Why Don't Most People Criticize Other Than Christianity or Islam?? - Page 2

Leumas · 28th April 2012, 02:41 AM

Originally Posted by skepticalnotcynical

Anyway, on a totally different matter.

Does the Quran really mention that the universe was created in 6 days. I don't speak Arabic, but I tried to translate Surah Al-Arham, Ayat 54 using google translator. And I got 6 days. Plus, some Quran translations also mention it was accomplished in 6 days (but some just say 6 periods instead of 6 days). So, is anyone well-versed in this?? Need help, really impatient.

There is no such surah....perhaps if you give me the NUMBER of the surah I might help.... I think you might have misspelled the name of the surah.

However, there is Surah number 7 called Al A'raf Aya 54 which clearly says that God created the heavens and earth in SIX DAYS...the word used is Ayam (أيام).... which is plural for Yom (يوم) i.e. Day.... the exact same word in Hebrew (יום). The number given is Sitah (ستة) i.e. Six.

Originally Posted by Al A'raf

إِنَّ رَبَّكُمُ اللَّهُ الَّذِى خَلَقَ السَمَـوَتِ وَالاٌّرْضَ فِي سِتَّةِ أَيَّامٍ ثُمَّ اسْتَوَى عَلَى الْعَرْشِ

7:54 Indeed, your Lord is Allah, Who created the heavens and the earth in Six Days, and then He rose over (Istawa) the Throne.

Originally Posted by Genesis

וַיִּקְרָא אֱלֹהִים לָאוֹר יוֹם, וְלַחֹשֶׁךְ קָרָא לָיְלָה; וַיְהִי-עֶרֶב וַיְהִי-בֹקֶר, יוֹם אֶחָד

1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.

WilsonG · 28th April 2012, 04:47 AM

Originally Posted by skepticalnotcynical

For example, why don't skeptics criticize the Hindus or Buddhists?
(rarely get to see arguments on these, maybe it's because they take a more deeper philosophical approach??)

Any evidence in support of this supposition?

Enthusiastic young hindus are among the most abusive, dismissive religionists I've interacted with. And it was a buddhist who eventually asserted I was a "hate-mongering ****" for not acknowledging the alleged virtue of his religion.

So neither deep nor philosophical, in my experience.

Edited by LashL:

Edited to properly mask profanity. Please see Rule 10 re: the auto-censor.

Humes fork · 28th April 2012, 05:33 AM

Originally Posted by epepke

A book came out a few years ago pointing out that, to date, the most suicide bombers were Tamil Tigers. All of the folks that liked to tell people they are Islamophobes had a big cheer over that one. They didn't cheer for long, because shortly after the publication, Muslim suicide bombers had way overtaken them.

Of course, you'll see people saying that the Tamil Tigers really had nothing to do with Hinduism.

In a way I can understand why people refuse to blame Hindusim for the Tamil Tigers, as the Tamil Tigers was a secular group with a nationalist ideology. In the same way, one shouldn't blame Islam for the actions carried out by the PFLP as they don't have a religious ideology.

Bikewer · 28th April 2012, 07:00 AM

Me, I'm down on Druids. Oak trees, wicker men... Yechh.

Cainkane1 · 28th April 2012, 07:11 AM

Originally Posted by skepticalnotcynical

Why is it that most of us only criticizes Christianity and Islam? Why don't we start showing people from other faiths that they're also (possibly) wrong?

For example, why don't skeptics criticize the Hindus or Buddhists?
(rarely get to see arguments on these, maybe it's because they take a more deeper philosophical approach??)

Please show me where Hinduism is wrong? Or where Buddhism is mistaken?

And ummm, is there anyone here who understands Arabic?

Atheists do criticise those religions they just aren't as well represented in society as Islam or Xianity.

Cainkane1 · 28th April 2012, 07:14 AM

http://youtu.be/ho9Cy5pf3js

Humes fork · 28th April 2012, 07:24 AM

Originally Posted by JoeBentley

On a personal level I actually have less respect for New Ageism then for your standard traditional religions. With ye olde timey religion you can sorta see how it can be argued its hard to go against thousands of years of tradition. It's a lot harder to justify embracing Woo that was just up and invented a week ago Thursday and still has the price tag attached to it.

I completely agree with this judgement. Traditional religions with some history also tend to have a quasi-intellectual baggage with them (like Thomas Aquinas). New Age woo is lacking even that.

JoeBentley · 28th April 2012, 07:39 AM

That and religion (that is your old time traditional religions) usually use mysticism to justify themselves while new agey stuff usually use pseudoscience which I find inherently more dishonest.

Nether mysticism or pseudoscience are of any use intellectually, they are both just meaningless claptrap, but co-opting scientific words and phrases in order to steal some of science's respectability ads a liar of extra dishonesty to it.

So while neither mentalities are exactly on my good side if I had to rank them I would say I have ever so slightly more respect for "God Is unknowable entity outside the realm of science" meaningless drivel thought that it is then "You know dude maybe God is like, you know the quantum field surrounding the energy of collective consciousness, you know what I mean duuuuude."

HansMustermann · 28th April 2012, 09:35 AM

I think you're seeing a distinction just because you look at it through 21st century glasses, and have that distinction between mysticism and science. For people living in the year 100 CE, that distinction was very blurry at best, and if you look at 1000 BCE, nonexistent.

For example, as late as Augustine, pretty much there was no clear line between mathematics, astrology and what we now call astronomy. The same guys who could calculate the radius of the moon and the distance to Mars, and make a mechanism like the Antikitera one so you could navigate faster by the positions of the planets than hugging the shore around the Mediterranean, were also the guys who'd tell you to beware strangers bearing business proposals today because Mercury is in opposition to your zodiac sign. Which is why there is debate about that infamous quote of his, and exactly what DOES he warn against.

Or read Critias by Plato to see how he can't even talk about special equilateral polyhedra, without mingling it with the Gods and how they created humans. E.g., they started with the head, because it's round kinda like a sphere, and the sphere is the most perfect such polyhedron, when n->infinity

Or see Pythagoras, responsible for both some solid maths, and some hare-brained mystical numerology and, for that matter, theology.

And strictly speaking, we didn't even have a formal distinction before we had a scientific method. Which is very late.

When you put it in the context of how little a tribe of bronze age nomads knew, you realize that stuff like "And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven."... wasn't mystical at all. It was pseudo-science all along. They didn't think that that's a metaphor for some mystical distinction between the Earth and heaven, they said it as, literally, that's how it happened. That's why there's a sky above and why it's blue.

Or if you're not convinced we can know that's true, then just look at the beliefs of tribes around the world today, and how they do take such stuff literally. When IIRC Polynesian tribes believe that there are four windows in the sky, and winds blow based on which windows are left open (sorta like how you get a draft in your house if you leave two windows on different sides open

), and that certain rituals can cause some of those windows to open or close, they mean it very literally. It's not some mystical metaphor about the winds of change or whatever, but they literally believe they're under a dome with windows in it. It's their "science".

Or even among major religions in the 21st century, you only need to look at Buddhism, which was framed as some pseudo-science woowoo from day one. That karama and self vs non-self and the rest of the nonsense, wasn't as much mysticism, as supposed to be an objective explanation of reality. Heck, in the twelve-fold chain they even call you ignorant if you don't know that that's the explanation for reality.

But again, even that's applying modern day distinctions, because back then they had no notion of a separation between psychology, sociology, and religious woowoo. There was one big continuum of explanations for why stuff happens, and whoever has the more convincing sales pitch must be right. (Heck, even the Four Noble Truths is a sales pitch, where the handwaving and truisms in the first three set you up for the payload in number four: you need our religion.)

And all of those were as cutting edge as it gets, as science in those days went.

So basically if new age stuff goes on about crystals and quantum chi and nuclear resonances, while the ancient age stuff went on about gods parting waters, really, they're both doing the same thing. In the context of knowledge at that given time, both are posing for cutting-edge science.

JoeBentley · 28th April 2012, 09:40 AM

Originally Posted by HansMustermann

So basically if new age stuff goes on about crystals and quantum chi and nuclear resonances, while the ancient age stuff went on about gods parting waters, really, they're both doing the same thing. In the context of knowledge at that given time, both are posing for cutting-edge science.

Fair point, but it still just bugs me on a base level. I wish I could be more coherent, and when I get a chance I'll sit back and try to articulate exactly why, but it just does.

Craig B · 28th April 2012, 10:06 AM

Originally Posted by Humes fork

I completely agree with this judgement. Traditional religions with some history also tend to have a quasi-intellectual baggage with them (like Thomas Aquinas). New Age woo is lacking even that.

Quasi indeed. Here's Thomas telling us what fun the blessed saints will have in Heaven.

Quote:

In order that the happiness of the saints may be more delightful to them and that they may render more copious thanks to God for it, they are allowed to see perfectly the sufferings of the damned. . .So that they may be urged the more to praise God. . .The saints in heaven know distinctly all that happens. . .to the damned. [Summa Theologica, Third Part, Supplement, Question XCIV, "Of the Relations of the Saints Towards the Damned," First Article, "Whether the Blessed in Heaven Will See the Sufferings of the Damned".]

Makes woo look pretty good to me.

epepke · 28th April 2012, 10:40 AM

Originally Posted by Humes fork

In a way I can understand why people refuse to blame Hindusim for the Tamil Tigers, as the Tamil Tigers was a secular group with a nationalist ideology. In the same way, one shouldn't blame Islam for the actions carried out by the PFLP as they don't have a religious ideology.

A rather strange concept of "blame" you have there. It's as if you think that Hinduism is a person. OMG, better not "blame" it. It has rights! Aaaaaaiiieeeee!

This is always quite fascinating, as I'm pretty sure that the People's Front of Judaea, er, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine doesn't hesitate to make religious distinctions when these are to the flattery of Islam.

Craig B · 28th April 2012, 11:17 AM

Originally Posted by epepke

A rather strange concept of "blame" you have there. It's as if you think that Hinduism is a person. OMG, better not "blame" it. It has rights! Aaaaaaiiieeeee!

This is always quite fascinating, as I'm pretty sure that the People's Front of Judaea, er, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine doesn't hesitate to make religious distinctions when these are to the flattery of Islam.

On the other hand, it's not surprising that a secular resistance movement should arise in Palestine, given that the inhabitants of that country have suffered at the hands of a movement, Zionism, which does itself make "religious distinctions".

fuelair · 28th April 2012, 11:22 AM

Originally Posted by skepticalnotcynical

Why is it that most of us only criticizes Christianity and Islam? Why don't we start showing people from other faiths that they're also (possibly) wrong?

For example, why don't skeptics criticize the Hindus or Buddhists?
(rarely get to see arguments on these, maybe it's because they take a more deeper philosophical approach??)

Please show me where Hinduism is wrong? Or where Buddhism is mistaken?

And ummm, is there anyone here who understands Arabic?

As others have noted, because xtianity and Islam both have primitive believers who want to kill you if you disagree with them they are the big concern and need to have those members removed from my universe. The others that are problems just need to get over themselves.....

Humes fork · 28th April 2012, 12:12 PM

Originally Posted by JoeBentley

That and religion (that is your old time traditional religions) usually use mysticism to justify themselves while new agey stuff usually use pseudoscience which I find inherently more dishonest.

Nether mysticism or pseudoscience are of any use intellectually, they are both just meaningless claptrap, but co-opting scientific words and phrases in order to steal some of science's respectability ads a liar of extra dishonesty to it.

So while neither mentalities are exactly on my good side if I had to rank them I would say I have ever so slightly more respect for "God Is unknowable entity outside the realm of science" meaningless drivel thought that it is then "You know dude maybe God is like, you know the quantum field surrounding the energy of collective consciousness, you know what I mean duuuuude."

I agree with it, and I think many of the so-called sophisticated theologians (or even the non-sophisticated ones) are less deficient than woo-meisters. Deepak Chopra is among the worst, who will mix totally benign statements ("Jesus and Buddha were great teachers!") with unadultered nonsense spiced with scientific terms in order to package a product that appears to have the seal of approval that science gives (though he sometimes turn around and denounce "scientific materialism"). He keeps doing it because he can be pretty sure to get away with it, with rare exceptions.

Originally Posted by Craig B

Quasi indeed. Here's Thomas telling us what fun the blessed saints will have in Heaven.

Quote:

In order that the happiness of the saints may be more delightful to them and that they may render more copious thanks to God for it, they are allowed to see perfectly the sufferings of the damned. . .So that they may be urged the more to praise God. . .The saints in heaven know distinctly all that happens. . .to the damned. [Summa Theologica, Third Part, Supplement, Question XCIV, "Of the Relations of the Saints Towards the Damned," First Article, "Whether the Blessed in Heaven Will See the Sufferings of the Damned".]

Makes woo look pretty good to me.

It does. It is also more of a meaningless statement rather than a pseudoscientific one.

Originally Posted by epepke

A rather strange concept of "blame" you have there. It's as if you think that Hinduism is a person. OMG, better not "blame" it. It has rights! Aaaaaaiiieeeee!

This is always quite fascinating, as I'm pretty sure that the People's Front of Judaea, er, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine doesn't hesitate to make religious distinctions when these are to the flattery of Islam.

I don't see what the problem is. I have no problem blaming communism for the USSR and Maoist China. Ideas have consequences.

Leumas · 28th April 2012, 11:12 PM

Originally Posted by Craig B

On the other hand, it's not surprising that a secular resistance movement should arise in Palestine, given that the inhabitants of that country have suffered at the hands of a movement, Zionism, which does itself make "religious distinctions".

And because of "religious distinctions", Zionism gets major political and economic support with all the clout of the USA to continue on with their oppression and suppression of the Palestinians and anyone who dares to even expresses pity for them.

Craig4 · 29th April 2012, 06:50 AM

It's because where I live now and where I've lived in the past, Christianity and Islam invade public policy more than other religions. I suppose if I lived in a parts of the Northeast United States I'd criticize Judaism more (where I understand girls get spit on for not wearing traditional Ultra Orthodox clothing). If I lived in India I'd have a thing or two to say about Hinduism (though I might get burnt alive for it). It's not that I don't disapprove of Jewish or Hindi invasions into the public policy arena, it's just that I don't encounter them much.

For the record, I've spent a good deal of time in Africa and I have many things to say about animism, none of them nice.

autumn1971 · 29th April 2012, 05:33 PM

Quote:

It did breed such aberrations as the Tibetan idea that you gain/prove compassion by spinning a prayer wheel with a mantra of compassion written 50 times inside it, instead of going out and actually helping that peon dying of hunger and cold in the street.

I kid you not, today I saw a church sign that said "Stop trying harder, start praying harder"!
The failure to give a damn may not be such an "aberration".

HansMustermann · 29th April 2012, 06:02 PM

I'm not going to find that ok either, mind you. But I'd still say it's an even bigger aberration to

A) insist that the way to show compassion is to say a compassion mantra, instead of actually helping or giving to some charity. NO major Christian denomination that I know of has actually done such lame-ass semantics games. They may argue that faith is more important than works, but not find some way to redefine works to something pointless.

I mean, even that example says to pray harder, not that the way to try is to say their prayer. They don't redefine "try".

B) come up with something as stupid as writing a prayer 50 times on a piece of paper, put it in a cylinder you can spin around its axis, and say that it counts as 50 prayers per rotation. Like it's some kind of Gatling Gun of prayers. You know, make up for lack of quality by overkill quantity, and just make a (crude) machine to spam God at 6000 rounds per minute

ponderingturtle · 30th April 2012, 04:12 AM

Originally Posted by skepticalnotcynical

Well, I don't really know. That's why I asked for your help. Actually, what I've noticed is that the Hindu's and Buddhist's tend to have beliefs of arguments of a more deeper subject or hard for science to test kind of beliefs. Like they believe in reincarnation, karma, enlightenment etc. What annoys me is that criticizing the Abrahamic religions is easier, since they tend to believe in a more direct path. But in Hinduism, different people believe different things. They aren't any fixed dogmas.

Sorry Hokulele, I didn't check for Hinduism or Buddhism in the forum. But I definitely checked in the web and for debates in Youtube. But it was unsatisfactory. I assumed since it was hard to find in the internet, then probably there wasn't a good thread here. Plus, I'm new in this forum thing. Any advice is appreciated. Thanks.

By most of us, I meant simply us. Even the net isn't popular with debates on those religions.

Well yeah, Buddhism an Hinduism is more of a peaceful, non-intrusive religion. Nevertheless, there are pretty mean people out there. Like some on the Hindu practices are very cruel. For example, although the cow is sacred in Hinduism; in 2009, about 250 000 animals including cows were sacrificed during the Gandhimai festival in Nepal. Anyway, although those people are not somewhat fundamentalists; and most people favour criticizing the dominant religions, I still would like to plant a seed of doubt in them, so that they might be more rational and less superstitious. Plus, I simply picked Hinduism and Buddhism since they're just behind Islam and Christianity.

Well, although they might not 'appear' to do such things. It doesn't mean they don't. We can't just make hasty generalizations.

It is great at creating suicide bombers just look at the Tamil Tigers. But as they are not directed at the US they are easy to ignore or support, like all the politicians who supported the IRA.

ponderingturtle · 30th April 2012, 04:16 AM

Originally Posted by HansMustermann

I'm not going to find that ok either, mind you. But I'd still say it's an even bigger aberration to

A) insist that the way to show compassion is to say a compassion mantra, instead of actually helping or giving to some charity. NO major Christian denomination that I know of has actually done such lame-ass semantics games. They may argue that faith is more important than works, but not find some way to redefine works to something pointless.

I mean, even that example says to pray harder, not that the way to try is to say their prayer. They don't redefine "try".

B) come up with something as stupid as writing a prayer 50 times on a piece of paper, put it in a cylinder you can spin around its axis, and say that it counts as 50 prayers per rotation. Like it's some kind of Gatling Gun of prayers. You know, make up for lack of quality by overkill quantity, and just make a (crude) machine to spam God at 6000 rounds per minute

Hmm now if we mounted one on a motor spinning at say 10,000 rpm it would work even better.

eirik · 30th April 2012, 04:49 AM

Originally Posted by HansMustermann

The Quran is really Judaism III: The Last Prophet

With Christianity being Judaism II: Son Of God.

So, yeah, you'll find versions of the same silliness as in the OT in the Quran too. It's only to be expected, really.

I'm still waiting for someone to pull a George Lucas and make a prequel trilogy too

Oh, but Kaballah.. The prequel for Judaism.

Humes fork · 1st May 2012, 01:36 AM

Originally Posted by HansMustermann

I'm still waiting for someone to pull a George Lucas and make a prequel trilogy too

A prequel of sorts at least has existed.

Dancing David · 1st May 2012, 09:28 AM

Originally Posted by eirik

Oh, but Kaballah.. The prequel for Judaism.

More the sidebar

Jono · 4th May 2012, 05:30 AM

Originally Posted by eirik

Oh, but Kaballah.. The prequel for Judaism.

Prequel? Not really, more of an added rabbinical-woo-VIP addition well after the foundational and legal work of Judaism had been penned down six ways from sunday.

HansMustermann · 4th May 2012, 05:34 AM

I like to think of it as the Star Wars Holiday Special

eirik · 23rd May 2012, 07:04 AM

Originally Posted by Jono

Prequel? Not really, more of an added rabbinical-woo-VIP addition well after the foundational and legal work of Judaism had been penned down six ways from sunday.

I thought that was the definition of a prequel..?

Added on back dated nonsense.

Rufo · 23rd May 2012, 09:44 AM

I think once brought into the discussion, Hinduism can get harshly criticised here. It certainly has its share of despicable practices. I seeing people here denounce Ghandi for his religious beliefs (which clearly did have some negative consequences), so I think Hinduism would be shown no mercy if it was discussed to the same extent as Islam or Christianity.

It seems people are more inclined to cut Buddhism some slack, probably because it's easier to adopt as a philosophy without believing in anything supernatural. The fact that it doesn't necessarily feature gods saves it from knee-jerk responses from atheists, although supernatural elements feature heavily in most versions.

Originally Posted by HansMustermann

The Quran is really Judaism III: The Last Prophet

With Christianity being Judaism II: Son Of God.

So, yeah, you'll find versions of the same silliness as in the OT in the Quran too. It's only to be expected, really.

I'm still waiting for someone to pull a George Lucas and make a prequel trilogy too

I think gnosticism fits the bill. Explores God's angsty backstory and turn to evil, introduces new, complex explanations for everything and alienated almost the whole fandom. Extra prequel points for "main character was actually the villain all along" plot twist.

Piscivore · 23rd May 2012, 10:01 AM

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

Hmm now if we mounted one on a motor spinning at say 10,000 rpm it would work even better.

Back when I was a woo, I planned to put prayers (for safety, mostly) inside the wheel rims of my first Bus.

Craig B · 24th May 2012, 08:42 PM

Originally Posted by Piscivore

Back when I was a woo, I planned to put prayers (for safety, mostly) inside the wheel rims of my first Bus.

Good idea. The local bus driver here (in a village in central Italy) uses a picture of Padre Pio for this purpose in his vehicle. We could compare the safety records of the two buses, and decide whether rotating prayers, or those offered to a newspaper photo of a bleeding saint, are the more efficacious.

Susheel · 24th May 2012, 11:05 PM

Originally Posted by Rufo

I think once brought into the discussion, Hinduism can get harshly criticised here...

Actually, in India there are a lot of progressives and left leaning types such as myself who spend a lot of time critiquing Hinduism. We have our version of the American Republican Party that has home grown Hindu fundamentalist hoo-haas.

Apart from me, born a Hindu but identifying as an atheist who has chipped in on some discussions on Hinduism primarily to clear a point, I do remember there were a couple of posters who tried to spread the Hindu "word" who ultimately decided that they didn't want to play any more and took their ball and went home.

For a critique of Hinduism in India? Some seminal books would be:

"Annihilation of Caste" by B. R. Ambedkar (in fact a lot of his works critiqued Hinduism. He was also the author of India's constitution, though the final product was heavily diluted by vested interests. You can start at his wiki page for a good source of his works)

"Why I am not a Hindu" by Kancha Iliah (pr. I-lie-ya)
"Khaki Shorts and Saffron Flags" by Tapan basu et al

HansMustermann · 25th May 2012, 12:13 AM

Originally Posted by Rufo

It seems people are more inclined to cut Buddhism some slack, probably because it's easier to adopt as a philosophy without believing in anything supernatural. The fact that it doesn't necessarily feature gods saves it from knee-jerk responses from atheists, although supernatural elements feature heavily in most versions.

Actually, as I was saying, it's also that Buddhism doesn't make itself as big a target. Most cases where Buddhism comes up are when some woowoo is peddled as ancient wisdom of some Buddhist monks or such. But otherwise it's one religion which pretty much is incompatible with the get-go with having some kind of Buddhist Inquisition, or with flying an airplane into a building for the glory of Buddha, AND which won't want its own creationism or doomsday taught in schools because it has none. The Buddha proclaimed those as irrelevant. In fact, it's even ok with belief in other gods or spirits. Depending on the sect, it's not necessarily seen as the most enlightened way to go about things, to be sure, but nevertheless there's no commandment against dealing with infidels or reward promised for blowing them up for being the wrong religion.

So, you know, even while having a harsh opinion of its woowoo, it doesn't really offer itself as a target that often. You just don't get threads like "Buddhists display the 4 noble truths and 8-fold noble path in front of a courthouse" or "Buddhist think-tank wants karma taught in schools" or "Buddhist guru calls for jihad against the infidels" or such, to get to post a snarky remark about it. One would pretty much have to go around starting threads against Buddhism, which tends to come across as a bit obsessed

Jono · 25th May 2012, 04:11 AM

Originally Posted by eirik

I thought that was the definition of a prequel..?

Added on back dated nonsense.

"New Age/Mysticism"-appendix imo.

GreyArea · 30th May 2012, 08:22 PM

Regarding Hinduism, Meera Nanda has a recent book called The God Market: How Globalization Is Making India More Hindu. It's an updated, U.S. edition of a book she published in India in 2009. Richard Carrier reviewed it today at FreethoughtBlogs.

He notes what many in this thread have said, that Hinduism doesn't have much of an influence or presence in the West. But that could change.

Quote:

It’s not an urgent threat in America, to be sure (Hinduism’s numbers and influence are microscopic compared to the more pressing problems created by conservative and mainstream Christianity; and, among external threats, Islam), but the power and influence of India, economically and politically, is of growing significance, and its policies are increasingly influenced by Hinduism. We’d do well to keep our eye on it.

He also said something else which may be of interest to people reading this thread. I've seen a lot of folks talking about religion's official texts and dogma. But when it comes to these less-common religions, we tend not to know much about how the religions are actually lived. That's a whole dimension that is often missed.

Quote:

But what I found most useful of all is the picture I saw throughout of what actual, contemporary Hinduism is and is like (and how it has changed, and is changing). This is not the distilled and “romanticized” Hinduism you read about or get taught even in college world religions courses.
...
Nanda’s book ... fills us in on all the realities of contemporary Hindu practice and thought, and thus instead of having some academic notion of what Hinduism is (which is largely outdated and, as with Christianity, was never really an accurate picture of the “religion on the ground” anyway), you will have a better idea of what most Hindus now actually think, believe, and do; how Hinduism actually impacts the lives of its adherents and how they make use of Hindu ideas and institutions in their daily lives. You will thus have a much better understanding of what Hinduism now actually is, and what sorts of beliefs and nonsense we may find ourselves confronting one day, and of course what we are already indirectly confronting, in the way we as a nation cooperate and trade with India (oblivious to the role Hinduism is actually playing in that).

It sounds interesting.

And I'd like to thank Susheel for their comment and recommendations, as well.

Darth Rotor · 30th May 2012, 08:28 PM

Tim, regarding "in your face" you may have forgotten the Hari Krishna's at airports, when we were all a bit younger ...

As to the OP, the short answer is:

1. Familiarity breeds contempt
2. Criticizin Judaism seems to get one charged (incorrectly) with anti Semitism too often to make it worth anyone's time to bother, but I have found during a lot of discussion and criticism here that as one delves further back into the Bible, as source material, plenty of criticism and mockery is made of that religion being carried forward into the present day.

Humes fork · 31st May 2012, 10:27 AM

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

2. Criticizin Judaism seems to get one charged (incorrectly) with anti Semitism too often to make it worth anyone's time to bother, but I have found during a lot of discussion and criticism here that as one delves further back into the Bible, as source material, plenty of criticism and mockery is made of that religion being carried forward into the present day.

Speaking of it, here is a pretty damning critique of Orthodox Judaism by a Jewish atheist (former Jewish fundamentalist):

Genealogical Saga of Judaism

What makes Judaism a bit tricky is that it is not only a religion, but a culture and ethnic group too. It's possible to be culturally and ethnically Jewish while not believing in the religious tenets of Judaism. There are plenty of Israeli atheists, and in Israel there a sometimes severe tensions between religious and secular Jews (or rather, the former want to impose their views on the latter).

Craig4 · 31st May 2012, 11:40 AM

Originally Posted by Rufo

I think once brought into the discussion, Hinduism can get harshly criticised here. It certainly has its share of despicable practices. I seeing people here denounce Ghandi for his religious beliefs (which clearly did have some negative consequences), so I think Hinduism would be shown no mercy if it was discussed to the same extent as Islam or Christianity.

It seems people are more inclined to cut Buddhism some slack, probably because it's easier to adopt as a philosophy without believing in anything supernatural. The fact that it doesn't necessarily feature gods saves it from knee-jerk responses from atheists, although supernatural elements feature heavily in most versions.

I think gnosticism fits the bill. Explores God's angsty backstory and turn to evil, introduces new, complex explanations for everything and alienated almost the whole fandom. Extra prequel points for "main character was actually the villain all along" plot twist.

This thread, among other things got me interested in looking and Hinduism. Holy ****, that religion is as ********** up as a football bat. I knew about untouchables but the whole area of anti other religion violence- What the ****??? That's a religion that needs to go the way of the dinosaurs.

Humes fork · 31st May 2012, 11:57 AM

Originally Posted by Craig4

This thread, among other things got me interested in looking and Hinduism. Holy ****, that religion is as ********** up as a football bat. I knew about untouchables but the whole area of anti other religion violence- What the ****??? That's a religion that needs to go the way of the dinosaurs.

Yes, Hinduism institutionalizes apartheid. But as well all know, if it's religiously based it must not be questioned.

Dog Breakfast · 1st June 2012, 07:59 PM

I've gotten into one of those long conversations with a Catholic friend, and I've been using the Hindu Milk miracle (http://milkmiracle.com/) as an example of a religious claim he could find totally nuts. Just for the record, The milk miracle occured in 1995, when thousands and thousands of Hindus on several continents claimed to see statues of Ganesh, as well as some others in the Hindu pantheon, drinking milk that was offered to them.

It's interesting for me to watch a Catholic skepticking out on that religious claim, bringing up such reasonable possibilities as capillary action and surface tension, while in the next sentence saying that the thousands of miracles the Catholic Church claims happened are all incontrovertible.

However, he never wondered whether people just said they saw the statues drinking milk, or were caught up in a religious fervor that was literally intercontinental. In fact, he said he wouldn't rule out a supernatural explanation of the milk miracle.

I guess my point is that people do criticize Hinduism. Christianity and Islam are just the two largest religions, so there are more people whose beliefs are there to be criticized.

28th April 2012, 02:41 AM	#41
Leumas Master Poster Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 2,493	Originally Posted by skepticalnotcynical Anyway, on a totally different matter. Does the Quran really mention that the universe was created in 6 days. I don't speak Arabic, but I tried to translate Surah Al-Arham, Ayat 54 using google translator. And I got 6 days. Plus, some Quran translations also mention it was accomplished in 6 days (but some just say 6 periods instead of 6 days). So, is anyone well-versed in this?? Need help, really impatient. There is no such surah....perhaps if you give me the NUMBER of the surah I might help.... I think you might have misspelled the name of the surah. However, there is Surah number 7 called Al A'raf Aya 54 which clearly says that God created the heavens and earth in SIX DAYS...the word used is Ayam (أيام).... which is plural for Yom (يوم) i.e. Day.... the exact same word in Hebrew (יום). The number given is Sitah (ستة) i.e. Six. Originally Posted by Al A'raf إِنَّ رَبَّكُمُ اللَّهُ الَّذِى خَلَقَ السَمَـوَتِ وَالاٌّرْضَ فِي سِتَّةِ أَيَّامٍ ثُمَّ اسْتَوَى عَلَى الْعَرْشِ 7:54 Indeed, your Lord is Allah, Who created the heavens and the earth in Six Days, and then He rose over (Istawa) the Throne. Originally Posted by Genesis וַיִּקְרָא אֱלֹהִים לָאוֹר יוֹם, וְלַחֹשֶׁךְ קָרָא לָיְלָה; וַיְהִי-עֶרֶב וַיְהִי-בֹקֶר, יוֹם אֶחָד 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.
Leumas Master Poster Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 2,493	__________________ "I don't know if God exists, but it would be better for his reputation if he didn't." - Jules Renard "In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection of his own." - Thomas Jefferson Last edited by Leumas; 28th April 2012 at 04:06 AM.

28th April 2012, 05:33 AM	#43
Humes fork Master Poster Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Sweden Posts: 2,357	Originally Posted by epepke A book came out a few years ago pointing out that, to date, the most suicide bombers were Tamil Tigers. All of the folks that liked to tell people they are Islamophobes had a big cheer over that one. They didn't cheer for long, because shortly after the publication, Muslim suicide bombers had way overtaken them. Of course, you'll see people saying that the Tamil Tigers really had nothing to do with Hinduism. In a way I can understand why people refuse to blame Hindusim for the Tamil Tigers, as the Tamil Tigers was a secular group with a nationalist ideology. In the same way, one shouldn't blame Islam for the actions carried out by the PFLP as they don't have a religious ideology.
	__________________ "Faith is the surrender of the mind; it’s the surrender of reason, it’s the surrender of the only thing that makes us different from other mammals. It’s our need to believe, and to surrender our skepticism and our reason, our yearning to discard that and put all our trust or faith in someone or something, that is the sinister thing to me. Of all the supposed virtues, faith must be the most overrated." - Christopher Hitchens

28th April 2012, 07:11 AM	#45
Cainkane1 Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: The great American southeast Posts: 7,198	Originally Posted by skepticalnotcynical Why is it that most of us only criticizes Christianity and Islam? Why don't we start showing people from other faiths that they're also (possibly) wrong? For example, why don't skeptics criticize the Hindus or Buddhists? (rarely get to see arguments on these, maybe it's because they take a more deeper philosophical approach??) Please show me where Hinduism is wrong? Or where Buddhism is mistaken? And ummm, is there anyone here who understands Arabic? Atheists do criticise those religions they just aren't as well represented in society as Islam or Xianity.
	__________________ If at first you don't succeed try try again. Then if you fail to succeed to Hell with that. Try something else.

28th April 2012, 07:14 AM	#46
Cainkane1 Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: The great American southeast Posts: 7,198	http://youtu.be/ho9Cy5pf3js
	__________________ If at first you don't succeed try try again. Then if you fail to succeed to Hell with that. Try something else.

28th April 2012, 07:24 AM	#47
Humes fork Master Poster Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Sweden Posts: 2,357	Originally Posted by JoeBentley On a personal level I actually have less respect for New Ageism then for your standard traditional religions. With ye olde timey religion you can sorta see how it can be argued its hard to go against thousands of years of tradition. It's a lot harder to justify embracing Woo that was just up and invented a week ago Thursday and still has the price tag attached to it. I completely agree with this judgement. Traditional religions with some history also tend to have a quasi-intellectual baggage with them (like Thomas Aquinas). New Age woo is lacking even that.
	__________________ "Faith is the surrender of the mind; it’s the surrender of reason, it’s the surrender of the only thing that makes us different from other mammals. It’s our need to believe, and to surrender our skepticism and our reason, our yearning to discard that and put all our trust or faith in someone or something, that is the sinister thing to me. Of all the supposed virtues, faith must be the most overrated." - Christopher Hitchens

28th April 2012, 07:00 AM	#44
Bikewer Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: St. Louis, Mo. Posts: 9,528	Me, I'm down on Druids. Oak trees, wicker men... Yechh.

28th April 2012, 07:39 AM	#48
JoeBentley Self Employed Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Norfolk, VA Posts: 1,764	That and religion (that is your old time traditional religions) usually use mysticism to justify themselves while new agey stuff usually use pseudoscience which I find inherently more dishonest. Nether mysticism or pseudoscience are of any use intellectually, they are both just meaningless claptrap, but co-opting scientific words and phrases in order to steal some of science's respectability ads a liar of extra dishonesty to it. So while neither mentalities are exactly on my good side if I had to rank them I would say I have ever so slightly more respect for "God Is unknowable entity outside the realm of science" meaningless drivel thought that it is then "You know dude maybe God is like, you know the quantum field surrounding the energy of collective consciousness, you know what I mean duuuuude."
	__________________ - Opinions require evidence and no before you ask defining something as "Something doesn't require evidence" doesn't count. - In extreme cases continuing to be wrong when you've been repeatedly proven to be wrong is a form of rudeness. - Major in philosophy. That way you can also ask people "why" they would like fries would that. Last edited by JoeBentley; 28th April 2012 at 07:41 AM.

28th April 2012, 09:35 AM	#49
HansMustermann Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 9,846	I think you're seeing a distinction just because you look at it through 21st century glasses, and have that distinction between mysticism and science. For people living in the year 100 CE, that distinction was very blurry at best, and if you look at 1000 BCE, nonexistent. For example, as late as Augustine, pretty much there was no clear line between mathematics, astrology and what we now call astronomy. The same guys who could calculate the radius of the moon and the distance to Mars, and make a mechanism like the Antikitera one so you could navigate faster by the positions of the planets than hugging the shore around the Mediterranean, were also the guys who'd tell you to beware strangers bearing business proposals today because Mercury is in opposition to your zodiac sign. Which is why there is debate about that infamous quote of his, and exactly what DOES he warn against. Or read Critias by Plato to see how he can't even talk about special equilateral polyhedra, without mingling it with the Gods and how they created humans. E.g., they started with the head, because it's round kinda like a sphere, and the sphere is the most perfect such polyhedron, when n->infinity Or see Pythagoras, responsible for both some solid maths, and some hare-brained mystical numerology and, for that matter, theology. And strictly speaking, we didn't even have a formal distinction before we had a scientific method. Which is very late. When you put it in the context of how little a tribe of bronze age nomads knew, you realize that stuff like "And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven."... wasn't mystical at all. It was pseudo-science all along. They didn't think that that's a metaphor for some mystical distinction between the Earth and heaven, they said it as, literally, that's how it happened. That's why there's a sky above and why it's blue. Or if you're not convinced we can know that's true, then just look at the beliefs of tribes around the world today, and how they do take such stuff literally. When IIRC Polynesian tribes believe that there are four windows in the sky, and winds blow based on which windows are left open (sorta like how you get a draft in your house if you leave two windows on different sides open), and that certain rituals can cause some of those windows to open or close, they mean it very literally. It's not some mystical metaphor about the winds of change or whatever, but they literally believe they're under a dome with windows in it. It's their "science". Or even among major religions in the 21st century, you only need to look at Buddhism, which was framed as some pseudo-science woowoo from day one. That karama and self vs non-self and the rest of the nonsense, wasn't as much mysticism, as supposed to be an objective explanation of reality. Heck, in the twelve-fold chain they even call you ignorant if you don't know that that's the explanation for reality. But again, even that's applying modern day distinctions, because back then they had no notion of a separation between psychology, sociology, and religious woowoo. There was one big continuum of explanations for why stuff happens, and whoever has the more convincing sales pitch must be right. (Heck, even the Four Noble Truths is a sales pitch, where the handwaving and truisms in the first three set you up for the payload in number four: you need our religion.) And all of those were as cutting edge as it gets, as science in those days went. So basically if new age stuff goes on about crystals and quantum chi and nuclear resonances, while the ancient age stuff went on about gods parting waters, really, they're both doing the same thing. In the context of knowledge at that given time, both are posing for cutting-edge science.

28th April 2012, 09:40 AM	#50
JoeBentley Self Employed Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Norfolk, VA Posts: 1,764	Originally Posted by HansMustermann So basically if new age stuff goes on about crystals and quantum chi and nuclear resonances, while the ancient age stuff went on about gods parting waters, really, they're both doing the same thing. In the context of knowledge at that given time, both are posing for cutting-edge science. Fair point, but it still just bugs me on a base level. I wish I could be more coherent, and when I get a chance I'll sit back and try to articulate exactly why, but it just does.
	__________________ - Opinions require evidence and no before you ask defining something as "Something doesn't require evidence" doesn't count. - In extreme cases continuing to be wrong when you've been repeatedly proven to be wrong is a form of rudeness. - Major in philosophy. That way you can also ask people "why" they would like fries would that.

28th April 2012, 10:06 AM	#51
Craig B Illuminator Join Date: May 2011 Posts: 3,939	Originally Posted by Humes fork I completely agree with this judgement. Traditional religions with some history also tend to have a quasi-intellectual baggage with them (like Thomas Aquinas). New Age woo is lacking even that. Quasi indeed. Here's Thomas telling us what fun the blessed saints will have in Heaven. Quote: In order that the happiness of the saints may be more delightful to them and that they may render more copious thanks to God for it, they are allowed to see perfectly the sufferings of the damned. . .So that they may be urged the more to praise God. . .The saints in heaven know distinctly all that happens. . .to the damned. [Summa Theologica, Third Part, Supplement, Question XCIV, "Of the Relations of the Saints Towards the Damned," First Article, "Whether the Blessed in Heaven Will See the Sufferings of the Damned".] Makes woo look pretty good to me.
Craig B Illuminator Join Date: May 2011 Posts: 3,939

28th April 2012, 10:40 AM	#52
epepke Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 7,950	Originally Posted by Humes fork In a way I can understand why people refuse to blame Hindusim for the Tamil Tigers, as the Tamil Tigers was a secular group with a nationalist ideology. In the same way, one shouldn't blame Islam for the actions carried out by the PFLP as they don't have a religious ideology. A rather strange concept of "blame" you have there. It's as if you think that Hinduism is a person. OMG, better not "blame" it. It has rights! Aaaaaaiiieeeee! This is always quite fascinating, as I'm pretty sure that the People's Front of Judaea, er, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine doesn't hesitate to make religious distinctions when these are to the flattery of Islam.
epepke Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 7,950	__________________ "It probably came from a sticky dark planet far, far away." - Godzilla versus Hedora "There's no evidence that the 9-11 attacks (whoever did them) were deliberately attacking civilians. On the contrary the targets appear to have been chosen as military." -DavidByron

28th April 2012, 11:17 AM	#53
Craig B Illuminator Join Date: May 2011 Posts: 3,939	Originally Posted by epepke A rather strange concept of "blame" you have there. It's as if you think that Hinduism is a person. OMG, better not "blame" it. It has rights! Aaaaaaiiieeeee! This is always quite fascinating, as I'm pretty sure that the People's Front of Judaea, er, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine doesn't hesitate to make religious distinctions when these are to the flattery of Islam. On the other hand, it's not surprising that a secular resistance movement should arise in Palestine, given that the inhabitants of that country have suffered at the hands of a movement, Zionism, which does itself make "religious distinctions".
Craig B Illuminator Join Date: May 2011 Posts: 3,939

28th April 2012, 11:22 AM	#54
fuelair Cythraul Enfys Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 28,947	Originally Posted by skepticalnotcynical Why is it that most of us only criticizes Christianity and Islam? Why don't we start showing people from other faiths that they're also (possibly) wrong? For example, why don't skeptics criticize the Hindus or Buddhists? (rarely get to see arguments on these, maybe it's because they take a more deeper philosophical approach??) Please show me where Hinduism is wrong? Or where Buddhism is mistaken? And ummm, is there anyone here who understands Arabic? As others have noted, because xtianity and Islam both have primitive believers who want to kill you if you disagree with them they are the big concern and need to have those members removed from my universe. The others that are problems just need to get over themselves.....
fuelair Cythraul Enfys Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 28,947	__________________ There is no problem so great that it cannot be fixed by small explosives carefully placed. Wash this space! We fight for the Lady Babylon!!!

28th April 2012, 12:12 PM	#55
Humes fork Master Poster Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Sweden Posts: 2,357	Originally Posted by JoeBentley That and religion (that is your old time traditional religions) usually use mysticism to justify themselves while new agey stuff usually use pseudoscience which I find inherently more dishonest. Nether mysticism or pseudoscience are of any use intellectually, they are both just meaningless claptrap, but co-opting scientific words and phrases in order to steal some of science's respectability ads a liar of extra dishonesty to it. So while neither mentalities are exactly on my good side if I had to rank them I would say I have ever so slightly more respect for "God Is unknowable entity outside the realm of science" meaningless drivel thought that it is then "You know dude maybe God is like, you know the quantum field surrounding the energy of collective consciousness, you know what I mean duuuuude." I agree with it, and I think many of the so-called sophisticated theologians (or even the non-sophisticated ones) are less deficient than woo-meisters. Deepak Chopra is among the worst, who will mix totally benign statements ("Jesus and Buddha were great teachers!") with unadultered nonsense spiced with scientific terms in order to package a product that appears to have the seal of approval that science gives (though he sometimes turn around and denounce "scientific materialism"). He keeps doing it because he can be pretty sure to get away with it, with rare exceptions. Originally Posted by Craig B Quasi indeed. Here's Thomas telling us what fun the blessed saints will have in Heaven. Quote: In order that the happiness of the saints may be more delightful to them and that they may render more copious thanks to God for it, they are allowed to see perfectly the sufferings of the damned. . .So that they may be urged the more to praise God. . .The saints in heaven know distinctly all that happens. . .to the damned. [Summa Theologica, Third Part, Supplement, Question XCIV, "Of the Relations of the Saints Towards the Damned," First Article, "Whether the Blessed in Heaven Will See the Sufferings of the Damned".] Makes woo look pretty good to me. It does. It is also more of a meaningless statement rather than a pseudoscientific one. Originally Posted by epepke A rather strange concept of "blame" you have there. It's as if you think that Hinduism is a person. OMG, better not "blame" it. It has rights! Aaaaaaiiieeeee! This is always quite fascinating, as I'm pretty sure that the People's Front of Judaea, er, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine doesn't hesitate to make religious distinctions when these are to the flattery of Islam. I don't see what the problem is. I have no problem blaming communism for the USSR and Maoist China. Ideas have consequences.
	__________________ "Faith is the surrender of the mind; it’s the surrender of reason, it’s the surrender of the only thing that makes us different from other mammals. It’s our need to believe, and to surrender our skepticism and our reason, our yearning to discard that and put all our trust or faith in someone or something, that is the sinister thing to me. Of all the supposed virtues, faith must be the most overrated." - Christopher Hitchens

28th April 2012, 11:12 PM	#56
Leumas Master Poster Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 2,493	Originally Posted by Craig B On the other hand, it's not surprising that a secular resistance movement should arise in Palestine, given that the inhabitants of that country have suffered at the hands of a movement, Zionism, which does itself make "religious distinctions". And because of "religious distinctions", Zionism gets major political and economic support with all the clout of the USA to continue on with their oppression and suppression of the Palestinians and anyone who dares to even expresses pity for them.
Leumas Master Poster Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 2,493	__________________ "I don't know if God exists, but it would be better for his reputation if he didn't." - Jules Renard "In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection of his own." - Thomas Jefferson Last edited by Leumas; 29th April 2012 at 12:50 AM.

29th April 2012, 06:50 AM	#57
Craig4 Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 5,363	It's because where I live now and where I've lived in the past, Christianity and Islam invade public policy more than other religions. I suppose if I lived in a parts of the Northeast United States I'd criticize Judaism more (where I understand girls get spit on for not wearing traditional Ultra Orthodox clothing). If I lived in India I'd have a thing or two to say about Hinduism (though I might get burnt alive for it). It's not that I don't disapprove of Jewish or Hindi invasions into the public policy arena, it's just that I don't encounter them much. For the record, I've spent a good deal of time in Africa and I have many things to say about animism, none of them nice.
Craig4 Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 5,363

29th April 2012, 05:33 PM	#58
autumn1971 Graduate Poster Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 1,454	Quote: It did breed such aberrations as the Tibetan idea that you gain/prove compassion by spinning a prayer wheel with a mantra of compassion written 50 times inside it, instead of going out and actually helping that peon dying of hunger and cold in the street. I kid you not, today I saw a church sign that said "Stop trying harder, start praying harder"! The failure to give a damn may not be such an "aberration".
	__________________ 'A knave; a rascal; an eater of broken meats; a base, proud, shallow, beggardly, three-suited, hundred-pound, filthy, worsted-stocking knave; a lily-livered, action-taking knave, a whoreson, glass-gazing, superservicable, finical rogue;... the son and heir of a mongral bitch: one whom I will beat into clamorous whining, if thou deniest the least syllable of thy addition."' -The Bard

29th April 2012, 06:02 PM	#59
HansMustermann Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 9,846	I'm not going to find that ok either, mind you. But I'd still say it's an even bigger aberration to A) insist that the way to show compassion is to say a compassion mantra, instead of actually helping or giving to some charity. NO major Christian denomination that I know of has actually done such lame-ass semantics games. They may argue that faith is more important than works, but not find some way to redefine works to something pointless. I mean, even that example says to pray harder, not that the way to try is to say their prayer. They don't redefine "try". B) come up with something as stupid as writing a prayer 50 times on a piece of paper, put it in a cylinder you can spin around its axis, and say that it counts as 50 prayers per rotation. Like it's some kind of Gatling Gun of prayers. You know, make up for lack of quality by overkill quantity, and just make a (crude) machine to spam God at 6000 rounds per minute

30th April 2012, 04:12 AM	#60
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Tarrytown, NY Posts: 26,425	Originally Posted by skepticalnotcynical Well, I don't really know. That's why I asked for your help. Actually, what I've noticed is that the Hindu's and Buddhist's tend to have beliefs of arguments of a more deeper subject or hard for science to test kind of beliefs. Like they believe in reincarnation, karma, enlightenment etc. What annoys me is that criticizing the Abrahamic religions is easier, since they tend to believe in a more direct path. But in Hinduism, different people believe different things. They aren't any fixed dogmas. Sorry Hokulele, I didn't check for Hinduism or Buddhism in the forum. But I definitely checked in the web and for debates in Youtube. But it was unsatisfactory. I assumed since it was hard to find in the internet, then probably there wasn't a good thread here. Plus, I'm new in this forum thing. Any advice is appreciated. Thanks. By most of us, I meant simply us. Even the net isn't popular with debates on those religions. Well yeah, Buddhism an Hinduism is more of a peaceful, non-intrusive religion. Nevertheless, there are pretty mean people out there. Like some on the Hindu practices are very cruel. For example, although the cow is sacred in Hinduism; in 2009, about 250 000 animals including cows were sacrificed during the Gandhimai festival in Nepal. Anyway, although those people are not somewhat fundamentalists; and most people favour criticizing the dominant religions, I still would like to plant a seed of doubt in them, so that they might be more rational and less superstitious. Plus, I simply picked Hinduism and Buddhism since they're just behind Islam and Christianity. Well, although they might not 'appear' to do such things. It doesn't mean they don't. We can't just make hasty generalizations. It is great at creating suicide bombers just look at the Tamil Tigers. But as they are not directed at the US they are easy to ignore or support, like all the politicians who supported the IRA.
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

30th April 2012, 04:16 AM	#61
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Tarrytown, NY Posts: 26,425	Originally Posted by HansMustermann I'm not going to find that ok either, mind you. But I'd still say it's an even bigger aberration to A) insist that the way to show compassion is to say a compassion mantra, instead of actually helping or giving to some charity. NO major Christian denomination that I know of has actually done such lame-ass semantics games. They may argue that faith is more important than works, but not find some way to redefine works to something pointless. I mean, even that example says to pray harder, not that the way to try is to say their prayer. They don't redefine "try". B) come up with something as stupid as writing a prayer 50 times on a piece of paper, put it in a cylinder you can spin around its axis, and say that it counts as 50 prayers per rotation. Like it's some kind of Gatling Gun of prayers. You know, make up for lack of quality by overkill quantity, and just make a (crude) machine to spam God at 6000 rounds per minute Hmm now if we mounted one on a motor spinning at say 10,000 rpm it would work even better.
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

30th April 2012, 04:49 AM	#62
eirik Critical Thinker Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: norway Posts: 493	Originally Posted by HansMustermann The Quran is really Judaism III: The Last Prophet With Christianity being Judaism II: Son Of God. So, yeah, you'll find versions of the same silliness as in the OT in the Quran too. It's only to be expected, really. I'm still waiting for someone to pull a George Lucas and make a prequel trilogy too Oh, but Kaballah.. The prequel for Judaism.
	__________________ "I do not believe in the immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern without any superhuman authority behind it." -Albert Einstein

1st May 2012, 01:36 AM	#63
Humes fork Master Poster Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Sweden Posts: 2,357	Originally Posted by HansMustermann I'm still waiting for someone to pull a George Lucas and make a prequel trilogy too A prequel of sorts at least has existed.
	__________________ "Faith is the surrender of the mind; it’s the surrender of reason, it’s the surrender of the only thing that makes us different from other mammals. It’s our need to believe, and to surrender our skepticism and our reason, our yearning to discard that and put all our trust or faith in someone or something, that is the sinister thing to me. Of all the supposed virtues, faith must be the most overrated." - Christopher Hitchens

1st May 2012, 09:28 AM	#64
Dancing David Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Central Illinois Posts: 34,711	Originally Posted by eirik Oh, but Kaballah.. The prequel for Judaism. More the sidebar
	__________________ Hell, dynamiting fish in a barrel is more challenging. - Ladewig I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager

4th May 2012, 05:30 AM	#65
Jono Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Sweden Posts: 1,538	Originally Posted by eirik Oh, but Kaballah.. The prequel for Judaism. Prequel? Not really, more of an added rabbinical-woo-VIP addition well after the foundational and legal work of Judaism had been penned down six ways from sunday.
	__________________ "I don't believe I ever saw an Oklahoman who wouldn't fight at the drop of a hat -- and frequently drop the hat himself." - Robert E. Howard

4th May 2012, 05:34 AM	#66
HansMustermann Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 9,846	I like to think of it as the Star Wars Holiday Special

23rd May 2012, 07:04 AM	#67
eirik Critical Thinker Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: norway Posts: 493	Originally Posted by Jono Prequel? Not really, more of an added rabbinical-woo-VIP addition well after the foundational and legal work of Judaism had been penned down six ways from sunday. I thought that was the definition of a prequel..? Added on back dated nonsense.
	__________________ "I do not believe in the immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern without any superhuman authority behind it." -Albert Einstein

23rd May 2012, 09:44 AM	#68
Rufo Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 1,196	I think once brought into the discussion, Hinduism can get harshly criticised here. It certainly has its share of despicable practices. I seeing people here denounce Ghandi for his religious beliefs (which clearly did have some negative consequences), so I think Hinduism would be shown no mercy if it was discussed to the same extent as Islam or Christianity. It seems people are more inclined to cut Buddhism some slack, probably because it's easier to adopt as a philosophy without believing in anything supernatural. The fact that it doesn't necessarily feature gods saves it from knee-jerk responses from atheists, although supernatural elements feature heavily in most versions. Originally Posted by HansMustermann The Quran is really Judaism III: The Last Prophet With Christianity being Judaism II: Son Of God. So, yeah, you'll find versions of the same silliness as in the OT in the Quran too. It's only to be expected, really. I'm still waiting for someone to pull a George Lucas and make a prequel trilogy too I think gnosticism fits the bill. Explores God's angsty backstory and turn to evil, introduces new, complex explanations for everything and alienated almost the whole fandom. Extra prequel points for "main character was actually the villain all along" plot twist.
Rufo Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 1,196	__________________ Love is patient, love is kind, says he [Paul] - so is humour too, for it is not offended by that which is ugly and offensive, it seeks out the lost and miserable and shows that they are worth interest - love is not angered, it does not judge - neither does humour - love forgives all - so does humour - love is humble - such is humour too, for humour makes men not consider themselves better than others. - Gustaf Fröding

23rd May 2012, 10:01 AM	#69
Piscivore Smelling fishy Join Date: May 2004 Location: Home is wherever I'm with you Posts: 26,462	Originally Posted by ponderingturtle Hmm now if we mounted one on a motor spinning at say 10,000 rpm it would work even better. Back when I was a woo, I planned to put prayers (for safety, mostly) inside the wheel rims of my first Bus.
	__________________ Give a man a fish, feed him for a day. Take his fish away and tell him he's lucky just to be alive, and he'll figure out how to catch another one for you to take tomorrow. "...untrustworthy obnoxious twerp." - CFLarsen

24th May 2012, 08:42 PM	#70
Craig B Illuminator Join Date: May 2011 Posts: 3,939	Originally Posted by Piscivore Back when I was a woo, I planned to put prayers (for safety, mostly) inside the wheel rims of my first Bus. Good idea. The local bus driver here (in a village in central Italy) uses a picture of Padre Pio for this purpose in his vehicle. We could compare the safety records of the two buses, and decide whether rotating prayers, or those offered to a newspaper photo of a bleeding saint, are the more efficacious.
Craig B Illuminator Join Date: May 2011 Posts: 3,939

24th May 2012, 11:05 PM	#71
Susheel Muse Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 527	You want critiques of Hinduism?... Originally Posted by Rufo I think once brought into the discussion, Hinduism can get harshly criticised here... Actually, in India there are a lot of progressives and left leaning types such as myself who spend a lot of time critiquing Hinduism. We have our version of the American Republican Party that has home grown Hindu fundamentalist hoo-haas. Apart from me, born a Hindu but identifying as an atheist who has chipped in on some discussions on Hinduism primarily to clear a point, I do remember there were a couple of posters who tried to spread the Hindu "word" who ultimately decided that they didn't want to play any more and took their ball and went home. For a critique of Hinduism in India? Some seminal books would be: "Annihilation of Caste" by B. R. Ambedkar (in fact a lot of his works critiqued Hinduism. He was also the author of India's constitution, though the final product was heavily diluted by vested interests. You can start at his wiki page for a good source of his works) "Why I am not a Hindu" by Kancha Iliah (pr. I-lie-ya) "Khaki Shorts and Saffron Flags" by Tapan basu et al
Susheel Muse Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 527	__________________ I've got to get to a library...fast Robert Langdon

25th May 2012, 12:13 AM	#72
HansMustermann Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 9,846	Originally Posted by Rufo It seems people are more inclined to cut Buddhism some slack, probably because it's easier to adopt as a philosophy without believing in anything supernatural. The fact that it doesn't necessarily feature gods saves it from knee-jerk responses from atheists, although supernatural elements feature heavily in most versions. Actually, as I was saying, it's also that Buddhism doesn't make itself as big a target. Most cases where Buddhism comes up are when some woowoo is peddled as ancient wisdom of some Buddhist monks or such. But otherwise it's one religion which pretty much is incompatible with the get-go with having some kind of Buddhist Inquisition, or with flying an airplane into a building for the glory of Buddha, AND which won't want its own creationism or doomsday taught in schools because it has none. The Buddha proclaimed those as irrelevant. In fact, it's even ok with belief in other gods or spirits. Depending on the sect, it's not necessarily seen as the most enlightened way to go about things, to be sure, but nevertheless there's no commandment against dealing with infidels or reward promised for blowing them up for being the wrong religion. So, you know, even while having a harsh opinion of its woowoo, it doesn't really offer itself as a target that often. You just don't get threads like "Buddhists display the 4 noble truths and 8-fold noble path in front of a courthouse" or "Buddhist think-tank wants karma taught in schools" or "Buddhist guru calls for jihad against the infidels" or such, to get to post a snarky remark about it. One would pretty much have to go around starting threads against Buddhism, which tends to come across as a bit obsessed
	Last edited by HansMustermann; 25th May 2012 at 12:18 AM.

25th May 2012, 04:11 AM	#73
Jono Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Sweden Posts: 1,538	Originally Posted by eirik I thought that was the definition of a prequel..? Added on back dated nonsense. "New Age/Mysticism"-appendix imo.
	__________________ "I don't believe I ever saw an Oklahoman who wouldn't fight at the drop of a hat -- and frequently drop the hat himself." - Robert E. Howard

30th May 2012, 08:22 PM	#74
GreyArea Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 1,000	Regarding Hinduism, Meera Nanda has a recent book called The God Market: How Globalization Is Making India More Hindu. It's an updated, U.S. edition of a book she published in India in 2009. Richard Carrier reviewed it today at FreethoughtBlogs. He notes what many in this thread have said, that Hinduism doesn't have much of an influence or presence in the West. But that could change. Quote: It’s not an urgent threat in America, to be sure (Hinduism’s numbers and influence are microscopic compared to the more pressing problems created by conservative and mainstream Christianity; and, among external threats, Islam), but the power and influence of India, economically and politically, is of growing significance, and its policies are increasingly influenced by Hinduism. We’d do well to keep our eye on it. He also said something else which may be of interest to people reading this thread. I've seen a lot of folks talking about religion's official texts and dogma. But when it comes to these less-common religions, we tend not to know much about how the religions are actually lived. That's a whole dimension that is often missed. Quote: But what I found most useful of all is the picture I saw throughout of what actual, contemporary Hinduism is and is like (and how it has changed, and is changing). This is not the distilled and “romanticized” Hinduism you read about or get taught even in college world religions courses. ... Nanda’s book ... fills us in on all the realities of contemporary Hindu practice and thought, and thus instead of having some academic notion of what Hinduism is (which is largely outdated and, as with Christianity, was never really an accurate picture of the “religion on the ground” anyway), you will have a better idea of what most Hindus now actually think, believe, and do; how Hinduism actually impacts the lives of its adherents and how they make use of Hindu ideas and institutions in their daily lives. You will thus have a much better understanding of what Hinduism now actually is, and what sorts of beliefs and nonsense we may find ourselves confronting one day, and of course what we are already indirectly confronting, in the way we as a nation cooperate and trade with India (oblivious to the role Hinduism is actually playing in that). It sounds interesting. And I'd like to thank Susheel for their comment and recommendations, as well.
	__________________ _{I am the 0.0000000142857142857143% Tradition is a murky and dangerous bog.}

30th May 2012, 08:28 PM	#75
Darth Rotor Salted Sith Cynic Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Rat cheer Posts: 34,257	Tim, regarding "in your face" you may have forgotten the Hari Krishna's at airports, when we were all a bit younger ... As to the OP, the short answer is: 1. Familiarity breeds contempt 2. Criticizin Judaism seems to get one charged (incorrectly) with anti Semitism too often to make it worth anyone's time to bother, but I have found during a lot of discussion and criticism here that as one delves further back into the Bible, as source material, plenty of criticism and mockery is made of that religion being carried forward into the present day.
	__________________ Helicopters don't so much fly as beat the air into submission. "Jesus wept, but did He laugh?"--F.H. Buckley____"There is one thing that was too great for God to show us when He walked upon our earth ... His mirth." --Chesterton__"If the barbarian in us is excised, so is our humanity."--D'rok__ "I only use my gun whenever kindness fails."-- Robert Earl Keen__"Sturgeon spares none.". -- The Marquis Last edited by Darth Rotor; 30th May 2012 at 08:30 PM.

31st May 2012, 10:27 AM	#76
Humes fork Master Poster Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Sweden Posts: 2,357	Originally Posted by Darth Rotor 2. Criticizin Judaism seems to get one charged (incorrectly) with anti Semitism too often to make it worth anyone's time to bother, but I have found during a lot of discussion and criticism here that as one delves further back into the Bible, as source material, plenty of criticism and mockery is made of that religion being carried forward into the present day. Speaking of it, here is a pretty damning critique of Orthodox Judaism by a Jewish atheist (former Jewish fundamentalist): Genealogical Saga of Judaism What makes Judaism a bit tricky is that it is not only a religion, but a culture and ethnic group too. It's possible to be culturally and ethnically Jewish while not believing in the religious tenets of Judaism. There are plenty of Israeli atheists, and in Israel there a sometimes severe tensions between religious and secular Jews (or rather, the former want to impose their views on the latter).
	__________________ "Faith is the surrender of the mind; it’s the surrender of reason, it’s the surrender of the only thing that makes us different from other mammals. It’s our need to believe, and to surrender our skepticism and our reason, our yearning to discard that and put all our trust or faith in someone or something, that is the sinister thing to me. Of all the supposed virtues, faith must be the most overrated." - Christopher Hitchens