1) Those religions existed before mass amounts of people had "experiences" with that religion. So that is not what it is founded on.
2) People can lie and/or be deceived.
3) If you believe that mass "experiences" validates a religion, then all religions are correct even the ones that...
There are parts of religion that are not claims about reality, and I don't usually have a problem with those parts. But religions as a whole do have claims about reality.
I am assuming you are in reference to a belief being true? I didn't say it had to be true to believe it rationally but...
I have researched religion fairly well. I made a perfect score in my World Religions course without having to do any additional studying.
Do not try to shift all of the blame on the abrahamic religions.
Eastern, new age, and pagan religions still make claims about reality that are unfounded.
I am talking about the terms as used in philosophy not in general use.
Empirical arguments talk about things observed outside the mind and rational arguments talk about things observed inside the mind.
If god exists and is all-powerful and all-knowing.
Then he could see the future, including what actions people will take.
Since our thoughts and by extension our actions come from our own personalities which come from genetics and environment, both of which god would be responsible for, god...
Yeah my main problem with humanism is that I care about something that is a person not just a human.
For example some of the AI we have made/are making and possibly extra-terrestrial intelligent life.
So the bible is wrong then?
Hinduism, Islam, Buddhism, and Sikhism have been growing and existing, Hinduism far before your religion, and they are false according to you.
As I said.
A miracle would be an event which we currently cannot explain with science.
Once we explained it or knew we could then I do not think it would be a miracle.
So therefore religions are claims about reality and should be treated as such.
A claim about reality is when you claim that something is true. That's all it is.
My view is really not complicated when it comes to truth claims.
Does it have support? If it does have support is it viable...
I think a miracle would have to be something that was unexplained by science.
If miracles really existed then we could probably find out the mechanisms for it and study it.
If miracles where supernatural in nature then yes dualism would probably be necessary to explain it.
Oh really?
Then pull up a dictionary definition of religion that matches your definition of religion.
I'm starting to see why some people here don't like you.
You redefine a word and then when someone else uses the word you claim they are using your definition.
The people who redefine...
I did not say that a religion is required to be theistic.
But whether your religion directly contradicts science or not does not make it logical to hold.
I would say things like:
"Can you prove that?" "Did you know that Siddhartha Guatama did not believe in a creator deity?" "If you are Buddhists, then don't you agree that we shouldn't blindly accept authority?"
So how is it any different than something that is completely made-up?
You are the one not using the English definition of an English word.
I was trying to show how that behavior can be used to justify extreme positions.
Yes. I think you do.
Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all have...