Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I don't think that divine is the correct word to us. Divine has the connotation of separation, and Buddhahood is not separate.
"Perfect Enlightenment" that's at least as separate as "divine".
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I don't think that divine is the correct word to us. Divine has the connotation of separation, and Buddhahood is not separate.
"Perfect Enlightenment" that's at least as separate as "divine".
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
"Perfect Enlightenment" that's at least as separate as "divine".
I don't know where you get your information, but it is wrong. The main different is that we are all enlightened, and simply need to awaken to that enlightenment, while divine is unachievable. Are we all divine and not know it?
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I don't know where you get your information, but it is wrong. The main different is that we are all enlightened, and simply need to awaken to that enlightenment, while divine is unachievable. Are we all divine and not know it?
You're splitting hairs. We are not all awakened to enlightenment, let alone "perfect" enlightenment.
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
That doesn't mean that Buddhists can't believe they reach divinity on par with Jesus.
Well that all depends on if you consider Jesus divine. If he was human, just like the rest of us, then there have been many people with divinity on par with Jesus. However, that is only true if you miss use the word divine.
Also, there are as many different types of Buddhist as there are Christians. I only know about one type.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
They are a minority, however, given time, you maybe right.
I don't agree with this. Most of the atheists I know practice, advertise and gloat about their beliefs just as strongly as some religious folk I know. However, this is only my experience. You may have experienced something different.
Extremism is dangerous on all fronts, though.
Regarding the film, I don't think Maher intended to have this film taken seriously. Not completely, at least.
Originally posted by Forum Ninja
I don't agree with this. Most of the atheists I know practice, advertise and gloat about their beliefs just as strongly as some religious folk I know. However, this is only my experience. You may have experienced something different.
Then you probably don't know many atheists, or your experience with them is simply slanted by an unfortunate few people.
While I realize that I'm also just a case study, I often wonder where people find these supposed "angry" atheists in everyday life, unless they are just grouping atheists in with the "youtube atheists" that dominate the stereotype. Because most of my friends are atheists or agnostic, and not a one of them fits this particular mold, and most of them openly hate the cliche angry atheists for being such a polarizing negative influence.
Originally posted by Forum Ninja
Extremism is dangerous on all fronts, though.
Agreed.
Originally posted by Forum Ninja
Regarding the film, I don't think Maher intended to have this film taken seriously. Not completely, at least.
Clearly not. Religious adherents will always be up in arms about such films, but if he were treating the subject more fairly he would remove much of the satire and deal with it in a much more professional manner. He openly admits he wants to challenge peoples' beliefs, but no one who sees the film with any clarity should see it for more than it is: comedy. Comedy with an agenda, granted. But still comedy.
Originally posted by Digi
While I realize that I'm also just a case study, I often wonder where people find these supposed "angry" atheists in everyday life, unless they are just grouping atheists in with the "youtube atheists" that dominate the stereotype. Because most of my friends are atheists or agnostic, and not a one of them fits this particular mold, and most of them openly hate the cliche angry atheists for being such a polarizing negative influence.
unfortunately, people are most likely to be friends with and associate with those who believe similar things as they do (behavioural/contextual patterns may be more important in some cases, such as gangs or drug cultures, but largely this holds).
Because of this, the only experience most people get is with those who are most vocal with their beliefs. A calm atheist is not going to cross social groups to criticize believers, much the same as a calm and rational believer is not going to harass atheists.
The only exposure each group gets to the other are from the idiots who aren't ok with letting others believe as they wish. Like, outside of this forum, my only real exposure to christians are from the crazies who tell me I'm going to Hell on street corners and who follow me down the block (obvious exceptions, there is a Jehovah's Witness who comes to my school who I have awesome discussions with).
Its really hard to understand that most people, regardless of beliefs, are pretty much the same, when your only exposure to other groups come from such experiences. lol, I'm sure this isn't news to anyone, just some thoughts.
Originally posted by Digi
Then you probably don't know many atheists, or your experience with them is simply slanted by an unfortunate few people.While I realize that I'm also just a case study, I often wonder where people find these supposed "angry" atheists in everyday life, unless they are just grouping atheists in with the "youtube atheists" that dominate the stereotype. Because most of my friends are atheists or agnostic, and not a one of them fits this particular mold, and most of them openly hate the cliche angry atheists for being such a polarizing negative influence.
Agreed.
Clearly not. Religious adherents will always be up in arms about such films, but if he were treating the subject more fairly he would remove much of the satire and deal with it in a much more professional manner. He openly admits he wants to challenge peoples' beliefs, but no one who sees the film with any clarity should see it for more than it is: comedy. Comedy with an agenda, granted. But still comedy.
Well put. I surprisingly know quite a few atheists (Being that I am one myself) and they often promote and even persuade others to believe in their philosophy of godlessness. Some of them rant often and don't let up on someone who is religious. These are friends, though. Within my family, everyone is catholic. I am definitely the black sheep.
Sometimes I feel atheists think they can get away with bashing religion because they don't necessarily practice anything or because they don't have dogmatic structure.
Sometimes I wonder is it pointless to have these discussions. Religion is not motivated by anything that can be "debunked" by anyone who really believes it (by debunk I mean it terms of misunderstandings of a particular sect/church/"(insert whatever)"😉. It is hard to say exactly what I mean to say without writing an essay but I avoid conversations of religion as much as possible because now it just doesn't get anywhere.
People believe what they believe when it comes to the metaphysical and so there's not much incentive to have these discussions, in my experience.
Originally posted by chithappens
Sometimes I wonder is it pointless to have these discussions. Religion is not motivated by anything that can be "debunked" by anyone who really believes it (by debunk I mean it terms of misunderstandings of a particular sect/church/"(insert whatever)"😉. It is hard to say exactly what I mean to say without writing an essay but I avoid conversations of religion as much as possible because now it just doesn't get anywhere.People believe what they believe when it comes to the metaphysical and so there's not much incentive to have these discussions, in my experience.
...yet you're posting here. A quandry.
Plenty of religious claims can be verified and/or debunked, btw.
Originally posted by Digi
...yet you're posting here. A quandry.Plenty of religious claims can be verified and/or debunked, btw.
I was just wondering aloud. My point was that nothing can be changed when it comes to someone who really believes, or at least they will be very unlikely to be swayed by someone who does not have the same faith as them.
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
meh
I feel the same.
I wish someone would make or say something interesting and original in regards to religion - everything has been said/done before.
It's all the same ''I am rationalist, smart, enlightened and you're stupid and backward for having a religion''.
Blergh. Same, same, same.
1. can one not be perfectly "enlightened" to the NATURAL state of the world and the ability of the human conciousness to change and experience things in a variety of amazing ways as well as understanding the reasons behind our suffering and who we are{helping us change them and reach a higher state of psychological} without having to introduce any supernatural affects on the physical world????
2. buddha's divinity on PAR with christ makes no sense to me because divinity is defined very differently between christianity and buddhism. you cant compare the two just for the sake of trying to make buddhists seem like hypocrites for avoiding the the christian ideas of divine.
3. what people are referring to active atheists are more properly described as ANTI- theists{as christopher hitchens put it}. those who actively pursue to defame and point out relegion for a lie and a fraud. no1 does ANYTHING based on atheism, it is the nuetral state of non beleif that we are all born with, any backlash against relegion is due to anti theism, and btw, not all atheists are anti theists either. as such there is no such thing as ATHIEST dogma since atheists dont HAVE any beleifs or commandments to be dogmatic about.
the word atheism is being tossed around without its meaning. it simply means not beleiving in any THIESTIC/DIESTIC relegion/philsophy {philosophies with DIETIES which fall under the general definition of monothiestic or polythistic god being responsible for creating the existance/humanity/this world and having power over it in the former case}. as such, technically, non theistic beleifs like busshim are atheistic, although usually people associate atheism with non beleif in any supernatural and that according to many doesnt agree with buddhism. athiesm is a prequisite, but not the same as ANTI theism.
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
I feel the same.I wish someone would make or say something interesting and original in regards to religion - everything has been said/done before.
It's all the same ''I am rationalist, smart, enlightened and you're stupid and backward for having a religion''.
Blergh. Same, same, same.
maybe there isnt much more to say unless relegions themselves first try to prove those ancient accusations untrue. also, this film was made with an american audience in mind, and much of america is not nearly as tired or educated on the subject of atheism/anti theism as the wrest of the western world, barring the minority of non relegious americans. the evidence for this, "such a tired old movie wudnt even cause a few heads to turn in places like europe. people are too used to such stuff in the past, but sumhow in america, it ends up being CONTREVERSIAL, only pointing towards the unfamiliarity of the majority of american christians to such a thing- meaning it isnt uninteresting or unoriginal or the same to them". much of the bible belt, in many ways isnt that different from much of the pakistani frontier or parts of iran or saudi arabia.