About Religion

[freshnesschronic]

What do you guys think? Some w rldly questions.
NOTE: I use religion as a noun to include all religions, because this is what I think I have found they have in common.

I am an agnostic Christian thinking of turning to aetheism because of some things I have personally philosophized about, and my indifference toward "God's Plan" which to me seems like not a good plan at all. I am NOT trying to anger anyone, just to hear people's different opinions on all my thoughts. And YES I do have many morals, but one doesn't have to be religious to be moral!

Wasn't religion created, just to organize and control people? To provide hands down answers to curious, rebellious unorganized people in order for them to submit to a king/priest/chieftan.

Doesn't the advancement of science disprove religion's original ideas of why the world is the way it is? I mean, there is scientific evidence proving the existence of life billions of years before religion says time started.

YES. Religion was and is important to human culture, civilization and advancement. But since we've evolved so much, isn't the gradual clarity of science and experimentational evidence fogging up religion's mysterious "just have this faith or whatever and things will be ok...even if things aren't really ok" attitude?

Isn't religion's creationist feeling kind of, ridiculous? Yes, no one knows or possibly will ever know through science where life started or how. But through sciences such as microbiology and astronomy we found the same microscopic bacterial life on earth that exists on extra terrestrial rocks in the voids of space. Isn't it silly to think that some being(s) that have been ever present started life because he/she/they felt like it? And for what reason again?

And hasn't human history showed us, that no empire lasts forever. And no religion will last forever either (anybody a Greek mythology convert? Or Ancient Egyptian mythology anyone?). So doesn't this show religion is, harshly put, another human fad that changes with the times?

Just some thoughts! Please don't hate me! I feel I am a very diverse young man and very tolerant of other people, but these are my personal ideas! That's all!

[wolf]

Originally Posted by freshnesschronic

And hasn't human history showed us, that no empire lasts forever. And no religion will last forever either (anybody a Greek mythology convert? Or Ancient Egyptian mythology anyone?). So doesn't this show religion is, harshly put, another human fad that changes with the times?

Most modern pagans and neopagans would differ with you on this one very seriously. There's a difference between smiley faces going out of style and having a religion that operates on the principle of "convert or else" showing up in the neighborhood. I know Hellenic Reconstructionist pagans, Celtic Reconstructionists, Druids, and Kemetic practitioners who explore the old ways of the Egyptians.

[xoxoxoBruce]

If you're going to dump all religion into one pot then the answer to all your questions in no.

[piercehawkeye45]

To start things off I am Ignostic meaning that I find god irrelevant to how I will live my life.

Wasn't religion created, just to organize and control people? To provide hands down answers to curious, rebellious unorganized people in order for them to submit to a king/priest/chieftan.

Religion is the opiate of the people. This means that religion gives people in the lower class a meaning of life and calms them, preventing rebellion, which would have been very useful for ancient monarchies. It was also used to provide a moral code for the people so there was control even when law enforcement wasn't available. I am also almost certain that the Old Testament was not meant to be taken literally and to provide a moral base, kind of like Greek Mythology or 1,001 Arabian Nights

Doesn't the advancement of science disprove religion's original ideas of why the world is the way it is? I mean, there is scientific evidence proving the existence of life billions of years before religion says time started.

This is where you will get a split in beliefs. Some take the bible literally, others will give as much as science pushes, and others will work with science to try to prove god. The bible and church have obviously been wrong but that doesn’t prove that God doesn't exist.

YES. Religion was and is important to human culture, civilization and advancement. But since we've evolved so much, isn't the gradual clarity of science and experimentational evidence fogging up religion's mysterious "just have this faith or whatever and things will be ok...even if things aren't really ok" attitude?

Faith is used for the unknown. Usually, you just have to have faith that God exists to be a Christian, not according to his works.

Isn't religion's creationist feeling kind of, ridiculous? Yes, no one knows or possibly will ever know through science where life started or how. But through sciences such as microbiology and astronomy we found the same microscopic bacterial life on earth that exists on extra terrestrial rocks in the voids of space. Isn't it silly to think that some being(s) that have been ever present started life because he/she/they felt like it? And for what reason again?

Whoever is a creationist is either ignorant, a fool, or blinded by their religion. Neither is good.

And hasn't human history showed us, that no empire lasts forever. And no religion will last forever either (anybody a Greek mythology convert? Or Ancient Egyptian mythology anyone?). So doesn't this show religion is, harshly put, another human fad that changes with the times?

Civilizations die but religions usually stay. For example, Hinduism is estimated to be 7,500 years old and is still staying strong. I doubt Christianity, Islam, or Buddhism will go down quietly either.

Basically, you have to with your gut feeling with this decision. It took me around six years of debate to get to where I am now with my stance so don't expect to quickly change your beliefs or that your new belief will be permanent.

Buddhism is not a religion. There is no deism or theology to it, no worship, nothing related to religion, just a path.

[Griff]

Except for the religious kind.

[piercehawkeye45]

It's still considered a religion. An ethical relgion or non-theistic religion.

[Bullitt]

According to Wikipedia, dictionary.com and Encyclopedia Brittanica, it is a religion. You seem to not want to have the label "religion" adhered to you at all rk.

I have studied religions for a very long time., over twenty years, it just does not make sense... It is not just me, I am too intelligent to be unable to be objective about this. His Holiness the Dalai Lama states that it is not a religion in the introduction of several of his books, most of which I have read.
I just do not see how something that involves no prayer, no deism, no worship, no dogma of the afterlife can be called a religion.
It is a path, an ethical system.
I can see calling it one politically... hell atheism is a religion to politicians.
But, theologically, no. There is no religious practice to it.
A "non-theistic religion" lol... sure, if we can have non-wet water. Thanks, I needed that.

[Happy Monkey]

You (and the Dalai Lama) probably shouldn't use the "Holiness" honorific when claiming not to be a religion...

Not that I necessarily disagree, not knowing what, if any, supernatural claims are made - though the method of choosing a new Dalai Lama certainly seems religious to me.

It is an honorary title, much in English that is applied to Buddhism is wrong "prayer beads", "Temple", "Worship", etc... Euro-religious-centric minds had no idea how to translate the Eastern concepts of meditation and personal growth. It looked like religion to them, so the titles stuck. Just like your understanding of one sect of Buddhism is being applied to all of the path.
Holy = enlightend... I suspect you knew this and are just being difficult.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

Just like your understanding of one sect of Buddhism is being applied to all of the path.

You mentioned that the Dalai Lama said it isn't a religion. His sect seemed relevant.

Holy = enlightend...

I don't think so... I've never heard "holy" used in a way that didn't involve deities, cussing, or Batman. The Dalai Lama can choose his honorific, and if he (or his English speaking followers) felt it was a poor translation I'm sure they could come up with another.

Of course, it's possible to follow Buddhist teachings without buying into the reincarnation stuff. Jefferson did a similar thing with the Jefferson Bible.

Really, and you think that prayer beads are used for prayer?
Semantics are fun for you, yes?

Many people who follow Buddhism have other beliefs that are unrelated to the Path. Most are hold-overs from the past from that area. Many believe in reincarnation, ancestors, there are Christian Buddhists (my wife is one), Jewish Buddhists, there are a lot of Native Americans that have close bonds with the Tibetan Community, Zen and the Taoist community have their separate beliefs.
It does not matter.
The fact is that the Path is irrelevant to your belief system when it comes to what you believe happens after you die or how the "world"
began.
Tibet's Bon heritage is very rich and their form of Buddhism tends to be taught with that language because that is what those people understand.
However, it is not dogma and they are not told that those are absolutes... it is just taught in that area in those parables... just like in areas of China, America and other regions there are other parables for other peoples.
The true Dharma, in its basic form has nothing to say of the afterlife, origin or anything of that type.
In fact Siddhartha, the first teaching Buddha, states to question all dogma, even his.
Those who treat it as a religion are tolerated by monks, waiting for them to "abandon that boat upon the farther shore of enlightenment".
I am curious, where did you read that His Holiness can choose His honorific?
If you have not read the Pali or, at least, the Dhammapada, I suggest you hold-off on the comparisons to the Bible. There can be none.

An excellent paper on the subject.
The Definition section is a good read, if nothing else.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

I am curious, where did you read that His Holiness can choose His honorific?

Read? What do you mean? Anyone can choose their own honorific. But if you're the Dalai Lama, you can get people to use it. Especially if you explain that the one they were using is misleading.

As I said, you can practice Buddhism without the supernatural parts, but in doing so you may not want to use the religious trappings (like "His Holiness" and capitalizing pronouns) where you don't need to.

When people try to claim that science is a religion, I'm not going to help them out by talking about His Holiness Albert Einstein.