Timeline for when religion will be obsolete.

[DrKrettin]

We have enough evidence at our disposal that life evolved through the mechanisms of evolutionary biology, therefore religion has no basis in reality and is in fact bullshit.

 

You are arguing that because we have an idea of how, you think it answers the question why. OK - young-earth creationists are clinically insane, but the catholic church embraces evolution and still argues that god intended it all this way. They are entitled to that belief, and you can't prove that it is bullshit. You are of course entitled to suspect it (as I do).

 

Edit: damn - cross-posted

Edited June 16, 2017 by DrKrettin

[KipIngram]

It doesn't take a genius to realize that all religion is bullshit.

 

Knowledge of evolutionary biology, mathematics and some physics is enough to know thatreligion cannot be true.

 

We have enough evidence at our disposal that life evolved through the mechanisms of evolutionary biology, therefore religion has no basis in reality and is in fact bullshit.

 

And yet, there is no way to thoroughly rule out an omnipotent deity. Such a deity could have created any universe, including the one we observe. I'm not claiming that's what happened, but you just can't be 100% sure that it's not. "Strongly likely to be right" isn't the same thing as "guaranteed to be right."

[koti]

 

And yet, there is no way to thoroughly rule out an omnipotent deity. Such a deity could have created any universe, including the one we observe. I'm not claiming that's what happened, but you just can't be 100% sure that it's not. "Strongly likely to be right" isn't the same thing as "guaranteed to be right."

Kip, you also cannot rule out an infinite number of things including an infinite number of things which are cardinal bullshit. I always found this line (and many other) of arguing towards compromise and/or respect for religion to be flawed. Frankly, the only remotely valid line of arguing a form of righteousness for any religion would be a terminally ill person sincerely needing religious support to soothe his/her pain.

As for the thread title question, I would say that it's a matter of 2-3 generations maximum for our species to be free of religion. I think theres a huge shift happening right now in the last 20 years, people are becoming sceptical all over the world and its happening very fast. I rememeber 25 years ago it was a completely different case compared to what Im observing now. Its a gradual shift but considering the time scale of our civilisation its happening very quick.

Edited June 16, 2017 by koti

[zapatos]

Kip, you also cannot rule out an infinite number of things including an infinite number of things which are cardinal bullshit. I always found this line (and many other) of arguing towards compromise and/or respect for religion to be flawed. Frankly, the only remotely valid line of arguing a form of righteousness for any religion would be a terminally ill person sincerely needing religious support to soothe his/her pain.

As for the thread title question, I would say that it's a matter of 2-3 generations maximum for our species to be free of religion. I think theres a huge shift happening right now in the last 20 years, people are becoming sceptical all over the world and its happening very fast. I rememeber 25 years ago it was a completely different case compared to what Im observing now. Its a gradual shift but considering the time scale of our civilisation its happening very quick.

 

Something tells me you are being a bit optimistic in believing that Saudi Arabia will be free of religion in 2-3 generations.

[koti]

 

Something tells me you are being a bit optimistic in believing that Saudi Arabia will be free of religion in 2-3 generations.

The first time I came to Riyadh in 2003 there were seperate offices and elevators for men and women, I havent spoken to a woman for 4 weeks I've been there. Last time I went there in 2015, I had 2 corporate girls assisting me in my training, women started to drive and I actually saw a face of a woman in the office for the first time - huge difference in just 12 years. I did get invited to public beating and hand cutting by some locals as ususal (and as usual I declined) but there seems to be a lot of progressive movement even in Riyadh. They are far from abandoning religion obviusly and you might be right that 2-3 generations will not be enough for them but sooner or later they will have no choice the direction the mentality is going in europe and the US, at least I hope that will be the case. Edited June 16, 2017 by koti

[KipIngram]

Kip, you also cannot rule out an infinite number of things including an infinite number of things which are cardinal bullshit. I always found this line (and many other) of arguing towards compromise and/or respect for religion to be flawed. Frankly, the only remotely valid line of arguing a form of righteousness for any religion would be a terminally ill person sincerely needing religious support to soothe his/her pain.

As for the thread title question, I would say that it's a matter of 2-3 generations maximum for our species to be free of religion. I think theres a huge shift happening right now in the last 20 years, people are becoming sceptical all over the world and its happening very fast. I rememeber 25 years ago it was a completely different case compared to what Im observing now. Its a gradual shift but considering the time scale of our civilisation its happening very quick.

 

I don't see any problem with the line of argument. I think it's perfectly possible to use science to argue that the chances of deities existing is 0.1%, or 0.001%, or whatever non-zero number you want to tack in there. But in a strict rigorous sense you just can't take that number to zero. I guess I'm sorry if that annoys you, but it's no less true because of that. I'm really not in disagreement with you - my own "hunch" is that deities do not exist. Like I said above (or in some other thread), if it turns out I'm wrong about that I could be in a heap of trouble come Judgement day. I try to be a decent person, but I certainly don't toe the letter of the law when it comes to scripture. But if you want to be rigorous, you should say "zero probability" unless you can make it stick, and we can't.

The first time I came to Riyadh in 2003 there were seperate offices and elevators for men and women, I havent spoken to a woman for 4 weeks I've been there. Last time I went there in 2015, I had 2 corporate girls assisting me in my training, women started to drive and I actually saw a face of a woman in the office for the first time - huge difference in just 12 years. I did get invited to public beating and hand cutting by some locals as ususal (and as usual I declined) but there seems to be a lot of progressive movement even in Riyadh. They are far from abandoning religion obviusly and you might be right that 2-3 generations will not be enough for them but sooner or later they will have no choice the direction the mentality is going in europe and the US, at least I hope that will be the case.

 

I think you're making the point that things have changed for the better - and that's good. On the other hand, I saw a pair of pictures juxtaposed once, in one of those countries over there (maybe Syria?) One of them was taken in 1970, and it showed a group of fashionably (for 1970) dressed young women chatting in the street. Very nice looking women, and dressed and groomed to make that stand out. The other was taken in the last few years, and showed a group of women on the same street (maybe the same street corner), in full Islamic "cover as much as possible" garb. The caption below said "What Progress?"

 

I guess it varies from place to place.

[koti]

 

I don't see any problem with the line of argument. I think it's perfectly possible to use science to argue that the chances of deities existing is 0.1%, or 0.001%, or whatever non-zero number you want to tack in there. But in a strict rigorous sense you just can't take that number to zero. I guess I'm sorry if that annoys you, but it's no less true because of that. I'm really not in disagreement with you - my own "hunch" is that deities do not exist. Like I said above (or in some other thread), if it turns out I'm wrong about that I could be in a heap of trouble come Judgement day. I try to be a decent person, but I certainly don't toe the letter of the law when it comes to scripture. But if you want to be rigorous, you should say "zero probability" unless you can make it stick, and we can't.

 

 

I think you're making the point that things have changed for the better - and that's good. On the other hand, I saw a pair of pictures juxtaposed once, in one of those countries over there (maybe Syria?) One of them was taken in 1970, and it showed a group of fashionably (for 1970) dressed young women chatting in the street. Very nice looking women, and dressed and groomed to make that stand out. The other was taken in the last few years, and showed a group of women on the same street (maybe the same street corner), in full Islamic "cover as much as possible" garb. The caption below said "What Progress?"

 

I guess it varies from place to place.

I'm no expert on complex probability calculations but my hunch tells me that its equally impossible to calculate the probability of the existence of a deity as it is impossible to rule out its existence. I guess what bothers me with arguing non-zero probability of the existence of deity's is what I wrote in my previus post - theres an infinite number of ridiculous things which have non-zero probability of existence yet we do not discuss any of them nor take any of them seriously.

 

The 1970's meme you saw I saw it too...I think it was Iran and it were 3 women photographed from the front walking their right side a street dressed casually and at the bottom 3 completely covered up women in black burka's. That meme represents a different case to the one Im making, Saudi Arabia is religiously the most conservative place on earth and yes, I am making a point that something is changing even there. It is not a significant change in context of making religion obsolete but I see a change in the last 20 years or so nevertheless. Riyadh (capitol of saudi) is a different ball game on its own. Its the most restrictive, weird, city I've been to. They have religious police forces called "Mutawa" which roam around and keep track of people behaving properly - no interaction between men and women in public, only families can interact in public etc. Local engineers I had in training asked me everyday to go to the shoping malls and the city with them because a foreign white guy like me would get them in anywhere. If they were in their own (5 arabic guys) they would not be let into a shopping mall. This is what Riyadh is like but as I said, even there I see a small change for the better. What is happening in europe (at least what I see) in the last 10 years is a huge boom of atheism and/or sceptisism. Im thinking that considering the fast changing geopolitical situation right now theres going to either be a 3rd world war in the next 10 years or the religious sceptisism will progress further and eventually take over in 2,3 generations. IMO the question should be will we be able to progress with pushing religion off its pedestal to eventually becoming obsolete before all hell breaks loose.

Edited June 17, 2017 by koti

[Handy andy]

Some of the above posts sadly demonstrate why religion will continue into the foreseeable. On this forum there are supposedly intelligent people who would demand scientific proof for everything, and then they believe in the omnipotent great god teapot flying around the sun and supposedly indoctrinate their children into the same belief system.

 

 

Catholicism for one fully embraces evolutionary biology, mathematics, and physics. So I guess you are wrong about them.

 

I don't wish to put the shoe in:

 

Due to religious education the light at the end of the tunnel has been repeatedly turned off over the millenia.

 

See crusades, genocide in the name of religious belief, and more recently in Europe Bosnia.

 

I wonder if you believe in a god?

 

If you are Catholic, the current Pope is a Jesuit. The Jesuits are taught the Pope speaks for God on earth and over rules the fictional Jesus and Moses or anything wrote about them in the bible.

 

Do you believe the pope speaks for a god on earth?

 

The science of torture has gone on for millennia, crucifiction was banned in the Roman empire circa 326Ad in respect of Christianity, it was replaced with pouring molten lead down the throat instead.

 

Roman Catholicism is a wonderful tax free religion, and is directly responsible for many atrocities world wide over millennia.

Edited June 18, 2017 by Handy andy

[KipIngram]

I've said often in this and similar threads that it is wrong to blame all members of a religion for the misbehavior of a few, and I stand by that. However, in response to your last post, Handy andy, I do have to say that if you're talking about a formal organization like the Roman Catholic Church, then the fact that the organization does a lot of good does not excuse those running it from responsibility for their wicked deeds. To whatever extent the sitting authorities of the church have directed the machinery of the organization to do bad things, they should be held responsible.

 

However, "millennia" are not relevant - no one involved with the organization today was around more than a few decades ago. History is done and behind us - it's no more appropriate to hold today's Church leaders responsible for atrocities committed during the Crusades than it is to hold you or me responsible for the fact that our great-great-great-great grandparents perhaps owned slaves.

 

I don't really trust big religion (I don't really trust "big" anything - religion, government, business, whatever). But before you take aim at someone you really need to show that that person committed the wrong you're complaining about.

[koti]

I've said often in this and similar threads that it is wrong to blame all members of a religion for the misbehavior of a few, and I stand by that. However, in response to your last post, Handy andy, I do have to say that if you're talking about a formal organization like the Roman Catholic Church, then the fact that the organization does a lot of good does not excuse those running it from responsibility for their wicked deeds. To whatever extent the sitting authorities of the church have directed the machinery of the organization to do bad things, they should be held responsible.

 

However, "millennia" are not relevant - no one involved with the organization today was around more than a few decades ago. History is done and behind us - it's no more appropriate to hold today's Church leaders responsible for atrocities committed during the Crusades than it is to hold you or me responsible for the fact that our great-great-great-great grandparents perhaps owned slaves.

 

I don't really trust big religion (I don't really trust "big" anything - religion, government, business, whatever). But before you take aim at someone you really need to show that that person committed the wrong you're complaining about.

I envy your capability of a balanced, calm analysis concerning these things. No matter how hard I try, I just can't force myself into this kind of liberal aproach towards religions.

[zapatos]

The Jesuits are taught the Pope speaks for God on earth and over rules the fictional Jesus and Moses or anything wrote about them in the bible.

No, they are not taught the Pope speaks for God on earth, nor that he over rules Jesus.

If you are going to criticize the religion, at least try to understand the basics, otherwise you'll simply be dismissed as a religious bigot.

[Prometheus]

Some of the above posts sadly demonstrate why religion will continue into the foreseeable. On this forum there are supposedly intelligent people who would demand scientific proof for everything, and then they believe in the omnipotent great god teapot flying around the sun and supposedly indoctrinate their children into the same belief system.

 

I don't think any theists have contributed to this thread, and i'm perhaps the only one who identifies as religious (Jedi, according to my answer to the last census). But whether one is religious or not doesn't matter, just the points made. Which of the arguments put forward here make you despair for humanity? Nobody had suggested religion will never be obsolete because God exists have they?

[Handy andy]

No, they are not taught the Pope speaks for God on earth, nor that he over rules Jesus.

If you are going to criticize the religion, at least try to understand the basics, otherwise you'll simply be dismissed as a religious bigot.

 

It seems I may have put my zapato in my mouth. Apologies for suspecting you support Jesuitism.

 

Ref the Jesuits: You don't have to dig deep to find all sorts of stories about their involvement in politics, and conspiracies whereby they have been expelled from countries worldwide.

 

I would therefore refute your idea that I am bigoted or intolerant of ideas differing from my own.

 

The conspiracy theories could all be hokum, but they do exist and are widely known about, I did not make them up.

 

https://www.worldslastchance.com/end-time-prophecy/10-facts-you-must-know-about-the-jesuits.html

 

This is one of their oaths I cant lay my hands on the one I was referencing

http://www.reformation.org/jesuit-oath.html

 

I don't think any theists have contributed to this thread, and i'm perhaps the only one who identifies as religious (Jedi, according to my answer to the last census). But whether one is religious or not doesn't matter, just the points made. Which of the arguments put forward here make you despair for humanity? Nobody had suggested religion will never be obsolete because God exists have they?

 

Whilst you claim a religious identity, you simply use some of the Buddhist ideas in your life. Many religious people who believe in gods and after lives would say that you are not religious because you do not believe in a god or afterlife. Jedi nights believe in the force, do you believe in the force also Joking. I don't despair for humanity, the only thing I wrote that could give you that ideas is I used the word sadly, which is not despair. I am sad that people think that religion that destroys peoples lives is not a bad thing to teach children. In Catholicism divorce isn't allowed, if a spouse is being mistreated by a partner is it not better to separate, what benefit can there be for children to see their mothers beaten up.

 

Regarding despair, the world seems to becoming more polarized both politically and religiously, and I suspect it isn't going to turn out well. Mr Trumps latest exploit in Cuba is just an example. Not being an American he appears to be a nutter.

Edited June 19, 2017 by Handy andy

[Prometheus]

Whilst you claim a religious identity, you simply use some of the Buddhist ideas in your life....

 

 

What else do you think being Buddhist entails?

 

It also makes my life a little easier. Few people i meet understand why a white male doesn't drink, and everyone thinks they will be the one to drag me off the wagon. Failure is met by questioning why. Not enjoying it is apparently not an acceptable answer so i say i'm Buddhist, and apparently that explains it to their satisfaction.

 

But we need a thread on the definition of religion and what constitutes a religious person to explore further.

 

 

I am sad that people think that religion that destroys peoples lives is not a bad thing to teach children. In Catholicism divorce isn't allowed, if a spouse is being mistreated by a partner is it not better to separate, what benefit can there be for children to see their mothers beaten up.

 

Regarding despair, the world seems to becoming more polarized both politically and religiously, and I suspect it isn't going to turn out well. Mr Trumps latest exploit in Cuba is just an example. Not being an American he appears to be a nutter.

 

It's the treatment of religion as one homogeneous entity that i'm arguing against. I fully acknowledge the ugly aspects of various religions. It's just some people do not acknowledge any positive aspects. I would say that such a treatment is actually exacerbating the polarisation you lament, not improving it. It's just an 'us vs them' mentality because, well, you know, religious people are so stoopid and atheists are just intellectually better.

Edited June 19, 2017 by Prometheus

[Handy andy]

 

 

What else do you think being Buddhist entails?

 

It also makes my life a little easier. Few people i meet understand why a white male doesn't drink, and everyone thinks they will be the one to drag me off the wagon. Failure is met by questioning why. Not enjoying it is apparently not an acceptable answer so i say i'm Buddhist, and apparently that explains it to their satisfaction.

 

But we need a thread on the definition of religion and what constitutes a religious person to explore further.

 

 

 

It's the treatment of religion as one homogeneous entity that i'm arguing against. I fully acknowledge the ugly aspects of various religions. It's just some people do not acknowledge any positive aspects. I would say that such a treatment is actually exacerbating the polarisation you lament, not improving it. It's just an 'us vs them' mentality because, well, you know, religious people are so stoopid and atheists are just intellectually better.

 

As a religious person who does not believe in god or an afterlife, what are you looking for.? Psychic abilities what?

 

Buddhism believes in an afterlife in the form of reincarnation until enlightenment. What is enlightenment for you?

 

You appear lost in the wilderness, and looking for a direction or meaning to life.

Direction is achieved by interest, opportunity, and motivation. You have an interest in Buddhism, how did you get interested in that?

 

Religious or Atheist, makes no difference to a persons intelligence, what makes you think that. Genetics, upbringing, social environment, and opportunity are major factors in people being allowed to advance amongst many others. Many religious people are atheists it seems.

 

I suspect0 Religious people take the line of least resistance and can be herded like sheep, whilst atheists are generally not easily led, and are anarchistic in there views, wolves in sheeps clothing ..

 

As for a meaning to life or some hierarchy in the animal kingdom, why does anyone need one. We were born we will die, just like everything else on the planet. In the middle you have a life to live, why not get on with it. As you indicated earlier what we do in life ripples through into the future. Mindfulness of your actions, and how you behave towards others, is normal human behaviour, religion is not required for this.

 

As for an afterlife, given a few millennia all your molecules will be recycled reborn ie they will re-enter the food chain, and work their way back through..

 

The thread was about when would belief in god become obsolete, Rather than highlighting all religion, should we narrow down to religious groups who believe in a god, or narrow it down even further to what definition of a god should become obsolete.

There are numerous options to choose from.

God as a person, Jesus, accepted by some Christian groups. rejected by Islam.

God of the old testament, comes down in flying saucer.

God in everything, or God Particle

Hinduism take your pick

 

Who is the wanker that keeps marking me down -1 .

 

I will please who ever it is and stop posting.

Edited June 20, 2017 by Handy andy

[dimreepr]

 

As a religious person who does not believe in god or an afterlife, what are you looking for.? Psychic abilities what?

 

Why not peace and tranquility?

 

whilst atheists are generally not easily led, and are anarchistic in there views

 

 

Have propagandists have been wasting their time?

[Prometheus]

As a religious person who does not believe in god or an afterlife, what are you looking for.? Psychic abilities what?

 

No, not psychic abilities.

 

I think people here would agree that there is no permanent self, no soul, no ghost in the machine, but still experience life as though they are a homunculus sitting behind the eyes. It is one thing to have an intellectual understanding that this is an illusion, quite another to feel it. Buddhism provides a means to feel this.

 

 

Buddhism believes in an afterlife in the form of reincarnation until enlightenment. What is enlightenment for you?

 

Like i said before, Buddhism teaches rebirth not reincarnation.

 

Enlightenment, or Nirvana, is a state of mind.

 

 

Religious or Atheist, makes no difference to a persons intelligence, what makes you think that. Genetics, upbringing, social environment, and opportunity are major factors in people being allowed to advance amongst many others. Many religious people are atheists it seems.

 

I agree. It has been implied (perhaps on similar threads) that atheists are intellectually superior to religious people. Forgive me if i have falsely accused you of this.

 

 

I suspect0 Religious people take the line of least resistance and can be herded like sheep, whilst atheists are generally not easily led, and are anarchistic in there views, wolves in sheeps clothing ..

 

I agree: religious people are often so because of inertia, while atheists have usually had to rebel against a majority view. This will change as atheism spreads: people will not believe simply because of the influence of people around them.

 

 

As for a meaning to life or some hierarchy in the animal kingdom, why does anyone need one. We were born we will die, just like everything else on the planet. In the middle you have a life to live, why not get on with it. As you indicated earlier what we do in life ripples through into the future. Mindfulness of your actions, and how you behave towards others, is normal human behaviour, religion is not required for this.

 

Humans seek meaning. We know the world through our brains which, amongst other things, is an organ of meaning. It is as natural for the brain to think as the heart to beat.

 

 

 

I don't need to study past mathematics: i could just start from scratch and maybe i'll figure out Pythagoras's Theorem by the time i die. Or i could study known maths and perhaps contribute something new.

 

Similarly, i could seek meaning from scratch. Or i could take the various insights gleaned through the centuries, some of which are bound in religious narratives. Buddhism provides me with a nice framework from which to explore my existence: i could do without it, but since it's there and i've found it useful i may as well use it.

 

 

 

The thread was about when would belief in god become obsolete, Rather than highlighting all religion, should we narrow down to religious groups who believe in a god, or narrow it down even further to what definition of a god should become obsolete.

 

We could do, i think it's only me arguing otherwise. See, religious people can rebel too.

[koti]

+1 Prometheus. It was a pleasure to read what you wrote.

 

I was about to write a sarcastic note that I'm worried about you being a non-drinker but I decided to let go as it might be taken the wrong way

[Handy andy]

That none drinking thing is a worry.

 

I guess if you choose not to piss your money up against a wall, it is bonus and maybe it is something with increasing taxation that every one will stop doing. Like smoking. What pleasure activity will the government tax next.

[Handy andy]

 

 

No, not psychic abilities.

 

I think people here would agree that there is no permanent self, no soul, no ghost in the machine, but still experience life as though they are a homunculus sitting behind the eyes. It is one thing to have an intellectual understanding that this is an illusion, quite another to feel it. Buddhism provides a means to feel this.

 

 

 

Like i said before, Buddhism teaches rebirth not reincarnation.

 

Enlightenment, or Nirvana, is a state of mind.

 

 

 

I agree. It has been implied (perhaps on similar threads) that atheists are intellectually superior to religious people. Forgive me if i have falsely accused you of this.

 

 

 

I agree: religious people are often so because of inertia, while atheists have usually had to rebel against a majority view. This will change as atheism spreads: people will not believe simply because of the influence of people around them.

 

 

 

Humans seek meaning. We know the world through our brains which, amongst other things, is an organ of meaning. It is as natural for the brain to think as the heart to beat.

 

 

 

I don't need to study past mathematics: i could just start from scratch and maybe i'll figure out Pythagoras's Theorem by the time i die. Or i could study known maths and perhaps contribute something new.

 

Similarly, i could seek meaning from scratch. Or i could take the various insights gleaned through the centuries, some of which are bound in religious narratives. Buddhism provides me with a nice framework from which to explore my existence: i could do without it, but since it's there and i've found it useful i may as well use it.

 

 

 

 

We could do, i think it's only me arguing otherwise. See, religious people can rebel too.

 

I rarely trust someone who doesn't drink without checking out what they say.

 

 

Buddhism in its original form was not a religion, however different forms of Buddhism have evolved.

Are Bodhisattvas not a Buddhist belief in reincarnation.? " In Buddhism, one karmic choice results in rebirth after rebirth and presents a special case in the study of reincarnation. A bodhisattva is an enlightened being who takes a vow to delay existence in Nirvana until all beings are enlightened. This is the highest expression of Buddhist compassion and an exception to the general process of death and rebirth. The great Tibetan tulkus are bodhisattvas, reincarnate lamas who return to continue teaching others the Buddhist truths. Guan Yin is a revered bodhisattva in many Buddhist cultures, worshiped as the goddess of compassion. Buddhists who are still working toward enlightenment may take bodhisattva vows to ensure that once they reach a permanent state of bliss, they don't remain there but are reborn endlessly to help everyone become a buddha, or realized being." Is following a contradiction to the above? " Buddhists do not believe there is a "thing," self or personality who goes through life, death and rebirth into another body. Buddhist reincarnation can be understood as consciousness, the creative principle, manifesting endlessly in new forms. A life is considered to be like a wave in the ocean. It appears to have form and then it is gone, vanished back into the sea. Meanwhile, the vast ocean exists, containing all waves, all water, with new waves continually arising and subsiding.

"

 

The above paragraph describes karma, action and effect, good or bad actions ripple through time like waves, like you mentioned previously.

To me this sounds like the quantum world.

 

The following implies that Buddhism has a belief in something after death even if it is not a unique self. I understand this to mean a oneness with the universe, or what was you carries on rippling into the future.

 

"

Consciousness is energy, and all energy is one connected field, like drops of water in the ocean.

 

Nirvana is simply the state of consciousness in which attachment and craving have been released and the bliss of perfect freedom is experienced.

 

A blameless life earns rebirth into a more highly-evolved consciousness, a step closer to Nirvana or enlightenment.

"

 

What do you understand Nervana to be under Buddhism?

 

Sorry about the font changes something went wrong with the cut and paste, which came from this link http://peopleof.oureverydaylife.com/describe-hindu-buddhist-belief-reincarnation-5574.html if any one is interested.

 

 

Which form of Buddhism do you follow Theravada, Mahatayama Tibetan Zen etc or do you like many people have your own ideas.

[Prometheus]

Buddhism in its original form was not a religion, however different forms of Buddhism have evolved.

 

Depends how we define religion, particularly whether theism is integral to it.

 

 

To me this sounds like the quantum world.

 

It's just an analogy, don't stretch it too far or you'll end up as confused as Deepak Chopra.

 

 

The following implies that Buddhism has a belief in something after death even if it is not a unique self. I understand this to mean a oneness with the universe, or what was you carries on rippling into the future.

 

 

Let's say that life, and even consciousness, is simply some pattern arising from a particular configuration of matter. Death then would be the cessation of such a pattern. But the patterns don't exist in isolation, they arose from preceding conditions, they dance with other patterns never remaining exactly the same from one moment to the next. And even after a pattern has gone it's echoes linger.

 

It is most common in Buddhism to interpret these echoes as ones karma which goes on to form a new consciousness. I don't understand this particular teaching, it's almost as is Buddhism teaches the illusory nature of an absolute self in life, but the primacy of self in death. To my mind, the ripples i have caused may go on to form a conscious pattern in the future, but that pattern is not me.

 

 

What do you understand Nervana to be under Buddhism?

 

The second quote sums it quite well for me. I'd just say that bliss isn't some rapturous ecstasy, it's more ordinary. After enlightenment, the laundry.

 

 

 

Which form of Buddhism do you follow Theravada, Mahatayama Tibetan Zen etc or do you like many people have your own ideas.

 

 

Zen. They have the most comfortable meditation cushions. I'd go to a Thai Forest temple of there were one close to me.

[Handy andy]

I do not think it would be overwhelmingly hard to take a few Buddhist teachings align them with scientific theories such as the various quantum theories, modern social practices and thinking techniques and you would have a new age (way of life) based on what is known or understood to be true today. Add a bit of paranormal to keep the peasants happen and you have a religion.

 

I saw 100's of temples in Asia and I never saw anything like a comfortable place to rest, for anything like a long period of time.

 

If anyone wants to go to Thailand get on an aeroplane, maybe pay for a first night in a hotel, then wing it with the locals, using hostels motorcycles and buses, you can get around for virtually nothing, it is an excellent country to tour, and culturally very interesting.

Khampeng phet amongst others is interesting old temple to look at.

 

If you get lost in Thailand the sign posts are no use they are written in pictures Thai text. Plenty folk speak English till you learn a bit of Thai.

[seriously disabled]

Religion is already obsolete in my opinion because there is no scientific evidence that any religion has any basis in reality.

 

In my opinion the way religious people are thinking can be dangerous because they always want to harmonize and even justify the existence of so much evil and suffering on this planet with the existence of a loving and omnipotent God and this is in my opinion is dangerous thinking. Also when you think like that you do that at the cost of nullifying all morality because every action that God does can somehow be justified, even if that action is morally wrong in the human sense, like child or animal sacrifice for example.

 

Irrational thinking like this can turn out to be dangerous and even deadly because if God allows pain, disease and natural disasters to exist then he cannot be all-powerful and also loving and good in the human sense of these words.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil

 

I especially liked the arguments against the existence of God made in the following Wikipedia page:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_of_God#Arguments_against_the_existence_of_God

Edited June 24, 2017 by seriously disabled

[dimreepr]

Religion is already obsolete in my opinion because there is no scientific evidence that any religion has any basis in reality.

 

That's a non-sequitur and plainly false.

In my opinion the way religious people are thinking can be dangerous because they always want to harmonize and even justify the existence of so much evil and suffering on this planet with the existence of a loving and omnipotent God and this is in my opinion is dangerous thinking. Also when you think like that you do that at the cost of nullifying all morality.

 

IMO you're an idiot; the, ever so vast, majority of them are trying to be peaceful and treat others as they would be treated.

Irrational thinking like this can turn out to be dangerous and even deadly because if God allows pain, disease and natural disasters to exist then he cannot be all-powerful and also loving and good in the human sense of these words.

 

LOL, Ditto...

Edited June 24, 2017 by dimreepr