Least offensive religion for athiests/agnostics

[MarxSchmarx]

If you don't actively believe in a religion, what would you say is the least offensive of the existing major religions, and why?

[Fawkes]

Though I'm no expert on theology, it seems to me that all organized religions are equally pervasive.



Then again, my knowledge of religion beyond the three Abrahamic ones is very limited.

[¿Que?]

Catholicism, cuz, well, fuck you, I'm Latin. *sarcasm* **sort of**

EDIT: I Need to STFU...

[Ele'ill]

I've known several 'Christians' who through conversation detailing their beliefs were pretty much what a lot of people on the board would call 'lifestylist anarchists' albeit probably not with so much of the negative connotation. They didn't label themselves as such and probably didn't know enough to actually do so. I still found a lot of their stances to be offensive but their actions aimed at helping people were far more frequent and political in nature than religious. I believe their stance was something along the lines of 'God doesn't want to see an audience through us- he/it would want us to end suffering' which I could respect to a point- sort of. I could tolerate them in short bursts.

[Tablo]

I lack a good enough knowledge of them to pick the one I dislike the least.

[PhoenixAsh]

Buddism

Its the only non-religious religion in there...it does not focus on a superior being rather it focusses on finding enlightenment from within yourself. The theory, at least, states there are no masters merely guides who can help you along on your own road to enlightenment. Outside of monasteries there are some basic tennants but they are not enforced or coerced. The whole structure of believe focusses on doing good, altruism and not harming others.

[Manic Impressive]

Buddhism :blink:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcymyPBzzyA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcymyPBzzyA)

[Tablo]

Buddhism :blink:
Buddhism has multiple branches or sects, but yeah, fuck the Dalai Lama

[NGNM85]

Ideally, religion would cease to exist. However, if I had to pick one I'd pick Jainism. They're no less crazy than the rest, but the extreme pacifism that is central to their faith ensures they will be little more than a nuisance.

[ComradeMan]

Isn't this a bit like the least offensive meat for vegetarians?

Or the least offensive form of capitalism for leftists?

[Wanted Man]

Absolutely, but there are always gradations. All religions are grossly misleading, but there is a difference between Christianity and some kind of non-expansionistic spiritualism. Vegetarians can also campaign against particularly abusive forms of meat production without having to eat all the other meats.

[ComradeMan]

Absolutely, but there are always gradations. All religions are grossly misleading, but there is a difference between Christianity and some kind of non-expansionistic spiritualism. Vegetarians can also campaign against particularly abusive forms of meat production without having to eat all the other meats.

Which Christianity? There are quite a lot of forms... using the meat analogy.

[Widerstand]

Materialism.

[Le Libérer]

I would say American Native religions, but it wasnt an option.

[ComradeMan]

I would say American Native religions, but it wasnt an option.

I think that might be included under animism- although which one....?

[Le Libérer]

I think that might be included under animism- although which one....?

I guess so, but they are unique into themselves.

[PhoenixAsh]

Buddhism :blink:

buddhisme ecompassses more than only tibettan buddhism...most sects in Tibettan buddhism are in fact somewhat religious. One (Bonn) is even shamanistic in essence.

However Buddhism originated in India and has different streams in South East Asia...including Zen in Japan.

In general Buddhism focusses on the escape from what buddhist see as the circle of suffering. As such it tends to move away from day to day reality and class struggle and focus on change and "betterment" within the individual to be able to see the true nature of reality. It does not have a god, it does not (outside of monasteries) have strict enforcable rules only actions and consequences for the individual and focusses on non violence, kindness and altruism towards others.

[ComradeMan]

buddhisme ecompassses more than only tibettan buddhism...most sects in Tibettan buddhism are in fact somewhat religious. One (Bonn) is even shamanistic in essence.

However Buddhism originated in India and has different streams in South East Asia...including Zen in Japan.

In general Buddhism focusses on the escape from what buddhist see as the circle of suffering. As such it tends to move away from day to day reality and class struggle and focus on change and "betterment" within the individual to be able to see the true nature of reality. It does not have a god, it does not (outside of monasteries) have strict enforcable rules only actions and consequences for the individual and focusses on non violence, kindness and altruism towards others.

Is Bon a school of Buddhism or an independent belief system?

It seems opinion is divided.

[Milk Sheikh]

I am an agnostic, but I rather like Islam. It's progressive as compared with the caste-ridden Hinduism or imperialist Christianity (or cowardly, pacifist religions like Buddhism or Jainism).

[ComradeMan]

I am an agnostic, but I rather like Islam. It's progressive as compared with the caste-ridden Hinduism or imperialist Christianity (or cowardly, pacifist religions like Buddhism or Jainism).

or cowardly, pacifist religions like Buddhism or Jainism

Cowardly? Takes more courage than a jihad..... Don't you think that's a bit of a bigotted and reactionary type of value judgement?

And Islam, historically speaking, has that not been also a religion of expansion and conquest?

[Milk Sheikh]

or cowardly, pacifist religions like Buddhism or Jainism

Cowardly? Takes more courage than a jihad..... Don't you think that's a bit of a bigotted and reactionary type of value judgement?

And Islam, historically speaking, has that not been also a religion of expansion and conquest?

Islam is a religion for heroes, and their expansionism is entirely different from Christian imperialism; the latter destroyed cultures across the world, whereas Islam civilized so many nations. Unlike Christians, they did not plunder and leave. They stayed in the conquered nations and made a lot of contributions in arts, sciences, architecture etc.

[Che a chara]

Islam is a religion for heroes, and their expansionism is entirely different from Christian imperialism; the latter destroyed cultures across the world, whereas Islam civilized so many nations. Unlike Christians, they did not plunder and leave. They stayed in the conquered nations and made a lot of contributions in arts, sciences, architecture etc.

You for real ? Your last few posts are that of a troll comrade

[ComradeMan]

Islam is a religion for heroes, and their expansionism is entirely different from Christian imperialism; the latter destroyed cultures across the world, whereas Islam civilized so many nations. Unlike Christians, they did not plunder and leave. They stayed in the conquered nations and made a lot of contributions in arts, sciences, architecture etc.

You know, I don't want to get into a big "one religion is better than the other" kind of debate, but that's some seriously reactionary sounding bullshit you are posting.

I am sure the people of Constantinople (no offence meant to modern Turkish people) felt the same way about being "conquered". I'm sure all the Africans who were enslaved felt great about the advance of Islamic civilisation.

Why don't you go and tell Coptic Christians in Egypt how wonderful certain elements of Islam can be?

For the most part European expansion was not really in the name of converting to Christianity, not really was it? Most of the European expansionism- excluding Central and South America came with the Enlightenment....

[Blackscare]

One (Bonn) is even shamanistic in essence.


Bonn is separate from and predates Buddhism, although aspects of it were absorbed into what is now Tibetan Buddhism.

Also your use of the phrase "non-religious religion" is pretty dumb, to be blunt. That doesn't mean anything. To be sure, there are certain schools of Buddhism that do not worship a sort of divine being, although there is some debate amongst Buddhists and others about what exactly constitutes a religion. I am in the camp that says Buddhist sects that do not worship are still religious in nature. This is also how my grandfather saw it, who was a Soto Zen monk.


But, there are far too many forms of Buddhism to be making such sweeping claims in the first place. Also there is a lot of grey area, for instance in Mahayana you have what appears to be a pantheon of Bodhisattvas, although certain schools (such as Zen, again) do not worship them as such.

[Milk Sheikh]

You know, I don't want to get into a big "one religion is better than the other" kind of debate, but that's some seriously reactionary sounding bullshit you are posting.

I am sure the people of Constantinople (no offence meant to modern Turkish people) felt the same way about being "conquered". I'm sure all the Africans who were enslaved felt great about the advance of Islamic civilisation.

Why don't you go and tell Coptic Christians in Egypt how wonderful certain elements of Islam can be?

For the most part European expansion was not really in the name of converting to Christianity, not really was it? Most of the European expansionism- excluding Central and South America came with the Enlightenment....

The difference is this. Christians indulged in systematic acts of genocide and plunder; Muslims didn't. The people who were conquered by Muslims were treated gently, excesses were the nature of war. Also Jews were treated with respect in Islamic societies, whereas anti-Semitism is essentially a European/Christian phenomenon.

[ComradeMan]

The difference is this. Christians indulged in systematic acts of genocide and plunder; Muslims didn't. The people who were conquered by Muslims were treated gently, excesses were the nature of war. Also Jews were treated with respect in Islamic societies, whereas anti-Semitism is essentially a European/Christian phenomenon.

Point 1. People who were Christians engaged in terrible acts, but for the most part (not all- accepted) this was not done in the name of their professed religion- unlike Islamic conquest.

Point 2. Which fantasy world do you live in? The areas conquered by Islamic expansion forced non-Muslims into conversion or paying extra taxes and denied them full rights. Dhimmis and the jizya tax.

Point 3. Iran had an ancient civilisation with its own religion- many were forced to flee to India, i.e. the Parsees/Zoroastrians.

Point 4. Undoubtedly some of the most vicious anti-semitism was in Europe, but don't go around saying it's solely a European phenomenon because it isn't.
An eleventh century Moorish poem describes Jews as "a criminal people" and alleges that "society is nearing collapse on account of Jewish wealth and domination, their exploitation and betrayal of Muslims; that Jews worship the devil, physicians poison their patients, and Jews poison food and water as required by Judaism, and so on."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_antisemitism#Life_under_Muslim_rule
Frederick M. Schweitzer, Marvin Perry., Anti-Semitism: myth and hate from antiquity to the present, Palgrave Macmillan, 2002, ISBN 0312165617 (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Special:BookSources/0312165617), pp. 267-268

Point 5- On genocide
The Bahmani sultans and the genocide on Indians (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/India) - 1347-1480

The Bahmani Sultans declared Jihad against the infidels.[116] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_note-115)
Every new invader of India (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/India) made (often literally) his hills of Hindu skulls. The Bahmani sultans (1347–1480) in central India made it a rule to kill 100,000 Hindus (kaffir (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Kaffir) - non-believers) every year. In 1399, Teimur killed 100,000 captives in a single day. [117] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_note-116)[118] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_note-117) Historian asserts that "These wars were fought in the true spirit of Jihad — the total annihilation or conversion of the non-Muslims."[119] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_note-legacy-of-jihad-118)[120] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_note-119)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad#The_Bahmani_sultans_and_the_genocide_on_Indi ans_-_1347-1480

See- 116- 120-
116^ (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_ref-115) Jayapalan, N. (2001). History of India N.. Atlantic Publishers & Distri. p. 83 (http://books.google.com/books?id=6L6avTlqJNYC&pg=PA83). ISBN (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/International_Standard_Book_Number) 8171569285 (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Special:BookSources/8171569285).
117^ (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_ref-116) Elst, Koenraad (1992). Negationism in India: concealing the record of Islam. Voice of India. p. 27 (http://books.google.com/books?&id=mBEcAAAAIAAJ&q=Bahmani+sultans).
118^ (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_ref-117) "India, Hindus, Hinduism" (http://www.peacefaq.com/india.html). The Peace FAQ. http://www.peacefaq.com/india.html. Retrieved 2010-09-28.
119^ (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_ref-legacy-of-jihad_118-0) p. 456 (http://books.google.com/books?&id=rU3YAAAAMAAJ&dq=bahmani)
120^ (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_ref-119) Lal, Kishori Saran (1999). Theory and practice of Muslim state in India. Aditya Prakashan. p. 62 (http://books.google.com/books?&id=HmBuAAAAMAAJ&dq=bahmani+sultans). ISBN (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/International_Standard_Book_Number) 8186471723 (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Special:BookSources/8186471723).

I suggest you widen your knowledge before making idiotic pronouncements.

[Iraultzaile Ezkerreko]

*Logic*

Don't do it! You might overload their third-worldist chauvinistic framework and cause a massive explosion which will leave the world in a perpetual nuclear winter of stupidity!

[Ostrinski]

Should have added Jainism. That is the least offensive imo.

[NGNM85]

Should have added Jainism. That is the least offensive imo.

That's what I said. They may be nuts, but, at least, we can be nearly positive they won't blow themselves up or crash planes into buildings.

[Rafiq]

The difference is this. Christians indulged in systematic acts of genocide and plunder; Muslims didn't. The people who were conquered by Muslims were treated gently, excesses were the nature of war. Also Jews were treated with respect in Islamic societies, whereas anti-Semitism is essentially a European/Christian phenomenon.

Actually, they played a good role in that area, like their Christian cousins.

[Apoi_Viitor]

I don't know too much about Eastern Religions, so I just picked Judaism. They seem to have the most moderate political/social beliefs out of all the religions I know.

[PhoenixAsh]

Is Bon a school of Buddhism or an independent belief system?

It seems opinion is divided.

I am sorry I missed your post. My apologies for the late reply.

It was an independent believe system that was in fact opposed by Tibettan Buddhism...but last year...or the year before that it has been accepted as 5th along side the 4 Tibettan Buddhist schools by the Dalai lama.

This is not completely and widely accepted....because Bon holds some aline belives to Buddhism.

[PhoenixAsh]

Bonn is separate from and predates Buddhism, although aspects of it were absorbed into what is now Tibetan Buddhism.

The dalai lama has adopted the Bon tradition as 5th school of Tibetan Buddhism next to the traditional 4. It is however not widely accepted that he did this.



Also your use of the phrase "non-religious religion" is pretty dumb, to be blunt.

Very blunt...especially as it is used to indicate that it is in fact a religion that does not espouse the existance of a super natural entity. It is the only religion who do not have gods dictating live.

They do however have entities...personifications of espicially good traits or bad ones.



That doesn't mean anything. To be sure, there are certain schools of Buddhism that do not worship a sort of divine being, although there is some debate amongst Buddhists and others about what exactly constitutes a religion.

yes...some schools of Buddhism do not consider themselves a religion.


I am in the camp that says Buddhist sects that do not worship are still religious in nature. This is also how my grandfather saw it, who was a Soto Zen monk.

As am I...hence the terminology.




But, there are far too many forms of Buddhism to be making such sweeping claims in the first place. Also there is a lot of grey area, for instance in Mahayana you have what appears to be a pantheon of Bodhisattvas, although certain schools (such as Zen, again) do not worship them as such.

Bodhisattvas are not deities. They are enlightened human beings People who unlimately understood the truth about reality...and thus became free of Samsara...

They are not worshiped...should not be worshiped as such...but merely should be used as a focus point for ones own ultimate goal to reach enlightenment.

[TC]

Isn't this a bit like the least offensive meat for vegetarians?

Easy, that's mussels and oysters. No face, no brain, no central nervous system, no mobility and thus probably no adaptive advantage to having developed pain...

Unless you figure out how to eat a sea sponge. Thats definitely the least offensive type of meat...as in despite being a committed vegan, I cannot imagine how it could be wrong to eat sea sponge.


Or the least offensive form of capitalism for leftists?

Also easy, hippie communes bartering self-grown vegetables - can't think of much exploitative about that, but it is potentially a form of capitalism.

[TC]

Also the least offensive religion for atheists is and should be obvious: unitarian universialists...

They are so inoffensive to Atheists that many Unitarian Universalists actually are Atheists!

They have no creed, no hell, no defined god, support all progressive social causes and accept everyones beliefs provided they're humanistic.

[Political_Chucky]

You are all wrong.

http://www.churchofjediism.org.uk/doctrine.html

THE CHURCH OF THE JEDIS!

May the force be with you.:ninja:

[Diello]

Also the least offensive religion for atheists is and should be obvious: unitarian universialists...

They are so inoffensive to Atheists that many Unitarian Universalists actually are Atheists!

They have no creed, no hell, no defined god, support all progressive social causes and accept everyones beliefs provided they're humanistic.

Offensive? No. Irritating in how consummately vague and inoffensive it is? Possibly.

[not your usual suspect]

Going off the poll question, the way that the options are divided is not useful. A much more useful division would be between organized religions, disorganized religions, and those that promote submission, and those that promote dissent. Of course, the first post then asks for the least offensive from "existing major religions". Even so, some forms of "Christianity" are less offensive than others (some are disorganized, and promote dissent, others, not so much: cf. Quakerism and Catholicism). A lot of people in Europe and the USA like Buddhism, but again, there are different strands, some very offensive. So, the crippled boy, of whom the caregiver says something to the effect: "he must of done something really bad in a past life". Rather than pick a broad over-arching category from the poll, I am going to say that the least offensive religions generally are, as mentioned above, disorganized and promote dissent. A religion that says to take a critical view of leaders, both secular and religious, is less offensive than classical Christianity. Caesar deserves no respect, and neither does the Catholic Pope. Speaking of popes, did you know you are one? According to Discordianism that is. Personally I believe in the great power of the Invisible Pink Unicorn. I have faith that she is pink, and I know she is invisible, because I cannot see her. P.S. I note my paragraphs are still being stripped. What is with that?

[PhoenixAsh]

Islam is a religion for heroes, and their expansionism is entirely different from Christian imperialism; the latter destroyed cultures across the world, whereas Islam civilized so many nations. Unlike Christians, they did not plunder and leave. They stayed in the conquered nations and made a lot of contributions in arts, sciences, architecture etc.


As well as forcing other cultures and believe structures to pay heavy taxation under the threat of violence....for their continued existence.

[Son of a Strummer]

I chose Buddhism, particularly Zen. No god involved.

I actually think there might be elements in religious practices, namely certain psycho-physical practices, that can have good natural human health effects, that might have value in libertarian communist societies.

[Turinbaar]

I'm surprised that people chose Buddhism as least offensive, and amused that the only sub-categories offered were hinayana or mahayana. The Zen buddhists in Japan were instrumental in the ritualizing and glorification of suicide, historically in the samurai, and modernly in the training of the fighter pilots of Hirohito.

Also consider the possibility that an institution of celibate clergy charged with instructing sexual morals to the young will not produce good results, whether the clergy is run by the Pope or the Dalai Lama.

I chose Taoism myself, though I'd be interested in any dirt anyone here has on Lao Tzu and his followers.

[PhoenixAsh]

Easy, that's mussels and oysters. No face, no brain, no central nervous system, no mobility and thus probably no adaptive advantage to having developed pain...

Not to knit-pick...

but some mussles can swim....others tend to creep around slowely...very, very slowely.


:)

[PhoenixAsh]

I'm surprised that people chose Buddhism as least offensive, and amused that the only sub-categories offered were hinayana or mahayana. The Zen buddhists in Japan were instrumental in the ritualizing and glorification of suicide, historically in the samurai, and modernly in the training of the fighter pilots of Hirohito.

Lets be honest here...feudal lords kiling themselves? to me the ultimate form of autonomy...to most others...probably their health is not a big issue



Also consider the possibility that an institution of celibate clergy charged with instructing sexual morals to the young will not produce good results, whether the clergy is run by the Pope or the Dalai Lama.


We recently had a child abuse case where over 54 childrend were sexually abused by a kindergarten employee... ;-) just saying...




I chose Taoism myself, though I'd be interested in any dirt anyone here has on Lao Tzu and his followers.


Taosim is also a good one...makes me think of Whinny the Pooh and Pigglet for some reason :-)

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Mexica Indigenous Spiritualism

[Turinbaar]

Lets be honest here...feudal lords kiling themselves? to me the ultimate form of autonomy...to most others...probably their health is not a big issue

When it's feudal lords doing it I suppose its not all that significant, but when it becomes generalized propaganda that suicide and suicide-bombing for the emperor is good, nothing good can possibly happen. It is to use people as objects in a self-destructive drama with no purpose other than to glorify a single man.

[Blackscare]

The dalai lama has adopted the Bon tradition as 5th school of Tibetan Buddhism next to the traditional 4. It is however not widely accepted that he did this.

That doesn't change the historical fact that Bonn predates Buddhism as a distinct religion. The Pope could officially say Paganism was a "school" of Christianity, but this would not make it so objectively.





Very blunt...especially as it is used to indicate that it is in fact a religion that does not espouse the existance of a super natural entity. It is the only religion who do not have gods dictating live.


Then you could say that it is non-thiestic, or something else. But the fact remains that the term "non-religious religion" is meaningless and in fact an oxy-moron.




yes...some schools of Buddhism do not consider themselves a religion.

That's why I said it.





Bodhisattvas are not deities. They are enlightened human beings People who unlimately understood the truth about reality...and thus became free of Samsara...

Look into certain forms of Mahayana such as "pure land" Buddhism. They pretty much worship the Amitaba Buddha, who is in fact a Bodhisattva.


They are not worshiped...should not be worshiped as such...but merely should be used as a focus point for ones own ultimate goal to reach enlightenment.

Again, this is an inaccurate generalization.

[Rêve Rouge]

I'd say Buddhism, Theravada to be specific. The Tibetan sect of Buddhism is way to ritualistic, hierarchical, and even oppressive. Most Mahayana forms of Buddhism involves worshiping Bodhisattva's. Nothing wrong with that, but it just indirectly trains people to be submissive to a higher power. In Theravada Buddhism, the only important figure is Gautama Buddha. And he is only seen as a teacher, not as a god with other-worldly powers.

[ComradeMan]

The Zen buddhists in Japan were instrumental in the ritualizing and glorification of suicide, historically in the samurai, and modernly in the training of the fighter pilots of Hirohito. I chose Taoism myself, though I'd be interested in any dirt anyone here has on Lao Tzu and his followers.

That was State Shinto, not Zen Buddhism as such.

Seppuku derives from Bushido which in turn was influenced by Confucianism, Buddhism and Shinto- it's not really a purely buddhist doctrine. Bushido ideas were not necessarily or universally accepted by all samurai either.

[ComradeMan]

Easy, that's mussels and oysters. No face, no brain, no central nervous system, no mobility and thus probably no adaptive advantage to having developed pain...

Unless you figure out how to eat a sea sponge. Thats definitely the least offensive type of meat...as in despite being a committed vegan, I cannot imagine how it could be wrong to eat sea sponge. .

I'm sorry that's a pretty bad analogy. For the most part, albeit not all, vegetarians have issues with killing sentient beings for food. Oysters and mussels have a central nervous system and the genetic origin of the nervous system has been found in sea sponges.

Strict fruitarians will only eat stuff that's fallen from the tree.


Also easy, hippie communes bartering self-grown vegetables - can't think of much exploitative about that, but it is potentially a form of capitalism.

But it's not capitalism though is it champ?

[PhoenixAsh]

That doesn't change the historical fact that Bonn predates Buddhism as a distinct religion. The Pope could officially say Paganism was a "school" of Christianity, but this would not make it so objectively.

I am not saying Bon does not predate Buddhisme....and for centuries it wasn't considered a school of Budhism. The Buddhism (Chan) that came to Tibet was not the Buddhism it is now....nor was the Bon tradition that came to Tibet the Bon tradition it is now. What I am saying is that both Buddhism and Bon have evolved and were on many levels already very similar. As such these similarities are enough for many Buddhists and Bonpos to agree that Bon is the fifth school of Buddhism in Tibet....as it differs little from Nyingma.

Christians usually adopted aspects of Paganism into their believes....and rejected others. That is clearly something very different than accepting the pagan tradition as a whole as a school of Christianity. Paganism also is completely different from Christianity in its core tennant that its polytheistic.

The differences between Bon tradition and Buddhism in core believes is a whole lot smaller because the basic tekst of both groups are the same and diffren no more or less than the differences between those of the Gelung or Kagyu.




Then you could say that it is non-thiestic, or something else. But the fact remains that the term "non-religious religion" is meaningless and in fact an oxy-moron.Yes...and you could say that it thus clearly describes Buddhism....which is a bit of an oxy-moron itself. Understanding buddhism is understanding that simple fact.

Why? The believes of the Buddhist tekst are believes of self liberation and altruism. There is no single path to reach enlightnement and each individual reaches that state in its own way. Yet...there is a sturcture and yet there are schools and therefore there are rulse to each schools and thoughts how best to reach enlightenment.

Buddhism is a religion formed on non religious goals.

That's why I said it.





Look into certain forms of Mahayana such as "pure land" Buddhism. They pretty much worship the Amitaba Buddha, who is in fact a Bodhisattva. Mahayana states that reaching enlightenment is a selfish act at the cost of others. Therefore each individual needs to delay his or her enlightenment to help others....in order to reach enlightenment for everybody. The meaning of the word in fact.

You mean they use him as a meditative focus and respect and refer him? They do not pray to him, they do not believe they are gods....as such there can not be any worship.

At least...not the kind of worship that doens't closely resemble the personal cultes around certain political figures. Using this as an argument reversely means the political philosophies who do that are in fact religions themselves.




Again, this is an inaccurate generalization.
No it isn't...in all buddhist tekst worship is considered a samsara perpetuating act....and rejected.

[Triple A]

Satanism- both believers and unbelievers will go to hell, so its least offensive.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

I don't find any of them 'offensive', but I think that they all suck and the world would be a better place without them.

[Diello]

My favourite religions are the long-dead ones. The negative effects are gone, but what good stuff religion has to offer (bizarre myths, art, and so forth) remains.

Also, let's face it-- the gods of polytheistic religions are way more interesting than the big vague infinitely loving infinitely wrathful infinitely infinite gods of monotheism.

[revolution inaction]

marxism ;)

[Turinbaar]

That was State Shinto, not Zen Buddhism as such.

Seppuku derives from Bushido which in turn was influenced by Confucianism, Buddhism and Shinto- it's not really a purely buddhist doctrine. Bushido ideas were not necessarily or universally accepted by all samurai either.

Imperial Way Buddhism was just as vigorous as the state Shinto religion in fomenting suicidal nationalism in Japan. Seppuku, though it comes from a code deriving from Confucianism, was the special ritual of the Zen samurai. Wether or not all samurai accepted it when it was first developed is quite beside the point that later on seppuku was inculcated generally by mass propaganda with the aid of the greater part of the Zen clergy.

[ComradeMan]

Imperial Way Buddhism was just as vigorous as the state Shinto religion in fomenting suicidal nationalism in Japan.

Imperial Way Buddhism "Kodo Bukkyo" came from Nichiren Buddhism, in itself an offshoot of Mahayana. Nichiren Buddhism was opposed to other schools, such as Zen.

Imperial Way mixed with Japanese nationalism/imperialism and State Shinto forced Buddhist temples in Japan during the war period to accept the divinity of the emperor etc.


Seppuku, though it comes from a code deriving from Confucianism, was the special ritual of the Zen samurai. Wether or not all samurai accepted it when it was first developed is quite beside the point that later on seppuku was inculcated generally by mass propaganda with the aid of the greater part of the Zen clergy.

Rinzai School Soto Zen was popularly known s the religion of the Zen Samurai but this is only because some samurai were adherents. It would be a bit like took about "Templar Catholicism" if you see what I mean.

As for seppuku, I am sorry but it is a fundamental part of bushido, the fact that it was practised by those influenced wholly or in part by "Zen" does not lay the blame for it at the feet of the various Zen schools.

What you had in Japan was a blending of various influences, but you can't easily just attribute everything to one thing. You should also remember that the samurai class had largely disappeared as such by the 1930s and also that in Japan people don't have a "religion" as such, they have their beliefs that can conform to different belief systems- sometimes difficult for Western minds to follow. It's not unusual in Japan for a Shintoist to go to a Buddhist shrine for example...

[Turinbaar]

Imperial Way Buddhism "Kodo Bukkyo" came from Nichiren Buddhism, in itself an offshoot of Mahayana. Nichiren Buddhism was opposed to other schools, such as Zen.

Imperial Way mixed with Japanese nationalism/imperialism and State Shinto forced Buddhist temples in Japan during the war period to accept the divinity of the emperor etc.

There may have been a schism within the faith, but it wasn't deep enough to completely repulse rival buddhists to submitting to the emperor. The lutherans do not get excused for supporting Hitler just because the catholics did it too.


As for seppuku, I am sorry but it is a fundamental part of bushido, the fact that it was practised by those influenced wholly or in part by "Zen" does not lay the blame for it at the feet of the various Zen schools.

With the samurai maybe not, but when the various buddhist schools have all submitted to Hirohito, and have accepted their new military role as the trainers the kamikaze, they cannot afterwards simply say "we don't really bare responsibility."


What you had in Japan was a blending of various influences, but you can't easily just attribute everything to one thing. You should also remember that the samurai class had largely disappeared as such by the 1930s and also that in Japan people don't have a "religion" as such, they have their beliefs that can conform to different belief systems- sometimes difficult for Western minds to follow. It's not unusual in Japan for a Shintoist to go to a Buddhist shrine for example...

Religion is actually the single thing that can be attributed to all of the horrors of the japanese conquests. By the 30's the religion of divine emperor worship was the official faith, and was the one to which all other faiths were expected to conform. The fact that they did so makes them fully responsible for anything they did on behalf of their higher authority.

[Magón]

I'd say all religions are offensive. New or Old, but the most tolerable religion to me, is crazy Scientology. I just love how people get their word of power and knowledge from a sci-fi book. :lol:

[ComradeMan]

There may have been a schism within the faith, but it wasn't deep enough to completely repulse rival buddhists to submitting to the emperor. The lutherans do not get excused for supporting Hitler just because the catholics did it too..

Err... you're mixing up people, belief systems and making genetic fallacy arguments here. One minute it's Zen, then it's Shinto, then it's Imperial Way etc.

Your original point was that Zen and Imperial Way were somehow responsible for seppuko and thus the horrors of Japanese war history... and then associating this with the (then defunct) samurai class. One could argue that had the samurai class survived then there would have been no Pearl Harbour! In fact, the remainder of the samurai class were often the most progressive in pre-War Japanese society- especially in terms of communism- ironically.



With the samurai maybe not, but when the various buddhist schools have all submitted to Hirohito, and have accepted their new military role as the trainers the kamikaze, they cannot afterwards simply say "we don't really bare responsibility."

Well most of the people responsible are all dead now and in the long run the philosophies of Buddhism and Shinto that existed before and exist after are hardly to blame. It's like blaming modern day Catholics for the crusades or modern day communists for Kronstadt...;)


Religion is actually the single thing that can be attributed to all of the horrors of the japanese conquests. By the 30's the religion of divine emperor worship was the official faith, and was the one to which all other faiths were expected to conform. The fact that they did so makes them fully responsible for anything they did on behalf of their higher authority.

No that is just silly. Religion was used by the Imperial propaganda machine and the ideologues, Japanese economic expansionism and imperialism were what was to blame for the horrors of the Japanese conquests.

The way you are saying things makes it sound like the conquests and expanionism were motivated by Shinto/Buddhism in some kind of "jihad"- which they were not- it was just economics by other means- as is usually the case.

[Princess Luna]

i am flabergasted no one has said FSM yet , also by Satanism do you mean the people who worship Satan, sacrafice animals , and praise the dark lord Satanism? or the Ayn Rand fanboys who sit around their "lairs" (i am not making that up , they really refer to their houses as lairs check their website (http://www.churchofsatan.com/)) talking about how evil socialism is , Satanism?

[La Comédie Noire]

As an atheist religions don't really offend me, I don't even care if people have nativity scenes on public property if you can believe that!

However, some of the religions' questionable human rights practices do irk me, but that's as a human, not as an atheist.

[Turinbaar]

Err... you're mixing up people, belief systems and making genetic fallacy arguments here. One minute it's Zen, then it's Shinto, then it's Imperial Way etc.

Your original point was that Zen and Imperial Way were somehow responsible for seppuko and thus the horrors of Japanese war history... and then associating this with the (then defunct) samurai class. One could argue that had the samurai class survived then there would have been no Pearl Harbour! In fact, the remainder of the samurai class were often the most progressive in pre-War Japanese society- especially in terms of communism- ironically.

I've thrown no genetic element into this, you're simply distorting my arguments (and follow up with a non-sequiter about pearl harbor). I said that the Zen and Imperial Way were instrumental in the propagation of the divine emperor cult, particularly its ahistorical glorification of the samurai, and particularly in the ritual of self destruction.



No that is just silly. Religion was used by the Imperial propaganda machine and the ideologues, Japanese economic expansionism and imperialism were what was to blame for the horrors of the Japanese conquests.

The way you are saying things makes it sound like the conquests and expanionism were motivated by Shinto/Buddhism in some kind of "jihad"- which they were not- it was just economics by other means- as is usually the case.

Japanese economic expansionism and imperialism does not explain what happened at Nanking, neither the kamikaze. Nihilistic violent self destructive behavior can only come from a complete alienation from the external and human world, and such alienation can only be provided on a mass scale by religion. The goal of the zen buddhist is to completely empty his mind of all thoughts, and all connections to the world. This worldview, or lack thereof, easily submits during its intermittent periods of consciousness to the Nichiren dogma that the emperor as a god is a higher authority than enlightened man Buddha, and that his word is truth. The analogy of jihad is entirely appropriate.

[ComradeMan]

I've thrown no genetic element into this, you're simply distorting my arguments (and follow up with a non-sequiter about pearl harbor). I said that the Zen and Imperial Way were instrumental in the propagation of the divine emperor cult, particularly its ahistorical glorification of the samurai, and particularly in the ritual of self destruction. .

Yeah but your whole point was condemning how people voted NOW on this poll because of things 70-80 years ago that cannot be attributed wholly to that which you named.


Japanese economic expansionism and imperialism does not explain what happened at Nanking,.

Yes it can- the Germans called it liebensraum.


neither the kamikaze. Nihilistic violent self destructive behavior can only come from a complete alienation from the external and human world, and such alienation can only be provided on a mass scale by religion. .

It wasn't loyalty to Buddha or Buddhism, it was blind nationalistic loyalty to Japan.


The goal of the zen buddhist is to completely empty his mind of all thoughts, and all connections to the world. This worldview, or lack thereof, easily submits during its intermittent periods of consciousness to the Nichiren dogma that the emperor as a god is a higher authority than enlightened man Buddha, and that his word is truth.

The goal is no goal. If a Zen Buddhist has a goal he has defeated himself.


The analogy of jihad is entirely appropriate.

I wasn't aware the Japanese were trying to convert everyone to Imperial Way and/or State Shinto....


Look, the sociological and psycho-cultural reasons behind what happened in Imperial Japan and the war are complex. No one is denying the influences from various places but to "hate Zen Buddhism" because of what the distorted version of Buddhism mixed with Shinto did during WWII- putting the blame with philosophies is ahistorical. Also, you fail to note that Nichiren Buddhism was hostile to Zen.

[Turinbaar]

Yeah but your whole point was condemning how people voted NOW on this poll because of things 70-80 years ago that cannot be attributed wholly to that which you named.

Would you be willing to apply this historical amnesia you are insisting upon to other religions? Is 70-80 years sufficient time to say that it's not relevant today that the Pope was a Hitler youth? I could have also mentioned the reactionary nature of the Dalai Lama's rule in Dharamsala, and I had already indicated what goes on between monks and their young apprentices behind closed doors. Religion does not get less bad over time.


Yes it can- the Germans called it liebensraum.

In the seizure of territory, like Nanking, there is a clear materialist motive, but it does not follow that the need for economic resources entails lining the streets of the city with severed heads. This is pure zealotry and religious nihilism.


It wasn't loyalty to Buddha or Buddhism, it was blind nationalistic loyalty to Japan.

It was blind nationalism largely encouraged by the Buddhist establishment, whose doctrines allow for buddhism to submit and mold itself into other religions, and whose priests instructed the kamikaze pilots in emptying their minds right before making the dive.


The goal is no goal. If a Zen Buddhist has a goal he has defeated himself.

Semantics. The practice of meditation in the Zen manner is to empty the mind and dislocate it from reality.


I wasn't aware the Japanese were trying to convert everyone to Imperial Way and/or State Shinto....

Al Qaeda isn't necessarily interested in converting everyone to Islam, they would just as soon kill them instead.


Look, the sociological and psycho-cultural reasons behind what happened in Imperial Japan and the war are complex. No one is denying the influences from various places but to "hate Zen Buddhism" because of what the distorted version of Buddhism mixed with Shinto did during WWII- putting the blame with philosophies is ahistorical. Also, you fail to note that Nichiren Buddhism was hostile to Zen.

I noted their hostility, and answered that the zen capitulated on the main point of contention, that being loyalty to the divine emperor over Buddha. This is not a hatred of Zen buddhism specifically, rather the complacency and nihilism that is a part of all religion. It is enough of a historical weight around Buddhism's neck that a monk named Brian Daizen Victoria decided to write a critique of the establishment called "Zen at War."

[Frosty Weasel]

I am an agnostic, but I rather like Islam. It's progressive...
You lost me after that, sorry. As much as I support the Palestinians, Islam is in no way progressive.

[ComradeMan]

Would you be willing to apply this historical amnesia you are insisting upon to other religions? Is 70-80 years sufficient time to say that it's not relevant today that the Pope was a Hitler youth? I could have also mentioned the reactionary nature of the Dalai Lama's rule in Dharamsala, and I had already indicated what goes on between monks and their young apprentices behind closed doors. Religion does not get less bad over time.

But you keep confusing the people, the religion/philosophy/ideology, the individual actions of some of the people etc.

Albert Einstein worked on the Manhattan Project didn't he? It was because of science, physics in particular, that Hiroshima and Nagasaki took place- do we condemn physics?


In the seizure of territory, like Nanking, there is a clear materialist motive, but it does not follow that the need for economic resources entails lining the streets of the city with severed heads. This is pure zealotry and religious nihilism.

No one denies the atrocities committed by the Japanese forces- but then Soviet forces also committed terrible atrocities and this was without a "religious" philosophy... I don't think you can put it so clearly down to Buddhism and/or State Shinto.


It was blind nationalism largely encouraged by the Buddhist establishment, whose doctrines allow for buddhism to submit and mold itself into other religions, and whose priests instructed the kamikaze pilots in emptying their minds right before making the dive.

Well soldiers in Western Armies had "God with us" on their belts and prayed before doing suicide missions too, no doubt. Manipulating the credo of "greater love has no man" and "dulce et decorum est" etc etc. I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one, I see it more as a result of the nationalism tied in with State Shinto to be honest.


Semantics. The practice of meditation in the Zen manner is to empty the mind and dislocate it from reality..

It's not semantics. It's the application of the theory to the practice if you like.


Al Qaeda isn't necessarily interested in converting everyone to Islam, they would just as soon kill them instead.

Jihad?
But I don't think it's helpful comparing two different "entities" in different times and places, i.e. Imperial Japan 70-80 years ago and a terrorist organisation of today.


I noted their hostility, and answered that the zen capitulated on the main point of contention, that being loyalty to the divine emperor over Buddha. This is not a hatred of Zen buddhism specifically, rather the complacency and nihilism that is a part of all religion. It is enough of a historical weight around Buddhism's neck that a monk named Brian Daizen Victoria decided to write a critique of the establishment called "Zen at War."

Judaism isn't nihilist. I think you don't like religion per se and are looking for accusations for things against religions/belief systems that are a little unfounded to be honest. It's like blaming Judaism outright for Zionism, or blaming Islam outright for fundamentalism etc... t0o much generalisation.

Some of a = b but not all of b= a.

[Turinbaar]

But you keep confusing the people, the religion/philosophy/ideology, the individual actions of some of the people etc.

Albert Einstein worked on the Manhattan Project didn't he? It was because of science, physics in particular, that Hiroshima and Nagasaki took place- do we condemn physics?

No, you are trying to separate people from religion/philosophy/ideology. These things are not worth even discussing if it were not for the people who carry them to their logical conclusions. Albert Einstein developed the relevant theories, but I don't think he worked on the Manhattan project as such. In either case, physics is not a religion, or a philosophy, or an ideology, and I would feel embarrassed if I really had to explain why.


No one denies the atrocities committed by the Japanese forces- but then Soviet forces also committed terrible atrocities and this was without a "religious" philosophy... I don't think you can put it so clearly down to Buddhism and/or State Shinto.

Once Joseph Stalin has restored the Orthodox Church as the state religion in 1943, hand picks the Bishops (who publicly hail him as a hero of the Russian people sent by God), and gives wartime sermons from the Cathedral, one is entitled to believe that the atrocities committed by the largely christian peasantry enlisted in the Red army were at least encouraged by the state via the church. A good read on this is "Russian Messianism" by Peter J.S. Duncan. Many can and have argued that Stalinism is and was a religion on its own, and some have said similarly of Leninism.


Judaism isn't nihilist. I think you don't like religion per se and are looking for accusations for things against religions/belief systems that are a little unfounded to be honest. It's like blaming Judaism outright for Zionism, or blaming Islam outright for fundamentalism etc... t0o much generalisation.

I think any religion celebrating the story of Abraham (which even the mildest of jews do), glorify a man's willingness to throw away his moral senses by offering to sacrifice his son to an authority demanding that he do so. This is nihilism defined.

[ComradeMan]

No, you are trying to separate people from religion/philosophy/ideology. These things are not worth even discussing if it were not for the people who carry them to their logical conclusions. Albert Einstein developed the relevant theories, but I don't think he worked on the Manhattan project as such. In either case, physics is not a religion, or a philosophy, or an ideology, and I would feel embarrassed if I really had to explain why..


No, you are trying to separate people from religion/philosophy/ideology.

Yes... the people are not the ideology necessarily nor is the ideology the sum of the people.

Einstein was complicit in the Manhattan Project.

The letter, dictated by Einstein,[39]:630 and translated with the help of Hungarian emigre physicist Leo Szilard, gave the letter more prestige, with Einstein also recommending that the U.S. begin uranium enrichment and nuclear research. According to F.G. Gosling of the U.S. Department of Energy, Einstein, Szilard, and other refugees including Edward Teller and Eugene Wigner, "regarded it as their responsibility to alert Americans to the possibility that German scientists might win the race to build an atomic bomb, and to warn that Hitler would be more than willing to resort to such a weapon."[47]
Isaacson, Walter. Einstein: His Life and Universe, Simon & Schuster (2007)
Gosling, F.G. The Manhattan Project: Making the Atomic Bomb, U.S. Department of Energy, History Division (January, 1999) p. vii
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein#World_War_II_and_the_Manhattan_Pro ject

Einstein said to his old friend, Linus Pauling, "I made one great mistake in my life — when I signed the letter to President Roosevelt recommending that atom bombs be made; but there was some justification — the danger that the Germans would make them..."
Einstein: The Life and Times by Ronald Clark. page 752
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein#cite_note-regret-50


Once Joseph Stalin has restored the Orthodox Church as the state religion in 1943, hand picks the Bishops (who publicly hail him as a hero of the Russian people sent by God), and gives wartime sermons from the Cathedral, one is entitled to believe that the atrocities committed by the largely christian peasantry enlisted in the Red army were at least encouraged by the state via the church.

So was that the fault of the religion or the people who abused it?


I think any religion celebrating the story of Abraham (which even the mildest of jews do), glorify a man's willingness to throw away his moral senses by offering to sacrifice his son to an authority demanding that he do so. This is nihilism defined.

Yeah because the Abraham story is the sum of Judaism.

[Turinbaar]

Yes... the people are not the ideology necessarily nor is the ideology the sum of the people.

True, but ideology cannot exist without the people who generate it, and people's actions (individually and socially) cannot be fully understood without understanding their ideology. Materialism accounts for quite a lot, but not everything as we have concurred on suicidal nihilism.


Einstein was complicit in the Manhattan Project.

fair enough. That does not make physics a religion.



So was that the fault of the religion or the people who abused it?

Abused? I'd say its the fault of a religion that will get on its knees and serve any dictator no matter how cruel if it means retaining a state monopoly in the spiritual business.


Yeah because the Abraham story is the sum of Judaism.

I mentioned Abraham because you mentioned Islam too. Its the story they both claim lineage from, so I thought I would kill two birds with one stone. I could have also mentioned that God sets "do no murder" in stone and then orders Moses to commit genocide in Canaan. If this is not murder then what is? This is a wildly arbitrary and situational code of morals, and it was rightly rejected by the Apikoros, who Marx draws major influence from.

[ComradeMan]

True, but ideology cannot exist without the people who generate it, and people's actions (individually and socially) cannot be fully understood without understanding their ideology. Materialism accounts for quite a lot, but not everything as we have concurred on suicidal nihilism.

Okay- but no one is arguing that however you seem to exonerate the people from blame whilst at the same time reifying the ideology.


fair enough. That does not make physics a religion.

No, but that was not the point really however do scientists not also have their codes of ethics?



Abused? I'd say its the fault of a religion that will get on its knees and serve any dictator no matter how cruel if it means retaining a state monopoly in the spiritual business.

Your reifying an abstract concept here- that was the point about "physics"- religion did not get on its knees. Religious/Spiritual ideas were drawn from a corpus of philosophies and conveniently cherry picked in order to promote nationalistic imperialism and expansion.


I mentioned Abraham because you mentioned Islam too. Its the story they both claim lineage from, so I thought I would kill two birds with one stone. I could have also mentioned that God sets "do no murder" in stone and then orders Moses to commit genocide in Canaan. If this is not murder then what is? This is a wildly arbitrary and situational code of morals, and it was rightly rejected by the Apikoros, who Marx draws major influence from.

Firstly you are dealing with elements of the Tanakh/Old Testament that are open to much interpretation, symbol and allegory. Secondly, nowhere in the Bible does it say "be like Moses" or "be like Abraham", does it? The characters in the Bible stories are for the most part human- and flawed. The whole idea of Judaism isn't to copy Moses or Abraham as role models. Equating modern Judaism (in all its variation) with the writings of a quasi-Egyptian bronze age tribe on the warpath is a bit simplistic. It would be like rejecting the corpus of Greek philosophy and Hellenistic thought because the Spartans were a bit fascistic and the Trojan War didn't reflect very well on the Hellenes- they too were following the whims of the Fates and being played around with by the Olympian Gods.

[Turinbaar]

Okay- but no one is arguing that however you seem to exonerate the people from blame whilst at the same time reifying the ideology.

I don't think I exonerated or reified anyone or anything. I think that I my comments have been marked by contempt and condemnation of both the people and the ideology. I see them as deeply integrated, seeing how the former made the latter, and how the latter indoctrinates the former. Maybe you read things differently than me. You seem to think religion is like democracy, wherein the principles and worldview are determined by whatever the majority of the adherents think is convenient. This may be true of relaxed liberal religious people who don't really know what they believe but believe it very much, however I see religion, particularly the ones we've been addressing, as a dictatorship, in which the authority of the text and the positions of the clergy determine much more than what its lay-adherents happen to cherry pick at the time.


No, but that was not the point really however do scientists not also have their codes of ethics?

Whatever crisis or morals faced by any scientist is his own problem, not the problem of science, which makes no pretension at answering questions of the good. Science is the study of the real world, whereas religion is the invention of an illusory one. Nuclear reaction removed from the context of a man-made war, is a natural phenomena and a complete non-issue in the moral sphere. Religion cannot escape this because it, like the war, was entirely fabricated by man, and claims to own the moral sphere.


Your reifying an abstract concept here- that was the point about "physics"- religion did not get on its knees. Religious/Spiritual ideas were drawn from a corpus of philosophies and conveniently cherry picked in order to promote nationalistic imperialism and expansion.

What reification? I used a simple metaphor to indicate that the leadership of Orthodox Church prostituted themselves, as they have always done and still do, to the powers at be. You seem to indicate that the compatibility of religious ideas with nationalistic imperialism and expansion somehow exonerates religion when these ideas are materialized with the aid of cynical religious authorities.


Firstly you are dealing with elements of the Tanakh/Old Testament that are open to much interpretation, symbol and allegory. Secondly, nowhere in the Bible does it say "be like Moses" or "be like Abraham", does it? The characters in the Bible stories are for the most part human- and flawed. The whole idea of Judaism isn't to copy Moses or Abraham as role models. Equating modern Judaism (in all its variation) with the writings of a quasi-Egyptian bronze age tribe on the warpath is a bit simplistic. It would be like rejecting the corpus of Greek philosophy and Hellenistic thought because the Spartans were a bit fascistic and the Trojan War didn't reflect very well on the Hellenes- they too were following the whims of the Fates and being played around with by the Olympian Gods.

Yes I am aware that people approach the Old Testament in a way in which they can interpret anything, indeed I know people who approach reality that way. I've read these stories and the consistent theme and moral injunction, that is common to all them, is not "be like Moses" or "be like Abraham," it is "Obey God." Once the law of God supersedes ordinary human morality, nihilism follows. This principle is no less strong globally than it was long ago. On simplicity, I think my mentioning the apikoros (the secular hellenist jews) added a layer of complexity you missed. In any case, there's nothing from Epicurus or Democritus that could be connected to spartan violence, or Alexander's imperialism, whereas the founding texts of Judaism can be easily connected (and in some cases are by the clergy) to any number of atrocities conducted against the Palestinians.

[ComradeMan]

I think that I my comments have been marked by contempt and condemnation of both the people and the ideology. I see them as deeply integrated, seeing how the former made the latter, and how the latter indoctrinates the former. Maybe you read things differently than me. You seem to think religion is like democracy, wherein the principles and worldview are determined by whatever the majority of the adherents think is convenient. .

I think that I my comments have been marked by contempt and condemnation of both the people and the ideology.

So then you are incapable of an objective analysis.



This may be true of relaxed liberal religious people who don't really know what they believe but believe it very much, however .

You sound like an orthodox religious fanatic here. It's not fair then is it? If only one set of religious principles or beliefs are going to be held as valid-and by what criteria do you determine this?


Whatever crisis or morals faced by any scientist is his own problem, not the problem of science, which makes no pretension at answering questions of the good. Science is the study of the real world, whereas religion is the invention of an illusory one. .

Not so fast....

Scientific misconduct is the violation of the standard codes of scholarly conduct and ethical behavior in professional scientific research. A Lancet review on Handling of Scientific Misconduct in Scandinavian countries provides the following sample definitions:[1] (reproduced in The COPE report 1999[2])
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_ethics



Nuclear reaction removed from the context of a man-made war, is a natural phenomena and a complete non-issue in the moral sphere. Religion cannot escape this because it, like the war, was entirely fabricated by man, and claims to own the moral sphere..

Spirituality removed from the context of man-made wars ets is a natural sociological/anthropological phenomenon.


What reification? I used a simple metaphor to indicate that the leadership of Orthodox Church prostituted themselves, as they have always done and still do, to the powers at be. You seem to indicate that the compatibility of religious ideas with nationalistic imperialism and expansion somehow exonerates religion when these ideas are materialized with the aid of cynical religious authorities. ..

Under Stalin it wasn't like people had much choice about things was it? Was Stalin religious? Fundamentally he is to blame for this, is he not?

As for the second point- you are reifying religion again- religion is not one great monolithic block as you seem to make it out to be.



Yes I am aware that people approach the Old Testament in a way in which they can interpret anything, indeed I know people who approach reality that way. I've read these stories and the consistent theme and moral injunction, that is common to all them, is not "be like Moses" or "be like Abraham," it is "Obey God." Once the law of God supersedes ordinary human morality, nihilism follows..

What is ordinary human morality? Natural law?


This principle is no less strong globally than it was long ago. On simplicity, I think my mentioning the apikoros (the secular hellenist jews) added a layer of complexity you missed. In any case, there's nothing from Epicurus or Democritus that could be connected to spartan violence, or Alexander's imperialism, whereas the founding texts of Judaism can be easily connected (and in some cases are by the clergy) to any number of atrocities conducted against the Palestinians.

The Spartan kings were also chief priests and the whole business of Thermopylae was also based on religious manipulation.

Alexander's imperialism- well that's open to debate, I mean the small Greek federations were standing up against the imperialist Persians which kind of made them like ancient Third Worldists if you like. :lol: But seriously, when dealing with ancient societies you cannot separate the religious/spiritual from the temporal so readily or easily.

As for Zionism, well you're not quite right there as orthodox Judaism is certainly in contrast with Zionist goals of a modern state of Israel- based on Torah righteousness.

You can cherrypick anything and find six lines to damn someone.;)

[Turinbaar]

I think that I my comments have been marked by contempt and condemnation of both the people and the ideology.

So then you are incapable of an objective analysis.

Objectivity does not mean even handedness or equal treatment, objectivity is the search for truth even if it lead you to unwelcome conclusions.


You sound like an orthodox religious fanatic here. It's not fair then is it? If only one set of religious principles or beliefs are going to be held as valid-and by what criteria do you determine this?

Just because I analyze a worldview by its own logic doesn't mean I hold to it myself. Dictatorship is seldom ever fair, and if religious dictatorship is to be analyzed properly, then it will be done so by the criteria I just outlined, the foundational texts, and the historical positions and actions of its authorities.


Not so fast....

Scientific misconduct is the violation of the standard codes of scholarly conduct and ethical behavior in professional scientific research. A Lancet review on Handling of Scientific Misconduct in Scandinavian countries provides the following sample definitions:[1] (reproduced in The COPE report 1999[2])
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_ethics

Do I have to explain this again? Science is the study of the natural world. The above is one set of ethical standards set by scientists, but they are not scientific themselves in any way. They have nothing to contribute by way of theory or evidence to expanding humanity's knowledge of reality. They were not arrived at in any way that could be called


Spirituality removed from the context of man-made wars ets is a natural sociological/anthropological phenomenon.

It is still artificial in the sense that it is man-made. Nuclear reaction isn't. It precedes man, whereas man precedes spirituality. You've constantly broken down distinctions that deserve to stand, while drawing distinctions that do not actually exist.


Under Stalin it wasn't like people had much choice about things was it? Was Stalin religious? Fundamentally he is to blame for this, is he not?

As for the second point- you are reifying religion again- religion is not one great monolithic block as you seem to make it out to be.

What is ordinary human morality? Natural law?

The people never had much choice of anything in Russia ever. Again, religion is not democracy, least of all Russian Orthodox Christianity. Stalin was raised a seminarian in the orthodox church. His dictatorship was largely modeled off of the previous, especially as regards to the Church-State relationship circa 1943.


The Spartan kings were also chief priests and the whole business of Thermopylae was also based on religious manipulation.

So hellenist philosophy isn't to blame... that was my point wasn't it?


Alexander's imperialism- well that's open to debate, I mean the small Greek federations were standing up against the imperialist Persians which kind of made them like ancient Third Worldists if you like. :lol: But seriously, when dealing with ancient societies you cannot separate the religious/spiritual from the temporal so readily or easily.

Except Epicurus was not a religious figure.


As for Zionism, well you're not quite right there as orthodox Judaism is certainly in contrast with Zionist goals of a modern state of Israel- based on Torah righteousness.

You can cherrypick anything and find six lines to damn someone.;)

True about zionism, there are some ultra-orthodox that condemn it as blasphemy. The fact that cherry picking is possible to such extremes is not an argument in favor of the nature of religion though is it?

[ComradeMan]

Objectivity does not mean even handedness or equal treatment, objectivity is the search for truth even if it lead you to unwelcome conclusions.

Objectivity does not mean a fair and balanced appraisal? :crying:



Just because I analyze a worldview by its own logic doesn't mean I hold to it myself. Dictatorship is seldom ever fair, and if religious dictatorship is to be analyzed properly, then it will be done so by the criteria I just outlined, the foundational texts, and the historical positions and actions of its authorities.

But you aren't really.


Do I have to explain this again? Science is the study of the natural world. The above is one set of ethical standards set by scientists, but they are not scientific themselves in any way. They have nothing to contribute by way of theory or evidence to expanding humanity's knowledge of reality. They were not arrived at in any way that could be called .

But religions/belief systems would argue that they too are the "study" of humans' relations with each other and the real world.


It is still artificial in the sense that it is man-made. Nuclear reaction isn't. It precedes man, whereas man precedes spirituality. You've constantly broken down distinctions that deserve to stand, while drawing distinctions that do not actually exist..

But humans are natural therefore what comes from humans is part of nature too.


The people never had much choice of anything in Russia ever. Again, religion is not democracy, least of all Russian Orthodox Christianity. Stalin was raised a seminarian in the orthodox church. His dictatorship was largely modeled off of the previous, especially as regards to the Church-State relationship circa 1943.

Evidence for that? This of course ignores all of the religious persecution. Karl Marx grandfather was a chief rabbi too... so what?


So hellenist philosophy isn't to blame... that was my point wasn't it?

And what are the roots of the Greek philosophies?


Except Epicurus was not a religious figure.

Well we don't know so much about him really seeing as only a few bits and fragments of his works remain.

Epicurus "soter" the "guru" of pleasure.....

But the point was that one Greek philosopher who may or may not have been an atheist- we just don't know, does not invalidate the original statement about the separation of the spiritual and the temporal in the ancient world.


True about zionism, there are some ultra-orthodox that condemn it as blasphemy. The fact that cherry picking is possible to such extremes is not an argument in favor of the nature of religion though is it?

Not just "some ultra-orthodox" quite a lot of Torah righteous Jews and at its beginnings it was perseved with wariness and worry by many in the religious Jewish community from a Jewish religious perspective.

But no one is arguing in favour of religion, just pointing out that your arguments and accusations are flawed at times.

[Turinbaar]

Objectivity does not mean a fair and balanced appraisal? :crying:

Not unless you think Fox news's slogan is the definition of objectivity. That which is objectively true does not entail an impartial assessment of, and conclusion towards, all parties involved in the matter in question.


But religions/belief systems would argue that they too are the "study" of humans' relations with each other and the real world.

I don't think so. I think they would say they are divine revelations from God superseding and transcending human relations and the real world.


But humans are natural therefore what comes from humans is part of nature too.

No, what is made by humans is artificial. Monotheism does not occur naturally, without humans, just as cellphones do not occur naturally.

artificial |ˌärtəˈfi sh əl|
adjective
1 made or produced by human beings rather than occuring naturally,


Evidence for that? This of course ignores all of the religious persecution. Karl Marx grandfather was a chief rabbi too... so what?

I've already referred you to Mr Duncan's book "Russian Messianism", and there are numerous other books on the subject, but these facts are easily findable by wiki or google search.


And what are the roots of the Greek philosophies?

Naturalism. All knowledge worth knowing is to be made from observation, not revelation. It is a rejection of the supernatural assumption, and the foundation of Materialism and by extension Marxism.


Well we don't know so much about him really seeing as only a few bits and fragments of his works remain.

Well get reading. I'd suggest starting with Marx's Doctoral Thesis, which compares and contrasts Epicurus and Democritus.

[ComradeMan]

Not unless you think Fox news's slogan is the definition of objectivity. That which is objectively true does not entail an impartial assessment of, and conclusion towards, all parties involved in the matter in question..

Strawman.

You're playing "semantic" games here... come on, you know what is meant by being impartial- using hyperbole and expletives doesn't help the objective analysis of a subject.


I don't think so. I think they would say they are divine revelations from God superseding and transcending human relations and the real world...

Not all religions are "revealed" religions, and all revealed religions do have an element of observation to them too.


No, what is made by humans is artificial. Monotheism does not occur naturally, without humans, just as cellphones do not occur naturally.

It's philosophical- if humans are natural, and whatever is made by humans depends on the use of naturally occurring resources and materials then everything is natural.


I've already referred you to Mr Duncan's book "Russian Messianism", and there are numerous other books on the subject, but these facts are easily findable by wiki or google search. .

Hold on a moment- weren't we talking about Imperial Japan? The fact that the Orthodox Church was temporarily "used" by Stalin is neither here nor there in the greater argument. One of the reasons why Stalin probably did it was because given the desparate times of war he wanted to know what was going on and wanted to control everything- KGB agents were placed inside the church and priests were "chosen". You also neglect to mention that between 1917-1935 around 95,000 Russian Orthodox priects were executed. Stalin himself did not tolerate the church because he was religious but it was in the name of patriotism.



Naturalism. All knowledge worth knowing is to be made from observation, not revelation. It is a rejection of the supernatural assumption, and the foundation of Materialism and by extension Marxism..

Oh... so Newton's intuition of what he observed was not valid? Observation without intuition is not going to go very far. All knowledge is not gained by direct observation either, but "indirect" observation, i.e. deduction and sometimes by just following a plain hunch.


Well get reading. I'd suggest starting with Marx's Doctoral Thesis, which compares and contrasts Epicurus and Democritus.

You've jumped over the points conveniently here. You stated Epicurus was not a religious figure when in actual fact we don't really know because so little of his original work has survived- we just don't know what he believed. Secondly, Epicurus is not the only Greek philosopher is he? Thirdly, I had enough of Epicurus et al rammed down my throught at school to want to read Marx's thesis on him! (Okay that last comment was not directed at you!). Interestinly it is the Vatican Library that preserves some of his original quotes. Fundamentally we have a load of secondhand references and three original letters with which to build a picture of Epicurus.

Interestingly, from an Epicurean point of view- if religious belief has positive effects, such as has been demonstrated by prayer, meditation and so on then he would probably have deemed it good in that it brought pleasure and not pain.

[graffic]

I voted Christianity, and Judaism would follow close second. I think the spread of monotheism because of Judaism and Christianity advanced societies for the better. Outside the debate of faith V science, or whether or not Jesus was the son of God as he claimed, Jesus was basically the greatest champion of social justice that ever lived and the general thrust of his teachings are very positive for humanity in general (and fervently anti-capitalist). http://www.newstatesman.com/religion/2010/12/jesus-god-tax-christ-health

I would almost also say Islam however my problem with Islam, and its a massive one, is it is a religion that in many places is enforced by law. That is an unnatural violation of a basic human right, and all Muslims condone it simply by believing in Islam. As for other options, Satanism I can't take seriously because surely know one would choose eternal damnation and I don't a lot about Hinduism and Buddhism.