View Poll Results: Is buddhism a religion?

Voters
72. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    53 73.61%
  • No

    8 11.11%
  • Maybe

    11 15.28%
Page 27 of 67 FirstFirst ... 1723242526272829303137 ... LastLast
Results 261 to 270 of 670

Thread: The Big Bucket For Buddhism: This is one with everything!

  1. #261
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    103

    Default Re: The End of Bullying

    Quote Seamus said View Post
    Not all Buddhists accept the Pali canon nor the Theravada view of Buddhism.
    Hi Shaemus,

    The Chinese agamas are pretty similar in content to the Pali canon. In fact, the texts that the Theravadins use are commonly accepted in almost identical form throughout the various Buddhist types. However, many of the others also introduce extra texts written by monks that lived thousands of years after the death of the Buddha. It doesn't mean that they are wrong, but many do take a different angle on things.

    Cheers,

    Vangelis

  2. #262
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    103

    Default Re: The End of Bullying

    Quote Fearless said View Post
    Fair point, but just cutting out the superstition aspect, which is covered by the AFA definition is, in my opinion identifying a concerning loophole if you stay strict to the Atheism dictionary definition.
    Noted and I understand your frustration in this and clearly I can see you are not alone here. However, Atheism should not be redefined just because you or the AFA don't like the existing definition. I wanted to raise this as a separate thread because it deserves particular attention, however, it has been raised here so I will continue the discussion here. What the AFA definition defines is Atheism together with Skepticism. I believe that the AFA needs to rethink either their name and incorporate Skepticism into the name or remove the Skeptic part of its Atheist statement.

    It has taken me a while and many open discussions here to come to this realisation. My own view of both Atheism and Buddhism and how they relate to each other has developed and matured as these discussions have occurred. For that I am grateful and hope that others have also similarly developed their understandings. I would hope that also the moderators and founders of the AFA and these forums have also questioned and developed their ideas of what the boundaries of Atheism are and how their definition relates to that.

  3. #263
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Melbournite
    Posts
    5,404

    Default Re: The End of Bullying

    Quote Vangelis said View Post
    Noted and I understand your frustration in this and clearly I can see you are not alone here. However, Atheism should not be redefined just because you or the AFA don't like the existing definition. I wanted to raise this as a separate thread because it deserves particular attention, however, it has been raised here so I will continue the discussion here. What the AFA definition defines is Atheism together with Skepticism. I believe that the AFA needs to rethink either their name and incorporate Skepticism into the name or remove the Skeptic part of its Atheist statement.

    It has taken me a while and many open discussions here to come to this realisation. My own view of both Atheism and Buddhism and how they relate to each other has developed and matured as these discussions have occurred. For that I am grateful and hope that others have also similarly developed their understandings. I would hope that also the moderators and founders of the AFA and these forums have also questioned and developed their ideas of what the boundaries of Atheism are and how their definition relates to that.
    One bit of clarity here... I speak for myself Vangelis... I don't necessarily represent the mod team unless I am making a moderating decision. I know I am not always right and I don't profess to be smarter than anyone else... in fact the complete opposite is more the truth.

    I am not trying to redefine the meaning of Atheism either which I have said one or two times already... I am saying yes we are Atheists and I accept that in a basic sense that this means without god, but under this forum the AFA's definition, allows for an environment where the supernatural does not interfere either. If this was not the case I probably wouldn't be here. In as much as I reject the idea of god/gods I therefore have to reject the idea of other imaginary things such as the tooth fairy, santa claus and things like being reborn and reincarnated... it just does not fit (I guess 'in my opinion').

    I can't pick and choose these things.

  4. #264

    Default Re: The End of Bullying

    Vangelis,

    For your interest: The AFA definition of Atheism developed out of a need to overcome the ‘belief’ word or its derivates, which appear in most dictionaries. Dictionary definitions of Atheism, by the way, originate from cultures where religion was/is taken very seriously.

    The AFA has a Public Relations Team of twelve people and correspondence from the religious of all shades, Atheists and general inquiries number in the thousands. With religious folk, because the belief word is in most definitions, tend to play on a constant theme that since faith in the supernatural depends on ‘belief’ and Atheism is a ‘non-belief’, then both are on an equal footing. Rubbish of course.

    This led to a continuous situation where repetitious explanations about belief would precede actual discussion concerning the content of the inquiry. It was very tedious.

    I thought about this untenable state and the present definition was the result. It is very rare for the same kind of discussion to happen now, as religious people understand the definition and its implications. We do have, however, the occasional Atheist who will ask about it.

    The confusion with the belief word is that some beliefs are ‘justified beliefs’ and some are not. It is a justified belief that the sun will be on the eastern horizon tomorrow morning. The reason for this is that there is historical precedent. Without a precedent, any belief is nothing more than a guess. As an example, I may believe Zeus throws lightning bolts. As there is no credible historical evidence supporting this, it is an imaginary guess.

    The AFA definition is in two parts. It covers creationism, that is, there is no ‘credible scientific evidence’ for gods etc and the rest of religion with, ‘no factually reliable evidence’ etc.

    Humanity has always thought that gods, spirits or a spooky side to life exists but as of yet, there has been no universally acceptable and verifiable evidence in support of such claims.

    So, as long as folk make these unverified assertions, which lead to indoctrination of children with falsehood, thus ensuring adults have a distorted view of reality and then that reflected in erroneous voting habits, organisations such as the AFA will continue to ask for proof.

    And of course, the AFA retains the right to define Atheism as it sees fit.

    The definition stands.

    David

  5. #265
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Melbournite
    Posts
    5,404

    Default Re: The End of Bullying

    Thank you David, I wish I could articulate myself half as well as I mean to sometimes.

    I am trying to walk away from this issue knowing that I don't have all the answers, and I'll admit it is quite frustrating for me personally, but I get to a point where I feel like something doesn't make sense so I need to return to it, to keep discussing things until it makes sense.

    This still does not gel for me. Maybe it never will.

  6. #266
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    103

    Default Re: The End of Bullying

    David,

    Thanks for your explanation of how the AFA's current definition of Atheism arose. I understand the issues that you tried to address with your definition, particularly removing the word belief from that definition. Therefore using the term "no credible scientific or factually reliable evidence" elegantly resolves the issues you were having with theists.

    I do, however, still think that the AFA oversteps the mark by including in its definition of Atheism the term "or the supernatural". Whilst I agree that there also is no credible scientific or factually reliable evidence for the supernatural, I do think that the definition has crossed the boundary from Atheism to Skepticism by including the term "or the supernatural".

    The word as it is derived from the greek is very specific in its negation of the "theos" or god and nothing else. I also accept, however, that language changes and it does so by social usage. As the main organisation representing Atheism in Australia, having redefined Atheism in such a way, you are taking Australian Atheism in a direction that may alienate some Atheists or make some uncomfortable. I can only hope that the full consequences of such a definition have been taken into account.

    Thank-you,

    Vangelis

  7. #267
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    103

    Default Re: The End of Bullying

    Quote atheist_angel said View Post
    With all due respect, I perceive the mind as a result of material things taking action within the brain, therefore I fail to see how a part of me can be considered 'un-material'.
    I understand that and this is the currently accepted scientific explanation for the "mind".
    Just to clarify your position...Do you consider the mind to be 'something other than' the result of material things within the brain taking action?
    I do believe that the mind can exist without the body as a requirement. Do I have "hard" evidence for this? No. However, there are anecdotal stories of people on the operating table that are clinically dead with no electrical activity, no hearbeat and no breathing that have come back and been able to relate details of what was said and done during the time of clinical death of the patient. Not hard evidence but interesting nonetheless.

    I don't intend to defend my position nor convince anyone else of it but I do believe the mind can function separately to the body even though they are currently intricately intertwined with each one being able to affect the other.

  8. #268

    Default Re: The End of Bullying

    Vangelis,

    As I stated, the definition doesn’t upset too many people and even then those who profess to be upset, aren’t pedantic enough about it to worry overly. There are far bigger problems in need of addressing than this.

    Sorry to be the one to tell you but the words ‘god’ and ‘supernatural’ are pretty well synonymous when it comes to damage to society. A god is supernatural by definition. Haggling over the difference is not worth the trouble.

    Belief in gods or supernatural concepts, nearly always has negative consequences for individuals, groups or civilisation.

    And on the other side of the coin is critical thinking which a leads to Atheism and interestingly enough it is always benign in a mind fitting within the parameters of what can be classed as normal.

    David
    Last edited by David Nicholls; 16th April 2010 at 12:09 AM.

  9. #269
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    busselton WA
    Posts
    895

    Default Re: The End of Bullying

    A very good discussion, I haven't read all of it and probably should before posting but life is short as y'know.

    I wouldn't call myself a Buddhist, in the least, but I am a student of vipassana,

    http://www.dhamma.org/en/vipassana.shtml

    http://www.bhumi.dhamma.org/

    http://video.server.dhamma.org/video/intro/vintro.htm

    and I have a sense of Buddha, a timeless empathy, that leads me to feel that he would be appalled at the religious practices that have grown around his name. the same could be said of Jesus of Nazareth as well of course. But I think that Jesus was more concerned with ego. Buddha would have understood Barthes 'Death of the author'.

    And yet these practices have grown and even with Vipassana it is not long before the semi-spiritual and supernatural influences make their presence felt. For instance the practice of metta-meditation.

    http://www.bemindful.org/metta.htm

    Which noble minded as it is, does not exactly have a strong scientific basis. Especially when it's done as a group beaming good vibes to Gaza or some other of the worlds troubles.

    But look, the basic of vipassana is not mystical, it's a mind exercise/technique, it's about gaining objectivity over your own life and unknotting some bad habits that have probably been passed down in the family for generations. I'd recommend it to anybody.
    "It is in the shelter of each other that people live" - Irish proverb

  10. #270
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    The Nacirema Tribe: located just south of Sanity
    Posts
    3,967

    Default Re: The End of Bullying

    Quote Vangelis said View Post
    I understand that and this is the currently accepted scientific explanation for the "mind".


    I do believe that the mind can exist without the body as a requirement. Do I have "hard" evidence for this? No. However, there are anecdotal stories of people on the operating table that are clinically dead with no electrical activity, no hearbeat and no breathing that have come back and been able to relate details of what was said and done during the time of clinical death of the patient. Not hard evidence but interesting nonetheless.

    I don't intend to defend my position nor convince anyone else of it but I do believe the mind can function separately to the body even though they are currently intricately intertwined with each one being able to affect the other.
    Let's look at an example...

    Take a person that suffers from a form of schizophrenia with psychotic features. They may feel angels and demons all around them. They may see angels and demons all around them. They may receive telepathic messages from these entities that lets them know that they are a messiah in a spiritual war and all the world's creation and existence ... and every event in history un until this moment ... has occurred for this purpose. They may feel very special and very frightened.

    Yet.... give them a pill .... a pill that alters brain chemistry .... and it all goes away. If they were experiencing this with a non-biological part of themselves, they should still be able to see the demons and hear the voice even under the influence of medication.

    There are also psychoactive substances that can have the reverse effect on a non-schizophrenic mind ... causing hallucinations and delusions by chemically altering the brain.

    When an impressionable person that sufferers from schizophrenia ... emphasis on the word impressionable ... hears claims like yours, it sends them the clear message that they do not need help.

    With all due respect, I propose that this thread should be moved to the Island, since you yourself admit your evidence is anecdotal and not scientifically supported.

    -Angel

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •