2 ms·

Um.... its not just Judiasm. It's also every animist branch that makes up the traditional religions of Africa. It's also the religions of the Mayans, Aztecs, No

Um.... its not just Judiasm. It's also every animist branch that makes up the traditional religions of Africa. It's also the religions of the Mayans, Aztecs, Norse, and Greco-Romans. It's also the Shintoist religion of Japan and the Hinduists of the Indian Subcontinent. If Buddhism lacks something that all other religions independently developed then is Buddhism really a religion?

btilly 15y ago
That is a very sweeping claim. I'm certainly not qualified to talk about every one of those religions. I doubt that you are either. Also the existence of a creation myth does not mean that it is particularly important to that religion. For instance the Catholic faith has a detailed creation myth in the Bible. However the official statements from leaders of that faith (see, for instance, Pope John Paul's October 22, 1996 address where he says that "evolution is more than a hypothesis") accepts the truth of the scientific consensus on how the world came to be, even though it is in direct and obvious conflict with their creation myth. Yes, I know all of the logical arguments you can make for the creation myths being central to the faith. They have been made before, including by a variety of Catholics. However the current belief of many millions of Catholics, and the official statements of the church, demonstrate that their creation myth is NOT, in fact, central to the religion.
- true_religion 15y ago
  Don't narrow this down to a discussion about creation myths when you said it was about creation myths, the existence of dieties, and many other things that westerns consider part of a religion. If you lack the mystical faith-based aspects of religion then are you a religion? If so, then why isn't Confusianism a religion? Why isn't Neitzchism a religion? Secondly, I don't know what kind of qualifications one needs to talk about religion, but if ordinary people can no longer do it then what you are encouraging is a priesthood, and not a science.
  - btilly 15y ago
    Excuse me, I said? Where? Provide me a link. Here is a hint. The point about creation myths was brought up at http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3901527 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3901527 by someone named ars. I registered an objection. You then told me that virtually every religion in the world is an example and gave an extensive list. I demonstrated that the Catholic faith stands as an example of a religion with a creation myth that is not really core to the religion. As for qualifications, anyone can talk about religion, it is up to you whether you discuss it intelligently. I would suggest that you start with developing the skill of being able to correctly note who said what, then work up to the skill of being able to give references backing up claims that you choose to make. (It helps when you don't make sweeping claims.)
    - ars 15y ago
      BTW you misunderstood what I said about creation. I wasn't talking about how creation happened (for example Genesis). I was talking about that there was an active creation by something (God). I'm not talking about creation of the Earth and animals - I'm talking about creation of existence.

btilly 15y ago

That is a very sweeping claim. I'm certainly not qualified to talk about every one of those religions. I doubt that you are either. Also the existence of a creation myth does not mean that it is particularly important to that religion. For instance the Catholic faith has a detailed creation myth in the Bible. However the official statements from leaders of that faith (see, for instance, Pope John Paul's October 22, 1996 address where he says that "evolution is more than a hypothesis") accepts the truth of the scientific consensus on how the world came to be, even though it is in direct and obvious conflict with their creation myth. Yes, I know all of the logical arguments you can make for the creation myths being central to the faith. They have been made before, including by a variety of Catholics. However the current belief of many millions of Catholics, and the official statements of the church, demonstrate that their creation myth is NOT, in fact, central to the religion.

true_religion 15y ago
Don't narrow this down to a discussion about creation myths when you said it was about creation myths, the existence of dieties, and many other things that westerns consider part of a religion. If you lack the mystical faith-based aspects of religion then are you a religion? If so, then why isn't Confusianism a religion? Why isn't Neitzchism a religion? Secondly, I don't know what kind of qualifications one needs to talk about religion, but if ordinary people can no longer do it then what you are encouraging is a priesthood, and not a science.
- btilly 15y ago
  Excuse me, I said? Where? Provide me a link. Here is a hint. The point about creation myths was brought up at http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3901527 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3901527 by someone named ars. I registered an objection. You then told me that virtually every religion in the world is an example and gave an extensive list. I demonstrated that the Catholic faith stands as an example of a religion with a creation myth that is not really core to the religion. As for qualifications, anyone can talk about religion, it is up to you whether you discuss it intelligently. I would suggest that you start with developing the skill of being able to correctly note who said what, then work up to the skill of being able to give references backing up claims that you choose to make. (It helps when you don't make sweeping claims.)
  - ars 15y ago
    BTW you misunderstood what I said about creation. I wasn't talking about how creation happened (for example Genesis). I was talking about that there was an active creation by something (God). I'm not talking about creation of the Earth and animals - I'm talking about creation of existence.