Religions?

[Haelbarde he/him]

@Kobold, re: Confirmation

Huh. Interesting. For us (Christadelphian), that's basically what we use baptism for - you only get baptised when you understand our core doctrines, and decide of your own free will to acknowledge your sins and give yourself in service to God.

[Seonid he/him]

Soo how do we know we're in an ice age? What's the alternative to an ice age if we're speaking over multiple thousands of years?

 

The vast majority of Earth's history has been free of year-round ice at the poles. We have fossil evidence of plants and dinosaurs in Australia dating to the early Cretaceous period - between 100-150 million years ago. At that time, Australia was still connected to Antarctica, and both were within the modern-day Antarctic circle. But it was warm enough there for plants to thrive, apparently.

 

So, the alternative to an ice age is not to have ice sheets at either pole. And that's the norm, for geologic history. The ice age we're currently in started about 2 and a half million years ago (give or take a couple hundred thousand), and has been marked by periods of heavy glaciation - which is what most folks think about when they think of an Ice Age - ice sheets stretching across Europe and North America, huge wooly animals, etc. In between these periods have been interglacials, when the ice hasn't stretched as far. That's what we're in right now, and have been for the past 10,000 years or so.

[Voidus]

The vast majority of Earth's history has been free of year-round ice at the poles. We have fossil evidence of plants and dinosaurs in Australia dating to the early Cretaceous period - between 100-150 million years ago. At that time, Australia was still connected to Antarctica, and both were within the modern-day Antarctic circle. But it was warm enough there for plants to thrive, apparently.

 

So, the alternative to an ice age is not to have ice sheets at either pole. And that's the norm, for geologic history. The ice age we're currently in started about 2 and a half million years ago (give or take a couple hundred thousand), and has been marked by periods of heavy glaciation - which is what most folks think about when they think of an Ice Age - ice sheets stretching across Europe and North America, huge wooly animals, etc. In between these periods have been interglacials, when the ice hasn't stretched as far. That's what we're in right now, and have been for the past 10,000 years or so.

Very well put, although in the interests of keeping things on topic if there are any more questions on the topic may I suggest a move to a PM or opening up another thread?

[Seonid he/him]

You have a good point...

 

Sorry for getting off-track. Maybe I should make an "Ask a scientist anything" thread - although I haven't even graduated with my degree yet...

 

May can't come too soon!

[Delightful]

Off topic was my fault, though I believe I have my questions answered for now, thank you all!

[Zathoth]

Over here in secularized Sweden most teenagers go through confirmation because you get a cremload of presents when you are done. I dont know why you need to know this, just as an aside note. It is all tradition mostly, like easter, christmas and those other things.

[+Slowswift]

@Kobold, re: Confirmation

Huh. Interesting. For us (Christadelphian), that's basically what we use baptism for - you only get baptised when you understand our core doctrines, and decide of your own free will to acknowledge your sins and give yourself in service to God.

 

I believe that's (partially, at least) how baptism works for Mormons, too.

[Clockwork he/him]

I'm a Mormon.

You get baptized at 8 if you want to be baptized. Converts get baptized a while after they join. There's a lot of stuff I don't know... I'm not the most religious person there is...

[Left he/him]

I believe that's (partially, at least) how baptism works for Mormons, too.

Pretty nearly I think, at least assuming that we have the same meanings for those words hahaha.

[Orlion Blight he/him]

Well, there's time period to be considered as well. It takes a minimum of a year to become a Jehovah Witness. For Mormons, it depends on the area's Mission President. I've seen some where it takes a minimum of a month and others where it is two weeks.

[The Honor Spren she/her]

I thought it was when they'd finished all the missionary discussions?

I don't know much about it though, I was born into an already LDS family.

[Orlion Blight he/him]

I thought it was when they'd finished all the missionary discussions?

I don't know much about it though, I was born into an already LDS family.

The minimum would be as follows:

At least four to five "discussions" that touch on various basic doctrinal points.

A certain number of consecutive visits to church (this varies from place to place)

A declaration in the belief of the Book of Mormon as bring true.

A commitment to follow the Word of Wisdom and Law of Chastity.

Other minutia that depends on the person (like quitting drinking, smoking, not having had an abortion or murdered someone, etc.)

[Claincy he/him]

Just got officially confirmed as an Anglican last Sunday myself!

nice

[Patar he/him]

So, I have a question. I am taking a History of World Religions class this semester, and we were assigned a paper that requires us to visit 3 different worship services/communities, and write an essay on what we observe/felt. I was planning on going to an Easter service tomorrow morning. The problem is, I haven't been to church in years. I'm not religious at all. I want to do well on the assignment, and taking notes would certainly help. But I don't want to appear disrespectful. I I were to be sitting there taking notes, the scribbles of my writing echoing throughout the building, I'd feel very awkward. So my question is pretty much, if I were to be sitting there writing down notes, would people think I was being rude? 

[Jondesu he/him]

So, I have a question. I am taking a History of World Religions class this semester, and we were assigned a paper that requires us to visit 3 different worship services/communities, and write an essay on what we observe/felt. I was planning on going to an Easter service tomorrow morning. The problem is, I haven't been to church in years. I'm not religious at all. I want to do well on the assignment, and taking notes would certainly help. But I don't want to appear disrespectful. I I were to be sitting there taking notes, the scribbles of my writing echoing throughout the building, I'd feel very awkward. So my question is pretty much, if I were to be sitting there writing down notes, would people think I was being rude?

It depends on the church, but usually not . Lots of people in my church take notes during the sermon, so it's pretty normal.

jW

[The Honor Spren she/her]

So, I have a question. I am taking a History of World Religions class this semester, and we were assigned a paper that requires us to visit 3 different worship services/communities, and write an essay on what we observe/felt. I was planning on going to an Easter service tomorrow morning. The problem is, I haven't been to church in years. I'm not religious at all. I want to do well on the assignment, and taking notes would certainly help. But I don't want to appear disrespectful. I I were to be sitting there taking notes, the scribbles of my writing echoing throughout the building, I'd feel very awkward. So my question is pretty much, if I were to be sitting there writing down notes, would people think I was being rude? 

Yeah, it definitely depends on the church. I'm LDS, and while it isn't common for people to take notes during normal talks, it isn't unheard of. Plus there's enough little kids there that there's plenty of background noise. I don't think it would be disrespectful for other churches either.

 

And if you're looking for worship services, may I recommend General Conference? It's a semi-annual broadcast where our religious leaders give sermons to the church all over the world. There's one next week with sessions from 10-12 and 2-4 mountain time (whatever time that is for your timezone) next saturday and sunday. It's a great oppurtunity. You'd just have to look up the nearest LDS church near you. And nearly everybody takes notes there.

(I promise, I'm not trying to convert you or anything. Just thought you should know.)

[Orlion Blight he/him]

Don't worry about it. If it's unacceptable, you'll be told and you just need to apologize and not take notes during the service.

Aside from that, you'll never see these people again, so they'll forget you way before you forget them

[Patar he/him]

 

And if you're looking for worship services, may I recommend General Conference? It's a semi-annual broadcast where our religious leaders give sermons to the church all over the world. There's one next week with sessions from 10-12 and 2-4 mountain time (whatever time that is for your timezone) next saturday and sunday. It's a great oppurtunity. You'd just have to look up the nearest LDS church near you. And nearly everybody takes notes there.

(I promise, I'm not trying to convert you or anything. Just thought you should know.)

 

No, that definitely helps! I need to find as many services as possible, so I'll definitely look into that! And thanks for the answers guys! I really appreciate it 

[IndigoAjah he/him]

I'm an apathetic agnostic - I don't think we can know whether God exists or not, if we did think so I think it would be objectively difficult to justify picking one faith over another (and selecting faiths based on the appeal of what they say is noble but more treating them like a philosophy), my own vague opinion on whether there is a God or not tends to lean to the atheistic side but occasionally moves and sometimes into moments of thinking he could be there, I think the questions as to what God's nature is/would be like are more interesting than the mere fact of his existence but most of all I don't think it matters:

 

A benevolent, fair God would judge us based on our actions and intentions rather than following a strict plan that has been written in many subtly and less subtly unreconcilable ways, judge based on merit having given us the tools of logic and conscience. A God that would punish arbitrarily and fixate on worship is not one I have any interest in spending eternity with and appeasing him just because he has infinite power to punish me would seem, to my own morality (not making judgments about anyone else's) to be moral cowardice

 

 

My girlfriend (and more so her family) however is Catholic, and I was once relatively religious. I find faith fascinating

Edited March 30, 2016 by IndigoAjah

[Guest]

Just thought I'd ask the thread their thoughts on the kalam cosmological argument...

[Orlion Blight he/him]

That gets close to how I feel. If there is a deity who happens to be omnipotent, it's going to do whatever it wants. I won't be able to compel it to act according to my wishes.

If it's not omnipotent, then why should I bother? Under what knowledge do I have assurance it could and would fulfill any of my desires?

[IndigoAjah he/him]

What I find most interesting about this is that Sanderson isn't secretive about his faith, and yet he's built a pretty religiously diverse fan base. There's some "Christian lit" that's frankly alienating to those outside the church, or even to those within it if they don't happen to share the author's exact views. (Remember what I said about Protestant denominations splitting hairs? That hair-splitting can get pretty exact, down to "we're going to start a whole new denomination because we disagree with our parent church's interpretation of this one verse.") I've read quite a few authors who let their stories get lost in the message, to the point where I'd be reading it, thinking "Nobody who disagrees with this author's religious beliefs is ever going to finish this." That Sanderson can be so open about his faith, and write books that explore various facets of religion, without alienating people who don't share his beliefs is a testament to his skill. 

I think this is at least partially because he writes so fascinatingly about faith and divinity on different levels, with characters that fit the whole range of the spectrum.

[Delightful]

That gets close to how I feel. If there is a deity who happens to be omnipotent, it's going to do whatever it wants. I won't be able to compel it to act according to my wishes.

If it's not omnipotent, then why should I bother? Under what knowledge do I have assurance it could and would fulfill any of my desires?

What about ah omnipotent God who cares about you, and therefore may fulfill anything you could ask? Omnipotent does not necessarily mean unattached.

What's the kalam argument?

Edited March 31, 2016 by Delightful

[Orlion Blight he/him]

What about ah omnipotent God who cares about you, and therefore may fulfill anything you could ask? Omnipotent does not necessarily mean unattached.

What's the kalam argument?

I have no reason to believe there is a higher being, much less an omnipotent one, that would care about me. It seems kinda narcissistic to me, like: "look at how important I am that a timeless, spaceless, all powerful entity cares about me personally!"

The kalam cosmological argument is as follows:

Whatever begins to exist has a cause;

The universe began to exist;

Therefore:

The universe has a cause.

The issue being that this does not demonstrate that the "cause" is any sort of God that people recognize as such (essentially an intelligent force)

It also assumes that the universe has a definite beginning as opposed to having different stages of being and changing from one to another. We often say the universe started from the Big Bang, but it is better to say the universe as we observe it had its origin in the Big Bang. Before that, the universe existed, but as a singularity containing all mass, and before that? Who knows.

In either event, the kalam cosmological fails in demonstrating the necessary existence of an intelligent creative force and I doubt the soundness of the premise that the universe ever "began", rather that it only changes.

Edited March 31, 2016 by Orlion Determined

[Voidus]

I have no reason to believe there is a higher being, much less an omnipotent one, that would care about me. It seems kinda narcissistic to me, like: "look at how important I am that a timeless, spaceless, all powerful entity cares about me personally!"

The kalam cosmological argument is as follows:

Whatever begins to exist has a cause;

The universe began to exist;

Therefore:

The universe has a cause.

The issue being that this does not demonstrate that the "cause" is any sort of God that people recognize as such (essentially an intelligent force)

It also assumes that the universe has a definite beginning as opposed to having different stages of being and changing from one to another. We often say the universe started from the Big Bang, but it is better to say the universe as we observe it had its origin in the Big Bang. Before that, the universe existed, but as a singularity containing all mass, and before that? Who knows.

In either event, the kalam cosmological fails in demonstrating the necessary existence of an intelligent creative force and I doubt the soundness of the premise that the universe ever "began", rather that it only changes.

Technically we can't even say it began as a singularity, we can say what it was an infinitesimal amount of time later but what happened at the moment of expansion is something of a mystery. (Or at least it was last I checked, and I feel like I read enough science news websites that I'd know if something had changed. )

My problem with Kalam is that a lot of people who invoke it as an argument tend to give it a conscious spin, with the word cause sometimes being swapped out for a term like 'reason', it's human nature to want to attribute a conscious mind to everything, we give names to inanimate objects, out best literary works frequently ascribe emotions to natural phenomenon like fire, wind, rain or thunder, we get angry at things that have no will, kicking a chair just because we bumped into it, hitting a computer because it's not working. This mindset is great for survival, less great for scientific reasoning. Thinking that because something must have happened that someone must have wanted it to happen is in my opinion the reason that the Kalam argument is often used as evidence of a specifically conscious mind rather than a simple physical cause.