šÆšš” ššš¦š¬š¤š¢One acts like a 'Know it all' and the other 'wants to learn it all'
BroBot9000Religion is a scam built to take advantage and control the uneducated masses.
disguy_ovaheaMany religions are. The ones that focus inward to better yourself are not bothering anyone. When was the last time a Buddhist knocked on your door and asked you to find Buddha?
Edit: The self-righteousness of some atheists is truly hypocritical. Persecution is wrong, whether itās of an atheist by a religious person, or vice versa. Yet another reason to be disappointed in my fellow man, I guess.
rockerface šŗš¦Thereās a difference between faith and organized religion. I have nothing against the former, but the latter brings only trouble
Yeah, similar thoughts here
Buddhism is one of the worldās largest religions and originated 2,500 years ago in India.
Stupid thing to downvote, itās so short if any of you 11 downvoters are here you can probably get a quick dunk in without typing more than 100 characters
āAppeal to age = irrelevantā would be one example (I made this up, not stating it for debate)
That entire link is irrelevant, so downvote is applicable. No point engaging in an argument that is fallacious to begin with.
Ah was intrigued by the thought but not the link :)
Thanks for improvinā my Lemmy - nice thing to do after minirant
They fall into the same category of people that look inward and find themselves as a train or an anime character or some other spirit animal / past life bullshit.
These are all people that need mental help and prescription medication.
Thatās where atheists overstep. Why does it matter what someone believes if it has no effect on you? Isnāt that exactly what you criticize the religious of doing?
Right, until they harm someone or themselves by thinking they can fly if they believe hard enough or that they can get into a magical afterlife if they kill enough people. If you are open to that magic thinking then you are open to be manipulated and used.
Or their beliefs turn extremists because religion like cancer or capitalism needs unending growth to fuel its existence. People need to be kept uneducated and gullible enough to buy into the fantasy and to donate more money to make the clergy that will inevitably rape some kids.
These same people are bringing their fantasy into politics and look where that brought America and or the religious war going on.
Way to project. Find me articles on Buddhists harming people because they think they can fly. While Iām waiting, would you like me to provide scientific research that resulted in harm?
You canāt have it both ways. If you want boundaries that protect you from the religious, then you yourself must respect the same boundary.
allthatsinteresting.com/sokushinbutsu
This is absolutely self harm that is caused by a mentally disturbed individual that is trying to achieve the nonexistent.
That kind of mental instability can lead to any number of self harm or escalation of hurting others in the name of any god or religion.
Religion needs to be wiped out through education, mental health services and ultimately taxation and banning from all political systems.
I didnāt ask about self harm. I asked about others. Are you afraid youāre going to harm yourself, or that a religious person could harm you? How is an individualās beliefs your business if they donāt impact you? You sincerely believe that the way to solve religious persecution by some is to persecute all of the religious?
Your goal post just moved. Need some help keeping it in place?
Read my previous comment. I asked for them to find me an article where a Buddhist hurt someone trying to fly. Employing condescension only really works if youāre accurate. Otherwise you just seem like an ass.
Itās not condescending if it is true.
Itās just rude.
[deleted] in lemmyLike every large religion, a significant portion of the followers will ignore any teaching in the right contexts. Christians are about turning the other cheek and loving thy neighbor except for the crusades and witch trials, Islam is the religion of peace except for when it isnāt, and Buddhism has its own exceptions.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_violence
As found in other religious traditions, Buddhism has an extensive history of violence dating back to its inception.
These remarks followed the 1973 student-led uprising, as well as the creation of a Thai parliament and the spread of communism in neighboring East Asian countries. The fear of communism shaking the social forms of Thailand felt a very real threat to Kittivuddho, who expressed his nationalist tendencies in his defense of militant actions. He justified his argument by dehumanizing the Communists and leftists that he opposed. In the interview with Caturat he affirmed that this would not be the killing of people, but rather the killing of monsters/devils. He similarly asserted that while killing of people is prohibited and thus de-meritorious in Buddhist teachings, doing so for the āgreater goodā will garner greater merit than the act of killing will cost.
Other peopleās beliefs directly impact me constantly through laws justified by religious doctrine, social pressures, imposing themselves into government offices, and being used to promote lying politicians who claim to be members but never following the teachings while gaining votes for being on the same team.
It has negatively affected me my entire life, even if it isnāt a obvious as racism and misogyny.
So youāre saying that you want separation from religion. Why canāt they have that from you? I agree that religion doesnāt belong in government. What about that justifies extermination of religion?
I didnāt say anything about extrrninating religion, I responded to your comment saying religous people have bo effect on me.
Buddhism is a religion in the same way that Christianity is a religion. I.e. itās an abstract concept and not an implementation.
The implementations are invariably the problem. Just look at Myanmar.
UnderpantsWeevilWhen was the last time a Buddhist knocked on your door and asked you to find Buddha?
Buddhism (and the Hinduism it is rooted in) isnāt intended to accrued disciples as part of an elaborate religiously flavored MLM. It is intended to justify existing, generational, disparities in wealth, power, and property.
You wonāt find one knocking on your door. You knock on their doors, and hope to ingratiate yourself to their superiors by adopting their customs in exchange for status and business relations.
[Buddhism] is intended to justify existing, generational, disparities in wealth, power, and property.
Uh, no, this simply isnāt true. In South Asia, these disparities are instantiated in the hereditary varna system (usually translated as ācasteā, though conservative Hindus will object to this), in which the highest social class is the Vedic clergy called the ābrahminsā. Brahmin supremacy has been a constant feature of South Asian society going back millennia, and it is still widespread today.
As the Buddha said in the Vasala Sutta, āNot by birth is one an outcast; not by birth is one a brahman. By deed one becomes an outcast, by deed one becomes a brahman.ā
This runs counter to the idea of generational class, which was the general attitude of brahminical society and was how brahmins maintained their power over others.
The Buddha elaborates on this idea in the Vasettha Sutta:
While the differences between these species
are defined by birth,
the differences between humans
are not defined by birth.
Not by hair nor by head,
not by ear nor by eye,
not by mouth nor by nose,
not by lips nor by eyebrow,
not by shoulder nor by neck,
not by belly nor by back,
not by buttocks nor by breast,
not by groin nor by genitals,
not by hands nor by feet,
not by fingers nor by nails,
not by knees nor by thighs,
not by color nor by voice:
none of these are defined by birth
as it is for other species.
In individual human bodies
you canāt find such distinctions.
The distinctions among humans
are spoken of by convention.
This is essentially an early version of social constructionism.
The Buddha goes on to criticize the various things that brahmins do, saying that e.g. doing sacrifices makes you a sacrificer, not a brahmin. He ultimately says that only people who are virtuous, detached from pleasures and free from disturbing emotions are really ābrahminsā. So, the Buddha actually taught a countercultural criticism of hereditary class.
As the Buddha said in the Vasala Sutta, āNot by birth is one an outcast; not by birth is one a brahman. By deed one becomes an outcast, by deed one becomes a brahman.ā
Why did the noble Japanese Buddhists boil Portuguese Christians alive? Was this one of those Brahman Deeds?
The Buddha goes on to criticize the various things that brahmins do
Much as Jesus critiqued the Pharasises. And yet modern Christian Dominionists have far more in common with Pharasises - even Roman Pagans - than the fishermen and slaves and prostitutes that were itās original disciples.
Why did the noble Japanese Buddhists boil Portuguese Christians alive? Was this one of those Brahman Deeds?
Because of their afflictive emotions of fear, hatred, and so on, which are the real āenemyā that Buddhists should oppose. Unfortunately, most Buddhists are just ordinary people with no particular control over their disturbing emotions.
Much as Jesus critiqued the Pharasises. And yet modern Christian Dominionists have far more in common with Pharasises - even Roman Pagans - than the fishermen and slaves and prostitutes that were itās original disciples.
Yes. Unfortunately itās easier for one person to be exceptional than a whole society. I think religionsā greatest failure has been their neglect of the role that material conditions play in peopleās lives. Until we have exceptional material conditions, exceptional people will not be the norm.
When was it the last time a Christian did that? Other than JWs who have stopped knocking on doors like 9 years ago.
Btw, Iāve 100% had Hare Krishnaās and other ābetter yourselfā religions bothering me for money. And christianity is a ābetter yourselfā type of religion, too.
Thereās so much wrong with your comment that really, all the downvotes you are getting are totally warranted.
InternetCitizen2Donāt look up events in Myanmar.
Fact: we would be better off if all of humanity were atheists
Not sure about this one, but weād definitely be better off if religion was treated as strictly something you practice personally at home and not as part of any large hierarchy.
That is an opinion by definition. Facts can be proven true or false. āBetter offā is a subjective sentiment. How very unscientific of you.
Yeah, I used to think that about Sikhism as well. Then I did some research. Every religion can and has been abused.
Of course it can, just as science has the ability to do the same. Do we brand all scientists as unethical because of Unit 731 or the Nuremberg trials? Ironically, this entire thread is very unscientific in its criticism of the religious.
Right, except religion serves no purpose that a non-religious group canāt do. Do you see why equating religion and science is pretty silly?
The only purpose of religion is to spread. Everything else is just a means to an end. Just take every good aspect of religion and remove the faith and the god from it. It becomes better. Teach people to do stuff because it is right, not because X god says so.
Exactly!!
Except that many highly educated people are also into religions :(
Childhood indoctrination works wonders to keep you scam going.
The whole life has a purpose and eternal soul thing make people want to believe as well
Plenty of educated religious people are converts. I was raised atheist and converted to Buddhism in my late teens. The same was true of many of the other students in my universityās religious studies department.
The fact is, being religious doesnāt depend on lack of education or childhood indoctrination. People will still be religious in the absence of those things.
I think that more than a few highly successful people who are both religious and not stupid, have realized what religion actually is and manipulate it to their advantage.
Not all, but I suspect thereās more than a few.
ZloubidaYou know everything, apparently.
Religion is to calm a heart when it has nowhere to turn to.
Problem is the same as with comunism, few in power get greedy.
Religion is ābuiltā by the actions of countless religious people. There is not a single cohesive force shaping its development. Religion has also been used for education, political liberation, charity, and emotional healing. Reality is complex.
As an aside, people who are bothered by my arguments should consider watching Contrapointsā recent video on conspiracism. The points I am making in this thread are the same points she makes against conspiracy theories.
Atheists like the OP suggest (ironically) that religion is an intentionalist, evil force, but a basic survey of the history of religion easily disproves this type of thinking. Intentionalism and binarism are cankers on the pursuit of truth. Like politics, religion is nuanced; it is not a grand conspiracy, even if there are groups in it who conspire. Atheists would do well to be wary of conspiracism, lest they place their hatred of religion over their pursuit of truth.
CONSPIRACY | contrapoints
I met people on both sides that had either of those attitudes.
The "I'm always right because I have a PHD" is not uncommon, even on fields not covered by their education.
At the same time, I've met many religious people (Muslims, Hindus, Christians) that for them religion was a private, personal aspect that helped them deal with their lives.
As a kind of a routine, something done time and time again enough to clear up their minds from stress and give them an anchor when lost.
I'm not religious, but I believe in freedom and the pursuit of happiness, and I support anyone as long as it doesn't interfere with other's.
I see somebody downvoted you already, but I completely agree with you šÆ
morrowindMy God, a reasonable person talking about religion on lemmy
Those many āprivate, personalā benign religious people form a strong foundation upon which the crazies, cults, and conmen build their structures.
In my experience, these benign people are one tragedy away from metastasizing into the malignant religious type.
I have cousins who were benign-religious for most of their life, but after a death in the family they started following a new sect of christianity. Their children have never seen a doctor, nor a vaccine.
I agree people are entitled to their personal freedoms, but we would be much better off as a society if we could educate our way out of the cancer that is religion.
In my experience, these benign people are one tragedy away from metastasizing into the malignant religious type.
This kind of thinking and language is also used by a variety of āAnti-Theistsā talking about the āWoke mind virusā and working together with current US fascism.
Talking about people as ādiseasesā is a pretty good indicator of Fascist ideology and you might be more entangled by it than you think.
Why the Anti-Woke Right Has So Many Atheists
I think my post makes it quite clear that I was not referring to people as diseases, I specifically said that religion is the disease. The people are victims to the disease.
And if it isnāt also obvious, I do consider myself an anti-theist. The overall effect of religion on society is negative, and we would be better off without religion. I donāt see what this has to do with āwoke mind virusā nonsense.
Absolutely! Very well put. These people are victims and are being taken advantage of for the sake of power and control.
I strongly recommend you to see the video i have linked. The maker is a former anti-theist who has learned how hateful and discriminatory this kind of thinking was and how prominent proponents of this thinking went on to apply the same attacks on āwokenessā and are now part of the Trump side of US politics.
If you cannot think of religious people as normal people, whose characters and life situations cover the entire spectrum of human life, that is problematic. Referring to people as āvictimsā because they dont share the same convictions as you do, is marginalizing them and a convienent escape as you donāt have to intellectually engage with their position. In such āAnti-Theistsā fall into the same pitfalls they accuse religious people off, by not only declaring their own convictions as the ultimate truth, but marginalizing everyone who does not share the same convictions.
And that is where āAnti-Theismā leads to āAnti-Wokenessā for many prominent proponents of it. Please watch the video, as it explains that much better and in detail.
Alright I watched your video. I agree it is a problem that a small subsect of secular humanism has been entangled with āanti-wokenessā, Trumpism, and fascism. Many of the figureheads of the atheist movement in the past two decades have become part of the alt-right pipeline, and that is a tragedy.
But as your video readily admits, the vast majority of atheists, anti-theists, and secular humanists are on the left. I was involved with the Freedom from Religion Foundation for a decade or so, and my personal experience was that nearly everyone there was on the left(even in a heavily rightwing state).
I think you are falling into the pitfall, judging a large and diverse group for the misdeeds of a small subsect of that group.
As for ānot thinking of religious people as peopleā, if you would personally know me you would understand this is a laughable notion. I am surrounded by religion and religious people everyday, their views and beliefs are thrust upon me often, and I always respond with respect, very rarely will I offer a counter argument.
But I am still of the conviction that religious people are victim to religion. I believe my cousins, who do not allow their children to see any doctor, are victims of religion. I think any rational person would agree that their young child, recently ill for a month but not allowed to see a doctor, is a victim of religion.
And as for marginalization, I do believe religion should be marginalized. Just like I believe the alt-right and fascist movements should be marginalized. Good things are good, and bad things are bad, and I am convinced religion is bad. But letās be honest, the power dynamics are heavily weighted on the other side. Religious people are marginalizing atheists, fascists are marginalizing leftists.
As for āintellectually engaging with their positionā, I would love to. My experience has been that very few religious people are willing to intellectually engage in the subject. Despite this, I have had many intellectual and respectful discussions on religion, and I appreciate that you are giving me one more.
But if you are so concerned about anti-theism leading to Trumpism, then you should be much more concerned about religion leading people to Trumpism. That correlation is much stronger.
The ratios are the opposite though.
Religion really isnāt about knowledge and Science really isnāt about personal moral and motivation, which is probably why (from what Iāve observed from the handful of Christian Scientists Iāve known), it only ever works well when theyāre kept apart and neither is used in the domain of the other.
I agree, but I also fear religious people. Religion has time and time again interfered with peopleās autonomy.
It still does to this day. Women in Oman, for example need a man (even if it is their son) to approve of her surgery. A woman needed surgery, but had no male relatives closeby to approve it for her. It was an emergency. Thankfully it was approved, but required a lawyer.
Christianity isnāt any better where I live.
Religion is fine on a personal level, but dangerous for everyone on a larger scale.
You seem to be conflating religion and culture with regards to Oman.
The problem with religion is it primes people for believing things just based on a trusted authority saying so. Thereās no evidence in support of the existence of any supernatural entities whatsoever, and thereās no evidence to support the existence of a life after death, but people believe it anyway and religion holds their āfaithā to be a virtue in and of itself. You could argue that that isnāt harmful by itself, but consider that many religious people believe things that the evidence of their own eyes proves impossible, and that any idea is fair game when you treat faith as a virtue. It doesnāt matter if people today only believed the āgoodā parts of religion, eventually someone will corrupt their blind faith and convince them of whatever they want, like that being gay is a sin worthy of death, that trans people are evil and shouldnāt be allowed to exist, that your pastor is totally a great guy and you should donate money to the church and totally trust him alone with your kids. The dangers of religion are in teaching people to stop thinking for themselves.
Not all religions claim to know everything.
Yes, the ones that do tend to be violent and oppressive, so I understand the criticism.
But many religions are more about searching truth, learning to love each other and have community. And their followers definitely tend to be modest and have a āI donāt know enoughā mentality.