I know look down may not be the right word but I think you guys know what I mean. And I don't mean someone who is a Buddhist because they're parents were or all of the unrelated customs that've been attached on culturally but someone studying and practicing it seriously.

To me the obvious problem with Christianity is that it's just wild faerie tales. There are so many things requiring incredible faith. Some people call themselves Christians while saying they don't believe in supernatural phenomenon. Which I don't get because if there is a creator God involved in our existence why can't he perform miracles?

A lot of people do the same with Buddhism. Ditching anything supernatural and using it as a philosophy or psychology. But I'm obviously not talking about that.

To me it seems like within Buddhism there are really only 3 things which may require faith to believe in.

The first is Buddhist cosmology regarding realms of existence. To me this could fit in fine with science because it's basically saying there are beings elsewhere in existence, that live in states of greater pleasure or pain than us, and the details of their existence can be quite different than ours. I don't see why this couldn't be happening on a planet in another galaxy, or a different multiverse. To me it sounds like something reasonably plausible.

The other two, karma and rebirth, aren't so much. To me karma is getting back the kind of intentions you put out over a time frame long enough to require rebirth. I don't think of it as a watered down if you are nice to people they'll be nice to you thing, but some kind of law that evens out our actions.

To me this is even harder to believe in than rebirth. I believe the Buddha himself said not to dwell to much on it because it's incredibly complicated and will drive you crazy.

Rebirth I have an easier time with because I've always wondered where my consciousness comes from and how it is I'm experiencing myself instead of someone else. I guess rebirth doesn't really answer that. But I think of it as consciousness is a part of the universe breaking away as an individual entity to experience itself through living matter, when the matter dies the ego consciousness still exists on some level and rather than rejoining the universe it finds a new physical host to keep grasping at ego.

This obviously isn't scientific and may sound as crazy as Christianity but to me it feels more thought out and genuine. Maybe in the future science will find evidence for rebirth or even karma but I'm pretty sure it'll never prove tenants of the Abrahamac religions.

You may respect Buddhism more (or disrespect it less) than the God religions because it's meditation and manner of ethics seems to create less violent, kinder, gentler followers. And Buddhism isn't very concerned with converting, nor does it demand blind faith as the Buddha said to investigate his teachings yourself, come to your own conclusions, and not believe something simply because he said it. Which is a far cry from most other religions.

But beyond that, do you think that the Buddhists supernatural beliefs are as insane and irrational as Christians? I think most Buddhists who haven't grasped karma or rebirth through direct experience have a degree of agnosticism regarding the teachings. Do you think this is the same as people who think God probably created the universe, is hearing thoughts and answering prayers, etc?

I respect most forms of Buddhism because it is not an -ism opposed to skeptical inquiry, instead for the most part such things are encouraged.

The problem with the mainstream forms of revealed religion is that is is
a) Dogmatic
b) Considers it sinful or "spiritually damaging" to question the dogma

the net result is an unhealthy loop. This is actually something that has gone so far that some theists (even some writing on this board) uses the word "skeptic" as something of negative connotations.

By encouraging skepticism such a loop can be avoided. This is why I respect most forms of buddhim...because it encourages curiousity, skepticism and challenging your knowledge, and most of all because it seems based on the admittance that knowledge is imperfect.

I say "most forms of Buddhism" because as always one can't cut everybody under one comb. There are skeptical Christians and there will be dogmatic Buddhists.

I'm actually quite a fan of Buddhism if you remove the supernatural stuff.

What would you think of it if we discovered "proof" that the Buddha taught the supernatural stuff and meant it literally.

Obv Buddhism is better since it's more forgiving towards other religions. It's a humility that most other religions lack. It's also a tale about a rich boy who got to understand life through his own experience, so it actually has some kind of actual applicable message to our lives.

I don't really get this. Why should a religion forgive other religions? Obv the religion itself states that it is the supreme religion, so why should it 'forgive' other religions, which are consequentially not perfect, and what do you mean with forgiving?

In short, yes.

In detail, I would say modern buddhism > modern "christianity" in Europe >>> modern christianity in the US >> modern islam >>>>>>>> ancient aztec sacrifice cult. Don't quote me on it though.

Because humans go into war with eachother when they condemn and judge, but not when they forgive. Any religion not getting that is not a supreme religion.

I'm not really sure what forgiving the other religions mean but I think his point is that Buddhists aren't angry or upset with people of other religions. They aren't focused on trying to convert them. And there is more of a non-judgemental let bygones be bygones flair.

In Buddhism its accepted that most people aren't going to be receptive to the teachings and all you can do is make it available to those interested. Christians on the other hand think they have to save you from hell and collect more followers for the glory of their God. It's a very different mindset.

like some would say, religions are as diverse as drugs. just like there are some drugs that are worse for you than others, there are some religions worse for you than others.

as far as i know, buddhists don't impose dogma that contradicts observable science. that alone merits much more respect than many flavors of christianity which denounce basic evolutionary theory and/or geology.

so for this reason alone, no i don't "look down" on buddhism the same way i do christianity and other similar religions.

People go into war when religions condemn and judge the other religions for its inherent fallacies? This is easily fixable by stating that waging war is a sin (just like the NT states, with for example; those who live by the sword will die be the sword).

I get what your saying if you mean that people shouldn't condemn and judge but not if you say that religions shouldn't condemn and judge.

So "making it available to those interested" is different than "trying to save you from hell"? Ofcourse, the Bible asks us to convert people, and to show them/teach them about the Bible. But not by the sword, not by involuntary actions, only by voluntary actions. Christianity asks us to not harass the people that do not want to know God/Christ, Christ even states that his disciples should move the dust of their feet and move along.

I kinda disagree with you that we/Christians want to convert people for the glory of God. Obviously we would like people to glorify God, but not to keep a score of the number of Christians. Being a Christian obviously (imo) means more than just saying you belief in God and say Jesus is the son of God, it's more the belief inside rather than outside. Christianity wants to convert non-Christians not only for the benefit of God (the glory of God) but also for the benefit of the community and the non-Christian itself. If one out of these 3 entities does not benefit, there is not benefit at all.



Sorry for derail OP, I'll stop..
It's just that I'm a Christian myself so I do not look down at Christianity obv :P

Yes making Buddhist teachings available to people inquiring about it is different than going out and trying to initiate conversions to save people from hell. You can't tell the difference?

I didn't know that Christianity asks you not to attempt conversion on those not interested. Because I know Christians go door to door. Hold irritating street talks about why we should convert. Lure youths into the church with concerts. Oh and there was a little thing called the inquisition.

Can you quote the passages where it says not to attempt conversion? If it's true then it's another example of Christians not following their own religions teachings. I think this is because Christianity has no system by which to improve you as a person. Its a religion of dogma whereas Buddhism is a religion of practice.

And yet USA, one of the biggest christian countries, has been waging tons of wars for it's shortlived history.

Judging doesn't work. Condemning doesn't work.

If a religion is harsh towards others you can bet your boat that the people believing in it will be as well.

No I really can't, tell me. Maybe it's the fact that I do not agree with your notion of saving people from hell. What is your notion?

And do you think the disciples were wrong/doing it wrong for spreading Christianity after Pentecost?

People can easily show that they are not interested, they can shut the door, ignore people etc. The inquisition is unchristian, furthermore I'm not a latin Christian, so you can not condemn me or Christianity (from my POV) because of the actions of the political powers in the Vatican.

People that are defending the inquisition or the crusades are from my POV no Christians.

There are no passages that say to not attempt conversions. There are passages with lead you to the belief that forced conversions are immoral and wrong. Go and read the Acts of the Apostles, if you like, and come to the conclusion there is a gigantic difference with the way the apostles spread the belief and the way Jehova's Witnesses spread their so-called Christian belief.

Yes Christianity does have a system by which to improve you as a person (of course, you as a non-Christian would not agree, I understand). The way Christ lived and told the people how to live is a great lesson for people in all ages how to live. So no, Christianity is not (only) a religion of dogma, it is also a religion of practice.

The USA is not a christian country. There is no such thing as a christian state, nor will there ever will be.

John 18:36:
"Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence."


I partly agree. Firstly, a religion should 'defend' its own principles instead of attacking other religions. But that's something different than 'forgiving' other religions, and maybe stating that other religions are not that bad and such, etc...

No you can't bet your boat. If the religion explicitly condemns any form of violence whatsoever, how can you even say that people will attack people from other religions, and how can you even say that the religion is to blame.

I've been to the Vatican.

My point was that people who say they are christians, like Bush, still wage war and probably has a pretty deep belief.

"Do unto others"... should be fairly applicable here.

It's the lack of perspective that's bothering. How good can something be that has to threaten with hell for you to buy it's moral standards?

I'm not saying that religion is the cause of wars. I'm not that naive. I understand it's a tool like so many other tools of power.

But christianity doesn't condemn violence whatsoever. God has killed a lot of people himself and caused a lot of grief in the OT.

The NT may condemn violence, but you can't just pick parts of the Bible and use what you like. It's not a moral smorgasbord, it's porridge. And you have to eat it all :P

Buddhism is alright. In general.

Buddhism usually encourages rationality, respect for others, introspection, and a set of general ethical principles rather than specific moral dogmas and commands. As far as religions go, it's probably one of the less harmful ones.

That said, it's not as though there haven't been toxic strains of Buddhism at various times, particularly in China (where it sometimes fused with other traditions and encouraged a sense of cultural superiority), and especially Japan (during the hyper-nationalist phase of the 20th century, many Japanese considered imperial expansion something of a Buddhist crusade; then there's the Aum Shinrikyo cult, etc).

I think in Buddhism there's a lot to look up to, actually. Buddhism emphasizes non violence and compassion for all forms of life. Buddhists are generally some of the most wise, caring, and harmless people there are.

They are in the US. I think people who are in the minority tend to "live their beliefs" more than those in the majority.

People who are Buddhists here have to maintain their beliefs even when the majority is Christian (and probably doesn't even understand Buddhist values). So there probably aren't many "nominal" Buddhists here. But there are many "nominal" Christians.

That makes Buddhism look good (and Christianity look bad) in the US.

For example, I would bet that in some Asian countries, Christians are often kind and Buddhists are often careless or cruel. (I still like Buddhism and dislike Christianity, but sample bias is a big issue for us.)

Modern Buddhism>Sufi Islam>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>modern "christianity" in Europe>modern Islam>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>modern christianity in the US>ancient aztec sacrifice cult

FYP.

My (nonreligious) Iranian friend says he finds it hard to have a conversation with most people from arabic countries without getting harrassed for purely religious reasons, so sorry but modern Islam sucks.

I won't come out and say "wow omg you guys are wrong" but my experience with Buddhism is entirely different. I'm an American (atheist) currently living in South Korea, and the buddhists here are really dogmatic. As in, go to a Buddhist temple and it'll sound identical to a Christian church service with all the supernatural jargon switched over. It's preachy, condescending, and not founded in reality at all.

The idea that Buddhism is just a philosophy or way of thinking is a myth thought up by westerners imo. There's tons of supernatural stuff, and it's central to Buddhism. There is literally zero difference between saying "I'm okay with Buddhism if you take out all the supernatural stuff" and "I'm okay with Christianity if you take out all the supernatural stuff."

Buddhists waste money on buildings and other **** that Christians do too. They try to convert. They're mindlessly devoted to what they believe. They're incredibly dogmatic.

Can't post more now as I've gotta go to work. Might drop by later though to talk about it more. Let's just say that if you're curious as an atheist about Buddhism, stop by a temple for even a short temple stay sometime... you'll be quickly disillusioned.

I don't know much about Buddhism but I assume it sucks too.

Many forms of Christianity emphasize nonviolence and compassion too. If we're cherry picking, Buddhism has some pretty deplorable stuff too.