Thread: Respect vs. Blasphemy

Originally Posted by xman

Because it promotes delusional thinking, karma, reincarnation, which stunts minds from discovering reality as it actually is.

I don't see how these are delusions or even how you would know they are delusions. I also don't see how believing in these would stop anyone from discovering how reality actually is.

In fact the Buddha doesn't want you to blindly believe what he says.

The Buddha said:

"Believe nothing. No matter where you read it,Or who said it, Even if I have said it, Unless it agrees with your own reason And your own common sense."

Originally Posted by ControlFreak1

dogmatic cult of atheism. Right?

No such thing.

Any more questions?

All religions when disected to basics consist of 4 pillars

1. one or more gods that rule the universe
2. a story of how the god or gods created the world
3. one or more unverifiable so called miracles that "prove" to its believers that the god(s) do(es) exist
4. a system of worship of the god(s)

So tell me why one religion would be superior to another.

Originally Posted by ControlFreak1

Ya little children should only be indoctrinated into the dogmatic cult of atheism. Right?

For the Bible believing Christian, one reason that there can be no respect for other teachings is because the curse of God is on those false teachings no matter who is teaching it.
Galatians 1:8 - But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
But of course the discussion here is 'religion' and, if you don't know it, there is only one verse of scripture in the Bible which really speaks positively about and instructs what 'pure' 'religion' is.

The Koran has similar verses.

Originally Posted by ControlFreak1

Ah! And then you screw up/choke right when you're doing good. Oh well.

Actually, that should be "right when you're doing well"

Originally Posted by ENUF2

Buddhism is a Religion of works. I strive to become more to reach a higher state of being. This is most religions in a nut shell. The scales of good and evil attempting to end life with 51% in the good column. I know this isn't exact but it is a good way to put it.

But it's not Christianity. You can be the most horrible person your whole life but if you accept jesus as your saviour before you die you get into heaven.

This thread got me to thinking of something I heard at an AA meeting 25 years ago; Two fish swimming in the ocean, one fish says to the other,"I love the ocean and couldn't live without it." The other fish replies,"There is no ocean."

Nope. Straw man, already dispelled even if you don't like it. Perhaps read that post and mine just prior re. sceptical (not=atheist) belief (not=faith) a little closer for better understanding. In short (again) scepticism is not a belief in what to think, but how to think and enables one question, examine to change their mind. Decidedly not religious. "Thou shalt have no gods before me", doesn't do that. Atheism is a failure to to adopt faith or belief in supernatural god(ess[e](s)).

Ok, then let's call a philosophy would that be a better term?

Let's look at a couple exerpts from all aboutphilophy.org.

There are two basic forms of atheism: "strong" atheism and "weak" atheism. Strong atheism is the doctrine that there is no God or gods. Weak atheism is the disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.

Does "strong" atheism correspond with or contradict objective reality? Let's look at this question objectively. Suppose someone asks you, "Does God exist?" You could answer in one of three ways: "I know for certain that God exists" (assured theism), "I don't know whether or not God exists" (insecure theism, agnosticism, "weak" atheism and/or skepticism), or "I know for certain that God doesn't exist" ("strong" atheism).

To know for certain that God exists, you don't have to know everything but you do have to know something - you must either know God personally or you must be aware of some evidence establishing His existence. To be unsure whether or not God exists, you don't have to know everything. In fact, by your own admission you don't know everything. However, to claim to know for certain that God doesn't exist - to positively assert a universal negative - you would have to know everything. To be absolutely certain that God doesn't exist outside the limits of your knowledge, you would have to possess all knowledge.

Let's make this practical. Do you know everything? Do you know half of everything? Do you know 1% of everything? Let's be incredibly gracious and suppose that you know 1% of everything there is to know. Thomas Edison confidently declared, "We do not know a millionth of one percent about anything." Nevertheless, given the supposition that you know 1% of everything, is it possible that evidence proving God's existence exists in the 99% of everything you don't know? If you're honest, you'll have to admit that it's a real possibility. The fact is, since you don't possess all knowledge, you don't know if such evidence exists or not. Thus, you cannot be a "strong" atheist - you don't know that God doesn't exist.

Atheism vs. Theism
Strong atheism is a logically flawed position. Weak atheism, agnosticism and skepticism are all "I don't know" theological positions, with weak atheists subscribing to atheistic presuppositions, true agnostics "sitting on the fence," and skeptics capitulating to ignorance. Assured theists are the only ones who claim to know anything. What do they know? In the end it doesn't matter what you believe. What matters is what's actually true. You might not believe in gravity. Nevertheless, if you step off a tall building you are going to splat on the ground below. The existence of God has enormous implications for you and me, and prudence would have us make a full investigation of all the available data before putting our eternity in the care of any one belief-system. Ask yourself these types of questions: "How do I know something's true?" "What is the source of my information?" "Is my source absolutely reliable?" "What if I'm wrong?"

That's because you are a fundamentalist (literal interpretations, YEC etc.), but I'm guessing you wish you could distance yourself from aspects of it. Anyhow, you're welcome for the good read. It has been enlightening for me as well.

Using a literal interpretation then yes I am. But I will continue to say religion without relationship is worthless. The fundamentalism that I am speaking of is the attitude of those my Lord spent His time speaking against. Those are the one He called Hypocrites, and whitewashed tombs.
These people believe in their Religious law (They refuse to lower themselves to interact with "sinners" unless of course it's on their terms) rather than doing what we are suppose to do. Reaching out to the lost. These are the one Jesus was speaking about when He said "on that day many will say to Me Lord, Lord but I shall say away from Me you workers of iniquity for I never knew you. And these are the ones I will oppose because these are the ones we as followers get stereotyped with.

Originally Posted by NYCshaver

I don't see how these are delusions or even how you would know they are delusions. I also don't see how believing in these would stop anyone from discovering how reality actually is.

Believing in anything which is unobserved, especially those things which are unobservable, like what happens after death, is delusional.

Originally Posted by NYCshaver

"Believe nothing. No matter where you read it,Or who said it, Even if I have said it, Unless it agrees with your own reason And your own common sense."

Which is why Zen Buddhism is more philosophy than religion.

Originally Posted by ControlFreak1

Ya little children should only be indoctrinated into the dogmatic cult of atheism. Right?

Nope. Critical thought and open inquiry should be encouraged so that young minds can be properly equipped to come to informed, intelligent conclusions for themselves and be prepared to alter those conclusions in the light of new data.

Originally Posted by Pete_S

Actually, that should be "right when you're doing well"

Possibly. I was going to say 'so good' but I didn't want you to get the big head and unintentionally set you up for a bad fall. My man-crush on you may not be slipping too badly after all. But just watch it, you're treading on thin ice already.