Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I vote Islam. It's so intolerant, that non muslims are banned from entering its two holiest cities. Not a Saudi Rule, but an Koranic based rule, explicit for Mecca, and they imply it for Medina as well.
It's a new religion. It's called "American Christianity". It's not like "traditional Christianity". This one wants poor people to starve and feel corporations should run the country. It's tied with Radical Islam.
The only thing that protects us is our law enforcement.
The only ting that protects us is God. Christians don't want poor people to starve. They what to find out why that person is poor. Christians certainly don't want corporations to run America. And they certainly do not what the government to become a corporation as it would seem liberals are leading us to.
The logic that atheism is a religion is faulty, least. As it is the absence of belief, it is only belief in the same way that believing the sun will rise (to use the common term; I know the earth turns) or any other probable event. That certain people who refer to themselves as atheist seem to proselytize is only in reaction to the force with which religion is felt in society. Religion is the presence of something that atheism is the absence of. Insisting that it is a religion is merely the attempt by 'the faithful' to reduce others' thinking to what can be understood.
I think anyone and everyone has her/his experience of the universe and that is what is important. It can hardly be shared with another and certainly cannot be forced.
A federal court of appeals ruled yesterday Wisconsin prison officials violated an inmates rights because they did not treat atheism as a religion.
Atheism is [the inmate's] religion, and the group that he wanted to start was religious in nature even though it expressly rejects a belief in a supreme being, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals said.
The court decided the inmates First Amendment rights were violated because the prison refused to allow him to create a study group for atheists.
Brian Fahling, senior trial attorney for the American Family Association Center for Law & Policy, called the courts ruling a sort of Alice in Wonderland jurisprudence.
Up is down, and atheism, the antithesis of religion, is religion, said Fahling.
The Supreme Court has said a religion need not be based on a belief in the existence of a supreme being. In the 1961 case of Torcaso v. Watkins, the court described secular humanism as a religion.
Read more at Court rules atheism a religion
The Supreme Court quotation does not say atheism is a religion. In any case, I repeat what was said in the post regardless of any court decision. Courts find what is believed or expedient at the time (remember Dred Scot?). The logic is faulty.
The inmate's protection was sufficient under the First merely by speech and had no need of religion.
As for Buddhism, many believe and worship in error, according to what Buddha himself taught. Many call it a philosophy rather than a religion.
If we are to use the loosest definition of the term, how was Nazism less than a faith?
The Supreme Court quotation does not say atheism is a religion. In any case, I repeat what was said in the post regardless of any court decision. Courts find what is believed or expedient at the time (remember Dred Scot?). The logic is faulty.
The inmate's protection was sufficient under the First merely by speech and had no need of religion.
As for Buddhism, many believe and worship in error, according to what Buddha himself taught. Many call it a philosophy rather than a religion.
If we are to use the loosest definition of the term, how was Nazism less than a faith?
For some Nazi-ism was a means to an end. Not something they believed in based on faith as much as something they recognized as expedient to achieve certain goals, most especially those of power, influence, and personal advantage.
For others it may indeed have been faith based.
There is sometimes a slim to vanishing dividing line between political and religious beliefs.\
Atheism however is based entirely on a concept that there is no God. That makes it entirely faith based for I say again, it requires as much faith to disbelieve in God as it does to believe there is a God. And because Atheists organize, conduct ritual, dispense dogma and doctrine re the anti-God concept, and have no other purpose for being, THAT is what makes Atheism a religion.
The Supreme Court quotation does not say atheism is a religion. In any case, I repeat what was said in the post regardless of any court decision. Courts find what is believed or expedient at the time (remember Dred Scot?). The logic is faulty.
The inmate's protection was sufficient under the First merely by speech and had no need of religion.
As for Buddhism, many believe and worship in error, according to what Buddha himself taught. Many call it a philosophy rather than a religion.
If we are to use the loosest definition of the term, how was Nazism less than a faith?
For some Nazi-ism was a means to an end. Not something they believed in based on faith as much as something they recognized as expedient to achieve certain goals, most especially those of power, influence, and personal advantage.
For others it may indeed have been faith based.
There is sometimes a slim to vanishing dividing line between political and religious beliefs.\
Atheism however is based entirely on a concept that there is no God. That makes it entirely faith based for I say again, it requires as much faith to disbelieve in God as it does to believe there is a God. And because Atheists organize, conduct ritual, dispense dogma and doctrine re the anti-God concept, and have no other purpose for being, THAT is what makes Atheism a religion.
It does not take faith to disbelieve in a positive claim for which there is no evidence. Only the opposite is true. Does it take faith to disbelieve the claim that Bigfoot exists? No. Because the burden of proof is on those making the claim. Until they furnish demonstrable evidence, you are justified in disbelief and the requires no faith. The same is with god. Those who claim a god or gods exist have provided no demonstrable evidence for thousands of years. Their belief rests on a complete lack of evidence, which is the definition of faith. Disbelieving this claim does not require any evidence, since disbelievers do not carry the burden of proof, therefore it logically can not be said to be require faith in order to disbelieve. That is logically incoherent. It is a vacuous assertion to say that it does.
The Supreme Court quotation does not say atheism is a religion. In any case, I repeat what was said in the post regardless of any court decision. Courts find what is believed or expedient at the time (remember Dred Scot?). The logic is faulty.
The inmate's protection was sufficient under the First merely by speech and had no need of religion.
As for Buddhism, many believe and worship in error, according to what Buddha himself taught. Many call it a philosophy rather than a religion.
If we are to use the loosest definition of the term, how was Nazism less than a faith?
The Supreme Court quotation does not say atheism is a religion. In any case, I repeat what was said in the post regardless of any court decision. Courts find what is believed or expedient at the time (remember Dred Scot?). The logic is faulty.
The inmate's protection was sufficient under the First merely by speech and had no need of religion.
As for Buddhism, many believe and worship in error, according to what Buddha himself taught. Many call it a philosophy rather than a religion.
If we are to use the loosest definition of the term, how was Nazism less than a faith?
I also meant to mention that yes, you can call Buddhism a philosophy or way of life, but it is nevertheless listed among the world's great religions. For that matter there are many Christians who do not practice any 'relgiion' as prescribed by any particular Christian denomination, but who regard Christianity as a relationship, not a religion. Nevertheless, Christianity is listed among the world's great religions.
In my opinion, and apparently that of the courts, is that Atheism is a bonafide religion because it professes a doctrine regarding religious faith, or in this case a lack thereof. And it does require as much faith to disbelieve as it does to believe.
I vote Islam...
The most intolerant religion is 'Far-left, Liberal, Atheist democratism.'.
Now THAT'S a tough one.To go the opposite way, what, in your opinion, is the MOST tolerant?
" And it does require as much faith to disbelieve as it does to believe."
I don't believe so.
Now THAT'S a tough one.To go the opposite way, what, in your opinion, is the MOST tolerant?
Not at all.
Buddhism. Definitely
I would disagree. I have Buddhist friends who quite easily say a pox on all Abrahamic religions. They are not at all tolerant. All religions believe they have found the right path which is why people embrace them. That naturally assumes that all others are more wrong.
