I don't understand Strong Atheism, can someone explain it?

[Saponification]

Buddhism has only been a recent thing for me. I attend a Western Buddhist centre (one that is affilated with the FWBO), although I do lean heavily towards Zen.

I count Western Buddhism as a seperate school. As you know, Buddhism changed depending on the culture it was introduced to. It adopted local customs and cultural beliefs as it spread around the world. Western Buddhism borrows things form many schools of Buddhism, but it is designed to operate within a Western setting. For example it has adopted many theories of modern, Western psychology.

Western Buddhism acknowledges the various Buddhas and Bodhisattvas. We can pray and ask them for guidance and assistance, which is more of a Mahayana thing.

The Purelands? I don't know, I have a vague understanding of the concept and I have no idea what Western Buddhism has to say about it. Same deal with the Fields. In general, I find that Western Buddhism leans heavily towards the Mahayana thing (despite the fact that two of the three teachers the founder of the FWBO were not Mahayana Buddhists).

For me, karma is a very simple concept. It is action and reaction. I believe that everything is interconnected. I thought of an example today - say I see a deadly spider crawling around. I kill it. One day, they spider could have bitten someone who had plans to commit a great act of evil (Osama bin Laden or the person who decided to make a Spice Girls movie, for example). Because of my seemingly minor action, that person could end up succedding in their plan.

Karma is not magical, despite what many people think. It's not pre-determination, it's more like ripples in a pond after you've thrown a stone in.

Now rebirth's an interesting one. Many scientists believe that out of all the possible afterlives, the theory of rebirth is the most realistic. Dr. Ian Stevenson springs to mind. I don't know if you've heard of him, but a quick Google search will show that he is working on proving the theory of rebirth. He's had a number of patients who have remembered their past lives. He has been mentioned in Buddhist publications by numerous authors, including His Holiness the Dalai Lama.

But what do I believe? Well, as for rebirth in the literal sense I don't know. I was once convinced that there was nothingness after death, but now I'm not so sure. What I've read about Dr. Stevenson's work is very convincing, but I'd hardly call myself a believer just yet.

I do, however, believe in death and rebirth as symbolic events that occur within our mind. All the time we're dying and being reborn. Essentially, I believe that Buddhism is, well, psychology. Many ideas in Buddhism are almost rudimentry forms of modern psychological theories. Western Buddhism acknowledges this, which is why many mental health professionals are attracted to it. One of the teachers at the centre I visit, for example, is a neurologist.

Ah, I remembered that I had a link to a page on Dr. Stevenson's research in my favourites folder. Here it is if you're interested: http://www.childpastlives.org/index.htm

If I may, I'd just like to add something else to this thread. I acknowledge that people change in their beliefs. I myself went from a reasonably strong atheist, to weak atheist, to Buddhist with agnostic beliefs. I don't know if there's a god and really, I don't know if it matters. As I said, I find compassion and concern for all living beings very important. I don't think we should be threatened or ordered to be kind - if we're only kind because we're forced to be, I don't think that counts for very much. Those familiar with the concept of karma will know that the intention of the action is very important. If there is a god and he is as wise as the religions that acknowledge him/her/it say, I do believe that he would understand that.

But while some people change in what their believe, the majority do not. They're born Muslim, they're raised Muslim, they raise their kids Muslim, they die. Whether they stay devout or get "tired of it" is a slightly different issue and isn't really relevant to by point.

My point is that imagine if this person was born Muslim and raised Muslim saw something that "proved Christianity." He or she may run to the local church to ask for advice, but then again, they might not. A Christian might recall a past life (i.e. indicating rebirth), but he or she may still believe in an eternal Heaven or Hell. Chances are, they won't run to the local Buddhist/Hindu/Jain/etc temple to ask for advice. They probably won't go to Dr. Stevenson's clinic. If a Jewish person saw a statue of Jesus Christ or Mary that wept tears, would he or she instantly convert to Christianity? Probably not.

People get "set in their ways." If science suddenly proved that god(s) could not possibly exist, would everyone move away from theistic religions? I doubt it. Some people would, but I reckon they would be in the minority.

Belief can become habit, no matter what it is that we believe, whether it involves gods or not. And the thing about habit is it's very hard to shake. It becomes a comfort zone.

 

[path_of_one]

Hello!

Karma is not magical, despite what many people think. It's not pre-determination, it's more like ripples in a pond after you've thrown a stone in.

I'm not Buddhist, but this is how I see karma as well. I happen to think the ripples may well continue after one's death, but I don't think of it as a metaphysical ladder with various levels. I just think what one puts into this life matters for the next- the more a person is attentive to their spiritual life and spreading compassion and love, the more prepared they are to grow spiritually after death as well (and, for me, to accept the form in which God comes to them).

I do, however, believe in death and rebirth as symbolic events that occur within our mind. All the time we're dying and being reborn.

This is a very interesting statement- it is very similar to any number of conclusions in many religions, atheistic and not. In Christianity, one dies to oneself to be in Christ. This always resonated quite well the Buddhist concepts had of ending attachment in order to awaken to a new consciousness.

Those familiar with the concept of karma will know that the intention of the action is very important. If there is a god and he is as wise as the religions that acknowledge him/her/it say, I do believe that he would understand that.

I agree with you. In the Bible, Jesus specifically discusses the difference between action and intent in regards to prayer, fasting, and charitable work, drawing a distinction between that which is done only for God (out of selfless devotion to God and others) and that which is done for personal gain (for social recognition). Most Christians do believe in a literal heaven, but I do not. I believe heaven is a state of being in which one is completely embraced by God and is no longer separated in any way. I don't not believe such a physical reality exists, but rather that isn't important. Foremost in my mind is that even if God never sees it fit to put me in some kind of physical paradise, it doesn't matter. My actions shouldn't spring from my own selfish desires for immortality or paradise, but rather purely out of love for others and obedience to God.

People get "set in their ways." If science suddenly proved that god(s) could not possibly exist, would everyone move away from theistic religions? I doubt it. Some people would, but I reckon they would be in the minority.

I would agree with you. People mostly stay with the tradition in which they were born. That is not necessarily a bad thing, however, nor does it mean that experiences that don't fit (as you describe) don't result in spiritual growth. It depends on whether you are of those that think all people need to take the same tradition, or if you think any person who truly seeks spiritual growth will find it, no matter their tradition. Most people fit best in the tradition in which they were raised, and it can take tremendous mental acrobatics to really "get" another one. For a few of us, it's a journey we are inspired to take, but most would just be wasting a bunch of time trying to connect spiritually in a way that doesn't really make a lot of sense to them. Just because they stay Muslim, or Christian, or whatever, doesn't mean they don't process those odd experiences for which their own tradition is silent.

I myself have had past life memories and other odd experiences that didn't fit with Christianity, but I still follow Christ. I've had experiences of God, some of which were as Christ, and I feel led to follow His teachings. I don't chuck all that out just because the doctrine of Christianity doesn't completely fit with my own experience. That would be no more logical than to completely ignore my own experiences in order to be more in line with doctrine. Ultimately, I have to look at the entire range of my spiritual experiences and come to terms with all of them. Looking into traditions like Buddhism helped me know that other people believe in reincarnation, and so I was not alone in experiencing an indication of rebirth, but it didn't mean that I should priviledge that one experience over all others and become Buddhist. Not all have just one or two key experiences; some have a lifetime of ongoing pieces to the puzzle, and so they can't switch religions at the drop of a hat or they'd never get anywhere in any tradition. That, at least, is my own experience.

As for science proving non-theism, as a scientist I'd be skeptical of any such "discovery," for I know the very nature of science is that it is unable to disprove such beliefs. As a spiritual person and theist, I would not be irrational to persist in my beliefs either. Having had many very real experiences of God, my faith is entirely rational to me. In fact, it would seem illogical to put my trust into some other person's description of reality when it made no sense with my own experience of reality. Many believe as they do not merely because they were raised with it, but because their own spiritual experience has reinforced their faith.

 

[Vimalakirti]

I count Western Buddhism as a seperate school. As you know, Buddhism changed depending on the culture it was introduced to. It adopted local customs and cultural beliefs as it spread around the world. Western Buddhism borrows things form many schools of Buddhism, but it is designed to operate within a Western setting. For example it has adopted many theories of modern, Western psychology.

Western Buddhism acknowledges the various Buddhas and Bodhisattvas. We can pray and ask them for guidance and assistance, which is more of a Mahayana thing.

Hi Sapon. Thanks for your patient & thoughtful answers.

I know a little about FWBO and have read just a little of the voluminous works of its founder, Sangharakshita. You appear to be talking mostly about this order when you refer to "Western" Buddhism, but I'm sure you would agree that Western Buddhism in general is still a-borning and is a hugely diverse and still uncertain affair. It's really hard to know where it will end up and whether that would be the place one would prefer.

On one end - the "Buddhism without Beliefs" end it's in danger of as you suggest becoming just another aide to psychotherapy. On the more "religious" end, again you're right it's adapting as it has elsewhere.

But you'll probably also notice that the nature of Buddhism is such that it almost always adapts by essentially piggybacking on or fusing with other traditions. This follows from the fact that at its original core Buddhism is more a method than a religion; it teaches "the truth of suffering and the release from suffering", i.e., only the essentials.

Of course human beings and societies always demand more of religion, so you have Buddhism taking on or tolerating the Gods, Goddesses & metaphysical arrays of its founding times; you see it assimilating much folk material in the Jataka stories; you see it fusing with the native Bon religion in Tibet, with Taoism and later Confucianism in China, and so on. It's very probable as well that the celestial Buddhas and Bodhisattvas you mention are also reflections of similar though not as easily traced fusions. Even in Sri Lanka, that home of the "pure" teachings you'll find Hindu deities in Buddhist temples. So my hunch is that for Buddhism to survive long term in the West it will form a similar partnership with Christianity, probably more de facto than formally. Signs of this are already abundant.

Without these kinds of fusions, I think Buddhism tends to literally disappear through its own rigour and what I call its spiritual hardball. (Though I guess it disappeared in India because what became modern Hinduism through Shankara and Advaita - non-dual - philosophy essentially provided the same rigour while remaining orthodox to the Brahminical tradition.)

That said, I think that a true Buddhist/Christian fusion may turn out to be the most interesting and successful of them all because each so manifestly makes up for what the other lacks. Christianity, like all Abrahamic religions, is haunted by the will to power and politics, but is wonderfully rooted in the actuality of a real world. Buddhism brings wonderful clarity to the essential paradox of human existence and human consciousness, but at every moment tends to want to disappear into some indefinable ether. There's nothing in original Buddhism I know of with the to-the-heart concrete appeal of the Sermon on the Mount and some of the other parables and sayings of Jesus. There's nothing in the New Testament that I know of that so clearly and sanely states our dilemma than the opening verses of the Dhammapada.

For me, karma is a very simple concept. It is action and reaction.... Now rebirth's an interesting one. Many scientists believe....I do, however, believe in death and rebirth as symbolic events that occur within our mind.

I'm pretty close to you on these issues. Karma & rebirth certainly are psychological and even physical facts, there to be observed.

But my feeling is that on a deeper level of practice the literal belief in the metaphysical senses of karma & rebirth is transcended. The more abstruse forms of Mahayana philosophy in fact talk about "non-discrimination". To me that extends to the idea of rebirth: why should I discriminate between one rebirth and the next? Since we are all, even in bare empirical terms causally linked in interdependence, every action we take by definition revereberates indefinitely. The peculiarity of Buddhist - as opposed to popular - notions of rebirth is that it doesn't accept the idea of a "substantial, unchanging self or soul" involved in transmigration. What is being transmitted is action, or karma.

In other words, there's nothing of "me" my hand-wringing little self! being transferred. And yet all my actions go on. My true being is not substance but process. So why does it matter whether I literally believe in some magical, metaphysical link? The fact is that with every new birth I'm reborn; or, from the other end of the telescope, you could say that my death was an illusion because nothing really died. It's a continuous process, not a bunch of metaphysical tennis balls bouncing from womb to womb. But try this out with the more orthodox brand of Buddhists - as I did - and you just might get flamed! On this issue, many can be as "metaphysical" as any Catholic theologian.

In a way, I think the most abstract religious philosophy, including Buddhist, in the end takes us back to the reality we originally knew but the wilderness of doctrine keeps us from: that we're immortal, that we live in interdependence, that everything is alive, the ground is alive, the air is alive, the Earth... Of course many Doctors of the Law will tell you why this is wrong, and why you must use their words, and no others.

Cheers & Metta.

 

[Vimalakirti]

Hello!
As for science proving non-theism, as a scientist I'd be skeptical of any such "discovery," for I know the very nature of science is that it is unable to disprove such beliefs. As a spiritual person and theist, I would not be irrational to persist in my beliefs either. Having had many very real experiences of God, my faith is entirely rational to me. In fact, it would seem illogical to put my trust into some other person's description of reality when it made no sense with my own experience of reality. Many believe as they do not merely because they were raised with it, but because their own spiritual experience has reinforced their faith.

Very thoughtful as always, Path of One. And your experienial emphasis particularly resonates with me. Without this base of experience, talking religion is just a lot of wind. Doctrine is important as a reality test, as a way of comparing notes, and for a host of other practical reasons, but it can get in the way as much as it helps. I'm forever suspicious of doctrine & all systems of power, but always appreciative of sincere individuals and their authentic experience & actions, who manage to make that silk purse of real spiritual practice out of the dog's ears of doctrine.

Cheers & Metta.

 

[lunamoth]

But my feeling is that on a deeper level of practice the literal belief in the metaphysical senses of karma & rebirth is transcended. The more abstruse forms of Mahayana philosophy in fact talk about "non-discrimination". To me that extends to the idea of rebirth: why should I discriminate between one rebirth and the next? Since we are all, even in bare empirical terms causally linked in interdependence, every action we take by definition revereberates indefinitely. The peculiarity of Buddhist - as opposed to popular - notions of rebirth is that it doesn't accept the idea of a "substantial, unchanging self or soul" involved in transmigration. What is being transmitted is action, or karma.

In other words, there's nothing of "me" my hand-wringing little self! being transferred. And yet all my actions go on. My true being is not substance but process. So why does it matter whether I literally believe in some magical, metaphysical link? The fact is that with every new birth I'm reborn; or, from the other end of the telescope, you could say that my death was an illusion because nothing really died. It's a continuous process, not a bunch of metaphysical tennis balls bouncing from womb to womb. But try this out with the more orthodox brand of Buddhists - as I did - and you just might get flamed! On this issue, many can be as "metaphysical" as any Catholic theologian.

Just wanted to thank you for this above Vim. I've read many descriptions of the Buddhist concept of "no self" but this one for some reason got me a bit closer than most to "getting it." ' course, if we're talking Zen Buddhism, if I think I'm getting it, I'm not.

lunamoth

 

[Vimalakirti]

Just wanted to thank you for this above Vim. I've read many descriptions of the Buddhist concept of "no self" but this one for some reason got me a bit closer than most to "getting it." ' course, if we're talking Zen Buddhism, if I think I'm getting it, I'm not.

lunamoth

That's right, Luna, you're miles from getting it - which puts you on the very doorstep of enlightenment!

 

[dayaa]

woooow....i just started to really like buddhism .....does the fact that actually i haven't got a clue mean that really i'm pretty enlightened? i feel better already

 

[Vimalakirti]

Just wanted to thank you for this above Vim. I've read many descriptions of the Buddhist concept of "no self" but this one for some reason got me a bit closer than most to "getting it." ' course, if we're talking Zen Buddhism, if I think I'm getting it, I'm not.

lunamoth

I need to add - though I'm sure you know already - that this is just my spin. I'm completely unlicensed to practice!

Also, I'd like to point out that here we have an example of what I'm always (obsessively) getting back to. Here you have my little description of "self", what it is, where it goes, etc., but someone else might easily substitute their own description of an afterlife secure in the arms of the Lord. The contrasting words & concepts merely speak to different moods & states of mind. We live in the same world: we can point in no other direction (in the ultimate sense) but toward the same reality.

Depending on individual factors, people will find one or the other verbalization as more true or reassuring, but both speak of overcoming a state of suffering, whether that suffering is defined as "alienation from God", or the "endless round of Samsara".

So again, that's why while I don't believe in a personal God for myself, I consider the belief completely valid as a means of practice for others, and in a state of equality for its purposes with any other thought system, whether considered "religious" or "secular".

And that's why for me the idea of denying the existence of God - however defined - is a monumental waste of breath (the breathe we should be counting!). The only answer to theism that atheism needs to make is to develop its own systems of thought equally adequate to the extraordinary realities of human existence.

Cheers.

 

[lunamoth]

I need to add - though I'm sure you know already - that this is just my spin. I'm completely unlicensed to practice!

Also, I'd like to point out that here we have an example of what I'm always (obsessively) getting back to. Here you have my little description of "self", what it is, where it goes, etc., but someone else might easily substitute their own description of an afterlife secure in the arms of the Lord. The contrasting words & concepts merely speak to different moods & states of mind. We live in the same world: we can point in no other direction (in the ultimate sense) but toward the same reality.

Depending on individual factors, people will find one or the other verbalization as more true or reassuring, but both speak of overcoming a state of suffering, whether that suffering is defined as "alienation from God", or the "endless round of Samsara".

So again, that's why while I don't believe in a personal God for myself, I consider the belief completely valid as a means of practice for others, and in a state of equality for its purposes with any other thought system, whether considered "religious" or "secular".

And that's why for me the idea of denying the existence of God - however defined - is a monumental waste of breath (the breathe we should be counting!). The only answer to theism that atheism needs to make is to develop its own systems of thought equally adequate to the extraordinary realities of human existence.

Cheers.

Understood, and thank you for bringing the topic back in line with the OP. I am responsible for more thread derailments around here than I care to admit to .

Uh, Oh, I feel another derailment coming along...maybe I should post my question to you in another thread, one on pluralism...

As for my thoughts on strong atheism, as I understand it to be defined, I think it takes just as much committment to the unprovable as a faith in God. If you want to be completely objectively rational you'd have to be agnostic.

lunamoth

 

[path_of_one]

If you want to be completely objectively rational you'd have to be agnostic.

lunamoth

Yep. That's why most scientists I know will say they are atheist, but if you really discuss in more detail (or after they've had a few glasses of a nice Merlot at a dinner party and are feeling less stiff ) they'll admit to really being agnostic. It's the only really rational position, unless you've experienced God directly in some way.

 

[THUNK]

It appears many religious individuals are merely in it for self - gratification.

I am not superior to any of you. I am perplexed however, that for example Muslims can possibly begin to justify the amount of time they spend in worship. Surely thier God would prefer 80% of that time and energy focused in helping really needy people, or allow more time for family rather than working in thier business?

In other words 'easy to do' worship and proclaimed religious adherence satisfy the user by encouraging them to conclude they are good moral beings. This is unhealthy as it substitutes 'hard to do' practical deeds with mere words & emotional journeying.

 

[Saponification]

It's not what someone does in a church or temple that counts, it's what they do outside.

 

[THUNK]

It's not what someone does in a church or temple that counts, it's what they do outside.

I have little knowledge of each religion, however, to me Budhism appears to be about the best in terms of a life - model. You guys are totally at odds with the Christian and other hypocrits I come accross. Budhists in my experience are far more likely to be truly decent people.

As an example, the Local Church Of England group let - out a few properties. If the rent is ever late they are well known to be far from forgiving and tolerant. The oppoisite in fact. They dance, sing, bang tambourines, walk around with fixed grins and preach love. They are simply in it for self gratification and pretense.

Sure, some of you are good moral beings, but Id be prepared to bet many of you are no - where near.

Belonging to organised religion affords people the good feeling that they are decent ethical creatures. IF THEY WERE ATHIESTS, PERHAPS THEY COULD EVALUATE THIER TRUE SELF BETTER.

 

[path_of_one]

Budhism appears to be about the best in terms of a life - model. You guys are totally at odds with the Christian and other hypocrits I come accross. Budhists in my experience are far more likely to be truly decent people.

Buddhism is a great life model. I follow Christ and studied Buddhism and never found it to be at odds with my own beliefs at all. There are, in fact, people who embrace both.

I'd sincerely appreciate if you did not imply all Christians are hypocrites. Some people in all faiths are hypocrites, and some aren't. Just because you've run across some that are in Christianity doesn't mean that you should stoop to the level of wholesale stereotyping and prejudice. That is neither showing tolerance nor kindness.

Belonging to organised religion affords people the good feeling that they are decent ethical creatures. IF THEY WERE ATHIESTS, PERHAPS THEY COULD EVALUATE THIER TRUE SELF BETTER.

I disagree. Some religions make people feel they are good. Some fundamental versions of Christianity actually make people feel no matter how ethical they are, they are bad. Neither seems to impact people's actions one wit. People are either truly concerned with morality and self-evaluation, or they're not, regardless of their religion or lack thereof. And most deeply religious folks in any religion would say that if people are deceiving themselves into thinking they are ethical creatures without honest self-reflection and hard work, they are cheating themselves out of real growth and putting themselves in spiritual danger.

 

[Saponification]

I would not say that followers of Jesus Christ and followers of the Noble Eightfold Path are at odds. There are some people who are... disgusted at the idea of "heathens" having a lot in common with Christians, but well, it's the truth.

Christ and Gotama both expressed values of love, respect and compassion. They both wished for us to be kind for another, to turn the other cheek and they ultimately both provided a "guide to happiness." Both acknowledged that life is difficult and full of suffering.

I would not judge a belief system based on certain... misguided followers. I don't consider myself to be Christian, but I know of many Buddhists who consider themselves as such. Or Jewish or Hindu or, I don't know, whatever. Not all Buddhists are just Buddhists.

I've known of a lot of "bad" Christians. I've also known of a lot of "bad" Buddhists. Again, do not judge a belief system by those who follow it. Both belief systems have members who are very wise, kind, compassionate and respectful people.

 

[Saponification]

"Money is truly the king in the Muslim world"? Actually, that's Capitalism for you. Money is the be all and end all of our system. It is not a problem specific to any one religious belief system. It is an increasing issue in all Capitalist societies that people aren't able to spend more time with their children and loved ones. Now it is normal for both partners in a relationship to work, for children to be in child care and for teenage children to have jobs of their own.

 

[path_of_one]

I did not imply this. Indeed, I said some folk are good moral beings.

You suggest I am intollerant and stereotype people.
In fact all I do is descibe as I find. What I find with religious people is that on the whole there actions dont match thier words. You keep implying 'there is always a bad apple or two', but this, Im afraid reveals someone with thier eyes half shut.

I am not implying that the numbers of folks that are "bad apples" in religion are only one or two. I am saying that you find a vast quantity of people in any belief structure, including atheism, that are self-centered. No one religion- Christianity, Islam, or otherwise has more or less "good moral folk."

Furthermore, you are free to think of me with my eyes shut if you like, but it would not be accurate. Indeed, I study global social and environmental problems professionally, and I am well aware of the many problems with humanity right now. However, we are attributing them to different causes. Religion is not the cause. Certain cultural characteristics, notably the global rise of capitalism and in many societies, the lack of adequate social and economic support to families, is more often than not at the heart of people's self-centered and fear-based action. After all, if you read the sacred texts, all of the world's major religions, and certainly Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, teach taking care of the poor, peacemaking, and love. The problem is not the teachings, the problem is the followers. There is arguably a conflict between capitalistic cultures and these teachings. Many would disagree with me, but many also want to keep their huge house and other stuff, and don't want to see the relationship between materialism and global suffering.

Almost to a Man they have demonstrated untrustworthy and selfish behaviour. For example they shake hands on a deal and at the very last minute reduce thier offer.

I taught business anthropology for the last couple years. What you are describing is not the immorality of Muslims. It is a misunderstanding between your culture and theirs. You perceive such behavior as unethical because you are priveledging your ethic code over theirs. These sorts of problems are very common in business and can generally be better understood and resolved through anthropological training.

You surely dont know the world if you dispute this.

I'm with saponification. Capitalism and materialism are the main drivers in this equation, not Islam. I know many atheists who have given up everything for career, as well as Christians who have done so. It is a cultural motivator in the United States. One is almost expected to give up everything for career and money, and it follows that people are willing to sacrifice others' well-being for their own gratification. It's not a religious thing, it's an economic thing. Furthermore, because of the ever-widening gap between rich and poor, many people find themselves needing two or three full-time jobs to pay for a mortgage and the basic necessities of health care, retirement, etc. Workaholism is not always because of greed.

Being false and 'trying to please everyone' doesnt help the Human race. What helps is truth and justice in the long run.

I certainly am not trying to please everyone, but rather saying that there is, in any social group (religion, ethnicity, culture, whatever) going to be people who really embrace the ethical codes and follow them, and people who don't. And there are various reasons for their actions, all of which must be carefully analyzed before blaming the entire group or insinuating that one group is better than another. While you did not say all Christians are hypocrites, you implied that group was associated with hypocrisy while leaving out other religious groups. Furthermore, you distinctly judged Buddhists to be better than Christians. I am arguing that it doesn't do any good to deal with our social ills by blaming one group or another, or by making stereotypes, which are generally based on cultural misunderstanding or attributing action to the wrong cause. It's not about being P.C.- it's about figuring out why people really do the harmful things they do and fixing the problem.

If we allow people to hide behind thier religious shields, such people can, in thier minds 'excuse' thier bad behavior by balancing it with worship and religious endeavor.

I agree that people can, in their minds, excuse negative courses of action by worship and religious action. I would argue there isn't a whole lot we can do about that. The more you confront such a person, the more self-righteous they typically become. Even within religions, people like this will not typically listen to others who call them on it. It just produces conflict.

So what can we do? Is it hopeless? No. As a social scientist, I find you have to move beyond this end-stage defense mechanism and look at why people are choosing unethical behaviors to begin with. The question is not how to wrestle these folks out from under their religious shields, but rather how to encourage right, ethical action to begin with. What is motivating them in their behaviors? What institutionally is blocking good behavior, or rewarding bad? And- a very important but often overlooked question- why are the folks who are "good" choosing the right behaviors? How do they work into the overall system and its effects? The hope is first, to understand why people are doing what they're doing. Second, to get to the root causes of harmful behavior and change people's options. And third, generally to work within people's belief and cultural systems to frame the change in a way that makes sense and is acceptable to them.

Otherwise, we just end up whining about how bad the world is and how these religious types should get with the program. But that doesn't change things. They've heard it all before. Trust me, I feel your frustration. Been there, done that. Without figuring out a course of action, people just continue to suffer. It's not that I don't agree that many people on earth are currently harming each other. It's just that I don't think it's very useful or constructive to blame various groups or complain about their flaws. I'm more concerned with getting to the root of the problems, on a local level, and then fixing them.

 

[dayaa]

It appears many religious individuals are merely in it for self - gratification.

I am not superior to any of you. I am perplexed however, that for example Muslims can possibly begin to justify the amount of time they spend in worship. Surely thier God would prefer 80% of that time and energy focused in helping really needy people, or allow more time for family rather than working in thier business?

In other words 'easy to do' worship and proclaimed religious adherence satisfy the user by encouraging them to conclude they are good moral beings. This is unhealthy as it substitutes 'hard to do' practical deeds with mere words & emotional journeying.

hello/salam

actually, muslim prayers would take between about an hour to an hour and a half each day approximately. i'm sure you atheists don't waste a moment of your time which you could be spending doing charitable work!
i'm not quite sure why you expect that people who are praying in mosques or churches should be using THAT time for charitable work. they may well be doing charitable work at some other time while others are busy watching eastenders or down the pub with their mates.
also, muslim people tend to have more traditional views on family life. men are working hard in their businesses to support their families....often not only their own immediate family but also members of extended families (maybe elderly parents for example) back in their countries of origin. in general muslim people tend to be very family orientated.
i am not denying that some muslims and some christians and some of every religion are hypocritical......but by the same token so are some atheists. the simple answer is PEOPLE are not perfect....in varying degrees and in different ways depending on their circumstances. i'm not quite sure why you see religion as the bogey-monster and atheism as the answer. be atheist if you like....if that's what works for you....but there is no need to go religion-bashing.
as for the "eyes half closed" comment.....path has got to be one of the most open-minded and inspiring people on this forum.....
dayaa pulls her semi-automatic out from under her abbae and stands menacingly behind path, in case path's extremely polite responses don't get the respect they deserve

 

[path_of_one]

actually, muslim prayers would take between about an hour to an hour and a half each day approximately. i'm sure you atheists don't waste a moment of your time which you could be spending doing charitable work!
i'm not quite sure why you expect that people who are praying in mosques or churches should be using THAT time for charitable work. they may well be doing charitable work at some other time while others are busy watching eastenders or down the pub with their mates.

That's a good point. I try to spend an hour or so a day in prayer and meditation. But I don't watch TV. The average American watches several hours of TV daily. So I'm actually ahead of schedule. The point is, we all waste time- atheists and theists, religious and non-religious and "spiritual" and irreligious folks alike. Unless you're a Mother Theresa, chances are the bulk of your time is spent working and sleeping, and most of the rest is spent making dinner, picking up the kids, and vacuuming. For a person who is not religious, they can use the remaining few hours in charitable work, but most still use a lot of that time to have fun. For a person who is religious, they also can use those hours in charitable work but also worship. Since a lot of very religious folks don't go for a lot of the TV and movie programming today, and frequently don't go out much to bars or other social events, this leaves their social life open for religious events. Additionally, many of us strategize so our work and charity is combined. Nothing like multi-tasking!

also, muslim people tend to have more traditional views on family life. men are working hard in their businesses to support their families....often not only their own immediate family but also members of extended families (maybe elderly parents for example) back in their countries of origin.

That's a very good point. One must remember that many cultures retain traditional gender roles. It may be what works for them and their families.

path has got to be one of the most open-minded and inspiring people on this forum.....
dayaa pulls her semi-automatic out from under her abbae and stands menacingly behind path, in case path's extremely polite responses don't get the respect they deserve

Gee, thanks. LOL- what a visual!

 

[InLove]

Hello, and peace!

I am not supposed to be here. I am supposed to be on self-imposed posting restriction for a few days. (I wondered how long I could hold out!) Jumping back off after this, but I have a thought that I believe is important and relevent to this conversation.

I realize that an atheist would not believe in the power of prayer. However many of them would certainly look at the intent behind a person's actions. Many people, including myself, believe that charity includes time and talent, as well as money. Time devoted to intercessory prayer is a charitable act in this context. I have been involved in intercessory prayer before, and I have also been the object of these prayers. I have evidence both in Spirit and in experience that prayer changes things, and I must say emphatically that I would not have traded the blessings I received from being lifted up in Love for any amount of money!

And dayaa? LOLOLOL!!!

InPeace,
InLove

(Is there such thing as "Posters Anonymous?" Back on the wagon I go .)