User talk:Mareino/Temp

If you read the Hinduism article, then you would realise that Hinduism at it core is actually not Polytheistic, but instead all the "gods/deities" are all representations of the one god. Also some forms of Buddhism (such as Theravada I think?) do believe in God, hence not nontheistic. The same is for Jainism.

Personally I think it would be better to oraganise the groups of religions differently, probably Western (Judeo-Christian-Islamic) and Eastern with Subgroups Indian (Hindu, Buddhist, Jain, Sikh) and Far East (Confucian, Tao, Shinto, etc). Other groups may be Animism (tribes of Africa, Aborigines, Natives, etc), Classical Relgions (Ancient Greek, Roman etc) and Persian (Bahai, Zoroastrianism). Lastly the noreligious group.

 D a  Gizza  Chat  01:48, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Please keep in mind that categories already provide a convenient way to browse from any religion to any other, particularly Category:Religious faiths, traditions, and movements. --Hoziron 03:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Various Points: --Clay Collier 05:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Just like to second DaGizza's point about Hinduism- early Vedic philosophy is more polytheist, but all of the latter forms of Hindu thought (such as Vedanta, Vaishnava, etc.) would fit much more easily in the category of monotheism.
 * Classifying Buddhism as non-theist is somewhat controversial; Theravada is not particularly theistic, but deity practices and seeing the Buddha as a god-like figure (such as Vairocana Buddha) are an important part of Tibetan and other forms of esoteric Buddhism.
 * I would recommend against breaking the faiths down into their particular sects- for one because it can be difficult to draw certain lines (i.e, Sufis are also either Sunni or Shia Muslims), and because it gives the appearance of treating certain faiths in more detail than others (for instance, why list the seperate components of Chinese religion, which is often discussed and usually practiced together synchretistically, but not break Buddhism out into Theravada, Zen, etc.).
 * Does the scientific method really belong in a list of religions? Some people regard science in a quasi-religious light, but the method itself has little that would classify it as a religion under most traditional definitions.
 * Are Ufology and Scientology really branches of Humanism? I've not seen either classified that way before.
 * I like the geography idea, but East/West is a little arbitrary. How about classification by regional origin?  East Asian (Confucian, Taoism, Shinto, etc.), South Asian (Jainism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Sikhism), Middle Eastern (Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Zoroastrianism), European (various mythologies).  There are still some wrinkles in that though...

Not sure about classifying Unitarian Universalist as non-theistic. The Wiki article on them says that only about 18% are atheist - the majority have some sort of theistic beliefs. Regarding Buddhism, I have never seen it considered "theistic," but Mahayana Buddhism does incorporate deities, but not in regards to a "creator god" that theistic and deistic religions do. --Dorje 01:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I believe your best catagorization for Scientology would be to parallel Buddhism. Both present themseleves (generally) as "Applied Religious Philosophy", both are based on knowledge, both spend little or no time in worship of a supreme being, though both acknowledge that a supreme being is possible (Buddhism) or likely (Scientology). Terryeo 23:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The word "god" is controversial in its definition. It could, for example, be argued that Catholics praying to their "Blessed Virgin" and myriad saints would make them polytheists, or equally so with Buddhas, bodhisattvas, devas, devis, etc.. Such systematic, simplistic categorisation of all world religions under these headings is folly, contradicts basic Wikipedia policies and will be opposed by me every step of the way. elvenscout742 22:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)