is not a religion solely due to your misunderstanding what religion is.

Your assumption is invalid since I do understand what a religion is and am not the one trying to conflate a non-religious position, (atheism), with other religious beliefs.  Although a case could be made for your failure to understand what a religion is, based upon your conflation attempts.
 

I have clearly shown that atheism does have the aspects of religion and this is irrefutable by your own arguments.

False; logical arguments refuting your claim "that atheism does have the aspects of religion" have been presented to counter your illogical, (sophist), claim to the contrary.  You have not demonstrated that atheism is a religion, you've demonstrated your opinion that "taking a position on religion" somehow equates to such a position constituting a religion itself.  This is much like taking a position concerning the safe operation of aircraft, which may counter a pilot's, somehow, (irrationally), being conflated with the holder of that counter-position being a pilot.

Atheism cannot be both a religion and not a religion at the same time as these are mutually-contradictory positions.

Correct, and thus it is a religion.

That conclusion does not follow simply because atheism does not constitute religious beliefs. The accurate conclusion which follows the premise that atheism cannot be both a religion and not a religion is that atheism is not a religion, (according to the defining parameters which you quoted from a dictionary source).

The only way you can simply 'not have a belief' on a subject, is if you have no awareness and consideration of the subject.

No, atheism includes a reactive disbelief in the religious belief-claims made by religious adherents.  In order to disbelieve such, it is necessary to be aware of the religious belief-claims made and the "consideration" is that the burden of proof rests with the religious adherents making such claims, (not with those who are challenging the standing claims of religious adherents).

I have the exact same claims to support my evidence as you have (same dictionary and same definition for the same term), and I have other sources too such as additional dictionaries ...

None of which supported your contention and do not constitute evidence supporting your contention.  You've previously accused me of "cherry-picking" definition terms and yet, you've adopted that as a tactic in trying to support your refuted premise.  I know it's a bummer when your premise gets refuted, (whether or not you deny this is immaterial and a bit immature).  Believe it or not, that's occasionally happened to me however, not in this instance.

Once again, when two definitions of the same word contradict one another, (in this instance, your insistance that atheism is both a religion and not a religion), there's a logical inconsistancy present.  Since I dispute your classification of atheism as a religion, (on the grounds that not theism means not a religious belief), it is your position which is logically inconsistant and therefore, refuted.
[/quote]

Where have I insisted that atheism is not a religion?

I didn't state that you asserted that it was not a religion; that's my position.  The two opposing positions rely upon opposite premises deriving from the same definition parameters, (sans cherry-picking). You've repeatedly demonstrated that you have no awareness of taking a mutually contradictory position, (e.g., an admission that "atheism is conrary to theism" = they're opposites and, since "theism's are types of religions" that atheism is nonetheless a type of religion).

You can't have it both ways by declaring that atheism is "contrary to theism" and "atheism is a religion", (theistic).  Although you've claimed that not all religions are theistic, the parameters of the definition of "religion" include theistic beliefs, (which excludes atheism on that basis).

[vickysue]

Well all i can say is you guys are awful long winded. And if you think everyone enjoyed all of your long winded  speeches , you are wrong. I see nothing wrong with a religious person in political power. Would rather someone that belives and does what is right for the country be in power then the one we have.   

[falcon9]

Well all i can say is you guys are awful long winded. And if you think everyone enjoyed all of your long winded  speeches , you are wrong.

This is the debate & discuss forum; if your objective is not to debate or discuss, (but to complain about debating & discussing instead),the solution is amazingly simple, (for those who prefer shorter 'sound-bites'); don't read them.

I see nothing wrong with a religious person in political power. Would rather someone that belives and does what is right for the country be in power then the one we have.  

Your tacit support for the foundation of a theocracy is duly noted and opposed.

[Abrupt]

For the sake of brevity and due to a complaint by another I will restrict my replies and focus only on the most pertinent issues and not get caught up in obvious obfuscation attempts.

The only way you can simply 'not have a belief' on a subject, is if you have no awareness and consideration of the subject.

No, atheism includes a reactive disbelief in the religious belief-claims made by religious adherents.  In order to disbelieve such, it is necessary to be aware of the religious belief-claims made and the "consideration" is that the burden of proof rests with the religious adherents making such claims, (not with those who are challenging the standing claims of religious adherents).

Observe the deliberate rationalization of your reply and you may begin to realize your hypocrisy.  While you are correct in a sense regarding the burden of proof, you are wrong to assume it has relevance to your own positions.  If you were stating you had no opinion on the position your argument could stand, but you have taken an active position counter to the one presented.  And thus your 'reactive disbelief' is revealed to be an active belief that God does not exist, and having such a belief would require 'proof' according to your constraints and arguments or otherwise it relies upon your faith that God does not exist.  If you cannot see this, then consider if I said that I had a disbelief in the claims of atheists saying 'God does not exist'.  By your definition the position I am describing could not be 'religious' even though the implications of it most certainly are.

Where have I insisted that atheism is not a religion?

I didn't state that you asserted that it was not a religion; that's my position.  The two opposing positions rely upon opposite premises deriving from the same definition parameters, (sans cherry-picking). You've repeatedly demonstrated that you have no awareness of taking a mutually contradictory position, (e.g., an admission that "atheism is conrary to theism" = they're opposites and, since "theism's are types of religions" that atheism is nonetheless a type of religion).

Let's see, where was that at?

..., (in this instance, your insistance that atheism is both a religion and not a religion), ...

I am aware of mutual contradictions and I am also aware of diametric contradictions too in case you are thinking about bringing them up too some day.  The problem you are having is that you are claiming they are mutual contradictions out of necessity to sustain your argument.  Your argument entirely depends upon them and so you cannot be honest and concede the point as your conceit prevents it.

[falcon9]

For the sake of brevity and due to a complaint by another I will restrict my replies and focus only on the most pertinent issues and not get caught up in obvious obfuscation attempts.

I remain dubious that your contextual-snipping has diddly-squat to do with specious accusations of obfuscation, (unless you're referring to your own obfuscations and wish to 'conceal' them by omission - and by omitting the refutations of them).  Now, were I to be as disingenuous, I could do the same however, those refutations of your poorly constructed syllogism are available in this thread.

The only way you can simply 'not have a belief' on a subject, is if you have no awareness and consideration of the subject.

No, atheism includes a reactive disbelief in the religious belief-claims made by religious adherents.  In order to disbelieve such, it is necessary to be aware of the religious belief-claims made and the "consideration" is that the burden of proof rests with the religious adherents making such claims, (not with those who are challenging the standing claims of religious adherents).

Observe the deliberate rationalization of your reply and you may begin to realize your hypocrisy.  While you are correct in a sense regarding the burden of proof, you are wrong to assume it has relevance to your own positions.  If you were stating you had no opinion on the position your argument could stand, but you have taken an active position counter to the one presented.  And thus your 'reactive disbelief' is revealed to be an active belief that God does not exist ...

This demonstrates poor 'reasoning' on your part. My assertion concerning the burden of proof resting with the religious claims that "god exists" stand upon a foundation of logic. Yours, (in the desire to shift that burden of proof onto atheists or anyone who would challenge those initial claims of religious adherents), is a false argument.  The reason, (as opposed to the specious characterization of being a "rationalization"), is that the basis of an atheistic challenge to the religious adherent claim that "god exists" is a disbelief, (not a counter-belief, such as 'invisible pink unicorns, not "god" exist and created everything').  To once again reiterate the unrefuted premise; a disbelief is not a belief and having a position in opposition to a religious belief does not consitute a 'religion of disbelief'.

By your definition the position I am describing could not be 'religious' even though the implications of it most certainly are.

Exactly so; holding a position in opposition to a religious belief does not constitute defining such a position as a religious belief in and of itself, (since that does not logically follow from the premise asserted).

I am aware of mutual contradictions and I am also aware of diametric contradictions too in case you are thinking about bringing them up too some day.  The problem you are having is that you are claiming they are mutual contradictions out of necessity to sustain your argument.

No, I'm asserting and providing evidence of accurately reasoning that your position, ("atheism is a religion"), and mine, ('atheism is not a religion'), are both mutually and diametrically contradictory.  Since they cannot both be accurate, you've chosen to use a refuted assertion that "the courts have ruled that atheism is a religion", (refuted by the fact that treating atheism as if it were a religion in order to afford it the same protections under the first amendment as religions have is not equivalent to granting atheism the tax-exempt status of a federally-recognised religion.  Nor did the courts actually rule that atheistic study group is a de facto religion therefore, that leg of your syllogism is refuted).

The other leg which your premise rests precariously upon is cherry-picking dictionary definitions where they support your premise and ignoring the relevant defining terms which specifically include religious/theistic parameters, (which atheism is excluded from on the basis of a lack of religious doctrine, faith-based religious beliefs and every other aspect of the definition of a religion).  

Your refuted syllogism can be summarized as:

'Premise - that atheism is a religion;
- proofs: the 7th Court of Appeals ruling on an atheistic study group in prison' (refuted in detail)
'- cherry-picked dictionary definitions' (refuted in detail)
'Conclusion: atheism is a religion because of a belief' (actually, a disbelief) 'that there is no god' (refuted because a disbelief or non-religious belief does not constitute being a religious belief ... it would merely be at best a non-religious opinion pertaining to a religious position). - refuted in detail

My position, summarized in syllogistic form:

Premise: atheism is not a religion -
- proofs: atheism contains no religious beliefs (as the definition of atheism indicates)
- a disbelief is not a religious belief (no counter-religious belief is being proposed by atheism)
- a non-religious belief isn't automatically conflated with being a religion simply because it opposes a religious belief (for instance, emergent phenomenon theories do not constitute religious beliefs simply because they seek to account for observed phenomenon in the universe and possible causes which are not attributed to religious beliefs - those would be secular theories/beliefs)


One last point; I've been snipping your ad hominems out of the debate-stream when I reply because I didn't want to influence external perceptions of your resorting to such because your arguments are weak and have been refuted.  Instead, it was out of a preference that others do so with or without your "Wow, put him in your mouth why don't you" remarks when others make their own determinations.

[Falconer02]

I think you are misunderstanding that 'code of ethics' bit.  Also dictionaries take definitions from usage and do not determine the usage of a word (beyond etymology).  An obvious example is slang.  Since the courts declared atheism as a religion then it would be perfectly reasonable for a dictionary to agree with such if the subject arose.

This argument has already been refuted. I'm unsure of why you'd say I don't understand the 'code of ethics' when I've stated there is no code of ethics involved. Overall though, having the word in one country courtroom and making a contradictory decision from the proper term usage is small beans when the rest of the first world accepts it by it's proper definition. If you're going to call that appeal to authority or popularity, that unfortunately opens the flood gates for anyone to make whatever words mean whatever we want whenever we want. It's an irrational argument. If one would prefer that world, I'm going to bike the bark stereo and tank tape the magazine shade sound wave. Duck bookmark.

And, just for fun, apparently even the popular slang usage of atheism declares it not a religion too-
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Atheism

What logical fallacies have I used.  The ones I was accused of using that I proved to be mistaken accusations?  I have shown every reason to regard atheism as a religion, even though the burden is rightfully on atheism to show that it isn't one.

You can't be serious. I apologize if this sounds demeaning, but if you cannot see or admit that there are major flaws in your argument, then I'm beginning to think that we've been trolled.

Then they won their arguments.

Ah yes, even though one who added a lot to the past argument saying atheism was a religion...has already come into this thread to say atheism is not a religion.

What logical fallacies have I used.

Wow, put him in your mouth why don't you.

Oh hey, look. A logical fallacy.

[Abrupt]

The other leg which your premise rests precariously upon is cherry-picking dictionary definitions where they support your premise and ignoring the relevant defining terms which specifically include religious/theistic parameters, (which atheism is excluded from on the basis of a lack of religious doctrine, faith-based religious beliefs and every other aspect of the definition of a religion).  

Your refuted syllogism can be summarized as:

'Premise - that atheism is a religion;
- proofs: the 7th Court of Appeals ruling on an atheistic study group in prison' (refuted in detail)
'- cherry-picked dictionary definitions' (refuted in detail)
'Conclusion: atheism is a religion because of a belief' (actually, a disbelief) 'that there is no god' (refuted because a disbelief or non-religious belief does not constitute being a religious belief ... it would merely be at best a non-religious opinion pertaining to a religious position). - refuted in detail

My position, summarized in syllogistic form:

Premise: atheism is not a religion -
- proofs: atheism contains no religious beliefs (as the definition of atheism indicates)
- a disbelief is not a religious belief (no counter-religious belief is being proposed by atheism)
- a non-religious belief isn't automatically conflated with being a religion simply because it opposes a religious belief (for instance, emergent phenomenon theories do not constitute religious beliefs simply because they seek to account for observed phenomenon in the universe and possible causes which are not attributed to religious beliefs - those would be secular theories/beliefs)

Let us analyze what you attributed to me and offered as a summary of your 'refutation':

-You did not refute (prove to be wrong) that the 7th circuit ruled that atheism was the inmates religion.  You couldn't refute this as it is irrefutable, since they did just that.  This was not my main point though, it was simply supporting evidence used in rebuttal.  It has particular meaning within this thread based upon the OP and the thread title since atheism would legally qualify as such in the US political system based upon this ruling.

-You did not refute (prove to be wrong) the definitions I provided.  You used circular reasoning to try and prove them wrong but that is a failure by attempt.  In order for you to have been able to refute them, they would have had to not exist, and since they do (unless you wish to claim a disbelief in their existence) they are as appropriate as definitions that you used (especially considering they come from the same source you used).

-Your last attempt is about as circular as it can get.  Notice you cannot even describe what you are trying to say without using words like religion or religious.   Because the meaning of the word is in contention you cannot argue based upon the word itself and you should know better than this.  In fact your entire last point is completely meaningless because it is based upon equivocation, which is a fallacy.

Let us analyze what you attributed to yourself and offered as a summary of your 'proof':

There isn't anything here to analyze.  It is all nonsensical equivocation and entirely fallacious.  Again you are your definition of religion to define and support your own definition of religion.  You cannot get much more circular than that, and the obviousness of it is blatant.

[Abrupt]

I think you are misunderstanding that 'code of ethics' bit.  Also dictionaries take definitions from usage and do not determine the usage of a word (beyond etymology).  An obvious example is slang.  Since the courts declared atheism as a religion then it would be perfectly reasonable for a dictionary to agree with such if the subject arose.

This argument has already been refuted. I'm unsure of why you'd say I don't understand the 'code of ethics' when I've stated there is no code of ethics involved. Overall though, having the word in one country courtroom and making a contradictory decision from the proper term usage is small beans when the rest of the first world accepts it by it's proper definition. If you're going to call that appeal to authority or popularity, that unfortunately opens the flood gates for anyone to make whatever words mean whatever we want whenever we want. It's an irrational argument. If one would prefer that world, I'm going to bike the bark stereo and tank tape the magazine shade sound wave. Duck bookmark.

Please show me where it has been refuted.  I know it was contested here, but refuted is altogether a different animal.  The burden of proof rests with you on this to show that the courts did not declare atheism was the inmates religion.  If you state there was 'no code of ethics' involved, then you must have reviewed the transcripts and entirety of the case and I would be interested if you would share this with us.  If you haven't reviewed the transcripts and all rulings and previous rulings then you cannot make that claim as it could have been argued by the defendant.  I haven't looked into detail where the claim came from but it seems to be from "Kaufman v. McCaughtry, 2004 WL 257133", and there is a dissenting opinion on the source ruling.

And, just for fun, apparently even the popular slang usage of atheism declares it not a religion too-
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Atheism

Interesting that this dictionary says "theism is not a religion".

What logical fallacies have I used.  The ones I was accused of using that I proved to be mistaken accusations?  I have shown every reason to regard atheism as a religion, even though the burden is rightfully on atheism to show that it isn't one.

You can't be serious. I apologize if this sounds demeaning, but if you cannot see or admit that there are major flaws in your argument, then I'm beginning to think that we've been trolled.

Present these logical fallacies you accuse me of committing, or withdraw the charge.  No need for the patronage, as I make similar statements to liven debate, but to answer your implied question then I would honestly tell you that I feel very comfortable with my position.  Granted I wish I hadn't brought up the legal ramifications as I feel they are being focused on too strongly and serving as only a distraction from the meat of the argument, but they were offered simply in support and to refute and highlight the use of sourcing appeals to authority.  Where an appeal to authority was used against me I countered with multiple appeals to authority to demonstrate the relevance, including such from the exact same source used against me.  Now you wish to call me fallacious for riposting with them when you are ignoring the original strike they were used against and I am curious as to why (other than your bias) you would do this and then charge me for the offense?

Then they won their arguments.

Ah yes, even though one who added a lot to the past argument saying atheism was a religion...has already come into this thread to say atheism is not a religion.

I am not those people, and I don't need others to make my points.  Simply because one person "who added a lot" (which I absolutely take you at your word for this as I am unfamiliar with the thread and find no reason to assume you are being dishonest with this statement) has conceded the point has no relevance to me (although I can understand why it would have to you).  I have ever found myself capable where others fail and this is partly because I am dogged and partly because I can be extremely unbiased and thus quite capable of predicting and realizing counter arguments (that is a strength that is absolutely necessary for decent debate).  I always (well almost always) view a debate from both sides, and even so in this situation.  On more than a few occasions I have realized better arguments than are thrown against me, but that is somewhat subjective and slightly conceited, I suppose.

[falcon9]

The other leg which your premise rests precariously upon is cherry-picking dictionary definitions where they support your premise and ignoring the relevant defining terms which specifically include religious/theistic parameters, (which atheism is excluded from on the basis of a lack of religious doctrine, faith-based religious beliefs and every other aspect of the definition of a religion).  

Your refuted syllogism can be summarized as:

'Premise - that atheism is a religion;
- proofs: the 7th Court of Appeals ruling on an atheistic study group in prison' (refuted in detail)
'- cherry-picked dictionary definitions' (refuted in detail)
'Conclusion: atheism is a religion because of a belief' (actually, a disbelief) 'that there is no god' (refuted because a disbelief or non-religious belief does not constitute being a religious belief ... it would merely be at best a non-religious opinion pertaining to a religious position). - refuted in detail

My position, summarized in syllogistic form:

Premise: atheism is not a religion -
- proofs: atheism contains no religious beliefs (as the definition of atheism indicates)
- a disbelief is not a religious belief (no counter-religious belief is being proposed by atheism)
- a non-religious belief isn't automatically conflated with being a religion simply because it opposes a religious belief (for instance, emergent phenomenon theories do not constitute religious beliefs simply because they seek to account for observed phenomenon in the universe and possible causes which are not attributed to religious beliefs - those would be secular theories/beliefs)

Let us analyze what you attributed to me and offered as a summary of your 'refutation'

The syllogisms were presented as summaries of the opposing positions, not as reiterations of the refutations made. Those are available in recently prior posts, in context, where you haven't snipped them out, (like you did again here).  Now it appears that you're attempting to re-argue the previous arguments summarized above.  From this, a tentative conclusion can be reached; that you are unable to concede that your position, (that "atheism is a religion"), was refuted and will continue to insist that no refutations occurred, (even though these are available upthread for review).  Despite such an insistences, (both that you've supported your asertions and, that those assertions haven't been refuted), there is no evidence that they are accurate conclusions, (based upon the previously iterated counter-arguments against them).  Now, you can additionally 'insist' that I'm 'insisting' that I've supported my assertions and have refuted yours however, the difference is that previous posts bear this out, whereas concerning your insistences, they do not.

Let us analyze what you attributed to yourself and offered as a summary of your 'proof':
There isn't anything here to analyze.

That's because you only quoted the summary of the opposing positions, not a reiteration of the previous arguments, proofs and refutations.  If you want to analyze a summary, go for it.  If you want to re-argue prior points, go back and look over the thread to avoid repetitions and try introducing new evidence to support your claims.