So Neo, did you know that Atheism is a religion?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Hardly. It's about the only well-founded rational fear they have. One can argue endlessly over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, or whether one group is going to Heaven and another to Hell, but there's no doubt that there is a well-established secular legal attack on religious rights in the U.S. and Europe. France just banned the head scarf for strictly anti-religious socialist reasons. Dawkins would make it a crime for them to pass on their religious beliefs to their children.

You are delusional. Live with it.

[Seth]

Hardly. It's about the only well-founded rational fear they have. One can argue endlessly over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, or whether one group is going to Heaven and another to Hell, but there's no doubt that there is a well-established secular legal attack on religious rights in the U.S. and Europe. France just banned the head scarf for strictly anti-religious socialist reasons. Dawkins would make it a crime for them to pass on their religious beliefs to their children.

You are delusional. Live with it.

Out of rational arguments I see. Predictable.

[Coito ergo sum]

Theists are frightened by people who don't share their delusions.

For very good and rational reasons: Radical Atheists wish to destroy their right to practice their delusions.

More delusions.

Hardly. It's about the only well-founded rational fear they have. One can argue endlessly over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, or whether one group is going to Heaven and another to Hell, but there's no doubt that there is a well-established secular legal attack on religious rights in the U.S. and Europe. France just banned the head scarf for strictly anti-religious socialist reasons. Dawkins would make it a crime for them to pass on their religious beliefs to their children.

Generally speaking, in the US, the battle is against the "right" of the religious to either impose their beliefs on others or maintain a primacy over other beliefs. The atheists are battling for equal rights at the moment, and are hardly concerned with limiting the rights of religious folk, Dawkins notwithstanding. And, the burka ban in France was to protect women, not harm religion.

[Seth]

BTW, Seth, how can refusing beliefs, refusing rites, refusing groupthink, and refusing to establish structures, hierarchies, or any of the trappings and elements of a religion be regarded as religious?

What are the beliefs that lead one to engage in such activities? Are they held and practiced with devotion as a matter of ethics or conscience?

it's not a belief, it's an opinion, that says that the beliefs and practices of the religious are false or a best superfluous.

Um...An "opinion" is an expression of a belief.

o·pin·ion
   /əˈpɪnyən/ [uh-pin-yuhn]
–noun
1. a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.
2. a personal view, attitude, or appraisal.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Hardly. It's about the only well-founded rational fear they have. One can argue endlessly over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, or whether one group is going to Heaven and another to Hell, but there's no doubt that there is a well-established secular legal attack on religious rights in the U.S. and Europe. France just banned the head scarf for strictly anti-religious socialist reasons. Dawkins would make it a crime for them to pass on their religious beliefs to their children.

You are delusional. Live with it.

Out of rational arguments I see. Predictable.

You believe in the Great Sky Fairy and *I'm* out of rational arguments? Delusional.

[Coito ergo sum]

Oh? when did atheists call for repeal or alteration of the first amendment?

Constantly, little by little, using the "Death of a Thousand Cuts" method. How many times has the ACLU sued to prevent any hint of religion in schools,

Never, actually. I'm not a big fan of the ACLU, but their position on free speech and religious freedom is right on. They haven't sued to prevent any hint of religion in schools, but they have sued to prevent religion from being IMPOSED on unwilling recipients.

even when it's not school-sponsored?

Example, please. Religious groups, for example, are permitted to wear t-shirts and jewelry depicting their views, absent a neutrally applied dress code/uniform. And, religious groups are allowed to meet on school grounds when other groups are also allowed to meet on school grounds. What cases are you referring to?

How many times have atheists sued to prevent the erection of Ten Commandments monuments in public parks?

I'm not sure. I know they've sued to prevent the erection of that religious monument in public buildings and courthouses, and rightly so.

How many times have atheist abused zoning laws to exclude churches and religious gatherings?

You tell us. I think hardly ever, if ever. Most towns are run by non-atheists, and religious folk. Churches are not being excluded.

I'll answer that one: Often enough that Congress was compelled to write a federal law, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, just to put a stop to the widespread and pervasive abuse of exclusive zoning laws to oppress and suppress religion.

It goes on and on.

You'll need to provide examples.

[Coito ergo sum]

Hardly. It's about the only well-founded rational fear they have. One can argue endlessly over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, or whether one group is going to Heaven and another to Hell, but there's no doubt that there is a well-established secular legal attack on religious rights in the U.S. and Europe. France just banned the head scarf for strictly anti-religious socialist reasons. Dawkins would make it a crime for them to pass on their religious beliefs to their children.

You are delusional. Live with it.

Out of rational arguments I see. Predictable.

You believe in the Great Sky Fairy and *I'm* out of rational arguments? Delusional.

Actually, I recall Seth mentioning on a different thread that he did not believe in gods, but didn't want to call himself an atheist. He's a fan of the term "nontheist" instead. I don't mean to speak for him, though. Seth? Is that right? You don't believe in gods?

[Seth]

Theists are frightened by people who don't share their delusions.

For very good and rational reasons: Radical Atheists wish to destroy their right to practice their delusions.

More delusions.

Hardly. It's about the only well-founded rational fear they have. One can argue endlessly over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, or whether one group is going to Heaven and another to Hell, but there's no doubt that there is a well-established secular legal attack on religious rights in the U.S. and Europe. France just banned the head scarf for strictly anti-religious socialist reasons. Dawkins would make it a crime for them to pass on their religious beliefs to their children.

Generally speaking, in the US, the battle is against the "right" of the religious to either impose their beliefs on others or maintain a primacy over other beliefs.

Nonsense.

The atheists are battling for equal rights at the moment,

What rights do they not enjoy equally with religionists? I presume you are alluding to their putative "right" to be free from experiencing or observing the free exercise of religion by others. Well, here's a clue: They have no such right.

and are hardly concerned with limiting the rights of religious folk,[/quote[

Sorry, they are constantly interfering or attempting to interfere with the rights of religious folk because they are intolerant gits who think that they have some right to freedom FROM religion, which isn't the case.

And, the burka ban in France was to protect women, not harm religion.

And you believe that shit? It was instituted over the OBJECTIONS of Islamic women, a number of whom have been arrested for defying the ban.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Hardly. It's about the only well-founded rational fear they have. One can argue endlessly over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, or whether one group is going to Heaven and another to Hell, but there's no doubt that there is a well-established secular legal attack on religious rights in the U.S. and Europe. France just banned the head scarf for strictly anti-religious socialist reasons. Dawkins would make it a crime for them to pass on their religious beliefs to their children.

You are delusional. Live with it.

Out of rational arguments I see. Predictable.

You believe in the Great Sky Fairy and *I'm* out of rational arguments? Delusional.

Actually, I recall Seth mentioning on a different thread that he did not believe in gods, but didn't want to call himself an atheist. He's a fan of the term "nontheist" instead. I don't mean to speak for him, though. Seth? Is that right? You don't believe in gods?

Even more delusional if he doesn't believe in gods and castigates atheists. Of course I don't think he's lying about the god thing, he would never do that.

[Svartalf]

Come with me tonight, and we will dine of the FSM's noodly goodness, with meatballs to remind us that he is all and all is of it

[Seth]

Oh? when did atheists call for repeal or alteration of the first amendment?

Constantly, little by little, using the "Death of a Thousand Cuts" method. How many times has the ACLU sued to prevent any hint of religion in schools,

Never, actually. I'm not a big fan of the ACLU, but their position on free speech and religious freedom is right on. They haven't sued to prevent any hint of religion in schools, but they have sued to prevent religion from being IMPOSED on unwilling recipients.

They've done both. Atheists, supported by the ACLU, sued to prevent student-lead prayers in schools, and lost. Where they are objecting to improper impositions of religion on people, I support them, but they too often seek to obstruct the free exercise of religion merely because it takes place on public property, which is a suppression of free exercise because public property belongs to the People, not the government, and they may use it as they please, within general and non-exclusive boundaries set by land managers who work for the government. In other words, government may not prohibit religious practice or displays on public property to any greater degree than they may prohibit any practice, secular or religious, for reasons of proper management.

even when it's not school-sponsored?

Example, please. Religious groups, for example, are permitted to wear t-shirts and jewelry depicting their views, absent a neutrally applied dress code/uniform. And, religious groups are allowed to meet on school grounds when other groups are also allowed to meet on school grounds.

And those exceptions have been carved out by the courts after atheists either objected to the practices or religionists were being discriminated against by school officials.

What cases are you referring to?

If you want to get into a case-cite war, I'll oblige, but not just now, I've got better things to do.

How many times have atheists sued to prevent the erection of Ten Commandments monuments in public parks?

I'm not sure. I know they've sued to prevent the erection of that religious monument in public buildings and courthouses, and rightly so.

And in public parks. The point is that in some cases, plaintiffs have objected to the mere presence of such monuments in public places not because they were erected using government money (they weren't), but on the basis that it creates a "hostile atmosphere" merely because the poor intolerant Atheist asshole feels excluded because other people are freely exercising their religion.

How many times have atheist abused zoning laws to exclude churches and religious gatherings?

You tell us. I think hardly ever, if ever. Most towns are run by non-atheists, and religious folk. Churches are not being excluded.

Yes, they are, and were, from very early in our national history. Zoning law, as a concept, was based in both racism and anti-religious sentiment, primarily against Catholics and Jews in New York City.

Here's a list of RLUIPA cases, many of which are explicitly about government improperly burdening religious exercise through zoning.
Congress, when it enacted the prior law, and repeated when it enacted RLUIPA, found that there was pervasive, widespread discrimination against religion in land use regulation.

I'll answer that one: Often enough that Congress was compelled to write a federal law, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, just to put a stop to the widespread and pervasive abuse of exclusive zoning laws to oppress and suppress religion.

It goes on and on.

You'll need to provide examples.

Done.

[Hermit]

I'm am atheist, so is my cat, so is my shoe, so is a rock. Even the pope's hat is an atheist

Being an atheist doesnt even require you to be conscious never mind being alive, unlike being a Christian which requires an active effort to be so.

Atheism is a lack of belief, not a belief system.

There are obviously people who don't like religion and thats an important part of their politics but thats nothing to do with atheism

Good try, but Seth's a religious, so facts don't enter into the debate. (At least not from his end.)

There's no point debating with someone about religion who says that "lack of belief" equals "belief".

That's only because you are mendaciously and truculently holding to the fallacious and evasive claim that most atheist have only a "lack of belief," they don't.

Therefore "lack of belief" equals "belief"? Love your logic. Next I expect you to explain how war is peace and freedom is slavery. Should be easy if you relate the concepts to evil communists, particularly the crypto-communist, Obama.

[Seth]

I'm am atheist, so is my cat, so is my shoe, so is a rock. Even the pope's hat is an atheist

Being an atheist doesnt even require you to be conscious never mind being alive, unlike being a Christian which requires an active effort to be so.

Atheism is a lack of belief, not a belief system.

There are obviously people who don't like religion and thats an important part of their politics but thats nothing to do with atheism

Good try, but Seth's a religious, so facts don't enter into the debate. (At least not from his end.)

There's no point debating with someone about religion who says that "lack of belief" equals "belief".

That's only because you are mendaciously and truculently holding to the fallacious and evasive claim that most atheist have only a "lack of belief," they don't.

Therefore "lack of belief" equals "belief"? Love your logic. Next I expect you to explain how war is peace and freedom is slavery. Should be easy if you relate the concepts to evil communists, particularly the crypto-communist, Obama.

I keep saying it, you keep ignoring it, atheism can be, and most usually is, much more than a simple lack of belief. Must be a defect in your brain that disallows you from understanding such simple concepts.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I keep saying it, you keep ignoring it, atheism can be, and most usually is, much more than a simple lack of belief. Must be a defect in your brain that disallows you from understanding such simple concepts.

Simple concepts like "I'm talking total bullshit"? Yep, that's a defect everyone but you has.

[Seth]

I keep saying it, you keep ignoring it, atheism can be, and most usually is, much more than a simple lack of belief. Must be a defect in your brain that disallows you from understanding such simple concepts.

Simple concepts like "I'm talking total bullshit"? Yep, that's a defect everyone but you has.

Yes, I doubt that you can understand even that simple concept, much less the one about explicit atheism being a belief, which is only a little more complex.