How can religion exist after Darwin? Is it bound to die?

What about Buddhism? Religionists of the Buddhist stripe wouldn't have any faith in a creator-God to maintain, so I don't see a necessary contradiction between having a religion and accepting the findings of science. Just a contradiction with the particular religionists whose religion requires a creator-god.

Yes. It is only the religious that reject modern advances that go against their dogma that will have a problem. many of the eastern religions know that there religions are myth based. it is just the ones who cannot distinguish fact from fancy or myth that we should feel sorry for and try to bring to sanity.

Religion is a two edged sword. I only want to get rid of the one side and not throw out the baby with the bath water.

Regards
DL

Then it's not religion you want to get rid of, it's delusional thinking that you really object to.

Correct.
I recognize the value of churches to community. It is what they teach of a literal God that offends. Fantasy and magic are for children and I do not mind letting children think out of the box with them but for adults to actually believe in such and cause the damage I linked to above is an insult to all of us.
It destroys the beauty and value of myth as well and causes idol worship.
It inhibits grow and creates dependence.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGx4IlppSgU

Regards
DL

Buddhism is not myth based. It is true that the teachings of Buddha have been passed down for 2500 years, but the simple truth is in the teaching, darhma. It is up to the student to accept or not. Buddha himself said:

Do not believe anything unless it makes sense to you and is reasonable, even if I have said it.

There are certainly myth based stories, but they are not the basis for the teachings. Buddha was a man, and found the middle way. Buddhists follow the teachings of Buddha. There is no conflict with science.

You may question reincarnation. Reincarnation is a basic belief of Buddhism, but many believe it is not a necessary part of Buddhism. What happens to our soul when we die? Who knows. We can not truly know. The idea that you carry your karma from one life to the next is very logical to me.

Following Buddha's teachings make complete sense to me and does not conflict with any scientific evidence that I know of.

It is nice that the eastern religions have enough wiggle room for individual interpretations without ostracism from the main body.
Christianity and Islam should learn from this without people having to opt out, be denigrated or have to begin a new sect.

Regards
DL

It is nice that the eastern religions have enough wiggle room for individual interpretations without ostracism from the main body.
Christianity and Islam should learn from this without people having to opt out, be denigrated or have to begin a new sect.

Regards
DL

I appreciate your comment and take it as a positive, but it is more than wiggle room.

In my opinion there is another very big difference.

Buddhism, Taoism, Zen, etc. are teachings that show an individual a way to live a happy, fulfilled life. They TEACH one how to avoid harming others and how to practice true compassion without expectations of rewards. They make no claim other than perhaps wisdom. There is no claim at being the only way, or somehow supreme, or a magic ticket to heaven. It is a teaching that if followed, leads to happiness. It is more about one's own behavior and thoughts than some external power.

I am skeptical about any teaching that begins with the words, I am the only way! That sounds more like a sales technique than words of wisdom. I also have difficulty placing my belief in proclaimed super natural powers.

IRFRANK

We are on the same page friend.
The east is ahead of the west. Perhaps it is because we are the frontier and they had to learn to get along with their neighbors and had no place to gravitate to or escape to.

That and we are reading scriptures the wrong way. Let me give you something I am working on. I would appreciate your comments or suggestions.
Not being English, my phrasing and presentation are sometimes poor.

Martin Luther was, and Protestants are supposed to be, Gnostic Christians.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_qnsTr7I04

The old Orthodox Catholic Church preached the God without that we had access to only through the good old boy system of the clergy.

It seems that Martin Luther knew better and knew the God within as the true God.
He rejected the notion of the Word of God as a literal and historic book.

What happened to his theology and why did literalism and fundamentalism rear it’s ugly head and deceive so many Christians.

Even now, most of the protestant west is stupidly literal in their reading of scripture even as it’s leader, Martin Luther said not to read the Bible literally.

It also happens that the pope also says the same thing, so WTH are Catholics doing also following this anti-Christ way of reading scripture, and ending with a literal historic Christ?

Do none who call themselves Christian or Catholic believe their own leadership anymore?

If not, why are you calling yourself Christian or Catholic?

My guess is tradition and your social network and to me, this is a hypocritical way of going through life and a good way to never know or find God.

Satan is supposed to deceive the whole world from your pathetic literal view so if the majority of Catholics and Protestants are reading literally or ending their reading of the Bible with a literal and historic Christ, then statistically speaking you poor deluded soul, must be following Satan.

Right?

Regards
DL

P S. Here is the way Martin Luther broke free from the shackles of the twisted Catholicism of his day. He accepted adulthood and so should literalists.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGx4IlppSgU

People easily believe that which supports their emotional needs. Critical analysis is not encouraged. The flock and the leaders want to find the easy way. The need for humans to socialize and feel a part of a righteous group overrides any original thinking. We are such a competitive species, for natural reasons. Followers far out number leaders and thinkers. Followers will perform outrageous acts in the name of righteousness proclaimed by charismatic leaders. Acts that if analyzed on their own merits are clearly against any god or nature.

I agree but in the post above, I think I show where the followers are not following. That was the intent in any case.

Regards
DL