Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Zrk2]

Religion is just philosophy, but with god(s) to justify it

[Glowcat]

I know it was mentioned like 10 pages ago, but I don't see how Buddhism would have anything to do with a really 'religion Vs. Athism' discussion. Buddhists don't beleive in a god or gods, they beleive in the teachings of one man who actuilly existed, it's more of a life philosphy than a 'religion' with a god or gods. Other religions should be fair game in this discussion though, like Hinduism.

Most Eastern 'religions' were founded as philosophies but accumulated mysticism and even dogma when they spread among the common folk. Some Buddhist groups even deteriorated into Theocracies.

[KaguroDraven]

True enough but the main crux of 'Atheism Vs. Religion' is the existance of gods or a god, for such a thing a religion with no deity shouldn't be part of the discussion.

[Zrk2]

That is a good point.

[scriver]

Quite ninja'd before I finished, but I'll post it anyway.

I know it was mentioned like 10 pages ago, but I don't see how Buddhism would have anything to do with a really 'religion Vs. Athism' discussion. Buddhists don't beleive in a god or gods, they beleive in the teachings of one man who actuilly existed, it's more of a life philosphy than a 'religion' with a god or gods. Other religions should be fair game in this discussion though, like Hinduism.

Atheism is not necessarily limited to unbelief in God/gods, despite that being it's literal meaning. The reason atheism so often gets confined in such a way is that during the birth and growth of the idea, it has been a very much "western", or west-centrated, construct, pitted against the God of the Christian and Jewish mythologies. Modern atheism isn't just restricted to this or the "western" hemisphere, however, and so to expand it to other parts of the world, a broadening of the concept is required. Thus, atheism, especially modern atheism, should not be seen just as a standpoint on whether or not God exists, but on mythologies in general. Better defined as a point of view which questions the credibility of religion/myths/superstitions in general.

Besides, lots of Buddhist branches have gods, so atheism as unbelief in gods are still very much applicable to it.

[Shade-o]

"Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and shall become united and cleave to his wife, and they shall become one in flesh."

What was it that made you decide to follow this particular verse and not many of the others?

[Zrk2]

I have found that using actual bits of scripture can lead to two windbags quoting them back and forth at each other for too long.

[CoughDrop]

I have found that using actual bits of scripture can lead to two windbags quoting them back and forth at each other for too long.

Which is why I've given up arguing on the subject. If either person takes anything from the endeavor, it would be that it was essentially a waste of time. In turn, the actual arguments (ITT) are almost exclusively about semantics.

[Urist is dead tome]

"Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and shall become united and cleave to his wife, and they shall become one in flesh."

What was it that made you decide to follow this particular verse and not many of the others?

You have a list of verses that were applicable to my point?

[Shade-o]

Well, I can only assume that you do not follow many other pieces of divine advice, as that would make you either a prisoner or the world's greatest supervillain.

If you are indeed incarcerated, then my sympathy to you. If you are on a super crime-spree, then you have severe media exposure problems.

[Max White]

I know it was mentioned like 10 pages ago, but I don't see how Buddhism would have anything to do with a really 'religion Vs. Athism' discussion. Buddhists don't beleive in a god or gods, they beleive in the teachings of one man who actuilly existed, it's more of a life philosphy than a 'religion' with a god or gods. Other religions should be fair game in this discussion though, like Hinduism.

I like this guy, I like him a lot. Somebody get him a cookie of hes choice!

[Urist is dead tome]

Well, I can only assume that you do not follow many other pieces of divine advice, as that would make you either a prisoner or the world's greatest supervillain.

If you are indeed incarcerated, then my sympathy to you. If you are on a super crime-spree, then you have severe media exposure problems.

Once again, many laws of the Old Testament have no meaning today.

[KaguroDraven]

Many laws of the New Testament have no meaning today. Yet people still attempt to follow all of them. I fail to see how someone claiming to be faithful to their religion can basicly pretend parts of it don't count, when others, just as archaic and idiotic, count anyway. Especially when the major divergance point for 'count' and 'doesn't count' is a man who outright said he came to fulfill those old rules that 'don't count'.
Mind I'm not saying it's all archaic and idiotic, but much of it is, in all religions.

[Urist is dead tome]

I think you are using that quote in the wrong context.

Do you have any examples of laws in the New Testament that aren't applicable today?

[Max White]

To quote a great internet super star, one of my few heros, (Toady, threetoe, Tossgirl and a girl on DA being the others)
"One in ten christians has ever read the bible"

Now he got this sorce from christan websites. You can look up the youtube channel if you want, its entertaining and eduational. If so few have read the bible, then who realy cares what it says? As long as the one a week hour long ceramony says be nice, then what else matters?