Name one that doesn't.
They do make claims about reality. I brought up several points to support this that you did not address.
It really seems to me that you are dead-set on giving religions a special status compared to other truth claims.
Why is that?
So it is subjective?
They are not here.
Because you redefined words in order to suit your own viewpoint. That seems to be something I see a lot on the far-right and far-left in politics.
Using a proper definition besides one that basically means "Philosophy or religion I like = religion...
No, we are actually doing doing it from the standard of any philosophy, not just natural philosophy which would require verification of empirical evidence using the scientific method.
If anyone could provide rational evidence for their ideas of metaphysics then that would be fine as well...
But how do you filter the "good" and the "bad"?
They normally follow dictionary definitions unless you are trying to redefine a word for your own purposes.
I highly disagree, but seeing as you are likely to just no true-scotsman any religion that does otherwise, I see why you would like to...
......what?
The vast majority of religions in the world are theistic and many of them are based on the existence of those deities or of a prophet of those deities......
Philosophies that have grown into religions are the exception not the rule.
You are under no obligation to do so.
If you dislike it so much, then why do you post here?
If you really are a dragon, then what is your end goal in talking here?
Even liberal versions of religions that tend to do that with parts of their scripture still claim the existence of a path to be followed and many still claim the existence of a supernatural being.
Did Siddhartha Guatama create all of the ideas present in most forms of Buddhism today?
I find this to be the difference between philosophical Buddhism and religious Buddhism. I have met some Tibetan Buddhists for example that simply defer to the teachings of their masters without any...
I am an agnostic atheist.
But did you look at them from a neutral viewpoint or with the assumption of what they should be?
How? It could easily be the product of it's time and it's deity has done many amoral things according to that book.
To be frank the bible kind of shoots itself in the...
Unless you are calling magick the "arts" I am going to have to call bull****!
You can appreciate art forms without having to lower your standard of evidence for something existing in reality.
That said, even if you are calling magick the "arts" I am going to have to point to Chaos Magick.
Did Siddhartha Guatama though?
If I where to follow only the teachings of Siddhartha Guatama, would that make a Buddhist?
Does neoplatonism not also have a "mythology"? Does stoicism and humanism not have self-imposed moral and social roles and goals?