What is a Jew

[Pindar]

No you did not answer what faith is.

I did. I said faith is a type of belief.

I have and in Wikipedia you can also read: God may be Supreme but is not necessarily a Being.
Here we come to the crunch in our discussion. Creationism includes evolutionary creationism as well as intelligent design. The creator does not have to be what traditionally is seen as God.

Find me one Creationist group that argues a creationism that doesn't appeal to a Deity. This might exist, but I have never met any. The problem (as I mentioned before) is that if creation (all that is) is itself the product of another creature then it begs the question. Where did the creature that created come from? Theists avoid this problem because the traditional understanding of Deity is a self-existent Being. This is one of the reasons for an appeal to an Absolute.

The difficulty is twofold. One, you seem to be arguing for an idiosyncratic creationism that nobody holds. Two, even should some fellow who writes from his trailer hold this view: it is logically incoherent.

In the same discussion about religion, you refuse to see beyond the old definitions you find in a dictionary. If you want to give it another name, fine, but as it is now, there is no other name for it. What is religion beyond faith ? And what is creationism beyond the classical God ?

I use basic definitions because I want to maintain a point of contact with my interlocutor (in this case, you). If I were to veer from a common understanding I would explain the variation and justify that change. "It" is not sufficient.

Now you ask: "what is religion beyond faith"? I don't think religion is dependant on faith to be identified as a system. The faith (belief) is a requirement for one to be a practitioner.

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


Me: Enough so that they can say: I believe in religion X.


bmolsson: And how much is that ?

I don't know what this is aiming at, but the previous answer seems self-evidentiary. If one says they believe in X that is enough. The statement is sufficient.

Does that include religions ?

Of course. One can study the behaviors, rituals, etc. of religion. None of this tells whether the religion under investigation is true. One could demonstrate that group Y practices faith X and delineate what faith X involves. One could even ask the practitioners about the level of their commitment. None of this speaks to the truth claims of the faith, only the structure and belief of the members, as it were. Religion is involved in making truth claims. Creationism is also making a truth claim. In order for religion or Creationism to be a science one would need to be able to falsify the conclusions being made. So, if a Catholic or Creationist states: "God created the universe": one needs some data to verify the claim. Absent this ability the position cannot be considered science.

Yes, it is incoherent, but it is how it is written. I never argued that it makes sense, just how it actually is. When it was written, they didn't know better, just as with any other religious texts. Society have evolved and our understanding is today superior to our ancestors.

Good, no more about this tangent hopefully.

Since when did height become a mental state ?

Height isn't a mental state. In my earlier post I wrote that law cannot create reality or belief. The height example was meant to demonstrat that passing a law cannot change the height of a people. You didn't understand my point, but instead wrote on citizenship standards. I didn't respond since this wasn't critical.

I know that law cannot create belief or any other mental state. That is why I argue that the mental state and belief is irrelevant in a modern society and in modern religions.
If you argue that I have to believe in God to be a muslim, you have argued that my mental state can be quantified. The pillar in Islam that legislates me having the faith can never be enforced. That is why you are wrong.

This doesn't follow. Because law cannot create a belief, it doesn't follow that belief is therefore irrelevant. People blowing themselves up on subways would seem to demonstrate the point.

This introduction of quantification doesn't help your case.

You have repeatedly claimed "objectivity" and "reality" as the mantra for your position, but on three distinct points where there is a clear standard you have not been able to come to terms with the facts. These cases were/are:

Creationism: the wiki article (as demonstrated), indicates a position arguing for a God as the source of the universe, but you defer.

Islam: this is defined by the Five Pillars. The first is the Shahada (as demonstrated), yet you defer.

Indonesia's Constitution: you claimed the Constitution states "one must believe in God in live in Indonesia". Again I showed you the actual text and the phrase is missing. Again you deferred.

This pattern is condemning for one who appeals of 'objectivity'. Objectivity means accommodating the real state of things, not holding doggedly to a pet position.