Religion. Why and which is the best?

[Vlad]

It's possible Jesus never existed. It's possible Plato never existed. What does it change for you, if they existed or not?

It doesn't matter to me, but it matters a lot to those who worship them. I doubt anyone was ever killed in the name of Plato or because he favored the teachings of Aristotle. No one ever said Socrates died for their sins either...

[Duster929]

It doesn't matter to me, but it matters a lot to those who worship them. I doubt anyone was ever killed in the name of Plato or because he favored the teachings of Aristotle. No one ever said Socrates died for their sins either...

I think we're really wandering in the argument here. I'm not sure what point this is trying to make. What does it matter if anyone was ever killed in the name of Plato? Does that make it easier to believe in his existence?

As for "worshipping them", I think your choice of words implies a very simple outlook on the issue. People don't "worship" Socrates or Plato. People can appreciate their teachings and their understanding of the world. People can "subscribe to their philosophy", without worshiping them. Why isn't the same possible for Jesus?

In fact, why isn't the same possible for Jesus, even if he never existed?

Does Buddhism become less attractive as a philosophy if the Buddha never existed?

--- D

[eastcoast_gsx]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urlTB...1&feature=fvwp

[Vlad]

What does it matter if anyone was ever killed in the name of Plato? Does that make it easier to believe in his existence?

It makes discussions about Plato's existence much less relevant.

People can "subscribe to their philosophy", without worshiping them. Why isn't the same possible for Jesus?

It's impossible because there is no such thing as "Jesus philosophy" or even a consistent world view. Try to define it and you'll end up having to pick and choose which parts to accept as positive and moral and which to discard as gruesome atrocities. You may as well use Mein Kampf as a guide for your life (believe it or not there are some pretty commendable views there, if you take them out of context). Even if you succeed in defining a consistent (not in conflict with itself) world view you'll realize that none of those "teachings" are new, i.e. they were promoted by other people long before Jesus was first mentioned.

Does Buddhism become less attractive as a philosophy if the Buddha never existed?

I don't know Buddhism. You should ask a philosopher if any religion can be considered a philosophy, though.

[shurgold]

Don't mess with Vlad...He knows his stuff inside and out!

[Duster929]

Don't mess with Vlad...He knows his stuff inside and out!

Or at least he sounds like it.

--- D

[knowledge]

It doesn't matter to me, but it matters a lot to those who worship them. I doubt anyone was ever killed in the name of Plato or because he favored the teachings of Aristotle. No one ever said Socrates died for their sins either...

Technically, he did. He was willing to drink the poison for the sake of the society. In a way, he was sort of crucified like how Jesus was. They both could've avoided it, but died for what they believed in.

It's impossible because there is no such thing as "Jesus philosophy" or even a consistent world view. Try to define it and you'll end up having to pick and choose which parts to accept as positive and moral and which to discard as gruesome atrocities. You may as well use Mein Kampf as a guide for your life (believe it or not there are some pretty commendable views there, if you take them out of context). Even if you succeed in defining a consistent (not in conflict with itself) world view you'll realize that none of those "teachings" are new, i.e. they were promoted by other people long before Jesus was first mentioned.



I don't know Buddhism. You should ask a philosopher if any religion can be considered a philosophy, though.

I don't see why not, though. There are often Philosophers who I strongly agree with in their Metaphysical or Epistemological theories but strongly disagree with their moral maxims. I see philosophy as something like a Religion except it doesn't have the stigma of having to subscribe attached to it. Sects of Christinaity are examples of people who accept some principles/dogmas & reject others (like Martin Luther & the Protestant Reformation.) You're right though - there's no doubt that Hitler was a smart man. What made Jesus such a "hit" was the fact that for the most part, it was for everyone. The problem with Philosophy in the older ages was that only the upper-class & elite could participate.

I don't know if I'd consider myself a philosopher, but I'm an avid reader OF philosophy. I think Buddhism could be considered a philosophy. After all, Taoism/Daoism is a religion as well as a philosophy too.

[Duster929]

It makes discussions about Plato's existence much less relevant.

I'm not sure why. But if it makes a difference for you, what can I say.

It's impossible because there is no such thing as "Jesus philosophy" or even a consistent world view. Try to define it and you'll end up having to pick and choose which parts to accept as positive and moral and which to discard as gruesome atrocities. You may as well use Mein Kampf as a guide for your life (believe it or not there are some pretty commendable views there, if you take them out of context).

Who said anything about a consistent world view? And who said anything about using a book as a guide for my life? Life is about taking in a lot of different viewpoints, and forming your own. Anyone who believes in any particular religion whole-heartedly and believes what they teach without being critical ends up being ridiculous and dogmatic. That's why I don't believe any religion presents a consistent world view, or a strict "guide to morality" that can be followed in all circumstances. That is dangerous thinking, and it's what makes most religions very dangerous.

Even if you succeed in defining a consistent (not in conflict with itself) world view you'll realize that none of those "teachings" are new, i.e. they were promoted by other people long before Jesus was first mentioned.

Who ever said that the "teachings" attributed to Jesus were new? And why does it matter?

I don't know Buddhism. You should ask a philosopher if any religion can be considered a philosophy, though.

I don't really care if a religion can be considered a philosophy. If you read what I've written in this thread, you'll find that I don't really care much about religion, per se, at all. I'm much more interested in the commonality in philosophies espoused by the world's major religions. (I hope I've put a fine enough point on the distinction between philosophy and religion here for you.)

Remember, I'm not here to defend Catholicism or Christianity. The only thing I did here was to say that the majority of people believe that a person called Jesus lived at a particular time. You took that and started an anti-christian diatribe with it.

If you want to criticize Catholicism or Christianity, you'll find me right next to you. Review my discussion with "Edders" in this thread.

However, if you want to dismiss major religions as irrelevant, I'm not quite going to do that either. There's a reason religion exists, and the more you look into it, the more you'll find that commonality among religions, and the universal truths that everyone really wants to believe in.

Does this mean picking and choosing? Sure it does. I like to believe that people are fundamentally good. This requires me to pick and choose, and overlook murder, genocide, and the various evils in the world.

At the end of the day, it's this picking-and-choosing that makes us human. It's our ability to use rational thought, see things that make sense, and things that don't. It's called judgement.

It's funny how "true believers" and "true non-believers" sound so similar. What you've got in common is a very black-and-white view of the world. Christianity isn't always right. Neither is Judaism. Neither is Islam, or Buddhism. They aren't always wrong either.

--- D

[BlackCrowe13]

I'm not sure why. But if it makes a difference for you, what can I say.

Who said anything about a consistent world view? And who said anything about using a book as a guide for my life? Life is about taking in a lot of different viewpoints, and forming your own. Anyone who believes in any particular religion whole-heartedly and believes what they teach without being critical ends up being ridiculous and dogmatic. That's why I don't believe any religion presents a consistent world view, or a strict "guide to morality" that can be followed in all circumstances. That is dangerous thinking, and it's what makes most religions very dangerous.

Who ever said that the "teachings" attributed to Jesus were new? And why does it matter?

I don't really care if a religion can be considered a philosophy. If you read what I've written in this thread, you'll find that I don't really care much about religion, per se, at all. I'm much more interested in the commonality in philosophies espoused by the world's major religions. (I hope I've put a fine enough point on the distinction between philosophy and religion here for you.)

Remember, I'm not here to defend Catholicism or Christianity. The only thing I did here was to say that the majority of people believe that a person called Jesus lived at a particular time. You took that and started an anti-christian diatribe with it.

If you want to criticize Catholicism or Christianity, you'll find me right next to you. Review my discussion with "Edders" in this thread.

However, if you want to dismiss major religions as irrelevant, I'm not quite going to do that either. There's a reason religion exists, and the more you look into it, the more you'll find that commonality among religions, and the universal truths that everyone really wants to believe in.

Does this mean picking and choosing? Sure it does. I like to believe that people are fundamentally good. This requires me to pick and choose, and overlook murder, genocide, and the various evils in the world.

At the end of the day, it's this picking-and-choosing that makes us human. It's our ability to use rational thought, see things that make sense, and things that don't. It's called judgement.

It's funny how "true believers" and "true non-believers" sound so similar. What you've got in common is a very black-and-white view of the world. Christianity isn't always right. Neither is Judaism. Neither is Islam, or Buddhism. They aren't always wrong either.

--- D

Well said, and so true.
Fighting to prove answers that neither can possibly know for certain.
I have said it before and so have several others in these threads... More likely than not, we are all very wrong.

I think I am going to take a side... the side that...
"Does not know forsure, and does not try and act like I do."

[murf]

No, the first question is "why?".

When you understand why you dismiss all possible gods and think yours is the correct one than you'll understand why I dismiss yours (along with all the others)? We are both Atheists, I just believe in one god less than you.

i was just providing some data

found this interesting too:

"Today, about 2.3% of the world's population describes itself as atheist, while a further 11.9% is described as nontheist"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athiest

[twinn]

I tried to avoid posting in this thread because its a touchy subject and everyone can argue that their religon is better etc...

When I see a church of any denomantion I see $$. It is the oldest form of business and capitalism to date. They are the very basis of what we call franchises today. I really love the 10% teething or whatever its called, its always speceified that it is after tax dollars LOL

People always take away what they like and discount what they do not like in any religion, hence so many different churches and sects. etc..

Religon has done more to divide then unite. The one thing that I notice is that just about every religon requires a person in a posisition of power to explain what you can read for yourself. Religon is not a science or math where you need a teacher to explain complex forumals etc...

So far, I have yet to meet any preist (i am Catholic) or rev that has been able to explain to me why I can;t ask God myself and why I need them tio act as a middle man for me.

[Duster929]

I tried to avoid posting in this thread because its a touchy subject and everyone can argue that their religon is better etc...

When I see a church of any denomantion I see $$. It is the oldest form of business and capitalism to date. They are the very basis of what we call franchises today. I really love the 10% teething or whatever its called, its always speceified that it is after tax dollars LOL

People always take away what they like and discount what they do not like in any religion, hence so many different churches and sects. etc..

Religon has done more to divide then unite. The one thing that I notice is that just about every religon requires a person in a posisition of power to explain what you can read for yourself. Religon is not a science or math where you need a teacher to explain complex forumals etc...

So far, I have yet to meet any preist (i am Catholic) or rev that has been able to explain to me why I can;t ask God myself and why I need them tio act as a middle man for me.

My favourite was always "confession". I remember as a kid, asking a priest, "Why do I need to go to confession? Can't I just pray and ask God for forgiveness?" The priest gave a very unsatisfactory answer about how it was important to tell another person your sins, because it showed you were really sorry for them. What I took away from that was: The Church wants to know the sins of its congregation, as another form of control.

Even as a kid I resented the control of institutions.

--- D

[Vlad]

Just stumbled on this one, so applicable to this discussion:

A Catholic priest, an Orthodox priest, a Protestant minister, a Reform rabbi, a Buddhist monk, a Wiccan coven leader, a Hellenist oracle, a Hindu priest, a Caodaist giáo tông, a Zoroastrian gabr, an African shaman, a Muslim imam, a Scientologist OT VII, a Cherokee chief, a Sikh guru, a Jain jina, a Falun Gong practitioner, a Sufi mystic, a Shinto kami, a Jedi knight, a Voodoo zombie, a Rasta ras, an Objectivist philosopher, a Mormon elder, a Level 18 cleric, a Pastafarian pirate, and an Atheist are playing golf.

They are all getting bogies, double bogies and triple bogies, but the guy playing in front of them keeps getting holes in one.

So the Catholic priest says, “Who does that guy think he is, the Pope?” And the Orthodox priest says, “Who does that guy think he is, the Patriarch of Constantinople?” And the minister says, “Who does that guy think he is, Jesus Christ?” And the rabbi says, “Who does that guy think he is, Moses?” And the monk says, “Who does that guy think he is, the Buddha?” And the coven leader says, “Who does that guy think he is, Harry Potter?” And the oracle says, “Who does that guy think he is, Achilles?” And the Hindu priest says, “Who does that guy think he is, Vishnu?” And the giáo tông says, “Who does that guy think he is, Cao Đài Tiên Ông Đại Bồ Tát Ma-ha-tát?” And the gabr says, “Who does that guy think he is, Zoroaster?” And the shaman says, “Who does that guy think he is, Tikoloshe?” And the imam says, “Who does that guy think he is, Mohammed?” And the OT VII says, “Who does that guy think he is, David Miscavige?” And the chief says, “Who does that guy think he is, Great Spirit?” And the guru says, “Who does that guy think he is, Nanak Dev?” And the jina says, “Who does that guy think he is, Shri Mahavir?” And the Gonger says, “Who does that guy think he is, Li Hongzhi?” And the mystic says, “Who does that guy think he is, Uwais al-Qarni?” And the kami says, “Who does that guy think he is, Amaterasu-omikami”? And the Jedi says, “Who does that guy think he is, the chosen one?” And the zombie says, “Who does that guy think he is, Marie Laveau?” And the ras says, “Who does that guy think he is, Haile Selassie?” And the Objectivist says, “Who does that guy think he is, Howard Roark?” And the elder says, “Who does that guy think he is, Brigham Young?” And the cleric says, “Who does that guy think he is, Garl Glittergold?” And the pirate says, "Who does that guy think he is, the Flying Spaghetti Monster?” "No", the Atheist says, "that’s Tiger Woods".

[eastcoast_gsx]

"that’s Tiger Woods".

I love reality based jokes