Morons: Terrible bane or lifeblood of the forum?

[Ahriman]

So it's not really Buddhism.

It absolutely IS Buddhism. Just as one can be a philosophical (as opposed to a religious) Christian, it’s perfectly possible to be a secular Buddhist.

Boru

Many western people think it's possible, but it's not. Buddhism requires its adherents to believe in a number of supernatural things, such as karma, "nirvana", various otherworldly realms, etc. You can't be a "secular Buddhist". That would be like, if I still called myself a Catholic despite not caring about God. Like, no?

[The Grand Nudger]

That's exactly the position that most "catholics" are in, academically, it;s referred to as cultural catholicism to distinguish it from a genuine belief in the articles of the catholic faith as set by the men in dresses and funny hats. Similarly, western buddhists tend to be particularly western, owing to a pr campaign by buddhist factions over these past few decades to court western support in their struggle against the chinese state, which distinguishes them from the demo you might call "real" buddhists.

The quick and dirty conclusion, if we're intent on separating them as "real" and "unreal" x's..is that there's a hell of alot less religion in the world than people think there is. But, ofc, the various shamans and witchdoctors would tell you that, even if you didn't ask, staring at a demographic cliff which endangers their livelihoods...as they are. Personally, so-called cultural variants of any belief system don't concern me at all. It's the true believers you can never turn your back on.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

It absolutely IS Buddhism. Just as one can be a philosophical (as opposed to a religious) Christian, it’s perfectly possible to be a secular Buddhist.

Boru

Many western people think it's possible, but it's not. Buddhism requires its adherents to believe in a number of supernatural things, such as karma, "nirvana", various otherworldly realms, etc. You can't be a "secular Buddhist". That would be like, if I still called myself a Catholic despite not caring about God. Like, no?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_Buddhism

It goes in this order: read, learn, then speak.

Boru

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

That's exactly the position that most "catholics" are in, academically, it;s referred to as cultural catholicism to distinguish it from a genuine belief in the articles of the catholic faith as set by the men in dresses and funny hats.  Similarly, western buddhists tend to be particularly western, owing to a pr campaign by buddhist factions over these past few decades to court western support in their struggle against the chinese state, which distinguishes them from the demo you might call "real" buddhists.

The quick and dirty conclusion, if we're intent on separating them as "real" and "unreal" x's..is that there's a hell of alot less religion in the world than people think there is.  But, ofc, the various shamans and witchdoctors would tell you that, even if you didn't ask, staring at a demographic cliff which endangers their livelihoods...as they are.  Personally, so-called cultural variants of any belief system don't concern me at all.  It's the true believers you can never turn your back on.

Bingo lolly. My own missus self-identifies as culturally Jewish (or, as she puts it, ‘I’m not a Jew, I’m Jew-ish.’)

Boru

[Ahriman]

Many western people think it's possible, but it's not. Buddhism requires its adherents to believe in a number of supernatural things, such as karma, "nirvana", various otherworldly realms, etc. You can't be a "secular Buddhist". That would be like, if I still called myself a Catholic despite not caring about God. Like, no?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_Buddhism

It goes in this order: read, learn, then speak.

Boru

Oh, Wikipedia. There's a credible source of information.

[Angrboda]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_Buddhism

It goes in this order: read, learn, then speak.

Boru

Oh, Wikipedia. There's a credible source of information.

You realize, of course, that Wikipedia cites primary and secondary literature which supports its points if you have issues with the entry itself, don't you?

Of course you don't, because you're buttfuckingly stupid and have shit for brains.

[The Grand Nudger]

What I'm gathering, is that you didn't realize you were a cultural catholic, and..probably, didn't realize that other people immediately recognized as much? Shit, buddy, I knew you at soul forge. That's the last refuge of the miserable bunch of motherfuckers who were afflicted with the religion of the tortured man. Sure, it's hard for any of you to believe in magic crackers and blood wine, anymore, but suffering..yeah, that tracks. You know for a fact that this world you live in is a suffering engine, and fwiw, I agree with you, you're just a little hazy on the attribution.

[Ahriman]

Oh, Wikipedia. There's a credible source of information.

You realize, of course, that Wikipedia cites primary and secondary literature which supports its points if you have issues with the entry itself, don't you?

Of course you don't, because you're buttfuckingly stupid and have shit for brains.

I don't use Wikipedia at all, so there's no way I could've known that.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

You realize, of course, that Wikipedia cites primary and secondary literature which supports its points if you have issues with the entry itself, don't you?

Of course you don't, because you're buttfuckingly stupid and have shit for brains.

I don't use Wikipedia at all, so there's no way I could've known that.

If you don't use Wikipedia at all, how can you know whether it's a credible source of information?

Boru

[Ahriman]

I don't use Wikipedia at all, so there's no way I could've known that.

If you don't use Wikipedia at all, how can you know whether it's a credible source of information?

Boru

That's why I don't use it, because it isn't credible. There's a lot of bullshit on there.