Are all ruling systems, be they 'supernatural beings' or 'we the people', religious and their doctrine religious?
Does all of this mean all systems of belief and doctrine are 'supernatural' or 'supernatural substitutions'? — Mayor of Simpleton
The identity of a person being classified as an atheist can only be asserted until this question has been asked and they have answered it with a 'no', so their identity as an atheist is directly contingent upon this question. — Mayor of Simpleton
Sometimes you turn the other cheek, other times you defend. It depends on the situation — Gregory
However, one mustn't forget that religious rules do exist, those that prohibit one from turning to the dark side of the force, so to speak. There are no rules to make you good but there are rules to keep you from becoming bad. — TheMadFool
I don't think there are are any spiritual entities that love us. Any experience of them is the brain being altered or acting abnormally — Gregory
A ruling system is called religious if the men in charge of it say that the core of its rules was inspired from a certain supernatural being. — KerimF
I am afraid that saying that 'something' exists, or not, leads to nothing if this 'something' is not well defined first. — KerimF
I personally have no reason to believe in the existence of a ruling god. Am I an atheist? Of course not, because I, being a rational man (and a designer of new products), know for sure that the probability to be/stay alive is very close to zero if the zillion living cells in my body are programmed to act in a random way. — KerimF
For example, whatever forced me to exist temporarily in this world cannot be a ruler; otherwise he/it cannot be my maker since we would have nothing in common. — KerimF
Now let us agree that just believing in science doesn't make someone a scientist. — KerimF
Firstly, I didn't offer you religion as a route to goodness. Quite the opposite, I only reminded you of the devil - veritably a religious figure albeit if only as an adversary - to show you that there's ample room in religion for what it is that you seek, a state of complete freedom from any and all rules.
By the way, technically speaking, if splitting hairs is your thing, no matter how hard you try to break free from the shackles of rules, you will never be able to succeed for that there are no rules is itself a rule. The devil, it seems, is in the details! Good luck! — TheMadFool
I personally have nothing against obeying the rules (civil, religious or political) imposed on the people among whom I live as long the rule doesn't contradict my unconditional free-will love/care towards all others; friends, strangers and enemies. — KerimF
I am not sure how the agency of a Creator relates to the list of what is permitted. Since you are asking similar questions, maybe you are not sure either.
In the end, we each have to decide for ourselves what that requires. If you want to be responsible about what happens in a certain way, you will make sure to be in the place where it comes down. — Valentinus
I'll put the genetic fallacy oh hold for just a bit, but are you stating that all ruling systems are religious? — Mayor of Simpleton
If you do not believe a ruling or otherwise interacting god exists you would be an atheist. — Mayor of Simpleton
It seems as if you wish to claim that humans are the result of intentional design or purpose, if so, how do you defend this position as being fact or simply the given? — Mayor of Simpleton
How do you know there is another world (implied from the statement 'in this world')? — Mayor of Simpleton
How can you know that IF an agent (a god creator) forced you into existing that you do not have anything in common with that agent? — Mayor of Simpleton
I would not really agree with the statement as such, as science is not a belief, but rather a tool for investigation. Anyone suggesting that science is a belief doesn't understand science. — Mayor of Simpleton
There is no principle in science that indicates an investigator must be pleased with the outcome or that the science pays any respect to what an individual (including a scientist) believes. — Mayor of Simpleton
Religious faith doesn't work in the same manner, but rather starts with the central answer, then subsequently builds questions in respect to that central answer that need not be supported by any empirical evidence or facts, but it is supported by a religious faith... what one has in the absence of evidence or fact. In this case the claim of 'it's evident to me' will be able to replace and dismiss any and all evidence or facts that would be contrary to the notion of faith. — Mayor of Simpleton
long the rule doesn't contradict my unconditional free-will love/care towards all others; friends, strangers and enemies. — KerimF
The key point in my concept of Deism, is that it is an individual understanding of the world, not a collective belief system. As personal Beliefs are merged into group Faiths, some kind of imposed structure is necessary to hold differences of opinion together. That structure is both the strength of Religion and its weakness. Religious doctrines, over time, tend to fossilize into rigid dogmas. But Deists remain free to change their opinions as their personal experience matures.If I understood you well, to your knowledge too there is no well-known group of believers (of a religion or religious doctrine) whose God (or whatever the name is) has no rules to be obeyed (as in the army). — KerimF
Rules and free-will can't coexist. Either one precludes/negates the other. — TheMadFool
To be honest, I can't really follow what it is your attempting to communicate — Mayor of Simpleton
I am afraid that it does exist, in my life in the least.
When I was rather young, I had to join the military service for about 2 years. Being an engineer, I do it as an officer though of the lowest rank.
In the first training session on guns, I refused holding one.
They: "You have to know how to use a gun. This helps you defend yourself in case you will be attacked by an enemy".
Me: "But I have no enemies in my life"
They: "You may not have enemies now, but your country may be attacked by enemies anytime".
Me: "Please, what do enemies mean, in your opinion?"
They: "Our enemies are those who will impose their will on us".
Me: "Don't you mean they will do as you are doing to me now?”
They laughed while going away... and I wasn't asked anymore to attend such training.
By the way, my occupation in that period of time was teaching electronics in a military academy. — KerimF
These rules and regulations are in place to enable people to use their free will to do God's will. You have the free will to ignore them, of course. Can't help thinking that all this free will will result in the same conclusion as it would were we all to follow the rules and regulations , it will just take longer and be more painful. The end has already been set and all the actions, reactions etc will see the same consequential conclusion, eventually. — david plumb
The weakness of Deism is that each believer stands alone in his private belief system. — Gnomon
Surely KerimF you cannot "impose" rules on anyone as they have the free will to ignore them. The actions will create a reaction and a consequence which seems the whole point of our existential lives. That doesn't mean you can "force" anyone to do anything though. You have the free will to end your life so rules are irrelevant. To impose rules you will need the ability to direct a person's free will which is the real issue which surely makes free will a key factor and so necessary and perhaps the reason for its existence. — david plumb
The irony of rules is that without them there would be no "sinning" — david plumb
Unfortunately, I learned the hard way, that the Gospels are not the words of Jesus, but a compilation of ancient writings from various anonymous sources, edited and redacted by the Imperial Roman Church in order to reconcile the incompatible beliefs of Jesus' followers throughout the empire.But please note that I can't say I am Christian because a Christian in any Church/Denomination around the world is supposed to listen to his Church's teachings, not to Jesus ones (on the Gospel) in case they are different or opposite. — KerimF
Unfortunately, I learned the hard way, that the Gospels are not the words of Jesus, but a compilation of ancient writings from various anonymous sources, edited and redacted by the Imperial Roman Church in order to reconcile the incompatible beliefs of Jesus' followers throughout the empire. — Gnomon
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.