15 Feb 12
Originally posted by poker87Your 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).
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.
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.
15 Feb 12
Originally posted by FMFSounds like poker was brainwashed. I hate to see that happen.
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
15 Feb 12
Originally posted by poker87Isn't the phrase "true religion" an oxymoron. Isn't all religion false.
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.
15 Feb 12
Originally posted by vistesdFor 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.
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.
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.
15 Feb 12
Originally posted by RBHILLHmmm, 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 religion is man seeking god.
Faith in Christ is God seeking man.
16 Feb 12
Originally posted by sonhouseAll have sinned so all are naughty.
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.
19 Feb 12
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).