Which religion do you follow?

[GiancarloC]

The word Car means the vehicle that is used to fly. Whatever other definitions you can have are false. Only my definition is the one right, because I say so.
Are we agreeing ?

This is getting ridiculous. I don't think you're grasping what Buddhism quite is... or my contrast to Confucianism. I'm not agreeing with anything you're saying.

[oakpope]

It's on average. Read the statement again. It's about AVERAGES... the OVERALL. And he can argue that, as will I.

So what's your point ? Saying a thing in a discussion without purpose is meaningless. I may also say that the sky is blue.

[GiancarloC]

So what's your point ? Saying a thing in a discussion without purpose is meaningless. I may also say that the sky is blue.

It's not meaningless. It has a point. Read the post again.

[oakpope]

This is getting ridiculous. I don't think you're grasping what Buddhism quite is... or my contrast to Confucianism. I'm not agreeing with anything you're saying.

My father is a Buddhist by the way
I have had quite a few conversations with Buddhist, I follow the Dalaï Lama on twitter every day, I have seen quite a lot of video of his teachings. I may very well be completely mistaken, but for me it is a form of religion. Not a deist one, but one nonetheless.

- - - Updated - - -

It's not meaningless. It has a point. Read the post again.

What is the point please ?

[GiancarloC]

My father is a Buddhist by the way
I have had quite a few conversations with Buddhist, I follow the Dalaï Lama on twitter every day, I have seen quite a lot of video of his teachings. I may very well be completely mistaken, but for me it is a form of religion. Not a deist one, but one nonetheless.

Right...

Obviously we aren't going to agree here, so I will have to leave it at that. This thread isn't one for a religious discussion. It was merely a poll. I also don't have the time to engage in a big discussion about whether Buddhism is a religion or not. To me it's a philosophy and will always be one.

[blackbeltninja]

So your definition of religion is entirely based on a worship of a deity.

To be honest I"d always taken that as my bog-standard definition of religion, the worship of a central figure or figures.

-d-

[oakpope]

To be honest I"d always taken that as my bog-standard definition of religion, the worship of a central figure or figures.

-d-

Buddhism, Taoïsm, Animism, etc, there are many religions without (a) God(s).

For Buddhism, a link to explain :
http://www.shambhalasun.com/index.ph...k=view&id=2233

An interesting reading :
http://www.law.ucla.edu/workshops-co...hapter%201.pdf

[xbuzzerx]

Right...

Obviously we aren't going to agree here, so I will have to leave it at that. This thread isn't one for a religious discussion. It was merely a poll. I also don't have the time to engage in a big discussion about whether Buddhism is a religion or not. To me it's a philosophy and will always be one.

Do bear in mind that feudal Japanese murdered each other over which buddhist sect they were in.

It's kinda "become" a philosophy today, and yes, it does definitely lean very philosophical doctrinally speaking... but so does Hinduism, which is definitely a religion too. It's just "practiced less" like a formal religion today than it was in the past.

[Laufey]

I believe in God. Does your statement mean that I am less intelligent than you ?

Not necessarily since average isn't a generalization and therefor doesn't say anything about individual cases.

[secondmonkey]

Studies implicate that your claim "organized religion is very harmful to man" is false. Studies show that those who are part of an organized religious group are more likely to be balanced and enthusiastic individuals, because they have a sense of belonging.

What a stupid thing to say. Religion is one of the worst things that has ever happened to man. How many wars have been fought over religion? (or rather, have any wars been fought over anything else?) The only thing religious people are more likely to be is brainwashed and bat shit crazy.

[Coward92]

What a stupid thing to say. Religion is one of the worst things that has ever happened to man. How many wars have been fought over religion? (or rather, have any wars been fought over anything else?) The only thing religious people are more likely to be is brainwashed and bat shit crazy.

That is a very dangerous prejudice.
Did you have an extensive study or you just say it is stupid without any knowledge?
You are wilfully blind because of your hatred, resentment and/or ignorance. Study and understanding is the only way to form a relevant and cohesice opinion. You lack in both areas.

The worst thing that ever happened to man was impatience and stupidity. The religions of the world actually gave birth to beautiful things. It is quite obvious if you are willing to see. But since you are not, you will remain blind.

[secondmonkey]

That is a very dangerous prejudice.
Did you have an extensive study or you just say it is stupid without any knowledge?
You are wilfully blind because of your hatred, resentment and/or ignorance. Study and understanding is the only way to form a relevant and cohesice opinion. You lack in both areas.

The worst thing that ever happened to man was impatience and stupidity. The religions of the world actually gave birth to beautiful things. It is quite obvious if you are willing to see. But since you are not, you will remain blind.

I don't need a "study" to tell me something is ridiculous and stupid, like the statement you made. Please, link to this bullshit study you keep talking about? If you want to be ignorant to the fact that religion is a terrible, horrible thing, I guess that's up to you. Has there ever been a terrorist that didn't do what they do in the name of religion?

[Laufey]

Actually yes there have been many.

For example anti-government bombing in the US.

Also the Balks in Spain fighting for independence.

[bankside]

I'm surprised Jedi isn't on the list. I was never prouder of my fellow Commonwealth citizens in the UK who all started writing in "Jedi" when filling out their census forms. It became the fastest-growing religion in the UK if memory serves.

[zoltanspawn]

deleted cause I missed reading a whole page

derp

[LilBit]

[figjam]

I'm not agnostic or atheist. I'm extremely, violently anti-Christian.

Lex

That sounds more like a hang-up than a religion. Remember - Jesus made you and loves you.

[G-Lexington]

Not a hang-up. Just following the crowd. Maybe Christianity will be cool again soon.

Lex

[diamondstar]

I really don't consider myself religious. However many of my moral values are based on Christianity.

[Laufey]

Yay we have our first Jew!

I'm expecting the first Muslim to arrive soon.

[zoltanspawn]

I'm expecting the first Muslim to arrive soon.

I'd be surprised. JUB has never been very Muslim friendly in my experience.

[xbuzzerx]

Not a hang-up. Just following the crowd. Maybe Christianity will be cool again soon.

Lex

Go with it Lex. Christians are happiest when they believe they're oppressed and persecuted anyway.

[Laufey]

I'd be surprised. JUB has never been very Muslim friendly in my experience.

Good thing the voting is anonymous then

[zoltanspawn]

Good thing the voting is anonymous then

The problem may be that to get to the poll, they must get past JUB.

[LilBit]

Yay we have our first Jew!

I'm expecting the first Muslim to arrive soon.

Li'l Bit is the only Jew in the village...

I'd be surprised. JUB has never been very Muslim friendly in my experience.

Piggy was Muslim.

[zoltanspawn]

Piggy was Muslim.

Yes. Once in awhile we enjoy someone with the tenacity to stick it out.

[G-Lexington]

Yeah, pig was Muslim and gay. Nice guy, too.

Lex

[Laufey]

I was once a member on a Britney message board and there were at least 3 Muslims there I knew about. It was a much smaller forum than this one. Two of them were gay males.

[Anders123]

I'm surprised Jedi isn't on the list. I was never prouder of my fellow Commonwealth citizens in the UK who all started writing in "Jedi" when filling out their census forms. It became the fastest-growing religion in the UK if memory serves.

I think I read somewhere not long ago that there are officially 65,000 Jedi in Australia. I assume however for research purposes they would just be considered nonreligious anyway, so I don't really see the purpose of such a 'movement'. To me, it just feels like people trying to be witty / ironic and failing miserably.

[Hard-up1]

It is so funny that there is an army of one arguing that Buddhism is not a religion when it is widely defined as a religion in comparative religion courses all over the place.

Also, the citation of Tibetan Buddhism as being representative of the world's Buddhist population is not accurate. Although Tibetan Buddhism appeals to many Westerners, it is a fraction of the worlds Buddhist population.

To Giancarlo's dismissive comment, the websites discussing Buddhist deities are simply ubiquitous. To believe that they (deities) do not exist in Buddhism as bizarre as is it unlearned. To argue such an obvious fallacy either represents gross ignorance, or willful denial of truth.

As per the norm for GC's rants, personal animus replaces all sense of reality or facts.

These figures are hardly symbolic only or abstractions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categor...as,_and_demons

http://www.namsebangdzo.com/Buddhist_Deities_s/2438.htm

http://www.abuddhistlibrary.com/Budd...es/Deities.htm


http://www.aetw.org/jsp_b_and_other_deities.htm

[Hard-up1]

I think I read somewhere not long ago that there are officially 65,000 Jedi in Australia.

But, are Chewies marsupials?

[GiancarloC]

To Giancarlo's dismissive comment, the websites discussing Buddhist deities are simply ubiquitous. To believe that they (deities) do not exist in Buddhism as bizarre as is it unlearned. To argue such an obvious fallacy either represents gross ignorance, or willful denial of truth.

Buddhism isn't about the worship of deities. Again, pay attention to what I'm saying. It's a philosophy, and not a religion. I don't need to hear the typical ignorance demonstrated in your snarky remarks.

As per the norm for GC's rants, personal animus replaces all sense of reality or facts.

Pot calling the fucking kettle black.

I recommend this book (an actual book and not some uncorroborated .com website):

http://books.google.com/books/about/...d=CIFzNjVEYVgC

It discusses how Buddhism is a philosophy and why. And certainly NOT citing wikipedia as fact.

[xbuzzerx]

It is so funny that there is an army of one arguing that Buddhism is not a religion when it is widely defined as a religion in comparative religion courses all over the place.

Also, the citation of Tibetan Buddhism as being representative of the world's Buddhist population is not accurate. Although Tibetan Buddhism appeals to many Westerners, it is a fraction of the worlds Buddhist population.

To Giancarlo's dismissive comment, the websites discussing Buddhist deities are simply ubiquitous. To believe that they (deities) do not exist in Buddhism as bizarre as is it unlearned. To argue such an obvious fallacy either represents gross ignorance, or willful denial of truth.

As per the norm for GC's rants, personal animus replaces all sense of reality or facts.

These figures are hardly symbolic only or abstractions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categor...as,_and_demons

http://www.namsebangdzo.com/Buddhist_Deities_s/2438.htm

http://www.abuddhistlibrary.com/Budd...es/Deities.htm


http://www.aetw.org/jsp_b_and_other_deities.htm

You could just disagree with him instead of getting on a soap box saying he has no sense of reality or facts-- which you're wrong about, btw.

He is basically correct that for the most part, Buddhism today is practiced as a general philosophy and not so much as an active religion other than at funerals in very much of Asia. Yet, it is still a religion, much like Christianity is still a religion even though a majority of many nominally "Christian" countries do not actively practice or attend church.

[GiancarloC]

You could just disagree with him instead of getting on a soap box saying he has no sense of reality or facts-- which you're wrong about, btw.

It's predictable. He's demonstrated the same attitude to me in the past. It is a long standing vendetta because I provided sound arguments to counter some of the nonsense he's posted.

Buddhism is more like Confucianism... it's about a way of life and not centered on the beliefs of a deity.

http://buddhaspace.blogspot.com/2012...y-by-mark.html - Here is a greater review on that book I mentioned... which I do own. It's not an easy one to read, but Siderits is one who discusses Buddhism as a philosophy.

[sanjose1982]

I was raised Catholic, and until recently considered myself a non-practicing Catholic. I now consider myself atheist.

[Hard-up1]

You could just disagree with him instead of getting on a soap box saying he has no sense of reality or facts-- which you're wrong about, btw.

I guess that could be the respectful way to engage a respectful debate if it had been laid down that way.

Where would your reproach be for Giancarlo's snipe in Post #81 of this same thread? I've cited data, not random insults with personal perspectives.

Sweeping redefinitions of all of Buddhism isn't backed up by facts, just one-off proponents of that view, which is inherently Westernized. That some scholars see it as a philosophy obviously doesn't negate the vast array of deities that are plainly still worshipped in Asia and elsewhere.

The suggestion that entire glossaries of Buddhist deities on the cited websites are somehow arbitrary is wildly absurd. Just exactly what about those libraries is being challenged? Someone is out there manufacturing Buddhist deity lists, exactly why?

It could be a vendetta if there were actually debate ever occurring, but there is simply nothing to ever counter in Giancarlo's attacks. He invariably uses insults to dismiss the counterarguments, ignores any citations ever given, and then makes his own sweeping generalizations without credible data.

He is just plain notorious for ranting rather than systematically debating topics.

The cycle usually includes claiming his opponent doesn't understand his point, then progresses to repeated protestations that they didn't read his claim or are unable to comprehend. At some point he mixes in PMs or leaves comments that are private attacks to intimidate.

Not anything really there to debate. It is just invective.

[bankside]

I think I read somewhere not long ago that there are officially 65,000 Jedi in Australia. I assume however for research purposes they would just be considered nonreligious anyway, so I don't really see the purpose of such a 'movement'. To me, it just feels like people trying to be witty / ironic and failing miserably.

When it began in the UK, it seemed to me that it did a good job of lampooning the commonplace assumption that everybody should be ticking "anglican, catholic, jew, or other" on their census form. It questioned the purpose of the question itself, the relevance of what the question was perhaps seeking to uncover, as well as the answers available. If it seems trite now, it's partly because it succeeded in shifting attitudes.

[GiancarloC]

Where would your reproach be for Giancarlo's snipe in Post #81 of this same thread? I've cited data, not random insults with personal perspectives.

Sweeping redefinitions of all of Buddhism isn't backed up by facts, just one-off proponents of that view, which is inherently Westernized.

I gave some sources and reasons why I thought that way. I'm not giving a redefinition. There are books on Buddhism as a philosophy and closer to Confucianism. Cited "data" from WIKIPEDIA. I cited a fucking book by a widely respected author in Buddhism.

No insults lol? Ironic... considering the source. I'm not giving a one off view, or a westernized view. I gave a far different view of the matter... which is more compliant with reality.

The suggestion that entire glossaries of Buddhist deities on the cited websites are somehow arbitrary is wildly absurd. Just exactly what about those libraries is being challenged? Someone is out there manufacturing Buddhist deity lists, exactly why?

Entire glossaries lmao.

Seriously, look at the book I SUGGESTED. Buddhism isn't centered around the worship of deities. It's something quite different... and it doesn't align up with those absurd western definitions in your posts.

It could be a vendetta if there were actually debate ever occurring, but there is simply nothing to ever counter in Giancarlo's attacks. He invariably uses insults to dismiss the counterarguments, ignores any citations ever given, and then makes his own sweeping generalizations without credible data.

I've given my own sources all of which have been ignored. And this is the typical "pot calling the kettle black" statement that can be applied to your statements. You accuse me of using insults, yet you've done the same towards me. And ignored any sources I have posted, including a book from a widely respected source.

He is just plain notorious for ranting rather than systematically debating topics.

How hypocritical... Pot calling the kettle black.

The cycle usually includes claiming his opponent doesn't understand his point, then progresses to repeated protestations that they didn't read his claim or are unable to comprehend. At some point he mixes in PMs or leaves comments that are private attacks to intimidate.

Again, pot calling the kettle black. Don't accuse others of things you've done yourself. And I've received private messages myself from you.

[bankside]

It is not an army of one. The status of buddhism as a religion - or more likely, a comparison of the religiousness or irreligiousness of different strains of buddhism - is a lively topic in many corners.

[zoltanspawn]

These figures are hardly symbolic only or abstractions.

Deities in Tibetan Buddhism are expressions of our mind, I think. They involve worship, too, but in the sense of practice. I think it's fair to characterize these deities as a synthesis of folk wisdom and very sophisticated philosophical introspection. I would say deity in esoteric Tibetan Buddhism is symbolic and abstract, minus the diminutives: "hardly" and "only". In lay expression, deity may take a more literal form, but it's graded by profound monastic influence.

There are enough aspects of Buddhism that are religious in nature to call it one. It's a subjective kind of pedantry to insist otherwise.

[bankside]

Just curious which religions JUB members follow.

All of them. I like to know what they're up to.

[Hard-up1]

Buddhism isn't about the worship of deities.

Then exactly what would all those deities be doing hanging around in Buddhism? They some sort of tapestry motif?

Get real.

They aren't there as artistic ornaments only. They have names, domains, roles, relationships. It is a huge pantheon. By what logic are they not what the religion is about? That some sects may not emphasize them is unquestioned, but they don't just exist in antiquity. They are yet worshipped today.

[GiancarloC]

I provide sources and I get accused of not providing sources lmao... wow.

I think this has gone on long enough. I have my case and provided sources and evidence. I'm not one to cite wikipedia as fact and thinks it doesn't have much relevance to discussion. At any rate, Buddhism can be looked as a philosophy and there is significant literature in this area (one major book I have cited).

Lets get back to thread, okay?

- - - Updated - - -

Then exactly what would all those deities be doing hanging around in Buddhism? They some sort of tapestry motif?

Get real.

Get real and take a look at that book I provided. Deities aren't being worshipped in Buddhism. Buddhism isn't about that.

Your arguments are centered around Western thought of Buddhism and not necessarily reality.

They are yet worshipped today

And this shows a complete lack of understanding regarding Buddhism.

[xbuzzerx]

I guess that could be the respectful way to engage a respectful debate if it had been laid down that way.

Where would your reproach be for Giancarlo's snipe in Post #81 of this same thread? I've cited data, not random insults with personal perspectives.

Sweeping redefinitions of all of Buddhism isn't backed up by facts, just one-off proponents of that view, which is inherently Westernized. That some scholars see it as a philosophy obviously doesn't negate the vast array of deities that are plainly still worshipped in Asia and elsewhere.

The suggestion that entire glossaries of Buddhist deities on the cited websites are somehow arbitrary is wildly absurd. Just exactly what about those libraries is being challenged? Someone is out there manufacturing Buddhist deity lists, exactly why?

It could be a vendetta if there were actually debate ever occurring, but there is simply nothing to ever counter in Giancarlo's attacks. He invariably uses insults to dismiss the counterarguments, ignores any citations ever given, and then makes his own sweeping generalizations without credible data.

He is just plain notorious for ranting rather than systematically debating topics.

The cycle usually includes claiming his opponent doesn't understand his point, then progresses to repeated protestations that they didn't read his claim or are unable to comprehend. At some point he mixes in PMs or leaves comments that are private attacks to intimidate.

Not anything really there to debate. It is just invective.

I've already stated before that I agree with you that it is a religion. However, GC is also correct that it is not deity driven and it is not actually practiced in a conventional religious sense today, and hasn't been for centuries in a lot of Asia. So my position is between you two.

- - - Updated - - -

Then exactly what would all those deities be doing hanging around in Buddhism? They some sort of tapestry motif?

Get real.

They aren't there as artistic ornaments only. They have names, domains, roles, relationships. It is a huge pantheon. By what logic are they not what the religion is about? That some sects may not emphasize them is unquestioned, but they don't just exist in antiquity. They are yet worshipped today.

In Buddhism you do not worship deities or follow rules set by them. You seek to become the deity yourself through enlightenment.

[refujiunderground]

edit that real quick. was about to say that atheism is a belief when it's not.

[GiancarloC]

you do realize that atheism is a belief too right?

Not necessarily. Atheism is the lack of beliefs... at least for me as an atheist.

[bankside]

Yes. Atheism is a belief. Bald is a hair colour. OFF is a TV channel…..

[xbuzzerx]

Not necessarily. Atheism is the lack of beliefs... at least for me as an atheist.

I sorta think there's two schools.

There's the scientific attitude of "there isn't proof", which simply refrains from believing in something. God or something like God may be out there, but we can't prove it's there and don't know what it is, so arguing over mantra and doctrine or being religious are kinda pointless.

Then there's active disbelief, i.e. people truly threatened by belief or attack believers and fight with them all the time and try to prove religion is fake, etc. I would count this camp as "believers" since they also believe something without evidence (that there definitely isn't any greater power at all.)

[GiancarloC]

I sorta think there's two schools.

There's the scientific attitude of "there isn't proof", which simply refrains from believing in something. God or something like God may be out there, but we can't prove it's there and don't know what it is, so arguing over mantra and doctrine or being religious are kinda pointless.

Then there's active disbelief, i.e. people truly threatened by belief or attack believers and fight with them all the time and try to prove religion is fake, etc. I would count this camp as "believers" since they also believe something without evidence (that there definitely isn't any greater power at all.)

That's pretty close. I subscribe to the first one. I don't really know and don't care about whether a god exists or not... I'm more centered around scientific evidence.

[Hard-up1]

I respect atheists.

Why cannot atheism not be defined as a belief? Atheists believe there is no god, with the same certainty that the devout believe there is a god.

Both believe their perception is the truth. Neither can prove the belief.

That a devout man cannot prove God's existence is absolutely true in empirical debate.

That one cannot prove a negative is absolutely true as well, thus making the atheist's assertion a belief.

That the atheist does not have a faith would seem to be more accurate. He is not relying on trust in a deity, commonly defined as faith. It probably would not be fair to describe an atheist as "trusting" in his belief in the absence of a god. He simply lives a life that doesn't rely on faith in anything necessarily, although he may have faith in people, governments, philosophies, etc., or he may not.