my problem with religion

I disagree, obviously.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That's right, astronomy is man made, but it's based on real observations that can be reproduced by others and not just a person or persons with their own agenda. Kind of the opposite to a religion that is based on a story book.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What makes you think that the knowledge of scripture can not be reproduced - I guess the question is heading towards how do you think religion developed everywhere in the world - I mean did all cultures in all places just develop the wrong idea becasue they all made the same wrong mistake or were they duped by some ancient global propaganda program? It doesn't seem to gel with your "made up" definition of religion since you wouldn't expect a fantastic made up thing to saturate the cultures of this planet if it was just a story book idea.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That makes no sense.
If it was not "man-made" every religion would be the same, would it not?

 

the fact that it is a philosophy that was made up by humans and does not exist outside of human societies.

 

But you would. I have already explained this to you in another thread and seemingly await a response, (although I could be wrong and if so I apologise). You of course try to make it sound as if all cultures came up with the same idea/belief - which they did not. They most certainly, as a general rule, include something far more powerful than they - but this is just a way to give an answer to a question they cannot answer. In reality of course, they weren't even close to promoting the same ideas/beliefs - the religious just like to think they were.

Religion itself equals little more than community rules, and it would be undeniably naive to not see how the majority of cultures all seemed to develop them.

 

because of this

rubbish, which is the one true aspirin, the one that heals all ills, the one that makes you live forever, the ever loving Aspirin.

but the dont, need I qualify it, (http://www.godchecker.com/) or are you a complete simpleton.

wrong buddhists predominantly far eastern, muslims predominantly middle eastern, xian predominantly europian

atheisim is the same the world over, no belief in a god/gods, however, different countries have different gods, so the world is not uniform when it comes to religion.

the general concensus here on sciforums, you can gain a good idea of exactly what is happening in the world. and how people think. we have numerous nationalities here.
nobody like the way people preach in your face. thats the we, I refer too.

that is'nt the we, see above, but they are sheeple yes.

no thats not the we either see above, I'm sure there are no such places, and I'm sure if a group of atheist got together it would'nt be to discuss whether a god exists with no evidence thats blatantly obvious.

no but it does make them independant free thinkers.

how so?

 

Ummm, i seem to remember this biblical passage written in gigantic letters on the wall of my church when i was younger
"I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."
That pretty much says that the only path to salvation is through worshipping Jesus. It does not say that Jesus is the better path as opposed to other religions, it says that he is the only way. It seems to me you are contradicting your own beliefs. Please correct me if I am mistaken.

 

To begin with i am not christian - but I do know that the original script that that verse was translated from (Hebrew???) is spoken in the present tense - In other words it reads more like "right here, right now I am the way and the truth ..." etc etc

If you examine the social climate jesus was preaching in (they weren't so cultured) it seems like a reasonable statement to me

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I think the assumption was so long as you do not harm other people because of your belief.

 

my problem with religion? several.
1. i've seen no evidence of a god
2. people do not rise from the dead
3. ghosts are spooky

 

pavlosmarcos

If you drop the namecalling I might be inspired to respond

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

This indicates that there is something superior (in the sense of being a central common ground that permeates all variety) than just "my belief" and "your belief" - why is it necessary to add the qualifier "Do not harm others" if ultimately its all "your belief is okay and my belief is ok"?

 

-- i can't trace that response you mentioned - although I am awaiting a response in "saving theists a ton of grief" if you want to take it up there

 

If you are asking me, then I would say that this "common ground" is our common genetic heritage. As humans evolved, genes that promote working together in a community had a better chance at replication.

Maybe this is reflected in some Religions?

 

The Buddha never said there was or was not a soul that transcends from life to life.
In fact he refused to answer the question because it was an unnecessary question.

Thanissaro Bhikku (one of the world's foremost Budhism scholars, in my opinion) addresses this much better than I can.
Not aclnowleding the soul and acknowledging reincarnation was more of a strategy than a belief.
The Not-self Strategy

Futhermore, Buddha taught people to question everything and come to your own conclusions.
He didn't want monks to simply take everything for granted, nor would he refuse membership into the Sangha because the person either doubted, or outright disagreed with him. In fact, he treasured someone who questioned every thing.
He saw blind devotion a detriment, not a virtue.

 

Now wait up - one moment you say we exist in a world of infinte realities, and the next you suggest there is something they are relative to

I guess its not clear whether you consider all things relative or if there is an absolute element

 

You've probably never met a person who is completely satisfied just to see you eating either. Does that mean they also don't exist?

 

So what are you saying in relation to the origin of this whole buddha thread?
That there is no next life?
That there are not heavens and hells?
That any choice is as good as any other because there is no karma?

If you are you would have a hard time establishing that on the basis of Buddhas teachings.

 

Firstly, part of this conversation was me relating my experience in Japan. Those views were from someone else, as I stated.

My thoughts on the subject of “central common ground that permeates all variety” (your words) are that if there is a common ground (I’m assuming you mean “intellectual/moral/ethical”?) then it must be a product of our common genes. Every thought, emotion or feeling you have is the product of your DNA. As such, if there is a common thread in humanity called “morality: etc… then it is because we share the genes that encode for said morality (like not having incest for example).

I do not know what you mean by “Relative element” or “Absolute element”?

lightgigantic, while I don't know if it is true... I have a distinct feeling you are monotheistic - probably Xian and more than likely of the evangelical American flavour?

Michael