What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
He sings, he strums, and he works at Best Buy. view!
youtube.com - Musician and Best Buy employee, Keith Parsons, rocks his Best Buy holiday campaign audition.
539 Comments
- morphinapg, on 01/12/2009, -29/+233Most sane Christians also embrace science, it's the insane fundie/creationist nutjobs that give us a bad name.
- BryanQ, on 01/12/2009, -34/+205Buddhism is not a religion..hence it's embrace of science.
- InorganicMatter, on 01/12/2009, -24/+186Except that Buddhism is a philosophy of life, not a religion.
Fail. - Kosh, on 01/12/2009, -47/+102Buried for terrible headline. Plenty of religions embrace science. The two are in no way incompatible.
- vincentml, on 01/12/2009, -3/+50I don't know why people are Digging this guy down; he is right.
- egoideal, on 01/12/2009, -1/+44That's only for certain sects of Buddhism. Buddhism at it's core is more of a philosophy on life than instructions on how to deal with the divine/supernatural.
- anonymous1986, on 01/12/2009, -1/+39Buddhism is more of a philosophy, basically a guide to living one's life.
- kd420, on 01/12/2009, -13/+43I think there is a difference here between Buddhism and other religions. Buddhists (in the article) are actively seeking out scientific advancement, while other religions are playing catch up. Here I am refering to the heads of the religions, not the individual members.
The Catholic Church specifically is constantly trying to find ways to make their story fit with science. On the topic of evolution for example, instead of simply conceding to scientists, they usually put out somewhat condescending arguments as to how the evidence can sync with the Bible. To put it differently, no matter what scientists find, the church will adapt it to their "official" story and not the other way round. - windowpane, on 01/12/2009, -3/+33Buddhism as taught by the Lord Buddha was basically the science of enlightenment.
- Springdiggity, on 01/12/2009, -9/+35I'm a Christian and I support Science. :)
- inactive, on 01/12/2009, -2/+24Not true. They're just the loudest.
- inactive, on 01/12/2009, -0/+20I can and do voice my opinion of crazed pseudo-Christians. The peaceful messages of just about every major religion have been twisted to serve the power hungry whims of a few evil individuals (Christianity is as guilty as the rest), and it pisses me off enormously. Islam, interestingly enough, encouraged scientific research and innovation more than any other major faith until its message was twisted by the fragmented extremists of the 20th and 21st centuries. Kinda sad... (I'm a progressive Christian by the way)
- asdf2000, on 01/12/2009, -1/+20The buddhist method of self-investigation is actually remarkably similar to the scientific method in it's own right.
- SourBreastMilk, on 01/12/2009, -2/+20As JRW5061 mentioned, religions are philosophies of life. As a major in Religious Studies concentrating in Buddhism, it is considered a religion by both East and West conceptions of religion, although it is mostly atheistic. Just because the recognition of the existence or idea of God is unimportant in Buddhism doesn't mean it lacks the expression of worldviews held common by most religions.
- Rhoadsy, on 01/12/2009, -1/+19I personally have no issues with monks. They were the first to make some of the greatest varieties of beer.
- ggnictee, on 01/12/2009, -0/+17Christian monks used to do all kinds of cool science stuff. And even Benedict (who is extremely conservative) has called the 'argument' silly.
- Bhima, on 01/12/2009, -41/+58Christians give themselves a bad name... they have millions of opportunities to speak up against the "insane fundie/creationist nutjobs" but they don't. Their silence is tantamount to supporting them.
What's the single voice against that? Can you claim to speak for all "True" Christians? - enantiodromia, on 01/12/2009, -2/+17so, you don't really understand Buddhism I take it.
- inactive, on 01/12/2009, -2/+17Let's not forget that Muslims invented and contributed to many sciences that are accepted worldwide.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Golden_Age - cabdirazzaq, on 01/12/2009, -14/+28Buried because of the title.
- enantiodromia, on 01/12/2009, -0/+14so you can have godless religion then?
- inactive, on 01/12/2009, -4/+17"Can you claim to speak for all "True" Christians?"
No more than the Dalai Lama can claim to speak for all true Buddhists. - durruticolumn, on 09/18/2009, -2/+14"that resulted in such complexity as the human eye is san"
Repeat after me: The eye is not irreducibly complex. That's a myth the creationists keep pushing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye - mr.gates, on 01/12/2009, -4/+16Many religions embrace the science that does not conflict with their teachings (Which isn't asking too much) I would in no way consider this embracing science. If you have faith (Believe in something without evidence) which is a central tenant at some point of any religion I've come across then you do not embrace science because that belief in itself is contrary to a scientific world view.
- alukima, on 01/12/2009, -7/+19Catholics have been embracing science for a few centuries.
I think its really only a few nutter sects of Christianity that do not.
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~nmcenter/sci-faith.htm ... - egoideal, on 01/12/2009, -2/+14@kaivalangi: So you're saying that it is simpler that there is a supernatural being floating around in the sky that is all powerful, yet wants us to believe in him, even though he never explicitly makes his presence known because he sent his son to earth to die for our sins and hence we should all know he exists even though none of us saw this son or any of his magic act since we were all not yet created by this being who made women out of a man's rib because the man was lonely in a perfect garden with a tree in it that had evil fruit created by this creator, for some reason, who also created everything else and wasn't actually created himself but can create anything he wants and, for some reason, with all this power, he decides to create you, a bumbling moron who's pathetic excuse for a logical argument revolves around an oversimplification of one of the most admittedly unknown scientific answers, even though you obviously have no experience dealing with the advanced mathematics that were used to arrive at this conclusion because your small mind is so terrified of the prospect of your inevitable demise that you would never question your allegiance to the almighty Zeus knockoff.
P.S.
Saying that something that is complicated to you must be the result of a divine being is arrogant. Doesn't that book thingy of yours teach humility? - Vorsprung, on 01/12/2009, -4/+16Here's the thing... religions of the East are inherently superior to those of the West
Oh yeah, I'm getting dugg down, but I don't regret it. - KublaiKhan, on 01/12/2009, -3/+14Wait a second, Bhima, wait a second...if I am a moderate Christian, but I don't take to the streets to actively protest against the ridiculous things said and done by creationists, I might as well be on their side?
So then, let's apply this logic elsewhere: if you are not going out there and knocking down the doors of the Israeli embassy, you must support whatever they are doing in the Middle East. Because, after all, "silence is tantamount to supporting them." - petebot, on 01/12/2009, -2/+12Are there any extremist buddhists?
- Dralha, on 01/12/2009, -16/+25"Sane christian" LOL. It's the very essence of insanity to believe that "a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree."
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v386/Artorius/ch ... - masscrazy, on 01/12/2009, -2/+11Check it fools...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00gksx4
"Physicist Jim Al-Khalili travels through Syria, Iran, Tunisia and Spain to tell the story of the great leap in scientific knowledge that took place in the Islamic world between the 8th and 14th centuries.
Its legacy is tangible, with terms like algebra, algorithm and alkali all being Arabic in origin and at the very heart of modern science - there would be no modern mathematics or physics without algebra, no computers without algorithms and no chemistry without alkalis." - askantik, on 01/12/2009, -2/+11You could argue that Wikipedia isn't a credible source for this, but it does say that:
"A religion is a set of stories, symbols, beliefs and practices, often with a supernatural quality, that give meaning to the practitioner's experiences of life through reference to an ultimate power or reality." Often with a supernatural quality... not always. And Buddhism still has supernatural/spiritual qualities, such as the state of nirvana. - archiesteel, on 01/13/2009, -1/+9Please note that not all school of Buddhism believe in the actual reality of all Buddhist figures. In fact, you can be a Buddhist and not actually believe in the existence of an immortal soul.
- 9bpm9, on 01/12/2009, -6/+14Buried simply for the title. Because it's wrong. This isn't the only religion that believes in science.
- Cole2026, on 01/13/2009, -4/+12Why does the belief in reincarnation conflict with science? Honestly, how you can establish some kind of crazy axiom that everything that has not been explicitly discovered by scientific investigation is false?
- StaticThunder, on 01/13/2009, -6/+14Dude, in brief, Christian *canon* says that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree ... and if you don't do this you will live after death in a lake of burning sulfur to suffer for all eternity.
Western Buddhists generally believe, in brief, that you should try to see your thoughts and actions in the larger context of 'things as they actually are' and as a result treat your fellow beings with compassion because only then can you reduce the overall level of suck in the universe.
DO YOU SEE A DIFFERENCE?
I sure as hell do. I don't even necessarily agree with the Buddhists but they sure seem to have a better grip on sanity. - royalboyle, on 01/12/2009, -2/+10@geogeer. Embryonic stem cells are harvested from unused IVF embryos. The embryos would eventually be destroyed anyway, so why not use them for medical research?
- kavaliro, on 01/12/2009, -1/+9The Baha'i Faith lists harmony between science and religion as indispensable:
"Religion and Science are inter-twined with each other and cannot be separated. These are the two wings with which humanity must fly. One wing is not enough. Every religion which does not concern itself with Science is mere tradition, and that is not the essential. Therefore science, education and civilization are most important necessities for the full religious life." --Abdu'l-Baha - Murdats, on 01/12/2009, -4/+11@kaivalangi
just because you lack the mental capacity to understand a concept and can only reduce it to a ridiculous level of simplification does not make it false.
it is also not valid to say "I don't understand this complicated process so its magic" - TurnipFarm, on 01/13/2009, -0/+7That's strange.
"According to Government classification it's a religion."
According to the Government marijuana leads to teen pregnancy.
"According to the Buddhist religious establishment, it's a religion."
The "Buddhist religious establishment" does not have a mouth.
"According to its written teachings on divine manifestation, it's a religion."
The texts you're referring to might be commentaries, the core texts never refer to a "religion," and instead point to much broader and more important concepts of right being and truth.
In some ways you're right, but all of it's ends are in life and not in death, and I think that's where it differs from all other religions. - MasterMahan, on 01/13/2009, -0/+7Over 50% of Americans reject the theory of evolution. That's a lot of people rejecting science.
- Murdats, on 01/12/2009, -2/+9he is parodying the arguments people make against muslims when terrorist attacks happen and biggoted americans say "all muslims must support this because they don't speak out against it"
- 23cranberries, on 01/12/2009, -2/+9The western perception of 'Religion' can't successfully be superimposed onto their Eastern counterparts. Buddhism, Hinduism ,Shintoism, Tenrikyo, Taoism et al are all explicitly different in a lot of ways when compared to western religion.
- GreatDrok, on 01/12/2009, -3/+10right, because believing that suddenly there was a big creator that produced such complexity as the human eye is sane, while the much simpler, more reasonable answer that it just evolved is not.
- Praystation, on 01/12/2009, -4/+11Notice that Christians, Muslims and Jews generally hate each other? Buddhists never kill anyone in the name of god. Why? because we don't believe in god. We believe in peace and the fact that all our own actions will have ramifications whether good or bad.
- Esstee, on 01/12/2009, -2/+9Tolerance...
digg....
You've got to be kidding. - Murdats, on 01/12/2009, -2/+9@Esstee
creationsists, flat earthers, many others who believe in crazy things in opposition to evidence. - newtondave, on 01/12/2009, -3/+10@stevesearer: "science can't explain how everything started and where it all came from"
That's not an excuse to retreat to mythology and storytelling. *Saying* it came from a creator doesn't mean it *did*--you're not "explaining" anything by dodging the question. - chaosblade77, on 01/13/2009, -1/+8First of all ekkiet, it's not often you see somebody that's knowledgeable about their faith to that extent. That said, I still think the sin issue is contradictory based on one of your previous points.
"Actually, we do believe that God knew everything before it happened. [...]"
Essentially, predestination. Isn't one of the foundations of Christianity that a person has a choice of whether or not they want to reside with God? They can choose to believe in him or be separated from him. If God already knows everything before it happens, a person does not truly have a choice do they? He already knows Observer A is going to die without trusting in Christ, yet Observer B will trust in him and reside in Heaven.
On top of that
"Sin cannot abide in God's presence because He is both infinitely holy and perfectly just. His justice demands rightful payment for sin."
God had to create sin, after all, God created everything? Lucifer may have been an angel at one point, but sin had to exist already since Lucifer technically sinned against God, resulting in being cast into Hell. Basically, Sin had to exist before Lucifer sinned against God, meaning God created sin, making it contradictory. - enantiodromia, on 01/13/2009, -0/+7newtondave,
Consider the following:
Does it matter to Christianity if Christ never existed?
Absolutely.
Does it matter to Buddhism if Siddhartha Gautama never existed?
Not one bit.
What was said thousands of years ago in Buddhism means nothing. Buddhism is a "here and now" mind set. Eventually, the goal is to realize there is no "here" and here is no "now", and that there is no "me" and that there is no "you".
Christianity, Judaism, and Islam completely crumble and fall apart if you try to remove the past from the now. It cannot be done. You cannot remove the Covenant from those three religions without destroying them. You cannot remove Jesus from Christianity, or Mohammad from Islam, or Moses from Judaism, without destroying those religions.
In those religions, the order in which events take place, and their "factual" and "historical" aspects are vital. Could you remove the Crucifixion from Christianity and have it still "work"? Can you remove Moses and the 10 Commandments from Judaism and still have a functioning religion? Can you remove Allah talking to Mohammad and still wind up with Islam? No, you cannot.
Can you remove Siddhartha's experience leaving the protection of his father's city walls and seeing pain and sickness for the first time, and still wind up with Buddhism? Yes.
Can you remove Siddhartha's experience under the Bodhi tree from Buddhism and still wind up with a philosophy which teaches "there is no tree"? Yes.
The Big Three religions of the Western world are believed "revealed" to Man by God, one step at a time. There is no discovery, only accepting a Divine lesson given to us by Yawheh. Without Yahweh, these religions are nothing. Without these religions, Yahweh is nothing.
Buddhism is more of a discovery. There is no God revealing a Divine Plan. There are no subordinate sinners under an all powerful God whose whims make or break Mankind. There is no pre-requisite that anything in a Bible be true and historical fact.
There are only signs along the way, pointing you in the right direction, if you choose to look for them.
Back to my original assertion: once night of profound internalized ego-annihilating psychedelic experience is worth at least one lifetime of attending Church every Sunday and listening to someone else read a book to you then tell you what they think it means. -
Show 51 - 100 of 562 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 