Religious People with (present day) Political Power

[Abrupt]

Ask the OP. I didn't find it to be all that "cryptic".

Nor did I, as I mentioned, but it was indeed buried within the post and never stated and was the actual main point and not the one presented.

Nor would the description apply to atheism since it contains the phrase "a set of beliefs", (atheism is a 'belief in skepticism').

As you said "..atheism is a 'belief .." and that is sufficient to qualify.

Oh, goody - an appeal to authority fallacy, (as if the courts get to decide what's a religion and what's not, for surely someone would have every single religion disqualified on the grounds of the lack of evidence to support them under judicial rules of evidence).

You made the first appeal to authority citing Meriam-Webster and I presented multiple counter positions -- including your same reference.  Indeed the courts get to decide what is a religion or not within the boundaries of which they have authority.  This is exactly the case here too.

No doubt examples such as these are why appeals to authority, (especially ones outside of the expertise of the "authority"), are logical fallacies.  What justifications were supplied to characterize "secular humanism" as a religion?

Again, you first made the appeal to authority.  And the definition of a religion is certainly not outside the expertise of the courts as they have ruling over it within the confines of the law. 

Actually, atheists can be fired at will and no appeal to authority can prevent this.  Conversely, a religious adherent can often get away with evangelizing in the workplace, (which is a violation of law), and whine to the courts about 'religious persecution' if fired for it.  Doesn't mean they'll win their case.

Yet they cannot be fired because they are atheists.  "Evangelizing in the workplace" is not a violation of the law, who now is dipping to areas outside their expertise, eh?

There's no need to continue posting appeals to authority however, you did provide the seeds of an idea concerning having the courts rule on what is _not_ a religion.  No doubt the religious organizations would begin taking down churches across the country once the unfavorable rulings come in.

Thrice you have accused me of an appeal to authority and tacitly denied that you were the first to make such an appeal.  I used your own references as evidence as well, that such things as atheism qualify under definitions of religion.

It is my word that's being taken, it's the determination of educated linguists who have compiled the dictionaries.

What is this, but an appeal to authority?  Why don't you tell the reader what these educated linguists really say about the definition?  Tell them how the etymology is unknown and how the definition is in dispute (and has been for thousands of years).  Tell them how early Christians were referred to as atheists.  Tell the reader, how the word, without it's etymology, has no definite meaning.  Why do you omit these things?  You do this to protect yourself from the very accusations you make and so that you can preach your religion (abundantly on these forums) without suffering the penalties you ascribe to every other religion that isn't yours.  Most readers here recognize at least part of this, but I don't think you are quite aware of just  how obvious it is though.

You can try refuting dictionary definitions by posting alternate appeals to authority through me but, at least the writers of dictionaries have the relevant linguistic backgrounds to determine consensual definitions, (whereas court judges could be of nearly any religious/non-religious background and should be using evidence and logic to arrive at legal decisions, not crap like "takes a position" as being equivalent to "is a religion" concerning atheism).  Any first year law student would flunk out of the course on precedents if he coughed up what you did.

But we both know that these definitions and origins are in dispute, and that a belief in God or the supernatural is not a requirement for religion by all definitions of religion (using your same beloved dictionary as I demonstrated earlier).  Judges are also specialists in language and application of language.  "In contrast to custom, which can often be transmitted simply by observing the adherence
of a community to an unspoken norm, law virtually by definition is articulated in speech or writing. Words may describe habit or custom, but they constitute the law. Thus, for the legal profession and particularly for judges, language is not merely a means of communication, but an object of analysis." -- "The Judge as Linguist".  You bring up linguistic backgrounds and are, of course, referring to the science of linguistics and you make accusations of 'flunking' at me when you omitted the most important point about linguistics and that is etymology of the word.  Any linguists will be the first to tell you that the word 'religion' is in dispute and the etymology unknown.  Once again you failed at your own task and must therefore be guilty of the very charge you make.

Nice try erecting a strawman argument of what I _didn't_ claim however, what I did state is that there is no evidence that it came from a "divine being", (for which there is also no evidence).  No evidence means your claim that life was created by such is dubious, tending toward being a false claim.

I wouldn't call it a strawman intentionally, but out of necessity.  It is because you seem fearful to ever state things of your own personal beliefs and always fall back to attacking others for their expressions.  We are simply left to discern what you likely mean based on what you attack and don't attack. 

If the practical application of the executive order entails a violation of the civil rights of others, (specifically, "wiccans" in the example given), then the E.O. it is based upon inherently violates those rights since it is being applied in an exclusionary manner.  As I said, it is being contested as a unconstitutional.

You know quite well that this is not true.  Application is not intent and your attempt to make them seem the same shows your desperation.  You also are well aware that the executive order is not limited to "faith based" organizations but, as typical of you, you conceal this from the readers and are wishful to rely on their ignorance of the order to force your point across.  In all likelihood, your only objection to the executive order is the inclusion of the word 'faith'.  Being contested has no relevance here, that "Sweet Swine Pork Rinds" woman also said she had the winning lottery ticket.

While taxpayers are footing the bill for things they may object to, this state of affairs does not mean that using public funds to finance "faith-based initiates" is anything less than a violation of the first amendment on exclusionary grounds. 

Because you claim it to be a violation doesn't make it a violation.  Present your evidence.  We certainly know that the government is only prevented from 'favoring' a particular religion.

Your example is indeed ridiculous since no one is compelled to play such an imaginary game, whereas anyone who wishes to converse intelligently in a language is required to use the established words within the language and definitions of those words.

And when you are using a word that is defined within its usage you always use the definition provided from by the source and not external definitions.  You know this, though, and you know that you always use a provided glossary instead of an external reference.

[Abrupt]

See my reply to falcon09.  See the opinions of the courts.  See definitions other than ones that only support your desired claims.

The basic reason why it's considered a religion in this case is to just protect an atheist on the same level as someone who is religious-- an attempt to ensure equality. It is treated as a religion, but it isn't a religion (much like being treated as royalty even if one is not of royal descent. Being treated as such does not make you officially of royal descent). Like Falcon9 has already stated, you're using an appeal to authority fallacy. Even though it's obviously wrong, no atheist will really argue with the protection it attempts to ensure in this case.

And unless you're referring to creationist websites, most (if not all) of the definitions of my 'desired' claims fit the bill.

You are incorrect here as that is not how the law works.  The judicial branch does not modify the meaning of a law (even in the sense of 'fairness').  They simply determine the application of the law within its definition.  If the law is unfair it is revised in the legislative branch and not the judicial branch.

I only use the appeal to authority to challenge falcon9's appeal to authority.  You have no complaint about his usage but do about mine, or was that simply oversight?  Regardless I used the exact same appeal to the exact same source he did and found it fitting to qualify my description, surely you did not overlook that?

Atheism is, among other things, a school of thought that takes a position on religion, the existence and importance of a supreme being, and a code of ethics. As such, we are satisfied that it qualifies as Kaufman's religion for purposes of the First Amendment claims he is attempting to raise."

Obvious problem- What code of ethics?

I don't have the particular arguments, but I am sure you could look them up.

[falcon9]

Nor would the description apply to atheism since it contains the phrase "a set of beliefs", (atheism is a 'belief in skepticism').

As you said "..atheism is a 'belief .." and that is sufficient to qualify.

Unfortunately, a late-night typo omitting the word "not" between 'is' & 'a' makes my actual assertion 'atheism is not a belief in skepticism'.  And it isn't, since skepticism does not require belief, (it requires at least some disbelief in order to be skeptical).

You made the first appeal to authority citing Meriam-Webster and I presented multiple counter positions -- including your same reference. 

The problem with that is your use of the same appeal to authority, (dictionary linguists), is being applied selectively whereas my references are to common, broad consensual usage, (and most certainly not to some narrower, constricted usage you're using to try making your point about atheism).

Indeed the courts get to decide what is a religion or not within the boundaries of which they have authority.  This is exactly the case here too. And the definition of a religion is certainly not outside the expertise of the courts as they have ruling over it within the confines of the law. 

Excellent.  The Westboro Baptists may soon need more skilled attorneys should litigation removing the determination that their fundamentalist beliefs qualify as a religion, (as it pertains to their 'protests').  Success in in that case will provide precedent for removing the religious qualification for several other faux religions, (and their tax exempt status, thus putting potentionally billions back into the economy), and negate funding for "faith-based initiatives".  Alternatively, the courts will decline engaging what could turn out to be a non-benefical dominoe-effect requiring "religions" to provide actual evidence in what they are 'worshipping', (rather than falsely-attributed side effects).

Yet they cannot be fired because they are atheists.  "Evangelizing in the workplace" is not a violation of the law, who now is dipping to areas outside their expertise, eh?

Actually, harassment clauses are both intended to ensure someone is not harassed due to their religious beliefs AND that others are not harassed by the religious beliefs of co-workers to the extent that it creates a hostile work environment.  Any doubts about the potential for litigation ought to consider the instance where employees of different religious belief systems 'counter-evangelize' at work, (instead of primarily working).

 

Why don't you tell the reader what these educated linguists really say about the definition?  Tell them how the etymology is unknown and how the definition is in dispute (and has been for thousands of years). 

At some point, a line must be drawn regarding the etymology of words to delineate 'this means this' in common, consensual usage.  Disputing meanings is what debate is about however, the meanings of words do sometimes change over time, (and with usage).  Someday, 'atheism' may come to mean 'a religion of not having a religion' but for today, you don't get to alter the standard definition.

Tell them how early Christians were referred to as atheists.

More accurately, early xtianity was considered to be a 'cult' by the extant cultures of the time, (who were commonly polytheistic and saw the 'one-godders' as simplistically-monolithic in conception).  

... so that you can preach your religion (abundantly on these forums) without suffering the penalties you ascribe to every other religion that isn't yours. 

One, I don't "preach" any religion.  Two, atheism is not a religion, (repetitions of your refuted claim notwithstanding).  Three, challenging the unsupported claims of religionists such as yourself is neither "preaching a religion" nor, an aspect of a religion, (next you'll be claiming that logic is a "religion"?).

... that a belief in God or the supernatural is not a requirement for religion by all definitions of religion (using your same beloved dictionary as I demonstrated earlier). 

The problem with that is your use of the same appeal to authority, (dictionary linguists), is being applied selectively whereas my references are to common, broad consensual usage, (and most certainly not to some narrower, constricted usage you're using to try making your point about atheism). Definitions are intended to define the differences between the meanings of words so that one can discern the distinctions between, say a frog and a scientologist, (however slight that difference may be).  You are purposely being selective in ignoring the definition(s) of 'atheism' on one hand while tossing alternate definitions for 'religion' with the other.  Given your selective definition, the legal, medical, programming or engineering professions would qualify as a 'religion'. This is disingenuous of your argument and I doubt many readers are fooled by such weak sophistry.

Nice try erecting a strawman argument of what I _didn't_ claim however, what I did state is that there is no evidence that it came from a "divine being", (for which there is also no evidence).  No evidence means your claim that life was created by such is dubious, tending toward being a false claim.

I wouldn't call it a strawman intentionally, but out of necessity.  It is because you seem fearful to ever state things of your own personal beliefs and always fall back to attacking others for their expressions.  We are simply left to discern what you likely mean based on what you attack and don't attack. 

It isn't 'fear' as you speculate; it's because I'm aware that making an initial assertion contains the inherent burden of proof to sustain it.  Further, others may simply assume that I don't have "beliefs" in the sense of unsubstantiated 'faith' as this would be more accurate than guessing about it.


 

Application is not intent and your attempt to make them seem the same shows your desperation. 

There's no "desparation" involved in the matter, (except perhaps from your end, in insisting that the "faith-based initiative" E.O. is applied primarily to xtian recipients and not, in the example, to "wiccans" or other federally-recognised religions).  That makes in exclusionary in practical application.

You also are well aware that the executive order is not limited to "faith based" organizations but, as typical of you, you conceal this from the readers and are wishful to rely on their ignorance of the order to force your point across. 

What?  "Faith-based" means those organisations which are "faith-based"; which means construction contractors don't qualify but, "wiccans" should, (however, there are no known instances of wiccan covens receiving faith-base initiative funding to minister to the public).  If you are asserting that such funding is not limited to faith-based organisations, support your assertion by referencing those organisations receiving such funding which are not faith-based.

We certainly know that the government is only prevented from 'favoring' a particular religion.

By only providing funding to xtian faith-based organisations, the faith-based initiative can be demonstrated to exclude other faith-based organisations and thus 'favoring' a particular religion over others.  Your examples of other non-xtian organisations who receive faith-based initiative funding is awaited.

"Sec. 2. Purpose of Executive Branch Centers for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. The purpose of the agency Centers will be to coordinate agency efforts to eliminate regulatory, contracting, and other programmatic obstacles to the participa-tion of faith-based and other community organizations in the provision of social and community services."
 http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases

 

[Abrupt]

Unfortunately, a late-night typo omitting the word "not" between 'is' & 'a' makes my actual assertion 'atheism is not a belief in skepticism'.  And it isn't, since skepticism does not require belief, (it requires at least some disbelief in order to be skeptical).

No harm and no foul.  My counter is withdrawn with your point and please feel free to restate if you wish to.

I have done similar things as this in the wee hours and remember a time or two of rereading something I had posted and exhibiting a visible cringe at what I had typed, followed by a quick desire that it is overlooked in any replies.

The problem with that is your use of the same appeal to authority, (dictionary linguists), is being applied selectively whereas my references are to common, broad consensual usage, (and most certainly not to some narrower, constricted usage you're using to try making your point about atheism).

That is somewhat misleading for you to make that claim and you know it.  My reference, although more narrow, is appropriate and is only more narrow since the religions not using deities are more narrow.

Excellent.  The Westboro Baptists may soon need more skilled attorneys should litigation removing the determination that their fundamentalist beliefs qualify as a religion, (as it pertains to their 'protests').  Success in in that case will provide precedent for removing the religious qualification for several other faux religions, (and their tax exempt status, thus putting potentionally billions back into the economy), and negate funding for "faith-based initiatives".  Alternatively, the courts will decline engaging what could turn out to be a non-benefical dominoe-effect requiring "religions" to provide actual evidence in what they are 'worshipping', (rather than falsely-attributed side effects).

Why whatever do you mean?  I will point out, that the government taking money where it was previously not taking money does not equate to "putting ... back into".  Also any attempt's to align or put me into a position of defending these Westboro Baptists lunatics is wasted, as I have already indicated my disdain for them.

Actually, harassment clauses are both intended to ensure someone is not harassed due to their religious beliefs AND that others are not harassed by the religious beliefs of co-workers to the extent that it creates a hostile work environment.  Any doubts about the potential for litigation ought to consider the instance where employees of different religious belief systems 'counter-evangelize' at work, (instead of primarily working).

That is dishonest by omission and focus and is the equivalent of saying "larceny clauses are both intended to ensure that people with bikes don't steal trikes from others and also those others with trikes don't steal the bikes from bikers". 
 

At some point, a line must be drawn regarding the etymology of words to delineate 'this means this' in common, consensual usage.  Disputing meanings is what debate is about however, the meanings of words do sometimes change over time, (and with usage).  Someday, 'atheism' may come to mean 'a religion of not having a religion' but for today, you don't get to alter the standard definition.

Perhaps, but this is not for us to decide.  As I do not get to alter the 'standard' (cough) definition, neither do you.  Considering there isn't actually a standard definition along the lines of qualifying it as a religion or not, you are bold to make such assertions.  Most people would find it quite natural to find 'atheist' as a check item under a topic question of 'religion', and that alone says much.  As I mentioned earlier, the choice of definitions is up to the user in this matter and I am not attempting to force you to hold to my belief, but you obviously are trying to force me to hold to your belief.  I find that amazingly hilarious and hypocritical as well as tactically ironic (correct usage) to your implication.

More accurately, early xtianity was considered to be a 'cult' by the extant cultures of the time, (who were commonly polytheistic and saw the 'one-godders' as simplistically-monolithic in conception).  

That isn't more accurate.  That is simply different.  How does your 'more accurate' description let the readers know that they were actually called 'atheists'?  It doesn't, so it is less accurate to my point of the oddities of words and meaning.

One, I don't "preach" any religion.  Two, atheism is not a religion, (repetitions of your refuted claim notwithstanding).  Three, challenging the unsupported claims of religionists such as yourself is neither "preaching a religion" nor, an aspect of a religion, (next you'll be claiming that logic is a "religion"?).

Most people on these forums would immediately agree with me if I said "you frequently preach your religion of atheism".  Where is your desire to adhere to the consensus now?  You don't simply challenge those with particular beliefs, you deliberately inject yourself into any conversation regarding the matter.  This is your greatest hypocrisy and if only you could understand it.

The problem with that is your use of the same appeal to authority, (dictionary linguists), is being applied selectively whereas my references are to common, broad consensual usage, (and most certainly not to some narrower, constricted usage you're using to try making your point about atheism). Definitions are intended to define the differences between the meanings of words so that one can discern the distinctions between, say a frog and a scientologist, (however slight that difference may be).  You are purposely being selective in ignoring the definition(s) of 'atheism' on one hand while tossing alternate definitions for 'religion' with the other.  Given your selective definition, the legal, medical, programming or engineering professions would qualify as a 'religion'. This is disingenuous of your argument and I doubt many readers are fooled by such weak sophistry.

I most certainly am not.  It is you, on the other hand, who is being selective.  Those areas you indicated would not qualify as 'religion', although I submit there would be 'belief' systems within them all, but these would not be religions beliefs but simply alliances of thought (for example under programming you can find many variations for "naming conventions" and followers of each on all sides).

It isn't 'fear' as you speculate; it's because I'm aware that making an initial assertion contains the inherent burden of proof to sustain it.  Further, others may simply assume that I don't have "beliefs" in the sense of unsubstantiated 'faith' as this would be more accurate than guessing about it.

I didn't mean the word as 'fear' in the sense that you point out, but out of deliberate caution of known possibilities.  You are correct in identifying it as a 'choice' word though, but we both like using choice words.

There's no "desparation" involved in the matter, (except perhaps from your end, in insisting that the "faith-based initiative" E.O. is applied primarily to xtian recipients and not, in the example, to "wiccans" or other federally-recognised religions).  That makes in exclusionary in practical application.

I am not being desperate, it isn't my argument to make and that burden rests with you.  The clever man would realize that there are more Christian faith based organizations in America than wiccans and would so naturally expect to find Christians among the primary recipients (anything less would hint at prejudice and preference).

What?  "Faith-based" means those organisations which are "faith-based"; which means construction contractors don't qualify but, "wiccans" should, (however, there are no known instances of wiccan covens receiving faith-base initiative funding to minister to the public).  If you are asserting that such funding is not limited to faith-based organisations, support your assertion by referencing those organisations receiving such funding which are not faith-based.

Who's robbing this train, Jesse?  Read the order and you will realize it isn't limited to faith based organization and also includes "and other neighborhood organizations".  It could well be that only faith based organizations applied and so onus is on you to demonstrate that others applied and were denied because they were not "faith based".

By only providing funding to xtian faith-based organisations, the faith-based initiative can be demonstrated to exclude other faith-based organisations and thus 'favoring' a particular religion over others.  Your examples of other non-xtian organisations who receive faith-based initiative funding is awaited.

"Sec. 2. Purpose of Executive Branch Centers for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. The purpose of the agency Centers will be to coordinate agency efforts to eliminate regulatory, contracting, and other programmatic obstacles to the participa-tion of faith-based and other community organizations in the provision of social and community services."
 http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases

You have given yourself a task (although it is a little naive in that it doesn't consider that only Christian organizations may have applied) and a means to measure it so set about your task and prove this accusation.  Demonstrate your claim by showing that non christian groups were denied funding under this executive order after they applied.  To simplify things somewhat, I will submit one to expedite the debate:  Aga Khan Foundation.

[falcon9]

The problem with that is your use of the same appeal to authority, (dictionary linguists), is being applied selectively whereas my references are to common, broad consensual usage, (and most certainly not to some narrower, constricted usage you're using to try making your point about atheism).

That is somewhat misleading for you to make that claim and you know it.  My reference, although more narrow, is appropriate and is only more narrow since the religions not using deities are more narrow.

It isn't misleading since it was based on your previous comments regarding narrow definitions and mine, regarding broader definitions.

Actually, harassment clauses are both intended to ensure someone is not harassed due to their religious beliefs AND that others are not harassed by the religious beliefs of co-workers to the extent that it creates a hostile work environment.  Any doubts about the potential for litigation ought to consider the instance where employees of different religious belief systems 'counter-evangelize' at work, (instead of primarily working).

That is dishonest by omission and focus ...

So you say however, what is being omitted?
 

At some point, a line must be drawn regarding the etymology of words to delineate 'this means this' in common, consensual usage.  Disputing meanings is what debate is about however, the meanings of words do sometimes change over time, (and with usage).  Someday, 'atheism' may come to mean 'a religion of not having a religion' but for today, you don't get to alter the standard definition.

Perhaps, but this is not for us to decide.  As I do not get to alter the 'standard' (cough) definition, neither do you.

Neither you nor I decided what definitions are included in dictionaries.  This has already been done, dictionaries are printed.  You can reject them as wished however, they form the currency of the language in which we are debating meanings and you don't like the 'standard definitions'.  That's something you need to take up with the compilers of dictionaries instead.

Considering there isn't actually a standard definition along the lines of qualifying it as a religion or not, you are bold to make such assertions.  Most people would find it quite natural to find 'atheist' as a check item under a topic question of 'religion', and that alone says much.

All that "says" is that people who would check "athesist" as their 'religion' don't know that it isn't one. Sounds like an appeal to ignorance, bud.

As I mentioned earlier, the choice of definitions is up to the user in this matter and I am not attempting to force you to hold to my belief, but you obviously are trying to force me to hold to your belief.  

It isn't a "belief" of mine, it's an etymological and logical position.  Are you implying that logic is a belief system, (for another thread)?

More accurately, early xtianity was considered to be a 'cult' by the extant cultures of the time, (who were commonly polytheistic and saw the 'one-godders' as simplistically-monolithic in conception).  

That isn't more accurate.  That is simply different.  

It is more accurate than your reference to early xtians as "atheists", (since their religious beliefs in 'one god' were definitely not atheistic in any form).  That's a far cry from characterizing diametric opposites as "simply different".

One, I don't "preach" any religion.  Two, atheism is not a religion, (repetitions of your refuted claim notwithstanding).  Three, challenging the unsupported claims of religionists such as yourself is neither "preaching a religion" nor, an aspect of a religion, (next you'll be claiming that logic is a "religion"?).

Most people on these forums would immediately agree with me if I said "you frequently preach your religion of atheism".

That's an Argumentum ad Populum, the logical fallacy of appealing to popularity, and it's an invalid argument because atheism is not a religion.

You don't simply challenge those with particular beliefs, you deliberately inject yourself into any conversation regarding the matter.  This is your greatest hypocrisy and if only you could understand it.

The interjection of a challenge to the initial posting of religious beliefs is not hypocritical in any way since there would be nothing to challenge were such specious beliefs not initially posted.  In other words, I haven't started any of the threads in which such insidious proselytizing occurs and instead have utilized these as opportunities to present challenges to the hypocrisy of religious beliefs, supplying countering viewpoints and emphasizing reason over superstitions.  Oddly enough, there seems to be more interest in attacking the challenger than addressing the challenges, (although most of 'em are leaving this largely to your dodges).

There's no "desparation" involved in the matter, (except perhaps from your end, in insisting that the "faith-based initiative" E.O. is applied primarily to xtian recipients and not, in the example, to "wiccans" or other federally-recognised religions).  That makes in exclusionary in practical application.

I am not being desperate, it isn't my argument to make and that burden rests with you.

The request is to list those who've applied for and _not_ received faith-based initiative funding?

The clever man would realize that there are more Christian faith based organizations in America than wiccans and would so naturally expect to find Christians among the primary recipients (anything less would hint at prejudice and preference).

Then another clever man would realize that the "initiative" primarily benefits xtian proselytizing in the majority and few, (or rather no), other "faith-based" organisations.  This is nothing more than a way of attempting dodge the prohibitions against favoring one religion over others since manifestly, the xtian religion is being favored by E.O.#13199's application.

"Faith-based" means those organisations which are "faith-based"; which means construction contractors don't qualify but, "wiccans" should, (however, there are no known instances of wiccan covens receiving faith-base initiative funding to minister to the public).  If you are asserting that such funding is not limited to faith-based organisations, support your assertion by referencing those organisations receiving such funding which are not faith-based.
[/quote]

Read the order and you will realize it isn't limited to faith based organization and also includes "and other neighborhood organizations".  It could well be that only faith based organizations applied and so onus is on you to demonstrate that others applied and were denied because they were not "faith based".

Yes, I'm aware of the provision for "community/neighborhood organizations", (Since the late 18th century, from a period known as the Second Great Awakening, there have been numerous voluntary civic associations loosely connected with faith groups).  The Girlscouts could be considered as a neighborhood organization; how much are you willing to wager that they don't qualify for faith-based initiative funding?

By only providing funding to xtian faith-based organisations, the faith-based initiative can be demonstrated to exclude other faith-based organisations and thus 'favoring' a particular religion over others.

 

"Sec. 2. Purpose of Executive Branch Centers for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. The purpose of the agency Centers will be to coordinate agency efforts to eliminate regulatory, contracting, and other programmatic obstacles to the participation of faith-based and other community organizations in the provision of social and community services."
 http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases

In other words, the purpose is to circumvent such "obstacles" as the first amendment in order to channel funding into xtian proselytizing under the thin veil of "social and community services".

[Abrupt]

It isn't misleading since it was based on your previous comments regarding narrow definitions and mine, regarding broader definitions.

A definition is as narrow or broad as needed.  Certain definitions are less common, but just as valid.  There are reasons that some definition listings indicated multiple answers and that is to show that there are alternate meanings.  If such as you say is true then each term would have but a single definition and all others would need to be thrown out.

So you say however, what is being omitted?

Your focus on a specific counter suggest that it was a special consideration, or one of importance.  It wasn't though, harassment protections are deliberately broad and generic and not overly defined as by defining you limit the language and scope.  This is similar with theft/larceny laws in that specific items are not defined and simply monetary ranges.
 

Neither you nor I decided what definitions are included in dictionaries.  This has already been done, dictionaries are printed.  You can reject them as wished however, they form the currency of the language in which we are debating meanings and you don't like the 'standard definitions'.  That's something you need to take up with the compilers of dictionaries instead.

Wait a minute, it is you who is rejecting a definition here and not me.  That much is obvious by your complaints above as any reader can plainly see.  How you think you can turn the table on me and make me own your error is most perplexing. 

All that "says" is that people who would check "athesist" as their 'religion' don't know that it isn't one. Sounds like an appeal to ignorance, bud.

So, your implication is that those who don't hold to your particular definitions and don't deliberately ignore other definitions that you don't agree with are ignorant, eh?

It isn't a "belief" of mine, it's an etymological and logical position.  Are you implying that logic is a belief system, (for another thread)?

It is your belief that we only adhere to the definitions that you want.  We must ignore any other definitions, including legal definitions.  That sounds stubbornly irrational to me and I would not equate that to any form of logic.

It is more accurate than your reference to early xtians as "atheists", (since their religious beliefs in 'one god' were definitely not atheistic in any form).  That's a far cry from characterizing diametric opposites as "simply different".

The Roman Government actually called the early Christians 'atheists' so please, tell me how what you are saying is more accurate?

That's an Argumentum ad Populum, the logical fallacy of appealing to popularity, and it's an invalid argument because atheism is not a religion.

This is no populace appeal I am making because I didn't present it as a "choice based on popularity".  What I did was present it in counter to your previous "argumentum ad populum" where you were to a consensus of opinion on a definition.  I simply asked if you were hypocritical when considering consensus opinions or not, and I guess we have our answer.

The interjection of a challenge to the initial posting of religious beliefs is not hypocritical in any way since there would be nothing to challenge were such specious beliefs not initially posted.  In other words, I haven't started any of the threads in which such insidious proselytizing occurs and instead have utilized these as opportunities to present challenges to the hypocrisy of religious beliefs, supplying countering viewpoints and emphasizing reason over superstitions.  Oddly enough, there seems to be more interest in attacking the challenger than addressing the challenges, (although most of 'em are leaving this largely to your dodges).

That is a lot of rationalization and BS you posted there.  You have injected yourself into threads posting daily versus and requests for prayers and other similar threads simply to preach your message.  How you can reason to deny this now is beyond me.  I suspect you are simply blinded by your own disdain to recognize this in yourself.

The request is to list those who've applied for and _not_ received faith-based initiative funding?

Yes, as your initial claim should be provable if true, other than relying on unfounded and unsupported specious accusations.

Then another clever man would realize that the "initiative" primarily benefits xtian proselytizing in the majority and few, (or rather no), other "faith-based" organisations.  This is nothing more than a way of attempting dodge the prohibitions against favoring one religion over others since manifestly, the xtian religion is being favored by E.O.#13199's application.

I entirely agree with you here on this point and it is just another reason why we need smaller and more limited government and less laws and regulations (as they simply get around them and it makes it increasingly more difficult to detect something as wrong).  This is a classic example of how legislation conceals wrongdoing.

Yes, I'm aware of the provision for "community/neighborhood organizations", (Since the late 18th century, from a period known as the Second Great Awakening, there have been numerous voluntary civic associations loosely connected with faith groups).  The Girlscouts could be considered as a neighborhood organization; how much are you willing to wager that they don't qualify for faith-based initiative funding?

I wouldn't care to speculate on this matter, but it should be provable one way or the other if it was attempted.

[falcon9]

A definition is as narrow or broad as needed.

Except the "as needed" in the instance you're applying it is "as needed to support your contention".  Whereas I'm not attempting to alter the definition/meaning of the word, "atheism", you continually have been.  You've failed to make your case, however except to redefine it for you alone.  If you want to call an 'airplane', a 'tree' nothing stops you from doing so, (even rationality).

Certain definitions are less common, but just as valid.  There are reasons that some definition listings indicated multiple answers and that is to show that there are alternate meanings.  

Such "alternate meanings" remain within the contextual set of the definition and aren't mutually-contradictory, (as you're suggesting concerning "atheism" being both a religion and not a religion). "A"-"theism"; not theism.

Wait a minute, it is you who is rejecting a definition here and not me.

I'm rejecting your sophist attempts to redefine atheism, (not alternate dictionary definitions which exclude it as being a religion on one hand and not a religion on the other).

So, your implication is that those who don't hold to your particular definitions and don't deliberately ignore other definitions that you don't agree with are ignorant, eh?

No, I'm positing that those who don't hold to the standard definitions of words are either ignorant of those definitions or, are simply idiots.

The Roman Government actually called the early Christians 'atheists' so please, tell me how what you are saying is more accurate?

Unless early xtians were actually atheists, (non-religious), then the roman usage was a misnomer.  They could've called them 'beanstalks' and that wouldn't accurately describe them either.  If the early xtians held religious beliefs, (as all indications point to), then they weren't atheists.

This is no populace appeal I am making because I didn't present it as a "choice based on popularity".

Quote from: Abrupt on 12-04-2012, 09:09:14"
"Most people on these forums would immediately agree with me if I said "you frequently preach your religion of atheism"."

"Most people" is an appeal to popular opinion, (not accurate opinion).

The interjection of a challenge to the initial posting of religious beliefs is not hypocritical in any way since there would be nothing to challenge were such specious beliefs not initially posted.  In other words, I haven't started any of the threads in which such insidious proselytizing occurs and instead have utilized these as opportunities to present challenges to the hypocrisy of religious beliefs, supplying countering viewpoints and emphasizing reason over superstitions.  Oddly enough, there seems to be more interest in attacking the challenger than addressing the challenges, (although most of 'em are leaving this largely to your dodges).

That is a lot of rationalization and BS you posted there.

It isn't rationalization merely because you claim it is.  Instead, it describes the sequence of events accurately by pointing out that the xtians initiated the religious belief comments and I replied to existing comments to present an opposing viewpoint.  

You have injected yourself into threads posting daily versus and requests for prayers and other similar threads simply to preach your message.

No, I interjected replies to xtians proselytizing their religious message, (my opposing responses were not 'preaching' because they do not promote any religion).  If you continue to misrepresent what actually happened or, what was actually said, (by over-snipping context to shift it), I'm compelled to consider you to be dishonest in intent in this 'debate'.  This is based upon mounting evidence presented in this thread.

---

Yes, as your initial claim should be provable if true, other than relying on unfounded and unsupported specious accusations.

'According to Daniel Zwerdling who produced two programs on faith-based initiative for Bill Moyers TV show NOW in September, 2003, "administration spokesmen say they can't break down how much money has gone so far to religious groups .. they claim they don't keep that information." '

However, From Church and State editorial, March 9, 2004:
"The Corporation for National and Community Service has allocated $324,000 in Americorps funding for staffing at four daycare centers run by the Roman Catholic Diocese of Providence.

But The Children's Crusade, a mentoring program that has won national honors, lost all its budget of half a million dollars. The group had hoped to partner 35 young adults with poor minority children. That won't be happening now."

As far as this applies toward a de facto theocracy:
"Slouching toward theocracy. President Bush's faith-based initiative is doing better than you think," by Bill Berkowitz, 2/6/04 provides an overview of this transformation."

Then another clever man would realize that the "initiative" primarily benefits xtian proselytizing in the majority and few, (or rather no), other "faith-based" organisations.  This is nothing more than a way of attempting dodge the prohibitions against favoring one religion over others since manifestly, the xtian religion is being favored by E.O.#13199's application.

I entirely agree with you here on this point and it is just another reason why we need smaller and more limited government and less laws and regulations (as they simply get around them and it makes it increasingly more difficult to detect something as wrong).  This is a classic example of how legislation conceals wrongdoing.

Then you would limit governmental involvement in "faith-based" organisations, (especially specifically funding them)?  Which other laws and regulations would you change or, repeal in order to deregulate the business and private sectors to permit others to run rampant?

[Abrupt]

Except the "as needed" in the instance you're applying it is "as needed to support your contention".  Whereas I'm not attempting to alter the definition/meaning of the word, "atheism", you continually have been.  You've failed to make your case, however except to redefine it for you alone.  If you want to call an 'airplane', a 'tree' nothing stops you from doing so, (even rationality).

It is "as needed" to indicate the position you describe as you use it.  I haven't attempted to redefine anything, I simply using the same rules you set forth to show that atheism does indeed qualify as a religion based upon the same dictionary reference you cited.  I have made my case quite well, and it would be enough to convince anyone except zealot's such as yourself.  I didn't redefine anything either, in fact I included the definitions from the same reference you cited that you wish to disqualify because they don't agree with your position.  I have also indicated that judicial experts who are trained in observing the usage of an object have most certainly qualified atheism as a religion -- since it is most definitely used as one and has been argued by atheist to be one in courts of law.  Yes, I would say I have proven my case quite handily.

Such "alternate meanings" remain within the contextual set of the definition and aren't mutually-contradictory, (as you're suggesting concerning "atheism" being both a religion and not a religion). "A"-"theism"; not theism.

Your flaw is equating theism to religion.  These words are not interchangeable no matter how much you wish them to be.

I'm rejecting your sophist attempts to redefine atheism, (not alternate dictionary definitions which exclude it as being a religion on one hand and not a religion on the other).

My sophist attempts?  I simply cited a definition of religion from your same referenced dictionary under the same heading and you call that sophistry?  I don't work for Merriam-Webster and most certainly didn't write that definition for them.  Surely that is not what you are now suggesting?

No, I'm positing that those who don't hold to the standard definitions of words are either ignorant of those definitions or, are simply idiots.

Who is ignorant of a definition?  I am aware of your definition and I absolutely agree that it is a definition of religion, however I am also aware of the other definitions (that you are apparently ignorant of -- and thus an idiot by your previous statement??) and that they are also definitions of religion because they are listed under the definitions of religion in the very same reference you indicated for your definition.  There is no way around this obstacle for you as you are the one who placed it here and it is the one you use so vehemently to support your position.  Even if you entirely threw away this obstacle you have created for yourself you would then lose it as your argument.

Unless early xtians were actually atheists, (non-religious), then the roman usage was a misnomer.  They could've called them 'beanstalks' and that wouldn't accurately describe them either.  If the early xtians held religious beliefs, (as all indications point to), then they weren't atheists.

It could well be a misnomer (it was more likely an intentional insult though I think as an attempt to disqualify), or perhaps they didn't have your beloved merriam-webster to explain to them what these words should mean according to you. 

"Most people" is an appeal to popular opinion, (not accurate opinion).

As is "standard definition" (in addition to being an appeal to authority, but the 'standard' bit implies consensus), but in my case I did not present it as a sway point on a position, I presented it to ask you if you still held to your popular opinion claim when it didn't agree with you.  For you to now claim that I am using an appeal to popular opinion as a definition of my point is about as dishonest as it gets.

It isn't rationalization merely because you claim it is.  Instead, it describes the sequence of events accurately by pointing out that the xtians initiated the religious belief comments and I replied to existing comments to present an opposing viewpoint.  

It also isn't 'not' rationalization merely because you claim it is (see how that works?).  You didn't simply 'present' an opposing viewpoint, you claimed they were wrong and often did so in an insulting manner.  You attacked scripture and opinion and utilized specious arguments and unsupported and unprovable points to launch your assaults.  Even your intentional misnaming of those you attack shows your vehemence, and you do this as if to show they are beneath you.  Now you claim you simply did this because your logic dictates it or some other nonsense.

No, I interjected replies to xtians proselytizing their religious message, (my opposing responses were not 'preaching' because they do not promote any religion).  If you continue to misrepresent what actually happened or, what was actually said, (by over-snipping context to shift it), I'm compelled to consider you to be dishonest in intent in this 'debate'.  This is based upon mounting evidence presented in this thread.

Your conduct in a thread requesting prayers is enough proof that you are not practicing this innocence you now wish to claim.  While it is possible to engage in debates and give counterpoints without taking a position, you took a position and presented it as belief against the beliefs of others and went as far as to say the beliefs of others were wrong because your beliefs were right.  If you are debating transportation and you posit that an alternate means of transportation is to walk, that is fine.  If you say the only means of transportation is "to walk" then you are stating your belief.  If you say that an alternate means of transportation is to "not walk" then you are also in error as you haven't presented a qualification within the argument.  You seem to be very confused about these last two and you interchange your claims of positions on them as the argument goes against you. 

You called me out onto the battlefield.  You took the first swing and ended up bloodied on your back and now you demand that I accept the terms you dictate?  This is your war, don't turn from the battlefield and call me the coward -- "Fight's commenced! Get to fightin' or get away!".  The only mounting evidence presented here is by me in support of my positions while you continue to make your same old tired arguments while declaring that mine don't count since they are not what you want to hear.  I presented you every opportunity to claim a stalemate by "agree to disagree" but you instead chose to bring it to the point it is now.  I still extend you that courtesy -- for you to realize that you may choose to believe as you do and I will believe as I do and that we both accept and realize that our beliefs are different and not in agreement with each other. 

Then you would limit governmental involvement in "faith-based" organisations, (especially specifically funding them)?  Which other laws and regulations would you change or, repeal in order to deregulate the business and private sectors to permit others to run rampant?

I would limit government involvement in both religious and secular organizations in both funding and regulations.  I would remove nearly every federal law and regulation that is not expressly authorized by The Constitution.  If the commerce laws don't actually make it easier to perform interstate trade (the actual definition of regulate -- or to make regular -- when it was written) then I would do away with them.  Permit them to run as wild as they wish to, but at least we would easily recognize this and could then choose to not do business with such entities.  We would certainly have a lot more money to do business with as the government would not need to take all that money from us to pay legislators to do research and write laws that would conceal the obviousness of any wrongdoing.  As it is now, these laws and regulations have done no good and only cause us to become lazy and trusting in them to protect us and the demands to keep them or increase them is about as counter to logic as you can get. 

A simple examination of the banking of a place like the Cayman islands will reveal that simplified banking and regulations are toxic to scams and also obvious self auditing of poor business models.  Every request by the US government related to entities suspected of crimes utilizing banking from the Caymans was readily supplied and no crimes were found to exist.  When the financial crisis hit the banks in the US and all the bailouts followed there were none in the Cayman's as they were unnecessary since such foolish activities would have been instantly recognizable and not be allowed. 

[HuffmanFamilyof4]

wow. this is crazy..lol

[falcon9]

I haven't attempted to redefine anything, I simply using the same rules you set forth to show that atheism does indeed qualify as a religion based upon the same dictionary reference you cited.  

Atheism does not qualify as a religion since "a - theism" means not theism. "Theism": belief in the existence of a god or gods; specifically, belief in the existence of 'one God' viewed as the creative source of the human race and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world.

Your flaw is equating theism to religion.  These words are not interchangeable no matter how much you wish them to be.

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 thatiIf "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.?
 

I am aware of your definition and I absolutely agree that it is a definition of religion, however I am also aware of the other definitions (that you are apparently ignorant of --  

Incorrect; I was previously aware of the variations of definitions however, 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.

  

You didn't simply 'present' an opposing viewpoint, you claimed they were wrong and often did so in an insulting manner.

Incorrect, (these posts are archived, why bother misrepresenting it unless you're counting on no one bothering to check).  Instead, I demonstrated where religious adherents were presenting unsupported premises as empty opinions, (since these lacked evidence to support them).  Any subjective opinion concerning "insulting manner" applies to the inherently "insulting manner" in which specious religious opinions were initially presented, (that is, before I commented at all).  

You attacked scripture and opinion ...

No, I rejected bible-thumping quotes as an invalid reference source because it is hearsay in its entirety, lacks evidence to support it and constitutes an appeal to a hypothetical authority.

... utilized specious arguments and unsupported and unprovable points to launch your assaults.

False; name the specious arguments used, (since this is your claim and burden of proof).  Name the unsupported points which were supported by lines of reasoning, (again, yours is the burden of proof for making the initial claim).  What "unprovable" points; that religious adherents have no evidence to support their claims?  They don't, do you?
 

Even your intentional misnaming of those you attack shows your vehemence ...

What "intentional misnaming"?  The xtians themselves coined the term "xtian", (as a xtian herself pointed out on another thread, (message ID#519684, "Will you be attending church...").

No, I interjected replies to xtians proselytizing their religious message, (my opposing responses were not 'preaching' because they do not promote any religion).  If you continue to misrepresent what actually happened or, what was actually said, (by over-snipping context to shift it), I'm compelled to consider you to be dishonest in intent in this 'debate'.  This is based upon mounting evidence presented in this thread.

You called me out onto the battlefield.

Did I or, did your preceding posts call me to battle? "I used to be agnostic and then at some point I was probably an atheist."--'Abrupt', message ID#412773, (long before I posted in 2011).

You took the first swing and ended up bloodied on your back ...

What a load of ego-defensive fertilizer.  At no point in our series of exchanges have I even metaphorically "ended up bloodied on [my] back".  Apparently, you're one of those who enjoy claiming 'victory' while in the throes of defeat.  Here's a newsflash for you; your claims have no evidence to back them up, just as you've consistantly failed to provide evidence to support your religious claims.  It's significant that 'only' some the religious adherents on FC are speciously claiming that atheism is a religion, (without providing supporting evidence showing what 'atheistic beliefs' allegedly are).

[Falconer02]

You are incorrect here as that is not how the law works.  The judicial branch does not modify the meaning of a law (even in the sense of 'fairness').  They simply determine the application of the law within its definition.  If the law is unfair it is revised in the legislative branch and not the judicial branch.

If it wasn't modified (or loop-holed), then the man in this case should not have the right to have his little study group due to the actual definition of atheism. I already pointed out the obvious problem with the text you quoted from the case. I do appreciate the correction with jud/leg branch though.

I only use the appeal to authority to challenge falcon9's appeal to authority.  You have no complaint about his usage but do about mine, or was that simply oversight?  Regardless I used the exact same appeal to the exact same source he did and found it fitting to qualify my description, surely you did not overlook that?

Since overall we're both using basic and proper definitions, the religious have already jumped in the thread and agreed that it's not a religion, you've been scrounging for technicalities (for pages now), and Falcon9 has just refuted this claim, I have no reason to state that I'm incorrect in my position.

wow. this is crazy..lol

WELCOME TO DEBATE AND DISCUSS!  

[Abrupt]

Atheism does not qualify as a religion since "a - theism" means not theism. "Theism": belief in the existence of a god or gods; specifically, belief in the existence of 'one God' viewed as the creative source of the human race and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world.

Once again you equate theism to religion (as discussed below).  These things are not the same.  Theism is a type of religion and includes monotheism and polytheism and others.  Atheism is a type of religion without a deity or supernatural association.  When you look up types of religion you will find atheism prominently displayed among the types, along with Buddhism and Taoism and others that do not have a deity.

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 thatiIf "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.?

"The terms "atheist" (lack of belief in any gods) and "agnostic" (belief in the unknowability of the existence of gods), though specifically contrary to theistic (e.g. Christian, Jewish, and Muslim) religious teachings, do not by definition mean the opposite of "religious". There are religions (including Buddhism and Taoism), in fact, that classify some of their followers as agnostic, atheistic, or nontheistic. The true opposite of "religious" is the word "irreligious". Irreligion describes an absence of any religion; antireligion describes an active opposition or aversion toward religions in general."
 

I am aware of your definition and I absolutely agree that it is a definition of religion, however I am also aware of the other definitions (that you are apparently ignorant of --  

Incorrect; I was previously aware of the variations of definitions however, 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.

It doesn't contradict the other definition.  It is because of your lack of understanding of the definitions of the terms used in the descriptions that you find 'contradiction'.  How can you even pretend to make your claim above?  If the definition I cited appeared first in the list I suppose to you that would disqualify your definition.  Surely you cannot even try to weasel that excuse in.  What you are doing here, is basically defining words to conform to your own usage and desire and throwing out any others that do not.  This is very biased and hypocritical for someone who often uses dictionary definitions as an attempt to assert fact through an appeal to authority.  This, again, is your own trap that you cannot get around.

You attacked scripture and opinion ...

No, I rejected bible-thumping quotes as an invalid reference source because it is hearsay in its entirety, lacks evidence to support it and constitutes an appeal to a hypothetical authority.

In a thread titled "daily Bible Verse", you posted this reply to a quote:

"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."

That religious speculation has no basis in evidence.  It's not even internally consistant since such a 'blood sacrifice', (or supposed 'martyrdom'), was alledged to 'atone for the sins of man' yet, the one "sacrificed" got to pop back up later like some sort of zombie, (like some sheephearder's thinking he sacrificed a sheep only to have that same sheep pop back up to say "howdy").  Further, the mystical-magical connection between such a 'pseudo-sacrifice' and a religio-magical "redemption" is obscure and without supporting evidence.

You are not 'rejecting' anything.  You are injecting yourself into a thread about daily Bible verses and attacking and insulting the scripture.  For you to now pretend to claim that this isn't what you do is most foolish since you so readily do such things that you must realize how easily it is to locate many such references.

... utilized specious arguments and unsupported and unprovable points to launch your assaults.

False; name the specious arguments used, (since this is your claim and burden of proof).  Name the unsupported points which were supported by lines of reasoning, (again, yours is the burden of proof for making the initial claim).  What "unprovable" points; that religious adherents have no evidence to support their claims?  They don't, do you?

It isn't false because you claim it to be false.  Everyone who has read more than a few of your posts is very familiar with this pattern of yours.  I wonder why you would wish me to name them?  Is this to prove it to you?  I doubt so since you would likely adamantly deny anything I posted or try to rationalize it to me something else.  Is it your claim that I do this to prove it to the reader?  Doubtful since they would most likely already be very familiar with you, but I suppose there could be a new reader who has yet to hear your ongoing diatribe.  I suppose, then for those that may be now, I will submit just a few samplings (there are so darn many that it takes no time to easily collect way too many...but anyways):

While we're being "honest" about prayer -- you can get the same results praying to a jug of mil

Exactly, and this would be just as an efficient use of time spent.

Specious and unprovable.

---

They may think they never sought refuge in "illusions", but if they surely never sought refuge in God then what they settled for actually was an "illusion".  It's the "illusion" that satan sells people that makes them feel content on the path they're walking through life without God.

An even more insidious illusion lies within the self-delusions of blind faith, (especially in some vaguely indeterminate "god").  Throughout history, such self-righteous delusions have been more detrimental than any illusions of false comfort which is imagined to be obtained.

Specious and unsupported and unprovable.

---

Conversely, few have bothered to respond to challenges concerning their publically-posted thoughts on prayer or religion.  That's either some kind of cosmic coincidence or, a primal fear of questioning blind faith.

Specious and unsopported and unprovable.

---

What bothers me is if I am praying correctly, if I am praying for the right thing. 

If you're begging, ("praying"), for anything, it's an exercise in futility, (a 'magical evocation' which has no discernable/attributable result), and a moot point.

Specious and unprovable.

I could go on and on with these, but I grabbed but two threads and took a small sampling from within them.  There are multitudes more as everyone would likely know.
 

You called me out onto the battlefield.

Did I or, did your preceding posts call me to battle? "I used to be agnostic and then at some point I was probably an atheist."--'Abrupt', message ID#412773, (long before I posted in 2011).

Wow...that is a bit creepy for you to have held grievance with me for that long and finally loosed it in this thread.  Are there any other old posts gnawing at you that you wish to discuss?  In the event that you misunderstood my meaning, though (and as I suspect), you should have an understanding that I was referring to the classification of atheism as religion and not any long suffering animosity you may have been feeling.

You took the first swing and ended up bloodied on your back ...

What a load of ego-defensive fertilizer.  At no point in our series of exchanges have I even metaphorically "ended up bloodied on [my] back".  Apparently, you're one of those who enjoy claiming 'victory' while in the throes of defeat.  Here's a newsflash for you; your claims have no evidence to back them up, just as you've consistantly failed to provide evidence to support your religious claims.  It's significant that 'only' some the religious adherents on FC are speciously claiming that atheism is a religion, (without providing supporting evidence showing what 'atheistic beliefs' allegedly are).

I dealt with you quite handily here, using your own rules.  You were so challenged by this that you resorted to trying to rationalize disqualifications for my positions for no reasons other than your ignorance of the definitions of certain terms that other definitions were built upon and your equating terms incorrectly to have the same meanings.  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 and also legal rulings and opinions.  You have but a cherry picked definition from a single source and your stubborn insistence that anything other than your single sourced and cherry picked definition is disqualified (and actually arguing at one point that others are disqualified because your specific chosen evidence doesn't agree with them).  Not only have I provided supporting evidence, I have provided more supporting evidence and also the "law of the land".  I never bothered to present these before as I 'believe' to let the person believe in this matter as he will -- and it wasn't until you called me out here by challenging my statement of atheism as a religion by sourcing your cherry picked definition that this battle was started.

You are the one claiming that based upon what I have posted in this thread that unless I cease my points you will be compelled to consider me dishonest.  That is akin to taking your toys and going home because I don't play the game according to your rules.  You cannot imagine any sort of victory by a forced withdrawal from a battlefield, and the fact that you indicate this is your only option is also akin to recognizing and admitting your defeat.  That is why I basically encouraged you to get up, dust of your *bleep*, and get back in the fray because as anyone who has ever been in a fight knows, you inevitably get knocked on your *bleep* from time to time and that doesn't imply it is over by any means.

[Abrupt]

You are incorrect here as that is not how the law works.  The judicial branch does not modify the meaning of a law (even in the sense of 'fairness').  They simply determine the application of the law within its definition.  If the law is unfair it is revised in the legislative branch and not the judicial branch.

If it wasn't modified (or loop-holed), then the man in this case should not have the right to have his little study group due to the actual definition of atheism. I already pointed out the obvious problem with the text you quoted from the case. I do appreciate the correction with jud/leg branch though.

It 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.

I only use the appeal to authority to challenge falcon9's appeal to authority.  You have no complaint about his usage but do about mine, or was that simply oversight?  Regardless I used the exact same appeal to the exact same source he did and found it fitting to qualify my description, surely you did not overlook that?

Since overall we're both using basic and proper definitions, the religious have already jumped in the thread and agreed that it's not a religion, you've been scrounging for technicalities (for pages now), and Falcon9 has just refuted this claim, I have no reason to state that I'm incorrect in my position.

As a caveat to my following reply I will stipulate the usage of terms as I am assuming they are intended by you.  When you say "the religious" I am assuming it to mean those that admit they are religious, and for all others it will mean those who claim not to be religious (regardless of if they are or are not -- and even how I consider them to be).  I am indicating this because I can see this as a clever and tactical 'trap', and if it was then kudos to you as it was well thought out and executed.

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.  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.

I haven't been scrounging for anything and Falcon9 has been unable to refute my positions.  I provided a definition from the same dictionary he utilized as his source and he didn't refute it, he simply showed his ignorance of the terms used in the definition by his erroneous equating and sought to dismiss it as an incorrect definition.

[falcon9]

Atheism does not qualify as a religion since "a - theism" means not theism. "Theism": belief in the existence of a god or gods; specifically, belief in the existence of 'one God' viewed as the creative source of the human race and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world.

Atheism is a type of religion without a deity or supernatural association.  

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.?
[/quote]

"The terms "atheist" (lack of belief in any gods) and "agnostic" (belief in the unknowability of the existence of gods), though specifically contrary to theistic (e.g. Christian, Jewish, and Muslim) religious teachings ...

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

I am aware of your definition and I absolutely agree that it is a definition of religion ...

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.

It doesn't contradict the other definition.  

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

In a thread titled "daily Bible Verse", you posted this reply to a quote:

"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."

That religious speculation has no basis in evidence.  It's not even internally consistant since such a 'blood sacrifice', (or supposed 'martyrdom'), was alledged to 'atone for the sins of man' yet, the one "sacrificed" got to pop back up later like some sort of zombie, (like some sheephearder's thinking he sacrificed a sheep only to have that same sheep pop back up to say "howdy").  Further, the mystical-magical connection between such a 'pseudo-sacrifice' and a religio-magical "redemption" is obscure and without supporting evidence.

You are not 'rejecting' anything.  

The very first sentence of my reply rejects the religious speculation on the basis of there being no evidence to support it.  Your lack of reading comprehension is not my responsibility.

... utilized specious arguments and unsupported and unprovable points to launch your assaults.

False; name the specious arguments used, (since this is your claim and burden of proof).  Name the unsupported points which were supported by lines of reasoning, (again, yours is the burden of proof for making the initial claim).  What "unprovable" points; that religious adherents have no evidence to support their claims?  They don't, do you?

It isn't false because you claim it to be false. 

That's correct; it's false when it's logically demonstrated to be false or, when counter evidence is provided, (not merely because I said so).  This has occurred and that belies your contentions.

I will submit just a few samplings:

While we're being "honest" about prayer -- you can get the same results praying to a jug of milk

Exactly, and this would be just as an efficient use of time spent.

Specious and unprovable.

Incorrect.  Experimental tests have been conducted in which a jug of milk was asked to provide various results - none of which manifested.  Secondly, QoN made the assertion to which I implied that either act would be of equal value in regards to an efficient use of time.  Since there is no evidence attributing such evocation rituals as 'prayer' to discernable results, the onus is on those who do make such specious attributions to 'prove it'.

---

They may think they never sought refuge in "illusions", but if they surely never sought refuge in God then what they settled for actually was an "illusion".  It's the "illusion" that satan sells people that makes them feel content on the path they're walking through life without God.

An even more insidious illusion lies within the self-delusions of blind faith, (especially in some vaguely indeterminate "god").  Throughout history, such self-righteous delusions have been more detrimental than any illusions of false comfort which is imagined to be obtained.

Specious and unsupported and unprovable.

Provable support: The Crusades.  The Inquisition. Various jihads throughout history.  Jonestown.   

---

Conversely, few have bothered to respond to challenges concerning their publically-posted thoughts on prayer or religion.  That's either some kind of cosmic coincidence or, a primal fear of questioning blind faith.

Specious and unsopported and unprovable.

It isn't specious when there aren't many examples, (hence the "few have bothered" part).  The speculation regarding 'primal fear' was just that; based upon the level of defensiveness both you and other religious adherents display when their religious beliefs are questioned/challenged.

---

What bothers me is if I am praying correctly, if I am praying for the right thing. 

If you're begging, ("praying"), for anything, it's an exercise in futility, (a 'magical evocation' which has no discernable/attributable result), and a moot point.

Specious and unprovable.

The burden of proof rests with those who are claiming that 'prayer' achieves a discernably attributible result, not with those who challenge such a contention by noting that no attributible results/evidence for such contentions has been presented.

I could go on and on with these, but I grabbed but two threads and took a small sampling from within them.  

None of your 'samples' supported your contention however, they do indicate your propensity for making empty declarations, (while tacitly insisting that they aren't empty), and then attempting to fill them by making more empty declarations.

In the event that you misunderstood my meaning, though (and as I suspect), you should have an understanding that I was referring to the classification of atheism as religion ...

Several exchanges in which I've disputed, (and refuted), your contention that atheism is a religion, (because it's not, as you dodging the question of 'what are atheisms religious premises and doctrines' and what reference, (beyond a judicial ruling made 'for the purposes of the application of law and not to define what a religion is'), defines atheism specifically as a religion?

I dealt with you quite handily here, using your own rules. 

The "black knight" defense is delusional, however.

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.

[falcon9]

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

Your assertion is inaccurate since your contended position that 'atheism is a religion' rests upon cherry-picked secondary definitions, (while ignoring the primary definitions which specify religious beliefs as integral to being classified as a religion - something atheism lacks).  It also apparently relies upon one court ruling which _treats_ atheism as a "religion" for the purposes of applying anti-discriminatory laws.  This is much like treating a cross-dresser as a woman; few would contend that a guy in a dress is a female.

I provided a definition from the same dictionary he utilized as his source and he didn't refute it, he simply showed his ignorance of the terms used in the definition by his erroneous equating and sought to dismiss it as an incorrect definition.

On the contrary, not only do numerous exchanges show the refutation, (that atheism, being not theism, is also not a religious belief -- this conclusion does not rest upon equating theism with any specific religious belief but, is grounded upon the premise that atheism does not consist of a set of religious beliefs and is therefore not a religion).