I don't care about "proof."

@weidersenmeier,

weidersenmeier;103437 wrote:

As I was browsing the forums, I noticed that just about every other post is about God-bashing God, upholding God, disproving the Atheist theories, proving Christian ideology, etc.

And ironically by voicing your opinion you started yet another theological debate about the existence of God. :Cara_2:

@TickTockMan,

TickTockMan;104508 wrote:

Good grief, even Buddhism makes some allowance for killing (I believe it is referenced in Cleary's Soul of the Samurai, but I don't have that book handy so I can't verify).

Laughable. First of all most samurai were not buddhists. It is a myth to classify them all as. Several shoguns that converted to Buddhism ended up taking precepts and reverting away from public life and political affairs.

The way of the samurai was a late adoption and not something that started early in the history of samurai warriors. It is thought that this movement was constructed to provide protection for high ranking samurai to prevent overthrow. It was a smart move if you were the one in power and worried about someone challenging you. But like I said, the way of the samurai was not something fundamental but a later addition.

Most Japanese during the time of the samurai were Shinto. If they were samurai and followed Buddhism they tended to abandon their stature and took precepts. I have never actually seen any who remained active warriors who were also Buddhists.

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas;104501 wrote:

Of course you should respect them. They are still human beings.

We can respect a person while disagreeing. We can respect a person while actively working to deny them certain expressions of their beliefs - we can respect a person's humanity while also preventing said person from killing others.

When someone believes, for whatever reason, that other people should be killed for their lifestyle, that person is being disrespectful of another's humanity. Committing the very same mistake will not solve any problems, not in the long term.

Are we talking about respecting the opinions, or about respecting the opinor? Stupid or ignorant opinions deserve no respect. Whether the opinor deserves respect depends.

@EvidenceVsFaith,

EvidenceVsFaith;104389 wrote:

@ the OP,

Excellent opening post. I thank you very much for it.

I must say that I completely agree with you that we cannot absolutely know whether God exists or doesn't exist. So it's down to a matter of probability, not absolute knowledge. "In a way, probability is 'reasonability' " - I ponder to myself.

EvF

Its hard to define probabilities or "reasonabilities" for god, because, what arguments will you use? =)

kennethamy;104524 wrote:

Are we talking about respecting the opinions, or about respecting the opinor? Stupid or ignorant opinions deserve no respect. Whether the opinor deserves respect depends.

I agree, but I suppose the opinor deserves respect towards humans like anyone else, since no matter how stupid it may be its still human. Off course that depends of whenever you respect humans just for being humans or not =)

Didymos Thomas;104501 wrote:

When someone believes, for whatever reason, that other people should be killed for their lifestyle, that person is being disrespectful of another's humanity. Committing the very same mistake will not solve any problems, not in the long term.

While there are limits, I agree. Throwing stones will make people throw stones.

@Krumple,

Krumple;104520 wrote:

Laughable. First of all most samurai were not buddhists. It is a myth to classify them all as. Several shoguns that converted to Buddhists ended up taking precepts and reverting away from public life and political affairs.

Thank you for the mini history lesson. Perhaps my specific example was poorly conceived. However, I my understanding from some readings is that in Buddhism, killing can still be justified, but perhaps not entirely excused. Is this not correct?

@TickTockMan,

TickTockMan;104496 wrote:

My question though is still the same. Should we respect others in their religious opinions (or beliefs) if part of their belief system says that those who do not believe as they do should be destroyed?

Should I respect the opinion of one who says black people (or any race, really, that is not their own) are inferior?

It's all well and good to say we should respect everyone's beliefs and opinions, but how far should one go with this? Some beliefs and opinions are pretty vile.

You're making a counter comment to a comment that is not related.

I see a fundamental difference between rhetoric and opinion. Saying one hates without justifying the comment, as far as I'm concerned, is not an opinion but foul mouthed rhetoric.

Opinion should be respected and debated, maybe there would be a lot less foolish people in charge of countries.

Two types of 'Opinions', Informed Opinion, and Rhetoric.

Further, opinion and rhetoric is like freedom of expression, your expression of throwing a punch is valid, it just stops at my nose and becomes action.

@Strodgers,

Strodgers;104547 wrote:

Opinion should be respected and debated, maybe there would be a lot less foolish people in charge of countries.

How will respect and debate help the foolish people in charge of countries to become less foolish?

By what, or whose, standards are they measured as foolish?

(by the way, which counter comment to a comment that is not related was I making?)

@TickTockMan,

TickTockMan;104549 wrote:

How will respect and debate help the foolish people in charge of countries to become less foolish?

By what, or whose, standards are they measured as foolish?

(by the way, which counter comment to a comment that is not related was I making?)

1. I never wrote about the foolish politicians becoming less foolish, if reasonable people engaged in debate instead of being enamored or frightened of certain politicians these politicians would more likely not win elections but reasonable people would.

2. The standard would more likely be the opinion of the mass. The opinion of the mass would be based on those who give the better reason; the better argument; the better proof. Which in turn would be questioned by the these same mass for truth and accuracy.

3. My original comment was that we should respect other opinions and then engage in a philosophical discussion. Then you wrote

Quote:

My question though is still the same. Should we respect others in their religious opinions (or beliefs) if part of their belief system says that those who do not believe as they do should be destroyed?

I do not see this applying to what I wrote, so it to me appeared as more of a rhetorical comment instead of a question since you chose to repeat it. If I'm in error, I apologizes.

@weidersenmeier,

weidersenmeier;103437 wrote:

As I was browsing the forums, I noticed that just about every other post is about God-bashing God, upholding God, disproving the Atheist theories, proving Christian ideology, etc. Doesn't really matter when they're about, just the concept of everyone thinking they're right just because of their beliefs; just because they were taught something and believe it to be true.

I am agnostic, but I will never say there is absolutely no God. Why? I am a human with a progressing high school education, and on the grand scheme of things, know nothing. Even those older than I am essentially know nothing. You may be intelligent, researched, passionate, or talented, but it doesn't adequately equip you with the means to determine whether or not such a powerfully hypothetical entity such as God exists! Let alone an entire religion. We are only human. There is no way we can thoroughly prove that something like this exists or does not exist.

Why can't everyone accept that multiple beliefs exist, except the fact that we are all merely human, and be tolerant of everyone? Why is everyone so set on proving what they believe in and disproving what others do?

Yes, some people only do it to disprove. Philosophy is using reason.

As we can see from thales, to kung fu zi, to lao zi, to ming zi, to aristotle, to plato, to aquinas, to bacon, to descartes, to kant and so forth. They all contributed their philosophy, and someone out there had to disprove them--not because of angst, but because they got something wrong and that they had proof.

The philosophers that bash on god bash on god logically, not emotionally. Philosophers that bash on emotion aren't really philosophers.

Also, remember, the unexamined life is not worth living. I don't believe in religion because I've found sound logical arguments against it. Though, I've found sound logical arguments for religion, but after assessing them found a hole through their logic.

St Anselm, a philosopher during the maybe 1600s? I would search but I have to sleep soon. If I remember correctly from the books he created an ontological argument. called The Ontological argument.

* If Our concept of god is that he is the maximum--no greater being can be conceived.
* If god was imaginary, we could conceive a greater being than god.
* We know that being real is greater than being imaginary
* God, his concept, is always great.
* therefore, god exists in reality.

Though, there is something wrong with what Anselm said, plus I'm paraphrasing.

goodnight!

@TickTockMan,

TickTockMan;104536 wrote:

Thank you for the mini history lesson. Perhaps my specific example was poorly conceived. However, I my understanding from some readings is that in Buddhism, killing can still be justified, but perhaps not entirely excused. Is this not correct?

As far as the teachings go, no. I have never come across anything in the sutras that would state a situation where killing was justified or considered a good act. Most of the time the Buddha would redirect such an act into something else. He seemed to have a knack for knowing what a person needed to hear to calm them down.

The only reason I have come to understand is that killing carries with it two forms of karma. The karma of the individual doing the killing and the karma of the slain. Both intertwine and it creates problems. The number or potential for problems is numerous. That is why it should be avoided even if one's life is in danger.

The Buddha has been noted with saying that killing another being is likened to cutting off your own arm. The interconnectedness of all things has as it's characteristic that all beings are bound to the same karmic root. If everything is how I understand them, then killing anything will create more problems than it solves.

@Krumple,

Krumple;104606 wrote:

As far as the teachings go, no. I have never come across anything in the sutras that would state a situation where killing was justified or considered a good act. Most of the time the Buddha would redirect such an act into something else. He seemed to have a knack for knowing what a person needed to hear to calm them down.

The only reason I have come to understand is that killing carries with it two forms of karma. The karma of the individual doing the killing and the karma of the slain. Both intertwine and it creates problems. The number or potential for problems is numerous. That is why it should be avoided even if one's life is in danger.

The Buddha has been noted with saying that killing another being is likened to cutting off your own arm. The interconnectedness of all things has as it's characteristic that all beings are bound to the same karmic root. If everything is how I understand them, then killing anything will create more problems than it solves.

Thank you, this is interesting. I'm wondering though, what the rationale is for the martial arts training undertaken by Shaolin Monks?

I looked around, and the only reference I've found that is supposedly attributed to the Buddha regarding killing and punishment I found here: What Buddhists Believe - Can a Buddhist Join the Army?

I found the second paragraph interesting. What are your thoughts?

@TickTockMan,

TickTockMan;104682 wrote:

Thank you, this is interesting. I'm wondering though, what the rationale is for the martial arts training undertaken by Shaolin Monks?

I really don't know enough about them to really say for certain. The little I do know, it seems originally they were not thought of as warrior monks or combatants. The movements were considered a form of exercise to keep the body balanced after long sessions of meditation. Over the years the exercises were refined and evolved. There was a time when they were used but the actual details of why I am not clear about. But if you really wanted to make the case then why are they not used today?

TickTockMan;104682 wrote:

I looked around, and the only reference I've found that is supposedly attributed to the Buddha regarding killing and punishment I found here: What Buddhists Believe - Can a Buddhist Join the Army?

I found the second paragraph interesting. What are your thoughts?

"Do not do injury to any living being but be just, filled with love and kindness."

Seems to be in line with what I pointed out.

"These injunctions are not contradictory because the person who is punished for his crimes will suffer his injury not through the ill-will of the judge but through the evil act itself."

This means that punishment by a judge is really not even necessary because the karma of the criminal will be unavoidable anyways.

"The Buddha teaches that all warfare in which man tries to slay his brothers is lamentable."

Isn't this what I pointed out as well?

I don't really see in any of that, the Buddha supporting killing or punishment. Although it would have been better for that post to cite the sources of the quotes because to me it looks like they have been taken out of context.

@Krumple,

Krumple;104724 wrote:

I really don't know enough about them to really say for certain. The little I do know, it seems originally they were not thought of as warrior monks or combatants. The movements were considered a form of exercise to keep the body balanced after long sessions of meditation. Over the years the exercises were refined and evolved. There was a time when they were used but the actual details of why I am not clear about. But if you really wanted to make the case then why are they not used today?

I'm not really trying to be contentious or make a case for anything in particular. It just seems to me that even in Buddhism, there must be some allowance for the need of people to defend themselves, or prevent a greater evil from occurring, through the use of violence toward another human. Perhaps it can never be excused, but can it be justified? Providing of course that one is willing to accept any karmic consequences?

I'm not nearly as familiar with the teachings of the Buddha as you seem to be, but in the limited reading I have done (mostly Chogyam Trungpa), I haven't read anything that specifically says no killing whatsoever, for any reason, period.

Krumple;104724 wrote:

"Do not do injury to any living being but be just, filled with love and kindness."

Seems to be in line with what I pointed out.

"These injunctions are not contradictory because the person who is punished for his crimes will suffer his injury not through the ill-will of the judge but through the evil act itself."

This means that punishment by a judge is really not even necessary because the karma of the criminal will be unavoidable anyways.

"The Buddha teaches that all warfare in which man tries to slay his brothers is lamentable."

Isn't this what I pointed out as well?

I don't really see in any of that, the Buddha supporting killing or punishment. Although it would have been better for that post to cite the sources of the quotes because to me it looks like they have been taken out of context.

Yes, I agree that it meshes with what you said. I was just interested in your further thoughts on the matter.
Perhaps this needs to be a whole new thread, on Buddhism and killing.....

@TickTockMan,

TickTockMan;104736 wrote:

I'm not nearly as familiar with the teachings of the Buddha as you seem to be, but in the limited reading I have done (mostly Chogyam Trungpa), I haven't read anything that specifically says no killing whatsoever, for any reason, period.

The first of many (and of five, for a lay practitioner) Buddhist precepts that a Buddhist monk must undertake is,

"I undertake the training rule to abstain from taking life."

@Strodgers,

Strodgers;104588 wrote:

1. I never wrote about the foolish politicians becoming less foolish, if reasonable people engaged in debate instead of being enamored or frightened of certain politicians these politicians would more likely not win elections but reasonable people would.

But don't many of the foolish politicians now in office have many supporters who consider themselves
reasonable people, who thought the politicians they voted for to be reasonable people as well? Are you
respecting them when you call them foolish?

Strodgers;104588 wrote:

2. The standard would more likely be the opinion of the mass. The opinion of the mass would be based on those who give the better reason; the better argument; the better proof. Which in turn would be questioned by the these same mass for truth and accuracy.

Since when does the opinion of the masses equal reason?

Strodgers;104588 wrote:

3. My original comment was that we should respect other opinions and then engage in a philosophical discussion. Then you wrote
Quote:
My question though is still the same. Should we respect others in their religious opinions (or beliefs) if part of their belief system says that those who do not believe as they do should be destroyed?

I do not see this applying to what I wrote, so it to me appeared as more of a rhetorical comment instead of a question since you chose to repeat it. If I'm in error, I apologizes.

I'm unsure how you don't think this applies. My question is quite simple. Why should we respect other's opinions,
especially when deep down we consider their opinion ridiculous and poorly conceived?

For example, If I am of the opinion that women are inferior and should be paid less than men and that
homosexuals should be sent to special camps that train them not to be homosexuals, can you honestly
say that you respect that opinion?

If you engaged me in philosophical debate about this opinion, would it be out of respect, or because you hoped
to make me see the error of my opinion?

@TickTockMan,

TickTockMan;104736 wrote:

I'm not really trying to be contentious or make a case for anything in particular. It just seems to me that even in Buddhism, there must be some allowance for the need of people to defend themselves, or prevent a greater evil from occurring, through the use of violence toward another human.

This is where the Buddha is unique. I'm not saying that because of a dogmatic view of Buddhism, but instead because he professes that any action that would benefit yourself over another would be considered by him a wrong one. Therefore there is in the Buddhist realm never a just time for killing. However; a teacher would never present it to you like this because they don't like to put the shackles on you. Rather than just say no no no, they will use another approach such as this;

Does the person who is threatening your life, have a family similar to yours? Wouldn't their family perhaps not understanding the circumstances become angry with you defending your life while taking the life of their loved one? No matter how vicious the person is, more than likely their mother completely ignores the wickedness of her child. So any action you did would result in her misery as well.

This is why the Buddha mentions, that it is not only your karma that is dealt with your actions, words or thoughts but the impact spreads to all other beings as well. It is one sided to only take the standpoint of your own personal safety or well being over the well being of all others.

TickTockMan;104736 wrote:

Perhaps it can never be excused, but can it be justified? Providing of course that one is willing to accept any karmic consequences?

No it technically can't be justified because of the karma involved in all people associated or connected to the people involved. It is why gang violence has a hard time disappearing because they retaliate for each others murders and it never ends because of that. Even if the murder was in self defense the rival gang wont take that into consideration.

TickTockMan;104736 wrote:

I'm not nearly as familiar with the teachings of the Buddha as you seem to be, but in the limited reading I have done (mostly Chogyam Trungpa), I haven't read anything that specifically says no killing whatsoever, for any reason, period.

Yes, I agree that it meshes with what you said. I was just interested in your further thoughts on the matter.
Perhaps this needs to be a whole new thread, on Buddhism and killing.....

The precepts themselves are not there to be restrictions on behavior or to hinder or punish. They are just tools for anyone who would like to reduce the amount of suffering in their lives. If you follow them then you are more than likely to have less suffering, misery, worry or problems in your life.

Just before the Buddha passed away, he was asked who should take over teaching the monks and his response was, the precepts.

As far as the death penalty goes, I am against it. I also think you should exhaust everything you can before resorting to killing someone even if your life is in danger. I feel there is always another option but people like the easy solution instead.

To me even war is murder and unjustifiable killing. Why is it some farm boy needs to lose their life because some politician wants some sort of gain. Even if it is to provide security to the nation it is still considered by me to be murder.

It is not until we gain more empathy for human life will wars stop. Trying to kill the dictator will only breed more dictators.

@weidersenmeier,

I think it is pretty unquestionable that, on the whole, Buddhism has been a largely peaceful movement. The exception being, as has been noted, its adoption by the Japanese warrior class, documented in a (rather depressing) book called Zen at War by Brian A. Victoria.

As regards the OP, of course I am in agreement with the sentiment. The only observation I would make is, it is annoying to be tackled by fundamentalists, but they usually desist if I ask them. Secondly, I think there is a lot of virtue in pluralism, which is to understand (among other things) that different viewpoints can always be taken into account, even if they are apparently contradictory. In fact, in some of the Big Questions, it is exactly in the dialectic between differing viewpoints that truth can be disclosed (as Hegel said). There are some religions, and some sections of other religions, that are much more likely to be pluralist than others, maybe because it takes a much more open-minded and flexible attitude. It is always easier to have black and white beliefs than shades of grey.

And finally, there are those for whom any expression of belief is a red rag to a bull. In my view it is another type of fundementalism. But then, it takes all types, and one thing I am learning is to consider viewpoints diametrically opposed to one's own.

@weidersenmeier,

weidersenmeier;103437 wrote:

Why can't everyone accept that multiple beliefs exist, except the fact that we are all merely human, and be tolerant of everyone? Why is everyone so set on proving what they believe in and disproving what others do?

The problem is not in humans, it is in God. It appears he also wants a little bit of respect.

@weidersenmeier,

weidersenmeier;103437 wrote:

and on the grand scheme of things, know nothing. Even those older than I am essentially know nothing.

It is those who think they know something, that stop searching.

---------- Post added 11-21-2009 at 07:45 PM ----------

weidersenmeier;103437 wrote:

Why can't everyone accept that multiple beliefs exist, except the fact that we are all merely human, and be tolerant of everyone? Why is everyone so set on proving what they believe in and disproving what others do?

As humans, we learn by opposition - You cannot fully know light, without first knowing dark. Conflict releases quality - Hints why conflict exists and gets expressed. Purpose is in everything.

On a personal note: I believe the forum is for debate and exchanges of views. Your questions and approach is beautiful, weidersenmeier. We should keep our hand pressed firmly against the acceleration throttle, and keep our eyes pointed forward at all times.

@weidersenmeier,

Tolerance has limits also, and can be abused. People like retired hack science fiction writers can exploit the tolerance of liberal society to set up evil money-grubbing manipulative pseudo religions and bilk the psychologically insecure out of their money on the promise of spiritual freedom. This is an abuse of tolerance and should be challenged.

Philosophy Forum

I don't care about "proof."

Quick Links

My Account

able2know