Talk:Religion

---

• Approaches to defining religion ... *User:Melamed's approach to distinguishing religion from non-religion

---

Introduction

I think there should be sufficient evidence to aver that religion refers to a set of enforced beliefs and practices that helped primitive societies to survive wars, famine, disease and social unrest. It is therefore distinguished from culture, which is the voluntary adoption or maintenance of social rituals and practices. The current introduction seems to be be more about the how? than about what? and why?

Criticism

Could someone please rewrite the "Criticism" section, that it might appear slightly less caustic and partisan? I'd do it myself, but it would just wind up biased in the other direction. Volfied (talk) 04:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

i agree, there is something majorly wrong with the so-called critisism section. the whole article basically supports religion, which is fair enough, but in the one section in which there should a fair balanced critisism of where religion has been used immorally (i.e. the crusades, fundementalism/extremeism, homophobia and opposition to social progression). Instead, the section is filled with (if you disagree with this term then by all means do something about the section) propaganda, merely stating that there is opposition to religion, but that it can be described as irrational. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.106.195.198 (talk) 10:40, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Believing unquestioningly in things that cannot be observed or proven, then making important and consistent life decisions on these same things, as well as regularly "communicating" with an imaginary being, and declaring said being "the ultimate authority", and going so far as to oppress and kill those who hold to a different imaginary being IS irrational, in fact, it is beyond irrational, it is the very definition of insanity. I think the criticism is not strong enough. Mrrealtime (talk) 23:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Attention towards a core of common elements in major religions has been growing. Also the prevelace of religion in all times and locations makes religion as an essential element of human life. A term coined as "Scientific Religion" collects all common elements at the core of all religions. The core is considered as a model of the universe that includes its observable and hidden systems making an overall fair and objective universe. Scientific Religion utilises logical consistent evidences in support of the universal model to satisfy a free and open minded person. In one sense it tries to rediscover religion of first human community; that was in reality a global village. The difference in the Scientific Religion approach from the prevelant traditional one is that it takes earliest modern human beings as fully developed fair minded, conscious, smart, sharp witted individuals in no way less than us, the contemporary people. This aspect of the mental abilities, self conscious or respect of earliest modern humans is now needed to be included uin such studies after abundant discoveries of excellent literary composition texts that has been read from earliest individuals in some cases written records of 5000 years ago. ...also see similar discussion on http://groups.msn.com/ScientificReligion —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.195.83.9 (talk) 13:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

hinduism

i can't edit this page. can someone please include in the table that the earliest evidence for elements of Hinduism date back to the late Neolithic to the early Harappan period (5500–2600BCE).
Modern Hinduism grew out of the Vedas, the oldest of which is the Rigveda, dated to 1700–1100BCE. Yet the main ideas haven't changed, only introduction of written materials such as the Vedas / other epics.
thanks.
Sources: check links here [1]."Hindu History")

Native Americans

The religions of Native American are ommitted? --Kazuba (talk) 16:48, 25 May, 2008 (UTC)

A poetic introduction

Hey all, just found the following definition while browsing the net (located here): "Religion is, at heart, a way of seeing the world. It is a collection of stories, symbols, and beliefs that give meaning to the experiences of life."

The source is non-notable, but the definition is beautifully clear and inclusive of all religions. I think we should consider something similar for our own introduction to the topic in the article's lead... If we're worried about copyright, we can always email the author and ask his permission. Any thoughts? --Pariah (talk) 03:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Yezidi

The Language is KurmanJi, Religion Yezidisim, Prophet Taus Melek, Xode is the all mighty God. Believed to be born from Adam only, All over the world in 30,000 to 500,000 gruops per country. Not Kurdish, Not Deveil Worshipers, rather kind and freindly when you get to know them, another branch of christanity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.141.85.160 (talk) 04:11, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Language

The language in the "criticism" section is curious. Does the phrase "baptized in blood" belong in an encyclopedia? 210.164.1.72 (talk) 08:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Merge from Claims to the oldest religion

The suggestion to merge was put forward by other editor and I second it. Please review the above to filter what will be retained from the article as it stands now. Wikidās ॐ 00:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

discuss this at Talk:Claims_to_the_oldest_religion please. Further input is indeed welcome. I adjusted the merge target to history of religion as more appropriate. dab (𒁳) 09:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Religion is about the BRAIN only

"Religion" is about the way our thoughts work and to reach the maximum ability of an individual with cosmic energy (super natural).All religions, cultures, texts , ancient practices and others too were written so that one would to able reach the maximum ability of the brain.

Actually we all talking about the functions of the thoughts of the mind and to win it to reach the ability of the brain.This is now in different context as Islam, Christianity,Hinduism, Buddhism and all others. All religion is talking about the brain, the day everyone reaches oneness we were all know that we have mistakenly practising and preaching it.→→→→ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.50.203.102 (talk • contribs)

This could be an example of nobrainer. Wikidās ॐ 16:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Urm... thanks for that... any reason you decided to give us this handy bit of information? (Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC))

Organized religion

Organized religion directs here. It is a term that is used by notable people such as Bill Maher and Bertrand Russell. Is it worthn creating a short article for it? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 09:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. Not every religion falls under this category anyhow. Wikidās ॐ 16:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Calling Shenanigans

The table describing religious persuasions is suspect. First of all it suggests that close to the entire global population as being religious if going by a figure of five billion. Secondly it doesn't cite a source. Third going by Wiki's own world population figure, near 7 billion, that leaves about one and a quarter billion unaccounted for EVEN including the 750 million atheists claimed by wikipedia on its page on atheism. Do the math, the table approaches five billion. At the same time Wiki's article on atheism suggests three-quarters of a billion follow non-religious practices. So what - do the other billion and a half people simply not exist? Buddhism is arguably a philosophical system much like Taoism and Confucianism both of which are more philosophical and less religious. By allowing philosophical systems to be lumped in with religious systems wikipedia is committing a crime against knowledge and enabling xenophobic religion.

Please sign your comments when you post--you can do so by typing four tildes, or by pressing the signature button above the editing window. To address your question, you're right that the table should be cited properly and could use some improvement in that department. That said, it's difficult to make the numbers match wikipedia's world population figure, or even match each other, because the figures for religion were gathered at different times and places, ranging from very recently, to several years ago, when the population was smaller. But I think the implication that close to the entire population being religious is a fairly accurate one--something in the neighbourhood of 90% or so believe in something. What qualifies as a religion is a matter of debate, but Buddhism and Taoism are both philosophical and religious at the same time, and deserve to be included. Confucianism is fuzzier, but there are arguments either way. I'm don't really understand how their inclusion could be considered to be enabling xenophobic religion. Religion isn't necessarily xenophobic--even specific religions have different sects that vary in their opinions of other cultures and religions. --Pariah (talk) 21:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, according to the article, fewer than 86 per cent of people believe in "something".

Like the dude above, I also find the table to be highly suspect. It looks good, but there are problems with it because it shows, for example, South Korea to be dominated by Confucionism when there are actually more Christians in Korea than Confucionists now, and Korea is 55 per cent Atheist (or, at least, 55 per cent "no religion").

Also, some western countries, for example New Zealand (35 per cent "no religion") and Switzerland (80 per cent "no religion") are shown as being Christian.

Hmmm.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.249.62.29 (talk) 14:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The main place to go for religious statistics is [2], which collects together estimates from many sources. Peter jackson (talk) 08:26, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Jainism

Date of Origin

The Date of origin of Jainsm is not known precisely: The iron age given as the date of origin is incorrect; in fact this was the time (540 bc) when the last Tirthankara (Lord Mahavira) was born. There were 23 other Tirthankaras before him. Kingpiyush1 (talk) 21:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The 23 other Tirthinkaras are generally established as being mythical, and not historical figures, among the unbiased, secular community that wikipedia is. Muslims claim that their religion goes back to Adam and Hawwa at the beginning if time, but it is stil llisted as being founded in medieaval Arabia, because that is what all the historical, empirical evidence points to. Wikipedia does not accept myth as fact - it is an established empirical fact that Jainism as it is known was founded by Mahavira in the Iron Age. There MAY have been 23 previous Tirthinkaras, but there is no empirical evidence for this, and the word of believers cannot be accepted as evidence. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC))

Religion

{{editsemiprotected}} America's founders primarily defined religion as relying on God. (Webster's 1913) The modern idea of philosophies which have various rituals regularly practiced but with no God, for example Buddhism, which are misnamed religions abuses English, a practice which should be abandoned. Under the modern definition, the Supreme Court has defined Atheism and Secularism as religions, which by extension can include any regular practice such as chewing gum, regardless of paying attention to God.

America's founders relied on the God of the Bible which includes both Jew and Christian. The Muslim God is qualitatively different, specified in the Koran as one which cannot beget, which contrasted with the Biblical God of love would be Satan, the purveyor of hate. With such a contrast, Wiki writers refering to all modern philosophies that are regularly adhered to which claim a god should specify enough details to clarify if that god is actually equal to the Biblical God or some other entity instead of merely assuming equal status. 75.139.213.230 (talk) 06:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)Kirk Fraser [overcomer.man@gmail.com] 9/4/2008

Do you have a particular change to suggest? Since I don't see one here, I'm disabling the editsemiprotected template. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 06:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the writer was suggesting a change in policy and a re-definition of the word religion, rather than a specific change to the article. However, I don't think the changes he suggests are appropriate for Wikipedia.--Pariah (talk) 04:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Since when did the founders of the USA have the final say over the English language? Other than a few generally fundamentalist (usually Protestant) Christian scholars, no scholar of religion accepts the view that Judaism and Christianity, because they worship the Biblical God, are the only belief systems that can be called a religion. It's a specifically biased viewpoint which was formed to insist that Christianity (and by extension Judaism) is the one, true religion. Wikipedia is nuetral; it has no place for such a definition of religion that is biased. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:51, 10 October 2008 (UTC))\

hinduism is the first know religion in whole of universe

Jediism

Could someone add 'Jediism' to the new religious movements section in the big table about half way down the article please? It is qualified to be put there as it has over 500,000 believers and is a new religious movement. Much appreciated. Thanks, Kai Tatsu - 21.22 GMT 10th October 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.22.219.19 (talk) 20:22, 10 October 2008 (UTC)