[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 76 KB, 400x395, sahasrara.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1765736 No.1765736 [Reply] [Original]

"The religion of future will be a cosmic religion. It should transcend a personal God and avoid dogmas and theology. Covering both the natural and the spiritual, it should be based on a religious sense arising from the experience of all things, natural and spiritual as a meaningful unity. Buddhism answers this description... If there is any religion that would cope with modern scientific needs, it would be Buddhism. "
-Albert Einstein
So I know there's always a few Religious threads up here that start a flamewar, but thought I'd put this quote forth. I've always been Atheist/Agnostic, flitting back and forth, but recently I've developed an interest in Buddhism, and I just stumbled across this... Buddhism is becoming more and more enticing.

Pic semi-related. It's the sahasrara, yo.

>> No.1765749

There already is a Religion based on Cosmic Religion....its called New Age

>> No.1765763

Nobody? Here I'll just say my piece.

I think what so draws me to Buddhism is that the core principle and moral end goal isn't servitude for a capricious space-wizard, but a means to open up human understanding to a greater scope, to achieve Enlightenment.

My problem is that western culture has done what we generally like to do with exotic things that are a little too strong for us (like curry and Chinese food): water it the fuck down. I feel like if I say i'm a buddhist I'd look like some "hip" soccer-mom, or like i'd be joining some fad like pilates or yoga instead of, y'know, a REAL school of metaphysical thought and theory. I don't want to be a pussy buddhist, so if I became one i'd go all the way: meditation, real scriptures, aiming for enlightenment etc.

>> No.1765775

>>1765749
I read the wikipedia and honestly it doesn't grab me the same way Buddhism does.

I feel like this New Age crap is kind of westernized self-help slipped into stuff aped from Buddhism and other Eastern religions, and that it's made to sell books, but hey what do I know? I shouldn't judge.

>> No.1765796
File: 70 KB, 501x499, the_dalai_lama(large).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1765796

Also: let's compare religions.

Here's the spiritual leader for a huge portion of Buddhism, Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th Dalai Lama.
Now let's compare him to...

>> No.1765806
File: 29 KB, 468x377, popeG031007_468x377.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1765806

...this fucken guy. All of Catholicism is led by Darth Sidious. Sure, that's not all of Christianity, but still.

He creeps me out.

>> No.1765814

>>1765806

Fuck the mother fucker, and fuck YOU, motherfucker

if you think that mother fucker is sacred.

If you cover for another motherfucker whose a kiddy-fucker you're no better than the motherfucking rapist

>> No.1765823

>>1765814
wait are you mad at me or the pope? Yes, the Pope did cover for those child-molesting priests, but I hardly endorse him for that. In fact, I'm not a fan of Catholicism at all.

It's sort of hard to tell who you're mad at.

>> No.1765834

>>1765823

Oh no, not directed at you. It's the lyrics to this song.

http://vimeo.com/11338327

>> No.1765843

>>1765834
OH! that clears things up a lot.

But seriously now, /sci/, it's Albert Einstein endorsing a religion. THE MOST RECOGNIZED SCIENTIST OF ALL TIME, who's theories defined how we view the universe itself, who became a household name, who's name literally became synonymous for "smart person" (we don't call people "Newton's." That counts for something.) is endorsing a religion. And it's Buddhism.

You have NO THOUGHTS on the matter? AT ALL?

I'm not mad, I'm just surprised.

>> No.1765852

Therevada Buddhism, for all your Science needs.
http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/2001/06/What-Theravada-Buddhists-Believe.aspx

>> No.1765859

>>1765843
So what? He also endorsed a political ideology. And it was socialism. I quote Feynman, who I think was of greater general intelligence than Einstein, "I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy."

>> No.1765863

>>1765843
It's not really an endorsement. It's a prediction about what the religion of the future might be. Einstein was explicitly not religious.

Anyway, the thing with science, right, is that it moves on. We respect Einstein, but a modern physics researcher at a respectable technical institute almost certainly has a better understanding of the universe than he did. The shoulders of giants and all that.

>> No.1765864

OP I've been researching Buddhism a lot recently and I must say I'm very impressed. Everything about it just feels "right".

If you have Netflix I HIGHLY recommend watching the documentary "Unmistaken Child" about the search for the reincarnation of Lama Konchog by his closest student. There are a few brief scenes about astrology but other than that it seems pretty legit.

Also man I know exactly what you mean by people thinking you're just trying to be "hip" or some shit. I swear when people see that I'm interested in anything even remotely "exotic" as you put it, I feel like they think I'm trying to be a fucking Beatle or Madonna or something. Shit's not so cash.

>> No.1765882
File: 2.76 MB, 260x200, 1277953920302.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1765882

>>1765843
Albert Einstein isn't endorsing a religion. He's simply saying that the Buddhist religion of peace is one that would fit in most with the modern standards (reason, peace etc.) as opposed to the violence of Christianity and Islam
P.S. I don't care much for what Albert Einstein said about any religion, and I'm not gonna convert to it just because he did, cause I like to think for myself

>> No.1765952

>>1765882
LOL, he didn't say that at all. He expressed his preference for a religion without a personal God and without analytical thought about spirituality (theology). Hence, he prefers Buddhism.

>> No.1765968

Spiritual bullshit. There is no invisible soul or spirit inside you. The spirit/soul is an illusion. Buddhism is no better than any other form of religion because it uses mystical/magical crap to control and manipulate people.

>> No.1765974

>>1765968

Richard Dawkins is a faggot. Do you want to be a faggot?

Try using the word "probably" and you may sound like slightly less of a faggot.

>> No.1765988

>>1765843
Please educate yourself on the matter. He's using symbolism, poetry, and metaphor. Einstein did not endorse any religion nor faith.

>> No.1765991

>>1765974
Get fucked.
Believe in bullshit ghosts/spirits/soul if you want but I know it is crap.

>> No.1765996

Eastern religions are usually a blend of religion and philosophy. Not so bad, actually.

Every scientist should read something on Mohism, it's basically an attempt at science in the form of religion.

>> No.1765997

>>1765996
>Mohism, it's basically an attempt at science in the form of religion.
My brain is full of fuck. You know that makes absolutely no fucking sense, right?

>> No.1766001

>>1765991

Never mind you're hopeless. Enjoy being just as obnoxious as extreme fundamentalist gnostic theists.

>> No.1766002

>>1765974
there probably is no teapot orbiting the sin between mars and jupiter

>> No.1766008

>>1766002
>sin

meant sun

>> No.1766004
File: 34 KB, 373x330, agnostics..jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1766004

>>1766001

>> No.1766006

>>1765736
That quote is apocryphal...

>> No.1766010

>>1766004

Yeah yeah post your little images.

>> No.1766016
File: 8 KB, 417x429, agnocsticism.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1766016

>>1766010
and you keep ignoring them

>> No.1766019

>>1766016
Sometimes that is the correct statement to make. In this case, a good scientist takes this position. Strictly speaking, Dawkins also takes the position of "I don't know" but leans "There is probably no god".

>> No.1766031

>>1765988
>implying scientists are capable of using symbolism, poetry or metaphor.

>> No.1766035

>>1766016

Let me put it this way. I personally do not know if there is anything "higher" than the "physical universe". If I am honest with myself while examining my beliefs, I will find that I am an agnostic. I am not going to make an unnecessary decision one way or the other just so some "edgy" atheist on the internet won't think I'm arrogant or a coward.

Let me sum this all up for you:

I DO NOT GIVE A FUCK WHAT YOU THINK OR HAVE TO SAY ON THIS ISSUE

SUCK MY DICK

>> No.1766037

>>1766019
Strictly speaking, Dawkins takes the position of "I may not know, but that's sure as fuck not going to stop me from trolling the hell out of everyone who thinks they do."

>> No.1766041

>>1766037
I don't see how that's any different. I think we're agreeing.

Also, keep on trucking Dawkins.

>> No.1766042

>>1765997
Mohism believes that the study of science in an organized manner is a necessity for the improvement of the quality of life of everyone.

Their canon contains quite a few notions of mathematics and physics.

>> No.1766046

>>1766001
>>1766010
>>1766019
People who believe in ghosts?
I can categorically and without reservation state that ghosts/souls/spirits are not real, fabrications, and illusions. Any belief that is contrary to this is a symptom of a deluded mind. Outright confrontation of silly beliefs is the only way to eradicate this type of social cancer. Pussy footing around is for faggots.

>> No.1766052

>>1766042
So, it's religion masquerading as science. It is not science. Science is based on evidence. As soon as you no longer base your beliefs on evidence, on falsifiable predictions of the natural world, you are no longer doing science. There is no middle ground, and there is no sliding gradient.

>> No.1766051

>>1766046

You are just the biggest faggot.

>> No.1766068

>>1766051
Believes in ghosts?
yes go to /x/ with other deluded people.

>> No.1766071

>>1766052
This is what atheist proselitists honestly believe.

>> No.1766077

>>1766071
No, that's what non-jackasses believe. That is the definition of science. God or atheism has nothing to do with it.

>> No.1766078

>>1766052
Agreed. There is no place for mystical ghosty crap in science.

>> No.1766086

>>1766077

You're probably the guy at parties who overhears a few people talking about how "this one time I think I saw a ghost" or telling a UFO sighting story or whatever and promptly invites himself into the conversation to go on a loud, self-important rant/lecture on how wrong people are for even considering for the briefest of moments that anything not scientifically proven and backed by hard evidence has even the slightest chance of being possible.

Nobody likes you bro.

>> No.1766093

>>1766046
Then you are a fool.

>> No.1766094

>>1766086
Congratulations on the perfect ad hominem. I don't care if no one likes me. I don't care if I'm that guy. It doesn't change the definition of science.

Also, I don't go to parties. I hate people.

>> No.1766115

I like how op thinks, and those others who are open minded and all that shit. Personally, I believe that anyone can believe anything, as long as it does not get in the way of science or someone elses enjoyment of life. What one believes or thinks is fine, as long as it doesn't hold back the march of knowledge.

Let the masses have their religion, and those who choose otherwise to do so.

>> No.1766116

>>1766094

>I don't care if no one likes me. I don't care if I'm that guy.

I will say I respect you for this.

>> No.1766117

>>1766086
If I encounter silly beliefs I confront them provided it is socially acceptable. People believe in all sorts of retarded shit vampires, demons, ghosts/souls/spirits, and a myriad of thing that they never think about just blindly believe because they want it to be true. If someone says I saw a ghost at a party I will say ghosts are not real and if they wish to debate the point then I will debate it with them.
I think silly beliefs need to be confronted.

>> No.1766127

>>1766117
How do you know ghosts are not real? They're the one who saw one. You didn't see anything. All I'm hearing is a dogma. Dogmas aren't rational. Believing what you experience is rational.

>> No.1766131 [DELETED] 

>>1766117

>I saw a ghost.
>No you didn't.
>Yes I did I saw it.
>No you didn't they aren't real.
>Yes they are I saw one.
>No you didn't they aren't real.

Sure is going somewhere.

>> No.1766135 [DELETED] 

>I saw a ghost.
>No you didn't.
>Yes I did I saw it.
>No you didn't they aren't real.
>Yes they are I saw one.
>No they aren't you didn't see one because they aren't real.

Sure is going somewhere.

>> No.1766137

One can not deny what they can not prove does not exist, they can only assert the unlikeness that it does exist.

In the case of ghosts the simplest way is to reproduced the phenomenon being attributed to ghosts. This produces evidence that it wasn't a ghost and serves as proof of doubt.

>> No.1766142

>>1766117

>I saw a ghost.
>No you didn't.
>Yes I did I saw it.
>No you didn't they aren't real.
>Yes they are I saw one.
>No they aren't you didn't see one because they aren't real.
>But yes they are I saw one.

Sure is going somewhere.

>> No.1766149

As far as spirituality goes, there is nothing fundamentally wrong with it assuming that it does not try to contradict the known world with unverifiable assumptions and assertions.

From what little knowledge I have of Buddhism the religion is based almost entirely on acceptance of phenomenon (both internal like emotions and external such as events) and reflection on those things. I don't see it conflicting with science in the foreseeable future.

>> No.1766196

>>1766127
>How do you know ghosts are not real?
In the same way that I know vampires and fairies are not real.
Because they are a fabrication of a deluded mind derived from fictional story book characters.

>> No.1766202

>>1766196
>implying fictional stories aren't rooted in reality somewhere

>> No.1766200 [DELETED] 

>>1765996
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohism

>mfw it's just as supernatural and with just as crazy norms as any other religion

>> No.1766212

>>1766196
You are begging the question.

>> No.1766237

>>1766127
Because claims of ghost could never be substantiated and confirmed. Every claim of a ghost proved to be untestable or was falsified.

As a result, the probability of a ghost being real is very low. Low enough to constitute an epistemically sufficient reason to reject their existence.

>> No.1766241
File: 19 KB, 470x427, awesome2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1766241

Einstein never said that.

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Einstein#Misattributed

>> No.1766242

>>1766237
Claims of ghosts have been substantiated and confirmed many times by many people. You don't know what you're talking about. Sounds like "I have a dogma, therefore the evidence must conform to it."

>> No.1766248

>>1766202
Does not know what fictional means.

>> No.1766247

>>1766242
Sounds very much like religion, uh? Oh, wait, it IS a religion.

>> No.1766249

>>1766247
You must be misusing "religion" in some way. I don't know what you wish to convey with this statement.

>> No.1766252

>>1766249
That strong atheism / rationalism / whatever is a religion.

>> No.1766257

>>1766242
You asserting they are confirmed doesn't make them confirmed. That's just the typical "I claim X therefore X" so many irrational people cling to when confronted with reality.

"Many" are 2 at the very least. Scientific confirmation is documented in detail, so you should have no problem providing the links to these studies.

>> No.1766328

>religion
>future
>/sci thread

>> No.1766402

Anyone else think those were Lie groups?

>> No.1766408

OP pic sort of reminds me of the E8 diagram.

>> No.1766952

bumping this because WHY THE FUCK NOT

>> No.1767319

yea buddhism is THE shizzle

>> No.1768704

If there was a version of Buddhism that was completly based on observable reality (no reincarnation/after life with out proof. karma is a concept of cause and effect mixed with golden rule, not magic.) then I could totaly get in to Buddhism.

>> No.1768837

>>1768704
If there is not, maybe I should make it.

captcha is because warines

>> No.1768871

>>1768704
All religions are based on "observable" reality. Of course, they are an interpretation of observation, and we aren't talking about empirical observation, and the subject is prone to error because verification is very difficult.

>> No.1769415

>>1768871
let me rephrase.
Buddhism without the supernatural stuff would be somthing I would be up for.

>> No.1769432

>>1769415
Daoism dude. (philosophical, not Chinese folk religion version)

>> No.1769434

>>1768837
Making a new religion. Good luck with that.

>> No.1769454

>>1769432
I thought Daoism was just dogmatic bullshit. then again the only daoist I have ever met was a kung fu geek with a chemical imbalance so I guess I have to look in to it my self.

>> No.1769467 [DELETED] 
File: 45 KB, 450x352, outrage.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1769467

>mfw tibet, before chinese annexation, was a one-man theocratic dictatorship

>mfw the dalai lama personally owned 1,400 slaves

>mfw tibet imposed to death penalty for the crime of homosexuality

>mfw the dalai lama is a marxist and an anti-abortionist, "unless the child is retarded" (to quote his holy words)

>> No.1769475

As an athiest, buddhism is one of the few religions I actually respect. Not my cup of tea, but I can respect it.

>> No.1769493

>>1769434

Its easier than you think. Just look at scientology. The problem is his idea wouldn't be attractive to most people. Scientology is set up like an MMO, with incremental rewards ending in godhood, other religions promise eternal paradise after death

>> No.1769495

>>1765763

I think you can do so if you want to. I find Stoic ideas better than Buddhist. It runs along similar ideas -- mainly not being attached to your cirumstances and your stuff. It doesn't really ask or answer the idea of God(s). Though it came out of a Hellenic context in pagan Rome, so it was probably practiced alongside Hellenic Paganism.

That way, you could practice the philosophy of nonattachment and not be watering down Buddhism.

Of course if you want to do real Buddhism, I recommend "The Buddhist Bible" and the Dhammapada. The BB has a lot of the original texts from various Buddhist schools, advice on practicing, etc.

>> No.1769498

I have things to say about religion, but I keep it off this fucking board. You're no different than the other retards who don't understand the rules.

>> No.1769515

>>1768704
>>1769415

It's called "Theravada" Buddhism. It's the oldest surviving form of Buddhism and the closest to the original teachings, before superstitious faggotry and dogma crept in.

It teaches that insight come from observation and investigation and condemns blind faith.

>> No.1769570

OP should look into pantheism-basically atheism with spirituality added in, but no supernatural beliefs.

>> No.1769585

>>1769498
it is not like there is a board for this stuff on here.

>> No.1769702

>>1769515
Thanks, I will look in to that.

>> No.1769722

>>"The religion of future will be a cosmic religion"

We don't really have a religion, at least most people. I know there are a few singularians but they're few and far between.

The only really religious people left are the outsiders. I don't think Einstein had them in mind, though.

>> No.1769729

>>1769454

I'm an Erisian Taoist. Shit's so cash.

>> No.1770053

>>1769729
what is that?

>> No.1770290

>>1770053
just another word for Discordianism

>> No.1770318

>>1770290
Oh, ok.

>> No.1770345

bump lol

>> No.1770370

There is really no remaining Buddhist group, officially, that isn't full of dicks. Well, at least a few dicks.

The essentials of Buddhism are very non-mystical, non-metaphysical and based on observable subjective experience. The whole reincarnation thing is really only mentioned tangentially, like, "Yeah, so this happens, but I'm not going to bother getting to deeply into it since it's not that important to the present." Karma in Buddhism is in fact not so similar to how westerners tend to think of it, "karma" is a general term in Indian thought with many different interpretations. In Buddhism it largely refers to sort of a mental cause and effect, not so much that the universe throws down retribution or reward.

>> No.1770402

>>1770370

The/a very important concept in Buddhism goes something like this: All things (speaking in terms of things we experience, no metaphysical or ontological implications) are impermanent, unreliable.

Because of this, no thing can provide lasting satisfaction. If we cling to these unreliable things, it will result in distress for us.

Additionally, one of the things that distinguishing about Buddhism is the "not-self" concept. This is by and large an idea which developed in reference to Indian/Hindu concepts of a soul or a self, the "atman", but it is also applicable to and targets the general sense of "self-ness".

The point is not that we are all one in some mystical unity or anything like that, it's simply that there is no single thing which we can know that is a stable, permanent "self", a person is a fluctuating bundle of processes without essence.

The whole point of all that mumbo jumbo is for the purpose of removing attachment and craving. Because, as said before, attachment to what is unreliable will result in stress, suffering, even if very subtle.

When all things are understood as unreliable, unsatisfactory in the long term and without self essence, theoretically speaking eventually by making this understanding complete and integrated, attachment and craving can be ended, and though that, comes the ending of all agitation. This is nirvana. The ending of clinging to all phenomena. That's all.

There's not much of anything mystical in there.