ID:192935
 Apr 24 2002, 12:28 pm
|
|
Dose anyone know of any of those hippy refuge places? I dont want to join an actual cult but i would like to live in a place that is self contained and full of hippies..
| |
A good website for information on cults, and religions in general is:
http://www.religioustolerance.com -AbyssDragon | |
*grumble* Anything that combines the words "religious" and "tolerance" together is a hypocritical thing in my books. I'll scoot around discussing The Crusades or the war over Jerusalem for now, though. =|
If the title, instead, is applying more to an external atheist/agnostic viewpoint to forgive peoples' religiousness, then I still don't agree with the title; I admit that I absolutely despise organised religion (or for a large part, religion itself) and am a godless heathen. My beliefs are that people should be thankful for what they have, not ask some organisation to teach them what to be thankful for, donate some of their possessions to "further the cause", and claim the existence of some sort of all powerful figure to give them ideals to try to live up to. We set our own goals, not get some higher power to do it for us. Yes, I'm an existentialist. There is no way I could ever accept a prescripted existence. But let's not turn this into semantics... The thought of having deities makes for great story material, though, since everyone likes fantasising about powerful beings. | |
Spuzzum wrote:
The thought of having deities makes for great story material, though, since everyone likes fantasising about powerful beings. The Greek and Norse gods were the best though...a bunch of cranky imperfect beings tossing lightning bolts at each other and using humans to further their individual political agendas against each other. Ever since then, religion has been seriously downhill. | |
The Greek and Norse gods were the best though...a bunch of cranky imperfect beings tossing lightning bolts at each other and using humans to further their individual political agendas against each other. Kind of like our military and other leaders today, no? Ever since then, religion has been seriously downhill. I actually think there are some good religions such as Budhism and Confusian(which are asain, and I'm 25% vietnamese, so I know about Budhism, but not really much about Confusian, jsut heard of it). | |
Yes, I'm an existentialist. I would reply to your post, but I am overwhelmed by its ultimate meaninglessness. :) | |
Nope Buddhism comes from India
Confusian comes from China Also different periods of time. Lots of Confusian can still be seen in the Asian cultures. Man is head of the household, family is above self, a code of honor, to respect your parents and elders. LJR | |
Also different periods of time. I thought so, too, but I just checked and they were formed only like fifty years apart. They are rather different beliefs, though, as you said. And it'd be rather silly for both to have been formed by the same person. That would mean the Buddha would have had to form Buddhism in India, then travel to China to form Confucianism, without spreading his earlier creation--Buddhism--which wasn't brought to China until some time later. Guess he just forgot to mention it to anyone. -AbyssDragon | |
Also different periods of time. Lots of Confusian can still be seen in the Asian cultures. Man is head of the household, family is above self, a code of honor, to respect your parents and elders. Wow... good thing those wacky ideas never caught on in the West! | |
That has to be one of the oddest posts I've yet read.
My friend's mother is in a cult. The cult of the Ishayas. They have a website. Z | |
Not to mention... Wasn't "Confucianism" started by Confucius?
And Confucius and Buddha are definitely not the same guy...lol | |
Zilal wrote:
That has to be one of the oddest posts I've yet read. I spent my childhood in a cult. Really. | |
Exactly. Buddhism And Confuscism are two totally different entities. Buddhism is actually an evolution of Hindu beliefs that developed under an Indian aristocrat who renounced his worldly ways in a quest to become closer to Nirvana (the state of supreme nothingness). Confuscism isn't technically a religion- it advocates no gods or deities, but is rather a (personal) philosophical system that focuses on social interactions and views on self and knowledge. Confuscism may be combined with an actual religion such as Taoism, Shinto, or even Christianity.
Side note: the earlier post critiscizing religions failed to notice a distinction made within the post; the difference between religion and *organized* religion. Generally speaking, religion is probably inherent to human thought. Religion simply implies a faith in a greater power or force. Faith in science, the nature of man, or even the inevitability of some factor point toward religous belief. Those who have no "religion", no supreme belief system to guide them, are generally few and far between and tend to be rather hopeless, like a boat without a rudder. I find it interesting to question atheists and find that they spurn "religion" and at the same time slavishly hold to the supremecy of science- a field wrought with corruption, error, and lethal abuses. For every crusade in the name of "religion" one can usually find a concentration camo in the name of "science". Any tool or ability may be abused; it doesn't mean it is per se bad. -James | |
Side note: the earlier post critiscizing religions failed to notice a distinction made within the post; the difference between religion and *organized* religion. I did mark the distinction. "I admit that I absolutely despise organised religion (or for a large part, religion itself)". In all of the latter part of the post, I was referring to organised religion, shortened simply to religion to save myself some seeming redundancy. Simply put, I generally lump "religion" and "organised religion" in the same bag, though I do make a slight distinction. Generally speaking, religion is probably inherent to human thought. Religion simply implies a faith in a greater power or force. Faith in science, the nature of man, or even the inevitability of some factor point toward religous belief. Those who have no "religion", no supreme belief system to guide them, are generally few and far between and tend to be rather hopeless, like a boat without a rudder. I don't want to make any rude or obnoxious gestures, but that analogy simply doesn't hold true, since I see it the other way around. I row and steer my boat as I choose, and other people just have to listen to the person who shouts, "Stroke! Stroke! Stroke!" Sure, mine is harder, but that's what makes it more satisfying when I succeed. I find it interesting to question atheists and find that they spurn "religion" and at the same time slavishly hold to the supremecy of science- a field wrought with corruption, error, and lethal abuses. For every crusade in the name of "religion" one can usually find a concentration camo in the name of "science". Any tool or ability may be abused; it doesn't mean it is per se bad. I don't really hold to the sciences either. I'm not someone who appreciates mathematics, nor physics, nor chemistry, nor biology. I normally make up my own mathematical formulas that seem to make sense (and I stink at math, mind you, but recent evidence suggests I'm not the worst...), rather than find any specific formula with which I make an actual reference to accepted beliefs. If "religion" is applied to mean something you believe strongly in, then my religion would be to get humanity and nature into a balance. But I still define the supercategory of "religion" as in believing in a supreme being or supreme beings. Specific subcategories of religion, like morals, ethics, and fatalist versus existentialist beliefs, I do accept and a few of them I even have in abundance or support. For example, I have a very strong moral belief system on what is right and wrong. And I adhere stronger to the ethics of my society than almost anyone I know. I'll probably be hated for, and I might regret, what I say next, but I'll be blunt. Almost every murder that occurs on this planet is religious in origin. In the animal kingdom, you'll see dominant males killing the babies of the female that birthed a litter of a weaker male, but never do you see mass slaughter of another species/genus, or large-scale intraspecies warfare. | |
Jmurph wrote:
I find it interesting to question atheists and find that they spurn "religion" and at the same time slavishly hold to the supremecy of science- a field wrought with corruption, error, and lethal abuses. Actually I hold slavishly to what works repeatably and consistently under the proper conditions. That's it. And that process happens to be called the scientific method. It's just a description of a process. It's not a religion. If some religious practice produces repeatable results, it can be subjected to that process, if not it can't. Science is indeed full of errors and corruption...but because it more or less consistently follows that process, it continues to gain value and an understanding of the world, whatever the world might contain. If you want to say that science does not produce an understanding, or repeatable results, I'll ponder it as I consider composing a response on my computer using wireless networking before I get in my air-conditioned car and drive home to see some films. | |
Side note: the earlier post critiscizing religions failed to notice a distinction made within the post; the difference between religion and *organized* religion. Generally speaking, religion is probably inherent to human thought. Yeah man.. I'm sure like in Futurama's last episode, if there was a Holy Church of Star Trek, Spuzz would be one of it's leaders!! :P LJR | |
LJR