Why it's hard to take religions seriously.

[goldisheavy]

[Marblehead]

Indeed. For me it was exactly the contradictions withing the bible as well as the contradictions I saw between the bible an life itself that caused me to question my religious teachings.

 

Upon questioning I found no acceptable valid answers and it was at this point that I no longer trusted what I had been taught.

 

I don't think this is valid for everyone because many find satisfactory answers to their question and therefore continue to believe.

 

I guess it depends on what one is willing to accept that determines whether or not they will continue to hold to their beliefs.

 

Peace & Love!

[goldisheavy]

Mysticism should never come at the expense of reason. Mystic experience is an adjunct to reason. It's not a replacement for reason. Many many people fail to get it, including many modern mystics/meditators. This is why I kind of like Mahayana Buddhism, and some of Daoism because for the most part, Mahayana Buddhists and Laozi/Zhuangzi try to maintain a tradition of reason and not just mysticism. A lot of other mystic traditions such as Sufism, Zen, many modern so-called "Daoist practices", they all like to dabble in anti-reason. So we should look in the mirror and ask ourselves if we are not the idiots-wanna-be in training.

Edited April 27, 2010 by goldisheavy

[forestofclarity]

Reason has its limits, too:

 

http://www.ditext.com/carroll/tortoise.html

[buddhasbellybuttonfluff]

The problem with reason is that it can actually be used to justify any behavior and relative position. Rationality becomes another attachment if you take it too seriously.

 

Exhibit A: Have you stopped molesting children? Yes or no.

Exhibit B: We define subject and object as separate, yet arbitrarily refer to "self" that is both. How come?

 

The modern use of language is full of such loaded questions and flawed premises that suppose a division when in fact in most cases the meaningful answer is diametrically opposed to both. Buyers beware!

 

This is, of course, the very reason why the religious texts should be primarily understood analogically rather than via plain logic. Besides, subordinating human behavior into logical context and inspection makes no sense, since sentences like "I like you" and "I'm hungry" do not express logical ontology and measurable quantities, but modalities of consciousness.

 

Blessings

Edited April 27, 2010 by buddhasbellybuttonfluff

[Marblehead]

Reason has its limits, too:

 

I will agree with this as there are time when we must throw reason to the winds and just do what we need or wish to do. That's called living spontaniously.

 

But to this specific subject I think that reason based on fact as well as we can obtain is far better than basing one's beliefs on myths that have been contradictory or have been proven false.

 

Peace & Love!

[Sunya]

Mysticism should never come at the expense of reason. Mystic experience is an adjunct to reason. It's not a replacement for reason. Many many people fail to get it, including many modern mystics/meditators. This is why I kind of like Mahayana Buddhism, and some of Daoism because for the most part, Mahayana Buddhists and Laozi/Zhuangzi try to maintain a tradition of reason and not just mysticism. A lot of other mystic traditions such as Sufism, Zen, many modern so-called "Daoist practices", they all like to dabble in anti-reason. So we should look in the mirror and ask ourselves if we are not the idiots-wanna-be in training.

 

I agree with you about this. A lot of the squabbles I had with peeps on this board had to do with this very issue. Some Taoists and Zennies have a huge affinity for anti-intellectualism. Religious fundamentalists have the same thing but that's because they view reason as a threat to their beliefs. They fear it undermining them. Anti-intellectual mystics on the other hand are a little different. They just don't see reason as a valuable tool, though all mystics use reason every day. They will see the importance of reason once they decide to teach someone else. Language is the only means we have for communicating and so a refinement of concepts to match experience is required... or else you'll just be telling people to shut up and sit which may help some but for the most people it only pushes people away. Most people cannot connect to this militaristic style of mysticism, they need concepts to get started.

[RyanO]

I agree with you about this. A lot of the squabbles I had with peeps on this board had to do with this very issue. Some Taoists and Zennies have a huge affinity for anti-intellectualism. Religious fundamentalists have the same thing but that's because they view reason as a threat to their beliefs. They fear it undermining them. Anti-intellectual mystics on the other hand are a little different. They just don't see reason as a valuable tool, though all mystics use reason every day. They will see the importance of reason once they decide to teach someone else. Language is the only means we have for communicating and so a refinement of concepts to match experience is required... or else you'll just be telling people to shut up and sit which may help some but for the most people it only pushes people away. Most people cannot connect to this militaristic style of mysticism, they need concepts to get started.

 

Yeah, being anti-reason is definitely beyond me. I think reason is a very important gift.

 

We touched on this in the Sam Harris thread. He makes this point in The End Of Faith in his last chapter, which is on mysticism. He argues for a rational mysticism, where mystical insights may be had but interpreted and communicated in a reasonable and non-dogmatic way. He says "...mysticism is a rational enterprise, religion is not," and concludes with the point of his book that interpreting mystical experiences with pre-existing faith dogmas is irrational and dangerous. Interesting stuff.

[contrivedname!]

i personally like zen, but many take the anti-intellectual trip way too far. i find it very funny when people condemn threads as "intellectual masturbation" or some such thing. gang members also share the ideal that intellectual pursuit is worthless. to come from a different angle; it is good to break up fixation on intellectual thought as supreme above all others and the only good way to go about relating with reality, but is just as foolish to fixate in the other direction, the anti-intellectual. to say that intellectualism "wont bring you closer to the way" or some such is only correct from a certain stand point. this creates two poles of thought (and hence dualism). intellectual and intuitive (i guess thats what anti-intellectuals champion?) states of mind originate from the same field, so why put them in competitive cognitive divison? to ignore intellectual pursuits and only head toward the intuitive is like planting a plant and saying "i only care about the roots!" or on the other side of the spectrum, is like planting a plant and saying "i only care about the flowers!" a flower isnt a flower without both roots and petals, and likewise a mind isnt a mind without intuition and intellect.

 

 

Our original nature is neither intellectual nor intuitive

by focusing on one to eliminate delusion

dualism is constantly created

Mind-streams have various modes of structure

Insisting on structuring the unstructured, what absurdity!

[RyanO]

i personally like zen, but many take the anti-intellectual trip way too far. i find it very funny when people condemn threads as "intellectual masturbation" or some such thing. gang members also share the ideal that intellectual pursuit is worthless. to come from a different angle; it is good to break up fixation on intellectual thought as supreme above all others and the only good way to go about relating with reality, but is just as foolish to fixate in the other direction, the anti-intellectual. to say that intellectualism "wont bring you closer to the way" or some such is only correct from a certain stand point. this creates two poles of thought (and hence dualism). intellectual and intuitive (i guess thats what anti-intellectuals champion?) states of mind originate from the same field, so why put them in competitive cognitive divison? to ignore intellectual pursuits and only head toward the intuitive is like planting a plant and saying "i only care about the roots!" or on the other side of the spectrum, is like planting a plant and saying "i only care about the flowers!" a flower isnt a flower without both roots and petals, and likewise a mind isnt a mind without intuition and intellect.

 

 

Our original nature is neither intellectual nor intuitive

by focusing on one to eliminate delusion

dualism is constantly created

Mind-streams have various modes of structure

Insisting on structuring the unstructured, what absurdity!

 

Totally. Are you quoting something in that last bit?

 

Another thing I meant to say: There is a difference between irrational and non-rational. This simple distinction helps to clarify the issue.

[NeiChuan]

 

2:30 4:00 5:45 made me laugh alot

[sifusufi]

2:30 4:00 5:45 made me laugh alot

 

Try this, if you don't laugh...

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=cVpQlASsT5U

cue... Roy Orbison Crying

[RyanO]

This is funny: http://www.thepaincomics.com/weekly041229a.htm Science vs. Norse Mythology

 

A lot of atheists use comparisons to pagan mythologies when arguing against major religions.

[Marblehead]

to ignore intellectual pursuits and only head toward the intuitive is like planting a plant and saying "i only care about the roots!" or on the other side of the spectrum, is like planting a plant and saying "i only care about the flowers!" a flower isnt a flower without both roots and petals, and likewise a mind isnt a mind without intuition and intellect.

 

 

Our original nature is neither intellectual nor intuitive

by focusing on one to eliminate delusion

dualism is constantly created

Mind-streams have various modes of structure

Insisting on structuring the unstructured, what absurdity!

 

Excellent!!!

 

Thanks for sharing.

 

Peace & Love!

[Marblehead]

Try this, if you don't laugh... cue... Roy Orbison Crying

 

I can't handle that. It is so hypocrital, IMO.

 

Peace & Love!

[Pietro]

 

I think the voice might be from Pat Condell.

And the arguments too.

[Marblehead]

This is funny: http://www.thepaincomics.com/weekly041229a.htm Science vs. Norse Mythology

 

A lot of atheists use comparisons to pagan mythologies when arguing against major religions.

 

 

Yep. If it is written it must be true. Right?

 

(Yeah, right.)

 

Peace & Love!

[Oleg Galkin]

Yep. If it is written it must be true. Right?

 

(Yeah, right.)

 

Peace & Love!

 

A religion is the thing that must be understood. Everybody knows in our scientific age that many things in religious writings are just a fiction and use this fact as an argument against religion. Plus the extremism spreading around the world. But religion is pursuing the clear goal - to make people follow some kind of moral code. Such moral code prevent people from following various destructive tendencies. I think people should understand a religion and separate the wheat from the chaff to take the best from it for themselves. Maybe this is the true understanding of religion.

[Marblehead]

A religion is the thing that must be understood. Everybody knows in our scientific age that many things in religious writings are just a fiction and use this fact as an argument against religion. Plus the extremism spreading around the world. But religion is pursuing the clear goal - to make people follow some kind of moral code. Such moral code prevent people from following various destructive tendencies. I think people should understand a religion and separate the wheat from the chaff to take the best from it for themselves. Maybe this is the true understanding of religion.

 

Good response. I never intentionally try to cut down any religion. In the most part religions serve a very helpful purpose for those who follow them.

 

The extremists are a different subject. They take only the parts of their religious dogma that serves their own egotistical purpose and to subjugate and control others.

 

Peace & Love!

[Dreamingawake]

Here's another one! I laughed pretty hard the first time I saw it. I actually watched the full show just to see if it was out of context and no, it's exactly what it looks like.

:blink: :wacko:

[Spirit Ape]

Watch the movie Religulous, its free on video google, hahaha pretty funny!

[Dreamingawake]

Watch the movie Religulous, its free on video google, hahaha pretty funny!

 

I loved that movie!

[Oleg Galkin]

Good response. I never intentionally try to cut down any religion. In the most part religions serve a very helpful purpose for those who follow them.

 

The extremists are a different subject. They take only the parts of their religious dogma that serves their own egotistical purpose and to subjugate and control others.

 

Peace & Love!

 

A religion also could have some very good spiritual practices, for example, Orthodox Christianity has a practice analogous to Taoist meditation practice(!) called "Hesychasm".

 

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

 

I guess many people who are bashing a religion just have a superficial knowledge about this subject.

[Marblehead]

Here's another one! I laughed pretty hard the first time I saw it. I actually watched the full show just to see if it was out of context and no, it's exactly what it looks like.

:blink: :wacko:

 

I can't watch stuff like that. The woman belongs in a mental institution.

 

Peace & Love!

[Marblehead]

Watch the movie Religulous, its free on video google, hahaha pretty funny!

 

That is showing on some of the TV channels now. I saw previews of it and I already know Bill's thoughts on religion so I probably won't watch it.

 

Peace & Love!