You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #34: I don't think faith is a necessary component of religion; [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Religion/Theology Donate to DU
Donald Ian Rankin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-31-08 02:10 AM
Response to Reply #29
34. I don't think faith is a necessary component of religion;
I think it's just that it's a major element of Christianity, and we tend to think of Christianity when we say religion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
  -Suppose I start a religion one of whose key tenets is that 2+2 = 4 Donald Ian Rankin  Aug-30-08 03:59 PM   #0 
  - Magic underwear! Magic underwear! I vote for classes on ONLY magic underwear!  valerief   Aug-30-08 04:00 PM   #1 
  - What does the right to bear arms have to with mathematical religion? n/t  TechBear_Seattle   Aug-30-08 04:03 PM   #2 
  - If you don't agree with him, he can shoot you.  baldguy   Aug-30-08 04:08 PM   #8 
  - Sorry; see below. Good catch...  Donald Ian Rankin   Aug-30-08 07:34 PM   #24 
  - no matter what math your religion follows I don't think guns should be in schools  SteelPenguin   Aug-30-08 04:03 PM   #3 
  - It's not a religion if it's based on provable fact.  Kutjara   Aug-30-08 04:03 PM   #4 
  - aye, but can you prove it? If not, for you, it is religion.  thunder rising   Aug-30-08 04:13 PM   #9 
  - By that reasoning, anything a particular individual can't directly prove...  Kutjara   Aug-30-08 04:25 PM   #12 
     - Is there a  Zebedeo   Sep-03-08 06:45 PM   #53 
  - What do you mean by "empirically proven"?  Boojatta   Aug-30-08 05:10 PM   #15 
  - We can accept that Saul/Paul believed himself to be blind.  Kutjara   Aug-30-08 05:23 PM   #16 
     - How would Saul of Tarsus empirically prove that his sight returned at the touch of Ananias' hand?  Boojatta   Aug-30-08 05:30 PM   #17 
        - He can't.  Kutjara   Aug-30-08 05:36 PM   #18 
           - On the day that Saul's sight returned, what could he have done  Boojatta   Aug-30-08 05:43 PM   #19 
              - He could have walked across the room unaided, or picked up...  Kutjara   Aug-30-08 05:54 PM   #20 
                 - In the year 3008, who will be able to empirically prove that YOU ever existed?  Boojatta   Aug-30-08 05:57 PM   #21 
                 - We'll have to wait and see.  Kutjara   Aug-30-08 08:15 PM   #28 
                    - "I'm not making any claims of having been miraculously cured of anything."  Boojatta   Sep-01-08 08:52 AM   #43 
                 - Did the Spanish Inquisition have no employment opportunities for obsessive or compulsive people?  Boojatta   Aug-30-08 06:22 PM   #22 
                    - Arguably, the Inquisition was less about a literalist interpretation of the Bible...  Kutjara   Aug-30-08 08:07 PM   #27 
  - I think that the veneration of the supernatural would be religion even if it were provable.  Donald Ian Rankin   Aug-30-08 07:35 PM   #25 
  - I see your point, but I don't think what you describe could be called religion.  Kutjara   Aug-30-08 08:21 PM   #29 
     - I don't think faith is a necessary component of religion;  Donald Ian Rankin   Aug-31-08 02:10 AM   #34 
        - I guess we have to disagree there. For me,...  Kutjara   Aug-31-08 02:36 AM   #37 
  - I've always wondered about 2+2=4, though.  knitter4democracy   Aug-30-08 08:57 PM   #30 
     - I think 2+2=4 is on pretty solid ground.  Kutjara   Aug-30-08 10:32 PM   #31 
        - I've never seen those proofs.  knitter4democracy   Aug-30-08 10:57 PM   #32 
           - Such a proof is inherently impossible, as Godel proved with Incompletness.  joshcryer   Sep-01-08 06:45 AM   #40 
              - Not exactly, I think. Godel's theorem is more complicated than most people think it is.  Donald Ian Rankin   Sep-01-08 08:42 AM   #41 
              - I admit my understanding of Incompleteness stems from the book "Godel, Escher, Bach"  joshcryer   Sep-01-08 11:18 PM   #46 
              - I think numbers are more complex/abstract than we admit.  knitter4democracy   Sep-01-08 03:28 PM   #44 
  - Empirical proof  dotcosm   Aug-30-08 04:04 PM   #5 
  - Thats easy enough, I just swap the symbol 4 with 5 and we are done. the symbols are conventions,  thunder rising   Aug-30-08 04:15 PM   #10 
  - Um... I don't think so  dotcosm   Aug-30-08 04:18 PM   #11 
     - The meaning comes from the convention. not the symbols  cyborg_jim   Aug-30-08 05:06 PM   #14 
  - It's in Russell's "Principia Mathematica", and takes hundreds of pages.  Donald Ian Rankin   Aug-31-08 02:16 AM   #36 
  - Teaching facts is allwoed  Realityhack   Aug-30-08 04:04 PM   #6 
  - I assume your religion would be borrowing certain semantics from mathematics while dropping others..  thunder rising   Aug-30-08 04:07 PM   #7 
  - Too many here believe separation is the rule/right.  Festivito   Aug-30-08 04:27 PM   #13 
  - I'm inclined to disagree - rights of the child trump rights of the parent.  Donald Ian Rankin   Aug-30-08 07:38 PM   #26 
     - You mean the right of the state trumps right of parents.  Festivito   Aug-31-08 12:31 AM   #33 
        - The power of the state should trump the power of the parents.  Donald Ian Rankin   Aug-31-08 02:12 AM   #35 
           - Back to your original contention.  Festivito   Aug-31-08 08:35 AM   #38 
  - Correction: by "Second", I of course meant "First"...  Donald Ian Rankin   Aug-30-08 07:33 PM   #23 
  - Godels Incompleness ties in well here.  joshcryer   Sep-01-08 06:43 AM   #39 
  - You can indeed prove that 2+2=4 - assuming reasonable and consistent notation..  Jim__   Sep-01-08 08:50 AM   #42 
     - Yeah but you have to keep creating new axioms.  joshcryer   Sep-01-08 11:17 PM   #45 
        - Creating new axioms?  Jim__   Sep-02-08 07:57 AM   #47 
        - How are you going to formalize Zermelo-Fraenkel?  joshcryer   Sep-03-08 12:54 AM   #51 
           - Zermelo Fraenkel is a basis for set theory.  Jim__   Sep-03-08 02:22 PM   #52 
        - That's not how it works  cyborg_jim   Sep-02-08 03:08 PM   #49 
           - Why not? To formalize that equation in its entirety is impossible.  joshcryer   Sep-03-08 12:49 AM   #50 
              - Formalising that euqation is entirely possible  cyborg_jim   Sep-04-08 05:59 PM   #54 
  - I always liked the qualified equation "2 + 2 = 5...  Kerry4Kerry   Sep-02-08 02:12 PM   #48 
 

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Religion/Theology Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC