A wise view. At least it got people talking, or at least commenting. But that is a very big issue if nobody is conceptually on the same page. Its turning into "Well, to me, X means (Insert pedantic nonsense). It is unfortunate, but someone has to try. The only problem I forsee is the same problem we have had for a while: Too many different opinions, nobody willing to admit anyone else is right.

Your statement asserts that all Gods or God is a superhuman. By this definition I do not believe in God. Your premise is not the same as mine so we cannot even begin a rational discussion because we are not conceptually on the same page

@The_Farseer I make no assumptions or asserts anything as far as definitions, those are from the Dictionary, not up for debate.

My opinions are about Islamb, preferences and rights are mine, and they are correct.

You can't make up your own definitions nor warp them to fit into your own biased view , that's not how any of this works

@The_Farseer
Google is very easy to use, see proper definitions, not from my high intellectual head,
Butts I am Flattered you thought I wrote all that.

@ElysiumRivers By that definition, certain sects of Buddhism would not be considered religions. My own faith is not a religion. Its not an adequate definition. Although the last part about Religion being a collection of beliefs pertinent to the supernatural, whether or not a Diety/Dieties exist, makes sense

@The_Farseer

Namaste?

Correct,
Buddhism is not a religion, as it lacks the necessary requirements to be defined as a religion. It’s not a system of faith or worshiping and allegiance to a supernatural beings.

Buddhism doesn’t require blind faith or repentance, they seek reason, understanding, knowledge and peace of mind in this chaos called life.

Why not a Religion there is no Supreme being to worship, no ceremonial rights to consider, no Future abode to which the dead are destined,
No souls for who’s welfare is to be looked after by someone else and mortality is not a matter of intense concern.

What sets philosophy a part as a discipline is more of a concern with how to answer questions then the answer itself. Just a philosophy is to learn to think carefully and critically about complexIssues not only to learn the answer.

As a Buddhist I’ve learned over sometime that it is a philosophy, a way of life, A state of mind, a mindset, it is far more than merely a Religion.

The four Noble truths and the Eight Fold Path are a guide through the middle way, Buddhism will guide you to questions and lead you to answers of course after much thought and consideration.

There’s no Buddhist God, it’s all about your basic goodness,
you are your own master and you are the master of your mind.
You control your own karma by way of your own thoughts and your deeds, karma means action your actions dictate your karma, your thoughts Are your karma.
Once it’s caught you can choose to be the keeper or the thinker of that thought.
I perfer to be the thinker, from what we are exposed to these days, I’d rather be the thinker, There’s no telling with the mind monkey will throw at me I may not wanna keep it.

There is a spiritual non-materialistic reality they show you this and how to find it yourself.
It’s not faith based or faith Led, Buddhism teaches in a way that everyone, no matter how you learn, seeing, doing, hearing, they are able to learn.

There’s some forms of Buddhism that are regarded as religion,
but the fact it lacks a basic fundamentals of the definition of religion makes the context religion inviable, and it is not correctly distinguish as religion.

Religion has a Philosophy, Religion is not Philosophy.

I recommend reading the Philosophy of Religion, it is a very very interesting, sadly nobody ever talks about it. It’s written in a way that everyone can speak about religion without pointing fingers or placing blame.

Piece of mine is earned, the sooner you start the sooner peace can begin.

?????? ??????

@ElysiumRivers There is a spiritual non-materialistic reality they show you this and how to find it yourself.
It’s not faith based or faith Led
This statement is contradictory. Unless you have empirical proof of the spiritual non materialistic plane, you take its existence on faith

@The_Farseer Again you are confusing words faith and spiritual are two different things, I’ll show you again,
Google comes in very handy these times.

@The_Farseer

@The_Farseer
Non physical, nonya materialistic

@The_Farseer it boils down to this

You can not make the maker create the creator nor add a hater.

Creation?
If here wasn’t here yet, then if we are created, the Maker had to be some place else.

@ElysiumRivers That is why I believe Him to be Transcendent and eternal. Scripture states that He is separate from creation.

@ElysiumRivers I confuse nothing and you are attempting to dodge the contradiction. Can you prove the non material? Can you prove the spiritual exists? Faith in your own understanding of these things, you trust your assertion that there exists a metaphysical reality. You take it on faith

@ElysiumRivers And I googled the definition of Buddhism. It is a religion. You can't just twist these definitions to fit your worldview, you know...

@The_Farseer you’re halarious

@The_Farseer point out the contradiction and explain why it’s conflicting one more time please so I’m absolutely clear on your plot.

Please

@The_Farseer jus because they can’t identify the exact location of the origin of emotions and why we feel and what are we supposed to do, does not make it invalid as a part of a human.
Can you say we have no intuition or instinct because you can’t see where it is in a human body?

The word spirit is mistakenly, automatically assumed Religious, am I wrong?
Spiritual is assumed to be a quasi~invisible ghost like symbolism of a dead person,
“The spirit of a person roamed the halls”, mas media propaganda, sadly.

For lack of another encompassing word as media has stigmatized Spirit,
I’ll use it, the spirit is your conscience, your happy, your origin of emotions, your preferences,
Soul has many definitions AND meanings, it’s culture along with mass media that will stigmatize a word or bring a new meaning to a word, urban dictionary is a perfect example of the phenomenon.

Mho

@ElysiumRivers I agree that the consciousness is the soul. I believe in many things I cannot scientifically verify, I am not blind to this fact. But these are not scientific beliefs. And the stigma from MSM and mainstream culture because these things are not part of their religious values. The mainstream religion has become science. Science was never meant to be a system of belief, but that is what happened. This is the entire point I am trying to make.

I fail to see how my position is untenable. I am not Muslim. If you could please elaborate

@The_Farseer sorry for the confusion. That point was part of a response in my conversation with @Oxfret.
The gist of which is that no matter how "evolved" one cares to be in "tolerance" of other beliefs, there comes a point to resist, often forcefully, because others reject your right to freedom of conscience.

@Mike9465 valid

A system of beliefs concerning personal conduct, the existence of the supernatural, whether or not a Diety or deities exist, ect.
By this definition, everyone has a religion. But I so keep in mind this is not everyone's understanding of the term
I also share the same view of Science that you have. I love it. I just don't want it to be another world religion

@The_Farseer Perfect, then I can clear that right up. The Scientific Method presupposes the non-existence of the supernatural, as an absolute an inviolable rule, purely because to manipulate the supernatural (God) is far beyond our ability and always will be, so the theory is useless from an engineering perspective. As such, any theory of the Natural World that involves a supernatural component is immediately rejected. This poses no problem for Christians at all, as we absolutely do not believe we can subjugate God. Just wanted to get that settled.

@StrykerWolfe Agreed. And it is this very premise to which I would assert that Sam Harris is making science to be more than it is; He is asserting that science has an opinion in regards to metaphysical concepts such as good and evil, which it does not. And it is this concept of good and evil to which right and wrong are derived.

Science is about facts, not truth. The difference between truth and fact is that fact is something that cannot be combated with reasoning, for it is logic itself. But truth is something which depends on a person's perspective and experience.

It is the arrogance of these Elitists that drive them to make themselves the arbiters of salvation. They seek to become Gods and do not want any other God before them.

@The_Farseer Yes, definitely! Take God out of the equation and consciousness stops with the self. The ego becomes God at that point, and that is the greatest lie ever told.

@LeftySinister Well put. I agree with that statement

Your hope for ecumenism is in vain. By definition three of the major faith traditions hold mutually exclusive claims about the fundamental beliefs they each hold.

To achieve what you seek it would be necessary to eradicate at least two of those three, either in their entirety or in their integrity.

@Mike9465 seeing value and creating peace around respect of each others right to understand the world on your own terms is not in vain. Many people who subscribe to a one true god don't need to tear down anyone else's faith as they are confident in what they know to be true.

It's up to each individual to be secure enough to not fight others. Just as it's up to me to be secure in my relationship without jealousy and doubt of my partner and vice versa. I don't need to seek answers outside of our relationship nore do I need to belittle others I don't think hold my values.

If people are so wrapped up in their faith that they feel the need to make everyone agree with them then there will be no peace for that individual. One day I hope that stubbornness is seen as counter productive.

I don't expect ecumenism of religions, but respect and room for each other to disagree on aspects as long as we can agree on a base set of morals.

@Oxfret you expect what can never be. As long as Islam is considered a religion and its Quran holy, it will seek to dominate and destroy all that are not Muslim.

@Mike9465 well there is no place for that kind of ideology if it can't live in peace. If that's the only one that you can think of then we aren't so far off. I don't know much about it personally, only the arguing back and forth. I would need to do my own research before I make my own claims about its ability to coexist. But taking an extreme religion into acount doesn't discredit my thoughts on this post as it does not relate directly to Islam.

My point was never to refute Harris. I was pointing out that there is nothing to refute. Psychology explains why people act the way they do, but it is not intended to tell people how they should conduct themselves

@Oxfret sure it does. The only way for you to achieve your worldview is to arrogate to yourself the authority to decide which ideologies are allowed to exist.

@Mike9465 the only ideologies that shouldn't be allowed are the ones that do that themselfs. Refusing violence does not make you a violent person. I hold no such authority, I can only stand up for what I believe in and not fold to others forcing their beliefs on me. I do so with peace and love for the individuals regardless of their mal-intent. I feel you are picking appart what you can of my stance with no real intent. Are you standing up for Islam rights to partake in violent force of their religion? They have no place when the rest of the worlds ideologies preach love and acceptance regardless of beliefs. I'm not arguing Islamic ideology and I'm not taking any authority to do so. It seems you are intent on picking appart what I say regardless of what side you are on personally. Are you a believer in the Quran? Or can we agree that if you put aside that one example there should be room for different Faith's to live in peace with each other?

@The_Farseer and his stance seems to be that logical thought can give insight into the why. History tells us where we came from and hindsight tells us how that can work to advance our future awareness.

Arguably science could have a similar benefit and I don't see why it would have to refute a persons beliefs. You are entitled to your personal thoughts on the matter... but for all you know, science could end up explaining god to people in a way that sends them seaking more spiritual beliefs. I see value in your stance, I just don't see the video I watched contradicting you as much as your original post lead me to belive you think.

@Oxfret Valid points, and scientific study has strengthened my faith over time so you are right about that effect. Its this notion that "Science disproves God" that seems to be ingrained in the minds of people like Harris that is a problem. God cannot be proven or disproven , Atheists and theists have that conundrum to bring commonality as they both lack proof and operate on assumption and belief.
That is why I have respect for the intellectual honesty of agnostics.

@Oxfret "..look forward to an awakening where the values in different theologys can come together and be respected and appreciated by all without infringing on each other."

My point is that several of the theologies in this world are antithetical to peaceful coexistence, thus, your dream of "enlightened ecumenism", or whatever you envision is just that, a dream. It cannot happen without eradicating those who refuse to coexist.

Islam is merely the obvious example. The various sects within Islam cannot peacefully coexist, much less can a Muslim both hold the Quran holy and accept anyone of another faith.

"Refusing violence does not make you a violent person".... So if you punch me and I refuse to accept being punched by beating you up I'm "not a violent person"?

I'm not picking your position apart from personal motive. I'm merely pointing out that it is fantasy, and potentially dangerous fantasy at that.

@Mike9465 well that's the only example you've given, though I've asked for others. I would wager that any religious beliefs that are willing to infringe on someone else's right to chose what they belive should be considerd hostile and don't have a place in modern, well educated society.

That's not to say others can't think you are sinful and going to hell based on your religious beliefs, that is fine because it's their opinion and they are within their right to have that opinion. Doesn't mean they have to enforce it on others. Not sure whether you are arguing that people should not be entitled to live freely with their beliefs or if your just arguing the unlikelihood of it. But all I'm advocating for is the right each individual has to make that choice themselfs even if it leads them to science.

I didn't say it was likely, but I hope one day this is considered a universal right that doesn't threaten people who disagree with each other.

@The_Farseer I didn't see evidence to the intent for science to disprove god, but this is the only video I'm going off of.

When I was young I thought I was an atheist but upon consideration and scientific relevance I've come relize agnostic is more accurate for me. Science has only strengthened my own spirituality over time but I don't subscribe to any religion, nore do I feel the need to discredit or act like there is no value in the lessons a variety of religions have to offer.

Likewise I have respect for intellectual honesty of those believers willing to discuss openly and enjoy such exchanges.

@Oxfret "doesn't have a place in society..." there you go again deciding who gets to stay and who has to go. Sounds like you're the intolerant one.

@Mike9465 your just trying to color me as the bad guy, or trolling, trying to upset me. I am clear about my intent and you are taking words out of context that would be hard for anyone to argue with if they where paying attention to the intent.

The key word here should be hostile, if someone uses their religion as means to justify hostile intent then they are the ones segregating themselfs from our society. That is a choice made by them, not me.

Thanks for the friendly debate, I think we are done here.

@Oxfret I always appreciated the intellectual honesty of Agnostics as it is devoid of the presuppositions of theists such as myself, and Atheists alike.