- 09 Dec '05 20:11 / 2 edits

Really? You could've fooled me. What that intellect, you must know way more than the average theist.*Originally posted by smokeymcpot420***cuziam ignorant.**

Pray tell, which religions have you looked at?

Edit 2:

Since I should mention this:

I consider these to be religions:

Judaism

Christianity

Islam

I consider these to be pseudo(non)-religious ideologies:

Hinduism

Bhuddism

Confucianism

Taoism

Feel free to ask me anything if you have a question about one of these in particular. - 09 Dec '05 20:36
*Originally posted by Tetsujin***Really? You could've fooled me. What that intellect, you must know way more than the average theist.**

Pray tell, which religions have you looked at?

Edit 2:

Since I should mention this:

I consider these to be religions:

Judaism

Christianity

Islam

I consider these to be pseudo(non)-religious ideologies:

Hinduism

Bhuddism

Confuciani ...[text shortened]... aoism

Feel free to ask me anything if you have a question about one of these in particular.**I consider these to be religions:**

Judaism

Christianity

Islam

I consider these to be pseudo(non)-religious ideologies:

Hinduism

Bhuddism

Confucianism

Taoism

This seems to be a somewhat artificial distinction to me—though I think you may be using the word “religion” in a stricter sense than I do. Are you separating them on the basis of “supernatural (or extra-natural) theism”? That makes some sense, but—

What is sometimes called “the perennial philosophy” of monism, that is perhaps most clearly expressed in Advaita Vedanta and Zen Buddhism, say, also has ancient streams in the more theistic religions (e.g., Hasidism/kabbalah in Judaism, Sufism in Islam)—although those streams do seem to be more “underground.” - 09 Dec '05 20:45

All distinctions are artificial. But, from what I've read and understood, the latter four don't fit on the same side of the page as the former three.*Originally posted by vistesd***This seems to be a somewhat artificial distinction to me—though I think you may be using the word “religion” in a stricter sense than I do. Are you separating them on the basis of “supernatural (or extra-natural) theism”? That makes some sense, but—**

What is sometimes called “the perennial philosophy” of monism, that is perhaps most clearly expressed in ...[text shortened]... m/kabbalah in Judaism, Sufism in Islam)—although those streams do seem to be more “underground.”

My line of divide is based upon the form of it's revelation.

I'd put sikhism in with the other four, but it's just a sad marriage of Islam and Hinduism that I find to be a stupid joke.

Yes, offense intended. - 09 Dec '05 20:58
*Originally posted by Tetsujin***All distinctions are artificial. But, from what I've read and understood, the latter four don't fit on the same side of the page as the former three.**

My line of divide is based upon the form of it's revelation.

I'd put sikhism in with the other four, but it's just a sad marriage of Islam and Hinduism that I find to be a stupid joke.

Yes, offense intended.**My line of divide is based upon the form of it's revelation.**

Understood. I think that “divide” makes sense. Even reading the Hebrew Scriptures mythologically and symbolically and of human origin (which I do), they are in form quite different from the Upanishads or the Dhammapada or the Tao Te Ching. (Possible exception may be something like Ecclesiastes?) - 09 Dec '05 21:15 / 1 edit

Sure. Proof by Construction is one method. To prove that something exists by this method, simply construct it via valid means from things that do exist.*Originally posted by LordOfTheChessboard***Could you give an example?**

Suppose you didn't believe in the existence of any numbers greater than 9, and you challenge me to prove that such numbers do exist. Then my method of proof would be to start with the number 9, whose existence you accept, and add 1 to it, yielding the number 10. Thus the number 10 exists, and all that remains is to demonstrate that it is in fact greater than 9. To say that 10 > 9 is to say that 9+1 < 9, which is to say that

1 > 0, which is true. Therefore, I have constructed a number greater than 9, thereby proving that numbers greater than 9 exist. - 09 Dec '05 21:21

Proving the existence of an ordered set of numbers is quite difficult.*Originally posted by DoctorScribbles***Sure. Proof by Construction is one method. To prove that something exists by this method, simply construct it via valid means from things that do exist.**

Suppose you didn't believe in the existence of any numbers greater than 9, and you challenge me to prove that such numbers do exist. Then my method of proof would be to start with the number 9 ...[text shortened]... , I have constructed a number greater than 9, thereby proving that numbers greater than 9 exist.

More difficult than that.

But I digress.... continue with whatever was being said. - 09 Dec '05 21:21

Can you apply this proof by construction on the existence of God or on the existence of ..... satan ?*Originally posted by DoctorScribbles***Sure. Proof by Construction is one method. To prove that something exists by this method, simply construct it via valid means from things that do exist.**

Suppose you didn't believe in the existence of any numbers greater than 9, and you challenge me to prove that such numbers do exist. Then my method of proof would be to start with the number 9 ...[text shortened]... , I have constructed a number greater than 9, thereby proving that numbers greater than 9 exist. - 09 Dec '05 21:26

Possibly. It would depend on your definition of God. For example, if you define God to be a number greater than 9, then I have already applied this method to prove his existence.*Originally posted by ivanhoe***Can you apply this proof by construction on the existence of God or on the existence of ..... satan ?** - 09 Dec '05 21:29

.... and if the sky falls down we all will be wearing blue hats, Dear Doctor.*Originally posted by DoctorScribbles***Possibly. It would depend on your definition of God. For example, if you define God to be a number greater than 9, then I have already applied this method to prove his existence.**