Bluelighters what are your religious beliefs (or disbeliefs)

[ForEverAfter]

But, stuff can be both universal and relative right?
Also, suffering might be an illusion. But, let's assume that it's not.
Either way, it (suffering) is relative to the lack of suffering.
Regardless of universality, suffering is relative to "joy"... isn't it?
I mean - otherwise - how do we define it?

In a world without joy (or other suitable counterweights), suffering is all that there is... and there is no way to differentiate between suffering and anything else... So, in that world, suffering "just is"...

Similarly: in a monochromatic world, we don't say "There is no color here".
We do not understand color; we do not know it: therefore, we can not miss it.
Get me?

 

[murphythecat]

why suffering is a illusion? of course, physical suffering is impermanent, but mental suffering/ stress/ unfullfilment/ insatifaction is our constant companion in this life.
something universal is not relative...
suffering/ stress/unfulfilled/ insatisfaction is not the direct opposite of joy but you cannot be joyful and unsatisfied at the same time. both exist but not at the same time id say. however, the definition of the word joy has many meaning and theres different level of joy...

I dont think theres a world where suffering is permanent without any level of difference between the suffering. there would be moment of suffering more intense and moment of accalmy of suffering. those moment of accalmy would feel joyful compared to the intense moment of suffering.
not sure if I believe in a monochromatic kinda world: one thing for sure, our world is not!

but I understand your point totally! I used to think the same way honestly, very honest here.

But, stuff can be both universal and relative right?
Also, suffering might be an illusion. But, let's assume that it's not.
Either way, it (suffering) is relative to the lack of suffering.
Regardless of universality, suffering is relative to "joy"... is it not?
Otherwise how do we define it?

In a world without joy (or other suitable counterweights), suffering is all that there is... and there is no way to differentiate between suffering and anything else... So, in that world, suffering "just is"...

In a monochromatic world, we don't say: "There is no color here".
We do not understand color; we do not know it: therefore, we can not miss it.
Get me?

 

[ForEverAfter]

suffering/ stress/unfulfilled/ insatisfaction is not the direct opposite of joy but you cannot be joyful and unsatisfied at the same time. both exist but not at the same time id say. however, the definition of the word joy has many meaning and theres different level of joy...

Yes, it is an imperfect word, that's why I put it in inverted commas ("joy").

I dont think theres a world where suffering is permanent without any level of difference between the suffering. there would be moment of suffering more intense and moment of accalmy of suffering. those moment of accalmy would feel joyful compared to the intense moment of suffering.

Exactly. You're repeating what I said here:

it (suffering) is relative to the lack of suffering

...

not sure if I believe in a monochromatic kinda world: one thing for sure, our world is not!

I don't really think you're following me.

but I understand your point totally!

Honestly, I'm not sure that you do.

I used to think the same way honestly, very honest here.

Let me guess, you used to think the same way back when you were unenlightened.
And now, you know the true path because of Buddhism... ?

You haven't provided a sensible response to the relativity debate.
In fact, you seem to have lost track of the point (misplaced the context) entirely.

 

[murphythecat]

it (suffering) is relative to the lack of suffering

no. lack of suffering is not only relative to the past (where there was suffering). its right now. only now is and is not in relation to the past in absolute terms.
right now, you stress and suffer, just like me. im not enlightened at all.

please explain your position on relativity debate. you said, everything is relative, I answered to you many things.

 

[murphythecat]

I was reading right this morning a book called be an island by ayya khema:
heres a quote I find interesting about our conversation foreverafter:

The path leads to absolute right view about this person called me, who has problems, difficulties, joys, pleasures, ambitions, hopes, wishes, and memories. We eventually comes to see that this person cannot be the one we entertain now, since there are too many difficulties besetting our hearts and minds. It has to be an entirely different view, if it is to bring peace to our hearts. To change our understanding of ourselves we need a calm and trained mind that can pull itself out of its old habitual patterns of viewing self.
We all have ideas about ourselves- our abilities, our attractiveness, our difficulties. Therse are all views, not basic and absolute truths. In the relative reality in which we live, they are more or less true. But on an absolute level, the level that underlies all that exists, none have any meaning. The only view that has absolute validity sees totally changeability in all conditioned things. Everything we are is a manifestation of an ever-changing body and an ever-changing mind. We consist of the four great elements, and no sore substance can be found. This view is not intellectually realizable, nor will the mind accept it unless meditation produces a state of peace and happiness independent of outer conditions. Only a happy mind will accept such a radically different viewpoint. A mind burdned by difficulties cannot possibly accept that there is really nobody there who is experiencing those difficulites.
There are two ways to understand the Buddha teaching: relativity and absolutely. On a relative level, each one of us must try hard to achieve a concentrated state of mind. On a absolute level, theres isn’t nobody there to try. In order to reach an absolute understanding, we must use our relative reality. Unless I am trying, there is no way to realize absolute truth. Therese are two level of thinking and awareness. We can’t absorb the higher level of consciousness unless the lower level has first been totally traversed and purified.

 

[ForEverAfter]

No offense, dude, but I couldn't be bothered reading that long quote.
This is getting painful. You're going in circles. I'd rather do something else.

 

[falsifiedhypothesi]

I am an atheist. I don't believe any of the claims for a god or anything supernatural that I've heard. I believe most religions are a detrement to society, which makes me an antitheist atheist.

 

[ForEverAfter]

I believe most religions are a detrement to society

I think you might be taking it (religion) for granted, somewhat.
How would society have developed without religion?
Would you be here today?

I'm not justifying everything in the name of religion.
Just saying, that (historically) religion has been a building block of society.

 

[turkalurk]

Ha, so if to become enlightened is to realize that you are nobody, then nobody can become enlightened.

 

[swilow]

I think you might be taking it (religion) for granted, somewhat.
How would society have developed without religion?
Would you be here today?

I'm not justifying everything in the name of religion.
Just saying, that (historically) religion has been a building block of society.

It's value in the past is undeniable, from our modern apologist perspective. I'm not sure how good it was living amongst medieval Christians or in 17th century north America. But there has been a lot of stability created by religions which stabilised societies and kept them close and calm (or under control to the antichristian in me ).

Either way, the past is the past. The world we are in still needs spirituality and divinity but does it need irrationality and intolerance at the same time? I think we have grown out of imagining help and rescue will ever come for us. Many religions just perpetuate an archaic, atavistic psychology that could inadvertently doom us to indecision and chaos. I would have to agree that (provisionally at least...) religions are, nowadays, largely a detriment to society.

 

[turkalurk]

I am an atheist. I don't believe any of the claims for a god or anything supernatural that I've heard. I believe most religions are a detrement to society, which makes me an antitheist atheist.

sounds antagonistic. Usually, when you discriminate against an entire category of a broad and diverse group of people, its because of your own personal bias that results in bigotry. I am not a theist, and I oppose a dogmatic mindset; but I see both dogmatic sides of the fence as people that are no more or less accountable for the ways of the world than anybody else.

 

[turkalurk]

how do you know consciouness is the right word? Isn't consciousness relative to unconsciousness? Isn't inflating consciousness, as an equivalent of the totality of existence, a little egocentric? It just seems such associations are anthromorphs of reality.

 

[murphythecat]

exactly

Ha, so if to become enlightened is to realize that you are nobody, then nobody can become enlightened.

religions are, nowadays, largely a detriment to society.

our society is a detriment to people too.

 

[falsifiedhypothesi]

Perhaps religion did serve as useful in the past but that doesn't mean any religion is correct or necessarily useful today. We have grown intellectually and scientifically as a species.

There is no room for religion anymore, more and more people are realizing how irrational religion is. I'm not denying that church's have done good but all the good they have done can be accomplished secularly. I've got no problem with people believing in a god or something "spiritual", I believe in your right to believe. it just seems to me religion provides an excuse for a whole lot of bigotry and ignorance in the world. Catholics deeming contraception immoral, various Christian groups bashing science and proper education to bolster their creation myth, all the holy wars in the Middle East and elsewhere, the inquisition, etcetera.

 

[ForEverAfter]

I don't think you can realistically categorize all aspects of all religions, in terms of contributions to current societies, as detrimental... If you recognize that there have been historical examples of the contrary, why are you convinced that there are no contemporary resulting from mainstream religion? (You only have to open your eyes a little wider to see them.)

 

[murphythecat]

I don't think you can realistically categorize all aspects of all religions, in terms of contributions to current societies, as detrimental... If you recognize that there have been historical examples of the contrary, why are you convinced that there are no contemporary resulting from mainstream religion? (You only have to open your eyes a little wider to see them.)

Yeah, I tend to think that religion like christianity, islam has been constructed around the way society already was. I dont think religions are to blame, society is.

 

[falsifiedhypothesi]

I'm not entirely blaming the religion, there is no way to know whether people in the past would have been good or bad with or without religion. However you can't get around the fact that a lot of religious teaching are bigoted and only serve to reinforce bigotry as moral. The fact that religion has done good things for people does not mean that religion is an overall force for good. I would like at least a couple real life examples of good things that ONLY religion can provide and CANNOT be done in a secular system.

 

[murphythecat]

I'm not entirely blaming the religion, there is no way to know whether people in the past would have been good or bad with or without religion. However you can't get around the fact that a lot of religious teaching are bigoted and only serve to reinforce bigotry as moral. The fact that religion has done good things for people does not mean that religion is an overall force for good. I would like at least a couple real life examples of good things that ONLY religion can provide and CANNOT be done in a secular system.

who lives in accordance to whats right or good? people in our society? not one minute, people wants whats good for them and them only. you think society is better then religion? If anything, its society to be blamed much more then religion. blaming religion is one good way individual in our society has found to not see the real problems created by the individuals and the society.
society is a much more important institution then religion.
maybe even society created religions to support and legitimate the way of the society.
society is based upon what individuals crave, wants and need.
blaming religion for life problem is simplistic and incomplete because religions are a reflection of individuals values and our society values in which we live in.

 

[falsifiedhypothesi]

blaming religion for life problem is simplistic and incomplete.

I'm not blaming religion for life's problems, I never said that. I said it is a detriment to society, I didn't say, "without religion we would have a utopian society." Or are you saying I can't blame religion for anything becuase it doesn't effect whether people are good or bad? Religion does effect the way people think and act, and while it may not change the nature of a person it does advise their actions. Yes, I can say religious systems are to blame for some of the worlds suffering.

 

[ForEverAfter]

Religion is so broad and varied, that it's absurd to make absolute statements like "religion is detrimental to society".
This sort of fundamental perspective never really works.

Anti-drug propagandists will try to convince you that drugs, too, are "detrimental to society". And I'm not arguing that drug-use doesn't cause problems, don't get me wrong, but you can't lump all drugs together and label them bad (drugs, like religions, are too varied to be reduced in such a way).

You may not be able to see the similarity between your pigeon-holing of religion and the war on drugs, but I do clear as day. In the end, neither religion or drug-use is going to go away... and, whether or not you chose to see them, there are good things about religion (even today!). Trying to convince people otherwise isn't considerably different from calling drug use or homosexuality detrimental to society...

You could say, without any objection from me, that you think the bad caused by religion outweighs the good.
But, in the end, you really have no idea whether or not that's true.

The motivation behind acts of religious fundamental terrorism cannot be reduced - entirely - to religions, regardless of whether or not they're openly done in the name of religion. The world is more complicated than that... As Murphy said, you're being overly simplistic.