Weird religions you've heard of

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"] it is a belief system so it is a religion, and i never said they did. surrealnumber5

Well that means most political ideologies, worldviews and philosophical opinions.

NO ONE HAS ANY PROOF. A book saying that something happened DOES NOT MEAN IT HAPPENED. Because someone apparently turned water into wine DOES NOT MEAN IT IS TRUE. The reason atheism has one speck of truth is because it is illogical to think something is floating up in the sky pulling all the strings.

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"][QUOTE="Teenaged"]So every set of beliefs constitutes a religion?

Well that means most political ideologies, worldviews and philosophical opinions.

chessmaster1989

"he "proof" of atheism is logic" :lol: I've heard that too many times.Snipes_2

I imagine that's because persons who say that don't recognize that empiricism is a point of view, or that science has presumptions on which it is based. They just think their philosophical viewpoint is self-evident and universal, and that therefore people who come to different conclusions must be illogical, instead of holding different fundamental suppositions...which is incredibly conceited.

[QUOTE="Animatronic64"]

[QUOTE="I"]

I think you're misusing the term logic here. Logic has to do with statements being consistent. Logic only proves atheism if you accept certain premises to be true in the first place. The same can be said of a religion.

Palantas

The logic is that there is no empirical evidence to support the existence of gods, and quite frankly some would find the concept of deities to be too fantastical. Also, I think you misinterpreted my post a bit. Considering what I said in the later half.

I'm not sure whether the statement I quoted was what you think, or what you think athiests and Christians think. In either case, it's still a misuse of the termlogic. Logic alone never proves anything. Logic might determine that atheism and empricism are compatible.

Prince Philip Movement

/thread

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"]"he "proof" of atheism is logic" :lol: I've heard that too many times.Palantas

I imagine that's because persons who say that don't recognize that empiricism is a point of view, or that science has presumptions on which it is based. They just think their philosophical viewpoint is self-evident and universal, and that therefore people who come to different conclusions must be illogical, instead of holding different fundamental suppositions...which is incredibly conceited.

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"]"he "proof" of atheism is logic" :lol: I've heard that too many times.Palantas

I imagine that's because persons who say that don't recognize that empiricism is a point of view, or that science has presumptions on which it is based. They just think their philosophical viewpoint is self-evident and universal, and that therefore people who come to different conclusions must be illogical, instead of holding different fundamental suppositions...which is incredibly conceited.

[QUOTE="Palantas"]

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"]"he "proof" of atheism is logic" :lol: I've heard that too many times.Snipes_2

I imagine that's because persons who say that don't recognize that empiricism is a point of view, or that science has presumptions on which it is based. They just think their philosophical viewpoint is self-evident and universal, and that therefore people who come to different conclusions must be illogical, instead of holding different fundamental suppositions...which is incredibly conceited.

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"][QUOTE="Palantas"]

I imagine that's because persons who say that don't recognize that empiricism is a point of view, or that science has presumptions on which it is based. They just think their philosophical viewpoint is self-evident and universal, and that therefore people who come to different conclusions must be illogical, instead of holding different fundamental suppositions...which is incredibly conceited.

GHlegend77

Isn't there are Star Wars one?mrmusicman247

[QUOTE="mrmusicman247"]Isn't there are Star Wars one?Snipes_2

[QUOTE="Palantas"]

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"]"he "proof" of atheism is logic" :lol: I've heard that too many times.GHlegend77

I imagine that's because persons who say that don't recognize that empiricism is a point of view, or that science has presumptions on which it is based. They just think their philosophical viewpoint is self-evident and universal, and that therefore people who come to different conclusions must be illogical, instead of holding different fundamental suppositions...which is incredibly conceited.

I want some o' that

I don't like to call atheism a religion, as that just annoys atheists and obstructs intelligent conversation. Atheism, or rather the typical arguments in support of atheism, do rely on certain presumptions. Some people like to pretend that empiricism and the modern scientific method don't have any presumptions, which is baloney. In that sense, atheism does require belief--or faith, if you like to call it that--since the underlying philosophy requires certain beliefs.

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"]"he "proof" of atheism is logic" :lol: I've heard that too many times.Palantas

I imagine that's because persons who say that don't recognize that empiricism is a point of view, or that science has presumptions on which it is based. They just think their philosophical viewpoint is self-evident and universal, and that therefore people who come to different conclusions must be illogical, instead of holding different fundamental suppositions...which is incredibly conceited.

[QUOTE="GHlegend77"][QUOTE="Snipes_2"] Yeah, Look at the Post in Red. Snipes_2

I have no idea what you just said, but it sounded good and smart. Here's a cookie :)GHlegend77

Oooo, thank you. :)

Yeah, Look at the Post in Red.

Snipes_2

Hehe, I almost went back and edited my post, quoting that and saying something like "Speak of the devil."

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"]

[QUOTE="GHlegend77"] Snipes, are you a Christian, or am I mistaken?GHlegend77

[QUOTE="GHlegend77"]I have no idea what you just said, but it sounded good and smart. Here's a cookie :)Palantas

Oooo, thank you. :)

Yeah, Look at the Post in Red.

Snipes_2

Hehe, I almost went back and edited my post, quoting that and saying something like "Speak of the devil."

I don't like to call atheism a religion, as that just annoys atheists and obstructs intelligent conversation. Atheism, or rather the typical arguments in support of atheism, do rely on certain presumptions. Some people like to pretend that empiricism and the modern scientific method don't have any presumptions, which is baloney. In that sense, atheism does require belief--or faith, if you like to call it that--since the underlying philosophy requires certain beliefs.

Palantas

Political systems, or rather those who support them, do apply faith in them, ie they have faith that the principles of them work to serve some purpose.

I dont think faith is a factor that automatically brings the label "religion" with it.

(unless you werent saying it sort of makes sense to call it a religion)

According to the principles of what is universally correct, choosing atheism on the lack of empirical evidence, and the downright fictitious nature of holy texts is what I would define as a logical stance. Atheism stems not from evidence, but doubt, and that doubt is founded on good reason. Just my two cents.

Animatronic64

How did you determine what is "universally correct"? How did you determine that empricism is correct? It seems like you're using those two synonymously, which is exactly what I've been criticizing.

Yeah but the same can be said for the examples I gave.

Political systems, or rather those who support them, do apply faith in them, ie they have faith that the principles of them work to serve some purpose.

I dont think faith is a factor that automatically brings the label "religion" with it.

(unless you werent saying it sort of makes sense to call it a religion)

Teenaged

I'm confused. I'm not calling atheism a religion. Are you?

[QUOTE="GHlegend77"][QUOTE="Snipes_2"] Roman Catholic.

Snipes_2

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

Yeah but the same can be said for the examples I gave.

Political systems, or rather those who support them, do apply faith in them, ie they have faith that the principles of them work to serve some purpose.

I dont think faith is a factor that automatically brings the label "religion" with it.

(unless you werent saying it sort of makes sense to call it a religion)

Palantas

I'm confused. I'm not calling atheism a religion. Are you?

I didnt think you called it one either.

I just thought you sort of gave reasons why one would call it a religion but wasnt sure, and thats why I added the parentheses.

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"][QUOTE="GHlegend77"] Ah. That's nice. I'm a Christian myself.GHlegend77

It shows everything better than I can explain it :P

[QUOTE="Animatronic64"]

According to the principles of what is universally correct, choosing atheism on the lack of empirical evidence, and the downright fictitious nature of holy texts is what I would define as a logical stance. Atheism stems not from evidence, but doubt, and that doubt is founded on good reason. Just my two cents.

Palantas

How did you determine what is "universally correct"? How did you determine that empricism is correct? It seems like you're using those two synonymously, which is exactly what I've been criticizing.

That entirely depends on the specifics we are talking about. There are many things that are universally correct. For example, we can say that the Bible describes the age of the Earth incorrectly. In this case, our empirical evidence can be carbon dating, it is observable, and reliable information. But from what I got out of your post, you're asking me how we determine that a fact is correct. To be honest, I have no idea what you're talking about anymore.

Animatronic64

No me neither.

I didnt think you called it one either.

I just thought you sort of gave reasons why one would call it a religion but wasnt sure, and thats why I added the parentheses.

Teenaged

I should haven been more clear. I was giving reasons some people call it a religion, as well presenting some of my philosophical stance on the whole issue. I think that a religion has certain requirements: Supernatural elements, and...well, supernatural elements. That's why I don't categorize stuff like atheism, Communism, and my belief that Baldur's Gate is a good game as religions. Now, if someone has a different definition for "religion," it might encompass more stuff.

[QUOTE="GHlegend77"]

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"] Cool, What Denomination? Snipes_2

That entirely depends on the specifics we are talking about. There are many things that are universally correct. For example, we can say that the Bible describes the age of the Earth incorrectly. In this case, our empirical evidence can be carbon dating, it is observable, and reliable information. But from what I got out of your post, you're asking me how we determine that a fact is correct. To be honest, I have no idea what you're talking about anymore.

Animatronic64

I'm asking you, how did you determine that empiricism is correct? The scientific method is not a "fact." You cannot observe empiricism.

You're saying that the literal writing of the Bible is universally false, because it violates empiricism. Therefore, empiricism must be universally correct as well. How did you determine this? It can't be because you observed it as a fact. So how'd you do it?

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"]

[QUOTE="GHlegend77"] Non-denominational, to be honest. Sort of my own, based off the beliefs I was raised on, and what my brother (who used to be a preacher) has taught. I've never really looked into Catholicism.Does the belief system differ much from common Christian beliefs?

GHlegend77

[QUOTE="Animatronic64"]

That entirely depends on the specifics we are talking about. There are many things that are universally correct. For example, we can say that the Bible describes the age of the Earth incorrectly. In this case, our empirical evidence can be carbon dating, it is observable, and reliable information. But from what I got out of your post, you're asking me how we determine that a fact is correct. To be honest, I have no idea what you're talking about anymore.

Palantas

I'm asking you, how did you determine that empiricism is correct? The scientific method is not a "fact." You cannot observe empiricism.

You're saying that the literal writing of the Bible is universally false, because it violates empiricism. Therefore, empiricism must be universally correct as well. How did you determine this? It can't be because you observed it as a fact. So how'd you do it?

[QUOTE="Palantas"]

[QUOTE="Animatronic64"]

According to the principles of what is universally correct, choosing atheism on the lack of empirical evidence, and the downright fictitious nature of holy texts is what I would define as a logical stance. Atheism stems not from evidence, but doubt, and that doubt is founded on good reason. Just my two cents.

Animatronic64

How did you determine what is "universally correct"? How did you determine that empricism is correct? It seems like you're using those two synonymously, which is exactly what I've been criticizing.

The Bible doesn't describe the age of the Earth though.

Me lost. I guess I went to school and learned some things about this world and how it works?

Animatronic64

You just accepted what another person told you as absolute truth? So, the scientific method is correct...because someone told you it was. How is this any different from a person in a cult who believes everything he's told?

[QUOTE="Animatronic64"]

[QUOTE="Palantas"]

How did you determine what is "universally correct"? How did you determine that empricism is correct? It seems like you're using those two synonymously, which is exactly what I've been criticizing.

GTbiking4life

The Bible doesn't describe the age of the Earth though.

[QUOTE="Animatronic64"]

Me lost. I guess I went to school and learned some things about this world and how it works?

Palantas

You just accepted what another person told you as absolute truth? So, the scientific method is correct...because someone told you it was. How is this any different from a person in a cult who believes everything he's told?

The Bible doesn't describe the age of the Earth though.

GTbiking4life

There is a geneology, in the Gospel of John, I think, which traces Christ's lineage back to Adam. Even if you figure vast ages for all the people listed, you can't get much over 10,000 years. Subtract four days from that, and you have the age of the Earth.

As if Scientology was not bad enough, the Jedi Church?!

In that case maybe we are living in the matrix and everything is a lie. I don't know... Animatronic64

I think you're being sarcastic, but scepticism, in a philosophical sense, is a good place to start when really thinking about what you know and what you believe.

Lots of people like to say they only believe what they can prove. Usually they mean, only what they can prove through science. They've never stopped to consider, how does one independently prove the scientific method? At a basic level, you have conceits, presumptions, faith, whatever you want to call it, that define your belief system.

Arguing particulars with someone is pointless when your underlying philosophy is different. Telling a fundamentalist Christian that carbon dating "disproves" the Bible is an meaningless to him as him telling you that Bible verses saying the Bible is true "prove" it is true.

[QUOTE="GTbiking4life"]

[QUOTE="Animatronic64"] That entirely depends on the specifics we are talking about. There are many things that are universally correct. For example, we can say that the Bible describes the age of the Earth incorrectly. In this case, our empirical evidence can be carbon dating, it is observable, and reliable information. But from what I got out of your post, you're asking me how we determine that a fact is correct. To be honest, I have no idea what you're talking about anymore.

Animatronic64

The Bible doesn't describe the age of the Earth though.

As if Scientology was not bad enough, the Jedi Church?!

Robbler

Catholicism. They eat their god and drink his blood.Gallion-Beast

[QUOTE="Animatronic64"]In that case maybe we are living in the matrix and everything is a lie. I don't know... Palantas

I think you're being sarcastic, but scepticism, in a philosophical sense, is a good place to start when really thinking about what you know and what you believe.

Lots of people like to say they only believe what they can prove. Usually they mean, only what they can prove through science. They've never stopped to consider, how does one independently prove the scientific method? At a basic level, you have conceits, presumptions, faith, whatever you want to call it, that define your belief system.

Arguing particulars with someone is pointless when your underlying philosophy is different. Telling a fundamentalist Christian that carbon dating "disproves" the Bible is an meaningless to him as him telling you that Bible verses saying the Bible is true "prove" it is true.

[QUOTE="Gallion-Beast"]Catholicism. They eat their god and drink his blood.Snipes_2