Protestant Family and my search for truth.

[anachronistic]

i'm not trying to cut down anyone but i don't think people really know enough about buddhism including you...

I will allow you to think what you want, because I think it's ridiculous that I feel like I am being challenged to some sort of Buddhism trivia; as if I am not holy enough or smart enough to know Buddhism. You treat it as though I called myself a Buddhist monk; as if I've claimed enlightenment.

In doing so, I expect that you answer my questions and give advice for the situation as if I were right, because there is a chance that you are wrong, and that I really do need consolation.

[Tiay]

Well, by your measure, I'm an atheist, too. I don't wake up every morning and pray. I don't go to church (or synagogue) weekly for services. Funny thing is, I don't consider myself to be an atheist.

oh, it was only an example. Somebody could be religious and not pray a lot or have gone to church recently. My point is simply that atheism has none of the characteristics that usually define a religion. In fact, belief in a divine power is in the definition of the word "religion". Clearly, absence of belief, or belief that there is not a divine power, excludes it from being a religion.

Really, I think what alidile was trying to say is that there is a lot of similarity between atheists and true believers. They all think they know with absolute certainty about God's reality. In my opinion, that makes them all wankers.

how often do I have to say the words "burden of proof" till it kicks in?

I've founded a religion based on the belief that there is a green unicorn that follows you, vashti, wherever you go. It can walk through walls, that's how it follows you. What's that you say? You don't believe in the unicorn? In fact, you know that that's completely untrue? So, you think you know the with absolute certainty that there is no such green unicorn that follows you from room to room every day of your life?! huh, you must be a wanker too; you have no proof that my belief is wrong, yet you dismiss it anyway.
Of course, you have every right to dismiss it; After all, the burden of proof lies on me to prove that there is such a unicorn. Your not believing in the unicorn doesn't make you religious.

In fact, you don't just lack belief in the unicorn- you *know* it doesn't exist! This means, your lack of unicorn belief is not a "belief system", as atheism is not a belief system. I don't believe. I *know*.

(this is where someone jumps in and says "how do you know anything exists?".. and, no, you don't really. You could be a brain in a vat, experiencing simulated reality. But let's just assume, for the sake of argument, that the earth and rules such as gravity are real)

My unicorn belief is not equal to your non-unicorn knowledge: You are backed up with loads of proof about how things can't be invisible and unicorns only exist in myth and so on, whereas my belief has no proof. The belief that mars is made of mars bars and the belief that it is made of rock are not equal and do not deserve equal consideration. Therefore, it is justifiable to say "tiay, you idiot, there's no such thing"

[anachronistic]

I want and visited one of London's most famous graveyards today, home to none other than Karl Marx. It was everything a graveyard should be: old, dark, overgrown, spooky. And full of mournful old statues with missing limbs and fading features; graves and tombstones so warn with neglect or so covered in weeds you could no longer maker out the engravings. The woods had reclaimed whole areas of the cemetery.

It was rather sad to think of so many people who were once obviously well loved respected now condemned to eternal obscurity. In the face of such a prospect it's not hard to see why religion would spring forth as some kind of defense. I found myself hoping very much for some kind of afterlife.

Charlieboy, you've got to realize that although these people were once well loved and respected, they chose their own beliefs. We all choose what we believe is true. It's like playing straws. It's taking a chance. None of us really truly know what there is hereafter, and that is where we choose to believe. Christians die and go to heaven or hell, believers of Buddhism continue to be reincarnated until enlightenment, and atheists rot back into part of the earth and are never again.

Whatever you choose to believe, you have to realize that it's not your fault what happens to other people. Religion depends on nobody but oneself.

[vashti]

No, Tiay. Your definition of religion is incorrect, at least according to the dictionary.

The burden of proof to me (an agnostic) goes both ways. You can no sooner prove to me there is NO God than a true beliver can prove there IS one.

[vashti]

Charlieboy, you've got to realize that although these people were once well loved and respected, they chose their own beliefs. We all choose what we believe is true. It's like playing straws. It's taking a chance. None of us really truly know what there is hereafter, and that is where we choose to believe. Christians die and go to heaven or hell, believers of Buddhism continue to be reincarnated until enlightenment, and atheists rot back into part of the earth and are never again.

Whatever you choose to believe, you have to realize that it's not your fault what happens to other people. Religion depends on nobody but oneself.

haha! Is this your attempt at being zen?

[Charlie Boy II]

Lilly Wing I wasn't making a point about religious beliefs one way. Whatever we believe we're all headed for the same place:




The ground, that is.

[anachronistic]

Ofcourse you mean dead, not ground.

[Charlie Boy II]

eh? What are you on about now?

[anachronistic]

eh? What are you on about now?

Just being anal about my English. Only an idiot would not know that there are more ways to go than just the ground..


there is fire, there is water, there is outer space.

[Tiay]

In case there isn't any sarcasm in your post, let me point out there was in mine

sorry, I guess sarcasm doesn't really work online.. I keep forgetting.

1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

let me just change the bold text there for a sec. Yes, it says "especially when considering" so it doesn't exclude.. but.. you got this off dictionary.com, didn't you? How about I quote a different dictionary cited on the same page?

"re·li·gion (rĭ-lĭj'ən) Pronunciation Key
n.
Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship."

This is already strongly mentioned on the definition you quoted anyway. Face it, the definition of religion IS belief in a higher power, or other non-scientific stuff like re-birth. Even if you find me a definition that somehow doesn't mention this, 'cmon, that's still what people use the word as and that's what it means.

We can conclude that atheism is a religion. While Christianity is indefinitely a religion, Atheism is a religion in a less obvious way, because it focuses on the belief that there are no gods, there is no afterlife, there is no reincarnation, but rather that the earth and its inhabitants have come into existence by natural means. Still a religion.

I founded a religion based on the belief that there is an invisible red unicorn that follows you, lilwing, aroun-- oh wait, screw it, read my other reply to vashti.

or, better yet, I think this might address the issue; there is no way out. You either believe in god, or you believe-that-there-is-not-a-god. Either way, it seems you must "believe" something which you cannot prove. Therefore, it seems, you always have to be making a leap of faith, therefore, atheism would be a religion.
but this is faulty logic. Maybe this extract from an interview with Douglas Adams will explain it:

Other people will ask how I can possibly claim to know? Isn’t belief-that-there-is-not-a-god as irrational, arrogant, etc., as belief-that-there-is-a-god? To which I say no for several reasons. First of all I do not believe-that-there-is-not-a-god. I don’t see what belief has got to do with it. I believe or don’t believe my four-year old daughter when she tells me that she didn’t make that mess on the floor. I believe in justice and fair play (though I don’t know exactly how we achieve them, other than by continually trying against all possible odds of success). I also believe that England should enter the European Monetary Union. I am not remotely enough of an economist to argue the issue vigorously with someone who is, but what little I do know, reinforced with a hefty dollop of gut feeling, strongly suggests to me that it’s the right course. I could very easily turn out to be wrong, and I know that. These seem to me to be legitimate uses for the word believe. As a carapace for the protection of irrational notions from legitimate questions, however, I think that the word has a lot of mischief to answer for. So, I do not believe-that-there-is-no-god. I am, however, convinced that there is no god, which is a totally different stance and takes me on to my second reason.
I don’t accept the currently fashionable assertion that any view is automatically as worthy of respect as any equal and opposite view. My view is that the moon is made of rock. If someone says to me “Well, you haven’t been there, have you? You haven’t seen it for yourself, so my view that it is made of Norwegian Beaver Cheese is equally valid” - then I can’t even be bothered to argue. There is such a thing as the burden of proof, and in the case of god, as in the case of the composition of the moon, this has shifted radically. God used to be the best explanation we’d got, and we’ve now got vastly better ones. God is no longer an explanation of anything, but has instead become something that would itself need an insurmountable amount of explaining. So I don’t think that being convinced that there is no god is as irrational or arrogant a point of view as belief that there is. I don’t think the matter calls for even-handedness at all.

[Charlie Boy II]

Just being anal about my English. Only an idiot would not know that there are more ways to go than just the ground..


there is fire, there is water, there is outer space.

Are you unfamiliar with the concept of a metaphor?

[Tiay]

I will allow you to think what you want, because I think it's ridiculous that I feel like I am being challenged to some sort of Buddhism trivia; as if I am not holy enough or smart enough to know Buddhism. You treat it as though I called myself a Buddhist monk; as if I've claimed enlightenment.

In doing so, I expect that you answer my questions and give advice for the situation as if I were right, because there is a chance that you are wrong, and that I really do need consolation.

lilwing, you probably know more about Buddhism than some Christian people know about Christianity, but the switch is still kinda sudden. Don't rebound on a religion (:

oh right, sorry, regardless of philosophical sparring, you still have kind of a situation on your hands... I'm guessing that your family isn't going to be open to your newfound buddhism.. so, if there's no chance of reconciling with them, might it be nicer for everyone if you kinda.. lie, or at least try to not talk about it much at all? seems like it might just make the xmas break go over with much less drama..

[Tiay]

No, Tiay. Your definition of religion is incorrect, at least according to the dictionary.

prove it ^.^ it is in my dictionary.

The burden of proof to me (an agnostic) goes both ways. You can no sooner prove to me there is NO God than a true beliver can prove there IS one.

That's because your position as an agnostic is basically "I don't know"

that's like saying "I don't know if the moon is made of rock or cheese. This person to the left of me saying that it's made of cheese deserves as much consideration as this person to the right of me who says it's made of rock. Either way, I'm not putting my money on either"

But, as an atheist, I don't have belief-that-there-is-not-a-god. I see no evidence that there is a god, or a unicorn, or a moon made of cheese, or that my brain is in a vat somewhere, or that my life is an illusion, or that I will be re-born when I die, or that the earth is flat, or.. etc. I don't not-believe-in-a-unicorn, I know that there isn't one. That's the same way I feel about higher deities/powers. I don't not-believe-in-them to begin with.

[anachronistic]

sorry, I guess sarcasm doesn't really work online.. I keep forgetting.



let me just change the bold text there for a sec. Yes, it says "especially when considering" so it doesn't exclude.. but.. you got this off dictionary.com, didn't you? How about I quote a different dictionary cited on the same page?

"re·li·gion (rĭ-lĭj'ən) Pronunciation Key
n.
Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship."

This is already strongly mentioned on the definition you quoted anyway. Face it, the definition of religion IS belief in a higher power, or other non-scientific stuff like re-birth. Even if you find me a definition that somehow doesn't mention this, 'cmon, that's still what people use the word as and that's what it means.



I founded a religion based on the belief that there is an invisible red unicorn that follows you, lilwing, aroun-- oh wait, screw it, read my other reply to vashti.

or, better yet, I think this might address the issue; there is no way out. You either believe in god, or you believe-that-there-is-not-a-god. Either way, it seems you must "believe" something which you cannot prove. Therefore, it seems, you always have to be making a leap of faith, therefore, atheism would be a religion.
but this is faulty logic. Maybe this extract from an interview with Douglas Adams will explain it:

I guess if we took it to that definition, then Buddhism isn't very much of a religion. And if Buddhism wasn't a religion there wouldn't be any controversies between my beliefs in Buddhism and Christianity. But that's not true. They do cause conflicts. The same conflicts that arise between Atheism and Christianity.

If you can prove that point, I will eat my own words.

[run2white]

It's all very logical, until the final assumption is made at the end of the argument. It's always the same. To take any position outside of one's experience is to take a leap of faith on the subject. But many of us base our beliefs on actuality in the same frame of reference as does quantum mechanics, research science, and faith healing. Some of us have no such pesonal experience to draw from.

And some argue that the absence of anything outside one's own experience cannot exist. That is an assumption based on prejudice, not fact. The burden of proof does not fall to the person with the experience. It falls to the person without experience to enter into the same actuality before they can take part in an educated conversation. Otherwise, it just useless rhetoric.

We each will find our own way if we're open to knowing.