You must log in or # to comment.
As a religious individual(/s), I totally agree with this. Except for my religion. Mine is totally right. Everyone else’s is crazy and wrong, but mine is correct.
That’s insane! Yours can’t be right because mine is correct.
Unless yours is the same as mine then I agree with you and are 100% in the right.
aLL ReLigiOnS aRE reALly AbOuT tHE saME uNdeRlYinG tHinG!! ٩(◕‿◕｡)۶
They are. It’s all about getting people to fall inline and kill those who won’t.
Hey, me too!
Buddhism isn’t really a religion, the way I understand it, it’s not trying to sell anything like religions do, it’s more of a philosophical system, with psychological exercises and disciplines that to this day have proven to be of profound positive mental health impact.
Then people went and built statues of Siddhartha Gautama, which he supposedly had asked not to happen. Then there’s the “fat Buddha” from China, who was actually someone who lived almost two millennia after, and is known there as “Budai”.
Those statues and idols have nothing to do with what Buddhism originally proposes, in a nutshell: there is suffering in this world and life, how can we be free of suffering?
There is a mysticism aspect that falls under the umbrella of Buddhism, too. Like if one is enlightened sufficiently, they can ascend to another life form after death, otherwise it’s reincarnation to try again. I think there’s more to it than that, but honestly haven’t delved too much into it because the philosophy is where the useful stuff is.
And ironically, an aspect of enlightenment is accepting that suffering is a part of life so that you don’t suffer more being upset that you have some suffering. Getting that one was like a switch for me and life has generally been much happier. Things don’t “ruin my day” anymore.
Just as Christianity is not a unified church, and is divided into Orthodox, Protestants, Catholics, evangelists, Baptists, and the bazillion of other denominations, Buddhism is very different ranging from extreme practices of Shingon sect, to a very practical philosophy of Dogen’s Zen Buddhism.
Buddhism is many things, and religion as well.
Buddhism is a religion, just not in the Abrahamic sense. Like the three Abrahamic religions there is more and less philosophical interpretations that feel less religion like, taoism for instance. Also it’s not as proselytizing as the other main religions.
However it remains a supernatural interpretation of the working of the universe with an implied morality and subjugation to the tenets of that system.
I don’t know that Jesus asked for a church to be founded either, or left behind any guidance on how to organize it or run it properly. If SG specifically said “don’t do this” then wow that’s even worse that they did. But it seems like much the same deal all around.
In the sermon on the mount Jesus talked about resolving disputes by “taking it to the church” (literally “assembly” of believers) so there was some concept of church during his ministry. Church means “assembly” (of people) though, the greek word really bears no resemblance to the modern idea of church as a building with a carpark.
I feel that’s probably among the genuine sayings of Jesus because later editors have declined to inject verses supporting bishops and elders which was surely tempting to do.
His noodleness is the one true savior! Ramen!
Praise Bob!
Heathen! Praise Joe!
🙏
Gods are mythical creatures,
Religious stories are fables,
Beliefs are opinions
Ignorance is bliss
Something can be untrue without being a lie. Generally we like to say that for something to be a lie requires an intent to deceive. If I tell you “the next bus is coming at 3:30pm” and it arrives at 3:32, was I lying? No, the bus was just late.
Anyway, most of these religions are very old and it’s hard to say we know anything about the mindset of the people who started them. Having said that, Scientology is not so old and based on Hubbard’s other writings we could probably make a solid case that he was intending to deceive people. So I don’t mind if you call that one a lie!
I like your analogy. I am not a Christian, but I believe the majority of Christian writers had honest intentions and were working with the way the world seemed to be to them at the time.
Eg Paul telling women to be silent in the church assembly is harsh but makes a little more sense given he’s created this mixed male/female religious meeting that didn’t exist before. It’s similar to telling all the new people to be quiet and sit still because they’re new to this. His reasoning is that “Eve” is weak. But the very fact he’s admitting all the women to his meetings in the first place shows he thought Christian belief was bringing men and women into a more equal space when previously there had been an even deeper division. And so on.
Including faith in yourself…?
Yes.
That sounds very sad.
In my experience
There’s a difference between ‘faith’ and ‘delusion.’
What if I’d have to be deluded to believe in myself?
I believe that’s called ‘therapy.’
Faith needs to be based on evidence. The evidence for the faith in most religions is…not good.
I have faith that we are all going to to die.
Faith is belief without evidence, and I have evidence everyone who has lived so far has died and the rest of us have enough in common that would cause us to die for similar reasons as those already dead. I don’t need faith to believe we’re all going to die, faith would be needed to believe someone won’t die because we have no convincing evidence for any immortals yet.
There’s actually a nuance here that religious people love to make much of. They would say that just because everyone who’s ever lived has died does not mean you know we all will. They would say you are just generalizing from the examples you have to all cases, which is fine but is inductive reasoning and therefore involves faith. They will say you cannot conclude deductively that we will all die, you can only reason inductively that you think we will, therefore you are operating in uncertainty and therefore you are exhibiting faith. Therefore science and religion are the same thing. (They’ll say).
This seems to be the latest favorite philosophical whipping post among religious people trying to find some basis in the modern world for their magic sky fairy beliefs. The funniest thing about it, to me anyway, is that it is an argument that boils down to “you’re just making shit up as much as we are!”
belief and faith are not the same thing. it’s entirely possible that you meant what you said, but I’m guessing you didn’t.
I’m not a myth! Could a myth type a comment on Lemmy?
Take that, atheists!
Some delusions can bring comfort for life. Its not all bad.
A population trained to believe without critically thinking is dangerous to everyone.
I can believe that.
Thats a fair point but eternalism is always harmful.
Atheism is a belief. Just sayin.
Calling atheism a belief is like calling bald a hair color. Or like saying ‘not collecting stamps’ is a hobby
You don’t have to call it belief if that makes you uncomfortable.
It’s a world view. And, like other world views, it has normal, functional people who buy into it, and nutty fanatics who buy into it. It has people who use power wisely, and people who use power dangerously, at the expense of others.
The concerning thing is that some people who hold atheism as a world view think this makes them immune to the dysfunctions of collective action, but that’s far from true. But, of course, it’s common to pick flaws in other world views and think your own shit doesn’t stink.
I think you may be conflating things a bit. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in gods, it doesn’t automatically come with a particular worldview. Worldviews are much more broad, as the name would imply. They encompass a set of values and assumptions about life. Atheism doesn’t prescribe how someone views politics, morality, or society. Those are shaped by other philosophies like humanism or existentialism.
I agree that no one is immune to the dysfunctions of collective action, and atheists can certainly fall prey to the same human errors and biases that affect any group. However, attributing those flaws to atheism itself misses the point. The fact that individuals with different beliefs, whether religious or non-religious, have varying behaviors doesn’t stem from atheism as a ‘worldview’—it’s part of the complex nature of human society.
Criticism of specific worldviews is valid, but atheism as a simple lack of belief in gods doesn’t operate on the same level as belief systems that come with doctrines and tenets.
Perhaps (as i mentioned before) or can be called merely a fundamental aspect of a world view, as in “an atheistic world view”.
I suppose I so tend to say “an atheistic world view” or “a theistic world view” when talking about the matter. That indicates more that it’s a fundamental characteristic of the world view, when compared to other world views, and not necessarily the world view itself.
By nature of the subject (gods being, in general, vast entities fundamental to the structure of the world), atheism is at least a fundamental aspect of an atheistic world view. That is, like magical unicorns, one couldn’t simply drop a god into an atheistic world view and have the people who hold that world view accept it without some serious issues.
I think being non-unicornian is also a fundamental facet of most atheistic world views.
Of course, ”non-unicornian" is a bit tongue-in-cheek. A somewhat better term might be “non-fantastical world views,” but whatever.
Negation and Plato’s Beard
Using Wikipedia’s article on atheism, I concede that atheism in the broadest sense is not a world view. But atheism in any narrower sense is a world view, at least inasmuch as theism is.
However, the term “atheistic world view” is perfectly valid, as it references any one of the set of world views that have atheism as a general state or facet.
Not collecting stamps, I like that.
What belief is being held?
All gods are myths
All religions are lies
All faith - including that in the above two things - is delusion.
I mean, you’re shooting your own messenger, but I hear ya.
“What drink would you like?”
“I’ll take a nice tall glass of the absence of water please.”
“You mean that you don’t want a drink?”
“No, the drink I’m requesting and the one I intend to drink the absence of water. Its my favourite drink.”
"So, like a coke or something.’
"No, thats the presence of coke. I want to drink the absence of water…
What do you mean by ‘I’m being ridiculous’?"
It’s a non-belief.
It is a position you hold until a belief system provides sufficient evidence for you to form and hold a belief.
Gnostic atheism is a specific form which nobody actually holds to, which says that there positively is no god and this is known to be a fact. Any reasonable person would admit you can’t know this. And so virtually all atheists are agnostic atheists.
Being an agnostic atheist does not mean you are “on the fence” or “undecided” or “accepting of all beliefs equally.” It means you are intellectually honest that you cannot prove the non-existence of a god any more than you can prove there isn’t a planet in the universe where it rains lemonade. But until you have a firm reason to believe that some god exists, you’re going to proceed as if they don’t, because that’s the conclusion, however perpetually provisional, that best matches the evidence.
Then it’s a good thing belief isn’t mentioned in the image.
Hindu lore is pretty sick. Any story that involves an individual named “The Destroyer” is pretty ducking sick.
I am the Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM). Bow before me, fools
What a Buddhist thing to say.
Just read the stories,(just don’t take it seriously) they are like Avengers without any corporate bullshit. With my totally unbiased opinion some are more fun then others. (Polytheism>Animism>Monotheism). And their time line doesn’t change just because Disney stock didn’t rise.
not my religion.
Your religion is not a lie?
no, its nice.
