To All Atheists: Which Religion Do You Like The Most?
- Thread starter lacktheknack
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Yea. I was referring to the Abrahamic religions. I wasn't thinking in numbers and I do believe you are right about the size Hinduism. But it's not as noisy as the others.stompy said:
I think some religions are definintely worse than others, but all of them have their faults. Plenty of the Eastern religions can be better in terms of less of an ethos of religious supremacy that can often used to justify victimisation of others, but on the other hand they have all behaved like that to some degree at some point. Even supposedly peaceful Buddhists will fight or have - such as in Sri Lanka - oppressed others. I think no mainstream religions are institutionally and inherently unpleasant, although there are a few cults and corporate pseudo-religions that are.
It's not so much preferring "a religion" out of the many from my point of view. It's about preferring a way that religious people - or indeed sometimes atheists - choose to behave.
Which is to say, not trying to ram their religion down anyone's throats. A preacher shouting in the street or knocking on doors is no different or worse than any salesman trying to flog vacuum cleaners or charity workers wanting £24 for cancer research. I'm okay with that, they've got every right to advertise. When people start telling others they are evil, going to hell, stupid or lack morality, that's annoying and offensive. When they think they have the right to enforce stuff on everyone based on their divine writ rather than objectivity and fairness, that's dangerous. At the worst end, some think it's acceptable to attack, maim and kill others.
It's not so much preferring "a religion" out of the many from my point of view. It's about preferring a way that religious people - or indeed sometimes atheists - choose to behave.
Which is to say, not trying to ram their religion down anyone's throats. A preacher shouting in the street or knocking on doors is no different or worse than any salesman trying to flog vacuum cleaners or charity workers wanting £24 for cancer research. I'm okay with that, they've got every right to advertise. When people start telling others they are evil, going to hell, stupid or lack morality, that's annoying and offensive. When they think they have the right to enforce stuff on everyone based on their divine writ rather than objectivity and fairness, that's dangerous. At the worst end, some think it's acceptable to attack, maim and kill others.
Hindus actually can be pretty violent (in the name of religion), you know. Every religion has its fundamentalists.teh_gunslinger said:Yea. I was referring to the Abrahamic religions. I wasn't thinking in numbers and I do believe you are right about the size Hinduism. But it's not as noisy as the others.
True. I'll qualify my statement a bit more: I mostly hear about the others. It's just a matter of my own bias.stompy said:Hindus actually can be pretty violent (in the name of religion), you know. Every religion has its fundamentalists.teh_gunslinger said:Yea. I was referring to the Abrahamic religions. I wasn't thinking in numbers and I do believe you are right about the size Hinduism. But it's not as noisy as the others.
I like Shinto. It's quirkily amusing while still being kind of cool, has a bunch of great traditions, rituals and festivals and is also completely harmless. I don't actually BELIEVE in it of course, but if any religion were real I'd definitely be hoping it would be this one.
in shri lanka it's Buddhists that are actually oppressed...even worse than the Tibetan's in some cases. having temples with hundreds, of not thousands of years of records, lessons, and other artifacts destroyed, most of their temples are little more than skeleton ruins after being blown to bits, many of their brothers and sisters shot to death and tortured by state police for leading a demonstration march....Agema said:
However I want to make it clear, though there is a big issue to do no harm to any living thing, there is also no defined rule of if, and when physical retaliation are allowed... that has always been debated...Tibetan monks , and sri-lankin monks both are at a point in their being punished for who and what they are, that some of them say it's time to fight back physically, and others stating that no physical battle should ever be resorted to, and that there are other means.
fighting to save the life of others.. or as the jedi would say " for defense, never for attack" is a question that many are left out to open....last thing a buddhist is interested in is power, and wealth....as the whole philosophy is centered of the selfless, and easing of suffering... but thats not to say that in history there have been those who USE the banner of a monk to inflict suffering...even the famed sohei of Japan, were ( in the majority) really not true monks, though their name means " warrior monk" most of them were mercenaries who came together and established a private army and offered their hand to which ever Daimyo would pay the highest to the " temple"
so there HAS been cases of Buddhists entering battle....but it's not something taken lightly at all, and it's stressed that the burdens an individual will take on for taking such actions, are not to be underestimated.
to find the self, is to loose the self, to loose the self is to be enlightened by ten thousand things...
Scientology, Mormonism and Jedism... Nah just kidding Budhism seems like the most relaxed religion, if it even is one. I know a few protestants and they are very open minded too.
Oh and the Jedi religion is real; they believe in the prophet Yoda and the powers of the force .
Oh and the Jedi religion is real; they believe in the prophet Yoda and the powers of the force .
you can always further legitimize jedism by pointing out that it's a spun off branch of buddhism.....since thats where George mirrored the philosophy off of, then tweaked it...
so by that...it's just as legit as any other
so by that...it's just as legit as any other
sweet another toaistYammo said:
i think my fav passage is
He who knows others is clever;
He who knows himself has discernment.
He who overcomes others has force;
He who overcome himself is strong.
He who knows contentment is rich;
He who perseveres is a man of purpose;
He who does not lose his station will endure;
He who lives out his days has had a long life. /awesome
i also liked his take on the chicken and the egg paradox. even if the answer isn't satisfying atleast Lao Tzu gives an answer as opposed to the circluar western thinking.
then dont be a fundamentalist....or live out your days in the mountains as a hermit if your desire to kill infadels exeeds its limits.stompy said:Hindus actually can be pretty violent (in the name of religion), you know. Every religion has its fundamentalists.teh_gunslinger said:Yea. I was referring to the Abrahamic religions. I wasn't thinking in numbers and I do believe you are right about the size Hinduism. But it's not as noisy as the others.
the only evil in this world you can truly conquer, is that which is inside yourself
quote: Kwai Chang Caine
I think you'll find it's the Hindu Tamils who were oppressed. That's why they rebelled a decade or three ago. The rebellion's just been defeated in the last month.Matronadena said:
Buddhists make up about 75% of the Sri Lankan population. I'm not clear how a democratically-elected government can manage to oppress 75% of their own electorate and keep their jobs. The fact that the government, not so long ago, tried to make Buddhism the official religion of Sri Lanka also suggests it's not an oppressed religion there.
