# Atheism is now legally a religion. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 5, 2014, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-now-legally-a-religion/703811 "2014-11-05T22:45:44Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2014, 1:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-now-legally-a-religion/703811/181 "2014-11-07T13:12:21Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > I’m sure some whackjob will now reason that if any law lacks a religious basis, it is an atheist law, and therefore in violation of the Establishment Clause, because atheism is a religion now. :smack: Which is one of the prime reasons why I don’t want it confused as to what the court did in the OP, which involved secular humanism, _not_ atheism. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2014, 1:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-now-legally-a-religion/703811/182 "2014-11-07T13:18:46Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > I’m sure some whackjob will now reason that if any law lacks a religious basis, it is an atheist law, and therefore in violation of the Establishment Clause, because atheism is a religion now. :smack: _“But if the Establishment Clause lacks a religious basis, then it’s an atheist law, and so…”_ ---
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2014, 1:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-now-legally-a-religion/703811/183 "2014-11-07T13:32:35Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > It depends on one’s starting point. If you start with the question of first cause, and accept the scientific tenet that all things have a cause, then there had to be, at some point, something not subject to such a rule. Something supra-natural. Something God-like. I don’t mean anything with flowing robes, or anything that even suggests a religion. Now, it is possible that this is wrong somehow. But for the universe to NOT have a first cause is a conclusion that requires faith, as well… This is the weakest of arguments and a very tired and pathetic one at that. Why can’t the universe be the thing not subject to your rule? Why introduce another step of a god creating itself and then creating the universe? If god needed no creator or has always existed, why can the same principles not be applied to the universe? My seven year old daughter saw through this one. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2014, 1:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-now-legally-a-religion/703811/184 "2014-11-07T13:33:35Z")
> [@Latro](#): > > Here is where you go wrong. > Even if we accept that ‘all things have a cause’ is a scientific tenet, it doesn’t follow from this tenet that there has to be a point where this doesn’t apply. > > If you simply adhere to this tenet, it’s turtles all the way down. It’s only when you insert that there has to have been ‘a beginning’ that you run into a 'first cause’problem. But if you then hold the position that there is no beginning, that, too is supra-natural. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2014, 1:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-now-legally-a-religion/703811/185 "2014-11-07T13:36:06Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > But if you then hold the position that there is no beginning, that, too is supra-natural. In what way? ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2014, 1:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-now-legally-a-religion/703811/186 "2014-11-07T13:38:06Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > I disagree. The default position is not certainty, but it’s reasonable that the default position is “without any evidence, there’s no reason to believe or act as if there’s a omniscient, omnipotent being in the sky”. That’s atheism (or at least it falls within the spectrum of atheism). It is reasonable to believe that all things have a cause. Because all things we know about, have a cause. I grant that this may ultimately be incorrect, but based on the knowledge we have, the default is to assume that all things have causes. > [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Why wouldn’t that first cause also have a first cause, if “all things have a cause”? Saying “there was a first cause and it’s God” doesn’t answer any questions – it just creates more… like what created/caused God. It’s just as reasonable to assume any first cause would be the destruction/collapse of a previous universe, for example, or just to say “we don’t know”. None of this implies a supernatural being in any way whatsoever. The destruction of the universe that birthed this one would be the cause. Ultimately, you arrive at a point where the thing could not have been cause. And at that point you are in the realm of the supra-natural. The world off God, gods, etc. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2014, 1:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-now-legally-a-religion/703811/187 "2014-11-07T13:41:53Z")
> [@Princhester](#): > > Nah. You’re almost there. The default position is we don’t know there are any of these things so we don’t believe in them. So we are atheists. For weak atheism, I’d agree. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2014, 1:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-now-legally-a-religion/703811/188 "2014-11-07T13:43:30Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > It is reasonable to believe that all things have a cause. Because all things we know about, have a cause. I grant that this may ultimately be incorrect, but based on the knowledge we have, the default is to assume that all things have causes. > > The destruction of the universe that birthed this one would be the cause. Ultimately, you arrive at a point where the thing could not have been cause. And at that point you are in the realm of the supra-natural. The world off God, gods, etc. _Or_ the world of universes that were always there without the need of gods. Speculatively, one is just as likely as the other. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2014, 1:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-now-legally-a-religion/703811/189 "2014-11-07T13:43:57Z")
> [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > This is the weakest of arguments and a very tired and pathetic one at that. > > Why can’t the universe be the thing not subject to your rule? Why introduce another step of a god creating itself and then creating the universe? > > If god needed no creator or has always existed, why can the same principles not be applied to the universe? > > My seven year old daughter saw through this one. There was an even called the Big Bang? What caused it? Nothing. Nothing happened between T-1 and T? ---
**Author:** ![IMfez](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/f07891/32.png) [@IMfez](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IMfez)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2014, 1:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-now-legally-a-religion/703811/190 "2014-11-07T13:47:10Z")
I think you guys are missing the point here. Now that we are a religion and receive the powers associated with it, who shall we persecute? I vote on people who drive vehicles that harm the environment and are too poor to upgrade. There seems to be a moral justification and class stratification is inbuilt. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2014, 1:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-now-legally-a-religion/703811/191 "2014-11-07T13:47:37Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > There was an even called the Big Bang? What caused it? Nothing. Nothing happened between T-1 and T? Do you know what a scientist says at this point? “We don’t know _yet_, but we are striving to find out.” ---
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2014, 1:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-now-legally-a-religion/703811/192 "2014-11-07T13:49:13Z")
> [@nani](#): > > Well, to be fair, Richard Dawkins and the other New Atheists’ arguments are not respected among any religious studies scholars I have ever met. To the extent that their work is examined, it is more about how they are received and the influence they have, not about whether they actually make insightful arguments about religion. Dawkins asks for evidence on whether religious claims are true, i.e. the claims that the religious make _themselves_. And they are mighty big claims. Theology, if it is anything, is a means of ensuring such claims never get tested on a true/false basis. It is an exercise in hand-waving and circular reasoning. It has to be because it dare not make any more testable claims now that Newton, Einstein, Mendel et al dared to think and test and question. Of course the arguments of atheists are not respected by the religious. Theology does not do straight questions, straight answers or evidence. They wouldn’t know an insightful argument if it smote them verily. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2014, 1:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-now-legally-a-religion/703811/193 "2014-11-07T13:54:29Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > It is reasonable to believe that all things have a cause. Because all things we know about, have a cause. I grant that this may ultimately be incorrect, but based on the knowledge we have, the default is to assume that all things have causes. That doesn’t answer the question at all – if this is so, than God has a cause too. There’s no logical reason to decide that the same rules that apply to universe wouldn’t also apply to any God. > [@](#): > > The destruction of the universe that birthed this one would be the cause. Ultimately, you arrive at a point where the thing could not have been cause. Why? > [@](#): > > And at that point you are in the realm of the supra-natural. The world off God, gods, etc. Why? Why wouldn’t this also have a cause? What’s special about the concept of God beyond the reverence in which some human cultures have held it? ---
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2014, 1:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-now-legally-a-religion/703811/194 "2014-11-07T13:54:33Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > There was an even called the Big Bang? What caused it? Nothing. Nothing happened between T-1 and T? You are assuming there was a t-1. In fact you seem to be suggesting that god was that t-1 but that for some reason there was no god-1. Why can there be a t-1but no god-1? ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2014, 2:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-now-legally-a-religion/703811/195 "2014-11-07T14:05:57Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Do you know what a scientist says at this point? “We don’t know _yet_, but we are striving to find out.” Yes, and in doing so they are assuming that there is cause involved. If not, in what way are they using scientific inquiry? ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2014, 2:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-now-legally-a-religion/703811/196 "2014-11-07T14:11:02Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > That doesn’t answer the question at all – if this is so, than God has a cause too. There’s no logical reason to decide that the same rules that apply to universe wouldn’t also apply to any God. There are two different realms: the natural world and the supra-natural world. Causation is tied to the former. > [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Why? Because, in our world, the natural one, you can’t have an cause that was not itself caused. > [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Why? Why wouldn’t this also have a cause? What’s special about the concept of God beyond the reverence in which some human cultures have held it? Because ultimately you need something that that does not need a cause to exist. Also, when I talk about God/god, I’m tying it to nothing. Assume that everything we know about every religion we’ve ever heard about is 100% wrong. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2014, 2:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-now-legally-a-religion/703811/197 "2014-11-07T14:14:42Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > There are two different realms: the natural world and the supra-natural world. Causation is tied to the former. I understand some people believe in this supernatural world, but why should I? Why is this a reasonable default position? > [@](#): > > Because ultimately you need something that that does not need a cause to exist. Why do we need this? > [@](#): > > Also, when I talk about God/god, I’m tying it to nothing. Assume that everything we know about every religion we’ve ever heard about is 100% wrong. I know. So why would we assume that there’s a supernatural world? ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2014, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-now-legally-a-religion/703811/198 "2014-11-07T14:43:44Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Because, in our world, the natural one, you can’t have an cause that was not itself caused. Not if there are infinite turtles all the way down. ---
**Author:** ![Latro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@Latro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Latro)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2014, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-now-legally-a-religion/703811/199 "2014-11-07T14:46:06Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Yes, and in doing so they are assuming that there is cause involved. If not, in what way are they using scientific inquiry? Right. You see the only way you could arrive at a first cause is if your tenet was the exact opposite, namely ‘NOT everything has a cause.’ ‘Everything has a cause’ leads to infinity. no beginnings at all ---
**Author:** ![crowmanyclouds](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crowmanyclouds/32/19884_2.png) [@crowmanyclouds](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/crowmanyclouds)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2014, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-now-legally-a-religion/703811/200 "2014-11-07T14:53:08Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > There was an even called the Big Bang? What caused it? Nothing. Nothing happened between T-1 and T? > > > [@Czarcasm](#): > > > > Do you know what a scientist says at this point? “We don’t know _yet_, but we are striving to find out.” And do you know what a _scientist_ doesn’t say at this point? “We don’t know _yet_, but we’re pretty sure it was God.” 'Cause, ya know, we have no evidence for this “God” thing. CMC fnord! [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-now-legally-a-religion/703811.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheism-is-now-legally-a-religion/703811.md?page=11)