Why do discussions about religion always lump God and afterlife together?

[erowe1]

But YET AGAIN you're not addressing my ...original post.

I addressed it in post 12. Ever since then we've just been working on getting you to understand what I said there.

 

[erowe1]

..

 

[RCA]

You didn't just say that some of the current religions of the world are false. You said all religious dogmas were false.

So yes, that does mean that what you said is incorrect, since it was a religious dogma.

The qualification "currently in the world" also doesn't change anything. Since you are the one stating that particular religious dogma, and are doing so currently in the world.

You're just using circular reasoning to no end. Because I say a religion is false doesn't make my statement a religious statement. If I say theft is wrong, that doesn't make me a thief by saying so. It just means I said theft is wrong. If I say "x" religion is wrong, that doesn't make me a religious person no matter was sort of twisted logical rules you have going on in your head.

 

[RCA]

I addressed it in post 12. Ever since then we've just been working on getting you to understand what I said there.

You didn't address anything in post #12. You spouted some batshit crazy ass answer.

 

[erowe1]

You're just using circular reasoning to no end. Because I say a religion is false doesn't make my statement a religious statement. If I say theft is wrong, that doesn't make me a thief by saying so. It just means I said theft is wrong. If I say "x" religion is wrong, that doesn't make me a religious person no matter was sort of twisted logical rules you have going on in your head.

Are you trying to say that your religious dogma is something other than a religious dogma?

What is a religious dogma? And how do you manage to get out of admitting that the particular religious dogma you articulated is among them?

And again, you seem to be missing the inescapable logic of the syllogism. Your claim was not just that "x religion is wrong." It was that all religious dogmas are wrong, without exception. That would have to include the religious dogma, "All religious dogmas are wrong."

 

[erowe1]

You didn't address anything in post #12. You spouted some batshit crazy ass answer.

As I said, we're still working on getting you to understand that post.

 

[RCA]

Saying one believes in a deity, doesn't mean you have to give 10% of your wealth to strangers. That is all.

 

[RCA]

Are you trying to say that your religious dogma is something other than a religious dogma?

What is a religious dogma? And how do you manage to get out of admitting that the particular religious dogma you articulated is among them?

I have not stated a religious dogma. You are just spouting flaming lizard/bat hybrid clusterfrack logical blibberblab.

 

[robert68]

You didn't just say that some of the current religions of the world are false. You said all religious dogmas were false.

So yes, that does mean that what you said is incorrect, since it was a religious dogma.

The qualification "currently in the world" also doesn't change anything. Since you are the one stating that particular religious dogma, and are doing so currently in the world.

No, he said:

all the religious dogma of the world could be false

That's not saying they all are false.

 

[erowe1]

No, he said:

Yes. You will notice I included "could be" in my syllogism.

My argument is just as valid with that included, since it absolutely could not be the case that all religious dogmas were false.

 

[RCA]

The problem is organized religions clearly, even based on this thread alone, stake a down right CLAIM to the beliefs of anything supernatural. And for those who are at the head of the money collecting process, they have logically imposed such a stake on others. Without this claim, people would be free to believe what they want WITHOUT being guilted into handing over a percentage of their earnings. Religion is NOT belief. Religions are only organizations with each one having its own arbitrary rules about what its members can and can't do. The same as any other organization or club.

 

[RCA]

No, he said:



That's not saying they all are false.

Glad to see a logical/rational response. I was getting worried for a second.

 

[erowe1]

I have not stated a religious dogma. You are just spouting flaming lizard/bat hybrid clusterfrack logical blibberblab.

In post 13 you said, "all the religious dogma of the world could be false."

That claim is a religious dogma.

 

[RCA]

In post 13 you said, "all the religious dogma of the world could be false."

That claim is a religious dogma.

As the other logical poster said, I said they "could be false". Now you are having problems with English. Are you having a mild stroke of some kind?

Even that statement wasn't even the crux of my post which you still have not addressed. WHY DOES ONE HAVE TO BE A MEMBER OF A RELIGION TO BELIEVE IN A GOD OR AN AFTERLIFE? When you recover from your stroke, feel free to answer the QUESTION.

 

[erowe1]

The problem is organized religions clearly, even based on this thread alone, stake a down right CLAIM to the beliefs of anything supernatural.

You are also making claims about the supernatural in this thread.

Religion is NOT belief.

Then what are these religious dogmas you've been mentioning, if not beliefs?

 

[erowe1]

As the other logical poster said, I said they "could be false". Now you are having problems with English. Are you having a mild stroke of some kind?

Even that statement wasn't even the crux of my post which you still have not addressed. WHY DOES ONE HAVE TO BE A MEMBER OF A RELIGION TO BELIEVE IN A GOD OR AN AFTERLIFE? When you recover from your stroke, feel free to answer the QUESTION.

Go back and re-read post 18.

I included "could be" in there. The conclusion that your religious dogma that all religious dogmas could be false must be false itself, even when including "could be," is inescapable.

 

[RCA]

You are also making claims about the supernatural in this thread.



Then what are these religious dogmas you've been mentioning, if not beliefs?

Religions are organized institutions. Any belief the organization may have can also be held by any non-member, making the belief not intrinsically part of the religion. That's like saying Donut Club X really likes chocolates donuts. And for anyone else to also like chocolate donuts they must say they are a member of the Donut Club. The religion is the Donut Club. The joy of donuts is the belief in an afterlife, which can also exist outside the organization or club.

 

[RCA]

Go back and re-read post 18.

I included "could be" in there. The conclusion that your religious dogma that all religious dogmas could be false must be false itself, even when including "could be," is inescapable.

Again, circular debating. Did you right the manual on circular debating?

 

[bolil]

Maybe because belief in one usually accompanies a belief in the other. Where as few, very few indeed, believe in one without the other. That the body experiences an after life is evident. It is broken down, and its matter is reused. What of consciousness... Well, rca, to sleep perchance to dream.

 

[pcosmar]

Yet another misguided response. The purpose of this topic was not to argue the existence or non-existence of any of this shit. The point was to ask why do they all get lumped together in conversation? For instance why do members of organized religion stake claim to beliefs of a deity and/or an afterlife?

I think now that you are just arguing to be argumentative.
I made no reference to religion,, organized or otherwise.

You seem to have no point nor objective beyond arguing with any and all responses.