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

[Flat Earth Kyle]

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

Most definitely. That is a perfect example of constant change in the way one believes things should be done.

 

[waitasec]

Most definitely. That is a perfect example of constant change in the way one believes things should be done.

if you were fervent and zealous about your beliefs they wouldn't change...

belief is a limitation.

 

[Draka]

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.

Well, speaking as a theist, that's just stupid. All it does is feed into the erroneous idea that atheism is somehow a better stance than theism. That we have something to be ashamed of and that we are not already on equal ground. Nothing is wrong with being a theist in the first place. By twisting definitions around in a failing attempt to make everyone the same it just looks like trying to take the stuffing out of atheists. Now, granted, there are some atheists who do indeed have the stupid idea that being a theist is somehow a bad or dumb thing and they are smarter or better because they are an atheist. But pulling this kind of stupidity in this thread does more to bolster their ego than knock it down. They see this stupidity, this faulty reasoning, and think "See? I'm right! Theists ARE stupid. Look at this moronic argument made by a moronic theist!" All it's doing is reinforcing their idea that they are better, not making them realize they are the equal.

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

if you were fervent and zealous about your beliefs they wouldn't change...

belief is a limitation.

I suppose for everyone they have more important beliefs and less important beliefs. For example in my becoming an artist, it meant I had to change my techniques in doing so. My belief that I can become an artist never changed, but my beliefs in getting me to my desired goal did change, does that make sense?
People also change their religions all the time.

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

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).

If all swans in reality were white, it would be impossible to prove that it was right for in order to do so it would mean you would have to track down all of the swans in the world and see if all the swans are white. Since no one really has the time or money to do that one just makes a claim that all swans are white until someone can prove you wrong. Is this not the way the law of gravity works? Isaac Newton stated it was a law and until someone can prove him wrong it is a law. If Isaac Newton can do it so can I.

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.

Math is a system of beliefs that one uses to guide ones life.
How is math used to guide a person's life?
How many different things does a person count in his or her own life.
I want a job that pays me enough to support my family.
I would certainly be in trouble if numbers didn't mean anything to me, I wouldn't know how much I'm getting paid, and I wouldn't know how much I'm paying people when I buy stuff. No doubt I use math to help guide my life everyday. Since Math is a system of beliefs that one uses to guide one's life it is a religion, or part of a religion.
[/QUOTE]

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Well, speaking as a theist, that's just stupid. All it does is feed into the erroneous idea that atheism is somehow a better stance than theism. That we have something to be ashamed of and that we are not already on equal ground.

Of course I can't know if that's the actual motivation here, but it's the only one I can imagine. What seems most strange is an apparent belief that people can actually be religious in some sense transcending individual personal opinion. But being religious is like being pretty. It's a personal judgment. Is everyone pretty?

Maybe I should start a thread arguing that everyone is pretty. It would make as much sense to me as this one. And it's hard to imagine what would motivate me to start such a thread.

 

[Paroxys]

If all swans in reality were white, it would be impossible to prove that it was right for in order to do so it would mean you would have to track down all of the swans in the world and see if all the swans are white. Since no one really has the time or money to do that one just makes a claim that all swans are white until someone can prove you wrong. Is this not the way the law of gravity works? Isaac Newton stated it was a law and until someone can prove him wrong it is a law. If Isaac Newton can do it so can I.

Except that unlike you, Newton PROVIDED EVIDENCE AND REASON AS TO WHY HE WAS RIGHT. HE DIDN'T ASK FOR EVIDENCE AS TO WHY HE WAS WRONG. As of yet you've provided absolutely no evidence as to why this equivalency is true, you're just definitively asserting it. All you do is ask for others to prove you wrong, which is precisely the opposite of Newton did. As it stands, my contention still stands. YOU NEED TO SHOW HOW ALL SYSTEM OF BELIEFS ARE NECESSARILY A RELIGION IF YOU WANT TO CLAIM THE CREDIBILITY OF NEWTON.

Math is a system of beliefs that one uses to guide ones life.
How is math used to guide a person's life?
How many different things does a person count in his or her own life.
I want a job that pays me enough to support my family.
I would certainly be in trouble if numbers didn't mean anything to me, I wouldn't know how much I'm getting paid, and I wouldn't know how much I'm paying people when I buy stuff. No doubt I use math to help guide my life everyday. Since Math is a system of beliefs that one uses to guide one's life it is a religion, or part of a religion.

There are so many things wrong with this right here...
1. 1stly, thank you for falling into my TRAP, since math isn't a system of beliefs, its a system of logic. Math defines certain premises and then draws logical conclusions based on those premises. No belief is required. Why does 1+1=2? Because of the way the symbols 1, +, =, and 2 are defined. Math is not belief, math is 100% logical truth (excluding mathematical errors). You of course could argue that math is a system of beliefs, but you need to show it, provide evidence against my argument.

2. Just because something can be used to guide one's life doesn't mean its a religion. I use the internet to inform my decisions and guide my life. Does that make the internet a religion? Is a calculator? A map? A computer? I could believe in a rock and that rock could "guide" my life. Does that make the rock a religion?

3. You're still assuming you conclusion in your proof. Meaning your "logic" (I hesitate to even call it that) is circular. So I'll try to make this very simple for you to understand, which as it stands, seems like a monumental task:
-You claim that "all systems of beliefs used to guide ones life" are "religions"
-You assert this is true, until someone can bring up a counterexample
-When confronted by a counterexample, you say "said counterexample is a system of beliefs used to guide ones life, hence it is a religion"
-Hence their is no counterexample that can refute my claim, hence my claim is true
-Note that that you ARE USING THE VERY PREMISE THAT YOU ARE TRYING TO PROVE TO PROVE ITSELF.
This here isn't logical reasoning, its called sophistry and misdirection.

4. You're still relying on the system of beliefs/religion equivalency which you haven't even come close to proving as true.

Beyond this. You're STILL NON-RESPONSIVE TO MY MAIN, A PRIORI, CONTENTION. Namely, WHY SHOULD WE USE YOUR CHERRY-PICKED DEFINITIONS OVER OTHER DEFINITIONS. Even if you can miraculously argue against all my other contentions (and at this point, it looks like it would actually take a miracle), if you don't justify why we ought to use your definitions, the very premises that you draw your argument upon, your conclusion that "everyone is religious" is invalid.

Other issues.
-You haven't addressed my other counterexample, my proposed "system of beliefs" as to how to sort a list.
-You haven't addressed my shifting advocacy argument, (which gives legitimacy to my main contention)
-You haven't addressed my "ordered and comprehensive" counter-interpretation, in fact you haven't even offered up your own interpretation of these apparently key and operative words.

And lastly, what precisely do you mean by "belief" since this apparently is also an important and key word.

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

Except that unlike you, Newton PROVIDED EVIDENCE AND REASON AS TO WHY HE WAS RIGHT. HE DIDN'T ASK FOR EVIDENCE AS TO WHY HE WAS WRONG. As of yet you've provided absolutely no evidence as to why this equivalency is true, you're just definitively asserting it. All you do is ask for others to prove you wrong, which is precisely the opposite of Newton did. As it stands, my contention still stands. YOU NEED TO SHOW HOW ALL SYSTEM OF BELIEFS ARE NECESSARILY A RELIGION IF YOU WANT TO CLAIM THE CREDIBILITY OF NEWTON.



There are so many things wrong with this right here...
1. 1stly, thank you for falling into my TRAP, since math isn't a system of beliefs, its a system of logic. Math defines certain premises and then draws logical conclusions based on those premises. No belief is required. Why does 1+1=2? Because of the way the symbols 1, +, =, and 2 are defined. Math is not belief, math is 100% logical truth (excluding mathematical errors). You of course could argue that math is a system of beliefs, but you need to show it, provide evidence against my argument.

2. Just because something can be used to guide one's life doesn't mean its a religion. I use the internet to inform my decisions and guide my life. Does that make the internet a religion? Is a calculator? A map? A computer? I could believe in a rock and that rock could "guide" my life. Does that make the rock a religion?

3. You're still assuming you conclusion in your proof. Meaning your "logic" (I hesitate to even call it that) is circular. So I'll try to make this very simple for you to understand, which as it stands, seems like a monumental task:
-You claim that "all systems of beliefs used to guide ones life" are "religions"
-You assert this is true, until someone can bring up a counterexample
-When confronted by a counterexample, you say "said counterexample is a system of beliefs used to guide ones life, hence it is a religion"
-Hence their is no counterexample that can refute my claim, hence my claim is true
-Note that that you ARE USING THE VERY PREMISE THAT YOU ARE TRYING TO PROVE TO PROVE ITSELF.
This here isn't logical reasoning, its called sophistry and misdirection.

4. You're still relying on the system of beliefs/religion equivalency which you haven't even come close to proving as true.

Beyond this. You're STILL NON-RESPONSIVE TO MY MAIN, A PRIORI, CONTENTION. Namely, WHY SHOULD WE USE YOUR CHERRY-PICKED DEFINITIONS OVER OTHER DEFINITIONS. Even if you can miraculously argue against all my other contentions (and at this point, it looks like it would actually take a miracle), if you don't justify why we ought to use your definitions, the very premises that you draw your argument upon, your conclusion that "everyone is religious" is invalid.

Other issues.
-You haven't addressed my other counterexample, my proposed "system of beliefs" as to how to sort a list.
-You haven't addressed my shifting advocacy argument, (which gives legitimacy to my main contention)
-You haven't addressed my "ordered and comprehensive" counter-interpretation, in fact you haven't even offered up your own interpretation of these apparently key and operative words.

And lastly, what precisely do you mean by "belief" since this apparently is also an important and key word.

I can not answer all of your points right now, I'll have to get back to them later.
2. Beliving in a rock is a single belief and as we discussed before a single belief does not make a system, instead that belief just gets added to the system of beliefs that one already has.

 

[ManTimeForgot]

Except that unlike you, Newton PROVIDED EVIDENCE AND REASON AS TO WHY HE WAS RIGHT. HE DIDN'T ASK FOR EVIDENCE AS TO WHY HE WAS WRONG. As of yet you've provided absolutely no evidence as to why this equivalency is true, you're just definitively asserting it. All you do is ask for others to prove you wrong, which is precisely the opposite of Newton did. As it stands, my contention still stands. YOU NEED TO SHOW HOW ALL SYSTEM OF BELIEFS ARE NECESSARILY A RELIGION IF YOU WANT TO CLAIM THE CREDIBILITY OF NEWTON.



There are so many things wrong with this right here...
1. 1stly, thank you for falling into my TRAP, since math isn't a system of beliefs, its a system of logic. Math defines certain premises and then draws logical conclusions based on those premises. No belief is required. Why does 1+1=2? Because of the way the symbols 1, +, =, and 2 are defined. Math is not belief, math is 100% logical truth (excluding mathematical errors). You of course could argue that math is a system of beliefs, but you need to show it, provide evidence against my argument.

2. Just because something can be used to guide one's life doesn't mean its a religion. I use the internet to inform my decisions and guide my life. Does that make the internet a religion? Is a calculator? A map? A computer? I could believe in a rock and that rock could "guide" my life. Does that make the rock a religion?

3. You're still assuming you conclusion in your proof. Meaning your "logic" (I hesitate to even call it that) is circular. So I'll try to make this very simple for you to understand, which as it stands, seems like a monumental task:
-You claim that "all systems of beliefs used to guide ones life" are "religions"
-You assert this is true, until someone can bring up a counterexample
-When confronted by a counterexample, you say "said counterexample is a system of beliefs used to guide ones life, hence it is a religion"
-Hence their is no counterexample that can refute my claim, hence my claim is true
-Note that that you ARE USING THE VERY PREMISE THAT YOU ARE TRYING TO PROVE TO PROVE ITSELF.
This here isn't logical reasoning, its called sophistry and misdirection.

4. You're still relying on the system of beliefs/religion equivalency which you haven't even come close to proving as true.

Beyond this. You're STILL NON-RESPONSIVE TO MY MAIN, A PRIORI, CONTENTION. Namely, WHY SHOULD WE USE YOUR CHERRY-PICKED DEFINITIONS OVER OTHER DEFINITIONS. Even if you can miraculously argue against all my other contentions (and at this point, it looks like it would actually take a miracle), if you don't justify why we ought to use your definitions, the very premises that you draw your argument upon, your conclusion that "everyone is religious" is invalid.

Other issues.
-You haven't addressed my other counterexample, my proposed "system of beliefs" as to how to sort a list.
-You haven't addressed my shifting advocacy argument, (which gives legitimacy to my main contention)
-You haven't addressed my "ordered and comprehensive" counter-interpretation, in fact you haven't even offered up your own interpretation of these apparently key and operative words.

And lastly, what precisely do you mean by "belief" since this apparently is also an important and key word.

My compatriot. Take a moment. Examine the nature of this thread. Examine the depths to which it has gone and the amount of aggravation it has caused you.

Is any of this worth it? He plays word games. He was caught with his hand in the cookie jar and even if he is incapable of admitting it to himself subconsciously he is aware that he has been caught doing so. He has been cherry picking those he replies to for like the past 900 pages or whatever this monstrosity of a thread is up to now.

You are well aware that sophistry is no substitute for actual argumentation. Don't make the mistake of allowing him to think that it is by giving sophistry the same respect you would an actual argument.

No matter how much argumentation occurs the depths of self-delusion people will go to avoid being wrong... is really quite profound. Stop bashing your head into the wall. His head is harder than yours, and metaphorical walls tend to be pretty sturdy... After all, all metaphorical walls after the 1600's had to get the Humpty Dumpty seal of architectural soundness

MTF

 

[waitasec]

I suppose for everyone they have more important beliefs and less important beliefs. For example in my becoming an artist, it meant I had to change my techniques in doing so. My belief that I can become an artist never changed, but my beliefs in getting me to my desired goal did change, does that make sense?

so in order to become a better artist you had to be open minded about your beliefs or preconceived notions about your technique or your approach.

People also change their religions all the time.

yes they do however i wouldn't equate that to changing ones technique or approach but to an entire new expression.

 

[charles brough]

The Webster definition of "religion" reflects popular belief. It is always referring to old ideological systems and newer ones that resemble the old ones. However, religions serve a function as the author of this thread proposed. Any world-view and way-of-thinking system that serves that function is a "religion", although, "world-view system" would be a better term.

So, in this context, the author is correct. "Religion" or "world-view systems" do provide them with a sense of community, a feeling that you are not alone because others believe as you do. This would even apply to people who do not want to be close to each other and are content just knowing others elsewhere believe as they do.

Why do we need this sense of community? Because we evolved in small social hunting gathering groups over millions of years. World-View systems are the only way we can manage to live and work together in much larger groups or nations. Only with their ideology can we bond together in them.

And when these religions or world-view systems divide until that bond is shattered, society begins to break down and people feel an approaching doom.

Secular Humanism and the "Secular religion" of East Asian Marxism are also religions or world view systems.

 

[blackout]

The Webster definition of "religion" reflects popular belief. It is always referring to old ideological systems and newer ones that resemble the old ones. However, religions serve a function as the author of this thread proposed. Any world-view and way-of-thinking system that serves that function is a "religion", although, "world-view system" would be a better term.

So, in this context, the author is correct. "Religion" or "world-view systems" do provide them with a sense of community, a feeling that you are not alone because others believe as you do. This would even apply to people who do not want to be close to each other and are content just knowing others elsewhere believe as they do.

Why do we need this sense of community? Because we evolved in small social hunting gathering groups over millions of years. World-View systems are the only way we can manage to live and work together in much larger groups or nations. Only with their ideology can we bond together in them.

And when these religions or world-view systems divide until that bond is shattered, society begins to break down and people feel an approaching doom.

Secular Humanism and the "Secular religion" of East Asian Marxism are also religions or world view systems.

In this case, re'legion.

the coming together of the multitudes again and again.

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

Except that unlike you, Newton PROVIDED EVIDENCE AND REASON AS TO WHY HE WAS RIGHT. HE DIDN'T ASK FOR EVIDENCE AS TO WHY HE WAS WRONG. As of yet you've provided absolutely no evidence as to why this equivalency is true, you're just definitively asserting it. All you do is ask for others to prove you wrong, which is precisely the opposite of Newton did. As it stands, my contention still stands. YOU NEED TO SHOW HOW ALL SYSTEM OF BELIEFS ARE NECESSARILY A RELIGION IF YOU WANT TO CLAIM THE CREDIBILITY OF NEWTON.



There are so many things wrong with this right here...
1. 1stly, thank you for falling into my TRAP, since math isn't a system of beliefs, its a system of logic. Math defines certain premises and then draws logical conclusions based on those premises. No belief is required. Why does 1+1=2? Because of the way the symbols 1, +, =, and 2 are defined. Math is not belief, math is 100% logical truth (excluding mathematical errors). You of course could argue that math is a system of beliefs, but you need to show it, provide evidence against my argument.

2. Just because something can be used to guide one's life doesn't mean its a religion. I use the internet to inform my decisions and guide my life. Does that make the internet a religion? Is a calculator? A map? A computer? I could believe in a rock and that rock could "guide" my life. Does that make the rock a religion?

3. You're still assuming you conclusion in your proof. Meaning your "logic" (I hesitate to even call it that) is circular. So I'll try to make this very simple for you to understand, which as it stands, seems like a monumental task:
-You claim that "all systems of beliefs used to guide ones life" are "religions"
-You assert this is true, until someone can bring up a counterexample
-When confronted by a counterexample, you say "said counterexample is a system of beliefs used to guide ones life, hence it is a religion"
-Hence their is no counterexample that can refute my claim, hence my claim is true
-Note that that you ARE USING THE VERY PREMISE THAT YOU ARE TRYING TO PROVE TO PROVE ITSELF.
This here isn't logical reasoning, its called sophistry and misdirection.

4. You're still relying on the system of beliefs/religion equivalency which you haven't even come close to proving as true.

Beyond this. You're STILL NON-RESPONSIVE TO MY MAIN, A PRIORI, CONTENTION. Namely, WHY SHOULD WE USE YOUR CHERRY-PICKED DEFINITIONS OVER OTHER DEFINITIONS. Even if you can miraculously argue against all my other contentions (and at this point, it looks like it would actually take a miracle), if you don't justify why we ought to use your definitions, the very premises that you draw your argument upon, your conclusion that "everyone is religious" is invalid.

Other issues.
-You haven't addressed my other counterexample, my proposed "system of beliefs" as to how to sort a list.
-You haven't addressed my shifting advocacy argument, (which gives legitimacy to my main contention)
-You haven't addressed my "ordered and comprehensive" counter-interpretation, in fact you haven't even offered up your own interpretation of these apparently key and operative words.

And lastly, what precisely do you mean by "belief" since this apparently is also an important and key word.

The Webster definition of "religion" reflects popular belief. It is always referring to old ideological systems and newer ones that resemble the old ones. However, religions serve a function as the author of this thread proposed. Any world-view and way-of-thinking system that serves that function is a "religion", although, "world-view system" would be a better term.

So, in this context, the author is correct. "Religion" or "world-view systems" do provide them with a sense of community, a feeling that you are not alone because others believe as you do. This would even apply to people who do not want to be close to each other and are content just knowing others elsewhere believe as they do.

Why do we need this sense of community? Because we evolved in small social hunting gathering groups over millions of years. World-View systems are the only way we can manage to live and work together in much larger groups or nations. Only with their ideology can we bond together in them.

And when these religions or world-view systems divide until that bond is shattered, society begins to break down and people feel an approaching doom.

Secular Humanism and the "Secular religion" of East Asian Marxism are also religions or world view systems.

Very well said.

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

The Webster definition of "religion" reflects popular belief. It is always referring to old ideological systems and newer ones that resemble the old ones. However, religions serve a function as the author of this thread proposed. Any world-view and way-of-thinking system that serves that function is a "religion", although, "world-view system" would be a better term.

So, in this context, the author is correct. "Religion" or "world-view systems" do provide them with a sense of community, a feeling that you are not alone because others believe as you do. This would even apply to people who do not want to be close to each other and are content just knowing others elsewhere believe as they do.

Why do we need this sense of community? Because we evolved in small social hunting gathering groups over millions of years. World-View systems are the only way we can manage to live and work together in much larger groups or nations. Only with their ideology can we bond together in them.

And when these religions or world-view systems divide until that bond is shattered, society begins to break down and people feel an approaching doom.

Secular Humanism and the "Secular religion" of East Asian Marxism are also religions or world view systems.

Very well said. I think this describes really well how everyone is religious.

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

so in order to become a better artist you had to be open minded about your beliefs or preconceived notions about your technique or your approach.



yes they do however i wouldn't equate that to changing ones technique or approach but to an entire new expression.

The new expression thing yes I agree.

As to the changing of techniques (beliefs) to reach the desired goal, I agree one does need to be open minded and willing to try out new things. I personally believe in order for me to grow spiritually, I need to be humble and willing to change my beliefs (techniques/ the way I do things) otherwise I would be unable to progress. (Damned)

 

[waitasec]

The new expression thing yes I agree.

As to the changing of techniques (beliefs) to reach the desired goal, I agree one does need to be open minded and willing to try out new things. I personally believe in order for me to grow spiritually, I need to be humble and willing to change my beliefs (techniques/ the way I do things) otherwise I would be unable to progress. (Damned)

then you are not fervent and zealous about keeping your beliefs the way they are.

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

then you are not fervent and zealous about keeping your beliefs the way they are.

In my system of beliefs there are some beliefs that are deeper and stronger than the others, my foundation everything else ethir fits onto my foundation or gets put in my interesting information pile that may or may not be true. In that interesting information pile it is ethir the information is wrong, something in my system is wrong, or my system and the information is both right and there is a missing piece of information that I need in order for it to make sense and be able to fit it into my system.

When my belief is in change and the nesessity of it, I am very fervent and zealous to my beliefs.

 

[Paroxys]

My compatriot. Take a moment. Examine the nature of this thread. Examine the depths to which it has gone and the amount of aggravation it has caused you.

Is any of this worth it? He plays word games. He was caught with his hand in the cookie jar and even if he is incapable of admitting it to himself subconsciously he is aware that he has been caught doing so. He has been cherry picking those he replies to for like the past 900 pages or whatever this monstrosity of a thread is up to now.

You are well aware that sophistry is no substitute for actual argumentation. Don't make the mistake of allowing him to think that it is by giving sophistry the same respect you would an actual argument.

No matter how much argumentation occurs the depths of self-delusion people will go to avoid being wrong... is really quite profound. Stop bashing your head into the wall. His head is harder than yours, and metaphorical walls tend to be pretty sturdy... After all, all metaphorical walls after the 1600's had to get the Humpty Dumpty seal of architectural soundness

MTF

Actually very little aggravation. Haha. I'm back on this board mostly to brush up on my argumentation in order to prepare more thoroughly for the analytical writing section of the GRE and to increase my typing speed as well. =D

 

[Meow Mix]

Everyone has a worldview, yes -- but the point everyone is trying to make to you here is that "religion" isn't synonomous with "worldview." Not all worldviews are religious.

 

[waitasec]

In my system of beliefs there are some beliefs that are deeper and stronger than the others, my foundation everything else ethir fits onto my foundation or gets put in my interesting information pile that may or may not be true. In that interesting information pile it is ethir the information is wrong, something in my system is wrong, or my system and the information is both right and there is a missing piece of information that I need in order for it to make sense and be able to fit it into my system.

please take note: you are not everyone...

When my belief is in change and the nesessity of it, I am very fervent and zealous to my beliefs.

are those beliefs concerning religious doctrine?