[Merged]All religions are idiocy

[Mobyseven]

This thread is a great argument for apatheism

This thread is a great argument for reconsidering travel plans to Denmark...

 

[Ryokan]

OK, that one you gotta explain.

Not sure how to explain that further. Maybe if you asked questions?

Which part were you wondering about?

1. I'm an atheist.

2. There are religions without gods.

 

[steverino]

If we call an idiot soemone who doesn't realize there's no God, then how should we call someone who doesn't realize how important a role the environment plays in whether logic will manage to rise above insecurity ? How do we call someone who doesn't see that the human brain hasn't changed for tens of thousands of years and so logic is not hardwired in it anymore now than what it was 100,000 years ago ? How do we call someone who doesn't realize that the most important traits of humans are not critical thinking and reason, but rather compassion, adaptability, willingness to judge based on intentions much more than beliefs, acceptance of differences and ability to communicate instead of insult ? Because, with the current preponderance of theism, I can still see humanity progressing, and perhaps even progressing towards an atheistic world. But without compassion and understanding our future seems gloomy. Realizing this is much more intelligent than the mere realization that there is no God.

NOMINATED!

Wow. I am impressed how something so beautiful can emerge from an OP so vile.- Steve

 

[thaiboxerken]

I can see humanity progressing despite religion. All religions are idiocy, I agree. All religious people aren't, though.

 

[CFLarsen]

Not sure how to explain that further. Maybe if you asked questions?

Which part were you wondering about?

1. I'm an atheist.

Well, you say that you are an atheist, yet you also thank DD for calling you an idiot for being a religious believer.

2. There are religions without gods.

Which ones? How?

 

[Ryokan]

Well, you say that you are an atheist, yet you also thank DD for calling you an idiot for being a religious believer.

I'm a Buddhist, so I'm religious. I don't believe in any gods, so I'm an atheist.

Which ones? How?

Most forms of Buddhism acknowledge no gods. Taoism acknowledges no gods. Confucianism acknowledges no gods. Scientology acknowledges no gods. Modern Asatru. acknowledges no gods. And as Hokulele mentioned, depending on your definition of 'god', the same goes for Shintoism.

I'm sure there are more.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I can see humanity progressing despite religion. All religions are idiocy, I agree. All religious people aren't, though.

Ding ding ding....first post to notice the OP called religions idiocy, and didn't call believers idiots.

I realize if one believes in something idiotic, we are tempted to interpret that action as implying someone is an idiot. And the OP was idiotically worded because it invited an attack on the messenger rather than a discussion of the message.

But I would wager we all have or at least have had a belief in something idiotic (like that my ex would be different this time after 2 previous divorces ) and that does not make us idiots.

 

[Hokulele]

Ding ding ding....first post to notice the OP called religions idiocy, and didn't call believers idiots.

I realize if one believes in something idiotic, we are tempted to interpret that action as implying someone is an idiot. And the OP was idiotically worded because it invited an attack on the messenger rather than a discussion of the message.

But I would wager we all have or at least have had a belief in something idiotic (like that my ex would be different this time after 2 previous divorces ) and that does not make us idiots.

I completely disagree. Sure, the title of the thread is worded such a way, but DD immediately undermined this fair position with his first sentence in the OP itself. By stating that he cannot understand why anyone would believe what they do, he is doing more than implying believers are idiots.

It has been mentioned at least once in this thread prior to TBK's observance that an idiotic belief does not have to indicate an idiotic believer, but DD was more interested in playing catfight than discussing what he meant by the OP.

 

[CFLarsen]

I'm a Buddhist, so I'm religious. I don't believe in any gods, so I'm an atheist.

I'm confused about your definition of "religion", then.

Do you believe in anything paranormal, supernatural or miraculous?

Most forms of Buddhism acknowledge no gods. Taoism acknowledges no gods. Confucianism acknowledges no gods. Scientology acknowledges no gods. Modern Asatru. acknowledges no gods.

Not if you are thinking of the Norwegian Asatru(ters).

Åsatrufellesskapet Bifrost har tatt mål av seg til å samle alle som ønsker å dyrke de gamle norrøne guder og holde den hedenske sed i hevd.
Bifrost.no

Foreningen Forn Sed is a religious society for those who believe in the Norwegian folklore, the spirits and entities the folklore represents, in addition to gods and other beings from the Norse pantheon. The purpose of the society is keeping alive the old traditions, beliefs and ways, and making interest for the popular faith and the Norse cultural heritage.
Forn Sed

And as Hokulele mentioned, depending on your definition of 'god', the same goes for Shintoism.

I'm sure there are more.

I think it has a lot to do with the definition of "god".

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

As for Buddhists not believing in deities, there sure is a lot of ritualistic worship occurring at Buddhist temples

In practice however, a Buddhist temple may be regarded by devotees very much in the same ay as a Shinto shrine, as a seat of sacred power or energy whose resident deity is able to bestow benefits on the supplicant or worshipper who visits the temple.

And it is my understanding that ancestor worship and belief in an existence after death, whether it be an afterworld or reincarnation would still constitute religious beliefs. Since when is a religion required to contain a specific definition of a god? And how can one claim belief ancestors and/or the Buddha is/are alive and well in some afterworld not belief in a deity? If there is a ritual of either worship or a ritual requesting the being in the other world bestow some favor on the person preforming a ritual communicating with or revering that ancestor and/or Buddha, then it isn't too much of a stretch to define those beings as a version of a god.

The main function of a Buddhist temple in Japan is to conduct memorial rites for the dead. Such rites are performed over a period of many years in order to secure the passing of the ancestral spirit from this world to the realm of Buddha.

The syncretic approach of the Japanese to Buddhist and Shinto divinities was reflected throughout Japanese history in a close institutional association, to the point of merger, of Buddhist temples and Shinto shrines. They hosted common festivals and rituals, displayed common iconography and were often administered by Buddhist monks who served also as Shinto priests until the 'separation' of Buddhas and kami (shinbutsu bunri) in 1868. Since then people have continued to visit both shrines and temples but on separate occasions; Buddhist temples typically to carry out funeral and memorial rites, and Shinto shrines rituals of purification and renewal.

Depending on its size and function, a Buddhist temple may contain a worship hall with altar and statue of the Buddha/bodhisattva, a meditation hall, a pagoda, and various other smaller shrines and buildings including shrines to 'Shinto' kami.

I see some sources claiming these rituals are not really worshiping The Buddha. I think that is open to interpretation.

The above source focused on Buddhism in Japan. Here's on with more on Buddhism in India.

the Four Noble Truths: all of life is suffering; the cause of suffering is desire; the end of desire leads to the end of suffering; and the means to end desire is a path of discipline and meditation. Gautama was now the Buddha, or the awakened one, and he spent the remainder of his life traveling about northeast India converting large numbers of disciples. At the age of eighty, the Buddha achieved his final passing away (parinirvana ) and died, leaving a thriving monastic order and a dedicated lay community to continue his work...

...The forms of Buddhism practiced by Himalayan communities and Tibetan refugees are part of the Vajrayana, or "Way of the Lightning Bolt," that developed after the seventh century A.D. as part of Mahayana (Great Path) Buddhism. Although retaining the fundamental importance of individual spiritual advancement, the Vajrayana stresses the intercession of bodhisattvas, or enlightened beings, who remain in this world to aid others on the path. ...

...Most other Buddhists in India follow Theravada Buddhism, the "Doctrine of the Elders," which traces its origin through Sri Lankan and Burmese traditions to scriptures in the Pali language, a Sanskritic dialect in eastern India. Although replete with miraculous events and legends, these scriptures stress a more human Buddha and a democratic path toward enlightenment for everyone.

I suppose leaving out the supernatural being interventions and claiming the rituals are merely respect for the dead is still a reasonable interpretation of the religion. There sure are a lot of rituals performed at Buddhist temples that involve thanking and or asking for guidance. I've not been to any which didn't have such rituals being performed by a continual stream of worshipers. They take off their shoes, plant their incense in the pot and sometimes leave other offerings. Sure looks like they expect the ritual to accomplish something besides just being a tool to better meditation.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I completely disagree. Sure, the title of the thread is worded such a way, but DD immediately undermined this fair position with his first sentence in the OP itself. By stating that he cannot understand why anyone would believe what they do, he is doing more than implying believers are idiots.

It has been mentioned at least once in this thread prior to TBK's observance that an idiotic belief does not have to indicate an idiotic believer, but DD was more interested in playing catfight than discussing what he meant by the OP.

I didn't mean for my post to defend the OP. I was hoping my comment about the OP being idiotically worded conveyed that.

I was just commenting on the fact all religions are pretty much irrational belief systems, clarifying that to not include someone's belief which merely adopts the philosophical ideas of a religion and leaves out the afterlife beliefs and worship/praying to the dead rituals.

 

[Hokulele]

As for Buddhists not believing in deities, there sure is a lot of ritualistic worship occurring at Buddhist temples.

<snipped to save space>

You have to be a little careful about taking one source from the web and treating it as a definition of a particular belief. Focusing just on Japan for a minute, there is as much of a discrepency between what Buddhist individuals believe as there is between Christians in the USA. I was lucky enough to spend a night at a Shingon Buddhist monastary (yes, I know) at Koyasan in Japan almost 10 years ago, and none of the services focused on deities. Respect for the buddhas can be interpreted as worship (state Buddhism does this), and I suppose you could consider certain aspects of meditation as being prayer, but the way I understood the point of calling upon Buddha during meditation was to help focus on the perceived goal (attaining buddhahood for oneself), rather than a specific request for someone (or something else) to grant a wish. For example, if I want to attain enlightenment, I have to do the work. I cannot appeal to a magical being to enlighten me. To me, a god implies that it can magically grant favors.

I would also take a closer look at the Zen sect of Buddhism. Those temples I have visited (albeit, only in Japan), have focused strictly on the personal aspects of the practice.

Shintoism is even more kooky in terms of variance in practice.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You have to be a little careful about taking one source from the web and treating it as a definition of a particular belief. Focusing just on Japan for a minute, there is as much of a discrepency between what Buddhist individuals believe as there is between Christians in the USA. I was lucky enough to spend a night at a Shingon Buddhist monastary (yes, I know) at Koyasan in Japan almost 10 years ago, and none of the services focused on deities. Respect for the buddhas can be interpreted as worship (state Buddhism does this), and I suppose you could consider certain aspects of meditation as being prayer, but the way I understood the point of calling upon Buddha during meditation was to help focus on the perceived goal (attaining buddhahood for oneself), rather than a specific request for someone (or something else) to grant a wish. For example, if I want to attain enlightenment, I have to do the work. I cannot appeal to a magical being to enlighten me. To me, a god implies that it can magically grant favors.

I would also take a closer look at the Zen sect of Buddhism. Those temples I have visited (albeit, only in Japan), have focused strictly on the personal aspects of the practice.

Shintoism is even more kooky in terms of variance in practice.

You also have to be careful assuming that posting a source to support what I know about Buddhism and Shintoism means what I know came from the links.

I've been to many temples. There's a big Buddhist temple and community only a few miles from here. I've been to many temples of both religions in Japan. I've also been interested in religion in general for decades. I am quite familiar with Buddhism. I'd even go so far as to say the "meditation/philosophy only" version was quite rare.

The Japanese don't have an issue believing both Shintoism and Buddhism. They seem to take these religions rather lightly as opposed to a fundie. But I did see them performing rituals that at least superficially indicated they believed the dead person being addressed had some existence and influence. I'm not sure where you draw the line between just performing a superstitious ritual and actually believing in an existence of dead people in an afterlife.

 

[Rufo]

DanishDynamite, you reside in one of the least religious parts of the world, in one of the least religious times in history. I know, because I do as well. This makes me very surprised at how quickly you judge those who have been subjected to a far different upbringing and indoctrination than you, which frankly suggests a complete lack of self-insight.

I suppose it hasn't occured to you that the society you live in has given you amazingly good opportunities to develop a philosophy and attitude critical of religion? That the vast, vast majority of the people you call idiots have not been given any such opportunity? That the thinking of human beings is not just a matter of logic, and has never been, and will never be, but is rather subjected to numerous enviromental factors?

Did you think of any of these things before you declared all those who believe in God idiots?

I could list all the geniuses of the past who have been religious, and quite a few today who are, but there's no need, because you know who I'm talking about well enough. Many of these people were indoctrinated to think the way they did - and some might have been able to see through this indoctrination, but did not, because they spent their time understanding other things. Does that make them idiots?

Are you actually curious about how religious people think? Take a few minutes to put yourself in their shoes, and if you are not satisfied with your new understanding, this should at least give you some idea on how to adress the question.

NOMINATED!

Wow. I am impressed how something so beautiful can emerge from an OP so vile.- Steve

I second this. But there's no reason to nominate it twice, or is there? I'm not sure how that system works.

I didn't mean for my post to defend the OP. I was hoping my comment about the op being idiotically worded conveyed that.

I was just commenting on the fact all religions are pretty much irrational belief systems, clarifying that to not include someone's belief which merely adopts the philosophical ideas of a religion and leaves out the afterlife beliefs and worship/praying to the dead rituals.

Yes, but DanishDynamite clarified that he considers all religious to be idiots here. So while this is an important distiction, it's appearently not one he seems to make in this question. Which is sad, since it would actually have made his position somewhat reasonable.

 

[Hokulele]

You also have to be careful assuming that posting a source to support what I know about Buddhism and Shintoism means what I know came from the links.

I've been to many temples. There's a big Buddhist temple and community only a few miles from here. I've been to many temples of both religions in Japan. I've also been interested in religion in general for decades. I am quite familiar with Buddhism. I'd even go so far as to say the "meditation/philosophy only" version was quite rare.

Fair enough. I will admit the versions I have seen practiced here, and the selection of the temples I have attended in Japan were at least partly influenced by my family (my great-grandmother's monument sits behind the Daibutsu in Kamakura). I would say that the belief in either an afterlife or reincarnation is rampant, but I would not go so far to say that the respect for one's ancestors is worship, or that the sense of spiritualism is rooted in a sense of entitlement. The obligations are all on the part of the practitioner, not on the ancestor/spirit/buddha/what-have-you.

I think that Buddhism is a religion (including all sects), but it is the deity aspect that I have problems with. I do not think that one can state with certainty that all Buddhists believe in one or more gods in the sense that Claus and DD seem to be working with. The Buddhists that call upon Kannon for mercy, yes. Those that revere their ancestors, not so much.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

See my edited comments also Hokulele.

As for the OP, OK, I give...it was terrible.

 

[D'rok]

Ding ding ding....first post to notice the OP called religions idiocy, and didn't call believers idiots.

Hmmm...not so much:

If you are religious, you are an idiot

To DD: If this is truly your position, you are a jackass of monumental proportions. If you are merely trolling, you are a jackass of moderate proportions. Either way, the only valid point for consideration in this thread is the degree of your jackassery.

And yes, I am an atheist.

I vote for AAH.

 

[Hokulele]

See my edited comments also Hokulele.

As for the OP, OK, I give...it was terrible.

OK, we really are more in agreement than not. And the next time I am in your area, beverage of choice on me.

 

[Macoy]

So, agnostics win, then.

 

[thaiboxerken]

So, agnostics win, then.

I guess that depends on if they are theists or not. Then again, I'm guessing you think agnostic means "sort of, kind of, but not really, believes in a god" which is certainly not the definition given by the person who created the term.