That does not make it incorrect however. No, it requires action as a result of your binding to whatever belief is being acted upon. The muslims dont eat pork, its part of their strongly held beliefs that they act upon, therefore (the simple version) its their religion. Thats nonsequitur. your action which is based in your belief, has nothing to do with other peoples G/gods, unless of course you share the same belief, which came forst the chicken or the egg? But you dont lack action, thats the point. The source of your belief is not relevant, only that you have a belief and act in accordance with it, such that you belief murder is wrong therefore you do not murder, or you believe donating food is the right and proper way to live then that is another element of your religion source not relevant. True, I have said that since the first day I posted on the interweb. Well the fact is that everyoe has a religion, where most atheists go wrong is they think a G/god is required and its not G/god thats required, its binding to and acting upon your stongly held beliefs regardless of the source. It certainly can be if its a strongly held belief and a will to action. ah, theres the mistake. see above (just value, not value justifying sacrifice)
Now THAT is hilarious! Muslims have ritual prayer multiple times per day. And while most Christians don't pray on spicific hours throught the day, Muslims do that as a ritual. Religions have rituals, worship, etc. NO. I'm saying that the fact that YOU have a religion does not mean that I have one. You would like to believe that you make decisions based on your religion, thus when Imake decisions I'm showing that I have a religion!! And, that is laughable. No. You're trying to make religion essentially meaningless. By making it meaningless, you want to claim I share this meaninglessness you propose. Religion is real. And, it is NOT meaningless. This is more attempt to make religion totally inconsequential. If you want to continue to propose that everyone's religion is inconsequential, then I would argue against that - because it is absolutely FALSE.[/QUOTE]
strawman! The point was something as crazy as eating pork is considered a religious tenet, no ritual is required. Religions have beliefs that are acted upon, no rituals or worship is required and you have not shown otherwise. I dont have a religion by choice anymore than I have blood pumping through my veins by choice, it is what it is, you simply choose to deny the hard facts. Reely? What scientific fact do you rely upon to conclude murder is wrong? thats your spin, it hardly makes it meaningless, got any reason other then the usual bs line that 'than everything would be a religion' which has been explained out here countless times? spin, no justification given. spin, no justification given. Thats your spin we just watched you create it the longer you typed the more spin it got till you convinced yourself it was what I meant instead of nothing more than your spin on what I meant. What do secular humans worship and what rituals do they perform, since even the supreme court recognizes they are a religion?
...and I pointed out that your argument is preposerous, because they have all sorts of ritual. The fact that do something that isn't ritual is TOTALLY irrelevat. Plus, the very reason they don't eat pork is a rtenet of their religion. You could not have been more wrong on this. Murder is unacceptable for a working civilization. That doesn't need a religious foundation. LOL!! I don't know the case, so I can't comment on that. But, we have no constitutional definiion of religion. The result is that anyone can make a claim of some act being in recognition of their personal religion, without any way to legally dispute that. All we can do is to determine that murder is illegal, even if your god/religion told you to murder.
Of course I don't know how your God works because it is a figment of your imagination. Your version of your God is different from everyone else's because they are all imaginary = not real. BTW, none of those incidents cited in the link are biblical miracles as defined by Exodus 34:10.
Oh contrare. Not eating pork is not a ritual, but it is a religious tenet. No one dances around the camp fire before they dont eat their pork, your spin on my intended meaning is ridiculous. Which is why religion is not 'lawfully' adjudicable'. In fact the courts have no legitimate authority to judge what is and what is not a religion. We have no separation of church and state, just state. Sure no problem, but when you want to claim you have no religion and the4n tell me that murder is unacceptable you are saddled with providing a scientific condition, the 'facts' why it is not acceptable. Tough row to hoe since science cannot make value judgements, and value judgements take place strictly in the religion zone, and you have just made a value judgement based in belief rather than a scientific fact therefore you have religious tenets just like anyone else.
Do let us all know how you prove that something that doesn’t exist doesn’t exist. Going to enjoy watching you duck once again.
You do realize that just because something cannot be explained does not mean god did it. Learn from human history.
I don't doubt it. The fact is that we do ask God for what we want, prayer more often changes our hearts and our wants fall into line with Him.
Silly of course since using that “ logic” not believing is a religion just like believing which means the terms religion and faith become meaningless.
of course referring to god as him is proof of religious brainwashing. Should lead to questioning everything you have been brainwashed into believing.
Ehhh, so is believing there is no God. What happens to the parts of your body that you don't wash? They get dirty, stinky and infected. Same with the brain.. the bible is a disinfectant from all the crap you pick up just by being in the world
Ah, so the world god created is full of crap and the writings of man are the solution. Interesting perspective you have there.
You cant be serious can you? Seriously? Its childs play you know? It goes without saying, no 747 airbus exists in my hand! Silly? What a looney thing to post man, So if someone does not believe in tao then its meaningless to be a christain or a secular humanist. brilliant! Not believing in one religion only means your belief one with a different label.
The **** you post is patently ridiculous! Clearly you may very well see a 747air bus sitting on my hand but trust me no one else on the planet does.
[QUOTE="Kokomojojo, post: 1071531546, What a looney thing to post man, So if someone does not believe in tao then its meaningless to be a christain or a secular humanist. brilliant! Not believing in one religion only means your belief one with a different label.[/QUOTE] You are getting confused. According to your logic not believing in Tao without proof it doesn’t exist is a religion. Try to think consistently.
