-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Everyone, whether they choose to admit it or not is religious.
- Thread starter Flat Earth Kyle
- Start date
waitasec
Veteran Member
no worries, if you don't get it, you don't get.
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
Not really. Authorial intent is one of many legitimate interpretations of text. To assert your authorial interpretation as the correct one, to back up your "claim" you need to back up and provide reasons why your context is the correct one to use. By what grounds? What criteria? And why should we believe those criteria are good criteria? Just because you assert that in your narrow authorial context, your statement is true doesn't mean it is the legitimate one. Hitler asserted that mass genocide of Jews was correct and good, since he was the "author" of this does this mean his ideology is right? By most measures, the answer would be no.
Just because you say something is an answer doesn't make it so. I could say 1+1=5 but that doesn't make it true. The burden of proof is on YOU to show that all systems of beliefs are necessarily a religion, as you were the one who are arguing that something is true. It is your job to show us that something is true, not for us to show you it is not.
Also note that your definition specifies a "system of beliefs" meaning that taken literally, as you so often like to do, it means the a single belief does not compose a system. Suppose for instance a person has a belief that trees are plants does this single belief make it a system? No. Suppose that the same person also has another belief say that dogs are animals. Do these two "beliefs" necessarily make up system? If you can prove that, again, it YOUR JOB to show that this is true, that 2 or more unrelated beliefs make up a "system."
One more thing you're doing here, you're establishing an equivalency between the word "group" and the word "system." Although in certain contexts, they can be used interchangeably, is this necessarily the case in this one? Why? How so? Just because you say so? That's not a valid reason to adopt your particular definition of "group" over another. Just because it can be defined in such a way doesn't mean it has to be. Like you stated with your "running" example. You need to detail precisely why your definition is the best one, not just authoritatively assert it. By that logic I could just as easily assert that 1+1=5 and it would be legitimate. You need to provide actual REASONS.
Also, try science. I would argue that science in its purest form is not a system of beliefs, but rather a system of methods and procedures designed to approximate a means to measure objective reality. Science doesn't "believe" anything. Everything in science considered "fact" is subject to change in the future (except, math, assuming the math is correct) when new discoveries are made. Science doesn't require belief, it provides empirical or theoretical reasons why something should be accepted as true.
Something else to consider: Suppose we create a computer program that can be considered "sentient" does that mean that this artificial intelligence is religious? If so, why or why not?
McBell
Unbound
Problem here is that you are not trying to convince anyone of any truth.
You are doing nothing but trying to force feed your fully demonstrated false ideas onto every one else.
waitasec
Veteran Member
sure it does...
everyone is not religious...but really it's ok, if you don't get it that's fine by me
:beach:
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
blackout
Violet.
That 1+1=2 is just something that you observe.
There's nothing to believe about it.
Not everyone believes things.
Last edited:
religion99
Active Member
I agree. Religion is nothing but Beliefs , Knowledge and Practices . These are fundamental Attributes of a Soul. According to Jain Axiom , no Substance can ever loose any of its Attributes , nor can It acquire any new Attributes. Hence all the Souls ( Humans , Animals , Plants , Birds , Insects ) , being a Substance , can never be without Religion at any instance in beginning-less and endless time.
McBell
Unbound
Well, just as soon as you define "soul" then present empirical evidence of it existence, then present empirical evidence for each of your claims concerning this "soul"...
Seems you have your work cut out for you.
AmbiguousGuy
Well-Known Member
I have no problem admitting that you're right. Here... I'll even make a formal statement:
Yaddoe is right when he claims that in his personal opinion and personal use of American English, everyone is religious.
What's the big deal about that?
religion99
Active Member
Reincarnation is proof of eternal Soul.
Storm
ThrUU the Looking Glass
An unproven proposition can be proof of nothing.
McBell
Unbound
Now you need to define reincarnation, present empirical evidence that it happens, provide empirical evidence that it is linked/related to a "soul" in addition to defining "soul", presenting empirical evidence of it existence, presenting empirical evidence for each of your claims concerning this "soul".
Or are you content with merely piling on the unsubstantiated claims?
I realize I'm randomly jumping into a thread here, but...
Do not all human beliefs about reality at some point draw from unprovable presuppositions? I do see your point, but I think this may also be good to bear in mind.
Storm
ThrUU the Looking Glass
Hey, I believe in reincarnation. I just recognize my beliefs for what they are.
Flat Earth Kyle
Well-Known Member
Why do things have to be so complicated?
I like to keep things simple so everyone can understand.
the word religion is a noun, a shortcut word that describes in one word many words that describe a person place or thing.
In my case instead of saying "In my system of beliefs that I use to guide my life, I believe this this and this..."
Instead I use the short cut and just say "In my religion I believe this this and this..."
In this sense does not everyone have a religion?
and if everyone has a religion is not everyone religious?
I like to keep things simple so everyone can understand.
the word religion is a noun, a shortcut word that describes in one word many words that describe a person place or thing.
In my case instead of saying "In my system of beliefs that I use to guide my life, I believe this this and this..."
Instead I use the short cut and just say "In my religion I believe this this and this..."
In this sense does not everyone have a religion?
and if everyone has a religion is not everyone religious?
Flat Earth Kyle
Well-Known Member
oh and for clarification purposes when I say system I mean:
an ordered and comprehensive assemblage of facts, principles, doctrines, or the like in a particular field of knowledge or thought: a system of philosophy.
~Dictionary.com
an ordered and comprehensive assemblage of facts, principles, doctrines, or the like in a particular field of knowledge or thought: a system of philosophy.
~Dictionary.com
Warren Clark
Informer
you are completely right.
infact atheism isnt anti religious.
other wise they would be hypocritical.
infact atheism isnt anti religious.
other wise they would be hypocritical.
I like you're completely non-responsive to any of my points.
The key word in this is "IN MY CASE," why should we use your standards? Just because you said so? Because the world revolves around you? You fail to provide any semblance of reason why we ought to concede your definitions.
And even if we concede your ridiculous interps, you still don't address the fact that you're establishing an equivalence between religion and a system of beliefs. Once again, it is YOUR job to prove that all system of beliefs are necessarily are religion. Again, from the dictionary definitions you so love to cite, we can only say that religion is a system of beliefs, not that a system of beliefs is a religion. Just like how all dogs are 4-legged animals, but not all 4-legged animals are dogs.
Here's another thing to ponder, do computers have beliefs? do animals? Are they religious?
In fact the only thing you do is bring up a definition of order, which in fact only serves to undermine your argument:
Therefore a system of beliefs needs to be ordered and comprehensive. Hence even if we concede your ridiculous assertion that all system of beliefs are religions, on top of conceding your ridiculous contextually abhorrent definitions, you still need to show how the beliefs a person has is ordered and comprehensive. By this I mean you need to make an actual argument, supported by logic and reasoning and not just more pathetic definitions from a dictionary as to how "beliefs" as disparate as disparate as "1+1=2" and "hippos are pink and can fly" somehow make up an "ordered and comprehensive assemblage."
And all of this is without going into whatever the hell you think a "belief" is.
The key word in this is "IN MY CASE," why should we use your standards? Just because you said so? Because the world revolves around you? You fail to provide any semblance of reason why we ought to concede your definitions.
And even if we concede your ridiculous interps, you still don't address the fact that you're establishing an equivalence between religion and a system of beliefs. Once again, it is YOUR job to prove that all system of beliefs are necessarily are religion. Again, from the dictionary definitions you so love to cite, we can only say that religion is a system of beliefs, not that a system of beliefs is a religion. Just like how all dogs are 4-legged animals, but not all 4-legged animals are dogs.
Here's another thing to ponder, do computers have beliefs? do animals? Are they religious?
In fact the only thing you do is bring up a definition of order, which in fact only serves to undermine your argument:
Therefore a system of beliefs needs to be ordered and comprehensive. Hence even if we concede your ridiculous assertion that all system of beliefs are religions, on top of conceding your ridiculous contextually abhorrent definitions, you still need to show how the beliefs a person has is ordered and comprehensive. By this I mean you need to make an actual argument, supported by logic and reasoning and not just more pathetic definitions from a dictionary as to how "beliefs" as disparate as disparate as "1+1=2" and "hippos are pink and can fly" somehow make up an "ordered and comprehensive assemblage."
And all of this is without going into whatever the hell you think a "belief" is.