Prometheus

Try factorising the numerator.

'In humanity we trust'?

"Yes i agree, the conclusion doesn't necessarily follow from the premise."

Then you agree that it's a non sequiteur.

It does not follow logically.

It's like saying "Cows eat grass so the sky is blue."

Both parts are true, but there's no causal relation.

In the case of the link between pre marital sex and divorce, no one is going to do the experiment.

'Cows eat grass' therefore 'the sky is blue', is not quite the same as 'no pre-marital sex' therefore 'less risk of divorce'. You must admit there is a agree of plausibility in the latter not in the former. However, i agree that if this is what it takes for a non-sequitur then both are indeed such. Then it is also a non-sequitur that Plasmodium causes malaria - there is no purely logical reason for it to be so, we had to observe it. In fact most of science would a non-sequitur for if something does logically follow then there is no need of observation or experiment, other than confirming the premise.

So then i don't understand why you levelled this as a critique of the OP. If it does not logically follow, then we have to do experiments to find whether it is true, no?

You would need to get people who were predisposed to have premarital sex, prevent them from doing so, and then see what their divorce rates were like and you would also need to get a group of people who would normally abstain and force them to have premarital sex and see if that altered the divorce rate.

 

Good luck getting that past the ethics committee.

There are other research methodologies. A very quick look revealed some research around this subject has been done. Haven't read much myself, but it looks like a retrospective review of some type. Epidemiology has quite a few methods for investigating claims like these.

If a 20 second search revealed this, i'm sure the OP could find more with some effort.

Th fallacy is that the OP presumes that the outcome of such an experiment is known and that it agrees with his personal belief.

Can you point out to me where the OP states his belief one way or the other, i can't see it:

 

I was just wondering whether anybody knows whether virgin marriages last longer than non-virgin marriages.

 

I have heard that it is better to not have pre-marital sex so that when you do get married, your chances of divorce will be lower.

 

Is there any truth behind being a virgin and your marriage going longer?

 

Please show your opinion with evidence.

I can see an assumption that there is some evidence either way, but i can't see where he states his personal beliefs, let alone where he implies this evidence is in line with his (unstated) beliefs.

The conclusion

"so that when you do get married, your chances of divorce..."

does not follow from the premise

".is better to not have pre-marital sex".

Whether or not you have pre marital sex does not determine the probability of divorce.

Yes i agree, the conclusion doesn't necessarily follow from the premise. You would have to obtain evidence to prove or disprove it. The hypothesis in the OP asks whether pre-marital sex reduces the risk of divorce. Is that the same thing as determining something?

Whether or not " 'better, never to get divorced' is a non sequiteur or not, it's not actually shown to be true, so it can not be used as the basis of making any other logical decision.

Could it not be used on the basis that if true then such and such is true. The premise need not have any basis in reality for an argument to follow logically, does it? Anyway, my only point on this thread is to ask whether the question is one of logic or one of empiricism. In my opinion it is one of empiricism.

I was just wondering whether anybody knows whether virgin marriages last longer than non-virgin marriages.

An honest enough question, no?

I have heard that it is better to not have pre-marital sex so that when you do get married, your chances of divorce will be lower.

 

Is there any truth behind being a virgin and your marriage going longer?

 

Please show your opinion with evidence.

 

Thank you!

The OP goes on to say where this hypothesis came from: hearsay. Well, we have to get our ideas from somewhere. Rather than simply accepting this the OP asks for evidence either way.

The statement "...is better to not have pre-marital sex so that when you do get married, your chances of divorce..."

implies that there is a causal relation ship between a lack of premarital sex and reduced chance of divorce.

However there is no plausible mechanism for it, and I doubt that anyone has done the experiment that would be needed to check if it's true.

 

There's quite probably a correlation between the two factors, but I think that will be produced by confounding factors rather than causation.

Is there really no plausible mechanism for it? I don't know a lot about psychology or sociology, but I could speculate about evolutionary mechanisms which select in favour of abstinence as a way of ensuring men do not waste their time raising young that are not their own.

A very quick google revealed there is some research on the topic, but the links were all to sites advocating abstinence so I didn't bother looking at them. I wouldn't be surprised with a little more digging that someone has done somewhat credible research into it. I don't care enough to look.

Anyway, i agree with you there may well be a correlation, probably via religiosity, linking the two but not causation. I just don't think it logically follows that pre-marital abstinence doesn't result in lower divorce rates.

Or do i simply not understand what a non-sequitur is? I thought it was purely a logical fallacy that the conclusion does not follow the premise.

Also, to double down, 'better, never to get divorced', is non sequitur. How many Catholic and Islamic women have been beaten to death under that presumption? It's nonsense that shouldn't be presumed. Complete non sequitur.

It's a value judgement, not a non-sequitur, isn't it? I think many people believe divorce is generally undesirable, though there a people who don't see it as a problem. Either one is simply a choice of ethics. If it's a non-sequiter are not all moral choices non-sequiturs?

Either way it is irrelevant to the original question which asked whether there is a causal relationship between pre-marital sex and divorce. Either it effects divorce rates or not, regardless whether you think divorce is good, bad or indifferent. Again, it doesn't logically follow either way, one would need evidence. So no non-sequitur fallacy has been made.

"I have heard that it is better to not have pre-marital sex so that when you do get married, your chances of divorce will be lower."

that's quite a spectacular non sequiteur.

I do not understand how the statement is a non-sequiteur. It may be true that populations with less pre-marital sex have lower divorce rates, it may not be true, but it you would have to actually look at the data wouldn't you? It doesn't logically follow one way or the other, does it?

So, as I understand it, the current theory on the beginning of the universe is that an extremely small particle that was unimaginably dense suddenly exploded and our universe began expanding correct? If so, where did this particle come from? It had to come from somewhere right?

 

...since God created the universe, no one had to create God.

I don't understand why you are happy to have something called 'god' exist but having never been created, but unhappy with something called an 'extremely small particle' existing without having been created.

And?

 

 

 

That chart was created more than 6 years ago. How much do you want to bet the trend has become only more pronounced?

Doesn't this chart suggest there wiss something other than education causing this shift? If it were education and only education that decreased people's stock in religion you wouldn't expect there to be such a pronounced trend, you would expect it to remain fairly static? Or maybe it's the type of education itself changing - away from rote towards critical thinking?

Edit: Scrap that, i misread the chart.

If were going to argue statistics then they show that happiest society on earth is a Buddhist one, and this seems the most important measure of social health. It may be the only one that matters.

I'd like to see that statistic.

Rituals can be important in any aspect of life, not just religion. We all celebrate our birthdays/news years etc... Rituals just to mark the passing of time, and hopefully the accrual of wisdom.

In religion, take the ritual of bowing. We might bow to remember certain ideas which we put above our sense of self. If i bow to a Buddha statue its because the statue represents the concept of compassion By bowing to it i remind myself i have chosen compassion to be important to me. The problem comes with empty rituals - performing something either in the hope of getting something in return or for no reason other than you were told to do so both speak about what you have chosen to be important in life.

If people are sufficiently concerned for the welfare of animals that they are willing to delay medical advancements then so be it. It's got to be better than the campaign of terror some animal rights activists waged.

Actually, WE think it's just you.

Ha, maybe it is me. I wish i knew too much though - it would make studying easier.

Good news is if we are the problem, we are also the solution.

Surely it's not how much knowledge we have that is the problem. It's us.

While skin color is not a good way to classify things...

Well said. And the only category that should matter in this context is sentient or not sentient.

Do you think that 1 maybe 2 hundred years from now we'l all be one big mixed race of humans, Due to people having mixed race babies? maybe even 500 years but same principle, Then we will all just be humans.

I hope not, a bit of variety is nice.

Maybe controversial but a would favour the colour-blind approach over the multicultural approach. I don't need to be sensitive to someone else's culture if i treat them as a human being from the start.

typically something along the lines of:

1. Assertion of an authoritative moral code (a religion clearly has something to say about notions of right and wrong);

2. Some form of arbiter(s) of the faith (a group of people institutionalized as authorities upon interpreting that religion's principles);

3. A ritualized orthodoxy covering belief and action, typically (but not always) canonized in some kind of scripture or other record;

4. (*Common, but not absolutely necessary) A belief in some form of supernatural or singular causality.

What is meant by authoritative moral code here? I only ask because Buddhism does not teach right and wrong in the same way as monotheistic religions. Instead of evil, Buddhists might speak of unskilfulness.

Can a religion include man-made morality, or must it be allegedly divine?

We should also keep in mind that while many different practices and beliefs may share a broad name, it is the substance of one's beliefs and conduct which renders something religious or not. There are religious Buddhists and philosophical Buddhists, just to cite one example.

What differentiates the two? (I have heard the same of Taoists - is there a Christian analogue?). It's probably the most important question when determining what constitutes a religion.

There are many religions that do not have specific stated beliefs of the supernatural, a less strict definition has to do with beliefs of the cause and purpose of nature, but the problem is without the supernatural using words like 'cause' or 'purpose' have no meaning in the context. When those things are removed, it just turns in to philosophy. I would like to know what specific sects do not have supernatural beliefs so I could make a better argument.

I am not sure if Buddhism in the west will ever coalesce into a coherent and distinct sect. Whichever culture Buddhism has encountered it has become assimilated into that culture, hence we see quite different sects of Buddhism. However, in the West instead of just receiving one form of Buddhism and assimilating it as in the past, we are exposed to various forms of Buddhism, into various places in the Western world. Anyway, this isn't a study of how religion spreads in the modern world. Bottom line there are some Buddhists who ignore the supernatural elements of Buddhism. Stephen Batchelor is probably the most famous example. Asked if religious, most seem to answer 'don't care'.

I agree it would be fallacious to assume all religions, or more specifically their sects, support violence (association fallacy I believe). But that's not the argument, the argument is that those who commit violent acts in the name of religion are still religious.

So long as that religion endorses violence at some level. Or is it enough that the person believes themselves to be religious?

 

 

But using a description of nature as a guideline for life is the naturalistic fallacy. Just because things do happen doesn't mean hey should happen, or we should do them. I don't believe science should, or even can, attempt to create a moral framework for a few reasons, but that's a different discussion all together. Suffice to say when a scientist is attempting to create a more framework they take off their scientist hat and put on their philosopher hat.

I have similar thoughts, but it's an interesting movement none the less.

My computer's dictionary defines religion as "the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods"

I don't think this definition is broad enough to include Eastern religions. Even the most orthodox Buddhism doesn't fit this bill.

Higher power does not have to be a deity, it could be nearly anything supernatural that relates to humanity (spiritual purpose, reincarnation, etc.). I would agree that higher power is poor wording because its connotation assumes a deity, but it isn't necessarily the case.

 

So you would say that something which contains the supernatural could possibly be religious, but something which does not contain the supernatural cannot be religious?

I can see that holding in most cases, but I still don't think it contains all world religions. There are Buddhists who would argue that rebirth (and other such beliefs) is not a necessary belief to qualify as Buddhist. This is a little controversial to orthodox Buddhists, though. This new sect of 'Western Buddhism', would occupy a strange place then, with all of the trappings of a religion, but not necessarily any supernatural beliefs.

 

I disagree. Hitler's justification blatantly disregards population genetics (higher diversity means higher population fitness), the biological definition of species, etc. He does not use science, or scientific texts, to support his ideas. Social Darwinism is not biologically scientific, it is an attempt to extend misunderstandings of evolution into the political arena. Not only that, science is not a guideline on how anything SHOULD act, only observations of how things DO act. Religion, on the other hand, specifically states what people SHOULD do, not what people DO do. In fact, evolutionary theory directly contradicts the idea of races being a strict distinction.

 

In fact in Decent of Man Darwin states:

"Our naturalist would likewise be much disturbed as soon as he perceived that the distinctive characters of all the races were highly variable. This fact strikes every one on first beholding the negro slaves in Brazil, who have been imported from all parts of Africa. The same remark holds good with the Polynesians, and with many other races. It may be doubted whether any character can be named which is distinctive of a race and is constant."

http://rationalrevolution.net/articles/darwin_nazism.htm

Regarding race, you're preaching to the choir.

Regarding Nazi's trying to use science to support their position:

In the same way you argue that it is an attempt to extend misunderstandings of evolution into the political arena (with which I agree it is), a religious person may claim a fundamentalist is attempting to extend misunderstandings of religion into the political arena. Of course, it's easy to find plenty of examples in the monotheistic texts which fundamentalists can use as templates for their behaviour, and it should be hard for a person of that faith to argue away such violence. But it is not necessarily so of all religions. For example I think a Jain would be quite justified if someone committed mass murder in the name of Jainism to say that person is not a true Jain - such is the emphasis of non-violence in their religion (i.e. non-violence is a defining feature of Jainism). I only came across the one true scotsman fallacy on this thread, but i think it would also be a fallacy to believe it extends to all religions, without first looking at each religion.

However, I do take your point on science being descriptive (preferably predictive) rather than prescriptive. But this distinction only holds if we enforce it: people with political agendas will always be looking to exploit us, and science is as fair game as any other aspect of our lives. There is also a rising tide of good willed people who believe science can provide us with a moral framework, at which point science would make 'should' claims.

It's far too rare to have an intelligent and enjoyable conversation with someone you disagree with on religious forums.

 

Most everyone else defines religion as a belief involving a higher power of some sort.

I think i disagree with most people then. I know Buddhism, and i think Jainism, have no creator deities - and even though they both have plenty of other deities in them, neither are defined by them. Both religions would be unchanged by taking all mention of these deities out. Taoist belief of the Tao is so loosely defined it's difficult to know whether this thing is a higher power. It's defined to be unknowable, so giving it any properties such as higher power would contradict this.

Therefore i would suggest that either religion is not defined by belief in a higher power (though it's present in most of them), or these particular religions aren't really religions.

 

How many misguided individuals until it becomes a religion? This smacks of the no-true-Scotsman fallacy.

By the same token could Hitler's justification of the supreme race be based on 'science'? Regardless of whether those beliefs were truly scientific is irrelevant so long as his understanding is that it is based on science (social Darwinism in this case).

I don't expect anyone here to say a true scientist could not also be a mass murderer, I just wish to illustrate that humans do these things, religious or not. It wouldn't be enough simply to get rid of religion to stop genocidal, misogynistic, homophobic teachings. Might be a start though.

Been stuck on this question:

show g is homogeneous of degree k and state the value of k.

[latex]g(x, y)= x^3 +3xy^2/ \sqrt[3]{x^2-y^2}[/latex]

So i've been trying to use:

[latex]kg(x,y)=x\dfrac{\delta g}{\delta x}+y\dfrac{\delta g}{\delta y}[/latex]

but i just can't seem to get a solution for k. Am i going about this the right way? I think i'm missing something obvious. Does anyone know of anywhere with worked examples of these types of questions?

Thanks for any help.

I agree with iNow. Having a sense that one can affect change in the world is an important lesson. There's nothing worse than watching someone go through life believing themselves to have nothing to contribute. All kids stories involve hyperbole. There are far worse influences in our media afoot.

1. The very fact that the Vajrayana tradition, Smarta Tradition and the Valentinian tradition can be put forward as a single theory which were documented by people who were from different cultures, timelines and locations is itself a strong enough reason to accept this.

So the fact that disparate cultures have come up with a concept of a flat earth must mean the earth is in fact flat. Huh, who would of thought?

Wait a minute...

 

Oh yes, so that you can cherry pick those things from the scripture which suits your personal pet theory and ignore the rest from the scriptures,

 

You mean like you did with Buddhist scripture?

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/same-faith-debates/142512-dharmic-only-buddhism-theistic-15.html

 

The simple popularity of a belief doesn't make it to be true.

No it doesn't, but we're not talking about whether gods actually exist but whether Buddhists believe in them. If you are unwilling to take the word of many Buddhists quoting from various sources that's your prerogative. There is a sufficient trail here now for any interested reader to know your views of Buddhism are not those held by Buddhists themselves, which is all i wanted to achieve, so i won't post anymore on this subject.

If you think you could go to a hundred Buddhist forums, speaking to several Buddhists from each, and they tell you your understanding of Buddhism is lacking, do you not think it might actually be true? How many Buddhists need to tell you before you believe them?

Probably. You can apply vacuous crap to just about anything.

I take it you're not a fan of non-overlapping magisteria then? Does that mean to say you believe everything, at least in principle, can be understood empirically? If so, would you then see mathematical truths as empirical truths?

So first they moved your thread out of the Buddhism section and then you've managed to get that thread suspended too. When I finally get a chance to comment on the thread I will have to apologise to them.

Did you want to try one of the other Buddhist forums?

I wonder whether Gould's non-overlapping magisteria could be applied to the mind instead of religion. Just a thought.

I don't understand the bower-bird reference, could you explain please.

Dude. You've managed to get the thread closed within a day and before I even get a chance to contribute?