The Blasphemy Challenge

Reincarnation is not a dogma of Buddhism, it just exists in many areas where people believed in it before it was there. Karma is Hindu.
Nirvana is not dogma, just an idea. There is no dogma for the afterlife, some sects teach it, but they are, again, basing their beliefs on previous religions (Tibet- Bon).
Read the Suttas before you speak... Dictionaries also call atheism a religion, as do governments.
Buddhism has no set dogma other than the diagnosis of pain and the ending of suffering, everything else is up to the individual.
If you want to call that a religion, fine, so is medicine.

We do not need evangelism, that is what bookstores and Internet searches are for.

[cklabyrinth]

Forgive me. I'll go back to watching TV and being mediocre at life.

[Aliantha]

ck...move over. I'll bring the chips.

[lumberjim]

denouncing something requires that you believed it at one time. Rejecting something lends it substance. (equal and opposite reaction)

Getting together to renounce Christianity seems like an assbackwards way of teaching it. While i've often taken the stance that christians are all fucked up....this seems like the same shit from the opposite direction. why bother?

It is not that, I agree with you and there is a great video from Sam Harris on that topic.
One day, yes, no need for the word "atheist".
The day when young people are no longer healed hostage in their heads by fanatics who wish to force ideas upon them.
If you do this with some ideas you will be accused of abuse.
The day when they do not need the feeling that they are not alone when they are being persecuted by their friends and family and the net or a book is all they have to keep them from feeling like they are an island in the world that feels this way.
It will go when no teenager gets exorcised, committed, kicked-out of their home, no young person gets divorced for announcing their disbelief and have no idea who to talk to or how to begin to find them.
On the day when nowhere someone does not knock on your door and tell you something is wrong with you because you wish to be rational... that day is the day "atheist" will die and we will rejoice.

Plus, it is not an either-or scenario, no one went, "Gee, I sure like Jesus, but meeting him is a loooong way off... these guys will give me a nifty DVD now!! Aw heck! I'll do it! Maw, where's tha' camera?".
This is by atheists, for atheists, the religious don't enter into it.

[piercehawkeye45]

Those two women are fucking idiots.

"They are atheists, they believe in nothing."
Atheism is not nihilism.

"Christians are strong, Atheists are not strong"
How does religion have anything to do with strength?

& people wonder why some atheists have a chip? I am not one of them, but when I come across them I am never surprised.
A black (the other lady said it once too), female, journalist telling a minority in the US, repeatedly, that we need to "shut-up".
Where would she be if blacks, sufferjets and previous fighters for free speech and press just "shut-up"?
On the back of a bus, not voting being purchased for her next master while no one was writing about it, that's where.

Amazing how people cannot see themselves in others.

The freedom from religion and the freedom of religon is the same.

The closer the state gets to the church the more it will try to influence the church... how it is that the church only sees the influence going one way? Separation protects both.
Either way, it is part of why this nation was founded and should not be breeched under any circumstances.

[wolf]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

The freedom from religion and the freedom of religon is the same.

They are not.

It is one thing to advocate for the free exercise of religion. This, I think, is a fine thing, and one of the founding principles of this country, a basic right. You can choose your means of approach to faith and worship, or make the choice not to follow a faith-path, without a government mandate to do so. That's freedom of religion. That's IT. I, having the freedom of religion, will make choices different from yours.

I do not presume, however, to restrict your, or anyone else's public expression of your religion. I am not in any way harmed by the posting of the Ten Commandments on the courthouse wall, nor am I offended by a nativity in the public square. One person wears a cross, another a pentacle, yet another a crescent. So what?

Originally Posted by wolf

They are not.

It is one thing to advocate for the free exercise of religion. This, I think, is a fine thing, and one of the founding principles of this country, a basic right. You can choose your means of approach to faith and worship, or make the choice not to follow a faith-path, without a government mandate to do so. That's freedom of religion. That's IT. I, having the freedom of religion, will make choices different from yours.

I do not presume, however, to restrict your, or anyone else's public expression of your religion. I am not in any way harmed by the posting of the Ten Commandments on the courthouse wall, nor am I offended by a nativity in the public square. One person wears a cross, another a pentacle, yet another a crescent. So what?

The separation of church and state is fundamental to this nation, it is a key reason for the founding of it and why we left Europe. Someone being tried who is not a Christian will feel quite oppressed staring at the ten commandments while being tried as it states, clearly, that it is a Christian court that they are in. Not acceptable in this nation and could not be farther from the truth.

I have not made my video yet, my health has been bad for the last few days. As soon as I am able, I will, DVD or not, Wolf.

[wolf]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

Someone being tried who is not a Christian will feel quite oppressed staring at the ten commandments while being tried as it states, clearly, that it is a Christian court that they are in.

I disagree. Posting the Magna Carta wouldn't make it a British Court, posting the Ten Commandments does not make it a Christian Court. Both are documents showing the evolution of law, not laws under which the court functions.

[xoxoxoBruce]

It might be an indication they will follow established rules that have been accepted legal system and not making up shit as they go along, to suit their personal prejudices.

[Elspode]

Originally Posted by wolf

I do not presume, however, to restrict your, or anyone else's public expression of your religion. I am not in any way harmed by the posting of the Ten Commandments on the courthouse wall, nor am I offended by a nativity in the public square. One person wears a cross, another a pentacle, yet another a crescent. So what?

I agree in principle. Now, go down to the courthouse and try to erect a big pentacle with the Charge of the Goddess or the Rede on it. Let me know how that works out for you.

The question isn't freedom of religion, or even freedom *from* religion. The question is equal access to all religions or absences thereof.

Originally Posted by Elspode

I agree in principle. Now, go down to the courthouse and try to erect a big pentacle with the Charge of the Goddess or the Rede on it. Let me know how that works out for you.

The question isn't freedom of religion, or even freedom *from* religion. The question is equal access to all religions or absences thereof.

I would prefer an alter of Kali & willing sacrifice as is my right under the first amendment as religious conservatives interpret it.

[piercehawkeye45]

She also talked how we keep on pushing. It is like someone shoved you against the wall and then started complaining when you push yourself from against the wall. There were so many stereotypes and hypocrisy in that video. I was seriously pissed off for a good 45 minutes after seeing that and I don't consider myself an atheist.