Darwin,Atheism and Religion

[cafolini]

Also, I'm not entirely lumping religions together. When there is something specific to Christians I try to remember to separate that from theism in my posts. If I think the matter is particular to Christianity in the United States, I try to throw in something like "Christians in my country" because I know Christians aren't the same worldwide. I do think that it's a master/slave relationship worldwide, however, and I don't think it has to be.

I think theism in general is at least somewhat reflective of the arrogance of man insofar as he thinks he found the answers, and those answers are best for the world.

I could be wrong, but Buddhism has always seemed the least offensive.

Depends on how and where you look at Buddhism. It spread into multiple religions that had little to do with what was stated by the Buddha at his deathbed. Some very tyranical. One only has to dig into the Japanese prior to 1945, who were among other things very Budhistic and Shogunnish. But the Buddha stated clearly that Nirvana was the fall of all Karma in the pursuit of happiness, and that there was not a bit of reincarnation in Nirvana but rather a state of wakefulness. Yet, a lot of interpretations endorse reincarnations and heavens. Overall the Buddhistic religions have been, if not more tolerant in their hearth, more constructive of nonviolence. Many nihilistic nontheless.

[Paulclem]

Depends on how and where you look at Buddhism. It spread into multiple religions that had little to do with what was stated by the Buddha at his deathbed. Some very tyranical. One only has to dig into the Japanese prior to 1945, who were among other things very Budhistic and Shogunnish. But the Buddha stated clearly that Nirvana was the fall of all Karma in the pursuit of happiness, and that there was not a bit of reincarnation in Nirvana but rather a state of wakefulness. Yet, a lot of interpretations endorse reincarnations and heavens. Overall the Buddhistic religions have been, if not more tolerant in their hearth, more constructive of nonviolence. Many nihilistic nontheless.

It spread into multiple religions that had little to do with what was stated by the Buddha at his deathbed

Buddhism is distinct from other religions, but if you mean it co-existed with other religions in different cultures, then you are correct.

I think Buddhism was repressed in Japan before the conquest of Asia, and the aggressive imperialism of japan had much more to do with the cult of the Emperor and Shinto.

But the Buddha stated clearly that Nirvana was the fall of all Karma in the pursuit of happiness, and that there was not a bit of reincarnation in Nirvana but rather a state of wakefulness. Yet, a lot of interpretations endorse reincarnations and heavens.

Reincarnation is part of the Buddhist philosophy. You are correct to state that Buddhism is the pursuit of happiness - usually referred to as the ending of suffering. This is achieved through the attainment of Nirvana - Enlightenment - which results in an ending of the cycle of birth death and rebirth - reincarnation. It's not the case that reincarnation has been endorsed when it had been denied by the Buddha. The aim is to end reincarnation though.

Also in stories of The Buddha, he ascends to various heavens. These do not resemble Judeo-Christian concepts of eternal heavens, but are filled with beings who are still subject to samsara and will eventually be reborn into a lower rebirth when the good karma that helped them there runs out. this kind of existence, whilst being considered fortunate, is not as fortunate as a uman rebirth, as the distractions are too great for the beings to commit to a spiritual path.

Many nihilistic nontheless.

This is incorrect. The Buddha taught The Middle Way between the extremes of eternalism and nihilism. Anything that advocates nihilism can't be described as Buddhism.

[Paulclem]

I've just looked up the link to militarisation in Japan, and you are right. Most of the schools supported the Japanese militarisation.

[cafolini]

It spread into multiple religions that had little to do with what was stated by the Buddha at his deathbed

Buddhism is distinct from other religions, but if you mean it co-existed with other religions in different cultures, then you are correct.

I think Buddhism was repressed in Japan before the conquest of Asia, and the aggressive imperialism of japan had much more to do with the cult of the Emperor and Shinto.

But the Buddha stated clearly that Nirvana was the fall of all Karma in the pursuit of happiness, and that there was not a bit of reincarnation in Nirvana but rather a state of wakefulness. Yet, a lot of interpretations endorse reincarnations and heavens.


Reincarnation is part of the Buddhist philosophy. You are correct to state that Buddhism is the pursuit of happiness - usually referred to as the ending of suffering. This is achieved through the attainment of Nirvana - Enlightenment - which results in an ending of the cycle of birth death and rebirth - reincarnation. It's not the case that reincarnation has been endorsed when it had been denied by the Buddha. The aim is to end reincarnation though.

Also in stories of The Buddha, he ascends to various heavens. These do not resemble Judeo-Christian concepts of eternal heavens, but are filled with beings who are still subject to samsara and will eventually be reborn into a lower rebirth when the good karma that helped them there runs out. this kind of existence, whilst being considered fortunate, is not as fortunate as a uman rebirth, as the distractions are too great for the beings to commit to a spiritual path.

Many nihilistic nontheless.

This is incorrect. The Buddha taught The Middle Way between the extremes of eternalism and nihilism. Anything that advocates nihilism can't be described as Buddhism.

You are confused as to Buddhism in general. You can't generalize it because there are tens of interpretations. Reincarnation was not the Buddha's statement. On the contrary. But it was paramount in many Buddhistic religions.
Nihilism is in every religion. Even the overcoming of the Karma is a nihilistic way as the Buddha saw it. It's just as nihilistic as the overcoming of the senses in Christianity. Closed case.

[Paulclem]

You are confused as to Buddhism in general. You can't generalize it because there are tens of interpretations. Reincarnation was not the Buddha's statement. On the contrary. But it was paramount in many Buddhistic religions.
Nihilism is in every religion. Even the overcoming of the Karma is a nihilistic way as the Buddha saw it. It's just as nihilistic as the overcoming of the senses in Christianity. Closed case.

It's not closed. The Buddha taught The Middle way which taught, amongst other things, that eternalism - having a soul - and nihilism - extinction of everything at death - were extreme views.

http://www.budsas.org/ebud/whatbudbeliev/111.htm

Reincarnation - or more specifically rebirth - is a fact of buddhist belief.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebirth_%28Buddhism%29

many Buddhistic religions

What do you mean by Buddhistic religions?

Even the overcoming of the Karma is a nihilistic way as the Buddha saw it.

The overcoming of Karma does not lead to nihilism in the Buddhist worldview. It is a contributing factor to the attainment of Enlightenment which is not nothingness.

[cafolini]

It's not closed. The Buddha taught The Middle way which taught, amongst other things, that eternalism - having a soul - and nihilism - extinction of everything at death - were extreme views.

http://www.budsas.org/ebud/whatbudbeliev/111.htm

Reincarnation - or more specifically rebirth - is a fact of buddhist belief.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebirth_%28Buddhism%29

many Buddhistic religions

What do you mean by Buddhistic religions?

Even the overcoming of the Karma is a nihilistic way as the Buddha saw it.

The overcoming of Karma does not lead to nihilism in the Buddhist worldview. It is a contributing factor to the attainment of Enlightenment which is not nothingness.

And when the Buddha attempted to starve himself? That was not a form of nihilism?
I know, don't tell me. It was a way to accompany and have compassion for all the people that were being starved by their government. He probably wanted to train them like the donkey that learned how not to eat and then die. Ha!
Enough. Have fun.

[Darcy88]

You see Bien, its quite simple. Scientists have uncovered thousands of fossil remains going back millions of years. Remains of anatomically modern humans only go back around 250 000 years or so. You go back farther and you find humanoid remains, not quite the same as us but similar. Go back even farther and the skeletons look less and less like ours.

As the dates of the skeletons get closer to the present age they begin to appear more and more human. Its like this with all the species we have good fossil records of. I can't have the remains fed-exed to you, but you wanted evidence and here it is.

[BienvenuJDC]

You see Bien, its quite simple. Scientists have uncovered thousands of fossil remains going back millions of years. Remains of anatomically modern humans only go back around 250 000 years or so. You go back farther and you find humanoid remains, not quite the same as us but similar. Go back even farther and the skeletons look less and less like ours.

As the dates of the skeletons get closer to the present age they begin to appear more and more human. Its like this with all the species we have good fossil records of. I can't have the remains fed-exed to you, but you wanted evidence and here it is.

Darcy, while it is true that many fossils have been unearthed, the dating of those fossils is not accurate. Therefore you haven't provided one shred of evidence, you just made a claim.

[Darcy88]

Darcy, while it is true that many fossils have been unearthed, the dating of those fossils is not accurate. Therefore you haven't provided one shred of evidence, you just made a claim.

Flat out denial. Resistance to the facts. Some minds won't be changed, no matter the evidence offered.

Edit: All right, throw away the dating, deny that the very sun shines forth in the sky, and still you have these incrimentally advancing fossil specimens wherein the spine progressively straightens and the cranial capacity progressively expands and innumerable other minute changes occur, painting a plain and perfect picture of our evolution from ape to man.

To deny the truth of evolution is indeed no less blind and mad than denying that the sun shines in the sky.

[BienvenuJDC]

Flat out denial. Resistance to the facts. Some minds won't be changed, no matter the evidence offered.

But you didn't offer any evidence. You claimed that there was evidence.

[Darcy88]

Those fossils are evidence. Powerful, undeniable, incontrovertible evidence. When you deny the veracity of the dating you are saying that science itself is wrong, off the mark. All those scientists are in error, all their years spent researching and studying just a big waste of time, their phds not worth the paper they're written on.

There is no evidence that will change your mind. Its like shouting across a street at a deaf man.

[BienvenuJDC]

Those fossils are evidence. Powerful, undeniable, incontrovertible evidence. When you deny the veracity of the dating you are saying that science itself is wrong, off the mark. All those scientists are in error, all their years spent researching and studying just a big waste of time, their phds not worth the paper they're written on.

There is no evidence that will change your mind. Its like shouting across a street at a deaf man.

Oh, I believe that there are fossils, but I also believe that the methods used for dating required certain variable data and assumptions for the calculations to be made. However, you still haven't offered any evidence. You have only stated that there are fossils, and that there are some scientists who have dated them to certain eras. However, you ignore that there are other scientists that disagree with them. You haven't shown me what the fossils are of, who said that they are dated to what period, or what method that they used to date the fossils.

Yes, it's like shouting across a street, but I can clearly hear you. But you still haven't offered any evidence. Please show me at least one of the fossils, and then explain how that one fossil proves your claim. How does a fossil prove that which you claim, and what exactly is it that you are claiming (based on that fossil)?

[Darcy88]

I've stated explicitly in my last three posts exactly what those fossils prove. Read them again. I'd quote them but all you have to do is scroll up a bit.

Maybe a few fringe (hack) scientists question the dating method. Regardless, its been accepted by the overwhleming almost absolute majority of scientists out there. They know carbon-dating is legitimate.

Your beef is not with the evidence, its with evidence, with science, in general.

[Darcy88]

You see Bien, its quite simple. Scientists have uncovered thousands of fossil remains going back millions of years. Remains of anatomically modern humans only go back around 250 000 years or so. You go back farther and you find humanoid remains, not quite the same as us but similar. Go back even farther and the skeletons look less and less like ours.

As the dates of the skeletons get closer to the present age they begin to appear more and more human. Its like this with all the species we have good fossil records of. I can't have the remains fed-exed to you, but you wanted evidence and here it is.

Thousands of them Bien, thousands. I guess its just a coincidence that the dates correspond to the places the fossils occupy in the gradual evolution of ape to man. The new ones are like us, the older ones closer to chimps, and the ones in between half and half. Its like looking at photographs of a person growing up, progressing from infancy through childhood, puberty, adulthood and then old age. You lay them out and its really that obvious. Once again, to deny this is to deny that the sun shines.

[BienvenuJDC]

I've stated explicitly in my last three posts exactly what those fossils prove. Read them again. I'd quote them but all you have to do is scroll up a bit.

Maybe a few fringe (hack) scientists question the dating method. Regardless, its been accepted by the overwhleming almost absolute majority of scientists out there. They know carbon-dating is legitimate.

Your beef is not with the evidence, its with evidence, with science, in general.

No, science is merely knowledge. What you are referring to is not science, but interpretation of evidence. I don't agree with the interpretation of the scientists that you are presenting. And the argument that they are recognized as well educated, and that they are in the majority doesn't stand. The recognized scholars of one time believed that the earth was flat, and that you could heal someone by bleeding them. There are more than just "fringe" and "hacks" that question the accuracy of these dating methods. Maybe you out to broaden your research.