Quote:Lets take this a step at a time.
It's about time you actually presented an argument with substance/explanation/justification. So
Now we can have a debate :
Quote:1. You opened this discussion declaring as your thesis " ... People are also religious creatures, whether or not they believe in a stated religion, they believe in 'something' in order to identify who they are ... ".
The whole of it was :
Quote:Religion is based on an organisation which has a set of 'moral' beliefs (usually surrounding the existence of a higher being, but it doesn't have to be - druids were part of a religion). It is self re-inforcing as people within the religion censor those within the organisation that step out of bounds, among other methods (I'm sure there's other facets to religion)
People are also religious creatures, whether or not they believe in a stated religion, they believe in 'something' in order to identify who they are.
...and like organised religions, they often try to force those beliefs on others.
Quote:on which you expanded in This Post, declaring "
Quote:... As you can see by the dictionary definitions, what I was saying meets the dictionary definition of 'religion', therefore people who do not follow a religion like Christianity, Islam etc, can still be religious....which is what the title is saying ...
" (itself a untrue statement
Unless you can prove how it does not meet the dictionary definition, you are wrong, plain and simple.
Although, if your point of criticism is which is what the title is saying then I'm happy to concede that the title is a question, not a statement. Such would seem pedantic to me, but some are like that.
Quote:I jumped into this discussion Here, observing that "religion" but for its popularity and history would meet the definition of "Delusion".
Thank you for entering the argument. I can see how people would agree with that argument. It has little to do with what the topic is talking about though - which is not the content of the beliefs, but the nature/hallmarks/characterists of the beliefs.
Quote:Your "all the hallmarks" allegation
- fails in that missing from propositions other than religious is spirituality/metaphysics
,
Absolutely, I agree with this part
If you go back and look at every one of my posts, you will see that I am not talking about what they actually believe in (ie. the content), but the nature/characteristics/hallmarks of those religious beliefs (ie. the why/how).
Quote:I opined that, by the evidence, " ... It is unwarranted, unconscionable, arrogant conceit on the part of religion to attempt to equate itself with legitimate philosophy."
I have no problem if you want to hold this view, though I don't see your point in bringing it up - how religion wants to view itself has little to do with my topic.
Code:1. I opined that, by the evidence, " ... It is unwarranted, unconscionable, arrogant conceit on the part of religion to attempt to equate itself with legitimate philosophy."
2. You responded to that with the assertion: " ...Uh yeah, alright. And nationalism has empirical data does it? It doesn't have agenda, claim, or self reference? If we look at the Iraq war, you'll see that nationalism/patriotism was invoked, and there was also a denial of evidence...so it has the hallmarks of everything you said about religion."
That is an outright deception. As my response contains
every keyword of your provided definition of religion, with the corresponding matching keywords each underlined, my response is unmistakably in relation to your provided definition.
Quote:- has self reference (I presume you mean is self reinforcing), (Note - editorial insert - You mispresume; had I meant "self-reinforcing", I would not have said "self reference")
Fair enough. It's likely that Nationalism - the example I used, would also fit any legitimate definition of self reference.
Quote:I have not "called" you any "name"
I Never said you did. I said you resort (almost continuously) to namecalling, without any justification on your part. I specified which the namecalling - straw man.
By the way, thank you for finally making an attempt at a debate (for clarity - not including anything in your post before 'lets take this one step at a time'.)
