At 12:33 AM -0600 11/28/02, Gametech wrote: >David Dyer-Bennet wrote: ><snip> > >> Maybe. I object strenuously to the whole concept of religion, >> spirituality, etc. It's superstitious nonsense, and hurts people, and >> destroys great civilizations. > >I was recently commissioned to create a website for the Gyuto Wheel of >Dharma Monastery here in Minnesota for a group of Tibetan Buddhists >(refugees) They have a Monastery here in MN. I know little to nothing about >their religion but when I asked what's the goal here what do you guys >basically do the answer I got was: > >We try to teach Compassion and Love as well as promote Peace. The only way >of effective teaching is to demonstrate, near as I can tell they do. Scott Imes was very interested in Tibetan Buddhism. He was also deeply anti-religious. I asked him about that, once. He said that they believed in peace, and he thought that the world would be a much better place if more people believed in that. I can't recall his exact wording, but it had a strong undercurrent of personal convenience, something along the lines of, "My life would be better if other people weren't so violent." Damn, I miss Scott. > >What I see are real world actions of placing emphasis on good things (I >don't know anyone who will argue against those things mentioned above Peace, >etc.) even if the tool they use (their religious practices and teachings) >are very superstitious or nonsensical. I don't agree with David that religions are evil and dangerous, but I do wonder why it is that so many people think that religions are _necessary_. It isn't hard, as a human being, to figure out that hurting people isn't a good thing. When people rely upon religion for their core values, I wonder why they feel so weak that they need something from the outside to support them in the face of such obvious truths. Most people are mostly good. Most people don't much like pain, either for themselves or for other people. It isn't hard to figure out that people have a better chance of being treated well if they treat other people well. None of this needs a supernatural basis, revelation, or support. They're as close to laws of nature as something can get and not be physics. >It's a persons free will that >determines what they believe, *creaking door noise* What people believe is heavily predicated on their upbringing and life experience and cultural setting and whole bunches of other things, many of which aren't entirely covered by informed free will. It is important to teach useful and truthful things exactly because belief is not entirely mediated by free will. >so maybe what you think is religion hurting >people is really just people believing dumb shit, which will still happen >rampantly without religion Sure. But religion lays a pretty solid foundation. "God said so," is a pretty convincing argument if you believe in God. Which means that people who believe in God can be manipulated by that faith into believing other things that aren't nearly as savory. Moreover, because most religions are based on irrational bases, believers are trained to accept irrational arguments. You can't argue with a believer by pointing out all the harm a particular belief causes. Rationality ain't in it. It is that training that I most dislike about religion. >however you lose the benefit of them believing >other good things as a side affect of that belief This is religion's Big Lie. People can be moral and kind and decent without the least bit of help from any supernatural source or belief. I get this constantly. "How do you decide what's right and wrong, if you don't believe in God?" Well, actually, roughly the way everybody else does, if they were paying attention to the way they really live their lives rather than how they think they live their lives. I operate on the "if it hurts, I'm probably doing this wrong" principal. Empathy is not a virtue instilled by religious practice; it is something that is part of the normal experience of being human. Wanting to prevent pain is one of the pillars of moral behavior. Recognizing that one's behavior has consequences is another. Neither one of these needs the least reference to the Invisible world. > >What is so Awfully wrong about religion that counter's in it's entirety the >good aspects of it? What does religion have to offer that I wasn't born with, already? -- Lydy Nickerson lydy at demesne.com lydy at lydy.com Dulciculi Aliquorum