It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Here is a thread for you to attack atheism and atheists.

page: 9
6
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 12:36 PM
link   
reply to post by eight bits
 


Seriously, 'reply to' button! It's right up there in the upper right hand corner. It's so quick and easy!


Originally posted by eight bits

So because I pointed out that you were being arrogant in an ethnocentric manner (US law has no bearing on the rest of the world) ...

The United States Supreme Court does, however, comprise members in good standing of the worldwide English speaking community. How they use English words provides bona fide attested instances of usage.


So argument from authority?



Attested instances are the only basis for discussing natural language word meaning.


No, they aren't, especially when you're having a philosophical discourse over the meanings of words.



Human beings finding or not finding a proposition obvious is the only test of obviousness.


Child: "Can god make a rock so heavy he can't lift it?"

A child finding an obvious flaw in a religious proclamation.



Do you see a pattern in why your objections in this thread consistently miss their mark?


I've just realized that I lost the significant amount of respect I had for you as a user. You keep making these inane and pointless accusations that my objections miss their mark without demonstrating that this is so. Then you participate in insanely dishonest behavior like what I'm about to point out.




... you were being arrogant ...and ignorant

And, of course, when you are unable to persuade, there is always argumentum ad hominem, something which that course of yours taught you only too well.

(underline added)

It's insanely ironic that you're accusing me of a logical fallacy when you're participating in a quote mine.


Originally posted by madnessinmysou
So because I pointed out that you were being arrogant in an ethnocentric manner (US law has no bearing on the rest of the world) and ignorant (Constitutional rulings in the US Supreme Court do not constitute rulings on facts), I'm a sore loser?


The parts in bold are what you left out. I explained the arrogance and the ignorance, it's not a personal attack when it's a demonstration. The labels came as a consequence of the reasoning, not as the sole arguments. An ad hominem attack is when the character of the individual is being said to have bearing on the statements. In this case the arrogance and ignorance have no bearing on what the individual said, they're merely labels provided due to the demonstration of such traits.

The statements were shown as wrong on their own, I just decided to point out ignorance and arrogance where I saw it. The statements themselves are arrogant and ignorant.

Hell, you're engaging in a snide attack on me in the midst of accusing me of a personal attack (this attack can be found underlined).



And, as you remind us without ceasing, in Latin, too. But you do much better in English:


Attack arguments, not people.

Good advice. You should consider taking it as well as giving it.




Circle.
Note to community: See the difference between telling someone that he is in the process of losing an argument on a specific point because his arguments are ill-framed, inadmissible or contrary to the standards he demands from others, versus calling that person a loser.


I'm sorry, but my original statement (and since some people don't bother with formatting, I have to dig through the thread to find it):


Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
Ah, ethnocentric arrogance combined with ignoranec! My favorite!


I left the misspelling in there, just to be honest. The original statement I was replying to was this:


Originally posted by SisyphusRide

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
Well, the U.S. Supreme Court was wrong on that. Also, how does American Constitutional law have any bearing on what is or is not truth?

in the USA they happen to be right.


Or, in full:


Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

Originally posted by SisyphusRide

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
Well, the U.S. Supreme Court was wrong on that. Also, how does American Constitutional law have any bearing on what is or is not truth?

in the USA they happen to be right.

Ah, ethnocentric arrogance combined with ignoranec! My favorite!



Ethnocentric arrogance combined with ignorance.




posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 12:38 PM
link   
reply to post by SisyphusRide
 


This statement is kind of silly and arrogant. I objected to your points, I demonstrated why I disagree with them and did so very well...and then you just say I'm getting upset? I'm calm. I'm collected. Hell, I'm kind of happy when people use logical fallacies, it means that they have nothing better to do.



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 02:43 PM
link   
Madness, on the methodological issue, huff and puff to your heart's content. Demonstrating that a word has been used in a certain way by an educated native speaker is the ordinary and usual way to establish that the word has the meaning in question. It is competent rebuttal. Since words have no meaning except how they are used and understood by speakers of the language, it is the only effective rebuttal.

As to the substance of the dispute, sometimes it is useful to describe atheism as a religion, just as there are other times when it is useful to describe the category of religion as excluding atheism. It is permissible to use any word figuratively, and always admissible to consider in what ways something is similar or dissimilar to other things, such as things securely within some category.

As to your claims about your opponent, under no circumstances are you permitted to demean another poster's character or mentality. It makes no difference why you think your victim is arrogant or ignorant. Your victim's character and mentality would make no difference even if you were factually correct about them.

If what an arrogant and ignorant person says is false, then you may demonstrate the falsehood of what they say while confining your remarks to what the person has said. If you do otherwise, then you commit the rhetorical faults of ad hominem argument, and simple irrelevancy.

That's something you claim to know, but you frequently behave as if you do not know.

Bogomil, here's how it works. If you have a T&C complaint, like name-calling or thread derailment, then you take it up with a moderator. I will not be drawn into a debate with you about it.



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 03:46 PM
link   
reply to post by eight bits
 


You wrote:

["Bogomil, here's how it works. If you have a T&C complaint, like name-calling or thread derailment, then you take it up with a moderator."]


Oh, Nonono.

I'm not playing any silly games on your rules. YOUR black/white situation with options of calling in moderators or NOT, is YOUR semantic trap.

Quote: ["I will not be drawn into a debate with you about it."]


Didn't you just do that?

In spite of all your eagerness to demonstrate your philosophical proficiency, you nonetheless chose to concentrate on semantic quibbling on one flexible word.

INSTEAD of following up the really relevant direction of Duhem's philosophy of science/epistemology (initially introduced by you), which I answered to and offered constructive comments to.

If you choose scholastic, and ignore relevant and legitimate information, it reflects on you in a broad context. Not only in your answers to me.



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 04:42 PM
link   
reply to post by eight bits
 


You're still missing the damn point! I'm not even going to have to argue methodology, as the US Supreme Court rules on Constitutional Law in the United States of America. Aside from the fact that there has never been a declared atheist on the Supreme Court (or in any higher office than House of Reps), they're ruling on the legal definition of what an atheist is, not on the philosophical issue. They're dealing with how atheists should be treated legally, and the ruling was that they are to be treated in the same manner as religious individuals for the sake of maintaining the equal protection clause.

Atheism is not a religion. It is definitively not a religion as it has no set of beliefs. It has a single rejection of a single concept, that of a deity.

As for me having a 'victim', please stop with this dishonest bovine fecal matter. You quote mined me and somehow I have a victim? I already showed you that you snipped out the parts of my statement where the arrogance and ignorance were results of deliberation, not the reasons for which the statements in question were false.

Hell, I only called the user arrogant because I proved that the statement was arrogant in an ethnocentric manner and then I called the person ignorant because that individual displayed ignorance which I also demonstrated. My argument would have stood perfectly well if you had replaced all instances of the use of the words "arrogant" and "ignorant" as adjectives where the user's name was the target of the adjective rather than the statements that the user was making.

Of course, you are dragging this thread off topic. You're attempting to demolish my character by using such heated language as 'victim' all while putting forward a demonstrably false argument that I have shown was based on quote mining.

Please, go scurry off into a thread where such ignorance is allowed, I'm not going to tolerate the derailment of this thread for the sake of character assassination (which is ironic when you consider that you're attempting to demean my character by accusing me of citing poor character in others as an argument against them, which I demonstrably never did).



posted on Feb, 20 2011 @ 05:57 PM
link   
Madness, I know what the United States Supreme Court is. What it is that is relevant to our current discussion is a group of nine (usually native) speakers of English with earned doctorates using the English language for publication, in the course of their profession. So, if the court uses a word in a certain way, then that is dispositive evidence that educated native speakers of English sometimes use the word in that way. 'Cause that's what happened.

It does not mean that the word is always used in that way. It does not prevent you personally from using the word in some other way, nor compel you personally to use the word the way the court used the word. But it does tell you, and everyone else, one sense in which the word is actually used in English.

This would be true if the jurisdiction of the nine people in question were the Island of Guernsey or the British Commonwealth entire. The goal of the court, in all cases, would be to use the English language in such a way as to make themselves understood by other people who also speak English. It would also be true if the nine people in question weren't a court, but some other professional group, such as a committee of speech writers deciding what religious persuasions some dignitary might mention in welcoming or inaugural remarks.

So, there is nothing about the example that depends on the source being a court, or if a court, what the jurisdiction of that court may be, so long as both speakers and audience are using English. You claim of "ethnocentricity," then, fails.

There is no philosophical issue surrounding what English words mean. You can have a special or local meaning for any word by agreement of the participants in a discussion. My sense is that you didn't achieve such an agreement in this discussion. So, you're stuck with the common meanings in the language.

But you know, while you're tossing around your philosophical expertise and insisting on philosophical standards of argumentation, here's a hitch. In philosophical discourse, not only do you refrain from rebutting a weaker argument than your opponent made ("straw man"), but you accept the higher standard of rebutting only the best argument for your opponent's position of which you can conceive - whether your opponent actually made the argument or not.

So, for example, if your opponent really does make an ethnocentric argument, then you rehabilitate the argument by removing the ethnocentric aspect (for example, as I did by considering courts of varied jurisdiction), and then you answer the repaired and defect-free version.

It's a very high standard. That's why it's laughing out loud funny when you brag about your devotion to "philosophical" standards while writing the way you do about your fellow members on ATS. Real philosophers don't. They behave civilly, as even mere members of ATS are supposed to, but you very often do not.

On other matters arising, if you say something, then what you say will be commented upon. If you say it in a published posting, then you're on the hook for it. Story ends. The entire verbatim record of the thread is available to anybody who cares. If you feel you have been quoted "out of context," then there is the context for you to discuss. If you feel you have been quoted "selectively," then there is the entirety of your production for you to display.

It is not possible to "quote mine" here. That should give you some comfort.

Finally, I see you're playing the T&C card. Please see my replies to bogomil for instructions on how you might proceed.

-

edit on 20-2-2011 by eight bits because: typos



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 01:49 PM
link   
reply to post by eight bits
 


Sigh...

It's still an ethnocentric argument from authority. Hell, it's still a purely legal definition with regards to the equal protection clause even if it isn't an ethnocentric argument from authority.

Legal definitions may rely on use of the English language in a clear way...for legal matters. We're not debating law here. Hell, the Supreme Court isn't always that clear on definitions, just see how they defined pornography.

Now, if you want to cite a Supreme Court decision in which they define what atheism is, we can talk, but if you're going to take it as fact that the Supreme Court has X definition because a poster says that what they said, I won't participate in such ignorance.

You can go ahead and do that and explain to me why that definition does or does not have merit. I'm not going to simply accept it because some old American people said so.

And I did provide citation for how you quoted me out of context. Hell, you took 6 words out of 44 in a selectively edited manner to make it seem like I was participating in an ad hominem attack when I clearly defined why the aforementioned actions were both arrogant and ignorant within the 38 words you excluded.

Quote mining is reprehensible.



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 02:45 PM
link   
Madness, nobody is asking you to use a word any way that you don't want to use it. And you, in your turn, lack the authority to prevent anyone else from using a word as they want to.

The poster is a member of the English speaking community. If he decides he likes the way another speaker has used a word, then he is fully entitled to do likewise.

You don't have to follow suit, but you don't have a vote in how others use words.

As to your other comment, you called an opponent arrogant and ignorant. That is an ad hominem attack. You did it, and I called you on it. Your disagreement is noted, with thanks.



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 03:15 PM
link   
reply to post by eight bits
 



Originally posted by eight bits
Madness, nobody is asking you to use a word any way that you don't want to use it. And you, in your turn, lack the authority to prevent anyone else from using a word as they want to.


I'm not claiming authority, I'm claiming a valid argument for its use.



The poster is a member of the English speaking community. If he decides he likes the way another speaker has used a word, then he is fully entitled to do likewise.


Yes, people are fully entitled to be wrong, they just aren't entitled to claim that they are right. And I only say that this person is wrong for one reason: I can demonstrate it.



You don't have to follow suit, but you don't have a vote in how others use words.


I never claimed that I do.



As to your other comment, you called an opponent arrogant and ignorant.


I did no such thing. I said "You were being"
I labelled an action as arrogant and ignorant. I explained why I claimed such actions were arrogant and ignorant. I did not call my opponent arrogant, I did not claim that my opponent was ignorant.



That is an ad hominem attack.


An ad hominem attack is when you place the bearing of a statement upon the character of the individual responsible for the statement. I claimed that the person in question was arrogant and ignorant based upon the content of their post, I did not claim that the validity of the post was in question due to the arrogance or ignorance of the user.

Learn to logical fallacies.



You did it, and I called you on it. Your disagreement is noted, with thanks.


Your lies are noted, with thanks.



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 04:16 PM
link   
madness


I'm not claiming authority, I'm claiming a valid argument for its use.

Well, that's good, because what I was telling you is that you didn't have any authority. So we're in agreement about that.

The poster doesn't need your permission to assert that atheism is a religion. He doesn't need to furnish you with a "valid argument for its use," either.

He uses the phrase at his own risk, and he is understood or he is not.

I understood him just fine. Obviously, others would, too, since he furnished an attested instance of that usage. Your recourse is to disagree. You did. And that's pretty much all there is to say about that story.


Yes, people are fully entitled to be wrong, they just aren't entitled to claim that they are right.

Actually, they are, madness. Your first hint might have been that the fellow did it.

No sweat, you get to disagree. Oh, wait. We've already covered that.


An ad hominem attack is when you place the bearing of a statement upon the character of the individual responsible for the statement.

No, that's an ad hominem argument. What I just said you did was an ad hominem attack. Those, too, are excluded from philosophical discourse.



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 06:13 PM
link   
reply to post by eight bits
 



Originally posted by eight bits
The poster doesn't need your permission to assert that atheism is a religion. He doesn't need to furnish you with a "valid argument for its use," either.


I disagree. When someone makes the claim "atheism is a religion" and someone raises an objection to this claim with valid justification the person should only continue to assert "atheism is a religion" if they have a valid justification of equal or greater validity.



He uses the phrase at his own risk, and he is understood or he is not.




I understood him just fine.


I understood him too, he was spouting off an ignorant point.



Obviously, others would, too, since he furnished an attested instance of that usage.


Actually, he claimed that the Supreme Court defined atheism as a religion. No ruling was referenced, no citation furnished.



Your recourse is to disagree. You did. And that's pretty much all there is to say about that story.


And my disagreement is logically valid and his statement is logically invalid. What's left to say is one person is right and the other is wrong.




Yes, people are fully entitled to be wrong, they just aren't entitled to claim that they are right.

Actually, they are, madness. Your first hint might have been that the fellow did it.


I said they aren't entitled. Nobody is entitled to claim that being wrong is right when someone has shown them otherwise.




An ad hominem attack is when you place the bearing of a statement upon the character of the individual responsible for the statement.

No, that's an ad hominem argument. What I just said you did was an ad hominem attack. Those, too, are excluded from philosophical discourse.


I'm sorry, but I didn't insult the individual either. I clearly stated that...wait, didn't I just do this? Didn't you just ignore this.


Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
I did no such thing. I said "You were being"
I labelled an action as arrogant and ignorant. I explained why I claimed such actions were arrogant and ignorant. I did not call my opponent arrogant, I did not claim that my opponent was ignorant.



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 08:01 PM
link   
madness


I disagree. When someone makes the claim "atheism is a religion" and someone raises an objection to this claim with valid justification the person should only continue to assert "atheism is a religion" if they have a valid justification of equal or greater validity.

Great. That's your view. Thank you for sharing. But even you don't seriously expect anybody who disagrees with you to alter their behavior because you disagree with them.


I understood him too, he was spouting off an ignorant point.

It would help if you invested in a thesaurus. You overuse "ignorant" and "arrogant." You need new words to express your disapproval of someone who has a different opinion from yours.


Actually, he claimed that the Supreme Court defined atheism as a religion. No ruling was referenced, no citation furnished.

Then U2U him if you doubt his report. Not much point complaining to me about it, especially not after you have explained at such length why it won't change your mind.


And my disagreement is logically valid and his statement is logically invalid. What's left to say is one person is right and the other is wrong.

So you say. But since it's a matter of opinion, not of "logic," and there's diversity of opinion about which person is right, it'll probably remain unresolved for a while.


I said they aren't entitled. Nobody is entitled to claim that being wrong is right when someone has shown them otherwise.

When did you ever show him that he was wrong? You showed him that you held a different opinion from his. No doubt that explains why you were arguing with one another in the first place.


I did no such thing. I said "You were being"
I labelled an action as arrogant and ignorant. I explained why I claimed such actions were arrogant and ignorant. I did not call my opponent arrogant, I did not claim that my opponent was ignorant.



So because I pointed out that you were being arrogant in an ethnocentric manner (US law has no bearing on the rest of the world) and ignorant

"Were being" is the progessive past tense of the verb to be.


I claimed that the person in question was arrogant and ignorant ...

Well, with luck, we've sorted that out.



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 10:40 PM
link   
reply to post by eight bits
 



Originally posted by eight bits
madness


I disagree. When someone makes the claim "atheism is a religion" and someone raises an objection to this claim with valid justification the person should only continue to assert "atheism is a religion" if they have a valid justification of equal or greater validity.

Great. That's your view. Thank you for sharing. But even you don't seriously expect anybody who disagrees with you to alter their behavior because you disagree with them.


Nope, only when I show them that they're wrong. I expect myself to alter my behavior when others show me that I'm wrong. If someone demonstrates to me that I was wrong about something I do my best to make sure I don't repeat that something.




I understood him too, he was spouting off an ignorant point.

It would help if you invested in a thesaurus.


Hey, look, a personal attack!



You overuse "ignorant" and "arrogant." You need new words to express your disapproval of someone who has a different opinion from yours.


Yep, personal attack. You know, personal attacks come in forms beyond simple name calling.

Here's the difference, note my use of language "ignorant point". Note your statement "You need new words to express your disapproval...etc"

You are attacking me, I'm referencing a point. And why should I use different words? We're still talking about the same damn point. Best not to confuse things.

Clarity is always the best policy in public discourse. I could be far more verbose if I so wish though this would be an entirely unnecessary as it would render my aforementioned points of discourse irrelevant.

I don't need a damn thesaurus.




Actually, he claimed that the Supreme Court defined atheism as a religion. No ruling was referenced, no citation furnished.

Then U2U him if you doubt his report.


So, we're having a public discourse, but I should voice my objections privately?

What can I say to that? Oh, I know: pffffffft

Yes, I'm openly mocking your claim that I need a thesaurus there. It was a very silly claim and a personal attack. Odd that you keep accusing me of the same thing you keep doing to me...there...there must be words to describe this. Maybe I need a dictionary too?



Not much point complaining to me about it, especially not after you have explained at such length why it won't change your mind.


I said it won't change it's mind in the vacuum of "It's a Supreme Court decision". If the ruling provides a cogent argument proving me wrong, I'll gladly change my mind. Hell, if a minority opinion from a Supreme Court ruling does the same, I'll still change my mind.




And my disagreement is logically valid and his statement is logically invalid. What's left to say is one person is right and the other is wrong.

So you say. But since it's a matter of opinion, not of "logic," and there's diversity of opinion about which person is right, it'll probably remain unresolved for a while.


Except when it isn't. One side has an argument, the other side doesn't.




I said they aren't entitled. Nobody is entitled to claim that being wrong is right when someone has shown them otherwise.

When did you ever show him that he was wrong?


Several times. Hell, I've explained why atheism isn't a religion more times than I can remember. Atheism is a single lack of belief, this does not constitute a religion. There is no structure.

If atheism is no a religion, then thinking that a deity has a specific name is even more so a religion as it is a single belief about a specific deity.



You showed him that you held a different opinion from his. No doubt that explains why you were arguing with one another in the first place.


Wow, you're ever the master of the use of the obvious with intent.




I did no such thing. I said "You were being"
I labelled an action as arrogant and ignorant. I explained why I claimed such actions were arrogant and ignorant. I did not call my opponent arrogant, I did not claim that my opponent was ignorant.



So because I pointed out that you were being arrogant in an ethnocentric manner (US law has no bearing on the rest of the world) and ignorant

"Were being" is the progessive past tense of the verb to be.


Don't give me an English lesson, I actually get paid to give thsoe. "Were being" relates to a state of being, but within context (which you so love to leave out) I was clearly referring to my labeling of prior statements as ignorant and (ethnocentrically) arrogant. Within context I was referring to the action of those statements.

But, you don't care about honesty and context, so why should I bother? I mean, you even failed to add the bit in parentheses after 'and ignorant', acting as if the claim is attached to the user rather than the statement.

But hey, I must not recognize the usage of language here. Man, I need to get a general grammar book too.





I claimed that the person in question was arrogant and ignorant ...

Well, with luck, we've sorted that out.


Like this. I did mistakenly type this, what I meant to say is "if". By the time I noticed the mistake the edit timer had run out.

I'm working on a paper and taking the time out of my all-nighter to respond to you. You should at least have the decency to be honest and not selectively quote. Within the context I'm clearly talking about ad hominem arguments.

So...go douse your trousers. Or should I demonstrate less vocabulary?

That means I'm going to have to get myself a thesaurus, dictionary, and general grammar book.
edit on 21/2/11 by madnessinmysoul because: missed something.



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 10:46 PM
link   
eight bits

One last note on the issue of ad hominems, because this is all I'm going to give it. You think I've participated in an attack: why didn't you report me?

Why am I saying this? Well, wasn't this your advice to another user who complained about ad hominem attacks? Can you not take your own advice?

We've gone off topic, I've shown that you've been deliberately misquoting me, and that you're guilty of hypocrisy via your repeated ad hominem attacks against myself in the midst of attempting to shame me for what you perceive are attacks.

Now you're also guilty of not following your own advice.

Give up this off topic tangent you seem to be stressing.



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 06:58 AM
link   

One last note on the issue of ad hominems, because this is all I'm going to give it. You think I've participated in an attack: why didn't you report me?

I was not the target of your attack. I have no way of knowing whether or not your victim made a report. I have no role to play in that aspect of the problem.


Why am I saying this? Well, wasn't this your advice to another user who complained about ad hominem attacks? Can you not take your own advice?

The other user falsely claimed three T&C violations. The earliest of those was name calling. I answered that in a posting, since the facts were simple and arguably on-topic. Later, when the user made a second false accusation, less categorical and unrelated to the topic, I advised the poster to pursue the matter with someone who could grant him relief.


Give up this off topic tangent you seem to be stressing.

Put aside the irony of an atheist claiming that it is off-topic for him to be confronted civilly in a thread which invites attacks on atheists. The issue you raised with the other poster and with me was that you felt you entitled to a particular kind and style of argumentation from that poster.

The basis of your complaint was, ultimately, your understanding of the norms of philosophical discourse. In rebuttal, among other things, I pointed out that you have not adhered, even minimally, to the standards which you demand that others observe.

There is a Latin name for that, too.

The poster carried his point within the norms actually prevailing in your thread, within your norms as revealed in your behavior here. His point was on-topic, and defending the adequacy of his presentation of the point is on-topic, too. That is especially so after the original poster of the thread disputed both the point and the adequacy of its presentation.



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 07:36 AM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 



Actually, he claimed that the Supreme Court defined atheism as a religion. No ruling was referenced, no citation furnished.


Hope that Citation helps you with your dispute with the person who made that claim. I am not sure if he/she referring to that, but there was a decision about it.

Source

In the United States, atheism is considered equivalent to religion under the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause. In August 2005 the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed previous Supreme Court precedent[12] by ruling atheism was equivalent to a religion for 1st amendment purposes.[13][14] The plaintiff in the case was a prison inmate who was blocked by prison officials from creating an inmate group to study and discuss atheism. The court ruled this violated the inmate's rights under the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause.



There are also online churches that have been created by atheists for purposes ranging from parody, advocacy, education, securing legal rights, to ordaining atheist clergy for atheist weddings.


Here is the First Church of Atheism.

As a legally ordained minister, you will be able to perform weddings, funerals, commitment ceremonies, and other functions that are reserved for members of clergy.


Hope that helps.

Peace



edit on 22-2-2011 by Seed76 because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-2-2011 by Seed76 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 10:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Seed76
 


Um...the source for the Wikipedia entry by the Atheist Experience's own Matt Dillahunty actually cites a line from the decision:


"... whether atheism is a 'religion' for First Amendment purposes is a somewhat different question than whether its adherents believe in a supreme being, or attend regular devotional services, or have a sacred Scripture."


Source

Notice how 'religion' is put in quotation marks? Notice how it's only a religion for First Amendment purposes? It's the securing of a right due to the linguistic structure of the Constitution, not a statement of fact.

I tell this to people all the time, read over your sources and their citations within them and you might just avoid such contradictions. It saves us all time and embarrassment.

I'd also like to point out that Dillahunty clearly points out how the 7th circuit court got things wrong in places. And guess what? The court doesn't get to be right on all of its statements because it's a court. It gets to be right on all of its legal statements unless overruled by a higher court, but it doesn't get to be right on factual or philosophical matters/


And the 'First Church of Atheism' was already cited in this thread, but I don't see how it proves atheism is a religion. I don't even see how this organization can be considered a religion as atheism lacks a belief structure and set of regulating norms.



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 10:46 AM
link   
madness


I'd also like to point out that Dillahunty clearly points out how the 7th circuit court got things wrong in places. And guess what? The court doesn't get to be right on all of its statements because it's a court. It gets to be right on all of its legal statements unless overruled by a higher court, but it doesn't get to be right on factual or philosophical matters

So what? The issue before us is not United States First Amendment law. There is no dispute about that.

The issue before us is whether, in English, atheism has sometimes been described as and understood to be a religion by educated native speakers of English.

The Supreme Court lacks the authority to instruct the Seventh Circuit about English grammar, usage and diction. That would be something you and the Supreme Court have in common.

The Supreme Court does not aspire to instuct the Seventh Circuit about English grammar, usage and diction. That would be something you and the Supreme Court have as a difference.
edit on 22-2-2011 by eight bits because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 10:47 AM
link   
reply to post by eight bits
 



Originally posted by eight bits
I was not the target of your attack. I have no way of knowing whether or not your victim made a report. I have no role to play in that aspect of the problem.


Poisoning the well. The use of the term 'victim' in a place where 'victim' is not an applicable term as I have repeatedly demonstrated to demonize me.

So do as I say, not as I do?




Why am I saying this? Well, wasn't this your advice to another user who complained about ad hominem attacks? Can you not take your own advice?

The other user falsely claimed three T&C violations. The earliest of those was name calling. I answered that in a posting, since the facts were simple and arguably on-topic. Later, when the user made a second false accusation, less categorical and unrelated to the topic, I advised the poster to pursue the matter with someone who could grant him relief.


Well, you're making some demonstrably false claims as well, which is why I'm at this recourse. I've demonstrated that they're fallacious claims and that you're actually participating in that which you're accusing me.




Give up this off topic tangent you seem to be stressing.

Put aside the irony of an atheist claiming that it is off-topic for him to be confronted civilly in a thread which invites attacks on atheists.


...we're discussing what is going on in the thread rather than discussing something in the thread, that's just off-topic in any instance once it gets to a certain point.



The issue you raised with the other poster and with me was that you felt you entitled to a particular kind and style of argumentation from that poster.


I'm not saying you can't continue that aspect of discussion, merely the ad hominem stuff because it's frankly off-topic and something that should be dealt with in moderation



The basis of your complaint was, ultimately, your understanding of the norms of philosophical discourse. In rebuttal, among other things, I pointed out that you have not adhered, even minimally, to the standards which you demand that others observe.


Except that you didn't point out anything except for a few posts that you took entirely out of context, in the first instance removing 90% of the words in my statement to prove your (false) point.



There is a Latin name for that, too.


Latin's a big language. Hell of a corpse.

Honestly, I'm done posting for a reason, and I'm going to just call you out on it: hypocrisy. You have engaged in some half dozen unwarranted attacks on my character in the midst of attempting to distort my words to make it seems as if I've attacked the character of another user. This action is referred to as hypocrisy.

I'm not going to bother responding to the rest of your post as you see it fit to just randomly ignore points of mine, might as well use your norms for discourse.



posted on Feb, 22 2011 @ 12:27 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 

madness whether atheism is "Lack of belief in a Deity/Deities" or "Belief in the non-existence of Deity/Deities" in real life makes no difference at all.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________


I tell this to people all the time, read over your sources and their citations within them and you might just avoid such contradictions. It saves us all time and embarrassment.

You are accusing me that i am not reading over the source and citations, and yet you fail to post the whole thing.(taken from the wiki citations)
Source

"[W]hether atheism is a 'religion' for First Amendment purposes is a somewhat different question than whether its adherents believe in a supreme being, or attend regular devotional services, or have a sacred Scripture. The Supreme Court has said that a religion, for purposes of the First Amendment, is distinct from a 'way of life,' even if that way of life is inspired by philosophical beliefs or other secular concerns. See Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 215-16, 92 S.Ct. 1526, 32 L.Ed.2d 15 (1972)."


Notice how 'religion' is put in quotation marks? Notice how it's only a religion for First Amendment purposes?

Which is exactly what the source says that i cited previously:

In the United States, atheism is considered equivalent to religion under the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause.

Beside that i have also stated : "I am not sure if he/she referring to that, but there was a decision about it."

In August 2005 the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed previous Supreme Court precedent[12] by ruling atheism was equivalent to a religion for 1st amendment purposes.


And the 'First Church of Atheism' was already cited in this thread, but I don't see how it proves atheism is a religion. I don't even see how this organization can be considered a religion as atheism lacks a belief structure and set of regulating norms.

I think that might help you a bit. Also taken from the citations from the wikipedia.
Source

Atheism was Kaufman's religion, and the group that he wanted to start was religious in nature even though it expressly rejects a belief in a supreme being. As he explained in his application, the group wanted to study freedom of thought, religious beliefs, creeds, dogmas, tenets, rituals, and practices, all presumably from an atheistic perspective.

That is the definition of a church for the practice of understanding it. The First Free Church of Atheism exists for the study of freedom of thought, religious beliefs, creeds, dogmas, tenets, rituals, and practices, all from an atheistic perspective.


_____________________________________________________________________________________________




Peace



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join