Atheists what are your views on East Asian religions?

Post Reply New Topic

To add to what WilliamWDelaney said, the Buddhists think the soul is the basic of a being. When the soul is attached to a physical body, it acts like a log, recording every good and bad things. The log in turn determines the fate of the soul and the body. When the body dies, the soul enter another body (incarnation), carrying the log with it, and the cycle goes on.

Really they are worrying what their future incarnations. On the other hand, Buddha claimed that the cycle can be ended by practicing Buddhism.

I have a hard time knowing how to use punctuation and grammar btw I speak perfect english and german.

Thanks, I see what you're saying now. It was the word "incineration" that threw me. It reminded me a bit too much of hell fire, I guess.

What makes you think others here do not? There are Muslim creationists who get my contempt just as much as Christian ones. Of course, they're more likely to kill me for my views, while Christians will just crap everywhere and pretend they win

One reason all the threads are about one religion mostly my religion or Islam. Why not discredit the Jewish faith also yes muslims will kill you christians a few 100 years ago Would have done the same but now we don't kill atheists we just debate with them sure we lose most of the time but we don't care atheists putting us down for our religion only makes us more religious.

Their are a whole lot of religions in the world that play a role in politics also if I was a atheists I woulnd't even bring God up because it would be pointless since I don't think he is their at all why talk about it.

Most people here are from Western countries, and thus Christianity and its efforts at devolution are what is most relevant to them. That does not mean they would not criticize Islam, simply that it is further down the road in their view

Islam is in Canada North and South America in Europe too it is moving west and fast. I think WW3 will the last religious war between christians and muslims in the past jews never backed up christians in the war with muslims.

There are two reasons you won't find me giving Jewish people crap for the most part.

1. I've never had a Jewish person bother me about religion, attack me for being an atheist, or legislate against me.

2. They get more than enough crap piled on them already.

That's becaue jews are not required to convert people second their is a movement by a religiouis group trying to keep faith out of politics.

Are Christians really required to convert people? It's not how I interpret the Bible. Spreading the word should not extend to hounding people.

I consider the movement to keep faith out of politics is a good thing, and that any church that poses a political position and tells its members how to vote should be held in violation of its non-taxable status. Religion doesn't belong in government - not in the US anyway.

Frankly, this question of converting others is where I start to detest any religion - if it becomes so bent on converting people that it gets intrusive. I'm a de-converted former Christian, and it was partly the extreme missionary tactics of the church I belonged to that sent me packing. I didn't like it, and when it became an excuse to pester my family who weren't in the church, I wrote a letter to ex-communicate myself. I consider it controlling, manipulative and intrusive. Everyone has a right to their beliefs, including those who don't believe the same as you (figurative you, not you personally) or who don't have religious beliefs. Frankly, in the US, I think overly zealous proselytizing should be outlawed. It's a form of harassment. Honestly, it was like being stalked, when they wanted me to come back to church.

I've heard stories that the US military has been infiltrated by Christian officers who harass soldiers to attend services, and there's been bullying of those who refuse. That's so wrong, on so many levels. I'm glad that it's finally being investigated.

That's one thing I like about other religions I've explored, other than Christianity. The idea that when people are ready for a particular faith, they will come to it, not need to be dragged in off the street. They'll become determined to get past any barriers that stand in the way, such as the Jewish reluctance to take converts.

It's one thing to inform others about your faith if they show an interest. It's another to pester them or manipulate them into joining, or staying.

I realize that not all Christian churches do this, but the ones that do make them all look bad, and when I read or hear any statement about converting others, it curdles my blood.

I don't view it as a competition, a quote might be "many are called but few are chosen".

Jesus stated in the New Testement go out and make disciples.

Suffering may be illusory, but that doesn't mean that sentient beings don't suffer. Realising that one is one with the universe is one thing, but Mahayana in particular puts an emphasis on compassion. Since all things are one, then the perceived suffering of another being is a matter of importance. It's one of the boddhisattva vows to save all living beings from suffering.

I really dislike that idea that suffering is illusory. Animals would probably disagree with that notion.

Indeed, the fact that it feels very real was the whole impetus for Siddhartha going on the road to enlightenment.

I feel I have limited agreement with most Eastern religions.

I think Confucianism is way too conservatism. I hate the over-focus on "proper place" and the duty-based relationships. Virtue isn't a bad notion, but it doesn't salvage it from the wrong.

I think Taoism is too focused on moderation, the issue is that growth is often found in extremism, disruption, aggression, etc. I mean, going with the flow is often great, but a great often, we benefit from the people who fight the flow and we should acknowledge those people.

I have no value in escaping desire. I see the pursuit of desire as central to being human. I see passion and attachment as just part of the healthy existence. Suffering may result from that. Great. But growth results from this, as do improvements made to the world.

I tend to hate Hinduism the most out of all Eastern religions because from my understanding it makes the most out of a metaphysical plane. So, Hindus believe in reincarnation. They believe in multiple deities. They believe in miraculous occurrences. They want human beings to focus on the transcendent and hold that this metaphysical reality is MORE REAL than the actual reality. I mean, if Hinduism was more prevalent in my location, I get the feeling I would find myself in frequent opposition to it. However, I am significantly less familiar with it than Christianity.

However, I will hate all of them in practice because most of these religions in practice will involve lots of supernatural elements, even though I think that Buddhism, Taoism, and Confucianism seem more likely to have variants purged of theological content.

There are conceptions of human existence that I like more than others though, some of which with mildly religious elements to them.

* I like the Sith. (Star Wars) The Sith are a religious notion. I'd hate real world sith who believed in a real force(because it's garbage), and I'd hate them if they were overly committed to evil(as they are in canonical Star Wars), but the Sith Code is something I can partially identify with:
"Peace is a lie, there is only passion.
Through passion, I gain strength.
Through strength, I gain power.
Through power, I gain victory.
Through victory, my chains are broken.
The Force shall free me."

And the reason for that is because this code emphasizes one's nature as an agent who can create change, the value of one's emotions, and the importance of gaining control and power.(which does not have to be world domination, but power is expressed in changing politics, in having money, etc)

The aspect I don't like is that truth and intellect are not strongly emphasized in what I've read about the sith, but I am not a good sith buff.

* I like aspects of Objectivism. I think it is grossly wrong. I am an opponent to Objectivism because it is very simple-minded and dogmatic. However, the truths it captures are good truths.
1) It captures human self-interest. Everything we do and engage in reflects our self-interest, and trying to ignore and deny this reality is really to our detriment. Instead, self-interest needs to be recognized. We need this message: http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page= ... _ctrl=1021 to be part of our recognition of human relationships.
2) It captures the importance of truth and human reasoning.
3) It captures man's nature as an innovator and game-changing organism. In the objectivist view, people do move mountains and we do transform the world. This is important for everyone to realize if they live in an artificial environment, that they are not living in Gaia's world and a slave to weather patterns, but rather in man's constructions and our towering efforts.
4) It is thoroughly anthropocentric. Rand is for progress, not "oneness", and that's something i really appreciate.

I don't like the emphasis on rationalism above empiricism.(I mean, I realize that Objectivism isn't anti-empiricism, it's just a focus issue). I don't like the requirement of radical libertarianism. I don't like the reduction of ALL ethical drives to greed. I don't like the over-emphasis on reason, instead of recognizing human emotion and emotional traits as also positive. And I just do not like the dogmatism found.

* Nietzscheanism seems to have a lot of intellectual value to me.
Nietzsche recognizes human beings as both creators and destroyers and he urges people to be free-thinkers, willing and able to reject the dogmas of the past and rather set up the new understandings of the world. Nietzsche recognizes that we are individuals and his uber-mensch really represents the idea of a free individual. Nietzsche recognizes that we are crude creatures and that we are not separate from emotion as other ideas try to pretend. Part of Nietzsche's quest is to overcome the idols, and that's a very powerful image.

The problem is that Nietzsche doesn't recognize human reason and method as central because of his overly strong push in the other direction.

* Stoicism also seems to have some interest
Stoicism has an emphasis on reason, which as I've indicated in the past that I like. It is passionless, but in a rational way of trying to overcome being controlled by emotion, which in many ways makes it better than many other rationalist beliefs(which can often come off as just Vulcan worship). I believe in emotion, but I still end up finding that I prefer a very stoic approach to problems, and recognizing them from the detached perspective, which is central to stoicism. I like that it is deterministic.

I still end up disliking it because I perceive it as related to "fated roles", which is why stoics have accepted slavery and other evils. And while I like it's counter-emotional strategy, I end up disliking it's emotionlessness. So, from what I understand, stoicism seeks all life to be emotionally detached, but I only think human problem solving should aim towards some degrees of attachment in certain aspects. I don't really value detachment as a value across all things, and honestly, if Stoicism weren't known for it's rationalism, I'd lump it with Buddhism as something I cared little for.

Maybe there are others I should consider, like LaVey Satanism.(I might like it... but I don't have as much background knowledge of it). I think a general rule of thumb is that I like the following:
Individualistic and disruptive rather than conformist and community-driven
Rationality/truth-seeking
Human progress and man's relationship to the rest of nature being dominance instead of oneness
Human emotion as part of living
Human detachment as part of problem-solving, truth-finding, and as part of man's relationship to the world.

(note: I also like dysteleology and a sense of disharmony, but most beliefs don't have that, or if they do, it's in the lens of politics rather than something closer to evolution)

So..... yeah. I sometimes wonder if my tendencies represent some of the most hated elements of Western society. And to be honest, I really don't tend to think most of the religious conceptions add much at all. I mean.... nothing I mentioned as interesting to me was really that explicitly religious.

Last edited by Awesomelyglorious on 02 Jun 2012, 5:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.