Talk:Religion/Archive5

message: What was first used by man, faith or reason?
I would go with reason.  I doubt faith can exist without it. Serf
Are you crazy? Its because lack of reason that faith exists. I would go with Lindelöf. Not_Serf
Interesting question... I would say reason came first. Without reason man wouldn't have survived very long, faith wouldn't exist and we wouldn't be asking this question! :) 
Unknown Man 22:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Philosophical Question

message: Hindus,Christians and all other religions except Islam are brothers,because they worship the god. If Hindus & Christians will meet together then the world will becomes theirs.
User:Not listed 
I would say that it is impossible to answer this question as we cannot predict the future. 
Unknown Man 22:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Which Religion will survive In the world?

message: Can someone elaborate on why only 4 million adherents are counted for Shinto? That would be less than 1 in 30 Japanese but Meiji Shrine alone has a total of 3 million worshippers on January 1st to 3rd for "Hatsumoude" and there are literally hundreds of shrines that has worshippers during that 3-day period. Since the official counting by Japanese government's The Agency for Cultural Affairs according to the number submitted by shrines is 106 million, that number should be used here. -- Revth 09:24, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The 4 million number comes from Adherents.com. I believe this survey is a stronger source than the Shinto shrine records, and have made a note on the page. Rnapier 03:37, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shinto, only 4 million adherents?

message: When numbers are given, a source should also be given. Rick Norwood 00:04, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added references to the big table. Rnapier 03:38, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  the recent change in numbers 

message: From William James's Pragmatism; ISBN: 0915145057; p. xiv. From the Introduction by Bruce Kuklick.
:James went on to apply the pragmatic method to the epistemological problem of truth. He would seek the meaning of  'true' by examining how the idea functioned in our lives. A belief was true, he said, if in the long run it worked for all of us, and guided us expeditiously through our semihospitableworld. James was anxious to uncover what true beliefs amounted to in human life, what their "Cash Value" was, what consequences they led to. A belief was not a mental entity which somehow mysteriously corresponded to an external reality  if the belief were true. Beliefs were ways of acting with reference to a precarious environment, and to say they were true was to say they guided us satisfactorily in this environment. In this sense the pragmatic theory of truth applied Darwinian ideas in philosophy; it made survival the test of intellectual as well as biological fitness. If what was true was what worked, then scientific truths were just those beliefs found to be workable. And we could investigate religion's claim to truth in the same manner. The enduring quality of religious beliefs throughout recorded history and in all cultures gave indirect support for the view that such beliefs worked. James also argued directly that such beliefs were satisfying—they enabled us to lead fuller, richer lives and were more viable than their alternatives. Religious beliefs were expedient in human existence, just as scientific beliefs were.
Yesselman 20:46, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cash Value 

message: Hello. I moved a section which was available in God page. It got discussed there (God talk page). And I foolow what we concluded: section better fitting in a general religion article. Please edit for misspelling/grammar/...Gtabary 13:11, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neurobiological findings on belief 

message: As a percentage of the population, are the subscribers to religion increasing or decreasing? --Username132 05:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  problem of religion 

message: I wonder if it is not POV to have the Religion and science section so high up in the article.  The conflicts between religion and science, though important, are not really a major part of what religion is. Rick Norwood 22:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  position of Religion and science section 

message: Why cannot we create new religions that will not impede with existing religions and their practices. 
:L. Ron Hubbard did it.
Just curious to know if it is desirable for US congress or other democratic nations to ratify progressive religions.
:The US does not "ratify" religions. A determination is made concerning the nature of any organization that claims to be a religion -- whether it actually conducts itself as a religion or is a commercial entity attempting to present itself as a religion -- strictly for tax purposes. (A religious body is not subject to the income tax.) European nations make this determination becuase in many cases religions there are supported by taxes collected for that purpose, and the monies are redistributed only to those bodies determined to be bona fide religions.  Also, in the 20th century Europe has had a very bad experience with religious/mystical/political extremists, and feels it necessary to take proactive steps to avoid the same problem arising again. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:52, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jesus tried. Rick Norwood 14:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to create a new religion? 

message: "Because of its emphasis on verification of Truth and exploration of Truth, Hinduism does not have to force the theories of Darwin or Mendel out of school rooms in order to survive, nor suffer from the compulsions of freezing human thought in a medieval time frame in order to justify itself."
:I removed (now, for the second time) the above "comparison" between Hinduism and Christianity, since it's highly based on POV. --Leinad ¬  pois não? 18:17, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You gave the reason that this is Hinduism's comparision with Christianity. Can i ask How? Theories of Drawin and Mendal are not just connected to Christianity. Any religion can be connected with these theories for positive or negative reasons.-Holy Ganga 14:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Holy Ganga -- how would you feel if this article said something like "Iran is one of the most religious countries in the world today, and Islam is not afraid of the truth but, unlike Christianity, accepts science."  Everyone likes to think good things about their own country and their own religion, but when you promote your country or your religion as better than others, especially without references, you are not being encyclopedic. Rick Norwood 13:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if Islam really accepts science and if Iran is really a most religious country , then why not? That claim should definately be included here. Thats a fact that scientific theories have never worried Hinduism because basic ideology of Hinduism is very different from Abrahmic religions -Holy Ganga 14:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But why Islam and Iran in particular? Lots of countrys are religious, and lots of religions accept science. Not to mention that it is particular members of a religion that accept science and not the religion as a whole, so any statement like that is flawed. Also note that the statement in question is clearly portraying Hinduism as superior to Christianity(Judaism, Islam) and that is definitaly POV. Plus it's openly insulting non-Hindu religions. By the way, I suggest replacing that whole paragraph with. "Some religions, including Hinduism, do not have any conflicts with science and so the preceding section does not apply to them."Snake712 02:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Hinduism is a major religion like Christianity. We can't give whole paragraphs dedicated to Christianity's positive or negative relationship with science and just one line to other major religions like Hinduism. Also, can i ask how Hinduism views on scientific theories can be termed as comparision with Christianity? Both religions have different basic ideologies, so both of them have there own views and there views shouldn't be seen as comparision with each other. -Holy Ganga 09:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Hinduism is a major religion like Chirstianity, but the part about religion and science does not only apply to Christianity, it also applys to Judaism and Islam, and if it has a non-evolution creation story, it also applys to Hindusism. And please tell me how "Because of its emphasis on verification of Truth and exploration of Truth, Hinduism does not have to force the theories of Darwin or Mendel out of school rooms in order to survive, nor suffer from the compulsions of freezing human thought in a medieval time frame in order to justify itself" is NOT a comparison with Christianity. Note: the part above is obviously POV, as it implys that other religions do have to "force the theories of Darwin and Mendel out of school rooms in order to survive"(They don't) or "Suffer from the compulsions of freezing human thought in a medieval time frame in order to justify itself"(They don't, either). I'm deleting it right now for the reasons above.Snake712 01:31, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

text: If, in fact, India is more religious than most other countries, you need an objective source for that information.  The same for the relationship between Hinduism and science.  Otherwise it is original research. Rick Norwood 19:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no doubt that India is a very religious country. In Religious festivals like Kumbh Mela, gathering of 70 million people at one place shows in itself the level of religious roots within Indian masses. It is estimated that there are more than 13 million holymen in India.BBC poll showing India with very high level of belief in God (more than 90%) compared to UK, Russis and Korea (between 20-40%) -Holy Ganga 22:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Collection of famous World Intellectuals studies on Hinduism's attitude towards Science.Intellectuals, Scientists and Philosphers on Hindu CosmologyAdvanced Scientific Concepts of Hinduism -Holy Ganga 22:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Good.  This is exactly what I hoped you would find.  So, instead of writing "India is one of the most religious countries...", why not write, "According to a BBC poll India has a very high percentage of people who believe in God (more than 90%) compared to UK, Russis and Korea (between 20-40%)."  This would be much more encyclopedic.  Rick Norwood 23:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hinduism, Christianity, and Science 

message: I feel that a link to the Religious Studies and Religious Phenenomology pages on wiki would be useful. This is justified on the grounds that links to related disciplines such as the Philosophy of Religion are listed. Also the related pages section looks disorganised with no visible order or structure.  Otherwise,from my perspective as student of Theology and Religious Studies at Cambridge University I regard this page as very comprehensive and informative article. 18:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some Minor Improvements 

message: Hi, 
I just read about the "modern religion scientology" in this article (mysticism) and was quite horrified. 
In Europe Scientology is being treated as cult, because of the heavy toll it takes on the freedom of most of its members (excepting their "public faces"), so I don't see it as anyhow fit to be an example of "Esotericism and mysticism".
- Draketo 08:54, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Except where it behaves more like a commercial entity. It's well documented that Scientology setting itself up as a religion was more or less a business decision. Also, in modern usage "cult" indicates primarily an extremist, authoritarian movement. See ; its older meaning is now secondary. 192.31.106.34 20:56, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Point taken about it being a very "business-like" entity -- although Scientologists would probably disagree, and the site you cite isn't exactly the most unbiased. As far as the usage of the word cult, you do in fact describe the current popular usage. But the description of religions as undertaken in this article seems to be from a primarily sociological and anthropological viewpoint; and the "older" meaning of the word is in fact primary in most of these contexts. In addition, there may be differences in the way an organized religion is viewed by its administrators, its adherents, and those outside the religious organization. -- MatthewDBA 12:22, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scientology as "modern religion"? 

message: I just looked for the meme theory of religion but could not find it on the page. Is there some reson it is not mentioned, or did I just miss it ?   Springald 20:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meme Theory 

message: I removed the weasel tag since I see no opinions on the matter on this talk page. Hope it is appropriate.
:I, for one, approve, though it would be good if you signed your post. Rick Norwood 14:05, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Opps. My apologies. Fairly new at this. - Dodo bird 15:17, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weasel tag 

message: I was aware that my recent reversion restored a spelling error, and I was looking for it when you fixed it.  Thanks.  Rick Norwood 21:04, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thanks, Delldot 

message: The view that Buddhism and Advaita are philosophies as opposed to religions is misguided. Both provide Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven and show a respect for life (human and non-human) that Christian Civilization has never been able to remotely emulate. The destruction of God's Earth has been undertaken by Christians and Jews, not by Buddhists or Hindus. The Sacred is a commonplace everyday reality in these Indian faiths whereas in Christianity it is mere lip service. Furthermore, the doctrine of the Kingdom of Heaven and Eternal Life that constituted a higher revelation of what the old religion had taught was, to Indian minds, nothing new, for all that Jesus taught had been taught long ago in the Upanisads, by the Buddha or by Mahavira. Philosophy is speculation about obscure matters but religion is a vehicle by which a person may attain to the highest Truth as a Living Reality. In these respects Advaita and Buddhism (as well as Jainism and Taoism) are religions par exellence. User: Langdell. 5th March 2006
:Much of what you say could be disputed, but nevertheless, you are right that it would be a tragedy to ignore the religious nature of Advaita Vedanta or Theravada Buddhism, despite their reception in the West. Ig0774 20:32, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Based on the definition offered on this page itself, it is simply wrong to exclude either Advaita Vedanta or Theravada Buddhism as religious traditions. Advaitins quite clearly have a notion of the sacred (Brahman) as to Theravada Buddhists (dhamma). Theravada may be excluded if the definition of religion specified a need for the worship of a divine figure, but it doesn't. I am not sure how Advaita cannot be counted as a religion (it is, perhaps, a philosophical school within a religious tradition, which would still not forbid mention on this page). Ig0774 02:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In listing these beliefs as philosophy rather than religion, I intended to promote, not demote them.  Religion is the superstitious belief of the masses, philosophy the intelligent belief of the few.  (Don't worry -- I know better than to ever try to get this into an article, but here on the talk page we can be honest.)  Thus, the split between Mahayana Buddhism and Thedavada Buddhism.  Mahayana has many more followers -- it is the great chariot -- but Thedavada actually makes sense.  (On the other hand, I don't think everything that Jesus taught is in the Upanishads.  The parable of Mary and Martha comes to mind.) Rick Norwood 14:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, the claims about Jesus having been summed up by earlier Indian thinkers are somewhat less than credible. On the other hand, to deny that Theravada Buddhism is a religious tradition is rather to neglect how it operates in practice (and one cannot deny that, in practice, Theravada has an element of the "superstitious belief of the masses", however its doctrines may seem). Ig0774 14:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I've never been to a Theravada service, so I really don't know.  From reading, you get the impression that Theravada is closer to Buddha's original teaching, which seems to me much more philosophical than religious.  On the other hand, if Unitarianism is a religion, then anything that wants to be a religion is.  Rick Norwood 15:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Theravada Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta

message: This desperately needs a cleanup. Use of first person language, use of "..", made-up words, and huge spelling mistakes abound. If possible, please help clean this up. Thanks! --BWD (talk) 23:09, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  this article is a mess 

message: Religion, philosophy and metaphysics (as a section) drastically needs to be rewritten, if not deleted, immediately. It seems as though the editor scattered "..."s all throughout the section. In addition, the editor used the word "u" meaning "you," the word "us," and the word "we." For example:
*Both can be equally truthful and factually proven and stated....science and some ideas of belief.
*But though both are real, only one is....u know the rule that the simplest thing is most often the correct answer...comes from occams's razors law...yet it supports both...which at first seem very unsimplistic, but in the end really are not all that unbelievable.
*At least not the one that says... of a consciousness of some kind some way thing or how unknowing or otherwise life or a type of something different again yet the same like it, had and has in fact directed it... is it not more easy to believe that something or someone else beyond us is responsible on some knowing level and reasoning for us?
*or is it more so that we just got there from the nothing that was until... then? when? exactly u can't even give it a number or date... of mathematical logical or reasoning, something that everything no matter what it be of anything has in this something that is where we think to understand really nothing.
*it wasn't until we were, we weren't until somewhere else it became and here it was....so where are we now...science...or some kind of godliness... or creator essence?
In addition to that, the subsections Modern reasons for adherence to religion and Modern reasons for rejecting religion have many spelling and grammar mistakes, and are generally strangly written. They should be rewritten entirely or be deleted.
Opinions? GofG |||  Contribs 23:15, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm editing this section right now. Most of it has to go for the simple fact that I cannot figure out what the hell it's trying to say. Other than that, a lot of it isn't verifiable. Would the original author of this section please assist in clarifying the meaning of it? --BWD (talk) 23:18, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, none of it is salvagable. Original author: you will have to rewrite that to conform with encyclopedic standards and sources. --BWD (talk) 23:22, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not the original author, but I wrote a teeny little replacement stub that really needs to be expanded. The point of this section will be to investigate some common questions addressed by both religion and philosophy. -- MatthewDBA 12:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. At least now I can understand what it's trying to say. ;) --BWD (talk) 15:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''Large amount of article is poorly written''' 

message: These two long sections could become a separate article.  I propose to do that if others don't disagree. Sunray 17:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, move them, and summarize them in this article. -- Jeff3000 18:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Moved.  I will add to slightly to the summary - though not much.  We are now down to 37 KB, which is a much more manageable size for an article. Sunray 00:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've also moved the following sub-sections to the Religious belief article: Pluralism; Syncretism; Universalism and Systemization.  These are essentially types of belief systems.  Both articles are now 31 KB.  I would say that with a comprehensive edit of each article, we could remove the "clean-up" tag.  Sunray 01:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Great edit Sunray. -- Jeff3000 02:36, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible move of sections on adherance/rejection of religion

message: The images presently on the page are pretty skewed to Hinduism. Can we get a diversity of images on here? --Tydaj 03:37, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, maybe a Jewish and a Christian related picture to replace two of the hinduism pictures.  I think that would make the article better. -- Jeff3000 03:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree that the article needs more balance; I'll start bellow a gallery of pictures that could be used to that effect. (Other users’ contributions are welcome, of course.) --Leinad ¬  »saudações! 18:59, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd say the Redentor and the Mecca one. Since we are going by numbers, the Islam picture is more appropriate than Jewish.--Pranathi 19:32, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Images

message: Image:Saint Peter's Square from the dome v2.jpg
Image:Redentor.jpg
Image:Supplicating Pilgrim at Masjid Al Haram. Mecca, Saudi Arabia.jpg
Image:Stpetersbasilicaholyspiritwindow.jpg
Image:241530_7953_torah.jpg
Image:Ireland-High-Cross.jpg
I'd say the Redentor.jpg and torah.jpg are good and could replace the Swamithoppe_pathi_.jpg and Akshardhamindelhi.jpg images. -- Jeff3000 23:47, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say the Redentor and the Mecca one. Since we are going by numbers, the Islam picture is more appropriate than Jewish.--Pranathi 19:32, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Gallery of sugested pictures for this article (see discussion above).

message: I have started a page on Religion and politics - to go with the Christianity and politics page someone has already created. Anyone wishing to expand - or create articles for other religions - please do so. Jackiespeel 16:44, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this subject is more appropriate for an essay than for an encyclopedia article. Rick Norwood 21:38, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Religion and politics

message: Hi,
I know you are interested in christianity, and I recently started a new wiki over at wikicities which is on the subject of christianity. Christian Knowledge Base is the site. 
The goal is to have a knowledgebase on christianity from a distinctly "C(hristian)POV" rather than the NPOV. It is not meant to be a mere Christian Encyclopedia, but to foster a real sense of community. I'd like to include things like current events, news, stories, and anything that would add to both an understanding of Christianity, but also its enjoyment. I'm looking for help to build a resource that could really enrich the lives of Christians.
I know you are busy but I am actively seeking new sysops/admins to help me build this site up, and I would be positively thrilled if you could contribute in any capacity whatsoever. 
Empty2005 00:12, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  == I would love your help. ==