happy or athiest

[sangha]

What is difficult to understand? You thought it was important enough earlier to present a multi paragraph explanation about how you had religious experiences as a child and finally understood them as an adult. But you didn't go into any detail and instead just stated that you had them.

What experiences did you have such that you deem it necessary to call them "religious"?



That is why I am asking.



Then why are they "religious experiences" as opposed to just "experiences"? What makes them religious?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religous_experience

A religious experience is most commonly known as an occurrence that is uncommon in the sense that it doesn’t fit in with the norm of everyday activities and life experiences, and its connection is with the individual’s perception of the divine. Studying religious experience objectively is a difficult task, as it is entirely a subjective phenomenon. However, commonalities and differences between religious experiences have enabled scholars to categorize them for academic study [1]

Many religious and mystical traditions see religious experiences as real encounters with God or gods, or real contact with other realities,[2] while some hold that religious experience is an evolved feature of the human brain amenable to normal scientific study.

wrt the last sentence, I am in the latter group. IOW, "religious experience" is a figure of speech. It does not necesarily mean that the experience was religious, by definition. It means I had an experience that is often described as a "religious experience"

Empirical research - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The term empirical was originally used to refer to certain ancient Greek practitioners of medicine who rejected adherence to the dogmatic doctrines of the day, preferring instead to rely on the observation of phenomena as perceived in experience. Later empiricism referred to a theory of knowledge in philosophy which adheres to the principle that knowledge arises from experience and evidence gathered specifically using the senses. In scientific use the term empirical refers to the gathering of data using only evidence that is observable by the senses or in some cases using calibrated scientific instruments. What early philosophers described as empiricist and empirical research have in common is the dependence on observable data to formulate and test theories and come to conclusions.



...

Among scientific researchers, empirical evidence (as distinct from empirical research) refers to objective evidence that appears the same regardless of the observer. For example, a thermometer will not display different temperatures for each individual who observes it. Temperature, as measured by an accurate, well calibrated thermometer, is empirical evidence. By contrast, non-empirical evidence is subjective, depending on the observer. Following the previous example, observer A might truthfully report that a room is warm, while observer B might truthfully report that the same room is cool, though both observe the same reading on the thermometer. The use of empirical evidence negates this effect of personal (i.e., subjective) experience.

We were talking about empirical data, not empircal research. Please don't switch terms in and out. Here is the definition of empirical, using the same source you used

The word empirical denotes information gained by means of observation or experiments.[1] Empirical data is data produced by an experiment or observation.

So as you can see, my observations are empirical data.

Ideally, empirical research yields empirical evidence, which can then be analyzed for statistical significance or reported in its raw form.

You are arguing that because empirial research yields empirical evidence, if evidence comes from some other source, it is not empirical evidence. A logical fallacy.

When people talk of "empirical evidence" its almost always in the context of science. As in evidence that is reproducible and verifiable. I have NEVER heard or read anyone claim to have empirical evidence that no one else can reproduce or verify.

"Almost always"???

You do realize there's a difference between "always" and "almost always", dont you?

And even scientists are studying religious experiences.

Religious experience - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Whether or not you want to use the common definition or not doesn't matter. What matters is that when i say "empirical evidence" it means exactly what I have posted above. You need to go re-read what I wrote with that in mind.

And when you use the phrase "empirical evidence" you shouldn't rely on the definition of the phrase "empirical research". It's sophistic.

A Dictionary is a description of the current usage of language not a prescription of the proper use of language. That being said, if someone wishes to communicate an idea in a language, then that person should use words to mean what the recipients of the intended communication would think that those words mean. If a debater wishes to use meanings of words that are uncommon or even private, the debater must make it clear that he is using a non-standard version of those words. However, it is preferable to simply use the commonly accepted meaning of those words, Noam Chomsky notwithstanding.




Words are nothing more than symbols. They mean whatever one chooses them to. However, if the definitions of words are purely subjective, communication would be impossible. Thus, when having certain conversations, a consensus must be reached upon the precise definitions of certain words, specifically in religious debates. It's essential.

Word usage changes over time. Definitions are not fixed and unchanging. Dictionaries attempt to provide common use definitions for words. The modern dictionary is often prescriptive rather than descriptive, for it attempts to establish certain forms as preferable. In the long run, however, usage primarily determines the meanings of words in English, and the language is being changed and created every day.

I see. When I quote a definition, it doesn't prove anything. But when you quote a definition, it's the God's Honest Truth

As you admit, "it is preferable to simply use the commonly accepted meaning of those words" and dictionarys contain those "commonly accepted definitions of those words". Not only that, but dictionarys usually list the definitions in the order of common usage (ie the 1st def is the most common usage, the last def is the least common). If a word can has more than one "grammatical role" (ex words that can be both a verb or a noun, etc) then the dictionary breaks the defs down by those roles, and then lists the most common usage (as a verb, or noun, etc) followed by the next most common usage....

 

[sangha]

And the criticism still applies.


Granted, there are many varieties of love, and many words for them. But even granting that "God" is, say, a specific type of love, or an umbrella term encompassing all forms of love and friendship, this is hard to reconcile with the way the term "God" is used. It might make a certain amount of sense to worship love, or to hope that love will bring an end to war, but why would ask that love cure a loved one's disease? How can Jesus be love's son? How can love make prophecies? Love does not provide an eternal afterlife, nor does it demand praise.

SO is god agape (love) or is agape (love) expressed by god?

I have already addressed this argument. Using the beliefs and practices of others does nothing to refute MY beliefs.

If you don't pray to god, or believe god is an actual being whether an entity of some pantheistic notion then your beliefs make ZERO sense.

That is something YOU believe, without posting any proof or evidence to support it.

If god is just another name for love then just call it LOVE. We already have a name for love... its called love.

Please feel free to refer to God in whatever manner you prefer. Your belief that you can command me refer to God in a certain manner is fallacious.

You are the one flip flopping all over the place. First you claimed god is indescribable. Then you claim god is love. Now you claim god is a specific type of love. And now you claim god is not a personal god. Don't you find it odd that you continue to describe something you claim is indescribable?

I haven't described God. Saying that God is Love is not a description because Love is also indescribable.

That i stated that you failed to present a valid point is not claiming victory. There is no "winning". This isn't a high school debate where points are awarded.

Are you new to debate? Its not a bad thing but if you are then i will cut you a bit more slack.

In my experience, people often resort to personal attacks out of frustration.

Empirical research - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Empirical evidence - Among scientific researchers, empirical evidence (as distinct from empirical research) refers to objective evidence that appears the same regardless of the observer. For example, a thermometer will not display different temperatures for each individual who observes it. Temperature, as measured by an accurate, well calibrated thermometer, is empirical evidence. By contrast, non-empirical evidence is subjective, depending on the observer. Following the previous example, observer A might truthfully report that a room is warm, while observer B might truthfully report that the same room is cool, though both observe the same reading on the thermometer. The use of empirical evidence negates this effect of personal (i.e., subjective) experience.

Again, it is sophistic to use the definition of a phrase and present as a definition of another phrase. The def of "empirical evidence" allows for observations

You didn't answer the question: How do you reconcile competing religious claims with your own?

Already answered: I don't

You are a liar. No where in that paragraph did i say "reason (the cause) there's no evidence of Gods' existence is because he doesn't exist". No where in that paragraph did I make a fallacy. Here is what i wrote:

The evidence against the existence of PROPOSED gods is overwhelming. Every study, examination, and investigation comes up COMPLETELY empty-handed. Sometimes its discovered that its due to liars, cheats, and frauds. It appears that if gods really do exist, then they only do so in the minds of believers because they leave absolutely zero EVIDENCE in physical reality

And I didn't say I was quoting you. I was paraphrasing you.

And again, the refutation of other peoples' beliefs does nothing to refute my beliefs.

Here is something for you to learn:
1) state the logical fallacy
2) quote the person making the logical fallacy
3) explain how they are making the logical fallacy.

I just did that. I quoted you and explained that the refutation of other peoples' beliefs does nothing to refute my beliefs.

The question would be: why do you believe that god makes the wind blow?

I never said that I believe that.

We would lack both physical evidence and any reason to believe he does so in the first place.

That's what I said.

So are an infinite amount of other things that can be imagined or made-up or are proposed by other people. Just because you can THINK of an answer doesn't mean its REASONABLE to believe it IS the answer. This is basic critical thinking skills and you are failing MISERABLY.

I do not believe anything is an answer simply because I can think of it. I don't know why you would BELIEVE otherwise when you have no REASON to. Maybe you BELIEVE it simply because you can think it. :lol:

I have no idea what you believe because you won't be direct. You are evasive and dishonest.

I believe that God exists. I was very direct about that.

And I believe that many people resort to personal attacks out of frustration with their inability to make their point.

I've already demonstrated:
1) you don't understand what a fallacy is
2) you don't understand how fallacies apply.

Here is something for you to learn:
1) state the logical fallacy
2) quote the person making the logical fallacy
3) explain how they are making the logical fallacy.

You haven't done this. I have

I said the following:
Given that there is a clear pattern for people inventing all sorts of supernatural ideas to explain events and given that many of these events are later easily explained by natural causes, it stands to reason that gods are just the latest iteration in the same line of bad thinking that has persisted for ages.

Yes, you said that, but you haven't shown how the refutation of beliefs I do not hold can be used to refute the beliefs I do hold.

You just assert it as fact without proof, the same way some people assert that Gods existence is a fact.

I DID NOT say the following: Given that there is a clear pattern for people inventing all sorts of supernatural ideas to explain events and given that many of these events are later easily explained by natural causes, then gods do not and cannot possibly exist.

Do you understand the difference between:
1) presenting a conclusion based on evidence and reasoning
2) presenting a logical deduction or inference.

Maybe you should explain yourself then. And what does "it stands to reason" mean when you say it?

 

[Anarcho-fascist]

If you want to proven the universality of God's non-existence, yes it is.

If I don't, it isn't

And I have been very clear that my belief is individual and does not transcend beyond me. If you want to believe that God does not exist to you, you have no burden of proof. If you want to believe that God does not exist BEYOND you, the burden of proof is yours.

If I believe God does not exist I have the burden of proof. What do you mean "to me"? Every belief one holds is "to me". What does it mean to believe "God exists to me"? Does it mean "it is my opinion that God exists"? Does it mean "God is real in my mind but maybe not elsewhere"? Something else?

No. All you and scourge have done in this thread is present preconceived notions and demonstrate that your intent is to attack and ridicule. If you REALLY want to know about my beliefs, explain why you want to know and what you want to do with that information.

We've presented hypothetical examples that show it is possible e.g. to disprove a certain god. That example wasn't a preconceived notion it was a counterexample to an absolute claim. If that's not an example of what you are calling a preconceived notion then you will have to give me one. You ask the last sentence again later.

There is a difference between "begging" for explanations and looking for something to attack. The former is an open and interested presentation. The latter is not. I see that latter in this discussion.

I'm interested in what your beliefs are, but to me it seems like you only want to talk about them if they aren't challenged. I would prefer a discussion that is open to the possibility of apparent problems or inconsistencies being brought up, but barring that it would still be interesting.

True. Which is why I always demonstrate why the position is wrong.

I see times where you just say you have demonstrated a point instead of actually doing so. I usually prefer to restate my points. People may have missed the last time I explained it, or they may not remember it after participating in several wandering discussions. If I am unable to make my point understandable to a person who is trying to understand then I have not demonstrated my point to that person, and the whole point of demonstrating a point in a discussion is for another person to understand.

Also true, but then it is my choice to present them or not. If I look at this on a "pros and cons" list, the cons far outweigh the pros. I have no intention of presenting my beliefs to have them attacked, ridiculed, and insulted with words like "delusional". I will again ask you.. explain why you would want to know about my beliefs and what you plan on doing with that information.

I want to know about your beliefs because I am interested in them and the reasons behind them. What do you mean "what do I plan on doing with that information"? I'm some guy on the internet, what is the absolute worst I can possibly do? Go "hahahahaha thats sooo dumb, magic sky daddy ... your mother ... etc." or some other stupid insult? You're a mod, I have more to worry about than you do. I'm obviously not going to do anything like that. What I plan on doing with the information is try to understand a certain theist's belief, and possibly some of the thought processes behind it.

The problem is that scourge isn't asking for explanations. He's looking to attack and ridicule. That's ALL he does in these discussions. If he wanted to actually discuss this, he'd cease doing those things, cease trying to mix faith and logic which are separate entities, and ask question very different kinds of questions. But, truthfully, even if all these things happen, I doubt I would trust his motivations. And I would have serious reservations about yours, too.

It would be helpful if you would define what you mean by faith. Just because a belief isn't arrived at by logic doesn't mean logic cannot say anything about it. Even beliefs that aren't arrived at by strict logic usually have reasons behind them even if those reasons are just feelings.

You just contradicted yourself and proved my point. There is no such thing as absolute, unconditional proof. Therefore, it is possible that the emperor HAS clothes.

There is no such thing as absolute and unconditional proof. There is, however, such a thing as something being shown to be true or false beyond a reasonable doubt. It it theoretically possible that the emperor has clothes in the same way as it is possible that I am actually an intelligent zebra (or some other nonsense example). This doesn't mean one is unjustified in saying they know something to be true or false, and it doesn't mean all claims deserve serious consideration.

Saying someone is delusional for believing something, or someone's beliefs are delusional is an attack. Plain and simple. I will not accept that and when someone presents that as their position, THEY are shutting down debate/discussion by ridiculing and attacking. This is THEIR issue, not mine.

It isn't an attack on you personally. Is saying someone's believes something because of ignorance an "attack"? I will accept someone saying that one of my beliefs is delusional because I am interested in whether what I believe is true in reality. Saying a belief someone holds is delusional is not necessarily ridicule. How about instead of "delusional" I say "strong persistently held belief with no reason, that I have heard, to for the person holding the belief to think it might actually be true"?

Sure. Most theists avoid these threads like the plague because they know that you guys are just here to attack and ridicule and not to discuss things in any meaningful way. So, I don't get a lot of "likes" out of these threads, which makes me feel lonely.

I'm going to take this as you being tongue in cheek.

Logic is a concept where truth is found in concrete ways. Belief is a concept where truth is found in non-concrete ways. The process of each is completely different. You cannot use the process of one to discuss the other. This is why you cannot disprove belief with logic or science. They do not exist in the same arena.

A belief is something you think is true. Using logic is one way to get to a belief. Faith is not a reliable way of getting to truth. If you think faith is a reliable way of finding what is true, then please give your definition of faith.

When someone calls my propositions unintelligible they create the aura of non-discussion. That is precisely what you just did. Again, you consistently prove my point; you say you want discussion, but your behaviors demonstrate the opposite.

Why get hung up on any word that might have a negative connotation? I was quoting Thomas Jefferson to make the point that people can't really discuss something if they don't make themselves understood. What would you think if someone said something that was actually hostile?

Because, as I have said repeatedly, the discussion of belief is non-conducive to the process of logic. These are two distinct processes. You cannot assess my grammar if you do not speak my language.

A belief is an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists. Logic and reason are ways to find out whether something is true. Just because one comes to a belief without logic doesn't mean one can't use logic to examine that belief.

No, that has zero relevancy in this debate.

Why can't one use reason to examine a belief just because it was arrived at it without using reason?

Sure it is. If you can't prove it, why have it? Isn't that what you all believe?

Why have what?

And explain why I am the opposition.

Opposition: opponents, opposing side, other side, other team, opposers. Because we are responding in opposition to each other. The other side of a debate is an opposition.

People get what they give.

An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a patronizing response directed at the other person's motivations for a mildly abrasive and straightforward criticism of some vague assertions.

And before any religious person entertains that offer, you would need to present your reasoning for discussing their beliefs with you. Look around. The only people who post regularly in this sub-forum, who AREN'T one of you who like to attack and ridicule the religious are religious fundamentalists who like to attack and ridicule you. No one reasonable comes down here... except me at times. This sub-forum has become about as inviting to reasonable discussion as the ME Forum.

I'd be glad to discuss my beliefs with anyone who is interested. Most people don't like to have their beliefs challenged, and often take it personally when they are.

 

[Verthaine]

Stop being evasive. What non-concrete ways, exactly?

This is such a damn good question,I'll think ask it myself.
What non-concrete ways, exactly?

 

[sawyerloggingon]

I haven't read the rest of this thread, but it's pretty obvious that you know very little about atheism or its philosophies.

I had actually lost track of this thread, I assumed it had run its course and moved on to other things. Seems like it’s morphed into another subject altogether, does god exist? That wasn’t the original question about atheist being unhappy people. Your response though intrigues me, just what are atheist philosophies? I never thought of them having any besides god doesn’t exist and anyone who thinks he, she it does is stupid.

 

[Verthaine]

I had actually lost track of this thread, I assumed it had run its course and moved on to other things. Seems like it’s morphed into another subject altogether, does god exist? That wasn’t the original question about atheist being unhappy people. Your response though intrigues me, just what are atheist philosophies? I never thought of them having any besides god doesn’t exist and anyone who thinks he, she it does is stupid.

Buddhism can be considered somewhat of an atheistic philosophy.

 

[Paschendale]

I had actually lost track of this thread, I assumed it had run its course and moved on to other things. Seems like it’s morphed into another subject altogether, does god exist? That wasn’t the original question about atheist being unhappy people. Your response though intrigues me, just what are atheist philosophies? I never thought of them having any besides god doesn’t exist and anyone who thinks he, she it does is stupid.

Well, there's a greater emphasis on humanism, generally a focus on the scientific method, since it's an expression of human thought comprehending the mysteries of the universe. In terms of moral precepts, it presumes the triumph of the human spirit. We possess a mental ability otherwise unknown on this world, and so we have an obligation to use it to increase knowledge, and to improve ourselves. But because we are, in fact, just animals and a part of nature, we should have respect for it and treat it well. We are not here to have dominion over the world, but to exist in harmony with it. (No, I don't mean that atheism suggests environmentalism, but it does suggest that we do not own the world the way the creation story in Genesis does.)

Basically, humans are great not because of how we were created, but in what we can shape ourselves into. We are special because our actions are worthy of respect, not because some man in the sky proclaimed us to be so. To take a moment to criticize theism just a bit, atheism's humanist perspective is like an adult taking pride in his achievements, whereas theism's god-centered mentality seems more akin to a child screaming that he is special because his mommy told him so.

One major portion of atheist thought revolves around the finality of death. We only get one life, and it's rather short. So we must cherish every moment we can, and strive to make each day as good as we can, and to make the world as good a place as we can. No one else will do it for us. Our destiny is in our own hands. I consider that much more powerful motivation than the "heaven or hell" question.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

Buddhism can be considered somewhat of an atheistic philosophy.

It is without a deity.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

Well, there's a greater emphasis on humanism, generally a focus on the scientific method, since it's an expression of human thought comprehending the mysteries of the universe. In terms of moral precepts, it presumes the triumph of the human spirit. We possess a mental ability otherwise unknown on this world, and so we have an obligation to use it to increase knowledge, and to improve ourselves. But because we are, in fact, just animals and a part of nature, we should have respect for it and treat it well. We are not here to have dominion over the world, but to exist in harmony with it. (No, I don't mean that atheism suggests environmentalism, but it does suggest that we do not own the world the way the creation story in Genesis does.)

Basically, humans are great not because of how we were created, but in what we can shape ourselves into. We are special because our actions are worthy of respect, not because some man in the sky proclaimed us to be so. To take a moment to criticize theism just a bit, atheism's humanist perspective is like an adult taking pride in his achievements, whereas theism's god-centered mentality seems more akin to a child screaming that he is special because his mommy told him so.

One major portion of atheist thought revolves around the finality of death. We only get one life, and it's rather short. So we must cherish every moment we can, and strive to make each day as good as we can, and to make the world as good a place as we can. No one else will do it for us. Our destiny is in our own hands. I consider that much more powerful motivation than the "heaven or hell" question.

I disagree with all of this, there are no inherent beliefs to atheists. Atheism is a label without content, its like being a non-astrologer. It is what we call those who remain skeptical when faced with faith based theistic claims, that is all. Even if most atheists are humanists, pro-science, etc... There is no scripture or atheism rulebook, its just being without belief in a deity.

 

[Paschendale]

I disagree with all of this, there are no inherent beliefs to atheists. Atheism is a label without content, its like being a non-astrologer. It is what we call those who remain skeptical when faced with faith based theistic claims, that is all. Even if most atheists are humanists, pro-science, etc... There is no scripture or atheism rulebook, its just being without belief in a deity.

I didn't say inherent. I used the words emphasis, focus, suggests... Atheists' philosophies are certainly diverse, but they share some common elements.

 

[sangha]

Buddhism can be considered somewhat of an atheistic philosophy.

Buddhism is NON-theistic in that it does not require (but does allow) a belief in the existence of god(s)

 

[hallam]

Buddhism can be considered somewhat of an atheistic philosophy.

I'm not so sure. I think Americanized Buddhism can be non-theistic much like in America Yoga is just a type of exercise. But this is fake Buddhism. Traditional Buddhism however has a metaphysical endpoint and, because of this, it cannot be considered atheistic in any way.

 

[sangha]

I'm not so sure. I think Americanized Buddhism can be non-theistic much like in America Yoga is just a type of exercise. But this is fake Buddhism. Traditional Buddhism however has a metaphysical endpoint and, because of this, it cannot be considered atheistic in any way.

Buddhism does not require a belief in anythin metaphysical. There is nothing metaphysical about The Four Noble Truths and The Eightfold Path to Enlightenment

 

[Verthaine]

I'm not so sure. I think Americanized Buddhism can be non-theistic much like in America Yoga is just a type of exercise. But this is fake Buddhism. Traditional Buddhism however has a metaphysical endpoint and, because of this, it cannot be considered atheistic in any way.

There is no such thing as "fake Buddhism" only different interpretations of the teachings of the Awakened One.
Buddha was never dogmatic in his teaching.
Buddha always challenged his followers to challenge (and expand) on his teachings.
While certain forms of traditional Buddhism may have a "metaphysical endpoint" to them most forms of Buddhism (and Taoism for that matter) do not have an absolute "Creator".
Buddha and the Taoist Sages left it up to the individual practitioners to decide whether or not they themselves needed a deity.

That is why I deliberately wrote "Buddhism can be considered somewhat of an atheistic philosophy."

 

[sangha]

There is no such thing as "fake Buddhism" only different interpretations of the teachings of the Awakened One.
Buddha was never dogmatic in his teaching.
Buddha always challenged his followers to challenge (and expand) on his teachings.
While certain forms of traditional Buddhism may have a "metaphysical endpoint" to them most forms of Buddhism (and Taoism for that matter) do not have an absolute "Creator".
Buddha and the Taoist Sages left it up to the individual practitioners to decide whether or not they themselves needed a deity.

That is why I deliberately wrote "Buddhism can be considered somewhat of an atheistic philosophy."

Change "atheistic" with "non-theistic" and you'd be spot on, IMO

 

[Verthaine]

Change "atheistic" with "non-theistic" and you'd be spot on, IMO

Fair enough.

 

[hallam]

There is no such thing as "fake Buddhism" only different interpretations of the teachings of the Awakened One.
Buddha was never dogmatic in his teaching.
Buddha always challenged his followers to challenge (and expand) on his teachings.
While certain forms of traditional Buddhism may have a "metaphysical endpoint" to them most forms of Buddhism (and Taoism for that matter) do not have an absolute "Creator".
Buddha and the Taoist Sages left it up to the individual practitioners to decide whether or not they themselves needed a deity.

That is why I deliberately wrote "Buddhism can be considered somewhat of an atheistic philosophy."

This is what I mean by fake Buddhism. Its close but Western society updates the actual teachings to just be a philosophy. Most Buddhas' did not have dogmatic teachings and did challenge follow to grow and think. Also, the Buddhas' never taught of a absolute creator that I know of.

The Buddhas' did not however leave the teachings up to their individual practitioners to create any idea that the practitioners wanted. There were always a solid, coherent messages to give and to follow. One of these messages was usually that suffering could be conquered through the losing of one's "self." The purpose has always been to get to nothingness but that nothingness is always a metaphysical state taking Buddhism out of atheism completely. Buddhism does require metaphysical thinking unless we are not talking about the the main branches here.

I know nothing of Taoism so I do not speak to it.

 

[Spensierato]

There's absolutely no meaningful connection between happiness/religiousness and unhappiness/irreligiousness.

 

[sangha]

This is what I mean by fake Buddhism. Its close but Western society updates the actual teachings to just be a philosophy. Most Buddhas' did not have dogmatic teachings and did challenge follow to grow and think. Also, the Buddhas' never taught of a absolute creator that I know of.

Umm, I didn't know that His Holiness, the Dalai Lama, was "Western society"

The Buddhas' did not however leave the teachings up to their individual practitioners to create any idea that the practitioners wanted. There were always a solid, coherent messages to give and to follow. One of these messages was usually that suffering could be conquered through the losing of one's "self." The purpose has always been to get to nothingness but that nothingness is always a metaphysical state taking Buddhism out of atheism completely. Buddhism does require metaphysical thinking unless we are not talking about the the main branches here.

Absolutely untrue. Buddhism says that everyone should decide for themselves what is true and what is not, and does not limit this to approved Buddhist teachings. Saying "believe what you wish" is not a "solid, coherent" message. And "nothingness" is the aim of Buddhism, nor is it the only way to achieve enlightenment. Detachment is also promoted by some sects, etc....and Buddhism does not require metaphysical thinking or beliefs. All that is required is the Four Noble Truths, and the Eightfold Path. Neither of those are metaphysical

 

[Brady]

Very happy atheist here! You can be religious and happy too of course....There are many things in life that give fulfillment and happiness other than religious beliefs. Just my honest opinion!

 

[hallam]

Umm, I didn't know that His Holiness, the Dalai Lama, was "Western society"

His Holiness, although a great teacher, is not a Buddha. And considering he is the leader of 20 million out of 360, i think this is the problem I am talking about. People study Buddhism, kind of. The Schools of Mahayana and Theravada combine for 320 million and both have metaphysical properties.

Absolutely untrue. Buddhism says that everyone should decide for themselves what is true and what is not, and does not limit this to approved Buddhist teachings. Saying "believe what you wish" is not a "solid, coherent" message. And "nothingness" is the aim of Buddhism, nor is it the only way to achieve enlightenment. Detachment is also promoted by some sects, etc....and Buddhism does not require metaphysical thinking or beliefs. All that is required is the Four Noble Truths, and the Eightfold Path. Neither of those are metaphysical

The Buddhas' did say that everyone should decide for themselves what is true and what is not. The Buddhas' never say: this is it, stop, do not go further. They are not dogmatic and I have never said that they were. But to say that their messages weren't solid and coherent is, IMO, a mis-characterization of the religion. They clearly said this is how I grew; here are my teachings; you can do this too. Nothingness and detachment are the same thing here to end personal suffering gained through life whether that is one or many. The Four Noble Truths and by extension the Eightfold Path to this goal are both metaphysical in nature. To an atheists, there is nothing after death and therefore cannot escape suffering which is what my original statement was commenting on. Mind you if all you are doing is the 8th path outside of its goals within the 4 truths then, yes, you are correct; there is nothing metaphysical about it because it is a guide of actions. However, freedom of suffering either through enlightenment and through detachment or nothingness are metaphysical statements. So yes these teachings very much do need metaphysical thinking.

I am not entirely sure what you mean by non-theistic. If you mean not traditionally Western Religion then I would agree with you.

 

[scourge99]

To an atheists, there is nothing after death

atheism only deals with disbelief in gods. Because an afterlife is not contingent upon a god then there is no reason why atheists can believe in an afterlife.

 

[liblady]

atheism only deals with disbelief in gods. Because an afterlife is not contingent upon a god then there is no reason why atheists can believe in an afterlife.

isn't atheism supposed to be based on fact? you know, no proof there is a god? well, as far as i know, there's no proof of an afterlife, either. kinda silly if atheists believed in it.

 

[sangha]

His Holiness, although a great teacher, is not a Buddha. And considering he is the leader of 20 million out of 360, i think this is the problem I am talking about. People study Buddhism, kind of. The Schools of Mahayana and Theravada combine for 320 million and both have metaphysical properties.

I was responding to a post of yours that reffered to "western society". It said nothing about the Buddha. And while some schools of Buddhism do require a belief in the supernatural, some do not. Therefore, the claim that Buddhism requires a belief in the supernatural is demonstrably false.

The Buddhas' did say that everyone should decide for themselves what is true and what is not. The Buddhas' never say: this is it, stop, do not go further. They are not dogmatic and I have never said that they were. But to say that their messages weren't solid and coherent is, IMO, a mis-characterization of the religion. They clearly said this is how I grew; here are my teachings; you can do this too. Nothingness and detachment are the same thing here to end personal suffering gained through life whether that is one or many. The Four Noble Truths and by extension the Eightfold Path to this goal are both metaphysical in nature. To an atheists, there is nothing after death and therefore cannot escape suffering which is what my original statement was commenting on. Mind you if all you are doing is the 8th path outside of its goals within the 4 truths then, yes, you are correct; there is nothing metaphysical about it because it is a guide of actions. However, freedom of suffering either through enlightenment and through detachment or nothingness are metaphysical statements. So yes these teachings very much do need metaphysical thinking.

I disagreed with just about everything you say here

I am not entirely sure what you mean by non-theistic. If you mean not traditionally Western Religion then I would agree with you.

It means, "does not require a belief in a supernatural deity"

 

[scourge99]

isn't atheism supposed to be based on fact? you know, no proof there is a god? well, as far as i know, there's no proof of an afterlife, either. kinda silly if atheists believed in it.

atheism is the antithesis of theism. it only deals with a belief/disbelief in gods just like theism.

just because you dont believe in a god doesn't mean your worldview is based on fact or critical thinking or evidence. same with theists.

there is no atheist worldview just as there is no single theistic worldview.