Which religion is correct?

[Nekostan-e Gharbi]

If not Christianity, then Buddhism. As someone who's embarked on a self-improvement campaign this year, the monks' stoicism and wisdom is nothing short of mind blowing

A Buddhist world is not harsh enough.

[Neanderthaland]

If not Christianity, then Buddhism. As someone who's embarked on a self-improvement campaign this year, the monks' stoicism and wisdom is nothing short of mind blowing

A Buddhist world is not harsh enough.

That's an odd criticism of Buddhism. A religion entirely devoted to the pursuit of eliminating the suffering that it acknowledges permeates the world.

[Nekostan-e Gharbi]

A Buddhist world is not harsh enough.

That's an odd criticism of Buddhism. A religion entirely devoted to the pursuit of eliminating the suffering that it acknowledges permeates the world.

Which is precisely why it is not consistent with nature.

[Hurdergaryp]

A Buddhist world is not harsh enough.

That's an odd criticism of Buddhism. A religion entirely devoted to the pursuit of eliminating the suffering that it acknowledges permeates the world.

Sure sounds like a lofty goal, but it is profoundly unrealistic. Not that that ever stopped a religion before, of course. You see, suffering is an intrinsic part of life itself. And not just human life, either. Any lifeform equipped with a somewhat functional neural network by the uncaring mechanisms of evolution is capable of experiencing pain, hunger and other hardships.

Yes, even the honey badger.

[Old Tyrannia]

That's an odd criticism of Buddhism. A religion entirely devoted to the pursuit of eliminating the suffering that it acknowledges permeates the world.

Which is precisely why it is not consistent with nature.

That's an odd criticism of Buddhism. A religion entirely devoted to the pursuit of eliminating the suffering that it acknowledges permeates the world.

Sure sounds like a lofty goal, but it is profoundly unrealistic. Not that that ever stopped a religion before, of course. You see, suffering is an intrinsic part of life itself. And not just human life, either. Any lifeform equipped with a somewhat functional neural network by the uncaring mechanisms of evolution is capable of experiencing pain, hunger and other hardships.

Yes, even the honey badger.

I don't think that either of you have even the slightest understanding of Buddhism necessary to properly criticise it, going by these posts.

[Hurdergaryp]

Which is precisely why it is not consistent with nature.

Sure sounds like a lofty goal, but it is profoundly unrealistic. Not that that ever stopped a religion before, of course. You see, suffering is an intrinsic part of life itself. And not just human life, either. Any lifeform equipped with a somewhat functional neural network by the uncaring mechanisms of evolution is capable of experiencing pain, hunger and other hardships.

Yes, even the honey badger.

I don't think that either of you have even the slightest understanding of Buddhism necessary to properly criticise it, going by these posts.

You're entitled to that opinion, but the universe itself is not in a state of harmony.

[Neanderthaland]

That's an odd criticism of Buddhism. A religion entirely devoted to the pursuit of eliminating the suffering that it acknowledges permeates the world.

Sure sounds like a lofty goal, but it is profoundly unrealistic. Not that that ever stopped a religion before, of course. You see, suffering is an intrinsic part of life itself. And not just human life, either. Any lifeform equipped with a somewhat functional neural network by the uncaring mechanisms of evolution is capable of experiencing pain, hunger and other hardships.

Yes, even the honey badger.

I'm not saying Buddhists are right. I myself am a huge fan of desire and don't want to eliminate it.

But it's still odd to hear that Buddhists don't think the world has enough suffering in it, when the Buddhist view of the world could be haphazardly summarized as "this sucks, let's go."

[Nekostan-e Gharbi]

Sure sounds like a lofty goal, but it is profoundly unrealistic. Not that that ever stopped a religion before, of course. You see, suffering is an intrinsic part of life itself. And not just human life, either. Any lifeform equipped with a somewhat functional neural network by the uncaring mechanisms of evolution is capable of experiencing pain, hunger and other hardships.

Yes, even the honey badger.

I'm not saying Buddhists are right. I myself am a huge fan of desire and don't want to eliminate it.

But it's still odd to hear that Buddhists don't think the world has enough suffering in it, when the Buddhist view of the world could be haphazardly summarized as "this sucks, let's go."

I think Buddhists are right when they say “this sucks, let’s go”. However only in a nontheistic or Buddhist universe can they actually go. Where can one really go if some Abrahamic religion happens to be factually accurate? Even escape is really a luxury.

[Hurdergaryp]

Sure sounds like a lofty goal, but it is profoundly unrealistic. Not that that ever stopped a religion before, of course. You see, suffering is an intrinsic part of life itself. And not just human life, either. Any lifeform equipped with a somewhat functional neural network by the uncaring mechanisms of evolution is capable of experiencing pain, hunger and other hardships.

Yes, even the honey badger.

I'm not saying Buddhists are right. I myself am a huge fan of desire and don't want to eliminate it.

But it's still odd to hear that Buddhists don't think the world has enough suffering in it, when the Buddhist view of the world could be haphazardly summarized as "this sucks, let's go."

Desire pretty much comes with the genes, even mindless organisms instinctively go for basic tenets such as nourishment and procreation. That being said, Buddhism isn't saying that you should denounce all worldly desires and go fully ascetic.

[Neanderthaland]

I'm not saying Buddhists are right. I myself am a huge fan of desire and don't want to eliminate it.

But it's still odd to hear that Buddhists don't think the world has enough suffering in it, when the Buddhist view of the world could be haphazardly summarized as "this sucks, let's go."

I think Buddhists are right when they say “this sucks, let’s go”. However only in a nontheistic or Buddhist universe can they actually go. Where can one really go if some Abrahamic religion happens to be factually accurate? Even escape is really a luxury.

I think Buddhists probably assume that Buddhism is accurate? The idea of Saṃsāra, and that escape is in some sense possible, are core tenants of Buddhism. And I'm not sure you can really call yourself a Buddhist if you don't accept them to some degree.

Again, I'm not saying that Buddhists are right, I'm just saying that's not a particularly deft criticism of Buddhism.

Desire pretty much comes with the genes, even mindless organisms instinctively go for basic tenets such as nourishment and procreation. That being said, Buddhism isn't saying that you should denounce all worldly desires and go fully ascetic.

Again, I'm not saying that Buddhists are right, I'm just saying that's not a particularly deft criticism of Buddhism.

And, to be clear, that was explicitly stated to be a "haphazard" summary of Buddhism. I'm well aware of Buddhism's mixed feelings regarding asceticism.

[Hurdergaryp]

Sure sounds like a lofty goal, but it is profoundly unrealistic. Not that that ever stopped a religion before, of course. You see, suffering is an intrinsic part of life itself. And not just human life, either. Any lifeform equipped with a somewhat functional neural network by the uncaring mechanisms of evolution is capable of experiencing pain, hunger and other hardships.

Yes, even the honey badger.

I'm not saying Buddhists are right. I myself am a huge fan of desire and don't want to eliminate it.

But it's still odd to hear that Buddhists don't think the world has enough suffering in it, when the Buddhist view of the world could be haphazardly summarized as "this sucks, let's go."

It's a matter of interpretation, really. Perhaps Nekostan meant that the Buddhist definition of an ideal world is not brutal and cruel enough, but that would identify him as a spiritual sadist.

[Geneviev]

I'm sure they think God will forgive the people who don't get the joke. Otherwise, their belief would be even more nonsensical.

As opposed to only mildly nonsensical?

Exactly. I can't think of a nicer way to put it.

[Nekostan-e Gharbi]

I'm not saying Buddhists are right. I myself am a huge fan of desire and don't want to eliminate it.

But it's still odd to hear that Buddhists don't think the world has enough suffering in it, when the Buddhist view of the world could be haphazardly summarized as "this sucks, let's go."

It's a matter of interpretation, really. Perhaps Nekostan meant that the Buddhist definition of an ideal world is not brutal and cruel enough, but that would identify him as a spiritual sadist.

I’m not a spiritual sadist. Instead I’m just a realist. I hate the world but know that it is here to stay.

[Hurdergaryp]

As opposed to only mildly nonsensical?

Exactly. I can't think of a nicer way to put it.

Still the idea of the Creator being a trickster god is theologically troubling, for it would mean Jahweh is an alter ego of Loki.

[Neanderthaland]

It's a matter of interpretation, really. Perhaps Nekostan meant that the Buddhist definition of an ideal world is not brutal and cruel enough, but that would identify him as a spiritual sadist.

I’m not a spiritual sadist. Instead I’m just a realist. I hate the world but know that it is here to stay.

So there's an argument in religious circles about whether or not the world sucks. At the moment, the "it may have sucky elements, but it is like it is for a good reason" crowd is more dominant generally. But there's a strong undercurrent in religion that "this world is fundamentally terrible, and the best we can hope for is to escape it."

So your view is not antithetical to a lot of religions. You'd get along swimmingly with Gnostics and Manichaens. And you'd find plenty of support within the Indo-Buddhist tradition as well.


So as a catchall argument against religion, I don't think this is a good one. Better to simply point out that there's no particular reason to think that anything they say is actually true.

[Neanderthaland]

Exactly. I can't think of a nicer way to put it.

Still the idea of the Creator being a trickster god is theologically troubling, for it would mean Jahweh is an alter ego of Loki.

I'm mildly fond of some Amerindian traditions, in which one of the creator gods is literally a trickster Coyote.

It explains so much.

[Dunko]

Posadism

[Kor Pantaal]

Which religion is correct? Well... none of them are. They fecked up.

[Nekostan-e Gharbi]

I’m not a spiritual sadist. Instead I’m just a realist. I hate the world but know that it is here to stay.

So there's an argument in religious circles about whether or not the world sucks. At the moment, the "it may have sucky elements, but it is like it is for a good reason" crowd is more dominant generally. But there's a strong undercurrent in religion that "this world is fundamentally terrible, and the best we can hope for is to escape it."

So your view is not antithetical to a lot of religions. You'd get along swimmingly with Gnostics and Manichaens. And you'd find plenty of support within the Indo-Buddhist tradition as well.


So as a catchall argument against religion, I don't think this is a good one. Better to simply point out that there's no particular reason to think that anything they say is actually true.

Where is “this world is fundamentally horrible and there is not even an escape”?

[Hurdergaryp]

Still the idea of the Creator being a trickster god is theologically troubling, for it would mean Jahweh is an alter ego of Loki.

I'm mildly fond of some Amerindian traditions, in which one of the creator gods is literally a trickster Coyote.

It explains so much.

Since I'm flexible, I am perfectly willing to go with Jahweh actually being Coyote. It's all freestyle mythology to me.

[Neanderthaland]

So there's an argument in religious circles about whether or not the world sucks. At the moment, the "it may have sucky elements, but it is like it is for a good reason" crowd is more dominant generally. But there's a strong undercurrent in religion that "this world is fundamentally terrible, and the best we can hope for is to escape it."

So your view is not antithetical to a lot of religions. You'd get along swimmingly with Gnostics and Manichaens. And you'd find plenty of support within the Indo-Buddhist tradition as well.


So as a catchall argument against religion, I don't think this is a good one. Better to simply point out that there's no particular reason to think that anything they say is actually true.

Where is “this world is fundamentally horrible and there is not even an escape”?

Ia! Ia Dagon!

[Suriyanakhon]

That's an odd criticism of Buddhism. A religion entirely devoted to the pursuit of eliminating the suffering that it acknowledges permeates the world.

Sure sounds like a lofty goal, but it is profoundly unrealistic. Not that that ever stopped a religion before, of course. You see, suffering is an intrinsic part of life itself. And not just human life, either. Any lifeform equipped with a somewhat functional neural network by the uncaring mechanisms of evolution is capable of experiencing pain, hunger and other hardships.

Yes, even the honey badger.

No Buddhist claims that arhats don't experience pain if they're physically attacked or suffering from illness, but they maintain their inner calm in the face of it.

Now, the well-instructed disciple of the noble ones, when touched with a feeling of pain, does not sorrow, grieve, or lament, does not beat his breast or become distraught. So he feels one pain: physical, but not mental. Just as if they were to shoot a man with an arrow and, right afterward, did not shoot him with another one, so that he would feel the pain of only one arrow. In the same way, when touched with a feeling of pain, the well-instructed disciple of the noble ones does not sorrow, grieve, or lament, does not beat his breast or become distraught. He feels one pain: physical, but not mental.

[Nekostan-e Gharbi]

Where is “this world is fundamentally horrible and there is not even an escape”?

Ia! Ia Dagon!

?? What’s up with Dagon?

[Suriyanakhon]

If not Christianity, then Buddhism. As someone who's embarked on a self-improvement campaign this year, the monks' stoicism and wisdom is nothing short of mind blowing

A Buddhist world is not harsh enough.

There's suttas where the Buddha says that the number of tears and blood that one has shed throughout the cycle of tranmigration is literally more than all of the oceans put together because of how much the world is filled with loss and suffering. That seems extremely harsh, even more harsh than someone who believes that death is the end of mental experience (considering you would only lose your loved ones in one life, whereas here you have been losing them for googolplexes).

[Hurdergaryp]

Where is “this world is fundamentally horrible and there is not even an escape”?

Ia! Ia Dagon!

Say what you want, but the Deep Ones are truly blessed thanks to the direct connection they have to their god.