Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by CoolHand on Thursday May 14 2015, @02:05AM   Printer-friendly
from the touched-by-his-noodly-appendage dept.

Washington's Blog reports

The Pew Research Center on Religion & Public Life is reporting, in their poll of 35,000 Americans, that during the seven years from 2007 to 2014, the numbers of religiously "Unaffiliated" were soaring, the numbers of Christians were plunging, and the numbers of adherents to non-Christian faiths were rising substantially but not nearly as much as were the numbers of "Unaffiliated".

This report, issued on May 12th, is headlined, "America's Changing Religious Landscape: Christians Decline Sharply as Share of Population; Unaffiliated and Other Faiths Continue to Grow".

It shows that: the percentage of Americans who are unaffiliated rose from 16.1% in 2007 up to 22.8% today.

[...][The USA] is becoming a less [religious], and a more religiously diverse, country.

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Thursday May 14 2015, @08:26AM

    by aristarchus (2645) on Thursday May 14 2015, @08:26AM (#182838) Journal

    Karma, bro. No god. No salvation. No bondage. Of course, the main teaching of the Buddha hisself was that existence is suffering, and suffering is the result of attachment, and one form of attachment is believing in things like "undifferentiated potentiality". There is no such thing. There is only pratitya-sammuptpada, dependent co-origination. No original cause, no first being, so absolute. Being attached to things like this only causes you to suffer, when Buddhist appear to be cooler than you. (Sidenote, being ethical atheists, Buddhists would never think that themselves, they would just have metta and karuna for your delusion.)

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 14 2015, @08:49AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 14 2015, @08:49AM (#182844)

    Yes, I am well aware of the drivel your god handed down. Its so full of holes its laughable, if all is emptiness whats karma? You contradict yourself over the course of just two postings.

    Your theologising just goes to prove my point that Buddhism has a GOD. And he laid his word upon you.

    • (Score: 3, Informative) by rts008 on Thursday May 14 2015, @12:14PM

      by rts008 (3001) on Thursday May 14 2015, @12:14PM (#182868)

      You are sadly ignorant about 'Buddism' and 'Buddist's beliefs. The core of the belief is the eightfold path. There are no dieties, supernatural agents/powers, and most Westerner's totally don't get the concept of reincarnation in general(as presented by Buddism), and fail to realise that there are MANY different Buddist sects that have significant differences.(not all Buddists and sects believe in reincarnation for example)

      You keep projecting your own beliefs onto Buddism, but you are just as wrong and ignorant as it is possible to be. If you assign anything external of 'self' as any power/force/agent in Buddism, you are already so far away from actual Buddism, there is no path back to it. You have lost, and are lost. Period.

      But do keep going with your trolling, it's pretty comical and amusing to this Buddist! It is like listening to your kid explain how the world works to you after their first day of kindergarten. Funny stuff! :-)

      BTW, reincarnation as described to me, was just a simple form of the natural carbon-cycle every organic thing goes through in our universe.

      The view that you, as a whole, are reborn as another whole entity, is bogus to most Buddists. Here is the way it was explained to me:

      There is an energy field permeating the Universe that we call Cosmic Energy/Life force. This is best pictured as a a stream/river of water flowing, connecting everything. When you are born, it is like dipping a cup into this stream to fill it with 'you'.
      'You' are the collection and arrangement of the molecules and atoms in the cup(your body), when you die, that cup of 'you' gets poured back into the stream, and when/if reincarnated, then the cup is just dipped back in, getting almost, or none of the 'original you', back into the cup. So the reincarnated 'you' will NOT be the same 'you' that you were in a previous life.

      The notion that you, as an entity, are wholly reincarnated, is a funny, odd notion to most Buddists. This is where the 'not being aware of your previous lives' comes into the picture. There might be(but probably not) some of the 'old you' dipped up into the reincarnation, but no more than a few atoms/molecules.

      The above is one of the more common concepts of reincarnation to Buddists, but as I mention before, there are different sects, and different kinds of Buddists, and is ONLY applicable to those Buddists that beleive in reincarnation.

      Also keep in mind that there are nutjobs of all stripes, and Buddism has had it's share of them over the centuries, but IMO, Buddism is one of the few religions that science does not cause turmoil to the beliefs, it actually reinforces the belief, as no supernatural claims are needed in Buddism. (your silly projections included)

      When the physics community proclaimed 'we are all just stardust' the Buddists just smiled and were happy that they gained a modern way to explain that aspect of their beliefs.
      Unlike Theists/Diests, science and new knowledge/understanding have not contradicted any core beliefs in Buddism, quite the opposite actually. :-)

      • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday May 14 2015, @01:04PM

        by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Thursday May 14 2015, @01:04PM (#182879) Homepage
        > There is an energy field permeating the Universe that we call Cosmic Energy/Life force.

        > no supernatural claims are needed in Buddism

        That looks rather like equivocation.
        --
        Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
        • (Score: 2) by rts008 on Thursday May 14 2015, @03:00PM

          by rts008 (3001) on Thursday May 14 2015, @03:00PM (#182923)

          No, it really is not. It is more of a less than optimum translation, for lack of better terminology. Also, I was trying to be brief, so attribute that directly to my efforts, and not the concept.

          Not all 'Eastern' concepts can be fully and correctly rendered in 'Western' languages.

          In a nutshell, there is nothing equivical about General Relativity and the idea that mass = energy(the main principle behind 'Atomic Energy', or nuclear energy production). That is the 'field' of 'cosmic energy' I used. That seems obvious to me, but sorry for not being clear about that in my original post. That is specifically why I made the comment referring to Buddists smiling and updating there vocabulary with physics advancements. Quantum mechanics was fine. The idea of quantum entanglement provided a good modern language platform to update the description of that 'cosmic connectiveness' that we all share with the universe, and the concept of the Big Bang theory just reinforced that.

          That's one of the issues with religion. The language and concepts defining most religion resist 'updating' as blasphemy or heretical, and was formed long before we even had the concept of 'science'. Most Buddist sects do not have this problem, as new understanding(science) only gives us better ways to describe concepts that are effectively unchanged by the new understanding gained. We never made the outlandish claims that are being refuted by science in the first place.

          And yes, most(if not all) Buddists are atheists; to us, there are no supernatural forces, agents, or influences(thus no dieties to be concerned with) to have to account for.

          To be perfectly clear about all of this, I only claim to be a Buddist when someone insists I HAVE to have a religous belief. I was highly exposed to it in my youth[1], and I found it is the only religion that I can accept. I am not what you would call an actual, or practising Buddist. I mostly use it to fill in a blank on a form when 'no thanks' will not be accepted as an answer.

          Between 'the Golden Rule', the 'Eight-fold Path', and what my culture and society indoctrinated me with, I have my own 'rules' in life to follow. I highly value the 'Golden Rule' as a guiding principle, and science just reinforces that for me. It is a really comfortable and practical/useful 'place' to be, mentally(and as a subset: 'spiritually') in life. YMMV.

          I hope that takes care of the mistaken impression of equivocation you had. I will shoulder the blame for not being more specific and clear by omitting this explaination for brevity's sake earlier. :-)

          I'm starting to regret not just writing all of this up concisely and posting it to my journal, and then just linking to that, but Oh Well.....

          If the subject actually interests you, the wikipedia article on 'the Noble Eightfold Path' in Buddhism is pretty good, and there are countless youtube vids featuring the Dalai Lama on science and Buddhist philosophy.(more correct than 'religion' for a label, but whatever- it is no matter of importance)

          [1]And to top it all off, what I was exposed to for many years was the particularly quirky Japanese adaptation of Buddism commonly known as Zen Buddism! Most 'classical' Buddists are not entirely comfortable with 'Zen Buddism' from my experience. Again, YMMV.

          • (Score: 3, Insightful) by maxwell demon on Thursday May 14 2015, @05:05PM

            by maxwell demon (1608) on Thursday May 14 2015, @05:05PM (#182998) Journal

            to us, there are no supernatural forces, agents, or influences(thus no dieties to be concerned with) to have to account for.

            Well, as far as I know Buddhism believes in some form of reincarnation. This clearly is something supernatural.

            Also, Karma means there has to be something that distinguishes between "good" and "bad" actions in a moral sense. But moral is not a concept found in nature, therefore anything that is based on it can only be either human-made (but Karma isn't human-made, is it?) or supernatural.

            --
            The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
            • (Score: 3, Informative) by rts008 on Thursday May 14 2015, @07:53PM

              by rts008 (3001) on Thursday May 14 2015, @07:53PM (#183087)

              Karma is man made, just as is Buddhism. It is nothing more than a philosophy on how to live a 'right/correct' life. Buddhism is not a religion as Western Cultures view religion. Not all Buddhist sects incorporate reincarnation, and not all Buddhists accept it, even if it is part of their sects philosophy.

              Just consider 'you reap what you sow' as a good defination/translation for Karma. It is a human-made concept and describing word. There is nothing devine or sacred about Karma. It is in essence, just a flowery wording of one aspect of cause and effect as it applies to human interactions in society.

              I question your statement: "But moral is not a concept found in nature,..."
              Coincidently, I just watched an interesting youtube vid(still loaded in another tab) of a talk given by Dr. Andy Thomson titled "Why We Believe in Gods" at the 2009 American Atheist in Atlanta, GA. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iMmvu9eMrg/ [youtube.com]-link to vid)

              He addresses that far better than I can, so instead of trying to argue/debate with me, I will refer you to his interesting talk. Also, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Chris Hutchins(RIP), and MANY others have all addressed this in lectures and debates...ad nauseum.

              Not only am I an atheist, I don't even think religion has had a legitimate place in the modern world, and has not for at least 150 years. Religion is a harmful, self-imposed crutch, that should be immediately tossed aside, IMO.
              I only make a claim to Buddhism as a placeholder/answer for the 'Religion?:_________' question on documents for the few times 'No Thanks!' would not be accepted. The only reason I use Buddhist for that 'answer' is that I was heavily exposed to the quirky Zen Buddhism, and it is about the only 'religion' that I can half-assed claim as a possible answer for that blank without gagging. I don't claim to be an actual Buddist, but that is the only answer that won't get me lynched/attacked in the 'Bible Belt' where I live.

              Buddhism is not a religion, but a philosophy on self-improvement, and how to treat those around you, and how to treat the world around you. A set of instructions for a happier life, if you will. It's focus is on self, not external to self.

          • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday May 14 2015, @06:01PM

            by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Thursday May 14 2015, @06:01PM (#183026) Homepage
            Minor nit - Special relativity gives the "mass = energy" equivalence (except it doesn't really), General Relativity is the "mass = geometry of space-time" equivalence (which I understand less about).

            > The language and concepts defining most religion resist 'updating' as blasphemy or heretical, and was formed long before we even had the concept of 'science'

            Absolutely. That's one of the issues that I have with them, and is related to why I consider myself an "ignostic" or "igtheist" - I demand a clear definition of all terms such that they only rely on previously agreed premises before any meaningful discussion can be entered into, and all religions (including the supersymmetry - I'm perfectly fair about how I apply this) fail at this first hurdle. Buddhists saying their life energy field is just the same as the quantum fields which particle physicists study is to me a cheap get-out. That's what Feynmann would call cargo cult science. It's attempting to look like it says something about reality with a scientifically supportable perspective, but it doesn't. No feature that they claim it has is defined in terms of the physical, or should I say mathematical, properties of the quantum fields.

            > We never made the outlandish claims that are being refuted by science in the first place.

            You do make non-testable claims though. You shouldn't piggy-back on scientific concepts and then do non-science with them. That's pretty outlandish.

            I used to share a flat with the maintainer of the talk.religion.buddhism FAQ, and I used to like discussions about not just his beliefs, but those of other branches of buddhism too. Unfortunately, we never delved into these deep layers of mysticism, we spent more time discussing more superficial practical aspects, or ethical/moral ones. Which was a shame, I learnt a great deal about a lot of things from him.
            --
            Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
            • (Score: 2) by rts008 on Thursday May 14 2015, @07:02PM

              by rts008 (3001) on Thursday May 14 2015, @07:02PM (#183056)

              I agree about it being a form of mysticism.

              The only thing I have any objection or real disagreement is calling it a cargo cult science. Buddhism does not really focus on the 'science' of the natural world. This focus by Western folk as a means to refute it as a religion is a 'WTF?' experience to me. The focus and 'purpose' of Buddhism is more about how to think and act better. That is why I keep repeating myself with the 'if it concerns external forces/agents, it is not of Buddhism' refrain. As I said several times previously, I ONLY claim to be a Buddhist when someone will not accept the 'No thanks!' I always put in the 'Religion?' blank on documents, and I claim Buddhism is a phylosophy, and not a religion.(IMO)

              I'm just trying to answer questions to the best of my ability to use modern, Western language to explain concepts that do not translate accurately.

              If you are trying to class Buddhism as a religion so you can refute the validity of it as religion, then you've already misunderstood the whole point of Buddhist philosophy(it is not a religion), and are just spinning your wheels.

              So, if you want to debate Buddhism further, you will have to find someone that is actually qualified/more knowledgable. I'm not a scholar of Buddism, I was exposed to Zen Buddhism, and use it as the most plausible(if erroneous) placeholder to fill in blanks on documents when 'No thanks!' is not accepted.

              • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday May 14 2015, @07:32PM

                by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Thursday May 14 2015, @07:32PM (#183077) Homepage
                I certainly don't want to refute it as a religion, no matter what you are implying by the choice of the word "refute". Don't get me wrong, I have a lot more respect for Buddhism than I do for pretty much any other religion, I often find myself standing up for it, and using it for counter-examples when arguing against cookie-cutter theists (those with no original thought on the matter of their theism, as they've never had to think about it at all, who for example think that "religion" by definition means "belief in a god"). Amystic atheists certainly have no monopoly on "Good without god", and I think due to the perception of spirituality and rejection of selfishness and greed, Buddhists probably have a far better rap for that. I accept that some Buddhists object to it being classified as a religion, but I believe that's committing the same flaw as the theists - those properties that define their philosophy are the properties which I say define a "religion". (Compare that list of arguments which some AC used to "prove" entirely ineffectually, that Buddha was a god, the AC clearly sees the trappings of religions, and erroniously concludes "therefore the head guy was your god". He may be wrong in his logic, but he was correctly identifying trappings of religions) This is why one must define terms first.
                --
                Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
                • (Score: 2) by rts008 on Thursday May 14 2015, @07:59PM

                  by rts008 (3001) on Thursday May 14 2015, @07:59PM (#183092)

                  Peace, then. We are on the same 'page' it would seem. :-)

                  ...I have a lot more respect for Buddhism than I do for pretty much any other religion, I often find myself standing up for it,..."
                  This is the position I feel I am in for this discussion.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 15 2015, @05:01AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 15 2015, @05:01AM (#183237)

            >Japanese adaptation of Buddism commonly known as Zen Buddism!

            Oh what a fib! Zen is completely independent! You lot just co-opted it to look good!
            I can speak the whole of Zen and not even mention Buddha!

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 14 2015, @01:04PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 14 2015, @01:04PM (#182880)

        You are sadly ignorant about 'Buddism' and 'Buddist's beliefs.

        There is no point to this spiritualism nonsense, either. I don't see the need to be part of any religion whatsoever, and nor do I see a need to play word games with "reincarnation"; there is no such thing unless you use a very odd definition of it to make it a completely secular concept, sort of like how more and more of the bible has become 'metaphorical' over time.

        So I fail to see the point. Why even play these games at all?

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 14 2015, @01:46PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 14 2015, @01:46PM (#182891)

          So I fail to see the point. Why even play these games at all?

          Because humans are hardwired [psychiatrictimes.com] to be religious/spiritual. Just like not everyone has the same hair or skin color, not everyone has the same drive re:religion/spirituality, but its something most people can't really avoid.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 15 2015, @03:19PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 15 2015, @03:19PM (#183358)

            Humans are hardwired to do many foolish things. We should use our brains and reject illogical practices, however hard that may be, not surrender to them.

            And whether that is truly the case is debatable. This brain scanning nonsense is quite subjective and carries with it lots of assumptions; the same is true of psychology and the other social 'sciences'. I'll wait until real science shows what you claim, but I don't doubt it is true.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 15 2015, @03:24PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 15 2015, @03:24PM (#183359)

            Or maybe human beings are social animals and would be better served by forming secular groups than irrational fairy tales and new age spiritualism.

      • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Thursday May 14 2015, @02:25PM

        by Phoenix666 (552) on Thursday May 14 2015, @02:25PM (#182903) Journal

        My roommate in college was Thai and a devout Buddhist and had interned (gone to seminary?) in Thailand as a monk and said as much as you have, but I have subsequently spent years in Asia and have been to temples from Japan to Southeast Asia. Buddhism is indistinguishable in practice from any other religion. If Non-attachment were the universal, core tenet of that faith you assert it to be, then no Buddhist would get their feathers ruffled should an irreverent foreigner deface their temples. But go ahead and test it: carve your initials into a post at Pulguksa or jump the barrier at Wat Phra Kaew to grab the emerald Buddha and you'll find out in a hot damn hurry how much a non-religion Buddhism really is.

        In truth it's like anything else, yet another flavor of, "I'm better than you." Buddhism's version of it only happens to take it to a passive-aggressive extreme.

        That's not to say there isn't a lot of value in Buddhist teachings. There is. But that comes to light if you can be the one guy in a thousand that actually practices what is preached. Same thing can be said for Christianity or Islam or Judaism or what-have-you. Still, don't be surprised that if you are that guy the other 999 "Buddhists/Christians/Muslims/Jews" around you look at you like you're weird.

        --
        Washington DC delenda est.
        • (Score: 2) by rts008 on Thursday May 14 2015, @03:34PM

          by rts008 (3001) on Thursday May 14 2015, @03:34PM (#182943)

          For more on my views, see my reply to 'FatPhil'.(it's too much to repeat here)

          ...how much a non-religion Buddhism really is.

          To be clear, I do not think the 'religion' label can be correctly applied to Buddhism. I see it more of a philosophy, and only used the term 'religion' so as not to get bogged down into semantics in the discussion.
          My error, and you have my aplogies for any misunderstanding.(again, see my reply to 'FatPhil')
          As for Thailand, having spent some time there, the Thai people have their own ideas about a lot of different things, not just religion! It is a very interesting place, full of fascinating history and cultures...some of the cultures REALLY clash.(witness the frequency of political 'coups' that occur in Thailand) So don't make the mistake of painting with too broad a brush there. At the same time, I will not dispute your roomate's stories, either.

          Still, don't be surprised that if you are that guy the other 999 "Buddhists/Christians/Muslims/Jews" around you look at you like you're weird.

          No surprise, that has been reality for me these past decades.
          To be honest, I couldn't care less about other people thinking I'm weird. Really. What others think about me is so far down on my list of priorities, that it may as well not exist as a line item on the priority list. (see my posting history here, and on /. for supporting evidence for my claim-the words/comments speak for themselves)

          BTW, I never made the claim that I was an expert on Buddhism, and was really only addressing that specific troll about some of his misunderstandings, so I was being overly broad-brushed. Had I known I was 'volunteered' to be the acting Dalai Lama's spokesman here, I would have just wrote up a position paper in my journal, and just linked to that. Since that genie escaped the bottle, I have just been doing my best, without going into 'long-winded lecture' mode. My error. :-)

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 15 2015, @04:57AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 15 2015, @04:57AM (#183236)

        Yeah first, if you're going to come on as an authority on the subject maybe you should learn to spell the word correctly?

        Second...

        >There is an energy field permeating the Universe that we call Cosmic Energy/Life force.

        Yup, GOD, you buddhists keep bending over backwards to say there isnt one then you come up with this stuff. Sheesh. Just say GOD and get it over with.

  • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday May 14 2015, @01:45PM

    by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Thursday May 14 2015, @01:45PM (#182890) Homepage
    > No salvation. No bondage

    What have you done with nirvana and samsara?
    --
    Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
    • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Thursday May 14 2015, @06:27PM

      by aristarchus (2645) on Thursday May 14 2015, @06:27PM (#183039) Journal

      > No salvation. No bondage

      What have you done with nirvana and samsara?

      Nothing, they are right behind you. Or all around you. But this does point out the difference between infantile religions and Buddhism. Delusion and extinguishment of delusion are not the same things as sin and redemption. Theism is, as Freud suspected, the projection of the child's perception of the parents into a fantasy realm. The doctrine of the Fall and Original sin are a child's fear of "being in trouble", and salvation is when the Big Daddy in the Sky forgives and loves us again. There is no doctrine of sin as disobedience in Buddhism, and no doctrine of "grace". This is because there is no god. (And please, let's not get started on bodhisattvas!)