Do you ever think that maybe it would be more fun if you provided actual valuable input? Or is your programming so shitty this is all you are capable of?
U.S. Supreme Court Ruling: ATHEISM IS RELIGION
- Thread starter Alter2Ego
- Start date
Do you ever think that maybe it would be more fun if you provided actual valuable input? Or is your programming so shitty this is all you are capable of?
It is. He has been doing this for years.
Trump’s comments on Friday came months after he remarked that he would be “a dictator on day one” if given a second four-year term in the White House. He has repeatedly made known his admiration for authoritarian leaders, including Russia’s Vladimir Putin, Hungary’s Viktor Orbán and North Korea’s Kim Jong-un. And a former White House aide reported that Trump once said Adolf Hitler “did some good things”.
Into the Night
Verified User
You can't insult your way out of this, dummy.
Into the Night
Verified User
DON'T TRY TO BLAME DEMOCRAT TYRANNY ON TRUMP!
dancindave
Verified User
Now if that were true there wouldn't be Federal Lynching KKK churchstate of hate drug trafficking fiefdom where thieving Christian Nation West Virginia old glory arsonists are granted standing as those thieving Islam old glory arsonists in Washington, D.C. this past week; but Christian Nation SCOTUS Fourth Reich July is still putting on a patriot act.....
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
Per Merriam-Webster:
Religion
1: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
2: a(1): the service and worship of God or the supernatural
(2): commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
b: the state of a religious
a nun in her 20th year of religion
3: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
4: archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness
Atheism
1 a: a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods
b: a philosophical or religious position characterized by disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods
2 archaic : godlessness especially in conduct : ungodliness, wickedness
Religion
1: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
2: a(1): the service and worship of God or the supernatural
(2): commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
b: the state of a religious
a nun in her 20th year of religion
3: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
4: archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness
Atheism
1 a: a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods
b: a philosophical or religious position characterized by disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods
2 archaic : godlessness especially in conduct : ungodliness, wickedness
Into the Night
Verified User
No dictionary defines any word, idiot.
Religion does NOT require any institution, and does not even require a god or gods.
The Church of No God is a religion. It is not atheism.
The word "atheism" means "anti-theist". It simply means one with out theism (religion). It does not care whether any god or gods may exist or not.
Atheism is not a religion. The Church of No God is a fundamentalist style religion.
The word "religion" is defined by philosophy, not a dictionary.
The word "atheism" is from Latin, first appearing in the English lexicon around 1600.
False authority fallacy. Redefinition fallacy (theism<->atheism).
dancindave
Verified User
If you're in Christian Nation SCOTUS Fourth Reich July "what is 9/11 ?" Freudian slip the only glory will be all those thieving Islam old glory arsonists as this past week in Washington, D.C. and all those West Virginia thieving old glory arsonists preyers.....
Alter2Ego
Verified User
NiftyNiblick:
By your own admission you're an atheist. In that case, you are automatically in a religion. Atheism is Religion.
NiftyNiblick
1960s Chick Magnet
I don't see it that way at all.
Atheism is rejection of religion as I see it..
NiftyNiblick
1960s Chick Magnet
Why do those afflicted with religious beliefs use a political forum to proselytize?
Feel free to draw comfort from your beliefs.
That harms nobody.
Just don't bother me with them, please.
Splashing our political beliefs around is provocative enough.
Feel free to draw comfort from your beliefs.
That harms nobody.
Just don't bother me with them, please.
Splashing our political beliefs around is provocative enough.
To be fair to them, it isn't just political fora. They will proselytize everywhere. Certainly in the Christian tradition they are given the "Great Commission" to go out and spread the word.
Agreed. Though sometimes it is fun to read.
I am curious why this is an important point to you.
Why does the lack of belief need to be a form of belief for you?
Waiting a month for a galactically stupid response is just boring. Someone who has to bolster their personal beliefs by claiming another group does the same demonstrates an insecurity about that belief. I’m not here to make someone feel better about their belief by denigrating my lack of that belief. This poster will no longer waste my time.
^^^^QFT. When a religious person INSISTS the lack of belief is just another belief kind of show their hand...that even they find "belief without evidence" to be a weaker position.
Starting from a false premise you can ‘prove’ anything. Your premise is rejected. You are a HORRIBLE advocate.
Alter2Ego
Verified User
Concart:
You need to tell that to the U.S. Supreme Court and the numerous other courts within the USA that declared Atheism is Religion. Don't bring your complaints to me.
SCOTUS has held atheism falls under the Separation Clause of the Constitution. That, in that special application, atheism is considered to fall under the larger umbrella of religion.
SCOTUS did NOT rule that atheism was a religion. It merely expanded the Separation Clause to include non-religion as well.
Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38, 105 S.Ct. 2479, 86 L.Ed.2d 29 (1985)Wallace v Jaffree said:
This is a bit more subtle and not quite exactly what you are saying. Be very careful in misrepresenting legal topics as they are often far more nuanced than you simplistic overreach.
While it may feel "good" to take the position you have taken there are a number of problems with it.
1. It does not appear to be in the "spirit" of what the Courts were actually ruling
2. It appears to hold "faith" to be a lower value epistemic position which means you disrespect your OWN faith by leveraging it thusly (If your "belief" is equavlent and indifferentiable from "non-belief" then what does that say about belief?)
I I don’t care. You can believe I am a zebra if that makes you feel better. If I accept your false premise as true, the question then would be, so what? Have a point.