|
Real0ne -> RE: Court Rules: Atheism is a Religion (10/22/2011 1:22:48 PM)
|
THE GREAT PRETENDER
quote:
ORIGINAL: Moonhead
quote:
ORIGINAL: Real0ne
well you force me to disregard your posts as nonsense. I gave you the chance to make a case, you failed, thats fine, no use dragging it out. I will accept your snark for what it is. nothing more than a snark.
Cap'n! The Ironicator cannae take any more!
[image]http://www.stargazertwo.com/Database/Scotty/James_Doohan_1980s.jpeg[/image]
ONCE AGAIN
quote:
ORIGINAL: Real0ne
quote:
ORIGINAL: Moonhead
quote:
ORIGINAL: Real0ne
Now the big underlying question in this ordeal with confucious is,
"How come atheism is deemed to be a religion and confucianism is not"
What is the measuring stick being used?
If I may answer your question with another, less leading question: who besides yourself is arguing that confuscianism is a religion rather than an etiquette guide to proper conduct for bureaucrats in feudal China? On precisely what grounds do you feel that the analects attributed to Confuscious (there is a religious context to his commentary on the I Ching, but that's a Taoist rather than confuscianist text, and anybody who argues to the contrary about that one most likely has no idea what they're talking about) form a religious catechism rather than a few general pointers on good behaviour?
you are side stepping the matter.
My logic is pristine.
Belief is part of the thinking process by every definition available.
I explained this before.
If you make a mental determination, and acceptance thereof, once that act occurred you now believe the outcome of your mental determination is or will be correct. (lying to others or yourself notwithstanding)
Therefore regardless of ones choice to believe or not believe, with regard to the the subject matter, the resultant action is in fact still a belief, and the person accepting said decision has faith in their ability to be correct and belief in the outcome regardless.
Therefore "not believe" that atheists use is a specious argument that falls on its face as it cannot be correctly attached to the process involved.
Now religion in its essence is a fundamental set beliefs that one has accepted and uses to govern their actions.
Same with the word God. You can worship any God you like, it can be anything from a diety to the government to a sacred fart, or even deify yourself.
Now that is where I am coming from and I have not heard anything that defeats or even dents this position since it is the precise sequence of events in accord with known definitions on the topic.
If you heard whatever from confucious and you made a conscious decision to practice it to govern your life by it etc then it IS YOUR RELIGION.
Nowhere in the "Freedom of religion and exercise thereof" does it say "State acknowledged" religion, "academically acknowledged" religion, "philisophicaly acknowledged" religion et al.
That said once I declare something my religion who has the legitimate authority to challenge my claim?
Therefore confucianism is a religion for those who accept it as such and any claim by outside sources to the contrary is mere unsubstantiated opinion with regard to the owner.
As I said I see no measuring stick that anyone can use aside from someones religion causing personal or equitable injury.
Any color of law rule ordinance whatever to enforce anything beyond personal or equitable injury is government intrusion, abridgement and abuse.
Did that clear it up?
YEH WELL IT SHOULD BE PAINFULLY OBVIOUS THAT ITS A SUBSET OF THE ABOVE POST THAT YOU CONTINUALLY IGNORE SIDESTEP AND AVOID.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Moonhead
You are aware that if you're the one claiming that confuscianism is too a religion, then the onus of proof is on you (as the person making a daft claim) rather than everybody else?
Oh sorry, that's one of them legal things you don't understand, innit?
|
|
|
|
