Concerns About Sony's Religious Intolerance

[RickyMaveety]

Ah, Nate. Sorry, all I see is "attention" and then your signature. Shall I assume that you are reiterating your view so kindly expressed to me in the past about what a "bully" I am?

As usual, sorry you feel that way. I don't see myself as trying to force my views on anyone, although I do love a good debate, and yes .... I understand that you consider me a bully .... yes, really I do. And, perhaps you are correct and my interest in rational discourse is evil incarnate.

But, unless you guys all get together and decide to ban me for life from MR ... you are pretty much stuck with me.

(and the bully exits, stage left, to go walk her dogs)

[RickyMaveety]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Philosophy: the study of a subject for which we have no scientific method to create hypotheses, make experiments, or analyze results. May include some religions.

Religion: (1) A systematic method of attaining awareness of, and offering reverence to, that which is sacred.

(2) From Timothy Leary: A system to create a specific religious experience, or "the ecstatic, incontrovertibly certain, subjective discovery of answers to seven basic spiritual questions":

1. The ultimate Power question: What is the basic energy underlying the universe?
2. The Life Question: What is life? Where and how did it begin? How is it evolving?
3. The Human Being Question: Who is man? What is his structure and function?
4. The Awareness Question: How does man sense, experience, know?
5. The Ego Question: Who am I?
6. The Emotional Question: What should I feel about it (life)?
7. The Ultimate Escape Question: How do I get out of it?

Deities optional. Religion does not require a sentient being in charge. You could say it requires a "god" if you're willing to redefine "god" to mean "anything that's considered sacred." Which seems like a much bigger stretch than accepting non-theistic religions.

I really do have to walk the dogs, but I promise you, as soon as possible I will write a short essay on the history and meaning of the word "religion" as it is taken from the Latin for "reunification"

That is, if it is possible to do so without having Nate berate me for being a bully.

[Nate the great]

Everyone, did you know there is a name for the group of people who have ticked off Ricky? Yes, indeed.

The Human Race

[desertgrandma]

Originally Posted by RickyMaveety

Y
Oh, and with regard to the pig reference, you are forgiven, however, I reserve the right to tease you about making a pig reference at my expense for the rest of your days.

And she means it, too!

[tompe]

Originally Posted by RickyMaveety

OK ... Tommy .... slow down and rewrite that whole post. You are not making any sense at all to me here. I realize that I would not understand it at all if you stated it in your native tongue, but honestly, I know your English is better than that.

There are many things that people have faith in that have nothing to do with religion. For example, I have faith that the Sun will come up tomorrow. I can't know it for a certainty until it happens, but I believe it to be true, my reasons for believing it are based on prior experience.

I happen to believe in reincarnation for much the same reasons, prior experience (having seen snatches of other lives ... and no, not everyone was Cleopatra in a prior lifetime, some of us were nobody in particular) and experiences of others (including scientific study). Those are my "reasons."

I understood you to say that you thought Buddhism was something other than a philosophy because "they" believed in "rebirth" without "reason." Please, tell me how I misunderstood your post, and please, take your time so I won't misunderstand the next one.

A scientific or atheistic viewpoint hold things for true if there are good reasons to hold them for true. There is evidence. Since there are no good reasons in this respect for holding rebirth for true then it is an example of why it is wrong to compare Buddhism with atheism in this respect. And it is an example of why it is more a religion than a philosophy since it holds things for true without proper reasons.

Know for certain has nothing to do with science. These kind of "know for certain" argument are what religious or postmodern people use to motivate there beliefs. But the argument is not valid or correct. And I am since a long time totally fed up with these kind of "know for certain" arguments and statements like "my truth is as good as your truth" so I probably got overly upset when I wrote my comment...

[tompe]

Originally Posted by RickyMaveety

You know, pagansoul, if the topics we are discussing offend you in some way, you are perfectly free not to follow the thread.

Unless someone has a gun to your head and we just don't know about it. Some people find rational philosophical debate interesting.

I totally agree. I do not understand these comments about closing a thread and similar comments. If people have fun discussing why stop it?

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by tompe

I totally agree. I do not understand these comments about closing a thread and similar comments. If people have fun discussing why stop it?

Yep, as long as we realise everyone is going to leave with exactly the same opinions they had when they arrived.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

That our senses are reliable; there is an external reality - stuff like that.

The first one is not held for true. We know that our senses are not reliable.

If there is an external reality or not is not so important since our theories works (are useful) in either case. On the other hand there are rather good arguments for the existence of an external reality so I do not think I would classify that a belief hold without good reasons.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

Yep, as long as we realise everyone is going to leave with exactly the same opinions they had when they arrived.

Oh ,yes. The goal is to have fun. Not to change people mind

[RickyMaveety]

Originally Posted by tompe

A scientific or atheistic viewpoint hold things for true if there are good reasons to hold them for true. There is evidence. Since there are no good reasons in this respect for holding rebirth for true then it is an example of why it is wrong to compare Buddhism with atheism in this respect. And it is an example of why it is more a religion than a philosophy since it holds things for true without proper reasons.

Know for certain has nothing to do with science. These kind of "know for certain" argument are what religious or postmodern people use to motivate there beliefs. But the argument is not valid or correct. And I am since a long time totally fed up with these kind of "know for certain" arguments and statements like "my truth is as good as your truth" so I probably got overly upset when I wrote my comment...

OK .... I'm going to rephrase what you are saying to make certain I am understanding you.

A scientific or atheistic view expresses something as a fact only if there is unbiased evidence that the thing is a fact. And the only reason for believing something is true is that unbiased evidence.

The problem with that (again, I hope I'm understanding you) is that even with atheism, there is no unbiased evidence regarding the existence or non-existence of god. Regardless which road you take, you are bound to get down to a matter of belief. It's not possible for anyone to entirely get inside someone else's head to understand exactly what they mean with any real specificity.

I understand what you mean (again, I think) about not being able to know anything for certain. That's part and parcel of Schrodinger's idea about, like it or not, the observer being unable to observe without altering the experiment.

Now, my personal reasons for believing in reincarnation (which is what I assume you mean by "rebirth") are, I will admit, based more on experience than experimental data. That's a flaw in my nature as a human being, I do tend to take my personal experiences about things and form opinions and beliefs based on those experiences. It is not scientific, but neither is it religious.

However, I would continue to disagree with your assessment of Buddhism as a "religion" based upon certain beliefs held by many Buddhists. It is not necessary to believe in reincarnation in order to be a practicing Buddhist. The difference between a philosophy and a religion according to the definition I use, is that in a philosophy the dogma and mythology are not key to the practice.

As an example (and tompe, I'm really answering some other posts here, sorry, but this will probably be my last post in this thread if only because I'm running out of hours in the day .... and I've got a ton of stuff I'm supposed to be doing), let's take Christianity. I would call that a religion, not only because it embodies the schism and reunification with the deity, but also because it is difficult to imagine someone considering themselves to be a Christian in any real meaning of the word without accepting the virgin birth and the divinity of Jesus Christ.

Similarly, could someone call themselves (other than as a label) a Muslim if they did not believe in Allah or did not believe that Mohammad was Allah's prophet?

I will grant you that there are a lot of people out there that label themselves (or are labeled by others) as belonging to a particular group. I know any number of people who will check the box marked "Christian" if they have to take a poll, but they have never set foot in a Christian church, never read the Bible, and have no clue what it is they say they supposedly believe in.

There are huge numbers of people on the planet who, if asked, will say they are a Buddhist. Often, they are illiterate, and haven't got a clue about what the Buddha taught. Sometimes they keep their house "gods" dear to their hearts, some of them are Shinto and maintain their family shrines. More power to them, but I tend to think of people like that as belonging to the group in name only ... not in practice.

The original poster made a comment (with some highly questionable data) about 90% of Americans believing in "God." Now, I'm guessing that the OP meant the Christian god, but that's neither here nor there. Now, according to the latest population statistics, 7% of the US population is under the age of 5. I'm fairly sure that their belief in a god will skew (at that age) with whatever their parents think .... so let's say that 6% of that 90% that believes in a god is under the age of five. That's a huge number statistically.

I know one sweet little kid (age four as of this writing). If you ask him, he will state, quite firmly, that he is a Christian (and proud of it). However, the last time I asked him if he knew anything about the Holy Trinity (his folks are ostensibly Catholic, after all), he stated that yes, he knew all about it. The Holy Trinity is "Round John Virgin, Mother and Child" (long may they wave).

If anyone is confused about who the fat guy named "John" is ... just him a few bars of Silent Night. You'll figure it out.

So, would I really call this sweet kid a Christian?? No, I wouldn't. You might, someone else might, but I wouldn't. Even after he's confirmed, if he's still pretty clueless, I would seriously question putting that particular label on him.

As for definitions, they are, like labels, ever changing. I can find you a definition that equates "hot" with "cool" and both of them with "smoking". It doesn't make what the person says right or wrong, it is simply a matter of working with the same definition of things.

The word "religion" comes from a Latin word (and I can't find my Latin dictionary ..... just great, and I've only got 15 minutes to finish this and go walk the neighbors' dogs, and I just don't see coming back to this thread anymore, as interesting as it is), I think the word was religios, meaning reunification. The reason that the word "religion" came to be applied to god-based philosophies (during the Roman Empire) was that certain philosophies, most notably that of the Hebrews, posited a splitting off of "God" from man. That while man was formed in the image of the god, man had (for some reason) been cast out of the god's favor. The idea of a religion, in it's most pure form, is that it is a path to the "sacred" (and that word implies a deity), a method by which man can be reunited with his god.

Simply to worship a particular god, or any number of gods, does not a religion make. Most of the Roman practices were and are referred to as "cults" ... not because they were weird or unsavory, but because in those cults god was never a part of man and man was never a part of god ... there was no splitting apart and no thought of reunification. You worshiped whatever god had jurisdiction over whatever it was you were doing because not to do so would be inviting disaster.

And, the Romans, being the big-hearted goofs that they were, were not really prepared for dealing with a group of people that had an actual "religion" a one true path that precluded them from worshiping all those Roman gods that no other group had a problem with .... I mean even the Germanic people were able to do a little mix and match with their own pantheon. Zeus=Jupiter=Thor .... got it .... Minerva=Athena=Frigga .... check. You can't do that with a religion. It's not a game of add a god here ... toss out a god there. You can do that, to a certain extent, with a philosophy ... which is why there are a lot of people who are out there who call themselves Buddhist, but still worship all the gods their family or community has worshiped for centuries. I don't really think of them as Buddhists, but only because I think they are missing many of the core points of the philosophy, not because they happen to worship Muden the Wonder Snake. That's a personal opinion ... not a definition.

Now, as to the Timothy Leary quote. Lovely. I wish I had time to pick it apart, but his use of the words "ecstatic" and "sacred" take Buddhism out of the running in my world view. Also, and again, this is a personal flaw, but I don't have all that high an opinion of Mr. Leary. I suppose it was all that "turn on, drop out" stuff .... but he really lost me long ago.

I tend to be more of a student of Joseph Campbell, and of Lama Ole Nydahl. And, my collection of Campbell writings is apparently with my Latin dictionary, and I'm running out of time.

So, sorry if I've disappointed anyone by not responding to each and every post. Wouldn't even cross my mind to try to "win" at a debate on philosophy, because that is my definition of futility. However, I hope that I was at least able to enlighten a few of you about my own views, thoughts and study of Buddhism. If, like Gideon, you thought everything I had to say was a load of crap (I think that's what he called it) ... then that's OK too. Unless you plan to hunt me down and kill me because of my beliefs, in which case that is decidedly not OK.

And .... that's my very last ever post in this thread. I'm having some great discussions with some very nice people via private message and plan to continue them.

Oh, and PS .... didn't mean to offend anyone who actually believes that Round John Virgin is a part of the Holy Trinity. If it works for you, go with that thought.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by RickyMaveety

But, you know, belief is a funny thing. It's sort of chicken and egg .... I have no idea which comes first, the belief or the rationale for the belief. I sometimes wonder if I stopped believing in a god about the same time I found out that Santa, the Easter Bunny, and the venerable Tooth Fairy were just stories. I know I didn't have a fully formed concept of atheism at that time .... but I definitely went through a "what did you just say?" moment there. And, it was all downhill for my relationship with Christianity after that.

Not that any of those symbols are intended to be associated with Christianity. Just that the same people who put up a Christmas Tree near the church and taught me the words to "Rudolf the Red-Nosed Reindeer" were the same ones who were trying to persuade me that people really rose from the dead (and I'm not just talking Jesus here .... there are other Biblical examples). And, I started to realize that I simply did not believe any of the stories .... not that I am devoid of beliefs, or things that I hold on faith (such as multiple universes), just that I don't believe the Bible, I don't believe in a god, and I don't believe that Jesus was the son of a god I don't believe in.

I very much share your views, Ricky. I certainly believe that Jesus was a real person, and that he was preaching "how to lead a good life", but that's as far as it goes.

I have reason to believe (and a very strong faith) that the Sun will not go nova this Thursday. I hope I am correct in my belief, otherwise I just wasted a crap-load of money on a new dishwasher.

Given the fact that novae can only occur in binary star systems, and we don't live in such a system, I think that you can use your dishwasher with confidence for the future!

I have reason to believe (and a very strong faith) that the energy that makes up the living part of my being didn't simply pop into existence sometime in post WWII New Mexico. I have reason to believe (and faith ... blah, blah, blah), that I "am." You know, the "I think, therefore I am" view, which I believe (there's that word again) was brilliant.

Have you read Plato's "Phaedo"? He makes some fascinating arguments in that for the independent existance of the soul, which I personally found pretty convincing.

I rather think you will understand this line of thought.

Absolutely!

[Valloric]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Given the fact that novae can only occur in binary star systems, and we don't live in such a system, I think that you can use your dishwasher with confidence for the future!

She was probably thinking about supernovas.

[HarryT]

We're safe from those, too. Only stars with a mass about 1.4x that of the Sun can go supernova.

[Valloric]

Originally Posted by HarryT

We're safe from those, too. Only stars with a mass about 1.4x that of the Sun can go supernova.

Oh I so totally knew you we're going to respond to my nitpick with the Chandrasekhar limit. I know it can't happen here. I was merely stating that Ricky was probably talking about supernovae, not that she was right that it could happen.

[jmorton]

I would like to thank msmith for starting this conversation. When I got my Sony Reader, I noticed the Dawkins book, but didn't pay it much mind. The title sounded pedantic and leaden to me. This thread got me interested, so I read it. Now I plan to purchase the book. What I read was lively, amusing, and right on the money. There is even an outstanding quote in it from Doug Adams as well as several fun ones from Einstein and his detractors. The people who are railing against it as some devil-spawned heresy have obviously never read beyond the title. Thanks again msmith. I owe you one.