Manga Poll
Manga is the Japanese equivalent of comics
with a unique style and following. Join the revolution! Read some manga today!
Join #baka-updates @irc.irchighway.net
RSS Feed
News
News Article
New Poll - Religion (Raised)
Our member juliarox214 is interested in what religion you grew up with. The actual poll options were copied from some other online poll I found
You can submit poll ideas here
http://www.mangaupdates.com/showtopic.php?tid=3903
Previous Poll Results:
Question: When you see the title "Prince of _", what word do you use to fill the blank?
Choices:
Tennis - votes: 1043 (35.8%)
Stride - votes: 18 (0.6%)
Persia - votes: 1076 (37%)
Egypt - votes: 269 (9.2%)
the City - votes: 5 (0.2%)
Darkness - votes: 316 (10.9%)
Other - votes: 184 (6.3%)
There were 2911 total votes.
The poll ended: October 21st, 2023 8:31am PDT
Do we have more gamers than shounen sport manga readers? I'll admit that I've never played a Prince of Persia game...
You can submit poll ideas here
http://www.mangaupdates.com/showtopic.php?tid=3903
Previous Poll Results:
Question: When you see the title "Prince of _", what word do you use to fill the blank?
Choices:
Tennis - votes: 1043 (35.8%)
Stride - votes: 18 (0.6%)
Persia - votes: 1076 (37%)
Egypt - votes: 269 (9.2%)
the City - votes: 5 (0.2%)
Darkness - votes: 316 (10.9%)
Other - votes: 184 (6.3%)
There were 2911 total votes.
The poll ended: October 21st, 2023 8:31am PDT
Do we have more gamers than shounen sport manga readers? I'll admit that I've never played a Prince of Persia game...
Comments (limited to first 100 replies)
» residentgrigo on October 21st, 2023, 9:42am
No religion - atheist. I still am but I had Christian and Evangelical classes in school. I also read the Bible cover to cover and listened to an audiobook of the Quran and the Gita.
There are slightly more people on the planet without religion in their lives than Buddhists? Thx China? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_religious_groups
No way the Muslim numbers are correct. Not only is it the 2nd largest religion on the planet, but there are tons of Muslims in the anime and manga community. It´s why you know which conflict is talked about ad nauseam on social media right now by accounts all about young adult entertainment for Japanese teens. Those topics really don´t go together but the internet found a way...
There are slightly more people on the planet without religion in their lives than Buddhists? Thx China? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_religious_groups
No way the Muslim numbers are correct. Not only is it the 2nd largest religion on the planet, but there are tons of Muslims in the anime and manga community. It´s why you know which conflict is talked about ad nauseam on social media right now by accounts all about young adult entertainment for Japanese teens. Those topics really don´t go together but the internet found a way...
» zarlan on October 22nd, 2023, 1:43am
Quote from residentgrigo
I also read the Bible cover to cover and listened to an audiobook of the Quran and the Gita.
Well...
Most people who have actually read the bible, aren't christian. Most people who have actually read the quran aren't muslim. (some muslims memorize the quran. It's a thing ...but they haven't actually read it)
And the same, for all other religions.
I haven't read them cover to cover, myself (yet), but I've read a lot more of the bible and quran, than the vast majority of believers.
I remember my teacher in my first three years of school, telling some christian stories, around the holidays.At the time, I just took it as mere stories, so I didn't mind in the slightest ...but I'm fairly sure she technically broke the law, by being too religious/preachy (in this secular country, where schools are supposed to be religiously neutral), and wish I'd have reported her.
» blackluna on October 24th, 2023, 11:16pm
I beg to differ: most Christians do actually read the Bible (not merely memorize portions of it). The same might well be true of the Quran and Muslims (but my knowledge of Islam is far too limited; I wouldn't be surprised either way). In fact, most for denominations of Christianity, you are supposed to genuinely read the Bible; additionally, studying the Tenakh (the Jewish Bible) is a religious duty for Jews (mostly for those who have had a bar/bat mitzvah). Your generalizations seem to be based on knowledge of maybe a few more-outspoken individuals — contrary to your experience, most practicing thinking religious individuals have read their scriptures, and sometimes parts of others' too.
And telling religious stories in school isn't necessarily advocating for the practice of said religion (thus not breaking religious neutrality) — it depends on whether the stories had to do with the subject of the class at hand (if it didn't, then you may well be correct, assuming the school was government-run, if not, then you have no argument what so ever). (For example, in a history class, the story might have something to do with the motivations of a specific figure; for a literature class, a religious story might be referenced in a work. In both cases, the story may be told to assist the students' understanding without breaking religious neutrality.) I should also point out that some people object to religious students privately saying prayers, which is exactly what religious neutrality is supposed to allow — forbidding it would be imposing atheism (as a student, I've been scolded for praying to myself silently). So do tread carefully.
And telling religious stories in school isn't necessarily advocating for the practice of said religion (thus not breaking religious neutrality) — it depends on whether the stories had to do with the subject of the class at hand (if it didn't, then you may well be correct, assuming the school was government-run, if not, then you have no argument what so ever). (For example, in a history class, the story might have something to do with the motivations of a specific figure; for a literature class, a religious story might be referenced in a work. In both cases, the story may be told to assist the students' understanding without breaking religious neutrality.) I should also point out that some people object to religious students privately saying prayers, which is exactly what religious neutrality is supposed to allow — forbidding it would be imposing atheism (as a student, I've been scolded for praying to myself silently). So do tread carefully.
» zarlan on October 25th, 2023, 9:10am
Quote from blackluna
I beg to differ: most Christians do actually read the Bible (not merely memorize portions of it).
Nope. That is demonstrably false.
Quote
Your generalizations seem to be based on knowledge of maybe a few more-outspoken individuals
Wrong again.
Quote
it depends on whether the stories had to do with the subject of the class at hand
It did not. In any way, whatsoever. It was also only ever biblical stories. Jesus stuff, mainly.
And it wasn't studying the story, nor any form of explaining any aspect of culture or history, or anything like that.
I am strongly in favour, of teaching about religions, in school. (as long as there is no special focus on any one religion, or covering only the abrahamic ones, mind you)
Quote
I should also point out that some people object to religious students privately saying prayers, which is exactly what religious neutrality is supposed to allow
As long as the school has no part in it, and it is purely individual students, freely deciding to pray, and they aren't disturbing anyone, then yes, that should be allowed, in accordance with freedom of religion. Secularism is about the State not involving itself with religion. Not giving it any special treatment, good or bad.
Quote
forbidding it would be imposing atheism
No. Not in any way, shape, or form.
It would be unjustified discrimination, on religious grounds, but in no way, would it impose a lack of belief in god(s).
Quote
So do tread carefully.
How about you say that, AFTER I say anything that could possibly be problematic
...which I have not done, and will never do.
» blackluna on October 27th, 2023, 9:55am
Please re-read your and my posts and try again. Something clearly messed with your reading comprehension if you can reach any of these conclusions from that. (It seems to me that someone or something gave you cause to be bitter. I'm sorry if that's the case. But, as someone who's been there — albeit with regard to something else — that's all the more reason to be careful with anything affected by that bitterness.) I'm also guessing that my phrasing was less-than-helpful, so I want to clarify and correct a few things here.
First off, regarding the appropriateness of telling a religious story in schools, you didn't exactly give any information beyond "a teacher told a religious story in school in a country whose government is secular" — which is what I was responding to. I did not have any information beyond what you had provided at the time, nor could I have. Yet, you seem to be assuming that I knew more than that, especially about the context. As to the specific situation you mentioned, from what you gave in your response, clearly the teacher was not using the story as I mentioned above, so, assuming the school in question was government-run, yes, the teacher was in the wrong.
Regarding the "imposing atheism" thing on my end — that was partially a bit of bitterness from me, I admit. Especially since my example was purely social. On the flip side, I once had a teacher say in class, as an aside, that no one believes in Heaven and Hell anymore (the way it was phrased implied that believing in either is absurd in this day and age), and just as you feel you ought to have reported your teacher teaching an unrelated religious story, I ought to have reported my teacher. All that said, forbidding practice of religion is a form and means of stamping out the belief or beliefs in question — the primary one, at that. (So the use of "imposing" may be considered more of a definition/semantics thing.)
My "do tread carefully" was not in reference to your story directly, but rather the broad statements you appeared to making in connection to it. I simply am very wary about judging such matters with such broad strokes — history and current events alike show that it would be better to err on the side of caution and judge each situation on a case-by-case basis. I might well have been reading too far into your statements, which is my fault (I tend to do that with everything, so sorry if I have). Regardless, I still don't see how you came to the conclusion that I was condemning your actions. (What actions were there to condemn?)
All that said, your most problematic statement if the one you began your post with. Your broad claim that most religious believers don't read their scriptures (or least most Christians don't) being "demonstrably false." If it were "demonstrable," it would be possible to provide solid, provable facts. However, this isn't the sort of area where there even can be statistics, so "demonstrably" it clearly cannot possibly be, one way or another. That's why I concluded that you were generalizing (and probably are also dealing with some unintentional sampling bias — most people run into that a few times in their lives, and some even publish based on such evidence, notably Freud).
"Most" Christians reading was hyperbole on my part (sorry). Please allow me to properly state what seems to me to be the actual case: In my own experience, it is at worst two thirds read-but-not-actually and one third read — and my experience includes multiple denominations, among other things, so I think it isn't that far off. I would also like to point out that in the religious services of Catholics, Anglicans, and the like, the sermon of any given service is about one of the readings from the Bible which were part of said service and is intended to provoke contemplation and to provide assistance in interpretation. As a result, it's kind of hard not to do some serious thinking about those passages, at the very least. Thus, actually reading is encouraged in a lot of ways; tradition is given as a guide or assist, so to speak. (Like when a literature teacher gives you information about the historical period, language use, and customs from when the text was written to prevent anachronism and the like. It's the same type of thing.) To counter your apparent claim that non-believers read scripture more than believers, I have to point out that there are also an alarming number of atheists who disregard anything which so much as takes religious views seriously as superstitious frippery and refuse to so much as touch such things, let alone anyone's scriptures. (Appallingly, even great minds are far from immune: Bertrand Russell tossed aside all Mediaeval philosophy on such a basis.) At best, such people "read" it as the source text of nonsense or conspiracy — not what either of us would call reading, I presume. I've had to deal with far too many of such atheists, just as you appear to have had to deal with far too many non-reading believers. Correcting for general experience, I'm guessing the norm is more around 25 to 35 percent who actually read, since that's the normal range for literate people to actually read things overall (albeit, somewhat optimistic). I doubt the subject matter of the text ultimately has much to do with whether a specific individual reads or just goes through the motions of reading.
I hope this clarifies things.
First off, regarding the appropriateness of telling a religious story in schools, you didn't exactly give any information beyond "a teacher told a religious story in school in a country whose government is secular" — which is what I was responding to. I did not have any information beyond what you had provided at the time, nor could I have. Yet, you seem to be assuming that I knew more than that, especially about the context. As to the specific situation you mentioned, from what you gave in your response, clearly the teacher was not using the story as I mentioned above, so, assuming the school in question was government-run, yes, the teacher was in the wrong.
Regarding the "imposing atheism" thing on my end — that was partially a bit of bitterness from me, I admit. Especially since my example was purely social. On the flip side, I once had a teacher say in class, as an aside, that no one believes in Heaven and Hell anymore (the way it was phrased implied that believing in either is absurd in this day and age), and just as you feel you ought to have reported your teacher teaching an unrelated religious story, I ought to have reported my teacher. All that said, forbidding practice of religion is a form and means of stamping out the belief or beliefs in question — the primary one, at that. (So the use of "imposing" may be considered more of a definition/semantics thing.)
My "do tread carefully" was not in reference to your story directly, but rather the broad statements you appeared to making in connection to it. I simply am very wary about judging such matters with such broad strokes — history and current events alike show that it would be better to err on the side of caution and judge each situation on a case-by-case basis. I might well have been reading too far into your statements, which is my fault (I tend to do that with everything, so sorry if I have). Regardless, I still don't see how you came to the conclusion that I was condemning your actions. (What actions were there to condemn?)
All that said, your most problematic statement if the one you began your post with. Your broad claim that most religious believers don't read their scriptures (or least most Christians don't) being "demonstrably false." If it were "demonstrable," it would be possible to provide solid, provable facts. However, this isn't the sort of area where there even can be statistics, so "demonstrably" it clearly cannot possibly be, one way or another. That's why I concluded that you were generalizing (and probably are also dealing with some unintentional sampling bias — most people run into that a few times in their lives, and some even publish based on such evidence, notably Freud).
"Most" Christians reading was hyperbole on my part (sorry). Please allow me to properly state what seems to me to be the actual case: In my own experience, it is at worst two thirds read-but-not-actually and one third read — and my experience includes multiple denominations, among other things, so I think it isn't that far off. I would also like to point out that in the religious services of Catholics, Anglicans, and the like, the sermon of any given service is about one of the readings from the Bible which were part of said service and is intended to provoke contemplation and to provide assistance in interpretation. As a result, it's kind of hard not to do some serious thinking about those passages, at the very least. Thus, actually reading is encouraged in a lot of ways; tradition is given as a guide or assist, so to speak. (Like when a literature teacher gives you information about the historical period, language use, and customs from when the text was written to prevent anachronism and the like. It's the same type of thing.) To counter your apparent claim that non-believers read scripture more than believers, I have to point out that there are also an alarming number of atheists who disregard anything which so much as takes religious views seriously as superstitious frippery and refuse to so much as touch such things, let alone anyone's scriptures. (Appallingly, even great minds are far from immune: Bertrand Russell tossed aside all Mediaeval philosophy on such a basis.) At best, such people "read" it as the source text of nonsense or conspiracy — not what either of us would call reading, I presume. I've had to deal with far too many of such atheists, just as you appear to have had to deal with far too many non-reading believers. Correcting for general experience, I'm guessing the norm is more around 25 to 35 percent who actually read, since that's the normal range for literate people to actually read things overall (albeit, somewhat optimistic). I doubt the subject matter of the text ultimately has much to do with whether a specific individual reads or just goes through the motions of reading.
I hope this clarifies things.
» zarlan on October 28th, 2023, 12:59am
Quote from blackluna
Please re-read your and my posts and try again. Something clearly messed with your reading comprehension if you can reach any of these conclusions from that.
How so?
Quote
(It seems to me that someone or something gave you cause to be bitter.
A baseless ad hominem, and well poisoning, eh?
That goes against the forum rules. "No flaming, name calling, yelling (caps), etc."
Why have you gotten so upset?
I have certainly not attacked you, or anyone else.
Quote
First off, regarding the appropriateness of telling a religious story in schools, you didn't exactly give any information beyond "a teacher told a religious story in school in a country whose government is secular" — which is what I was responding to.
Yes. And as you did so, I clarified.
Quote
Yet, you seem to be assuming that I knew more than that, especially about the context.
In what possible way, did I say anything, that would so much as hint at such a thing?
Quote
that no one believes in Heaven and Hell anymore (the way it was phrased implied that believing in either is absurd in this day and age), and just as you feel you ought to have reported your teacher teaching an unrelated religious story, I ought to have reported my teacher.
If it really was phrased in such a manner (and it wasn't just that you chose to interpret it in a bad way, like what you have done with my comment), then I'd agree. And in either case, he should have been scolded, for being an ignorant fool. Of course there are plenty of people who believe in heaven and hell! (and let's not forget those who believe in heaven, but not hell)
Quote
that was partially a bit of bitterness from me, I admit.
Ah. That explains your outrage: You're projecting. (see meaning 6, here)
Quote
All that said, forbidding practice of religion is a form and means of stamping out the belief or beliefs in question
Well... it's a form of attempting to do so. When it is a universal ban.
When it is purely a ban at school, whilst letting you practice your religion freely, outside of school... Not so much.
Still bad and unacceptable, but clearly not an attempt at stamping out belief.
Quote
My "do tread carefully" was not in reference to your story directly, but rather the broad statements you appeared to making in connection to it.
...except that there is no hint, of any such connection, anywhere in my comment, so...
How about you re-read the relevant comments?
Quote
Regardless, I still don't see how you came to the conclusion that I was condemning your actions.
Condemning?
I strongly criticized, your baseless accusation, but to call it condemnation, is ludicrous.
At the bear minimum, you claimed that I had said things, that was close to being interpreted in a problematic manner
...when I had not done any such thing.
You told me to tread carefully ...when I absolutely had.
Thus, it is undeniably true, that you were accusing me of things, that I wasn't even faintly guilty of.
Baseless accusations, irrationality, and blatant falsehoods, are not things I allow to be unquestioned (unless I deem that the person/comment is best left completely ignored, due to being hopeless, of course)
Quote
All that said, your most problematic statement if the one you began your post with. Your broad claim that most religious believers don't read their scriptures
I fail to see, what the problematic thing could be, about stating an and undeniable obvious fact.
And no, it wasn't mainly about christians. It's about all believers.
There are some who actually have read their own scriptures, of course, but they are rare, exceptions.
If you want someone who has actually read their scriptures, you're far more likely to find one, among atheists in places where the relevant religion is dominant.
Quote
However, this isn't the sort of area where there even can be statistics
Oh really? How/why, would it be impossible to test/investigate?
Why do you claim, that there is no statistics? This is nothing other than wilful ignorance, on your part.
...and if it is impossible, then your claims that most have read their scriptures, is equally invalid, meaning that you're shooting your own foot, in making that statement.
Quote
That's why I concluded that you were generalizing
...
Only in the sense, that any statement about "most people", or "X% or people" is, knowingly and intentionally, a generalization.
Quote
Please allow me to properly state what seems to me to be the actual case:
...based purely on your personal, subjective and biased, experience...
You present "evidence", that is no more valid, than what you claim about the basis for my statements.
...
People in glass houses...
Or, for a more appropriate statement, given the context:
"For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye?"
Matthew 7:2-4
Quote
the sermon of any given service is about one of the readings from the Bible
Which only ever gives you a select few bits, taken out of their context, and overshadowed by the rest of the sermon, and the story that the priest tells in it.
...and that's only for those who actually go to church, which most don't.
...and only regarding those, among those who go to church, who actually listen to the sermon, rather than suffer through it, whilst being bored.
Quote
intended to provoke contemplation
Contemplation, among those who actually do so, is almost always, in regards to the sermon. Not the bible quote.
Quote
and to provide assistance in interpretation
...which mostly doesn't happens. Even when it does, there are the issues mentioned above.
Quote
Thus, actually reading is encouraged in a lot of ways
Such as...?
Quote
I have to point out that there are also an alarming number of atheists who disregard anything which so much as takes religious views seriously as superstitious frippery
That is irrelevant.
Quote
and refuse to so much as touch such things, let alone anyone's scriptures.
...
By "alarming number", I take it that there are a rare few, who are actually like that ...which, granted, is an alarming number, even if it were the number 1, but...
A couple of nutcase exceptions, are irrelevant.
Quote
(Appallingly, even great minds are far from immune: Bertrand Russell tossed aside all Mediaeval philosophy on such a basis.)
Tossing aside, and being ignorant of, are two separate things ...but regardless, I fail to see any problem.
Modern astronomers don't study the astronomy of Ptolemy, nor do modern chemists study medieval alchemy.
This is perfectly sensible, and right.
...and I note that you mention medieval philosophy, but not the bible.
Because you can't claim, that he wasn't familiar with it, of course.
Quote
At best, such people "read" it as the source text of nonsense or conspiracy — not what either of us would call reading, I presume.
Why not?
...and how is it any worse, than reading the bible, with the fervent conviction that it is the true and objective, and infallible, word of a perfect god? Surely you can't call that, an objective viewpoint, or reading it with an open mind, now can you?
Quote
I've had to deal with far too many of such atheists
I seriously doubt you have. I have every reason to believe, that you are completely misrepresenting those atheists, and that you have simply made countless baseless assumptions, about them. As you have, with me.
(even without the evidence, of your assumptions here, it is extremely common. People's accounts of how random people they've met have behaved/spoken or what those people believe, are generally highly unreliable)
Quote
just as you appear to have had to deal with far too many non-reading believers.
...
You really love to make baseless assumptions. ("when you assume, you make an ass out of u and me" )
Such as the utterly false assumption, that I am only speaking from personal experience, when I say that most believers, haven't really read any more than a select few passages, of their scriptures.
Quote
Correcting for general experience
And how do you presume to do that?
Quote
I'm guessing the norm...
Baseless speculation, eh... 🙄
Quote
I hope this clarifies things.
...
About your behaviour and attitude, yes.
Quote
please check the dictionary before criticising others' usage.
There is no "the" dictionary.
Also, dictionaries are meant to describe common usage. Not dictate what is correct.
...and dictionaries are far from infallible.
Actual usage. i.e. the thing that dictionaries are meant to describe (what they are supposed to be based on), supersedes dictionaries.
Quote
According to the dictionary, "agnosticism" has four definitions, two of which fall into the first definition I mentioned, the others falling into the second.
First off, that is only true of that specific dictionary you mentioned ...or rather, according to your biased interpretation, of said dictionary. At least according to you claim, about it. (no mention of which dictionary, any link, or anything)
Secondly you admit, even assuming that what you say is perfectly true and perfect, that there are other definitions of agnosticism.
I.e. that you were wrong, and that my correction was 100% correct.
Quote
As for "atheism," it has three relevant definitions. I was following the sensu stricto
I.e. that you were wrong, and that my correction was 100% correct.
Quote
which is typically how I've seen it used.
I don't believe that, for a second.
It may be, how you have chosen to interpret most (filtered through selection bias, so not necessarily most, at all) uses you've heard/read, but...
No.
Almost all uses by atheists (except from those who call themselves agnostic), and the vast majority of uses by the religious, use atheist/atheism, in regards to any non-belief in god(s).
Quote
The definition you gave was the sensu lato
...
What is the point, of using "sensu X", rather than strict/broad sense/definition/meaning?
How about you read the scientific paper "Consequences of Erudite Vernacular Utilized Irrespective of Necessity: Problems with Using Long Words Needlessly"
Quote
Further complicating the matter, according to one of the dictionaries I looked at, there is also a sensu amplo (absence of belief regarding deities).
How is that different to the wider sense?
Quote
(the technical term for the broad category including all three senses is, as far as I can find, "irreligion" )
Your basis for calling this the "technical term" is, of course, nothing whatsoever.
And as I've said: Atheism and theism are purely about belief in god(s), which is a separate issue, to that of having a religion or not:
You can have a religion, without a belief in any deity, and you can have a belief in god(s) that is completely devoid of any religion.
Also: Irreligion=nonreligion=areligion ...and most who are irreligious/nonreligious/areligious, are also atheist.
...and yes, you can refer to someone as an "agnostic atheist" ...depending on the definition of agnostic.
But as I've said: the term agnostic has no agreed upon definition, and the meanings that are used, are many and quite significantly different, such that the word is nothing but misleading, confusing, and fails to properly communicate anything.
Thus it is worse than useless, and only serves to confuse.
Quote
this is why context is important and why philosophers and other thinkers spend a lot of time defining basic terms.
Here we agree.
Quote
And a poll doesn't exactly give much in the way of context.
...which is one of the reasons, for why it shouldn't have had any separation by denominations, and the like.
Quote
Regarding the bit about whether atheism is a religion/religious belief: that's more of a semantical bone we differ on
Nope.
It's just a thing, where you are making a 100% completely baseless and ignorant claim, and are just simply wrong, and refuse to back it up.
As I've said:
In no way, shape, or form, can a belief in the absence of any divine existence (which isn't atheism, but rather strong atheism), be regarded as a religious belief.
That is utterly absurd.
Quote
since it is a belief regarding spiritual/metaphysical reality — that being the very subject of religion
Religion involves beliefs regarding spiritual/metaphysical reality
...but it isn't just beliefs regarding spiritual/metaphysical reality. Not in ANY sense of the word.
Quote
That's semantical, and neither of us can be considered altogether right or wrong
No.
You can call it semantic, but that doesn't mean that there can be no right or wrong:
If there are some universally used senses of the word, or at least some bits that essentially everyone agrees are fundamental and required
...and yours completely goes against all of that... (as is the case, here)
Then you're just plain wrong.
Period.
Edit: I reeeaaaally hate, how this forum turns every ) that is preceded by any punctuation, into a smilie...
» blackluna on October 29th, 2023, 1:11am
Next time, re-read the entire exchange AGAIN before replying. (Try the threaded view of the conversation, it'll help.)
How about you take a look at how you're criticising someone you simply disagree with — before you bother with me any further. I mean, look:
You're pulling all of my statements out of context and completely ignoring every single point I've made — which is evidently how you came to the conclusions which so confused me to begin with. That and projecting other peoples comments and statements into my own (not sure whose, but it certainly isn't anything I've said here).
You've also twisted some of my statements, mostly based on nit-picking (the term "the dictionary," for one — it does not mean what you've assumed it to mean). (Also, I used the "sensu x" because I figured it'd be less confusing and more precise than "strict sense," "broad sense," etc. — evidently, I was wrong. Still, no need to get your pants in a knot over it — that's highly uncalled for. )
Rather than ask for what my sources are, you have jumped to the conclusion that must be using biased interpretations, without holding yourself to the same standards. (And no, I can't provide links, since I'm using print sources — namely the Webster's 2nd and the Oxford English — and I'm not going any further than paraphrasing. )
You're also claiming that I'm making assumptions when I deliberately use words such as "seem," "appear," "guessing that," and so on (which mean that I'm less than certain about the conclusions listed)… and proceed to make your own assumptions as solid fact about me. And then you extrapolate, a lot.
You are going after me for mentioning that some of my information comes from personal experience, assume that that means all of my information is from that one source (it doesn't), and conveniently ignore that you and everyone else is doing the same (it's how conversation works; this isn't an academic paper).
You even add insults. Thanks for the rudeness.
All of this is why I came to the conclusion that you're most likely bitter, and you sure sound it. Very much so. Be that the reality or not, that's your tone in your responses to me.
If I'm making assumptions about you, you're doing that and then some. I have been trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, but you're making it very hard.
Look, if you're not going to bother to actually read, then why do bother replying? (While we're talking about actually reading. )
(And, yes, the "smile" default drives me nuts too. I keep having to edit all of my comments to have a space in between punctuation and " ) " — case and point. )
How about you take a look at how you're criticising someone you simply disagree with — before you bother with me any further. I mean, look:
You're pulling all of my statements out of context and completely ignoring every single point I've made — which is evidently how you came to the conclusions which so confused me to begin with. That and projecting other peoples comments and statements into my own (not sure whose, but it certainly isn't anything I've said here).
You've also twisted some of my statements, mostly based on nit-picking (the term "the dictionary," for one — it does not mean what you've assumed it to mean). (Also, I used the "sensu x" because I figured it'd be less confusing and more precise than "strict sense," "broad sense," etc. — evidently, I was wrong. Still, no need to get your pants in a knot over it — that's highly uncalled for. )
Rather than ask for what my sources are, you have jumped to the conclusion that must be using biased interpretations, without holding yourself to the same standards. (And no, I can't provide links, since I'm using print sources — namely the Webster's 2nd and the Oxford English — and I'm not going any further than paraphrasing. )
You're also claiming that I'm making assumptions when I deliberately use words such as "seem," "appear," "guessing that," and so on (which mean that I'm less than certain about the conclusions listed)… and proceed to make your own assumptions as solid fact about me. And then you extrapolate, a lot.
You are going after me for mentioning that some of my information comes from personal experience, assume that that means all of my information is from that one source (it doesn't), and conveniently ignore that you and everyone else is doing the same (it's how conversation works; this isn't an academic paper).
You even add insults. Thanks for the rudeness.
All of this is why I came to the conclusion that you're most likely bitter, and you sure sound it. Very much so. Be that the reality or not, that's your tone in your responses to me.
If I'm making assumptions about you, you're doing that and then some. I have been trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, but you're making it very hard.
Look, if you're not going to bother to actually read, then why do bother replying? (While we're talking about actually reading. )
(And, yes, the "smile" default drives me nuts too. I keep having to edit all of my comments to have a space in between punctuation and " ) " — case and point. )
» zarlan on October 29th, 2023, 4:01am
Quote from blackluna
You're pulling all of my statements out of context and completely ignoring every single point I've made/.../without holding yourself to the same standards/.../and conveniently ignore that you and everyone else is doing the same/.../assume that that means all of my information is from that one source (it doesn't)
Baseless and transparent lies.
I have no reason to respond to your trolling.
If you refuse to actually back up your claims, or make real points, but instead just make ad hominems, and baseless claims, completely lying about what has been said, then all you do, is to embarrass yourself.
Quote
You're also claiming that I'm making assumptions when I deliberately use words such as "seem," "appear," "guessing that
A laughable excuse.
Quote
You even add insults. Thanks for the rudeness.
You can't complain about a little rudeness, when it is in response to you being extremely rude.
» VawX on October 22nd, 2023, 9:44am
Yeah, I feel like there are tons of people that read manga in Middle East and South East Asia which are the most Muslim reside mmm...
There are 2 possible reason why it's relatively low in number in this poll, the first one is just not a lot of them using this site and another is just the timing of the post, it's midnight in South East Asia mmm...
There are 2 possible reason why it's relatively low in number in this poll, the first one is just not a lot of them using this site and another is just the timing of the post, it's midnight in South East Asia mmm...
» zarlan on October 23rd, 2023, 8:52am
Quote from VawX
and another is just the timing of the post, it's midnight in South East Asia mmm...
You do realise, that this site is available, 24/7, right?
» VawX on October 23rd, 2023, 10:36pm
By the time this was posted, the poll was only an hour old mmm...
But I guess the number doesn't change much since then, so I guess there are just too many people from those region using mangaupdates mmm...
But I guess the number doesn't change much since then, so I guess there are just too many people from those region using mangaupdates mmm...
» blackluna on October 25th, 2023, 12:07am
That may have something to do with the number of Muslim-raised users on this website. Same goes for people raised with "no religion."
» Erratic-Hopper on October 21st, 2023, 11:11am
Atheist (still). The amount of Catholics surprised me, but I suppose it's much more common in the United States. I have a fair amount of respect and curiosity towards other religions, but Christianity is the one I'm most familiar with, since my country is Christian and I'm used to going in and out of churches to see inside. I've never set foot in, say, a mosque and don't know the extent to which other religions welcome visitors into their buildings - I would love to go inside though.
As for texts, at most I've read about ten pages of the Bible. Look forward to finishing it however and reading as many others as I can.
As for texts, at most I've read about ten pages of the Bible. Look forward to finishing it however and reading as many others as I can.
» YuriM on October 21st, 2023, 12:12pm
Agnostic Orthodox Christian. We obey only those religion traditions that include reach food festivals.
» catandmouse on October 21st, 2023, 12:38pm
Lapsed catholic, but leaning very heavily towards agnostic/atheist. (And yes, you can be both agnostic and atheist according to my friend google.).
» zarlan on October 22nd, 2023, 1:46am
Quote from catandmouse
(And yes, you can be both agnostic and atheist according to my friend google.).
Yes and no.
It very much depends on the definition of agnostic ...though, as there is no agreement, as to what the word means, and how most definitions of agnostic, makes it a fairly useless term...
» kurotaito on October 21st, 2023, 5:25pm
Christian - Catholic. Honestly thought it was strange that no jewish denominations were listed; they aren't a monolith.
Raised primarily catholic, still primarily catholic. I like how much catholics study other old texts & their constant discussion on biblical interpretations. But like, the church bureaucracy is so stupid, so cowardice, and so evil sometimes (ie often times), that I super understand why peeps leave cos its an effort to stay.
Raised primarily catholic, still primarily catholic. I like how much catholics study other old texts & their constant discussion on biblical interpretations. But like, the church bureaucracy is so stupid, so cowardice, and so evil sometimes (ie often times), that I super understand why peeps leave cos its an effort to stay.
» xhenriholimar on October 22nd, 2023, 12:25am
I don't think this is a question that should be raised here. Nothing to do with manga anime etc. And plenty o polemic
» zarlan on October 22nd, 2023, 1:32am
"No religion - agnostic
No religion - atheist"
This is nonsense.
Especially as the notion of being "raised atheist", or "raised agnostic", is just pure nonsense.
It's just being raised, without religion.
There is no atheism/agnosticism, in the raising, at all.
It should just be "No religion".
Also, the atheism/agnosticism distinction is a nonsensical and confusing one.
Agnostics are atheists, who refuse the "atheist" label.
In the false, misguided, and counter-productive notion, that disassociating yourself with a negatively viewed label, will make you seen less negatively ...despite it being the thing the word describes, that is negatively viewed. Not the word itself. This is the one and only reason, for why the term agnostic exists. (well, this use of it, that is. The term existed before, for other uses, which it is still also used for)
If you believe in a god or gods, you are a theist.
Anything else (including "I don't know" ), means you're an atheist.
This is not only how essentially all atheists define the word, but also how the word is used by atheists and theists, alike. (with the sole exception, of those who insist on calling themselves agnostic. No one else, uses it differently. Some may give a different definition ...but their actual use of the word...)
Agnosticism is not some middle-ground, between theist and atheist.
...and there is no universally agree upon definition, for what the term agnostic means.
It can mean anything from merely not being [b] certain (and no one is absolutely certain, of anything short of "I think, therefore I am", so absolute certainty is a nonsense red herring), to being utterly uncertain.
All that can be said about the word, when used in this context, is that it indicates atheism. So...
As for "Spiritual but not religious"...
What is "spiritual"?
That word can mean practically anything, and thus means nothing.
No religion - atheist"
This is nonsense.
Especially as the notion of being "raised atheist", or "raised agnostic", is just pure nonsense.
It's just being raised, without religion.
There is no atheism/agnosticism, in the raising, at all.
It should just be "No religion".
Also, the atheism/agnosticism distinction is a nonsensical and confusing one.
Agnostics are atheists, who refuse the "atheist" label.
In the false, misguided, and counter-productive notion, that disassociating yourself with a negatively viewed label, will make you seen less negatively ...despite it being the thing the word describes, that is negatively viewed. Not the word itself. This is the one and only reason, for why the term agnostic exists. (well, this use of it, that is. The term existed before, for other uses, which it is still also used for)
If you believe in a god or gods, you are a theist.
Anything else (including "I don't know" ), means you're an atheist.
This is not only how essentially all atheists define the word, but also how the word is used by atheists and theists, alike. (with the sole exception, of those who insist on calling themselves agnostic. No one else, uses it differently. Some may give a different definition ...but their actual use of the word...)
Agnosticism is not some middle-ground, between theist and atheist.
...and there is no universally agree upon definition, for what the term agnostic means.
It can mean anything from merely not being [b] certain (and no one is absolutely certain, of anything short of "I think, therefore I am", so absolute certainty is a nonsense red herring), to being utterly uncertain.
All that can be said about the word, when used in this context, is that it indicates atheism. So...
As for "Spiritual but not religious"...
What is "spiritual"?
That word can mean practically anything, and thus means nothing.
» LazyReviewer on October 22nd, 2023, 4:21am
Agnostic means you believe there's a higher power, but don't ascribe to any known religion and don't do anything spiritual. Maybe that higher power isn't even a god of any kind, maybe it's just a supernatural force similar to how magic is often portrayed in video games.
A theist who is undecided on which religion they think is correct may call themselves agnostic, but there are people who just believe magic (or something like it) exists without any kind of will of its own.
Atheist means you don't believe in a higher power at all. There is no supernatural force of any kind.
Religious means you ascribe to and practice a set of beliefs as defined in a specific text or set of texts.
Spiritual means you do rituals that are supposed to be connected to the supernatural, but do not ascribe to any particular religion.
Hopefully that helps you understand why they were categorized the way they were. I have not known any definitions of these words to conflict with what I've written, but I have heard people use the incorrect words for what they meant.
A theist who is undecided on which religion they think is correct may call themselves agnostic, but there are people who just believe magic (or something like it) exists without any kind of will of its own.
Atheist means you don't believe in a higher power at all. There is no supernatural force of any kind.
Religious means you ascribe to and practice a set of beliefs as defined in a specific text or set of texts.
Spiritual means you do rituals that are supposed to be connected to the supernatural, but do not ascribe to any particular religion.
Hopefully that helps you understand why they were categorized the way they were. I have not known any definitions of these words to conflict with what I've written, but I have heard people use the incorrect words for what they meant.
» zarlan on October 23rd, 2023, 8:50am
Quote from LazyReviewer
Agnostic means you believe there's a higher power, but don't ascribe to any known religion and don't do anything spiritual.
...
No. Just... no.
None of the other definitions you present, are anywhere close to accurate, either, but your explanation of agnostic, is especially wrong.
» blackluna on October 24th, 2023, 10:35pm
Quote
Agnostic means you believe there's a higher power, but don't ascribe to any known religion and don't do anything spiritual.
That's not agnosticism, that's deism or theism (the former holds that the divine does not intervene in Creation, whilst the latter holds that Divine does intervene in Creation). (You also had theism wrong.) Agnosticism is the belief that nothing is known or can be known about the Divine or the existence thereof. Agnosticism can also be used to refer to an ambivalence about religious matters. Either way, it is clearly not the same thing as atheism — the religious belief that there is no deity or Divine (yes, that's a religious belief, although some like to argue otherwise, usually the types who see a need to evangelize others into their fold).
Please use a dictionary. Especially before criticising others' usage.
» zarlan on October 25th, 2023, 9:02am
Quote from blackluna
Agnosticism is the belief that nothing is known or can be known about the Divine or the existence thereof. Agnosticism can also be used to refer to an ambivalence about religious matters
No, there are many other definitions of agnosticism.
Also, neither of those options, involve a belief in a god or gods, which thus means that they are ateist.
Quote
atheism — the religious belief that there is no deity or Divine
Nope.
Atheism is merely the lack of a belief in a deity or deities.
It is not a belief.
The notion that there is no god(s), sometimes called "strong atheism", is a belief, but atheism doesn't require that, so...
Also, the belief that there is no god(s), is not a religious belief, by any stretch of the imagination. It's a belief, that is (actually only indirectly) related to religion, but it is not a religious belief.
(indirect, as you can have belief in god, without any hint of religion, as well as a religion, without any god)
» blackluna on October 27th, 2023, 10:04am
Allow me to repeat my advice from the post you were responding to there: please check the dictionary before criticising others' usage.
According to the dictionary, "agnosticism" has four definitions, two of which fall into the first definition I mentioned, the others falling into the second.
As for "atheism," it has three relevant definitions. I was following the strict sense: the belief that no deities exist (the belief that there is no god/divine; your "strong atheism" ), which is typically how I've seen it used. The definition you gave was the broad sense (a lack of belief in deities). Further complicating the matter, according to one of the dictionaries I looked at, there is also a strict-yet-broad sense (absence of belief regarding deities). However, I've rarely seen "atheism" used outside of the strict sense; I've mostly seen the broad sense when religion and such beliefs were not the topic at hand (the technical term for the broad category including all three senses is, as far as I can find, "irreligion" ). But as far as definitions are concerned, we're both correct. Furthermore, several of these words have senses which overlap — an individual who is uncertain about whether there is any such thing as the divine, may correctly be referred to as "agnostic" or "atheist" — this is why context is important and why philosophers and other thinkers spend a lot of time defining basic terms. And a poll doesn't exactly give much in the way of context.
Regarding the bit about whether atheism is a religion/religious belief: that's more of a semantical bone we differ on, albeit one largely determined by the sense of "atheism." Atheism can be considered "areligion," "not-religion," "unreligion" (although that potentially excludes nontheism/"spirituality," from religion… potentially). This is where you seem to place it (please correct me if I'm wrong). Alternatively, it can be considered a belief in the absence of any divine existence and thus a religious belief, which is where I place it, since it is a belief regarding spiritual/metaphysical reality — that being the very subject of religion. ("Religion," like "atheism" and "agnosticism," having more than one sense. Not the impossible "stretch of the imagination" you thought, huh?) That's semantical, and neither of us can be considered altogether right or wrong — this is the sort of distinction philosophers work with, where there is no one right answer.
Edit: replaced the Latin terms.
According to the dictionary, "agnosticism" has four definitions, two of which fall into the first definition I mentioned, the others falling into the second.
As for "atheism," it has three relevant definitions. I was following the strict sense: the belief that no deities exist (the belief that there is no god/divine; your "strong atheism" ), which is typically how I've seen it used. The definition you gave was the broad sense (a lack of belief in deities). Further complicating the matter, according to one of the dictionaries I looked at, there is also a strict-yet-broad sense (absence of belief regarding deities). However, I've rarely seen "atheism" used outside of the strict sense; I've mostly seen the broad sense when religion and such beliefs were not the topic at hand (the technical term for the broad category including all three senses is, as far as I can find, "irreligion" ). But as far as definitions are concerned, we're both correct. Furthermore, several of these words have senses which overlap — an individual who is uncertain about whether there is any such thing as the divine, may correctly be referred to as "agnostic" or "atheist" — this is why context is important and why philosophers and other thinkers spend a lot of time defining basic terms. And a poll doesn't exactly give much in the way of context.
Regarding the bit about whether atheism is a religion/religious belief: that's more of a semantical bone we differ on, albeit one largely determined by the sense of "atheism." Atheism can be considered "areligion," "not-religion," "unreligion" (although that potentially excludes nontheism/"spirituality," from religion… potentially). This is where you seem to place it (please correct me if I'm wrong). Alternatively, it can be considered a belief in the absence of any divine existence and thus a religious belief, which is where I place it, since it is a belief regarding spiritual/metaphysical reality — that being the very subject of religion. ("Religion," like "atheism" and "agnosticism," having more than one sense. Not the impossible "stretch of the imagination" you thought, huh?) That's semantical, and neither of us can be considered altogether right or wrong — this is the sort of distinction philosophers work with, where there is no one right answer.
Edit: replaced the Latin terms.
» calstine on October 22nd, 2023, 5:55am
Oh, come on! You couldn't separate Mahayana Buddhism from Theravada? Those two are completely different. I barely recognise any of the Buddhist practices show in animanga, they're so different from what we follow in our country.
Anyway, I didn't vote cos of that reason, but I'm Theravada Buddhist, born and raised. As for practising - I guess? In as much as the five percepts, at any rate, and those are just basic human decency (which are actually not-so-basic, yes, I know), so. Buddhism is wonderful in that way.
Anyway, I didn't vote cos of that reason, but I'm Theravada Buddhist, born and raised. As for practising - I guess? In as much as the five percepts, at any rate, and those are just basic human decency (which are actually not-so-basic, yes, I know), so. Buddhism is wonderful in that way.
» 狂気 on October 22nd, 2023, 4:18pm
Confucianism and Taoism shouldn't be together. It's like putting Hinduism and Buddhism together. Actually, grouping all Islam and all Christianity together and expanding in the comments would give better picture poll-wise. And practically no one's raised under Shintoism. It's a cultural religion, more like tradition. Japanese are mostly Buddhist but everyone still goes to Shinto shrines. Also you're missing perhaps the most ubiquitous religion, shamanism.
» Great on October 22nd, 2023, 11:53pm
"Do we have more gamers than shounen sport manga readers?"
Wait, Prince of Tennis is Shounen sport manga?
I thought it's for girls that love to see their "prince" playing tennis. 😅
Wait, Prince of Tennis is Shounen sport manga?
I thought it's for girls that love to see their "prince" playing tennis. 😅
» K9ofChaos on October 23rd, 2023, 8:00am
I was raised in a Catholic household. No longer have any religious affiliation but my parents still love me anyways so that's cool.
» Sugarshark on October 24th, 2023, 4:53am
I found religion later in life.
My wife had passed away and my doctor had suggested that some people find strength in their religion to overcome the unhappiness.
I had a religious experience sometime after that; I find that helps you decide if it's real to you, or just cosplay.
My wife had passed away and my doctor had suggested that some people find strength in their religion to overcome the unhappiness.
I had a religious experience sometime after that; I find that helps you decide if it's real to you, or just cosplay.
» Yunwu on October 24th, 2023, 9:00pm
Orthodox Christian. And always will be, though I'm not very dedicated like I was when a child, I still follow some traditions.
» blackluna on October 24th, 2023, 10:14pm
"Christian - Catholic" is what I answered, since I am a practicing Catholic, a traditionalist at that. Thing is, upbringing-wise it's a bit different.
You see, my parents are both Jews who converted to Christianity, and they never went through some kind of cultural transplant (oddly enough, your attitudes and views won't necessarily change just because you convert, and your food and humour certainly won't). Moreover, while my dad is a Traditionalist Catholic (as in, we go to a church which celebrates the Tridentine Mass in Latin), my mum is a High Church Anglo-Catholic; theologically these are actually quite close (more of a schismatic difference, which is why I answered "Catholic" ). When it came to raising my siblings and me, we were given a combination of Traditionalist/High Church Christianity and Jewish practices and attitudes (more attitudes than practices, especially when it comes to the importance of tradition), with lots of conversations at the dinner table over different theological points. Ultimately, my siblings and I were left to choose what to practice: two of us became Traditionalist Catholic, and one became High Church Anglo-Catholic (although he was considering becoming Eastern/Greek Orthodox for a while). There was a time when I was little, when I considered becoming Jewish, religiously speaking, and my parents would have been completely accepting if I had done so. The result: my entire immediate family is practicing and proud of our Jewish heritage.
Thanks to my background, I find Christian - Protestant or Evangelical too broad: there's the Lutheran lineage of Protestantism which does allow for tradition and taking joy in God's creation and the Calvinist and Arminian lineages which at best allow those in limited amounts (and typically believe in predestination, rather the form known as theological determinism). (Theological explanation: "Predestination" in Orthodoxy, Catholicism, and Lutheran-lineage Protestantism is essentially moot from a human perspective; it only exists from God's perspective, because He is essentially outside of time, thus things both have and have not yet occurred — like a person relative to the events in a book or story they've read — God's being all-knowing is not causal; foreknowledge does not cause anything to occur or choices to be made. (St. Augustine of Hippo explains this better, obviously.) In Calvinist and Arminian-lineage Protestantism, "predestination" means that God's foreknowledge causes your choices and the course of events. Also, nearly all Protestant denominations are "bad" about the forgiveness of sins, with some believing that all will be forgiven regardless of whether the sinner repents, others being ambivalent, and some effectively not believing in it at all.) (Interesting historical tidbit regarding the differences between the former group and the latter group: there's a town in Switzerland which kept very good records regarding the causes of death of its populace throughout the Reformation there (so from Catholicism (possible forgiveness of sins and no determinism) to Calvinism (determinism and no possible forgiveness of sins)) — the numbers of murders and suicides before and after the Reformation switched such that the total number of violent deaths remained the same. The decline in mental health appals me, but, on the other hand, fewer innocents were being hurt.)
That said, I'm well aware that since this is a poll involving as many religions globally as possible, the choices can only be divided so much, but some of these distinctions can be quite significant (like Mahayana and Theravada Buddhism, as VawX pointed out; or Karaite Judaism as opposed to Rabbinical Judaism). Additionally, as 狂気 pointed out, Confucianism really shouldn't be together with Daoism (for one thing, Confucianism is really a subset of what is referred to in English as "Chinese folk-religion," while Daoism isn't). More importantly, there should be a choice for "multiple religions," because your parents/guardians might not practice the same religion and not all religions prohibit syncrentism. But the poll is what it is.
You see, my parents are both Jews who converted to Christianity, and they never went through some kind of cultural transplant (oddly enough, your attitudes and views won't necessarily change just because you convert, and your food and humour certainly won't). Moreover, while my dad is a Traditionalist Catholic (as in, we go to a church which celebrates the Tridentine Mass in Latin), my mum is a High Church Anglo-Catholic; theologically these are actually quite close (more of a schismatic difference, which is why I answered "Catholic" ). When it came to raising my siblings and me, we were given a combination of Traditionalist/High Church Christianity and Jewish practices and attitudes (more attitudes than practices, especially when it comes to the importance of tradition), with lots of conversations at the dinner table over different theological points. Ultimately, my siblings and I were left to choose what to practice: two of us became Traditionalist Catholic, and one became High Church Anglo-Catholic (although he was considering becoming Eastern/Greek Orthodox for a while). There was a time when I was little, when I considered becoming Jewish, religiously speaking, and my parents would have been completely accepting if I had done so. The result: my entire immediate family is practicing and proud of our Jewish heritage.
Thanks to my background, I find Christian - Protestant or Evangelical too broad: there's the Lutheran lineage of Protestantism which does allow for tradition and taking joy in God's creation and the Calvinist and Arminian lineages which at best allow those in limited amounts (and typically believe in predestination, rather the form known as theological determinism). (Theological explanation: "Predestination" in Orthodoxy, Catholicism, and Lutheran-lineage Protestantism is essentially moot from a human perspective; it only exists from God's perspective, because He is essentially outside of time, thus things both have and have not yet occurred — like a person relative to the events in a book or story they've read — God's being all-knowing is not causal; foreknowledge does not cause anything to occur or choices to be made. (St. Augustine of Hippo explains this better, obviously.) In Calvinist and Arminian-lineage Protestantism, "predestination" means that God's foreknowledge causes your choices and the course of events. Also, nearly all Protestant denominations are "bad" about the forgiveness of sins, with some believing that all will be forgiven regardless of whether the sinner repents, others being ambivalent, and some effectively not believing in it at all.) (Interesting historical tidbit regarding the differences between the former group and the latter group: there's a town in Switzerland which kept very good records regarding the causes of death of its populace throughout the Reformation there (so from Catholicism (possible forgiveness of sins and no determinism) to Calvinism (determinism and no possible forgiveness of sins)) — the numbers of murders and suicides before and after the Reformation switched such that the total number of violent deaths remained the same. The decline in mental health appals me, but, on the other hand, fewer innocents were being hurt.)
That said, I'm well aware that since this is a poll involving as many religions globally as possible, the choices can only be divided so much, but some of these distinctions can be quite significant (like Mahayana and Theravada Buddhism, as VawX pointed out; or Karaite Judaism as opposed to Rabbinical Judaism). Additionally, as 狂気 pointed out, Confucianism really shouldn't be together with Daoism (for one thing, Confucianism is really a subset of what is referred to in English as "Chinese folk-religion," while Daoism isn't). More importantly, there should be a choice for "multiple religions," because your parents/guardians might not practice the same religion and not all religions prohibit syncrentism. But the poll is what it is.
» Midlife_otaku on October 26th, 2023, 4:46am
This thread is the perfect example of why I never discuss religion
» zarlan on October 26th, 2023, 10:02pm
Quote from Midlife_otaku
This thread is the perfect example of why I never discuss religion
...and that, despite how no one has even argued for/against any religion.
I totally get why most people want to just avoid the topic.
(I don't ...but I don't go out of my way to bring it up, either. Don't want to needlessly disturb people. When it is brought up, however...)
» blackluna on November 3rd, 2023, 8:46pm
Could someone other than zarlan moderate this?! I'd like a third party — someone impartial.
As it is, I'm starting to wonder if I really did somehow insult them without realizing it. And if my posts could be considered trolling.
As it is, I'm starting to wonder if I really did somehow insult them without realizing it. And if my posts could be considered trolling.
