This coming from the bitch who tried to flaunt her ego in the 50+ forum by telling everyone how many books she had read in the past year?
You gotta admit that the tasteless jokes get old, I was the most exciting target in that joint at the time. It kept everyone busy because someone was wrong on the internet... I guess boredom prevails. Thanks for the compliment.
I got the responses to my ARC grant application that will, if it comes through, pay for my eating and sundry living costs for the next three years. It's on the evolution of religion, a recently hot topic. One of the commentators thought that I was wrong to say that it's hard to find a religion that lacks supernatural beings, and instanced Buddhism, Confucianism and Jainism. A quick trip to the Encyclopedia of Religion sorted that mistake out: there's a common distinction between popular and elite religious forms, and just like you can find Catholicism without the saints, you can find Buddhism without the devas, Brahmin, or various family gods, etc., but it isn't the popular religion. And that got me thinking...
I have criticised PZ Mangle and others for attacking the popular forms of religion and not dealing with the intellectual (read: elite) forms. Here I am being criticised in the same manner. Poetic justice, perhaps? It raises an important point about my project: in order to understand religion, you absolutely must not deal with the "pure" philosophical forms alone. In fact, they are very often the province of the "clergy": those whose lives are devoted to the religion, and who are supported by the popular religious. It's hard to envisage a church of Tillichs, for example.
So I must consider (not critique, this is not that project) all forms of religions, and not fall into the philosopher's trap of dealing solely with the philosophical. Nor shall I do the reverse, and reject the elite forms as irrelevant. We want to know how the whole kit and kaboodle evolved (always wanted to use that phrase here).
Honestly I think this thread could be much more useful if it was broadened to cover all the Dharmic religions. No single one will garner enough discussion to keep it on the front page for long.
As for the elite vs. folk religion bit I was taught from a very young age that different people live at different points along the spectrum of spiritual development. The entire point of Hinduism is to move along the road. People who worship the natural and animistic Gods are considered to be pretty low on the development rung (and usually these are the stories we tell the little kids.) From there we move onto the epic era with the mythological heroes and from there you start getting into the Upanishads with the deep philosophical ideas. They are all interconnected and even the stories and ideas at the folk level work to reinforce the philosophical notions at the highest levels. It goes the other way too. People who come in hearing the high-falootin' philosophical ideas still sometimes find clarity in the more folksy rituals and devotional songs and chants.
Such a headache reading this thread twice over, lol.
I'm not buddhist but i'm VERY interested in learning about it's history and that sort of thing. I will be actively participating in this pursuit of knowledge at my local Buddhist temple, pretty soon :D
I learned today my mother was Buddhist. She broke it out during a family dinner. Me and my Father didn't mind being atheists (to us she actually has a reasonably great religion), but my grandfather(being a hardcore Mormon) flipped out.
“I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.â€
If your going to continue to flame me and make statements against me at least defend yourself. Ive made myself perfectly clear. I apologize that you cannot understand me. Please stop giving me neg points because you can't understand me.
I haven't given you a single neg mod. You're not worth anyone's time. You've posted one nonsensical, meaningless quote attributed to an atheist that has absolutely no bearing to the topic at hand, and you haven't even tried to express yourself in your own words, other than to try and insist that both Buddhism and Christianity are atheist religions.
So until you come up with something worth responding to, the onus is on you.
Edit: Oh yeah, and:
controversial remarks with no substance don't fly around here. Good day, sir.
