[Despanan]

Originally Posted by Saya

I'm not saying they still wouldn't if they just lost their faith entirely, I'm just saying that religious people tend to be more charitable, this is true, because the religious community is geared towards that. You're throwing the baby out with the bath water if you think that just because a charity is religious its inferior to a secular group, religious charities are depended on very much in other places, give credit where credit is due.

Who says I didn't give them credit? I ran a friggin MARATHON for a religious charity. There are tons of religious charities out there doing good work.

Does that make a giant, invisible man in the sky real? Does that invalidate centuries of oppression? Does that change the fact that their text and operating doctrine DEMANDS that everyone surrender their lives to this invisible sky-man and the old white guys who know what he wants?

I have demonstrated that religious charity is, at it's most basic level, a recruiting tool for that religion. Their doctrine demands it. Their belief structure requires that the good works always come second to converts.

None of this changes the fact that, overall, religion is socially harmful. We have shown that the good it does and inspires can easily exist without it. It goes without saying that the evil it does and inspires needs to be done away with. At the end of the day, It can't give us anything, but a good feeling. If you want that go shoot heroine.

Originally Posted by Saya

He brought it up earlier, asking me if I was broken because I am Buddhist, and accused me of wanting to be Buddhist more than wanting to be right and honest.

He was referring to this post I made on page 8 (which you never answered btw):

Originally Posted by Despanan

I basically said that the worthier philosophies found in the Bible (specifically the New Testament) were fine. It was the idea of Jesus being a deity, and his teachings being divine was the problem.

Saya responded with a straw-man that "People need philosophies" (I never argued against this, in fact I argued FOR it).

Then surprisingly enough, instead of a discussion on merits of said philosophy, she went off on a tangent about the "religious experience" the "inspiration" she draws from "the lives, wisdom, and teaching" and how a practitioner is going to have more "intimate knowledge" of their faith than an outsider can ever hope to, and they can never be persuaded otherwise regardless of the factual inconsistencies found in their texts (ie: their own philosophy) because "You can't break that kind of faith".

You guys following me? Saya seems more interested in defending the idea of a perfect, charismatic, inspirational teacher, than in defending logic and consistency of the teachings of said Charismatic.*

In a nutshell, she's not arguing that people need philosophies because they're good philosophies that will enrich their lives, she's saying that people NEED inspirational teachers. That we need our teachers, and texts to be super-human in order to appeal to us, emotionally and thus make us better people.

I'd actually like an answer to that to tell you the truth. Because it DOES seem that you're more interested in how religion feels than if it's actually right.

Originally Posted by Saya

we are very off topic of the original post, so when you say "religion", and attacking my own religion, its very confusing. No one is still talking about the OP with contradictions in the Bible, so be specific.

And also, sure its not oppressive to you, but I'm not going to pretend that Buddhism has a perfect history or isn't still currently used to oppress others, that makes me angry even if its not in my own country. It has little impact in the States, but the US isn't the be all and end all of countries. But we've had this argument before.

Look, it's not my fault if us criticizing Christianity makes you uncomfortable with your own faith.

If you think the same arguments I'm making apply to Buddhism as well, why don't you make them?