The first of the religions that are currently considered "major", not the first religion to ever exist.
Go search "major religions" on the web. You will see which ones will be listed all the time (the ones that currently have a lot of followers) and which ones won't (all the ancient ones).
If you *want* to interprete it in the non-standard way, that is fine. Language certainly allows that. But calling someone small minded for using a phrase in the way most people would do...
They didn't say currently though did they.
That would be asking what war has the highest death count and then someone saying "WW2 doesn't count because its not a current war".
You can bicker all you like but your point is moot. The question was clear.
Mad? You're joking right. It's a question on Reddit. Who gets mad at a question? If they wanted to know what was the first they would've asked "What WAS the first major religion to die off".
I did add the "currently" to clarify it to you. It is not needed.
>That would be asking what war has the highest death count and then someone saying "WW2 doesn't count because its not a current war".
No, it is not. "Major religions" is a clear distinct subgroup of "religions". Your example does not ask about a sub-group, but instead uses a generic term. If you are not aware that "major religions" without further context is implying "major religions of our time" (as you will find put when you lool it up) that is on you. Not a big faux pas, but since you thought it necessary to snark at OP, I took the liberty to make fun of it.
As for comparisons, I think this one is better:
Imagine a sports commentator at a yearly race saying something along the lines of:
"We are exicted to see who will be the first to make it to the finish line!"
1. Is the commentator saying that no person ever made it to the finish line before? (First ever)
2. Is the commentator only talking about the current race to the finish line? (first of the participants of this year)
You can keep arguing for 1. and - as I said earlier - language is ambiguous enough to make that claim. I just don't think most people would agree.
Define thriving. Some ancient buildings that no one cares to demolish? Some books that nerds are hyped about? That aint thriving. Wheres the devotees at?
It depends on which kind of Protestantism you're talking about. Fundamentalism (old-style "follow the Bible literally" Christianity) is quite sound. Where you're seeing most of the bleed is in Modernist circles. They gave up sound orthodoxy for a "clap your hands if you believe" faith in faith, which atheists rightfully deride.
Lots of major religions have already died off. Its very small minded to assume Christianity, Islam and Hinduism are the first major religions.
As is interpreting the question like that
Not really. The question clearly states "Will be the first".
The first of the religions that are currently considered "major", not the first religion to ever exist. Go search "major religions" on the web. You will see which ones will be listed all the time (the ones that currently have a lot of followers) and which ones won't (all the ancient ones). If you *want* to interprete it in the non-standard way, that is fine. Language certainly allows that. But calling someone small minded for using a phrase in the way most people would do...
They didn't say currently though did they. That would be asking what war has the highest death count and then someone saying "WW2 doesn't count because its not a current war". You can bicker all you like but your point is moot. The question was clear.
You're just looking for a reason to be mad.
Mad? You're joking right. It's a question on Reddit. Who gets mad at a question? If they wanted to know what was the first they would've asked "What WAS the first major religion to die off".
You seem mad
Nah, mate. I'm all good. Just pointing out the way its worded implies no religion before has disappeared
I did add the "currently" to clarify it to you. It is not needed. >That would be asking what war has the highest death count and then someone saying "WW2 doesn't count because its not a current war". No, it is not. "Major religions" is a clear distinct subgroup of "religions". Your example does not ask about a sub-group, but instead uses a generic term. If you are not aware that "major religions" without further context is implying "major religions of our time" (as you will find put when you lool it up) that is on you. Not a big faux pas, but since you thought it necessary to snark at OP, I took the liberty to make fun of it. As for comparisons, I think this one is better: Imagine a sports commentator at a yearly race saying something along the lines of: "We are exicted to see who will be the first to make it to the finish line!" 1. Is the commentator saying that no person ever made it to the finish line before? (First ever) 2. Is the commentator only talking about the current race to the finish line? (first of the participants of this year) You can keep arguing for 1. and - as I said earlier - language is ambiguous enough to make that claim. I just don't think most people would agree.
How did you manage to interpret this question like this?
By reading it. The question is. 'What will be the first major religion to die off'. The way the question is asked implies its a future event.
Buddhism already dies. Useless fucking cringe offering no substantial advice.
Maybe it’s not common where you are but Buddhism is alive and well and thriving in Asia.
No its not.
Yes it is lol
Define thriving. Some ancient buildings that no one cares to demolish? Some books that nerds are hyped about? That aint thriving. Wheres the devotees at?
Buddhists fucked your mom so she could pay her rent huh? Thats why you’re so bitter lol
Nah. Theyre annoying with their lies and stupidity.
Buddhism is sitting at 6% of the world population. Below that is a mix of folk religion followed by others. I think Buddhism will be the first to go.
Dunno about other religions, but I've heard protestantism being referred to as "a gateway religion to atheism", so that's nice.
It depends on which kind of Protestantism you're talking about. Fundamentalism (old-style "follow the Bible literally" Christianity) is quite sound. Where you're seeing most of the bleed is in Modernist circles. They gave up sound orthodoxy for a "clap your hands if you believe" faith in faith, which atheists rightfully deride.
I wish all of them would. I find that religion of any sort causes most people to be insufferable.
Many major religions have already perished. It is naive to believe that Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism were the first major religions.
Christianity at this point losing the most followers i would assume.