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.
Take me, for example. As soon as I see the tiniest shred of evidence for a "Higher Power" or "God" I will believe.
Yeah .. sure .. you are the first person on earth before thought and you are still clinging to your thought of "Atheism" and there is no God anywhere to be found ...
See ? You are in the same boat as those that belive in the little man in the sky !!!
How so ?? You did not invent God yet ?? How could you be an atheist ??? By your own definition it is IMPOSSIBLE !! Even when you are the first person in the world you must cling to your thoughts. Understand ?
The experience of " No Mind " is what you would have if you were the first person before thought. "Atheism" and "No Mind" come later in the form of thoughts.
I was trained in science and see the debates rage every day about creationism .. evolution .. ect . ect. . They are thoughts just thoughts .. like flashing colors of light. A new thought may replace evolution some day or Quantum Mechanics .. and creationism may fall into the abyss. They are just thoughts .. they come and go .. it is to be expected.
So ... whats left ?? Whats real ? No mind.
Good Day ...
Humm...I really don't even think OST and RPA are even talking about the same thing...RPA is talking about what makes a person an atheist and OST is getting into some really abstract Buddhist concept like 'no mind'. I get both of their points but I think further quarreling about this can only do harm.
It would appear from many conversations with Buddhists around the world over the past few years that there are some who come to Buddhism as a way of 'escaping' from Semitic theism (Judaism, Christianity, Islam). They perceive Buddhism as an "atheistic faith" which they embrace because they have been repelled by the image of the Semitic deity which they have been given.
In this, I believe, they are mistaken, both in the image of Yhwh/Father/Allah and in Buddhism's take on deity. They distract themselves.
When we read about genuine dialogue between Christians and Buddhist, as for example in Thomas Merton's account of his meetings with the Dalai Lama, little or no mention is made of theism. Just look at what he wrote and you will see that it concerns practice not theology, and his final comment is significant:
“It was a warm and cordial discussion, and at the end I felt we had become very good friends.”
(Thomas Merton’s diary entry after his third meeting with the Dalai Lama)
Dr Kosuke Koyama makes the following useful and telling points:
Often the contrast between the two faiths is noted in terms of theism: theistic Christianity and nontheistic Buddhism. According to Buddhist teaching, as in Confucian teaching, "God-talk" is unprofitable and even a hindrance to the sincere pursuit of human fulfillment. The pasalmist may have written, "Fools say in their hearts, 'There is no God'" (Ps. 14:1) but the Buddha and Confucius are not fools. The word "God" does not carry the same meaning to Semitic and Asian worlds. The characterization of Buddhism as "nontheistic" is for Jewish, Christian and Islamic consumption only. It has no meaning for Buddhists. The giraffe must not blame the zebra for not having a long neck.
from Observation and Revelation: A Global Dialogue with Buddhism by Kosuke Koyama in God and Globalization, Max L. Stackhouse and Diane B. Obenchain, eds (2002. Continuum International Publishing Group. ISBN 1563383713)
The question of whether any individual believes in a God or not is only relevant within a theistic system, which Buddhism is not.
Finally, having read many hundreds of letters, emails, threads, etc. on 'atheism', I have come to the conclusion that much of self-styled atheism is really a form of anti-clericalism or anti-institutional religion. The notion of God becomes a stick with which to beat up a clergy or institution which is disliked.
How so ?? You did not invent God yet ?? How could you be an atheist ??? By your own definition it is IMPOSSIBLE !! Even when you are the first person in the world you must cling to your thoughts. Understand ?
Exactly! Nobody invented God yet, therefore I could not believe in him...thus making me an Atheist. If you have never heard of God, then you are an Atheist...because you don't believe in God...that's what I have been trying to say. That's why I posted the definition.
You don't have to reject God to be an Atheist, you just don't believe in God. Not every Atheist is created from turning away from a religion.
I was trained in science and see the debates rage every day about creationism .. evolution .. ect . ect. . They are thoughts just thoughts .. like flashing colors of light. A new thought may replace evolution some day or Quantum Mechanics .. and creationism may fall into the abyss. They are just thoughts .. they come and go .. it is to be expected.
So ... whats left ?? Whats real ? No mind.
Good Day ...
How could a new thought replace Evolution? It is a fact of life. Every living thing on this planet evolves. Everything. I can see new information adding to that, but we know 100% for sure that every living creature on Earth evolves.
There are mountains of evidence proving evolution. The only reason there is such a "war" between evolutionist and creationists is because creationist refuse to believe anything that isn't in the Bible.
(Wouldn't you be upset, too, if you spent your entire life studying Evolution, had tons of evidence, and a group of people call you a liar- not because they've done any research themselves, but because a book tells them differently? Not only does it stop there, but here in the US, there are a large number of Christians that want to teach what this book says to our children in school, claiming that it is a "science". How could Biologists, Geologists, Chemists, etc NOT be outraged?)
That's like somebody saying a new thought may replace Gravity. Sure, maybe we will learn MORE about gravity, but you can't change the fact that there is indeed a force pulling all matter towards Earth...and we call it Gravity.
Yeah .. sure .. you are the first person on earth before thought and you are still clinging to your thought of "Atheism" and there is no God anywhere to be found since you never invented him ...
See ? You are in the same boat as those that believe in the little old man in the sky !!! THE SAME BOAT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Good day ...
Wow...I don't see where you are getting confused.
There doesn't need to be a God for there to be Atheists.
So if God hasn't been "Created" yet, then everyone is an Atheist.
So what if someone, new to Buddhism, is clinging to a term or a label? So what if they define themselves as an atheist? What does it matter to anyone else on here?
What's the big deal? What is the harm? If one continues on the path, this (as will all things) will pass too.
I find attacking other members with sarcasm and condescending humor to fly in the face of the Eightfold Path. So where does *that* leave us?
.. the same way Einstein's universe replaced Newtons. The difference between the two are amazing .. who would comprehend a world where there exist no straight lines ?? Where time is relative to position ? That idea was crazy to entertain 300 years ago .. now not so crazy. Black holes .. anti matter .. are you kidding the whole universe is up and changing.
A chemistry professor of mine once noted ... " .. this is what science is like .. you make a big discovery and get it named after you and then hope no one proves it wrong before you die !"
New ideas require receptive minds .. open minds .. minds that do not cling to it's own thoughts.
Yeah .. Darwin and Wallace had a big one and most scientist today carry on their work few innovate it and even fewer will make great innovations. Maybe every several life times or more someone will really do genius work .. then who knows .. the whole scene can change.
Too many people really think the universe is rock solid. It is not .. it is fleeting.
Belive it or not .. gravity did not exist before man invented it .. a rock knows no gravity. Gravity is our way of interacting with the universe. It is of no importance to the sun .. only our comprehension of the sun.
You have a hard time grasping that .. I know .. you are not alone.
.. the same way Einstein's universe replaced Newtons.
And yet...they still use Newton's equations to send rockets to Saturn. Newton's universe wasn't wrong--just incomplete. And apparently Einstein's theories are incomplete also, until his cosmology is unified with quantum physics...and I'm not going to discuss this further because at this point I am way out of my league
Same with evolution--it's not likely to be replace, though it is sure to be refined with further discovery.
So what if someone, new to Buddhism, is clinging to a term or a label? So what if they define themselves as an atheist? What does it matter to anyone else on here?
What's the big deal? What is the harm? If one continues on the path, this (as will all things) will pass too.
I find attacking other members with sarcasm and condescending humor to fly in the face of the Eightfold Path. So where does *that* leave us?
Is a label really this important?
I'm already sick of this thread.
-bf
Agreed. When it helps people to understand my personal beliefs and philosophy, I tell them I'm an atheist. In contexts where it is not useful, I don't say I'm an atheist. It's just a word.
I think I read somewhere that any concept that can be put into words is not the Truth, because the Truth is beyond words...
(Wouldn't you be upset, too, if you spent your entire life studying Evolution, had tons of evidence, and a group of people call you a liar- not because they've done any research themselves, but because a book tells them differently? Not only does it stop there, but here in the US, there are a large number of Christians that want to teach what this book says to our children in school, claiming that it is a "science". How could Biologists, Geologists, Chemists, etc NOT be outraged?)
I know well the "rage". I have a degree in biological science and evolution one of my key subjects. So .. what does the rage accomplish ? Absolutely nothing ... it only deludes us and makes us act foolishly. Atheism is a product of that rage ... and it started a long time ago ... you picked it up second or third hand.
The sad part is that while the rage roars the baby gets thrown out with the water. The spiritualism gets thrown out with the theism.
So science and religion are in danger of becoming empty shells.
Is there something wrong for people to think of themselves as atheists? I'm not quite yet done with labels and concepts--maybe I will some day but not yet.
OneSunTemple, what was your intention in starting this thread?
To say that the concept of 'atheist' does not make any sense without the concept of 'theist'? That, I think, is rather obvious . . . and as an atheist myself it bothers me when someone tries to push the point that someone who identifies as an atheist must be totally preoccupied with a god in which she does not believe. After all, the theist often argues that if there is no god then there is no point in a person calling themself an atheist. The problem with this is that not-quite-hidden bit of condescension, and the implication that that label of 'atheist' is somehow illegitimate and foolish. And you can think what that implies about the person that chooses that label . . . in the context of a long past where it has been considered perfectly acceptable to talk badly of atheists as if we were all horrible and immoral people. Just some food for thought, in case you are confused about some of RPA's reactions to some of your statements.
Belive it or not .. gravity did not exist before man invented it .. a rock knows no gravity. Gravity is our way of interacting with the universe. It is of no importance to the sun .. only our comprehension of the sun.
You have a hard time grasping that .. I know .. you are not alone.
Good Day ...
*sigh*
Who over the age of 4 would have a hard time grasping that?
You may want to change your name to Captain Obvious.
Gravity did, indeed, exist before man, we just named it.
Gravity is of great importance to the sun, with or without man...the Sun used gravity long before man...again, we just gave it a name for us to refer to. The Sun wasn't even "The Sun" before man...but it is NOW.
I honestly see what you are trying to say...I just disagree with that mindset.
We are human beings. Therefore we try to interpret the world in a way we understand...by using OUR MINDS.
So what is the point of trying to seem above everyone else and suggest that we view the world with "no mind" as if we were never here? I see no reason for it.
This whole discussion is pointless. I suppose we should just agree to disagree.
Is this the part where we both admit we have nothing going on in our lives right now?:tonguec:
Come on, people, MAKE MORE THREADS!!!:)
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
edited October 2007
*The thread has progressed as far has it has because people have taken the topic and discussed it with diversity and interest. If you have discussed it as far as you can, then that's fine.
Granted, the forum is quiet at the moment, but there are thousands of other threads you might like to examine, revive and continue to discuss....
But in all things, manners, please, manners. State your case, simply and clearly by all means, but without the sarcasm or condescension. be mindful that everyoine you interact with on forum deserves the same respect, politeness, courtesy and dignity you would yourself be pleased to receive. I thank you...... *
How far is "God" from an Atheist, for that matter?
I know plenty of "Christians" who wear that name on the phylacteries of all their garments who don't have a clue about the deepest message of their religion. How close can they be to "God" when what many of them most want is for other people to suffer for not seeing things through the lenses of their own eyes? —or through certain strictures that would rip the very purpose of one's existence from him or her?
How far is "God" from an Atheist, for that matter?
I know plenty of "Christians" who wear that name on the phylacteries of all their garments who don't have a clue about the deepest message of their religion. How close can they be to "God" when what many of them most want is for other people to suffer for not seeing things through the lenses of their own eyes? —or through certain strictures that would rip the very purpose of one's existence from him or her?
The Q'ran tells us that God is as close to each of us as our jugular vein. The Christian scriptures have similar messages. Nothing winds the anti-religious up quite so much as this idea: no matter what anyone does or is, they are still within the field of compassion and of grace.
It is, however, strange that, with those sort of statements before them, the literalists with ambitions for exclusivity still insist that some people are outwith the field. Buddhist hell realms are not eternal, a blessing apparently denied to Christians and Muslims!
Wow i dont think i could disagree more the term "atheist" means lack of belief in a personal god but so just because someone claims there athiest does not mean there actualy athiest. :usflag:
In the "dialogue" about belief, disbelief, or alternatives, is agreement or disagreement really necessary? Or even really useful, on the way to Truth?
One either accepts (part or most), rejects, or simply notes what is pronounced, as far as he or she is able to appropriate the complexities of the material at a given time.
Granted, many people take strong positions one way or another. However, the via media is the more sane (healthy) and measured way. I know they say "different strokes for different folks," but for some reason I prefer the laid-back to the intense. Too many who think they're "right" wish for those who "aren't" to be punished in some big way. That is simply mean-spirited and inhuman not to wish others well.
I mean, shouldn't the Grown-Ups just get over arguing about things that just can't be proven and instead turn their energies to things they can impact? Didn't the Lord Buddha refuse to speak about gods and monotheism on just these grounds?
Does "Vegetarian" become a meaningless term without carnivores?
How close is a vegetarian to a carnivore?
While there are many vegetarians in the animal kingdom, I am pretty sure all animals besides humans are Atheists...and they know nothing of Theists. Does that make them closer to God somehow? I would think not.
Vegetarian can and is described in different ways. You could say "I don't eat meat." In other words, you could describe yourself by what you don't do. You could also say, "I eat veggies, nuts, breads, and DESERTS!" Ostensibly, you could do either. I think it is easier to list what you don't do, because the list is more concise and easily communicated. Granted, there are always still additional communications to be made concerning the details ("No meat? Okay, well we're having fish tonight."), but the negative and positive still describe the same thing.
Can we say that for the atheism/theism debate? Is atheism defined by more than just the void of god? The answer is yes, from what I know, but maybe someone else can shed some more light on what exactly atheists DO believe in. Perhaps that's what you are all trying to say anyway and I am just slow to catch up. Like I said, I haven't finished reading the thread yet...
One form of atheist is the person (or animal) that doesn't believe in God simply because they are not aware of the idea.
Actually, I just looked up some definitions (always a good idea to make sure what you think you know is the same "truth" you remember) and I think the cow happily munching grass without a thought in her hairy head might actually be agnostic. This idea is simply for the purpose of debate, of course. I wouldn't advise thinking too hard about the religion of cows.
Vegetarian can and is described in different ways. You could say "I don't eat meat." In other words, you could describe yourself by what you don't do. You could also say, "I eat veggies, nuts, breads, and DESERTS!" Ostensibly, you could do either.
How about 'I eat a plant-based diet'? Which is, I admit, rather broader than saying 'I don't eat meat' -- and could include some people who eat meat sometimes but don't base their diet around it . . .
Ok, I think maybe just just proved your point--it is hard to describe being a vegitarian without using negative terms.
Can we say that for the atheism/theism debate? Is atheism defined by more than just the void of god? The answer is yes, from what I know, but maybe someone else can shed some more light on what exactly atheists DO believe in. Perhaps that's what you are all trying to say anyway and I am just slow to catch up. Like I said, I haven't finished reading the thread yet...
Hummm...methinks there are as many definitions of the word 'atheist' as there are for the word 'god'. I don't think atheism is defined by anything more than 'void of god'. However after looking at a few different religions/philosophies and their differing ideas of deitys, I'm still wondering what exactly is a 'god' is anyway...
You could also say, "I eat veggies, nuts, breads, and DESERTS!"
But what do you do with all the sand? YUKK!
What we are really discussing here is that whenever you attach labels to anything, you're engaging in dualistic thinking, which comes loaded with all sorts of preconceptions and conditioned responses. In other words, there is no answer to the conundrum. Language is the conundrum.
However after looking at a few different religions/philosophies and their differing ideas of deitys, I'm still wondering what exactly is a 'god' is anyway...
I have noooo idea!
Palzang,
I forgot to do the whole desserts = stressed backwards thing. If we told our children we still had to use tricks like these...
Can we say that for the atheism/theism debate? Is atheism defined by more than just the void of god? The answer is yes, from what I know, but maybe someone else can shed some more light on what exactly atheists DO believe in. Perhaps that's what you are all trying to say anyway and I am just slow to catch up. Like I said, I haven't finished reading the thread yet...
I would say, no. To be an atheist requires only that an individual have no belief in a supreme being. That's it. The range of philosophies, political ideologies, and beliefs are limitless and extremely wide ranging amongst atheists. They can be good, bad, ugly, ethical, tyrannical, enlightened, or anything else.
That is why I believe there really is no so called "atheist movement", at least in the sense that there is a "Christian Right." Atheists have no common cause to unite them. A lack of belief is hardly something to rally the masses around.
I would say, no. To be an atheist requires only that an individual have no belief in a supreme being. That's it.
If that's really the case, then I think atheism does very much require that someone else does believe god exists. Atheism is not defined as not believing in god, it is the disbelief in god, which requires what I just mentioned. It's like someone says to you, "there is a god" and you say, "Hm... no, based on the facts, I don't believe that to be true, therefore I will call myself an atheist."
Now, this is just my dictionary-take on this thread, so I'm not saying I'm right. And I definitely am not trying to take away anyone's ability to call themself an atheist. No one's beliefs will be changed by whether I think the name for them makes sense or not. I can see that my point of view has already been at war previously here, so I'm going to leave it at that: my point of view.
If that's really the case, then I think atheism does very much require that someone else does believe god exists. Atheism is not defined as not believing in god, it is the disbelief in god, which requires what I just mentioned. It's like someone says to you, "there is a god" and you say, "Hm... no, based on the facts, I don't believe that to be true, therefore I will call myself an atheist."
Now, this is just my dictionary-take on this thread, so I'm not saying I'm right. And I definitely am not trying to take away anyone's ability to call themself an atheist. No one's beliefs will be changed by whether I think the name for them makes sense or not. I can see that my point of view has already been at war previously here, so I'm going to leave it at that: my point of view.
Actually someone who actively and knowingly disbelieves in a God, as the person you described, is an explicit atheist. If no one believed in a god, we would all be implicit atheists, though it would be rather pointless to mention it in that case.
I'm involved in a local atheist meetup, which is also attended by a man who calls himself a deist. He likes to say that he is just like an atheist except that he believes in God. Anyway, I'm getting to think this whole god/no god this is just another meaningless dualism anyway.
Well .. it's kinds like being at the last BIG game of the World series .. a pretzel vendor comes up to you and starts chatting away with you about pretzels .. beer .. soda .. all yummy stuff .. all the while the winning ball flys out of the park. Your mouth full of pretzel and beer .. "Whatttt happened ????" you mumble.
Alright, I did some more research after your last comment, Starstuff, and I see better now what you and KoB and RPA are saying. Just wanted to let you know I think I "get it" a little better now.
It's like someone says to you, "there is a god" and you say, "Hm... no, based on the facts, I don't believe that to be true, therefore I will call myself an atheist."
It's like saying that someone who does not smoke is only able to 'thus' define himself because of those people who do. You can only be a 'non-smoker' because other people smoke. So the validity of the definition 'non-smoker' is drawn from the smoker.
All well and good but what was everyone called before smoking was invented?
Do you 'reject' the belief in Unicorns or the Tooth Fairy? Of course not. There's nothing to reject. If some kid chooses to believe in them, then that's fine. So, an 'atheist' may not be 'rejecting' anything. He may just feel that there was never a case to answer in the first place.
It's like saying that someone who does not smoke is only able to 'thus' define himself because of those people who do. You can only be a 'non-smoker' because other people smoke. So the validity of the definition 'non-smoker' is drawn from the smoker.
< makes sense to me so far .. then how do you arrive at the following ?? >
All well and good but what was everyone called before smoking was invented?
Do you 'reject' the belief in Unicorns or the Tooth Fairy? Of course not. There's nothing to reject. If some kid chooses to believe in them, then that's fine. So, an 'atheist' may not be 'rejecting' anything. He may just feel that there was never a case to answer in the first place.
See what I mean?
Before smoking there were no smokers so non smokers did not exist ... in the mind.
If my kid says he can't sleep there is a unicorn under his bed .. I have two choices unicorn under the bed OR no unicorn under the bed... I make those choices in the mind.
The problem is when we see the choices as a certain reality ... one does not have to identify themselves as a smoker or non smoker .. even if they smoke .. and as far as our young friend is concerned there is a unicorn under the bed.
An aetheist is choosing .. that is all .. and when you choose you miss the ball flying out of the stadium. We are more then a point of view.
Before smoking there were no smokers so non smokers did not exist ... in the mind.
If my kid says he can't sleep there is a unicorn under his bed .. I have two choices unicorn under the bed OR no unicorn under the bed... I make those choices in the mind.
The problem is when we see the choices as a certain reality ... one does not have to identify themselves as a smoker or non smoker .. even if they smoke .. and as far as our young friend is concerned there is a unicorn under the bed.
Agree with all that.
An aetheist is choosing .. that is all .. and when you choose you miss the ball flying out of the stadium. We are more then a point of view.
Cheers ...
Yes, as far as theists (and some atheists) are concerned.
It comes down to how you define things I guess.
And though I get the general drift, I'd rather the list said "gods Fundamentalist Christianists don't believe in."
My father, an Episcopal priest, used to possess an old 19th century Testament that used the Latin Zeus, Jovis, Jove... terms instead of Jehovah, since the editors didn't want to use the Hebrew Jehovah, among other things. I believe that shortens the "Christian" list a bit. Not all Christians think alike, thank Jovem (or whatever) for that.
Thanks for the list, Buddhafoot. Point well taken.
Somehow I find the idea of not using Jehovah because it is Jewish even more disturbing than the "fundamentalists"!
Palzang
Silly, Paly, Not because of anything anti-semitic, but mostly just for love of Latin and things classical.
And if you've never met a Latinist Fundamentalist, you ain't been fully edicated. NO WAY NO WAY NO WAY NO WAY NO WAY NO WAY NO WAY NO WAY NO WAY :tongue2:
Silly, Paly, Not because of anything anti-semitic, but mostly just for love of Latin and things classical.
And if you've never met a Latinist Fundamentalist, you ain't been fully edicated. NO WAY NO WAY NO WAY NO WAY NO WAY NO WAY NO WAY NO WAY NO WAY :tongue2:
[/misquote]
Uh huh, Latin fundamentalist, that's a good one. Well, if it walks like an anti-semite and talks like an anti-semite, it's an anti-semite in my book!
Although I get the general drift, I'd rather the list said "gods Fundamentalist Christianists don't believe in."
My father used to possess an old 19th century Testament that used the Latin Zeus, Jovis, Jove... terms instead of Jehovah, since the editors didn't want to use the Hebrew Jehovah, among other things. I believe that shortens the "Christian" list a bit. Not all Christians think alike, thank Jovem (or whatever) for that.
Uh huh, Latin fundamentalist, that's a good one. Well, if it walks like an anti-semite and talks like an anti-semite, it's an anti-semite in my book!
Palzang
Hey, what's wrong there, Palzang? I hope you're not by implying any anti-semitism on my part because I broached the subject.
I don't recall all the ins and outs about the Testament (the very text of which is in many places very anti-semitic, for that matter), since it was given to a seminary library some years ago.
However, there was a movement in the Roman Catholic Church in the Eighteenth Century to go back to Classical Latin from Church Latin. Lots of breviaries and, yes, even the English Book of Common Prayer were translated into that Classical Latin until that movement fizzled out. (Roman Catholics do have their followers in the protestant English church.) And Jupiter (Nominative), Jovis (Genitive), Jove (Dative and Ablative), Jovem (Accusative) would just have been the words used for "Jahweh," which is mostly just Old Testament terminology anyway. I seem to recall that it was just a New Testament, but it must have been the whole Bible, since I saw the words Jove and such. By the way, above I miswrote "Zeus." Funny how memory is. It was "Juppiter," of course.
Anywho, Palzang, I was just commenting on the list Buddhafoot pointed out and thought that "Jupiter" should not necessarily stand. But I'll not quibble any longer on that small point.
My comment was directed at the compilers of the 19th Century Latin text, not you, dear Nirvy. You said that they didn't want to use the word Jehovah because it was Jewish, which reeks of anti-semitism to me, especially since Christians in the 19th Century were notoriously anti-semite. They may have said they were doing it in the name of Latin "purity", but I think the real reason was quite different. To use the name of a pagan Roman god instead of Jehovah?! Think about it...
Thanks, good Palzang, for the encouraging clarification.
I'm nonetheless still puzzled how a Classical Latinist would decline "Jehovah," or why a movement in liturgical academia would necessarily have ulterior motives.
Comments
Yeah .. sure .. you are the first person on earth before thought and you are still clinging to your thought of "Atheism" and there is no God anywhere to be found ...
See ? You are in the same boat as those that belive in the little man in the sky !!!
Good day ...
Humm...I really don't even think OST and RPA are even talking about the same thing...RPA is talking about what makes a person an atheist and OST is getting into some really abstract Buddhist concept like 'no mind'. I get both of their points but I think further quarreling about this can only do harm.
Just my two cents.
In this, I believe, they are mistaken, both in the image of Yhwh/Father/Allah and in Buddhism's take on deity. They distract themselves.
When we read about genuine dialogue between Christians and Buddhist, as for example in Thomas Merton's account of his meetings with the Dalai Lama, little or no mention is made of theism. Just look at what he wrote and you will see that it concerns practice not theology, and his final comment is significant:
Dr Kosuke Koyama makes the following useful and telling points:
The question of whether any individual believes in a God or not is only relevant within a theistic system, which Buddhism is not.
Finally, having read many hundreds of letters, emails, threads, etc. on 'atheism', I have come to the conclusion that much of self-styled atheism is really a form of anti-clericalism or anti-institutional religion. The notion of God becomes a stick with which to beat up a clergy or institution which is disliked.
You don't have to reject God to be an Atheist, you just don't believe in God. Not every Atheist is created from turning away from a religion.
How could a new thought replace Evolution? It is a fact of life. Every living thing on this planet evolves. Everything. I can see new information adding to that, but we know 100% for sure that every living creature on Earth evolves.
There are mountains of evidence proving evolution. The only reason there is such a "war" between evolutionist and creationists is because creationist refuse to believe anything that isn't in the Bible.
(Wouldn't you be upset, too, if you spent your entire life studying Evolution, had tons of evidence, and a group of people call you a liar- not because they've done any research themselves, but because a book tells them differently? Not only does it stop there, but here in the US, there are a large number of Christians that want to teach what this book says to our children in school, claiming that it is a "science". How could Biologists, Geologists, Chemists, etc NOT be outraged?)
That's like somebody saying a new thought may replace Gravity. Sure, maybe we will learn MORE about gravity, but you can't change the fact that there is indeed a force pulling all matter towards Earth...and we call it Gravity.
Wow...I don't see where you are getting confused.
There doesn't need to be a God for there to be Atheists.
So if God hasn't been "Created" yet, then everyone is an Atheist.
What's the big deal? What is the harm? If one continues on the path, this (as will all things) will pass too.
I find attacking other members with sarcasm and condescending humor to fly in the face of the Eightfold Path. So where does *that* leave us?
Is a label really this important?
I'm already sick of this thread.
-bf
A chemistry professor of mine once noted ... " .. this is what science is like .. you make a big discovery and get it named after you and then hope no one proves it wrong before you die !"
New ideas require receptive minds .. open minds .. minds that do not cling to it's own thoughts.
Yeah .. Darwin and Wallace had a big one and most scientist today carry on their work few innovate it and even fewer will make great innovations. Maybe every several life times or more someone will really do genius work .. then who knows .. the whole scene can change.
Too many people really think the universe is rock solid. It is not .. it is fleeting.
Belive it or not .. gravity did not exist before man invented it .. a rock knows no gravity. Gravity is our way of interacting with the universe. It is of no importance to the sun .. only our comprehension of the sun.
You have a hard time grasping that .. I know .. you are not alone.
Good Day ...
And yet...they still use Newton's equations to send rockets to Saturn. Newton's universe wasn't wrong--just incomplete. And apparently Einstein's theories are incomplete also, until his cosmology is unified with quantum physics...and I'm not going to discuss this further because at this point I am way out of my league
Same with evolution--it's not likely to be replace, though it is sure to be refined with further discovery.
Agreed. When it helps people to understand my personal beliefs and philosophy, I tell them I'm an atheist. In contexts where it is not useful, I don't say I'm an atheist. It's just a word.
I think I read somewhere that any concept that can be put into words is not the Truth, because the Truth is beyond words...
I know well the "rage". I have a degree in biological science and evolution one of my key subjects. So .. what does the rage accomplish ? Absolutely nothing ... it only deludes us and makes us act foolishly. Atheism is a product of that rage ... and it started a long time ago ... you picked it up second or third hand.
The sad part is that while the rage roars the baby gets thrown out with the water. The spiritualism gets thrown out with the theism.
So science and religion are in danger of becoming empty shells.
Good Day ...
Exactly .... so in a universe with no theism there can be no atheism. A theiastic consciousness must exist to have an atheism.
Good Day ...
OneSunTemple, what was your intention in starting this thread?
To say that the concept of 'atheist' does not make any sense without the concept of 'theist'? That, I think, is rather obvious . . . and as an atheist myself it bothers me when someone tries to push the point that someone who identifies as an atheist must be totally preoccupied with a god in which she does not believe. After all, the theist often argues that if there is no god then there is no point in a person calling themself an atheist. The problem with this is that not-quite-hidden bit of condescension, and the implication that that label of 'atheist' is somehow illegitimate and foolish. And you can think what that implies about the person that chooses that label . . . in the context of a long past where it has been considered perfectly acceptable to talk badly of atheists as if we were all horrible and immoral people. Just some food for thought, in case you are confused about some of RPA's reactions to some of your statements.
*sigh*
Who over the age of 4 would have a hard time grasping that?
You may want to change your name to Captain Obvious.
Gravity did, indeed, exist before man, we just named it.
Gravity is of great importance to the sun, with or without man...the Sun used gravity long before man...again, we just gave it a name for us to refer to. The Sun wasn't even "The Sun" before man...but it is NOW.
I honestly see what you are trying to say...I just disagree with that mindset.
We are human beings. Therefore we try to interpret the world in a way we understand...by using OUR MINDS.
So what is the point of trying to seem above everyone else and suggest that we view the world with "no mind" as if we were never here? I see no reason for it.
This whole discussion is pointless. I suppose we should just agree to disagree.
Is this the part where we both admit we have nothing going on in our lives right now?:tonguec:
Come on, people, MAKE MORE THREADS!!!:)
Granted, the forum is quiet at the moment, but there are thousands of other threads you might like to examine, revive and continue to discuss....
But in all things, manners, please, manners. State your case, simply and clearly by all means, but without the sarcasm or condescension. be mindful that everyoine you interact with on forum deserves the same respect, politeness, courtesy and dignity you would yourself be pleased to receive. I thank you...... *
If you can manage to get your hands on a copy, I would suggest reading A Buddhist Phiolosophy of Religion by Bhikkhu Nanajivako.
Sincerely,
Jason
How far is "God" from an Atheist, for that matter?
I know plenty of "Christians" who wear that name on the phylacteries of all their garments who don't have a clue about the deepest message of their religion. How close can they be to "God" when what many of them most want is for other people to suffer for not seeing things through the lenses of their own eyes? —or through certain strictures that would rip the very purpose of one's existence from him or her?
The Q'ran tells us that God is as close to each of us as our jugular vein. The Christian scriptures have similar messages. Nothing winds the anti-religious up quite so much as this idea: no matter what anyone does or is, they are still within the field of compassion and of grace.
It is, however, strange that, with those sort of statements before them, the literalists with ambitions for exclusivity still insist that some people are outwith the field. Buddhist hell realms are not eternal, a blessing apparently denied to Christians and Muslims!
One either accepts (part or most), rejects, or simply notes what is pronounced, as far as he or she is able to appropriate the complexities of the material at a given time.
Granted, many people take strong positions one way or another. However, the via media is the more sane (healthy) and measured way. I know they say "different strokes for different folks," but for some reason I prefer the laid-back to the intense. Too many who think they're "right" wish for those who "aren't" to be punished in some big way. That is simply mean-spirited and inhuman not to wish others well.
I mean, shouldn't the Grown-Ups just get over arguing about things that just can't be proven and instead turn their energies to things they can impact? Didn't the Lord Buddha refuse to speak about gods and monotheism on just these grounds?
Vegetarian can and is described in different ways. You could say "I don't eat meat." In other words, you could describe yourself by what you don't do. You could also say, "I eat veggies, nuts, breads, and DESERTS!" Ostensibly, you could do either. I think it is easier to list what you don't do, because the list is more concise and easily communicated. Granted, there are always still additional communications to be made concerning the details ("No meat? Okay, well we're having fish tonight."), but the negative and positive still describe the same thing.
Can we say that for the atheism/theism debate? Is atheism defined by more than just the void of god? The answer is yes, from what I know, but maybe someone else can shed some more light on what exactly atheists DO believe in. Perhaps that's what you are all trying to say anyway and I am just slow to catch up. Like I said, I haven't finished reading the thread yet...
Actually, I just looked up some definitions (always a good idea to make sure what you think you know is the same "truth" you remember) and I think the cow happily munching grass without a thought in her hairy head might actually be agnostic. This idea is simply for the purpose of debate, of course. I wouldn't advise thinking too hard about the religion of cows.
I swear, I am not TRYING to be contradictory!
How about 'I eat a plant-based diet'? Which is, I admit, rather broader than saying 'I don't eat meat' -- and could include some people who eat meat sometimes but don't base their diet around it . . .
Ok, I think maybe just just proved your point--it is hard to describe being a vegitarian without using negative terms.
Hummm...methinks there are as many definitions of the word 'atheist' as there are for the word 'god'. I don't think atheism is defined by anything more than 'void of god'. However after looking at a few different religions/philosophies and their differing ideas of deitys, I'm still wondering what exactly is a 'god' is anyway...
But what do you do with all the sand? YUKK!
What we are really discussing here is that whenever you attach labels to anything, you're engaging in dualistic thinking, which comes loaded with all sorts of preconceptions and conditioned responses. In other words, there is no answer to the conundrum. Language is the conundrum.
Palzang
I have noooo idea!
Palzang,
I forgot to do the whole desserts = stressed backwards thing. If we told our children we still had to use tricks like these...
I would say, no. To be an atheist requires only that an individual have no belief in a supreme being. That's it. The range of philosophies, political ideologies, and beliefs are limitless and extremely wide ranging amongst atheists. They can be good, bad, ugly, ethical, tyrannical, enlightened, or anything else.
That is why I believe there really is no so called "atheist movement", at least in the sense that there is a "Christian Right." Atheists have no common cause to unite them. A lack of belief is hardly something to rally the masses around.
If that's really the case, then I think atheism does very much require that someone else does believe god exists. Atheism is not defined as not believing in god, it is the disbelief in god, which requires what I just mentioned. It's like someone says to you, "there is a god" and you say, "Hm... no, based on the facts, I don't believe that to be true, therefore I will call myself an atheist."
Now, this is just my dictionary-take on this thread, so I'm not saying I'm right. And I definitely am not trying to take away anyone's ability to call themself an atheist. No one's beliefs will be changed by whether I think the name for them makes sense or not. I can see that my point of view has already been at war previously here, so I'm going to leave it at that: my point of view.
Actually someone who actively and knowingly disbelieves in a God, as the person you described, is an explicit atheist. If no one believed in a god, we would all be implicit atheists, though it would be rather pointless to mention it in that case.
I'm involved in a local atheist meetup, which is also attended by a man who calls himself a deist. He likes to say that he is just like an atheist except that he believes in God.
Cheers ...
All well and good but what was everyone called before smoking was invented?
Do you 'reject' the belief in Unicorns or the Tooth Fairy? Of course not. There's nothing to reject. If some kid chooses to believe in them, then that's fine. So, an 'atheist' may not be 'rejecting' anything. He may just feel that there was never a case to answer in the first place.
See what I mean?
Before smoking there were no smokers so non smokers did not exist ... in the mind.
If my kid says he can't sleep there is a unicorn under his bed .. I have two choices unicorn under the bed OR no unicorn under the bed... I make those choices in the mind.
The problem is when we see the choices as a certain reality ... one does not have to identify themselves as a smoker or non smoker .. even if they smoke .. and as far as our young friend is concerned there is a unicorn under the bed.
An aetheist is choosing .. that is all .. and when you choose you miss the ball flying out of the stadium. We are more then a point of view.
Cheers ...
Yes, as far as theists (and some atheists) are concerned.
It comes down to how you define things I guess.
I love the "Stumble" add-on for my Firefox.
http://aboyandhiscomputer.com/Christian_beliefs_vs_atheist_beliefs.html
-bf
Palzang
Thanks, Buddhafoot.
And though I get the general drift, I'd rather the list said "gods Fundamentalist Christianists don't believe in."
My father, an Episcopal priest, used to possess an old 19th century Testament that used the Latin Zeus, Jovis, Jove... terms instead of Jehovah, since the editors didn't want to use the Hebrew Jehovah, among other things. I believe that shortens the "Christian" list a bit. Not all Christians think alike, thank Jovem (or whatever) for that.
Thanks for the list, Buddhafoot. Point well taken.
Keep well and keep us posted.
Palzang
How much more serious? You're going to stone me to death. Jehovah, Jehovah, Jehovah, Jehovah,
Palzang
Silly, Paly, Not because of anything anti-semitic, but mostly just for love of Latin and things classical.
And if you've never met a Latinist Fundamentalist, you ain't been fully edicated.
NO WAY NO WAY NO WAY NO WAY NO WAY NO WAY NO WAY NO WAY NO WAY :tongue2:
[/misquote]
Hahahaha I love that movie. That is one of the best scenes!
Maybe I'll pull it out and watch it tonight!
Uh huh, Latin fundamentalist, that's a good one. Well, if it walks like an anti-semite and talks like an anti-semite, it's an anti-semite in my book!
Palzang
Hey, what's wrong there, Palzang? I hope you're not by implying any anti-semitism on my part because I broached the subject.
I don't recall all the ins and outs about the Testament (the very text of which is in many places very anti-semitic, for that matter), since it was given to a seminary library some years ago.
However, there was a movement in the Roman Catholic Church in the Eighteenth Century to go back to Classical Latin from Church Latin. Lots of breviaries and, yes, even the English Book of Common Prayer were translated into that Classical Latin until that movement fizzled out. (Roman Catholics do have their followers in the protestant English church.) And Jupiter (Nominative), Jovis (Genitive), Jove (Dative and Ablative), Jovem (Accusative) would just have been the words used for "Jahweh," which is mostly just Old Testament terminology anyway. I seem to recall that it was just a New Testament, but it must have been the whole Bible, since I saw the words Jove and such. By the way, above I miswrote "Zeus." Funny how memory is. It was "Juppiter," of course.
Anywho, Palzang, I was just commenting on the list Buddhafoot pointed out and thought that "Jupiter" should not necessarily stand. But I'll not quibble any longer on that small point.
Palzang
I'm nonetheless still puzzled how a Classical Latinist would decline "Jehovah," or why a movement in liturgical academia would necessarily have ulterior motives.
More Latin Craziness:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/03/opinion/03mount-latin.html?ref=opinion
______________
Cur gallus transivit viam?
Ut veniret laterem alterum.