[mike777]

so many points so little time.

At the very least I think posters go too far to say buddihism is not a religion.

Buddhism is a dharmic religion


http://en.wikipedia....uddhistBuddhism is a dharmic religion

[the hog]

Mike, like Arend I don't think Wikipedia is a reliable source. I guess it depends what you meany by religion. I have always argued that religion is the belief in a "God." Bhuddists do believe in reincarnation, but there is no God in their beliefs. Bhudda is definitely NOT a God, just a being who has reached nirvana or enlightenment. They believe that this path is open to all, even you. (Just kidding.) That is a concept totally alien from anything taught in any religion. No religion comes even close to implying that man can assume God like status.

[mike777]

Buddhism has the characteristics of what would be expected in a cosmic religion for the future: it transcends a personal God, avoids dogmas and theology; it covers both the natural & spiritual, and it is based on a religious sense aspiring from the experience of all things, natural and spiritual, as a meaningful unity" A widely cited, but spurious quotation attributed to Albert Einstein 1
"The greatest achievement is selflessness.
The greatest worth is self-mastery.


http://www.religious...rg/buddhism.htm


http://darahasa.ca/

[irdoz]

I'm an atheist and a fan of Singer's (Australian bioethicist).

This thread makes me anxious. I see two sets of strongly held belief systems speaking but not really having a dialogue - like two non-intersecting circles of flawed logic that will spin separately forever. I get the same reaction to fundamenatlist Islam versus fundamentalist Christians.

I fear what humanity is facing this century though global warming and a looming food crisis through destruction of arable land (by increasing population, rise in sea water and climate change). With whats looming youd hope we'd put all our focus on it. But instead we have neoliberals like the Australian prime minister and American president who believe it is all about expanding markets (their solution for everything) and growth - and are prepared to go to war to open up new markets (very moral and ethical). They want to accelerate the very things that are causing the looming global crisis. The gulf between atheists and Christians seems as wide as that between people concerned about global warming and neoliberals.

On another point, Im surprised about the bald statements that Hitler was an atheist. Until 1935 he was a self-identified Christian and used quotes from the bible to justify many of his policies. As I undertand it, after 1935 he abandoned 'religion' because he saw it as a threat to his power but he also banned atheism (and they were imprisoned).

[mike777]

yes expandingmarkets(growth).

Many believe this is the real problem not the solution...see many other posts......

"I fear what humanity is facing this century though global warming and a looming food crisis through destruction of arable land (by increasing population, rise in sea water and climate change). With whats looming youd hope we'd put all our focus on it. But instead we have neoliberals like the Australian prime minister and American president who believe it is all about expanding markets (their solution for everything) and growth - and are prepared to go to war to open up new markets (very moral and ethical). They want to accelerate the very things that are causing the looming global crisis. The gulf between atheists and Christians seems as wide as that between people concerned about global warming and neoliberals."





Great post...you either think this post is insane nonsense or the real truth.

[Codo]

Quote

They really seem to believe that without religion there would be less war and cruelity. IMHO this is simply not true.
It is true, that many horrible things had happen in the name of god.
But who do really believe that the crusades, the inqusition, the fight in serbia/North Ireland or whatever are really for the spread of a religion?

Sorry, I totally disagree with you on this one. Sure these wars were about power - the power of one religion having the major influence in government and in decision making as opposed to the other. To argue eg that the Irish struggle was anything but a religious war is just plain incorrect historically. This is not to say that religion is the ONLY cause of war. It is a major one though. If the Crusades weren't a religious war, then what were they? The Christian Church wanted to extend its influence over the "Holy Land".
To argue that the current struggle with fundementalist Muslims is not a religious war is naive. Look at some of th pronouncements made by the mullahs. Convert or die.

But this is the main point: There are people who SAY they do it for their religion.
But do you really belive them?
IF Mr Bush tells that his war for oil was a Gods Mmission and that god told him to do so, do you believe him?
I don´t. And I don´t believe the mullahs either.

And if the conflict in Ireland was about religion, why was it just in Ireland? Here in Germany we have catholics and protestants but no war.
The reasons for the civil war in north ireland are different. Some irish helped the brits, some had their heart still with the republic of Ireland. This made the big problems.

And the crusades: There had been many alliances in that time, christians with muslims against other cristians, which is a clear proove for my statement that they did it for power and influence. not for their believes.

[mike777]

"And if the conflict in Ireland was about religion, why was it just in Ireland? Here in Germany we have catholics and protestants but no war."



What happened to the Muslims?
1) how many catholics go to church in germany every week?
2) how many prots. go to church in germany every week?
3) how many muslims?

Facts about germany would help..not guesses.

Note my question...how many go to church or mosque every week? not once a year.

If not Germany...how about France what are the stats?


http://www.usatoday....ion-cover_x.htm

http://news.bbc.co.u...ope/4385768.stm


These may be out of date numbers. You may have better information

None of this means war......people who vote count.

[the hog]

mike777, on Aug 21 2007, 04:13 PM, said:

Buddhism has the characteristics of what would be expected in a cosmic religion for the future: it transcends a personal God, avoids dogmas and theology; it covers both the natural & spiritual, and it is based on a religious sense aspiring from the experience of all things, natural and spiritual, as a meaningful unity" A widely cited, but spurious quotation attributed to Albert Einstein 1
"The greatest achievement is selflessness.
The greatest worth is self-mastery.


http://www.religious...rg/buddhism.htm


http://darahasa.ca/

Mike, I can't really argue too much with your definition, but I still think the word religion is not correct. I have spoken to a lot of monks and abbots in the past year, trying to get a grasp and understanding of my wife's beliefs - she is Bhuddist of course. Not one of them ever used the word "religion", either in English, Lao or Thai when speaking of their beliefs. It was always "belief" or the Lao word for this. This may be being pedantic, but I DO think there is a difference.

[mike777]

religion is a set of common beliefs and practices generally held by a group of people, often codified as prayer, ritual, and religious law. Religion also encompasses ancestral or cultural traditions, writings,


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion

[the hog]

mike777, on Aug 21 2007, 04:49 PM, said:

religion is a set of common beliefs and practices generally held by a group of people, often codified as prayer, ritual, and religious law. Religion also encompasses ancestral or cultural traditions, writings,


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion

According to that definition virtually anything can be a religion eg atheism or to take it to extremes, the belief that Meckwell are the best pair in the world. It is a common belief, held by a group of people.....
Like I said, don't rely on Wikipedia....

[Fluffy]

I don't know what religion means nor what it is, but I think the main gap is between believing in only pure physics (this is atheism right?) and believing in anything else.

[pbleighton]

Quote

I don't know what religion means nor what it is, but I think the main gap is between believing in only pure physics (this is atheism right?) and believing in anything else.

A LITTLE bit simplistic, no?

Well, I'm an atheist, but I believe in lots of things: don't kill people, the U.S. Constitution, don't pass 13 counts, etc., etc., etc.

Peter

[Gerben42]

When did this thread derail? Oh well...

Quote

Religion also encompasses ancestral or cultural traditions, writings...

I agree one should read the Bible as it is an important and influential piece of work. I did. I think its importance as inspiration for art is unsurpassed in western culture.

For me the truth value is the same of that of for example the Iliad. I'm pretty sure it is based on real events, but like in the Iliad, the divine intervention part should be evaluated keeping into mind the time when it was written (I don't mean written down here), which is in the 1st Century for the New Testament, way earlier for the Old Testament and the Iliad.

[hrothgar]

Few points that I feel obliged to qualify:

1. I posted some references from Wikipedia because Arend asked for any source for the claim that there is a direct positive correlation between atheism and intelligence. I haven’t researched this topic extensively and haven’t read the papers that I referenced. I consider the wikipedia cites as a reasonable starting point for future research rather than a definitive answer.

2. I never claimed (nor do I believe) that there are no intelligent people of faith. I most certain don’t believe that all atheists are smart. However, by and large I do agree with MikeH’s original proposition. I think that there is an inverse relationship between intelligence and strong religious belief. For what it’s worth, I’ll throw out the following data point: I’d say that my circle of close friends encompasses (roughly) 20 people. Most are highly intelligent (MIT and Wesleyan grads for the most part). I can think of about eight who exhibit anything that could really be considered as a “religion”. Four of those are secular Jews and two are Unitarian Universalists. (From my perspective, both of these are more aptly considered lifestyles rather than religions) There is one observant Jew and one observant Christian in the lot. As for the rest, religion simply isn’t an issue in folk’s lives.

3. Personally, I don’t have any issues with religion per see. I couldn’t care less what other folks believe. However, I do have enormous worries about how they come to these beliefs and especially about the rise of top down organizational hierarchies. I think that these types of structures overly concentrate decision making, short circuit constructive criticism, and eliminate proper diligence. Moreover, I see an enormous degree of overlap between religious affiliation and this type of centralized decision making process. In addition, I think that all of the Abrahamic religions have some real issues when it comes to the role of women in society, sexuality, and the like. (There is very little difference between fundamentalist Muslims, fundamentalist Jews, and fundamentalist Christians on these types of issues) As I noted earlier, I don’t really care about folks personal practices, however, when they start trying to force their morals into the public sphere I get quite ticked off.

It’s quite interesting watching the slow disintegration of The Episcopal Church in America and the decline of some of the other of the mainline Protestant Churches. 30 years back, some folks associated with the Scaife Foundation wrote some interesting articles suggesting that the mainline Protestant Churches were too liberal and setting out a strategy to try to neutralize them by starting internal schisms around wedge issues like ordaining women (later extended to acceptance of homosexuality). The strategy seems to have been broadly successful. The inmates seem to be taking over the asylum. I suspect that deliberately forcing these issues is simple accelerating a process that would have naturally taken place over time. (By and large, I think that moderates are drifting away from their churches, leaving the “true believers” behind). It will be interesting to see what happens when the atheists / agnostics finally hit critical mass and start pushing back.

[Al_U_Card]

Mwah hah ha! It's all going according to my evil plan......

I take a group of highly intelligent individuals, sources of imminent danger to the nefarious activities that need to remain hidden to be effective and I introduce my favorite dissipater of rational debate.....RELIGION

Works every time....MWAH HAH HA!

Lew C. Fehr

[Codo]

hrothgar, on Aug 21 2007, 09:56 PM, said:

  However, I do have enormous worries about how they come to these beliefs and especially about the rise of top down organizational hierarchies.  I think that these types of structures overly concentrate decision making, short circuit constructive criticism, and eliminate proper diligence.  Moreover, I see an enormous degree of overlap between religious affiliation and this type of centralized decision making process.

I dislike strong hierachies either, but I cannot see where there is the relationship between this and the named religions. You can find strong hierachies anywhere and you can find quite open systems anywhere.

Quote

In addition, I think that all of the Abrahamic religions have some real issues when it comes to the role of women in society, sexuality, and the like.  (There is very little difference between fundamentalist Muslims, fundamentalist Jews, and fundamentalist Christians on these types of issues)  As I noted earlier, I don’t really care about folks personal practices, however, when they start trying to force their morals into the public sphere I get quite ticked off.

As a portestant christian I really agree that the role of woman could be improved in most big religions. But unluckily the role of women is not equal in most (all?)parts of the world. As far as I know korean standards, Women do still eat in the kitchen at home- after the men finished. (my knowledge is about 20 years old, so maybe it had changed, but it had been so).
Thai ladies and ladies from the former eastern countries are not know to be the spearhead of women liberation either. And these countries are not known as great followers of the abrahamic religions. In India it was quite common practice to kill baby girls just 50 years ago- and it still happens too foten at the countryside. And this attitude was not brought by the brits or the muslims. It was part of their system.
So the role of the women had been unequal anywhere and this is not because of the abrahamic religions.

SActually I doubt that many other ethics had been so strong in working for the equality of men and women then the christian ethics, espacially the protestant ethics.

But I totally agree that anybody who wants to force others to follow their believes is wrong.

Quote

30 years back, some folks associated with the Scaife Foundation wrote some interesting articles suggesting that the mainline Protestant Churches were too liberal and setting out a strategy to try to neutralize them by starting internal schisms around wedge issues like ordaining women (later extended to acceptance of homosexuality).  The strategy seems to have been broadly successful

20 years back I had some trouble with my protestant believes and tried several other religions. But I came back, because the open mind my church has is not very common in other churches. I don´t know if this is the right way for the church, but I know it is the right way for me. So I am used to divorced priests. homosexuallity is accepted and we have female bishops. My church is very liberal and open to other churches as well. They have no problems in marrying protestants with catholics, they try to stay in touch with the other churches, it is really nice to have them.

[pbleighton]

Quote

By and large, I think that moderates are drifting away from their churches, leaving the “true believers” behind

This is true.

I found it interesting that during the Catholic Church's pedophile-protection blowup a few years back, the likelihood of people leaving the church was actually welcomed by many conservative Catholic commentators, who felt that a smaller, more conservative church would be preferable.

They're getting their wish. The New York City archdiocese has been closing lots of its parochial schools.

My father is an agnostic, my mother is an atheist, yet we all went to church (Congregationalist) for years, until my father's insurance business was well established, because it was considered somewhat disreputable to not go to church.

My generation has a lot of secular, non church-going people, some of whom are aheist/agnostic, but the majority of whom have some type of waffly belief, cafeteria Christian without the hell, premarital sex is OK, etc.

I think their children, and to an even greater extent, their grandchildren, will be atheist or agnostic. I think there will likely always be a number of believers, who will likely become as a group more and more conservative in their faith, dwindling in their numbers, and alienated from their societies.

Peter

[Codo]

irdoz, on Aug 21 2007, 06:14 PM, said:

On another point, Im surprised about the bald statements that Hitler was an atheist. Until 1935 he was a self-identified Christian and used quotes from the bible to justify many of his policies. As I undertand it, after 1935 he abandoned 'religion' because he saw it as a threat to his power but he also banned atheism (and they were imprisoned).

He was part of the catholic church till his death, but he wrote that he will destroy all churches after the "Endsieg". He and the Nazis produced some stuff which was based on the old nordic myths.

So I think he was no believer in anything, he just used the religion as long as he thought it was useful.

If you are a believer, you cannot do this, you must stay faithfully in your church.
So he was no believer. And for me a non believer is an atheist.

[Al_U_Card]

The eventual and total polarization of those involved is an inevitable conclusion to the nature of the situation. We are inured into a system (they all have this commonality) so that conflict within society is reduced. Our single problem is the clash of ideologies resulting from the greater and greater availability of discordant and opposite ideas that are easier and easier to gain access to.

Rather than creating a homogeneous mixture, stirring the pot is resulting in a really reactive combination of alternatives. There are only a few possible outcomes that can be envisaged.

1- total chaos resulting in the "tower of Babel" scenario of separation and isolation.

2- the imposition of an outside "force" that suppresses all dissent and difference.

3- the taking of sides wherein two or a few "opposing" camps slug it out to the detriment of all.

and then again, there might be the rapture.....

[mikeh]

Freud wrote (I am paraphrasing, not quoting) that the two most significant intellectual developments in the Western World, over the past 400 years, were the Copernican view of the place of the earth in the universe and the Darwinian view of the evolutionary descent of man. What both had in common is that these views reduced the apparent significance of humanity.

Before Copernicus, humanity viewed itself (and Christianity certainly taught this) as the reason the universe was created. Earth, as the unmoving centre of the universe, with everything revolving around it (and, thus, around us) reflected our central role in God's creation.

Before Darwin, while some theories of evolution were debated, they had little impact because they lacked the essential element of natural selection as the winnowing force that removed less-efficient mutations from the species. And the Christian churches taught that all species were 'created'... indeed, a major argument was that now resurrected as Intelligent Design. We, as humans, were created for a specific purpose: to have dominion over the earth.

Darwin pointed out that the evidence then available (which evidence has expanded vastly since his day) suggested that humanity was a contingent accident: merely one twig on the bush of life... and that we were descended, not from apes, but from a common ancestor of the apes.

This revolution in our view of ourselves has been accepted far more slowly than the Copernican revolution, perhaps because it strikes closer to home in terms of removing our ability to claim special status for ourselves.

I suspect, and hope, that we are at the early stages of a third revolution: the unshackling of our minds from the constraints of organized religion.

As with the first two revolutions, the effect will, in the short term, be to further reduce our pretense that there is anything special or pre-ordained about being human. It seems that many people, including (yes) many intelligent people are terrified of the implications that no 'God' has any particular interest in any of us.

That is similar to the fear that prevents creationists from understanding the splendour of the darwinian approach to evolution.

When I look up at a starry sky, on a clear night, I have a sense of awe, and I very much doubt that my sense of awe is the less for my belief that this sight is the result of physical processes unmediated and unorchestrated by a supernatural being that has some form of watch over us/me.

Atheism requires accepting that we are not special, other than in the very real sense that everything is special.

Does this mean that atheists don't wonder (literally) about 'how' the universe came into being? Not for this atheist.... but the fact that I don't know the answer, the fact that I suspect that the answer may be literally incomprehensible to any human intelligence, does not drive me to postulate a 'God'. Certainly, it does nothing to suggest that there is any 'god' to whom any human can or should 'pray', let alone suggest that the heirarchical structures of organized religion have ANYTHING to do with my sense of wonder.

If my hopes are correct, then within a couple of hundred years, organized religion will wither away and humanity can at last collectively enjoy the fact of our existence without the crutch of any god.

Oh, I know that most religionists will deny that they are motivated by fear.... and most will believe it. I do not mean fear of a vengeful god, altho there is a lot of that in most holy books, but I mean a fear of facing reality unshielded by the illusion of meaning afforded by religion.

One last point, on fear: I remember reading, as a child, a story in Reader's Digest (my parents subscribed). I have since seen this several times but cannot recall to whom the statement is originally attributed:

It goes sort of like this: If you do not believe in God and God exists, then you are screwed for eternity. If you do believe in God, and God does not exist, then you have lost nothing. Therefore the smart money believes in God.

Apart from the fact that belief based on such reasoning hardly seems genuine, the argument is based on fear. I recall, when reading it the first time, being troubled by the idea that God would punish someone merely for not believing in him, even if the person lived a morally perfect life. Nice god And yes, I appreciate that real theology operates on a higher level of sophistry than this silly story.