1. Hmmm . . .
    Joined
    19 Jan '04
    Moves
    22131
    15 Feb '12 06:52
    Originally posted by poker87
    For religion to actually be religion it must be true religion and not false religion.

    ooh! by the way there are 3 things that are really going to annoy you all * I am going to sound like dasa. * I am also going to be right every time because I have been studying the Vedas for nearly 2 years now *and I am going to even try and sound like dasa and presen ...[text shortened]... person of truth would find it easy to do this.

    I will mark the answers in a couple of days.
    Your very first sentence is something of a logical mess. Either R or ~R; if only a “true R” is R, then a “false R” is no R at all (i.e., ~R).

    So, first one needs to define the term “religion”, such that the terms of that definition, and/or the propositional content of any particular system that fits that definition, can be tested according to independent criteria for verification/falsification—that is, criteria for determining whether or not the claims accurately correspond to the facts of reality.

    Let’s say that, minimally, a religion is (i) a system of beliefs (propositions) about reality that (ii) entails certain definitional or necessary beliefs (e.g., a supernatural entity), and (iii) prescribed practices/behaviors (ethics) in accord with those beliefs. A “true religion” would then be one all of whose beliefs are true—that is, correspond to the facts of reality; a “false religion” would be one some of whose beliefs do not correspond to the facts of reality. If any of the definitional/necessary beliefs are false, then there would be no “true religion”, so defined, at all.

    The issue of testing is critical because a proposition could happen to be true, without having been shown to be true. An unverified (or even unverifiable) proposition could nevertheless be true, but one cannot claim to know that it is true without justification (defining “knowledge” as justified true belief). A proposition that is shown to be false—either logically or empirically—must simply be discarded.

    Your word games are empty. You have not demonstrated that you know how the terms religion, truth and falsehood are used, or even how you are using them—and yet you seem to say that precisely that is a mark of “dishonesty”. I have outlined, in very general terms, what is necessary to be able to validly claim truth or falsehood with regard to any system of beliefs. That is how “a person of truth” (or at least a person who wants to know truth) proceeds: by logically testing propositions against identified independent criteria. That is what most people on here (religionists and non-religionists alike) try to do. I do not see that you have demonstrated any willingness to proceed that way. When you do, you might find fruitful engagement rather than just taking self-satisfaction from your own pronouncements.
  2. Houston, Texas
    Joined
    28 Sep '10
    Moves
    14347
    15 Feb '12 13:44
    Originally posted by FMF
    Oh?

    25 Oct '11
    poker87 - [b]I was at RHP last year and met dasa during chess, and we had some very interesting talks, and we swapped emails and those talks continued for months back then.


    25 Oct '11
    poker87 - My mother knows dasa personally, and last year when dasa was talking to my mum on the phone I asked her to ask dasa if he wanted to play c ...[text shortened]... also do from now on and I am going to separate my comments into sections just like dasa
    Sounds like poker was brainwashed. I hate to see that happen.
  3. Houston, Texas
    Joined
    28 Sep '10
    Moves
    14347
    15 Feb '12 13:46
    Originally posted by poker87
    For religion to actually be religion it must be true religion and not false religion.

    ooh! by the way there are 3 things that are really going to annoy you all * I am going to sound like dasa. * I am also going to be right every time because I have been studying the Vedas for nearly 2 years now *and I am going to even try and sound like dasa and presen ...[text shortened]... person of truth would find it easy to do this.

    I will mark the answers in a couple of days.
    Isn't the phrase "true religion" an oxymoron. Isn't all religion false.
  4. Joined
    20 May '10
    Moves
    255
    15 Feb '12 18:04
    Originally posted by vistesd
    Your very first sentence is something of a logical mess. Either R or ~R; if only a “true R” is R, then a “false R” is no R at all (i.e., ~R).

    So, first one needs to define the term “religion”, such that the terms of that definition, and/or the propositional content of any particular system that fits that definition, can be tested according to [i]indepe ...[text shortened]... find fruitful engagement rather than just taking self-satisfaction from your own pronouncements.
    For one to answer the question [ it is a given ] that they know what true region is and what false religion is, and that clarification is not needed.

    Needing clarification would establish that the person does not know and therefore would not be able to answer the question as a result.

    However your analysis is wonderful but not accepted.
  5. Standard memberRBHILL
    Acts 13:48
    California
    Joined
    21 May '03
    Moves
    227331
    15 Feb '12 18:11
    All religion is man seeking god.

    Faith in Christ is God seeking man.
  6. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    53223
    15 Feb '12 20:20
    Originally posted by RBHILL
    All religion is man seeking god.

    Faith in Christ is God seeking man.
    Hmmm, lets see, your god supposedly created Earth and presumably all the universe. So explain to me how this alleged omniscient one needs to 'search for mankind'? I get the strangest feeling if the attributes you attribute to this god are correct, it knew exactly where we were and who is naughty and who is nice it its eyes.
  7. Standard memberRBHILL
    Acts 13:48
    California
    Joined
    21 May '03
    Moves
    227331
    16 Feb '12 23:29
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    Hmmm, lets see, your god supposedly created Earth and presumably all the universe. So explain to me how this alleged omniscient one needs to 'search for mankind'? I get the strangest feeling if the attributes you attribute to this god are correct, it knew exactly where we were and who is naughty and who is nice it its eyes.
    All have sinned so all are naughty.
  8. Windsor, Ontario
    Joined
    10 Jun '11
    Moves
    3829
    17 Feb '12 00:43
    Originally posted by RBHILL
    All religion is man seeking god.

    Faith in Christ is God seeking man.
    this is incorrect. some religions seek enlightenment.
    and some religions believe they have already found god, so they're not really seeking anything.
  9. Standard memberRBHILL
    Acts 13:48
    California
    Joined
    21 May '03
    Moves
    227331
    17 Feb '12 21:01
    Originally posted by VoidSpirit
    this is incorrect. some religions seek enlightenment.
    and some religions believe they have already found god, so they're not really seeking anything.
    False religions seek to find a god that is my def.
  10. Account suspended
    Joined
    15 Aug '11
    Moves
    16106
    19 Feb '12 03:33
    Personally, I practice the one true religion, all others are completely false.
    You might ask what the one true religion is, to which I would answer with my own faith: Snake-Handling Poison-Drinking Tongue-Speakling Woman-Chasing Beer-Drinking Pork-Eating Eighth Day Adventist (currently non-practicing).
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree