Category talk:Religion

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bug?[edit]

There seems to be a bug here? "Ásatrú" is probably out of order, and "Cults" certainly is. —Ashley Y 00:36, 2004 Jun 12 (UTC)

If Ásatrú is out of order, then several other entries here are, also. Furthermore, most Ásatrúar reject the Neopagan label. With the proliferation of small religions, it may be difficult to make appropriate differentiations, but we really need to try. Ásatrú is both distinctive and, depending how you look at it, quite old. Even if you don't think it's old, it is as old as many other entries at this level. It should have its own category here. --Steven T Abell 20:31, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Um, I meant out of order alphabetically. And it was fixed ages ago. —Ashley Y 22:27, 2004 Oct 15 (UTC)

Reorganization[edit]

This category is getting a bit cluttered. Let me propose some things that might help...

What do you think? -- Beland 03:31, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It seems like this has partially been done, but I can't really tell. There are still way too many subcatagories, and probably too many articles... JesseW 11:25, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Definitions[edit]

>> Another simple yet all encompassing definition would be that religion is anyones systematic attempt to please his or her God. <<

That hardly seems all-encompassing to me. It excludes polytheism, atheism, and religious beliefs that have nothing in particular to do with gods or goddesses. It also excludes belief in deities that do not require or deserve pleasing. -- Beland 22:42, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I see your point, the refrance to God should very well have been god or gods or prehaps even it should have been stated ' to please anything they deem worthy of revrance' An atheist as I have been taught places him or herself above all claiming no diety exist. One could argue that in doing so they, in essence make themselves theire own diety. Like I say this could be argued. And as to belife systems that have nothing to do with pleasing, I would argue that worship of any kind seeks to please. Thanks you for point out the need to explain myself futher.

Well, by the common meaning of the word, being a "god" entails having some kind of supernatural qualities, but an atheist hardly gives themselves supernatural qualities by denying that any gods exist, and they certainly need not elevate themselves above other people, including atheist or non-atheist. My point about worship was not that some people worship gods but don't attempt to please them. It's that some people believe that gods exist, but don't deserve to be worshipped. That instead, we should attempt to destroy them, or not yield to their will because "might" does not make "right". Or that we should simply ignore them because they are harmless. Or that we can talk to them like friends or neighbors, but we're not supposed to worship them any more than most people worship their human friends and neighbors. Some people even seem to believe that we have more power over the supernatural than it has power over us. -- Beland 02:06, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

new subcategory "Astrology"[edit]

Proposal for creation of the subcategory "Astrology" under Religion (the same way there are subcategories "Mysticism", "Occult", "Spirituality", "Theosophy",...). It is, for me, questionable if these subcategories (and their articles) should be under category Religion and what's their direct relation to Religion?!.

Anyway, Astrology (not charlatanism) is an art and science used and studied worldwide and also throughout majority of mystical and occult movements which were better identified under an Esotericism category instead of Religion (this is only my personal point of view).

The "Astrology" subcategory could contain already existing topics like "Astrologers" and "Age of Aquarius" and others.

Thank you. --ekhalom 20:25, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, what is the difference between believing in a universal life-force and believing in an omnipresent God? Or praying for enlightenment or searching the Bible vs. divining answers from the stars or contacting the dead? Or asking God to heal a sick friend, vs. casting a healing spell? It seems to me they all involve belief in the supernatural, which is the charter purpose of this category. What differs is who believes which of these practices are based on factually correct theories. In other words, all of these things seem appropriate to have in this catch-all category. Otherwise, we'd have to decide which are legitimate and which are not. -- Beland 04:20, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Categorical content is off-topic[edit]

This category requires immediate cleanup. The false definition introducing the category should be replaced by a statement similar to that within the Occult and Philosophy categories. Many topics, such as anthropomorphism, should also be removed from the database. Apparently, some folks have difficulty distinguishing between sociology and theology, and between theology and philosophy. Adraeus 06:38, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

One thing that could be done (and I've been doing) is removing articles that are also in a subcategory. —Ashley Y 06:45, 2005 Feb 1 (UTC)

Subcats[edit]

This category needs clean-up. Please do not put articles or categories directly in this category if they also belong in a sub-category. —Ashley Y 23:49, 2005 May 8 (UTC)

Clean-up[edit]

I have vigourously and aggressively cleaned up this category, creating some new sub-cats. —Ashley Y 10:57, 2005 May 14 (UTC)

Request for your aid dealing with actions from a user against Religious, Spiritual and Esoteric articles[edit]

User:Baphomet. is damaging Wikipedia: he his trying to label Religious articles as Superstition (from a POV view of positivism, that he calls Science). At the article Reincarnation he just went on to add to category "Superstition" and later on without discussion put a POV msg in the article. Please see the discussion page between both of us Talk:Reincarnation#Superstition.

Through the use of a Culture created by extremism in Science, he is clearly trying to do the job that the Inquisition did in the Middle Ages in a Culture created by extremism in Religion. He is damaging Wikipedia in a subtle invious way!

Please see also the Alert message I have created at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#September_4, Thank you! --GalaazV 20:25, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Religion as a main category at the Main Page[edit]

Religion is not Culture, as Science is also not Culture: Both Religion (Spiritual oriented) and Science (Material oriented), when dominant, create their own Culture on societies.

This Division at Wikipedia is biased: is a division based on the dominance of a Culture produced by Science, which regards Religion as a cultural aspect and, at its extremism, through reducionist-positivist conceptions, regards it as Superstition.

The same thing happened in the Middle Ages in our Western civilization during the dominance of extremism in Religion, through human dogmas, which rejected the advancement of the early Science. The same thing happens and happened in all civilizations if one's consider the Spiritual aspect versus the Material aspect of those civilizations.

The aspect which is common to both is Life and Death.

Religion tried to impose to the society of that time, at its extremism based on human dogmas, that the only important life is an eternal one on a Spiritual world (if it could perhaps it would eliminate the physical life and world). On the other hand, later on Science tries to impose to the society of current days, through its extremism on reducionist-positivist conceptions, that the only life there is is a physical life (and perhaps if it could would prove and elimite the idea that of any other life or world).

Both of them, which Know nothing, try to impose from outside something which each individual has to face, or get through, by himself/herself - ill or sound, rich or poor, notorius or obscure - all have to get through Death ALONE, as an individual.

The main problem nowadays is the same problem of Nicolaus Copernicus and a few others at the dawn of this scientific era: the mainstream Culture, produced and kept by Religion, wouldn't allow them to freely speak out to the world the Knowledge they posessed: the Earth moves around the Sun, and not otherwise! Heliocentric theory: it was labeled as Heresy.

Today the mainstream Culture in our world, produced and kept by Science, does not want to recognize when a few try to say: our Death is a Birth in the Spiritual worlds and our Birth is as a Death to those same worlds: Rebirth: it is labeled as Superstition.

Hope it may give you an insight on how to make SCIENCE more spiritual and RELIGION more scientific [1] & Please my request to the ADMINISTRATORS of Wikipedia is to have the Religion category (in all languages) in its belonging place, at Main Page, as Science is, and not under Culture category. --GalaazV 23:50, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why reinvent the wheel? The Dewey Decimal Classification System is made up of ten categories:
000 Computers, information and general reference
100 Philosophy and psychology
200 Religion
300 Social sciences
400 Language
500 Science and mathematics
600 Technology
700 Arts and recreation
800 Literature
900 History and geography
"The DDC attempts to organize all knowledge into ten main classes that, excluding the first class (000 Computers, information and general reference), proceed from the divine (philosophy & religion) to the mundane (history & geography)."
It works for me. :-) RDF 05:31, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
One problem with the 10 categories of the DDC is that it exceeds the digit span for humanity. The Bell Telephone company made a scientific study of the maximum number of digits in a telephone number and discovered that the digit span of a typical human being was 6. Human beings cannot take more than 6 details at a time before one drops into the trash. As an example, No Juggler has ever juggled more than 6 balls in the air at one time. We have a cognitive limitation about this. 7 is about our limit. If you look at an organization of human beings, a manager cannot manage more than about 6 people. A better rule of thumb than 6-7 is 5 +/- 2 for the number of details. Thus the 8 categories on the main page are on the verge of unmanageability. That is why we cannot let the number of categories grow without bound on the Main Page. (The problem is called creeping featuritis). Psychologically, we handle large numbers of detail with a concept called chunking. Thus when the newest item over #6 appears, our minds automatically start grouping them into 6 chunks or fewer. If you look at the 8 categories on the Main Page, they actually group into 3 chunks color-coded ["Pink": Human Society, Culture, Personal Life], ["Pale Green": Geography, History ] and ["Blue-Gray": Mathematics, Science, Technology]. That is starting to get reasonable, and approaches Thomas Jefferson's divisions of Memory Reason and Imagination.
I agree with your "7" +/- 2 (as I've heard it ;-) caveat, But I'm not at all convinced the items up there are the "best" choices. For example, does ["Pale Green": Geography, History ] warrant its own color scheme? Also, if you're saying these three groupings relate to Jefferson's memory, reason, imagination, I don't see it. In my mind, I'll put the Front Page calssification system under the category of "Needs Work." :-) – RDF 19:44, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No implication meant. Jefferson's 3 categories are independent of the 3 color-coded groups on the Main Page. It is just that 3 is a lot simpler than 8. 8 is good because it is a barrier to the temptation to add just one more category, that's all we need is one more category. 8 just starts to overflow the small brains of Homo sapiens sapiens.
On a related note, our current programming languages and other conceptual structures are way too complicated for the small brains of Homo sapiens sapiens. We need help. Creeping featuritis is one of the enemies of small-brained man. We need to protect ourselves from ourselves, to quote from the TV ad. Ancheta Wis 22:35, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's actually not six hard-and-fast, it's more like 7+/-3. But anyway, that's just for remembering things at a glance ... if it's something important that's used often (like broad classification of all human knowledge) you sure as hell can learn more than 7 digits. For instance, are you contending that it's impossible to memorize a 16-digit credit card number? Because lots of people do it. 7+/-3 only applies to transitory knowledge like a phone number you hear and you keep in your head until you go write it down. Also, it's possible to juggle way more than six objects (just go to a good circus). And I really don't see what a limitation on short-term memory has anything to do with juggling. --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 17:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Ancheta Wis, I deeply appreciate your explanation, and knowledge transmited, about the creeping features (as RDF already said, agree also with number 7 feature: it is a number related to human beings development in many ways). Also I do agree with the words you had earlier about the individual and her/his relation toward Religion (there never was any intention of forcing it to anyone; only to put knowledge available about related subjects in the respective places, as this discussion is). Best Regards --GalaazV 04:19, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Religious disciplines category ????[edit]

This category may need to be added and cross referenced to the ones of Canon Law, Patimokkha, Sharia etc. or sub-categories of religious orders

category religious movements by ...?=[edit]

I intend to make the following categories

religious movements by typology (see church-sect typology)
contain category:cults, category:sects, category:denominations category:new religious movements
religious movements by tradition
containing Christian denomination Hindu denominations etc.

Please raise objections and suggestions within a week. Andries 11:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Religion in the Main topic classifications category[edit]

I noticed that the category Religion is not subcategorized in Category:Main topic classifications, but rather under Category:Culture. Well, I certainly that the first has everything to do with the other, by I don't see how it's not appropriate to call Religion a major topic as much as Politics, Science and Sports (that are all inside Main topic classifications) at the same type it is considered a subtopic of Culture.

So, I would suggest adding this to the Category:Main topic classifications (while not removing from the Culture cathegory).

Momergil (talk) 01:46, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move Christianity/Islam up?[edit]

Right now you need to go several levels deep to reach Category:Christianity and Category:Islam (Category:Religious faiths, traditions, and movements -> Category:Monotheistic religions). Is there objection to also including them as direct members of Category:Religion? power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:08, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Only if all other religions are also. Editor2020 (talk) 22:36, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category_talk:Religion&oldid=1182968676"