Which religion do you follow?

[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.

[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.

[sanjose1982]

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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.)

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Laufey]

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

[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