Post Reply
Page 1 of 13  •  1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 13 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Buddhism and Atheism
3 years ago  ::  Feb 07, 2012 - 7:32PM #1
IDBC
Posts: 4,561
I would like to know the opinion of Buddhists as wether Buddhism is or is not an Athesitic religious philosophy.   It is my understanding that most Buddhists both in "the East" and in "the West" were in the past and still are Atheists.   It is my understanding that due to the doctrine of Imperance a "Theistic" God does cannot exist.    The foundation of Buddhism is the Four Noble Truths.   There is nothing in the Four Noble Truths that require an unchanging, everlasting deity that is concerned with the personal affairs of men that should be worshipped.   There is nothing that I am aware of in practices of Three Jewels Noble Eightfold Path Morality · Perfections Meditation · Mindfulness Wisdom · Compassion that is dependent of the existence of God.  


The only reason that I am aware for the claim that Buddhism is a "Theistic" religion is in the Buddhist's doctrine of  Dharmakāya "Ultimate Reality".   But it seems to me that if Dharmakaya is "God" it is an "impersonal" God that does not require worship.    That doesn't really care what happens to individuals, is not the source of morality and does not punish or reward a person for being either moral or immoral.    
HAVE A THINKING DAY MAY REASON GUIDE YOU
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Feb 07, 2012 - 7:55PM #2
Bob_the_Lunatic
Posts: 3,458

To me it's pretty simple:



Atheism means "without belief in god/s", it's a pretty simple concept.


Buddhist practice is about awakening to the true self, seeking reality, not seeking a god.



One is religion, one is philosophy.  One typically cares about death, one typically cares about life.  They are opposites to me at the fundamental level.



Further-when Buddhist gods are mentioned, mostly as left overs from brahmanism, they are allegorical.  For example, they remind me of Aesop's fables.  Take the fable about the frog that gives a scorpion a ride across the river.... did this really happen?  Did some frog actually have a discussion and negotiate a deal with a scorpion and give him a ride, only to be stung and killed halfway across?  No, the story is about the inescapability of one's nature.  Stories about Buddhist gods are the same thing-allegories to make a point.  



Your points are also true-there is no indication that I'm aware of in any sutra-that the point here is to seek any god.  For someone to make that claim and then further-claim it is to seek some particular god of the West, like Jesus, Allah, Yahweh, whatever-is ridiculous.  It is so far beyond a stretch, one can only assume insanity of some sort.


I'm aware that some sects WORSHIP a being, a buddha, several buddhas, buddhas and bodhisattvas, huge pantheons of various "entities"... which means one could draw a parallel between such a sect and perhaps Catholicism... .but there's still that problem of some central "all powerful" god always missing in Buddhism-no matter how "theist" the sect may seem.  From my perspective, because they have missed the point-and worship an external entity... they have "reverted to the views of non-Buddhists."



Ultimately, I agree with you-most Buddhist sects are clearly atheist-there is no focus on any god or gods, but on the dharma.  What we are victims of here is wishful thinking on the part of those who are not interested in Buddhism, but rather want everything to get along-and be the same, when it is simply not the same. 


Someone made a decent argument that Buddhism is "non-theist".  But I feel it is atheist.  Does it have a god belief or not?  No, it does not:  Therefore it is LACKING or WITHOUT a god belief and thus accurately described as "atheist".


"atheist" is as much an adjective as it is a noun.  So I can describe myself as "an atheist Buddhist", although I would suspect that the educated might find the adjective redundant.  Either way, one could describe Buddhism as an "atheist faith", which is not redundant as faith can be with or without a god, most are with, Buddhism is without.


Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Feb 07, 2012 - 8:03PM #3
Aka_me
Posts: 12,297

how does it matter?


if it is atheist, then what? or if it's not atheist, what difference would it be?


what do you mean by atheist?





and devas qualify as deities.


In many ways they are similar to the ancient Olympian gods of Greece or the Aesir of Teutonic myths.


Nichiren also frequently addressed prayers to the gods and encouraged his followers to do so as well, but always in the context of an overarching faith in the Lotus Sutra.



attachment to the desire to mold Buddhism into atheism, is a mystery as to where it originates.

The UN says the ebola outbreak must be controlled within 60 days or else the world faces an "unprecedented" situation for which there is no plan.
this is absolutely fantastic as it unites the world into being OUR problem rather than THEIR problem.
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Feb 07, 2012 - 8:08PM #4
Bob_the_Lunatic
Posts: 3,458

How can you mold anything into atheism?  It has NO beliefs-just one disbelief.


So you can describe something as atheist, or theist-both are valid adjectives.



For example-do you think my cat is an atheist or a theist-or do you think I would ask such a thing to mold an objetive concept into something else?  Obviously my cat is an atheist cat, again redundant-but makes my point about Buddhism.



And the claim is beyond ironic-who here actually tries to mold Buddhism into something it is not?  It is completely the opposite of Abrahamic faiths, yet you actually try to suggest that Buddha taught about your god.   There is some molding going on for sure, but there is no molding needed to make the argument that Buddhism is "atheistic". 


That would be like saying  I was "Molding sugar into captain crunch" -IT'S ALREADY THERE!!


LOL

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Feb 07, 2012 - 8:12PM #5
Aka_me
Posts: 12,297

Feb 7, 2012 -- 8:08PM, Bob_the_Lunatic wrote:

There is some molding going on for sure, but there is no molding needed to make the argument that Buddhism is "atheistic".



let's see if the Buddhists here who disagree have the intellectual honesty to speak up.

The UN says the ebola outbreak must be controlled within 60 days or else the world faces an "unprecedented" situation for which there is no plan.
this is absolutely fantastic as it unites the world into being OUR problem rather than THEIR problem.
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Feb 07, 2012 - 8:14PM #6
Bob_the_Lunatic
Posts: 3,458

Feb 7, 2012 -- 8:12PM, Aka_me wrote:


Feb 7, 2012 -- 8:08PM, Bob_the_Lunatic wrote:

There is some molding going on for sure, but there is no molding needed to make the argument that Buddhism is "atheistic".



let's see if the Buddhists here who disagree have the intellectual honesty to speak up.




Well, so far the Buddhists' vote is


2 votes YES


0 votes NO

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Feb 07, 2012 - 8:17PM #7
Bob_the_Lunatic
Posts: 3,458

But the funny thing to me is ... bahais are screwed whether Buddhism is theist or not.


See-you don't just need theism for Buddhism to back up Bahai.  You need MONOTHEISM.  And, you need an ALL POWERFUL, ALL KNOWING, CREATING, MONOTHEIST GOD. 


And no Buddhist anywhere would ever agree to that-because there is nothing anywhere in Buddhism to afford agreement to that.



So frankly... I've never followed why you act like atheism matters in the first place.  While I don't think you'll even make it past atheism.... you have so far to go for Buddhism to come close to backing up Bahai's ridiculous and incorrect claims about Buddhism...   You act as though this first step is the only one, when really it would have about 10 more after that.  Perhaps you plan to "cross that bridge when you come to it".

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Feb 07, 2012 - 8:34PM #8
Bob0
Posts: 485
The middle way isn't theist or atheist, nor is it not theist or atheist. Such speculation of the unconjecturable can lead to vexation. Questions such as these don't lead to unbinding, awakening, but  clinging to opinions on the unconjecturable leads to suffering. Further, continued posting on a board that encourages Buddhists and non-Buddhists to argue about Buddhism leads to the clinging of mental fabrications which produces suffering.


Wishing you all small tranquil days,

Bob
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Feb 07, 2012 - 8:38PM #9
Bob_the_Lunatic
Posts: 3,458

Feb 7, 2012 -- 8:03PM, Aka_me wrote:


how does it matter?


if it is atheist, then what? or if it's not atheist, what difference would it be?


what do you mean by atheist?






Also-it matters because a few people come in here babbling about "God" in Buddhism-when they have nothing to do with each other.



And you KNOW what he means by "atheism".  Your definition above is correct-you simply misinterpret it on purpose to fit your agenda:  It refers to soft atheism (Rejecting belief in god/s) and hard atheism (Specifically stating that god/s does/do not exist).


But both fall under my simple definition, you know, the definition of atheism:


WITHOUT BELIEF IN GOD/S. 


you cannot believe in even ONE god and be atheist, because once you believe in one, you are WITH a belief in a god.  And to my knowledge, you are the only one that defines monotheists as "atheist" because they reject other gods-by YOUR definition, everyone on the planet and in history is an atheist.  Once again-you've twisted something to fit your worldview and all the bahais on bnet also disagreed with you

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Feb 07, 2012 - 10:13PM #10
Aka_me
Posts: 12,297

take any definition of atheism you like, and then put it together with


point 1


Buddhism defines devas and devas qualify as deities



point 2


In many ways they are similar to the ancient Olympian gods of Greece or the Aesir of Teutonic myths.


Nichiren also frequently addressed prayers to the gods and encouraged his followers to do so as well, but always in the context of an overarching faith in the Lotus Sutra.



to see if any substance can be produced addressing EITHER of these points.

The UN says the ebola outbreak must be controlled within 60 days or else the world faces an "unprecedented" situation for which there is no plan.
this is absolutely fantastic as it unites the world into being OUR problem rather than THEIR problem.
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 1 of 13  •  1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 13 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook