Talk:Religion/Archive 3

message: Isn't is said in the Christian Bible that pi equals 3?
It seems relevant.
:it would be relevent if it were true.  Ungtss 03:12, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religion and science 

message: i suggest we move those quotes over the wikiquote and provide a link.  that's what wikiquote is there for.  we don't want to get into a quote war on this page -- it's an encyclopedia.  at the very least it should be balanced and fair before being put out there.  thoughts?  Ungtss 17:13, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  new and pov quotes section. 

message: This article is around 64KB, the reccomended max is 32KB. I will spend some of my free time this holiday season attempting to scale down the article into sub articles. I have already started with the syncretism and religious pluralism sections. There are already sub articles that are not referenced. They include: Definition of religion (...well this got deleted) and afterlife. Articles that should be made are religious practices and Number of gods. --</b>metta,  The Sunborn ☸ 16:41, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is twice as big as it should be 

message: The approach of this article seems to me too "protestant" (in lack of a better term) to be NPOV. For example the strong emphasis on faith and belief in the definiton(s) of religion in the first few paragraphs. Many religions hold another thing as much more important and foundational than faith and holding certain beliefs -- for example conducting correct ritual in Shinto, or following the commandments in Judaism, or entering the "realm of spirits" in some brands of Shamanism and Vodoun. Also there is much mention made of sacred texts and scriptures. What about sacred images? sacred music? sacred architecture? other sacred art? sacred food or drinks? oral tradition? etc. If a person more knowledgeable than me could change this, I'd be thankful. -- 84.57.39.110 11:02, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: we've had some high-quality edits from Raj2004, and i think the structure of the page allows for a great deal of expansion from those who have a less protestant background ... since you seem to have an interest in it, why not throw in what you know:)?  Ungtss 12:14, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too "protestant" approach 

message: Would a link like this be helpful?  it's the sort of thing i'd be interested in seeing. but perhaps there's a better reference for it. Mlm42 17:36, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: World religions.  Ungtss 20:23, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link 

message: This contribution of anon looks like original research, not to say about POVisms.
Is it salvageable? Any references in support? Mikkalai 03:31, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: same old groundless deconstructive cliches, i'm afraid.  thanks for cutting it out.  if we wanna do a development of religion section, we've got a whole bunch of theories to address ... certainly enough to fill an article titled Development of religion.  Ungtss 03:44, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: indeed it's one theory among several ... i just think we need to present it as one theory among several, rather than "the way religions evolve."  i'd be more than happy to work with you in developing an article like that ... wanna call it Development of religion so this doesn't get any longer than it already is?  Ungtss 06:12, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: great!  look forward to working with you on it! Ungtss 03:01, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed section 

message: Religion may be a "useful lie" that allowed humans to encode useful survival tips and social structures. For example, early populations may not have understood microbes (germs), but thinking of flues as "demons that make children demons who can hop on nearby people and possess them also" supplies a mental model that reminds one to stay away from people with flues. The demon is an accidental abstraction or approximation of germs. Dogma that increases the survival of a group will spread using a kind of Darwinian selection process (see Natural Selection). The most useful lies (dogma) spread because they keep the population holding them alive to bear more children, who in turn learn the useful dogma and pass it on. The dogma is thus a useful lie that happens to work. Of course sometimes religious doctrine goes awry, but it is the net benefits that count in the end.
==End of contrib. Mikkalai 03:31, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: same old groundless deconstructive cliches, i'm afraid.  thanks for cutting it out.  if we wanna do a development of religion section, we've got a whole bunch of theories to address ... certainly enough to fill an article titled Development of religion.  Ungtss 03:44, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: indeed it's one theory among several ... i just think we need to present it as one theory among several, rather than "the way religions evolve."  i'd be more than happy to work with you in developing an article like that ... wanna call it Development of religion so this doesn't get any longer than it already is?  Ungtss 06:12, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: great!  look forward to working with you on it! Ungtss 03:01, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evolutionary Theory of Religion 

message: The article contains the phrase:
:Trinitarian religions assert that there is one God with three persons. Examples include the majority of Christian denominations, with the exceptions of Oneness Pentecostals;
This is misleading in my view, because there is only one trinitarian religion to my knowledge -- Christianity (and not even the whole of that religion). The article implies that other religions than Christianity are Trinitarian -- no other religion is. (Some religions, e.g. Hinduism, have "trinities" of three Gods, but the Hindu "Trinity" on closer examination is quite different from the Christian "Trinity"; thus to call Hinduism for example a "trinitarian religion" is to do both it and Christianity a disservice.)
I propose rephrasing it to something like the following:
:Many Christians believe in trinitarianism, which asserts that there is one God with three persons. (The majority of Christian denominations hold this, with some exceptions who reject it, e.g. Oneness Pentecostals.)
Which I shall now do.--137.111.13.34 07:07, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good:).  Ungtss 15:23, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Trinitarian religions" 

message: this was added:
(But, as many religious people believe that religion is necessary to explain natural things, this definition of religion is not one they would be likely to accept.)
:I can definitely respect the sentiment -- pointing out that this is an "outside view" of religion -- however, I think there are also many RELIGIOUS people that think that religion is unparsimonious -- there are a number of people who divorce faith from reason, accept "science" by reason, and accept religion by "faith."  i, of course, agree with the person who added this, that religion IS essential to explaining natural phenomena.  but i'm not sure we can say "religious people would be unlikely to accept it" -- many, in fact, do.  perhaps we should qualify it a bit, saying "some religious people accept this, because they accept their religion by "faith alone."  others reject it, because they see faith and reason as a continuum" ... something like that?  what do you think?  Ungtss 15:23, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  definitions 

message: What of Clout?
:these are the questions we all must ask of ourselves.  Ungtss 02:33, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: to which translation are you referring?  i used this one.   Ungtss 03:10, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: i noticed you changed it to a different version.  which version did you change to?  while i'm sure there is such a version, i'd like to verify it anyway.  would you be so kind?  Ungtss 12:33, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clout