Misconceptions of Religion and Philosophical Ideologies

Avatar image for foxhound_fox
foxhound_fox

98532

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 13

User Lists: 0

#1 foxhound_fox
Member since 2005 • 98532 Posts
Its been a while since there has been some substantial activity in TAU, so I wanted to put together another thread. This time however, I would like to make a thread that is more of a means of everyone contributing, and not just me spewing out 10,000 words of stuff most people don't read (or don't understand). From being around most of you guys here in the union, I've noticed everyone has a particular religion or religions that they have done research on, or know something about, and could possibly be considered somewhat of an authority on them.

Which brings me to the focus of the thread. The format I am envisioning here is where a poster takes their knowledge about a particular religion (or spends the time to investigate a new one), confronts some misconceptions about a particular idea or concept in the religion (i.e. Buddhism is seen by many Westerners as nihilistic), or a confusing piece of doctrine that the poster can elucidate for the rest of us (i.e. what exactly does the phrase "Kingdom of Heaven" represent?), and tries to best represent the interests of a reasonable and critical approach to that religion, without falling into a trap of misunderstanding.

I know Gabu is exceptionally well-versed in Christian doctrine, dracula has a background in Sikhism and Mormonism, Gambler and Spinoraptor are very knowledgeable of Islam... and I know everyone else here has some background (we are all part of this union for a reason), I just can't remember everyone. :P

--

With that said, I'm pretty sure it would be obvious that I will be tackling Buddhism. A tradition in particular that is highly misconceived in the West, since it is so popular with the counter-culture movement, and hardly anyone ever goes beyond learning the Four Noble Truths and Eightfold Path... and never delve into the complex epistemological systems that came about well after the Buddha's death, that explain far more than anything the Pali Canon can cover (Buddhism is commonly seen from inside as an ever-evolving tradition, that grows better the more commentary that is added to it, and it doesn't rely on original texts as gospel, anything that is "well said" is considered a good source of information).

--

Also, the point here is not to prove the religion "right." What I want to do is present the religion I am covering in a way that best represents the actual tradition itself, so that as critical thinkers, we can have a better means of understanding where people who believe these things come from, and why they uphold them so highly even when presented with evidence to the contrary.

However, one thing I can see happening is the desire to use this as a means playing down the beliefs. I am more interested in seeing why these people believe the things they do, not whether or not they are true. I want to understand the reasoning from the tradition's side as to why these things are described as they are, and I am not necessarily much interested in literal interpretations (unless explicitly taken in the tradition as literal and not figurative).
Avatar image for foxhound_fox
foxhound_fox

98532

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 13

User Lists: 0

#2 foxhound_fox
Member since 2005 • 98532 Posts
1. Buddhism is a "philosophy" or "way of life" and not a "religion."

There are five major elements that make something a "religion."

1) an established dogma, a set of moral guidelines and rules regarding behaviour and conduct
2) a set of beliefs regarding the philosophical "meaning of life" and the origin and nature of the universe
3) an organized monastic community
4) a set of ritual practices performed by both the monastic community and laity
5) a copious textual justification for these beliefs, that are attributed to a single (usually mythological) source.

I tend to see people say that Buddhism isn't a "religion" and have a hard time understanding why this needs to be the case. Does it make the tradition "more true" if it doesn't justify itself with supernatural claims? There are many elements in Buddhism that are supernatural (hell realms, ghosts, devas (gods) and buddhas/bodhisattvas with supernatural powers of flight or transference of consciousness, etc.) and integrated directly into its main dogma and teachings.

Though, as the Buddha has been quoted, these elements aren't necessary for an understanding of the universe and existence; one must investigate for themselves and come to a complete understanding on their own, not just accept what they have been told by others. Which is probably where this idea originally came from, but was just muddled along the way. For many people, especially in Buddhist countries, Buddhism is most definitely a religion like Christianity is to Westerners. It drives their lives, and most don't even care about the philosophy, but the comfort they get from faith in the Buddha.

2. Buddhism is "atheistic."

I love this one, because I used to believe it for the longest time as well. The Buddha's position on the supernatural is ultimately agnostic. He does not claim to know whether there are gods or not, or whether there is ultimately "life after death."

He is famously quoted in many sutras as remaining completely silent when asked these sorts of questions, which irritates the people questioning him (a famous one is a discourse with a brahmin priest). He often responds that what is important is the realization of the truth (that is, nirvana; which is construed as understanding the essential nature of existence) in this life, and not relying on rebirth or the hope of rebirth for attainment of liberation.

Of course, this concept changes over time, and many sects (especially Pure Land Buddhism) focus themselves around rebirth bringing liberation, because it is no longer attainable here (because of the impurity of this world). Though, despite this working for some people, I personally disagree with it, as I have come to understand the Buddha's emphasis on enlightenment in this life, and the uncertainty of time of death creating a sense of urgency.

3. Buddhism is "nihilistic."

I fell for this one too back when I first got into the scholarly tradition. The concept of "shunyata" (emptiness, voidness, suchness, etc.; something that doesn't have a direct parallel in English and requires a lot of reading of sutra and commentary to even to begin to understand, I will address this concept in another post devoted to trying to elucidate it) is the main cause of this.

Early in Buddhist history, the texts hinted at the idea of it (anatman, or "no-self), but never really tackled it until the time of Nagarjuna in the 1st-2nd century C.E and the advent of mainstream Mahayana Buddhism. The common, Western interpretation sees it as akin to Nietzscheian nihilism, a *complete* emptiness of existence. Which of course, if one were to actually read the texts associated with this massive tradition (other than Theravada Buddhism, the kind extant in Sri Lanka, Burma, Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam, *all* sects base their main epistemology around this concept), would know this to be incorrect.

Now, like I said, I will need an entire post dedicated to the explanation of this concept, and I must warn everyone, it is something I have only recently come to understand to the slightest degree, and will have trouble explaining clearly. On top of that, there is no philosophical parallel in Western philosophy to shunyata, so one must be experienced with the tradition itself in order to begin to comprehend it; which of course is exactly why people so easily misinterpret it.

See post entitled "Shunyata" for further explanation.

4. Misconceptions regarding "nirvana" or enlightenment.

This is directly related to the concept of shunyata, and is so incredibly misunderstood (myself even didn't come to understand its actual meaning until getting back into Buddhism this past October) that even some monastics within the tradition misrepresent it, even historical writers and commentators.

To fully explain this misconception, I would require days or weeks of research, mountains of textual sources and a clear, concise thesis and explanation. This however, would be impossible for me to tackle right now, nor do I have the motivation to write a Masters thesis on nirvana (as great as it probably would be an experience).

So... I will try and Cliff Notes' it.

Nirvana in Buddhism is "liberation" from "samsara," the cyclic existence of death and rebirth that every being in the universe faces due to misconceiving why they exist. It is translated literally as "blowing out," such as a fire being extinguished. It is derived from the "Four Noble Truths" in that existence is suffering, what leads to suffering is craving and attachment (trying to find something permanent to grasp onto) and the solution to this suffering is nirvana, to realize that nothing is permanent, nothing can be held onto eternally, and one must accept their mortality if they are ever to find peace in this life.

This "blowing out" is commonly seen as "becoming non-existent." However, this being the misconception, the actual thing happening here is an alteration of mindset within the person who has attained nirvana (or in later Buddhism, understood shunyata). People who understand have reached an equanimity with existence, and realize that both nirvana and samsara are one in the same thing, the duality and conceptualization separating them in our minds is what brings about suffering. When we let go of our attachments to conceptually, we let go of our attachments to everything, and cease to suffer.

With that said, I must emphasize, that letting go of attachment does not mean renouncing contact with those stimuli. The key to the Buddhist goal is once someone has attained this realization, they become overwhelmed with absolute compassion for everything, and must by nature help others through their suffering into this realization as well (although, being of the Mahayana camp myself, the helping others thing stems from that, but it does present itself in a subtle way in the Hinayana texts as well).

--

That is all I have for right now. I need some more time to look around and see if I can dig up some more misconceptions regarding Buddhism, and also need some more time to contemplate how I am going to tackle putting together a post on shunyata.
Avatar image for GabuEx
GabuEx

36552

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 27

User Lists: 0

#3 GabuEx
Member since 2006 • 36552 Posts

Awesome thread idea!  I like it a lot.

...That said, I'm not really sure if there's much with which I can contribute, considering that anything I could say is pretty much just my take on the matter, with which one could easily disagree.  Not terribly authoritative. :P

Avatar image for Gambler_3
Gambler_3

7736

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: -4

User Lists: 0

#4 Gambler_3
Member since 2009 • 7736 Posts

Awesome thread idea!  I like it a lot.

...That said, I'm not really sure if there's much with which I can contribute, considering that anything I could say is pretty much just my take on the matter, with which one could easily disagree.  Not terribly authoritative. :P

GabuEx
That is a problem since it will inevitably turn into a "you have a misconception about the misconceptions of religion" "you yourself have a misconception about XYZ and you are out to clear em for the masses??" kinda discussions.:P
Avatar image for Gambler_3
Gambler_3

7736

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: -4

User Lists: 0

#6 Gambler_3
Member since 2009 • 7736 Posts

Apparently as a Mormon, I have less knowledge of Mormonism than anti-Mormons.

Android339
And why cant an anti-mormon have more knowledge than you?:|
Avatar image for GabuEx
GabuEx

36552

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 27

User Lists: 0

#7 GabuEx
Member since 2006 • 36552 Posts
[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

Awesome thread idea!  I like it a lot.

...That said, I'm not really sure if there's much with which I can contribute, considering that anything I could say is pretty much just my take on the matter, with which one could easily disagree.  Not terribly authoritative. :P

Gambler_3

That is a problem since it will inevitably turn into a "you have a misconception about the misconceptions of religion" "you yourself have a misconception about XYZ and you are out to clear em for the masses??" kinda discussions.:P

Pretty much; I'm just imagining what blackregiment, bless his heart, would have to say about the "misconceptions" I'd touch on.

Avatar image for RationalAtheist
RationalAtheist

4428

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#8 RationalAtheist
Member since 2007 • 4428 Posts

Personally, I've been doing a fair bit of recent research on Mormonism (including procuring some of their older texts). But my research on religion only creates more seeming misconceptions and areas of conflict than I had when I started investigating the particular faith I was interested in.

I've found some of the "misconceptions" about religions are actually valid conceptions of those religions, but are based on differing interpretations, additions or deletions from the same doctrine. The inductive basis for the different conceptions is more interesting to me than the corruptions themselves, since it reveals the true nature of the beliefs.

I'm also not convinced that a natural environment of debate still exists in these here unions. Its clear to me that the evangelists and creationists have mostly moved away (judging by the post count on the CWU and BBU), while Muslims generally don't like to see their religion criticised, so will generally avoid debate with infidels on the same scale as Christian fundamentalists used to. Perhaps its because the site has decreased in popularity a bit in the last few years, or maybe its because we've also been spreading our own particular propaganda well.

I never thought of Buddhism as nihilist belief until you mentioned it. I think I could come up with a "valid" set of "justifications" to choose Scientology over any other faith (I have done some research). But I don't know what distortions (or conceptions) people might have about Scientology that would repel them from it. Although this sounds fun as an intellectual exercise, I think posting uncritical statements about religions on a video game website with a large junior readership could end in tears. In fact, that's the only reason why I do post here as a rational responder to religious apologetics discussions.

Asides, I think there are plenty of debates still to be had in this union; its just that those with the "interesting" views aren't prepared freely discuss them here at present. 

 

Avatar image for foxhound_fox
foxhound_fox

98532

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 13

User Lists: 0

#10 foxhound_fox
Member since 2005 • 98532 Posts
...That said, I'm not really sure if there's much with which I can contribute, considering that anything I could say is pretty much just my take on the matter, with which one could easily disagree. Not terribly authoritative. :PGabuEx

Meh, most of my knowledge of Buddhism is coloured by my perceptions of the ideas and concepts anyways, so when reading my info, you're not getting a direct/literal translation of what I've read, but an interpretive one. I personally feel that interpretive ideas are far better than literal ones. It makes you think more than just reading things verbatim.

That said, I know you're knowledge about Christianity, and the translations of the original scripture would lead to an interesting discourse on modern interpretations of the old texts. I know we've touched on it several times already in discussions.
Avatar image for RationalAtheist
RationalAtheist

4428

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#11 RationalAtheist
Member since 2007 • 4428 Posts

They certainly have the ability to, but when it comes to a point of doctrine where they have it flat out wrong, they won't recognize it as an error even if I bring up how it's inaccurate. It's their unwillingness to recognize that Mormons who are still Mormons might actually know what they're talking about in regards to their own religion that frustrates me.

Android339

Are you referring to this union?

People get unwilling to recognise "errors" when the "explanations" given to them are not justified by rational, emotional, or other means.

 

 

Avatar image for GabuEx
GabuEx

36552

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 27

User Lists: 0

#12 GabuEx
Member since 2006 • 36552 Posts

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]...That said, I'm not really sure if there's much with which I can contribute, considering that anything I could say is pretty much just my take on the matter, with which one could easily disagree. Not terribly authoritative. :Pfoxhound_fox

Meh, most of my knowledge of Buddhism is coloured by my perceptions of the ideas and concepts anyways, so when reading my info, you're not getting a direct/literal translation of what I've read, but an interpretive one. I personally feel that interpretive ideas are far better than literal ones. It makes you think more than just reading things verbatim.

That said, I know you're knowledge about Christianity, and the translations of the original scripture would lead to an interesting discourse on modern interpretations of the old texts. I know we've touched on it several times already in discussions.

Well, I might write something up even as I know that people will attack it saying "no, those are actually true". :P  Will think about it and maybe have something up later today.

Avatar image for kayoticdreamz
kayoticdreamz

3347

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#13 kayoticdreamz
Member since 2010 • 3347 Posts
[QUOTE="Gambler_3"][QUOTE="Android339"]

Apparently as a Mormon, I have less knowledge of Mormonism than anti-Mormons.

Android339

And why cant an anti-mormon have more knowledge than you?:|

They certainly have the ability to, but when it comes to a point of doctrine where they have it flat out wrong, they won't recognize it as an error even if I bring up how it's inaccurate. It's their unwillingness to recognize that Mormons who are still Mormons might actually know what they're talking about in regards to their own religion that frustrates me.

this though it appears to be a common trait all athiests seem to have about all religions most seem to think they have every religion somehow figured out and the people that practice said religions always irregardless of if youve been a member of said religion for 50 years you still know less.

 

this often makes any debate with a religious folk and an athiest pointless. cause at best it seems the religion folk might come to some understanding of the other point of view but the athiest seems to rarely ever admit to being wrong. at least this is how i have come to understand it. and i dont think ive found an exception to this rule just yet but i do beleive there is always at least one exception to every rule including theres always an exception to the rule. ive found this logic has yet to fail me. 

Avatar image for RationalAtheist
RationalAtheist

4428

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#14 RationalAtheist
Member since 2007 • 4428 Posts
[QUOTE="Android339"][QUOTE="Gambler_3"][QUOTE="Android339"]

Apparently as a Mormon, I have less knowledge of Mormonism than anti-Mormons.

kayoticdreamz

And why cant an anti-mormon have more knowledge than you?:|

They certainly have the ability to, but when it comes to a point of doctrine where they have it flat out wrong, they won't recognize it as an error even if I bring up how it's inaccurate. It's their unwillingness to recognize that Mormons who are still Mormons might actually know what they're talking about in regards to their own religion that frustrates me.

this though it appears to be a common trait all athiests seem to have about all religions most seem to think they have every religion somehow figured out and the people that practice said religions always irregardless of if youve been a member of said religion for 50 years you still know less.

 

this often makes any debate with a religious folk and an athiest pointless. cause at best it seems the religion folk might come to some understanding of the other point of view but the athiest seems to rarely ever admit to being wrong. at least this is how i have come to understand it. and i dont think ive found an exception to this rule just yet but i do beleive there is always at least one exception to every rule including theres always an exception to the rule. ive found this logic has yet to fail me. 

I completely understand your point of view, but disagree entirely. 

Avatar image for kayoticdreamz
kayoticdreamz

3347

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#15 kayoticdreamz
Member since 2010 • 3347 Posts
[QUOTE="kayoticdreamz"][QUOTE="Android339"][QUOTE="Gambler_3"][QUOTE="Android339"]

Apparently as a Mormon, I have less knowledge of Mormonism than anti-Mormons.

RationalAtheist

And why cant an anti-mormon have more knowledge than you?:|

They certainly have the ability to, but when it comes to a point of doctrine where they have it flat out wrong, they won't recognize it as an error even if I bring up how it's inaccurate. It's their unwillingness to recognize that Mormons who are still Mormons might actually know what they're talking about in regards to their own religion that frustrates me.

this though it appears to be a common trait all athiests seem to have about all religions most seem to think they have every religion somehow figured out and the people that practice said religions always irregardless of if youve been a member of said religion for 50 years you still know less.

 

this often makes any debate with a religious folk and an athiest pointless. cause at best it seems the religion folk might come to some understanding of the other point of view but the athiest seems to rarely ever admit to being wrong. at least this is how i have come to understand it. and i dont think ive found an exception to this rule just yet but i do beleive there is always at least one exception to every rule including theres always an exception to the rule. ive found this logic has yet to fail me. 

I completely understand your point of view, but disagree entirely. 

i figured you might but do some people watching and debating with folks youll like see my trend i pointed is fairly accurate. heck at the very least you can see its accurate on gamespot but in real life too. 

Avatar image for RationalAtheist
RationalAtheist

4428

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#16 RationalAtheist
Member since 2007 • 4428 Posts

i figured you might but do some people watching and debating with folks youll like see my trend i pointed is fairly accurate. heck at the very least you can see its accurate on gamespot but in real life too. 

kayoticdreamz

No, I don't think it is.  I think you are making general statements with no supporting evidence, while attempting to discredit the supporters of a philosophical view.

It doesn't matter how many people think something - it matters why they think it. 

Avatar image for Gambler_3
Gambler_3

7736

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: -4

User Lists: 0

#17 Gambler_3
Member since 2009 • 7736 Posts

2. Buddhism is "atheistic."

I love this one, because I used to believe it for the longest time as well. The Buddha's position on the supernatural is ultimately agnostic. He does not claim to know whether there are gods or not, or whether there is ultimately "life after death."

He is famously quoted in many sutras as remaining completely silent when asked these sorts of questions, which irritates the people questioning him (a famous one is a discourse with a brahmin priest). He often responds that what is important is the realization of the truth (that is, nirvana; which is construed as understanding the essential nature of existence) in this life, and not relying on rebirth or the hope of rebirth for attainment of liberation.

Of course, this concept changes over time, and many sects (especially Pure Land Buddhism) focus themselves around rebirth bringing liberation, because it is no longer attainable here (because of the impurity of this world). Though, despite this working for some people, I personally disagree with it, as I have come to understand the Buddha's emphasis on enlightenment in this life, and the uncertainty of time of death creating a sense of urgency.

foxhound_fox
Ah absence of belief is atheistic....
Avatar image for ghoklebutter
ghoklebutter

19327

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#18 ghoklebutter
Member since 2007 • 19327 Posts

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"]
2. Buddhism is "atheistic."

I love this one, because I used to believe it for the longest time as well. The Buddha's position on the supernatural is ultimately agnostic. He does not claim to know whether there are gods or not, or whether there is ultimately "life after death."

He is famously quoted in many sutras as remaining completely silent when asked these sorts of questions, which irritates the people questioning him (a famous one is a discourse with a brahmin priest). He often responds that what is important is the realization of the truth (that is, nirvana; which is construed as understanding the essential nature of existence) in this life, and not relying on rebirth or the hope of rebirth for attainment of liberation.

Of course, this concept changes over time, and many sects (especially Pure Land Buddhism) focus themselves around rebirth bringing liberation, because it is no longer attainable here (because of the impurity of this world). Though, despite this working for some people, I personally disagree with it, as I have come to understand the Buddha's emphasis on enlightenment in this life, and the uncertainty of time of death creating a sense of urgency.

Gambler_3
Ah absence of belief is atheistic....

It depends what you mean by "belief". 

Avatar image for Gambler_3
Gambler_3

7736

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: -4

User Lists: 0

#19 Gambler_3
Member since 2009 • 7736 Posts

[QUOTE="Gambler_3"][QUOTE="foxhound_fox"]
2. Buddhism is "atheistic."

I love this one, because I used to believe it for the longest time as well. The Buddha's position on the supernatural is ultimately agnostic. He does not claim to know whether there are gods or not, or whether there is ultimately "life after death."

He is famously quoted in many sutras as remaining completely silent when asked these sorts of questions, which irritates the people questioning him (a famous one is a discourse with a brahmin priest). He often responds that what is important is the realization of the truth (that is, nirvana; which is construed as understanding the essential nature of existence) in this life, and not relying on rebirth or the hope of rebirth for attainment of liberation.

Of course, this concept changes over time, and many sects (especially Pure Land Buddhism) focus themselves around rebirth bringing liberation, because it is no longer attainable here (because of the impurity of this world). Though, despite this working for some people, I personally disagree with it, as I have come to understand the Buddha's emphasis on enlightenment in this life, and the uncertainty of time of death creating a sense of urgency.

ghoklebutter

Ah absence of belief is atheistic....

It depends what you mean by "belief". 

Belief isnt some really vague word or somethin so I dont know what you mean.:?

But regardless buddhism is atheistic...... 

Avatar image for GabuEx
GabuEx

36552

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 27

User Lists: 0

#20 GabuEx
Member since 2006 • 36552 Posts
[QUOTE="ghoklebutter"]

[QUOTE="Gambler_3"][QUOTE="foxhound_fox"]
2. Buddhism is "atheistic."

I love this one, because I used to believe it for the longest time as well. The Buddha's position on the supernatural is ultimately agnostic. He does not claim to know whether there are gods or not, or whether there is ultimately "life after death."

He is famously quoted in many sutras as remaining completely silent when asked these sorts of questions, which irritates the people questioning him (a famous one is a discourse with a brahmin priest). He often responds that what is important is the realization of the truth (that is, nirvana; which is construed as understanding the essential nature of existence) in this life, and not relying on rebirth or the hope of rebirth for attainment of liberation.

Of course, this concept changes over time, and many sects (especially Pure Land Buddhism) focus themselves around rebirth bringing liberation, because it is no longer attainable here (because of the impurity of this world). Though, despite this working for some people, I personally disagree with it, as I have come to understand the Buddha's emphasis on enlightenment in this life, and the uncertainty of time of death creating a sense of urgency.

Gambler_3

Ah absence of belief is atheistic....

It depends what you mean by "belief". 

Belief isnt some really vague word or somethin so I dont know what you mean.:?

But regardless buddhism is atheistic...... 

Only in the sense that it has nothing to say on the existence of God or gods, which seems like a rather weak sense of the word "atheistic".

Avatar image for Gambler_3
Gambler_3

7736

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: -4

User Lists: 0

#21 Gambler_3
Member since 2009 • 7736 Posts

Only in the sense that it has nothing to say on the existence of God or gods, which seems like a rather weak sense of the word "atheistic".

GabuEx
What should it say? The religion is older than judaism so it cant deny the abrahimic god which is the only god that one can rationally "deny".
Avatar image for foxhound_fox
foxhound_fox

98532

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 13

User Lists: 0

#22 foxhound_fox
Member since 2005 • 98532 Posts
Ah absence of belief is atheistic....Gambler_3

The Buddha refuses to comment, which would make him agnostic. What he believes is unknown, and that is where "atheism/theism" comes in.

--

Also, I've changed the topic of this thread. Since this is the Atheism union, we can discuss misconceptions of atheistic, agnostic and non-religious stances as well.
Avatar image for deactivated-5a79221380856
deactivated-5a79221380856

13125

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#23 deactivated-5a79221380856
Member since 2007 • 13125 Posts

[QUOTE="Gambler_3"]Ah absence of belief is atheistic....foxhound_fox

The Buddha refuses to comment, which would make him agnostic. What he believes is unknown, and that is where "atheism/theism" comes in.

Agnosticism and theism are on different continuums. Agnosticism deals with knowledge. Theism deals with belief. An agnostic that believes in a god is an agnostic theist. An agnostic who explicitly rejects theism but does not believe there is no god is a weak atheist agnostic. An agnostic who explicitly rejects theism and does believe there is no god is a strong atheist agnostic. An atheist who know there is no god is a strong atheist. All weak atheists are agnostics by definition. There is also an implicit atheist, which is someone who does not explicitly reject theism, but refuses to comment on the issue. Buddha would be cIassified as an an implicit atheist by some people. I'm not sure if he's an agnostic, because just refusing to comment on an issue does not mean he does not know, but that he does not want to reveal his belief on the matter for whatever issue: perhaps for people to think for themselves.

Personally, I reject the definition of implicit atheists, because it can be defined to include fetuses that don't have the sentience to possess the capacity to believe either way or inaminate objects like rocks. It's a needless definition that means nothings and adds nothing to our vocabulary.

I'm sure you've heard these arguments or something similar before though.

Avatar image for kayoticdreamz
kayoticdreamz

3347

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#24 kayoticdreamz
Member since 2010 • 3347 Posts
[QUOTE="kayoticdreamz"]

i figured you might but do some people watching and debating with folks youll like see my trend i pointed is fairly accurate. heck at the very least you can see its accurate on gamespot but in real life too. 

RationalAtheist

No, I don't think it is.  I think you are making general statements with no supporting evidence, while attempting to discredit the supporters of a philosophical view.

It doesn't matter how many people think something - it matters why they think it. 

so observing people doesnt count? my personal experience doesnt count? why cause i lack a phd? what evidence would you like? i just said go and observe people and take a recall of arguements with people youll likely find im right.

but sorry i have no PHD no scientific lab and i do not get paid for surveys so i cant offer that proof. but i do have no reason to lie. 

Avatar image for RationalAtheist
RationalAtheist

4428

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#25 RationalAtheist
Member since 2007 • 4428 Posts

Agnosticism and theism are on different continuums. Agnosticism deals with knowledge. Theism deals with belief. An agnostic that believes in a god is an agnostic theist. An agnostic who explicitly rejects theism but does not believe there is no god is a weak atheist agnostic. An agnostic who explicitly rejects theism and does believe there is no god is a strong atheist agnostic. An atheist who know there is no god is a strong atheist. All weak atheists are agnostics by definition. There is also an implicit atheist, which is someone who does not explicitly reject theism, but refuses to comment on the issue. Buddha would be cIassified as an an implicit atheist by some people. I'm not sure if he's an agnostic, because just refusing to comment on an issue does not mean he does not know, but that he does not want to reveal his belief on the matter for whatever issue: perhaps for people to think for themselves.

Personally, I reject the definition of implicit atheists, because it can be defined to include fetuses that don't have the sentience to possess the capacity to believe either way or inaminate objects like rocks. It's a needless definition that means nothings and adds nothing to our vocabulary.

I'm sure you've heard these arguments or something similar before though.

Genetic_Code

But aren't beliefs and knowledge part of the same continuum? Isn't a belief a short-hand, personally directed morsel of knowledge? Further, how can an agnostic theist reject theism but accept a god might exist - except in a contradiction? 

I think another point of disagreement exists in the definition of strong and weak atheists. I would like to think that all atheists are agnostic - as should everyone be. But I can't presume to know what other people think (or don't think) and their reasoning for thinking it. I'd call myself a strong agnostic atheist because I'm prepared to air my own views unashamedly.

I don't think fetuses and rocks count as entities capable of belief, but despite that: The definitions of implicit and explicit atheists you gave leaves me cold. 

so observing people doesnt count? my personal experience doesn't count? why cause i lack a phd? what evidence would you like? i just said go and observe people and take a recall of arguments with people youll likely find im right.

but sorry i have no PHD no scientific lab and i do not get paid for surveys so i cant offer that proof. but i do have no reason to lie. 

kayoticdreamz

 

Your experience is most important to you, but it is still biased - as is mine. We both think the exact opposite thing about religious debating. My feelings are based on my personal interactions with religious folk on this site, as yours are based on your own interactions with atheists here.

You could offer evidence, since everything that goes on on this site is retained and can be easily linked to. Unless one of us can start providing evidence to justify our cases, we will reach a stalemate, where you think one thing and I think another but we have only our own words to prove it.

I'd say the burden of proof was on you, since you came up with the original statement about atheists not being as "understanding" as theists during religious debates. Seeing as all conversations on GameSpot forums are retained for perpetuity, the sources of evidence you speak of are out there.

For your statement to hold true, you'd have to find me more threads showing a religious understanding of atheism than I could find you showing religious uneasiness of atheism. Shall we start, or should we agree to disagree?

Avatar image for foxhound_fox
foxhound_fox

98532

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 13

User Lists: 0

#26 foxhound_fox
Member since 2005 • 98532 Posts

Agnosticism and theism are on different continuums. Agnosticism deals with knowledge. Theism deals with belief. An agnostic that believes in a god is an agnostic theist. An agnostic who explicitly rejects theism but does not believe there is no god is a weak atheist agnostic. An agnostic who explicitly rejects theism and does believe there is no god is a strong atheist agnostic. An atheist who know there is no god is a strong atheist. All weak atheists are agnostics by definition. There is also an implicit atheist, which is someone who does not explicitly reject theism, but refuses to comment on the issue. Buddha would be cIassified as an an implicit atheist by some people. I'm not sure if he's an agnostic, because just refusing to comment on an issue does not mean he does not know, but that he does not want to reveal his belief on the matter for whatever issue: perhaps for people to think for themselves.

Personally, I reject the definition of implicit atheists, because it can be defined to include fetuses that don't have the sentience to possess the capacity to believe either way or inaminate objects like rocks. It's a needless definition that means nothings and adds nothing to our vocabulary.

I'm sure you've heard these arguments or something similar before though.

Genetic_Code

Don't give me the spiel I've used a hundred times on OT. The Buddha takes a true agnostic stance with regards to the supernatural. He refuses to comment about their existence or non-existence. He expounds that knowledge of the supernatural is impossible. The atheist/theist position is a personal belief, and cannot be regarded as "knowledge" that can be found by everyone, since it requires someone take their own position and not one that can be shared.
Avatar image for kayoticdreamz
kayoticdreamz

3347

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#27 kayoticdreamz
Member since 2010 • 3347 Posts
[QUOTE="Genetic_Code"]

Agnosticism and theism are on different continuums. Agnosticism deals with knowledge. Theism deals with belief. An agnostic that believes in a god is an agnostic theist. An agnostic who explicitly rejects theism but does not believe there is no god is a weak atheist agnostic. An agnostic who explicitly rejects theism and does believe there is no god is a strong atheist agnostic. An atheist who know there is no god is a strong atheist. All weak atheists are agnostics by definition. There is also an implicit atheist, which is someone who does not explicitly reject theism, but refuses to comment on the issue. Buddha would be cIassified as an an implicit atheist by some people. I'm not sure if he's an agnostic, because just refusing to comment on an issue does not mean he does not know, but that he does not want to reveal his belief on the matter for whatever issue: perhaps for people to think for themselves.

Personally, I reject the definition of implicit atheists, because it can be defined to include fetuses that don't have the sentience to possess the capacity to believe either way or inaminate objects like rocks. It's a needless definition that means nothings and adds nothing to our vocabulary.

I'm sure you've heard these arguments or something similar before though.

RationalAtheist

But aren't beliefs and knowledge part of the same continuum? Isn't a belief a short-hand, personally directed morsel of knowledge? Further, how can an agnostic theist reject theism but accept a god might exist - except in a contradiction? 

I think another point of disagreement exists in the definition of strong and weak atheists. I would like to think that all atheists are agnostic - as should everyone be. But I can't presume to know what other people think (or don't think) and their reasoning for thinking it. I'd call myself a strong agnostic atheist because I'm prepared to air my own views unashamedly.

I don't think fetuses and rocks count as entities capable of belief, but despite that: The definitions of implicit and explicit atheists you gave leaves me cold. 

so observing people doesnt count? my personal experience doesn't count? why cause i lack a phd? what evidence would you like? i just said go and observe people and take a recall of arguments with people youll likely find im right.

but sorry i have no PHD no scientific lab and i do not get paid for surveys so i cant offer that proof. but i do have no reason to lie. 

kayoticdreamz

 

Your experience is most important to you, but it is still biased - as is mine. We both think the exact opposite thing about religious debating. My feelings are based on my personal interactions with religious folk on this site, as yours are based on your own interactions with atheists here.

You could offer evidence, since everything that goes on on this site is retained and can be easily linked to. Unless one of us can start providing evidence to justify our cases, we will reach a stalemate, where you think one thing and I think another but we have only our own words to prove it.

I'd say the burden of proof was on you, since you came up with the original statement about atheists not being as "understanding" as theists during religious debates. Seeing as all conversations on GameSpot forums are retained for perpetuity, the sources of evidence you speak of are out there.

For your statement to hold true, you'd have to find me more threads showing a religious understanding of atheism than I could find you showing religious uneasiness of atheism. Shall we start, or should we agree to disagree?

but the question is can you provide proof? you linked me to a christian union well im sure my proof rests solely here in the athiesm union. or heck Off topic.

heck most surveys are done are about 200 people ironically the size of this union lol 

Avatar image for RationalAtheist
RationalAtheist

4428

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#28 RationalAtheist
Member since 2007 • 4428 Posts
[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]

Your experience is most important to you, but it is still biased - as is mine. We both think the exact opposite thing about religious debating. My feelings are based on my personal interactions with religious folk on this site, as yours are based on your own interactions with atheists here.

You could offer evidence, since everything that goes on on this site is retained and can be easily linked to. Unless one of us can start providing evidence to justify our cases, we will reach a stalemate, where you think one thing and I think another but we have only our own words to prove it.

I'd say the burden of proof was on you, since you came up with the original statement about atheists not being as "understanding" as theists during religious debates. Seeing as all conversations on GameSpot forums are retained for perpetuity, the sources of evidence you speak of are out there.

For your statement to hold true, you'd have to find me more threads showing a religious understanding of atheism than I could find you showing religious uneasiness of atheism. Shall we start, or should we agree to disagree?

kayoticdreamz

but the question is can you provide proof? you linked me to a christian union well im sure my proof rests solely here in the athiesm union. or heck Off topic.

heck most surveys are done are about 200 people ironically the size of this union lol 

I thought I already answered that question in my last post. I thought it'd be up to you to provide "evidence" to back up your assertions (from anywhere, including here). There would then be another debate about the qualities of this evidence and how it would constitute "proof".

Most surveys are of about 200 people, are they? - Where did you get that statistic from?

Avatar image for deactivated-5a79221380856
deactivated-5a79221380856

13125

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#29 deactivated-5a79221380856
Member since 2007 • 13125 Posts

But aren't beliefs and knowledge part of the same continuum? Isn't a belief a short-hand, personally directed morsel of knowledge? Further, how can an agnostic theist reject theism but accept a god might exist - except in a contradiction? 

I think another point of disagreement exists in the definition of strong and weak atheists. I would like to think that all atheists are agnostic - as should everyone be. But I can't presume to know what other people think (or don't think) and their reasoning for thinking it. I'd call myself a strong agnostic atheist because I'm prepared to air my own views unashamedly.

I don't think fetuses and rocks count as entities capable of belief, but despite that: The definitions of implicit and explicit atheists you gave leaves me cold. 

RationalAtheist

Beliefs and knowledges are as similar to each other as a rectangle is to a square. Beliefs can be based off of anything: faith, intuition, emotion, logic, evidence. It can be knowledge only if it's soundly based off of logic and evidence, not faith, intuition, emotion, or any other fallacious idea and there is no contradictory logic or evidence. Belief based on faith, intuition, or emotion is simply guessing and therefore will not lead you to knowledge. Of course, some Christians will say differently and will emphasize faith as an indicator of our knowledge of God. I will not argue with that absurdity.

Don't give me the spiel I've used a hundred times on OT. The Buddha takes a true agnostic stance with regards to the supernatural. He refuses to comment about their existence or non-existence. He expounds that knowledge of the supernatural is impossible. The atheist/theist position is a personal belief, and cannot be regarded as "knowledge" that can be found by everyone, since it requires someone take their own position and not one that can be shared.foxhound_fox

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. I don't believe Buddha is a implicit atheist. I believe in no such thing. I believe Buddha's belief about God cannot be properly defined. I disagree with you in that I believe he's not an agnostic. An agnostic would feel confident commenting that he doesn't know there is a God. Since Buddha refuses to comment on the issue, I cannot classify him as an agnostic.

For the exact reason you think he's an agnostic, I think he's not.

Avatar image for foxhound_fox
foxhound_fox

98532

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 13

User Lists: 0

#30 foxhound_fox
Member since 2005 • 98532 Posts
So you are debating semantics. Well, don't expect me to continue this line of debate.
Avatar image for kayoticdreamz
kayoticdreamz

3347

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#31 kayoticdreamz
Member since 2010 • 3347 Posts
[QUOTE="kayoticdreamz"][QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]

Your experience is most important to you, but it is still biased - as is mine. We both think the exact opposite thing about religious debating. My feelings are based on my personal interactions with religious folk on this site, as yours are based on your own interactions with atheists here.

You could offer evidence, since everything that goes on on this site is retained and can be easily linked to. Unless one of us can start providing evidence to justify our cases, we will reach a stalemate, where you think one thing and I think another but we have only our own words to prove it.

I'd say the burden of proof was on you, since you came up with the original statement about atheists not being as "understanding" as theists during religious debates. Seeing as all conversations on GameSpot forums are retained for perpetuity, the sources of evidence you speak of are out there.

For your statement to hold true, you'd have to find me more threads showing a religious understanding of atheism than I could find you showing religious uneasiness of atheism. Shall we start, or should we agree to disagree?

RationalAtheist

but the question is can you provide proof? you linked me to a christian union well im sure my proof rests solely here in the athiesm union. or heck Off topic.

heck most surveys are done are about 200 people ironically the size of this union lol 

I thought I already answered that question in my last post. I thought it'd be up to you to provide "evidence" to back up your assertions (from anywhere, including here). There would then be another debate about the qualities of this evidence and how it would constitute "proof".

Most surveys are of about 200 people, are they? - Where did you get that statistic from?

perhaps not every survey but alot of studies are done with anywhere from 200-1000 people in one given area. its flawed logic i know but its an issue i have with scientific studies and surveys as that doesnt always hold true to everything in a planet of 6 billion people.

i could use google im sure to find the information or maybe ive heard it science c lasses over the years i dont really know where i found it out. i dont care enough to look.

and no my point was you provided a christian for your proof that christians act the way i say athiests do yet im in an athiest union my proof is likely here. 

Avatar image for Teenaged
Teenaged

31764

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#32 Teenaged
Member since 2007 • 31764 Posts

I cant contribute. =/

 

Or at least the only disagreement I have with the majority of people when it comes to specific things, then that would be about the description of God of Christianity.

Specifically I dont believe that the adjectives used for him (omnipresent, all powerful, all knowing etc) are literal, or at least not necessarily. Meaning, they dont really say that God knows absolutely everything (for instance all possible outcomes for the future), or that God can do absolutely everything.

From one hand that serves to do away with paradoxes about God (the famous "can he make a stone so heavy..." bla bla) but it makes sense to me, as well.

Now, as I am typing this, I am wondering if I have in mind to disagree just with the people who use those words literally in our time or if I should extend it to the people in the past too (or even the era of Jesus or before that, when the concept of the abrahamic God was first conceived).

My opinion about the way people of older eras perceived the distinction between literal and metaphorical (if they did at all) exists in some thread (I may quote it here if I find it tomorrow) tells me that I cant extend it to them.

But at the end of the day, one would wonder, in order to solve the "mystery", how the people who wrote the Bible perceived those words when using them for their god. To me we cant know. Not because we cant ask them, but because even if we could, even if we did get an answer, it wouldnt necessarily reflect their perception without that even necessarily meaning that they lied about it.

Avatar image for dracula_16
dracula_16

15970

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 26

User Lists: 0

#33 dracula_16
Member since 2005 • 15970 Posts

I will tackle some misconceptions and common questions about Sikhism.

Are sikhs basically hindus?

Sikhism and Hinduism do have things in common, but they are different faiths; thus, sikhs are not hindus. Sikhism is a strictly monotheistic faith, while Hinduism lacks a consensus. Some hindus believe in one god, but others may believe in as many as three, four or five (some of which have multiple incarnations).

Why do sikh men wear turbans?

It keeps their hair neat and it's thought of as a spiritual crown. It's a symbol of a sikh's commitment to living by Sikhism's principles and eventually ascending the throne of consciousness; which is basically Sikhism's version of heaven. Sikh men are required to wear turbans, but sikh women are given the option to not wear one.

Who is the sikh prophet/founder?

Sikhism was founded in the northen indian province of Punjab by a man named Guru Nanak Dev. There are eleven sikh gurus; they are Guru Nanak Dev, Guru Angad Dev, Guru Amar Das, Guru Ram Das, Guru Arjan Dev, Guru Har Gobind, Guru Har Rai, Guru Har Krishan, Guru Tegh Bahadur, Guru Gobind Singh and Guru Granth Sahib. The latter is known as the living guru; which is the book of scriptures that sikhs get their doctrines from.

Do sikhs perform eleborate rituals like hindus do?

Sikhs must be baptized to be a part of the faith, but other than that, they don't do rituals. Sikhism views things like mandatory pilgrimages, fasting, idols and grave worship as superstitious and unnecessary. I would have to say that I agree with that view. :P

Avatar image for Frattracide
Frattracide

5395

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#34 Frattracide
Member since 2005 • 5395 Posts
^ That was actually very helpful. Where did you learn all of that? Also, Is there any sort of tension between Sikhs and Hindus? A while ago I was in the South west Asia/India region and I kept hearing about violence involving some local Sikhs, I don't know what it was about though.
Avatar image for dracula_16
dracula_16

15970

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 26

User Lists: 0

#35 dracula_16
Member since 2005 • 15970 Posts

^ That was actually very helpful. Where did you learn all of that? Also, Is there any sort of tension between Sikhs and Hindus? A while ago I was in the South west Asia/India region and I kept hearing about violence involving some local Sikhs, I don't know what it was about though. Frattracide

Youtube is my primary source for learning about religions-- Sikhism is no exception. I don't know if there is any violence/resentment [in India] between sikhs and hindus nowadays, but there was a lot of it in 1984. The indian army invaded a sikh temple and shot a whole bunch of innocent sikhs because they suspected that a sikh leader was plotting terrorism. An indian politician was assassinated shortly after this happened, which caused hindu extremists to go haywire. You can learn about it here.

Avatar image for RationalAtheist
RationalAtheist

4428

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#36 RationalAtheist
Member since 2007 • 4428 Posts

perhaps not every survey but alot of studies are done with anywhere from 200-1000 people in one given area. its flawed logic i know but its an issue i have with scientific studies and surveys as that doesnt always hold true to everything in a planet of 6 billion people.

kayoticdreamz

I asked you how you knew this, but rather than tell me, you repeat the statistic, then tell me it is flawed logic. (We are not even discussing any particular survey about anything, are we?)

 

i could use google im sure to find the information or maybe ive heard it science c lasses over the years i dont really know where i found it out. i dont care enough to look.

kayoticdreamz

You say that you don't care enough to look for information to back up what you say, but you do care enough to say the things that get you challenged in the first place. You may find trouble in debating with others who do care enough to research their own views, since they will have more information to back up their words than you.

 

and no my point was you provided a christian for your proof that christians act the way i say athiests do yet im in an athiest union my proof is likely here. 

kayoticdreamz

You have not yet pointed any direct sources of atheist misunderstandings over Christianity. You have no evidence that could constitute proof. You also mentioned the entirity of Gamespot (and real life) as your sources for your feelings about atheists not being as understanding Christians (or something).

I have nothing to prove, aside from your ridiculous claims about "Christians reaching understandings" in atheist debates, while "atheists never admit they're wrong" being false. You do have something to prove though, so why not: Show me some evidence; admit you're wrong (understandingly); or stop making such unfounded claims in an atheist union?

 

Avatar image for foxhound_fox
foxhound_fox

98532

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 13

User Lists: 0

#37 foxhound_fox
Member since 2005 • 98532 Posts

A common misconception I want to address about atheism:

Atheism is a religion

Broadly, atheism does fall within the same philosophical parameters as a theistic belief.*1* However, where atheism differs from say Christianity or Hinduism, comes in its, usual, rejection of common religious themes. Religions tend to have the following five (5) things:

1. Absolute Ontology: An absolute belief that must be accepted by an adherent that comments about the ultimate nature of the universe (i.e. God exists, Jesus is is son, and he died for our sins; thus we owe him our worship, etc.).

2. Holy Teachings: A written and/or oral systematized and regulated tradition of prescribed ideas, tenets and morals that must be upheld lest the adherent face punishment or destruction (i.e. the Bible, Qur'an, Vedas, etc.)

3. Ritual Practices: A set of actions, sayings or activities performed on a regular basis in the public sphere to bring together a community and foster a sense of togetherness and support or to celebrate an auspicious occasion or event (i.e. Eucharist, singing of hymns, chanting, etc. includes holidays and festivals).

4. Meditation Practices: A set of practices somewhat related to rituals, however, as opposed to public, they are private, introspective affairs that benefit the individual rather than the community. These practices involve altering the mind-state to instill a "humbling" before a deity/ultimate reality, and to create a driven sense of compassion and selflessness (i.e. prayer, sitting meditation, contemplation about the universe, etc.).

5. Learned Authorities: A group of specialists recognized by the community as authorities on (1), (2), (3) and (4) who help the laity better understand them, administer more complicated rituals and give general advice about living life according to the religious decree (i.e. priests, rabbis, brahmins, etc.).

--

There is nothing in atheism that falls directly into any of these categories. Atheistic belief varies from person to person, and is largely agnostic (in that they only lack belief in God because they do not have evidence or find it logically incorrigible). They may have ideas about the ultimate nature of the universe, but these are largely fluid and grounded in the objective and empirical, rather than the subjective and absolute (requiring faith). There is no atheist "Bible" that outlines "atheist rules" and the majority of atheists view morality as relative rather than absolute.

Atheists generally do not celebrate holidays or practice ritual activities for religious means (i.e. gaining merit for a better afterlife). However, they most likely see the community as important and its stability partly their responsibility (as in requiring laws to keep order). Though some atheists get together at meetings, this is usually to discuss either philosophy or other topics, not how they are going to avoid Hell. Despite figures such as Dawkins and Hitchens, there are not "priests of atheism." Every atheist stands by themselves on their own beliefs and may accept and agree what other might say, but does not view them as an authority with "power" to control their destiny.

Meditation is a tricky subject. Most atheists don't pray, but some may do things that instills in them a sense of selflessness and compassion (which I believe is inherent to human nature, regardless of belief). The difference however is that unlike religion, these practices are not strictly applied via holy texts or spiritual teachers. They are discovered on their own merit and not tied to a specific tradition (generally).

--

In the end, how can we define atheism? On the simplest level, it is merely the opposing stance to theism, or belief in a "God" figure. Atheists can be religious (since religion does not require theism or belief in the supernatural), but atheism itself is most definitely not a religion. It is merely a belief in the absence of God, gods and the supernatural, or more generally, the lack of belief in the supernatural due to a lack of evidence suggesting they exist.

--

Am I an atheist? To a degree, I would have to say yes, I do not believe in any accepted definition of God, gods or the supernatural, but I also don't believe that the human experience is entirely objective and empirical (which is why I also ascribe to Buddhism). However, that isn't to say science can't one day figure it all out, it just has to not rely so heavily on the five senses for observation and measurement (Buddhism could be defined as a "science of exploring the mind"). Psychology and Quantum Mechanics have already lead us in new directions that most certainly will help unlock the secrets of our minds.

Avatar image for RationalAtheist
RationalAtheist

4428

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#38 RationalAtheist
Member since 2007 • 4428 Posts

Would it be a bad thing it atheism were a religion, in principle?

For instance, I could see certain benefits to delivering rules 2 to 5 within some kind of rational framework.

 

Avatar image for foxhound_fox
foxhound_fox

98532

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 13

User Lists: 0

#39 foxhound_fox
Member since 2005 • 98532 Posts
Depends on the person I guess. Some people find religion abhorrent (most adolescent atheists are of this camp), while others don't. Though, I'd say most of those categories are common among all people, just some people have decided to share them with others and create like-minded communities.