The problem with definitions requiring gods is that buddhism is generally regarded as a religion and obviously doesn't involve gods, "divinity" or "superhuman agency".
No. The problem is that some people believe that all forms of Buddhism are generally regarded as a religion, which is false.
Having said that, his definition is not appropriate anyway because it declares certain forms of Buddhism as non-religion (because there's no divinity there).
That doesn't make my definition wrong. It declared certain forms of Buddhism as not religions because they are most certainly not a religion; as declared by themselves, by theologians and by philosophers. The Buddha is not a divinity and in Buddhism there are no divine revelations or divine messengers. Additionally. Even though strictly The Buddha is honored, those forms of Buddhism do not imply nor require (and I'd go as far as saying, accept) worship of The Buddha.
Right (1/4). You establish that the set of beliefs is that there is no divinity. Which is perfectly fine.
Wrong. Science makes no statement one way or the other about the existence of a divinity. Indeed, you'll find both religious and atheist scientists. It is true that a scientific explanation cannot invoke a deity as argument, but it cannot invoke the non-existence of a deity as argument either.
I was criticizing his methodology, not his beliefs.
Science does not make any statement one way or the other, but the act of assuming it does still agrees with the first criterion; unlike two of the other three statements.
Ok, let's play your game. But let's play it correctly.
set of beliefs or dogmas about divinity
The universe was created in the big bang. There is no higher being, and if there is, it cannot and does not interact with this universe and is undetectable and unprovable to the point that it doesn't exist.
Right (1/4). You establish that the set of beliefs is that there is no divinity. Which is perfectly fine.
feelings of veneration and fear of it
Look out at the stars, isn't humbling how tiny and in significant we are in the grand scheme of things? There is so much we don't know, but we must never stop trying to understand it.
Wrong. In "and fear of it", "it = divinity". You established that the belief is that there is no divinity. Therefore, there are no feelings of veneration and fear of what isn't.
moral rules for the individual and social conduct and
Try to do things ethically, otherwise the ethics committee might pull your funding! Don't do things like plagiarize or try to forge results. If you do, we will fucking ostracize your ass. Try to be honest and not exaggerate results.
Right (2/4). Science is similar to religion in the fact that it establishes a set of moral rules for the individual.
ritual practices in its homage
Follow the scientific method and apply the best statistical methods in your analysis.
Wrong. In "in its homage", the it is still equal to "divinity" which you established as null. Therefore following the scientific method does not pay homage to "it".
Does it fit?
No. Only 2/4 conditions are fulfilled.
Could science be a religion based on this definition?
No. It couldn't and it isn't.
If science is not a religion, and by this definition it is, does that mean that this definition is wrong?
The premise of the question is false. By the definition, science is not a religion, as it only fulfills two of the four conditions.
However, that doesn't mean that the definition is correct, only that your path of reasoning doesn't prove it wrong.
My definition before looking for it online: "set of beliefs or dogmas about divinity, feelings of veneration and fear of it, moral rules for the individual and social conduct and ritual practices in its homage."
A found definition that I might agree with: "A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs."
I have no mod points so I must say that if everyone had that same reflex you just displayed, of checking ones assumptions when it's trivial to do so, humanity would be conquering the universe at this point.
Right across the free world we're told this these giant databases are there to keep us safe.
The question is more who is being kept safe
Sadly, your view is optimistic. It's not "who" that's being kept safe, but "what". And the answer is "Capital".
There has never been a working economic system that had the general populace as its priority. Capitalism is most certainly not an exception.
The simple truth is that the mentioned information has a large cost, and agencies (at least theoretically) oriented to the protection of the citizens are not a good investment.
Citizens are simply not valuable enough to spend the high cost of these surveillance tools in their protection.
In my wildest conspiracy theories, the English Monarchy and other old money global illuminati types (Bush's?) purposefully had the well blown to punish America for stopping Keystone XL.
In my wildest conspiracy theories, the very rich and mighty are still people and fuck up often. The only difference is that they consider some millions of dollars to just be the expected cost of doing business.
What causes more economic loss to a corporation? Murder? Or attacking payment processors.
You expect crimes to be judged by humane reasons while they are judged by economic reasons.
You probably also believe that all people should be equal, but you live in a world that clearly disagrees and believes people are valued by their economic value (both possessions and influence in the economy).
In some centuries, humans will have stories about the dark ages where the humans were judged by their economic value, just as we do about the times where they were judged by birthright or, even before, by brute force.
And these humans will probably live in a society with its set of flaws, to be corrected in the further future.
The only important objectives, as a society, are to survive and to improve. As long as we're doing both, everything's fine.
That's a great benefit of competition in an open platform. If Samsung's good enough, to usurp Google, then customers of both will benefit.
Actually. Even if Samsung isn't good enough, customers will still benefit. Competition, even if it's only remotely fair, is still much better than monopoly.
The added benefit of competition on an open platform is that customers aren't the only ones to benefit. The faster improvement of the platform improves the shared knowledge and raises the starting point of any future effort to improve.
Closing platforms should be punished with a "purposefully resisting the technological improvement of humanity" tax.
More than 400 megabytes of data per second come from the array to the Murchison observatory, before being streamed across 500 miles of Australia's National Broadband Network to the Pawsey Centre
They forgot to mention the step where the 400 MB go to the NSA to be checked for signs of extra terrestrial terrorism.
Yeah, like wedding photographers, jewelry artists, poets, screenwriters, game producers, web programmers, novelists, small film makers - nothing but control freaks!
Not that I agree with the previous post, but you seem to mistake the media industry with the media creators.
Or maybe if Slashdot stopped posting stale news then perhaps all those people could get a mention once in a while? Mind you, this statement is not related to this submission... for once.
So what you're saying is: - Some news are old but not this one. - Your post, written in this submission, is self-identified as old, as it actually belongs to an older submission.
Did you do it on purpose as a kind of allegory of your point?
The answer to different medics having different opinions on a non-certain condition isn't to ask non-medics.
If you were building a bridge and two different concrete experts gave you two different opinions, you'd ask a third one or decide which you trust more based on other information. You wouldn't ask a shaman to invoke the spirit of the mountain into wet sand, and build your bridge with it.
Slashdot Mirror
Your definition just relies on that of divinity.
I agree.
The divine is whatever is transcendental and greater than oneself.
I disagree. I understand "supernatural" as one of the characteristics of "divine".
Therefore any set of beliefs concerned about things greater than oneself is a religion.
I disagree with the premise.
The problem with definitions requiring gods is that buddhism is generally regarded as a religion and obviously doesn't involve gods, "divinity" or "superhuman agency".
No. The problem is that some people believe that all forms of Buddhism are generally regarded as a religion, which is false.
Having said that, his definition is not appropriate anyway because it declares certain forms of Buddhism as non-religion (because there's no divinity there).
That doesn't make my definition wrong. It declared certain forms of Buddhism as not religions because they are most certainly not a religion; as declared by themselves, by theologians and by philosophers. The Buddha is not a divinity and in Buddhism there are no divine revelations or divine messengers. Additionally. Even though strictly The Buddha is honored, those forms of Buddhism do not imply nor require (and I'd go as far as saying, accept) worship of The Buddha.
Wrong. Science makes no statement one way or the other about the existence of a divinity. Indeed, you'll find both religious and atheist scientists. It is true that a scientific explanation cannot invoke a deity as argument, but it cannot invoke the non-existence of a deity as argument either.
I was criticizing his methodology, not his beliefs.
Science does not make any statement one way or the other, but the act of assuming it does still agrees with the first criterion; unlike two of the other three statements.
Do you not think the NSA has a whole department of day traders acting as private individuals making money off all the data they have?
OMG! Now I do! :)
Ok, let's play your game. But let's play it correctly.
set of beliefs or dogmas about divinity
The universe was created in the big bang. There is no higher being, and if there is, it cannot and does not interact with this universe and is undetectable and unprovable to the point that it doesn't exist.
Right (1/4). You establish that the set of beliefs is that there is no divinity. Which is perfectly fine.
feelings of veneration and fear of it
Look out at the stars, isn't humbling how tiny and in significant we are in the grand scheme of things? There is so much we don't know, but we must never stop trying to understand it.
Wrong. In "and fear of it", "it = divinity". You established that the belief is that there is no divinity. Therefore, there are no feelings of veneration and fear of what isn't.
moral rules for the individual and social conduct and
Try to do things ethically, otherwise the ethics committee might pull your funding! Don't do things like plagiarize or try to forge results. If you do, we will fucking ostracize your ass. Try to be honest and not exaggerate results.
Right (2/4). Science is similar to religion in the fact that it establishes a set of moral rules for the individual.
ritual practices in its homage
Follow the scientific method and apply the best statistical methods in your analysis.
Wrong. In "in its homage", the it is still equal to "divinity" which you established as null. Therefore following the scientific method does not pay homage to "it".
Does it fit?
No. Only 2/4 conditions are fulfilled.
Could science be a religion based on this definition?
No. It couldn't and it isn't.
If science is not a religion, and by this definition it is, does that mean that this definition is wrong?
The premise of the question is false. By the definition, science is not a religion, as it only fulfills two of the four conditions.
However, that doesn't mean that the definition is correct, only that your path of reasoning doesn't prove it wrong.
Either you live somewhere where politics are "about divinity", or we don't share the same definition of "divinity".
The difference in distance from yourself of the people favored and unfavored by the action.
Which is closed differentiates good and evil.
The shorter the distance, the greater the evil and the smaller the good. And vice versa.
Define religion.
My definition before looking for it online: "set of beliefs or dogmas about divinity, feelings of veneration and fear of it, moral rules for the individual and social conduct and ritual practices in its homage."
A found definition that I might agree with: "A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs."
I have no mod points so I must say that if everyone had that same reflex you just displayed, of checking ones assumptions when it's trivial to do so, humanity would be conquering the universe at this point.
Who is being kept safe? Politicians and their thugs. That's who.
Politicians are puppets. Well paid puppets, but puppets after all.
Politicians are being watched too; probably even more than simple citizens. You wouldn't want your puppets to act under no surveillance.
Right across the free world we're told this these giant databases are there to keep us safe.
The question is more who is being kept safe
Sadly, your view is optimistic. It's not "who" that's being kept safe, but "what". And the answer is "Capital".
There has never been a working economic system that had the general populace as its priority. Capitalism is most certainly not an exception.
The simple truth is that the mentioned information has a large cost, and agencies (at least theoretically) oriented to the protection of the citizens are not a good investment.
Citizens are simply not valuable enough to spend the high cost of these surveillance tools in their protection.
Aquiesce!!!
In my wildest conspiracy theories, the English Monarchy and other old money global illuminati types (Bush's?) purposefully had the well blown to punish America for stopping Keystone XL.
In my wildest conspiracy theories, the very rich and mighty are still people and fuck up often. The only difference is that they consider some millions of dollars to just be the expected cost of doing business.
"Kill one man, and you are a murderer. Kill millions, and you are a conqueror. Kill everybody, and you are a god." - Jean Rostand.
What causes more economic loss to a corporation? Murder? Or attacking payment processors.
You expect crimes to be judged by humane reasons while they are judged by economic reasons.
You probably also believe that all people should be equal, but you live in a world that clearly disagrees and believes people are valued by their economic value (both possessions and influence in the economy).
In some centuries, humans will have stories about the dark ages where the humans were judged by their economic value, just as we do about the times where they were judged by birthright or, even before, by brute force.
And these humans will probably live in a society with its set of flaws, to be corrected in the further future.
The only important objectives, as a society, are to survive and to improve. As long as we're doing both, everything's fine.
That's a great benefit of competition in an open platform. If Samsung's good enough, to usurp Google, then customers of both will benefit.
Actually. Even if Samsung isn't good enough, customers will still benefit. Competition, even if it's only remotely fair, is still much better than monopoly.
The added benefit of competition on an open platform is that customers aren't the only ones to benefit. The faster improvement of the platform improves the shared knowledge and raises the starting point of any future effort to improve.
Closing platforms should be punished with a "purposefully resisting the technological improvement of humanity" tax.
"Scarring is OP!"
(Sometimes I think I may have liked being a teacher.)
(Sometimes I think how wonderful would school have been if my teacher had explained the world instead of just showing it.)
More than 400 megabytes of data per second come from the array to the Murchison observatory, before being streamed across 500 miles of Australia's National Broadband Network to the Pawsey Centre
They forgot to mention the step where the 400 MB go to the NSA to be checked for signs of extra terrestrial terrorism.
They don't want you to be one of their clients.
Fortunately it's not a problem as long as you don't need them to be one of your providers.
Nestlé being Nestle.
Yeah, like wedding photographers, jewelry artists, poets, screenwriters, game producers, web programmers, novelists, small film makers - nothing but control freaks!
Not that I agree with the previous post, but you seem to mistake the media industry with the media creators.
The relationship between the two is more or less the one between cows and Nestlé. They milk the cow, process the product and even draw a cow in the envelope picture, but I wouldn't equate attacking Nestlé with being against cows or milk.
Or maybe if Slashdot stopped posting stale news then perhaps all those people could get a mention once in a while? Mind you, this statement is not related to this submission... for once.
So what you're saying is:
- Some news are old but not this one.
- Your post, written in this submission, is self-identified as old, as it actually belongs to an older submission.
Did you do it on purpose as a kind of allegory of your point?
I contemplated to change my name to distance myself as far as possible from this brain dead imbecile.
Jenny Coward? Is that you?
The answer to different medics having different opinions on a non-certain condition isn't to ask non-medics.
If you were building a bridge and two different concrete experts gave you two different opinions, you'd ask a third one or decide which you trust more based on other information. You wouldn't ask a shaman to invoke the spirit of the mountain into wet sand, and build your bridge with it.