Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm not. I have to believe that the guy on channel 2 knows what he is talking about -- I haven't investigated his resume or the courses he took, and the professors who taught them. I haven't performed my own statistical analysis of how accurate he has been over the last 10 years in identical situation.
I don't think you'll find that is the commonly understood meaning. It is not a religion to consult the meteorologist for a weather forecast or to believe that your car is a reliable means of transportation. Religion is "belief in a supernatural or controlling power, especially a god or gods" or "a particular system of faith and worship" or at least, metaphorically, "an activity that one ascribes supreme importance to".
I see no more reason to dilute the meaning and utility of the term "religion" than to do the same with the term "god" by redefining it to mean "existence" or "the universe" or "nature". The litmus test is, do we need a new term for those things? It seems that everyone knows what "existence", "universe" and "nature" are and conflating them with god is unhelpful at best. Same for religion. Religion is connected with theistic belief or at least with transcendence and I see no reason to conflate it with weather forecasting.
I assume your motivation here is found in the last phrase of your post, "But I know that rain is a reasonable possibility". In other words you are an agnostic theist and you are trying to make religion seem like less of a leap of faith. However the comparison is faulty. If you know rain is a reasonable possibility it is because you know something of the science of meteorology, and have data that says the barometer is falling and a front is approaching and there's a lot of moisture in the approaching system and so forth. There is no such empirical data for god, interventionist or otherwise. There are subjective impressions, intuitions, hunches, preferences, needs, desires, hopes, emotions ... but no increase in "godometric pressure" informing your assessment of probability.
I know the reasons also, but without the data (on which I ultimately have to rely without confirming their provenance) to establish the proper set of causes, I can't know. So I have faith in the meteorologist. Maybe I'll buy a weather kit and then simply have to believe that the people who put it together knew what they were doing.
yes you would have to qualify your statement.
I KNOW that if the data given by the meteorologist is true then rain is a reasonable possibility.
There is no need to believe anything
yes you would have to qualify your statement.
I KNOW that if the data given by the meteorologist is true then rain is a reasonable possibility.
There is no need to believe anything
but since I don't have access to primary data, I have to believe that it is true and is being analyzed and reported accurately.
NO
What are you not getting?
You dont need to believe anything.
you know that if the data is true then rain is a reasonable possibility.
that is what you know
there is no need to believe anything more or less
you know everything you need to know
why do you feel the need to add something to that?
I dont get it
Religion doesn't require belief. It requires obedience.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
