Would this be considered a religion?

Shinova · Post by **Shinova** » 2002-11-19 08:15pm

Believing that after one dies that person exists as a spirit and roams the world, intangible until gaining enough strength to affect the physical world some way.

Is this a religion?

pecker · Post by **pecker** » 2002-11-19 08:20pm

Shinova wrote:Believing that after one dies that person exists as a spirit and roams the world, intangible until gaining enough strength to affect the physical world some way.

Is this a religion?

Technically, yes.

However, with the everyday usage of the word 'religion' being an institution, it would likely be termed a belief. But by definition, it's a religion.

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2002-11-19 08:21pm

Set of Beliefs, according to the definition so you need more

Exonerate · Post by **Exonerate** » 2002-11-19 08:45pm

Did you invent it?

Shinova · Post by **Shinova** » 2002-11-19 08:51pm

Exonerate wrote:Did you invent it?

It was an idea I had bouncing around my head for a year or two, but I don't think it's unique, seeing as how easy it is for other people to have already thought up of it.

Yes, I invented it but it probably already exists in the world.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2002-11-19 09:20pm

It's certainly irrational.

Shinova · Post by **Shinova** » 2002-11-19 09:21pm

Durandal wrote:It's certainly irrational.

Not as irrational as Christianity

Mike_6002 · Post by **Mike_6002** » 2002-11-19 09:23pm

You've got Dogma, you've got a religon

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2002-11-19 09:38pm

Shinova wrote:
Durandal wrote:It's certainly irrational.
Not as irrational as Christianity

True. Christianity has managed to make its set purely subjective beliefs even more irrational than every other set by virtue of introducing painfully obvious self-contradictions.

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2002-11-19 11:18pm

It wouldn't be, if you could prove it.

data_link · Post by **data_link** » 2002-11-19 11:53pm

neoolong wrote:It wouldn't be, if you could prove it.

And Star Trek: Voyager wouldn't suck if it hadn't been produced by Barman and Brega. What's your point?

Post by **weemadando** » 2002-11-19 11:58pm

Shinova wrote:Believing that after one dies that person exists as a spirit and roams the world, intangible until gaining enough strength to affect the physical world some way.

Is this a religion?

Sounds a lot like the collection of superstitions that form a religion in some parts of Asia.

I forget the actual name of the religion but it is fairly common in Malaysia and Thailand and around there.

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2002-11-20 01:11am

data_link wrote:
neoolong wrote:It wouldn't be, if you could prove it.
And Star Trek: Voyager wouldn't suck if it hadn't been produced by Barman and Brega. What's your point?

That was my point. It's considered a religious belief because it has no proof.

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi · Post by **Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi** » 2002-11-20 05:56pm

It requires faith, so it's a religion. You don't know that it actually happens, you just believe it does.

Math isn't a religion because you don't believe 2+2=4, you know 2+2=4.

XPViking · Post by **XPViking** » 2002-11-20 07:03pm

Now all you need are some followers Shinova.

XPViking

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2002-11-20 07:11pm

How about this, every time you fart, an angel gets an asshole.

Shinova · Post by **Shinova** » 2002-11-20 07:21pm

Wicked Pilot wrote:How about this, every time you fart, an angel gets an asshole.

Or that "Everytime you masturbate, God kills a kitten" one

Dralan · Post by **Dralan** » 2002-11-20 07:25pm

Or that "Everytime you masturbate, God kills a kitten" one

Is it just me or has this thread veered off course ?

General Trelane (Retired) · Post by **General Trelane (Retired)** » 2002-11-20 07:38pm

2+2=4 ... except for large values of 2 (sorry, old joke that circulated when I was in grade school).

hvb · Post by **hvb** » 2002-11-21 08:07am

Mr. Bean Wrote:

Set of Beliefs, according to the definition so you need more

A set can according to its math definition have one element (or none), so this one tenant is enough to make a set, and therefore a religion by that definition.

So Atheism is a religion too: Belief in the empty set: {} or Ø! And I am a beliver

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2002-11-21 10:23am

hvb wrote:Mr. Bean Wrote:
Set of Beliefs, according to the definition so you need more
A set can according to its math definition have one element (or none), so this one tenant is enough to make a set, and therefore a religion by that definition.

So Atheism is a religion too: Belief in the empty set: {} or Ø! And I am a beliver

Atheism is a lack of belief. Not a belief in nothing per se. So it's not exactly a belief in the empty set, nor a religion.

Slartibartfast · Post by **Slartibartfast** » 2002-11-21 11:09am

neoolong wrote:
hvb wrote:Mr. Bean Wrote:
Set of Beliefs, according to the definition so you need more
A set can according to its math definition have one element (or none), so this one tenant is enough to make a set, and therefore a religion by that definition.

So Atheism is a religion too: Belief in the empty set: {} or Ø! And I am a beliver
Atheism is a lack of belief. Not a belief in nothing per se. So it's not exactly a belief in the empty set, nor a religion.

Actually the elements in the set are the beliefs. The empty set represent a lack of beliefs. A "belief in nothing" would be an element inside the set, making it not empty.

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2002-11-21 01:14pm

Slartibartfast wrote:
neoolong wrote:
hvb wrote:Mr. Bean Wrote: A set can according to its math definition have one element (or none), so this one tenant is enough to make a set, and therefore a religion by that definition.

So Atheism is a religion too: Belief in the empty set: {} or Ø! And I am a beliver
Atheism is a lack of belief. Not a belief in nothing per se. So it's not exactly a belief in the empty set, nor a religion.
Actually the elements in the set are the beliefs. The empty set represent a lack of beliefs. A "belief in nothing" would be an element inside the set, making it not empty.

So atheism would be the empty set itself then.

Slartibartfast · Post by **Slartibartfast** » 2002-11-21 03:57pm

neoolong wrote:
Slartibartfast wrote:
neoolong wrote: Atheism is a lack of belief. Not a belief in nothing per se. So it's not exactly a belief in the empty set, nor a religion.
Actually the elements in the set are the beliefs. The empty set represent a lack of beliefs. A "belief in nothing" would be an element inside the set, making it not empty.
So atheism would be the empty set itself then.

Yes, but according to the math definition of a set, by calling the "set" a religion (*set* of beliefs), atheism would be a religion. But that's obviously only useful as a pun and is neither here nor there.

By that definition I have a set of cards (and I don't mean a box) on my hands right now, except that it's an empty set and there are no cards in it.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Would this be considered a religion?

Would this be considered a religion?

Re: Would this be considered a religion?

Re: Would this be considered a religion?