Atheism is not technically a religion.

Even if that were true, is your argument then that atheism is exempt from the constitution because it's "technically not a religion"? It sure seems like you would argue atheism is exempt from the constitution.

Atheism is effectively the same as a religion because it is a set of beliefs, which is what religion amounts to. It doesn't matter what aspects common to other religions atheism doesn't share - it is still a system of beliefs, and that makes it effectively the same as a religion.

It is not "effectively" the same as a religion.

(You keep changing the adverb. Why? "Technically," "effectively," whatever. Atheism isn't a religion)

People sharing one common belief is not a religion. You and I (and hundreds millions of others) don't believe in Santa. We are not in a religion.

I have a set of beliefs


I believe there is no 500ft tall invisible bunny in my front yard
I believe that dumbassery should be mocked
I believe that Mark O'Connor is one badass musician


NONE of this constitutes a religion

People sharing one common belief is not a religion.

One more time, let's see if you can follow the A to B to C logical pattern here, and then if you can't I'm done with you on this topic:

A. People sharing a common RELIGIOUS belief IS a religion. That's the essence of religion.

B. Atheism is a lack of belief in a deity or deities, which are RELIGIOUS figures.

C. Since atheism shares a common belief in the absence of RELIGIOUS figures (deity or deities), it is a religion.

Just because your religious belief is, in fact, a lack of belief does not mean it exists in a bubble that makes it and it alone exempt to the constitution. That's what you are trying to argue, and it makes no logical sense whatsoever.

NONE of this constitutes a religion

And none of those are religiously oriented beliefs. Atheism, however, is based on the principle of their being no deity or deities, and is inherently a religiously oriented belief.

First of all, you can't define a word with the word. You can't say something is religious if it has a religious belief.

Two, please read your B again.

Atheism is the LACK of belief. The opposite of "the essence of religion."

To me, God is as religious and real as Santa.

The point is that atheism should be considered on equal ground with any of the world's religions, not held above them and endorsed by the government on the "technical" idea it is a lack of belief rather than a belief. That makes no logical sense.

No religion should be established by the government, and that includes atheism.

The atheists themselves say it is not a religion:

http://www.asktheatheists.com/questions/10-is-atheism-a-religion/

You can't trust those lying heathens.

The absence of religion in government cannot be considered a government endorsement of religion.

No, not by itself. But if you are prohibiting religious displays, you need to also prohibit anything that could be considered an atheist display as well.

The atheists themselves say it is not a religion

Of course they do, because it fits their agenda. They don't want it to be a religion, but you know what they say - when it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, well, then it must be a duck that doesn't really believe it's a duck.

"No, not by itself. But if you are prohibiting religious displays, you need to also prohibit anything that could be considered an atheist display as well. "

And yet, in this case, the thing we are talking about does not walk like a duck or quack like a duck. It's the complete opposite of a duck. Whatever that is.

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/13/2012 2:01:00 PM (view original):
You can't trust those lying heathens.

You can't thrust those lying in heaven.

Let me guess: bistiza is arguing that atheism is a religion. 

Am I right?

If so, has he claimed victory yet?

Yes and not yet.

But I'm sure an 8000 word post outlining his bullet-proof logic is just around the corner. When I give up on reading it, he will claim victory.