Atheism, the discussion

[BrasatoAlBarolo]

People has to deal with the fact vote is a responsibility, not just a right.

[fiksal]

And you have no idea how true that is. Often people look at the religious leaders as the source of corruption while often overlook it actually the worshiper themselves that dictate the behavior.

I think it's a little bit of both if not a feedback loop. People might elect one of their own, a corruptible person, the person corrupts the post, next such person is elected and continues. If that's even an elected position.

Same goes for politicians.


As with your example with expensive temples, same is true for Christianity - they are not actually supposed to decorate so much, nor they are supposed to worship idols - the golden icons, crosses, etc. There's a whole direction of "old faith" Russian Orthodox Christians who follow that exactly - no big temples, no icons.

[BrasatoAlBarolo]

And you have no idea how true that is. Often people look at the religious leaders as the source of corruption while often overlook it actually the worshiper themselves that dictate the behavior.

I think it's a little bit of both if not a feedback loop. People might elect one of their own, a corruptible person, the person corrupts the post, next such person is elected and continues. If that's even an elected position.

Same goes for politicians.


As with your example with expensive temples, same is true for Christianity - they are not actually supposed to decorate so much, nor they are supposed to worship idols - the golden icons, crosses, etc. There's a whole direction of "old faith" Russian Orthodox Christians who follow that exactly - no big temples, no icons.

The cult of saints in Christianity is something that makes me wonder if it isn't polytheism, by now... I mean, you have a "Saint protector" for literally everything, worshipped and prayed to by lots of people. Is it the only monotheism who does that?

[Vertigo 7]

And you have no idea how true that is. Often people look at the religious leaders as the source of corruption while often overlook it actually the worshiper themselves that dictate the behavior.

I think it's a little bit of both if not a feedback loop. People might elect one of their own, a corruptible person, the person corrupts the post, next such person is elected and continues. If that's even an elected position.

Same goes for politicians.


As with your example with expensive temples, same is true for Christianity - they are not actually supposed to decorate so much, nor they are supposed to worship idols - the golden icons, crosses, etc. There's a whole direction of "old faith" Russian Orthodox Christians who follow that exactly - no big temples, no icons.

The cult of saints in Christianity is something that makes me wonder if it isn't polytheism, by now... I mean, you have a "Saint protector" for literally everything, worshipped and prayed to by lots of people. Is it the only monotheism who does that?

Saints are really only somewhat idolized in Catholic denominations. Baptist, Lutheran, and others don't really focus too much on saints. Mormons are a bit of an exception, but, they're also pretty far out there even by Christianity standards.

[brucewarren]

Suppose there was a matter you wished to bring to the attention of the POTUS.

Would you march directly into his private chamber and demand he listen to you? No I don't think anyone would do this.
You would try to find a sympathetic official with the ear of the president and ask him to speak on your behalf.

This, I think, is what's going on with the Catholics and the Saints. They feel it would be impertinent to pray directly to God
so they ask a saint to do them a solid and speak for them. As someone raised in the Church of England I was taught that folks
should pray directly to the Almighty and not use intermediaries in that fashion so I consider the Catholic idea a bad one.

Do I think Catholics make too much of the Saints? Yes they probably do. Do I believe they actually worship them? No.

[Ketraar]

Do I think Catholics make too much of the Saints? Yes they probably do. Do I believe they actually worship them? No.

You would be wrong here though. Here 13th of May is a much bigger event than Xmas, its a month long celebration with people marching to Fatima. May is called the Month of Mary.
Also communal holidays are (with the exception of one) all based on Saint days. We have all sorts of places of worship dedicated to Saints, they even feature in calendars. Most churches will have multiple altars, a main one and often at least 2 more, one dedicated to Mary and one dedicated to any prominent local Saint. Most villages will have a Saint Patron in their name and then feature major festivities on the day of said Saint.

One has to note that Roman Catholics are descendants of "pagans" that worshiped many gods, they just got replaced with Saints. As with Roman gods, there is a Saint for anything, from agriculture to health, to drivers and nurses.

MFG

Ketraar

[BrasatoAlBarolo]

Suppose there was a matter you wished to bring to the attention of the POTUS.

Would you march directly into his private chamber and demand he listen to you? No I don't think anyone would do this.
You would try to find a sympathetic official with the ear of the president and ask him to speak on your behalf.

This, I think, is what's going on with the Catholics and the Saints. They feel it would be impertinent to pray directly to God
so they ask a saint to do them a solid and speak for them. As someone raised in the Church of England I was taught that folks
should pray directly to the Almighty and not use intermediaries in that fashion so I consider the Catholic idea a bad one.

Do I think Catholics make too much of the Saints? Yes they probably do. Do I believe they actually worship them? No.

They worship them a lot here in Italy.

[Vertigo 7]

We're about to go into Da Vinci Code territory!

[fiksal]

@Ketraar, @BrasatoAlBarolo, really? I learned something today, I didnt think the saints were a big deal anywhere.

How does that work exactly, do people pray to them directly?


I am trying to recall how it works with Russian Orthodox. There are definitely Saints, that are responsible for certain tasks. I dont think many outside of church know exactly who is who. Inside of church - that's a different story.

[BrasatoAlBarolo]

@Ketraar, @BrasatoAlBarolo, really? I learned something today, I didnt think the saints were a big deal anywhere.

How does that work exactly, do people pray to them directly?


I am trying to recall how it works with Russian Orthodox. There are definitely Saints, that are responsible for certain tasks. I dont think many outside of church know exactly who is who. Inside of church - that's a different story.

They pray them, they build statues for them, sacred images, relics, ... Everything a pagan cult would do, actually.

[Ketraar]

How does that work exactly, do people pray to them directly?

As mentioned above, often churches will have a dedicated secondary/tertiary altar dedicated to a saint patron. Much like with Roman gods, saints have specific traits, like some are specialists in healing, some a protectors of the travelers, others are specialized in helping the poor or lost causes. If you need help in a specific thing, you pray to that specific saint.

Mary is special though, she has multiple traits and "incarnations" often related to locations where she appeared or did some miracle, thus will have all sorts of places of worship and also depending on the local specialization specific "cures" will be provided. As also mentioned before, she is much more prominent in culture than Jesus and or even God himself. While most if not all recognize the power structure of the trinity and who is in charge, Mary as the mother figure is the one to go to when in need of help, much like with real life, especially in a society where woman are the ones actually doing the caring and feeding people. Unless there is a very specific saint available, Mary is the go to and also will be featured in all Churches even if with "just" a statue.

MFG

Ketraar

[BrasatoAlBarolo]

How does that work exactly, do people pray to them directly?

As mentioned above, often churches will have a dedicated secondary/tertiary altar dedicated to a saint patron. Much like with Roman gods, saints have specific traits, like some are specialists in healing, some a protectors of the travelers, others are specialized in helping the poor or lost causes. If you need help in a specific thing, you pray to that specific saint.

Mary is special though, she has multiple traits and "incarnations" often related to locations where she appeared or did some miracle, thus will have all sorts of places of worship and also depending on the local specialization specific "cures" will be provided. As also mentioned before, she is much more prominent in culture than Jesus and or even God himself. While most if not all recognize the power structure of the trinity and who is in charge, Mary as the mother figure is the one to go to when in need of help, much like with real life, especially in a society where woman are the ones actually doing the caring and feeding people. Unless there is a very specific saint available, Mary is the go to and also will be featured in all Churches even if with "just" a statue.

MFG

Ketraar

But never, ever pray the wrong saint.
There's a joke in Italy that I now try to translate (somatic components were important in this one, but I hope my tranlsation's gonna do the job):

A man is falling from a palace, and while falling he closes his eyes and starts praying: "Please, Sant'Antonio, please save my life and I promise me and my family are going to worship you, and praise you" - Suddently, the man feels like a hand under his back, slowing is fall, and a voice sounds in his head - "Da Padova or d'Abate?" - the man, confused at first, after a some seconds replies - "Da Padova!" - and then - "Him? Why it's always him???" - SPLAT!

There are two (probably more) different St. Anthonies... And both are woshipped very seriously.

[fiksal]

But never, ever pray the wrong saint.
There's a joke in Italy that I now try to translate (somatic components were important in this one, but I hope my tranlsation's gonna do the job):

A man is falling from a palace, and while falling he closes his eyes and starts praying: "Please, Sant'Antonio, please save my life and I promise me and my family are going to worship you, and praise you" - Suddently, the man feels like a hand under his back, slowing is fall, and a voice sounds in his head - "Da Padova or d'Abate?" - the man, confused at first, after a some seconds replies - "Da Padova!" - and then - "Him? Why it's always him???" - SPLAT!

There are two (probably more) different St. Anthonies... And both are woshipped very seriously.

It's a good joke

So is this generally a Catholic thing or Itallian Catholic uniqueness?

to add a little bit to the topic.
as I was saying Russian pre-christian gods were turned into Saints in Christianity. For example this "guy", who Russian still celebrate the pagan way by this day, without remember who or why.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kupala_Night

Kupala Night, (Russian: Иван-Купала, Belarusian: Купалле; Ukrainian: Івана Купала; Polish: Noc Kupały), called Ivanа-Kupala, is a traditional eastern Slavic holiday which is celebrated in Ukraine, Poland, Belarus and Russia during the night from 6 to 7 July (on the Gregorian calendar). (This corresponds to 23-24 June on these countries’ traditional Julian calendar.)
...
[Kupala] a pagan fertility rite later adapted into the Orthodox Christian calendar by connecting it with St. John's Day which is celebrated on 24 June.[2]
...
The night preceding the holiday (Tvorila night) is considered the night for "good humour" mischiefs (which sometimes would raise the concern of law enforcement agencies). On Ivan Kupala day itself, children engage in water fights and perform pranks, mostly involving pouring water over people.

[BrasatoAlBarolo]

But never, ever pray the wrong saint.
There's a joke in Italy that I now try to translate (somatic components were important in this one, but I hope my tranlsation's gonna do the job):

A man is falling from a palace, and while falling he closes his eyes and starts praying: "Please, Sant'Antonio, please save my life and I promise me and my family are going to worship you, and praise you" - Suddently, the man feels like a hand under his back, slowing is fall, and a voice sounds in his head - "Da Padova or d'Abate?" - the man, confused at first, after a some seconds replies - "Da Padova!" - and then - "Him? Why it's always him???" - SPLAT!

There are two (probably more) different St. Anthonies... And both are woshipped very seriously.

It's a good joke

So is this generally a Catholic thing or Itallian Catholic uniqueness?

to add a little bit to the topic.
as I was saying Russian pre-christian gods were turned into Saints in Christianity. For example this "guy", who Russian still celebrate the pagan way by this day, without remember who or why.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kupala_Night

Kupala Night, (Russian: Иван-Купала, Belarusian: Купалле; Ukrainian: Івана Купала; Polish: Noc Kupały), called Ivanа-Kupala, is a traditional eastern Slavic holiday which is celebrated in Ukraine, Poland, Belarus and Russia during the night from 6 to 7 July (on the Gregorian calendar). (This corresponds to 23-24 June on these countries’ traditional Julian calendar.)
...
[Kupala] a pagan fertility rite later adapted into the Orthodox Christian calendar by connecting it with St. John's Day which is celebrated on 24 June.[2]
...
The night preceding the holiday (Tvorila night) is considered the night for "good humour" mischiefs (which sometimes would raise the concern of law enforcement agencies). On Ivan Kupala day itself, children engage in water fights and perform pranks, mostly involving pouring water over people.

I don't know about outside Italy, as I'm a non believer and I can only see what happens around me, but patron saints are very common in Europe, even if they're probably not as worshipped as Italian saints.

The importance of the figure of Mary, and her worship, is another curious thing, because if you think about it, she's not a Saint and she's literally the only non-divine figure around. Nevertheless, she's often considered more important than both Jesus and god himself.

[Ketraar]

The importance of the figure of Mary, and her worship, is another curious thing, because if you think about it, she's not a Saint and she's literally the only non-divine figure around.

You are mistaken here, see Jesus is not a Saint either, yet he is divine, Mary is divine by default or "by osmosis" if you like when giving birth to god's son and then become his first "disciple". It rubbed off so to speak. Unlike Saints, Mary didnt need to be canonized so technically she is not a Saint, but is still very much divine and as I mentioned above, her being the mother is the go-to figure in times of need, like most mothers.

Maybe this is a thing more embedded in the southern, more "roman" regions of christianity, where roman paganism was stronger and people felt the need to keep some worship practices and thus made use of the saint patrons to fill this gap. Considering that roman catholicism was created by decree it would make sense to keep most rituals to avoid shocking people, so a re-branding makes much more sense than a complete restructure. This can be seen all over the colonized world where imposed christianity is adjusted to include some strong local rituals. And this is what makes me look at it more of a source of control then actual spirituality, because I would expect the "truth" wrt to any deity being one and not many. So this abrahamic god is very bad a communicating its wishes and doctrine...

MFG

Ketraar

[BrasatoAlBarolo]

The importance of the figure of Mary, and her worship, is another curious thing, because if you think about it, she's not a Saint and she's literally the only non-divine figure around.

You are mistaken here, see Jesus is not a Saint either, yet he is divine, Mary is divine by default or "by osmosis" if you like when giving birth to god's son and then become his first "disciple". It rubbed off so to speak. Unlike Saints, Mary didnt need to be canonized so technically she is not a Saint, but is still very much divine and as I mentioned above, her being the mother is the go-to figure in times of need, like most mothers.

Maybe this is a thing more embedded in the southern, more "roman" regions of christianity, where roman paganism was stronger and people felt the need to keep some worship practices and thus made use of the saint patrons to fill this gap. Considering that roman catholicism was created by decree it would make sense to keep most rituals to avoid shocking people, so a re-branding makes much more sense than a complete restructure. This can be seen all over the colonized world where imposed christianity is adjusted to include some strong local rituals. And this is what makes me look at it more of a source of control then actual spirituality, because I would expect the "truth" wrt to any deity being one and not many. So this abrahamic god is very bad a communicating its wishes and doctrine...

MFG

Ketraar

Romans did the re-branding thing a lot while conquering and annexing tribes and primitive nations, so it makes sense doing the same for catholicism.

[Mightysword]

The last couple pages has been an interesting and enlightening read. They gave me new insights I did not have before, so thanks to all participated.

I have always thought it's a Buddhism thing that adapt and meld itself into whatever local culture it spreads to, but apparently Christianity also does the same thing to a degree. And some may think that kind of inconsistency serve as proof that religion has no merit (I got that thrown at my one time when discussing Buddism) but you know what, I think that is actually a good thing! The more flexible something is, the less friction it will create. In fact, if the line can be blur that religion become less religious and more cultural, that would be great.

As ironic as this may sound, I think religion is a good thing as long as one doesn't dwell too deep about it. Keep a few core principle/belief and use that either as a moral compass and/or a spiritual support during hardship, I feel the purpose of religion can be accomplished with just those tasks. Path to enlightenment, the truth of the universe ...etc... as an average person I don't really care about things like that. In term of religion, I don't put much emphasis on what one should believe or even if what you believe is true or not, as long as the things you choose to believe compel you to do good and become a better person. Naturally, if the thing you believe is actually prove-able, and it's actually the truth, but that belief compel you to do the wrong thing than it would still be bad, wouldn't it?

So ultimately, the debate of real or not real doesn't seem to be even that important, to me anyway. I have a scenario question for the atheism folks, consider this:


- I can say with great confident I'm not a good nature person. I don't think I'm at the 'evil' level, but I know I have many desire (on the darkside), greed, and my compassion pool is probably shallow.
- However I can also speak with confidence that for the most part, I carry myself (through act and deed) decently. Whether it be refraining myself from doing bad things to doing good deeds. But again, the source of that decency is more about discipline rather than personal good nature.
- And I can also speak with confidence that in turn, the source of that discipline is from my Buddhism belief. When I'm about to do bad thing, sometime my belief help me stay my hand, and even if it fails to stop me (hey, temptation is a bitch) at the very least my belief make me antagonized over the decision so that I don't just do it imprudently. Like wise, I'm fairly sure I'm rather apathetic person, while it's not exactly made of ice my heart is hardly a blazing ball of compassion. But, I still (force myself to) do good things for the people around me and my community because of my belief in Karma. Some of you often accuse the rich doing charity for fame and tax-evasion, I do charity for the good karma, and I say that with no shame .

Note that the reason I'm using myself here is to emphasize that this is not a hypothetical or philosophical question about "people", but to make it a practical question.

And, the question is this: for the good of myself as a person, and also for the good of the community around me, should I stop believe in Buddhism and its teaching, even if you have reason to believe it is false or unprovable?

If you can answer that question objectively, than I think you may understand why someone like me believe that religion is an important part of our life. I know one of the most favorite and common saying among Atheist is something like "I'm my own person, I can control and judge my own action without the guidance of some god!" Well, good for you, to those who say that I believe, or at least hope you are a 'good' nature person. But the sad fact of life is not all of us are. Rather, MOST of us are not. That's why I believe not because I think I can prove it, but I 'choose' to believe it because I hate the person I would become without the belief.

[Ketraar]

I dont hink of myself as a good person at all, I know this because it feel hard to not fall to do the easy thing, always trying to do the right thing and its hard. I dont do it because of karma, or a god or in the expectation of a reward. I do it because I think its right. Dont always achieve it and sure as hell sometimes it wasnt the best thing to do or the most ideal or even sensible, but at the time it may have felt like the right thing to do. This gives me pause and makes me sleep like baby (not the ones that cry all the time, the ones that actually sleep). I draw this inspiration from my late grandfather, he was the one that infused me with this, others will find inspiration in books, religion, peotry, ect dont really care tbh everyone has to find their own path and live with the consequences.

As for the blending of religions with local culture, I dont mind either, again dont really care what people believe. What does strike me odd though is that if religion can be as adaptive, does it hold any value on its own? Cant people just skip the middleman and just do the "natural" thing, the being in tune with nature. Would not science and culture be the best source for enlightenment? Is the understanding of nature alone not a great source of awe, why the need for a father figure that serves a deterrent to "bad behaviour"?

for the good of myself as a person, and also for the good of the community around me, should I stop believe in Buddhism and its teaching, even if you have reason to believe it is false or unprovable?

You should believe whatever you feel like, just when you start contradicting science and make policies based on it I might have an issue with it, otherwise I could not care less if you or anyone else likes to read words from a book or make enchantments, sing songs or whatever ritual anyone feels the need to do. As long as it does not impact other peoples freedoms to do the same or inflicts any harm.

MFG

Ketraar

[Mightysword]

I dont hink of myself as a good person at all, I know this because it feel hard to not fall to do the easy thing, always trying to do the right thing and its hard. I dont do it because of karma, or a god or in the expectation of a reward. I do it because I think its right.

Than you're still 1" closer to being a good person than me. I'm sensible enough to tell what is right and wrong ... most of time. But that fact alone often is not enough to compel me to both do or not do something, and I need that extra push. Whether you're a atheist or believer, I think anyone can acknowledge that kind of power belief hold over a person who has it. I personally don't think that kind of influence is inherently evil, and can be used to good end.

One of my favorite teaching in Buddhism is this: Buddha has fears too. Like I said the Buddhism's belief (and Karma) itself centered around cause and effect. Buddha's fear lie with the cause, so he tries to teach people to avoid the causes so we don't have to worry about the effect. But we human tend to put our fear in the effect, we're usually either apathetic or uncaring about the cause, yet we fret over the consequence and try to mitigate its effect when it finally hits us. I like it because I find it funny, I find it funny because I think it describe me, and most people I know really well.

So in a way, you can say I am someone who are trying to learn how to fear the cause instead of the effect ... and failing a lot of times.

What does strike me odd though is that if religion can be as adaptive, does it hold any value on its own? Cant people just skip the middleman and just do the "natural" thing, the being in tune with nature. Would not science and culture be the best source for enlightenment? Is the understanding of nature alone not a great source of awe, why the need for a father figure that serves a deterrent to "bad behaviour"?

I intended to answer each of these sentence with a paragraph but on second thought ... that would probably annoy some people with how long it would be. So best way way I can think to answer this is "try to get out of the Science vs Religion" things, and abstract it into "people has need".

- One of my favorite dilemma is: you're good at what you do, but hate what you do, and you suck at what you like to do, so WHAT will you do?

We have done it with animal and plants, selective DNA treatment to get the result we want. It's only a matter of time we can do the same thing with human, or at the very least test the natural apptitude of someone for certain task. You probably can eventually create something like a "scientific good way of life", but at that point, then what?

I think science and religions are two separate facets of the human life and "best kept separated". It's often the debate is centered around religions try to over-reach its bound into something that best left explained by science, but I would point out under the same prejudice that neither science should try to impose itself as a complete substitution for religion, or the spiritual need (some people has no religion, but are still spiritual). That is a path that at the end would make the term 'the church of science' carry a very literal meaning.

Like I said, people just have to accept on an abstract level that people have different needs, and those needs are not necessarily rationalized, or explained scientifically, and even if it can it wouldn't matter anyway (think about the question in the dilemma above). The best we can ask for is to not trying to step on each other toe, or our own toe for that matter.

[fiksal]

But, I still (force myself to) do good things for the people around me and my community because of my belief in Karma. Some of you often accuse the rich doing charity for fame and tax-evasion, I do charity for the good karma, and I say that with no shame .

Note that the reason I'm using myself here is to emphasize that this is not a hypothetical or philosophical question about "people", but to make it a practical question.

And, the question is this: for the good of myself as a person, and also for the good of the community around me, should I stop believe in Buddhism and its teaching, even if you have reason to believe it is false or unprovable?

I think there are multiple ways I can answer it. Because I see more than one question. So I will try to be concise.

If we remove emotion and try to be objective, to the question (which I know you haven't asked this way) - should you believe in supernatural? - you should not because it's not there.

Onto the second part, as a way to be a better person, should you follow teachings that help you get there - yes you should.

In the manner that you have described your beliefs and I trust you were truthful, I think you can accomplish that.

Can one do it fully, following the same teachings, realizing that supernatural concepts don't exist? I see why not. With one downside, one would inadvertently become an atheist.

If you can answer that question objectively, than I think you may understand why someone like me believe that religion is an important part of our life. I know one of the most favorite and common saying among Atheist is something like "I'm my own person, I can control and judge my own action without the guidance of some god!" Well, good for you, to those who say that I believe, or at least hope you are a 'good' nature person. But the sad fact of life is not all of us are. Rather, MOST of us are not. That's why I believe not because I think I can prove it, but I 'choose' to believe it because I hate the person I would become without the belief.

Atheists are not superiorly built. The evidence and reasoning they hold is held by everyone else. The experiences and upbringing however differ wildly. But I get it.