A More Accurate Categorization of Religion

[Muravyets]

Is there a reason why you make no mention of polytheism?

I don't know enough about it to categorize it yet.

Then is there a reason why you called your list "A Categorization of Religion" and not "of Abrahamic or Monotheist Religions"?

[Greed and Death]

who is history land ?

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

Then is there a reason why you called your list "A Categorization of Religion" and not "of Abrahamic or Monotheist Religions"?

A plan to place the polytheistic religions on it when I get some more knowledge about them.

[United Technocrats]

Give me an example of non-scientific, non-logical evidence that could, in principle, convince you of the supernatural.

Imagine a house with a room that has an open window. You approach the window and look outside. When You put Your head outside, and look, there is no house, just empty space, say, a meadow. Same if You probe the outside with Your hand. That would be an example, I believe, of an experiment that employs no scientific method, yields illogical results and can convince one of the supernatural.

[Buffett and Colbert]

who is history land ?

Do you really want to know?

[Accrued Constituencies]

Philosophically, there is no contradiction about being a Christian and being a Materialist either... Many Christians believe this world is matter, and the next will be created by a living, breathing material God, that Eden was material, and the world to come will be made out of perfect, ageless, matter / material, just as now but incorruptible... Alternately there are Christians like Bishop Berkeley who believe matter or the material universe does not exist and it is all a projection of our thought given to us by God that will be entirely nullified as a projection after life... There too are idealists who believe in no such God, some Buddhists claim that such is the condition of the universe; a mental fallacy with no deity or God controlling it but our own illusions and there is no real matter or substance, only our perception of matter & substance.

[United Technocrats]

I'm trying to follow it and think I maybe get 50%-75% of it.
What is an eigenvalue?

Trying is good, but You need systematic knowledge in a specific area to follow it efficiently. Eigenvalues are among the more fundamental concepts in linear algebra. Trying to explain them without giving intro to linear algebra is, I believe, impossible (while, on the other hand, it comes naturally once You get into it).

Basically, the "eigenvalue problem" includes solving an equation of the type M*v=λ*v, where M is a quadratic matrix, v is a vector, and λ is a scalar, known as "eigenvalue." The equation simply transforms into (M-λ*I)*v=0 (where I is the identity matrix, i.e. unit matrix ^{The unit matrix basically arises because M is a matrix, so λ has to be multiplied with unit matrix.}). For any eigenvalue λ_i of the matrix M, there is a non-zero eigenvector v; from this, it follows that the matrix [λI−M] is singular, which then means that its determinant is 0. Thus, we get the "characteristic equation":
det(M-λ*I)=0
...where "det" is the determinant of a matrix. The simple way to think about this is, if the v is not zero, then the rest (which is [λI−M]) has to be zero if the whole thing is zero. The characteristic equation yields solutions λ_i, which are known as "eigenvalues" of the matrix M.

Did this make things any more clear? Probably not. I gave this explanation just to show I'm not avoiding to answer. However, this is why I insist on avoiding too much technical terms. The subject at hand could have been discussed quite comfortably without them, I believe. The Truthseeker guy uses this debating strategy as if he's playing chess. He wants either (1) to make me avoid answering (which would leave the impression I yielded) or (2) to have me entangled in his web of complicated quantum mechanical terms that would obscure things for most readers, and thus leave his core beliefs untouched.

[Landover Baptist]

Literalists/Fundamentalists: Reject large parts of modern science if it conflicts with their worldview. Believe their holy text is 100% literally true.

And it is. All those who don't do what the bible says 100% of the time will go to hell, the bible is very clear on this, no matter what sissy christians try to make themselves believe. Matthew 4 verse 4 clearly states:

[Jesus] answered and said: It is written, Not in bread alone doth man live, but in every word that proceedeth from the mouth of God.

EVERY WORD. Not just the words you like. There's no picking and choosing here.

[United Technocrats]

I'm a Materialist.

Some modern physicists are stringists, or M-ists, in that they think material stuff is just as "material" as light: all of these are different modes of oscillation of what they call "strings" or, in case of M-ists (really just improved stringists), multidimensional membranes ("branes," as they call them). A difficult thing being a materialist and a physicist these days...

[RoI2]

What is it like bullshit = religion and sanity = no religion?

Maybe.

Humans beleiving in 'gods' or higher powers is not insane, it's natrual for humans to do it.

I never said it was insane - I said it was bullshit.

[United Technocrats]

As a Catholic, I believe that I may just be placed in the Catholic Church/Mainstream Protestant category. We are one fifth of the world's population though, must we share a category with the C of E and other assorted small Protestant organisations?

I have two questions:
1. Do You believe in God, or do You just follow the traditions?
2. If the answer to the first question is "yes," then is it the same God as the one Muslims believe in, i.e. do You believe they just call the Lord using a different name, or You think there are several gods?

[Landover Baptist]

As a Catholic, I believe that I may just be placed in the Catholic Church/Mainstream Protestant category. We are one fifth of the world's population though, must we share a category with the C of E and other assorted small Protestant organisations?

You Mary worshippers are going to hell for violating the word of God and adding traditions that are not mentioned in the bible.

[Kobrania]

I don't know how 'hell' is supposed to scare atheists when we don't believe in it.

[Muravyets]

Then is there a reason why you called your list "A Categorization of Religion" and not "of Abrahamic or Monotheist Religions"?

A plan to place the polytheistic religions on it when I get some more knowledge about them.

What efforts are you making in that regard?

EDIT: And when you are done, what do you intend to do with this ... um...thing?

[Taeshan]

I don't know how 'hell' is supposed to scare atheists when we don't believe in it.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

Some modern physicists are stringists, or M-ists, in that they think material stuff is just as "material" as light: all of these are different modes of oscillation of what they call "strings" or, in case of M-ists (really just improved stringists), multidimensional membranes ("branes," as they call them). A difficult thing being a materialist and a physicist these days...

Only naive materialism. It's perfectly possible to be a materialist and a physicist. Also, M-theory isn't exactly well-founded science. It isn't even completed on the mathematical side.

[Buffett and Colbert]

As a Catholic, I believe that I may just be placed in the Catholic Church/Mainstream Protestant category. We are one fifth of the world's population though, must we share a category with the C of E and other assorted small Protestant organisations?

You Mary worshippers are going to hell for violating the word of God and adding traditions that are not mentioned in the bible.

I REPENT!

[United Technocrats]

Some modern physicists are stringists, or M-ists, in that they think material stuff is just as "material" as light: all of these are different modes of oscillation of what they call "strings" or, in case of M-ists (really just improved stringists), multidimensional membranes ("branes," as they call them). A difficult thing being a materialist and a physicist these days...

Only naive materialism. It's perfectly possible to be a materialist and a physicist. Also, M-theory isn't exactly well-founded science. It isn't even completed on the mathematical side.

Well, as You shall remember, I categorized the M-theory as being a religion, because of the lack of experimental verification. Also, as You know, I'm not always too serious, but there's a bit of truth in every joke...

[United Technocrats]

You Mary worshippers are going to hell for violating the word of God and adding traditions that are not mentioned in the bible.

I REPENT!

"Whatever the tortures of hell, I think the boredom of heaven would be even worse."
-- Isaac Asimov

[Tiesabre]

I'd give your original post much more credit if it didn't paint those whom believe in a God or gods with such disparaging and condescending terms and everyone else with well-written and thoughtful terms.

You're post does nothing but drive another spike in the division between believers and non-believers on this forum.

I actually expect better from you UnhealthyTruthseeker.

[Buffett and Colbert]

I'd give your original post much more credit if it didn't paint those whom believe in a God or gods with such disparaging and condescending terms and everyone else with well-written and thoughtful terms.

You're post does nothing but drive another spike in the division between believers and non-believers on this forum.

I actually expect better from you UnhealthyTruthseeker.

It's merely a classification system. So you don't believe classifying animals, for instance, is correct? Or any other sort of classification?

[Tiesabre]

I'd give your original post much more credit if it didn't paint those whom believe in a God or gods with such disparaging and condescending terms and everyone else with well-written and thoughtful terms.

You're post does nothing but drive another spike in the division between believers and non-believers on this forum.

I actually expect better from you UnhealthyTruthseeker.

It's merely a classification system. So you don't believe classifying animals, for instance, is correct? Or any other sort of classification?

Strawmen only have one classification, Buff.

[Muravyets]

I'd give your original post much more credit if it didn't paint those whom believe in a God or gods with such disparaging and condescending terms and everyone else with well-written and thoughtful terms.

You're post does nothing but drive another spike in the division between believers and non-believers on this forum.

I actually expect better from you UnhealthyTruthseeker.

It's merely a classification system. So you don't believe classifying animals, for instance, is correct? Or any other sort of classification?

I think Tiesabre is complaining that UT is classifying one group as good and the other as bad. That's not classification in a scientific sense. It's bias dressing itself up as a scientific approach.

I'm not saying UT did that, necessarily. I can't really judge because I'm still too caught up in his incredibly limited view of what constitutes "religion" and the breathtaking presumptuousness of him deciding to categorize religion even though, as far as he has told us anything about himself, he is in no way an expert on the subject, nor is he making reference to any expert source that might be guiding him.

[Buffett and Colbert]

I'd give your original post much more credit if it didn't paint those whom believe in a God or gods with such disparaging and condescending terms and everyone else with well-written and thoughtful terms.

You're post does nothing but drive another spike in the division between believers and non-believers on this forum.

I actually expect better from you UnhealthyTruthseeker.

It's merely a classification system. So you don't believe classifying animals, for instance, is correct? Or any other sort of classification?

Strawmen only have one classification, Buff.

I'm only trying to make a point. Is it wrong to classify people with darkened skin as "Of African Decent" for instance?

[Buffett and Colbert]

I think Tiesabre is complaining that UT is classifying one group as good and the other as bad. That's not classification in a scientific sense. It's bias dressing itself up as a scientific approach.

I'm not saying UT did that, necessarily. I can't really judge because I'm still too caught up in his incredibly limited view of what constitutes "religion" and the breathtaking presumptuousness of him deciding to categorize religion even though, as far as he has told us anything about himself, he is in no way an expert on the subject, nor is he making reference to any expert source that might be guiding him.

I didn't sense any bias in UT's classification system. Obviously if there was some, I'd call that unfair.

EDIT-- I take that back. After reading it, I realised it is rather biased.