onewheeldave Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 Buddhists are atheists & they believe in some weird supernatural stuff, just no god. Some buddhists are atheists. Like the Buddha himself said- the existence or non-existence of God/gods is irrelevant in the matter of buddhism: buddhists can either believe in god or not belief in god, or indeed, believe there is no God. Also, there are buddhists who don't believe in any 'weird supernatural stuff' whatsoever. buddhisms very good like that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onewheeldave Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 Of course you can - if you assume something exists and show that assumption leads to a logical fallacy then you have a well known proof of reduction ad absurdum. I think you'd be hard pressed to prove that pink unicorns don't exist via reductio ad absurdum Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drone Posted August 10, 2012 Share Posted August 10, 2012 Exactly, from everything he's told us, he's an atheist with a denial complex (he or she). You really are right, I AM an atheist indenial.. Because I wasn't into religion and had never heard of this term before, so I didn't get what you was saying, thought you was using the words loosely ..though the "confusion" came because I was not preached about this but had thought of these ideas to myself while on this thread so I got confused and thought of myself as neither theist nor atheist, but after doing loads of searches and coming to what does a atheist indenial mean? I realised this is what I am.. I also apologise to anyone who took my posts as antitheism, this was not my intention as I was in a confused state, i was expressing what I was thinking in my posts but after coming across antitheism (another term I not heard of ) too in my research I realised that my posts could have been taken by some as antitheism, this was not my intention, i do not SHARE their ideas, I think their belief is evil and poisonous and is cause of wars and/or genocide so I need to make that clear. But one thing I am still not sure on is that because I have now realised what I am, does this make me theist ? I still don't think of god as a man or anything like that but I have a strong feeling like he is inside us all, to make myself more understood I will quote.... Infact I am not going to quote as people will try and say I'm trying to convince them.. But what made me realise I was infact an atheist indenial is when I read a quote from someone called Paul, im talking about a Paul from roman times, not some avatar, when I read it, it finally dawned on me... This might sound like I am crazy but honest to god I have never been into religion ever and always thought I was the regular atheist all my life.. But what I need clarification on is does this now make me theist? Ps. . I do not believe in god as a person or anything like that but a god that's within us all... If you could post a link of this verse, it was on a sites called about.com, under a title saying - are atheists in denial...will you copy and paste this please on the thread ' what is atheism , as I was writings posts on there.. I'm now off to sleep as I have been up all night trying to find a term to describe me, Cheers quisquose,.....by the way it states that pauls point was- noone can claim not to know that a god exists .. Meaning -there is no agnostics or atheists......Ps.. I am using a PlayBook so can't/not sure how to post this to what is atheism thread.. This is not to try and convert, just to share my discussion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaliRichard Posted August 10, 2012 Share Posted August 10, 2012 Some buddhists are atheists. Like the Buddha himself said- the existence or non-existence of God/gods is irrelevant in the matter of buddhism: buddhists can either believe in god or not belief in god, or indeed, believe there is no God. Also, there are buddhists who don't believe in any 'weird supernatural stuff' whatsoever. buddhisms very good like that While I agree for the most part with your post I have to take issue with the highlighted section. That would be an apologist. To be a Buddhist you have to beleive in certain 'supernatural' elements. If you don't you are taking parts of the Buddha's teaching that work for you and applying them to your life - while there is absolutely nothing wrong with that (I wish more people would) this is not 'being' Buddhist. Someone who applies the 'Buddhist' label to themselves but cherry picks the parts that fit their lives is a bit like me identifying myself as a police man because I don't break the law. I admire Taoism, I think it's really good and elements of it I apply to my life that doesn't make me a Taoist. I believe Buddhism, that's why I consider myself Buddhist, if I didn't I would apply it in the same way that I apply Taoism, just taking the bits that I like. I'm not having a go, only part of the reason so few people actually know what Buddhism is is because it has been watered down, sometimes almost beyond recognition to 'fit in' to peoples lifestyle choices. Just a few misconceptions we have in the west are Buddha is a round bellied chap (not Buddha but Budai, an amalgamation of a 10th? C. Chan monk and a Chinese deity) Buddha is a God (not true - he was a man) Buddhists are actively anti war (not true, the Buddha had warriors and kings (essentially warlords) as his sponsors, used war in his similes and was approached for advice on war, he deemed it unskilfull, but that is different to saying it was intrinsically wrong in every instance) Buddhists have to be vegetarian (definately not true, not only are there instances where we are told the Buddha would be pleased because someone gave him meat as an offering but there is one specific one where he actually has a go at one monk for telling the community they should be vegetarian. He says as long as certain criteria are met eating meat is fine). Like I say, I'm not having a go, but their are definately no Buddhists who don't believe in the supernatural stuff. Buddhist = one who follows the teaching of the Buddha. Teaching of the Buddha = definately contains at least some supernatural elements. Buddhist = one who accepts afore mentioned supernatural elements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onewheeldave Posted August 10, 2012 Share Posted August 10, 2012 While I agree for the most part with your post I have to take issue with the highlighted section. That would be an apologist. To be a Buddhist you have to beleive in certain 'supernatural' elements. If you don't you are taking parts of the Buddha's teaching that work for you and applying them to your life - while there is absolutely nothing wrong with that (I wish more people would) this is not 'being' Buddhist. Someone who applies the 'Buddhist' label to themselves but cherry picks the parts that fit their lives is a bit like me identifying myself as a police man because I don't break the law. I admire Taoism, I think it's really good and elements of it I apply to my life that doesn't make me a Taoist. I believe Buddhism, that's why I consider myself Buddhist, if I didn't I would apply it in the same way that I apply Taoism, just taking the bits that I like. I'm not having a go, only part of the reason so few people actually know what Buddhism is is because it has been watered down, sometimes almost beyond recognition to 'fit in' to peoples lifestyle choices. Just a few misconceptions we have in the west are Buddha is a round bellied chap (not Buddha but Budai, an amalgamation of a 10th? C. Chan monk and a Chinese deity) Buddha is a God (not true - he was a man) Buddhists are actively anti war (not true, the Buddha had warriors and kings (essentially warlords) as his sponsors, used war in his similes and was approached for advice on war, he deemed it unskilfull, but that is different to saying it was intrinsically wrong in every instance) Buddhists have to be vegetarian (definately not true, not only are there instances where we are told the Buddha would be pleased because someone gave him meat as an offering but there is one specific one where he actually has a go at one monk for telling the community they should be vegetarian. He says as long as certain criteria are met eating meat is fine). Like I say, I'm not having a go, but their are definately no Buddhists who don't believe in the supernatural stuff. Buddhist = one who follows the teaching of the Buddha. Teaching of the Buddha = definately contains at least some supernatural elements. Buddhist = one who accepts afore mentioned supernatural elements. I dissagree. Some buddhists simply follow the core teachings of the Buddha based around the 4 noble truths, which, it can be argued, contain no supernatural elements. It would have been useful if you'd specified what you mean by these 'supernatural elements' that you consider to be necessay for buddhists. Presumably you're talking about the karma aspects and reincarnation? (I'll assume you're not implying that an elaborate pantheon of demons, tibetan-style, are essential?) Certainly, there are practitioners in the American zen tradition who greatly down-play reincarnation, and, some who actively do not believe in it. Karma can be seen as some kind of 'supernatural' force linking events that have no scientific/natural connection- equally, it can, and is (by some buddhists) seen as straightforward causation. We all know of people who do bad things, yet seem to have good lives. I guess a lot of buddhists feel the need to believe in supernatural karma and reincarnation to feel OK about that (as in, the person will in future existences experience the punishment for his/her acts in this life). Others can, alternately, do what the buddha actually told them to do when faced with the fact that life can be unfair, unpleasant, unsatisfactory- i.e. work on accepting it and getting on with their own practice (no belief in the supernatural necessary there). (Incidently, I'm well aware that the buddha wasn't the pot-bellied 'happy buddha' of chinese figurines, that some buddhists aren't vegetarian (though there are many buddhists who would argue that vegetarianism is as necessary for true buddhists as avoiding employment in the arms industry), that the buddha was a man, not a God, and, that buddhists do/have engaged in wars. I've probably been into this stuff as long as you Richard, and, on this point, I'm going to disagree with you- the 'supernatural' stuff is something I've thought long and hard about over the years: like the buddha famously said, we ultimately have to make our own minds up). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaliRichard Posted August 10, 2012 Share Posted August 10, 2012 I dissagree. Some buddhists simply follow the core teachings of the Buddha based around the 4 noble truths, which, it can be argued, contain no supernatural elements.[/Quote] It can be argued from an objective point of view, but if you take the Buddhist scriptures as evidence it is incorrect, if you don't take them then what exactly is it you are calling Buddhism? If you're taking the 'idea' as a popular notion of Buddhism as a reference it can mean whatever you want it to mean, but as my police example, that doesn't make it the case simply because I will it to be so. It would have been useful if you'd specified what you mean by these 'supernatural elements' that you consider to be necessay for buddhists[/Quote] The scriptures contain many, far too many to go into, most traditions accept some of them even if they downplay them, and indeed the Buddha said some should be ignored, but ignoring them and saying they are not real are two different things. Presumably you're talking about the karma aspects and reincarnation? (I'll assume you're not implying that an elaborate pantheon of demons, tibetan-style, are essential?) Certainly, there are practitioners in the American zen tradition who greatly down-play reincarnation, and, some who actively do not believe in it[/Quote] reincarnation is one aspect, yes. Their are some Buddhists who murder minority groups because they don't want them in their country, that doesnt mean they are practicing Buddhism. The Buddha gave clear instruction on reincarnation, he said both the eternalist view and the view that we have just one life were wrong. You may disagree but that doesn't mean this is not Buddhism, it means what you consider is Buddhism is not correct. He also told us we should cross reference any teaching told to us by a master wih the scriptures, and if it didn't stand up to drop it. Looking at it like this isn't it more plausable that the master who doesn't agree with this is more likely to 'ignore' the teaching and not tell his students to cross reference it? Or should we just accept the popular view of Buddhism and not bother with the scriptures? What if that popular view develops into something hateful? (Which btw, is a belief in all traditions that the teachings will be distorted to such a point they will no longer be anything like the Buddhas own teaching) Karma can be seen as some kind of 'supernatural' force linking events that have no scientific/natural connection- equally, it can, and is (by some buddhists) seen as straightforward causation. We all know of people who do bad things, yet seem to have good lives. I guess a lot of buddhists feel the need to believe in supernatural karma and reincarnation to feel OK about that (as in, the person will in future existences experience the punishment for his/her acts in this life).[/Quote] Again I return to the scriptures as evidence, the Buddha actively argued with those who took karma to be causality, he said it was wrong view, which leads us again to the point of how do you define what is Buddhist if you abandon the thing the Buddha told us to use as a yardstick for them? Or do we just make it up to suit ourselves? This, I contend, is not Buddhism but a personal philosophy and we use the label 'Buddhism' for it because we are attracted to it. Others can, alternately, do what the buddha actually told them to do when faced with the fact that life can be unfair, unpleasant, unsatisfactory- i.e. work on accepting it and getting on with their own practice (no belief in the supernatural necessary there).[/Quote] The belief in the supernatural is part of that practice, by abandoning that belief because it doesn't suit them they are essentially abandoning the practice, by abandoning the practice they abandon the raft, by abandoning the raft no other shore, no other shore or striving to reach it no point in identifying yourself as Buddhist. (Incidently, I'm well aware that the buddha wasn't the pot-bellied 'happy buddha' of chinese figurines,[/Quote] Sorry I wasn't implying you did, I was merely making the point that some Buddhists do, and this is the point of my picking up on you at all, that just because one identifies with a concept it doesn't mean that this makes the concept correct. that some buddhists aren't vegetarian (though there are many buddhists who would argue that vegetarianism is as necessary for true buddhists as avoiding employment in the arms industry)[/Quote] Buddha never said you couldn't be vegetarian, he said you didn't have to be, and those that do argue such point are replacing Buddhism with their own philosophy and misidentifying it as Buddhism - again something the Buddha was highly critical of. that the buddha was a man, not a God[/Quote] Again, I wasn't suggesting that this was your own belief, only that others do believe it, sorry if I didn't make that clear. and, that buddhists do/have engaged in wars[/Quote] That's not what I was saying, Buddhists engaging in wars is not in line with his teaching, I was referring to people who say Buddhism is actively anti war. I've probably been into this stuff as long as you Richard, and, on this point, I'm going to disagree with you- the 'supernatural' stuff is something I've thought long and hard about over the years: like the buddha famously said, we ultimately have to make our own minds up). I'm not saying you haven't, nor am I saying you shouldn't believe what you want. What I am saying is that we should look at the teachings in context before saying 'this is Buddhist', that is 'Buddhist', because very often (and I'm as guilty of this as the next man) what we identify as Buddhism isn't there at all, merely a construct of our own making. The Buddha did say we should make our own minds up, but he also said (and was forceful in doing so) that we should practice the dharma in line with the dharma (meaning see it for what it is without putting our own prejudice on it) and he was honest, some may even consider scathing to those who didn't practice in the 'correct' way, he called it disparaging him. When he said we have to make our own minds up he meant we should follow the path if we believe it to be true, and if we don't want to that is fine, don't follow it, he didn't mean we should follow it and abandon the parts we don't agree with or add other parts onto it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted August 10, 2012 Share Posted August 10, 2012 You really are right, I AM an atheist indenial.. You are Grahaeme aka Agbus and I claim my five pounds thanks...:-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lockjaw Posted August 10, 2012 Share Posted August 10, 2012 You are Grahaeme aka Agbus and I claim my five pounds thanks...:-) Ahem. Hiya Grahame. 11.18 on the other thread. That fiver's mine, big boy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.