For me, a religion is a set of moral guidelines to which a person must live their lives. Would ye agree?
Define Religion?
Religion is a or a set of spiritual beliefs.
In order to do what?
It has no reasin, it just is.
Webster defines religion as:
(1)the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
For me, it would be just the service and worship of God.
(1)the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
For me, it would be just the service and worship of God.
| Simulator wrote: |
| For me, a religion is a set of moral guidelines to which a person must live their lives. Would ye agree? |
No. Because most everyone has a set of moral guidelines that they use to live their lives, except for psycopathic personalities and a few other fringe types that all fall under the category of mentally ill. I have no real faith in anything concrete or supernatural, but I have moral guidelines that I follow - does that sound like a religious person?
Soulfire's definition is better, but I think it's a little narrow. Of the dictionary definitions, the first is pretty much Soulfire's but a tiny bit looser - still too narrow for me, though - and the second is circular so kinda useless.
I'd say a religion is a set of beliefs regarding the nature of the universe and a person's (or mankind's) place in it that cannot be (or is not intended to be) proven objectively. It's also a set of practices based on such beliefs.
Religion is spiritual life, to worship God. Hehe, i do not mean spiritual life like what those shaolin monks are doing with yen and yang... Ü
So its only religion if they worship your God?
... *looks in the vast Uniterrian library* ...
Religion is a set of beliefs.
No, spiritual is not implied. The Dohist exists, as do the Uniterrians.
Most of the time. Most religions have a purpose, like achieving an after life in heaven (or the highest of the heavens), inner peace, or a better current life. There are exceptions, I suppose, but I can't think of any at the moment.
No, some religions literally don't have a god.
No. Yes, most religions like to jump the "creation" rope, but there are many that simply never discuss it. There are also many religions who will you science in their religious proofs. In a scence, however, you are still following with faith, because you a disregarding the holes in the theories.
Religion is a set of beliefs.
| Quote: |
|
Religion is a or a set of spiritual beliefs. |
No, spiritual is not implied. The Dohist exists, as do the Uniterrians.
| Quote: |
|
It has no reasin, it just is. |
Most of the time. Most religions have a purpose, like achieving an after life in heaven (or the highest of the heavens), inner peace, or a better current life. There are exceptions, I suppose, but I can't think of any at the moment.
| Quote: |
|
For me, it would be just the service and worship of God. |
No, some religions literally don't have a god.
| Quote: |
|
I'd say a religion is a set of beliefs regarding the nature of the universe and a person's (or mankind's) place in it that cannot be (or is not intended to be) proven objectively. It's also a set of practices based on such beliefs. |
No. Yes, most religions like to jump the "creation" rope, but there are many that simply never discuss it. There are also many religions who will you science in their religious proofs. In a scence, however, you are still following with faith, because you a disregarding the holes in the theories.
| Ryan Marcus wrote: | ||
| ... *looks in the vast Uniterrian library* ...
Religion is a set of beliefs.
No, spiritual is not implied. The Dohist exists, as do the Uniterrians. |
That would make the belief that Bush Jr. is an idiot, Coke tastes better than Pepsi and my belief that we are the only "intelligent" life in this galaxy a religion..
People believe allot of things, people believe in big foot and in aliens but those are not religious beliefs, religious beliefs are spiritual beliefs.
Daoism is a philosophy, not a religion.
| Ryan Marcus wrote: | ||
No. Yes, most religions like to jump the "creation" rope, but there are many that simply never discuss it. There are also many religions who will you science in their religious proofs. In a scence, however, you are still following with faith, because you a disregarding the holes in the theories. |
Whoa whoa whoa >_< What kind of science allows you disregard "holes" in theories? None that I know of. That's not science, that's just nonsense. -_- In real science theories may not be able to explain all phenomena, but that doesn't mean the theory is not true - just not complete - and it certainly doesn't mean that you disregard the theory's limitations.
Yes, many religions do try to use "science" to back up their beliefs, but the beliefs themselves do not have a scientific root. For example, you could try to use cosmology to show that the development of the universe matches what Genesis describes (darkness first, then light, then land, then water, then... and so on), but the point is that you believe Genesis first, and then try to use science to back that belief up. If you believe in the religion you believe it regardless of whether or not the science backs it up - if the science and the religion disagree, the religious believer goes with the religion. If they agree, neat, but hardly necessary. The religion is not intended to stand up to scientific investigation, but if it does, yay.
And by the way, I didn't say anything about creation because it had nothing to do with what I was talking about. I said the "nature of the universe". All religions attempt to describe the underlying nature of the universe. Not all describe how the universe was created, but they all try to explain what's going on behind the scenes.
| Indi wrote: | ||||
Whoa whoa whoa >_< What kind of science allows you disregard "holes" in theories? None that I know of. That's not science, that's just nonsense. -_- In real science theories may not be able to explain all phenomena, but that doesn't mean the theory is not true - just not complete - and it certainly doesn't mean that you disregard the theory's limitations. Yes, many religions do try to use "science" to back up their beliefs, but the beliefs themselves do not have a scientific root. For example, you could try to use cosmology to show that the development of the universe matches what Genesis describes (darkness first, then light, then land, then water, then... and so on), but the point is that you believe Genesis first, and then try to use science to back that belief up. If you believe in the religion you believe it regardless of whether or not the science backs it up - if the science and the religion disagree, the religious believer goes with the religion. If they agree, neat, but hardly necessary. The religion is not intended to stand up to scientific investigation, but if it does, yay. And by the way, I didn't say anything about creation because it had nothing to do with what I was talking about. I said the "nature of the universe". All religions attempt to describe the underlying nature of the universe. Not all describe how the universe was created, but they all try to explain what's going on behind the scenes. |
I agree with this point. - You believe in religion first and then try to back up the beliefs with science.
What i say is today we first believe in the norms and then try to justify it with science. But there is a good possibility that there had been a good science behind devising those norms. They used [might have used] science to postulate the religous beliefs.
| Ryan Marcus wrote: |
| No, some religions literally don't have a god. |
Then is it truly religion? Most people are under the impression that lack of God implies lack of religion. If there is no God, isn't is more of a "Code of Conduct" type thing. That's just my opinion.
And you must have missed the For me part of my definition. That means that's the definition that applies to me, so really I'm not wrong.
Religion and belief in God or god is not the same thing. If one believe in karma, reincarnation, that is religious beliefs.
You can have spirituality without God and religion is a or a set of spiritual beliefs.
You can have spirituality without God and religion is a or a set of spiritual beliefs.
| The Conspirator wrote: | ||||
That would make the belief that Bush Jr. is an idiot, Coke tastes better than Pepsi and my belief that we are the only "intelligent" life in this galaxy a religion.. |
Yes, if your belief was strong enough.
| Quote: |
|
People believe allot of things, people believe in big foot and in aliens but those are not religious beliefs, religious beliefs are spiritual beliefs. |
It would be a religion is they would make a way of life out of it.
| Quote: |
|
Daoism is a philosophy, not a religion. |
Thanks for correcting my spelling. Is there really much difference between a philosophy and a religion?
------------------
| Quote: |
|
Whoa whoa whoa >_< What kind of science allows you disregard "holes" in theories? |
One that involves faith.
| Quote: |
|
None that I know of. |
Scientology... Catholicism (intelligent design)...
| Quote: |
|
That's not science, that's just nonsense. |
There are many who agree with you.
| Quote: |
|
-_- In real science theories may not be able to explain all phenomena, but that doesn't mean the theory is not true - just not complete - and it certainly doesn't mean that you disregard the theory's limitations. |
Sure you can disregard them. That's what faith is. Blindly following.
| Quote: |
|
Yes, many religions do try to use "science" to back up their beliefs, but the beliefs themselves do not have a scientific root. For example, you could try to use cosmology to show that the development of the universe matches what Genesis describes (darkness first, then light, then land, then water, then... and so on), but the point is that you believe Genesis first, and then try to use science to back that belief up. If you believe in the religion you believe it regardless of whether or not the science backs it up - if the science and the religion disagree, the religious believer goes with the religion. If they agree, neat, but hardly necessary. The religion is not intended to stand up to scientific investigation, but if it does, yay. |
Yes, and disregarding the holes in those theories is part of faith. Remember, science is, by definition, using evidence to prove or disprove something.
| Quote: |
|
And by the way, I didn't say anything about creation because it had nothing to do with what I was talking about. I said the "nature of the universe". All religions attempt to describe the underlying nature of the universe. Not all describe how the universe was created, but they all try to explain what's going on behind the scenes. |
I'm sure I could find a few exceptions, but thats not the point.
-----------------------------------
| Quote: |
|
What i say is today we first believe in the norms and then try to justify it with science. But there is a good possibility that there had been a good science behind devising those norms. They used [might have used] science to postulate the religous beliefs. |
See my definition of science.
----------------------------------
| Quote: |
|
Then is it truly religion? |
Yes.
| Quote: |
|
Most people are under the impression that lack of God implies lack of religion. |
Some people are wrong.
| Quote: |
|
If there is no God, isn't is more of a "Code of Conduct" type thing. That's just my opinion. |
What about all-natural superpowers? Or "faithful science?"
| Quote: |
|
And you must have missed the For me part of my definition. That means that's the definition that applies to me, so really I'm not wrong. |
Ok.
-------------------------------
| Quote: |
|
You can have spirituality without God and religion is a or a set of spiritual beliefs. |
I agree.
Religion is the opiate of the masses 
.
.| Marston wrote: |
| Religion is the opiate of the masses . |
But are masses really required?
Err... I'll define opiate so that you can get mad at me for posting it .
.
| Quote: |
| o·pi·ate-
1. Any of various sedative narcotics containing opium or one or more of its natural or synthetic derivatives. 2. A drug, hormone, or other chemical substance having sedative or narcotic effects similar to those containing opium or its derivatives: a natural brain opiate. Also called opioid. 3. Something that dulls the senses and induces relaxation or torpor. |
| Ryan Marcus wrote: |
| Yes, if your belief was strong enough. |
A person can believe something with a religious fervor (see crop circles) but that doesn't make it a religious belief.
| Quote: |
| It would be a religion is they would make a way of life out of it. |
Not really, I live my life based on my philosophy, but it is not a religious philosophy as it doesn't involve spirituality.
| Quote: |
| Is there really much difference between a philosophy and a religion? |
Yes, philosophy comes with a question mark, religion comes with an exclamation point and philosophy doesn't have to have any spiritual or supernatural forces.
| Quote: |
| But are masses really required? |
No, a persons religious beliefs qualifies as a religion even if he is the only one who believes it.[/quote]
First is it not a matter of faith. forget all about that. Faith is born into humanity, Religion is not.
It is a system of control, and a system we more than desire. for it gives meaning to our lives. nothing more, nothing less.
So yell your gods. and live.
It is a system of control, and a system we more than desire. for it gives meaning to our lives. nothing more, nothing less.
So yell your gods. and live.
| The Conspirator wrote: | ||
A person can believe something with a religious fervor (see crop circles) but that doesn't make it a religious belief. |
It would be a religion if they were to call it that.
| Quote: | ||
Not really, I live my life based on my philosophy, but it is not a religious philosophy as it doesn't involve spirituality. |
I did not say making a way of life out of it was a requirment, I ment to say it would qualify it. There are a lot of religions that are completely based on philosophy. They are still religions.
| Quote: |
| Is there really much difference between a philosophy and a religion? |
Yes, philosophy comes with a question mark, religion comes with an exclamation point and philosophy doesn't have to have any spiritual or supernatural forces.
[/quote]
A lot of relgions are based on questioning yourself, and using what you have learned from that relgion to better understand yourself and the world. You have to figure it out yourself, and nobody is going to tell you the answers.
| Quote: |
| But are masses really required? |
No, a persons religious beliefs qualifies as a religion even if he is the only one who believes it.[/quote][/quote]
Exactly.
Religion is a set of beliefs.
---------------------------------------------
| Quote: |
|
It is a system of control, and a system we more than desire. for it gives meaning to our lives. nothing more, nothing less. |
Bit of a conspiracy theory, eh? I tend to think of religion not as somebody controlling me, but somebody helping me to know how I want to be controlled, by myself. That's true in a lot of cases.
In a sence, your correct, because your beliefs do control you, but they are your beliefs.
| Ryan Marcus wrote: | ||
One that involves faith. |
That's a non-answer. Everything involves faith. It's just a matter of degree.
Science is designed to keep the amount of faith involved at an absolute minimum. Only the most necessary leaps of faith are allowed in science, and even those are recognized and hotly debated in some circles. Anything else is verbotten in science. Blind faith for sure is simply not welcome.
| Ryan Marcus wrote: | ||
Scientology... Catholicism (intelligent design)... |
*blink* Er... Scientology is a religion that has nothing to do with science. And I don't see how Catholicism == ID, but whatever - in any case ID is not science either, as much as it tries to masquerade as such.
| Ryan Marcus wrote: | ||
There are many who agree with you. |
It's not a matter of popularity. Sometimes a rose is just a rose, regardless of how many people vote for it to be a helicopter.
Science has very clear definitions and structure. It is quite clear about what qualifies as science and what doesn't, and the requirements are quite objective. A theory and/or field has to meet the requirements, or it simply isn't science.
This isn't a revolutionary concept. In order for a thing to be a tree it must meet certain requirements to be a tree - it must be a plant, it must have a trunk and leaves, and so on. In order for a thing to be science, it must meet certain requirements to be science.
Now, you can define religion as anything not science if you want, but that's rather broad. You can also try to call science a religion if you want, but you're going to have to explain what definition of religion you're using that actually makes that possible.
| Ryan Marcus wrote: | ||
Sure you can disregard them. That's what faith is. Blindly following. |
Er, you're making no sense. If you're disregarding the shortcomings of any theory, scientific or not, then you're not doing science.
Now, would that be religion? *shrug* I'd say it depends on the reasons why you were ignoring the limitations of the theory. It might just be ignorance.
| Ryan Marcus wrote: | ||
Yes, and disregarding the holes in those theories is part of faith. Remember, science is, by definition, using evidence to prove or disprove something. |
I honestly have no idea what point you think you're making, but you're definition of science is kinda narrow.
| Ryan Marcus wrote: | ||
I'm sure I could find a few exceptions, but thats not the point. |
What is the point?
| Ryan Marcus wrote: |
| It would be a religion if they were to call it that. |
Just cause something is called a religon, dosen't mean it is.
| Quote: |
| There are a lot of religions that are completely based on philosophy. They are still religions. |
True. religions such as Buddhism are based on entirely of philosophy, but theses religions still maintain a spiritual aspect, such as reincarnation in Buddhism. And that is what make them a religion instead of just a philosophy.
| Quote: |
| A lot of relgions are based on questioning yourself, and using what you have learned from that relgion to better understand yourself and the world. |
You mis understand what I mean. I mean in religon, iits "I know that blaw, blaw blaw" where in philosepphy Its "I think that blaw, blaw, blaw."
Think about it like this. Guy one believes in big foot, guy 2 thinks big foot is a god. For guy 1 it is just a belief but for guy 2, its a religion.
What is it and why do so many people follow one or the other? I truly think people follow religion to enirch themselves and promote stabillity in this sea of uncertainty we call Planet Earth. Hence, if one runs or plays tennis to enhance their stability that is a religion of sorts, I think.
I ceased religious beliefs some 10 years ago but now think 85% or more of our population truly need it to guide them through life.
I ceased religious beliefs some 10 years ago but now think 85% or more of our population truly need it to guide them through life.
Hi everybody,
First of all I propose you this flash presentation (see link below):
http://thisisislam.islamacademy.com/
to know what can a religion like "Islam" give to Humanity!
I personnally think that humans can not live happily in peace without "right" religion! I think religion is the source of moralities to us and without it no one will have limits, eveyone will be happy to make pain to others.
In addition, a psychological point is also important here. In fact, faith in God (when it is so strong) encourages us to persist among difficulties, to struggle to do good things in life, to love each other without seeking services from them, to respect each other, ...
I think what made religion so inimportant to you (I guessed from your definitions of it) is that people who really practice religion are few! I mean the ones who are guided in their lifes by their religion's rules are not not so much viewed on media.
I want to insist on one thing: When I was defending religion, I don't defend all religions, but the only three main ones Islam, Christianity and Judaïsm, since history demonstrates that all the three were defined by God.
Islamists define Religion as the spirit food, like our bodies need food and care, also our spirits need a moral food that is much more important! Spirit food make people happy, steady and relaxed.
I personnaly think that Religion is a street that one person takes, even if it takes him to bad end (which is not true most of the time because all the three religions teach some good things), at least he's guided and he knows where he's going, not like most of other people living aimlessly.
First of all I propose you this flash presentation (see link below):
http://thisisislam.islamacademy.com/
to know what can a religion like "Islam" give to Humanity!
I personnally think that humans can not live happily in peace without "right" religion! I think religion is the source of moralities to us and without it no one will have limits, eveyone will be happy to make pain to others.
In addition, a psychological point is also important here. In fact, faith in God (when it is so strong) encourages us to persist among difficulties, to struggle to do good things in life, to love each other without seeking services from them, to respect each other, ...
I think what made religion so inimportant to you (I guessed from your definitions of it) is that people who really practice religion are few! I mean the ones who are guided in their lifes by their religion's rules are not not so much viewed on media.
I want to insist on one thing: When I was defending religion, I don't defend all religions, but the only three main ones Islam, Christianity and Judaïsm, since history demonstrates that all the three were defined by God.
Islamists define Religion as the spirit food, like our bodies need food and care, also our spirits need a moral food that is much more important! Spirit food make people happy, steady and relaxed.
I personnaly think that Religion is a street that one person takes, even if it takes him to bad end (which is not true most of the time because all the three religions teach some good things), at least he's guided and he knows where he's going, not like most of other people living aimlessly.
religion is belief. belief in anything, whether it be your personal morals, or in some greater being. belief defines religion. agnostics believe it is impossible to tell if god exists. this is belief. this is religion. atheism is religion as well.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/
http://www.religioustolerance.org/
| silvermesh wrote: |
| atheism is religion as well. |
Good grief, we've been down this road so many times it's starting to get ridiculous.
Atheism is not religion. Atheism is a category of beliefs, some religious, some not.
How about thinking of it like this: is it possible to not have any religion? Is it possible to have no religious beliefs, and to only accept that which can be objectively observed? If so, what would that person be like? Wouldn't they be... atheist...? Dun dun dun!
So atheism cannot be religion by definition, because that definition is illogical.
Yes, there are atheist religions, and yes, there are many atheist spiritual beliefs. But "atheism is a religion" is a false statement.
Don't believe me? Just check out the definition of atheism on the site you posted a link to (capitalization and emphasis is in the original):
| Quote: |
| Most of the North American public defines an "Atheist" is a person who believes that no deity exists.... Some individuals who consider themselves Atheists mesh well with that definition. But they may be in the minority. Most Atheists simply have no belief about deity. |
If I believe something doesn't exist, that could be a religious belief. But if I don't believe something, as in I just don't have any belief about it at all, for or against, how is that a religion?
| alawe2el wrote: |
| I think religion is the source of moralities to us and without it no one will have limits, eveyone will be happy to make pain to others. |
When will you people stop with this attack on atheism. Those who do not believe in God and those who do not have religion still have morality, they have a sense of right and wrong, even more so than religious people.
It is religious people who are more likely to do harm to others as there religion give them justifications.
| Soulfire wrote: | ||
Then is it truly religion? Most people are under the impression that lack of God implies lack of religion. If there is no God, isn't is more of a "Code of Conduct" type thing. That's just my opinion. And you must have missed the For me part of my definition. That means that's the definition that applies to me, so really I'm not wrong. |
If you look at the teachings of Zen Buddhism, there is no god, but that which is in yourself.
| The Conspirator wrote: |
|
Daoism is a philosophy, not a religion. |
Actually if you look closely, Daoism is both, like a lot of eastern religions, such as Chan Buddhism.
| Simulator wrote: |
| For me, a religion is a set of moral guidelines to which a person must live their lives. Would ye agree? |
| Indi wrote: | ||||
That's a non-answer. Everything involves faith. It's just a matter of degree. |
Faith is having compelete confidence in something and following it without or barring questions.
| Quote: |
|
Science is designed to keep the amount of faith involved at an absolute minimum. Only the most necessary leaps of faith are allowed in science, and even those are recognized and hotly debated in some circles. Anything else is verbotten in science. Blind faith for sure is simply not welcome. |
You keep saying things are not welcome in science, etc., but I don't think you really know what science is. I'm not talking about a scientific community, I'm saying science is a way to use logic to prove something, and Intelligent Design (caps?) is exactly that... trying to use logic and evidence to support or prove something. It does not matter how flawed the evidence or support is, it only matters that you are putting things together and drawing a conclusion. I'm not saying I buy everything they say (far from it) but there are a lot of people who do buy it
| Quote: | ||||
*blink* Er... Scientology is a religion that has nothing to do with science. And I don't see how Catholicism == ID, but whatever - in any case ID is not science either, as much as it tries to masquerade as such. |
Catholicism, at least in my very conservative state, is like a beacon of ID.
And your right. In my views and yours, Catholisism is not correct science, but science it is trying to be. Either way, its still science, in a sense, its just wrong.
1+2 = 9 is still a math problem, its just wrong.
| Quote: | ||||
It's not a matter of popularity. Sometimes a rose is just a rose, regardless of how many people vote for it to be a helicopter. |
It is EXACTLY a matter of popularity. This is how the world thinks: the masses must be right.
If a crackpot guy comes up with a theory about how the world was created, nobody thinks he is right. If a priest says something, no questions asked.
If every single person in the world, except 10 of them, started calling roses helicopters, then wouldn't the definition of helicopter simply change?
| Quote: |
|
Science has very clear definitions and structure. It is quite clear about what qualifies as science and what doesn't, and the requirements are quite objective. A theory and/or field has to meet the requirements, or it simply isn't science. |
Sure, I'll buy that. Just like science fair, a guess, and a subject.
| Quote: |
|
This isn't a revolutionary concept. In order for a thing to be a tree it must meet certain requirements to be a tree - it must be a plant, it must have a trunk and leaves, and so on. In order for a thing to be science, it must meet certain requirements to be science. |
Then we can all agree ID is a very strange looking tree.
| Quote: |
|
Now, you can define religion as anything not science if you want, but that's rather broad. You can also try to call science a religion if you want, but you're going to have to explain what definition of religion you're using that actually makes that possible. |
I'm not doing either of those two things. I'm calling religion a set of beliefs.
| Quote: | ||||
Er, you're making no sense. If you're disregarding the shortcomings of any theory, scientific or not, then you're not doing science. |
Hehe.. no. So, is your house completely blatant of everything you don't understand? Disregarding holes and pushing forward, not looking away because you see a problem, is what keeps science going.
| Quote: |
|
Now, would that be religion? *shrug* I'd say it depends on the reasons why you were ignoring the limitations of the theory. It might just be ignorance. |
Or it might be faith.
| Quote: | ||||
I honestly have no idea what point you think you're making, but you're definition of science is kinda narrow. |
My definition of science is very, very, broad. Science is using facts, or said to be facts, and putting them together to form a conclusion.
| Quote: | ||||
What is the point? |
That religion is a set of beliefs.
| Quote: |
|
Just cause something is called a religon, dosen't mean it is. |
Yes, it does! In-fact, thats the definition of religion! As soon as somebody declares there beliefs religious, its a religion.
It is not like there is some bureaucratic system for getting religion licenses.
| Quote: |
|
True. religions such as Buddhism are based on entirely of philosophy, but theses religions still maintain a spiritual aspect, such as reincarnation in Buddhism. And that is what make them a religion instead of just a philosophy. |
No, what separates the Buddhists from philosophy is that they are self-declared as a religion, and they are somewhat (in some cases much more then somewhat) devoted to there beliefs.
| Quote: |
|
You mis understand what I mean. I mean in religon, iits "I know that blaw, blaw blaw" where in philosepphy Its "I think that blaw, blaw, blaw." Think about it like this. Guy one believes in big foot, guy 2 thinks big foot is a god. For guy 1 it is just a belief but for guy 2, its a religion. |
But guy #1's beliefs could turn into a religion, if he wanted it to, or if his beliefs are important enough.
I don't mean every set of beliefs is a religion, I mean every religion is a set of beliefs. Perhaps I should have made that clear.
| Quote: |
|
What is it and why do so many people follow one or the other? I truly think people follow religion to enirch themselves and promote stabillity in this sea of uncertainty we call Planet Earth. Hence, if one runs or plays tennis to enhance their stability that is a religion of sorts, I think. I ceased religious beliefs some 10 years ago but now think 85% or more of our population truly need it to guide them through life. |
That is based on the thought they are people are evil, and will only do something if they get something from it.
I agree. People get things from their beliefs, even if it is only brief-satisfaction, understanding, or inspiration.
| Quote: |
|
I personnally think that humans can not live happily in peace without "right" religion! I think religion is the source of moralities to us and without it no one will have limits, eveyone will be happy to make pain to others. |
Well, there are those people who don't have any religion, and its there belief that they don't need it. Of course, the paradox is that that belief could become a religion...
| Quote: |
|
In addition, a psychological point is also important here. In fact, faith in God (when it is so strong) encourages us to persist among difficulties, to struggle to do good things in life, to love each other without seeking services from them, to respect each other, ... |
I agree. Just don't say "God" next time, because there are a lot of others. Or say For example. Or don't care.
| Quote: |
|
I think what made religion so inimportant to you (I guessed from your definitions of it) is that people who really practice religion are few! I mean the ones who are guided in their lifes by their religion's rules are not not so much viewed on media. |
You've broken the 11th commandment and made an accusation in a debate form! MAY THE FLAMING BEGIN! (Joking.)
How did you draw the belief that religion is unimportant from my definition? A religion is a set a beliefs, and how those beliefs affect your life, and how strong the effect is, is up to you.
| Quote: |
|
Islamists define Religion as the spirit food, like our bodies need food and care, also our spirits need a moral food that is much more important! Spirit food make people happy, steady and relaxed. I personnaly think that Religion is a street that one person takes, even if it takes him to bad end (which is not true most of the time because all the three religions teach some good things), at least he's guided and he knows where he's going, not like most of other people living aimlessly. |
While I am not going to fight your own religious beliefs, I will ask a question, which you can feel free to disregard.
Is a religion really a road, or can (I did not say is, I said can) it be a street sign to guide you to a road? Does it have to be the influence, or can it help you find the influence? Does it have to guide you, or can it help you guide yourself?
| Quote: |
|
religion is belief. belief in anything, whether it be your personal morals, or in some greater being. belief defines religion. agnostics believe it is impossible to tell if god exists. this is belief. this is religion. atheism is religion as well. |
I completely agree with you, except on the atheist note. The definition of an atheist is either (a) somebody with no beliefs, or (b) somebody who does not believe in god.
Now, while definition B is a bit new and possibly a misunderstanding, it would be a religion.
Now, back to A. Would having no beliefs, in itself, be a belief?
| Quote: |
|
Atheism is not religion. Atheism is a category of beliefs, some religious, some not. |
I like your definition better then mine.
| Quote: |
|
When will you people stop with this attack on atheism. Those who do not believe in God and those who do not have religion still have morality, they have a sense of right and wrong, even more so than religious people. It is religious people who are more likely to do harm to others as there religion give them justifications. |
But its a two way street. There are still those who have no moral guidelines, and there are those who use religion to help.
Be careful not to get on one side of this... it is kind of like racism in America. Somebody says "white" or "cracker" and they are OK, but if I say "black" instead of "African American," then I'm racist, even though "cracker" is discriminating and "black" is not. Don't let the issue shift, keep it fair.
| Quote: |
|
If you look at the teachings of Zen Buddhism, there is no god, but that which is in yourself. |
Erm... good for Zen.
This is a topic I would rather not drift into. It is the whole "if we don't believe in it is it really there" kind of thing that some people define as godly and others as complete crap.
If I, and every other person on earth, decided that atoms did not exist, and things could be broken down infinitely, would it happen, or would we simply cause a nuclear reaction when we tried?
| Quote: |
|
Actually if you look closely, Daoism is both, like a lot of eastern religions, such as Chan Buddhism. |
Of course, because Daoism is still a set of beliefs, and if they want to call it a religion, then it is.
Just to recap, I suppose this is my "new" main point"
Religion is a set of beliefs. Every set of beliefs is not a religion, but every religion is a set of beliefs.
For Muslims, Religion is not only the belief in God but it is a complete set of rules according to which they live their lives, and the main benefit of these rules, according to Islam, is to make life convinient and as much Problem-Free as possible, this in turn leads to rewards in the After-Life.
| ibay wrote: |
| For Muslims, Religion is not only the belief in God but it is a complete set of rules according to which they live their lives, and the main benefit of these rules, according to Islam, is to make life convinient and as much Problem-Free as possible, this in turn leads to rewards in the After-Life. |
When you get down to it, those are beliefs.
You believe in these rules, an afterlife, etc.
| Ryan Marcus wrote: | ||||||
Faith is having compelete confidence in something and following it without or barring questions. |
So... do you question whether the air is going to be there with the next breath you take? Do you question whether or not the world is going to exist after your next eyeblink? How about... do you not have complete confidence that if you were to jam a pencil into both of your eyes you would go blind? Do you question that conclusion?
Dude, everything requires some kind of faith. You can't exist without accepting something without questioning it. That's just absurd. We simply don't have all the answers, so it would be impossible for you not have questions. Sure you can speculate on whether or not you're really here or whether or not the universe exists at all, but if you don't set those questions aside and trust in your faith that you are and it does, you can't accomplish anything.
| Ryan Marcus wrote: | ||
You keep saying things are not welcome in science, etc., but I don't think you really know what science is. I'm not talking about a scientific community, I'm saying science is a way to use logic to prove something, and Intelligent Design (caps?) is exactly that... trying to use logic and evidence to support or prove something. It does not matter how flawed the evidence or support is, it only matters that you are putting things together and drawing a conclusion. I'm not saying I buy everything they say (far from it) but there are a lot of people who do buy it |
I just want to pull this quote out from a little later on to illustrate the problem:
| Ryan Marcus wrote: |
| My definition of science is very, very, broad. |
You're not the only person whom I have see say something like this. In fact, I see it very often. Do you see the problem with it? Here it is again, highlighted:
| Ryan Marcus wrote: |
| My definition of science is very, very, broad. |
"Your definition". It's as if you believe the definition of science is subjective. As I said, you're not alone in this misconception. It baffles me that people believe that science - the very field that is defined by its desire to provide concrete, universal, objective definitions for everything in the world - would not have its own concrete, universal, objective definition.
I didn't say things are not "welcome" in science. I said that science is what science is. And science is defined very clearly and objectively. Anything that fits that definition is science, whether you agree with it or want it to be or not. And anything that does not fit that definition is not science, whether you agree with it or want it to be or not.
It has nothing to do with "the scientific community". It has nothing to do with "your" definition of science - whatever that is is irrelevant to me anyway. Science is what science is, and anything that meets the requirements of that definition is science.
ID does not. ID is not science.
It has nothing to do with who came up with the idea, religious or otherwise. It has nothing to do with what I believe. It has nothing to do with how much support it has or how popular it is. ID simply does not meet the criteria for being a scientific theory. Thus, it is not science. That's it.
| Ryan Marcus wrote: |
| 1+2 = 9 is still a math problem, its just wrong. |
Nonsense. -_-
Is "hyponeuse chortle squiggle cheese masturbate gong" English? Of course not. Yes, those are English words. But they're arranged in a manner that is nonsensical in English. English isn't just a set of words, it's a set of rules that describe the way those words must be used.
"1 + 2 = 9" is not math. Yes, those are math symbols. But they're arranged in a manner that is nonsensical in math. Math isn't just a set of symbols, it's a set of rules that describe what those symbols mean and how they interact.
It may look like math, but it ain't math.
ID may look like science, but it ain't science.
| Ryan Marcus wrote: | ||||||
It is EXACTLY a matter of popularity. This is how the world thinks: the masses must be right. |
Why are we talking about what the masses think? The masses do not decide what is and what is not true, and the masses do not decide what is and what is not science. The definition of science decides what is science. And ID does not fit.
| Ryan Marcus wrote: |
| If every single person in the world, except 10 of them, started calling roses helicopters, then wouldn't the definition of helicopter simply change? |
You think so? Would you leave the roof of a tall building riding a rose?
| Ryan Marcus wrote: | ||
Then we can all agree ID is a very strange looking tree. |
Uh... no. Because ID wouldn't be a tree.
If you were to take a turd and mold it into the shape of a tree trunk with branches, then stick leaves on it, would it be a tree? No, it would look like a tree, but it would still stink.
ID looks like science. In fact, it's so close it fools the untrained eye. But looking like science does not make it science.
| Ryan Marcus wrote: | ||||||
Hehe.. no. So, is your house completely blatant of everything you don't understand? Disregarding holes and pushing forward, not looking away because you see a problem, is what keeps science going. |
My house is not as rigidly defined as science is. Yes, you need to disregard unknowns and push forward in life, but not in science.
Your idea of science is ludicrous. Scientists just blatantly ignore shortcomings in their theories and "push forward"? That's insanity!
How do they even know which direction forward is if their theory isn't working out?
That just isn't how science works. Science works by exploring all of the "holes" in theories. I mean, really, by your logic when Michelson and Morely showed that the speed of light was constant in any direction - exposing a hole in the aether theory - we should have just shrugged that off and kept going with the aether theory. Rubbish! What really happened is science. People stopped to examine the hole and found out that the theory was incomplete, and made a new one that worked better. Thus, progress. That's how science works.
You don't just disregard holes in science. -_- You explore them!
| Ryan Marcus wrote: | ||
Or it might be faith. |
Oi. -_-
Yeah, we covered that. If it was faith it would be religion. But it might not be faith. It might just be ignorance.
| Ryan Marcus wrote: |
| That religion is a set of beliefs. |
Any set of beliefs? If I believe that if I work hard I'll get a raise, is that religion?
Methinks your definition is lacking.
| Ryan Marcus wrote: | ||
Yes, it does! In-fact, thats the definition of religion! As soon as somebody declares there beliefs religious, its a religion. |
I believe I'm going to enjoy the pizza dinner I'm getting tonight. I declare that belief a religion.
See? Your statement is absurd.
Whatever the definition of "religion" is, there is a definition, and things must meet that definition to be religions. You can't just call any set of beliefs a religion.
| Ryan Marcus wrote: |
| Just to recap, I suppose this is my "new" main point"
Religion is a set of beliefs. Every set of beliefs is not a religion, but every religion is a set of beliefs. |
To make your point more clear, you're saying that any set of beliefs that someone chooses to call a religion is a religion, and all you need is a set of beliefs and someone to say "this is a religion" and you have a religion. Right?
So if I say that I believe that most pop stars lip-sync most of the time, and I call that belief a religion, that makes it a religion?
Or how about this: if I believe that the universe was created by beings that were once like us in a previous universe, only they evolved to the point where they are now creating their own universes, and one day we will do the same, then evenutally evolve to join them... and then I say "this is not a religion", then that means it is not a religion?
Nonsense. Whatever a religion is, it is obviously more than just any random set of beliefs that someone randomly decided to call a religion, and calling something a religion is obviously not necessary or sufficient for something to be a religion.
| Indi wrote: | ||||||||
So... do you question whether the air is going to be there with the next breath you take? Do you question whether or not the world is going to exist after your next eyeblink? How about... do you not have complete confidence that if you were to jam a pencil into both of your eyes you would go blind? Do you question that conclusion? |
It is not questioning the fact of "will it be there tomorrow," it is questioning the fact of "why would'nt it be?"
However, I agree with you. You do need faith in some things.
[qoute]
Dude, everything requires some kind of faith. You can't exist without accepting something without questioning it. That's just absurd. We simply don't have all the answers, so it would be impossible for you not have questions. Sure you can speculate on whether or not you're really here or whether or not the universe exists at all, but if you don't set those questions aside and trust in your faith that you are and it does, you can't accomplish anything.
[/quote]
Where did I say faith was never involved with anybody?
| Quote: | ||||||||
I just want to pull this quote out from a little later on to illustrate the problem:
You're not the only person whom I have see say something like this. In fact, I see it very often. Do you see the problem with it? Here it is again, highlighted:
"Your definition". It's as if you believe the definition of science is subjective. As I said, you're not alone in this misconception. It baffles me that people believe that science - the very field that is defined by its desire to provide concrete, universal, objective definitions for everything in the world - would not have its own concrete, universal, objective definition. |
Now your doing the same thing you accused me of doing... assuming your right.
If you take a look at this: http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3A+science&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official
You can tell that it varies, and there is no "exact" definition.
I was not stating that my statment was correct, I was stating that by my definiton of science, ID is science, and that science is incorporated into relgion in many cases.
I think there are three applicable definitions for science:
1. Using a process to arrive at a reproducable ending, and drawing a conclusion from it.
2. Looking at past knowledge and putting it with current knowledge to draw a conclusion.
3. Using the "arts and sciences" to come to a conclusion via processes.
| Quote: |
|
I didn't say things are not "welcome" in science. |
Your right! You took it a step forward and said what was ALLOWED in science:
| Quote: |
| Only the most necessary leaps of faith are allowed in science, |
| Quote: |
|
I said that science is what science is. And science is defined very clearly and objectively. Anything that fits that definition is science, whether you agree with it or want it to be or not. And anything that does not fit that definition is not science, whether you agree with it or want it to be or not. |
Yes! And what you and I accept as science is based on our own personal rubric. If you can find a universal "rubric" for what is science is what is not, a free internet cookie for you.
| Quote: |
|
It has nothing to do with "the scientific community". It has nothing to do with "your" definition of science - whatever that is is irrelevant to me anyway. Science is what science is, and anything that meets the requirements of that definition is science. |
How very nice of you... I don't care about your opinion, here is mine. Moving on.
Great. So how about the next time somebody asks me what duct tape is, I tell them: Duct tape is what duct tape is, and anything that meets the requirements of that definition is duct tape.
It seems like you want to use your judgement, which I am sure does not qualify in every field of science, to decide what is science and what is not.
| Quote: |
|
ID does not. ID is not science. |
Once again, by your definiton.
However, after doing some research, I agree with you. Sorry about that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design
It is science in the sence that it is trying to appear as such, and has all of the requirments, there is just no way to prove or reproduce it.
| Quote: |
|
It has nothing to do with who came up with the idea, religious or otherwise. It has nothing to do with what I believe. It has nothing to do with how much support it has or how popular it is. ID simply does not meet the criteria for being a scientific theory. Thus, it is not science. That's it. |
I'll agree with you.
| Quote: | ||
Nonsense. -_- Is "hyponeuse chortle squiggle cheese masturbate gong" English? Of course not. Yes, those are English words. But they're arranged in a manner that is nonsensical in English. English isn't just a set of words, it's a set of rules that describe the way those words must be used. "1 + 2 = 9" is not math. Yes, those are math symbols. But they're arranged in a manner that is nonsensical in math. Math isn't just a set of symbols, it's a set of rules that describe what those symbols mean and how they interact. It may look like math, but it ain't math. ID may look like science, but it ain't science. |
Cleary, this was not the best way to illustrate my point.
I was trying to say that incorrect assumptions that are accepted by everybody (lets say "ether") are still refered to as science, and still are science!
| Quote: | ||||||||
Why are we talking about what the masses think? The masses do not decide what is and what is not true, and the masses do not decide what is and what is not science. The definition of science decides what is science. And ID does not fit. |
Would get off ID already?
And it definitly matters what the masses think, because the masses defintion is the definiton.
Let's take the word "gay." Used to mean "happy." Now it means homosexual.
| Quote: | ||
You think so? Would you leave the roof of a tall building riding a rose? |
No, because the defintion of a helicopter would thus shift, and what a helicopter is would just shift. It is not like it would be gone, just called a different name.
| Quote: | ||||
Uh... no. Because ID wouldn't be a tree. If you were to take a turd and mold it into the shape of a tree trunk with branches, then stick leaves on it, would it be a tree? No, it would look like a tree, but it would still stink. |
Yes, to bad so many people think its a tree.
| Quote: |
|
ID looks like science. In fact, it's so close it fools the untrained eye. But looking like science does not make it science. |
Ok, I'll give you that.
| Quote: | ||||||||
My house is not as rigidly defined as science is. Yes, you need to disregard unknowns and push forward in life, but not in science. Your idea of science is ludicrous. Scientists just blatantly ignore shortcomings in their theories and "push forward"? That's insanity! |
So everytime we run into a little problem we should stick our heads between our heads and keep running?
Einstien proposed an universal speed limit... the speed of light. This problem completely contrasted from Newton's laws about gravity. It was not until 20 years later (20 years of people thinking light was the speed limit) when Einstien figured out the problem: Gravitational fields.
We don't understand electromagnetism, we don't even try to. But the generators work, and everybody knows it.
How do they even know which direction forward is if their theory isn't working out?
| Quote: |
|
That just isn't how science works. Science works by exploring all of the "holes" in theories. I mean, really, by your logic when Michelson and Morely showed that the speed of light was constant in any direction - exposing a hole in the aether theory - we should have just shrugged that off and kept going with the aether theory. Rubbish! What really happened is science. People stopped to examine the hole and found out that the theory was incomplete, and made a new one that worked better. Thus, progress. That's how science works. |
And how long was it between the proposal of this theory and the new theory? Did people believe it (the incomplete theory) before the more complete one was found?
| Quote: |
|
You don't just disregard holes in science. -_- You explore them! |
But sometimes these holes must be disregard... or else you would not be using your computer. Heck, you would not even be using a light.
These holes will eventually be filled in, but for now, we don't know, and most of us don't care.
| Ryan Marcus wrote: | ||
Or it might be faith. |
| Quote: |
|
Oi. -_- Yeah, we covered that. If it was faith it would be religion. But it might not be faith. It might just be ignorance. |
They could, IN SOME CASES, be the same thing.
| Quote: | ||
Any set of beliefs? If I believe that if I work hard I'll get a raise, is that religion? Methinks your definition is lacking. |
Yes, and I filled it this void later.
[
| Quote: | ||||
I believe I'm going to enjoy the pizza dinner I'm getting tonight. I declare that belief a religion. |
Great. Good luck not looking insane.
| Quote: |
|
See? Your statement is absurd. |
No, your religion is absurd.
| Quote: |
|
Whatever the definition of "religion" is, there is a definition, and things must meet that definition to be religions. You can't just call any set of beliefs a religion. |
Read on...
| Quote: | ||
To make your point more clear, you're saying that any set of beliefs that someone chooses to call a religion is a religion, and all you need is a set of beliefs and someone to say "this is a religion" and you have a religion. Right? |
Correct, and thus yor pizza religion is born.
| Quote: |
|
So if I say that I believe that most pop stars lip-sync most of the time, and I call that belief a religion, that makes it a religion? |
Yes, just not a very traditional one.
| Quote: |
|
Or how about this: if I believe that the universe was created by beings that were once like us in a previous universe, only they evolved to the point where they are now creating their own universes, and one day we will do the same, then evenutally evolve to join them... and then I say "this is not a religion", then that means it is not a religion? |
Very B5 of you.
Anyway, yes, then it would not be a religion. As soon as somebody else clamed as a relgion (or there own relgion) it would become so. It does not mean you have to be a part of it. You can not believe Jesus was the Messiah is still not be Jewish.
| Quote: |
|
Nonsense. Whatever a religion is, it is obviously more than just any random set of beliefs that someone randomly decided to call a religion, and calling something a religion is obviously not necessary or sufficient for something to be a religion. |
No. You or anybody else is not allowed to judge if somebody elses beliefs count as a religion. A lot of people would call jews, muslisms, and other non-Chirstians crazy, but here we are.
To some people, not praying in the name of Jesus is about as crazy as your pizza religion.
Ok, now I'm confused, and I think you are, too. One minute you're insisting that science has many, subjective definitions. The next you're saying that ID isn't science, implying that there is a standard definition that ID doesn't fit into. Which is it? Is anyone free to define science any way they want, or is there a single, objective definition?
Anyway, you seem to be confused about what we're talking about completely. I'm not interested in the definition(s) of the word science. I'm interested in the definition of the thing that is science - the process and method that is known as science, the system of acquiring knowlege. And yes, there is only one universal, objective definition of what science is. I don't really care how many definitions the dictionary gives for the word "science". That's irrelevant. What we're talking about here is science - the actual thing itself. There is only one scientific process, using only one system, and there is only one definition that describes it. The word "science"? Well you can tack as many subjective definitions onto that as you want - I just saw an ad talking about the "science of beautiful hair". Whatever. The actual scientific process is not subjectively defined.
The criteria I've been using to judge ID is based on that objective definition of what science is. Not what the word "science" means. That has nothing to do with the discussion. Using the definition of the actual system of science, ID does not measure up, and thus is not science - that is, it is not acceptable or valid within the context of the system that we know as science. If anyone wants to call it "science" by creating a new definition for the word, they can go nuts. But that won't change the fact that ID does not meet the standards of the actual system we know as science. ID may be "science", if you choose to create your own subjective definition of the word, but ID is not science.
I hope that makes things a bit clearer. When I use the word science without the quotes, I am talking about the actual system of acquiring knowlege and/or the methodology of that system. I am not talking about the word "science" in the dictionary. As I tried to explain - and you completely missed the point - you can call a rose a helicopter, but it will be a "helicopter", not a helicopter. It won't fly. You can change the definition of the word "helicopter", but you can't change what the rose and the helicopter actually are.
Correct. That conclusion falls out of several components of the definition of science.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science as well as the ancilliary pages attached to it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science and so on).
Read. Comprehend. Learn. There is a pretty good definition of what science is in there, but it will take a lot of reading to get through it all.
If that stuff isn't to your liking:
- http://www.gly.uga.edu/railsback/railsback_1122science1.html - very nice, complete and clear.
- http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/SCIENCE/Science.htm - more historically oriented, if that's your interest.
- http://www.rit.edu/~flwstv/hoswhatsci.html - spends time explaining what I've been trying to explain to you, that although there are many definitions for the word "science", there is only one science.
You can pick any one of them, they all describe the same thing, and they all agree with each other of course. Go with whichever one reads best to you. Want more? Google is your friend.
I'll pass on the cookie.
As I've been trying to explain - and I hope it's clear now - this is not my opinion. It is what science is.
Anyway, you seem to be confused about what we're talking about completely. I'm not interested in the definition(s) of the word science. I'm interested in the definition of the thing that is science - the process and method that is known as science, the system of acquiring knowlege. And yes, there is only one universal, objective definition of what science is. I don't really care how many definitions the dictionary gives for the word "science". That's irrelevant. What we're talking about here is science - the actual thing itself. There is only one scientific process, using only one system, and there is only one definition that describes it. The word "science"? Well you can tack as many subjective definitions onto that as you want - I just saw an ad talking about the "science of beautiful hair". Whatever. The actual scientific process is not subjectively defined.
The criteria I've been using to judge ID is based on that objective definition of what science is. Not what the word "science" means. That has nothing to do with the discussion. Using the definition of the actual system of science, ID does not measure up, and thus is not science - that is, it is not acceptable or valid within the context of the system that we know as science. If anyone wants to call it "science" by creating a new definition for the word, they can go nuts. But that won't change the fact that ID does not meet the standards of the actual system we know as science. ID may be "science", if you choose to create your own subjective definition of the word, but ID is not science.
I hope that makes things a bit clearer. When I use the word science without the quotes, I am talking about the actual system of acquiring knowlege and/or the methodology of that system. I am not talking about the word "science" in the dictionary. As I tried to explain - and you completely missed the point - you can call a rose a helicopter, but it will be a "helicopter", not a helicopter. It won't fly. You can change the definition of the word "helicopter", but you can't change what the rose and the helicopter actually are.
| Ryan Marcus wrote: | ||||
Your right! You took it a step forward and said what was ALLOWED in science:
|
Correct. That conclusion falls out of several components of the definition of science.
| Ryan Marcus wrote: | ||
Yes! And what you and I accept as science is based on our own personal rubric. If you can find a universal "rubric" for what is science is what is not, a free internet cookie for you. |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science as well as the ancilliary pages attached to it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science and so on).
Read. Comprehend. Learn. There is a pretty good definition of what science is in there, but it will take a lot of reading to get through it all.
If that stuff isn't to your liking:
- http://www.gly.uga.edu/railsback/railsback_1122science1.html - very nice, complete and clear.
- http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/SCIENCE/Science.htm - more historically oriented, if that's your interest.
- http://www.rit.edu/~flwstv/hoswhatsci.html - spends time explaining what I've been trying to explain to you, that although there are many definitions for the word "science", there is only one science.
You can pick any one of them, they all describe the same thing, and they all agree with each other of course. Go with whichever one reads best to you. Want more? Google is your friend.
I'll pass on the cookie.
| Ryan Marcus wrote: | ||
How very nice of you... I don't care about your opinion, here is mine. Moving on. |
As I've been trying to explain - and I hope it's clear now - this is not my opinion. It is what science is.
| Ryan Marcus wrote: |
| Great. So how about the next time somebody asks me what duct tape is, I tell them: Duct tape is what duct tape is, and anyt |