There you go.
Human rights are a secular idea. You know, "morals of the time" that were put there despite all the bullshit in books you don't read.
Kant did more for modern moral thought than all Abrahamic faiths combined.
Is Buddhism a Failure?
- Thread starter S.A.M.
- Start date
There you go.
Human rights are a secular idea. You know, "morals of the time" that were put there despite all the bullshit in books you don't read.
Kant did more for modern moral thought than all Abrahamic faiths combined.
By your own admission, it openly advocates murder, war, rape, and extreme divisiveness. It worked pretty good when no one cared about a bunch of barbaric desert nomads, but this is the 21st century. It's going to fail. It largely already has- your more reasonable brethren advocate it as a "religion of peace," which is total bullshit, as both you and I know, but we also both recognize that that level of barbarism is no longer tolerated, thanks to the work of secular humanists.
Not at all. I don't know many people who have read Kant, but I know that most if not all people have access to at least one religious tradition. The notion of right and wrong in human rights is also a presentist notion. The Greeks thought it very moral to screw little boys but you might hesitate to so indulge.
I'd say the Abrahamic faiths have done more for the idea of individualistic creed than any previous religious notions. They created the individual, the feminist, the secularist. The occident and its tendency towards schisms was reflective more of the occidental people than of the Abrahamic faiths since the same faiths managed to be quite syncretic in the orient.
I'd say that the west likes the notion of human rights. But it fails miserably in the practice of it. Human beings are not collateral damages.
More cut and paste philosophy. I don't see Islam going anywhere in the near or even the distant future. At its core its a simple religion, amenable to great flexibility of thought with a very inclusive philosophy. It addresses the human need for spirituality, social order and rational curiosity. There are no limits to thought and ample provision for latitude. I think a religion can be judged by the impact it has on the people that follow it closely. Islam has a positive influence on people who study it and that alone makes it a religion for the future.
Many people are familiar with the theory of evolution without having read Darwin. You are familiar with Abrahamic religion, but don't bother reading their texts. So whether or not Joe the Plumber has read Kant is inconsequential on his response to certain moral dilemmas.
Wrong. Individualism is a Hellenistic ideal, largely exemplified by Rome. All the mystic, pagan religions that showed up in Rome were Eastern cults dedicated to Oneness and other similar Eastern nonsense.
During the Middle Ages in Europe, all individualism was crushed under the heel of the Church. It wasn't until the Church lost power that you saw a growth in the sort of individual spirit that inspired the giants that modern life perches on. In the Middle East, the exact opposite was occurring. As Islam became more oppressive, the Arabs lost their centuries of technological advancement to the West.
And Muslims like to marry 8 year old girls. What of it.
So flexible that it allows for herdsmen to stone adulterous women, wealthy old men to marry little girls, the murder of civilians, and be a religion of peace all at once?
Islam, like all religions that adapt to a changing environment, are a failure. If it was such a perfect religion, handed down from the Creator of the Universe, why are all religions so full of fail?
This poor girl did not follow Islam as closely as the people throwing rocks, apparently.
I expected the book to at least not be full of this garbage:
Leviticus:
19:26 Ye shall not eat any thing with the blood: neither shall ye use enchantment, nor observe times.
19:27 Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard.
19:28 Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I am the LORD.
19:29 Do not prostitute thy daughter, to cause her to be a whore; lest the land fall to whoredom, and the land become full of wickedness.
19:30 Ye shall keep my sabbaths, and reverence my sanctuary: I am the LORD.
19:31 Regard not them that have familiar spirits, neither seek after wizards, to be defiled by them: I am the LORD your God.
Maybe have something in it a little more substantial, like a coherent moral code or meta-ethical theory. Some naturralism to convince skeptics would be nice- perhaps a list of universal constants.
Well yes, if one takes an extremely bias view one would reach that conclusion. The Samurai system had many pre-Buddhist roots, the landlords of Tibet had an awful lot to do with Mongrol rule. You have a strange habit, Sam, or reducing vast historical changes to one single variable. It's not very impressive. But heck, if you truly that thousands of years of human history can be reduced to single variables, write a paper and get it published. If you're right, your name will go down.
Oh, and if you think Buddhism has failed because it doesn't make for a good government or social model*, then you completely missed the point of Buddhism.
*Of course, to hold such an idiotic point of view one would have to ignore the history of the longest continuous culture in the entire world. But you seem fond of leaving China out of all your considerations.
Buddhism was augmented by Confucianism and created the longest lasting nation in history. In it's most bare form it does not address social order, but it does not pretend to be something that does. Thus leaving room open for another system which fits with it to create the model for social order. As it did for thousands of years in China.
You say religion is judged by the impact it has on people. But your whole premise here is that Buddhism fails because it doesn't lead to stable social order. It'd be helpful if you could choose one yardstick instead of two, Sam.
It's a young concept. If you're giving up on it already then please just stand by the side of the road with your picket sign and keep the fudge out of our way. We in Canada still have many issues to resolve, but I think all in all we've done a better job of protecting people's rights, improving the quality of their life and moving towards a more open society than, say, Pakistan or Iran. Just an opinion. I'm sure many people in Pakistan would say that there country is much more open, free, just, safe, wealthy and tolerant than Canada. Right?
I don't care about any of the Muslims. All dead theists are "worth it" to me. You guys are going to breed too fast and destroy the world. Well, not intellectuals like you sam. Again, note the irony here.
But in the context of this discussion, the bombings are all done by theists who follow Abrahamic religion. Religion actually makes killing other people easier, not harder. Your religion, and that of the religions that it is based on, are full of rules on war. Or rather, all the sorts of grim ways you should totally and utterly destroy everything so they can't tempt you. It's just another case of the religious saying one thing and doing another.
As for Islam, I would think that getting bombed is great success. After all, how can you jihad without an oppressor?
Too bad you can't know Gods will, huh sam?
@Tyler:
Like I said, in all the societies where it was adopted, it was transmuted into an existing system that was different from the ultimate goal of Buddhism.
Is this wrong?
Canada is a very young society, until recently it was based on genocide and racism. Its not even 100 years since it decided that everyone belongs to the human race [when did they start taking in Asian immigrants?]. I'd say give it time. If after 5000 years, it still has a system resembling the current one and the Inuit are more than natives who speak a foreign language, then we can laud its achievements. Didn't they just ban Galloway for representing the elected government of the Palestinians?
Like I said, in all the societies where it was adopted, it was transmuted into an existing system that was different from the ultimate goal of Buddhism.
Is this wrong?
Canada is a very young society, until recently it was based on genocide and racism. Its not even 100 years since it decided that everyone belongs to the human race [when did they start taking in Asian immigrants?]. I'd say give it time. If after 5000 years, it still has a system resembling the current one and the Inuit are more than natives who speak a foreign language, then we can laud its achievements. Didn't they just ban Galloway for representing the elected government of the Palestinians?
You mean just like any other religion that has lasted to the present day?
You even admitted that Islam is "flexible." A failure of a religion by your own criteria.
The numbers belie your assumption
In this century alone, the peak of secular humanism
Ignoring problems with that data (more people to kill, newer ways to kill), secular humanists universally decry those atrocities. Unlike you "intellectual" Muslims (Muslims with the luck of being born in a secular society), who continually make excuses for terrorists, rapists, and superstitious, murderous bigots.
Like the religious society that is bombing you guys into the stone age.
A stitch in time....
DiamondHearts
Registered Senior Member
Because it is. Everyone is the same nationality and equal regardless of african, bengali, gujurati, afghani, punjabi, or kashmiri blood. The darkest of African descendants like Brahui and the whitest English are all the same nationality. This is a typical custom of Muslim societies, even South American and Southeast Asian societies. However, race is still a very divisive issue in the West.
Now if the West stopped bomb attacks against civilians, then this would help the civilian security problem, wouldn't you agree.
Nearly every religion has in some form or another morphed with a native system into a new system. You yourself recently called up Afghan methods of governance and how they've influenced Islamic countries. I think you would struggle to find one system of governance - in any point of human history - that did not make compromise and morph into something new with a local system. That is, after all, the nature of human advancement and history. Rarely in history has one system completely smashed the previous one to pieces and started anew. Even the Reds in China, after ten years of quite literally and intentionally smashing the history, found it impossible to avoid compromise and morphing.
As for Soviet genocides...
Horrible. And a terrible period in human history. But you'd need to be pretty stupid to believe that the communist take-overs were done for the sole reason of promoting atheism. They weren't even done in the name of atheism. The propaganda posters of Maoist China - and I happen to own some of them - did not read "Destroying The Old To Make Way For Atheism". They say "Destroying The Old To Make Way For the Socialist Ideal". If your understanding of communism is so limited as to see atheism as the primary goal - rather than a means - then you ought to re-read Marx, Lenin and Mao.
Re-read Canada's history. We were progressive long before the States and did not see the sort of genocide and war that was south of the border. Of course our pioneers also did their share of pure evil.
When did Pakistan decide that women deserved the full protection of human rights?
Canada has done quite well thus far and I'm proud of our achievements. There are a million and one things I would change if I could, but relative to most of the rest of the world we're doing alright.
P.S. I'm pissed off about the Galloway thing, too.
And what of the secularists who supported the Iraq war? Or the attack in Panama? Or the multitude of secular socialist-sympathizers who wrote praise-filled articles of the CCCP and Red China for decades? It's foolish to pretend that secular humanism hasn't had it's own catastrophes, just like every other system in human history.
Can you please prove that:
- Pakistan is more open than Canada
- Pakistanis enjoy more freedoms than Canadians
- Living in Pakistan is safer than living in Canada
- Pakistanis are wealthier than Canadians
I honestly can't prove that Pakistani people are more or less tolerant than Canadians. I'm not sure how one would go about proving that. So I'll just leave that one off the list from now on.
Yes!
And if the Taliban stopped taking over swaths of land by force, then this would help the civilian security problem, wouldn't you agree?