I am interested in truth. I am interested ways of verifying and communicating truth. I am also interested in systems, culture and consciousness. And, I enjoy a challenge that requires a rigorous response. Debating religion is a crossroads for all these interests.

I have debated religion for many years, along with politics, philosophy, etc. in a variety of forums, including some as moderator. But, I don't have as much time to spend on it as I'd like.

I rarely discuss religion IRL.

I am currently practicing the New Religion, Neoism. Feel free to ask about it, it's the coolest!

And making $50,000 a year should not be encouraged? If higher taxes are a disincentive, how can they possibly justify taxing the $50,000 a year guy higher? I thought we were supposed to be encouraging people to work.

Incentivising wealth advantage is like incentivising winning the lottery. You don't have to add extra incentive, people already want to be millionaire investors who don't have to work. It is its own incentive.

The problem is, you can't just "encourage" people to have millions to invest. It's not that there is no encouragement. It's that it is almost impossible. Only one in many millions of workers will join the investor class and live off interest earnings. The vast majority will stay workers. Is there any possible reason why working should not be just as encouraged?

Completely specious. Money doesn't get "taxed once," and then never again. The tax is on the transaction. Interest earnings are new transactions and new income.

Ugh, this is completely ridiculous. People who have money are already investing - mostly in financial vehicles - and seeing record profits. Why should they "start businesses, to put people to work" when what they are already doing is working better than anything they have ever done before?

Supply side incentive doesn't work. Encouragement for investing has never been higher, the rewards have never been greater, and the owners are still not putting people to work.

It's not working.


Billionaires should be taxed at least as high as the workers if not much higher. The country needs the money and the billionaires certainly don't need any more "help."

Instead, Trump and the Republicans act like there just isn't enough money in the world for what we need, and are proposing tax and service cuts. Must the workers really suffer with higher tax rates, diminished social services, and increasingly out-of-reach healthcare and education, so that living off of investments can be made more attractive?

We should not be shrinking funds that feed children and keep old people off the street so that the highest class can get more money.

Unless you specifically mean "meant by God," what other intentionality are you proposing? "Meant" by who?

Are you sure that is the message of the Bible? It sounds more like the message of Star Trek: The Next Generation.

But supposing it is, do you think the bible is effective at converying this message? Do you think the bible is the best possible way to convey this message?

It makes a big difference whether any of this was "meant". There is no evidence to support your claim that humans are meant to be compassionate, etc. There is no evidence that the bible contains what people were "meant" to do.

Are you sure? You're positive the message of the bible has nothing to do with gods?

Because I have read the Bible, and I can't help but get the inescapable impression that it is actually supposed to be about God.


Upon thorough, contextual examination, the Bible seems to be a set of folktales a tribe wrote down about the history and power and desires of their God. The "a better world is possible" meme is present in a few places, but clearly not in others. However the one element which is always present in the stories is a supernatural diety.

If there are moralilty tales there, they are specifically said to be a revealed morality, or about maintaining a morality which is pleasing to God.

So, your pretending that the main message of the bible has nothing to do with God is just ridiculous.

Do you think the history of Christianity shows that the bible has been generally effective at delivering this message to people (besides you)?

Well, that is a pretty big IF. Is there any reason to use the bible in particular for this?

Since the bible is such a poor delivery system for this message, I would imagine we should be steering people to better sources for the "a better world is possible" meme. Star Trek: the Next Generation delivers this message in spades, in similarly heroic and supernatural circumstances, and yet is acknowledged - by most, anyway :-) - to be fiction.

Actually, I think that keeping the mores of a society is not a bad role for religion. At least it's dealing with the real - people, and what they do.

For example, since (generally speaking) Buddhism is non-theistic, it consists mainly of a moral system. The Four Noble Truths, Eight-fold Path and the Five Precepts could probably be considered a list of "shoulds and shouldn'ts." And why not? There's some pretty good advice there.


The main differences I can see between this and a theistic moral system are:

1) the Buddhist guidelines are just that - guidelines, or advice, given by a person. They are not commandments given to humans from Above by a magical entity.

2) Failing to adhere to them is not considered a "sin," or a disappointment to a being in judgement. At worst it is simply an error from which you can learn.

3) The goal of following the advice is (generally speaking) not a magical one, like pleasing the deity or getting the right afterlife...the goal is having good outcomes from what you do.

4) The advice itself is not about gods or how to worship...it's about acting in ways that work.

5) The list itself is merely a starting point, and it is up to the individual to figure out how it plays out. A great example is the Third Precept - "Refrain from sexual misconduct." That is pretty good advice - sexual misconduct can cause a lot of suffering. But what is "sexual misconduct"? It's up to the individual to examine his situation and the potential for suffering, and figure out how to conduct his sexuality in ways that will not cause harm to anyone involved.


In short, I don't think a system of morals represents a tyrannical suppression of freedom, any more than a system of laws does. We trade a bit of our "absolute" freedom to do any fucking thing we want, in order to live with others and not infringe on their basic freedoms to live without interference. This seems reasonable.

It is not necessary to "label yourself" to practice a system or use ideas that work. I do not think that Buddhism generally requires labeling, or putting restrictions on your brain.

The people I know who practice Buddhism do not refer to themselves as "Buddhists." If they mentioned it, they might say something like "I practice Buddhism."

I really don't think this is true. At least, I can say I have not found this to be true of any person I know who practices Buddhism.

For example, my husband practices Buddhism, but he says Buddhism is only half of the equation. It's great to know how to eliminate suffering, but for an optimum life you also need know how to create happiness. He says Epicurus had pretty good ideas about how to create happiness, so if you utilize both Epicurianism and Buddhism you can have a very happy life.

But, he is not confined to just Epicurian/Buddhist ideas either. He utilizes good ideas wherever they are shown to work. As a result, he has a really great life with a lot of healthy practices and a great deal of happiness.

I have found this to be true of other people who practice Buddhism as well. The main point of Buddhism is that eventually you don't need it anymore.

That may be why people say "I practice Buddhism" instead of "I'm a Buddhist." The reluctance to apply restricting labels is built right in.


My previous point was that having a moral system does not represent a tyrannical restriction of thought. Likewise, I don't think the risk of "labeling" makes Buddhism a tyrannical restriction of thought either.

In short, I don't think humans must reject all religion as tyrannical. It doesn't have to be. And, religion does serve useful purposes for society, like containing social mores in an accessible narrative framework. Plus, people seem to really love religion. It may always be a part of society.

So, imagine a religion - or social philosophy, if you will - which is based on reality instead of unsubstantiated claims...on people, and how we live here now, instead of on gods and afterlifes. Imagine one which does what it says it can do. Imagine a religion that teaches those who practice it to think for themselves, verify what they are told, and ultimately, to transcend the need for religion altogether.

It doesn't have to be "Buddhism," of course. But I can imagine the religion or philosophy of the future being something like this. As long as it's true and works, I don't think it would be tyrannical or restricting. It could serve an important role in society.

I do not refer to myself as an atheist. But, it's not because I'm a theist. :-)

Yay! A debate.

I'm not sure I see how this is an objection. You could say the brain is "tethered" to its first language, or to the traditions of the culture it is born into, but so what? You have to start somewhere. That doesn't preclude learning new languages and traditions, and using them as fully as one's own. A brain that is willing to learn is as "untethered" as it can get.

"Best"? You are way overstating my position. In any case, "believing" and "best" are both a waste of time - I thought you knew that. On the other hand, if there is evidence to suggest that a system actually works, there is no reason not to acknowledge it. Buddhism really does work as a system for minimizing suffering and maximizing happiness. Studies show 'Buddhists actually happier'

Well, you can relax. First of all, there are ways to transcend suffering and create happiness. They aren't magical. They are techniques that really work.

Second of all, who said monopoly? No one has ever suggested that only Buddhists know how to be happy.

I can appreciate that you are applying the skepticism you have for supernatural ideas and the monopolies which promulgate them, but what I refer to as "Buddhism" is neither.

By learning how to apply discernment. The "list of shoulds" is merely a starting point. Once you know how to observe and act with clarity you don't need the list anymore.

With any new technique there is usually a bit of a learning curve. On the other hand, some people do seem to have a gestalt and get it now. Works either way.

Again, I disagree completely. Saying "I found these flowers in the woods" is not dependence, it's just saying where you got them.

If I wanted to be perfectly accurate, I could say I got the ideas from my husband, but if I said I practiced "husbandism" that wouldn't convey much of my meaning. The name of where I found this particular set of tools is Buddhism and that's the easiest way to tell others where to find them.

If I feel the word is getting in the way, I just drop it. The techniques can be described and utilized without it.

If you take an aspirin when you have a headache, or do a series of stretches when you have a stiff neck, I don't see how using a technique to alleviate suffering is any cause for trepidation.

I see no problem in this. It is what it is.

From what I understand, "karma" is the observation that effects arise from causes. Except at the quantum level, where there can be seemingly unanteceded events, I find this to be fairly accurate.

Most religions do perpetuate that idea, but Buddhism certainly doesn't. No one can alleviate your suffering or be moral for you. It's up to you.

Sorry, I'm not buying this. This is like saying if you want to serve baked alaska, you should reject all recipes for baked alaska and just try to make it "instinctively." Sure, maybe some people could figure out how to make it "instinctively," but it would certainly be easier for anyone if they could see the specific steps laid out. If there is a specific thing you want to make, why not try a technique that works for making it? It doesn't preclude experimentation and variations to suit your taste.

The techniques for alleviating suffering are like a set of recipes to get you started in cooking up enlightenment. Once you learn the basic techniques, and get some practice, you don't need recipes anymore, and you can use the tecniques you learned to whip up something delicious from practically any ingredients you are given.

Give me a break. Nobody said "best". I said, it works, which it does.

You might want to take that up with someone who is talking about it. Nothing I am talking about has anything to do with "spiritual lack."

I am planning a post on this very subject, based on the ideas of Loyal Rue and his naturalist explanation for religion. I'll go into more detail there, but for now I'll just say that religion provides cohesion for the individual and society by providing a story that links the cosmology - how things are, with morality - what things matter.

Which is not to say that religion is required, just that it exists to serve purposes.

People love food. Some of it is crappy, some of it is very healthy. Food is not a problem. Food that doesn't work very well is a problem. Food that works great is an asset.

Religion is a tool for transmitting a set of ideas. If the ideas are an asset I see no problem with the tool.

Sounds great, but it's hard to imagine a society where everybody is born there. Learning how to be a human in a group takes time, and we learn a lot of it from other humans. Having a variety of structures to transmit ideas to new humans is a necessity. The structure doesn't have to be a religion, but having a set of mores and techniques for dealing with life to present to the next generation - a social philosophy, as I referred to it - is indespensible. As long as the content of the social philosophy are ideas that are true, and work, it will be an asset to those in the society.

Yet, we need words for talking. So, we do the best with them that we can.

Whoa, who said anything about "absolute truth"? I'm talking about ordinary truth.

Who said you have to be absolutely sure about anything?

That is why we examine reality itself to find out how things work and why. For the things we can't examine or figure out yet, we just say, "I don't know." If we don't, that's the truth too. Then, we keep trying.

Whoa, who said it works for every single person?

That's basically what the Buddha said. "Be a light unto yourself." Buddhism also offers some guidelines, and why not? But the emphasis is on personally verifying that the guidelines work for you and discarding them if they don't.

No, some things work for more than one person who tries them. Buddhism can be shown to work for a statistically significant sample of the people who try it.

You don't "find" a religion that is truth. You find the truth first, as much as you can of it, and make your social philosophy about respecting that truth, whatever it is.

Thanks FullMetal!

That is one expression of freedom. Nothing I am describing precludes this.

Maybe because it's the best...so far. :-)

The point is, Buddhism does not require anyone to think Buddhism is "best." There is nothing in Buddhism that precludes moving on to something that works even better, if you happen to realize or come across it...in fact it would be very Buddhist to do so. So, I would say that Buddhism does not seem to be inherently "tethering" the mind by making people be stuck in Buddhism.

People believe a lot of kooky stuff. That is not what I am talking about. The basics of Buddhism - the Four Noble Truths, the Eight-fold Path, the Five Precepts - do not mention anything about this.

This why I said initially said, "(generally speaking) Buddhism is..." I'm talking about the basics.

I'm certainly not suggesting we entertain the supernatural notions of every person or every sect who happen to be Buddhists. Generally speaking, Buddhism is not concerned with the supernatural. The 4, 8 and 5 are about actual stuff - people, and what they do.

Skill can be acquired through discipline, and learning how to create happiness is a skill. But, it doesn't take that much discipline. It's actually pretty easy.

I would say that using a little discipline to learn and practice a valuable skill to mastery is hardly an impediment to freedom, or if it is, it is a worthwhile trade-off.

I disagree, following a set of directions is a great way to learn a skill.

I think you are conflating following authority with following directions. There is nothing wrong with consulting a set of directions the first few times you do something new, especially if you are alerted to follow them with discretion and reject what doesn't work. Error correction and learning are built in.

Okay. If you have ever silently counted to ten to get a hold of yourself, or deliberately changed what you were thinking from something unpleasant to something more pleasant, you should not have trepidation about using a mental technique to alleviate suffering.

No, it's the same as in the food example. A mind which does not work well can be a problem; a mind which works well can be an asset.

Karma and Rebirth are not even mentioned in the 4, 8 and 5. The Buddha himself is said to have taught anatman, or no soul. In any case, I specificed that the social philosophy I envision is based on what is true and what works. If there is no truth to the idea of "rebirth" then I am not concerned with it.

No, I'm not on the hook to explain every crazy thing people add on to Buddhism.

It doesn't seem to be. However, the observation that effects rise from causes does seem fairly accurate, and that is what I said.

Well, if you ever learned the "one is a bun" method to remember a list of ten items, or counted backwards from one hundred to fall asleep, you should be not be concerned that learning a mental technique to allieviate suffering is akin to shackling yourself in cognitive slavery.

Wrong, I am not saying people can't do it themselves. Ultimately everyone does. Some get it entirely on their own and others employ some known techniques which help. Either way works.

That would certainly suck, but I don't see anything in what I have suggested which does this.

It can be helpful at first, and if it becomes a distraction one can leave it behind.

Since (generally speaking) Buddhism places a great emphasis on challenging conclusions and appreciating impermanence, it seems like it could nurture something healthy.



Clarion, thanks again for speaking of this with me.