Secular Buddhism? Religious Buddhism? Why not both? Or neither?

Dakini

Jeffrey said:

@Dakini, he may be agnostic, but he is a fine critic for those who believe. So the crux is how can he be agnostic while at the same time calling the Mahayana Hindu?

Can I criticize Christianity and still call myself agnostic?

Well, I think it's an interesting topic for debate. I don't have an answer, I've only noted the same contradictory points in his writing that you have. But to get back to Spiny Norman's post that I quoted earlier, some secular Buddhists ARE agnostics. I don't know why they couldn't be. Some, as he said, are non-religious, meaning, I suppose, that they categorically reject rebirth. But some hold the position that we can't know either way. There is, therefore, some diversity of opinion among those who consider themselves secular Buddhists. If we take Batchelor's "Confession" book as a guide, I think he intended to set up "Secular Buddhism" with agnosticism in mind. (Though he denies he ever intended to initiate a movement or "school" of Buddhism".)

Nevermind

MaryAnne said:

" This lengthy nonsensical thread demonstrates more about folks finding another cup of gasoline to keep the bonfire going than a clarifying debate. "

Yep. I'm surprised the thread wasn't closed 4 pages ago. But some of us get away with doing this quite often, and some of us don't. (I'm in the latter group... always getting my hand smacked for much less...) :coffee:

::: watches for the ruler! ::: LOL

Perhaps the moderator in question has found some other way to feel important.

Dennis1

Hamsaka said:
The word 'secular' is derived from the Latin "saeculum" which means "a length of time roughly that of a human lifespan." (got this from Wikipedia). The word secular doesn't mean a 'rejection of metaphysics' or 'religious' concepts, though it has been given this alternate meaning; it simply means "this current period of time".

Thank you for giving us this view. Very nice. One might also take that definition to apply to this period-this life, and not a life hereafter. Best

DairyLama

Dakini said:

SpinyNorman said:

I'm not the one who constantly indulges in simplistic dichotomies. And in this case it's not about being black and white, but about clarity. By definition secular Buddhists are non-religious and so they dismiss the religious aspects of Buddhism, or at least see them as irrelevant. They aren't agnostic.

It sounds to me like you're actually an agnostic Buddhist rather than a secular Buddhist?

This is an interesting point. Actually, Stephen Batchelor describes himself as a Buddhist agnostic in his "Confession" book. He says there's no way we can know either way about rebirth. So, based on the position expounded in his book, we may conclude that Secular Buddhism actually is agnostic Buddhism.

I disagree - many Buddhists are agnostic about rebirth and other "religious" content, but don't identify themselves with secular Buddhism, which rejects this religious content. And note that the full title of the book you mention is "Confessions of a Buddhist atheist", which makes Stephens position clear.

DairyLama

Hamsaka said:

It's trite and obvious to say Buddhism of this time is all modern.

Yes, it is obvious, but I'm fed up with these vague, meaningless terms like "modern Buddhism".

DairyLama

Chaz said:

But haven't you referred to yourslef as a "Secular" Buddhist on this forum? If you have, you must expect that this will be significant and meaningfull to those of us reading, otherwise why mention "secular" at all, especially if definitions are likely to get confused, such as here/now?

Absolutely. I don't mind how people label themselves, but when they do assumptions will inevitably be made.

DairyLama

vinlyn said:

4. You seem to insist on labeling me, but how you label me is of no importance.

But you labelled yourself. And, given that you do have some religious belief, and an open mind on most of these questions, I still think that "agnostic Buddhist" describes you better than "secular Buddhist".

DairyLama

Jeffrey said:

You're a tree hugger

Trees are nice.

MaryAnne

I'm not sure if this is going to help clarify, or merely spark another hair-splitting 'debate'... but I'm giving it a shot just the same.

Agnostic/gnostic speaks about what you claim to know.
Atheist/theist speaks about what you claim to believe.

There's basically 4 types of people (but also with varying degrees in the strength of their belief):

agnostic atheist - "I believe there is no god(s), but there is no way for me to know for sure."
agnostic theist - "I believe there is a god, but I can't say for sure."
gnostic atheist - "I KNOW there is no god."
gnostic theist - "I KNOW there is a god."

These also include "strong" and "weak" types, so, for example, among agnostic atheists the "weak" ones would generally be the ones that say "There is no way for sure that I KNOW that god does not exist but that is what I believe" while a "strong" one would say "given the lack of evidence, I KNOW there is no god."

An atheist disbelieves in deities while an agnostic holds that there's no of evidence either way.

It should be noted that almost every religious individuals are already atheists toward the majority of deities.

Furthermore, while it's true the non-existence of something can never be proven, be it unicorns, hobgoblins, or a deity, technically we must be strictly agnostic, however, logically considering the likelyhood of such things, one can be reasonably certain of something's nonexistence and as a result prove atheistic.

A Simpler Perspective:

An atheist is a person who does not believe in gods.

An agnostic is a person who believes that whether or not gods exist is unknowable. Although skeptical about the existence of gods an agnostic is not a true atheist.

As for a "Secular" Buddhism practice, does it really matter WHY one chooses to leave all, or most of the religious/superstitious/faith-based beliefs out of the basics of Buddhism? I don't think so, myself.
So to label oneself as 'secular' doesn't really call for any further analysis in order to determine to what extent one is secular or agnostic/atheist etc... Why should the minute details of one's secular 'cherry picking' matter to anyone else other than the person themselves?

vinlyn

SpinyNorman said:

vinlyn said:

4. You seem to insist on labeling me, but how you label me is of no importance.

But you labelled yourself. And, given that you do have some religious belief, and an open mind on most of these questions, I still think that "agnostic Buddhist" describes you better than "secular Buddhist".

When one takes on the attitude of I know you better than you know yourself -- particularly when we are making such judgments based on a few paragraphs on an internet forum -- (and we all occasionally do that), one is being hypocritical and supremely egotistical.

Chaz

vinlyn said:

When one takes on the attitude of I know you better than you know yourself -- particularly when we are making such judgments based on a few paragraphs on an internet forum -- (and we all occasionally do that), one is being hypocritical and supremely egotistical.

He's a hypocrite only if he pretends to be something he's not, eh?

Ego? The mere fact that we're posting our opinions, etc on a publicly viewable forum like this one, knowing full-well that the whole world can see it, is, in itself, egotisitical.

He's actually being analytical. Critical. Challenging. And I think, rather fair.

Dakini

SpinyNorman said:

I disagree - many Buddhists are agnostic about rebirth and other "religious" content, but don't identify themselves with secular Buddhism, which rejects this religious content. And note that the full title of the book you mention is "Confessions of a Buddhist atheist", which makes Stephens position clear.

I wouldn't say it makes his position clear. I'd say it's just one more contradiction to whatever his real position is, in the book. He does say emphatically, "we don't know" and "we can't know" vis-a-vis rebirth. That's an agnostic position. And there's certainly nothing stopping agnostics from becoming part of the Secular Buddhism movement. I think there's room for both agnostics and atheists.

anataman

matthewmartin

Re: agnostic & the possible religious content thereof.

I guess English has a lexical gap. It doesn't seem to be covered by the (a)gnostic/(a)theist word pairs either.

The agnostic that *really* thinks god is possible and *really* wants to keep that option open smacks of Pascals wager. It's a bad analogy, well, all analogies are bad, but it's like taking the back door because one is agnostic about their being man eating dragons on the front porch this morning.

If I was cornered and asked if I could prove gods or hungry ghosts for that matter, I'd say there isn't good evidence, there isn't good evidence to prove them false and its an unscientific unfalsifiable statement. So so far I sound like an agnostic, but I would never let the possibility of gods or hungry ghosts enter into any decision I make about anything. For me, the right way to approach to not think about them at all. (Except on forums--but not when making life choices)

So with agnostics, the glass is probably not half full. They are not imagining that the existence of this or that is a coin flip that hasn't been revealed. It's probably more akin to how we feel about the existence of things we have never even speculated about-- something that clearly would have no impact on any decision we might make.

Nevermind

Chaz said:

Nevermind said:

Hmm, maybe Chaz is on to something directly related to the topic. The religion of Secularism fusing with Buddhism! Oh but wait, Secular Buddhism is not a religion. Nevermind...

Not yet it isn't.

Uh, secular by definition means denoting attitudes, activities, or other things that have no religious or spiritual basis.

If secular Buddhism were religious it wouldn't be secular Buddhism. Get it? :-/

So-called Secular Buddhism could very well develop into a full-blown school of Buddhism. A religion if you like.

Which are you trying to convince yourself of, that SB is a "full-blown" school of Buddhism, whatever that means to you, or it's a religion?

There's two major hurdles and one's for Buddhism as it stands now to recognize it as such, it will have to have a founding teacher reach enlightenment.

There's no overarching Buddhist authority which declares what traditions are "full-blown" and which are not. I realize that thought hasn't occurred to you, but you might think about it now. But even if SB did not receive the blessing of the Buddhist Pope, that may or may not make much difference as to whether it's a religion.

As for your first hurdle, Steven Batchelor is apparently the premier champion of SB. He's as enlightened as any living master so your first criterion is met.

It will also have to have some cohesive teachings that can identify it.

You don't consider the Eightfold Path cohesive?

It seems like "Secular" Buddhism is mainly concerned with defining itself, so for now not many will it seriously.

I'm quite sure it may seem undefined you. And I assume that it's practitioners take it seriously.

If it can develop an enlightenment lineage and it's own set of teachings passed down from enlightened teachers, it will, over time, begin to exert some influence.

I'm trying to imagine what you could possibly mean by "exert some influence," but I'm also afraid to ask what that means to you.

Things may change as time goes on - SC may continue to devlop and it may simply end up a flash in the pan. Time will tell.

Things often change as time goes on, on that we can agree. :thumbsup:

vinlyn

Just want to note that there are national and international Buddhist hierarchies.

Dakini

SpinyNorman said:

I disagree - many Buddhists are agnostic about rebirth and other "religious" content, but don't identify themselves with secular Buddhism, which rejects this religious content. And note that the full title of the book you mention is "Confessions of a Buddhist atheist", which makes Stephens position clear.

There are all kinds of agnostics in Buddhism. Some reject the mythological parts outright, but are agnostic on rebirth. (Some of these end up in Secular Buddhism.) Others are agnostic about anything in Buddhism that can't be proven. Until we take a poll of all those who consider themselves Secular Buddhists, we'll never know exactly how the cards fall in that regard. I wouldn't want to make assumptions on their behalf.

vinlyn

Actually, are polls in this software possible. That would be interesting to see how many place themselves in each school (including secular). Might answer a lot of questions well beyond this one.

Steve_B

Could an agnostic be someone who says "I don't know" as opposed to "It isn't knowable" ?

MaryAnne said:

I'm not sure if this is going to help clarify, or merely spark another hair-splitting 'debate'... but I'm giving it a shot just the same.

Agnostic/gnostic speaks about what you claim to know.
Atheist/theist speaks about what you claim to believe.

There's basically 4 types of people (but also with varying degrees in the strength of their belief):

agnostic atheist - "I believe there is no god(s), but there is no way for me to know for sure."
agnostic theist - "I believe there is a god, but I can't say for sure."
gnostic atheist - "I KNOW there is no god."
gnostic theist - "I KNOW there is a god."

These also include "strong" and "weak" types, so, for example, among agnostic atheists the "weak" ones would generally be the ones that say "There is no way for sure that I KNOW that god does not exist but that is what I believe" while a "strong" one would say "given the lack of evidence, I KNOW there is no god."

An atheist disbelieves in deities while an agnostic holds that there's no of evidence either way.

It should be noted that almost every religious individuals are already atheists toward the majority of deities.

Furthermore, while it's true the non-existence of something can never be proven, be it unicorns, hobgoblins, or a deity, technically we must be strictly agnostic, however, logically considering the likelyhood of such things, one can be reasonably certain of something's nonexistence and as a result prove atheistic.

A Simpler Perspective:

An atheist is a person who does not believe in gods.

An agnostic is a person who believes that whether or not gods exist is unknowable. Although skeptical about the existence of gods an agnostic is not a true atheist.

As for a "Secular" Buddhism practice, does it really matter WHY one chooses to leave all, or most of the religious/superstitious/faith-based beliefs out of the basics of Buddhism? I don't think so, myself.
So to label oneself as 'secular' doesn't really call for any further analysis in order to determine to what extent one is secular or agnostic/atheist etc... Why should the minute details of one's secular 'cherry picking' matter to anyone else other than the person themselves?

vinlyn

Steve_B said:

Could an agnostic be someone who says "I don't know" as opposed to "It isn't knowable"

To me, yes.

Steve_B

I think of an agnostic as deliberately, perpetually curious, and not yet ready to cast the ballot. Others may be ready. And they may or may not be right. But the agnostic is still gathering information, conducting research, pondering the tea leaves.

lobster

Secular Buddhism? Religious Buddhism? Why not both? Or neither?

Why not indeed.

Sit with a label, sit with a secular core, religious core or an apple core. As our insights, arisings, teachings, rafts to the far shore and meanderings through the non essential, non existent and recipe books for a Buddhist Pudding fall away . . . what is left?

Experience or non experience? Words or debating positions? Opinions, knowledge or a pile of nail clippings?

As I said to the Buddha only this morning, 'that is a mighty FUD pud, what ya gonna do with it?'

answer: Nothing.
GATE GATE PARA GATE PARASAM GATE BODHI SVAHA

:orange:

Jeffrey

Secular Buddhism will have to form a mandala. Guardians, messengers, and core values. Otherwise it cannot exist as anything let alone a Buddhist school of thought.

McDonalds is a mandala. Everything is a mandala. For it to exert effect it will also have to form a mandala. It already has, grasshopper

One of the reasons Tibetan Buddhism holds the guru so high is that they know about mandalas and hope to reach sentient beings to hold up the light on high to them to learn about Buddhism. We already, each of us, has some kind of karma to bring us to the dharma. Even if all we do is argue on a website we have entered the mandala of the dharma. It is kind of like the Neverending Story movie. You have already entered the mandala. Serva mangalam. (may all be accomplished)

vinlyn

Jeffrey, I think you missed something. Secular Buddhism does exist.

And in fact, it doesn't have to do anything of the things you mention...which is why it's secular and not religious.

Jeffrey

It has to be a mandala to assert a core value. Everything is mandalas and it's not religious. It's just a lens to view reality. Let those who have ears listen.

vinlyn

You're trapped, Jeffrey.

Jeffrey

vinlyn said:

You're trapped, Jeffrey.

like trapped in a spider web?

DairyLama

vinlyn said:

When one takes on the attitude of I know you better than you know yourself -- particularly when we are making such judgments based on a few paragraphs on an internet forum -- (and we all occasionally do that), one is being hypocritical and supremely egotistical.

I can only go on what you've said here, and based on that you come across more as agnostic than secular in outlook. I don't see how that's hypocritical or "supremely egotistical". There is really no need to be defensive or indulge in ad hom attacks.

DairyLama

Dakini said:

Until we take a poll of all those who consider themselves Secular Buddhists, we'll never know exactly how the cards fall in that regard. I wouldn't want to make assumptions on their behalf.

Well, OK, but if everyone who labels themselves as a secular Buddhist wants to have their own definition of secular Buddhism, then it's just another of those vague meaningless labels. :rolleyes:

DairyLama

Dakini said:

SpinyNorman said:

And note that the full title of the book you mention is "Confessions of a Buddhist atheist", which makes Stephens position clear.

I wouldn't say it makes his position clear.

Stephen could have called his book "Confessions of a secular Buddhist" or "Confessions of a Buddhist agnostic", but he didn't - so I think including "atheist" in the title is significant.
Don't get me wrong, I do find Stephens ideas fascinating, and he argues a good case. But I also think he is very selective in his quoting of the suttas, and his interpretation of some passages is questionable. And to be honest, I don't really understand why somebody has gone to such great lengths in an attempt to airbrush out stuff like rebirth and kamma, when these can just be set aside.

DairyLama

MaryAnne said:

agnostic atheist - "I believe there is no god(s), but there is no way for me to know for sure."
agnostic theist - "I believe there is a god, but I can't say for sure."
gnostic atheist - "I KNOW there is no god."
gnostic theist - "I KNOW there is a god."

Yes, the semantics here are quite tricky, and arguably the second 2 positions are untenable, since it seems impossible to really know either way.
I tend to use "agnostic" in the colloquial sense of a neutral "don't know" position, which is mid-way between belief and disbelief.

MaryAnne

SpinyNorman said:

MaryAnne said:

agnostic atheist - "I believe there is no god(s), but there is no way for me to know for sure."
agnostic theist - "I believe there is a god, but I can't say for sure."
gnostic atheist - "I KNOW there is no god."
gnostic theist - "I KNOW there is a god."

Yes, the semantics here are quite tricky, and arguably the second 2 positions are untenable, since it seems impossible to really know either way.
I tend to use "agnostic" in the colloquial sense of a neutral "don't know" position, which is mid-way between belief and disbelief.

Taking what you (and others) said in hand, @SpinyNorman, I shall now officially declare my "Label" since you all seem so intent on precision;

MaryAnne = Agnostic Atheist who practices Secular Buddhism.
I practice secular Buddhism because I AM an agnostic atheist.
So when anyone asks "What path or tradition of Buddhism do you follow?" -- I'm still correct in saying "Secular Buddhism".
Why anyone would need to investigate MY details, and go beyond that simple, practical (and truthful) label is beyond me....
Is there some sort of standardized Buddhism testing? Does Secular Buddhism not fit in the appropriate Buddhism box somewhere?


By the way, just to be clear, my original post with the definitions of agnostic atheist, gnostic atheist, etc etc was not original to me.... I cut n pasted that from ... somewhere... but I forget where.

DairyLama

MaryAnne said:

Taking what you (and others) said in hand, @SpinyNorman, I shall now officially declare my "Label" since you all seem so intent on precision;

Fair enough, though I'm not going to apologise for wanting precision in a debate like this. If everyone who labels themselves as a particular type of Buddhist insists on their own definition of that type, then meaningful discussion is impossible.

DairyLama

DaftChris said:

Why can't one, say, be both secular and religious with their practice?

I suspect that most people are.

MaryAnne

"Fair enough, though I'm not going to apologise for wanting precision in a debate like this. If everyone who labels themselves as a particular type of Buddhist insists on their own definition of that type, then meaningful discussion is impossible. "

That's ok, I'm not asking you to apologize. We're all entitled, right? However, I do disagree with this ---> If everyone who labels themselves as a particular type of Buddhist insists on their own definition of that type, then meaningful discussion is impossible.

I disagree; Everyone is entitled to define themselves as they see fit. No universal approval needed. As for meaningful discussion- do you really think this particular discussion is particularly meaningful? Seriously? (I'm not being snarky).
To whom - and how - is it really meaningful? To what end do we get to when nit-picking apart others' paths? Maybe I'm missing the main point?

cvalue

Too much debates here. Watch your egos! I am right, you are wrong. I must win.

riverflow

SpinyNorman said:

...the full title of the book you mention is "Confessions of a Buddhist atheist", which makes Stephens position clear.

Actually the full title makes Batchelor's book thoroughly confusing. Buddhism does not posit a creator god so how can one be a "Buddhist atheist" when the category is actually "n/a"?

Yes, there are Buddhist metaphysical doctrines and there are "supernatural beings" in Buddhist literature and art, but there is no creator god akin to Judaism, Christianity, or Islam. The title is confusing because it mixes a fundamental doctrine of theistic religions with a religion that already lacks a creator god. Bachelor is a "Buddhist atheist"? And....??? :coffee:

Perhaps it would have been better if the title had said "Confessions of a Buddhist Naturalist." -- or anti-supernaturalist. --or rationalist. Or agnostic (in relation to supernatural doctrines). Or something-- anything but "atheist."

DairyLama

MaryAnne said:

If everyone who labels themselves as a particular type of Buddhist insists on their own definition of that type, then meaningful discussion is impossible.

I disagree; Everyone is entitled to define themselves as they see fit. No universal approval needed. As for meaningful discussion- do you really think this particular discussion is particularly meaningful? Seriously? (I'm not being snarky).
To whom - and how - is it really meaningful? To what end do we get to when nit-picking apart others' paths? Maybe I'm missing the main point?

I'm not arguing against self-labelling, I'm saying that without some basic agreement on what those labels mean then discussing the labels is rather pointless - as this thread has demonstrated.
Last time we discussed this topic I innocently suggested that secular Buddhism is closely associated with Stephen Batchelors ideas, and somebody said "Oh, no, I'm a secular Buddhist and I've never read his books...", so I don't know what else to suggest ( leaving aside the point that if this person hadn't read the books then how on earth could they know whether or not their ideas were broadly the same as Batchelors )
:rolleyes:

DairyLama

riverflow said:

Actually the full title makes Batchelor's book thoroughly confusing. Buddhism does not posit a creator god so how can one be a "Buddhist atheist" when the category is actually "n/a"?

I think Stephen was using "atheist" in the broader sense of disbelief, ie not believing in things like rebirth and kamma.

Steve_B

I think I can be secular without being precise, can't I? Not only is it possible to be "vaguely secular" or "imprecisely secular" but really, that's a good kind of secular to be. No labels required, and only the most broad of categorizations.

vinlyn

SpinyNorman said:

..

Well, OK, but if everyone who labels themselves as a secular Buddhist wants to have their own definition of secular Buddhism, then it's just another of those vague meaningless labels. :rolleyes:

Why?

Go to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schools_of_Buddhism and then tell me what the sentence, "I am Buddhist" means.

There's a question that comes up on this forum time after time. "How does _____ affect your practice?" Okay, I'll use it here -- how does my defining myself as a secular Buddhist affect your practice?

vinlyn

SpinyNorman said:

MaryAnne said:

Taking what you (and others) said in hand, @SpinyNorman, I shall now officially declare my "Label" since you all seem so intent on precision;

Fair enough, though I'm not going to apologise for wanting precision in a debate like this. If everyone who labels themselves as a particular type of Buddhist insists on their own definition of that type, then meaningful discussion is impossible.

Not at all.

We all choose our words in any discussion.

You just chose 40 words, 4 punctuation marks, and one style of emphasis to make a point. I'm sure every other person on the planet would have chosen a different mix of words, punctuation marks, and styles of emphasis (or none), and still made a valid point...perhaps even the same point.

MaryAnne

@Chaz said above: " I'm not arguing against self-labelling, I'm saying that without some basic agreement on what those labels mean then discussing the labels is rather pointless - as this thread has demonstrated.
Last time we discussed this topic I innocently suggested that secular Buddhism is closely associated with Stephen Batchelors ideas, and somebody said "Oh, no, I'm a secular Buddhist and I've never read his books..."

@Chaz,

No, What you actually said/wrote was: "Would you ask a secularist like Stephen Batchelor to give his books away for free? "

To which I replied:

"Depends on how crappy his books are... I don't think I've read any of them.
Why do some people on this forum assume ALL secular Buddhists are Steven Batchelor devotees?"

If that is the conversation you are referring to, it was in reference to someone charging (an exorbitant amount of) money for a prayer wheel, etc. Nothing to do with the idea or labeling of "secular" Buddhists.

However, since Mr Batchelor's name is dragged up nearly every single time ANY conversation around here turns towards "secular" or non-secular issues, I could be the one referencing the wrong example.
But I gave it a good effort and I don't see any other example in the last few weeks of your comments...

So now I ask: Do you find it impossible for someone (me, or like me) to have developed a "secular" Buddhist path without the guidance of Stephen Batchelor?

.

Chaz

MaryAnne said:

@Chaz said above: " I'm not arguing against self-labelling, I'm saying that without some basic agreement on what those labels mean then discussing the labels is rather pointless - as this thread has demonstrated.
Last time we discussed this topic I innocently suggested that secular Buddhism is closely associated with Stephen Batchelors ideas, and somebody said "Oh, no, I'm a secular Buddhist and I've never read his books..."

@Chaz,

@ MaryAnne..........

I didn't post that.

Spiny did.

So, I hope you don't mind if I ignore your ..... post?

MaryAnne

Chaz said:

MaryAnne said:

@Chaz said above: " I'm not arguing against self-labelling, I'm saying that without some basic agreement on what those labels mean then discussing the labels is rather pointless - as this thread has demonstrated.
Last time we discussed this topic I innocently suggested that secular Buddhism is closely associated with Stephen Batchelors ideas, and somebody said "Oh, no, I'm a secular Buddhist and I've never read his books..."

@Chaz,

@ MaryAnne..........

I didn't post that.

Spiny did.

So, I hope you don't mind if I ignore your ..... post?

Not a problem. Confusion is mine, sayeth the secular....

Chaz

Chaz said:

Not a problem. Confusion is mine, sayeth the secular....

Also, misquoting on the web is often followed with an apology and/or modification or removal of the post.

Get on it!

I don't mind being called out on what I write. I DO mind being held responsible for what other people post.

Dakini

SpinyNorman said:

I think Stephen was using "atheist" in the broader sense of disbelief, ie not believing in things like rebirth and kamma.

That's exactly how he was using it. Jeez, ppl, let's not nit-pick. Besides, book titles are so often about marketing. As often as not the publisher imposes the title on the author, or tweaks the one the author came up with.

federica

Closed by request of the Op.