Which one and why?

[ianb321red]

Then why is Judaism on the list? Buddhism is almost as old, and has a far larger following.

Your list of major religions should really look something more like this.

Is Buddhism a religion though? I guess this depends on which definition of religion you use....

I personally always viewed Buddhism more as a philosophy than a religion...

 

[Syrokal]

Is Buddhism a religion though? I guess this depends on which definition of religion you use....

I personally always viewed Buddhism more as a philosophy than a religion...

It's definitely a religion, it meats every Criteria and the vast majority of it's participants class it as such.

This concept that it's "Not a religion just a philosophy" arose purely out of Western Converts keen to separate themselves from the normal concepts of western society even further.

 

[SithDoughnut]

Is Buddhism a religion though? I guess this depends on which definition of religion you use....

I personally always viewed Buddhism more as a philosophy than a religion...

I've always considered religion to basically be a collection of spiritual philosophies.

Wikipedia puts it like this:

Religion is a collection of belief systems, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to spirituality and, sometimes, to moral values. Many religions have narratives, symbols, traditions and sacred histories that are intended to give meaning to life or to explain the origin of life or the Universe. They tend to derive morality, ethics, religious laws or a preferred lifestyle from their ideas about the cosmos and human nature.

I would say that Buddhism fits in here. Some people require a god and various other things, but that tends to result in a very Abrahamic definition of religion. There isn't a divide between religion and philosophy like some people say, because a religion is a philosophy.

 

[ianb321red]

Ok, so since Buddhism is a religion and is atheistic (in that it denies the supernatural) then it would be correct to say that atheism is technically a religion as well then?

I totaly realise that this is no more than playing with semantics and I'm not going anywhere with this.....

 

[SithDoughnut]

Ok, so since Buddhism is a religion and is atheistic (in that it denies the supernatural) then it would be correct to say that atheism is technically a religion as well then?

I totaly realise that this is no more than playing with semantics and I'm not going anywhere with this.....

Fair enough, I'm a language student so semantics is my thing

No, atheism is not a religion, because it is a single position on a single idea (theism). It makes no moral statements, no philosophical statements, and doesn't actually say anything about spirituality.

As you've said, Buddhism is a religion and is atheistic, and that should really give you the answer there - if atheism is a religion, then is Buddhism a denomination of atheism? Of course not, because atheism is an element of Buddhism (but not all Buddhism, IIRC). It can be part of a religion, but in itself it is far too small to actually fit any definition of religion that I know of.

Put another way, if atheism is a religion, then the definition of religion must be "a position on the existence of gods". In that case, there are 2 (or possibly 3) religions: atheism and theism (which you could possibly split into monotheism and pantheism). Christianity is no longer a religion in itself, but simply a sect of theism.

 

[Syrokal]

Ok, so since Buddhism is a religion and is atheistic (in that it denies the supernatural) then it would be correct to say that atheism is technically a religion as well then?

Buddhism does not deny the supernatural.

All Key Buddhists texts, and Buddhists traditions include hundreds of deity, different plains of existence, circles of hell and paradise, reincarnation and spirits.

The main key is Buddhism simply states that none of this is important, that God or god's do not matter and that there is a simple way out of the whole system.

But you will find many Buddhist temples and shrines which have regular service to deitys, and have many discourses and stances on the "supernatural".

 

[lismore]

To me , yes

But look at all the phrases in the English language that were inspired by the bible:

Bible Phrases - a list of everyday phrases that come from the Bible.

Christianity has had a huge influence on Western Culture.

 

[King Mob]

But look at all the phrases in the English language that were inspired by the bible:

Bible Phrases - a list of everyday phrases that come from the Bible.

Christianity has had a huge influence on Western Culture.

Undoubtedly!

Dead metaphors and clichés exist in many forms and have a history stepped in many cultures and beliefs.

Does that make biblical teachings any more relevant?

 

[lismore]

Does that make biblical teachings any more relevant?

Well Christians would say 'yes'!

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Well Christians would say 'yes'!

I fail to see how linguistic longevity makes something relevant, especially when the phrase is taken out of context - Land of Nod is a perfect example.

 

[lismore]

I fail to see how linguistic longevity makes something relevant, especially when the phrase is taken out of context - Land of Nod is a perfect example.

Perhaps others will succeed where you failed

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Perhaps others will succeed where you failed

And rather than provide an explanation they'll keep it to themselves? That's very selfish.

Perhaps you could tell me how Land of Nod is relevant.

I also like this as evidence of biblical origin of a phrase A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. So basically it is a mediaeval proverb and does not appear in biblical texts - but it is still a phrase of biblical origin?

 

[ianb321red]

Undoubtedly!

Dead metaphors and clichés exist in many forms and have a history stepped in many cultures and beliefs.

Does that make biblical teachings any more relevant?

I think the point being made here though was the reach of Christian influence which is separate to it's relevance.

Whether biblical teachings are relevant or not should be approached using a different line of argument....