Which religion do you follow?

[GiancarloC]

I respect atheists.

Really?

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.

Why should it be defined as a belief? Atheism is about the lack of belief in god. I am an atheist... and I don't have beliefs. Atheism isn't a belief system and doesn't entail anything related to one.

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.

Do you know atheists personally and have you asked them instead of making assumptions?

[xbuzzerx]

^ The difference is subtle, but if you see my previous post, I do think there's a difference between "I don't have a specific belief in something because there's no evidence for/against" and "I definitely disbelieve." The 2nd one is a belief.

[bankside]

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.)

Usually people cite Richard Dawkins as an example of the "believing" type of atheist. But he specifically rejects that level of certainty, arguing that we should be open to evidence for a god, just that in the absence of any such reliable evidence from any of the theistic traditions, it is pointless to say anything other than there isn't one. Or that any evidence is more reliably explained by worldly theories rather than supernatural ones.

Moreover he claims to have no proof of the non-existence of any deity. But he follows Bertrand Russell's example of the teapot on that question. He specifically rejects the position of "knowing there is no god."

Point is, if he enjoys the reputation of being a "crusader" but is actually very frank about having no certainty about the non-existence of god, then it seems unlikely to me that there are a lot of "believing atheists" who assert the non-existence of god despite evidence and as a matter of dogma.

The activity of many atheists is not to establish or prove the non-existence of god, but simply to refute religious assumptions foisted on us in our everyday lives.

[bankside]

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.

You misunderstand what atheists assert. It is very rare to ever hear an atheist say "it is established definitively that there is no god." I can't recall hearing it actually. You would hear things like "vanishingly improbable" or "in the absence of any proof, it is suitable to say 'there is no god.'" But note the qualifier: "in the absence of any proof." The whole thing is conditional and probabilistic.

It is subtle but significantly different from asserting there is no god as a matter of proven fact, and it is a distinction which matters very much to the majority of people calling themselves atheists.

It is more accurate to say atheists find a shocking lack of evidence for the god hypothesis, determining purported evidence to be charlatanry or conventional fraud, or delusion, or realpolitique, or what have you. Or they find that actual evidence does not unambiguously support the god hypothesis, if it supports it at all.

A few outliers like Christopher Hitchens were of the view that god likely didn't exist, but also that god ought not to exist. If a god were ever discovered he should be opposed on principle, per Hitchens. He however described this position as "anti-theism" and noted it was a departure from "atheism."

[Laufey]

You can say that Atheism is a belief...

But it's not organized religion... at least for most of it's "followers".

P.s. I knew we would get a Muslim vote soon

[Hard-up1]

Agreed, Bankside.

But, as I posted before on JUB, I have actually attended an anti-theist atheist group here in New Mexico recently.

Most of my friends who are atheists would more accurately be described as agnostics, as they are not anti-theist, but are simply not convinced that there is any evidence to the contrary.

[xbuzzerx]

You misunderstand what atheists assert. It is very rare to ever hear an atheist say "it is established definitively that there is no god." I can't recall hearing it actually. You would hear things like "vanishingly improbable" or "in the absence of any proof, it is suitable to say 'there is no god.'" But note the qualifier: "in the absence of any proof." The whole thing is conditional and probabilistic.

It is subtle but significantly different from asserting there is no god as a matter of proven fact, and it is a distinction which matters very much to the majority of people calling themselves atheists.

It is more accurate to say atheists find a shocking lack of evidence for the god hypothesis, determining purported evidence to be charlatanry or conventional fraud, or delusion, or realpolitique, or what have you. Or they find that actual evidence does not unambiguously support the god hypothesis, if it supports it at all.

A few outliers like Christopher Hitchens were of the view that god likely didn't exist, but also that god ought not to exist. If a god were ever discovered he should be opposed on principle, per Hitchens. He however described this position as "anti-theism" and noted it was a departure from "atheism."

I take your word for it that among published, scholarly people writing about atheism any declaration of complete certainty is probably rare or nonexistent.

However, it's nowhere near as rare among actual day-to-day people who call themselves atheists, and you'll definitely see a lot of "definitively no god" atheists on forums too. I find that many of these rather than being atheists out of rationality and logic actually have more of a bone to pick with organized religion on a personal level.

[Coward92]

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?

There were many terrorists like. They had a goal in mind and were willing to do anything to reach it. They didn't have faith in anything else but the righteousness of their plan. You didn't know there were terrorist who didn't follow any of the religions? Really? In the age of internet and free knowledge you are uncapable of searching for information on the internet? You know there is something called google. It can lead you to many relevant information-sources.
Type "atheist terrorist" in the search bar, press enter and voila... There you go.

The "bullshit" study is here:
http://egeszseg.origo.hu/cikk/0832/2...iztossag_1.htm
It is hungarian. I won't translate it for you.
My language must be bullshit for you. Wait... All languages you don't speak are bullshit as well right?

You don't need to study to tell something is stupid?
My brother thinks chemistry is stupid. He never studied it. You argument is as mature as a 12 year old child, who wants to burn his chemistry books, because he doesn't care to understand.

I may be ignorant, but I seek understanding and knowledge to have an opinion on the matter that reflects reality. I don't wish to go to extremeties like you clearly do.

[secondmonkey]

The "bullshit" study is here:
http://egeszseg.origo.hu/cikk/0832/2...iztossag_1.htm
It is hungarian. I won't translate it for you.
My language must be bullshit for you. Wait... All languages you don't speak are bullshit as well right?

LOL! You are on an english speaking forum. Either speak the language everybody else is speaking or get out. And no, a link to a hungarian web site does not prove anything, anywhere, any time, regardless of what language it is in.

[hotb0d]

Buddhism isn't a religion; it is a philosophy to lead to a better understanding of life. The moment people practice it as a religion, they are forever lost within the words and never find the meaning.

Sure for most of the Western world and even those who consider themselves Buddhist will consider Buddhism a religion, 2 wrongs don't make a right. In this case, millions wrongs still don't make a right.

[Coward92]

LOL! You are on an english speaking forum. Either speak the language everybody else is speaking or get out. And no, a link to a hungarian web site does not prove anything, anywhere, any time, regardless of what language it is in.

It does prove your you immature behaviour and incompetence to have a proper debate.
The study is there. I showed it to you. Only because it is written in Hungarian it doesn't mean it is bullshit. You are just unable to understand it, because you don't have a proper understanding of my language. (The same way you are uncapable of making a balanced, authentic and fact-based judgement about religion due to your lack of knowledge about religion and the obvious inablity to separate religion and religious institutes.)

It is an english speaking forum, yes and in the forum I use english. Outside the forum however I can rely on any linguistic tools I have. There is a thing called google translate if you care to try (you don't), but it will give no reliable data, because sadly, out language is very complex and difficult to translate. The study however exists, and I don't seek any way to prove that it is true or not, because it is just data. Data is based on experiments and studies that are composed of observations. Observations happen in the REAL world, not in your fantasy land where religion caused the downfall of humanity. I think it is a safe assumption to say that the results of the study apply to a group of people the same way they do NOT apply to another group of people, simply because there are always exceptions.
Not to mention that the study never ever mentioned atheists. It was a comparison of organized religion, and individualistic religion.

You have no right whatsoever to tell me to leave the forum, as you are of no authority here.

The insult you just made towards the sources that are written on my language is just pathetic. It shows how much you know about the hungarian scientific developments of the past.

[GiancarloC]

Sorry but that is a bullshit "study". It doesn't carry much way and it doesn't prove anything. "Atheist terrorists" lol... as if I heard it all. If one seeks knowledge they would enrich themselves about atheism. Some here don't and dismiss things outright (like one I interacted with who refused to look at a RESPECTED AUTHOR and BOOK I POSTED). Open your mind.

[xbuzzerx]

Buddhism isn't a religion; it is a philosophy to lead to a better understanding of life. The moment people practice it as a religion, they are forever lost within the words and never find the meaning.

Sure for most of the Western world and even those who consider themselves Buddhist will consider Buddhism a religion, 2 wrongs don't make a right. In this case, millions wrongs still don't make a right.

I understand & get what you're saying and I do agree to an extent. However here is why I would call it a religion and not just a philosophy like stoicism or whatever: it is tied to the fate of what happens to the human soul/consciousness beyond this life and in the afterlife.

[Coward92]

Sorry but that is a bullshit "study". It doesn't carry much way and it doesn't prove anything. "Atheist terrorists" lol... as if I heard it all. If one seeks knowledge they would enrich themselves about atheism. Some here don't and dismiss things outright (like one I interacted with who refused to look at a RESPECTED AUTHOR and BOOK I POSTED). Open your mind.

My mind is open. Yours is covered with a red mist.
Excuse me if I will not engage in an argument with you, but I just posted my previous comment and your answer showed up 2 seconds later. It is clearly an indication that you didn't care to read my post.

This is not a debate. This is childish nonsense on your part.

[GiancarloC]

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.

And this statement above shows clear hostility towards posters. If you want to seek the attention of posters and discuss things with them in a positive light, avoid the antagonistic method of hard-up and seek an understanding. There have been millions dead and multiple wars because of religion. Some of the bloodiest wars... are those beautiful things?

- - - Updated - - -

My mind is open. Yours is covered with a red mist.
Excuse me if I will not engage in an argument with you, but I just posted my previous comment and your answer showed up 2 seconds later. It is clearly an indication that you didn't care to read my post.

This is not a debate. This is childish nonsense on your part.

Oh it is? And where is my mind covered in a red mist?

I read pretty quickly and decipher things even faster... because I'm good at detecting nonsense logic.

Making statements against atheism devoid of any logic won't win debates.

[Coward92]

And this statement above shows clear hostility towards posters. If you want to seek the attention of posters and discuss things with them in a positive light, avoid the antagonistic method of hard-up and seek an understanding. There have been millions dead and multiple wars because of religion. Some of the bloodiest wars... are those beautiful things?

- - - Updated - - -



Oh it is? And where is my mind covered in a red mist?

I read pretty quickly and decipher things even faster... because I'm good at detecting nonsense logic.

Making statements against atheism devoid of any logic won't win debates.

Everyone in their right minds can say that I didn't say anything against atheists.

I will never ever again bother to respond anything you say ever again.
You are unworthy of my time and my words.

[GiancarloC]

Everyone in their right minds can say that I didn't say anything against atheists.

I will never ever again bother to respond anything you say ever again.
You are unworthy of my time and my words.

I think the exact same of your incoherent posts which lack proof and evidence...

[hotb0d]

I understand & get what you're saying and I do agree to an extent. However here is why I would call it a religion and not just a philosophy like stoicism or whatever: it is tied to the fate of what happens to the human soul/consciousness beyond this life and in the afterlife.

true Buddhism does not address the question of the afterlife as there is no reason to. nothing is permanent, everything is ever changing like a flowing river. The talk of afterlife and such were added on because people wanted to find the reason to practice this Buddhism idea, hence why people started practicing it under the context of a religion. Therefore, the idea of karma and rebirth became known and attached to Buddhism like a plague. It further smeared the original concept of Buddhism and prevent people from understanding themselves through this philosophical approach

[xbuzzerx]

true Buddhism does not address the question of the afterlife as there is no reason to. nothing is permanent, everything is ever changing like a flowing river. The talk of afterlife and such were added on because people wanted to find the reason to practice this Buddhism idea, hence why people started practicing it under the context of a religion. Therefore, the idea of karma and rebirth became known and attached to Buddhism like a plague. It further smeared the original concept of Buddhism and prevent people from understanding themselves through this philosophical approach

I don't honestly see the original teachings as relevant if they aren't what the great lionshare of the people on the planet today who identify as Buddhist believe/practice. Every religion has changed over time.

[hotb0d]

it is relevant to me because so many people are using it in the wrong way, that's why there is still only one Buddha. If people followed it the right way, there would be many Buddhas and IMO the world would have been in a much more peaceful era.

religion changes and "adapt" because people would rather have the religion changes to fit into their life than to truly change something in themselves for the better. Afterall, religion is a man-made creation. Sure you can just say Buddhism is a religion because what you see as "Buddhism" right now is made by men and represent the majority of the people who classify themselves as Buddhist. If you want to settle it as that, then so be it. I am fine with that, I just want to offer my view on the Buddhism that I practice.

[xbuzzerx]

it is relevant to me because so many people are using it in the wrong way, that's why there is still only one Buddha. If people followed it the right way, there would be many Buddhas and IMO the world would have been in a much more peaceful era.

religion changes and "adapt" because people would rather have the religion changes to fit into their life than to truly change something in themselves for the better. Afterall, religion is a man-made creation. Sure you can just say Buddhism is a religion because what you see as "Buddhism" right now is made by men and represent the majority of the people who classify themselves as Buddhist. If you want to settle it as that, then so be it. I am fine with that, I just want to offer my view on the Buddhism that I practice.

I'm not disagreeing with you. I am however saying using your same argument we could say "well, Christianity, Islam and Judaism aren't religions, they're just fabrications of the original philosophical Jewish mysticism traditions."

[hotb0d]

I have no extensive knowledge of Christianity, Islam, or Judaism so to make a comment about them would be foolish on my part. However, I can comment on what you just wrote. I think you meant to say: Christianity, Islam, and Judaism ARE religions because they're fabrications of the original philosophical Jewish mysticism traditions.

[hotb0d]

I'm only here to comment on about Buddhism and its implications. Matters of other religions (whether something is truly a religion or not) are none of my business.

[xbuzzerx]

I'm only here to comment on about Buddhism and its implications. Matters of other religions (whether something is truly a religion or not) are none of my business.

I think you missed my point which is that they all came from something different from what they are today.

The same as Buddhism which today does concern itself with the spiritual and the afterlife.

[hotb0d]

isn't that why I've been saying that true Buddhism is not a religion, but a philosophy?

the Buddhism that is a philosophy started with Buddha thousands of years ago.
the Buddhism that is a religion started hundreds of years ago, when men decided to write the teachings into a book.

The Buddhism that I've been trying to make across is the form that is a philosophy. That is the original,oldest and truest form of Buddhism. The Buddhism that you see as a religion is not the correct form of Buddhism. Basically, this is my point: discard the religion known as Buddhism because it is fake.

if you ever speak of Buddhism, you have to speak it in term of a philosophy. Anything else, it's "Buddhism"

The form of Buddhism that is being practiced as a religion (even though still beneficial as a moral code) does not reflect Buddhism.

[secondmonkey]

The study is there. I showed it to you. Only because it is written in Hungarian it doesn't mean it is bullshit.

No, that's not what I said. I said it didn't matter what language it is written in. The fact that it's posted on the internet, with a .hu domain name, means it is not credible in any way. Furthermore nobody here can even read it to see what the data says.

If I go post a "study" in a language you can't understand, or translate, in a totally un-credible place, that says "gays are wrong and they're all going to hell", are you going to believe me?

Now, I'll repeat myself because you seem to be getting off topic.

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.

This, is a completely, utterly stupid and false statement. You have zero proof to back it up. Have you noticed that nobody agrees with you? You say "studies", so you have multiple that back each other up? Because anything else would be worthless bullshit.

The fact is, religious people are some of the most unbalanced you will ever find. They are enthusiastic, but usually only about their religion, or other ridiculous things that they believe but cannot prove.

The absolute truth is that religion has killed more people than nuclear weapons, hitler, osama, guns, cars, and aids combined.

[oakpope]

That is the original,oldest and truest form of Buddhism.

I'm always wary of discourses that say 'this is the true way'. It rarely leads to other things than intolerance.

[xbuzzerx]

isn't that why I've been saying that true Buddhism is not a religion, but a philosophy?

the Buddhism that is a philosophy started with Buddha thousands of years ago.
the Buddhism that is a religion started hundreds of years ago, when men decided to write the teachings into a book.

The Buddhism that I've been trying to make across is the form that is a philosophy. That is the original,oldest and truest form of Buddhism. The Buddhism that you see as a religion is not the correct form of Buddhism. Basically, this is my point: discard the religion known as Buddhism because it is fake.

if you ever speak of Buddhism, you have to speak it in term of a philosophy. Anything else, it's "Buddhism"

The form of Buddhism that is being practiced as a religion (even though still beneficial as a moral code) does not reflect Buddhism.

I doubt you're getting it still because you are still trying to argue something I'm not disagreeing with you about. If you want to practice an extinct form of Buddhist philosophy and claim it as the one true and only way that's perfectly fine, I couldn't care less. That has nothing to do with the fact that Buddhism today in its actual presence in the real world is a religion.

[bankside]

Agreed, Bankside.

But, as I posted before on JUB, I have actually attended an anti-theist atheist group here in New Mexico recently.

Most of my friends who are atheists would more accurately be described as agnostics, as they are not anti-theist, but are simply not convinced that there is any evidence to the contrary.

Except I'd choke at the word "accuracy" given the classical definition of "agnostic" as being "one who takes the position that the existence of god can certainly never be known," compared to atheists who assert it probably or possibly could be known like any piece of conventional knowlege, but hasn't been known to date, merely hastily assumed. Atheists are of the view that the question can be answered while agnostics are of the view that the question admits of no answer ever.

But getting people to observe that distinction in everyday speech is proving about as successful as getting them to understand what "beg the question" means.

Anyway, agnosticism as traditionally defined seems extreme and unfounded. I have not seen a good argument asserting why we can never know an answer to the question of whether any god exists.

[bankside]

I take your word for it that among published, scholarly people writing about atheism any declaration of complete certainty is probably rare or nonexistent.

However, it's nowhere near as rare among actual day-to-day people who call themselves atheists, and you'll definitely see a lot of "definitively no god" atheists on forums too. I find that many of these rather than being atheists out of rationality and logic actually have more of a bone to pick with organized religion on a personal level.

Oh! I have seen what you mean. It comes in the form of people who say things like "I'm an atheist because why did god let my niece die of leukaemia when she was only three years old?"

Well that doesn't prove there is no god; god could be, if you'll pardon the expression, a complete asshole. An aggrieved theist is not an atheist. Really the only reason for calling oneself an atheist is concluding that there is no credible hypothesis for the existence of any god.

But any intellectual camp will have adherents who are not intellectual or scholarly or even remotely accurate in proffering their allegiance. I'm sure you can find Christians who think Jesus built Noah's Ark or that he defeated the dinosaurs to save mankind from sodomy.

[Hard-up1]

Buddhism isn't a religion; it is a philosophy to lead to a better understanding of life. The moment people practice it as a religion, they are forever lost within the words and never find the meaning.

Sure for most of the Western world and even those who consider themselves Buddhist will consider Buddhism a religion, 2 wrongs don't make a right. In this case, millions wrongs still don't make a right.

I respect your adherence to your own interpretation of what is the core of Buddhism to you, and to many others.

But, when any religion's adherents claim to have the sole authentic interpretation of it, the result is just an evolved sort of elitism that has the effect of not respecting others' right to make their own interpretations.

It is seen the world over in every major religion. Sects within Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, and Buddhism all claim to have the sole legitimate interpretation of their religions. The fact that in this case, the sole interpretation claims higher status as ONLY being a philosophy and therefore superior as a more pure form, true to its origins, makes little difference.

I would never argue that the Buddha did not begin as a spiritual quest that center on philosophy, but to then take that truth and illegitimize the vast majority of those who ascribed to the evolved form of the teachings is counterintuitive. The religion as it is cannot be disowned because one sect believes it departed too far from home.

Again, I am glad that there are Buddhists who find their peace in the philosophy and they have every right to do so. What they do not have the unchallenged right to do is impugn the practice of the majority of their fellow Buddhists.

[Coward92]

No, that's not what I said. I said it didn't matter what language it is written in. The fact that it's posted on the internet, with a .hu domain name, means it is not credible in any way. Furthermore nobody here can even read it to see what the data says.

If I go post a "study" in a language you can't understand, or translate, in a totally un-credible place, that says "gays are wrong and they're all going to hell", are you going to believe me?

Now, I'll repeat myself because you seem to be getting off topic.


This, is a completely, utterly stupid and false statement. You have zero proof to back it up. Have you noticed that nobody agrees with you? You say "studies", so you have multiple that back each other up? Because anything else would be worthless bullshit.

The fact is, religious people are some of the most unbalanced you will ever find. They are enthusiastic, but usually only about their religion, or other ridiculous things that they believe but cannot prove.

The absolute truth is that religion has killed more people than nuclear weapons, hitler, osama, guns, cars, and aids combined.

The gatherings and common ideas of a group cause a sense of belonging in the individual. This sense of belonging can help people get through harder chapters of their life. This is not up for debate because some people feel that way while other people do not.
I myself never felt a sense of belonging towards any group,so I'm not talking of personal experience, but if a significant amount of people says that "Yes, I think I managed my crisis so well, because I had people around me I could share my problems with" I am absolutely willing to believe that.

And that is what the study basically says. People who belong to a religious group are more likely to share their problems with each other, because they belong to a GROUP and based on social-psychologic studies every individual is more likely to favour someone in his own group. This phenomena has evolutionary roots. Basically, common traits amongst 2 individuals often promote co-operation towards a goal because the individual sub-consciously wants the other individual with a shared trait to succeed.

^ Theese were 2 sociological statements to back up the studies.
Note that I don't expect you to make a 180 degree flip and become a pro-religion activist, I just want you to understand why some people may find it appealing.

The absolute truth is always more complex than the one you described.
You say religion killed more people than anything else combined. I say ignorance, fear and intolerance did.

Gays are not going to hell.
I sort of have the belief that "hell" is a self-inflicted state, the same way as heaven is. When an individual doesn't live accordingly to his own values and/or makes choices that conflict with his/her views, the resulting cognitive dissonance causes such a tension that requires to be eased either through modifying ones beliefs or justifying ones actions. "Hell" is the state where you are uncapable of doing any of these.

[kombatwombat]

Interesting thread.
I don't feel the need to call myself anything, but I chose Buddhism, mostly because that's my view and I'm a member of a Buddhist temple and I'm there all the time.
The term religion to some extent defies definition, just when you think you have it, an exception pops up. Then when you adjust the definition, something else fits into it that viscerally doesn't fit.
I practice a form of Tibetan Buddhism, have a daily practice that's really quite intense and whatnot. There are indeed a pantheon of deities, but the poster who suggested that these are metaphors for different aspects of mind was correct. It's actually pretty non theistic, when theism is considered to be looking to a source outside of oneself for salvation.
Adherents to religion always seem to try to reject the religion label. I'm thinking of the evangelical Christian saying that it's not a religion it's a relationship. Buddhism has ritual and deals with ultimate concern, and reality.
Whether one considers Buddhism or Christianity for that matter, a philosophy or a religion, I don't really care. The emptiness of ego and its projections is what I care about. Being defensive one way or the other imo just strengthens the ego.
That is my opinion. Tra la la

[Adrock-JD]

By the way, we have 9 votes for "other" but no Muslims or Jews??

Does anyone else find this a bit odd?

edit, we now have votes in all categories except Hinduism

[secondmonkey]

You say religion killed more people than anything else combined. I say ignorance, fear and intolerance did.

Same thing.

[kombatwombat]

Same thing.

Can be, yup.

[Coward92]

Same thing.

It is a very agruable statement.
Have it your way anyhow.

[Laufey]

"The way to see by Faith is to shut the Eye of Reason." - Benjamin Franklin

[Hard-up1]

"The way to see by Faith is to shut the Eye of Reason." - Benjamin Franklin

Excellent!

At once eloquent and ambiguous.

[Hard-up1]

The term religion to some extent defies definition, just when you think you have it, an exception pops up. Then when you adjust the definition, something else fits into it that viscerally doesn't fit.te concern, and reality.

Whether one considers Buddhism or Christianity for that matter, a philosophy or a religion, I don't really care. The emptiness of ego and its projections is what I care about. Being defensive one way or the other imo just strengthens the ego.

What an excellent contribution.

To the definition point, almost all abstractions teeter when trying to be all-inclusive, but definitions evolve just the same and become meaningful in use, which does not preclude us from thinking beyond them. That said, the general definitions remain until powerful and persistent forces move the general understanding.

To the defensive point, amen.

[Rickrock]

That's what I've never understood, picking and choosing from a religion. I would have thought it's all or nothing type of "deal".

If you don't want to follow all of it then you might as well just be spiritual and even God-believing without organized religion. If you can't then you must be a part of it because of the culture and social pressure rather than actual faith that the religion is true.

I believe that the Catholic religion is true, but that some of it's leaders can get off of the true path onto a tangent at times and I am hoping that they will change in time.

Also, being Catholic is part of what describes who I am. I am a middle class, American, Catholic male. I would not give up my U.S. citizenship lightly, even if I disagree with some lawmakers, nor my Catholic faith, nor my last name and family ties.

[Laufey]

What makes you so sure the Catholic religion is true?

Is there any more "evidence" than other religions have?

[Rickrock]

I believe that it is the direct descendant of the Christian religion that Jesus Christ founded. Of course I was raised as a Catholic, so my cousin would say that I was brainwashed. He doesn't believe in organized religion.

[Laufey]

I believe that it is the direct descendant of the Christian religion that Jesus Christ founded. Of course I was raised as a Catholic, so my cousin would say that I was brainwashed. He doesn't believe in organized religion.

Thanx for explaining it to me