Prometheus

I don't think any theists have contributed to this thread, and i'm perhaps the only one who identifies as religious (Jedi, according to my answer to the last census). But whether one is religious or not doesn't matter, just the points made. Which of the arguments put forward here make you despair for humanity? Nobody had suggested religion will never be obsolete because God exists have they?

I started with Khan Academy for some remedial stuff, then did some maths courses at the Open University. The uni i did post-grad stats at was most interested in any calculus and linear algebra i had done.

I do consider myself an atheist. I'm reluctant to offer my version of Buddhism as a way forward. Everyone will have their own ideas. The most important thing for religion is to be able to adapt, after that we can reassess. Not sure anybody else would be interested hearing about Buddhism, perhaps best to PM?

I agree both are belief systems, but they are very different. We believe in science based on evidence and the balance of probabilities. The belief is never absolute, but always on the condition that it may change with new evidence. It is by far the best method of discovering the physical world. Religious belief (and this is my own take, i know it does not reflect the majority of religious belief), creates human truths, but not physical truths. Human truths are those ethereal threads we use to weave meaning in our lives. It's less that i'm looking for something to believe in, more trying to find meaning. Buddhism helps me, but to be honest i find literature a broader and deeper well in which to delve into the human condition. Am i making sense? I find it very difficult to communicate these ideas is a few sentences. Facts should always be questioned. They should be answered with evidence on the balance of probabilities. This most definitely includes scientific facts. I sort of agree. Religion teaches nothing about the universe we find ourselves, but can help impose meaning upon that universe. Buddhism teaches rebirth not reincarnation, the difference being there is no soul which transmigrates; rather our Karma continues after our death. Many Buddhists interpret this to mean that ones Karma finds a new host body and so continues. I interpret to mean that my actions in life continue to reverberate long after my death. Think of a ripple in a pond: my life is a stone thrown in the pond, my Karma is the ensuing ripples, which then join numerous other ripples to make patterns i could never anticipate. I derive meaning from life in enjoying the patterns that emerge. That is as close to an afterlife as i believe in. I'd be happy to explore Buddhism and my interpretation of it with you, but maybe it is off topic here.

Mr Mopey vs Mr Perfect? No, i haven't seen it. The only superhero shows i like are The Watchmen, Spawn (the series, not the film) and some Batman cartoons and the Avengers kids cartoon (maybe some others i have forgotten). The rest seem to follow a set formula - they might as well add subtitles saying laugh now, cry now, be angry now, cheer now... i'll stop ranting now. I understand the point about it being more difficult to relate to characters different to yourself, but that is the point of some cinema: to experience what it is like to be someone else, to live another life different to your own. Try a broader selection of movies.

The actor then? Honestly i've not seen the movie (nor do i plan to - i've been playing D&D for decades now and i'm sick to death of bikini armour), or even know the name of the actor, so i'll just speak very generally. Female role models seem very limited and wonder women doesn't seem to broaden it much. From the adverts i've seen she is incredibly attractive and showing plenty of cleavage. I have no problem with such people as role models; with women being comfortable and owning their sexuality, but it seems to be the dominant role model for women. Game of Thrones does much better for female role models: yes you have the skimpily clad bad-ass women trope, but they also have the tom-boy, the motherly protector type, the politically scheming siren, the silent assassin out for revenge and more... As a bloke with a mother and nieces and sisters and female friends i feel i have a stake in the discussion of female role models (as they would have a stake if i started revering some chauvinist rapist character).

She doesn't get a say in whether she is a role model: she is in the public eye and young people may look up to her. Are we talking about wonder woman or the actor?

I think a few people do. Non-religious people are no more immune to our tribal instincts than religious people. I have sympathy for your position, i know you are in an area of the world where religion is near its worst. It's easy for me here where religion is more moderate. I think you are making the same mistake religious people usually make regarding their sacred texts: taking it literally. If instead you take it to be a piece of human literature then it is easy to understand that the author may well not have had a firm idea of right and wrong, but is exploring the idea in a public space. The story of Genesis is a good exploration (given it's well over 2000 years old) of the will to knowledge and power, and the narrative continues through great works like Paradise Lost and Frankenstein. And the narrative will never stop, so long as humanity continues to push itself. That is the greatest flaw, in my opinion, of most religions: they attempt to have the final say on that narrative, to close the book on our moral and spiritual development. This is what religion provides for some people (although others may find it elsewhere, and some may simply not care): a place to explore where the rising ape meets the falling angel.

Good intuition. Check out the binomial distribution to see why you're right.

Let's say, then, that any form of dictatorship is to be avoided regardless of it's source. I answered that question in post 108. I won't add more detail because then i would just be bleating on about how i would make the world a better place. Kind of like dictators do. Engaging in a dialogue is more important than any great unifying scheme.

Then you should be able to understand why people are rubbed the wrong way when religion is blamed for merely rebranding social (and utterly destructive) activities. Surely it is a double standard to say, for instance, charity has nothing to do with religion, but war has everything to do with religion. Surely we can agree the truth about our various social institutions (of which religion is one) is far more subtle than one religion bad, no religion good.

It's interesting that he frames his understanding of religion around the superpersonal rather than the supernatural. But i'm not sure what he means by superpersonal. Qualities that transcend humanity? Is he referring to the idea that we feel like things separate from the universe when in fact we are part of it?

I'm quite happy with this result if only because i have been subjected to an unedifying spam advertising campaign from the Tories. I've never seen such negative campaigning and i'm glad it didn't work.

There are some people like you who do not use religion to give meaning to their life. That's great for them. There are many people who do use religion to find meaning in their life: they are not lesser people for doing so. Just because you find no meaning in religion it does not give you the right to dictate how other people should interpret their existence. Political affiliations are often used as motivation to kill. Shall we ban politics? Maybe one day we can do without politics, but we're a very long way from that day. While some people use religion as a framework to guide their lives it will not be obsolete. Given this we should focus on emphasising the good in religion and discouraging the bad.

But isn't murder, for instance, ultimately considered wrong because we find it emotionally repugnant? Things like euthanasia and abortion maybe more nuanced, and so require more rational input, but are still based on the emotional considerations concerning the sanctity of life.

Like you say, extreme forms of behaviour are already legislated against. By that legislation religious extreme behaviour is covered: murder is murder, regardless of motivation. What additional legislation do you think is needed for the religious manifestations of humanity's violent tendencies? For instance extreme right wing groups are banned, so are Islamist groups with known terrorist links. What is needed for the Islamist group that is not needed for a Nazi group? In terms of modifying religion the first thing i would try to do is explain why even though religion used to make statements about the physical universe, its speculations are no longer needed as we have the scientific method which has proved an excellent process for discovering physical workings. I would then explain that religion can still have a roll to play if it sticks to seeking and bringing meaning to people's lives. That's probably a few more centuries work, so it's enough for now.

Yep. Not actually heard of Goethe before - ah, another opportunity to procrastinate...

Not quite what you sought but how about building a portfolio of work? Depends on the subjects you have studied, but something like coding up a statistical analysis on some free data set and putting it up on something like github. Apparently potential employers will look at people's github accounts. I have a friend who created a medical app for iphones - he just takes it to interviews and shows them what he's done, rather than just listing it.

Ah, i see. Essentially you are sampling from a population and wish to know whether taking sequential samples or random samples leads to different results. Interesting problem, never thought about it. I don't think it would make any difference given that the original sequence is i.i.d. The original sequence is a Bernoulli process, and if you mix up the order of that process you still have a Bernoulli process. So if [latex]X_i[/latex] is a i.i.d Bernoulli R.V. then the sequence [latex]X_1, X_2, X_3 = X_2, X_3,X_1[/latex]. I'd have to think about a more formal proof, but it'll give me something to procrastinate on later.

Oh, absolutely. It's strange to find myself on this side of the religion debate at all. I just think it's too easy and unproductive to attack the worst of religion and religious people - we're never going to convince these people. But there are a number of people in the middle (the 'but there must be more to life' type) who think the alternative to a human-centric universe is a clockwork universe type understanding they think is purported by science. They find it cold, sterile and uncaring. Now, science should be those things during the process, but once scientists share certain knowledge we should seek to frame that knowledge in the continuing human narrative. We've gone from God's chosen ones to a collection of atoms owing our existence more to chance than any design - that bothers some people, and they need help making sense of it, to not feel insignificant about it. Which goes back to the other thread: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. People need a framework in which to fathom the wonders science reveals. In short i think we should spend our energies not into banning religion, or making it obsolete, but by evolving it into something different than it generally is today: something useful to humans.

a.) Yes b.) Not sure what you mean. The events are successive and random (and independent) - that is identically and independently distributed (i.i.d) - aren't they? Or do you mean that they are no longer independent, or no longer identically distributed?

The 2015, 2016 and 2017 mortality rates are still half that of many years in the 70s and 80s. And the rate across decades is way down. So, yeah, things have improved alot: the rate is down compared to earlier decades no matter how you look at it. Which is not to say there isn't a problem, just that we need to look at it in perspective before getting hysterical. Couldn't find a clear account of immigration rates in western Europe for the last few decades: but it didn't just start in 2015. The school i went to near London had a 70% Muslim membership. Before we start shooting off saying there is a correlation, we should at least actually check there is a correlation. Let's see the rape statistics across western Europe that led you to you conclusion too. If you can collect that data i'd be happy to perform an analysis on it. And why on earth are you bringing up landmines again and again? No one is advocating leaving landmines, just as no one is advocating doing nothing about Islamic, or any, terrorism. As many people have pointed out It is not a case of limit our freedoms or do nothing. Why do you think is? We can still address the radicalisation that occurs in our prisons (and would probably get worse with tougher sentences), the sharing of intelligence across borders (possibly harder after Brexit), the destabilising influence removing various Arab leaders has had on the Middle East (lessons for our Foreign Policy), the use specialist anti-terror police, and liaising with the Muslim community to prevent radicalisation at the root. After these avenues - and ones i haven't thought of for i am no counter-terrorism expert - have been properly explored and terrorism continues to rise i will be willing to discuss curtailing freedoms.

Only just over half are monotheist, which is what seems to be the default idea of what religion is in the West. Guess it depends where you live and what circles you move in. Would also be interested to know how Taoism and Confucianism membership is counted in the statistics: here 87% of Cginese are said to be irreligious, traditional worshippers or Taoist - really strange grouping. But again, i'm drifting off onto definitions of religion..

Are you looking at the same graph as me? This one: There's been an exponential drop in terrorism related deaths, with the exception of 2004, and 2015. But i agree there is still a problem. That's why i said 'that doesn't mean there isn't a problem'. There is now a rise, against a backdrop of a decline. No one is arguing that we should do nothing, i am arguing that the threat is not yet nearly sufficient for us to start curtailing any freedoms, no matter how trivial you may deem them. I agree there are limits. But you've already said you don't know what measures have been proposed yet you know those limits have been crossed? No one actually knows because May hasn't actually made any new commitments, but she has said in the past that the government should have access to people's phone and text records. That would be too much by my limits - i'm willing to take the risk (i live in London). But everyone will have their own limits: no one is right or wrong about how much freedoms should cost. There are about as many bee and wasp related deaths as terror related deaths in recent years. If it not time to be hysterical about bees, then it is not time to get hysterical about terrorism. We've been through it in the UK with the IRA, we'll get through this too.