Some guy made up Christianity back a couple thousand years ago, no different from L. Ron Hubbard really.

I'm a Buddhist. Buddhism is NOT a religion; it is a practice, a philosophy, and a psychology of how the mind works. You have a perfectly good mind and can figure out for yourself, which so-called religions are just BS cults, and which ones are a valid authentic spiritual path with a centuries-long tradition within a culture. You can figure out which sub-sects within a religion are a corruption and which are a needed reform.

You can also figure out when it is oppropriate to guard your speech about someone's religion, and when it is oppropriate to speak out against religious ideology that is harmful to people.

And no, I'm not required to tell you or prove that your made-up BS religion is BS. Would you even listen? But out of compassion, I might warn you about the harm that a dangerous religion, like scientology, has inflicted on people. In general, Buddhism does not try to convert people. You have to ask for teachings.

Hear me out. My wife and I practice the kind of Buddhism I think you do, based on meditation, compassion and mindfulness. But just the way the communal, living in poverty, and helping the poor and afflicted beliefs of Jesus turned into a religion with all the dogma, myths, regalia and hierarchy that is Christianity, the same thing has happened to Buddhism in many countries.

My Japanese wife's family has been associated with the same Buddhist temple for centuries. It's a racket. They support the temple and the head monk's lifestyle by renting cemetery plots and conducting funerals and memorial services. that's very profitable because the Japanese hold memorial services at regular intervals for decades after someone dies. When someone dies, their family choose a Buddhist name for the deceased. The more "prestigious" the name, the more it costs (it can only be conferred by the temple). I don't remember Buddha talking about that. the monk joined us for seafood, meat and alcoholic beverages at the feast after each memorial service. He drove a Cadillac. Hey, I don't begrudge him the joys of the flesh. It's just not what I expected. Oh, and the job of being the head monk of a temple is hereditary. His son will inherit the position when he dies.

It is non-theistic, although to some, it may SEEM to be a religion. You are correct that over the centuries, various people and sects have corrupted Buddhism for ego reasons of power and wealth. That is what is called "spiritual materialism." Spirituality used to enhance and enlarge ego-cherishing. But none of that changes the profound authentic Buddhadharma. I always encourage people to read widely and to be very very careful choosing a teacher.

Buddhism is practiced as a religion by most countries where it is widely practiced. Your view is that Buddha did not intend his beliefs to be interpreted this way. I'm sure Jesus would feel the same. Do you have much experience living in Buddhist countries? In many cases Buddhists believe in superstitious practices and pray for intercession by the Buddha. You may disapprove, but that's reality. The Buddha would be amused. He knew all about human foibles.

There's still doctrine, dogma, and spiritualism that goes with Buddhism. I suppose you can define "religion" however you want, but Buddhism fills in all the blanks in most generally accepted definitions for the term, including the one the government uses for 501c3.

a religion called "Buddhism."

But it too is a religion.

Recall 1) the laughing. Buddha.

And the Zen koan: "If you see the Buddha on the road, kill him."

It's a joke with a point; the Buddha probably opposed anyone deifyng or fetihizing him.

Last edited Thu Jun 7, 2018, 05:17 AM - Edit history (1)

I've often looked into Buddhism more than casually,

Are you 1) contending there was no laughing.Buddha?.

No laughing Buddha in the Pali canon, or in the Tibetan shastras, or the abbidharma, or the uttaratantra, or the prajnaparamita. Not found in the Lam Rim, or the Torch of Certainty. Maybe only found in a Zen koan, which is, by definition, not the words OF the buddha, but words in a parable ABOUT Buddha nature, Tathagatagharba. What does the koan mean to you?

Last edited Wed Jun 6, 2018, 06:18 PM - Edit history (1)

So you know that there are many of them. And from my study of comparative religion, culture, I noticed that Buddhism, like many religions, was eclectic; incorporating in this case, a laughing figure,.of possibly Chinese, Taoistic origin. Who is widely known in many regions; who is found not just in koans, but also statues of him, as a Buddha. Though his Buddhahood is rejected by some purists, "Chan" Buddhism accepts him it seems.

To me, a joking, laughing Buddha makes sense. Buddha often wanted to free us from many earthly concerns, preconceptions, desires. And laughter is one way we can do that.

The Zen Buddhist koans are always close to laughter, some feel, in their paradoxical, non sequitur, almost nonsensical character. They challenge conventional wisdom, that can otherwise ensnare our minds in preconcceptions. Zen breaking with normal" sense" by asking us to appreciate the sound of "one hand clapping," for instance.

The notion of killing the Buddha if you meet him "on the road," is probably a modern loan. Designed to disarm.our attachments to a traditional Buddhist story form. Which, if you obsess on it, leaves you looking at the pointing finger; and not the possibly more nameless state it is pointing to.

Buddha is himself a fianger that points at something beyond itself. This means,.note, that even the Buddha himself is just a sort of pointing finger. And not the goal. So that the very name "Buddhism," or copying the Buddha,fails to get the point.

Which is a bit funny.

That is to say, it was initially an oral tradition. So saying the laughing Buddha is not found in the canons doesn't mean it is not an authentic ancient tradition. It may well go back to the Buddha himself or his early followers.

Zen is to traditional Buddhism as, roughly, Protestantism is to Catholicism.

Chan Buddhism is a more folk tradition. Its fat and happy monk Buddha is a bit like Santa Claus.

Both are useful perspectives on Buddhism though.

I hear the sound of one hand clapping.

In China he was known as Budai, a semi-historical monk, who was introduced into the Zen Buddhist pantheon. In Japan he is Hotei-sama, one of the Seven Lucky Gods.

You are right about the koan. In addition, it suggests if we have a mental image or assumption of the Buddha, it is entirely false.

Last edited Wed Jun 6, 2018, 06:03 PM - Edit history (1)

Budai though, was known in Chinese itself, by a name that meant "laughing Buddha." Many thought he was a Buddha; believing that the word Buddha was just a generic title like " the boss." And that there was long succession of them. Or that the Buddha resurrected often in various avatars.

But since there were so many avatars, and since no single one of them - or possibly not even of them all together - was the point? Then to fix on the image of any one, or even all, would be to fail to see the forest for the trees. Failure to see the "all."

In this view, if you call your self a Buddhist, you are not quite there. You are still looking at something,.someone, too particular and limited.

So it's better to be an atheist; having no gods,.or Buddhas, or any single obsessively fetishized leader at all. In order to see the bigger picture.
One beyond all particular religions, or any particular leaders or heroes.

becoming aware of the actual sensory input we receive through the five senses, and then the reactions we have to those stimuli, and then learn how to observe and experience without judgement, in total objectivity.

And modern atheism.

And maybe humor too?

First, I challenge you to objectively distinguish between your categories of "real" and "made up" religions.

Second, going with an intuitive categorization of "real" religions, are you seriously claiming that none of them should be disrespected?

Many religions, holy men, admit they are incomplete,.inadequate. Even Jesus was often humble. And Christianity often suggests that we on earth do not know the final truth, till the'"day" when judgment comes.

So even religions themselves, often explicitly demand some disrespect.

And we should give it to them.

If we read the Gospels and Acts, it would seem that the large majority of those who profess Christianity do not practice it, but I do not mean to be so demanding. But there are many "Sunday Christians" who profess the religion for the sake of the material benefits they gain as a result -- business contacts and reputation and such -- but who are privately skeptics. That so, is Christianity a "practiced" religion?

Yes if their adherents genuinely believe them, No if they're literally just meta jokes about religion.

Any other believers. It's all just belief.

I don't get your question. Happy to answer it though.

What you mean by disrespect?

And of course, you can disrespect whomever you want. That freedom is yours no matter the sincerity of the believer. There's no 'I'm allowed to e.g. break the law because my faith is sincere' clause in society.

There are laws which privlidge certain groups of believers or punish non believers around the world, but those are based on claims, not proof, etc.

I'd not hope to find myself in a position where it was dangerous for me to not defend Nazis or fascists or racists, but many people have lived and do live in these sorts of environments and I don't believe it's easy for most.

After many sly, snakelike, priestly, slippery arguments, apologetics, will we be recruited to love the Nazi Pope? Or who? As the leg irons will be snapped unto place.

Priestly and sophistical accommodationism tends to end at some point.

Where are you headed? The Alt Right?

I lived in post-Nazi Germany as a kid in the 1950s. And in the White Supremacist south. They had both lost huge wars, note

Visiting the. bombed-out downtown of Frankfurt and Munich,. I saw acres of nothing but piles of bricks. Except? High up, above it all, were the surviving second and third floor sewer pipes; and on top if them? The pristine toilets. High above it all. As if on celebratory columns.

I always thought of them as ironic monuments to Nazism, and White Supremacism. And its ending.

Toilets standing straight on top of tall,.very straight columns. Like statues. Eventually though the toilets filled with rainwater. And the weight caused most columns to bend.. The toilets themselves got uglier and uglier too.

No one makes you respect anyone. No one makes you accept. Nazis, in fact it would be ludicrous to accept Nazis.

But, from the perspective of belief, all beliefs feel the same to believers. Scientologists have the same faith feeling as Satanists, as Catholics. And from the outside you can't tell what someone actually believes. You also can't give me universally accepted definitions for belief, or respect.

It's easy to say 'hey all beliefs arent equal because nazis" but in fact the US experimented with WMDs on prisoners, the US was sterilizing the poor and minorities against their will, and the US has committed untold racist murders (and don't forget white men were the Nazis of Native Americans)... Not that one justifies the other, but that history is bloody and violent and heartless. Nazis are the popular bad guys, but people did as bad all over the world for centuries. Right now the US is helping dictators starve millions of women and children in Yemen. Where's the outrage?

And if you can't figure out that respect is something you control, and is unrelated to the supposed sincerity of a belief - something you can never know - what can I do to help you?

To religions, just because they demand it. Or to beliefs. Though adherents often insist violently.

At least this holds once you are an adult.

But for that matter? Belief in say, a government of laws, say, might occupy a higher position than some others?

Beliefs might feel similar inside. I've had many beliefs; they do feel similar enough to recognize a generic similarity. But often they feel slightly different. Most are reinforced by slightly different things. Different authorities.

Belief in God was enforced by preachers; belief in law, by police. Belief in a physical world, by my eyes, and the hardness of sidewalks.

yes we all feel and believe thing the same way, but that doesn't mean there's not variations... we all have them... it's just that there's not a "feeling of belief when you're right" and a "feeling of belief when you're wrong".

If there's one thing that science should teach you, it's that you're not a very good witness. There's NO guarantee that even your most fact enforced belief won't prove to be wrong, in fact a huge part of the history of belief is that certainty is illusory.

For example:

Free will could all be an illusion, scientists suggest after study shows choice may just be brain tricking itself

The scientists cautioned that the illusion of choice might only apply to choices that are made quickly and without too much thought. But it might also be “pervasive and ubiquitous — governing all aspects of our behaviour, from our most minute to our most important decisions”.

“Whatever the case may be,” they write, “our studies add to a growing body of work suggesting that even our most seemingly ironclad beliefs about our own agency and conscious experience can be dead wrong.”

The work is published in the journal Psychological Science.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/free-will-could-all-be-an-illusion-scientists-suggest-after-study-that-shows-choice-could-just-be-a7008181.html

So that goes to our VERY core; can we decide things for ourselves, or only retroactively justify/explain our decisions to ourselves after our unconscious makes the decision for us.

And if we can't even trust that we're making conscious decisions... well... sidewalks may feel hard, but who knows. They probably are, but then again I'd have the same thing about freewill 10 years ago.

Sounds like the article you have has a slightly new wrinkle. But the debate is very old. And has always proposed that in effect,.many if not all of our beliefs, are hard-wired,; "determined," by our gods,.or environment. Or now, brain structure.

Most agree that some of our ideas are determined.. But not all. And? Much of philosophy, phenomenology, has tried to uncover underlying beliefs.

And there's a joke about the belief that all our lives are determined: even determinists look both ways before they cross the street. As if they still believe their free will makes a difference.

I think that our thinking is largely determined. But if it is determined partly by our own individual envirinment? Then it is determined in our own unique, individual way. So we have a partly correct sense of doing things "our way."

In most models in any case, some beliefs seem more determined than others. So not all beliefs are.so fixed. And likely, there is say, no " religion gene," that guarantees that we all get religion, as some claim.

As Chomsky's research has shown language is intrinsic to humanity, the way that herding is intrinsic to collies.

Freewill/consciousness are at best simplifications of complex processes we may more may not ever fully understand.

And therefore, what's in a belief?

Value?

Well, from a societal perspective, absolutely.

From an abstract perspective, not very much.

And so a more accurate way to think about belief might be to think of it as either mainstream or fringe.

And those delineations are - finally - reflections of something real: popularity.

We can measure that and study it and manipulate it... it's not nearly as abstract as "belief" or "respect".

But, should popular beliefs be more respected than less popular ones?

No, not necessarily. Bashing immigrants is popular, but it's not worth respect.

So, we're back to the start.

We might say, look at which are widely or universally held. Hardwired opinions might have biological functions. And with biology we are in the realm of science.

Some might still reject science. But that can't be done in a high tech environment without inconvenieonce or extermination, or hypocrisy.

All these are values. But central ones. Some,.scientific.

Belief is nothing but a sort of opinion.

And. Actually it's done in high tech environments ALL the time.

Google Architects and Engineers 9/11 truth

You'll find countless engineers spreading conspiracies about things they aren't experts in. The same is true with doctors (ever met a racist doctor, because there's plenty) and even physicists. Many scientists believe in angels, for example...science be damned.

That escalated quickly...

That wasn’t a limited assertion. There might have been an assumed limitation in there, so it seemed appropriate to explore the outliers. And these days Nazi beliefs are not outliers.

Except for when it isn't.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ark_Encounter#Tax_incentives

People exploit the concept of religion for their own personal gains, around the world, and have done since day 0, but that IS different to trying to understand belief. Which is something that we can't even agree on a definition for, much less measure in each other.

If you say you believe, I assume you're not lying, etc. But I can't check. And even if I could, belief may be some side effect of something in the subconscious, which would undercut the notion that people are even consciously choosing to believe.

Young earth creationism isn't "just a belief", it is a movement causing real harm to real people.

Perhaps we're getting hung up on the definition of "respect". I recognize the right of young earth creationists to believe whatever they want. I do not personally adire these beliefs or afford them any degree of positive regard.

Not do I think it's provable in the way you assume.

No one can - again - agree on what belief means. So how that relatively ill-defined concept can be definitively tied to anything is IMO a stretch.

Is blowing up a shop 'for Islam' the same thing as saying that Islam causes terror?

Or is religion an excuse used by some to justify behavior they'd do even without religion?

Etc.

As for respect, that's up to you. Your beliefs about other people's beliefs are just that, and nothing more. Follow what you believe and as long as it doesn't hurt anyone, I don't care.

Behavior is a function of genetics, environment, and socialization. Religion is a social institution. It makes sense therefore to assume religious belief an important factor in human social development.

A cursory look at human history should dispel the cynical notion that people "use religion to justify" whatever bad thing they really want to do. There are literally thousands of examples to the contrary, where in the name of religious belief, people have done things decidedly against their own personal interests.

What if I invent a cult to take advantage of vulnerable people?

What if I invent a Megachurch to scam people?

Who are you to attack the sincerely held beliefs my followers have in the religion I made up?

If you think it's art, it's art.

The point is, do people sincerely believe in it? If so, it's religion.

No other standard makes any sense.

Do I really believe what I claim to believe?

Long answer no with a but.

Humans are driven by their subconscious. In fact the more we know about the human brain the less we think free will enters into it. That's a bit of hyperbole, but it's also essentially true. We don't know how much control we consciously have over our beliefs and behavior.

So in that context, who knows if you're even capable of belief.

Ignoring that, even if you do believe in things, legitimately, that doesn't have to be black and white. It could be prayer on your death bed after years of non-practice, or it could be attending a unitarian church, where what you believe is left up to you, more or less.

It could be believing in God, but no religion, or going to church daily and not believing at all.

It could be fervently believing for years, and then gamely playing along as an unbeliever for even more years.

There's no one definition of belief.

On the other hand, what's faith?

Faith is consciously believing the irrational. That's a perquisite for relief belief.

Trying to logically understand a group of people whose only connection is conscious belief in the irrational... Well... It seems like a lot of wasted effort to me.

Do you see now why atheists have an issue with religion?

If it's not possible to make verifiable claims on or about a religion, how and why are we supposed to take religion seriously?

- There is no evidence either for or against God. And the most successful method we have for exploring the universe (the scientific method) is useless here because God doesn't fit into its philosophical premises.
- And even if we postulate the existence of God, there is still no way to find out which religion is the correct way to understand him.
- And even if we postulate the existence of religions, there is still no way to tell a joke-religion apart from a serious religion.

This whole concept of God and religion is simply shockingly devoid of agreeable-upon fundamentals.

Look again at the definition of faith.

The 'magic' in religion isn't an accident. You're meant to believe things you can't verify. By definition.

The only fundamental is faith. And it's beyond reason. By design.

way to objectively determine "sincere". But there is no reason I can see why "sincere beliefs" are automatically deserving of respect.

Is something you get to decide on.

Respect, don't respect, it's all up to you.

Society has norms, but in this case only you can know who you really respect.

Obviously "it's all up to me" (assuming that free will exists of course) whether I respect idiotic nonsense because it is enclosed in a religious framework. The question was framed as an ethical question.

It say, warns over and over about the horrible taking snake,."Satan." But then? Jesus likens himself to a snake lifted up by Moses, to draw people to him. And Jesus tells his followers to be sly as serpents.

So I submit that Jesus is slyly, humbly, undercutting, joking about, his own authority. And the authority of Christianity.

Jesus is subtly hinting that he is a talking snake,.himself.

Which is very funny, in many ways. Given the great status given to him by many.

Jesus by the way, is likely not real at all. But his character is amusing at times. And becomes more harmless if you see self parody in it?

They're all made up by humans.

Since the things being believed in are both fictional, a made-up belief and a belief in the made-up, to me, are no different, except I give a slight nod to the first one for trolling the second one. (That's the "little" in the "little to none.&quot

And there are Tragi-comedies.

But especially, I submit, even most" serious" religions are often explicitly " humble." Admitting they don't have all the answers yet. And therefore, they defer from asking for too much respect.

In fact, they often in effect, demand our disrespect.

Which is funny. Possibly even intentionally.

Many religions at times, if not always,.invite us to even...laugh at them.

And so maybe they are a joke, after all. Even a conscious, intentional joke, at times.

It's funny to hear a God stand up in front of you, and demand in a thunderous voice that you obey him, or die. And then suddenly when people ask Jesus if he is a Messiah or God, he replies with maybe yes, maybe no. ("Who do you say I am"?)

And then there are all those metaphors, puns. Over and over, God promises us actual physical food, "bread." But then? Jesus twists all that. And suggests that just his words, teachings, spirit, are all we need; as "bread indeed." As metahorical bread

So God was just punning all along?

A very, very funny God.

A "trickster God," as anthropologists call them?

Last edited Thu Jun 7, 2018, 09:25 AM - Edit history (1)

then it really would be worthy of respect. Many people do treat as an art form and create their own riffs on the main themes.

Last edited Thu Jun 7, 2018, 09:45 AM - Edit history (1)

Though not outright or open ridicule and self parody.

Maybe it would be fun to make a movie where Jim Cary and his partner in Dumb and Dumber, get religion. Bruce Almighty was partly there?

Or say Dudism seems to both allow and parody religion.

But problem is that anything that calls itself a "religion," hauls in a ton of nasty baggage right behind it. And you never know when a free playing self parody will suddenly solidify into one inflexible deadly dogma or another.

But I make movies sometimes. And that does sounds like a funny one. A little like the Jesus scene in Life of Brian, maybe.

No seriousness allowed though.

I would add that, by the way,.the small "humble" or self parodying side of religion, is too small to excuse it. I would say though, that for those trapped inside a religion, there is something in religion itself, that offers an escape hatch.

If you feel you have to honor your religion, and follow it? Then note that within your religion itself, is something that allows you to, .. back off from your religion a bit. Or even.walk away from.it entirely. And that movement or door,.is the moment your religion confesses some humility and uncertainty.

If your religion itself confesses it is uncertain or humble? Then it is not sure. And if it is not sure? Then it should allow you to begin to. .. edge away from.it.

Aren't they ALL made up joke religions? Sorta like fairy tales?

In some cases they probably deserve more credit. I mean CotFSM is clearly not taking itself too seriously and in many ways exists just to poke and have fun.

In contrast, Dudeism, based on the character the Dude from The Big Lebowski exists on a broad spectrum of scales ranging from the joke aspect through to full on Eastern stuff and everything in-between. Fact is though that ordained members have done many good things, performing marriages for lbgqt that no other person will is a good example.
Certainly the discussion groups do much for people too, lifting people up or some part really resonating with someone.

You can practically guarantee that if you meet another Dude they will be good people doing good things or good people just taking life easy.

Sorry, but that’s the truth. Islam and Christianity have no more validity than Odinism or Pastafarianism.

Belief in a higher being is one thing but all the cultish sects with all those silly rules and mythology are bunk.

At least, until the FSM demands that somebody be killed, mutilated, or otherwise abused. It is demonstratively better until and unless that happens.