the right religion

[Sha'irullah]

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. 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.

The primary issue with Deism is that it falls under its own category and is shunned by the theists ironically and shunned by the non-theists obviously. It stands in a very dark corner due to its inability to construct anything unified yet alone desired by traditionalists.

It is truly the "dark side" of religion (perhaps being a little too over dramatic)

 

[Awoon]

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.

You said the one that is true. Your religion is posted as Christian/Baptist not true.

Sterling Archer got it.

Too simple for you

 

[Sha'irullah]

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.

Please provide evidence to prove your religion.

Try making any claim to provide its validity. Wait, you did that once and it failed .

I will gladly sit in the bleachers for this discussion though opcorn:

 

[Enai de a lukal]

The primary issue with Deism is that it falls under its own category

Well, not exactly; the tradition of philosophic or metaphysical theism is centuries old. Deism is in good company.

...and is shunned by the theists ironically and shunned by the non-theists obviously.

Not universally; deism is a close relative to natural theology/rationalism, and is probably viewed more sympathetically by non-theists than, for instance, fundamentalist Islam or Christianity- because it is "more rational", or whatever.

It is truly the "dark side" of religion (perhaps being a little too over dramatic)

Yeah, perhaps...

 

[Sha'irullah]

Well, not exactly; the tradition of philosophic or metaphysical theism is centuries old. Deism is in good company. [/QUOTE

Deism itself is what I am referring to. "Natural Religion" is a broad category and for many it includes spiritualism, Buddhism, liberal theism and oddly Buddhism of all things.

Not universally; deism is a close relative to natural theology/rationalism, and is probably viewed more sympathetically by non-theists than, for instance, fundamentalist Islam or Christianity- because it is "more rational", or whatever.

Natural theology/Natural religion has always been defined as the umbrella term for rationalist theologies. Deism being the most popular unless you count Buddhism. Long story as to how Buddhism got defined as such but so many view it as applicable to natural religion

 

[Sha'irullah]

You said the one that is true. Your religion is posted as Christian/Baptist not true.

Sterling Archer got it.

Too simple for you

Simplicity always beats convoluted complexity :beach:. I pity those who require whole books and organization just to find god. God can be found in every prostitute and ever ounce of weed one smokes. Apparently it is us who needs religion and not god.

I do not need a thousand year old text to tel me right from wrong or who god is when it cannot even get basic biology correct

 

[1robin]

You said the one that is true. Your religion is posted as Christian/Baptist not true.

Sterling Archer got it.

Too simple for you

I believe mine to be true yes. It led me to directly experience God. However if I made the claim it was true, I would have supplied the evidenced to back up the claim. Since I did not do so then I had no burden to provide that evidence, however you did claim it was not true and so you do have that burden. Are you new to debate? Honest question not an insinuation.

 

[1robin]

Please provide evidence to prove your religion.

Try making any claim to provide its validity. Wait, you did that once and it failed .

I will gladly sit in the bleachers for this discussion though opcorn:

Yes it seems that any attempt to require evidence for your claims to absolute knowledge will always fail. If you will even just attempt (it does not even have to be good) to provide evidence for any of the claims you made that I demanded it for then I will gladly switch to providing evidence for my faith claims.

 

[Sha'irullah]

I believe mine to be true yes. It led me to directly experience God. However if I made the claim it was true, I would have supplied the evidenced to back up the claim. Since I did not do so then I had no burden to provide that evidence, however you did claim it was not true and so you do have that burden. Are you new to debate? Honest question not an insinuation.

:biglaugh: Greatest cop out in history.

But what makes you think you have experienced god? I have experienced god and I will easily say that I saw now whit robes yet alone Yeshua.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Deism itself is what I am referring to. "Natural Religion" is a broad category and for many it includes spiritualism, Buddhism, liberal theism and oddly Buddhism of all things.

Buddhism, liberal theism and Buddhism, eh?

I'd say that including Buddhism here is misleading if not just mistaken, but I can at least understand why one would make the connection. (actually, it sort of falls under the topic that my thread "Truth in Different Religions" discusses here- http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/general-religious-debates/150057-truth-different-religions.html )

My point was simply that it isn't as if Deism stands all on its own and is utterly novel- it falls into a fairly long-standing tradition (i.e. philosophical theism).

Natural theology/Natural religion has always been defined as the umbrella term for rationalist theologies. Deism being the most popular unless you count Buddhism.

I don't know about "most popular", and if it ever was (i.e. the Enlightenment) it isn't anymore. I'd say Christian apologetics is the "most popular" form of natural theology, simply in virtue of the fact that Christianity is the largest religion and apologetics has formed an important part of its history.

 

[1robin]

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

The name is a label only. I wanted to know who he was. However in this case you did technically provide what I asked for. Can you please tell me a little about him. He looks interesting (or crazy) but then again crazy is interesting its self.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Yes it seems that any attempt to require evidence for your claims to absolute knowledge will always fail. If you will even just attempt (it does not even have to be good) to provide evidence for any of the claims you made that I demanded it for then I will gladly switch to providing evidence for my faith claims.

But I never claimed to have evidence for my belief. If you say that I have no evidence then neither do you which would give you in a major conundrum.

My evidence purely lies on hypothetical conclusions, reasoning and the existence of the self.
You can easily refute these claims if you are an atheist or use the atheist approach but this would leave you as a hypocrite to your own belief in Jesus

 

[Awoon]

I believe mine to be true yes. It led me to directly experience God. However if I made the claim it was true, I would have supplied the evidenced to back up the claim. Since I did not do so then I had no burden to provide that evidence, however you did claim it was not true and so you do have that burden. Are you new to debate? Honest question not an insinuation.

I asked what is the right religion, you said the one that is true. Your religion is posted as Christian/Baptist so it isn't true.

If you religion is the one that is true you would post for your religion, true. Your posted religion is Christian/Baptist.

 

[Sha'irullah]

The name is a label only. I wanted to know who he was. However in this case you did technically provide what I asked for. Can you please tell me a little about him. He looks interesting (or crazy) but then again crazy is interesting its self.

He is a Dutch politician and Zionist. He despises Islam and went as far as to have the Qur'an banned in the Netherlands. He is an outspoken critic of Islam and is quite fair in his opinions due to current upheaval.

He is crazy indeed and I admire him for the fact he looks like a punk and we happen to have the same haircut . We share the same hatred towards Islam in the sense that the hatred of Islam is clear but withdraw from the potential hatred of Muslims.
Islam is constructed from a book. Anybody can kill in the name of a book and I can kill int he name of Darwinism but I do not. This level of though by separating the book, adherents and religion is heavily admired by me obviously.

 

[1robin]

I asked what is the right religion, you said the one that is true. Your religion is posted as Christian/Baptist so it isn't true.

You are just here to pick a verbal fight are you not. Claiming my religion is Baptist is to claim what I believe to be true. That is not an absolute claim to knowledge as your claim was. When you prove what you claimed I will be more than happy to meet my burden for evidence. Faith's only burden is intellectual permissibility by the way. I will let you of easy. Simply try and providence evidence for what you said you knew. Good or bad and then we will move on because my asking you to back up what you said just isn't getting any where. In debate never claim to know anything for a fact unless you can prove it to the extent you can avoid it.

If you religion is the one that is true you would post for your religion, true. Your posted religion is Christian/Baptist.

I will be more than happy to supply evidence why I believe mine is true once you meet your burden even if it is a bad attempt on your part.

 

[1robin]

He is a Dutch politician and Zionist. He despises Islam and went as far as to have the Qur'an banned in the Netherlands. He is an outspoken critic of Islam and is quite fair in his opinions due to current upheaval.

Not too shabby so far.

He is crazy indeed and I admire him for the fact he looks like a punk and we happen to have the same haircut . We share the same hatred towards Islam in the sense that the hatred of Islam is clear but withdraw from the potential hatred of Muslims.
Islam is constructed from a book. Anybody can kill in the name of a book and I can kill int he name of Darwinism but I do not. This level of though by separating the book, adherents and religion is heavily admired by me obviously.

If you can make sense why did you wait so long? Just kidding.

 

[Awoon]

You are just here to pick a verbal fight are you not. Claiming my religion is Baptist is to claim what I believe to be true. That is not an absolute claim to knowledge as your claim was. When you prove what you claimed I will be more than happy to meet my burden for evidence. Faith's only burden is intellectual permissibility by the way. I will let you of easy. Simply try and providence evidence for what you said you knew. Good or bad and then we will move on because my asking you to back up what you said just isn't getting any where. In debate never claim to know anything for a fact unless you can prove it to the extent you can avoid it.

I will be more than happy to supply evidence why I believe mine is true once you meet your burden even if it is a bad attempt on your part.

The evidence for your religion under your username is Christian/Baptist. I don't care why you think it is true, you should post it as the one that is true, not Christian/Baptist.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

He is a Dutch politician and Zionist.

I think it's a bit hypocritical to be a Zionist and hate Muslims. In my opinion, the Zionists' obsession with dominating Israel is just as hateful and violent as Islamist jihad, and the Nazi occupation, for that matter...

 

[1robin]

The evidence for your religion under your username is Christian/Baptist. I don't care why you think it is true, you should post it as the one that is true, not Christian/Baptist.

I will be happy to once you meet you obligations. By the way you have no capacity to demand I post what you wish.

 

[1robin]

I think it's a bit hypocritical to be a Zionist and hate Muslims. In my opinion, the Zionists' obsession with dominating Israel is just as hateful and violent as Islamist jihad, and the Nazi occupation, for that matter...

My agreement with the that guys message concerned his resistance to Islam not his agreement with Zionism. Can you define Zionism exactly?