Will Religion Ever Die?

If ideas exist which reliably lead to murder and the retardation of civilization, at what point do you stop blaming individuals and start to blame the idea?

 

I know, right? http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/20/opinion/malik-myanmars-buddhist-bigots.html?_r=1

 

Short answer: No. Religion and religiousness will never die.



“The religion of the future will be cosmic religion. It will transcend personal God and avoid dogma and theology.” -Einstein

 

I'd hope not. I don't think religion is all that bad. Mean, the morons in the Middle East killing everyone over religion is a bit annoying but then like the rest of the world that can sort past those things is fine. I think culture on a whole would lose a lot of color and honestly there's too many annoying atheists out there as it is being downers on everybody. I just believe what I do, don't really care what others do its not my business. I'm not cutting heads off or putting down anyone.

Though I will pick up a hammer and smash some skulls on anyone who wants to try and kill me for what I believe. That's a given. Can't have that. Nuh uh.

 

Uh what?? You're definitely doing the latter so I'm not so sure I can trust you're not doing the former.

 

You mean ideas like: The world would be so much better if we could only get rid of those,,,,,,,,,,,,,?

 

Atheists aren't religious. I'm not putting religious people down.

 

You said anyone

 

I knew I was being a hypocrite the moment I typed it. :d

 

I thought that memory might have been going from spending one too many nights in Colorado...

 

I smoked less than a joint. ^.^ but it was soooo good.

 

...those infidels..... yes, exactly, now you're getting it

I said "reliably". Bloodshed in the name of buddhism is a somewhat incoherent phenomenon and relatively very rare compared to the monotheisms. They are really doing mental gymnastics to make their violence make sense under buddhism.

Violence under Islam comes from a straightforward reading of the quran and is best displayed by the life of the warlord Mohammad.

We don't need to take buddhism as our example of a "good" idea; take Jainism, the REAL religion of peace. Compare Jainism with Islam, actually compare the ideas therein, and tell me which one you think will reliably lead to more suffering for humanity.

from the very article you posted: "Few would suggest that there is anything inherent in Buddhism that has led to the persecution. Instead, most would recognize that the anti-Muslim violence in Myanmar has its roots in the nation’s political struggles."

 

Don't be facetious Jeffrey

 

In general I agree. But maybe there are experiences which come only if one follows a particular path or religion or teaching?
If a person has an experience of the Virgin Mary for example, that would probably be because they are either Catholic or Orthodox.Certainly Christian. It's very unlikely that they would experience the divine Mother in the form of Durga. At least at the stage at which they have arrived. Perhaps if they looked into other teachings they might come to realize that the essential reality is the same in both cases. Something we could provisionally call the Divine feminine exists and has many different forms or aspects which are associated with different religions.

I'm all in favour of people looking into diverse teachings. Even if they still want to be a Christian or whatever, it may help to enrich their own understanding, and make them more accepting of the beliefs of others.

 

Not all Muslims are extremists who blow themselves up. That's a minority of Muslims.

 

Buddhism isn't special or negated from a history of violence. It's just not as mainstream to be aware of it.

http://www.loonwatch.com/2012/07/warrior-monks-the-untold-story-of-buddhist-violence-i/


Violence is found in all religious traditions, and Buddhism is no exception. This may surprise those who think of Buddhism as a religion based solely on peace. Indeed, one of the principal reasons for producing this book was to address such a misconception. Within the various Buddhist traditions (which Trevor Ling describes as “Buddhisms”), there is a long history of violence. Since the inception of Buddhist traditions 2,500 years ago, there have been numerous individual and structural cases of prolonged Buddhist violence. [1]

 

Or those @#$%^ Muslims and Christians? Dawkins, Harris & Company may clean up the language, but the sentiment is the same. You say there is nothing inherent in Buddhism that promotes violence, and I'd agree.Yes, I agree with you that violence is hard to reconcile with Buddhist teachings, but it's hard to reconcile with Jesus's teachings as well. For arguments that Islam isn't inherently violent, see

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/abukar-adan-/the-need-for-nuance-islam-muslims_b_8567148.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_violence

My point is not to tar Buddhism as inherently violent but to illustrate that there's a potential for violence in humans of all persuasions (atheists included; think of Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Kim Jong Un. Hate speech doesn't help! The interesting thing about these accounts of Buddhist violence against Christians and Muslims is that they are led by monks, and they are recent. When was the last time Christian clerics led physical attacks against other religions? Can you imagine the outcry if they did? Is there a double standard here?

http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/19/world/asia/sri-lanka-muslim...
http://www.anglicannews.org/news/2014/01/sri-lanka-5,000-christians-pray-after-attacks-by-buddhist-extremists.aspx
http://world.time.com/2013/06/20/extremist-buddhist-monks-fight-oppression-with-violence/
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/03/opinion/sri-lankas-violent-buddhists.html?_r=0
http://news.yahoo.com/buddhist-muslim-violence-spreads-myanmar-060529329.html;_ylt=A0LEVw0hm05Wa3oA_VJXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTEzb2RzaWRtBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMzBHZ0aWQDVklQNjE1XzEEc2VjA3Ny
http://news.yahoo.com/buddhist-muslim-violence-spreads-myanmar-060529329.html;_ylt=A0LEVw0hm05Wa3oA_VJXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTEzb2RzaWRtBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMzBHZ0aWQDVklQNjE1XzEEc2VjA3
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-22356306 http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/22/world/asia/buddhism-violence/index.html

Jainism is certainly non-violent, but not a religion with wide appeal. Buddhism developed as a "middle way" between Hinduism and the extreme asceticism of a religion similar or identical to Jainism. There are only 4 million Jains worldwide.

 

That is extremely disingenuous. None of those writers have EVER argued for the extermination of religious believers; only religion. The difference is huge; it's the difference between voting against a political party and planting bombs at the party's headquarters. The sentiment is NOT the same, I can't believe you're stooping this low.

That is extremely disingenuous. None of those leaders have EVER killed in the NAME of atheism; in fact their regimes were characteristic of being too much LIKE religion! That is why they followed dogma blindly right into mass graves! Tell me WHAT about atheism makes someone want to murder intellectuals? Murder capitalists and orthodox christians? Murder south koreans and those who do not profess allegiance to the head of the state?

NOTHING does. Those crimes have NOTHING to do with atheism and you KNOW that Okiefriek. This is a fallacious and spurious argument that has never been respected anywhere.

ISLAMIC FUNDAMENTALISM, ISLAMIC JIHAD, AND ISLAMIC TERRORISM HAVE SOMETHING TO DO WITH ISLAM BELIEF IN JIHAD, MARTYRDOM, AND PARADISE

You can do better man.

 

Something to do with, yes. That is just it. It doesnt mean we can equate islam as a whole or their followers with islamic terrorism and extremists.
It is clear to me Okie is not stooping down or is being disingenous. That is your perception. I think it can just as easily be projected on you