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

[Meow Mix]

So what is your definition of religion? Do you have a better deffinition than any of the definitions I have given?

It is really nice when people try to correct someone and instead of just saying "your wrong" saying "that is incorrect, here is the right answer" Hence why it is called a correction.

yaddoe, I've already explained that religious worldviews are different from just a general worldview in that specifically, religious worldviews incorporate faith in the context of ontological belief without or in spite of evidence.

All religions have worldviews, in other words, but not all worldviews are religions. If a worldview doesn't make ontological claims (i.e. claims about what exists) without solid epistemic justification, then it isn't religious.

If you want to define all worldviews as religions, then fine -- I'll agree that everyone is "religious," but only based on a corrupted and non-useful re-definition of the word "religious."

 

[waitasec]

1. I was trying to say that I have some beliefs that are stronger than some of my other beliefs.

take note...you are talking about yourself

2. My belief in change, can sometimes be concerning religious doctrine, when it is, it is usually I was too stubborn to really follow this principal of doctrine for a long time, but I am ready to follow it now. (example, for a long time growing up I never really took the time to read and study my scriptures and then one day I committed my self to do so and I have been studying them ever since.)
Either that, or I come to a whole new understanding of the doctrine that I never had before. (An example would be me just a few years ago coming to a whole new understanding on the doctrine of Baptism and the Sacrament and how they go hand in hand.)

take note you are talking about YOUR beliefs, not everyones.

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

yaddoe, I've already explained that religious worldviews are different from just a general worldview in that specifically, religious worldviews incorporate faith in the context of ontological belief without or in spite of evidence.

All religions have worldviews, in other words, but not all worldviews are religions. If a worldview doesn't make ontological claims (i.e. claims about what exists) without solid epistemic justification, then it isn't religious.

If you want to define all worldviews as religions, then fine -- I'll agree that everyone is "religious," but only based on a corrupted and non-useful re-definition of the word "religious."

Must a system of beliefs have faith to be a religion?
I don't think so. Check his out

Believe - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

"Believe: to accept something as true, genuine, or real <ideals we believe in> <believes in ghosts>

: to have a firm conviction as to the goodness, efficacy, or ability of something <believe in exercise>

: to hold an opinion : think <I believe so>
transitive verb

: to consider to be true or honest <believe the reports> <you wouldn't believe how long it took>

: to accept the word or evidence of <I believe you> <couldn't believe my ears>

: to hold as an opinion : suppose <I believe it will rain soon>"

In all of these definitions I do not see the word faith anywhere.

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

take note...you are talking about yourself


take note you are talking about YOUR beliefs, not everyones.

Who doesn't believe in somethings more than others? When you can think of someone let me know.

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

If you want to make a semantical debate about words, then sure, not caring becomes an opinion, but otherwise its just not having interest or an opinion on something.

Alright you said it, not having interest is an opinion.

 

[Paroxys]

My definition of Christian is anyone who believes in following Jesus Christ.
I am not calling those Christians Un-Christian by any means, I am just stating that they are either hypocritical (When their doctrine says one thing and they say another.) or just ignorant.

All I am stating is that I am right until proven wrong. (Innocent until proven guilty) (Until one black swan is found, all swans are white. That is just the way the world works. Before someone discovered the Americas, to the rest of the world's knowledge the Americas did not exist. Until the first platypus was discovered, to the world it did not exist. There may very well be evidence out there to prove me wrong, but until it is found, everyone is Religious. Have fun on your wild goose chase.

You still haven't addressed any of my arguments, and you apparently have a very deluded conception of the way the world works. And apparently you're still missing my point with my absurd "christian" example.

Right until proven wrong only works if you're accepted as "right" in the first place. Newton first PROVED his law of gravity to be correct (and by proved, I mean gave everyone good reason to accept it as true). Only after he was established to be "right" was it up to others to disprove him. He went through his due diligence, and showed how his theory could be argued as correct. Also, in some other countries, its guilty until proven innocent.

But if you want to play this game. How about this as a thesis: "Not everyone is religious." Which means I'm right about this until you can prove me wrong, (meaning in order to do this, you actually need to address all my arguments).

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

You still haven't addressed any of my arguments, and you apparently have a very deluded conception of the way the world works. And apparently you're still missing my point with my absurd "christian" example.

Right until proven wrong only works if you're accepted as "right" in the first place. Newton first PROVED his law of gravity to be correct (and by proved, I mean gave everyone good reason to accept it as true). Only after he was established to be "right" was it up to others to disprove him. He went through his due diligence, and showed how his theory could be argued as correct. Also, in some other countries, its guilty until proven innocent.

But if you want to play this game. How about this as a thesis: "Not everyone is religious." Which means I'm right about this until you can prove me wrong.

Hey, you are the one that came up with the "All swans are white" example.

I find it interesting that you never once gave "a better" definition than I did on religion. If you really want to prove me wrong all you have to do is give me a better (more correct) definition. That is it. So far I have seen that my definition is the best definition and no one has been able to challenge it with any other statement than "your wrong" without stating why. The only way I can be wrong is if there is a better definition out there. If no one else knows a better definition, then obviously I'm right.
The only other way someone could prove me wrong would be to name someone without a system of beliefs to guide their life
my statement is the one with the white swans.
You want me to prove you wrong by collecting every single white swan in the world and see every swan is in fact white. I'm sorry, I'm not going to find your black swan for you. I don't believe it exists. It is your wild goose chase not mine.
Just remember the 2 black swans your are looking for are
1) A better definition than the one I have given. (Note: If my statement "Everyone is religious" is bogus it should be really easy for you to find a better definition of religion.)
or
2) Someone who does not have a system of beliefs that guides their life.

 

[Paroxys]

Hey, you are the one that came up with the "All swans are white" example.

I find it interesting that you never once gave "a better" definition than I did on religion. If you really want to prove me wrong all you have to do is give me a better (more correct) definition. That is it. So far I have seen that my definition is the best definition and no one has been able to challenge it with any other statement than "your wrong" without stating why. The only way I can be wrong is if there is a better definition out there. If no one else knows a better definition, then obviously I'm right.
The only other way someone could prove me wrong would be to name someone without a system of beliefs to guide their life
my statement is the one with the white swans.
You want me to prove you wrong by collecting every single white swan in the world and see every swan is in fact white. I'm sorry, I'm not going to find your black swan for you. I don't believe it exists. It is your wild goose chase not mine.
Just remember the 2 black swans your are looking for are
1) A better definition than the one I have given. (Note: If my statement "Everyone is religious" is bogus it should be really easy for you to find a better definition of religion.)
or
2) Someone who does not have a system of beliefs that guides their life.

But I'm right until you prove me wrong. This is what you said yourself. "Right until proven wrong." Whats with the double standard? The shifting advocacy? Why do I necessarily have to prove you wrong? According to you, its your job to prove me wrong.

You kinda got yourself trapped in a Catch-22 here. Either you need to concede that you actually need to justify your definitions and thesis, meaning you need to address my arguments. Or you can concede the "right until proven wrong" declaration you just made, meaning you need to prove me wrong, by proving yourself right, which means, you need to address my arguments.

But on another note (I don't use the word "black swan" because you're completely misusing that term).
1. I never needed to provide my own definition. Lots of people provided more better ones for me. Just because they aren't more better to you doesn't mean they're not more legitimate or better to other people. You can't just say, my definition is the best because I think its the best. And judging by the response of this thread, most people would be more willing to agree with someone else's definition is better than yours.
2. This one's easy. Issac Newton. Albert Einstein. Plato. Galileo. Your Great-great-great grandmother. Osama Bin Laden. All these are "someone". None of them have systems of beliefs that guide their lives. Because they're all dead. Dead people don't have systems of beliefs. They may have HAD systems of beliefs, but no longer. And even if you argue that they do. Systems of beliefs can't guide their lives, because their lives are already over. Nothing left to guide. "Have" and "guide" refer to the present

Last note. You do realize that dictionary definitions are often incomplete and don't necessarily capture the entire meaning of a word right?

Edit: I just noticed this, but your definition actually makes no sense. Someone (singular) can't have a system of beliefs that guide their (plural) life (singular). Since someone is religious if they a have a system that can guide their life, no one is religious because no one can have a system of beliefs that guides their life.

 

[Orias]

Alright you said it, not having interest is an opinion.

its just not having interest or an opinion on something

No I didn't.

 

[Thief]

Must one have a belief in God in order to be considered religious? I don't think so. If that were so then Buddisim would not be a religion.
A religon is just as system of beliefs that one develops and uses to guide their life. Everyone has a system of beliefs such as morals, that they use to guide their life.

Now we go defining what God might be.....

Someone greater than yourself?....Anyone you worship, or epitomize?

 

[charles brough]

Apparently you seem to be lacking basic reading comprehension skills. As I've stated before, I've not offered up a thesis of my own. Or rather, you could say my essential stance is: "If you want others to believe your claim, prove it." I don't have to offer up a position of my own to say that you're wrong, you could just be wrong. That is, if you argued that everything in the world is blue, I would not need to argue that everything in the world is red to refute against your claim. To make this as abundantly clear for you as possible, my position is this:

IT'S NOT OUR JOB TO DISPROVE YOUR THESIS. IT'S YOUR JOB TO PROVE IT. IF YOU WANT TO ASSERT YOUR VIEW AS THE CORRECT ONE, PROVIDE REASONS AS TO WHY THAT YOUR VIEW IS CORRECT.

Even if you've "provided" evidence concerning your thesis, since you haven't addressed fundamental problems concerning your advocacy at all. Pretty much all my of substantial contentions have still gone unanswered.

1. Why should we accept your definitions over other definitions of the word "religion", "religious", "belief", etc.?
2. Why are the standards and criteria that you use to determine the correctness or goodness of definitions "good" or "better" than alternative standards and criteria?

These two are a priori issues. They are asking, why we should accept your basic premises as true. Just because you can provide "evidence" (which you really don't, all you really do is a verbal circlejerk) based on YOUR premises, if you provide no reason for us to accept your premises then your conclusion is rejected anyway, despite any evidence you can provide. Beyond this there is a major flaws in your argument itself:

3. You haven't shown that system of beliefs and religion are equivalent. You can say that all religions are systems of beliefs, based on your premises. However you cannot say that all systems of beliefs are religions. Again back to dogs and 4-legged animals. All dogs are 4-legged animals. Just because you can say this, it does not imply that all 4-legged animals are dogs. Which is what you're doing with religion and system of beliefs. Plus, you haven't even addressed my counterexamples: math, or my system of "beliefs" for sorting.
4. Even if we were to assume that that equivalence is true and concede that everyone has a group or set of beliefs. You haven't shown how a set or group is the same as a system.

Back to my example to try and illustrate my point. You say that this is a bad or wrong definition because it is not "true." Hence we should not accept this definition of "religion". By what standards and criteria can you say that this is wrong?
Regardless, these Christians would then argue, that they are in fact, correct because "God told them so" (not necessarily from the Bible, but say from prayer or something). That is their interpreted "word of God" is the correct standard and criteria that we ought to use.

This right here is a very good example of my point. You argue that these people are not "Christians," yet these people themselves adamantly call themselves as such. Why is your definition of "Christian" better than their definition of "Christian".
On a side note, they would argue that other religions are "false religions" and therefore not really religions.

You know, Yaddoe's post isn't worth all that response! He says: "religion is a moral system and other beliefs that guide your life." By his definition, Scientology, East Asian Marxism and even Nazism were/are religions, although their moral systems were/are radically different from our own!

However, if you say that "religion" stands for ideologies that believe in "spirits," then you make a logical distinction. A world-view system has to be "spiritual" (spirits) to be a religion. In other words, "religions" are actually only old world-view systems.

Everyone has an ideology, if not "religious" then it is "secular," but only the old beliefs in "spirits" caracterize "religions." Therefore, Yaddoe is wrong. All people are not "religious." Many of us have no belief in "spirits" at all!:thud:

 

[crystalonyx]

In the fact that religion is a system of beliefs that one uses to guide one's life, every decision a person makes whether good or bad is based on religion.

.

Atheism is not a set of beliefs, what an atheist believes varies from one individual to the next. The only thing they all have in common is a disbelief in a supernatural entity.

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

But I'm right until you prove me wrong. This is what you said yourself. "Right until proven wrong." Whats with the double standard? The shifting advocacy? Why do I necessarily have to prove you wrong? According to you, its your job to prove me wrong.

You kinda got yourself trapped in a Catch-22 here. Either you need to concede that you actually need to justify your definitions and thesis, meaning you need to address my arguments. Or you can concede the "right until proven wrong" declaration you just made, meaning you need to prove me wrong, by proving yourself right, which means, you need to address my arguments.

But on another note (I don't use the word "black swan" because you're completely misusing that term).
1. I never needed to provide my own definition. Lots of people provided more better ones for me. Just because they aren't more better to you doesn't mean they're not more legitimate or better to other people. You can't just say, my definition is the best because I think its the best. And judging by the response of this thread, most people would be more willing to agree with someone else's definition is better than yours.
2. This one's easy. Issac Newton. Albert Einstein. Plato. Galileo. Your Great-great-great grandmother. Osama Bin Laden. All these are "someone". None of them have systems of beliefs that guide their lives. Because they're all dead. Dead people don't have systems of beliefs. They may have HAD systems of beliefs, but no longer. And even if you argue that they do. Systems of beliefs can't guide their lives, because their lives are already over. Nothing left to guide. "Have" and "guide" refer to the present

Last note. You do realize that dictionary definitions are often incomplete and don't necessarily capture the entire meaning of a word right?

Edit: I just noticed this, but your definition actually makes no sense. Someone (singular) can't have a system of beliefs that guide their (plural) life (singular). Since someone is religious if they a have a system that can guide their life, no one is religious because no one can have a system of beliefs that guides their life.

If you want me to show you white swans, I can show you white swans. They are everywhere. That is evidence enough for me. you however need to show 1 black swan which you have yet to do. It could take an eternity to find one black swan and that is something just not worth my time. So long as every swan everyone sees is white I am right. I am not going to go on your wild goose chase.

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

If you want to make a semantical debate about words, then sure, not caring becomes an opinion

You said it, not caring is an opinion.

 

[waitasec]

You said it, not caring is an opinion.

then you are saying the not caring about everything as a belief....
clearly you are wrong...

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

then you are saying the not caring about everything as a belief....
clearly you are wrong...

Not caring about anything is a belief.
It is a belief that nothing is important, or that nothing really matters, or that nothing is really going to effect you, or if it does there is nothing you can do about it, so why worry about it.

 

[Orias]

Not caring about anything is a belief.
It is a belief that nothing is important, or that nothing really matters, or that nothing is really going to effect you, or if it does there is nothing you can do about it, so why worry about it.

Now the argument changes to everything being a belief, which is more plausible than everyone being religious about something.

 

[waitasec]

Not caring about anything is a belief.
It is a belief that nothing is important, or that nothing really matters, or that nothing is really going to effect you, or if it does there is nothing you can do about it, so why worry about it.

and who believes that?

 

[McBell]

and who believes that?

And what do they call themselves....?

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

and who believes that?

Whoever does not care about something believes that.