24 Jun 10
3 edits
Originally posted by FreakyKBHTry drink the same cup of coffee twice.
Much more clear. Can you name one?
If that example doesn't work for you, send me the photos from the third time your first child was born.
While you're at it, throw that log back on the fire once it's burnt to ashes, won't you?
Of course the key event in question here is the fusion of the sperm and egg that led to the birth of robbie carrobie. That event could never be repeated.
24 Jun 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieAnd how does that affect the probability? You claimed that such events do not happen. You never said anything about outside agencies not being involved.
all of your examples rely upon an outside agency,
It must be noted though that in both cases, I am not aware of an outside agency actually making the choices, so the randomness - which is what is under discussion is not a result of outside agency, unless you are claiming that God or some other entity chose the results on the dice.
you are in effect simply proving that life could not have arisen through blind chance.
And where is my proof?
as it stands, Louis Pasteur himself PROVED that you cannot get life from a sterile environment.
No he didn't.
24 Jun 10
Originally posted by Bosse de NageNo event can be repeated as one crucial factor (it position in space time) will always be different.
Try drink the same cup of coffee twice.
So one may ask, to what accuracy must two events be similar to be called 'repeated'.
For example I can throw dice and get double sixes more than once, but I can never have them land in the exact same spot at the exact same time.
Similarly I can drink two cups of coffee (so drinking coffee is repeatable), I just can't drink the same cup twice.
Once could argue that as atoms are scraped of the sides of a die when you throw it, you can never throw the same die twice.
24 Jun 10
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadYes.
No event can be repeated as one crucial factor (it position in space time) will always be different.
So one may ask, to what accuracy must two events be similar to be called 'repeated'.
For example I can throw dice and get double sixes more than once, but I can never have them land in the exact same spot at the exact same time.
Similarly I can drink tw are scraped of the sides of a die when you throw it, you can never throw the same die twice.
Exactly what constitutes an event is also questionable, as all happenings can be seen as terms in a series. The fusion of sperm and ovum that led to the birth of robbie carrobie was an event that flows from another event (which modesty prohibits me from describing further) and from which another as yet open-ended event (the life of robbie carrobie) flowed in turn. That event in turn is a participant in the Big Event that includes all of us.
Well.
-- By the way, I dispute that your cds are arranged in random order. No doubt subtle causes were at play (the order in which they were stacked before you picked them up and distributed them, the amount of space on your table ... ).
25 Jun 10
Originally posted by Bosse de NageYet all of those factors are ultimately random. Just as the throw of a die may be affected by air pressure, the hardness of the surface, etc, yet the result is still random.
-- By the way, I dispute that your cds are arranged in random order. No doubt subtle causes were at play (the order in which they were stacked before you picked them up and distributed them, the amount of space on your table ... ).
25 Jun 10
1 edit
Originally posted by FabianFnasOk.
I don't know enough about Hinduism to have an opinion about it. Believing in many gods with supernatural qualities seems very similar to having many saints with supernatural qualities though.
I guess what you would term as supernatural i would term "natural".
Your interpretation of religon is rigid.
25 Jun 10
Originally posted by FabianFnasYou cannot claim to be neutral when your are hacking away a big part of the world. I have explained to you that there are many religious ideals that do not concern themselves with the supernatural. I think your obsession with science deludes you from providing neutral grounds for a definition regarding religion.
Look at my definition again and see that it is very neutral, not christian centered, not god centered, but centered around the core that believing in any supernatural phenomena is religion. Some beliefs is within the definition that many people would not concider religious (astrology), and som beliefs is outside the definition that many pele would concider religous (use of burqa).
Let's give you an example.
I say I hold a neutral view of science. That is, science is anything to do with the cosmos. Of course, you would say there's much more to science then just space and the stars. The more I continue to claim that I hold a neutral stance that isn't cosmologically centered doesn't make it so.
Your insistence that you hold no bias regarding what is religious is empty words compared to how you present it. You say you have one thing but completely disregard it in one sentence "... and see that it is very neutral, not christian centered, not god centered, but centered around the core that believing in any supernatural phenomena is religion"
Do you not see how confined this is, and how its biased because of this sweeping generalization?
Good, it's not christian centered, not god centered but still its centered around something ignored by a lot of spiritualists.
25 Jun 10
1 edit
Originally posted by ua41I don't understand your arguments.
You cannot claim to be neutral when your are hacking away a big part of the world. I have explained to you that there are many religious ideals that do not concern themselves with the supernatural. I think your obsession with science deludes you from providing neutral grounds for a definition regarding religion.
Let's give you an example.
I say I hold a neu t god centered but still its centered around something ignored by a lot of spiritualists.
Tell me anything that you think is religion and falls outside my definition.
Or tell me anything that you think is not religion that falls inside my definition.
And we take it from there.
I still think my definition is neutral, i.e. not biased toward something that I don't like, or that I do like. It is short, yet covers everything. Some may not like it, fine with me.
If you have a better definition, then tell me and we can discuss from there. Else I found the best definition there is.
25 Jun 10
Originally posted by FabianFnasWhat if I proposed a definition of religion being the way we react to things?
I don't understand your arguments.
Tell me anything that you think is religion and falls outside my definition.
Or tell me anything that you think is not religion that falls inside my definition.
And we take it from there.
I still think my definition is neutral, i.e. not biased toward something that I don't like, or that I do like. It is short, ye ...[text shortened]... nition, then tell me and we can discuss from there. Else I found the best definition there is.
It seems fairly reasonable, I don't think we need to go into contexts of how mainstream religions all fit under this guise so I'll keep this part brief. Could be a belief in god/supernatural is inherent in the religion. This is a reaction to the doctrine, evoking specific emotions of an authority. Some of these doctrines contain moral guidelines which dictate our social responses.
And then there's those that consider spirituality as the direct response from everything. Their are pagan and pantheisticish (ish because I know there a lots of schools of thought under these terms that do incorporate a lot of supernatural stuff) that are purely naturalistic. Personally, people I know and myself find our spirituality amongst each other. Our direct existence already sets a definition for each other. We establish reference points by the qualities that make us us. I wouldn't hold the same characteristics if there wasn't any other aspects to compare them with. And we react to it, almost an inherent compassion for each other is what we found.
Perhaps my definition is too broad? It needs revision, but I feel like all the religions can at least fit under this. Yours excludes anything that doesn't deal with the supernatural. And it seems unfair to deny those who consider it their sense of spirituality.
25 Jun 10
The question here is this: With all the multitudes of religions on this planet that man has come up with to this day and no doubt would continue to do in making new formulations, sects, ideas, etc, why has this happened? With the account of the first interaction between God and man at the Garden of Eden until today, beliefs and ideas of how to worship God have gone out the roof.
So again why has this happened? If God wants us to worship him and worship in any particular way as the Bible gives many examples of this, why has he not from the beginning kept the worlds worship to him the same? Why this free for all?
25 Jun 10
Originally posted by galveston75Becaue garden of Eden is only a symbol used in a myth some people chosed to believe in. The rest of us know this. Some of us don't. You are one of them.
The question here is this: With all the multitudes of religions on this planet that man has come up with to this day and no doubt would continue to do in making new formulations, sects, ideas, etc, why has this happened? With the account of the first interaction between God and man at the Garden of Eden until today, beliefs and ideas of how to worship Go ...[text shortened]... hy has he not from the beginning kept the worlds worship to him the same? Why this free for all?
25 Jun 10
5 edits
Originally posted by FabianFnasAnd another thing, why is it in most religions, Jewish, Christian, Islam, Hindi, and the like, there are no women or very very few women in positions of power in these 'faiths'.
Becaue garden of Eden is only a symbol used in a myth some people chosed to believe in. The rest of us know this. Some of us don't. You are one of them.
Was there some edict from god saying women are inferior to men and therefore not capable of imparting wisdom? Why has it been that way for 2000 years? A few christian sects are beginning to have women priests and so forth but even in those, the number of women in the highest ranks you can count on parts of one finger. Is this an edict from some god? I would like to see a serious answer to this conundrum.
Why is it there were female dominated religions until the ones I mentioned came along?
I am not trying to say female domination of religion is any better than male ones but I would like to know why there is no sexual equality in those religions. I mean REAL equality not some mealy mouthed words from someone saying woman's place is in the home or some such crap.
And if the consensus is there is inequality in those religions and is recognized as such, why hasn't your gods come down hard on such a thing? Am I to assume then that your gods say its ok to discriminate against women?
How can you expect any thinking person seeing this to believe all that dogma came from a god and not simply from men seeking power structures?