The Faith & Religion mega Thread

Originally Posted by enorbet Well you got me there. I'm sho nuff guilty of that one For me it is a matter of definition in a construct, but I am curious... Can you teach me when 1 plus 1 doesn't equal 2?

Bertrand Russell once said that if you allow just one acknowledged contradiction, you can prove anything. So someone challenged him: "If one plus one is three, prove that I'm the pope."

Russel proved it as follows:
1+1=3
Therefore 2=3
Subtracting 1 from both sides gives:
1=2
Therefore 2=1
The pope and I are two persons.
Therefore the pope and I are one person
QED

Originally Posted by enorbet Well you got me there. I'm sho nuff guilty of that one For me it is a matter of definition in a construct, but I am curious... Can you teach me when 1 plus 1 doesn't equal 2?

When we can define one.

One is an abstract human concept, how many molecules are in one; I'd say each one has more or less and changing molecules... thought you'd ah figured that out by now‽

Rigid in beliefs is still belief and what do you get‽

That's why so many try to claim science is just another religion, they don't know how agnostic it is!

Originally Posted by hazel Bertrand Russell once said that if you allow just one acknowledged contradiction, you can prove anything. So someone challenged him: "If one plus one is three, prove that I'm the pope." Russel proved it as follows: 1+1=3 Therefore 2=3 Subtracting 1 from both sides gives: 1=2 Therefore 2=1 The pope and I are two persons. Therefore the pope and I are one person QED

Thank you, hazel. That is both instructive and hilarious

Originally Posted by jamison20000e When we can define one.

We did. It is a an abstract construct. This makes it utterly pure and perfect as long as one keeps terms straight.

One is an abstract human concept, how many molecules are in one; I'd say each one has more or less and changing molecules... thought you'd ah figured that out by now‽ [/QUOTE]

You are missing the point and the majestic beauty of Mathematics. If we view a human as "1 human", a singular entity, even though he or she is made up of billions of cells, for the purposes of this particular investigation we deal with the entire entity as One, all transactions kept within that framework will work perfectly. Then, if we decide to apply the concept of One to just the heart or just a cell or anything we can see as having a singular identity, and keep all our terms in that context, it STILL works perfectly. As longs as we reduce each term to the common denominator, we have a toolbox that literally works on any job.

IMHO Mathematics and Music are the two most important inventions/discoveries humans have ever contributed and evolved.... but then again... Music is heavily "mathematic".

Math will always have unknowables, what then!

We can't get over ourselves while still here but some can evolve...

Originally Posted by jamison20000e Math will always have unknowables, what then! We can't get over ourselves while still here but some can evolve...

Well Duh!. Unknowables are a given, so do you propose to try to know nothing? What possible meaning can Evolution have if our knowledge remains the same, trusting only what we experience ourselves and only in the moment?

As long as our abstract make-believes keep becoming realities we're all right.

Perhaps racism comes more from math than religion‽

Keep onE keepin onE, try some starfruit...

As someone who is neither a theist nor an atheist, let me introduce two new categories of attitudes towards god(s):
(1) I am a theological noncognitivist. I have no idea what the term "god" means. For me it has no meaning.
(2) I am an apatheist. As Van Hegner said, "Apatheism considers the question of the existence or nonexistence of deities to be fundamentally irrelevant in every way that matters."
Note that presenting "evidence" for the existence of deities is like presenting evidence for the existence of extrumeranderquites. It's rather difficult to find any.
jdk

Originally Posted by jsbjsb001 I don't think you've understood the point I was making. {...} The point is, you don't need a PhD to understand that it's impossible to know about a different world whist you're still living in this world. {...} Either you're not understanding the points others are making or you're willfully ignoring them. Again, the "bible" was written by HUMAN BEINGS, that may or may not have had even just the knowledge to supposedly "know" that.{...}

Oh i understood it but you didn't understand mine. I actually said same thing you wrote but with my own words. But when it comes to untouchable stuff youtube also work. YouTube is just like library books to study but with video&audio presentations.

I never argued against that. Because it is reality we live in.

I agree that holy books could have been written by humans but inspiration to write them and message source where did come from?

Originally Posted by enorbet {...}Can you teach me when 1 plus 1 doesn't equal 2?

Replace your previous quote about money with mathematic agreements and voila. Besides even in math there are exceptions. And art is not science product. Tools to make art however are. But not end result.

Originally Posted by jdkaye As someone who is neither a theist nor an atheist, let me introduce two new categories of attitudes towards god(s): (1) I am a theological noncognitivist. I have no idea what the term "god" means. For me it has no meaning. (2) I am an apatheist. As Van Hegner said, "Apatheism considers the question of the existence or nonexistence of deities to be fundamentally irrelevant in every way that matters." Note that presenting "evidence" for the existence of deities is like presenting evidence for the existence of extrumeranderquites. It's rather difficult to find any. jdk

Good theories. But it is like a mixture between agnostic and atheist. But when it comes to this higher power we call God..we really not have clean clear description.

Originally Posted by Arcane Oh i understood it but you didn't understand mine. I actually said same thing you wrote but with my own words. But when it comes to untouchable stuff youtube also work. YouTube is just like library books to study but with video&audio presentations. I never argued against that. Because it is reality we live in. I agree that holy books could have been written by humans but inspiration to write them and message source where did come from? ...

Oh, but I DID understand what you were saying - both in words and implied. Clearly you only hear what you want to hear, so I'll leave it there.

Libraries are broken down into sections: facts, fictions, opinions but religion$ have their own for that same reason...

Originally Posted by jsbjsb001 Oh, but I DID understand what you were saying - both in words and implied. Clearly you only hear what you want to hear, so I'll leave it there.

Nope. And i shorten quotes not because i only hear what i want but because i want to reply to specific parts without making post into 'bed sheet' aka flood|spam. But i leave indication that there was more using {...}. So if someone thinks i cut out context they are blind. I try to focus on specific portions i see need to reply.

Originally Posted by jamison20000e Libraries are broken down into sections: facts, fictions, opinions but religion$ have their own for that same reason...

religion should be put in either fiction or mythology