She tries too hard. All image no person.

That Wisconsin court may have labeled atheism as a religion for the purposes of allowing atheists to be free from state-imposed religious ideals just as religious people are, (sep. of church & state, free speech) but really, by any stretch of definition, atheism is not a religion. However, yes, I agree with those judges, they deserve the same freedom of belief.

1.) Atheists are not "organized" like religious groups
2.) Atheists do not try to convert others
3.) Atheists are not required to ignore logic and plausibility and believe out of pure "faith," their beliefs are more based in educated guesses, scientific evidence and logic
4.) Atheists do not have a set of "rules" for behavior, morality or prophecy
5.) They believe in no creator or after-life.

So walks like a duck? Looks like a duck? Well it's a goose. The only thing in common with religion atheists have is an "ideology and set of shared beliefs."

Hi Allonzo

1.) The arguments I have offered do address your points and in fact, prove them wrong.
2.)Indeed I did agree with some minor things you said but that does not weaken my case, only proves I'm capable of supporting intelligent and productive discourse.
3.) You say you're not arguing semantics but any argument over DEFINITIONS is a semantic issue. Is there some other argument about atheism that you want to make?*
4.) I did not take "snippets" but I was perfectly TOPICAL. This topic here is a classic texbook definitional argument; is X a Y? I have proven that your definition is way too broad as it appears to include any ideology, philosophy or body of thought followed with fervor. I offered a better, more narrow, more accurate definition of "religion" in order to prove that atheism is not a religion.

*If you merely meant to argue that atheists subscribe to a particular philosophy or body of rhetoric, than you do not have a debate topic, you're just stating well known facts.

Yeah, Katz is right, we'd be missing the real cause of our safety issues with scanners. Passengers hiding bombs in clothing is not common or easy to do right now, so I don't think the scanners are that much help. Also, since they still allow the "crotch" and "breast" area to be obscured, that leaves some room to hide some small explosives anyway.

A really important issue to discuss. Thanks for bringing it up.

Just to provoke discussion, what is wrong with this definition? I pieced it together just from all notions of 'terrorist' in public discourse?

"A member of a group unaffiliated with any U.N.-recognized government or army who uses direct assaults on civilians (instead of soldiers) to invoke fear for use as a weapon for political ends."

My comments on some of Allonzo1's comments:

1.)By definition a "religion" is based on belief in a supernatural creator therefore atheism is not a religion.
2.) Yes, many atheists are zealots and dogmatic, but not all bodies of thought which are dogmatic are considered "religions." By that logic, communism is a religion as is the Atkin's diet, etc.
3.) Hitler used Darwin's Survival to justify the master race, wow. Not relevant to the topic, but note that people have used the Christian bible to justify mass killings as well (the crusades, witch hunts).

I do not believe Bill O'Reilly's claims that there is a "war on Christmas" in this country. There are not enough examples of so-called attacks to constitute a figurative war.
1.) Saying "happy holidays" to be inclusive is not attacking Christmas.
2.) Public schools and other places not hosting nativity scenes is not attacking Christmas, merely preserving the separation of church and state
3.) Stores displyaing "happy holidays" banners instead of "merry christmas" banners reflects the business's attempt to include every customer, which is very smart from a business pov. It is not a manifestation of an underground attempt to dismantle our beloved Christmas tradition.

Katzwinkel

My assumption that the word "slut" is derogatory is totally accurate. *You* may be in favor of promiscuous women (btw I totally applaud that you have no moral preconceptions about how much sex people should have!) but that does not change the widely known negative connotation of the word in this culture. If you say "slut" is not derogatory, just try complimenting the next woman you meet by telling her, "Hey gorgeous, you look like a slut." If everyone thought like you, it would NOT be derogatory and the double standard would vanish.

1.) Small-breasted women are still beautiful and tons of guys think so
2.) The look of large melons on a thin frame is an artificial image created by Hollywood that women have internalized as "normal" or "beautiful."
3.) Many artificial breast (and scars) look odd, too round and hard thus defeating the purpose of achieving that feminine beauty
4.) All surgeries carry serious risks like infection
5.) With push-up bra technology today, women can achieve the same well-endowed look (albeit clothed)

This term is misogynistic in nature. There is no similar term that is quite as DEROGATORY for a promiscuous man. The word reflects and reinforces a moral double standard against women regarding promiscuity. Granted, I'm not for promiscuity for either gender, but the moral double standard for women is not justified. It only serves to give men more leeway and women more boundaries, something our slightly misogynistic culture doesn't question. Some say the term is justified because "women can get pregnant" but I do not believe that is the reason why people hold that double standard. If a woman were born without a uterus people would still call her a "slut" for sleeping around a lot. Nobody says, "She's a slut! Oh, she's on birth control AND uses condoms? Well then she's less of a slut."

While it does reference a woman's sexual organ's excrement in a negative way, it is not misogynistic because there are similar words which reference a man's sexual organs (dick, scumbag, ...even asshole describes men though women have one as well.)

I agree with the verbal efficiency argument. Instead of saying "a spray-tanned orange guy with the popped collar over there hitting on his best friend's mom," it's easier to say "douchebag."

No, that denigrates the idea of net neutrality which means that all people pay the same costs to access and create internet content. This accessibility is what has made the internet such a vehicle for free and open expression of ideas. If the ISPs lobby congress and earn the right to charge content providers based upon bandwidth usage, than the Internet will change from a bastion of free speech to a more conventional kind of medium which grants expression only to those with a lot of money. Arguehow.com, for example, would have to pay a lot more money if it were to get a lot more popular and require more bandwidth usage. If a website does not make a profit, it will lose its right to be accessible. What will the internet look like then? Like television? Less like a marketplace of ideas and more like a place of only marketable ideas.