Unfortunately, you are not representative of all religious people.
The Creation Museum
- Thread starter superstring01
- Start date
Google is a useful tool!
No to both.
No again.
Nope.
You seem really angry for some reason.
I'm a reverend of the Church of Life of Modesto, California.
So what is Dharmas ? the Hindu have a temple were they have a variety of statues , and people pit fruits for blessing . The Buddhist have temples were people burn incense and candles . So what is the difference of worship between them and Catholics or Greek orthodox ?
The Dharmas distinction was made to give atheism cover. If the above Dharmas were called religions, than atheism would come under that broad label. The distinction allows them to avoid separation of church and state laws.
For example, Buddhism is about a process of education and self discovery leading to enlightenment. It is not about gods in the traditional sense. Atheism has it own approach for enlightenment, connected to the traditions of science. Like Buddhism, atheism does not make use of heaven and hell concepts or gods and goddessess during its path of enlightenment.
The difference between atheism and Buddhism is Buddhism will attempt to hook up with deeper aspects of the unconscious mind so one can alter instincts to avoid the pitfalls and sufferings of life and achieve enlightenment. Atheist do this with pills and/or empirical studies that allow them to redefine natural instincts, to avoid social pitfalls. The difference is Buddhism does this with mind over matter. Atheism does it will matter and resources to help fool the mind.
Buddha was a real person who was a leader in his day. Dawkings is sort of the atheist Buddha. When Dawkings dies of old age, his atheist tales of self discovery will be made more mythological by the next generations. Then atheism will be seen as another Dharmas religion.
For example, Buddhism is about a process of education and self discovery leading to enlightenment. It is not about gods in the traditional sense. Atheism has it own approach for enlightenment, connected to the traditions of science. Like Buddhism, atheism does not make use of heaven and hell concepts or gods and goddessess during its path of enlightenment.
The difference between atheism and Buddhism is Buddhism will attempt to hook up with deeper aspects of the unconscious mind so one can alter instincts to avoid the pitfalls and sufferings of life and achieve enlightenment. Atheist do this with pills and/or empirical studies that allow them to redefine natural instincts, to avoid social pitfalls. The difference is Buddhism does this with mind over matter. Atheism does it will matter and resources to help fool the mind.
Buddha was a real person who was a leader in his day. Dawkings is sort of the atheist Buddha. When Dawkings dies of old age, his atheist tales of self discovery will be made more mythological by the next generations. Then atheism will be seen as another Dharmas religion.
Completely wrong.
Also wrong.
Even wronger.
You haven't got a clue have you?
:roflmao:
That's like saying the Pledge of Allegiance was written to give anarchists cover. They're just not related.
You may be unaware of this, but being a religion allows you to not pay taxes. Thus if simple clever tricks could get a non-religion religious status, people would be doing that left and right. (One could argue that Scientology was just that - a clever dodge to avoid paying taxes on something that was barely a religion to begin with.)
The difference between atheism and Buddhism is that Buddhism is a religion and atheism is the absence of religion.
Dawkins is just a scientist with no special claim to mythology. You could say the same thing about Lady Gaga - that since people will talk about her after her death, her musical tales of self discovery will be made more mythological by the next generations. Then Gagaism will be seen as another Dharmas religion.
Perhaps, but unlikely.
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Pardon do you have any input , beside saying wrong wrong wromg.
I did not say Darkins made any claim to mythology. All I said was Dawkins will appear larger than life to the atheist, after he is gone.
As an analogy, Babe Ruth was a good ball player in his day who was also sort of a drunk. Today he is a larger than life. Einstein is a archetypical father figure for science. Buddha has dozens and dozens of different statues like the sitting Buddha, the laughing Buddha, etc. These came after his life, with his followers making anything he did worthy of a unique statue for contemplation. The religious aspects of the brain; collective unconsciious, will generate Dawking mythology so father Albert E has a friend in atheist heaven. Even the term, fathers of modern science is about the mythology of the infallible dad figure.
I dunno. Do you have any input other than nonsense?
Supposition. I'd say that a large number of atheists have never even heard of Dawkins.
To whom? Your analogy holds up on the fact that "Babe Ruth" is a non-entity to a huge number of people.
Nope.
And again you're using a theist mindset to "explain" atheist behaviour/ thinking. Fail.
The only enlightenment atheism is connected with is the rational Enlightenment of 18th century Europe. There is no personal enlightenment that it promises. It's not a religion whatsoever, it's not a belief system.
Whatever. Dawkins has done some great things for the popularization of science and you're just bitter because you don't like him.
Fortunately a great deal of what Dawkins has said, done, and written is a matter of public record - verifiable from numerous independent sources.
So any commentary on his life after his passing could be objectively scrutinised.
Could the same be said for your favoured prophet or whatever particular iteration of the Koran you follow?
Dharma is way of life. Period. It does not translate into any other term, least of a religion.
Hindus may or may need a temple to worship. It is individual's choice. Xians cannot dream of worship without a church building. Dharma survivbes even without temples, xianity does not. Two examples.
Muslim invaders destroyed thousands of temples in N. India. Hindu dharma still survived.
Portugese destroyed each and every temple in Goa, W. India, outlawed all Hindu practices, Dharma still survivbed there.
What you call atheism is an outright rejection of God. For that at least Hindus do not persecute them in any way. Buddhism does not deny God outright. It is left to the individual to sort out his spirituality. Charvaks were materialists, but they were definitely not anarchists, as they accepted the authority of civil laws.
Hinduism as a religion never interfered in any sceintific enquiry or sought to direct it. Nor are there any forbidden sceinces.
Hinduism as a religion never interfered in any sceintific enquiry or sought to direct it. Nor are there any forbidden sceinces.
Right. So is John Wilkes Booth; I bet even you have heard of him, over 100 years after his death. But if I claimed that you had turned him into a near-religious figure, with so much mythology that you remember him over 100 years later, I think you'd object.
Right. He's also dead, and is remembered for his contributions to science. Haven't seen any religions or mythologies arise from his life.
If you are going to exclude entire sects and factions and temples of Buddhism and Taoism and various Animists and so forth from the the category of religion, I don't think you can claim consensus in any useful way. Most people, including the writers of dictionaries, the reporters of news, and the the compilers of anthropological and sociological data, split no hairs between the degrees of "supernatural" inherent in (or contaminating) various belief systems commonly and universally classified as religions.fraggle said:
If you have a system with monks and temples and some ritualistic insistence on charity, kindness, etc, almost everyone is going to call that a religion.
Ah you sure bout that . I think I have heard a mythologies about Einstein. Maybe you could just call them exaggerations about his life . He is a bigger than life personality if you ask Me . Good contributions yeah exceptionable.
I feel some grandstanding does exist