And yeah, if it's a choice between someone getting beat up and someone getting fucking killed, must be the Buddhist in me but I'd rather the former.

Speaking of not letting people die. Tell more of your flunky Rs to get vaccinated. And tell me what all these Hermann Cain awards have in common https://old.reddit.com/r/HermanCainAward/

Almost like all of them are getting a steady stream of misinformation.

"A buddhist, a muslim, a nun and a jew were stuck in a hot air balloon.

It suddenly popped and though they prayed as it dropped, it proves that God hates us all!"

-- (whatever happened to) the Chainsaw Juggler?"
The Four Postmen

https://youtu.be/0eeZOO1PQnY
https://youtu.be/0eeZOO1PQnY

Valid, but more so if it was Buddhists who built that tower.

😉

Saw this story earlier today. Excellent work of art!

Why do Buddhist monks make sand mandalas?

When the mandala is finally finished, however long it takes for the monks to deal in this divine geometry of the heavens, they pray over it — and then they destroy it. ... Because the underlying message of the mandala ceremony is that nothing is permanent. Nothing.

Bullshit. Christians can and do wear religious iconography in jewelry, tattoos, clothing, and display stupid slogans, posters, statues, etc at workplaces.
They can't hold prayer services in some workplaces, and can in others. But why would you want that anyway? To be fair and legal, we would have to allow anyone and everyone to do the same. Do you want Satanists, minions of Mot, Soldiers for Shiva, Pagans, Norse, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Hindu, Pastafarians, Rastafarians, Wikans, Jedi, etc to all spend the day praying with a legal right to ignore work to do so?
This is about as rational as claiming there's a "war on Christmas" because some people don't say Merry Christmas reflexively two dozen times a day all December.

Really? Trumpeteers get beaten up for hat wearing? I seriously doubt it, please post the video.

Insulted, well, calling people in MAGA hats (not MEGA, can't even get your own slogan's acronym right) idiots, ignorant, or just brain dead morons isn't pure insult when it's so often just statement of fact. I've never met one willing to wear the hat in public with an IQ greater than 100 (paid talking heads don't count, since they so often turn on Trump as soon as he stops paying them), and I know plenty with an IQ seemingly well below 80 that won't leave the house without it.

Compared to those wearing an Obama or Clinton hat/shirt in the south over the last 9 years, MAGA morons are treated like princes and princesses.

No, making the argument that one is not as bad as the other isn't the same as making excuses. It's exactly what he said, they're both unacceptable, and he's trying to define the spectrum.

I have a touch more time, so let me go back to your first example.
Yes, if some dude broke my leg, yes I would appreciate that they didn't murder me.

Obviously, I don't want either thing to happen, but justice is about assigning degrees of a spectrum to an infinite number of variables of what is decidedly wrong. Please admit, it's at least imprecise to have a one-size-fits-all justice system.

I won't repeat the examples already given that should have laid bare the problems equating what should be corrected gingerly vs using a heavy hand, but I want to reiterate that they ring true for me.

NSFW warning:

I've had bad dates where I've been made to feel awkward. Believe it or not, I've been in a sexual encounter where I've been forced to hmmm... finish... inside a girl when I didn't want to. We had been together a short time and she was ENAMORED with me, and I felt 'meh' about her. (don't put your dick in crazy)

Long story short, I'm strict about using birth control so I'm not making kids when I don't want to. Although, in the heat of the moment, I'm not above a tried and true pulling out for lack of a better option. This had been the plan going into the sexual encounter, but when I let out a warning about a climax, instead of helping me push her off, she pushed her hands against my shoulders and clamped her thighs onto me. I objected "wait!!! no!!!" but not being a fucking Buddhist monk with complete control over every muscle in my body, well, you can imagine where it went from there.


Shortly thereafter, she started asking me what I thought about this or that baby name and it became clearer what she was really after. (yes really)

I waited for confirmation that she wasn't pregnant and we broke up immediately after, because of that and a general disinterest that I had towards her as a person.

That was when I was ehh? 19? idk, somewhere around there. More than 10 years ago at least.

But I digress, did what she did feel a little 'rape-y' to me? I said no, It was something we talked about beforehand, setting up parameters, etc. but it ended up just being a bad experience. Because of that bad experience I never really talked to her again. She does some kind of work in 3d printing now last I checked.

I don't think it's crazy to not want her to lose her job, and not want to file criminal charges against her, --- and this is key --- because even though something happened that was non consensual, I don't consider what happened rape, and I would NEVER equate what happened to me to what happened to all of Weinstein's victims because they fall on opposite ends of the spectrum.

Neither one was okay, and one is worse than the other.

I grew up in a Christian home (Methodist) but never really bought in and considered myself an atheist from about ~12 years old or so.

@poolcleaner said that atheists might be the worst at "respect(ing) my beliefs and recogniz(ing) that I am not recruiting them and they are not recruiting me".

There's two parts of that. Respecting other beliefs, and not proselytizing.

Just speaking for myself, I would say that I am an atheist specifically because I don't respect the Christian beliefs that I grew up with, and feel much the same way about the dogmatic elements of any religion. Most religions share the basic tenet of the "Golden Rule" (or claim that they do), and as far as I am concerned that is the only thing of value to be found in any religion -- although it can exist perfectly fine outside of any religious context.

That's where proselytizing comes in though. For a while when I was younger, I wanted to "spread the good news" of atheism -- to show others what was so obvious and important to me, that idea that the Golden Rule works just as well outside of any religious context. I was "indignant" (as poolcleaner put it) and quick to tell people that I am atheist and to sort of "pick a fight" about it. I wanted to show people just how stupid and wrong they were.

I think LOTS of atheists are like that, especially early on after they part ways with religion. To be fair, a lot of that is defensiveness since atheists tend to get proselytized to a LOT by Christians that learn/discover that they are an atheist -- especially in the US.

Now I'm 20 years older and I live in a country that is 95% Buddhist, 4% Islamic, and 1% Christian/Other. Thailand isn't even really close to the most diverse Asian country in religious terms (Singapore has 5 religions with 10%+ of the population, with Buddhist being the most at 34%) but there is an air of practiced religious acceptance / tolerance here that is WAY different from back home in the US.

I'd wager that amongst the major religions, Christianity might contain the highest percentage of the "proselytizing type" -- those that really strongly believe in the message enough to want to spread it to those who don't, or those that have never really questioned their beliefs but who nonetheless buy in enough to think that it is important to get it out there. On the other hand, there are many more Christians who may be very strong believers but who are comfortable keeping that all internal and not proselytizing.

With atheists, I'd say that there is a high correlation between being very "out" / open about their atheism and being the "proselytizing type" of atheist. So, if you know that someone is an atheist, it is fairly likely that they will be a bit "indignant" about it. If someone is an atheist but doesn't feel the need to inform others about it, most people would never know/assume they were an atheist. I'm not talking about "closeted" atheists; just the difference between those who are going to tell you within 10 minutes of meeting you that they are an atheist without the subject ever coming up, and those that will only mention it if you directly ask them about it.

Keeping that it mind, I can actually believe that from an outside perspective, known atheists might be more aggressive than known Christians just due to that sort of selection bias. Maybe.

Cool. Coming out of a baptist family I get it, even if i was never that extreme -- westboro... i knew some families sort of like them though... home schooled on the belief that the Bible is the ultimate framework for governing. Not too far off from the us versus them. Same family that taught an anti-evolution class for our youth group. *shudder*

I became an indignant atheist not long after leaving religion. Now, I embrace Took me many a long night hating on religious people.

Until I had a long conversation with a friend who was a microbiologist, observing evolution on a daily basis, and maintaining a healthy Christian perspective. (Well, at the time it was... now he is sort of Phelping me. It's really hard for me still, to accept religious people, even when almost everyone I know is -- many of whom will always judge me for who I am.)

I mostly enjoy the diversity among my Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Atheist, Buddhist, and Hindu brothers and sisters. They just need to respect my beliefs and recognize that I am not recruiting them and they are not recruiting me. Atheists are the worst at this.

As long as there is seperation of church and state. That is an important concept in maintaining a diverse nation open to dialog like she suggests.

Also, opening dialog with people only works if they reply back hahaha -- most of the angry internet people i know post across a wide array of websites and don't really return for replies that often.

The USA isn't the worst place to not conform to the standard state religion. ...But it sure as hell isn't the best either.

Growing up atheist (I started identifying myself that way around age 12-13 or so) in the bible belt (Kansas) in the 80's was tough. Not as tough as growing up gay at the same time/place, but I get the feeling that Millennials are miles beyond my generation (late Gen X) in terms of accepting sexuality. I don't think they have made as great strides in accepting atheists / religious differences, but progress has been made there also compared to my day.

About 10 years ago I moved to Thailand. I went from 85-90% Christian USA to 95% Buddhist Thailand. And yet even though I'm in an even smaller minority as an atheist here, it simply isn't an issue at all compared with back in the US. I don't think Christianity itself is to blame for that, because one can comfortably be an atheist in some other countries with rates of self-identifying Christians similar to the US. No, I think it is a cultural problem largely unique to the US. Which certainly contributes to my high level of comfort as an expat.

The question isn't whether you can be good without God. Atheists and agnostics can do good works as much as anyone else can. They love, they have kindness and compassion, and so on.

Do you know that if, when I died, I arrived at Heavens gate and I met Jesus..and He asked me this question "Why should I let you into My Heaven?" and my answer was, "because of all of the good things I did", He wouldn't let me in?

Why is that? Atheists and most religious people actually have something in common; a fundamental misconception of what goodness is.

Most people have a list of certain crimes in their mind that, so long as they have not committed them, they consider themselves to be good people. They'll say to themselves "I'm a good person. I haven't killed anyone." "I may not be perfect but I am no Hitler or Stalin". Or, they think if their good deeds outweigh their bad deeds, they're good people. There are some religions like that.

It's a relative goodness. Most everyone will acknowledge that they've done some wrong, but most will tell you far more right than wrong.

The problem with a relative goodness is that is all it is; it is relatively good. It is only good some of time. That is how human beings are. Goodness in Gods eyes is not relatively good, it is perfectly good. That is why the bible says there is no one good except God. The reason why Jesus won't let me into Heaven based on my performance is because once I've sinned even once I have failed to meet Gods standard; moral perfection. That is the only thing God considers good. Once there is a fly in the ointment, it is ruined.

The inference here is, if that is true then no one can get into Heaven. That's the dilemma, and that is why God sent His Son to die for our sins on a cross. Jesus had met Gods moral standard, He had never sinned. He was Gods spotless lamb, qualified to be a sacrifice for our sins on our behalf, taking the punishment that we deserve. Because of sin we are disqualified but Jesus qualifies us, that is why we need Him, why He is the Messiah.

Because Jesus took the punishment for our sins, when we believe in Him as Lord and Savior, God can forgive our sins and impute the righteousness of Christ to us. God counts our faith in Jesus Christ as righteousness. Not because we ourselves are righteous, but because He is righteous and our faith is counted towards us as righteousness. It is a legal transaction, once we believe God can dismiss our case because justice has been done for our sins by the atoning death of Jesus Christ.

So, when Jesus asks me why I should be allowed in, the only possible answer is this: "I am not worthy to get in; it is your righteousness counted to me that will open these gates. You died for my sins and rose the third day; I believed your gospel and received you as my Lord and Savior."

Atheists can be good without God, so can hindus, buddhists and even Christians. The trouble isn't whether they can be good, the trouble is that it isn't good enough.

Yeah, I find it all a bit nihilistic. If your objective is to rid the world of any suffering then it seems to me the surefire solution is stop existing. I bounce off the whole Buddhist "desire = suffering" thing for a similar reason. But to be happy - Might that not involve a certain amount of suffering? Is anger necessarily entirely destructive? Is hope sometimes reasonable? Does being hopeful require an expectation? Question mark?

I dunno.

Thank you @enoch, I was trying to figure a way of replying on how there isn't a denial that a minority of Muslims believe in suicide bombing, but that it isn't as widespread and exclusive to Islam as the far right make it out to be. You summed it up pretty well.

I was also going to add all the abortion clinic bombings and the Atlanta Centennial Olympic Park bombing... all Christian and being done in the name of Christ. Then in Ireland/UK with the IRA... though that one isn't just religion and is more political (though again, many of those political differences has to do with worshiping Christ the wrong way).

There are militant Buddhist too, who do very violent and aggressive acts against others.

And there are plenty on the left who decry Islam, look at Sam Harris by example who argues the danger of Islam a great deal.

I agree, that we need to address the underlying political issues... and sometimes just need to let things go. There is a big civil war going on the middle east between denominations of Islam, and we are picking a side, which in turn makes us a target of the other side. We ignore the fact that the goal of terrorist groups is to make it an "us vs them" world, so that it makes it easier to recruit potentially radicalizeable people. I hear Christians bemoan how Christianity must be true because of all the persecution, proves Satan is trying to push Christianity down, but then they have zero empathy for how it must feel for a Muslim, and the persecution they feel, and how that must make them feel they are the right one for the same exact reasoning.

The fact so many Christians are not only willing, but calling for a war, for a new Crusade basically, shows that Christians are just as easily radicalized. They may not be strapping bombs to their chests yet, but I'd guess if they were in a Muslim country and felt they were being repressed, then I'd wager they'd be more than willing to engage in suicide bombs.

The pint being, yes, some Muslims do engage in suicide bombs, but it isn't just them. Christians have done it plenty in the past, and will undoubtedly return to it again, especially as the more radicalized and violent portion of them become normalized here in the US thanks to the election of Trump who encouraged them all through his campaign.

Historically Islam didn't really engage in forced conversions, partly because under both the Caliphate and the Ottoman empire the tax break given to Muslims would've been problematic if given to the entire population (this tax break is the flip side of the "extort money" that you refer to).

Also speaking historically, Jews were much safer in Muslim lands than Christian since Christians tended to massacre them on a fairly regular basis until 1945 and despite what you've heard most Muslims are fairly tolerant. The same applies to minority Christian sects, the Nestorians for instance had to flee to Persia in 489 AD, and I seem to recall another minority group who fled England to Holland and then to the Americas (perhaps you've heard of them?).

I used to think that Buddhists and Hindus were more tolerant than the Abrahamic religions, but unfortunately I've since learned that I only thought so due to ignorance.