god help: Religion on help.com - Help.com

It would seem the rule is written in such a way to both allow for religious view points while protecting people from over baring religious commenting. Also the rules seem to suggest that non-religious philosophy is also covered in the same way as religious philosophy.

The only part of the rule I would have a problem with is:

“Limit suggesting religious solutions for problems to only posts where the original writer of a question has indicated an openness to discussing spirituality.”

I don’t see the need for this part of the rule; don’t ask an online community for their opinion unless you are prepared to read them.

It seems that the rule exists to protect users against unwanted preaching.

The idea is that this is a larger community. Just because your tribe requires elk sacrifice on the vernal equinox doesn’t mean that everyone else is bound by such rituals and values. Also, it may be that your grandma’s magic ointment has curative powers but if that is not recognized by the general populace, then don’t push it.

The prejudice against religious talk seems a deviation from a position of neutrality — but it makes a lot of sense when you see how many discussions involving religion turn into debates or arguments (which is not a main point of this site), and how people use the forum to try to preach or convert others to their beliefs.

The person who wrote many of the policy words, Erik, went to Catholic schools, and probably was always conscious that although he had a very solid education, some of it was not worth mentioning except when asked.

“Do you think this policy is fair and necessary?”

Yes

“Do you think it’s clear?”

Crystal.

“Do you think that people violate the policy because they are ignorant of it, or don’t understand it, or simply feel that they can get away with it?”

I would suspect that each one of the three aforementioned reasons have been the case - at least once - for people violating the policy. However, I’m inclined to believe that the first and third reason are more common.

“Why does the website need to protect users from “religious philosophy” but not from non-religious philosophy?”

Very good question. But I believe the answer is fairly obvious. This website explicitly states that it is not affiliated with any religious group. Nor is Help.com religious. Therefore, this website is not going to be a platform for evangelism or otherwise pushing one’s faith on others. Religious philosophy is permitted, as long as it is not forced upon anyone. What you also have to understand is not everyone is going to be religious, or even be amenable to religion or suggestions thereof. If someone appeals to others for help and receives unsolicited religious advice, especially when the person asking for advice did not give the impression of being religious, then we should assume this person does not want any religious advice.

In conclusion, I simply do not think it’s possible to simultaneously protect users from religious philosophy and non-religious philosophy on a website. You either protect users from religious philosophy, and impose limitations on the religious users while giving more latitude to non-religious users. Or you protect users from non-religious philosophy, and impose limitations on non-religious users while giving more latitude to religious users.

it seems this is a very complex area.
I have called Christianity a dead end religion.
I have good reasons for saying it.
But Christianity would dissagree with that idea.
For me its true.
For others is false and blaphemous.

As an atheists I have a simple manner for dealing with “preaching” (for lack of a better word) that I don’t want to hear or read that doesn’t involve censorship … I don’t listen or read it. It’s really as simple as that.

Da⌐11 wrote:
As an atheists I have a simple manner for dealing with “preaching” (for lack of a better word) that I don’t want to hear or read that doesn’t involve censorship … I don’t listen or read it. It’s really as simple as that.

Love that answer. People are far too easily offended, both on and off the Internet. As a Christian, who went through a stint of atheism before accepting my faith, I can understand both sides of the argument, but what is very commonly suggested is that a religious vacuum is somehow “objective and neutral”. It’s not. Forbidding religious commentary is just as suppressive as the “pound the pulpit” Jesus-freak who demands your fealty to Jesus Christ at every opportunity.

I say, let all the ideas air, and let the open market decide which ones are rubbish and which ones are not. If someone is being a jerk about their faith or lack of faith, then their words will speak for themselves, and people will simply ignore him as a zealot that no one listens to. Thus, the free market of ideas will place a low value on his ideas, likely because his ideas are dumb. But he should still be allowed to air them.

Here is my two cents worth….

There is a clear distinction between “religion” and “Christianity”. I attend Church to learn how to be a better Christian; not to be religious. My God is number one. My family followed close behind. For myself I am against having an abortion. But that is MY position, not belief. And I don’t think how I feel about the matter should in any way shape or form influence the rights of another to make the best choice for THEIR situation. My sister had an abortion shortly after graduating from high school. I don’t love her any less for having to make what was best for her at the time. She still has moments that she regrets having done it. She may never fully get past it.

As for my posts, I will defend my right to present my God to anyone willing to listen based in truth of who He is. By the same token I will defend the rights of others to post their opposing views. Freedom of speech.

My one beef comes when those that claim to be atheist want to stomp all over my head for bringing by Christian point of view into “their” replies. The freedom you have not to believe in a god, is that not the same freedom that I get to enjoy?

I have a light and I’m supposed to shine it whenever I find darkness. If it gets too bright in here, put on your sunglasses. \♥^♥/

It’s not about being denied of one’s freedom of speech or anything of that nature. It’s about acting in compliance with policies. Although I may no agree with all of the policies of this website, that does not give me the right to disregard the rules with which I disagree and violate them. Normally, when one signs up for an account on a social networking website such as help.com, one must either click on “agree or disagree” to the terms and conditions before the account can become officially activated. Agreeing to the terms and conditions is, in essence, a contractual agreement between the website and you. And when you agree to the website’s terms and conditions, you’re agreeing to comply with its rules, which are typically stipulated therein.

For a case in point, imagine the company you work for has a policy that prohibits the use of cell phones while performing work-related activities. You may not necessarily agree with this particular policy or think it’s fair, but it’s your job to adhere to it, or else disciplinary action will be taken against you for not doing so.

The same concept applies here. The rules here are stated pretty clearly. You may not like all of them or think that a few seem a bit unfair, but you agreed to follow them when you signed up for an account.

There is a double standard and false acuity in regards to what is defined as a religion.

The US 7th circuit court of appeals (Kaufman v. McCaughtry) declared atheism as a religion.
Most of today’s modern dictionaries identify atheism as a religion.

However, just ASK an atheist if atheism is a religion…

“WHAT? $*^&%$*%#*!! Atheism is not a religion! Atheism is the LACK of religion.”

“Atheism is not a religion like silence is not a sound.”
“Atheism is not a religion like bald is not hair”
“Atheism is not a religion like ‘nothing’ is ‘nothing’”
etc, etc, etc… blah, blah, blah… Ad nauseum.

See, heres the problem.
And this is what the courts identified in Kaufman v. McCaughtry:

Atheism is the BELIEF that there is no God.
It is the affirmation of the absense of a diety.
It is NOT the absense of a belief.

You simply disbelieve that there is a god or that there is a need to acknowledge one/it.
It is absolutely not that there is no belief whatsoever.
To be without belief or to be absent of belief suggests that you have no brain.

So getting back to the OP…
Religion???

100% of the people that object to those that espouse or adhere to a intelligent design creationist worldview only do so because it conflicts with their own evolutionary or atheistic worldview.
Meanwhile, they are more than happy and all too eager to shove “their religion” of athiesm or their “belief” of evolution down your throat.
Thats a clear double standard.

If ALL religion is to be restricted, then the religion of atheism and its sister view, “secular humanism” must also be hurriedly absconded.

This is a privately-owned site whose standards are much closer to secular humanism than to any particular religion.

What that means is that religious-type speech goes on, as it does among humans, but it sometimes crosses the principles of how people are supposed to be respectful of each other here.

It is rarely criticised unless it becomes overtly offensive. I can even think of many times when people were very insulting in the name of religion/atheism/agnosticism, and weren’t cautioned, but those instances demonstrate how such core beliefs can motivate passionate and aggressive activity that doesn’t respect the rights of others.

Trying to “push” or sell your system, as random evangelists come through doing, is more on the level of any other advertising spam.. not personally offensive to anyone, just annoyingly irrelevant to any given post they reply on.

president mindhealer wrote:
This is a privately-owned site whose standards are much closer to secular humanism than to any particular religion.

What that means is that religious-type speech goes on, as it does among humans, but it sometimes crosses the principles of how people are supposed to be respectful of each other here.

It is rarely criticised unless it becomes overtly offensive. I can even think of many times when people were very insulting in the name of religion/atheism/agnosticism, and weren’t cautioned, but those instances demonstrate how such core beliefs can motivate passionate and aggressive activity that doesn’t respect the rights of others.

If we were to err in one direction or another I would lean to Theistic religion than to secular humanism.

Theistic religion in its true form has brought many positive values and rolemodels to history.
Secular Humanism as brought tyrants, and murderers and evil dictators and systems where humans are devalued and treated as so much animala.

The major difference with all theistic religion in comparison with christianity is in its intrinsic configuration.

ALL theistic religions regard actions, duties, performance, practices to become moral, holy, godly, to attain eternity, to “meet with God”.

Christianity has the only distinction of “God meeting man”. Where a higher wisdom, eternal and infinite consciousness and intelligentcia existing outside of the timespace continuum stepped out of eternity and appeared to man.

As mortals, we cannot fathom infinity or eternity. We have symbols that represent infinity and eternity but we cannot actually grasp it with out finite minds.
But something, or specifically someone that dwells in eternity has no problem approaching something that is finite.

The “natural man” or “carnal” man has no knowledge of God and believes any talk of an eternal being as foolishness. He lives his life accordingly.

Yet, there is a law of morality written on his heart and touch of the eternal in the minds of humanity which draw them to the supernatural and mystical.

We live our lives with a “sense” of morality and a sense of a type of emptyness with which we strive and remain restless and attempt to fill this emptyness with relationships, money, possessions, power, pleasure, religion, education, etc…
But nothing will fill that void except for a relationship with God.
Not religion, (works and practices based on belief) Relationship.

Jesus Christ said: “You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me,”

His point is that we ALL try to “possess” life in one form or another.
We will attempt to live our entire lives to find fulfillment.
And can only be done with a relationship with Jesus Christ.

Those that use biblical principles or direct teachings of the life of Christ to minister o others, do so because they have elected to choose to employ the Word of God as a medium to recieve this wisdom that is not of earth but orginated in eternity.

The Devil’s Advocate wrote:
hold on. you bring up some very interesting points, that I would love to discuss, but I think you are getting way off topic.

arguably speaking, this is an example of what the policy is trying to prevent. did you intend to do that?

Well the reason i illustrated the distinction is to perhaps shed some light on WHY christians as well as myself use biblical values and counsel to minister to the people they come in contact with on the site here.

roofdonkey wrote:
Those that use biblical principles or direct teachings of the life of Christ to minister [t]o others, do so because they have elected to choose to employ the Word of God as a medium to recieve this wisdom that is not of earth but orginated in eternity.

I would like to again point out and underscore that individuals here do so only because of the successful affect biblical truths have made in their respective lives and wish to share insight and answers with the difficulties they have experienced themselves to help others.
Similiarly. those with an atheistic worldview ALSO share their religious and philisophical perspective. They employ their knowledge and experience soley from an existentialist, humanitarian point of view.

One could argue that the “help” that a person with a secular humanist worldview offers is only because of the way they have dealt with issues and problems in their life and therefore draw upon past life experiences and philosophies to express answers to those that seek assistance.

Here is the main point, WE ALL MUST CHOOSE how to live our lives, decisions must be made in every facet of our being. Every experience and event in our lives leads to a choice we must make, whether to accept and embrace a philosophy or idea or to reject and abandon it.
A person who authors a topic and expresses his/her problem and appeals to the general public must then DECIDE which advice to follow and which course of action will better benefit them. The actual content and backround from which those that have offered advice is regardless. Whether the answer has resulted from a theological intellignt design creationist worldview or from an atheistic or evolutionary worldview is regardless. The person must still DECIDE on their own to acquiesce to either perspective or to summarily dismiss both and simply do something according to their own understanding.

The Devil’s Advocate wrote:

Da⌐11 wrote:
It would seem the rule is written in such a way to both allow for religious view points while protecting people from over baring religious commenting. Also the rules seem to suggest that non-religious philosophy is also covered in the same way as religious philosophy.

I don’t think the non-religious philosophy is explicitly stated, but maybe it should be?

as you and many others have mentioned, it’s not the expression of a religious perspective, but certain instances where the message becomes a) over-bearing or preachy, or b) offensive.

There is no way to determine what the definition or identficaton of what is described as “overbearing or preachy” or “offensive”
Philosophers and theologian have argues over the precise definitions of these for thousands of years.
I have already indicated and exhibited that atheism and secular humanism has also been declared as religious.
I personally agree that agressive-style of proselytizing should be discouraged, but that is also not consistent with the teachings in the bible.
The authors of those that post seeking help will make that decision anyway.
It is neither our place nor our responsibilty to aid and abet or to discourage them in that decision.

The Devil’s Advocate wrote:

micheal.janssens wrote:

Da⌐11 wrote:
As an atheists I have a simple manner for dealing with “preaching” (for lack of a better word) that I don’t want to hear or read that doesn’t involve censorship … I don’t listen or read it. It’s really as simple as that.

Love that answer. People are far too easily offended, both on and off the Internet. As a Christian, who went through a stint of atheism before accepting my faith, I can understand both sides of the argument, but what is very commonly suggested is that a religious vacuum is somehow “objective and neutral”. It’s not. Forbidding religious commentary is just as suppressive as the “pound the pulpit” Jesus-freak who demands your fealty to Jesus Christ at every opportunity.

I say, let all the ideas air, and let the open market decide which ones are rubbish and which ones are not. If someone is being a jerk about their faith or lack of faith, then their words will speak for themselves, and people will simply ignore him as a zealot that no one listens to. Thus, the free market of ideas will place a low value on his ideas, likely because his ideas are dumb. But he should still be allowed to air them.

there is some merit to each of these ideas.

I agree (with others) that atheism/religious arguments become passionate and prickly very fast. this is one of those things that props up people’s whole attitude and outlook on life. as a lawyer, I enjoy the process of an open market of ideas. However, some people appear ill equipped (emotionally and intellectually) to navigate these waters. in other words, I agree with you, but is that feasible?

also, I don’t think zealots always get ignored. a zealot who strikes a chord with lots of people is going to get high fives. so, I think there is another dimension to this as well. the truth factor. If I am a medical doctor, and I see someone giving bad medical advise on this site… shouldn’t I do something about it? Shouldn’t I correct misinformation whenever I have the opportunity to do so? similarly, facts about history or science… shouldn’t the truth be upheld no matter what? isn’t there something wrong about letting a false statement (like the world is flat) go unchallenged? so should this be allowed, but ignored all the time or are there sometimes good reason to get involved in a argument?

its seems to me the market place must not only allow arguments, but must be made up of actors who can make rationale and informed evaluations of the arguments without getting too emotional. that sounds like a fairy tale to me.

I agree with you.
Unfortunately this is a limited forum.
And a “wikipedia” style of application where anyone can simply log on and apply their views.
But this is also the REAL world. And you will recieve similiar advice whether at home, on a parkbench, or in a dctors office.
We all must decide for ourselves how to go about our lives and which wisdom to pursue. Regardless if we are equipped to do so or not. We will learn.

The Devil’s Advocate wrote:
say all you want about what you believe, but when you begin to say that your beliefs are the truth, then a) you are saying that anyone else with different beliefs are fools, and b) that your beliefs are supported by facts, evidence and so on. most of the time that is just not the case, belief is not knowing truth. so naturally, when someone uses unsubstantiated “facts” to call me a fool, then I get a little bit defensive. yeah?

Not necessarily “fools”. But the claim is made that they are incorrect. If my 2-year-old son thinks that milk comes ultimately from a store instead of a cow, then he is incorrect, but not a fool. The term fool isa word with emotional attachment to it.

The Devil’s Advocate wrote:
evolution is a concept that has considerable body of supportive evidence. it is not at all in the same ball park as belief in God or for example something like original sin. as far as I can tell, creationism has completely based on religious belief and has no scientific merit. I’m not saying that you can’t believe that, I’m just saying that you need to distinguish between belief and truth.

OK. So right there you’ve got some presuppositions about what qualifies as “evidence”. These religious waters are even muddier than you realize. We need to be very careful about using the term “evidence” when we’re “proving” something like the theory of evolution (it is still called a “theory” for good reason)

As a literal six-day creationist, I see that my belief in intelligent design as laid out in Genesis 1 and 2 as well as, say, Noah’s global flood, is greatly supported by evidence. But we need to be careful what we call evidence and what we call interpretation of evidence. Here’s an example:

The grand canyon is a grand geological formation, with many many layers upon layers of rock and sediment. Now an evolutionist will see that and conclude that the grand canyon must be x million years old because of the rate of erosion. I will see the same canyon and see evidence of the global flood. Which of these is “evidence”?

Neither. Science doesn’t tell us anything about timelines here. All science tells us is that water erodes rock.

From there the evolutionist makes a number of assumptions, none of them provable. 1) That the amont of water eroding the canyon has always been constant; 2) that the rock sediments that were eroded were the same as the rock sediments left over; and 3) that the rate of erosion, because of (2) was constant over millions of years.

From the same place, a creationist will make a number of assumptions, backed only by what he reads in ancient documents like the Bible or the epic of Gilgamesh, and conclude that the grand canyon was formed by massive landslides, catastrophic flooding, and an intensely rapid rate of erosion due to the current and mass of water flowing through during the global flood.

The “evidence” is nothing more than water will erode rock. Both of the interpretations are plausible until proven otherwise.

As for what you said about the lack of scientific merit to creationism, I’ll direct you here: http://www.icr.org/

And here: http://www.creationscience.com/online…

And here: http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-a…

I think you’ll find the evidence for creation science is far more overwhelming than evolutionary science.

In conclusion, you challenged us to distinguish between belief and truth. I will pose the same challenge to you.

I agree with president mindhealer. This website seems to encourage advice that is more in accordance with humanistic valies and principles. Someone mentioned earlier that atheists and their so-called religion are just as guilty as theists who come across as preachy when offering advice that seeks to imbue the person asking for advice with the spirit of God. It was asserted that atheists try to shove their religion and evolutionary beliefs down the throats of others. In the context of a religious discussion, that may indeed be true. However, I fail to see how that assertion can be applied to posts that do not concern religion. To help illustrate my point, how often do you see an atheist advise someone who is going through a financial hardship to put their faith in evolution as a solution to their problem? It’s ridiculous to even think about it. Atheists, or anyone who is non-religious for that matter, are primarily concerned with giving advice that has practical value and that is more apt to provide quicker and more desirable results.

I understand that bible scripture and spiritual advice has its own merit, but you cannot expect everyone to be amenable to such advice - especially if one feels like there is no benefit to spirituality. Also, it’s important to understand that the policy is mainly concerned with those who give spiritual advice with the intent of winning converts. As long as one is not seeking to proselytize others, then there should be nothing to worry about.

The Devil’s Advocate wrote:

micheal.janssens wrote:
From the same place, a creationist will make a number of assumptions,

well that’s just it. the more assumptions you make, the further from the shore of evidence you begin to float.

I am familiar with ICR and no, it’s not scientific. there may be science and scientific evidence that they accept and support, and they certainly make an effort to appear scientific, but the basic idea itself is not scientific. and because it is a poorly formed hypothesis, it is not logically possible to conduct a scientific inquire into it. unless something has changed since I last looked into it, ID or creationism is not science. I’m not telling you that you can’t believe it, just that you can’t call it science or the truth.

Sure I can. That’s my belief. :D

The Devil’s Advocate wrote:

roofdonkey wrote:
To be without belief or to be absent of belief suggests that you have no brain.

So getting back to the OP…
Religion???

100% of the people that object to those that espouse or adhere to a intelligent design creationist worldview only do so because it conflicts with their own evolutionary or atheistic worldview.
Meanwhile, they are more than happy and all too eager to shove “their religion” of athiesm or their “belief” of evolution down your throat.
Thats a clear double standard.

If ALL religion is to be restricted, then the religion of atheism and its sister view, “secular humanism” must also be hurriedly absconded.

you may be right that atheism requires a certain belief, or maybe a “calculated guess” is more appropriate. however, “To be without belief or to be absent of belief suggests that you have no brain” is definitely offensive. so if are using this kind of talk regularly, you ought to be banned. it has nothing to do with being religious and everything to do with being civil and respectful.

as for your examples of clear double standard. I don’t agree at all. see my previous discussion of the “truth”. evolution is a concept that has considerable body of supportive evidence. it is not at all in the same ball park as belief in God or for example something like original sin. as far as I can tell, creationism has completely based on religious belief and has no scientific merit. I’m not saying that you can’t believe that, I’m just saying that you need to distinguish between belief and truth.

This is a logical statement and any individual who takes “offense” is simply looking to be offended.
It is not offensive to say that a dead man is dead. It is the same to say that a person that has no belief means that he has no brain activity. Anyone that takes offense at this statement is ignoring the logical point of it and is simply looking to be offended.

This is what was argued in the 7th circuit court of Appeals case (Kaufman v. McCaughtry) that people produce affirmatve “beliefs”,in this case the belief that there is no God. Therefore in some cases, atheism can be considered a religion.

A “calculated guess” is still a belief, a “step of faith”, if you will.

The Devil’s Advocate wrote:

roofdonkey wrote:
But this is also the REAL world. And you will recieve similiar advice whether at home, on a parkbench, or in a dctors office.
We all must decide for ourselves how to go about our lives and which wisdom to pursue. Regardless if we are equipped to do so or not. We will learn.

if I go to the doctor’s, then the ONLY advice I expect to hear is medical or health related. so no. there are venues where you seek expertise in a particular area and that area is not expected to include religious discussion.

Youre missing the point.
The fact that you go to see a doctor dos not guarrantee 100% that you will adhere to whatever the doctor says.
You have to DECIDE whether or not you will abide by the doctors recommendations and prescriptions.
He may suggest a course of action and an appropriate quantity of a particular drug or medicine but if you just smile, wave and head out the door without giving the doctor another second thought then everything he might have learned through years of study and medical school will not avail you. A patient has to DECIDE whether or not to abide by the doctors recommendations.
Similiarly, anything a person hears here on the websie must but either adhered to or dismissed.

roofdonkey wrote:
100% of the people that object to those that espouse or adhere to a intelligent design creationist worldview only do so because it conflicts with their own evolutionary or atheistic worldview.

How can you be so sure that 100% of the people are purely supporters of evolution or atheism? Where is the statistical evidence to substantiate this claim?

roofdonkey wrote:
Meanwhile, they are more than happy and all too eager to shove “their religion” of athiesm or their “belief” of evolution down your throat.

I have yet to see this happen outside the context of a religious discussion. Yet, I have witnessed many theists provide unsolicited spiritual advice on a wide variety of posts that concerned strictly secular matters.

roofdonkey wrote:
You simply disbelieve that there is a god or that there is a need to acknowledge one/it.
It is absolutely not that there is no belief whatsoever.
To be without belief or to be absent of belief suggests that you have no brain.

This is a false dilemma fallacy. You’re ignoring the fact - whether knowingly or unknowingly - that other options exist besides the two mutually exclusive ones you presented. Agnosticism is the belief that there can be no proof either that God exists or that God does not exist. In view of the two alternatives you presented as a standard by which one can be judged to determine if one has a brain, it appears agnostics do not fall under either of those two categories. So what does that leave? A bunch of brainless agnostics? I seriously hope that you do not think this.

roofdonkey wrote:
This is a logical statement and any individual who takes “offense” is simply looking to be offended.

It’s a logical fallacy, as I just pointed out, because you’re forcing people to choose between two extremes. One might better understand it as black-and-white thinking.

roofdonkey wrote:
It is not offensive to say that a dead man is dead. It is the same to say that a person that has no belief means that he has no brain activity. Anyone that takes offense at this statement is ignoring the logical point of it and is simply looking to be offended.

You’re talking about two entirely different things. A dead man is considered dead because he has no brain activity. I do not understand how you have leaped to the conclusion that a person that has “no belief” has no brain activity. Belief in what exactly? If you’re referring to belief in God or the absence of God, then I have already explained that you’re thinking in black and white terms and failing to take into account the idea of agnosticism. And just to protect myself against a seemingly obvious mistake, I do understand that agnosticism can be defined as a “belief” that the existence of God is unknowable. However, this was neither expressed nor implied in your previous statements.

roofdonkey wrote:
This is what was argued in the 7th circuit court of Appeals case (Kaufman v. McCaughtry) that people produce affirmative “beliefs”,in this case the belief that there is no God. Therefore in some cases, atheism can be considered a religion.

A belief in something does not invariably constitute a religion. Or do I have to introduce the word “affirmative” or other similar adjectives in front of “belief” to qualify it as a religion? I have an affirmative belief in myself and my own abilities. Does this suggest I am involved in a religion and I am my own God? Of course not. Setting aside all of this for a moment, I have always understood religion to be predicated on faith, not belief with certainty. Naturally, people like to think that faith is a belief with certainty, but faith is more accurately defined as a belief with confidence. Therefore, believing in something with confidence and believing in something with certainty, though they may seem very closely related, are not one and the same.

Please forgive me if the manner in which I expressed my thoughts and opinions seemed a bit contentious.

Perhaps.
But if you would be so kind as to scroll up.
The majority of the points you contributed were actually addressed in the court case (7th circuit court of Appeals -Kaufman v. McCaughtry)

However, will this change anything?

All this debate will do nothing but serve to fortify strengthen each person in their position.
There is a way that seems right to a person, but the end thereof is death.

roofdonkey wrote:
There is a double standard and false acuity in regards to what is defined as a religion.

The US 7th circuit court of appeals (Kaufman v. McCaughtry) declared atheism as a religion.
Most of today’s modern dictionaries identify atheism as a religion.

However, just ASK an atheist if atheism is a religion…

“WHAT? $*^&%$*%#*!! Atheism is not a religion! Atheism is the LACK of religion.”

“Atheism is not a religion like silence is not a sound.”
“Atheism is not a religion like bald is not hair”
“Atheism is not a religion like ‘nothing’ is ‘nothing’”
etc, etc, etc… blah, blah, blah… Ad nauseum.

See, heres the problem.
And this is what the courts identified in Kaufman v. McCaughtry:

Atheism is the BELIEF that there is no God.
It is the affirmation of the absense of a diety.
It is NOT the absense of a belief.

You simply disbelieve that there is a god or that there is a need to acknowledge one/it.
It is absolutely not that there is no belief whatsoever.
To be without belief or to be absent of belief suggests that you have no brain.

So getting back to the OP…
Religion???

100% of the people that object to those that espouse or adhere to a intelligent design creationist worldview only do so because it conflicts with their own evolutionary or atheistic worldview.
Meanwhile, they are more than happy and all too eager to shove “their religion” of athiesm or their “belief” of evolution down your throat.
Thats a clear double standard.

If ALL religion is to be restricted, then the religion of atheism and its sister view, “secular humanism” must also be hurriedly absconded.

Atheism is no more religion than Theism is religion; the three words (atheism, theism, and religion) are not interchangeable as you suggests; two describe a manner of thought (related but oposet) and the other describes a social system. Theists can, have, and do form religions based on their theistic beliefs. And Atheists can, have, and do from religions based on their lack of belif. But not all Athiests belong to a religion, and not all Theists belong to a religion.

In that light you, and apparently the 7th circuit court of appeals, are simply miss using or misunderstanding the English language.

Further Atheusim is not “the belief that there is no god” … I as an atheiest do not “belive that there is no god” … Atheusim is quite simply the “lack of a belife in god”. I understand how that can be confusing to some, but there is a very clear distinction there. To best illustrate this point let me say this:

I, an atheist, would never argue with a theist by telling him “there is no god” or “his belief is god is wrong”; because I don’t know if eather of those statements are true, they could very well be false, and for me to make eather of those statments would be an example of ‘making up’ something that I don’t know to be true. But as an Atheists I do have a lack of belief in the statement “there is a god”; I simply do not have the belife that there is a god. Further its sometimes easier to use the word “faith” instead of “belief” as “belief” gets mixxed up with “knowledge” by many people. While “faith” is also inaccurate, never the less it’s easy to under stand when said that an Atheist is a person that “has no faith in god” … He doesn’t accert that “there is no god” … Just that he has no faith that god exists.

To be fare to you there are a whole lot of people that accert “there is no god” and these people call themselves Atheists; but I would accuse them of not understanding the English Language as well; their “Beliefs” are very much real, they aren’t lacking in anything. In many ways these people can be called Theists, their god is simple the idea that there is no god. These are the types of people who go on to form religons based on their belief that there is no god.

irrelevant.

Please dont think I am arrogantly disregrding anything you say.
Please believe me when I see how you can believe the things you have presented.
But your argument is not with me, Da-11
As passionate as your point of view may be, the US 7th circuit court of appeals have already ruled that atheism is a religion.

My opinions, however passionate and sincere are irrelevant when the issues have already been determined in a court of law by theologians, philosophers and those much more educated than you and I.

roofdonkey wrote:
irrelevant.

Please dont think I am arrogantly disregrding anything you say.
Please believe me when I see how you can believe the things you have presented.
But your argument is not with me, Da-11
As passionate as your point of view may be, the US 7th circuit court of appeals have already ruled that atheism is a religion.

My opinions, however passionate and sincere are irrelevant when the issues have already been determined in a court of law by theologians, philosophers and those much more educated than you and I.

I would again have to disagree; first courts are not perfect, they can and do unfortuntly make mistakes far to often. The 7th circuit court is far from being as important as you are making them out to be; and the decision you are sighting (assuming you are interpreting the decision correctly, and I will go into that more later) has far less scope then you are giving it credit for.

My argument on the otherhand is simply an excersise of logic; one apparently you can’t find fault in except to say the 7th circuit court made some desision about some case some time in the past about some particular set of circumstances. That’s no argument at all, it’s a sound bight at bes

Further your interpretation of kaufman v. mccaughtry is not even correct, and it is extremely to simplistic an interpretation for a case of a court of appeals. High courts don’t go around claming things like “Atheism is a religion”; their job, when they stick to it, is to decide how a case that is brought befor them is influenced by the constitution. In this particular case (ruling linked below) the court was asked to decide if atheist organizations are protected under the Establishment clause and other first amendment rights. In fact if you read the decision (linked below) you would see that the court made it quite clear that they where not ruling that Atheism is a religion but only that it should be protected as equal to religion. In short they ruled that for the perposes of the constitution that Atheism is protected and that they dont have to declare it a religion for it to still fall in side the intent of the constitutional protections.

Put more simply read the last paragraph on page 4 on the bellow linked ruling: they quit clearly call atheism a “non religion” but make clear that “non religions” have equal protection under the constitution as religions do. That was their ruling, not that atheism is a religion.

http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/doc…

The rules are good. But I abide by my own conscience and consider other peoples’ welfare in this as well as in any other aspect. I have had my own beliefs insulted, attacked, etc. at times. And I’ve been slandered in various ways unrelated to my faith. Therefore merely hearing someone’s opinion doesn’t bother me in the slightest. It’s when a person acts with malice and hatred that I take issue with what they do.

• Never attack other religious faiths, or a person’s lack of spirituality.

Haha… As if that can be enforced ^^ Every time I read through these rules I laugh at that one.

[quoteDarkSnow]

• Never attack other religious faiths, or a person’s lack of spirituality.

Haha… As if that can be enforced ^^ Every time I read through these rules I laugh at that one.[/quote]

True. Once upon a time I believe that rule used to be stringently enforced here. But now it seems that users are given more latitude. Or perhaps it’s simply a case of no longer knowing where to draw the line at “attacking” a person’s religious faith or lack thereof.

The Devil’s Advocate wrote:

Da⌐11 wrote:
Further your interpretation of kaufman v. mccaughtry is not even correct, and it is extremely to simplistic an interpretation for a case of a court of appeals. High courts don’t go around claming things like “Atheism is a religion”; their job, when they stick to it, is to decide how a case that is brought befor them is influenced by the constitution. In this particular case (ruling linked below) the court was asked to decide if atheist organizations are protected under the Establishment clause and other first amendment rights. In fact if you read the decision (linked below) you would see that the court made it quite clear that they where not ruling that Atheism is a religion but only that it should be protected as equal to religion. In short they ruled that for the perposes of the constitution that Atheism is protected and that they dont have to declare it a religion for it to still fall in side the intent of the constitutional protections.

Put more simply read the last paragraph on page 4 on the bellow linked ruling: they quit clearly call atheism a “non religion” but make clear that “non religions” have equal protection under the constitution as religions do. That was their ruling, not that atheism is a religion.

http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/doc…

thank you for that careful reading and research.

there is a lot of misinformation and propaganda that gets passed around. It’s a big problem, IMO.

Hold it, not so fast.

Instead of posting some person’s interpretation of the court case,
Here are ACTUAL excerpts:

“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 (1972).

A religion need
not be based on a belief in the existence of a supreme being
(or beings, for polytheistic faiths),

see Torcaso v. Watkins,
367 U.S. 488, 495 & n.11 (1961); Malnak v. Yogi, 592 F.2d
197, 200-15 (3d Cir. 1979) (Adams, J., concurring);
Theriault v. Silber, 547 F.2d 1279, 1281 (5th Cir. 1977) (per
curiam), nor must it be a mainstream faith, see Thomas v.
Review Bd., 450 U.S. 707, 714 (1981); Lindell v. McCallum,
352 F.3d 1107, 1110 (7th Cir. 2003).”

“Without venturing too far into the realm of the
philosophical, we have suggested in the past that when a
person sincerely holds beliefs dealing with issues of “ulti-
mate concern” that for her occupy a “place parallel to that
filled by . . . God in traditionally religious persons,” those
beliefs represent her religion.
Fleischfresser v. Dirs. of Sch.
Dist. 200, 15 F.3d 680, 688 n.5 (7th Cir. 1994) (internal
citation and quotation omitted); see also Welsh v. United
States, 398 U.S. 333, 340 (1970); United States v. Seeger,
380 U.S. 163, 184-88 (1965).

We have already indicated that atheism may be considered, in this specialized sense, a religion.
See Reed v. Great Lakes Cos., 330 F.3d 931, 934
(7th Cir. 2003)
(“If we think of religion as taking a position on divinity, then atheism is indeed a form of religion.”).Id. at 52-53.

In keeping with this idea, the Court has adopted a broad definition of “religion” that includes non-theistic and atheistic beliefs, as well as theistic ones. Thus,
in Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488, it said that a state cannot
“pass laws or impose requirements which aid all religions as against non-believers, and neither can [it] aid those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs.”

It is very common knowledge that this court ruling is expressly indicated at the one that determined that atheism is a religion.
All you have to do is conduct a small search on the matter and this court case will come up.
When Atheism concludes that there is no deity, it presupposes that the human mind is capable of knowing all that a deity might know, all that a deity could do, all that a deity would see. This automatically places the Atheist mind in an exalted place, as the source of all truth.

“My mind is supreme”.

As the source of all truth, the Atheist mind becomes an object of awe and worship, and the situation becomes that of pagan self-worship. The Atheist might argue (and did in Kaufman v. McCaughtry) that, no, Atheism is the anti-religion. This merely summons the next question: Is an anti-religion a religion?

Aside from the affirmative legal arguments, consider this: Is disorder (entropy) a form of order? Is a null-set a set? Is zero a number? So is believing in “nothing” the same as believing in “something”? Is it the “something” that makes it a religion, or is it the belief? If it is the belief, is belief in “nothing” a religion?

Consider one of the MAJOR world religions on the planet.
Bhuddism IS a religion…
There is no doubt or question that it is.
Yet bhuddism is 100% atheist.

No im not Big Al One.

And the excercise of “belief” as one that represents what is employed to explain a lifestyle is a religion

re·li·gion   /rɪˈlɪdʒən/ Show Spelled[ri-lij-uhn] Show IPA
noun
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
http://dictionary.reference.com/brows…
re·li·gion (r-ljn)
n.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/reli…

re·li·gion noun \ri-ˈli-jən\
Definition of RELIGION
4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictio…

The Devil’s Advocate wrote:
lets try a different approach… In what way exactly do you feel that religion is being restricted?

I believe this broad implication that any talk of religion whatsoever (and Judeo-Christianity, specifically) must therefore be disallowed.
It is by principle that individuals that are in need of the most help are usually not in a position to recognize the remedy and process for resolve immediatly.
Posters that elaborate on a specific need or problem are often administered effectively by concepts and principles of wisdom that are identified from biblical sources.
To simply disallow any reference to these biblical sources because the original poster failed to make any sort of inferrance to “religion”, as some see it, is hindering and barring that individuals opportunity to make the decision for himself whether or not to accept or reject the particular “help” that he/she is desiring to obtain.

I didn’t read most of the above replies, but I did glance at these ones about definitions and legal definitions, and feel like I should mention one thing I think about that, assuming you’re still talking about the subject of relgion on help.com: Even if dictionaries and courts have different meanings for all these words, that doesn’t change the meaning of the help.com netiquette guidelines, it just makes them even harder to understand and explain to people who ask. It might change the legal implications of the CBS/CNET Terms of Service / Terms of Use, but I don’t know about that.
Personally I think if you don’t like the site you don’t have to use it, rather than use it and complain about its basic policies. Or can complain and argue about it — and in a case like this, it’s easy for me to casually glance and see a bunch of respectful and rational conversers, but that’s luck of the draw. Typical posts getting into religious arguments over the years have involved much more random bloodshed, with many removed replies and half the people being banned by the end.
The past couple of years have been far more civil, but if you start blatantly insulting someone’s most cherished values and beliefs, they’ll still have a tendency to get upset.

Hear hear, mindhealer

I wasn’t directing my reply at anyone in particular. I just got notices for this post every time someone replied, so I finally decided to say something.

I think the help.com policies about social sensitivity are extremely helpful, in contrast to unmoderated forums that discuss similar things. I just made up “social sensitivity” but I mean not only the advice to be respectful and conservative in religious matters, but also that there’s a general kid-glove atmosphere to try to prevent more controversial things or flamewars or other typical insensitive internet activity, and that’s a major part of why this site can work, that even people who themselves have major problems going on can figure out useful ways to help others.

I disagree that religion is a source of comfort and that posting about it is a source of anxiety. Religion may be personally helpful, and helpful between members of the same religion, but the differences between religions cause inhumanity, arguments, and wars. So they try to protect a neutrality here.

The Devil’s Advocate/Anomalyst wrote:
- btw, are you big al one?

Roof Donkey wrote:
- No im not Big Al One.

Interesting. . .

No. He’s not. I’m far less cuddly.

Atheism is a religion not because the Atheist dosen’t believe in God - not because s/he is lacking belief in God, but because of the persuing insistant nature of what Atheism claims not to believe. The Atheist is drawn to the occasion. You could say, “people who believe in God are the same way.” But, that goes with the territory - as a believer, I accept that. The Atheist refuses to accept the label that goes with his/her actions that directly defines ‘religion.’
There are many people who believe in God who put that ideal first in their lives.
The Atheist who prioritizes there is no God as a focal core issue does the same. They summons founding principals of ‘religion.’ And they bear a doctorine as dogmatic as any believer of ANY religion.

In order for me to say, “I don’t believe in faries,” and not be ‘religious’ about it, my belief in that must be so complete that it is not even an issue that would compel me to address it EVERY TIME someone expressed the idea that faries existed.

None issue. And believe me when I tell you, there are plenty of people who believe in God that bear far less religous connotations than most Atheists.

Anomalyst wrote:
it’s amazing that there can be two separate people with equally insane ideas.

Emm - same said.

Anomalyst wrote:
so… because I don’t believe in faeries, that makes me religious?
basically this means that everyone is religious. which of course is beyond ridiculous.

This is not what I mean nor what I have said. The full meaning of what I said is in the context of my first reply. I invite you to actually read it for what I’ve intended to say. This means you will have to deny yourself permission to come up with some insane version of what I said in order to feel comfortable with calling me ridiculous.