scientific humanism and communism as religions

[tantric]

i thought i made it clear to you that i don't argue with angry monkeys. insults are not part of debate. have a civil tongue, or go yell at someone who cares.

1)what is a religion?

religion (n.)

1a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
1b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

2)name some things that are religions...

Christianity, Sunni Islam, Theravada Buddhism, Taoism, Neosiberian Shamanism, Santeria

3)compare these things which are religions with the definition:

well - 1a is out. Buddhists and Taoists don't care about the creator of anything, and the concept of "supernatural" is somewhat arbitrary. 1b has some validity - a religion can be either personal or societal. 2 is redundant. 3 leaves out Shamanism and Santeria, unless you consider any priest as a leader. 4 is perhaps too broad, though, in my opinion, it works - if someone is a fanatic about a cause, that cause is his/her religion.

4)conclusion, part 1:

the dictionary does not contain a particularly good definition of "religion". the only one that works for all things we collectively consider religions, #4, definitely includes communism and scientific humanism, but then again, it also includes professional wrestling.

5)propose a new definition

combine the good parts: a personal or institutionalized system of belief, pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

i find it convenient to describe belief systems with the 5 ologies: cosmology (shape of the universe), teleology (purpose of things/life/man), theology (gods and spirits), eschatology (the ending of all/the afterlife), and epistemology (the basis of knowledge)

consider islam: modern scientific cosmology (got to hand them that); the purpose of life is to serve God; there is only one true God and Mohammed is his prophet; blah blah, paradise, virgins, judgment; the Koran, and the further writings of the mullahs (revealed truth)

furthermore, religions often have messiahs and canons - i.e., Mohammed and the Koran.

so, why doesn't this apply to communism and scientific humanism?

6)the lesson of postmodernism

everybody thinks they are right. everybody thinks that what they believe is TRUE and that everything else is superstitious nonsense. when you run around and play games with semantics, so that TRUE is SCIENCE and WRONG is RELIGION, you have changed nothing. a set of beliefs is just that. whether or not that belief system is "right" or not is irrelevant, and undeterminable (see, Heisenberg, Godel, etc). if you put a jesusfish on your car, you have religion, if you put a darwinfish you have what?

the whole stupid point here is that the antireligious types have it locked in your minds that RELIGIONS are NOT TRUE. therefore, if SCIENCE is a RELGION then it is NOT TRUE. (linguistic analysis uses caps like this, btw, i'm not screaming). nonsense. science has *often* been wrong, and religions have occasionally been right. both adapt and change. any Jesuit will flat out tell you that his purpose is the quest for truth. well, his truth.

and, while on linguistic analysis, consider: "what is your religious preference: christian, etc, atheist, none?" well, an atheist doesn't believe in god(s). theravada buddhists are atheists, and many atheists are spiritual. "none" indicates that you have no preference, you'll take what comes. what do you select if you have no religion? what is the word for this condition? there is none. the closest is "irreligious", which means "hostile or indifferent to religions". why is this? well, obviously, because everyone has a religion. note that linguistic analysis only illustrates thinking patterns - it doesn't *prove* things.

7)why this is important?

because, when you accept scientific humanism and communism as religions, and compare them to other religions, you find that they are lacking in one obvious area. A CONSISTENT SET OF ETHICS. to quote vonnegut, "we took the weight of scientific truth and dropped it on the people of Hiroshima". the major problem with communism is that communists are perfectly happy to murder millions of people - and then they wonder why their nations are mazes of corruption? the ethic of communism is basically "the ends justify the means". yikes

theravada buddhism, which is an ATHEISTIC RELIGION, like communism and scientific humanism, nevertheless it has a set of ethics, which, judging from history, works fairly well. buddhists are not in fact known for their atrocities.

also, it can be argued that communism failed because of religion. the only social force capable of motivating people to engage in a radical change in their way of life is RELIGION. duh. marx, horrified at christianity, threw the baby out with the bathwater. early american *religious* communes worked rather well. state organized socialist ones did not.

8)how to refute this:

construct a definition of religion that includes all of the above mentioned "conventional" religions, yet excludes whatever it is you want excluded. be my guest. i did not arrive at this point of view out of hatred for science. i am a scientist, i love science. and, as a scientist, it is important to see things clearly, including science.

NB - as in the beginning, so in the end - DO NOT FLAME ME. i don't participate in wrong speech. i'll just ignore you.

[tantric]

in reading nixion's posting with care i will address a simple point:

*miilions* of chinese people visit mao's tomb each year and LEAVE OFFERINGS TO HIS SPIRIT. that little red book he wrote is what is called, to use the technical term, a CANON. communists, historically, are NOT in touch with realty - are you aware of the existance of albania? little evner banned *beards*.

what do you call a person who founds a movement, based largely on charisma, leaves behind a book of philosophy and instructions and after death is preserved and revered? well, a messiah.

i will give you that scientific humanism is not such a messianic religion as communism or islam. but this is not crucial to a relgion - as the zen master said "if you see the buddha come walking down the road, hit him with a stick".

and just fyi about theravada, since it's important to the concepts herein:

A conservative branch of Buddhism that adheres to Pali scriptures and the NONTHEISTIC ideal of self-purification to nirvana and is dominant in Sri Lanka, Burma, Thailand, Laos, and Cambodia

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

i thought i made it clear to you that i don't argue with angry monkeys. insults are not part of debate. have a civil tongue, or go yell at someone who cares.

Fuck you. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the frigging kitchen. If you ignore my arguments because of my cursing, you are committing a gross style over substance fallacy


well - 1a is out. Buddhists and Taoists don't care about the creator of anything, and the concept of "supernatural" is somewhat arbitrary.

How is it arbitrary? Supernatural is anything that doesn't confirm to the known laws of physics.


4 is perhaps too broad, though, in my opinion, it works - if someone is a fanatic about a cause, that cause is his/her religion.

You're right, it is too broad. I don't pray to Marx, I've never seen a temple dedicated to scientific humanism. Scientific Humanism and communism are obviously not religions.


consider islam: modern scientific cosmology (got to hand them that); the purpose of life is to serve God; there is only one true God and Mohammed is his prophet; blah blah, paradise, virgins, judgment; the Koran, and the further writings of the mullahs (revealed truth)

Have you actually read the Koran? I'm sure that having all the stars fall to earth breaks a known law of physics or two.


everybody thinks they are right. everybody thinks that what they believe is TRUE and that everything else is superstitious nonsense. when you run around and play games with semantics, so that TRUE is SCIENCE and WRONG is RELIGION, you have changed nothing. a set of beliefs is just that. whether or not that belief system is "right" or not is irrelevant, and undeterminable (see, Heisenberg, Godel, etc). if you put a jesusfish on your car, you have religion, if you put a darwinfish you have what?

This paragraph illustrates the absurdity of Postmodernism.

Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle deals with observations of subatomic particles, not abstract concepts. Good grief.



the whole stupid point here is that the antireligious types have it locked in your minds that RELIGIONS are NOT TRUE. therefore, if SCIENCE is a RELGION then it is NOT TRUE. (linguistic analysis uses caps like this, btw, i'm not screaming). nonsense. science has *often* been wrong, and religions have occasionally been right. both adapt and change. any Jesuit will flat out tell you that his purpose is the quest for truth. well, his truth.

Semantics.


and, while on linguistic analysis, consider: "what is your religious preference: christian, etc, atheist, none?" well, an atheist doesn't believe in god(s). theravada buddhists are atheists, and many atheists are spiritual.

Being an atheist precludes any sort of belief in the supernatural (Or spiritual if you prefer. As I understand it, therevada buddhism consists of following the right 'path'. To atheists, such concerns are irrelevant.


also, it can be argued that communism failed because of religion. the only social force capable of motivating people to engage in a radical change in their way of life is RELIGION. duh. marx, horrified at christianity, threw the baby out with the bathwater. early american *religious* communes worked rather well. state organized socialist ones did not.

Bullshit. the Dark Ages held Europe back for a century or more. (At the same time the middle east flourished until Islamic fundamentalim set in) Small religious communes tend to be anti-technology as well. (Amish)


construct a definition of religion that includes all of the above mentioned "conventional" religions, yet excludes whatever it is you want excluded. be my guest. i did not arrive at this point of view out of hatred for science. i am a scientist, i love science. and, as a scientist, it is important to see things clearly, including science.

Religion: A set of beliefs espousing the "right way" to live.

Scientific Humanism and communism don't care if you have buttsex or enjoy material things.

Can I ask why you are a buddhist?


*miilions* of chinese people visit mao's tomb each year and LEAVE OFFERINGS TO HIS SPIRIT. that little red book he wrote is what is called, to use the technical term, a CANON. communists, historically, are NOT in touch with realty - are you aware of the existance of albania? little evner banned *beards*.

That's funny, I don't remember Marx ever referring to spirits in his writings. Have you considered that Marxism-Leninism-Maoism is not representative of all radical leftists?
Just so you know, I agree with Marx's analysis of class society (But it clearly needs updating) disagree with Marx about dialectics (A convoluted form of "logic" that serves only to inflate dialecticians' egos) and agree with him about the relevance of historical materialism.

Even if Marx did write about spirits, I would still disagree with him. Why? because 'Marx said so' is not good reasoning.


i will give you that scientific humanism is not such a messianic religion as communism or islam.

You have yet to prove that communism or scientific humanism are religions.

[tantric]

consider: tomorrow, science finds proof of telepathy. does that mean that ms. clio is suddenly rational? did telepathy change, or did the rules of what is natural? considering the kind of paradigm shifts that happen in science every few years now, no working scientist can afford to bet on what will or will not be natural law tomorrow. consider that the ether was once natural law, along with spontaneous generation. besides, modern science has such strangeness as "spooky effects over a distance", etc. if the human mind is really a quantum computer, there is plenty of room for a soul.

just because you don't pray to marx or SH does not mean that these are not religions, though perhaps that they are not *your* religions. as to the shrine - what do you called the pickled body of dead communists bit? scientists quite often have little altars to their favorite saints, and, more to the point, there are no Neosiberian temples.

Godel's Uncertainty Theorem deals with the macrouniverse. in short - for any set of logic or math, there are things that are true that cannot be proven true via said set of rules. science can never explain everything. thus there are and always will be things that are "supernatural" yet true.

please look up the definition of "atheism". it doesn't mean what you think it means. you can be an atheist and believe in the bad luck of black cats all day long. theravada buddhism is an atheistic religion.

if communists don't care about how you live, why do they liquate the rich? and communists have a HUGE history of persecutions, including that of homosexuals (though apparenlty lenin was against this). buddhists, on the other hand, do not persecute people.

i'm a buddhist because buddhism is based on logic. i don't disbelieve things that are logical. it provides an ethical system based on logic rather then divine punishment. there are other reasons, this is not relevant.

what marx thought about spirits has nothing to do with whether or not communism is a religion. you don't deny that millions of chinese pray to mao. are these people not communists? you don't get to make that decision.

the idea of communism as a religion is not original to me. there are several books about the subject. likewise, SH. note, i don't say "science", since this has a very broad meaning. the root of the problem is that there are conventional religions that are very like philosophies. some are atheistic, some lack ethical systems. some have no priests or temples, or no canon. likewise, some have no use for the supernatural (consider confucianism or taoism). i content that it is not possible to make a definition of religion that includes all conventional religions and exludes communism and SH.

your definition of religion (a set of ethics) is even broader than mine. veganism is not a religion (well...not for me).

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

consider: tomorrow, science finds proof of telepathy. does that mean that ms. clio is suddenly rational? did telepathy change, or did the rules of what is natural? considering the kind of paradigm shifts that happen in science every few years now, no working scientist can afford to bet on what will or will not be natural law tomorrow. consider that the ether was once natural law, along with spontaneous generation. besides, modern science has such strangeness as "spooky effects over a distance", etc. if the human mind is really a quantum computer, there is plenty of room for a soul.

It seems we have the laws of physics pretty much 'figured out' at least on the macroscopic level - remember that Einstein's laws of relativity are not a replacement of Newtonian physics, but a refinement; Newtonian physical models are still used when relativity does not come into play (Eg orbital mechanics)
Quantum entanglement is worthless for transmitting information due to the uncertainty principle. If the mind is proven to be a quantum computer, how does that prove anything about the soul or free will, especially when quantum effects in aggregate have a net effect of zero at the macroscopic level?


just because you don't pray to marx or SH does not mean that these are not religions, though perhaps that they are not *your* religions. as to the shrine - what do you called the pickled body of dead communists bit?

I'm not a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist, so don't ask me. SH and communism have no moral guidelines, so I fail to see why you think of them as religions.

This might be of interest to you: Saint Avakian's First church of Mao (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1083550128&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)


Godel's Uncertainty Theorem deals with the macrouniverse. in short - for any set of logic or math, there are things that are true that cannot be proven true via said set of rules. science can never explain everything. thus there are and always will be things that are "supernatural" yet true.

You're jumping to conclusions here - simply because science has no explanation for certain phenomenon does not mean these phenomenon will forever remain unexplained, neither is it a vindication of superstition.

Nature is relentless in giving us mysteries but science is equally relentless in solving them.


please look up the definition of "atheism". it doesn't mean what you think it means. you can be an atheist and believe in the bad luck of black cats all day long. theravada buddhism is an atheistic religion.

And earlier you were saying therevada is nontheistic. Make up your mind!


if communists don't care about how you live, why do they liquate the rich?

They don't. The rich's wealth is rendered useless by the gift economy. If they attempt to use force against communists, I'm sure you can appreciate the communists defending themselves.


and communists have a HUGE history of persecutions, including that of homosexuals (though apparenlty lenin was against this). buddhists, on the other hand, do not persecute people.

Soviet Russia was an example of Marxism-Leninism (Later authoritarian socialism) not communism. Communism is classless, stateless society. Soviet Russia was a state that very clearly had classes.
You really should know better than to lump all radical leftist ideologies together.
Buddhists may not carry out any witch hunts, but they still shit on the common man when they get in power - look at pre-china tibet, a fuedalist hellhole of serfdom.


i'm a buddhist because buddhism is based on logic.

How so? What conclusions are reached and how? How is guesswork by some medieval monk useful?


i don't disbelieve things that are logical. it provides an ethical system based on logic rather then divine punishment.

How is this ethical system different from Scientific Humanism? The answers you are giving are very vague.

The reason I'm a Scientific Humanist is fairly simple - firstly, out of all the philosophies ever invented by mankind, science has turned out to be the most useful. Secondly, Humanism espouses a mankind working on it's own set of ethics for it's own benefit, not some pronouncements of an invisible sky fairy or some semi-mythical person who died millennia ago; learn from the past, don't copy it!


what marx thought about spirits has nothing to do with whether or not communism is a religion. you don't deny that millions of chinese pray to mao. are these people not communists? you don't get to make that decision.

Argumentem ad Populum. The whole world could jizz themselves over Mao, but that doesn't make it right.


the idea of communism as a religion is not original to me. there are several books about the subject.

Mostly written by anti-communist hacks and professional liars.


the idea of communism as a religion is not original to me. there are several books about the subject. likewise, SH. note, i don't say "science", since this has a very broad meaning. the root of the problem is that there are conventional religions that are very like philosophies. some are atheistic, some lack ethical systems. some have no priests or temples, or no canon. likewise, some have no use for the supernatural (consider confucianism or taoism). i content that it is not possible to make a definition of religion that includes all conventional religions and exludes communism and SH.

I thought Confucianism was a philosophy? Besides, most religions have one or more of the following features: God(s), temples/churches, rituals, scripture(s), holy men, and a "right path". If therevada buddhism has none of these then what the hell is there to it?


your definition of religion (a set of ethics) is even broader than mine. veganism is not a religion (well...not for me).

Hahaha, nice try, but no.

I honestly cant see the point of Therevada Buddhism apart from providing Postmodernists with wank material.

[tantric]

okay, you're being rational now, so consider this:

the greeks (the classic greeks) were eminently logical and rational people. they invented many of the principles of science that we still use today. they attempted to understand their world with the best tools they had, and they applied logical and rationality to that world view. they are, if any one is, the fathers of scientific rationalism. nevertheless, the believed in some pretty silly things. to them, these things were rational. if you had shown them proof otherwise, they most likely would have accepted your proof.

one of the things these rational men believed in was superbeings zooming around the skies in flying vehicles, hurling energy bolts and guided missiles at each other. sound familiar?

so, did the greeks have a religion? at what point did their superstitious nonsense turn into rational thought? people who practice neosiberian shamanism are, in fact, trying to understand their world. they live in a harsh environment, and have little use for nonsense. every part of their belief system in some way helps them survive as a people. did they refuse antibiotics? no way. how are they different from you?

you do not understand godel's uncertainty theorem. it states, very clearly, in the simple logic of game theory, that science cannot explain everything.

"Gödel showed that within a rigidly logical system such as Russell and Whitehead had developed for arithmetic, propositions can be formulated that are undecidable or undemonstrable within the axioms of the system. That is, within the system, there exist certain clear-cut statements that can neither be proved or disproved. Hence one cannot, using the usual methods, be certain that the axioms of arithmetic will not lead to contradictions ... It appears to foredoom hope of mathematical certitude through use of the obvious methods. Perhaps doomed also, as a result, is the ideal of science - to devise a set of axioms from which all phenomena of the external world can be deduced."

the thing is, i didn't know there were still positivists around. the limits of science are very obvious these days - ie, we know next to nothing. science, from a once grand plan to understand *everything*, is now a useful system for describing localized phenomena, subject to frequent revision. there is a new GUT every few years. in with the new, out with everything else. in the life sciences (which has the highest rate of atheists of any science), we just laugh about it. birds are now reptiles, but turtles aren't. absolute zero dropped .15C, didn't you get the memo? plus, you have to consider the nascent state of neurology - we know almost NOTHING about how our own minds work. how would you feel about astronomy if radio telescopes grew in fields, no one could make one, and no one had even a clue about how they worked?

i'm not trying to convert anyone to buddhism, this is not the issue. many monotheists insist that buddhism is not a religion, but a philosophy with sundry cultural baggage. semantics

religions are like assholes - everybody has one, et al. monotheists believe in one god. atheists believe in no god. both are opinions. both are religions. if you want to annoy the monotheists, tell them "sure, God exists, i just don't worship Him. He's obviously impotent and insane, a pathological liar and megalomaniac. but, fortunately, like most bullies, if we all stand up to Him, He'll go away." they can't think creatively, most of them, and you can *prove* the above using biblical examples. have fun.

the point of this is that fanaticism is always wrong. the idea of "i'm right, and i have proof, so i can do whatever i want" is very dangerous. MANY communists and not a few scientific humanists have this idea. all fanatics believe it. when a science fanatic argues with a religious fanatic, they are merely parodies of each other. regardless of what the belief systems represent, they serve the same purpose in each person's mind.

btw, what exactly are these ethics of humanism, whose nonexistance, i must note, was the reason why SH isn't a religion a few replies ago?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

the greeks (the classic greeks) were eminently logical and rational people. they invented many of the principles of science that we still use today. they attempted to understand their world with the best tools they had, and they applied logical and rationality to that world view. they are, if any one is, the fathers of scientific rationalism. nevertheless, the believed in some pretty silly things. to them, these things were rational. if you had shown them proof otherwise, they most likely would have accepted your proof.

one of the things these rational men believed in was superbeings zooming around the skies in flying vehicles, hurling energy bolts and guided missiles at each other. sound familiar?

Not all Greeks were informed philosophers - some of them would have been soldiers, uninterested in the idles thoughts of "weak men", doubtless praying to the gods to ensure victory. Others would have been slaves, illiterate and never allowed near anything of educational value. Not to mention that Greee wasn't always a haven of philosophers and thinking men - look at Sparta.


so, did the greeks have a religion? at what point did their superstitious nonsense turn into rational thought? people who practice neosiberian shamanism are, in fact, trying to understand their world. they live in a harsh environment, and have little use for nonsense. every part of their belief system in some way helps them survive as a people. did they refuse antibiotics? no way. how are they different from you?

They choose to couch their survival guide in the form of legends and knowledge passed from parent to child. I have no want or need to do it that way.


you do not understand godel's uncertainty theorem. it states, very clearly, in the simple logic of game theory, that science cannot explain everything.

I think I might have confused it with Heisenburg's uncertainty theorem.


the thing is, i didn't know there were still positivists around. the limits of science are very obvious these days - ie, we know next to nothing. science, from a once grand plan to understand *everything*, is now a useful system for describing localized phenomena, subject to frequent revision. there is a new GUT every few years. in with the new, out with everything else. in the life sciences (which has the highest rate of atheists of any science), we just laugh about it. birds are now reptiles, but turtles aren't. absolute zero dropped .15C, didn't you get the memo? plus, you have to consider the nascent state of neurology - we know almost NOTHING about how our own minds work. how would you feel about astronomy if radio telescopes grew in fields, no one could make one, and no one had even a clue about how they worked?

I never delared that science knows everything; of course our knowledge is limited, but that is not to discard it, especially when it works. Nor is it an excuse to resort to esoteric Eastern philosophies that know even less despite the occasional lucky guess, whose methodologies consist of introspective techniques, the exact opposite of science, which requires you to go out and observe the world, perform experiments, test yours and others conclusions, etc. Thanks to this methodology of science we know more about the universe than we used to.


i'm not trying to convert anyone to buddhism, this is not the issue. many monotheists insist that buddhism is not a religion, but a philosophy with sundry cultural baggage. semantics

Personally I consider Buddhism to be an unnecessary diversion, and have seen little evidence to the contrary.


religions are like assholes - everybody has one, et al. monotheists believe in one god. atheists believe in no god. both are opinions. both are religions.

No, NO, NO! Atheism is not a religion. An opinion on the existance of god and/or the supernatural is not the same as having faith about it. Atheists are so because what we know about the universe so far, the basic rules we have discovered in spite of the primitivity of our state of knowledge, indicates to them that there is no god(s). Religions like Christianity and Islam are instilled from birth and are much harder to shake off, because they've been told from birth that a God exists and that he has a purpose for the universe. Quite different from believeing that your fate is in the hands of humans rather than god!


the point of this is that fanaticism is always wrong.

Bullshit! It entirely depends on the cause. If I found someone attempting to burn down an abortion clinic, then it would be fanatical but not wrong to shoot them like a dog. The idea that extremism is wrong is perpetuated by those too weak in their minds to stand up for what they believe in.


the idea of "i'm right, and i have proof, so i can do whatever i want" is very dangerous.

Especially to those who are wrong. If people don't fight for what they believe in, they get dog shit!


when a science fanatic argues with a religious fanatic, they are merely parodies of each other.

Subjectivist rubbish!

The science fanatic is fighting for the right cause even when he is factually wrong. If they aren't defending the principles of science, then they aren't science fanatics, just fools.


btw, what exactly are these ethics of humanism, whose nonexistance, i must note, was the reason why SH isn't a religion a few replies ago?

Humanism allows for you to make your own set of ethics.

[tantric]

did the greeks have a religion? when did it stop being a religion and start being science? i can answer this pretty easily.

what was the religion of pythagoras?

i have NEVER seen a paper on the nonexistance of god, simply because there is no methadology to prove such. the nonexistance of god is an OPINION. likewise, souls, etc. i have seen very serious research *proving* that prayer has direct effects on the physical world. matter of fact, i have a book on it - the experiments are simple, you can do them. i *seriously* doubt you would believe the results, regardless.

if god doesn't exist, and this is science, show me the refs.

how do these laws show the nonexistance of gods? if anything, we have found plenty of places for them to hide. they could, for instance, be powerful aliens who just like to fuck around with primitives. that science disagrees with bits of particular mythologies, such as genesis, does not imply the nonexistance of god(s). and, heaven forbid, should a god appear in the flesh and we weigh and quatify it, then what? besides, if the mind is a quantum wave front, then ideas are real, quatifiable things.

faith vs opinion? faith is optional for several religions, mine included. it strikes me that you have much faith in the nonexistance of gods.

the reason that positivism is in disfavor with scientists these days is simply how little we know about things that really change day to day life. predicting the weather. fixing an ecosystem. where knowledge is stored in the brain. black holes are *pointless* if we can't keep ourselves and our planet alive.

you totally ignored the bit about neurology - we do not even remotely understand the lens thru which we experience the universe.

how many times must i say this? every religion is internally self-consistant. just like science. thanks to christian investigations, they now know more about heaven than they used to. they even calculated the age of the earth. so what?

communism is a religion because people make offering to the spirit of mao. it doesn't matter if this is not your religion, nor do you get to say that that is not communism. after all, christianity is a religion of peace and love, and thus those who murder and pillage in the name of god are not christians, right? no.

buddhism 101: the basic question is, what is the source of human suffering? siddharta saw people suffering, gross (sickness, etc) and mental (grief, anger) and saw monks, who seemed not to be suffering, and set out to investigate. he wanted to know why it is that religion gives these people peace. gross suffering is universal - everyone gets sick. old, weak and dies. but somehow religion seems to help with mental suffering. how? he tried many things, and came up with a theory, which has been tested by millions of people. one thing he concluded was that it has NOTHING to do with the worship of gods or spirits or belief in the afterlife. buddhism is a technology of conciousness. you are never expected to believe anything that isn't completely logical. you may, if it helps you. if you try the buddha's prescription, and it doesn't work for you, by all means, don't do it. i found it interesting, i tried it, it worked. empiricism. anyway, we are forbidden to seek converts in any form (this is just good manners, not logic). note that i'm not giving the prescription for happiness itself here, you didn't ask for that. just some background info.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

did the greeks have a religion? when did it stop being a religion and start being science? i can answer this pretty easily.

The Greeks did not have science, or at least not the brand of philosophy we call science. Tinkering around (Hero's steam sphere) is interesting but not science.


what was the religion of pythagoras?

An irrelevant question.


i have NEVER seen a paper on the nonexistance of god, simply because there is no methadology to prove such.

There is such a methodology: Prove that god exists with a repeatable experiment. All experiments conducted thus far (at least those not carried out by kooks and fraudsters), have concluded, that god, as described in various human religions, does not exist.
The self-consistent nature of the universe itself rules out the existance of a supernatural.


the nonexistance of god is an OPINION. likewise, souls, etc. i have seen very serious research *proving* that prayer has direct effects on the physical world. matter of fact, i have a book on it - the experiments are simple, you can do them. i *seriously* doubt you would believe the results, regardless.

I would love to hear those experiments.


how do these laws show the nonexistance of gods? if anything, we have found plenty of places for them to hide. they could, for instance, be powerful aliens who just like to fuck around with primitives.

In which case they're not gods, just irresponsible sentients. While I think the idea of a Prime Directive is utter horse shit, pretending to be a deity is even worse.


that science disagrees with bits of particular mythologies, such as genesis, does not imply the nonexistance of god(s).

Well, it might not disprove the existance of Shiva, but it's pretty much curtains for Yahweh.


and, heaven forbid, should a god appear in the flesh and we weigh and quatify it, then what?

If such an ocurrance happens, then the inescapable conclusion is that at least one deity exists. However, I wouldn't hold your breath.


besides, if the mind is a quantum wave front, then ideas are real, quatifiable things.

Ideas already are real, quantifiable things; they are electro-chemical impulses in the brain.

It's the details that elude us.


faith vs opinion? faith is optional for several religions, mine included. it strikes me that you have much faith in the nonexistance of gods.

I don't have faith, the weight of evidence has led me to a conclusion. This does not preclude my conclusion being false, but I have seen nothing to suggest that this is so.


you totally ignored the bit about neurology - we do not even remotely understand the lens thru which we experience the universe.

But science is making progress, slow as it may be. That's a better track record than religion.


how many times must i say this? every religion is internally self-consistant.

Somebody's never read the bible, or the Koran, or any other religious text. Religions which feature more than one canon are even less likely to be consistant.


thanks to christian investigations, they now know more about heaven than they used to.

Such as what? What was their methodology? What experiments did they carry out? Were their conclusions peer reviewed?

Without the above things, investigation is irrelevant


they even calculated the age of the earth.

And got it completely wrong. So much for Christian investigation methods.


communism is a religion because people make offering to the spirit of mao.

And Buddhism is a religion because people make offerings to the Buddha.

Can you see how ridiculous your statement is? Maoism != communism


after all, christianity is a religion of peace and love, and thus those who murder and pillage in the name of god are not christians, right? no.

Actually, murder and pillage is perfectly acceptable if you do it the Lord's name.

You've never read the Bible have you?

[Guest1]

Please post in the proper forum.

[tantric]

we are debating science in the science forum, what is the problem?


There is such a methodology: Prove that god exists with a repeatable experiment. All experiments conducted thus far (at least those not carried out by kooks and fraudsters), have concluded, that god, as described in various human religions, does not exist.
The self-consistent nature of the universe itself rules out the existence of a supernatural.


for many people, god is purely spiritual. consider the mother goddess of neopagans. the atman, of hinduism, is the soul that is not memory, body, personality, beliefs or intelligence. anything that happens, not matter how freaky, is natural, by definition. so if jehovah is actually a superpowerful ET deluding humans in order to suck their brain waves thru some kind of quantum vampirism, that's all good. but he's not a *god*. that's silly. if a sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic, then it follows that a being using that tech is indistinguishable from a god. your definition of a god is a thing that can't be proven to exist through scientific methodology. semantics.

nowhere in any definition of religion, anywhere, does it say that the religion must be wrong, which seems to be the sticking point here.

communists have saints, shrines, heretics, a holy canon or two and do it all out of belief in a futuristic paradise where man lives without injustice, one that 99% of humans consider silly. these people call themselves communists. good enough.

you simply cannot accept that science no longer considers it's own epistemology special. godel made it very clear. how was antimatter discovered? someone thought it was a neat idea and went and found it.

other religions do not use scientific epistemology. most use revealed truth or the idea of an ineffable god.

geez, every day i walk to class past a big glass case displaying a prof's latest book "the gods of genetics". whatever.

religion plays a certain function in the human psyche. in most people, that is a means of dividing people into groups based on ideologies and then providing an ego boost and justifying exclusion. when we diagnose schizophrenia, we do not pay attention to the details of the delusions. but not all religions.

i doubt my beliefs qualify as religion in your definition, even though i keep an open mind about spiritual things. my version of science accepts that there are things that science cannot explain. that's why science and buddhism work for me: neither one claims to have the whole truth, just a good working version thereof.

anyway, i'm arguing religion with a priest, even if it is a priest of a no-religion. peace, later.

ps, i've read most of the bible. genesis, leveticus, job and the new testament. i think i got the jist of it. christians make me want to run screaming. nevertheless, so long as they mind their own business, when you start running around bayonetting people, even though i might happen to agree with your ideas, i will join whoever i can to throw you in a straight jacket and pump you full of thorazine. since i'm probably one of the people you would be righteously murdering, we'll consider it mutual.

[Guest1]

No, you are defining communism, and science, as religions.

Therefore, this thread belongs in opposing ideologies.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

for many people, god is purely spiritual. consider the mother goddess of neopagans. the atman, of hinduism, is the soul that is not memory, body, personality, beliefs or intelligence. anything that happens, not matter how freaky, is natural, by definition. so if jehovah is actually a superpowerful ET deluding humans in order to suck their brain waves thru some kind of quantum vampirism, that's all good. but he's not a *god*. that's silly. if a sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic, then it follows that a being using that tech is indistinguishable from a god. your definition of a god is a thing that can't be proven to exist through scientific methodology. semantics.

Not even the most advanced technology will break the laws of physics. Supernaturalism implies that those laws are broken. The biblical account of the flood breaks the law of Conservation of Mass.


nowhere in any definition of religion, anywhere, does it say that the religion must be wrong, which seems to be the sticking point here.

Like I said, sometimes the old farts sitting on mountaintops make lucky guesses. Most of the time they're wrong.


communists have saints, shrines, heretics, a holy canon or two and do it all out of belief in a futuristic paradise where man lives without injustice, one that 99% of humans consider silly. these people call themselves communists. good enough.

I don't remember a significant fraction of communists ever claiming that communist society would be a perfect "Heaven" inhabited by "angels". The goal of communists is to create a more just society in the same way that capitalism is more just than fuedalism. The communist manifesto is not the final authority on all matters communist. Try harder.


you simply cannot accept that science no longer considers it's own epistemology special. godel made it very clear. how was antimatter discovered? someone thought it was a neat idea and went and found it.

A bit of a contradiction here; antimatter was first theorised to exist because mathematics suggested it's existance, and this theory was confirmed when antimatter was actually created. Gravitons and Tachyons are predicted by the mathematics behind quantum and relativity theory but their existance has yet to be confirmed. According to Godel this shouldn't be happening.


religion plays a certain function in the human psyche. in most people, that is a means of dividing people into groups based on ideologies and then providing an ego boost and justifying exclusion. when we diagnose schizophrenia, we do not pay attention to the details of the delusions. but not all religions.

So?


i doubt my beliefs qualify as religion in your definition, even though i keep an open mind about spiritual things. my version of science accepts that there are things that science cannot explain. that's why science and buddhism work for me: neither one claims to have the whole truth, just a good working version thereof.

I never claimed science knew everything. My point is that science knows significantly more than any other religion or philosophy because it effectively says; "tinker with the world and take note of what happens" rather than "Look at the world then go to some corner and think". The former is more productive and useful than the latter.


anyway, i'm arguing religion with a priest, even if it is a priest of a no-religion. peace, later.

That's funny, 'cause I'm not wearing any robes.


ps, i've read most of the bible. genesis, leveticus, job and the new testament. i think i got the jist of it. christians make me want to run screaming. nevertheless, so long as they mind their own business, when you start running around bayonetting people, even though i might happen to agree with your ideas, i will join whoever i can to throw you in a straight jacket and pump you full of thorazine. since i'm probably one of the people you would be righteously murdering, we'll consider it mutual.

I see you've finally realised that the world is not a platonic realm of lofty ideals, and that you have to actually fight for what you want. Thinking of ever coming down from your ivory tower?

[tantric]

yeah, my ivory tower. have you been to prison? for what? now my ghettoass is goin' to grad school. to paraphrase george clinton, "they still call it an ivory tower, but that's just a temporary condition."

i found two books on prayer and science, by loehr and dossey, both positive. a british study, however, indicated that prayer has no effect on cultured tumor cells. interesting. perhaps a cancer cell is such because it revolts against the whole? we'll see.

godel's theorem implies that some things are true that science cannot explain. it makes it certain that this is true for math. i would consider these things "supernatural". perhaps gravity? there are equations about gravity that seem to be true, but they do not fit with other theories, not completely. this may always be the case.

the nature of the communist paradise is irrelevant. buddhists predict that the universe will fall into disorder and decay, then collapse, which is, in fact, probably true. it is still prophecy. it was based on the observation that all things fall into decay, btw - logic, not guesswork. do you know that at first the buddha refused to teach, because he knew his teaching would be institutionalized, that he himself would become an idol? perhaps marx should have studied the dharma.

in any case, i contend that a religion is a comprehensive worldview which is espoused with devotion or zeal. your contending definition, that religions are superstition and folly, clearly does not contain all things we call religions, and does hold true for many things that are not.

with scientific humanism, the obvious point is that it evolved from superstition and religion. it was a trick of semantics to keep the christians at bay. and pythagaros and euclid most certainly were scientists.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2005, 08:31 PM
godel's theorem implies that some things are true that science cannot explain. it makes it certain that this is true for math.
No, that's not what Godel's theorem says. It says some true mathematical theorems can't be proved. Since none of your statements are mathematical theorems, this is irrelevant to your subject.

And math isn't a science. It isn't based on repeatable observation and experiment.


in any case, i contend that a religion is a comprehensive worldview which is espoused with devotion or zeal.

Playing games with definitions is a poor substitute for facts and reasoning.

"But `glory' doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument," Alice objected.

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in a rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean--neither more nor less.

"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean different things."

"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master--that's all."

You could prove that communism is a warthog by redefining "warthog." So what?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

i found two books on prayer and science, by loehr and dossey, both positive. a british study, however, indicated that prayer has no effect on cultured tumor cells. interesting. perhaps a cancer cell is such because it revolts against the whole? we'll see.

Or maybe because prayer has no effect whatsoever?


the nature of the communist paradise is irrelevant.

Hold it right there! Since when did I claim that communist society would be a paradise?

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2005, 04:40 AM
buddhists, on the other hand, do not persecute people.
What planet are you from? Apparently not the planet where Sri Lanka, Bhutan, and Tibet are located.

Buddhists, when in a position of power, have been historically, and are today, just as quick to persecute other religions and other sects of Buddhism....as any other religion. Even the Dalai Lama in exile has banned the worship of the unauthorized deity Dorje Shugden.

[Xvall]

i'm a buddhist because buddhism is based on logic. i don't disbelieve things that are logical. it provides an ethical system based on logic rather then divine punishment. there are other reasons, this is not relevant.

If I recall correctly, a great deal of Buddhists (including the Buddha himself) believe in samsara, which isn't logical at all.

I'm not arguing against Buddhism. It is by far the most realistic religion I've come across and were it not for the fact that I'm a cruel and belligerent pessimist, I might be a buddhist myself; however, it is not purely philosophical and one need only look at Mahayana text to see that the ideology still has strong religious undertones.

[tantric]

uh, okay, been away for a while.

the bit about godel was my objection to niXion's positivism, because, frankly, i'm surrounded by scientists all day every day, and it's laughable. science does NOT have a start on figuring out the universe. it is a sometimes useful system for describing a localized area of spacetime, subject to frequent revisions. and, since we have NO IDEA where the brain stores information, we do not understand the lens through which we view the universe. and now there is omega number theory, which adds to the idea that there are many things that cannot be understood from their component parts. 30 days from now will be it raining in spain? no clue. i love science, but i know it's limits.

also, i say that there is no proof whatsoever that there is no god(s). how would you even begin to prove that? what about souls? hardcore science won't say one damn thing about anything metaphysical, because it's not testable. thus, atheism is a religion because it is a belief in no god. just another belief.

you mean nirvana, not samsara. samsara is reality-as-it-is-perceived. most buddhists do in fact believe in this. it is generally thought to be a lie, a distraction from nirvana, which is defined as !samara. since all evidence says that life in samsara is suffering, of one type of another, we seek not-samsara to be free of suffering. it's not so much logic or illogic, as it is semantics.

buddhism includes many outrageous beliefs. they are optional. the buddha encouraged people to test facts, to learn new things and to accept them.

buddhists as oppresors: there is VERY little history of this in buddhism. consider Ashoka, whose symbol is still on the flag of india. consider than shamanic/animistic religions are still alive and well in japan and tibet. the DL can tell tibetan buddhists who to worship or not worship, as he wishes.

to be accurate and fair, japanese buddhists monks used to beat the dukkha out of each other fairly often in territorial squabbles. conflict is part of human nature - buddhism seeks to minimalize that, but is not perfect.

my evidence that communism is a religion: people make offerings to the body of mao. the response to this is: those people are not communists. semantics, as was noted, proves nothing. they most certainly ARE communists, because that's what they call themselves.

any definition of religion must include all things generally accepted as religions: therevada buddhism, taoism, neosiberian shamanism, sunni islam, gnosticism, and, for that matter, the church of the subgenius. this requires a fairly broad definition.

of the four accepted meaning of religion, none cover all of the above and some include things like professional wrestling. thus the new one.

posit: it is not possible to have a definition of religion that includes all of the above mentioned faiths, yet excludes communism and scientific humanism.

i have recently come across another view, from "Guns, Germs and Steel":

religion does three things: justify the transfer of wealth to kleptocrats, solves the problem of how unrelated people can live together without violence (?!?), and gives people a motive rather than self-interest to sacrifice their lifes on the behalf of others.

then again, from the author's point of view, shamanism is NOT a religion - it's a worldview. religion has to do with the formation of states and centralized power structures. he also makes no distinction between ideologies and religions.

it is also argued that a religion must believe in something that cannot be perceived and simply known, which i regard as nonsense, and a cultural artifact of the conflict between christianity and the enlightenment.

"One of the reasons why Buddhism is spreading among intelligent
people today is that the Buddha’s methods are the methods employed by
science to discover facts about ourselves. Just like the Buddha, scientists
observe their surroundings impartially in an attempt to see things as they
really are (Yathabhuta). Like the Buddha, scientists are not awed or
influenced by previously held beliefs, no matter how highly respected they
are. The Buddha also never proclaimed anything which could not be
accepted by reason and experiment. He invited all followers to come and see
for themselves (ehipassiko) and not simply believe out of blind faith.
Buddhists are not blinded by emotional fervour and religious ecstasy, but
observe all phenomena calmly and rationally. Buddhism does not encourage
people to be religious fanatics, either to discriminate against or condemn
other existing religions. The first requirement to practise Buddhism is not
Faith, but Understanding. "

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

also, i say that there is no proof whatsoever that there is no god(s). how would you even begin to prove that? what about souls? hardcore science won't say one damn thing about anything metaphysical, because it's not testable. thus, atheism is a religion because it is a belief in no god. just another belief.

If you assert that god exists, you must prove that assertion. For example, I can't provide proof that the world isn't a giant simulation, but I can provide proof that it is real and solid.
Somebody say souls exist? They must prove it!
Atheism is not a religion - it is a conclusion. Evidence of the supernatural has consistently failed to turn up for as long as the scientific method has been around. Whether this conclusion is premature or not remains to be seen.


my evidence that communism is a religion: people make offerings to the body of mao. the response to this is: those people are not communists. semantics, as was noted, proves nothing. they most certainly ARE communists, because that's what they call themselves.

Just because they call themselves communists does not make them communists.
I could say that I'm a reptile, that doesn't make me one.


One of the reasons why Buddhism is spreading among intelligent
people today is that the Buddha’s methods are the methods employed by
science to discover facts about ourselves.

No, buddhism just happens to be "trendy" in the West. That will change soon enough.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2005, 08:59 PM
buddhists as oppresors: there is VERY little history of this in buddhism.
You don't seem to know much about the history of your own religion.

Just present-day, aside from the examples I gave earlier, another occcurs to me: the highly repressive military regime in Burma/Myanmar, which describes itself as "Buddhist socialist", just as you do.


the DL can tell tibetan buddhists who to worship or not worship, as he wishes.

Yes. And he can also tacitly encourage goon squads to beat up and even kill those Tibetan Buddhists who don't worship "as he wishes."

Note: this is what he does even out of power.

You think this is OK?

For a little historical info. (http://www.seeingred.com/Copy/3.1_freetibet.html)

[Jimmie Higgins]

in reading nixion's posting with care i will address a simple point:

*miilions* of chinese people visit mao's tomb each year and LEAVE OFFERINGS TO HIS SPIRIT. that little red book he wrote is what is called, to use the technical term, a CANON. communists, historically, are NOT in touch with realty - are you aware of the existance of albania? little evner banned *beards*.

what do you call a person who founds a movement, based largely on charisma, leaves behind a book of philosophy and instructions and after death is preserved and revered? well, a messiah. It's called a cult of personality. With this definition you can call KISS or the Greatful Dead or Jim Morrison a religion because people worship the person or band. I would call these cults of personality which happen in politics, religion, sports, high schools, and rock idols to varying degrees.


i will give you that scientific humanism is not such a messianic religion as communism or islam. but this is not crucial to a relgion - as the zen master said "if you see the buddha come walking down the road, hit him with a stick".

and just fyi about theravada, since it's important to the concepts herein:

A conservative branch of Buddhism that adheres to Pali scriptures and the NONTHEISTIC ideal of self-purification to nirvana and is dominant in Sri Lanka, Burma, Thailand, Laos, and CambodiaLook, I can understand your confusion here. Both political ideologies, philospohies, science, and religions are things which try and explain the world so I can understand how you might jump to the conclusion that they are the same thing because they are attempts at achiving similar things and often are interconnected. But communism is no more a religion than a log is a duck (because they both float in the water). It is like saying theat capitalism is a religion because you can not see an all present market. Marxism and other enlightenment philosophies strive to scientifically explain things whereas religions use faith to explain things that can not be explained by observable mechanisms.

[tantric]

posit: there is no definition of religion that will include all things commonly regarded as religions, yet exclude state communism and scientific humanism.

this is not a misconception. it is just basic postmodernism.

my definition: a belief system that includes a teleology, cosmology, epistemology and eschatology, which is pursued with zeal or devotion.

this works rather well.

religion is not phylogenetics. and, btw, birds are reptiles. just so you know. what is and is not anything is a mess these days. besides, there is no rational way of assigning people into belief systems other than as they consider themselves.

the religious aspects of communism: a holy canon, pickled saints in shrines, persecution of heretics, promise of a future paradise, outright worship of some messiahs, well ... it goes on and on.

also: NOT ALL RELIGIONS DEPEND ON FAITH. this is a cultural artifact resulting in the conflict between christianity and the enlightenment. the simple logical proof is in the inspection of history: there was no magical point in which science! was born - for the greeks, they were one and the same. many of us have spiritual or religious beliefs that we consider perfectly logical and provable, and expect the universe to behave in a more or less consistent fashion.

science evolved from greek pantheism. scientific humanism is even more religious, because it's based on the utterly unsupported idea of science solving man's problems. it is an evolved nature-religion with a huge dose of idealism and blind optimism.

really, do you think that the inuit had the luxury of believing in nonsense that defied observable reality? they'd be dead ass eskimoes if they tried it. their religion was inseperable from what they knew of the nature of the universe. did they refuse antibiotics as an offense to Sedna? of course not. monotheists do that kind of thing, i'll give you.

if you want to redefine buddhism as a science, i might go with that ;-) but that is not this topic. but all i can find about myanmar is a student and buddhist inspired revolution, and some propaganda about a summit. nevertheless, if they call themselves buddhists, they are. and the dalai lama doesn't support an independent tibet.

oh, and about the supernatural: nothing supernatural exists because if it's real, it's natural. duh. when god shows up, some whiz kid traps him in a magnetic seal of solomon and slaps an equation on his ass, then it's all natural. no. "supernatural" is just a catch phrase for anything not yet understood that might possibly be real. darkenergy is supernatural. if you insist that anything well understood or observed is not supernatural, it is specious to insist that there is no proof of the supernatural.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

posit: there is no definition of religion that will include all things commonly regarded as religions, yet exclude state communism and scientific humanism.

You can fuck about with definitions as much as you wish, but that doesn't make your argument any stronger.


this is not a misconception. it is just basic postmodernism.

Postmodernism ain't worth shit because it's self-denying.


my definition: a belief system that includes a teleology, cosmology, epistemology and eschatology, which is pursued with zeal or devotion.

this works rather well.

No it doesn't. Marx, Engels, Lenin et al wrote diddly squat about cosmology, scientific humanism doesn't assume a teleology (How can one speculate on the purpose of the natural order if there isn't one?)


the religious aspects of communism: a holy canon, pickled saints in shrines, persecution of heretics, promise of a future paradise, outright worship of some messiahs, well ... it goes on and on.

By that definition then, any political tendency is a religion, thus making the concept of religion meaningless. And that's absurd.


also: NOT ALL RELIGIONS DEPEND ON FAITH. this is a cultural artifact resulting in the conflict between christianity and the enlightenment.

Yes they do, and it's not a cultural artefact as you simplistically describe it. Did the Vikings need scientific evidence that Loki existed and that Ragnarok was imminent?
Do the Inuit need scientific evidence for the existance of animal spirits?
The answer in both cases is no. You will probably bring up Buddhism and other trendy Eastern philosophies, but I must remind you that speculation is not science.


the simple logical proof is in the inspection of history: there was no magical point in which science! was born - for the greeks, they were one and the same.

The greeks were natural philosophers, not scientists. They were loath to conduct experiments, unlike today's scientists.


science evolved from greek pantheism.

No, it evolved from natural philosophy.


scientific humanism is even more religious, because it's based on the utterly unsupported idea of science solving man's problems. it is an evolved nature-religion with a huge dose of idealism and blind optimism.

I think people with pacemakers would disagree with you. By the way, that computer you're using, that's a product of science. Do you think faith could have done any better?


really, do you think that the inuit had the luxury of believing in nonsense that defied observable reality? they'd be dead ass eskimoes if they tried it. their religion was inseperable from what they knew of the nature of the universe. did they refuse antibiotics as an offense to Sedna? of course not. monotheists do that kind of thing, i'll give you.

Of course, because the evidence for all living things having a spirit is irrefutable :rolleyes:


if you want to redefine buddhism as a science, i might go with that ;-) but that is not this topic. but all i can find about myanmar is a student and buddhist inspired revolution, and some propaganda about a summit. nevertheless, if they call themselves buddhists, they are.

Oh for fuck's sake. This is subjectivity taken to absurd extremes. If somebody told you they were an intelligent 10 dimensional shade of blue, would you believe them?



oh, and about the supernatural: nothing supernatural exists because if it's real, it's natural. duh.

Again with the dishonest semantic games? Something supernatural would violate the laws of thermodynamics (Which are applied to nature), something which we have never observed despite frantic searching.


when god shows up, some whiz kid traps him in a magnetic seal of solomon and slaps an equation on his ass, then it's all natural. no. "supernatural" is just a catch phrase for anything not yet understood that might possibly be real.

Wrong, something supernatural would be beyond the ken of science. That's why it would be supernatural.


darkenergy is supernatural. if you insist that anything well understood or observed is not supernatural, it is specious to insist that there is no proof of the supernatural.

Dark energy is a hypothesis, and even as a hypothesis it remains within natural laws.
Supernatural entities are not bound to the laws of nature by definition.

[tantric]

as for the subjectivism, yep. if you want to be a hoovooloo, have at it. but i'm talking about religious and political orientation. can you offer an alternative?

not all religions depend on faith because MINE doesn't. i will consult with other buddhists on this, but for neobuddhists, this is a crucial issue. nothing we believe requires any kind of faith in anything. (nevertheless, we often have faith, because it is useful) if you can't prove it, it's not true. on the other hand, we also KNOW that "true" is relative, that human language cannot express absolute truth, if such can even exist. is math science? what does math prove but more math? have you ever seen an n-dimensional solid? europeans did NOT invent logic. just because it happened in asia a long time ago, doesn't make it any less valid. it is possible to analyze reality-such-as-it-is and come up with meaningful data. how can math be anything but speculation? and how would you POSSIBLY know how they came up with their knowledge? really, if you found a scroll written in LATIN with differential equations, that would be science. if it's in pali, it's a lucky guess.

marx didn't have a cosmology, but he didn't make communism a religion. that takes a populace.

state communism became a religion through a simple socioevolutionary process. marx hated religion (i suspect he was fondled by a priest, can't blame him, but still). he recognized one function of religion: to legitimize the kleptocracy in the process of state formation. and attacked that (rightly so, imho), without really understanding that kleptocracy is the basis of nation building, and that religion has many functions in that process and in human psychology.

state communism thus attacked traditional religion, but did not offer anything to replace it - for instance, no ethical code and no attempt to address the fundamental question of human suffering and why it exists. well, no workable subtitutes. thus the soviet union was rife with crime and corruption, since "for the greater good" just didn't do it for the people. and the people were obviously not happy, since socialism contains the utterly flawed premise that materialism is related to spiritual happiness. equal distribution of wealth just made every one equally miserable. they gave people food, and took away *hope*. the sad fact is that people need hope AND food. a place to live, food to eat, a job to work for the rest of your life --> quiet desparation. alcoholism. mindless self destruction.

societies, historically at least, NEED religions. and the human psyche, in the majority of cases, also needs religion. when traditional religions are attacked and banned, whatever is available will have to do. given no other choice, people would sneak out at night, risk death and mutilation to worship dirt.

religion is obviously useful - otherwise there would be irreligious societies, somewhere. there has never been a single one. ever. so i will add to the definition: it is a philosophy that unifies a complex society, permitting large states and nations to exist, and the cooperation between genetically unrelated people.

yes, political ideologies can be religions. yes, cults of personality can too (what were the apostles? a fan club?).

the teleology of SH is bleak and hopeless: reproduce, spread your genes. the epistemology involves, well, you know....IT. the eschatology involves the heat death of the universe and lack of an afterlife. and we generally know the cosmology.

i would estimate that the per capita of human suffering is today greater than it was 10,000 yrs ago. the people with pacemakers are happy? how do the 20million dead amerinds feel? *science* built those ships, not god. god told them the world was flat (or something else ridiculous).

science has NOT made people happier. what has science given us? prozac? fact - huntergatherers have less mental illness and more free time than technoglobists. pretech life was ugly and harsh, yes, but mentally, all studies show that they people were HAPPY.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

not all religions depend on faith because MINE doesn't.

To be perfectly honest, you've never made it clear what the tenets of your personal version of buddhism are, and I suspect this gives you an opportunity to move the goalposts.


on the other hand, we also KNOW that "true" is relative, that human language cannot express absolute truth, if such can even exist.

More lies from the bullshit artist. If I say that the Moon currently orbits the Earth, that would be a truth.


really, if you found a scroll written in LATIN with differential equations, that would be science. if it's in pali, it's a lucky guess.

I thought you said maths wasn't a science? Oh dear. This is of course irrelevant because differential equations have never been found in either language.


marx didn't have a cosmology, but he didn't make communism a religion. that takes a populace.

So when what's the cosmology of communism then? Or are you going to admit that you "definition" of religion is utter crap?


state communism became a religion through a simple socioevolutionary process. marx hated religion (i suspect he was fondled by a priest, can't blame him, but still). he recognized one function of religion: to legitimize the kleptocracy in the process of state formation. and attacked that (rightly so, imho), without really understanding that kleptocracy is the basis of nation building, and that religion has many functions in that process and in human psychology.

All of which can be substituted for secular reasons. Imperialism doesn't need a religious imperative.

You've proved nothing apart from the fact that religion is a tool of the ruling class. We knew that already.


societies, historically at least, NEED religions. and the human psyche, in the majority of cases, also needs religion. when traditional religions are attacked and banned, whatever is available will have to do. given no other choice, people would sneak out at night, risk death and mutilation to worship dirt.

If that were true, there would be no atheists in the world at all. Atheists exist, thus disproving your assertion that people need religion.
People don't need religion to act like good and moral people. If anything, religion provides a justification for the most immoral acts imaginable.
Mass rape and torture? "Oh, God told me to do it" There is no secular justification for such acts.
And religion doesn't have to drown in blood to disappear. The christians simply closed all the temples, and removed all other public aspects of the old pagan religion, whereupon it withered away completely.


religion is obviously useful - otherwise there would be irreligious societies, somewhere. there has never been a single one. ever. so i will add to the definition: it is a philosophy that unifies a complex society, permitting large states and nations to exist, and the cooperation between genetically unrelated people.

Once again, you move the goalposts again like the dishonest little cockmunch that you are.


the teleology of SH is bleak and hopeless: reproduce, spread your genes. the epistemology involves, well, you know....IT. the eschatology involves the heat death of the universe and lack of an afterlife. and we generally know the cosmology.

So you reject it because it doesn't appeal to you? Well I suppose delusion is a more comfortable world, until reality bites you in the ass.


i would estimate that the per capita of human suffering is today greater than it was 10,000 yrs ago.

And the basis for this estimation is what exactly?


the people with pacemakers are happy? how do the 20million dead amerinds feel?

Nothing, because they're dead.


*science* built those ships, not god.

And imperialism killed the indians. And doubtless they forcibly converted some.


science has NOT made people happier. what has science given us? prozac? fact - huntergatherers have less mental illness and more free time than technoglobists. pretech life was ugly and harsh, yes, but mentally, all studies show that they people were HAPPY.

More unproven assertions.

[tantric]

"cockmunch"

interesting. i am in fact gay. you are in fact homophic and vile. bye.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

If you think that's a slur against gay people, then you are the one who is homophobic.

Don't let the door hit your pretentious Buddhist arse on the way out, fucker.

[ev]

HORRAAY! That was awesome..

[Kronos]

So I'm walking through this dungeon because I CAN'T GET OUT OF THE OI FORUM and I saw this little skirmish. I think NoXion handled it well, and Tantric, if you are still around, I wanna spar with you some too. You are a smart fella and have a good grasp on things. I grabbed this quote for the helluvit and want to play with it a bit.


i'm a buddhist because buddhism is based on logic.What kind of "logic" do you propose Buddhism is based on? Semantic/Propositional? Sure, I'll give you that. But you must understand that such logic deals only with the consistency, soundness and validity of propositional form, not the "truth" of the premises, necessarily. So if you were to say "life is suffering, suffering is bad, therefore life is bad".....your assertion would be logical.

Now if you understand that the context of language generally used by metaphysical systems such as Buddhism utilizes metaphorical and metonymic terms, rather than scientific terminology (which is devoid of "ethical" evalauations), you might see that while certain propositions can be logical, they are nonetheless meaningless assertions. Buddhism is in every respect a pseudo-science.

You also need to know that religion, by its simplest definition, is the practice of believing unprovable things and basing ritual and activity around those beliefs.

Of course, science and philosophy, in opposition to relgion, can be considered only forms of justified belief (since belief only follows from more belief). But there is a big difference between justified belief and unjustified belief. The scientific method begins at justified belief, while religious belief begins at unjustified belief and ends up at justified belief by charging the scientific method with circular reasoning- "you don't know the reason why gravity exists, but claim that a belief in the cause of gravity would be justified if discovered, therefore God might exist if he is the cause, therefore we are justified in our beliefs".

This is a clever trick, indeed, but in return, the religious must be charged with argument from ignorance and begging the question from the start. Here the religious believers are taking advantage of the "gaps" between scientific knowledge, which then gives them the advantage of charging the scientific method as being unjustified belief- since, believing something a scientist doesn't know the cause of is admitting having no knowledge of the reason.

So, if all science consists of reducing phenomena down to various laws which cause that phenomena....and one doesn't have knowledge of the law....it would be an inductive mistake to assume one has knowledge of the phenomena.

Let me explain how this works. It is essentially the same to state that phenomena X exists and law X exists. When a scientist says "this is a water molecule" is is inadvertantly saying that there is a natural law of molecular bonding which must exist prior to the bonding of the molecules. And in doing so, he is admitting that the cause of this phenomena is that law.

But what is the cause of that law?

You see what I mean. In order for the scientific method to be completely justified it would have to take account of every law, every "cause", in the known universe....and clearly it cannot.

This is what the religious exploit in their war against science. But this doesn't imply that "God might exist". Justified belief now becomes a condition of simply knowing a phenomena exists while not knowing the cause of it. Unjustified belief, in the case of religion, is supposing a cause exists for a phenomena that is beyond being empirically founded.

No phenomena can "transcend" empirical explanation. It can only be short of empirical explanation, as in the case of science. Have a look at Hume's argument against "miracles", which I think is valid here. It is impossible to violate natural laws.....and one doesn't need to know all the laws that exist to know this impossibility remains.

We could continue into the philosophical issue of "substance dualism" and its causal impossibility (as Spinoza demonstrated) to come to understand how the material world must be a immanent relation of one essential substance in order to operate causally. The question posed to Descartes- "how could two ontologically distinct substances affect each other" is an important question.

So if you desire to keep the idea that there is a "god", you can proceed no further than pantheistic concepts of this "god", and as such, material science is the only way to gain adequate knowledge of the world- there is no pure "a priori" idea that transcends material experience and the scientific method.