Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
The Old Atheist Debate :)
MindGate
United States Veteran
tl:dr Some guy told me that the Buddha said God exists after I told him I was an Agnostic Atheist and a Buddhist.
Long version:
I was in an Islam chatroom answering people's questions (as though I was a Muslim). This one person was asking questions and I told him I was not a Muslim, but rather an Atheist.
He said, "Oh, come on now. Even Muslims are beyond such spiritual shallow-mindedness."
I responded, "Agnostic-Atheist, silly rabbit."
And then we went on a debate how this makes no sense what so ever blah blah blah.
I tried to explain to the man that there are 4 main positions someone can take.
Gnostic theism - believing there is a god(s) and that knowledge about them is ultimately knowable.
Gnostic atheism - believing there is no god(s) because the idea of a supreme god logically makes no sense.
Agnostic theism - believing there is a god(s), but the knowledge about them is ultimately unknowable.
Agnostic atheism - believing there is no god(s) because knowledge about them is ultimately unknowable.
Of course, within this there are other sub-categories (such as apatheism (which seems to be what Buddhism is), pantheism, panentheism, anti-theism, etc etc).
Though, this gentleman refused to accept that any of the things that I said above made sense and that agnostic atheism is paradoxical and makes no sense.
Then he told me to read the Bible or the words of Buddha. I responded by telling him I was a Buddhist. Then he told me I was a bad Buddhist because when the Buddha was asked if God existed, Buddha responded by saying: If the unchanging supreme consciousness (God) did not exist, then nothing would exist.
So, I asked for a non-Christian source that gives the information he just told me. Of course, he couldn't come up with one (but said it was in the Pali Canon for sure).
So, comments? And perhaps help me by telling me where Buddha said God exists (rather than not answering the question all together, like I've read Buddha did).
Long version:
I was in an Islam chatroom answering people's questions (as though I was a Muslim). This one person was asking questions and I told him I was not a Muslim, but rather an Atheist.
He said, "Oh, come on now. Even Muslims are beyond such spiritual shallow-mindedness."
I responded, "Agnostic-Atheist, silly rabbit."
And then we went on a debate how this makes no sense what so ever blah blah blah.
I tried to explain to the man that there are 4 main positions someone can take.
Gnostic theism - believing there is a god(s) and that knowledge about them is ultimately knowable.
Gnostic atheism - believing there is no god(s) because the idea of a supreme god logically makes no sense.
Agnostic theism - believing there is a god(s), but the knowledge about them is ultimately unknowable.
Agnostic atheism - believing there is no god(s) because knowledge about them is ultimately unknowable.
Of course, within this there are other sub-categories (such as apatheism (which seems to be what Buddhism is), pantheism, panentheism, anti-theism, etc etc).
Though, this gentleman refused to accept that any of the things that I said above made sense and that agnostic atheism is paradoxical and makes no sense.
Then he told me to read the Bible or the words of Buddha. I responded by telling him I was a Buddhist. Then he told me I was a bad Buddhist because when the Buddha was asked if God existed, Buddha responded by saying: If the unchanging supreme consciousness (God) did not exist, then nothing would exist.
So, I asked for a non-Christian source that gives the information he just told me. Of course, he couldn't come up with one (but said it was in the Pali Canon for sure).
So, comments? And perhaps help me by telling me where Buddha said God exists (rather than not answering the question all together, like I've read Buddha did).
0
Comments
which was the original message of the bible and christian tradition. finding the presence of god through realizing one's own inherent awakened consciousness.
everyone wants to label it god. whatever we think god to be is a false idol. whatever is left after we negate thinking is god itself. we cannot say that god exists or that god doesn't exist.
the silent buddha was absolutely correct.
There is also AN 10.29 which states that, "And in that thousand-fold cosmos, the Great Brahma is reckoned supreme. Yet even in the Great Brahma there is still aberration, there is change. Seeing this, the instructed disciple of the noble ones grows disenchanted with that. Being disenchanted with that, he becomes dispassionate toward what is supreme, and even more so toward what is inferior."
So it may not be the Abrahamic God, but the Great Brahma is a being that, although great and powerful, still exists within Samsara and is still subject to delusion and change.
Just remember that the internet, especially chatrooms, probably isn't the best way to understand different religions. You can at least have a scholarly understanding from reading different books and articles online, but religious communities are made up of a bunch of different people with their own understanding, sects and biases.
"Friends, just as the footprints of all legged animals are encompassed by the footprint of the elephant, and the elephant's footprint is reckoned the foremost among them in terms of size; in the same way, all skillful qualities are gathered under the four noble truths. Under which four? Under the noble truth of stress, under the noble truth of the origination of stress, under the noble truth of the cessation of stress, and under the noble truth of the path of practice leading to the cessation of stress."
— MN 28
11. Banner Protection (Dhajagga Paritta [1])
Thus have I heard:
On one occasion the Blessed One was living near Savatthi at Jetavana at the monastery of Anathapindika. Then he addressed the monks saying, "O monks." — "Venerable Sir," said the monks by way of reply to the Blessed One. Thereupon he spoke as follows:
"Monks, I shall relate a former incident. There arose a battle between the Devas (gods) and Asuras. Then Sakka, the Lord of the devas, addressed the devas of the Tavatimsa heaven thus:
"'Happy ones, if the devas who have gone to the battle should experience fear or terror or suffer from hair standing on end, let them behold the crest of my own banner. If you do so, any fear, terror or hair standing on end arising in you will pass away.
"'If you fail to look up to the crest of my banner, look at the crest of the banner of Pajapati, King of gods. If you do so, any fear, terror or hair standing on end arising in you will pass away.
"'If you fail to look up to the crest of Pajapati, King of the gods, look at the crest of the banner of Varuna, King of the gods. If you do so, any fear, terror or hair standing on end arising in you will pass away.'
"Monks, any fear, terror or hair standing on end arising in them who look at the crest of the banner of Sakka... The Lord of the gods, of Pajapati... of Varuna... of Isana, the King of the gods, any fear terror or hair standing on end, may pass away, or may not pass away. What is the reason for this?
"Sakka, the Lord of gods, O monks, is not free from lust, not free from hate, not free from delusion, and is therefore liable to fear, terror, fright, and flight. I also say unto you O monks — if any fear, terror or hair standing on end should arise in you when you have gone to the forest or to the foot of a tree, or to an empty house (lonely place), then think only of me thus:
"'Such Indeed is the Blessed One, arahant (Consummate One), supremely enlightened, endowed with knowledge and virtue, welcome being, knower of worlds, the peerless trainer of persons, teacher of gods and men, the Buddha, the Blessed One.' Monks, if you think of me, any fear, terror, or standing of hair on end, that may arise in you, will pass away.
"If you fail to think of me, then think of the Dhamma (the Doctrine) thus: 'Well expounded is the Dhamma by the Blessed One, a Dhamma to be realized by oneself and gives immediate results, a Dhamma which invites investigation and leads up to Nibbana, a Dhamma to be understood by the wise each for himself.' Monks, if you think of the Dhamma, any fear, terror or hair standing on end, that may arise in you, will pass away.
"If you fail to think of the Dhamma, then think of the Sangha (the Order) thus: 'Of good conduct is the Order of Disciples of the Blessed One, of upright conduct is the Order of Disciples of the Blessed One, of wise conduct is the Order of Disciples of the Blessed One, of dutiful conduct is the Order of Disciples of the Blessed One. This Order of Disciples of the Blessed One — namely those four pairs of persons,[2] the eight kinds of individuals[3] — is worthy of offerings, is worthy of hospitality, is worthy of gifts, is worthy of reverential salutations, is an incomparable field of merit for the world.' Monks, if you think of the Sangha, any fear, terror or hair standing on end, that may arise in you, will pass away. What is the reason for this? The Tathagata, O monks, who is arahant, supremely enlightened, is free from lust, free from hate, is free from delusion, and is not liable to fear, terror, fright or flight."
So said the Blessed One. Having thus spoken, the teacher, the "Welcome Being" (Sugata), further said:
i. Whether in forest or at foot of tree, Or in some secluded spot, O monks, Do call to mind that Buddha Supreme; Then will there be no fear to you at all. ii. If you think not of the Buddha, O monks, That Lord of the world and Chief of men, Then do think, O monks, of that Dhamma; So well preached and leading to Nibbana. iii. If you think not of the Dhamma, O monks Well preached and leading to Nibbana; Then do think, O monks, of that Sangha, That wonderful field of merit to all. iv. To those recalling the Buddha supreme, To those recalling the Dhamma sublime, And to those recalling the Sangha, No fear, no terror will make them quiver.
There is no believe for those who walk the path of Dhamma, but faith (out of understanding) is a very needed requisite to join. *smile*
The Buddha directly refuted the idea that the created, creator god of the ibrahimic religions was the 'end game'... He said he had met this being, and (I can't remember which) was either under the delusion it was the supreme being or knew it was NOT but presented itself as such.... but was in actuality still subject to karma, birth, death, etc. GOOD LUCK if your think you are going to discuss this idea with a muslim or christian.
There are direct similarities between the yogic concepts of the uncreated source of creation (god) and the buddhist ideas of the supreme, or original mind. Dr david frawley has an excellent article comparing yogic to buddhist concepts and it tocuhes directly on this... You can find it with google.
Personally I am agnostic, but neither theist nor atheist.
A. There is proof of a gods existence or non-existence so I can say without a doubt that there is or is not a god. (Believer = Hard)
Hard Theist: would simply say "there is a god" and would never accept evidence to the contrary if it existed.
Hard Atheist: would simply say "there is no god" and would never accept evidence to the contrary if it existed.
B. There is no proof of a gods existence or non-existence so I cannot say if there is or not. (Agnostic = Soft)
Soft Theist: There is no proof of a gods existence or non-existence. I think one exists but might be convinced one does not exist if shown strong enough evidence.
Soft Atheist: There is no proof of a gods existence or non-existence. I don't think one exists but might be convinced one exists if shown strong enough evidence.
I don't believe in a God. That makes me an Atheist.
Do you believe a god is possible to exist, but currently do not know? If so, you are Agnostic.
I believe a God is possible, but I currently do not know if it exists. So, I am Agnostic.
I believe a God is possible, but I currently do not know if it exists. Because of this, I do not believe in a God. This is Agnostic Atheism.
Atheism/Theism simply about belief in a god, not whether or not God actually exists. This is why people don't understand my position. Agnostic/Gnostic Atheism/Theism talks about belief, not assertions that God does or does not exist.
Explains such things well.
Knowledge = belief + truth
eg: To know Paris is the capital of France, you must believe it, and it must be true
Hence: You cannot 'know' London is the capital of France, although you could believe it
Atheism/theism refers to one's personal belief in God
Gnosticism/agnosticism is about one's view regarding the philosophical possibility of determining the truth of the statement 'God exists'
Namaste
Its good to accept what is not right to walk on. No need for an alternative believe:
The Heart Its Own Teacher
Each of us here is the same. We're no different from one another. We have no teacher at present — for if you're going to awaken to the Dhamma, the heart has to teach itself. If it doesn't teach itself, then no matter how much you have other people teach you, it won't listen, it won't understand. The heart itself has to be the teacher.
It's not easy for us to see ourselves. It's hard. So think about this a little bit. We've all done evil. Now that we're old, we should stop. Make it lighter. Make it less. There's really nothing else. This is all there is. Turn your minds in the direction of virtue.
from http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/thai/chah/insimpleterms.html
'Faith' is another word for belief in the absence of proof of truth.
By getting this knowledge I attain faith (out of understanding/knowing) that I am able to find even Paris.
So we need to use that what we already know to continue to find our place. If we believe we can fail. If we put preconceptions together with "I know" that is called believe.
(how ever, capital, nation, and names are no good samples. It has nothing to do with reality, just with a general agreement. There is no such thing like a nation, city or a name of a place.)
Maybe that sample is good:
See It As It Is
The Omniscient Buddha pointed out that by being mindful of this dual process as it really is, we are able to rightly understand its really intrinsic nature. When we want to understand something as it really is, we should observe it, watch it, be mindful of it as it really occurs without analyzing it, without logical reasoning, without philosophical thinking and without pre-conceptions. We should be very attentive and mindful of it as it really is
For example - look at a watch. When we do not observe a watch attentively and carefully we cannot understand it as it is. When we observe it very attentively and closely, then we see its brand, its design and the figures on it. We come to understand that this is a watch; its brand name is Seiko; it has an international time chart etc. However if we do not observe it as it is, if our observation is combined with such preconceived ideas as, "I have seen such a watch before and its brand name is Omega", then, as soon as we see this watch, we will take it to be an Omega. Why? Because we do not observe it attentively and closely. We have used the preconceived idea when we saw it, so the preconceived ideas lead us to the wrong conclusion regarding the watch. If we put the preconceived idea aside and just observe it attentively and closely, we will understand it as it is - this is a Seiko, it is made in Japan, it also has an international time chart. We will understand it as it is because we had put aside our preconceived idea of "Omega" when we observed it.
In the same way, when we want to rightly understand the mind-body processes in their true nature or as they really are, we must not analyze them or think about them. We must not reason or use any intellectual knowledge, or any preconceived idea. We must leave them aside and pay bare attention to what is happening to the mind-body phenomena as they really are. The, we can see our mind-body processes as they really are. When our body feels hot, we should note that feeling of heat as heat. When the body feels cold, we should note it as cold. When we feel pain, we should note it as pain. When we feel happy, we should note that happiness. When we feel angry, we should note that anger as anger. When we feel sorrow, we should be mindful of it as sorrow. When we feel sad or disappointed, we should be aware of our emotional state of sadness or disappointment as it is.
Each and every mental and physical process must be observed as it really occurs so that we can rightly understand it in its true nature. That right understanding will lead us to remove ignorance. When ignorance has been removed, then we do not take the mind-body processes to be a person, a being, a soul or a self. If we take these mind-body processes to be just natural processes, then there will not arise any attachment. When the attachment has been destroyed, we are free from all kinds of suffering and have attained the cessation of suffering. So, mindfulness of mind-body processes in their nature is the way leading to the cessation of suffering. That is way the Omniscient Buddha delivered a discourse on "The Four Foundation of Mindfulness".
In this discourse, the Omniscient Buddha teaches us to be mindful of mental and physical phenomena as they really are. There are many ways by which we have to be mindful of the mind-body processes but they can be summarized as follows:
1. Mindfulness of bodily process (Kayanupassana Satipatthana)
2. Mindfulness of feeling or sensation (Vedananupassana Satipatthana)
3. Mindfulness of Consciousness (Cittanupassana Satipatthana)
4. Mindfulness of mind-objects (Dhammanupassana Satipatthana)
from http://www.dharmaflower.net/_collection/vipassanainsightmeditation.pdf
good book!
*smile*
Simply Faith is not the way as well doubt is not the way. Just prove it!
*smile*
I really don't think it matters because speculation is a waste of time. There is no definitive, concrete, certain, substantive answer, one way or the other.
If people want to believe in God, then I'm happy for them and I hope it works for them.
If people choose to NOT believe in God - then I'm happy for them and I hope it works for them.
Why is it any skin off my nose?
maybe people should take a leaf out of his book.
Jim Pym sees Buddhism as compatible with God, so..... who's right?
The Buddha, is my guess.
You can categorize things like aristotle was involved in (I have read) but it is all conventions.
Nonetheless humans are perfectly able to operate in a world of conventions. The problem is that some of the labels cause suffering. For example I label certain experiences as 'bad' or 'good' and then I don't see the true experience. As it is. Without conjuring and commentary. Or rather I haven't learned that that commentary is non-self and fleeting, not real (in a sense). Just thinking.
Seems like it.
Believing or disbelieving in what other people or religions say shouldn't be the point. To point is to ask one self what does one self believe, disbelieve or even WANT to ask about the world.
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?"
- Epicurus
Actually all joking aside, Epicurus would agree with a lot of what the Buddha said.