The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Religion, reality, belief > Comments

Religion, reality, belief : Comments

By Ian Nance, published 13/3/2014

'I am the master of my fate: I am the captain of my soul.'

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All
Amen.
Posted by lockhartlofty, Thursday, 13 March 2014 9:05:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Isn't the concept of a soul tied to religion ? And I'd definitely classify Buddhism as a religion - I don't think you can cherry pick just because Buddhism is appealing.
Posted by Candide, Thursday, 13 March 2014 10:47:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'Karl Marx held that: "Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people". '

Yep Karl Marx whose dogmas have led to more death than few others twists the truth. The denier of ones Maker and the foolish notion that one won't face judgement is actually the 'opium of the people'. Anyone who embraces denial of the corrupt nature of man just shows they want to be deceived. The psalmist sums it up when he writes that a fool says in their heart that their is no god. This article confirms that fact.
Posted by runner, Thursday, 13 March 2014 11:12:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Isn't the concept of a soul tied to religion ?
Candide,
No, it's tied to superstition & stupidity. A soul is tied to integrity. So, no integrity, no soul, no sense.
Posted by individual, Thursday, 13 March 2014 12:03:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
In some sense a nice enough essay, but the question still remains as to what we are as human beings in Truth and Reality, and what is our individual and collective potential too. Are we really the masters of our own fate and captains of or own souls?
Please check out:
http://www.consciousnessitself.org
http://sacredcamelgardens.com/wordpress/the-unique-potential-of-man
Plus this Buddhist understanding of the nature of Reality as an indefinable realm.
http://www.adidam.org/teaching/gnosticon/spirit-of-buddhism
By contrast we Westerners in particular, presume, or have been heavily propagandized into believing that there is a very solid objective world "out there". ALL of Western philosophy and religion begins with such an uninspected premise/presumption.
Posted by Daffy Duck, Thursday, 13 March 2014 12:13:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"God save the Queen" why should this woman be singled out to be saved, after all she is only another woman, and a very wealthy one at that, human beings seem to want somebody or something to look up to whether it be the Queen or a non existence God, the point of it all is that we all are only human beings with nothing to prove our existence as any thing else, so why the glorification of a Pope, Queen, etc when their body attachments are completely the same as any one else, these people for some reason seem to think they are the chosen by a non existent God to rule over the masses, and unfortunately the masses seem to bow down to these people in awe, we are strange.
Posted by Ojnab, Thursday, 13 March 2014 1:21:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Ian - and you are right that much wrong has and is still done in the name of religion.
However it may well be that there actually is more to our lives and what we can see of the universe. If there was more such as a loving being who started everything it would actually explain quite a bit. For example how we are complex enough to be having this conversation - as of last month worlds biggest supercomputers still take 24 hrs to emulate 10sec of brain activity (and we can reproduce ourselves with such little effort!). I'm not an intelligent design fan - but am a qualified vet also interested in physics.
A good listen is:
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/latenightlive/life-after-death/4704348
a fascinating discussion - many hundreds of thousands of cases now known of persons from all cultures report very similar happenings - eg met by a loving being etc etc. The highly qualified emergency specialist explains why it can't just be artefact of brain shutting down / low O2 etc.
Could it be the religious are the brave ones trying to connect with a larger reality in order to share love (which they maintain is the reason for existence)? (I know many religious people share prejudice instead). Cheers Rob
Posted by neprob, Thursday, 13 March 2014 2:39:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Freedom from religion" entails freedom from life, freedom from the journey back home to recover one's true divine identity - it would mean being stranded in this world, suffering it for eternity with no relief.

The author has no idea what he's babbling about and asking for. Whatever looks bad, such as authoritarianism and indoctrination, he calls 'religion' while whatever looks good, such as morality and Buddhism, he exempts as 'spirituality'.

He wrongly states that "The basis of most religions is the desire to achieve good outcomes in life" - What a nonsense: that's the basis of ordinary living - the basis of religion is to come closer to and ultimately attain God.

No wonder he is subsequently confused about the meaning of 'good'.
A clear definition of 'good' can be found in Psalm 92:

IT IS GOOD TO GIVE THANKS TO THE LORD, TO MAKE MUSIC TO YOUR NAME, O MOST HIGH.

And in the words of Jesus, "No one is good - except God alone".

You don't need to believe in anything or belong to any organisation: so long as there is any goodness in you, there is your religion, there is the spark of God that ultimately brings you back home. However small it may be, no one is without it, no one is completely without religion and without hope.

Writing articles like this will not produce the best karma for you, Ian.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Thursday, 13 March 2014 3:12:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
When all the religious people on OLO can tell me who was God's father, Grandfather and so on back, when all things have to have a beginning somewhere regardless of where it is, not sort of start with "I am God" out of nowhere, then I will start to beleive all this complete rubbish about a God that is existent. remember he had to come from somewhere,in conclusion God is only a figament of the imagination created for the benefit of those who do not want to lose their enjoyment they have here, remember before you came you new nothing and likewise after you go.
Posted by Ojnab, Thursday, 13 March 2014 3:54:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Ojnab,

<<When all the religious people on OLO can tell me>>

I'll do my best, although I'm not bad enough for the author to recognise me as eligible to answer your questions.

Yes, all things have a beginning. However, God is not a thing.

(for that reason, He cannot also be a figment of imagination: a figment of imagination is still a thing, it even has a beginning!)

Please relax: nobody is asking you to believe that God exists.
Firstly, it's a logical contradiction.
Secondly, believing that God exists is a specific religious technique that suits certain people within the wider context of their religion - if you don't have such a context to begin with, then it would be as useless for you as taking the Eucharist for example or bowing down towards Mecca.

It's a question of memory rather than knowledge: you remember nothing from before you came because you had no brain to store memories in and similarly you will remember nothing of this life after you go because again you will lose this brain you currently have. In fact you don't even remember your experience(s) while you are in deep sleep - What's the big deal about it?
Posted by Yuyutsu, Thursday, 13 March 2014 5:04:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Can I make a suggestion ? Let's keep the senselessnes & stupidity of religion away from sensible discussion ? It is pointless & a no-win situation to argue with religious people.
Posted by individual, Thursday, 13 March 2014 5:41:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Individual,

<<It is pointless & a no-win situation to argue with religious people.>>

So it is alright to smear religious people, as the author has just done, but it is not alright for them to try clearing their name over these pages?
Posted by Yuyutsu, Thursday, 13 March 2014 5:46:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yuyitzu tell me how do you know that God is not a thing, do you have knowledge we Atheists know nothing about, glad he has communicated with you, prove he is not a thing or anything else, unfortunately you will not be able to do that, you may think you can, but believe me you can't.
Posted by Ojnab, Thursday, 13 March 2014 6:07:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
but it is not alright for them to try clearing their name over these pages?
Yuyutsu,
How can pointing out a fact be smear ? Trying to clear their name ? How can you be so low as to expect sane people to tolerate the hypocrisy that is religion ? I have no problem with people having some form of belief in whatsoever but to shove the hypocrisy of religion down our throats after milennia of proof of its hypocrisy is nothing short of hypocritical.
Posted by individual, Thursday, 13 March 2014 6:15:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
>>Let's keep the senselessnes & stupidity of religion away from sensible discussion<<

I agree, with the proviso: let's keep the senselessness & stupidity of articles like this about religion away from sensible discussion.

On the other hand the article provides an insight into the author’s troubled soul, since he obviously had a negative experience with something that made him make such sweeping statement about what he understands as being religion.
Posted by George, Thursday, 13 March 2014 8:42:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There is a common attitude of patronising in this author’s articles. He seems to see himself as a guru needing to enlighten the masses. Whilst religion may be rightly described as the opium of the masses so too can be the need to show off one’s intellectual muscles be seen as an opium. It is one thing to have opinions it is another to present them with an arrogance that places you outside of the normal human condition.

What is the point of his telling us that religion is for all intents and purposes ineffectual? If it is then there is no need to waste time and three pages telling us so. Move on to something else. Or is the real aim to impress his audience with his erudition and cleverness of intellect? Why do these writers get a hearing when they have absolutely nothing to offer but to state the obvious? Is OLO so bereft of contributors that it needs to publish what amounts to three pages of personal propaganda?
Posted by phanto, Thursday, 13 March 2014 10:15:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Ojnab,

Since we both agree that God does not exist, I presume you would agree that He is not a thing. Why then should I waste my limited word-quota on refuting something which we both agree is false anyway?

Dear Individual,

<<How can pointing out a fact be smear?>>

I am a religious person - Are you not then accusing me for a fact of hypocrisy and of shoving anything down your throat, something I've never done, for millennia at that while I haven't yet lived here for even one century?

You are claiming that religion, the centrepiece of my life, is hypocrisy, whatever that should make of me, then deny me the right to defend myself, how wonderful!

Religious people don't shove things down other people's throats. One of the reasons for that is that violence is the primary impediment to religious progress while deception is the second. Another reason is that shoving things down people's throats simply does not bring one any closer to God - neither the shover, nor the throat-owner.

Whatever people shoved things down your throat, if indeed that happened, must have therefore been hypocrite impostors, falsely claiming to be religious.

<<I have no problem with people having some form of belief in whatsoever>>

But I do. I have a problem with people who believe that religion is hypocrisy.

---

Sorry my message quota is over now. I will not be able to defend myself further for a while on this topic. I may be able to squeeze a short message or two tomorrow afternoon, though I expect to be very busy. Otherwise I'll answer all accusations on Sunday, if you still have any.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Thursday, 13 March 2014 11:11:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I liked most of the contents of this article, with the exception of the author's obvious affinity with Buddhism.
Buddhism is another religion, because it appears to worship statues of strange rotund men. If that isn't a religion, I would like to know what is!

When I have actual proof of the existence of one or other of the popular Gods of the day, I will believe in religion along with all the others.

When I say proof, I mean actually seeing (hearing?) these beings.
Surely, if they are meant to have 'created' this world, and everything on and around it, he/she/it would allow at least one of us a peek?

Some people seem to believe in the ancient writings of some guys who lived so many thousands of years ago that no one can ever 'prove' that what they wrote was in any way the truth?

"Faith" doesn't do it for me at all.
And here's the thing, for all this atheism, I am told I am not a bad person.
And I have met some truly evil people who profess to 'love' their God.

Amazing really...
Posted by Suseonline, Friday, 14 March 2014 1:15:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Faith, Suze, is conviction without evidence -- sometimes in the face of contrary evidence. In some quarters, faith is perceived as a virtue, but not among reasoning people.
Posted by JKUU, Friday, 14 March 2014 2:55:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yuyutsu,
What has being religious got to do with believing in a supernatural power ? Having some sort of faith is totally disconnected from being religious. Faith is not controlling, religion is the utmost controller. Why ? because it exploits superstition to its fullest with God being the least considered factor. Why do you think most canniving people are the ones you see walking in/out of churches ? They deceive those around them for personal gain, nothing else.
Look at your average priest. He goes through a cosy existence without having to worry about accommodation, a job, a responsibility to others etc. by pretending they do all of the afore-mentioned. That's hypocritical.
Posted by individual, Friday, 14 March 2014 4:09:33 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Here we have someone promoting critical thinking and questioning, yet the author’s uncritical acceptance of poor arguments against belief is proof enough that he is not the critical thinker he’d apparently like us all to be. The author mockingly talks about Gullibility and God, but after reading his article one has to be thinking of Naivety and Non Belief.

Our increasing understanding of cause and effect within nature tells us absolutely nothing about why nature exists in the first place. There may be an acceptable natural answer to this issue, but the author doesn’t even consider the question, much less offer a response. Here he just assumes that naturalistic explanations somehow make God or religious belief obsolete.

Comparison between Santa Claus and belief in God, properly understood, is absolutely absurd yet the author implicitly shows appreciation for the analogy. Consider this: it’s very easy to disprove the existence of Santa Claus- simply stay up all night in your lounge room on Christmas Eve and wait for him to appear. But God, if he exists, is not a being within the universe like Santa Claus but rather is the ground of all being, and the transcendent reason why anything at all exists. So firstly, Santa Claus is easily disproven and as such, you cannot even seriously imply they are on the same epistemic footing. And secondly, they are not even things in the same category.

[To be Continued...]
Posted by Trav, Friday, 14 March 2014 12:13:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The author says that “History has seen an immense number of harmful actions taken as a result of religious beliefs”, yet he provides no reason for us to think that religion is somehow to blame for actions done by religious believers. The interesting issue here can be seen from the key words “as a result”. There’s a strong school of thought to suggest that human nature is to blame when people act badly in the name of any belief, be it religious, political, etc. But even if we grant his point, he omits to state that much good has been done by religious believers in the name of their beliefs as well. Arguably much more.

In fact if atheists want to play that game they might want to consult modern sociological research. Andrew Leigh, an atheist with a phd from Harvard who did a study in Australia, said the following: “Australia’s religious bodies have on the whole been a force for good” because of their “strengthening social capital in both its ‘bonding’ and ‘bridging’ forms”.

The author hasn’t given us half a decent argument that we’d be better off saying “I am the master of my fate: I am the captain of my soul”. Here’s a suggestion for the author and anyone reading: Thoughtfully consider the claims of religious belief, instead of swallowing poor counter arguments such as those presented here.
Posted by Trav, Friday, 14 March 2014 12:16:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Individual,

<<What has being religious...with believing in a supernatural power?>>

Nothing in particular.

<<Having some sort of faith is totally disconnected from being religious>>

Faith is an extremely valuable asset in the practice of religion!

<<religion is the utmost controller>>

Religion is simply the pursuit of coming closer to God. Everything is already God's, so what need is there to control?

<<Why? because it exploits superstition to its fullest with God being the least considered factor.>>

That's a conflict in terms: religion is only about God: any other desire detracts one's attention from God, hence is irreligious.

Speaking of superstitions, the biggest superstition is that the world has any value. Science never detected any "value", "meaning", "importance", "worth" or the like anywhere in the world - neither macroscopic above nor microscopic below, neither a particle nor wave, yet secular preachers and authorities exploit people in the name of this notion, science being the least considered factor.

<<Why do you think most canniving people...walking in/out of churches?>>

I don't know that this is the case, but if so, then perhaps the reason is that those people are not religious.

<<They deceive those around them for personal gain, nothing else.>>

Religious people want God, not less - what else is there to gain?!

<<Look at your average priest...cosy existence...without having to worry about accommodation, a job, a responsibility to others etc>>

You seem to be describing a "public-servant"...

Again, I have no statistics, but if your claim is true, then it means that the average priest is not religious.

If you or the author wish to accuse this or that church of being hypocritical, of not being true to their religion, of seeking power and riches, etc. then go ahead and state so directly, I won't be in your way. Yet the author has instead blamed religion itself, not having even a clue what it means, thus he blames me as well - who has done him no harm.

Dear Suse,

You are not an evil person - you are God.
Whenever I remember this, I come to love you!
Posted by Yuyutsu, Friday, 14 March 2014 4:12:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
so what need is there to control?
Yuyutsu,
You're having a lend of me. Ever thought about money & the need to control the poor superstitious to hand over more money ? What does God do with so much wealth ?
I certainly would like to know what God gets out of all the wealth in the world's churches.
Why does God need religious hierarchy ? Very, very interesting indeed.
Posted by individual, Friday, 14 March 2014 8:37:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Trav,

Santa Clause is not something that you can just put in a test tube and test for, and these simplistic notions of him being some bearded old man in the North Pole are so naive and unsophisticated. Santa Clause transcends this reality. You completely ignore the notion of personal revelation and stick to some sort of crude desire for evidence. Pfft!

The above argument is just as valid and meaningful as any of the arguments we hear defending the existence of a god. That a god’s role/purpose is usually to create (or kickstart the creation of) the universe, rather than to deliver presents to children all around the world, makes no difference. I could simply use a more modern adaptation of Santa Clause (as so many Christians nowadays do with their god) and argue that, while parents are the ones who buy their children presents, it is through them that Santa Clause is working. You seem to have this idea that there is some kind of split between "what Santa Claus does" and "what parents do". But there is no such split with the belief in Santa. Santa Clause is at work in all things, including the parents when they purchase their children’s presents (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15995#277148). Now, you could argue that we don’t have billions (of adults, at least) believing in Santa Claus, but this would simply be the Argumentum ad populum fallacy.

<<Here’s a suggestion for the author and anyone reading: Thoughtfully consider the claims of religious belief, instead of swallowing poor counter arguments such as those presented here.>>

If you could present me with some, I’d be happy to give it a crack. Sadly, however, I could not find any, and my faith died as a result of that.
Posted by AJ Philips, Friday, 14 March 2014 10:31:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Coincidence is an amazing thing.

'We' (Homo Sapiens) are here today investigating the structure and workings of the universe, and pondering the miraculous nature and history of our planet home, by virtue of our amazing inherited (or 'coincidental') intellect.
Such an imponderable string of coincidence, of chance, has placed us in this extraordinarily fortunate (or 'blessed') position.
Is there life elsewhere in the universe, sentient or otherwise, or are we 'it'?

I saw a program portraying the likely formation of our Earth from myriad random collisions of masses/particles/asteroids over millions and billions of years, growing by virtue of gravitational attraction as a red-hot molten tumult - red-hot because of the energy generated by these collisions.
An angry and seemingly unstable 'mass', which was then stabilized by a mega-collision with a mass of similar size, a chunk of which formation flew off and became our Moon - which by some fortunate means achieved a stable orbit around our Earth.
Our Earth, which in concert with the other planets of our solar system, established a stable orbit around the centre of our system, our Sun (another 'miraculous' formation), within our seemingly stable galaxy (just one of many billions) - the 'milky way' - itself of billions of suns (stars) and their 'solar systems'.

The Earth cooled, water held (somehow) within the heretofore molten rocks was released as steam, and collision(s) with frozen-water comet(s) added more water, and so came oceans, lakes, streams.
Water, the foundation of all life on Earth.

Where did the rock, asteroids and comets come from to make this all possible? The 'big bang', or the destruction of a predecessor universe?
Or, perhaps from an enormous amount of random energy spontaneously creating 'matter'?

And then, 'life' itself! So much coincidence.

How lucky we are; and if there is any 'meaning' to life it ought be to respect and savour our good fortune by preserving the marvels of our inherited home, our 'universe', for all future generations.

However, with 'Money' as the new 'god', the 'future eaters' are bent on consuming it all, and who's to stop them?
Posted by Saltpetre, Saturday, 15 March 2014 2:18:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes CANIDE I believe you are correct, that Buddhism is in fact a Religion and not as the author suggests some kind of secular, atheistic philosophy based in reason.
I am sure Buddhism believes in the soul and reincarnation like Hinduism does. This would make the belief in the soul as a “blind” acceptance as FACT and this fits with being a religion.
Also the fact that for some reason the philosophy of Buddhism requires one to wear certain types of clothes of certain colours is also “group-like” and dogmatic.

ANYWAY . . . . .
I am once again as always dismayed and disappointed by the clear entrenched narrow beliefs about our society as being one where only European descendants and their culture and history are considered when reflecting upon society and culture and history etc., This is shown when the author says that . . .
“Before the modern world became educated as now, there was total reliance by over-trustful people on religious mores to run society” and then he reminisces about the “Sunday Observance laws of the not too-distant past” as though “WE” are now past this.
But who is this “we”?

Surely the author is not including in his thoughts the more than 50% of Australia’s people who are not of this group of European descendants and in fact many new-comers have strict religious adherence levels, strong traditions of tribal origin as well as a dogmatic approach to marriage and also to many western secular NEW qualities and practices which may still be strongly taboo in their beliefs.

Again as with ALL authors I read on this site and at university circles (Journals etc.) seem to in one breath claim to be wholeheartedly accepting of all new cultures and respectful of their ways YET in another breath they fail to give a hint of a thought for considering their existence in this society, their society too, when making judgments and reflections on our nation.
Posted by Jottiikii, Saturday, 15 March 2014 5:25:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Individual,

<<Why does God need religious hierarchy>>

He doesn't. What hierarchy is needed when there is nothing but God?!

<<I certainly would like to know what God gets out of all the wealth in the world's churches.>>

I thought you were a good atheist, but now I'm disappointed to find that you believe that God gets any of the money taken by the churches, that would imply that He exists, doesn't it?

Welcome, Jottiikii,

Yes, Buddhism is a great example showing that belief in God is not a requisite for religion. One may come closer to God without ever entertaining a concept of Him.

Indeed, Western culture seems to be over-represented in this forum - perhaps it is because of the need to write in English. Anyway, we can hopefully help to make this forum more balanced.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Saturday, 15 March 2014 10:19:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yuyutsu,

I feel you may have misunderstood my point in my post and also the point about Buddhism. I did not say Buddhism is an example of a non-religious or non-irrational belief system of tradition.

In fact I noted that Buddhists believe in a soul and reincarnation thus making the system a religion of same irrational unfounded ideas about the universe and thus not much different to other religions. I even noted how the belief culture seems to irrationally and dogmatically involve a certain universal dress code and certain colour combinations of these clothes, also the bald head.

You mention something about Western over-focus in this FORUM of western-biased views, opinions and issues and state something about needing to write in English. But what do you mean here? English is the main language in this country and so why the shock?

As to my points on over-focus and over-bias in the west for all things western and almost total disregard for serious focus on anything non-western that does not involve blaming the West again.

I feel that this is why the author of this article on religion whilst saying he "bags" all religions makes the bizarre claim that Buddhism is somehow not a religion at all and ok to follow yet as I note this is false, dogmatism is present there too.

I wish to address the phenomenon which pertains to the motives for why westerners (mostly Left) tend to over-praise the non-west and also to severely under-criticise their problems of which I feel the attitude to Buddhism in the West shows.

My overall point as ALWAYS is that the west too often ignores the non-west (even in their own nation being now half the population), over-praises them and never criticises them, and this sound disturbing similar to how people usually treat disabled people or children.
Posted by Jottiikii, Saturday, 15 March 2014 11:46:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Jottiikii,

Buddhism is certainly a religion, or at least it once was, as the Buddha himself predicted that it will only survive for 500 years, then deteriorate. I met for example Asian people who claim to be Buddhists but instead worship a variety of local goddesses and have no idea who Buddha was and what his teachings are.

I can't see you mention irrationality in your previous post. Of course Buddhism is irrational, but so is any other system of thought, religious or otherwise, because underneath any tower of rational conclusions lie a set of axioms, choosing which is never rational.

What I meant is that the reason we have an overwhelming over-representation of Western ideas on this forum may be because those who come from other cultures, though as you say about half the population, are not proficient enough in English to comment here.

From my experience in this forum, Westerners tend to be preoccupied with themselves and couldn't care less about others. The only history they consider is the Western/European history and the only divisions they care about are the products of Western history such as between 'Left' and 'Right'. When they talk about 'conservatism' they only refer to the wish to resume the life-style and values of former centuries in the West; when they talk about 'progress' they only refer to forsaking that life-style and values; and when they talk about 'religion' they mainly think about Christianity (being a Western feature), or at most include the related Abrahamic traditions, Judaism and Islam (which are then criticised as well).

Neither 'Leftist' Westerners nor 'Rightist' Westerners really care or want to know about non-Western cultures/traditions: they just use them as convenient ammunition in their internal wars - one blindly favours them in their propaganda, while the other blindly opposes.

The author of this article is an example of blindly and incidentally favouring Buddhism simply because it's not Christianity. He doesn't care to check what Buddhism actually is: he is lazy to confront the intellectual burden involved, because all he's interested in is attacking his Western Christian opponent.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Sunday, 16 March 2014 1:58:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Yuyutsu,

Whilst not wishing to create offense, I am forced to question the logic, and even the rational validity, of some of your comments.
(And in this evaluation I am drawing in part on my recollection of some of your past posts, and if I err in this I offer my apology in advance.)

>What hierarchy is needed when there is nothing but God?!<

I would offer that we live in a material world, that no man is an island, and that the only way anyone can legitimately and honestly divorce themselves from 'society' would be to go off alone to live in the bush/jungle/'nature' as a hermit living off the fruits of nature and with absolutely no reliance on anything produced or left by others, past or present (including language/art/music/skills).
Once you even introduce a partner/spouse/mate (let alone children) then the 'nothing but God' is blown. (And, trying to wriggle out of this reality by saying that such 'company' is also God - because everything, after all, is God - could only be judged as 'sleight of hand' and fundamentally dishonest.)

All cultures and societies, including our own, have at some stage determined to act as a collective (purportedly for 'the common good'), whether to hunt, gather or grow food, build dwellings or a 'long house' for common gatherings or meetings of elders, or a church, school, etc, or to wage war against 'insurgents' or to gain territory/resources/wealth, or to develop knowledge/science/culture/medicine/laws/rules, or even just to 'buy' a truck or tractor.

To counter by saying that all are God, and therefore society is also God, would be to suggest that everyone thinks and acts alike in all things, and this would be demonstrably false.

(continued)
Posted by Saltpetre, Sunday, 16 March 2014 8:38:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Yuyutsu,

You live within 'society', and benefit from some of the past and present 'provisions' by society (even if you may wish that you didn't have to rely on many or any of these 'facets' of our current environment), and therefore you are, at least to some extent, reliant on the activities of the 'state', past and present.

We operate as individuals within a collective - by nature, by choice, and in 'fact' - and as a 'democratic society' our accepted method of expressing policy preferences is via electoral ballot, and any detractors or deviants from the 'rules' determined by the popularly elected 'heads of state' (ie government and judiciary) may be sanctioned, restrained or incarcerated to limit their potential disruption of 'the common good'.
(Government and judiciary, the 'state', operates - or should operate - so as to promote the common good and general compliance with the intentions of 'the Golden Rule'. Which is therefore commendable, when pursued responsibly and ethically.)

>Neither 'Leftist' Westerners nor 'Rightist' Westerners really care or want to know about non-Western cultures/traditions: they just use them as convenient ammunition in their internal wars - one blindly favours them in their propaganda, while the other blindly opposes.<

This statement is a gross and demonstrably false generalization; though I would have to admit that some practices/ideas of 'other' cultures defy justification.
And, many of us do eat and relish the cuisine of many and varied 'cultures', after all, don't we? But we don't blindly accept the 'efficacy' of different or 'alien' cultural beliefs or practices - like child-marriage or FMG.
Certainly there is disagreement regarding the appropriate categorization and treatment of 'refugees', but to use this to infer a general bias against 'non-Western' cultures/traditions lacks foundation. Some questioning and lack of understanding (or even of interest), certainly, and some attendant fear of the unknown or the 'different', but an inference of general 'rejection' is false - as evidenced by school curriculum inclusion of several non-Western languages/culture/history programs and courses.
Posted by Saltpetre, Sunday, 16 March 2014 8:38:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Saltpetre,

You should read my words within context:

The question of hierarchy was first raised by 'Individual', insultingly asking: "Why does God need religious hierarchy?".

Initially I started typing: "For the same reason you stopped beating your wife", but then I sublimated my response and wrote instead "He doesn't. What hierarchy is needed when there is nothing but God?!".

In other words, it is people who desire and create hierarchy, not God.

To the extent your life is about serving God, you need no hierarchy, but to the extent you serve your body's genes, you become subject to pecking order.

Following this, your raising of the issue of society, while well-aware of my views in that area, seems out of this context. Briefly, I do not oppose society as such, but only the non-voluntary inclusion of individuals in mega-societies without their consent. It's good that you mentioned the Golden-Rule: would you not hate it if say some bikie-gang, whom one of your neighbours happened to belong to, considered you as one-of-them, invited you to their functions (including to vote for their leader) and 'reminded' you that you must wear their insignia at all times? Then what justifies you doing the similar unto others?

Yes, it was a generalisation, but MOST Westerners are interested in other cultures only when it benefits them. It could be for political ammunition, it could be for their taste-buds or it could be for financial-profit by gaining skills to operate commercial-enterprises in other countries.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Sunday, 16 March 2014 1:00:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy