Now I am really confused Paul. I always thought that Bhuddism was a philosophy which had a spiritual element but was not a religion in the sense that it had no Godhead. The question that comes to mind is can it be possible to practice Bhuddism and at the same time be an Atheist?
" There are few more impressive sights in the world than a Scotsman on the make. "
What is religion? Those who argue that Buddhism is not a religion tend to define religion as a belief system, which is a western notion. Religious historian Karen Armstrong defines religion as a search for transcendence, going beyond the self.Originally Posted by jocky
From About.com
http://buddhism.about.com/od/basicbu...philosophy.htm
Buddhism is a philosophy and it is a religion. it depends upon your point of view. It is one of the reasons that it has moved successfully to the West, and its practices have been used by psychologists.
The spiritual element is at the core of the organised religion, though the practice remains the same whether you are an atheist or not.
There is a strong mystical element, particularly in Mahayana or Northern Buddhsm, and whilst the supernatural element is strong in say Tibetan Buddhism, it is much less prominant in Therevadan or Southern Buddhism.
It's a case of whether a person finds the practices useful or not as to whether they use the techniques in a secular way.
To be honest, Paul, as we are both discussing concepts with what are, after all, broad brushes, I don't se much in your points that actually negates the general concepts of my precis. The church is a means of controling thought and actions, as is communism. Any theocracy or ideology is specifically designed to govern, by force if necesary.
I'm not sure that it is possible to have a non theistic religion. Even Buddism has the checks and balances of karmic retribution. Either way, whether meditation is religious or secular, it is still a practice in acordance to a rule. Where did the rule come from? it was invented by men to control thought processes and or behaviour in others.
If someone walked up to you in the street and told you they had recieved a direct message from god, would you believe them? Most people, if he persisted, might direct him to the nearest psychiatric ward. Some people would do as he said. There is no assureance that the person actually spoke to god. However, he might well start a new religion. It is unlikely that any established religion would sponsor him. It would challenge their authority, although I grant it might depend on what he said
Primitive societies used divine explanations for the mechanisms of the world which were beyond their understanding. The priest casts/clans were able to use this to consolidate their power. It has always enabled them to influence government and amass wealth.
As for your last point, there may be newer and competing theories, but the Id, Ego and Super-ego paradigm was certainly the basis for Psychiatry at one time. I was not advocating psychology, far from it. If you read my piece in detail you will note that I highlight its flaws. Neither am I advocating the God Spot in the brain, although it has a certain logic to it. I'm not saying that the basic tenets of all religions are invalid either. Christs teachings and the basic ten commandments are as good a set of values to live by as any. What I object to are the innumerable interpretations and impositions by subsequent theologians. St. Paul has a lot to answer for, as do innumerable Popes and inquisitors. I'm sure there are similar theological disasters in many other basically sound religions. However, I'm probably insufficiently knowledgeable about them to speak with any certainty. All I have in these cases is imperfect recollection of hearsay.
Atheism is aligned with humanism at one level and rationalism at another level, therefore I would say that it'd be impossible to combine Buddhism and atheism with any meaning at all.
Religion is a consolidation of worry and a scapegoat.To be honest, Paul, as we are both discussing concepts with what are, after all, broad brushes, I don't se much in your points that actually negates the general concepts of my precis. The church is a means of controling thought and actions, as is communism. Any theocracy or ideology is specifically designed to govern, by force if necesary.
I'm not sure that it is possible to have a non theistic religion. Even Buddism has the checks and balances of karmic retribution. Either way, whether meditation is religious or secular, it is still a practice in acordance to a rule. Where did the rule come from? it was invented by men to control thought processes and or behaviour in others.
If someone walked up to you in the street and told you they had recieved a direct message from god, would you believe them? Most people, if he persisted, might direct him to the nearest psychiatric ward. Some people would do as he said. There is no assureance that the person actually spoke to god. However, he might well start a new religion. It is unlikely that any established religion would sponsor him. It would challenge their authority, although I grant it might depend on what he said
Primitive societies used divine explanations for the mechanisms of the world which were beyond their understanding. The priest casts/clans were able to use this to consolidate their power. It has always enabled them to influence government and amass wealth.
As for your last point, there may be newer and competing theories, but the Id, Ego and Super-ego paradigm was certainly the basis for Psychiatry at one time. I was not advocating psychology, far from it. If you read my piece in detail you will note that I highlight its flaws. Neither am I advocating the God Spot in the brain, although it has a certain logic to it. I'm not saying that the basic tenets of all religions are invalid either. Christs teachings and the basic ten commandments are as good a set of values to live by as any. What I object to are the innumerable interpretations and impositions by subsequent theologians. St. Paul has a lot to answer for, as do innumerable Popes and inquisitors. I'm sure there are similar theological disasters in many other basically sound religions. However, I'm probably insufficiently knowledgeable about them to speak with any certainty. All I have in these cases is imperfect recollection of hearsay.
Succinct as ever, G L.
Am I missing something G L ? Atheism when it is stripped down to to its basic tenet is simply a rejection in the idea of a God or Gods. Given this I see no contradiction in being an atheist and practising Buddihsm. Perhaps you can point out the impossibility of this in a fuller manner. As Buddha has never been recognised universally as a God I don't see a problem with this theory, however unlikely it may seem.
" There are few more impressive sights in the world than a Scotsman on the make. "
Atheism is simply the lack of belief. People nowadays, however, have a tendency to make it a belief of its own by associating other values with it.
Atheistic humanism is the profoundest system of belief that I know, however it is not without its internal conflicts. But although Buddhism and secular humanism seem alike in relation to Divinity, each is in fact the other's polar opposite.
You still have not answered the question. Dividing Atheism into categories tends to devalue it and create spurious divisions that the vast majority of non believers do not recognise. Atheistic humanism is simply an intellectual standpoint which recognises an elite in the theory that assimilates the hierarchy which is prevalent in the main stream religious faiths. In other words I know better.
It is the old story of divide and rule and how the priests of the order maintain their grip over the acolytes. Atheism as I will repeat is simply the rejection of God or Gods, nothing more nothing less. The vast majority of non believers will have no truck with Hitchens and Dawking the so called Messiahs of aggressive atheism and that is as it should be. I saw the Loch Ness monster once and that is a fact.
" There are few more impressive sights in the world than a Scotsman on the make. "
I've seen a yowie, a min min light, a spaceship and the Devil, none of which make me credible as an atheist. But, as I said elsewhere, seeing is not believing which at least makes me scientific.
You still have not answered the question. Dividing Atheism into categories tends to devalue it and create spurious divisions that the vast majority of non believers do not recognise. Atheistic humanism is simply an intellectual standpoint which recognises an elite in the theory that assimilates the hierarchy which is prevalent in the main stream religious faiths. In other words I know better.
It is the old story of divide and rule and how the priests of the order maintain their grip over the acolytes. Atheism as I will repeat is simply the rejection of God or Gods, nothing more nothing less. The vast majority of non believers will have no truck with Hitchens and Dawking the so called Messiahs of aggressive atheism and that is as it should be. I saw the Loch Ness monster once and that is a fact.
Don't get me started on scientists they are as bad as the theologists. The cost of the Hadron Collider could pay of every debt in the western world and still leave enough over to restart the American space programme. Never mind the fact they have found trace elements of the God particle,(and the band played believe it if you like). A plague on both their houses. Good night G L
Last edited by jocky; 08-15-2011 at 10:36 PM.
" There are few more impressive sights in the world than a Scotsman on the make. "
It is obvious why, given its etymology, the term atheism is interpreted as something more than a simple lack of belief, to wit: the denial of the existence of God. (The singular noun and capital G, in fact, suggest a very specific Judeo-Christian conception.) If what one wishes to convey is simple lack of belief, then it is foolish to use the term atheist at all. I simply say: "I don't believe in supernatural phenomena."
When someone uses the term atheist, I tend to think they either haven't thought things through very carefully or that they wish to define themselves, like a surly adolescent, in opposition to a specific belief system.
So what are religion and law? They are mechanisms to control the behaviour of essentially selfish people when they live in large groups or societies.To be honest, Paul, as we are both discussing concepts with what are, after all, broad brushes, I don't se much in your points that actually negates the general concepts of my precis. The church is a means of controling thought and actions, as is communism. Any theocracy or ideology is specifically designed to govern, by force if necesary.
I'm not sure that it is possible to have a non theistic religion. Even Buddism has the checks and balances of karmic retribution. Either way, whether meditation is religious or secular, it is still a practice in acordance to a rule. Where did the rule come from? it was invented by men to control thought processes and or behaviour in others.
If someone walked up to you in the street and told you they had recieved a direct message from god, would you believe them? Most people, if he persisted, might direct him to the nearest psychiatric ward. Some people would do as he said. There is no assureance that the person actually spoke to god. However, he might well start a new religion. It is unlikely that any established religion would sponsor him. It would challenge their authority, although I grant it might depend on what he said
Primitive societies used divine explanations for the mechanisms of the world which were beyond their understanding. The priest casts/clans were able to use this to consolidate their power. It has always enabled them to influence government and amass wealth.
As for your last point, there may be newer and competing theories, but the Id, Ego and Super-ego paradigm was certainly the basis for Psychiatry at one time. I was not advocating psychology, far from it. If you read my piece in detail you will note that I highlight its flaws. Neither am I advocating the God Spot in the brain, although it has a certain logic to it. I'm not saying that the basic tenets of all religions are invalid either. Christs teachings and the basic ten commandments are as good a set of values to live by as any. What I object to are the innumerable interpretations and impositions by subsequent theologians. St. Paul has a lot to answer for, as do innumerable Popes and inquisitors. I'm sure there are similar theological disasters in many other basically sound religions. However, I'm probably insufficiently knowledgeable about them to speak with any certainty. All I have in these cases is imperfect recollection of hearsay.
The church is a means of controling thought and actions, as is communism. Any theocracy or ideology is specifically designed to govern, by force if necesary.
I still disagree, and I say it is such a simplification as to give a complete distortion.
Burmese Buddhists
Budhists and Muslims in China - where there is still unrest
Catholics in communist Poland
Jews in Roman Jerusalem and in subsequent societies after the diaspora
Tamils in Sri Lanka
The Protestant groups in England who went on to populate the US
Sikhs in MOghul India
These were all perceived to challenge the rule of Law and the authority of the state.
Religious values can also represent an alternative measure of the developing values of society, such as Dietrich Boenhoffer's Christian ones did against Nazi Germany, for which he was executed. And this is only looking at religion at the state level.
Religion gives meaning to many peoples lives for good or ill. Whether they are yours or mine is neither here nor there, but, especially in the West, there is much less compulsion to follow any religion.
I don't think it's good to perpetuate such a simplistic view as you are here. It is very easy to dismiss what was and remains an influential force that has to be recognised, acknowledged an dealt with rather than apparently dismissed as only one thing. it is neither truthful nor useful, and I think gives the wrong impression to people who may have no contact or experience of religious people and their wider (than the West's) societies.
I'm not sure that it is possible to have a non theistic religion.
Well if you ask the millions of Buddhists, they would confirm that it is a religion.
Even Buddhism has the checks and balances of karmic retribution.
...which are the personal responsibility of the individual. Karmic good or ill can't be conferred by any other being on another.
Either way, whether meditation is religious or secular, it is still a practice in acordance to a rule. Where did the rule come from? it was invented by men to control thought processes and or behaviour in others.
I have no idea what you mean by practice according to a rule. Meditation is a method taught in order to examine and develop the mind of the individual. How far this is taken, what method is used, or whether it it is practiced at all is up to the practitioner.
If someone walked up to you in the street and told you they had recieved a direct message from god, would you believe them? Most people, if he persisted, might direct him to the nearest psychiatric ward. Some people would do as he said. There is no assureance that the person actually spoke to god. However, he might well start a new religion. It is unlikely that any established religion would sponsor him. It would challenge their authority, although I grant it might depend on what he said
I'm not sure what your point is here.
Primitive societies used divine explanations for the mechanisms of the world which were beyond their understanding. The priest casts/clans were able to use this to consolidate their power. It has always enabled them to influence government and amass wealth.
Which religion are you referring to? You'll have to be more specific.
If you read my piece in detail you will note that I highlight its flaws.
Yes - I got that point. I just wondered. I just don't see the Feudian model as very useful, and I thought it had been discredited.
1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
2. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
From the Online Dictionary. There may be atheists who would want to add to, or modify this description - I just copied the first reference.
Some schools of Buddhism emphasise the metaphysical world, and others don't. Some stick to a secularised type of Buddhism, so I think you could be a Buddhist and Atheist as well. You just wouldn't accept certain aspects of the teachings, or would regard references to God realms etc as metaphors for states of mind.
You seem to be ignoring the fact that all these philosophies/religions had their origins a long time before they took on the roles you descirbe, which I don't dispute. However, Someone, somewhere, sometime, thought them up. Judaism was effectively invented by Moses to unify the disparate Hebrew tribes during the exodus, and subsequently the Levites developed those laws which govern Jewish life. Catholicism could not exist without first Judaism, then Jesus, and most significantly The Roamn Empire and the emperor Constantine. Protestantism, needed both Henry VIII and Martin Luther - Men - and what did they do? They established rules to live by. These rules are intended to govern behaviour even thought, so they are a method of control.
Did a god come down and hand us our religions? No he didn't. Men invented them to establish rules to live by. Coincidentally they created tribal groups which people identify with and gain strength from, useful in persecution scenarios. All of the above is essentially true. How then is my argument simplistic and unrealistic?
National Socialism was also a philosophy invented by men (although I'll grant that if there is a Devil, he may have had a hand in it.)
I never said it didn't, in fact I remember saying that Christ's teachings and the ten commandments are a good a set of rules to live by as any. This dosen't alter the fundamental truth that religions are the inventions of men designed to govern their way of life.
I was put right off The established Christian sects when I read Church History.
They have to be trained how to do it and guided in the early stages by spiritual advisors, Gurus, call em what you will.
Think about it.
Are you serious?
I agree Frued was a loony and obsessed with sex. However, he was the first person to give psychology scientific status and he was the father of analysis. Jungian archetypes are far more sensible, but still fallible. The point is that psychology is still an art/science/philosophy, invented by men as a means of healing, manipulating or controlling people. Rather like religion then.
Well, it really doesn't matter what you think it means, especially when what you think it means isn't at all what it means. It is not at all foolish to use the term atheist when one wants to define themselves as having a lack of belief because that's what it means. Because you don't want it to mean that doesn't make it so.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
