Jesus was a Marxist

[mrswdk]

Why do you continually post about things you know nothing about?Of course Buddhists pray,but not to a god.Surely you cannot think the Buddha is regarded as a deity when all his life he taught he was not?
In the internet age it's so very easy to google Buddhist prayer and read all about it instead of posting nonesense like 'people go to pray to the Buddhas"(whoever they are).

I've been to Buddhist temples with my friends and colleagues and watched them pray in front of statues of the Buddhas. I asked one of my colleagues why she prayed to some but not others and she told me that different Buddhas are for different things. A long-dead Buddha that has the power to cure illness sure sounds like a deity to me.

Sorry if that doesn't tally with whatever blog or Wikipedia entry you've read but that's the reality.

[Dualta]

There are no deities in Buddhism, and the Buddha himself was just a guy, if he even existed (some Buddhists are happy to accept the possibility that he may not have). Although practices differ across different schools, 'praying' is basically the recitation of texts, which is meant to reaffirm understanding of principles. The Dalai Lama recently said that if science were to disprove any part of Buddhist beliefs then Buddhism would have to change. For many Buddhists though, the issue of rebirth and the afterlife represents a serious problem. Many believe that the Buddha's references to it were allegorical, while many others believe it to be literal. There's a great Zen story about this:

A novice Zen monk once asked his teacher to explain to him about the afterlife, but the teacher said that he knew nothing of any afterlife. "But you are a revered Zen master!" said the young monk. "Yes," replied his teacher, "but I'm not a dead one."

Buddhism has become laden with historical baggage over its 2,500 or so years, but now it is receiving a new lease of life as it makes real inroads into Europe and the USA and gets subjected to the scepticism that exists in those places. There is a vibrant discussion going on in many places about the comparisons which can be drawn between basic Buddhist concepts and scientific concepts, for example relativity and emptiness and mindfulness and clinical psychology. I have a lot of time for Buddhism, and Zen Buddhism in particular. Maybe it's my own prejudice, but I'm loathe to call it, as a set of teachings as opposed to practices, a religion. Many of the practices have taken on a religious character, but the core principles aren't religious at all.

[Ray Rider]

I find this point of view and I would strongly agree. If there is a superior being responsible of anything out there, he is way greater and powerfull than the christian god. I don't know, if we scale it on a human being the deity... ; the entire universe we live in would probably not even be the size of an electron. So thinking anything on this planet was crafted by this deity, or anything that happens on this planet is something IT actually cares of is delusional in my sense. I believe that if there is something we are way too insignificant to even imagine how big and powerful this thing is, as all our references are biaised due to the physics we depend on that make us very limited creatures.
Do I believe in afterlife? I don't know, I would just hope that we access a higher level of understanding and conscience if it's the case. Hopefully this is all like a russian doll thing and our life on earth is the smallest doll.

Sorry to interject--that reminds me of a debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox (holds a triple doctorate in science, philosophy, and mathematics):

Dawkins: Surely you can see that a God who is grand enough to make the universe is not going to give a tuppeny-cuss about what you’re thinking about and yours sins and things like that....We are one of billions of planets on a huge scale and a cosmic God who bothers about this kind of human scale is not the kind of God that is compatible with a scientific view of the universe; it’s a medieval view.
Lennox: But do you think that size is the measure of importance? Incidentally, on a logarithmic scale, you are halfway between the atom and the universe so if God thinks in terms of logarithms your point falls.

[Metsfanmax]

I find this point of view and I would strongly agree. If there is a superior being responsible of anything out there, he is way greater and powerfull than the christian god. I don't know, if we scale it on a human being the deity... ; the entire universe we live in would probably not even be the size of an electron. So thinking anything on this planet was crafted by this deity, or anything that happens on this planet is something IT actually cares of is delusional in my sense. I believe that if there is something we are way too insignificant to even imagine how big and powerful this thing is, as all our references are biaised due to the physics we depend on that make us very limited creatures.
Do I believe in afterlife? I don't know, I would just hope that we access a higher level of understanding and conscience if it's the case. Hopefully this is all like a russian doll thing and our life on earth is the smallest doll.

Sorry to interject--that reminds me of a debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox (holds a triple doctorate in science, philosophy, and mathematics):

Dawkins: Surely you can see that a God who is grand enough to make the universe is not going to give a tuppeny-cuss about what you’re thinking about and yours sins and things like that....We are one of billions of planets on a huge scale and a cosmic God who bothers about this kind of human scale is not the kind of God that is compatible with a scientific view of the universe; it’s a medieval view.
Lennox: But do you think that size is the measure of importance? Incidentally, on a logarithmic scale, you are halfway between the atom and the universe so if God thinks in terms of logarithms your point falls.

That's a very weak argument. While God, if he exists, undoubtedly thinks in terms of logarithms, Dawkins isn't making a point about the physical size of humans. He's making a point about what fraction of the universe we populate.

[betiko]

I find this point of view and I would strongly agree. If there is a superior being responsible of anything out there, he is way greater and powerfull than the christian god. I don't know, if we scale it on a human being the deity... ; the entire universe we live in would probably not even be the size of an electron. So thinking anything on this planet was crafted by this deity, or anything that happens on this planet is something IT actually cares of is delusional in my sense. I believe that if there is something we are way too insignificant to even imagine how big and powerful this thing is, as all our references are biaised due to the physics we depend on that make us very limited creatures.
Do I believe in afterlife? I don't know, I would just hope that we access a higher level of understanding and conscience if it's the case. Hopefully this is all like a russian doll thing and our life on earth is the smallest doll.

Sorry to interject--that reminds me of a debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox (holds a triple doctorate in science, philosophy, and mathematics):

Dawkins: Surely you can see that a God who is grand enough to make the universe is not going to give a tuppeny-cuss about what you’re thinking about and yours sins and things like that....We are one of billions of planets on a huge scale and a cosmic God who bothers about this kind of human scale is not the kind of God that is compatible with a scientific view of the universe; it’s a medieval view.
Lennox: But do you think that size is the measure of importance? Incidentally, on a logarithmic scale, you are halfway between the atom and the universe so if God thinks in terms of logarithms your point falls.

nope. because the scale you are talking about is way too small compared to what I'm saying. We are no way half way between the atom and the universe scalewise, we are way closer to the atom. Also, I'm putting that deity on the scale of multiple universes, the infinite amount that probably exists. Not to mention all the dimentions of the universe we currently live in and that we are not capacitated to figure.
I can't find it anymore, but there was this program where you would zoom in and out from the quark till the vastest thing we know of our universe... you can't imagine what a tiny little shit the entire system of galaxies we come from is.

[Metsfanmax]

I find this point of view and I would strongly agree. If there is a superior being responsible of anything out there, he is way greater and powerfull than the christian god. I don't know, if we scale it on a human being the deity... ; the entire universe we live in would probably not even be the size of an electron. So thinking anything on this planet was crafted by this deity, or anything that happens on this planet is something IT actually cares of is delusional in my sense. I believe that if there is something we are way too insignificant to even imagine how big and powerful this thing is, as all our references are biaised due to the physics we depend on that make us very limited creatures.
Do I believe in afterlife? I don't know, I would just hope that we access a higher level of understanding and conscience if it's the case. Hopefully this is all like a russian doll thing and our life on earth is the smallest doll.

Sorry to interject--that reminds me of a debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox (holds a triple doctorate in science, philosophy, and mathematics):

Dawkins: Surely you can see that a God who is grand enough to make the universe is not going to give a tuppeny-cuss about what you’re thinking about and yours sins and things like that....We are one of billions of planets on a huge scale and a cosmic God who bothers about this kind of human scale is not the kind of God that is compatible with a scientific view of the universe; it’s a medieval view.
Lennox: But do you think that size is the measure of importance? Incidentally, on a logarithmic scale, you are halfway between the atom and the universe so if God thinks in terms of logarithms your point falls.

nope. because the scale you are talking about is way too small compared to what I'm saying. We are no way half way between the atom and the universe scalewise, we are way closer to the atom.

An atom is about 10^-10 meters in size. A human is about one meter in size. The observable universe is about 10^27 meters in size. So while we are significantly closer to the atom than the universe in logarithmic terms (the halfway point is about the size of the Earth), he could have said "you are a quarter of the way" and his point would have been the same.

[chang50]

Why do you continually post about things you know nothing about?Of course Buddhists pray,but not to a god.Surely you cannot think the Buddha is regarded as a deity when all his life he taught he was not?
In the internet age it's so very easy to google Buddhist prayer and read all about it instead of posting nonesense like 'people go to pray to the Buddhas"(whoever they are).

I've been to Buddhist temples with my friends and colleagues and watched them pray in front of statues of the Buddhas. I asked one of my colleagues why she prayed to some but not others and she told me that different Buddhas are for different things. A long-dead Buddha that has the power to cure illness sure sounds like a deity to me.

Sorry if that doesn't tally with whatever blog or Wikipedia entry you've read but that's the reality.

So there we have it,if something sounds like a deity to you,ipso facto it's a deity,did any of these colleagues tell you the Buddhas are gods?
This is taken from a Buddhist website,'Buddhist prayer may be thought of as a focussed expression of the sentiments of yearning,commitment and appreciation.It is,however,distinguished by the fact that Buddhism locates the divine within the individual practitioner.The purpose of Buddhist prayer is to awaken our innate inner capacities of strength,RATHER THAN TO PETITION EXTERNAL FORCES'

[betiko]

I find this point of view and I would strongly agree. If there is a superior being responsible of anything out there, he is way greater and powerfull than the christian god. I don't know, if we scale it on a human being the deity... ; the entire universe we live in would probably not even be the size of an electron. So thinking anything on this planet was crafted by this deity, or anything that happens on this planet is something IT actually cares of is delusional in my sense. I believe that if there is something we are way too insignificant to even imagine how big and powerful this thing is, as all our references are biaised due to the physics we depend on that make us very limited creatures.
Do I believe in afterlife? I don't know, I would just hope that we access a higher level of understanding and conscience if it's the case. Hopefully this is all like a russian doll thing and our life on earth is the smallest doll.

Sorry to interject--that reminds me of a debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox (holds a triple doctorate in science, philosophy, and mathematics):

Dawkins: Surely you can see that a God who is grand enough to make the universe is not going to give a tuppeny-cuss about what you’re thinking about and yours sins and things like that....We are one of billions of planets on a huge scale and a cosmic God who bothers about this kind of human scale is not the kind of God that is compatible with a scientific view of the universe; it’s a medieval view.
Lennox: But do you think that size is the measure of importance? Incidentally, on a logarithmic scale, you are halfway between the atom and the universe so if God thinks in terms of logarithms your point falls.

nope. because the scale you are talking about is way too small compared to what I'm saying. We are no way half way between the atom and the universe scalewise, we are way closer to the atom.

An atom is about 10^-10 meters in size. A human is about one meter in size. The observable universe is about 10^27 meters in size. So while we are significantly closer to the atom than the universe in logarithmic terms (the halfway point is about the size of the Earth), he could have said "you are a quarter of the way" and his point would have been the same.

yes but 10^27m is the observable universe as you mention it. As the scientist you are, do you think that beyond the observable universe, with all the limitations we have, the universe ends?
A meter is about 3 feet, so no, average man is not 3 feet tall by the way!

[mrswdk]

The purpose of Buddhist prayer is to awaken our innate inner capacities of strength,RATHER THAN TO PETITION EXTERNAL FORCES'

So that's why they make monetary offerings to the Buddhas and ask for the Buddhas' help?

Come on, dude. I already said that these people pray for the health of their loved ones. What's that got to do with awakening individual inner strength?

[Dualta]

The purpose of Buddhist prayer is to awaken our innate inner capacities of strength,RATHER THAN TO PETITION EXTERNAL FORCES'

So that's why they make monetary offerings to the Buddhas and ask for the Buddhas' help?

Come on, dude. I already said that these people pray for the health of their loved ones. What's that got to do with awakening individual inner strength?

As I wrote earlier, Buddhism has become laden with cultural baggage. It's true that, in some forms of Buddhism, people pray believing that someone or something is listening and can intervene on their behalf, but it is so out of touch with basic Buddhist principles as to render their sects almost non-Buddhist. Here in Japan, much of Zen Buddhism has morphed into the national funeral business. Guys inherit family temples from their fathers and those temples are run as businesses, charging money for funeral and memorial services and rites. Zazen, the central practice of Zen, barely gets a look in. So, when talking about these things, it's important to distinguish between the theory or doctrine and the practices that have emerged from them. Whilst Buddhism certainly isn't a religion in terms of it's body of teachings, it has taken on the mantle of religion in many of its schools, something which is being increasingly challenged in the modern era.

[chang50]

The purpose of Buddhist prayer is to awaken our innate inner capacities of strength,RATHER THAN TO PETITION EXTERNAL FORCES'

So that's why they make monetary offerings to the Buddhas and ask for the Buddhas' help?

Come on, dude. I already said that these people pray for the health of their loved ones. What's that got to do with awakening individual inner strength?[/quo

I give up,you are correct I haven't got a clue about this.The Buddhas are deities...the latest one never taught all his life he was not...it is impossible to pray for help to anything but a deity..the Buddhist websites are wrong..all of your Buddhist colleagues follow Buddhist principles correctly and you have understood them perfectly...congratulations!

[mrswdk]

I would argue that the way people practice the religion in 2014 is what's important, not the scriptures written thousands of years ago. If people today believe that Buddha is a sky ghost who can cure their diseases then that is what the religion has evolved into. When discussing 21st century Buddhism it doesn't really help to keep bringing up 3rd century Buddhism.

I get what you're saying about Japan, Dualta. My ex was Japanese, and I always got the impression that Buddhism in Japan is like Christianity in much of Europe - something held on to out of cultural attachment, rather than actual belief. In cases like that, where the people aren't true adherents, that doesn't really count as religion though.

[chang50]

I would argue that the way people practice the religion in 2014 is what's important, not the scriptures written thousands of years ago. If people today believe that Buddha is a sky ghost who can cure their diseases then that is what the religion has evolved into. When discussing 21st century Buddhism it doesn't really help to keep bringing up 3rd century Buddhism.

I get what you're saying about Japan, Dualta. My ex was Japanese, and I always got the impression that Buddhism in Japan is like Christianity in much of Europe - something held on to out of cultural attachment, rather than actual belief. In cases like that, where the people aren't true adherents, that doesn't really count as religion though.

You're good,really good You should be a lawyer lol.Did you help get OJ Simpson off?
Could you bring these skills to the question of atheism and agnosticism please,I can't wait to read how you twist and turn your way around that one?

[Dualta]

Here's something on the dangers of losing the word 'god' from modern discourse, by the modern guru Osho.

[mrswdk]

I would argue that the way people practice the religion in 2014 is what's important, not the scriptures written thousands of years ago. If people today believe that Buddha is a sky ghost who can cure their diseases then that is what the religion has evolved into. When discussing 21st century Buddhism it doesn't really help to keep bringing up 3rd century Buddhism.

I get what you're saying about Japan, Dualta. My ex was Japanese, and I always got the impression that Buddhism in Japan is like Christianity in much of Europe - something held on to out of cultural attachment, rather than actual belief. In cases like that, where the people aren't true adherents, that doesn't really count as religion though.

You're good,really good You should be a lawyer lol.

I'm going to choose to take that as a compliment.

Thank you kindly, m'lord!

[Dukasaur]

I always got the impression that Buddhism in Japan is like Christianity in much of Europe - something held on to out of cultural attachment, rather than actual belief. In cases like that, where the people aren't true adherents, that doesn't really count as religion though.

Why should it not? Do you think that most people who sing "Oh Tannenbaum" really believe the dryads of the forest will awaken and bless their seed, or are just enjoying the company of their friends and neighbours and reflecting on the fact that it's good to be alive?

I think most religion, most of the time, is a purely cultural construct, and only a few deluded saps take the theological end of it literally. I'm an atheist, theologically, but I'm a good devout Catholic, culturally. I see no problem with that position, and I suspect that it's been the position of the thinking man throughout history.

Since the dawn of time religion has been the glue that has held communities together in the face of adversity, and if it needed to tell a few inspirational fairy tales about angels and saints, that's perfectly fine with me. The fact that the fairy tales are in the strictest sense a bunch of lies doesn't bother me one little bit. The important thing was that the tales gave people hope, and made them saddle up and face another day, when otherwise they might have crumpled in despair and given up.

[nietzsche]

You think you are so smart because you are an atheist? By chosing atheism you are crossing a gap too. You are just chosing the religion that it's the cool one now, science/technology/cynicism.

Are you referring to me?

To Nietzsche..

How can maintaining the default position,a lack of belief in the existence of deities,be construed as thinking you are smart.It's where every single person begins their life.The choice,if there is one,is to believe in a deity,unless you know of a newborn who has magically acquired such a belief in its mother's womb?

Althouhg I get what your point is (sort of), it doesn't strictly follow. I perceive that atheists, as they say they are atheists, are saying also "I'm so smart you know". I'm answering you what I think your question was, the second part I can't connect it to be honest, but I'm willing to answer you in that to if you elaborate.

Also, you will have to unfoe me, you are kind of old for holding grudge over a game chat that wasn't even rude.

In what sense is disbelief in the existence of anything 'smart'?Or are deities a seperate category from all other things that there is insufficient evidence for to the disbeliever?
I'll put it another way..if atheism was positively forwarding another explaination for what deities claim to explain,that would be 'smart.'But it doesn't have any explainations,its nothing more than disbelief..

I was hinting at the reasons some atheists, specially those who jump to ridicule believers in any chance they get, have for their belief. You are right in the point that you could simply have a belief (not a disbelief, but an opposite direction belief) that deities need not to exist for what there is. But you will find that most atheists try to make believers sound stupid. That is why I used the "smart" comment.

It's completely true that there are atheists that strongly hold their belief, and need not to ridicule believers in deities. This becomes more relevant because most atheists think they are atheists because they use logic while believers don't. There is some sort of confusion here: the rational mind, to use one label, is at the disposition of the will, it's not the other way around. You first believe in something, or will something, and only later you use your rational mind to find proofs or reasons for it. You even choose not to see what could be contradicting evidence.

[BigBallinStalin]

Is being a theist, of whatever degree, an indicator of one's diminished ability to consistently exercise logic and/or adhere to a scientific approach toward matters?

[Dualta]

Is being a theist, of whatever degree, an indicator of one's diminished ability to consistently exercise logic and/or adhere to a scientific approach toward matters?

To some degree, probably, but not necessarily.

[Metsfanmax]

Is being a theist, of whatever degree, an indicator of one's diminished ability to consistently exercise logic and/or adhere to a scientific approach toward matters?

Yes.

[nietzsche]

Is being a theist, of whatever degree, an indicator of one's diminished ability to consistently exercise logic and/or adhere to a scientific approach toward matters?

I'd say it depends on what value such theist gives to science. In a world in which science seems at odds with their deep beliefs, it's not rare then for a theist to have a grudge against science. There are theists however, that find science not at odds with their beliefs, such theist would not need to find science an enemy.

It's a circumstance. Science belongs to the realm of the logical mind, which has it's limitations, or definite scope if you will.

[2dimes]

Elaborate? Like writing his beliefs are very different from the most prominent "religionists" groups of his time?

I'll take this as an, "I don't know what on earth I'm talking about". The surest way of realising that someone is out of their depth is when they ramble off on tangents. Pretty much a standard religionist tactic when trying to argue for the existence of god.

So to use an analogy. You want me to believe you have extensive knowledge of a man you call Jesus. You claim he's a player which proves he rhymes, but won't acknowledge the vast differences between east and west coast?

[betiko]

It's completely true that there are atheists that strongly hold their belief, and need not to ridicule believers in deities. This becomes more relevant because most atheists think they are atheists because they use logic while believers don't. There is some sort of confusion here: the rational mind, to use one label, is at the disposition of the will, it's not the other way around. You first believe in something, or will something, and only later you use your rational mind to find proofs or reasons for it. You even choose not to see what could be contradicting evidence.

well.. any religious person will tell you that they do not use rationality but faith when it comes to their religious beliefs. Therefore, of course an atheist/agnostic will use rationality in response. If rationality is a too strong weapon against your faith and you feel outsmarted against it, deal with it.

[thegreekdog]

Is being a theist, of whatever degree, an indicator of one's diminished ability to consistently exercise logic and/or adhere to a scientific approach toward matters?

By using "consistently" and "matters" do you mean everything? Then I say yes. If you don't mean everything, then of course not. I'm a theist and I'm a pretty good tax attorney and am able to consistently exercise logic and adhere to the "scientific approach" associated with tax law. But if we're talking about areas of theology, I have a diminished capacity to exercise logic because of my particular faith.

Of all the scientists in the history of the world, how many were theists ballpark? 90%? Did they have problems consistently exercising logic and/or adhering to a scientific approach towards matters of which they studied? No.

Let me put it another way, being an atheist does not give you an advantage in any debate other than one about the existence of a god or gods.

[nietzsche]

It's completely true that there are atheists that strongly hold their belief, and need not to ridicule believers in deities. This becomes more relevant because most atheists think they are atheists because they use logic while believers don't. There is some sort of confusion here: the rational mind, to use one label, is at the disposition of the will, it's not the other way around. You first believe in something, or will something, and only later you use your rational mind to find proofs or reasons for it. You even choose not to see what could be contradicting evidence.

well.. any religious person will tell you that they do not use rationality but faith when it comes to their religious beliefs. Therefore, of course an atheist/agnostic will use rationality in response. If rationality is a too strong weapon against your faith and you feel outsmarted against it, deal with it.

You didn't get the point.