Buddhism is not religious. That is like saying a watch is a bracelet. Just because they can be worn the same way does not imply they are the same.

Buddhism is about enlightenment, and wisdom. Faith is in the realms of Taoism, or Christianity.

It is possible to be both Buddhist and Christian.

I am trying to point out to you Verithrax, that you are using a very narrow minded western view of a very complex interplay between philosophy and religion.

EDIT: No need to make it personal!

Nothing like a religious discussion started by a 'hardliner' christian to fan the flames of debate.

1st and formost however, I am an aethiest. If there was a stronger word to describe my utter disbelief, and my total comtempt for the religions of the world and most of their followers, I would adopt that title. Religion (and in particular Christianity and Islam) are the root source of 'evil' in this world (and i use that word without regard to it's inherent religious origin). Throught history, some of the greatest scholarly travesties have been commited by the catholic church, for instance burning of incredible amounts of literature that wasn't in line with the church's beliefs or teachings. The abject persecution of other religions for example pagan, is yet another black mark on Christianity in general. I don't have the time i'd like to continue in depth, however the total and utter disregard for life and knowledge displayed by fundamentalist religions even further cements the fact in my mind that religion was designed to control the masses.

How can anyone of even moderate intelligence seriously read some of the utter rubbish written in the bible, and objectivley say that it's anything more than a work of fiction? Unless you are born and bred on the notion that the bible is infallible, to believe the entire bible, is like reading Homer's Odyssey and believing that for more than a work of fiction (or indeed as it is poetry, most likely transcribed/passed down from Homer's spoken word). For someone to say that Adam and (st)Eve living for 900 years, and beginning life from the garden of God, is as likely a story as that of Poseidon wrecking a horrible vengeance upon Odysseus for blinding his Cyclops son.

From personal experience, the majority of Christians and Muslims that i have either met, or seen speak in seminars or on television, are generally gullible idiots spouting nonsense in the attempt to sway the opinion of their flock, or add to its numbers. I lump Christianity in with Islam because the two are similair in my eyes, with Islam not quite 100% out of the 'slay the infidel' mentality. Christianity may have changed over the last few hundred years, but it is still founded on the ugliness and bigotry of it's history.

Finally I find it utterly rediculous that anyone can firstly say "I believe the bible to be infallible" and then begin to attempt to answer questions from an intellectual/logical standpoint and then continue to spout on about what i like to call blind faith. Furthermore continuing to 'preach' notions of science being rather fallible. If you're going to go on about your belief system, then don't try to hide behind the guise of intellectual and logical discussion, and call it what it is....Preaching

Again I say, Religion is one of the biggest causes of unrest throughout history and even in today's society. Oppression and Bigotry do not a good foundation make for any belief system.

Got dragged into reading this late in the cycle. and honestly skimmed what little I have read. But I found the discussion to be overall riddled with the same fundamental issue that's plagued every defense of religion or philosophy I've ever heard: to whit, word games.

When people set about discussing the fundamental nature of reality, they always seem to forget that words cannot possibly wrap themselves around the infinitely complex vastness of the cosmos. They are our own minds' meager attempt to make sense of the world around us, and they shape our comprehension of reality, but reality itself is not required to conform to our linguistic constructs.

My favorite example is Xeno's Paradox, in which he linguistically proves that getting from point A to point B is impossible. An arrow shot from a bow will never hit its mark, because before it can go all the way, it must go halfway. Then before it can go from there to the target, it must travel half the remaining distance. Then half of that. Then half of that. And so on and so forth, ad infinitum. The arrow will come immeasurably close to its destination, but can never actually get there.

Of course, from observation, we know that argument is nonsense, but linguistically it was dead-on accurate.

Where I'm going with my observation is this: no abstract argument, independent of observable phenomenon, can ever conclusively prove anything but your facility with words.

Does God exist? Is Christianity da bomb? Was every word of the Bible divinely inspired? I don't know. I can't know. And I don't care.

Just be the sort of person you could still be proud of if God showed up tomorrow and told you personally that everything you thought you knew about him was a lie. THEN I'll be impressed.

This thread is called 'question the christian', not 'flame him'. Mitbulls et al have been exceedingly polite throughout. The above post is thus all the worse for its discourtesy.

With regards the Religion is the root of evil point, I could not disagree with you more. Human nature is the problem, and the same type of person who can take religion and twist it, can do the same to any number of other things (e.g Extremist animal rights protestors). I have stated this in other threads, but I'll do it again: There is nothing inherently evil about Christianity - I am wholly of the belief, as an agnostic, that the raw intent of Christianity is nothing but a power for good. However, the same cannot be said for humanity.

Indeed, your astonishing denigration of Christian belief is wholly analagous to the human behaviour you should be vilifying in preference: a stubborn and arrogant belief that you are right, and a staggering lack of tolerance for other views.

Like I said - If you define 'religion' in one way, then yes, Buddhism is a religion. If you define it in another way, then no, it isn't. It's all semantics.

Besides, I'm not convinced you -can- remove religion from people. We seem to come with an inbuilt 'mental slot' for faith, dogma and conviction. If you take away religion, something else comes in and fills that slot. Marxism, environmentalism, civil rights, what have you.

Which is incidentally is the bit of evidence that, to me, points most strongly to the existence of a God, or at least a higher directing force - it is likely to exist because we are wired to believe in it, there doesn't seem to be a point to giving us brains with inbuilt religion if there is no spiritual existence to connect to using that religion.

Tell that to the thousands of atheists around the world.



I tried to respond to this, but I found myself at a loss of how to phrase my thoughts.

I'm not sure where you went wrong to reach this conclusion, but the premise doesn't make sense with it at all. We do not have "inbuilt religion."

I can't really find a good way of phrasing some of the stuff I want to say, but just because some people find it easier to cope with life if they can delude themselves (or let themselves be deluded) into thinking something better than it exists if you do well in this one it does not mean that such a thing actually DOES exist.

Also, the fact you mentioned marxism/environmentalism just contradicts you. Those things aren't religion, though they're things people feel strongly convicted about for various reasons. The ability to have strong conviction does not imply any kind of higher power. I can't really say more than that unless you explain what made you come to that conclusion in the first place because it simply isn't connected as far as I can see.

EDIT: For example, the fact that you're even using the two in the same argument would mean you're implying there's something "spiritual" marxism can connect to. Otherwise either it's not related or your definition of "spiritual" is different from the standard one.

Zilu asked about serving the ghosts of the dead. The Master said, "Until you are able to serve men, how can you serve their ghosts?" When Zilu ventured to ask about death, the answer was: "While you do not know life, how can you know about death?"

Ooh, another question which bugs me, which applies to all religious persons:

How can a person justify any sort of religious belief without having a direct religious experience themselves? I know a lot of Christians who are very devout, and yet had they not been born into a Christian background they never would have become Christians.

One interpretation could be: You believe in God because you are told, at an early age, that there is a God to believe in. Personally, I was a fairly devout Catholic until a few years ago I stopped, thought about the hypocritical nature of my faith, and effectively decided it was idiotic drivel (this is not a slur at religion, just what I felt at the time. Apologies for any offense caused) and prompty ascribed to an atheistic viewpoint. I've had terrible periods of theological uncertainty, of foreboding dread, because the idea of the existence of God had been so forced into my developing mind.

To summarise:

Why believe when all you really have as basis for that belief is the word of another?

Because a little faith is good for us. Faith in any religion is there to catch you when you fall, and help you back onto your feet, rather you believe it is God who is helping you, or your family guardian/ancestors doing it. Religion is there to add meaning to little things that would otherwise pass unnoticed. The act of naming a child. Religion is there to give cause to celebration, and to give reason to action.

Honestly, if I took religion and faith out of my life, I could not get into the cockpit of my plane, I would be terrified without knowing that I am being watched over.

That's more because you're used to having it there than anything else. Most people get by just fine without having that to support them. It's clearly possible to live happily without faith (in such things - plenty of people have irrational faith in some other stuff that they're just happier to let themselves be deluded by, myself included) and religion.

EDIT: For example, faith in humanity. I often hear about things that make me realise it's completely misplaced and that I should really only have faith in those who've earnt it, but I don't really know how you're supposed to live thinking that way so I avoid dwelling on it for the most part. I know I'm wrong, but it's more comforting to feel that way. The critical point is that people feel better if they can really convince themselves that their faith is justified, rather than accepting it's just a crutch.

Heh, I have yet to meet a single atheist in the military. Yeah, a secretary may not need to believe in anything to do her job, but when your job is dangerous before bullets even start flying, you tend to find faith fast.

I said, 'inbuilt religion' is evidence to me, it isn't proof. Out of the few scraps of evidence we have for a spiritual existence, it is, to me, the best one. I'm fine if others don't see things the way I do.



Individuals can be atheists, although on the whole the atheists I do know end up falling into depression (not meant to be a personal remark, just my experience with the people I know).

Societies, on the other hand, I'm pretty sure can't be atheistic. The old Soviet Union tried, but the people remained religious and on a state level they had to substitute Marxism for religion. People were taught to believe that Marxist science would take care of all their problems. That's what I mean when I say 'something else' always takes up the space if religion is taken away.



They are using up the mental space, if you will, that is usually taken up by religion and belief in a higher power. And in fact that is what occupies that space, for the vast majority of the world's population today and even more so through history. Therefore, individuals who do not have religious faith and fill that space up with other convictions are outside the norm. If you're going to conclude something from a population, you can't count every anomaly with the same weight as the norm. Otherwise we can't say people have five fingers on their hands (for example) because some are born with six every once in a while.

My dad and my uncle both served in the Royal Air Force for a good 30-40 years before retiring. My dad's a Roman Catholic, my uncle's an atheist. Another uncle of mine who suffered a car explosion (smoking in the back seat, something went wrong, can't remember what) and survived - albeit with enough scarring to scare me at age 9 or so - is also an atheist. You're in the American military, right? Much of, say, Europe is less religious in general. I'm sure I could ask my dad and find quite a few religious people and lots of atheist people as well over here.

In response to Kalarr:
Because I can't look at the beauty and in this world and not believe. I have a lovely quote from someone whose name I can't remember around here somewhere. It's from a Christian perspective, but I love it anyway. The Bible can be mistranslation, misunderstood, or stolen away, it says, but the Creation itself cannot. It is the truest gospel, the best testament to the will and power of God. I might not be Christian, but the idea I find wonderfully apt.
(If anyone knows who it was, please let me know? I want to say Thomas Mann, but that might be another one.)

People have a need for comfort when things are hard for them. This doesn't have anything to do with spiritualistic anything - it's just that religions pretty much by nature prey on this kind of insecurity. As you've said, there are clearly other substitutes.

Computer's pissing around with me so I'm going to go to bed now, but I'll catch up in the morning.

"There are no atheists in foxholes" isn't an argument against atheism - It's an argument against foxholes.

Regardless, there are, in fact, plenty of atheists in foxholes.

And personally, if I'm made to choose between a comfortable delusion and reality... I prefer reality. The fact that faith can give people hope doesn't make it true; and besides, believing that rain will turn chocolatey tomorrow may be a nice thought, but if you believe this sort of thing, you get dragged into the loony bin. I think having faith in humanity and in yourself is a lot more productive and beneficial than believing in fairies.

A world with out hope is a sad world

A world of false hope is even sadder. Besides, it's perfectly possible to have hope grounded in reality.