My Defination of Relgion and Faith

[Burl]

Something is steering our rudder.

If there is God then there are Gods created in (His) image= (All powerful)

If there is Hell then there are Hells created in it's image= all powerful

If there is Heaven then there are Heavens created in it's image.

 

[Hawkins]

You don't have to. You just have to hold the position "I have no good reason to assume that there is any form of life after death".


Because they're an interesting psychological phenomenon (and also because people are gullible). NDE's can be dismissed as evidence for life after death with one word: near.

You don't know what you are talking about. That's the situation.

Let me shed more light on it for the readers (as you are almost hopeless) in this thread to have a read.


======
Atheism is a religion developed from our secular education system basing off a serious of fallacies, such as "you should only believe when things are evidenced" which is just a variance of "the absence of evidence is the evidence of absence". What being worse is that they don't realize that they have such a religion.

2 Corinthians 4:4 (NIV)

The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

The existence of religions are closely tied up to an unknown lying in front us. It closely concerns our lives but remains unknown to us. It is the question that, "whether life will continue after death".

There are 2 main camps of believes.


1) Life continues, there might be something series would happen
2) Life discontinues

Those with belief 2) don't have the necessity to continue to think about "what could possibly happen". Because "Life discontinues" leaves no room for the possibility of "what could possibly happen".

All religions (including atheism) branch out from these 2 camps. Ironically, there is no evidence showing that life discontinues. Of course, if life discontinues then no evidence will be available. However they choose (subconsciously) to neglect the possibility that life continues but not yet evidenced to humans.

As for camp 1), if life continues then what would happen? The two possibilities now are open to them. It is possible that nothing serious would happen, it is also possible that something serious would happen. They are possibilities in the perspective that it's unknown to us. Either of the two is thus a faith.

When it is said that "there's bomb nearby", we are facing the same 2 possibilities. It's possible that it's true, it's also possible that it's a hoax. If it's not a situation concerning our lives, it makes sense for us to stay in the area to investigate which of the two possibilities is more true. However "a bomb" is a life threatening situation, we should run disregarding which of the two is more true. Unless we have a more reliable source (say, the police) identified it as a hoax.

Camp 1) however, as influenced (subconsciously) by the "life discontinues" faith fallaciously conclude that they should stay until more evidence showing that it's not a hoax.

Atheism is such a religion with a large group of humans sharing a common belief.

Another fallacious comparison is to equate the situation to red unicorns and flying spaghetti. We can neglect the existence of red unicorn because it's not a life threatening situation. It exists or not won't affect our lives. Moreover, it's a matter of common sense and statistics. Red unicorn doesn't have the intelligence to hide itself from being noticed. Statistically if there are not enough claims of its encounters then it's pretty safe to assume its absence. However, in the case of after life, each and every human will have to encounter it without exception. What matters is not the absence of encounters, but the inability for the dead to come back to inform us. It's more like the situation that humans in US encounter red unicorns on a daily basis however they are forbidden to talk about it for humans on the other side of world to have to ignore its presence.

Red unicorn and after life are thus apples and oranges.

 

[Hawkins]

There's a lot of afterlife scenarios I'm likely to miss out on for not dying a certain way, or not following a certain deity. I miss out either way, so what's it to me?

I mean, I'm a Heathen, but because I have no intention of dying in battle, I'm going to be "missing out" on both Valhalla and the Folkenfields.

Besides, I don't even wanna live forever.

So you are saying that you are incapable of seeking what possible truth may lie behind death. That's just you. Others may have their own way to look into their own situations. If you choose to stop there, you may miss out what they might have been found.

 

[Hawkins]

I dunno. Define soul, first. Then we can talk about whether it exists or not.

Why? Do you mean to say that the religious discussions in history of humans are completely meaningless due the lack of a precise definition of souls or gods or ghosts etc. You must be kidding me, right?

Humans don't know everything first to give precise definitions before they talk about something. It's in the contrary, they keep talking about something they can't know better till knowledge gain discovers its nature to make it possible for a precise definition to exist.

 

[Riverwolf]

So you are saying that you are incapable of seeking what possible truth may lie behind death.

No, I'm saying I'm not interested in your product.

That's just you. Others may have their own way to look into their own situations. If you choose to stop there, you may miss out what they might have been found.

So? My point still stands: I miss out on all that other stuff, anyway. I'm already "missing out" on lots of stuff from this life.

That's not a concern of mine.

And in any case, I'm even less interested in some "spirituality" where the reason for practicing it sounds like a sales pitch. "Don't miss out on the latest new trend that we're selling!" Didn't Jesus himself get rather miffed at that style of religion?

Why? Do you mean to say that the religious discussions in history of humans are completely meaningless due the lack of a precise definition of souls or gods or ghosts etc. You must be kidding me, right?

In the past, those words weren't as nebulous as they've become in Modern English.

Humans don't know everything first to give precise definitions before they talk about something. It's in the contrary, they keep talking about something they can't know better till knowledge gain discovers its nature to make it possible for a precise definition to exist.

And that's why the ones who only did the talking kept getting a bunch of things wrong, while the ones who actually started looking understood far better.

 

[Agondonter]

Religion:

1) Belief that certain objects are sacred and some are profane without a logical basis.

2) Belief in a superhuman controlling power without a logical basis.

3) Belief that certain rituals produce specific results without a logical basis.

4) Belief that unobservable begins exists without a logical basis.

5) A system of faith surrounding a person or persons.

6) Belief in a form of persistence for the human conciseness past biological death without a logical basis.

7) A belief in pseudo-science on the basis of faith.

8) The belief that humans can accomplish certain results by following a certain ideology without a logical basis.

Also this is how I define faith.

Faith:

Belief in something without needing a logical basis.

These definitions left quite a stir in another thread, with many claiming there religion is indeed based on logic.

If you do think your religion is based on logic then please try to show it here.

Those definitions of religion are too silly and biased to "raise a stir"

 

[McBell]

You don't know what you are talking about. That's the situation.

Let me shed more light on it for the readers (as you are almost hopeless) in this thread to have a read.


======
Atheism is a religion developed from our secular education system basing off a serious of fallacies, such as "you should only believe when things are evidenced" which is just a variance of "the absence of evidence is the evidence of absence". What being worse is that they don't realize that they have such a religion.

2 Corinthians 4:4 (NIV)

The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

The existence of religions are closely tied up to an unknown lying in front us. It closely concerns our lives but remains unknown to us. It is the question that, "whether life will continue after death".

There are 2 main camps of believes.


1) Life continues, there might be something series would happen
2) Life discontinues

Those with belief 2) don't have the necessity to continue to think about "what could possibly happen". Because "Life discontinues" leaves no room for the possibility of "what could possibly happen".

All religions (including atheism) branch out from these 2 camps. Ironically, there is no evidence showing that life discontinues. Of course, if life discontinues then no evidence will be available. However they choose (subconsciously) to neglect the possibility that life continues but not yet evidenced to humans.

As for camp 1), if life continues then what would happen? The two possibilities now are open to them. It is possible that nothing serious would happen, it is also possible that something serious would happen. They are possibilities in the perspective that it's unknown to us. Either of the two is thus a faith.

When it is said that "there's bomb nearby", we are facing the same 2 possibilities. It's possible that it's true, it's also possible that it's a hoax. If it's not a situation concerning our lives, it makes sense for us to stay in the area to investigate which of the two possibilities is more true. However "a bomb" is a life threatening situation, we should run disregarding which of the two is more true. Unless we have a more reliable source (say, the police) identified it as a hoax.

Camp 1) however, as influenced (subconsciously) by the "life discontinues" faith fallaciously conclude that they should stay until more evidence showing that it's not a hoax.

Atheism is such a religion with a large group of humans sharing a common belief.

Another fallacious comparison is to equate the situation to red unicorns and flying spaghetti. We can neglect the existence of red unicorn because it's not a life threatening situation. It exists or not won't affect our lives. Moreover, it's a matter of common sense and statistics. Red unicorn doesn't have the intelligence to hide itself from being noticed. Statistically if there are not enough claims of its encounters then it's pretty safe to assume its absence. However, in the case of after life, each and every human will have to encounter it without exception. What matters is not the absence of encounters, but the inability for the dead to come back to inform us. It's more like the situation that humans in US encounter red unicorns on a daily basis however they are forbidden to talk about it for humans on the other side of world to have to ignore its presence.

Red unicorn and after life are thus apples and oranges.

Your idea of "shed some light" looks just like "piling on more bull ****."

 

[Hawkins]

Your idea of "shed some light" looks just like "piling on more bull ****."

You can't help with those with low intelligence, and have choose to bet their own life on their own low IQ.

 

[Hawkins]

No, I'm saying I'm not interested in your product.

Who cares about what you are interested in. It's your own life. That's why I said I simply leave it here for those who have good among of IQ to have a read. You don't even know that it's your belief that soul doesn't exist. And that you don't even have to IQ to figure out that it's fallacious to say that one has to give a precise definition before he can talk.

 

[Riverwolf]

Who cares about what you are interested in.

LOL I am, of course.

It's your own life.

A life with other people in it. Obviously they care.

And you seem to care since you're pushing this thing onto me.

You don't even know that it's your belief that soul doesn't exist.

Beware the Straw Man, friend. Beware the Straw Man.

And that you don't even have to IQ

I was actually profesionally evaluated, and my IQ is 138, in fact. I don't think you understand how intelligence works. (Which is fine, most people don't.)

Still, your frustration is showing. Instead of providing a decent argument, you're falling back on grade-school level jabs at intelligence.

Which, incidentally, is the argumentum ad hominim logical fallacy.

to figure out that it's fallacious to say that one has to give a precise definition before he can talk.

You do realize that our ancestors believed in multiple souls, right? And that many words are polysemic?

I understand the frustration of talking to someone who clearly comes from a completely different world than you, and thus appears unintelligent or crazy. In that situaiton, the best thing to do is simply walk away without another word.

 

[McBell]

You can't help with those with low intelligence, and have choose to bet their own life on their own low IQ.