Why do atheist try to convert Christians

Because you currently contribute nothing...perhaps it is your hope no-one will notice .

I dont think religious people try to convert scientists . They usually pick up the people society has forgotten about .

From memory, arent you and I also rapists ? I was shocked to find out the definition of being a rapists includes anyone who disagree with the law as currently written .

Yes, maybe, but my point was that a careful scientist will admit to the provisional nature of their claims, while Christians dogmatically claim absolute knowledge despite having absolutely no credible evidence whatsoever to support those claims. Then they use the "science doesn't know everything" argument as if it somehow didn't apply even more to themselves. Pot calling the kettle black when the pot is so obviously much, much blacker.

Certainly the best scientists are a pleasure to talk to as they usually include alternatives and clearly state what their opinion is and why...

But why would you expect such high standards from religious people ? Would you expect true scientific discipline from a cleaner ?

Just how much does science know about religion, seeing you want science to be the ultimate authority ?

You know science really doesn't give a tinkers damn about religion other than as a phenomena. The only people who love to debate religion and science are really discussing politics.

The discussion here should be which is more political, science or religion?

IMHO as science is based on a process that attempts to remove human emotion while religion is largely based on faith and human emotion, the discussion could be isomorphic to 'the emotion of politics' and remove religion and science from the discussion.

Rap

But science tackles the big questions that religion tried to answer long before science got its act together . How did the universe come into being.. what is the nature of existence... how was life created.... what is man's purpose... religion is stuck in a 4,000 yr old mindset... perhaps religion will catch up as it was streets ahead till the late Renaissance .

You say religion will catch up? Exactly how when so many religions are different. Buddhism for example is drastically different from christianity. So how is it that "religion" would make progress when they are so different? Not only that but the method that religion uses is flawed and incapable of actually answering questions according to reality. It doesn't bother trying to prove it's point it just says, "this is what is because it is" and that is not good enough.

Religion is probably on it's death bed because the method of information has grown beyond controlled groups and the internet is incredibly difficult to censor although it does happen. Information is meant to be free and with that religion will need to drastically cope with this or fade away.

So in other words, religion is obsolete.

No, I say perhaps....

So long as people are scared religion will have a purpose and a following . Science does nothing to reassure people about the big questions of life .

BS The Greek aesthetics used reason well before the advent of the dark age and the Renaissance recovery.

The questions of 'where we came from' is more of response to scientific curiosity than the inadequate 'campfire stories' of many religion.

Rap

Can you explain how Buddhism is obsolete?

The "big questions of life"?

I think that science does answer the "big questions of life" but as far as holding my hand or patting me on the back, I don't need that. I personally think that people require these made up ideas to sooth their minds from reality but I think it is because they are taught to rely on these methods or behave that way. Religion has a great way of making it's purpose require people to rely on it so it teaches people to have to rely on it and not to find solutions themselves.

People are fully capable of coping with reality if they break through all that poor habitual tendencies that religion has infused it's followers with.

I have studied buddhism pretty extensively and I find it has very similar shortcomings as all religions do although it is quite different than the rest. If buddhism is the the path to ultimate truth then where are all these beings who have utilized it? It doesn't seem to be very effective if only 1 in a million actually succeed. Sure it might help ease some suffering in some or help some become better people but that is no different than any other method because it can have the same results. So where are the numbers as far as the teachings go. I don't mean people that have little success, I am talking about completion. Minor successes can be got through other means, so it is no great accomplishment.

Not only that but Buddhism is heavily polluted with a lot of foreign additions and sometimes it is difficult to determine where original teachings end and the additions begin. A lot of teachers try to by pass this problem by saying that people vary in the problems they are trying to solve. But it seems to be more of a cultural phenomena than an individual one. But even that does not address the problem.

To really point out what I mean, let me use an example. If you wanted to learn math, you would seek out a teacher and you would learn from that teacher. Lets ignore the current learning system and say that this math teacher is an expert and knows every math concept that there is to know. It should be assumed, given enough time and practice that any students practicing under said teacher would become at least as knowledgeable as the teacher. We know this is true because it happens, people learn math and they progress through the system course while some excel others don't but all you have to do is apply yourself and you will.

However; when we actually look at buddhism we find drastically short success. There might be one self proclaiming teacher who has thousands of students but not a single student has succeeded. This makes me skeptical.

I have traveled and learned from various schools of buddhism and the results seem to be the same. The only time a master is replaced is when they become too old to teach then the most senior of students takes their place. Not because they have learned or mastered the teachings but because they have put in the most time. In some cases it was favoritism that the teacher liked a particular student and wished that they took over.

If buddhism was a successful method then there should be hundreds of thousands of successful masters but I have a very difficult time finding a single one. It shouldn't be so difficult to find them.

I don’t think you’ve been able to show that Buddhism deserves to be lumped together with other religions or even that Buddhism is a religion (some argue that it isn’t) but that’s not as important to me as some other things you’ve said so I’ll leave that to one side for now.

I also don’t think you’ve given enough of a reason to be able to say that it is obsolete. But I hope to get closer to understanding your reasons for saying this by asking a few more questions connected with what you’ve already said.

I’d like to ask more questions but not all at once, if that’s ok?



What do you believe the goal of Buddhism is? I ask because you began (see above) with ‘If’ which indicates that you are unsure of the goal. Do you know that the goal of Buddhism is the path to ultimate truth?

Your objection to Buddhism is Buddhism's apparent lack of success but knowing this to be the case would depend on you knowing the goal of the Buddha’s teachings and when a being succeeded you knowing how that success should appear to you. If you agree, then I first need to know what the goal of the Buddha’s teachings are and how you’d spot success. Could you answer these questions?

I think it's a lot more common for Christians to try to convert atheists than the other way around.

agreed. I said that his prelim assumption in this entire thread was bogus for that very reason. He keeps trtying to ignore that observable point.

Evangelism is not a basic tenet of Atheism. Evangelistic Xtians feel compelled to convert my left foot.

Rap

Because they claim to know more about the ultimate nature of the universe than scientists. They should, therefore, be held to higher standards if we are to believe them.



Which religion? There are buttloads. Anyway, all a scientist really needs to know about religious claims is that there is absolutely no credible evidence to support them. How could scientists be expected to accumulate data about that which doesn't exist? That's why blind faith is at the core of every religion. Yah just gotta BELIEVE, bruthah!.


Or sistah.

What do you think about graceful degradation?

Well that is a loaded question. Because it is not always the same for every school of buddhism. In the most gerneral explanation it is to end the process of suffering. However there are schools of buddhism that actually promote the teaching of a person who has realized should teach others before they complete enlightenment. (These are the ones I am addressing specifically) Commonly referred to as bodhisattvas. If the method is true then there should be hundreds of thousands of them but it's difficult to find one.



My point is, if it takes 60 years before a person finally realizes then it is useless because all the years prior were still wrapped up in creating problems. If the teaching requires a life time to perfect it is useless. Sure there might be a reduction in suffering but a reduction is not a solution to the problem of suffering. At that level it is no different than any other system so what good is it at that point? I have met people who understood Buddhist principals who have never even studied Buddhism but as far as ultimate truth goes they are no where near it.

The thing is, you can self learn but it is problematic because without a person who actually knows the way, mistakes can be made and potentially left uncorrected. It is best to have an experienced guide who knows the way so that when mistakes are made they can be corrected. You can also progress much quicker with a teacher who understands the actual principals involved where as if you try to self learn you might miss something crucial.

The funny thing is, when ever I mention this, people always bring up the authority problem which I find silly. If I were to go back to my math teacher analogy no one would say self learning math is superior to being taught by a teacher. Yet when it comes to Buddhism they insist that self taught is the only real method and that you should abandon an authority teacher.

My over all point is, there are no qualified teachers, anywhere and there should be hundreds of thousands of them. The goal as you want me to point out is irrelevant but I answered it anyways so I can escape your doubt that I don't have any idea what I am talking about.