The HUP was central to the creation of the atom bomb. It was scientists who conceived of this greatest of all weapons of mass killing.

Yes. I agree with Milgram

The proposition was that religion is *always* a bad thing. All I'm saying is that sometimes other ideologies are the cause - and this suggests that it is not religion per se, but ideologies that cause conflict. Religion is often just a scape goat now, to hide the ambitions of the powerful.

And on the other hand we have Christian groups running shelters for homeless people, food banks, and drug rehabilitation centres. All round the world.

And anyway, are they really holy wars? Or are they all about politics and power; control of resources and arguments over sovereignty. And dressed up as religious in order for to cynically manipulate people - the powerful have always done this, and then we blame the victims. The USA's imperialism is not religiously motivated at all, though no doubt religion adds fuel to the fire. At heart is it about gaining and sustaining power. Israel/Palestine is first and foremost about land and sovereignty. Pakistan is power again. I wasn't aware that India was at war. Sudan is about power and sovereignty.

Again my point is not that religion does not play a part in world conflicts. It does. But so do other ideologies like communism and capitalism. And to say that religion only or always causes conflict is jut wrong, and to insist on it is to shrink from examining the issue honestly.
______________________________
http://jayarava.blogspot.com
http://www.visiblemantra.org

Was Stalin religious then? Or Pol Pot? Wasn't it the Mao who said "religion is poison"?

I think you mean that *ideologies* of all kinds are destructive.

Wikip: "Historically, many of the practitioners of eugenics viewed eugenics as a science, not necessarily restricted to human populations; this embraced the views of Darwin and Social Darwinism."

"I don't agree" (what kind of pseudonym id that?)

I don't understand you at all. What do you consider a straw man? What do you consider "actual evidence"? Why is it not OK to question the validity of either the validity of the so-called evidence or the conclusions drawn from it? Doesn't that just stifle the discussion and prevent any kind of examination of the idea? The original author was the one invoking the scientific paradigm, not me, I just point out the scientific process works through conjecture and refutation. I was participating in that discussion, on that basis. That is how "science" works. What's the problem here?

"Many place much higher value in furthering the collective ontology of things."
In fact there's not much difference between the predictive power of a theory and it's contribution to ontology. Different aspects of the same project - to describe reality. But a scientific theory can only be tested on the basis of the (ontological) predictions it makes, and all scientific theories are only scientific to the extent that they can be tested. So scientists do tend to focus on the predictive power of a scientific theory. What were you thinking of?

"The science that is attempting to understand what appears to be ESP is still very very young."
Rubbish. They've had 100 years or more as investigations of ESP were begun by the Victorians. The real problem is that when really rigorous standards are applied ESP is not observed. Please look for and watch the Derren Brown documentary called "Messiah" - it demonstrates how easy it is to dupe believers. (Or the Project Alpha). Every time ESP comes under proper scrutiny it fades from view. But you knew I was going to say that I suppose. Magical belief is not the same as magical reality. Contrast that 100 years of zero progress with the major, monumental, tectonic, earth shattering changes in Physics, Chemistry, Biology, and Geology in the last 100 years. Whole paradigms have been born and died in that time.

A scientific theory must falsifiable, and any person supporting that theory must be open to it being falsified. And the first duty of a scientist is not to confirm results but to attempt to falsify them. Only a theory which has resisted vigorous attempts at falsification is accepted as contributing to our ontologies. Theories of ESP have been repeatedly falsified. So if we are invoking science then we must find another theory, because ESP is not the answer.

Theories about rebirth (which is what this thread is about) can never be falsified, or even tested, so they fail at the first hurdle. Though of course I given some criteria for substantial evidence which might make me change my view. What kind of evidence would make you change your mind? Or is your mind just made up and no kind of evidence would make you change it? What would falsify your theory, and why are you not looking for that evidence?

I see no attempt to deal seriously with the many good points in comments on your last, very recent post, which dissented in a positive way. Obviously it's not something you want to discuss, merely to proclaim.

People will believe what the want to believe, and they will call it what they want to call it.

BoulderDPnx

Not only did the Buddha *not* refuse to answer the question, the Pali texts show him answering the question in the affirmative. Hardly a sutta goes by without reference to Brahma or Pajapati - two names for the creator god. Indeed in several suttas, for example Tevijja Sutta (DN 13), the Buddha is reported to have said "I know Brahma, I know Brahma's world, and I know the way to Brahma's world". The context make it clear that he is talking about God. If not for God in the form of Brahmasahampati, the Buddha, according to the Pali texts, might not have taught his insight to other people!

The Buddha's argument against a creator God took a different route. Firstly he employs parody. In the Tevijja and other suttas God appears to be a bombastic idiot who cannot answer questions put to him, and is mainly concerned to put on a good show for the other gods. God is just the first being to emerge after the expansion cycle of the world begins (a pan-Indian cosmogony). He longs for company and then other beings appear, so he thinks he wished them into existence. They believe it too. Secondly Gods are always portrayed as subservient to the Buddha: so Brahma the creator God of the Upanisads, and Indra the chief God of the Vedas bow down to, and ask the advice of, the Buddha. The Buddha has what they do not which is liberation from the rounds of rebirth.

You are right to say that he specifically denied being a deva on many occasions. Although the presence of many gods throughout Buddhist literature argues against calling Buddhism non-theistic, it is true that Gods are seen as being caught up in cycles of rebirth, and it is only the Buddha and the Arahants who are not so caught. The whole soteriology is different.

I think your portrayal of Theravada is a bit slanted. It does not apply to the vast majority of the Theravada world which above all emphasises merit making and compassion - the most popular Buddhist text in places like Sri Lanka is the Vessantara Jataka and it does not mention meditation. The Pali texts are full of magic, gods, demons etc.

So yes, let's get back to core teachings, but you have a little way to go in being a good representative for them.

Guest. I think by taking up the example of Merton you have helped to clarify the issue. I suspect that those "Christian Buddhists" that are not simply humanists wanting a different label, are actually Christians who find some of the methods of Buddhism attractive.

That is the weirdest description of karma I have ever read. TNH's books is one of the most appalling books on religion that I have ever read.

The argument in this case is about labels. When it comes down to it you just want the labels to apply to you no matter what you profess. I'm pretty broad minded when it comes to labels. Call yourself a Buddhist and in my book you are a Buddhist. Similarly I've met nominal Christians who did not believe in God or Jesus. But why is the label important? Why insist that Buddhism and Christianity are the same when what you are combining is central to neither religion? When if you did combine the central tenets of the two you would, for instance, both affirm and deny God. Why not call yourself a mysticist?

Robert. Leave out all the metaphysical stuff, and you have two varieties of humanism! Sure, if you take God and Jesus out of Christianity then you're left with an ethical system, albeit with no rationale any longer. Likewise if you remove conditionality and liberation from Buddhism you're left with an ethical system with no rationale. That is a contrived fusion by definition because you leave out what is most important to both faiths to create a new ethical system that involves no faith.

I don't see the point. If that is your approach why do you need religion at all? Why not just be a humanist and be done with? There's no shame in it. I'd rather see more honest humanists than this "all religions are one" stuff muddying the waters and confusing people.

Ego death? Sigh. The bastard child of Freud's translators and Buddhist translators. German 'Ich' and Sanskrit 'ātman' are not necessarily related. The Buddhist view is that 'I' is not permanent, that it disappoints, and that it does not survive the rebirth process. Take away metaphysics and 'I' is not a problem at all because you leave no discourse in which to problematise it. I'd ask why you think there is a similar discourse in Christianity, but the truth is I don't care.