Talk:Religion/Archive 6

message: This seems a little slanted and definitely unjustified.
"Also, religion is the reason there is war. There would be less killing without religion and the world would be better off." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.161.239.159 (talk) 14:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  From the opening paragraph:. . .? 

message: Here are some of my observations and information that you might want to include or insert in the Entry Religion:
1. Bahai according to its official Website has about 5M believers. Spiritism alone, not counting Spiritualism and Channeling count for more and teach basically the same truths. Yet the latter are not mentioned in this regard in this Entry. Perhaps you might consider inserting this information. 
2. Hinduism believes in Avatars, advanced beings who volunteer to reincarnate in flesh and aid us in our development providing additional instruction and examples, as needed. 
3. Judaism is still waiting for its Messiah. 
4. Buddhism awaits the coming of Maitreya who is to provide the next progressive step forward. 
5. Christianity insists that Christ will come again. Even as many Fundamentalist Christians insist that Truth is already revealed in full, Jesus affirms that his parables will be further explained and he will speak more plainly, and adds that the Holy Spirit will guide us to “all truth”.
6. New Age – The Aquarian Gospel expressly declares that Christ comes at first of every new age. Theosophy, Lobsang Rampa for Lamaism, Spiritism of Kardec and the ARE of Edgar Cayce all teach that the entire Physical Plane is simply a school system for evolving spirits. References are made to Root Races and Rounds of Existence in the Eastern Teachings and to Ascending Orders of Spirits in the Western counterparts. New Agers in general and all of these 5 major groups expect that Christ, not necessarily the same entity as Jesus, is coming in the flesh in this Age of Aquarius. 
Personalized instruction and guidance is specially fitted to each individual spirit-student according to his level in the order of evolution. This accounts for the wide-spread disagreements in regard to what the true teachings are. Precisely, the New Age Movement is the actual preparation for this upgrading in our instruction in this New Age and the coming again of Christ. 
Note that while there are references in the Religion Entry relating to past prophets up to the present, these observations relate to future happenings. 
I do not care to upset another’s work. Different writing styles may not be compatible and could result in disjointed and ineffective presentations. Although I may differ in certain aspects, we are all different, I nevertheless find the article on the whole to be reasonably well-written. 
If you should also find that these information are worthy of mention, then I would request the previous writers to please help in the re-drafting and edit them into the Article. Angel 04:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestions re: Religions as progressively true/as absolutely true 

message: I respectfully recommend that the topic of Religion should include the topic of reason's influence in modern man's religious beliefs. For this purpose, and in its support, I submit the reference:  . To do otherwise and ignore this recommendation, failing in said inclussion, I believe simply promotes narrow mindedness, shortchanging the reader and perpetuating myths.
Sincerely,
Xavier March 22:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Blogs are not acceptable as sources in Wikipedia.  See Wikipedia:Reliable sources. -- Jeff3000 22:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I respectfully disagree. Your recommendation does not support a NPOV, it seems to be stating that religious beliefs are narrow minded and are myths. That is not neutral. Faranya 04:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The influence of reason in modern man's religious beliefs. 

message: I wish to see the relevant accademic periodicals to be listed in the article.  These include:
http://www.nlx.com/journals/rvm.htm
http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0021-8294&site=1
http://jaar.oxfordjournals.org/
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/routledg/cmhr;jsessionid=y1kcojl3oqlk.victoria
http://www.leaonline.com/loi/ijpr?cookieSet=1
http://www.leaonline.com/loi/jmr
http://rra.hartsem.edu/reviewof.htm
http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/   ---- review needed
http://www.springerlink.com/content/1573-6571/
http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=1368-4868
http://www.religionandnature.com/journal/
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/13537903/
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/bsc/rsr
http://www.nanzan-u.ac.jp/SHUBUNKEN/publications/jjrs/jjrsMain.htm
http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=1479-2206&site=1
http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=1350-7303&site=1
http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0384-9694
http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/routledg/cjbv
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/JR/toc.html
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/brill/jra
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/routledg/crss
::Please elaborate.  Wikipedia is not a directory of links.  The only reason a journal would be listed is through a reference to a specific article with a relevant piece of information.  What exactly is your wish?PelleSmith 12:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Power wiki admin, please help to add the following info.... 

message: "Religion" has my vote for the Worst Article on Wikipedia. It is such a convoluted concatenation of compromises, that it conveys nothing. If you didn't know what the term meant, could you get any sense of it from reading the first paragraph, or even the entire introduction? This definition reduces the power of the English language to convey concepts with terms. According to Wikipedia, "religion" has no associated concept, just a bunch of conflicting compromises designed to keep anyone's toes from being stepped on. If we can't come up with something better than this, those accusing us of groupthink are right: Wikipedia is nothing more than compromise by the masses except when overpowered by a self-proclaimed authority. Sorry to be so hard on you, but despite all your efforts, the cumulative result of the work done here is a big stinking pile of cow dung. --Peter the Great 19:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which of course is why it's rated a "B". You sound like one of those "self-proclaimed authority" people.--Smkolins 22:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Worst Article on Wikipedia Award 

message: Here is the disputed addition to the lead in its entirety.  I have reverted it again because, as others have pointed out at the very least it does not belong in the lead.  However, finding the above discussion confusion to look at I am repasting the text here with some additional comments as to why I reverted despite the ongoing conversation.
*Because three of the most commonly-held religions (Islam, Christianity and Judaism) center around the existence of a divine God who holds sway over the present world and universe, careful consideration of the existence of God is crucial to a well-grounded study of religion. There is no empirical evidence that God exists and wields present influence on our worldwww.wikipedia.org, Existence of God page.; however, many people believe in his/her existence anyway, some of whom suggest that it is an element of good character to have faith strong enough to outweigh empirical data.
Problems:
# The existence of a "divine God" is not part of all religious belief systems (in their essentialized forms), nor is it a matter of great importance to many sects, subgroups, and/or individuals adhering to or identifying with religious belief systems that in their essentialized forms are said to "center around the existence" of such a God.  The latter aspect should be considered here--particularly by someone so interested in "empirical evidence".  The manner in which the existence of a deity is conceived of in theory, expressed in practice, and held in matter of importance within the larger picture of the religious tradition varies drastically even within the monotheistic Abrahamic faiths mentioned above.  An "empirical" picture of even these three traditions shouldn't essentialize the importance of the existence of God as much as the above statement has done.
# The fact that discourses about religion seem to so often center around this issue--belief in a deity or deities--has been throughly criticized several times over by numerous scholars as a product of a particularly Western, Christian, and even more so Protestant way of conceptualizing religion.  Do we fall pray to this discourse which is a product of monotheistic theologies and the interaction with such theologies by atheists, doubters and other critics of Christianity?  Or do we attempt to present "religion" based upon empirical evidence of "religion", in its multiform existence?  
# Now I actually agree that there is "no empirical evidence that God exists" given the fact that I agree with standard scientific and philosophical notions of what constitutes "empirical" evidence--"logical proofs" are not empirical evidence.  But the issue here isn't theism, or the proof of God.  The type of empirical evidence that should concern us here is the type of evidence that supports the existence of religion and not the existence or non-existence of one or many deities.  This means explaining the ways in which people believe in a or many gods, and what forms of practice they engage in relation to these ways of believing.  That is what an empirical study or religion is concerned with.  
# What you ended up presenting is a point of view falling within the view of religion as a social construct.  It implies that if we accept the presumptions of the current scientific community there is no empirical evidence of God.  So what we would be describing, continuing the above logic, are belief systems based upon other forms of adjudication.  This idea, is one I personally agree with, however many people who believe in God do not even agree with that.  They do not see even an empirical problem (of course others don't care, others see compromise, etc. etc.).  So why should we privilege one position on the existence of God in the lead to the entry on "religion", and not even "God"?  This is why I also find your addition to the lead to be POV.  It certainly doesn't belong in the lead.
# Finally, in relation to what I have already written, I would like to make a more general appeal.  This entry is already too wrapped up in an approach that privileges the "belief" side of religion.  Religions aren't simply systems of belief, and the intricacies of systematic belief have usually been worked out by a very small minority of elites--historically and cross-culturally.  Practices, folk traditions, and other forms of expression are as, or perhaps even more important to how religion actually takes shape on the ground.  Your addition to the lead accentuates this problem even more.  Lets work to tone down the theism, and belief orientation of the entry instead of accentuating it.PelleSmith 17:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for an eloquent and well argued point. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed Lead addition 

message: I removed the sentence in the lead section "Religion can also be described as a way of life" because it is too general and vague, i.e., fluff.  This is not POV (what is the bias?).  Cj67 13:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: POV does not equal "bias".   POV means "point of view"--having only one POV represented in an entry, or specifically excluding other POVs is often deemed "bias", and this is why the two concepts are frequently used together.  Your point of view is that this is "fluff", but I am not claiming nor did I ever claim a bias in the entry or in your edit.  I hope that is clear.  My argument is that however vague or general you may think that "way of life" is as an expression, it is commonly used to describe religion(s).  The reason to include it is, at the very least, on a sociological basis.  Also, in regards to your second edit summary, the sentence has never stated that religion is the "only" way of life, but that it "can also be described as a way of life".  I will change the phrasing so that the usage aspect is made more explicit.PelleSmith 14:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: After looking up POV on wiki, the essence is bias.  You also should add sources, since you are repeatedly asserting that things are "often deemed" or "often described" a certain way.  Back to the main point, what does it mean to say that "religion" is "a way of life"?  How would that help anyone understand what religion is?  It seems to me that this description is contrary to the rest of the article, which distinguishes religion from philosophy.  Cj67 16:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To call a philosophy a "way of life" is just as problematic as, if not more problematic than, saying that a religion is, by way of your criticism.  The historical "world religions", in their various forms, for instance all contain several dogmatic and ritual proscriptions that specify actual "ways" in which human being are to "live"--are to carry on with life.  On top of this, like some philosophies might, they also provide ideas or suggestions of "ways" one is to go about living life.  While I agree that the phrase is vague I also understand why people use it.  In terms of referencing the phrase are you actually saying that you are unfamiliar with this usage or do you just not agree with it?PelleSmith 18:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You say "To call a philosophy a "way of life" is just as problematic as ... saying that a religion is" -- but you don't think it's a problem to say religion is!  I don't understand.  You say that you agree that it is vague, but you rely on the fact that people say it.  People say lots of things, like religion is the cause of many problems in the world.  That doesn't mean it goes in the first section.  It doesn't mean it's helpful.  The essence of religion is not that it is a way of life, even if it has secondary effects in this direction.  Is science a way of life?  Politics?  My complaint basically is that, while religion can affect how people live their lives, it is not correct to say that religion "is" a way of life, even if people say it.  Cj67 19:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I called them both problematic "by way of your criticism".  I hedge towards calling a philosophy a way of life more problematic, "by way of your criticism", given that at least religions tend to have mechanisms that regulate ways of living.  Clearly in my view it is meaningful to call both "some philosophies" and most religions "ways of life" even though it is also a rather vague descriptor.  I have given you reasons why this is the case (dogmatic and ritual mandates, as well as ideas and suggestions as to how life should be lived).  Now maybe you could address your claim that "it is not correct to say that religion 'is' a way of life", and then maybe also address my answers which do not just boil down to "religion can affect how people live their lives" as you would have it.  Sometimes, and to varying degrees, religions mandate how people live their lives.  Lastly I would also ask that since you say that this is "not the essence" of religion you may tell us what is or at least how we may know that this is not.PelleSmith 19:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW, neither the initial phrasing or my altered phrasing ever said that "religion is a way of life".  I would like to make this abundantly clear.  The initial phrasing said that religion "can also be described" as a way of life and my new phrasing says that religion "is often described as" a way of life.  Lets be clear on what got us here, though I'm still interested to hear why religion isn't a way of life.PelleSmith 19:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, I should add, that the aspects I am arguing for you to consider as integral to the description of religion as "a way of life" (dogmatic and/or ritualistic ways of regulating human experience and human behavior) happen to be very close to what several scholars have argued is the most essential aspect of religion--from Emile Durkheim, to Mary Douglas, to Roy Rappaport.PelleSmith 19:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Way of life 

message: This section is just a long rehash of the Development of religion article.  I think that all the sub-headings can just be deleted and leave the summary and the link to the article at the top.  --JeffW 16:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Development of Religion Section 

message: The article had stated that "By definition, skeptics of religion are atheists or agnostics", with links to the definitions of atheist and agnostic. This was backwards: the definition of atheist or agnostic can only show that they are some subset of the "skeptics of religion". A counterexample to illustrate the original statement would be the existence of a single critic of religion who was not an atheist or agnostic; I don't think this would be very difficult to do.
I reversed the statement, although I would have preferred just to delete it. I assume the author mentioned atheists and agnostics to justify the section, "Criticism of Religion", by implying that these "skeptics of religion" must be critics of religion. I find this problematic for a number of reasons. A hypothetical person born in isolation from religion and free of religious thought is necessarily an atheist or agnostic; however, without knowledge of religion, this person cannot be a skeptic of religion. Furthermore, there is no explanation for what exactly a "skeptic of religion" is skeptical of; this person is probably not skeptical of the existence of religion, nor of the popularity of religion, nor of the significance of religion belief in the development, and so on. So, what is this "skeptic" skeptical of?Cgb8176 00:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modification to "Skepticism" 

message: This map provides more misleading information than useful information, and I propose that it be removed. One example of the absurdities include Tibet following "Chinese religions". Why do we need this map ? A better map would be along the lines of :Image:Human Language Families (wikicolors).png, and I am sure data is available. example deeptrivia (talk) 00:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religion by country map 

message: --Steven X 07:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? TCC (talk) (contribs) 08:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shouldn't the words "Tax exempt" appear somewhere in this article? 

message: 288px is just too large;  on my screen they take over a third of the screen. I haven't seen this size on any other page. Some editors even complain that 250px is too large for pictures, and the lead image is not even a picture that has intricate details.  Normally the images are set to thumbnail so that each user can have it at the size of their own setting.  I will be reverting. -- Jeff3000 19:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree; the images are supposed to be supplementary to the text, adding to the article, not being the article. -- Jeff3000 19:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, definitely too big.  These types of maps are used all over Wikipedia, and you will never find them any larger than thumbnail size; for those who want a larger image, they can click the image. -- Jeff3000 20:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Kindly do away with this misleading map. We need a map along these lines. deeptrivia (talk) 02:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And that's supposed to be less "misleading"? I have to inform you that there are no large areas of the US with a Jewish majority, not even New York City; and certainly not over the broad area of the Northeast as indicated there. As labeled, it paints with far too broad a brush. Perhaps if it wasn't copyrighted and a larger-res version was available, the original might be reasonably informative. But on a worldwide scale, most of the demographic boundaries shown much include a great deal of guesswork. Indicating the dominant religious groups by country is potentially not as fine-grained, but it's more accurate as far as it goes since the data are clearer. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Second that.  While the borders of nation states are not ideal for such a map at least they can represent accurate information.  Also, I don't think we should support a map that uses the word "tribal" to describe group of religions.PelleSmith 03:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image sizes 

message: When talking along the lines of religions, you have to take into account that Christianity has so many different variations of your spoken truth. For example, You have the Catholics Who believe In god and his teachings, yet seem to have forgotten about the gods that the very founders of their religion followed before the bible came into play in the very early times of the Roman and Greek empire. Before the bible was well known and discussed the Greeks and Romans believed in not one God, but several. They believed there was a God of war (Mars, God of war) God of love (Addonnas, God of love) and a god of fire. Though once human discovered that they could make fire with out the God of fire, they lost Credibility in the fact that there is indeed a God of fire. Once humans waged wars against eachother, yes there went poor old mars too. The list of gods is long and also forgotten. Now old Greek mytholorgy has more use in hollywood then it does serving the minds of the people in a spiritual way. 
Then, another variation of Christianity is The door knocking Jehovah. They Believe that they follow the Gosphel and the teachings of the bible down to the letter, but seem to have forgotten to add in the new testimate. They also do not give praise to their god, Instead they praise his virgen mother who according to the Jehovah, is more significant in the history of the world then God! Infact they find God so insignigicant that they don't even celebrate his birthday. 
King Henery the 8th foundered a new christian religion simply becuase he wanted to alter the fact that one could not be devorsed from their partner. His new religion would seem to have started an epidemic, craze or fashion if you will, of couples being devorsed. But how can this still be a Christian faith? they have strayed from the gosphel! When two humans become married, they say the vowels stating that they will remain in love 'untill death do us part'. These vowels are teachings of the bible. 
Three examples of variations of the Christian Religian. Each of these variations have members with in their clan that are willing to die for what they believe in. How you one who is searching for a deeper meaning take one religion over another? Each have the same amount of credibility as the next.
Thank you for reading. Please reply as I am very interested in this topic. If you would like to discuss further with me the facts of religion or feel I am wrong in any of my facts please Email me or chat to me on msn. Combutcha@hotmail.com. Thank you.
:Maybe Henry VIII couldn't get a devorse (sic), but I bet he could spell it...PiCo 04:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Credibility Among Religions and Their Members. 

message: Hi! How about a concise, common sense definition of "religion"?
Religion: "A person's or culture's excuse ('justification by faith') for living." 
4.249.228.231 01:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You think its an excuse? Not more like "that which makes it possible to carry on"? IceHunter 15:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition of religion 

message: There are at least five references to community in the first two paragraphs of this article. It seems like whoever wrote it was trying to make a point about community and not trying to inform about religion.--The burning bush 20:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  too many community references 

message: There should be a section about the psychology behind why so many people feel the need to invent un-provable supernatural beings they can worship. Surely some studies have been made about this. Personally I guess its fear, but that’s hardly scientific.IceHunter 15:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Psychology behind religion 

message: I removed the following because it sounds like propaganda to me...
"Beliefs give you something to fall back on when you come across difficult times in your life, or across something you don't understand. For example, when someone close to your dies, religion often gives you a way to make sense of what is happeneing in what is otherwise a traumatic and caotic time in your life. It can give you a way to express your grief, a sense of understanding and routine to follow, to stop yourself falling into depression.
Religion is not there to punish, but to guide you through the difficult times in your life, to protect you from self-halm, from halm by others and disease, pain and suffering. For example, the jewish religion includes warnings about certain foods and, as modern medicine has found, some people have alergies to nuts, seafood and dairy products, which can be potentially fatal."
Perhaps something like this can be included if it's worded more neutrally: "It is claimed that..." Also, for anyone who believes in hell religion IS there "to punish." So this generalization doesn't make any sense. Halm ??
Gregbard 21:11, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: npov, nonencyclopedic

message: This regards three (originally two) sources used to cite information that, it should be noted, is not in dispute.  However, these sources do not fit our standards for reliable sources.  I mean no offense to the editor who contributed them nor do I mean to imply that the sources are incorrect, but merely that they don't meet standards of reliability.  We should instead find reliable, published sources for this material.  For information on what are and what are not reliable sources please see Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Reliable sources, and Wikipedia:Attribution.  While one can find similar statements in all of these guidelines this excerpt from Wikipedia:Attribution sums up the problem quite well:
* Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. How reliable a source is depends on context. In general, the most reliable sources are books and journals published by universities; mainstream newspapers; and university level textbooks, magazines and journals that are published by known publishing houses. What these have in common is process and approval between document creation and publication. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Material that is self-published is generally not regarded as reliable, but see below for exceptions. Any unsourced material may be removed, and in biographies of living persons unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material must be removed immediately.
The key here is "published with a reliable publication process."  If one reads on one sees that this means a publishing process that involves, for instance, peer-review or other mechanisms of fact checking.  While the materials posted may have been written by PhDs in the subject matter they have not been "published with a reliable publication process."  Why not find other sources that have?  Also, the fact that something is housed on a University server does not in any way ensure that it has been "published with a reliable publication process."  Again I have no complaints about the information itself, but lets do this the right way.  Any objections?PelleSmith 03:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't use the poor quality of the sourcing of other entries or even other parts of this one as an excuse to keep bad sources in here.  I quoted from guidelines and wikilinked three separate ones at that.  I'm not making this stuff up.  Again lets not compromise the integrity of this entry just because other bad sources exit on Wikipedia.PelleSmith 03:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reliable sources 

message: The article is fully protected, so I can not make changes. I wish the following lines to be changed, as they are insulting to religious people:
Some religious people maintain that religious knowledge obtained in this way is absolute and infallible (religious cosmology). While almost unlimited, this knowledge is unreliable, since the particulars of religious knowledge vary from religion to religion, from sect to sect, and often from individual to individual.
As a matter of fact, I myself agree with the statement made above. 
However, religious people certainly will not. I was looking for material for a discussion with a religious person. The idea of using observation as a source of knowledge is completely alien to him. Therefore, the above reasoning will be absurd for him, so he will perceive it as intentionally offensive. 
Rumostra 18:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The entry is not fully protected at all.  In fact I can't even see that it is semi-protected.  Either way with a legit login you can edit it freely.  If you can't edit it then there is something else that is wrong.PelleSmith 18:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Accounts younger than 4 days old still can't edit. See WP:SEMI --h2g2bob (talk) 18:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was unaware of that or have forgotten.  Many thanks for the info.PelleSmith 18:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  insulting lines