quote:Originally posted by Brada-Anansi: I think spirituality well never die but organize religion may very well fall by the way side as long as mysteries of the universe and life remained un-answered.
There will be organized religion as long as there are civilizations. Religion helps us pass on our culture to the next generation. It is a form of brainwashing the next generation with productive values. Sometimes the value systems are not productive, such societies die off. Without religion civilizations would lose their cohesiveness and fall into anarchy.
Western civilization conquered the world with Christianity. Science does not teach values that can help assimilate societies. Not really comparable.
Sorry Charlie, but the world was conquered by gunpowder, guns, bombs, and misinformation. LOL, they ain't dropping Bibles over in Iraq and Libya.
Not even the primitive peoples of this world were conquered by guns and bombs. The conquered simply learned the technology and fight back. No, it was Western trade that conquered the world. And the first thing traded was religion. It is Western culture that spread throughout the world on the wings of religion.
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by osirion: You guys simply don't know what religion is. Ha!
Religion is the ability to master ones thoughts, emotions, and physical desires. It is a discipline that frees the mind from the encumbrances of the animal nature. Science only teaches us what we can see: we are all animals. Religion teaches us something different: we don't have to be animals.
osirion - I always considered you a fool, but NEVER this big a fool.
Damn you are a mindless fuch, aren't you.
Ha Ha Ha! Your cold man. That was really low even for you.
Yeah you got a point about the difference between reality and idealism. Ideally religion should be some form of enlightenment but in reality it is abused and has become ineffective. That doesn't mean religion itself is bad but our understanding and practice of it has become corrupted by the same civilization that was so enriched by it.
It is still the mechanism by which with program the next generation with values. Not sure what will be left for our next generation. Turmoil on this planet is the future. Only alternative is to find other planets and means of travel. Consequently the only future for humans lies near Geneva. Finding the Higgs boson and finding a way to disrupt the Higgs field, is the only real hope for man kind at this point. Those colonies that reach into the stars will all form new religions and grand dreams.
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: MK - The indoctrinated never know that they have been indoctrinated.
Mike, Africans have always been religious atheism was invented by the white man to stop it
Posts: 42954 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Brada-Anansi: I think spirituality well never die but organize religion may very well fall by the way side as long as mysteries of the universe and life remained un-answered.
Sadly, I doubt even organized religion will be done away with, precisely because it relies on spirituality, which seeks to answer the very things you mention.
However, there is no excuse for organized religion, when science exists to answer those very "mysteries of the universe and life" and with more accuracy.
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: Everybody wants to go to heaven, but nobody wants to die.
It is likely because, notwithstanding organized religion, people still have that uncertainty at the back of their minds, that death could very well spell the ultimate END!
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by osirion: You guys simply don't know what religion is. Ha!
Religion is the ability to master ones thoughts, emotions, and physical desires. It is a discipline that frees the mind from the encumbrances of the animal nature. Science only teaches us what we can see: we are all animals. Religion teaches us something different: we don't have to be animals.
We can't see gravity. Yet science has proven it exists. You can't see oxygen, yet science has proven that it too exists. Given your talk of religion "teaching us that we don't have to be animals", you suppose then that science puts us on the same plain with other animals?
Yet, religion has been used to channel violence on levels that even other animals are incapable of doing. How does that serve as "freeing the mind from the encumbrances of the animal nature"?
quote:Originally posted by osirion: As for science, it has no answers for the addict. Only through spirituallity can we cure an addiction even to this day.
I highly doubt that religious dogma is the solution to addict prevention; rather, education is the answer to the addiction. To benefit from science, you have to be educated. If you know what a drug can do to you, then you might think twice about getting involved with it. However, drug abuse can also be related to socio-economic disenfranchisement. To that end, social support and education may be the solution to recovery.
quote: Science is more about questioning than answering.
Come haven't you guys heard of the 10 step programs? Higher power stuff!
Science is about both questioning AND answering those questions. You have a distorted view of what science is.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by osirion: Yeah you got a point about the difference between reality and idealism. Ideally religion should be some form of enlightenment but in reality it is abused and has become ineffective.
Hence, our topic.
quote:Originally posted by osirion: Lots of people want to die my friend. Lots of people are killing themselves with drugs, smoking, etc. Then there are the martyrs and so on.
Death normally is proceeded by pain and suffering so of course we avoid it.
Surgeries are usually very painful; so painful, that people generally have to be put to sleep before they can be conducted. Yet people are willing to put up with it. Few [sane] people are going to tell you that they will put up with pain just to die.
Addicts do things despite the consequences; their psychological urge to repeat unhealthy behavior clouds their judgement, and hence, overrides their consciousness to the adverse effects of addiction. In other words, addicts are generally not in full control of their faculty, and so, using them as "stand up models" of people "wanting to die" really borders on insanity.
quote:Originally posted by osirion:
There will be organized religion as long as there are civilizations. Religion helps us pass on our culture to the next generation. It is a form of brainwashing the next generation with productive values. Sometimes the value systems are not productive, such societies die off. Without religion civilizations would lose their cohesiveness and fall into anarchy.
Religion has reached that point, whereby it actually contributes to social disintegration and anarchy, as opposed to the reverse. Scientific knowledge is as much culture as religion is, and it too is passed on from one generation onto another. The only difference is that science is at least built upon and generally rewarding, whereas younger generations are compelled to conform to the inflexibilities of religious purity.
quote: Western civilization conquered the world with Christianity. Science does not teach values that can help assimilate societies. Not really comparable.
Couldn't be further from truth. Europeans invaded parts of the globe with weaponry, a product of science. Yes, unfortunately humanity has abused science every now and then as a means to achieving an end. Whereas religion is generally abused as the ends to which a means is undertaken. Unlike organized religion, scientific knowledge overrides nationalism, and therefore has a greater social integrating power than organized religion. Science can easily be worked into just about any culture on the planet.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you look at science, the population has increased and you could say has improved conditions for humans beings, so that you no longer have to do farm work all day long or hunt and gather all day long. You can sit in front of your computer and play on this website. Also you can live longer and get a heart transplant.
But somebody else could argue that man is not disciplined enough to manage science and that technology will soon kill us all - things like, pollution, global warming, nuclear war/accidents etc.
Somebody could argue that religion is not killing the planet, therefore it's better than science and had we stayed religious this science thing might not have happened and the earth would have remained flat.
Posts: 42954 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lioness you are not reading what is said right before your post about the differences between scientific abuse and religious abuse.
Science exists that replaces preexisting ones that do harm to the environment, but politics stands in the way. You cannot blame science for that. In science, when a better scientific model comes out, the older model should be discarded for the newer and better one. Science is not politics. Politics is like religion and is dogmatic.
With science, we are a lot closer to how this universe came to being, including ourselves, than we were when we simply relied on religious narratives passed onto us. Thanks to science, we are learning just how lucky we have been so far, unlike the dinosaurs, in evading cataclysmic destruction from collision with gigantic meteorites and/or comets, which could spell the end of humanity. The universe can be a dangerous place, but now with science, we have the capacity to be prepared to do something about it. Religion would not one bit be able to help in that situation. Science is generally positive, which is more than I can say for organized religion. There really is no contest. It's like comparing apples with oranges, although in that comparison, both entities are generally good for life.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Good reference, Brada. Just goes to further show the intimate companionship between politicians and religion, and hence, lack of separation between church and state.
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
So how do you explain the agnostic/atheistic/existentialist( God is dead, so the full responsibility for human life rests with humaans.) humanistic values of Scandinavia.
Here's a thought experiment for you. Please reply.
Suppose you were about to be born but you were totally ignorant of your circumstances at birth--your designated race or ethnicity, your gender, your sex, your family wealth, your natural gifts, your health status, your psychological health, etc.--which of the following societies would you wish to be born into: U.S.(religious), Brazil(religious), Finland(agnostic/atheistic), Sweden(atheistic/agnostic), Nigeria(religious), Saudi Arabia(religious), India(religious), Denmark(agnostic/atheistic),Taiwan(Buddhist rituals once in a while)?
Rank them if you wish.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:But somebody else could argue that man is not disciplined enough to manage science and that technology will soon kill us all - things like, pollution, global warming, nuclear war/accidents etc.
.
The Scandinavians mange scientific knowledge very well, and and are very green when it comes to the dis-economies of science and technology.
On religion:
It's only with the rise of modern science in just 300 years ago that Europeans(mainly the more scientifically oriented Northern Europe) have been giving up on religion.
Europeans--in general--have been in Europe for some 30-40K years but it's only in the very recent past have they begun to question its efficacy in solving human problems and explaining the human condition.
In Africa, some societies had anthropomorphic gods(Yorubas, e.g.), others believed in a metaphysical animism--wherein seemingly inanimate objects were imbued with life forces and energies. See Placide Tempel's book Bantu Philosophy.
This latter instance would be properly called "atheistic" since there were no human-like entities called gods.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
In Africa, some societies had anthropomorphic gods(Yorubas, e.g.), others believed in a metaphysical animism--wherein seemingly inanimate objects were imbued with life forces and energies. See Placide Tempel's book Bantu Philosophy.
This latter instance would be properly called "atheistic" since there were no human-like entities called gods. [/QB]
The Reverend Father Tempel never uses the word atheism or any form of the word in the book.
____________________________________________
EXCERPTS:
Bantu Philosophy.
Placide Tempel
Nevertheless, a better understanding of the realm of Bantu thought is just as indispensable forall who are called upon to live among native people. It therefore concerns all colonials,especially those whose duty is to hold administrative or judicial office among African people;all those who are concerning themselves with a felicitous development of tribal law; in short,it concerns all who wish to civilize, educate and raise the Bantu. But, if it concerns allcolonizers with good will, it concerns most particularly missionaries It seems to me incorrect to translate this word "muntu" by "the man". The "muntu" certainlypossesses a visible body, but this body is not the "muntu". A Bantu one day explained to oneof my colleagues that the "muntu" is rather what you call in English the "person" and notwhat you connote by "the man". "Muntu" signifies, then, vital force, endowed withintelligence and will. This interpretation gives a logical meaning to the statement which I oneday received from a Bantu: "God is a great muntu" ("Vidye i muntu mukatampe"). Thismeant "God is the great Person" ; that is to say, The great, powerful and reasonable livingforce.The "bintu" are rather what we call things; but according to Bantu philosophy they arebeings, that is to say forces not endowed with reason, not living
ia superior force, which he may achieve of himself, or by some vital external influence, or(especially) by the action of God.II. The vital human force can directly influence inferior forcebeings (animal, vegetable, ormineral) in their being itself.III. A rational being (spirit, manes, or living) can act indirectly upon another rational being bycommunicating his vital influence to an inferior force (animal, vegetable, or mineral) throughthe intermediacy of which it influences the rational being. This influence will also have thecharacter of a necessarily effective action, save only when the object is inherently the strongerforce, or is reinforced by the influence of some third party, or preserves himself by recourse toinferior forces exceeding those which his enemy is employing.Note: Certain authors claim that inanimate beings, stones, rocks, or plants and trees are calledby the Bantu "bwanga", as exercising their vital influence on all that comes near them. If thiswere authenticated, it would open the question: "do lower forces act by themselves uponhigher forces?" Some authors say that they do. For my part, I have never met any African whowould accept this hypothesis. A priori, such an occurrence would seem to me to contradict Page 34 34the general principles of the theory of forces. In Bantu metaphysic the lower force is excludedfrom exercising by its own initiative any vital action upon a higher force. Besides, in givingtheir examples, these authors ought to recognize that often a living influence has been atwork, for example, that of the manes. Likewise certain natural phenomena, rocks, waterfalls,big trees, can be considered-and are considered by the Bantu-as manifestations of divinepower; they can also be the sign, the manifestation, the habitat of a spirit. It seems to me thatsuch should be the explanation of the apparent influences of lower forces on the higher forceof man. Those lower beings do not exercise their influence of themselves, but through thevital energy of a higher force acting as cause.
Posts: 42954 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Don't see how your long quote refutes anything I wrote. "Atheism" in its accepted Western sense has to do with non-belief in a conscious, anthropomorphic godhead--as distinct from its creations and projects. Thus when adherents to the monotheistic religions pray, they don't pray to trees, rocks, and rivers, but rather to a being who has a special interest in human concerns.
Animists, as described by Tempels, simply recognise that Nature--in Spinoza's sense-- is vibrant much like actually living beings. The question of atheism doesn't at all apply in this instance because Nature as "vis viva" is not some kind of god--whose existence may be questioned.
Note too that it is the rejection of the animistic view of phenomena, "vis insita", is what led to the development of modern science.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by lamin: Don't see how your long quote refutes anything I wrote. "Atheism" in its accepted Western sense has to do with non-belief in a conscious, anthropomorphic godhead--as distinct from its creations and projects. Thus when adherents to the monotheistic religions pray, they don't pray to trees, rocks, and rivers, but rather to a being who has a special interest in human concerns.
Animists, as described by Tempels, simply recognise that Nature--in Spinoza's sense-- is vibrant much like actually living beings. The question of atheism doesn't at all apply in this instance because Nature as "vis viva" is not some kind of god--whose existence may be questioned.
Note too that it is the rejection of the animistic view of phenomena, "vis insita", is what led to the development of modern science.
Deities in African religion are respected and feared, They are prayed to because they are conscious beings who interact with man. This cannot be called atheism. Tempel refers to the bantu as pagans, pagans who would benefit in becoming Christian, but Christianized in a manner compatible with their traditions. He warns in the book that when their ways are not taken into account they can become Westernized in a materialistic way (implication-become atheists) as opposed to becoming Westernized properly- Chrsitianized
Posts: 42954 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by osirion: Yeah you got a point about the difference between reality and idealism. Ideally religion should be some form of enlightenment but in reality it is abused and has become ineffective.
Hence, our topic.
quote:Originally posted by osirion: Lots of people want to die my friend. Lots of people are killing themselves with drugs, smoking, etc. Then there are the martyrs and so on.
Death normally is proceeded by pain and suffering so of course we avoid it.
Surgeries are usually very painful; so painful, that people generally have to be put to sleep before they can be conducted. Yet people are willing to put up with it. Few [sane] people are going to tell you that they will put up with pain just to die.
Addicts do things despite the consequences; their psychological urge to repeat unhealthy behavior clouds their judgement, and hence, overrides their consciousness to the adverse effects of addiction. In other words, addicts are generally not in full control of their faculty, and so, using them as "stand up models" of people "wanting to die" really borders on insanity.
quote:Originally posted by osirion:
There will be organized religion as long as there are civilizations. Religion helps us pass on our culture to the next generation. It is a form of brainwashing the next generation with productive values. Sometimes the value systems are not productive, such societies die off. Without religion civilizations would lose their cohesiveness and fall into anarchy.
Religion has reached that point, whereby it actually contributes to social disintegration and anarchy, as opposed to the reverse. Scientific knowledge is as much culture as religion is, and it too is passed on from one generation onto another. The only difference is that science is at least built upon and generally rewarding, whereas younger generations are compelled to conform to the inflexibilities of religious purity.
quote: Western civilization conquered the world with Christianity. Science does not teach values that can help assimilate societies. Not really comparable.
Couldn't be further from truth. Europeans invaded parts of the globe with weaponry, a product of science. Yes, unfortunately humanity has abused science every now and then as a means to achieving an end. Whereas religion is generally abused as the ends to which a means is undertaken. Unlike organized religion, scientific knowledge overrides nationalism, and therefore has a greater social integrating power than organized religion. Science can easily be worked into just about any culture on the planet.
Totally disagree with your position because you are focused on modern day popular religions and using them as a model of religion. There are many religions that you don't know that achieve the purpose of religion very effectively.
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
So how do you explain the agnostic/atheistic/existentialist( God is dead, so the full responsibility for human life rests with humaans.) humanistic values of Scandinavia.
Here's a thought experiment for you. Please reply.
Suppose you were about to be born but you were totally ignorant of your circumstances at birth--your designated race or ethnicity, your gender, your sex, your family wealth, your natural gifts, your health status, your psychological health, etc.--which of the following societies would you wish to be born into: U.S.(religious), Brazil(religious), Finland(agnostic/atheistic), Sweden(atheistic/agnostic), Nigeria(religious), Saudi Arabia(religious), India(religious), Denmark(agnostic/atheistic),Taiwan(Buddhist rituals once in a while)?
Rank them if you wish.
No point asking me such since I am already biased.
Best I can say is that since I think Oriental women are the most attractive then Taiwan would be my preference.
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Osirion, An amusing answer which has nothing to do with the question asked. Any rational person would choose any of the agnostic/atheistic countries to be born into.
it's often said that the best way to judge the humanity of a country is to note how its jails are run. In Sweden you are let out on weekends to go fishing. I can relate to that.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lioness, You are not keeping up with the discussion. Stop parroting your course notes....
My point is that atheism applies only to societies where there are anthropomorphic deities. In those societies where objects rather than anthropomorphic gods have metaphysical powers the issue of atheism does not apply. Simple?
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by lamin: Osirion, An amusing answer which has nothing to do with the question asked. Any rational person would choose any of the agnostic/atheistic countries to be born into.
it's often said that the best way to judge the humanity of a country is to note how its jails are run. In Sweden you are let out on weekends to go fishing. I can relate to that.
I like Swedish girls too, definitely on the top of my list. But seriously, Sex is very much a part of the human condition. I would want to be in a place where I got a lot of good Sex.
Sounds reasonable to me. Fishing trips? Maybe when I am in my sixties or something.
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by osirion: Totally disagree with your position because you are focused on modern day popular religions
What are these "modern day popular religions". You are not referring to say, the Abrahamic religions or Hinduism, as "modern day" popular religions, are you?
quote: and using them as a model of religion.
I'm using them as models, because they are religion, and have a wide global following. Do know what else they are, if not religion?
quote: There are many religions that you don't know that achieve the purpose of religion very effectively.
Name them, describe them if necessary, and tell us why they serve the same function as science, and are not nationalistically reactionary to society. You cannot exactly consider something that uses a philosophy very similar to Buddhism as a "religion", at least not in the sense the word is generally understood.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Atheism is the rejection of belief in the existence of any deity, of any form.
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Osirion, You amuse more; not bad at all. But seriously now: recall that my thought experiment is about total ignorance of one's birth status.
So what, if you are born female? OK, you could be lesbian and still go for your Taiwan interests. But still you are evasive on the issue. Don't forget that my thought experiment also includes the possibility of being born with greatest disabilities imaginable. Again, Scandinavia wins hands down.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by osirion: Totally disagree with your position because you are focused on modern day popular religions
What are these "modern day popular religions". You are not referring to say, the Abrahamic religions or Hinduism, as "modern day" popular religions, are you?
quote: and using them as a model of religion.
I'm using them as models, because they are religion, and have a wide global following. Do know what else they are, if not religion?
quote: There are many religions that you don't know that achieve the purpose of religion very effectively.
Name them, describe them if necessary, and tell us why they serve the same function as science, and are not nationalistically reactionary to society. You cannot exactly consider something that uses a philosophy very similar to Buddhism as a "religion", at least not in the sense the word is generally understood.
Interesting that you talk about the religion Buddhism. What makes Buddhism a religion? In fact, Buddhism is a model religion for exactly what I am referring to as the purpose of religion.
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are three parts to our psyche: Ego, Id, Super-ego. We try to pass on all three types to other people. We reproduce ourselves physically which passes on the Id. We express ourselves socially which passes on the ego. Then we have religion which is how we try to pass on our super-ego.
Super-ego is expressed in symbolism that we call religion. The symbolism is simply a mechanism of transport that is able to affect the sub-conscious.
Science does not teach right from wrong. It actually only teaches us how to QUESTION an answer. Answers do not come from science they come from human inspiration. Science teaches us how to question those answers to validate them. Science is a method and not a philosophy.
-------------------- Across the sea of time, there can only be one of you. Make you the best one you can be. Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Whomever believes that Buddhism is not a religion needs to study it in more detail and get their heads on straight. Buddhists have a temple, vows, priests, monks, nuns, God, an enlightened state, an afterlife, as well as reincarnation and immortality. Sounds like all the components required to qualify as a religion to me.
In the areas of science, answers do indeed come from science. Inspiration? Not so much. Generally, scientific discovery is prompted by a compelling need to address a specific problem.
Math, is a science, and a exact science. One verifies scientific theory using mathematic expression. 99% of all new concepts and innovation is based on prior art, or borrows heavily from the known quantities quite often within the problem being resolved.
Posts: 2403 | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
If one was not bound by religious laws or the threat of punishment from secular laws how many believe they would be justified to go out and rape/plunder at will? at what point do we realize wrong is wrong not because of some deity in the clouds or threats of man but something in us called a conscience and can the conscience be effective without a deity.
Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Suffering is suffering, and one does not need God to understand that these are a direct result of the defects of man; Greed, Jealousy, Lust. All immortal traits of the secular world. Religion does nothing to eliminate these sins of man, and in fact, only have succeeded in amplifying them.
quote:Originally posted by MelaninKing: Suffering is suffering, and one does not need God to understand that these are a direct result of the defects of man; Greed, Jealousy, Lust. All immortal traits of the secular world. Religion does nothing to eliminate these sins of man, and in fact, only have succeeded in amplifying them.
quote:Originally posted by osirion: Interesting that you talk about the religion Buddhism. What makes Buddhism a religion? In fact, Buddhism is a model religion for exactly what I am referring to as the purpose of religion.
Well, the matter of Buddhism had come up in this topic even before you chimed in. So, there is nothing particularly interesting about mentioning it again. What's interesting however, is your total reliance on just Buddhism, to claim that I'm being picky with examples, to point out the generally reactionary nature of religions to the broader society. Buddhism is not like most religions, and perhaps this is why it is noticeably lesser of a thorn in the side of society. Buddhism does not teach blind faith in deity or the rejection of scientific deduction.
Do you not have any other [multiple] examples, that you basically alluded to, of religions that are presumably "good" for the greater society?
quote:Originally posted by osirion: Science does not teach right from wrong. It actually only teaches us how to QUESTION an answer.
Resoundingly false. Science is a discipline that serves to explain the laws governing nature through verifiable models conceived by the human mind, and tests the veracity of such models on the principle of falsifiability. Aircrafts are for example, designed around physical laws of nature that were identified and explained through scientific models, in order to make flight possible for a heavier than air body. Mere "questions" don't make things like aircrafts possible.
quote: Answers do not come from science they come from human inspiration. Science teaches us how to question those answers to validate them. Science is a method and not a philosophy.
You are wrong on that too; science is philosophical. It emphasizes the use of reasoning and critical thinking.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
Whomever believes that Buddhism is not a religion needs to study it in more detail and get their heads on straight. Buddhists have a temple, vows, priests, monks, nuns, God, an enlightened state, an afterlife, as well as reincarnation and immortality. Sounds like all the components required to qualify as a religion to me.
I believe what was said, is that Buddhism is not exactly "religion" in the sense that the word is generally understood.
You are wrong, unless I'm missing something here, in saying that there is a concept of God in Buddhism.
As for "immortality", "reincarnation", etc, a Buddhist site cautions:
This Buddhist doctrine of rebirth should be distinguished from the theory of reincarnation which implies the transmigration of a soul and its invariable material rebirth. Buddhism denies the existence of an unchanging or eternal soul created by a God or emanating from a Divine Essence (Paramatma).
If the immortal soul, which is supposed to be the essence of man, is eternal, there cannot be either a rise or a fall. Besides one cannot understand why "different souls are so variously constituted at the outset."
What Reincarnation is Not
Reincarnation is not a simple physical birth of a person; for instance, John being reborn as a cat in the next life. In this case John possesses an immortal soul which transforms to the form of a cat after his death. This cycle is repeated over and over again. Or if he is lucky, he will be reborn as a human being. This notion of the transmigration of the soul definitely does not exist in Buddhism.
Karma
Karma is a Sanskrit word from the root "Kri" to do or to make and simply means "action." It operates in the universe as the continuous chain reaction of cause and effect. It is not only confined to causation in the physical sense but also it has moral implications. "A good cause, a good effect; a bad cause a bad effect" is a common saying. In this sense karma is a moral law.
Now human beings are constantly giving off physical and spiritual forces in all directions. In physics we learn that no energy is ever lost; only that it changes form. This is the common law of conservation of energy. Similarly, spiritual and mental action is never lost. It is transformed. Thus Karma is the law of the conservation of moral energy.
By actions, thoughts, and words, man is releasing spiritual energy to the universe and he is in turn affected by influences coming in his direction. Man is therefore the sender and receiver of all these influences. The entire circumstances surrounding him is his karma.
With each action-influence he sends out and at the same time, receives, he is changing. This changing personality and the world he lives in, constitute the totality of his karma.
Karma should not be confused with fate. Fate is the notion that man's life is preplanned for him by some external power, and he has no control over his destiny. Karma on the other hand, can be changed. Because man is a conscious being he can be aware of his karma and thus strive to change the course of events. In the Dhammapada we find the following words, "All that we are is a result of what we have thought, it is founded on our thoughts and made up of our thoughts."
What we are, then, is entirely dependent on what we think. Therefore, the nobility of man's character is dependent on his"good" thoughts, actions, and words. At the same time, if he embraces degrading thoughts, those thoughts invariably influence him into negative words and actions. - Courtesy of Buddhanet.net
Having pointed these out, I'll say that I would consider Buddhism religious only in the sense that it does have certain rituals and ceremonies. Otherwise, it leans more towards a philosophy than religion.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Brada-Anansi: If one was not bound by religious laws or the threat of punishment from secular laws how many believe they would be justified to go out and rape/plunder at will? at what point do we realize wrong is wrong not because of some deity in the clouds or threats of man but something in us called a conscience and can the conscience be effective without a deity.
Nope, religion is not needed to teach people right from wrong. In fact, at times religions actually incite people do the very opposite: i.e. what is not right, which is one of the essential components of this topic. That people use religion to commit crimes in society. Common sense and good parenting are the keys. Furthermore, the concept of secular laws serves as proof that religion is not needed to bring order in society. Secular laws may not always be perfect themselves, but they are at least inclusive of every segment of the society, and come in handy, when people simply don't do what is right from common sense.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Otherwise, it leans more towards a philosophy than religion.
Yes, a philosophy which promotes change and elevation through the obtainment of enlightenment which when achieved, one can enter heaven (nirvana).
Nirvana Nir*va"na, n. [Skr. nirv[=a][.n]a.] In the Buddhist system of religion, the final emancipation of the soul from transmigration, and consequently a beatific enfrachisement from the evils of worldly existence, as by annihilation or absorption into the divine.
So the Karma is the willful action of throwing off the world's sins to achieve spiritual enlightenment, which very closely describes the actual actions of YAHSHUA and the Gnostic sect(s) to which he belonged (Essenes), who I believe were very much influenced by the Buddhist/Tao philosophies. This is in direct conflict with the corrupt teachings of Paul (Roman Catholic Church), who preached that sin would be forgiven through blood sacrifice and blind faith.
The Essenes (Ebionite) meaning then took on a parallel philosophy to Buddhism;
The word "Ebionite" comes from the Hebrew word "Ebon" which literally means "poor" but implies;
"THOSE WHO HAVE VOLUNTARILY RENOUNCED WORLDLY MATERIALISM TO ENTER THE ESSENE LIFESTYLE OF SIMPLE LIVING AND RADICAL SHARING IN COMMUNITY." (Thus, the Essenes community runs parallel to the Buddhist temple in basic philosophy.)
Simply put, an "Ebionite" is an "Essene renunciate", an Essene who has given up materialism to serve God within the context of the communal lifestyle in which all is shared.
As can be deduced, this ancient meaning is in direct conflict with today's Jewish and Christian philosophies. So, it's very strange to hear Jews such as Madonna attempting to tie in Judaism, via Kabbalahism to Buddhism or the Essenes, The Way when there is an obvious basic and fundamental contradiction.
Posts: 2403 | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MelaninKing: 99% of all new concepts and innovation is based on prior art, or borrows heavily from the known quantities quite often within the problem being resolved.
We call this - human inspiration.
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by osirion: Interesting that you talk about the religion Buddhism. What makes Buddhism a religion? In fact, Buddhism is a model religion for exactly what I am referring to as the purpose of religion.
Well, the matter of Buddhism had come up in this topic even before you chimed in. So, there is nothing particularly interesting about mentioning it again. What's interesting however, is your total reliance on just Buddhism, to claim that I'm being picky with examples, to point out the generally reactionary nature of religions to the broader society. Buddhism is not like most religions, and perhaps this is why it is noticeably lesser of a thorn in the side of society. Buddhism does not teach blind faith in deity or the rejection of scientific deduction.
Do you not have any other [multiple] examples, that you basically alluded to, of religions that are presumably "good" for the greater society?
quote:Originally posted by osirion: Science does not teach right from wrong. It actually only teaches us how to QUESTION an answer.
Resoundingly false. Science is a discipline that serves to explain the laws governing nature through verifiable models conceived by the human mind, and tests the veracity of such models on the principle of falsifiability. Aircrafts are for example, designed around physical laws of nature that were identified and explained through scientific models, in order to make flight possible for a heavier than air body. Mere "questions" don't make things like aircrafts possible.
quote: Answers do not come from science they come from human inspiration. Science teaches us how to question those answers to validate them. Science is a method and not a philosophy.
You are wrong on that too; science is philosophical. It emphasizes the use of reasoning and critical thinking.
This is easy to explain to you. What in science teaches us to "love your neighbor as yourself"? How about, "do not steal, murder, or bare fale witness"?
Philosophy is about the human condition and what practices helps to improve the conditions on the avergage. Now you can use science to evaluate the result of praciticing a philosophy but science does not deal with morality which is the basis of philosophy.
Now think about the definition of philosophy:
Philosophy is the rational study of general subjects concerning which certainty cannot easily be established scientifically or by simple observation.
Science cannot be philosophy by the very definition of philosophy.
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Brada-Anansi: If one was not bound by religious laws or the threat of punishment from secular laws how many believe they would be justified to go out and rape/plunder at will? at what point do we realize wrong is wrong not because of some deity in the clouds or threats of man but something in us called a conscience and can the conscience be effective without a deity.
Our super-ego tells us what is right from wrong. It is part of the subconcious and only spiritual methods can make changes to this layer of our phsyce. Religion has long served the purpose of passing on the super-ego from one generation to the next as well as from one group of people to the next.
Secular laws have an impacter on the ego rather than the super-ego. When not under threat of these punishments one may go out and engage in the offense but with an effective religious training the individual would still not commit the offense even when its considered legal.
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MelaninKing: Suffering is suffering, and one does not need God to understand that these are a direct result of the defects of man; Greed, Jealousy, Lust. All immortal traits of the secular world. Religion does nothing to eliminate these sins of man, and in fact, only have succeeded in amplifying them.
The only reason why you think this way is because you have sufficiently be trained in Christian philosophy by a society that has incoroporated the tenets of this religion into its secular code. You are not aware that you follow religious idealogy everyday.
Those people that minimize the positive impacts of religion need to go on a mission trip. They need to see the benefit of religion in action. You just don't see it because you are living it to the point that you take it all for granted.
The city next to yours isn't planning to raid your city and take your head as a trophy and eat your children.
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MelaninKing: 99% of all new concepts and innovation is based on prior art, or borrows heavily from the known quantities quite often within the problem being resolved.
We call this - human inspiration.
In engineering, we call it, add-ons, downgrades or spin-offs. As example. computer architecture is commodity. Marrying computers to RF (radio) becomes convergence; Cell phones. There is no real innovation except determining acceptable feature trade-off and packaging. Not so much innovation as much as marketing. I.E., same whore, new dress.
Posts: 2403 | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
How much crime such as theft/ murder/rape does say a traditional Khoi-san community have? tell me if I am wrong but do they have high priests who collects taxes from their people to talk to god on their behalf thus starting cycle of corruption and nepotism??
Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by osirion: This is easy to explain to you. What in science teaches us to "love your neighbor as yourself"? How about, "do not steal, murder, or bare fale witness"?
Listen here: Science is not religion, nor is it a substitute for religion. This is why science has generally proven to be a greater good for society, while religion has proven to be otherwise.
It is not for science to tell "you to love your neighbors". That should come from common sense. This is another effect of religion, as you've demonstrated: not being able to think straight on distinguishing what constitutes science and what doesn't.
And to repeat, since you just ignore what people tell you, yet feel the need to reply: You don't need religion to tell you right from wrong, since that ought to come from common sense and inspiration from a good upbringing.
Ever noticed that whenever religious laws are used at the state level, they generally beget disastrous consequences? Just ask the Europeans, in "Dark age" Europe, or the Saudis today, for example.
quote:Philosophy is about the human condition and what practices helps to improve the conditions on the avergage.
No wonder you cannot identify science as a philosophy. It's because you can't even get the definition of philosophy right to begin with.
quote:Now you can use science to evaluate the result of praciticing a philosophy but science does not deal with morality which is the basis of philosophy.
For those who care to understand, here it is...
Philosophy of science: Reasoning and critical thinking.
^You haven't been using the philosophy of science in this entire topic.
quote:Now think about the definition of philosophy:
Philosophy is the rational study of general subjects concerning which certainty cannot easily be established scientifically or by simple observation.
Science cannot be philosophy by the very definition of philosophy.
Here is perhaps a simpler definition that might help you better understand what 'philosophy' is:
the rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct. - dictionary.reference.com
Looks like science fits the bill.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by osirion: Those people that minimize the positive impacts of religion need to go on a mission trip. They need to see the benefit of religion in action. You just don't see it because you are living it to the point that you take it all for granted.
Your only idea of the benefit of organized religion to the world, is to say that it tells us wrong from right. Not only has it been shown that religion is not necessary for this, but also that religion can push people to do the very opposite: misconstruing wrong for right.
You have not at any point, actually justified the benefit of organized religion to greater society. On the other hand, all the reasons which render organized religion outmoded have been pointed out.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MelaninKing: Yes, a philosophy which promotes change and elevation through the obtainment of enlightenment which when achieved, one can enter heaven (nirvana).
Nirvana Nir*va"na, n. [Skr. nirv[=a][.n]a.] In the Buddhist system of religion, the final emancipation of the soul from transmigration, and consequently a beatific enfrachisement from the evils of worldly existence, as by annihilation or absorption into the divine.
...
9. In Buddhism, the ultimate objective of followers/practitioners is enlightenment and/or liberation from Samsara; rather than to go to a Heaven (or a deva realm in the context of Buddhist cosmology).
...
19. The Dharma provides a very detailed explanation of the doctrine of anatman {anatta in Pali} or soullessness , i.e. there is no soul entity (whether in one life of many lives).
And...
Samsara is a fundamental concept in Buddhism and it is simply the 'perpetual cycles of existence' or endless rounds of rebirth among the six realms of existence. This cyclical rebirth pattern will only end when a sentient being attains Nirvana, i.e. virtual exhaustion of karma, habitual traces, defilements and delusions. All other religions preach one heaven, one earth and one hell, but this perspective is very limited compared with Buddhist samsara where heaven is just one of the six realms of existence and it has 28 levels/planes.
Admittedly, this is one of the areas of Buddhism, where one could argue that it is leaning towards religion, although Buddhists would argue that these concepts are not "supernatural". But we shouldn't get carried away as to why Buddhism has proven to be less reactionary to society than typical organized religions: It's principles don't rely on word descended down from an Almighty being:
Select notes on the principles of Buddhism:
1. There is no almighty God in Buddhism. There is no one to hand out rewards or punishments on a supposedly Judgement Day.
...
4. A Buddha is not an incarnation of a god/God (as claimed by some Hindu followers). The relationship between a Buddha and his disciples and followers is that of a teacher and student.
5. The liberation of self is the responsibility of one's own self. Buddhism does not call for an unquestionable blind faith by all Buddhist followers. It places heavy emphasis on self-reliance, self discipline and individual striving.
...
7. Dharma (the teachings in Buddhism) exists regardless whether there is a Buddha. Sakyamuni Buddha (as the historical Buddha) discovered and shared the teachings/ universal truths with all sentient beings. He is neither the creator of such teachings nor the prophet of an almighty God to transmit such teachings to others.
...
11. Rebirth is another key doctrine in Buddhism and it goes hand in hand with karma. There is a subtle difference between rebirth and reincarnation as expounded in Hinduism. Buddhism rejects the theory of a transmigrating permanent soul, whether created by a god or emanating from a divine essence.
...
17. The idea of sin or original sin has no place in Buddhism. Also, sin should not be equated to suffering.
...
20. The Buddha is omniscient but he is not omnipotent. He is capable of innumerable feats but there are three things he cannot do. Also, a Buddha does not claim to be a creator of lives or the Universe.
...
25. The concept of Hell(s) in Buddhism is very different from that of other religions. It is not a place for eternal damnation as viewed by 'almighty creator' religions. In Buddhism, it is just one of the six realms in Samsara [i.e. the worst of three undesirable realms]. Also, there are virtually unlimited number of hells in the Buddhist cosmology as there are infinite number of Buddha worlds.
And importantly...
15. No holy war concept in Buddhism. Killing is breaking a key moral precept in Buddhism. One is strictly forbidden to kill another person in the name of religion, a religious leader or whatsoever religious pretext or worldly excuse.
Source: Buddhanet.netPosts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Word is that Mexican drug cartels call themselves The Knights Templar, and claim to be living by the codes of Christianity and are inspired by the medieval Christian military arms of the Catholic Church in Europe. The Norwegian terrorist reportedly also claims to be living by the philosophy of the Knights Templar.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, they are both guilty of doing wrong, they ain't wrong about the Templars who were basically using their cover to steal land, ancient artifacts and treasures.
Posts: 2403 | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Osirion, Note that "philosophy" has only recently been morphed into "science". Newton, the founder of mechanics, was described as a "natural philosopher". Science is about the experimental testing of empirically--directly or indirectly--testable hypotheses.
But note that at the theoretical frontiers of science where intuition and conjecture play important roles philosophy enters the picture. People like Hawking, Penrose, etc. are philosophers of sorts.
The problem with religion is that it claims to be founded on immutable foundations--so there is not much grounds for debate. This is an issue when it comes to questions of human behaviour--i.e. morality.
The truth is that you could develop a system of morals on very basic grounds: universality and the pain-pleasure principle. Ethical universality is mainly about the "Golden Rule": behave towards others as you would want them to behave towards you. The German philosopher developed this principle to produce his "categorical imperative". The pain-pleasure principle based on human empathic nature simply says that an ethics based on increasing pleasure and decreasing pain is better than a vice versa system.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
But there is a problem with morality though because human ethics is based to a large extent on a natural empathic sense. Many people have that seemingly instinctive trait, but many don't. That's why people who torture and exploit others just don't feel bad about their behaviour.
Can religion help? Historically it hasn't. Recall Torquemada and the Spanish Inquisition.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Religious nut adoption-parents to do time for child abuse...
"Kevin and Elizabeth Schatz, the Paradise couple who pleaded guilty in April to several counts related to the beating death of an adopted daughter and injuries to her sister and a biological son, were sentenced Friday (June 10) to prison.
Here are some transcripts from CNN about the matter:
COOPER:
Bye-bye, serious stuff ahead of next. More of our "360" Investigation." It's really interesting. Parents who believe the bible tells them they should physically discipline their kid.
We're not talking about slapping in an open hand. We're talking about using belts and rods.We'll hear one woman describing how she and her siblings were beaten by their father who is a church pastor and a number of pastors now are talking about using this kind of punishment that actually causes pain.
Butte County Superior Court Judge Kristen Lucena ordered that Kevin will serve at least 22 years of two life sentences for second-degree murder and torture. His wife, Elizabeth, will serve at least 13 years for voluntary manslaughter and corporal injury on a child."
...
Now many fundamentalist preachers agree with Minister Pearl. One typical example is Roger Voegtlin the leader of the Fairhaven Baptist Church in Indiana. Here's part of an audio recording of the sermon he gave last month:
DR. ROGER VOEGTLIN, PASTOR, FAIRHAVEN INDEPENDENT BAPTIST CHURCH:
This evening I would like to preach on spanking according to the bible. Now, this is not a new subject here at Fairhaven Baptist Church.
What is a rod? I don't think it's a ball bat. I don't think it's a club or whatever the parent can grab at the moment. The rod and scriptures never carefully define, but it's obviously some kind of a stick or a switch and this is it. It's designed to give a sharp, unpleasant pain. If that isn't the result of your spanking, then you're failing, a sharp, unpleasant pain.
COOPER:
Fairhaven is part of the network of independent fundamentalist Baptist churches.
The case of Lidia Schatz raises the question whether some parents are using the bible to justify their own bad parenting or misinterpreting things.
Jocelyn Zichterman grew up in the Independent Fundamentalist Baptist Church. She and her siblings were beaten. She joins us now. What was your upbringing like? You underwent what I think was called biblical chastisement. What did that actually mean?
JOCELYN ZICHTERMAN, BEATING VICTIM:
Yes, there are a large network of churches as you mentioned known as the Independent Fundamental Baptist and we use the acronym IFB as a very simplistic way to explain the group.
But the IFB believes in something called breaking the will of a child. So my father was an IFB pastor. He currently is an IFB pastor and he practiced this form of discipline that Michael Pearl is advocating in his book, you know, "To Train Up a Child."
And that could basically mean that our spanking sessions and I refer to it as beating sessions could last anywhere from 15 minutes to several hours at a time.
Because basically these pastors believe that a child needs to have no will of their own. So they will continue to administer discipline until a child is completely docile in a way that they show no negative emotion. That's the goal in the discipline session.
COOPER:
But all these pastors say, look, we're not calling for abuse of a child. We're not calling for -- this can be misused by bad parents who are out there who act out in anger and are irresponsible, but that's not what they're calling for.
ZICHTERMAN:
Yes, that's right. Even in the segment in the past two nights Michael Pearl said that he does not advocate anyone spanking a child in anger or being out of control. That's what's really difficult to explain to the outside of the IFB.
Because the IFB pastors are not advocating losing control and beating a child to death. These pastors are advocating a very systematic form of punishment that outside of their community would be referred to as abuse, but inside the community it's called spiritual spanking.
So that's - it's a matter of semantics. They would say you shouldn't lose your temper and you shouldn't be out of control. We hear of parents who kill children in our country. We think of parents who lost control completely and then it ended in the death of a child.
But these parents are making a conscious decision to beat a child for several hours at a time because it's something that's embedded within their belief system.
COOPER:
You run a web site called freedomfromabuse.net where you try to bring together people who say that they were victims of abuse at the hands of their parents who believe they were following biblical rulings. But, I mean, plenty of parents believe in some form of corporal punishment.
ZICHTERMAN:
Yes, that's right. When you think of corporal punishment in our country, I think most people would say or I think majority of people at this point in time would say, you know, at a time or two, I swatted by 2 or 3-year-old on the butt, you know, when they ran out into the street. That's not what's promoted within this group. This is a systematic form of brainwashing of these children to again to break them completely of a will. We were to be completely submissive. You can imagine a 3 or 4 year old being spanked, the parent is laying the child down.
They are spanking them. And, you know, if you're a 3 year old, you're going to squirm during a spanking session like and that's squirm is a revelation to them that the child is exerting their will and that will needs to be broken so the parents continue to spank.
So in the Lidia Schatz's case, I believe that they interpreted any kind of bodily movement of Lidia as a willful spirit that they needed to break and so that's why the session lasted as long as we've heard of seven hours.
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic