Do you believe in God?

[Joey D]

Because they equate religion with faith - which atheism does not require.

I can understand that but religion =! faith all of the time. To my understanding Atheism is an atheistic religion, meaning it's a set of beliefs without a deity to worship. It's still a set of beliefs.

 

[Danoff]

I can understand that but religion =! faith all of the time. To my understanding Atheism is an atheistic religion, meaning it's a set of beliefs without a deity to worship. It's still a set of beliefs.

Depends on how you're using the term "belief". It's a tricky subject. Legally, I think atheism has to be treated as a religion. Philosophically they can be different.

 

[Joey D]

Depends on how you're using the term "belief". It's a tricky subject. Legally, I think atheism has to be treated as a religion. Philosophically they can be different.

Atheism has beliefs though, if it didn't you'd be able to prove to me and everyone else that there is no supernatural entity watching over all of us. Do I personally believe Atheism is more correct then Theism? Sure, but I still can't say beyond a shadow of a doubt there is no supernatural being because truthfully I don't know. I would like to know one way or another though.

 

[Shokz]

Having beliefs and being religious are two different things - as you can see from your quote of the dictionary, "atheism" doesn't follow much of the definition of religion and therefore it shouldn't be classified as one. If i can use an analogy to explain, it's sort of like saying grass is green and therefore lettuce is a type of grass because it's also green - just because something fits a part of a definition, doesn't mean that the whole definition can be applied... Anyway, i'd say i'm an atheistic agnostic if that makes any sense to you

 

[Joey D]

Having beliefs and being religious are two different things - as you can see from your quote of the dictionary, "atheism" doesn't follow much of the definition of religion and therefore it shouldn't be classified as one. If i can use an analogy to explain, it's sort of like saying grass is green and therefore lettuce is a type of grass because it's also green - just because something fits a part of a definition, doesn't mean that the whole definition can be applied... Anyway, i'd say i'm an atheistic agnostic if that makes any sense to you

Except Atheism has beliefs about why and how we are here. Which fits the definition of a religion. Yes I can believe that all Corvettes are red but it doesn't make it a philosophical belief. Believing that we followed a course of mere random chance to get to where we are today seems like a pretty big thing to believe in.

 

[Danoff]

Atheism can be more of a conclusion. The conclusion that you lack the evidence necessary for a belief. That's not a belief, but reason.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

I don't see how it does. If Atheism is not a religion, then the government is free to engage in as much atheistic promotion as it chooses and can even compel you to engage in atheist activities. In fact, given your own narrow interpretation of the first amendment, you're allowing the government to completely eradicate religion.

Here's the law:

No citizen shall engage in any religious practice and shall be required to adhere to atheist traditions and beliefs.


Now, you'd say:

"The government shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion."

...and I'd use your own reasoning to say that this law is not establishing a religion (by your own definition of it).

This is the correct wording of the religion clauses:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

If they passed the law you are suggesting it would violate the free expression side.

 

[Danoff]

This is the correct wording of the religion clauses:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

If they passed the law you are suggesting it would violate the free expression side.

Point taken. The law I proposed is actually unconstitutional for lots of reasons including most of the rest of the first and 9th amendments.

But you didn't take my point - which was that by classifying atheism as a non-religion, you are enabling Atheism to become adopted and endorsed by the government. Would you enjoy seeing "There is No God" on your dollar bill? How about seeing a rejection of the Bible displayed in every courthouse? How about a national bible-burning day (voluntary of course). Or a law requiring companies to observe "Godless Day" - the national celebration of Atheism?

I could literally go on and on. Are you seeing my point?

 

[Shokz]

We don't seem to have this problem in the UK, or at least i don't think i've come across it... Why can't the US separate religion and state?

I know of a few people that wouldn't have voted for Barack Obama if he wasn't a Christian - yet over here religion seems to matter far less - i don't even know the religious beliefs of Gordon Brown.

 

[Duke]

OK, if its not a religion, how can the religious clauses apply to it.

Can you PLEASE come up with some other line of reasoning? Because this wall of purposeful ignorance is completely non-constructive. Laws do not only apply to people who believe in them.

Flip the coin and tell me how you feel: Say the money said "There Is No God" on the back. How would you feel? Since you believe it God, it just shouldn't apply to you. Right?

And are you planning on answering any of my previous post?

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Point taken. The law I proposed is actually unconstitutional for lots of reasons including most of the rest of the first and 9th amendments.

But you didn't take my point - which was that by classifying atheism as a non-religion, you are enabling Atheism to become adopted and endorsed by the government. Would you enjoy seeing "There is No God" on your dollar bill? How about seeing a rejection of the Bible displayed in every courthouse? How about a national bible-burning day (voluntary of course). Or a law requiring companies to observe "Godless Day" - the national celebration of Atheism?

I could literally go on and on. Are you seeing my point?

I see your point and under the way the clauses are written that is a real fear for some people and somewhat of a quandary classifying Atheism since it is apparently not a belief in anything.
That is why there are those who support a neutral approach to or complete absence of any references or aknowledgements by the government.
However I don't think this can prevent the possibility of what your saying from happening.
For the time being I was interested in seeing how and why those claiming it
classified it.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

And I've never asked anyone to not have religion, so don't hand me that BS. But it is being forced on me nonetheless BY THE GOVERNMENT, not by other people freely exercising their own religions.

As far as I'm concerned, you personally are free to talk about God and religion till your heart's content. But the US government is infringing on the free practive of my religious beliefs. That's unconstitutional.



No, frankly, I'm not. You are.

I believe there is no god. I don't want the US government to believe there is no god.

I want the US government to be completely silence on the subject. That's not having them agree or disagree with me.

I'll put it this way: At a minimum, comply with your wishes.
Let me know if they do, I want to talk to em about that tax thing.

Can you PLEASE come up with some other line of reasoning? Because this wall of purposeful ignorance is completely non-constructive. Laws do not only apply to people who believe in them.?

That was based on Famines argument.
I have explained it to you several times, several ways, but you discount it as meritless.
I said a few posts back that we may only be able to agree to disagree.
At this point that appears to be the case.

Flip the coin and tell me how you feel: Say the money said "There Is No God" on the back. How would you feel? Since you believe it God, it just shouldn't apply to you. Right?

And are you planning on answering any of my previous post?

I propably wouldn't like it, but it would not have any effect on what I believe.

 

[Nicksfix]

Legally, I think atheism has to be treated as a religion.

Based on which Diety ?
Every religion has some sort of Diety.

As far as money goes,I personally could care less if "God" is on it and yes, this is coming from a person who does believe in God.There is no reason why Athiests,non-believers,or any sort should have to see this on any form of currency.I feel it is crossing the line and intruding on their rights.

Now,when an Athiest or any non-believer starts bashing on Church buildings and speaking ill words about the building because it bears a Cross,or the word God is being displayed,then that is crossing the line on their part.

Just my .02

 

[Joey D]

Based on which Diety ?
Every religion has some sort of Diety.

Buddhism does not have a deity, Buddhist follow the teachings of a man who actually lived.

Now,when an Athiest or any non-believer starts bashing on Church buildings and speaking ill words about the building because it bears a Cross,or the word God is being displayed,then that is crossing the line on their part.

If it's on a church or private property I see no reason why anyone should complain unless it's violating some sort of law. If you want to have a cross on the front of your house I see no reason why you shouldn't. Now if they want to put up a nativity scene at the town hall or any other public building, then I have a problem with it.

 

[Northstar]

Buddhism does not have a deity, Buddhist follow the teachings of a man who actually lived.



If it's on a church or private property I see no reason why anyone should complain unless it's violating some sort of law. If you want to have a cross on the front of your house I see no reason why you shouldn't. Now if they want to put up a nativity scene at the town hall or any other public building, then I have a problem with it.

Scientology also follows L Ron Hubbard, who was also a living person. Or is it Tom Cruise that they follow, not sure but it's one of those two.

 

[Joey D]

Scientology also follows L Ron Hubbard, who was also a living person. Or is it Tom Cruise that they follow, not sure but it's one of those two.

Technically they believe in Xenu.

 

[Famine]

What? you must have been a sleep at the wheel on this one.

Nnnot really. The question was how you can say that your government does NOT adhere to a religion when it acknowledges the existence of a god.

You responded by complaining about taxes. You didn't answer the question.

OK, if its not a religion, how can the religious clauses apply to it.

As I've said about five times now, zero (equating to NO religion) is the most important number, but it isn't actually a number (where number equates to religion).

Having NO religion is just as valid a religious outlook as having A religion. Freedom of religion includes having the freedom to have NO religion.

I have no idea what your talking about here.

That's because you're deliberately ignoring it. Let's recap...

You say that having "god" on currency isn't unconstitutional, because it only tramples on the religious freedom of those that don't have a religion. Let's requote you:

"If Duke doesn't have a religion, then he doesn't have a dog in the fight. The religion clause is of no consequence to him unless he gets religion or its ligitimately infringed."

Now, there's a whole bunch of people in the US who have a religion, but have no god. The largest chunk of these will be Buddhists, but there's also Raelians, Taoists, Scientologists (they share a lot with Raelians - no gods, just more powerful aliens) and others.

According to your OWN argument, since these guys have a religion and their religious beliefs do not include a god, any acknowledgement of a god by the Federal government is an infringement of their rights. By your own argument.

Atheism doesn't wholly fit it

I wasn't able to find even a partial fit...

but I would classify Atheism as a religion because an Atheist believes

*bzzt*

This has been covered before, many times and in a couple of threads. Belief is not a requirement of atheism, hence my classification of it as a subset of rationalism.

While I don't doubt that some atheists would believe in things, it's not a requirement and doesn't apply to all atheists. Some muslims believe that if they strap on a bulky waistcoat and immolate themselves in a shop full of non-muslims, they go to heaven with a large number of virgins - it's not a requirement of Islam to believe this and it certainly doesn't apply to all muslims...

Since they don't have a fool proof answer they are still holding a belief.

Come now, you know better than that. We don't have a fool proof answer that explains gravity. Is gravity a belief - and thus a religion - now?

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Nnnot really. The question was how you can say that your government does NOT adhere to a religion when it acknowledges the existence of a god.

You responded by complaining about taxes. You didn't answer the question.?

Yes I did, you were asleep. I'll quote it for you again.

"Because GOD, of the Bible anyway, only requires 10% of my income.
The Feds require much more. Hence forth they put themselves above GOD.
Thats how."

How can the Government, if they are "truly" adhering to the "Deity",(Supreme Being) put themselves above the "Deity" by requiring more than he does?

Duke can take some comfort in the fact that the Government is a "Hypocrite".

Now, that being the case, if anyone here has a legitimate claim on infringement its me. I just presented the first real tangible evidence (by actual deed and action) that the Government is violating my rights under the First Amendment. By tax laws they are truly supplanting my GOD with themselves, and demanding I comply under penalty of such law. I am being forced to pay more to them, than GOD, and therfore serve a higher "Deity", namely the U.S. Government.

As I've said about five times now, zero (equating to NO religion) is the most important number, but it isn't actually a number (where number equates to religion).

Having NO religion is just as valid a religious outlook as having A religion. Freedom of religion includes having the freedom to have NO religion.

OK I see the point your making.

That's because you're deliberately ignoring it. Let's recap...

You say that having "god" on currency isn't unconstitutional, because it only tramples on the religious freedom of those that don't have a religion. Let's requote you:

"If Duke doesn't have a religion, then he doesn't have a dog in the fight. The religion clause is of no consequence to him unless he gets religion or its ligitimately infringed."

Now, there's a whole bunch of people in the US who have a religion, but have no god. The largest chunk of these will be Buddhists, but there's also Raelians, Taoists, Scientologists (they share a lot with Raelians - no gods, just more powerful aliens) and others.

According to your OWN argument, since these guys have a religion and their religious beliefs do not include a god, any acknowledgement of a god by the Federal government is an infringement of their rights. By your own argument.

You are misquoting what I said and misinterpreting what I said and
you are misunderstanding what I said.
This has become confused because of the Atheism is/is not, argument.

My position is; either way, there is no 'Ligitimate" infringement.

 

[Famine]

Yes I did, you were asleep. I'll quote it for you again.

"Because GOD, of the Bible anyway, only requires 10% of my income.
The Feds require much more. Hence forth they put themselves above GOD.
Thats how."

How can the Government, if they are "truly" adhering to the "Deity",(Supreme Being) put themselves above the "Deity" by requiring more than he does?

Tax law is irrelevant to religion - particularly as, and you have gone to great lengths to point out, the specific religion in question is not necessarily Christianity or even your sect thereof.

Why does God want 10% of your income anyway? I've read the Bible. Missed that bit.

You are misquoting what I said and misinterpreting what I said and
you are misunderstanding what I said.
This has become confused because of the Atheism is/is not, argument.

My position is; either way, there is no 'Ligitimate" infringement.

You said that if Duke got religion, it might affect him but since he doesn't have one it doesn't. I've given you four examples now of religions where there is no "god". By your own argument these people are affected and the law becomes unconstitutional.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Tax law is irrelevant to religion - particularly as, and you have gone to great lengths to point out, the specific religion in question is not necessarily Christianity or even your sect thereof.

It is relevant, but for the most part, only on the "Free Expression side".
You could argue that by claiming to be a "Deity" they are establishing a religion, but without more specifics, its pretty weak.

Why does God want 10% of your income anyway? I've read the Bible. Missed that bit.

Its theTithe or from tenth part.
GOD requires that you pay him first, a tenth of your increase or wealth, income, whatever has been added to you.
It is purposed to be used to subsidize the work of the ministry. In the old testament, the levitical, and in the new testament, the gospel.


You said that if Duke got religion, it might affect him but since he doesn't have one it doesn't. I've given you four examples now of religions where there is no "god". By your own argument these people are affected and the law becomes unconstitutional.[/QUOTE]

I already said, either way it doesn't matter, its not unconstitutional. ?

 

[TheCracker]

Its theTithe or from tenth part.
GOD requires that you pay him first, a tenth of your increase or wealth, income, whatever has been added to you.
It is purposed to be used to subsidize the work of the ministry. In the old testament, the levitical, and in the new testament, the gospel.

That's very specific to certain sects of Catholicism and certainly not widely spread throughout the Christian Church.

The United States has never collected a church tax or mandatory tithe on its citizens. Such a tax is likely prohibited by the First Amendment (specifically the Establishment Clause) to the US Constitution.

 

[Famine]

It is relevant, but for the most part, only on the "Free Expression side".

Only if taxation is based on a religious requirement. Which it's not.

You could argue that by claiming to be a "Deity" they are establishing a religion, but without more specifics, its pretty weak.

Wait... who's claiming to BE a deity now?

Its theTithe or from tenth part.
GOD requires that you pay him first, a tenth of your increase or wealth, income, whatever has been added to you.
It is purposed to be used to subsidize the work of the ministry. In the old testament, the levitical, and in the new testament, the gospel.

I'm aware of titheing. I am, after all, from a country where the practice predates the assembly of the current Bible...

But as TheCracker points out, it's a practice specific to certain sects of Christianity and the links between what's actually said in the Bible about tithes and the practice of followers giving a tithe are... tenuous at best.

Since the "god" on your currency isn't specifically named it would be foolhardy to assume that it is the one of Christianity and your sect in particular - which makes your voluntary practice irrelevant in the discussion of taxation, which is itself irrelevant in the discussion at hand, which is:


The law passed to place "IN GOD WE TRUST" on US currency is in contravention of the First Amendment, as it is recognition of a deity which implies whichever religion that unnamed deity is associated with.

The Federal government should not have any opinion on the existence of a god - let alone trust in it.

I already said, either way it doesn't matter, its not unconstitutional. ?

But that isn't what you said earlier. You said that the word "god" is irrelevant to Duke as he doesn't have a religion and his rights can't be infringed because he has no beliefs. These people have a religion and this makes the word "god" relevant to them as they DO have a religion and their rights CAN be infringed because they have beliefs, by your own argument.

 

[dennisw]

i don't believe in god, there is no way he can be real in my eyes, an IF he's real why is there so many war and poor people in the world??

 

[TheCracker]

i don't believe in god, there is no way he can be real in my eyes, an IF he's real why is there so many war and poor people in the world??

Because god moves in mysterious ways

 

[Stevisiov]

Atheism doesn't wholly fit it but I would classify Atheism as a religion because an Atheist believes there is no supernatural entity watching over us. Since they don't have a fool proof answer they are still holding a belief. The only people who I can think of that don't subscribe to a religion are those who classify themselves as "non-religious", those who don't care about anything other then the here and now.

Why do Atheist get all uppity when I say they subscribe to a religion?

Atheism simply means someone does not accept there is a god, no more no less. Proof doesn't even come into it.

If i don't think there is a god I am am an athiest, there really isn't anything which makes that religious.

I would be hesitant to say atheists are non-religious as this is not always the case, not all religions believe in god, therefore they are religious and atheist. Atheist's as the term is generally thought of, is basically saying someone is non-religious.

For example, I am an atheist and I am non-religious, they aren' the same thing, but they often (wrongly) considered as such. I can't see how you can say atheism is a religion, if you could explain that in more detail please.

 

[Joey D]

Prove to me there is no God. You can't. Therefore you believe there isn't a supernatural being watching over you. Just as if I ask someone who's Christian to prove to me there is a God. They can't either. They just believe there is something watching over us. Without proof one way or another you are merely looking at a belief.

Not to mention Atheism provides a philosophical answer to why humans are here and what our purpose is. It also has a method of explaining the unexplainable to a degree. That right there makes it a religion, it's a religion without a deity, prophets, etc. but you still have to subscribe to the groups beliefs if you wish to be apart of it.

Honestly I see very few differences between the fundamentals of Atheism and the fundamentals of Christianity. Both believe in something without proof, both have there own ideas about the universe, and both have followers that subscribe to their ideas. Would you rather me call Atheist a cult?

 

[Danoff]

Prove to me there is no God. You can't.

I'm an Atheist and I can't tell you with 100% certainty that there is no God. I'm an Atheist because I don't believe there is a God, not because I believe there isn't.

Make sense?

 

[Joey D]

I'm an Atheist and I can't tell you with 100% certainty that there is no God. I'm an Atheist because I don't believe there is a God, not because I believe there isn't.

Make sense?

Right but you still believe there is no supernatural being. There is still some sort of belief there because you cannot know for sure. It makes sense yes.

 

[Danoff]

Right but you still believe there is no supernatural being.

No I don't. I don't believe there is, the converse is not implied by that statement.

I don't believe in God != I believe there is no God

(Famine, how do you make the != properly?)

 

[Joey D]

No I don't. I don't believe there is, the converse is not implied by that statement.

I don't believe in God != I believe there is no God

(Famine, how do you make the != properly?)

That makes no sense. You don't believe in a supernatural being, you can't just flat out say "there is no God". Yes you don't believe in a supernatural being, so therefore you believe their nothing else out there. The converse is true.