Why the divide between Science and Religion...

[andys]

Reply to Deep Shadow:
I did not state or even imply that being religious makes one stupid. In fact, I think it is interesting that so many religious people are NOT stupid. I must say, however, to the rational observer who will eventually discard beliefs in the Easter Bunny, Tooth-fairy and Santa Clause, we Atheists do find it curious when, otherwise, rational adults appear to willingly forfeit the power of reason in favor of adopting unsupported beliefs such as Angels and virgin births.

As for your little joke that I should delineate the Bible-thumpers from the "plain religious" folk and kill them; it IS tempting, although that would only reduce an Atheist to the level of a Christian. After all, Atheists value and promote human rights—particularly the right to freedom of thought and expression. So we try to avoid conducting Inquisitions whenever we can.

Correction: I make no delineation between hard-core "thumpers" and the less extreme followers of the Bible. This distinction is simply a matter of degree, not kind.

Oh, to suggest that I may be a bigot is so un-Christian. Tsk, tsk.
However, don't give me the benefit of the doubt by suggesting that I might not have a problem with religion; I DO have a problem with religion. And I DO have a problem with "small-mindedness, bigotry, baseless demagoguery, [whatever you meant by that—who's the demagogue?] etc." as well.

Since the purpose of this web site is education, let me comply: Only very, very recently has any person enjoyed the right to express his or her thoughts and enter into discourse with Theists. This right was earned only after the "Church" lost its military superiority. Previous to this glorious day, had there been an Easy-button on hand that could eradicate every "heathen" from the planet, I wouldn't be here like a fly in your soup. Atheists, in sharp contrast, will fight for the rights of all human beings—including your human right to believe in anything (crazy as your beliefs may seem to us). That is because, as free thinkers, we Atheist hold very dear the value of humanity and freedom for all. Especially, one's human (not "god-given") right to think. As it turned out, this noggin of ours is pretty remarkable when it's allowed to flex its own muscle. Enter Logic, Science and the multitude of wonderful benefits that have resulted. Meanwhile, the poor faithful were left impotent, unable to silence these arrogant heretics who were discovering new facts every day. Facts that threatened their dogmatic doctrines. Their only resource was to try to beat them at their own game—to introduce their own "facts". And that's where we are as I type on my Mac.

All I want is for believers to go right on believing. You can have your Guardian Angels! Granted! Enjoy! Just, pretty please, let Science do its job. Contriving artificial facts, in a self-serving effort to save face, can only reduce whatever credibility Religion has left. Are we free thinkers really asking too much?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Atheists, in sharp contrast, will fight for the rights of all human beings—including your human right to believe in anything (crazy as your beliefs may seem to us). That is because, as free thinkers, we Atheist hold very dear the value of humanity and freedom for all.

Look, I'm an atheist, but this generalization is far detatched from reality. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god. There is no necessary connection between belief (or lack thereof) in a god and commitment to human rights. To wit: Stalin was an atheist, and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., was a theist.

I think when you criticize "Religion" in this way, you are really missing the mark. What needs to be criticized is dogmatism, willful ignorance, intolerance, and oppression; although these things are sometimes aspects of a given religion or a group of people who happen to be religious, they are not equivalent to religion.

Once again, to wit: there are plenty of liberal Christians (indeed, even evangelical Christians), Jews, Unitarians, Buddhists, Muslims, etc. out there who are very undogmatic, knowledgable, tolerant, and who support human rights and a steadfast barrier between church and state. The Save Darfur Coalition, to my knowledge, is largely supported by religious organizations, for example.

 

[Yerda]

I liked that post very much, Spinks (I'm no allowed to frubal ye).

 

[andys]

REPLY TO MR. SPRINKLES
First of all, "Hi!" It's nice to know other Atheists are out there.
Just a few remarks:
Atheists are not the sole custodians of human rights, nor did I allude to such a ridiculous claim. Religious people can be concerned about human rights too, although one's soul is their big priority. So bravo to Martin Luther King. (As for Satan, he most certainly was NOT an Atheist. Wow, if anyone ever believed in the existence of God it was this guy. He and God were like oil and water, in case you didn't know. Fortunately for humans, he convinced Adam not to heed God's command to avoid knowledge (Genesis, 2/17)! In this respect, Satin is the father of Science and free thought.

Which brings me to your next comment, "Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god. There is no necessary connection between belief (or lack thereof) in a god and commitment to human rights." Technically—very technically—you're absolutely right. But I guarantee that no "believer" would be satisfied with such ultra exactitude applied to a definition of "Theist" i.e., Theism is simply a belief in a god." Period. While clinically correct, this definition neglects to include important attending characteristics of theism. For example, 1) belief in a god invariably involves things such as a specific picture of the world and one's place in it, 2) how to live your life according to certain principles or teachings prescribed by this god, 3) a belief that it is possible to communicate with this god, and so on. Now we are beginning to really "define" the essence of what it is to be a Theist.

Today, to be an Atheist is is still as much about freedom of thought and expression as to deny, outright any association with Theism. Having dispensed with theism as irrational, modern Atheists apply their powers of reason to social injustices and other areas where rights and freedom are practiced. There are many Atheist organizations around the world and each is devoted to promoting the power of reason to battle any obstacle that impedes rationality and injustice. But I never implied we have a monopoly on this pursuit. Hey, welcome aboard (everyone)!

 

[DeepShadow]

Reply to Deep Shadow:
I did not state or even imply that being religious makes one stupid.

On the contrary, you say below that you don't distinguish between theists, and above you call them (all, presumably) pea-brains.

In fact, I think it is interesting that so many religious people are NOT stupid.

Funny that.:areyoucra

I must say, however, to the rational observer who will eventually discard beliefs in the Easter Bunny, Tooth-fairy and Santa Clause, we Atheists do find it curious when, otherwise, rational adults appear to willingly forfeit the power of reason in favor of adopting unsupported beliefs such as Angels and virgin births.

You're atheists. Saying you find our beliefs unsupported is only begging the question. Obviously, we find support for them. When God talks to you, you may choose to be a theist. Then you'll have support.

As for your little joke that I should delineate the Bible-thumpers from the "plain religious" folk and kill them; it IS tempting, although that would only reduce an Atheist to the level of a Christian.

No, it would reduce you to the level of a genocidalist. The fact that you continue to conflate "genocide" with "Christianity" is yet another suggestion that you think we're all insane and/or stupid. Spinkles provided a case in point that atheists can commit genocide: Stalin. There are many others; Pol Pot comes to mind.

After all, Atheists value and promote human rights—particularly the right to freedom of thought and expression. So we try to avoid conducting Inquisitions whenever we can.

Which is why an atheist (Pol Pot) came up with the "Year Zero" concept and ordered the extermination of schoolchildren because they knew how to count. Whatever.

We've all got blood on our hands, in terms of our philosophical heritage. Theists, atheists, everyone. Geez, take a look at what the Crav are doing in France, threatening Jihad-level extremism because of the price of wine.

Correction: I make no delineation between hard-core "thumpers" and the less extreme followers of the Bible. This distinction is simply a matter of degree, not kind.

Your statement is meaningless, because you have already demonstrated that you know little about Christians beyond the fact that some of them are wack jobs.

Oh, to suggest that I may be a bigot is so un-Christian. Tsk, tsk.

Case in point. Theists have always been part of the crusade for civil rights. We call it bigotry when we see it.

However, don't give me the benefit of the doubt by suggesting that I might not have a problem with religion; I DO have a problem with religion.

It shows.

And I DO have a problem with "small-mindedness, bigotry, baseless demagoguery, [whatever you meant by that—who's the demagogue?] etc." as well.

What do I mean by that? I mean what I said. Baseless demagoguery is evil, whether it's a religious person stirring up fanatics or a french wine grower saying people need to support their traditional way of life at the expense of others.

Since the purpose of this web site is education, let me comply: Only very, very recently has any person enjoyed the right to express his or her thoughts and enter into discourse with Theists.

Gee, if you put some more details into that sketch, I can frame a rebuttal. For now, all I can do is look at you funny.:areyoucra

This right was earned only after the "Church" lost its military superiority.

That's one church. Another church, Quakers, defended the rights of atheists, and were hung for it. While we're educating each other.

Previous to this glorious day, had there been an Easy-button on hand that could eradicate every "heathen" from the planet, I wouldn't be here like a fly in your soup.

As many atheists have wished to eradicate theism, and here we can go beyond Pol Pot and Stalin.

That is because, as free thinkers, we Atheist hold very dear the value of humanity and freedom for all.

Some of you do, of which I'm very thankful. Sadly, you seem to fail to understand that there are theists who are standing beside you, allies in that fight. Why can't you believe that some of us hold those same values?

Especially, one's human (not "god-given") right to think. As it turned out, this noggin of ours is pretty remarkable when it's allowed to flex its own muscle. Enter Logic, Science and the multitude of wonderful benefits that have resulted.

For which you have theists to thank, as well as atheists.

Meanwhile, the poor faithful were left impotent, unable to silence these arrogant heretics who were discovering new facts every day.

Hogwash. Many of the faithful were working diligently to discover those facts right alongside the ones you call heretics.

Facts that threatened their dogmatic doctrines.

Correction: Facts that some of them embraced, and others balked at. Theists are not as homogenous as you paint us.

Their only resource was to try to beat them at their own game—to introduce their own "facts". And that's where we are as I type on my Mac.

...er, I can only assume you're talking about the creation/evolution debate? Do you realize how few theists are creationists? I'd estimate about a tenth. Do realize how great an injustice you do to the rest of us by lumping us together with small-minded pseudoscientists?

All I want is for believers to go right on believing.

Which is why you uttered a call to arms against all of us a page ago. Got it.

You can have your Guardian Angels! Granted! Enjoy! Just, pretty please, let Science do its job.

I'm a science educator. I fully intend to let science do its job. Now can I get on your nice list?

Contriving artificial facts, in a self-serving effort to save face, can only reduce whatever credibility Religion has left. Are we free thinkers really asking too much?

Not at all. Are we religionists asking too much to not be styled as head-in-the-sand creationists? I don't think so.

 

[DeepShadow]

Which brings me to your next comment, "Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god. There is no necessary connection between belief (or lack thereof) in a god and commitment to human rights." Technically—very technically—you're absolutely right. But I guarantee that no "believer" would be satisfied with such ultra exactitude applied to a definition of "Theist" i.e., Theism is simply a belief in a god." Period.

Why would any theist object to such a definition of theism?!?! It's a perfectly good definition, which is why they use it (or one like it) in the dictionary.

 

[Booko]

All I want is for believers to go right on believing. You can have your Guardian Angels! Granted! Enjoy! Just, pretty please, let Science do its job. Contriving artificial facts, in a self-serving effort to save face, can only reduce whatever credibility Religion has left. Are we free thinkers really asking too much?

This bit about contriving artificial facts is a real toot, andys, considering you seem to have fabricated more than a few about "religion."

 

[DeepShadow]

DeepShadow--

Great posts! Can't give you frubals for both, unfortunately.

I really need to learn multi-quoting, huh?

 

[andys]

I'm going to reply numerically, in the same order that the quotes (of me) appear. I'll try to keep my sentences short and easy to understand to avoid further misinterpretation or confusion.

1) I did not state that being religious MAKES one stupid. Now that would be stupid. You made that presumption all on your own. I have tried to explain why religious beliefs, as assertions of faith, must be considered non-factual or "irrational". But to assert that being religious causes stupidity, is plain...stupid.

2) I clearly did not state that all religious people are stupid. In fact, you admit to making this presumption yourself in the parentheses: "...you call them (all, presumably) pea-brains". This is what I did say, which you correctly quoted was, "In fact, I think it is interesting that so many religious people are NOT stupid."
Now let me make a presumption: you are likely not familiar with the rules of Logic. The following premise "Not all X are stupid" logically implies the conclusion that only "Some X are stupid". Not ALL X. Clear?
(If I truly thought all religious people were stupid, I would say so.)

3) I was a bit alarmed that, as a science teacher, you regard voices in your head to constitute reasonable evidence to support your claim that a supernatural being is communicating with you. You informed me that, "When God talks to you, you may choose to be a theist. Then you'll have support." My only reply is this: No, I'll choose to be psychoanalyzed.

4) My reply to your suggestion (joke?) that I should kill off the Christians, was that such a murderous act would reduce me to the level of a Christian. This was a (not clear?) reference to the Inquisition. Your reply that I "...continue to conflate 'genocide' with 'Christianity' [which] is yet another suggestion that you think we're all insane and/or stupid."
Well, perhaps you are not aware that the Inquisition's 600 years of "cleansing" wiped out one quarter of Europe and continued well into the mid 19th century. If this isn't a case of genocide, what is? (And there you go again presuming I was suggesting that all Christians are stupid.)
One other reply is warranted here. You site another contributor on this web site (Spinkles) who offers his remarkable insight that atheists can commit genocide too. What about people who believe the sky is blue? Or people who take long walks? Can they, too, commit atrocities? How irrelevant. The point is not that 'other' people, including Atheists can be guilty of all kinds of terrible actions. The point is that they don't do it in the name of Atheism. Religion, on the other hand is notorious for waging "Holy" wars or conducting witch hunts, all in the name of Religion.

5) Again, the religious/nonreligious status of a perpetrator is irrelevant. Pol Pot's actions were not committed to advance the cause for Atheism.
He was only interested in securing complete State control. He regarded religion to be a threat to the unity of the State. For that reason he abolished religions. It was not in the name of Atheism. Atheists, including me, would be outraged at such an attempt to quash freedom of thought and murder those fortunate enough to enjoy it. (As for Pol Pot being an Atheist, I'm not so sure. In 1935, he left Prek Sbauv to attend the École Miche, a Catholic school in Phnom Penh. I am not aware hat he ever renounced his faith.)

Therefore, the claim "We've all got blood on our hands, in terms of our philosophical heritage. Theists, atheists, everyone." is historically incorrect. Atheists aren't interested in killing off the religious people for their religious beliefs, in order to promote Atheism. This has never happened and I am confident it never will.

6) You object to my assertion that there is no marked delineation between 'hard-core' Christians and moderate ones. Your reply is that I "...have already demonstrated that know little about Christians beyond the fact that some of them are wack jobs." Any time you wish to test my knowledge about Christians, I invite you to try.

7) Here you go again: "Theists have always been part of the crusade for civil rights." I've already conceded that nobody has a monopoly on concern for human rights. Anybody can join in. But that doesn't warrant praise to Religion per se; credit goes to the individuals—strictly as individuals—who participated in this noble cause, regardless of their creed.
Do we finally see eye-to-eye on this important point?

8) We both agree that I have an issue with Religion and I admit it shows!

9) Thank you for providing clarification. Again, we agree.

10) Here, you request clarification. The right to contest or oppose Christian doctrine without fear of reprisal was not permitted by the Inquisition. Most people think the Inquisition ended hundreds and hundreds of years ago, but the Spanish Inquisition ended in 1835! Wow, that is pretty recent. But the Roman Inquisition still continues to this day! It is a department of papal government, known as the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, or CDF. Its mandate is still to promote and safeguard the Catholic faith. Thank God (ha) they don't have their military might any more.

11) Yup. I when I referred to "the Church", I was referring to one church, not all religions.
I don't know what specific case you are alluding to regarding Quakers defending Atheists. I imagine it pertains to some act of omission that was a result of their pacifist beliefs. (P.S. It's "hanged" not "hung")

12) This first remark is just plain false. Atheists don't want to "eradicate" theism. We just want freedom from it. We don't want to see "In God We Trust" in our courtrooms and on our currency, or see nativity scenes in public institutions, or have prayer in our public schools, or suffer reference to "God" in our National Anthem, etc.
I suppose it is hard for theists to imagine a world in which there is no belief-system involving a supernatural father-figure looking down over us. No life after death. No grand purpose. But, what we do have and cherish is a brief opportunity to live on this bizarre and amazing planet. Perhaps, if Atheists did have some incredible belief that was held so dear, perhaps then that we would unite to protect it against our perceived enemies. But we just don't have such a belief. That's why there aren't Atheist wars waged against Theists.
Have I made a dent?

13) Regarding Atheist values, you ask "Why can't you believe that some of us hold those same values?"
[It's 4:30 a.m. and I'm getting pooped.] Insufficient answer: Because you don't, and never will hold the same values. We have certain values such as morality. That is not a rude slam, it is a very informed answer. We can get into it later.

14) I've covered this above... anyone can participate in Science.

15) I still maintain my position here, but haven't the will to debate it at this time. (Sounds like a cop out, but I'm trying to wrap this up and hit the sack. It's not a big issue anyway.)

16) No. Any fact that threatened their religious doctrine was hardly embraced! "Oh boy! This new fact about the world not being the center of the universe is cool! That silly old Bible of mine!" Not likely.

17) Remember, I do not recognize any significant delineation between orthodox and moderate Christians. They all believe in the same important things that define them as Theists in general, and Christians in particular (e.g., God, afterlife, prayer, virgin birth, Jesus, reincarnation, saints, transubstantiation, the Holy Trinity, the Bible as the inspired word of God, etc. etc.... I could go on all night.

18) To what "call to arms" against "all of us" are you referring? I've been over this untrue idea of Atheists waging "war" against Theists repeatedly.

19) As a fellow teacher, you're automatically on my "nice list". I just decided to jump ship and go for early retirement last June. No more Principals and Administrators! Now I have all this FREE TIME to drive you nuts arguing!

20) No, no. I'm honestly not accusing every theist of being a Creationist. I take it that you do concede that these Creationists are truly guilty of "Contriving artificial facts, in a self-serving effort...". Let me ask you this: As someone associated with the Scientific Community, can you seriously imagine why anyone would even dream of refuting the Theory of Evolution, by introducing an alternative theory, that is inconsistent with numerous established facts such as the geological record, which establishes the age of the Earth, and the fossil record, which establishes the age of prehistoric dinosaurs? I don't see the Theory of Gravity under attack. Can you see that ONLY a Christian would engage in such a futile endeavor, since ONLY a Christian is in the position to feel threatened by this established theory? ONLY a Christian would feel compelled to refute it. Hence, my repeated attempts to explain why and how the conflict between Science and Religion exists.
Granted, not all religions are involved, but that is only because not all religions feel threatened. Put any other religion against the wall and they will also retaliate in order to preserve themselves. That doesn't make them stupid, it makes them close-minded, subjective and detrimental to the open-minded, objective spirit of scientific inquiry.

My final word. I feel I have stated my point of view to the best of my ability. Unless I receive concise arguments directed against this position, I propose we move on to another topic, related or otherwise. I feel I am just repeating my points over and over. Anyway, I look forward to more lively discussion whatever the topic!

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I liked that post very much, Spinks (I'm no allowed to frubal ye).

I did it for you ... and for me.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Today, to be an Atheist is is still as much about freedom of thought and expression as to deny, outright any association with Theism.

This is apologetic nonsense.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I make no delineation between hard-core "thumpers" and the less extreme followers of the Bible. This distinction is simply a matter of degree, not kind.

And this more so.

 

[Booko]

12) This first remark is just plain false. Atheists don't want to "eradicate" theism. We just want freedom from it. We don't want to see "In God We Trust" in our courtrooms and on our currency, or see nativity scenes in public institutions, or have prayer in our public schools, or suffer reference to "God" in our National Anthem, etc.

There are a number of people practicing religions who share these views with you. It isn't just athiests that are concerned about issues of separation of church and state.

I suppose it is hard for theists to imagine a world in which there is no belief-system involving a supernatural father-figure looking down over us. No life after death. No grand purpose. But, what we do have and cherish is a brief opportunity to live on this bizarre and amazing planet. Perhaps, if Atheists did have some incredible belief that was held so dear, perhaps then that we would unite to protect it against our perceived enemies. But we just don't have such a belief. That's why there aren't Atheist wars waged against Theists.

It's not at all hard for some theists to imagine such a thing, actually. The above may be a common view in some Abrahamic religions, but then there's everything else.

13) Regarding Atheist values, you ask "Why can't you believe that some of us hold those same values?"
[It's 4:30 a.m. and I'm getting pooped.] Insufficient answer: Because you don't, and never will hold the same values. We have certain values such as morality. That is not a rude slam, it is a very informed answer. We can get into it later.

It will be interesting to read when you get to it, and yes, it's much better to do so while fully awake.

20) No, no. I'm honestly not accusing every theist of being a Creationist. I take it that you do concede that these Creationists are truly guilty of "Contriving artificial facts, in a self-serving effort...". Let me ask you this: As someone associated with the Scientific Community, can you seriously imagine why anyone would even dream of refuting the Theory of Evolution, by introducing an alternative theory, that is inconsistent with numerous established facts such as the geological record, which establishes the age of the Earth, and the fossil record, which establishes the age of prehistoric dinosaurs? I don't see the Theory of Gravity under attack. Can you see that ONLY a Christian would engage in such a futile endeavor, since ONLY a Christian is in the position to feel threatened by this established theory? ONLY a Christian would feel compelled to refute it. Hence, my repeated attempts to explain why and how the conflict between Science and Religion exists.

Actually there are some literal-minded groups in other Abrahamic religions that hold similar positions. We don't hear much from them, because they don't have as big a microphone, but I've had occasion to meet a few over the years.

Fortunately, I have yet to meet anyone in my own religion that could condone such a view, as the texts are quite clear that science is not the business of religion and superstitions only hold back humanity's progress.

Granted, not all religions are involved, but that is only because not all religions feel threatened. Put any other religion against the wall and they will also retaliate in order to preserve themselves. That doesn't make them stupid, it makes them close-minded, subjective and detrimental to the open-minded, objective spirit of scientific inquiry.

I'm not sure how it would be possible for you to put my religion against the wall in such a way, Andys. If that's the case, than "any other religion" doesn't fit either.

My final word. I feel I have stated my point of view to the best of my ability. Unless I receive concise arguments directed against this position, I propose we move on to another topic, related or otherwise. I feel I am just repeating my points over and over. Anyway, I look forward to more lively discussion whatever the topic!

Lively discussion! yay!

 

[yossarian22]

Wow, if anyone ever believed in the existence of God it was this guy. He and God were like oil and water, in case you didn't know. Fortunately for humans, he convinced Adam not to heed God's command to avoid knowledge (Genesis, 2/17)! In this respect, Satin is the father of Science and free thought.

Erm, I am pretty sure Mr. Sprinkles was talking about Stalin, who killed more people under his regime then Hitler did, and not Satan.

Today, to be an Atheist is is still as much about freedom of thought and expression as to deny, outright any association with Theism.

Atheism simply means you do not believe in god(s). Freedom of thought and expression have nothing to do with Atheism in and of itself; Atheist organizations tend to support freedom of expression and thought because it was those freedoms which allowed Atheism to become more prevalent.

 

[Yerda]

Atheism simply means you do not believe in god(s). Freedom of thought and expression have nothing to do with Atheism in and of itself; Atheist organizations tend to support freedom of expression and thought because it was those freedoms which allowed Atheism to become more prevalent.

We is looking after our asses. Some of us also think it is a virtue in itself, yet so do many Christians and I've yet to meet a narrow minded Buddhist.

BTW, ye don't have to capitalise atheist.

 

[yossarian22]

We is looking after our asses. Some of us also think it is a virtue in itself, yet so do many Christians and I've yet to meet a narrow minded Buddhist.

BTW, ye don't have to capitalise atheist.

Force of habit for me really.

 

[andys]

Buddhism a religion? I would be most interested in hearing someone justify this claim.

Buddha was not a god, nor did he believe in one. Buddhists do not worship or pray to him. Nor did Buddha offer dispensations or special favors, only a body of wisdom contained in the Dhamma.

In Buddhism there is no need for priests or the like. The Buddhist monk teaches—not preaches.

In the sense that Buddhism offers teachings to help us to live a better life, yes, it has that in common with a religion. But if Buddhism is taken to imply belief in a supreme being who rules the universe and can be begged (nagged) to alter his decisions by solicitations for personal preference (prayer), it is not a religion.

Buddhism looks up to you not down to you; it treats you as an adult rather than a child; it does not demand or command. It is an intelligent philosophy. There is no bribe of a blissful afterlife or threat of dire consequences involved.

[Note: Please express replies in the form of an intelligent argument, not as a one-liner that seems so fashionable on this web site.]

 

[yossarian22]

Buddhism looks up to you not down to you; it treats you as an adult rather than a child; it does not demand or command. It is an intelligent philosophy. There is no bribe of a blissful afterlife or threat of dire consequences involved.

[Note: Please express replies in the form of an intelligent argument, not as a one-liner that seems so fashionable on this web site.]

Isn't karma a major part of Buddhism? There is the threat of dire consequences involved as if you are a bad person, you might get reincarnated as an exotic beetle. Furthermore, a Buddhist is not supposed to harm any living creature and is a vegetarian (correct me if I am wrong). Why do you think Buddhism (and Hinduism) feel that killing an animal tog et food is bad? The answer is not some deep philosophical meaning, but that the rich people who founded the religions owned all the live stock, and didn't want to have them killed to feed somebody.

 

[rojse]

I started a thread where I asked what all religions incorporated, when I first joined Religious Forums. The thread removed many of my preconceived notions about religion, including the incorporation of a God. Have a look.

http://www.religiousforums.com/foru.../50734-what-do-all-religions-have-common.html

Religions do not have to incorporate a god-figure, nor does there have to be an afterlife involved. In fact, many of the abrahamic ideas about religion are not present.

 

[Atechi]

Buddhism a religion? I would be most interested in hearing someone justify this claim.

Buddhism is a religion its a Dharmic based religion (meaning that its start was on the indian subcontient). Buddhism does have spirtual beliefs, and acceptance of supernatural, which to me establishes it as a religion, it doesn't have the abrhamic personal god, but I always saw this a bit self centered of the abrhamic beliefs.

Buddha was not a god, nor did he believe in one. Buddhists do not worship or pray to him. Nor did Buddha offer dispensations or special favors, only a body of wisdom contained in the Dhamma.

Which buddha are we talking about? Sidhartha Buddha is accepted by my most hindus as a incarnation of Vishnu (I think, but I won't swear to it being the Ninth incarnation). Budai Buddha (the fat one) was a chan monk who became part of Shinto/Tao/and of course Buddhism In fact lets get down to the nit and gritty. Buddha is a title that means "awakened" it doesn't imply or equate God, it would be closer to Prophet. Most natural buddhists (that is born to it) know of Devas of Hindu belief, and some are treated as buddhas in their own right (Ganesa and Vishnu in particular), those born outside it and born to a personalized god (like Abrhamic religions) do in fact see buddhism as an athestic religion. It is just a religion in which vernation of gods doesn't play a role. Buddha (Sidhartha Gautma) did believe in gods, was raised as a Brahmin.

In Buddhism there is no need for priests or the like. The Buddhist monk teaches—not preaches.

One of the greatest teachers I have met was a very very devot later day saint christian, was infact a bishop in the orgnaztion for a number a years. Stating that all priests preach and not teach is a bit pejoritive, similarly Buddhists are still human, they have foilbes and folloeys like us.

In the sense that Buddhism offers teachings to help us to live a better life, yes, it has that in common with a religion. But if Buddhism is taken to imply belief in a supreme being who rules the universe and can be begged (nagged) to alter his decisions by solicitations for personal preference (prayer), it is not a religion.

Yes buddhism lacks a personal god (the begging/nagging of a god). Zen Buddhism is actually pretty close to lack any resemblance to god(s) period.

Buddhism looks up to you not down to you; it treats you as an adult rather than a child; it does not demand or command. It is an intelligent philosophy. There is no bribe of a blissful afterlife or threat of dire consequences involved.

Life is suffering, to become one with the universe is suspercede suffering.
Life is hell to become one with god is to beyond hell.