What if God doesn't exist

[AntiTheist]

This is an attractive notion [that removing religion would end a lot of problems, such as suicide bombings], but not particularly supported by the factual record, thus far.

Actually, what’s supported by “the factual record” is that religions are a major source of problem in a lot of parts of the world.

And we don’t even have to limit our discussion to extremist terrorists. We have Christians in Nigeria killing children whom they consider “witches,” we have the mess in Ireland for which religion is a major motivating factor, we have the huge mess in the Middle East which, although race is a factor there (unlike in Ireland), is exacerbated by religious tensions, we have people working themselves up into a tizzy over what two consenting adults do in private and whether they call their partnership a marriage, dangerous theocracies around the world imposing antifeminist laws on women and denying them education and basic human rights, etc., etc., etc.

Now, obviously, religion is not responsible for all of the world’s problems. Human beings are an aggressive species, and we’re always going to be fighting each other for some excuse or another…but getting rid of religion would indeed reduce problems in the world, some of them significantly.

Religion has many negative consequences for the world, and the tangible benefits it provides (charity, community, etc.) can all be achieved through secular means.

Non belief does not solve the problem

No, non-belief in itself doesn’t “solve” anything, but ridding ourselves of religion – while it will certainly not eliminate all problems – would be a big step in a positive direction.

Now, obviously, there are other destructive beliefs that one can subscribe to, desctructive beliefs like political ideologies, which frequently function in a way similar to religious belief. I’d be in favor of getting rid of them as well.

The most effective substitutes for a shared religious belief, I think are racialist.

Um, no, it would not be.

the racialist can draw a simple analogy that as the beasts align each other according to species, so the group can align against other, different groups for shared gain.

Sure, but only if this “racialist” comes from the nineteenth century before people knew anything at all about biology.

You do realize that the human “races” aren’t different species, right?

Without faith, I suggest that the logical benefits of racialism would quickly become the governing principal among most societies on earth.

Well,then I suggest you take a look at the countries of Western Europe today, many of which have a majority of non-religious citizens. They haven’t tried anything remotely like “racialism,” so I think your thesis is completely bunk. Just because you can’t think of anything better than “racialism” to fill the void of faith, that doesn’t mean that no one else can.

One system that fills the void of faith nicely is a secular democratic republic, which is the kind of government we have here in the United States.

Even in Germany, where the racialist regime was defeated, one must respect the remarkable dedication it engendered.

Hmm. Interesting. Many people make the baseless accusation that “Without a belief in god, there’d be nothing to stop the Nazis!” which is a pretty silly accusation. But this is the first time I think I’ve ever seen someone suggest that we ought to respect the Nazis’ dedication. I must be misreading you here.

We do agree, however, that a racialist government does solve a number of problems that average people face.

It solves them more efficiently than Christianity does

Leaving aside for a moment the point that “Christianity” is not a government and that the US government is in no way founded on the Christian religion (consult the Treaty of Tripoli for confirmation of this fact), I disagree that a “racialist government” would solve problems more effeciently than the secular democratic republic government we have now. Would you care to explain what on earth you’re talking about?

 

[Philthy]

Let me just start by saying that this is a complete hypothetical. It is impossible to prove that something does not exist, so technically it would be impossible to disprove God, but what if somehow it was proven to you God didn’t exist…how would your life change?

Would you morality change if you somehow knew for a fact that God didn’t exist? How would your life change? Would your life be better? Would it be worse?

Also, just so you know I’m not looking for “answers” to this question about God’s existence being truth and there is no point in thinking about what if God didn’t exist, etc. This is a completely hypothetical and if you can’t play along then feel free not to reply.

Anyway, I already know how my life would change because I recently lost my faith in God. I can’t say for sure that God does not exist, but it seems much more likely that there is no God. To be honest, my life really hasn’t changed much though. I still have the same set of morals as I did when I did believe in God. Then again my morals didn’t line up with the church at that time either. I would think things like condom use would be taken off the immoral list without God because without the existence of God condoms cease to be immoral.

Anyway, what do you guys think?

I think you’re uncomfortable with your loss of faith and are searching for comfort. I hope that you find it.

blessings!

 

[GreggAlvarez]

Actually, what’s supported by “the factual record” is that religions are a major source of problem in a lot of parts of the world.

Religion is not the problem. PEOPLE are the problem. What kind of superficial statements are these? Is it just to make religion look even worse than it already does? People already do that to us. We do not need another irrationalist to make assertions on that. Again, religion is not the source. PEOPLE are the source. The fact that they may do something in the name of religion says nothing about the religion itself. Let us assume I am talking about Christianity here. If a person kills a witch in the name of Christianity, that person is obviously completely deluded. And not deluded in their belief in God as you might think. They are deluded in what their responsibility is.

And we don’t even have to limit our discussion to extremist terrorists. We have Christians in Nigeria killing children whom they consider “witches,” we have the mess in Ireland for which religion is a major motivating factor, we have the huge mess in the Middle East which, although race is a factor there (unlike in Ireland), is exacerbated by religious tensions, we have people working themselves up into a tizzy over what two consenting adults do in private and whether they call their partnership a marriage, dangerous theocracies around the world imposing antifeminist laws on women and denying them education and basic human rights, etc., etc., etc.

I am sure there are some of those theocracies are intended by the PEOPLE for their own pride. Christianity may seem like they work up “a tizzy over” certain things but that is because you do not know what it is actually working for. No surprise there. And “basic human rights” is the what the Church is actually striving for. The fact that there are some pitiful fools in the Church means nothing about the aims of the Church. And the Church actually supports education. For example, the Church could care less if Catholics are taught evolution. They support the teachings of it (minus the chance part). What antifeminist laws on women are there? The Church regards equality among both genders.

Now, obviously, religion is not responsible for all of the world’s problems. Human beings are an aggressive species, and we’re always going to be fighting each other for some excuse or another…but getting rid of religion would indeed reduce problems in the world, some of them significantly.

Finally, I see an unbias and reasonable part of the post. Minus the “getting rid of religion” part. Aside from the existence of God, this is impossible to do. You better not be one of those who atheists who wants throw all the religious off the edge of a cliff. In any case, getting rid of religion will do nothing. You will still have religion, minus the title “religion”.

Religion has many negative consequences for the world,

Agreed. So does anti-religion and non-religion. Human beings are the aggressive ones. To throw it all (or most) on religion is unwarranted.

and the tangible benefits it provides (charity, community, etc.) can all be achieved through secular means.

Agreed. The religious do it even better. You will hate that statement and argue it because you have your mind set that God does not exist and the religious do nothing positive for humanity. Well, so do I, except I actually have a view of reality that is actually justified and justifiable. That is, I can see there are such things as good and bad.

No, non-belief in itself doesn’t “solve” anything, but ridding ourselves of religion – while it will certainly not eliminate all problems – would be a big step in a positive direction.

No, it would not. This is pure bias. In any case, you will never get rid of the religion because we will always practice the religion. The title might leave but the concept will not. I realize that many “religious” do VERY evil things. Look at the rapist priests in the Church and those who kill “in the name of Christianity” or “God” for just a few examples. I will be the first to admit at the Church has had and has possibly some of the worst human beings that ever walked the Earth. But, I will say that the Church has had and has the very best human beings to walk the Earth. This is not to say that there are none outside the Church that were completely awesome people. Is this bias? Perhaps…

Now, obviously, there are other destructive beliefs that one can subscribe to, desctructive beliefs like political ideologies, which frequently function in a way similar to religious belief. I’d be in favor of getting rid of them as well.

I would not expect anything else from a person named AntiTheist. You cannot get rid of God though.

 

[Philthy]

Actually, what’s supported by “the factual record” is that religions are a major source of problem in a lot of parts of the world.

Hmmm, lets see how you back up the assertion that “religions” are a “major” source of problems in “a lot of parts” of the world

And we don’t even have to limit our discussion to extremist terrorists. We have Christians in Nigeria killing children whom they consider “witches,”

And yet Christianity is a global religion and when we look at all the other places it exists we don’t find “witch” killings. I dont see how you conclude that the “religion” is the problem. Perhaps those people are using the “religion” to justify their behavior, and if the “religion” didnt exist they would simply find another excuse to kill those they wish to kill. You have failed to link the killing to the “religion”, which was your premise, and so your attempted point is, as Jefferson says, nothing.

we have the mess in Ireland for which religion is a major motivating factor,

Im not sure what you are talking about, but again the religion of Ireland doesnt precipitate those problems throughout the world - how do you dissociate the Irish from being the cause of the problems?

we have the huge mess in the Middle East which, although race is a factor there (unlike in Ireland), is exacerbated by religious tensions,

Why, if it is the religion, does that problem not follow the religion everywhere it is practiced?

we have people working themselves up into a tizzy over what two consenting adults do in private and whether they call their partnership a marriage,

I think almost no attention has been paid to what “two consenting adults” do in privacy - all the attention is on what they do publicly, and what they attempt to force others to do on their behalf.

dangerous theocracies around the world imposing antifeminist laws on women and denying them education and basic human rights, etc., etc., etc.

You think this is a “religion” problem??? Wise up…

Human beings are an aggressive species, and we’re always going to be fighting each other for some excuse or another…but getting rid of religion would indeed reduce problems in the world, some of them significantly.

Im sorry but you havent provided a single piece of evidence to support this.

No, non-belief in itself doesn’t “solve” anything, but ridding ourselves of religion – while it will certainly not eliminate all problems – would be a big step in a positive direction.

You are dreaming. Religion is not the problem, we are the problem.

Now, obviously, there are other destructive beliefs that one can subscribe to, desctructive beliefs like political ideologies, which frequently function in a way similar to religious belief. I’d be in favor of getting rid of them as well.

Ummm, now you are just sounding moronic. Who, exactly, decides which beliefs are “destructive” and which are genuine? Your proposal sounds like a religion - or a philosophical ideology to me…and they’ve all been tried before and they all have their limitations in providing an earthly utopia because they fail to account for the reality of the human condition.

 

[Yab_Yum]

Three words: Hitler, Stalin, Mao. They weren’t religious fanatics - just fanatics. Religion isn’t the problem. It’s not very post-modernist of anyone to think it is.

 

[AntiTheist]

And yet Christianity is a global religion and when we look at all the other places it exists we don’t find “witch” killings. I dont see how you conclude that the “religion” is the problem. Perhaps those people are using the “religion” to justify their behavior, and if the “religion” didnt exist they would simply find another excuse to kill those they wish to kill.

Perhaps. Or perhaps there would be no reason for them to kill these children if they didn’t hold a number of false beliefs, including:

1. That witches of the supernatural variety exist
2. That the Bible, which says, “Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live” is a holy, true book to be obeyed
3. That these particular children are witches.

If you take religion out of the equation – and, more generally, all supernatural beliefs – then the problem instantly goes away. That’s not to say that there might not be other problems, but this particular problem will be gone.

Let me skip down to address your primary misunderstanding:

Why, if it is the religion, does that problem not follow the religion everywhere it is practiced?

Because I’m not claiming that religion always and everywhere produces negative results or the same negative results. I’m saying that religion, in general, has negative consequences.

Now are these religious “justifications” in some cases that would still be going on under some different justification if we took away the religion from the situation? Perhaps yes in some situations, but even in those situations, we’d still be removing one of the driving forces behind the conflict. You have to remember that religion usually is bound up in a person’s psyche from early in life and that it’s usually tied to family, tradition, culture, etc, in a way that makes it an extremely powerful forced.

Perhaps “God wants me to do this” is a justification in some of these cases, but it’s a powerful justification, far more powerful in a lot of cases than my family or my culture wants me to do this.

You might stand a chance to reason with someone doing something on behalf of his “cultural pride,” but you have less of a chance to reason with someone who thinks that his destructive actions are divinely mandated.

Who, exactly, decides which beliefs are “destructive” and which are genuine?

The dichotomy is not between “destructive” and “genuine.” The dichotomy is between “destructive” and “not destructive.” And we decide, using the tried and true time-honored method of using evidence.

EDIT: To be clear – because I see some potential for misunderstaning – I’m not suggesting that we should get rid of religion. In fact, I think it would be impossible to do and not something I would be in favor of. I prefer to live in a secular society where people have the freedom of religion.

However, I also think that religion is a negative force in the world and that its positive tangible benefits can be provided just as easily by secular means. My preference would be to live in a world where as many people as possible are encouraged to use their critical thinking faculties and decide not to believe in claims unsupported by evidence.

 

[GreggAlvarez]

Perhaps. Or perhaps there would be no reason for them to kill these children if they didn’t hold a number of false beliefs, including:

1. That witches of the supernatural variety exist
2. That the Bible, which says, “Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live” is a holy, true book to be obeyed
3. That these particular children are witches.

If you take religion out of the equation – and, more generally, all supernatural beliefs – then the problem instantly goes away. That’s not to say that there might not be other problems, but this particular problem will be gone.

Let me skip down to address your primary misunderstanding:
Because I’m not claiming that religion always and everywhere produces negative results or the same negative results. I’m saying that religion, in general, has negative consequences.

Now are these religious “justifications” in some cases that would still be going on under some different justification if we took away the religion from the situation? Perhaps yes in some situations, but even in those situations, we’d still be removing one of the driving forces behind the conflict. You have to remember that religion usually is bound up in a person’s psyche from early in life and that it’s usually tied to family, tradition, culture, etc, in a way that makes it an extremely powerful forced.

Perhaps “God wants me to do this” is a justification in some of these cases, but it’s a powerful justification, far more powerful in a lot of cases than my family or my culture wants me to do this.

You might stand a chance to reason with someone doing something on behalf of his “cultural pride,” but you have less of a chance to reason with someone who thinks that his destructive actions are divinely mandated.

The dichotomy is not between “destructive” and “genuine.” The dichotomy is between “destructive” and “not destructive.” And we decide, using the tried and true time-honored method of using evidence.

EDIT: To be clear – because I see some potential for misunderstaning – I’m not suggesting that we should get rid of religion. In fact, I think it would be impossible to do and not something I would be in favor of. I prefer to live in a secular society where people have the freedom of religion.

Thank you

However, I also think that religion is a negative force in the world and that its positive tangible benefits can be provided just as easily by secular means. My preference would be to live in a world where as many people as possible are encouraged to use their critical thinking faculties and decide not to believe in claims unsupported by evidence.

I use critical think faculties and believe in something supported by substantiating evidence.

 

[Warrenton]

sorry hit key 2 times.

 

[Warrenton]

Leaving aside for a moment the point that “Christianity” is not a government and that the US government is in no way founded on the Christian religion (consult the Treaty of Tripoli for confirmation of this fact), I disagree that a “racialist government” would solve problems more effeciently than the secular democratic republic government we have now. Would you care to explain what on earth you’re talking about?

To read your post, one would have the impression that religion accounts for the majority of world strife.

Let us see if that bears scrutiny. While it is certainly true that religious differences cause strife (I never denied it), more strife is caused by desire, be it greed or, less common, lust. If you doubt this, then amble over to the nearest penitentiary or jail, and chat with the denizens therein. You will likely find that their enforced holiday results from crimes committed as a result of desire. This is true all over the world, individually, and governmentally.

I had to smile when you held up western Europe as a model of social engineering. As you must know, West Europe has enjoyed a rather long summer only because other nations, lacking sufficient population, technology and infrastructure have underwritten its advance, if that is what we agree to call it. It’s resources come from the third world, which Europe has been exploiting busily for several centuries. If Europe appears affluent, it is because much of the rest of the world is impoverished. But that is changing.

Since World War II, the USA and the USSR underwrote much of the technology research and defense spending, basically as a bribe. But that is also ending. The holiday, as one sees in Greece, is drawing to a close, and as it does, the levels of crime are rising all over West Europe, the quality of health care is dropping (a point recently illustrated in Europe’s protege nation, Canada), and unemployment has remained steadily high, and likely to go higher.

The unwraveling of this continent promises to provide good theater for the future.

You resist the idea that a faithless world would turn to racialism. While the view of a race or ethnically neutral world is pious, it is terribly naive. Society requires some kind of glue. Race and ethnicity worked in the past, and still work. China is perhaps the most successful current example of it, and its example wil probably be emulated in much of the East.

As to the Nazis, the adherence of the people was, from the viewpoint of the government, very successful. When a country is burning, but a solid mass of the constituency prefers to fight than switch, that’s good conditioning. It won’t be long before a world without faith re-applies that lesson. It’s already implementing it.

Remember the rules of the game we are playing: what if I, or no no one, had faith. This is different from whether some atheists are nicer than some Christians. Applying market theory, as long as there is competition, we will get variety.

The game however asks us to posit not having faith. Not me, not any one. This scenario replaces the market place, and asks, “what will the world look like when faith is gone?”

I wager it won’t look like Sweden but may resemble Cambodia.

 

[Warrenton]

The key word was “analogy.” And you do realize that human races are different, right?

 

[Incomplete]

If my husband fell out of love with me, I would want him to tell me and leave. He wouldn’t be doing me some huge favor by staying around faking it.

Now, that doesn’t mean that love doesn’t change, that infatuation doesn’t die out and become something more stable and enduring, but if he suddenly wakes up one day with zero feelings for me whatsoever, well, I hope the door doesn’t hit him in the *** on the way out, because I don’t need that kind of pity and nobody should have to live a lie for their entire lives.

Except it isn’t pity. It’s meaning the vows you said to each other. And if you do love, in the sense of wishing the best for another even if you don’t benefit, even if the romantic love goes away, you are living in love. And maybe the romance will come back.

If it’s just feelings based, then when you make those vows you are really saying you will stay married as long as you have them. Which is what people do when they date (minus the vows.) You took the vows hoping or assuming you’d always have those feelings.

But this isn’t just about marriage. It’s the whole issue of what love is. If you treat people well when you feel empathy or compassion, or when you have those loving feelings, that’s something anybody can do. It takes a lot more to do the loving thing with those who are not so lovable.

 

[AntiTheist]

To read your post, one would have the impression that religion accounts for the majority of world strife.

I never said that it did. I simply pointed out that it has negative consequences in the world.

While it is certainly true that religious differences cause strife (I never denied it), more strife is caused by desire, be it greed or, less common, lust.

Sure. But we can’t get rid of basic human drives. However, it is possible, in theory, to get rid of religion (and, actually, faith of all kinds), and that’s the hypothetical that this thread proposes.

All I’m saying is that a world without religion and faith would be a better world than we currently live in, given the fact that religion has negative consequences and that its tangibile positive benefits can be replicated through secular means.

You resist the idea that a faithless world would turn to racialism.

No, I don’t “resist” it. I reject it as a silly fantasy. The United States has a secular (non-religious) government, and our society is pluralistic. The faith or lack thereof of the citizens would have no effect on how the secular government is run. The simpleminded equation of “lack of faith” with “racialism” does not hold.

While the view of a race or ethnically neutral world is pious, it is terribly naive.

I didn’t say that the world would be “racially neutral” – I’m saying that your ridiculous “racialism” fantasy does not follow from people simply losing their faith.

I wager it won’t look like Sweden but may resemble Cambodia.

Then I wager you’re going to lose a substantial sum on that wager.

 

[Soler]

Thoughtfulone:

Maybe 1 in 1000 wars are justifiable.

Once side is justified in nearly every war, since if the attacking side is not justified in its attack, the defending side is surely justified in its response to that unjustified attack.

I think it shows compassion for all living creatures. I am not a vegetarian myself, but I really admire the Buddhists and their reasons for doing what they do. Their whole lives are based around compassion. How lovely is that?

Well, I’ll admit that vegetarianism can indicate a certain level of self-sacrifice. But I sense rose-tinted glasses. “The grass is always greener on the other side.”

Look at the catholic Church in the Middle Ages and you tell me.

What? Just what are you talking about? I would say the the Church reached her peak in the Middle Ages.

And though she certainly had her problems during that time, which exactly of those were caused by “religiocentrism”? The bogeyman of the inquisitor? The black knight of the crusader? Those people were there to protect Christian society, to defend Christian Europe. They would not be appropriate in the 21st century, but they were appropriate then, and (who knows) they might be appropriate once more at some time in the future, if we ever see a Catholic society again.

True Buddhism is all or nothing. You are or you aren’t, unlike Christianity where people VERY selectively choose how to practice their faith.

True Catholicism is all or nothing—you are or you aren’t. The fact that there exist many “half-Christians” is completely irrelevant. And you said yourself that many Chinese Buddhists do not practise properly. It is a non-argument.

Well, to give you an idea of how devout Tibetan Buddhists are, Tibet now has 1.8 million Buddhists and nearly 6,000 monasteries where monks actually live a monastic life. The archdiocese of Galveston-Houston TX has 1.3 million Catholics and only 150 Catholic churches.

Fine, so there is a very small, tightly knit group of highly devout Buddhists living in Tibet. So what? There are very probably many more devout Catholics spread throughout the world. And a quick internet search shows that there are over 300 million Buddhists in the world. How many of those are as fervent as the Tibetans?

 

[Thoughtfulone]

Except it isn’t pity. It’s meaning the vows you said to each other. And if you do love, in the sense of wishing the best for another even if you don’t benefit, even if the romantic love goes away, you are living in love. And maybe the romance will come back.

If it’s just feelings based, then when you make those vows you are really saying you will stay married as long as you have them. Which is what people do when they date (minus the vows.) You took the vows hoping or assuming you’d always have those feelings.

But this isn’t just about marriage. It’s the whole issue of what love is. If you treat people well when you feel empathy or compassion, or when you have those loving feelings, that’s something anybody can do. It takes a lot more to do the loving thing with those who are not so lovable.

If you truly love someone, you will never just wake up one day and feel nothing for them, you will always love them unless they do something so fundamentally awful that it becomes clear they are no longer the person you married in any way. And if my husband wakes up one day and just honestly couldn’t care less if I live or die, or would be perfectly fine never seeing me again, then he needs to tell me that because I do not deserve to waste my life on a person who feels nothing for me. I admire his willingness to stick it out, but it would be kinder to ME if he would just leave.

 

[Thoughtfulone]

Once side is justified in nearly every war, since if the attacking side is not justified in its attack, the defending side is surely justified in its response to that unjustified attack.

Not at all. 9/11 in my opinion was completely unjustified. Was the way in which we retaliated justified as a result? Not necessarily. It’s never black and white.

What? Just what

And how many Christians are there in the world? I am specifically talking about Tibetan Buddhism, which is its own religion…it is like the Catholicism of Buddhism if you will, and about 1 in 30 of them are actual MONKS. Face it, they are more devout, peaceful and holy than we are. If China would leave them alone, their society would be damn near Utopian. What is it with the Catholics on this site and the “my Dad can beat up your dad” ********? Would it be SOOOOO painful to realize that we may actually have something to learn from the way other religions are practiced?

 

[Warrenton]

All I’m saying is that a world without religion and faith would be a better world than we currently live in, given the fact that religion has negative consequences and that its tangibile positive benefits can be replicated through secular means.

 

[Warrenton]

Buddhists don’t believe in God or Christianity and they are some of the kindest, gentlest people on the planet. A society made up entirely of Buddhists would be compassionate, selfless, would not fight in wars for almost any reason, and would not even harm animals to eat them. To say that a Christian society is the best society is completely religiocentric.

We have to be careful. Buddhism just doesn’t speak to the gods at all. The gods, like us, exist within samsara.

Many Buddhists also believe in gods. Just ask the Great Lama.

I agree that individual Buddhists may be the kindest and gentlest, but not that a Buddhist society would be. Indeed, Buddhist society is likely to be repressive and violent in the extreme. Cambodia and Laos are Buddhist countries, and so is Nepal and Burma (Myanmar). We also need to explain Japan, which although technically Shinto, I would argue is principally organized on a Buddhist ethic.

The passivity one sees in Buddhist societies is not due to the respect for others, but out of the basic premise that resistance and oppression are equally pointless and cannot be determined due to the infinitely receding cause and effect of each one’s karma.

"The grey gull flies over the still and quiet sea, itself so smooth and grey that it reflects the flying gull perfectly. Only a thin line, caused by the wing as it skims the water’s surface demarcates the gull from the reflection.

But which is gull, and which is image?"

 

[Thoughtfulone]

The passivity one sees in Buddhist societies is not due to the respect for others, but out of the basic premise that resistance and oppression are equally pointless and cannot be determined due to the infinitely receding cause and effect of each one’s karma.

No, Buddhism’s 2 main goals are the achievement of wisdom and compassion. Compassion has to be considered to be one of the main reasons for Buddhist passivity. Who can forget the image of the Buddhist self-immolation while maintaining the lotus position as a protest against the Vietnamese treatment of Buddhists? This is hardly the action of someone who believes resistance to be pointless. The Dalai Lama is after all, the supposed reincarnation of the Buddha of compassion. They respect others immensely and believe all living creatures to be worthy of compassion.

 

[StrawberryJam]

Warrenton-

I beg to differ. “Faith” has not been purely altruistic ever. Cite examples if you wish.

But by all means cite them.

 

[StrawberryJam]

No, Buddhism’s 2 main goals are the achievement of wisdom and compassion. Compassion has to be considered to be one of the main reasons for Buddhist passivity. Who can forget the image of the Buddhist self-immolation while maintaining the lotus position as a protest against the Vietnamese treatment of Buddhists? This is hardly the action of someone who believes resistance to be pointless. The Dalai Lama is after all, the supposed reincarnation of the Buddha of compassion. They respect others immensely and believe all living creatures to be worthy of compassion.

striving to see the point you are attempting to make… 3.2.1.
Gog?