Ok. In terms of morality, ethics, opinions, and just plain lack of stupidy, which of the major religions is the best?

I think it's Buddhism. No scriptures full of fairy tales. Very peaceful and teaches good moral values. Also is deeply rooted in self discovery and its belief that everything is connected, which is uncanny to what is now understood in mordern physics.

Atheism, AINEC.

Atheism is not a religion. Please no more atheism responses.

I think the atheists - I am one too - have the most to add to this debate since they are the most impartial.

Does deism count as a religion?
If no, then why is buddhism?

An objective view to the most subjective topic on the planet?

You sir, are crazier than Tom Cruise.

Then I'd have to say that Buddhism makes me want to vomit the least, since its the only religion that hasn't knocked on my door on a Saturday afternoon asking me to "see the light" or "join them in prayer" . Disgusting.

jews have done that to you?

mormonism is the correct religion. don't you watch south park?

You know those jews, always wanting people to convert. Always going on crusades to force their religion on people. Always preaching in the corner or on the bus trying to help us sinners. Trying to get me to wear those hats, how dare they!

Is this the hat you speak of?

Undoubtably this one

Bokononism.

Agreed. Very nice!

I like this one:

http://infohost.nmt.edu/~mlindsey/asimov/question.htm

here is my unscientific proof that entropy can be reversed.

it seems far more likely that the universe is infinitely cycling from
birth to death than a singularity never to be repeated.
statistically, since the infinite universe would contain infinite universes,
and the finite only one, we would be infinitely more likely to be in an
infinite universe. this means the universe is infinite.

if the universe is infinite- we exist. this proves it.

of course the interesting question is whether any information can get past the
cycle. my guess is no, but i cant think of a conceivable way to test this, even if a race of godlike beings could run any possible experiment.

note- i am not sure if my "statistical" logic is actually correct.

that's a mistake hawking called the biggest he ever made - he tried to prove the arrow of entropy reverses in a collapsing universe, and one of his students ended up proving him wrong. based on current models the arrows of time/entropy should continue in the same direction even if the universe collapses.

anyway as far as i know most current evidence points to no collapse - the rate of expansion of our universe seems to be increasing even now, and we are more likely headed toward a heat death rather than a recycling big crunch.

thats not what im saying. i guess i should have clarified.

im saying that the entropy arrow never reverses, but the amount of entropy gets reset when the universe collapses and reemerges in a quantum fluctuation, or whatever the big bang was.
i wouldnt put much stock in the current evidence. we only know what 4 percent of the supposed mass in the universe is. the one thing we do know is that the mass is balanced pretty close to the critical value. it doesnt take much of a stretch to assume that we might bump the 96 percent of unknown stuff up to 97 percent at some time in the future.
but for entropy to be reversed, i dont really even need this particular universe to collapse. there just has to be the possibility of a big bang occurring again in some other universe or this one.

we could talk all day about this, but i think the bottom line is that nobody nows how this universe began, what is going to happen to it, or even how to define the universe.
and, i predict, it will be a long time before anyone does.

ic.

agreed we don't know much, but there does appear to be strong evidence the rate of expansion is increasing, which means there might be a force at work that trumps the critical mass debate.

yes your arguments apply equally to an infinite number of spawning universes that don't collapse as well as to a cycling single one.

So then it would seem science would agree with bible on this on in a manner of speaking- the rainbow is a symbolic message from God promising to never again destroy mankind by water- next time it will be by fire.

or by dissipation on energy trillions of years in the future, anyway.

Yep, thats the one!

Christianity.
but i also practise zen meditation. it sounds like a religion but really zen is a method used to better understand your own religion

no

There is only one answer that can be given.

"mine"

Explain, both of you.

You need an explanation of "mine". It should be quite obvious.

Zen is a form of Mahayana Buddhism which, objectively, is a religion.

Just follow me.


Bear

No, that I know. What I meant was what are the reasons one would give that would make it impossible to apply pieces of Zen to ones own religion, with the intent of getting more out of said religion?


Mine and Bear I understood.

Islam is the best... because not only is it not wrong to kill people, it's encouraged... and that's just awesome.





greatest.southpark.ever

Is this a real question? "My god has a bigger crank than your god!"-george carlin, paraphrased of course.

Exactly.

I was responding to CU's quote: "it sounds like a religion but really zen is a method used to better understand your own religion."

Certainly you can apply meditation practices to any religion, as well as practice meditation non-religiously....but CU was saying that Zen is not actually a religion.

The term "Zen" is misused ALL THE TIME, and in some pretty silly ways. The actual practice of Zen Buddhism is extremely trying, and can only be practiced under the tutelage of a Zen Master.

I'm a fan of McMahonism

All religions are completely rediculous, except for mine of course.

Buddhism

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

or any religion that involves lots of sex and drugs!

Great religion, but stay away from the Ice-Nine.

Word.

"If I were a younger man, I would write a history of human stupidity; and I would climb to the top of Mount McCabe and lie down on my back with my history for a pillow; and I would take from the ground some of the blue-white poison that makes statues of men; and I would make a statue of myself, lying on my back, grinning horribly, and thumbing my nose at You Know Who."

Does it get any better?

Nope.

this is kinda a simplistic view of buddhism. we have this idea in the west that buddhism is some sort of super new-age thing that encompasses everything we know about the modern world. it ain't like that. there are conservative buddhists in the east that look a WHOLE lot like the christian fundamentalists of the west. they just don't get the air time over here.

remember the buddhist monk riots in korea almost 2 decades ago? buddhists aren't always so peaceful or removed from politics.


that said, it's more akin to my beliefs about the world than most other organized religions. but "best," i don't know.

i guess i meant more of a zen philosophy of buddhism.

i realize that there are extremeists in all religions, but i think buddhists tend to be the most peaceful and most wise of the other major religions. that's why i think it is the "best". in general, i don't think any religion is "good" for humanity.

that's the thing, though. there isn't one "zen," just like there isn't one "buddhist."

in china, zen goes by the name of "chan" (which the japanese transliterated), and in korea it's "son," but has some huy'an strains mixed in there. and they're all profoundly different depending on the context in which they're practiced.

in japan, zen masters are some of the richest people in the world, and accumulating wealth is seen as a good thing. in china, however, chan monks are withdrawn to a large extent from society. similarly in korea, where the government's persecution of buddhism in the early 1900s forced all the monasteries to secluded, mountanous areas, where many son masters developed a deep hatred of their government, indeed, of government in general.

all that's a bit off topic, but my point is that the cultural phenomenon of religion (or the religious phenomenon of culture, if you like) is very, very difficult to speak of in general terms. a lot of people do that, on both sides of the coin, but it's a bit of a whoopsie.