What is religion to you?

[cunobelinus]

religion is a way for people to try and understand things they cant and its something that can bring people through things that otherwise they couldnt that all religion is to me .

[Xiahou]

When humanity finally throws off the chains of religion and superstition and fantasy, then we'll finally be able to progress as a species.

Right..... because humanity hasn't progressed at all under religion. Now if you'll excuse me- I have to take my chariot to the garage for service.

More and more, however, it's coming to be an albatross around my neck, and I find it increasingly a distinction that separates me from people I respect and who's company I enjoy. They view me as benighted and a simpleton, and I view them as intolerant and rancorous. I say this because Ievangelize by example, not by word, yet not a week goes by in the Backroom or in real life where people with whom I thought I mostly agreed and certainly respected laugh and ridicule that which they do not know.

I sympathize Don, but in perspective, the tribulations faced by modern-day Christians are pretty insignificant compared to what early Christians were forced to give up for their faith. Don't lose heart.

[kataphraktoi]

We shall have to agree to differ then.
There's no use arguing about matters of opinion or belief.

Agreed

I sympathize Don, but in perspective, the tribulations faced by modern-day Christians are pretty insignificant compared to what early Christians were forced to give up for their faith. Don't lose heart.

IN some places like China, its like the 1st century. Its funny though, Christianity has nearly been wiped out three times (Tang, Ming Dynasty and Communism) and now China has the largest number of Christians in the world.....lol :P

[DukeofSerbia]

1. The ingrained nature of religion in society. It is inertia, most people continue being religious because their parents were, therefore inertia. The second part will be in the next answer.

Inertia? I disagree. Inertia is not the satisfying argument. Religion survived and will survive because the man is rational but also is irrational being (I will say even more irrational than rational).

2. Simple, as science advanced, suddenly religious beliefs advanced as well, from Heaven being in the clouds above, to heaven being a spiritual realm, from God as a person to God as an abstract idea, the first cause, if you will. Therefore, as science advances, relgion moves it's beliefs beyond the reach of science, and moving them again when science catches up. So, to the second one, I would like some religious evidence, I believe religion is a system of belief ... not proof, so which religious evidence do you mean? If you want a solid answer, yes, it is nonsensical.

Again I disagree. Christian system of belief (dogma) isn’t changed over 1500 years. And this is especially in Orthodox Church. Roman Catholic Church changed by time and Protestant Churches…
And if there is no true in religion that doesn’t mean that religion is nonsensical. Denying trueness of theological statements doesn’t mean denying sense of religion. Sense and trueness are not the same.

3. No, human beings have a habit of idealising and justifying their actions, otherwise, they would not be able to retain sanity. For example, you hear of so-and-so casualties in a war, now take a moment and image that many lives of people to the last detail, and how their families will continue ... not so pleasant now, is it? That is the sort of things that a mind tends to protect itself from. Therefore, reality without illusion would drive individuals either to insanity, or suicide.

You explained well and than you became irrational…

What I believe is that religion is not a good protective mechanism, it is too ingrained, and leaves too much room for manipulation of one's world-view, while at the same time, shaping thought to certain molds.

“My answer has to be against religion no matter what arguments I used before that.”

4. And how many of those people were devout religious people? Most probably saw God (or whichever deity or deities they believed in) as the first cause, not as an actual being around that one has to meet and whose hand moves things around. They were, every last one of them, inquisitive minds, which is an oddity in religion, as questioning it does not find one in good relations with the faithful.

Why is hard to admit that most famous scientist were religious? I don’t care how they interpret religion.

However, the closer we come to the present, the fewer scientists are religious. For the most part, I would call it inertia.

If you claim that “we are closer to present time, the fewer scientists are religious” than you need to prove that.

Does that answer your questions?

Mostly no.

[DukeofSerbia]

I don't doubt that it will never be extinct, as some feel the need to cling to
such fallacies in order to live. Unquestioning faith is simple, it is an easy answer,
and many do believe, and will continue to believe, but the mere fact of the
increasing numbers of faithful doesn't confirm any truth of their religion.

I can agree with this.

I have seen some interesting points being made by the religious here, though
must say I was surprised to see the "the world would descend into chaos
without religion" line being taken.

I never said that but we saw and still see what happened when atheists come to power (like communists).

One of those most insulting views taken by
Christians in particular seems to be one that suggests Atheists cannot have
morals simply because they do not subsribe to the code for living as written in
their scriptures.

I never said that. I know many atheists who are moral.
Moral is not religion. Moral is only one element of religion (as dogma, cult and religious community).

[DukeofSerbia]

A lot of you seem to confuse religion with church (as I believe it was pointed out at least once throughout these 3 pages...).

Agree. But with your explanations not…

Some of you have actually answered "For me, the church...". They are two completely different concepts. One is an ideology, based on spirituality or what have you, the other one is a social institution - often with political power, etc.

Religion is not ideology and Church is institution but not only that. Religion is spiritual relation between man and Divine/God.
The main problem in history of Christian Church (no matter Orthodox/Roman Catholic/Protestant) is on emphasizing Church as institution. Church is mystical body of Christ and eschatological community in history, too. If we talk about crisis of Church (from time of Emperor Constantine) then it is crisis of Church as institution.

Also, the mindset "Religion caused bad things in the past, hence it's bad", is extremely flawed in my view. As it was already pointed out, the crusades, the inquisition, all of these were AGAINST the teachings of religion. They were imposed, and led, by the church (remember the distinction between the two I pointed out earlier).

Crusades and inquisition are against Christianity. And say what Church? Roman Catholic.

One last thing: I am by no means an expert in religion, and I can't claim to know the details of all the religions in the world. I am aware, and I will grant you that there are many so-called "religions" that are nothing more than spin-offs, scams, with the sole purpose to create an organization with some sort of power/influence (social, political, whatever).
I do not believe those things qualify as "religion".

Every major religion in world has various sects.

Again, I will disagree with those who claim that religion is a bad thing because of the crusades, jihads, or any crap like that. That does NOT make religion a bad thing. That makes the churches at that time (i.e., the institutions) wrong. Also, the fact that those happened such a long time ago makes them even more irrelevant. People did a lot of crazy/stupid stuff because they were "uncivilized" throughout time (see "medical" assistance until the previous century or so... leaking blood, or using leeches as the universal remedy, etc). That's because of ignorance, pure and simple.

Jihad is part of Islam (no offense to any Moslems here) and Crusade is not part of Christianity.
Church is not wrong. Read my previous explanation about Church.

We're still not civilized enough - proof of that being that we still have wars, and not ones based on or caused by religion - but simply because of greed for power... blech. Religion was, in many cases, the excuse. The _real_ reason, however, most of the time, was power/getting rich/more influent/etc...

Agree. Most wars were/are because of power and rich.

I disagree with people who actively try to convert anybody to their religion/principles.
I believe that if one is genuinely interested in another religion (= set of principles and moral beliefs), a practitioner of that religion could share his/her views on it. In other words, this is how I see it: if someone comes to me asking me about my religion, I'll tell him/her what I know. If they don't ask me, I'm not gonna flaunt it, or try to "convert" them, or try to impose it on them in any way. But if they want to know more about it, sure, I'll share my beliefs.

I absolutely agree. Except the part how you define religion (I gave you definition).

Moreover, afaik, major Christian religions don't try to convert anybody anymore these days.

“Major Christian religions” means nothing. Did you mean Churches?

[DukeofSerbia]

The Spanish and Portuguese conquests of the Americas were the same.

Portuguese didn’t conquered territories because of Christianity. They wanted and did broke Muslim monopoly in spice trade from Malacca to Egypt which was very profitable. Venice and Genoa also had that monopoly in Mediterranean. Portuguese broke those monopolies in late XV century and after that Venice and Genoa declined in XVI and later centuries. Portuguese find alternative way of transport from India. It was around Africa via Atlantic Ocean. So, it was matter of money and wealth. Not to mention that Portuguese believed in stories that somewhere in Africa laid large stockpiles of gold.

Spaniards also tried to find alternative way to India and they went to West. That’s way they called Caribbean as West India. They didn’t find spices but they found a lot of gold and silver which they used in trade with Portuguese who had spices. Simple is that…

One of Cortes’ friend wrote that Spaniards came in America to “serve God and King and to became rich”.

And yes – both spread Christianity but it wasn’t the major motive.

I am not Roman Catholic and I don’t have any reason to defend what member of that Church did in the New World, but the whole story is not black-white as you and many others believe.

Africans slaves in the Americas suffered the same sort of treatment

They needed labor force in the New World to work on plantations. Was it cruel? Yes, but this nothing has with Christianity. It has with economy.

Religion has been used, especially by Christians, as a means to justify war throughout history and throughout the world.

This has nothing with Christianity. If somebody is nominally Christian this doesn’t mean necessary that he/she is Christian in reality. Christ said: “By their results you will recognize them.” (I don’t know how is exact in English – I translated from Serbian).

Even in the present day we hear presidents of certain countries referring constantly to 'god' before they send in the bombers to flatten someone elses country.

Are you kidding?

As to these bloodthirsty, intolerant, atheist, warmongers? They're mainly a 20th century phenomenon, and undoubtedly in far fewer numbers than their witchburning, crusading counterparts.

What those atheist’s regimes did (Communism) is incomparable with anything what happened in history.

[Keba]

Inertia? I disagree. Inertia is not the satisfying argument. Religion survived and will survive because the man is rational but also is irrational being (I will say even more irrational than rational).

And yet you use the term survive. I will ask, how many of those with religion are religious because their parents were? There are few converts these days ... most of the faithful are from families of such beliefs, thus, inertia ... I do because my parents did it, and taught me that way when I was growing up, therefore, I will teach my child while growing up. It is also because most of the non-religious tend not to care, and if their mate places enough importance on religion, they will allow it. How do I know this? Experience, first-hand.

Again I disagree. Christian system of belief (dogma) isn’t changed over 1500 years. And this is especially in Orthodox Church. Roman Catholic Church changed by time and Protestant Churches…
And if there is no true in religion that doesn’t mean that religion is nonsensical. Denying trueness of theological statements doesn’t mean denying sense of religion. Sense and trueness are not the same.

I'm not saying that the dogma has changed, although I will say it most certainly has, nothing lasts forever unchanged, but what I'm saying is that the explanations have ... there is no religious proof, there is only belief ... and when faced with the advancement of science, that explanation has moved, always beyond the reach of science. While Christians still worship the same God as before, the explanation for him has changed ... like I said, he is no longer in the cloudes, but beyond, everywhere and nowehere ... notice the difference between the explanations?

“My answer has to be against religion no matter what arguments I used before that.”

There I merely said that religion makes a bad protective mechanism, too easy to manipulate ... we all have our own ... how do atheists survive with no protective mechanism, they don't, they merely find a different one, whether that is science, a belief in humanity or even a belief in the self, but all find a mechanism. What I'm saying is that religion is no longer necessary in a world where such a high accent is put upon the individual, rather than the group.

Why is hard to admit that most famous scientist were religious? I don’t care how they interpret religion.

I'm not saying that they are not religious, but that most of them used explanations or beliefs that organized religion would have frowned upon. Darwin believed he was discovering the way God created man, and yet, the Bible says exactly how God created man ... so, if he were a good faithful member of the flock, he wouldn't have gone out and did what he did. Religious, but not fitting the mold, and thus, in a way, not since they do not operate dogmatically.

If you claim that “we are closer to present time, the fewer scientists are religious” than you need to prove that.

Very well, since I tend to move around academic circles a bit, I will tell you this, most of the people I have met are either Ahteist, Agnostic or, if religious, so outside the mold one cannot consider them such. Although I would most be interested in the statistics, I do not have them.

By religious I mean as a dogmatic follower of a certain organized religion, thus, very few (if any) scientists are such even in the first place ... it only stands to reason that, since even the common people with barely any understanding of the moves made to refute God's existance, that those who actually perform such research are less likely to be that way. Not to mention that every openly religious scientist I've heard of was a hack.

[kataphraktoi]

I hate it when people think that Crusades is Christian concept, its not. It's a Catholic concept. And Catholics, despite their presumptious title of "Catholic" don't represent all Christians.

The idea of a Crusade is absent in the Orthodox Church as is the idea of a "Holy War" as a concept. John Haldon and George Dennis make a good argument when they say that Byzantium's wars were seen intrinsically as holy as they were fought to defend the empire (seen through Byzantine eyes as a reflection of the Kingdom of Heaven). Therefore, no need for a separate or distinctive institution of a "holy war" in Orthodoxy when every action is seen as an act of service to a cause.

But that does not necessarily make wars "holy" in anyway. It is the idea of "service" as opposed to the phenomena of "war" itself. Whereas the Crusades saw "service" and "war" as both holy and integrated activities.

And yet you use the term survive. I will ask, how many of those with religion are religious because their parents were? There are few converts these days ... most of the faithful are from families of such beliefs, thus, inertia ... I do because my parents did it, and taught me that way when I was growing up, therefore, I will teach my child while growing up. It is also because most of the non-religious tend not to care, and if their mate places enough importance on religion, they will allow it. How do I know this? Experience, first-hand.

In the third world country, its a different case. It seems that a religious revival is going on in those areas, Individual choice as opposed to family environment is the main situation of choice there. Don't take this as a dis at you or anything, I agree with on the points above for more developed modern societies.

[Keba]

Actually, the Crusades are usually used to point out the way a religion can work, not as an arguement in itself.

Religion can mobilise, but the zeal associated with a Crusade (or Jihad) and the misdeed associated with such actions are the point and arguement. The institute of Holy war is one that allows manipulation on a massive scale ... and not a manipulation that anyone would find likeable.

"Killing infidels is the path to Heaven" ... remember? That is the sort of thing that religion can do, hamper reason ... suddenly we have an exception to the rules of murder ... and the worst, none question it, but rather, like a good little flock, go out and do what religion commands.

So, you see, the Crusades are used an example of what religion is capable of, not an arguement.

EDIT: Katpharktoi, I am from a third-world country, hell, I'm the western neighbour of the Duke of Serbia up there (I'll give you a hint, not Bosnia) ... and yet, the number of people declaring themselves atheist has been in a slow, but steady rise for years ... the numbers of those that are religious have grown greatly, but that was merely a side-effect of democracy, not a revival ... rather, finally a chance for people to express their beliefs, something which had been forbidden. Since then, the numbers have been falling steadily.

[DukeofSerbia]

EDIT: Katpharktoi, I am from a third-world country, hell, I'm the western neighbour of the Duke of Serbia up there (I'll give you a hint, not Bosnia) ... and yet, the number of people declaring themselves atheist has been in a slow, but steady rise for years ... the numbers of those that are religious have grown greatly, but that was merely a side-effect of democracy, not a revival ... rather, finally a chance for people to express their beliefs, something which had been forbidden. Since then, the numbers have been falling steadily.

Hrvatska, zar ne? Pula - 100% sam siguran.

Croatia in English.

I will answer you tomorrow for the rest.

[Tachikaze]

Firstly, I like this quote.

Another Buddhist analogy: The various Gods are like trees in a forest, and the road to Nirvana passes beside the forest. You can visit any tree you like on the way, or none of them, and still reach Nirvana. But you can also get lost in the forest.

And I agree with this one

Honestly, I see no difference between Christianity and Islam.

The differences may seem big to a member of one of those religions, but to me--an outsider who has studied both of them--they have many more similarities than differences. The differences are in the details, not the fundamentals.

As for Christians and Muslims being equally intolerant: I don't see many Christians strapping explosives to themselves and then walking onto crowded city buses. I don't see calls from Christains for the death and destruction of the heathen infidel. Maybe 1000 yrs ago, but gimme a break.

I see Christians creating and using bombs that can flatten entire cities. I see them slowly engulfing the world in their economic, political, and cultural institutions. I hear them call for the destruction of "Godless Communists (Japs, NAZIs, etc.)". Dominant culture doesn't have to resort to bombing buses; they have more effective ways of asserting their power.


Religion, to me, is the gathering of people together for practicing some kind of common belief. This involves ritualized events to bind them together. In this regard, I seem to differ with some other forumers who see it as spiritual belief. It is necessarily a group practice.

Religions have became political institutions, quite divorced from spiritual belief. Religions that haven't yet reached that state are called "cults" or "pagan" by members of relgions.

I favor Buddhism the best example of group spiritual practice. It teaches wisdom as its ethic. I believe Daoism is the most natural personal guide. I do not consider either of these to be religions in the same sense as the monotheistic relgions of the West (the Children of Abraham).

[Kanamori]

I am disposed to disagree about buddhists... Although the teachings generally lead to improved understanding of self and clarity of thought, I am a little weirded out by people who meditate their way to nirvana by constantly flooding their brains w/ serotonin...

[Keba]

Hrvatska, zar ne? Pula - 100% sam siguran.

Croatia in English.

I will answer you tomorrow for the rest.

Aha, pozdrav. Nadam se da ne smeta onaj komentar of Trećem Svijetu, al' praktički i može biti.

Sure, I've got time ...

[scotchedpommes]

I never said that but we saw and still see what happened when atheists come to power (like communists).

As happens when many regimes need to sustain their power. As has already
been pointed out, it was not to further Atheism, and was not unique to Atheists.

I never said that. I know many atheists who are moral.
Moral is not religion. Moral is only one element of religion (as dogma, cult and religious community).

I realise. Just to clarify, regarding both points, I was referring to Ignoramus'
input further back in the thread.

[Orb]

Interestingly, I've met a lot of aetheists who are prepared to attack the religious as blind, unthinking etc.; I have met very few who will give a good reason for that accusation. Most of these aetheists somehow decide that they are automatically right about the non-existence of God/religion.

Would that count as blind faith?

[Keba]

Not as blind faith, not exactly faith.

I will continue to disbelieve the existance of a higher being until I have proof ... thus, most atheist simply hold that position because they have no proof, thus, they are right until someone proves them wrong.

Few enough bother to think about it. I am one of those who don't bother overmuch with the existance of higher powers ... but most of the arguements presented here are directed at organized religion (aka church, or whatever), not religion per se. True, there are those who oppose religion both organized and disorganized, some don't.

[scotchedpommes]

Interestingly, I've met a lot of aetheists who are prepared to attack the religious as blind, unthinking etc.; I have met very few who will give a good reason for that accusation. Most of these aetheists somehow decide that they are automatically right about the non-existence of God/religion.

Would that count as blind faith?

Faith itself is accepting that which you are told is gospel, without there being
any evidence as to its truth. That does not bear comparison to accepting the
evidence presented by science, for example, as to our origins. The difference
between that and those who refuse to acknowledge the possibility of evolution
seems clear. Accepting that theory as holding more truth [than something we
might be told to accept as it is said it has been written by those who repeat the
word of God] is not blind faith.

[AntiochusIII]

Gee, ye Christian cutters 're jumpy 'his peak, 'h?

Whatever, take my word as offense, then it is offense. I couldn't care less, for I had not meant offense.

Interestingly, I've met a lot of aetheists who are prepared to attack the religious as blind, unthinking etc.; I have met very few who will give a good reason for that accusation. Most of these aetheists somehow decide that they are automatically right about the non-existence of God/religion.

Would that count as blind faith?

That would not be faith, but blind bigotry, it might.

I'm sure, though, that your point has already been reiterated enough in this thread right from the first page. As if...that is the only potent counter-attack against our conspiracy?

Like Keba graciously pointed out, most atheists don't care; few are militant, extreme. Of course, the term "agnostic" has been shoved in lately to try to mix these indifferent atheists with true agnostics, causing confusion where it was already confusing, which I digress. While the lack of proof does not immediately exclude the possibility, it would be reasonable to assume that such a lack of proof does not present a plausible case of the possibility; and such, the preachings of religious nature that puts forward unsupported claims as facts...are often looked down and mocked by us.

I favor Buddhism the best example of group spiritual practice. It teaches wisdom as its ethic. I believe Daoism is the most natural personal guide. I do not consider either of these to be religions in the same sense as the monotheistic relgions of the West (the Children of Abraham).

Be careful, though. Such a view tends to fail to recognize the bad points of the Eastern religions. As I've said earlier, to view them purely as exotic and superior, blissfully absent of limiting traditions, is to turn a blind eye upon some of the baser natures of "group spiritual experience," aka religion in its traditional, non-newage "personal," sense.

The Eastern spiritual practices could be considered in a similar mode to Islam's sufism, anyway: a relative materialization of what usually would be purely spiritual and personal. I'm sure Christianity have such practices too. Indeed, one could consider the Great Awakenings, in a way, as such.

Moreover, the historical, political, and social function -- much of which have been brought up as examples of atrocities in the West -- that the Judeo-Christian-Islamic faiths serve, the Eastern religions also serve. Confucianism, while something of an ancestral cult of no particular shining Godly One, maintained the social fabric of the Chinese civilization the same way as Catholicism did in Europe, including the suppressing the more innovatively dissenting minds role. Buddhism and Hinduism had -- still have, perhaps -- formidable influences upon the everyday life of the people in regions where such religions are a vast majority of, quite similar to the function the Big Three used to serve in the West (and some Europeans would argue still do in the US ). That, of course, includes the likes of the promotion of comformity, the belittling, even antagonizing, demonizing, of dissent, the codes of morality for society to uphold, the political influence of the religious leaders, the simplified superstition on the base population that hails as the same religion as the complex philosophical one that the scholars tirelessly wrote treatises of, etc.Traditions of royalty and figureheads holding religious importance (the Most Christian King, the Most Moral King, whatever, the Emperor, Earth's Vizier of God, the Pope) exist as much in the East as in the West. If anything, Japan's Emperor is the Sun's offspring.

Oh, and I mentioned earlier that Nirvana is such a hacked-up concept. I suspect to many in the West it probably sounds like you could reach it by getting on drugs or something. Not that I claim monopoly on understanding this word, either, as I don't. Like I said, Nirvana's heaven in China&Japan, relatively, and a thousand other things somewhere else.

Just mentioning that things aren't that rosy for the Oriental deities, either.

[Tachikaze]

It will be difficult to address all AntiochusIII said about Eastern religions.

I don't favor all Eastern beliefs. Indeed, there are people who fall into the Daoist category that are animistic and pray to all sorts of gods. This is very alien to my concept of Daoism. Theravada Buddhism has characteristics that distinguish it profoundly from the Mahayana that I am most involved with. It is sometimes used in the manipulative way you described.

The Japanese emperor is not an aspect of Buddhism but Shintoism.

The Buddhism I know best, in fact the two I know best, Jodo Shinshu and Chan (Zen), are extremely unlimiting. You can follow them with discipline, but it is self-imposed and even discouraged by many of the prominant Buddhist sages.

Nirvana is enlightenment, a complete knowledge of the Dao. It doesn't even matter if it is attainable. The importance is the advice given by the sages (and most importantly our own intuition and experiences) that bring us closer to the Dao. A complete understanding of the Dao may not be possible, but the closer one lives to the Dao, the better one's life will be. Additionally, the less one will impact the world around them, which is a Daoist virtue.

[kataphraktoi]

@Keba,

I had in mind Southern American and Africa, not so much Croatia.

[AntiochusIII]

It will be difficult to address all AntiochusIII said about Eastern religions.

I apologize. My rumblings were indeed rather unorganized.

I don't favor all Eastern beliefs. Indeed, there are people who fall into the Daoist category that are animistic and pray to all sorts of gods. This is very alien to my concept of Daoism. Theravada Buddhism has characteristics that distinguish it profoundly from the Mahayana that I am most involved with. It is sometimes used in the manipulative way you described.

I grew up with Theravada Buddhism (SE Asia -- long lost from the true faith though, yet another America's fault ), though I'm aware that the Buddhism that actually comes in real contact with the Western world arrives through Japan mainly, and China also; as such, they are of the Mahayana sects. However, the usual Theravada point of view would point out the entire Mahayana side of Buddhism as something of a distortion of the Buddha's words: I presume it to be the same on the other side, too, as is usual in religions. Nonetheless, it ought to be taken into account that the spiritualism of the Mahayana has its own merits, and, from a theological point of view, faults.

Here's my view: the Mahayana generally puts the Buddha to a level of divinity, or at least semi-divine; that which the Teacher was never meant to be. Nonetheless, the mixture of Buddhism from India with local divine figures do result in an interesting philosophy of it own. And while Theravada Buddhism generally are less guilty of this make-the-Man-the-God aspect in their core theology, the interpretations of it result in the same consequence. I agree with you that it takes more of the role the JCI (ahem, Judaism-Christianity-Islam) used to take in Western-Middle Eastern societies. In fact, I'd argue that the followers of Theravada Buddhism are worse in this "Worship Buddha" aspect because their theology wasn't meant for him to be worshipped. If one but look at the Theravada-majority (Thailand, for example of a locale of such nature, without the assorted risks of being unfortunately a victim of the Military Government of Burma -- pardon, *Myanmar* -- or the smugglers of Cambodia) there are statues of Buddha everywhere, and just about everyone pray for him. If he's supposed to reach this version of Nirvana, then he's supposed to not exist anymore, much less to care for your lottery cries!

And there is hell, and probably even heavens, adopted as they do from Brahman myths. What the hell?

The Japanese emperor is not an aspect of Buddhism but Shintoism.

True, but the integration and mutual influence over the thousand years have mixed the two almost inseperably.

The Buddhism I know best, in fact the two I know best, Jodo Shinshu and Chan (Zen), are extremely unlimiting. You can follow them with discipline, but it is self-imposed and even discouraged by many of the prominant Buddhist sages.

Ah, Zen Buddhism. Group-based spiritualism in its full swing. Though I don't doubt your true faith in your religion, I couldn't help but note that Mainstream America (tm) has also adopted Zen Buddhism in its own peculiar way, like, say, Xiaolin Showdown.

Nirvana is enlightenment, a complete knowledge of the Dao. It doesn't even matter if it is attainable. The importance is the advice given by the sages (and most importantly our own intuition and experiences) that bring us closer to the Dao. A complete understanding of the Dao may not be possible, but the closer one lives to the Dao, the better one's life will be. Additionally, the less one will impact the world around them, which is a Daoist virtue.

Nirvana has not been interpreted so by many other Buddhist sects, especially considering that the mixture of Daoism and Buddhism had been a process of more than a thousand years almost exclusive to China. Daoism was born independently of Buddhism, a more spiritual, natural counter of the time's popular, rigid, social, but spiritually unsatisfying Confucianism.

Come to think of it, I have never gotten an answer from any of the many thousands monks while I was in Thailand. Probably neither in, say, Sri Lanka; and one sect in China would tell me a different interpretation than the next. Alas, a shame.

They do have something in common, though, that the experience is personal, and that it isn't (mostly, for most sects) guided by a divine being. Oh, and that it is desirable -- good or absolute neutral depends, again, on the sect.

[/Sorry for a massive OT post. ]

[Keba]

@Keba,

I had in mind Southern American and Africa, not so much Croatia.

Heh ... whoops.

Otherwise, I doubt those two areas are a proper example of success, they are regressing technologically, most people don't even recieve basic education, life is bad. And when life is bad and you have little to hope for in your own lifetime, most will turn to the promise of something better afterward. The promise of eternal bliss is attractive when you live like that.

I do suspect that numbers would fall as life improved, however, it is difficult to find examples ... after all, which African country has a sufficently high life standard, excepting maybe South Africa, but even there poverty is a major issue.

[Sigurd]

I will continue to disbelieve the existance of a higher being until I have proof ... thus, most atheist simply hold that position because they have no proof, thus, they are right until someone proves them wrong.

Would it be fair to give this position to the believers? i.e. they are right until someone proves them wrong?
But alas you can’t pull Religion i.e. God into a logic dispute because it is nonsensical.

[Keba]

You could, yes.

Well, the difference is that atheists won't believe in the existance of God because the have no proof of such a being's existance ... believers will, uh believe, that there is a higher being despite the absence of evidence.

Essentially, I might say that while both group start in the same position (absence of evidence) they take their beliefs to the opposite ends of the spectrum (namely, the existance or non-existance of a higher being).

Of course, like you said, logic and religion don't mix.

[Banquo's Ghost]

You could, yes.

Well, the difference is that atheists won't believe in the existance of God because the have no proof of such a being's existance ... believers will, uh believe, that there is a higher being despite the absence of evidence.

Essentially, I might say that while both group start in the same position (absence of evidence) they take their beliefs to the opposite ends of the spectrum (namely, the existance or non-existance of a higher being).

Of course, like you said, logic and religion don't mix.

Quite right. They are different paradigms entirely, which is why either side applying their methodology to convince the other is doomed only to post in religious threads in the Backroom (Dante missed this malbowge of Hell because his broadband was down at the time).

However, within the paradigm, one can apply principles of logic to religion - Jesuit thinking is particularly robust for example, once one accepts the basic premise of God's existence. To people of faith, this is a revealed truth, not an observable one. You cannot come to it by deduction, only by God's grace. Thus people who share the revelation of faith can debate logically and productively between themselves, but those who do not share the revelation will be immediately stuck on this starting point.

I will repeat this however, for it is a central tenet of good science and something that Professor Dawkins and other scientists who go out of their way to lambast religious feeling would do well to remember:

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

[scotchedpommes]

I will repeat this however, for it is a central tenet of good science and something that Professor Dawkins and other scientists who go out of their way to lambast religious feeling would do well to remember:

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

That being the case, I do not see it as reason for them not to be critical of that religious feeling and those who would do their best to further the cause of organised religion. And yes, despite the fact that such a line of discussion is now confirmed as pointless, I feel that it would not be complete without shameless inclusion of Russell's teapot analogy:

If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

Development by Dawkins can also be seen here, although I
realise the flying spaghetti monster is perhaps more pleasing.

[DukeofSerbia]

And yet you use the term survive. I will ask, how many of those with religion are religious because their parents were? There are few converts these days ... most of the faithful are from families of such beliefs, thus, inertia ... I do because my parents did it, and taught me that way when I was growing up, therefore, I will teach my child while growing up. It is also because most of the non-religious tend not to care, and if their mate places enough importance on religion, they will allow it. How do I know this? Experience, first-hand.

Survive = ne odumirati I used wrong phrase.

From my experience I know many atheist parents who prohibited their children to go into Church… Few converts you say? What about the whole Communist block in Eastern and Southeastern Europe (except Czech R. and Estonia)?

I'm not saying that the dogma has changed, although I will say it most certainly has, nothing lasts forever unchanged, but what I'm saying is that the explanations have ... there is no religious proof, there is only belief ... and when faced with the advancement of science, that explanation has moved, always beyond the reach of science. While Christians still worship the same God as before, the explanation for him has changed ... like I said, he is no longer in the cloudes, but beyond, everywhere and nowehere ... notice the difference between the explanations?

I’m glad that you accepted fact that dogma hadn’t changed.
There are no religious proofs? What that means? I will talk about Christianity. Many dogmas can be proved but some are impossible.
Teaching about God in Christianity (I speak for Orthodox Church) is still the same. This teaching never said that God lived in clouds. God is in the Heaven.
And philosophy and science advanced, so theology uses the new arguments (dokaze i objašnjenja) for proving dogma in Christianity.

There I merely said that religion makes a bad protective mechanism, too easy to manipulate ... we all have our own ... how do atheists survive with no protective mechanism, they don't, they merely find a different one, whether that is science, a belief in humanity or even a belief in the self, but all find a mechanism. What I'm saying is that religion is no longer necessary in a world where such a high accent is put upon the individual, rather than the group.

“Bad protective mechanism?! Religion is no longer necessary in a world such a high accent is put upon the individual, rather than the group?!” Christianity is based on personality. There is no group salvation - only a personal salvation in Christianity.

And if somebody is not religious then he/she need some kind of surrogate for religion. That’s why there are in secular countries all those feasts like Day of work, women, one minute of silence for death, bla, bla, bla… Not to mention what was in Communist countries like we celebrated in Yugoslavia birthday of Tito (štafete i sletovi) and similar stupidity.

Atheists don’t exist and I explained that in one of the previous posts.

I'm not saying that they are not religious, but that most of them used explanations or beliefs that organized religion would have frowned upon. Darwin believed he was discovering the way God created man, and yet, the Bible says exactly how God created man ... so, if he were a good faithful member of the flock, he wouldn't have gone out and did what he did. Religious, but not fitting the mold, and thus, in a way, not since they do not operate dogmatically.

What I wrote? I don’t care how they interpret religion. Some of them believed as Roman Catholics, some like Protestant, some like Orthodox, some like Jews (Einstein), some weren’t familiar with organized religion.

Very well, since I tend to move around academic circles a bit, I will tell you this, most of the people I have met are either Ahteist, Agnostic or, if religious, so outside the mold one cannot consider them such. Although I would most be interested in the statistics, I do not have them.

I can also say that I move around academic circles (I study economy) and I know many students and professors who are religious as I saw them in Church in Liturgy when are great feasts. And know what?
Because you don’t have statistics there are no proofs of what are you said (rekla-kazala).

By religious I mean as a dogmatic follower of a certain organized religion, thus, very few (if any) scientists are such even in the first place ... it only stands to reason that, since even the common people with barely any understanding of the moves made to refute God's existance, that those who actually perform such research are less likely to be that way. Not to mention that every openly religious scientist I've heard of was a hack.

Religious doesn’t mean dogmatic follower and if you don’t understand this that’s not my problem.

Religion is spiritual relation between man and Divine/God.

[DukeofSerbia]

EDIT: Katpharktoi, I am from a third-world country, hell, I'm the western neighbour of the Duke of Serbia up there (I'll give you a hint, not Bosnia) ... and yet, the number of people declaring themselves atheist has been in a slow, but steady rise for years ... the numbers of those that are religious have grown greatly, but that was merely a side-effect of democracy, not a revival ... rather, finally a chance for people to express their beliefs, something which had been forbidden. Since then, the numbers have been falling steadily.

I didn’t know that Croatia is third-world country?! Croatia is not a third-world country and neither is Serbia. You are EU candidate and we will be also.
The most developed countries (Western Europe and North America) have still very high percentage of religious people. It’s true that they don’t go in Church as was in past. Religion just became more personal thing. If they don’t go in Church it doesn’t mean that they are not religious. St. Augustine said well: “God have many which Church doesn’t have and Church has many of them which God don’t have.” Religion just changes the form!

[DukeofSerbia]

You could, yes.

Well, the difference is that atheists won't believe in the existance of God because the have no proof of such a being's existance ... believers will, uh believe, that there is a higher being despite the absence of evidence.

Essentially, I might say that while both group start in the same position (absence of evidence) they take their beliefs to the opposite ends of the spectrum (namely, the existance or non-existance of a higher being).

Of course, like you said, logic and religion don't mix.

You are not atheist. You are antitheist. Atheist means that you don't have idea about God. And you have but it's negative.