Everyone, whether they choose to admit it or not is religious.

[Flat Earth Kyle]

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.

First of all, it isn't because I say so, it is because the dictionary says so.
Secondly, what is wrong with stating that a system of beliefs is a religion?
thirdly, computers do not have beliefs. One has to be alive to have a belief. However animals do have beliefs, a lion is not going to hunt an animal that it does not believe that it can catch.
I can't say how every person's beliefs is ordered, I can just say that they are ordered.
Every person arranges the things they have in their home in a different way. The same thing goes for a person's beliefs. Some beliefs are stronger for some people than they are others.
As to proving that a persons system of beliefs is comprehensive.
Every belief a person has is all pieced together in a person's mind as one giant system of beliefs that make up how that person understands the world.
Two beliefs by themselves can make up a system, but after adding a great many more beliefs to the collection we can develop a system. The difference of plants and animals is generally something that is learned at an early age. Information such as that works into the greater system of beliefs that one uses to guide one's life as things one uses to identify the world around oneself. One will generally notice that most plants are for the most part stationary while animals move around a lot. When one becomes aware of this it is much easier to find your way around out in the yard. I recognize that big tree right there, and the little tree over there. The big tree is closer to the house than the little tree, so if I am close to the big tree I am close to the house.
In the big picture there is no such thing as an unrelated belief. They are all connected. For example fire truck and mars to most would seem to most as unrelated topics, however they are actually really easy to connect into a system of beliefs. When a child dreams about what he or she wants to be when they grow up, one might believe that they might make a good fire fighter and get to drive a firetruck around, however another occupation they might have would be an astronaut, and that child might believe that they could possibly be the first person to set foot on mars.
I just took 2 random beliefs and worked them into a system.


When you ask me to establish equivalence between religion and a system of beliefs.
It is circular reasoning. What is a system of beliefs? a religion
what is a religion? A system of beliefs
the two are equal, what more can I say?
If you want to argue with the dictionary here is the Dictionary.com Contact us website
Dictionary.com - Contact Us

 

[averageJOE]

Terrible, terrible, terrible logic.

 

[waitasec]

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?

no because not everyone is: a: scrupulously and conscientiously faithful
or b : fervent, zealous about their beliefs

for me i am opened to changing my mind about the beliefs i have. if i set them in stone then i am afraid i don't grow and learn or progress...

is my belief in being opened to changing my belief considered religious?
no, because i am not particularly a: scrupulously and conscientiously faithful
or b : fervent, zealous about changing my beliefs either.

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

no because not everyone is: a: scrupulously and conscientiously faithful
or b : fervent, zealous about their beliefs

for me i am opened to changing my mind about the beliefs i have. if i set them in stone then i am afraid i don't grow and learn or progress...

is my belief in being opened to changing my belief considered religious?
no, because i am not particularly a: scrupulously and conscientiously faithful
or b : fervent, zealous about changing my beliefs either.

not everyone is fervent, zealous about their beliefs?
I disagree.
what little kid isn't zealous about what he or she wants to be when they grow up? Is not everyone zealous about something?

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

Terrible, terrible, terrible logic.

another empty statement. Utterly powerless.

 

[waitasec]

not everyone is fervent, zealous about their beliefs?
I disagree.
what little kid isn't zealous about what he or she wants to be when they grow up? Is not everyone zealous about something?

but that doesn't define them silly...

do you even have children?

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

no because not everyone is: a: scrupulously and conscientiously faithful
or b : fervent, zealous about their beliefs

for me i am opened to changing my mind about the beliefs i have. if i set them in stone then i am afraid i don't grow and learn or progress...

is my belief in being opened to changing my belief considered religious?
no, because i am not particularly a: scrupulously and conscientiously faithful
or b : fervent, zealous about changing my beliefs either.

I think everyone is faithful to their more most dominant beliefs, even if they are wrong. For example when a person who says they believe in honestly but then lies obviously more deeply believes it is okay to lie. Everyone can change their beliefs however, people are always refining exactly what they belive, trying to push out the incorrect beliefs and cling to the true ones. As you say it is all a part of the learning process.

 

[Paroxys]

First of all, it isn't because I say so, it is because the dictionary says so.
Secondly, what is wrong with stating that a system of beliefs is a religion?
thirdly, computers do not have beliefs. One has to be alive to have a belief. However animals do have beliefs, a lion is not going to hunt an animal that it does not believe that it can catch.
I can't say how every person's beliefs is ordered, I can just say that they are ordered.
Every person arranges the things they have in their home in a different way. The same thing goes for a person's beliefs. Some beliefs are stronger for some people than they are others.
As to proving that a persons system of beliefs is comprehensive.
Every belief a person has is all pieced together in a person's mind as one giant system of beliefs that make up how that person understands the world.
Two beliefs by themselves can make up a system, but after adding a great many more beliefs to the collection we can develop a system. The difference of plants and animals is generally something that is learned at an early age. Information such as that works into the greater system of beliefs that one uses to guide one's life as things one uses to identify the world around oneself. One will generally notice that most plants are for the most part stationary while animals move around a lot. When one becomes aware of this it is much easier to find your way around out in the yard. I recognize that big tree right there, and the little tree over there. The big tree is closer to the house than the little tree, so if I am close to the big tree I am close to the house.
In the big picture there is no such thing as an unrelated belief. They are all connected. For example fire truck and mars to most would seem to most as unrelated topics, however they are actually really easy to connect into a system of beliefs. When a child dreams about what he or she wants to be when they grow up, one might believe that they might make a good fire fighter and get to drive a firetruck around, however another occupation they might have would be an astronaut, and that child might believe that they could possibly be the first person to set foot on mars.
I just took 2 random beliefs and worked them into a system.


When you ask me to establish equivalence between religion and a system of beliefs.
It is circular reasoning. What is a system of beliefs? a religion
what is a religion? A system of beliefs
the two are equal, what more can I say?
If you want to argue with the dictionary here is the Dictionary.com Contact us website
Dictionary.com - Contact Us

Again, you are WAY OFF base again.

1. I'm not disputing the dictionary, I'm asking you why do we have to use the dictionary definition YOU SAY WE SHOULD over other possible, equally legitimate, or as I contend more legitimate dictionary definitions. What makes your particular dictionary definition better than the others in this context and therefore the right one to use. You're specifically arguing this is the definition we should use over all other possible definitions (which you yourself concede as legitimate). I'm asking why should we use this particular definition, and the only answer you've really given is "because I said so."

2. Nothing is wrong with stating that a system of beliefs is a religion. However, you again are missing my point. You are authoritatively establishing an equivalence when the definition you cite does not state nor imply it. What I am saying, again, VERY VERY SLOWLY, since you do not seem to understand this concept is that ALL RELIGIONS ARE SYSTEMS OF BELIEFS, however, the converse is not necessarily true, based on the DEFINITION YOU GIVE US. You still don't address my very simple analogy. That all dogs are 4-legged animals but not all 4-legged animals are dogs. The problem here is that YOU ARE ASSERTING AN EQUIVALENCE WHEN IT IS NEITHER EXPLICIT NOR IMPLIED FROM YOUR PREMISES (that is, your definition).

3. How do you distinguish between a hypothetical artificial intelligence and animals, for all you know, our existences could very well be simulated by highly advanced computer simulations (a la the Matrix). Albeit you could argue that such a scenario is unlikely, this is still a discrepancy that you need to address. Or to put it another way, the very basic of cells are "alive" yet they perform very rudimentary functions. They don't decide what to do, they merely follow intructions provided to them by their DNA, much like a computer. Your distinction of "life" is a terrible terrible distinction for determining belief. A much better argument could be made for say sentience.

4. This begs the question, what in the world do you define as "ordered and comprehensive." I may concede that everyone may have a set or a group of beliefs, but just because they have a set or group of beliefs does not make it ordered. In math there is a distinction between a set, and an ORDERED set, in which an ORDERED SET has a ORDER on it, ORDER being the operative word. And, "I can just say that they are ordered," where is the proof behind this? Another baseless claim that you make, you don't give ANY proof this time whereas you used to at least cite poorly contextualized dictionary definitions. All you've really said is that people have a group of beliefs and then essentially argue that because they are a group or a set, then they are ordered. Not necessarily true.

5. A relation is not the same thing as an order. You are again, establishing an equivalence when it is just frankly not there. Just because you can show that two are related doesn't mean that they're ordered. And just because you can show one absurd case is related doesn't mean that ALL cases are related. You're providing little snippets of anecdotal evidence that don't actually mean anything to back up your claim.

6. I'm not asking you to establish an equivalence, I'm saying that YOU ARE asserting one when its neither explicit nor implied. The dictionary definition you provide is a religion is a system of beliefs. However, this dictionary definition does not imply that all systems of beliefs are religions. Because this concept is apparently so difficult for you to understand, I will go back to my prior analogy. One definition of "dog" is a 4-legged animal. Hence we can say that all dogs are 4-legged animals. This is analogous to "religion" and system of beliefs. By your definition, we can say that all religions are system of beliefs. However, we cannot say definitively that all 4-legged animals are dogs, just like we cannot say all systems of beliefs are religions. THIS HERE IS THE FUNDAMENTAL FLAW IN YOUR REASONING. Just because you THINK that they're the same doesn't necessarily MAKE IT REALITY. When you make the assertion that "system of beliefs" and "religion" are equivalent, you're making the argument that all systems of beliefs are religions, and all religions are systems of beliefs. Hence for us to accept your ridiculous equivalence, YOU NEED TO PROVE IT.

Edit: Note that I'm not even explicitly arguing against your thesis. All I'm saying is PROVE IT.

 

[waitasec]

I think everyone is faithful to their more most dominant beliefs, even if they are wrong. For example when a person who says they believe in honestly but then lies obviously more deeply believes it is okay to lie. Everyone can change their beliefs however, people are always refining exactly what they belive, trying to push out the incorrect beliefs and cling to the true ones. As you say it is all a part of the learning process.

define refining?
i think most people want to better themselves....
some are not so interested because they think they already have all the answers.
it doesn't matter if the beliefs are wrong or right, it's how beliefs are approached
for example, in order to grow i need to know my limitations
my beliefs are my limitations....

 

[Meow Mix]

How much longer can a thread full of people give a fallacious equivocal "argument" the light of day?

 

[Storm]

How much longer can a thread full of people give a fallacious equivocal "argument" the light of day?

Don't ask....

 

[McBell]

not everyone is fervent, zealous about their beliefs?
I disagree.
what little kid isn't zealous about what he or she wants to be when they grow up? Is not everyone zealous about something?

Your mastery of the Cherry Picking Technique is most impressive.
Not the least bit convincing, but impressive non the less.

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

no because not everyone is: a: scrupulously and conscientiously faithful
or b : fervent, zealous about their beliefs

for me i am opened to changing my mind about the beliefs i have. if i set them in stone then i am afraid i don't grow and learn or progress...

is my belief in being opened to changing my belief considered religious?
no, because i am not particularly a: scrupulously and conscientiously faithful
or b : fervent, zealous about changing my beliefs either.

I say your belief in change is very religious. You are consistently changing.
Sounds like me. In the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints the members are consistently changing in their beliefs. We try to change our beliefs in sinning to God's beliefs in doing what is right. We are trying to consistently uproot the bad stuff and replace it with the good stuff.
I don't see how what you are doing is any different. The only difference is where you go to find the good stuff.

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

but that doesn't define them silly...

do you even have children?

Yes I have 1 daughter.
A person's hopes and dreams do not define them? I beg to differ.
I remember way back in elementary my dream was to become an artist someday. The older I grew the more I did to make that dream happen, and now I am an artist.
My wife has always had a dream to be a singer, though she hasn't taken a whole lot of classes on singing to help her become a professional singer, she still loves singing and her passion is one of the things that define her.

 

[waitasec]

Yes I have 1 daughter.
A person's hopes and dreams do not define them? I beg to differ.
I remember way back in elementary my dream was to become an artist someday. The older I grew the more I did to make that dream happen, and now I am an artist.
My wife has always had a dream to be a singer, though she hasn't taken a whole lot of classes on singing to help her become a professional singer, she still loves singing and her passion is one of the things that define her.

did your beliefs about technique and approach change while developing your craft?
i would hope so for your sake.

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

Again, you are WAY OFF base again.

2. Nothing is wrong with stating that a system of beliefs is a religion. However, you again are missing my point. You are authoritatively establishing an equivalence when the definition you cite does not state nor imply it. What I am saying, again, VERY VERY SLOWLY, since you do not seem to understand this concept is that ALL RELIGIONS ARE SYSTEMS OF BELIEFS, however, the converse is not necessarily true, based on the DEFINITION YOU GIVE US. You still don't address my very simple analogy. That all dogs are 4-legged animals but not all 4-legged animals are dogs. The problem here is that YOU ARE ASSERTING AN EQUIVALENCE WHEN IT IS NEITHER EXPLICIT NOR IMPLIED FROM YOUR PREMISES (that is, your definition).

2. Alright, if you don't think all systems of beliefs are religions, tell me one system of beliefs that is not a religion and I will prove you wrong.
How is a system of beliefs that one uses to guide their life not a religion?
If you make any claims against the second part "that one uses to guide their life" if you can mention one system of beliefs for me, I can show you how that is used to guide a persons life.
All systems of beliefs are religions.

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

3. How do you distinguish between a hypothetical artificial intelligence and animals, for all you know, our existences could very well be simulated by highly advanced computer simulations (a la the Matrix). Albeit you could argue that such a scenario is unlikely, this is still a discrepancy that you need to address. Or to put it another way, the very basic of cells are "alive" yet they perform very rudimentary functions. They don't decide what to do, they merely follow intructions provided to them by their DNA, much like a computer. Your distinction of "life" is a terrible terrible distinction for determining belief. A much better argument could be made for say sentience.

3 Okay how about this, anything or anyone that has the power to choose and make decisions for oneself has beliefs, which make up a system of beliefs that guide their life, which makes all things with this power of choice religious.

 

[Paroxys]

2. Alright, if you don't think all systems of beliefs are religions, tell me one system of beliefs that is not a religion and I will prove you wrong.
How is a system of beliefs that one uses to guide their life not a religion?
If you make any claims against the second part "that one uses to guide their life" if you can mention one system of beliefs for me, I can show you how that is used to guide a persons life.
All systems of beliefs are religions.

As I mentioned before, it's your thesis, hence its your job to show that this equivalency is true, not for me to show it is false. And just because you can prove it for one case doesn't mean you can prove it for all, which is what you need to do for us to accept your currently absurd claims. Just because you say "until you show me otherwise, this is true," doesn't actually make it true. It's akin to definitively stating "all swans are white" which would require omniscience (at least in the domain of swans).

But humor me. How is "math" a "religion"? And realize, if you continue to use cherry-picked, non-contextualized, and frankly incomplete definitions as you have been, it still doesn't mean that you're right simply because you still have yet to address my MAIN point, which I will get to later.

Or consider this hypothetical: suppose I use system of "beliefs" used to sort a list:
1. Pick an element, called a pivot, from the list.
2. Reorder the list so that all elements with values less than the pivot come before the pivot, while all elements with values greater than the pivot come after it (equal values can go either way). After this partitioning, the pivot is in its final position.
3. Recursively sort the sub-list of lesser elements and the sub-list of greater elements.

Beyond this, you're still non-responsive to my other points. Namely:
-you STILL fail to respond as to why we should defer to your cherry-picked, non-contextualized definitions over other (and as I would argue, more legitimate) definitions. This here is MY MAIN POINT, that is, you provide no legitimate reason as to why we should accept the premises that your entire absurd argument is based on. Even if I conceded everything else (which I'm not saying I am), until you can show that your basic premises are reasonable, there is no reason for us to accept your conclusion.
-your arbitrary distinction for determining what sorts of "beings" can be religious or not
-your completely unsubstantiated and undefined conception of "ordered and comprehensive"

And just for sake of being thorough. What do you mean by "belief?"

Edit:

3 Okay how about this, anything or anyone that has the power to choose and make decisions for oneself has beliefs, which make up a system of beliefs that guide their life, which makes all things with this power of choice religious.

1st. You assume free will exists. A little minor issue, but something to consider. Are our "choices" truly free? Or are they essentially predictable responses to various cues. For example if you had a gun to your head and were ordered to commit a crime, and then committed said crime, is that really a "choice." As you did technically have the "power to choose", but the ultimate "choice" was essentially predetermined.
2nd. You're shifting your advocacy, which proves my main point, which definition of whatever should we use, and why? And just because it is convenient for you isn't a reason.

 

[Draka]

What is the drive behind this whole thread anyway? Why insist that everyone has a religion? Why adamantly deny evidence to the contrary? Why is it so important to even make the statement that everyone is religious even in the face of overwhelming evidence against that point? WHY make this assertion? What is the reasoning behind this strange need?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

What is the drive behind this whole thread anyway? Why insist that everyone has a religion? Why adamantly deny evidence to the contrary? Why is it so important to even make the statement that everyone is religious even in the face of overwhelming evidence against that point? WHY make this assertion? What is the reasoning behind this strange need?

The same need which drives the faithful to claim that everyone else has faith, too.

If everyone has faith, then there's nothing wrong with faith. If everyone is religious, then there's nothing wrong with being religious.

So it seems to me, anyway. Just a guess.