7
   

Every religion proven to be based upon a foundation of lies

 
 
igm
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Sep, 2011 09:56 am
At Buddhism's heart is that the true nature of reality is beyond elaboration i.e. whatever concept, idea, theory etc... one has about it, that will be wrong. How is that a religion?
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Sep, 2011 10:09 am
@igm,
...the believed certainty of uncertainty is in itself a contradiction in terms...whether believing is what specifically defines a Religion I personally have my doubts, since it is not a particular trait of Religions alone to believe in something we can´t be certain of...
igm
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Sep, 2011 10:26 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:

...the believed certainty of uncertainty is in itself a contradiction in terms...whether believing is what specifically defines a Religion I personally have my doubts, since it is not a particular trait of Religions alone to believe in something we can´t be certain of...

No... Buddhists are (again at the heart of the Buddha's teachings) not saying anything at all but when anyone thinks or speaks of the true nature of reality, then if one uses reason, logic and examination it will be shown to be wrong. Science is always showing us this so to is philosophy and logic we always come back to the true nature being beyond elaboration.

Based on this all apparent negative actions stop because one needs a concept about those actions to start them in the first place. This is lack of belief not belief i.e. the complete absence of belief. That is not a religion or a belief system. From the outside or at the beginning of trying to understand what Buddhism is then it can be 'mistaken' for a religion but as you can see above at its heart it is not.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Sep, 2011 10:33 am
@igm,
Quote:
This is lack of belief not belief i.e. the complete absence of belief.


You cannot establish the lack of belief without implicitly accepting there is something you must believe in...not believing requires a contrast between falsehood and truth, without which, not believing is in itself vacuous of any purpose...

...anyway, I was not saying that believing is a trait of religions alone quite the opposite...
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Sep, 2011 10:37 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
This is the fuzziest of topics but here goes: let's have fun.
"Species DNA" does not propel SOME of us to have certain beliefs and others not. If it's a species trait it governs all of a species' members.
Another principle: Science rests, supposedly, on facts and Religion rests on myths. At times they may both generate--or fall upon--true and false conclusions--all of which are, historically speaking, provisional (e.g.,Nietzsche) and dependent on social consensus (e.g., Kuhn).
igm
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Sep, 2011 10:40 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Quote:
This is lack of belief not belief i.e. the complete absence of belief.


You cannot establish the lack of belief without implicitly accepting there is something you must believe in...not believing requires a contrast between falsehood and truth, without which, not believing is in itself vacuous of any purpose...

Meditation is non-dual. Language and concepts are based on duality, so words and concepts are at their deepest level empty of any true meaning and only work if within a dualistic framework. At the level I'm speaking of it is outside of duality.

Also, is what I've said your definition of what a religion is? I don't expect you to comprehend that which is beyond words from my words but I'd like to think that a total lack of belief in beliefs is not a religion. Is it a religion at that level?
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Sep, 2011 10:43 am
@JLNobody,
JLNobody wrote:

This is the fuzziest of topics but here goes: let's have fun.
"Species DNA" does not propel SOME of us to have certain beliefs and others not. If it's a species trait it governs all of a species' members.
Another principle: Science rests, supposedly, on facts and Religion rests on myths. At times they may both generate--or fall upon--true and false conclusions--all of which are, historically speaking, provisional (e.g.,Nietzsche) and dependent on social consensus (e.g., Kuhn).


...the fact that you are speaking on degrees of belief does not change my assessment on the problem...it is not a black and white situation...I well agree that there are certain genotypes among us which are more prone to believe without good reason...but certainly seems very implausible that the other half of us does n´t really have any kind of faith in anything at all without good justification being in place...having the ideal is not having the thing !

(edited)
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Sep, 2011 10:46 am
@igm,
Quote:
...but I'd like to think that a total lack of belief in beliefs is not a religion.


I am not saying it is a religion...I am saying that believing in the uncertainty of knowledge is itself a form of belief and a form of knowledge...
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Sep, 2011 10:49 am
@JLNobody,
(in my previous post to you I have jumped an entire sentence in my mind please re-read)

...thank you !
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Sep, 2011 10:54 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
You may like this!

This is a video pointing out what Sam Harris does not mention, kind of poking fun at Sam Harris!


igm
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Sep, 2011 10:54 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Quote:
...but I'd like to think that a total lack of belief in beliefs is not a religion.


I am not saying it is a religion...I am saying that believing in the uncertainty of knowledge is itself a form of belief and a form of knowledge...


I just want people to understand that the Buddha was not creating a religion because apart from superficial methods for beginners who come from a non-Buddhist background i.e. a religion such as Hinduism it is not a religion at its heart. Religion especially fundamentalist christians have a bad press and are hated e.g. by the starter of this topic but Buddhism if you understand it fully is not a religion. So please remember that if you agree with that. For Buddhists when they hear religion being attacked they know that implicity Buddhism is being lumped in with Christianity and it is damaging to Buddhism and unfair. We do not have faith in anything whatsoever at the deepest level of understanding.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Sep, 2011 10:57 am
@JLNobody,
Faith is the quest for resolution, the quest for unity...that quest is not divorced of reason, but the pre intuition for the need of it...

The new kind of idea I am placing upon the table is one that will favour rationality as a necessary development of faith instead of placing faith as the final goal for justification...
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Sep, 2011 11:02 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
...its not at all surprising that unreasoned belief systems are nevertheless striving to explain something...
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Sep, 2011 11:07 am
@reasoning logic,
...this guy is far from getting the problem...just substitute the highly charged word "God" and place instead "Reality" in its place...then you get the true problem ahead.
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Sep, 2011 11:12 am
The significant issue being missed by most here is that religion is an epiphenomenon of social reality. In the OP thesis...
Quote:
Every religion proven to be based upon a foundation of lies

....the very concept of " lies" involves others to tell them. The history of the pernicious nature of religion is a social one of groups against groups, rather than that of pathological individuals. So we are in essence dealing with the forces of tribalism, peer pressure and socialization, rather than the logic or rationality of individuals.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Sep, 2011 11:14 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
...I am at this point convinced that the very idea of God can be traced back to the quest for what is real, the quest for what is true, the quest for origin, the absolute...in evolutionary Darwinian terms the quest for permanence, the quest for immortality, or timelessness !
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Sep, 2011 11:17 am
@fresco,
...agreed...never said the opposite...I just acknowledge that there is a good amount of psychos around...although the reason can be fully explained with the need of vertical structures of command in pre history...obey without thinking because you are bad at thinking...let somebody else do the thinking for you...even if X action is morally questionable...selection did this !

(the experiment I spoke of earlier concerned applying for a job where interrogation and the use of electrical shocks would be used with fatal consequences) (most people comply even after knowing the dosage was fatal)
(of course the electric charge was faked, so don´t worry with doctor No)
0 Replies
 
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Sep, 2011 11:22 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
That sounds good, now we just need to get everyone to stop believing in Gods so that we can move forward as a species!
The man did get some things correct in the video and I thought that he was funny.
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Sep, 2011 11:22 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
...and that quest is futile!
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Sep, 2011 11:25 am
@fresco,
...if you mean futile because it won´t get us to a final result I agree...but still the very need for resolution it is productive in the sense it drives us forward, towards innovation and the permanent rediscovery of the world...think on the way of the TAO...
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 10/28/2021 at 06:18:55