Atheism, the discussion

Anything not relating to the X-Universe games (general tech talk, other games...) belongs here. Please read the rules before posting.

Moderator: Moderators for English X Forum

User avatar
fiksal
Posts: 16569
Joined: Tue, 2. May 06, 17:05
x4

Re: Atheism, the discussion

Post by fiksal » Mon, 8. Jun 20, 05:59

Ketraar wrote:
Sun, 7. Jun 20, 14:28
I think you are looking at it the wrong way tbh, math does not just exist, it was invented (by Newton if you recall).
Not the whole mathematics of course, but I am not sure I recall what Newton's contribution to it was.

Still you are correct that math is our invention, just like physics or chemistry. They dont actually "exist" in that way.

But what I mean is, the mechanics of world is very well described by mathematics. I dont mean "world" in any spiritual sense. Every sequence of events we encounter we write down in mathematical terms, because it's what works.
That's what I meant.
Ketraar wrote:
Sun, 7. Jun 20, 14:28
Yes its a great tool for us to understand some mechanics and serves to make predictions, not a small feat on its own I might add.
Exactly my point.

Ketraar wrote:
Sun, 7. Jun 20, 14:28
Feelings and words do a much better job describing the universe, more so if combined with ink for some great paintings.
Feelings are results of some large number of physical and chemical processes. And words is the result of our brain developing a way to communicate information, very slowly, very imprecisely, and with large amount of errors. All those things are driven by physics and chemistry (and not just them), which are described in math only. It's all math at the end.

Ketraar wrote:
Sun, 7. Jun 20, 14:28
There is no order in the universe, it looks like order when you look back, entropy is always on the rise and things look like being in order only if you look broadly. Chaos dominates the universe and "only" a constant battle between "things" to get to their natural state is that makes stuff happen, but anyone thinking that there is some sort of design is only being fooled by the beauty of the current chaos. Enact the next 10 decisions you have to make by flipping a coin, then look back and ask yourself if it could have been any other way. It couldn't could it? You are here now so it HAD to be THAT way. :roll:
I disagree there's a mathematical order... maybe "order" is not the best word here... there's mathematics. Chaos has not been yet measured, detected or predicted. Until then, the universe is deterministic. I didnt mean to say ordered or designed, just that it the effect is always goes after the cause, not the other way around. (sorry for my sloppy definition of determinism)

So the coin toss example, I'd say is fully predictable if you know required variables, without even involving probabilities since we arent dealing with micro scale.

Ketraar wrote:
Sun, 7. Jun 20, 14:28
What this means is, the universe is so big that even enormously low chances are "likely" to happen just by the sheer quantity of what constitutes the (known) universe.
Of course the kicker here is that each coin toss is unaware of a result of a previous coin toss, either in that room or anywhere else in the universe.
Ketraar wrote:
Sun, 7. Jun 20, 14:28
PS.: Hope it made sense... :-|
You did



Mightysword wrote:
Sun, 7. Jun 20, 09:02
I believe I told this story before but in another thread in less detail.
It's a good story, I enjoyed it.
Mightysword wrote:
Sun, 7. Jun 20, 09:02
I'm free to cross them out from 'my version' of Buddhism. And I can do that without stepping on anyone toe. At its core, Buddhism gives pretty much free range to its practitioner what to believe and what to apply.
Ok, so this is understood by all/most practitioners and monks? It's an interesting and distinct approach compared to some older Christianities for sure.


Mightysword wrote:
Sun, 7. Jun 20, 20:15
fiksal wrote:
Sun, 7. Jun 20, 07:35
So is there a better system conceivably and why do you think it works so well, if you agree? I admit, I have a certain ceiling in math, so I am not aware of any specific problem that cant be solved by it.
Mentioned this before but: the problem of missing mass of the universe and dark-matter. :)

In fact, the invention of dark-matter to address something that can't not be currently explained, and the usage of place-holder concept as the current accepted explanation until it can be proven otherwise are both fairly ... religious approach don't you think. Just like the often question of "you can't prove religion but you can't disprove it either". :P
That's a good example. But it is an abstraction, nothing is wrong with that. It's unfortunately a fairly weakly defined one as it's a big unknown, but it's not unusual. We abstract things all the time.

For example, - Force, potential energy, kinetic energy, acceleration. They sound different but they basically all describe different way to think of the same interactions. None of them "exist", but it's really handy to have them in order to make the calculations.

So the dark matter is there for basically same reason. Do you agree with that?

Mightysword wrote:
Sun, 7. Jun 20, 20:15
Also I think you're making an assumption: math is good at solving one specific type of problem - "logic" problem. But while it's often a good idea to have the decision making to be logical, you don't want society to be driven by pure hard-cold logic
That is correct I am only speaking about the problems where logic is needed.

Mightysword wrote:
Sun, 7. Jun 20, 20:15
Saying math (or even science) can explain everything is just as bad as a claim as the one saying religion can explain everything to me. Just like far left and far right are equally bad, the key is moderation in everything.
I personally keep those concepts a bit separate. When I mean everything in the world, I mean the mechanics of this world not the social constructs of humans of different eras. Those change and not necessarily in any logical ways. [1]

The human society of course doesnt need to run on pure logic along, it could use some, but we need some agreements on how to live better between ourselves that mathematics doesnt care about.


[1] but maybe that's a different discussion, of whether or not there's free will at all


:D
Gimli wrote:Let the Orcs come as thick as summer-moths round a candle!

pjknibbs
Posts: 41359
Joined: Wed, 6. Nov 02, 20:31
x4

Re: Atheism, the discussion

Post by pjknibbs » Mon, 8. Jun 20, 07:32

fiksal wrote:
Mon, 8. Jun 20, 05:59
Not the whole mathematics of course, but I am not sure I recall what Newton's contribution to it was.
Calculus. (Well, along with Gottfried Leibniz, albeit the two developed the idea independently at the same time).

Mightysword
Posts: 4350
Joined: Wed, 10. Mar 04, 05:11
x3tc

Re: Atheism, the discussion

Post by Mightysword » Mon, 8. Jun 20, 07:51

fiksal wrote:
Mon, 8. Jun 20, 05:59
Mightysword wrote:
Sun, 7. Jun 20, 09:02
I'm free to cross them out from 'my version' of Buddhism. And I can do that without stepping on anyone toe. At its core, Buddhism gives pretty much free range to its practitioner what to believe and what to apply.
Ok, so this is understood by all/most practitioners and monks? It's an interesting and distinct approach compared to some older Christianities for sure.
Obviously I lack the ability to go out and interview every Buddhist out there so I can't say with difinite. But I can point to the fact that despite being one of the oldest religion still practice and the third largest, there are little history of large scale conflict internally or externally as evidence of the majority of Buddhist understood it. After all, I think it would be rather hard to rouse people for a holy war when you technically don't have a god ... :D. Another thing that can be used as evidence is as mentioned, Buddhism allows itself to be morphed into whatever local religion that it spreads to, and this is a well know - modern culture fact that you can verify for yourself. This indicates it doesn't care much for 'purity'. In fact, there is a reason for that.

This is something little known outside of the Buddhism community, but I think most Buddhist who take their study mildly seriously would know that the Buddha teaching divide our religion into 3 phases, I don't know what they're called in English so these are loosely translated:

- The time of Budha until about 300-400 years after his passing: this is called the true phase, where practice of the faith remain true to the original teaching, whatever that is.
- Passing the 400 years mark of his passing: I translate it as the 'after image' phase. This is when the original teaching start seeing deviation as later disciples tried to decipher what the original teaching means (since they no longer have direct access to the man himself), also as the faith started propagating through different cultures, it also had to adapt to make it easier to explain to the local.
- Passing the 1000 years mark of his passing (aka the current era): I translate it as the 'abstract' phase. Meaning at this point, aside from some of the core concepts and value, pretty much most of the original meaning were lost, new stuffs were invented, extrapolated ...etc... One of the best example of this is the vegetarian/vegan diet that most modern Buddhist monks follow, and people seem to think this is an original teaching of Buddhism ... but it's not. It's just some relative modern extrapolation of an old teaching, and even the monks who practice it will tell you that much if you ask him. :)

So in a way, Buddhist are already taught that our faith is something that would NOT stand up to the test of time, so it's a pointless debate to even try to argue what is the "one true faith/original teaching" among Buddhists. So it's more or less a fool's errand for anyone to claim to know the true word of Buddha, and thus the prospect of gathering a large amount of influence onto an small group of individuals or organizations is pretty much impossible. This may help explaining why Buddhism manages to remain decentralized to this days. I mentioned that in my observation Buddhism has a few fail safes to prevent it becoming too extreme, this is one of those. Whether it's be design or coincidence, I don't know.


Mightysword wrote:
Sun, 7. Jun 20, 20:15
That's a good example. But it is an abstraction, nothing is wrong with that. It's unfortunately a fairly weakly defined one as it's a big unknown, but it's not unusual. We abstract things all the time.
For example, - Force, potential energy, kinetic energy, acceleration. They sound different but they basically all describe different way to think of the same interactions. None of them "exist", but it's really handy to have them in order to make the calculations.
So the dark matter is there for basically same reason. Do you agree with that?
I never argue its necessity, and dark matter is hardly the only instance of such practice in math science. I simply point out that using abstracted/place holding idea to explain something we don't have a sufficient explanation meaning the knowledge is still incomplete. This is the current truth not because it was fully understood and satisfactory explained, but due to the lack of a better explanation. This is why I feel it's similar to religion in this regard - an impression that rubbed a few people the wrong way it seemed :D.

One question back at you: why so obsessed with the idea that science/math can explain everything? I think it's worth pointing out that so far in the discussion, one of the sticking point people take issue with some religion is its obsession to be the sole know it all authority, so don't you feel you are treading the same path? Again, the lack of this specific obsession is one of the best thing I like about Buddhism. Like I explained, Buddha discovered (not created) the law of the universe (karma) and explain/teach it back to us, and that's kinda where it stopped. Whenever I have an interfaith discussion, people from other religions follows up until that point then they try to press further: but who created that law, it's there so someone or something must created it, right? This is usually the point when they try to convince me the idea of God exist. Basically, be it science or relgion, it seems people are very fixiate on the ideal that their side are the one who can explain the beginning point of things.

And as I said a while ago, as a Buddhist I don't care much for that fixation. It's here, this is how it works, that's good enough for me. As I usually tell the people in those discussion though, I'm actually open to the idea of God exists, if they can find compelling evidences to convince me that is. Same thing goes for science btw. And suffice to say, it's there so someone must have created it (the God approach) or the use of abtract/place holder variable to make existing model work without necessary know whether the fault lie with the missing variable or model itself (the science approach), you would understand why I find neither approach as compelling evidence for the stature they're trying to claim - the ability to explain all thing in the universe.
Reading comprehension is hard.
Reading with prejudice makes comprehension harder.

BrasatoAlBarolo
Posts: 1404
Joined: Sat, 1. Dec 18, 14:26
x4

Re: Atheism, the discussion

Post by BrasatoAlBarolo » Mon, 8. Jun 20, 14:37

Thanks god Math works better!

CBJ
EGOSOFT
EGOSOFT
Posts: 51740
Joined: Tue, 29. Apr 03, 00:56
x4

Re: Atheism, the discussion

Post by CBJ » Mon, 8. Jun 20, 14:57

Mightysword wrote:
Mon, 8. Jun 20, 07:51
...
I have a feeling that the Rohingya in Myanmar might have a few issues with your idealised view of Buddhists.

User avatar
Ketraar
EGOSOFT
EGOSOFT
Posts: 11741
Joined: Fri, 21. May 04, 17:15
x4

Re: Atheism, the discussion

Post by Ketraar » Mon, 8. Jun 20, 15:34

CBJ wrote:
Mon, 8. Jun 20, 14:57
I have a feeling that the Rohingya in Myanmar might have a few issues with your idealised view of Buddhists.
Same as the People's Republic of Korea has for democracy I guess. :roll:

MFG

Ketraar
Image

BrasatoAlBarolo
Posts: 1404
Joined: Sat, 1. Dec 18, 14:26
x4

Re: Atheism, the discussion

Post by BrasatoAlBarolo » Mon, 8. Jun 20, 15:37

Ketraar wrote:
Mon, 8. Jun 20, 15:34
CBJ wrote:
Mon, 8. Jun 20, 14:57
I have a feeling that the Rohingya in Myanmar might have a few issues with your idealised view of Buddhists.
Same as the People's Republic of Korea has for democracy I guess. :roll:

MFG

Ketraar
At least PRK won the World Cup. Did Myanmar win that? No.

User avatar
fiksal
Posts: 16569
Joined: Tue, 2. May 06, 17:05
x4

Re: Atheism, the discussion

Post by fiksal » Mon, 8. Jun 20, 16:03

pjknibbs wrote:
Mon, 8. Jun 20, 07:32
fiksal wrote:
Mon, 8. Jun 20, 05:59
Not the whole mathematics of course, but I am not sure I recall what Newton's contribution to it was.
Calculus. (Well, along with Gottfried Leibniz, albeit the two developed the idea independently at the same time).
Ah very, cool did not know, or have forgotten.

Mightysword wrote:
Mon, 8. Jun 20, 07:51
I never argue its necessity, and dark matter is hardly the only instance of such practice in math science. I simply point out that using abstracted/place holding idea to explain something we don't have a sufficient explanation meaning the knowledge is still incomplete. This is the current truth not because it was fully understood and satisfactory explained, but due to the lack of a better explanation. This is why I feel it's similar to religion in this regard - an impression that rubbed a few people the wrong way it seemed :D.
That abstraction doesnt violate anything in mathematics though, it's fine and it works. With time that abstraction will become a better one, the more we observe and measure it. I dont really see the religion angle.
Mightysword wrote:
Mon, 8. Jun 20, 07:51
One question back at you: why so obsessed with the idea that science/math can explain everything?
I think it's worth pointing out that so far in the discussion, one of the sticking point people take issue with some religion is its obsession to be the sole know it all authority, so don't you feel you are treading the same path?
Why I am "obsessed", - because it works, it makes our power plants work, it sends rockets into space. I think putting mathematics at the core of sciences is nothing short of genius.
It can appear similar in its definite statement of being right, but consider this - the mathematics behind every law, theorem or experiment has to be always right. Otherwise it's bad approximation/calculation and the experiment is bound to failure. No car will ever run if we are uncertain in our math behind engine ignition. And building something using wrong assumptions or bad math is a really bad way to make something, if you want it to work.

No I dont think it's the same path, religion and math have very different purposes and applications.
Mightysword wrote:
Mon, 8. Jun 20, 07:51
Again, the lack of this specific obsession is one of the best thing I like about Buddhism. Like I explained, Buddha discovered (not created) the law of the universe (karma) and explain/teach it back to us, and that's kinda where it stopped. Whenever I have an interfaith discussion, people from other religions follows up until that point then they try to press further: but who created that law, it's there so someone or something must created it, right? This is usually the point when they try to convince me the idea of God exist. Basically, be it science or relgion, it seems people are very fixiate on the ideal that their side are the one who can explain the beginning point of things.
Religion is looking for a meaning and a reason, while sciences only look for mechanics of things. And there always be cause and effect, there never be things that just "are" in our universe. Possible that itself is a belief or a philosophical point, but it's backed up by a millennia of testable observations.


Perhaps we should then discuss what you and I mean by "everything" and the "world", because I dont think we mean the same things.


CBJ wrote:
Mon, 8. Jun 20, 14:57
Mightysword wrote:
Mon, 8. Jun 20, 07:51
...
I have a feeling that the Rohingya in Myanmar might have a few issues with your idealised view of Buddhists.
Good point, are they buddhist then or what?
Gimli wrote:Let the Orcs come as thick as summer-moths round a candle!

CBJ
EGOSOFT
EGOSOFT
Posts: 51740
Joined: Tue, 29. Apr 03, 00:56
x4

Re: Atheism, the discussion

Post by CBJ » Mon, 8. Jun 20, 16:29

fiksal wrote:
Mon, 8. Jun 20, 16:03
Good point, are they buddhist then or what?
No, the Rohingya are Muslim. The people burning their villages and forcing them to leave the country are Buddhists.

My point is not that there is something bad about Buddhists specifically; just that being a Buddhist doesn't magically make you immune to doing the unpleasant things that humans do to each other all over the world.

User avatar
fiksal
Posts: 16569
Joined: Tue, 2. May 06, 17:05
x4

Re: Atheism, the discussion

Post by fiksal » Mon, 8. Jun 20, 16:34

CBJ wrote:
Mon, 8. Jun 20, 16:29
fiksal wrote:
Mon, 8. Jun 20, 16:03
Good point, are they buddhist then or what?
No, the Rohingya are Muslim. The people burning their villages and forcing them to leave the country are Buddhists.
ah yeah, I should've been more clear, - how are the people attacking muslims - buddhists. Still I think the answer is probably same as for everyone - sometimes it's religion that dictates other people's behavior, sometimes it's people that dictate religion.
Gimli wrote:Let the Orcs come as thick as summer-moths round a candle!

User avatar
Ketraar
EGOSOFT
EGOSOFT
Posts: 11741
Joined: Fri, 21. May 04, 17:15
x4

Re: Atheism, the discussion

Post by Ketraar » Mon, 8. Jun 20, 16:45

CBJ wrote:
Mon, 8. Jun 20, 16:29
The people burning their villages and forcing them to leave the country are Buddhists.
But are they though? Can you be something even if you do things that oppose the thing you claim to be? I keep bringing up North Korea as the example, them calling themselves a democracy doesnt make it one, why would some people dressing up as monks be any different? everyone can self-label as they like, if the actions dont correspond to teh label then the label is void of meaning imho.

MFG

Ketraar
Image

CBJ
EGOSOFT
EGOSOFT
Posts: 51740
Joined: Tue, 29. Apr 03, 00:56
x4

Re: Atheism, the discussion

Post by CBJ » Mon, 8. Jun 20, 16:55

Ketraar wrote:
Mon, 8. Jun 20, 16:45
But are they though? Can you be something even if you do things that oppose the thing you claim to be? I keep bringing up North Korea as the example, them calling themselves a democracy doesnt make it one, why would some people dressing up as monks be any different? everyone can self-label as they like, if the actions dont correspond to teh label then the label is void of meaning imho.
So you're saying that most of the world's religious people don't actually practice what their religion teaches? I mean, you're not wrong. My point was just that this applies to all religions, and that Buddhism doesn't get a free pass just because someone who is a Buddhist says it's different.

User avatar
fiksal
Posts: 16569
Joined: Tue, 2. May 06, 17:05
x4

Re: Atheism, the discussion

Post by fiksal » Mon, 8. Jun 20, 16:57

CBJ wrote:
Mon, 8. Jun 20, 16:55
Ketraar wrote:
Mon, 8. Jun 20, 16:45
But are they though? Can you be something even if you do things that oppose the thing you claim to be? I keep bringing up North Korea as the example, them calling themselves a democracy doesnt make it one, why would some people dressing up as monks be any different? everyone can self-label as they like, if the actions dont correspond to teh label then the label is void of meaning imho.
So you're saying that most of the world's religious people don't actually practice what their religion teaches? I mean, you're not wrong. My point was just that this applies to all religions, and that Buddhism doesn't get a free pass just because someone who is a Buddhist says it's different.
Just saw your edit just now. I agree.

And also this is part of a never ending discussion. Are people claiming to be religious but committing terrible crimes are in fact religious. I've heard pros and cons for both ways.
Gimli wrote:Let the Orcs come as thick as summer-moths round a candle!

BrasatoAlBarolo
Posts: 1404
Joined: Sat, 1. Dec 18, 14:26
x4

Re: Atheism, the discussion

Post by BrasatoAlBarolo » Mon, 8. Jun 20, 17:01

Ketraar wrote:
Mon, 8. Jun 20, 16:45
CBJ wrote:
Mon, 8. Jun 20, 16:29
The people burning their villages and forcing them to leave the country are Buddhists.
But are they though? Can you be something even if you do things that oppose the thing you claim to be? I keep bringing up North Korea as the example, them calling themselves a democracy doesnt make it one, why would some people dressing up as monks be any different? everyone can self-label as they like, if the actions dont correspond to teh label then the label is void of meaning imho.

MFG

Ketraar
Religion is just the excuse. One can kill for fun, but tell people is killing "infidels". He's not religious, he uses religion to justify his sickness.
But again, how do you tell if a catholic is truly a catholic (or any other faith)? By helping the poor? By his chastity? By his relentless will to kill non-catholic men, women and children? Or do you just trust him when he tells you about his belief?

User avatar
Ketraar
EGOSOFT
EGOSOFT
Posts: 11741
Joined: Fri, 21. May 04, 17:15
x4

Re: Atheism, the discussion

Post by Ketraar » Mon, 8. Jun 20, 17:09

CBJ wrote:
Mon, 8. Jun 20, 16:55
So you're saying that most of the world's religious people don't actually practice what their religion teaches? I mean, you're not wrong. My point was just that this applies to all religions, and that Buddhism doesn't get a free pass just because someone who is a Buddhist says it's different.
Yes I think most of these people are for one reason or another, hypocrites. They seek affiliation to religions (again my main exposure is wrt to roman Catholics in a very uneducated country that has risen from oppressive regime just about one generation ago) but are not willing to follow the "inconvenient" bits. The slight distinction I'm making is that some religions, especially the Abrahamic ones tend to have the "if you are not with us you are against us" mentality written in their doctrine, whereas other ones dont or not to the same extent.

Doesnt mean there wont be groups that label themselves whatever while doing the exact opposite, in fact I'd go as far as saying that if the supposed narrator of (again) the Catholics would walk among us he would be labeled by the same people as a lefty socialist hippy with dark skin that should go back to where he came from. :roll:

MFG

Ketraar

EDIT:
BrasatoAlBarolo wrote:
Mon, 8. Jun 20, 17:01
But again, how do you tell if a catholic is truly a catholic (or any other faith)? By helping the poor? By his chastity? By his relentless will to kill non-catholic men, women and children? Or do you just trust him when he tells you about his belief?
I dont really care tbh, but at least follow your own teachings and not ignore them when they are getting in the way of your comfort. (you as in a general term and not meant to mean you personaly)
Image

Vertigo 7
Posts: 3457
Joined: Fri, 14. Jan 11, 17:30
x4

Re: Atheism, the discussion

Post by Vertigo 7 » Mon, 8. Jun 20, 17:12

fiksal wrote:
Mon, 8. Jun 20, 16:34
CBJ wrote:
Mon, 8. Jun 20, 16:29
fiksal wrote:
Mon, 8. Jun 20, 16:03
Good point, are they buddhist then or what?
No, the Rohingya are Muslim. The people burning their villages and forcing them to leave the country are Buddhists.
ah yeah, I should've been more clear, - how are the people attacking muslims - buddhists. Still I think the answer is probably same as for everyone - sometimes it's religion that dictates other people's behavior, sometimes it's people that dictate religion.
In either situation, are we supposed to just go "oh, well, if your religion says go kill people, then by all means"? Hiding behind religion is cowardly and despicable, I don't care who is doing it. And from the sound of things, there is no faith or philosophy or whatever you want to call it, that hasn't been used to justify murder. I would have slightly more respect for them if they just admitted they wanted to kill the other guys for x, y, or z reason. Not much, but a little bit more. It would be honest, at the very least.

Take it for what it's worth - In Battle Star Galactica, there was a line that stuck out to me concerning the religion of these fictitious humans that was "What is the most basic article of faith? This is not all that we are." There is a bit of truth to that line. Before anyone can claim to any particular system of belief, we were all human first and we are still human in spite of whatever beliefs we hold to. And as we are instinctively selfish, and instinctively violent in one form or another, that selfishness and violence will inevitably corrupt any tenants of faith, no matter how righteous their offerings.

imho, that alone is reason enough to say the divine does not exist. For if it did, surely our own natural selves would not be so conflicted with its own righteousness. What kind of a twisted 'god' would create beings with their sole purpose being to worship the deity, but stack the deck so heavily against them before the words of the relevant belief system can even reach their ears?
The Future is Progressive!
rebellionpac.com
Fight white supremacy, fight corporate influence, fight for the rights of all peoples!

BrasatoAlBarolo
Posts: 1404
Joined: Sat, 1. Dec 18, 14:26
x4

Re: Atheism, the discussion

Post by BrasatoAlBarolo » Mon, 8. Jun 20, 17:25

Ketraar wrote:
Mon, 8. Jun 20, 17:09
I dont really care tbh, but at least follow your own teachings and not ignore them when they are getting in the way of your comfort. (you as in a general term and not meant to mean you personaly)
And I agree with you, but a lot of people doesn't, meaning they really care about what religion I declare to believe in. Again, this is because they can use it as an excuse to attack or defend me and my actions or words.

Mightysword
Posts: 4350
Joined: Wed, 10. Mar 04, 05:11
x3tc

Re: Atheism, the discussion

Post by Mightysword » Mon, 8. Jun 20, 18:14

CBJ wrote:
Mon, 8. Jun 20, 14:57
Mightysword wrote:
Mon, 8. Jun 20, 07:51
...
I have a feeling that the Rohingya in Myanmar might have a few issues with your idealised view of Buddhists.
Not sure what exactly you're implying , but across the last few pages I had continuously pointed out Buddhism is not above other religions in term of how it has been misused, or claiming that my view is that of representative.
Mightysword wrote:
Sun, 7. Jun 20, 08:09
As much as I often eschew the idea behind Buddhism, I'm not blind to the fact that both in the past and at present, it were misused in manners not different than what founded in others. Its passive principal does offer a lot of failsafe again such abuse, and its teaching minimizing the embowering effects that usually utilized in other religion, but by no mean foolproof against the twisted nature in some human. And that goes for anything really, not just religion, and including science.
Note: when I said present that was specifically a reference to what's currently happening in Burma.
Mightysword wrote:
Sun, 7. Jun 20, 21:38
self-proclaiming as true Christian while doing thing contrary to it shouldn't be used to judge the whole faith as a whole? And like said, I don't think Buddhism is above that.
Mightysword wrote:
Sun, 7. Jun 20, 21:38
So really, it's just really depend on which type of Buddhist you run into. Most of the stuffs I said in this thread are "my" version of Buddhism, which may or may not be representative. :)
Mightysword wrote:
Mon, 8. Jun 20, 00:02
Had that happened on the same scale of other religions I doubt Buddhism would have escaped the same perversion of the faith.
If anything, two pages back I fought back the idea of somehow Buddhism should be considered special. I simply argue how it is different, but at no point I remotely claim it is ideal, perfect, or somehow beyond reproach. :)

CBJ wrote:
Mon, 8. Jun 20, 16:29
My point is not that there is something bad about Buddhists specifically; just that being a Buddhist doesn't magically make you immune to doing the unpleasant things that humans do to each other all over the world.
And despite what I said, it's the very same point I had repeatably stated. In fact, the reason why I insisted on repeating it (when discussing it with Ketraar) is because I want to specifically avoid people taking my posts as a claim that Buddhism is perfect. Even it never got to a level that you would call ethical cleansing, during the Vietnam war religions (both Catholic and Buddhism) were used as propaganda tool and discrimination as well and its echo could still be felt long afterward. One of my best friend in highschool before I came to the US even asked me this: I don't know how is it your family fought for the south yet are Buddhists? So I can assure you I'm acutely aware. :)


This is also the reason why you're seeing me defending religion in general btw. I have no allegiance to Christian or Catholic but you can see I'm still calling for its understanding. While it's not perfect, it is a fact that the history of Buddhism has been much less bloody relatively comparing to others due to the reasons I had stated in my post. But again, even with such passive doctrine and many fail-safe still can't make Buddhism immune to perversion and corruption of human nature, I empathize with how other religions fall pray to the same thing.
Reading comprehension is hard.
Reading with prejudice makes comprehension harder.

Mightysword
Posts: 4350
Joined: Wed, 10. Mar 04, 05:11
x3tc

Re: Atheism, the discussion

Post by Mightysword » Mon, 8. Jun 20, 19:03

fiksal wrote:
Mon, 8. Jun 20, 16:34
sometimes it's religion that dictates other people's behavior, sometimes it's people that dictate religion.
And you have no idea how true that is. Often people look at the religious leaders as the source of corruption while often overlook it actually the worshiper themselves that dictate the behavior. Remember when you asked if I have any bad to say about Buddhism and I said plenty and I mentioned a few before. Somewhere earlier of this thread I mentioned one of them, and that the 'affluence' belief. Buddhism as its core is as in-materialistic as it comes, in fact that doctrine is one of the key contributing factors that made it regress and eventually all but wiped out in its birth place India. Yet very often these days it won't be rare to see some Buddhist lose themselves in the grandeur of large temple and big monuments. Usually this is blamed on the greed of the figurehead (monks) as being greedy, and lead people astray, but for me it's only galf of the problem.

The dilemma is this: when people visit a temple and it looks desolated and humble (like how a temple should be) then people think "oh this place doesn't look popular, it's probably not sacred and Buddha is not here, if I pray here he probably won't hear me!". When those people visit a grand temple adorn with ornament and big statue though, then there reaction "oh this place looks great, a lot of people must come here paying homage so if I come here my pray will be listened!" And I'm sure this "in awe by splendor" is a human nature thing that contributes greatly to the process a religions being lead astray, and the fault is not necessary a leadership fault.

Again, this is why I empathize with other religion. I don't know much about Christianity, but speaking strictly from a historical context, I believe it was created or rooted in the poor to provide them hope and succor. Somewhere along the way it was transformed into this religion of affluence where the house of God are these majestic Cathedral, which I somehow doubt exist in the original teaching, given its root.


And it's weird too how the human brain work. There is a very common saying among Buddhist, at least Vietnamese Buddhist, common enough that I think almost every Buddhist know: "Cứu một mạng người bằng xây bảy tòa tháp". It's loosely translated to "save one life gives you more karma than building 7 great temples". People know this saying, know what it means, yet somehow they still invest money in big temples, erecting grand monument to honor Buddha, money that would be a lot better used to actually save others. :gruebel:

Going against the spirit of my current signature here, and by no intention to derail the discussion, but I think most people participating in this discussion also have a keen interest in current politic, so it may serve as a good parallel examples: it's like often we love to blame our society's problem and direction at the feet of the politician/leaders. But is it the politician who shapes the society, or is it the society that shapes the kind of politicians it gets?
Reading comprehension is hard.
Reading with prejudice makes comprehension harder.

User avatar
Ketraar
EGOSOFT
EGOSOFT
Posts: 11741
Joined: Fri, 21. May 04, 17:15
x4

Re: Atheism, the discussion

Post by Ketraar » Mon, 8. Jun 20, 19:25

Mightysword wrote:
Mon, 8. Jun 20, 19:03
But is it the politician who shapes the society, or is it the society that shapes the kind of politicians it gets?
I have been a rather annoying proposer of this for ages. People really dislike being called out on it, its much better to just blame some obscure figure no one knows really, there would have to be consequence otherwise. Anyway...

MFG

Ketraar
Image

Post Reply

Return to “Off Topic English”