[ShizukaMikudou]

Originally Posted by Fat1Fared

As I said, by the understanding of everyone, bar you, you are changing them. Why? Because:
1=To change something is to make it different to what it was previously.
2=To be different is to be 'not the same.'
3=Your definition is not the same as the previous definition of the word.
4=Thus your definition is different.
5=Therefore you have changed their meanings, or at least unsuccessfully tried to.

Yes, religion with the definition of "The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods." is very generalizing definition, and is very different from the definition of religion: "Details of belief as taught or discussed." The second definition is the one I have been using, and the first definition is the one I have been explaining that my meaning is not.

Originally Posted by Fat1Fared

=As for your use of the words, "temporarily, obviously. Metaphorically, skeptically." Well, unfortunately, your usage of them makes no sense to anyone bar, presumably, yourself. Why? Because:
1= Temporarily changing something means you make it different for a short period of time. That means you have just said you are giving them new definitions for a short period of time, then changing them back. I am not sure how this proves your point.
2=Using words metaphorically is not changing, it means you are using their meaning a non-literal sense; however, this does not your help because that is not what you are doing. You are using your own, new, definitions of the words in a very literal sense.
3=To be skeptical is to be mildly disbelieving of something. Now your use of the word means you just stated that you are skeptical of your own theory. This is because currently the words position in the sentence means the only dominant clause it can be linked with is your own theory, thus you just said you are skeptical of your own theory. Now, may be you are, I do not know, your constantly changing of the English language makes you hard to follow, but I do think that is what you actually meant to do. Thus, the word here, I am sorry to inform you, is not being used correctly for your purposes.

Temporarily, meaning that in this situation at this time, right here in this thread topic, I'm not using the definition you're thinking that I am using, so for the duration of your reading this, please disregard, temporarily, the definition you thought was true for a different one, which, though is different, is also true.
Metaphorically, meaning that when I state that atheists believe that they are their own god, I obviously do not mean it literally. As stated before, the word "god" is being used metaphorically, not literally. Here, it represents an idol, or a role model that a person looks up to for moral support.
Skeptically, as in simply that I am not forcing my beliefs on anyone, nor just blatantly saying "Christianity is right and all atheistic beliefs are wrong!" Instead, I am saying, "Here is my opinion. It is a philosophy. Although I believe in it, I do not expect you to believe in it, and I understand that to you, it is only a philosophy. I expect that you are skeptical of it, so I proceed to explain my opinion further."

Originally Posted by Fat1Fared

1=Legal definitions do not always follow the definition of a word as it would be seen outside of the courtroom. Often courts misuse words to get what they see as a fair result. That is why the advocate for the other side is criticising the jurisprudence of this case.

Getting far off topic here. I used the word "religion" to describe atheism as well as Christianity and all other religions. Keeping it at that, my usage of the term, religion, should be enough to give it the definition I've been aiming for this entire time. If the word, religion, bugs everyone that much, then fine, I'll call it a worldview. Atheism, Christianity, and all other religions are worldviews.

Originally Posted by Fat1Fared

2=That is not a supreme court case, that is a federal court case, thus I give it all the creditably of a magistrates court in the UK. Which is very little.

Alright, here: Atheism is a Religion Says US Supreme Court

Originally Posted by Fat1Fared

3=It was not saying Atheism is a religion; the article said that. The judge actually said it should have the same rights as a religion to start its own study group. Subtle points like this are very important in Law.

I quote from the very article I referenced previously: "When the case was brought before the higher court, it was further considered, that although the prison officials did not deem atheism a religion, perhaps it should have been considered a religion because it was a group that was "religious in nature even though it expressly rejects a belief in a supreme being." The case, therefore, was finally judged by the State Supreme Court as not being in violation of free exercise because the atheist would still be able to practice his atheism whether or not he was allowed to form the group, however, his right to establishment of that group that was religious in nature was denied, and thus a violation of his First Amendment rights."

Originally Posted by Fat1Fared

4=The supreme court said religion does not need to be based on god, no one here has disagreed with that argument, but that does not make Atheism a religion.

How so? Do you have any reasons to back up your statement?
As I have said, my opinion is that as Atheism is a worldview, an opinion on the world, it is also a religion. A philosophy, here where philosophy has a very good definition of the word, religion.