If you were to follow a particular religion...

[Erinome]

I would invent my own. It would be centered around a deity who looks kinda like Dave Chappelle. This is because my weed man looks kinda like Dave Chappelle. Weed would be burned in a ritualistic way, first thing in the morning, right after breakfast, lunch, dinner and twice before bedtime.

The commandments:

1. Thou shalt always pass sacred herb to the left, bee bee bum bum boom.
2. Thou shalt puff but once if smoking sacred herb in pipe, before passing.
3. Thou shall be allowed two puffs if smoking sacred herb in a joint or blunt, before passing.
4. If it's black, put it back. If it's gray, throw it away.
5. Thou shalt be nice to people and chill out and shit.

[Taqiyya Mockingbird]

In the end, I'd go with Buddhism, mainly because it's probably the most sane of the major world religions.

You mean minus self-immolation.

That is a recent bizarre phenomenon that has nothing at all to do with what the man we call the Buddha taught.

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_cosmology

Yes it is wiki, but this is more thorough than other sources I have found....I have textbooks I can recommend though.

I was talking about what this fellow the buddha taught.

What you refer to -- as well as the superstitions of karma and reincarnation-- represents later perversions that brahmins and hindus and tibetans and asians inflicted on the Buddha's teachings after his death.

---

In the end, I'd go with Buddhism, mainly because it's probably the most sane of the major world religions.

You mean minus self-immolation.

You remember that discussion we had such a long, long time ago about trolling...?

---

What? You really don't have a clue,do you. Self immolation and suicide of any kind are not basic tenets of any form of Buddhism any more than burning crosses on people's lawns is a tenet of Christianity. Drongo..

For fuck sake do some reading before you start making stupid claims about other religions.

Neither were the Inquisition and Crusades part of Biblical Christianity, but it still happened and has become an integral part of the history of the Christian religion.

The self-immolation of Quang Duc was an unprecedented political stunt, and unfortunately it has spawned copycats in its wake. It was done in protest of Diem's persecution of the monks (Diem was a catholic -- go figure), but it had never been, and still is not, a "buddhist" practice.

The buddha's monks were isolated from society and non-political. It wa their lot to remove themslves from the concerns of society, and instead focus upon their own practice, discipline and growth.


The inquisition and the crusades were the product of church policy, right from the top.

This self-immolation bullshit was the actions of individual monks and not at all sanctioned or authorized by any sort of governing body.

[Welsh cake]

I don't follow any organised cult. I don't submit to any system with dogmas, rites or tenets.

I don't have faith in anything or anyone, nor do I worship anything or anyone.

[Nine]

I like the daedric gods.

---

---

Merida ^

---

---

Azura ^

---

---

Clavicus Vile ^

And there are many more

[downbeatplumb]

If I were to follow a religion it would be one of those "free love ones".

I think I have also explained why.

[Angrboda]

Below (hidden) is what I answered a year and a half ago. I, too, ranked Theravada Buddhism first, above Catholicism (#2) and Gnostic Christianity (#3). I chose Theravada Buddhism largely for its intellectual approach. Today, I doubt I would do so. While one can debate whether the Buddha was agnostic with respect to the doctrines of Karma and Reincarnation, a position I feel little more than sophistry, I think that's being too clever by half. Regardless, my primary divergence with Buddha and Buddhism today is over the doctrine of Anatta.

To be sure, I find philosophical positions more interesting ways to carve up the world than doing so based on religious positions. As an anti-realist, eliminative materialist, sometime platonic realist and incompatibilist with regard to free will, I find my philosophical views engendering as much if not more antipathy than my religious ones. And I find the different philosophical schools of the Hellenistic and Roman periods quite compelling.

That being said, if "atheist" were a choice, that would likely be it for me. It's possible I could be diverted to other paths. I could see myself following some form of Shinto. And there's a lot of Hinduism, Tantrism, and Vajrayana Buddhism to be explored. (I've been asked by an atheist organizer and friend why I'm Hindu and not Shinto. To be sure, I was too flabbergasted by her question to know how to respond.) I could be Shinto today, and I wouldn't have to change much of anything. There is a tribe of Australian aborigines whose religion consists in reinterpreting their foundation myths through story, sort of a combination of performance art and Noh theater. I like that. Or if the Eleusinian mystery cults were still around, I think I could groove on that. And I would fold inside Confucianism like I was born there. Zurvanite Zoroastrianism, too. Though if atheism weren't open to me, I would likely follow my own path as a wild Shaman.

Or Confucian. Or Mohist. Or Han Feizi style legalist. Oh hell, I don't know.

---

1. Theravada Buddhism: I tend to intellectualize my spiritual practice and I have no patience for meditation, so while the compassion aspects of Mahayana Buddhism appeal, it's the combined rational and practical aspects -- The Noble Eight-fold Path -- that appeal to me.

2. Roman Catholicism: At heart, though I have developed a somewhat non-traditional practice, I lean heavily in the direction of orthodoxy, and, I firmly believe that the apostolic tradition and the authority of tradition are necessary to provide the foundation for Christian doctrine, faith and belief. [Protestants may disagree, I don't intend here to debate them].

3. Gnostic Christianity: Largely because it deals a knock-down punch to the problem of Theodicy, but also again because gnosis / knowledge is a compelling force in my life. I would be lying if I also omitted that Gnosticism has a certain 'romantic appeal', that being in that I picture Gnostics as new-agey sorts of people [despite my dislike of new age types and their beliefs]; nonetheless, such people tend to live a Bohemian sort of existence, and that is the romantic appeal.

---

[Ace Otana]

If you were to follow a particular religion, what would it be and why?

Buddhism.

[jonb]

I might become a Brianist, but then I could not be arsed to defend the faith like this:-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=asUyK6JWt...re=related


But all religions end up being like this:-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JKvJaJKP...ure=fvwrel

So no thank you.

[Taqiyya Mockingbird]

While one can debate whether the Buddha was agnostic with respect to the doctrines of Karma and Reincarnation…

He made his position on them clear in the Mahacattarisaka sutta and further elucidated in others. His thinking was that such views led one toward ethical behavior, but were ultimately speculative. He did use the principles as teaching tools, leading folks ultimately away from them and toward his own teachings, and most importantly, his practices.

Anatta, well, that is never going to sit well with someone who doesn't want to let go of the notion of a soul.

[Angrboda]

While one can debate whether the Buddha was agnostic with respect to the doctrines of Karma and Reincarnation…

He made his position on them clear in the Mahacattarisaka sutta and further elucidated in others. His thinking was that such views led one toward ethical behavior, but were ultimately speculative. He did use the principles as teaching tools, leading folks ultimately away from them and toward his own teachings, and most importantly, his practices.

Anatta, well, that is never going to sit well with someone who doesn't want to let go of the notion of a soul.

Um, I don't believe in a soul. So, to use your favorite term, "Straw man!"

And the question is not whether the Buddha himself advocated agnosticism on these questions, I'm told he did, and lacking research on the matter, I'm willing to accept that as true, pending further study. The question is whether any particular Buddhism is defined authoritatively by what we have of the Buddha's exposition. (Ignoring side issues for the moment. In one of the sutras, he is reported to have said it is impossible to identify a Buddha, so he himself may not be a Buddha, by his own reasoning.) Off the top of my head, it would appear that many forms of Mahayana Buddhism differ with specific things Siddhartha said, or is reputed to have said. That doesn't make them something other than Buddhism. Arguing that Buddhism is what we have of what he said is an example of the genetic fallacy.

---

I got sidetracked by responding to Taqiyya, and forgot to mention a point that occurred to me after my last post. In some deconversion stories, individuals came to disbelief because of their drive to discover the truth. Their zeal in ferreting out the fact of the matter pushed them out the other side of their faith. Of this, it has been said that they do not choose to disbelieve, their understanding of the evidence and facts made it impossible to continue to believe. Religions in general share this property, that we believe them not because we made an explicit choice so much as it was the only choice the person could have made, given what they believed at the time. If I stopped being a Taoist, it would be because the things I believe to be true are no longer compatible with Taoism. And if I were to come to a new faith, it would be based on my knowledge, understanding and belief at that time. It would not be a choice, like picking out a purse, to match my accessories. If you aren't sufficiently drawn to, say, Theravada Buddhism to be one today, I find it questionable that you would become one. This seems to be a question of "What religion do you find least objectionable?" It would still be somewhat objectionable lacking any relevant change — presuming the change mentioned in the OP did not bring about such change.

I don't know what I'd believe then because I don't know what I'd believe, and that would be what determines my choice.