Hard times for rural temples in Japan

Japanese people aren’t very religious to begin with anyway.

That all depends on the vigour of the local congregation. If the community feels it needs a temple, then they should support it. If not, then it has no place in society other than for its architectural and cultural value. Is it a nice traditional wooden building? Set up a trust for its upkeep and find a way to either exploit it in a respectful manner, or find sponsors who do value its religious significance.

The same goes for churches, mosques and shrines, although unfortunately, mosques don’t seem to suffer from this problem yet.

>> Why the hate for muslim’s?

Hatred? Read carefully, I merely point out my disappointment in that religion’s enduring strength and customer loyalty.

If one religion becomes more popular than another, existing cultural notions, norms and values erode as an effect. This is acceptable if such a group represents the vast majority, but not if the vast majority is a mix of atheists, agnostics and Christians in various flavours. This point of view is valid for any religion, not in the least Christianity and Judaism.

I don’t hate Muslims, I dislike religion.

The use of “religion” to mean an unyielding belief is a newer and lesser sense than its generally accepted sense of spiritual belief. This secondary use is often employed by religious people when arguing with non-religious people to “prove” that the non-religious people are in fact “religious.” This is completely begging the question: it is like those who say, in regard to faith, “don’t you have faith? Do you have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow?” I think in the context Anon used it is perfectly clear what sense of religion was meant. Why the need for such dogmatism?

Now since I drink tea religiously each day, I shall pop off and have a cuppa (“In Nomine Patri et Fili et Earlus Grey….”)

>> Alex

Nope. I mean I dislike religion. I dislike that human phenomenon of sizeable groups of people believing in a common God(s) and the associated books, scrolls and thetans. This includes, as seems to be the popular definition, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Shintō, Scientology, Hinduism and similar large collective belief systems sporting one or more gods or creators.

I dislike religion. Science by definition isn’t. My goal in life is to enjoy it, and if possible help others to do so to. I might be able to do that by advancing science, or developing something useful, or act as an intermediary between users of different languages. That all seems quite fulfilling to me, and I suffer no complaints of spiritual emptiness.

I dislike people that stand in the way of happiness and progress. I dislike belief systems that stand in the way of happiness and progress. I dislike religion. No more, no less.

You are really twisting the concept of religion here, to its broadest possible extremes, whereby any set of ideas becomes “religion.” Any term so loosely used ceases to have much meaning, as the first half of the debate is occupied with defining terms and making sure what Person A is not talking about vows of silence and the monastic life and Person B is not talking about how great Major League Baseball is.

“They don’t fill whatever needs he has in search of something beyond himself.”
Wow, that’s a big presumption. While you claim to be “mostly” scientific, your arguments so far have been soundly religious – theological – in nature: “even science is a religion” and “those who reject [organized] religion lack meaning in their lives” are classic tactics by the True Believers.

Filipino–check out hedonism. It’s not all that bad. Don’t let its current image of sex and gluttony and greed fool you.

Anon: “I dislike people that stand in the way of happiness and progress. I dislike belief systems that stand in the way of happiness and progress. I dislike religion. No more, no less.”

“No more, no less” indeed. I’m not attempting to justify religions (in the very traditional sense), just pointing out that opponents of the system can be just as intolerant as proponents of the system; two sides of the same coin.

I find strikingly similar characteristics in the green movement that I can see in the Jesus movement. You’ve got people who abuse power for their own agendas in both cases. You have radicals who are willing harm others for their own beliefs.

Since you’ve stated your opinions, I’ll state mine – I think science has the greatest potential to help society. I’m very inquisitive by nature, and I don’t like to accept anything as “fact” until I see evidence of it or the research that went into making some conclusion. I don’t rely on any single book as an unfailing source of truth. I just think that all of the characteristics you find so abhorrent in religion aren’t exclusive to religion at all. What you’re describing are “humans”.

Overthinker: Humans, by nature, strive for something beyond themselves. That’s why we want new cars, new houses, technological advancement, enlightenment, knowledge, power, and abs like the guys from the movie 300.

The concept of a supreme being is evidence itself – Man is so enthralled with himself that, as he stood in his meager dwelling that he built with his own two hands, and he looks down at his fields that he plows with the tools that he made, and he looks beyond his domain into the hills and oceans and the vast sky above him, the first thing he thinks is, “Wow, I could never have built all of this. A supreme being must have made it all, someone far stronger than I.”

The idea of God is, in all likeliness, the result of Man’s self-centered view of the world. But still, being as enthralled with both science and philosophy as I am, I can not disprove God(s), therefore I must accept the concept as a possibility, if not a very likely one. I can not, on faith alone, disbelieve in the idea.

“I trust you do not, on faith, also disbelieve that a small copper teapot is currently in orbit around Mars.”

I don’t grok your example.

I don’t see where you read into me accepting all possibilities as equal?

Here’s what I said:
“The idea of God is, in all likeliness, the result of Man’s self-centered view of the world. But still, being as enthralled with both science and philosophy as I am, I can not disprove God(s), therefore I must accept the concept as a possibility, if not a very likely one. I can not, on faith alone, disbelieve in the idea.”

It’s possible, not probable. I don’t deny it outright, but I simply state my doubt and acknowledge it as a possibility.

The idea of God(s) is a much more difficult concept to disprove than a copper pot orbiting Mars, because copper pots can be accounted for, but God(s) can’t. I also previously stated, “I don’t rely on any single book as an unfailing source of truth.” That’s why I don’t feel that it is valid to “take the Bible reasonably literally and as the word of God and all that.” Books were written by man and translated by man, and to err is what man does best! The (non)existence of God(s) is not affected by the laws of men, just like you can’t disprove America through inaccurate historical texts.

Now, what would be a completely reasonable statement is something like, “I have a theory that no God exists.” That’s perfectly legitimate. Good luck either proving or disproving it, though. The argument inevitably comes back to, “I’m right because I believe,” no matter which side you argue for!

“I can not disprove God(s), therefore I must accept the concept as a possibility”

That’s what I was referring to. The copper thing is not the best example, just one that I have often come across.

Since the Bible is the only source for knowing the nature of God (plus the Tamuld and Koran if you like) then any God, in the Judeo-Christian sense of the term, must be examined through the Bible.

Many Shinto rites do indeed date all the way back to the Meiji era, but Buddhism is far closer, especially in the popularist sects, to the European concept of religion.

I agree.