A semi-philosophical question, For those few who have a brain Options

[Leyviur]

Buddhism is a religion.

End of discussion.

[Ethronix]

I knew something like this would happen....May as well feed the fire clear things up.

So tell me, has everyone here heard of the "Heinz Dilemma?" If so, please tell me what you would do and your reasoning (the answer itself isn't as important as your motive; that's what I'd like to hear).

Hmm....well I would probably steal it but to the extent I would go depends on the law enforcement in said town, if it is light and unreliable then I might just consider killing said salesman for the nasty little monopoly he had, but if the law enforcment was great then I would just steal it as best I can, as for motives I can't think of too many right now but I suppose that if I knew someone who's life I would like to preserve then I would think of one.....

I was hoping someone would say this. Let's ask this. Do you think that popular opinion is conducive to free will? Or does it merely guide free-will?

That depends on the person themselves, for example there are those that act within the social "norm" out of convience and so that they can avoid "conflicting" and delaying themselves when they feel that there are more important things to worry about, then again there are a few who act against the social norms merely to be different and establish a seperate identity apart from the masses which seem so utterly predictible tro them.As for the question itself, popular opinion doesn't so much shape free will as it tries to set "limits" which depict a fictional "normal" person, that person is the moral "rules" that society wishes to impose and as stated is different form country to country.

(I'm really not trying to argue, just, after Plato, I cannot return to the cave I was once in).

Lets try to avoid taking "superior/enlightened/moral high ground" stances shall we? Which will turn any debate into mere quarreling. And yes like everyone else here I know what your talking about......(I hope that wasn't necessary.)

Is an action moral if it causes more benefit than harm to society?

Absloutely not, if you want an example: are poilce beatings justified? Does a small group of criminals deserve that just to "preserve the peace"?

To me an ethic is more of a personally decided moral that might not be of concern to others.

And just because morals are influnced by society does not mean that the indivudal is bound to follow them, I'll admit that many do but the decesion of wether or not you will comply, comform and accept a "pre-made' set of morals is up to the person themselves.

(Did I miss anything...........................probably.)

This post has been edited by Ethronix: Jan 13 2007, 06:52 PM

[Raijinili]

Wouldn't a religious person want to hold on to his life? If (for those who believe in it) God gave someone life, imbued a body with a soul and allowed it to breathe, then why would a person want to take it away?

You're assuming too much about the adjective "religious". Besides the assumptions about monotheism and creationism, there's also the assumption that death is the "taking away" of life in that person's religion. Death may be seen as a gateway to an existence closer to the divine.

Religion is for the weak. Religion is a giant cesspool of hypocrisy that people without spines draw strength from.

If they can draw strength from it, what's the problem?

Every religion is a bullshit attempt at seeming good while pushing its own agenda. "Be courteous to others and do good deeds... but only when it is convenient." Fuck that shit. Religion is for suckers. Anyone who attempts to use religion as an argumentative tool instantly fails.

I think you mean "organized religion" as opposed to "religion".

Can you honestly say that you believe in science as a basis for...everything?

Science is a basis for knowledge, not a specific system of knowledge (in other words, "believing in science" does not equal "believing in evolution" or what have you). What do you mean by "everything"?

Basically, you have three options to argue fro:
1. Religion, no matter which one that be.
2. Science (yea, like that'll get you anywhere)
3. Ignorance.

Again, what do you mean by everything?

If you mean "knowledge": There's also reason as a source of knowledge. And belief-based knowledge (read: hope). And you don't need religion for spirituality and "inspired" knowledge.

Unfortunately, until you have a reason for your atatement, you're arguing from the third.

Logical fallacy: assuming something to be true until proven otherwise.

Uh, are you retarded? You can still believe in things without having a religion. I believe in personal choice. A person's life is their own. I already went through this in my first post in the topic. Not everyone is so naive that they see the world in black and white like you do.

What gives this person ownership of this belonging? Is it a natural right? What does this ownership entitle? What does it not entitle?

That however, regardless of argument is sadly true of many modren religions though the hipocrisy is mostly limited to religions that impose a strict morale law that no-one even follows yet them vehemently deny that fact when confronted.

Did you mean: Organized Religion?

Except that Buddhism isn't a religion.

Depends on what you refer to as "Buddhism".

Buddhism is a religion. Just not as big as catholicism or hinduism or such. There's many different forms of buddhism, just like christianity.

See above.

But you have to think.

Where did this life come from in the first place?

Do you believe it from a purely scientific standpoint?

"Scientific standpoint" means that your stance is based on evidence.

Heinz is a man, and his wife is dying of cancer (or some other such disease). There is, in town, a person who has discovered a cure for the problem Heinz's wife is suffering from. But there is a problem: the man is selling this drug at a ridiculously high price (because he knows that many people could use it and that he'll make lots of money), and Heinz cannot afford this. Is it acceptable, is it morally okay for Heinz to steal this drug in order to save his wife? Knowing no other information, tell yes or no and your reason why. In this scenario, put yourself in the place of Heinz; would you do this for your wife?

I believe the question is, "What would you do?" (not simple yes-or-no)

No; it's not. Buddhism is a theory that is often mistaken for religion.

Theory? Buddhusm is based on "inspired" knowledge, not "empirical" knowledge.

There are certain things a religion, in order to be considered a bona fide religion, must have. And Buddhism does not have all of those. Are there sacred/profane objects? Nope, don't think so. And I know that there are many different types of Buddhism, but that still doesn't make it a religion.

That's irrelevant. Show a connection between "there are different types of Buddhism" and "it's not a religion".

Find me a definition of "religion" that isn't inclusive of Buddhism and I'll find you one that's just as reliable but does include Buddhism.

Yes, but Buddhism is not a religion. That is one of the characteristic that defines a religion. Buddhism is a train of thought not quite reaching the standing of a religion. I'm not trying to reduce it's merits, just ointing out the painfully obvious. What is the definition of a religion? Let me give you a short list (not all of it, but only a few things). Let me know if you disagree with any of this, and, if so, which parts, and how would you correct it?

I. Characteristics of a Religion
1. The practical and ritualistic - Meditation
2. The experiential and emotional - Strive not for feelings
3. Narrative and the mythic - Hinduism doesn't necessary have gods either, so they also don't have accepted myths
4. The doctrinal and the philosophical - Duh
5. The ethical and legal - The "turn the other cheek" thing was also said by Buddha
6. The social and institutional - Says that they aren't that important
7. The material, primarily the buildings - Buddhist statues are eveywhere.
8. Beliefs in supernatural beings (gods) - Again, Hinduism
9. A distinction between sacred and profane objects - Depends on the sect. The Buddha statues are usually sacred. "Profane" comes from local superstition.
10. Ritual acts focused around sacred objects - Kowtow, bow, etc. in front of the statues.
11. A moral code believed to be sanctioned by the gods - This is combining 5 and 8.
12. Characteristically religious feelings (awe, sense of mystery, sense of quiet, adoration), which tend to be aroused in the presence of sacred objects, and during the practice of ritual, and which are associated with gods. - This is totally dependent on the person and should not be a requirement.
13. Prayer and other forms of communication with gods - Buddhism has that, just that not everyone does it. Christianity has people not following prayer.
14. A world view, that is, a general picture of the world as a whole and of the place of the individual in it, including a specification of its overall significance. - Duh
15. A more or less total organization of one’s life based on the world view. - Duh
16. A social organization bound together by the previous characteristics. - Organized religion, not religion in general.

So it fits most of the requirements. Is it a religion, then?

For a religion to be a religion it must express a belief in the reality of the spiritual dimension in the universe: a necessary condition.

Nirvana IS the spiritual dimension.

[Leyviur]

If they can draw strength from it, what's the problem?

No problem, just saying it is all.

I think you mean "organized religion" as opposed to "religion".

Yes I do. Should've cleared that up.

What gives this person ownership of this belonging? Is it a natural right? What does this ownership entitle? What does it not entitle?

The fact that their choices have the most impact and the most direct influence on it. The ownership entitles them to do what they see fit for their own life, but it doesn't grant them the right to deny someone else their life.

[Raijinili]

The fact that their choices have the most impact and the most direct influence on it. The ownership entitles them to do what they see fit for their own life, but it doesn't grant them the right to deny someone else their life.

Their choices having the biggest influence? If I hold the detonator to a bomb in your head, do I own your life?

And again, what grants this right?

[Swiyth]

You only own as much of our life as we allow you to.

No matter what, it's still the choice of the person. He could fight back to free himself or die trying. Or, he could submit to you. Eitherways, it's his choice. It may not always be a smart choice, but it's one nonetheless.

For me, religion only influences us this much. People may draw strength from the cesspool of hypocrisy that is religion, but if it's for a greater cause and shit like that, i say the cesspool of hypocrisy is neccesary. But looking at the shit they pull off in the name of Jesus, Allah and whatever God you have, i believe it might as well be dead.

Ultimately, it's always the choice of the individual that affects himself and others around him. If you want to jump, go ahead. If you have a good reason, go ahead. If you have a bad reason, better yet. You'll condemn the whole human race with your emo-ism if you live anyways. And after that one fateful plunge to who-knows-where, no matter who, no matter how, i believe everyone may have lost something. Just that it's not neccesarily always bad.

Oh, and shut this load of bull about Buddhism. If you want to discuss what Buddhism is, go make a freaking topic.

[Raijinili]

If he doesn't know about the bomb, what choice does he have?

[Swiyth]

If he doesn't know about the bomb, even less a reason why he should be afraid of you until you announce it.

Besides. If you really owned it, you could do what you want with it entirely, without being questioned. It's like how you could detonate the bomb, regardless of who it is. Total, complete, absolute control. You don't have that with people because there's always the off-chance he'll do something else.

[Raijinili]

The point wasn't whether he was afraid of it.

[Yuka]

Humans are more likely to find a way to stay alive in Rai's situation; even if the person with the detonator couldn't prove it, the person who supposedly has a bomb in his head would be more likely to believe it as opposed to not believe it because his life is at stake.

[Raijinili]

What?

[aerozero]

Tolerance, in my opinion, should be the root of all religions, let someone believe whatever they want to believe, as long as it doesn't hurt or kill anyone , I'm fine with it.

[Raijinili]

Why is tolerance so important? Because it's more "moral" than intolerance?

[Ethronix]

Why is tolerance so important? Because it's more "moral" than intolerance?

First: tolerence is sometimes seen as a form of maturity, but that like "morals" are defined by society and the individual so if one views intolerence as acceptable it becomes acceptable to that person, while someone else might dis-agree what does it matter? After all you can't "force" someone to change their beliefs if they are intolerent of yours in the first place, secondly just because a person is "tolerent" of others beliefs doesn't mean they don't just reject those beliefs in their mind and label the person as a fool. Thirdly if its in someones religion to cause harm unto themselves then why should we care?

Besides humans are hyppocrytical to begin with, just look at some religions: they despise killing yet approve of massive wars and slaughtering of anyone, all in the name of "God".

[Raijinili]

Intolerance? You don't tolerate people that are intolerant because you feel morally superior. They do the same to you for the same reason.