Atheism, the discussion

[BrasatoAlBarolo]

- And what's your take on this:
One of the times it came up recently was a chat with a buddy of mine of what's more reasonable / factual even: agnosticism or atheism.
His claim: agnosticism, - because it's impossible to know the whole universe in which a god might exist. Plus you cant really prove a negative.
Even if that might be true, since I didn't find any compelling evidence of a god that might exist, I don't see any point in claiming I am agnostic. Sure, there might be one, or might not be, but I don't know and I doubt I will find out in my lifetime. Maybe the human race will find the reality in the next couple of tens/hundreds of millions of years, no hurry.

I wouldn't worry: if there's a god, he or she will kill humanity much before that timespan.

[fiksal]

Good to see another fella.
Though after the 15 pages, there's definitely more of us than I expected.

and horoscopes are proven as false by astronomers.

Even by physics and geometry I'd say. Horoscope put importance into a 2D projection of 3D space, without acknowledging that it's 3D and distances there are greater than one imagines.
Nor it's clear how come my house light bulb doesnt have a large effect on my love life.

One of the times it came up recently was a chat with a buddy of mine of what's more reasonable / factual even: agnosticism or atheism.
His claim: agnosticism, - because it's impossible to know the whole universe in which a god might exist. Plus you cant really prove a negative.

Even if that might be true, since I didn't find any compelling evidence of a god that might exist, I don't see any point in claiming I am agnostic. Sure, there might be one, or might not be, but I don't know and I doubt I will find out in my lifetime. Maybe the human race will find the reality in the next couple of tens/hundreds of millions of years, no hurry.

It's hard for me to speak for him now, but I think his reply would be, that if you say "maybe" then you are not an atheist.

As you saw my reply, I saw it differently. And I'd also remove "maybe", - as whatever we might find later on, it will be very different from what beliefs wanted to see happen.

I wouldn't worry: if there's a god, he or she will kill humanity much before that timespan.

They do put rather limiting time constraints it seems.

[dreamer2008]

It's hard for me to speak for him now, but I think his reply would be, that if you say "maybe" then you are not an atheist.

I can't claim to be all knowing, that would be arrogant, so that's why I am letting a "maybe" in there, its just logical to do so, that doesn't make me agnostic, just a realist. The more I studied, the more I found out how little I know, and how little humanity in general knows about the universe. We are just starting to understand the world we live in, and there are so many unresolved mysteries, it would be quite ridiculous to claim we absolutely know everything that exists out there. But like I said, from what I've seen so far, I don't think there is any real proof of existence of a god, so there is no point in believing in one.

[BrasatoAlBarolo]

Horoscopes told me 2020 was going to be a wonderful year.
We're half way through, and we risked a world war, there's a civil war in Hong Kong, there's been a worldwide pandemia (which is still there) and US are on the brink of a civil war based on racism. Meanwhile, in that same "greatest nation of the world", the pandemia I was talking about is still at its peak.

Perhaps it's "wonderful", but its meaning was "incredible"...

Gods put limiting time constraints because men talk for them, and their lives are very short. They need money now, not salvation in a thousand years.

[fiksal]

The word great can be used differently, like, example, a Great depression, or a Great war.

[BrasatoAlBarolo]

The word great can be used differently, like, example, a Great depression, or a Great war.

A wonderful depression, following a wonderful pandemic, is sometimes followed by a wonderful war.

[fiksal]

food for atheist thought

I am of an opinion that mathematics is the best tool we have describing the world. Specifically that, not other sciences, because it is at the core of other sciences.

Why math, you might ask? That's how the world appears to be made, with clear cause and effect, always happening in that precise order, and not in reverse, as well as without ever a randomness factor. The world is deterministic. (and I mean to say without randomness even though we can only approximate some things sometimes)

Do you agree?

So is there a better system conceivably and why do you think it works so well, if you agree? I admit, I have a certain ceiling in math, so I am not aware of any specific problem that cant be solved by it.

[Mightysword]

Not knowing too much in detail about it I always thought it to be a way of life and much like other philosophies that try to create some sort of connection between human life and the natural world, the word "religion" feels odd wrt to those.

Well ... yes and no. I would agree, I said as much myself, or used to. But recently I've been thinking why did I (and others) start saying that. After all, even during the time of Buddha, Buddhism was formally recognized as a religion, although it carries a much different philosophy to other type of religion. After all, it's still a matter of 'belief'. I think the saying "Buddhism is a way of life rather a religion" is probably born out of cynicism of other religions. At least that's what I think. I feel that by saying that, I would implies 'religion is bad' or itself a dirty word because "hey it's different, not as bad so it must be not a religion!". Which is something I don't agree with.

As much as I often eschew the idea behind Buddhism, I'm not blind to the fact that both in the past and at present, it were misused in manners not different than what founded in others. Its passive principal does offer a lot of failsafe again such abuse, and its teaching minimizing the embowering effects that usually utilized in other religion, but by no mean foolproof against the twisted nature in some human. And that goes for anything really, not just religion, and including science.

[Mightysword]

That's interesting.
But can you answer or do you know of any undesirable parts of Buddhism then?

Oh plenty, I mentioned a few before earlier in the thread, or maybe it was in another thread. But here is the thing: when I run into those, I'm free to cross them out from 'my version' of Buddhism. And I can do that without stepping on anyone toe. At its core, Buddhism gives pretty much free range to its practitioner what to believe and what to apply. The lacking of a god meaning we never have to worry about "the one true word". Not even Buddha's word was perfect btw. One example is a story in a certain text when Buddha asked one of his discipline to go convince a certain man. The disciple was surprised and asked if the Buddha himself wasn't able to make the man to listen, what chance does he has. To which Buddha replied: "I don't have the affinity to convince him so I can't do it, but you do." There are a saying in Vietnamese about this concept:

- There is no good or bad medicine, the right medicine is the one that can cure illness. There is no high or low teaching, the right teaching is the one that can moves people to do the right thing.

Basically, believe as much or as little as you want, or don't believe at all, that works too! Only thing matter that you had done the right things and lead a good life. I think this is why you see two distinct trait about Buddhism that helped it avoid conflict for the most part:

- It can assimilate with any other religion, be it Taos from China, Java from Thailand, Shinto from Japan, or ancestor from Vietnam ...etc...
- Buddhism itself divided into different schisms overtime just like the Catholic/Puritan/Protestant/Orthodox or Sunni/Shia. But you don't see us arguing about it simply because the man himself (Buddha) already gave us a freepass to do whatever we want.

I believe I told this story before but in another thread in less detail. So I'll tell it again to give you a better idea how the faith is practiced (this is real story from the community I belong to btw, not some text):

There is very devout couple, you know the type who showed up at the temple every week, generous with their donation, believe every word of the Buddha, and try to get as many others to join. A bit ... pushy but overall good people, friend with my mother in fact. But their father (over 90 years old) was a non-believer, and they tried to get him to come to the temple from time to time. And he's pretty ... fiery in his refusal, something alone the line of "why the f*** I have to go listen to a guy not even half my age (the monk) preach about some nonsense!?" So they asked the monk for advice, and the conversation when something like this:

- Couple (C): Can you give us some advice to make farther listen? We worried his "blasphemy" will condemn his soul in the next life.
- Monk (M): hum, how old is he again?
- C: he's over 90 years old.
- M: What about his health?
- C: He has some trouble with his hearing but otherwise good health.
- M: is he being difficult or demanding at home?
- C: no, he's getting along with everyone, kids love him, and he love it when we take him to the restaurant.
- M: then ... you have nothing to worry about. Someone who had lived that long and still in good health, surrounded by family who love him and amicable with everyone else. Then that must mean he led a good life and have good karma. He's right when he said he doesn't need to listen to my words, it seems he already lead his life according to the Buddha's teaching whether he believes it or not. And you should know there is no blasphemy in Buddhism.

And that's not an isolated incident with one monk btw (who head a local temple a short drive from where I live), apparently the old man were bored enough to pick up a hobby of studying fortune telling (which has nothing to do with Buddhism, in fact shunned by it as superstition). There was one time the couple managed to drag the old man to a monastery up in the mountain for an large event, I guess the reason he agreed to go was because it's a scenic trip into the mountain. Of course he had no interested in joining the ceremony, and afterward he flat out announced he can read fortune and if anyone is interested. He got a few young curious people who want to do it for fun, and the crowd he gathered understandably made his children (the couple) panic. Seeing this the head monk approached and asked if he can read his fortune, to which the old man pimping complied. Everyone else (the older adult) saw this as being "green lit" and surrounded the old man afterward to the disbelief of the couple. When they asked the monk wasn't that bad, forbidden even? To which the monk just replied: well, look like your old man enjoyed it though, so why not? And this is coming from the head monk of what I think is one of the biggest Vietnamese monastery in the US.

Btw, apparently after that the old man happily started tagging along on the temple trips because he LOVES having people fuss over his fortune telling, to much bemusement and chagrin of his more devout children of course. I never did asked them how they feel now that they finally manage to drag the old man to the temple, even get him to listen to a few "preaching nonsense section" on such a reason because I figure that would be in bad taste.

And just like what the monks said, most of us seeing the old man (being able to) enjoying himself in such manner at such an advance age as a living example of good karma (in fact, probably a better example than his children currently) despite understand this guy has zero belief. But this just to give you an idea how lax our communities are regarding our faith.

There's also a little bit more, as I understood, as Buddhism does promise after life or reincarnations, which hasnt been there to explain the universe?

It does, and part of the karma system. I would explain more but this post is already long with the story above. So maybe another time.

[Ketraar]

As much as I often eschew the idea behind Buddhism, I'm not blind to the fact that both in the past and at present, it were misused in manners not different than what founded in others. Its passive principal does offer a lot of failsafe again such abuse, and its teaching minimizing the embowering effects that usually utilized in other religion, but by no mean foolproof against the twisted nature in some human. And that goes for anything really, not just religion, and including science.

As I said about socialism, you cant use distorted practices of what people claim to be a philosophy, in this case Buddhism. It should be scrutinized based on its true principles and not based on a version some group practices, democracy is not bad because North Korea claims to be one, we just say that despite their claim its not democracy. Same goes for religions, in my case its Catholicism, where people are "free" to cherry-pick the things they like and ignore or pay-off the ones they dont, which allows them to exploit their workers, ignore the lack of access to health care and still call themselves faith abiding Christians. Not even going to mention the various "institutions" in the US that claim to be speaking the lords word while robbing people in broad day-time TV.

As to why not including Buddhism as religion, my reasoning is that since its not based on worship of an entity (again based on my limited knowledge, let me know if I'm wrong) and also has its focus on the betterment of the human condition, in stark contrast to the abrahamic ones that impose not just lifestyle but even "morals" and life choices based on the notion that some higher power mandates it, even if that means excluding others or worse, make them suffer. Not that I think that counting it as a religion is wrong or even is worth debating much, just always felt that it was more of a philosophical stance than one of worship.

So is there a better system conceivably and why do you think it works so well, if you agree? I admit, I have a certain ceiling in math, so I am not aware of any specific problem that cant be solved by it.

I think you are looking at it the wrong way tbh, math does not just exist, it was invented (by Newton if you recall).

I am of an opinion that mathematics is the best tool we have describing the world. Specifically that, not other sciences, because it is at the core of other sciences.

Disclaimer: I love mathematics, I would have liked to now much more about it, but... it does NOT describe much of anything tbh. Yes its a great tool for us to understand some mechanics and serves to make predictions, not a small feat on its own I might add. Feelings and words do a much better job describing the universe, more so if combined with ink for some great paintings.

There is no order in the universe, it looks like order when you look back, entropy is always on the rise and things look like being in order only if you look broadly. Chaos dominates the universe and "only" a constant battle between "things" to get to their natural state is that makes stuff happen, but anyone thinking that there is some sort of design is only being fooled by the beauty of the current chaos. Enact the next 10 decisions you have to make by flipping a coin, then look back and ask yourself if it could have been any other way. It couldn't could it? You are here now so it HAD to be THAT way.

had example for which I cant find the video again, but it went something like this. You take a bunch of people and have them toss a coin, everyone with tails gets removed and you toss the coin again, again everyone with tail gets removed and so until you have just one or very few remaining. Now the remaining person tossed a coin several times and ALWAYS got heads, if you ask one person to toss the same amount of times the coin its very unlikely they will manage to toss heads all the time. What this means is, the universe is so big that even enormously low chances are "likely" to happen just by the sheer quantity of what constitutes the (known) universe.

MFG

Ketraar

PS.: Hope it made sense...

[Vertigo 7]

had example for which I cant find the video again, but it went something like this. You take a bunch of people and have them toss a coin, everyone with tails gets removed and you toss the coin again, again everyone with tail gets removed and so until you have just one or very few remaining. Now the remaining person tossed a coin several times and ALWAYS got heads, if you ask one person to toss the same amount of times the coin its very unlikely they will manage to toss heads all the time. What this means is, the universe is so big that even enormously low chances are "likely" to happen just by the sheer quantity of what constitutes the (known) universe.

MFG

Ketraar

PS.: Hope it made sense...

Wot if everyone tossed a coin and everyone got tails? Law of probability or did the G man decide it was time to hit reset on the human race, again?

I kid, of course. Obviously law of probability dictates it is possible, however improbable.

But lets talk about possibilities and probabilities. My favorite fairy tale from the bible is the flood. Let's pretend for a few minutes that for 40 days and 40 nights, the Earth went from 71% water to 115% water or more and then magically returned to 71%.

So this dude, Noah, gathered 2 of every animal on earth for his Disney Princess Cruise. 2 **** roaches, 2 mosquitoes, 2 bed bugs, 2 geckos, 2 salamanders, 2 buffalo, 2 dingoes, 2 goats, 2 chupacabras, etc. Given that Pangaea separated in the neighborhood of oh say 150-200 million years ago, and people believed the earth was flat until way after this supposed magic boat ride, what is the probability that Noah traveled alllllll the way and back from the middle east to the Americas and obtained animals that are only native to north and south America and were never ever mentioned in the bible?

Further more, given the immense number of species of animals in the world and given the life span of humans during that time frame, what's the likelihood that Noah had the time and know how to wrangle up 2 of every creature while simultaneously building by hand a boat large enough to house them all?

And what's the likelihood the human race would have survived oh, 7 or 8 generations of direct incest and we somehow still managed to have ethnicities such as Caucasian, African, Hispanic, Native American, Asian, and any I'm unintentionally leaving out.

[Ketraar]

@Veritgo
Not sure what you are trying to get at and what it's relation to my post is tbh. All I can say is watch Ricky Gervais' take on it here (strong language). But yeah that story has many flaws, for example what happened to the fish? Did they "drown" too or dont they count as animals?

MFG

Ketraar

[Mightysword]

So is there a better system conceivably and why do you think it works so well, if you agree? I admit, I have a certain ceiling in math, so I am not aware of any specific problem that cant be solved by it.

Mentioned this before but: the problem of missing mass of the universe and dark-matter.

In fact, the invention of dark-matter to address something that can't not be currently explained, and the usage of place-holder concept as the current accepted explanation until it can be proven otherwise are both fairly ... religious approach don't you think. Just like the often question of "you can't prove religion but you can't disprove it either".

Also I think you're making an assumption: math is good at solving one specific type of problem - "logic" problem. But while it's often a good idea to have the decision making to be logical, you don't want society to be driven by pure hard-cold logic because it would be just a different kind of hell than one that driven by pure instinct. The human logic (good vs evil, selfishness vs compassion ...etc...) are not the same thing as mathematical logic. Saying math (or even science) can explain everything is just as bad as a claim as the one saying religion can explain everything to me. Just like far left and far right are equally bad, the key is moderation in everything.

There are enough literature explore this concept (i.e fiction AI) so I don't need to say much, rather I'll just link my favorite video here that I had linked a few times before to (sarcastically) illustrate the point:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owI7DOeO_yg

[CBJ]

In fact, the invention of dark-matter to address something that can't not be currently explained, and the usage of place-holder concept as the current accepted explanation until it can be proven otherwise are both fairly ... religious approach don't you think. Just like the often question of "you can't prove religion but you can't disprove it either".

No, it's nothing whatsoever like a religious approach. Dark matter is a proposed solution to a mathematical problem. It's presented as one possible answer that would make the mathematics work. If evidence were to come forward that indicated that it couldn't be a valid solution then, after appropriate analysis and confirmation, the idea would be abandoned in favour of some other solution that did meet the evidence, both old and new. That is pretty much diametrically the opposite of religion, which insists that its explanation is the only possible right one and that you must continue to believe it in spite of any and all evidence to the contrary.

[Ketraar]

In fact, the invention of dark-matter to address something that can't not be currently explained, and the usage of place-holder concept as the current accepted explanation until it can be proven otherwise are both fairly ... religious approach don't you think.

wow wow wow... hold on a minute here, lets not conflate the two here, there is absolutely no comparison to these two approaches at ALL, saying otherwise is misleading at best.

While "dark matter" is a placeholder NAME for a thing we can measure and calculate, its not a placeholder explanation based on ¨feelings, or some tale, its based on observed measurements and while we dont yet understand it (given it does not interact with almost anything its hard to measure since all the tools we currently have kinda require some interaction). In fact as NdT suggest it should be called Dark Gravity as its more indicative of what it does.

MFG

Ketraar

PS.: Ninja'd by CBJ

[BrasatoAlBarolo]

Dark Matter is the missing variable "x" of the equation. It's something we use to "solve the equation", to keep it simple. It's not a fairy tale, even if its name is random. They could've called it Pizza, for instance.

[Mightysword]

That is pretty much diametrically the opposite of religion, which insists that its explanation is the only possible right one and that you must continue to believe it in spite of any and all evidence to the contrary.

I guess the reason why it looks that way to me because of again, my experience with Buddhism which keep thing quite similarly open-ended. As mentioned the faith give pretty free range on what to believe and what not, in fact it often offer different 'flavors' of the same concept for people with different personality and experience to pick and choose.

Curiously though, have the (modern) Church ever reconcile with the concepts of flat earth or the earth revolves around the sun? I know often these days they are brought up to "stereotype" science denier or religious fanatics, but I somehow doubt the majority of Church goers actually still believe so. I know no Church goers who believe in flat earth, and I know a good many of them. In fact it's not rare to catch someone working at place like NASA saying something like "pray for success". To my knowledge, those things were reconciled (abeit probably not to extended that please the science purists), kinda like the compromise between Tera and Mars to reconcile the Empirium Truth and Machine Cult. So these days it feels more like a stick beating on a deadhorse, especially when talking about things like climate change.

wow wow wow... hold on a minute here, lets not conflate the two here, there is absolutely no comparison to these two approaches at ALL, saying otherwise is misleading at best.

Feel like I poked an honest nest with that comment. But to add to what I said above, my intend was simply to answer Fiskal's question that is there anything math can't explain. I guess know his cynicism toward religions, I was just trying to put some of that flavor in there as well.

[Mightysword]

As I said about socialism, you cant use distorted practices of what people claim to be a philosophy, in this case Buddhism. It should be scrutinized based on its true principles and not based on a version some group practices, democracy is not bad because North Korea claims to be one, we just say that despite their claim its not democracy.

So ... shouldn't that same understanding courtesy be extended to religion (or Catholic specifically) in this case? In fact, in my experience it's very often the people in these discussion (whom I assume either Atheism or moderate Christian) cite specific Bible's passages that clearly say all human should be treated as equal to call out the self-proclaimed faithful. I admit I don't know the whole Bible, but if it's the case of people cherry picking or just paying lip service to the Catholic teaching, self-proclaiming as true Christian while doing thing contrary to it shouldn't be used to judge the whole faith as a whole? And like said, I don't think Buddhism is above that.

As to why not including Buddhism as religion, my reasoning is that since its not based on worship of an entity (again based on my limited knowledge, let me know if I'm wrong) and also has its focus on the betterment of the human condition,

Well, again yes and no. It depends on what you count as 'worship'. True, we don't have a god in the concept of someone who can judge us. If anything, it's fairly common to come across references in Buddhism texts about what Buddha can NOT do for you,

- He can't condemn you to hell no matter how much he hates you (because you don't believe or insult him maybe) if you had led a good life.
- He can't lift you to heaven no matter how much he loves you (because you fervently worship him) if you had led a bad life.
- He can warn you there is a tiger waiting of a path and you should seek another, but if you decided to keep walking down that path ... welp, he can't help you when you get attacked.

So if by worship you mean asking for an all powerful being to shield you, then no. We also have a the concept of Fate, but it's not in the sense of per-ordained or inescapable. The karma concept means whatever our fate is supposed to be, it's a direct result of our pass deeds (cause and effect). And as such, we also have the power to alter our fate through deeds and encourage to do so. There is this saying: human doesn't have the ability to know about our pass life, neither to predict the future. But we can look at our current life to make an educated guess of what we did in our past, as well as what our future will be. A bit off the point there but that is the foundation of the Karma system. If anything, human is the master of their own fate is a very consistent message in the Buddhism faith.

Back to the point, I do have an altar, and offer homemade + daily pray to Buddha and Bodhisattva. So I think that would count as worship?

But it depends on what you make out of those pray though. I was taught a pray to Buddha is less about a call for help, and more about a self-reminder of his teaching. For example, there is a passage in the text describing the Bodhisattva of compassion: if you ever find yourself trapped in a pit of fire or a cage, pray to him and the fire pit will become a pond and the cage will be opened. So ... pretty miraculous stuffs right? The question is how you choose to interpret that. And yes, you will come across some Buddhist who interpret that quite literally, in the sense that Buddha and Bodhisattva can delivery you from bad stuffs as long as you pray hard enough. In this manner it's not really different than worshiping a god really.

My interpretation is more metaphorically. The fire pit or cage mentioned here refer to the internal strife we trapped ourselves in. Ever hold a grudge against someone and feel it eats away at you? Like "OMG I can't stand that guy, just remember what he said/did pissed me off so much!" That is the fire pit and cage. So a pray to the Bodhisattva is more of reminder of his teaching: "hey, remember compassion and forgiveness? Let it go, don't let it bother you, tomorrow start fresh again". And once you (are able to) do that, you release yourself of the hatred and able to find peace again. An honest admission on my part: what I just describe is an exercise I sometime do after "debating" with some people online, present companies included.

One might attributed that peace is the Bodhisattva's blessing answering your pray, or you can also attributed that as a natural result of your own will and personality. For me, I decide to believe they're both.

So really, it's just really depend on which type of Buddhist you run into. Most of the stuffs I said in this thread are "my" version of Buddhism, which may or may not be representative.

[Ketraar]

So ... shouldn't that same understanding courtesy be extended to religion (or Catholic specifically) in this case? In fact, in my experience it's very often the people in these discussion (whom I assume either Atheism or moderate Christian) cite specific Bible's passages that clearly say all human should be treated as equal to call out the self-proclaimed faithful. I admit I don't know the whole Bible, but if it's the case of people cherry picking or just paying lip service to the Catholic teaching, self-proclaiming as true Christian while doing thing contrary to it shouldn't be used to judge the whole faith as a whole? And like said, I don't think Buddhism is above that.

Again here I'll just comment based on my experience with local Catholics. But no, dont think that courtesy should be extended. Its not a misrepresentation by people pretending to be Catholics, its the catholic institution on its own. As it does not follow its OWN teachings. I could cite a plethora of smaller things like allowing divorced people to commune (spelling?) or let people marry in church even if they never set foot in one for decades and the likes. Instead I'll mention the more prevalent ones, like priest having staff, luxury houses, multiple cars and not the cheap ones, sending letters to people during covid to ask people for donations while they get paid in full and tax exempted. Stuff like this where its practicing the opposite of what is the doctrine. These are not people pretending to be part of the Catholic institution, they ARE the institution, they are common and not some rouge version of it. In fact the very few that tent to not be like this are usually news worthy.

So really, it's just really depend on which type of Buddhist you run into. Most of the stuffs I said in this thread are "my" version of Buddhism, which may or may not be representative.

I see, as I mentioned my understanding of it very basic, so I'll your word for it (for now )

MFG

Ketraar

[Mightysword]

Stuff like this where its practicing the opposite of what is the doctrine. These are not people pretending to be part of the Catholic institution, they ARE the institution, they are common and not some rouge version of it. In fact the very few that tent to not be like this are usually news worthy.

Isn't by saying that you imply the doctrine of Christianity is indeed just and pure, and there are people out there who actually manage to hold onto that belief? So by going what you just said earlier, specifically when you said "It should be scrutinized based on its true principles and not based on a version some group practices" that it's fair to give it the same courtesy? Given the circumstances around its founding, and the persecution it endured in the next few hundred years I somehow doubt its principles and doctrine put emphasis on greed and affluence.

Yes, it's a matter of they don't act what they preach, but that's still an issue on the "practice" side, not the principle side. What you described is more of an "institutionalized" issue. Like I said it's not like Buddhism doesn't suffer the same corruption, but by some miracle the faith itself remain very decentralized and institualization only happen at very limited/local level. Had that happened on the same scale of other religions I doubt Buddhism would have escaped the same perversion of the faith.

If the argument is "institutionalized religion" is bad, then there is no argument from me. I agree that much and try to stay away from it with a 10ft pole myself. I only argue when people seem to cast a wider net of "religion is bad". Also priests, monks or worshipers, the one on the podium talking and the one listening in, ultimately they are both simply practitioners. They can do it right or wrong, but not necessary represent true form of the faith, regardless of how numerous they are.