Something I think bares reading.

[Ghel]

Just because someone isn't religious, doesn't mean they're an atheist either.

I'll grant you this one, but only becauce I don't want to revisit the whole semantics argument.

This actually isn't an issue of semantics. Religion and spirituality can very well be mutually exclusive. A person is fully capable of believing there is a higher power/deity/afterlife without observing the rituals many religions require.

Yes, and one can be religious without believing in a god. There are atheistic religions out there, with Buddhism being perhaps the most prominent one (although I'm told that some Buddhists consider Buddha a god, but I digress). So religion isn't necessarily synonymous with theism, but they tend to go together.

If someone goes through college and realizes that the notion of god is logically unsound and is unsupported by evidence, they will likely discard that notion of god. At that point, if they don't start believing in some other god, they become an atheist. They still may be religious or spiritual (whatever that means), but that's a different question from whether they believe in a god.

Well see Ghel there is another problem, right there. You make more blanket statements. From 1984 till roughly 1988 I was a Christian. I can guarantee you, I never bombed a abortion clinic, tried to prevent anybody getting married, etc. Nor did I know anybody who did. Not once did the church I attend have a Sermon that decried the 'evils of homosexuality', nor do we picket/protest or such.

I didn't say that every Christian did these things. I said that the people who did these things were Christians, motivated by their beliefs. Because without a belief that the Bible is accurate, why would someone try to get creationism taught in public schools? Without a belief that abortion is murder, why would someone bomb an abortion clinic? Without a belief that homosexuality is a sin, why would someone try to prevent consenting adults from getting married?

Even children made up their mind if they wanted to attend that or not.

Really? Even before they understood what was being asked? Even in the face of not wanting to disappoint their parents?

I'm having trouble understanding how you don't know what it means. I did answer your previous three questions. Yes, it means something "supernatural", it may or may not interact with the natural world and it may or may not exist within its own realm. Because its a general term for anything above or outside the power of an individual person and is, yes, outside of our current scientific understanding or even, if you want, may not exist at all beyond our own belief in it.

I still don't understand why anybody should care about this "higher power." Is it something conscious? Is it intelligent? Does it want to be worshiped? If the answer to any of these is "no," then why should anybody believe in it?

I said it was wrong of you to ridicule someone's belief's to them just because they were ridiculous to you, as your definition of what is ridiculous is quite broad.

That's my sense of humor for you, and I'm not going to apologize for it.

No they shouldn't, actually. Or more precisely, the option should not be part of public education. If they want to learn it privately, fine. But absolutely no religion should be supported or endorsed as part of public education.

Hey, there's something we agree on! We're making progress.

[Ipecac Drano]

I believe I already pointed out the whole reincarination study thing.

But to address a different point.

Buddhism does not demand blind faith, quite the opposite actually. To quote Buddha himself: Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing, nor upon tradition, nor upon rumor, nor upon what is in a scripture, nor upon surmise, nor upon an axiom, nor upon specious reasoning, nor upon a bias towards a notion that has been pondered over, nor upon another's seeming ability, nor upon the consideration, "The monk is our teacher.".

What else does it proport?

One should never believe anything without personal inquiry and your own verification. In fact he specifically warns against taking your own opinions, scriptures, news or the opinions of teachers or authority figures at face value without doing your own inquiries to verify they are correct.

So, we must trust him blindly to believe that?

She said simply "Christianity" without any such distinctions.

In some places, where it applied.

Actually it does when the use the name of said group without any specifics. If I said "Americans" you don't assume I mean "Just Kansas".

How about posting an example?

[Gravekeeper]

Yes, and one can be religious without believing in a god. There are atheistic religions out there, with Buddhism being perhaps the most prominent one (although I'm told that some Buddhists consider Buddha a god, but I digress).

There are basically 3 big schools of Buddhism. Out of them 1 views Buddha as a higher ( aka "enlightened" ) being ( Though not a god. ). There are no schools that view him as a god, because thats directly counter to his teachings. Buddhism has no creator god or anything like that. Also, the definition of "god" in eastern religions is much different than western ones. Western ones always assume an all powerful sort of deity that created everything. While in some eastern religions, "gods" are more like powerful spirits. Neither omnisentient nor omnipotent. Often falliable as well.

I didn't say that every Christian did these things. I said that the people who did these things were Christians, motivated by their beliefs. Because without a belief that the Bible is accurate, why would someone try to get creationism taught in public schools? Without a belief that abortion is murder, why would someone bomb an abortion clinic? Without a belief that homosexuality is a sin, why would someone try to prevent consenting adults from getting married?

"Because they're assholes" I guess isn't going to cover it, is it? ( But they are assholes. >.> ). Really, though, they are assholes picking and choosing parts of the Bible ( while ignoring others ) that fit their agenda. You can't just go with the part of Leviticus that implies homosexuality is a sin, and ignore the parts about eating shellfish and never shaving.

I view them more as dickheads just using religion to justify being, well, dickheads. >.>

Creationism however, I have no explaination for. That one seems unique to the US Bible belt. I guess its what you get when you combine evangelicals with a piss poor school system that shapes its cirriculum based on politics rather than knowledge.

Though I will still totally go see the unicorns on Noah's Ark if given a chance.

I still don't understand why anybody should care about this "higher power." Is it something conscious? Is it intelligent? Does it want to be worshiped? If the answer to any of these is "no," then why should anybody believe in it?

I didn't say you had to care. I'm just desperately trying to argue for some basic respect for your fellow human beings. ><

Hey, there's something we agree on! We're making progress.

Hey, I may be spiritual, but I don't want religion anywhere near anything to do with politics, education or science. None of these things should be shaped by unicorns. So yes, huzzah for seperation of church and state ( and everything else ).

So, we must trust him blindly to believe that?

...wha....? Are you being serious or are you just trolling me now? Blindly believe we shouldn't blindly believe?

How about posting an example?

.....no really, are you trolling me now? -.-

[Ipecac Drano]

...wha....? Are you being serious or are you just trolling me now? Blindly believe we shouldn't blindly believe?

This isn't a koan. I'm talking about believing the guy who said it. Can we trust him?

...
.....no really, are you trolling me now? -.-

I'm not asking for the impossible.

[Hyena Dandy]

So, we must trust him blindly to believe that?

We don't have to blindly trust that we should question things. That's something we should have been able to figure out for ourselves. Most buddhism just goes on the basis that Sidhartha was just a really smart guy.

He's not asking us to blindly trust him that we should question things. He's saying we should question things because that seems like a good idea.

[KnitShoni]

I didn't say that every Christian did these things. I said that the people who did these things were Christians, motivated by their beliefs. Because without a belief that the Bible is accurate, why would someone try to get creationism taught in public schools? Without a belief that abortion is murder, why would someone bomb an abortion clinic? Without a belief that homosexuality is a sin, why would someone try to prevent consenting adults from getting married?

Regarding abortion and homosexuality: I wasn't aware that believing abortion is murder and homosexuality disgusting was solely the realm of Christians.

[smileyeagle1021]

Well see Ghel there is another problem, right there. You make more blanket statements. From 1984 till roughly 1988 I was a Christian. I can guarantee you, I never bombed a abortion clinic, tried to prevent anybody getting married, etc. Nor did I know anybody who did. Not once did the church I attend have a Sermon that decried the 'evils of homosexuality', nor do we picket/protest or such.

Most of the Christians I talk with (and they are many) have never done such. It is the problem again of the vocal minority causing people to make such blanket statements.

The problem is that those Christians who aren't hateful bigots never rarely speak up about their faiths.
I'm sorry, but as a person who lives less than 5 miles from the office building that houses the administrative offices of the church that has been one of the most influential churches in anti-gay laws in the nation, and anti-gay bigotry runs rampant amongst those who proclaim their love of their religion and their hate of homosexuals... who am I to believe, the extremely small minority of people talking about their faith and love (or at least acceptance) of homosexuals claiming that they speak for the silent majority and the bigots are the vocal minority, or the far larger number of those who speak of their their faith and their hatred of homosexuals who claim to speak for all. Right now the silence is deafening.

[Ipecac Drano]

Regarding abortion and homosexuality: I wasn't aware that believing abortion is murder and homosexuality disgusting was solely the realm of Christians.

Nor did she say that. Just because those who commit the atrocities she had listed were Xtian doesn't mean that she was saying that only Xtians carry those sentiments; nor does it mean that she was saying that all Xtians are that way.

[Ghel]

GK, thanks for the explanation of how Buddhists view Buddha. I appreciate it.

I view them more as dickheads just using religion to justify being, well, dickheads. >.>

I don't disagree. I just don't think that's the whole story. I think that any religion that posits an absolute moral code (or even just an absolute source for the moral code) stunts its followers' moral growth. People can figure out what's right and wrong without religion.

I didn't say you had to care. I'm just desperately trying to argue for some basic respect for your fellow human beings. ><

Is it respect to let people think it's ok to indoctrinate children into religion? Is it respect to stifle laughter when someone says their God can forgive sin but can't stop rapists? Is it respect to remain silent when a Muslim says that the biggest miracle of Islam has to do with a passage in the Koran talking about iron falling out of the sky, since Mohammad supposedly knew nothing about meteors, yet there's an iron meteorite that Muslims are to kiss when they make their pilgrimage to Mecca?

Most buddhism just goes on the basis that Sidhartha was just a really smart guy.

Ok, I can respect that. But you know there's been other smart people, before and since, right? What makes his particular philosophy so special? Why should anyone believe that you can learn everything you need to know from meditation and introspection? Why should anyone believe that they have been reborn or will be reborn?

I keep hearing in my head this paraphrasing of the Four Noble Truths in Yoda's voice:

Desire leads to suffering. Suffering leads to rebirth. Achieve enlightenment and you will end the cycle of rebirth. hmmmMMMmmm.

Regarding abortion and homosexuality: I wasn't aware that believing abortion is murder and homosexuality disgusting was solely the realm of Christians.

I didn't say they were. I said the beliefs were common among Christians. I said that since Christians are the majority here in the US, protests against abortion and homosexuality tend to be populated by Christians.

[Andara Bledin]

The problem is that those Christians who aren't hateful bigots never speak up about their faiths.

I speak up about my faith every time it's relevant to a discussion.

I usually get attacked by one side trying to claim I'm not a "real" Christian or the other side for being a theist at all. But those are just the knee-jerk bigots who can't see past their own prejudices to realize that their attacks say a lot more about their own shortcomings than the ones I'm supposed to have.

^-.-^

[Hyena Dandy]

I speak up about it a lot as well. Saying that we never speak up is insulting to me personally, and a little despairing in general. I speak up. Many like me speak up. But a lot of the time, nobody wants to listen.

[Gravekeeper]

This isn't a koan. I'm talking about believing the guy who said it. Can we trust him?

Right, I'm just gonna talk to Ghel. Honestly, I don't have any confidence in you that you aren't just stirring things up half the time.

Most buddhism just goes on the basis that Sidhartha was just a really smart guy. He's not asking us to blindly trust him that we should question things. He's saying we should question things because that seems like a good idea.

This. ^

Regarding abortion and homosexuality: I wasn't aware that believing abortion is murder and homosexuality disgusting was solely the realm of Christians.

It's not, I think they're just the most vocal. Case in point, one of the old conservative schools of Buddhism doesn't like homosexuality as do several cultural specific sects ( Because honestly its a cultural issue, no a religious one. People just use religion as an excuse ). You just wouldn't know it, because Buddhism isn't about imposing your viewpoint on anyone so they don't act on it.

Likewise, abortion doesn't exactly gel with basic tenants of Buddhism, but again, Buddhists aren't picketing or shooting abortion doctors because Buddhism isn't a philosophy of judgement or conversion. I for example, am pro-choice despite basic Buddhist philosophy being pro-life. Both because Buddhism doesn't view life in such a black and white way that we can make such judgements, and because Buddhism doesn't demand I adhere to every word of it to stay in the club.

Buddhism thankfully leaves me with the ability to evolve with the times. If it didn't, I wouldn't have bothered with it to begin with.

The problem is that those Christians who aren't hateful bigots never speak up about their faiths.

"The problem is that those Muslims who aren't terrorists never speak up about their faiths."

Just something to mull over.

I don't disagree. I just don't think that's the whole story. I think that any religion that posits an absolute moral code (or even just an absolute source for the moral code) stunts its followers' moral growth. People can figure out what's right and wrong without religion.

Agreed, an absolute moral code simply cannot sustain itself as both people and society evolves. I tend to use a very simple bench test from the Dalai Llama. Which was basically: Is what you're about to say or do going to cause suffering to another living thing without any benefit? Then its a Bad Thing(tm).

Basically, stay aware of how your words and actions affect the world around you. Most people don't do this. To use a CS example, people don't realise acting like a dick while talking to the girl at Starbucks probably ruined her entire morning. It doesn't even register to them what their words or actions have done and they forget the moment they leave the store.

Is it respect to let people think it's ok to indoctrinate children into religion? Is it respect to stifle laughter when someone says their God can forgive sin but can't stop rapists? Is it respect to remain silent when a Muslim says that the biggest miracle of Islam has to do with a passage in the Koran talking about iron falling out of the sky, since Mohammad supposedly knew nothing about meteors, yet there's an iron meteorite that Muslims are to kiss when they make their pilgrimage to Mecca?

You're drifting away from my point again. My point was simply people don't deserve to be ridiculed just for having beliefs. Everyone deserves a basic amount of respect just for being another living being. Respect doesn't start at 0 and they have to work their way up. It should start at 50, then they can work their way up, or do shit that makes me whittle them down to 0. But I will always give them a 50 to start with till they prove they're worth more or less.

And sure, some beliefs are pretty damn silly, but my problem is your definition of what ones are silly is too broad for the tactics you employ ( Which is to say ridicule ). Belief in a god doesn't deserve ridicule. Believing your god watches you masturbate and wants you to yell at homosexuals deserves ridicule. But someone that far gone isn't going to listen to reason or ridicule anyway. Though I would still use reason *before* ridicule, because I am a better person than the asshole with the sign. -.-

Basically, I don't care what someone believes unless they're forcing that belief on others or are causing suffering to others through their beliefs. And yes, evangelicals are doing the whole belief forcing/suffering thing, but I don't hold that against every Christian I meet. Because not every Christian is like that.

Ok, I can respect that. But you know there's been other smart people, before and since, right? What makes his particular philosophy so special? Why should anyone believe that you can learn everything you need to know from meditation and introspection? Why should anyone believe that they have been reborn or will be reborn?

See that's the fun part. Absolutely nothing is special! Buddha had some good ideas, many of which were well ahead of its time ( such as gender equality, which didn't fly so well ). But he lived in the past, and while much of his core ideas are universal to just being human, sure there are some that just don't fit in today's world. And that's fine. Because the whole philosophy is to keep seeking and learning. Buddha never said "Just listen to me, I know it all.". He said "Well here's what I've learned, but if you can find anything better, go for it. I'm just one dude.".

He doesn't rule out other teachers or methods of learning, nor did he ban his followers from listening to anyone else. The only reason Buddha is "special" is because enough people agreed he had some good ideas for those ideas to survive the test of time. The same reason any other religion or philosophy is "special".

There are plenty aspects to Buddhism I don't agree with. Especially with two of the major schools ( one's too conservative and self centered, the other is ironically too grounded and studious. Hell, even the one I mostly follow is too out there at times. ). I mean I barely agree with anything in Tibetan Buddhism ( Its batshit crazy when you delve into its "afterlife" ). But again, that's perfectly fine because it doesn't threaten to set me on fire for not swallowing the entire thing and adhering to it as an absolute truth.

I keep hearing in my head this paraphrasing of the Four Noble Truths in Yoda's voice

I freely admit to having read sutras in Yoda's voice on more than one occasion. But if the sutras are any indication, Buddha had a great sense of humour. And the Buddha ( "Buddha" is actually a title ) I lean towards in particular spent her time playing pranks on monks that took shit too seriously.

[smileyeagle1021]

I speak up about my faith every time it's relevant to a discussion.

One reason why I changed the word to rarely...
Yes, people do occassinally speak about faith without talking about why God hates Fags... and in fairness, the number of people who do is slowly improving, I won't deny that. It still leaves the question, what are people supposed to think when the vast majority stays silent and allows a small minority to speak for them?

"The problem is that those Muslims who aren't terrorists never speak up about their faiths."

Just something to mull over.

Something else to mull over, want to know where else I've heard this quote...
If you guessed from Muslim members of discussion panels on Islam's negative imagine in America you'd be right. Every single Muslim member of UVU faculty that participates in those panels has agreed that the best first step do improving the general view of Islam in America is for moderate Muslims to speak up about their faith and stop letting the extremists speak for them.
My boss at the hotel says the exact same thing, he does bring up his faith because he doesn't want the extremists to speak for him.

Hell, I will even hold that standard to myself, "the problem with homosexuals is that those who aren't pansies and ninnies refuse to come out of the closet and show the general population the true diversity in the LGBT community"
And for full disclosure, yes, I am guilty of that too... I won't claim it's easy, but I will claim it's necassary... I am working on fixing this problem with myself.

[Andara Bledin]

Hell, I will even hold that standard to myself, "the problem with homosexuals is that those who aren't pansies and ninnies refuse to come out of the closet and show the general population the true diversity in the LGBT community"

The same thing happens with the furry community. And with gamers. And metal-heads. I'm all of those things and usually nowhere near what people tend to envision when they think of those groups. Well, maybe a bit with the gamer tag. *wipes Cheetos dust off fingers*

^-.-^

[Hyena Dandy]

The same thing happens with the furry community. And with gamers. And metal-heads. I'm all of those things and usually nowhere near what people tend to envision when they think of those groups. Well, maybe a bit with the gamer tag. *wipes Cheetos dust off fingers*

^-.-^

I didn't know you were a furry! :O

But I agree. Often, the stereotype gets into the public image. People see the ones who fit it, and think "There goes another X". They don't think of X when they don't see people who don't fit their mental image, because none of the associations are being called up.