FRIHOST FORUMS SEARCH FAQ TOS BLOGS COMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Define Religion?





Simulator
For me, a religion is a set of moral guidelines to which a person must live their lives. Would ye agree?
The Conspirator
Religion is a or a set of spiritual beliefs.
Simulator
In order to do what?
The Conspirator
It has no reasin, it just is.
Soulfire
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.
Indi
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.
Nikkori
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...
The Conspirator
So its only religion if they worship your God?
Ryan Marcus
... *looks in the vast Uniterrian library* ...

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.
The Conspirator
Ryan Marcus wrote:
... *looks in the vast Uniterrian library* ...

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.

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.
Indi
Ryan Marcus wrote:
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.

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.
songsalways
Indi wrote:
Ryan Marcus wrote:
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.

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.
Soulfire
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.
The Conspirator
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.
Ryan Marcus
The Conspirator wrote:
Ryan Marcus wrote:
... *looks in the vast Uniterrian library* ...

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.

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.
Marston
Religion is the opiate of the masses Smile.
Ryan Marcus
Marston wrote:
Religion is the opiate of the masses Smile.


But are masses really required?
Marston
Err... I'll define opiate so that you can get mad at me for posting it Smile.

Quote:
opiate-
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.
The Conspirator
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]
naamawaisel
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.
Ryan Marcus
The Conspirator wrote:
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.

It would be a religion if they were to call it that.
Quote:

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.

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.
Indi
Ryan Marcus wrote:
Quote:

Whoa whoa whoa >_< What kind of science allows you disregard "holes" in theories?

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:
Quote:

None that I know of.

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:
Quote:

That's not science, that's just nonsense.

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:
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.

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:
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.

I honestly have no idea what point you think you're making, but you're definition of science is kinda narrow.

Ryan Marcus wrote:
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.

What is the point?
The Conspirator
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.
cknight411
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.
alawe2el
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 Judasm, 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. Sad
silvermesh
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/
Indi
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?
The Conspirator
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.
Shike
Soulfire wrote:
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.


If you look at the teachings of Zen Buddhism, there is no god, but that which is in yourself.
Shike
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.
book
Simulator wrote:
For me, a religion is a set of moral guidelines to which a person must live their lives. Would ye agree?
ale dupa :/
Ryan Marcus
Indi wrote:
Ryan Marcus wrote:
Quote:

Whoa whoa whoa >_< What kind of science allows you disregard "holes" in theories?

One that involves faith.

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:

Ryan Marcus wrote:
Quote:

None that I know of.

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.

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:

Ryan Marcus wrote:
Quote:

That's not science, that's just nonsense.

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.

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:

Ryan Marcus wrote:
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.

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:

Ryan Marcus wrote:
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.

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:

Ryan Marcus wrote:
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.

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. Wink
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. Wink
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.
ibay
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.
Ryan Marcus
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.
Indi
Ryan Marcus wrote:
Indi wrote:
Ryan Marcus wrote:
Quote:

Whoa whoa whoa >_< What kind of science allows you disregard "holes" in theories?

One that involves faith.

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.

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:
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

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:
Quote:

Ryan Marcus wrote:
Quote:

That's not science, that's just nonsense.

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.

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:
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.

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:
Quote:

Ryan Marcus wrote:
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.

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.

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:
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.

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:
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.

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.
Ryan Marcus
Indi wrote:
Ryan Marcus wrote:
Indi wrote:
Ryan Marcus wrote:
Quote:

Whoa whoa whoa >_< What kind of science allows you disregard "holes" in theories?

One that involves faith.

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.

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:

Ryan Marcus wrote:
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

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.

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. Wink
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:

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.

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:

Ryan Marcus wrote:
Quote:

Ryan Marcus wrote:
Quote:

That's not science, that's just nonsense.

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.

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.

Would get off ID already? Wink

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:

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?

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:

Ryan Marcus wrote:
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.

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:

Ryan Marcus wrote:
Quote:

Ryan Marcus wrote:
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.

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.

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:
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:

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:

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.

Yes, and I filled it this void later.
[
Quote:

Ryan Marcus wrote:
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.

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:

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?

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. Wink

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. Wink
Indi
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.

Ryan Marcus wrote:
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,

Correct. That conclusion falls out of several components of the definition of science.

Ryan Marcus wrote:
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.

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:
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.

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 anything that meets the requirements of that definition is duct tape.

That would be a silly answer to that question. Why would you say that? Granted, it's absolutely true, but you're not answering the person's question.

Are you claiming that you asked me what science is and I gave you that answer? Lies. You never asked what me science is, you told me what you think science is, and that everything I have described science to be so far is only my opinion. What I said - science is what science is, and anything that meets the requirements of that definition is science - is absolutely true, but it is not the answer to "what is science". But then, you never asked that question, so why would you expect an answer to it?

Ryan Marcus wrote:
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.

Yes, I am using my judgement. I am using the definition of science - the single, standard, objective definition - as a metric to judge whether or not ID is a science. What's the problem with that?

Ryan Marcus wrote:
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. Wink
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.

It does not have all the requirements. It fails on several counts, including parsimony and falsifiability.

Ryan Marcus wrote:
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!

I don't understand what you're saying. That sometimes science is/was wrong? Duh. There are many scientific theories that are not true, but once it is shown that they are not true, a new theory is sought to replace them. Science is not truth. Sometimes there are mistakes, sometimes there are theories that are dead wrong. But as long as the process is followed correctly (that one, standard, universal, objective process that you don't believe exists), false theories will be weeded out eventually.

Or to put it another way, there is no guarantee at all that a scientific theory is right. The only thing you can say about it is that it is more right than the theory it replaced.
Ryan Marcus wrote:
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.

The "masses" may determine what the dictionary says, they may change the definition of "science", but they won't change the definition of science. They certainly didn't make everyone who was cheerful a homosexual simply by changing the definition of the word.

Ryan Marcus wrote:
Indi wrote:
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?

?

Er, anyway... anytime a scientist runs into a "little problem", they should stop to determine what the cause of that problem is (or, at the very least, report it so that someone else can find the cause of the problem). They should not ignore it and move on. In fact, if they do, that's professional misconduct. Very bad. As in, career ending bad.

Ryan Marcus wrote:
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.

What's your point? That Einstein's first take was incomplete? Duh. You don't seem to grasp how progress happens.

Everyone thought Newton's theory was correct, until a problem was found. By your logic, we should have ignored that problem and kept chugging on. But in reality, as soon as the problem was discovered, scientists fell all over themselves trying to understand the cause of the apparent hole in Newton mechanics. Some proposed things like aether drag, others said the experimental apparatus was flawed, etc. etc. Eventually, Einstein came up with an explanation that satisfied virtually everything known at the time.

But, as you said, as well as it worked there were still holes in that theory. Again, by your logic they should have simply been ignored. Not quite. Instead, Einstein worked for years trying to figure out a way to explain everything, and finally figured out the missing component. He plugged the holes, he didn't ignore them.

Ryan Marcus wrote:
We don't understand electromagnetism, we don't even try to. But the generators work, and everybody knows it.

Wha? Dude. -_- You are suffering from several serious misconceptions.

First... who is this "we" that doesn't understand electromagnetism? I understand it just fine. Get a good book and you will, too.

Second... if anyone wanted to understand electromagnetism why wouldn't they try to? Why wouldn't they just get a book and learn it? Who gains anything by them standing there and saying "I dunno"? The way to increase knowlege is to seek answers to what you can't explain, the way to maintain ignorance is to simply not try.

Third... of course generators work. You're not implying that they work even though no one understands how they work, are you? Nonsense. The first electromagnetic generator was designed by Faraday... right after he figured out the link between electricity and magnetism, thus discovering electromagnetism. The electromagnetic generator wasn't just spontaneously invented by someone who didn't know what they were doing. Electromagnetism was discovered first, then it was applied.

Fourth... you're confusing science and technology. It is fully possible that there would be some technology in use that science can't explain. Yet. But that doesn't mean that scientists ignore the fact that they can't explain it. That's where they would do their research.

Ryan Marcus wrote:
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?

? I don't know? What does it matter? Surely you're not implying that scientists were just ignoring the shortcomings of the theory during that period. That's the period they were trying to explain the holes! And they did.

Ryan Marcus wrote:
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.

You're confusing science and technology. Technology does not require a scientific explanation to be in use. You are allowed to use a device while ignoring the fact that you don't understand how it works. A scientist is not allowed to simply ignore things in his theory or experiment that don't meet his expectations.

But... for the record... what the hell? You think we don't know how a computer or a light works?

Ryan Marcus wrote:
Ryan Marcus wrote:
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:

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.

Yes, yes. Again, we got that. Ok? We understand. Alright? Sometimes holes in theories will be overlooked because of religious reasons. We got it the first time you said it. You don't need to keep repeating it. We got it. But my point was that that's not always the case. Sometimes a hole might be overlooked simply because we do not realize it is a hole.

Regardless, if you are aware of any holes in a scientific theory or experiment, it is your duty as a scientist to document and explore them. Failure to do so is failure to do science.

Ryan Marcus wrote:
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. Wink

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.

B5?

So, your claim is that anything - any belief - can be a religion. All you need is someone to say that it is. Correct?

Ryan Marcus wrote:
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. Wink

So you believe that there is no objective definition for what a religion is. Anything you call a religion is a religion. Anything you don't is not. And also, only the person who has the belief gets to decide whether it's a religion or not. Correct?

All of that sounds like patent nonsense to me. What happens (for example), when two people share the exact same belief(s), and one calls it a religion and the other does not? Is it a religion or is it not in that case?

And... consider this. I want tax exemption for my pizza religion. Since, by your definition, my pizza definition is a religion the same ans any other religion, it should be entitled to all the same benefits as other religions. What do you say to that?
Ryan Marcus
Indi wrote:
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?

I changed my mind about ID, I'm allowed to do that Wink.

Here, I can quote myself:
Quote:

However, after doing some research, I agree with you. Sorry about that.

I think science has a single meaning... using logic (or trying to) to put "evidence" together to form a conclusion.
Quote:

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.

Science and religion cross paths a lot, everybody knows that. Just because religion says something about science or that something is science, does not mean it has to be discarded.

Yes, in my opinion, ID is not science, as in the thing, but to a lot of people it is.

There are plenty of other examples of science in religion, ID was a bad one.
Quote:

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.

Sure. I'll agree with you.

But I would like to point out you said "standards." Who sets these standards?
Quote:

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.

Yep.
Quote:

Ryan Marcus wrote:
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,

Correct. That conclusion falls out of several components of the definition of science.

I'll let people know: It is not science because Indi said so!

But I see your point. By today's popular definiton (and thats really all that matters... the popular definiton) ID does not qualify.
Quote:

Ryan Marcus wrote:
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.

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.

Hehe. Sure, I'll go for that. But here is the problem. People don't care about that. At all. People care about what they are told, and the definition of science changes when the people deicde to change it. Unlike a rose and a helicopter, science is not a concrete noun, its abstract, and thus it can be changed.
Quote:

Ryan Marcus wrote:
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.

As I've been trying to explain - and I hope it's clear now - this is not my opinion. It is what science is.

Once agian, by your definiton. It's pretty clear that most people (and thus the popular definition) agree with you. However, it is not a static defintion.
Quote:

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 anything that meets the requirements of that definition is duct tape.

That would be a silly answer to that question. Why would you say that? Granted, it's absolutely true, but you're not answering the person's question.

Are you claiming that you asked me what science is and I gave you that answer? Lies. You never asked what me science is, you told me what you think science is, and that everything I have described science to be so far is only my opinion. What I said - science is what science is, and anything that meets the requirements of that definition is science - is absolutely true, but it is not the answer to "what is science". But then, you never asked that question, so why would you expect an answer to it?

Because of the natural human instict to pick at things they disagree with while ignoring the overall topic. Wink
Quote:

Ryan Marcus wrote:
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.

Yes, I am using my judgement. I am using the definition of science - the single, standard, objective definition - as a metric to judge whether or not ID is a science. What's the problem with that?

I guess I misunderstood you. I thought you where declaring the definition of science to be static, when it is dynamic.
Quote:

Ryan Marcus wrote:
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. Wink
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.

It does not have all the requirements. It fails on several counts, including parsimony and falsifiability.

I agreed with you, remember?
Quote:

Ryan Marcus wrote:
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:

I don't understand what you're saying. That sometimes science is/was wrong? Duh. There are many scientific theories that are not true, but once it is shown that they are not true, a new theory is sought to replace them. Science is not truth. Sometimes there are mistakes, sometimes there are theories that are dead wrong. But as long as the process is followed correctly (that one, standard, universal, objective process that you don't believe exists), false theories will be weeded out eventually.

I definitly misunderstood you. Yes, I agree that science has a universal defintion, I just wanted to make it clear that this defintion is dynamic, not static. I clearly did not do a very good job of making myself clear.
Quote:

Or to put it another way, there is no guarantee at all that a scientific theory is right. The only thing you can say about it is that it is more right than the theory it replaced.

That is why it is called a theory.
Quote:

Ryan Marcus wrote:
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.

The "masses" may determine what the dictionary says, they may change the definition of "science", but they won't change the definition of science. They certainly didn't make everyone who was cheerful a homosexual simply by changing the definition of the word.

No, but they stopped appling the word "gay" to non-homosexuals. This became the way to do it, and everybody (barring the Flinstones) joined in. If they changed what "science" was, what was flagged as science and what has not flagged as science would also change. If they are flagged, I mean. Not the things itself.
Quote:

Ryan Marcus wrote:
Indi wrote:
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?

?

Er, anyway... anytime a scientist runs into a "little problem", they should stop to determine what the cause of that problem is (or, at the very least, report it so that someone else can find the cause of the problem). They should not ignore it and move on. In fact, if they do, that's professional misconduct. Very bad. As in, career ending bad.

Sure. But we are misunderstanding each other.

Quote:

Scientists just blatantly ignore shortcomings in their theories and "push forward"?

By push forward, I ment continue working, not just forget about the problem. Bad choice of words on my part.
Quote:

Ryan Marcus wrote:
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.

What's your point? That Einstein's first take was incomplete? Duh. You don't seem to grasp how progress happens.

Everyone thought Newton's theory was correct, until a problem was found. By your logic, we should have ignored that problem and kept chugging on. But in reality, as soon as the problem was discovered, scientists fell all over themselves trying to understand the cause of the apparent hole in Newton mechanics. Some proposed things like aether drag, others said the experimental apparatus was flawed, etc. etc. Eventually, Einstein came up with an explanation that satisfied virtually everything known at the time.

No, by my logic, we should have continued to look into it to figure it out. Props to Einstien.
Quote:

But, as you said, as well as it worked there were still holes in that theory. Again, by your logic they should have simply been ignored. Not quite. Instead, Einstein worked for years trying to figure out a way to explain everything, and finally figured out the missing component. He plugged the holes, he didn't ignore them.

I did not mean that the scienctist should ignore it, I said the public should disregard it temporarly, keeping in mind that it is still there.

Now don't go saying "we can't just disregard those things." Of course we can. If we waited until we knew everything about a subject, we would still be living in caves.

Quote:

Ryan Marcus wrote:
We don't understand electromagnetism, we don't even try to. But the generators work, and everybody knows it.

Wha? Dude. -_- You are suffering from several serious misconceptions.

First... who is this "we" that doesn't understand electromagnetism? I understand it just fine. Get a good book and you will, too.


HA!

I know some doctors who would like to talk to you about your complete understanding of electromagnetism.

For example, WHY does the moving magnetic field cause the electrons to move? Why do moving electrons cause a magnetic field? We just don't know the answers. We have half answers, but nothing complete.

Quote:

Second... if anyone wanted to understand electromagnetism why wouldn't they try to? Why wouldn't they just get a book and learn it? Who gains anything by them standing there and saying "I dunno"? The way to increase knowlege is to seek answers to what you can't explain, the way to maintain ignorance is to simply not try.

People are trying to figure it out. The problem is that book has yet to be written.

And if I am incorrect, and we truly have unravled all the mystries of electromagnetism, then I am sure I could get some more complex theories to work for my example.

Quote:

Third... of course generators work. You're not implying that they work even though no one understands how they work, are you? Nonsense. The first electromagnetic generator was designed by Faraday... right after he figured out the link between electricity and magnetism, thus discovering electromagnetism. The electromagnetic generator wasn't just spontaneously invented by someone who didn't know what they were doing. Electromagnetism was discovered first, then it was applied.

And it was applied while we still did not know everything about it, because we barred the current mysterious to get something out of it.
Quote:

Fourth... you're confusing science and technology. It is fully possible that there would be some technology in use that science can't explain. Yet. But that doesn't mean that scientists ignore the fact that they can't explain it. That's where they would do their research.

No, the scientists do not ignore the fact that there are "holes" or "more questions," they continue to look into it. But does that stop us from applying what we do know? As you said, no it does not.
Quote:

Ryan Marcus wrote:
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?

? I don't know? What does it matter? Surely you're not implying that scientists were just ignoring the shortcomings of the theory during that period. That's the period they were trying to explain the holes! And they did.

Right. The scientists were not ignoring them. But, and I am REALLY not sure about this, but if there was a way to apply the current theory (with the "holes" in it) then I am sure people would not have waited for Einstien to figure it out.
Quote:

Ryan Marcus wrote:
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.

You're confusing science and technology. Technology does not require a scientific explanation to be in use. You are allowed to use a device while ignoring the fact that you don't understand how it works. A scientist is not allowed to simply ignore things in his theory or experiment that don't meet his expectations.

Let's face it... All science is aimed at technology or understanding. Most of it at technology. I think (and I'm pretty darn sure I'm misreading this) that you are saying there is not science behind these technologies. Yes, there is, and I think you know that and just did not state it.

And sure the scienctist can ignore things, temporarily. Plenty of inventors ignored things to create their invention. The same thing can be applied to science aimmed at understanding. If somebody thinks they know how the universe was created, and there is a clear hole in it, but he proposes it anyway, and it is accepted, because it is better then the other theories.
Quote:

But... for the record... what the hell? You think we don't know how a computer or a light works?

No, we know how they work on a basic level, but when you break things down, there are still things we don't quite comprehend. I'm talking mostly at a sub-atomic level.
Quote:

Ryan Marcus wrote:
Ryan Marcus wrote:
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:

Oi. -_-

Yeah, we covered that. If it was faith it would be religion. But it might not be faith. It might just be ignorance.

Sometimes not much difference.

They could, IN SOME CASES, be the same thing.

Yes, yes. Again, we got that. Ok? We understand. Alright? Sometimes holes in theories will be overlooked because of religious reasons. We got it the first time you said it. You don't need to keep repeating it. We got it. But my point was that that's not always the case. Sometimes a hole might be overlooked simply because we do not realize it is a hole.

Regardless, if you are aware of any holes in a scientific theory or experiment, it is your duty as a scientist to document and explore them. Failure to do so is failure to do science.

Yes, you need to document and explore them, but that does not prevent you from applying or presenting your theory.
Quote:

Ryan Marcus wrote:
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. Wink

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.

B5?

Babaloyn 5. Old TV show. Nevermind.
Quote:

So, your claim is that anything - any belief - can be a religion. All you need is someone to say that it is. Correct?

Yes. Every religion is a set of beliefs, but not every belief is a religion.
Quote:

Ryan Marcus wrote:
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. Wink

So you believe that there is no objective definition for what a religion is. Anything you call a religion is a religion. Anything you don't is not. And also, only the person who has the belief gets to decide whether it's a religion or not. Correct?

All of that sounds like patent nonsense to me. What happens (for example), when two people share the exact same belief(s), and one calls it a religion and the other does not? Is it a religion or is it not in that case?

One person cleary feels more involved with those beliefs then the other. Lots of people think you should not kill and do not call themselves any relgion that has the 10 commandments.

It sounds to me like your saying if I think you should not kill, or cheat on your wife/husband, that I must be a religion that has the 10 commandments.
Quote:

And... consider this. I want tax exemption for my pizza religion. Since, by your definition, my pizza definition is a religion the same ans any other religion, it should be entitled to all the same benefits as other religions. What do you say to that?

Does your religion provide service to the community? Do you meet the requirments for the benifits? If so, then sure! These are how new religions are born.


I should also probably say that I'm a Uniterrian, and thus have to be (and like being) "tolerent of others beliefs," so while you might say "bah, Pizzaism!" I would be religiously inclined to say "Ok."
udaykamboj
I think religion is a way to live life in the best way and get as close to God as possible and get rid of the birth-death viscious cycle!
Ryan Marcus
udaykamboj wrote:
I think religion is a way to live life in the best way and get as close to God as possible and get rid of the birth-death viscious cycle!


A definition of religion can not include the word "God."

And find me a religion that "get[s] rid of the birth-death viscious cycle!"
picsite
yes i agree....religion is a set of morals and rules which you live your life by. That is why we have new religions popping up even today. For example Tom Cruises weird named one...its still a religion because he follows it
The Conspirator
I have a set of morels and rules that I live by but that is not my religion, I have no religion. My morels are based on my philosophy which is a non religious philosophy.
Many peoples morel and ethical philosophy's may be based on religious principle but morels and ethics are philosophical not religious in nature.
People often bundle philosophy, theology, and religion together but (even though the are intertwine) are not the same things.
Ryan Marcus
The Conspirator wrote:
I have a set of morels and rules that I live by but that is not my religion, I have no religion. My morels are based on my philosophy which is a non religious philosophy.
Many peoples morel and ethical philosophy's may be based on religious principle but morels and ethics are philosophical not religious in nature.
People often bundle philosophy, theology, and religion together but (even though the are intertwine) are not the same things.


Yes, I agree. All to often.

As I stated above, somebody who thinks Jesus is not the Messiah does not have to be Jewish, and somebody who thinks you should not kill does not have to be a religion with the 10 commandments.

Once again, religion is a set beliefs, not every set of beliefs is a religion, but every religion is a set of beliefs. I'm not saying that a religion can't mean more to you then a set beliefs, but that is what they are.

When you think about it, that is what everything is. Science... beliefs. Physiology... beliefs. The sun rising tommrrow... beliefs.
Indi
Ryan Marcus wrote:
I think science has a single meaning... using logic (or trying to) to put "evidence" together to form a conclusion.

Right, but it's more than just that. Using logic to find a solution isn't enough to make a thing science. Let me give you two examples of finding a solution by logic that aren't science.

First, I say every Garg is a Fook. Torok is a Gark. Thus Torok is a Fook. That's logic, and the arrival at the conclusion was very logical. But it sure ain't science.

Second, I say that the Earth is flat, and if you sail off one side then fairies pick you up and put you back on the other, erasing your memory in the process. Now, we have lots of evidence that the world is round, including pictures from space. So clearly that must mean that the fairies are not only changing our memories, they are messing with our scientific equipment and cameras in order to protect their secrecy. That's quite a logical deduction. But it sure ain't science.
Ryan Marcus wrote:
Science and religion cross paths a lot, everybody knows that. Just because religion says something about science or that something is science, does not mean it has to be discarded.

Correct. As I have said, the definition of what is and what is not science determines that.

Ryan Marcus wrote:
Yes, in my opinion, ID is not science, as in the thing, but to a lot of people it is.

There are plenty of other examples of science in religion, ID was a bad one.

I think you'll find that most science in religion is bad. The onus is on you to find an example that is not. Good luck.
Ryan Marcus wrote:
But I would like to point out you said "standards." Who sets these standards?

They were codified and described millenia ago, but they have evolved to become more formalized and clear over time. Although it's hard to pin down exactly how and it was developed, credit is generally given to a branch of early Muslim thinking called Mu'tazilism for the founding principles of modern science. Then over time, various people have come along and formalized specific components, like William of Ockham around 1300 (Ockham's Razor), Francis Bacon around 1600 (experimental method), Robert Boyle around 1650 (repeatability), Isaac Newton around 1700 (predicting and hypotheses) and Karl Popper in the 1930's (falsifiability).

Ryan Marcus wrote:
Quote:

Ryan Marcus wrote:
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,

Correct. That conclusion falls out of several components of the definition of science.

I'll let people know: It is not science because Indi said so!

But I see your point. By today's popular definiton (and thats really all that matters... the popular definiton) ID does not qualify.

It has nothing to do with whether I say so or not, or with popular opinion. The original Mu'tazilist definition of science implied that but never said so specifically. William of Ockham's work made that explicit. A scientific theory should introduce the least amount of unknowns possible. Or to put it another way: "Only the most necessary leaps of faith are allowed in science".

You see? You keep accusing me of dictating my opinion and calling it fact. I'm not. I'm using the definition of science - the one, single definition - to make that determination. Sure, people can have their own subjective definitions of what science is, but science requires an objective definition in order for ideas to be correctly communicated and amalgamated. So your subjective definition means nothing in the end. What matters is what can objectively be determined to be science and scientific, so that people can determine what ideas can be shared in the realm of science, and how.

Just because you're ignorant of a fact that I state does not mean that it must be my opinion.

Ryan Marcus wrote:
Hehe. Sure, I'll go for that. But here is the problem. People don't care about that. At all. People care about what they are told, and the definition of science changes when the people deicde to change it. Unlike a rose and a helicopter, science is not a concrete noun, its abstract, and thus it can be changed.

Yes, well, I don't care about what people care. I'm an engineer, not a politician. Science is what science is, not what people call science. Just because "science" is an abstract noun does not mean it cannot be well-defined.

Sure the definition of science can be changed, but then so can the definition of concrete nouns. Once upon a time "star" meant only those little lights in the sky and "sun" meant the big one you see during the day. Now, we know that the two words are synonyms, because we have learned more about the nature of the things that the words describe.

Same with science. The definition of science may change as we learn more about what the implications and limitations of the current definition are. But still, at any given time, science is defined by its definition, not popular opinion.

Ryan Marcus wrote:
I guess I misunderstood you. I thought you where declaring the definition of science to be static, when it is dynamic.

Well of course it's dynamic if you consider it across the entire arc of human history. -_- Good grief, stone age monkey men didn't consider Ockham's Razor when they were trying to determine why the sun rose and set in a relatively steady pattern. So obviously the definition is dynamic when you consider such broad absolutes.

Yes, it is temporally dynamic... meaning that it can, has and will change as we learn more about the philosopy of science. But then, that's true for anything. But it is not dynamic in the sense that it is variable across the population. At any given time (notwithstanding, of course, periods when a new idea about the defintion of science are being absorbed by the science world - periods during a paradigm shift), the definition of science is a single, fixed definition.

Or to put it another way, if you consider a couple thousand years of human history, then yes, the definition varies. But today it is a constant definition, and if you consider 100 years from any given point, it will be pretty much constant over that period, too.

So the question is what do you mean when you say dynamic? Do you mean the obvious, trivial meaning - as in dynamic over all of its history? Or do you mean dynamic today, as in people using it today have to be aware that it could change at any time, and may vary from person to person?

If you mean the former, then duh. If you mean the latter, then no, the definition of science is not dynamic.

Ryan Marcus wrote:
I agreed with you, remember?

And as I'm still trying to explain to you - this is not about agreeing with anyone. This is about recognizing the universal definition of science and applying its metrics objectively.

You want my personal opinion? I think the basis of ID is pretty neat idea, and pretty damned clsoe to being scientific, and I think it does deserve thought. Hell, I even wrote about it once - not in the context of creation or evolution, but in the context of artificial intelligence. But I realize that it's not science, not by the definition of science, and that my opinion is irrelevant.

Ryan Marcus wrote:
Quote:
Regardless, if you are aware of any holes in a scientific theory or experiment, it is your duty as a scientist to document and explore them. Failure to do so is failure to do science.

Yes, you need to document and explore them, but that does not prevent you from applying or presenting your theory.

What happened to "Disregarding holes and pushing forward, not looking away because you see a problem, is what keeps science going"?

I never claimed holes would present you from presenting or applying your theory. In fact, I clearly said the opposite. Yes, you can present and/or apply a theory with holes, but holes must be explored or at least acknowledged. MUST. It is enough if you don't want to or can't explore the holes yourself to simply document their existence so that others can, but you cannot simply ignore them and move on. CANNOT.

Ryan Marcus wrote:
Quote:

So, your claim is that anything - any belief - can be a religion. All you need is someone to say that it is. Correct?

Yes. Every religion is a set of beliefs, but not every belief is a religion.

And - according to you - the only criteria for determining what belief is a religion is that the person who holds that belief must say that it is. Correct?

Ryan Marcus wrote:
Quote:
So you believe that there is no objective definition for what a religion is. Anything you call a religion is a religion. Anything you don't is not. And also, only the person who has the belief gets to decide whether it's a religion or not. Correct?

All of that sounds like patent nonsense to me. What happens (for example), when two people share the exact same belief(s), and one calls it a religion and the other does not? Is it a religion or is it not in that case?

One person cleary feels more involved with those beliefs then the other. Lots of people think you should not kill and do not call themselves any relgion that has the 10 commandments.

It sounds to me like your saying if I think you should not kill, or cheat on your wife/husband, that I must be a religion that has the 10 commandments.

I have no idea what you're talking about, or why you would think that you need a religion in order to have a reason not to kill or sleep around, or how on Earth you could get any of that from anything I have said.

Ryan Marcus wrote:
Quote:

And... consider this. I want tax exemption for my pizza religion. Since, by your definition, my pizza definition is a religion the same ans any other religion, it should be entitled to all the same benefits as other religions. What do you say to that?

Does your religion provide service to the community? Do you meet the requirments for the benifits? If so, then sure! These are how new religions are born.


I should also probably say that I'm a Uniterrian, and thus have to be (and like being) "tolerent of others beliefs," so while you might say "bah, Pizzaism!" I would be religiously inclined to say "Ok."

See, that can't work in reality. I'm sorry, political correctness sounds like a neat idea, and it sure would be nice if everyone was free to define the world as they saw fit rather than having to accept objective definitions, but the world just can't work that way. You can't just have everyone defining things their own way, according to their own, subjective, personal metric, because in order for the world to work we have to communicate, and in order to communicate, we need concrete definitions to make sure we're all talking about the same things.

To show you the absurdity of what you propose, imagine if the owner of Walmart decided to call Walmart a religion. "Worship at Walmart! Pay a tithe and get holy bargains in return!" Does it provide a service? Yes, low prices and convenient one-stop shopping. Does it meet the requirements for the benefits? It certainly could, for example by becoming non-profit simply by reinvesting all profits in new stores, thus "spreading the religion".

You say sure? You say it's a religion? Congratulations! *two thumbs up* You've just created a new world order! Under those conditions Walmart could completely own North America - government and all - inside of ten years. The world shortly after. The CEO of Walmart will be the new Chairman of the World. At any time he could simply declare that it is no longer a religion and start raking in the profits. Or he could just continue to let his well-financed religion spread until he really does control the world.

You can't have a world where anyone is free to make their own definitions. This is not intolerance, this is simple logic. We must all communicate to coexist, and communication requires common definitions.

Thus, we need a common, universal definition of what a religion is. You can go ahead and do what your religion inclines you to do, but I'm involved in the business of making the world work, and we need standard, common definitions to make it work.
Ryan Marcus
Indi wrote:
Ryan Marcus wrote:
I think science has a single meaning... using logic (or trying to) to put "evidence" together to form a conclusion.

Right, but it's more than just that. Using logic to find a solution isn't enough to make a thing science. Let me give you two examples of finding a solution by logic that aren't science.

First, I say every Garg is a Fook. Torok is a Gark. Thus Torok is a Fook. That's logic, and the arrival at the conclusion was very logical. But it sure ain't science.

Second, I say that the Earth is flat, and if you sail off one side then fairies pick you up and put you back on the other, erasing your memory in the process. Now, we have lots of evidence that the world is round, including pictures from space. So clearly that must mean that the fairies are not only changing our memories, they are messing with our scientific equipment and cameras in order to protect their secrecy. That's quite a logical deduction. But it sure ain't science.

Sure, but where is your proof?

I do say evidence. We have much more evidence to support the earth being round then we do for the fairy theory. If you take small pieces of something, you can always drift away from the larger picture. If I where to take the evidence that atoms are made of three different things, I could conclude the world will fall apart because they are not being held together.
Quote:

Ryan Marcus wrote:
Science and religion cross paths a lot, everybody knows that. Just because religion says something about science or that something is science, does not mean it has to be discarded.

Correct. As I have said, the definition of what is and what is not science determines that.

Ryan Marcus wrote:
Yes, in my opinion, ID is not science, as in the thing, but to a lot of people it is.

There are plenty of other examples of science in religion, ID was a bad one.

I think you'll find that most science in religion is bad. The onus is on you to find an example that is not. Good luck.

Alright.. here it goes.

Our current pope (this is sad, don't know his name) declared that Catholics believe in evolution.

The Church of Jesus Christ and the Ladderday Saints (Mormons) where told by Joseph Smith about how to use geology to see "back through time."

This is harder then it seems... I'll go hit the books and find some more later.

But that is not the point. The point is that most of the science is bad... but not all.
Quote:

Ryan Marcus wrote:
But I would like to point out you said "standards." Who sets these standards?

They were codified and described millenia ago, but they have evolved to become more formalized and clear over time. Although it's hard to pin down exactly how and it was developed, credit is generally given to a branch of early Muslim thinking called Mu'tazilism for the founding principles of modern science. Then over time, various people have come along and formalized specific components, like William of Ockham around 1300 (Ockham's Razor), Francis Bacon around 1600 (experimental method), Robert Boyle around 1650 (repeatability), Isaac Newton around 1700 (predicting and hypotheses) and Karl Popper in the 1930's (falsifiability).

Alright, but thank you for clarifying that they are not set in stone. Although I have no idea about the creation of science, I'd put my bet on the Mesopotamians, not the Musslims. I've got nothing to back that up.
Ryan Marcus wrote:
Quote:

Ryan Marcus wrote:
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,

Correct. That conclusion falls out of several components of the definition of science.

I'll let people know: It is not science because Indi said so!

But I see your point. By today's popular definiton (and thats really all that matters... the popular definiton) ID does not qualify.

It has nothing to do with whether I say so or not, or with popular opinion. The original Mu'tazilist definition of science implied that but never said so specifically. William of Ockham's work made that explicit. A scientific theory should introduce the least amount of unknowns possible. Or to put it another way: "Only the most necessary leaps of faith are allowed in science".
[/quote]
Ok, I made my point badly. I was not trying to accuse, but as I read my own post that is what it sounds like. Sorry.

I should have said that the meaning of science, like the U.S. constitution, is up for interpretation.
Quote:

You see? You keep accusing me of dictating my opinion and calling it fact. I'm not. I'm using the definition of science - the one, single definition - to make that determination.

No, its your interpretation of that meaning. And yes, I should stop accusing you and I apologize.
Quote:

Sure, people can have their own subjective definitions of what science is, but science requires an objective definition in order for ideas to be correctly communicated and amalgamated. So your subjective definition means nothing in the end. What matters is what can objectively be determined to be science and scientific, so that people can determine what ideas can be shared in the realm of science, and how.

Just because you're ignorant of a fact that I state does not mean that it must be my opinion.

Hm, so its a two way street. Wink

I still don't think any one person or organization can judge what is and what is not science... people need to (get ready for corny lines) look into themselves and make a judgment on it.

That is not what my opinion was, but that is what it is now.
Quote:

Ryan Marcus wrote:
Hehe. Sure, I'll go for that. But here is the problem. People don't care about that. At all. People care about what they are told, and the definition of science changes when the people deicde to change it. Unlike a rose and a helicopter, science is not a concrete noun, its abstract, and thus it can be changed.

Yes, well, I don't care about what people care. I'm an engineer, not a politician. Science is what science is, not what people call science. Just because "science" is an abstract noun does not mean it cannot be well-defined.

Of course it does. "Love" is not well definied. "Hate" is not well defined. These things discribe complex feelings and emotions, and can't be put into words.

I'm not saying you can't define all abstract nouns. Don't start with me there Wink.

Your right. Science is what science is. And what science is is based apon what you (not you Indi, but you as in the people) define it as and what you will accept and not accept.
Quote:

Sure the definition of science can be changed, but then so can the definition of concrete nouns. Once upon a time "star" meant only those little lights in the sky and "sun" meant the big one you see during the day. Now, we know that the two words are synonyms, because we have learned more about the nature of the things that the words describe.

Not really. When people say "sun" they assume you are talking about the sun, and when you say "star" they are assuming otherwise.

Don't really know why I just typed that. I agree with you. While there are some concrete nouns that can change, I think it is a more general characteristic of abstract nouns.
Quote:

Same with science. The definition of science may change as we learn more about what the implications and limitations of the current definition are. But still, at any given time, science is defined by its definition, not popular opinion.

Yes, it is definied by your (once again, you as in the people) defintion. However, for most people, this opinion is based on the opinion of others.
Quote:

Ryan Marcus wrote:
I guess I misunderstood you. I thought you where declaring the definition of science to be static, when it is dynamic.

Well of course it's dynamic if you consider it across the entire arc of human history. -_- Good grief, stone age monkey men didn't consider Ockham's Razor when they were trying to determine why the sun rose and set in a relatively steady pattern. So obviously the definition is dynamic when you consider such broad absolutes.

Yes, it is temporally dynamic... meaning that it can, has and will change as we learn more about the philosopy of science. But then, that's true for anything. But it is not dynamic in the sense that it is variable across the population. At any given time (notwithstanding, of course, periods when a new idea about the defintion of science are being absorbed by the science world - periods during a paradigm shift), the definition of science is a single, fixed definition.

The science world... what was that about not caring about a popular definition?

I agree with your main point... things stay the same until they are changed.
Quote:

Or to put it another way, if you consider a couple thousand years of human history, then yes, the definition varies. But today it is a constant definition, and if you consider 100 years from any given point, it will be pretty much constant over that period, too.

So the question is what do you mean when you say dynamic? Do you mean the obvious, trivial meaning - as in dynamic over all of its history? Or do you mean dynamic today, as in people using it today have to be aware that it could change at any time, and may vary from person to person?

Its dynamic in the sence that the overall definition does not change, but the definition between people will. Yes, it also changes over history, but that was not what I ment to say.
Quote:

If you mean the former, then duh. If you mean the latter, then no, the definition of science is not dynamic.

Of course the definition of science varries person to person. You and I are proof of that!
Quote:

Ryan Marcus wrote:
I agreed with you, remember?

And as I'm still trying to explain to you - this is not about agreeing with anyone. This is about recognizing the universal definition of science and applying its metrics objectively.

Great, and I understand! I'm just saying I am not everybody.
Quote:

You want my personal opinion? I think the basis of ID is pretty neat idea, and pretty damned clsoe to being scientific, and I think it does deserve thought. Hell, I even wrote about it once - not in the context of creation or evolution, but in the context of artificial intelligence. But I realize that it's not science, not by the definition of science, and that my opinion is irrelevant.

I'm not here to argue ID, and I'm not planning on it. Anybody who has a definite side to creationism is either faithful or unaware of the whole thing.
Quote:

Ryan Marcus wrote:
Quote:
Regardless, if you are aware of any holes in a scientific theory or experiment, it is your duty as a scientist to document and explore them. Failure to do so is failure to do science.

Yes, you need to document and explore them, but that does not prevent you from applying or presenting your theory.

What happened to "Disregarding holes and pushing forward, not looking away because you see a problem, is what keeps science going"?

I never claimed holes would present you from presenting or applying your theory. In fact, I clearly said the opposite. Yes, you can present and/or apply a theory with holes, but holes must be explored or at least acknowledged. MUST. It is enough if you don't want to or can't explore the holes yourself to simply document their existence so that others can, but you cannot simply ignore them and move on. CANNOT.

That is an opinion. Of course you can. If your trying to rush to something, it might just "slip your mind" that an atomic bomb will radiate a city for much longer then a week.

Normally, these things are picked up. Your saying if I find the start of a cure for HIV, but there is a hole, I should figure it out. That's right. But what if I don't want to work on my project anymore? Better to document them and let somebody else deal.
Quote:

Ryan Marcus wrote:
Quote:

So, your claim is that anything - any belief - can be a religion. All you need is someone to say that it is. Correct?

Yes. Every religion is a set of beliefs, but not every belief is a religion.

And - according to you - the only criteria for determining what belief is a religion is that the person who holds that belief must say that it is. Correct?

Ryan Marcus wrote:
Quote:
So you believe that there is no objective definition for what a religion is. Anything you call a religion is a religion. Anything you don't is not. And also, only the person who has the belief gets to decide whether it's a religion or not. Correct?

All of that sounds like patent nonsense to me. What happens (for example), when two people share the exact same belief(s), and one calls it a religion and the other does not? Is it a religion or is it not in that case?

One person cleary feels more involved with those beliefs then the other. Lots of people think you should not kill and do not call themselves any relgion that has the 10 commandments.

It sounds to me like your saying if I think you should not kill, or cheat on your wife/husband, that I must be a religion that has the 10 commandments.

I have no idea what you're talking about, or why you would think that you need a religion in order to have a reason not to kill or sleep around, or how on Earth you could get any of that from anything I have said.

Quote:

What happens (for example), when two people share the exact same belief(s), and one calls it a religion and the other does not?

Thats what happens. Non-religious dude can go and not be in the religion, and religious dude can have his.
Quote:

Ryan Marcus wrote:
Quote:

And... consider this. I want tax exemption for my pizza religion. Since, by your definition, my pizza definition is a religion the same ans any other religion, it should be entitled to all the same benefits as other religions. What do you say to that?

Does your religion provide service to the community? Do you meet the requirments for the benifits? If so, then sure! These are how new religions are born.


I should also probably say that I'm a Uniterrian, and thus have to be (and like being) "tolerent of others beliefs," so while you might say "bah, Pizzaism!" I would be religiously inclined to say "Ok."

See, that can't work in reality. I'm sorry, political correctness sounds like a neat idea, and it sure would be nice if everyone was free to define the world as they saw fit rather than having to accept objective definitions, but the world just can't work that way. You can't just have everyone defining things their own way, according to their own, subjective, personal metric, because in order for the world to work we have to communicate, and in order to communicate, we need concrete definitions to make sure we're all talking about the same things.

To show you the absurdity of what you propose, imagine if the owner of Walmart decided to call Walmart a religion. "Worship at Walmart! Pay a tithe and get holy bargains in return!" Does it provide a service? Yes, low prices and convenient one-stop shopping. Does it meet the requirements for the benefits? It certainly could, for example by becoming non-profit simply by reinvesting all profits in new stores, thus "spreading the religion".

You say sure? You say it's a religion? Congratulations! *two thumbs up* You've just created a new world order! Under those conditions Walmart could completely own North America - government and all - inside of ten years. The world shortly after. The CEO of Walmart will be the new Chairman of the World. At any time he could simply declare that it is no longer a religion and start raking in the profits. Or he could just continue to let his well-financed religion spread until he really does control the world.

Good thing we have seperation of church and state, eh?

I think if Walmartism would become a monopoly, relgion or not, people would not care. We would just all work at Walmart.

Once something bad happened, say, a union to get higher raises, and Walmart starting being bad, the goverment would step in to protect peoples rights. Maybe not out of the U.S., but if the Walmarts outside of the US did bad things, they would face the consequences in the US.

Quote:

You can't have a world where anyone is free to make their own definitions. This is not intolerance, this is simple logic. We must all communicate to coexist, and communication requires common definitions.

Not tolerating other definitions and substituting our own is intollerance. If your going to try to press your beliefs on other people, even over something simple, tell me how it works out.
Quote:

Thus, we need a common, universal definition of what a religion is. You can go ahead and do what your religion inclines you to do, but I'm involved in the business of making the world work, and we need standard, common definitions to make it work.


Uniterran's believe in "experiancing all cultures and religions on earth." Having seen so many, we can define them, because we have seen way more of them then the averege person.

And here, I am proposing a universal definition! A set of beliefs! Thats it, because that is what it is. Some are more. None are less. If you want to call those who just meat the line "not religion," then you go ahead and do that.
Mannix
Put simply, religion is belief and reverence for a higher supernatural being.
The Conspirator
Mannix wrote:
Put simply, religion is belief and reverence for a higher supernatural being.

No, not all religions have a god or gods.
Ryan Marcus
The Conspirator wrote:
Mannix wrote:
Put simply, religion is belief and reverence for a higher supernatural being.

No, not all religions have a god or gods.
..... or supnatural beings at all.
Shike
The Conspirator wrote:

People often bundle philosophy, theology, and religion together but (even though the are intertwine) are not the same things.


Yes, but they are all part of a same over-riding thought process, just Taking different paths to get there, like Anthropology, Sociology, and Social Psychology. They all look at the same things, but from very different points of view. Smile
The Conspirator
Shike wrote:
The Conspirator wrote:

People often bundle philosophy, theology, and religion together but (even though the are intertwine) are not the same things.


Yes, but they are all part of a same over-riding thought process, just Taking different paths to get there, like Anthropology, Sociology, and Social Psychology. They all look at the same things, but from very different points of view. Smile

Yes but not every one believes in a god or gods and not every one has a religion but every one has a philosophy.
Soulfire
What do we have to gain from defining religion? Why are we so keen on putting it down on paper, setting limits and restrictions for it. I'm a firm believer that it varies person to person, like so many things.
Indi
Ryan Marcus wrote:
Indi wrote:
Ryan Marcus wrote:
I think science has a single meaning... using logic (or trying to) to put "evidence" together to form a conclusion.

Right, but it's more than just that. Using logic to find a solution isn't enough to make a thing science. Let me give you two examples of finding a solution by logic that aren't science.

First, I say every Garg is a Fook. Torok is a Gark. Thus Torok is a Fook. That's logic, and the arrival at the conclusion was very logical. But it sure ain't science.

Second, I say that the Earth is flat, and if you sail off one side then fairies pick you up and put you back on the other, erasing your memory in the process. Now, we have lots of evidence that the world is round, including pictures from space. So clearly that must mean that the fairies are not only changing our memories, they are messing with our scientific equipment and cameras in order to protect their secrecy. That's quite a logical deduction. But it sure ain't science.

Sure, but where is your proof?

I do say evidence. We have much more evidence to support the earth being round then we do for the fairy theory. If you take small pieces of something, you can always drift away from the larger picture. If I where to take the evidence that atoms are made of three different things, I could conclude the world will fall apart because they are not being held together.

The evidence was that you have no memory of falling off the side of the Earth. Thus, by logic, that memory must have been removed. You see? Evidence and logic. The cornerstones of science... according to you.

Or how about an example we've already covered - ID. Let's look at ID objectively. The theory essentially goes that the universe is sufficiently complex and well-ordered that it is evidence of intelligent design. A bunch of drunken monkeys with a set of Allen keys aren't going to make a Swiss watch. Intelligence is required. Thus you have the evidence - the orderly nature of the universe - and the logic - that order on this scale requires intelligent design. If logic and evidence were all that was required for science, then ID would be science. But you have already discovered that it is not.

Clearly logic and evidence are not the only components of science.

Ryan Marcus wrote:

Alright.. here it goes.

Our current pope (this is sad, don't know his name) declared that Catholics believe in evolution.

The Church of Jesus Christ and the Ladderday Saints (Mormons) where told by Joseph Smith about how to use geology to see "back through time."

This is harder then it seems... I'll go hit the books and find some more later.

But that is not the point. The point is that most of the science is bad... but not all.

*blink* Er... how can you consider any of that to be science in religion?

First of all, I haven't heard that Benedict XVI said any such thing. The previous pope, John Paul II, said that Christianity and Evolution were not incompatible... but that's all. He certainly didn't declare evolution canon. And at any rate, how on Earth can you consider that to be an example of "science in religion"? Catholicism certainly didn't invent evolution, and they certainly don't preach it - in fact, most Catholics believe it's a hoax, and the JP2's wishy-washy endorsement is a sign that even the Vatican is ok with that.

And as for Joe Smith... what? How is that an example if "science in religion"? He didn't come up with the idea of geology, and from what I know of Mormonism, it has nothing to do with the religion, really. Geology was the newest, latest and greatest science at the time of Joe Smith. He wasn't being scientific, he was just jumping on the popular bandwagon. The general attitude of the Mormon church towards science has been lukewarm, but in comparison with most other branches of Christianity that's not bad at all, because at least it isn't outright rejection. Still, the Mormons, like most religions, are more interested in using science to prove their religious beliefs, not in using science for the sake of science, to seek out the truth whatever that may be, even if it contradicts their beliefs.

Ryan Marcus wrote:
Quote:
They were codified and described millenia ago, but they have evolved to become more formalized and clear over time. Although it's hard to pin down exactly how and it was developed, credit is generally given to a branch of early Muslim thinking called Mu'tazilism for the founding principles of modern science. Then over time, various people have come along and formalized specific components, like William of Ockham around 1300 (Ockham's Razor), Francis Bacon around 1600 (experimental method), Robert Boyle around 1650 (repeatability), Isaac Newton around 1700 (predicting and hypotheses) and Karl Popper in the 1930's (falsifiability).

Alright, but thank you for clarifying that they are not set in stone. Although I have no idea about the creation of science, I'd put my bet on the Mesopotamians, not the Musslims. I've got nothing to back that up.

*jawdrop*... You mean... you just... pulled that idea out of your ass? No research. No reading. Just "I feel it must be the Mesopotamians"... and that's it?

I hope to all that's holy in all of the infinite universes that you don't expect anyone to take you seriously. -_-

For the record, I don't know where on Earth you could have gotten the Mesopotamians from. You could argue that the idea started with Plato, but not really. And then Aristotle disagreed with him and corrected him - somewhat. But still, neither one of them tried to codify a system of knowlege based on observation and hypothesis. It was Arab alchemists who took the ideas of Plato and Aristotle, and created the foundation of what is now science. Then Roger Bacon took the works of Mu'tazilism and removed all of the references to Muslim mysticism (arguably being the first person to truly secularize science, although the Mu'tazilists went a long way towards that, too), and it's come down to us from there.

Ryan Marcus wrote:
I should have said that the meaning of science, like the U.S. constitution, is up for interpretation.

Science is not politics. Interpretation is bad in science. Science strives to be as objective as humanly possible so that the need for interpretation is removed. So, no. The meaning of science is not up for interpretation.

Ryan Marcus wrote:
Hm, so its a two way street. Wink

I still don't think any one person or organization can judge what is and what is not science... people need to (get ready for corny lines) look into themselves and make a judgment on it.

That is not what my opinion was, but that is what it is now.

What is a two way street?

You still can't grasp this. I don't know how many different ways I can say it. There is no person or organization who makes that determination. None. No one.

What is science is also not determined by "looking inside yourself", prayer or using the Force. What is science is determined by the definition of what science is. That. Is. All. It's not that complex an idea.

Sure, committees and discussion panels may decide and/or debate whether or not a given thing meets the requirements of the definition. But the requirements themselves are not up for debate or interpretation. They have remained relatively unchanged since they were developed, with only clarifications and better methodology added.

Ryan Marcus wrote:
Quote:
Well of course it's dynamic if you consider it across the entire arc of human history. -_- Good grief, stone age monkey men didn't consider Ockham's Razor when they were trying to determine why the sun rose and set in a relatively steady pattern. So obviously the definition is dynamic when you consider such broad absolutes.

Yes, it is temporally dynamic... meaning that it can, has and will change as we learn more about the philosopy of science. But then, that's true for anything. But it is not dynamic in the sense that it is variable across the population. At any given time (notwithstanding, of course, periods when a new idea about the defintion of science are being absorbed by the science world - periods during a paradigm shift), the definition of science is a single, fixed definition.

The science world... what was that about not caring about a popular definition?

I agree with your main point... things stay the same until they are changed.

Er... what does the phrase "science world" as used in the context above have to do with popular definition? The idea of "opinion" isn't mentioned or even relevant in that statement. I said it takes a while for the world to catch on to a new clarification in the definition of science, during which time there may be more than one definition in use. But once the information about the new clarifications have filtered through to everyone, there is again only one definition in use. What part of that implies that the definition is based on popular opinion?

It's the same thing as talking about periods when a new fact is being absorbed into the general world population. For example, the fact that the Russians launched Sputnik 1 in 1957 is hardly a matter of opinion. But it took some time for the knowledge of that event and its implications to sink into the public consciousness. During that transition phase, some people thought that we had never launched a satellite, some people knew that we had. There is no opinion there, only knowledge based on facts and knowledge based on facts where some facts are missing. The same goes for the definition of science. When a section of it is clarified or expanded there is a period where some scientists know about the changes and some don't. Where on Earth do you think popular opinion fits into that?

Ryan Marcus wrote:
Of course the definition of science varries person to person. You and I are proof of that!

-_- Ooooook. Given the discussion we're having, that has to be possibly the most idiotic evidence you could have presented.

Why? Let's review. I am saying that there is a single, standard definition of science that all scientists share. You are claiming that the definition is nebulous and can vary from person to person.

Let's try to grok the depths of the absurdity of your "evidence" with an example. I am claiming that something - let's take the colour of the daytime sky on a clear day for example - is not subjectively defined. For example, I say the sky is blue, and it doesn't matter who you ask, the sky is only one colour, blue. You are claiming that the colour of the sky depends on the person who is looking at it, for example, someone could say the sky is red. I say no, the sky is blue, even if you say it's red - you can't have different sky colours simply by saying them. Your response: yes, you can, just look at us now - I say the sky is red, you say it's blue - we have two different opinions, which shows that the colour of the sky can be determined by opinion.

Sound idiotic? It is. If you're not going to bother giving serious thought to your arguments, you'll have to explain to me why I should bother to continue taking them seriously.

Ryan Marcus wrote:
Quote:

Ryan Marcus wrote:
Quote:
Regardless, if you are aware of any holes in a scientific theory or experiment, it is your duty as a scientist to document and explore them. Failure to do so is failure to do science.

Yes, you need to document and explore them, but that does not prevent you from applying or presenting your theory.

What happened to "Disregarding holes and pushing forward, not looking away because you see a problem, is what keeps science going"?

I never claimed holes would present you from presenting or applying your theory. In fact, I clearly said the opposite. Yes, you can present and/or apply a theory with holes, but holes must be explored or at least acknowledged. MUST. It is enough if you don't want to or can't explore the holes yourself to simply document their existence so that others can, but you cannot simply ignore them and move on. CANNOT.

That is an opinion. Of course you can. If your trying to rush to something, it might just "slip your mind" that an atomic bomb will radiate a city for much longer then a week.

Normally, these things are picked up. Your saying if I find the start of a cure for HIV, but there is a hole, I should figure it out. That's right. But what if I don't want to work on my project anymore? Better to document them and let somebody else deal.

It is not an opinion, it is a requirement of science. Failure to do so will have you up in front of an ethics board in short order.

I clearly stated that holes may be missed due to simply not recognizing them as holes. Repeatedly. Remember - I kept saying that they could be missed due to ignorance and you kept insisting that it could also be faith?

Furthermore, a moment's thought shows that your rebuttal is absolute nonsense, and your characterization of my position is bunk. Quite obviously you can only document or explore holes that you recognize. Duh. So obviously my strict "you must document and/or explore all holes in your theory" only applies to holes you recognize. Duh. No-one is omnipotent, so no-one can be sure that they're analysis of their theory is perfect and complete. They can try, and it's not hard to determine if an honest effort was made, but no-one can ever be sure that they haven't missed something. If a hole was missed despite an honest and competent attempt to be thorough, oh well. No-one's perfect.

But your position - stated clearly and backed up through repetition - is that scientists do and should ignore holes. Obviously that means holes that they are aware of, because you can't wilfully ignore what you don't know. My response was to that. No. No way, no how. A scientist cannot ignore holes (please don't tell me I have to specify "that they're aware of" every sentence, even when it's blatantly obvious -_-). A scientist that does ignore holes will be called up on charges. They are very, very serious about this. All holes must be documented and, if possible, explored. All.

As for your examples, I don't know what you think the point your making with either of them is. In the first case... what's your point? If you made a mistake and missed a hole accidently, then there should be a hearing on your competence. If it is shown that you missed the hole by incompetence, then you should be penalized. If it is shown that you missed the hole by an honest mistake, then you're in the clear. Of course, if you knew this was a possibility and just kept quiet about it, you should be called up on charges. What's hard to understand about that?

As for the second, no. I'm saying that if you are working on a cure for HIV and you find a hole, you should document and/or explore it (as I have stated repeatedly, but you seem to have ignored the "document" part). That means that if you can explore it, go ahead. You may solve it, which means that when you finally do present your cure, you can present it with no holes. If you can't solve it, then you must document it. You cannot present your theory without mentioning the hole, or you will be guilty of misconduct. Once documented, then, as you said, someone else can deal with it.

Ryan Marcus wrote:
Quote:

What happens (for example), when two people share the exact same belief(s), and one calls it a religion and the other does not?

Thats what happens. Non-religious dude can go and not be in the religion, and religious dude can have his.

But that doesn't help anyone that needs to know whether that set of beliefs is a religion or not.

Ryan Marcus wrote:
Good thing we have seperation of church and state, eh?

I think if Walmartism would become a monopoly, relgion or not, people would not care. We would just all work at Walmart.

Once something bad happened, say, a union to get higher raises, and Walmart starting being bad, the goverment would step in to protect peoples rights. Maybe not out of the U.S., but if the Walmarts outside of the US did bad things, they would face the consequences in the US.

O.O'

People would just... not care... if some company became a global monopoly... and started controlling their lives!?!? That's... insane!!!

But, alright... fine... ignoring that for now because I don't even know how to respond to that...

You didn't read what I wrote. I said by declaring itself a religion, Walmart can circumvent controls that exist to prevent commercial monopolies and thus grow to epic proportions. The government cannot stop them from doing "bad things" because 1) they are a religion, and religions have many protections under the law, and 2) they simply need to refrain from doing "bad things" until they're so big that they can own the government.

Don't think that could possibly happen? Nonsense. History is replete with religious coups of formerly secular governments.

But even setting the Walmart example aside, let's look at an actual real-world example. The current US government is controlled by a faction of thought that calls themselves "neo-conservatives". These people have an agenda, and - at the moment at least - the power to enact that agenda. But are they a religion? By my definition, no. By yours... maybe. Because if the neo-cons call their beliefs a religion, then it is (by your definition). So now, is the US government run by a religious clique? You don't know. You don't know whether or not they actually believe that their beliefs are religiously based. So despite all of your platitudes about the separation of church and state, your government might be a religious government. And the same could be said for any school of thought that came to power. You simply can't know that there is separation of church and state, not if we were to use your definition of religion. That's why we need a clear and objective definition of what religion is, and what is a religion. The idea of separation of church and state is meaningless if we can't know where church ends and state begins.

Ryan Marcus wrote:
Quote:

You can't have a world where anyone is free to make their own definitions. This is not intolerance, this is simple logic. We must all communicate to coexist, and communication requires common definitions.

Not tolerating other definitions and substituting our own is intollerance. If your going to try to press your beliefs on other people, even over something simple, tell me how it works out.
Quote:

Thus, we need a common, universal definition of what a religion is. You can go ahead and do what your religion inclines you to do, but I'm involved in the business of making the world work, and we need standard, common definitions to make it work.


Uniterran's believe in "experiancing all cultures and religions on earth." Having seen so many, we can define them, because we have seen way more of them then the averege person.

And here, I am proposing a universal definition! A set of beliefs! Thats it, because that is what it is. Some are more. None are less. If you want to call those who just meat the line "not religion," then you go ahead and do that.

... Ok. I wasn't planning on doing this, because I don't believe in taking shots at peoples' religions. Not unless you have to, of course. But you brought your religion into this discussion, and repeatedly used it to justify your arguments. Not only that, but now you are using it to label me as intolerant. Because of that, I feel it necessary to respond, and the only way to do so is by taking your religion head on. Just remember, you brought this on yourself.

Let's start with this gem: "Not tolerating other definitions and substituting our own is intollerance."

I see. And... given that (as I have been explaining and as I have demonstrated by providing links) there is already a pre-existing definition for science that is well established as the one and only definition... how would you characterize your attempts to make the definition of science subjective? Seems to me that what you are trying to do is define science the way you want it defined, possibly because of your religion, not the way it has been definied for centuries. By your own definition of intolerance (see the sentence I quoted in the paragraph above), that makes your stance intolerance.

And then there's this gem: "Uniterran's believe in "experiancing all cultures and religions on earth." Having seen so many, we can define them, because we have seen way more of them then the averege person."

Now, let's take this one on from a couple angles. First, let's contrast it with this one: "Not tolerating other definitions and substituting our own is intollerance." And yet: "Uniterran's believe in "experiancing all cultures and religions on earth." Having seen so many, we can define them, because we have seen way more of them then the averege person." *ahem* Religious intolerance in action... by the very definition of your religion, no less.

And of course, there's the amazing arrogance implied in that statement. What, somehow your religion has made you the arbiters of the nature of the universe for the rest of us? You even get to define things that you may have experienced temporarily over and above a person that has experienced that thing their whole life? You think you can go to Sweden for a week and understand what Swedish life is like better than a lifelong Swede, by virtue of your broader range of "experiances (sic)"? That's not only intolerance, that's frankly astonishing arrogance - orders of magnitude greater than the standard smug Christian superiority I'm used to dealing with every day.

And then there's the incredible ignorance of that statement. You claim that a wide variety of experiences makes one somehow more of an authority on any given thing than someone who has only experienced that thing. By that logic, I should trust your authority on the definition and nature of science over and above someone who has studied it in depth and spent their entire adult life practicing it. Does that make any sense? Of course not.

And then there's the questionable veracity of that statement. Have you ever studied the philosophy of science? Certainly not, that much is obvious by your statements thus far. Have you ever studied the history of science? Clearly no, because you required me to explain it to you. Have you ever studied the practice of science, including methodology and ethics? Again, obviously not, because the things you claim are accepted practice in science would get you hauled in front of an ethics board in short order anywhere in the world. So how have you "experienced" science in any meaningful way such that you have the right to make judgements on how it should be defined? I can't see anyway that you have. So whatever the "experience" you're talking about that gives you the right to pronounce judgement on definition, it's clearly bogus.

That's enough with the problems in your definition of your religion for now. Let's move on to the definition of intolerance.

Intolerance comes in two forms, direct and indirect. Direct intolerance is simply prejudicial hatred and disdain for another group based on some characteristic of that group. Indirect intolerance is more insidious. It is what happens when you use the standards and mores of one group to pass judgement on another group. "I hate Mormons" is direct intolerance. "Mormons are morally corrupt because they believe in polygamy" is indirect intolerance, because it contains the unstated fact that you have concluded that polygamy is morally corrupt by using the standards of your own culture or religion.

Now, obviously, direct intolerance is not at issue here. No one's saying "science sucks". However, indirect intolerance is.

You are asserting what the definition of science should be based on your Uniterrian beliefs. You have said so repeatedly. That is intolerance. It is no different than a Hindu asserting that Christ was just a charlatan or a Christian calling Mohammed a deranged butcher.

Uniterrianism should be defined by Uniterrian thinking. Christianity should be definied by Christian thinking. Islam should be defined by Muslim thinking. And science should be definied by people thinking like scientists. Your involvement in that process, should you be unwilling to shed your Uniterrian beliefs and think as a scientist, is not welcome, and is tantamount to intolerance.

Now I have tried to explain this to you without having to resort to pointing out the ignorance and intolerance of your position, but that hasn't seemed to work, so there it is. The simple fact of the matter is that science needs a single, non-subjective definition of what science is or science cannot exist. And, surprise surprise, it has one. If you don't want to accept that, you don't have to... as long as you're not a scientist. Just like how I don't have to accept the definition of Uniterrianism as long as I'm not a member of your religion. But you cannot practice science without embracing the single, standard definition of what science is, either implicitly or explicitly.

Your opinion doesn't matter. My opinion doesn't matter. No opinions matter in science, because that is the nature of science. Facts and relevant hypotheses based on those facts matter. Not opinions, not yours or mine. The definition of science, astonishingly enough, works the same way.

If you really care about the definition of science, you're free to look it up. I have already given you several links to start with. If you don't really care about the definition of science and are more interested in impressing your religious beliefs on the world, then I would ask that you stop spreading ignorance and lies about what science is and how it works. Science:
    - has a single, clear and intersubjective definition that all practitioners of science share.
    - requires that all practioners share common definitions of the elements being investigated and the tools and processes of investigation in order to facilitate communication of ideas.
    - requires open and honest communication of ideas, including areas where further work is needed.
    - only covers areas and fields allowed by the limitations set out in definition of science, and only theories and methods that meet those limitations are valid science and scientific practice.
    - does not allow practitioners to lie - directly or by omission - about problems in experimental results or scientific theories.
    - requires all possibilities and problems in/with a scientific theory and/or experimental result to be documented, and explored if possible.

That is science. Not my opinion of science. Just what science is. The evidence of that is freely available if you have the intellectual honesty to seek it out before pronouncing judgement on what science is and the way it should be.

Soulfire wrote:
What do we have to gain from defining religion? Why are we so keen on putting it down on paper, setting limits and restrictions for it. I'm a firm believer that it varies person to person, like so many things.

In order for us all to co-exist, we have to communicate. In order to communicate, we have to share common standards and definitions.

Here's an example from digital communications. Joe sends Ed a message, telling him to tell his wife, Ann, hello. Joe is using a system that defines the numeric byte codes like this:
a=1 b=2 c=3 d=4 e=5 f=6 g=7 h=8 i=9 j=10 k=11 l=12 m=13 n=14 o=15 p=16 q=17 r=18 s=19 t=20 u=21 v=22 w=23 x=24 y=25 z=26

So when Joe sends "tell ann hi", he actually sends "20 5 12 12 1 14 14 8 9".

So far no problem.

But then Ed is using a system that defines the numeric byte codes like this:
a=15 b=7 c=22 d=9 e=8 f=14 g=2 h=4 i=5 j=17 k=24 l=19 m=26 n=6 o=1 p=20 q=10 r=25 s=12 t=16 u=23 v=3 w=21 x=11 y=18 z=13

So Ed receives the "20 5 12 12 1 14 14 8 9" that Joe sent... but interprets it completely differently.

This is why we define communications protocols... languages. A language is essentially nothing more than a set of definitions for a group of sounds and/or symbols designed to give them an objective semantic meaning. When I see the letters "c-a-r", the common, shared definition tells me what those letters symbolize. If you're using the same set of definitions, then you would send me the letters "c-a-r" to communicate the idea of a car to me, and I would understand. Thus, an idea has been exchanged. We have communicated.

The better and more clear the definition for a set of symbols - a word - the better we can communicate, and the more assured we can be that the ideas that we are sharing are the same ideas. The more sure we can be that we are communicating and not miscommunicating.

That's the general reason we want a definition of religion. Of course, there are technical and legal reasons the concept should be clearly defined. For example, if the definition of religion is so nebulous that it allows for science to be called a religion, and if the rules that - for example - medical practitioners follow state that medical decisions should not be based on religious beliefs, then we have a problem. All of a sudden, someone can legitimately object to anything other than random guesswork in medicine. Clear definitions prevent such nonsense.

You are, however, labouring under a misconception. Defining something does not set "limits and restrictions" on it. It merely sets limits and restrictions on what can be lumped in that category. Defining religion will not limit or restrict anyone's religious beliefs, or the range of religious beliefs possible. It will only restrict what can be objectively called "religion", which is a good thing. You'd still be free to believe what you want, when you want, and how you want. You can even call it what you want, but don't expect anyone else to understand you or accept your arbitrary definitions.

Religions are (for whatever reason, but that's a debate for another topic) allowed many rights and freedoms over and above the freedoms of just any old set of doctrines. For this to work, we have to be able to clearly understand and define what is elegible for these freedoms and what is not. Should a Catholic priest be charged for not disclosing a premeditated murder they had been told of in confession? Should a psychiatrist be charged for not disclosing a premeditated murder they had been told of in session? What's the difference between the two cases? Why is one legal and the other not? We need a clear definition of religion to understand this, and to discuss it, because we cannot discuss it if we do not understand it.
Ryan Marcus
Indi wrote:
Ryan Marcus wrote:
Indi wrote:
Ryan Marcus wrote:
I think science has a single meaning... using logic (or trying to) to put "evidence" together to form a conclusion.

Right, but it's more than just that. Using logic to find a solution isn't enough to make a thing science. Let me give you two examples of finding a solution by logic that aren't science.

First, I say every Garg is a Fook. Torok is a Gark. Thus Torok is a Fook. That's logic, and the arrival at the conclusion was very logical. But it sure ain't science.

Second, I say that the Earth is flat, and if you sail off one side then fairies pick you up and put you back on the other, erasing your memory in the process. Now, we have lots of evidence that the world is round, including pictures from space. So clearly that must mean that the fairies are not only changing our memories, they are messing with our scientific equipment and cameras in order to protect their secrecy. That's quite a logical deduction. But it sure ain't science.

Sure, but where is your proof?

I do say evidence. We have much more evidence to support the earth being round then we do for the fairy theory. If you take small pieces of something, you can always drift away from the larger picture. If I where to take the evidence that atoms are made of three different things, I could conclude the world will fall apart because they are not being held together.

The evidence was that you have no memory of falling off the side of the Earth. Thus, by logic, that memory must have been removed. You see? Evidence and logic. The cornerstones of science... according to you.

Or how about an example we've already covered - ID. Let's look at ID objectively. The theory essentially goes that the universe is sufficiently complex and well-ordered that it is evidence of intelligent design. A bunch of drunken monkeys with a set of Allen keys aren't going to make a Swiss watch. Intelligence is required. Thus you have the evidence - the orderly nature of the universe - and the logic - that order on this scale requires intelligent design. If logic and evidence were all that was required for science, then ID would be science. But you have already discovered that it is not.

Clearly logic and evidence are not the only components of science.

Ya, OK. Guess so.
Quote:

Ryan Marcus wrote:

Alright.. here it goes.

Our current pope (this is sad, don't know his name) declared that Catholics believe in evolution.

The Church of Jesus Christ and the Ladderday Saints (Mormons) where told by Joseph Smith about how to use geology to see "back through time."

This is harder then it seems... I'll go hit the books and find some more later.

But that is not the point. The point is that most of the science is bad... but not all.

*blink* Er... how can you consider any of that to be science in religion?

The use of geology has a religious value to the mormons, using it to discover there own past has spirtual meaning.

And how could saying evolution is true not be science.
First of all, I haven't heard that Benedict XVI said any such thing. The previous pope, John Paul II, said that Christianity and Evolution were not incompatible... but that's all. He certainly didn't declare evolution canon. And at any rate, how on Earth can you consider that to be an example of "science in religion"? Catholicism certainly didn't invent evolution, and they certainly don't preach it - in fact, most Catholics believe it's a hoax, and the JP2's wishy-washy endorsement is a sign that even the Vatican is ok with that.
[/quote]
Why would the religion have to invent the science to be part of it?
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c017.html

Your right. Not the current pope. After reading that article, I'm thinking he did a little more then declare it compatible. Of course, I'm also getting my news from a website with "christian" in the name.
Quote:

And as for Joe Smith... what? How is that an example if "science in religion"? He didn't come up with the idea of geology, and from what I know of Mormonism, it has nothing to do with the religion, really. Geology was the newest, latest and greatest science at the time of Joe Smith. He wasn't being scientific, he was just jumping on the popular bandwagon. The general attitude of the Mormon church towards science has been lukewarm, but in comparison with most other branches of Christianity that's not bad at all, because at least it isn't outright rejection. Still, the Mormons, like most religions, are more interested in using science to prove their religious beliefs, not in using science for the sake of science, to seek out the truth whatever that may be, even if it contradicts their beliefs.

Hehe. I'm going to start calling him Joe. Very Happy

Once again, I don't see where you get the idea that the religion has to invent the science for the science to be part of the religion.

I was hoping not to, but I can always pull up science in Unitarianism.
Quote:

Ryan Marcus wrote:
Quote:
They were codified and described millenia ago, but they have evolved to become more formalized and clear over time. Although it's hard to pin down exactly how and it was developed, credit is generally given to a branch of early Muslim thinking called Mu'tazilism for the founding principles of modern science. Then over time, various people have come along and formalized specific components, like William of Ockham around 1300 (Ockham's Razor), Francis Bacon around 1600 (experimental method), Robert Boyle around 1650 (repeatability), Isaac Newton around 1700 (predicting and hypotheses) and Karl Popper in the 1930's (falsifiability).

Alright, but thank you for clarifying that they are not set in stone. Although I have no idea about the creation of science, I'd put my bet on the Mesopotamians, not the Musslims. I've got nothing to back that up.

*jawdrop*... You mean... you just... pulled that idea out of your ***? No research. No reading. Just "I feel it must be the Mesopotamians"... and that's it?

No, I'm going by what I heard in school, and read in books...

But fine, if I can't have my beliefs without research:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_creation_science
But I'm glad I did that research. Now thath I think about it, the romans and greeks shsould have been my first guess anyway.
Quote:

I hope to all that's holy in all of the infinite universes that you don't expect anyone to take you seriously. -_-

For the record, I don't know where on Earth you could have gotten the Mesopotamians from. You could argue that the idea started with Plato, but not really. And then Aristotle disagreed with him and corrected him - somewhat. But still, neither one of them tried to codify a system of knowlege based on observation and hypothesis. It was Arab alchemists who took the ideas of Plato and Aristotle, and created the foundation of what is now science. Then Roger Bacon took the works of Mu'tazilism and removed all of the references to Muslim mysticism (arguably being the first person to truly secularize science, although the Mu'tazilists went a long way towards that, too), and it's come down to us from there.

[quote="Ryan Marcus"]I should have said that the meaning of science, like the U.S. constitution, is up for interpretation.

Science is not politics. Interpretation is bad in science. Science strives to be as objective as humanly possible so that the need for interpretation is removed. So, no. The meaning of science is not up for interpretation.

Ryan Marcus wrote:
Hm, so its a two way street. Wink

I still don't think any one person or organization can judge what is and what is not science... people need to (get ready for corny lines) look into themselves and make a judgment on it.

That is not what my opinion was, but that is what it is now.

What is a two way street?
Quote:

You still can't grasp this. I don't know how many different ways I can say it. There is no person or organization who makes that determination. None. No one.

What is science is also not determined by "looking inside yourself", prayer or using the Force. What is science is determined by the definition of what science is. That. Is. All. It's not that complex an idea.

Sure, committees and discussion panels may decide and/or debate whether or not a given thing meets the requirements of the definition. But the requirements themselves are not up for debate or interpretation. They have remained relatively unchanged since they were developed, with only clarifications and better methodology added.

Ryan Marcus wrote:
Quote:
Well of course it's dynamic if you consider it across the entire arc of human history. -_- Good grief, stone age monkey men didn't consider Ockham's Razor when they were trying to determine why the sun rose and set in a relatively steady pattern. So obviously the definition is dynamic when you consider such broad absolutes.

Yes, it is temporally dynamic... meaning that it can, has and will change as we learn more about the philosopy of science. But then, that's true for anything. But it is not dynamic in the sense that it is variable across the population. At any given time (notwithstanding, of course, periods when a new idea about the defintion of science are being absorbed by the science world - periods during a paradigm shift), the definition of science is a single, fixed definition.

The science world... what was that about not caring about a popular definition?

I agree with your main point... things stay the same until they are changed.

Er... what does the phrase "science world" as used in the context above have to do with popular definition? The idea of "opinion" isn't mentioned or even relevant in that statement. I said it takes a while for the world to catch on to a new clarification in the definition of science, during which time there may be more than one definition in use. But once the information about the new clarifications have filtered through to everyone, there is again only one definition in use. What part of that implies that the definition is based on popular opinion?

If I firmly KNEW, not believed, the a rose was a helicopter, then who would be chaning my mind? Nothing would. When somebody said "get in the helicopter," I would think they are insane.

Your also impling that the world will eventualy catch on to the truth. That the popular definition will become the correct definiton, or move to it.

I certainly hope so, because if they don't its going to melt the polar caps.

Quote:

It's the same thing as talking about periods when a new fact is being absorbed into the general world population. For example, the fact that the Russians launched Sputnik 1 in 1957 is hardly a matter of opinion. But it took some time for the knowledge of that event and its implications to sink into the public consciousness. During that transition phase, some people thought that we had never launched a satellite, some people knew that we had. There is no opinion there, only knowledge based on facts and knowledge based on facts where some facts are missing. The same goes for the definition of science. When a section of it is clarified or expanded there is a period where some scientists know about the changes and some don't. Where on Earth do you think popular opinion fits into that?

What about the people who still think we faked the lunar landing? Or the people that STILL thing floride is a poison? I keep waiting for these people to get the "truth", for the "true" definition to change them, but here I am.
Quote:

Ryan Marcus wrote:
Of course the definition of science varries person to person. You and I are proof of that!

-_- Ooooook. Given the discussion we're having, that has to be possibly the most idiotic evidence you could have presented.

Why? Let's review. I am saying that there is a single, standard definition of science that all scientists share. You are claiming that the definition is nebulous and can vary from person to person.

Let's try to grok the depths of the absurdity of your "evidence" with an example. I am claiming that something - let's take the colour of the daytime sky on a clear day for example - is not subjectively defined. For example, I say the sky is blue, and it doesn't matter who you ask, the sky is only one colour, blue. You are claiming that the colour of the sky depends on the person who is looking at it, for example, someone could say the sky is red. I say no, the sky is blue, even if you say it's red - you can't have different sky colours simply by saying them. Your response: yes, you can, just look at us now - I say the sky is red, you say it's blue - we have two different opinions, which shows that the colour of the sky can be determined by opinion.

Sound idiotic? It is. If you're not going to bother giving serious thought to your arguments, you'll have to explain to me why I should bother to continue taking them seriously.

We're going to have to agree to disagree here. I'm sure we both feel like we are talking to a shut door.
Quote:

Ryan Marcus wrote:
Quote:

Ryan Marcus wrote:
Quote:
Regardless, if you are aware of any holes in a scientific theory or experiment, it is your duty as a scientist to document and explore them. Failure to do so is failure to do science.

Yes, you need to document and explore them, but that does not prevent you from applying or presenting your theory.

What happened to "Disregarding holes and pushing forward, not looking away because you see a problem, is what keeps science going"?

I never claimed holes would present you from presenting or applying your theory. In fact, I clearly said the opposite. Yes, you can present and/or apply a theory with holes, but holes must be explored or at least acknowledged. MUST. It is enough if you don't want to or can't explore the holes yourself to simply document their existence so that others can, but you cannot simply ignore them and move on. CANNOT.

That is an opinion. Of course you can. If your trying to rush to something, it might just "slip your mind" that an atomic bomb will radiate a city for much longer then a week.

Normally, these things are picked up. Your saying if I find the start of a cure for HIV, but there is a hole, I should figure it out. That's right. But what if I don't want to work on my project anymore? Better to document them and let somebody else deal.

It is not an opinion, it is a requirement of science. Failure to do so will have you up in front of an ethics board in short order.

I clearly stated that holes may be missed due to simply not recognizing them as holes. Repeatedly. Remember - I kept saying that they could be missed due to ignorance and you kept insisting that it could also be faith?

Furthermore, a moment's thought shows that your rebuttal is absolute nonsense, and your characterization of my position is bunk. Quite obviously you can only document or explore holes that you recognize. Duh. So obviously my strict "you must document and/or explore all holes in your theory" only applies to holes you recognize. Duh. No-one is omnipotent, so no-one can be sure that they're analysis of their theory is perfect and complete. They can try, and it's not hard to determine if an honest effort was made, but no-one can ever be sure that they haven't missed something. If a hole was missed despite an honest and competent attempt to be thorough, oh well. No-one's perfect.

But your position - stated clearly and backed up through repetition - is that scientists do and should ignore holes. Obviously that means holes that they are aware of, because you can't wilfully ignore what you don't know. My response was to that. No. No way, no how. A scientist cannot ignore holes (please don't tell me I have to specify "that they're aware of" every sentence, even when it's blatantly obvious -_-). A scientist that does ignore holes will be called up on charges. They are very, very serious about this. All holes must be documented and, if possible, explored. All.

As for your examples, I don't know what you think the point your making with either of them is. In the first case... what's your point? If you made a mistake and missed a hole accidently, then there should be a hearing on your competence. If it is shown that you missed the hole by incompetence, then you should be penalized. If it is shown that you missed the hole by an honest mistake, then you're in the clear. Of course, if you knew this was a possibility and just kept quiet about it, you should be called up on charges. What's hard to understand about that?

As for the second, no. I'm saying that if you are working on a cure for HIV and you find a hole, you should document and/or explore it (as I have stated repeatedly, but you seem to have ignored the "document" part). That means that if you can explore it, go ahead. You may solve it, which means that when you finally do present your cure, you can present it with no holes. If you can't solve it, then you must document it. You cannot present your theory without mentioning the hole, or you will be guilty of misconduct. Once documented, then, as you said, someone else can deal with it.

Apparently I missed your "document" part. Probably just a mis-read.

Oh, wait, no, its not:
Quote:

it is your duty as a scientist to document and explore them


Quote:

Ryan Marcus wrote:
Quote:

What happens (for example), when two people share the exact same belief(s), and one calls it a religion and the other does not?

Thats what happens. Non-religious dude can go and not be in the religion, and religious dude can have his.

But that doesn't help anyone that needs to know whether that set of beliefs is a religion or not.

Ryan Marcus wrote:
Good thing we have seperation of church and state, eh?

I think if Walmartism would become a monopoly, relgion or not, people would not care. We would just all work at Walmart.

Once something bad happened, say, a union to get higher raises, and Walmart starting being bad, the goverment would step in to protect peoples rights. Maybe not out of the U.S., but if the Walmarts outside of the US did bad things, they would face the consequences in the US.

O.O'

People would just... not care... if some company became a global monopoly... and started controlling their lives!?!? That's... insane!!!

But, alright... fine... ignoring that for now because I don't even know how to respond to that...

You didn't read what I wrote. I said by declaring itself a religion, Walmart can circumvent controls that exist to prevent commercial monopolies and thus grow to epic proportions. The government cannot stop them from doing "bad things" because 1) they are a religion, and religions have many protections under the law, and 2) they simply need to refrain from doing "bad things" until they're so big that they can own the government.

No, at least in America, the goverment would stop them as soon as they broke a law. The church is not exempt from laws. Not even the president is exempt from laws... wait... SHOULD be exempt from laws.
Quote:

Don't think that could possibly happen? Nonsense. History is replete with religious coups of formerly secular governments.

But even setting the Walmart example aside, let's look at an actual real-world example. The current US government is controlled by a faction of thought that calls themselves "neo-conservatives". These people have an agenda, and - at the moment at least - the power to enact that agenda. But are they a religion? By my definition, no. By yours... maybe. Because if the neo-cons call their beliefs a religion, then it is (by your definition). So now, is the US government run by a religious clique? You don't know. You don't know whether or not they actually believe that their beliefs are religiously based. So despite all of your platitudes about the separation of church and state, your government might be a religious government. And the same could be said for any school of thought that came to power. You simply can't know that there is separation of church and state, not if we were to use your definition of religion. That's why we need a clear and objective definition of what religion is, and what is a religion. The idea of separation of church and state is meaningless if we can't know where church ends and state begins.

If Bush comes out and says all his decisions are based on religion, I'd like to see how long he stays in office, even with our largly republican congress.

From what your saying, it sounds like the government should, and CAN not be influenced at all by religionus beliefs. If you ask me, we need a few more christain values in our goverment. Saying that a religion can't influence how you act your life is... insane.

Quote:

Ryan Marcus wrote:
Quote:

You can't have a world where anyone is free to make their own definitions. This is not intolerance, this is simple logic. We must all communicate to coexist, and communication requires common definitions.

Not tolerating other definitions and substituting our own is intollerance. If your going to try to press your beliefs on other people, even over something simple, tell me how it works out.
Quote:

Thus, we need a common, universal definition of what a religion is. You can go ahead and do what your religion inclines you to do, but I'm involved in the business of making the world work, and we need standard, common definitions to make it work.


Uniterran's believe in "experiancing all cultures and religions on earth." Having seen so many, we can define them, because we have seen way more of them then the averege person.

And here, I am proposing a universal definition! A set of beliefs! Thats it, because that is what it is. Some are more. None are less. If you want to call those who just meat the line "not religion," then you go ahead and do that.

... Ok. I wasn't planning on doing this, because I don't believe in taking shots at peoples' religions. Not unless you have to, of course. But you brought your religion into this discussion, and repeatedly used it to justify your arguments. Not only that, but now you are using it to label me as intolerant. Because of that, I feel it necessary to respond, and the only way to do so is by taking your religion head on. Just remember, you brought this on yourself.

Let's start with this gem: "Not tolerating other definitions and substituting our own is intollerance."

I see. And... given that (as I have been explaining and as I have demonstrated by providing links) there is already a pre-existing definition for science that is well established as the one and only definition... how would you characterize your attempts to make the definition of science subjective? Seems to me that what you are trying to do is define science the way you want it defined, possibly because of your religion, not the way it has been definied for centuries. By your own definition of intolerance (see the sentence I quoted in the paragraph above), that makes your stance intolerance.

And then there's this gem: "Uniterran's believe in "experiancing all cultures and religions on earth." Having seen so many, we can define them, because we have seen way more of them then the averege person."

Now, let's take this one on from a couple angles. First, let's contrast it with this one: "Not tolerating other definitions and substituting our own is intollerance." And yet: "Uniterran's believe in "experiancing all cultures and religions on earth." Having seen so many, we can define them, because we have seen way more of them then the averege person." *ahem* Religious intolerance in action... by the very definition of your religion, no less.

Yes. Its not religious intolerance. If that is your definition of religion, then your clearly don't believe in my defintion of religion.

Somebody says this is my religion. Your saying "no, thats not a relgion." That sounds intolerant to me.
Quote:

And of course, there's the amazing arrogance implied in that statement. What, somehow your religion has made you the arbiters of the nature of the universe for the rest of us? You even get to define things that you may have experienced temporarily over and above a person that has experienced that thing their whole life? You think you can go to Sweden for a week and understand what Swedish life is like better than a lifelong Swede, by virtue of your broader range of "experiances (sic)"? That's not only intolerance, that's frankly astonishing arrogance - orders of magnitude greater than the standard smug Christian superiority I'm used to dealing with every day.

No, no I can't.

I can, however, go to sweden for a week and compare the swedish way of life to the American way of life better then any life long swedish person.
Quote:

And then there's the incredible ignorance of that statement. You claim that a wide variety of experiences makes one somehow more of an authority on any given thing than someone who has only experienced that thing. By that logic, I should trust your authority on the definition and nature of science over and above someone who has studied it in depth and spent their entire adult life practicing it. Does that make any sense? Of course not.

That was not what I was attempting to say.

I was attempting to say that I've seen a lot of religions, and having seen them, I can tell you that "a set of beliefs" is the only thing that applies to all of them!

But, of course, if you don't define these "strange" religions as relgions, your definition differs.

Yes, its a paradox. I know.
Quote:

And then there's the questionable veracity of that statement. Have you ever studied the philosophy of science? Certainly not, that much is obvious by your statements thus far. Have you ever studied the history of science? Clearly no, because you required me to explain it to you. Have you ever studied the practice of science, including methodology and ethics? Again, obviously not, because the things you claim are accepted practice in science would get you hauled in front of an ethics board in short order anywhere in the world. So how have you "experienced" science in any meaningful way such that you have the right to make judgements on how it should be defined? I can't see anyway that you have. So whatever the "experience" you're talking about that gives you the right to pronounce judgement on definition, it's clearly bogus.

Lets get off science. We're never going to agree.
Quote:

That's enough with the problems in your definition of your religion for now. Let's move on to the definition of intolerance.

Intolerance comes in two forms, direct and indirect. Direct intolerance is simply prejudicial hatred and disdain for another group based on some characteristic of that group. Indirect intolerance is more insidious. It is what happens when you use the standards and mores of one group to pass judgement on another group. "I hate Mormons" is direct intolerance. "Mormons are morally corrupt because they believe in polygamy" is indirect intolerance, because it contains the unstated fact that you have concluded that polygamy is morally corrupt by using the standards of your own culture or religion.

Now, obviously, direct intolerance is not at issue here. No one's saying "science sucks". However, indirect intolerance is.

You are asserting what the definition of science should be based on your Uniterrian beliefs. You have said so repeatedly. That is intolerance. It is no different than a Hindu asserting that Christ was just a charlatan or a Christian calling Mohammed a deranged butcher.

Once again, we are going to have to disagree on science.
Quote:

Uniterrianism should be defined by Uniterrian thinking. Christianity should be definied by Christian thinking. Islam should be defined by Muslim thinking. And science should be definied by people thinking like scientists. Your involvement in that process, should you be unwilling to shed your Uniterrian beliefs and think as a scientist, is not welcome, and is tantamount to intolerance.

If somebody says this is science, and it is part of my religion, who are you to question it? Your not a Uniterrian, thats for sure. You can still question it and tolerate their beliefs at the same time, or you can try to make everybody happy. A futile cause, prehaps, but a good one.
Quote:

Now I have tried to explain this to you without having to resort to pointing out the ignorance and intolerance of your position, but that hasn't seemed to work, so there it is. The simple fact of the matter is that science needs a single, non-subjective definition of what science is or science cannot exist. And, surprise surprise, it has one. If you don't want to accept that, you don't have to... as long as you're not a scientist. Just like how I don't have to accept the definition of Uniterrianism as long as I'm not a member of your religion. But you cannot practice science without embracing the single, standard definition of what science is, either implicitly or explicitly.

Fine. I'm going to ignore the fact that you just said I can't practice scince without believing (not just beliving, EMBRACING) the single definition.

If you think that, fine. Go ahead.
Quote:

Your opinion doesn't matter. My opinion doesn't matter. No opinions matter in science, because that is the nature of science. Facts and relevant hypotheses based on those facts matter. Not opinions, not yours or mine. The definition of science, astonishingly enough, works the same way.

You just gave me an opinion. All we have is opinions.
Quote:

If you really care about the definition of science, you're free to look it up. I have already given you several links to start with. If you don't really care about the definition of science and are more interested in impressing your religious beliefs on the world, then I would ask that you stop spreading ignorance and lies about what science is and how it works. Science:
    - has a single, clear and intersubjective definition that all practitioners of science share.
    - requires that all practioners share common definitions of the elements being investigated and the tools and processes of investigation in order to facilitate communication of ideas.
    - requires open and honest communication of ideas, including areas where further work is needed.
    - only covers areas and fields allowed by the limitations set out in definition of science, and only theories and methods that meet those limitations are valid science and scientific practice.
    - does not allow practitioners to lie - directly or by omission - about problems in experimental results or scientific theories.
    - requires all possibilities and problems in/with a scientific theory and/or experimental result to be documented, and explored if possible.

That is science. Not my opinion of science. Just what science is. The evidence of that is freely available if you have the intellectual honesty to seek it out before pronouncing judgement on what science is and the way it should be.

Soulfire wrote:
What do we have to gain from defining religion? Why are we so keen on putting it down on paper, setting limits and restrictions for it. I'm a firm believer that it varies person to person, like so many things.

In order for us all to co-exist, we have to communicate. In order to communicate, we have to share common standards and definitions.

Here's an example from digital communications. Joe sends Ed a message, telling him to tell his wife, Ann, hello. Joe is using a system that defines the numeric byte codes like this:
a=1 b=2 c=3 d=4 e=5 f=6 g=7 h=8 i=9 j=10 k=11 l=12 m=13 n=14 o=15 p=16 q=17 r=18 s=19 t=20 u=21 v=22 w=23 x=24 y=25 z=26

So when Joe sends "tell ann hi", he actually sends "20 5 12 12 1 14 14 8 9".

So far no problem.

But then Ed is using a system that defines the numeric byte codes like this:
a=15 b=7 c=22 d=9 e=8 f=14 g=2 h=4 i=5 j=17 k=24 l=19 m=26 n=6 o=1 p=20 q=10 r=25 s=12 t=16 u=23 v=3 w=21 x=11 y=18 z=13

So Ed receives the "20 5 12 12 1 14 14 8 9" that Joe sent... but interprets it completely differently.

This is why we define communications protocols... languages. A language is essentially nothing more than a set of definitions for a group of sounds and/or symbols designed to give them an objective semantic meaning. When I see the letters "c-a-r", the common, shared definition tells me what those letters symbolize. If you're using the same set of definitions, then you would send me the letters "c-a-r" to communicate the idea of a car to me, and I would understand. Thus, an idea has been exchanged. We have communicated.

The better and more clear the definition for a set of symbols - a word - the better we can communicate, and the more assured we can be that the ideas that we are sharing are the same ideas. The more sure we can be that we are communicating and not miscommunicating.

That's the general reason we want a definition of religion. Of course, there are technical and legal reasons the concept should be clearly defined. For example, if the definition of religion is so nebulous that it allows for science to be called a religion, and if the rules that - for example - medical practitioners follow state that medical decisions should not be based on religious beliefs, then we have a problem. All of a sudden, someone can legitimately object to anything other than random guesswork in medicine. Clear definitions prevent such nonsense.

You are, however, labouring under a misconception. Defining something does not set "limits and restrictions" on it. It merely sets limits and restrictions on what can be lumped in that category. Defining religion will not limit or restrict anyone's religious beliefs, or the range of religious beliefs possible. It will only restrict what can be objectively called "religion", which is a good thing. You'd still be free to believe what you want, when you want, and how you want. You can even call it what you want, but don't expect anyone else to understand you or accept your arbitrary definitions.

Religions are (for whatever reason, but that's a debate for another topic) allowed many rights and freedoms over and above the freedoms of just any old set of doctrines. For this to work, we have to be able to clearly understand and define what is elegible for these freedoms and what is not. Should a Catholic priest be charged for not disclosing a premeditated murder they had been told of in confession? Should a psychiatrist be charged for not disclosing a premeditated murder they had been told of in session? What's the difference between the two cases? Why is one legal and the other not? We need a clear definition of religion to understand this, and to discuss it, because we cannot discuss it if we do not understand it.


I'm not trying to resrict religion, you are, as far as I can tell.
Relgion is a set of beliefs. What is restricting about it? How could one have a religion that is not a set of beliefs? Sure, it could be more. No, it can't be less, because as soon as you think "Pizzaism" you have a belief!

Person A is a Pizzaist. He declares himself one. Who are you to tell him that it can't be a religion? Who are you to tell somebody that thier beliefs are not "good" enough to be a religoin? Who are you to say that your beliefs are a religion and thiers are not?
Indi
Ryan Marcus wrote:
The use of geology has a religious value to the mormons, using it to discover there own past has spirtual meaning.

Mormons, like any religious group, use science - any science, not just geology - to back up their religious claims when and if it is convenient. But the moment geology disagrees with the Mormon worldview, it will be discarded. There is nothing special or unique about Mormonism's relationship with geology. It's the same with any religion and any science. You only bring it up at all because it was something that Smith mentioned explicitly.

Let me put it another way. If geology were to suddenly present some evidence that Mormon beliefs are completely wrong, what do you think will happen? Will Mormons simply abandon their beliefs and embrace the geological findings?

I wouldn't bet on it if I were you. More likely they would ignore or attack the contradictory geological evidence.

But hey, don't take my word for it. Why don't we let the leadership of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints sum it up for us:
http://eyring.hplx.net/Eyring/faq/evolution/FP1931.html wrote:
Upon the fundamental doctrines of the Church we are all agreed. Our mission is to bear the message of the restored gospel to the people of the world. Leave Geology, Biology, Archaeology and Anthropology, no one of which has to do with the salvation of the souls of mankind, to scientific research, while we magnify our calling in the realm of the Church.

So... wanna try to tell me again that the Mormons embrace geology in their religion?

Ryan Marcus wrote:
And how could saying evolution is true not be science.

Quite easily actually, since no scientist would ever declare any scientific theory as "truth". But that's beside the point because in actual fact, Pope JP2 did not say evolution is true. What he actually said - and the link you yourself posted makes clear - is that evolution is not necessarily in opposition to the religion.

Now, I don't know about you, but to me there's a world of difference between "A supports B" and "A does not contradict B". All JP2 said is that you can be a Christian and believe evolution is true at the same time. He did not say that evolution was suddenly Christian canon.

Ryan Marcus wrote:
Why would the religion have to invent the science to be part of it?

I have never said and do not believe that the religion has to invent a science for it to be part of the religion. But I think we should be clear on what is and what is not a part of a religion.

If the President of the United States said "it's ok for Americans to eat tofu", is eating tofu part of being an American? Of course not. So if Pope JP2 says "it's ok for Christians to believe in evolution", how does that suddenly mean that believing evolution is part of Roman Catholicism?

Look, Roman Catholics do a lot of things. They wear pants. They eat cheese. Most fart. None of these things are forbidden by the religion. But none of them are required by the religion, or even encouraged, hell or even mentioned. Nevertheless, if asked, I'm sure Pope Benny would say, "yes, it's ok for Roman Catholics to fart," and then, possibly, let one rip. Does that mean that it is part of the religion? Of course not.

All that JP2 said was that it's ok for Roman Catholics to believe in evolution. That does not make it part of the religion.

The same goes for geology and Mormonism. Joey said that Mormons can use geology to strengthen their religious beliefs. He did not say that they must. And clearly the church itself has no problem with eschewing geology and any scientific evidence when it becomes incompatible with the religion (see above).

For a science to be part of a religion, I would say that it requires more than just passive acknowledgement only when it does not present any obvious, immediate contradictions. Surely that's not asking too much?

Ryan Marcus wrote:
I was hoping not to, but I can always pull up science in Unitarianism.

I thought you would have learned your lesson by now about bringing your own religious beliefs into a discussion. If you really want to do it, go ahead. But once they're here in print as part of some argument, they're fair game for critical analysis. Are you sure you're ready for that?

Ryan Marcus wrote:
No, I'm going by what I heard in school, and read in books...

But fine, if I can't have my beliefs without research:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_creation_science
But I'm glad I did that research. Now thath I think about it, the romans and greeks shsould have been my first guess anyway.

The Greeks would have been my first guess, too... if I were inclined to learn by guessing facts rather than researching.

Anyway, you can have any beliefs you want to have without doing any research. Just don't expect them to be taken seriously. Of course, I have to seriously question your dedication to your religious beliefs if - after claiming that it's the fact that Uniterrians have researched so many different cultures that makes them experts on things - you believe that you can have a viable belief without doing any research. I suppose I could also question the idea of whether it's the quality or the quantity of research that matters, given that your research competence seems to be somewhat lacking, as evidenced by the fact that you have quoted me a link to a history of Creationism rather than a history of science. But let's just leave that one alone and move on to bigger questions.

So, ok, which is it? Is science a system with a single definition that goes back to the Mu'tazilists (or Plato if you prefer)? Or is it something that everyone can define for themselves? You've done the research now, such as it is. If you've actually been reading the links provided so far, you know what science is, how it works and even where it came from. So stop being vague and make up your mind. So which is it?

Ryan Marcus wrote:
Your also impling that the world will eventualy catch on to the truth. That the popular definition will become the correct definiton, or move to it.

I certainly hope so, because if they don't its going to melt the polar caps.

That is not what I'm implying at all, and I've been doggedly trying to get that through to you repeatedly throughout this discussion. It doesn't matter if the world catches onto the "truth" of what science is or not. It doesn't matter whether the definition is popular or not. Science is science is science. That. Is. All. Science is defined by what it is. Not by what you want it to be or by what popular opinion thinks it should be.

Slowly as we go along we understand that definition better, and we clarify it and improve our comprehension of it and its implications. But science today is the same thing as science in the time of Plato, even if he didn't understand it completely. Bad science in his time is still bad science, and it will be bad science in a million years. What he thought was good science we may now know to be bad science, but as I've said what anyone thinks is irrelevant. If it was bad science then, even if he thought it was good, it's still bad.

We may not even have it completely pinned down yet. What we think is good science today may be found to be bad science tomorrow as we learn more about the nature of the methodology. But it is not subjective. This is what I can't get you to understand.

The sun is the sun is the sun. It hasn't changed since Plato's time. Our understanding of what it is and how it works may have changed, but the sun is still the sun. Surely you wouldn't argue that the definition of the sun is subjective. We all know what the sun is, and it's certainly not something that is determined on an individual basis.

It's the same for science. It's not defined subjectively. Now, you may be practicing science by an older understanding of it, but when you try to share your findings you will discover your error and may be forced to correct your methodologies to conform to the more advanced understanding available. What you seem incapable of understanding is that there is no opinion or popular belief or any kind of subjectivity involved in any of that process. It's as objective as any well-defined process.

Take getting a driver's licence for example. To get a driver's licence, you have to satisfy certain criteria. Unbeknownst to you, the criteria might change, so when you go to apply you will be told that while you meet the old criteria, you do not meet the new criteria, and will have to do so before you can be granted your licence. Is the criteria subjective? No. Is the licence subjective? No. It doesn't matter what the popular conception of the criteria or the licence is. It doesn't matter whether or not people have caught on to the change in the criteria. No opinion or popular belief or any kind of subjectivity is involved in any of that process.

To register a scientific discovery you have made, you have to satisfy certain criteria, namely the criteria that defines what is science and what is not. Unbeknownst to you, the criteria might change, and if you do not meet the new criteria, when you go to publish your findings you will be told that while you meet the old criteria, you do not meet the new criteria, and will have to do so before your results can be accepted. Is the criteria subjective? No. Is science subjective? No. It doesn't matter what the popular conception of the criteria or science is. It doesn't matter whether or not people have caught on to the change in the criteria. No opinion or popular belief or any kind of subjectivity is involved in any of that process.

Is it clear now?

Ryan Marcus wrote:
Quote:

It's the same thing as talking about periods when a new fact is being absorbed into the general world population. For example, the fact that the Russians launched Sputnik 1 in 1957 is hardly a matter of opinion. But it took some time for the knowledge of that event and its implications to sink into the public consciousness. During that transition phase, some people thought that we had never launched a satellite, some people knew that we had. There is no opinion there, only knowledge based on facts and knowledge based on facts where some facts are missing. The same goes for the definition of science. When a section of it is clarified or expanded there is a period where some scientists know about the changes and some don't. Where on Earth do you think popular opinion fits into that?

What about the people who still think we faked the lunar landing? Or the people that STILL thing floride is a poison? I keep waiting for these people to get the "truth", for the "true" definition to change them, but here I am.

"People" are free to believe whatever they want. You want to believe that the body is made up of four fluidic humours and that sickness is caused by an imbalance of the humours? Go nuts. You want to believe the Earth is flat? Go nuts.

But people who believe we faked the lunar landing are certainly not to be taken seriously as historians of space flight. People who believe flouride is poisonous are certainly not to be taken seriously as dentists or biochemists. People who believe in the humours are certainly not to be taken seriously as doctors. And people who believe the Earth is flat are certainly not to be taken seriously as geographers, geologists and/or navigators.

You're free to believe that science is whatever you want. But science is not defined by what you believe, it is defined by what it is objectively. Get it? You go believe science is whatever you want to believe it is. But science is what science is. Your belief is irrelevant.

That is, of course, only true if you are not a scientist. If you are a scientist, then you do not have the luxury of entertaining your own belief about what science is. You must conform to the actual objective definition.

Who cares what people think science is, or whether their beliefs don't conform to the "truth"? Irrelevant. Irrelevant. Irrelevant. Science is not defined by what people think it is. It is defined by what it is, and the practice of science rests on the most current understanding of what it is.

Ryan Marcus wrote:
Apparently I missed your "document" part. Probably just a mis-read.

Oh, wait, no, its not:
Quote:

it is your duty as a scientist to document and explore them

?

Ryan Marcus wrote:
No, at least in America, the goverment would stop them as soon as they broke a law. The church is not exempt from laws. Not even the president is exempt from laws... wait... SHOULD be exempt from laws.

You are not reading what I'm writing. They aren't breaking any laws... at least not up until the point that the government can't stop them. They are merely taking advantage of protections designed for religions to circumvent the normal requirements placed on commercial entities. That's not illegal. Immoral, yes, but not illegal. The only way to make it illegal is to come up with a standard definition of what constitutes a religion, and use that definition to show that Wal-Mart doesn't apply.

Thus, we need an objective definition of religion.

Ryan Marcus wrote:
If Bush comes out and says all his decisions are based on religion, I'd like to see how long he stays in office, even with our largly republican congress.

George W. Bush wrote:
I ask Americans to bow our heads in humility before our Heavenly Father, a God who calls us not to judge our neighbors, but to love them, to ask His guidance upon our nation and its leaders in every level of government.
George W. Bush wrote:
And some needs and hurts are so deep they will only respond to a mentor's touch or a pastor's prayer. Church and charity, synagogue and mosque, lend our communities their humanity, and they will have an honored place in our plans and laws.
George W. Bush wrote:
Our new faith-based laws have removed government as a roadblock to people of faith who hear the call.
George W. Bush wrote:
I've heard the call. I believe God wants me to run for president.
George W. Bush wrote:
God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East.

Five years and counting....

Ryan Marcus wrote:
From what your saying, it sounds like the government should, and CAN not be influenced at all by religionus beliefs. If you ask me, we need a few more christain values in our goverment.

Yes, well, see, I wouldn't ask you. I would ask the Constitution of the United States. And it completely disagrees with you.

I'll go with the Constitution on this one, thank you.

Ryan Marcus wrote:
Saying that a religion can't influence how you act your life is... insane.

Then I must be insane.

And you must be a hypocrite. Because you have been saying all along that religion is defined only by somone saying something is a religion. Now if I choose to say that nothing in my life is a religion, I'm insane?

Ryan Marcus wrote:
Yes. Its not religious intolerance. If that is your definition of religion, then your clearly don't believe in my defintion of religion.

So you think you're being tolerant to judge other religions using the standards of your religion?

Ryan Marcus wrote:
Somebody says this is my religion. Your saying "no, thats not a relgion." That sounds intolerant to me.

It's not intolerant if it's not really a religion, it's just informative.

Ryan Marcus wrote:
Quote:

And of course, there's the amazing arrogance implied in that statement. What, somehow your religion has made you the arbiters of the nature of the universe for the rest of us? You even get to define things that you may have experienced temporarily over and above a person that has experienced that thing their whole life? You think you can go to Sweden for a week and understand what Swedish life is like better than a lifelong Swede, by virtue of your broader range of "experiances (sic)"? That's not only intolerance, that's frankly astonishing arrogance - orders of magnitude greater than the standard smug Christian superiority I'm used to dealing with every day.

No, no I can't.

I can, however, go to sweden for a week and compare the swedish way of life to the American way of life better then any life long swedish person.

Very slippery. You are trying to shift the problem from finding an expert on Sweden to finding someone who can compare Sweden and America. But you still fail.

See, you said: "Uniterran's believe in "experiancing all cultures and religions on earth." Having seen so many, we can define them..."

So, now we're looking for somone who can compare Sweden and America, eh? Alright, fine. On the one hand we have you, who has experienced all cultures and religions, including only a week in Sweden. On the other, we have a person who has lived half of their life in Sweden and half in America. Think you have a better shot at defining the cultural differences between Sweden and America? Arrogance. Arrogance. Arrogance.

Ryan Marcus wrote:
I was attempting to say that I've seen a lot of religions, and having seen them, I can tell you that "a set of beliefs" is the only thing that applies to all of them!

This statement is complete and absolute nonsense. If you didn't have a definition for religion, how did you know that the things you were studying were religions? Because someone said they were?

If that's your only criteria for determining what is and what is not a religion, then what if I were to point at a car and say "that's a religion"? Now "a set of beliefs" no longer applies to all religions.

You can't argue that a car isn't a religion either. Not according to what you have said so far. If you did you would be intolerant, by your own definition.

Are you seeing the problem yet?

Ryan Marcus wrote:
But, of course, if you don't define these "strange" religions as relgions, your definition differs.

Yes, its a paradox. I know.

A paradox??? Just one? You don't think the entire idea of you sitting there telling me that "my" definitions of science and religion are both wrong because they don't take other people's definitions into account paradoxical? Hypocritical even?

Methinks you should really give all of this more thought. You are drowning in paradoxes.

Ryan Marcus wrote:
Lets get off science. We're never going to agree.

We don't need to agree. Science rolls on regardless of what any of us think of it.

Ryan Marcus wrote:
If somebody says this is science, and it is part of my religion, who are you to question it? Your not a Uniterrian, thats for sure. You can still question it and tolerate their beliefs at the same time, or you can try to make everybody happy. A futile cause, prehaps, but a good one.

If someone says it's science, that doesn't make it science, and I have every right to question it because if it's not science they would be lying when they say it is. What right do you have to question whether or not ID is science? Yet you did.

If it really is science, and it really is a part of your religion, why do you think I would care anyway? You go believe what you want. I don't say anything until the moment you try to either force your standards on someone else, or spread disinformation. You want to believe ID? Go nuts. I don't even care. But the moment you stand up in a public place and say "ID is science", your ass is grass and I'm the lawnmower.

I have no interest in making everybody happy. I am not a politician or a comedian. I seek truth. If the truth makes you unhappy, that's your problem, not mine.

Ryan Marcus wrote:
Quote:

Now I have tried to explain this to you without having to resort to pointing out the ignorance and intolerance of your position, but that hasn't seemed to work, so there it is. The simple fact of the matter is that science needs a single, non-subjective definition of what science is or science cannot exist. And, surprise surprise, it has one. If you don't want to accept that, you don't have to... as long as you're not a scientist. Just like how I don't have to accept the definition of Uniterrianism as long as I'm not a member of your religion. But you cannot practice science without embracing the single, standard definition of what science is, either implicitly or explicitly.

Fine. I'm going to ignore the fact that you just said I can't practice scince without believing (not just beliving, EMBRACING) the single definition.

If you think that, fine. Go ahead.

Please, don't ignore it. I will say it again if you like. You cannot practice science without embracing the single, standard definition of what science is. You cannot.

You cannot be a Christian without embracing Christianity, now can you? Can you be a Uniterrian without embracing Uniterrianism? I doubt it. So why is it so hard to believe that you can't be a scientist without embracing what science is? Science is what science is, and that single, standard definition is what defines science as we know it. If you're not prepared to embrace that, then you don't really intend to practice science. It's as simple as that.

Ryan Marcus wrote:
Quote:

Your opinion doesn't matter. My opinion doesn't matter. No opinions matter in science, because that is the nature of science. Facts and relevant hypotheses based on those facts matter. Not opinions, not yours or mine. The definition of science, astonishingly enough, works the same way.

You just gave me an opinion. All we have is opinions.

Only because you have ignored all of the links I posted that provide evidence of a single, standard definition of what science is. I suppose that after you have ignored all of my proof and the logic I have presented, all that is left would seem like opinion.

Ryan Marcus wrote:
I'm not trying to resrict religion, you are, as far as I can tell.
Relgion is a set of beliefs. What is restricting about it? How could one have a religion that is not a set of beliefs? Sure, it could be more. No, it can't be less, because as soon as you think "Pizzaism" you have a belief!

I'm not trying to restrict anything. You are free to believe what you want, when you want and how you want. You call whatever you want a religion. You want to worship pigeons? Then I say may their blessings rain down on you from the heavens. Have fun...

... up until the moment it comes time for us to share ideas. Because at that point we have to reach some kind of intersubjective understanding about what religion is, or communication is impossible.

Why do you believe that whether or not I define something as a religion or not would affect a believer in that religion? If I said Uniterrianism was not a religion, does that somehow mean you no longer believe? Does my definition - or anyone's definition - really matter to you as a believer?

I noticed that you don't seem willing to actually take the hard questions on. What about what I asked Soulfire? Here, let me sum it up again:

Religions are given certain rights and protections under the laws of most countries. While the ethics of this are certainly debatable, the fact remains that most religions depend on those protections to survive. And certainly many other organizations would love to get the protections afforded to religions. So how should we proceed, according to your theory? Should we:
  1. simply give those privileges to anything that anyone calls a religion? (Make it so that any organization can get tax breaks and other priviledges simply by calling itself a religion?)
  2. eliminate those rights and privileges altogether? (Let religions fend for themselves?)
  3. grant those rights and privileges on a case by case basis? (Give those privileges to only certain religions, rather than any religion?)


Ryan Marcus wrote:
Person A is a Pizzaist. He declares himself one. Who are you to tell him that it can't be a religion? Who are you to tell somebody that thier beliefs are not "good" enough to be a religoin? Who are you to say that your beliefs are a religion and thiers are not?

Who are you to tell me that I can't say it's not a religion?

Paradoxes and hypocrisy abound....
haak_heu
Religion it is the complext thing to define

It is what people's believes
Ryan Marcus
Quote:

Who are you to tell me that I can't say it's not a religion?

Not saying you can't. Just that you are wrong.

I guess we have officaly gotten to our core beliefs, and mine tell me that I should not be allowed to take a religion and tell its believers that they are not one.
Indi
Ryan Marcus wrote:
Quote:

Who are you to tell me that I can't say it's not a religion?

Not saying you can't. Just that you are wrong.

I guess we have officaly gotten to our core beliefs, and mine tell me that I should not be allowed to take a religion and tell its believers that they are not one.

"I should not be allowed to take a religion and tell its believers that they are not one."... assuming it's a religion, of course. You are presupposing that.

*shrug* So your beliefs require you to keep silent even when you see something patently ridiculous? Interesting. Yes, I certainly don't share your beliefs. I don't believe anyone should be prevented from speaking truth and sharing knowledge and wisdom - if they're right then the other party will learn, and if they're wrong then they will be corrected and they will learn themselves.

My beliefs tell me that if I see you calling something a religion that is clearly not, I can point out your error... and you're free to disagree with me if you choose, or even outright ignore me. You have a right to believe what you want, but you don't have the right to have reality conform to your personal whims. If you want to believe that you have divine right to pass lethal judgement on sinners, fine... but you don't have the right to have me accept that belief without resistance.

This is my religion, that everyone has the right to believe what they want, but no one has the right to have the world bend to their whims. You can believe what you want, but I don't have to submit to those beliefs. If I see something absurd, I am free to point it out. If I see something wrong, I am free to stop it.

And, actually, no, you can't tell me I'm wrong. Not according to your own beliefs. Not without making a religious bigot and hypocrite of yourself.

*shrug* Hey, it's the bed you made. Lie in it.
socialoutcast
I have read in your posts a number times that religion is a "set of beliefs" and a "a set of moral guide lines", and to add to the list I'd like to add that is is a set of rules which direct or guide our lives/decisions. This makes since because most of use here, as I observed have basically agreed that our religion, whatever that may be, refers to some kind of higher power (a.k.a god, nature, ... etc).

I think for the athiest, they believe in a lack of religion or anti-religion denying any sign or proof of the existance of a higher power or god and they are in total of everything. For the agnostic or skeptics, they are not sure what they believe and go about backing up there ideas via tangable evidence which can be observed and measured through scienfic methods, then they theorize on what they have observed.

If religion is just a set of beliefs, moral guidelines or rules, then yes then we can classify it as its own catagory, such as mathmatics, philosophy, politics, science are their own catagories. Religions such as Islam, Budism, Catholism I would call mere religions because of the very nature of their existance and what is envolved to be apart of such groups (i.e. praying towards Mecca, confession, rain dancing ...). Such things must be done to appease god whoever that may be. Such religions can isolate the relegion aspect from other aspects of life and human though. It is as if it's a catagory on its own.
The Conspirator
Quote:
I think for the athiest, they believe in a lack of religion or anti-religion denying any sign or proof of the existance of a higher power or god

There is no evadence or proof of any god.

Religion is not just a set of beliefs and it is defiantly not morel guide lines or a set of rules.
I have a set of beliefs and I do have morels and a set of rules to go along with that morality but I do not have a religion.
Religion is a set of spiritual beliefs.
socialoutcast
religion does not necessarly have to do with spiritual matters. your own belief system may be different then someone else's.

Example: i believe there exists one and only one God, Someone else can believe in many gods, and someone can believe no god.
vihang
Religion can be defined as way of life with certain beliefs !!
Huntress
Religion is one's belief that is categorized under spiritual...
Bluedoll
vihang wrote:
Religion can be defined as way of life with certain beliefs !!
I think this is an excellent definition.

I would include a lot of things in this category including atheism, perhaps who knows, even economics or science if it was geared to offer what was required to define ones life either independently or collectively.

I however, agree more with the explanation that religion is extremely difficult to define.

Rolling Eyes
Bikerman
It is a completely useless definition because it contains zero information.
Everybody has a way of life and everybody has some beliefs or other. According to this definition that makes everyone in the world religious and every lifestyle a religion. Popycock.
Hello_World
Set of beliefs based on spirituality?

Some form of spiritual leadership?

Quote:
I would include a lot of things in this category including atheism, perhaps who knows, even economics or science if it was geared to offer what was required to define ones life either independently or collectively.


Can you really call capitalism, socialism, environmentalism etc religions? if there is no line between politics and religion, then what is the point of a definition?

(Not to mention athieism.)
Bluedoll
haak_heu wrote:
Religion it is the complext thing to define

It is what people's believes
Maybe that's what it is.

Laughing
loremar
People have beliefs or faiths because they think it makes their life more meaningful.
People act according to their belief or faith because they think that by doing so, they can fulfill the meaning of life.
Therefore Religion is man's attempt to find meaning in life.

Or

People have beliefs or faiths because they were preconditioned to believe so.
People act on their beliefs because they were told to do so.
Therefore Religion is man's attempt to brainwash people.

Take your pick. I'll take the first one.
deanhills
loremar wrote:
People have beliefs or faiths because they think it makes their life more meaningful.
For me faith is not about thinking. It comes from some place much deeper than thinking. You either have faith or you don't. It's sort of an unconditional place that may look very illogical to someone who looks from the outside in with a thinking cap on. It is something that is very simple, too simple for complicated thinking.
Very Happy
Bikerman
Religion is not that hard to define.
It is a set of beliefs from which people (think they) derive moral values, a narrative and a supernatural meaning to life. They usually have some notion of continuation beyond death, a creation myth and a 'method' of some sort (could be a model, set of precepts or state to strive for).
Dennise
The cornerstone of religion is belief in something that can't be proven as true or false i.e. faith.

There are many reasons why people of sound mine hold dear such religious beliefs. These may include:

personal fear
nothing to loose
enjoyment of associated social contacts
life after death
laziness in the face of critical thinking
deferment to perceived authority figures
grand displays of religious rituals e.g. faith healers


There of course are many more.
lrj945
it is defiantly not morel guide lines or a set of rules.
I have a set of beliefs and I do have morels and a set of rules to go along with that morality but I do not have a religion. You are presupposing that. Interesting. Yes, I certainly don't share your beliefs. I don't believe anyone should be prevented from speaking truth and sharing knowledge and wisdom.

I can point out your error... and you're free to disagree with me if you choose, or even outright ignore me. You have a right to believe what you want, but you don't have the right to have reality conform to your personal whims.
Dennise
Yes, religion is a set of beliefs. It requires some sort of faith from followers to buy into its spiritual, mystical or occult tenants with a concurrent partial abandonment of one's logic

There is also a 'quid quo pro' component that is needed to attract would be followers. E.g. afterlife, reuniting with lost loved ones, return to perfect health, milk 'n honey, gold paved streets, 72 virgins, reincarnation etc.. Without such 'payback', few would buy into it.
deanhills
Dennise wrote:
The cornerstone of religion is belief in something that can't be proven as true or false i.e. faith.

There are many reasons why people of sound mine hold dear such religious beliefs. These may include:

personal fear
nothing to loose
enjoyment of associated social contacts
life after death
laziness in the face of critical thinking
deferment to perceived authority figures
grand displays of religious rituals e.g. faith healers


There of course are many more.
Dennise wrote:
Yes, religion is a set of beliefs. It requires some sort of faith from followers to buy into its spiritual, mystical or occult tenants with a concurrent partial abandonment of one's logic.

There is also a 'quid quo pro' component that is needed to attract would be followers. E.g. afterlife, reuniting with lost loved ones, return to perfect health, milk 'n honey, gold paved streets, 72 virgins, reincarnation etc.. Without such 'payback', few would buy into it.
That does not sound like a definition of religion at all. More like judgment of the religious as all of the descriptions you have given show the religious as weak in character, fearful, cannot think for themselves, don't have a grip on reality, don't take responsibility for their lives, etc. etc. As far as I can see some of the non-religious also may lean in the same direction. Some of them may also have their gurus, follow other people's teachings/philosophies etc.

The definition below is more on the mark for me as it is entirely non-judgmental:
Quote:
What is religion? There are many definitions for the term "religion" in common usage. On this web site, we define it very broadly, in order to include the greatest number of belief systems: "Religion is any specific system of belief about deity, often involving rituals, a code of ethics, and a philosophy of life." Thus we include here all of the great monotheistic religions, Eastern religions; Neopagan religions; a wide range of other faith groups, spiritual paths, and ethical systems; and beliefs about the existence of God(s) and Goddess(es). We recognize that most people define "religion" in a much more exclusive manner.

Source: http://www.religioustolerance.org/var_rel.htm
Dennise
deanhills wrote:
Dennise wrote:
The cornerstone of religion is belief in something that can't be proven as true or false i.e. faith.

There are many reasons why people of sound mine hold dear such religious beliefs. These may include:

personal fear
nothing to loose
enjoyment of associated social contacts
life after death
laziness in the face of critical thinking
deferment to perceived authority figures
grand displays of religious rituals e.g. faith healers


There of course are many more.
Dennise wrote:
Yes, religion is a set of beliefs. It requires some sort of faith from followers to buy into its spiritual, mystical or occult tenants with a concurrent partial abandonment of one's logic.

There is also a 'quid quo pro' component that is needed to attract would be followers. E.g. afterlife, reuniting with lost loved ones, return to perfect health, milk 'n honey, gold paved streets, 72 virgins, reincarnation etc.. Without such 'payback', few would buy into it.
That does not sound like a definition of religion at all. More like judgment of the religious as all of the descriptions you have given show the religious as weak in character, fearful, cannot think for themselves, don't have a grip on reality, don't take responsibility for their lives, etc. etc. As far as I can see some of the non-religious also may lean in the same direction. Some of them may also have their gurus, follow other people's teachings/philosophies etc.

The definition below is more on the mark for me as it is entirely non-judgmental:
Quote:
What is religion? There are many definitions for the term "religion" in common usage. On this web site, we define it very broadly, in order to include the greatest number of belief systems: "Religion is any specific system of belief about deity, often involving rituals, a code of ethics, and a philosophy of life." Thus we include here all of the great monotheistic religions, Eastern religions; Neopagan religions; a wide range of other faith groups, spiritual paths, and ethical systems; and beliefs about the existence of God(s) and Goddess(es). We recognize that most people define "religion" in a much more exclusive manner.

Source: http://www.religioustolerance.org/var_rel.htm


Perhaps somewhat judgmental in overall tone (certanly NOT intended), but what is judgmental about the following description? Is it not fact?

Yes, religion is a set of beliefs. It requires some sort of faith from followers to buy into its spiritual, mystical or occult tenants with a concurrent partial abandonment of one's logic.

There is also a 'quid quo pro' component that is needed to attract would be followers. E.g. afterlife, reuniting with lost loved ones, return to perfect health, milk 'n honey, gold paved streets, 72 virgins, reincarnation etc.. Without such 'payback', few would buy into it.
deanhills
Dennise wrote:
Perhaps somewhat judgmental in overall tone (certanly NOT intended), but what is judgmental about the following description? Is it not fact?

Yes, religion is a set of beliefs. It requires some sort of faith from followers to buy into its spiritual, mystical or occult tenants with a concurrent partial abandonment of one's logic.

There is also a 'quid quo pro' component that is needed to attract would be followers. E.g. afterlife, reuniting with lost loved ones, return to perfect health, milk 'n honey, gold paved streets, 72 virgins, reincarnation etc.. Without such 'payback', few would buy into it.
I thought we were trying to get to a definition of religion. How is religion an abandonment of logic? There is lots of logic in it, but the logic is faith based for the greater part. The second sentence about quid pro quo is a glib comment of what religion is about. If I were to use the following to define atheism, i.e. there is no quid pro quo, no afterlife, loved ones will not be reunited, people won't return to perfect health ..... etc. I'd be on the wrong track for a definition of atheism, won't I?

Atheism also has its gurus, Dawkins being one, it has its own recommended set of must-read books in order to function as a viable atheist in intelligent discussions (equivalent of the Bible and Bible Studies), it has its own culture, its own detailed manifest of not believing in God, for some who are interested in religion, its own recipes for tackling religion to justify atheism. That does sound a bit sweeping doesn't it and off the mark as far as a definition of atheism is concerned. Ditto your second paragraph in particular as a definition of religion.
Hello_World
Quote:
Atheism also has its gurus, Dawkins being one, it has its own recommended set of must-read books in order to function as a viable atheist in intelligent discussions


No. This only came about recently, and is certainly not necessary to be an atheist.

It is the further acamedic and theoretical research into atheism and the lack of religion and why atheists shouldn't do this is beyond me. Knowledge building is accepted as important in any field. But it certainly isn't necessary to be an atheist nor have a discussion on one's lack of religion.

I managed to be an atheist for some 10 plus odd years before I knew who Dawkins was.

Please define atheist culture. In the 'what do atheists believe' thread to stop this [thread] going off track. http://www.frihost.com/forums/vt-127454-2.html

My definition as I have re-defined it since I posted here last... a faith belief in a non-earthly power matched with a set of actions required by that belief.

Which is not so different from deanhills suggestion, except that it specifies actions... a belief in God without a belief in the churches rules etc is not really religious.
mwasimba
The original substance. i believe thought of the universe.
This substance is a thinking stuff and thoughts of form held by it come into being, hence creation
That man is able also to create form using material available such as wood, metal to create the form held in thought.
Man can also impress his thoughts upon the original stuff and cause creation of new materials but he must be in oneness with the original substance.
That can happen but may takes ages as the original stuff puts in line the mechanisms at work that would give the desired outcome.

That said and done, religion is a name that was used to describe any supernatural beliefs and practices, sacrifices. festivals, and unnatural occurrences that existed in different races, cultures, tribes, and clans.

It is the inner search for peace, oneness with nature, purpose in life, search for fulfilment, and as such we find that such beleifs shape world views, dictate clothing styles, food choice, omens, and much more. Certain things are held sacred by others, such as the cow in india. Am not sure but i hear it is not usually advisable to disrespect the cow in india due to religious beleifs that it is a god. Where am from it is considered livestock.

Do you know your purpose?
What do you live?
Do you live for Good or Evil?
God wants to welcome you into His Kingdom.

Be in touch with the original stuff. That stuff is God.
Bikerman
mwasimba wrote:
The original substance. i believe thought of the universe.
Ergo it preceded the universe, ergo it is outside time and space.
Quote:
This substance is a thinking stuff and thoughts of form held by it come into being, hence creation.
We have every reason to believe that thought requires 'stuff' - ie you need some material substance to organise electrical (or other) signals into first coherence and then consciousness. But the 'stuff' could not think itself into existence, therefore who created the 'stuff' which is thinking?
Quote:
That man is able also to create form using material available such as wood, metal to create the form held in thought.
OK...
Quote:
Man can also impress his thoughts upon the original stuff and cause creation of new materials but he must be in oneness with the original substance.
That is meaningless. What does 'oneness' mean? I can convey my thoughts on paper without any need for some special 'oneness' with the paper. We can alter existing materials to give new materials - and no 'oneness' is required - unless you think, say, the workers at ICI are specially ''one' with the nitrogen, oxygen and carbon they combine to give various compounds.
Quote:
That can happen but may takes ages as the original stuff puts in line the mechanisms at work that would give the desired outcome.
I don't understand that sentence.....
Quote:
Do you know your purpose?
No, and neither do I accept that there is a 'purpose' defined for me.
Quote:
What do you live?
I presume that is 'live for' ? In that case my answer would be far too long for this message - suffice it to say that I live for many things...
Quote:
Do you live for Good or Evil?
Neither since the idea is nonsensical. You cannot live 'for Good' since good is a human construct and therefore subjective. You can try to live a 'good' life according to your own conceptions of right and wrong and I think that on the whole most people probably try to do so..
Quote:
God wants to welcome you into His Kingdom.
No thanks, the idea sounds horrifying.
Quote:
Be in touch with the original stuff. That stuff is God.
As I said, 'stuff' comes from somewhere and therefore cannot be primo-generis.
inoshi
Religion, to my understanding, presents itself as a belief system that includes spirituality. Spirituality enfolds religion, and religion places authority of one's self, outside of self.

Shocked

Inoshi
Related topics
science vs. religion
Atheism is not scientific.
State your Political Philosophy! (1000 FRIH$ to the best!)
ghosts are they real??
Einstein proves Religion
A rant on God, religion and morality
Is philosophy a science?
In how many ways could science meet religion?
What do you think about Scientology?
Is atheism a religion?
Create a religion
Why do so many people believe in the idea of a soul?
Is Atheism a Religion?
Declaration of Separation
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Philosophy and Religion

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.