I have some troubles believing the representative value of that list for at least one major reason: for example, there was a great mass of undecided (thus, nonreligious) people, such as little children (hundreds of millions of little children!), who obviously couldn't participate in the survey, and the percentage of nonreligious people counting that mass is, IMO, way too low compared to say, christians (besides, the overall number — ~6668 millions — nearly exceeds Earth's population in total; though as the description implies, this is an "approximate estimate"). And if this explanation isn't boring enough, I could think of some another.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
weird how Judaism is only 0.22% and yet everyone has heard of it, and Sikhism is nearly twice that and no one's heard of it....or at least i havn't.
I'm Sikh. There are quite a few of us In South Asia...
You may recognize us by the fact that orthodox Sikhs often wear turban. (sometimes muslims wear "turbans" but they look more like hats, rather than turbans).
We are one of the youngest religions in the world, which is probably why you haven't heard of us. We orignated in the 16th, and probably in history class, you learned about religion through the various ancient empires, etc... We are hardly mentioned in modern history books...
I'm Sikh. There are quite a few of us In South Asia...
You may recognize us by the fact that orthodox Sikhs often wear turban. (sometimes muslims wear "turbans" but they look more like hats, rather than turbans).
We are one of the youngest religions in the world, which is probably why you haven't heard of us. We orignated in the 16th, and probably in history class, you learned about religion through the various ancient empires, etc... We are hardly mentioned in modern history books...
I'm Sikh. There are quite a few of us In South Asia...
You may recognize us by the fact that orthodox Sikhs often wear turban. (sometimes muslims wear "turbans" but they look more like hats, rather than turbans).
We are one of the youngest religions in the world, which is probably why you haven't heard of us. We orignated in the 16th, and probably in history class, you learned about religion through the various ancient empires, etc... We are hardly mentioned in modern history books...
i'm intrigued, what are the Sikh beleifs?
Good question. I'm not a very orthodox Sikh, so don't take this info with a grain of salt.
We, contrary to popular belief, preach nonviolence whenever possible, although we were a war-founded religion (stupid moguls)...
We were also one of the first and few religions to "revere" women, and treat them with respect.
We belive in the 5 Ks. It's almost like a code of honor.
1. Kesh: Not to cut your hair (God made it, so why defile it). I personally cut my hair, as do a lot of Sikhs.
2. Kanga: Means comb in Punjabi (Sikh language): It's a symbol of personal hygiene (comb your hair).
3. Kara: metal bracelet worn on a hand: Symbolizes a never-ending link to God. I wear one.
4. Kaccha: oddly enough it means "boxers". It symbolizes humility, as you should wear proper clothes for proper occasions.
5. Kirpan: means dagger. Very orthodox Sikhs carry this. Rather than a weapon, it symbolizes self respect, and honor. It should never be used to instigate an attack, however a Sikh can use it in self defense. Obviously the kirpan has been under a lot of attacks, as kids aren't allowed to bring weapons to school, separation of church and state, etc.
It is MANDATORY that an orthodox Sikh engages in "seva' or community service regularly. This often includes cooking/serving food at local temples, volunteer work, etc. I'm sure this is quite self explanatory.
We don't believe in heaven or hell, per say, but rather spiritual salvation, and a link to God.
Uh, I'm not really sure what else to say, as I know quite little about Sikhism.
You can check out these links if you are interested: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikhismhttp://www.sikhnet.com/s/SikhIntro
interesting, but G-d made all sorts of stuff, so why just hair?
It's interesting because there is a concept in Judaism where a person takes it upon themselves to become what's called a nazir. One of the extra restrictions on a nazir is that they don't cut their hair (for totally different reasons). However, nazirs are nearly non-existant today, because the only way to stop being one is to bring an offering. Offerings can only be brought while the temple is standing, which it is not currently and hasn't been for the last 2000 or so years.
interesting, but G-d made all sorts of stuff, so why just hair?
I really dunno. I think because it's the most prominent thing that one can remove from their body without too much effort.
The reason we wear turbans is to conceal our long hair too.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Isn't removing a bit of nail easier?
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
So you are saying little children cant believe in God and the Bible and have a faith?
That's wrong.
I meant children under four or five years old, who can't fully understand the concepts and thinking categories of a given religion, thus cannot name themselves the adherents of it, and therefore can't be counted as the adherents of that religion. Do you think that if, for example, a child is born in an islamic country, it automatically becomes a muslim? If that's the case, I don't want to disappoint you, but…
That's wrong.Nach wrote:
Isn't removing a bit of nail easier?
Actually not, cause hairs are so frail that they come out by themselves! But don't tell Sikhs about it. ;))
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
So you are saying little children cant believe in God and the Bible and have a faith?
That's wrong.
I meant children under four or five years old, who can't fully understand the concepts and thinking categories of a given religion, thus cannot name themselves the adherents of it, and therefore can't be counted as the adherents of that religion. Do you think that if, for example, a child is born in an islamic country, it automatically becomes a muslim? If that's the case, I don't want to disappoint you, but…
That's wrong.Nach wrote:
Isn't removing a bit of nail easier?
Actually not, cause hairs are so frail that they come out by themselves! But don't tell Sikhs about it. ;))
Becareful on what you say then, because children can be 3-11 years old.
You said little children here, which means the ages can vary 3-11 years old.
moozooh wrote:
I have some troubles believing the representative value of that list for at least one major reason: for example, there was a great mass of undecided (thus, nonreligious) people, such as little children (hundreds of millions of little children!), who obviously couldn't participate in the survey, and the percentage of nonreligious people counting that mass is, IMO, way too low compared to say, christians (besides, the overall number — ~6668 millions — nearly exceeds Earth's population in total; though as the description implies, this is an "approximate estimate"). And if this explanation isn't boring enough, I could think of some another.
I don't get why do you take a simple joke so seriously. ;)
HiddenGamer wrote:
Becareful on what you say then, because children can be 1-11 years old.
You said little children here, which mean 1-11 years old. Don't say I'm wrong just admit you made a mistake.
*sigh*moozooh wrote:
such as little children (hundreds of millions of little children!), who obviously couldn't participate in the survey
moozooh wrote:
I meant children under four or five years old, who can't fully understand the concepts and thinking categories of a given religion, thus cannot name themselves the adherents of it, and therefore can't be counted as the adherents of that religion.
I don't even get where did you take those "1—11" children.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
A child can be little at 7 years old and believe in God and the bible. Maybe 6. Or a kid at 9 years old or something. Just be more specific next time. BTW how do you think you know what age a child is allowed to know God and have a faith?
A child can be little at 7 years old and believe in God and the bible.
Stop trolling please.
Trolling? are you serious? DO you know what trolling is? In fact you calling me a troll, when I'm not ,is trolling. So you are the one trolling. I'm simply saying its possible for someone like myself to mistake something which I did. Because you are saying little Children can't participate in a survery or believe in God. Which is not true. How do you know that a 5 year old cant believe in GOd?
Let God be the judge on who believes and who doesn't. Not you.
btw it is possible for a 5 year old to accept Jesus in their heart. So don't tell me that they cant know what they believe.
once they do that and if they meant it , thats basically what they choose to believe.
All of that "proof" for evolution can be interpreted to support Creation. By no means is it unilateral.
Bob A wrote:
That's not faith at all. Faith is a process of non-thinking whereby one accepts beliefs passed down through tradition with no evidence, or even against the evidence.
I disagree. Faith is based on some kind of logic. The axioms of the various kinds of logic used to justify various faiths may differe significantly and may be a matter of debate, but every faith about which I know is based on logic.
Bob A wrote:
None of those things require faith; they can demonstrated scientifically (through inductive reasoning), not to mention that they're all glaringly obvious.
The "glaringly obvious" things are usually the hardest to prove, at least from my experiences. If you want to try, however, go ahead. There's also the matter of proving that induction works, though...
Bob A wrote:
Also, in my view it's futile to speculate about whether reality "really" exists; we can perceive it, and that's all that matters.
Our perception is easily fooled. Just look at how many optical illusions are out there.
adelikat wrote:
2) Whether there is a higher power or not, you can not argue that man has a need for something higher than himself (herself).
Why not?
Bob A wrote:
It's true that religions evolve, but they only evolve to come closer in line with secular culture.
So why are there still large, divisive issues today, such as stem cells, sodomy, abortion, physician-assisted suicide, and the death penalty? You'd think that this so-called "evolution" of religions bringing them closer to secular culture would have dulled some of the fervent ideas on these matters, but that is not the case.
Bob A wrote:
The more this happens, the more religion loses importance, and the easier it is for people to deconvert.
They're not deconverting, they're just converting to another religion.
Baxter wrote:
Main difference between a scientific theory and a religious theory is the fact that a scientific theory can be proven wrong, and a scientist will accept this.
The question is how long it will take for the scientist to accept it, and how much of a fight he'll put up.
Fabian wrote:
I am of the opinion that history teaches us very little on this, since (I've said this before, just restating) it's in the past few hundred years people in general have started to become well-educated enough to not need superhuman explanations (etc, everything we've discussed in this thread).
I disagree. I've already said that knowledge does not necessarily damage religious ideas. Another point is that this "we've become so much smarter" argument could be applied to anything from crime and wars to poverty and health, which I doubt anyone ever needed, but these are still large problems in our "more-educated" world.
DeFender1031 wrote:
you misunderstand me, the translation is days in modern hebrew not biblical hebrew.
You're implying that there have been large changes in the Hebrew language since antiquity. I took a Jewish history class with a professor from the nearby Hebrew Union College, and he said that the language is essentially the same. Part of the reason is that it has historically been used mostly for religious purposes; Israel was surrounded by a bunch of other cultures and generally used the dominant language of the time (e.g., Aramaic) to conduct everyday business.
moozooh wrote:
Remember the story about heliocentrism (and church's position against it).
That story that has been widely misrepresented. I recommend reading this page for some clarification, although the resources here are all quite good.
moozooh wrote:
Besides, the clone is not a perfect copy of the cell donor, which implies that it is a new life.
You seem to have the idea that it has to be a "perfect copy" if it shares the same genetic material. Phenotype, however, is influenced by the environment, not just the genes. Check your biology textbook if you don't believe me.
Furthermore, the cloning process is not creative. It takes an already-existing nucleus and places it into a different egg cell. For scientists to "create" life, they would have to start off with atoms and make a living thing. God created everything out of nothing, however, so even that wouldn't be such a big accomplishment, if you ask me.
Boco wrote:
But when you're looking for the intended meaning you should probably look as close to the writer as possible, for example at commentaries written within a few generations when the culture wouldn't've changed significantly since.
There have been significant changes in our cultures within the last century, even the last few decades, so why can such changes not have occurred in the past? Furthermore, how do you know that the intentions of the commentary writer(s) were to interpret the document as the author intended?
Boco wrote:
It's also rather difficult to take something as poetic as the creation narratives and translate them literally and have it make any sort of sense.
Why's it so difficult? Is it just because the story doesn't agree with "science"? I don't see what the problem is if you allow for the existence of the all-powerful God described in the Bible.
Boco wrote:
If we are to take it as six literal days, why did Moses himself differentiate them?
How does that example show differentiation? Sure, the word "day" in any language can probably mean something other than a 24-hour period, but you look at context to determine the meaning.
Boco wrote:
Commentary from 1500+ years ago differentiates them and lcaims the creation narratives are parable.
Can you give examples? This page gives examples of scholars who interpreted them literally.
Boco wrote:
The days are numbered, but they don't begin with "first day" (implying there are further days) - they begin with "day one" meaning that the first creation narrative is attempting to look FORWARD from God's view, NOT backward from man's.
How does this affect how long they are?
JXQ wrote:
Question, why do you "censor" the word God?
Some people believe that the word should not be spelled out completely because it's holy or because others could defile it. DeFender1031 could have an entirely different reason, however.
you misunderstand me, the translation is days in modern hebrew not biblical hebrew.
You're implying that there have been large changes in the Hebrew language since antiquity. I took a Jewish history class with a professor from the nearby Hebrew Union College, and he said that the language is essentially the same. Part of the reason is that it has historically been used mostly for religious purposes; Israel was surrounded by a bunch of other cultures and generally used the dominant language of the time (e.g., Aramaic) to conduct everyday business.
there have been quite a few changes yes. Language evolves gradually over time (I.E. who says "groovy" anymore?) Given that hebrew has had over 3000 years to evolve since the time of the bible, i'd say that it has changed a lot. Furthermore, modern hebrew contains quite a bit of aramaic, mixed with quite a bit of english, and a few other languages. The language is essentially the same, but there are major differences in places. Aramaiic stems from biblical hebrew, for many words, if you replace one letter with another (always the same ones) you get the crossover and the translatons of the two words are the same.
