joshuatxuk Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 I like my religion like I like my music: taking the best bits from diverse backgrounds to make something new, progressive and sincere. Actually, adherence to traditional forms is ok too, but only when it's done well, and not too self-righteous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joshuatxuk Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 einstein proved that all moments exist and referenced that postulation of physics when consoling grieving friends, yet very few people think about the spiritual implications of this. it's a part of relativity theory and relativity theory is confirmed as true in new ways all the time. if all moments are eternal and the passing of time is an illusion then life kind of is the afterlife. it could be why people have their lives flash before their eyes during near death experiences. as babies we must sort present perceptions from the memories of prior perceptions, so we're always doing that unconsciously, and the process of ascribing a point as "now" takes a period of time, so by the time a point is labled "now," there is a newer point ready to take its place. that explains the seeming perpetual presence of change. einstein talks about this in the appendix "relativity and the problem of space." so there is a nice substitute for a solution to the fear of death. now we just need a good way to teach people the golden rule. if we could prove that feelings are a property of matter, which i think they are, then that would go a long way in that direction. if feelings could be shown to be matter that comes and goes from a person, and one's feelings are where one is coming from/the observer behind it all/the seat of the conscious mind, then identities are just windows through which a mess of crap views, and everyone is each other. the meaning of the basic idea of god is that everything is connected and has an incomprehensible significance. in this way it functions as an alternate terminology for the idea that feelings are a property of matter, because in that sense all matter has unimaginable significance and, considering time an extant dimension, as described above, and not a perpetually disappearing one, it seems that matter is all connected. therefor these central ideas of spiritualism and materialism are different terminologies for the same thing. Beautiful post. i've been atheist since day one, and so has my family and everyone i've ever known. it's pretty much the default position in sweden afaik. american atheism has sorta been weirding me out lately though, with all their crazy shenanigans and campaigns and "atheist churches" and what not. 'specially on the internet, it seems like a lot of people get all "anti atheism" simply because of all the stuff american atheists have been up to in the past 5 years or so. Of my very good friends and family, very few of them are outspoken about their beliefs one way or the other. The few who are who are very non-judgmental and open to conversation. It's an interesting time in America because everyone makes major conclusions about both religious and irreligious people, so there's a lot of unspoken conflict between a lot of individuals. It's not 100% the case but it happens a lot. If you're a devout Christian people make negative assumptions, if you're an atheist you're essentially a pariah in many parts of the country (while not enforced, it's technically illegal in Texas to be an elected official who is irreligious). I know many friends who love their parents and extended relatives but cannot have any conversation about their faith or lack there of. Even worse, some people simply become estranged with friends and family for that reason. "Militant atheism" is a big turn off, even for me for quite a few years. While I like The_Four_Horsemen of the new atheism movement, Hitchens is about the only one I can listen to endlessly. I enjoy Ricky Gervais and Penn Teller very much too in debates and discussions because of their restraint and friendliness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doorjamb Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 religion is like a vegetable you eat it in hope of living better but then you probably die anyway plus it tastes like broccoli Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chenGOD Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 I know, you don't like the organized aspects of Christianity - but trust - there is plenty to dislike about the organized aspects of Buddhism. I know, that's why I don't subscribe to any of it. I'm only really interested in the approaches and outlooks of Buddhism. Beyond that I'm simply not bothered. Right, which is why I find the westernized approach to Buddhism terrifically lel. "Eww religion naw I don't like religion. Buddhism is alrigHt though innit?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LimpyLoo Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 I know, you don't like the organized aspects of Christianity - but trust - there is plenty to dislike about the organized aspects of Buddhism. I know, that's why I don't subscribe to any of it. I'm only really interested in the approaches and outlooks of Buddhism. Beyond that I'm simply not bothered. Right, which is why I find the westernized approach to Buddhism terrifically lel. "Eww religion naw I don't like religion. Buddhism is alrigHt though innit?" I've made it very clear what aspects I take seriously and what I don't. I've thrown up a disclaimer every single time I've mentioned Buddhism. The only thing I take seriously about Buddhism is the outlook (the philosophy, if you like) and a handful of the practices, like trying to quiet one's mind and trying to focus on the moment. I've made it very clear that I've stolen a few crumbs from Buddhism and then defected. Your description of the scenario is very un-nuanced. I subscribe to exactly zero of the dogma. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chenGOD Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 Why not subscribe to the philosophy of Christianity then? Sorry I don't mean to be an asshole, but subscribing to only the philosophy is ignoring the essence of the religion. You're right, I should have just said "Americans and their McBuddhism". I suppose what I mean to say is that perhaps you might find it in you to consider that your own view of Christianity is somewhat lacking in nuance. At least as you seem to present it on here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LimpyLoo Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 Why not subscribe to the philosophy of Christianity then? Sorry I don't mean to be an asshole, but subscribing to only the philosophy is ignoring the essence of the religion. You're right, I should have just said "Americans and their McBuddhism". I suppose what I mean to say is that perhaps you might find it in you to consider that your own view of Christianity is somewhat lacking in nuance. At least as you seem to present it on here. Yes, that's the whole point, Chen. I've plucked a couple coins out of Buddhism's pocket and kicked it overboard. Fuck it. What don't you get? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chim Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 Why not subscribe to the philosophy of Christianity then? Sorry I don't mean to be an asshole, but subscribing to only the philosophy is ignoring the essence of the religion. You're right, I should have just said "Americans and their McBuddhism". I suppose what I mean to say is that perhaps you might find it in you to consider that your own view of Christianity is somewhat lacking in nuance. At least as you seem to present it on here. You're forgetting that Buddhism as a single, organized entity doesn't exist and have never existed in the same way christianity does, there is a huge variety of viewpoints and doctrines within the various sects that have evolved over history, some more religious and organized than others - and some diametrically opposed. Writing this kind of attitude off as a lulzy western viewpoint is narrow-minded, as the same sentiments are present in asian practicioners and the historical sects that originated this type of approach - even though there is no denying the existence of organized religious movements and the inherent faults accompanied with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patternoverlap Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 My Reductionist view is that Reductionism throws out all the subtleties and nuances of any philosophy or religion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest A/D Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 My ultra-reductionist view is that reductionism. Chen I don't think there's anything wrong with completely disregarding the organized history of a religion when looking for helpful philosophical points. I personally think Jesus was a pretty great philosopher, and that Buddha was as well. I think it's possible to acknowledge that horrible things have been committed in their names but hardly according to what they said. It's the opposite of what you said: the teachings of the founders are the essence of the religion. The history of a religion's followers, while fascinating and tragic, is usually a byproduct of people using the religion for political gain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest zaphod Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 nah, chen is right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest A/D Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 but . . but Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest zaphod Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 yeah that's right, OWNED Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest A/D Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 keep smokin' that poop zaphod Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chenGOD Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 Limpy - I get what you're doing with Buddhism - my point is, why not try and show a little understanding that there might be a bit of nuance to people who follow Christianity. What don't you get? Why not subscribe to the philosophy of Christianity then? Sorry I don't mean to be an asshole, but subscribing to only the philosophy is ignoring the essence of the religion. You're right, I should have just said "Americans and their McBuddhism". I suppose what I mean to say is that perhaps you might find it in you to consider that your own view of Christianity is somewhat lacking in nuance. At least as you seem to present it on here. You're forgetting that Buddhism as a single, organized entity doesn't exist and have never existed in the same way christianity does, there is a huge variety of viewpoints and doctrines within the various sects that have evolved over history, some more religious and organized than others - and some diametrically opposed. Writing this kind of attitude off as a lulzy western viewpoint is narrow-minded, as the same sentiments are present in asian practicioners and the historical sects that originated this type of approach - even though there is no denying the existence of organized religious movements and the inherent faults accompanied with that. Christianity has plenty of variety in its sects. Catholic, Lutheran, Protestant, Unitarian, Baptist, etc. There are practitioners of Christianity who use the philosophical aspect solely. Ultimately, Buddhism stems from one source, and the organizational aspect of Buddhism is well documented. Much like Christianity, Buddhism has a wide array of belief levels, from the devout to the philosophical. However, I would argue two things: 1. You would be hard-pressed to find Asian practitioners who take one or two bits that they like and use them solely. From my examination of the subject (admittedly brief, nothing more than a couple of classes and a few texts) the majority accept the tenets of their sect pretty whole-heartedly. 2) I would argue that the vast majority of Asian practitioners partake in faith-based ritual in much greater frequency than your position seems to suggest. Chen I don't think there's anything wrong with completely disregarding the organized history of a religion when looking for helpful philosophical points. I personally think Jesus was a pretty great philosopher, and that Buddha was as well. I think it's possible to acknowledge that horrible things have been committed in their names but hardly according to what they said. It's the opposite of what you said: the teachings of the founders are the essence of the religion. The history of a religion's followers, while fascinating and tragic, is usually a byproduct of people using the religion for political gain. A/D - my point was simply that I find it somewhat hypocritical of Limpy to take the position he did in the recent thread on Christianity, as he is obviously willing to admit that there is nuance to be found in religious viewpoints. As to the essence - what I meant is that there is faith involved, it is the cornerstone of the founders' teachings, both Christ and the Buddha. Interestingly - both of these religions were also movements against the authority of the time. Christ didn't hold much with the Romans, and the Buddha didn't hold much with the Brahmans. edit: i'd smoke poop with zaphod any day of the week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest A/D Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 Oh sorry, I didn't understand the context. I didn't read that thread closely I guess. Could you explain what you mean by the essence more? Are you saying that a true religious follower takes the whole doctrine on faith, and that Limpy & I are wrong to cherrypick (I wrote cherryprick twice, lol) aphorisms & whatnot? I wouldn't argue with you there, there isn't a religion I could be said to be a true follower of. But I feel like I have that idea wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zlemflolia Posted January 7, 2014 Author Share Posted January 7, 2014 Hate to see such misuses of the word "philosophy" You don't have your own philosophy and neither do religions. Philosophy is the study of the acquisition of truth and what this truth is. It's not a term that can be ascribed to things like the ten commandments or the tenets of Buddhism or Jesus or any other religious or non-religious ideas. Philosophy isn't a noun for the "[set of guidelines you live by]" or any other such tripe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest A/D Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 That's only one of its definitions. It's also a silly thing to argue about. If it really bothers you, just replace it with "belief system" when you read it. 1 a (1) : all learning exclusive of technical precepts and practical arts (2) : the sciences and liberal arts exclusive of medicine, law, and theology <a doctor of philosophy> (3) : the 4-year college course of a major seminary b (1) archaic : physical science (2) : ethics c : a discipline comprising as its core logic, aesthetics, ethics, metaphysics, and epistemology 2 a : pursuit of wisdom b : a search for a general understanding of values and reality by chiefly speculative rather than observational means c : an analysis of the grounds of and concepts expressing fundamental beliefs 3 a : a system of philosophical concepts b : a theory underlying or regarding a sphere of activity or thought <the philosophy of war> 4 a : the most basic beliefs, concepts, and attitudes of an individual or group Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chenGOD Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 Oh sorry, I didn't understand the context. I didn't read that thread closely I guess. Could you explain what you mean by the essence more? Are you saying that a true religious follower takes the whole doctrine on faith, and that Limpy & I are wrong to cherrypick (I wrote cherryprick twice, lol) aphorisms & whatnot? I wouldn't argue with you there, there isn't a religion I could be said to be a true follower of. But I feel like I have that idea wrong. Essentially what I am saying is it's very disingenuous to say one admires Buddhism by ignoring the faith component of the religion yet turn around and proclaim all of Christianity one of the greatest evils the world has ever seen. I think it's great that Limpy has explored Buddhism and taken the parts that he liked, but I feel that if he knew more of the history of Buddhism and the means through which it has been utilized, perhaps his admiration for the religion might be tempered. Or perhaps it might lead to a more nuanced view on Christianity. And I simply use Limpy as an example, not to say he is the only one guilty of this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest A/D Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 Aha. Well, I won't speak for him there. Thanks for clarifying that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chenGOD Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 In more general terms though, i would say that in order to call yourself a practitioner of a religion, one should have faith. I know this contradicts my ramblings earlier saying that some Christians only utilize the philosophy. But I believe that an adherent of a religion should have faith, as the the teachings of the founders stem from faith-based realizations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zlemflolia Posted January 7, 2014 Author Share Posted January 7, 2014 Which is why nobody should bother with religions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest A/D Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 Chen - should have faith in what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zlemflolia Posted January 7, 2014 Author Share Posted January 7, 2014 I think he means that unless an ideology has a set of doctrines that are empirically/philosophically unprovable which need to be taken on faith alone, it's not a true religion and is rather just a lifestyle you are choosing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chenGOD Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 Chen - should have faith in what? Faith that the way you have chosen is the correct way I suppose. Faith in the tenets of the founder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.