turn me off to Buddhism

[Boring 7]

That's hardly fair.

Rapists are mostly male, does being a male make you a rapist? No.

Murderers and thieves often use guns, are gun-owners all criminals? No.

Mosts horrific acts of genocide and destruction have been done by religious people, are religious people inherently evil? No.

The Bible said "thou shalt not murder" when the Christians killed Jews. The Holy Talmud and the Holy Torah both said "banish/enslave the non-people (non-jews) when they traveled widely and lived peacefully with lots of different religions, the Koran says right now in time of Jihad, "He who claims he fights for Allah fights only for himself, Allah needs no man to fight for him."

It is because people are the most evil horrible things in all of existence and the most beautiful wonders you will ever find. It is because man is a monster and a maestro. It is because we mortals are sinners and saints and all that lies between and what we create contains what we are, our essence placed within our works, be they mighty or small.

To badly butcher a quote from Terry Pratchett: "Deacon Vorbis looked at the torture chamber break room, and there he saw amongst the blood hooks and things a coffee cup with the words '#1 dad' printed upon it, right next to a picture of a family enjoying their vacation with the words 'to all the guys at pit #6, wish you were here'

And it all meant this: that there are hardly any excesses of the most crazed psychopath that cannot easily be duplicated by a normal, kindly family man who just comes in to work every day and has a job to do."

The RCC (I use it for our example for obvious reasons) spent nearly a thousand years protecting knowledge, stimulating learning and art (look up the histories of astronomy and painting some time), and recording the works of man. It also spent that same thousand years stamping out free thinkers, burning heretically creative people at the stake, murdering, crushing, fearing, and hating. What then shall we call the church? Evil Incarnate for the witch trials and inquisitions or the Glorious Defender Good of art and music and history?

I shall call it "human," and thus, divine.

A further note: Japan, who basically watched their god be defeated, imprisoned, and carted off to prison and who is now probably as secular a state as they come still has most of its people, from all walks of life, practice that old-time religion in shrines and temples before going back to their secular life.

MY POINT!!!!!: Religion is a tool. It is primarily a crutch but a man with a broken leg needs a crutch. It is shoes for your feet if you need to save your sole (PUNTASTIC!!!) and if you do not need shoes then rock on, you are one righteous dude(ette). But for those who use their Jesus Ganja to get a mellow buzz there is nothing wrong, unless they are mixing it with Christian Crack and Hindi Heroin to get a hyperactive and murderous high. It is not fair to our nature as individuals to paint all of our species with broad and sweeping strokes.

It helps if you imagine my facial expressions to be similar to the ab man's facial expressions. I am clearly insane.

...

PICTURES!!

[Aeridus]

So in other words, to quote TRON ... "This isn't happening, it only thinks it's happening"?

Close enough.

[Honor]

...religious... ...religions... ...RCC... ...church... ...religion... ...Religion...

Ah... I Saw What You Did There!

While a quick switch from "faith" to "religions" and "church" may well be amusing and rewarding, as topical slight of hand, I think we should impliment Space Mountain Rules, for the moment... "Please keep hands and feet inside the Subject at all times, and wait until the subject has come to a complete stop before changing from one Subject to another."

In order to have a church or religion, you need people who have faith and (usually) people who pretend to have faith, but faith and religion are not the same thing...

Yes... Both people who use are the victims of religious faith, and organized religions as entities in and of themselves have been used for good. But that doesn't mean the delusion, individually or in an organized group, is itself good.

Shall we pretend that there would never have been science or art or community kindness without such delusion? I think not. It's directly translatable to an argument often used in murder trials where the defendant is trying to claim justification... "Lots of people patronize art, science, and learning without fomenting hatred, torture, and war."

By the way... Saying that the RCC "spent nearly a thousand years protecting knowledge (and) stimulating learning" is like saying that a mother who drowned her four year old in the bath was a good mother for nearly four years.


But that's all religion. We were talking about faith... The delusional belief that there is an unknowable authority, which belief is almost always fostered by someone else who may or may not already hold such belief...

None of the benefits of religion actually require such an imaginary authority... Children could theoretically just as easily be raised to a traditional and deeply valued sense of community and social responsibility instead, with the same beneficial results.

Even the sense of well-being and hope could be fostered by a sense of community and societal responsibility. "There may be more to existence after this mortal life, and surely what awaits is better for those who live well than for those who do not." is no more ridiculous than the Invisible Father, but it holds substantially less opportunity for perversion.

The only thing an imaginary god adds to the equation is the ability for an unscrupulous or deranged person to come along and claim to know that god's wishes, or the potential for conflict over who's imaginary god is better.


So, no. I'll agree that religion is "just a tool", perhaps even a dangerous and powerful tool that can be used for good or ill... But even it's use for good is inherently unscrupulous because religious faith itself is a blindfold and a barrier against reality.

Therefore, it is far more accurate to say that faith itself is a detriment that can be twisted and re-purposed for subjective good, rather than the other way around.

[LeftTentacleGreen]

Damn it! I wanted to write a Zombie Christ webcomic.

Religion is a tool alright. It just happens to be a tool that has no really beneficial purpose to anyone except those that really want to cheat society so badly that they'll use an invisible sky genie to promote their agendas or achieve their goals.

[Fnyunj]

Religion is a tool alright. It just happens to be a tool that has no really beneficial purpose to anyone . . . .

Probably not true.

Religion probably had a very, very beneficial and important role to play in primitive pre-literate civilizations.

It remains to be seen whether there's any use for them in literate (or post-literate, if there will be such a thing) civilizations, or whether there's a use for an evolution of this tool, or whether any of the components of this tool (like personal faith) have any valid or beneficial uses.

[Honor]

It just happens to be a tool that has no really beneficial purpose to anyone except those that really want to cheat society so badly that they'll use an invisible sky genie to promote their agendas or achieve their goals.

It also seems to have played an important and valuable role in reminding people which bugs not to eat, how to wash their hands and prepare their food (albeit imperfectly, of course, since it seems to have missed such minor factors as keeping fecal material out of it), to provide reasons for not killing one another before we'd done a very good job of developing secular law, and, like heroine, providing a lot of junkies with a sense of well being.

Which may be disgusting, but still would be counted as "beneficial" by the junkies in question.

[Ce6]

faith is "belief without proof," as defined in this handy dictionary I keep at my desk for looking up words that come up in discussions such as this.
There are other definitions for this word, but that is #1 in this dictionary, and the one which I feel illustrates the danger which Honor is trying to get at here.

In my opinion, for some cases faith is an acceptable trait. I do not have time to re-verify every fact listed in the encyclopedia or the textbooks used in the schools which I have attended throughout my life. Some experiments are easily duplicated and can give me the proof that the facts stated are accurate, but others I have to take on faith based on a positive track record of the sources given.
I also have faith that my parents will pay back the money they have borrowed from me in the past year. I had never lent them such a large sum in the past, and did not review their financial history before assessing a risk factor and thus corresponding interest rate. But by most definitions of the word, my parents are good people, and I was capable and willing to help them with financing and took it on faith that they would pay me back when they are able.
A complete lack of faith is the ultimate state of paranoia, where nobody and nothing can be trusted unless it is verified by one's own senses.

Unfortunately, the risk of faith is in lack of analysis of one's sources.
I am a somewhat scientifically-minded individual, and moderately capable of performing in-depth analysis of various subjects, to determine an actual factual basis behind them.
For many people, it is far easier to accept "Because <insert deity here> says so/made it that way."
An unscrupulous person can exploit this inherent laziness and delude a large amount of people for whatever end.

Convincing people that your product/service is the best and they should give you money for it is advertising.
Convincing them that you have their best interests in mind and they should trust you over a rival to enact such promises is politics.
Convincing them that they should live their lives according to your rules and should harbor an inherent distrust for anyone or anything who questions or contradicts any of your rules is religion.

[Swordsman3003]

In primitive society....religion fucked a lot of people.

I've been reading about the Aztecs for my elective class:

"Religion and Violence"

[Kittyboymuffin]

"Religion and Violence"

Wouldn't "Sects and Violence" be a better name? :3

[Honor]

"Religion and Violence"

Wouldn't "Sects and Violence" be a better name? :3

No. A "sect" is just a sub-set of a given religion that's considered radical or unorthodox by some other sect of the same religion.

[Halo299]

"Religion and Violence"

Wouldn't "Sects and Violence" be a better name? :3

i see what you were going for there.

ok, since this ban wagon is not going away i am going to jump on for a bit.

in my view faith is not something that is used when you lack the proof to belief otherwise, it is something to use when you DON'T WANT to know other wise.

if someone asked me what the earths core was made of i would have to say that i honestly don't know. i could look it up, but off the top of my head i just don't know.

OR

i could say that the earths core is made of what ever god wanted it to be made out of.

you see, in the first example i don't know any more then i do in the second, but i am admitting that i don't know and that the answer is out there if i want to go look for it.

in the second i am sidestepping the question and discrediting it. I have faith that what ever is there is there because god put it there so there is no reason to look any further or think about it ever again.

not the best example i could have used, but i am supposed to be doing homework right now.

-halo

[Honor]

not all that much time right now...

I just wanted to reiterate, from the last thread we talked about faith in, that I feel there is a substantial difference between "faith" in religious doctrine, without cause or collaborating proof, and "faith" in scientific findings we haven't replicated ourselves...

I haven't, for instance, replicated the study on sexual behavior during estris that I mentioned in the "what is love" thread, but I feel confident in "believing" it for several reasons... It's peer reviewed... the source is a source that has provided reliable information in the past, to myself (as part of the readership, not personally) and others... earned reputation is a factor...

In other words, there are good, well founded reasons to believe her, all based on solid evidence, in some degree... Thus the evidence of the source provides a degree of evidence of the "fact"... Which religious "fact" also lacks.

[SpiffyKlingon]

I'm a devout worshiper of the Divine Solipsist.

Too bad he doesn't believe in me

[Putaro]

Well, as someone who lives in a country where the majority of people identify as Buddhists, I'd have to say that it's a religion. My wife's father passed away a few years ago so I have spent a lot of time in Buddhist ceremonies. It certainly has all the trappings of a religion.

That's not to say that Buddhism doesn't have a lot of nice philosophy - it does. However, it has an element of faith - that your actions in this world will determine what happens after you die - your rebirth or escape. Japanese Buddhism seems to have a pretty decent amount of supernatural stuff in it.

I like Buddhism. I don't see why a religion has to be edgy or judgemental. I like that Buddhists don't send missionaries around the world to convince other people to be Buddhists or blow themselves (and others) up so that people will think their religion is better. They always have nice snacks when I go to the temple as well.

Buddhism (at least the Japanese varient) has its own set of internal contradictions. Theoretically you are reincarnated after a period (I think it was 75 days). However, there's also a holiday every year (Obon) where the spirits of the dead come home and you're supposed to put out lights and stuff to guide them back and leave some food out for them. My wife asked the priest about that and he said "Well, that's a good question. I don't know the answer" - which I really respected.

Religion is a tool alright. It just happens to be a tool that has no really beneficial purpose to anyone except those that really want to cheat society so badly that they'll use an invisible sky genie to promote their agendas or achieve their goals

It certainly is used that way a lot. I would say that we all need some philosophy. Morals and rules for respecting each other. I have a problem with people who require some kind of supernatural punishment in order to live their lives according to their chosen philosophy.

My personal philosophy can best be described as Quantum Existentialism, with the idea that the entire multiverse is a single zero dimensional particle of quasi-mass-energy that forms an infinitely large probability field due to its inability to be observed by an outside observer, and it "interacts" with itself based on how each probable location of the particle affects all other probable locations. Thus we have the "illusion" of time, space, and memory.

Of course, most people would probably be a bit baffled by that idea, to say the least.

Sorry, I just can't resist. Those of us who do get what you're saying would describe it as "wanking".

[Swordsman3003]

Two things:

I wouldn't respect somebody who doesn't even understand their own teachings.

And for Aeridus:

I was wondering, what do you think of this idea:

"People shouldn't worry about whether or not they believe in god. After all, if you are a character in a sleeping man's dream, you should be far more worried about whether or not he believes in you."

[Honor]

Well, as someone who lives in a country where the majority of people identify as Buddhists, I'd have to say that it's a religion... It certainly has all the trappings of a religion.

True enough. But then, a lot of things have all the trappings of a religion.

We could also say that a lot of non-buddhists refer to buddhism as a religion... But then, a lot of non-X's refer to X as a religion. Anne Coulter refers to political and social liberalism as a religion... Doesn't make it so.

Living a buddhist "path" might be said to require faith in the idea of a reward in the next life, but that belies the idea that it could be followed just because of perceived rewards in this life. One could as easily say that a devotion to science requires a faith in the idea that knowledge will improve life. One could say that investing requires a faith that investments will appreciate in value. But neither of these are religions.

When it all comes down to nuts, guts, and feathers... Every buddhist thinker I've been exposed to, starting with the first one, said "it's not a religion". Given that it clearly denies the existence of a higher being, I'm tempted to take them at their word.

But, really, it's just splitting hairs.

[Aeridus]

My personal philosophy can best be described as Quantum Existentialism, with the idea that the entire multiverse is a single zero dimensional particle of quasi-mass-energy that forms an infinitely large probability field due to its inability to be observed by an outside observer, and it "interacts" with itself based on how each probable location of the particle affects all other probable locations. Thus we have the "illusion" of time, space, and memory.

Of course, most people would probably be a bit baffled by that idea, to say the least.

Sorry, I just can't resist. Those of us who do get what you're saying would describe it as "wanking".

Quite true... I once explained it to a friend by saying, "Effectively, the zero-dimensional particle interacts with itself in order for the universe to exist. And if God is the particle, this means that God masturbates."

And for Aeridus:

I was wondering, what do you think of this idea:

"People shouldn't worry about whether or not they believe in god. After all, if you are a character in a sleeping man's dream, you should be far more worried about whether or not he believes in you."

Heheh, very well put. Reminds me of Through The Looking Glass.

[Fnyunj]

. . . . Given that it clearly denies the existence of a higher being, I'm tempted to take them at their word.

But, really, it's just splitting hairs.

really.

I mean, never mind the bit about Buddha's mother being impregnated by an elephant. . . (or in various interpretations, dreaming of being entered by an elephant) - or that Siddharta was said to have been of royal heritage, and therefore, a living descendant of the Sun God.

They can deny being a religion all they want.
It's sure convenient for them to claim to be a religion when they want 503(c) tax status like the Church of Scientology.

There's plenty of religious and mystic rigamarole surrounding Buddhism too. And I think it happens to any great truth. That people are drawn to it, and there's always going to be a certain fraction of people who are going to add their own spin to the story. And that's the culture.

(but that doesn't mean that any given meme is not wholly crap to the core - like scientology, for glaring example; L. Ron Hubbard, you may have made a lot of money, but you're no Robert Anton Wilson).

The question is: can one deconstruct any of these religions, dig through all the crap, (as is my Sysiphusian task, for my own chosen hooey), and find the grain of truth in the pile of shit?
Maybe one can, maybe one can't. But I'm pretty sure that even if one can find that grain of truth, there's no way of telling it for what it is - and THAT is the difference between religion and science.

Because at the heart of a scientific-based meme, where you will also invariably find a grain of scientific truth wrapped in a whole bunch of hooey - (designed to raise funds, or influence politicians, piss people off, sell newspapers, or just make some people sound smarter than they are); you CAN find the grain of truth in the middle: you CAN prove that it's true, and you CAN know that you've really found it, because, hopefully, the science was sound, the original scientist had a good method, and published enough details that you can reproduce the results. (and in some sciences, like psychology, sociology, climatology, and especially economics, (the science I love to hate) there are situations where it's just impossible to reproduce results, because the conditions are just not feasible to reproduce, or there's no experimental control (like, say, another planet earth, only one that's not populated by an industrialized human species).)

However - I'm still not prepared to dismiss EVERYTHING that isn't based on a scientifically proven theory. Because - while I find it hard to believe that the one guy out of billions who was lucky enough or smart enough to just happen to figure out how to "become enlightened", also just happened to be a descendant of divinity - I'm also prepared to ask myself: what do I think about my reality, if that were true? No matter how ridiculous the proposition is, you can't close your mind off to the "what if" question.

Honor, I don't know if you've ever done the basic read on Scientology, but the mythology goes like this; supposedly, like hundreds of millions of years ago, there was this race of super-powerful aliens, and they were having a civil war, and the "bad guys" won, and the "good guys" were able to escape to prehistoric Earth, but once they got here, the bad guys nuked them, and imprisoned their (rough equivalent concept to "soul") in a volcano. These "souls" now inhabit our bodies, and if we humans can only undo the psychic "damage" done during our lifetimes, and previous lifetimes, through secret techniques and rituals known only to the CoS "priesthood", we can unlock our hidden powers. . . blah blah blah - pretty funny stuff. Millions of people believe in this crap too, sad to say. Even though the story behind the relatively recent origin of their religion is pretty well known, (that L. Ron Hubbard started the religion as a hoax, to make money; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology_controversy). But still, I think it's important, as a thinking, rational being, to approach any mind-trap like this, and pretend you believe in it. Ask yourself; what would the world be like if this were true - and I believed it? - or if I didn't believe it? - And by doing that: you do not make yourself responsible for their behavior. If their beliefs are wrong, then walk away. If they blow something up, that's just people blowing something up. We've been blowing shit up since we invented explosives. If someone invented a time machine, and took explosives back to the dawn of mankind, they'd be blowing shit up back then too. Probably blow up the time machine. Then say God told them to do it.

It's beside the point that I hate the CoS for their racketeering and cult-like practices. It's beside the point that their mythology is just so dissonant with any human culture, that no matter how hard I try, no matter how compelling their "pony and ice cream" promises sound, there's no way in hell I could con myself into that frame of mind. It's beside the point that I know damn well that L Ron Hubbard admitted the whole thing was a fraud, quite frequently, and at times, said that he was afraid that the whole thing had gotten out of hand, and couldn't be stopped even if he wanted to. It's beside the point that; as far as religions go - this is the poster-child for lack-of-credibility. I even find it insulting that it has Science Fiction roots. I would sooner join something like a Cthulhu cult or this Jedi thing that the Aussies have started up - if I were to go there.

But someday, you realize, in the far future - there may come a time where the world has forgotten all about Mormonism, Christianity, Judiasm, Islam, Buddhism, etc. Maybe these will be legendary historical religions of the past, like Gnosticism, or Zoroastorism are today. (largely).

And we asshole humans will be swapping lead or suicide bombs, (or maybe nano bore-bots) over Free Zone Scientologists, and Orthodox Hubbardite Scientologists, maybe they'll be debating over the theoretical grains of truth buried in the piles of shit accumulated over centuries of cruft from prophets, heretics, popes, bishops, and monks, who added their own spin to the canon literature.

And, of course, gay apostates like yourself will be blamed for all the violence and trouble. If only you'd sign up for a free e-meter session to clear your engrams. . . And those gay apostates will rail and march and rally about the evils of religion, and how it should all be eliminated, and how all of humanity would be so much better off if it were free of religion. And the leftist intellectuals will be marching alongside them (getting teargassed, by private CoS security police), along with whatever racial minority is being discriminated against in that century (probably the whites by that time. . . )

[Putaro]

Buddhism (at least the Japanese varient) has its own set of internal contradictions. Theoretically you are reincarnated after a period (I think it was 75 days). However, there's also a holiday every year (Obon) where the spirits of the dead come home and you're supposed to put out lights and stuff to guide them back and leave some food out for them. My wife asked the priest about that and he said "Well, that's a good question. I don't know the answer" - which I really respected.

I wouldn't respect somebody who doesn't even understand their own teachings.

Well, I don't think anyone understands everything about any religion. Even fairly recent religion like Mormonism or Scientology have so many people stirring the pot that you can't say what's the true path. Buddhism has thousands of years of people writing and making stuff up. And all religions have contradictions. It's a result of them being constructed by human beings.

So, from my point of view, a priest who doesn't get all defensive when someone points out a contradiction gets my respect.

As to whether or not it's a religion, I just asked a co-worker (Japanese) and the conversation went like this:

Him: It's a philosophy.
Me: Hmmm...it's the only philosophy I know of with priests.
Him: Well, yes, the priests are a problem....(Exposition on history of Buddhism, the enlightenment of Buddha and other fun topics...) Are you asking if it started as a religion or if it's a religion now?
Me: If it's a religion now.
Him: It's a religion

[Boring 7]

I'm not feeling well and that's a lot of text there.

I apologize for using faith and religion interchangeably, that was not a plan, merely a simplification. Perhaps oversimplification.

But you have me at a disadvantage here, you say you find faith intolerable, or at least, barely so.

Why?