Your religious beliefs are probably wrong

[LuisDantas]

Not supposed to maybe, but it often does seem to be a factor.

That is a good thing to correct, not to give up on. Are you sure Batchelor and company (who I happen to value) are calling their ideas "Secular"?

 

[Cephus]

Unless you didn't pick your religion.

'Course then that would make everything you've said pretty much moot.

Everyone, at some point, picks their religion. A child can have it imposed on them but as an adult, you have the capacity to question your indoctrination. Indeed, I'd say you have the obligation to question your indoctrination, although most people never do.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Are you sure Batchelor and company (who I happen to value) are calling their ideas "Secular"?

Yes, they are, secular as in "non-religious". The title of Stephens first book was "Buddhism without beliefs" and his last was "Confession of a Buddhist atheist". Have another look at the website I posted, or try googling "secular Buddhism".

 

[LuisDantas]

Yes, they are, secular as in "non-religious".

Wow. What a shame.

The title of Stephens first book was "Buddhism without beliefs" and his last was "Confession of a Buddhist atheist".

I know. I quite like his approach. But I hoped he would realize that he is no less religious for being atheist and avoiding blind belief.

 

[metis]

Yes, they are, secular as in "non-religious". The title of Stephens first book was "Buddhism without beliefs" and his last was "Confession of a Buddhist atheist". Have another look at the website I posted, or try googling "secular Buddhism".

I have read both, and I agree.

BTW, I have recommended "Buddhism Without Beliefs" to many people, even in other religions, since I think the main lesson he teaches should be considered carefully. That lesson is that religions tend to evolve attachments over the centuries, plus it is quite difficult to actually know exactly what the original lessons actually were since they tend to come from second-hand and quite subjective sources.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Buddhist suttas should come with a health warning: "Reading this will change your perceptions in unpredictable ways".

That and, "Welcome to Hotel California."

 

[Ultimatum]

I've found that A = A, if I'm thinking logically. Never encountered an instance in which A =/= A

Let
x = having an opinion about pizza
xx = not having an opinion about pizza

x =/= xx
However, one can make an argument (in this case) that: x == xx
As I said, not having an opinion about something means that you have an opinion about that something.

In the case of religion:
y = having a religious belief
yy = not having a religious belief

y =/= yy
One cannot make an argument for: y = yy

 

[Rick O'Shez]

That lesson is that religions tend to evolve attachments over the centuries, plus it is quite difficult to actually know exactly what the original lessons actually were since they tend to come from second-hand and quite subjective sources.

Yes, I don't agree with everything Stephen says but his perspective is certainly thought-provoking and refreshing. Western Buddhism is still in the process of adapting, and Stephen's ideas have certainly had an effect.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I have read both, and I agree.

BTW, I have recommended "Buddhism Without Beliefs" to many people, even in other religions, since I think the main lesson he teaches should be considered carefully. That lesson is that religions tend to evolve attachments over the centuries, plus it is quite difficult to actually know exactly what the original lessons actually were since they tend to come from second-hand and quite subjective sources.

It's always prudent to keep that in mind, not to mention that's essentially what Buddhism puts forth in not only teaching such, but the actual dynamics of experiences in it's engagement.

It's easy to see the truth of it one session into another much less years into decades.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Yes, I don't agree with everything Stephen says but his perspective is certainly thought-provoking and refreshing. Western Buddhism is still in the process of adapting, and Stephen's ideas have certainly had an effect.

There's no doubt there is a flavor with western Buddhism, yet I wonder if it's more of the flow of things rather than adapting which poses the question as what adapts to what? I think teachers like Shunryu Suzuki noticed at first when he came to the US just to teach other Japanese when Americans suddenly showed up at his doorstep. What's a roshi to do? *grin* :0)

 

[Rick O'Shez]

There's no doubt there is a flavor with western Buddhism, yet I wonder if it's more of the flow of things rather than adapting which poses the question as what adapts to what? I think teachers like Shunryu Suzuki noticed at first when he came to the US just to teach other Japanese when Americans suddenly showed up at his doorstep. What's a roshi to do? *grin* :0)

Probably some Buddhist schools / approaches lend themselves more readily to a western environment. I can think of several that were specifically designed for a western audience, eg Triratna, NKT and Samatha Trust.
It's still early days though it will be interesting to see how things develop in the future.

 

[serp777]

Dang - not simply statistical analysis, but "pure statistical analysis." This isn't nonsense; it's pure nonsense.

Rather than make an argument, you'll make a joke about an adjective! Man I am defeated. I'll agree with your first statement and say it isn't nonsense.

 

[serp777]

That's probably true. None of us can be certain about anything. As far as I know, I could currently be believing in something totally false. Maybe the Christians are right. Or Muslims. Or Jews. Or Baha'is. Or another stream of Hinduism that I don't practice. Maybe none of us are right and there is nothing beyond this life but oblivion.

I guess what I'm trying to say is: what's your point?

Seriously? Most people believe that their religion is the truth. Just ask the Muslim's--they will tell you that the quran is the perfect word of God and Mohammad is his messenger. This is basically debating that the agnostic position is the most reasonable. This is the religious debate section after all. What's the point of any of these posts? What's the point of your post?

 

[serp777]

One would be on strong ground to say that no religion can be with out error.
the difficult part is drawing the point on a line between error and truth that represents any particular religion.

We always assume that religions are mutually exclusive, when that is unlikely to be the case.

A god of creation could either create every thing himself or cooperate with other gods to share the work. Though the concept of multiple gods of creatin seem both unlikely and unnecessary.

The romans believed that every place and every action had a ruling god.
A majority of religions today believe that there is a single creator god, however they take the posessive position that this is their god and no other.

It is unlikely in the extreme that every one can be even partly right, there are just too many alternatives to choose from.

I prefer to believe that there is only one creator god, but that there are many ways to serve him. All these ways will contain errors and all can be subject to improvement. All religions must accept that they are in error and seek to improve and correct their structures and beliefs. To have a meaningful future.

Right well like I said, because you sound like a deist, it is one thing to go from believing in a God who isn't involved in humanity, is is basically just an uninvolved spectator, and it requires an order of magnitude more evidence and reasoning that Mohammad rode to heaven on a winged horse, or that GOd sent his son down to be a scapegoat for the non existent sins of humanity. It seems like you mostly agree with my position.

 

[serp777]

I think if you were to approach this not saying "Your beliefs are probably wrong", and say rather "Your beliefs are probably relative", that would be accurate. That would also be accurate with your beliefs as well. To say another's beliefs are "wrong" presumes yours are "right". And that is as much a fallacy on your part as it is of those you point out logically are "wrong" in believing they're "right". In other words, you're doing the exact same thing as them. Change it to "relative", and that is much more true to the reality of things as an objective observer.

But this is a fallacy. I don't know what to believe in. I am an agnostic--to say that my beliefs, which is that I don't know, is wrong, is to say that I do know what is right but I don't know that I know. ANyways, it doesn't detract from the fact that probability tells us, given all the various religions, the chance that you picked the correct religion is incredibly low. Also I don't understand what relative beliefs are to be honest. Perhaps you can elaborate on that point.

 

[serp777]

Not having religious beliefs is having religious beliefs. (about religion). Hence probably wrong, by your own admission.

That's completely illogical. That's like calling abstinence a sex position. Something that isn't a particular thing can't be that thing obviously. Explain how not religious means religious plz.

And again, saying my agnostic position of I don't know is wrong, means that I do know, but I don't know that I know. Which is fundamentally contradictory thus showing your proposition is entirely false. Also this doesn't dispute the main point whatsoever. You're still agreeing then that your religious beliefs are probably wrong like my non religious "religious beliefs" are wrong.

 

[serp777]

Something not nearly enough people wonder; What if we haven't even been introduced(humanity as a whole that is) to the true religion yet? Or if we were, what if we destroyed all evidence of it at some point in history?

Exactly. Or what if there was a correct religion but it has been polluted by thousands of years of politics and corrupt religious leaders? It makes it extremely unlikely someone has the correct religion right now.

 

[Woodrow LI]

Given that so many different religions exist, many of which are mutually exclusive, and most claim they contain the truth of reality, the odds aren't in your favor that you picked the right religion. This is based on pure statistical analysis, and that's assuming that one religion we have is actually correct.

Most religious beliefs corresponds with geography--a religion based on truth shouldn't depend on where you're born. Islam will obviously correspond with the middle east and Christianity can be frequently found in the States.

There have also been countless religious frauds that try to take advantage of people and make money/ manipulate people with religion. Even if a religion happened to be correct at some point, its very possible that respective religion has been polluted so much over time, like telephone, that the religion doesn't even resemble anything like what it started out as. For example the original teachings of Jesus Christ vs the modern catholic faith which includes the pope and hundreds of rituals, and the various Xian sects.

Its one thing to argue that a deism God exists as a kind of philosophical entity, but its another to show that there is an intervening God who cares about what we do with our genitals and what we do with our Sundays, and wants to have an individual relationship with people. Most of the arguments given by people of faiths are all identical to each other which I find to be an amusing reflection that there aren't many good arguments beyond those for deism.

As fo religions like Buddhism and Hinduism, even though I consider Buddhism to resemble more of a philosophy, I haven't seen any convincing evidence of reincarnation or multiple Gods.

I agree with your post with the exception of: "Islam will obviously correspond with the middle east"
Ther is very little mideastern influence in Islam. the Majority of us are Asians. Only a small minority of Muslims are from the Mideast
Outside of that I agree with your post which fits in well with Islam as we are to never stop learning and to never believe anything we our self have not verified and found reason to believe.

We all are responsible for our beliefs and non-Beliefs. We will one day face the consequences of our beliefs, on earth, in the grave and or in the hereafter. Since we accept the consequences we are obligated to believe only that which we find reason to believe.

 

[StarryNightshade]

Seriously? Most people believe that their religion is the truth. Just ask the Muslim's--they will tell you that the quran is the perfect word of God and Mohammad is his messenger. This is basically debating that the agnostic position is the most reasonable. This is the religious debate section after all. What's the point of any of these posts? What's the point of your post?

Seriously. As a Hindu, I don't go around proclaiming that I'm correct or that others are wrong. The majority of Hindus don't. Some do, but not most. As such, I can admit that I could be wrong.

Maybe I'm an idealist, but I would like to think most people (regardless of their faith) just don't care.

 

[serp777]

I agree with your post with the exception of: "Islam will obviously correspond with the middle east"
Ther is very little mideastern influence in Islam. the Majority of us are Asians. Only a small minority of Muslims are from the Mideast
Outside of that I agree with your post which fits in well with Islam as we are to never stop learning and to never believe anything we our self have not verified and found reason to believe.

We all are responsible for our beliefs and non-Beliefs. We will one day face the consequences of our beliefs, on earth, in the grave and or in the hereafter. Since we accept the consequences we are obligated to believe only that which we find reason to believe.

Well i don't see any reason that my beliefs should have consequences--I do not accept the consequences of our belief. I find it incredibly unlikely that God would be so petty as to be concerned with what neural configurations were in our head. I'm willing to bet you grew up in a muslim household, or all your friends were Muslims or something.

Also a christian clone could argue the exact same thing about Christianity.

The chance of Islam being correct--that Mohammad flew to heaven on a winged horse and that he recieved the special word of God in a cave where coincidentally no one happened to be watching--is incredibly low.