Atheism is the absence of belief. There is no system.
For an atheist, are there such things as inherent or natural rights, or is that concept an illusion?
Not if people have an inherited evolutionary psychological experience like I described above.
Atheism is not an absence of belief anyway. Theism is a belief in a Universe that involves a god or gods. Atheism is the belief in a universe that does not require a god. They are both “positive” beliefs IMO.
Given that rights vary based on time and place and natural rights implies something static I don’t think they exist. There may be universal desires and needs from which we can create and interpret rights. So the universal instinct for self-defense could be interpreted as a natural right however, the concept varies according to time and place when it comes to the details.
Right? But so is a theist in aspects of their life, right? Even topics that their religion isn’t silent on, religious people will commonly actively pick rational logic instead. That’s a trait of human nature, not atheism.
Being skeptical of our own psychology is not exclusive to atheism? Hell even religious people are skeptical of all other religions by way of not following that path themselves.
In a societal manner? Sure there can be for some. But why would the person being an atheist be a driving force to that?
Belief system. Everyone believes something at some given time. I believe that if I hit a certain key a particular letter will appear on my screen. What is the belief system at work there? If we are using belief system as another term for religion, secular or otherwise.
Wouldn’t that, if it were true, preclude them from having first amendment protections for their beliefs?
What religious beliefs does an atheist have that the 1A would protect?
Edit: asking seriously. I don’t actually know if atheists are protected by the 1A, but I certainly know Pat’s analogy isn’t possible
“Congress shall make no law … prohibiting the free exercise thereof” (meaning the free exercise of religion.). If Atheism is not a religion, Atheists lose various protections, I would suspect. I was actually asking as well. I’m not really sure, but I had generally assumed that Atheism received protection as a religion.
As an aside, my understanding is that Atheism is the belief that there is no God, as opposed to Agnosticism, which is only the state of not knowing. A slightly stronger statement of Agnosticism, would be that no one can know. Any statement beyond, “I personally don’t know.” Is a statement of religious belief.
From a brief google, it seems SCOTUS has ruled that atheism is equivalent to a religion for the purposes of protections, while not being a religion itself. Torcaso v. Watkins is what was cited.
That being said, atheism still does not have teachings or tenants to draw from to justify discrimination, the way Pat claimed could be done
The 1st Amendment doesn’t just protect religious beliefs.
No, they do not. They don’t lose religious protections because they don’t have a religion in the first place. What religious practice or expression do they need to protect? They do have all the other protections the 1st Amendment provides.
Not exactly. It’s the absence of belief in God. They may believe that there is no God but it is not a belief. Beliefs revolve around something existing, not something that does not exist.
Such riveting discussion about the SCOTUS pick I see…
Talking about the Bill of Rights and possible interpretations is not relevant?
Get us back on track mang. This derail might have been kept going by my stubbornness, but I promise I didn’t start this one 
1 Like
It’s a relevant discussion to have, but what y’all are talking about doesn’t seem particularly relevant to the current vacancy or the Kavanaugh nomination. Don’t let me rain on your parade, though.
I don’t know anything about Kavanaugh. I was hoping someone like @Jewbacca or @thunderbolt23 would chime in on his nomination.
1 Like
It seems like it’s about the direction the court might take with Trump’s choices when it comes to how it rules. The thread title implies as much.
Please forgive me for not understanding the connection between whether or not atheism is afforded 1st amendment religious protection and Trump’s potential SCOTUS pick.
There is no need for forgiveness because you are right. If pat understood what atheism is and isn’t we wouldn’t have gotten this far into it.
1 Like