Many religions are. The ones that focus inward to better yourself are not bothering anyone. When was the last time a Buddhist knocked on your door and asked you to find Buddha?
Edit: The self-righteousness of some atheists is truly hypocritical. Persecution is wrong, whether it’s of an atheist by a religious person, or vice versa. Yet another reason to be disappointed in my fellow man, I guess.
Stupid thing to downvote, it’s so short if any of you 11 downvoters are here you can probably get a quick dunk in without typing more than 100 characters
“Appeal to age = irrelevant” would be one example (I made this up, not stating it for debate)
Of course it can, just as science has the ability to do the same. Do we brand all scientists as unethical because of Unit 731 or the Nuremberg trials? Ironically, this entire thread is very unscientific in its criticism of the religious.
Right, except religion serves no purpose that a non-religious group can’t do. Do you see why equating religion and science is pretty silly?
The only purpose of religion is to spread. Everything else is just a means to an end. Just take every good aspect of religion and remove the faith and the god from it. It becomes better. Teach people to do stuff because it is right, not because X god says so.
When was the last time a Buddhist knocked on your door and asked you to find Buddha?
Buddhism (and the Hinduism it is rooted in) isn’t intended to accrued disciples as part of an elaborate religiously flavored MLM. It is intended to justify existing, generational, disparities in wealth, power, and property.
You won’t find one knocking on your door. You knock on their doors, and hope to ingratiate yourself to their superiors by adopting their customs in exchange for status and business relations.
[Buddhism] is intended to justify existing, generational, disparities in wealth, power, and property.
Uh, no, this simply isn’t true. In South Asia, these disparities are instantiated in the hereditary varna system (usually translated as “caste”, though conservative Hindus will object to this), in which the highest social class is the Vedic clergy called the “brahmins”. Brahmin supremacy has been a constant feature of South Asian society going back millennia, and it is still widespread today.
As the Buddha said in the Vasala Sutta, “Not by birth is one an outcast; not by birth is one a brahman. By deed one becomes an outcast, by deed one becomes a brahman.”
This runs counter to the idea of generational class, which was the general attitude of brahminical society and was how brahmins maintained their power over others.
The Buddha elaborates on this idea in the Vasettha Sutta:
While the differences between these species
are defined by birth,
the differences between humans
are not defined by birth.
Not by hair nor by head,
not by ear nor by eye,
not by mouth nor by nose,
not by lips nor by eyebrow,
not by shoulder nor by neck,
not by belly nor by back,
not by buttocks nor by breast,
not by groin nor by genitals,
not by hands nor by feet,
not by fingers nor by nails,
not by knees nor by thighs,
not by color nor by voice:
none of these are defined by birth
as it is for other species.
In individual human bodies
you can’t find such distinctions.
The distinctions among humans
are spoken of by convention.
This is essentially an early version of social constructionism.
The Buddha goes on to criticize the various things that brahmins do, saying that e.g. doing sacrifices makes you a sacrificer, not a brahmin. He ultimately says that only people who are virtuous, detached from pleasures and free from disturbing emotions are really “brahmins”. So, the Buddha actually taught a countercultural criticism of hereditary class.
As the Buddha said in the Vasala Sutta, “Not by birth is one an outcast; not by birth is one a brahman. By deed one becomes an outcast, by deed one becomes a brahman.”
Why did the noble Japanese Buddhists boil Portuguese Christians alive? Was this one of those Brahman Deeds?
The Buddha goes on to criticize the various things that brahmins do
Much as Jesus critiqued the Pharasises. And yet modern Christian Dominionists have far more in common with Pharasises - even Roman Pagans - than the fishermen and slaves and prostitutes that were it’s original disciples.
Why did the noble Japanese Buddhists boil Portuguese Christians alive? Was this one of those Brahman Deeds?
Because of their afflictive emotions of fear, hatred, and so on, which are the real “enemy” that Buddhists should oppose. Unfortunately, most Buddhists are just ordinary people with no particular control over their disturbing emotions.
Much as Jesus critiqued the Pharasises. And yet modern Christian Dominionists have far more in common with Pharasises - even Roman Pagans - than the fishermen and slaves and prostitutes that were it’s original disciples.
Yes. Unfortunately it’s easier for one person to be exceptional than a whole society. I think religions’ greatest failure has been their neglect of the role that material conditions play in people’s lives. Until we have exceptional material conditions, exceptional people will not be the norm.
Not sure about this one, but we’d definitely be better off if religion was treated as strictly something you practice personally at home and not as part of any large hierarchy.
When was it the last time a Christian did that? Other than JWs who have stopped knocking on doors like 9 years ago.
Btw, I’ve 100% had Hare Krishna’s and other “better yourself” religions bothering me for money. And christianity is a “better yourself” type of religion, too.
There’s so much wrong with your comment that really, all the downvotes you are getting are totally warranted.
They fall into the same category of people that look inward and find themselves as a train or an anime character or some other spirit animal / past life bullshit.
These are all people that need mental help and prescription medication.
That’s where atheists overstep. Why does it matter what someone believes if it has no effect on you? Isn’t that exactly what you criticize the religious of doing?
Right, until they harm someone or themselves by thinking they can fly if they believe hard enough or that they can get into a magical afterlife if they kill enough people. If you are open to that magic thinking then you are open to be manipulated and used.
Or their beliefs turn extremists because religion like cancer or capitalism needs unending growth to fuel its existence. People need to be kept uneducated and gullible enough to buy into the fantasy and to donate more money to make the clergy that will inevitably rape some kids.
These same people are bringing their fantasy into politics and look where that brought America and or the religious war going on.
Way to project. Find me articles on Buddhists harming people because they think they can fly. While I’m waiting, would you like me to provide scientific research that resulted in harm?
You can’t have it both ways. If you want boundaries that protect you from the religious, then you yourself must respect the same boundary.
I didn’t ask about self harm. I asked about others. Are you afraid you’re going to harm yourself, or that a religious person could harm you? How is an individual’s beliefs your business if they don’t impact you? You sincerely believe that the way to solve religious persecution by some is to persecute all of the religious?
Read my previous comment. I asked for them to find me an article where a Buddhist hurt someone trying to fly. Employing condescension only really works if you’re accurate. Otherwise you just seem like an ass.
Like every large religion, a significant portion of the followers will ignore any teaching in the right contexts. Christians are about turning the other cheek and loving thy neighbor except for the crusades and witch trials, Islam is the religion of peace except for when it isn’t, and Buddhism has its own exceptions.
As found in other religious traditions, Buddhism has an extensive history of violence dating back to its inception.
These remarks followed the 1973 student-led uprising, as well as the creation of a Thai parliament and the spread of communism in neighboring East Asian countries. The fear of communism shaking the social forms of Thailand felt a very real threat to Kittivuddho, who expressed his nationalist tendencies in his defense of militant actions. He justified his argument by dehumanizing the Communists and leftists that he opposed. In the interview with Caturat he affirmed that this would not be the killing of people, but rather the killing of monsters/devils. He similarly asserted that while killing of people is prohibited and thus de-meritorious in Buddhist teachings, doing so for the “greater good” will garner greater merit than the act of killing will cost.
Other people’s beliefs directly impact me constantly through laws justified by religious doctrine, social pressures, imposing themselves into government offices, and being used to promote lying politicians who claim to be members but never following the teachings while gaining votes for being on the same team.
It has negatively affected me my entire life, even if it isn’t a obvious as racism and misogyny.
So you’re saying that you want separation from religion. Why can’t they have that from you? I agree that religion doesn’t belong in government. What about that justifies extermination of religion?
I didn’t say anything about extrrninating religion, I responded to your comment saying people’s beliefs have no affect on an atheist.
Atheists being against religion is a reaction to the default assumption that everyone is part of a religion. The label atheist only exists as a response to beliefs.
Many religions are. The ones that focus inward to better yourself are not bothering anyone. When was the last time a Buddhist knocked on your door and asked you to find Buddha?
Edit: The self-righteousness of some atheists is truly hypocritical. Persecution is wrong, whether it’s of an atheist by a religious person, or vice versa. Yet another reason to be disappointed in my fellow man, I guess.
Buddhism is a religion in the same way that Christianity is a religion. I.e. it’s an abstract concept and not an implementation.
The implementations are invariably the problem. Just look at Myanmar.
There’s a difference between faith and organized religion. I have nothing against the former, but the latter brings only trouble
Yeah, similar thoughts here
https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/buddhism/
Stupid thing to downvote, it’s so short if any of you 11 downvoters are here you can probably get a quick dunk in without typing more than 100 characters
“Appeal to age = irrelevant” would be one example (I made this up, not stating it for debate)
That entire link is irrelevant, so downvote is applicable. No point engaging in an argument that is fallacious to begin with.
Ah was intrigued by the thought but not the link :)
Thanks for improvin’ my Lemmy - nice thing to do after minirant
Yeah, I used to think that about Sikhism as well. Then I did some research. Every religion can and has been abused.
Of course it can, just as science has the ability to do the same. Do we brand all scientists as unethical because of Unit 731 or the Nuremberg trials? Ironically, this entire thread is very unscientific in its criticism of the religious.
Right, except religion serves no purpose that a non-religious group can’t do. Do you see why equating religion and science is pretty silly?
The only purpose of religion is to spread. Everything else is just a means to an end. Just take every good aspect of religion and remove the faith and the god from it. It becomes better. Teach people to do stuff because it is right, not because X god says so.
Exactly!!
Buddhism (and the Hinduism it is rooted in) isn’t intended to accrued disciples as part of an elaborate religiously flavored MLM. It is intended to justify existing, generational, disparities in wealth, power, and property.
You won’t find one knocking on your door. You knock on their doors, and hope to ingratiate yourself to their superiors by adopting their customs in exchange for status and business relations.
Uh, no, this simply isn’t true. In South Asia, these disparities are instantiated in the hereditary varna system (usually translated as “caste”, though conservative Hindus will object to this), in which the highest social class is the Vedic clergy called the “brahmins”. Brahmin supremacy has been a constant feature of South Asian society going back millennia, and it is still widespread today.
As the Buddha said in the Vasala Sutta, “Not by birth is one an outcast; not by birth is one a brahman. By deed one becomes an outcast, by deed one becomes a brahman.”
This runs counter to the idea of generational class, which was the general attitude of brahminical society and was how brahmins maintained their power over others.
The Buddha elaborates on this idea in the Vasettha Sutta:
This is essentially an early version of social constructionism.
The Buddha goes on to criticize the various things that brahmins do, saying that e.g. doing sacrifices makes you a sacrificer, not a brahmin. He ultimately says that only people who are virtuous, detached from pleasures and free from disturbing emotions are really “brahmins”. So, the Buddha actually taught a countercultural criticism of hereditary class.
Why did the noble Japanese Buddhists boil Portuguese Christians alive? Was this one of those Brahman Deeds?
Much as Jesus critiqued the Pharasises. And yet modern Christian Dominionists have far more in common with Pharasises - even Roman Pagans - than the fishermen and slaves and prostitutes that were it’s original disciples.
Because of their afflictive emotions of fear, hatred, and so on, which are the real “enemy” that Buddhists should oppose. Unfortunately, most Buddhists are just ordinary people with no particular control over their disturbing emotions.
Yes. Unfortunately it’s easier for one person to be exceptional than a whole society. I think religions’ greatest failure has been their neglect of the role that material conditions play in people’s lives. Until we have exceptional material conditions, exceptional people will not be the norm.
Don’t look up events in Myanmar.
Fact: we would be better off if all of humanity were atheists
Not sure about this one, but we’d definitely be better off if religion was treated as strictly something you practice personally at home and not as part of any large hierarchy.
That is an opinion by definition. Facts can be proven true or false. “Better off” is a subjective sentiment. How very unscientific of you.
When was it the last time a Christian did that? Other than JWs who have stopped knocking on doors like 9 years ago.
Btw, I’ve 100% had Hare Krishna’s and other “better yourself” religions bothering me for money. And christianity is a “better yourself” type of religion, too.
There’s so much wrong with your comment that really, all the downvotes you are getting are totally warranted.
They fall into the same category of people that look inward and find themselves as a train or an anime character or some other spirit animal / past life bullshit.
These are all people that need mental help and prescription medication.
That’s where atheists overstep. Why does it matter what someone believes if it has no effect on you? Isn’t that exactly what you criticize the religious of doing?
Right, until they harm someone or themselves by thinking they can fly if they believe hard enough or that they can get into a magical afterlife if they kill enough people. If you are open to that magic thinking then you are open to be manipulated and used.
Or their beliefs turn extremists because religion like cancer or capitalism needs unending growth to fuel its existence. People need to be kept uneducated and gullible enough to buy into the fantasy and to donate more money to make the clergy that will inevitably rape some kids.
These same people are bringing their fantasy into politics and look where that brought America and or the religious war going on.
Way to project. Find me articles on Buddhists harming people because they think they can fly. While I’m waiting, would you like me to provide scientific research that resulted in harm?
You can’t have it both ways. If you want boundaries that protect you from the religious, then you yourself must respect the same boundary.
https://allthatsinteresting.com/sokushinbutsu
This is absolutely self harm that is caused by a mentally disturbed individual that is trying to achieve the nonexistent.
That kind of mental instability can lead to any number of self harm or escalation of hurting others in the name of any god or religion.
Religion needs to be wiped out through education, mental health services and ultimately taxation and banning from all political systems.
I didn’t ask about self harm. I asked about others. Are you afraid you’re going to harm yourself, or that a religious person could harm you? How is an individual’s beliefs your business if they don’t impact you? You sincerely believe that the way to solve religious persecution by some is to persecute all of the religious?
Your goal post just moved. Need some help keeping it in place?
Read my previous comment. I asked for them to find me an article where a Buddhist hurt someone trying to fly. Employing condescension only really works if you’re accurate. Otherwise you just seem like an ass.
Like every large religion, a significant portion of the followers will ignore any teaching in the right contexts. Christians are about turning the other cheek and loving thy neighbor except for the crusades and witch trials, Islam is the religion of peace except for when it isn’t, and Buddhism has its own exceptions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_violence
Other people’s beliefs directly impact me constantly through laws justified by religious doctrine, social pressures, imposing themselves into government offices, and being used to promote lying politicians who claim to be members but never following the teachings while gaining votes for being on the same team.
It has negatively affected me my entire life, even if it isn’t a obvious as racism and misogyny.
100%
So you’re saying that you want separation from religion. Why can’t they have that from you? I agree that religion doesn’t belong in government. What about that justifies extermination of religion?
I didn’t say anything about extrrninating religion, I responded to your comment saying people’s beliefs have no affect on an atheist.
Atheists being against religion is a reaction to the default assumption that everyone is part of a religion. The label atheist only exists as a response to beliefs.