They don't hate us, they love their God

Setanta wrote:

The puling hypocrisy of the religionist.

I had to look up the word "puling". Apparently it means whining, whimpering. Aside from that, how am I being hypocritical? Also, I am an outspoken critic of institutionalized religion, so I wouldn't describe myself as a "religionist".

0 Replies

If you are "an outstanding critic of institutionalized religion," why are assuming a brief to defend buddhism?

You seem to have missed my point (which does not surprise me). No organized religious canon serves to prevent murderous violence, and that includes Buddhism. The Theravada tradition of buddhism is derived from a term meaning the Sri Lankan tradition. Consider Sri Lanka today--the Tamils and the Sinhalese have been slaughtering one another with gleeful abaondon for several decades now.

My point has been and remains that no religious tradition serves to prevent violence, and that includes buddhism.

0 Replies

Re: They don't hate us, they love their God

Joe Nation wrote:

They don't hate us, they love their God and they are quite willing to kill themselves or us for Him

Joe(Discuss.)Nation

But "God" is nothing more than a concept that each person carries. It has no external reality. None of these people claim to have actually heard from God (and they wouldn't be any less crazy if they did), they have simply been told what to do from someone else who also hasn't heard from God.

So these people are really just willing to kill themselves, and us, and instruct others to kill on their behalf, for an idea which they have created for themselves and called "God". It's complete insanity.

It doesn't really matter who they hate, they are homicidally delusional. The object of their hate could be anything or anyone. Mass delusion of this type crops up in lots of places and religions. Sunni's and Shites are just as quick to kill each other as they are people a continent away.

0 Replies

IFeelFree wrote:

The teachings of Buddha and the canonical Mahayana texts do not advocate violence. If any followers of Buddhism are violent, it is either the result of personal weakness, wrong teaching, or a legitimate defense from attack.

There are lots of followers of Islam who would say the same thing about Islam, and lots of Christians who would also claim a peaceful high-ground, but there are always others claiming to be Christian or Muslim who will justify their homicidal behavior through their beliefs.

The particular religion a person claims allegience to is only a vague attempt to pigeonhole an otherwise purely personal viewpoint. When closely inspected, personal beliefs are only marginally aligned to the 'pure' standard, which is itself a subjective and arbitrary thing.

The common thread which runs through all this is not the particular belief, it's the homicidal behavior. At the next level up are the thought processes used to justify the homicidal behavior.

0 Replies

The direction this thread is taking reminds me of an exchange I had with hobitbob many moons ago when he made this statement here.

hobitbob wrote:

Islam is no more or less violent than any other faith (This includes Buddhism). I ordinarily agree with your positions, Steve, but I think you are wrong here.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

If you are "an outstanding critic of institutionalized religion," why are assuming a brief to defend buddhism?

I am defending the teaching of Buddhism, not necessarily how it is practiced today. Most (all?) religions seem to have strayed far from the original teaching. (By the way, I wrote "outspoken critic...", not "outstanding critic...".)

Quote:

You seem to have missed my point (which does not surprise me). No organized religious canon serves to prevent murderous violence, and that includes Buddhism. The Theravada tradition of buddhism is derived from a term meaning the Sri Lankan tradition. Consider Sri Lanka today--the Tamils and the Sinhalese have been slaughtering one another with gleeful abaondon for several decades now.

Which is why I criticize religion. Followers have distorted and misunderstood religious teachings so that religious beliefs are made into an identity which they must defend. It is complete ignorance.

Quote:

My point has been and remains that no religious tradition serves to prevent violence, and that includes buddhism.

That is because the original teaching is not understood or followed. Therefore, what is needed is a revival of true spiritual teaching and spiritual awakening. This is beginning to occur, but it is for the most part happening outside of mainstream religious institutions, in many smaller groups of spiritual practitioners throughout the world.

0 Replies

I think "complete ignorance" is presuming to think you know "what is needed" or what "true spiritual teaching and spiritual awakening" are.

So far, nothing separates you from any other charlatan, IFF. Belief in your own bullshit has always been the best method of convincing others to follow you.

No doubt you think yourself a humble person, but you are effectively saying that when it comes to religion, the Pope, the Ayatollah and the Dalai Lama ought to sit down and listen because you have the answers they've been looking for!

0 Replies

Eorl wrote:

I think "complete ignorance" is presuming to think you know "what is needed" or what "true spiritual teaching and spiritual awakening" are.

So far, nothing separates you from any other charlatan, IFF. Belief in your own bullshit has always been the best method of convincing others to follow you.

No doubt you think yourself a humble person, but you are effectively saying that when it comes to religion, the Pope, the Ayatollah and the Dalai Lama ought to sit down and listen because you have the answers they've been looking for!

Each of us has to make our own judgments about the truth of various ideologies and points of view. I can't just say, "It's all good." Nobody has to listen to me, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't voice my opinion when it seems appropriate. When I see the hatred and violence that is done in the name of religion, I will criticize it. I also try to analyze the cause of that behavior. Like you, I have a point of view. You may disagree, but I have as much right to post my views here as anyone else. Whether or not I am a charlatan is up to anyone reading to decide. I try not make personal criticisms of others here.

0 Replies

Nice attempt to regain the moral high ground IFF.

I apologize for the clumsy insult, but not for the purpose behind it.

My problem is that you aren't stating opinions as opinions. You are stating them as simple facts. What really annoys me about that is that you claim to be a physicist, so you should know better. Your opinion is more valuable simply because you are a physicist, and what you declare as fact, even more so. I think you are arrogantly abusing that power.

(btw I have no problem with you posting here and it wouldn't matter if I did, in fact you've breathed new life into a few stale topics. Im glad you're here, and I enjoy the debate.)

0 Replies

Eorl wrote:

My problem is that you aren't stating opinions as opinions. You are stating them as simple facts. What really annoys me about that is that you claim to be a physicist, so you should know better. Your opinion is more valuable simply because you are a physicist, and what you declare as fact, even more so. I think you are arrogantly abusing that power.

I sometimes hear scientists who are atheists using their status to add weight to their denigration of spirituality or the notion of God. They suggest that the scientific method of inquiry is the only valid one, and portray spirituality as a weakness. On the other hand, many religious individuals stress faith or belief without allowing for the variability of human subjectivity, and the need to test those beliefs against reality. I feel there is a need for a middle ground. My background is somewhat unusual in that I have a foot firmly in both camps -- science and spirituality -- and I think it gives me a unique perspective. The truth is, neither science nor spirituality has all the answers.

Sometimes I state opinions without justification because it can be cumbersome to always present evidence for everything I say (although I try to present an intelligent argument and evidence when asked for it). Also, it is not always easy to separate my personal experience from how I interpret that experience. For example, if I describe an experience of the chakras, I'm implicitly saying that such things exist. I wouldn't be surprised if someone was skeptical. However, I don't know how to describe the experience if I don't assume some kind of intellectual framework. The connection with traditional metaphysical systems seems obvious to me. To make an analogy, I wouldn't know how to describe gravity without using the language and intellectual framework of science.

I try to speak about spirituality in terms of my own experience, as opposed to things I believe, but it isn't easy. I suppose I could describe an experience by saying that I felt an explosion of pain in the region of my heart, followed by blissful energy, and so forth. However, to talk about the heart "chakra" and "kundalini", makes a connection with a lot of the traditional spiritual literature and might trigger recognition in some people. On the other hand, when I talk about the astral planes, for example, I am assuming a certain metaphysics and, even though my opinion is grounded in my own experience, I am extrapolating to some extent based on what I have come to believe over the years. To a degree, then, your criticism is valid. I have to be reminded that I'm not posting comments with a group that has the same conceptual framework that I have. A person's understanding is affected by their intellectual knowledge and their state of consciousness.

Quote:

(btw I have no problem with you posting here and it wouldn't matter if I did, in fact you've breathed new life into a few stale topics. Im glad you're here, and I enjoy the debate.)

Thanks, I enjoy being challenged (as long as it doesn't get personal).

0 Replies

Quote:

The truth is, neither science nor spirituality has all the answers.

True. But the difference is, when faced with a question, science researchs for an answer that fits our basic set of knowledge and adheres to reason while the spiritualist just makes up a convenient religious truth.

Joe(one cannot give equal weight to both answers and be honest)Nation

0 Replies

Joe Nation wrote:

Quote:
The truth is, neither science nor spirituality has all the answers.

True. But the difference is, when faced with a question, science researchs for an answer that fits our basic set of knowledge and adheres to reason while the spiritualist just makes up a convenient religious truth.

Joe(one cannot give equal weight to both answers and be honest)Nation

absolutely right Joe.

Of course science hasn't got all the answers. Science isnt answers. Science is the process by which we can find answers. And we have found out a lot in the last 500 years. Religion on the otherhand is just meaningless guesswork. During the same period it has contributed precisely zilch to our knowledge and understanding or to the welfare and betterment of mankind. (Except perhaps by serving as a horrible example of how not to do it).

0 Replies

ps thanks for the cigar Set.

I'll give it Spendius, now we're banned from smoking in pubs. See the Brit thread 2.

0 Replies

Eorl wrote:

I think "complete ignorance" is presuming to think you know "what is needed" or what "true spiritual teaching and spiritual awakening" are.

He does think that--and has peddled it tediously in thread after thread, without regard to whether it were relevant to the topic of the thread.

Quote:

So far, nothing separates you from any other charlatan, IFF. Belief in your own bullshit has always been the best method of convincing others to follow you.

No doubt you think yourself a humble person, but you are effectively saying that when it comes to religion, the Pope, the Ayatollah and the Dalai Lama ought to sit down and listen because you have the answers they've been looking for!

I had a good laugh at this. When he describes his superior method to attaining a "higher consciousness," he speaks of overcoming the ego. I've never seen a religionist here with as much ego as he displays.

0 Replies

Joe Nation wrote:

Quote:
The truth is, neither science nor spirituality has all the answers.

True. But the difference is, when faced with a question, science researchs for an answer that fits our basic set of knowledge and adheres to reason while the spiritualist just makes up a convenient religious truth.

I'm not sure what you mean by "science researchs for an answer that fits our basic set of knowledge" but I will admit that when seeking to understand nature, the scientific method is vastly superior to religion, alchemy, astrology, etc. The problem is that the scientific method of inquiry is not well-suited to exploring certain other types of questions that people wonder about -- what is consciousness? Does it survive the death of the body? Does God exist? What is the fundamental cause of human suffering? As a result, some people assume that since science can't answer these questions, either they must be unanswerable questions, or that it just proves that consciousness is merely an artifact of the brain, there is no God, and suffering is an essential part of human existence. The truth is that when it comes to these questions, science is not a particularly useful tool to answer them, unless we are willing to expand the range of empirical evidence to include subjective states.

To some extent, you are correct that the weakness of spirituality or psychic inquiry is that it often doesn't take into account the variability of subjective processes, and is biased by cultural and historical religious beliefs. When spiritual insight is not subjected to reason, it can even lead to the type of madness that we see in the world today where people use religion as an excuse to commit terrorism. However, what I am proposing is a "middle way". We should recognize subjective states as empirical evidence, but submit those insights to reason and analysis. We should demand that the metaphysical view that emerges be internally consistent and in agreement with the known laws of nature. We should also demand that the experiences be understood and "reproducible" in the sense that given the correct conditions, the experience can be reproduced in others. Whenever possible we should seek scientific investigation into the claims. I have previously discussed the example of scientific research into the physiological and psychological effects of meditation. At the very least, this research along with the subjective experiences of practitioners should give us insight into how the brain works. Based on my experience and understanding, it seems likely that we can also learn a great deal about the potentialities for higher human consciousness and our capacity for self-transcendence. If that leads to a spiritual world-view, so be it.

0 Replies

Steve 41oo wrote:

Of course science hasn't got all the answers. Science isnt answers. Science is the process by which we can find answers. And we have found out a lot in the last 500 years.

The term "science" usually refers to both the scientific method, and the body of knowledge that has been accumulated over the past few hundred years using this method. This is what I mean by "answers".

Quote:

Religion on the otherhand is just meaningless guesswork.

At its worst, it can be that. However, there have been spiritual men and women of great integrity who have realized valuable insights, or served as superior moral examples -- Jesus, Buddha, Moses, St. Theresa, Gandhi, Lao-Tzu, Francis of Assisi, Confucius, Shankara, etc. To dismiss their insights as "meaningless guesswork" is arrogant.

Quote:

During the same period it has contributed precisely zilch to our knowledge and understanding or to the welfare and betterment of mankind. (Except perhaps by serving as a horrible example of how not to do it).

How do you know that? In other words, how do you know that mankind would not be much worse off if it had not been for religion? I is quite possible that religion served a purpose during an earlier stage of human development, prior to science, in that it tempered somewhat man's aggressive tendency. At the present time, religion has lost a great deal of relevancy. However, we are also discovering the limits of the scientific approach. Has science solved the problem of human suffering? In some areas, yes, but it has also produced a great deal of suffering as well. (Advanced weapons of war, environmental damage, dangerous or addictive drugs, etc.) What is needed at the present time is an alternative to scientific materialism and religious provincialism. We need a more enlightened science that incorporates the insights of true spiritual experience with some of the rigor of the scientific method.

0 Replies

IFeelFree wrote:

I is quite possible that religion served a purpose during an earlier stage of human development, prior to science, in that it tempered somewhat man's aggressive tendency.

You is quite possible?

Let's examine this nonsense. When the Lord of Battles tells his "chosen people" to smite the Amelkites, the Midianites, the Caananites, was that a tempering of man's aggressive tendency? When Charlemagne campaigned almost every summer for 40 years against the "pagan" Saxons, was that a case of religion tempering man's aggressive tendency? When various Popes declared crusades against the Muslims of the middle east, against the Cathars (other Christians), against the Muslims of Tunisia, was that tempering man's aggressive tendency? When the early Muslims invaded the Sassanid Empire and founded Baghdad, and then from there launched an invasion of Persia, was that tempering man's aggressive tendency? Was the invasion of Egypt, all of North Africa, the Iberian Peninsula and eventually even France, was the tempering man's aggressive tendency? When Charles V lead his Spanish armies against the Lutherans and the German Reformed Church was that tempering man's aggressive tendency?

What a load of codswallop.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

When the Lord of Battles tells his "chosen people" to smite the Amelkites, the Midianites, the Caananites, was that a tempering of man's aggressive tendency? When Charlemagne campaigned almost every summer for 40 years against the "pagan" Saxons, was that a case of religion tempering man's aggressive tendency? When various Popes declared crusades against the Muslims of the middle east, against the Cathars (other Christians), against the Muslims of Tunisia, was that tempering man's aggressive tendency? When the early Muslims invaded the Sassanid Empire and founded Baghdad, and then from there launched an invasion of Persia, was that tempering man's aggressive tendency? Was the invasion of Egypt, all of North Africa, the Iberian Peninsula and eventually even France, was the tempering man's aggressive tendency? When Charles V lead his Spanish armies against the Lutherans and the German Reformed Church was that tempering man's aggressive tendency?

During the middle ages humanity exhibited highly aggressive behavior. (It appears as if this was more common in the West than in the East, which may say something about the psychology of Western man.) Religion was also the dominant conceptual paradigm of the time. Therefore, religious affiliation was often used as an excuse for this behavior. Irrespective of that, what was the actual effect, if any, of religious teachings on human behavior? We cannot know for certain. It is quite possible that there would have been more violence and aggression if there had been no religion. However, it seems likely that any teaching that advocated love, compassion, and turning the other cheek, would be more likely to restrain human aggression rather than incite violence. Obviously, as your examples show, the ability of religious teachings to ameliorate human behavior was limited.

0 Replies

I was commenting on the usefulness of relgion and religious dogma, not on the work of individual philosophers, some of whom might be religious.

Let me put to you Christopher Hitchens challenge. Name one idea invention or discovery given to the world by a religious person which could not have been forthcoming had that person not been religious.

That is, a commonly accepted "good" which came about directly out of and dependent on religious conviction.

Again I am talking about religion i.e. a theistic view of the world - the necessity of a deity or three to run the show.

We started by attributing everything that had power over us to gods. Gradually we have whittled the heavenly hosts down to just one (or three). Many people have just gone one God further and liberated their minds from the whole concept.

Thats not to say you cant find comfort in ritual, music bells smells and astral planing or whatever you are into. Its just a question of keeping it in proportion.

0 Replies

Quote:

Obviously, as your examples show, the ability of religious teachings to ameliorate human behavior was limited.

It is very rare, but sometimes, somewhere a light bulb goes on. This is precisely the point i have been hammering at.

But you're not paying attention. I specifically chose the examples i listed because they are instances of people going to war for a religious motive. You think it might have been worse? The Franks did not war on the Saxons as pagans until Charlemagne's reign--and it was for a religious motive when they did. The Cathars, or Albigensians, were Christians of southern France whom the Pope declared heretical, in order to mobilize the French in the north of France to attack them and end the spread of their "heresy." The Europeans did not attempt to conquer Anatolia, Syria and Palestine, or to conquer Tunisia, until various Popes declared crusades. Charles V made war on Germany during the Protestant Reformation precisely for religious motives--the Spanish had never previously attempted to conquer Germany.

As for "the West," Africa is not usually lumped together with the west, and the Arabs, Berbers and Moors are not westerners. The "Golden Horde" which invaded India was a Muslim horde. The Tendai and Ikko-Ikki Buddhists of Japan can hardly be called westerners. The Tawantinsuyu (to which you would probably incorrectly refer as the Inca Empire) imposed their worship of the Sun God on their Andean neighbors on an allegation that the Inca was the incarnation on earth of Inti, the Sun God--no westerners there.

As i say, you don't pay attention.

0 Replies

They don't hate us, they love their God

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know