the right religion

[Sha'irullah]

Doesn't look like it. In any case, your bare assertion isn't going to be enough- say where and how I'm "abusing common sense" or displaying "incompetence for the English language"



An astute observation, sherlock.



Deism is a form of theism. It is certainly a borderline case between philosophical theism and a religion proper. But it probably has sufficient similarities to warrant a loose identification as a religion in certain contexts, not others. And it seems you're using "religion" as a somewhat normative term rather than a descriptive one, which is likely the cause of your emotionally driven response.

In any case, my point regarding non-religion still stands, and it just looks like you were so hasty in your negative reaction to my post that you failed to sufficiently grasp it. You should probably try reading more slowly.

The point is that non-religion/non-theism, including even positive atheism, is not itself a religion or religious, and that the definition of religion that would render it as one (i.e. religion as "a path") is obviously a poor definition.

Everytime someone misreads a post they try backing out of it instead of simply stating they misread it. The only argument left now stem from this, oh god why! :faint:.

Back on topic though why are you asserting a new meaning to your post if you believed int he same thing I did? That makes no sense. If you believe this....

Non-religion/non-theism as an active and conscious disbelief or rejection of belief in God/gods (i.e. "positive" atheism) has only one feature in common with religions

Then how do you come to the conclusion Deism is the rejection of god when it is labelled non-religious?

You misread my post so just admit it and get over it. I do it all the time and often with humorous results.

 

[1robin]

Sounds to me like it's a matter of opinion

That is exactly what it is and all it could ever be (even being generous) without God. With God absolute right and wrong exist in the fabric of the universe. If not they are social constructs made independent of fact and that many atheists claim are an illusion.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

And what is religion if not the opinion of the people who invented said religion on how their "society" should live?

Um, you know, all the rest of the stuff a religion is- a collection of rituals, stories/myths, ethical codes, social interactions and so on... It looks like you're determined to be a broken record here rather than actually have a discussion (or *gasp* learn something). Your problem here is that, while part of morality, or norms, or even religion, could be described as "opinion", this leaves a lot out of the picture, including the features which distinguish ethical codes/norms and religions.

Saying that washing your hands is sanitary is a fact. Saying that it is the right thing to do is an opinion.

:no:

It is an expression of a value judgment, and a statement of fact regarding a particular norm- when I say "washing your hands is right/proper/whatever", I'm saying that, according to a particular set of social conventions (usually my own), washing your hands is "playing by the rules", as it were'; usually with the further implication that I wish or request that you (and anyone else) wash your hands.

Dress codes are dictated by what people believe to be proper dress for a certain occasion, which is also a matter of opinion.

Again, being misleading. People needn't have any active cognitive awareness or epistemic recognition of a norm for it to be a norm- they needn't "believe it" in the sense you imply. This simply doesn't capture all that social norms do and are in society- they are often a subject of opinion, yes, but they are also more than psychological, they perform an evolutionary function, they are usually embedded in our shared stories/myths, they are often presupposed by our understanding of the world, and so on. It looks like you simply have decided that morals and norms and values are merely opinions, without actually looking to see if thats what they are- and now you're trying to force the square peg of reality into your round hole. You'd be a terrible anthropologist, in other words.

 

[1robin]

If the lack of religion is a path then it counts. The OP states....

Only if we are discussing what paths exist but we were not. We were discussing what religion was right. No religion can't possibly be a religion to be right to begin with and the appalling willingness to defend something so obviously incorrect is disturbing but common.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Then how do you come to the conclusion Deism is the rejection of god when it is labelled non-religious?

What? Are you high? When did I say anything to the effect of "deism is the rejection of god"? (provide a quote or link, please)

I do it all the time and often with humorous results.

Ironic you should mention that...

 

[RJ50]

Only if we are discussing what paths exist but we were not. We were discussing what religion was right. No religion can't possibly be a religion to be right to begin with and the appalling willingness to defend something so obviously incorrect is disturbing but common.

What is so obviously incorrect? There is nothing to support the existence of any sort of deity, but at the same time there is nothing to support the lack of existence of a deity in a dimension somewhere.

 

[Sha'irullah]

What? Are you high? When did I say anything to the effect of "deism is the rejection of god"? (provide a quote or link, please)



Ironic you should mention that...

Non-religion/non-theism as an active and conscious disbelief or rejection of belief in God/gods (i.e. "positive" atheism) has only one feature in common with religions

I seriously believe that you had no idea what I was referring to in that post. I was referring to Deism but you assumed some form of agnosticism or atheism.

Perhaps I was not clear but I was specifically addressing non-religious theism.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Only if we are discussing what paths exist but we were not. We were discussing what religion was right. No religion can't possibly be a religion to be right to begin with and the appalling willingness to defend something so obviously incorrect is disturbing but common.

Again. the OP used the word "path" which includes all paths to god including religion.

non-religious theism applies. How many times must I reiterate that religion and belief in god are not mutual.

 

[1robin]

What is so obviously incorrect? There is nothing to support the existence of any sort of deity, but at the same time there is nothing to support the lack of existence of a deity in a dimension somewhere.

That is quite wrong but it does not matter because it had nothing to do with what I said. If you wish to debate the evidence for God's and/or the supernatural that is fine but what you said had no application to what I did.

 

[1robin]

Again. the OP used the word "path" which includes all paths to god including religion.

The OP is not the arbiter of what is true or not. If you had said my claims were off topic or if you had said no-religion was the right path then it would matter as it is it does not.

non-religious theism applies. How many times must I reiterate that religion and belief in god are not mutual.

Here is the definition of religion: The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods. This has long ago run it's course. When we have gotten to the point where terms like non-religious theism is used then there is no longer any reason to continue the issue.

 

[Awoon]

So what's the right religion? The ones that people declare to be theirs?

 

[Sha'irullah]

The OP is not the arbiter of what is true or not. If you had said my claims were off topic or if you had said no-religion was the right path then it would matter as it is it does not.

Nor is your religion and views yet alone mine but answering the OP is my objective. What is the right religion or path is the issue to be discussed here which is based off the original question not from your personal desires.

Here is the definition of religion: The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods. This has long ago run it's course. When we have gotten to the point where terms like non-religious theism is used then there is no longer any reason to continue the issue.

When and individual using word play and semantics to argue his position it means he has nothing worth debating and is a sign of failure. I do not care about the definitions of religion but the nature of the OP's questions.

 

[1robin]

So what's the right religion? The ones that people declare to be theirs?

The one that is true.

 

[1robin]

Again. the OP used the word "path" which includes all paths to god including religion.

non-religious theism applies. How many times must I reiterate that religion and belief in god are not mutual.

I have burned out on this issue. Please tell me who your avatar is and then let's talk about something else.

 

[Awoon]

The one that is true.

Then your religion Christian/Baptist isn't it.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Then your religion Christian/Baptist isn't it.

:biglaugh: Too hilarious

 

[Sha'irullah]

I have burned out on this issue. Please tell me who your avatar is and then let's talk about something else.

My avatar is Geert Wilders as I said earlier but you must have a habit of not reading posts

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

The one that is true.

Which one would that be?

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Non-religion/non-theism as an active and conscious disbelief or rejection of belief in God/gods (i.e. "positive" atheism) has only one feature in common with religions

I seriously believe that you had no idea what I was referring to in that post. I was referring to Deism but you assumed some form of agnosticism or atheism.

I assumed you meant "non-religion" as more or less coextensive with "non-theism"; as I say in my quote, i.e. "non-religion/non-theism".

Perhaps I was not clear but I was specifically addressing non-religious theism.

Perhaps. As I mentioned, deism and philosophical theism can be a tricky ones because they are sort of borderline cases; in certain contexts, they would probably qualify as a religion, broadly construed (i.e. in contrast to non-theism)- whereas in other contexts they would not.

 

[1robin]

Then your religion Christian/Baptist isn't it.

Do you intend to ever give any evidence for any claim you make? This is a claim to absolute knowledge there for you have the burden to prove it.