Talk:Religion

Nonpersonocratic metaphysics
All religions are false attributing to values, purposes and parts of the definition of personhood, and there is a gradience of this biasing degree. 1. Some religions are explicitly personocratic/personocentric having on their core a single supposedly self-evident, precosmic, cosmogonic and omnicontrolling person (bearer of personhood). 2. Other religions are less personocratic having nonprecosmic, noncentral, noncosmogonic, nonomnicontrolling gods, which might be presented vague in their essence, autistic and missing components of personhood (see: Mary Anne Warren - the criteria for personhood, see: kami). 3. Other religions are atheistic, without a person-god, but still being spiritualistic and supernaturalistic. These are the religions that recognise only an impersonal divine field, still biasedly false attributing to values, purposes and parts of the definition of personhood, ascribed as attributes of any possible cosmos (physical or immaterial).

The other option is physicalism. The analytical evolution of scientific answers to any metaphysical question. There are two ways of completing and correcting the scientific view on reality. 1. observational data; and their corrections, 2. mathematical proofs; but the proofs have to be causally linked and metalogically deep; not based on arbitrary axiomaticity. Also corrections and improvements on reasoning are totally necessary in science.

The archaic metaphysical question gradually evolves:

1. Religion or Science?

2. Metaphysical personocracy of any degree (religion) or science/physicalism/physiocracy (probabilistic events within the natural laws, which have to be elaborated at the deepest causal level as a connectome usually of conditional probability)? [that conditional nonaxiomatic connectome is necessary in theories without the magical person-god; otherwise it's necessary within god; it cannot be avoided]

3. Is the connectome of the component-notions of personhood more fundamental (nonaxiomatic self-sufficient to describe reality at the causal level) than the connectome of the component-notions of physics?

4. Does this metaphysical question on the degrees of personocracy make sense, or is it a personocratic question created by bearers of personhood (persons)? The hardest part in questioning is to form unbiased questions. Biased questions increase the likelihood of biased answers. The components of the definition of personhood aren't cosmically fundamental, nor cosmogonic. The component theories of physics certainly are. Humans are persons and most of them have a preference for personocratic metaphysics. Liking isn't a criterion for truth.

Some people claim that religion is compatible with science; because the universe can be in tandem pro-personhood biased, explicitly or implicitly, having values, purposes and parts or fulfilling the full definition of and criteria for personhood to its causal mechanics; but (the universe can be in tandem) totally impersonal and mathematically accessible without personocratic purpose. Well... actually these people aren't analytical enough to expose their own fallacy.

Is Religion better defined by practices than by beliefs
Over in Evil is the absence of God's talk page, a thread turned to whether "God" and "evil" are purely religious terms/ideas. That is leading to how we should define religion.

, Nowadays, I define religion as: "Given a belief that there is a divide between the natural and supernatural world (be it salvation in heaven, nirvana, reincarnation as a higher form or what-have-you) religion is the set of practices that allow us to build a bridge between that natural and supernatural world." I disagree with the dictionary (and rationalwiki's) definition of religion which is essentially "A belief about the cause, purpose, and nature of humanity and/or of the universe" since that definition encompasses both atheism and agnosticism. What is your definition of religion? -- Bertrc (talk) 23:17, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Seriously? Nobody?  Ah, well.  Perhaps I am the only one who sees the irony of this article's intro paragraph, which defines religion to be based on beliefs, rather than practices.  That definition can apply just as easily to atheism.  -- Bertrc  (talk) 22:05, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Several proposed edits
I was 73.145.178.222 before I made this account. Noir told me to bring "the issue" here, and now I realize I don't really know what they meant by "the issue". So I will list all my proposed edits and assume "the issue" refers to one or more of these. How many of these edits should I make? In order to avoid confirmation bias, should we list specific examples of anti-religion findings in science? These would ideally be about the religions themselves or the people who practice them, instead of examples of religious beliefs, because this website already has plenty of specific examples of science debunking religious beliefs. Breeze1 (talk) 17:11, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * adding a period after "Religions are just verified cults"
 * re-organizing the paragraphs in the religion and science section (the last paragraph looks like a summary that should be the first paragraph, fundamentalism should be a sub-section of anti-science attitudes, etc.)
 * removing the quote in the religion and science section (because it's not science-related at all)
 * adding Roger Bacon to the science-friendly attitudes section
 * adding a "Examples of religion-friendly attitudes within science" section that includes studies claiming that religious people are more likely to use science or live longer (maybe I should write "studies" or "findings" instead of "attitudes"?)
 * Ok, so, I should kind of explain myself. When I first saw the Edit Summary/Justification of "why are there atheist quotes on the religion page?", noticed it was from an IP editor, and saw both the removal of the Hitchens quote and what ostensibly looked like large number of changes in the IS/WAS to a rather prominent page, I assumed it had been a drive-by edit made by an ideologue. I think I owe you an apology for jumping the gun on this, so, I'm sincerely sorry about that.
 * Given this is a Starred and prominent article and also did a revert, I'd probably ask their thoughts before going through with the changes. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 18:39, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, to clarify: the major changes -- spelling/grammar/punctuation corrections are cool. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 19:41, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * My main problem is the over-reliance on NOMA. If it exists in material reality and can be measured, tested, or otherwise engaged with, it's the domain of science. Religion is a series of cultural constructs that ultimately have no empirical evidence behind them. If you want to be religious, that's fine I guess, but stuff like NOMA is just ducking the issue. 20:37, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, a lot of the religion vs science stuff is the product of 2000s-early 2010s American politics, when fundamentalist Christianity was on an uptick. 20:41, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Can you explain why my additions over-rely on NOMA or "duck the issue"? Roger Bacon's work is historical fact, and those two conclusions were both based on observing and measuring material reality. (also I did in fact make a second account because I forgot Breeze1's password) Breeze01 (talk) 15:12, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Bronze Brainstar
So the guidelines for Bronze according to the article rating guide are actually quite a low bar; it doesn't mention the thoroughness or quality of the references until Silver -- just that at least some appropriate references are present. Is promotion to starless appropriate? ℕoir LeSable (talk) 00:14, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * As the person who put it on, yes., as I would not even consider Wikipedia references appropriate. --Andrew5 (talk) 00:25, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * What I'm saying is, one or two Wikipedia refs is ok even on a gold, but having 60% of them is enough of an issue for it to be bronze. It is pretty easy to fix, and I would not object to a re-bronze if two-thirds of them are removed. I'm busy right now with Microwave, though. --Andrew5 (talk) 00:27, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

All religions are spiritual?
I just rolled back an edit by a new user. It was "All religions are spiritual, but not all of Spiritualism is Religious."

Firstly I'm not sure it's true - What about scientology, for instance? Secondly, Spiritualism actually is a religion.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 13:05, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say that spiritualism is a religion, more a general woo-woo attitude and associated cottage industry. 13:10, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I think it is. Here is Britanica. "spiritualism, in religion, a movement based on the belief that departed souls can interact with the living." Here is WP "Spiritualism is a new religious movement based on the belief that the spirits of the dead exist and have the ability and the necessary means to communicate with the living." And here is WP on Spiritualist church. "A spiritualist church is a church affiliated with the informal spiritualist movement which began in the United States in the 1840s."
 * So it's a religious movement which has its own churches. You are going to be cutting a very find hair to argue it's not a religion.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 13:51, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * spirituality is the perhaps the word required AMassiveGay (talk) 14:37, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I suspect that is the case. Or the intention. But then the the initial text would not flow in the same way, and there would still be the question: Is scientology "spiritual"?Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 18:47, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * spiritualism does sound like the appropriate word for it. why does a religious movement get dibs on it? it can mean two things, just it its confusing in the context. im going to send my spirit animal to shit on their lawn. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:08, 24 March 2022 (UTC)