Religion

[quadibloc]

Need I say more?

We are honored to learn that Uma Thurman is a fellow Geekhacker... posting here under the name "Konrad".

[Konrad]

Actually, I don't find her attractive.  Skinny, blonde, famous, but not attractive.  Thus the non-Uma upgrade in my pic selections.

[quadibloc]

I thought that Uma Thurman was tall and slim, but hardly skinny.

Although I didn't think that Oprah Winfrey was fat, either.

But it's a good thing you did post those images; it stimulated my curiosity enough for me to discover that your current icon is an image of Gordon Liu playing Pai Mei, the martial arts instructor of Kill Bill's protagonist.

[wellington1869]

so konrad, are you a fan of tarantino? i cant stand him (he's got nothing original to say, as far as I can see; mostly copies from his favorite directors along with some gratuitous gore/violence thrown in), so even in our taste in movies we appear to be polar opposites

[ricercar]

You can love your pets, but don't looooooove your pets.

Uma Therman is NOT a sex symbol. She insisted this herself, in the late 80s Rolling Stone issue for which she posed without clothing.

[Konrad]

so konrad, are you a fan of tarantino? i cant stand him ... so even in our taste in movies we appear to be polar opposites

I was briefly inclined to champion my undying starry-eyed fanboy love of Tarantino for no reason other than to provoke you into another flamestorm of random apoplectic fury, Welly.
 
But alas, we can essentially agree to the substance of your attack on Tarantino; I'm no great fan of him nor most of his work either. Kill Bill wasn't particularly good or inspired. The film was very much what I expected it would be and served it's intended purpose (it was original enough to entertain me for a few hours). I was of course vastly amused by the quixotically satirical over-seriousness of the Pai Mei character ... who cares if Tarantino made the film, the character was, to me, still highly entertaining and fondly memorable. Would I watch it again? Not unless I was really bored, except for Pai Mei it just wasn't worth it. Would I discuss it in daily conversation? Hardly, unless my partner knew nothing else to talk about. Would I recommend other people watch it? For some people, perhaps; for others (including you, Welly), probably not.
 
As I've suggested before, I don't personally celebrate celebrities for their own sake; their popularity, position, or authority carries little weight for me when judging the value of their efforts and accomplishments. I discovered as a young adult that the very nature of art and artists (or "artistic" pretenders and claimants) is often inconsistent and highly subject to personal opinion. Good directors sometimes make bad movies, bad directors sometimes make good ones; any performer, composer, painter, sculptor, game designer or thrash metal band can create exceptionally good art or complete crap ... and shifting the focus away from the "artist" onto the creation itself can quickly reveal the facts that no artist is perfect and many creations are actually a mix of a few exceptional elements drowned in a pudding of bland mundanity. Philosophers ask lofty questions about whether the audience can perceive more beauty from the art than the artist's talent can convey into it ... some fancy bull**** to encourage sheeplike devotion of popular artists while discouraging unpopular ones, to me yet another method/example of self-reinforcing conformity. For example, Beyonce and Britney Spears are immensely popular, almost everything they churn out is automatically placed upon the altar and worshipped by the masses ... it's ridiculous to expect every single piece they create is a masterpiece yet they are hugely anticipated and popularized and rewarded all the same. I personally think Beyonce is an immensely entertaining dancer (due in large part to her seductive beauty and very generous surface area), an adequate singer, a poor composer, and not a musician at all. I think Britney (like Paris Hilton, etc) is an overhyped mindless cocaine skank. Similar examples abound throughout history, but somehow Britney's skankiness seems to have more impact than Picasso's outrageous condescension. No doubt some people *cough* might find my examples objectionable. Now, having said all that, I'll allow that society (including the artists) can still often be capable of recognizing real artistic qualities, generally promoting most of the best and eliminating most of the worst; I just don't view popular assessments as being absolutely correct in areas like art - where personal opinion (ie, entertainment and enjoyment value) is what matters most, and my thoughts (like anyone else's) about the merit of each artistic piece (or artist) are never in full concordance with the expectations of the masses. Discordian attitude I suppose, but like it or not I care little.
 
So whether my opinion of a particular movie agrees with anyone else's is of little concern to me unless it impacts the decision of which movie we'll watch together. I'm happily confident in declaring that you and I, Welly, will never be going out together on a movie date.

[Konrad]

Back to religion ...
 

 
Any comments?

[quadibloc]

Any comments?

Gee, I didn't know you were a Scientologist.

Uma Therman is NOT a sex symbol. She insisted this herself, in the late 80s Rolling Stone issue for which she posed without clothing.

This would be funnier if it weren't so important, and so difficult, to get on the cover of Rolling Stone, or even just within the magazine, that the magazine's editors did not have immense power to encourage people to do what will improve the magazine's circulation.

[wellington1869]

I was briefly inclined to champion my undying starry-eyed fanboy love of Tarantino for no reason other than to provoke you into another flamestorm of random apoplectic fury, Welly.

no worries konrad, I could never compete with your "Its a racist, religious, national war!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" as far as "apoplectic fury" goes.  Your title is safe.

But alas, we can essentially agree to the substance of your attack on Tarantino; I'm no great fan of him nor most of his work either. Kill Bill wasn't particularly good or inspired.

i hate to agree with you. no, really, i hate it.

As I've suggested before, I don't personally celebrate celebrities for their own sake; their popularity, position, or authority carries little weight for me when judging the value of their efforts and accomplishments.

i find that hard to believe since, based on your arguments above, you appear to be searching for a god/moses like figure to lay down the law for you, to tell you good society from bad, to define original sin, and create a structure populated with universal eternal enemies, so that you can then "understand" the world with that framework.

I discovered as a young adult that the very nature of art and artists (or "artistic" pretenders and claimants) is often inconsistent and highly subject to personal opinion.

seriously, are you suggesting there are no critereon that humans can agree upon while analysing art? Cuz that would be in line with your radical relativism/nativism.

I just don't view popular assessments as being absolutely correct in areas like art - where personal opinion (ie, entertainment and enjoyment value) is what matters most, and my thoughts (like anyone else's) about the merit of each artistic piece (or artist) are never in full concordance with the expectations of the masses. Discordian attitude I suppose, but like it or not I care little.

or are you taking an aristocratic attitude and pooh-poohing what the mindless masses like since you know better what they should like?
 

So whether my opinion of a particular movie agrees with anyone else's is of little concern to me unless it impacts the decision of which movie we'll watch together. I'm happily confident in declaring that you and I, Welly, will never be going out together on a movie date.

that makes me sad. I'd like to think in our personal relationship we could put aside our political differences and simply enjoy a good movie together. And maybe get a cappucino afterwards.

[Konrad]

Now you're calling me a pooh-pooh, Welly?  I'll consult a 3y old to find an appropriate response.
 
[Edit]
I think I'll pass on that cappaccino. As much as I delight in your lively conversation, I'm afraid our relationship would end up being purely physical.:fish:

[wellington1869]

Now you're calling me an aristocratic pooh-pooh, Welly?

i just like saying 'pooh-pooh'
 

[Edit]
I think I'll pass on that cappaccino.  Much as I could endure our lively conversations, I'm afraid our relationship would be purely physical.:fish:

oh just use me for my body eh? once again you've hurt my feelings.
My mother always warned me about evangelical, fascist, relativist-nativists. "They'll use you for your body," she said.

[Konrad]

(Hmmm, internet hiccup?  You quoted my first "rejected" edit before I submitted it again.)

[Konrad]

Gee, I didn't know you were a Scientologist.

Why the hell would anyone would buy into a "religion" cooked up by a drugged-hazed second-rate sci-fi writer is beyond me.
 
Even Discordians offer a less offensive fake religion.  Their "religion" is also after your wallet and also written by drugged-out acid hippies, but at least their dogma tolerates questions.
 
I'm surprised there's hardly been any mention of eastern philosophies in this thread.

[wellington1869]

Why the hell would anyone would buy into a "religion" cooked up by a drugged-hazed second-rate sci-fi writer is beyond me.

so seriously what are your thoughts on religion? I'm guessing you're some kind of maoist or islamist (kinda the same) so either a militant atheist or a militant evangelical (either of which would explain your "its a racist, religious, nationalist war!!!!!!!!!!!" analysis)

I'm surprised there's hardly been any mention of eastern philosophies in this thread.

ok - begin!

[Konrad]

I thought I already explained my thoughts on religion? With the *possible* exception of the esoteric transcendant zen buddhist sorts, I believe every religion I've ever heard of is simply a fairy tale, usually involving some kind of magical grand poobah who will somehow demand your obedience and reward or punish your devotion as he sees fit.
 
I think it could be argued that any decent work of fiction is sufficient premise to lead people who insist on forcing themselves to be led. Tolkien's Silmarillion is a fine example of potential holy canon; complete with creation myth, divine conflict, moral commandments, elite priest/shaman caste, disciples, epic heroes and histories, holy crusades, champions, heresy, inquisitions, and stern holy/social codes which should be heeded to achieve everlasting life (as opposed to eternal torment). I suspect the only reason we don't see "elven messengers" traipsing around worshipping Great Gu and his elemental Vala is simply because the book is too full of big complicated words for scientology-minded folk to comprehend. Much easier to be told than to read and ask and think.  Much easier to be ignorant if you've only read and studied one book in your entire life.
 
I note that some others here have unhesitantly found fault with other people's viewpoints without declaring any personal stances of their own. Standing on moving water seems an interesting mode of argument to me.

[Lanx]

^-----
why do buddhists get cut slack? they pray and worship at the foot of by today's standards a very morbidly obese god. If there is a person to pray to, then it should be considered a fairy tale as well.

[ricercar]

Buddha isn't obese as he seems;  he's enlightened.

[ch_123]

^-----
why do buddhists get cut slack? they pray and worship at the foot of by today's standards a very morbidly obese god. If there is a person to pray to, then it should be considered a fairy tale as well.

The thing about Buddhism is that it can be seen as quite a pragmatic philosophy to live one's life by, and the practices it espouses are things that even people who aren't interested in religion often get into, such as meditation. You don't really get that sort of universal appeal with stuff like transubstantiation, or halal meat...

I wish I could say the same thing about Christianity, as Jesus did have a lot of profound things to say about how one should live one's life, but his message has been used to disseminate so much bollocks throughout history that it kinda ruins it for me, and a lot of other people I would imagine.

[Ekaros]

Hmm, dunno didn't care to read thread through, but I have a few logical issues with Christianity, mainly the god, is there real point going around them? Or anyone would like to enlightehn me with some "minor" WTFs...

[ch_123]

We had a baptist who straight out said that about 2/3 of the world's population was going to burn in hell. That was a pretty serious WTF moment by my standards.

[quadibloc]

I'm surprised there's hardly been any mention of eastern philosophies in this thread.

Well, Eastern philosophies seem less offensive.

Hindu extremists destroyed a mosque from the 13th century in India, and then later a Hindu mob destroyed homes and killed people, because they were Christians, in Orissa, in the last little while - and, of course, Hinduism has the caste system.

Even Buddhists don't get off scot-free. Right now, the terrorist Tamil Tigers are in the news, but back in 1983, large numbers of Tamil civilians were killed in Sri Lanka because the government tried to crush a separatist movement - Sri Lanka's majority Sinhalese being Buddhist.

But we blame Japan's aggression in World War II on Shinto, not Zen. And the Dalai Lama seems like a very nice guy - and we know that Communists are repressive.

In general, people here in the West usually don't find Eastern philosophies attractive enough to live their lives by them. A few people might be tempted to investigate Buddhism, or Hinduism in the form of Vedanta, or Taoism (but not, say, Confucianism), hoping to find something more profound than what they are familiar with. And then there's Kabbalah.

Instead, they're concerned with the wacky behavior and beliefs either of the religion next door that seems to be sending up a lot of terrorist attackers these days... or of the religion that surrounds them and wants to tell everyone how to live their lives (bring back the old divorce laws and make cohabitation illegal!) and so they haven't had the time to figure out where Hinduism went wrong.

[Konrad]

The Pope is a very nice guy too, but that doesn't excuse Christians who choose to act stupidly. Nor does it automatically condemn non-Christians, regardless of their political leanings. Not even repressive Communist non-Christians.
 
lol, the few people I've met who've been tempted to investigate other religions seem to be drawn into half-assed crystal healing, psychic powers, wicca, or neo-pagan versions of norse or egyptian mythology ... perfect prey for scientologists. Basically improvised religions which attempt to claim legitimacy and ties to ancient traditions; the usual hierarchy of authority and promises of spiritual gain (ascendant afterlife, magical powers, whatever). I see the same thing when people possess expert knowledge of the wonderful lost civilization of Atlantis ... they do genuinely want to possess knowledge, but have been somehow deluded or failed by our educational system.
 
I'll admit that I haven't met any people who investigate buddhism or other eastern philosophies ... I expect that having to read and research and learn an alien language and culture and maybe even climb to a remote temple atop a desolate mountain peak are all sufficient deterrents. I get the impression that religious commitment for many people (in western society at any rate) is a casual obligation, often just a social expectation, the same way many people today half-expect marriages to be "temporary".  What is more offensive still is when people flock to religions based only on endorsement by hot celebrities, putting a brand name on their souls.

[ch_123]

Even Buddhists don't get off scot-free. Right now, the terrorist Tamil Tigers are in the news, but back in 1983, large numbers of Tamil civilians were killed in Sri Lanka because the government tried to crush a separatist movement - Sri Lanka's majority Sinhalese being Buddhist.

I don't really think there's a correlation there between their religion and what they did though, is there?

It's like the mess in Northern Ireland, where you had secretarian violence between "Catholics and Protestants". In reality, it was an ethnic and political conflict, and it just so happened that one side was associated with people who were traditionally Catholic, and the other was associated with people who were traditionally Anglican or Presbyterian. Nonetheless, there were Protestant members of the IRA, and Catholic members of groups like the UVF.

[quadibloc]

I see the same thing when people possess expert knowledge of the wonderful lost civilization of Atlantis ... they do genuinely want to possess knowledge, but have been somehow deluded or failed by our educational system.

In a magazine aimed at skeptics, I recall reading an article about a counter-intuitive result of a survey of education and pseudo-scientific belief.

As one might expect, when people had college degrees - even ones not connected with science and engineering - they were less likely to believe in flying saucers and the healing powers of crystals and so on than people with less education.

Up to a point. I forget exactly where the turnaround was, but I think it was somewhere around completion of high school.

People in really adverse educational situations, like having only a grade 6 education, were less likely to believe in crystals or flying saucers than high school graduates!

How could this be explained? Were these people just too poor to afford to be entertained by the books of pseudo-scientists and occultists? Were their lives just such a desperate struggle for survival that speculations about Atlantis and the like had no place in them? Or was a high-school education doing more to drive out common sense than to provide useful book-learning?

Well, the article came up with another explanation, one that made a lot of sense.

If people have some education, but not enough, they will question the ideas they grew up with and try to look for the truth - but they won't know enough to tell good new ideas apart from bad ones.

Without education, they will just accept what they've been told.

So the people who left school at the sixth grade and weren't flying saucer or New Age enthusiasts weren't rationalists. They were Creationists. They just stayed with what their parents taught them, with no interest in questioning it. So they wouldn't pay attention to this obviously demon-inspired weird stuff.

As the old saying goes, A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

[ricercar]

And then there's Kabbalah.

Which Kabbalah? Orthodox Judaisc Kabbalah, Golden Dawn Kabbalah, or Aleister Crowley's Kabbalah? I was once enthralled with the Fortune/Mathers writings myself. Now THAT'S a religion.

Now where did I put my Abra-Mellin ... there are some keyboards I want to summon.

[quadibloc]

Which Kabbalah? Orthodox Judaisc Kabbalah, Golden Dawn Kabbalah, or Aleister Crowley's Kabbalah?

I wasn't thinking of the Golden Dawn or Aleister Crowley... but I'm not quite sure if Madonna's Kabbalah is quite Orthodox Judaic Kabbalah or not.

[Konrad]

Rip, your keyboards are still open gateways to Evil Demon Spirits! They still need

• to be blessed with sprinkled holy waters
• to be completely immersed in the sacred Ganges river
• to endure hours of purification in a sacred sweat lodge
• to confess their many sins against typing
• to breathe the cleansing vapours of sacred incense
• to appease the spirits of ancestral typists
• to be accepted by the ~10,000 other divine entities you've insulted or neglected

[Edit]
Note that since most religions claim some kind of punishment in the afterlife if you don't obey their tenets, and since many religions are exclusive, it seems statistically likely that everybody is going to hell anyways.  Chances are they'll suffer from a shortage of keyboards, so your futile attempts to save your keyboard from damnation are somewhat counterproductive if you really think about it, Rip.

[microsoft windows]

My keyboards already for hit by the evil demon spirits. There's no other explanation why they've gotten so filthy these days.

[wellington1869]

ok, i think stephen hawking has officially brought this thread to a close.







...or has he?

[wellington1869]

I saw that (Yahoo shoves Associated Press content at me every time I log out of that particular email account). Good stuff.

I really like the way order comes out of chaos with just a handful of simple (but oh-so-consistent) physical laws. No "intelligence" required.

[Konrad]

But "The Grand Design" seems to step away from that, saying physics can explain things without the need for a "benevolent creator who made the Universe for our benefit."

I find no particular reason to believe the hypothetical creator is particularly benevolent.
 
Some religions (including Gnostics and the aforementioned Kaballah) actually incorporate the premise that god (who is assumed to exist) is not benevolent, or at least has not "finished" the job of creating the perfect universe.  A central part of their beliefs is that you cannot ascend to the happy afterlife until you've actually attained spiritual enlightenment through deliberate effort (available for a short time only when you order now and get a lifetime of disciplined and rigourous studying of their sacred scriptures).

[wellington1869]

attained spiritual enlightenment through deliberate effort

is that such a bad thing though? A lot of Christian sects offer 'instant and free' salvation, no work needed, only requirement is 'submitting', obedience.

[Konrad]

I agree. Instant gratification. Obedience, humility, fear, acceptance, whatever.  Like a magic pill that cures your ailment.
 
I don't think it's quite free, though. There is that matter of paying tithes.

[wellington1869]

There is that matter of paying tithes.

or more to the point, no self improvement is required or expected since what you get in exchange for obedience is forgiveness. It becomes a transaction rather than personal striving or growth.

but if you suggest that some kind of personal growth ought to be a requirement for getting closer to god, you know what the christians/missionaries will say. they'll say thats 'inequality' and goes against some notion of absolutely equal 'access' to 'god'.

[Oranjoose]

ok, i think stephen hawking has officially brought this thread to a close.







...or has he?

I've read up on the pages prior, and I must say, there are atheist posts
on here (yours not excluded) that are far more convincing and rational than
what Stephen Hawking [co]-wrote there.
This thread has been an interesting read.
Wellington,
For the former half of the thread, I thought you had some very coherent
and rational posts, but once it got close-to-home with the Ground Zero
stuff, I could no longer give you that credit.
For someone who earlier was bashing people who refused to do research
that may invalidate their beliefs, you surprised me with your stance on
the Ground Zero debate.
For instance, I noticed, for the most part, you used "Hamas"
interchangeably with "wrong." That demonstrates a huge lack of perspective.
If you did your homework on the Israel-Palestinian conflict, you'd see that
whether or not the Palestinians are reacting in an ideal fashion, it's certainly
an understandable one. I didn't think you'd be someone who would buy into
this insensible "terror" campaign poured down American throats.
Secondly, and more importantly, you seem incredibly confident about
exactly who was involved in the events on September 11th, 2001 concerning
the World Trade Center buildings, despite warranted suspicion.
I'm not saying that I know "who did it," but given the unquestionable air of
doubt concerning the situation, your stance on whether or not Muslims
should build a place of worship there contradicts your prior vigor against
absolution in light of doubt.

[wellington1869]

Wellington,
For the former half of the thread, I thought you had some very coherent
and rational posts, but once it got close-to-home with the Ground Zero
stuff, I could no longer give you that credit.

you mean you agreed with the earlier stuff and didnt agree with the latter stuff

For instance, I noticed, for the most part, you used "Hamas"
interchangeably with "wrong." That demonstrates a huge lack of perspective.
If you did your homework on the Israel-Palestinian conflict, you'd see that
whether or not the Palestinians are reacting in an ideal fashion, it's certainly
an understandable one.

oh goody, another relativist...

you seem incredibly confident about
exactly who was involved in the events on September 11th, 2001 concerning
the World Trade Center buildings, despite warranted suspicion.

...and conspiracy-theorist has appeared  This should take this record-breaking thread another 5 pages

[Oranjoose]

Like I said in my post, I'm not entirely convinced one way or the other about
the World Trade Center collapses. That is precisely my point though, that it
would be arrogant to claim absolutely that the events were purely devised by
"Muslim extremists" especially considering the whopping pile of evidence that
suggests the contrary.
We can create another thread if we want to talk details on that matter, I just
wanted to point out here what I saw as inconsistent with your creed on handling
the popular set-in-stone "fact" amidst doubt.
You describe me as "another relativist," care to elaborate?

[quadibloc]

it would be arrogant to claim absolutely that the events were purely devised by "Muslim extremists" especially considering the whopping pile of evidence that suggests the contrary.

No, it wouldn't be, as there is in fact no credible evidence suggesting the contrary. There are people who claim that something else happened, for example, that the Twin Towers were brought down through a controlled demolition, but these claims have been thoroughly refuted.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/1227842

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1531304,00.html

http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/episode/9-11-science-and-conspiracy-4067

http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/conspiracytheories/

http://www.jod911.com/

http://www.debunking911.com/

The only sense in which there is a big pile of evidence in favor of a 9/11 conspiracy is the sense in which there is a big pile of evidence in favor of ghosts or flying saucers. Yes, it's a big pile - but it's not from the sort of people one ought to take seriously.

[ch_123]

I hear them Jews done did it.

[Oranjoose]

quadibloc, let us not be imprisoned by narrow minds.
First, I'd like to say that I get particularly irritated with conspiracy theories.
You comparing the debate over the World Trade Center with UFO sightings
says more about you than anything else. The comparison shows complete
lack of perspective.
I really don't want this thread to become this far off-topic, so I'll keep it
very short:
I really thought that maybe the sources you supplied might somehow
adequately refute the evidence provided (and there's a lot to refute), but
I was sad to discover:
Popular Mechanics: I'm very disappointed with their lack of references, and
anecdotal evidence, citing "scientists"
Time: like above, they cite "scientists" without any formal references, when
they do. The evidence they use to properly kill "conspiracy theories" over
the WTC7 collapse was provided by NIST.gov, which has been shown to
be shaky and questionable (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFpbZ-aLDLY&feature=related)
nationalgeographic: Perhaps the most disappointing of all, they just refer
to "scientists" in an incredibly un-scientific fashion.
cbc: they seem to just dive into historical diplomacy and motive rather than
the events themselves
jod911 and debunking911: these are sites that desperately collect information to support the popular story wherever they can, in a no more professional
fashion than the conspiracy sites that mirror them. Plus, concerning WTC7,
they published incredibly long documents just about Larry Silverstein's pull it
quote (as some kind of diversion). They both rely heavily on the NIST report,
and anecdotal "logic" evidence.

The point, keeping it on topic, is that we could argue all day one side or the
next, without coming to any satisfactory scientific conclusion about all the
evidence. I find it disappointing that you tromp on here pretending like you know "ferr sherrr."

[wellington1869]

I hear them Jews done did it.

dude, thats crazy. Everyone knows it was the CIA in cahoots WITH the jews that did it.

[Voixdelion]

^-----
why do buddhists get cut slack? they pray and worship at the foot of by today's standards a very morbidly obese god. If there is a person to pray to, then it should be considered a fairy tale as well.

Actually, it is my understanding that they neither worship Buddha nor pray to him.  Buddha didn't claim to be a God.  

My father is currently in Japan undertaking a major translation of the Lotus Sutra from Sanskrit into Japanese, English and then Spanish.   I got to consult on it, and will even get a credit in the final draft once all the scholarly types give it the OK for publishing.  Buddhism is the one "religion" I have found that doesn't actually in practice conflict with other belief systems because it isn't really a "belief" but more practically a system whereby one strives to reduce suffering through understanding of what causes it.  About the only supernatural hooey involved is the concept of Karma extending past current lifetimes, but I can put that on the same level as the scientific notion that energy is neither created or destroyed, but simply recycled through change in form.  

Perhaps though I have only been exposed to a "Methodist" sort of understanding of the vehicle.    If we are defining religion as following blindly in the precepts of some higher being, then by my understanding Buddhism doesn't actually qualify.  If "Buddha" means "enlightened one" then every soul has the potential to be that - and "The" Buddha is referring to the first one to have attained that state, not as an all powerful God to be supplicant to.  The teachings I have heard are presentations of how one might find enlightenment themselves, not a set of prescribed laws handed down from on high.

I myself had rejected religion as so much hooey from the time I was seven or so, even though my father was well entrenched in Buddhism since at least that time (Mom blamed Buddhism for their dissolution of their marriage, but she would blame anything but herself.)   However, the teachings I have been exposed to made a great deal of sense to me and if I were pressed to pick a label for my spiritual compass, I would say Buddhism comes closest to a way of existence that I am comfortable with.    In fact, the summer following the 9/11 crap there was a conference of world religious leaders (including the pope, dalai lama, grand poobah's of all sorts) that opened with a speech given by Dr. Kubo (the man my father is working under on the translations as well as the one who first inspired his interest in Buddhism)  that summed up a great deal of what I have come to believe about religion that was received with standing ovation by said world religious poobahs et al.  Turns out my Dad wrote it.

[wellington1869]

Actually, it is my understanding that they neither worship Buddha nor pray to him.  Buddha didn't claim to be a God.  

voix this is an excellent point. Arguably buddhism (by the standards of monotheism anyway) is more a philosophy than a religion.

I find one of the first problems we face when we discuss religion in the west is the apriori assumption that monotheistic/evangelical norms of religion are THE norms of religion. I think any thoughtful examination of eastern (or any non-monotheistic, non-evangelical) religion pretty quickly must come to the conclusion that that assumption is flawed.

Thats not to say we cant make intelligent comparisons across religions; i think we can (and i think that because i'm not a relativist). But it does say we have to be careful and attend to the details and contexts more carefully when making such statements.

So i totally agree with you on the above.  This is why, throughout this thread, when discussing "religion", I keep saying, "what kind of religion?".  It isnt about "atheism vs religion" or "religion vs religion"; its about what kind of religion, what kind of atheism, etc.

[Konrad]

Since we're talking zen ...
 
While recently looking for the latest Nuts&Volts at the local thrift store I purchased ZEN BLOCKS
 

 
It didn't come with any English instructions, beyond a cryptic little paragraph on the back of the box which doesn't make any ****ing sense:

A very special Three Dimensional many experiences for the Intuitive, for the Dreamer, and for the Great Thinker. Match all symbols to form a cube where you bring together Lion and Lamb, Heaven and Earth, Rain and Sun, Yin and Yang to form A Single Perfectly Transcendant And Harmonious Whole. A Genuine Game which unfolds differently each time you play. Not a one solutions puzzle. Thus, excellent for Family Play, for in classrooms as Logic Game, for in groups to Assessing Cooperative Skills or just even for to traditional give to that Special Clever Person. Everyone plays together and we realize the common objective and symmetry.
 
If you are Very Young then to Simple Play you Achieve Harmony by make blocks as pleasing shapes like Great Wall, or City, or River, or Mountains. If you are Very Old then to Hard Play you think about Symmetry in Many Pleasing Shapes and Sounds to make blocks for Special Harmony.

Should I meditate upon these rules until I am struck with an epiphany of Complete Understanding of the Harmonious Objective? Is that the whole point of this maddening game?
 
Or am I just the victim of bad translation? Or good translation by a babbling imbecile?

[wellington1869]

lol! the instructions are the game

(not unlike religion, i suppose!)

[maclover]

if you seriously believe in fairies, santa clause, ghosts or god you should be put in a mental institution

[Konrad]

Worst $2 I ever spent.

[wellington1869]

if you seriously believe in fairies, santa clause, ghosts or god you should be put in a mental institution

my neighbor's a fairy

[wellington1869]

Worst $2 I ever spent.

does sound pretty zen, like fishing in a pond with no fish.

[instantkamera]

if you seriously believe in fairies, santa clause, ghosts or god you should be put in a mental institution

Is there a CLAUS somewhere that states this?