SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Washington's Blog reports
The Pew Research Center on Religion & Public Life is reporting, in their poll of 35,000 Americans, that during the seven years from 2007 to 2014, the numbers of religiously "Unaffiliated" were soaring, the numbers of Christians were plunging, and the numbers of adherents to non-Christian faiths were rising substantially but not nearly as much as were the numbers of "Unaffiliated".
This report, issued on May 12th, is headlined, "America's Changing Religious Landscape: Christians Decline Sharply as Share of Population; Unaffiliated and Other Faiths Continue to Grow".
It shows that: the percentage of Americans who are unaffiliated rose from 16.1% in 2007 up to 22.8% today.
[...][The USA] is becoming a less [religious], and a more religiously diverse, country.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday May 14 2015, @06:01PM
> The language and concepts defining most religion resist 'updating' as blasphemy or heretical, and was formed long before we even had the concept of 'science'
Absolutely. That's one of the issues that I have with them, and is related to why I consider myself an "ignostic" or "igtheist" - I demand a clear definition of all terms such that they only rely on previously agreed premises before any meaningful discussion can be entered into, and all religions (including the supersymmetry - I'm perfectly fair about how I apply this) fail at this first hurdle. Buddhists saying their life energy field is just the same as the quantum fields which particle physicists study is to me a cheap get-out. That's what Feynmann would call cargo cult science. It's attempting to look like it says something about reality with a scientifically supportable perspective, but it doesn't. No feature that they claim it has is defined in terms of the physical, or should I say mathematical, properties of the quantum fields.
> We never made the outlandish claims that are being refuted by science in the first place.
You do make non-testable claims though. You shouldn't piggy-back on scientific concepts and then do non-science with them. That's pretty outlandish.
I used to share a flat with the maintainer of the talk.religion.buddhism FAQ, and I used to like discussions about not just his beliefs, but those of other branches of buddhism too. Unfortunately, we never delved into these deep layers of mysticism, we spent more time discussing more superficial practical aspects, or ethical/moral ones. Which was a shame, I learnt a great deal about a lot of things from him.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by rts008 on Thursday May 14 2015, @07:02PM
I agree about it being a form of mysticism.
The only thing I have any objection or real disagreement is calling it a cargo cult science. Buddhism does not really focus on the 'science' of the natural world. This focus by Western folk as a means to refute it as a religion is a 'WTF?' experience to me. The focus and 'purpose' of Buddhism is more about how to think and act better. That is why I keep repeating myself with the 'if it concerns external forces/agents, it is not of Buddhism' refrain. As I said several times previously, I ONLY claim to be a Buddhist when someone will not accept the 'No thanks!' I always put in the 'Religion?' blank on documents, and I claim Buddhism is a phylosophy, and not a religion.(IMO)
I'm just trying to answer questions to the best of my ability to use modern, Western language to explain concepts that do not translate accurately.
If you are trying to class Buddhism as a religion so you can refute the validity of it as religion, then you've already misunderstood the whole point of Buddhist philosophy(it is not a religion), and are just spinning your wheels.
So, if you want to debate Buddhism further, you will have to find someone that is actually qualified/more knowledgable. I'm not a scholar of Buddism, I was exposed to Zen Buddhism, and use it as the most plausible(if erroneous) placeholder to fill in blanks on documents when 'No thanks!' is not accepted.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday May 14 2015, @07:32PM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by rts008 on Thursday May 14 2015, @07:59PM
Peace, then. We are on the same 'page' it would seem. :-)
...I have a lot more respect for Buddhism than I do for pretty much any other religion, I often find myself standing up for it,..."
This is the position I feel I am in for this discussion.