Buddhism and Atheism

MindGate

I constantly see nearly everyone on NewBuddhist getting this simple concept wrong. Its kind of a pet peeve of mine. But anyways - for the most part, Buddhists are Atheists. Surprising, I know.

Atheism is not a religion, just like Theism is not a religion. A Christian is a Christian, but also a Theist. Typically, Buddhists are Buddhists, but also Atheists. If you want to be more specific, Buddhists typically are Agnostic-Atheists or even Apatheists (which may be the best description).

Atheism, Theism, Agnosticism, Pantheism, etc, are just descriptions on how you perceive God or gods. Its PART of religion, and every person fits in some category, or a mixture of categories. Not a religion, but PART of one.

Now, its true that some Buddhists believe in devas, but the consensus is that in terms of believing in a God/gods, these beings are "supreme" beings that typically create/rule over the universe. Devas do not fit this description, as they are conditioned too.

Understand?

Jeffrey

Yes but I don't want to be associated with the anti-theists. I realize that I am technically an apatheist. However I don't want to be associated with the 'stick up the bung' anti-theists.

vinlyn

Mind Gate, there are those of us who believe in Buddhist principles, but also believe in, or are at least open to there being a God.

vixthenomad

Understand?

No, could you please make your point in a third thread? I didn't quite get it in the first two you posted this opinion in.

Jeffrey

HHDL said you should not tear down anothers beliefs aka anti-theists do.

vinlyn

HHDL said you should not tear down anothers beliefs aka anti-theists do.

Thank you Jeffrey.

Cloud

I'm going to close this one with what I've stated in another thread, because it's not correct to say that Buddhists are necessarily (or even typically) atheists, and we don't need the confusion or divisiveness.

Buddhist doesn't mean atheist, doesn't mean agnostic, and doesn't mean otherwise. One can call themselves a Buddhist based on many criteria. One definition of a Buddhist may be one who, like the Buddha and based on his teachings, is seeking liberation from suffering. To seek liberation doesn't mean we begin with a true view of reality... we can have any views/beliefs, whether they're true or not. That's in fact how we all begin, and it takes a long while to get right view or else enlightenment would be quick and easy.

For instance let's say a former Christian turns to Buddhism. They learn what they need to know and begin to practice, even have a teacher, and practice for 3 years (for maybe 2 years they've felt comfortable calling themselves a "Buddhist"). After this time, they still haven't dislodged their belief in a Creator. That doesn't make them any less a Buddhist! They are a Buddhist because of the path they've chosen (and their effort to walk that path), not because of their beliefs. We don't define a Buddhist by how far they've walked on the path.

It helps to take the Buddha's teachings as a working theory, but that does not automatically free us of our existing beliefs. If our existing beliefs are a source of suffering, then through the practice they will be replaced with clarity of our reality. If we cling to defining a Buddhist very specifically, to always say they must be this or must be that, this too will be a source of suffering. It's all "not sure".