Yes, the classic tactic of using their own weapons against the enemy... only there is no enemy here...

 

So this would be a case of assault with a friendly weapon?

 

Indeed...not dangerous if handled with care...

 

Oh, I promise to take VERY good care of it.

 

Then I can assure you it will provoke only friendly fire.

 

Yup, you're right... It's absolutely another prejudice.

 

It's not baloney. If two theories dealt with the same subject, say, mechanical physics, and one was more exact and more accurate on a micro and macro level than the other and they were both as simple to understand and use which would you use?

Yes, of course you would. Me too.

 

So what would we do at Atheism Pride parades? Arrive dressed casually and incoherently chant nondescript slogans aimed at no one in particular?

 

Mayan astronomers had a conception of the universe that was similar to Ptolemy, but they were able to predict eclipses of the sun and the moon.

Ptolemic astronomers may have been able to do that too.

 

And I am saddened to learn that Einstein's theories were merely 'refinements' and 'enhancements'. Here was me thinking he thought about the universe and everything in it in a whole new way. What an idiot!

And you may not have directly quoted him (i.e. using speech marks, but you still said he said it, when he didn't, whatever you say)

 

After Einstein presented his E=MC2 equation I think he should have been granted free blowjobs for life as a gesture of gratitude.

I'm just saying.

 

Pishposh incubus. It was merely a refinement of F = ma

 

I used this example, because of the simple reason that this decision was based on precedent. In other words, there were decisions made in other courts that made the case valid. The name of the case from the article I showed was Kaufman v. McCaughtry, et al. It was actually one of the cases our teacher made us read for a class called Ethics in Criminal Justice. Here is a link to the case of Kaufman v. McCaughtry, et al.

http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/tmp/1H0JAW4X.pdf

And yes, in the US there is freedom of religion based on two clauses from the First Amendment of the US Constitution, the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause. So if "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;...", then that would mean that Atheism is considered a religion.

Now in your argument Kaufman should have sued for a violation of his First Amendment right under the Freedom of Speech Clause and under the Assembly clause. But Kaufman used the religious based clause.

Now lets think about what is religion. Are all religions based on a belief of a higher being?

Buddhism does not believe in a higher being, they believe in a man who was much like Jesus, without the son of god side. But Buddhism is a religion.

Taoism does not believe in a higher being either. Yet Taoism is a religion as well.

So wouldn't Buddhists and Taoists be examples of religious atheists?

 

Buddhism grew out of Hinduism. Sacred texts in Buddhism often mention Hindu deities as beings that do exist. Buddhists also believe in reincarnation.

Taoism is both a philosophy based on the Tao Te Ching by Lao Tzu, and a religion that incorporates the autochthonous gods of ancient China. Lao Tzu has been elevated to the divine pantheon of religious Taoism. San Francisco has a Taoist temple with the statues of many Taoist deities in it. It used to have two. I visited both.

 

Did Buddha not state that to reach enlightenment it was not useful to believe in gods?

Buddhism is based on the Four Noble Truths, the Eightfold Path, the Precepts, and the Six Realms. I do not remember anywhere in there, where gods are mentioned. Maybe you could clear that up for me.

And after reading more, I will admit that I was wrong about Taoism.

And lets throw another religion with no belief of a higher being, Confucianism. Is that not a religion?

 

In its advice on how to live, Buddhism often resembles a school of psychology. The Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path represent the advice that one should try to avoid wanting what one cannot have.

I have read Buddhist scriptures. I do not remember the Buddha telling his disciples that belief in a divine reality was unnecessary. The scriptures of Buddhism, unlike the books of the New Testament, were written in their present form centuries after the death of the Buddha, so it would not surprise me if they contradict each other on certain points.

 

Okay, gotcha.

Now explain to me how Buddhists believe in a higher being (a god or multiple gods) as other religions do.

 

I am neither a Buddhist, nor an expert in Buddhism. This will have to do. Buddhists clearly believe in spirits and divine beings.

----------

These are further subdivided into 31 planes of existence:[26]

Naraka beings: those who live in one of many Narakas (Hells)
Preta: sometimes sharing some space with humans, but invisible to most people; an important variety is the hungry ghost[27]
Animals: sharing space with humans, but considered another type of life
Human beings: one of the realms of rebirth in which attaining Nirvana is possible
Asuras: variously translated as lowly deities, demons, titans, antigods; not recognized by Theravāda (Mahavihara) tradition as a separate realm[28]
Devas including Brahmas: variously translated as gods, deities, spirits, angels, or left untranslated

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism

 

I hate wikipedia as a source, but I will got with it.

What you described are the 6 levels of rebirth, not what they believe as a higher beings. Furthermore, those are translations of the words asuras and devas. It could as easily be titans for asuras and spirits for devas, but those two are the highest levels of the rebirth cycle.

Got any other points to disprove my theory?

 

Your belief can be that there is no God