I’m afraid Jesus is perhaps the most reverent figure recorded in human history, and the Christian bible remains the worldwide best seller.
Science and Nihilism are both not religions. Science is the study of natural phenomenon and nilhilism rejects and even condemns the concept of religion.
I’m afraid of that too…
And yes, I agree with your bible assertion.
Despite that though, I still think there are more muslims in the world just because of the populations in those countries, but like I said… I could be wrong, that stat was from a while ago.
Religion is based on the premise of faith; truth ahead of logic so to speak.
Science is based on induction, faith in repitition/continued uniformity in its laws.
Faith in the past, faith in future… where is the real difference? I know what you’re saying… but if you look closely enough, they are actually very similar.
Nihilism, at least by its theoretical definition is a religion albiet a private one. Not all religions must be theistic, they merely require belief.
here’s an answer to the question from adherents.com:
http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html
or here, on wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religions
try harder dan.
Bah, alright I appologize first for being wrong about islam, and secondly for not thinking of just looking it up.
Wiki rules…
Well, the Muslim population is growing, though most of the major Muslim nations don’t really give citizens much of a choice, it’s growing nonetheless.
I call it a nonempirical hypothesis, but I guess you can refer to it as faith just the same.
Religion and science are completely different nature. They ask totally different questions; a scientists exaimes a natural phenomena, observes what happends when this or that happens to it, and records it. A theologian looks at all natural phenomena and attempts to understand the meaning behind it or idenifies the “big picture”.
Pardon, but I don’t understand your proposition. Could you possiably eleborate a bit more?
That’s quite a general and vague definition. If that is so, then my harsh and epic restroom cleansing experiances would fit in the same catagory.
you don’t have to apologize to me OG. I still like you.
cheers,
gemty
Gemty,
Apologia,
A theologian could do this…
A scientist could do that.
My point is that some pray to the induction gods to keep up their end of the bargain while some pray to jesus to keep up his end of the bargain.
Neither has been proven more than the other. Science, like religion is a patchwork of evolving societal truths.
What do you considered to be “proven”? If proven to you means empirically demonstrated, than that is, of course, impossiable given a nonempirical hypothesis.
You included mormanism and taoism but not hinduism, sihkism or judaism? 
Apparently the 4th most popular religion in Britain is that of the Jedi. It either means were a bunch of nerds or atheists with a sense of humour. If this was done in america id say it was down to nerds.
I believe there was some discontent in the UK that the government were asking about religion in the census. Some student group started a campaign to get people to say “Jedi”. It worked. If you don’t like that explanation, you better take your light saber on your next trip to Britain…
Can the Wiki really be right that only 6% of the world is Buddhist?
A non empiracle hypothesis is still rooted in the empiracle world, I mean we need data to create arguments.
What is the causal mechanism? I think it’s safe to say it lies outside of the empiracle world as so far all we’ve been able to actually experience are the particles moved. We see the effects, but no one knows what it is, or if it’s even there.
I think you’re misunderstanding me, I’m not saying that they are the same, just that they are diametrically similar in that they start from an assumption that has still gone unverified.
About the wonderful stats that was reported. How can we base on these stats. When we live in a flux. One religion is greater than another today, but it will change.
good try dan.
can you tell me why they have a lot of followers?
Perhaps you will say , population or pursuassion.
If it is because of the population of the religion we ought to follow it, then it is wrong.
If it is by persuassion , one will discriminate the other. IS it possible to be all religion, as it is possible to study all? Is it possible to be an atheist and not a atheist? What does all religion have that makes it a religion?
No, actually they can’t.
In fact, no survey could be right about these percentages.
He made this thread to target Christianity methinks (especially since it was four of the nine options).
One thing to remember is this was taken from people answering “What is your religion?” on a survey. (Personally, I only answer the “required” boxes on those things; they’re sooo tedious.) Many people assume “religion” means “organized religion”, not personal metaphysical ideas. Also, 6% is a lot: 708 million people.
Why did you make this thread about the greatness of a religion’s size then?
Social, economic, and cultural tendencies among distinct populations of people.
You don’t seem to be answering your own question, but I agree, we shouldn’t just follow along because everyone else is.
I don’t understand what you’re asking.
They can be accurate though; they can give us a general sense of how religious thought is distributed across the world.
I’m surprised that things like sex worship died out in religion.
Generally, most popular religions are most appealing.
Sorrie. Maybe I should have added etc, and so forth.
Alundra ~
Is it possible to participate or be a member in all organized and established religions? Simply be united with all, without the consent of the authority of each founed religion.
Does the stats include dead followers?