Atheistforums.com

I know you don't find any religion particularly rational, but if you had to pick one, which one would it be? That excludes mere philosophical religions like deism.

What???  Is this like a trick question?

OK, I'll play; I guess I'd go with pantheism, but I'd still have a shit pot full of problematic issues with it.

Chucksterism and toothfairysm. :wink: :wink: :wink:

Quote from: Timi Celcer on April 11, 2014, 01:42:23 PM
That excludes mere philosophical religions like deism.

Does that also exclude pantheism?  Why would deism be mere a philosophy while say Christianity is not?  They are both products of the human mind.

Dammit leo, it's toothfairianism, not toothfairyism. 
Bah, no matter. Next extremely painful root canal you'll get it.

Does that also exclude pantheism?  Why would deism be mere a philosophy while say Christianity is not?  They are both products of the human mind.

Yes that does exclude pantheism. Whether Christianity is of human origin or supernatural is another issue not meant for this thread. Please remain on topic.

I'm already a member of the most rational religion, I belong to the Church of the Subgenius.

Bob Dobbs (as seen in my avatar) is the prophet.

Our supreme leader, J.R. "Bob" Dobbs offers something no other religion or cult or TV Shopping network can match, ETERNAL SALVATION OR TRIPLE YOUR MONEY BACK!

http://www.subgenius.com/

Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on April 11, 2014, 01:50:26 PM
Dammit leo, it's toothfairianism, not toothfairyism. 

Here we go with the tooth fairy shit again.  Eventually, it might even catch on in the mainstream, unless we do something about it soon.

Quote from: Timi Celcer on April 11, 2014, 01:54:01 PM
Does that also exclude pantheism?  Why would deism be mere a philosophy while say Christianity is not?  They are both products of the human mind.

Yes that does exclude pantheism. Whether Christianity is of human origin or supernatural is another issue not meant for this thread. Please remain on topic.

But... but... then I can't play. :sad2:

Well, since you ruled out all the rational ones...

Zoroastrianism, probably. Unlike the Abrahamic religions actually has a set of GOOD morals.

If we want to go interesting, I wouldn't be opposed to the Greek or Norse pantheons. Depending on what you do with your life, the afterlife could be pretty nice.

Obviously my choice would be Shinto or Buddhism, but you ruled those out, so....

Quote from: SGOS on April 11, 2014, 01:56:19 PM
Here we go with the tooth fairy shit again.  Eventually, it might even catch on in the mainstream, unless we do something about it soon.

Oh, AS IF it makes any LESS sense than talking snakes and all evil springing from a woman's craving for fresh fruit.

Quote from: Shiranu on April 11, 2014, 02:01:02 PM
Well, since you ruled out all the rational ones...

Zoroastrianism, probably. Unlike the Abrahamic religions actually has a set of GOOD morals.

If we want to go interesting, I wouldn't be opposed to the Greek or Norse pantheons. Depending on what you do with your life, the afterlife could be pretty nice.

Obviously my choice would be Shinto or Buddhism, but you ruled those out, so....

Quote from: Shiranu on April 11, 2014, 02:01:02 PM
Well, since you ruled out all the rational ones...

Zoroastrianism, probably. Unlike the Abrahamic religions actually has a set of GOOD morals.

If we want to go interesting, I wouldn't be opposed to the Greek or Norse pantheons. Depending on what you do with your life, the afterlife could be pretty nice.

Obviously my choice would be Shinto or Buddhism, but you ruled those out, so....

Since reason is excluded, I'd pick something with gods, nimble and svelte, gamboling about the forest in constant search of pleasures of the flesh, sometimes materializing out of nothing and then quickly blending into the forest again, but I'm not sure what that would be.  Angry gods that act like petulant children raining down death and destruction all the time just tend to piss me off.   :biggrin:

Honestly I think the options are crap. None of those are remotely rational. What is the point of this any how?

Hey you don't put Chucksterism in your options.  Chuck Norris will roundhouse kick you to oblivion.

LaVeyan satanism. Basically trolls of other religions and rabid atheists (from how I understand it)

Quote from: doorknob on April 11, 2014, 02:34:34 PM
Honestly I think the options are crap. None of those are remotely rational. What is the point of this any how?

Which is why I don't usually engage in these "debates". I could make the clain that the very air you breath is made entirely of invisible antique glass doorknobs and damned if most people could disprove it.

Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on April 11, 2014, 01:50:26 PM
Dammit leo, it's toothfairianism, not toothfairyism. 
Bah, no matter. Next extremely painful root canal you'll get it.

So writting the name wrong is the biggest sin in toothfairianism?

Quote from: leo on April 11, 2014, 03:02:11 PM
                                                                                                                                                   So writting the name wrong is the biggest sin in toothfairianism?

How does APA know so much about the Tooth Fairy?

This is just a hunch, but I think he might BE the tooth fairy...

Quote from: PickelledEggs on April 11, 2014, 03:04:48 PM
How does APA know so much about the Tooth Fairy?

This is just a hunch, but I think he might BE the tooth fairy...

Quote from: PickelledEggs on April 11, 2014, 03:04:48 PM
How does APA know so much about the Tooth Fairy?

This is just a hunch, but I think he might BE the tooth fairy...

Really ? So APA is a hot toothfairy ( girl) pretending to be a guy?

Quote from: leo on April 11, 2014, 03:15:58 PM
                                                                                                                                                    Really ? So APA is a hot toothfairy ( girl) pretending to be a guy?

Fairies don't have to be girls. There should be both genders Otherwise, how else would they procreate?

The original teachings of Buddha would be mine, but all the various schools have corrupted it with Christian, Islamic, and Judeo dogma. All the rest are irrational beliefs based on no empirical evidence or sound reasoning but faith. Solitary

None of the above.

None of the above!

Id worship Dionysus.

That fucker can party.

What would i get if I decided not to choose any of them? A bullet in the head?

Unitarian Universalism.

I'm not an Atheist, but I'll answer the question anyway.

Religion itself is not a good thing because it is a kind of belief trap most of the time. Everything outside of your particular religion's beliefs become automatically unacceptable, which of course is a hinderance towards growth and increasing knowledge.

I chose Hinduism. Not because the "religion" is that great, there are obviously alot of crazy things that are believed and done within the Hindu "religion," but because of all the Spiritual Texts, Hinduism has some of the best by far. The Bhagavad Gita is an ever loving masterpiece for instance, and about three thousand years older than the New Testament. Also the Upinashads are amazingly good, and the songs of the Vedas as well.

The teachings of Buddha are great, but the religion of Buddhism is not so much. Just as the teachings of Christ are comparably great, but the religion of Christianity is not so much.

I guess what I'm getting at is that the religions themselves are the problem because of the ignorance and dogmatism of the masses that follow them, not necessarily the the core teachings themselves.

Isn't Buddhism not a religion, on a technicality

Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on April 12, 2014, 02:08:53 AM
Isn't Buddhism not a religion, on a technicality

True, but people can be religious and dogmatic and ritualistic and traditionalist about anything.

By that definition everything has the potential to be a religion

Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on April 12, 2014, 02:19:51 AM
By that definition everything has the potential to be a religion

yeah, kinda, I suppose...

but I mean the point I was making was that setting out offerings of food to a statue of buddha on a regular basis is kind of ridiculous, but a teaching such as:

Quote"Better than a thousand hollow words, is one word that brings peace." - Buddha

... is quite valuable. Especially considering:

Quote"However many holy words you read, however many you speak, what good will they do if you do not act upon them?" - Buddha

... and...

Quote“Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.” - Buddha

Heaven's Gate

Cut off your balls and wait for a spaceship.

Haleâ€"Bopp, ba duba dop
Ba du bop, ba duba dop
Ba du bop, ba duba dop
Ba du
Yeah

Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on April 12, 2014, 02:08:53 AM
Isn't Buddhism not a religion, on a technicality

Depends on which form of it you're talking about.

I'd go with the one that had orgies fertility rights.

Quote from: SGOS on April 11, 2014, 02:11:20 PM
Since reason is excluded, I'd pick something with gods, nimble and svelte, gamboling about the forest in constant search of pleasures of the flesh, sometimes materializing out of nothing and then quickly blending into the forest again, but I'm not sure what that would be.  Angry gods that act like petulant children raining down death and destruction all the time just tend to piss me off.   :biggrin:

I like the Greek gods - they're humans with superpowers, how cool that is!

One I didn't think of was Quakers, they even have an atheist sect. Solitary

Perhaps the World Pantheist Movement.

Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on April 12, 2014, 10:15:48 AM
I'd go with the one that had orgies fertility rights.

There is a reason I voted Pagan :P.

I actually wouldn't be opposed to Irish paganism since I'm part Irish...

Quote from: Shiranu on April 12, 2014, 10:40:35 AM
There is a reason I voted Pagan :P.

I actually wouldn't be opposed to Irish paganism since I'm part Irish...

I'm Irish on my parent's side of the family.

Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on April 12, 2014, 11:52:10 AM
I'm Irish on my parent's side of the family.

LOL!

Well, I'd probably pick one of the atheistic religions, probably one of the milder versions of Buddhism that doesn't include tons of heavens and hells.

Quote from: Contemporary Protestant on April 12, 2014, 02:08:53 AM
Isn't Buddhism not a religion, on a technicality

Of course buddhism is a religion. There isn't a creator god concept and soul concept in buddhism but  the nikayas ( one of the earliest buddhist texts) have tons of supernatural elements like : mind reading , the concept of karma and rebirth( remembering past lives and seeing how beings  are reborn according to their karma ) everyone can be reborn in the impermanent heavens as gods, in the impermanent hells ,  as ghosts , as animals and as humans . They called the infinite circle of multiple lives samsara. The goal of orthodox buddhism is to stop the circle of rebirths.  Secular buddhists don't believe in  any of this stuff because they cherry pick from the texts or ignore tons of sutras.

I have already joined the Church of Reality---it really is a church. Solitary

Quote from: leo on April 13, 2014, 01:46:56 PM
                                                                                                                                                       Of course buddhism is a religion. There isn't a creator god concept and soul concept in buddhism but  the nikayas ( one of the earliest buddhist texts) have tons of supernatural elements like : mind reading , the concept of karma and rebirth( remembering past lives and seeing how beings  are reborn according to their karma ) everyone can be reborn in the impermanent heavens as gods, in the impermanent hells ,  as ghosts , as animals and as humans . They called the infinite circle of multiple lives samsara. The goal of orthodox buddhism is to stop the circle of rebirths.  Secular buddhists don't believe in  any of this stuff because they cherry pick from the texts or ignore tons of sutras.

Isn't that really Hinduism?  The original teachings of Buddha never said any of that, maybe the various schools that were influence by Hinduism, and later by Islamic, Christian, Judeo dogma did. It depends on what definition is used to describe religion what Buddhism is. Under one definition even atheism is a religion, but what Buddha taught was a philosophy of living and not a religion by popular definition of religion. What Buddha original taught was copied by Schopenhauer as a philosophy.   Solitary

Quote from: Solitary on April 13, 2014, 01:50:55 PM
I have already joined the Church of Reality---it really is a church. Solitary

I like this church. In my opinion the practice of any religion if death is the end is a waste of time. I like some things about buddhism but I don't believe in life after death ( there isn't any evidence so far). I could read about buddhism but I can't claim to be a buddhist. There is a tons of elements of classical buddhism that I can't buy.

Quote from: Solitary on April 13, 2014, 02:00:19 PM
Isn't that really Hinduism?  The original teachings of Buddha never said any of that, maybe the various schools that were influence by Hinduism, and later by Islamic, Christian, Judeo dogma did. It depends on what definition is used to describe religion what Buddhism is. Under one definition even atheism is a religion, but what Buddha taught was a philosophy of living and not a religion by popular definition of religion. What Buddha original taught was copied by Schopenhauer as a philosophy.   Solitary

.                                                                                                                                                   You should read the nikayas or agamas sutras ( the earliest buddhist texts) And yep buddhism is a religion.

Quote from: leo on April 13, 2014, 02:05:04 PM
                                                                                                                                                   I like this church. In my opinion the practice of any religion if death is the end is a waste of time. I like some things about buddhism but I don't believe in life after death ( there isn't any evidence so far). I could read about buddhism but I can't claim to be a buddhist. There is a tons of elements of classical buddhism that I can't buy.

Buddha said that death is like blowing out a candle. I have gotten letters from Buddhist that say that doesn't mean non existence.  I'd sure like them to explain to me where the flame on a candle goes if it doesn't exist anymore. It is true that Buddha was raised as a Hindu, but he changed his philosophy throughout his life, but he was an atheist and never believed in reincarnation later in life. I have his original teachings that are agreed to be authentic, just after he died. It seems people just have to have super natural bull in their lives.  Solitary

Quote from: leo on April 13, 2014, 02:06:59 PM
.                                                                                                                                                   You should read the nikayas or agamas sutras ( the earliest buddhist texts) And yep buddhism is a religion.

Those are from the various schools and not agreed upon at the time of Buddha to be his authentic teachings. I have read them. Solitary   

The oldest extant copies purporting to be the teachings of Buddha are the Pitakas, or "Baskets of the Law, prepared for the Buddhist Council of 241 B.C., accepted by it as genuine, transmitted orally for four centuries from the death of Buiddha, and finally put into writing, in the Pali tongue, about 80 B.C." These Pitakas are divided into three groups: the Sutta, or tales; the Vinaya, or discipline; and the Abidhammas, or doctrine.

The Sutta-Pitaka contains dialogues of Buddha, which Rhys Davids ranks with those of Plato. Strickly speaking, however, these writings give us teaching not necessarily of Buddha himself, but only of Buddhist schools. I have the Buddhist Handbook that shows glaring examples of how his original teachings have been corrupted by modern Buddhism being influenced by Christianity. Solitary

Quote from: Solitary on April 13, 2014, 02:38:46 PM
The oldest extant copies purporting to be the teachings of Buddha are the Pitakas, or "Baskets of the Law, prepared for the Buddhist Council of 241 B.C., accepted by it as genuine, transmitted orally for four centuries from the death of Buiddha, and finally put into writing, in the Pali tongue, about 80 B.C." These Pitakas are divided into three groups: the Sutta, or tales; the Vinaya, or discipline; and the Abidhammas, or doctrine.

The Sutta-Pitaka contains dialogues of Buddha, which Rhys Davids ranks with those of Plato. Strickly speaking, however, these writings give us teaching not necessarily of Buddha himself, but only of Buddhist schools. I have the Buddhist Handbook that shows glaring examples of how his original teachings have been corrupted by modern Buddhism being influenced by Christianity. Solitary

Buddha's conception of religion was purely ethical; he cared everything about conduct, nothing about ritual or worship, metaphysics or theology. He refused to be drawn into any discussion about eternity, immortality, or God. The infinite is a myth, he says, a fiction of philosophers who have not modesty to confess that an atom can never understand the cosmos.

He smiles at the debate  over the finity or infinity of the universe, quite as if he foresaw the futile astromythology of physicist and mathematicians who debate the same question today. He refuses to express any opinion as to whether the world had a beginning or will have an end; whether the soul is the same as body, or distinct from it: whether , even for the greatest Saint, there is any reward in any heaven.

He calls such questions  "the jungle, the desert, the puppet-show, the writhing, the entanglement, of speculation," and will have nothing to do with them; they lead only to feverish disputation, personal resentments, and sorrow: they never lead to wisdom and peace.  Saintliness and content lie not in knowledge of the universe and God, but simply in selfless and beneficent living." And then, with scandalous humor, he suggests that the gods themselves, if they existed, could not answer these questions.

Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on April 12, 2014, 10:15:48 AM
I'd go with the one that had orgies fertility rights.

Uh... I'd like to change my vote

There are no rational religions. There are only humans who invent clubs to create the illusion of self importance. They are all mere reflections of our evolutionary grouping.

You look at all countries and the history of our species you will not find a period of time where there was not some type of fighting, either of the outsiders, or infighting to varying degrees.

Asking me which one is the "most" rational is like asking me which comic book club is less violent. Unfortunately getting caught up in time frame issues allows us to forget the past and ignore that by doing such we will only repeat the same mistakes in the future.

Our species has been around for 500,000 years and all our actions both in our capacity to be cruel and or compassionate have always existed.

No group owns a patient on morality no did any religion invent human morality thus there is no way to claim that any religion is rational. It is the mere comic book excuse humans invent to group.

Quote from: Solitary on April 13, 2014, 02:17:35 PM
Those are from the various schools and not agreed upon at the time of Buddha to be his authentic teachings. I have read them. Solitary   

Quote from: Solitary on April 13, 2014, 02:38:46 PM
The oldest extant copies purporting to be the teachings of Buddha are the Pitakas, or "Baskets of the Law, prepared for the Buddhist Council of 241 B.C., accepted by it as genuine, transmitted orally for four centuries from the death of Buiddha, and finally put into writing, in the Pali tongue, about 80 B.C." These Pitakas are divided into three groups: the Sutta, or tales; the Vinaya, or discipline; and the Abidhammas, or doctrine.

The Sutta-Pitaka contains dialogues of Buddha, which Rhys Davids ranks with those of Plato. Strickly speaking, however, these writings give us teaching not necessarily of Buddha himself, but only of Buddhist schools. I have the Buddhist Handbook that shows glaring examples of how his original teachings have been corrupted by modern Buddhism being influenced by Christianity. Solitary

I have read most of the sutra pitaka.  I read the complete English translations of digha nikaya, samyutta nikaya. Majjihma nikaya and anguttara nikaya. Karma and rebirth are part of the Buddha core teachings according to the nikayas. I agree that for the first 4-5 centuries of buddhist era it was only oral tradition. How much was changed from the Buddha original teachings when the monks decided to write down the teachings, it's a  subject to question. In 5 centuries much can be added to the original message. There isn't a way to know for sure what the historical Buddha actually taught.

Quote from: Brian37 on April 13, 2014, 03:17:01 PM
No group owns a patient on morality no did any religion invent human morality thus there is no way to claim that any religion is rational. It is the mere comic book excuse humans invent to group.

Long story short, religion is bullshit.