Our New Home

We have a new home, come join us at WeAreSMRT (We Are Skeptical Minds & Rational Thinkers)

The Forum

Tuesday, September 2, 2008

Ray Sources Debunking Dan, Perhaps?

Have you seen the edit in the Ray has made about the court case which declared atheism a religion? The article appeared on WorldNetDaily on 8-20-2005 and refers to "yesterday." If you do a little looking, that is referring to the case Kaufman v McCaughtry which was decided on 8-19-2005. For those who read either my blog or Dan the Debunker's blog, it should sound familiar.

That's because Dan over at Debunking Atheists made a post entitled Atheism is a Religion! wherein he cites this case as proving atheism is a religion. I read through the case and, last month, posted an article On Free Exercise of Irreligion. The judge in the case himself says that atheism is not a religion and they are only considering it for the purposes of protection under the First Amendment.

In other words, the decision was "atheism qualifies as a religion for the purpose of protection under the Free Exercise Clause" as opposed to "atheism is a religion." This distinction seems to be lost on Dan and Ray, or is simply overlooked as it doesn't fit into their conclusion. As I point out in my post last month on it, Ray and Dan would probably conclude, then, that corporations and churches are literally people because they qualify as persons for the purpose of protection under the law.


  1. I knew it.

    Freedom of religion DOES MEAN freedom to practice any religion or no religion at all.

    You know, the way it should be... Meaning it doesn't fit Ray's agenda...meaning he'll post anything to make it look bad.

  2. I hope Ray reads this post. It's one thing to have an opinion, but another to be factually corrected.

    Ray didn't even need to bring up the court case anyway to make his point.

  3. Hey, if atheism is a religion I outta get a tax deduction for all the money I contribute to the maintaince of my atheistic lifestyle.

  4. Kaitlyn,

    Ray's faith, like all religions, require belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. To him, facts are as insubstantial as a wisp of smoke.

    You, I, and the other posters here prefer (require?) logical proof and material evidence.

    Is one a superior position to the other? I can't say for sure, but I can say that logical proof and material evidence has helped us to develop air conditioning, which I find to be far superior than living in a world without it.

    You might even say that I pursue a constant, comfortable temperature with such a zeal that it is nothing less than a religion, and I am nothing less than an evangelical Freonist.

    Chill ;)

  5. Benjamin Franklin,

    I am ecstatic to meet someone on the internet as intelligent and well-spoken as you.

  6. If this court cases proves that atheism is a religion, then the Dover trial proves that ID is not science.

    Special pleading in 5...4...3...2...1!


Unlike Ray we don't censor our comments, so as long as it's on topic and not spam, fire away.

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.