Talk:Religion/Archive 5

message: I like the idea of adding a section on dreams, so I will not at this time revert the recently added paragraph, but as it stands it is much too informal and POV, and needs a rewrite.  The Wiki manual of style says, "no contractions", BTW. Rick Norwood 13:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree very much.  Dreams that people have had has had a strong effect on the history of many religions, but the current statement is POV and does not cite any references.  It needs to be updated/revised/changed. -- Jeff3000 14:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that's what we want.  We want a section that provides references about how dreams have affected the current religions. -- Jeff3000 13:59, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. Thanks.David H 14:17, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dreams 

message: Could someone clarify the relation between the painting Fishers of Men featured in the intro and the topic, by writing a better caption? CG 12:31, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Caption 

message: I fail to understand when Sikhism, Jainism and Buddhism are part of Hinduism or evolved from hinduism; similar to protestians, angelic, etc from christianity.. why when ranking the followers or hindusim... different sects have to be shown different from hinduism...
is it just, when british colonial rule came to asian countries and for their own understanding took buddhism and jainism etc as different religion?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.237.47.4 (talk • contribs) 15 April 2006
Pls note that Buddhism is NOT a part of Hinduism. Buddhism has no gods and it is a philosophy, a pathway to freedom. Buddha was a human who showed others the pathway to Nibbana. Buddhists also believe in Re-birth and Karma. Buddhists strongly believe in that saying "What goes around comes around" and the philosophy is evolved through the concept of Karma and how to escape the sufferings of the world.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.165.168.23 (talk • contribs) 03:48, 16 April 2006
:It would be entirely wrong to conceive of Sikhism, Jainism, or Buddhism as a part of Hinduism. The picture is somewhat more difficult than that. All four of these religions share some common ideas (or at least common terms, often understood slightly differently). The relationship between them is hardly like the changes after the Reformation (though one can track similar movements within Sikhism, Jainism, Hinduism, and Buddhism sometimes inspired by one or another of the other religions). Jainism and Buddhism, the two surviving Shramana schools, can be differentiated from Hinduism quite early in their history (circa 800 BCE for Jainism circa 500 BCE for Buddhism — these dates roughly correspond to the Tirthankara Parsva and Gautama Buddha). Sikhism is traditionally traced to Guru Nanak in the 15th century CE (that is, around the time of the Muslim-ruled Mughal Empire — Islam having a significant impact on the formation of Sikhism). In fact, the blanket term "Hinduism" itself is problematic as it covers over the vast differences that often lie between various Hindu beliefs (though the majority of Hindus at present follow some form of Smartism, not all do). Etymologically speaking, "Hindu" comes from the Sanskrit word sindhus, refering to the Sindus river. The term "Hindu", however, first came into use among the Persians, not the inhabitants of the Sindus River valley (hence, it is considered a "foreign" word). Thus, "Hinduism" is composed of a massive array of sects and cults (which, historically speaking, far outstrips the diversity of Christian churches). The long and the short of it is that these really are separate traditions, incomparable to the differences between Protestants, Catholics, Anglicans, Eastern Orthodox, etc. Ig0774 05:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hindusim, Sikhism, Jainism and Buddhism 

message: Almost the entire population of North Korea is listed as an adherant of Juche, which is also refered to as "Kimilsungism."  I'm not sure that this makes any more sense than listing Maoism as one of the world's largest religions because China is still officially Maoist.  Juche isn't really a religion, it's more like a loose collection of poorly thought out political ideas used by the government of North Korea to excuse their behavior.  Even if it was a religion, I would seriously doubt that the great majority of North Koreans could be said to believe in it in a religious sense.  Obviously, very few people outside North Korea are Kimilsungists, so few that I would think that they would be statistically irrelivant.  Bottom line is that I don't think Juche is a religion, and I don't think that 19 million people believe in it. --Descendall 23:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Juche is included here because the list on this page is pretty much ripped off of adherents.com. His explanation for its inclusion is here. Basically, he claims that Juche is more "religious" (whatever that means) than Maoism, and makes the implicit claim that its a religion of nationality (sort of like Hinduism or Judaism) rather than essentially of belief. Juche seems to present itself as a philosophy, not a religion, and its inclusion seems to be on the basis of one author (Thomas Belke). On the other hand, I am pretty indifferent to whether or not it "qualifies" as a religion, and would lead that up to the consensus of other editors of this page.  Ig0774 01:01, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That page admits that he's just using the population of North Korea.  That's a terrible way to define who is a believer in Juche.  Hardly anyone actually belives it; even it's arcitect, Hwang Jang-yop, doesn't believe it.  He defected to South Korea and is now an anti-North Korean activist.  The only real reason it seems to have been included on adherents.com is because it has "more adherents than Judaism, Sikhism, Jainism or Zoroastrianism," meaning that "it has so many adherents" (bold in original).  But this is faulty logic; I'm sure way more people claim to be adherents of democracy than of Zoroastrianism, but we don't include democracy on the list. --Descendall 06:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not defending its inclusion on the list, just explaining why it seems to be there. If it irritates you that much, get rid of it. No one seems interested in defending it as a religion. Ig0774 00:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know that you weren't defending it.  I simply wanted to present my argument before I unilaterially deleted it. --Descendall 16:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Juche

message: In the article, it lists "Res + Legere" as a latin root. It is my understanding that Lego, Legere meants "To Write," rather than "To gather." It could mean that "writing" is "gathering words", I know translations can differ. I would just like a source for this, or at least some clarification.  GofG |||  Contribs 23:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Latin Word

message: The world's population is approximately 6.5Bn. If  you look at present day adherents and add some of the upper values, however, you get 7Bn!
2.1+1.3+1.1+.9+.7+.4+.3+.1+.023+.019+.015+.014+.012+.007+.007 = 7Bn.
What gives?
:I believe that rounding up, being more common than rounding down, caused this admittedly strange sum. As stated below the list, exact numbers are impossible. I don't think it should be changed; the approximations seem accurate, and rounding to the next decimal over would be cluttering an already large article. GofG |||  Contribs 23:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Another factor in this may be that many religions (especially Christianity) do not count adherents correctly. The Roman Catholic Church, the largest denomination of Christianity, counts "Christian" as anyone who was baptized and did not officially renounce his/hers Christianity. As a result, a person could be counted a Roman Catholic Christian and also a Satanist. I've added a new edit section (see below) on this matter. MickeyK 21:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

text: The Wikipedia article on Zoroastrianism does not contradict the 2&1/2 million estimate, but rather states the trend in very recent years, which is for encyclopedias to report a far higher number than previously.  Offhand I don't know what accounts for the revision..Kenosis 03:03, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Religion Size Rankings

message: The new section has no references and uses tons of weasel words.  Wikipedia guidelines state that weasel words should not be used; see Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_words.  Specifically "Weasel words don't really give a neutral point of view; they just spread hearsay, or couch personal opinion in vague, indirect syntax. It is better to put a name and a face on an opinion than to assign an opinion to an anonymous source."  Thus the author of that section must give names and sources for those "some historians" statements.  The weasel tag is used to give the author a chance to fix the problem, and if after some time it isn't fixed, the content can be removed. -- Jeff3000 00:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I see your point. I've added a date, and if nothing is forthcoming in a few days I'll delete the section as uncited. Tom Harrison Talk 00:40, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A degree of caution is in order about [possibly parochial] assertions of an oldest surviving religion.  Central and South American, as well as indigenous African religions have similar claims to make as well, perhaps along with others of which we may not be aware.  I have tentatively adjusted the apparently good-faith and well-considered content of the article to accommodate this additional possiblity too..Kenosis 04:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm still not to happy with this section.  I don't know if it adds anything to the article, but cause controversy.  I would support removing it. -- Jeff3000 04:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not happy with any of the article.  It has nothing to do with putting principle into actual practice, at least thus far...Kenosis 04:15, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

text: True, there should be a section on that, but for many religion is just a belief that unfortunately is not put into practice.  But what about removing the section? -- Jeff3000 04:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

text: You meant "syncretic", perhaps? Certainly there's something between the Vedic religion and Zoroastrianism, but that probably has more to do with the spread of Indo-Eurpoean peoples than anything else. The Silk Road was likely active at the time, but I think that has more to do with the spread of artistic motifs (which would certainly have found their way into religious iconography) than religious ideas as such. I don't know whether lines can be drawn from Judaism to much of anything else outside the Levant. TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I did indeed mean synchronistic in the sense Jung used it.  If it's merely a matter of the Silk Road, such debate about "etherial" immanence of spirit/consciousness (call it whatever one chooses) tends to be fairly quickly settled, though it would not fully explain some amazing coincidences of timing among cultures that had never met (such as indigenous Central Americans).  One is then left with the occasional revelation and the like to one true faith or another, or a completely Deistic picture.  Appreciate seeing your thoughts about it. ..Kenosis 12:51, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New section on Oldest religion and weasel words 

message: There should be an article on Religion and Class - will start the stub. Jackiespeel 18:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Religion and Class

message: I tried to make the images in this article flow a little better with the text (there's already a discussion above) by moving the image that had the caption with the "Hinduism is possibly the oldest religion" to that section, but I'm still not fully happy with the results.  It causes the religion and science picture (which I think is a really good image) to start a little later.  Suggestions anyone... -- Jeff3000 04:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images (part 2) 

message: There may be 14 million Jewish people, but they do not all follow the Jewish religion, which is the only proper subject for this page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.67.108.121 (talk • contribs) .
:From  it seems there are 10.4 million.  There is also an article about religious and non-religious Jews in America here -- Jeff3000 16:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: How many religious Jews?

message: At which point is a religion condisidered to be distinct from it's predessor? What sepparates one religion from another? Is there an exact distinguishing factor (standard in linguistic or biological classification) or more like any set of varying factors (standard in ethnic/musical classification)? For instance, Christianity and its parent faith of Judaism are considered to be completely and distinct religions, of course. It's not the God Jews and Christians worship that set them apart, though the way they relate to God is very different. Perhaps it's just the fact that most of both faiths have claimed to belong to different religions for several centuries? Many works, including this article, define religion in there own way but few focus on what exactly destinguishes one from another.--J. Daily 04:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are different views of this.  I think a religion is considered to be distinct from it's predecessor when it claims that it has a newer revelation and abrogrates the laws of the previous revelation.  I think Christianity fits that description.  On the other hand Islam states that Islam has always existed and that all peoples of the Book (Judaism, and Christianity among others) are really Islam just corrupted, and that Muhammad has just set religion back on the same track.  The Baha'i Faith sees things as an amalgom of the two.  Religion is seen as one progressive plan from God, and each religion is from God, but each messenger reveals new teachings and abrogates the previous religion's laws to help humanity progress; in this scheme, again it's the changing of laws that distinguish the different religions, but they are still under the same God. -- Jeff3000 05:01, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: These thoughtful comments, in sum, indicate why we so quickly removed the controversial section on "Oldest surviving religion(s)".  I appreciate seeing these insights here....Kenosis 05:54, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evolutionary Theology 

message: are these numbers actually right? I find it hard to believe some of it.
:See adherents.com. Some of them might be inflated somewhat, but it can be very difficult to get an accurate count of religious believers. Since they vary greatly in their degree of observance, it becomes a question of where the line between membership and non-membership is drawn. To a degree, you have to use the religions' own definitions of membership as well, which might yield a number that's surprising in either direction. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: numbers

message: In Democratic and Republic countries, Religion should be separated from Individual. Any support to religion means at the cost of those who do not believe in Religion. India is a Democratic and Republic country where political parties Congress and Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) are deeply involved in Religion and Caste based system. vkvora 05:38, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:   Religion and State 

message: Some denominations of Christianity, including the Roman Catholic Church, count "Christian" as anyone who has been baptized and did not officially renounce his/her Christianity. As a result, many people who were baptized as babies but grow up to be non-Christian are still counted as Christian. (This is according to Canon law.) Also, some of the people who are counted as "Christian" are from the 1800's!. This is due to a lack of proper updating system. While each religion may count its adherents diffirently, shouldn't this be mentioned below the "Present Day Adherents" section? MickeyK 21:59, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wouldn't counting adherents from the 1800's be consistent with the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead and of life everlasting? ;-) May as well keep including them while waiting for the Kingdom come. ... Kenosis 05:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Where are you getting the information that deceased people are being included in current census figures? Who's doing this? TCC (talk) (contribs) 08:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

text: No one knowingly counts dead people as current members, even catholic (Roman, Anglican, Orthodox) groups who pray for the dead, or Christian sects such as Mormons, who also have elaborate rituals concerning deceased members (there is a reason they are the geneological sine qua non in the States). If you can show that someone does (with some type of attribution), you should write an article on it, someone is bound to publish it. As it is, this is just false and should be stopped. There is no doubt that membership rolls need updating, from the local church to the local mosque to the local coven. But it will not change the overall numbers by the amount you seem to imply. Please, give us some reference, or occupy yourself constructively on another article. Morgaledth 22:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am working on obtaining information that deceased persons are included in Christianity membership counts (probably not on purpose; most likely due to not updating the member rolls). However, the main point of my discussion is that due to Catholic canon, anyone who has been baptized are counted as Christians (Unless they officially renounced their Christianity to a senior cleric). Surely this will result in a misleading count. Many people that I know have been baptized at an early age, yet have never touched a Bible in their lives. I am sure this sort of scenario occurs extremely frequently, as Christian parents in the 70's and 80's had their children baptized, who grow up in the modern, more secular world. MickeyK 14:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I really doubt the statistics used on this page (adherents.com) include people who are deceased, regardless of if some Christian denominations do include them.  Also regarding your second comment regarding participation, all religious numbers include some people who are not active in their religion. For a discussion on this topic see this adherent.com page. -- Jeff3000 15:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I apologize for my snide remark above.  I was baptized Roman Catholic and haven't participated for nearly 40 years, yet continue to be counted.  I am by no means unique in that regard. ... Kenosis 19:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

text: The site www.adherents.com admits that these numbers are towards the high end of estimates. I accept that all religious numbers include some people who are not active in their religion, but shouldn't those two facts be included within the article? MickeyK 18:59, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christianity Numbers 

message: ::The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights defines religious conversion as a human right: "Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, ...." (Article 18).
::Based on the declaration the United Nations Commission on Human Rights (UNCHR) drafted the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, a legally binding treaty. It states that "Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice, ..." (Article 18.1). "No one shall be subject to coercion which would impair his freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice." (Article 18.2).
::The UNCHR issued a General Comment on this Article in 1993: "The Committee observes that the freedom to 'have or to adopt' a religion or belief necessarily entails the freedom to choose a religion or belief, including the right to replace one's current religion or belief with another or to adopt atheistic views [...] Article 18.2 bars coercion that would impair the right to have or adopt a religion or belief, including the use of threat of physical force or penal sanctions to compel believers or non-believers to adhere to their religious beliefs and congregations, to recant their religion or belief or to convert." (CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.4, General Comment No. 22.; emphasis added)
::vkvora 04:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religious conversion in international law 

message: Being only the 4th largest religion, yet 4 pictures of Hinduism, and no pics of Christianity. Something wrong here? Chaldean 15:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First pic (Fishers of Men) is of Christianity. Jerusalem is of Christianity (and others). Medieval painting of man with halo is Christian. So 2 pure Christian pictures, and one about the three monotheistic religions. No problem! Fram 15:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually Hinduism is 3rd largest religion (excluding atheist ideologies). From another angle i would say there is only one picture of Hinduism (last one related to Hindu philosphy) . Other three pictures are actually pictures of an Oldest existing religion, most visiting religious shrine in the world and Largest religious gathering of humanity. It's logical that in an article on religion...pictures giving information about this Oldest, Most and Largest will definately get a place. As Fram has already explained, Christianity definately has more than one picture in this article. So, No problem! -  Holy Ganga  talk  15:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I suggest switching one of the Hinduism pictures with a Buddhist picture. -- Jeff3000 00:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

text: This discussion reveals a poverty among Wikipedia contributors. Of what relevance is having many or fewer pictures related to each religion. Whether a picture is included, should depend on how relevant it is to elucidating the article.Shyamss 01:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hinduism

message: I am sure it is striking to any reader that religion defined as a system of belief is not a normal usage. For example, it does not distinguish religion even from science. However it is probably the right starting point.
My first suggestion is that we must realise that in modern western society religion is basically understood as any system of belief which can not be supported by rational argument based upon evidence. This might sounds simple, but I think this is how the word mostly gets used. The basic understanding we westerners have is that science and religion are two contrasting types of explanation. Other cultures did not have such an understanding, meaning that pagans, for example, did not see any obvious conflict between researching how the planets move, and being pious. The crucial difference is the development of a unquestionable traditions, which are formally unquestionable and not just relatively unquestionable like any tradition (and even scientists).
The other modern meaning is secondary: we refer to communities after the beliefs they share.
Then we need to explain to ourselves how this connects to the other meanings, which are non modern, non western. 
1. I'd say that most broadly, religion is a system of beliefs relating man not only to the universe, but also to whatever is said to lies behind the universe. 
2. But it must be understood that "laws of nature" (as in modern science) won't do. All religions seem to include accounts of how what lies behind the universe has strong implications for how man should live. In other words, it asserts that there are human-like intentions behind the things we see.
--Andrew Lancaster 13:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree completely that religion is a system of belief that cannot be supported by rational argument based upon evidence. People can follow religious practice and see the effects on their lives and the lives of the people around them, thus confirming their beliefs. Secondly, in the Islamic sense, there are at least two methods of going by to show the truth of the religion; they are the proof based on establishment proof based on verses.  Sure you might not agree with these proofs, but that doesn't mean that for all people there is no rational argument involved in believing in religion. -- Jeff3000 13:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to repeat, I distinguish, and the article should distinguish, two common usages of the term religion. I do think that most people, including religious people, in western countries, tend to use the word in a special way, which you disagree with. But I also accept, and the article should point out, that there is another meaning. Please consider what I wrote another time. Thanks. --Andrew Lancaster 21:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Small point, but really before the enlightenment, religion and science in the west (or western europe and clients) were largely connected, with most sciences being practiced by the literate class, which was largely (though not always exclusively) the priesthood.  So the whole "west has a different concept" thing is really that post-enlightenment secular society has a different concept.  In that connection, while religion as separate from science may not have been entirely clear before, religion all the way back to pre-enlightenment times, back to Zoroastrianism clearly shares some features.  Those features are what are described on this page. --Christian Edward Gruber 22:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you are only disputing the time when science and religion came into conflict in the west? You might be right. I guess I was considering the roots of the problem. As I guess you know, the problem is sometimes called "Athens versus Jerusalem" and it appears that these cities were grappling with the problem from an early date, and that their alternative answers define the later split between science and religion. I have heard it said that the "west" drawn into this debate is a "Greater West" which included the Arab world from an early date also.--Andrew Lancaster 11:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  some suggestions about the basic definition 

message: The new intro by Andrew is
:Religion is a human phenomenon that defies easy definition. Like a scientific school or a traditional community a religion is a "belief system". In other words it is defined by a group of beliefs which are shared by members of a particular community who are in turn bound together by this shared belief.
:To contrast religion to other belief systems, the type of subject matter of religions must be considered:-
 
:(a) Religions always involve beliefs about Objects which are not directly observable: the supernatural, sacred, or divine. In modern western societies, the term "religion" is sometimes used interchangeably with "faith". Indeed, the term religion is often used to mean any belief which can not be justified on the basis of directly observable evidence. This is to some extent unsatisfactory partly because it arguably no longer covers all religions, and partly because some would argue that even modern science believes in unobservable “laws of nature”.
:(b) More specifically, religions involve an understanding about how people should live, which (in contrast to an ethical theory in philosophy) is linked to the above-mentioned shared understanding of the divine which can not be observed in everyday life. This normally involves an assertion that there are divine beings who are interested in what humans do, and are able to affect them. Religions therefore typically specify sacred duties, such as rites and rituals.
:By extension, "religion" often also refers to the community which shares the belief system under discussion. And occasionally, the word "religion" is used in the more restricted sense of "organized religion" — that is, an organization of people supporting the exercise of some religion, often taking the form of a legal entity (see religion-supporting organization).
There are multiple problems with this intro, and I will revert to the old version until the problems are fixed.  
#It is much too detailed for a lead.
#It is POV that the understanding of the divine cannot be observed in everyday life.  Not all religions are so.  The intro has to be generic enough to fit all religions.
:::You might be right, but I can't see how. Is there any religion which really only refers to direct observable phenonoma? Even science does not achieve this?--Andrew Lancaster 13:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair comment. It is probably nearly always possible to ask for better citations, but perhaps adding more detail in this introduction will conflict with the implications of point 1?--Andrew Lancaster 13:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps it is time to begin putting in citations for already consensused material.  This article's introduction has been noteworthy and quite stable in introducing the topic to readers, particularly for a subject this broad. I believe I recall seeing several sources brought up in discussion in recent months.  Perhaps we can begin to refer to them in footnotes? . ... Kenosis 18:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New intro 

message: Religions are pseudoscience - they say they know how the world works and they say they have evidence, yet the evidence isn't falsifiable and there are no experiments that can verify their "information". If that's not a false science, then what is? 205.188.117.13 02:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Religions are pseudoscientific

message: I am utterly surprized that there is no "Fear of god" article, which is the very basic topic in religion. (There does exist "Fear of God" article, but this is an abomination.) `'mikka (t) 15:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fear of god 

message: They had only 4 million for Shinto. Are they accurate? The cia fact book states that 84% of Japanese population are profess to both Shinto and Buddhist. And last time I checked 4 million is not 84% of Japanese population. How accurate is Adherents.com? I do not know the accuracy of that site. Monkey Brain(talk) 21:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See  for an explanation of that number. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Ah ok. Hadn't read that. However their estimates are not too favorable. They do seem to redifine the word adherents to fit the bill(about shinto) and that their judgement seems to interfere with the actual statistics(Note the "non-religious" definition on the pie chart).  Monkey Brain(talk) 22:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really. They base their information on self-identification when they can. Their point is that most Europeans identify themselves as Christian even if they're not observant. The same is not true for Japanese and Shintoism. TCC (talk) (contribs) 06:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adhrents.com numbers... 

message: Is it time to seperate the religions by their nature? Theistic and Nontheistic? I have encountered many people who have beliefs that religions are all same; theistic by nature. Should it now be noted? I know it would be a pretty big step by categorization religions as either Theistic or Nontheistic, but if this would help solve the confusion, then shouldn't it be categorized? Monkey Brain(untalk) 03:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On reflection, it's kind of surprising this hasn't been done yet. Theistic/nontheistic seems like a pretty basic division. TCC (talk) (contribs) 06:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yet this would be a problematic distinction because traditions that are regularly classified as nontheistic (e.g. Buddhism) frequently involve deities in common practice.  If such a distinction is made I would suggest some qualifications.  If Buddhism, for instance, is expressedly nontheistic in its textual cannon, and/or in what is termed its "philosophy" then it needs to be compared on those grounds, and not simply as a religion.  Otherwise readers will be left with the false assumption that all or most Buddhists, to continue with the same example, do not worship or even believe in the existence of deities or other extra-human beings.PelleSmith 21:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seperation? 

message: According to this article there are 2.1 billion "professed adherents" of christianity. 
This is absurd. How was this figure arrived at? I see that it comes from 'adherents.com'
which is hardly likely to be an objective source! Looking back at the talk page I can see
that this is questioned very frequently.  Please put in some elements of doubt over these figures. 
As it stands the article looks ridiculous. Poujeaux 14:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Adherents.com is a reliable source, with extensive information about methodology.  It is used accross Wikipedia. -- Jeff3000 14:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Adherents.com has one of the most comprehensive databases of statistitics on religious adherents.  They don't gather any statistics themselves, but rather collect them from other sources. They state: "We present data from both primary research sources such as government census reports, statistical sampling surveys and organizational reporting, as well as citations from secondary literature which mention adherent statistics. Adherents.com is an Internet initiative and is not affiliated with any religious, political, educational, or commercial organization." -- Jeff3000 13:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Adherents.com recognizes that different sources may provide slightly different or even contradictory information. and Adherent statistics are usually not precisely comparable. In other words they recognize that they do get their info from biased sources, in which they do list the source that they are getting the info from. Out of all the sources, I would say 1.9 billion is an appropriate number. This number coincides with almanacs and other non-biased sources. Somerset219 21:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  2.1 Billion??? 

message: I've removed the image of the Tirupati temple and am placing it here for future reference. It was getting crowded in that part of the article, and the map image of the Pew Research Center study of demographics is far more relevant to that section on "demographic trends" than any photo.  As well, before I removed it, four of the ten pictures (excepting the multi-faith symbols at beginning) were drawn from Hinduism.  Now it's three of ten, which seems a reasonable representation for this article. ... Kenosis 16:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  ... 16:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Image moved here

message: Here is the somewhat bloated blockquote discussion from The White Goddess, submitted yesterday by anon IP, in case there is useful material to be gleaned from it. ... Kenosis 16:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Extra etymological discussion by Robert Graves 

message: :"'Organized religion' generally refers to an organization of people supporting the exercise of some religion with a prescribed set of beliefs, often taking the form of a legal entity (see religion-supporting organization)."
Isn't the "prescribed" requirement the only difference between an organized religion and any other? It's my understanding that any type of religion can be a legal entity, not just one organized with a top-down hierarchy. --Xosa 04:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't believe so.  Usually there is also some sort of organization; meetings, administration, etc (it doesn't necessarily have to be top-down).  As for your second question/assertion, the statement in the text of the article is not stating anything about if unorganized religion can or cannot be a legal entity, but stating that most often organized religion takes the form of a legal entity. -- Jeff3000 05:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Organized religion

message: Xosa, please stop changing the intro.  You asked for comments, both here and the RFC page, and so far everyone but you is happy with the current intro (an amalgam of your intro and the original intro). -- Jeff3000 03:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Revert again 

message: Terrorist activites are supported by Religious Leaders.
Is there any relation between religion and Terrorist activites?
:::vkvora 16:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In a way. People who advocate violence will often interpret their religion in such a way as to either justify or condone it, whether that interpretation is accepted outside their violent circle or not. Religion as such is rarely a cause of violence, although it frequently serves as just one more way into which some divide the world along the lines of "us/not us". It might as well be nationality, language, or skin color. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: No. More often than not, being "God's chosen people" requires that you not kill. That this is frequently ignored, and that adherents to such religions find ways to rationalize their killing anyway -- even to the point of twisting their religions teachings to the point where killing appears to be condoned even when it explicitly says the opposite -- is more a condemnation of man than his religions. TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religion and Terrorist Activities in Israel, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan and India. 

message: I just removed the reference to "due to high birth rates", which was based on a citation to non-notable "futurist John Gary" who hasn't published, hasn't cited his sources, and who can't seem to be found.  (see http://www.religioustolerance.org/growth_isl_chr.htm ) .  Moreover, a reasonable citation is needed for the claim that Islam is the fastest growing religion, so I added a "citation-needed" to that claim.  The religioustolerance.org webpage cites only a claim by Al Islam that the growth rate was 6.4% in 1994-1995 at a webpage that can no longer be found, not exactly an objective and credible source. ... Kenosis 15:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We should not be stating claims, but facts.  Claims is a weasel word, and is not precise (Weasel words are not recommended in Wikipedia).  Finally, Wikipedia articles cannot be used as sources for other Wikipedia articles, see WP:V.  I'll put it back to the original statement until a citation can be found. -- Jeff3000 18:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK I've found the source for Islam (see Fastest Growing Religion).  Christianity seems of have the fastest growing absolute numbers (but Islam is close) and Wicca the fastest growing in terms of percentage rise.  Islam may be able to claim to be be "the fastest growing major religion in terms of percentage change per year", provided that the growth of non-religious is not counted.  But that's a bit of a mouthful to put in.  What do you think? Mike Young 09:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Given this good reference  from (David A. Barrett, World Christian Encyclopedia, 2001, p 4) I would note in the text that Christianity has the fastest grown by numbers and Islam has the fastest growth by percentage (actually Zorastrianism seems like the fastest growing religion by percentage, but I think we can ignore the smaller religions for the sake of this statement). -- Jeff3000 19:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Have changed it... Wonder how long that will last ;) Mike Young 19:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  If "smaller religions" are still "religions" and one of them has a faster growth rate by percentage than Islam then the statement about Islam is simply false.  It is even more problematic because the estimated number of Zoroastrians, who belong to a religion which may have such a higher growth rate (see above), is clearly displayed on the page.  The statement about Islam either needs to be qualified in a way that makes it true (e.g. by saying that within a certain group of religions it has the highest rate) or it should be dropped.PelleSmith 20:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  The distinction between types of growth is also problematic.  If something is growing faster or fastest then what is measured is a growth rate and growth rates are, as far as I know, always measured by percentage increase.  Having a higher annual number of new adherents does not mean faster growth, it simply means gaining more adherents annually.  The terminology should be changed, though I think it makes sense to distinguish between the raw amount of adherents gained annually and the percentage growth (the growth rate) annually, especially since people may not realize that what a growth rate is.PelleSmith 21:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Go ahead and make the changes.  Also see this article at adherents.com. -- Jeff3000 21:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  I only changed the word "fastest" to "greatest" in terms of absolute numbers.  This clarifies the "rate" issue.  Thank you for the adherents.com article but I believe it is unfortunately misleading in its use of the term growth rate.  See for instance the wikipedia entry on population growth, which summarizes the growth rate measure used in demographics. I will not make other edits because I cannot verify the statstics used in this article.  I will suggest again, however, that if someone is comfortable with these stastics, like the original or recent authors/editors of this section and those stastics show that there are religions with faster growth rates than Islam then they should qualify the statement about Islam in a way that makes said statement cohere with the stastics used--if even by simply adding something like "Within the world's four largest religions ... " for instance.  My appologies for refusing to make those kinds of edits, but it is an ethical matter given my uneasiness with the stastics themself.PelleSmith 23:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Fastest-growing religion?

message: To claim that they are is erroneous and false.  A link to a page about the Vedic roots of yoga does not even back it up either.  Go ask someone at the gym who takes a yoga class every week if he/she is Hindu, and/or converesely ask a majority of Hindus the same question.  No scholarly sources either, would ever consider conflating the two.  Please do not simply add the information back.  If you doubtfully have a shcolarly source, provide it here first so that other editors can discuss the matter with you.PelleSmith 13:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Practitioners of yoga as excercise are not Hindu. 

message: Is this link acceptable for this article (link-owner, apologize):
Philosophy and religion:
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/pvosta/pcrhum.htm
Pvosta 08:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link suggestion 

message: The template at the top of the page says that the page is semiprotected, but it isn't (and, according to the logs, never has been). So... ~  Ghelæ talkcontribs 15:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semiprotection 

message: The first paragraph seems to have gotten out of control and no longer makes sense:
:Religion is a system of social coherence based on a common group of beliefs or attitudes concerning an object, person, unseen being, or system of thought considered to be supernatural, sacred, divine or highest truth, and the moral codes, practices, values, institutions, and rituals associated with such belief or system of thought. It is sometimes used interchangeably with "faith" or "belief system"[1], but is more socially defined than that of personal convictions.
Somebody please fix it. For example look at the last sentence which has the form "A is sometimes equated to B, but is actually different from C", and what is a system of social coherance? Does this say the same thing?
:Religions are communally shared systems of beliefsconcerning the moral codes, practices, values, institutions, and rituals associated with the community itself. They are also normally understood to be more than just a "faith" or "belief system" because they including belief about the supernatural, sacred, divine or highest truth.
Andrew Lancaster 13:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The first paragraph 

message: The section I just deleted needs to be seriously edited before being put back.  If Hinduism, as a religion, is having a "revival" then noting so is completely appropriate if citations are given, not to mention a much better contextualization.  Where are temples being built?  How many?  Are people converting to Hinduism?  What I deleted was absurdly vague.  In fact it would be prudent to reference all the so called trends mentioned in this section.  However, the influence of Hinduism on Western culture does NOT BELONG in this section.  It has nothing to do with trends in demographics, or adhrence to Hinduism at all.  While I find the influence of Eastern religious concepts, including those of Hinduism, fascinating I fail to see mentioning them as relavent to this section.  
The footnote given, was also not relevant.  It does not come from an academic source, and it doesn't provide support for anything written in the section.  It most definately needs to go.PelleSmith 19:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  People borrowing beliefs from Hinduism != Hinduism.  I know a lot of people into the whole karma and reincarnation thing, but they aren't Hinduists.  I've never seen anyone actually convert to it, either.  Of course, this is all my own personal experience, and hardly indicative of percentages and trends.  Still, it seems highly unlikely to me, and I've seen no mention of this sort of phenomenon, anywhere.  --Karafias Talk • Contributions 19:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Good point, lets fix those too!  Just give me one second.PelleSmith 19:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hinduism, Revival and Demographic Trends 

message: Rather, physical disciplines such as yoga, starvation, self-strangulation, whirling (in the case of the Sufi dervishes), or the use of Psychoactive drugs such as LSD, lead to higher states of consciousness that logic can never hope to grasp.
I had a good laugh reading this. While mystics can use non-traditional rituals to find the greater meaning in life, harming oneself through starvation or self-strangulation is not a standard practice, except for the extreme individual. The mystics I know are very health conscious eating the best food and practicing breathing techniques that oxygenate the blood. We do not list sticking your hand in a box of poisonous snakes as a standard practice of Christians even though there is a sect that ascribes to this practice.
I recommend replacing "starvation" with "fasting" and removing "self-strangulation". Meditation and contemplation are also disciplines used to reach higher states. --SummerLights 01:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That was a fast change.  Are we sure that "fasting" encapsulates the specifics of what the original use of "starvation" was getting at?  Fasting is a very ambigious term which can signify a great range of consumption limitations.  It also has quite varied religious conotations.  For instance would the ascetic fasting of mystics be like the fasting during Ramadan (and I mean particularly "as practiced")?  Maybe the change is appropriate but I just want to be sure.  Is there a more specific term, or maybe adjective to use with "fasting", in this case?PelleSmith 02:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't notice your comment until now, so sorry for my late response.  The reason why I acted quickly was that the Starvation article, after a quick read, is more about the type of starvation happening in Africa, and not the self-imposed starvation, that can occur during fasting. I agree that fasting has different components to it, and if a better term can be found it should be used, but I do think starvation as it was linked previously, was not the correct term. Regards, -- Jeff3000 14:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you, and I hadn't noticed the link.  How about "stringent fasting" with the same link to the fasting article?  Of course "mystic" is itself a very ambigious category applied to varied types of people historically and culturally.  But I think part of the idea is that as an ascetic the mystic would practice more severe forms of behavior than the average adherent.  Anyway I'll make the change.PelleSmith 17:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Starvation and self-strangulation part of mysticism?

message: I have replaced the mistranslated "opiate of the masses" quote with the correct "opium of the people" quote.  Indeed, even the source material linked to from this article translates the line from the german correctly.  'Masses' wrongly implies that Marx was talking soley of the working and lower classes, whereas his actual wording implies no such thing.  More discussion on this is available at Opium of the People. --68.35.221.241 02:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marx's Quote (Opium of the People) 

message: I would like to point that article does seem to reproduce the bsics tentants of Functionalist viewpoint on religion and to that end I would like see some differenting opinions. I feel that the new edition of this article should include the views of Marx and Freud as a minimum.
Thank you
:It is always good to read an article in its entirety before commenting on what it lacks.  Marx is mentioned in the "religion as a social construction" section.  Freud could be added, but I'm assuming its not in the article because the Freudian reading of the origins and function of religion are held by virtually no one at this point in time.  As for the functionalist undertones I partially agree, however the intro is mildly functionalist in a very Protestant vain.  This may be a sign of our times, but if you ask me it is the strong emphasis on "belief system"/"faith" instead of other aspects of religion that is more problematic than the mild functionalist undertones.  Take for example the seemingly innocent assumption that "the moral codes, practices, values, institutions, and rituals" are simply "associated with such belief or system of thought".  In other words they are secondary.  A true functionalist (from Durkheim on) would make the "moral codes, practices, values, institutions, and rituals" primary. Food for thought.  On that note, if you have constructive ideas about how to improve the article by all means suggest them here, but make sure you read the entry carefully first.PelleSmith 13:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Functionalist nature of the article 

message: Stevertigo has changed the lead which had been decided by consensus a couple times above.  I like the old version, and wanted to get thoughts before I change it back. -- Jeff3000 14:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead change 

message: Weather it is Anton LaVey's Atheistic religion or a matter of reverse Christianity, or even the accusations of the Inquisition, Satanism/Demonology has a long history in almost all religions and deserves mention in this article. A note on Atheism that is commonly over looked; Athiesm is a belief, no more or less valid than any other belief.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 05:15, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inclusion of Satanism as a religion 

message: As a new contributor to Wikipedia, I am unclear on the protocols for dealing with what appears to be a case of vandalism. Note the reference to "Petroism" on the table of adherents to religions in the middle of the article. Ubarfay 04:16, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism on the Article page: "Petroism" 

message: *May I ask why the symbol of Diane de Poitiers is included in the image at the top of the page? Unless I'm missing something here, I wasn't aware that she started a religion... -- Chabuk [ T • C ] 06:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was just about to ask the same thing. Majolo 22:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't get it either until I followed the link on the image, which links further to Triple_Goddess. It would probably be less confusing for the legend to say "Triple Goddess" rather than "Diane de Poitiers". --Ubarfay 00:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diane de Poitiers 

message: The whole point of dab lines are when people are searching for alternate definitions.  When one term has much more appeal than others, instead of creating a disambiguation page, with links to multiple different pages, one instead creates a dab reference at the top.  People searching for Religion, the movements, of course will just skip over the dab reference, but if someone is searching for the Religion the album, they will be able to be forwarded to the correct article.  This is how Wikipedia works; if not there would be no easy way to find the album, or in general any  search term that is is identical to another search term that is more popular.  For example, London goes to the capital of the United Kingdom, but one could be searching for any other number of cities in the world. Please read, WP:DAB for more information.  Specifically:
:"disambiguation links — at the top of an article, a note that links the reader to articles with similar titles or concepts that the reader may seek instead of the current article." -- Jeff3000 04:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dab link