Religion Makes Complete Sense

You need to flesh this out a little.

IMO "events" are evoked by "observers" who define an event window and other parameters. Unless you define a "god" as an "ultimate observer" (like Berkeley)there are no "events" in themselves.

I'll concede that one religion makes about as much sense as any other. Some are not as distasteful as others, of course.

Religions explain nothing.

They try to relieve pain from humankind sorrow lives, hardly succeeding..

Others have tried to explain this "sense" but none has yet convinced me of anything.

Religions are utter nonsense. They don't explain anything satisfactorily to me. They are control methods.

Then again, I could make up anything that I want to "explain events", and it would be just as credible as what religion postulates. For Pete's sake, Ron Hubbard did just that, and his company is reaping a fortune.

Why the need to explain events?

Sure, I enjoy knowing that A led to B, but there comes a point where I'm quite satisfied in saying "**** if I know"

I am just kidding around, but it is a common rationale, after all I doubt you'll find a religionist claiming their religion does not provide explanations for events.

you've obviously never played clue

Funny man!

Fresco:
"events" are evoked by "observers" who define an event window and other parameters. Unless you define a "god" as an "ultimate observer" (like Berkeley)there are no "events" in themselves.
Exactly! social scientists always have the task--the problem of define the boundaries of an "event" or situation, (i.e., distinguishing what is inside and what is outside the "event"--where is its beginning and its ending, as well as who are its participants--its social content).
To put it another way, events are constructual extractions from an originally indeterminant flow of phenomena. As such, they are as much theoretical as they are empirical.

Well, I was going to say :

But that's pretty much what you said.

To clarify,
It's a not a question of assignimg "meaning" to "happenings". There are no happenings except in relationship to an observer. Observers and "the world" are co-extensive.

Call it what you like, occurrences, happenings, motion, 'stuff'...stuff moves.

If you like, you can assign meaning to the motion of stuff and define that as 'happenings'.

The way I was looking at it, motion is an occurrence, whether or not I know about it, and whether or not it has any meaning to me.

What btw, do you mean by co-extensive?

There is no "stuff"...no "objective reality"... independent of an observer. The "boundary" between observer and world is itself subject to observation for its existence. Hence the term "co-extensive"....like no "up" without "down" ...no "thing" without "thinger". Existence is relationship.

To clarify, are you saying, that if sentience (of any sort, down to an amoeba) didn't exist, then water wouldn't flow, wind wouldn't move etc?

...Are you saying that a leaf falling from a tree on another planet (say in another galaxy), that can't possible affect us here, has a relationship to us here...and therefore isn't objective?

You don't get it. Who defines "water flowing" etc other than "an observer" in relationship to its particular physiological apparatus.
When you ask that pseudo-question you are observing the "water" in your own head. Next you attempt to remove that sentience from "the scenario" but it is impossible ...the whole scenario collapses ! The error of the persistence of a scenario "without an observer" is essence of naive realism. You need to extrapolate from "different scenarios (=different realities) for different physiologies" to understand this.

Hello Fresco, I do get it...I object to you denial of motion / interaction

Motion exists without sentience to observe it. That is a fact you seem to want to deny.

Everything we comprehend, we attach associations to (from your example, the 'definition' of water flowing, is the association)...that makes everything we observe subjective...over and above the objective motion / interaction.

That we comprehend in a subjective manner, doesn't mean there isn't an underlying 'occurrence' that is simply following the laws of nature.

Agreed

See above.

Motion of what relative to what ?

This could be a pseudo-problem...that of attempting to find a first axiom extrinsic to the system we want to call “existence”. Berkeley “solved it” by evoking a “God”. Newtonian physics had “space” as a fixed frame only to be overthrown by Einstein.

It may simply be the case that we cannot talk about “existence" without "observers”.