I never said that beliefs were always/could not be religious, keep not making sense. They are not based on evidence, meaning evidence of the empirical kind. Hallucinations and hearsay (virgin birth's, walking on water, water from wine,etc) are not empirical evidence, instead metaphysical evidence, which is based on faith or belief in a claim (usually involving the premise of the existence of something outside knowledge or our dimension).Grimlundt wrote:New Rogernomics wrote:Beliefs by definition can be religious, ultimately they are based on an absence of evidence or empirical proof. Even if you were to suggest that evolution did not stand up as a theory, then the evidence it would be based on would be incorrect or otherwise false; but it would not be a belief as it is based on evidence or empirical proof. If you believed I was a woman based on some religious text's view of how men and women act; then it could be. If you believed without evidence or empirical proof I was a woman then that also would be a belief. But if you had empirical evidence (i.e. a shirt of mine saying 'I am a woman') then it would not be a belief, but an incorrect assumption.
Right beliefs CAN be religious ... but that's not what you said before
Good to see you can change your discourse, when corrected.
Now you mean to say that religious beliefs are not based on evidence.
That's also false.
Religious beliefs OFTEN explain evidence.
Indeed, religion was the science we had before we had science?
Now ... empirical proof ... what are your truth conditions?
Because science NEVER proves anything 100% -- it just offers strong theories which compete to explain the data
Sadly, I have to say, religious explanations are often incapable of really competing with these theories except in minds/sould that long to belong to religious communities so very much ... or fear the absence of God to such an extent?
Now, your squirmy wormy about "beliefs" and "assumptions" was completely semantic. You ought not to squirmy worm. It just makes you look dishonest
Nothing you have illustrated has made sense, rather you have nothing better to do than act the religious apologist; or argue for the sake of trying to make your posts look good. They don't look good however, 'science never proves anything 100%' itself is a fallacious statement. Science supports reality as uncovered by empirical evidence; science can't prove everything because there is no such thing as a 'constant' i.e. our reality changes every day, read up on chaos theory.
