AnnaAgainstAtheists: Atheism is a religion

[chris.fo...@gmail.com]

Anna has taken to using the "atheism is a religion" argument as she
trolls multiple atheist video comment sections at YouTube, and has
relied primarily on a single case to affirm this point. I hadn't been
following, but this has been going on for a while. After Anna decided
to repeat Josiah's claims of sock-puppetry on the part of
NascentAtheist and me, I decided to enter the fray:

Amanda13val: I saw nothing that indicated the official declaration of
athiesm being a religion. So before you go off accusing me of being
illiterate show me a site that states this declaration. Direct me to
the site that will tell its readers that atheism is legally a
religion. Show me and I will believe you, I will take back anything
that I said.

Anna:
United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
No. 04-1914
JAMES J. KAUFMAN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
GARY R. MCCAUGHTRY, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District
of Wisconsin. No. 03-C-027-C—Barbara B. Crabb, Chief Judge.
SUBMITTED OCTOBER 26, 2004
DECIDED AUGUST 19, 2005

Full details are in my last post but you'll have to look it up as i
downloaded and didn't keep the link.

Please try to distinguish between the fact of one particular case
(less important) and THE CONSIDERABLE PRECISE LEGAL CASE HISTORY
REFERENCES WHICH THE COURT MAKES TO OVER HALF A CENTURY OF
JURISDICTION ON ATHEISM AS A RELIGION.

THAT is what matters, and THAT is what other atheist posters here
TOTALLY MISS.

My reply:

Well, now, Anna, I see you are at it, again. But then, I never figured
you would stop, even during my time away. Oh, and I had a lovely
vacation. Thanks for not asking.

An email from a friend prompted me to respond to you, again,
especially since you accused the two of us of sock-puppetry and again
exposed your shallowness and fear of intelligent rebuttal.

So I suppose I shall again correct the record in the face of your
shrillness, fear, and bigotry.

First, I shall challenge you, again, to debate all of those things
from which you have run in the past, and we can add whether or not the
courts "define" atheism as a religion.

I can predict that you will not debate. What you will do is pretend
that you have "won" all previous encounters, make a series of ad
hominem statements, and even accuse me of sock-puppetry, with Josiah
being your only source on that.

It's only fair to point out that you decided to ally yourself with a
fellow who calls himself, among other things, TurnerDiaries. He is the
creator of a number of sock-puppet accounts created to harass Pat
Condell. Sam (NascentAtheist) and I exposed him - Sam was doing so
long before I came along. Josiah's response was to accuse the two of
us of sock-puppetry. He had no evidence. It was his way of attempting
to divert attention from the refutations that we were posting.

Watching the responses in this comment section make it clear that you
resorted to the same tactic, and you had no shame that your source is
a known bigot and puppet-master, himself. Then again, you probably
never researched it that far. You simply took his word for it, and
hoped that the accusation, alone, would distract the readers from the
rebuttals to your arguments - none of which got a single intelligent
reply from you.

Now, as to the claim that atheism is a religion and has been defined
as such by American courts. There are actually several aspects to this
that must be considered, and since you will certainly refuse debate in
another venue, I am forced to refute you in the context of these
comment areas.

I'll start with noting - with amusement - that you chose Kaufman v.
McCaughtry as your case of choice to support your claim.

I will also note that legal decisions, as well as the alleged
"definitions" that are used to make those decisions, are often
fleeting and inconsistent.

Having a set of jurists claim that they are "satsified that [atheism]
qualifies as" the "religion" of a plaintiff in a court case heard by a
Court of Appeals does not, in and of itself, mean that atheism *is* a
religion. It is not uncommon for members of a court to get something
wrong or to define it in convenient terms for their own use.

You also, apparently, claimed that the Court "certified" atheism is a
religion. Of course,the Court did no such thing. They rendered an
opinion on a legal matter that was based, in part on another opinion
on a social and philosophical issue, that is, that atheism is a
religion.

Of course, it is not. The Court was wrong to make that statement, and
courts have been wrong before. NascentAtheist was quite right to ask
you about Plessy v Ferguson and Dred Scott v Sanford.

In both of those Supreme Court cases, a determination was made with
respect to whether or not people of African or African-American
descent were to be allowed the same status and accommodations as those
descended from white Europeans, and the answer rendered by the Court
was "no." In the Dred Scott case, it was determined that those of
African descent were not citizens or even legal "persons," nor could
they use the courts to redress grievances.

Plessy v Ferguson was a decision that upheld the "separate but equal"
doctrine that had, at its base, the idea that those of African descent
were not to integrate with those of European descent, and effectively
maintained the idea that those of African descent were inferior. This
was even after the 13th and 14th Amendments underscored the error of
the Dred Scott decision.

You have used the statements made by the Circuit Court of Appeals to
affirm that atheism is a religion. You even claimed that the Court
"certified" that, if I read correectly, and the Court is, of course,
wrong. But you will not brook that possibility, so you were asked
about Scott and Plessy, and you did not answer. Here were two clear-
cut cases in which the SUPREME Court was wrong, and, knowing that
meant that the lower court could be wrong, as well, you ignored the
question.

It is not surprising, Anna, to see you ignore the questions about
Court cases that were erroneous. The Courts render legal opinions -
not immutable facts. They are certainly governed by the personal views
of the jurists in accordance with the laws, as much as is possible.
American courts interpret the Constitution against the laws and cases
presented to them.

They don't always get it right.

Returning to Amanda's question, there is no "official declaration"
that atheism is a religion. It is a "finding," which is, of course,
a matter of opinion that was used by the jurist to render her decision
in the matter, just as Justice Taney found that Scott's status as a
non-person was a "finding" that allowed the SCOTUS to render its
decision in his case.

Do you believe that Dred Scott was a "non-person," Anna? You must, if
you are to be consistent in this argument.

Your appeals to court comments and cases to support your case are
flawed, Anna. Jurists have been and continue to be wrong, and they
are limited by their own respective understanding(s) of words and
concepts that will not always jibe with what is understood by
others.

Atheism is not a religion. It is simply a lack of belief. Literally,
it means "not theist." Any other attributes placed on it are placed
there by people. Some will get it right. Others - you, for example -
will not.

Atheists, as we commonly understand them in our culture, do not
believe in God. They have no holy books, no ceremonies unique to
atheism, no liturgies, and they make no claims to things that cannot
be evidenced in some way.

That atheism takes a "school of thought" (care to define that for us,
Anna?) on religion does not make it a religion any more than the
schools of thought about eastern Asian religions make those schools
"religious."

You are, as already noted, using a very bad argument that tries to
equate atheism with your own religion in the sense that both are
religious beliefs. But they are not equal.

Atheists have the temerity not only to fail to believe as you do, but
they have the nerve to actually express that lack of belief and
challenge religious people such as yourself. Of course, because you
hate atheists so much that you created a YouTube user name reflective
of that, you must oppose that at every turn. It doesn't seem to
matter that your shallow arguments are completely insufficient to make
any real points on the matter.

Be honest with us, Anna, at least for once. This isn't about atheists
being demonstrably wrong. You've never been able to show that. It's
about them disagreeing with YOU. Like so many religious people, you
conflate rejection of your religion as a personal attack and rejection
of your person. You cannot demonstrate that God exists so,
psychologically, you have replaced him with you. Questioning God is
tantamount to questioning YOU.

It's all about your ego, you see. God is irrelevant.

Let's face it, Anna: You're pathetic. You're a sad child who, by all
indications, has had a poor upbringing. You've never been taught to
be tolerant of those with whom you might disagree; and you've been
taught that they are somehow less than you. That upbringing fails
you, Anna, because you have been repeatedly refuted in these comment
sections. You are simply too stupid and arrogant to notice or
accept.

What is especially pathetic, Anna, is that you are in YouTube, day by
day, posting your hate-driven nonsense, when you should recognize that
you get one life - just one - and there is so much more that you could
be doing to benefit your fellow human beings.

But you don't care about them, do you? All you care about is you. No
one else matters.

Not even God.

I'd explain further, but you'll never get it.

[chris.fo...@gmail.com]

Continuing. Notice that Anna, in her response, replies to none of my
points:

Anna: 19 consecutive posts, obvious use of sock puppets, green thumbs
to yourself and red to me as usual, distortions of my views so you can
rebut strawmen ......... that's your limit. Well just as soon as you
get your act together and decide WHO YOU ARE and ACTUALLY SAY
something INTELLECTUALLY HONEST AND COHERENT, I'll take you seriously,
so meanwhile just go off and lick your wounds by concocting all your
own versions of everything on your pathetic little google thingummy.

Me: As I've explained before, Anna, that multiple posts are often
necessary to expose the full nature of the issue and to show that
these issues are far more complex than you'd like to represent.

Now, as for the "obvious sock puppets," what are those, Anna? And what
evidence do you have that anyone is engaging in sock-puppetry. I've
already responded to this point and exposed your source. Nothing to
say about that other than your typical, substanceless ranting?

Now, Anna, tell us about the 'straw men.' To what 'straw men' do you
refer? I responded to your argument and exposed its fallacious nature.
I did so with specifics. As usual, your only rebuttal is to speak in
vague terms, engage in innuendo and accusations that are, really,
irrelevant to the topic, at hand, and declare that I am licking my
wounds.

What wounds, Anna?

"Green thumbs to yourself and red to me as usual."

My view is not showing either of these things, Anna. I can post a
screen capture, if you like, and show that I see no rating at all on
any of the posts. But then, that would be evidence, and you won't have
any of that, will you?

It's time to put an end to your idiotic claims and your superficial
arguments, Anna.

You were rebutted with substance.

You failed to answer with substance.

You're a fraud, aren't you, Anna?

But I also exposed you as a narcissistic and pathetic child. You don't
care about God, at all. What you care about is YOU, and how others
dare to question YOU. It's all about your ego, isn't it?

The problem for you is that your ego far outstrips our ability to
defend it.

"Atheism is a school of thought"

A "school of thought" is not a religion, Anna. They are actually quite
different things, at least to those who bother to look beyond the
superficial.

"with its own holy books"

To which "holy books" do you refer, Anna? Most of us view "holy books"
as being beyond reproach and unquestioned. But there is nothing in
atheism that is unquestioned. In fact, that's what makes you so angry,
isn't it?

We dare to question YOU.

"Atheism is a school of thought with its own...leaders..."

As an atheist, Anna, I recognize no "leaders" of atheism, though I
recognize good thinkers and good arguments.

I realize that your reference is to some of the more outspoken
atheists of the modern era, e.g., Hitchens, Dawkins, and Dennett but,
really, how do these people qualify as "leaders" any more than any
other atheist who might publish, versus those that do not?

"Atheism is a school of thought with its own...perverse doctrines..."

Which "perverse doctrines" are those, Anna? Are they anything like the
vicarious cannabalism practiced by some Christians when they consume
the Eucharist? Are they anything like the doctrines that include,
among others, blessings for those who bash the heads of innocent
babies against the rocks?

Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a God, Anna. What "doctrines"
are specifically (and uniquely) atheist?

Atheism may or may not say "NO GOD," Anna. That depends on the
atheist. Some will insist that there is "NO GOD," because you theists
don't seem to have any evidence for him. You, in your delusion, may
insist on a God, but you do so with no support.

Most atheists simply don't believe in a God because of a lack of
evidence and, at the same time, can accept that some kind of God MIGHT
exist. So far, there's no evidence, and no cause to believe in him any
more than we believe in Santa Claus.

[chris.fo...@gmail.com]

Once again, Anna responded, in her superficial way, and I confess to
reading her the riot act as much as I could and remain polite:

Anna: 1 You've just made close on THIRTY POSTS to make your point
which shows inability to synthesise concisely and also reflects
longwindedness and woolly thinking, so pls try to make your points in
true YT spirit.

2 You fail to comprehend the significance of CRUCIAL juridical
statements based by EXPERTS on knowledge of social, political,
cultural and other criteria including common sense knowledge on behalf
of NOT just 1 court but over half a century of US jurisdiction.

Me: I would argue, Anna, that I have dissected your arguments and
shown them to be fallacious. But unlike you, I won't expect anyone to
take my word for it. I will simply refer them to the Google Group,
Debating YouTube Theists, where they can view the comments in
reasonable order. There, they will discover that you made assertions,
I rebutted them and exposed your fallacies, and you are left with
retreat and ad hominem.

In fact, Anna, being something of an expert, myself, I do not fail to
comprehend anything. You fail to comprehend that you have engaged in
yet another set of intellectual and logical fallacies that render your
arguments useless because of their superficiality.

Tell me, Anna, was the SCOTUS right when they declared Dred Scott a
non-person? That was the "finding" then.

Now, Anna, you have again made a series of assertions and accusations.
I responded with a number of rebuttals and specific questions and you
have answered none of them. You have provided neither evidence nor
reasonable justification for your conclusions. I, on the other hand,
exposed your arguments as fallacious, provided explanations and, in
essense, completely destroyed your "reasoning."

They will see you duck the issues, engage in innuendo, make
accusations for which you have no evidence (and, through which, you
allied yourself with a known bigot and prevaricator) and, in general,
demonstrate that it's your ego that directs you - not facts.

I'll try to keep it simple, Anna, because you are simply not smart
enough to keep up with any argument that is more than superficial: You
are out of your league. You have lost every one of these points and,
again, no one needs to take my word for it. I'm recording these
exchanges and posting them.

Furthermore, no one expects a narcissist such as you to accept that
you are simply not adequate to the task of complex examination of
complex issues.

You are a shining example of what religion does to people, Anna. They
suppress their reasoning powers and pretend that superficialities are
evidence. They are dissonant and run when engaged with any substance,
at all, tossing innuendos, accusations, and more superficial
commentary along the way.

Anna, the very fact that you complain about the number of posts is
indicative of your shallow mindset. You simply cannot accept that your
superficial view of these issues is not All That There Is and that
your rather limited and uninformed (and inexperienced) opinion doesn't
hold sway.

In short, princess, as others have said, "get over yourself."

Anna, you have been challenged to debate, and you have refused. You
prefer the limited venue of the YouTube comment section for videos
because it best serves your agenda, and your agenda is NOT truth, the
discovery of truth, the examination of issues, or the determination of
what is real. You are, instead, an intellectual fraud of the first
order. Your refusal to debate makes this clear. If you had any
confidence in your position, you would welcome debate.

So, by all means, Anna, continue as you have been doing. This allows
those of us who know what we are talking about to expose your
fallacious and shallow thinking - if we can call it that.

As such, Anna, you provide for us an excellent example of what
religion does to people and their thinking processes; and, as such,
you are a great advertisement for atheism.

Anna: A recent post (not mine) on another thread was spammed out by
atheist fanatics for stating,

"Atheists follow their self-professed leaders, hold symposiums,
protest in unison, speak with one voice, read from the same texts,
carry a persecution complex, shun heretics, consider one another
brethren. What we have here is RELIGION."

Over 50 years of US juridiction lend support to this. Atheism is an
ALTERNATIVE RELIGION FOR DELUSIONALS, Godless, perverse and
dangerous.

Me: I have no interest in what others have posted at the moment,
Anna. I am challenging *you*.

You made a series of statements and I asked specific questions. The
post to which you refer makes the same vague, substanceless claims
that I have already challenged.

But if you choose to make this argument your own, be prepared to
defend it.

"Atheists follow their self-professed leaders..."

I've already asked you to identify these "leaders" and, at the same
time, I stated that I recognize no "leaders" so much as I recognize
those who speak out or write or comment. These people hold a
particular view and are entitled to express that view. Do you have a
problem with that?

"Atheists...hold symposiums"

Atheists, indeed, will gather together with those of like mind on an
issue (or a number of issues) and address them through discourse. Are
you presuming to equate this with a religious service? In what way?
Every "symposium" that I have attended has involved examination of
facts, evidence, claims, and controversial issues, among other
things. How is it that gathering together in such a way constitutes a
"religion?"

"Atheists...protest in unison..."

Or, sometimes, individually and in various ways. Is this more
"evidence" that atheism is a religion? Do the people who protest, in
unison, of like mind, US policies in Iraq also constitute a religion?
How, exactly, is protesting "in unison" a qualification as a
religion?

"Atheists...read from the same texts..."

Do they, really? All atheists "read from the same texts?" What
texts? Some atheists read Dawkins while others find him pretentious
and pompous. Others read Hitchens while still others find him
vulgar. Atheists are not of like mind on any of these so called
"leaders" or their "texts," Anna. How can any generalized statement
be made about so many millions of people, many of whom give no thought
to their atheism on any sort of regular basis?

"Atheists...carry a persecution complex..."

Would this be the same sort of "persecution complex" that forces them
to create YouTube user names such as "AnnaAgainstAtheists?"

Anna, you are, in effect, accusing atheists of being human. Do some
atheists feel persecuted? Sure. How does that make them
"religious?" Be specific about that.

Do you think it's possible to be persecuted by those holding an
religious view while not being religious, themselves?

"Atheists...shun heretics..."

"Heretics" as in "non-atheists?" I suspect that, indeed, there are
atheists who prefer the company of other atheists and will not
socialize with religious people, but I don't know anyone like that.
You are again making generalized statements that do not apply to all
members of the community. Atheists associate with all kinds of
people. Then again, I know Democrats who won't associate with
Republicans. I suppose those are religions, too, eh?

"Atheists...consider one another brethren..."

I have never seen one atheist refer to others as "brethren" and, in
fact, most atheists don't give this any thought, at all. We might
find some atheists who, being somewhat in tune with nature, will hold
that all creatures are related (and they are, to some respect), but
this certainly isn't carried as far as those who are religious.

"What we have here is RELIGION."

No, Anna, what we have is a set of superficial and ill-thought
assertions that, in the end, accuse atheists of being human.

"Over 50 years of US juridiction lend support to this. Atheism is an
ALTERNATIVE RELIGION FOR DELUSIONALS, Godless, perverse and
dangerous."

Well, we still haven't established that there's anything delusional
about atheism, and you have fled all specific arguments, but the Court
record is not as clear or obvious over half a century as you are
claiming and, again, even if it was, could it be wrong?

Was the court wrong in the Dred Scott case? Why won't you answer
that question?