Prometheus

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?

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.

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. 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.

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.

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

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? 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. 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'. So long as that religion endorses violence at some level. Or is it enough that the person believes themselves to be religious? I have similar thoughts, but it's an interesting movement none the less. I don't think this definition is broad enough to include Eastern religions. Even the most orthodox Buddhism doesn't fit this bill.

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. 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.

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. 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.

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... You mean like you did with Buddhist scripture? http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/same-faith-debates/142512-dharmic-only-buddhism-theistic-15.html

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?

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?

Because genuine Buddhists can only come from the far east, right? Are you Pleroma? I'll join the site and debate a later today or tomorrow when i get a chance. Here are two more forums, which might have a higher percentage of your genuine Buddhists you might want to try: http://www.dharmawheel.net/ http://www.dhammawheel.com/index.php

I'm English and proud to be European.

It's always time to reassess my thinking. Wallace is entitled to his opinion. But just because he says something doesn't make it true. You can find Buddhist scholars who think the Buddha had a golden bell end (glans penis, if that doesn't translate internationally) if you want to believe that too. Would that be the scriptural evidence i'm still waiting for you to post? BTW nothing Wallace writes, as imminent a scholar as he may be, will ever be scripture. You do realise this? I can only assume you jest. Or do you honestly believe Tibetan Buddhism is the culmination of all Buddhist teachings? They are a branch of Buddhism, among many. There are even branches within Tibetan Buddhism. But the to say that represents the entirety of Buddhism... wow. Yes, the Vajrayana tradition does interpret scripture in very esoteric ways. What about the other Mahayana traditions, or the Theravadin traditions? Apparently they are not Buddhism - only the Vajrayana tradition? Tell you what. I don't think anyone here actually cares about our discussion - and why should they, this is a science forum. Why don't we take this debate to a Buddhist forum or two and continue where many Buddhists can contribute? If it is amenable to the mod team here, perhaps we can provide a link to this Buddhist forum here so people can follow the debate (if someone has read all our squibbles this far, it is clear they have a genuine wish to know the truth about Buddhism and so it wouldn't be like sending traffic away). Would you agree to this compromise?

One of the few science orientated stars from my childhood. He will be remembered. Plus he was an awesome Gamesmaster, if anyone remembers that.

Wallace's point may well be clear, but that does not make it right. I have already given my reasons and references for thinking otherwise. The Christian concept of Aeons may well be the same as the buddhist concept of devas. I have no wish to study Buddhist or Christian mysticism to find out. I have given samples from Buddhist scripture indicating the Buddha did not think teachings about god(s) as important to the dharma. The link you provide is to a Tibetan Buddhist scholar. They have a great many gods never directly mentioned by the Buddha himself or referred to in any other form of Buddhism. Notice even in the link you provide it acknowledges itself as a later addition to the Buddha's teaching (no pages numbers, but very early on). I'm not saying Tibetan Buddhism is the wrong interpretation of the Buddha's teaching - but it is only one interpretation among a great many. If you amend your claim to saying teachings about god(s)/devas are important to Tibetan Buddhism I would have no problems - but Tibetan Buddhism does not represent all Buddhism. Far from. Please show a direct reference from the scriptures (not later commentaries) demonstrating the Buddha's doctrine is entirely dependent on the existence of god(s). BTW, the core teachings of Buddhism are regarded as being the four noble truths, the noble eight-fold path and the five precepts, all from the very first discourse he gave (Setting in Motion the Wheel of the Dharma (Dharmacakra Pravartana Sūtra). None of which even mention god(s) in passing. If such a core concept, would it not have been included as a noble truth? Buddhism most certainly does not teach about permenant self. There is no 'thing' which is self - god manifestations or otherwise. Our sense of self as some kind of transcendent being is an illusion in Buddhism. The doctrine of Annatta is very clear about this is Buddhism. Seriously, if you think Buddhism teaches there is such thing as a self you are grossly mistaken. From the Dhammapada (i think). Sorry i thought you might actually be a Buddhist when i asked you that. If i am at a loss it is only by your reckoning. I would go further. It is a bad idea to worship anything. Not what was said. Speculating on any philosophy is a waste of time according to the Buddha. That includes Buddhist philosophy as well as any other. Thinking about elaborate metaphysical propositions which can never be proved is at best a waste of time. To the best of my sincere practice this is what the Buddha taught, not about god(s), devas, transcendence or self.