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.

All non-westerners had to adapt to this word, because the western people in the 19th century thought that every culture or civilization (in fact all human beings) must have a “religion”, or some equivalent to that.

Shinto is basically a 19th century invention with the Japanese modernity, to build a “native” religion which could withstand christianity.

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 don’t grok your example.

In other places, including the US, it seems to be as strong as ever.

“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.””

Actually, no. In reality, he started off by thinking that a series of semi-supreme beings made each little bit. It wasn’t until later than the monotheistic god idea came along, basically as one better.

And you can disprove God based on science, provided you take the Bible reasonably literally and as the word of God and all that. Any claims of God’s actions in it that do not measure up to observed reality will do that. It’s like a car brochure: the brochure says the Toyota Faith will go from 0 to 100 in negative ten seconds, and reality says that’s not how the world works. So in the absence of any actual car to test, we must assume that Toyota are talking through their collective hat.

“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.

No, but it does entail a fair amount of naughty pleasure and carnal sins.

There are in fact some who argue that a religion requires a god, and as Buddhism lacks such, it is not a true religion. No theos, no theology.

“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.

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.

Buddhism and Shinto are mostly secular, like Judaism in the States. In Japan, Buddhism is a culture. People go to temples for certain events because that’s what you do. That rural temples are being hard-hit isn’t any indication of a “loss of faith”, but is rather a sign of a transforming culture.

A hermit seeking enlightenment in solitary confinement outside of society is just as much a part of “religion” as Christian churches are, or Mosques, or Temples whether Jewish or Buddhist, or a discussion panel on the theory of evolution.

For the scientific community, “religion” has nearly become a curse word. What I think Anon actually feels is that he is “dissatisfied with [faith-based] religions”. They don’t fill whatever needs he has in search of something beyond himself. Maybe it’s politics that will do the trick. Or humanitarian work. Maybe he would feel a sense of accomplishment taking part in philosophical debates on the rationalization of the emotion of love in humans and, to a further extent, across species.

A cuppa sounds pretty good right about now. Cheers.

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

Yeah. How ridiculous is that? There should be a name for those sorts of acts like…”Crusade” or … “Manifest Destiny” or somtehing.

“I don’t hate Muslims, I dislike religion.”

Unyielding belief in anything is religion. I think what you dislike is “organized religion”.

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

What else would you have us do? Keep on believing in fabrications and fairy tales for the benefit of the local clergy?

Set up a system of sponsorship if the local community values the temple as a place of rest and a recluse for quiet thought. If that doesn’t work, than mr Toyoma should find a real job instead of a purely symbolic one. Perhaps he can set up cheap lodging for passing hikers if the surrounding area is alluring enough?