GfS, I don't understand what you are saying here.

>>>Well, Jack, our founding fathers, wanted to be free of Europe's tyranny of both religion and their banking system and taxation...so, in drafting the Constitution, they rejected the Divine Right of Kings as being sovereign....and put forth that the PEOPLE are sovereign!!!!
..and they based their premise on the Christian/Judea idea that one's will, should NOT intrude over another person's rights...in other words, 'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you'..... so your statement, "It is probable that that definition was written by a layperson, not a scientist, Possibly a lawyer." is somewhat interesting, because lawyers have used slick language and fraud, to remove us away from the premise of our founding fathers....but they sure get paid well for it!
How about the rest of us? <<<

Since you quote this "It is probable that that definition was written by a layperson, not a scientist, Possibly a lawyer." and have posted the whole thing twice. I will say that lawyers have too much power in our western democracies. For the most part lawyers write the laws and they do it in a way that benefits lawyers. I suspect they are not evil. I suspect that like most professions, they overvalue their own contributions, but they are in a unique position of being able to reward themselves.

The definition of the American Atheists is fine as far as it goes. It was composed for Non-scientific lay people SCOTUS, by lawyers, and while the sciences may not be quite right and pointed out by Mr. Shaw and others on this thread. The science does not matter because the argument on a religious matter.