Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
What is your opinion of the "New Atheist" movement?
If you hate a person, you hate something in him that is part of yourself. What isn't part of ourselves doesn't disturb us. ~Hermann Hesse
I disagree. I think most people hate what is different from them.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
If you hate a person, you hate something in him that is part of yourself. What isn't part of ourselves doesn't disturb us. ~Hermann Hesse
He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. - Friedrich Nietzsche
Which is true. You don't see that many atheists going around trying to ban religion. The only thing that Atheists want to ban is religion in government.
Its the attitude not the mission of the New Athiests that bothers me. I also am bothered by DOMA, intelligent design in science class, etc. etc.
I guess my approach is to be the change you want to see in the world. While I generally agree with the Athiest movement when I hear them talk, like in the videos you posted, I'm really turned off by the hate and intolerance I hear from them. I think that is why people compare them to the hateful and intolerant religious fundamentalists.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
If you hate a person, you hate something in him that is part of yourself. What isn't part of ourselves doesn't disturb us. ~Hermann Hesse
I disagree. I think most people hate what is different from them.
I guess my approach is to be the change you want to see in the world. While I generally agree with the Athiest movement when I hear them talk, like in the videos you posted, I'm really turned off by the hate and intolerance I hear from them. I think that is why people compare them to the hateful and intolerant religious fundamentalists.
Thats probably the natural reaction if you confront yourself with hateful and intolerant religious fundamentalists all the time.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
I guess my approach is to be the change you want to see in the world. While I generally agree with the Athiest movement when I hear them talk, like in the videos you posted, I'm really turned off by the hate and intolerance I hear from them. I think that is why people compare them to the hateful and intolerant religious fundamentalists.
Thats probably the natural reaction if you confront yourself with hateful and intolerant religious fundamentalists all the time.
Thus my earlier quote.
He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. - Friedrich Nietzsche
yes, but i that is easier said than done. if you have ever argued with someone that had irrational beliefs and was very very convinced and was trying to convince you, you probably know how upsetting that is. i can totaly understand that these people get intolerant themselves.
additonaly they are trying to reach people that got convinced by a intolerant and aggressive style of preaching. maybe you have to use the same "tools" to get trough.
I guess my approach is to be the change you want to see in the world. While I generally agree with the Athiest movement when I hear them talk, like in the videos you posted, I'm really turned off by the hate and intolerance I hear from them. I think that is why people compare them to the hateful and intolerant religious fundamentalists.
People compare them to fundamentalists because they don't like criticism of their religion. Heck I know some religious Buddhists here would believe I am an fundamentalist because I criticize their belief in the supernatural.
yes, but i that is easier said than done. if you have ever argued with someone that had irrational beliefs and was very very convinced and was trying to convince you, you probably know how upsetting that is. i can totaly understand that these people get intolerant themselves.
additonaly they are trying to reach people that got convinced by a intolerant and aggressive style of preaching. maybe you have to use the same "tools" to get trough.
One thing I always try to remember is that most Christians think Buddhists are irrational. And most Buddhists think Christians are irrational.
hehe, yes thats true. but there are cases of obvious and wrong irrational, like: I believe in god xxx and my religion says you are wrong and because of that im gonna hate you.
I guess my approach is to be the change you want to see in the world. While I generally agree with the Athiest movement when I hear them talk, like in the videos you posted, I'm really turned off by the hate and intolerance I hear from them. I think that is why people compare them to the hateful and intolerant religious fundamentalists.
People compare them to fundamentalists because they don't like criticism of their religion. Heck I know some religious Buddhists here would believe I am an fundamentalist because I criticize their belief in the supernatural.
Not necessarily. I'm not religious. I still object to fundamentalism and preaching. In any form, be it from a religious person or an atheist. Hardcore atheists undermine their own argument when they say things along the lines of, "I loathe intolerance. Religious people are so intolerant. And anyone who believes in God is a brainwashed moron." See where I'm coming from there?
I will state again- I have no problem with atheism. None whatsoever. I do have a major problem with people being assumed to be stupid/bigoted/whatever simply because their beliefs differ from yours.
I'm yet to be convinced that the answer to intolerance/narrow-mindedness is more intolerance/narrow-mindedness.
yes, but i that is easier said than done. if you have ever argued with someone that had irrational beliefs and was very very convinced and was trying to convince you, you probably know how upsetting that is. i can totaly understand that these people get intolerant themselves.
additonaly they are trying to reach people that got convinced by a intolerant and aggressive style of preaching. maybe you have to use the same "tools" to get trough.
Maybe not my best word creation. I meant beliefs that go against either facts of physical reality or against humanity.
Like people saying they can fly (without help of devices and for a longer period of time ) trough meditation or something. General claims of extra ordinary abilites without proof. This is often paired with making money out of it or getting fame. Beliefs in things that causes harm to others. Like i mentioned above, if someone beliefs that he has the one and only true god or religion and because of that he discriminates, hates or even kills other people.
If someone beliefs in a god but it doesnt change his behaviour towards other people, who would care?
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
Ok, New Athiests don't push their beliefs on others the way evangelicals do, so its better in that regard. I still say they're as dogmatic in the way the hold their beliefs though.
I still am yet to see how anything you've posted justifies intolerance across the board of religion and religious people.
Make no mistake- I absolutely believe religion should be kept out of politics and out of education.
I am a gay woman and would like to be married someday- obviously much of the opposition to that is from religious conservatives. I *still* maintain that the positon "anyone who isn't an atheist is an idiot" is bigotry.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
edited February 2012
Were dogmatic because criticize religion and don't tolerate religion. lol
Yes
New Atheists/ Secular Buddhists: Um...there is no evidence supporting rebirth nor kara. Why should we all believe in this supernatural jumbo?
Religious people: Stop being so dogmatic and tolerate our superstitions!!!
No, just don't believe it. The dogmatic part is where you try to tell others that your way is the right way.
No, just don't believe it. The dogmatic part is where you try to tell others that your way is the right way.
dog·ma/ˈdôgmə/ Noun: A principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.
Atheists don't do dogma because we don't support anything as incontrovertibly true until it has evidence that supports it's true.
When it is dogma to tell others that our way is the right way when there is evidence and rational basis for our claim? It's more dogmatic to tell others to believe in your way because just because you said so, a 2,000 year old book said so, or a monk said so without evidence to back up their claims.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
edited February 2012
How can something be incontrovertibly true if its negative hasn't been disproven. Its likely true and good to believe it, thats not the same thing. We don't have to completely close our minds to other possibilities
Buddhism deals with subjective experience. How do we know what anger feels like, what the experience of peace is? For common emotions we know how we feel and we compare that with what others feel to reach a consensus that the emotion we feel is anger. I doubt you use scientific studies to verify what you're feeling.
Through meditative experience we can touch subtler, more refined experience and we can then verify that with others who also have that experience. So we don't have to simply take another's word, we can find out for ourselves.
As to supranormal phenomena, I don't have any direct experience for rebirth but I have enough personal, subjective experience to believe that phenomena outside of our everyday experience do occur. I believe it, but I don't demand that you do too without your own experience.
Teaching a belief is also different than pushing a belief. One can teach it and the recipient is allowed to accept it or not. Pushing a belief demands acceptance of the recipient.
How can something be incontrovertibly true if its negative hasn't been disproven. Its likely true and good to believe it, thats not the same thing. We don't have to completely close our minds to other possibilities
You are so right.
B5C seems to think that a lack of concrete evidence proves something. It just proves there's a lack of concrete evidence which may indicate a certain position.
How can something be incontrovertibly true if its negative hasn't been disproven. Its likely true and good to believe it, thats not the same thing. We don't have to completely close our minds to other possibilities
Well I am not going to be so open-minded which will cause my brain to fall out of my skull.
Buddhism deals with subjective experience. How do we know what anger feels like, what the experience of peace is? For common emotions we know how we feel and we compare that with what others feel to reach a consensus that the emotion we feel is anger. I doubt you use scientific studies to verify what you're feeling.
Through meditative experience we can touch subtler, more refined experience and we can then verify that with others who also have that experience. So we don't have to simply take another's word, we can find out for ourselves.
Yeah, there is some facts about how meditation works to improve the brain. That is a fact.
As to supranormal phenomena, I don't have any direct experience for rebirth but I have enough personal, subjective experience to believe that phenomena outside of our everyday experience do occur. I believe it, but I don't demand that you do too without your own experience.
Then that is your belief, but you can not claim what you believe is true without evidence to back up your claim. Personal Experience is not good enough evidence because it's anecdotal evidence. Why? Because personal experience is not falsifiable.
Teaching a belief is also different than pushing a belief. One can teach it and the recipient is allowed to accept it or not. Pushing a belief demands acceptance of the recipient.
The only thing we ask is that when you believe in something. Please have an rational reason to believe in something and don't use faith to believe.
How can something be incontrovertibly true if its negative hasn't been disproven. Its likely true and good to believe it, thats not the same thing. We don't have to completely close our minds to other possibilities
You are so right.
B5C seems to think that a lack of concrete evidence proves something. It just proves there's a lack of concrete evidence which may indicate a certain position.
You are right lack of evidence is no proof for not existence and evidence is no proof for existence. Science doesnt tell us what is truth or not truth. It looks how reality behaves, trys to describe it and then says what is likely and what is not likely.
If a scientist or atheist or whoever tells you, you have to stop to believe in your god because there is no evidence for him, he is just an ass.
The reason these new atheist do this is because the belief of the people results in non tolerable behaviour. What good would a belief be if it causes harm to other people.
You are right lack of evidence is no proof for not existence and evidence is no proof for existence. Science doesnt tell us what is truth or not truth. It looks how reality behaves, trys to describe it and then says what is likely and what is not likely.
If a scientist or atheist or whoever tells you, you have to stop to believe in your god because there is no evidence for him, he is just an ass.
The reason these new atheist do this is because the belief of the people results in non tolerable behaviour. What good would a belief be if it causes harm to other people.
Note: If we don't have the answers yet. The best answer to come up with is: "I don't know"
How can something be incontrovertibly true if its negative hasn't been disproven. Its likely true and good to believe it, thats not the same thing. We don't have to completely close our minds to other possibilities
Well I am not going to be so open-minded which will cause my brain to fall out of my skull.
Buddhism deals with subjective experience. How do we know what anger feels like, what the experience of peace is? For common emotions we know how we feel and we compare that with what others feel to reach a consensus that the emotion we feel is anger. I doubt you use scientific studies to verify what you're feeling.
Through meditative experience we can touch subtler, more refined experience and we can then verify that with others who also have that experience. So we don't have to simply take another's word, we can find out for ourselves.
Yeah, there is some facts about how meditation works to improve the brain. That is a fact.
As to supranormal phenomena, I don't have any direct experience for rebirth but I have enough personal, subjective experience to believe that phenomena outside of our everyday experience do occur. I believe it, but I don't demand that you do too without your own experience.
Then that is your belief, but you can not claim what you believe is true without evidence to back up your claim. Personal Experience is not good enough evidence because it's anecdotal evidence. Why? Because personal experience is not falsifiable.
Teaching a belief is also different than pushing a belief. One can teach it and the recipient is allowed to accept it or not. Pushing a belief demands acceptance of the recipient.
The only thing we ask is that when you believe in something. Please have an rational reason to believe in something and don't use faith to believe.
Respectfully, who are you to tell someone why they should or shouldn't believe in something? And, again, what is "rational"? Is not the observable rational to the observer, regardless of the fact it may be assumed to be fancy or fiction when described to someone else?
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
edited February 2012
Buddhism deals with subjective experience. How do we know what anger feels like, what the experience of peace is? For common emotions we know how we feel and we compare that with what others feel to reach a consensus that the emotion we feel is anger. I doubt you use scientific studies to verify what you're feeling.
So you didn't believe in your emotions until you found out about neuro imaging? Not how the brain processes these things but what they actually feel like (subjective experience).
Through meditative experience we can touch subtler, more refined experience and we can then verify that with others who also have that experience. So we don't have to simply take another's word, we can find out for ourselves.
Yeah, there is some facts about how meditation works to improve the brain. That is a fact.
For you. For others, they have experience with them.
As to supranormal phenomena, I don't have any direct experience for rebirth but I have enough personal, subjective experience to believe that phenomena outside of our everyday experience do occur. I believe it, but I don't demand that you do too without your own experience.
Then that is your belief, but you can not claim what you believe is true without evidence to back up your claim. Personal Experience is not good enough evidence because it's anecdotal evidence. Why? Because personal experience is not falsifiable.
This goes back to how deeper meditative states are learned and developed in Buddhism. It isn't simply good enough for someone to bliss out and say what that experience is on their own. It gets verified by confirming with others who have that experience. As far as I know subjective experience isn't scientifically measurable, so how are we supposed to function without a study telling us what we feel like. We take our experience of everyday emotions for granted because everyone has them and we can easily confirm our experience with others. Meditative experience isn't as common but that doesn't mean we can't verify that with others.
Teaching a belief is also different than pushing a belief. One can teach it and the recipient is allowed to accept it or not. Pushing a belief demands acceptance of the recipient.
The only thing we ask is that when you believe in something. Please have an rational reason to believe in something and don't use faith to believe.
I do have a rational reason. I can't show it to you though because its not a material thing. Then based upon the amount of experience that I can verify I'm willing to provisionally accept other things on a bit of faith. Its not unlike provisionally accepting in a new scientific study because previous scientific studies have gone through the ringer and found to be true before actually verifying the truth of it yourself.
I do have a rational reason. I can't show it to you though because its not a material thing. Then based upon the amount of experience that I can verify I'm willing to provisionally accept other things on a bit of faith. Its not unlike provisionally accepting in a new scientific study because previous scientific studies have gone through the ringer and found to be true before actually verifying the truth of it yourself.
Do you think people who claimed who were abducted by aliens have a rational reason because they had a personal experience?
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
I do have a rational reason. I can't show it to you though because its not a material thing. Then based upon the amount of experience that I can verify I'm willing to provisionally accept other things on a bit of faith. Its not unlike provisionally accepting in a new scientific study because previous scientific studies have gone through the ringer and found to be true before actually verifying the truth of it yourself.
Do you think people who claimed who were abducted by aliens have a rational reason because they had a personal experience?
If they can verify it with others who have confirmed the truth of it.
There is a verification process in Buddhism. Its not simply a matter of anyone believing whatever they want because it suits their fancy or because someone else said its so.
You are right lack of evidence is no proof for not existence and evidence is no proof for existence. Science doesnt tell us what is truth or not truth. It looks how reality behaves, trys to describe it and then says what is likely and what is not likely.
If a scientist or atheist or whoever tells you, you have to stop to believe in your god because there is no evidence for him, he is just an ass.
The reason these new atheist do this is because the belief of the people results in non tolerable behaviour. What good would a belief be if it causes harm to other people.
Note: If we don't have the answers yet. The best answer to come up with is: "I don't know"
I agree, but you often do not follow that advice. Which is what the past few posts have been about.
There is a verification process in Buddhism. Its not simply a matter of anyone believing whatever they want because it suits their fancy or because someone else said its so.
There is an verification process in Catholic church on miracles. Yet, it still does not prove that miracles are real.
I agree, but you often do not follow that advice. Which is what the past few posts have been about.
I do follow that. I don't know what happens when we die. I am not going to be open-mined of a rebirth or an after life because there is little or no evidence supporting any of this stuff. As of now I accept that there is nothing after I die until I see evidence saying otherwise.
Is that a more reasonable idea than just accepting that there is a afterlife because someone else said so with no evidence back up their claim.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
edited February 2012
If they can verify it with others who have confirmed the truth of it.
If a group claimed they were abducted does not confirm anything. It is still anecdotal evidence.
I did say confirmed the truth of it.
There is a verification process in Buddhism. Its not simply a matter of anyone believing whatever they want because it suits their fancy or because someone else said its so.
There is an verification process in Catholic church on miracles. Yet, it still does not prove that miracles are real.
Ok, I guess there is a certain amount of faith that others have attained enlightenment. Its not blind faith though. There is a process to investigate a teacher to see if they have certain qualities.
Also, how have you proven you feel angry or sad? Just because it conforms to what others say doesn't prove that what you actually feel is the same as others.
I agree, but you often do not follow that advice. Which is what the past few posts have been about.
I do follow that. I don't know what happens when we die. I am not going to be open-mined of a rebirth or an after life because there is little or no evidence supporting any of this stuff. As of now I accept that there is nothing after I die until I see evidence saying otherwise.
Is that a more reasonable idea than just accepting that there is a afterlife because someone else said so with no evidence back up their claim.
No, it isn't. Dissect one paragraph above: "...I am not going to be open-mined of a rebirth or an after life..." and "...I accept that there is nothing after I die until I see evidence saying otherwise".
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
I agree, but you often do not follow that advice. Which is what the past few posts have been about.
I do follow that. I don't know what happens when we die. I am not going to be open-mined of a rebirth or an after life because there is little or no evidence supporting any of this stuff. As of now I accept that there is nothing after I die until I see evidence saying otherwise.
Is that a more reasonable idea than just accepting that there is a afterlife because someone else said so with no evidence back up their claim.
Having your beliefs is one thing. Expecting others to believe the same as you is the other and what this thread is about.
Exactly. B5C, if you were saying, "I demand evidence when people expect me to believe something", well, fair enough. But you're not. It seems very much as if you're saying people are compelled to provide evidence to justify their own personal beliefs (presuming they're not the same as yours) even if they're not pushing them on to anyone else. Arrogant and presumptuous in the extreme, IMHO.
Having your beliefs is one thing. Expecting others to believe the same as you is the other and what this thread is about.
That is the point. Why should we live in a world where people will believing in something that is irrational? These irrational beliefs cause so much troubles in the world.
Having your beliefs is one thing. Expecting others to believe the same as you is the other and what this thread is about.
That is the point. Why should we live in a world where people will believing in something that is irrational? These irrational beliefs cause so much troubles in the world.
That is the point. Why should we live in a world where people will believing in something that is irrational? These irrational beliefs cause so much troubles in the world.
Because what may seem irrational at one point in time, may be common knowledge later.
The earth is spherical.
The sun is the center of the solar system.
Man will land on the moon.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
I guess where I butt up against verification and faith is believing if nirvana and enlightenment are actually possible. I struggle to find out if this is true or not. Once this is believed everything else falls in place after that for me.
Hey @B5C at least we can agree that Dr. Who is awesome.
I don't mean from a mystical/spiritual standpoint. Buddhism teaches tolerance, compassion and open-mindedness. I think you missed my point...
tolerance: I can tolerate it if it does not affect my life. Yet, Religion is very important in the United States heck only 40% of Americans still believe in creationism. I can I tolerate it when religion is being pushed by the government?
Compassion: I can be compassionate to others. I can still love them & care for them. I can see how religion maybe good for them, but I do not have to accept their beliefs. I do have a right how they are wrong in their belief.
I was going to read all of this thread and then write a thought-filled post, but that'd be pointless because everyone here is adamantly anti-atheism, so...
I was going to read all of this thread and then write a thought-filled post, but that'd be pointless because everyone here is adamantly anti-atheism, so...
Actually, I'm not anti-atheist. The problem I have is that the most aggressive people I've met on topic of religion are not most of the religious people I know. I've found the atheists to be most aggressive.
Every person should believe what they believe. But leave me alone.
Define aggressive. I don't see how atheists are any more aggressive than religious people.
I'm not saying in general they are. I'm only talking about my personal experiences. I have had more far unpleasant conversations about atheism than I have about, for example, Christian evangelism.
I'm not saying in general they are. I'm only talking about my personal experiences. I have had more far unpleasant conversations about atheism than I have about, for example, Christian evangelism.
Was that because atheists tend to poke at places about your religion that you don't feel comfortable with?
Comments
I guess my approach is to be the change you want to see in the world. While I generally agree with the Athiest movement when I hear them talk, like in the videos you posted, I'm really turned off by the hate and intolerance I hear from them. I think that is why people compare them to the hateful and intolerant religious fundamentalists.
He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster.
- Friedrich Nietzsche
additonaly they are trying to reach people that got convinced by a intolerant and aggressive style of preaching. maybe you have to use the same "tools" to get trough.
I will state again- I have no problem with atheism. None whatsoever. I do have a major problem with people being assumed to be stupid/bigoted/whatever simply because their beliefs differ from yours.
I'm yet to be convinced that the answer to intolerance/narrow-mindedness is more intolerance/narrow-mindedness.
Metta.
I'm with you on the preaching, though.
Like people saying they can fly (without help of devices and for a longer period of time
If someone beliefs in a god but it doesnt change his behaviour towards other people, who would care?
New Atheists/ Secular Buddhists: Um...there is no evidence supporting rebirth nor kara. Why should we all believe in this supernatural jumbo?
Religious people: Stop being so dogmatic and tolerate our superstitions!!!
Make no mistake- I absolutely believe religion should be kept out of politics and out of education.
I am a gay woman and would like to be married someday- obviously much of the opposition to that is from religious conservatives. I *still* maintain that the positon "anyone who isn't an atheist is an idiot" is bigotry.
Noun:
A principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.
Atheists don't do dogma because we don't support anything as incontrovertibly true until it has evidence that supports it's true.
When it is dogma to tell others that our way is the right way when there is evidence and rational basis for our claim? It's more dogmatic to tell others to believe in your way because just because you said so, a 2,000 year old book said so, or a monk said so without evidence to back up their claims.
Buddhism deals with subjective experience. How do we know what anger feels like, what the experience of peace is? For common emotions we know how we feel and we compare that with what others feel to reach a consensus that the emotion we feel is anger. I doubt you use scientific studies to verify what you're feeling.
Through meditative experience we can touch subtler, more refined experience and we can then verify that with others who also have that experience. So we don't have to simply take another's word, we can find out for ourselves.
As to supranormal phenomena, I don't have any direct experience for rebirth but I have enough personal, subjective experience to believe that phenomena outside of our everyday experience do occur. I believe it, but I don't demand that you do too without your own experience.
Teaching a belief is also different than pushing a belief. One can teach it and the recipient is allowed to accept it or not. Pushing a belief demands acceptance of the recipient.
B5C seems to think that a lack of concrete evidence proves something. It just proves there's a lack of concrete evidence which may indicate a certain position.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2000/10/09/MNC1007.DTL&ao=all
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/31/health/psychology/31love.html?pagewanted=all Yeah, there is some facts about how meditation works to improve the brain. That is a fact.
http://www.livescience.com/7306-brain-scans-reveal-meditation-works.html
The problem is the supernatural.
Then that is your belief, but you can not claim what you believe is true without evidence to back up your claim. Personal Experience is not good enough evidence because it's anecdotal evidence. Why? Because personal experience is not falsifiable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence#Anecdotal_evidence_and_faulty_logic
The only thing we ask is that when you believe in something. Please have an rational reason to believe in something and don't use faith to believe.
You are right lack of evidence is no proof for not existence and evidence is no proof for existence. Science doesnt tell us what is truth or not truth. It looks how reality behaves, trys to describe it and then says what is likely and what is not likely.
If a scientist or atheist or whoever tells you, you have to stop to believe in your god because there is no evidence for him, he is just an ass.
The reason these new atheist do this is because the belief of the people results in non tolerable behaviour. What good would a belief be if it causes harm to other people.
This goes back to how deeper meditative states are learned and developed in Buddhism. It isn't simply good enough for someone to bliss out and say what that experience is on their own. It gets verified by confirming with others who have that experience. As far as I know subjective experience isn't scientifically measurable, so how are we supposed to function without a study telling us what we feel like. We take our experience of everyday emotions for granted because everyone has them and we can easily confirm our experience with others. Meditative experience isn't as common but that doesn't mean we can't verify that with others. I do have a rational reason. I can't show it to you though because its not a material thing. Then based upon the amount of experience that I can verify I'm willing to provisionally accept other things on a bit of faith. Its not unlike provisionally accepting in a new scientific study because previous scientific studies have gone through the ringer and found to be true before actually verifying the truth of it yourself.
There is a verification process in Buddhism. Its not simply a matter of anyone believing whatever they want because it suits their fancy or because someone else said its so.
Also there is a thing called shared cultural delusions:
http://crash.ihug.co.nz/~marshall/delusion.htm
http://www.skepdic.com/aliens.html
Folie_à_deux
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folie_à_deux There is an verification process in Catholic church on miracles. Yet, it still does not prove that miracles are real.
Is that a more reasonable idea than just accepting that there is a afterlife because someone else said so with no evidence back up their claim.
Ok, I guess there is a certain amount of faith that others have attained enlightenment. Its not blind faith though. There is a process to investigate a teacher to see if they have certain qualities.
Also, how have you proven you feel angry or sad? Just because it conforms to what others say doesn't prove that what you actually feel is the same as others.
The earth is spherical.
The sun is the center of the solar system.
Man will land on the moon.
Hey @B5C at least we can agree that Dr. Who is awesome.
Compassion: I can be compassionate to others. I can still love them & care for them. I can see how religion maybe good for them, but I do not have to accept their beliefs. I do have a right how they are wrong in their belief.
Open-mindedness: Buddha wasn't that open-minded:
The internetz!! lolz