What is a Jew

[bmolsson]

For the purposes of this conversation I have used faith as a type of belief.

More word games ? What are you afraid off ?

I don't know any advocates of Creationism who claim it as a social science. Regardless, social science, if it is a science as the label would seem to indicate, must have a verification schema. For Creationism this would be verification of a Creator. This doesn't exist. It is not science.

(I have explained this multiple times)

No, you are avoiding the question.
Creationism is a theory based on social science.

There are no need to cerify the existence of a deity as the creator. In the theory of evolution, you don't have to verify where the origin of life is.
Creationism theory is trying to explain where earth and life comes from, not if there is a creator or not.

The assertion by a subject of the reality of some X.

So on your scale, how much faith must one have to have the right to be a member of a religion.

Religion isn't science.

But anthropology is.

I don't know what the Indonesian there means, but if you want to argue the translation of the Indonesian Constitution is wrong please do so. The translation I provided does not say "one must believe in God". Aside from the problem of the text itself there are two obvious difficulties with your view: 1) practical: you don't believe in God and are living in Indonesia. 2)fromal: I'm sure there are Buddhists in Indonesia that probably have actual Temples or some organized structure. Buddhism is a non-theistic religion. The government does nothing to these Buddhists. Your position fails.

My position doesn't fail. The Indonesian constitution might fail though. I didn't write the Pancasila and it has been widely critized for it's flaws on Buddhism and Hinduism (both accepted religions). Furthermore, faith can't be quantified so you can't really be prosecuted as long as you belong to a religion. No religion will test or try to quantify your religion here in Indonesia, since it's scientifically impossible, so regardless you faith, you can be a member of one of the 5 accepted religions.
However, this doesn't change the actual law. You are to believe in God to be allowed on Indonesian soil. This position is enforced by the Indonesian constitution, regardless if Pindar likes it or not.

Now I think the crux of your argument is that religion is a legal category. You claim that since you have a card of some sort that identifies you as Muslim you are therefore Muslim regardless of your real views on God. I do not doubt you have some such card. My point is that law does not have the power to determine this status: even in the face of actual legislation. Law can assign culpability but cannot determine reality or belief. For example: if Indonesia decided to pass a law that said all Indonesians are 7ft. tall and even marked that on personal I.D.s it wouldn't change people's height. The same is the case with belief, as I mentioned before: if Indonesia passed a law saying all Indonesians' favorite color was Green, it wouldn't make it so. Religion is at its core a belief system. Therefore irrespective of any law passed religion is a product of a persons' belief.

You are wrong.

First of all, height is different from faith and favorite color. You can quantify height. Faith and favorite color can't be quantified and you just have to legally swear your position, regardless if it's true or not.

If Indonesia decides that Indonesian citizens are 7 ft tall, then everyone not 7 ft tall would not be Indonesian. This was applied in US during the slavery. Everyone with black skin was a slave, with white skin you became a free citizen. So your position here fails.

If Indonesia decides that every Indonesian have green as their favorite color, and they agree, they are Indonesian citizens. If not they will be deported, exterminated or prosecuted. This has been done by civilizations during history and happens in countries like China and North Korea at present time. Once again, your position fails.

With your own logic, faith can not be quantified and is therefore not relevant in "real" life. It's purely symobolic.

So, your position fails, Pindar. If you want to argue the meaning of religion, faith, religious as words in the English language, but the actual topic of our discussions doesn't change. You are wrong.